C\J
<
CT)
00
s
CD
ID
fi
fE^— CO
S*^t«tt*i^ii:
7 7
'''//■■^"•' ■■'■■■ •'^■'
FROMTHELIBRARYOF
TRINITYCOLLEGE TORONTO
FROM
1
THE WILLIAM
CLARK
MEMORIAL LIBRARY |
DONATED 19
2 6 A. D. 1
ENCYCLOPEDIA BIBLICA
A DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE
VOLUME I
•J^)^'
ENCYCLOPEDIA
BIBLICA
A CRITICAL DICTIONARY OF THE LITERARY
POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS HISTORY
THE ARCHAEOLOGY GEOGRAPHY
AND NATURAL HISTORY
OF THE BIBLE
EDITED BY
The Rev. T. K. CHEYNE, M.A., D.D.
ORIEL PROFESSOR OF THE INTERPRETATION OF HOLY SCRIPTL:RE AT OXFORD
AND FORMKKI.Y FELLOW OF BALI.IOL COLLEGE
CANON OF ROCHESTER
J. SUTHERLAND BLACK, M.A., LL.D.
FORMERLY ASSISTANT EDITOR OF THE ' ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA '
VOLUME I
A to D
TORONTO
GEORGE N. MORANG & COMPANY, Limited
1899
(3S
Copyright, 1899,
By the macmillan company.
NortDooU iPtfSB
J. 8. CuBhing fc Co. - Berwick & Smith
Norwood Ma«i. U.S.A.
TO THE
MEMORY
WILLIAM ROBERTSON SMITH
PREFACE
The idea of preparing a new Dictionary of the Bible on critical lines for the
benefit of all serious studencs, both professional and lay, was prominent in the
, , mind of the many-sided scholar to whose beloved memory the
Genesis of the ^ , • • -u j t^ • ^u >. i
p , ,. present volume is inscribed. It is more than twelve years since
Prof. Robertson Smith began to take steps towards realising this
idea. As an academical teacher he had from the first been fully aware of the
importance of what is known as Biblical Encyclopaedia, and his own earliest
contributions to the subject in the EncyclopcBdia Britannica carry us as far back
as to the year 1875. If for a very brief period certain untoward events arrested
his activity in this direction, the loss of time was speedily made up, for seldom
perhaps has there been a greater display of intellectual energy than is given in
the series of biblical articles signed ' W. R. S.' which appeared in the E^icyclopcedia
Britaiinica between 1875 and 1888. The reader who is interested in Bible
study should not fail to examine the Hst, which includes among the longer articles
Bible, Canticles, Chronicles, David, Hebrew Language, Rosea, Jeru-
salem, Joel, Judges, Kings, Levites, Malachi, Messiah, Micah, Philis-
tines, Priest, Prophet, Psalms, Sacrifice, Temple, Tithes, Zephaniah :
and among the shorter. Angel, Ark, Baal, Decalogue, Eli, Eve, Haggai,
Lamentations, Melchizedek, Moloch, Nabat^ans, Nahum, Nazarite, Nine-
veh, Obadiah, Paradise, Ruth, Sabbath, Sadducees, Samuel, Tabernacle,
Vow.
Nor should the students of our day overlook the service which this far-
seeing scholar and editor rendered to the nascent conception of an international
biblical criticism by inviting the co-operation of foreign as well as English con-
tributors. That names Hke those of Noldeke, Tiele, Welhausen, Harnack, Schiirer,
Gutschmid, Geldner, appeared side by side with those of well-known and honoured
British scholars in the list of contributors to the Encyclopcedia was a guarantee of
freedom from dangerous eccentricity, of comprehensiveness of view, of thorough-
ness and accuracy of investigation.
Such a large amount of material illustrative of the Bible, marked by unity
of aim and consistency of purpose, was thus brought together that the EncyclopcB-
dia Britannica became, inclusively, something not unlike an Encyclopedia Biblica.
The idea then occurred to the editor and his publishers to republish, for the
guidance of students, all that might be found to have stood the test of time, the
lacunae being filled up, and the whole brought up, as far as possible, to the high
level of the most recent scholarship. It was not unnatural to wish for this ; but
there were three main opposing considerations. In the first place, there were
other important duties which made pressing demands on the time and energy of
viii PREFACE
the editor. Next, the growing maturity of his biblical scholarship made him less
and less disposed to acquiesce in provisional conclusions. And lastly, such con-
stant progress was being made by students in the power of assimilating critical
results that it seemed prudent to wait till biblical articles, thoroughly revised and
recast, should have a good chance of still more deeply influencing the student world.
The waiting-time was filled up, so far as other occupations allowed, by
pioneering researches in biblical archaeology, some of the results of which are
admirably summed up in that fruitful volume entitled The Religion of the Semites
(1889). More and more, Robertson Smith, like other contemporary scholars,
saw the necessity of revising old work on the basis of a more critical, and, in a
certain sense, more philosophical treatment of details. First of all, archaeological
details had their share — and it was bound to be a large share — of this scholar's
attention. Then came biblical geography — a subject which had been brought
prominently into notice by the zeal of English explorers, but seemed to need the
collaboration of English critics. A long visit to Palestine was planned for the
direct investigation of details of biblical geography, and though this could not be
carried out, not a little time was devoted to the examination of a few of the more
perplexing geographical problems and of the solutions already proposed (see e.g.
Aphek, below, col. 191/.). This care for accuracy of detail as a necessary pre-
liminary to a revision of theories is also the cause of our friend's persistent refusal
to sanction the republication of the masterly but inevitably provisional article
Bible in the Encyclopcedia Britannica, to which we shall return later. The reader
will still better understand the motive of that refusal if he will compare what
is said on the Psalter in that article (1875) with the statements in the first edition
of The Old Testament in the Jeiuish Chnrch{iS^o), in the Encyclopcsdia Britatmica,
article Psalms (1885), and in the second edition of The Old Testament in the
Jeiuish Chnrch (1892).
It is only just, however, to the true 'begetter' of this work to emphasise the
fact that, though he felt the adequate realisation of his idea to be some way off,
he lost no time in pondering and working out a variety of practical details — a
task in which he was seconded by his assistant editor and intimate friend, Mr.
J. S. Black. Many hours were given, as occasion offered, to the distribution of
subjects and the preparation of minor articles. Some hundreds of these were
drafted, and many were the discussions that arose as to the various difficult practi-
cal points, which have not been without fruit for the present work.
In September, 1892, however, it became only too clear to Prof. Smith that
he was suffering from a malady which might terminate fatally after no very dis-
tant term. The last hope of active participation in his long-cherished scheme of
a Bible Dictionary had well-nigh disappeared, when one of the present editors,
who had no definite knowledge of Prof. Smith's plan, communicated to this friend
of many years' standing his ideas of what a critical Bible Dictionary ought to be,
and inquired whether he thought that such a project could be realised. Prof.
Smith was still intellectually able to consider and pronounce upon these ideas,
and gladly recognised their close affinity to his own. Unwilling that all the
labour already bestowed by him on planning and drafting articles should be lost,
he requested Prof. Cheyne to take up the work which he himself was compelled
to drop, in conjunction with the older and more intimate friend already mentioned.
Hence the combination of names on the title-page. The work is undertaken by the
editors as a charge from one whose parting message had the force of a command.
PREFACE ix
Such is the history of the genesis of the Eiicyc lopes dia Biblica, which is the
result primarily of a fusion of two distinct but similar plans — a fusion desired by
^ . . , , , Prof. Robertson Smith himself, as the only remaining means of
p, ^, ,. realising adequately his own fundamental ideas. With regard to
details, he left the editors entirely free, not from decline of physical
strength, but from a well-grounded confidence that religion and the Bible were
not less dear to them than to himself, and that they fully shared his own uncom-
promisingly progressive spirit. The Bible Dictionary which he contemplated was
no mere collection of useful miscellanea, but a survey of the contents of the Bible,
as illuminated by criticism — a criticism which identifies the cause of religion
with that of historical truth, and, without neglecting the historical and archaeo-
logical setting of religion, loves best to trace the growth of high conceptions,
the flashing forth of new intuitions, and the development of noble personalities,
under local and temporal conditions that may often be, to human eyes, most
adverse. The importance of the newer view of the Bible to the Christian com-
munity, and the fundamental principles of the newer biblical criticism, have been
so ably and so persuasively set forth by Prof. Robertson Smith in his Lectures
that his fellow-workers may be dispensed from repeating here what he has said so
well already. 'There remaineth yet very much land to be possessed.' Let us
assume, then, that the readers of this EncyclopcBdia, whatever be their grade of
knowledge or sphere of work, are willing to make an effort to take this widely
extended land in possession.
Every year, in fact, expands the narrow horizons which not so long ago
limited the aspirations of the biblical scholar. It is time, as Prof. Robertson
Smith thought, to help students to realise this, and to bring the standard books on
which they rely more up to date. It may seem hopeless to attempt this with an
alphabetically arranged encyclopaedia, which necessarily involves the treatment
of points in an isolated way. By an elaborate system of cross references,
however, and by interspersing a considerable number of comprehensive articles
(such as, in Part I, Apocalyptic Literature, Cainites, Dragon), it has
been sought to avoid the danger of treating minute details without regard to
their wider bearings. Many of the minor articles, too, have been so constructed
as to suggest the relation of the details to the larger wholes. Altogether the
minor articles have, one ventures to hope, brought many direct gains to biblical
study. Often the received view of the subject of a ' minor article ' proved to be
extremely doubtful, and a better view suggested itself. Every endeavour has
been used to put this view forward in a brief and yet convincing manner, without
occupying too much space and becoming too academic in style. The more com-
prehensive articles may here and there be found to clash with the shorter articles.
Efforts, however, have been made to mitigate this by editorial notes in both
classes of articles.
It will also doubtless be found that on large questions different writers have
sometimes proposed different theories and hypotheses. The sympathies of the
editors are, upon the whc^le, with what is commonly known as 'advanced ' criticism,
not simply because it is advanced, but because such criticism, in the hands of a
circumspect and experienced scholar, takes account of facts and phenomena which
the criticism of a former generation overlooked or treated superficially. They
have no desire, however, to ' boycott ' moderate criticism, when applied by a critic
who, either in the form or in the substance of his criticism, has something original
a2
X PREFACE
to say. An * advanced ' critic cannot possibly feel any arrogance towards his
more ' moderate ' colleague, for probably he himself held, not very long ago, views
resembling those which the ' moderate ' critic holds now, and the latter may find
his precautionary investigations end in his supporting, with greater fulness and
more complete arguments, as sound the views that now seem to him rash. Prof.
Robertson Smith's views of ten years ago, or more, may, at the present day, appear
to be ' moderate ' criticism ; but when he formulated them he was in the vanguard
of critics, and there is no reason to think that, if he had lived, and devoted much
of his time to biblical criticism, his ardour would have waned, and his precedence
passed to others.
There are, no doubt, some critical theories which could not consistently have
been represented in the present work ; and that, it may be remarked, suggests
one of the reasons why Prof. Robertson Smith's early EncyclopcBdia Britajinica
article, Bible, could not have been republished, even by himself. When he wrote
it he was still not absolutely sure about the chronological place of P (Priestly
Code). He was also still under the influence of the traditional view as to the
barrenness and unoriginality of the whole post-exilic period. Nor had he faced
the question of the post-exilic redaction of the prophetic writings. The funda-
mental principles of biblical criticism, however, are assumed throughout that fine
article, though for a statement of these we must turn to a more mature production
of his pen. See, for example. The Old Testament in the JewisJi ChurcJi^-\ pp. i6
ff. (cp 1st ed. pp. 24. ff.), and notice especially the following paragraph on p. 17 : —
* Ancient books coming doivn to us from a period many centuries before the invention of
printing have necessarily undergone many vicissitudes. Some of them are preserved only in
imperfect copies made by an ignorant scribe of the dark ages. Others have been disfigured by
editors, 7vho mixed up foreign matter with the original text. Very often an important book
fell altogether out of sight for a long time, and when it came to light again all knowledge of its
origin was gone ; for old books did not generally have title-pages and prefaces. And, when
such a nafneless roll was again brought into notice, some half-informed trader or transcriber
7vas not unlikely to give it a new title of his own devising, which was handed down thereafter
as if it had been original. Or again, the true meaning and purpose of a book often became
obscure in the lapse of centuries, and led to false interpretations. Once more, antiquity has
handed down to us many writings 7vhich are sheer forgeries, like some of the Apocryphal books,
or the Sibylline oracles, or those famous Epistles of Phalaris, which formed the subject of
Bentlefs great critical essay. In all such cases the historical critic must destroy the received
view, in order to establish the truth. He must review doubtful titles, purge out interpolations,
expose forgeries ; but he does so only to manifest the truth, and exhibit the genuine remains of
antiquity in their real character. A book that is really old and really valuable has nothing to
fear from the critic, whose labours can only put its worth in a clearer light, and establish its
authority on a surer basis.''
The freedom which Prof. Robertson Smith generously left to his successors
has, with much reluctance, yet without hesitation, on the part of the editors, been
exercised in dealing with the articles which he wrote for the Ejicyclopcedia
Britaniiica. The editors are well assured that he would have approved their
conduct in this respect. Few scholars, indeed, would refrain from rewriting, to a
large extent, the critical articles which they had produced some years previously ;
and this, indeed, is what has been done by several contributors who wrote biblical
articles for the former Encyclopaedia. The procedure of those who have revised
our friend's articles has in fact been as gentle and considerate as possible. Where
these articles seemed to have been destined by himself for some degree of per-
PREFACE xi
manencc, they have been retained, and carefully revised and brought up to date.
Some condensation has sometimes been found necessary. The original articles
were written for a public very imperfectly imbued with critical principles, whereas
now, thanks to his own works and to those of other progressive scholars, liible
students are much more prepared than formerly to benefit by advanced teaching.
There is also a certain amount of a new material from Prof. Smith's pen (in two or
three cases consisting of quotations from the MS of the second and third courses
of Burnett Lectures), but much less, unfortunately, than had been expected.
Freedom has also been used in taking some fresh departures, especially in
two directions — viz., in that of textual criticism of the Old Testament, and in that
of biblical archaeology. The object of the editors has been, with the assistance
of their contributors, not only to bring the work up to the level of the best
published writings, but, wherever possible, to carry the subjects a little beyond
the point hitherto reached in print. Without the constant necessity of investi-
gating the details of the text of the Old Testament, it would be hard for any one
to realise the precarious character of many details of the current biblical archae-
ology, geography, and natural history, and even of some not unimportant points
in the current Old Testament theology. Entirely new methods have not indeed
been applied ; but the methods already known have perhaps been applied with
somewhat more consistency than before. With regard to archaeology, such a
claim can be advanced only to a slight extent. More progress perhaps has been
made of late years in the field of critical archaeology than in that of texual criti-
cism. All, therefore, that was generally necessary was to make a strong effort
to keep abreast of recent archaeological research both in Old Testament and in
New Testament study.
The fulness of detail with which the data of the Versions have been given
may provoke some comment. Experience has been the guide of the editors, and
they believe that, though in the future it will be possible to give these data in a
more correct, more critical, and more condensed form, the student is best served
at present by being supplied as fully as possible with the available material. It
may also be doubted by some whether there is not too much philology. Here,
again, experience has directed the course to be pursued. In the present transi-
tional stage of lexicography, it would have been undesirable to rest content with
simply referring to the valuable new lexicons which are now appearing, or have
already appeared.
With regard to biblical theology, the editors are not without hope that they
have helped to pave the way for a more satisfactory treatment of that important
subject which is rapidly becoming the hi.story of the movement of religious life and
thought within the Jewish and the Christian church (the phrase may be inaccurate,
but it is convenient). Systems of Prophetic, Pauline, Petrine, Johannine theology
have had their day ; it is perhaps time that the Bible should cease to be regarded
as a storehouse of more or less competing systems of abstract thought. Unfor-
tunately the literary and historical criticism of the New Testament is by no means
as far advanced as that of the Old Testament. It may not be long before a real
history of the movement of religious life and thought in the earlier period will
be possible. For such a history for the later period we shall have to wait longer, if
we may infer anything from the doubtless inevitable defects of the best existing
handbook of New Testament theology, that of the able veteran critic, H. J. Holtz-
mann. The editors of the present work are keenly interested in the subject at
xii PREFACE
present called ' Biblical Theology ' ; but, instead of attempting what is at present
impossible, they have thought it better to leave some deficiencies which future
editors will probably find it not difficult to supply. They cannot, however, con-
clude this section without a hearty attestation of the ever-increasing love for the
Scriptures which critical and historical study, when pursued in a sufficiently com-
prehensive sense, appears to them to produce. The minutest details of biblical
research assume a brightness not their own when viewed in the light of the great
truths in which the movement of biblical religion culminates. May the reader find
cause to agree with them ! This would certainly have been the prayerful aspira-
tion of the beloved and lamented scholar who originated this Encyclopcsdia.
To the contributors of signed articles, and to those who have revised and
brought up to date the articles of Prof. Robertson Smith, it may seem almost
superfluous to render thanks for the indispensable help they have so
^" courteously and generously given. It constitutes a fresh bond
between scholars of different countries and several religious com-
munities which the editors can never forget. But the special services of the
various members of the editorial staff require specific acknowledgment, which the
editors have much pleasure in making. Mr. Hope W. Hogg became a contributor
to the Eiicyclopcedia Biblica in 1894, and in 1895 became a regular member of the
editorial staff. To his zeal, energy, and scholarship the work has been greatly
indebted in every direction. In particular, Mr. Hogg has had the entire responsi-
bility for the proofs as they passed in their various stages through the hands of the
printer, and it is he who has seen to the due carrying out of the arrangements —
many of them of his own devising — for saving space and facilitating reference
that have been specified in the subjoined ' Practical Hints to the Reader.' Mr.
Stanley A. Cook joined the staff in 1896, and not only has contributed various
signed articles, which to the editors appear to give promise of fine work in the
future, but also has had a large share in many of those that are of composite
authorship and unsigned. Finally, Mr. Maurice A. Canney joined the staff in
1898; he also has contributed signed articles, and has been eminently helpful in
every way, especially in the reading of the proofs. Further, the editors desire to
acknowledge their very special obligations to the Rev. Henry A. Redpath, M.A.,
editor of the Concordance to the Septnagint, who placed his unrivalled experience
at their disposal by controlling all the proofs at a certain stage with special
reference to the LXX readings. He also verified the biblical references.
T. K. Cheyne.
J. Sutherland Black.
20th September 1899.
PRACTICAL HINTS TO THE READER
Further Explanations. — The labour that has been bestowed on even minor matters in the
preparation of this Eucvciflpccdia has seemed to be warranted by the hope that it may be
found useful as a students' handbook. Its value from this point of view will be facilitated by
attention to the following points : —
1. Classes of Articles. — The following notes will give a general idea of what the reader may
expect to find and where to look for it : —
i. Proper A'U/ncs. — Every proper name in the Old and the New Testament canons and the
OT Apocrypha (Authorised Version or Revised Version, text or margin) is represented by an
article-heading in Clarendon type, the substantive article being usually given under the name as
found in the AV text. Aiioraim, on the .same line as Adora (col. 71). and Adidlamite, three
lines below Adullam (col. 73), are examples of space-.saving contrivances.
ii. Books. — Every book in the OT and the NT canons and the OT Apocrypha is discussed
in a special article — e.i^. Acts, Chronicles, Deuteronomy. The 'Song of Solomon' is dealt with
under the title Canticles, and the last book in the NT under Apocalvpse.
iii. General Articles. — With the view, amongst other things, of securing the greatest pos-
sible brevity, many matters have been treated in general articles, the minor headings being dealt
with concisely with the help of cross-references. Such general articles are : Abi and Ahi,
names in Agriculture, Apocalyptic Literature, Apocrypha, Army, Bakemeats, Bread,
Canon. Cattle, Chronology, Clean and Unclean, Colours, Conduits, Cuttings of the
Flesh, Dispersion, Divination, Dress.
iv. Other Subjects. — The following are examples of important headings: — Ada.m and Eve,
Angels, Antichrist, Blessings and Cursings, Christian, Na.me of. Circumcision, Com-
munity OF Goods, Council of Jerusalem. Creation, Deluge, De.mons, Dragon.
V. Things. — The Encyclopcedia Biblica is professedly a dictionary of things, not words, and
a great effort has been made to adhere rigidly to this principle. Even where at first sight it
seems to have been neglected, it will generally be found that this is not really the case. The
only way to tell the English reader what has to be told about {e.g.') Chain is to distinguish the
various things that are called, or should have been called, • chain ' in the English Version, and
refer him to the articles where they are dealt with.
vi. Mere Cross-references (see above, 1, i. ; and below, 2).
2. Method of Cross-Ref erences. — A very great deal of care has been bestowed on the
cross-references, because only by their systematic use could the necessary matter be adequately
dealt with within the limits of one volume. They have made possible a conciseness that is not
attained at the expense of incompleteness, repetition of the same matter under different headings
being reduced to a minimum. For this reason the articles have been prepared, not in alphabetical
order, but simultaneously in all parts of the alphabet, and have been worked up together con-
stantly and kept up to date. The student may be assured, therefore, that the cross-references
have not been inserted at random ; they have always been verified. If any be found to be
unwarranted (no such is known), it must be because it has been found necessary, after the
reference was made, to remove something from the article referred to to another article. The
removed matter will no doubt be repre.sented by a cross-reference (cp, <f.^., ).
The method of reference employed is as follows : —
i. Identification of Article. {a) Long Names. — To save space long headings have been
curtailed in citations — ^.^., Apocalyptic Literature is cited as Apocalyptic.
{b) Synonymous Articles. — Persons of the same name or places of the same name are
ranged as i. 2, 3, etc., under a common heading and cited accordingly. In other cases (and
even in the former case when, as in Adnah in col. 67, one English spelling represents different
xiv PRACTICAL HINTS TO THE READER
Hebrew spellings (the articles usually have separate headings, in which case they are cited as
i., ii., iii., etc, although they are not so marked. Usually geographical articles precede bio-
graphical, and persons precede books. Thus Samuel i., 2 is the second person called Samuel;
Sa.mukl ii. is the article Samuel, B00K.S of. If a wrong number should be found the reason
is not that it was not verified, but that the article referred to is one of a very small number in
which the original order of the articles had to be changed and the cross-reference was not
detected. Thus in the article Alusii the reference to Beked ii., i, ought to be to Bered i., i.
ii. Indication of Place in Article Cited. — Articles of any length are divided into numbered
sections ({;§ i, 2, etc.) indicated by insets containing a descriptive word or phrase. As con-
venience of reference is the great aim, the descriptive phrases are limited to, at most, three or
four words, and the sections are numbered consecutively. Logical subordination of sections,
therefore, cannot appear. Divisions larger than sections are sometimes indicated in the text by
I., 11., etc, and subdivisions of sections by letters and numbers («, b, c, a. /?, y, i., ii., iii.).
References like (Be.N'JAMIN, § 9, ii. (3) are freely used. Most of the large articles have prefi.xed
to them a table of contents.
iii. A/anner 0/ Citation. — The commonest method is (see David, § 11, (c) ii.). Ezra (g.T.,
ii. § 9) means the article Ezra-Nehemiah, Book of, § 9. Sometimes, however, the capitals or
the g.v. may be dispensed with. Chain printed in small capitals in the middle of an article
would mean that there is an article on that term, but that it hardly merits g.v. from the present
point of view. In articles (generally on RV names) that are mere cross-references g'.v. is generally
omitted ; so, e.g., in Abadias in col. 3.
3. Typographical Devices, i. Size of Type. — {a) Letters — Two sizes of type are used,
and considerable care has been devoted to the distribution of the small-type passages. Usually
the general meaning of an article can be caught by reading simply the large-type parts. The
small-type passages generally contain such things as proofs of statements, objections, more techni-
cal details. In these passages, and in footnotes and parenthesis, abbreviations (see below, 8).
which are avoided as much as possible elsewhere, are purposely used. (J)) Numbers. — Two
sizes of Arabic numerals are used. (Note that the smallest 6 and 8 are a different shape from
the next larger (5 and is). In giving references, when only the volume is given, it is usually
cited by a Roman number. Pages are cited by Arabic numbers except where (as is often the
case) pages of a preface are marked with Roman numbers. When numbers of two ranks are
required, two sizes of Arabic numbers (.") 5) are used irrespectively of whether the reference be to
book and chapter, volume and page, or section and line. If three ranks are needed, Roman
numbers are prefixed (v. 5 5).
ii. Italics. — Italic type is much used in citing foreign words. In geographical articles, as a
rule, the printing of a modern place-name in italics indicates that the writer of the article identifies
it with the place under di.scussion. For the significance of the different kinds of type in the map
of Assyria see the explanations at the foot of the map. On the two kinds of Greek type see
below. 4 ii. {b).
iii. Small Capitals. — Small Roman capitals are used in two ways: (i) in giving the equiva-
lent in RV for the name in AV. or vice 7>ersa, and (2) in giving a cross-reference (see above, 2 iii.).
On the use of small italic capitals see below, 4 ii. (1^).
iv. Symbols. — {a) Index Fii^nres. — In 'almost always ^ clear,' '6' indicates footnote 6. In
' Introd.'^',' '(6)' means sixth edition. In ' D2' '2' means a later development of D (see below, ).
{b) Asterisk. — B* means the original scribe of codex B. *'"'nho means that the consonants
are known but the vowels are hypothetical, v. 5* means 7/. 5 (partly).
(f) Dagger. — A dagger f is used to indicate that all the passages where a word occurs are
cited. The context must decide whether the English word or the original is meant.
{d) Sign of Equality. — 'Aalar, i Esd. ') 36 AV = Ezra '2 59 Immer, i..' means that the two
verses quoted are recensions of the same original, and that what is called Aalar in the one is
called Immer in the other, as will be explained in the first of the articles entitled Immer.
{e) Sign of Parallelism. — || is the adjective corresponding to the verb =. Thus 'Aalar of
I Esd. o 36 AV appears as Immer in |1 Ezra 2 59.'
(/) Other devices. — '99 means 1899. i Ch. 681 [6^] means that verse 81 in the English
version is the translation of that numbered 66 in Hebrew texts. V is used to indicate the 'root'
of a word.
v. Punctuation. — No commas are used between citations, thus: 2 K. 6121 25 Is. 'Jl 7.
Commas are omitted and semicolons or colons inserted whenever ambiguity seems thus to be
avoided — <?.;f., the father Achbor [i] is called 'Father of Baal-hanan [i] king of Edom,' and the
son Baal-hanan [1] is called 'ben Achbor [i] ; one of the kings of Edom.'
4. Text-Critical Apparatus. — As all sound investigation must be based, not on the ancient
PRACTICAL HINTS TO THE READER xv
texts as they lie before the student, but on what he believes to be the nearest approach he can make
to their original reading, the soundness of every text is weighed, and if need be, discussed before
it is used in the Encyclopadia Bihlica.
i. Traditional Original Text. — In quoting the traditional Hebrew text the editions of Baer
and of Ginsburg have been relied on as a rule ; similarly in the case of the New Testament, the
texts of Tischendorf and of Westcott and Hort (see below, ).
ii. Evidence of Versions. — The Vulgate (ed. Heyse-Tischendorff) and the Peshitta (ed. Lee
and London Polyglott) and the minor Greek versions (Field, Hexapla : Hatch-Redpath, Con-
cordance) have been quoted quite freely ; the testimony of the Septuagint has been attended to on
every point.
In exceptional cases 'Holmes and Parsons' has been consulted; ordinarily Swete's manual
edition (including the variants) and Lagarde's Tars Trior have been considered sufficient. In
general (for the main exception see next paragraph) only variations of some positive interest or im-
portance have been referred to. Almost invariably a quotation from the LXX is followed by sym-
bols indicating the documents cited (thus vtot [BAL]). This does not necessarily imply that in
some other MS or MSS a ditTerent reading is found; it is simply a guarantee that Lagarde and
Swete's digest of readings have both been consulted. The formula [BAL] standing alone means
that the editors found no variant in Lagarde or Swete to report. In the parts, therefore, where
Swete cites K or other MSS as well as BA, BAL includes them unless the context indicates other-
wise ; BAL might even be used where B was lacking. When BAL stands alone the meaning is
everywhere the same; it is a summary report of agreement in Lagarde and Swete.
Proper names have been felt to demand special treatment ; the aim has been to give under
each name the readings of Lagarde and all the variants of BxA as cited in Swete. The com-
monest, or a common form for each witness is given at the head of the article, and this is followed
at once or in the course of the article by such variants as there are. Where all the passages con-
taining a given name are cited in the article, the apparatus of Greek readings (as in Swete and
Lagarde) may be considered absolutely complete. In other cases, completeness, though aimed at,
has not been found possible.
The distinction between declinable and indeclinable forms has generally been observed ; but
different cases of the same declinable form have not as a rule (never in the case of common nouns)
been taken note of. Where part of one name has been joined in the LXX to the preceding or suc-
ceeding name, the intniding letters have usually been given in square brackets, though in some very
obvious cases tliey may have been ignored.
When MSS differ only in some giving i and others ci that is indicated concisely thus: *a/?£ia
[B], a^ a [AL],' becomes 'tty3[e]ta [BAL].' Similarly, -t., -tt. becomes -\t'\t.
A great deal of pains has been bestowed on the readings, and every effort has been made to
secure the highest attainable accuracy. In this connection the editors desire to acknowledge their
very special obligations to the Rev. Henry A. Redpath, M.A., editor of the Concordance to the
Septuagint, who has placed his unrivalled experience in this department at their disposal by con-
trolling the proofs from the beginning with special reference to the LXX readings. He has also
verified the biblical references.
Unfortunately, misprints and other inaccuracies — inaccuracies sometimes appearing for the
first time after the last proof reading — cannot be avoided. Corrections of errors, however minute,
addressed to the publishers, will always be gratefully received.
Some typographical details require to be explained : —
(a) In giving proper names initial capitals, breathings, and accents are dispensed with ; they
were unknown in the oldest MSS (see Swete, i p. xiii 2).
(J)) The Greek readings at the head of an article are given in uncials, and the Vulgate read-
ings in small italic capitals ; elsewhere ordinary type is used.
(c) The first Greek reading is given in full; all others are abbreviated as much as possible.
Letters suppressed at the beginning of a word are represented by a dash, letters at the end by a
period. In every case the abbreviated form is to be completed by reference to the Greek form
immediately preceding, whether that is given in full or not. Thus, e.g., ' afitXaaTreifx, (3. ■ . . rri/i,
-TTctv, /SeAo-a.'^ means ^ af^cXcraTTei/x, ^(.XaaTTLfx, jSeXaaTTCiv, (itXcramLv .'' That is to say, the
abbreviated form repeats a letter (or if necessary more) of the form preceding. Two exceptions
are sometimes made. The dash sometimes represents the whole of the preceding form — e.g., in
cases like afiui, -s, — and one letter has sometimes been simply substituted for another : e.g., v for
Ii. in ei/i, -V. These exceptions can hardly lead to ambiguity.
{d) The following are the symbols most commonly quoted from Swete's digest with their
meaning : —
1 This is a misprint in the art. ABEL-SHiniM. * /3eX(7a." should be ' ^e\<Ta \ without the period.
PRACTICAL HINTS TO THE READER
• = original scribe.
1 = his own corrections.
«, b, c = other correctors.
«b = first corrector confirmed by second.
a? b? = a or b.
»? b = b, perhaps also a.
•(vid)= prob. a.
• vid = a, if it be a bona fide correction at all.
D = testimony of the Grabe-Owen collation of D before
U was partly destroyed (see Swete, i p. xxiv).
Z?«" = readings inferred from the collation (D)e silentio.
K=» = a corrector of K belonging to the 7th cent (Sw.,
2 p. viii ; cp 1, p. xxi).
Bedit = e.g., on Sirach 461, p. 471.
j<c.b. = see Sw., 2 p. viii.
K<^'- = e.g., Sir. 107, p. 663.
{e) The following are the MSS most commonly cited
K Sinaiticus (see Swete, i p. xx).
A Aiexandrinus (Swete, p. xxii).
B Vaticanus (Swete, i p. xvii).
C Cod. Eplirttmi (Swete, 2 p. xiii).
D Cod. Cottonianus Gcneseos (Swete, i p. xxiii).
E Cod. Bodleianus Geneseos (Swete, i p. xxvi).
F Cod. Ambrosianus (Swete, i p. xxvi).
87 Cod. Chisianus (Swete, 3 xii).
Syr. Cod. Syro. Hexaplaris Ambrosianus (3 xiii).
V Cod. Venetus (= 23, Parsons ; Swete, 3 p. xiv).
Q. Cod. Marchalianus (Swete, 3 p. vii).
r Cod. rescriptus Cryptoferratensis (Swete, 3 p. ix /).
5. Proper Name Articles. — Proper name articles usually begin thus. The name is followed
by a parenthesis giving (i) the original; (2) where necessary, the number of the section in the
general article Names where the name in question is discussed or cited; (3) a note on the ety-
mology or meaning of the (personal) name with citation of similar names; (4) the readings of
the versions (see above, 4 ii.)-
6. Geographical Articles, — The interpretation of place-names is discussed in the article
Names. The maps that are issued with Part I. are the district of Damascus, the environs of
Babylon, and 'Syria, Assyria, and Babylonia' (between cols. and ). The last-mentioned
is mainly designed to illustrate the non-Palestinian geography of the Old Testament. It is made
use of to show the position of places outside of Palestine mentioned in Part I. which happen to
fall within its bounds.
In all maps biblical names are assigned to sites only when the article discussing the question
regards the identification as extremely probable (the degree of probability must be learned from the
article).
The following geographical terms are used in the senses indicated : —
Der, deir, ' monastery.'
Haj(j), ' pilgrimage to Mecca.
yede/ (}.), ' mountain."
A'e/r, kafr, ' village.'
Khan, ' caravanserai.'
Khirbet-(Kh?), 'ruins of — .'
Nahr (N.), ' river."
Tell, ' mound " (often containing ruins).
Wiidi (W.), 'valley,' 'torrent-course.'
Well, wely, ' Mohammedan saint,' ' saint's tomb."
7. Transliteration, etc. — Whilst the Encydopc^dia Biblica is meant for the student, other
readers have constantly been kept in view. Hence the frequent translation of Hebrew and other
words, and the transliteration of words in Semitic languages. In certain cases transliteration also
saves space. No effort has been made at uniformity for its own sake. Intelligibility has been
thought sufficient. When pronunciation is indicated — e.g.., Behemoth, Leviathan — what is meant
is that the resulting form is the nearest that we can come to the original as represented by the
traditional Hebrew, so long as we adhere to the English spelling.
In the case of proper names that have become in some degree naturalised in an incorrect form,
that form has been preserved : e.g., Shalmaneser, Tiglath-pileser. Where there is an alternative,
naturally the closer to the original is selected : therefore Nebuchadrezzar (with r as in Ezek., etc.),
Nazirite. Where there is no naturalised form an exact transliteration of the original has been
given — e.g., Asur-res-isi — and the component parts of Assyrian names are thus separated by
hyphens, and begin with a capital when they are divine names.
In the case of modern (Arabic) place-names the spelling of the author whose description has
been most used has generally been retained, except when it would have been misleading to the
student. The diacritical marks have been checked or added after verification in some Arabic
source or list.
On the Assyrian alphabet see Babylonia, § 6, and on the Egyptian, Egypt, § 12. One
point remains to be explained, after which it will suffice to set forth the schemes of transliteration
in tabular form. The Hebrew h (n) represents phijologically the Arabic h and h, which are
absolutely distinct sounds. The Hebrew spoken language very likely marked the distinction.
As the written language, however, ignores it, n is always transliterated h. The Assyrian guttural
transliterated with an h, on the other hand, oftenest represents the Arabic h, and is therefore
always transliterated h (in Muss. -Am. Did., x\ for x)» never h. There is no h .in transliterated
Assyrian; for the written language did not distinguish the Arabic h from the Arabic h 'g or',
representing them all indifferently by '. which accordingly does not, in transliterated Assyrian,
mean simply K but K or n or h or U or g. Hence e.g., Nabu-nahid is simply one interpretation
PRACTICAL HINTS TO THE READER xvii
of Nabu-na'id. Egyptian, lastly, requires not only h, h, and h, like Arabic, but also a fourth
symbol h (see Egypt, § ).
TRANSLITERATION Oh
HEBREW (AND A
RABIC) CONSONANTS
.
K
>
z
T
;
1
b
J
s
2:
u©
b
a
«^
h
n
r
h
m
D
r
k(q)
P
O
bh(b)
g
gh(g)
3
:
:
c
j.g
t
IS
t
Jo
h
n
s
3
D
r
s
sh, i
-1
;
d
dh(d)
h
1
n
y
kh (k)
3
v5
P
phi
t
g
f
t
th(t)
n
n
CJ
W, V
)
Extra Arabic Consonants: <i5, th, /; (3, dh, <f ; ^jfl, d; ja,
' long •
Heb. a e i o u
VOWELS.
' short • very short
aeiou S.t-dor'^eo
mere glide
&or'or'
At. a 1 u a (e)
Ar. diphthongs : ai, ay, ei, ey, e ; aw, au, 5.
i(e)
u(o)
8. Abbreviations, Symbols, and Biographical Notes. — The following pages explain the
abbreviations that are used in the more technical parts (see above Si-C'^:)) of the EncyclopcEdia.
The list does not claim to be exhaustive, and for the most part it takes no account of well-established
abbreviations, or such as have seemed to be fairly obvious. The bibliographical notes will be not
unwelcome to the student.
The Canonical and Apocryphal books of the Bible are usually referred to as Gen., Ex.. Lev.,
Nu., Dt., Jos., Judg., Ruth, S(a.), K(i.), Ch[r.], Ezr., Neh., Est., Job, Ps., Pr., Eccle.s., C(an)t.,
Is., Jer., Lam., Ezek., Dan., Hos., Joel, Am., Ob., Jon., Mi., Nah., Hab., Zeph., Hag., Zech., Mai. ;
I Esd., 4 Esd. {i.e. 2 Esd. of EV), Tob., Judith, Wisd., Ecclus., Baruch, cap. 6 {i.e.. Epistle of
Jeremy), Song of the Three Children (Dan. 823), Susanna. Bel and the Dragon, Prayer of Manasses,
1-4 Mace. ; Mt., Mk., Lk., Jn., Acts, Rom., Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil., Col., Tlies., Tim., Tit., Philem.,
Heb., Ja[s.], Pet., 1-3 Jn., Jude, Apoc. [or Rev.] . An explanation of some of the symbols (A, K, B.
etc.), now generally used to denote certain Greek MSS of the Old or New Testaments, will be found
above, at p. vx. It may be added that the bracketed index numerals denote the edition of the work
to which they are attached ; thus OTJCC-^ = The Old Testament in the Jewish Church, 2nd edition
(exceptions RP^'-\ AOF^-^ : see below). The unbracketed numerals above the line refer to footnotes ;
for those under the line see below under D^, etc.
When a foreign book is cited by an English name the reference is to the English translation.
It is suggested that the Encyclopedia Biblica itself be cited as EBi. It will be observed that
all the larger articles can be referred to by the numbered sections ; or any pa.ssage can readily be
cited by column and paragraph or line. The columns will be numbered continuously to the end of
the work.
ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL
NOTES
The following pages explain the abbreviations that are used in the more technical parts (see
above, p. xiv. 3 i. [«]) of the Encyclopiedia. The list does not claim to be exhaustive, and, for the
most part, it takes no account of well-established abbreviations, or such as have seemed to be fairly
obvious. The bibliograpiiical notes will, it is hoped, be welcome to the student.
The Canonical and Apocryphal books of the Bible are usually referred to as Gen., Ex., Lev.,
Nu., Dt., Josh., Judg., Ruth, S(a.), K(i.), Ch[r.], Ezra, Neh., Esth., Job, Ps., Pr., Eccles.,
C(an)t., Is., Jer., Lam., Ezek., Dan., Hos., Joel, Am., Ob., Jon., Mi., Nah., Hab., Zeph., Hag.,
Zech., Mai. ; i Esd., 4 Esd. (/.^., 2 Esd. of EV), Tob., Judith. Wi.sd., Ecclus., Baruch, Epistle of
Jeremy {i.e., Bar. ch. 6), Song of the Three Children (Dan. 823), Susanna, Bel and the Dragon,
Prayer of Manasses, 1-4 Mace. ; Mt., Mk., Lk., Jn., Acts, Rom., Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil., Col., Thess.,
Tim., Tit., Philem., Heb., Ja[s.], Pet., 1-3 Jn., Jude, Rev. [or Apoc].
An explanation of some of the symbols (A, K, B, etc.), now generally used to denote certain
Greek MSS of the Old or New Testaments, will be found above, at p. xvi. It may be added that
the bracketed index numerals denote the edition of the work to which they are attached : thus
OT/C^-'> = T/ie Old I'estameiit in the JeivisJi C/iurc/i, 2nd edition (exceptions RP^^'', AOF'^-^ ; see
below). The unbracketed numerals above the line refer to footnotes; for those under the line see
below under D2, E.>, J-.-, Pj.
When a foreign book is cited by an English name the reference is to the English translation.
It is suggested tliat this work be referred to as the Encyclopcedia Biblica, and that the
name may be abbreviated thus: Ency. Bib. or EBi. It will be observed that all the larger
articles can be referred to by the numbered sections (§§) ; or any passage can readily be cited
by column and paragraph or line. The columns will be numbered continuously to the end
of the work.
Abuhv. .
Abulwalld, the Jewish grammarian
(b. circa 990), author of Book of
A T, A Tliche
Roots, etc.
A T Unters.
Acad.
The Academy : A Weekly Pevietv
of Literature, Science, and Art.
AV. .
London, '69^.
AF. .
Sec A OP.
b. .
AHT. .
Ancient Hebrew Tradition. See
Ilonimcl.
Ba. .
Altltest\. Unt. .
See Winckler.
Anter. Journ. of
American Journal of Philology,
Bab. .
Phil.
'80^.
Baed., or
A\jiier.'\J[ourn.'\
Amertcan lournal of Semitic Lan-
Baed. Pal.
S\_em.'\ L[ang.] guages and Li/erature} (^con\.m\i-
ing Hebraica ['84-'95]), '95/".
Baethg., or
Am. Tab. .
IheTell-cl-Amarna Letters( = A'jy5)
Buethg.Beitr.
Ant. .
Josephus, Antiquities.
BAG
AOF
Altorientalische Porschungen. See
Winckler.
Ba.NB. .
Apocr. Anecd. .
Apocrypha Anecdota, 1st and 2nd
series, published under the
general title ' Texts and Studies '
Baraitha .
at the Cambridge University
Press.
Aquila, Jewish proselyte (temp.
BDB Lex.
Aq. . . .
revolt against Hadrian), author
of a Greek translation of the Old
Testament. See Text.
Ar. .
Arabic.
Aram.
Aramaic. See Aramaic.
Be. .
ArcA.
Archeology or Archciologie. See
Benzinger, Novvack.
Ar. Des. .
Doughty, Arabia Deserta, '88.
Ar. Heid., or
Keste arabischen Heidentums. See
Heid
Wellhausen.
Beitr.
Arm.
Armenian.
Ass. .
Assyrian.
Beitr. z. Ass.
Ass. HWB
Assyrisches Handwdrterbuch. See
Delitzsch.
As. u. Eur.
W. M. Muller, Asien u. Europa
nach altdgyptischen Denkm'dlern,
Benz. HA.
'93-
Das Alte Testament, Alttestament-
liche. Old Testament.
Alttestamentliche Untersuchungen.
See Winckler.
Authorised Version.
ben, b'ne (son, sons, Hebrew).
Baer and Delitzsch's critical edition
of the Massoretic Text, Leipsic,
'69, and following years.
Babylonian.
Baedeker, Palestine (ed. Socin),
(2), '94; i3)^ 'gg (Benzinger) based
on 4th German ed.
Baethgen, Beitrdge zur seniitischen
Peligions-geschichte, '88.
C. P. Tiele, Babylonische-assyrische
Geschichte, pt. i., '86; pt. ii., '88.
Barth, Die Nominalbildung in den
seniitischen Sprachen, i., '89; ii.,
(i!)
94-
See Law Liter.\ture.
[Brown, Driver, Briggs, Lexicon'\
A Hebre~v and English lexicon
of the Old 'J'estament, based on
the Lexicon of Gesenius, by F.
Brown, with the co-operation of
S. R. Driver and C. A. Briggs,
Oxford, '92, and following vears.
E-Bertheau (1812-88). InKGH;
Pichter u. Ruth, '45 ; W '83;
Chronik,
'54;
(2).
73; Esra,
Nehemia u. Ester, '62; <2), by
Ryssel, '87.
Beitrdge, especially Baethgen (as
above).
Beitrdge zur Assyriologie u. senii-
tischen Sprachwissenschaft : ed.
Fried. Delitzsch and Paul Haupt,
{.,'90; ii., '94; iii., '98; iv. I, '99.
I. Benzinger, Jlehrdische Archd-
ologie, '94.
ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES xix
K'dn. . Konige in KIIC, '99.
Ikrthulct, Stel- A. Bertlu)lct, Die Stellung lit-r Is-
lung raeliUn u. tier Jtulcn zu dt-n
Fremden, '96.
Bi. . . . Gu«Uv Bickell :
Grundriss der hebriiiscken
Craiiiiitatik, '69/; ; KT, '77.
Car mi nil I'T metriceetc, '82.
Diclituugcn der Ilehrder, '82/
Kritische Bearbeitung der
Frav., '90.
Biblioth. Sac. . Bibliot/ucn Sacra, '43^.
B/ . . . J)e Hello Judaico. See Josephus.
BL . . . Schcnkcl, Bibel- Lexicon ; Real-
\v6rterl)uch zuin Handgebrauch
fiir Cleistliclie u. Gemeiiule-
glieder, 5 vols., '69-'75.
Boch. . . S. Bochart (1599-1667) :
Geograpkia Sacra, 1646 ;
Ilicrozoicon, sivc de Animali-
bus Script II nr Surra; 1663.
Boeckh . . AngAk^ccVh, Corpus /nscr. Griic,
4 vols., '28-'77.
BOR . . Babylonian and Oriental Record,
Bottch. . . Friedrich Bottcher, Ausfiihrliches
Lehrbucli dt-r hebrdischen Spra-
che, '66-'68.
Bottg. Lex. . Bottger, Lexicon z. d. Schriften des
Fl. Josephus, '79.
BR . . . Biblical Researches. See Robinson.
Bu. . . . Karl Budde :
Urgesch. . Die biblische Urgeschichte (Gen.
I-124). '83.
Rt.Sa. . Die Richer Richter und Samuel,
ihre Quellen und ihr Aufbau,'^0.
Sam. . . Samuel in SHOT (Heb.), '94.
Das Buck Hiob in //A', '96.
Klagelieder and Hohelied in KUC, '98.
Buhl
Buxt. Syn. Jud.
Bu.\t. Lex.
c., cir.
Calwer Bib.
Lex.
c. Ap.
CII .
Chald. Gen.
Che.
Proph. Is.
Job and Sol.
Ps. .
OPs. .
Aids .
Founders
Intr. Is.
See Pal.
Johann Buxtorf (i 564-1629),
Synagoga Judaica, 1603, etc.
Joliann Buxtorf, son (1599-1644),
Lexicon Chaldaicum, I'almudi-
cum et RaN'inicum, 1639, folio.
Reprint with ailditions by B.
Fischer, 2 vols., '69 and '74.
circa.
Cahver Kirchelexikon, I'heologi-
sches Llandworterbuch, ed. P.
Zfller, '89-'93.
contra Apionem. See Josephus.
Composition des llexateuchs. See
Wfllhausen.
The Chaldean Account of Genesis,
by George Smith. \ new edi-
tion, thoroughly revised and cor-
rected by A. li. Sayce, '80.
T. K. Cheyne :
The Prophecies 0/ Isaiah, 2 vols.
('8o-'8i; revised, <«), '89).
Job and Solomon, ox 7'he IVisdom
of the Old Testament ('87).
The Book of Psalms, transl.
with comm. ('88); <-'), re-
written (forthcoming).
The Origin and Religious Con-
tents of the Psalter (Bampton
Lectures, '89), '91.
Aids to the Devout Study of
Criticism, '92.
Founders of Old Testament
Criticism, '94.
Introduction to the Book of
Isaiah ('95).
Class. Rev.
Cl.-tian. .
Rec. .
Co. .
Is.SBOT. Isaiah in SBOT [Eng.],
(•97); [Heb.J, (-99).
Jeremiah, his Life and Times in * Men of the
Bible' ('88).
Jew. Rel. Life Jewish Religious Life after the
Exile, '98.
CIG . . Corpus Inscriptionum Gracarum
(ed. Dittenberger), '82^. See
also Boeckh.
CIL . . Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum,
Berlin, '63, and following years,
14 vols., with supplements.
CLS . . Corpus Inscriptionum Semttica-
rutn, Paris, "6\ ff. Pt. i., Phccni-
cian and Punic inscriptions; pt.
ii., Aramaic inscriptions; pt. iv.,
S. Arabian inscriptions.
The Classical Rez'iew, "i"] ff.
Clermnnt-(ianneau:
Recueil d\4rchiologie, '85 _^.
Cornill :
Ezek. . Das Buck des Propheten
Ezechiel, '86.
Einl. . Einleilung in das Alte Testa-
ment, '91 ; ••'*, '<)6.
Hist. . History of the People of Israel
from the earliest times, '98.
COT . . TheCuneiform Inscriptions and the
Old I'estament. See Schrader.
Crit. Man. . A. H. Sayce, The Higher Criticism
and the Verdict of the Monu-
ments, '94,
Cr. Rcz>. . . Critical Re-'ieiv of Theological and
Philosophical Literature [ed.
Salmond], '91^.
D . . . Author of Deuteronomy; also used
Deuteronomistic passages.
D2 . . . Later Deuteronomistic editors. See
Historical Ln kkatlke.
Dalni. Gram. . Dalman, Grammatik des jiidisch-
paldstinischen .iramdisch, '94.
IVorte Jesu Die IVorle Jesu,\.,\)'i.
Aram, Lex. Arainaisch - Xeuhebrdisches
IV'nrtcrbuch zu Targum,
'fa I'll lid, mid .Midrasch,
Teil i., '97.
Dav. . . A. B. D.ividson:
Job . . /;(W-<y'>/'inCamb. Bible,'S4.
Ezek. . Book of Ezekiel in Cambridge
Bible, '92.
DB . . . W. Smith, .-/ Diitionary of the
Bible, comprising its .4ntii]uities,
Biography, Geography, and Xat-
ural History, 3 vols., '63; DB^'^\
2nd ed. of vol. i., in two parts,
'93-
or, J. Hastings, ,/ Dictionary of
the Bible, dealing with its Lan-
guage, Literature, and Contents,
including the Biblical Theology,
vol. i., '98; vol. ii., '99.
or, F. Vigouroux, Dictionnaire de
la Bible, '95 y.
de C. Orig. . Alph. de C'andolle, Origine des
Plantes Cultivees, '82; *<>, '96.
ET in the International Scien-
tific Series.
De Gent. . . De Gentibus. See Wellhausen.
Del. . . Delitzsch, Franz (1813-90), author
of many commentaries on books
of the OT, etc.
or, Delitzsch, Friedrich, son of pre-
ceding, author of:
Par.. . Wo lag das Raradies? i'^x).
Heb. Lang. Tlu Hebrew Language viewed
ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL
NOTES
The following pages explain the abbreviations that are used in the more technical parts (see
above, p. xiv. 3 i- [a]) of the Encyclopiedia. The list does not claim to be exhaustive, and, for the
most part, it takes no account of well-established abbreviations, or such as have seemed to be fairly
obvious. The bibliographical notes will, it is hoped, be welcome to the student.
The Canonical and Apocryphal books of the Bible are usually referred to as Gen., Ex., Lev.,
Nu., Dt., Josh., Judg., Ruth, S(a.), K(i.), Ch[r.], Ezra, Neh., Esth., Job, Ps., Pr., Eccles.,
C(an)t., Is., Jer., Lam., Ezek., Dan., Hos., Joel, Am., Ob., Jon., Mi., Nah., Hab., Zeph., Hag.,
Zech., Mai. ; i Esd., 4 Esd. {i.e., 2 Esd. of EV), Tob., Judith. Wisd., Ecclus., Baruch, Epistle of
Jeremy {i.e.. Bar. ch. 6), Song of the Three Children (Dan. 823), Susanna, Bel and the Dragon,
Prayer of Manasses, 1-4 Mace. ; Mt., Mk., Lk., Jn., Act.s, Rom., Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil., Col., Thess.,
Tim., Tit., Philem., Heb., Ja[s.], Pet., 1-3 Jn.. Jude. Rev. [or Apoc].
An explanation of some of the symbols (.A, N, B, etc.), now generally used to denote certain
Greek MSS of the Old or New Testaments, will be found above, at p. xvi. It may be added that
the bracketed index numerals denote the edition of the work to which they are attached : thus
OTJC^-'i—'r/ie Old lestaiiteid in t/ie Jewish Clitirch, 2nd edition (exceptions RP^'^\ AOF^-^ \ see
below). The unbracketed numerals above the line refer to footnotes; for those under the line see
below under D2, E-, J.-, P...
When a foreign book is cited by an English name the reference is to the English translation.
It is suggested that this work be referred to as tlie Encyclopcedia Hiblica, and that the
name may be abbreviated thus: Ency. Bib. or EBi. It will be observed that all the larger
articles can be referred to by the numbered sections (§§) ; or any passage can readily be cited
by column and paragraph or line. The columns will be numbered continuously to the end
of the work.
Abulw.
Acad.
AF. .
ANT.
All\_Ust']. Unt. .
A/ner. Journ. of
Phil.
Almer.}/[ourK.]
Slem.] Liang.]
Am. Tab. . . T
Am. .
AOF
Apocr. Anecd. .
Aq.
At. .
Aram.
AreA.
Ar. Des. .
Ar. //eid., or
Heid.
Arm.
Ass. .
Ass. HWB
As. u. Eur.
Abulwalld, the Jewish grammarian
(b. circa 990), author of Book of
A'oo/s, etc.
T/ie .lea demy : A li/^eekly Bevie7u
of Literature, Science, and Art.
London, '69^.
See/^O/-;
Ancient Lfebrew Tradition. See
Hommel.
See Winckler.
American Journal of Philology,
'80/:
American Journal of Semitic Lan-
guages and Literature} (continu-
ing Hebraica ['84-'95]), '95/;
heTell-el-Amarna Letters(=A'iy5)
Josephus, .Antiquities.
Allorientalische Forschungen. See
Winckler.
Apocrypha Anecdota, 1st and 2nd
series, published under the
general title ' Texts and Studies '
at the Cambridge University
Press.
Aquila, Jewish proselyte (temp,
revolt against Hadrian), author
of a Greek translation of the Old
Testament. See Tkxt.
Arabic.
Aramaic. See Aramaic.
Archeology or Archaologie. See
Hen/.inger, Nowack.
Doughty, Arabia Deserta, '88.
Peste arabischen Ileidentutns. See
Wellhausen.
Armenian.
Assyrian.
Assyrisches ILandw'drterbuch. See
Delitzsch.
W. M. Miiller, Asien u. Europa
nach alt'dgyptischen Denkm'dlern,
'93-
A T, A Tliche
A T Unters.
AV.
Bab. .
Baed., or
Baed. Pal.
Baethg., or
Baethg.^^iVr.
BAG
^2..NB. .
Baraitha .
BDB Lex.
Be.
Beitr.
Beitr. z. Ass.
Benz. HA.
Das Alte Testament, Alttestament-
liche. Old Testament.
Alttestumentliche Untersuchungen.
See Winckler.
Authorised Version.
ben, li'ne (son, sons, Hebrew).
Baer and Delitzsch's critical edition
of the Massorctic Text, Leipsic,
'69, and following years.
Babylonian.
Baedeker, L\ilestine (ed. Socin),
(2), '94; ('i*, '98 (Benzinger) based
on 4th German ed.
Baetligen, Beitr'dge zur semitischen
Peligions-geschichte, '88.
C. P. Tiele, Babylonische-assyrische
Geschichte, pt. i., '86; pt. ii., '88.
Barth, Die A'ominalbildung in den
semitischen Sprachen, i., '89; ii.,
'91;
94-
See Law LrrERATURE,
[Brown, Driver, Briggs, Lexicon]
A Llebre-M and English Lexicon
of the Old Testament, based on
the Lexicon of Gesenius, by F.
Brown, with the co-operation of
S. R. Driver and C. A. Briggs,
Oxford, '92, and following vears.
KBertheau (1812-88). In KGLL;
Pichter u. Ruth, '45 ; (2) 'g^.
Chronik, '54; *2)^ y^. Esra,
Nehemia u. Ester, '62; <2)^ by
Ryssel, '87.
Beitr'dge, especially Baethgen (as
above).
Beitrd^e zur Assyriologie u. semi-
tischen Sprach7vissenschaft ; ed.
Fried. Delitzsch and PaulHaupt,
i., '90; ii., '94; iii., '98; iv. i,'99.
I. Benzinger, LLebrdische .Archa-
ologie, '94.
ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES xix
Is. SHOT. Isaiah in 5^07" [Eng.l,
(•97): [Heb.J, ('99).
Jeremiah, his Life and Times m ' Men of the
Hible' ('88).
Jnv. A'el. Life Jewish Keli^ous Life after the
Exile, '98.
CIG . . Corpus fnsiriptionum Gracarum
(ed. Dittenbergcr), '%z ff. Sec
also Boeckh.
CIL . . Corpus Inscriplionum Latinarum,
licrlin, '63, and following years,
14 vols., with supi)lements.
CIS . . Corpus Inscriplionum Semttica-
rum, Paris, "61 ff. Pt. i., Ph<cni-
cian and I'unic inscriptions; pt.
ii., Aramaic inscriptions; pt. iv.,
S. Arabian inscriptions.
The Classical Review, '87 _^.
Clcrniont-danneau:
Kecueil J'ArchMogie, '85^.
Cornill :
Das Buch des Propheten
Kzechiel, '86.
Einleilutig in das Alle Testa-
K'dn, . Konige in KIIC, '99.
Bertholct, Siel- A. Bertholet, Die Stellung der Is-
lung raeliten u. der Juden zu di-n
Fremden, '96.
Bi. . . . Gustav Bickell :
Grundriss der hehriiischen
Granimatik, '69/; ; Kl', '77.
Carmina VT tnetrice etc., '82.
Dichtungen der llehr'der, '82/
Kritische Bearbeitnng der
Prov., '90.
Biblioth. Sac. . Bihliotheca Sacra, '43^.
BJ . . . De Hello Judaico. See Joseph us.
BL . . . Schcnkel, BiM- lexicon; Real-
wortcrbuch /urn Handgebrauch
fiir Cieistliche u. Gemeinde-
glieder, 5 vols., '69-'75.
Boch. . . S. Bochart (1599-1667) :
Geographia Sacra, 1646 ;
Hicrozoicon, sivc de Animali-
bus Script uriT Sncrie, 1663.
Boeckh . . K\s^.V>otcV\\^, Corpus Inscr.Grtec,
4 vols., '28-'77.
BOR . . Baltylonian and Oriental Record,
Bottch. . . Friedrich Bottcher, .iusjiihrliches
Lehrbuch der hcbr'dischen Spra-
che, '66-'68.
Bottg. Lex. . Bottger, Lexicon z. d. Schriften des
Fl. Joseplius, '79.
BR . . . Biblical Researches. See Robinson.
Bu. . . . Karl Budde :
Urgescli. . Die biblische Urgeschichte (Gen.
I-I24).'83.
Rt.Sa. . Die Hiicher Richter und Samuel,
ihre Quellen und ihr Ai(fbau,'<^.
Sam. . . Samuel in SHOT (Heb.), '94.
Das Buch Hiob in HK, '96.
Klagelieder and Llohelied in KHC, '98.
Buhl
Buxt. Syn. Jud.
Buxt. Lex.
c, cir.
Calwer Bib.
Lex.
c. Ap. .
C/L .
Chald. Gen.
Che.
Proph. Ls.
Job and Sol.
Ps. .
OPs. .
Aids .
Founders
Intr. Ls.
See Pal.
Johann Buxtorf (1564-1629),
Synagoga Judaica, 1 603, etc.
Johann Huxtorf, son (1599-1644),
L.exicon Chaldaicum, Talinudi-
cum et Rabhinictiin, 1639, folio.
Reprint with additions by B.
Fischer, 2 vols., '69 and '74.
circa.
Calwer Kirchelexikon, Theologt-
sches ILandivortcrbuch, ed. P.
Zfller, '89-'93.
cojitra Apionein. See Josephus.
Composition des LLexateuchs. See
Wcllhausen.
The Chaldean Account of Genesis,
by George Smith. .\ new edi-
tion, thoroughly revised and cor-
rected by A. H. Sayce, '80.
T. K. Cheyne :
I'he Prophecies of Isaiah, 2 vols.
('8o-'8i; revised. <«>, '89).
Job and Solomon, ox The Wisdom
of the Old Testament ('87).
7he Book of Psalms, transl.
with comni. ('88); <'->, re-
written (forthcoming).
The Origin and Religious Con-
tents of the Psalter (Bampton
Lectures, '89), '91.
Aids to the Devout Study of
Criticism, '92.
Founders of Old Testament
Criticism, '94.
Introduction to the Book of
Isaiah ('95).
Class. Rev.
Cl.-(ian. ,
Rec. .
Co. .
Fzek.
Einl.
LList.
COT
Crit. A/on.
Cr. Rev. .
D . . .
D2 . . .
Dalni. Grain. .
IVorte Jesu
Aram, Lex.
ment, 91
.,6.
Dav.
Job
Ezek.
DB
de C. Orig.
De Gent.
Del.
Par. .
Heb. Lang.
History of the People of Lsrael
from the earliest times, '98.
The Cuneiform Lnscriptions and the
Old 'Testament. See Schrader.
A. H. Sayce, The LLigher Criticism
and the Verdict of the Monu-
ments, '94.
Critical Revino of Theological and
Philosophical L.iterature [ed.
Salmond], '91^.
Author of Deuteronomy; also used
1 )euteronomistic passages.
Later Deuteronomistic editors. See
Historical Li ikratlke.
Dalman, Grammatik des Jiidisch-
palditinischen .Aramiiisch, '94.
Die Worle Jesu, i., '98.
Aramiiisch - Xcuhcbriiisches
IVorlcrbuch zu Tar gum,
Tal'niid, und .Midrascli,
Teil i., '97.
A. B. Davidson :
Book of Job in Camb. Bible, '84.
Book of Ezekiel in Cambridge
Bible, '92.
W. Smith, .-/ Diitionary of the
Bible, comprising its .4ntii]uities,
Biography, Geography, and Xat-
ural LLt story, 3 vols., ''63 ; ZW ->,
2nd ed. of vol. i., in two parts,
'93-
or, J. Hastings, ./ Dictionary of
the Bible, dealing with its L^an-
guage. Literature, and Contents,
including the Biblical Iheology,
vol. i., '98; vol. ii., '99.
or, F. Vigouroux, Dictionnaire de
la Bible, '95^.
Alph. de Candolle, Origine des
LHantes Cultivces, '82; i-", '96.
ET in the Lnternational Scien-
tific Series.
De Gentibus. .See Wellhausen.
Delitzsch, Franz (1813-90), author
of many commentaries on books
of the OT, etc.
or, Delitzsch, Friedrich, son of pre-
ceding, author of:
Wo lag das Paradiesf ('Si).
The LLebre^v Language viewed
XX ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
in the light of Assyrian Re-
search, '>i^.
Prol. . Prolegomena cines neuen hehr.-
aram. IVorterhuchszuin A 'I\
'86.
Ass. HWB Assyrisches Handworterbuch,
'96.
DHM Ep. Denk. D. H. Muller, Epigraphische Denk-
vi'dler aus Arabien, '89.
Die Propheten in ihren ursprUnglichen Form.
Die Grundgesetze der ursemi-
tischen Foesie, 2 Bde., '96.
Di. . . . Dillmann, August (1823-94),
in KGH : Genesis, yA ed. of
Knobel,'75; **>, '82 ; C", '92 (LT
by Stevenson, '97) ; Exodus und
Leviticus, 2nd ed. of Knobel,
'80; 3rd ed. by Ryssel, '97;
Numb., Dent., Josh., 2nd ed. of
Knobel, "id; Isaiah, <•'', '90; (edd.
1-3 by Knobel; 4th ed. by Uie-
stel; 6th ed. by Kittel, '98).
Did. . . Didache. See APOCRVi'HA, § 31, i.
Dozy, Suppl. . Supplement aux Dictionnaires
Arabes, 'T)ff.
Dr. . . . Driver, S. R. :
IIT. . A Treatise on the Use of the
lenses in Hebrew, '74;
'81; (•■», '92.
(2).
TBS . Notes on the Hebrew Text of
the Books of Samuel, '90.
Introd. . An Introduction to the Litera-
ture of the Old Testament,
(I), 'gi; (6)^ 'g7_
Par. Ps. . Parallel Psalter, '98.
Dent. . Deuteronomy in 7 he Inter-
national Critical Commen-
tary, '95.
Joel and Amos in the Cambridge Bible, '97.
Lev. SPOT SB or (Eng.), Leviticus, as-
sisted by H. A. White, '98.
' Hebrew Authority ' in Authority and Archteology,
Sacred and Profane, ed.
David G. Hogarth, London,
'99.
Is. . . Lsaiah, /lis Life and Times, in
' Men of the Bible,' (2), '93.
Drus. . . Drusius (1550-1616) in Critici
Sacri.
Du. . . . Bernhard Duhm :
Proph. . Die I heologie der Propheten
als Grundlage fiir die innere
Entivicklungsgeschichte der
israelitischen Religion, '75.
Is. . . Das Buch Jesaia in HK, '92.
Ps. . . Die Psalmen erklart, in KHC,
'99.
E . . . Old Hebrew historical document.
E2 . . . Later additions to E. See His-
torical Literature.
^^(3) . . Encyclopa:dia Britannica, 9th ed.,
'75-'88.
Ebers, Aeg. BM Georg Ebers ('37-'98), Aegypten u.
die Bi'uher Mose's, i., '68.
Einl. . . Einleitung (Introduction). See
Cornill, etc.
Eng. Hist. Rev. The English Historical Review,
'86/:
Ent\^st^. . . Die Entstehung des Judenthums.
See Ed. Meyer.
ET . . . English translation.
Eth. . . Ethiopic.
Eus. . . Eusebius of Cnesarea (2nd half of
3rd to 1st half of 4th cent. A.D.) :
Onom. or OS Onomasticon ; ' On the Names
of Places in Holy Scripture.'
LIE .
P\_ra-p.-\E[v.]
Chron.
EV
Ew.
L.ehrb.
Gesch.
Dichter
Proph.
L^xpos.
Exp\^os'\. T{imes'\
/and/-. . .
FFP
Field, Hex.
F[r.-\HG .
Fl. and Hanb.
I'harm.
Floigl, GA
Founders .
Fr. .
Fra. .
Frankenb.
Frazer
Fund.
<@ .
GA .
GA .
GBA
GASm.
GAT
Gei. Urschr.
Ilistoria Ecclesiastica.
Praparatio Evangelica.
Chronicon.
English version (where authorised
and revised agree).
Hcinrich Ewald (1803-75) =
Lehrbuch der hebr'dischcn
Sprache, '44;
{«).
'70.
Ges.
Thes.
Gramm.
Lex. .
Ges..Bu.
Geschichte des Volkes Israel ;
(3' i.-vii, •64-'68 ; ET C^') 5
vols. (jire-Christian period),
'69-'8o.
Die Dichter des Alien Bundei
(3), '66/
Die Propheten, '40/; <2), '67
/; ET'76/
Expositor, 5th ser., '95/
Expository 'Times, '89-'90/.
following (verse, or verses, etc.).
Fauna and Flora of Palestine.
See Tristram.
F. Field, Origenis Hexaplorum qua
supersuntsive Veterum Inter pre-
tum GriEcorum in totum Vetus
7'estamentum Fragmenta ('75).
Fragmenta Historicorum Grcsco-
ruin, ed. Muller, 5 vols., '4i-'72,
F. A. Fluckiger and D. Hanbury,
Pharmacographia.
P"loigl, Geschichte des semitischcn
Altertums in 'Tabellen, '82.
I'ounders of Old 7'estament Criti-
cism. See Cheyne.
O. F. Fritzsche (1812-96), com-
mentaries on books of the Apo-
crypha in A'lIG.
Sigismund Friinkel, Die aramdi-
schen Fremdivorter im Arabi-
schcn, '86.
\V. Frankenberg, Die Spriiche in
KII, '98.
J. G. Frazer :
Totemism ('87).
Golden Bough ('90); (-' in prep.
Pausanias's Description of
Greece (translation and
notes, 6 vols., '98).
J. Marcjuart, Fundamente israeliti-
scher u. Jiidischer Geschichte, '96.
Greek Version, see above, p. xv./
and Text and Versions.
Geschichte d. Alterthums (see
Meyer, Floigl).
Geschichte Agyptens (see Meyer).
Gesch. Babyloniens u. Assyriens
(see Winckler, Hommel)^
George Adam Smith. See Smith.
Reuss, Geschichte des Alien Testa-
ments, '81; <->, '90.
A. Geiger, Urschrift und Ueber-
setzungen der Bibel in ihrer Al>-
h'iingigkeit von der inneren Ent-
wickluiig des Judenthums, '57.
F. H. W. Gesenius (i 786-1842):
Thesaurus Philologicus Criti-
cus Ling. Ilebr. et Chald.
Veteris Testamenti, '35-'42.
Hebrdische Grammatik, '13;
(2«), by E. Kautzsch, '96;
ET '98.
Hebraisches u. chalddisches
Llandiv'drterbttch, '12 ; <">
(Muhlauu.Volck), '90; <»«
(Buhl, with Socin and Zim-
mern),'95; C^) (jjuhl), '99.
Gesenius Buhl. See above, Ges.
ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES xxi
Geuh.
GGA
GGN
GI .
Gi[nsb].
GJV
Glaser
Skizze
Gr.
Gra.
Gesch.
Ps. .
Gr. Ven.
GVI
HA or Hebr.
Arch.
Hal.
Mil. .
Hamburger
Harper, ABL
HC
Heh.
Hebraica
Heid.
HersL
Herzog, RE
Ifet Herstel
Hex.
Iltxap.
no .
Ilierob.
Hilgf. .
Hist.
Hist. Proph.
Man.
Geschichle (History).
G'dttitiffisc/ie GeUhrte Anzeigen,
GottiHt^ische Gelehrte jVachrichten,
'45 f-
Geschichle Israels. See Winckler.
Giiisburg, Massoretico-critical Edi-
tion of the Hebrew Bible, '94, In-
troduction, '97.
Geschichle des jiidischen Volkes.
See Schiirer.
Eduanl Cilaser :
Skizze der Gesch. u. Ceogr.
Arabiens, '90.
K. Grimiii (1807-91). Maccabees
('53) and \Visdoin(^(M) mA'GH.
Heiiirich Gratz :
Geschichle der Juden, i.-x., '74
ff.\ ET i.-v., '9i-'92.
Kritischer Commentar zi
Psalmen, '82/
Versio Veneta. See Text.
Gesch. des Volkes Israel.
EvvakI, Stade, etc.
den
See
HiO].
HK
'The Law of Holiness' (Lev. 17-
26). See Leviticus.
Hebraische Arch'dologie. See Ben-
zinger, Nowack.
Joseph Ilalevy. The inscriptions
in Rapport stir tine Mission Ar-
chi-ologiqiie dans le Yemen ('72)
are cited : Hal. 535, etc.
Melanges d^ Epigraphie et
d ' A rchcologie Sew itiques, ' 74.
Hamburger, Realencyclopadie fiir
Bibel tind Talmud, \. '70, (2) '92;
ii. '83, suppl. '86, '91/, '97.
R. F. Harper, Assyrian and Baby-
lonian letters belonging to the
A'[Kuyunjik] collection of the
British Museum, '93^.
Hand-Corn mentar zutn Neuen
Testament, bearbeitet von H. J.
Holtzmann, R. A. Lipsius, P. W.
Schmiedel, H. v. Soden, 'Sg-'gi.
Hebrew.
Continued as AJSL {q.v.).
Reste arabischen Ileidentums. See
Wellhausen.
Kosters, Ilet Herstel 7'an Israel in
het Perzische I'ijdvak. '93; Germ,
transl. Die iViederherstellung
Israels, '95.
See PRE.
See Ilerst. . *
Hexateuch (see Kuenen, Ilolzinger,
etc.).
See Field.
Historical Geography of the Holy
Land. See Smith, G. A.
See Bochart.
A. Hilgenfeld, NT scholar {Einl.,
etc.), and ed. since '58 of Z WT.
See Schiirer, Ewald, Kittel, etc.
J. F. M'Curdy, History, Prophecy,
and the Monuments: i. To the
Downfall of Samaria ('94) ; ii.
To the Fall of Nineveh ('96).
F. Hitzig (1807-75), in K'GII: Pre-
diger ('47), Ilohelied {'^^), Die
kleinen Propheten ('38; '^\ '63),
Jeremias{\l; (-'','66). WsoDie
Psalmen ('35-'36; <•'", '63-'65).
Handkommentar zum Allen Testa-
ment, ed. Nowack, '92 ff.
Holz. Einl.
Hommel .
AHT
GBA
Hor. Hebr.
HP .
IIPN
HPSm. .
Samuel in
HS .
HWB .
IJG . ,
Intr[od]. .
Intr. Is. .
It. .
It. Anton.
J • •
h • •
Jlourn.'] A[m.;\
0[r.-\ S[oc.^
Jastrow, Did.
yl^ourn.'] As.
JBL
JBIV
JDT
JE . .
Jensen, Kosm.
Jer.
Jon.
Jos.
/[(!«/-«.] Phil.
JPT
JQR
JRAS
JSBL
KAT
Kau.
Gram.
HS .
IL Holzinger, Einleilung in den
Hexateuch ('93), Genesis in the
A' lie ('98).
Fritz Hommel:
Die allisraelitische Ueberliefer-
ung; El", Ancient Hebrew
I radition, '97.
Geschichle Babyloniens u. As-
syriens, '85/:
Liglitfuot, Horn Ilebraicw, 1684.
Ilohiies and Parsons, Vetus Testa-
mentum Griccum cum variis
Icctionibus, 179.S-1827.
G. ii. Gray, Studies in Hebrew
Proper Aames, '9O.
Henry Preserved Smith.
International Critical Commentary.
Die Ileilige Schrift. See Kautzsch.
Richm's Iland'toorterbuch des bibli-
schen Alterlhtims, 2 vols., '84;
'-', '93-'94. See also Delitzsch
(Friedr.).
Israelitische u.ji'idische Geschichle.
See Wellhausen.
Introduction.
Introduction to Isaiah. See
Cheyne.
Itala. See TEXT AND VERSIONS.
Ilineraium Antornini, Fortiad'Ur-
ban, '45.
Old Hebrew historical document.
Later additions to J.
Journal of the American Oriental
Society, '5 1 ^f.
M. Jastrow, Dictionary of the I'ar-
gumim, the I'almud Babli, etc.,
and Midrashim, '^6fjf.
Journal .Isiatiquc, '53 ff.; 7th
ser.,'73; 8thser., '83; 9thser.,'93.
Journal of Biblical literature and
Exegesis, 'go Jf.; formerly ('82-
'88) caWed Journal of the Society
of Biblical lit. and Exeg.
Jahrbiicher der bibl. Wissenschaft
('49-'65)-
Jahrbiicher fi'tr dcutsche Theologie,
'56-'7S.
The ' Prophetical ' narrative of the
He.xateuch, composed of J and E.
P. Jensen, Die Kosmologie der
Babylonier, '90.
Jerome, or Jeremiah.
Jonathan. .See Targum.
Flavius Josephus (b. 37 A.D.), Anti-
quitales Judaicic, De Bella
Judaico, Vita, contra .Apionem
(ed. Niese, 3 vols., '87-'94).
Journal of Philology, i. (Nos. I and
2, '68), ii. (Nos. 3 and 4, '69), etc.
Jahrbiicher fur protestantische 1 heo-
k^>'^ 'IS- 92.
Jewish Quarterly Review, 'SS-'Sq^.
Journal of Royal .tsialic Society
(vols. 1-20, '34^.; new ser.,
vols. i-24,'65-'92; currentseries,
•93/".).
See JBL.
Die Keilinschriftenu. d. .lite Testa-
ment. See Schrader,
E. Kautzsch :
Grammalik des Biblischen-
Aramaischen, '84.
Die heilige Schrift des Allen
Teslauienls, '94.
xxii ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
Apokr. . . Die Apokryphen u. Pseudepi-
graphen des alien I'esia-
ments, '98/!
KB. . . Keilinschrifdiche Bihliothek,
Satntulungvon ass. u. hah. 1 exlen
in Umschrift u. Uehersetzung, 5
vols, (i, 2, 3 <7, ^, 4, 5), '89-'y6.
Edited by Schrader, in coUaljora-
tion with L. Abel, C. Bezold,
P. Jensen, F. E. Peiser, and
H. Winckler.
Ke. . . . K. F. Keil (d. '88).
Kenn. . . B. Kennicott (1718-83), Velus
Teslanienlum Hehraicuin cum
variis lectionihus, 2 vols., 1776-
80.
KG . . . Kirchengeschichle.
KGF . . Keilinschriften u. Geschichtsforsch-
ung. See Schrader.
KGH . . Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Hand-
Inu/i. See Di., Hitz., Knob., Ol.
KGK . . Kurzgefasster Kommentar zu den
hciligen Schriften Alten u. Neuen
I'estavienls sowie zu den Apo-
kryphen, ed, H. Strack and
O. Zockler, '87^^.
KHC . . Kurzer Hand-cotnmentar zum
Alten Testament, ed. Marti, '97_^
Ki. . . . Rudolf Kittel :
Gesch. . Geschichte de}- Hebt(ier,2\o\s.,
'88, '92; Eng. transl., I/is-
tory of the Hehrews, '95-
'96.
Ch. SBOT TheBookofChronicles,<Zx\\:\cz\
Edition of the Hebrew text,
'95 (translated by Bacon).
Kim. . . R. David Kimhi, f/;ra 1200 A.n.,
the famous Jewish scholar and
lexicographer, by whose exegesis
the AV is mainly guided.
A'?«[j3. . . Kinship and Marriage in Early
Arahia. See W. R. Smith.
Kl. Proph. . Kleine Propheten ( Minor Prophets) .
See Wellhausen, Nowack, etc.
KIo[st]. . . Aug. Klostermann, Die Pitcher
Samuelisundder K'onige ('87) in
KGK.
G VI . . Geschichte des Volkes Israel his
zur A'estauration unterEsra
und Nehetnia, '96.
Kn[ob], . . Aug. Knobel(i8o7-63) in A'G'//.-
Exodus und leviticus, <-' by Dill-
mann, '80; Der Prophet Jcsaia,
'43. ^^'. '6i. See Dillmann.
K6. . . . F. E. Konig, Ilistorisch-Kritisches
Lehrgeh'dude der Ilehrdischen
Sprache, 3 vols., '8l-'97.
Koh. . . Aug. Kohler.
Kr. . . . Kre (lit. 'to be read '), a marginal
reading which the Massoretes
intended to supplant that in the
text (Kethib); see below.
Kt. . . . Kethib (lit. 'written'), a reading
in the MT; see above.
Kue . . . Abr. Kuenen (1828-91) :
Ond . . Historisch-critisch Onderzoek
naar het ontstaan en de
verzameling van de Boeken
des Ouden Verhonds, 3 vols.,
'6i-'65; <2','85-'89; Germ,
transl., Ilistorisch-kritische
Einleitting in die Biicher
des Alten Testaments, '87-
'92; vol. i., I he Ilexateuch,
translated by Philip Wick-
steed, '86.
Godsd.
De Godsdienst van Israel, '69— '70;
Eng. transl., 3 vols., "73-'75.
De Profeten
en der Profetie onder Israel, '75;
ET, '77.
Ges.Ahh. .
Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur
bibl. Wissenschaft, Cierman
by Budde, '94.
L . . .
de Lagarde, librorum Veteris
Testatncnti Canonicorum, Pars
Prior Greece, ^'i'i,.
Lag. . .
Paul de Lagarde ('27-'9i) :
Hag.
Hagiographa Chaldaice, '73.
Syr. . .
Libri Veteris Testamenti Apo-
cryphi Syriace, '61.
Ges. Abh. .
Gesammelte Ahhandlungen,''66.
Mitt.
Mitteilungen, i.-iv., '84-"89.
Sym.
Symmicta, ii., '80.
Prov.
Proverbien, '63.
Uhers.
Uehersicht iiher die itn Ara-
or BN
maischen, Arahischen, und
Ilehrdischen iihliche Bildung
der Nomina, '89.
Beitr.
Bcitrdge z. haktrischen lexiko-
graphie, '68.
Proph.
Prophetie Chaldaice, '72.
Sem.
Semi tic a, 'jSf.
Arm. St. .
Armenische Studien.
Or. .
Oricntalia, i., '79.
Lane
E. W. Lane, An Arabic-English
lexicon, '63^.
Z [and] B .
W. M. Thomson, The land and
the Book, '59; new ed. '94.
LBR
Later Biblical Researches. See
Robinson.
Levy, NHWB
J. Levy, Neuhehrdisches u. chal-
ddischcs Worterhnch, '76-'89.
Chald. lex.
Chalddisches IVorterhuch iiher
die Targumim, '67^.
Lehrgeh. .
See Konig.
Leps. Denkm. .
R. Lepsius, Denkvidler aus Aegyp-
ten u. Aethiopien, '49-'6o.
Lightf. .
John Lightfoot (1602-75), Horce
Ilehraicce (1684).
Joseph B. Lightfoot ('28-'89);
commentaries on Galatians
((*), '74); Philippians (<»),
'73); Colossians and Phile-
mon ('75).
Lips. I / .
Lipsius, Die Apokryphen A paste l-
geschichten u. Apostellegenden,
'83-'90.
Low .
J. Low, Aramdische PJianzenna-
men, '81.
Luc.
SeeL.
LXX or (5
Septuagint. See above, p. xv f.,
and Text and Versions.
Maimonides
Mand.
Marq. Fund.
Moses Maimonides (1131-1204).
Exegete, author of Mishneh
Torah, More Nebokhim, etc.
Mandaean. See Aramaic, 5
10.
J. Marquart, Fundamente israeliti-
scher u. jiidischer Geschichte, '96.
K. Marti :
Kurzgefasste Gramtnatik d.
bihlisch-Aramdischen
Sprache, '96.
Geschichte der Israeli tischen Peligion^^\ '97 (a
revision of A. Kayser, Die
Theol. des AT).
Das Buchjesaia, in KHC, '99.
J. Maspero :
Daivn of Civilisation, Egypt
and Chaldea ((2), '96).
Les premieres Melees des
Peuples ; ET by McClure.
Marti
Gram.
Jes
Masp.
ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
MBBA
MDPV
Merx
Mey .
GA
Entstleh\
Meyer
MGWJ .
MH .
MI
Midr.
Mish.
I
The Struggle of the Nations
— ^-SyP^' Syr id, and Assyria.
Ilistoire Ancienne des Feuples
de V Orient ('99#.)-
Monatshericht der Berliner Aka-
demic,
Mittheilungen und Nachrichten des
Deutschen Paldsttna- Vereins,
'95 #•
A. Merx, Archiv f, wissenschaft-
liche Erforschung d. AT ('69).
Ed. Meyer :
Geschichte des Alter thums ;
i., Gesch. d. Orients bis ztir
Ben-iindung des Perserreichs
('04) ; ii., Gesch. des Abend-
landes bis auf die Per-
serkriege ('93).
Die hnislehung des Juden-
tliums, '96.
H. A. W. Meyer (1800-73),
founder of the series Kritisch-
exegctischer Kotnmentar i'tber das
Neue 'J'eslainenk
Monatsschrifl fur Gesch, u. Wiss.
des Judenthunis, '51^.
Mishnic Hebrew, the language of
the Mishna, Tosephta, Mid-
rashim, and considerable parts of
the Talmud.
Mesha Inscription, commonly
known as the ' Moabite Stone.'
See Mesha.
Midrash. See Chroxici.es, § 6 (2).
Mishna, the standard collection
(completed, according to tradi-
tion, by R. Judah the I loly, about
200 A.D.) of sixty-three treatises
(representing the Jewish tradi-
tional or unwritten law as devel-
oped by the second century
A.D.), arranged in six groups or
Seders thus: — i. Zerd'lm (11
tractates), ii. Mo' id (12), iii.
Ndshim (7), iv. Nezlkln (10), v.
Koddshim ( 1 1 ), vi . Tohoroth (12).
Aboda zara, iv. 8 Mikwa'oth, vi. 6
Aboth, iv. 9 Moed Katan, ii. 11
'Arakhin, v. 5 Nazir, iii. ^
Baba Bathra, iv. 3 N6darim, iii. 3
V. I Nega'im, vi. 3
Nidda, vi, 7
Ohaloth, VI. 2
'Orla, i 10
Para, vi. 4
Pe'a, i. 2
Pgsachim, ii. 3
Rosh Ha(sh)shana,
Baba Kamma
Baba Mesia, iv. 2
Bekhoroth, v. 4
Berakhoth, i. i
Be a, ii. 7
Bikkurim, i. 11
ChSgiga, ii. 12
Challa, i. 9
ChuUin, V. 3
Demai, i. 3
'Eduyoth, IV. 7
'Erubiiij ii. 2
Gittin, iii. 6.
Horayoth, iv. lo
Kelim, vi. i
Kgrithoth, V. 7
Kgthuboth, iii. 2
Kiddushin, iii. 7
Kil'dyim, 1. 4
Kinnim, v. 11
Ma'Sser Shemi, i.
Ma'Sseroth, i. 7
Makh.shirin, vi. 8.
Makkoth, iv. 5
Mggilla, ii. 10
Mg'ila, V. 8
M6nachoth, v. 2
Middoth, V. 10
MT .
Sanhedrin, iv. 4
Shabbath, ii. i
Shgbu'oth, iv. 6
Shebi'ith, i. 5
Shelfalim, ii. 4
Sota, iii. 5
Sukka, ii. 6
Ta'Snith, ii. 9
Tamjd, v. 9.
T6bul Yom, vi. 10
Tgmura, v. 6
Tgrumoth, i. 6
Tohoroth, vi. s
•Uksin, vi. 12
Yadayim, vi. 11
Yfbamoth, iii. i
Yoma, ii. 5
Zabim, vi. 9
ZSbachira, v. 1
Massoretic text, the Hebrew text of
the or substantially as it was in
the early part of the second
century A.D. (temp. Mishna).
It remained unvocalised until
n.
Nab.
NB .
Nestle, Eig.
Marg.
Neub. Geogr.
NHB .
NHWB .
no. .
N6[ld]. .
Unters.
about the end of the seventh
century a.d. See Text.
Murray . . A New English Dictionary on
Historical Principles, ed. J. A.
H. Murray, '88 ff.; also H.
Bradley, '97^.
Muss- Am. W. M uss-Arnolt, A Concise Diction-
ary of the Assyrian Language,
'94-'99 (a-.mag).
MVG . . Mittheilungen der Vorderasiat-
ischen Gesellschaft, '97^.
note.
Nabataean. See Aramaic, § 4.
Notninalbildung, Barth ; sec Ba.
Die israelitischen Eigeniiamen
nach Hirer religionsgeschicht-
lichen Bedeutung, '76.
Maj-ginalien u. Materialien, '93.
A Neubauer, Geographic du 'Pal-
mud, '68.
Natural History of the Bible. See
Tristram.
Neu-hebr. u. chaldTiisches Worter-
buch. .See Levy,
number.
Th. Noldeke :
Untersuchungen z. Kritik d.
Alien 7'estaments, '69.
Altteslamentliche Litteratur, '68.
Now. . . W. Nowack :
Hlebr.'] A[rch.] Lehrbuch d. Hebraischen
Archaologie, ' 94.
Die Kleinen Propheten (in
//A-Q, '97.
New Testament, Xeues Testament.
Justus Olshausen :
Die Psalinen, '53.
Lehrbuch der hebr. Sprache,
'61 [incomplete].
OLZ (or Or. LZ) Orientalistische Litteratur- Zei-
tung, ed. Peiser, '98/
L/istorisch-critisch Onderzoek. See
Kuenen.
Onkelos, Onqelos. See Targ.
See" OS.
Origin of the Psalter. See Cheyne.
Onontastica Sacra, containing the
' name-lists ' of Eusebius and
Jerome (Lagarde, <-*, '87; the
pagination of i^) printed on the
margin of (2) is followed).
OT . . . Old Testament.
OTJC . . Old Testament in the Jewish
Church. See W. R. Smith.
Kl. Proph.
NT .
Ol[sh]. .
Ps. .
Lehrb.
Ond.
Onk., Onq
Onom,
OPs.
OS. .
P
P2
Pal.
Palm.
Pal. Syr.
PA OS
Pat. Pal. .
PE .
PEEQiu. 5/.]
PEFMlem.-]
Priestly Writer. See Hist. Lit.
Secondary Priestly Writers.
F. Buhl, Geographic des alien Pal-
astina, '96. See also Baedeker
and Reland.
Palmyrene. See Aramaic, § 4.
Palestinian Syriac or Christian
Palestinian. See Aramaic, § 4.
Proceedings of American Oriental
Society, 'S^ff- (printed annually
at end of/.-/ (95).
Wo lag das Paradies ? See
Delitzsch.
Sayce, Patriarchal Palestine, '95.
Pmparatio I-'.vangelica. See Euse-
bius.
Palestine Exploration Fund
[founded '65] Quarterly State-
ment, '69^.
Palestine /exploration Fund Me-
moirs, 3 vols., '8 1 -'83.
ABBREVIATIONS. SYMBOLS. AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
Per.-Chip.
Pers.
Pesh.
Ph., Phoen.
PRE
Preuss. Jahrbb.
Prim. Cult.
Proph. Is.
Prol.
Prot. KZ .
PSBA
PS Thes.
Pun.
R .
RjE .
Rd .
Rp .
1-5R
Rab.
Rashi
Rec. Trav.
REJ
Rel. Pfl/. .
Rev.
Rev. Sem.
Ri. Sa. .
Rob.
BR
LBR or BR iv.
or ^y?(2) iii.
Perrot and Chipiez :
Histoire de PArt dans Panti-
quite. Agypte — Assyrie —
Perse — Asie Mineuere —
Grece — £trurie — Rome;
'81 #.
ET: Ancient Egypt, '83;
Chaldaa and Assyria, '84;
Phcenicia and Cyprus, '85;
Sardinia, Judaa, etc., '90;
Primitive Greece, '94.
Persian.
Peshltta, the Syriac vulgate (2nd-
3rd cent.). Vetus 1 estatnentum
Syriace, ed. S. Lee, '23, 0 1' and
NT, '24.
W. E. Barnes, An Apparatus Cri-
ticus to Chronicles in the Peshitta
Version, '97.
Phcenician.
Real- F.ncyklopadie fi'ir protestan-
tise he J heologie u. K ire he, ed,
J. J. Ilerzog, 22 vols., '54-'68;
<2), ed. J. J. Herzog, G. L.
Plitt, Alb. Hauck, 18 vols., '77-
'88; (3), ed. Alb. Hauck, vol.
i.-vii. [A-Hau], '96-'99.
Preussische Jahrbiicher, '''J'2. jf.
E. B. 'i'ylor. Primitive Culture,
'71; (3), '91.
The Prophecies of Isaiah. See
Cheyne.
Prolegomena. See Wellhausen.
Protestantische Kirchenzeitung fi'ir
das Evangelische Deutschland
(vols.i -xliii.,'54-'96); continued
as Prot. Alonatshffte ('97 _^.).
Proceedings of the Society of Bibli-
cal Archaology, ^"J^ff-
Payne Smith, 1 liesaurus Syriacus.
Punic.
Redactor or Editor.
Redactor (s) of JE.
Deuteronomistic Editor(s).
Priestly Redactor(s).
H. C. Ravvlinson, I'he Cuneiform
Inscriptions of Western Asia,
i.-v. ('61-84; iv. t-'), '91).
Rabbinical.
i.e. Rabbenu Shelomoh Yishaki
(1040- 1 1 05), the celebrated
Jewish commentator.
Recueil de travaux relatifs a la
philol. et a V Archeol. egypt. et
assyr. '-joff.
Revue des Etudes jtiives, \., '80; ii.
and iii., '81; and so on.
Reland, Pahsstina ex Monumentis
veteribus illustrata, 2 vols., 1714.
Revue,
Revue semitique, '93 _^.
Die Biicher Richter u. Samuel.
See Budde.
Edward Robinson:
Biblical Researches in Pales-
tine, Alt. Sinai, and Arabia
Petraa, a journal of travels
in the year 1838 (i.-iii., '41
= i^/v'<-'), i.-ii., '56).
Later Biblical Researches in Pales-
tine and the adjacent Regions, a
journal of travels in the year
1852 ('56).
Physical Geography of the Holy
Land, '65.
Rys.
Saad.
Sab.
Sab. Denkm.
Sam.
SB AW
Roscher . . Ausfiihrliches Lexikon d. Griech-
ischen u. Romischen Mythologie
('84/:).
RP . . . Records of the Past, being English
translations of the Ancient Monu-
ments of Egypt and Western
Asia, ed. S. Birch, vols, i.-xii.
('73-'8i ). New series [A'/A-')] ed.
A. H. Sayce, vols, i.-vi., '88-92.
See A.SSYRIA, § 35.
RS or Rel. Sem. Religion of the Semites. See W.
R. Smith.
RV . . . Revised Version (NT, '80; OT,
'84; Apocrypha, '95).
RWB . . G.B. Winer(i789-i858),5?Mjf//d'i
Real-worterbuch, '20; (3)^ 2 vols.,
'47/
Ryssel; cp. Dillmann, Bertheau.
R. Sa'adya (Se'adya; Ar. Sa'Id),
the tenth century Jewish gram-
marian and lexicographer (b,
892); Explanationsofthe//rt/tf.v-
legomena in the 0 1', etc.
Sabaean, less fittingly called
Himyaritic; the name given to
a class of S. Arabian inscrip-
tions.
Sabaische Denkm'dler, edd. Miiller
and Mordtmann.
Samaritan.
Sitzungsberichte der Berlinischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften.
SBE . . The Sacred Books of the East,
translated by various scholars
and edited by the Rt. Hon. F.
Max Miiller, 50 vols. 1879^.
SBOT {Yxig.') [Otherwise known as the Poly-
chrome Bible'] The Sacred Books
of the Old Testament, a new Eng.
transl., with Explanatory Notes
and Pictorial Illustrations ; pre-
pa red by em inent biblical schola rs
of Europe and of America, and
edited, with tJie assistance of
Horace Iloiuard Eurness, by Paul
Haupt, '97/:
SBOT (Heb.) , Haupt.. The Sacred Books of the Old
Testament ; a critical edition of
the Hebreio text, printed in
colours, with notes, prepared by
eminent biblicalscholars of Europe
and America, under the editorial
direction of Paul Haupt, '93^.
Sch'opf. . . Gunkel, Schopfung und Chaos in
Urzeit u. Endzeit, '95.
Schr. . . E. Schrader ; editor of KB
iq.v.-] :
KGF . Keilinschriften u. Geschichts-
forschung, '78.
KA T . D ' Keilinschriften u. d. Alte
Testament,'' ■]2; ''-'>, ''?>},.
COT . Eng. transl. of KAT(^-^ by
O. C. Whitehouse, The
Cuneiform Inscriptions and
* the Old Testament, 2 vols.,
'85, '88 (the pagination of
the German is retained in
the margin of the Eng. ed.).
Schiir. . . E. Schurer:
GJV . Geschichte des jiidischen Volkes
im Zeitalter Jesu Christi ;
i. Einleitung u. Politische Ge-
schichte, '90; ii. Die Inneren
Zustande Paliistinas u. des
Judischen Volkes im Zeitalter
ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
Hist.
Selden
Sem.
Sin.
Smend, Listen
Smith
GASm.
HG
WRS.
OTJC
Proph.
Kin.
KleL'\Slem.
SP
Spencer
SS .
St., Sta. .
GVI .
Abh.
St. Kr. .
Stad. m. m.
Stud. Bibl.
Sw. .
SWAW
Jesu Christi, '86; new ed. vol.
ii. Die Inneren Zustande, '98,
vol. iii. Das Judenthum in der
Zerstrcuung u. die jiidische Lite-
ratur, '98.
ET of above {'90 ff.). Vols. 1/
{i.e , Div. i. vols, i /) = vol. i
of German; vols. 3-5 (/.<•., Div.
ii. vols. 1-3) = vol. 2 of German
[= vols, ii., iii of (3)].
, J. Selden, de Jure naturali et
gentium juxta disciplinatn Ebnc-
oruin, 7 i)ks., 1665.
de Diis Syr is, 1 61 7.
Semitic.
Sinaitic; see Aramaic, § 4.
Smend, Die Listen der Biicher
Esra u. A'ehemia/i, '81.
George .Vdani Smith :
T/ie LListorical Geography of
the Holy L.and, especially in
relation to the History of
Lsrael and of the Early
Church, '94 (additions to <••',
'96).
William Robertson Smith C'46-'94 :
The Old Testament in the Jewish
Church,'2,\ ; <-', revised and much
enlarged, '92; (Germ, transl. by
Rothstein, '94).
The Prophets of Lsrael and their
place in LListory, to the close of
the eighth century B.C., '82; (-',
with introduction and addi-
tional notes by T. K. Cheyne,
'95-
Kinship and Marriage in Early
Arabia, '85.
] Lectures on the Peligion of the
Semites: 1st ser.. The Funda-
mental Institutions, '89; new
and revised edition {PS(-1), '94;
Germ, transl. by Stube, '99.
[The MS notes of the later Burnett
Lectures — on Priesthood, Divina-
tion and Prophecy, and Semitic
Polytheism and Cosmogony —
remain unpublished, but are
occasionally cited by the editors
in the Encyclopiedia Biblica as
' Burnett Lects. MS '].
A. P. Stanley, Sinai and Palestine
in connection with their history,
'56, last ed. '96.
De Legibus LLebrivorum Ritualibus
(2 vols. 1727).
Siegfried and Stade, LLebrdischcs
Worterbuch zum Alien Testa-
mente, '93.
B. Stade :
Gesch. d. Volkes Lsrael, '81-
'88.
Ausgewdhlte Akademische Re-
den u. Abhandlungen, '99.
Studien und Kritiken, '22>ff.
Stadiasmus magni maris (Mar-
cianus).
Studia Biblica, Essays in Biblical
ArcluFology and Criticism and
kindred subjects, 4 vols., '85-'9i.
H. B. Swete, The Old Testament
in Greek according to the Septua-
gint; (», '87-'94; (2), '95-'99.
Sitzungsberichte d. IViener Aka-
demie d. IVissenschaften.
Sym[m] . . Symmachus, author of a Greek
version of the Old Testament
{circa 200 A.D.). See Text.
Syr. • . . Syriac. See Aramaic, §11/
Tab. Peut. . Tabula Peutingeriana, Desjardins,
'68.
Talm. Bab. Jer. Talmud, Babylonian or Jerusalem,
consisting of the text of the
Mishna broken up into small
sections, each followed by the dis-
cursive comment called Gemara.
See Law Litkratlre.
T[ar]g. . . Targum. See Text.
Jer. . . The (fragmentary) Targum Jeru-
shalmi.
Jon. . . Targum Jonathan, the name borne
by the Babylonian Targum to
the Prophets.
Onk. . . Targum Onkelos, the Babylonian
Targum to the Pentateuch
(towards end of second century
A.D.).
ps.-Jon. . The Targ. to the Pentateuch,
known by the name of Jonathan.
TBS . . Der 'Text der Biicher Samuelis :
see Wellhausen; or Azotes on the
Hebre-M 'Lext of the Books of
Samuel : see Driver.
temp. . . tempore (in the time [of]).
T[e.\tus] R[e- The 'received text' of the NT.
ceptus] See Text.
Th[e]. . . Thenius, die Biicher Samuelis in
A'G/L '42; (-'', '64; (3), Lohr, '98.
Theod. . . Theodotion (end of second cen-
tury), author of a Greek version
of the Old Testament (' rather a
revision of the LXX tiian a new
translation'). See Text.
Theol. Studien . Studien, published in connection
with Th. T (see Deutero.nomy,
§ 33^)-
LVies. . . See Gesenius.
R. Payne Smith, Thesaurus Syria-
ciis, '(ySff.
Th. T . . Theologisch Tijdschrift, '67^.
Ti. or Tisch. . Tischendorf, iVovum 'Lestamentum
Gncce, editio octava critica
maior, '69-'72.
TLZ . . Theoloi^ische LJteraturzeitung,
Tosephta . . See Law Litkkatire.
Treg. . . S. P. Tregelles, The Greek Xezu
Testament ; edited from ancient
authorities, '57-'72.
Tristram . . II. B. Tristram :
LLP. . 77te Eauna and Flora of Palestine,
'89.
ATHB . The Xatural History of the Bible,
<«>, '89.
TSBA . . Transactions of Soc. Bib. Archieol.,
vols, i.-ix., '72^.
Tiib. Z. f Theol. Tiibingen Zeitschrift f Theologie,
'34 #
Untersuch. . Untersuchungen. See Xoldeke,
Winckler.
Ur gesch. , . Die biblische Urgachichte. See
Budde.
V. . . . verse.
Var. Apoc. . The Apocrypha (AV) edited with
various renderings, etc., by C. J.
Ball.
Var. Bib. . The OldandNe-.u Testaments{.\\)
edited with various renderings,
etc., by T. K. Cheyne, S. R.
xxvi ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
Vet. Lat. .
Vs. .
We., Wellh
De Gent.
TBS
Phar. u.
Sadd.
Gesch.
Prol.
IJG .
lAr.lHeid.
Kl. Proph.
CH .
Weber
Wetstein
Wetz.
WF .
WH [W & H]
Driver (OT), and R. L. Clarke,
A. Goodwin, W. Sanday (NT)
[otherwise known as the Queen's
printers' BibW].
VersioVctus Latina; the old-Latin
version (made from the (Ireek);
later superseded by the Vulgate.
.See Text and Vkusions.
Vulgate, Jerome's Latin Bible:
or from Heb., NT a revision
of Vet. Lat. (end of 4th and be-
ginning of 5th cent.). See Text.
Julius Wellhausen.
De Gentilnis et Fa7tiiliis Judceis
qtuc hi I C7ir. 2 4 nume-
raniur Dissertatio ('70).
Der 7 'ext der Biicher Sa»i uelis
('70-
Die Pharts'deru. d.Snddiicaer;
eine Uiiterstichtmg ziir in-
neren judischen Geschicht
('74).
Gescliichte Israels, vol. i. ('78).
2nd ed. of Gesch., entitled
Prolegomena ziir Gesch. Is-
raels, '83; ET '85; 4th
Germ. ed. '95.
Israelitische u. Ji'idischc Ge-
scliichte, '94; <''^', '97; an
amplification of Ahriss der
Gesch. Israels u. Juda's in
' Skizzen u. Vorarbeiten,'
'84. The Ahriss was sub-
stantially a reproduction of
'Israel' in /s'^gW ('81; re-
pulilished in ET of Prol.
['85] and separately as
Sketch of Hist. 0/ Israel and
Judah, (3), '91).
Reste Arabischen Heidcntums
(in ' Skizzen u. Vorarbeiten')
('87; <^', '97).
Die Kletnen PropJieten iiber-
selzt, niit A'oten ('92; (^\
'98).
Die Composition des Hexa-
teuchs und der historischen
Biicher des Alten Testaments
('85; Zweiter Druck, mit
Nachtragen, '89; originally
published in JD T 21 39^ ff.,
['76], 1'2 407 ['77], and in
Bleek, Am/. (4', '78).
System der Altsynagogalen Paldsti-
nischen Ilieologie ; ox Die lehren
des Talmud, '80 (edited by Franz
Delitzsch and Georg Schneder-
mann); (2)^ JUdische Ilieologie
auf Grund des Talmud und
verwandter Schriften, '97 (ed.
Schnedermann).
J. J. Wetstein, Novum Testamen-
tum Gracum, etc., 2 vols, folio ;
1751-1752.
Wetzstein, Ausgewdhlte grtechische
und lateinische Inschriften, ge-
sammelt auf Keisen in den
Trachonen und um das Ilau-
rdnge/>irge,'(>T, ; Reisehericht iiber
Ilaurdn und Trachonen, '60.
Wellhausen- Furness, The book of
Psalms ('98) in SPOT {Eng.).
Westcott and Hort, The New Tes-
tament in tfie Original Greek,
'81.
Wilk.
Winer
RWB
Gram.
WMM .
Wr. .
Comp.
Gram.
Hugo Winckler:
Unters. . Untersuchungenz. Altoriental-
ischen Gcschichte, '89.
A/tltestl. Alttestamentliche Untersuch-
Unt. ungen, '92.
GBA . Geschichte Bahyloniens u. As-
syriens, '92.
A OF or AF Altorientalische Forschungen,
1st ser. i.-vi., '93-'97; 2nd
ser. (/^/<-'))i.^'g8y;
GI . . Geschichte Israels in einzel-
darstellungen, i. '95.
Sarg. . Die Keilschrifttexte Sargons,
'89.
KBs . . Die Thontafeln von Tell-el-
Amarna (ET Metcalf).
J. G. Wilkinson, Manners and
Customs of the Ancient Egyptians,
'37-'4i ; (^> by Birch, 3 vols., '78.
G.B.Winer:
Bibl. Realworterbuch ; see
R WB.
Grammatik des neutestament-
lichen Sprachidioms(^\ neu
bearbeitet von Paul Wilh.
Schmiedel, '94^; ET of
6th ed., W. F. Moulton, '70.
See As. u. Eur.
W. Wright :
Lectures on the Comparative
Grammar of the Semitic
Languages, '90.
Ar. Gram. A Grammar of the Arabic
Language, translated from
the German of Caspari and
edited, with numerous addi-
tions and corrections by W.
Wright; (2) 2 vols., '74-'75 ;
(3) revised by W. Robertson
Smith and M. J. de Goeje,
vol. i. '96, vol. ii. '98.
WRS . . William Robertson Smith, See
Smith.
WZKM . . Wiener Zeitschrift filr d. Kunde
des Morgenlandes, ^'] ff-
Yakut . . The well-known Arabian geo-
graphical writer (i 179-1229).
Kitab Mdjam el-Bulddn edited
by ¥. Wiistenfeld {Jacufs Geo-
graphisches VVorterbuch, '66-'7o).
Z . . . Zeitschrift (Journal).
ZA . . . Zeitschrift fiir Assyriologie u. ver-
wandte Gebiete, '86^.
ZA . . . Zeitschrift fiir Agyptische Sprache
u. Alterthumskunde, '63^.
ZATW . . Zeitschrift fUr die Alttestamentliche
IVissenschaft, '81/".
ZDMG . . Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgen-
Idndischen Gesellschaft, '46^.
ZDPV . . Zeitschrift des Deutschen Paldstina-
vereins, 'j?>ff-
ZKF . . Zeitschrift fur Keilschriftforschung
und verwandte Gebiete, '84 f,
continued as ZA.
ZKM . . See WZKM.
ZKW . . Zeitschrift fiir kirchliche Wissen-
schaft u. kirchliches Lehen (ed.
Luthardt), i.-ix., 'So-'Sg/".
ZLT . . Zeitschrift fur die gesammte luther-
ische Theologie und Kirche, '40-
'78.
ZTK . . Zeitschrift fiir Theologie und
Kirche, '91 ff.
ZWT . ■ Zeitschrift fiir wissenschaftliche
Theologie (ed. Hilgenfeld), '587?".
CONTRIBUTORS TO VOLUME I
Arranged according to the alphabetical order of the signatures appended to their articles.
Joint authorship is where possible indicated thus : A. b. §§ 1-5; c. D. §§6-io.
A. A. B.
A. J.
A. K.
A. R. S. K.
C. C.
C. F. B.
C. H. W. J.
C. J. B.
C. P. T.
E. M.
F. B.
G. A. Si.
G. B.G.
G. F. M.
H. G.
H. V. S.
H. W. H.
H. Z.
LA.
I.E.
J. A. R.
J. M.
Bevan, Anthony Ashley, Lord
Almoner's Professor of Arabic, Cam-
bridge.
Shipley, A. E., M.A., F.Z.S.. Fellow,
Tutor, and Lecturer at Christ's College,
Cambridge.
JiJi.iCHEK, ADOLF, Professor of Church
History and New Testament Exegesis,
Marburg.
Kamphausen, Adolf, Professor of Old
Testament Exegesis, Bonn.
Kennedy, Akchihald, R. S., M.A.,
D.D., Professor of Hebrew and
Semitic Languages, Edinburgh.
Creigh roN, C, M.U., 34 Great Ormund
Street, London.
Burnev, Rev. C. F., M.A., Lecturer in
Hebrew, and Fellow of St. John's
College, Oxford.
JOHNS, Rev. C. H. W., M.A., Queen's
College, Cambridge.
Ball, Rev. C. J., M.A., Chaplain to
the Honourable Society of Lincoln's
Inn, London.
TlELE, C. P., Professor of Comparative
History and Philosophy of Religion,
Leyden.
Meyer, Eduard, Professor of Ancient
History, Halle.
Brown, Rev. Francis, D.D., Daven-
port Professor of Hebrew and the
cognate Languages in the Union
Theological Seminary, New York.
Smith, Rev. Georce Adam, D.D.,
LL.D., Professor of Hebrew and Old
Testament Exegesis, Free Church
College, Glasgow.
SIMCOX, G. A., M.A., Queen's College,
Oxford.
Gray, G. Buchanan, M.A., Lecturer
in Hebrew and Old Testament The-
ology, Mansfield College, Oxford.
Moore, Rev. George F., D.D., Pro-
fessor of Hebrew in Andovcr Theo-
logical Seminary, Andover, Mass.
Guthe. Hermann, a.o. Professor of
Old Testament Exegesis, Leipsic.
Soden, Baron Hermann von. Profes-
sor of New Testament Exegesis, Berlin.
Hogg, Hope W., M.A., 4 Winchester
Road, Oxford.
ZlMMERN, Heinrich, a.o. Professor of
Assyriology, Leipsic.
Abrahams, Israel, London, Editor of
the Jewish Quarterly Review.
Benzingek, Dr. IMMANUEL, Berlin.
Robinson, Rev. J. Armitage, D.D.,
Canon of Westminster.
Massie, John, M.A., Yates Professor of
New Testament Exegesis in Mansfield
College, Oxford ; formerly scholar of
St. John's College, Cambridge.
BUDDE, Karl, Professor of Old Testa-
ment Exegesis, Strassburg.
K.
M.
Lu
.G.
L.
W.K.
M
A. C.
M
J- (Jr.)
M.
R.J.
N.M.
N. S.
0. C. W.
P. W. S.
R. H. C.
R. W. R.
s
A. C.
s.
R.D.
T. G. P.
T. K. C.
T.
N.
T.
W.D
W.B.
Marii, Karl, Professor of Old Testa-
ment Exegesis and the Hebrew Lan-
guage, Berne.
Gautier, Lucien, Professor of Old
Testament Exegesis and History,
Lausanne.
King, Leonard William, M.A., F.S.A.,
Assistant to the Keeper of Egyptian
and Assyrian Antiquities, British
Museum.
Canney, Maurice A., M.A. (Oxon.).
St. Peter's Rectory, Saffron Hill, Lon-
don, E.C.
Jastrow, Jun., Morris, Ph.D., Pro-
fessor of Semitic Languages in the
University of Pennsylvania.
James, Montague RiiqDP:s, Litt.D.,
Fellow and Dean of King's College,
Cambridge.
M'Lean, Norman, M.A., Lecturer in
Hebrew, and Fellow of Christ's College,
Lecturer in Semitic Languages at Cams
College, Cambridge.
Schmidt, Nathanael, Professor of
Semitic Languages and Literatures,
Cornell University, Ithaca, New
York.
Whitehouse, Rev. Owen C, M.A.,
Principal and Professor of Biblical
Exegesis and Theology in the Countess
of Huntingdon's College, Cheshunt,
Herts.
SCHMIEDEL, Paul W., Professor of
New Testament Exegesis, Zurich.
Charles, Rev. R. H., M.A., D.D.,
Professor of Biblical Greek in Trinity
College, Dublin; 17 Bradmore Road,
Oxford.
Rogers, Rev. Robert W., Ph.D.,
D.D., Professor of Hebrew, Drew
Theological Seminary, Madison, New
Jersey.
Cook, Stanley A., M.A. (Cantab.),
Ferndale, Rathcoole Avenue, Homsey,
London, N.
Driver, Rev. Samuel Rolles, D.D.,
Regius Professor of Hebrew, Canon
of Christ Church, Oxford.
Pinches, Theophilus G., M.R.A.S.,
Egyptian and Assyrian Department,
British Museum.
Cheyne, Rev. T. K., M.A., D.D., Oriel
Professor of the Interpretation of Holy
Scripture at Oxford, Canon of Ro-
chester.
NoLDEKE, Theodor, Professor of Se-
mitic Languages, Strassburg.
DAVIF.S, T. W., Ph.D., Professor of Old
Testament Literature, North Wales
Baptist College, Bangor; Lecturer in
Semitic Languages, University College,
Bangor.
BOUSSET, W.. a.o. Professor of New
Testament Exegesis, Gottingen.
CONTRIBUTORS TO VOLUME I
W. E. A. Addis, Rev. W. E.. M.A., Lecturer in
Old Testament Criticism, Manchester
College, Oxford.
W. H. B. Bennktt, Rev. W, H.. M.A., Professor
of Biblical Languages and Literature,
Hackney College, London, and Pro-
fessor of Old Testament Exegesis, New
College, London.
W. H. K. KosTERS, The late W. H., Professor of
Old Testament Exegesis, Leyden.
W. J. W. WooDHOUSE, W. J., M.A., Lecturer in
Classical Philology, University College
of North Wales, Bangor.
W. M. M, MULLER, W. Max, Professor of Old
Testament Literature, Reformed Epis-
copal Church Seminary, Philadelphia.
W. R. RiDGEWAY, William, Professor of
Archaeology, Cambridge.
W. R. S. Smith, The late W. Robertson, Pro-
fessor of Arabic, Cambridge.
W. S. Sanday, Rev. William, D.D., LL.D.,
Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity,
Canon of Christ Church, Oxford.
W. T. T.-D. Thisei.ton-Dyer, Sir William Tur-
ner, C.M.G., LL.D., F.R.S., Director
Royal Gardens, Kew.
MAPS IN VOLUME I
SYRL\, ASSYRIA, AND BABYLONLV
PLAN OF BABYLON .
DISTRICT OF DAMASCUS .
between cols. 352 and 353
" 414 and 41J
987/
ENCYCLOPEDIA BIBLICA
A
AALAR (&A\Ap [B]), i Esd.536t AV = Ezra259.
Immek, i. ; cp albo Chkkub, 2.
AARON (pnN, § 7; see also below, §4, end; A^pcoN
[BAL], a^p, [A] ; AARON). In the post-exilic parts of the
or (including Ezra, Neh. , Ch. , and for our present pur-
pose some of the I'salms) Aaron is the ancestor of all
lawful priests,^ and himself the first and typical high-
_ p priest. This view is founded upon the priestly
document in the Hexaleuch, according to
which Aaron, the elder brother of Moses, took a promi-
nent part, as Moses' prophet or interpreter, in the negotia-
tions with Pharaoh, and was ultimately, together with his
sons, consecrated by Moses to the priesthood. The rank
and inlluence which are assigned to him are manifestly
not equal to those of Moses, who stood to Pharaoh
as a god ( Ex. 7 1). He does, indeed, perform miracles
before Pharaoh — he changes his rod into a serpent
which swallows up the rods, similarly transformed, of
the Egyptian sorcerers ; and with the same rod he
changes the waters of Egypt into blood, and brings the
plagues of frogs and lice — but the order to execute the
marvel is in each case communicated to him through
Moses (Ex.7/). It is Moses, not Aaron, who disables
the sorcerers by boils {Ex.98/.), and causes the tinal
destruction of the Egyptians in the Red Sea (14 15-18).
Through his consecration by Moses, Aaron became
' the priest ' (so usually) or, as he is elsewhere called,
'the anointed priest' (Lev. 43 5 16 6 15) or 'the high-
priest' (Lev. 21 10 Nu. 352528). His sons, representing
the common priests, act under him (Nu. 84). As high-
priest he has splendid vestments, different from those of
his sons (Ex. 28); he alone is anointed (Ex.297)-; he
alone, once a year, can enter the holy of holies (Lev. 16).
He is the great representative of the tribe of Levi ; and
his rod, unlike the rods taken to rei^rcsent the other tribes,
buds miraculously, and is laid up for ever by the ark
(Nu. 176/ [21/]). Within this tribe, however, it is only
the direct descendants of Aaron who may approach the
altar, so that Korah the Levite, when he claims the
power of the priesthood, is consumed by fire from
Yahwe (Xu. I635). Aaron occasionally receives the
law directly from Yahwe (Nu. 18). Even his civil
authority is great, for he, with Moses, numbers the
people (Nu. 1 317), and it is against him as well as against
Moses that the rebellion of the Israelites is directed
(Ex. lt)2 Nu. 142526 I63). This authority would have
been greater but for the exceptional position of Moses,
for in the priestly portions of Joshua the name of
Eleazar (^.i'. i), the next high -priest, is placed before
_ J In I Ch. 1227, if MT is correct, Aaron (AV AARONtTEs)
is .ilmnst .-i C'llfctive term for priests s.-iici liy the Chronicler
to have joined David ac Hebron. In 27 lyf RV rightly reads
'.■\aron.'
- On pa.ssages in P which seem to conflict with this, see the
circumspect and conclusive note of Di. on Lev. 8 12.
1 I
3. In E.
that of Joshua. The ' priestly ' writer mentions only
one blot in the character of .Aaron : viz. , that in some
way, which cannot be clearly ascertained in the present
state of the text, he reljelled against Yahwe in the wilder-
ness of Zin, when told to ' speak to the rock ' and bring
forth water (Nu. 2O12). In penalty he dies, outside
Canaan, at Mount Hor, on the borders of Edom
(Z..22/).
As we ascend to the exilic and pre-exilic literature,
Aaron is still a prominent figure ; but he is no longer
.J .. either the high-priest or the ancestor of
-t^rs "^^ legitimate priests. Ezekicl traces the
origin of the priests at Jerusalem no farther
back than to Z.vuoK {<].v. i, § 3), in Solomon's time.
Dt. 106 (which mentions Aaron's death, not at Hor but
at Moserah, and the fact that Eleazar succeeded him in
the priesthood) is generally and rightly regarded as an
interpolation. In Mic. 64 (time of Manasseh ?) .Aaron is
mentioned between Moses and Miriam as instrumental
in the redemption of Israel. In the Elo-
histic document of the Hexateuch (E) he
is mentioned as the brother of Miriam the prophetess
(Ex. If) 20; for other references to him see Ex. 17 12
24 1 9 10 14, Nu. 12i); but it is Joshua, not .Aaron, who
is the minister of Moses in sacred things, and keeps
guard over the tent of meeting (Ex. 3:3 11), antl 'young
men of the children of Israel ' offer sacrifice, while the
solenm act of sprinkling the blood of the covenant
is reserved for Moses (Ex.2456). Aaron, however,
seems to have counted in the nnnd of E as the
ancestor of the priests at 'the hill of Phinehas' (Josh.
24 33) and perhaps of those at Bethel. At all events,
the author of a section added in a later edition of E
speaks of Aaron as yielding to the people while Moses
is absent on Mount Horeb, and taking the lead in the
worship of Yahwe under the form of a golden calf. The
narrator, influenced by prophetic teaching, really means
to attack the worship carried on at the great sanctuary
of Bethel, and looks back to the di ?iruction of Samaria
by the Assyrians in 721 as Yahwe's ' visitation' of the
idolatrous worship maintained in N. Israel (Ex. 32 ; see
especially v. 34).
It is extremely probable that Aaron's name was absent
altogether from the earliest document of the Hexateuch
(J) in its original form. In it Aaron
* ^' appears only to disappear. For example,
according to our present text, Pharaoh sends for Moses
and .Aaron that they may entreat Yahwe to remove
the plague of frogs ; but in the course of the narrative
Aaron is ignored, and the plague i^ withdrawn simply at
• the word of Moses ' (Ex. 88-15 a [4-11 «]). Apparently,
therefore, the name of Aaron has l)een introduced here
and there into J by the editor who united it to E (cp
Exonus, § 3 n. ). If that is so we may perhaps agree
with Oort that the legend of Aaron belonged orignnally
AARONITES
to the 'house of Joseph,' which regarded Aaron as
the ancestor of the priests of Hethel, and that single
members of this clan succeeded, in spite of Kzekiel, in
oi:)taining recognition as priests at Jerusalem. So,
doubtfully, Stade {(U7 i. 583), who points out that no
strict proof of this hypothesis can be offered.
As to the derivation of 'Aaron,' kedslob's ingenious
conjecture that it is but a more flowing pronunciation
of /lil'dnm. 'the ark," is worth considering only if we
can regard .-Xaron as the mythical ancestor of the priests
of Jerusalem {hue hii'drdn = bni Aharon). So Land,
De Ciiis, Nov. 1 87 1, p. 271.
See 1'kif.sts ; and cp, besides the works of We., St., and
Ki., Oorts essay ' De Aaronieden ' in 7"/j '/" xviii. 289-^5 ['84]-
\V. E. A.
AARONITES, RV '[the house of] Aaron' (pHN'?;
TU) AAPCON [H], TOON A- [A], TOON yiWN A- [I']:
yO»«i? ali>.:>jjw?; vf- sTiRPE .lARON), iCh. 1227.
See .\AK()N, note i.
ABACUC {.niAcra, 4l-:sd. l4ot. See Habakkik.
ABADDON (fl"^3X, but in Prov. 272o Kr. H^X, by
contraction ' or misreading, though the full form is also
cited by Gi., for Kt. maX ;- &nu>A[e]iA [BNA],
but job31i2 TT&NTCON TOJN Mepu)N [BNAJ, . . .
AepooN [«=•'=]; Rev.9ii, aBaAAcon [XA, etc.],
aB&aA. [B etc.], aBBaaA. [some curss.] etc.; \j^(;
PFRDiTio, but Rev. 9 II ABADDO.v), RV Job 266, Prov.
15ii272o; RV mg. Job282231i2, Ps. 8811 [12], else-
where EV Dkstkuction ; in Rev. 9ii Abaddon is
stated to be the Hebrew equivalent of Apollvos ( ahoA"
AY<j^N [XA]|. Etymologically it means '(placcof ) destruc-
tion." We find it parallel to Sheol in Job 2G6 28 22 ; Prov.
15 II 2720 (see readings above). In these cases RV makes
it a proper name, either Abaddon or Destruction, as
being parallel to the proper names Sheol or Death.
In Ps. 88 II [12] ' Destruction ' is parallel to ' the grave ' ;
in Job 31 12 the same term (in RV) is equivalent to
' utter ruin. ' Thus Abaddon occurs only in the Wisdom-
Literature. There is nothing in the usage to indicate
that in OT it denotes any place or state different
from Sheol (q.v.), though by its obvious etymology it
emphasises the darker aspects of the state after death.
An almost identical word (prx) is used in Esth. 9s
(constr. p3K ; 86) for ' destruction ' in its ordinary sense
as a common noun. In later Hebrew jnax is used
for 'perdition' and 'hell' (jastrow. DicL s.-\), and
is explained in Targ. on Job 26 6 as k:i2N n"3, house
of perdition — i.e., hell. The Syriac equivalent word
(Ij^^'') has the meaning 'destruction,' and is used to
translate 'n.
Rev. 9 1 1 mentions a king or angel of the abyss, whose
name in Hebrew is .Abaddon, and in Greek Apollyon
('AiroXXi^ou', Destroyer), the -o?i being supposed to be a
personal ending in Hebrew, as it is in Greek. This is,
of course, poetic personification (cp Rev. 68 20 14), and
may be paralleled in the OT (Job2822;cp Ps. 49i4
[15]), and in Rabbinical writers (Schottgen, Horcr Hehr.
Apoc. ix. II, and PRE^-^'i s.v.). The identification with
the ASMODEUS of the Book of Tobit is a mistake.
Apollyon has Ix'come familiar to the world at large
through the Pilgrim's Progress, but Abaddon may be
said not to exist outside of the Apocalypse. W. H. B.
ABADIAS (aBaAiac [B.\]), lEsd. Bast = Ezra 89.
OnADIAII. II.
ABAGTHA iXJlJlX. etymology doubtful, but see
BlGVAi, BAf;()AS ; according to Marq. [Fund. 71] the
corresponding Cir. is. aBataza [BX.\], which [reading
a/3a^ara] he regards as presupposing XOTSX. cp
BiGTHA ; the fifth name in the iist as it stands is
t Ko. Hebr. .'\f>rache, ii. 479 7, gives parallel contractions ; cp
BDB.
2 On the several forms see Ba. NB g 194 n. 2, S 224 b.
ABARIM
ZAeoABA [BX], ZHBAGAeA [A]), a chamberlain of
Ahasuerus (Est. 1 lot). See Esther, ii. § 3.
ABANA, R\' Abanah (HjaX, 2 K.Sizt Kt.,
n:OX [Kr.]; aBana [BL], ApB.'[(p superscr.) 3"].
ana8.[B^""k], NAeB.[A]; ^jj«/; abaka), one of the
' rivers ' (ni^HJ) of Damascus. The name, which occurs
nowhere else, should probably be read Amana ( AV mg. )
or Amanah (RV mg. ; see further Amana, 2) ; in this
form, as meaning ' constant,' it would be equally suitable
to a river and to a mountain, though it was first of all
given to the mountain range of Antilibanus, from which,
near Zebedani, the Nahr Barada (' the cold ') descends to
refresh with its sparkling waters the city and the gardens
of Damascus.^ The romantically situated ' Aiu Fijeh
(irriy^), a little to the S. of S/ii Wddy Barada (the
ancient Abila), appears from its name to have been
regarded as the chief source of the Barada. It is not,
certainly, the most distant one ; but it does, at any rate,
' supply that stream with twice as much water as it
contains before it is thus augmented ' (Baed. A;/. '2' 336).
Qo.se to it are the remains of a small temple, which
was presumably dedicated to the river-god. The clear
waters of the Nahr Barada have a charm which is
wanting to the Jordan through the greater part of its
course. This explains Naaman's question in 2 K. 5 12,
as far as the Amana is concerned. It is the fate of the
Barada to disappear in the swamps called the Meadow
Lakes, about 18 m. to the E. of Damascus, on the verge
of the desert. See Pharpar. T. K. C.
ABARIM, THE (Dnnj^il ; aBapcim [B.\L], -in
[BL], and phrases with iripav [B.-\L], see below ; Jos.
ABApeic). literally ' Those -on -the -other -side ' — i.e.,
of the Jordan — is employed by the latest documents of
the Pentateuch (P and R) in the phrase, Mt. or Mts.
of the Abarim, to describe the edge of the great
Moabite plateau overlooking the Jordan valley, of which
Mt. Nf.bo was the most prominent headland : — Nn. 27i2
[Rl TO 0009 TO iv T(3 TTfpav [BAl, T. 6 ... IT. [toG iof^avov]
[LI; Dt. 3249 (P[K]), T. 6. T. a^apt^v [BL], . . . ei^ [A],
'this Mt. of the ..\l,arim, Mt. Nebo' ; Nu. 8847 / (l'(Ri in
Israel's itinerary between the Moab plateau and the plains of
Shittim), 'Mts. of the Abarim' (to. opy) to. aftoLptifi, opiujv o.
[BAL]). In Nu. 3344 we find Ije-ha-abarim (AV
Ijk-Abarim), 'heaps of the Abarim' (to distinguish it
from the Ijim of Judah, Josh. 1029 ; see Il.vi, i), on the
extreme SF.. of Kloab. Since the employment of the
name thus confined to Moab occurs only in late docu-
ments, it is probably due to the fact that at the time
these were written the Jews were settled only over
against Moab. Josephus, too, uses the word m the
same limited application (.1^/. iv. 848, ^iri tij 6fxi t(^
A^ap€i), and Eusebius (05<2>2164. 'A^apeifi) so quotes
it as employed in his own day. But there are traces
in the OT of that wider application to the whole trans-
Jordanic range which the very general meaning of
Abarim justifies us in supposing to have been its original
application. In Jer. 222o (RV), Abarim (AV 'the
passages ' ; ©"*«<0, dividing the word in two, t6 n^pav
T^s ea\d(rar]i) is ranged with Lebanon and Bashan —
that is to say, is probably used as covering both Gilead
and Moab; — and in the corrupt text of Ez. 39ii,
' the valley of the passengers,' as AV gives it (similarly
RV), most probably should rather be ' a valley of [Mt.]
Abarim ' (nnnv for D-iny ; so Hi., Co., Siegfr., Bu. ).
If so, that extends the name to Ba.shan. Thus the
plural noun Abarim would denote the K. range in its
entire e.vtent— being, in fact, practically equiv.alent to
the preposition -i^y (originally a singular noun from the
1 Rev. William Wright, formerly of Damascus, states that
•the river whose water is most prized is called the Abanias,
doubtless the Abana ' (Leisure Hour, 1874, p. 284 ; so Exf>ositor,
Oct. 1896, p. 204). Is the name due to a confusion wuh Nahr
Banias (certainly not the ancient Amana)? No Abanias is men-
tioned in Porter's FtTe Years in Damascus or in Barton and
Drake's Umxplortd Syria.
ABBA
same root). There is no instance of the name earlier
than Jeremiah. Targ. Nu. 27 la Ut. 3249 g'ves units
As seen from W. Palestine this range forms a con-
tinuous mountain-wall, at a pretty constant level, which
is broken only by the valley - mouths of the Yarmuk,
Zerka or Jabbok, and Arnon. Across the gulf of the
Jordan valley it rises with great iiuprcssiveness, and
constitutes the eastern horizon (cp Stanley, SP ;
GASm, //(/' 53, 519, 548). The hardly varying edge
masks a considerable difference of level l)ehind. On
the whole the level is maintained from the foot of
Hermon to the S. end of the Dead Sea at a height of from
2000 to 3000 feet alxjvc the ocean. The Ijasis through-
out is limestone. N. of the Yarmuk this is deeply
covered by volcanic deposits, and there are extinct craters
NE. of the I^ake of Galilee. Hetween the Yarmak
and the Wady Hesbiin, at the N. end of the Dead Sea,
run transverse ridges, cut by dt«p wadies, and well
wooded ;is far S. as the Zerka. S. of Wady Hesban
rolls the breezy treeless plateau of Moal , indented in
its western edge by short wadies rising cjuickly to the
plateau level, with the headlands that are more properly
the Mts. of Abarim between them ; and cut right through
to the desert by the great trenches of the wadies, Zerka,
Main, and Mojib or Arnon. Kor details see A.sui:)OTH-
PlSG.Ml, B.\M()T1I-BAAI., Beth-Feor, Moab, Nkbo,
PiSGAH, Zoi'HiM, etc., with authorities quoted there.
On .\u. .3347 see Wandkkings, §11. G. A. s.
ABBA (aBBa [Ti- WH], i.e. N3S, Ab, 'father," in
the 'emphatic stale'), an Aram, title of God used by
Jesus and his contemporaries, and retained by Greek-
speaking Christian Jews. See Mk. 14 36 Kom. 815 Gal.
46t ; where in each case 6 van/jp is subjoined.
ABDA (Nl^y, § 51, frequent in Phoen. and Aram.
On the form cp Kenan, A'/i/ v. i65y. ['82], and see
Na.mes, §§ 37, 51).
1. Father of Adoiiiram (i K. 46 ; afiam [A] ; tApa [B] ; ejoofi
(Lj).
2. Levite in list of inh.ibitants of Jerusalem (see EzR.\, ii. $ 5/',
f I5[i|rt), Neh. ni7(a/M«[i<ca.inK. ^\>], LU,pT,p[t(*], ^^P [B],
lui. [Al, a^iiasll.j) iCh. yi6, OBAL)rAH,9(r/.r'.).
ABDEEL (^S'^^y, § 21, 'servant of God), father
of Shelemiah, Jer. 3()26t. (Not in ©.)
ABDI O^^y, § 52. abbr. for 'servant of Yahw6'?
cp I'ahii. n^y, and see Okadiah ; aBAia [I-])-
1 . Father of Kish, a Levite under Hezekiah, mentioned
in the genealogy of ETHAN [^.i'.], 1 Ch. 644 [29] 2 Ch.
29.2: a/i5[6> [BAL].
2. One of the bne Ei.AM [f.v. ii. i], in list of
those with foreign wives (see EZKA, i. § 5 end), Ezral026
(a/33[€]ta [BXA], -s[L])= i Esd. 927 (RVOabuils, AV
om. , u;a/i5[eJtoj [B.A]).
ABDIAS (.iBD/.is). 4 Esd.l39t. See Obauiah, i.
ABDIEL (V^9V. i?i^ 21, 37, 'servant of God ' ;
ABAeH\ [B]; -AihA [AL]), in genealogy of Gad,
I Ch. i.st.
ABD0N(l"n3y; aBAujn [AL], see also below).
one of the four Lcvitical cities within the tribe
of Asher ; Josh. 21 30 i Ch. 674(59)1- The site has
not been identified, but Gudrin has suggested that of
'Abdch, 10 m. N. from 'Akka (Acre). The same city is
referred to in Josh. I928, where t^'^V. (AV Hkbrun ;
RV Ebron) is a graphical error for p3y. Abdon, which,
in fact, some MSS. read (Josh. 21 30, Safi^uv [B] ; 1 Ch.
674[59]. aliapaif [B], om. [L]; josh. I928, eXjSwi' [B],
axpau [ALjI.
ABDON (fn3y.§ 77; dim. ofEsED; ABAa)N[BAL]).
I. b. Hillel, one of the six minor judges (see
Judges, § ). After judging Israel eight years,
he was buried at Pirathon in Ephraim, his native
5
ABEL-BETH-MA ACHAH
place. He had forty sons and thirty grandsons, ' that
rode on three-score and ten ass colts ' — i.e. , was head of
a large and wealthy family (cp Judg. 610). Judg. 12 131$!
{XafiSufi. [.AL], i: 15 -w [A]) ; on Ew.'s conjecture that
his name should be restored in i S. 12 11. see Bkdan, 1.
2. b. Sha.shok, a Kciijaiiiitc (i Ch. 823!, afiaSuiy [H]).
). b. Jeiel the father of Gibeon ; i Ch. I
Ch. U 36 (^trafiaimv [ii], cafiiutv | A]).
Mi<ah, ;i courtier of King Josiah (2 Ch. 34 30
[H)), elsewhere called AcHlioK {q.v. 2). 5. .Sec JJtnA.v
ABEDNEGO (133 nay or NUi 131?, § 86 ; a
corruption of 133 13y, ' servant of Nebo.' which
occurs in an Aisyrio-Arain.nic inscription, CC>7"2i26;
ABAeNArw [BA 87]; q^. ">"%>! ; AnoEyAGo), th^
court name given to .Xzariah [\6], the friend of Daniel
(Dan. I7, etc.). On name see al.so Nkrgai_
ABEL (ban, § 6; aBcA [ADL] ; abei). Gen. 42
ff. There are three phases in Jewish beliefs respecting
Abel. The second and the third may be mentioned first
The catastrophe of the Exile shifted the mental horizon,
and made a right view of the sior)- of .\bel impossible.
Abel was therefore at first (as it would seem from P)
neglected. -Afterwards, however, he was restored to
more than his old position by devout though uncritical
students of Scripture, who saw in him the type of the
highest saintliness, that sealed by a martyr's death (cp
Kohler, /(^A" v. 413 ['93]). The same view appears in
parts of the NT (Mt. 2335=Lk. llsi ; Heb. II4; I224 ;
I John 3 12). God lx>re witness, we are told ( Heb. 1 1 4),
that Abel was rigliteous — i.e., a possessor of true faith,
— and it was by faith that Alx-1 offered irXdova (Cobet
conjectures ^5/oi'a) dvalav. Hence Magee assumes that
Abel had received a revelation of the Atonement (Adnt-
mcnl and Sacrijice, i. 50-53). The original narrator (J ),
however, would certainly wish us to regard .\brahan> as
the first believer ; the story of Cain and Aljel is an early
Israelitish legend retained by J as having a profitable
tendency. On this earliest phase of l^elief, see Cain, § 4/
Meaning qf the nanu. — The Massorites understood .Abel
(Hebel) to mean 'a breath," 'vanity' (cp Ps. 35*6 [7]): but
the true meaning, I)oth of Abel and of the collateral form Jalal,
must be something concrete, and a right view of the stnry
favours the meaning " shepherd,' or, more generally, ' herdman."
This is supjjortcd by the e.\islence of a group of .Semitic words,
some of which denote domesticated animals, while others are the
corresponding words for their herdnien. Cp, £r.(/., -Vss. ibilu,
' ram, camel, ass ' (but some e.xplain 'wild sheep': see Muss-
Arn. s.7>.); Aram. /laAdd/d, 'herdman' (used widely; see PS,
S.7'.) ; At. ihii, 'camels,' abhat, 'camel-herrl.' The attempt of
I-cnormant (/,« origines, i. 161) and, ranre definitely, Sayce
{Hibbert Li-cts. 186, 236, 249), to find in the name a trace
of a n.iture-myth, Aliel ( = Bab. ab/u, ' son ') being originally ' the
only son Tammuz, who was a shepherd like Jabal and .•\l)el '
(Sayce), and whom Lenormant regards as, like Abel in early
theology, a kind of type of Christ, is adventurous. The name
'son' is insufficient as a title of Tammuz (./i^a/wa//}/;) ; and
there is nothing said of a mourning for Abel's death. The
title of 'shepherd ' applied to Tammu/ in 4 R i~ i is explained
by the following word 'lord' (see Jercniias, Izciubi^r .\imroti,
50). In the Testament 0/ .■ibtaJtam (ed. James) Alicl plays
the part of Judge of the nether world, like the Jama (Vima) of
the .\r>ans. T. K. C.
ABEL (73X, §§ 89-100) occurs, apparently in
the sense of ' meadow,' in the place-names dealt with in
the following si.x articles. .\s a i>lace-name it is to be
struck out of I S. 618^, where for MT H^Hin ^3K TV
(so also Pesh.) ©"^ reads iuK [i. too [L ) \l$ov toO
HtydXov, with which the Targ. Jon. agrees (so also
RV). Ew., We., and others further change the points
so as to read : ' and a w itness is the great stone. ' Dr.
suggests as an alternative : ' and still the great stone,
whereon ' -etc. On Abel in 2 S. 20 18, see Abei.-
Betii-Maachah. g. a. s.
ABEL - BETH - MAACHAH. RV Abel -Beth -
Maacah (2S. -20.4: nayp n'31 nJ>3N. to Al)el
and Beth-niaacali,' RV unto Abel and to Beth-
maac(h)ah' [many strike out the conjunction, but the
places may have been different; cp a S. 20 15 I-
6
ABEL-CHERAMIM
2 K. 1529 BAL], eic ABe\ km eic BaiOm&xa [^l
. ■ ■ BhGm&xa t-"^]' K. aBhXa k. BaiGmakko) [L])-
Cp 2S.2O15, nrj*"?.! n'3 •"'^pnKa, EV 'in Abel of Beth-
maac(h)ah,'<>' A/3eA ttji/ Baid^iaxa [ H ], (f A. ei/ B>)9/uiaxa [A], tv nj
A. (t. BaiO^oucxu [LI; I K. l.>20, 'a-'z'yiK, XStKfjLoB [B], \P€K
ovKov (sic) Maaxa [A], \Pe\^aaxa [L] : 2 K.ir)2q, 'c'lhlK,
.\^e\ K. T>)f Ma^aa^a 115), Ka/3eA ic. t. B«pjnaax<i [A], A^eA ic. T.
Baifl/xaaxa [L); 2 S. 'JOiS (on which see Aram, § 5), 73K,
EV AuEi., (tt,) A/3<rA [iis BAL].
This place, mentioned, although in now mutilated
form [A]-bi-il, by Tiglath-pileser III. (cp Schr. COT
on 2 K. 1529), is the present Afii/ — called also Abil el-
Kamh ( ' of the wheat ' ) to distinguish it from Abiles-Siik
(see .\bile.\e) — a small village inhabited by Christians on
the Ndhr Bareighit, on a hill 1074 ft. above the sea,
overlooking the Jordan valley, almost directly opposite
to Danids, and on the main road thence to Sidon and
the coast. It is a strong site, with a spring and a
(probably artificial) mound ; below is a broad level
of good soil, whence the modern name. See Yakut
I56; Rob. LBR ■372/. (who argues against Ibel el-
Hawd, a site 8 m. farther north) ; PEF Mem. i. 85 107;
Merrill, East of the Jordan, 309, 315. In 2 Ch. I64,
we have, instead of the Abel - beth - maacah of the
parallel passage (i K. 152o), Abel-mai.m (c;d Sax,
A^eXfjiaiv [A], -/lav [B], -/xaeiix [L] ; cp Jos. Ant. viii.
124, A^eXavrj), or ' .\bel of Waters," a name suitable
for so well-watered a neighbourhood. On Judith 44X3
where Pesh. reads .\belmeholah, and K apparently .Abel-
maim, see Bklmkn (cp also Bek.Ai). On the ancient
history of the place see Akam, § 5. c. A. s.
ABEL-CHERAMIM (D^OnS ^3N, ' meadow of vine-
yards,' § 103; eBeAxAp/weiN [B] ; ABe\ AMneAco-
NCON [AL] : Judg. Il33t KV), the limit of Jephthah's
pursuit and slaughter of the Ammonites. Eus. and Jer.
(OS(-> 2255 96 10, 'A/SeX afxiriXuv , Abe/ uinearuin) iden-
tify it with a village of their day, named "A/SeX, 7 R.
m. from Philadelphia. This Abel may be any of the
many fertile levels among the rolling hills around
'Amman, on which the remains of vineyards and of
terraces are not infrequent. G. A. S.
ABEL-MAIM (D^D ^2^. 2 Ch. I(i4), see Abel-
Beth-Maachah.
ABEL-MEHOLAH (nbinO "plN*. i.e., 'dancing
meadow'; eBeXMACoAA, ABcoMCOyAa, eBAAMAO-
[B]; ABeXMAOYA(A),BAceX/weo.[A]; ABeXMeoyAiA).
-AAA(jO\a [L] ; ABii!..MJ:(H)L-L.4 : Jos. Ant. viii. 187,
aBgAa). t'le home of Elisha the prophet (i K. 19i6),
and probably also of .\driel b. Barzillai ' the Meholathite'
(i S. 1819 ; 2 S. 218), is mentioned in conjunction with
Bethshean as defining the province of one of Solomon's
officers (i K.412). Gideon pursued the Midianites 'as
far as Beth-shittah towards Zererah as far as the bor-
der'— lit. ' lip,' probably the high bank which marks the
edge of the Jordan valley proper — ' of Abel-meholah, by
Tabbath ' (Judg. 722). According to Eus. and Jer. [OS
97" 22735), Abelmaula (or ' A^eXfiaeXai) lay in the
GAdr, 10 R. m. to the south of Scythopolis (Bethshean),
and was still an inhabited village in their time, with the
name Bethaula, lir]0/j.aeX6. (though they mention also
an Abelmea, 'A^eXyued). This points to a locality at or
near the ]il.ace where the IV. Mdlih, coming down
from ' .\\\\ M:dih, joins the Jordan valley.
ABEL-MIZRAIM(DnyO ij^S [see below], neNGoc
AirYHTOY [BAL]; so Pesh. Vg.). Gen. 50iit (Jj.
otherwise \v. 10/ ) called GOREN ha-ATAD (IDXH p]| ;
AXcONI ATAA [B'AL], a. TAA [B* vi<l.], A. ATATii])
or 'the threshing-floor of the thorn-shrub" (EV 'of
Atah," see Brambi.k, i), and said to be situated
' beyond Jordan " (cp v. 10 J). It was there that Joseph
made a second mourning for his father, whence the
ABEL-SHITTIM
etymological play on the name {v. n). After this,
Joseph and his brethren carried the embalmed body of
Jacob to Machpelah for burial, and then returned to
Egypt {v. 13/. J and P). The words ' which is beyond
Jordan' (v. 10/.), however, cannot be accurate: the
original text of J must, it would seem, have been altered,
owing to a misreading or an editorial misunderstanding.
The circuitous route round the north end of the Dead
Sea has no obvious motive : had it really been meant,
something more would have been said about it (cp
Nu. 1425). For p-iM, ' the Jordan,' J nmst have written
either nna'n (less probably nK;n) — /. ^. , the most easterly
arm of the Nile (a frontier of Canaan, according to
Josh. 183) — or n,i3,i, 'the stream' — i.e., the Wddy el-
'Arish, the usual SW. boundary of Canaan (cp Gen.
15 18, where J calls this Wady, not the Vm but the
n,i3 of Egypt — i.e., ' the stream on the border of Egypt*
(Kautzsch-Socin), on which see Egyi'T, River of).
The meaning of the narrative is this. At the first
Canaanite village (the first after the border had been
crossed) the 'great company' (v.g) halted, while
Joseph and his fellow- Hebrews mourned in their own
way (cpi'. 3^) in the very place where wedding and
funeral ceremonies are still performed in the Syrian
villages (Wetz. ). The repetition of 'which is beyond
Jordan ' must be due to the editor.
It is remarkable that Jer. (OS 85 15), though he does not
question the reading 'beyond Jordan,' identifies Area Atath
with Bethagta — i.e., Beth-hoglah (q.v.), which is certainly
on the west bank of the Jordan. Dillm. is more consistently-
conservative, and, followed by Sayce (Crit. and Man. ^y/l),
finds in the trans-Jordanic Abel-Mizraiin a testimony to the
Egyptian empire in Palestine in the pre-Mosaic age, proved by
the Am.irna tablets. The exegetical difficulties of this view,
however, are insuperable.
As to the name Abel-mizraim it is not improbable that
its original meaning was 'meadow of Musri " (in X.
Arabia, see Mizkaim), but that before J's time it had
come to be understood as meaning ' meadow [on the
border] of Egypt." Cp Wi. A/tor. Forsch. 34, and
see Egypt, River of. t. k. c.
ABEL-SHITTIM (D^t2:rn bzN*. § 100, i.e., 'the
meadow of the acacias ' ; Saniar. omits the article ; aBgX-
CATTel^^ [L]. B . . ttim [A], -ttgin \y\ BeAcA [B] ;
ABiu.-s.-iTiM, Num.3349), or, more briefiy, Shittim
(D^t^tf'H, 'the acacias, cATTeiN [BA], -m [L] ; but
Nu. 25 I CATTeiM [F], -N [L] ; Josh. 2i eK CATTGI [A],
e^ATTeiN [I'M. 3i CKATTeiN [1 ] ; Mic. BstTCON cxoi-
NCON [B.AQ] (for CXINCON ? cp Sus. 54), in the Arabah
or Jordan basin at the foot of Mount Peor and opposite
Jericho. In the time of Jos. {Ant. iv. 81, v. 1 1) a town
named Abila {'A^iXri), rich in palm trees, occupied such
a site at a distance of 60 stadia (7^ R. m. ) from the
river. Cp B/ iv. 7 6, where it is described as near the
Dead Sea, and Jer. (Comm. on Joel), who locales it
6 R. m. from Livias. This seems to point to the
neighbourhood of Khirbet el-Kefrein, where the Wady
Kefrein enters the Jordan valley, and there are ruins,
including those of a fortress. It was at Abila, according
to Jos., that Moses delivered the exhortations of Dt.
The palm trees have disappeared, but there is an
acacia grove at no great distance (Tristram, Conder).
According to A'/'(-*v. 50, this is the Aubal or ' Abel ' men-
tioned among the places conquered by Thotnies III.
In Joel 3 [4] 18 d'cc should perhaps be treated as a
common noun and translated ' acacias ' (so RV mg. , and
Marti in HS ; cp rcD;' axo^vusv [BNAQ]). At all events
the reference is not to Abel-shittim across the Jordan.
Some (We., Now.) think the name has been preserved
in the Wddy es-Sant (see Elah, Valley of), but
the latter does not recjuire the watering of which Joel
speaks ; and he intends, rather, some dry gorge nearer
Jerusalem, perhaps (like Ez. 47 1-12) some part of the
Kedron valley, Wddy en-Ndr (cp Dr. ad loc. ; GASm.
HG 511 ; also, for acacias on W. of Dead Sea, Tristr.
Land of I sr. 280, 298).
ABEZ
ABEZ, RVEbezO'nN ; peBec [B], agmc [A], -mic
[L] ; .ti!i:s; Josh. lOaot),' one of the sixteen cities of
Issachar. The site is unknown, but the name is
evidently connected with that of the judge Ibzan (i/.v.)
of Bethlehem — i.e., the northern liethlehem. This
Bethlehem, it is true, is Zebulunite, while P'bez is
assigned to Issachar ; but the places must have liccn
very close to each other, and the frontiers doubtless
varied. Conder's identification with F.l lieidd, 2 m. from
Beit Lahm, might suit as to position, but 'the while
village ' can have nothing to do with the old name.
W. R. S.
ABI (*3N. so Targ. Jon. ; abbrev. of abijah ;
aBoy[BA], -efM; Jos. 'A/3/a ; abi), daughter of Zecha-
riah, wife of King .Aiiaz, and mother of King Hczekiah
(2 K. ISst). In the parallel jiassage (2 Ch. '29i) the
name is given as Abijah (n;3K, a/3pla [B : see Swete],
ap^aOve [A], a/9ta [L] ; wj/ t«'^] : ^^i^). but the
probability is perhaps in favour of the contracted form
in K. (.SotJray, //PA' 24.)
ABI, Names with. There has l)een much discussion
as to the interpretation of the names compounded
with iifii, ii/ii, and some other words denoting relation-
ship' (cp Ammi-, Hami'-, Dod-). Without assuming
that this discussion is in all points closed (cp Namks,
§ 44), the writer thinks it best to state the theory which
he has himself long held, adopting certain points (with
acknowletlgnient) from Gray's very lucid and thorough
exposition, and then to consider the religious and
archivological aspects of the subject.
The question whether these names are sentences has
long l)een answered by some critics in the affirniative,
anti the arguments of Gray {//P.\ 75-86)
1. Are the
names
sentences ?
put the student in possession of all the
points to be urged. He also ably criticises
the alternative view (viz. , that the two
elements in Abimelech, Ammiel, etc. , are related as
construct and genitive). It is usual to refer on this
side to such Phci-nician names as -j^cnnN, in which the
term of relation is always fern, in names of women and
niasc. in those of men. But this is decisive only for
Ph(cnician names, atul even in their case only for names
in 'nx and nnK ('brother' and 'sister'). Compounds
with ab ('father') are used indifferently of men and
women in Phuenician, just as they are in Hebrew. In
the latter case, therefore, at least, the term of relation
cannot refer to the bearer of the name — i.e. , cannot be in
the construct state. No doubt in Ps. 110 4 Melchizedek
(which suffers, along with other compound names con-
taining a connective i [see below, § 3], from the same
ambiguity as names containing a term of kinship) is
understood as a construct relation, ' king of righteous-
ness,' and the phrase ii.n 'ax — as we should certainly read
in Is. 95 [6] for ly <3k'- — obviously means for the writer
'glorious father' (i.e., glorious ruler of the family of
Israel; cp Is. 222i). It would seem, therefore, that
in the post-exilic age some names of this type were so
understood. But we nmst remember that in later times
the original sense of a formation may be forgotten.
Gray's main objections to taking abi etc. as originally
constructs are as follows : ( i ) The theory will not
account for names like Eliab, Joah, etc. Eliab clearly
stands to Abiel as Elijah to Joel ; in the latter case the
' On some possible hut by no means clear instances of em,
'mother,' in compound names, see Gray, ///'.V'64 n. 1.
2 The intcrpret.-ition of i>» 'an as 'everlasting one' stands or
falls with the interpretation of, e.g., Abinoam as 'father of
graciousness," and of Abitub as 'father of goodness.' Though
defended by reference to such names by Guthe {^/.ukun/tshild
ties Jfs. 41 ('85]), it is now generally rejected in favour of
'perpetual father (of his people),' or 'father (/.c. proilucer) of
booty.' Hut neither of these explanations gives a satisfactory
parallel to ' prince of peace.' We must read 11:7 «3(c 'Prince
of peace 'suggests a reminiscence of AbSalom, which the writer
probablyinterpreted 'father of peace,'/.^., peaceful (or prosperous)
ruler.
ABI
genitive relation is excluded ; inferentially it is equally
so in the former. (2) The u.se of ab with a nouti
denoting a quality is a pure Arabism,' which should not
be lightly admitted, while such an interpretation as
' father of Yah' for Abijah is unlikely. (3) A woman's
I name like ' brother of graciousness ' (Ahinoam) is incon-
ceivable.''* In favour of taking the names compounded
I with a term of relationshij) as sentences Cj ray urges that,
though ab, ah, 'am, etc., all denote a male relative, the
proper names compounded with them are u.sed in-
differently of men and women ; while, on the other
hand, nouns with ben (son) prefixed are used exclusively
of men, the corresponding names of women having bath
(daughter) for ben. He infers, therefore, that, while in
the case of names in bin and bath the element denoting
kindred refers to the bearer of the name, in the case of
ab etc. it does not.
Assuming that these compound names are sen-
tences, are there grounds for determining which of the
XtThi Vi r* *^^" elements is .subject and which is
. Wlicn paiX predicate? (1) In cases like Abijah,
18 predicate 7 ^y^^;^^^^ o„,y j^g fir^t part can be
regarded as indefinite* and therefore as predicate. We
must, therefore, render ' Yahw^ is father," etc. The
same principle would apply to Joab, Joah (if these are
really compounds). Quite generally, therefore, when-
ever one element is a proper name it must \x subject.*
But (2) a divine proper name may give place to Sn (el) or
some divine title — e.g.. Lord. Hence Abiel, Abimelech,
will be best explained on the analog}' of Abijah — i.e.,
' God is father,' ' the divine king is father.' Lastly (3)
the divine name or title may give place to an epithet,
such as ram, 'lofty.' Here the syntax is at first sight
open to doubt. The usages of the terms of relation-
ship in the cases just considered would suggest that
-ram in Abi-ram is subject ; but the fact that ram
nowhere occurs by itself designating Yahwe seems to
the writer to show that it must be predicate. Abrani,
therefore, means, not 'the exalted one is father,' but
'the (divine) father is e.xalted." Cp Adomram,
Jkhor.vm.
The question whether the connective /", which occurs
in most of the forms, is the suffix of the first [x-rs. sing. ,
or an old ending, has been variously
answered. Should Abinoam, Ahinoam
be rendered ' my father (or my brother) is graciousness "
(so Olshausen, Lehrb. d. hebr. Spr. § 277 e), or ' the
(divine) father, or brother, is graciousness " ? Gray
well expounds the reasons for holding the latter view .
Thus, there are certain forms in which • does not occur —
e.g., Abram, Absalom, beside Abiram, Abisalom. We
also find Abiel beside Eliab. Lastly, the analogy of
in'DT (Jeremiah), iri'pin' (Hezekiah), etc., favours the
theory that the names before us contain utterances
respecting the relation of a deity to all the members of
the tribe or clan which worships him. To some this
may appear a slight argument ; but to the writer it has
long tx^en an infiuential consideration. An argument
on the opposite side offered by Boscawen and Honmiel
will be considered later (see § 5).
It is not easy at first to appreciate, or even to under-
stand, the conception which underlies compound names
„ ,. . of this chiss. The representation of a
4. KellglOUS g^^ ^ jj^^. j-j^j^^.^ ^f ^ j^ij^ Q^ j,,^,, „,.^y
conception. ^ j^^^ repulsive to us than the representa-
tion of him as a brother or as some other kinsman.
Even a prophet does not object to the expression ' sons
of the living God ' ( Hos. 1 10 [li 1] : see the commentators) ;
but any one can see that to substitute some other relation
1 R.nre in ancient Arabic (see Names, | 45).
2 Kvin if in modern Ar. aim is so used of a woman (see
Namks, g 45, third note).
3 This assumes that the connective I is not pronominal (see
below § 3).
♦ The same principle will apply to other compounds contammg,
instead of a term of kinship, a title, e.g.y as in Melchizedbk
(y.7'.), Adonijah, etc., or a concrete noun, as in Uriah.
3. Connective <
ABIA
for sonship would in such a context be impossible.
Names in Abi-, Ammi-, etc., are, in fact, of primitive
origin, and must be explained in connection with
primitive ideas of the kinship of gods and men (see
WRS /^S(-> Lcct. 2). Names like Ahijah, Ahinoam,
etc. , imply a time when the god was regarded as brother.
The question then arises, May we take 'brother' in a
wide sense as kinsman ? or did such formations descend
from a remote age when society was polyandrous?
Strabo (16 4) wrote of a polyandrous society in Arabia
Feli.x that 'all are brothers of all,' and Robertson Smith
{A'in. 167/) was of opinion that far back in the Sfx.ial
development of Hebrew life lay a form of fraternal
polyandry. Now, sup[X)sing that the Hebrews when
in this stage conceived themselves to be related to a
male deity, it is difficult to see under what other form
than brotherhood such relationship could be conceived.
Of course, if names expressing this conception were
retained in later ages, they would receive a vaguer and
more satisfactory meaning, such as ' Yahw6 is a kins-
man,' or ' protector.' ^
I^astly, to supplement the Hebraistic arguments in § 3,
we must briefly consider the argument in favour of the
5. Relationship \^P^ff^^ \ll^' ^f^""' ^- ^■'''''•' ^°'
individual •^'^'shalom, My father is gracious-
or tribal ?
ness' for Abinoam, etc., based on
early Babylonian and S. Arabian
names. Boscawen {Afigration of Abraham, Victoria
Institute, Jan. 1886) long ago pointed out a series of
primitive Babylonian names such as Ilusu-abisu, ' his
god is his father,' Ilusu-ibnisu, ' his god made him,'
which, in complete correspondence with the Babylonian
penitential psalms, indicate a sense of the relation of a
protective god not merely to a clan but to a person;
and Hommel, in the interest of a too fascinating historical
theory, has more recently given similar lists [AHT
Ti. ff-), to which he has added a catalogue of S. Arabian
names {ib. 83, 85/) compounded with Hi, abi, where
these elements appear to mean ' my God,' ' my father,*
etc. The present writer, however, must confess that,
though aware of the names collected by Boscawen, he
has long been of opinion that the course of the develop-
ment of Israelitish thought and society is entirely adverse
to the view that the relation of the deity described by
abi, ahi, etc. , was primarily to the individual. This is a
question of historical method— on which no compromise
is possible — and not of Assyriology. We cannot argue
that because the Babylonians, even in remote ages, bore
names which imi>ly a tendency to individualistic religion,
the Israelites also — who, as far as our evidence goes, were
much less advanced in all kinds of culture than the early
Babylonians — had a similar tendency, and gave expres-
sion to it in their names. It is, therefore, wise to use
these Babylonian and S. Arabian names, not as suggest-
ing a theory to be followed in interpreting Israelitish
names, but as monuments of early attainments of
Semitic races which foreshadow those of the choicest
part of the Jewish people at a much more recent period.
The value of these names for explaining the formation
of Hebrew proper names may be comparatively slight ;
but they suggest the idea that it was only the want of
the higher spiritual prophecy (as known in Israel), as a
teaching and purifying agent, and of somewhat different
historical circumstances, which prevented the Baby-
lonians from rivalling the attainments in spiritual
religion of the later Jewish church. T. K. C.
ABIA (n»3N), RV Abijah. For i Ch.3io Mt. 1 7
see .Ahij.-^h, i ; for Lk. 1 sf, ibid., 6.
ABIAH, an English variant of Abijah [q.v.) in AV
of I.Sam. 82 iCh. 224 628[i3] 78, corrected in RV
to the more usual form, except in i Ch. 224628f 13].
ABIALBON, the Arbathite ('na-iyn pSSinaK, § 4.
1 Cp Barton, ' Kinship of god.s and men among the ancient
Semites,' /A'Z, xv. 168^, especially 179^ ('96).
ABIATHAR
[rAA]ABiH\ Y'oc TOY apaBcoBaioy [B]. AcieABcoN
o ApcoBooGeiAC [A], [taAcJaBihc o caraiBaBi
[L]), 2 S. 2331, the name of one of David's 'thirty,'
should in all probability be ' Abibaal a man of Beth-
arabah' (so Bu., and partly Klo. and Ki. ), the al (^j;)
in Abi-albon being a relic of Baal (7y3), and the final
syllable bon a corruption of Beth (71^3). ©'"-, it is
true, agrees with iCh. II32 (-nanyn sk-^n ; o,3i7j\ 6
yapa^aiddi [B], a. 6 yapafieff [X], a. 6 ffapafifdOa [A],
o. 6 apajiadi [L]) in supporting the name Abiel (see
Dr. TBS 283) ; but we know that early names of
persons contained the name baal as a title of Yahsve
where later writers would have preferred to see el (see
Beeli.\ua). t. k. c.
ABIASAPH (^DK^3N, § 44 ; ' the (divine) father
gathers ' or ' removes ' or [if the X be not original, see
below] ' adds' [cp the popular etymologies of Joskph],
unless it be supposed that P and the Chronicler adopted
an ancient name indeed [Gray, BPN 244], but under-
stood it in the sense ' father of Asaph ' [077C'-' 204 n.] ;
aBiacap [B], -cA<j> [FL]), Ex.624 [P], one of the
three sons of Korah, i.e. eponym of one of the three
divisions of the Korahite guild of Levites, see AsAPH,
3. In I Ch. 623 [8] [a^iaOap [B], -acra0 [AL], .^mjld/
[sic-]. Abiasaph), 637 [22] (alSiaaap [BA], -acra^ [B^'- '^"'-'b.
L], ,^^j!as( ; Abiasaph), 9i9 (a/3ia(Ta<^[BAL], ,a*^Lo/,
Asaph) the name occurs also, without consonantal k as
Ebias.\ph, f|D^3N (Samar. text omits k in Ex. 624), which
name ought to be read for that of Asaph also in i Ch.
26 I (.-jCN ; a(3La<Ta(f>ap [B], a(ra.<p [AL], .a «m7» . . Asaph).
ABIATHAR ("in^aX, § 44, i.e., 'the (divine) father
is pre-eminent'; cp Ithkkam ; aBiaGar [BXAL];
in I Ch. 18 16, ABieAOep [N*] ; aBiaGapoc. Jos. [A^i/.
vi. 146]), the son of Ahimelech and descendant of Eli ;
the priestly guild or clan to which he belonged seems to
have claimed to trace back its origin through Phinehas
and Eliezer to Moses, who, in the early tradition (E.x.
337, E), guards the sanctuary of Yah we and delivers
his oracles. It was Abiathar's father, Ahimelech, who
officiated as chief priest in the sanctuary of Nob when
David came thither, fleeing from the jealous fury of
Saul. Having no other bread at hand, Ahimelech gave
the fugitives the holy loaves from the sanctuary. One
of the royal couriers, however (see i S. 21 7 [8], with Dr. 's
note), saw the act, and betrayed Ahimelech to Saul,
who forthwith put the priests to death. No less than
eighty-five (according to MT) ^ fell by Doeg's hands,
and of the whole number Abiathar alone escaped.
It may be inferred from i S. 22 15 that David
had before this contracted friendship and alliance with
the house of Eli, and we can readily believe that,
just as Samuel marked out Saul as the destined leader
of Israel, so the priests at Nob, noting the tendency
of the king to melancholy madness, and his inability
to cope with the difficulties of his position, selected
David as the future king and gave a religious
sanction to his prospective claims (cp David, § 3).
Certain it is that the massacre of the priests at Nob told
strongly in David's favour. The odium of sacrilegious
slaughter clung to Saul, while David won the prestige of
close friendship with a great priestly house. Henceforth
David was the patron of Abiathar, and Abiathar was
bound fast to the interests of David — ' Abide thou with
nie,' said the warrior to the priest, 'for he that seeketh
my life seeketh thy life' (i S. 2223). Moreover,
Abiathar carried the ephod or sacred image into the
camp of David : it was in the presence of this image
that the lot was cast and answers were obtained from
Yahw6 : nor does it need much imagination to under-
stand the strength infused into David's band by the
confidence that they enjoyed supernatural direction in
1 See David, fan.
ABIB
their perplexities. Abiathar was faithful to David
through every change of fortune. It was with the
sanction of the sacred oracle that David settled at
Hebron and became king of Judah {2 S. 21-3). and it was
Abiathar who carried the ark. that palladium of Israel,
which David used to consecrate Jerusalem, the capital of
his united kingdom ( i K. '226). Abiathar maintained his j
sacerdotal dignity amidst the splendour of the new
court, though later (we do not know when) others were
added to the list of the royal chaplains— viz., Zadok, of
whose origin we have no certain information, and Ira,
from the Manassite clan of Jair,' — while David's sons
also officiated as priests (2S. 817/ '2026). Zadok
and Abiathar both continued faithful to their master
during Absalom's revolt, and by means of their sons
conveyed secret intelligence to the king after he had left
the city.
When David was near his end, Abiathar along with
Joab supported the claim of Adonijah to the throne,
and consequently incurred the enmity of Solomon, the
younger but successful aspirant. Solomon spared Abi-
athar's life, remembering how long and how faithfully
he had served David. But he was banished from the
court to Anathoth, his native place, and Zadok, who
had chosen the winning side, became chief priest in his
stead. To the men of the time, or even long after the
time at which it happened, such a proceeding needed no
explanation. It was quite in order that the king should
place or displace the priests at the royal sanctuary. But
in a later age the writer of i S. 227-36,''^ who lived after
the publication of D, did not think it so light a matter
that the house of Eli should be deprived, at a monarch's
arbitrary bidding, of the priesthood which they had
held by immemorial right. Therefore, he attributes the
forfeiture to the guilt of Eli's sons. A 'man of God,'
he says, had told Eli himself of the punishment waiting
for his descendants, and had announced Yahwe's pur[)ose
to substitute another priestly line which was to officiate
before God's ' anointed ' — i.e. , in the royal presence. A
late gloss inserted in i K. 227 calls attention to the fulfil-
ment of this prediction.
A sjiecial point which has occasioned some difficulty
remains to be noticed. In 2 S. 8 17 [MT ©ual and
Vg.] and I Ch. I816 [tb. and Pesh. ; MT. however,
reading .Akimki.kch], instead of Abiathar b. Ahimelech
it is .Ahimelech b. Abiathar that is mentioned as priest
along with Zadok. In i Ch. 2-1631 as well. MT has
this reading, in v. 6 also ©"al pesh. — except that ©**
reads viol ; in v. 3 these versions all read ' .Ahimelech of
the sons of Ithamar,' while in v. 31 MT (^''^l V'g. omit
the phrase ' b. Abiathar, and Pesh. the whole passage.
It is reasonable to suppose that this confusion is due to
an early corruption of the text, and that in 2 S. 817
we should read with the Pesh. ' Abiathar b. Ahimelech '
(so The. ad loc. ; Baudissin, A T Pr tester I hum, 195 ;
Dr. ad loc. ). The Chronicler, however, must have had
2 S. 817 before him in its present corrupt form. In
Mk. 226, by a similar confusion. David is said to have
gone into the house of God and received the shew-
bread 'when Abiathar was high-priest.' In reporting
our Lord's words the evangelist has confused Abiathar
with Ahimelech, a mistake into which he was led by the
constant association of David's name with that of
Abiathar. Suggestions made to evade thedifficulty — e.g. .
that father and son each bore the same double name, or
that Abiathar officiated during his father's lifetime and
in his father's stead — are interesting when we remember
the great names which have supported them, but are
manifestly baseless (see Zadok. i ). See Bu. RiSa 195/.
W. E. A.
ABIB (3*3K, i.e., ' [month of] young ears of barley ').
See Month, §§ 2, 5.
1 See, however, Ira, 3, where a Judahite orifjin is suggested.
• The section in its present form is from the school of the
Deuteronomist. But the expression ' walk before my anointed '
proves conclusively that there is an older substratum.
ABIGAIL
ABIDA, and (AV in Gen.) Abidah (jn'3K, § 44.
' the (divine) father knoweth ' ? c]) llliada, Bccliada,
Jehoiada; &B[e]lAA [BAL], aBira [AZ^], aBia [E].
aBi<\^& [I-] ; ^»ii)a), one of the five ' sons ' of Midian,
and grandson of Abraham by Keturah ((jen. 264
I Ch. 1 33+). Unexplained, as yet. except that the same
name occurs in Sab. inscriptions (yrzK. cp also auyr,
Hal. 192, 202, etc.).
ABIDAN (p^3N, § 44, 'the (divine) father is judge' ;
cp Daniel; ABleliAAN [HAL]; ahid.is), chief of
Benjamin in the time of Moses (Nu. In 222 76o6s
1024!). On the age of the name see Gray, UJ'N
202, 244. Possibly P had a consciousness that -dan
was archaic (cp Dan, §1). and therefore suitable in
the name of a tribal chief at the time of the I'^xodus.
To infer with Hommel [AHT 298-301) from such a
name as Abidan that P's record is itself ancient, is critic-
ally unjustifiable. P also gives the names SJIAI'HAT and
SniriiT.\N, which are scarcely archaic.
ABIEL (bx^SN, §§ 4, 44. 'God is father' (of the
clan?); AB[e]iHA [BAL] ; AKni.).
1. Father of Ner and Kish (i.S. 9i. also 14 sif,
-■t]p [B]) ; see Abnek.
2. One of David's thirty mighty men (iCh. II32);
see A Bi A I, BON.
ABIEZER, A\- Abi-ezer ("lir^K. § 44. * the (divine)
father is help,' cp Ahiezer ; ABiezep [BAL]: Judg.
634 etc.).
1. The clan from which Gideon sprang belonged to
the Gileadite branch of the tribe of Manasseh. In
Gideon's time its seat was at Ophrah (Judg. 624), an
unidentified site, but apparently on the west side of
Jordan. It is probable that the first settlements of the
Manassites lay to the west of that river, but the date at
which their conquests were extended to the eastward is
not known (Josh. 172 tefet [B], ax'er«/> [A], ajiu^ep
[L] ; Judg. 61124). In Nu. '2630 the name Abiczer
appears, not as in the parallel i Ch. 7 18, but in an
abbreviated form as Iezek (ni^'ht, AV Jeezer, axifj'ep
[BAL]), and the gentilic as Iezerite (niy-K, AV
Jeezerite, 6 axi-fi'fi-pfi [B], -fepi [.AL]). In i Ch.
7 18 Abiezer finds a place in the Manassite genealogy as
son of Hamniolecheth the sister of Machir b. Manasseh.
The patronymic Abi-ezrite AV, Abiezkite RV (•;«
nturt), occurs in Judg. 611 24 (irarpbi toO eaSpei [B] ; ir.
a/sJfpi, 7r. T. iefpi[A]; 7r.(r.) efpei [L]) and (j>erhaps
as a gloss, see Moore, ad loc.) 832 (ajiifaSpi [B], rrps
o^iefpet [A], Trarpds a. [L]).
2. Of Anathoth, one of David's heroes (2 S. 23 27,
a^eiftfp [B] ; i Ch. 11 28 27. 2!). see David, § 11 (a) i.
ABIGAIL (usually ^'J'^K, but ^^JUK in i S.25i8
Kt.,and^r3K in i S.2532. 2 S.33Kt.. and [so RV
Abigal] in 1725 ; and, perhaps with * and i transposed,
?''33N in I S. 25336 ; possibly we should point /'^DS, §
45 ; so oftenest ^^,^*»( . sometimes M^q^J ; cp
BDB Lex. s.v. ; AB[e]ir<MA [BAL], but in i S.253
ABipAiA [A]; meaning uncertain; ' Abi ' is a divine
title (see Names. § 44. and cp HPN77. 85).
1. Wife of Nabai, (q.v.), and. after his death, of
David ( I S. 25). Her tactful speech against the causeless
sheddingofblood( i S. 25 22-31) is noteworthy for the hi.story
of Israelitish morality. Like Ahinoam. she accompanied
David to Gath and Ziklag. and was taken capme by the
Amalekites, but was recovered by David ( i S. 27 3 30s '8).
While at Hebron she bore David a son (see Daniel, 4).
2. A sister of David, who married Jether or Ithra,
and became the mother of Amasa, 2 S. 17 25 (see above),
I Ch. 2 i6i 17. In M T of the former passage, her father
1 B omits Abigail in v. 16, and BA read ai«A^»j for aJcA^'
of L.
14
ABIGAL
is called Nahash (an error also found in ©"*, and
clearly produced by the proximity of that name in v. 27 ;
©'■ gives the correct reading, 'Jesse,' tf<r<rai), and her
husband is called ' the Israelite ' (so MT ; iapar)\fiT-qs
[B], }..\ ;«rs.^) which, however, seems to be a corrup-
tion from ' the Jezreelite ' (tefpaTjXiTT?^ [L], de iesraeli
[ed. Rom.], de Hiesreli [cod. Amiat.]), just as ' Ahinoam
the Jezreelitess ■ (i S. 273) becomes in B axfivaafi 7)
iffparjXfiTii. It is true, in i Ch. /.r. Jether is called
•the Ishmaelite' (t<r/ia7;\(f)iTr;s [BA], ismahelites), but
this is plainly a conjectural emendation of ' the Israelite'
(L indeed has LOpa.; Pesh. om. ). InaS. 17 25 the same
emendation appears in ©* (jo-^a. ). David's sister was
not likely to marry an Ishmaelite. Heyse wonders
to what town Jerome's reading can refer. We can easily
answer the question. It was the Jezreel situated in Judah
(Josh. 1556), from which not only David's brother-in-law
but also his first wife Ahinoam probably came (so Marq.
Fund. 24 ; see Jezreel, i. 2). T. K. c.
ABIGAL l/'i'^S), 2 S. 1725 RVf. See Abigail, 2.
ABIHAIL (^"H'^S, § 45, 'the (divine) father is
strength,' cp Sab. ^^PIDS :">'! th^ ^- Arabian woman's
name, Ili-hail [Hommel, .-///r 320] ; written ^'•nnX
[Gi. Ba.] in 2 and 4 ; Hommel [in the Ebers Festschrift,
29 ; cp AHT 320] compares the same name [with 11]
in S. Arabian inscriptions from Ghazzat (Gaza) ; but
h'^rVI^ is supported by ©; AB[e]lX<MA [BAL],
^jtA^^- --IBIHAirj., abihail).
1. Father of Zuriel (Xu. Ssst. a/3txaiai [F"]).
2. Wife of Abishur the Jerahmeelite (i Ch. 229+
Sm'IN [Gi. Ba.] ; a/3etxa'a ^ [B], OL'^i-y. [A], a/StrjX [L]).
3. A Gadite (i Ch. 5 14!. a)3[ejixa'a [BA], a/3n?\
4. Daughter of Eliab, David's brother, and wife of
Rehoboam (2 Ch. 11 iSf, S'.tdx [f^i. Ba.], ^a.iav\\\\ a/3.
[B^b. vid.]_ a^iataX [A], rov warpos avTou [L, who
reads 3N''7n d-hh irrnn]).
5. Father of Esther, whose name however is given
as Aminadab by C (Esth. 2 15 929t, afi[€]ivaoa^
[BNALP], and -5a^ [N]).
ABIHU (Xin^nX, § 44. "my father is he ' ; aBiOyA
[B.\L], i.e. ABiHCDr' ABiCOyp [A i" Ex. 623], abh-).
See N.\i).\B AXD Abihu.
ABIHXJD (nin''3X, § 45, 'the (divine) father is
glory,' a name probably appearing in contracted form
in Ehud [i/.z'. i. and ii.], cp Ammihud, Ishhod, as
also nin ^3X \'ibi hud], an almost certain correction of
ny *3N [EV ' everlasting father '] in Is. 95, which, how-
ever, is to be treated as an Arabic ktinya, ' father of
glory' [Che. 'Isaiah,' in SHOT]; aBioyA* [BAL];
>Oo*<o/ ; abivd), a Benjamite (i Ch. Sst)-
ABIJAH (in»3N, n^'3SI, § 44, 'Yahwe is father';
on names ending in n\ -IH^, see Names, §24; AB[e]lA
[BAL]).
I. Son of Rehoboam by a ' daughter of Absalom '
(see M.^ACAH, 3), and for three years king of Judah
(somewhere about 900 B.C. ; see Chronology, §
32). The writer of the ' epitome' in Kings (see Dr.
Introd. 178) only tells us (i K. 15 1-57)* that he con-
tinued his father's war against Israel, and that he
1 A mere scribal error, A for A ; so invariably in the case of
Abigail.
2 Yet BA have oPiou (;.f. in'^K) 5 times for Abijam. See
AnijAH, I end.
3 In ©BAi- this name is regularly substituted for Abihu of
MT exc. Ex.623 [A]. See Ahihu.
4 According to Klo. i K. 15s/ should run thus, 'Because
David had done that which was right ... all the days of his
life.' From ' all the days of his life ' to ' Abijam (so read in
accordance with the correction in T'. 7) and Jeroboam ' is probably
a late gloss from the margin. The notice resi>ecting the war
between Abijah and Rehoboam seems to be derived from 2 Ch.
13 2, where alone it is in point.
ABILENE
' walked in all the sins of his father ; ' and, since the first
of these notices is very possibly due to an interpolator,
we may confine our attention to the second. Why
then does the epitomist take this unfavourable view of
Abijah? As Stade points out, he must have read in
the Annals of the kings of Judah statements respecting
this king which, if judged by the standard of his
later day, involved impiety, such as that Abijah,
unlike his son Asa, tolerated foreign worships. It is
surprising to find that the Chronicler (2 Ch. 13) draws
a highly edifying portrait of Abijah, whom he repre-
sents as delivering an earnest address to Jeroboam's
army (for ' there was war between Abijah and Jeroboam ')
on the sin of rebellion and schism, and as gaining a
great victory over the Israelites, because he and liis
people 'relied on Yahw6 the God of their fathers.'
This, however, is a late Midrash, and has no historical
value. The Chronicler (or his authority) wished to
emphasize the value of the true ritual, and did this by
introducing an artificial episode into an empty reign.
Cp Bennett, Chron. 2>'^6 ff. (Pesh. always J^/ ; Jos.
a|3ias : in 1 K. 14 31 \hiff., MT has five times the
corrupt reading c'lN Abijam, ' a/3ioi/^ [B-A], -ta [L]. )
2. A son of Jeroboam I., king of Israel, who died in
his father's lifetime.* The account of his illness is given
in I K. 14 1-18 (MT ©'^), and in another recension in
©■*'- immediately after the narrative of Jeroboam's
return from l'".gypt on the death of Solomon (3 K. 12 24 gff.
[Swete], 13 1-13 [L]). If we accept the former version as
original, we are bound to bring it down to the age which
was under the influence of Dt. , for the prophecy in i K.
147-16 is in tone and phraseology closely akin to similar
predictions in I61-4, 21 20-24, 2 K. 97-10, the Deutero-
nomistic affinities of which are unmist.ikable. Nor is it
possible to simplify the narrative without violence. The
©"'- version, on the other hand, can, without arbitrari-
ness, be brought into a simple and very natural form.
Jeroboam is not yet king. His wife, not being queen,
has no occasion to disguise herself, and Ahijah simply
predicts the death of the sick child, without any refer-
ence to sins of Jeroboam which required this punish-
ment. The writers who supplemented and expanded
the older narrative were men of Judah ; the original
story, however, is presumably Israelitish. (See Kue.
Einl. 25; St. GVI\. 350 n. ; Wi. ATUnters. 12 f.)
Cp Jeroboam, i.
3. A Benjamite, i Ch. 7 8t (AV AniAH ; a/3io«« [B], -ou [A]).
4. Wife of Hezron, i Ch. 2 24! (EV Abiah).
5. Son of the prophet Samuel, iS. 82 (AV Abiah ; a^ripa
[L]), I Ch. 628 [islt (EV Abiah).
6. The eighth of the twenty-four courses of Priests (i^.v.)—
that to which Zechariah, father of John the Baptist, belonged,
I Ch. -'i 10 (AV Ahijah); Lk. 1 5! (AV Asia).
7. Mother of King Hezekiah, 2Ch. 29 I. See Am.
8. Priest ill Zerubbabel's band (see Ezka, ii. § 6^), Neb. 12 4
(a/3ias (L], 17 fB om. Zf.]); perhaps = No. 6.
9. Priestly signatory to the covenant(see Ezra, i. g 7), Neh. 10
7 [8]. T. K. c. — w. E. A.
ABIJAM (D»njf). I K. 14 /.f See Abijah, i.
ABILENE (aB6iAhnh [BA ; W. and H.], aBiA.
[N-'' ; Ti]), given in Lk. 3 1 as the tetrarchy of Lysanias,
at the time when Christ's ministry began, was a territory
round Abila (aBiAa). a town of some importance in
Antilibanus, and known to both Josephus and Ptolemy
as Abila of Lysanias ("A. 17 Avaavlov), to distinguish
it from others of the same name, especially Abila of the
Decapolis i^.v.). The Antonine and Peutinger
Itinei;aries place it 18 R. m. from Damascus on the way
to Heliopolis or Baalbek, which agrees with that portion
of the gorge of the Abana in which the present village,
Sfik Wady Barada, lies. Not only are there remains of
a large temple on the precipitous heights to the E. of
this village, with ancient aqueducts and a Roman road,
1 It is defended, however, by Jastrow, /BL xiii. 114 ("94).
2 I.e. '"I'^N, see Abihu.
3 Josephus calls this son *0^i>r)« (Ant. viii. 11).
16
ABIMABL
tombs and other ruins on IxDth sides of the river, but
inscriptions have been discovered, one of which records
the making of the road by ' a freedman of Lysanias the
tetrarch,' and another its repair ' at the expense of the
Abilenians." Moreover, a Moslem legend places on the
temple height the tomb of Abel or Nebi Habil, doubtless
a confused memory of the ancient name of Abila, which
probably meant 'meadow' (cp Abici,, Ahkl-Hkth-
Maacicau). The place was in fact, still called Abil es-
Siik by Arabic geographers (Yakut, 1 57 ; Mardsi' , 1 4).
The site is, therefore, certain (cp. Rob. LHh' 478^ and
Porter, Five Years in Damascus, i. 261 ff., where there
is a plan of the gorge). On the political relations of
Abilene, see Lysanias. g. a. s.
ABIMAEL (i'S0'3N. "God is a father,* cp Sab.
name -innj?D3S, '^i father is 'Attar' [inC'y], Hal.
Mt'l.; ZDMii, xx.wii. 18 ['83], and see JKKAHMKKI,, in.
I ; ABiMenA [AL] ; B om. or wanting), a descendant of
JoKTAN (Gen. IO28; ABiMeAeHA [K]: iCh. l22t.
-AAeeiA [I'])- Tribal connection uncertain, but see
(jlaser, Skizze, ii. 426.
ABIMELECH (^l^O^as ; &B[€]iMeAex [BAL], -AeK
[B* Judf,'. 928], i.e., most proliably, ' Melech (Milk), the
divine kin.ij, is father." Al)imilki and Ahimilki occur as
names of princes of Arvad in the Annals of Asurbanipal
(A'/? ii. 172 /. ); the former name, which is e\idently
C'anaanitish, also belongs to the Egyptian governor of
Tyre in the Aniarna tablets.
1. A Philistine, king of Gerar (see below), Gen.
26 I 7-1116, who, according to a folk-story in J, took
Ri'bckah to be Isaac's sister, and reproved Isaac for
having caused this mistake, and so very nearly brought
guilt uix)n the Philistines. The same tradition is
preserved in !•: (Cien. 20), but without the anachronistic
reference to the Philistines. The persons concerned are
.\bimelech, king of Gerar, Abraham, and Sarah. The
details are here much fuller, and the differences from J's
narrative are striking. There is reason, however, to
think that the narrative of E in its original form made
no mention of Gerar. In this case the principality of
Abimelech was described by E simply as being ' between
Kadesh and Shur ' (omitting the following words). In
J's account (Gen. 26) there are traces of a confusion
between two Gerars, the more southerly of which (the
true seat of Abimelech's principality) was probably in
the N. .Arabian land of Musri (for particulars on this
region see Mizraim, § 2 [^]). J's account also refers
to disputes between the herdsmen of .Abimelech and those
of Isaac about wells, which were terminated by a covenant
between Isaac and Abimelech at Beersheba (Gen. 26 17
19-33). The Elohistic form of this tradition passes lightly
over the disputes, and lays the chief stress on the deference
shown to Abraham by Abimelech when the oaths of
friendship were exchanged. The scene of the treaty is,
as in J, Beersheba (Gen. 21 22-323). On Ps. 34, title,
see AcmsH. T. K. c.
2. Son of Jerubbaal (Gideon). His history, as
related in Judg. 9, is of very great value for the light
which it throws on the relations between the Israelites
and the older population of the land in this early
period. His mother was a Shechemite, and after his
father's death he succeeded, through his mother's
kinsmen, in persuading the Canaanite inhabitants of
Shechem to submit to his rule rather than to that of the
seventy sons of Jerubbaal. With silver from the temple-
treasure of Baal-hekith (q.v.) he hired a band of
bravos and slaughtered his brothers, — Jotham, the
youngest, alone escaping, — and was acclaimed king by
the people of .Shechem and Beth-millo, at the sacred
tree near Shechem. From a safe height on Mt.
Geri/.im, Jotham cried in the ears of the assembly his
fable of the trees who went about to make them a king
(see Jotham, i), and predicted that the partners in the
crime against Jerubbaal's house would destroy each
2 T7
ABINBR
other, a prophecy which was signally fulfilled. After
a short time (three years, J'. 22), the Shecliemitcs rose
against Abimelech. Of the way in which this came
about, and of Abimelech's vengeance, the chapter
contains two accounts. According to the first of these
(jT. 23-25, 42-45), an evil spirit froni Vahwe sows discord
between the Shechemites and Abimelech, who takes the
city by a stratagem and totally destroys it. According
to the other account (i/7'. 26-41), the insurrection is
fomented by a certain Gaal b. Obed (sec Gaal, § i ),
who shrewdly appeals to the pride of the old Shechemite
aristocracy against the Israelite half-breed, Abimelech.'
Abimelech, appri.sed of tlie situation by Zebul, his
lieutenant in the city, marches against it ; Gaal, at the
head of the Shechemites, gotJS out to meet him, but is
beaten and driven back into the city, from which he,
with his partizans, is expelled by Zebul (on this episode,
C[) G.\AL). Abimelech, carrying the war against other
places'^ which had taken part m the revolt, destroys
Migdal-Shechem {vr. 46-49, .swjuel of ft'. 42-451. While
leading the assault upon Theliez he is niortally hurt
by a mill-stone which a woman throws from the wall.
To save himself from the disgrace of dying by a
woman's hand, he calls on his armour-bearer to
despatch him {in). 50-55 ; cp i S. 31 4).
Many recent scholars gather from the story of
Abimelech that Israel was already feeling its way
towards a stronger and more stable form of govern-
ment. Jerubbaal, it is said, was really king at Ophrah,
as appears from Judg. 92;* his son Abimelech reij;ned
not only over the Canaanites of Shechem, but over
Israelites also (v. 55). A short-lived Manassite
kingdom thus preceded the Benjamite kingdom of
Saul (We., St., Ki.). This theory rests, however, on
very insecure foundations. That Jerubbaal's power
descended, if Abimelech's representation is true, to his
seventy sons (92), not to one chosen successor among
them, does not prove that he was king, but rather the
opposite. Abimelech was king of Shechem, to whose
Canaanite people the city-kingdom was a familiar form
of government ; that he ruled in that name over
Israelite towns or clans is not intimated in the narrative,
and is by no means a necessary inference from the fact
that he had Israelites at his back in his effort to
suppress the revolt of the Canaanite cities (9 55)- Cp
GiDKON. G. V. M.
3. iCh. I816. A scribe's error for Ahimklech.
See .Xhiathar (end).
ABINADAB (3nj^3K, 'my father apportions,' see
N.XMKS, §5; 44, 46, or ' the father (i.e., god of the clan)
is numitKcnl,' cp Jehonadab ; amLcJinaAaB [BNA],
aBin. [E])-
1. David's second brother, son of Jesse ; i S. 168
17 13. also iCh. 2 13 {ifi-'-v. [L]). See David, § i (a).
2. Son of Saul, slain upon Mt. Gilboa, according to
iS. 3I2. The name .Abinadab, however, is not
given in the list in i S. 11 49. There may have been a
mistake ; Jesse's second son was named Abinadab. So
Marq. Fund. 25 (twva5a/3 [B]— /.<•. , JONAliAB [q.v. 3]).
iCh. 833 939; also iCh.102 (afupi'aSafi [B •»•""•],
3. Of Kirjath-jearim, in whose house the ark is said
to have been kept for twenty years (iS. 7i/. 2 S.
63/ I Ch. 137). See Ark. § 5.
4. I K. 4ii, see Be.n-.Abinaoab.
ABINER (i:''3S), I S. 14 sot. AV mg. See Abner.
1 Judg. 0 2S : ' Who is Abimelech, and who is Shechem, that
we should bt subject to him? Were not the son of Jcrubb.ial,
and Zobul his lieutenant, subjects cf Hamor(the blue blood of
Shechem)? Why should «■<• be subject to him?' For other
interpretations and emendations of this much-vexed verse, see
Moore, y«</iVi, 257.
2 On the statement (Judg. 922) that 'Abimelech ruled over
Israel three years," see Sloore, Jutiges, 253.
S Judg. SaayC is considered under Gideon. Cp also Moore,
J urges, aag /
ABINOAM
ABINOAM (DJ?i''3«, § 45. 'the (divine) father is
pleasiintntss,' cp Ahiiioam, Elnaam ; &B[e]lNeeM
[HAL], iaBin. [A iti Jiidg. 412]; abinof.m). father of
Barak (Judg. 46 1201 laf).
ABIRAM (ny3X, § 44— '•«•. 'the Father is the
High One.' cp Aui, NAMES with, § 2; ABeipcoN
[BA], aBhp. [1>] ; v-ual ! ABiRos), another form of
Abu-ram, which (Abu-ramu) is a well -attested Baby-
lonian and Assyrian name (it occurs, ct;., in a contract-
tablet of the time of Abil-sin, 2324-2300 B.C., and in
the Assyrian cponym-canon under B.C. 677).' The
second element in the name (-ram) is a divine title (cp
'Paulas 6 vfiffTos Oeds, Hcsych. ), but is also used, in the
plur. , of all heavenly beings (Job 21 22). Parallel
Hebrew names .are Ahi-ram, Adoni-ram, Jeho-ram,
Malchi-ram (see also Abram). Ahiramu is the name
of a petty Babylonian king under Asur-nasir-pal, and
Malik-ram-mu that of a king of Edom in the time of
Sennacherib (C'O 7" i. 95, 281).
1. A fellow conspirator of Dathan {i/.v.), Nu. 16
{aSapwv [A once], ojSjp. [F twice]); Ut. 116 Ps. IOG17
and (AV Abikon) Ecclus. 45 18, 4 Mace. 217! (afi^puv
[V-J]).
2. Eldest son of Hiel the Bethelite, who died when
his father laid the foundation of Jericho anew ; i K.
1634! (.4B1RAM ; L om. verse), cp Josh. 626 (5"'^'-.
See HiEi,. T. K. c.
ABIR0N(DT3N), Ecclus. 45i8t AV. SccAbiram, i.
ABISEI (./AV55/r/ etc ), 4 Esd. 1 2t. See Abishua, 2.
ABISHAG (Jk?'''?^' §45. meaning obscure ; ^BeiCA
[B], ABiCAr [■■^i' -C&K [I-]; *^*s/ ; ■n^'s.ic) the
Shunammite, David's concubine (i !<.. 1 1-4), afterwards
sought in marriage (2iT,ff.) by Adonijaii, i.
ABISHAI ('tr^N, § 45, written ^IfbX^ in 2 S.
10 lo and always [five times] in Ch., where moreover
A omits final t ; meaning doubtful, cp Je.sse, Amasa,
and for Lag. 's view see Abnek ; ABeiCA.[Bt<; A once],
aBiCAI [A], -Aei [A three times], ABecCA[L, also seven
times B, and three times A], -Bicc- [A, iCh. 2i6],
AC&l [A, 2.S. 330], AMecCA [L, 2S. 206]), the brother
of Joab, is mentioned immediately after the ' first three'
and at the head of ' the thirty ' in the list of David's
worthies (2S. 23i8/;; iCh. II20/. ; reading 'thirty'
for ' three ' with SBOT etc. , after Pesh. ). He was one
of David's close associates during his outlawry, and was
his companion in the visit to Saul's camp on the hill
of Hachilah (iS. 266). He was faithful to him in
Absalom's rebellion (2S. I69), commanded a third
part of the army (2S. I82), saved David's life when
it was threatened by a Philistine (2S.2I1617), and,
according to the Chronicler (iCh. I812), slew 18,000
Edomites in the \'al!ey of Salt (but see Joab, i).
ABISHALOM (niy^r-aX), iK. 152iot. See
Absalom, i.
ABISHUA (yV^aX, § 44, for view of Lag. see Abner ;
'the (divine) father is opulence'? cp Malchishua,
and Abi-isua, Wi. Gl 130 n. 3. See also Horn. AHT
liii. 108 n. 209 n. i, ZDMG .xli.x. 525 ['95]).
1. A son of Bela (q.v. ii. 2), iCh.84 (a/3et(7-a.aaj '
[B], a^iffove [AL] ; -^OAAsi'; .-is/sra).
2. b. I'liinehas, b. Eleazar, b. Aaron (iCh. 64/ [5
30/]. 5o[35].a/3[e]i(roi;[B.A], a^iovd, -t(70va[L]; Ezra7s.
1 See Hommel, PS/i.4 xvi. 212 ['941: Schr. COTW. 187.
2 Krmnn and Maspcro connect this name with Ab-sha,
the Egyptian form of the name of the Asiatic chief repre-
sented on a famous wall -painting at Beni- Hasan. But sub-
sidiary evidence is wanting. .See Joseph, i, § io, and cp WMM,
Ms. u. Eur. 36 n. 2. Hommel (AHT 53) connects Ab-sha or
Ebshu'a with Abishua.
3 This presupposes ViyO'^Vi, a name for which there is no
parallel in the OT, cp Samso.n, Shimshai.
ABNER
a^[e]Krove [B.-\L]=i Esd. 82, Abisum [.AV], i.e.,
a^iaovfi [343, 248], RV Abi.sue {ajieia-ai [B], a^iaovau
[A], afii<Tove [L]). Called Abisei in 4 Esd. Izf {Abissei
[ed. Bensly], Abisaei [cod. Amb.]).
ABISHUE (>V>nN, § 44. ' the (divine) father is
(as) a wall' ?cp Sab. "lliJ'^N, Assvr. Abudiiru; AB[e]l-
COYP [J^A], aBiac. [E] ; ahisvr), b. Shammai the
Jerahmeelite (i Cii. 228/.t). Derenbourg [RI-.J, 1880.
p. 58) gives -iiB-aK as a Himyaritic divine title (Hal.
148, 5). But the second part of Abi-shur may be a
corruption of nns* ; cp Ahishah.\r.
ABISUM, RV Abisue (aBicoym [243 etc.]), i Esd.
82t-E/.r. 75, Abishua, 2.
ABITAL (Vi?^3X. § 45, 'my father is dew'? cp
HAMriAi, ; but should not these names be Abitub
[Qp-aX], Hamutub [cp Ahitub]? A name com-
pounded with 7t3 seems very improbable. 7 and 3
might be confounded in Palmyrene characters ; abitai.) ;
wife of David, mother of Shephatiah ; 2.S. 84, i Ch.
Sat (aBgitaA, thc caB. [B] ; aBit. [A] ; -taaA,
-TAAA [E]). In 2 Ch. 3t)2, ©" reads A^eiraX for
Ha.mut.vi,, the name of Jehoahaz's mother. T. K. c.
ABITUB (3"1D''2X : perhaps properly, as in versions,
Abitob, 'the (divine) father is good,' see N.vmes, §
45 ; cp Aram. aO^QX I aBitcoB [BAL] ; abitob), b.
Shaharaim (iCh. 8iit).
ABIUD (aBioyA [BA], -oyt [X*], i.e., Abihud, or
Abihu), son of Zerubbabel, and ancestor of Joseph,
husband of Mary (Mt. 1 13), see Ge.vealogies of Jesus,
§ 2 c.
ABNER (inX. § 44. but in iS. 1450 l.^aX ;
aBgnnhp [BAL], -CNH- [A five times], aBainhr [A
twice]; abner. Lag. Uebers. 75, holds that Abner =
"13 prX] = ' son of Ner. ' This is suggested by the (5
form 'Abenner'; but cp ,n|^3T = 'Pe^Se/cKa, n^s^ =
Bo<ro^pa. 'Abner' or 'Abiner' might mean 'my
(divine) father is (as) a lamp'). Captain of the
host under Saul and under Ishbaal. As a late but
well-informed writer states, he was Saul's first cousin
(iS. 1450, cp 9i), Ner the father of Abner and Kish
the father of Saul being both sons^ of Abiel. The
fortunes of Saul and Abner were as necessarily linked
together as those of David and Joab, but tradition
has teen even less kind to Abner than to his master.
Of his warlike exploits we hear nothing, though there
was ' sore war against the Philistines all the days
of Saul' (i S. 1452), and tradition loved to e.xtol the
prowess of individual heroes. Even at the battle of
Gilboa there is no mention of Abner, though it was a
part of his duty, according to David, or at least an early
narrator, to guard the sacred person of the king (iS.
2615). All that we hear of him in Saul's reign is that
he sat next to the king at table (i S. 2O25), that, accord-
ing to one tradition, he introduced David to the presence
of Saul (i S. 1757). and that he accompanied the king
in his pursuit of David (iS. 265^). It was natural
that upon Saul's death he should take up the cause of
Ishbaal (David, § 6). It suffices to mention here some
personal incidents of that unhappy time. That Abner
slew his pursuer Asahel (one of Joab's brothers) was,
doubtless, not his fault but his misfortune. But his
motive in passing over from Ishbaal to David was a
shameful one. Ishbaal may indeed have been wrong in
interpreting Abner's conduct to Rizpah. Saul's concu-
bine, as an act of treason (cp 2.S. I621 1K.222);
but to give up the cause of the Benjamite kingdom on
this account, and transfer his allegiance to David, was
1 In 1 S. 1451 read '}3 for -fa with Jos. Ant. vi. 6 6,
followed by Dr., Bu., KIo. The text of i Ch. 833 = 8 39 should
doubtless run, 'And Ner begat Abner, and Kish begat Saul
(see Kau. note in US).
ABOMINATION
ifl^oble. The result was not what he had expected —
the highest place undrr a grati-ful king. He had just
left David with the view of prtK'uring a popular a.sseinl)]y
for the recognition of David as king of all Israel, when
Joah enticed him back, and treacherously assassinated
him beside the gale of Hebron (sec Sikau, Well ok),
partly jx-'rhaps from jealousy, partly in revenge for the
death of Asahel (2 S. 830).
Abnir's death was regarded by David as a national
calamity. ' Know ye not," he said, 'that a prince and
a great man is fallen this day in Israel?" He ordered
a public mourning for Abner, and himself sang an elegy
over his grave, a fragment of which is preserved (2S.
831-39) : see Poetical Literatuke, §4, iii. (h). The
Chronicler gives Abner a son named JAASIEL ((j.v. 2).
T. K. C.
ABOMINATION, a word occurring over a hundred
limes in the OT as a rendering of four* somewhat
technical expressions (sometimes paraphrased ' abomin-
able thing,' etc. ).
1. Vua (pi.i^ul) occurs four times in exilic and post-
exilic writings (Ilz. 414 ['s -vra]. Lev. 7i8/ita(r/«i ; 19?
ILdxTov ; Is. 604! [C'S;9 pTD, 'broth,' Xwfibv . . .
fi.eixo\vfjiiu.eva ; Kt. 's pis, ' scraps ']) as a technical term
for sacrificial flesh become stale (/c/j^aj ?wXov or ^((iT)\ou
in Ez. [HAQ]), which it was unlawful to eat. See
Sackikice. In the last passage WRS regarded pijCiCUl
as carrion, or flesh so killed as to retain the blood in it
(A\S"(*-'I 343 n. 3).
2. j-pr [sekfs), also confined to exilic and post-exilic
writings^ (Ez. 8 10 Lev. 7 21 11 10-42 Isa. 66 lyt ;
(i5i\i'-yna [B.\]), is a term for what is taboo. See
Clean and Unclean.
3- y\f)v{^'kkus, variously rendered ^5^\ii7/ia, eWojXoi',
etc. ), a much commoner word, of the same form as ( i ),
and from the same root as (2), occurring once in the
present text of Hos. 9io, is freely used (over twenty
times), chiefly from the E.xile onwards, as a contemptuous
designation ofu-nest of images of deitfcs or of foreign
deities themselves. See below, ABOMINATION OF
Desolation and Idol, § 2/.
4. n^vin {to'ebdh ; fideXvyfjia), a word of uncertain ety-
mology frequently occurring from Dt. onwards (esp. in
Ezek. ), is by far the commonest of these terms. It
designates what gives offence to God (Dt. I231) or man
(Pr. 2927), especially the violation of established custom.
The former usage is the more common ; it applies to
such things as rejected cults in general, Dt. 1231 (see
Idol, § 2/. ), child-sacrifice (Jer. 3235), ancestral worship
(Ez. 438), images (Dt. 27i5). imperfect sacrificial
victims {Dt. 17 1), sexual irregularities (Ezek. 22 n), false
weights and measures (Dt. 25 16), etc. The latter us;ige,
however, is not rare (esp. in Prov. ). Thus J tells us
eating with foreigners (Gen. 4832), shepherds (4634),
Hebrew sacrifices (Ex.826 [22]), were an abomination
to the Egyptians (see Egypt, §§ 19, 31).
ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION. THE (to
BAeAyr^A thc epHMUicecoc). an onit;matical expres-
sion in the apocalyptic section (Mt. 2415-28) of the
discourse of Christ respecting HisnApoyciAlMt- 24 15 =
Mk. 1314)- The passage containing the phrase runs
thus in Mt. — ' When therefore ye see the atomination of
desolation, which was sjx)kcn of by Daniel the prophet.
Standing (e^Toj) in the holy place (let him that readeth
understand), then let them that are in Judaia flee unto
the mountains.' The reference to Daniel, however,
which is wanting in Mk., is clearly an addition of
Mt. (cp Mt. 223 4 14, etc. ), and Mark's fffrrjKirra (masc. ),
' It is also used in 1S.I34 for PKaj, the word rendered
' sunk ■ in 2 S. 106 (AV).
2 But in Is. /.c. Duhm and Cheyne read j*^C ; so also
Sam. and some MSS. at l^v.7ai. In I.ev.llio^ we may
point |-|3r, and in Ez.810 read D'xpt? (with O, Co.).
ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION
being more peculiar than Matthew's iffrdt (neut.),
is to be preferred. Eioth reports agree in inserting
the parenthetic appeal to the trained intelligence of
the reader, which, being both natural and in accordance
with usage in an ap<jcalyptic context, it would be un-
ruxsonable to set aside as an 'ecclesiastical note*
(Alford). There is an exact parallel to the clause in
Rev. 13 18 (cp 179), ' Here is wisdom : let him that hath
understanding count the number of the beast,* and a
parallel of sense in Rev. 2; 189 : ' He that hath an ear
(or, if any man have an ear), let him hear,' i.e., let him
understand (as Is. 33 19) ; the Ijest commentary on which
is a terzinu in Dante (/«/. 961-63), 'O voi, che avete
gl' intelletti sani," etc. In fact, the whole section is a
fivarripiov, not of the class in which Jesus delighted
(Mt. 13ii), nor expressed in his highly original style,
and is easily separable from its context. It is [irobably
(apart from some editorial changes) the work of a Jewish
writer, and was inserted to adapt the discourse, which
had been handed down (itself not unaltered) by tradition,
to the wants of the next generation.
Some light is thrown upon it by the ' little apocalypse •
in 2 Thess. 2 1-12, which evidently presupposes an
eschatological tradition (see AnticukI.st). It is there
explained how the irapovala. of Christ must be preceded
by a great apostasy and by the manifestation of the
'man of sin,' whose irapovaia is 'with lying signs and
wonders,' and who ' opposcth and exalteth himself
against all that is called God or that is worshipix-d, so
that he sitteth in the s;inctuary (va6^) of God, selling
himself forth as (Jod,' but whom 'the Lord Jesus will
slay with the breath of his mouth. ' The resemblance
between the two Apocalypses is strong, and we can
hardly avoid identifying the ' abomination of desolation '
in Mt. and Mk. with the ' man of sin' in 2 Thess. 'I iiat
the one stands and the other sits in the sanctuary con-
stitutes but a slight difference. In both cases a statue
is obviously meant. The claimant of divinity would not,
of course, be tied to one place, and it was Ix-lievcd that
by spells a portion of the divine life could be cc m-
niunicated to idols, so that the idol of ihe false god was
the false god himself. In both ca>cs, loo, there is a
striking resemblance to the dr}pia of Rev. 13, the second
of whom, indeed, is said to be represented by an
image which can speak, trickery coming to the help of
su(>erstilion (Rev. 13 15). In fact, the 'abomination ' or
' the man of sin ' is but a humanised form of the original
of these dT)fiLa — viz., the apocalyptic dragon, who in his
turn is but the Hebraised version of the mythical dragon
Tiamat, which was destroyed by the liabylonian light
god (see C'reation, § 2). We can now recover the
meaning of t% ipyfutlxreu^. The ' alKimination ' which
thrusts itself into the ' holy place ' has for its nature
'desolation' — i.e., finds its pleasure in undoing the
divine work of a holy Creator.'
But why this particular title for the expected opponent
of God ? It was derived from the first of the great
apocalypses. In Dan. 927 11 31 12ii, according to the
cxegetical tradition in ©, mention is made (combining
the details of the several {passages) of an apostasy, of an
'abomination of desolation' (or ' of desolations ') in the
sanctuary, of a time of unparalleled tribulation, of resur-
rection, and of glory. That the original writer meant
' abomination ' to be taken in the sense descrilx^l above,
and the appended qualification to Ix- rendered ' desolat-
ing' or 'of desolation,* cannot indeed Ix- said, ppv
as used in Daniel means ' image of a false god ' (cp i K.
II5; 2 K. 2813), and the most natural rendermg of
DEC' and (if the text be correct) cpitrp or ccrs is ' appal-
1 It is no objection that in I.k. 21 20 the iprnmai^ is referred
to thc hemming in of Jerusalem by Ronuin armies ; cp Jos. Ant.
X. 11 7, where the passages in Dan. are explained of the desola-
tion by the Romans. The true meaning must be decided by
Matthew and Mark, where nothing is said bf injuries from
invaders. "The memory of the experiences of 70 a.d. suggested
to Luke a new interpretation of the traditional phrase.
ABRAHAM
ling. ■ The phrase appears to be an intentional alteration
of DDE' hv2 (Baal skiimim), 'heaven's lord.' That this
was a current title of Zeus may be inferred from the
Syri<ic of 2 Mace. 62, where the temple at Jerusalem is
called by the emissary of Antiochus ' the temple of be'el
shemin' (see Nestle, ZATW iv. 248 ['84]; cp his
Marginalien u. Matenalien, 35 / ; G. Hoffmann,
Ueb. ein. phon. Inschr. 1889, p. 29 ; Bevan, Daniel,
193). The author of Daniel (whose meaning is correctly
given by, l/T") contemptuously says, 'Call it not "heaven's
lord," but "an appalling abomination " ' ; and the object
to which he refers is an image of Olympian Zeus, which,
together with a small jiiofidi, the agents of Antiochus set
up on the great altar (dvcriaaTrjpioi') of burnt offerings.
The statement in i Mace. 1 59 is not destructive of this
theory, for altars and idols necessarily went together,
and the phrase of the Greek translator of the Hebrew
original in v. 54 ^ (|35Ai»7^a epTyyuuxrews ; cp rb (id4\vyfia,
67) might be used equally well of both or of either.''^
All this, however, had been forgotten when the apoca-
lyptic section in Mt. 24 and Mk. 13 was written.
Another (a highly plausible) interjjretation of the
little evangelical apocalypse is given by Spitta (IJie Offen-
bafung Jo/iaruiis, 493-497), who thinks that it was
written in apprehension of the erection of a statue of
Caligula in the temple (see Schiir. IJist. ii. ). This
implies that rb §8i\. rrjs iptifi. means the statue of a
historical king who claimed to be the supreme God,
which, considering the nature of the context, is im-
probable, and is not supported by the use of the
Hebrew phrase in Daniel. It is, no doubt, highly
probable that apocalyptic writers regarded the mad
Caligula as a precursor of the expected embodiment of
the principle of ' lawlessness ' [avoixia, 2 Thess. 2?) ; but,
without putting some violence on their inherited eschato-
logical phrases, they could not have said that he was
ipr)fj.w(n% or dvo/j-la in person. For, after all, a Roman
emperor could not be a purely destructive or lawless
agent. Spitta's view, however, is preferable to that
of Weiss, wlio, appealing to Lk. 21 20, understands
the ' abomination ' to be the Roman armies ; and to
that of Bleek and Alford, who explain it of the desecra-
tion of the holy place by the Zelots (Jos. B/ iv. 36-8).
For the criticism and exegesis of the difficult passages,
iJan. 927 11 31, see the commentary of Bevan and the
translation and critical notes in Kau. NS ; cp also Van
Lennep's treatise on the seventy year- weeks of Daniel
(Utrecht, i888), where it is proposed, on amply sufficient
grounds, to change the impossible r^:3 h^) (927) into
iir'Syi, 'and instead thereof.' The greatest problem is
how to explain or rather correct cctrp D'sijSB' ; in ppa'n
C2TO (11 31)- for c?rp we should perhaps read Dtxn. or
delete ','2 as a gloss from 9 27. There is a similar problem
in 813. T. K. c.
ABRAHAM (DHn^N, § 44; aBra&m [BAL] ;
once ABpAM [-^J)- The name has no meaning in
1 Name etc ^^^'"^^^' ^^^ seems to be another form
' ■ of Abram (g.v.), due probably to a
misunderstanding of an early orthography.* In J and
P, however, the latter is represented as the original
name, which was changed at a critical point in the
patriarch's life into Abraham (Gen. 17 s, P. where the
etymology is a mere word-play ; on J's narrative, see
Fripp, Gen. 53). It is only from the time of Ezekiel
1 See Ko. Finl. 482.
2 Ges., Berthi)ldt, Griitz, and others explain the 'abomination'
ofa statue of Zeus; Hitz., HilKenfeld, Bleek, Kue., of an altar.
The insertion of the did.-ictic story of Nebuchadrezzar's golden
image slightly confirms the former view.
3 Honimel maintains that n in the Minsean (S. Arabian)
alphabet represents a (a) or, in some cases, /. The same
peculiarity (n for a) characterises the Moabite, the Hebrew, and
the Samalite script. cmaK, therefore, was originally pronounced
AbrSm (Hommel, Das graphische ,t itn Mindischcn, 22-24).
WMM {As. u. Eur. 309 n. 3) finds an Egjptian proper name
B-'-rj-ru-m^y = Baal-ram.
23
ABRAHAM
(see Ez. 3824)! that Abraham was reverenced by the
Jews as their greatest ancestor ; cp Is. 41 8/ 51 12 63 16
Neh.97/. 2Ch.207 306 Fs. 479 ['o] 1056942 Ecclus.
44 19 I Mace. 252I221 Mt. Ii39 Lk. IG2430 lOg Jn.
8395356 Acts72l326 Rom. 411216 Heb. 6131117 Jas.
221, cp Gal. 37-9. But to give time for this general
reverence to have arisen, we cannot help supposing
that the name and, in some form, the story of Abraham
were current in certain circles considerably earlier.
Local traditions respecting him doubtless existed before
the glory of the southern kingdom departed, and these
traditions form the basis of the composite niSinor ' family
history" of Abraham (P for a special reason substitutes
Terah) contained in Gen. 11 27-25 18. That these tradi-
tions are legends, and not historical records of the times
which the ' family history ' appears to describe, is certain
(see Historical Literature). But that in their
]iresent setting they are much more than legends needs
to be not less firmly held. They have been purified both
by abridgment and by expansion ; and, since the fusion
of the original and of the added elements is by no means
complete, it is not impossible to study the one from the
point of view of prehistoric research, and the other from
that of the history of religion. Let us, then, briefly con-
sider these two questions : (i) What did the Abraham
narratives of Genesis mean to their first editors and
readers ? and ( 2 ) may any of them be regarded as contain-
ing a historical element ?
I. The first question can be readily answered.
Abraham to J and E is not so much a historical per-
sonage as an ideal type of character.
2. Story of J
and £.
This theory alone will account for the
' dreamy, grand, and solemn ' impres-
sion which this patriarch makes upon us. The frame-
work of the narrative may be derived from myths and
legends, but the spirit comes from the ideals stored up
in the minds of the narrators. A school of writers (for
J and E are not merely individuals) devoted them-
selves to elaborating a typical example of that unworldly
goodness which was rooted in faith and fervently
preached by the prophets. That typical example was
Abraham, who might, with a better right than the old
Babylonian king, Hammurabi, have called himself the
prophet of the heaven-god, and indeed is actually recog-
nised by the Pharaoh (Gen. 2O7 E) as a prophet of
Elohim. The ' dreaminess ' which has been noticed in
him is caused by his mental attitude. The Moliam-
medans appropriately call him 'the first Moslem.'
He goes through life listening for the true tora, which
is not shut up in formal precepts, but revealed from
time to time to the conscience ; and this leaning upon
God's word is declared to be in Yahwe's sight a proof
of genuine righteousness (15 6 J). The Pirqe Aboth
[c. 5 ; cp Ber. rabba, par. 56) reckons ten trials of
Abraham's faith, ' in all of which he stood firm ' ; but
this simply marks the intense Jewish reverence for the
'father of the faithful.' The word ,id3, ' (he) tried,'
occurs only once in the narratives (Gen. 22 1), but from
the first the faith of Abraham was tried like gold in the
fire. He marries a woman who is ' barren ' ( 1 1 30 1 8 n /.
both J ; 152_/; JE). He leaves his home at the divine
bidding to seek an unknown land (12i J). As the
climax, he is commanded to offer up the child of
promise as a sacrifice (22 1-13 E). It is characteristic
of the pre-exilic age that this privileged life presents no
reverses of fortune (contrast Job). But prosperity does
no moral harm to Abraham. He retains a pure and
disinterested philanthropy, which would even, if possible,
have saved wicked Sodom (1822^-330, a late Yahwistic
passage). '^ Once, indeed, he appears as trusting in an
arm of flesh, and defeating mighty kings (Gen. I41-17) ;
1 This is the earliest mention of Abraham outside the Hexa-
teuch ; for Is. 29 22 Jcr. 33 26 Mic. 7 20 belong to passages inserted
after the F.xile.
2 See We. CH») 27/ ; Documents o/the Hex. i. 26 ; Fripp,
Gen. 48-50.
ABRAHAM
but this unique narrative, so flattering to the pride of
the later Jews, is evidently a fragment of a post-exilic
midrash on the life of Abraham.' It even contains a
specimen of the mystic reckoning called 'gematria,'
the number 318 in 14 14 being suggested by the name
of Abraham's servant Eliezer,- of which it is the
numerical equivalent, just as it is stated in the Haggada
that Abraham served God from his third year, Ixjcause
apy in nyctr* -afftt ipu (2'2i8) is equivalent to 172 (he was
175 when he offered up Isaac, according to the Midrash
Tanchuma), and as the ' number of the beast ' in Rev.
13i8 is 666 (or 616).
The narratives of P differ, it is true, in some respects
from those of J and E. This writer, who is a lover of
„. , p gradual, orderly progress, even in the
■ ^ ** history of revelation, represents the
mii^ration into ('anaan as having been planned, without
any express divine command, by Terah (CJen. II31),
and admits no tlieopliany before that in Abraham's
ninety-ninth year (17 1)- He introduces, also, some
important modifications into the character of the patri-
arch. The friendly intimacy between Yahw^ and
Abraham has disappeared ; when Yahw6 at length
manifests himself, Abraham falls upon his face (17 3 17).
A legal element, too, finds its way into his righteousness,
the rite of circumcision having been undergone, accord-
ing to P, by Abraham and all the males of his house-
hold. Still, it may be said of P as truly as of his prede-
cessors that he regards Abraham as the greatest of men,
and exhibits him as the ])attern for Israelitish piety.
■With this object in view, he has no scruple in dealing
very freely with the traditional material. Since all
things are best at their Ijeginnings, he asserts that the
ancestor of Israel was all, and more than all, that his
own sober imagination can devise. Later writers
attempted to supply his deficiencies. Even in the OT
we have a strange reference in Is. 2922 (i)ost-exilic) to
dangers incurred by Abraham, which agrees with the
hints dropped in the Book of Jubilees [c. VI), and
points the way to the well-known legend of the furnace
of N'imrod. Not less did the enigmatical war-chronicle
in Gen. 14 stimulate later writers. Nicolaus of
Damascus, the court historian of Herod the Great,
related (Jos. Ant. \.l-2\ cp Justin, 862) that Abraham
came with an army out of Chalda;a and reigned in
Damascus, after which he settled in Canaan ; he adds
that lh(Te still exists a village called 'Afipdfwv olKrjffLi
(see Hobah). The only Biblical trace of such a story is
in Gen. 152, where, however, ' Damascus' appears to be
a gloss (see Elikzkk, i). It is bold in Ew. {Htsf. i. 312)
to assume on such a basis that Damascus was a
traditional link in the chain of the Hebrew migration.
More i^robably these stories were invented by the Jews
of Damascus (who were a numerous body) to glorify
the national ancestor. The Moslems took up the
tradition with avidity (see Ew. I.e. ), and still point to
the village of Berza, or Bcrzat el Halll ( ' the marriage-
tent of .Abraham '), one hour N. from Damascus, where
the marriage of the p:Uriarch furnishes the occasion of
an annual festival (Wetz. /Z>.V/f7 xxii. 105 ['68]).
2. What historical element (if any) do these narratives
contain ? The Abraham traditions are twofold. Some
4 Historica.1 '^*^''^"K exclusively to the great patri-
Kpm 1 ^^^^ ' °'^'^''^ '^''^ ^'^° attached to one
or another of his successors. The
latter we can disregard : the foundation of the sanc-
tuaries of Shechem and Bethel has a better tra-
ditional connection with Jacob (Gen.33i8-2o 2811-22),
and that of Bt;cr.->hcba with Isaac (2624/.), while the
^ Much confusion has been caused by the uncritical use of
cuneiiorm research (see Che. Foutuiers, i-yj j^.). That the
writer of Gen. 14 i-ii had access, directly or indirectly, to Baby-
lonian sources for some of his statements is denied by none.
But this does not make him a historian. See Kue. Hex.
»43. 324 ; We. r//*'! 26 ; E. Mey. GA i. 165/: and cp Chedor-
LAOMKK, MeLCHIEKDRK, g 4.
* So, long ago, Hitzig, following Btr. ratia, par. 43.
25
ABRAHAM
story of the imperilled wife has at least as good (or as
bad ) a claim to be connected with Isaac ( 26 i-i i ). There
] remain — (a) the migration from Harran or from Or
Kasdlni ; (b) the close affinity between Abraham and
; Sarah, Abraham and Hagar (and Keturah), Abraham
and Lot ; {c) the abode and burial of Abraham near
' Hebron ; * and, underlying all these, (</) the existence
' of an ancestor of the people of Israel bearing the name
; of Abraham or Abram. Let us first briefly consider (c)
I and (</).
i. Existence of Abraham and connection with
Hebron. — The tradition, as it stands, is doubtless
inadmissible. So much may lie conceded to that
destructive criticism which, denying that the old rever-
ence for the story of .Abraham has any justification,
would throw that story aside as an outworn and useless
myth. But the view taken by the patient reconstructive
criticism of our day is that, not only religiously, but even,
in a qualified sense, historically also, the narratives of
Abraham have a claim on our attention. The religious
value is for all ; the historical or quasi -historical for
students only. In the present connection it is enough
to say (but see further Historical Litkk.vturk) that,
since Abraham may be a genuine personal name, it
cannot be unreasonable to hold that there is a kernel of
tradition in the narratives. Hebrew legend may have
told of an ancient hero (in the Greek sense of the word)
bearing this name and connected specially with Hebron.
I This supposed hero (whose real existence is as doubtful
I as that of other heroes) cannot originally have been
' grouped with Jacob or Israel, for the name Abraham
has a different linguistic colouring from the two latter.
It was natural, however, that when Hkbkon [q.v.)
became Israelitish the southern hero Abraham should
be grouped with the northern hero Jacob- Israel, and
that the spirits of both heroes should be regarded as
having a special connection with their people, and even
as entitled to a kind of national cultus (cp Idolatry),
I which, though discouraged by the highest religious
teachers, has left traces of itself both in early and in
late books, and is characteristically Semitic.'-* The cuUus
was no doubt performed at Machpelah, on the posses-
sion of which P lays such great stress (f. 23) ; but that
the traditional hero was actually buried there cannot
Ix; affirmed. Even among the Arabs there is hardly one
well -authenticated case of a tribe which possessed a
really ancient tradition as to the place where the tribal
ancestor was interred.'
ii. Relation of Abraham to Sarah, Hagar, Lot. —
With regard to {b) it should be noted that, though an
assertion of relationship may be literally correct, it may
also merely mean that two particular trilx-s or peoples
have been politically connected. If, with Robertson
Smith, we may regard Sarah as a feminine corresponding
to Israel, we may take the marriage between .\braham
and .Sarah (or rather Sarai) to symbolise the political
fusion between a southern Israelitish tribe and non-
Israelitish clans to the south of Hebron (see, however,
Sakah, i. § 2). The relationshi[) lx>tween .Abraham and
Hai;ar may also have a political meaning, for the close
intercourse, and at times jiolitical union, between Egypt*
and Palestine and parts of .Arabia is well attested. The
story of the separation between .Abraham and Lot ' may
1 It is unnecessary to discuss here P's account of the origin of
circumcision (see Cikcumcision, § 4), or the story of the defeat of
the four kings in Gen. 14 (see above, 8 2), or the birth and subse-
quent offering up of Isa.ic (see Isaac, S$ \/.\
2 See i.S.--'8i3 ('I saw Klohim '), ls.63i^ Jer.SlM, cp I.k.
16 22 In. 8 56, and cp Che Intr. Is. 352/ For parallel Arabian
beliefs, see Goldziher, Ka: ete thist. des rd. 1884, p. 336/,
and for the later Jewish belief in the pr.iyers of the fathers,
see 2 Mace. 1613/;, and Talmudic references in Castelli, //
Messitx, 184 /
8 WRS Kin. 18.
* We assume provisionally th.it Hagar is correctly regarded,
from the point of view of the original tradition, as an Egyptian.
See, howtver, Hagar, and especially Mizkaim, f a (b), Ueek-
Lahai-Roi, 8 2.
8 On the details of the story, cp WRS Kin. n/.
26
ABRAHAM
be but a foreshadowing of the separation between Israel
and Moab and Amnion ; but, if Lot is to be explained
by Lotan (the eponym of an Edomilish clan, Gen. 36
20-29), the asserted relationship between Abraham and
Lot accords with the theory of the original non-Israelitlsh
character of Abraham.
iii. Connection with Harrdn or Or. — As to {a), even
if we reject the theory of the migration of a clan called
after Abraham from Harran or Ur Kasdim, it does
not at once follow that the tradition is altogether
unhistorical. Not only Abraham, but the wives of
Isaac and Jacob also, are declared to have come from
Harran. This cannot be a baseless tradition. Critics,
it is true, are divided as to its historical value, nor
can we discuss the matter here. But there is, at
any rate, as Stade admits, nothing a priori improb-
able in the view that certain Hebrew clans came
from the neighbourhood of Harran to Palestine. The
fluctuation of the tradition between Harran and Ur
Kasdim need not detain us (see special articles). Both
Harran and Uru were seats of the worship of the moon-
god under different names, and we can well believe that
at some unknown period the moon-worship of Harran
affected the Hebrew clans (cp Sarah, i. § 2, Milcah, 1 ).
For what critic of to-day can venture to assume that it
was repugnance to this worship, and in general to idolatry
(cp Josh. 242/ ),^ that prompted the Hebrew clans to
leave their early homes ? Surely this asserted religious
movement is a specimen of that antedating of religious
conditions which is characteristic of the OT narrators,
and was copied from them by Mohammed. First, the
insight of Isaiah is ascribed to Moses ; then, as if this
were not wonderful enough, it is transferred to Abraham.
But how recent is the evidence for either statement, and
how inconsistent is the spiritual theism ascribed to
Abraham with sound views of historical development !
Instead therefore of speaking of ' that life of faith which
historically began with Abraham' (H. S. Holland, Lux
Mundi, 41), should we not rather say ' that life of faith
which, though germinally present from the earliest
times, first found clear and undoubted expression in the
writings of the prophets and in the recast legends of
Abraham ' ?
Hommel's ambitious attempt to prove the strictly
historical character of the Abraham narratives from the
Arabian personal names of the dynasty of Hammurabi
is, critically regarded, a failure. The existence in
early Semitic antiquity of personal names expressing
lofty ideas of the divine nature in its relation to man
has long been known, though it is only in recent years
that such names have been discovered so far back in the
stream of history. But hitherto scholars have with good
reason abstained from inferring the extreme antiquity of
Hebrew narratives in which similar names occurred,
because the age of these narratives had necessarily to be
first of all determined by the ordinary critical methods,
and the existence of such a phrase as ' in the days of
Amraphel ' (Hammurabi?) proves only that the writer
may have been acquainted with documents in which
events of this period were referred to, not that his own
narrative is strictly historical.
For the later Haggadic stories concerning Abraham
see Beer, Leben Abrahams tiach Anffassung der jiid.
Sage, 1859; Hamburger, RE fiir Bib. u. Talm.W
(s.v. 'Abraham'); also Griinbaum, Neue Beitr. zur
sent. Sagenkunde, 1893, pp. 89-131 (Jewish and
Mohammedan legends) ; and, especially, a late apocry-
phal book called The Testament of Abraham ( Texts
and Studies, Cambridge, 1892), which presents perhaps
the finest imaginable glorification of the character of the
patriarch. All that he needs is to see the retributions
1 The words, ' and worshipped other gods,' belong lo R. But
the sense of the earlier narrators is correctly given (cp. Gen.
31 1953354). And, of course, Israel's point of religious departure
must, considering primitive circumstances, have been in some
sense polytheistic (cp Reinach, R EJ xv. 311 ['87]; Boscawen,
The Migration 0/ Abram, m/.).
27
ABRECH
of heaven and hell that he may learn (like Jonah) to
have pity on sinners (see Aix:)CRYPiia, § 11). For the
archaeological aspects of the life of the patriarch see
Tomkins, Studies on the Times of Abraham ('78 ;
second ed. '97). The best critical literature is cited
by Ki. Hist. i. ; add to his list Hal. REJ xv. 161^
{'87); Rev. s^m. \. \ ff. ('93); Renan, Hist, du peuple
d Israel, i. (1887) ; and reviews of Renan by Reinach,
RE:Jx\. 302^/ and by WRS, Eng. Hist. Rev. iii. 128/.
('88). Renan's statements that the Abraham of Genesis
is the type of an Arab sheikh, and that the ancient
Hebrews, represented by Abraham, worshipped a ' patri-
archal, just, and universal God,' from whom the worship
of Yahw6 was a falling away, are fantastically erroneous.
For Nold.'s view that Abraham and Sarah are divine
names, see his essay on the patriarchs in Im neuen
Reich, 1 87 1, p. 508 J^, and on the other side Baethg.
Beitr. z. sent. Rel.-gesch. 154^ See also EDO M (§2;
supposed divine character of Abraham) and Hoii.'\H
(his connection with Damascus). T. K. c.
ABRAHAM'S BOSOM (Lk. 1622!). See Hades.
ABRAM (D-i:3X, § 44, Gen. 11 27-I7 s'l i Ch.
I27 Neh. 97t ; aBRAM [BADL], but -p^N [A twice in
Gen.], -pAAM [A once in Gen.; B in Ch. and B* ^'''•
NL in Neh. ; p;.^/; ^ibram), i.e. probably, in the mind
of the priestly writer (Gen. ITs), 'high father" (patriarch),
to which the name Sarai, if taken as another form of
Sarah [^.^'. ], would be a suitable companion. If,
however, the name Abram be a genuine traditional
one, it will be related to Abiram [y.t'.], as Abni:r
[^.t'.] is to Abiner, and be explained similarly (cp
Abraham, §1).
ABRECH ("^"!?N), Gen. 4l43t. 'Then he made
him ride in the chariot next in rank to his own, and
they cried before him Abrech. So he set him over
all Egypt ' (Kau. HS). The passage occurs in E's (or
Eg's) version of the appointment of Joseph to be
grand-vizier, and the strange word Abrech greatly
puzzled the ancient interpreters. ®*^'- gives Kal
iKqpv^ev . . . Krjpv^ ; the Targums NsSdS N3N, while
Pesh. , omitting jhji, paraphrases f V -V,^ n \^^ [cp458
Pesh.], and Vg. clamante pro-cone ut omnes coram eo
genu flecterent. Jerome himself, however {Quccst. in
Gen. ), remarks, ' Mihi videtur non tam praeco sive
adgeniculatio . . . intelligenda, quam illud quod
Hebrsei tradunt, dicentes " pat rem tenerum," . . .
significante Scripture quod juxta prudentiam quidem
pater omnium fuerit, sed juxta aetatem tenerrimus
adolescens et puer.' So, in fact, the Midrash [Ber.
rabba, par. 90) and the two later Targums (as an
appendage to ' father of the king ' ) expressly interpret,
and in Bab. Bathra, 4a we even find this justified by
the combination of -p and rex. In Jubilees 40; (Charles)
the form is Ablrer, i.e. Abirel (' God is a mighty one,"
or, being an imaginary form, ' mighty one of God ').
The different views of modern senolars can only be
glanced at here. Luther is content with Landesvater,
EV with ' bow the knee. ' RV mg. adopts the view-
that the original word was ' similar in sound to the
Hebrew word meaning to kneel ' (so Benfey, Brugsch,
Chabas). The Mas. vocalisation, however, is guess-
work, and the Hiphil of 713 occurs only once again
(Gen. 24ii), and then in the sense of 'to cause (the
camels) to kneel down.' If we look at the context, we
sharll find reason to doubt whether any outward display
of reverence at all (prostration would be more natural
than kneeling) can be meant by Abrech. An official
title is what the context most favours, not, however,
such a title as ' chief of the wise men ' ' (ap-rex-u) ; but
rather ' great lord," or some other equivalent to ' grand-
J Harkavy, J As., mars-avril 1870, pp. 161-163. I-e Page
Renouf's e.xplanation {P.SB.l xi. s Jf. ['88]), 'tliy command is
our desire ' (ai(-u)-reh), i.e., ' we are at thy service,' is much less
suitable to the context.
ABRONAH
vizier.' No such title including the letters b-r-k is
quoted from the pure Egyptian vocabulary ; but may
it not be really a loan-word ? This might account
for the fact that Abrech is passed over in <S- It
is well known that from the fifteenth century onwards
there was close intercourse iKjtvveen the l-Igyptians and
the Semitic peoples, and that many technical words
were borrowed from the latter. This being the case, it
aj^pears reasonable to connect Abrech with the Ass. -Bab.
abarakku (fern, aharakkatii), which is applied to one of
the five highest dignitaries in the empire. ' Schrader,
who once opposed this view [COT \. 139), now thinks
th.1t the Amarna discoveries (1888) have made it
much more probable ; and Briinnow has expressed the
opinion that 'the Assyrian a-ba-rak-ku seem undoubtedly
to be the prototype of Abrech ' ^ (private letter). In
spite of Dillmann's peremptory denial (1892), it has
become very difficult to think otherwise. We might,
indeed, correct the word out of existence ; but Ball's text
[SDOT) is hardly an improvement except in the substi-
tution of the Nip'i of the Sam. text (cp © Pesh. ) for
iNip'i, which is justified by the context, and had already
been made by Geiger (Urschr. 463). T. K. C.
ABRONAH, AV Ebronah (nriaj?), one of the stages
in the w.-mdering in the wilderness (Nu. 3334/.f, P;
ceBpWNA [B]. eB. [AFL]). See Wandkki.ng.s, §§ 12,
14. On afip(j}va [AB] in Judith 224, see Akbo.vai.
ABSALOM (Di7w'?X, § 45, or— less correctly, as
Nold. thinks — as in i K. 152io Di?'J"3X, Abish.alom,
ytBHSSALOAf ; probably ' the [divine] father is peace,'
cp Yahwe-shaloin Judg. 624, a title of Yahwe, but
not Ps. I2O7; ABecCAAcOM [B.A, and in 2 S. 83,
and I Ch., also L], -ecA- [A. 2S.I815], -eCA. [L ;
but in I K. 228 COAOAAOONTOC, where also f%>f\.\-j
sjiMfONKM] ■ ^o\^.->/ ; ABecAcoM [A], 2S. I815 ;
Jos. ABecCAAcOMOC and AyAAwMOC I ABSALOM) was
D.ivid's third son, his mother being Maacah, daughter of
Talmai, king of Gkshuk (q.v. 2). Born at Hebron, he
grew up at Jerusalem, the idol of his father, and popular
from his manly beauty and his winning manners. His
tragic history is faithfully recorded by an ancient and
well-informed writer in 2 S. 13-18.
We first hear of him in connection with the outrage
on his sister Tamar by her half-brother Aninon, whom
David, out of weak-minded affection for his first-
born (2 S. 1321, ©'''^'•), omitted to chastise. Absalom
soothed his sister, and silently bode his time. Then,
after two years, he lured Amnon with the other princes
to a feast of sheep-shearing on Absalom's estate at
Baal-hazor (see H.AZOR, 2), and at a concerted sign his
servants slew Amnon during the banquet. The next
three years Ab.salom passed in exile in Geshur (q.v. 2),
till Joab, knowing that the king pined for the fugitive,
contrived by the help of a ' wise woman ' from Tekoa to
bring him back. The form of the parable (2S. 14 5-7)
may belong to the 'wise woman,' but the ideas which
it suggested came froni Joab. Why was the king so
willing to mitigate the custom of blood-vengeance for a
stranger, and so hard towards his own son ? We die,
and are like water spilt on the ground ; but God spares
the life of him whose thoughts are bent on the restora-
tion of the banished (2 S. 14 14 with Ewald's emenda-
tion). The king gave way to this gentle pressure, and
allowed his son to come back to Jerusalem, but refused
to see him for two whole years. Nor would Joab take
any further step, till the impetuous prince set his barley
field on fire, and, when Joab came in person to
complain, declared that death was better than con-
1 Friedr. Del., /feh. in the tight of Assyrian Restarth
(1883), p. 25./:; cp rar. 225; .4m. hub 12. This l.riUiant
suggestion w.us temporarily adopted by the present writer
(Acitd. i2ih Apr. 1884), who has, since the Amarna discoveries,
returned to it.
a So also Sayce (,Acad. 7th May 189a; Crit. Mon. ^n /.),
but with an interpretation which needs fuller evidence.
■ 29
ABSALOM
tinued disgrace. He had his way. The king kissed
him and restored him to full favour.
Four years followed (2 S. I07, L. Pesh. and Jos. ; MT
©"'^ \'g. have ' forty ') during which Absalom prepared
men's minds for coming events. He let his hair grow
enormously long (2 S. 14 26), in token, as Kol)crtson
Smith thinks (A'6'<-' 484), of the sacredness of his person,
though the ordinary view that it was merely a proof
of vanity possesses the recommendation of simplicity.
He rode in a chariot with horses (then scarcely
known in Israel) and was accompanied by a guard
of fifty men. He made every suitor's cause his own,
and lamented aloud that his jxiwer did not match
his desire to help (2 S. 15 1-6). At last he fired the
train which had been so long and so carefully laid.
On pretence of a sacrificial feast, he withdrew to
Hebron, accompanied by 200 men, doubtless needy
dependents, who followed him in ignorance of his
plan. Here, at the old capital of Judah, amidst a
people who were still unreconciled to their absorption
in a larger state, he raised the standard of revolt.
Ahithophel, a man of southern Judah, he made his
principal counsellor ; Aniasa, Absalom's cousin, also
from Judah, took command of the troops (cp Gkshur,
2). But an ai^peal was also made to the centrifugal
forces always at work in the N. tribes, for, as he set out
for Hebron, the rebel prince sent men through the land
of Israel. At the sound of the trumpet these were to
proclaim the accomplished fact, ' Absalom has been
made king in Hebron.'
David, once the darling of the nation, was compelled
to fly from the capital. Absalom as quickly entered
it, and gave that public sign of his accession to the
throne which the crafty Ahithophel recommended.
The number of his counsellors was now increased by
the addition of Hushai, ' David's friend' (on the epithet
see Hush.'M), whose flattery he failed to see through.
In reality Hushai only pretended to join the rebels. His
object was twofold — to frustrate the counsel of .Ahitho-
phel, and to betray Absalom's plans to the priests, Zadok
and Abiathar. These trusty friends of David were to
coninumicatc with a maid, and she was to impart her
knowledge to two sons of the priests, who waited to
bear it to the king. This counterplot attained its end.
Ahithophel, who knew how deceptive was the popular
enthusiasm, wished Absalom to 'strike David before
there was time for second thoughts' (WkS). But
Hushai persuaded the pretender to wait, and so David,
who was informed of all that happened at Jerusalem,
safely crossed the Jordan and established himself at
Mahanaim, once Ishbaal's cai)ital.
Thence, in three divisions, David's army sallied forth,
and in the neighbouring forest (see Ei'HR.MM, Wood
ok) the rebel troops were routed. In the flight
Absalom's head (hair?; Heb. cin, cp 2 S. I426) was
caught in the branches of a terebinth tree, and his mule
left him hanging between heaven and earth. ' Not for a
thousand shekels ' would the soldier who saw him hanging
have taken his life. How could he venture to disregard
the king's charge to watch over the young man Ab-
salom? If he had treacherously attempted Absalom's
life, would not the king have found it out. and would
not Joab himself have stood aloof? But Joab, who felt
his courage called in question (2 S. 18 14, ©"'^'- ; see
Bu. SHOT), with an emphatic denial of the statement,
plunged three javelins into Absalom's body. The
corpse of the ill-fated prince was flung into a pit, and
the soldiers cast stones upon it, that the restless spirit
might trouble them no more.* Meantime the old king
was waiting at the gate of Mahanaim. The pathetic
story of his broken-hearted grief at hearing the news of
his dearly loved son's death is enshrined in all memories.
.Such was the close of the sad tragedy which opened
with the barbarous outrage upon Tamar. Just eleven
years had passed since that event, so that if Absalom
1 See Tylor's Prim. Cult. ii. 29.
ABUBUS
was about twenty when he took up his sister's cause,
he must have died a little over thirty. Apparently
his three sons died before him (2 S 14 27 18 18). On
his 'daughter,' see Tamar, 3, and Maacah, 3, 4.
The notice respecting Absalom's monument in 2SI818
is not very clear, perhaps owing to some confusion in
the text of z'v. 17-19 (so Klo. ). It is evidently paren-
thetical, and reminds the reader that Absalom had a
suitable monument (erected, according to Klo.'s read-
ing, by David) in the King's Vale (see Shavkh, i.,
Mkixhizedek, § 3). The building close to Jerusalem,
now known as Absalom's tomb, is of very late origin, as
its Ionic pillars prove. w. E. A.
2. Father of Mattathias (i Mace. 11 70; 'Ai/zoAw^os [AV],
i^aA/Li(uJo« [xD- Zdckler proposes to read 'Jonathan' for
'Mattathias' here; or else to read Mattathias in i Mace.
13 II also.
3. Father of Jonathan (i Mace. 13 11: 'Ai/zoAiojaos [AVn]),
probably the same as (2).
4. An ambassador to Lysias ; 2 Mace. 11 17 (APe<roraXu/u. [A],
/xeacroAal A [sic V]). Possibly also to be identified with (2).
ABUBUS (aBoyBoc [A>«V]; )-sr.^.,. cp Hubbah,
iCh. 734 Kr. ; Ano/ius), father of Ptolemy, captain of
the plain of Jericho, and son-in-law to Simon the
Maccahee (i Mace. 16 n ist).
ABYSS, THE (h aByccoc), the term substituted in
RV of NT for the ' deep ' and the ' bottomless pit ' of
AV; see Lk.831; Rom.107; Rev.9i/ii II7
178 20 1 3t. In the second of these passages, by
an inexact use of the term, ' the abyss ' is equivalent
to Sheol ; ' over the sea ' in Dt. 30 13 is taken to mean
' over the world-encircling ocean into which the " rivers "
of the underworld (Ps. 184[5]. V'?^ -hm) discharge
themselves to " the place where all flesh wanders " {i.e. ,
Sheol; EnocklK,).' Elsewhere it means the deeply-
placed abode of the 'dragon' or devil, of the 'beast'
his helper, and of the 5ai/x6;'ia,— whether this abode be
taken to be the ' deep (/<%(>/«) that coucheth beneath'
(Gen. 4925 RV), or the ' waste place ' with ' no firmament
above and no foundation of earth beneath,' by which
the fire-filled chasm was thought to be bordered {Enoch
18 12; cp 21 27). The former view is in accordance
with OT usage, the tt^hom of MT and the d^vacxos of
(5 being the flood or ocean which once enfolded
the earth, but is now shut up in subterranean store-
chambers (Ps. 337); and it is favoured by the use of
OaXaffcra in Rev. 1-3 1 as synonymous with S-^vaaos.
But the latter is more probably right in the Apocalypse,
which agrees with Enoch in asserting the existence of a
lake of fire, destined for the final punishment of the
devil and his helpers. This fiery lake is not in either
book technically called 'the abyss' ; in Enoch 10 13 the
Greek has rd xaoj rod nvpos, and in 21 7 5LaK0Trr]v elxf
6 rdTTOs tuis TTJs a^vaaov. The angelic overseer of this
region is Uriel, who is described in Enoch'10-z (Gizeh
Gk. ) as 6 eTTt toO Kbdjiov koX toO Taprdpov. ' Tartarus '
occurs also in Job4l23, ©, in the phrase rbv Taprapov
Trji dfiiKTcrov [BN.-\], which, being used in connection with
Leviathan, is doubtless to be taken of the subterranean
abode of Yahwe's enemy, the dragon (see Dragon,
§ 4 / ). Cp Taprapdjaas, used of the fallen angels,
2 Pet. 24. T. K. C.
ACACIA (na*^), E.K. 25 5 etc., RV. See Shittah
Trki:.
ACATAN (&KAT&N [B.\]), iEsd.838t .W=Ezr.
812, Hakkatan.
ACCABA (akkaBa [B]), i Esd.530 RV=Ezra246,
HAf;AB.
ACCAD (nSX; arx^A [AL]. ax- [DE] ; ->/ ;
yicn.tD) is one of the four cities mentioned in Gen,
10 10 as forming the beginning of the kingdom of
Nimrod in the land of Shinar or Babylonia. In the
cuneiform inscriptions the name of Akkad is most fre-
^ If a Hebrew original could have been supposed for 2 Mace.
lie<T(Ta\a might have represented a transliteration of part of a
participle of n'?t!' (o' irtii<f>6evTtt follows).
31
ACELDAMA
quently met with in the title /ugai ICingi{ki) Uri(ki),
which is rendered in Semitic hy .(ar (mdiu) humeri u
{mt'itu) Akkadi. This title, which implied dominion
over the whole of Babylonia, was borne from the earliest
times by the Babylonian kings, and was adopted by
those kings of Assyria who conquered Babylon (cp Bahy-
I.O.NIA, §1). The Akkad referred to in Gen. 10 lo has
lieen identified by some with the ancient city of Agade
which was situated in northern Babylonia and attained
a position of supremacy over the rest of the country under
Sargon I. about 3800 B.C. This identification, however,
is entirely hypothetical, and is based only on the super-
ficial resemblance of the names. L. W. K.
ACCARON (AKK&pcoN [A*]), I Macc.l089t AV =
RV Ekron {q.v.).
ACCHO, RV Acco (iSJ?), Judg. 1 31 and (see Ummah)
Josh. IQsof ; see Ptolemais.
ACCOS (akxojc [A], AKKOOC [N], iakk. [V] ; same
as Hakkoz \_q.v.'\], grandfather of Eupolemus ; i Mace.
8.7t.
ACCOZ (akBcoc [B]), iEsd.53St AV=Ezra26i
RV, Hakkoz, i.
ACCUSER (KATHrwp [Ti., \V & H following A],
KATHropoc [BN, etc.]. The form of word found in
the best texts is simply a Hebraised form pi3'*Pi5] of the
common word KATHfOpOC- For Rabbinic usage see
e.g. Buxt. Lex.), Rev. 12iot. See Satan, §§ 6 (3) 7.
ACELDAMA AV ; RV Akeldama (axeAAamax'
[Tisch. A, etc.], aciieldemach [96 lat.j, <\Ke. [B fol-
lowed by W & H], -Aaim. [D], aceldemach [d]),
the name according to Acts 1 19 of a field bought
by Judas Iscariot for some unknown purpose. The vet.
Lat. of Mt. 278 applies the name (not, as in the Gk.
MSS. , merely in translation, but in the original) also
to a field bought by the priests of Jerusalem to bury
strangers in.
MS. evidence is so overwhelmingly in favour of some
such form as Akeldaniach that the RV is quite unjusii-
„. fied in rejecting it, especially when it
1. ine name, ^.^^rects the c into k. Acts 1,9 states
that in the language of the dwellers at Jerusalem this
name meant 'the field of blood' {x^^piov ai/xaros).
~01 hpn {hdkel dlmdkh), however, is obviously 'the field
of Ml' blood, ' an impossible expression. Klostermann
has therefore argued with great acuteness [Probleme im
Apostcltexte, 1-8 ['83]) that -jai (DMKh) is one word —
viz. , the well-known Aram, root ' to sleep. ' All we ha\ e
to do, then, is to understand it of the sleep of death, a
usage known in Syr. , and ' field of sleep ' will mean
cemetery, which, as Mt. tells us, was what the priests
meant to make of the potter's field. Klostermann's
argument is very strong — it is certainly natural to
suppose that the name originated in some fact known
to the people at large, as the transformation of a
potter's field into a burying place would be — and his
view was adopted by Wendt (MeyerC' ad loc. ). But we
have no instance of a noun "im so used, and ch, x. may
= K (cp iu3<jy)X [Lk. 326, BN. etc.] = 'Dr ; 2et/)ax, Sirach
= NTD, Sira). Hence, whatever may have been the real
origin of the name — we can never know — its form was
probably n,'3t "jpri (Dalm. Gram. 161 and 105 n. i re-
spectively), ''' the field of blood ' (so Dalm. 161 n. 6 ; Am.
Mey. Jesu Muttersprache, 49 n. i). On the questions
who bought the field and why it was called Aceldama
see also AcT.s, § 14. Cp Judas, 9.
Tradition which goes as far back as to the fourth
century has placed .Aceldama on a level overhanging the
- m_ j-i- 1 Valley of the Son of Hinnom on the
2. Traditional ^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^ hjh ^f £,,41 counsel.
site. — ^ tradition which rests precariously
on Jer. 18/, where the situation of the potter's house in
Jeremiah's day is thought to be indicated. Potter's
1 On this form see Dalm. (Gram. 304 n. 2), Kau. (Gram. 8).
ACHAIA
material is still <lug out in the neighlxjurhood. The
traditional Aceldama was used to bury Christian pilgrims
in at least from 570 {Anton. Plac. I tin. 26) : especially
during the Crusades, but, according to Maundrell, who
says it was then called Campo Santo, even as late as
1697. A charnel house into which the bodies were let
down from above has stood here from very early times.
The best history and description of the site (with plans)
is that by Schick, PEFQ, 1892, pp. 283^
G. A. s.— H. w. H.
ACHAIA (axaia [Ti.WH]). It is a fact of some
interest that both at the beginning and at the end of their
history the word ' Achaian' was used as the general de-
signation of the inhabitants of (irecce proper. During
the classical pxTJod Achaia denoted only the narrow strip
of coastland and the adjoining mountain stretching along
the S. shore of the Ciorinthian gulf from the river
Sythas (mod. Trikalitikos) 20 m. west of Corinth, to the
river Larisus near Cape .Xraxus (mod. Kalogria). In the
time of Paul, Achaia signifietl the Roman province — i.e.,
the whole country south of Macedonia and Ulyricum, in-
cluding some of the adjacent islands. The 'lanie Achaia
was given to it in consetjuence of the part played by the
Acho-MU League in the last spasmodic effort which
occasioned the sack of Corinth and the downfall of Greek
independence, 146 B.C. (Paus. vii. I610). Whether the
formation of the province dates from that year, or not, is
of no consequence to the student of the Bible. It was in
27 B.C. that Augustus definitely settled the boundaries of
Achaia, assigning to it Thessaly, /J'ltolia, Acarnania, and
part of Epirus (.Strabo, p. 840). The Achaia of Paul is,
therefore, practically synonymous with the modern
kingdom of Greece, but a little more extensive towards
the north-west. The combination ' Macedonia and
.-\chaia ' embraces the whole of European (ireece, as in
Acts 19 21, 5u\dij.)v TT]i> "MoLKedoviav Kal 'Axo-iav (see
also Rom. l.'')26 i Thess. 1 7/. ). From 27 B.C. Achaia
naturally ranked as a senatorial province — /. e. , its governor
was an ex-jjra^tor, with the title proconsul (Strabo, /.c. ).
In 15 A.I)., however, owing to their financial embarrass-
ments, both Achaia and Macedonia were taken charge
of by Tiberius ; and it was not until 44 A. D. that Claudius
restored them to the Senate (Tac. Ann. i. 76 ; Suet.
Claud. 25). The writer of ActslS 12 is thus quite correct
in speaking of Gallio in 53 or 54 A.d. as avQi-Kcro-i — •
i.e. , i^roconsul. The fiasco of Nero's proclamation made
all Greece free, but this state of things lasted only a
short time. With this exception, a proconsular governor
was stationed in Corinth, the capital of Achaia, until
the time of Justinian.
In the NT we hear of only three towns of Achaia —
Athens, Corinth, and Ck.nchrka ;— but the Saluta-
tions of the two Corinthian Epistles (esp. 2 Cor. 1 1 iv
6\ri TTj 'Axa^ff) imply other Christian communities in
the province. In i Cor. 16 15 the ' house of Stephanas '
is called the 'first-fruits of Achaia' {dirapxv''^^ 'Axo-io-s).
In this place, for ' .Vchaia ' we should expect ' Corinth' ;
for, according to Acts 17 34, Dionysius the Areopagite
and other .Athc^nians must have been the first-fruits of
teaching in the province of Achaia. In Rom. 16 5, where,
according to the Text. Rec. , Epaenetus is spoken of as
the d.irapxv ttjs 'Axat'aj, the best texts read 'Aaias [Ti.
W & H, following B.\N, etc.]. The charity of Achajan
converts is praised in 2 Cor. 92 Rom. 1026; but the
reference may be merely to the church at Corinth (cp
2 Cor. 810). \v. J. w.
ACHAICUS (axaikoc [Ti.WH]), a member of the
Corinthian church, who, along with .Stejihanas and For-
tunatus, had carried to Paul at Ephesus news of the
Corinthians which had gladdened and refreshed him
(i Cor. 16 17/. ). He is enumerated as one of the
Seventy (Lk. 10 1) in Chron. Pasc. (Bonn ed. i. 402).
ACHAN (IPV- Josh. 7), called Achar (13];— «.^.,
' troubled '— , cp OCR AN, n^y) in i Ch. 27 and {achar
[ed. Bensly]) in 4 Esd. 737 [107] RV. 6's readings are
3 33
ACHIACHARUS
AXAp[ni'"-ind(exc<-ptJosh. 7i, &xan)IO. AXAN [A ; but
AXApin Josh.724 iCh. 27]); thesonofCarniib. Zalxlib.
Zerah b. Judah, who unlawfully took possession of some
of the ' devoted ' spoil of Jericho (si-e liAN ). His breach
of a talxK) had involved the whole host in guilt {RS^'^
162), and the conununity had to free itself of responsi-
bility by destroying not only Achan but also his whole
family (Josh. 7). This is quite in accordance with
primitive notions (A'.S'W 421), although our present text
is due to later insertions in v. 24/ With the variety
in the form of the name is to be connected the word-
play in Josh. 725. Cp Cakmi, i.
ACHAZ (axaz [Ti], Ax&C [\VH], .\It.l9), KV
Aha/ (</.?■. i).
ACHBOR (li33y, § 68, i.e., Mol.sk [y.z'.]; cp Ph.
-I32y, N-iaDy, D-I33y; AXoBoopfBAL]).
1. Father of Baal-hnnan [ i] king of Edom ((Jen. ;}6 38,
Xofioip [A*Z>] ; 39 ; I *^h. 1 49, liry [Ba. CJinsb. ], ax<«'/iwp
U^l X- [L]) ; a'so V. 50 in ©"'^. See Edom, § 4.
2. b. Micah ; a courtier of King Josiah (2 K. 212 1214 ;
Jer. 2622, MT and Thcod. in (J nig. [I5.\N om.] ; Jer.
36 12, aKXojiujp [BK'], -(iv [N*]. aKofiwp [Q]) ; in 2 Ch.
3-4 20 named Abdon [</.;. ,4] (ajioooofj. [li], a(i8u}t> [.\L]).
ACHIACHARUS (axiaXAROC [HA]; see further
below).
I. The prosperous nephew of Tobit (see Tobit).
He was cup-bearer, signet-keeper, steward, and overseer
of accounts to Esarhaddon at Nineveh (Tob. 1 21/).
In i88o George Hoffmann pointed out* the identity
of the Achiacharus of Tob. I21/. lli8l4iot with
Ahikar (on the name see below), a legendary sage and
vezir of Sennacherib, who is the hero of a romance found
in certain Syriac and Arabic MS.S. According to this
romance, he almost lost his life through the base
treachery of his sister's son (cp Pesh. in Tob. 11 18),
Nadan ( = Aman of Tob. 14 10 — cp [ewoiria-fi'] a5ajtt [B],
vaSafi (N); see Aman — and probably = Nabal [or I.al an
or other form] of Tob. 11 18 ; see Nasbas), whom he
had adopted. Restored to favour, he gave sundry
proofs of his marvellous wisdom, especially in connec-
tion with a mission to a foreign king. Assemanni had
already observed {Bifi. Or. 3, pt. I286 <?) that in the
Arabic story ' de Hicaro eadem fere narrantnr quae
de .Esopo Phryge ' ; chaps. 23-32 of the legendary IJ/e
of yEsop (Maximus Planudes) in fact tell of /Esop and
his kinsman Ennos a quite similar story. There can
be little doubt that the story is oriental in origin ; but
it has been argued by Meissner (see below) that the
^■Esop romance has preserved in some respects a more
original form. The Greek recension, however, that
must be assumed as the basis of certain Roumanian
and Slavonic versions still surviving, was probably an
independent version now lost, made from the Syriac.
Allusions to an eastern sage axai'^apoy are found
elsewhere {e.^^., Strabo, p. 762) ; and traces of his story
seem to have made their way into the Talnmd {ZD.MG
48194/ ['94])- The nmtual relations of these various
recensions are still obscure ; but there seems little
reason to question that the allusions in Tobit are to
an already well-known story. M. R. James (Guardian,
Feb. 2, 1898, pp. 163/. ) suggests parallels to the same
story in the NT.
Of the allusions, that in 11 18 is wanting in the It.; these in
11 18 and 14 10 are absent from the ' Chaldee ' and Heb. te.xts ;
while the Vg. omits all s.ive that in 11 13 (Acltior) — jwrhaps the
allusions were felt to have little to do with the .story of Tobit.
(Ircek variants of the name are ax(i\apov [j< in c. 1, •"ax-
once in J<<^-''1, axcli]*- Ik in !■* 'oJ. ax«iKop [K' in 11 18, ax'ia-
Xo^f K<^-^1, cp It. Achicarus, and in 14 10 Acktcar. The
equivalent Hebrew would be -pTK. and Meissner has pointed
out that Pesh. has i.Q«'a( for •|?3 in iCh. 05. The name
remains obscure however. Pesh. has ; f* - f* ^ ; ' Chald.' H3,
•\p-p» ; Hi |nnK 'ntt: Vg- Achior, and Pesh. in I21/. >Q*-(.
1 ' Ausziige aus syrischen Akten persischen Martyrer,' in
Ahhatuil.f. d. Kunde d. Morgtnlandes, 7, no. 3, p. t8a.
ACHIAS
In the romance the forms are ,\ p - «^ ; ^^ft -^ [cod. Sach.];
lf*-,'( [cod. in Brit. Mus.].
Published texts— ([) Semitic: Arabic, A. galhani, Carifes
araies, 2-20 (Beyrouth, 1890) ; Ar. and Neo-Syr., M. Lidzbarski,
from cod. Sachau 339, in K>xiinzungsh,-fte zur /.A Hefte 4-5, 1
Teil, with Germ, traiisl.; English transl. of Syriac (compared with
Ar. and Neo.-Syr.), E. J. Dillon, Contevip. Ktv. March '98, p.
369-386; cp also versions of the .Arabian Nights— <f.^^., Sir R. F.
Burton, Alf Laylah 7va Lay/ah, supplemental volumes, 6 3-38 ;
iEthiopic (precepts), C. H. Cornill, Vas Buck der veiseu Fhilo-
sophen, 19-21, 40-44. (2) Slavonic: Germ, transl. V. Jagic,
Byzant. Zeitsch. 1 11 1-126. (j) Armenian, printed at Constanti-
nople, in 1708, 1731, and 1862.I (4) Tlu Story 0/ A hikar, Cony-
beare, Harris, and Lewis, Camb. 1898 (Glc. text ; Armen., Syr.,
and Arab, texts and transl.; Slav, and Eth. transl.) appeared
as these sheets were being passed for press.
Discussions : Bruno Meissner, ZDMG 48 171-197 ['94) ; Jagic
(op. cit. 107-111); Ernst Kuhn (/A 127-130); Lidzbarski {I.e.
■x/-); Bickell, Atheturum, 22nd Nov. 1890, p. 700, and 24th
Jan. 1891, p. 123; cp also 20th Nov. 1897, p. 711, and 27th
Nov., p. 750; J. R. Harris in Story o/A/i/iar (see above), pp.
vii.-lxxxviii.
2. 'King of Media' (Tob. 14 15 [.y*] ; It. .^r///e<ir)= Nebu-
chadnezzar (/.'^ [B]) = Ahasuerus (/A [A]). See ToBiT,
Book (>f.
ACHIAS [ach/as), 4 Esd. 1 2!. See Ahijah, i.
ACHIM (AxeiM [BN*], -j^, a^in, -hn [A etc.],
AXiM [N'' etc.], cp AxeiM = DN^nN, Aiiiam, i Ch.
11 35 [BN*A], and = pr, J.-vcm.v, Gen. 46io [.A*"'i-], i Ch.
24 i7[i<3] [B]), a name in the ancestry of Joseph (Mt. 1 14).
See Gk.nkai.ogiks of Jesus, § 2 c.
ACHIOR (Ax[e]ia)p [BXA], § 44), in the romance
of Judith {q.v.), 'captain of all the sons of Ammon."
Having dared to warn Holofernes of the danger of
attacking the Israelites, he was handed over to them to
share their fate on the expected triumph of the Assyrian
arms (65^). He was hospitably received, and ultimately
became a Jewish proselyte — no doubt to the great
edification of Jewish readers of the story.
In some versions of 'lobit his name t.ikes the place of that of
AcHiACHARus {q.v.)—nn error due to the similarity of /t and w
in Svri.ac.
ACHIPHA (AxeiB<\ [B]),
251, HAKll'liA.
Esd.Ssit RV = Ezra
ACHISH (""3X, ArXOYC [BA], akx- [L]), a Phihs-
tine, .son of Maoch (i S. 272) or Maachah (i K. 239/ ;
AfXiC [A]) ; a king of Oath, with whom David and i
his band took refuge from the persecution of Saul (see
D.Win, § 5). He is described as a credulous man
whom David found it easy to deceive, representing that |
his raids against Bedouin tribes were really directed [
against the Judahites and their allies, and taking care
not to leave any of his captives alive to reveal the truth
to Achish. At Ziklag, which had been assigned to
him as his place of residence, David hved as a freebooter
in vas.salage to Achish for a year and four months
(©only four months). The confidence, however, with
which his suzerain regarded him was not shared by
the Philistine lords, who prevailed upon Achish to
dismiss David from his army when starting to meet
Saul at Gilboa. See i S. 27^-282 29i-ii, a'connected
passage of date prior to 800 {SBOT). In another passage
(1K.239/), where the execution of Shimei [i] is ac-
counted for by his having gone to Gath in search of
some runaway slaves, it is said that the fugitives went
to Achish. No doubt the same king is meant (son of
Maacah, v. 39), though the reference to Achish has the
appearance of being a later ornamental insertion made
in oblivion of chronology.
To a very much later writer (see i S. 21 10-15 [11-16])
the account in i S. 27-29 seemed to reflect on David's
patriotism. He therefore devised an entertaining and
unobjectionable story, in the style of the Midrash,
which he hoped would supplant the no longer intelligible
historical tradition. According to him, David went
alone, and was compelled to feign madness for safety
1 According to information received from Mr. F. C. Cony-
beare, there are two Armenian recensions, the earlier of which
appears to be in some respects more primitive than the Syriac.
There is also, probably, a Georgian version.
35
ACHSAH
till he could escape. The author of the title of Ps. 34
accepted this story, but by mistake (thinking of Gen.
2O2) wrote 'Abimelech' for 'Achish' (a/3[e]i/ie\ex
[BN.VR], ax«M- [U], Achimelech ; Pesh. quite different).
T. K. c.
ACHITOB (AxeiTOoB [B]), iEsd.82 = 4 Esd. lif
AV = Ezra 72, Ahitub, 2.
ACHMETHA (NnpnX), Ezra 6 2t, the capital of
Media ; see Ecbatana.
ACHOR ("1133^; axwP [BAL]), a valley on the
N. boundary of Judah (Josh. 15 7), which, as we may
infer from josh. 7 (E/ie/cax^p [BAL]) combined with
Hos. 2i5[i7], led up from Jericho into the highlands of
Judah. In Is. 65 10 it represents the E. portion of Canaan
on this side the Jordan. To an Israelite its name natur-
ally suggested gloomy thoughts. Hosea promises that
in the future, when Israel has repented, the evil omen
shall be nullified, and a much later prophetic writer
(Is. I.e.) that the valley of Achor shall become a
resting-place of flocks. Early legend connected the
name with the sin of Achan the ' troubler ' of Israel
(Josh. 724-26t, JE). Many (^.^. Grove, very positively,
in Smith's DB) have identified the valley with the
Wady el-Kelt, which leads down through a stupendous
chasm in the mountains to the plain of the Jordan, and
is, to unromantic observers, dark and dismal. This
wady, however, is scarcely lifeless enough to be Achor,
for its slender torrent-stream rarely dries up. It is
also scarcely broad enough ; it would never have
occurred to the most ecstatic seer that flocks could
lie down in the Wady el-Kelt. Some other valley
must be intended. According to the 05(21725 8934)
the valley was to the N. of Jericho, and its old name
still clung to it. This cannot be reconciled with the
statement in Josh. I.e. respecting the N. boundary of
J udah.
ACHSAH (nppy, § 71, 'anklet- ; ^CXA [B], axca
[.\L]), according to Josh. I516-19, and (aza [B],
ACXA [B^'i-'-'g-A]) Judg.l 12-15 (cp iCh. 249; AV
Achsa, o2a [L]). a daughter of Caleb, who offered
her in marriage to the conqueror of Kirjath-sepher. She
was won by his younger brother Othniel. At her peti-
tion, because her home was to be in the dry southland
(Negeb), Caleb bestowed upon her certain coveted waters
called the Upper and the Lower Golath (see below).
The simple grace of the narrative holds us spell-bound ;
but we must not, with Kittel [Hist. 1 299), pronounce
the story historical on this account. That some clans
should have been named after individuals is not incon-
ceivable ; but it is most improbable that we have any
true traditions respecting the fortunes of such possible
individuals, and it would be throwing away the lessons
of experience to admit the lifelikeness of a narrative as
an argument for its historicity. According to analogy,
Achsah must represent a Kenizzite clan, allied in the
first instance to the Calebites of Hebron, but also, very
closely, to the clan settled at Debir and called Othniel ;
and the story arose in order to justify the claim of the
Achsah clan to the possession of certain springs which
lay much nearer to Hebron than to Debir (so Prof
G. F. Moore, on Judg.l). That the cause is amply
sufficient, can hardly be denied (cp the Beersheba and
Rehoboth stories in Genesis). It only remains to discover
the right springs. We know where to look, having
identified Debir with the highest degree of probability.
And our search is rewarded. In all other parts of the
district the water supply is from cisterns ; no streams or
springs occur. But about seven miles (Conder) N. of
ed-Ddheriyeh (the true Debir), and near Van de Velde's
site for Debir (A7^. ed-Dilheh), are beautiful springs
(worthy of being Achsah's prize), which feed a stream
that runs for three or four miles, and does not dry up.*
The springs, which are fourteen, are in three groups,
1 PEF Mem.Z->pi; see also GASm. Hist. Geog. 279 (cp
p. 78), who speaks of only two springs.
36
ACHSHAPH
and the two which are nearest to the head of the
valley may be presumed to lie the Upper and Lower
Golath. The identification is certainly a valuable one.
Sec, further, Goi.A th-Maim.
ACHSHAPH (fli;ON. i.e. 'sorcery'; &z€l(J) [B],
AXCACJ) [A]. &XAC- [1-]). one of the unknown sites
in the hook of Joshua. It lay, according to P, on the
Ixjrdcr of the .\slierite territory (Josh. I925 ; Kea(p [H]).
Its king (if the s;\me Achshaph is meant) joined the
northern confederation under Jabin, king of Hazor (11 i ;
ox'<^ [A], ax«t/i [1'"]. [fiacuXta] x'^<'°-'t> ['-]) i and
shared the defeat of his allies (I220). Rob. (liRAss)
connects it with the modern Kesaf, a village near the
bend of the river Litany where there are some ruins of
uncertain date; this identification would suit Josh. 11 1,
but not 1925. Maspero, on the other hand, followed
by WNLVI (As. u. Eur. 154, cp 173), identifies
Achshaph with the Aksap of the name-list of Thotmes
III. (A'/'IS*, 546). In this part of the li^t. however,
there are names of localities in the region of Jezreel,
which is outside the land of Asher. Flinoers Petrie
(Hist, of Eg. 2326) connects Aksap with ' Asdfek, 9 m.
SSW. of Jeba, which is hazardous. At any rate there
were probably several places noted anciently for their
sorcerers and therefore called Achshaph. The form Kea(^
(see above) has suggested a most improbable identification
with Haifa (FEE Mem. 1 165). The statement of Eus.
in OS, 21854^ (o.Kaa.<l>) is geographically impossible.
ACHZIB (3'T3X ; probably 'winter-torrent').
I. .\ town of Judah in the Shephelah, mentioned with
Ke'ilah and Mareshah, Jos. I544 (aKtefei «:. *cefet/i [B],
axf« \.-^\ axf"/* [I-]), also Mic. 1 ^f, where ©"'W,
losing the intended paronomasia, renders ' the houses
of .Achzib ' oXkovs fiaraiovs. The name becomes Chkzib
(3*13; Samar. te.xt, Chazbah; x°-<^^'- [''^^L]) in Gen. 38 st,
where the legend presupposes that Chezib is the centre
of the clan of Shelah ; and since in i Ch. 4 22t ' the
men of Cozeba ' (n3I3 ; x^fvi^a [AL] ; but ffuixn^o-
[R], cp ffwxa = Socoh) are said to belong to the same
clan, we may safely recognise COZKBA (so RV ; AV
Chozeba) as another form of the same name. The
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
name may perhaps linger in 'Ain el h'etbeh, between
Yarmuk (Jarmuth) and Shuweikeh (Socoh), but to tlie
E. of both (So GASm. , after PEE Mem. 3 36). Conders
identification of Cozeba with the ruin of Kuweiziba, 2^
ni. NE. of Halhul towards Hebron (PEE Mem. '6^)
is therefore superfiuous. IJuhl wi.scly doubts the pro-
posal to identify it with Kus.sabe SE. of Tell el-Hesy
(J'al. 192).
2. A Canaanite town, 9 m. to the north of Accho,
like which city it was claimed but not conquered by the
irilje of Asher, Josh. 19 29 {(xo^ofi [li], axf<»«^ [A'].
af«^ [A*], axaf«^ [L]), Judg. Ijif (a<rxaf*i [HL],
■XivSn [.A]). Sennacherib mentions Akzibi and Akku
together in the Taylor inscription (P/''-> 688). Achzib
(Aram. AcMifi) is the Ecdippa, fKSiTrira, of O.S, 95i3
2'24 77, the (KSi-mrwi' [/y/l 134], exSetTrocj (.-////. v. 1 22,
where it is said to have been also called ipKrj) of Jos. ,
the modern ez-'/.lb. i . k. ( .
ACIPHA (AXeiBA [B]).
Hakui>iia.
Esd. 53it AV = Ezra2 5i
ACITHO (AKiBca [A]), Judiths. f. RV, Ahitub
(q.v., 4).
ACRA(<\KpA [ ANV]), I Mace. 1 33 etc., AV ' strong-
hold,' KV 'citadel.' See jKKrsALEM.
ACEABBIM (D*3npy). Josh. 153t. RV Akkabbim.
ACRE ("ip'ii, zeYPOC in Is. ; for © in i Sam. cp
We. Dr. ad he.). Is. 5 10, i S. 14i4 AV mg. RV. The
Heb. word seems to denote the amount of land which a
span or Yoke \q.~'.~\ of o.xen could plough in the course
of a day (cp below) ; perhaps, like the Egyptian dpovpa,
it ultimately became a fixed quantity (cp Now. Arch. 1
202). Even at the present day the fellahin of Palestine
measure by the fadddn ( = Syr. paddand ' yoke ' ; cp
ZZ?/'/' 4 79) ; cp also \^aX. Ji/i^i/nt , jugcrum. The term
is not restricted to arable land, being applied in Is. I.e.
to a vineyard. Winckler, however (AUE, 2nd scr. , 2
90), derives semed from Bab. samddu {=:Iai'd/u) to
weigh, properly to measure off (which is at any rate
barely possible), and attempts to show that seined in
Is. can denote only a liquid measure (which is by no
means obvious). See Weights and Measures.
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES^
CONTENTS
T/u HVe' sect ions distinct in characier/roiu rest o/i>ook(% i); inaccuracies (% 2); ' Tendency '(^i 3-7); ' Journey Record' (% &/.)',
Ot/ier Sources {^ 10/); Trust2uorthi>u'ss {%% i2-n); Authorship {^ 15); Date {% 16) ; Blasss hypothesis (% 17/.); Religious
Value o/Acts (§ 19) ; Literature (§ 20).
Apart from scanty notices supplied by the NT epistles,
this book is our only source for the history of Christianity
during its first thirty or thirty-five years. The question
of its trustworthiness is, therefore, of fundamental im-
portance.
The sections in which, as an eye-witness, the writer
gives his narrative in the first person plural (16 10-17 -0
1. The ' We '
sections
or Journey
Record.
5-15 21 1-18 27 1-28 16) may be implicitly
accepted. But it may be regarded as
ecjually certain that they are not by the
same writer as the other parts of the
book. In the sections named, the book
shows acquaintance with the stages of travel of almost
every separate day, and with other very unimportant
details (2O13 2I2/. 16 28ii, etc.); outside these limits
it has no knowledge even of such an important fact as
that of Paul's conflicts with his opponents in Galatia and
Corinth, and mentions only three of the twelve adventures
catalogued so minutely in 2 Cor. 11 24/. cp 23 (Acts 14 19
16 22 23/ ). Even had the writer of the book as a whole
(assuming him to have been a companion of Paul) been
separated from the apostle — remaining behind, e.g. , in
Macedonia during the interval between 1617 and 20 5 —
he would surely afterwards have gathered the needful
details from eye-witnesses and embodied them in his I
37
book, instead of satisfying himself with such extra-
ordinarily meagre notes as we have in I821-232O1-3 or
16 5-8. Even were he following an old journal, he
could never have passed over so many important matters
in silence simply because they were not to be found in
his notes. P'urther, he contradicts the Epi-^tle to the
Galatians so categorically (see Gai.ATI.^ns, Epistle to,
§ 5/., and Coi;nc:l ok Jekusali.m) th.at, if we assume
his identity with the eye-witness who writes in the first
I person, we are compelled (see below, § 6) to adopt one of
j two courses. We must either make Galatians non-Pauline
I or pronounce the writer of Acts as a whole to be a
' tendency ' writer of the most marked character — hardly
less so than a post-apostolic author who should have
simply invented the ' we ' sections. To suppose that
the 'we' sections were invented, however, is just as
inadmissible as to question the genuineness of Galatians.
If the sections had been invented, they would not
have been so different from the rest of the took. We
must therefore conclude that the sections in question
come from a document written by an eye-witness, the
so-called ' we ' source, and that this was used by a later
writer, the compiler of the whole book.
It is upon this assumption of a distinct authorship for
1 On title see below, Ian.
38
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
the ' we ' sections that we are best able to pass a compara-
tively favourable judgment on the compiler's deviations
from historical facts in other parts of the book. But
there is one charge from which he cannot be freed, viz. ,
that he has followed the method of retaining the ' we '
without change. In the case of so capable a writer,
in whom hardly a trace can be detected, either in
vocabul.-iry or in style, of the use of documents, this fact
is not to be explained by lack of skill, such as is some-
times met with in the Mediceval chroniclers. The
inference is inevitable that he wished — what has actually
happened — that the whole book should be regarded as
the work of an eye-witness. An analogous case is to
be found in the ' I ' taken over from the Memoirs of
Ezra and Nehemiah (Ezra 727-834 Qi-is; Neh. li-7s
I231I36-31 ; also in Tob. I3-36, and in Protevangclium
Jacobi, -i.if.). Just as EzralO and Neh. 8, as well as
the sections just mentioned, must be held to rest on
those Memoirs, although modilied and with the ' I '
dropped out, so in Acts we may assume much other
matter to have been drawn from the source from which
the 'we' sections are derived. Any attempt, however,
to assign to this source whole sections of the book not
having the ' we,' and to use the conclusion so gained as
a proof of the trustworthiness of everything thus assumed
to belong to it, must be postponed until this trustworthi-
ness has been investigated by the means otherwise at our
command.
In this investigation we begin with certain obvious
inaccuracies — first of all with those which cannot be
.. . traced to the influence of any tendency.
2. inaccuracies ^^^ ^^ ^^^^ j,^^ manifestation of Christ
b^T d ^^^ to Paul near Damascus. According to
■' ^' 229 his companions see the light from
heaven but do not hear the voice of Jesus ; according
to 97 they hear the voice but see no one and do not fall
down ; according to 26 12-18 they fall down indeed with
Paul, but it is he alone who sees the heavenly light,
and hears the voice. This last account, moreover,
represents him as having received at the time an ex-
planation of what had occurred ; according to 22n f.,
he did not receive the explanation until afterwards,
through Ananias.
Further inconsistencies of statement are to be found when we
compare the explanation of the departure from Jerusalem in
926-30 with that in 2'2 17-21 ; the account in IO44 (en) with that
in 11 15 (a.p^(x<idai) ; the explanation of the offering in 21 20-26
with that in 24 177^ ; the accounts in 21 31-34 2223-29 2827 with
2817, according to which Paul was, in Jerusalem, a prisoner of
the Jews and not as yet of the Romans ; the occasion of the
appeal to Caesar in 2.59-11 with that in 28 iSy; The liberation
of Paul and .Silas from prison at Philippi (1023-40) is not only a
very startling mir.icle (with resemblances to what we read in
Euripides, Bacchie, 436-441, 5027^, 606-628 [cp Nonnus, Diony-
siaca, 45262-285], ^"J ^^ regards Acts 10 35-J9, in Lucian,
Toxaris, 27-33), b'lt is scarcely reconcilable with i Thess. 2 2,
where the language of the apostle hardly suggests that his
' boldness in God ' was in any measure due to an occurrence of
this kind.
So much for inaccuracies that cannot be attributed to
any tendency on the part of the writer. There are
others — and these of much greater importance — which
can only be so explained. Before discussing these, let us
ascertain clearly what the tendency of the writer is.
Every historian who is not simply an annalist must
have ' tendency ' in the wider sense of that word.
Tflniiencv ^'^ trustworthiness is not necessarily
* XI. 1, 1 affected thereby : indeed, it has actually
of tne book. , .. r.. i-.r
been urged by one of the apologists for
Acts,* as an argument for the trustworthiness of the book,
that it was designed to be put in as a document at the
trial of Paul, and was written entirely with this view — a
position that cannot, however, be made good. Now, it
is clear that the book does not profess to be a history of
the first extension of Christianity, or of the Church in the
apostolic age : it covers really only a small portion
of this field. It is equally certain that the title irpa^eis
irCJvf) dwoffrbXwv does not express the purpose of its
1 Aberle, Tiib. Theol. Quartahchr. 1863, pp. 84-134.
39
author, who relates hardly anything of James and John,
and of nine of the apostles mentions nothing but the
names. 1 Neither is the book a history of Peter and
Paul, for it tells also of John, of both the Jameses, of
the deacons, of Stephen, Philip, Apollos, and others.
Nor is it a history of the spread of the gospel from
Jerusalem to Rome ; for the founding of the Roman
church is not described but presupposed (2815), and all
that has any interest for the writer is the arrival there
of Paul (1921 23 11). It is often supposed that the aim
of the book is expressly formulated in 18, and that
the purpose of the author was to set forth the spread of
Christianity from Jerusalem, through Samaria, and to
the ends of the earth. This is much too indefinite to
account either for the difference in scale of the various
narratives, sometimes so minutely detailed and some-
times so very vague, or for their marked divergences
from actual history.
It is, therefore, no prejudice on the part of critics,
but the nature of the book itself, that leads us to ascribe
tendency to the writer. Only (i) we must not, with the
Tiibingen School, consider it 'conciliatory.' According
to tiiat view, Acts was an attempt from the Pauline side,
by means of concessions, to bring Judaism to a recogni-
tion of Gentile Christianity. A reconciliation of the
two was thus to be effected in face of the danger that
threatened both, from Gnosticism on the one side and
from state persecution on the other. This cannot have
been the purpose. Acts is much too harsh towards non-
Christian Jews, for whom Christian Jews continued to
retain a certain sympathy (223 751-53 I85/ 12-17 1913-16
21 27-36 23 12-15, etc. ) ; besides, most of the details which
it gives have no relation to any such purpose. The
main point on which the supposed reconciliation turns,
the Apostolic Decree (1528/. ), is to be explained other-
wise (see Council ok Jerusalem, § 10). (2) On the
other hand, the book is not a mere apology for Paul.
If it were, much of its contents would be unsuitable {e.g. ,
the enumeration of the conditions required in an apostle
[121/], which were not fulfilled in Paul); it does not
even give such a view of the personality of Paul as the
facts known to us from the epistles demand (see below,
§§ 7, 14). There remains only (3) one other possible
view of the author's tendency. His aim is to justify the
Gentile Christianity of himself and his time, already on
the way to Catholicism, and he seeks to do this by
means of an account of the origin of Christianity. The
apostles, including Paul, are the historical foundation
of Christianity, and 432 a, where we are told that all
Christians were of one heart and soul, may be regarded
as forming a motto for the book.
A whole series of demonstrable inaccuracies becomes
J . comprehensible when viewed as result-
4. inaccuracies j^^ ^^^^^ ^^-^ tendency. Paul never
resulting irom ^^^^^^ .^^^^ conHict with the original
tnis tenaency. j^p^gties or their followers as he does
in Gal. 4 17 57 10 12 ; 2 Cor. 10 14/. 11 13-15 18-23.
The one misunderstanding (Acts 15) that arises is cleared
away by the original apostles ; the attempt to enforce the cir-
cumcision of Titus (Gal. 2 3-5)^nay, the whole personality of
Titus — is just as carefull>r passed over in silence as are the dis-
pute with Peter at Antioch (Gal. 2 11-21; see Council of
Jerusalem, § 3) and the Judaising plots to impose on the
Galatians and Corinthians another Gospel, that of circumcision
(Gal. Isy: 612/), and another Christ (2 Cor. 11 4/). Apart
1 It is not to be inferred from the absence of the article from
the title in good MSS (irpa|eis ano<TTo\uv [BD]) that the author
me^nt to say that it wa.s with the acts of only some of the apostles
that he proposed to deal ; for it would be very strange that he
should admit such an incompleteness in the very title of his
work. The article before aTroo-ToAoji/ is omitted because irpofeis
is without it ; and that is so simply bec.iuse such is the usual
practice at the beginning of books (cp Mt. 1 1 Acts 1 i, and see
Winer (8), g 1!>4, 10). Since therefore no form of the title can
be assigned to the author of the book, we conclude that the title
must date from the time when the book was first united with
others in one collection— its first occurrence is in the last third of
the second century (Mur. Fragm. Tert. Clem.Al.). The simple
npa^tii [k], common since Origen, is meaningless as an original
title, and intelligible only as an abbreviation.
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
from the Gentiles, who seldom show hostility to Paul (14 s
Id 16-33 ld3-4>). >( is (notwithstandinK the end of 3 Cor. II36)
only at the hands of non-Christian Jews that Paul meets with
difficulties (13 45 18 6 HI 9 28 34) or persecutions (1» 23/ 39 13 50
14 3 5 19 17 5-8 13 IS lay. 20 3 19 21 27-36 23 12-21 24 1-9 25 2-9 24).
For further illustrntiuns of the operation of this tendency in the
writer of Acts see Simo.n and Bakjksus.
On the other hand, Paul brings forward nothing
whatever in which the original apostles had not led the
way : far from going beyond them at all, he appears
to Ix' entirely dependent on them.
His journeys to .Arabia, Syria, and Cilicia (Gal. 1 17 31) are
passed over in silence, and thus it is made out that not he but
Peter gains the first Gentile convert, for Cornelius, in opposi-
tion to 10 3 23 35, where he is a senii-proselyte, is represented in
102845 11 I 18 157 as a pure Gentile. (Historically, however,
after Peter had, in face of the doubts of the primitive church, so
completely, and as a question of general pruiciple, justified the
reception of Cornelius into the Christian comniunily without
his being subjected to the requirements of the Mosaic law,
as is related m 11 1-18, the question that led to the Council of
Jerusalem could never again have sprung up.)
Again, whenever Paul comes into a strange city, he seeks (as
we should expect him to do) to establish relations first of all with
the synagogue, since, tliroufih the proselytes w)io might be
looked for there, he could obtain access to the Gentiles: our
view agrees also with Rom. 10 18-21. According to Acts, how-
ever, in almost every place where Paul betakes himself with
his message to the llentiles as distinct from the Jews, he has
to purchase anew the right to do so, by first of all preaching
to the Jews and being rejected by them (13i4 45yC IS4-6 I'.l8_/C
281724-28). The only exceptions to this rule are Benta (17
10-12), Paphos, Lystra, and Athens (13 6 14 7 17 17) — where the
narrative passes at once to a quite singular incident— and towns
so summ.-irily dealt with as Derbe and Perga (14 21 25), along
with Iconium, where Gentiles are brought to Christianity
through the sermon in the synagogue (14 i). In 28 17-28, in
order to make the right to preach to the Gentiles dependent
on the rejection of the gospel by the Jews, the very existence
of the Christian church, already, according to 2.S 15, to be found
in Rome, is ignored. Such a dependence of Paul's life-work
— his mission to the f".cntile> -cm the ilcpurtiuent of the Jews,
arid that too in rwry in.iivi.iual city, is ,|iiilc iriL-cnncilable
with Gal.l 1627 /;, ami with the iiii>tivc-s wliii h llic author him-
self indicates in .Acts i:i 47 L's •.(■',, as ul-II a^ with '.' is-'' \T f.
After the appciraiK.- ..f Ksus hinis.lf" to I'.ii;! mai 1 ),iiii.iscus,
the apostle lias vet linthcr to be iiitn..iui:. .1 to hi- work by
human agency (in tlie tii-t in--tan. e l.y Ananias j'.i », 10-19 'Jl' 10
14-16], and suhscinioiitly 111 25I l>y IIaknahas \<i.~'.\, a nieniljer
of the original cluircli). and this happens after the church of
Antioch— the first Gentile Christi.an Church, and Paul's first
important coiiijregation— had already been founded by Chris-
tians from Jerusalem (11 20-24). (Both of these statements are
contradicted by Cial. I16; the latter of them vi'so by the
order in which Syria and Cilicia are taken in (lal 1 21.)
Moreover, at the Council of Jekusali-;m (^.7'. § 6) Paul has only
to give in a report and to accept the decisions of the primitive
church.
The tendency we have pointed out throws ligjht also
on the parallel (which is tolerably close, especially where
miracles are concerned) between the acts and experiences
of Peter and of Paul.
Both begin by healing a man lame from birth (3 2-10= 14 8-10),
and go on to the cure of another sick man (9 33^^ = 28 8); they
heal many men at once, both directly (.1 16 = 289) ^"^^ mediately
(5 15 = 19 12), besides doing signs and wonders generally (243
5 12 = 14315 12 19 11); both bring a dead person to life (936-42 =
2O9-12); both perform a miracle of judgment (5 i-io = 13 6-11I ;
both, by the laying-on of hands, confer the gift of the Holy
Ghost (814-17 = 191-7), and in doing .so also impart the gift of
tongues (1044-46 = 196); both have a vision corresponding with
one experienced by another man (101-22 = 93-16); both are
mir.-iculi>usly delivered from prison (5 i8y; 12 3-11 = 1023-34) ;
both are scourged (540= 1('> 227C) ; both decline divine honours
in almost identical words (10 25^1 = 14 ii-iS, cp 28 6).
The life of Paul included many more incidents of this
kind than that of Peter ; but from what we have already
observed we can understand how the author's wish not
to allow r'eter to fall behind Paul must have influenced
the narrative. Still, he has by no means wholly sacrificed
history to his imagination ; had this been so, he would
certainly have brought his narrative into much closer
agreement with his own ideals. He has not, for ex-
ample, introduced in the case of Peter, as in that of
Paul, a stoning (14 19), or threats against life (923/.
29145), or an exorcism (I616-18). And in like manner
the omission of many of the items enumerated in 2 Cor.
11 23-27 12 12 may be explained, at least in part, by the
supposition that he had no definite knowledge alxjut
them. He has, it would seem, at least in the main.
confined himself to matter preserved by tradition, merely
making a selection and putting it into shape.
B SubBidiarv ^^'^ ^"'''"'' ^^ '*° tendencies in
tendencies *^^'''°" '° ^^^ religious - theological
one.
1. There is first \hc polilicul tendency, the desire to
say as little as possible unfavourable to the Roman civil
power.
In the Third Gospel we already find Pilate declaring that he
finds no fault in Jesus, and he has this judgmcm confirmed by
Herod, who in the other gospels is not mentioned at all in con-
nection with the examination of Jesus. Pilate declares thrice
over that he will relea.se Jesus, and he is prevailed upon
to pass adverse sentence only by the insistence of the Jews
(I.k. 23 1-25). In Acts (which has even been regarded by some
as an apology for Christianity intended to be laid tieforc
Gentiles ; see above, § 3 n.), the first converts of Peter and Paul
are Roman officers (10 i 13 7), while it is the Roman authorities
who definitely declare Paul to be no political criminal as the
Jews would have it (18 14^; 19 37 23 29 25 iSyT 2ri3iy:); it is by
them also that he is protected (in more than one instance at
any rate) from conspiracies (18 12-17 I931 21 31-36 23 1023-33
25 2-4).
When this political tendency is recognised, the con-
clu.sion of the book becomes intelligible. Other\vise
it is a riddle. Even if the author meant to add still
a TpLros X670S (third treatise) — which is pure con-
jecture— he could not suitably have ended the divrepoi
\670s (second treatise) otherwise than with the death of
Paul : that he did not survive Paul is even less likely
than that he was otherwise interrupted at this point of
his work. When we take account of this political ten-
dency, however, ' none forbidding him ' (dKwXvTws) is
really a skilfully devised conclusion. The very last
word thus says something favourable to the Roman
authorities, and, in order not to efface this impression,
the writer leaves the death of Paul unnientioned.
2. Secondly, he has in his mode of narration an
esthetic as well as a political tendency : he aims at
beiitg graphic.
Thisend is promoted very specially by the 'we,' and thedetails,
otherwise purposeless, appropriated from the Journey Record ;
but it is also served by much in chaps. 1-12 that, without having
any claim to be regarded as historical, contributes to the en-
livening of the picture of the primitive Christian community
(see below, § 13); also by the speeches (see § 14), and par-
ticularly by the miracle- narratives, which in almost every
case where they are not lUriM'i ir- ni the 'we' doeutnent (see
§ 8) are characterised by to a hcs ni remarkable vigour (I9-11
^'-134331-11 5 i-ii 12 15/. 17-.5 I' -Soy: 13397: 9 3-1933-42
IO1-22 123-11 13 It 14 38-13 10 23-34 19 iiy:).
The total influence of all these tendencies not having
been so great as to lead the author wholly to disregard
/. m 1. 1 .IT i. the matter supplied to him by tradition,
, , It has often been supposed possible to
. , . affirm that he had no such tendencies
th h"r ""^ -'"' ^'"- '^''''-' '"^'^^"'••'^'^i^^ «f the book
^' are in this case explained simply by
the assumption that the writer was not in pos-
session of full information, and that, in a naive yet
still unbiassed way, he first represented to himself the
conditions of the apostolic age, and afterwards described
them, as if they had been similar to those of his own,
when the conflict of tendencies in the primitive Christian
Church had already been brought to an end. Certain
it is that in his uncjuestioning reverence for the a|xjstles,
it was impossible for him to conceive the idea of their
having ever been at variance with one another. On
the other hand, it cannot possibly be denied that he
must at the same time have either passed over accounts
that were very well known to him or completely changed
them. It is hard to understand how any one can airily
say that to this writer, a Paulinist, the Pauline epistles
remained unknown. Paradoxical as it sounds, it is
certainly the fact that such a lack of acquaintance would
be more easily explicable had he Ijeen a companion of
Paul (a supjxjsition which, however, it is impossible to
accept ; see above, § i ) than it is on the assumption
that he lived in post-apostolic times. It is conceivable,
though not probable, that Paul might sometimes have
been unable to communicate his epistles to his companions
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
before sending them off. But a companion of Paul
would at least be familiar with the events which are
recorded in the epistles — events with which the represen-
tation in Acts is inconsistent. If we are not prepared
to declare the whole mass of the Pauline epistles to
be spurious, and their statements about the events to
which they allude unhistorical, there is no way of
acquitting the writer of Acts from the charge of having
moukied history under the influence of 'tendency.'
Only this tendency must be understood as being simply
a consistent adherence to the view of the history that he
had before he studied his sources.
The tendencies of the author once established in
regard to points where his historical inaccuracy admits
7. Possible
further influ-
ences of
tendency.
of definite proof from a trustworthy
source, one may perhaps found on
them presumptions in regard to matters
that admit of no such control. Did
Paul circumcise Timothy (16 3)? Since
Timothy's mother is called a Jewess, and Paul held
the principle laid down in i Cor. 920, it is impossible
to deny categorically that he did. Nevertheless, it
remains in the highest degree improbable, especially
after Paul had, just before (Gal. 23-5), so triumphantly
and as a question of principle, opjxjsed the circum-
cision of Titus. The difficulty of the case is not much
relieved even by the supposition that the circumcision
happened before the Council of Jerusalem, and only on
account of the Jews of that place (16 3) and therefore,
notwithstanding the statement of the same verse, not
with a view to the missionary journeys. Again, did
Paul take a Nazirite vow? We leave 18 18 out of
account, since the text does not enable us clearly to
decide whether that assertion concerns Paul or Aquila,
and since a Nazirite could shave his head only in
Jerusalem. In 21 20-26, however, Paul is represented as
having taken such a vow, not only without waiting for
the minimum ])eriod of thirty days required by tradi-
tional law (21 27 24 1 II, cp Jos. Bf\\. 15 i [§ 313] ; Num.
613-21; see N.\zikite), but also, and above all, with
the expressly avowed purpose of proving that the report
of his having exempted the Jewish Christians of the
Diaspora from obligation to the ceremonial law was
not true, and that he himself constantly observed that
law (cp28i7). This would, for Paul, have been simply
an untruth, and that, too, on a point of his religious
conviction that was fundamental (Gal. 49-11 ; Rom. IO4,
etc. ). Just as questionable, morally, would it have been
had he really described himself, especially before a court
of justice (236, cp 24 21 265-8 2820), simply as a
Pharisee, asserted that he was accused only on account
of the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, and
held his peace about his Christianity.
In view of the tendencies that have been pointed out,
there is, unhappily, some room for the suspicion that
the author has not held himself bound
8. The Journey
Record : a. its
treatment.
to appropriate the ' we ' source in its
integrity. This is indeed made ante-
cedently probable by the fact that he
has already in the Third Gospel passed over much that
lay before him in his sources, and that the sections
of the Journey Record actually adopted supply for
the most part only superficial notices of the stages
pa.ssed, or miracle stories. And just in proportion to
the freedom of the latter from legendary embellishments
(16 16-18 2O9-12 283-9), and to their credibility even in
the eyes of those who wholly reject the supernatural
(although, of course, the narrators thought them
miraculous), must be our regret at every instance in
which the Journey Record has been set aside, or even in
which its words (as has been conjectured to be some-
times the case ; see above, § i ) are not reproduced
e.xactly.
This free treatment of the Journey Record increases
the difficulty of ascertaining who was its author.
Had the record been adopted intact, we should have
been certain that it was not composed by any of those
who appear among the companions of Paul in the
sections where the narrative ' we ' does
9. b. Its
author.
not occur. But this means of solution is
out of the question. And if the source
came into the hands of the author of Acts as (let us
, say) an anonymous document, or if, in the interest of
greater vividness, he used the ' we ' without regard to
the person originally meant, he may also at the same
time have spoken of the writer of the Journey Record
in the third jxjrson, even when he was otherwise
following the document. Yet 20 5 is a strong indica-
tion that by the ' we ' he does not wish us to
understand any one at least of the seven mentioned in
the immediately preceding verse. Thus the text at all
events gives nowhere any ground for thinking of
Timothy, who, moreover, is mentioned in 17 14/. 18 5
in the third jierson. If we are to regard the record as
coming from Silas, the author of Acts must have used
it without the 'we,' and, in a very fragmentary way
indeed, for long periods during which, according to his
own statement (I540 16 19 25 29 174 10 I85), Silas was
with Paul. This, though not quite impossible, is very
unlikely. Moreover, Silas is never again mentioned in
Acts after 18 5 ; neither, from the same period — that of
Paul's first stay in Corinth (2 Cor. 1 19) — is he again
mentioned in the Pauline Epistles ; and in i Pet. 5 12,
he appears by the side of Peter. Whoever attributes
the Journey Record to Titus must in like manner
assume that much of it has been either not used at all
or used without the 'we.' For Titus was with Paul
at the time of the Council of Jerusalem (Gal. 2i), and
continued to be his companion at least during the latter
part of the three years' stay at Ephesus, as also during
the subsequent stay in Macedonia (2 Cor. 2 13 76 8 idf. 23
12i8i). Besides, the writer of Acts would use a work
of Titus somewhat unwillingly, for he completely sup-
presses his name (see above § 4-). Still, if so valuable
a writing by Titus had been really available, the author
of Acts would scarcely have completely neglected it.
If it is thus just possible that Titus wrote the
Journey Record, it is perhaps still more conceivable
that it wa^ written by Luke. In this way we should
best be able to explain how, ever since the time of the
Muratorian Fragment and Irenaeus [Adv. Haer. iii. 14 i),
the entire book of Acts as well as the Third Gospel came
to be ascribed to him. It is true that, in the Pauline
Epistles, the first mention of Luke is in Col. 4 14 ; Phil.
24; 2 Tim. 4 II — in other words, not before Paul's
imprisonment and the closing years of his life. Never-
theless, he may have been one of Paul's companions at
an earlier period, if we are allowed to suppose that he
occupied a subordinate position. The most suspicious
fact is that, whilst Luke (see Luke), if we may trust
Col. 4 II 14, was, like Titus (Gal. 23), uncircumcised, the
writer of the Journey Record not only uses Jewish
specifications of date (Actsl6i3 206/ 279), and goes
to the synagogue or the Jewish place of prayer (16 16),
but also includes himself (16 13) among those who taught
there i^lovhaXoi., 16 20, must not be pressed, as it may
rest on an error on the part of the speakers ; cp
16 37). We must thus, perhaps, abandon all attempt to
ascribe the Journey Record to any known companion
of Paul.
Other sources for Acts, in addition to that just
meptioned, have long been conjectured : e.g. a
Barnabas source for chap. 13/! Here the
10. Other
Sources.
naming over again of Barnabas and Saul,
and the omission of John Mark (13 1),
notwithstanding 12 25, are indeed remarkable, as are also
1 Add to this that, if 2 Tim. 4 10 is to \x taken as accurately
preserving an incident in Paul's imprisonment at Caesarea, it
could hardly have been Titus that accompanied Paul to Rome
(.■Vets 27 28). The notices in the epistle to Titus are too un-
trustworthy to sen-e as a foundation for historical combiiiations.
2 It is just as incorrect to suppose that he is named in Acts
18 7 as it is to identify him with Silas.
ACTS OP THE APOSTLES
the circumstance that, apart from II30 1225 15i33s, it
is precisely in these two chapters that Barnabas is often
(1^27 1414; contrast 18434650 14 ao) mentioned before
I'aul, and that it is only here (I4414) that I'aul (with
Barnabas) is called an 'apostle' (see Aposti.k).
Of primary importance would be the establishment of
sources for chaps. 1-12.
.Many traces of distinct .sources can be detected. In addition
to what is iaid utider (liK 1 s, Simkituai., and under Communitv
OK (JdODs, $$ 1-4, two themes had been long recognised
as running through the speech of Steplien : viz. refutation
of the idea that the blessing of Cjod depended on the
possession of the temple (748-50), and censure of the national
rebellion of the people against the divine will (751-53). The
stoning of Stephen, moreover, is narr.-jted twice (7 58^1 and 59a),
in a very confusing way, and his burial does not follow lifi 8 2,
after the mention of the great persecution and the flight of all
the Christians except the :ii)ostles(8 lic). In 8 3, the persecution
is resumed, but, as in S la, only Satil is thought of as persecutor.
The mention of Saul seems thus throughout (7 58^ 8 la 3) to be
a Liter insertion into a source in wliich he was not originally
named. Besides, 811^1: seems also to be an interpolation into
the account of the last hours of .Stephen. In as far as this
interpolation speaks of the dispersion of the Christians, it is con-
tinued in 11 19, while 84 may easily be an ingenious transition
of some editor leading up to the story of Philip. 11 ig is
further followed by the statement (11 22) that the church at
Jerusalem elected a ^jV/^^^rt/A This representation of the right
of the church to elect delegates, which is found also in 6 5, seems
to be more primitive than that in 8 14, according to which such
an election was made by the apostles. Further, in 8 15-17 the
apostles are raised to a rank unknown to the earliest times.
For, that Christians did not receive the Holy ('.host by baptism,
but only through subsequent l.iying-on of hands, ami those the
hands of the .Tposlles, is disproved by (;al.3 2 46, and even by
the presupposition underlying Acts 1!'2_/C, although the s.ime
notion reappc.Trs shortly afterw.irds (11»6). In like manner,
finally, the words 'except the :i|)<.stlcs ' (8 i) may have been
subsequently inserted, to prescrxc ihc di-nity of the apostles
arid tlie continuity of their rule in Jriu-altm. In 1 1 30 the
friendly gifts destined for distril)Uti<;n during the famine come
into the hands of the presbyters, nut, as 0 1-6 would have led us
to expect, into those of the deacons.
Observations such as the preceding have of late been
11. Theories as •^^'P'^"'.'*^^ '"'^ comprehensive theories
to Sources assir;ning the whole book to one source
or to several sources, with additions
by one editor or by several editors.
So B. Weiss, Em/, in Jas NT (1886, 3rd ed. '97), 8 50, and .//.-
gesrli., 1893 (vol. 0, pts. 3 and 4, of Gebhardt and Harnack's
Textt- u. L'nUrs.); Sorof, KntsUltutiir <ftr ' ; 1 );
van .\Ianen, J^auius, i : de hatvielingen d, , ) ;
Feine, F.inf vork-anonischtr Ucberlie/eruii. i "gi
(onlyon chaps. 1-1'2); Spitta, y^/.-i'^f^fA., 180T : I v/,i/.
der Paulin. lir. 1893 and (for chaps. 1-.^) in .S7. A';-., 1895,
pp. 297-357; Joh. Weiss, Si. Kr., 1893, pp. 480-540, 'Das
Judenchristenthum in der Ap.-gesch.', etc., and 1895, pp. 252-269,
DieChronol. der Paulin. Br.' : (iercke in /A-rwct, 1894, pp. 373-
392 (only on the first chapters); jiingst. Die Qucllen der Ap.-
gesch., 1895; Hilgenfeld, Z\l 7', 1805, pp. 65-115, 186-217, 384-
447. 481-517: 1896, pp. 24-79, 177-216, 351-386, 5I7-558-
No satisfactory conclusion has as yet been reached
along these lines ; but the agreement that has been
arrived at upon a good many points warrants the hope
that at least some conclusions will ultimately gain general
recognition. It is certainly undeniable that this kind
of work has sharpened the wits of the critics, and rendered
visible certain inec|ualities of representation, joints and
seams, even in places where they are not so conspicuous
as in 758-84.
_ Thus the tumult In Thessalonica is told in 178 for a second
time after 17 5 in a disturbing way that leaves it impossible to
say who it was that the Jews were trying (17 5) to drag before
the people, or why it was that J.-ison (17 $/■), whose part in the
affair does not become clear till 17 7, was brought before the
authorities. It is proliable that 13 52 originally followed im-
mediately on 1349. Similarly, the account of the wholesale
miracles of the original apostles (.*) i-2a -f,/.) is interrupted by
the interpolation of^ a fragment (012^14) w'lich is itself not
homogeneous. The least that could be done here would l>e to
arrange as follows: 5 12a 15 16 14 121^ 13. But that the text
should have Iwcome so greatly disarranged by transposition is
much less likely than the supposition of several successive inter-
polations. On 1824-28 15 1-34, see AroLi.os, and Council of
jERi'SALKM, {!$ 4 5. In the latter passage (15 1-34) the attempt
has been made, by separation of sources, to solve questions to
which otherwise only tendency-criticism seemed to provide an
answer. Simil.irly in the case of 21 20^-26. After the presbyters
have just praised God for the success of Paul's mission to the
Gentiles ('21 20a) the proposal that he should put it in evidence
how strictly legal he is in his views follows with but little fitness.
45
I And had Paul been engaged in carryinR out a Nazirile vow, it
I is hardiv likely that his presence in the temple ('21 27-29) could
I have led to an attempt on his life. A reason for this attempt
is found ('21 28^:) in the alleged introduction of a Gentile within
the sacred precincts of the temple, a proceeding which no one
would guess to be simultaneous with the presentation of an
offering. Since, moreover, for a Nazirite vow at least thirty
days are necessary (see alx>ve, i 7), it has l>een projx.scd to
detach 21 20(^-26, and to lefer the seven days of 21 27 to the
duration of the feast of Pentecost which I'aul, according to '20 16,
was to spend in Jerusalem. 21 19 2ort 27^ would then also,
along with 20 lO and '21 1-18, Iwlong to the Journey Record.
We come now to the question how far this distribu-
tion of the matter among various sources affects the
12. Bearing of '^^'■"'"^['i^y .^^ »h« ^^^; '' ^^ indeed
these theories IJ,""' ^^l'' '" ^.^^ ''^'^ ^,"^' mentioned.
on trust archa-ological mistake of assigning
worthines's. °."'y ''"'T, t^'" ^'"^ '^^ ^'"'"'''^
rites would become more comj)re-
hensible if we recognised a variety of sources ; yet
even .so we should liave to admit that there is an
error, and that the editor had been guilty of the over-
sight of incautiously bringing the two accounts together.
And he, as well as the source from wliich 21 2.^^-26 is
perhaps taken, would still remain o{>en to the reproach
of having, under the inHuence of a tendency of the kind
described above (ij 6), ascrilx'd to I'aul a repudiation of
his principles of freedom from the law. It cannot Ije
too strongly insisted that in as far as Acts, viewed
as a homogeneous work, has to be regarded as a
tendency writing, it is imjiossible to free it wholly of
this character by distributing the matter among the
various sources : the most that can be done is in cases of
excessive misrepresentation to put this in a softer light.
In general, however, the editor has dealt with his sources
in so masterful a manner that an unlucky hit in the
selection and arrangement of the pieces has but rarely
to be noted. It has been a practice among some of
the scholars enumerated above to claim absolute trust-
worthiness for the whole of an assumed source wliich
they suppose themselves to have made out, irre-
spectively of the nature of some of the contents,
as soon as they have found it trustworthy in some
particulars. Such an abuse of discrimination of sources
in the interest of apologetics is not only illegitimate:
it speedily revenges itself. These very critics for the
most part find themselves compelled to attribute
to their secondary sources and their editors an extra-
ordinary amount of ignorance and awkwardness. In par-
ticular, all theories according to w hich a single assumed
source (of which the 'we' sections form part) is taken
as a basis for the whole of Acts nmst from the outset
be looked upon with distrust. There is nothing to
suggest that any diary-writing companion of Paul also
wrote on the beginnings of the church at Jerusalem,
and. even if there were, any assumption that his in-
formation on such a subject would be as trustworthy as
his assertions founded on his own experience, would be
quite unwarranted.
The results then with reference to the tmstworthiness
of Acts, as far as its facts are concerned, are these.
_„ TVi f Apart from the 'we' sections no state-
'.,. , ment merits immediate acceptance on
or iness o ^j^^ ^^^^^.^ ground of its presence in the
narrative. y^^^ j^„ ^^^^ contradicts the Pauline
epistles must be absolutely given up, unless we are to
regard these as spurious. Positive proofs of the trust-
worthiness of Acts must be tested with the greatest
caution.
Ramsay thinks he has discovered such proofs in the
accuracy with which geographical names and con-
temporary conditions are reproduced in the journeys
of Paul (Church, 1894, 1-168 ; S/. Paul, 1895).
Some of the most important of these points will be
considered elsewhere ((Jai..\TIA, §§ 0-13. 22I. Of the
other detailed instances many will be found to break
down on closer examination.
For example, Ramsay goes so far as to say (St. Paul, chap. II,
4) : ' Aquila, a man of Pontus, settled in Rome, bears a I-atin
46
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
name ; and must therefore have belonged to the province and not
to non-Roman Pontus. This is a good example of Luke's prmciple
to use the Roman provincial divisions for purposes of classifica-
tion.' As if a Jew from non-Roman Ponlus, settled in Rome,
could not have assumed a subsidiary Roman name, as countless
other Jews are known to have done! And as if Luke would
not have found it necessary to call him nofTticds even if he were
from non-Roman Pontus !
I?ut it is not necessary to go thus into details which
might be adduced as proving the author's accurate
acquaintance with localities and conditions. For
Ramsay attributes the same accuracy of local knowledge
also to one of the revisers of the text, assigned by him to
the second century A.D., whose work is now preserved
to us in D, and also to the author of one source of the
Ac/a Paiili ct Thcchr (§ 3), assigned by him to the second
half of the first century, whose work, however, he
declares to be pure romance [Church.'lsf^ a,). If so,
surely any person acquainted with Asia Minor could,
even without knowing very much about the experiences
of Paul, have been fairly accurate about matters of
geography, provided he did not pick up his information
so late in tlie second century as to betray himself by his
language, as according to Ramsay (2364 [end] 5 [end]
759 83-6; St. Paul, see Index under ' Hezan Text')
the above mentioned reviser, whose work lies at the
foundation of D, has done. In point of fact, Weiz-
siicker {Ap. Zeitaltcr, 239/., 2nd ed. 230/; ET
I274/. ) thinks that in Acts 13/ the account of the
route followed does come from an authentic source,
but yet that the contents of the narrative are almost
legendary.
Such, for example, are the incidents at Paphos in Cyprus,
13 6-12 (see Bakjesus) ; also 13 14 46/ 14 !_/, spoken of above
(§ 4) ; the .speech in 13 16-41 (see below, § 14) ; the healing of a
lame man, 148-io, recorded after the model of 3 i-ii ; the
paying of divine honours to Barnabas and Paul, I411-13, after
the manner of the heathen fables (^Philemon and Baucis, in
adjacent Phrygia, .see Ov. Met., 8621 626/:); and the institu-
tion of the presbyterial organisation, 14 23. In the first main
division of the booK (1-T-'), great improbability attaches to the
publicity with whicli the Christian community comes to the
front, to the sympathy that it meets with even among the
masses, although not joined by them (247 4 21 5 13), and to the
assertion that only the Sadducees had anything against it, and
they only on account of the doctrine of the resurrection (4 z/.\
-while the Pharisees had given up all the enmity they had dis-
played against Jesus, adopting a slightly expectant attitude.
See, further, Barnabas, Barsabas, Gifts, Community of
Goods, Philip. Pkter. Cornelius, Christian, and also, for
thejourneysof Paul to Jerusalem, and the attempted rearrange-
ment of them. Council OF Jerusalem, § i.
But, after every deduction has been made, Acts
certainly contains many data that are correct, as, for
example, especially in the matter of proper names such as
Jason (I75), Titius Justus, Crispus, Sosthenes (I87/ 17),
or in little touches such as the title iroKiTapxa-i (176),
which is verified by inscriptions ^ for Thessalonica, as is
the title of TrpcDros (287) for Malta, and probably the
name of Sergius Paulus as proconsul for Cyprus (187).
Only, unfortunately, we do not possess the means of
recognising such data as these with certainty, where
confirmation from other sources is wanting.
With regard to tlie speeches, it is beyond doubt that
the 'author constructed them in each case according to
14 T f ^'^ """^ conception of the situation. In
■ , . ' doing so he simply followed the acknow-
wortniness j^^jg^j practice of ancient historians.
Ot speecnes. (-rhucydides[i. 22 1] expresses himself dis-
tinctly on this point ; the others adopt the custom
tacitly without any one's seeing in it anything morally
questionable. ) This is clearly apparent at the very out-
set, in Acts 1 16-22.
It is not Peter who needs to recount these events to the
primitive Church already familiar with them : 2 it is the author
of Acts who feels called on to tell his readers of them. And it
was only for the readers of the book that there could have been
any need of the note that the Aramaic expression Aceldama
belonged to the Jerusalem dialect, for that was the very dialect
1 A detailed discussion by De Witt Burton will be found in the
Amer. Joum. o/TheoL, i8p8, pp. 598-632.
2 Unless the passage be indeed a legendary development of
Mt. 273-10.
47
which the supposed hearers were using (cp. further Theudas,
and Judas of Galilee).
The speeches of Paul in Acts embody a theology quite
different from that of his epistles.
A thought like Acts 17 28 is nowhere to be found in the
epistles. Paul derives idolatry, not, as in Acts 17 29,/^, from excus-
able ignorance, but from deliberate and criminal rejection of God
(Rom. 1 18-32). Only in Acts 13 38/ lt> 31 20 28, do some really
Pauline principles begin to make themselves heard. The most
characteristically Pauline utterances come, in fact, from Peter
(157-11), or even James (1619; see Council of Jkkusalem,
§ 8). 'The speeches of Paul, especially that in 13 16-41, are so
like those of Peter in idea, construction, and mode of expression,
that the one might easily be taken for the other. For example,
Paul's speech in 13 38/ resembles Peter's in 10 43. Or cp
3 17 13/ (Peter) with 13 27/ (Paul) ; 2 25-31 with 1835-37; or
6 6iKaios for ' Christ ' in 3 14 with 22 14, but also with Stephen's
in 752. For the speeches of Paul, especially 13 16-41, show
affinities also with that of Stephen : see 13 17-19 22 as compared
with 7 2 6_/I 36 45y^ In like manner, the apologetic discourses of
Paul in his own defence betray clearly an unhistorical origin
(see § 7).
In short, almost the only element that is historically
important is the Christology of the speeches of Peter.
This, however, is important in the highest degree. Jesus
is there called ttois 0eoO — that is to say, according to
425, not ' son,' but ' servant ' of God (3 13 26), — holy and
righteous (814 427 227); he was not constituted Lord
and Messiah before his resurrection (236) ; his death
was not a divine arrangement for the salvation of men,
but a calamity the guilt of which rested on the Jews
(3 13-15 530), even if it was (according to 223 428) fore-
ordained of God ; on earth he was anointed by God (427)
with holy spirit and with strength, and he went about
doing good and performing cures, but, according to
10 38, only upon demoniacs ; his qualification for this is
in the same passage traced to the fact that God was
with him. God performed miracles through him (222).
A representation of Jesus so simple, and in such exact
agreement with the impression left by the most genuine
passages ^ of the first three gospels, is nowhere else to
be found in the whole NT. It is hardly possible not
to believe that this Christology of the speeches of Peter
must have come from a primitive source. It is, never-
theless, a fact sufficiently surprising that it has been
transmitted to us by a writer who in other places works
so freely with his sources. At the same time, however,
the DidacM or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,
especially 9/!, also bears evidence that in the second
century, in spite of Paul, and of the Epistles to the
Hebrews, to the Colossians, and to the Ephesians, and
of the Gospel of John, an equally simple Christology
still reappieared at least in many Christian circles. That
the writer of Acts also respected it may be conjectured
from the fact that he has not put into the mouth even
of Paul any utterances that go beyond it (1823 2214).
It has already been repeatedly assumed in the pre-
ceding sections that the writer of Acts is identical with
the writer of the Third Gospel. The
15. Author-
ship.
similarity of language, style, and idea,
constantly leads back to this conclusion.
Differences of spirit between the two writings are so
difficult to find that their existence at any time can be
held only on the assumption of a subsequent revision of
the Gospel, with a view to their removal, by the author
of Acts. The most important divergence between
the two books is that according to Acts 1 3 (cp 1831) the
ascension of Jesus did not occur till forty days after
his resurrection, while according to Lk. 24 13 29 33 36 50/ ,
as also the F2pistle of Barnabas (109) and probably even
Jn. 29^17, it was on the very evening of the resurrection.
According to the original view, as indicated by the
absence of any special separate mention of the ascension,
in I Cor. 154-12; Rom. 834; Heb. I3 IO12 122 ; Eph.
I20 25/49/ ; I Pet. 81922, and perhaps even also in
Acts 232-35 (see olv 233) the resurrection and the ascen-
1 Such passages as Mk.l0i7y:32i I33265; Lk.ll29-32;
Mt. 1(15-12 11 5/ 1231/ as contrasted with those in the same
gospels which already present secondary reproductions of the
same facts— viz., Mt. 19 16/ 12 23 (efiVracTO : see below, § 17 ».)
24 36 13 58 12 40 14 15-21 ; Lk. 7 21 ; Mk. 3 28-30.
48
ACTS OP THE APOSTLES
sion were the same act, and all appearances of the risen
Jesus were thoiiglit of as being made from heaven.
Whether this follows also from ' goeth before' {irpodyei) in
Mk. 16 7 and in Mt. 28 7, may be doubted. In any case the
forty days indicate a significant development of the idea,
already at work in the Third Gospel, that Ijefore his
ascension Jesus must have contiimed on earth to
maintain intercourse with his disciples, in order that he
might instruct them as to matters which he had not
been able to take up before his death. A develop-
ment of this kind in the story of the ascension recjuire<l
time. Even the repetition of the list of apostles in 1 13
from Lk. 614-16 marks Acts as a new work. It is,
accordingly, very rash to suppose that Lk. 1 1-4 applies
to -Vets also, or to draw conclusions from this.
.•\s the book is dedicated to Thcophilus, Blas.s thinks {Neue
kirchliche Zeitsch., 1895, pp. 720-725) that the latter must,
according to the custom that prevailed in antiquity, have been
named in the title (that the title Trpiifti? Ttof ajroo'ToAwi' is not
original, see al)ove, % 3 n.). The same custom, too, he argues,
would require the author to mention his own name in the title.
Accordingly as, since the end of the second centu'y, the author
has been believed to l)e l.uke (see above, § 9), lil.iss thinks he is
justified in restoring the title thus — Aovica 'Ai/Ttoxf'ws Trpb?
©fo<^iAoi/ Aoyos Sfiirepo?. Hut this pure conjecture cannot over-
throw the proof that the book does not come from a companion
of I'aul. On the contrary, had the title really run thus, it
must have licen regarded as a fiction. We should have had to
suppose that the author, not content with suggesting (by retain-
ing the '«e' of his source [see § i]) that he_ had been a com-
panion of Paul on his missionary journeys, desired to make this
claim e.xpressly in the title.
The date of composition of Acts thus falls at least
some time later than that of the Third Gospel. The
_ . latter is now, on account of its accurate
■ allusions to actual incidents in the destruc-
tion of Jerusalem (Lk. 1943/! 21 20), almost universally
set clown to a date later than 70 A.d. , and on some
other grounds, which, however, it must be said, are
less definite, even considerably later (see Gosi'Kl.s).
Similarly, for Acts, the dying out of all recollection of
the actual conditions of apostolic times — in particular,
the ignorance as to the gift of tongues (see GiKTS,
Si'iRiTU.M.) and the approaches to hierarchical ideas
(I1720 814-17 1028 2O28) — [)oints only in a general way
to a late period. Hence the surest datum is the author's
acquaintance with the writings of Josephus.^ For an
instance see THf:UDAS. Josephus comi^Ieted \\\%Je2uish
War shortly before 79 h.Y>. , his Antiquities in 93 or 94,
the work Against Apiun after that, and his Autobiography
somewhat after 100. As to the inferior limit, Marcion
about 140 A.D. had the Third Gospel, but not Acts,
in his collection ; but we are not aware whether he
rejected it or whether it was wholly unknown to him.
As for the Apostolic Fathers, i Clem. 18 1, if it have
any literary connection with Acts 1822, can just as easily
be the earlier as the later ; and as regards the rest of
their writings, apart from Polycarpl2 (=Acts224),
dating from about 150 A.D., we can find traces only of
the speech of Stephen, in the Epistle of Barnabas (16 2
94/ 5ii 48 143 = Acts 750 51 52 40-43), which in I64
speaks of Hadrian's projected building, about 130 A.U.,
of a heathen temple in place of the Jewish temple as
imminent.'-^ In Justin, about 152 A.i>. (not 137 ; see
Acad. 1896, No. 1239, p. 98), the points of contact are
more marked. If Acts 20 18-35 has many ideas in
common with those of the Pastoral Epistles, the in-
discriminate use of irp€(T^VTfpoL and iirl<TKOiroi (20 17 28)
shows that the author has not yet reached the stage in
the development of church government which character-
izes the First I'3pistle to Timothy, the latest of the
Pastoral Epistles, which wishes to see the bishop,
conceived of as a sole ruler and represented in the
1 The evidence for this has of late been brought together with
very great completeness by Krenkel {Josephus und Lucas,
1894) : see also the Fortnightly Rev. 22 485-509 ('77].
2 The reference cannot l>e to the (historically very doubtful)
rebuilding of the Jewish temple (about 120-125 ?)■ The itoi after
auToi must be deleted, a-cording to the best MSS and indeed
as the connection demands.
4 49
l)erson of Timothy as apostolic vicar, set over the
Ijresbytery (i Tim. 5 119). The date of Acts must,
accordingly, tie set down as somewhere between 105
and 130, or, if the gospel of Luke already presupix)ses
acquaintance with all the writings of Josephus. Ijetwccn
no and 130 A.D.
The conclusions reached in the foregoing sections
would have to be withdrawn, however, and the author
17 Bla ' ^^ '^^^^ regarded as an eye-witness, if the
,4,, views recently put forth by Hlass ' should
^' prove to be correct. According to Hlass,
the markedly divergent readings of D, and those of
the .same character found in some other authorities,*
all came from the author's rough draft of the lx)ok
(which he calls ^), while the ordinary text, o, found in
B, N, A, C, etc., comes from the fair copy of this
intended for Thcophilus, which the author (Ix-ing a jjoor
man) made with his own hand. In doing so he
changed his original — without special tendency or
motive— and, still more, abridged it as only authors do
in cojjying their own work. And here, as we have
intimated, Blass says, the author can be no other than
the eye-witness who can give his narrative in the first
person with 'we. '-^ To pronounce uj)on this certainly
interesting hypothesis is, however, not nearly so simple
a matter as Blass allows himself to suppose.
(a) Blass himself says that D and the additions or
marginal readings in Syr. hi. in many cases already exhibit
a combination of a and j3, and that — as is witnessed by
15 5 18 19, etc., where both sources coincide — this
occurred even in the archetype itself from which both
(directly or indirectly) are derived.
But there are many cases where Blass ought to have expressly
recognised this combination, where, instead of (inin;: sn, he
simply deletes something in ^ without giviiiL; f' '
tion. For example, eK0afiPoL at the end of ?■ 1 r.
alongside of oi Si 9a/ut/3t)6eVTes ea-rri<Tav iv in p. ;
but Blass does not recognise the eKdaiJ.fioL as
^ (i.e., by the process of combinatinn just nic:
it is supported by the best witnesses for tliis t
TTicTTeucrao-H' eiri xbi' Ku'pioi' 'IrjcroOi' Xpicrror i
from a, is an expression p;irailel to inuTixxTaan ■... ., . -^ ....-i
ToC /irj ioiivai. aurois ■nvfv^j.a. ixyiov in fi at the end uf the vcr^e.
Here Blass wrongly questions the well-supported in<TrivcraL<i\.v
in auT(p.
He points out other corruptions also in the zuitncsses
to ^. _
For example, in cod. 137 and Syr.hl. after '\pi(TTap\ov
MaKeSdi-os (27 2), instead of ©eero-aAoriice'a)?, the words 0ecr<ra-
XovLKftav 5i '\pi(rTapxo<; Kal SeicoOi'So?, which can originally
have taken their place in the margin only as a reiiiiiiisc-nco of
i!04 and not as a variant. He does well to put all such things on
one side when trying to reconstruct an old recension ^ as
distinct from a.
1 St.A'r. 1894, pp. 86-iiq; j^c/a Apost^Ui^niiir, ediiio philo-
logica, GiUt., 1895 : anil Acta Apostoloruiii sccuiuitDiiforiitam
. . Uoiiiaiiaiu, Leipzig, 1S96. 'I'iie tlic.ry of i'.hi>s finds a
supporter in Joh. Bclscr, Ih-itr. zur J.>li,ir. d. Ap.-^^csch. auf
Crund d,->- I.tsartc-n di-s Cod. D u. sclnvr Ccnosscn (Freiburg
ini Breisgau, 1S97) ; it is argued against by Bernhard Weiss, Der
Codc.v n in dcr Ap.-i;es</i., iSg;, vol. 17 part i of Gebh.
and Harnack's Textc' u. Untosuchungen (well worthy of
attention, though not comprehensive enough). On Ramsay, see
above, § 13.
2 The additions and marginal readings of the Harklensian
version (syr.hl.) ; the Fleury palimpsest (ed. Sam. Berger, 18S9);
an Old Latin text of Acts 1 1-136 and 28 16-31, inserted in a MS
of the Vg. from Perpignan (also edited by Berger; L'n nncien
textc latin des actes dcs apdtres, 1895, reprinted from Notices ft
ex traits des manuscrits de la bihliotluque nationalc, B.-iris,
tome 35, i partie); Cyprian, and Augustine, and in a .>.ccon.;ary
degree the composite texts E, 137, Gigas Librorum (ed. Bels-
heim, 1879), Sahid., Irenaus, etc.
3 In his second book Blass no longer calls 0 the rough draft
of Luke himself, but says : 'Actorum primum exempl.arpostiiuain
Romje confectum est vel mansit ibidem vel Christianis Komanis
ah auctore ad describendum commodatum est ; altera autem
forma orientis ab initio fuit ubi Theophilum ilium vixisse . . .
puto'(pp. vii./.). In support ofthis,heappealsespecially(p.xi.) to
the more detailed description in a of the journey on the coast of
Crete (.Acts 27), which would be more interesting in the East than
in Rome, and on the other hand to the greater precision in 0
with regard to the journey by sea to Malta and to Italy, w-hich
would be interesting to people at Rome. This seems, how-
ever, to he no improvement on his earlier view, siiice (to mention
no other reason) the dedication to Theophilus is to be found
also in |3.
SO
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
(i) Further, before putting forward this alleged
recension as the original draft of Luke the eye-witness,
he ought to have established it from the witnesses on
objective principles ; but there is often no indication
of his having done so.
From the verj; witnesses in which he gets his readings for fi —
reailings often indeed found in only one of them— he omits a
great many additiDns and readings which, judged by the criteria
mentioned above under (a),show no signs of a secondary character
but stand on exactly the same footing with those which he
adopts. It is very misleading when in .SV. A>. (where he deals
with only a selection of instances) it is made to appear (p. 117)
as if there were strictly only four p-ossages (227 839 94272)
which from their attestation should belong to 0, but are open to
the suspicion of having been iruerpolatcd, and value is attached
to the fact that D and the Fleury palimpsest are free of them.
For although Hlass, in his second edition, admits such additions
as airdcTToAoi after ovv (041), tmv iiadr)Tuiv before Ka'i efeAtfai/TO
(fis), Toj ayt'o) after irvevtiaTi. (liio), which these two authorities
agree in supporting, he still, in spite of the attestation of the
same documents, rejects the addition ev KopivBu) before evmvTOv
(18 11), and the re.iding aTrb toO '.Vxu'Aa instead of iKfiOey (18 7).
Moreover, in spite of weighty testimony, Hlass rejects^ for
example, the Hebraism aiTiAeyoiTf? kol before ^Aao-c^rj^oiu'Tts
in 1345, which even Tischendorf (in a) accepts (in his second
edition he substitutes on the authority of the Latin of the Gigas
a reading, ovTiTacrcrofiei'oi, for which there is no support in
Greek MSS) ; on the single testimony of Augustine he adds
before <cal Trpijrjj? in 1 18 the words ' ef colhun sihi alligavit '; on
that of the t leury palimpsest alone he deletes 9 12. In tliese
last two cases, as well as in many others, it is difficult to repress
a suspicion that Hlass allowed his decision to be intluenced by
his hypothesis. The credibility of the author and the possibility
of making him out to have been Luke would have been called
in question had he not intended to convey, in agreement with
Mt. 275, that Judas had hanged himself, with the additional
implication that the rope had broken, and had he recorded in
9 12 a vision of so remarkable a character that even Blass finds
it too marvellous. This last, therefore, he questions even in a.
That it might also have struck the scribe of the Palimpsest or one
of his predecessors as too marvellous, and that Augustine or one
of his predecessors could have hit upnn the reconciliation be-
tween Mt. and Acts adopted by P.lass is not taken into con-
sideration. It is, however, a reconciliation that cannot be
maintained, for assuredly Luke would not have left out the most
important particulars of all — namely, that the rope had broken,
and that Judas h.nd han<;ed himself over the edge of a precipice
— without which his fall could not have had the consequences
described. Enough has been said to show what caution re(]uircs
to be exercised with respect to the establishment of Blass's /3
tevt, quite apart from any judgment as to the manner of its
origin.
{c) The very greatest difficulties present themselves
when it is attempted to establish /3 in a really objective
way. In many cases, more than two readings present
themselves — so many sometimes that Blass in his first
edition silently gives up the attempt to settlers ; though
in the second edition, as he (here) prints only /3, he
has been compelled to determine its te.vt throughout.
Take, for example, 14 18 or 10 1 1. Cases such as these are the
first indication we meet with that we have to deal not 7i<ith tiuo
hut ivith severitl/orins of the text, and thus that Blass's hypo-
thesis is false because insufficient. But, more particularly, there
is an entire group of MSS— HLP— which on Blass's own ad-
mission contains, if not so many various readings, readings
quite as independent in character as those in fi: e.g., 16 6 the
SieAflofTe? etc., which has found its way into the TR, and
plays so important a part in the criticism of the epistle to the
Galatians (see Galatia, § 9; also below, under >«). In its
divergent readings E comes still closer than HLP to D ; in D
and E the substance is often the same, and only the expression
different. Blass conjectures, therefore, that in the text from which
E was copied additions from |3 had once been inserted in Greek
and Latin, and that the Greek had afterwards faded : they had
therefore to be restored by translating back from the Latin. In
point of fact, this would explain very well why the addition of
D in 147 (icai (Kii'rj'h] oAov to ttAtjAo?) liecomes in E Koi efejrA7J(r-
o-ETO na(Ta ri iroAuirA^Seia, and would apply equally well to some
ten other examples poiiited out by P.lass. But such readings as
the TOUTuiv KexjI^vTiov of E in 1 23 after the first Kai ; or the
subj. (cal 'pv<TBi>itTiv in E instead of the ind. aTrijAAao-eroi'TO yap
(a.TTO JTOOTJS aTBeveiai) m D's addition after 5 15; or i^eK86vTe<:
Si tK rrjv AuAaicii? in E instead of a.Kov<TavT(^ Sf in .')2i — such
readings do not admit of this explanation : they are simply
instances of the same kind of freedom as that with which a
changes ^ (or ^ changes a). The same freedom m.ay have
manifested itself in other cases where Blass's hypothesis about
E would in itself be considered adequate enough ; the hypothesis
therefore dem.Tnds fuller investiirationl '
therefore demands fuller investigatK
(see further below, imder e).
before it can be accepted
I In Acts 2, which we have specially examined with this view,
we find that Blass omits no fewer than seven readings of E
which on his principles ought to have been noted as variants ;
{d) On the other hand, it is proved that ike Greek
text of D rests partly on retranslation from the Latin.
Of the many passages adduced in support of this by Rendel
H.arris, m<\ccA(!CoJex Bezirm Texts and Studies, ed Robinson,
ii. 1, 1891), the present writer holds only nine to be really valid
proofs. But it IS surely worthy of remark that three of these
(326632 I82) are not even mentioned by Blass in his list of
variants — where so much that is less important is to be found —
but simply passed over as et vitiosa et emendatu/acitia ; while
of two others, one (146) is mentioned only in the first ed., and
theother(1626)only in the second; Harris's hypothesis is merely
mentioned by Blass, and not taken into further account. This
would from his point of view have been excusable if the Latini.sms
in D had been merely such as even an author writing in Greek
might himself have employed, and in point of fact has employed
in, for example, I79 (in a and /3 Aa^^aveci/ to 'iKav6v = satis
accipere). It is to this category that the oidy in.stances from
IJ discussed by Blass belong : «7rtfl«Vres = iinpontntes for
(TTi/SaAdi'Tes (18 12), eli/at for ovaav (li'35), and, especially,
Keil>a\rj = caput for irpuirri (10 12). But these last two Blass him-
self does not venture to attribiUe to Luke. Thus we are led,
according to his own view, to the much more serious result that
there are Latinisms in D which cannot have proceeded from«he
author of Acts. The same holds good of all Harris's nine
passages referred to above. In 1829 21 21, we find an el<rCv
meaninglessly added to an expression in which to or tou's occurs,
because the original expression had been rendered into Latin by
a sentence with sunt (in like manner .538 — only, the sunt is now
w.anting in the Latin text); in 826 I82, the infinitive preceded
by the article has its subject in the nominative instead of ihe
accusative, because the construction had been changed in the
Latin by the employment of a subordinate clause ; in 15 26 we
have napaSeSioKaa-iv instead of Trapa&eStaK6<Tt.t>, because the
participle had been rendered by fui tradideritnt ; 14 6 has
<TvviS6vTe% Ka'i. KaTe<^vyov — intellexerunt et fiigeriint ;^ 632 has
Ttvevfx.tx Of {\ns,tii:iA of 6)-spiritus guetit. Lastly. I'.'2i directly
concerns one of the readings of /3. According to Blass this runs :
KoX (Tvvexodr\ oArj 77 TrdAis, instead of (cal 67rA>j<r9i) i) ir6\i<; rffi
crv7xvo"6u>9 (so a). But this is found only in the Gig.is -a
secondary authority — and in Pesb., which according to Blass is
to a still less extent an authority for /3. D, in this case the sole
authority (in the proper sense of the word) for fi, has : (cat
avvex"^^ o-^l 17 toAis aio-xui'jjs. As Harris has pointed out, this
aicrx^fis can only be a retranslation from the Latin text of D:
et repleta est tota civitas confiisione(nt). This is a correct
rendering of the Greek of a as above. But con/usio is also used
for oX<Tx\>vT\ — compare, for example, Lk. 14 9 — and confundi
(often) for oj.iTx\ivt<TSa.\.. aio-vvi'Tjs, however, could in the present
instance have been employed in retranslation only if the verb
was 7-eplcta est (en-A>/<r0i)>. a-vve\\>6i], therefore, can only have
come in later, from another copy, to take the place of k-n\T\cT&i\.
One sees how precarious a proceeding it is to seek for the most
original form of Acts in a MS the text of which has passed
throuiih such vicissitudes. If Harris has in any instances
proved retranslation from the Latin, the other instances also,
though in themselves incapable of proof, gain in probability.
We mention only kfLOX) for e/xe (822), r\v for ^s (825), and the
additions (cai before TrpocTKapTepui' (S 1 3), atTt'ai'(4 2i), >)<rai'(4 34),
avrovi (752), as also ical iKe\cv<Te Kripv<T<reii> to evayyeXiov
(1 2), the last four again being like 19 29 readings of 0. In fact,
it becomes a possibility that even such passages as reveal no
error in retranslation were nevertheless originally Latin, and
the suspicion falls naturally in the first instance upon the
additions in /3.
(f) Other passages in /3 we cannot accept as original,
for the reason that they are plainly derived from a fusion
of two texts.
Is it possible that Luke can actually have written : (16 39)
■napiKoXftrav a.vTOv<; e^e\9eiv eiTToi/Tf?' -qyvo-^crafiev to. KaO' viiaf,
OTt k{TT€ avSpi*; StKaioi. *tat i^ayayovre^ TrapfKd\e(rai' avToit^
\f'yovTei- €K nis iroAeuis Taur>)9 efe'ASaTe, ic.t.A. ? Cod. 137 and
the interpolation in .Syr.hl. prove conclusively the inadmissibil-
ity of this repetition, by omitting (<cai) e^ayayovrei; nap(Ka\e(rav
avTOvi Aeyoi/Tes. The probability is rather that jrapeicaA«<rai'
stood, in the one MS with indirect speech, and in the other
with direct (so also, for example, in 21 36 direct varies with in-
direct narration in the MSS) ; in this case ef eAdeiv had reference
originally to the city, like e^fKBart, and not, as now, to the
prison. In 20 18 the addition in /3 — 6ii6<Te oi^iav avriiv — wholly
tautological as it is after <os Si napeyevovTO rrpbs avrov, is
certainly not to be attributed to the author : it is a variant of
cos fie (c.T.A. which was at first noted in the margin and after-
beside^ three others which he does notice (2334147), four of
these seven (2 22 irfieif navTe^ instead of outoi ; 2 24 Si avToii after
Awcras; 243 ov fitxpa. after cnj/Lcfia, and Tcii» ;(ccp<iic before rdv
arro<TT6\tav) are unsusceptible of expl.anation by means of his
hypothesis.
1 .'Xs another instance we may add Siappj^^ayre^ . . . »cai
i((mqSr](Tav (\in) = consciderunt et e.rilirrunt . So also .") 2iyr
7 4 13 29 16 17 34 20 10. Moreover o« (for o) AciA^cras (4 25) is due
to retr.anslation of <7ui [locutus est]; similarly 3ii4i2lli
And the co? of \\ 1^ (i^rikOtv ava^-qruv avrov icac ix; irvvTvxotv
ira.pfKd\e<rev i\9eii>) can hardly be explained otherwise than as
derived from the parallel Latin text : cufu (inveMissrlH]t
deprecat>a[n]tur venire).
ACTS OP THE APOSTLES
ward* crept into the text of DA Vg. G!gM, but in E, on the
other hand, with skilful avoidance of lautolocj', was changed to
buoOvixaiov. The case is similar with the addition in 5 31 (found
only in I))— «y«ptffWet to »rp«i»f-an addition which, moreover,
comes in very awkwardly after irapayivanti'ov 6i 6 apx"P*^f ***
ot aiiy avrm, especially as, instead of trvftKaXfo-av, I) Koc'ion to
say Koi <rvyKa\Ki<ifiti^i. Here even lllass asks whether perhaps
irapayivofitm^ iiuty have been wanting in fi.
Yet, it may \)c said that, in this and in the similar
cases here passed over, the hypothesis of Blass is simply
deprived of one of the arjjfumeiits on which its demon-
stration rests, while there appear to be enough of
thent left.
(/) Decisive, however, against this appearaiKe, is the
fact that precisdy the most characteristic of the variations
of text between a and fi hear witness against Blass s theory.
This confutation of liis hypothesis follows inevitably from
the hypothesis itself.
Just in prop<irtion to the clearness and pointedness of /3 and
the weakness of a in these respects, is the improbahility of the
author's having with his own hands obscured and perverted the
sense. And here in the meantime we can leave altoj^ctlier out
of account the ciuestion whether or not he w.-.s also the eye-
wimess. In any case, after writing in his draft of '.M 27 that it
was on account of his wife Drusilla that Felix left Paul Ijound,
he would not have said in his fair copy simply that it was on
account of the Jews— even if, as Blass thinks, both statements
were correct. If in his draft he had stated that Paul had
proclaimed the apostolic decree, not only in the later course
(1('>4), but also at the outset, of his new missionary journey
(I541), he would not in his fair copy have omitted to state this
in the first and therefore more iiniJortant of the places. In
this instance even lilass considers an interpolation m /3 as con-
ceivable in 1541, but chiefly because the expression seems to him
to be somewhat obscure. In 'Hit)/., although the officer is in
fear because a Roman citizen has been bound, Paul is not
rele.Tsed, according to a. till the following day, not — as in /3,
immediately (jrapaxp>)M<»)- Riass himself says (St. Kr. 108) ;
' one cannot but be astonished at the carelessness of the abridg-
ment in a.' .'\U the more readily might it have occurred to him
that it was the writer of ^ that perceived and corrected the
defects of a. In his Editio philoloi;ica Blass wishes rp iita-vpiov
without any authority either deleted or changed to t^ iairecxf.
This would be justifiable only if it were perfectly certain that
the narrative, even in a, is all of one piece and absolutely to the
point. But such critics as .Spitta, Clemen, and Jiingst have
assii^ned -2 29 and 'M jo to two separate sources. If it is only
the aiUlilion o 6i Kiipios eSajxef Ta^u fi()>(»Tji' after 14 2 in the
draft that enables us to understand how it was that in spite of
the disturbance (or, according to fi, jwrsecution) mentioned in
14 2, Paul and P.arnalias remained in Icoiiium, why docs the
author omit the words in his fair copy? More accurately con-
sidered, they are toW regarded as an interixilation, designed to
do away with the contradiction, an interpolation which carried
with it the fiirther change of <<rx'Ve7}6e(144) into ^cieeo'Y'O'MeVov
and, in 14 5^, the interpolation of itettim and secundo. It is not
in f ), hosvever, that this interpolation occurs, but only in Syr.hl.,
which elsewhere also smoothes away the evidences of the work
of various hands in I)— as for example, in 19 14 by the introduc-
tion of qui before t'flo* t\\ov, in 1S6 by the omission of 5< after
airiTaao-o/ieVtoi', and in 14 2 by omitting the last two words in
the cpiile tautological expression oi a.p\i<Tvva.yuiyoi ■nof'Iovfiatoji'
Kai oi apxoi'Tf? T179 (ruj-ayioyrj?. If, as Blass supposes, it were
necessary to hold that .Syr.hl. has preserved the origin.il, whom
could we possibly imagine, for example, to have added the words
Tr\t (j-ufayuiy^s, or omitted the words i/ettmi and si-ciindo'l
But, moreover, in 14 2-5 the changes mentioned above would
not have Ijeen at all necessary unless first 14 2 had been wrongly
interpolated between 14 1 and I43. Even though it may perhaps
be a fragment from another source, 142 has its immediate con-
tinuation in 144. Here even Ramsay supposes a 'corruption ' :
only it is I43 which he takes for a gloss. Thus we come ag.ain
upon one of the many cises in which Blass holds /3 to be the
original simply because it never occurs to him to bring the unity
of Acts into question. Similarly, for example, he drops from fi,
and also even from a, the ima of 19 14, which is irreconcilable
with the atA.<f>oTefMv of 19 16, on the sole authority of D, without
recognising that the omission in I) may have been a late
exiiedient for removing the contradiction just xs much as the duo
for eirra in (Jigas. If the author in his draft had already written,
after "louioi'as in 15 1, the words ntv rctitKrrevKOTtov awo Tiijs
a'lptiTtiai tCiv 4>apt(Tac'uii>, and in 15 5 had referred to this (by a
simple oi Si), why is it that in the clean copy his first use of the
expression is in 165, so as almost inevitably to suggest the thought
that a piece derivetl from another^ource begins at this point 1 (see
Council or Jp.kusaiem, § 4). If, according to the rough
draft (not only in 166y;, but also in 17 15 11> i 2O3), the journeys
of Paul were determined by inspiration, why in his clean copy
does the author leave this out in the last three of these passages?
Here.too, wecan seethe inapplicability of another of Blass'sasser-
tions, viz. that nowhere in a or 0 is the narrative changed so as
to l)ecome more interesting or more marvellous. Further, the
author of this three-fold mentiim of divine inspiration has
fallen into an oversight— that, namely, of attributing to Paul
S3
(19 1) the intention of making a journey to Jerusalem ju»t after
he hitd returned from th^t city, without even the slightest
reference to what h.id \>cen said immediately Ijcfore. For it is
not possible to agree with Hla.ss in regarding the j>jurney of 19 1
as identical with that which had been intended by Paul, accord-
ing to the addition of fi in I821 (found also in TR). This last
wa.H actually carried out (IU22, sec Council ok Jkmcsalkm,
J i). And even if it had not been, the inspiration which
hindered it must have )>een mentioned in 18 si, and not in Hli,
after he had already got back to Phrygia from Ca:.sarea, which
is only a few miles Irom Jerusalem. Cp further Bakjesus, | i ^.
{g) Over against these instances, the list of which
could Ix; greatly increased, there are a few rare cases
in which /i might really be held to he the original.
The additions KaTtfirja-av Toiit c jrra ^aBfiovt Kai Ijefore irpoijAfloi'
(12 10), rf 6< inavptov Ixrfore 10 1 1 and in 27 i, anb iopa^ iiiii.nTr)%
iia% itKa-nji after I'.'o, »tal fidVai/Tf? iv "VpiayiKiia after 'i.afLoy
(2O15), ii rtixfpC>v StKanetrre before icttT^ASo^frC.'T 5)do not seem
to be inventions. And yet Blass not only op|Mjscii, at least in
his first edition, the quite similar addition of «ai Miipa after
!laTapa(21 i) in I>, Sail., and tligas, inasmuch as it could have
been introduced from 27 5, bi't also refused to accept the
sei/ucnii autiin die which we find in d (21 5) instead of 6t«
hi iyivfjo ^p.a.<i i^apTivai ra^ irj/if^? (the Creek text of I) is
wanting here). (Jii the other hand, in 21 16 the text of a is not
materially inferior to that of /3, to which Blass attaches a very
high value ; for the impcrf. ofe^aiVo^cc of 21 15 does not mean
" we went and arrived at Jerusalem " (this follows in 21 17), but
" we took the road fir Jerusalem," and thus, even accordiiii; to
a„Mnason may very well be thought of as living in a village
between Ca;sarea and Jerusalem, as is expressly stated in p.
The author— in this instance the author ol the 'we' source —
has here quite naturally taken for granted that the journey from
CsEsarea to Jerusalem cannot well be made in a single day.
(h) After what has been said, it is clear that there
is not the slightest necessity for assuming the hulk of the
remaining variations in j3, which are indecisive, to be
original.
They consist partly of what are simply changes in the con-
struction, or periphrases without changing the sense (f.jr Injth
see for cx.-imph- !' ■ 'V • — N- nf a .somewhat more vivid way of
expressin.; tip . however, in the cases we have in
view— null h 11: ■. -could li.-ive been derived by a
simplecopyi^t t; .;conte\t. Compare, for example,
the very wtll-dcv iscd adtlitioii roii? Aoiiroi/s a<r^aAt(ro^c»'0? after
eftt) in 10 50.
(?) But do not these changes— materially so unim-
portant, but in form so considerable — at least prove that
both forms of the text, no matter which is the earlier,
emanate from the author of the book itself? They do
not.
After having seen that precisely in the most significant pas-
sages of the book (sec above, <rand/) this does not hold, one
must further remember that in HLP, and also in F2, equ.-jlly
important variations are met with (see ab.ne, <). These, like
those in |3, resemble the variation by which one gospel is dis-
tinguished from another. Here, accordingly, transcribers have
allowed themselves liberties which are usually regarded as jier-
missible only to the authors of independent works. However
surjirising this may seem to us, the fact cannot be denied. When
in Mk. 321, for oji. i^taTi\ (a reading which is a stumbling-
block to many theologians even of the present day) V) substi-
tutes oTi efe'o-TaTot auTou?, ' that he has ev.^ded them,' or at least
'that he has stirred them up,'— is not the lil)erty taken with the
text just as bold as .Mt.'s in the exactly corresponding place,
1223 (i.e., just before the reference to a league with Beelze-
bub), when he changes it to efio-Tavro? But this freedom
of treatment is by no means without analogies elsewhere in the
literature of the time. The text of Plato in the Flinders- Petrie
papyri (Cunningham Mtmoirs 0/ the Academy of DuhtiH,
1891) shows similarly pronounced deviations from the ordinary
text — deviations which, according to l'scncr(A'<i<//r. d. Geselisck.
der Wiss. tu GStt., 1892, pp. 25-50, 181-215), are to lie attributed
to the copyists of the papyri, perhaps as early as within 120 years
after Plato's death. In the papyrus text of Hyperides, Against
Philippides (Classical Te.xts from Papyri in Brit. Mus., ed.
Kenyon, i8gi), Blass himself discovers 'very often . . . inter-
polation and arbitrary emendation,' and in the third Demo-
sthenes letter published in the same collection, 'extensive
variation '(/o^jr^i./ class. Philol., 1892, p. 42, and 1894, p. 447X
In order more easily to comprehend the possibility of
changes in the te.\t on the part of a transcrilx^r, it
may be allowable to conjecture that he may have been
accustomed to hear the book recited or even himself to
recite it (with variations of the kind e.vemplified), on the
basis of a perusal of it, but without its being committed
to memory. Such recital was by no means impossible
in the second century.
{k) The question whether D shows in the gospels Ike
same variations as in Acts may be left out of account.
54
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
It would be important only if it could be answered in the
affirmative for Mt., Mk., and In. For, that in these cases
also the rough draft should have gone into circulation as
well as the clean copy is really very improbable. Hut the
independent variations are too few to warrant an affirmative
answer. If the same be the c.ise with the Third Gospel, then,
according to HIass's hypothesis, we must assume that the draft of
it was not copied ; but if they are sufficiently numerous, as lilass
has recently declared {Hermathena, 21, 1895, pp. 121-143 ; and
22, 1896, pp. 291-313 ; E7>angetiutn secumiuni Lucaiii . . .
secundum Jonnam quie videtur Ronianam, 1897; Pliilology
o/tfu Gospels, \Z<)%\ there is nothing to hinder our applying to
them the judgment applied to those in Acts, however that
judgment m.iy go.
Neither is it decisive of the question that |3 is frequently
not fuller but briefer than a {e.g., 2626 74).
(/) Very important, on the other hand, is Blass's
assertion that the uniformity of expression in a and fi is
a ' very strong proof ' that both recensions come from
the hand of the author. But it is sufficiently met by
Blass's own inde.x.
According to this, there occur in the divergent passages of /3
(which are by no means of great compass) 64 words never else-
where met with in Acts or the Third Gospel. If we deduct from
these, besides 5 proper names, the 9 vouched for only by the
Latin text (although Hlass himself has not succeeded in giving
them a Greek form that suggests the authorship of Luke), there
still remain 50 (not 44, as is stated in HIass's Editio philologica,
p. 334). After deduction of 4 numbers, and the expressions
la-riov and (rTpaT07re5ap;(r)?, for which no other word could
possibly have been chosen, the number stands at 44. So also in
his second edition (see the enumeration in his Kvang. sec. Luc.
p. xxvii.), although, from the somewhat different form of text
adopted, the words that appear to be peculiar to (3 are not quite
the same.
(/«) In support of Blass's highly important assertion
that the eye-witness Luke alone could have given his work
in both the forms which we have in a and (3, the most
that can be adduced — out of all that has been remarked
on in the course of the section — are the passages referred
to under (g). But of the ' seven steps ' in Jerusalem, Luke,
according to Blass's own view, gained his knowledge
not from personal observation, but only from the written
(or oral) testimony of an eye-witness.
All the same he takes the liberty, according to Blass, of leaving
the note out in writing his fair copy. This being so, the omission
of the five other details, even if with Hlass one carries this back
to the author of the book, does not prove that they had formed
part of his own experience; he m.iy equally well have obtained
them from a written source. Four of them (Itiii 2O152715)
belong, in point of fact, to the 'we' source. It is not at all
easy to see why a transcriber might not have ventured to omit
them, with so much else, as of inferior interest. We may there-
fore thankfully accept tliem, as well as other data in p which
have been shown or may ultimately appear to be more original
than a, as contributions to our historical knowledge ; but they
do not prove more than this— that in such cases /3 has drawn
more fiiithfully from a true source than a has. There remains,
accordingly, in favour of the eye-witness as author of Acts, only
11 28, where D (.along with, essentially, the Perpignan Latin
text, and Augustine), instead of araaras Se, has riv Si noKKri
oyoAAtatris' (Tuvea-rpafifjievuii' Si i^/nioc i<j)r), and then <Tr)iJ.a.ivu>v
instead o^iayiixavfv. This might possibly be from the 'we' source ;
but the inference is not that it can only have been by an eye-
witness that the ' we ' in a was set aside. Or why is it that ' we '
is set aside by L in 16 17, by X* (and differently by ABCH) in
21 10, by H in 2S 16, by P and Vg. in 27 i (tows rrepi to;/ IlaiJAof ,
or eum, for i^M-as). by HLP in 2O7 ilia 28 i IO13, by C^ also
in 28 I, by D also in Iti 13 {iSoKfi for ivofj-i^ofj^^v)'! And why, on
the other hand, in 27 19 does it stand only m HLP Pesh. ? In
all of these cases (except 27 i, see below) Blass has the same
reading in ^ as in a. (In Iti 13, he has, it is true, in /3 the cSoicet
mentioned above, but he likewise obtains in o also [by the con-
jecture €i'd>ii^oi/«i'7rpoo-€uxn "•'o-'] a reading in the third person.)
He thus acknowledges that it is copyists, not the eye-witness, .
that allowed themselves to remove the ' we,' or to introduce it.
Only in 11 28 does Blass assume that it was Luke himself who
changed into the third person in a the ' we ' which he had written
in /S. .So also it is only in one place, and even that only in his
second edition, that Hlass regards the third person in placeof ' we'
as a reading of^ — namely, in 20 5 (on the authority of D), for in
27 I it is only through a change of the whole of the first part of
the verse, rendering ^/xas impossible, that the third person is
introduced. At all events, it is impossible that 11 30 as well as
11 28 can be derived from the 'we' source (see Council of
Jerusalem, $ i). Even the 'we' of 11 28 may possibly have
been the insertion of a transcriber who knew (with Eus. HE
iii. 46, Jer. De Vir. III. 7, and the Prologue [earlier than Jerome]
to the Third Gospel in codd. Corbeiensis, Colberlinus, Amiatiims,
Fuldensis, Aureus, etc.) that Luke was understood to have been a
native of Anlioch. Or has Blass himself not recognised that
Irena;us also (iii. 14 i), or one of Irena;us's predecessors, has per-
mitted himself on his own responsibility to say nos venimus instead
55
of KartfiriiTav in 168? The insertion of ' we ' in 11 28 would not be
boUler than the other infelicitous changes in fi. It ought to be
noted th.at Syr.hl. is not implicated in this insertion; and the
text of D is by no means in order, for it has €</>i) without telling
what it was that Agabus did say (in the sense of cAoArt), while
in the whole of the NT it is direct speech, or, as in four isolated
exceptions in the ca.se of Paul, at least indirect speech, that is
connected with <j)r]nC. In Acts 11 28 the indirect speech depends
rather on oTj/naii'ui'.
(«) A very dangerous support to the theory of Blass
has been contributed by Nestle.^
In his view t'/Sapui^are in D {Ircnxushas ag-gya7'asiis), instead
of ripvTi<Ta<T8e in 314, comes from a confusion of -133 (Job 35 16
15 10) and -123 in the Semitic source 0/ Acts 1-12 (similarly,
before him, Harris, p. 187, but otherwise pp. 162^!), and in like
manner k6<j\i.o%, instead of Aaos in 2 47, from confusion of oVy and
Dy (or in Aramaic Nd'?:^ and NSy). In itself considered, all evi-
dence for the existence of a source (now pretty generally con-
jectured ; see above, §8 10/.) for Acts 1-12 cannot be otherwise
than welcome ; but in the form thus suggested the evidence
points rather to the conclusion (which Nestle leaves also open)
that some person other than the author himself had, in tran-
scribing, adopted another translation of the Semitic text.
(o) No happier is an attempt of Conybeare to provide
a new prop for Blass's theory.
He points out in the American Joum. of Philology (172
[1896], pp. 135-171) the most interesting fact that the Greek
commentary of Chrysostom, and, to an even greater extent, the
many extracts from it in an Armenian Catena on Acts, follow
or at least presuppose a series of ^ readings to be found partly
in D (and other witnesses for the ^ text), partly only in
Syr.hl. or in cod. 137. He thinks he can thus prove that
originally all the ^ readings were united in a single cod.,
in the copying of which they were partly removed to secure
greater agreement with the prevailing text. Hut the number
of /3 readings used by Chrysostom is insignificantly small
when compared with those of which he shows no trace ; and
0/ such as do not appear in D Conybeare has adduced only
five. Chry.sostom accordingly furnishes no stronger support
for Conybeare's thesis than any other witness for 0 would, for
each of them shares some of its readings with D and some with
other witnesses for ^. But to explain this there is no need of
Conybeare's assumption that all ^ readings are from one hand :
it would be explained equally well by suppo.sing them due to
the labours of successive copyists (or editors). Conybeare,
however, goes much further, and asserts that Luke himself is the
author of all these ^ readings. He ventures to rest this
assertion on a single passage— a very small foundation for such
a structure. Moreover, it would have been just as easy for
another as for Luke to add ' so natural a phrase ' as, according to
Conybeare, uvvTt-f^ylTai. is in 19 25.
Blass's theory, then, it would seem, is so inadequately
proved that it cannot l>e held to have subverted any of
18. Estimate of ''^'^ ^o-^clusions regarding Acts in
Rlnqs'R thporv l^^ecedrng sections of this article. It
uiass s uneory. ^^^ ^^^ ^^^^j^ however, of having
called attention in a very emphatic way to the im-
portance of ^. It has also raised new problems for the
science of textual criticism — not to s[3eak of the many
valuable contributions it has itself made to that science
and to the interpretation of the Book of Acts.
The value of Acts as a devout and edifying work,
cannot be impaired by criticism. Indeed, the book
19 Relisious '^ helped by criticism, which leads
value of Acts. "°' °"'>' ^^""^ ^ T'''^ ^^'"^ u''^ '"
Its contents, but also beyond the un-
historical assumption that one is entitled to impose
on the author the demands of strict historical accuracy
and objectivity. Its very ideal, in apostolic times un-
happily not reached, according to which the company
of believers were of one heart and one mind (4 32),
shows that the author knew where the true worth of
Christianity was to be found. The early Christians
pray everywhere with and for one another ; they ac-
company the apostles and take pathetic farewells of
them ; "they distribute their possessions and have all
things in common. Particularly beautiful figures .are
those of Stephen, Cornelius, Lydia, and the jailer at
Philii)pi. The jailer knows that most important question
of religion, ' What must I do to be saved?' (I630), and
Peter also (4 12), as well as Paul, expresses the con-
viction that Christianity alone has a satisfactory answer
to give. The writer of Acts is able to rise above all
1 Expositor, Sept. 1895, pp. 235-239 ; St. Kr., 1896, pp.
102-104.
56
ACUA
narrowness of sympathy (10 15 34/ 15 »») ; and the con-
ception of cjod in 1728, which cannot be attributed to
Paul, is really much more apt, and is more closely
in accord with the results of philosophically purified
thought, than that apostle's, still hampered as it was by
Jewish moflcs of thinking. Lastly, sayings such as we
tind in 24i6 4 2o2024 14 22 21 13/ are of the deepest
that can be said about the inner Christian life.
As Liglitfoot rciiKirks, the literature which has gathered
round Acts is too larne to cataloj-uc profitably. To his own
list (Smith's OJi-) may tic added Holtzmanii's
20. Literature, comm. in the Hatui-comnt. zum NT(ii&<), 2nd
ed. 1892). In the criticism of the book the most
important landmarks are as follows : Schneckcnburgcr (Ztveck
der Ap.-gcich.y 1841), whilst maintaining its absolute trustworthi-
ness, credited it with tendency to vindicate Paul against
Judaisers. Uaur (/'<»«/»x, 1845) and Zeller (.-?/. AVi^rA., 1854)
regarded its tendency as ' reconciling ' {unionistisch) in its scope,
and its contents as untrustworthy. Bruno Bauer (Ap.-gesch.,
1850), whilst holding the .same view as to its tendency, went
much further as regarded its contents, taking them to be free
and often even purposeless invention. Overbeck, in his revised
4th edition of De Wette's Hamlhuch (1870), propounded a
modification of the tendency theory substantially identical with
that which has Ixien set forth in the present article. Pfleidercr
{Paulinismus, 1873, 2nd ed. 1890; Urchristenthum, 1887), Weiz-
sacker (.■)/. Zeitalter, 18S6, 2nd ed. 1892 ; ET, 1894-95), and
JuIicher(A";«/. in das NT, 1894) "•'Kc. often with justice, that the
author wrote in simple faith, and has much that is trustworthy.
The most thorough-goingapologistshavebeen Mich. Baumgarten
(A/>.-g;fsclt., 1852, 2nd ed. 1859), Karl Schmidt {Ap.-gesch. i.
1882). and Nosgen (Comtn., 1882). The most promising new
phase of the criticism of the book is that which has for its task a
separation of the sources (see above, § 11). In this connection
mention must be made of a very remarkable return to tendency-
criticism in a Marburg University Program of Johannes Weiss
(which appeared after the present article was in type) entitled
Ueherdie Ahsicht u. den literar. Char, der Afi.-^esch. (18^7).
Weiss regards Acts as 'an apology for the Christian religion
(against the accusation of the Jews) addressed to pagans, showing
how it has come about that Christianity has taken over from
Jud.iism its world-mission.' p. \v. s.
Esd. f) 3ot = Ezra
ACUA, RV Acud (akoyA [BA]),
245, .\kkub, 4.
ACUB (&KOY<t)[B]). iEsd.53it = Ezra25i, B.vkbuk.
ACUD, see above, AcuA.
ADADAH (m;;nV), josh. 1522t, probably (We.. Di.)
a corrupt re.iditiij for iTTjny 'Ar'drah — i.e., Aroer
("liny) ; see Akokk, 3.
(A£a£a [ALj; apouijA [B], implying '^yny ", cp payou. [iS. 30
28, ©L].)
ADAH (nn^; aAa [.\DKL], w/).-/).
1. Wife of Laiiiech (Gen. 4i9-23t, a55a [L]). See
Cainitks, § 9.
2. Daughter of Elon the Hittite, and wife of Esau
(Gen. 362 4 10 12 16 [R ?]) ; called Basemath in Gen. 2634
[I'J. .SlC HASHKM.VTH, I.
ADAIAH (r\''.;iV, § 35. once -innyCNo. 8]; 'Yahw^
passes by,' cp. AuiKi. ; aA&ia, [B.VL]).
1. Clrandfather of king Josiah, 2 K. 22 i {tteiva. (B); teSiJa,
[.\], i.e. ."ITT^ the name of Josiah's mother ; ofiou [I.]).
2. I Ch. 641 [26], see Ii>i)o, iii. 2.
1. b. Shimei, in genealogy of Benjamin (g 9 ii. P), i Ch. 821
(a^.alBl, aAa.a[.\]).
4. A priest in list of inhabitants of Jerusalem (see Ezra, ii.
SsFH 8 15 ['l-?), ' Ch.9i2(<ro5tas(A])=Neh. 11 12 (BK* om.,
a5ata{ [L]). This name should perhaps be read instead of
Jeuaiah (g.v. i. i) in Neh. 12 6 or 7.
5 and 6. Two members of the b'ne Ban I \q.7'. 2) in list of
those with foreign wives (Ezka, i. g 5, end), Ezra 10 29 (a.&a. (B],
a£ata« [.•\I,])=i Esd. 830, Jkoeus (t««aios (BA), alaia.^ [L]),
and Ezra 10 39 (aStiofi. [K], aScua^ [.\L])=i Esd. 9 34 (a&Satai
(L), om. (BA; EV]).
7. b. Joiarib, in list of Judahite inhabitants of Jerusalem (see
Ezra, h. $ 5 |/.], 8 15 [il «). Neh. 11 5 (ioA.a [B], ax<ua [A]).
8. The father of M.iaseiah [4], 2 Ch. 23 i (.^rin^, o^fto [B],
aStia [Bab], aJatov (gen.) [I.]).
ADAUA (X'VnK). son of Haman, Est. 98t (Barca
[B], BApe\ [N.\], -eA [L]). See Esther, §§ 3, 7.
ADAM (DnX, to which Kt. prefixes 3, Kr. D[so®'-
Symm. Targ. Pesh. Vg. , and many MSS and editions] ;
57
ADAM AND EVE
Kt. is to be preferred ; see Di.'s note') is mentioned once,
if not twice. In Josh. 3 16 it is the name of the place
beside or near which the descending w.aters of the Jordan
' stood and rose up in one heap ' ; here it is followed by
the worils (which may possibly be a gloss) ' the city that
is beside Zarethan.' An echo of this name may very
plausibly Ije found in Tf// ed-Dumich and Jiir ed-
Ddinith, names of a hill and bridge at the confluence of
the Jabtx)k {/.erkd) with the Jordan, some 16 m. in a
direct line above the ford opposite Jericho. Indeed it
is possible that for cjk (.Adam) we should read ,icik
(Adamfih), the r\ having dropped out owing to the
circumstance that the following word lx;gins with n (so
KampfTmeyer, ADl'VX'a 14). In this case the resem-
blance of the ancient and the modern name will Ijc
closer. The same s|X)t seems to be refc-rred to in 1 K.
746, where, for "in the thickness of the ground"- (.\V
mg. ), we should prob.ibly re.ad, 'at the crossing of
Adamah,'^ the name of some definite locality, not
a description of the soil, being plainly re<|uired by the
context (so G. F. Moore and C'lermont-fjanneau).* This
gives us a definition of the site of Adam or Adamah. It
was at a ford of the Jordan between .Succoth and /;irethan.
Putting all the evidence together, we may hold that the
Succoth of I K.746 was K. of the Jordan on or near
the Jablx)k ; while Zarethan was W. of the river, in the
valley opposite Succoth. Beside Zarethan , at the ' cross-
ing ' or ford, was a town called Adam or Adamah (cp
Succoth, 2 ; Zakkthan, §1).
The second mention of a place of this name is in
Hos. 67 where, for k'Add7n{\<V 'like.Vdam,' RV mg.
' like men ' ; w-i AvOpwiros [B.A(J]), we must at any
rate read i \iddm — i.t: , ' at Adam ' — to suit ' there ' in the
ne.xt clause, and to correspond to the localisation of
Israel's sin in z'. 8 (so in the main We.). ■ There ' the
Israelites ' were traitors to Yahwe ' and ' broke his
covenant. ' Of course there may \x; a doubt \n hich of the
places called Adam or Adamah is meant, and it may
even be surmised that the letters ciK (ad.m) .are in-
correct. ■'' The fact, how ever, that the ford of Ddmieh is on
the direct route (so we must iK'lieve) to the place called
Gilead in v. 8, suggests that the ' city Adam ' of Josh. 3 16
is intended. The confluence of two inij)ortant streams
may well have been marked by a sanctuary.
ADAM AND EVE.s The use of Adam ami Eve as
proper names within the Reformed Churches symbolises
, T» r i- a theory of the Paradise story which
1. Information j^ distiiictively modern and western,
antipathy to ,^^^^ Reformers, alwavs hostile to
allegory.
allegory, atid in this matter especially
influcnccil by the Augustinian anthropology, adhered
strictly to the literal interpret.ation, which has continued
to be generally identified with Protestant ortho(lo.\y."
This w.as a necessary reaction against that Hellenistic
allegorising which transmuted evtTything that seemed
low or trivial in the early narr.atives into some spiritu.al or
theological truth. The reaction had begun no doubt in
pre-reformaiion days. Honaventura, for instance, s.ays
that ' under the rind of the letter a deep and mjstic
1 The <T<t>6Spa <7(^oSpaKt of (p" may be s.-ifely neglected, (hough
if (TtfmSpia^ (which is wanting in A) l>e correct, it testifies to the
antitjuity of the inferior re.iding (c>1KC- Syinm., according
to Held's restoration from the Syr. Hex., gives an'o oJo/x ;
®I- ajrb aSofij) (interpolated); Vg. «/ ur/>e quir vacatur
Adorn. Bennett in .SBOTifirW. notes) regards the name ' Adam '
and the description of it a.s 'the city, '.is suspicious. But '.Adam'
should perhaps rather be 'Adamah,' and 'the city,' etc. looks
like a glos.s. The text on the whole is correct.
2 .nDIKn 7\-1^1- The II 2 Ch. 4 17 has Ttcn.»r\ 'ai'S.
['95] ; Clermont-
Ganneau, PEFQu.St., Ian. 1896, p. 80.
5 One might conjecturally read Dum.ih — i.e., the Eduma of the
<^.V ('J.').') 74 ; 119 22, cp (Juirin, .SViw. 2 14/), which is described
as a village about 12 R. m. E. from Neapolis (Nablus), and is
the modern PautHfk (see Rob. BR 4 292/.). This is obviously
not the ' city ' intended in Josh. 3 16. It is also not very likely
to be meant by Hosca.
* On the names see below, | 3.
58
2. NT views.
ADAM AND EVE
meaning is hidden," but states also that 'he who
despises the letter of sacred Scripture will never rise to
its spiritaal meanings.' Still the completion of the
movement (within certain limits) was reserved for the
great exegetesof the Reformation — Luther, Melanchthon,
and Calvin. Thus Luther explicitly says — ' It were
better to read mere poetic fables than attach one's self to
the so-called spiritual and living sense to the exclusion
of the literal ; ' and again, ' We should stay by the dry
clear words, except where the Scripture itself, by the
absurdity of the simple meaning, comijcls us to under-
stand some sayings figuratively' (quoted by Diestel,
Gesch. lies A T in der clir. Kirche). This predilection
for a grammatical and historical interpretation was
closely connected with the revival of classical studies,
but had its primary justification in the endorsement
which the NT api>e*rcd to give to the historical accuracy
of the story of Paradise. It is the correctness of the
historical acceptation of that story which criticism denies,
and before proceeding to consider the results of criticism
(see Creation, § i and Pak.vuise), Protestant students
may ask whether Jesus Christ and the NT writers really
attached importance to the story of Eden as a piece of
history. Our conclusion will of course have a direct
bearing on the interpretation of the other early
narratives.
Let us turn to (i. ) passages spoken or written from a
purely Jewish point of view, (a) In Mk. 106-8 (Mt. 19
4-6) we have a combined quotation from
Gen. 1 27 224. Jesus passes over the facts
of the Paradise story altogether, and fastens attention
on the statement that man was from the beginning
differentiated sexually, and that, by divine ordinance (so
no doubt Jesus interprets Gen. 224), the marriage union
was to be complete. His silence about the facts may no
doubt be explained by the circumstances ; elsewhere
Jesus appears to many to accept the historical character
of the deluge story (Mt. 2437-39 1 Lk. I72627). But
one must be cautious ; the reference to the deluge story
presupposes the typical character of the early narratives,
a theory which is inconsistent with a strictly historical
point of view, [b) In Rev. 2722214, a literalistic view
of the tree of life is presujiposed. But these passages
are undeniably based, not so much on Gen. 2, as on the
apocalyptic descri])tion in Enoch 24 / (<r) In Rev.
129 2O2 we have a description of Satan (q.v. § 6) as
' the ancient serpent,' alluding to Gen. 3 1 ; it is also
said that he will ' deceive ' the world as he deceived the
first man. It is certain, however, that the writer also
draws from a well of popular belief, enriched from a
wider Oriental source, to which he gives as implicit a
belief as to the biblical statement.
Passing to (ii.) the Pauline writings, we find {d) and
{e) in Rom. 5 14 and i Cor. 102245 references to details
in the story of .-Vdam ; but the reference is made in
a didactic interest. Paul accepts (as also probably
does Luke) the .-Mexandrian idea of the typical character
of the early narratives, and of the double creation
of a heavenly and an earthly Adam. The latter doc-
trine, which the Alexandrian theology founded on
the two separate accounts of creation in Gen. 1 and
2, Paul professes to base on the language of Gen. 2?.
There are also other anthropological ideas which he
supports by reference to the fall of Adam. His real
interest is in these ideas, not in the story of Paradise.
He did not deduce them from the Eden story, and
only resorts to that narrative as containing material
which may, by the methods of Christian Gnosis, be
made to furnish arguments for his ideas. (/) In
Phil. 26 we have probably a contrast between the first
Adam who thought equality with God an kpira-yixbi
(an object of grasping) and the second Adam who,
thinking far otherwise, humbled himself even to the
death of the cross, and thereby actually reached equality
with God (Hilgenfeld). Here the story of Eden is only
illustrative of an idea, though the illustration is suggested
59
ADAM AND EVE
by the favourite typical view already referred to. {g)
In 2 Cor. 11 3 there is a mere casual illustration.
(iii.) Other NT writers, (h) In Lk. 838 Adam is the
last human link in the genealogy of the Saviour. Tiie
evangelist suggests a contrast between the first and the
second Adam (see Lk. 3) ; but, scholasticism apart, what
he really values is, not the historical character of Adam,
but the universal Saviourship of Jesus. (<) John 844
contains a reference to Satan which presupposes the
reality of the temptation and fall of the first man, but
is simply and solely dogmatic, anil belongs to the
peculiar dualism of the Fourth Gospel, (k) In i Tim.
2 12-14 the social doctrine of the subordination of women
is apparently inferred from the story of the first woman's
temptation.
The conclusion to which these phenomena point could
be fully confirmed by a similar examination of (iv. )
Apocrypha passages — even the references in 4 Esd. ,
which imply so much brooding over the Paradise
story, being in close connection with the typical theory
of the early narratives, and the whole system of thought
being quite as much based on the imaginative book of
Enoch as on the sober narrative in Gen. 2-3. As
a final proof that a historical character could not be
assigned to the latter in the early Christian age, it is
enough to refer to the Book of Jubilees (first cent.
A.D., but before 70), which, at any rate in its view of
the biblical narratives, represents the mental attitude
of the times. Here the biblical stories are freely
intermixed with legendary and interpretative matter (see
Charles's translation).
We conclude, therefore, that the NT writers, whether
purely Jewish or touched by Greek influences, regard
traditional facts chiefly from a didactic point of view,
as furnishing either plausible evidence for theories
derived from other sources or at any rate homiletical
illustrations.
The literal and historical acceptation of the story
in Gen. 24(^-4, which strong church authority still con-
3. Names
' Adam ' and
' Eve.'
siders ' nearer to the truth than any
other interpretation as yet propounded, ' *
may be supposed to be reiiuired by the
phenomena of the narrative itself. Is
this the case ? First, are the proper names Adam and
Eve found in the original story of Eden ? The facts are
these.
(a) Adam (din ; adafi), as a quasi proper name for the
first man (cp Enosh), belongs with certainty only to
Po ((jen. 53-5),* who has used it just before generically,
in the sense of 'man' or 'men' (Gen. 5i avOpwtrwv
[AL]) followed by tov ASafi [ib.'] (cp I2627). The
Yahvvist (J) habitually uses the term Dixn, ' the man.
Once, however, if the text be correct,* we find din (adam)
used generically for ' man ' or ' men ' (220^), and once in
lieu of a proper name subsequently to the birth of Cain
and Abel (425), if we should not rather refer 425/. to
an editor. The conclusion is obvious. It is a true
insight which is expressed in the quaint old couplet in
Exeter Cathedral,
Primus Adam sic pressit Adam, salvet Deus ilium,
Is qui venit Adam quierere factus Adam.
' Adam ' can be used only in one of two senses ( i ) man-
kind, (2) the first man (apart from all historical refer-
ence), and to compare a supjxjsed proper name Adam*
1 Bp. John Wordsworth, The One Religion (Rampton
Lectures for 1881), p. 138. .So Bp. H. Browne in the S/eal-er's
Comm.'and Dr. Leathes in .Smith's DB>^).
2 In Gen. 219-2388/204, RV has rightly 'the man
( = ^l??) 'o'' ® •'^V ' Adam ' ; so in Dt. 82 8 ' children of men for
' sons of Adam ' : so EV mg. in Job 31 ^3 ' after the manner of
men' for 'as [like] Adam' ((S otherwi.se 1 25). In €5ai. the
article is omitted in Gen. 2 19* 20a 23 3 I2[L] 20 4 i 25 Dt. 328
1 Ch. 1 I ((SB also in the last two passages).
8 In 2 20^817 21 read DlljS 'for the man ' (t<3 ASaji [AEL])
with Schr., Dillm., .ind Kau. /AS'.
* The present writer can see no probability in the view of
Homme! (PSBA, 7th March 1893, pp. 244y:)that Adam in Gen
60
ADAM AND EVE
to that of the Babylonian divine hero Adapa (Sayce,
Crit. and Mon. 94). or, stranger still, to the Egyptian
Atuni (I-ef«?bure, TSBA 9«) are s|)cciineiis of e(|ual
audacity. The word Wdatn is of course earlier than
any dcvelo[)ed creation-myth (j»7 venia verba), though
it implies (cp Ass. admu, ' child ' — i.e. , ' one made ' by
God),' the existence of the central element of all such
mythic stories (see ("kkation. §§ ao/).
{i) We must now [jroceed to consider the name Eve
(Hawwah ,nin ; Gen. 3ao AV mg. Chavah, RV mg.
Havvah. far»7 [.M.]. Aq. Ai>o, Symm. Zwoy6vo^, else-
where ei'o [M.\L] ; Jcu* ; m-y-i). This undoubtedly
occurs as a proper name (820 4 i) ; but it is most probable
that ;i2o formed no part of the original story, and that in
4 I the name Kve is a later insertion.- Can its meaning
be recovered? According to 820 Eve w-as so called
'because she was the mother of all living' (-n). This
suggests the meaning ' a living being,' or, less probably,
because an abstract conception, ' life' (O'^'''- Zw^).' It
is also possible, no doubt, to compare iS. I818 (Kau.
HS) and render ' niother of every kindred,'* in which
case Eve (.i5n) will mean 'kinship,' or more strictly
'mother-kinship,' the primitive type of marriage being
supjxjsed to l)e based on mother-kinship (cp Gen. 820).
It is l)est, however, to adhere to the first explanation,
if we qualify this with the admission that Hawwah may
possibly be a Hebraised form of a name in a non-
Hebraic story.
Next, did the writer of the Eden story understand
it historically ? There are at least three points which
. m, must be regarded as decisive against this
Narratives ^.''^'^' /'^ ^*^*'' "'^'''"'^ ^'^ .''^^ descrip-
tion. The same writer (J), in Nu. 2228,
ascrilx;s the speaking of Balaam's ass to a special
divine interference ; but the speaking serpent and the
enchanted trees in Gen. 2/. appear as if altogether
natural. Why? Because the author h,as no fear of
being misunderstood. He knows, and his readers know,
that he is not dealing with the everyday world, but
with a world in which the natural and the supernatural
are one. (2) The idealism of the narratives. The writer
chiefly values certain ideas which the narrative is so
arranged as to suggest. (3) The total disregard of
the contents of these stories in the subseciuent narratives
of the Yahwist. To these most critics will add (4) the
licence which the Yahwist appears to have taken of
adding certain features to the [)rimitive story, e.g. at
any rate the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It
is not safe to add (5) the poetical form of the story in
Gen. 24'^-3 (Briggs), for all that seems probable is
that this story is ultimately based to some e.vtent on
lost poetical traditions.
It is equally certain, however, that the writer of our
Eden story did not explain it allegoriailly. Reverence
for tradition must have assured him that the kernel of it
at any rate was trustworthy. After purifying the
traditional story by the criticism of his religious sense,
he nmst have supposed it to give an adecjuate impression
of what actually took place once upon a time. Kant,
among his other services in refutation of the unhistorical
6 1-5 is altered from Adon, i.e. Yahu or Ea. We have no right
to take our critical starting-iioint in a list given to us only in P ;
apart from this, the theory that the lists of the patriarchs in
Gen. 4 and 5 are derived, as they stand, from liabylonian lists is
scarcely tenable (see Cainites, g$ \Jf.).
I To the proposal of Wi. (,AOF -i^i,, following Stucken)
to connect DIK with Ar. adamat"", adhn'"', 'skin,' Del.'s note
on (Jen. 2 7 (Cc«.(5) 77) will suggest a probable answer.
a Cp Ru. Urgcsch. 141, 212/ ; St. ZA Tit', 1894, pp. 266 ^f.
* NOld. however (with We. [see now l/eid.i-) 154] and St.),
thinks that njn properly meant 'serpent "(Aram. H.^)n), ZDMG
42487. The Midrash {Her. rah. par. 21, on Gen. 820) actually
compares the same .Aram, word, explaining the name thus,
'She was given to Adam to glorify his life, but she counselled
him like a serpent." This hardly favours NTild.'s suggestion.
* WRS Kin. 177. But note that 'rrVs and 'n.T'?3 mre
standing Hebrew phrases (see BDB Lex.).
ADAMAH
I rationalism of the last century, has the merit of
having forcibly recalled attention to the fact that the
narrative of (ienesis, even if we do not take it Ittei^illy,
must Ije regarded as p-esenting a view of the lieginnings
of the history of the human race [Muthmasilicher
I Anfiing der Menschengeichichte, 1786).
What, then, is the Eden story to be called? It is a
problem which there is a growing disjxjsition to solve
by adopting, in one form or another, what is called the
mythical theory. The story camiol indeed Ix; called a
myth in the strict sense of the word, unless we are pre-
pared to place it on one litie with the myths of
heathenism, produced by the unconscious play of plastic
fancy, giving shajx; to the impressions of natural
phenomena on primitive observers. Such a course is
to be deprecated. The story of Gen. 24^-3 h.as Ix.-en
too nmch affected by conscious art and reflection to l^e
combined with truly popular myths. Hermann .Schultz
has coined the expression ' revelation-myth ' ; but this is
cumbrous, and may suggest to some an entirely
erroneous view of the pre-D<uteronomic conception of
revelation (cp Smend, AT Rel.-gesch. 86, 292). The
truth is that the story of ICden cannot be descrilx-d by a
single phrase. The mythic elements which it contains
have been moralised far enough for practical neetis, but
not so far as to rob it of it.'* primeval colouring. The
parallel story in the Zoroastrian Scripture called Vendi-
dad (I'argard ii.) is dry and pale by comfjarison. In
its union of primitive concreteness with a nascent sense
of spiritual realities our Eden story stands alone.
There is therefore no reason for shutting our eyes to
the plain results of historical criticism. It is only
when, .as was the ca.se when the late George Smith
made his great discoveries (see his Chaldean Genesis),
Babylonian myths are adduced as proofs of the his-
toricity of Gen. 1-11, th.1t they may truly Ix; called
Adwpa dwpa. It is not the mythic basis, but the infused
idealism of the Eden story, that constitutes its abiding
interest for religious men ; and it was owing to a sense
of this, ciuite as much as to a tlesire to harmonise Greek
philosophy with Scripture, that the allegoric spiritualism
of .Alexandria found so much fiivour in Greek Christen-
dom. From the point of view of the pre-critical j)eriod
this system could not but conmieiul it.self to earnest and
devout thinkers. Who, said I'hilo, could take the
story of the creation of Eve, or of the trees of life and
knowledge literally ? The ide.as, however, which the sage
derives from the stories are Greek, not early Jewish.
For instance, his interpretation of the creation of Eve is
plainly suggested by a I'latonic myth. The longing for
reunion which love imjjlants in the divided halves of the
original dual man is the source of sensual {ileasure
(symbolised by the serpent), which in turn is the begin-
ning of all transgression. Eve represents the sensuous
or perceptive part of man's nature, Adam the rea.son.
The serpent therefore does not venture to attack Adam
directly. It is sense which yields to ple-.isure, and in
turn enslaves the reason and destroys its inunortal virtue.
Ihese ideas are not precisely those which advocates of a
mystical interpretation would put forw.ard to-day. There
is an efjual danger, however, of arbitrariness in motlern
allegorising, even though it be partly veiled by reverence
for exegetical tradition. It is only by applying critical
methods to the story, and distinguishing the different
elements of which it is comjxjseil, that we can do justice
to the ideas which the Later editor or editors may have
sought to convey.
For a discussion of ' Biblical Mythus ' sec Schultr, O T Theol.,
c. 2, and cp Smend, AT Rel.-gesck. 113, 119-122; WRS
^.Vl2| 19, 446. On the Avesta parallels, see r>armestetcr, Le
ZentiaTtsia, tome 3, pp. %T ff., and Kohut, ' The Zcndavesta and
Gen. 1-11,' JQU l'9o], 223-229. On apocrj-phal romance of
Adam and Eve, see below, AroCRVPiiA, g 10. T. K. c'
ADAMAH ( HDIN). i , One of the ' fenced cities ' of
Napht.ali (Josh. 1936t ARMAiB [B], AAA/v\[e]i [AL]).
1 The above article is written on the lines and Mmetimes in
the words of WRS.
62
ADAMANT
Apart from its being mentioned along with Chinnereth
and Ramah and Hazor we have no clue to its site (cp
Di. ad loc. ). Cp AuAMl'.
2, see AuAM, i.
ADAMANT ("1*0^', adamas ; see below, § 4). In
modern English poetry and rhetorical prose — for the
word is now not otherwise used — adamant
J is simply a term for ' the embodiment of
corundum, .^^^passing hardness.' In the EV of OT
it can 1)6 retained only if understood in the sense in
which it is employed liy Theophrastifi — i.e., in the
sense of corundum (see § 2). This is crystallised
alumina (.-VUDj), an excessively tough and difficultly
frangible mineral ; transparent or translucent ; vitreous,
but pearly to metallic on basal face. Emery is a com-
pact, crystalline, granular variety — grey to indigo-blue.
In a purer state corundum occurs in transparent crystals
of various tints of colour — red (Ruby), blue (Sapphire),
green (Oriental Emerald), yellow (Oriental Topaz),
purple (Oriental Amethyst), colourless (White Sapphire)
— little inferior to the diamond in brilliancy, though
they do not disperse rays of light to the same extent.
The term dSd/iaj, which is not known to Homer, was
applied by the Cireeks to that substance which from
time to time was the hardest known. In
2. adamas of
the Greeks.
Hesiod it means hardened iron or steel,
and the adamantine bonds by which
Prometheus was fastened to a peak of the Caucasus
(^sch. /^;'6, 64) must have been of this material, for
the manufacture of which the tribes near the Caucasus,
such as the Colchians and the Chalybes, were famous.
The aMfxas of Theophrastus, however, though it is not
included in his list of twelve stones used for engraving
on, nor mentioned as employed in the art of engraving
• — was (i) a stone and (2) probably the white sapphire
(a corundum). This is probable from the fact that a
particular kind of carbuncle (duffpa^) found near Miletus
and described as hexagonal {yuvLwdrjs iv (^wep Kal to,
i^dyiova) was compared to it. For noble corundums
(sapphires, rubies, oriental topaz, and oriental emerald)
are, as a matter of fact, found as hexagonal prisms.
It is most unlikely that Theophrastus meant the true
diamond (see Diamond, §1), though F^liny (^V^yxxxvii.
415) confuses with this his adamas, which — being
hexagonal (whereas the diamond would be rather de-
scribed as octohedral, or a double pyramid) — was, like
that of Theophrastus, the white sapphire. As, however,
Manilius ( ist cent. A. D. ) knows the real diamond-
he says ' sic adamas, punctum lapidis, pretiosior auro
est" (Astronotn. iv. 926) — it is quite possible that
Jerome (in the Vg. ) meant by adamas the actual diamond ;
though in that case he was almost certainly wrong (see
Diamond, § i).
In the three places where Vg. uses adamas, adaman-
tinits, it is to render the Hebrew shdmir, a word which
_ OL ■ .c^m may mean either ' sharp - pointed ' or
3.S//a/n/rofOT.J„^^i^^3. ^^ each passage the
^ ' reference is not to a brilliant gem but
to something extremely hard : ' harder than flint ' (Ezek.
89); parallel to 'a pen of iron' (Jer. 17i); similarly
Zech.7i2. In the Pesh. shdmir appears in the Sjt.
form lamm/rd. Although the Arabic forms sdmur""
and lammtir"" are identified by the native lexicographers
with 'almds, 'diamond,' the Syriac sammird is used
not only of dSd/xas as the ' hardest stone ' — employed
in cutting others (Bar Bahlul, Ij:x. col. 39 /. 14, col.
863 /. i), or in similes, for something hard (Isaac of
Antioch, ed. G. Bickell, 2 62. /. 39)— but also definitely
as = fl-juiv/Jts or fffxlpn, .<vt,j . x^fft (Duval -Berthelot,
La Chimie au moycn as^e, 2 9, /. 5). There is some
probability, therefore, in Bochart's suggested connection
of TDB- with (T^i'pis (whence the English emery), which
meant both corundum itself and granulated corundum,
emery. Diosc. (v. 166) says: — ' ffixipa is a stone
with which gem-engravers polish gems," and Hesychius
63
4. The versions.
ADASA
{s.v. ff/xiLipii), 'a kind of sand with which hard stones
are polished.' The afiipLTjjs Xidos of (S (Job 41 7 [15]
[BXC] ; -Tos X. [A] ■,=-)^ omn of MT— • a close seal ' of
EV, V. 15) is the same as the crfiupis of Dioscorides,
by which he meant corundum in mass. Hesychius
plainly means corundum in grains — i.e. emery. The
latter, called Naxium by the Romans (Pliny, /yNxxwi.
7 10) from the island of Naxos, where it is still produced
in great quantities, was much used by the Greek gem-
engravers of the fourth century B.C. Indeed corundum
and emery were the only means of cutting gems known
to them up to that time. For Theophrastus {La/>. 44),
writing in 313 B.C., speaks of it alone as used by the
engravers. He identifies it with the stone from which
whetstones were made, and says that the best came
from Armenia. Both corundum and emery are found
in many places in Asia Minor, as well as in several of
the Greek islands.
EV renders shdmir by adamant only in Ezek. 89 and
Zech. 7i2. In the remaining passage, Jer. 17 1, it less
happily renders it diamond. The
word adamant occurs also in Ecclus.
16 16 AV; but RV, following ©bka_ o^jts the passage.
Vg. and Pesh. have been already dealt with (§ 3). © in
Ezek. 39 (Sia navT6<; [BAQ]) and Zech. 7 12 (ijreiei [BKAQr]
represents another readinR, while in the case of Jer. 17 i it omits
the whole passage [B.'VNQ] (though the verses appear in the
Conipl. Pofygl. and, following Orig. and Theod., on the mg.
of Q, where TCt; is rendered by [oioixi] afia^ai-TtVu)). With
Zech. 7 12 cp 4 Mace. 16 13. Strangely © renders TJJN by aSaiiai
in Am. 7, EV Plumbline. In the Targura tsc is identified
with r-aSn (see Flint), although the Talm. regards it as a
worm, about which extraordinary legends are told (see reff. in
Buxt. Le.r. or Levy (N// IF-B s.v.),^ and Paul Cassel in a
monograph ('56) tried to show that "I'DC was an excessively
fine, dust-like substance. w. K.
ADAMI. See below, Adami-Xekkb.
ADAMI-NEKEB, as RV, or more correctly, Adami-
Hannkkkb (2p3n 'pnN), i.e. the pass Adam i, on the
frontier of Naphtali, Josh. 1933! ; cp Vg. Adami qucB est
Neceb. AV makes two names, ' Adami, Nekeb.' So
<5, Ap/we KAi naBook [B], or apmai kai nakcB
[A]; L, however, aAgmmh ANNEkB- The Jer.
Talm. (.lA',^'-. 1 1) also divides the expression, Adami
being represented as Ddinin, and Hannekeb as
Caidatah. Neub. {La Gdog. dii Talm. 222) and
GASm. [HG 396) identify Adami with Damieh. 5 m.
W. of Tiberias, the site which the PE Survey proposes
for the 'fenced city" Adamah of v. 36 (.l/^/«. I384).
This, however, seems much too far S. when we con-
sider that the 'tree of Bezaanim ' (see Bezaanannim)
was close to Kedesh, while Jabneee [q.v. n. 2) appears
to have been a north Galilfean fortress. These are the
two localities between which Adami-nekeb is mentioned
in Josh. 1933. It is probable that the name Nkbu in
the Karnak list of Thotmes III. {RPy^^ 5 4?) means
the pass Adami. T. K. C.
ADAR, RV, more correctly. Addar ("T^N ; [eic]
CAPAAa [B], a2^Aapa [AL]), an unknown site men-
tioned after Hezron [q.v.) as one of the points on the
southern frontier of Judah (Josh, lost)-
ADAR ("l"TNI [Aram.]. EzraSist; "ll^ [Heb.]),
Esth. .3713 812 91-19; iMacc.74349; 2 Mace. 1036).
See Month, §§ 3, 5.
ADASA (a2^aca [ANV]), the scene of the victory of
Judas the Maccabee over Nicanor (i Mace. 74045). lay.
as is implied in the narrative, not very far from Beth-
horon. Josephus [Ant. xii. IO5) makes its distance from
Beth-horon 30 stadia, and Jer. and Eus. call it a village
near Gophna ( OS, 93 3 220 6). Gophna being obviously
the modern Jifna between Jerusalem and Shechem, it
is reasonable to identify Adasa with the ruin 'Adaseh,
on a bare shapeless down, 8 m. S. of that place {PEP
J Cp Leopold Low, ' Graphische Requisiten u. Erzeugnisse
bei den Juden' ('70), pp. 181-83, in Beitr. z. jfut. Alterthums-
kunde, Bd. 1 of the Leipzig 'Institut zur FOrderung d. Israel.
Literatur.'
64
ADBEEL
A/rm.Sio6). The remark of Kus. that Adasa belonped
to Judah, at which Jcr. expresses so muclj surprise,
rests oil a confusion between aSaffa, the <?* reading
of IIadashah (i/.v.) in Josh. 1. '137, and the place of
like name in the passage before us.
ADBEEL (^N3"|N. n&BAehA [AKI> in (Jen., A in
Cli]; -Aaih\ [/^ in Gen., H inCh.]; aBAihA [L in
< li- ] ; aBAch Aoc [Jos. .-/«/. i. 12 4] ; cp Sab. 7mX ; see
Ges. -Hu. s.r.), one of the twelve sons of Ishmael
(Gen. 2r>i3; iCh. 129!). Doubtless the Arabian trilx;
Idibiil, mentioned by Tiglath-pileser III. (A'/iiio/. 56)
with Tenia, Sheba, and Kphah, but distinct from the
Idibi'ilu named in in.scriptions of the same king, who
was a A'i/>u — i.e., not 'warden of the marches' but
'governor' (of the N. Arabian land of Musri. See
MiZKAiM II. {/«]). CpWi. ./M.r. /■WscA. 25'. For a
sli!,'Iitl\- (iiflereiit view, see Lsn.MAKl,, § 4 (3).
ADDAN (I'J'X, § 57, connected with the divine name
.\cUlu ; SCO HadaI), Adoniua.m), the name, or part of
the name, of an uiiidentitied town or district in Hahy-
lonia, mentioned in the great post-e.\ilic list (see Kzka,
ii. § 9): Kzra259 (hA&n [B.\L]) = Neh. 76i, Addon
(hrcoN [MN.\], hAan [L])=iEsd.5 36, where pS is
represented by -alir, -alan of AV CilAKA.V niAl.AK,
KV CJIAKAATHAI.AN (. . . o.\av [B], [A^] oXap [.\],
. . . ibav [L]). Cp Cherub, ii.
ADDAR (TIN), Josh. ISst RV, AV Auar [q.v. ).
ADDAR (TIX ), I Ch. 8 at- See Ard.
ADDER. The details are given under Skri'KNT (§ i,
nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7). The Hebrew names are :
1. 2vj':v, \ik'u,b (Ps. I4O3 [4]!), generally believed
to be a kind of adder. See Serpk.nt, § r (4).
2. fns, pfthen (Ps. f;84[5] 91 13. AV nig. 'asp,' like
AV elsewhere), also believed to be some species of adder
or viper. See Skrpent, §1(5).
3- 'Ji'Es, J//A'(;///(Pr.2332 ; nig. like text elsewhere,
AV 'cockatrice,' RV ' basilisk,' ©»ka, Kfpi.ary)%; also
Is. 11 8 595 E\' nig. ), likewise some kind of viper. See
Skkpknt, § I (7).
4- I'SS. sepha (Is. 14 29 EV mg. ). See Serpk.nt, g i,
no. 6.
5. fSi'Sr, ifphiphon (Gen. 49i7t, AV mg. 'arrow-
snake,' RV mg. 'horned snake'), the cerastes. See
SKRI'KNT. § 2 (2).
ADDI. I. The sons of Addi in lEsd. 931 [aZhdv
[B], a5ot [.\], thva [L]) appear to take the place of
the b'ne Pahath Moab of Ezral03o; but the name
probably represents Adna [q.v., no. i), the first in the
group. In ©■- the missing name is restored, but
without <S5''s usual rryovfi^vov (see Pah.\TH-Moab).
!•. Twenty-fourth in the ascending gene.-ilogical series, which
hci^ins with Joseph, Mary's husb.ind, in Lk. 3 23-38 (aSSti
[Ti. WFI f.illowing UNA]). See Genealogies of Jesls, § 3.
ADDO ( aAAu) [A], etc. ), i Esd. 6 1. See Iddo, iii. 3.
ADDON (I'nX), Neh. 76i = Ezra 2s9, Addas.
ADrUS. I. The sons of .\ddus, one of the groups
added in i Esd. 534[B.\] (ai55oi's, see Swete ; perhaps
corresponding to ArrtX [\.]) to the ' .sons of the servants
of Solomon' (see I.evitks) in the gre.at post-exilic list,
Ezra2 = Neh. 7 = i Esd. 5 ; see Ezra, ii. § 8.
2. I Esd. 538. RVjADDi-s. See Bakzii.lai, 3.
ADER nyj). I Ch. 8i5t, RV Eder (,/.v., ii. i).
ADIDA (aAiAa [A]), 1 Mace. 1238 1813. See
IlADID.
ADIEL {hn'iy, §38, ' God passes by '?—cpAdaiah).
I. One of the Simeonite chieftains who dispossessed
the Meunim (see RV). i Ch. 4 36t {eSiv\ [A], o5ai7X [L],
perhaps awtraX [B]). See Geixjr, 2. and Ham, ii. ; and
cp .Amai.ek, § 4.
2. A priest in the genealogy of Maasai (iCh. 9i2t aSiijA
ADMAH
3. Ancestor of Azmavktu, </.v., ii. 4 (iCh. 27a5t atJcifA
(HAL)).
4. .See Adlkl.
ADIN(P1J^, § 57, perhaps shortetied from jnyW.
' Yahwe is pleasant,' cpjKHOADUAN, Eui-.S i ; aA[€]iN
[B.\], AAAei [E]. .//v.v).
The b'ne Adin, a family in the great post-exilic list (see Kzka, ii.
I9); Kzra2i5 (oil.- [HI, aa«. [A], «Mti (Lj)- Neh. 72o(T,«lf)i./
1BA1)=I Esd. 5 14 (aietAiou or-iav(I!J, a«iM>i;IAl, KV AuiNi).
A hand of fifty males of this family came up with Kzra ; Kzra86
= I Ksd. 8 32 (At)A.v a^ifa&ap | L], /.<•., Adin and KU-d, the name
of their head), '^he family was represented among tlic signa-
tories to the covenant, Neh. 10 16I17] (ijitrjif [liKA], oieic [I,]).
See K/KA. i. S 7.
ADINA (K:ny, ' blissful,' cp under Adi.n ; AA[eJiN&
[BAL] ; .i/i/.v.i ), a Reubenite chieftain in David's service
(i Ch. ]l42t). See DAVID, § 11 u, ii.
ADINO, ' the I'ziiite,' is aiJ[x.'nded unexpectedly in
EVof 2 S. 238 to the description of D.avid's princi|)al hero.
The readings of (D are.: aSavuiv o aauivaioi [U], aittv o -coot
[A], with the doublet {ovTOi) etriraaaTO Triv f>Ofj.(f)aiav avTou|in |{,
though not in A] from i Ch. 11 11 (I5KAL), where A* has ttTvaro
.... ©L, however, gives the single rendering (of a different
text], OUTOS &t(KO<rtiti tijv 6ia<T<ffui)»' avTwv.
A comparison of z'. 18 shows that what is required to
make sense is ' brandished his spear,' in":n-nK ttj', and
these words are actually given in iCh. llii in lieu of
I3i'>'.i ijnv. the words out of w hich MT (reading •jsj,-.-) and
its followers including E\' vainly atlemiJt to extract sense.
Modern critics (except Klo. ) correct .MT in accordance
with iCh.
Klo.'s correction, 'He is our pride, he is our terrible one'
(.ifter which he ventures to render Vj? 'because o{')-'iy-j^ K?n
13;i"i;^' N'^, words which are supposed to be a quotation from a
warlike song referring to this hero, is too ingenious. The words
niigbt, it is true, be viewed as a misplaced marginal quot.itii ti
relative to I)n7-iti ; but then we should still have to supply sonm
verb as a predicate to complete the account of David s warrior.
See ISHIIAAI. ; Jashobea.m.
ADINU (aAinoY [A]). I Esd. 5i4 RV ; AV, RV m-r.
.\dkn.
ADINUS, RV lAOiNLS (iAA[e]iNOC [BA]), i Esd.
94S ^ Nth. S7, JAMIN.
ADITHAIM (D^n""!!? ; on form of name see Names,
§ 107 ; AreeOAlM [E]; B.V om., but in r. 34 A h.as
AAlAGAeiM and B has lAoyecoe for 'Tajjpuah'), an
unknown site in the ShephClah of Judah, apjjarentiy
somewhere in its NE. portion (Josh. ir»36t).
ADLAI ('"p-iy; aAai [BA] ; aAAi [L] ; .v/v/,-
I Ch. 27 29t), see Shapiiat, 5.
ADMAH (npiN, aAama [BAL]) and Zeboim
(Hos. 118 EV, Gen. 10 19 AV, Dt. 2923 [22] AV), or, as
in (ien. 1428 ICV ami everywhere RV except in Hos.,
Zeboiim (Hos. 118 Kt. CNis. probably = c-yis [see
below]; Gen. IO19 Kt. op^i 142 8 Dt.2923 [22] all
Kt. c"2s ; Kr. everywhere d;i:v : ceBcoeiM [B.\E] ;
.Samar. textom. both names in (Jen. 10 19; aabana. [E] in
Gen. 142), are mentioned togetheriii passagesof the Penta-
teuch and in Hos. 118. In (ien. 14 2 8 they are slated to
have had kings of tlTeir own(see Shin ab) who joined in the
revolt of certain southern |)eoples against Chedorlaoiiier
king of Elam ; in Dt. 2923 [22] {(Xfjiufiv [AV]) to have
shared the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah. In Gen.
10:9 {(Tt^m/M [A]) they are mentioned in the definition
of the boundaries of Can-aan proper — ;.<'., the land W.
of the Jordan. P2xcept in Hos. 118 the names Admah
and Zelx)im are always preceded by those of Sodom and
Gomorrah. Of the Pentateuch passages all except
Gen. 10 19 are certainly post-exilic, and it is very possible
that Kautzsch and Socin are right in regarding the
mention of Gomorrah, .Admah, and Zeboim in Gen. 10 lo
as interpolated. In this case we have no right to
assume it as certain that Admah and Zeboim were
among the cities which an early Hebrew tradition stated
to have been destroyed by brimstone and fire out of
66
ADMATHA
heaven. Hos. 118 (imitated perhaps in Is. 159^) only
implies that Admah and Zeboim had suffered some
terrible destruction. As to the mode of their destruc-
tion and as to their locality no information is given. It
is, in fact, not at all likely that the least famous of the
' cities of the plain ' should have been selected by Hosea
as representatives; Amos (4ii) and Isaiah (I910)
mention only Sodom and Gomorrah. It is possible
that there was once some distinct legend respecting the >
destruction of Admah and Zeboim. Possibly, too,
Zeboim was not a town, but the name of the district in
which Admah was situated. Against this we must not
appeal to Uen. 14 2, since the names of the kings there
given are probably unhistorical. Nor can one help con-
jecturing that (if, as Rodiger, in Ges. Thes. suggests,
n'N3s = n'5;3!i) Hosea alludes to a story which accounted
for the dreary character of the Valley of Zeboim (now
the Wddy el-Kclt ; see Zkboim, i), analogous to that
connected with the valley of Achor. Such stories of
overthrown villages are not uncommon. See Sodom
AND Gomorrah. t. k. c.
ADMATHA (NnOHX), one of the 'seven princes'
(cp Ezra 7 14) at the court of Ahasuerus (Est. Ii4t;
[BAN, L om. ]). According to Marquart, however, these
seven names have arisen from an original three (cp the
three satraps, Dan. 61 / ) of which Carshena [q.v. ) is
one, Shethar and Tarshish are corrupt variations of the
second (see SHi:Tii.\R), and Meres and Marsena corrup-
tions of the third (see Marsena). Admatha (or rather
Nmcn) would then be the father of Haman, and for
'31CD (cp note to Memucan) should be substituted '::xn
(the designation applied to Haman). See, further, Fund,
b^ff. Cp Esther, § 3.
ADMIN (AAA\eiN [I^N]), a link, in the genealogy
of Joseph, between ^Vniiiiinadab and Arni (Aram),
in Lk. 833 RV mg. and W&H. See Genealogies
OFjESL-S, §3.
ADMINISTRATION. See Government.
ADNA. I. (X3-|y [Ginsb. q.v.\ Hiiy [Ba.]. ) One of
the b'ne Pahath-moah in the list of those with foreign
wives (see Ezra, i. § 5 end), F:zral0 3o {aiSaive [B], e5.
[B^''], fdve [A], aiavaatjie [L combining with next name,
which in i Esd. 9 31 (L) is (Ti8ia\, eSevex rjk [n =
Adna -I- following name, Chelae]) = 1 Esd. 931 [eSva
[L]), Addi, I. With this name should be compared
Hadauna, a Jewish name of the fifth century R. C. ,
mentioned by Hilprccht as found at Nippur (cp Hazitu
2. (n:"!); [Ginsb. Bii.]), priest temp. Joiakim (see Ezra, ii. §§,6 b,
11), Neh. 1-2 15 (aSam? [H^-^ "'«■ '"f], om. [BN*A], eSi/a? [L]).
ADNAH [ry-nV; eANAAc[BA], -NAc[L]), a cap-
tain in Jehoshaphat's army (2 Ch. 17 14).
ADNAH (n^ny [Ginsb. Ba.]. other readings mny,
n:*!!?; eANA [BAXL], Ednas). A Manassite, who
deserted from Saul to David (i Ch. I220 [21]). See
David, § ii a iii.
ADONAI CnX). See Names, §§ 119, 109 n.
ADONI-BEZEK (pH "•yiX, in v. 7 with makkef;
AAtONiBezeK [B.VL] Judg. I4-7 ; © has AAoiNlBezCK
also in Josh. 10 13 where MT has Adoni-zedek; a third
variation is AAcoNizeBeK [Jos. Procop. ©™dd.-] . the
change may be accidental or harmonistic), a Canaanite
king whom Judah and Simeon, invading southern Pales-
tine, encountered and defeated at Bezek. Adoni-bezek
fled, but was overtaken, made prisoner, and mutilated.
He was afterwards carried to Jerusalem, where he died
(Judg. I4-7). The name Adoni-bezek is commonly
interpreted 'Lord of (the city) Bezek'; but such a
1 0 closes this verse thus, koi to Kutakoi-nov "XSafia [I5NA;
ft sup. ras. «1], i.e., 'and the remnant of Admah.' This may
possibly be correct (see Duhm, /es. 105, Ch. /ntr. Is. 91V
Moab may be figuratively called Admah, just as Jerusalem IS
figuratively called Sodom (Is. 1 10).
67
ADONIJAH
formation is entirely anomalous. In similar compounds
(Adoni with proper name) the second element is
regularly the name of a god, never of a place (there
are, in fact, no Hebrew or Canaanite proper names of
persons in the OT thus compounded with the name of
a locality) ; nor is 'lidon used of the sovereign of a city
or country. In Jos. lOi /;, which, in spite of radical
differences, is based on a source closely akin to that of
Judg. 1, if not identical with it, the head of the native
kings who first made front against the Israelite invasion
of the S. is Adoni-zedek, king of Jerusalem (see Adoni-
ZEDEC) ; and it is to Jerusalem that Adoni-bezek is
taken (? by his own servants) to die (Judg. 1 7). Hence
the conjecture offered under Adoni-ZEDEC appears very
probable. See also Bezek. g. F. M.
ADONIJAH (n»nN, 2S. 34; 1K.I5718228; iCh.
82; Neh. 10i6[i7]^elsewhere-"in*nN; ' Yah we is lord,"
§36; cp Phoen. Si'njiK, ic::wnN ; AAooN[e]iAC [I^A],
OPNIA [L])-
I. David's fourth son (in i Ch. 82 a5wv[e]ia [BA ; so
also in 2 K. 2 21^], opuias [L]). Nothing is known of his
mother, Haggith. Like Absalom, he was born at Hebron
(2 S. 84 ; opv€t.\ [B], -j/ias [A]) ; like him he was conspic-
uous by his graceful presence, while like all David's sons
he never felt the constraint of his father's authority. Ab-
salom's death left him heir to the throne, and ' all Israel,"
as he said himself, ' expected that he would become king '
(iK. 215). He therefore, in the manifest failure of
the old king's faculties, thought it time to assume a
semi-royal state, like Absalom before him (iK. I5).
On his side were the old and tried servants of David —
Joab, the commander of the forces, Abiathar, who repre-
sented the old priestly family of Eli, and had been the com-
panion of David's wanderings — followed by the pcoplfe
as a whole (see i K. 215). The ' new men,' however,
Benaiah, captain of the body-guard, and Zadok, a priest
of origin comparatively obscure, looked with evil eyes
on his pretensions, and with the powerful aid of the
prophet Nathan espoused the cause of the son of
Bathsheba. The chance of each party, unless David's
death was to be followed by civil war, lay in a sudden
stroke which would put their claimant in possession and
overawe his opponents.
The storj' is graphically told, though perhaps with
a secret sympathy with Adonijah. Nor can we doubt
that, like the other narratives of the same writer, it is
in the main trustworthy. Adonijah made the first
move. He invited all the royal princes save Solomon,
together with Job and Abiathar and ' all the men of
Judah,' to a sacrificial feast at a well-known sacred
stone (see Zoheeeth) close to Jerusalem (r K. I9/. ).
They had left the weak old king, however, exposed to the
machinations of their enemies, while the fortress was in
the hands of Benaiah and his trained soldiers. Nathan
was quick to seize the opportunity. By the help of
Bathsheba, and with a presentation of facts which may
or may not have been perfectly accurate, ^ he obtained
from David an order for the immediate enthronement
of Solomon. Adonijah's banquet was disturbed by
news that Solomon reigned by his father's will, and
was protected by Benaiah and the foreign guard. The
company broke up in dismay, and Adonijah sought an
asylum at the horns of the altar. The clemency
of Solomon, however, spared his life, and but for an
ill-timed revival of his ambitious dreams he might have
rei^iained in a happy obscurity. The cause of his ruin
was a petition to be allowed to marry Abishag, for
which he obtained the support of Bathsheba. Appar-
ently the queen-mother did not detect his secret political
1 The question is whether the promise of Solomon asserted
by Nathan in i K. 1 24 is a clever fiction of Nathan, or not, and
whether the description of the doings of Adonijah is, or is not,
exaggerated. The former point is the more important of the
tvvo. We. (C//261 n.)and Ki. (Hist. ii. 180/) take different
sides. We.'s reply is, of course, to us the less palatable one;
but we must consider Semitic craftiness, and the improbability
of a merely private promise of Solomon. See i K. 1 12 13.
68
ADONIKAM
motive ; indeed Abishag had only nominally been
David's concubine. Solomon, however, regarded the
pro(K)saI as virtually, if not expressly, a claim to the
throne, and Adonijah perished by Solomon's sentence
and Benaiah's sword.
Compare the narrative of Stade ((7/i. bk. v. c. 2),
with the somewhat different treatment of the matter
by Kittfl (/Hit. ii. c. 4). w. e. a.
2. A signatory to the covenant (see Ezra, i. $ 7), Neh. 10 16
[17] ((jafia [HK (tliDUgh the names are otherwise divided)],
ooi'aa [A], aScDi'ia? [1,)). In the great post-exilic list, Ezra'2 =
Neh. 7 = I Esd. 5 (see Ezra, ii. § 9), and in the list (Ezra 8) of
those who came with Ezra, the name appears {zm. 13 18 14 13
respectively) perhaps more correctly (so Gray, HPN 137, n. 2)
as Adonikam (^.?'.).
3. A Levite, temp. Jehoshaphat : 2 Ch. 17 8 (aiiaviav [BA1,
-.-.a[L]).
4. See Arau NAH.
5. See Aknan.
ADONIKAM (D|'^"»jhK; 'the Lord is risen up,' cp
Ahikam ; AA^N[eliK&M[BAL]).
The b'ne Adoiiikani, a family in the great post-exilic list
(see EzKA, ii. §§ 9, St); Ezra 2 13 {a&uviKav [Bl)=Xeh. 7i8
(aJetxa^ [B], ofiffiKa^i [J<J)= i P2sd. 5 14 ; represented in Ezra's
caravan (see Ezra, i. § 2, ii. § 15 (i) tf), Ezra 8 13 (aSoveiKa/n
[B])= 1 Esd. 8 39 {aStoviaKaifi. [B]); and prol>ably among the
signatories to the covenant (see Ezra, i. § 7), Neh. 10 16 [17] ;
see Adonijah, 2.
ADONIRAM (D-rnX, § 40, 'the Lord is high';
AAa)N[e]ipAM [H.-\.L] ; apoaikam). chief receiver of
tribute under David (2 S. 2O24), Solomon (iK. 46;
5r4 [2S]), and Rehoboam, on whose deposition he was
stoned to death by the Israelites ( i K. 12 18 ; 2 Ch. 10 i8t
Diin, Hadokam, aSojpafi [A]).
'in 2 S. 20 24 (ititSpaflh]) and i K. 12 t8 (apafi [B] ; Aiiuram),
it is incorrectly (cp We. Dr. TL'S) written Adoram (Cl'lN).
Hilprecht (PEF Qu. Si., Jan. '98, p. 55), indeed, attempts to
explain the form by connecting it with Adduramu ('Addu is
high'), a Jewish name on a tablet from Nippur; notice, how-
e\or, that 1 is not expressed and that (Rbal reads 'Adonirain.'
ADONIS only in the phrase D*pDW "ytpj (a double
plur. ), Is.l'ioRVmg. 'plantings of Adonis '^ (EV has
1. OT reference, 'f^"^^^"^] ^^^^'^ ')■ }}} Justification of
the rendering see Che. Is.^^^ 1 108,
Kittel in Di. /«.(«' To Ewald (Proph. 2 116, Lekrb. d.
lu'br. S/>r. 718, n. 3) and still more to Lag. {Semitica,
1 31, llcbers. 205, n.) is due this important correction
of the rendering. Clermont -Ganneau should also
be consulted (Etudes d'airht'ol. orientale 1, 1880, pp.
26^). also WRS Eng. Hist. Re^K, 1887, p. 307; but
cp We. Ar. Heid.^^'i 7 n. Na'aman ( = pleasant,
gracious) was doubtless a title of the ' Lord ' (Adon,
whence Adonis), and Adonis -worship seems to have
penetrated under this title into Syria and Palestine, as
we gather from the OT name Xa.aman {q.v.\ from the
names Numana and Namana in S. Palestine in pre-
Israelitish times (Thotmes III.), and from the Nahr
Na'man (N. of Carmel), which seems to be the Belus
of the ancients. That Adonis-worship flourished in Pales-
tine when Isaiah wrote can easily be believed. The
N. Israelites were at this time specially of)en to Syrian
influences. They ' forgot ' Yahwe because he seemed
unable to protect them. So Isaiah indignantly exclaims,
' Therefore, though thou plantest (little gardens with)
shoots of Adonis, and stockest them with scions (dedi-
cated) to a foreign god . . . the harvest shall vanish
in a day of sickness and desperate pain.' The phrase
' shoots of Adonis ' points to the so-called ' gardens of
Adonis,' baskets containing earth sown with various
plants, which quickly sprang, up and as quickly
withered. In reality they were symbols of the life and
death of Adonis ; but Isaiah takes the withering as an
image of the withered hopes of Israel. On these
' gardens ' see Frazer, Golden Bough 1 2S4 / ; WRS
Rel. Sem.i"^) 414; Ohnefalsch Richter, Kvpros 1^2/. ;
and cp Che. 'Isaiah,' in SBOT (Eng.), 146.
Adonis was one of those local gods who live with
and in nature, who suffer in sunmier's drought, die
1 0 <;(^;Tev^oa7^l<^T0»' [BKAQr].
ADONI-ZEDEC
with the winter, and live again with the early spring.
Legend, however, explained the death of the god as
2 Leeeiid ^" event of far-off times. Adonis, it said,
and cult ^^''^ '^'"''"'^ ^*"'^' hunting the Xxxit in Leb-
anon, and accordingly in the heat of summer
was solemnised the great mourning festival (cp WRS
Ril. Scm.*-> 411), at which his corpse was exhibited
resting upon a bed of flowers — the quickly fading
Adonis-garden. Far up in I^-banon, near the fountain
of 'Afka, death suddenly overtook him ; whereupon
the spring became red with his blood. By Afka was
an ancient temple of the goddess Aphrodite (so Luc.
Dea Syr. 9 ; l':us. I'it. Const. 3 55, Sozom. HE 2 5),
of which the ruins still remain ; probably it contained
the grave of the god. This legend, and the cult con-
nected with it, must be very ancient. Indeed, in a
source as early as the papyrus Anast. I., mention is
made of the goddess of the ' mysterious ' city of Byblus.
In its origin it was distinct from the Babyh^nian legend
of the loves of Istar and Tammuz, though at an early
date both this legend and the Egyptian story of Osiris
were combined with it (Plut. de Is. 15, Luc. Dea Syr. 7;
cp Apollodor. ii. 1, 3, 7, etc. ). The cult spread through
all the Phoenician colonies, especially to Cyprus, whence
in the seventh century it was imported into Greece.
Adonis, however, is not to be taken as the true name
of the god ; every god can be called ' Adon,' lord, just
as every goddess is entitled to Ije called Rabbath, 'the
lady.' At Byblus (see Gehal, i. ) the favourite of the
goddess of Byblus was invoked as the ' lord ' par excel-
lence, and thus it was that the Greeks came to call him
Adonis. What his real name was we do not know ;
for the name Tammuz, which he also bears, is Baby-
lonian, and it is doubtful whether it ever becanje
naturalised in Phoenicia.
Possibly his name survives, unsuspected, among the many
divine names. Or perhaps the recollection of his sad fate may have
hindered the formation of prof)er names derived from his : nor is it
impossible that in the worship he never received a real name at
all.l For in point of fact Philo, who never mentions Adonis, says
of a certain Eliun (r\'^];) = v\\ii.<no';, that he lived with a woman
named Berut in Byblus, that he was slain by wild beasts, and
was afterwards deilied, and that 'his children brought him liba-
tions and offerings.' This seems to be the euhemeristic version
of the Adonis legend. Now in 'Abedat in the neighbourhood of
Byblus, where doubtless the village Saarna lay, there has Iwen
found an altar Aii ovpavito vi/ziVto) 'S.aa.pvaii^ enriKom (Kenan,
234), and although such attributes are of frequent occurrence in
Syria, Renan is probably right in recognising in this 'highest
god' the Eliiin of Philo, and .Adonis. Moreover, according to
Philo (ii. 10), the god 'A-ypoiijjpos rj 'Ayporn^, ' 'he farmer," whose
brother is called '.\yp6i, 'field' {i.e., rrir)* and who 'had a
sacrosanct image and a temple carried about Phoenicia on
wheels,' was honoured in Byblus as Beuiv 6 iieyiaroi. He also
recurs in the Greek inscriptions. In Byblus a temple was
erected under .Augustus Aii vn/rio-Tai (Renan, 223; cp 232 fiecji
All . . . ) and the same god had a temple deep in the recesses
of the mountains near Kal'at Fakra to the SE. of Byblus
(CIG 4525 ... tic Tioi' ToO MeYi'cTTov 6(ov (UKo£o/Li7J^). The
Phoenician name represented by 'Aypovijpo? is unknown. See
Tam.miz. t. k.c. §I-li. m. §2.
ADONI-ZEDEC, or rather -Zedek, as R\' (p'lV-'nX,
'Sedek is lord,' cp Meixhizedek, though to later
readers the name very probably meant ' lord of right-
eousness' ; AAcoNiBezeK [BAL] ; .iinKWiSHDHc), a king
of Jerusalem at the time of the Israelitish invasion. See
Josh. \Qijf., where he leads a confederation of five
kings of S. Canaan. According to Josh. 10, Joshua
came from Gilgal to the relief of the Gibconites threatened
by the coalition ; surprised and completely routed the
army of the Amorite kings near Gibeon ; captured the
five kings in the cave of Makkedah ; put them to death
and impaled their bodies ; then, turning back, razed
Lachish, E^glon, and Hebron, with many other cities in
the region. This story stands in a narrative of the
1 The inscription from the district of Hippo Diarrhytus {CIL
viii. I1211) sacerdos Adoni (sic) proves nothing as to the
cultus-name of the god ; Adonis has here, as among the Greeks,
become a proper name.
2 From the time of Scaliger it has been assumed that this
name arose from a corruption or misunderstanding of "yff (see
Shaddai). This is possible, but very far from certain.
ADOPTION
conquest of all Palestine by Joshua in two great
campaigns (Josh. 10/) which cannot be historical. A
much more credible account is to be found, though in
an ai:)ridged form, in Judg. 1 (see JosHU.\, § 8 ; JfDGKS,
§ 3). Here Adoni-liezck is the king who opjxssos the
first resistance to the advance of the tribes of Judah
and Simeon against the Canaanites of the S. It is
therefore in Hudde's opinion (/.-/ yiT 7 148 ['87]) not
improbable that the © reading ' Adoni-bezek, king
of Jerusalem" in Josh. HU 3 is correct, especially as
Judg. 1 7 may be understood as saying that his own
followers carried Adoni-bezek to Jerusalem, and so as
iniplying that that city was his capital. The objection
to this view is that the second element in Adoni-bezek
ought to be a god, and we know of no god named
Bezek. Hence it is very possible that Adoni-bezek
in Josh. 10 [©"*'-] is a scribe's error, and that the
original narrative of Judg. 1 had not Adoni-lx:zek, king
of some nameless city, but Adoni-zedek, king of
Jerusalem (see Auoni-hkzkk). w. k. s. — g. K. m.
ADOPTION (yioeeciA). Ro. 8 .5 23 94 Gal. 45 Eph.
Isf. .See I-AMII.V.
ADORA (see below) or Adoraim (D'^'llX ; on form
of name see Xamks, § 107 ; aAcoRAI [H]. -M [A and
Jos. .Inf. viii. 10 1], -pAM [1-] ; .i/Ha'.i.u), mentioned
with Mareshah, Zijih, and Lachish among the cities
fortified by Hehoboam (2 Ch. 11 gt). The sites of all
these places having been securely fixed, there can be no
hindrance to identifying Adoraim with the modern Diira,
which is 5 m. W. by .S. from Hebron, and is described
by Robinson (2215) as 'one of the largest (villages)
in the district.' The site is well adapted for a town,
being ' on the gradual eastern slope of a cultivated
hill, with olive groves and fields of grain all round '
(cp PEF Mem. 3 304). Under the new Egyptian
empire an Adoraim is perhaps mentioned twice (V\'MM.
As. u. I'.iir. 167, 174) ; but it is not clear that Rehoboam's
city is intended. At any rate, Adoraim is doubtless
the Adora or Dora of Josephus (^Aiit. .xiii. I54 and else-
where abiiipa, aoujpeoi, 8. ; C. Ap. 9 Scupa), and the ADC)k.\
of I Mace. l:32o(a5ajpa [.\NV]). In the latter, .Vdora is a
point on the route by which Tryphon entered Juda;a ;
in the former, it is usually coupled as an ldum:ean city,
with Marissa (.Mareshah), the fate of which it shared,
being captured by John Hyrcanus and compelled to
accejJt circumcision and the Jewish law (Jos. Ant. xiii.
9i ; BJ \. 26). T. K. c.
ADORAM (D'lnX), 2S. 2O24; i K. 12i8t. See
A DOM RAM.
ADRAMMELECH ("?]^r3^1X, aAramgAcx [«L],
-A6k[A]; Jos. -Aexoc, ANApoMAXOc)-
I. A Babylonian deity. According to 2 K. iTsi,
after 'the king of Assyria,' i.e., Sargon (see Sakgon),
had transplanted the Sepharvites into Samaria, they
there continued to worship Adrammelech and Anam-
MKi.Kcii {q.v. ), the gods of Sepharvaim. This passage
presents two difficulties. In the first place, according
to the biblical account the worship of Adrammelech
was accompanied with the sacrifice of children by
fire : ' they burnt their children in fire to Adrammelech
and Anammelech.' Throughout the cuneiform inscrip-
tions, however, there is no allusion to human sacri-
fice, and in the scul[)tures and reliefs no representa-
tion of the rite has lieen discovered. The second
difficulty concerns the explanation of the name Adram-
melech and its identification with some known divinity
of Babylonia. The name was originally explained as
Adar-malik, ' Adar the prince,' Adar being regarded
as the phonetic rendering of the name of the god Ninib.
This identification, however, was unsupported by any
evidence, and has now Iieen abandoned. A clue to the
solution of the problem, however, is afforded by the
statement that Adrammelech was a god of Sepharvaim,
a city that is generally identified with Sippar (cp
Sepharvaim). The god whose worship was especially
7»
ADRIA
centred at Sippar was §ama§ the Sun-god. That this
was the case is abundantly proved by references through-
out the historical and religious texts of the Babylonians
and Assyrians, and the remains of the great temple of
the sun-god exist in the mounds of Abu-1.4abbah at the
pi-esent day. Some scholars, therefore, would see in
Adrammelech a subsidiary name or title of the Sun-god
himself Others, however, do not accept this view.
They strike at its chief support by repudiating the
identification of c'nsD with Sippar, suggesting that it is
to 1^ identified with Sahara in, a city mentioned in the
Babylonian Chronicle. No satisfactory explanation of
the name, therefore, has yet been offijred. But cp
N is KOCH. L. W. K.
2. A son of the Assyrian king Sennacherib, who,
according to 2 K. 1^37 (aSpe/ifXex [-'^]) fi'id Is. 3738
(aSpa/ifXex [BX'AOQ], avSpafj.. [ii*]), in conjunction
with his brother Shakkzek {</.v.), slew his father while he
was woishipjjiiig in the tem])le of Xisroch at Nineveh,
and thence escaped into Armenia. In the Babylonian
Chronicle mention is made of this r-evolt, in which Sen-
nacherib met his death ; but the only trace of the name
Adrammelech hitherto found is in Abydenus under the
form Adramelus, and in Polyhistor under that of Ardu-
musanus. Scheil however thinks that Adkmlk and
Adramelus are corruptions of Assur-MU-M-iK (or
-G.\l), the idiographic reading of the name pronounced
Asur-sum-usabsi. This is the name of a son of Sen-
nacherib for whom his father erected a house amidst
the gardens of Nineveh. For analogies cp the royal
name Sammiighes = Samas-MU-Gl-NA. The Ardumu-
sanus of Polyhistor nray be a corruption of the phonetic
form given above, just as 2aoo-5ot''X'«'os is .Samas-sum-
ukin, the phonetic reading of Samas-MU-Gl-.\.\. (.Sec
Scheil, ZA 12 i ; J^fv. bib., April 1897.) Cp Esak-
haddon, Nisroch.
ADRAMYTTIUM (aAramytiON or atr. : the ad-
jective, which alone occurs in the .\T, is, as in some
cursive MSS of Acts, aAramythnoc or atr.; neither
inscriptions nor coins give the form -JTHNOC of Tisch.
following NB^ ; W & H -yNTH. after AH*). .\ seaport
of Mysia, which gave, and still gives, its name to the
gulf, a great triangular indentation along the S. foot
of Mt. Ida, whence it was called also the ' Id;tan."
Adramyteum, in the E. recess of the gulf, was always
important. It would profit by the trade in timl^er from
Ida. There were also copper mines in the neighbourhood,
and iron mines at Andeira not far to the N\V. Strabo
(p. 606) describes it accurately as ' a colony of Athens,
a city with a harbour and roadstead ' ; but its importance
goes back to a much earlier epoch if, as Olshausen asserts
{Rhein. .Mus. f. Phil. '53, p. 322 ; cp Hazar-maveth),
the name points to foundation by the Phoenicians. Of
necessity Adramyteum was intimately connected with
the road system of NW. Asia. The coast road from
Ephesus and the inland road from Pergamus converged
to Adramyteum, whence they diverged, on the one hand,
across the Mysian peninsula to Cyzicus on the sea of
Marmora, and, on the other, to Assos, Troas, and the
Hellespont. Consequently, it became an assize town, or
head o{a.conventus juridicus. .-\draniytian coasters such
as that in which Paul performed the first stage of his
journey to Rome (Acts272t) must have been familiar
visitors to Caesarea and the Syrian harbours. Adramyti
{Rdrcmid), which preserves the old name, is 5 m. from
the sea. Thus, Kiepert is perhaps right in putting the
ancient town on an eminence by the sea, 8 m. S\V'.
of the modern Adramyti (Z. d. Geselhch.f. Erdk., 1889,
292/. ). Nevertheless, Edremid is heir to the importance
of .'\diamyteum. Silver mines are now worked in the
hills behind the town. w. j. vv.
ADRIA (eN TOO aAria. Acts2727 [BX.A], .//m/../.s/
'stony sea,' Wiclif), the division of the Mediterranean
which lies between Sicily and Malta o\\ the W. and
Crete on the E. So the name is applied by Paus. v. 203
(speaking of the straits of Messina), « toO 'ASpiov Kal
73
ADRIEL
^f iripov irf\ti7ouj t KaXfirai. Tvp<rr]v6v. Cp id. viii. 54 3.
I'rocopius considers Malta as lying on the boundary
(/?ri. 14: Tai/Xcf; re Kal 'MfXirr) irpoaiaxop, at rdre
'ASptaTiKbv Kal Tvpprji/iKdv ir^Xayos Siopi^ovaiv). Ptolemy
distinguishes between the Adriatic sea and the Adriatic
/^u//. Acts reproduces the language of the sailors.
For this extended application of the name cp Strabo,
who, writing about 19 A.u. , says that the Ionian Sea is
'part of what is now called Adrias ' (p. 123). This
implies that the ancient use of the word had l^jen more
limited. In medi;i!val times the name was still more
widely extended, lx;ing practically = ' Levant, ' as opposed
to '/Egean' (cp Ram. Pm^/ 298. See Myra). The
question is connected with the identification of the
island upon which Paul was cast ( Acts 28 i) after fourteen
days' drifting in Adria (see Mei,it.\). We may com-
pare the shipwreck of Josephus ' in the middle of the
Adria' (Kara fiiuov t6v 'ASpiav) : he was picked up by
a ship sailing from Cyrene to Puteoli ( Vif. 3).
w. J. w.
ADRIEL (PX^iny, not 'God's flock,' out either (a)
miswritten for ?X*"lTy, 'God is helper' [cp forms of
name in (5, 2S. 218 below]; or (/') the Aram, form ^
of Heb. ^S'^TJ?. The former view is adopted in
Names, § 28 ; the latter by Nestle, ZDPT 15 257 ; cp
Barzill.m ; see also HPN 266 n. i, 309 n. 8). Son
of Barzillai (</.!'. , n. 4) the Meholathite, to whom Saul
married his daughter Mkrab [q.v. ) ; i S. 18 19 (om. B ;
irj\ (usually = t(r/)a7;\) [A], e8pi7j\ [L]), 2S. 21 8 (aepei [B],
eaSpt [A], etpi [L]).
ADUEL (aAoyhA [BX], nayh [A] ; ^^(o?J). the
great grandfather of Tobit (Tob. 1 1 ). No doubt another
form of AuiKL ((/.J'. ).
ADULLAM (D^ny. oAoAAam [BAL], oAoAam [R.
2 Ch. ; Bavi.i^ Mi.; A, i S.]. oAoAAa [A, Josh. I535],
aAaA&m [L /6.]; onor./.AAf, variants adu{i,)lam,
ODOL.iM, odcllam; gentilic "'Dpiy, AduUamite,
oAoAAAAA[e]iTHC [ADI':l], -mhthc, oGoAAamithc
[K]), a town in the Shephelah (Josh. 1.') 33 35), with
a changeful history. For a considerable time it seems
to have remained Canaanitish. We still have a legend
in Gen. 38 i/. (J) which describes the fusion of Judahite
clans with a Canaanitish clan whose centre was AduUam.
This fusion had apparently not been accomplished in
David's time, for Adullam was still outside the ' land of
Judah ' when David took refuge there ( i S. 22 1 ; cp v.
5). We cannot therefore accept the editorial statement
in Josh. 12 15 (cp I'. 7) that Joshua 'smote' the king of
Adullam. The Chronicler speaks of Rehoboam as
having fortified Adullam (2Ch. II7). He names the
place in conjunction with Soco (Shuweikeh), which
harmonises geographically with Micah's combination of
it (Mic. I15, if the text be correct) with Mareshah
(Merash). It is included in the list of cities which are
stated to have been occupied by the Jews in the time of
Nehemiah or Zerubbabel ( Neh. 1 1 30 ; so N'=-'' '"'•'• '"f- L ;
BNA om. ) ; but the list in Neh. 11 25-36 appears to be
an archaeological fiction of the Chronicler. Judas the
Maccaljee, at any rate, in a raid into ' Idumaea,' occupied
Adullam and kept the sabbath there (2 Mace. 1238).
The chief interest of Adullam, however, lies in its con-
nection with David {q.v., § 3). Here, not in some
enormous cave (such as that fixed upon by tradition at
Khareitun),* but in the ' stronghold ' of the town, David
on two occasions found a safe retreat ( i S. 22 1 ; 2 S. 5 17 ;
cp23i3).
Where was Adullam? The authority of the Pales-
1 The word is found both with d and with z on Aramaic seals ;
e-S- , yinin (C/S 2, n<3. 1 24) bu t -ny-in, ' Horus is a help ' (//>. 77).
2 The Magharct Khareilfin enters historj-, not with David,
but with an ascetic named Chariton, who, after having been
taken by robbers on the way to Jerusalem, founded one of his
two lauras here, and died in the cave about 410 a.d.
73
AGABUS
tine Survey has led many recent writers to adopt the
identification of Adullam with 'Id-el-mS, proposed in
1871 by M. Clermont-Ganneau. This is the name of
a steep hill on which are ' ruins of indeterminate date,'
with an ancient well at the foot, and, near the top, on
both sides, caves of moderate size. The site is in the
east of the Shephelah, about 3 m. UK. of Soco, and
8 from Mareshah ; and, though it is much more from
Bethlehem, ' the journey would be nothing for the light-
footed mountaineers who surrounded David ' (Clermont-
(ianneau, PEI-'Q i-j-j ['75]). The identification, how-
ever, is only conjectural. The caves are unimportant ( i )
because the MT (cp Jos. Aut. vi. 12 3) speaks of a single
cave, and (2) teeause with We., Ki. , Bu. , and Kau.
we should correct ,n-i;'c, 'cave,' in i S. 22i 2 S. 23 13
1 Ch. II15, into ,-insp. 'stronghold'; cp i S. 224/
2 S. 23 14. Nor does the position of 'Id-el-ma exactly
agree with that assigned to Adullam in the Ono-
masticon. On the very slight resemblance of the name
to Adullam no reliance can be placed. Other sites are
quite possible. Cp GASm. //C 229 /. See MiCAii,
§ 2 a, n. T. K. c.
I ADULTERY. See Marriage, § 4.
ADUMMIM, The Ascent of (D'P"1N n'pyp ; Josh.
1^7 AAAAMeiN [H], aAommi [A], aAammein [I-]:
I817 AiGAMeiN [l^]. eAcoMi [A\ eAcoweiAA [I-];
; adom.ujm), a point marking the frontier between Judah
\ and Benjamin. The sharp rise near the middle of the
• road from Jericho to Jerusalem ajjpears to be intended ;
the name (connected with mx, 'red') was perhaps
; suggested by the ruddy hue of the chalk rocks in that
I neighbourhood, to which appears to be due the name
j of the khan el-Ahmar ( ' the red '), the traditional ' inn '
of the (jood Samaritan, and that of Tula at ed-Dam
('the hill of blood'), NE. of the khhn. With the
latter spot the ascent of Adummim has been plausibly
identified [PEF Mem. 3 172).
ADVERSARY. The word so translated in 1 S. 1 6t
(J\yi sdra, RV 'rival,' &nti2hAoc [L].^ cp Lev. I818
[B.VL]) is the technical term for a fellow-wife, answer-
ing to Ass. sirritu, Ar. 4arrat"", Syr. 'artha (\irra).
All these forms are dialectal variations of a single
Old-Semitic word. Similarly, in Lev. 18 18 the words
' to vex her ' are better rendered by RV ' to be a rival
to her.' The words that follow may be rendered, in-
terpreting the metaphor, ' marrying the second sister, in
addition to the first, in the lifetime of the latter.'
The sense of the metaphor is given by the Arabic Utakiina
darrataha. See Dr. TKS, ad loc. and especially Lag.'s
'Mittheitungen 1 125/ (GGN, 1882, no. 13). w. K. s.
ADVOCATE (n&RAKAHTOc), i Jn. 2i, see Par.\-
CI.ETK.
AEDIAS (ahAciac [B]), I Ksd. 9 27 = Ezra 10 26, RV
Elijah, 3.
^NEAS (aincac [BNA]), a paralytic at Lydda
healed by Peter (Acts933t). The form of the name,
.(^neas, not as in Homer /l-".ncas, is noteworthy. It is
met with in Thucydides, Xenophon, and Pindar.
.ffiNON (aincon [Ti.WH]), Jn.323t. See Salim.
^SORA (aicoora [BA], etc.), Judith44t RV = AV
ESOKA (./.f. ).
AFFINITY. See Family, Ki.nship.
AGABA, RV AccABA (akk&Ba [B]). i Esd. 530 =
Ezra 2 46, Hagab.
AGABUS (apaBoc [Ti. WH] ; § 68). one of the
' projihits ' w ho came from Jerusalem to Antioch at the
time of the dispersion from Jerusalem ' upon the tribula-
tion that rose about Stephen' (Acts 11 19, cp 84)- He
predicted a great fanune over all the world, ' which came
to pass in the days of Claudius' (.Nets 11 27 28). The
reference, doubtless, is to the great dearth which visited
Judtea and the surrounding districts — especially Jerusa-
lem— between 44 and 48 A.D. (Jos. Ant. xx. 26; 5a;
I The text of BA differs.
74
AGAG
Kus. HE ii. 11 3). For other famines in the reign of
Claudius, see Suet. Claud. 18; Tac. Ann. xii. 43.
The next mention of Agabus is in Acts 21 10/., where
it is said that he * came down from Judaea ' to Cajsarea
when Paul was there, and, taking Paul's girdle, bound
his own feet and hands with it to symbolise the captivity
of the apostle. As this leference looks like a first
mention of Agabus, those who ascribe the whole of
Acts to one writer regard it as an indication that the
second half of the book was written first. By others
the passage is naturally regarded as one of the indications
that the author of Acts did not himself write the ' we '
passages, but adopted them from an earlier source.
On the other hand, Overbeck and Van Manen legard
vj. 10-14 ^s an interpolation, and suppose that the
'we' was introduced by the last redactor. Jiingst
thinks that the prophecy cannot originally have lx.'en
ascribed to Agabus, but must have been assigned to one
of Philip's prophesying daughters, or these would not
have tjeen mentioned. At all events, it is to be noted
that ' from Juda-a' (21 10) does not harmonise with 218,
for Caesarea belonged to Judtea.
Agabus is included in the lists of the ' seventy disciples of our
Lord' by pseudo-Dorotheus and pseudo- Hippolylus, and is
commemorated in the great Clieek Menaai (.Apr. 8), along with
Rufu';, Herodion, and Asynciilus.
AGAG (3^X, 33X, cp Ass. agagu, 'be powerful,
vehement, angry' ; Igigi, the spirits friendly to man,
Maspero, DawnofCiv. 634 ; e^rA,p[B.\L]), akingof the
Amalekites, so celebrated in early tradition that the
Yahwist makes Balaam say, by an obvious anachronism,
of the future Israelitish kingdom, ' His king shall be
higher than Agag ' (Nu. 247; r^^r [^--^L], following
Samar. text). Saul, after his successful campaign against
the Amalekites, exempted Agag from the general doom of
devotion to the deity by slaughter, and brought him to
Gilgal, where Samuel hewed him in pieces before Vahwe
— i.e., at the great sanctuary where festal sacrifices
were offered ( i S. 158/. 20/. 32/ ). Making allowance
for the endeavour of the narrator to harmonise an old
tradition with later ideas (see S.\UL, § 3), and throwing
ourselves back into the barbarous period which begins
to pass away under David, we cannot doubt that the
slaughter of Agag was a eucharistic sacrifice (see
S.\ckifice), akin to that of the nakl'a (lit. 'victim
rent in pieces'), which was in use among the Arabs
after a successful fray, and which might be a human
sacrifice (WRS ES^-) 491, cp 363; We. Ar. Held.
1.2 [87]).
AGAGITE('33X ; for Greek readings see below),
a mcniber of the family of Agag ; a title applied ana-
chronistically to Haman (Ksth. 3i 10835). Haman, as
an Anialekite, is opposed to Mordecai, the descendant
of Kish (Esth. 25). Neither description is to be taken
literally (see Esther, § i, end). The meaning is
that there is an internecine struggle between the Jews
and their enemies, like that between Saul and Agag of
old. Similarly, Haman is called a ' Macedonian ' in
the Greek parts of Esther ; 126 {n.Q.Kehova [L"] ; but
/Soi'voios [BN.\L3] ; AV Agagite ; RV Bugean) I610
(EV Macedonian; fiUKeowv [BNAL^]; but ^ovyaios
[L"]), and the name has made its way back into
924(iJ.aKf5t.jv [BSALfl]); cp Esthek, § 10. Elsewhere
the 0 reading is ^ovyaios [BN-AL^^] (only in 3i 85
[■j^c.a mg.])^ ()erhaps a corruption of raryoios (in Nu. 24;,
the same version has Tory for A7a7).
AGAR (AfAP [I^A]). I. The sons of Agar, Bar. 3
as kV ; A\' Agarenes. See H.vgak, § 2, n.
2. Gal. 424/. KV Hagar (<^.v., end).
AGATE {n5-]3. Is. 54.2, lAcnic [BNj\Q] ; n'S*]?,
Ez. 27i6 [Ba. Ginsb.], xopxop [BQ], KOpxopyC [A],
etc. ; i2C', axathc [B.AL]) occurs four limes in AV,
twice for Heb. kadkod, RV ' rubies ' and twice
for shlbo. On the identification of these stones,
see Chalcedony. On the question whether the
75
AGRICULTURE
agate, which is a variegated chalcedony (translucent
quartz) with layers or spots of jasper, was known to
Israel, see Precious Sto.nes.
AGEE (N:X. apoaLA]; &c& [B] ; hAa [L] ; Jos.
hAoy [g'^n-]; -^f-^). father of Shammah {q.v., 3);
2 S. 23ii. His name should doubtless be cor-
rected to Ela {<?N (so Marq. Fund. 17) ; 3 and 7 in
the older character were very similar. He is mentioned
again in i K. 4 18. See Elah, 6.
AGGABA (ArrABA[B='»""e- A]), i Esd. Szgf RV =
Ezra 245, Hagahah.
AGG^US, AV Aggeus {Aggci [ed. Bensly]), i Esd.
6 1 73, 4 Esd. l^of. See H.\GGAI.
AGIA (AflA [BA]), I Esd. 534t RV=Ezra257.
Haiti L.
AGRICULTURE. — Agriculture is here considered
(i) as conditioned by the land (§ i), (2) as conditioned
by the people (§§ 2-10), (3) as a factor in the life of the
people (§§ 11-15); a concluding paragraph (§ 16) will
contain some notes on historical points.
I. The great variety of the conditions in the different
natural divisions of Palestine (Dt. I7) must be kept in
« j-i- J mind.i The various local products,
1. Conditioned ^^^^^^^^ ^,^^ industrial, of these dis-
by land. ^^.j^.^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^ alluded to by the
Old Testament writers, the most important of which
are wheat and barley, olive and vine and fig, will be de-
scribed in special articles [qq.v.). On the seasons see
Rain, Dew. We simply note here — First, the long
dry season (Apr.-Oct. ), including all the harvests, the
dates of which vary slightly in the different districts
(cp Feasts, § 10) : the Tsp in spring, when rain
seemed miraculous (rS. 12x6/) and the steady W.
wind every evening made it possible to winnow with
ease, barley beginning in April, wheat about a fort-
night later ; the j'>p, summer fruits and vegetables,
in summer ; olives in autumn ; the -\-iZ, vines, from
August onwards. Second, the wet season (Oct. -Apr. ),
the earlier part of which saw the preparation of the soil
by the early rain (mv, rrk£) for the winter crops, to be
brought to maturity by the succeeding showers, especially
those in March-.April (rip':';;), before which was the
time for sowing the summer crops.
With such stable conditions, all that seems to be
needed is a fair amount of intelligent industry ; and the
lack of this, rather than any great change of climate, is
probably the cause of the retrogression of modern times. -
The productivity, however, was not uniform (cp parable
of sower), and there seems to be a somewhat periodic
diminution in the amount of rainfall. Agriculture is
also exposed to pests ; the easterly wind c'lp, drought.
Mildew, and Locusts (</</••?'. : see also Ant, § 4).
II. We consider now, more in detail, agriculture as
dependent on the energy, skill, and general condition
_ f ^'^ ^^^ inhabitants. Our account must
infoSfon naturally be fragmentary.3 The minute
prescriptions of the Mishna must of
course be used with caution. We begin with —
I. Technical details of agricultural procedure. (For
the most part we shall deal only with the raising of grain
crops. For other departments see Vines, Garden,
Cattle, etc. ) Incidentally the biblical records de-
scribe many agricultural processes, and mention by name
some of the implements used. Of these implements,
however, they give no description ; and the only speci-
mens found, up to the present time, are of sickles (see
below, § 7).
For Egypt, however, we have fuller sources — many pictures
of processes and implements, and some actual specimens. And
1 .See Palestine for details on (leology (§ 3), Physical
divisions (§ ^ff-). Hydrography (g 13), Climate and Vegetation
(§ '4 A)-
2 See however Fraas, Aus dent Orient 199.
3 There is no Hebrew word corresponding to our termy&r»w.
Tilling the soil is .TDlun miy \ husbandman is laK, etc. ; field
is ,mL~.
AGRICULTURE
since modern Egypt and modern I'alestine are very similar,
these ancient Egyptian remains may be used to illustrate ancient
Palestine. Further, since modern implements and methods
are, in Egypt, very like those of antiquity, the same is probably
true of Palestine. Hence it is reasonable to hold that, m Pales-
tine also, modern may be taken to illustrate ancient.
Our main side-lights,' therefore, are modern Palestine
and ancient Kgypt ; and they are best used in this order,
subordinated always to the actual data of the OT itself.
We shall take the processes in natural order.
Sometimes land had to be cleared of wood or shrub
(xna Josh. 17 18), or of stone Cjpo). chiefly in vineyards.
For loosening or otherwise moving the
soil many words are used, such as
3. Prepar-
ing soil.
t:.
nn, nSs. nPB, p?y, my: ; nit-, nc', of
which the first group denotes ploughing, the second,
breaking up the soil (hcik) or the clods (nimJS Joel
1 17) with the mattock or hoe, while the third as clearly
means levelling off the surface with something serving
for a harrow. Of the names of the instruments '^ we have
riw'tnc or n-b:^inc. nx. -\ii;r2, of which the first pair probably
representsthe plough ( NT di/joTpoj'); the last, a sort of mat-
tock ; while riN must remain undetermint- J, ploughshare
or hoe. It is clear, therefore, that we have at least three
processes — ploughing, hoeing, and harrowing. We
cannot be sure that there was of old in different parts
of the country any more uniformity than there is now.
It is not likely that the shallow soil would ever be much
more deeply ploughed
than now, when a depth
of 5-6 inches is consid-
ered sufficient. Perhaps
ploughing would some-
times (as now), after
sufficient rain, be dis-
pensed with.^ Hoeing
would probably take the
place of ploughing in
steep places (Is. 725), as
now in stony ground.*
In modern Juda;a there
is no ploughing before
sowing except where
manure is used. In
Galilee, on the other
Fig. i.-Eg>'ptian Hoe (/?r/V. ^^"^1- ^h^^e is one
Mus.). For picture of hoe in ploughing, and in some
use .see fig. 3, and cp Egypt, districts more than one.
^ 34. n- \\'hen ground has been
left unsown with grain and is overgrown with weed,
this is ploughed in.
Turning now to the implements used for these
purposes, and beginning with the less important, we
4. Implements "°'f "'^' '"''^ Egyptian //-..^ (fig. ,), ^f
for nrenar ^ '^ nuportance m ancient Kgypt as to
in? soil ^^ ^^^ natural symbol of agriculture, as
° ■ the goad is in modern Palestine,^ has no
representative in modern Syria ; but neither has it in
1 Babylonia, as well as Egypt, no doubt presented points of
contact with Palestine ; but in the department of agriculture our
direct knowledge of Babylonia is very slight. See A'/'(2) 3 94^,
and Meissner, Beitr. z. althah. Privatrccht.
2 See partial list of Talmudic names in Hamburger and
Ugolinus, and now also a very full collection in Vogelstein's
work (see below, § 17).
•< In Egypt two ploughs seem generally to have been used,
the one behind the other ; perhaps the second turned up the
soil between the furrows made by the first (cp, however, next
note). On the other hand, at least in later times, the Egyptians
sometimes used a lighter plough, drawn by men or boys.
* If we could regard the Egyptian agricultural pictures as
representations of actual scenes we should have to conclude that
in Egypt the hoe was used sometimes before (so always [?] in
the Old Empire), sometimes after, or both before and after the
plough, to break up the great clods of earth. The depicting of
the various operations side by side, however, is very likely a mere
convention designed to represent in one view all kinds of field
work. So Prof. W. Max Muller in a private communication to
the present writer.
6 The illustration (fig. i) needs only the explanation that
the twisted cord adjusts the acuteness of the angle of the two
other p.-irts.
•* Cp Wetzstein's note on Judg. 3 31 (/.r. below, § 17).
77
AGRICULTURE
modern Egypt. A modern Syrian hoe may be seen in
PEFQ, 1891, pp. 110-115; as also mattock, spade, etc.
'I"he harnnv does not seem to have been used by the
ancient Egyptians, although their modern representatives
use a weighted plank or a totjthcd roller. In modern
Palestine a bush of thorns is sometimes used. The
writer of Job 39 10, however, seems to have known of
some implement drawn by beasts following the labourer ;
but this throws little light on general usage.
ThQ plough, although it is probably, strictly speaking,
an inferior substitute for the spade, is in common
practice a very important implement, and merits more
detailed treatment.
Of the Israelitish plough we know only that it had, at
least sometimes, an iron share that needed sharpening
(roS, I S. 1820, editorial comment in corrupt text).
That the Syrian plough was light ' we have the testimony
of Theophrastus. The modern Syrian plough, which is
light enough to be carried by the ploughman on hLs
shoulcfer, and is simpler than the usual ancient Egyptian 2
plough (tig. 3) in having only one handle and therefore
Fig. 2. — a. Babylonian Plough (from cylinder seal, ciic. 2000
B.C., belonging to Dr. Hays Ward). /■. Syrian Plough and
Goad (after I'l^FQ, 1891).
1. cs-sikka jp:,-?-^
2. cd-dakar, dhckr, 3-^-
3. cl-kahnsa, kdlmsa.
9. eUara, skcr'.
io.i//)-,0'./i(Post).
4. el-buruk, burk, -T13.
i2.'/.Ar/J;,(Post).
5. .■^-^«7cv7;7r(.Schum.), n'T3-
6. cl-wufla, 7uasl, ':'is'.'*
7. kofrib (Post), mnp.
8. halaka (Post).
ii,.jciizlr.
14. nu-ssns or minsds.
15. ,mkuza.
16. 'a/'a, s.MUt.
not needing two men to manage it, may safely be taken
to illustrate that used by the Israelites. There is no more
uniformity in its construction than in any other matter
relating to agriculture, and it would seem to be at its
simplest in Southern Palestine. The woodcut (fig. 2)
illustrates its general form. It is of wood, often oak. The
stake on to which the pointed metal sheath that serves for
ashareis thrust, passes up through ahole in the pole, toend
in a cross handle piece. The pole is of two pieces, joined
end to end. T\\g yoke {S'y, ,ij:ic more rarely cic. nifiio
Vyn ; ^vyov, ^i>y6s) is repeatedly mentioned in the OT.
It varied in weight according to circumstances ( r K.
124). It is now made as light as possible, often of
willow. Two pegs, joined below by thongs or by hair
string, form a collar for each of the o.xen, and two
smaller pegs in the middle keep in position the ring
or other arrangement for attaching the plough pole.
Repairs are attended to once a jear by a travelling
1 The simplest plough would be made of one piece of a tree,
bent while growing. See N'erg. GVor:.'-. 1 169, and illustration in
Graevius, T/ics. Antiq. Koiii. 11, p. 1674.
■- The ancient Egyptian plough, which underwent little
modification in the course of millenniums, was all of wood,
although, perhaps, the share w.-is of a wood (harder?) different
from the rest of the plough, and may .sometimes have been
sheathed in metal (Wilkinson). Of the .As-syrian plough we
know from an embossed relief found ne.ir Mosul, that it (some-
times) had 4 board for turning over the earth, and just in front
of it a drill that let the seed down, to be covered by the soil
as it turned over.
3 Where two forms of the .-Xrabic name are given, the first is
from .Schumacher, and the second from Post (of', cit. below, 8 17X
The Hebrew names are from Vogelstein (pp. cit. below, § 17).
78
AGRICULTURE
expert. The ploughman holds in his left hand a
goad (messds = ic^c. pni,^ n'uaTn) some eight or nine feet
in length, having at one end a metal point, and at the
other a metal blade to clean the share.
The /I'a/n (ics, i;(uyos) would, as now, oftenest
consist of oxen (Am. G12), but sometiuies of cows (Job
6. Sowing.
Fig. 3. — Ploughing, hoeing, and sowing. From the ma^faba of Ti at Sakkara
(Old Empire). After Baedeker.
1 14, Heb. text), and perhaps sometimes of asses (Is.
30 24; Dt. 2"2io). Even camels and mules may now
be seen occasionally. In Armenia many pairs of o.xen
draw one plough, the driver sitting on the yoke ; but
this is hardly the meaning of i K. 19 19.
'Y\iG. furrows were called □'70, n^ya^ (n'3i'c)- They
are now sometimes very carefully drawn (cp ?3"ii<n,
Ps. 120 3), and are some nine to ten inches apart.
Irrigation {7\\-\7\. npc'n ; see G.\KnKN) must have been
.. . one of the processes used by Israel. ^ Pales-
C. imga- ^jj^g indeed, differed from Egvpt(Dt. 11 10/..
tion. etc. , • , T- o \ • 1 ■
' on which see Egypt, § 34, n. ) m havmg
a copious supply of rain and in having natural springs
(Deut. 8 7) :
gation, and there may have been districts under culti-
vation which were entirely dependent on it. It would not
be safe to assign an early date to the elaborate methods
and regulations of Mishna times ; and it is difficult to
determine whether by the streams that were so highly
prized (Dt. 87 ; Nu. 246, Cant. 415),* and without which
a garden could not live (Is. I30), artificial canals are
meant, and whether, e.g., the bucket (-St,, Is. 40 15;
Num. 247) was used in irrigation. The Mishna has '
regulations concerning manuring (Ssi), and there may '
be a reference to it in such passages as Ps. 8-3 10 [n]
(toin'? P~) or Is. 2.5 10 (Kthib). In NT times, at least,
manure was used for trees (Lk. 138; /3d\w Koirpia),
as now for figs, olives, etc. ; it was worked in at the
last yearly ploughing, which was after the first winter
rain. For grain crops the use of manure is exceptional
(e.g., at Hebron). Remains show that in the hilly j
country ferraa'f/g (c^np'VD niSiJS. Cant. 5 13?) was used 1
even more than now, especially for vine cultivation ; :
but the wider terraces are still used for grain, the
clearing of the soil being called »ak/>.
Fences (nj) were employed, perhaps only in vine-
1 Vogelstein argues from Kelim, 96 that this is the n.ame of
the metal he.-id.
2 Cp, however, Del. on Ps. 120 3, Ges.-Buhl sub voc. etc.
3 See now the account in Vogelstein, § 4.
4 Cp.ff.bM2) ,06.
6 The prophets delight to speak of the copious supplies of
water that will refresh even the most unlikely places in the ideal
future (see Cheyne on Is. 30 25).
AGRICULTURE
yards (Is. 5s ; Ecclus. 2828), where hedges (.isicvo Is.
5 5 ) were also in use ; and there was sometimes a border,
e.g., of nDD3 (see Fitches, 2) (Is. 2825). Between
grain-fields, however, the commonest practice was to
set up sloncs to mark the line of partition Cj^^j Hos.
5 10) ; on the strong sentiment that prevailed as to the
unrighteousness of tampering with these,
see below (g§ 12, 14).
Whether the various words used for
sowing the seed were technical terms we
cannot tell, jm is a word
of general significance. In
Is. 2825 three words are used in one
verse : pEn and ^■^v of scattering n:ip (see
FiTCiiKS, i) and cummin with the hand ;
Cb,^ of setting wheat and barley in the
straight furrows.^ Nowadays a drill is
sometimes used. The common practice
is, whether the land has been already ploughed or not,
to plough in the seed.^ This protects it from ants and
from dryness due to intermission of the early rain.'*
As to protection from man and beast, see HuT.
To reap is -jiip. Two names of implements have
been preserved ( eo-in, only in Dt. [16 9 ; 2326t] ; V-:c. only
in Jer. [50 16 ; AV mg. scythe*] and Joel
[3 (4)13]; ^pi-Kdvov) ; but whether they
refer to the same thing or to varieties, we do not
know. Perhaijs the commonest method was to pull
up by the root (see fig. 5), a practice confined in
ancient Egypt to certain crops, but still followed
both in Egypt and in Palestine. The use of sickles in
Canaan in very
early times
is, however,
pro\ed by the
finding of
sickle Hints "at
Tell-el-Hesy
in the earliest
and all suc-
ceedinglayers,
while the use
of iron sickles
by the Jews in
at least pre-
Hellenis t i c
times is proved
by the finding of the specimen represented in fig. 7.
By putting together different allusions," we can follow
the various steps. The reaper (":'j'p) filled his hand
7. Reaping.
taha of Ti. After Baedeker.
Fig. 5. — Pulling up grain. After Erman.
1 In Am. 0 13 jnt.T 7]-vo is used of the process of sowing.
2 It is not unlikely that .Tiib- is to be dropped, with We. Che.
and Du. (against IM.), as = ri-)ij,'C'.
3 Accordmg to Strabo, this w.is done also in Babylon (cp
above, col. 78, n. 2), and in ancient Egypt the seed was sometimes,
especially m the Old Empire, trodden in by sheep (Erman,
Life in Ancient Egypt, ET 429; not goats), in the time of
Herodotus by swine.
* On the stages and accidents of growth cp Vogelstein, § 10.
" For '"I^Cja, which AV mg. thrice renders 'scythe,' EV has,
more correctly, Pki^N'ING-hooks (y.r'.).
6 The method of setting the sickle flints is shown by the
specimens found by Dr. Petrie in Egypt (Illahun, etc. pi. 7
no. 27 ; see above, fig. 6).
7 E.g., Ruth223; Ps.1297; Is. 17s ; Job24a4 : Jer. 922[2i].
AGRICULTURE
(12) with ears (o'Vac') of the standing corn (ncp). and
with his arm (yi'ii) reajjud thcin (nsp)- i'he stalks (nzp)
were, in I't^ypt, and still are, in Palestine, cut pretty
high up (Anderlind ; knee high). They must some-
times have been cut,
whether at this or at
a later stage, very
near the ear (^jin
nSas* Job 2424).
The armfuls (nay)
would fall (Jen
922 [21]) in a heap
("I""!') behind the
reaper, to be ga-
thered by the navn
ID.xc, in his bosom
(ir-.T:2) and tied
(c'^.n::) into sheaves
(rf^Sx) and set in heaps (cnr^)'
In Kgypt the sheaf consisted of two bundles, with
their heads in opposite directions. In modern ^yria fii.'-
quently the sheaves are not tied at all. It has l)r>ii
Fio. 6. — Sickle with cutting edge of
flints found at lllahun. After IVtrie.
Fig. 7.— Iron sickle found at Tell el Hesl. After ^£FQ.
•.pposcd- that already in An;
;:;•) may sometimes have bee
time the bundles
:aped into a heavy
AGRICULTURE
(Is. 2827) it was usual to beat out cummin and rap(see
Fitches, i) with /vi/s{nt:D and ear res|>cctively). The
other processes were probably more conunon in later
times. For these was needed a threshing-Jhor (pS,' 4Xwy,
fiXwc), for which was selected some spot freely exposed
to the wind, often a well-known place (2 S. 24i6).'
Beating the floor hard for use may be alluded to in
Jer. 5I33 (Heb. Te.xt ; .rionnn). Sometimes the wheat
heads may have been struck off the straws by the sickle
onto the threshing-floor (Job 21 24), as Tristram
describes {East. Cust. 125); but usually the bundles
would be first piled in a heap (crna) on the floor, and
thiMi from this a convenient cjuantity (ntrno)^ from time
to time spread over the floor.
The threshing then seems to have been done in two
ways : either {h) by driving cattle round the floor on the
loosely scattered stalks till their hoofs gradually trampled
(c'n) out the grain (12). for which purpose o.xen'* were
used (Hos. lOii),''^ or {c) by special imphments.^
The instruments mentioned, which were drawn usually
by o.xen, are [a) j-nn', j-nn* (?), (pin) Jiic ; " {b) .^^jy
with pini" (wheel) prefixed (Is. 2827), and perhaps
alone (Am. 2i3t; .see, however. We. ad Ivc). These
two sets of expressions probably correspond pretty
closely to l.vo instruments stili in use in Palestine, and
a description of them and llicir use will be the nearest
we can come to an account of their ancient representa-
tives.
a. The .Sj'rian inn-aif (inic) is a \\ooden drag'^ (see
fig. 10) with a rough under-surface, which when drawn
over the stalks chops them up. The illustration
needs few explanations. The roughness is produced by
the skilful insertion in holes, a cubic inch in size, of
blocks of basalt (nvB'S Is. 41 15) which protrude (when
nc>v) some inch and a half. The sledge is weighted by
heavy stones, or by the weight of the driver, who, when
tired, lies down and even sleeps, or sits on a three-
legged stool.
8. — Sickling and bundling. .Xfter l.cpsius
load on a cart (rhvj .^m. 213) ; but the reference mr.y
very well be to the threshing wain.^ In Kgypt they
were conveyed in baskets or bags, by men or on donkeys,
to the threshing-Uoor.
Threshing was called
t;nn, pp-^, en,
S-hi ccn ; of
which the first describes beating with a rod, the second
ft TVironTiititr ''' indefinite (to break \x\> fine), and the
». inresnmg. ^^^^^^ j^ literally to tram])le. {a) The
first of these evidently represents the most primitive
practice, still followed sometimes in both Palestine
and I'.gvpt. Naturally, gleaners (cpSo) and apparently
others in certain circumstances — e.g., Gideon in time
of danger — beat out the grain ; and in much later times
1 It is hardly possible to determine how many of these terms
«re practically synonyms. .-Vccording to Vogelstein op. cit.
dijjf., the loose D'HrS were tied into fliaSx and piled into C"1J^^
while TDU (see Excurs, I.) is an entirely distinct word meaning
hav.
2 E.g-., by Wellhausen.
* So, e.g., Hoffman and Wetzstein in Z.4 TW.
6 81
/3. The Jlrlan of Northern Syria, called in Egypt by
1 ' T'.arn-floor,' 2 K. (''27 .W.
2 lUit in I K. 'I'l iopj2 is probably dittography for C■^j3•
•"' So written, without dagesh, by Raer.
■^ It is not clear how the horses of Is. C82S are supposed to
sed. Du. proposes to read VE'IEI ^s a ^
i:rb.
•'' In Eg>-pt in later times o.\en were so used, three in a line,
with their heads bound together at the horns by a Inam (see
fig. 0), or in the ancient empire, donkeys, ten in a line ; so in
modern Syria, the line being called a iaran.
•> Just as several rods are used together in method (.a), so
there could be duplicates of ffaran {^, or of implement (r), or
mi.xtures of (i^) and (r) used simultaneously, as now in Hauran.
7 ' Threshing-wain,' Job 41 30 [22] RV.
** Cle.irly some kind of sharp instrument of iron (2 S. 12 31 =
I Ch. •-'0 3f), EV 'harrow,' HofTm. (/T.-/ 7'// "266) 'pick.'
" Perhaps by a gloss we have here independent names for one
thing (Is. 41 15). Ry D"3pi3(Iudg. 87, i6t), which some would
add here, the Talmud (with ipL [once]; «5ual (on«) trans-
literates) understands 'thistles': a view that is confirmed by
the existence in modern Egyptian .\rabic of a word terkdn as
the name of a thorny plant. See Bkiek, i.
10 jrjit, alone = (threshing) wheel, Prov. 20 26 RV
" Some 7 ft. X 3 ft. X 2 in.
82
AGRICULTURE
the name of the unused nora/ (see fig. 1 1 ) , and known to
ttie Romans as plcstcllum Foenicum, has in place of sharp
stones revolving metal discs, which, when pressed down
by the weight of the driver seated in a rude arm-chair,
eflectually cut up the straw
AGRICULTURE
The process of winnowing (.-iit) is often mentioned.
Two names of instruments are preserved, the nnio (EV
fan') in Is. (3O24) and Jer. (loy), and
9. Winnowing.
the nm (EV ' shovel ') in Is. alone (30
24). 1 They seem to refer to different things : perhaps to
Fig. 9. — Carrying from harvest-field, and threshing. After Rosellini.
The work is done sometimes by horses, but most
commonly, as of old, by oxen, either singly or (oftener)
in pairs, sometimes muzzled, contrary to ancient Egyptian
usage and Hebrew maxim. ^
The modern tioor is a circle some fifty feet in diameter.
■^i^
Fig. 10.— S>Tian threshing-sledge. After Beiizinger.
with the heap [kadis) in the centre, from which a supply
(far/ia) is from time to time spread all round in ring
form, some two feet deep and seven or eight feet broad.
When one farAa has been thoroughly threshed — to
insiu^e which, it is from time to time stirred up with the
-Modern Egyptian threshing-machine (norag).
.\fter Wilkinson.
handle of the winnowing instrument, or even with a
special two-pronged fork (deikal, 5i\-eX\a) — the mixed
mass (darts) of grain {^aM), chopped straw {(ii/i [zn), and
chaff etc. {favydr), is formed into a heap ( 'arama), to
make room for a new tarha.
1 The Mishna seems to assume the practice in KelI»t\<S-j
iSr CIDn.T — i-e., np3 '^v- I' •» douhtful whether the preceding
phrase "npa Sc* CpScn refers to a practice, reported by some
travellers, of banaaging the eyes of the oxen in threshing.
Philological consider.-itions would give the preference to
Maimonides's explanation : ' Sacculus fielliceus in quern colligunt
stercus jumenti ne pereat triticum dum trituratur.'
83
the implements still called by similar names in Palestine ^
— the fork and the shovel. The products are grain
(ns), choppedstraw(pn),andchaff(j'b, zx'r\, my, dx^'P'"')-
The first is heaped up in round heaps (,^D-|J; Ru. 87;
Cant. 73, Heb. Text). The second is kept for pro-
vender (Is. 11 7). The third is blown away by the
wind (Ps. I4).
In modern SjTia the 7nidrd (see fig. given in Wetzstein,
op. cit. below, § 17) is a wooden fork almost 6 ft. in
length, with some at least of
its five or six prongs separate-
ly inserted, so that they are
easily repaired. The prongs
are bound together by fresh
hide, which on shrinking forms
a tight band. The raht is a
kind of wooden shovel (see
fig. in Wetzstein, I.e.), with
a handle 4 ft. long. It is
used chiefly for piling the
grain, but also for winnowing
leguminous plants and certain
parts of the daris that have
had to be re-threshed. The
winnowers stand to th,e E. of
the '(/ra/«rt heap, and (some-
times first with a two-pronged
fork called shaul and then),
with the midrd, either toss
the darls against the wind or straight up, or simply
let it fall from the inverted fork, according to the
strength of the evening W. breeze. Wltile the chaff
is blown away some 10 to 15
ft. or more, the straw [tihn)
falls at a shorter distance,
and is preserved for fodder ;
the heavy grain, unbruised
ears, and joints of stems, fall
almost where they were, ready
for sifting.
Strange to say, in the case
of sifting it is the names of
the implement that are best
10. Sifting, etc. PI"'^':^^^-
° The siei-e is
called Krbhdrak (,^^;2,^ Am.
Pgt) and ndphah (nsj, Is.
30 28). In the former case
probably the good grain, in the latter probably the
refuse, passes through. In modern Sjria there are
1 © omits these words ; but rm;oi'_ occurs repeatedly in the NT.
2 Fleischer denies any philological connection between Ar.
raht and nm, regarding the former as a Persian word, borrowed
in the sense of tool.
3 But © KKKp.6<i.
Fig. 12. — Winnowing.
After Erman.
FiG. 13.— Sifting. After
Lepsius.
AGRICULTURE
two main kinds of sieve used on the threshing-floor.
They are made of a hoop of wood with a niesh-work
of strips of camel-hide put on fresh, and become
tight in drying. The coarser meshed kirbdl is like the
kebhdrah of Amos. When the winnowed heap is sifted
with it, the grains of wheat pass through, while the
unbruised ears etc. remain in the sieve,' and are flung
back into the tarha to be re-threshed. The finer meshed
ghirbdl is like the he: of Is. 30 28; all dust, bruised j
grains, etc. pass through, but none of the good wheat.
When the grain has been finally separated, it is
heaped with the raljt in hemispherical piles (sodba),
which probably represent the 'arema (nany) of the
metaphor in Cant. 7 3 (Heb. ). By this Boaz slept (Ru.
87), as do the owners still, while (as a further pre-
caution) private marks are made on the surface, and a
scarecrow is set up.
Storage.— In Jen, Dt. , Joel, Ps., 2Ch., there are
names of places for keeping stores of grain ; - but we do
not know anything about them.^ In the dark days of
Gedaliah corn and other stores were hidden in the ground
(Jer. 41 8) ; dry cisterns hewn out of the rock are still so
used. For a representation of an ancient cistern see
ZDPyS, opp. p. 69. The mouth is just wide enough
to admit a man's body, and can be carefully covered
over. Grain will keep in these cisterns for years.
2. Ne.xt falls to be considered the dependence of
agriculture on the general condition of the people, a
dependence that is very obvious from tlie present state
of agriculture in Palestine.
In the days of Israel's greatness, when agriculture
was the chief occupation of the people, the population,
., _ , whatever may have been its numerical
11. General
conditions.
strength, was certainly enough to bring
the country, even in pl.aces that are now
quite barren, into a state of cultivation. The land
would be full of husbandmen tilling their fields by day,
and returning to their villages at night. Yet, down to
the end of the monarchy, the old nomadic life still had its
admirers (Jer. 35), who, like the Bedouin of to-day,
would despise the settled tiller of the soil. At the
other extreme also, in such a society as is described,
e.g., by Amos and Isaiah, there was an aristocracy that
had little immediate connection with the land it owned.
Slave labour would doubtless, as elsewhere, be a weak
point in the agricultural system, tending to lower its
status (Zech. 13 5 ; Ecclus. 7 15 [16]) ; though this would
not preclude the e.xistence, at some period or other, of
honourable offices such as those attributed by the
Chronicler to the age of David (i Ch. 2725-31). After
making allowance for homiletic colouring, we are bound
to suppose that agricultural enterprise must have suffered
grie\'ously from a sense of insecurity in regard to the
claims of property, and from the accumulation of debts,
with their attendant horrors. Civil disturbances (such
as those abounding in the later years of Hosea) and
foreign wars would, in later times, take the place of
exposure to the inroads of nomadic tribes. The burden
of taxation and forced labour (i S. 812) would, as now
in many eastern lands, foster the feelings that find ex-
pression in the narrative of the great schism (i K. I24)
and in some of the accounts of the rise of the kingdom
(on the 'king's mowings," Am. 7i, see MOWINGS and
Government, § -20).
The existence of an effort to ameliorate evils of the
kind to which allusion has just been made, and of a
y consciousness of their inconsistency with
. aws. ^j^g ^^^^ national life, is attested by the
inclusion in the Pentateuchal codes of a considerable
number of dicta on agricultural matters, in which we see
1 For lins is most likely stones.
2 D'D2K0, DTDX, nr.siN, nnaSD, »'.11^p, rfasps, NT afro9^<nf.
3 In Egypt corn was stored in buildings with a flat roof
reached by an outside stair. There were two openings, or sets
of openings, near the top, for pouring in the grain, and near the
bottom, for withdrawing it (see model in Brit. Mus.).
85
AGRICULTURE
how religious sanctions became attached to traditional
agricultural practices.
Already in the Book of the Covenant a fallow year
(Ex. 23 11), once in seven, is prescribed for the sake of
the poor and the Ixast, and a day of rest [v. 12). once
in seven, for the sake of the cattle and the slave ; while
the principle is laid down that for damage done to a
neighbour's field reparation must be made (Ex. 22s/.
[4/.]). In the Deuteroiiomic Code, if there is already
the precept against sowing in a vineyard two kinds of
seed (229), or ploughing with an ox and an ass together
(22 10), and the requirement of a tithe (14 22), there are
still such maxims as the sacredness of property (19 14,
landmarks ; = Prov. 22 28 = 23 lort [cp Job242], and, in
the form of a curse, Dt. 27i7) on the one hand, and,
on the other, generous regard for the needs of others
(2325 [26], plucking ears; 24 19, sheaf; 20, olive;
21 2324 [23], grapes), even of beasts (254, mu/zle), with
a provision against abuse of the privilege (2325 [26],
no sickle; 2324 [25J, no vessel); while an effort is
made to moderate the damage done to agriculture
by war (2O7, exemption from conscription; 2019/".,
preserve trees). In the Priestly Code there is still,
in the remarkable collection preceding the last chapter
of Leviticus, a further development of the provision
for the poor at harvest time (19 9, corners = 23 22),
with a repetition of the charitable maxims (I99/. ) ; but
there is on the whole an emphasising of such prescrip-
tions as non-mixture of seeds (19 19), defilement of seed
(II37/. ), uncircumcision of fruit-trees (I923-25), strict
calculation of dates of agricultural year (23 16); while
the Jubile year makes its appearance. Here we are
appreciably nearer the details of such discussions as
those in Zera'im etc. Of course, the c|uestion how far
such maxims made themselves felt in actual practice, or
even as a moral directive force, is not answered by
pointing out their existence in literary form.
III. We pass now to the consideration of agriculture
as a factor in the life of the people.
That agriculture was an important element in popular
life is very evident. Land was measured by yokes
S. 14 14 ; Is. 5 10) and valued by the
13. Common
life.
amount of seed it needed (Lev. 27 16).
Time was measured by harvests (Judith
227 1), and places were identified by the crops growing
on them (2 S. 23ii, lentils ; i Ch. 11 13, barley). Tilling
the soil was proverbially the source of wealth (Pr. 12 ti
28 19) ; implements not needed for other purposes would
as a matter of course be turned to agricultural use
(Is. 24) — and so on. That work in the fields was not
confined to slaves and jjeople of no culture is evident,
not only from the existence of such narratives as that
of Joseph's dream, but also from what is told of Saul
(1S.II5), and Elisha (1K.I919), and Amos (714)
before they appeared on the stage of history. On the
other hand, the narrator of the story of Ruth seems
to represent neither Boaz himself nor his deputy as
doing more than overseeing and encouraging the
labourers (Ru. 2s); and in the time of the writer of
Zech. 13s (RV) a tiller of the soil seemed to be most
naturally a purchased slave, while the ideal of the writer
of Is. 61 5 is that ploughmen and vine-dressers should be
aliens.
At all times, howe%'er, even the rich owner entered
naturally into the spirit of the agricultural life. If it
was perhaps only in the earlier times that he actually
ploughed or even followed the oxen, he would at all
times be present on the cheerful harvest field and visit
his vineyard to see the work of the labourers (Mt. 208),
his sons' included (Mt. 21 28), and give directions about
the work (Lk. 187). when he would listen respectfully
to the counsel of his men (Lk. 138/. ). It was not
derogatory, in the mind of the Chronicler, to kingly
dignity to interest one's self in agriculture (2 Ch. 26 10),*
1 The text of a S. 23 13 is verj- doubtful ; cp Dr. ad loc.
2 The meaning of Eccles. 6 9 [81 is obscure.
86
14. Sentiment.
AGRICULTURE
and a proverb-writer points out the superiority of the
quiet prosperity of the husbandman to an insecure
diadem (Prov. 2723-27).
Not unnaturally it is the life of harvest-time that has
been most fully preserved to us. We can see the men,
especially the younjjer men (Ru. 29), cutting the
grain, the young children^ going out to their fathers
(2 K. 4 18) in the field, the jealousies that might spring
up between the reapers ((ien. 37?), and the dangers that
young men and maidens might be exposed to(Ru. 29
perh. Hos. 9 \f. ), the simple fare of the reapers ( Ru. 2 14),
and the unrestrained joviality of the evening meal ( Ru.
87) after the hot day's work (2 K. 4 19), the poor women
and girls gleaning behind the reapers and usually finding
more than they seem sometimes to find nowadays,
beating out the grain (Ru. 217) in the evening and
carrying it away in a mantle to the older ones at home
(Ru. 815), not only the labourers but also the owners
sleeping by the corn heaps at night (Ru. 87), so that
the villages would, as now in Palestine and Egj'pt, l)e
largely emptied of inhabitants. The Egyptian monu-
ments could be drawn on for further illustrations.
Such a mode of life had naturally a profound effect
on the popular sentiment, the religious conscience, and,
in time, the literary thought of the
people ; and, to complete our survey of
the subject, a few words must be said here on these
matters.
That the agricultural mode of life was regarded as
originating in the earliest ages is evident from Gen. 3
and 4 ; '^ but it was sometimes regarded as a curse
(817/.), or at least as inferior to pastoral life (43/.),
while at other times nomadic life was a curse (4 12),
instead of being a natural stage (4 20). These two
sides are perhaps reflected in the glowing descriptions
in which certain writers delight — e.g. , Dt. 8828 : a tilled
land of corn and wine and oil (Dt. 87-9), a pasture land
flowing with milk and honey (Ezek. 2(16). This land,
which is lovingly contrasted with other lands (I'^zek.
206 15), was felt to be a gift of Yahwe to his
people, and specially under his watchful care (Ut.
11 12). The agricultural life was, therefore, also of his
appointment (Gen. 823; Ecclus. 7 15 [»6]), and indeed
lay as the basis of his Torah. From him the husband-
man received the principles of his practice (Is. 2826),
as also, he depended absolutely on Yahwe for the bringing
into operation of the natural forces (Dt. 11 14) without
which all his labour would be in vain [v. 17). This, how-
ever, was only a ground of special security (Dt. 11 12), for
no other god could give such blessings as rain ( Jer. 14 22),
and Yahwe did give them (Jer. 024). If they were not
forthcoming, therefore, it was because Yahwe had with-
held them (Am. 47), and this was Ix.'cause of his people's
sins (Jer. 525), which also brouLjht more special curses
( Dt. 28 38-40). The recognition of N'ahw^ had, therefore,
a prominent place in connection with the stages of
agricultural industry (see Feast.s, § 4), the success of
which was felt to depend on the nation's rendering him
in general loyal obedience (Dt. 11 8-17); the land itself
was Yahw^'s ; the people were but tenants (Lev. 2523) ;
and the moving of the ancient landmarks, though not
unknown, was a great wrong (Job 24 2). Some of the
moral aspects of agricultural life have been already
sufficiently touched on. It is probable that many of the
maxims referred to were widely observed, being congruent
with the better spirit of the people. Thus Amos records
it as an outrage on the ordinary sentiments of common
charity, that even the refuse of the wheat should be sold
for gain (Am. 86). Other maxims, again, can be little
traced in practice.
In this description of Hebrew ideas we have taken no
note of the differences between earlier and later times.
Deuteronomy and the prophets have been the main
1 Several children may .sometimes now be .seen weighting and
driving the threshing-sledge.
2 Cp also Gen. 1 28/ and WRS RS'!^) 307.
87
AGRICULTURE
authority. In the public consciousness, however, there
lived on much of the old Canaanitish popular belief, in
which the liA'alim hold the place here assigned to
Yahwe, so that, e.g., the fertile spot is the Baal's plot of
land, who waters it from unseen sources, underground or
in the heavens (see B.\AL, § i) — a mode of expression
that lived on into Mishna times, although its original
meaning had been long forgotten.
The influence on Hebrew literature was very deep.
The most cursory reader ^ must have observed how much
16. Literature.
the modes of expression reflect the
agricultural life. Prophetic descrip-
tions of an ideal future abound in scenes conceived in
agricultural imagery.^ Great joy is likened to the joy
of harvest (Is. Kig/. ); what is evanescent is like chaflf
that is burned uj) or blown away ; something unexpected
is like cold ( I'r. 25 13), or rain ( Pr. 26 1), in harvest — and
so on. Lack of sjjace prevents proof in detail of how,
on the one hand, figures and modes of speech are drawn
from all the operations and natural phenomena of agri-
j culture, while, on the other hand, every conceivable
subject is didactically or artistically illustrated by ideas
and expressions from the same source. It is a natural
carrying forward in the NT of this mode of thought, to
find Jesus publishing his epoch-making doctrines of the
i ' kingdom ' so largely through the help of the same
imagery. No doubt the commonest general expression
is ' kingdom ' ; but even this often becomes a vineyard,
or a field, or a tree, or a seed ; and it is extended by
sowing etc. It is unnecessary to pursue the subject
farther. The whole mode of thought has passed over
into historical Christianity, and thus into all the
languages of the world.
1 c TT* ♦• ■ 1 ^^ shall now in closing give some
■ fragmentary notes towards a historical
outline of the subject.
The traditional account of the mode of life of the
ancestors of Israel in the earliest times introduces agri-
cultural activity only as an exceptional incident. Agri-
culture must be rudimentary in the case of a nomadic
people. That Canaan, on the other hand, was for the
most part well under cultivation,-' when the Israelites
settled in the highlands, there can be no doubt. The
Egyptian Mohar found a garden at Joppa,'* and of the
agricultural produce claimed by Thotmes III. at the
hands of the Rutennu ® some at least must ha\e been
grown in Palestine. Israel doubtless learned from the
Canaanite not only the art of war (Judg. 82), but also
the more peaceful arts of tilling the soil, which, as the
narratives of Judges and Samuel prove, were practised
with success, while it is even stated that Solomon sent
to Hiram yearly 20,000 Kor of wheat and 20,000
Bath of oil (i K. 5ii [25] Var. Bible). Later, Ezekiel
(27 17 ; see Cornill) tells us how Judah bartered wheat
with Tyre,^ as well as honey, oil, balm, and jjs (see
Pannag) ; which illustrates the tradition in iK. 2O34
(see COT) that there were bazaars (see Tk.\de ;
Stk.\nger, § 2) for Israelitish merchants in Damascus,
and for those of Damascus in Samaria. It is strange,
but true, that in the very period to which this last notice
refers, there arose a popular reaction against the precious
legacies of Canaanitish civilisation (see Rpxhaisites).
The Assyrian conquest of Samaria naturally checked
for a time the cultivation of the soil (2 K. 17 25, lions),
the colonists introduced by Sargon and Asur-bani-pal
being imperfectly adapted to their new home. In Judaea
under Gedaliah the Jews ' gathered wine and summer
1 Even of the English version, which .sometimes hides such
metaphors as, f.c. , 'ploughing evil' — tran.slated 'deviseth,'
Prov. 0 14.
2 Am. 9 tj,_ff: ; Ho.s. 14 ey: [t/.] ; Mic. 44 ; Jer. 31 12 ; Zech.
812; Mai. 3 II.
^ The implements found at Tell-el-Hesy appear to carry us
back to the earliest days.
* Cp RP ist ser., '1 113.
5 //'/(/. 23 and cp Brugsch, Jigy/'t under tlie Pharaohs ('91),
p. 167.
6 Cp a similar relation in the time of Herod (Acts 12 20).
AGRIPPA
fruits very nuich ' (Jtr. 4O12), and liaci stores of wheat,
barley, oil, and honey, carefully hidden in the ground j
(Jer. 41 8). In Is. 41 15 mention is for the first time j
explicitly made of a threshing instrument with teeth
(nvB'S) ; hut whether this was of recent introduction it is
impossible to determine. On the fall of the Babylonian
[K)wer the old relations with Tyre were doubtless renewed
(Kzra37; cp Is. 23 15 18). The imperial tribute, however,
is regarded as heavier than the agricultural resourcesof the
country could then well bear (Neh. 63/. ). This tribute
may have been partly in money (54), but also apparently
to a considerable e.xtent in produce (Neh. 937, nKOn)-
In Joel, of course, there is a description of agricultural
distress, but in such a way as to imply that agriculture
was in general receiving full attention. In Eccles. (25/. )
there is acquaintance, as in other things, so in agri-
culture, with several artificial contrivances. To go into
the detailed accounts of the Mishna is beyond the
present purpose.
I'"or complete bibliographies see the larger Cyclopaedias,
liililical and Classical. Of special treatises may be mentioned
that in vol. 29 of the V'/us. of Ugolinus ;
17. Literature, ofspecial articles, on ajj^r/cw/Zwre" in general,
in Mod. Palestine, Anderlind, /.DPy^ \ff.;
Klein, //'. 3100-115 OSi-ioi, but especially 457-84; Post,
PEFQ, 1891, p. 1107?; ; on the plough, Schumacher, /.DPVVl
157-166 ; on sickles, V. C. J. Spurrell in Archieolog. Jourti. A9,
no. igj, iS.^2, p. 54^ and Plate I., fig. i ; on tlinshing sledge,
Wcti-striii. /.. f. l\ihnoloi;ie, 1873, p. q-jo Jf. ; on ■niintwiving,
Wit/.t. i!i ii. I )< 1. /.v«.(2) 709/ ; on the .f/Wv, Wctzstein, /.DPl^
14 I //. : .ill i>la,.- in OT literature, O. I'ngewitter, Die land
ivir:i:.Jt.i/':iiJ:c>i lUlder u. Metaphern i. d. poet. Biicli. d.
--I /' ( K.r)nigsbg., 1885); on later usage, Hermann Vogelstein,
Die Liiiiii'.virt/isclia/t in /^allistitia zur Zeit der Mischna, I.
(Berlin, 1894), a clissertiilinn that did not reach the writer till
this article had been written. H. w. H.
AGRIPPA (AfPinnA), -Vets 25 /.f See Herodian
Family, 7.
AGUR (1-liK; so Pesh. ; ia,^/; but © and Vg. ,
translating, ct)OBHaHTl [r5AS] ; Congrcgantis), h.
Jakeh, an author of moral verses (Prov. 30i). His
name is variously explained as ' hireling ' of wisdom
(Bar Bahlul) and 'collector' of words of Torah (Midr. |
Shfiiioth K'.,Yyar.6). Such theories assume that Solomon j
is the author of the verses, which (see Provkrbs) is
impossible. All the description given of him in the
heading is 'the author of wise poems' (read, not Nb'Sn,
but 'rc'E.i, with Griitz, Cheyne, Bickell). Very possibly
the name is a pseudonym. The poet who ' takes up
his parable' in 7^.5 expresses sentiments very different
from those of .Xgur ; he seeks to counteract the bold
and scarcely Israelitish sentiments of his predecessor.
See Ew., Salotn. Seliri/ten 250^; Che., /ol' ami Solomon
1497?:, Jewish Rel. Li/e, Lect. V. ; Sniend, A I' Rel.-gesch.
479y? ; and, with cautton, Dillon, Sceptics 0/ the OT 131^
26977; Cp also Proverbs ; Ithiei, ii.; Lemukl. t. k. c.
AHAB (2NnN, § 65,1 'father's brother,' cp Ahiam
and the Assyr. woman's narne, Ahnt-abisu, and see \\\.
/.A', 1898, Heft I ; also 3Nn [for ^XflN] on an inscrip-
tion from Safa [Jonrn. As. 188 1, 19 463]). i. (Axaa^
[B.AL], -oa/t4 [A once] ; Achab ; Assyr. .lijahbu.) Son
of Omri, and king of Israel (875-853? B.C. Cp
ChK()NOLO<;y, § 32, and table in § 37). The im-
portance of this king's reign is shown by the large
„ space devoted to it in the Book of Kings.
. bources. ^^ obtain a just idea of his character,
however, is not easy, the Israelitish traditions being
derived from two very different sources, in one of
which the main interest was the glorification of the
pro[)hcts, while the other was coloured by patriotic feel-
ngs, and showed a strong partiality for the brave and
bold king. To the former belong i K. 1 7-19 and 21 ; to
the latter, chaps. 20 and 22.- Both groujis of narratives
are very old ; but the former is more difficult than the
latter to understand historically. In chaps. 20 and 22 we
1 Cp Niildeke, ' Verwandtschaftsn.amen als Personenn.imen '
in Kleini^keitcn zur seinitisc/u-n Onotiiatologie (ll'ZA'.M 0 307-
316 (•92I):
2 .See Kings, § 8, .-ind cp Ki. Gesch. •.' 184-186 [ET. 2214-216].
89
AHAB
seem to get nearer to the facts of history than in chaps.
17-19, 21 ; at the same time we nmst rememljer that
even here we have to deal, not with extracts from the
royal annals, but with popular traditions which are
liable to exaggeration, es[x--cially at the hands of well-
meaning interiX)lators. ' The story of Ahab in his
relation to Elijah has lx;en considered elsewhere (see
Elijah, §1/:). We can hardly deny that the writer
exalts the prophet to the disadvantage of the king. Ahab
2. Ahab's
policy.
was not an irreligious man, but his interests
were mainly secular. He wished to see
Israel free and prosjjerous, and he did not
believe that the road to political salvation and physical
ease lay through the isolation of his [Kjople from all
foreign nations. The most pressing danger to Israel
seemed to him to lie in its being slowly but surely
Araniaised, which would involve the depression and per-
haps the ultimate extinction of its national peculiarities.
Both under Baashaand under Omri, districts of Israelitish
territory had been annexed to the kingdom of Damas-
cus, and it seemed to ,\hab to be his life's work to guide
him.self, not by the re(|uirements of Yahwe's prophets,
but by those of political prudence. Hence he not only
maintained a fiim hold on Moab, but also made himself
indispensable as an ally to the king of Judah, if he did
not even become, in a (|ualified sense, his suzerain (see
jKHOSiiAi'iiAT, i). Besides this, he formed a close
alliance with Ethbaal, king of Tyre (Jos. Artl. viii. 13 1),
whose daughter Jezebel (Baalizebel ?) he married. The
object of this alliance was doubtless the improvement of
Israel's commerce. The drawback of it was that it
required on -Ahab's part an official recognition of the
Tyrian BaaP (commonly known as Melkart), which
was the more offensive because the contrast between the
cultus even of the Canaanitish Baalim and that of the
God of Israel was becoming stronger and stronger, owing
to the prophetic reaction against the earlier fusion of wor-
ships. -Ahab himself had no thought of apostatising
from Yahwe, nor did he destroy the altars of Yahwe
and slay his prophets. Indeed, four hundred prophets
of Yahwe are said to have prophesied before him when
he set out on his fatal journey to Ramath Gilead. His
children, too, receive the significant names of Athaliah,
Ahaziah, and Jehoram.
We can understand Ahab's point of view. But for
its moral dangers, we might call it thoroughly justifi-
able. It was of urgent im[X)rtance to recover the
lost Israelitish territory and to secure the kingdom of
Israel against foreign invasion. If Israel were absorbed
by Damascus, what would become of the \\ 01 ship of
Yahwe? To this question E,lijah would have given the
answer which Amos (i/.t-. , § 18) gave after him : ' Perish
Israel, rather than that the commandments of Yahwe
should be dishonoured.' Jezebel's judicial murder of
Naboth and -Ahab's tame acquiescence show ed El ijah what
might be expected from the continued combination of
two heterogeneous religions. It was for the nmrder of
Naboth that Elijah threatened king Ahab with death, ^
1 We must begin, however, with an analysis of the narratives.
Van Doorninck ( ///- /'. iSo:;. on. ^76-584) has m.ade it highly
probable that til .if Samaria and the battle
ofAphekin i K interpolations tending to
make thedeli\' ,,wre wonderful, in addition
to those alre.-iu\ jiumieu i.ui ..> .w-. (C// 285/), and Kue.
(Einl. § 25, n. 10).
'^ Of H.aalath, the fem.ile counterpart of Baal, the Hebrew
tradition m.akes no mention. It is an interpolator who has
introduced into 1 K. IS 19 thewords 'and the prophets of the
Ashera, 400,' which are wanting in the MT of r'. 22, though
-supplied in <P"i 1(P'- omits 400 in r. 22] (cp WKS, A".S'(2(
189; We. Cll 281 ; Klo. Sa. Kff. 367; Ki. in Kau. /IS). Of
course, Paalath may have had her cultus by the side of P..ial,
but not in such a way as to strike Israelitish observers. Nor
could either Haalath or Astarte (Jezebel's father had been a
priest of Astarte, Jos. c. A p. 1 18) have been called ' the Asherah '
Dy a contemporary writer.
3 Note that i K. 21 20^-26— in which (i) the whole house of
Ahab is threatened, and (2) the punishment is connected with
Ahab's religious policy— forms no part of the old narrative (see
Ki. in Kau. US).
90
AHAB
and it was probably for this, or for other unrecorded
moral offences of Ahab and the partizans of Baal, that
the uncourtly prophet Micaiah ' never prophesied good
concerning Ahab, but evil ' ( i K. 228).
To what precise period of Ahab's reign his encounters
with Elijah belong, we are not told. Nor is it at all
certain to which years the events recorded in i K. 20 are to
be referred. To the popular traditions further reference
is made elsewhere (see Israel, History ok, § 29).
Suffice it to say here that they show us Ahab's better
side ; we can understand from them that to such a king
„ . much could be forgiven. Our remaining
Inscriptio^n. ^^'""' '"'" ^ '^^^"'''''^ '° '^"^ '7 ''""^fK
^ tions relative to episodes m the life of
Ahab. The earliest record comes from MoAB (g.v-).
King Mesha informs us in his famous inscription (/. 8)
that Moab had been made tributary to Israel by Omri,
and that this subjection had continued ' during Omri's
days and half of his son's days, forty years," after which
took place the great revolt of Moab.^ How this state-
ment is to be reconciled with that in 2 K. 1 1 84 need not
be here considered. It is, at any rate, clear that the loss of
the large Moabitish tribute, and of the contingent which
Moab would have to furnish to Israelitish armies, must
_. . have been felt by Ahab severely. The
■^ , ' second mention of this king occurs in
neser . s ^j^^ Monolith Inscription of Sh.^lma-
Inscription. ^.^^^.^ jj ^^^ ., ^ j^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^
given of the allied kings of .Syria whose forces were
defeated by Shalmancbcr at the battle of Karkar (near
the river Orontes) in 854 k.c. occurs the name of
Ahabbu Sir'Iai, which, as most scholars are now agreed,
can only mean Ahab- of Israel* (or, as Hommel thinks,
of Jezreel). Two important questions arise out of this
__, record. (i) Did Ahab join Bir'idri
Ahab^t^^ (Benhadad I. ) of Damascus of his
^ , own accord, jealousies being neutral-
ised by dread of a common foe?
or was he a vassal of Bir'idri, bound to accept the
foreign policy of his suzerain and to support it with
(or at any rate through) his warriors on the field of
battle? The former alternative is adopted by Kittel'*
and M' Curdy ; the latter by Wellhausen and Winckler.
To discuss this here at length is impossible. The
remarks of Wellhausen will seem to most students very
cogent. ' If feelings of hostility e.\isted at all between
Ahab and Benhahad, then Ahab could not do otherwise
than congratulate himself that in the person of Shalma-
neser II. there had arisen against Benhadad an enemy
who would be able to keep him effectually in check.
That Shalmaneser might prove dangerous to himself
probably did not at that time occur to him ; but if it
had, he would still have chosen the remote in preference
to the immediately threatening evil. For it was the
political existence of Israel that was at stake in the
struggle with Damascus.'* Cp Ben-hadad, § 2.
It does not follow, however, that we must give Well-
hausen's answer to the second question, which is (2) Are
RpI f '^"^ events related in i K. 20 22, with
Ht V^* the exception of the contest for Ramath
_ ^ ® ° J Gilead, to be placed before or after the
1 K 20^ battle of Karkar (854 B.C.)? It is, no
" ■ doubt, highly plausible to suppose that
J For a somewhat different view, see Chronologv, § 29, n. i.
2 Against Kamph.'s view, that Ahab is mentioned by a mis-
take of the Assyrian scribe instead of Joram, cp Schr. A'GF 370.
3 The form Sir'Iai may be illustrated by the vocalisation
^fOr-K Asarel, i Ch. 4 16, which Lag. {Uebers. 132) thinks may
represent the original pronunciation rather than 7l*Tip\
* Ki., however, after adopting this view of the course of events
in his narrative, turns round, and with some hesitation indicates
his preference for the view of Kamph. {Chronologic der fuhr.
Kdn. 80), held also formerly by We., according to which the As-
syrian scribe confounds Ahab with his son Jehoram {Hist. 2 273X
On the whole question cp Schr. A'^Ji"^ 356-371.
8 //isi.i^l 61. So the conservative critic KShler {Bii/. Gesch.
8379X On the other side, see M 'Curdy, Hist. Proph. Man.
AHAB
Ahab took advantage of the blow dealt to the power
of Damascus at Karkar to shake off the suzerainty of
Benhadad : so far, at least, it seems reasonable to
follow Wellhausen. But it is not likely that, consider-
ing the threatening attitude of Assyria, Benhadad
would have thought it prudent to fritter away his
strength on those ' furious attacks ' on Isr.ael to which
Wellhausen refers ; ^ it is not likely, in short, that the
siege of Samaria and the battle of Aphek are to
be placed after 854 n.c. It may be asked, if they
are not placed thus, where are we to find room for
them ? In i K. 20 23-34, Ahab is represented as gaining
the mastery over Benhadad, who has to make most
humiliating concessions to him. After such a success,
how can we account for Ahab's enforced presence at
Karkar as vassal of Benhadad? The answer is that
tradition selects its facts, and that the facts which
it selects it idealises as an artist would idealise them.
We may admit that Ahab, in his obstinate and patriotic
resistance to Damascus, was not unvisited by gleams
of good fortune ; but the fact, which tradition itself
records, that he was once actually besieged in his
capital, cannot have stood alone. Of Ahab's other
misfortunes in war tradition is silent ; but we can easily
imagine that the fxswer which was too strong for Omri
was at last able to force his son to send a large con-
tingent to the army which was to meet Shalmaneser at
Karkar.
That the siege of Samaria, at any rate, was before
854 n.C. is rendered probable b)' the criticism given
elsewhere (see Jkhgr.am, i, § 2) of the narrative in
2 K. 7. In particular, the kings of the Hittites and of
Musri, who are referred to in f. 6, are just those with
whom Benhadad would have to deal before 854 B.C.,
while Shalmaneser was still occupied at a distance.
The above solution of the historical problem is that
of Winckler, which unites elements of Wellhausen's
view and of that of Kittel.
_ The last-named critic deserves credit for an ingenious explana-
tion ((JwcA. 2232) of the magnanimity attributed to Ahab in
I K. 20 31-34. It will be remembered that, according to Kittel,
Ahab sent forces to Karkar of his own accord, not as a vassal of
Benhadad. This enables him to suggest that the king of Israel
may have spared his rival's life in order to enlist him in a
coalition against Assyria, the idea of which (according to this
hypothesis) was Ahab's. It must be confessed, however, that
this view ascribes more foresight to Ahab than, according; to
Amos {q.v., § 5), was possessed by the Israelites even at a later
day, and it was certainly unknown to the compiler of our
traditions, who makes no mention of the battle of Karkar.
We may regard it, then, as highly probable that the
battle of Karkar was fought at some time in the ' three (?)
years without war between Syria and Israel ' mentioned
in I K. 22 I.
The numbers of the force assigned by Shalmaneser
in his inscription to Ahab (2000 chariots, 10,000 men),
_ ., ,, as compared with those assigned to
7. AuAD s amiv. ,,■.)> •
'' other kings,- deserve attention. It
is possible, no doubt, as Winckler suggests, that
contingents from Judah and Moab were reckoned
among the warriors of Ahab. ^ This does not, however,
greatly diminish the significance of the numljers. After
all, the men of Judah were southern Israelites. Even
if Moabitish warriors were untrustworthy against a foe
such as Benhadad, there is no reason to doubt that the
men of Judah would sooner see Israel free from Benhadad
than swallowed up by its deadly foe. Ahab was
8 Hia death '^^'"tainly no contemptible anUigonist in
respect to the number of warriors he
could bring into the field. He himself, like David
(2S. I83), was 'worth ten thousand," and the dread
with which he inspired the Syrians is strikingly shown
in the account of his last campaign. We read that
1 IJC 50 ; and and 3rd ed. p. 71.
2 Hir'idri (Benhadad) h.ns 1200 chariots, 1200 horsemen,
»o,ooo men (.Schrader, COT 1 186).
3 That Jehoshaphat's military support of .\hab was not
altogether voluntary is surmised by We. and i>ositively .-usserted
by Wi. That it only began at the expedition to Ramath
Gilead is too hastily supposed by Ki. {Gesch. 2 232 (ET, 2 272]).
AHARAH
Benhadad charged the captains of his chariots to ' fight
neither with small nor great, save only with the king
of Israel," and that when they thought they had found
him they 'surrounded him (0) to tight against him'
(i K.2231/). It was not, however, by a device of
human craft that the great warrior was to die. A chance
shot from a bow pierced Ahab's armour. The grievous
wound prompted the wish to withdraw ; but for the
king in his disguise (t-. 30) withdrawal was impossible,
for the battle became hot and the warriors pressed on
from behind. The dying king stood the whole day
through, upright and armed as he was, in his chariot.
At sunset he died, and when the news spread ' The king
is dead' (2 K. 2237, ®), the whole Israelitish army
melted away. In Micaiah's language, it became ' scat-
tered abroad, as sheep that had no shepherd ' (2 K. 22 17).
The dead body of the king was carried to Samaria and
buried there. ^
A brief reference is made in iK. 2239 to Ahab's
luxury, wliich confirms the reading of (5'' in Jer. 22 15 :
' Art thou a true king because thou vicst with Ahab ? '
(if Axaaji [A], ey axaf [BSg], *ce5pw [g "'e]. Ml'
iTxa). an indignant protest addressed by Jeremiah to
Jehoiachin (so Cornill in SHOT, who enters into tlie
te.\t-critical points more thoroughly than Giesebrecht).
2. (Axtd/3 [BNAg], perhaps the most correct form ;
see N.\MES, § 65. In Jer. 2922 anw is clearly a scribe's
error ; Eastern MSS ha\e a Kr 3KnN. ) Son of Kolaiah
and fellow-exile of Jehoiachin (Jer. 2O21 /. ). He and
another exile (Zedekiah) fed the fanaticism of the Jews
with false hopes of a speedy return. They were
denounced by Jeremi.ih. who predicted for them a
violent death at the hands of Nebuchadrezzar. We
learn more about them from the writer (probably the
editor of the Book of Jeremiah) who inserted z-v. ■21b-
3i(Z. It was in his time, perhaps, a matter of notoriety
that Ahab and Kolaiah had suffered the cruel punish-
ment of being burned alive (cp Saulmugina's fate, RP"^)
I77). Therefore, he makes Jeremiah refer to this, and
at the same time accuse the false prophets of having
led a profligate life, in accordance with the idea
which underlies Gen. 8824 ; Lev. 20 14 21 9. Cp Cornill,
Jeremiah {SHOT, Heb. text). T. K. c.
AHARAH {Vrm, [Ba]), or Ahrah (mnN [Ginsb.]),
third son of Benjamin (§ 9 ii. /3), iCh. Sif. See
AlIIKAM.
AHABHEL (^n-^riN ; &A6A(})0Y RhxaB [BA],
APAihA AAeA4)OY PhxaB [L.] ; AUARnnEi.), a name
in an obscure part of the genealogy of JuDAii ( r Ch. 48t).
AHASAI, or rather as RV, Ahzai (*TnX ; in some
MSS and edd. ^THN ; a shortened form of Ahaziah ;
om. B.\, AZAXIOY [X='* ■">-'■ '"f], ZAKXIOY [L]). a priest-
ly name in a list of inhabitants of Jerusalem (see Ezra, ii.
§§ 5 \P\ IS [t]''). Neh. Ili3t=l Ch. 9i2t Jahzkkah
(J\-\\n\ ■ leAeiOY [^l lezpiOY [A], ezepA [L]), which
is probably a corruption of Jahzeiah (see J.'\h.\ZIAH).
AHASBAI ('2pnt<), 2 S. 2834. See Ei.iphf.i.et, 2.
AHASUERUS (Cnil^rnN ; in Kt. of Esth. 10., the
edd., following the Palestinian reading, have BnUTlS).
I. An Ahasuerus is mentioned in MT in Ezra 46 and
Dan. 9 1 ; and in ILsther he is one of the leading dramatis
person (P.
In MT of Esther he is mentioned in 1 if.^f. i^*/* 192 i* 12*
1621: Z\(iff. \i\ f.2 "5* 817*; io»: 1292*2030*101*3.2 The
readings of ® are : Ezra 4 6, ao-#7)pou [B], ao-crouJj. [.^1, airinrq.
t In 22 38, the words ' They w.ashed his chariot in the pool of
Samaria and the dogs licked his blood,' etc., are an interpolation
intended to explain how the dogs could lick Ahab's blood (which
must have been dried up in the long journey from Ramah) and
so fulfil the prediction of 21 19. But this was to happen at
Jezreel, not at Samaria (We. C// 360).
2 The asterisks (*) indicate that (P»al omits the proper name,
which is sometimes inserted by Kca hir. The double-daggers ({)
indicate that the editions following the Palestinian reading omit
the second v
AHASUERUS
[L] ; Dan. 9 i, avovyfpov [Thcod.l, but tfp(ov (87, i.e., the LXX ;
also Syr. mg.j ; in Esther aatrviipou la text of ©'-, on which see
below], but opTuftpfou [p text of ®l- and ©I'KA], .(,(. [W "d.
once], aTap(tp(tts (.A* once], aprapitpifj^ (A thrice].
In Ezra 4 6, where he is a king of I'ersia whose
reign fell between that of Koresh (Cyrus) and that
of Artahsasta (Artaxerxes Longimanus), he can hardly
be any other than the king called Khshaydrshd in the
Persian inscriptions (Persep. , Elvend, Van), c'IKTH in
an Aramaic inscription [481 B.C.] from Egypt (CIS
ii. Ii22), and A^p^rji by the Greeks (cp above, readings
of Dan. 9 1 ). This name, which to Semites presented
difficulties of pronunciation, was distorted likewise
by the Babylonians in a variety of ways. As I'rof.
Bezold has informed the writer of the present article,
we find on Babylonian tablets not only such fornis as
Khishiarshu, Akhshiyarslni, Akkasliiarshi, Akkisharshti,
but also Akhshiyaivarsliu, Akhshuwarshi, and Akhshi-
ivarsku, with the substitution of ^u for/, as in pmcnK.^
In other cases also the OT uses 'c'rK to represent the
Persian khsh, at the beginning of words. The inser-
tion of () lx;fore the final sh rendered the pronunciation
easier to the Hebrews ; but whether the vowel was
contained in the original form of the Hebrew texts we
cannot determine.^
The Ahasuerus of the Book of Esther is a king of
Persia and Media (I318/. ), whose kingdom extends
from India to Ethiopia and consists of 127 satrapies
(1 I 89 930). He has his capital at Shushan in Elam.
He is fond of splendour and display, entertaining
his nobles and princes for 180 days, and afterwards
the people of his capital for seven ((5'"**- six) days
(I3-8). He keeps an extensive harem (2314/.), his
wives being chosen from among all the ' fair young
virgins' of the empire (22-412-14). As a ruler he
is arbitrary and unscrupulous (38-ii, and/flw/w). All
this agrees well enough with what is related of Xerxes
by classical authors, according to whom he was an
effeminate and extravagant, cruel and capricious despot
(see Esther, § i). This is the prince, son of Darius
Hystaspis (Vishtaspa), whom the author of Esther
seems to have had in mind. There has been an attempt
to show, from the chronological data which he gives, that
he knew the history of Xerxes accurately. He tells us
that Esther was raised to the throne in the tenth month
of the seventh year of Ahasuerus (2 16 /. ), after having
spent twelve months in the ' house of the women '
(2 12). The command to assemble all the ' fair young
virgins' in his palace (2 1-4) must, therefore, have been
promulgated in his sixth year. But, in what is usually
reckoned as the sixth year of his reign — viz. 480 B.C. —
he was still in Greece. He could not, therefore, issue a
decree from Shushan till the following year. This can
be regarded as the sixth of his reign only by not counting
the year of his accession, and taking 484 as the first of
his reign. It is not impossible that the Persians may
have taken over from the Babylonians the practice (see
Chronology, § 9) of reckoning the whole of the year,
in the course of which a change of ruler occurred, to
the late king ; but it is not known as a fact. In this
uncertainty we shall do well to suppose that the author
of F",sther has arbitrarily assumed his chronological data,
and that his occasional coincidences with historv- are
accidental merely.
2. Eor the Ahasuerus who is called the father of
Darius the Mede in Dan. 9i, see Darics, i.
3. Tobias heard (Tob. ]4i5t) of the destruction of
Nineveh by ' Nebuchadnezzar and Ahasuerus' (so RV.
AV AssuERU.s : a<Tvi\po% [B], a<j<J\'. [N'^'^]. MOv. [A],
but ' Achiacharus, king of Media ' [N*], cp AcHlA-
CHARUS, 2). See ToBiT, Book of.
C. p. T.-W. H. K.
» Cp Strassmaier, Actes du viiit congres dcs oricntalisits,
sect. s^m. 18 / for a form corresponding to v^ysTM (Ahsha-
warsh?) found on Babylonian contract tablets.
a See further Bevan, Daniel 149, where Ahas>-ar!> or
AhSayarJ is proposed as the original Jewish form-
94
AHAVA
AHAVA (XinX). a place (EzraSis; eyeiM [B],
eyei [AL]) or, as in the parallel i I^sd. 841 (TuEKAS;
om. H; Gf/Kif, accus. [A]; eeiA [L]) antl Kzra 82131
(eoye [H]. AOye [li'A ; in v. 31 sup. ras.]. Aa()YA6
[L])= I Ksd. 8 50 (' for the young men,' ron ytavianois
[HAL], ».<•., apparently cini for ki.ik in:) 861 (Theras,
G€Pa[RA], £eiA[L]),ariver, near which Ezra assembled
his caravan before its departure for Jerusalem. The
site and the river remain unidentified. We know that
both were in the Euphrates basin, and that CasiI'HIA
{f.v.; cp. Jos. Ant. xi. 5 2 ; see He-Rys, £sra, ad lor.)
was not very far off. The form Theras (see al)ove)
seems to have arisen from Kin(K) for kihk, which is the
rc.-iding of some MSS for nlik in I-".zra8.
AHAZ (THN, a shortened form of JKUOAIIAZ, the
Jauhazi of the inscriptions: see h'B 22o). 1. (&XAZ
, _ T. . • rBNAorLl see also below, is 4
Ssh wa^"" -"■ Jos.'Axar.. AcnAz[Vg. lA
lusn war. ^^ ^^ ^^.^ ^ j^^^^ ^^ Jotham and
eleventh king of Judah (733?-72i, cp Chronology,
§ 34 ^ and table in § 37). He was young, perhaps
only twenty years of age ' (2 K. 10 2), when he ascended
the throne, and apJx^^rs already to have struck keen
observers such ns Isaiah bya want of manliness which was
quite consistent with tyranny (Is. 3 12a). The event
seems to have lx;en regarded by Rezin (or rather Rezon)
of Damascus as favourable to his plan for uniting Syria
and Palestine in a league against .Assyria. Pekah, who
had just become king of Israel by rclx?llion and
assassination, was only too glad to place himself at the
disposal of Rezin, who alone could defend him from
Tiglath-pilcser's wrath at the murder of an Assyrian
vassal. Rezin and Pekah, therefore, marched southward,
— being safe for the moment from an Assyrian in\ asion
— with the object of forcing Judah to join their league
(2K. 16 5; Is. 81-9; cp Isaiah, i. § 11). They could
feel no confidence, however, in any promise wliich they
might e.xtort from Ahaz. For Ahaz, who, unlike Rezin,
had no personal motive for closing his eyes to the
truth, was conscious of the danger of provoking Assyria.
Let us, then, said Rezin and Pekah, place a creature
of our own, who can be trusted to serve us, on t^ie
throne of Judah (Is. 76). Tiieir nominee is called ten-
Tahfl (see Tahkki,, i ), whom the language ascrilx-'d to
the allies hardly allows us to identify with Rezin. ^ He
w.as probably one of Rezin's courtiers, and thus (what a
disgrace to Judah!) a mere Syrian governor with the
title of king. The attempt to lake Jerusalem was a
failure. The fortress proved too strong to be taken by
storm, and to have prolonged the siege, in view of the
provocation given to Assyria and the terrible prompt-
ness of Assyrian vengeance, would have been imprudent.
Ahaz, too, in his .alarm (which was fully shared by the
citizens).' had already made this vengeance doubly
certain hy sending an embassy to Tiglath-pileser with
the message, ' I am thy slave and thy .son : come up and
deliver me' (2K. I67 ; this verse should be read im-
mediately after v. 5).*
1 In 2 Ch. 28i some MSS of ® and Pesh. read 'twenty-
five' for 'twenly.' 'iliis is more natural, in view of the age
assigned to Hezckiah M. his accession. The ' five ' may, however,
have crept in from •-'7 i •2'.» i. (&"•*'- reads ' twenty.'
2 Wi. W 7" Vntersuch. 73-75; cp, however, Israi:!., Hist, of,
832-
S See Is. 7 a 8 6. The latter passage is partly corrupt ; but
it_ is clear, at least, that the people of Judah are reproved for
distrusting Yahwc's power to save his people, anil 'desponding'
because of ' Rezin and hcn-kenialiah.' The ' waters of Shiloah '
are a symbol of V'ahwe (cp I's. 4t> 4 ; Is. 33 21). Sec Che.
' Isaiah ' (SHOT). The interpretation of (B, which paraphrases
"UK jri«rp (.\V and RV, ungrammatically, ' rejoice in ') by
SovAeo^ai <x">' ^a<rtA(a, is certainly wrong, though supported
by .some eminent names (Gcs., Ew., Kue., St.), for it is opposed
to Is. 72812. Even were the supposition that there was a
large party in the capital favourable to Rezin and Ptkah more
plausible th.an it is, it would still be unwi.se to b.-i.se the sup-
position on a passage so strangely expressed and of such question-
able accuracy as Is. 85.
* If the statement of the compiler in 2 K. 10 3 that Ahaz
95
AHAZ
One man, Isaiah ben Anioz, had kept his head cool
amid this excitement. He assured Ahaz on the
_ - . , , authority of the God of prophecy that
*f aian S ^j^^ attempt of Rezin and Pekah would
Ixj al)orti\e and that Damascus and
Samaria themselves would almost immediately become
a prey to the Assyrian soldiery (Is. 7 4-9 168 1-4 17
i-ii). He bade Ahaz be wary and preserve his composure
(tspc'rii TOffn) — to take no rash step, but quietly perform
his regal duties, trusting in Yahw6. When the
news came that .\haz had hurriedly offered himself as
a humble vassal to Assyria in return for protection
from Rezin, Isaiah changed his tone. He declared
that Judah itself, having despised the one means of
safety (faith in Yahw6 and olxjdience to his commands),
could not escape puni.shment at the hands of the
Assyrians. Under a variety of figures he described the
ha\oc which those dreaded warriors would produce in
Judah — a description to which a much later writer has
added some touches of his own {vz'. 21-25 '< see SHOT).
Was .Ahaz right or wrong in seeking the protection
of Assyria ? Stade has remarked that ' he acted as any
_ ,, , ,. other king would have acted in his
3. Ahazspohcy. p^^iji,^,^,. ^^ the other hand,
RolKTtson Smith thought that ' the advice of Isaiah
displayed no less political sagacity than elevation of
faith.' ' If .\ha/ had not called in the aid of Tiglath-
pileser, his own interests v.ouid soon have compelled
the Assyrian t) strike at Damascus; and so, if the
Juda-an king had had faith to accept the prophet's
assurance that the immediate danger could not prove
fatal, he would have reajxjd all the advantages of the
Assyrian alliance without finding himself in the perilous
position of a vassal to the robtx.'r emjjiru. As yet the
schemes of Assyria hardly reached as far as Southern
Palestine." "•* There is some force in this. The sending
of tribute to Assyria was justifiable only as a last
resource. To take such a step prematurely would
show a disregard of the interests of the poorer class,
which would suffer from Assyrian exactions severely.
It is doubtful, however, whether the plans of Assyria
were as narrowly limited as is supposed. Tiglath-pileser
did not, even after receiving the petition of Ahaz, attack
Damascus instantly. First of all he invaded Philistia and
Northern Arabia.
We shall have occasion to refer again to the important
chapter of Isaiah which descril)es the great eni i;nter
between the king and the prophet (see IsAlAH, i. Jj 2 (^).
Suffice it to say that we misimderstand Isaiah if
we connect his threat of captivity in chap. 7/. too closely
with the foreign policy of Ahaz. It was not the foreign
policy but the moral weakness of ,\haz and his nobles
which had in the first instaiice drawn forth this threat
from Isaiah (Is. 5 8-16). Nor can we venture to doubt
that, if .Ahaz had satisfied the moral standards of Isaiah,
this would have had some effect on the prophet's picture
of the future. ' \'isions ' and ' tidings ' of men of God
such as Isaiah are not merely political forecasts : they
are adjusted to the mural and mental state both of
him who speaks and of those who hear.
It is not to Isaiah or to a disciple of Isaiah, but to
the royal annalist, that we owe the notice that the
. „ „ »-„ tribute of Ahaz was derived from
4. Consequences. ^^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^ p^,^^^ ^^^ ^^
the temple, and that .Ahaz did not sjiare even the sacred
furniture (2 K. 168 17).* It would be interesting to
know whether he sent the brazen oxen on which the
brazen 'sea' had hitherto rested (they were copies of
Babylonian sacretl objects, and properly symbolised
Marduk) to Tiglath-pileser, or whether he melted them
offered up his son (©l- and Symm. say 'his sons,' with
2 Ch. 2S 3) is correct, we may perhaps assigii the fearful act to
this period.
1 CI 7 1 -^95.
« WHS }'ro/>h.^ 26s ; cp Kittel, Hist. 1 346 (near foot).
» On the text of z K. 1(5 17, which is corrupt, see St. ZA Tll^
6163.
96
AHAZIAH
down for himself. It is more important, however, to
notice that this time, apparently, the tribute for Assyria
was provided without any increase in the taxation.
Isaiah, we may suppose, would have approved of this.
Isaiah's forecasts were verified, not, indeed, to such
an extent as much modern speculation about the prophetic
books demands, but as far as his own generation re(|uired.
Danuiscus fell in 732 ; Samaria had a breathing time
till 722 ; and, according to Sennacherib, there was a
partial captivity of Judah in the next reign. It was after
the first of these events that Ahaz first came in contact
with an .Assyrian kitig. In 734 the name of Jauhazi of
Judah occurs among the names of the kings who had
paid tribute to Tiglath-pileser ; but we have no reason
to supiwse that he paid it in person. It was in 732,
after the fall of Damascus, that he paid homage in [person
to his suzerain. On this occasion he ' saw the altar that
was at Damascus' (2 K. 16 10), and, on aesthetic grounds,
liked it better than the bronze altar which had hitherto
been used at Jerusalem for burnt offerings. It was
probably an .Assyrian altar, for the Assyrians on
principle introduced their own cultus into conquered
cities. So .Ahaz sent a model of the altar to the chief
priest Uriah (cp Is. 82), who at once made an altar
upon the pattern, and transferred the old altar to a new
position. This was, doubtless, against the will of Isaiah,
who in his earliest extant prophecy so strongly denounces
the love of foreign fashions. Possibly at tlie same
time .Ahaz borrowed the sun-dial (if EV rightly para-
phrases the expression, ' the steps of .Ahaz' ; see, how-
ever, Dial). .N'or is it likely that .Ahaz paused here.^
A suggestive allusion to the addiction of .Ah;xz to foreign
worship is traceable in 2 K. 23i2; but there is a textual
difficultv in the passage (see Kamphausen's note in Kau.
HS).-
The reign of .Ahaz was inglorious, but on the w hole
peaceful. It was a severe blow to the connnerce of
Judah when Rezin, on the accession of .Ahaz, attacked
and captured l-'.lath (on the Arabian (nilf), and restored
it to its former possessors, the Edoniites ; but at the
close of .Ahaz's reign Isaiah was able to contrast the
peace enjoyed by ' the poor of Yahwe's peo|)le ' with
the chastisement inflicted by Assvria on the restless
Philistines. »
Othe
;aclinj;s of <E5 are : a-xa.^ [B often, A'? vcl I
A once, Qa once], -xaa^ [.A twice], axa/3 [.\, 2 Ch. IS). In Jer.
2215 tpHKQ '.Ahaz' takes the place of the true reading '.Ahab'
of <pA(see .Ahau, i [eiKl]).
2. (xaaf [A] ; a^ai [L]), a descendant of .Saul ; i Ch. 835/
«■(« [li]) = 9 4i (om. KV .MT ©ba ; but correctly inserted by ©t-
Pesh.), i>42 (axai [1?]). See Benja.min, § 9 ii. p.
T. K. C. — W. E. .X.
AHAZIAH (-in^.TriX, iTTHN, ' he whom Yahw6 sup-
ports'; 0X02[ejl<\C [B.AL] ; for other readings see
end of no. 2). i. Son of .Ahab and Jezebel,
and king of Israel (853-851 ? B.C. Cp Chkonoi.ogy,
§ 28 and table in § 37). A poor successor to
the heroic Ahab. Once more Israel must have been
de|x;ndent on Damascus, while Moab (see .Ahab, § 2)
continued to enjoy its recovered independence. The
single political action reported of him is his offer to
jKiiosiiAi'H.VT (q.v., i) to join in a trading ex-
pedition to Ophir (i K.2250). The close of his life
is described in a prophetic legend of very late origin
(see Elijah, § 3). He fell through the lattice of an
up[x;r room in his palace in Samaria, and though he
lingered on a sick-bed for some time, did not recover.
The story (2 K. 1 2-17) is a painful one, and was used by
Jesus to point the contrast between the unchastened
zeal of his disciples and the true evangelical spirit ( Lk. 9
54-56). The one probably historical element is the
consultation by .Ahaziah of the oracle of Baal-zebub of
Ekron. To most of .Ahaziah's contemporaries his
1 Schr. COT\ 249 25 s ; Wi. GBA 234.
2 For CInS read CIn'^ ; cp the Kre. D*0nK1 for D'OIIKV
3 The heading of Is. 1428-32 is probably correct. See Che.
Inir. Is. 80/ ; but cp Duhm ad loc.
7 97
AHIEZER
action would have seemed tiuite natural ' (cp 2 K. 5
87./ )•
2. Son of Jehoram (or Jorani) and Ahab's daughter
Athaliah, king of Judah (843-842? u.c". Cp Chkono-
LCKiV, § 28 and table in <^ 37). He was only twenty-
two when he ascended the throne,'- and only one event
in his brief reign has lx.'en recorded — the part which
he took with Jehoram king of Israel in a campaign
against Hazael of Damascus. The kings of Israel
and Judah laid siege to Ramah in Gilead (the
place before which Ahab lost his life in battle)
which was still held by the Arama;ans. Jehoram
withdrew wounded. Ahaziah also went to his home,
but afterwards visited his sick kinsman at Jezrc-el.
During this visit jKiiu {i^.v.) revolted, and the two
kings (ec|ually obnoxious to Jehu) went forth in their
chariots to meet him. Ahaziah saw his uncle Jehoram
pierced by an arrow, and took to flight. As he fled
in the direction of Hi;rii-iiA<;(;A.\ (q.v.; 2 K.927, 0)
Jehu dashed after him with the cry, 'Him too.' .At
the ascent of (iiir by Ibleain, on the road to Jerusalem,
he too was struck by an arrow. Thereupon he turned
his horse northwest, and reached Megiddo, but died
there of his wound. He was buried in the royal
cemetery at Jerusalem. The conflicting account in
2Ch. "229, from whatever late source derived, is of
no historical value
(Otlier rc-idings — 2K. S29!t2i oxo^et [B] ; 2 K. 14 13 nuavai
[B], aa^.a [A], L om. ; i Ch. 3 11 ofe.a [B], o^.at [A].) In 2Ch.
21 17 he is called Jchuahaz, and in 22 6 Azariah. See
jEHt)AHAZ, 3. W. K. A.
AHBAN (i3nS, § 45, meaning obscure, for form
cp Eshban, 'brother of an intelligent one' [HUH], or
less improbably ' brother has giv<'n heed,' so (iray, HI'N
83, n. 2, who suggests the vocalisation |5nv>). a Jerah-
meelite family name, i Ch. 229t (ax&Bar [1^]. 02A [A],
NAAaB [I>. cp IT'. 2830], AHOHH.l.X).
AHER (inX; ^ep [B], aor [A], om. [L Pesh.] ;
.■iiiHR), a very doubtful Benjamite name (iCh. 7i2t).
See HusHi.M, 2 ; I)A.\, § 9 ; Benjami.n, § 9 ii. a.
Be. (/« he.') explains the name as meaning 'the other one,'
and conjectures it to be a euphemism for Dan, the express
niention of the name of this tribe seeming in more than one
instance to h.-ive l)een dcliberatLly avoided. (See however Dan,
§ 9.) On the other hand (pUAi. rc.ids ' his son ' for ' the sons of
(133 f<Jr 'j^X and the name is entirely wanting in Ipt- and Posh.,
the former (and perhaps originally also the latter) connecting
Hnshim (te<r(rou5, /;«/«) with what goes before (see Iri). See
also .\HAKAH.
AHI (^n^, § 52, probably abbrev. from Ahijah).
1. In genealogy of Gaii, iCh. .Tist (Vg. wrongly trans-
lates, fratres qtioquc; IVsh. and (P'oni. ; «P"A CDmhines with
the preceding name l!uz^|^a/3]ouxa/ii IB], axiOovi) |A1).
2. In genealogy of Ashkk(§ 4 n.), I Ch. V ;4t. (P'^A, attach-
ing part of the following name (see KomjAH), produces
Axt(ovpa) [.\], or Ax<(outa) [B] ; but ®i- has Tjfty.
AHI, NAMES WITH. See Am, Namks with.
AHIAH, frequently in AV and once (Neh. 10 26 [25])
inconsistently in RV. See .Amj All, 1/ 4.
AHIAM (DX'nK, §65, for which we should i^obably
point DX'riN, ' mother's brother ' [cp .Ahab], analogous
to the Sab. pr.n. innxnfiX, ' sister of his mother ' ; cp
fIPN6.\, n. 2), one of I )avid's heroes, 2 S. 23 ^3 (amnan
[B.A], om. [L])=iCh. Il35t (AXeiM [BNJ, AXl&M
[AL]). SeeDAVin, § 11,2 i. ^
AHIAN (}*nN. § 65, 'relative, cousin,' cp M^l :
l&AIM [B], AeiN [A]. &ei/v\ [E]; ^///v). a Mannssiie
name ( i Ch. 7 i9t). See SllKMiDA.
AHIEZER (1Tl"nN, § 44, ' the [divine] brother is
help,' cp .Abiezer, P21iezer ; &x'£2ep [BAFE]).
1. b. .Ammish-addai, chief of the Danites, temp. Moses (P)
(Nu. I12 2 25«x'- [fl: "6671 1025)t.
2. One of David's archers (i Ch. 12 3!). See Davih, 811a iii.
1 S^mmtl, AT Rel.-gesch. 157.
a .So 2 K. S26. In 2 Ch. 22 2 his age is given as forty-two
(0BA 20) ; but this is clearly miswrittcn for twenty-two (so 9^ ;
cp 21 5 20).
98
AHIHUD
AHIHUD (lirrnX, 'the [divine] brother is praise.'
cp Amiiui) ; AyitoB [A], -lop [HKL]. auihvd). an
Asherite selected to assist Joshua and Eleazer in the
division of Canaan (Nu. 342? P+).
AHIHUD (irrnjj: ; i&xeiXCoA [B]. -xixaA [A], OYA
[L] ; .niiUD), in genealogy of BENJAMIN (§ 9 ii. /3),
iCh. 87t. Cp UzzA. 1.
AHIJAH (n»nj<. 'Yahw^ is brother" \i.e., protector];
cp Abijah and the Babylonian name A-hi-ia-a ; Jastrow,
JUL, 1894. p. 105 : AxWiA [BAL]).
1. b. Ahilub, priest at Shiloh, bore the ephod, temp. Saul ;
iS. 143 (Jos. "Exio?, 'Axios, AV Ahiah). In 4 Esd. 1 2t he
appears as AcniAs (.4cA/Vu [ed. Bensly]) between Ahitub and
Amariah of Ezra 7 -i/., or i Ch. 67.
2. In genealogy of Benjamin (§ o ii. 0), one of those who were
'carried captive (1 Ch.8 7 ; AV .\hiah), whose name should
perhaps be read in v. 4 for Ahoah (ninK ; auio. [L], Ahoc ; but
oxta [B], jLucf ; .^ oni.); see further Ahiihite.
3. The Pelonite ; a corruption of Ahithophel the Gilonitc, the
name of his son (one of David's heroes) being omitted (iCh.
11 36; see E1.IAM, 1 ; Ahithoi'HEl).
4. b. Shi>ha (Shavsha), .and brother of Ki.ihoreph (^.v.);
one of Solomon's secretaries of state (i K. 4 3 ; .W Ahiah). See
Ben-hesei>, § 3.
5. A Levite, who owes his existence to a demonstrable text-
corruption (i Ch. -'620; read with B.\L, a5cA<^o't ovtwi', 'and
the Levites their brethren").
6. .\ccording to AV (which with (8'- prefixes 'and "), the fifth
son of Jerahmeel (q.v., i), i Ch. 2 25. But ©«* gives cor-
rectly a5eA(^6« a'v-tav, i.e., H'nN (so Ki.). We. iDe Gent. 15)
prefers VriK, ' his brothers." (L ax"»^.)
7. .An Issach.-irite, father of King B.a.-isha (i K. 15 27 33, etc.).
8. Signatory to the covenant; Neb. 10 26 [25] (apo [B] ; aio
[»{Tid. A], a.htia.% [L] ; F.CHAI.X). See EZKA, i. § 7.
9. A Shilonite ; the prophet who foretold to Jero-
boam {q.v., i) the disruption of Solomon"s kingdom
(iK. II29, etc.; ax[e]'OS [B.\ twice]). In 2Ch. IO15
(xta A* but not in ], i K. 12 15), and in the storj' of his
meeting with Jeroboam's wife (i K. 144i'7-i8), the name
appears in the form r-rnx (Ahiyyahu), on which see
Abijah (beginning).
AHIKAM (Di^'nX, § 44. ' the [divine] brother riseth
up,' cp .\clonikam and Phoen. Dp3X ; ax[c]ikam
[BSAQL]; xeiK&M [N* once]: Jos. axikamoc, IK..
AHICA.m), like his father Sh.\phan [q.v.) a courtier of
Josiah. He appears to have belonged to the party
favourable to religious reforms. Hence he was included
in the royal deputation to Huldah (2 K. 221214,=
aCh. 34 20 ; cp Hui.d.\h), and was foremost in the defence
of Jeremiah on a critical occasion (Jer. 2624). He was
the father of Gedaliah [q.v., i] (2 K. 2522 Jer. 39 14
4O5).
AHILUD (n-l'^'n^S. § 45)- 1- Father of Jehoshaphat.
Davids 'recorder' or vizier (2S. 816; axf«a [B],
ax'Mf^fX [A], ax'^aaitt [L], Jos. 'Ax'Xoj ; 2O24,
ax[«]»Xoi'^ [BA], axi^aXaa [L] ; i K. 43, axetXiaS [BX],
ox'Aia [A]; ax^^aXa/x [L] ; iCh. I815, oxeia [BS],
ax'Xoi»5 [.AL]). The name does not mean 'child's
brother " (BDB with a ?), nor is it connected with the Ar.
tribal name Laudhan (Hommel? see Exp. Times 8
283 ['97])- It is difficult not to suggest that niS-nK =
nynK = ~':{a]"nK = -^himelech (cp above 2S. 816 [.\], and
below [2], iK. 4i2 [B]). For his vizier David would
naturally choose some one' from a family well known to
him. (Dne son of .^himelech (.Abiathar) was a priest of
David ; another might well have been his vizier. See
Jehoshaphat, 2 ; Ahimelech, i.
2. Father of Baana, one of Solomon's prefects or
governors of departments, i K. 4 12 (axf'/MiX [B]. fkovh
[A], axta^S [L]). The governor of N'aphtali {v. 15) is
called Ahimaaz — no doubt the son of Zadok who bore
this name. Probably therefore this Ahilud is the same
as no. I. Solomon provided well for the families of his
father's friends — Zadok, Ahimelech, Hushai, and Nathan
(cp Ahihaaz, I, 2; Baana, 2; Azariah, 6).
T. K. c.
99
AHINOAM
AHIMAAZ ()*yp*nK, § 45, meaning uncertain, cp
Maa/. ; AxlejiMAAC [BAL]).
1. b. Zadok; 2 S. 1627 (ax«/«"as [B]), 36 (axiM*'''-
<ruios[.\*; (r2'*ras. A'*'''-]); 17i72o(oxf'Mas[B]), 18 19-29,
and, according to the Chronicler, eleventh in descent
from Aaron in the line of Eleazar, i Ch. 68/ , and 53
(axfKraytia [B]). Along with his father and brother he
remained faithful to David during the revolt of .Absalom,
and brought important information from Jerusalem to
the king as to the enemy's plans ; he was also the first
courier to reach the king after the battle in which Absalom
was killed. Most probably identical with
2. One of Solomon's prefects (see Government, § 18.
end), governor of Naphtali ; 1 K. 4 15. Cp Ahuxd, 2.
3. Father of Ahinoam (i), Saul's wife; iS. Hsof
(ax[e]u'aas [B]).
AHIMAN (p^riN,' § 45 ; achiman, ahimas). ' Ahi,'
as usual, is a divine title, and 'man' may be the
name of a dt-ity (MCni ; see FORTUNE).
I. One of the sons of the ANAK(y. J/.; cpalso Sheshai,
Talmai) ; Nu. 1322 (ax[«]iM«'' [BFL], ax'^a/u [.A]);
Josh. 15 14 (ax[e>Ma [B.\L]) ; Judg. 1 10 (axfaaK [B],
axW'Ma" [B-'"^-^'"*-'- L], tov axifJ^aan [A]).
2. One of the 'porters for the camps of the Levites' ; iCh. 9i7
(ai^a^ [H], -i'l.\i.] ; A/iiinam, Cod. Am. A/timan [i| Neh.ll 19
om. everj-where]) in list of those with foreign wives(EzRA, L § 5,
end)=Ezra IO24 (where he is called Uki)=i Esd.925 (EV
oni.). The name in i Ch. is probably corrupt. See Uri, 3.
AHIMELECH (^^p"•^^<l, ' the [divine] king is brother, "
see AiiiMKi.KCH and cp Phoen. "jTOn, Ass. Af^imilki ;
a.y^i\fxt\ix [B.AL]).
1. Father of Abiathar, erroneously described in 2 S.
817 as son of Abiathar, also in four places in i Ch. , in
the first of which, moreover, the name in MT is
Abimi;i.kcii ; see Abiathar (last paragraph). For a
conjecture that Jehoshaphat, David"s vizier, and Baana,
Solomon's prefect, were also sons of this Ahimelech, see
Ahu.ui), I and 2.
©A reads ajii^cAex in i S. 21 \a 229 and a/3ifi. in i S 21 1/^2 ;
B h.-is ajSeifieAcx invariably except in i S. 21 \a, and Ps. 52
title,'- a/3i^. ; and in 1 S. 30 7 and the five corrupt passages,
oxfiM- '. ^'g- Achiiuelech, but in i Ch., though not in 2S. S17,
Ahim. The Vg. and (5U read Ahimelech also in Ps. 34, title ;
.see .\cHisH (end).
2. .\ Hittite companion of David in the time of his outlawry,
I S. 2.>6t (ax[e]t,xeAex [B^L], ap[.]i^. [BA]).
AHIMOTH (niD^riN, § 45, AAeiMcoe [B], oxiM-
[A], A/VMCO0 [I-]), fi name in the genealog)- of Kohath
(i Ch. 625 [10]). If the reading of MT and Versions is
correct, -7noth should \y& a divine name or title. Barton
compares the cosmogonic Mwt in Philo of Byblus ; but
this is too doubtful (see Creation, § 7), and though
mo, 'death," in Ps. 49i4 [15] and elsewhere is personi-
fied, a name like ' Death is (our) brother " or ' protector,'
is improbable. Possibly Ahimoth should be Ahimahath
(see -■. 35 [20], cp 2 Ch. 29 12) ; see Mahath, 1.
AHINADAB (2"7ynNI, § 44; 'the [divine] brother
apportions," but cp further Abinadab ; &X€INA<^B
[B], ainaAaB [A], axinaA&B [L]; AHIS-ADAB), Solo-
mon's prefect over the district of Mahanaim beyond
Jordan (i K. 4i4t). See Government, § 18 (end).
AHINOAM (DymNt, § 45, ' the [divine] brother is
plea-santness,' Ax[e]iNA&M[B.AL]; Jos. axina; achi-
NOA^t). I. Daughter of .Ahimaaz and wife of Saul,
1 Sam. 14 sot [a.-)^f\.vooy. [B.A]).
2. Of Jezreel in Judah (see Abigail, 2) whom David
married during his outlawry. Like Abigail, she was
carried off by the Amalckites when they plundered Ziklag.
At Hebron she bore to David his eldest son, Amnon,
I S. '2543 (axetvaai' [B]) ; 273; SOs (axeivooM [B],
1 A better pointing would be fDTIK ; the present vocalisa-
tion, jO'nR, is based on a popular etymology; JD'nK, frater
meus quis? (Jer. in OS'^) \hi\, etc.).
- Other readings here, o^cifi. [«]; Achimehch; Pesh. quite
different.
AHIO
ox"'aaM [A. o/x. sup. ras. A']), cp v. i8 ; a Sam. 2a
{ax^foofi [BA]). 3 J (ax""©©/* [H]) ; r Ch. Sif.
AHIO (VnX, §§ 24, 43, possibly, if MT is correct,
'brother of Yahwe,' or ' Yah\v6 is brother.' The
analogy of other names ending in 0 seems against this
view ; Jastrow, //i/., 1894, p. loi).
1. 1). .\binailab, brother of I' zzAri (y.7'., i), aS. 63/; || i Ch. 18 7
has 'his brethren," and We. reads VriK, 'his brother'; see Dr.
(in each case, however, ©bal has oi o3«A^t avroO, i.e., VnK,
in 2 S.).
a. In genealogy of Bknjamin (89 ii. /3), one of the sotis of
Ueriah, who put to flight the inhabitants of Gath, i Ch. S i4(a£rA-
^t aiiTou, ' his brother ' [B], oi ai«Ac/>ot aii., ' his brethren " [A], oi
o. airrmv, ' their brethren ' [L] ; Be. and Kau. vnK ; We. VnK
[DeCent. f. so]; Ki. OH'nK)- , ^. ,
3. In genealogy of Benjamin (8 9 u. P), son of Jehiel, the
' father 'of (".ibeon ; i Ch. 8 31 aitK^o^ auToO [B], -<;>ol av. [A], oi
i5. av. [I.l) = i)37t ("A om. auroO).
AHIRA [Vrrn^:, AxCelipe [BAFL]; -^^ :
AHIK.4). A Naphtalite family-name reported in P
(Nu. 1 15 229 77883 1027!). The old interpretation ' my
brother is evil ' must be abandoned. Either y is mis-
written for n (see the Palmyrene characters), in which
case we get the good Heb. name Ahiram,' or we have
here a half-Kgyptian name meaning ' Ra' (or Re' — i.e.,
the Egj'ptian sun-god) is brother or protector' (so C!he.
/m. 2144). The latter view is quite possible (cp the
Egv'ptian name Pet-baal). The Canaanites, who were
strong in the territory of Naphtali, were very receptive
of foreign religious influences.^ Cp AsHUR, Hi"K,
Haknepiikr. The reading of Pesh. (uniformly Ahida')
is no doubt either merely a natural variant, or a copyist's
substitution of a more normal for a rarer form ; cp
Amioa. t. k. c.
AHIRAM (D"^*nN, §44, cp Jehoram ; AxCel'PAN
[AL]. lAX. [B],' AXiAN [F]; aiuram). i. In the
gcnealogj' of Benjamin (§ 9 i. ); Nu. 2638 (where
we have also the gentilic Ahiramite ; 'STnt* ; axf'pa«"
[1.], 10. . . vei [B], axipai [.\], -lavei [F]) = Gen. 4621,
where ' .Xhiram, .Shei)hupham ' ought no doubt to
be read for ' Khi and Rosh, Muppim ' (cEiErCTHN for
C*rcrN-ivnN), cp Rosii. In the similar list in i Ch. 8
we find in ?■. i .Aiiarah [i/.t.] (mnx), and in that in
iCh. 76^ in I'. 12, Aher y.v.](^nK), cp Hushim, 2 ;
Dan, § 9.
2. Perhaps we should read Ahiram also for Ahir.\
(17. f.) in Xu. I5, etc.
AHISAMACH ("^^p^^^{, ' the [divine] brother sus-
tains' ; axiC(\mak[B], -max [AFL]; Jos. ic&maxoc,
IC&XA'WOC). aDanite; E.x. 316 (axiCAMAX C^]) 3534
3823 [P]. See Dan, § 9 n.
AHISHAHAR (in;"'nN, §§ 35, 44, 'the [divine]
brother is dawning light,' cp Abner, Shehariah ; d,\e\-
CA^^AP [1^]. AXICAAP [A], ACCAeip [L]). in genealogy
of Bkniamin (§ 9 ii. a), 1 Ch. 7 lof- See Jeuiael, 1.
AHISHAB (">V"'nX, § 44), Solomon's comptroller
of the palace (iK. 46t). The name, however, is
suspicious.
ipB gives the double rendering, ox«i V o'lKovofiof, and eAiax
o n'tK., and perhaps even a third rendering f\iap uib« cra<f> iirX
■n't'i Trarpio? ; eKiax should be ayiTjA, which (P'- has, and may
In: the true (S re.ading. But MT (®a axio-op) has yet to be
accounted for. For 1C"nj«1_ we should probably read "ij? VriN.
Zabud, who has just been mentioned, is descriljed as not merely
a priest but ' the officer (placed) over the palace ' (so Klc). See
Zabud, I. T. K. c.
AHITHOPHEL (^Sh^HJ^, § 45, meaning uncertain ;
Ax[eliTO(})e\ [B.VL], -Aoc, Jos.), a Gilonite (see
Giloh), a counsellor of David nmch esteemed for his
1 Aveip* in 3 K. 2 46 A [B] answers to Adoniram (cp i K. 4 6)
of MT.
2 On names of foreign deities in Israelite names, see under
Elidad, and Names, gg 4a, 81, 83.
lOI
AHLAB
unerring in.sight (aS. 15i2 16a3). His son Eliam
{^■v., i) was, like Uriah, a member of David's body-
guard (2 S. 2334 ; cp David, § ii a i), and since H.ith-
sheba, the wife of Uriah, is described as the daughter
of Eliam (2S. II3), it has been conjectured that Ahi-
thophel was her grandfather, and that indignation at
Davids conduct to Bathsheba led Ahithophel to cast in
his lot with Absalom's rebellion. This, however, is a
mere possibility, and ambition would Ix; a sufficient
motive for Ahithophel's tri-ason to David, just as the
slight involved in .Absalom's preference of Hushai's
counsel to his own was certainly one chief cause of his
final withdrawal from .Absalom. At first, indeed, he
had full possession of the ear of the pretender. It
was by his advice that .Absalom took public possession
of his father's concubines, and so pledged himself to
a claim to the throne, from which there was no retreat
(2 S. 1620^). Ahithophel was also eager in his own
person to take another bold and decisive ste[). He
wished to pursue David with 12,000 men and cut the
old king down in the first confusion and entanglement
of his flight towards the Jordan (2 S. 17 1-4). This
plan was defeated by Hushai, whereupon Ahithophel,
seeing that all hope was gone, went to Giloh and
strangled himself.
In iCh. II36 'Ahithophel the Gilonite' has been corrupted
into 'Ahijah the Pelonitc," 'i^S:^ n^r.H for 'j'^i.T "?En'nK ; cp
Klo. Sam., ad he. (axlejta [B.AKL]), and see Giloh, end.
W. E. A.
AHITOB (AXeiTCoB [B], etc. ), i Esd. 82 RV, 4 Esd.
lit RV. See below, Ahitub, 2.
AHITUB (n-in^nX or n-"mnN [i S. 143 2292°], § 45 ;
cp Ahi-labu KB 5, no. 11 14, aXleJitooB [B.AL]).
I. .A member of the family in which the priest-
hood, first at Shiloh, then at Nob, appears for some
generations to have been hereditary. He was grandson
of Eli, son of Phinehas, and elder brother of Ichabod
(iS. 143; cp4i9-2i). His son, .Ahijah, is mentioned as
priest in iS. I43; another son, Ahimelech, api>ears
as priest in i .S. 229 n 12 20. It is unnecessary with
Thenius and Bertheau to identify Ahimelech with
Ahijah ; but that .Ahitub, the father of Ahimelech, is
identical with .Ahitub, the father of Ahijah, is clear from
iK. 227, which implies that Abiathar, the son of
Ahimelech (iS. 222o), was of the house of Eli.
Nothing further is directly told of Ahitub ; but, if
Wellhausen's suggestion that the destruction of .^hiloh
(Jer. 7i2) took place after the battle of Aphek (i.S. 4)
be accepted, the transference of the priestly centre
from Shiloh to Nob (IS. 229-11), will have taken place;
under him.
The description of Ahitub as father of Zadok (2 S. S 17 = i Ch.
18 16, iCh. 6 8 [634] 53 [38]) is due to an intentional early cor-
ruption of the text in S.imuel, which originally r.in ' .Abiathar,
the son of .Xhimelech, the son of Ahitub, and Z.-idok were priests '
(for the argiunent see We. TUS 176 /).
2 and 3. Father of a (later) Zadok, mentioned in 1 Ch. 6 i\/.
[537/1, and in pedigree of Ezra (see Ezra, i. § 1) Ezra72 =
I Esd.S2 = 2Esd. 1 I (in the last two passages AV Achitob,
R\' .AHnciii); and a priest, father of Meraioth and grandfather
of Z.adok, in tbe list of inhabitants of Jerusalem (Ezra, ii. §§ 5 {b\,
15 [r] a), iCh. 9ii = Neh. 11 11 (aira>/3<ux [l''i, ajro^toic [N], a»Tw/f
[Al). These references, however, are probably due to inten-
tion.al or accidental amplification of the original genealogj-, .ind
do not refer to any actual person. Kyle, app.irently takes
another view ; see his notes on EzraT 1-5, and Neh. 11 11.
4. Ancestor of Judith; Judith 8 if RV, AV following 0a <ueifla
AciTHo, Ac/titoh ; so also It., Syr. ; om. B. g. b. g.
AHLAB (n'pnX, ».^., 'fat.' 'fruitful' ; Aa\a<J>[BAL],
»•'•. AaAA(}> [Clermont Ganne.au points out the place-
name M.ahaleb, N. of Tyre (yV*^'. Crit. 1897, p. 503)]),
a Canaanite town claimed by Asher (Judg. I31), and
referred to probably in Josh. 19 29, at the end of which
verse there appears to have been originally a list of
names including (by a correction of the te.xt) Ahlab and
Achzib.' See Helbah.
1 Josh. 1929 ends 'bus, na'nK VniTD nS'n, which AV renders
' at the sea from the coast to Achzib," and RV ' at the sea by the
AHLAI
Many(r.c-., Neubauer, Grove, Fursl) identify either Ahlab or
Hdbah with the Gu5 Hnmb (aSn ri3. 'fat clods') of the
Talmuds— the Giscala of Josephus. But this place {el Jish),
which is mentioned with Meron (AfeifUn), and Biri (h'e/r
Blr'im), must have lain on Naphtalite ground. The statement
inTalm. Mcnachoth 85 b, that tlush Halab belonged to Asher is
a mere gue>s, suggested by the blessing of Asher in Dt. 3824.
Fur a sounder view see Hklbah.
AHLAI C^riX, ace. to Olsh. IHeb. Gr. (>\6\ = uti,uim.
Del., Prol. 210, compares Bab. 'v\X^x].-'n^m^ Ahulalpia,
• O that I at last. ' More probably the name is a cor-
ruption of ?X*nX, or the like).
1. Son, or (.-in inference from -.'. 34 which comes from a later
hand) daughter of Sheshan b. Isha, a Jerahmeelite ; i Ch. 2 31
(axai (H), aa&ai [A], ouAaei [L]). See Jehahmkkl, I.
2. Father (or moilier?) of Zauad (t^.Z'.); 1 Ch. n4it (oX""*
(H). axea [K]. oAi |.\], <ra^aaAi [L], i.e., a combination of part
of ^afXfxa or ^a/maia with aoAi). T. K. C.
AHOAHlHinX). iCh. 84t. See Ahij.vh, 2, Ben-
J,\.MIN, § 9 ii- i3.
AHOHITE, THE ("nnxn, i.e., a man of the family
of Ahoah or AuijAii? (^.v., 2). The designation (i)
of Zalmon (2S. 232St, awfiTtji [B], eXco. [A], a\-axt
[L]; Jfcs.»d joJ ^joj) = Ii.Ai [see Zalmon, 2] (i Ch.
II29: avax^f(L [Is*], ax- I BN'], final x tieing con-
founded with v ; ax^^p [A* sup. las. seq. ras.], aKaOi
[LI; t,.sCU3 ^>).
Also (2) of Dodai, or of Elcazar b. Dodai (as in
I Ch. 27 and in 2 S. and i Ch. 11 respectively ; see
Dodai, Eleazar, 3), one of David's heroes (see
Ei.EAZAR, 3) in the list iCh. 274 (f^'XwX [^J- "<-^^'
[A], axcoxt [L]) = iCh.lli2 (apx^^"" [H S'X- W-
ax^X' [A^. i''6s Aw5at irarpad^Xcpov avrov [!-]) =
2S. 239 (that is, if with AV we treat -nnx-p as =
•nnxn of the parallel passages, and do not [with Marq.
Fu/uf. 16/] correct the whole expression everywhere
into 'cnVn na ' the Bethlehemite ' [cp v. 24], the corrup-
tion in the Heb. text of Sam. being accounted for by the
half-effacement of the letters, which the scribe lead in
the false light of i: 28). © evidently omits, since the
forms aovati, [B], dovSei [B*'^''^-L], awaei [A] must be
corruptions for ^-n, Dod(a)i.
AHOLAH, RV correctly Ohdlah (H^HX ; ooAa [B
indecl. and decl., and, except f. 44, Q: but B, not B»
-KK. V- 4]. oAAa [A and in v. 44 g]). a symbolical
name equivalent to Oholibah (see Aholibah), given
by Ezekiel to Samaria (284/. 644!).
AHOLIAB, R\^ correctly Ohdliab (aS'-briX ; cAiaB
[B.M'L]), the associate of Bezai.ekl {i/.v.) in the work
of the tabernacle in P (Ex. 316 3.") :?4 36 1 2 38 23 [(5
372it]). See Da.n. § 8 n., and cp Hiram, 2.
AHOLIBAH, RV correctly OhOlibah (na^^HN, i.e.,
• she in whom are tents ' — alluding to the worship at
the high places; cp Ezek. I618; ogXiBa [BQr], o\.
[A, V. 22 Q, c>. 36 B]), a symbolical name, equivalent to
Oholah (see Aikjlah), given by Ezekiel to Jerusalem
(234 112236 44t )■
AHOLIBAMAH, RV correctly OhOUbamah
(npivHX, § 61, /.<•., 'tent of the high place," cp Phoen.
l^obnX C/S 1, no. 50, and see Hiram, 2.
1. Wife of Esau {oXi^efia [ADE] ; eXt/Sa^o [L] ;
aXt.iafxrjv [}os. ; cod. Laur. oX.]); Gen. 862 (oXi^aifia
[E]), 514 (eXt^ejua [A], 18 (eXi/3f/ua [A once], oXi^f/j-fxa
and (Xi^afia [D]), 25t (oXt^a [E], eXi^efmO [L ; before
6vya.Tr)p]). See Bashe.math, i ; Anah, 3 (end).
2. An Edomite chief {eX[f]i^afiai [D>''<'L], eXt^fyuas
region of .■\chzib,' but in the margin 'at the .sea from He he i. to
Achzib.' 0, however, points the way to a correction of the
text (17 0a\a<T(Ta Koi anb Af^ «" (XO^oP [H], rj 0. k. a. toO
iTXOivCtriiaTOi (X°ioP t-^l. V- *• «■ 'CTai a- r. cr. oxaf«i|S [b]).
This implies the reading zSnC- which is not improbably a
corruption of 2h~H- n:*ipN, which should rather be 3'J3N1, was
an attempt to make sense with 27np.
103
AI
[A]), Gen. 3641. and (eX[e]a/3oAtas [BA], eXifiafia [L]),
I Ch. 1 s't. See EuoM, § 4.
AHUMAI ('J?-in><,i§65; AyeiMei [BA*]. aximai
[A^ sup. ras. et in mg.], aXIMAN [E], ..v^.m/ ; Ahuiiiai
[cod. am. AAimni]), the eponym of a clan of Judah
(i Ch.4 2+). Should we read Ahiman (L)?
AHUZAM, RV correctly Ahuzzam (D-THt*. perh.
= ' possession ' ; for pr. names in am see Names, § 77),
one of the sons of Ashhur ' father of Tekoa ' ; i Ch.
4Dt (COXAIA [B]. COXAZAM [A], OZA [L]).
AHUZZATH (nrriN, ■ possession ' ; oxozaG [AEL],
-ZAX W]'' <-'cnoy..iTH), the 'friend' (©, wrongly,
v\>ix<pa.'yii}'^'j<i) of Abimelech, king of Gerar (Gen. 2626t).
' Friend ' = minister ; cp 1 Ch. 2733, and see HUSHAI.
The name with the title 6 i^fK^o-ytuybs aiiToCis introduced al.so
in (pAUL in the similar narrative of Gen. 21 22-34. For the
termination -aih thereare parallels in Ba.semath (fern.), Gen. 2034 ;
M.ihalath (fem.), (;en.2S9; Goliath (the Philistine), 1S.I74;
Gciiuhalh, iK. II20; cp names in -ath in Aram, inscriptions
(Cook, Gloss. Aram. Inscr. under n). Cp Dr. //T^^) 236, n. 2.
AHZAI ("THN), Xeh. 11 i3t RV, AV Ahasai {q.v. ).
AI (i) Cyn, always thus with def. article, i.e., 'the
stone heap"; f^l [B.XL, etc.]; wriiicn Hai in Gen.
123]33tAV; Arr<>'l i^-"^^^])- ^^^ name appears also
in various other forms.
AijA, or lather Ayya (N'j; ; om. BN*A, oiu [Nc-a mg. inf.],
•yai [L], Neh. Il3it); Ayvah, RV mg.(.i;j; [Ba Gil, not r\X]}
as in most edd., AV Gaza \q."\_ 2], RV Azzah ; yaiaf [B], ya^ijs
(genit.)[A], aaia[L];aca; b»X.X; 1 Ch.728); Ai ath, or rather
Ayyath (ri;j^: ayyat [BNAQ], Is. 10 28+).
As to the site of .-\i, we learn from Josh. 72 (in clause
b 7TJI' [-AKL] ; in w. 3 701 sup. ras. [B-]) that it was
situated ' beside Beth-aven, on the east of Bethel," and,
from the account of Joshua's stratagem, that it lay on
the S. side of a steep valley (Josh. 811), while from
the description in Gen. 128, it appears that there was
a ' mountain ' or flat ridge with a wide view between
Ai and Bethel. That there was a close connection
between the two places appears also from the expression
'the men of Bethel and Ai ' (Ezra228; aia [B.V])-
With the position thus suggested, Isaiahs graphic
picture of an .Assyrian invasion from the north (Is. 10
28/:; arya-i. [B'S'^''-':b.\Q]; 0776 [X*] = Geha in
V. 28) entirely agrees. Where, then, shall we place Ai
on the map? Scarcely at et-Tell (Sir C. W. Wilson,
PEFQ, 1869, 123-6, and Smith's /)/;i->) — there
are no signs that et-Tell was ever the site of a city —
but at some other spot in the neighbourhood of Dcr
Dr«hin (a village twenty minutes .SE. of et-Tell).
Robinson, with some hesitation, fixed on a low hill,
just S. of this place, where there are still foundations
of large hewn stones, and on the W. , ancient reser-
voirs, mostly dug out of the rock. The spot (called
Kliirbet Haiydn) is 'an hour distant from Bethel,
having near by, on the N. , the deep Wady el-Matyah,
and towards the SW. other smaller wadys, in which
the ambuscade of the Israelites might easily have been
concealed" (/?A'23i3). To Tristram in 1863, this con-
jecture ' carried with it the weight of evidence," particu-
larly because it would be difficult to assign a site to
Abraham"s camp between Beitin and Tell el-Hajar
(et-Tell), and because Robinson"s site affords such
ample space for the military evolutions described in
Josh. 8, over which, however, some uncertainty is
thrown by the variations of 0 in it\ 11-13. Both
Gu6rin and the PEF Survey corroborate this view,
which, if not proved, is at any rate probable.
As to the history of Ai : it was a royal Canaanitish
city, and was the second city conquered by Jo.shua,
who destroyed it and doomed it to be ' a mound for
ever" (cSii'-Sn). By Isaiah"s time, however, it had
been rebuilt (Is. 10 28), and after the Exile it was re-
1 See Gray, HPN62, 279, n. 10.
104
AIAH
occupied by Benjamites ; Ezra228 (ota [BA]) = Neh.
732 {aXeta [HX], at [A])= i lisd. Sai (©»* and KV
om. ; 7CU [L]). In the time of Kusebius (05 181, 76,
Ayyai} it was once more deserted ; but its situation was
still pointed out. Its name was jjrophetic of its history.
Or had it some other name before its destruction by
I oshua ?
2. ('g; without article ; Tat [Q] ; Symm. ^ Zo-xt's) an
Ammonite city, if the text in Jer. 49 st is correct ((S'"**
omits : Rothstein in Kau. //S and Co. in SHOT,
after (Jraf, read ' Ar n^). T. K. c.
AIAH, more strictly Ayyah (H'X, 'falcon'). i.
.\n Ixlomite tribal name individualised, Gen. 8624
(.W Aj.Mi ; Aie [AD], N. [l''- ; N precedes], a^iAi [L]) =
I Ch. l4o(i^ie [li], <MA [AL]). The tribe seems to have
broken off from that of Zibeon, and to have been less
important than that of Anau {q.v.). To identify this
insigniticant Aiah with the 'goodly land' in which Se-
nuhvt the ligyptian e.xile found a home, according to
the 'old story (so Masjiero, RPC'^ 21723; PSBA 18
106 [96]) is unsafe. On the laa (Maspero, Aia) of the
story of Se-nuhyt, see WMM As. u. Kur. 47.
2. Father of Saul's concubine Rizpah (28.87, 'a^
vel forte 10.0. [H*], io5 vel forte io\ [B'], Io\ [A], 2i^a [L],
^t,iJaTos[Jos.] ;218^, Aia [BA], Acrata [L]). To draw
a critical inference (with Mez, Der Bihel dcs Jos. 35/-),
from L's 2(/3a in 3 7 seems unwise. We must not assume
that Ziba is the original reading rather than Aiah. k
and ^; could very easily be confounded, and from 2ia
to :it/3a was but a step. The name of one of Rizpah's
sons was Mephibosheth (Meribaal), and the son of
Jonathan, whose steward was Ziba, was also called
Mephibosheth (Meribaal). The question as to the source
or sources of the passages in which Rizi'Aii {q.v.) is
referred to, lemains therefore where it was.
AIATH (n*y), Is. 1028t. See Ai, 1.
AIJAlkSj];), Neh. II31. See Ai, i.
AIJALON, or (Josh. 10 12 19 42; 2 Ch. 28i8+, all AV)
less correctly AjALON (P?*X from ?*X 'hart'; mAooN
[HALj).
1. A town in the Shephelah, assigned to Dan m
Josh. 1942 {aiM/uiuv [li], laaXajv [A], eX. [L ; but with
laXajj/ V. 43 for Elon]), and named as a Danite Levitical
city in 2l24[P] (laXuv [A])=iCh. 669 [54] (corrected
text, see Ball ad loc. in Ellicott's Bible; t-yKo-ii [B],
7j/\wi/ [A]). It is the modern Yalo, situated on a ridge
on the south side of the broad level valley of Aijalon,
well known, from Joshua's poetical speech (Josh. 10 12 ;
a:\w/Lt [L]), and now called Merj (the meadow of) Ibn
'i'lnar. It is about 5 m. from Lower Beth-horon, and
14 from Jerusalem. In the time of the Judges it
w\T,s still in the hands of the Amorites (Judg. I35;
apparently misread ai dpKoi. [B.\L], and translated a
second time fjLX'paivusv [B], which, however, stands for
HKKK.S in L), but was afterwards occupied by
Benjamites, iCh. 813 (aiXa/j. [B], aSafi [A], aXw>'
[L]); cp. 2Ch. llio. The Chronicler states that
Rehoboam fortified it (2Ch. llio, aXduv [B], aiaXuv
[AL]), and that Ahaz lost it to the Philistines (2Ch.
28 18, aiXw [K]). o" whose territory it bordered. In
I S. 1431, the occurrence of the word is doubtful. For
'to Aijalon' Klost. and Budde (SBOT) read 'until
night." ©"'^■- omits altogether. Some fresh references
to Aijalon are derived from Egyptian sources. For
instance, Shishak (Sheshonk I. ) mentions Aiyurun — i.e. ,
Aijalon — among the conquered cities of Judah in his
Karnak list, and there is an earlier mention still in the
Amarna tablets, where Aialuna appears as one of the
first cities wrested from the Egyptian governors. A
vivid sketch of the battle-scenes of the valley of
Aijalon will be found in GA.Sm. f/G 210-13.
2. (Judg. 12 12 ; AiXwfi [B], -X[e]tya [AL]), a locality
in Zebulun, the burial-place of Elon {^.v., ii. ly. ).
AIN
Its name ought probably to be pointed [iV'K (Elon),
and etymologically connected with ps^ or ,iSk, ' oak '
or ' terebinth ' (see Tkkkbinth, § i), indicating a sacred
spot. Cp Al.l.ON, 2. T. K. c.
AIJELETH-SHAHAR, UPON, RV ' set to Aijeleth
hash-Shahax ("int|'n fl^'N, [Ow^p] t^s d^'TiXTj/xt/'ewj
Tijs iujOiuTJs ^BSAj ; Atj. [virip] rij^ eXatpov ttjs dpOpcv^s),
Vs. 22, title. If we consider the tendency of the phrase,
' Upon Al.AMOTH {i/.v. ),' to get corrupted, it seemshighly
probable that ' Aijeleth ' should rather be read ' Alamoth '
(n and y confounded), while Shahar should perhaps rather
be B'nn re', ' a new song.' (The article prefixed to Shahar
may be in the interests of an exegetical theory. ) The
latter corruption has very probably taken place in Ps.
579 (see Che. /^j. ('-'). A 'new song' would be a song
u[)oii a new model.
AIN (yV). I. If MT may be followed, this is the
name of a city in the Xcgeb of Judah (Josh. 1032)
assigned to Simeon (19?; cp i Ch. 432). According
to Josh. 21 16 it was one of the priests' cities ; but the
parallel list in i Ch. 659 [44] probably correctly substitutes
AsuAN ((/.I'.) which is mentioned in Josh. I97 [MT
@uALj alongside of Ain as a distinct place. The name
being thus removed from this list, Ain always appears
in close conjunction with Rinunon, and Miihlau {HIVB t^'
s.v. 'Ain') suggests that the two places may have lain
so close together that in course of time they joined.
Hence he would account for the En-klmmon (pan pj; ;
om. BNA ; k. ev pe/uLpnov [X'^-'' '"*>'• '"^■] ; k. tv pe/i/xiov []^])
of Neh. 11 29. But ifweconsider the phenomena of ©(see
below), and the erroneous summation (if M T be adhered
to) in Josh. 1532, it becomes evident that Bennett's
thorough revision of the readings in his Joshua {SHOT)
is critically justified (cp AsuAN), and that the real name
is En-RIMMON ' {q.v.).
How, indeed, could a place dedicated to the god
Rimmon (Ramman) have been without a sacred
fountain ?
Josh. 15 32, leat epuDtnaQ [Bl, Kai pefi/xwi' [A], Kai aiv Kai. pefiixMv
[LI ; Josh. 197, aiv K. pffifxcoS [\]. ai.u k. pe/x/iior [LJ, but epefifj-iov
[B] ; Josh. 21 16, ao-a [B] which favours j-^'y ' Ash.\n ' ig'.?'.), ate
[A], raeir [L], which h.armonise witli MT. In i Ch.432(it.
pen/Ltoji' IB], K. r)i' [sic] I'e sup. las. [A-'V| followed by -fifiwr [.A] ;
K. ei'pe/u./LLwi/ [LJ) we should also, with Ki., read En-rimmou.
2. (i'VlSl, the article being included ; (firl) irriyds
[BAL] ; Vg. [contra) fontcm Daphnim ; Tg. Onk. as
MT ; for the rest see below. ) A place mentioned in
Nu. 34 1 1 to define the situation of one of the points on
the ideal eastern frontier of Canaan : ' to Harbel on the
east side of Ain ' is the phrase. Though both AV
and RV sanction this view of j'y.i, it is more natural to
render 'the fountain,' and to find here a reference to
some noted spring. Jerome thought of the spring
which rose in the famous grove of Daphne, near Antioch ;
in this he followed the Targums of Ps. Jon. and Jerus.
which render '(the) Riblah ' (.iSa-irj) by 'Daphne,' and
'the fountain' (pyn) by 'Ainutha. Robinson ^ and
Conder prefer the fountain which is the source of the
Orontes. Both these views rest on the assumption that
Riblah on the Orontes has just been referred to, which
is a pure mistake (see Rini.AH). The fountain must at
any rate be not too far N. of the Lake of Gennesaret
which is mentioned at the end of the verse. Most
probably it is the source of the Xahr Hasbany, one of
the streams which unite to form the Jordan (see Ribi.AH).
From this fountain to the ' east shoulder ' of the Lake
of Gennesaret a straight line of water runs forming the
clearest of boundaries. If, however, we place Baal-gad
at Banias, we shall then, of course, identify ' the fountain '
1 Except of course in Josh. 21 16 (see above). In Zech. 14 lot
the first half of the name is omitted (see En-rimmon).
2 See A' A" 4534. Kob.'s view (p. 393) on the Daphnis of Vg.
(connecting it with the spring at Djfneh, near Tell el-lf ady)
seems erroneous.
106
AIRUS
with that which springs from the fiinious and romantic
cavern at the southern base of the Hermon mountains.
It sliouUl be added that it is not impossible to alter the
poiniinii and read j-yS ' (eastward) of IjON,' Ijon being
mentioned elsewhere as on the N. frontier of the land
of Israel. But then why did the writer introduce it
merely incidentally? T. K. C.
AIRUS (lAipoc [A]), iEsd.531 AV = Ezra247
Reai.vii, 3.
AJAH (n»N). Oen. 3624! AV=RV Aiah {q.v., i).
AJALON ((iS'X), Josh. 10 12 AV = RV Aijalon, i.
Ch. I42 AV JAKAN.
I Esd. 838! RV=Ezra
AKAN (ii^V), Gen. 3()27t =
Acts 1 i9t RV, AV
AKATAN (akatan [BA]).
812 HakKA TAN.
AKELDAMA (akcAAamax i^])'
ACKl.DAMA.
AKKOS (akBcoc [B]), i Esd. SsSf RV = Ezra26i
Hakki)/., I.
AKKUB (^-Ipy, 'posthumous,' but the name seems
corrupt ; AKOyB [BA], akk- [1>])- i- b. Elioenai, si.\
generations removed from Zerubbabel : i Ch. 824 {laKow
[B], aKKovli [A], oiKovv [L]).
2. The B'ne ."Vkkub, a group of doorkeepers in the great post-
exilic list (see Ezka, ii. § 9); Ezra 'J 42 (axoufi [HA], a/cx. IL]) =
Neh. 745 {<^ov [H), -um' [XA], -v^ [L])=i Esd. 028 (Dacoiu ;
RV Dacuhi ; aaxou^i [A], KaKov^Tov [I!]). Akkub is a porter
in the list of inhabitants of lerusalem (see Ezka, ii. § 5 [/'], § 15
[i]a\ iCh. '.>i7 (dKov^ lB|")=Neh. Uig (aKovfi [L]), cp Ezra
10 24, = I Esd. it 25 (where, however, the name is omitted between
Shallum and Telem). He is mentioned also in Neh. V2,2$ (aicou^
KCa ing. sup.]; om. BN*A).
3. An expounder of the Law (see Ezra, ii. § 13 [/.] ; cp i.
§ 8, ii. §g 16 [5], 15 [>] c). Neh. 87 (aKov^ [L], om. HAK) =
I Esd. 948 (EV, Jacuhus ; laxou^os [A], lapaou/Soo? [B]).
4. The li'ne .\kkub, a family of Nkthinim iff.''.) in the great
post-exilic list (see Ezka, ii. § 9), Ezra245 (a.Ka.^u>6 [l!])=Neh.
748(aKou5[Al, -oua[N]; om. B with MT, EV)= i Esd. 53o(a(covS
[BA] ; AV acua ; RV akud).
AKRABATTINE, RV ; AV incorrectly Ararattine
I Mace. 5 3t, Jos. .-////. .\ii. 81 ; akraBatthnh [NA] ;
-ATTANH IN^-'' V]; Acrahattene [Cod. Am.];
)^».ayXite'^P J^'^'^h 7 18, below), adistrict where Judas the
Maccal>ec fought against the Edomites, situated 'in
Idumaia ' [NV Jos.] or ' in Judasa ' [A]. The district in-
tended is no doubt that to the SE. of Judnea, in Idumcea
(see Akrabrim). There is no sufficient ground for the
opinion of Ewald that the Edomites had settled as far N.
as another Akrabatta, a toparchy or district in Central
Palestine, to the N. of Juda;a [Akrabatta, aKpa^era,
etc. [Jos. B/ iii. 3 5 II PI- //-V v. 14 iv. 939]; aKpa^^eiv
[Eus. 05C'''2146i]), apparently represented by the
modern 'Akrabeh, 8 m. SE. of Nablus. (The reading
iv TouSat? in i Mace, must therefore be rejected.) See
Schiir. Hist. I220 n. 2, 3 158.
Doubtless, however, we should identify with 'Akrabeh
the Ekkerel {fype^rjX [BN], €Kpe^i]\ [A] ; K..^;"ftv ).
near Chusi, on the brook Mochmur (Judith 7 iSf), the
names being almost the same in the Syr. (=Talm.
na-pv)- T. K. c.
AKRABBIM, Ascent of, so always in RV ; also
Nu. 344 in AV, which has in Judg. I36 'going up to
Akrabbim,' in Josh. 15 3t mg. '. . .to Acrabrim,"
text Maaleh-Acrahbim (D^3"lpy n7j?p, i.e., 'ascent of
Scorpions," [npoc]ANABACic'^ AKRABeiN [BAL] ; as-
census scorpion um), mentioned in Josh. I53 (akraBBGIAA
[sup. ras. A'"''], CKRABeiN [L]) as one of the localities
marking the southern frontier of Judah.
It must have been one of the passes leading up from
the southern continuation of the Ghor into the waste
mountain country to the west. Knobel identifies it
1 Cp Bakbuk.
2 titavia for oiro Trjt ai^o^atreuf in Judg. 1 36 [AL ; Lag. points
iw' an,\.
ALAMMELECH
with the pass of es-Safa, leading up towards Hebron
out of the W. el-Kikreh on the road from Petra.
Robinson (/M'"*' 2i8o/. ) descrilies this pass as being ' as
steep as a man can readily climb.' 'The rock is in
general porous and rough, but yet in many spots smooth
anil dangerous for animals. In such places a path has
been hewn in the rock in former days ; the slant of the
rock being sometimes levelled, and sometimes overcome
by steps cut in it. The vestiges of this road are more
frequent near the top. The appearance is that of a
very ancient pass' (Z/A'<^'229i). Robinson, however,
identifies this Nakb es-.Safa with Zephath or Hormah,
and not with Akrabbim (see also Hai.ak, Mount).
Scorpions arc of frequent occurrence throughout this
neighbourhood.
AKUD (akoyA [B]), I Esd. 530 RV=Ezra245
Akkur, 4.
ALABASTER (aAaBactron [accus. Ti WH] Mk.
14 3, also with art., thn A. [W & H after BX'^].
TON A. [Ti. after N*A], jO A. [TR after G, etc. ; also F
in Lk.737]: cp o aAa. [B], to a\a. [A] 2 K. 21 13
[for nnSs ' dish,' ' cup ']) was found in large quantities in
Mesopotamia, and from it are made the huge bulls which
are to be seen in the British Museum and in the Louvre.
The alabaster of the ancients was a stalagmitic carbonate
of lime hence called by mineralogists ' Oriental alabaster '
to distinguish it from the modern alabaster, which is the
sulphate of lime. See ED*^^\ s.v. Alabaster. In
Greek the word dXd/Sacrros or d.\d(3airTpoi is frequently
used of vases or vessels made to hold unguents, as
these were generally fashioned out of this material,
which was thought by many (cp e.^., PL //A' xiii. 3)
to preserve the aroma of the ointment : Theocritus (/</.
16114) is able to speak of 'golden alabasters.' Many
alabaster vases have been found in Egypt, and the
specialised sense given to nn':'!£ in the Egyptian Greek
version of Kings (see above) is natural enough.
The town of Alabastron, near the famous quarries of
Hat-nub^ (cp Erman, Anc. Eg. 470, n. 3), was well
known for the manufacture of such articles (in fact it
seems to have derived its name from the material ).'-
Many of these go back to nearly 4000 B. c. and often
show fine workmanship. Similar articles have been
found in Assyria dating from the time of Sargon (8th
cent. B.C.).
Such a vessel was the ' alabaster cruse ' which was
emptied upon Jesus's head by the woman at the house
of Simon the Leper at Bethany (Mt. 26;= Mk. I43
Lk. 737t)- The expression 'brake' in Mark does not
refer, it would seem, to the breaking of a seal or of the
neck of the vessel ; the object was to prevent profana-
tion of the vessel by subsequent use for any commoner
purpose (cp Comm. , ad loc. ).
ALAMETH (HD^;?), i Ch. 78 AV, RV Alemeth.
ALAMMELECH, RV Allammelech ('^I'pO^N [Ba.].
'^N [Gi.], •^7^'PX [v.d. Hooght]; eXet^eXe/c [B],
eX/ieXex [L ; om. A]), a place in Asher on the border of
Zebulun (Josh. 1926t), the name of which is possibly
echoed in that of the Wddy el-melek, which drains the
plain of the Buttauf (Asochis), and joins the Nahr el-
Mukatta' (Kishon). So Di., Buhl. The pointing of
the Heb. is peculiar: tiSsVk is usually explained as if
TiSp dVn, "sacred tree of Melech' ; but n can hardly have
been assimilated to c, nor is this the best reading.
Possibly the real name was ijSo "?« (^J*), El Melech ;
cp El Paran. The authors of the points may have
wished to avoid confusion with the personal name
Eli melech. Or the name might be a corruption of
elammak (see Almug Trees), if Solomon was able to
naturalise this tree. t. K. C.
1 Near Tell el-"Amama (see PSBAlGji ["04]).
* The reverse supposition is sometimes held, viz. that the
material is derived from the place-name. The ultimate origin of
the word is unknown.
108
ALAMOTH
[OTH, UPON {nVDbV'hv.). a technical musical
phrase of uncertain meaning ; cp Mi;sic, § 6.
(a) Ps.4t5 title [i] (ujrip rmv Kpv4>imv [IiKRTl = niD'?;r'?j;; om.
A; Aq. «irl i'«a»'iOT»JTu>»' = rii'p':'jr'7y ; Symm. vnip luv alutvitov) ;
(/') I Ch.lSao (iitX aAai/iwfl [H], . . oAf/ui. [K], . . oAij/i. [A], wtpl
Tiii' (tpiM^i'ioK [L]: two anonymous C.k. versions have iiri tuii/
avafiaeixujv [niVyc] nnd «n'"i Tiii/ aloivCuv InicSvD- '" '*" other
passages, (f) Ps. 9 title [i] (vnip r. Kp. [BNAK] ; Aq. vfaviortiTot,
Syniin. ntpi toO 6avaT0U - n^D'*?]}, Th., Quint, vnip aKixiji;, Sext.
i/«a>'iico7T)«) ; ((/) in Ps.48i4 [isKei? tou? oiuiia? [KAR'l], /.f., ap-
parently niaH' f"l • ""*• *'^1- "^"»"»<^''<». Symm. tis to iiijuicei) it
appears in the corrupt form n?S"'?{,', which Tg. talces to he n'D^J/
' youth • (?).
Thus we find it three times forming part of a heading
of a psahn (for niB'^j; in d should be restored as nic'^fSy
from its present position to the heading of Fs. 49, on the
analogy of Ps. 4(.)). Of the two half-translations of AV
and RV respectively ( ' upon Alanioth, ' ' set to Alamoth ' ),
the former presupposes that the phrase denotes the
particular instrumental accompaniment ; the latter, that
Alamoth is the name of a tune. Most moderns explain
'for sopranos,' 'alamoth having the constant meaning
' maidens.' Whether soprano voices would be suitable
for Ps. 46, the nmsical reader may judge. Gratz and
Wellhausen suppose a reference to some Elamite
instrument. There is, however, a more probable
solution. See Psalms, and cp Muth-labben,
M.MIALATH, NkHILOTH, and AlJELETH-SHAHAR.
ALCIMUS (aAkiaaoC [AN], occasional forms -|n.
-eiM. 'Xi. [A], -|CM. [N] ; in several cursive MSS of i
and 2 ^Iacc. and in Jos. Ant.\\\.%^ with add. [kai or
O K.l l[co]<NK[e]lMOC ; in Ant. .\x. IO3, and one cursive
at I Mace. 79 simply i[a)]AK[e]l/V\OC ; «•<■•. D^"5*=F:iia-
kiin or Jehoiakim, for which he adopted the like-sound-
ing Greek name by which he is known ; cp Names, § 86),
a priest ' of the race of Aaron ' ^ {Ant. xx. IO3, admitted
by the inimical '^ writer of i Mace. ; ' of the seed of
Aaron,' ^ 7 14), i.e. , a Zadokite, though not of the family
of Onias (' not of this house,' ■* Ant. xxlOs).
Ant. xii. 97, indeed equates ' another house ' ((TepovolKov) with
'not of the stock of the high priests [at all]' (oiiK ofri ttjs riav
apxiepetav yei/ea?) ; but the source here followed by Jos. is on
other grounds apparently inferior, and we may conclude that
Alcimus was really more eligible 5 to the high priest's office than
his enemies the house of Hasmon, who were ordinary priests.
When, therefore, the victorious king of Syria,
Demetrius I. {^.v., i) determined (i Mace. 79) to
support his claim to the high priest's office (v. 5) with
force, Alcimus was accepted, not only by the Hellenising
party but also (v. 13) largely by the legitimist party, the
Assideans (i/.v.).
The treaty (i Mace. 6 59) of Lysias (and the youthful Antio-
chus V. Eupator) in 162 B.C., which satisfied the aims of the
Assideans and made it unnecessary for them further to identify
themselves with the ' friends of Judas' (i Mace. 026 ; cp 28), had
been immediately followed, if we may trust -^«^. xii.97, by the
execution of the now ' impossible ' high priest Menei.aus (y.r'.)
(i Mace, our most important source, not having mentioned
Menelaus at all, says nothing of what took place between his
tenure of office and the effective appointment [e<m)<rai' auToJ T.
Itpoxrui^v, "9; cp 2 Mace. 14 13 (caTacr-njo-ai] of Alcimus by
Demetrius). According to the same passage in Jos., which
states also that a young Onias, son of Onias III., made his way
to Egypt on the death of his father (on which, however, .see
Onias; Lsrael, § 69), Alcimus l)ecame (tyeVero) high priest
on (/xera) the death of Alenelaus, the office being indeed bestowed
(SeSuiKtv) on him by the king (Antiochus V. according to the
present context). According to 2 Mace. 14 3, too, Alcimus had
Deen at some time high priest before his appointment by Demetrius.
We know really nothing certain about the events of this short
interval. We first reach firm ground with the intervention of
Demetrius.
Demetrius did not mean to resume the hopeless policy
of his uncle P'piphanes (or the Assideans would have
1 ytfov^ pLtv ToO 'Aapiavof. 2 See i Mace. 7 9.
3 fK TOv trWpfiaTO? '.\aptav. * T179 otictaf ravTTj^.
5 Although we cannot of course trust 2 Mace. 14 7, 'mine
ancestral glory ' (,tt)v jrpoyoi'Kcrji' S6(av). According to 2 Maec.
Alcimus's fault was his voluntary Hellenising (cKovai'iot, 14 3 ;
contrast 'by compulsion,' Kara a.va.yKi{v, 15 2). Cp Kosters,
r/4. 7-12538 ['78].
109
ALCIMUS
held aloof) ; but he wanted .Mcinuis and his friends to
help him in crippling the Hasmoncan party of political
independence.
There would be a special rea.son for Alcimus being active
against the Hasmoneans if he was shrewd enough to foresee
(what we now know) that their ultimate goal must lie the high
priesthood. (On the other hand the 'calumny ' li'. 27I put into
his mouth by the author of 2 Mace. [14 26] that Judas had already
been made nigh priest .seems historically impo.ssible ; it belongs
to the distorted story of 2 Mace, see next note.)
Bacchides (q.v.) was the agent selected for the task.'
At first the presence of Alcimus was a great help ; his
legitimacy was a source of strength.
This would have special weight if his predeces.sor Menelaus
is really to be regarded, with 2 Maec. (84-^429) as a ' IJenjamite,"
and with Wellhausen (//6" 200, n. i, 2nd ed. 235, n. i) as one
of the Tobiada; (see, however, Lucius, Der Kssenismui 77, and
cp Israel, § 6y). If we could trust the Talmud there would !«
a special point tn his favour in his connection with Jose b. Joezer,
leader of the Sanhedrin (his uncle, Ber. Rabba, ch. 06 ; his father,
Bab. Bathta, 133 a).
The mass of the people seem to have followed the
Assideans, in accepting Alcimus (i Mace. 7 13 'first';
cp We. Pilar, u. Sad. 84, n. 2) ; Vjut the severity of the
measures taken by the representatives of Demetrius,*
sixty men (perhaps those that had been till now much
implicated with the Hasnionean party) •* being slain in
one day (i Mace. 7 16), in face of solenm pledges of
peaceable intentions, entirely changed the situation.
Fear and dread fell on all the people (i Mace. 7 18).
After some further severities Bacchides considered his
task accomplished and returned to Antioch. The late
severities, however, had turned the heart of the people
again to Judas, who was trying to strengthen his position
(i Mace. 724), and Alcimus judged it prudent to with-
draw {v. 25). He had of course no difficulty in bringing
further incriminating charges against Judas [ibid, and
Ant. xii. IO3). This time XiCANOK {ij.v. ) was entrusted
with the task of restoring Alcimus. During the various
exciting incidents of the next interval, — the diplomacy,
battles, and death of Nicanor, — we hear nothing of
Alcimus ■• (i Mace. 726-50).
Of course in the rejoicings over Nicanor 's day and the recovery
of the Maccabean party he had no part ; perhaps he was absent.
(It is at this point, indeed, that .-<«/. xii. 106 makes Alcimus
die ;>'' but this belongs to the storj- there followed of Judas's suc-
ceeding to the high-priesthood, on which see Maccahee.s, i. 8 4
and cp below.)
When Bacchides came a second time (i Mace. 9i) to
carry through what Nicanor had been unable to accom-
plish, Judas failed to find adequate support and fell
(160 B.C.), and the Maccabean party were without a
leader. Alcimus was once more installed, and probably
accepted by all except the Maccal^eans, who ere long
chose Jonathan as successor to his brother.
How far the Hellenistic tendencies of Alcimus carried
him we do not know. At his death (159 B.C.") he seems
to have been engaged on some changes in the temple
enclosure, the nature and even the object of which we
do not know with any certainty.
According to Josephus he hail ' formed the intention of pulling
down the wall of the temple ' (^ovk<\divTi KoSiKtiv to tfi\o<i toO
oyt'ou. Ant. xii. 106 beg.), i Mace, states ('.'54) that itwas the
wall of the inner court of the temple (to. t. ttj? ovAijs tuiv ayiur
Tijs «<r(uT€pas) that he commanded ((ireTa^ev) to pull down,
adds that he pulled down the works (rd ipya) of the prophets,
and then appends the peculiar statement that he began the pulling
1 So I Mace. "8; on the distorted account in 2 Maec, where
14x2 has to do duty for both i Maec. "sand T26, see Kosters,
r/r. 7-12 533 535, and on the displacement of Bacchides to
2 Mace. 830, ib. 504 y; (cp the place of liacchides in Jos. BJi. 1 1).
■- How far these transactions are to be attributed directly to
Alcimus (.so apparently i Maec. 7 14 i?: 23), and how far they
were due to Haeehides (so apparently Ant. XU.IO2 ; cp t Mace
7 19) we cannot .say.
3 His uncle being, according to Ber. Rabba and Baba Batkra
Ul-cc), of the number.
* On the motive of the author of 2 Mace, in representing
Nicanor as untrue to his master (2 Mace. 14 28-35) a"d thus
bringing Alcimus again on the scene (v. 26) see Kosters, p. J35.
* And when he was de.-xd the people bestowed the high-
priesthood on Judas, who, hearing of the power of the Romans,'
etc. (=1 Mace. 8).
« Josephus assigns him variously three years {Ant. xx. IO3) or
four years {ib. xii. lOe) of office.
ALCOVE
down. _ It seems rash to assume that this confused account is in
its original form. If the last clause is not an interpolation (and
there IS cursive MS authority for its omission, see H & P), and
even perhaps if it is, should « c not perhaps read ' to pull ' for
'he pulled ((cafltAeii' for KoOtiAtf)'!
The much discussed question what the wall (rtlxoi) referred
to w;us, we havu really not the means of determining. Its identi-
fication with a low barrier in the Herodian temple beyond which
Cientiles must not pass, the sBn-g (J^1^) described in Mitiiiath
'1 3 is at the best precarious 1 (see the remarks of Schiirer, Gjy 1
176, n. 5 and the discussions there referred to).
The somewhat sudden death of Alcimus ( i Mace,
355/ ; cp however, Ant.\\\.\(i(i, o-i-xvas im^pas) was
naturally treated by his enemies as a sign of divine dis-
pleasure. The moderation (such as it is) of the writer of
I Mace, was not at all to the taste of the later rabbis
(see the stories in Hamburger, A* A' 428/'., Derenbourg,
///j/. Pai. 52, n. 2). That on the whole, however,
Alcimus did not interfere nmch with ritual and practice
is plain, or at least probable, from this last act being all
that is mentioned against him, and even in this case
we do not know his motive (cp Grimm ad loc, and
We. 216, //(/••''262). Still, ifhe has been rather severely
judged, even for the evidence supplied by the opposite
party, W'ellhausen {I.e.) seems to go to the other
e.xtreme.
The historical importance of this, perhaps in himself
somewhat insignificant character (who figures all the
more strikingly on the scene that we cannot find very
clear traces of any immediate predecessor or successor ^),
lies in the fact that his tenure of office formed a turning-
point in the development of Jewish parlies.* The
Assideans refused to follow the Hasmoneans. Two
generations later, the meaning of this became more
apparent (see Asside.vns, Ph.akiskks, ICssk.mcs).
The primary source is i Mace. 7-9. Cp Jos. ^-Jh/. xii. O7-II 2,
XX. 10 3, and on the relation of these see Maccahees, Fiksi', i.
§ 9 ; on the relative value of 2 Mace. 14 .see the elaborate article of
Kosters, ' De polemiek van het tweede l)oek der Makkabeen,'
j'h. 712491-552 ['78I, especially as cited al>ove ; on parties. We.
J'/iar. u. Sad. § v., y6ff. Lucius I.e.; on later Jewish sentiment
concerning -Mcimus, Hamburger, KF.\ ^2?,/.\ on 3113, etc.
Schurer, GJl' % 6, n. 5, and Griitz in MGH'J, 1876, pp. 385-397 ;
on festival of 23rd Marchesvan in Meg^. Taan., Derenbourg, I.e.,
and Gratz, OV.ft/i. 3(^1 564 j!?! H. \v. n.
ALCOVE y niip), Xu. 25 Sf RV mg. , AV Tent {q. v. ).
ALEMA (cN aAaaaoic [A], -Ae/w. [N*], -A[e]iM.
j^c.a c.b (vni.) V], Syr. y^\^, ill Alimis), a place men-
tioned along with Bosora, Carnaim, etc. (i Mace. 526).
Being in Gilead it cannot be, as some say, the Beer-
elim spoken of in Is. 158 as belonging to Moab, and
the Beer of Nu. 21 16 (see Bosor). It has been placed
by Merrill at Alma, S. of Kdrei, and by Schumacher
at Kefr el-Ma, E. of Lake of Galilee ; but it is probably
' Ilmd, 10 m. SW. of the Leja, and of Busr el-Hariri, which
is i^robably liosor. (Cp Buhl Topog. des A'. Osfjordan-
landes 13 ; We. IJG ■2\'2. [3rd ed. 257] n. ) c. .\. s.
ALEMETH or ALLEMETH {Vxhyi^ ; so everywhere
[Ba Gi], except i Ch. 7 8 ' in j^ause ' FIP ?y, .Xlameth,
reMeee [H]. eAMeBe/W ^\] ; ordinary edd. have
np?y, whence RV Alle.mkth in i Ch. 660 [45] =
josh. 21 18, where the form is Almon, pD?y, pamaAa
[H], aAmcon [A], cAm. [L] ; usually (-&AeMee [I5.\],
&AAAAa)9 [L]). a Levitical town in Benjamin (i Ch. 660
[451- fA^H^^Q [-'^l)- the name of which appears in
iCh.836 (caAaimaB [B], ^A^€M. [A], AAe4) [!>]) =
942! (r&McAee [B], AAetJ) [I-^) fis that of a descendant,
or family of Bknj.\.\iin (§ 9, ii. j3). See also Zalmon,
1 The seventeenth of the thirty-five festivals prescribed in
MegiUath 'J'aantth — viz. on 23rd Marchesvan — has by some, e.g.,
Gratz, Ijeen brought into connection with the i(7r<y and Alcimus.
This is however contested, f.^., by Derenbourg, Hist. Pal. 6oyC
(see text of iV/-^. Taan., ih. ^^-i^.).
2 Josephus, Ignoring his previous irreconcilable statement in
xii. 106, already quoted above, expressly says {^Ant. xx. 10) that
on the death of Alcimus the office of high priest was vacant for
sevc-n years.
3 Cp We. Phar. u. Sad. 8 v. ; I^ucius Der F.ssenisvtus, etc.
Tiff. l'8i), with Schiirer's review ( TLZ ['81], especially col. 494).
ALEXANDER
ii. (end), El.\M, ii. i. Robinson's identification (Z.5.^)
with the modern 'Almif, i m. XE. from 'Andta
(Anathoth), is generally accepted.
ALEXANDER (aAcI&nApoc [ANV], 'helper of
men). 1. .\le\ander HI., king of Macedon (336-
323 K.c), surnamed the Great. The victories of
Alexander powerfully impressed the Jewish imagination ;
yet the only biblical passages in which he is mentioned
by name are i Mace. 1 1-8 62. The writer of Daniel
(166 or 164 B.C.) recalls a ' mighty king' ruling ' with
great dominion,' whose kingdom is 'broken' after his
death (Dan. 11 3/). In the vision of chap. 7, it is the
fourth of a series of ' beasts ' ; it is ' dreadful and
terrible,' and 'devoured and brake in pieces, and
stamped' the rest. Xaturally, it was the destructive
siile of Alexanders work that impressed the imagina-
tion ; the fall of Tyre and Gaza would bring that
aspect into prominence. His Palestinian conquests
are thought to be alluded to in Zech. 9i-8 (see
ZiccHARi.\n, Book of); and in Is. 25/, the fate of
Tyre may be contrasted tacitly with that of Jerusalem
(see IsAi.\H, ii. § 13). It is during the seven
months' siege of Tyre that Jewish history comes into
connection with Alexander (333-332 B.C.). The tradi-
tion is given by Jos. Ant. xi. 83^ (cp Yoma, 69a).
The Jews refused compliance with Alexander's requisitions.
After the two months' siege of Gaza he advanced on Jerusalem ;
but Jatldua (Jaddus), the high priest (cp Neh. 12 11 22), warned
by a dream how to avert his anger, met the conqueror at Scopus.
Alexander worshipped the Name on the high priest's mitre, and
entering Jerusalem s.acrificed in the Temple, heard Daniel's
prophecies relating to himself, and gave the Jews autonomy, not
only in Jerusalem but also in liabylon.
As to all this other writers preserve absolute silence,
and the story in Josephus seems inconsistent with the
statement in Arr. iii. 1, that in seven days from Gaza Alex-
ander was at Pelusium in Egypt. Vet Just. xi. lOsays that
'many kings wearing fillets met him' ; and Curt. iv. 517,
that he visited some who refused to submit. Jewish
soldiers were certainly in his armies, even on his most
distant expeditions ; and in Alexandria, founded im-
mediately after the supposed visit, the Jewish element
was large. The privileges conferred on the Jews are
a feature of subsec)uent history. It is possible that
Alexander derived from the Jews much valuable in-
formation about the interior of Asia (Mahaffy, Greek
Life, chap. 20). Whether true or false, the episode strikes
a true note in Alexander's character. Xevertheless,
it raises suspicion to find the story appropriated by the
Samaritans. Still more, to remember the visit to
Gordium before the battle of Issus, and that to the
oracle of Amnion before the Persian expedition.
Finally, the king's action at Babylon is a curious
parallel (Arr. iii. 16). He there rebuilt the shrines
destroyed by Xerxes, especially that of Belus — t6l re
fiXXa Kal T(j5 BiyXtf) Kada €Kdvoi i^rpfovvro idvaev.
The Jerusalem ej)isode must be characterised as an
attempt to secure Jerusalem a place in the cycle of
Alexander -legends, on the model of the visit to the
Egyptian Amnion. (Cp H. Bois, Rev. de //it'o.
et phil., Lausanne, 1891 ; Henrichsen, St. Kr., 1871).
w. J. \v.
2. Alexander Balas, a man of low origin, who passed
himself off as the son of Alexander Epiphanes (cp i Mace.
10 1, 'A. 6 Tov 'AvTtdxov 6 'ETri^avrj^ [ANV], see Mac-
CAiiKKS, First Bcwk ok, § 2) ; 'A\4^avdos [A] in t. 58.
His real name was Balas (so Strabo [p. 751], rbv BdXai'
'A\^^avSpov ; Jos. [A /it. xiii. 4 8], on the other hand, 'A. 6
BdXas \fyofj.ei>oi), which may possibly be connected with
N'rya. ' Lord. ' The additional name ' Alexander ' seems
to have been given him by Attains II. of Pergamum, who
was one of the first to support him against Dkmetrius.
In rivalry with the latter Balas exerted himself to secure
an alliance with Jonathan (i Mace. lOi ^), and by
conferring upon him the title of ' high priest of the
nation and friend of the king,' was successful (7'. 20).
After a varying career he was compelled to flee to Arabia,
ALEXANDRIA
where he was killed at Abse after a reign of five years,
150-145 B.C. ( I Mace. 11 13 18). For classical references
see Diet. Class, liiog. ,s.v.\ SchQrer, GJV\l^^,v\.\o■, and
for the history of the time see Israel, § 76, Mac-
CABKKS, i. § 5.
3. Son of Simon of Cyrene, mentioned together with lii.s
brother, Rukls Ijr.r/.j (Mk. 15 21).
4. A member of the family of the high priest in Act.s46,
probably to l)e iclentifie<l with the third son of Annas, called
Kleasar by Josephus {Ant. xviii. 'J 2). See Annas.
5. Uf Kphcsus, a Jew, who was ' brouj/ht forth ' (7rpo«/3ij3a(Tac
(I'ext. Reel) from the nuiltilude, or 'brought down ' ((care/S.
1 1), etc.]) or (more probably) 'instructed' (ot/k/S. 115KA], cp
KV mg.) bv the Jews, and unsuccessfully attempted their
defence in the theatre, on the occasion of the tumult excited
by Demetrius, the silversmith (Acts 19 33). There is no con-
clusive reiLson either for or against identifying him with :
6. The coppersmith (6 xaXK(v<;), who is described (2 Tim.
4 14) as haying done Paul 'much evil ' (at his trial ?).
7. Mentioned with HvMi;.N*:i;s (7.7/.) as having ' made .ship-
wreck concerning the faith ' (i Tim. I \()/.\ and as having been,
in consequence, delivered by the apostle unto Satan. Whether
or not he is to be identified with no. 6 above, we cannot tell.
In .some texts of the .Apocryphal Acts 0/ Paul and Thecla,
he appears with Demas and Hermogenes xs a hypocritical
companion of I'aul ; in others it is ' Alexander the Syriarch '
who is mentioned. See Lipsius, Apokr. A/>. Gesch. ii. 1 462 466.
ALEXANDRIA (AAe?ANAp[e]iA [VA], sMacc. 3i ;
gcntilicAAeiANApeYc[HNA]. Acts69l824+). The site
of the city was chosen by Alexander the Great during his
1. The city.
pas.sage from Memphis down the
Canobic (Canopic), or most westerly,
branch of the Nile, on his way to the Oracle of Amnion
(331 «c.).
Holm remarks that it was a nnveltv to call a city after its
founder, this particular form ..t' . 1. ,,:..■' h.n in- nrevi.'nisly been
m.ade only from names of .i._i;i, (,■.-.. ,\i>-ilania) ; it indicates
Alex.ander's desire fur divine hon..i;r-, a 1 laiiu supported by the
prn:sts of Amnion (Holm, (,X-. J/ist. 8384 VA). The city was
laid out by Deinocrates under the king's supervision, 12 m. W.
ot tlie Nile, and thus its harbours were not choked by the Nile
nmd, which is carried east by the current.
It lay on the neck of land, 2 m. broad, interposed
between the Mareotis lagoon and the sea. A mile dis-
tant, parallel with the coast, lay the island of Pharos,
connected with the city by a dam (which served also as
an aqueduct to sup[)ly the island), seven stades in
length (hence called the Heptastadium), pierced with
two openings. Two harlx)urs were thus created, both
protected by projections from the mainland.
The western harbour was called that of Eunostus, after a
kiiiL; of Soli, son-in-law of Ptolemy I. (but see Mahaffy, Crcik
LiJ,- 16^, for another suggestion). The eastern harbour was
then the more important, although it is not so to-day. Its
entrance was marked by the huge lighthouse (built on the island
by the Cnidian Sostratus) which g.ave its name {pharos) to all
similar structures. Opposite to it ran out the point of Lochias.
Bordering on the great (eastern) harbour was the
palace-quarter (Hrucheium), the abode of the Mace-
donians. The western division of the city, occupied
previously by the village Rhacotis, continued to be the
Egyptian quarter. The Jewish colony was in the east
of the city.
Lake Mareotis was connected with the sea by a
canal, and as it communicated also with the Nile, the
periodical flood prevented the accunmlation of silt and
the formation of morass. To this, and to the constant
Etesian winds, Strabo traces the salubrity of the site
(P- 793)- The lake was the haven for the products of
upiJcr l-.gypt coming directly from Syene, as well as for
those of India and the East, brought by way of Arsino6
on the Red Sea and the royal canal to the Nile, or through
Herenice or Myos Hormos, lower down the coast.
Hence the commerce of the lake was more valuable
than that of the outer ports, whose exports largely
exceeded their imports (.Str. , p. 793). Alexandria became
the great port of transshipment for eastern commodities,
while Egypt, under the Ptolemies, also took the place
of the Black Sea coast as a grain-producing countrv.
Most of her grain went to Italy (cp Acts 276 28 11 ; Jo's.
Z//vii. 2 1 ; Suet. Tit. 5). Near Ostia was a sanctuary
modelled on the Alexandrian temple of Sarapis, with a
ALEXANDRIA
mariners* guild (C//.I447). Even under the Lagids
Alexandria contained a large colony of Italians engaged
in the trade with the West (cp /<ph. £/>igr. 1 60^} 603).
For the imjwrtance of Egypt to Rome see Momnis.
J^rov. of Rom. limp. 2252 ET.
Alexandria was not organised as a vb\i.%—i.e., it pos-
sessed neither delil>erative assembly nor senate {^ov\i\),—
2. Its constitu- ^'"'. 1"''°'" ^^^^ '"""'■' '^'"^^ ">*^''^"'y -"^ ' '■•^y-'^l
|.JQj^ residence of the satrap king, never a
foundation of Gntco- Macedonians
with city privileges in a foreign land' (Mahaffy, Emp.
of J'tol. 76). The burgess Iwdy was (jreek (primarily
Macedonian), — standingalongsideof the native Egyptiaii
and the foreign elements not reckoned Hellenic, in
somewhat the same way as the English in India along-
side of the natives (Momm. Prov. of Rom. Emp. 2262
ET). Chief among the non-Hellenes were the Jews,
occupying two out of the five wards, apparently here
not on the Ghetto system, but on the basis of original
settlement ; they were naturally attracted by the com-
mercial advantages of the city, and were also dclil)er-
ately settled there by the founder (Jos. c. Ap. 24, ///
ii. 187). Josephus asserts that the Alexandrian Jews
had equal rights with the Macedonians and other
Greeks. This, though technically an exaggerati(jn, was
probably practically true, seeing that such rights can
only have been jjrivileges enjojed by the (Jreeks over
the natives ; but it is doubtful whether the Jews were
free from the poll-tax. Of all the non-Hellenes, the Jews
alone were allowed to form a comnmnity within that of
the city, with a certain amount of self-government.
'The Jews,' says Strabo (quoted by Jos. ^^Z. xiv. 7 2),
' have in Ale.xandria a national head of their ow n
(eOudpxv^). who presides over the people and decides
processes and disposes of contracts as if he ruled an
independent community' (ws 8.i> TroXiret'as dpxujy avro-
TeXoCs). Josephus traces their legal position to Alex-
ander ; but it was apparently Ptolemy I. who settled
them in Egypt in large numbers (Jos. Ant. xii. 1 ; App.
S_}'r. :iO). The general result was that 'in acknow-
ledged independence, in repute, culture, and wealth,
the body of Alexandrian Jews was, even before the
destruction of Jerusalem, the first in the world ' (Momm.
op. cit. 2267 ET). Cp Disi'KKSiON, §§ 7, 15/7:
Of the development of the city, and especially of the
foundation of the institutions which gave it its place in
3 Letters "''^ history of literature and science, little
is known. The famous Museum was
probably founded by Ptolemy I., aided by the advice of
Demetrius of PhalCrum, who migrated to Egypt on his
expulsion from Athens (307 K. c).
"The name (Moixreioi') points to an Attic origin. No detailed de-
scription can here Ijegiven. Kesides, thematerialsareveryscanty.
It was a royal foundation, with a common hall, porticoes, and
gardens, for the exclusive use of literary and scientific workers
dependent on royal bounty, under the presidency of a priest who
was the king's nominee ; it was the 'first example of a per-
manent institution for the cultivation of pure science founded by
a government ' (Holm, op. cit. 4 317 ET). It was not a tc.iching
establishment or training-place for youth, but a home of research
adequately endowed. Attached to it was the Library, with more
than 500,000 volumes (Jos. Ant. xii. 2 1).
The Museum and the Library combined were essenti-
ally a centre of learning, not of creative power. In their
artificial atmosphere exact science and literary criticism
flourished with brilliant results ; but literature decayed —
perhaps the uninspiring environment of the city had no
slight effect upon its art and poetrv (Mahaffy, Greek
Life 165).
The Museum served as a model for subsequent foundations—
e.g., that of the emjjeror Claudius ;—lx)th Jews and Christians
at a later time had smiilar centres of learning in the city. The
fate of the library is uncertain ; it is doubtful whether it was
accidentally burnt along with the arsenal in 48 B.C. (Ca;s. BC
3 III). _ The words of Dio, 43 38— oio-re dAAa t« (tol to lYtuptov,
Tois T« OTTotfrjKas <tai toO atirov xat noi' pi^Kiuv, — iT\fi<TTiov it) <tai
a(ti(TTiov, oj? (j)a(Ti, ytvofiei'iov, — KauSjji'at, — perhaps refer only to
stores of books for sale (.Mahaffy, Emp. 0/ Eto!. 454).
Ptolemy II. established a supplementary library in
the Sarapieion, in the quarter Rhacotis. In science,
114
ALEXANDRIA
especially, Alexandria maintained a sort of primacy
throughout the imperial period, and residence in the
Museum was the hall-mark of learning (cp Acts 18 24,
and a <pi\6(To<pos airb Moucreioi;, in Halicarnassus, Bu//.
de Corr. Hell. \ 405. Alexandrian physicians, in par-
ticular, were regarded as the best in the empire ; cp
ot iv 'Ei^(r<f» airb tov Mouffejoi' iarpol [Wood, Epiuius,
Appendix, Inscriptions from Tombs, etc., 7, /. 6]).
In Roman times Alexandria was the second city in
the empire, and the first commercial city in the world
4 rhnrnrtj.r (^tr^bo, p. 798 ; M^7t(rTov e/x7r6pioi' r^s
«. UDaxacTier. o,-^.^,,^^^^, ) At the end of the Ptole-
maic period she numbered upwards of 300,000 free
inhabitants, and in imperial times still more (Uiod.
1752)- Mommsen [op. cit. 2 262 KT) develops the com-
parison between her and Antioch— both ' monarchical
cre;itions out of nothing " (Paus. viii. 383).
The latter excelled in beauty of site and in the magnificence of
her imperial buildings; the former in her suitability for world-
trade. In the character of their population and their attitude
towards their respective national religions, the similarity between
the two cities is close. The .■Mexandnan mob, like that of
Antioch, was capricious .^nd turbulent ; the smallest spark
kindled a conflagration to Ije quenched only with blood (Diod.
I84, Dio39 57).
Poljbius (3414) says that a personal visit to the city filled
him with disgust at the demoralisation produced by the constant
presence of masses of mercenaries necessary for keeping under
control the mongrel mob, the degenerate descendants of the
Greeks ; compared with these two, the native Egyptian element
struck him as acute and educatetl.' C.'csar draws a similar picture
(A'C3iio). .A vivid illustration is found in the bloody scenes
which heralded the .accession of Ptolemy V. (Pol. 1530-33). .\
point of similarity with the ,\ntiochians was the fondness of the
Alexandrians for giving nicknames (cp Paus. v. 21 12: (tat iria%
(coi iiTix^piov TO «'« Tas ciriKAijo-^tt roij 'Wf^ai'SpfiiirCv ((Ttlv. Id.
i. 9 I ; .Sen. (ul Helv. 19 6: ' Loquax et in contumelias prsefec-
torum ingeniosa provincia . . . etiam periculosi sales placent ').
The Ptolemies had each a nickname, and even Vespasian, for his
tax on salt fish, was called the ' sardine-dealer ' (Suet. Vesf>. 19 :
Ku/SioaoxTTjv). As regards the status of tlie highly composite
population, the Roman emperors mostly retained the old state
of things. The .Mexandrians continued to stand quite apart
from the rest of the country in character and in privileges (cp
Philo, in Flacc. 10 ; CIG 4957), so much so that the Alex-
andrian franchise was a necessary preliminary to the acquire-
ment of Roman citizenship (Pliny, K/>.ad Tr. (i \1i\: '.\dmonitus
sum a peritioribus debuisse me ante ei .Alexandrinam civitatem
inpetrare, deinde Romanam, quoniam esset .itgyptius,' — Jos. c.
Ap.'li^. The Egyptians of the Xomes were unable to gain
Roman citizenship, like other provincials, by enlistment in the
legions.
The greatness of Alexandria has led some to speak
of its founder as though he were endowed with more
_ Ti.- than human foreknowleclirc, and had
C IbS SUCC6SS. r , ^ ,- . .
foreseen the future of the city as a
centre of Hellenism and queen of the Levant. Others
regard the city as merely a Greek emporium, a second
and more successful Naucnltis, owing to accident its
rise to the position of a cosmopolitan capital.
Nevertheless, it nuisl have l>een evident to Alexander that,
after the destruction of Tyre, 'the great trading area of the
Levant was for the moment without focus ' (Hogarth, Philip and
Alex. 1S8), and the site actually selected was the only one
possible on the Egyptian coast (though .Mahaffy, Kmp. 0/ Ptol.
12, calls this in question). Egypt, further, ottered peculiar
facilities for that amalgamation of Greeks and Macedonians
which he desired, and, owing to its support of his secret belief
in his divinity, it had a special place in his affections. The
success of Nauciatis undoubtedly exerted an influence in the
way of directing attention to the W. of the Delta ; and it is not
without reason that Cleomenes, a native of Naucriitis, created
financial governor of Egypt, is called one of the architects of
Alexandria (Justin 184). Nor should we fail to take account
of the fact that the island of Pharos wxs the traditional landing-
place of Odysseus (Hom. iW. 4355). This influence is dis-
tinctly asserted in the story of the dream which directed the
king to the site opposi'.c Pharos (Plut. Alex. •_'<)).
In fine, considering -Me.xander's economic designs and
achievements in the far East, and the success of his
eastern colonies, we cannot venture to deny that he
consciously created a centre for a new mixed race, with
a definite dream of the possibilities afterwards realised.
Much has been hoped from systematic exploration.
The modern town stands mainly on the silt gathered on either
side of the Heptastadium, which has thus con-
6. Sites not verted the island of Pharos into a peninsula.
recoverable. •'^" 'h* great monuments of the Ptolemaic age
seem to nave stood within the present inhabited
"5
ALMON-DIBLATHAIM
area, or on ground now absorbed by the sea ; but the site of no
ancient building is known, except that of the Ciesareum, which
was near the sea. The Sema or Soma, in which Alexander's
body was deposited, may perhaps be represented by the mosaue
of Nebi Danial, the most sacred locality in Alexandria. 1 he
l.ist person known to have seen the body was the emperor Sep-
timius Severus (Dio, 70 13).
The general result is that, owing to subsidence, the
remains of Ptolemaic Alexandria are now below water
level, and that nothing is to be hoped for from the
site (Egypt. Expl. Fund Report, 1894-5). See, also,
DiSPKKSION, § 7.
Literature. — Strabo, pp. 791-799; Herondas, Mim. 1 28 /.;
Kiepert, 7.ur Topogr. des alien Alex. (Perl. 1872); Weniger,
Das Alex. Museum (y,^t\. 1875): Pauly-Wissowa's .A^<?a/<-«<-_)'f.,
' Alcxandreia' (Puchstein), and ' Alexandrinische Litteratnr'
(Knaack). w. j. w.
ALGUM ( D^e-ia^X), 2 Ch. 2 8 9 10/. t See Almug.
ALIAH (n;^J?. Kt. ), Gen. 8640= i Ch. I51 Alvah.
ALIAN {'fp^), I Ch.l4o = Gen. 3623t Alvan.
ALIEN (nni, Job 19 IS Ps.69 8; -)33 |3, Is. 61 5;
13, Ex. I83, RV 'sojourner,' Dt. 142it, RV 'foreigner').
See Stranger.
ALLAMMELECH ("^^^i'N [v. d. Hooght], etc.).
Josh. 1926t RV = AV Alammklech.
ALLAR (aAAar [B]), i Esd. 536t RV = Ezra259
j IMMER, 2 ; cp also Cherub, 2.
! ALLEGORY (AAAHropoyMeNA [Ti.WH]), Gal.
424t. See Parahi.es, §§ I, 3, 5.
ALLELUIA (aAAhAoyTa [Ti.], -ia [\VH]), Rev.
19 1 3/. of. See Hallelujah.
ALLEMETH (flD^y; but Ba. Gi. Hlp^J?), i Ch. 660
[45] kV = .\V Alemeth.
ALLOM. RV Allen (aAAoon [B]), i Esd. 5 34 =
Neh. 759 Amo.n", 3.
! ALLON ()1?X), Josh. 19 33 AV. As a proper name
j this rightly disappears from RV. See Bezaanaxxi.M
j (Greek readings at end).
1 ALLON (|i?N ; cp Elon and see Aijalon, 2 ; amcon
I [B], aAAcon i-^X ChA. [Lj), a Simconite (i Ch. 437!).
ALLON -BACHUTH. RV Allon-Bacuth (p-'N
1 n-"l23, i.e., 'the oak of weeping,' see also Bochim ;
BaAanoc rreNeoyc [B.\L]) ; the spot 'below Bethel'
1 where Deborah, Rebekah's nurse, was buried (Gen. 35
8t E). According to another tradition (cp Debor.vh,
i), however, it seems to have been a palm tree (Judg.
45); or rather, perhaps, allCm could be used of a
palm tree, just as the cognate words el (in Elparan)
: and elath are undoubtedly used. In i S. IO3 it
j seems to be called ' the terebinth [?] (fi'^N, Spi'os [B.AL])
j of Tabor,' where 'Tabor' (da^cjp [B.A], ttjs iKXfKrrji
! [L]) may be a bad reading for ' Deborah' (Thenius).
I T. K. c.
1 ALLOY (^Jna), Is. I25 RV mg., EV 'tin.' See
I Metals.
j ALMODAD (Tl'lD^K, or rather as in (5*^ and Vg.
I T110?X, Elmodad, i.e., 'God loves'; a Sab.-ean name
I [ZD.UG 37 13 18] ; eAMCoA&A [AL]), one of the de-
scendants of JOKTAN (tf.v.); Gen. 10 26 (eAMOoAA/W
1 [E]. icAmcoAaA [L1)=i Ch. l2ot. See Glaser,
j Siizse 280, 425, and cp Afudadi on a primitive
, Bab. -contract-tablet (Hommel, AHT 113).
ALMON (jiO^y), Josh. 21 iSf =1 Ch. 6 60 [45]
Alemeth {g.v.).
ALMON-DIBLATHAIM (nn*n5'?'l-;b^y ; on form
of name see Na.mks, § 107 ; reAwojN AeBAABAlAA
[BALj), a station of the Israelites between Dibon-gad
and the mountains of Abarim, Nu. 8846 and (p. A Ai fi-
nd
ALMOND
A&6&IN [A]) V. 47t ; apparently the same as Beth-
DIBI.ATHAIM (^.V.).
ALMOND, M.MOND TREE, ALMOND BLOSSOM
0?'>;'^ KAPYON ;aUL; (.<•!.. ■1;{... Num. 17s ^23]
k&ROIaL'^J; amyt^A'^on [l^^^AC,, Ecclcs. 125; as an
adjective KApyiNHN [HQ and practically NA], Jer.
1 nf ; l|3w*P= ' made like almond blossoms," €KT€TY"
nooMGNOl K&PYICKOYC [BAKL], Ex.2533/; KAPY"
COTA i^BAL] 37i9/.t)- Ihe Hebrew root means to
' w ake ' or ' watch ' ; and the tree is said to be so named
because it is the first to awake from the sleep of winter. ^
The etymology is alluded to in Jer. In/.
The almond is referred to in the story of Jacob, who
(Gen. 43 II, J) instructs his sons to take with them into
Egypt a present of the fruits of Palestine including
almonds. The verisimilitude of this detail cannot be
questioned. It was natural for a Hebrew to presume
that Palestinian almonds would be prized in Egypt,
nor need we trouble ourselves as to the exact date of
the acclimatisation of the almond tree on the banks of
the Nile.*
The original natis'e country of the almond [Prtinus
Amvi^iialus, Stokes) was W. .Asia, from which it has
gradually spread, in the main probably by human
intervention, throughout the Mediterranean region.
Almonds are still an important article of commerce in
the Persian Gulf, nor is there anything improbable in
their being exjiorted from Syria into Egypt in early or
even in more recent times. No ancient writer, accord-
ing to Celsius {Hicrob. I298), mentions them as grown
in Egypt.
The ' cups made like almond blossoms ' on the
branches of the golden candlestick, consisting each of
'a knop' or knob 'and a flower' (Ex. 2033/ 37i9/. )
represented, says Dillm. {ad loc. ), ' not the corolla
but the calyx of the almond flower.' Some have
proposed to translate n'^pu'D 'awakened' i.e., fully
opened (as opposed to closed buds) ; but this is
certainly untenable. In Jer. 1 n an almond staff seen
by the prophet becomes, from the associations of its
name, a symlxil of Yahwe's watchfulness. The most
interesting reference is in the difficult passage Eccles.
125. There are three clauses in the verse, and in
each unfortunately there is some obscurity. It is the
first, rendered by .\V, ' The almond tree shall flourish,
[RV blossom],' which now concerns us. As regards
this, it has been doubted, (i) whether ^pIr by itself can
mean the almond tree ; (2) whether the pinkish-white
blossoms are a likely metaphor (according to the ordinary
view) for an old man's white hairs ; and (3) what is the
meaning of the verb (fxr). The consonants of the
Heb. text support the meaning ' he will reject the
almond,' i.e. , will be unable to eat it, though a delicacy ;
but the vowel-points and all the ancient versions have
the same rendering as EV. This seems on the whole
more probable. Though Jer. In is not sufficient to
prove that npr can mean the tree, the equivalent form
in Syriac, !Se_^dd, appears to have this sense. The
metaphor is possible if we rememlwr that the flowers
come out as a pale flash on the dark leafless branches ;
if the metaphor is to be pressed closer, the flowers are,
as Koch describes them, ' white or of a pale red." ^
(2) See Hazel. n. m. — w. t. t.-d.
ALMS. The English word is derived through the
2. OT estimate.
1. Terms.
A.S. form ' aslmfesse ' from the eccl. Lat.
eleemosyna, which again is borrowed from
1 Syriac has the same word in the form tegdii; the Arabic
for almond is lauz= Hebrew y^ (see Hazel).
^ 2 Lag. Uebers. 45. Cp Plin. 1625 (quoted by Celsius): 'Ex
lis quae hieme aquila exoriente concipiunt, fforet prima omnium
amygdala mense Januario ; Martio vero pomum maturat."
ALMS
the Greek AojAMWiJn?. The Greek word, which is
exceedingly rare in classical authors, means pity, and
in the Greek of the NT(Lk.ll4i I233 ActsSa/. 10936
10 4 31) signifies also a special result of pity — viz., relief
given in money or kind to the poor. In biblical
Hebrew there is no corresponding word, and it is not
even quite certain that the technical and restricted use
of the word iXctjfioavvq occurs in ©. No doubt in
such passages as Ecclus. 7 10 and Tob. 4; 128-ii, the
author or translator has almsgiving chiefly or even
exclusively in view. Still irouiv (XfrjfjLOffvvrjv does not
in itself mean more than icn nbi', ' to do that which is
merciful or kindly.' On the other hand, the NT use of
'to give iXfTifjLoavvai,' etc., is quite decisive for the
specialised sense of the word.
The close connection lx;tween religion and deeds of
mercy frecjuently appears in ancient religion. The
Bedouin Arabs, maintaining therein
a primeval usage, regard the way-
farer as ' the guest of Allah,' to whom hospitality is
due (Doughty, Ar. IJes.'[22S). The sacrificial meal
often included an act of charity to the poor. 'I'hus
the poor were allowed to take handfuls from the meal-
offering made to the Arab god, al-'Okai.sir (WkS A'e/.
Setn.^-^ 223), and the same use of sacrifice was familiar
to the Greeks (see, e.g., Xen. Anad.wSg). Indeed
the general law of sacrificial feasts was open-handed
hospitality in which the poor shared. The OT,
however, carries this lx:neficent tendency farther than
any other ancient religion. It made systematic pro-
vision for the poor, and institutions of this kind can Ije
traced throughout the religious history of Israel, from
the eighth century onwards. Indeed it is significant
that in the OT scarcely a trace of beggars and begging
in the strict sense is to be found (see, however, i S. 236
Ps. 109io). In the 'Book of the Covenant' (see
Exodus, ii. § 3), Ex. 23 10/. , the Hebrew landowner is
directed to leave his land fallow each seventh year ' that
the poor of thy people may eat.' The merciful spirit
of the Deuteronomist is conspicuous in the stress he
lays on the care for the poor. Every third year the
owner was to bring forth a tenth from his granaries and
bestow it exclusively on the poor, including the Levites
(Dt. 1-1 28/. ). According to a custom still preserved in
Palestine, every Israelite was free to pick and eat grapes
from his neighbour's vineyard, or to pluck ears from
the cornfield, as he passed along (Dt. 2824/. [25/.]).
Out of consideration for the poor, the owner nmst
not, in a grasping spirit, glean to the uttermost his
cornfield, vineyard, or oliveyard (Dt. 24 19-22). The
j earliest part of the Priestly Code, viz. , the ' Law of
Holiness' (see Leviticus), reflects the same precept
i (Lev. 199/. 2322) ; besides this, in Deuteronomy and
! generally in the later writers of the OT, private and
I voluntary almsgiving is especially commended. On the
whole it may be said that the prophets plead the rights
of the poor as their advocates, while in Deuteronomy
and in post-exilic literature, the needy Israelite is com-
mended to the charity of his brethren. See, among
passages too numerous to quote, Is. ffS; (a very late
passage) Prov. I421 19i7 Ps. II29 Job 29i2/. One
reference to almsgiving — vi^. Dan. 427 [24] — deserves
special notice. Probably the force of the Aramaic
words is ' redeem ' or ' make good thine iniquities . . .
by showing mercy to the poor,' and if this interpretation
of p-\3 be correct, we have here a clear implication of
the later Jewish doctrine that alms had a redemptive or
atoning power.
In the OT Apocrypha and in Rabbinical literature
almsgiving assumes a new and excessive prominence.
. V, ^° much was this the case that .-ipnx,
3. Apocrypna ^j^j^^^ ^^ ^^^ ^j^j^^. ^.mings means
* Cp Maspero, Dawn o/Ch: 27.
* Prof. Cheyne informs us
» .^.. ^if^,,,^ ..I..-, i.^ that the wild almond, now rare,
was noticed in a gla<le of Hermon by Robertson .Smith, who
found its blossoms distinctly white. "Tristram speaks of many
wild almond trees on Mt. Carmel {A'HB 332).
117
and Rabbin,
literature.
kTitmgs means
'righteousness' in general, came to
be used for almsgiving in particular,
and this use of the word has been naturalised in the
Arab, sadakaf" 'alms for God" (h'or. Sur. 9 104, etc.;
ALMUG OR ALGUM TREES
Doughty, Ar. £)«. I446), and the Syr. zedkftha (Pesh.
Lk. 1141. etc.).
The following ciwtions furnish examples of the propitiatory
virtue ascribed to alms in later Judaism: 'Shut up mercy
((Aerj/xoirurrji', perh. ' alms ') in thy treasuries, and it sh.all deliver
thee from all affliction" (Ecclus. •-'9 12) ; 'Mercy' (or 'alms')
' delivereth from death ' (Tob. 4 10) ; ' Through alms a man
partakes of eternal life ' (Rosh haskshanah 3) ; 'He who says,' I
give this piece of money as alms, that I or my sons may inherit
eternal life, is a perfectly righteous man * (Pesachin, 5 ; Keff.
from Weber, Altsynag. Theot. ^^(> /.)\ ' Almsdeeds are more
meritorious than all sacrifices ' (San. 49 h) ; ' As sin-offering makes
atonement for Israel, so alms for the Gentiles ' {Baia Bath. 10 b ;
Reff. from Levy, NHIVB, s.v. npns)-
Alms were systematically collected in the synagogue
of the Di;ispora for poor Jews in Palestine (this custom
is mentioned by Jerome as existing in his time), and
also every week for the poor of the synagogue itself.
Officers were appointed to make the collection, and
boxes for the reception of alms also were placed in the
synagogues (Vitring. Syn. J 'et. iii. 1 13). In Mk. I241/. ,
however, the reference is not to alms-chests but to one of
thirteen trumpet-shaped boxes, placed in the court of
the women to receive contributions towards the expenses
of the temple worship (.Schur. G/r22o<)).
Jesus, then, did not need to awaken zeal for alms-
giving among his countrymen : it was there already ;
_p and there was apparently more occasion for
it, since in the NT we meet with persons who
were, in consecjuence of V>odily infirmity, beggars by
profession (.\Ik. IO46 Lk. 1835'jn. 9/ , and note the
technical term Trpoa-atxTjs). He purified it from the
ostentation which often corrupted it (Mt. 62-4); he ac-
centuated the feeling of compassion, without which it is
worthless (Lk. IO33) ; above all, he taught that the dis-
position which gives alms by mechanical rule and
bargains with God for compensation here or hereafter
should yield to that impulse of the new heart which sees
the supreme reward in likeness to a heavenly Father
(Mt. 545). We cannot wonder then that, in the infant
church at Jerusalem, without compulsion or rigid com-
munistic system (see Acts 5 4), there was an ideal
charity which made 'all things conunon ' (.\cts432),
and prompted rich men like Barnabas to sell their
property for the sake of the needy (.Acts 436/.). No
doubt the expectation that Christ's second coming was
at hand stimulated this uncalculating generosity ; but
low esteem of worldly goods and love of the brethren
were the mainsprings of this new development. It is
also significant that the first election of Christian
officers was made to secure a due distribution of alms.
The Gentile churches, moreover, were bound to the
mother church at Jerusalem by the offerings which they
made for the poor in that city (Rom. 15 26/. i Cor. 16 1-3
2 Cor. 9 1 /. .Acts '24 17). Of course almsgiving found
other channels. The author of the epistle to the Hebrews
assumes that it is a necessary feature of the Christian
life, and speaks of it as a sacrifice of thanksgiving
which continues after the Jewish altar has been done
away with. From very early days each church had its
lists of poor ( I Tim. 59) and its common fund (Ignat.
Ad Polvc. 4) ; and whereas in heathen clubs ' charity
was an accident, in Christian associations it was of the
essence' (Hatch, Or^an. of Early Christ. Church 36).
Cp Co.M.MU.N-iTV OF GOODS, especially § 5. w. k. a.
ALMUG or ALGUM 1 TREES (D'SO^N, TTe\eKHT<\
[BA], An. [L], iK. lOii/.t; D'Oia'pN. neyKiNA
[B.VL], 2 Ch. '28 [7] 9 10/ [n. AneAcKHTA. L, v. 10;
AneA., L, V. ii]t) yielded a precious wood, which was
brought to Solomon, along with gold and gems,
from Ophir {q.v. ; cp .Solomon) by the ships
of Hiram, and was used to make 'pillars' (IVDO,
viro(TTT}pLyfuiTa [BAL], RV mg. ' a railing," i K.
10i2 = 2Ch.9ii ni7DD, dtra^daeis [B.\L]. EV
1 The two forms, though differently rendered by ® and
other versions, are obviously variants of the same word. The
etymology is unknown.
ALOES
■terraces') for the temple and the palace, as well as
'harps and psalteries." In aCh. 28[7], these trees
appear along with cedars and firs among the products
of Lebanon, with which .Solomon asks Hiram to furnish
him ; but there is no mention of them in the parallel
passage in Kings. ^
The very various opinions that have been held as to
the identity of the tree are enumerated by Celsius
[nierob.\ 111 ff.).
Three may be mentioned : (i) The Jewish traditional rendering
is ' coral ' ; but this is obviously unsuitable, unle.ss we ma>|
understand by 'coral-wood' simply a red wood. (2) IjLimhi
takes it to be 'brazil-wood,' the bakkani of the Arabs, a red
dye-wood found in India. (3) Most moderns, following Celsius
(see his reasons, op. cit. 1 179^), believe it to be 'sandalwood,'
probably of the redder sort i^Pterocarpus Santalinus, Linn.),
which is still used in India for purposes similar to those recorded
in Chronicles. The ancient versions yield no light ; but see
below.''^
The evidence appears to point to some valuable
Oriental wood brought (like lign aloes and cassia) into
the Eastern Mediterranean by the ancient commerce
of the Red Sea. If we may assume it to be a red
wood adapted for carving, it may well be either (i)
brazil-wood (a name of uncertain origin ; the French
braise, a glowing coal, has been suggested ; it was
transferred to the S. American country) = Oj(z///// /a
Sappaii, Linn., a tree of India and the Malay Isles,
apparently the bakkam of the Arabs ; or it may be
(2) red sandalwood, Pterocarpus Santalinus, Linn.,
an inodorous dye-wood, still surviving as a colouring
matter in pharmacy, •■• a native of Southern India, w^here
it is much valued for temple pillars. Possibly both
species may be included under the expression.
[© in 2 Ch. "2 8 9 10/ gives ^v\a irfVKiva, which agrees
with the Chronicler's statement that the algum-wood
came from Lebanon. Cheyne, therefore, proposes to
identify ' almug ' (the form attested by the earlier record,
that in Kings) with i-lammaku, the name of one of the
trees used l)y Sennacherib in building his palaces. The
tree seems from its name to have been of Klamite
origin ; but so useful a tree may have been planted in
Hernion and Lebanon. For tend in i K. 10 n, it is
possible to read TjbC. Less probably we may suppose
with Hommel that this hard and rare wood was ' a pro-
duct of the trade of Ophir. ' See Exp. T. 9 470^
525 ('98), and cp Alammelech.] n. m. — \v. T. t.-d.
ALNATHAN (eANAOAN [A]), iEsd.844. RV
El.N.VrilAN, 2.
ALOES and (once) Lign Aloes* (D^'?n>? ; Num. 246
CKHNAI [B.VLl, KV 'lign aloes'; Pr..7 17 TON OIKON
1. Substance. ^^Y [I^^A] ; or nit'^^« Ps. 458 [9],
CTAKTH [Aq. aAcoO]. Cant. 4i4AA60e
[B.\], <\AOH [K] (Aq. a\oh, Sym. Gymiama). Jn-
1939t aAoh [BX.V]),'' the vi\o(\Q.xx\eagle-u<ood, a precious
wood exported from SE. Asia, which yields a fragrant
odour w hen burnt. It is entirely distinct from ( i ) the
common bitter ' aloe ' used in medicine, to which alone
the name was given by classical writers ;® (2) the plant
1 The Chronicler h.is probably mistaken an imported article
of merchandise for a native product of Phoenicia.
2 Jerome renders thyina — i.e., 'citron wood ' {Callitris qucul-
rtTahis, Vent.) — an Algerian tree inordinately valued by the
Romans for tables, not likely to have been known in biblical
times or to biblical people.
3 It was the ' sanders ' used in mediaeval cookery for colouring
sauces.
* I.e., lignum oAoj)?, a hybrid phrase ; vide Skeat, Etyin.
Diet:, s.v.
* (The critical student will not fail to observe that three of the
four OT pass.iges in which c'SriN or n^S.IK occurs l)elong to
books or parts of books which eminent critics have regarded as
post-e.xilic, and may be reminded here that the occurrence of
rare plant -n.imes is one of the phenomena which have to be
considered in fixing the period of .such documents. He will
also notice that the reading of the fjurth p.issage has on good
grounds been amended. .'See the close of this article. — Ed.]
6 This latter is described, among ancient writers, by Pliny
(//iV27 4) and Dioscorides (822), and its bitterness alluded to by
Juvenal (0 iSi ; ' plus aloes quam uiellis habet ').
ALOES
commonly known as the American aloe (Agave ameri-
cana), celebrated for the long period which elapses
before its flowering. The biblical wood most probably
corresponds to that dcscriljed by Dioscorides (I21)
under the name dvdXXoxoi' * (cp Ges. Thcs. c''?nK) — 'a
wood imported from India and Arabia, resembling
thyine wood (Rev. 18 12), compact, aromatic, in taste
astringent and rather bitter, with a skin -like and
somewhat variegated bark. ' He speaks of its medicinal
use — sweetening the breath and improving the internal
condition of the body — -and adds that it is burned instead
of frankincense (cp Ar. kutdr and see Incknsk).
The Hebrew name d'Six or niSnN and the (jreek
ayaWoxov' are almost certainly, and the Greek i\&t)
^ and English aloe not improbably, derived
from the same Sanskrit word rt^«r« = eagle-
wood (see especially Yule's Hobson-Jobson, art. ' Eagle-
wood ' ).
This appears in Pali as agaru or aealu, in Alahratti as agaru
or agara ; probably another form is the Malayalam agil, whence
Portug. agitila, Kr. hois itaigle, and Eng. eagle-ivood. ' The
Malays call it Kayii (wood) -gakru, evidently the same name,
though which way the etymology flowed it i? difficult to say '
(Yule, /.(■.). (Hommel, Exfi. T. 0525, compares aigalluhu
(var. akarhu'f)m Am. Tab.]
It is, however, possible that Or. oXIyt], Syr. 'alwai
(or 'ehi'iii), Pers. alwa^ have an entirely separate
origin : the Syriac word oftener means the bitter
medicinal aloes (so in the majority of references quoted
in PS T/ics. , s. V. ), and the Persian word is so explained by
the lexicographers.'* In that case we have an instance of
what is not uncommon in language, viz., that two things
have arrived at the same name from different starting-
points.
The ' aloes ' and ' lign aloes ' of the Bible are thus
identified with the product of some tree of the genus
» o » Aquilaria, the chief home of which is
3. Source. • ' ,..- , . , ,. A 1
m Sh. Asia. According to Arab writers
there were many different varieties of the aghdliiji or
'//(/ found in different parts of India and Ceylon, differing
from one another in value according to the greater or
less compactness of the wood, though all had the
property of yielding a fragrant vapour if burned when
dry.' They speak of its use in perfuming clothes and
persons, thus illustrating Ps. 45S [9] and Cant. 414;
and there are parallels to the usage mentioned in
Fr.7.7.
It would seem that the kind of eagle- wood most likely to be
introduced into Kurope in classical times was that yielded by a
tree generally distributed throu'zli the Maliyan region, which in
early Eastern commerce wouUi thcnloix- iiatunillv be associated
with cassia. This is A.juilar-a ii:,i/,i, r.-nsis. u'liich is figured
by Rumphius under the name of (.lar.i. ami has from ancient
times been esteemed by the Chine.se. To this day 'it is the
most important product of the forests of S. Ten.-isserim and the
Mergui Archipelago.' Another eagle- wood is obtained in NE.
\nA\a.hom Aqui/ana Agaliocha ; but it is less likely that this
should have formed an article of commerce in biblical times.
Other kinds were obtained from the East in the Middle Ages :
what the early .\rab tr.-ivellers have to say about them may
be seen in IJymock, Phannacograpliia Ituiica 3 218 220.
They were similar but no doubt inferior products derived from
different trees, and are probably to be regarded as comparatively
modern substitutes.
Eagle-wood consists of diseased wood, infiltrated
with odoriferous oil and resin. It occurs in irregular
pieces varying in colour from grey to dark brown. It
1 In later Greek .also called fuAoAoT).
2 This latter p.assed into Arabic as aghaliijl <yc aghdlukht ;
but Arab writers usually call it al-'iid ' the wood ' f>ar exceUcnce,
ox al-'ud al- Hindi, 'the Indian wood.'
3 These three .ire evidently forms of the same word ; but here
again it is difficult to say %yhich way the etymology flowed.
•• On the other hand, in the single instance mentioned by
Dozy {Sufifil.) of the occurrence of the same word {alwiy) in
Arabic— viz., in a poem quoted by .\1-Makkarl (tfist. and Lit.
of Arabs in Spain, ed. Dozy, etc. '-'776, /. 15) — it seems to have
the same meaning as the biblical word. Describing the pride
of certain people, the poet says, with allusion to the old .Arab
custom of lighting fires in prominent places ne.ir their dwellings
to attract wanderers to hospitable entertainment, ' and they throw
on the fire of hospitality, from pride, their ahuiy and their
kiba ' (the latter also is said to be a species of agallochuni).
S See the Arabic references discussed at length in Celsius,
Hie robot. 1 135-171.
ALPH^US
is found in the centre of the tree, and the search for it
is laborious. The account of Dioscorides (see above,
§ I ) is accurate. The exterior, w hich cannot of course
be the bark, is veined with a darker colour.
As regards the importation of this substance into W.
Asia no difficulty arises when we remember the un-
doubted fact of a trade carried on by China with India
and .Arabia in early times, of which Ceylon was probably
a chief depot. See on this subject Fluckiger and
Hanbury, Phartnacoi^raphia, 2nd ed., p. 520/'. A
difficulty, however, appears when we consider Balaam's
words (Num. 24s/ ) : —
' How good arc thy tents, O Jacob,
Thy dwelling-places, O Israel I
As valleys stretched forth,
As gardens beside a river.
As lign aloes | which Yahwe has planted.
As cedars beside waters.'
The wood may, indeed, have been imported by the
Phoenicians, and thus be mentioned side by side with
myrrh, cassia, cinnamon, etc., the spices of Arabia and
India ; but how could a Palestinian writer use, as a
suggestive simile for the expansion of Israel, the growth
of a tree which ex hypothesi was never seen in Palestine,
but only far away in SE. Asia? The difficulty is
pointed out by Dillmann, who remarks, ' Perhaps the
original reading was cS'N (palms, Ex. 1027 ; Gen. 146).'
The word suggested, however, seems generally to mean
' terebinths ' ; Prof. Cheyne points out the parallel
in Is. 61 3.'- Pistacia Terebinthus, though often only a
bush, may be a tree of from twenty to forty feet.
N. M. — w. T. T.-D.
ALOTH (ni^j;). According to i K. 4 16 Solomon
had a prefect, Baanah, ' in Asher and in .Moth ' (cN TH
AAAaAa [B], . . . ta^AaA [I'] omitting ' Asher ' ;
CN ACHp KAI eN maaAcot [A]). It is better, as in
RV and Kau. HS, to read 'in Asher and Bealoth.'
See Baai,.\th-beer. Klostermann, recognising that a
more northerly place is desirable, suggests the emenda-
tion ' Zebulun ' (notice ' Naphtali,' v. i s, and ' Issachar,'
-.■. 17).
ALPHA AND OMEGA (to AA<t)A kai to go
[Ti. WH] Rev. 18 216 and [to a in B] 2'2i3). For
similar use of first and last letters of the alphabet in
Rabbinic writings see Schottgen, Hora: Hebraiccr 1 1086/
ALPHABET. See Writing.
ALPH.5:US (aA(1)AI0C [Ti- WH] ; Heb. [Aram.]
^B?n [''Spn], either a contraction from H'^Sbn or a
gentilicimn from the place-name Heleph ; on account
of the n W & H write 'AX</)atos).
1. Father of Levi the publican, named only in Mark
(Mk. 2i4 = Lk. 527 = Wt. 99 [where Matthew is usually
identified with Levi]).
2. Father of the second James in the lists of apostles
(Mt. IO3 Mk. 3i8 Lk. 615, Acts 1 13 ; see Aposti.e,
§ i), not to be identified with Clopas and so made a
brother of Joseph the father of Jesus. See Ci.oi'AS, § 3.
There is no reason for identifying (i) and (2). The
Itala, it is true, and apparently also the more important
of the MSS known to Origen, as well as D, read
'laKu^ov instead of Aeveiv in Mk. 2 14 ; but if this had
been the original reading, it would be impossible to
account for the subsequent substitution for James of a
quite unknown Levi. The reading 'Iolkw^ov arose
simply because, at a very early date, a copyist knew
of no son of Alphaeus but James, and therefore
took AeueiJ' for an error which he was bound to
correct. If the .Mph;i"us of Mk. 2 14 were to be
identified with the .Alph.neus of the lists of apostles, on
the assumption that Levi and the second James were
brothers, then we should expect to find these two
1 Instead of C"^nN ©"af reads D'Sni<, ' tents ' ; but this is
obviously unsuitable. Cp its rendering in Pr. 7 17 (toi/ 5i oIk6v
fiOv).
2 But see SBOT, Heb. on Is. I.e., and cp Cedar.
ALTANEUS
brothers forming a pair in the lists just as Peter and
Andrew do, or John and the tirst James. This objection
to the identification, however, is vahd only on the
assumption that Levi under the name of Matthew was
admitted into the number of the twelve.
The Syrian writer Amrus in the 14th cent, makes Alphseus
accompany Nathanael ^identilitd with Bartholomew) on his
journeyings throujjh Nisihis, Mesopotamia, and the rest of
Western Asia (Lipsius, Apocr. Ap.-gesch. ii. 2 61/). v. w. s.
ALTANEUS (aAtannmoc [A]). KV Maltan-
NEUS, I Esd. 933t=Iizral033 Mattenai, 2.
ALTAR.^ The Heb. nSTQ means literally ' a place
of slaughter or sacrifice' (cp Ar. Madbah,"^ and Syr.
Madhfha). The Gk. and Lat. terms.
1. Names. ^^^^^ ^^.^ ^owb-i), ara (cp deipw), altare
(cp altus), on the other hand, descrilie the form of the
altar as a raised structure without reference to its
purpose. Occasionally (23 times) © uses the Gk.
word /3w/u5j ; as a rule, however, naio i^ rendered
by Qvai.a.(yTripi.ov. The translation thus effected is close
and e.xact ; but dvixiaffT-qpiov is unknown in classical
literature, being apparently confined to biblical, Jewish,^
and ecclesiastical writers. In the NT jBojfxds occurs only
once (Acts 17 23). and there the writer is speaking of an
altar used for heathen worship. Elsewhere dvcTiaarripiov
is always employed.
We have, then, in the Hebrew word an accurate
definition of the altar : it is a place of sacrifice. Why
_ . ... an altar should l)e reciuired in order that
2. Primitive ^^^^ victim may be slain in a manner ac-
^"®** ceptable to the deity, and advantageous to
the worshipper, is not so obvious as we might at first be
inclined to think. We might deem it a sufficient explana-
tion to say that the altar served ends of obvious con-
venience. " The flesh of the victim being placed on a raised
platform specially appropriated to this object, the sacri-
fice was separated from contact with common things
and from contamination, while a means was provided
for performing the rite with due solemnity and in full
sight of those who desired to associate themselves with
the sacred offering. There is evidence, however, that
in primitive times the altar possessed a much deeper
significance than this. (The development of this
primitive idea is traced elsewhere. See Idolatry, § 2 ;
Sacrifice ; M.\ssebah. )
To the .\rabs any stone might become for the nonce
an altar, and evidently their Hebrew kinsfolk followed
_ originally the same ancient way. Thus,
3. Usage, ^j-j^^ jj^g victory of Michmash, when Saul
was told that his hungry warriors were devouring the
flesh meat which they had taken as booty, without
reserving the blood as an offering to Yahwe, he com-
manded his people to roll a great stone towards him,
and on this natural altar the blood, the mysterious seat
of the soul, was poured out, so that all was in order
(i S. 1432-35). It is to be observed that here there is no
question of burning. In Gideon's sacrifice, of which we
have an account in Judg. 611^, the offering of cooked
flesh and unleavened cakes is indeed consumed by fire
miraculously kindled ; but the altar on which the gifts
are placed is simply a rock, and the broth of the
cooked flesh is poured out upon it or at its base.
According to Ex. 2O24-26, on the other hand — a
passage which, whatever be its date (see Exodus, ii. § 3),
may represent an ancient usage — the altar is to be of
earth — a material used in early times by other nations —
e.^'., Carthaginians, Romans, and Greeks (for references
see Di. , ad loc. ) — or, if of stone, then of unhewn stone,
the reason given being that an iron instrument would
1 On references to Greek altars see Unknown God and
Abomination, ii.
2 The Arabic Madhak does not mean ' altar." It has acquired
that meaning through translations of the Bible. It is also used
in the sense of 'trench' (on which see WR.S Rel. Scm.(^ 341,
n. I ; cp the remarks on ^haighah, op. cit. -^^o/. 198 228).
3 Prof. Moore has pomted out that it occurs, not only as is
sometimes stated, in Philo, but also in Eupolemus, Ep. Arist.,
Jos., and other Jewish authors.
123
ALTAR
destroy the sanctity 01 the altar. Originally, it can
scarcely be doubted, the idea was that changing the
form of the sacred stone would drive the deity from his
abode (cp Idolatry, § 4) ; but such ideas had passed
away when the compiler wrote, and iron tools continued
to be forbidden in deference to ancient custom no longer
understood. Further, the altar here prescribed was to
have no steps. In this way the person of the sacrificer
was to Ije saved from exposure, an object secured by
the priestly legislator in a very different way— viz. , by
making • linen breeches,' or drawers, part of the priestly
attire. Altars so constructed might be erected all over
Israel : see High Place, § 2/ On the recognition of
the altar as a sanctuary for homicides see WRS /ieL
i:^;«. 183/., and cp Asylum.
Very different was the altar erected in the fore-
court of Solomon's temple at Jerusalem. The first
, Book of Kings (925) makes direct men-
4. Solomon S ^-^^^ ^^ ^y^^ f^^^ ^^^^^ Solomon built an
temple. ^j^^^. ^^ which he offered sacrifice three
times a year. So, too, in 864, reference is made to the
altar which 'stood l)efore Yahwe'— i.e., in front 01 the
temple proper — and it is described as the ' brazen altar '
(r\cm naic)- Thus the material itself offers a striking
contrast to the altars of earth and stone which had teen
in use previously. Like the rest of the temple and its
furniture, it was the work of a Phoenician artist,
Huram-.Jibi (2Ch. 2i3, perhaps rightly; see, however,
HiRA.M, 2). Unfortunately, the account of the altar,
which we should expect before i K. 723. "s wanting.
The text of the passage has been mutilated because a later
editor, misinterpreting 1K.84 (itself a very late insertion),
supposed that the furniture of the tabernacle, includmg, of
course, the brazen altar, had been moved by Solomon into his
temple, so that no further altar of this kind was needed. The
excision of the passage describing Solomon's brazen altar must
have been effected in comparatively modern times, for the
Chronicler shows that he had it before him in the text of the
Books of Kings which he used (see St. in ^^A 7";r3 157 ['83]).
The Chronicler (2Ch. 4i) gives its dimensions. It
was 20 cubits long and broad by 10 cubits high. Now,
these are precisely the measurements of the altar in
Ezekiel's temple (Ez. 43i3#). The prophet really
constructs his ideal temple of the future from his re-
collections of the old temple in which he may very well
have served as a priest. We shall, therefore, not go far
WTong if, with most modern archreologists, we take
Ezekiel's description as applicable to Solomon's altar. On
that supposition, although the altar was 20 cubits broad
and long at the base, the altar-hearth ^ was only 12 cubits
by 12. The altar consisted of three platforms or ledges,
the higher being in each case two ells narrower than the
lower ledge. At the base was a gutter (EV 'the
bottom," RV mg. 'the hollow,' Ez. 4813) one ell
broad (p«n, KdXirwfxa, KoiXw/xa, KVKXuina in @), intended
apparently for the reception of the sacrificial blood ; and
there was a similar gutter at the top round the altar-
, hearth. At the four corners on the top
'*• ^°"^^ °' were four projections called 'horns."
altar, etc. pogsj^y they represent, as Stade has
suggested, the teginning of an attempt to carve the
altar stone into the form of an ox, which symbolised the
power of Yahwe 2 (Nu. '2322 '24 8). Be that as it may,
down to the latest times the horns of the altar were
regarded as specially sacred, so that in the consecration
of priests (Ex. 29 12)' and in the ritual of the sin offering
(Lev. 47^) the blood was sprinkled upon them. It
has been inferred from Ps. II827 that at one time the
horns were used also for fastening the victim ; but the
meaning of the words is exceedingly obscure, and no
conclusion of any value can be deduced from them.
The ascent to the altar was made by a flight of steps
1 The word for hearth or place for burning, which should
probably be written St<nN (see Ariel, 2). occurs not only in Is.
29 !_/?:, but also on the stone of Mesha (//. 12 17/).
2 Robertson Smith, however, regards the ' horns of the altar
as a modern substitute for the actual horns of .s.icrificial victims,
such as the heads of oxen which are common symbols on Greek
altars (A'.S- 436).
124
ALTAR
on the E. side, and it is plain that an arrangement of
this kind was absolutely necessary, when we consider the
great height of the structure.
On the whole matter we must remember that Solomon
had no strict ruletofollow : hesimply desired, with the help
., , of I'hoL'nician art, to consult for the splendour
azB ofihe royal worship. We need not, therefore,
* ^^" wonder that one of his successors, Ahaz
(2 K. 16 10^ ), with the co-operation of Uriah the priest,
constructed a new altar after the pattern of one that
he had seen at Damascus, and made it the chief place of
sacrifice.
Solomon's altar was placed, as has been already
implied, in front — /'.<•., on the K. side — of the temple
„.. proper. Can we identify the exact site ? Not
■ perhaps with anything like certainty ; but it is
worth while to mention the theory advocated by Willis,
and more recently by Nowack. The Kubbet es-sahra,
or dome of the rock, which stands on the temple area,
covers a great rock pierced by a channel which passes
into a sink beneath, and is connected with a water-
pipe. The rock has been an oV)ject of the highest
veneration to Christians, and (especially) to Moslems. It
has been supposed that the rock stood on the threshing-
floor of Araunah the Jehusite (on the name see
Ar.\lnah), that it was there David saw the angel
(2 S. 24 16^) and erected his altar, and that Solomon
(2Ch. Szjf.) afterwards included the ground within the
temple site. Solomon would naturally build his altar
on the spot already chosen by his father and hallowed
by the apparition ; nor is it incredible, when we consider
how tenaciously Orientals, under changed modes of belief,
cling to the old sacred places, that David and Solomon
built their altars on the rock now covered by the Kubbet
es-sahra. The story of the apparition to David would, on
this hypothesis, find a parallel in the apparition to Gideon
(Judg. Oii^), and in that to Manoah (Judg. ISig).
The perforation, the water, and the sink would be
explained as means for carrying off blood and offal
from the altar. It is true, as Dean Stanley has pointed
out, that the rugged form of the rock would make it
unsuitable for a threshing-floor ; but that is no reason
why the rock should not have stood ' by the threshing-
floor ' and been the place where the angel appeared.
Cp Ak.mnah.
Within the temple proper, and in front of the Debir or
innermost shrine, stood another altar, mentioned in
... , iK. 620/. The te.xt, which is corrupt,
y, \^^ ^ii slioultl be emended thus, with the help of
snewDreaa. ^^ (^.^5^0,,) . .he made an altar of cedar
in front of the Debir. ' From Ez. 4I22 we learn that it
was 3 cubits high by 2 cubits broad, and that the altar
had ' corners ' which took the place of the horns of
the brazen altar. Ezekiel speaks of it also as a ' table. '
Upon it, from ancient times (i S. 21[6]7), the shewbread
was placed before Yahw^, to be afterwards consumed by
the priests.
We assume here that the Tabernacle (^.v.), as
described by the 'priestly writer,' is an ideal structure.
Said to have been made at Sinai, it was in
reality an imaginary modification of the
temple, suitable (so it was supposed) to the
circumstances of the time when the Israelites wandered
in the wilderness.
(a) The altar, called simply ' the altar' (Ex. 27 1 30 18
4O732, etc.). 'the altar of burnt offering' (Ex. 30 28
3I9, etc.), or 'the brazen altar' (Ex.38303939), stood
in the outer court, and was square, 5 cubits broad
and long, by 3 high. Instead of being wholly of
brass, it was a hollow framework of acacia planks over-
laid with brass. It was thus small and portable. It
had four ' horns ' ; midway between top and bottom
ran a projecting ledge (so RV, AV 'compass';
2313 ; 275), intended, perhaps, as a place for the priests
to stand upon when they ministered, though the meaning
of the word and the purpose intended are disputed.
125
9. P's brazen
altar.
ALTAR
Below this ledge there was a brazen grating (so RV,
AV 'grate,' 274) or Network {</.v.). nen .ncyo -1330
ptrm, which may havelx.-en a device to support the ledge
and admit the passage of the blood poured out at the l«se
of the altar. There were four brazen rings at the corners
of this network, and into them the staves for carrying
the altar were inserted. These staves, like the altar
itself, were of acacia wood, overlaid with brass. So,
too, the altar utensils— viz. , nh'D or pans for clearing
away ashes, c'y* or shovels, n'ipitp basons or saucers
for catching the blood and sprinkling, nijStp fleshhooks
for forks, ninno or fire-pans for removing coals, etc. —
were all of brass. Perpetual fire was to burn on this
altar (Lev. 612/.).
(/3) Ezekiel, as we have seen, mentions an altar
within the 'holy place,' which he also calls 'the table
10 P'a • tabiA ' ^^'*^^ stands before Yahw6. ' The
' priestly writer ' calls it ' the table '
(Ex.2523 37 10), 'the table of the face or presence'
(Nu. 47, c'3S cnS cp Ritual, § 2), because it stood
before Yahw6 (Ezek. 41 22). ' the pure table ' (Lev. 246).
In 2 Ch. 29 18 it is spoken of as ' the table of shewbread,'
n3ni'5n jnStr — lit. , the table on which rows (of loaves)
were laid — to describe the purpose for which it was
intended. It was of acacia wood overlaid with gold,
and was 2 cubits long, i cubit broad, i^ high. It
was surrounded by a golden rim or moulding (nt, Ex.
25 1 1 ; see Crown), and at the bottom there was a
border or ledge (rrijpsn, Ex. 2025, EV ' border '), with a
golden rim of its own. Where the feet of the tafjle
joined the ledge, golden rings were placed for the
insertion of staves. The table was furnished with deep
plates (n'n^'p, Ex.2529, EV 'dishes'), 'spoons' or
saucers (niss) for the incense (Lev. 247), 'flagons'
(niw'p, Ex.2529 [see Flagon]) for the wine, 'bowls'
(so EV, nvp:p 2529) for pouring the wine in libations.
(7) The altar of incense (n^fap ^Bpp nsip, Ex. 30i,
or nnbp naip), also called ' the golden altar' (Ex. 3938),
11. P's incense
altar.
belongs only to the secondary sections
of the Priestly Code. Ezekiel knows of
no altar within the temple proper save
the altar of the shewbread, and originally ' the golden
altar ' was only another name for this table. The
Priestly Code, in its original form, speaks of the brazen
altar as ' ike altar ' ; and, whilst in Ex. 30 10 the high priest
on the day of atonement is to place blood on the horns
of the altar of incense, in Lev. 16, where the solemn
ritual of that great day is minutely prescribed, nothing
is said of an altar of incense. The mention of the
altar in the books of Chronicles and Maccabees (as
also in the interpolated passage i K. 748) is due simply
to the influence of these novellae in the ' Priestly
Code. •
This altar was to be made of acacia wood ; it was to
be 2 cubits high, i cubit broad and long ; the tlat
surface on the top (33, Ez. 43i3, AV 'higher place,"
RV ' base '), and the sides and horns, were overlaid with
gold. It had a golden moulding round it (11), and
beneath this at the four corners were golden rings for
the staves, which also were overlaid with gold.
In the reign of Darius a new altar of burnt offering
was built, probaV)ly on the old site (cp Hagg. 215),
,/. T« i •!• l^ut, in accordance with the law in
12. Post-exillC. j.^ 2O25, of unhewn stone (i Mace.
444^). It was desecrated, and, according to Josephus
(Anf.xii.o^), removed by Antiochus Epiphanes. A
new altar, also of unhewn stone, was built by Judas
Maccabaius. Within the temple proper were the table
for the shewbread and the golden altar of incense
(i Mace. 1 21 449/.); but the latter, as far as it was
distinct from the table, seems to have been introduced
late, for Hecat^eus (Jos. c. Ap.lai) mentions only the
126
AL-TASCHITH
candlestick and one altar (or table) as the furniture of
the holy place.
In Herod's temple the altar of burnt offering in the
court of the priests was still of unhewn stones. The
-- ,, .\Iishna {Middoth 3i) states that it was
. ero s ^^ t-uiiits scjuare at the base, and gradually
^mp e. „;^rrowe<l to 24 cubits at the top ; but the
dimensions are differently given by Josephus (///v. 56),
and, before him, by Hecatajus (Miiller, /-Va^w. 2394).
The priests approached it by an a.seent of unhewn
stone. There was <i pipe to receive the blood, which
was afterwards carried by a sulnerrane.m passage into
the Jordan, and there was a cavity beneath the altar for
the drink offerings. On the N. side were brazen rings
for securing the victims. A red thread marked the
place for sprinkling the blood. The altar of incense
stood within the holy place, Ijetween the golden candle-
stick and the table of shevvbread.
As we have seen (§1), the word OvaiaffTT^piov is fre-
quently used in the NT for the Jewish altars ; and the
NT ••^PO'-'^lypse speaks of the ' golden altar' (83, and
' altar ' in the same sense /i/.o/w), because the
writer pictures the worship of heaven under forms drawn
from the old temple worship. In apassage which is uniciue,
the author of Hebrews (13 10) speaks of a Christian
altar. The altar is, of course, not material but spiritual ;
it is the cross on which Christ offered himself, and the
author is following the same line of thought when he
e.xhorts believers ' to do good and communicate, since
with such sacrifices God is well pleased.'
For the origin of .iltars see luoi.Ariiv, § 2 ; Sackifice; H|(;h
Place, § 3, and WK.S AV-/. Sfiii. ; for the Hebrew altars in
later times Henzinger's and No^v.^ck's //c/'. Arch, (both works
'94). See also Stade, ' Text d. lierichtes iib. Salomes Hauten '
{ZATlV?,i-2()jr.), Smend's EzMel C&o), Cornill's critical text
of Ezekiel ('86), and the comm. of Hertholet in KHC. For an
account of the older literature on the archjeology of Ezekiel's
temple see Buttcher, J'roben ATlichi:r Scliriftcrklarting, 1833.
RV
Al - Tashheth ( nni"ri"^N ;
AL-TASCHITH,
©BN Aq., Symm., mH AlA(t)eeipHC ; Symm. Ps. I'm,
nepi &(t)0<\pCIAc)- It is usual to supply ^y or '^n
before the phrase (Ps. 57-59 75t, headings [f. 1]), and
to explain ' To the tune of " Destroy not " ' (cp Is. t)58 ;
so WRS O'rjO") 209). If, however, the view of the
musical notes in the headings taken in P.s.m.ms is
correct, there can be no doubt that the phrase is corrupt,
and that we should read with Griitz ri"r2:j'n-'7i;, ' on the
Sheminith" (see Sheminith).
ALUSH (C'-I^N ; Sam. \y>^^ ■ AiAoyc [AFL],-AeiM^
[B] ; Ai.us), a desert station of the Israelites between
Dophkah and Rephidim (Nu. 33i3/.t [P])- Not
identified with certainty ; but see Di. on Ex. 17 1. The
Ar. (ed. Lag.) reads al-wathanain, 'the two idols,'
probably because the translator understood by Alush
the heathen temple at Elusa (see Berkd, i. i, and
cp. WRS A7«. 293/.). See W.-\nderi.\gs, §§ 12, 14.
ALVAH (ni^y. i-ojAa [ADEL] = nW ? Alva),
Gen. 3640=1 Ch. Isit, Kr. (EV Aliah after Kt.
riyV ; B.\ as above ; aXova. [L]), one of the ' dukes ' (?)
of Edo.m ((/.I'. , § 4). Cp Alvan.
ALVAN {\h;^; rcoAcoN [A], -com [DE], -^.m [L]
transposing ^ and •)), Gen. 3623=1 Ch. l4ot Alian
(|Vy, but in many MSS }1?y ; so aAoyan [L]. but
CcoAam [B], icoAam [A]), a name in the genealogy
of Seir. Cp .Xi.vah.
AMAD (■Ij;py; amihA [B], &m&A [A], aAcIjaaA
[L]), an unidentified point in the border of Asher (Josh.
1926t). ©•* presupposes Ammiel. There are several
other place-names compounded with dj;. See Gray,
HPN 48/., who rightly declines the explanation of
1 ©B points to a reading dS'K, Elim. Perhaps the writer,
wishing to fill tip the interval between the wilderness of Sin and
Rephidim (cp Ex. 17 1), repeated Elim, the name of an earlier
station. See Elim.
AMALEK
Am'ad as ' people of eternity.' C-'s aX^aaS may point
to Vi'eSk (ICi.p.VAI,) for which ®" in i Ch. 811 gives
o.\<po.ah. This may Ix; correct. T. K. C.
AMADATHA, RV Amadathus (&maAa0oy [B]).
Esth. 16 10, etc. See Ha.mmkua ruA.
AMAL (?D^ ; a/v\(\a[B.\], aAam [L]), in genealogy
of ASHKK (§4ii-). lCh.735t.
AMALEK {\hl^% amaAhk [BAL], but -hx i S. I525
[.\]; gentilic, Amalekite, ""P^Oj^in, amaAhk [BAL],
1 Seat ^^^ '^'^^ -K[e]iTHC [BAL]), a tribe with
■ which the ancient Israelites, at several periods
of their history, were engaged in warfare. According
to two passages, each of which confirms the other,
there appears to have been a time when Amalekites
dwelt even in Central Palestine : in the Song of
Deborah we read of ' liphraim whose root is in
Amalek' (Judg. 514; (5'^'-, however, iv koCKoZi), and
Pirathon in Kphraim (the modern Feratd, about 6 m.
W.SW. of N'abulus) was situated ' on the mountains
of the Amalekite,' or 'of the Amalekites' (Judg. 12 15,
\a.va.K [.\I>]). Of these northern Amalekites nothing
further is known. According to several passages of the
OT, the home of Amalek was in the desert of the
Sinaitic peninsula, the modern Tih, S. and SW. of
Juckta. It is scarcely safe to conclude from Nu. 1829
1425 43 45 that they once had settlements also in
southern Jud.ea ; still less can we build any such theory
upon Gen. 1-1 7, although the geographical allusions in
this chapter have more authority than the legendary
P , narrative itself. When the Israelites
■ came out of Egypt into the desert of
Sinai, they had an encounter with the Amalekites at
Rephidim (P2x. 178-i6), which is not very far from
Mount Sinai (Nu. 3815). It was natural enough that
the nomads, who lived on the scanty products of this
region, should do their utmost to expel the intruders,
nor can we wonder at the mortal hatred with which
the Israelites thenceforth regarded Amalek. That the
narrative, in spite of its legendary features, has a
historical foundation cannot be doubted. The story
of an encounter in the desert of Paran — i.e., the Tih
itself (Nu. 14254345)— is probably nothing more than
a less accurate version of the same struggle, which, it
is true, can hardly have been limited to a single skirmish.
Whether the account of the Deuteronomist (Dt. 2517-19)
was derived from any other source besides Ex. 178 _^
is not quite clear, although he mentions one additional
circumstance, namely ' the cutting off of those who were
wounded (?) ' — the term c'Srm was perhaps suggested
by B*'?n'i in Ex. 17 13. The verbal repetition of the curse
is worthy of note. In iS. 152, there is an obvious
allusion to the passage in Exodus.
The mention of the Amalekites in Judg. 813 is perhaps
due only to an ancient dittography (p'?Dj;i |icj'. ^ reading
which, at all events, must have been known to the
author of the Maccabean Psalm 83 — see v. 7 [S]) ; but
it may be questioned whether Budde is justified in con-
sidering the reference to the Amalekites in connection
with the Midianites (Judg. 6333 7 12) as a mere gloss ; it
is in fact by no means improbable that besides the
Midianites various other nomadic tribes made inroads
upon the Israelite peasantry at the period in question.
The account of the wars of Saul against the Amalekites
(iS. 15) is unfortunately not altogether trustworthy.
_ . J Even in its original form it must have con-
' _ . , tained many exaggerations ; and it has
been subjected to considerable revision.
The high figures which appear in the narrative have no
historical value. The same may be said of the vast extent
attributed to the Amalekite territory in a passage imitated
from Gen. 25 18 ( i S. 156). We may with some certainty,
however, conclude that the very first king of Israel
inflicted severe losses upon the wild nomads (cpSAUL,
§ 3). In this connection we read of King Agag (the only
4. Later times.
AMALEK
Anialekite proper name known to us, it may be noticed
in passing), to whom the words of Balaam in Nu. '24 7
refer. The description of the death of Agag, obscure
as it is, has a very antique colouring, and reminds us
of Judg. 818-21. Popular tradition has strangely
interwoven the fate of the .\nialekitcs with that of .Saul.
According to one story, which does not agree with the
narrative in iS. 31, .Saul was slain by an Amalekite,
who forthwith carried the news to David, but instead of
being rewarded w;is put to death. Even in the book of
Estlier, coniiiosed many centuries later, reference is made
to the enmity Ix-'tween .Saul and Agag, as the kabhiiis
long ago observed : the righteous Mordecai is descended
from the one, and the wicked Ilaman from the
other.
.\t the moment when Saul fell on Mount Gilboa, the
Amalckites, as it happened, were signally defeated by
David. An ancient and well-informed narrator tells us
how David, an exile at the court of the king of Gath,
while professing to be very differently occujjicd (see
Atiiisii, D.wii), § 5), was in reality carrying on a
war of extermination against the aboriginal tribes, in
particular the .Xmalckiles ( i S. 278). On one occasion
the Amalekites profited by his absence to seize his
residence, Ziklag, and carried off all its inhabitants.
He pursued them, however, made a sudden .attack with
a band of only 600 nien, rescued the whole of the spoil,
and slew them all, with the exception of 400 who
escaped on their camels (iS. 30). Even the details of
this narrative may, for the most part, \x regarded as
historical ; it is obvious that the struggles here described
were not wars on a large scale but mere raids such as
are usual in the desert.
In after times .\malek does not come into prominence.
The words of Halaatn, which descrilje it as ' the first-
born of nations' {i.e. , primeval nation?),
and at the same time foretell its over-
throw, are spoken rather from the point of view of the
age in which Balaam is pLaced than from the point of
view of the real author, who seems to have lived about
the eighth century n.c. (cp Bala.\m). According to the
remarkable notice contained in i Ch. 442^, 500 men of
the tribe of .Simeon, under leaders whose names are
specified, exterminated the last renmant of the Amalekites
in the mountain country of Seir and settled down in their
place. Hence it would appear that the last Amalekites
dwelt in the mountains of Edom. With this it agrees
that Gen. 36, the substance of which must be at all
events jjre-cxilic, represents Amalek as the son of I".sau's
first-born, I-.liphaz, by a concubine — i.e., .as an Edoniite
tribe of inferior rank : see Gen. 36 12 (of which i Ch. 1 36
is an incorrect version), and compare i: 16. The con-
cubine in question is Timna, according to i'. 22 ( = i Ch.
I39), a sister of Lotan of -Seir, and according to the
second list in v. 40 J^. (where Amalek is omitted), an
Edomite tribe or settlement. Thus the renmants of
Amalek are, to some extent, reckoned as members of
the Edoniite race.
The mention of Amalek among the contemporaneous
enemies of Israel, by a psalmist of the Maccabean
6.Latewriter8. P^""'^ (^\S3 7[8]), is merely an
example of the poetical licence
whereby an ancient name is applied to a modern
people, just as, e.o-. , Greek writers of the sixth century
A.u. call (ioths 'Scythians.' As far as we can judge,
the Amalekites were never a very important trilx; ; at
their first appearance in history they are threatened
with total destruction, and it would seem that neither
Egyptian nor Assyrian records allude to their existence.
Ancient Arabic authors, indeed, descrilje them as a
mighty nation which dwelt in Arabia, Egypt, and other
countries, and lasted down into post-Christian times.
The present writer, however, thinks that in his short
essay 'On the Amalekites' (Gottingen, 1864), he has
succeeded in proving that these and other similar
statements are either fancies suggested by passages in
9 129
AMALEK
the OT, or else deliberate fictions, and therefore have
no historical value. At the present day this opinion
seems to be generally accejjted.
One branch of the .Amalekites, it is true, apjjears to
have lasted somewhat hunger than the rest. \\ hen Saul
^ .. attacked the Amalekites he ordered the
■ h'cnilcs to separate themselves from the
doomed people, on the ground that they had shown
kindness to Israel at the time of the exodus (i .S. Uib).
The Kenites must therefore have lx:longed to Amalek, or
must, at least, have stood in close connection with them
(cp Judg. 1 16 as in SliO T). Thus we find that the oracle
of Bala.im (Xu. '24 2i^) mentions this people, under the
name of Kain [v. 22, I^V mg. ), immediately after Amalek.
Their friendly relations with Isr.ael are, moreover,
shown by the fact that, according to Judg. 1 16, the father-
in-law of Moses was a Kenite (elsewhere a Midianite),
and also by the fact that his descendants entered
Palestine in company with the tribe of Judah. Hence
the Kenites are reckoned as a part of Judah (i S. 3O29,
cp I Ch. 255) ; but according to the more accurate view
they were a distinct people, though they dwelt in the
south of Judtea, and were recognised as kinsmen by
D.avid ( I S. 27 10). From i Ch. 255, it would apjx-ar that
the kechabites, with whom the nomadic life had Ijecome
a religious institution, were included among the Kenites
(Jcr. 3.') 2K. IO1523). In another district, the
great plain of S. Galilee, we meet with Helxr the Kenite
(Judg. 4 / ). For VV. Max Miiller is mistaken when he
derives the name from a city called Khi {As. u. Eur.
174) ; the Song of Deborah reckons Jael, the wife of
Hcber, among 'women in the tent' (Judg. 524), whicli
shows that the people in question are nomads.
Accordingly we have rfo right to regard these Kenites
as wholly distinct from those in the South. The
oracle of Balaam mentions Kenites in the rocky hills of
the South, foretelling that they will be carried away
captive by the Assyrians. Gen. 15 19 includes the
Kenites among the ten nations whose land God will
give to Israel.
This people must therefore have been a nomadic
tribe, which, at least in part, belonged to Amalek, in
part was absorbed into Isr.ael, and in part, it may be,
maintained a separate existence for some time longer.
It is not impossible that the Bedouin tribe, Kain,
which dwelt in the desert of Sinai and the neighbouring
districts about six centuries after Christ, may be con-
nected with the Kenites (Kain) of the OT, as the
present writer, following Ewald, has stated {op. cit.).
At the present time, some further arguments might be
brought forward in favour of this hypothesis, which,
however, is still very far from being absolutely proved.
On the other hand, there are many objections to the
theory that Cain, the fratricide, is a representative of the
p . Bedouin tribe of the Kenites, as well as to
7. Oain. ^jj^^.j. h^.potheses of Stade (/.-/ 7TF 14 250-318
['94]), great as is the acuteness with which they are
supported. A few points alone can be here referred to.
C:ain, the brother of Abel the shepherd, is expressly
described as a hushamimati. After his evil deed he
becomes ' a wanderer and a fugitive ' — i.e. , an outlawed,
homeless criminal. This is something quite different
from a nomad, who regularly goes to and fro within the
same pastures in the ' desert. ' That the Kenites, from
among whom Moses fetched a wife, and who have a
good name almost everywhere in the OT, were a trilx;
of smiths' (and therefore of pariahs), has no evidence
in its favour, nor can we find any indication that the
later Arabian tribe of Kain (Bal-Kain) was of such a
character. In the Ar. kaiti, which, it is true, also
means 'smith, craftsman,' several words appear to be
combined. Besides, blood - vengeance, which is first
mentioned in the story of Cain, is by no means a
1 Similarly Sayce, Races 0/ OT 118. 'They formed an
important guild in an .ige when the art of metallurgy w.os
confined to a few.' See however Doughty, Ar. Des. 1 xSo-sd:.
AMAM
peculiarity of nomad tribes ; it prevailed also among the
ancient Israelites, who of course were agriculturists
(see also C.MN, § 4/ ). TH. N.
AMAM (DDN; chn [B] ; amam lAL]), an un-
identified site in the Negcb of Judah (Josh. ISabf).
AMAN. I. (am&n [A], aA&m [B], naA&B M)
Ward of Tobit's nephew Achiacharus (Sennacherib's j
vezir, Tob. I22). who basely ill-used his benefactor, I
but came to grief himself while his victim escaped
(Tob. 14 10); called Nadan in romance of Ahikar (see j
ACHIACIIAKUS), and no doubt, therefore, the same as |
NASB.\s(i/0(r/3ay[B.\], j'ada5[N] ; •n'^: nada/AlVg.], \
nabal [It.]), the (^d5f\(pos (EV 'brother's son') of I
Achiacharus (Tob. lliSf), probably to be rendered,
in accordance with the romance, ' sister's son ' (cp
accompanying table). See AcHiACHAKUS.
Tobiel
Tobit
Achiacharus (Tob. 1 21/.)
Nasba-s (Tob. 11 18)
i.e., Nadan (romance)
prob. = .\man (Tob. 14 lo).
2. (a/xav [B.X.VL]) ' Rest of Esther ' 10 7, etc. See H aman.
AMANA (n:pN 'firm, constant"; (5i*na translates
' from the top of Amana ' avb dpTJs r-iareu^ ; ]Ll.ao{ ;
Amaiia). i. The name of a mountain, in Cant. -18,
where ' the top of Amana ' is introduced parallel to ' the
top of Senir and Hermon.'
'With me from I>ebanon, O bride, with me from Lebanon come ;
From the summit of Amana, from' the summit of Senir and
Hermon.'
In the preceding distich reference is made to Lebanon.
Evidently the poet means some part of the range of
Antilibanus, probably the Jebel ez-Zebedani, below
which is the beautiful village of Zebedani and the source
of the Xahr Barada (the Heb. Abana, q.v.). In in-
scriptions of Tiglath-ijileser III. and Sennacherib the
mountain ranges Libnana and Ammanana are coupled
(Del. Par. 103/).
2. Considering how well the form .Amana is attested,
it becomes a question whether in 2 K. f) 12 we should
not adopt the Kr. in preference to the Kt., and read
• Amana ' (so AV mg. ) or Amanah (so RV mg. ) as the
old Hebrew name of the Nahr Barada (see Ab.vna).
Many MSS with the two Soncino and the Brescia editions
have this reading in the text in Kings; Targ. and Pesh., with
the Complut. ed. of <5 and the Syro-Hex. te.xt, also presuppose it.
T. K. C.
AMANAH (njOS' Kr.), 2 K. 5 i2t RV = AV
Amana, 2.
AMARIAH (nnOvS [and -innJON, see nos. 5, 6, 7]
' Yahwe hath spoken ' [see Namks, § 33] or ' promised.'
Less probably ' man of Yahwe ' on analogy of Palm.
n. pr. KccnoK 'man of the sun,' see Baethg. Beitr.
89 n. ; 1 &MAp[e]i A [B.VL]), a name occurring frequently,
but with the exception of (i) only in post-e.xilic
literature.
I. b. Hezekiah, an ancestor of Zephaniah (Zeph. 1 1,
a/Liop[e]toi; [B.A], afx/j-optov [N*], -piov [N'-^^'J], o/uo-
piov [X<=<= ^'''- Q]). The readings with ' o ' as the .second
vowel suggest the pronunciation ' Amori ' = .\morite.
Another ancestor is called ' Cushi ' — i.e., the Cushite.
2. In list of Judahite inhabitants of Jerusalem (see Ezra, ii.
S 5 W § "5 [•] «), Neh. 11 4 (Ta,iap[«]ia [HA], a^. [«], -lou [L])
= I Ch. i>4, Imki, abbreviated form ("pK, anp[e]i [B.A.], -/3pi [L]).
3. One of the b'ne Hani in list of those with foreign wives
(Ezra, i. 8 send), Ezral0 42(Mopia [HN], a^apios (AL]).
4. A priest in Zeriibbal)ei's band (Ezka, li. §6/^), Neh. 12a
([«rSpa/i]apiafi[aAovA] (B), fiaptia [k1, a/ii. [j<'=-^l, a^apias [L]),
cp V. 13 (oipajiio («♦]), and in list of signatories to the covenant
(see Ezra, i. § 7), Neh. 10 3 [4] (a/napiaj [L]). A comparison of
1 For another suggested compound of x(k] see Mkribbaal.
AMASAI
the lists in Neh. with i Ch. 24 makes it plausible to identify
'Amariah' with the priestly house of 'Immer' (?'. 14) whose
institution is a.scribed to David's time (see ImiMEK, 2).
In the following (nos. 5-8), the unhistorical nature of the
context strongly suggests that the name is introduced merely to
give an air of antiquity to this priestly family.
5. Chief priest, temp. Jehoshaphat (aCh. 19ii M'TCK ; Jos.
a^acriaf).
6. A Levite, temp. Hezekiah, aCh. 31is (?nnCN ; /nopia?
[BA], a,ji. [L]).
7. One of the b'ne Hebron, a Kohathite Levite {aixaSia [B]);
I Ch. 23 19 ; in 24 23 ^nnZH (a^apios [A]).
8. Amariah occurs twice in the genealogy of the high priests,
(a) as son of Meraioth ; 1 Ch. 67 [633] (a^xapiat [.\]: Jos.
'Apo<^aios) = ti52 [37] (ixAiapeia [B, i.e., MA misread AlA]), and
(/') as a son of Azariah, On {■) -^j] (ofiapia; [AL]), cp Ezra
73 (<Ta/xapeia [B.\] afiapiov [L]) = i Esd. « 2 (afxapeeiov [B]
ofj-aptov [.\L], EV .Xmakias, as in 4 Ksd. I2, Atller^t^ [ed.
Bensley]), probably the same as 5 above (cp Be.). See further
Hic.H Pkiest and note the su.spicious recurrence of the
sequence Amariah, Ahitub, and Zadok (cp We. Prol.^M 222).
See Mhkaiah.
AMARIAS (aaaarioy [A]), i Esd. 8 2 = Ezra 7 a
AmAKIAH {q.v., 4).
AMASA (i^b'py ; rather, perhaps, ^^"TS^ Ammishai,
cp AMecCAGi [B in 2 S. 19, BA in c. 20, .\ in c. 17],
-eCAl [A], -eccA [L always ; .K occasionally], and other
variants, see below ; cp Ablshai, Amasai. The form
Amasa rests on a false etymology [from j;-,-;;' = C3J?] ; cp
AmasH-SAI ; so Marq. Fund. 24).
1. Son of Abigail, the sister of Zeruiah and David
(i Ch. 2 16/. 2 S. 1725 afxfcraei. [B], -(xaaei [A]). His
father was Jether a Jezreelite — not an ' Israelite' or an
'Ishmaelite' (see Abigail, 2). He was among those
that fell away from David to Absalom (q.v.), who
entrusted him with the command of his forces (2 S.
1725). In spite of this, David thought it prudent to
conciliate Amasa by a promise of the same position in
his own army, JoAB {q.z'.) having earned the king's dis-
pleasure (2 S. 19 13 [14] a/MLffffai [A]). On the ronewal
of revolt under Sheba (2 S. 20 1), in which according to
one view he was implicated, Amasa was entrusted with
mustering the men of Judah (z'. 4). Joab soon took
his revenge upon his rival. Amasa having failed to
appear at the appointed time, David commissioned
Abishai (2 S. 206) Mo go with his men in pursuit of the
rebels, and Joab naturally joined the party. The cousins
met at Gibeon, and while Joab was pretending to give
Amasa a friendly salute, he gave him a deadly blow^
(2 S. 20 8-10). The narrator is not interested enough in
the unfortunate man to tell us whether he ever received
an honourable burial (i'. 12 a^eaaaei [B once], afifffai
[A once]). See SiiEBA, ii. i (end).
His death is referred to in iK. 25 a/ite(7<roia [B], -<rja i(L],
ajUAi.fO'a [A] and r. 32 (a/netro-a [1?L; A omits]). (The P of
a^l^o•(ra^ in i Ch. 2i7'[B] may come from the following Hebrew
word.)
2. {aixa<T[e]M^ [B.\L]), an Ephramite, temp. Ahaz (2 Ch.
28i2t). T. K. C.
AMASAI (^bW, perhaps rather to be read ''CW,
Ammishai [so We. //(7(-' 24, n. 2], cp u« X> V taA.QJO
in I Ch. 62535 Abishai; amacai [B.\L], -ce [N])-
I. A name in the genealogy of Kohath (i Ch. 625 [to],
a/Mcraei [B], -fM(n [A], -aa [L] ; i Ch. 6 35 [20], afiaOeiov
[B], .;x« [A]).
2. Chief of David's 'thirty,' i Ch. 12i8 [19]; see
David, § ii a iii. , to whom the Chronicler ascribes an
obviously not very ancient poetic speech.
He has been variou.sly identified with Amasa (e.g:, by E\v.)
and with Abish.-xi, who is called .'Mishai in i Ch. II20. Ki.
even corrects to ' .\bishai ' (SBO T, ati ioc.\ Neither .\masa
nor Abishai, however, occupied the rank of chief of the thirty,
according to the lists in 2 S. 23 and i Ch. 11. 'The matter is
of no great moment, since the connection in which .\ma.sai is
mentioned in i Ch. 12 does not permit us to use the passage
for historical purposes. The Chronicler's conception of Saul's
fugitive son-in-law is dominated by the later view of David as
1 Most critics change Abishai here and in v. 7 to 'Joab' (the
reading of Pesh.), but perhaps mistakenly. See Bu. SBOT,
ad loc.
2 See Dr., or Bu., for restoration of the text.
132
AMASHAI
the 'anointed ' of Yahwc ami the founder of the one legitimate
dynasty (We. ProlA'i^ i8o).
3. A priest, temp. Daviil (i Ch. I524).
4. Ancestor of Mahath, a Kohathite Levite, temp.
Hezekiah ; probably a family name ; cp no. i (2 Ch.
29i-- : ixaai [M.\], an«rai [I.]).
5. Soo Ik-Iow, Amash.m.
AMASHAI. or rather, as in R\', Amashsai ('PLI^Jf.
wlicrc D implies a reading 'DDV based on a false deriva-
tion from DOy ; i)erha])s really to tx,- read ,\mmishai, see
Amasai), a priestly name in the post-e.xilic list of in-
habitants of Jerusalem (see I''ZKA, ii. § 15 a), N'eh. 11 13
(AMAclellA [HN]. -CM [I']. -Mec&l [A])=iCh.9i2
where the name is Maasai, AV Maasiai ('CTD
[Hii. Gi.], some authorities 'Jjp [CJi.]; maacaia [U].
-an fL], MACAl [A|; ■-'v*' «^ in Neh. t«fn..n.^).
AMASIAH (H'Dpr, § 29, ■ Vahwe Ix-ars,' cp Amos ;
MACAIAC ['VL -AIIAC [A], AMACIAC [L]). One of
Jehoshaphafs captains (2 Ch. 17i6t).
AMATHEIS (cMAeeic [B]), i Esd. 1^29 AV = Ezra
10 2S Atiii.ai.
AMATHIS (AAXAGeiTlN [A]), i Mace. 12 25! AV,
RV IlAMATll (y.r. ).
AMAZIAH (-in^'VPS*, and in nos. 2-4, n;ypN, § 29,
'Yahwc is mighty,' cp A.Moz ; AMecc[e]iAC L^AL],
-eci. [ALJ, -MAc[e]|. [H.A(J], -MACCI- [L]).
I. b. Joash ; father of Uzziah and king of Judah circa
796-790 B.C. (see Chro.noi.ogy, §§ 35, 37) 2 K. 14 1-20
2 Ch. 25. Two points in his favour are mentioned in
Kings — viz., that he punished his father's nunclerers
and that he reconquered the l-xlomites who had revolted
(see Kdom, § 8 ; Joktiikki., 2). Whether he was
to any extent successful against that restless and war-
like people has indeed lx»en doubted, but on grounds
which will not bear examination.
.\m. 1 iiyr is, in fact, more than probably a later insertion
(see Amos, § 9), so that the inference, drawn from this passage
by Stade (in '87) and Kittel, that Amos knew of no great calamity
befalling Kdom in recent times, falls to the ground.
Amaziah's unfortunate challenge to Joash king of
Israel (who treated him, according to the narrative, ' as
a good-natured giant might treat a dwarf,' 2 K. 14 8^)
ended seriously enough, in the strengthening of the old
supremacy of northern over southern Israel (see IsK.\EL,
§ 31). It is quite possible that the Kdomites took
advantage of the weakness of Judah to recover in some
degree their independence ; but of this we have no
information.
The Chronicler assures us (2 Ch. 2.5 14) that, on his return from
the s.inguinary battle in the 'valley of .salt' (cp 2 K. I47),
Amaziah adopted the worship of the Eclomitish deities, forgetting
that such an act would be possible only if the Kdomites were
either the masters or the allies of the people of Judah.
Like his father, .Amaziah died a violent death ; possibly,
as Wellhausen, Stade, and Kittel suppose, the con-
spiracy against him was not unconnected with the
disgrace which he had l)rought on his country. The
Chronicler's treatment of Amaziah's reign is of special
significance for the Chronicler's period (see Bennett,
Chron. 413-417, and cp Kue. Einl. § 51, n. 4).
Sources. The account given in Kings is of composite origin.
2 K. 148-14 comes from a somewhat unfriendly source, which
may be of N. Israelitish origin. The rest of ch. 14 belongs to
the Deuteronomistic compiler, who lays stre.ss on Amaziah's
better side, and who at the close of his stor>' probably makes
use of the royal annals.
2. Priest of liethel, temp. Amos (.\m. 7 10 12). See Amos, § i.
3. A Simeonite (i Ch. 4 34 a^a<j{(]t.a (HAl, -(t<ti.ov [\.]).
4. .\ Merarite, temp. David (i Ch. 64SI30) ofieaatia (?) [B],
-oaia [LI, /ia«ro-ia [A]). T. K. C.
AMBASSADOR, the FA' rendering of the following
three Hebrew words : —
1. .l/<=//^ (j-Sg) in 2 Ch. 3231 (irp«(r^vTT)«), more properly 'inter-
preter ' (as E'V in Gen. 42 23 [ipivrtvtvTri<i], in Is. 43 27 [RV mg.
anib.-issador, a.pxovTt<t (Pbnaoi-, \■,^^^ .\q. Syni. epfi7)i/«t?], and
in Job 33 2:5 ((pHj«A have Oafanjifropoi ]).
2. Marrikh (^kSc) in 2 Ch. 3a2i Is. 3O433 7 Ez. 17 15 (\^^
to send ; cp BDB Lex. , ad loc. ; ayyeAos), a word used indefinitely
133
AMBER
ot any me.sscnger ; so, e.g., of a priest (cp Mai. 27), a prophet
(Is. 4'2 19 ; oi Kupicvoi^rft), or (a.s fre(|ucnilj) an .niigel. Alara/t/i,
accordingly, often approximates to the idea of ' ambavsadur ' :
cp the emissaries sent to Kdom, Sihon king of the Anioritcs, and
Ammon (NU.2O142I21 >rp«r^tt«, Judg. U 12; EV ' messengers 7.
3. .S7r(T!<)'" Is. lS2(o^^pall5KAQr and Th., but Aq. irp«<r.
fiv-nn, Sym. an-ocTToAo*, ' hostages.'cp i Mace. 1 10 8 7!* 51, etc.]).
Is. 67q KV (AV 'messengers'; np(<rPv^), jer. 4ili4 Fr. l.J 17
25 13 (EV in the last, mes.sengcr, iyytXoK) and Ob. 1 i (wtpioxn,
a confusion with ^^^ or lisC). The dcnom. vb. TCxn, 'to
feign one's self an ambassador,' found in .\IT of Jos. 9 (cp EV)
should be read n*B!J.li ' 'akc provision ' (so RV mg. after most
: cp Bennett, .SHOT, ati loc.).^
the Apocrypha 'ambassador' represents npr<Tpvi,npt<T-
j /3|t]uT7)S in 1 Mace. '.)70 11 9 14 21 (trpeo-flvT^poi (KVJ) 40 (jrpto-
PvTtpoii[V])V,,7 2 Mace. 11 34 (in 1 Mace. 13 14 21 AV has
j 'messengers'), and ayyrAm in Judith 3i AV (RV licre and EV
i elsewhere 'messenger). In NT the word occurs in 2 Cor. 620
Eph. 0 20 (jrp«r/3<i;tu), Philem. 9 RV mg. (npttrfivTrii).
j A distinction between messengers and diplomatic
agents naturally jiresupposes an acquaintance with
! state-craft hardly ix)ssible in Israel lx.'fore the monarchy,
I and even in David's time emissaries from one court to
another were liable to Ije abused, although the punish-
I meiit inflicted upon the oflenders may suggest that
; ambassadorial rights were beginning to be recogni.sed
(see 2 .S. 10 I ^). The first use of s/r, apparently the
only approach to a specific word for 'ambassador,'
naturally belongs to the time when Israel had Ijeen
forced into diplomatic relations with H^gypt and Assyria
(of whose fre(iuent intercomnuinication at a nuich earlier
period the Amarna tablets tell us so much). I-'rom the
' nature of the case sir is i^resumably a loan-word. ^
[ The employment of the term i/ie/is, ' interpreter,' is the
more interesting since Aramaic was the language of
[ diplomacy for .Assyrians and Hebrews; cp Is. 3(3ii, and
see Aramaic La.nguagk, §2. .See Post, Kahsiiakkh.
s. a. c.
AMBER C'Crn; in pause [Kz. 82, where, however,
Co. regards it as a gloss] .I'^rrrn).
Cp Kgyp. hsmn, 'electriim'? or 'bronze'; see E(;vi"T, § 361
last note, also Lag. Uehers. ii\ ; but cp Erman, /Cl>.MC 4(5
115 ['92], and also Ebcrs, ih. 31 454; again-st
1. Hashmal the usual explanation of 'n see Konig, Lehrgtb.
= amber. 1 9>. Fr. Del. in Hii. -Del. Kzckiel xii.
identifies the Egypti.in word quoted, and also
Heb. ^•zxin, with Ass. Hmnru, which he defines in Ass. HUB
as a costly brilliant metal (?). So Hommel, Die Seiuit. I'olker
1 450.
The Heb. hashmal occurs thrice (or twice ; see above)
in ICzek.'', and is rendered by the I':V 'aml)er.' ©"-^Q
has -ffKiKxpov, \'g. •* clcctrum, a rendering which most
scholars {e.g., Smend) have adopted, supposing, from
the context, that some metallic substance is meant, and
understanding ijXeKTpov to mean here a certain alloy of
gold and silver (Egyptologists have given the same
meaning to the apparently related Egyptian word).
This interpretation, however, rests upon a mistake as
to the ancient use of the term ■fjXeKTpov (see also Egyi'T,
§ 36, last note).
It is true the n.-ime is sometimes used of a metallic substance.
Thus, to cite the e.arliest c.-i-se, Sophocles (.1 11 1 ig. 1036-38) makes
Creon speak of electrum from Sardis(Tb»' jrpos ^dpSfoif ijXfKTpov)
and Indian gold («tal r'ov '\vSikov xpv<t6v), doubtless mc.ining by
the former what the Greeks commonly called pale gold (Afvit6«
Xpva-6^), a natural alloy of gold and silver (one part silver to three
or four parts of gold) found native in great abundance in I.ydia.
That electrum, however, was not a term commonly applied
to such an alloy seems indicated by the pains which Strabo
takes to expl.-iin the term as used in metallurgy of the residuum
(KoBapijLa) left .after the first smelting of gold ore (t/rcvj 14li). He
J TSi 'amha.ssador,' appears in © in four other place.v in Is,^
viz. 13 8 (for Ts, 'a pang') 21 2 ("lO "1'S for "TO 'T'S) 39 1
(between cnSD and rmZl) and 689 (for ^S compare Du., ad loc.,
Che. Intr. Isa. 350).
2 The connection with Ar. far, 'to go ' (Ges.-Bu.), docs not
commend itself. It may perhaps be compared with As,s. iirraiu,
'stick' or ' sceptre ■ (see Del. .\ss. ///r/.',f. 7'.)— the official derives
his name from the tmblem of office, originally the courier's
stick (?).
3 1 4 27, 'and out of the midst thereof as the colour of amber,'
'I saw as the colour of amber'; 82 'as the appearance of
brightness .as the colour of amtier.'
* For a rendering <pi% in Ezek. 1 4 see Field, Hexa^la.
134
AMBER
himself usually employs the expression ' pale gold ' when he
alludes to the native alloy. Sophocles, too (/.c), shows that
he is eiiiploving the word in an unusual and extended way, by
appending the iiualifying phrase 'from Sardis.'
Usually the word has quite another meaning.
In Homer, e.g^., where the word occurs thrice and is signifi-
cantly applied to an article trafficked in by Phtxviicians, the
trader who captured l'".iinia;us is described (('</. I.") 460) as having
a golden necklace (jitTo. S' ri\iKTpoi<Tif itpro) strung with pieces
of electrum (similarly in Ot/. IS 296, ijAe'xTpoio-ii' itptLtvov). '1 he
use of the term in the plural in these passages forbids us by
any possibility taking it as meaning the gold and silver alloy.
If, then, by electrum the versions do not mean metallic
electrum they must mean amber. There are, however,
two kinds of amber, and it remains to consider which is
meant. The one, usually a dark red (rarely of a light
colour), is found in the south of luiroix: (Catatiia,
Reggio) and in the Lebanon ; the other, usually of a
yellow or golden colour, but occasionally darker in
hue. has from ancient times lx.'cn met with in great
abundance on the shores of the Baltic (whence our
chief modern supjily is derived), and also occurs on the
co.ists of the North Sea. As the Ph(X'nician had red
amber thus at his very door, he may early have learned
to employ it for purposes of art and ornament, just as
he learned his art of dyeing with purple from having
the mure.\ in abundance by his shores. Moreover, red
amber is, as stated above, also to be found in Sicily,
and may have been procured thence. As increased
demand called for an increased supply, traders, sailing
round the coast of the .,Kgean in quest of new fishing
grounds for the purple-fish, would naturally search
keenly for fresh supplies of the precious substance, for
the ancients prized amber far l^eyond its modern value.
Its power of attr.-icting light substances, and the fact that
when warmed it emitted a faint perfume, invested it for them
with .an element of mystery. How far they actually .-uscribed
to it certain medicinal properties, as is still the case in the East
with ambergris — an animal substance that has lent its name
(adopted by us from the Arabs) to amber — it is impossible to
say. .\s these two substances, which have really nothing in
common save the power to emit a kind of perfume, h.ive been
called l)y the same name, the fact that ambergris is prized as
an aphrodisiac may perhaps indicate that there was some
belief that amber (electrum) possessed some similar potency.
This is actually stated by Pliny (AV/xxxvii. 3 11), who tells
us that in his own time the peasant women in the regions north
of the I'o wore amber necklaces, chiefly as an ornament, but
also for medical re.isons, and goes on to enumerate .1 number
of ailiii^^nts for which it was regarded as a specific, either taken
as a potion or applied externally. That its property of attrac-
tion (whence our modern word electricity) was early known to
the Greeks is proved by the notice of Thales.
But how would red amber naturally give a name to
a met.allic electrum ? To the eye of the Greek the
essential difference Ix-'tween pure gold
and the alloy (to which we have in
English confined the name electrum)
being the pale colour of the latter {XevKbs xp^'<^^^)' ^"X
name which he would apply to it to differentiate it from
pure gold would naturally Ije one which would indicate
this paleness. The reddish amber of the South would
not furnish such a name, having no resemblance in hue
to metallic electrum. But the yellow Baltic amber,
varying as it does in shade from almost white to a
bright golden, would give a fairly accurate description
of the alloy, whose hue varies with the proportion of
its component parts. .Similarly when, in the second
passage quoted above from the Odyssey, a necklace of
gold set with pieces of amber is likened to the sun
{■q^Xiov <js), the golden (Baltic) amber answers to the
description far letter than the red. We may assume,
then, that from remote ages supplies of Baltic (yellow)
amber as well as of red aml)er were available.
Nor is this a mere hypothesis. It has been removed
from the realm of probability into that of established
fact, by the finding of amber in the tombs discovered
at Mycenne by D. Schliemann in 1876, and of beads
of the same material in his more recent excavations
at Tiryns. As the red amber and the Baltic amlier
differ essentially in chemical composition, Dr. Helm,
an eminent chemist of Uantzig, has been able to prove
13s
2. Perhaps
yellow amber.
AMEN
by actual analysis that this amber is the Baltic variety
(Schliemann's Tiryns, 1886, App. p. 372).
It was, doubtless, from the German tribes along one
of the highways which were in constant use in historic
times that the ancient supplies of Baltic amber were
obtained. We know that down to the time of Herodotus
(at>out 430 B.C. ) the Greeks had not as yet opened up
any line of communication with the amber coasts from
the side of the Euxine.
Herodotus visited Olbia, and though he has given a pretty
full account of those regions, mentioning a trade-route leading
towards the East, and though we know from his own words
(8115) that the amber trade was a subject which had excited
his attention, he expresses the commonly received opinion that
it was obtained at the mouth of the Eridanus [I'o].
Neither does Baltic amber seem to have reached
Greece in his time by any Russian-Balkan route (5 9).
Down to the time of Theophrastus (315 B.C.) it was
entirely through northern Italy that the Greeks got
their sup|3ly of it.^ The lake-dwellings of .Switzerland
and the valley of the Po have yielded abundance of
Ix-ads of Baltic amlser, and similar lx;ads are well known
in the tombs of central Italy. We need have little
hesitation, therefore, in believing the statement of Pliny -
( AW.xxxvii. 844) that it was brought by the CJermans into
Pannonia and thence reached the Veneti, who dwelt
at the head of the Adriatic' As the main lines of
commerce change but little through the ages, it was
probably by this route that the amlx:r lx;ads reached
MycenfE and Tiryns in the bronze age, and articles of
the same kind may even have reached Palestine. The
l)ead found at Lachish, however, has teen proved, since
this article was in print, to be not Baltic amber, but,
like that found at Tell-Zakarlya [PF.FQ, -April 1899,
p. 107), a resin, and no trace of amljer has yet been
found in Mesopotamia (Per. -Chip. , Art. Chald. 2362).
Nevertheless it is possible that even the yellow variety
may have reached Palestine in the sixth century B.C.,
and the view of the ancient versions that the Hebrew
hashmal indicates this substance may be correct.
w. K.
AMEN (lOX;-* in © usually -^ivoiTO \'^ in work of
Chronicler d/UJ^i', and so in NT very often),'"' an adj."
.J. _.„ signifying stability, used only as an interjec-
■ tion expressive of assent of one kind or
another." Three stages may be distinguished: (i)
Initial Amen, referring back to words of another speaker :
probably the earliest usage, occurring even in common
speech" ( I K. 1 36 Jer.286ll 5, the only certainly pre-exilic
Aniens). 1" (2) Detached Amen, the complementary sen-
tence being suppressed (Dt. il 15-26 Neh. 5 13 ; double in
1 They appear to have confused with it a stone called Xiy-
yovpiQV or ti^uritis ; as so often occurs they mistook the region
whence the article was transmitted to them for the actual place
of production (Theophr. De I.af>. 16).
2 Pliny's statement is confirmed by a remark of Herodotus
(1 196) from which it appe.irs that the only knowletlge then
obtainable respecting central Europe came by way of the Veneti,
a fact which shows that the Greeks knew of a line of 1
cation in this direction.
* Pytheas of Massilia had, in the fourth century B.C., found
the Guttones gathering it and giving it in trade to the Tutones.
•• It prob.-ibly occurs in twelve places in the Hebrew, for in
Is. 05 16, although Aq. (TrtTri o-nofieViov), .Sym., Pesh., and Vg.
have amen, it should probably (so Che. Di. Du. Rys. in US,
and perhaps Targ. Jon. (!5"X'*0'" [oAiTflu-oi']) be vocalised other-
wise, perhaps |"JN (as in Is. 2.5 i, where indeed the Gk. Vss. [but
Sym. not, as usual, o.y.r^v, but TTi'orei] and Vg. read amen).
^BKAQ j.gjjj [j jjIj^q^ Jjj jj corrupt text, in Jer. 15 11 and in Jer.
819. EV has rtw/fw always ; RV even in Jer. 11 5. It occurs
in six places in © Apocr.'(for Judg. 13 20 cp Eth. Pesh.). Vg.
adds-Tob. J" 12 13 23 and 2 Esd. [Neh.] 13 31 ; in Ecclus. 50 2 j it
is probably late.
o Eight (eleven) times, oArjflai? once.
6 There is much variety of text. TR has it in some 119 places,
of which RV rejects 19 (see below, g 2).
7 See, however, Barth, NR |8 sc and 7/^.
8 For three kinds see Shehu'oth 36<i (mid.).
9 It seems most likely that in Jer. 3 19 ® re.-id "'« as '-;'>'k =
1" © has it also in Jer. 3 19 15 11 (Is. 25 1 is not pre-exilic).
136
AMEN
Nu. 5aa and in Neh.86= i Ksd.947). Amen must have
been in liturgical use in the time of the Chronicler ( 1 Ch. 16
36= Ps. IO648). I^ter, but very similar, are Judith 132o
Tob. 9 12 (Vg. ), and lob. 88. With the fact that none of
these relates to temple service may be compared, e.g.,
Jer. lit-nuh. 14 r. The Chronicler, however, appends
Amen {I.e.) to extracts from Pss. 105 and 96.' (3) An
apparent />"«(// Amen, there being no change of sjx;aker ;
frequent from NT I''pp. onwards, but in OT only (a)
in subscription to first three (four) divisions of i'salter and
3 and 4 Mace. ; and {/>) at end of praver, Neh. 1831 and
Tob. 13i8 (both only in Vg. ). In Tob. I415 (BNA) we ,
have almost a fourth stage : (4) a siniple subscriptional \
Amen, like that, e.g., of theTR of Lk., without, strictly
speaking, any preceding doxology.'*
Just as 0 translates, as we have seen, by y^voiro
in the Law, the Prophets, and even the Psalter, but has
2 In NT "-f^^" '" ^'^^ Chronicler and Apocrypha, ■*
so in NT Lk. often avoids (omits or trans-
lates) Amen, and so even Mt. and to a /ess extent Mk.
Stage (i) is represented by only Rev. Tu* 194 222o ;
(2) by Rev. 5 14 and the usage testified to by i Cor.
14 16 ; (3) by usage of Epistles (fifteen do.xologies, mostly
well-attested ; * nineteen blessings, mostly ill-attested).**
There is no real instance of (4).
The Aniens of the Gospels (fifty-two in Synopt.,
twenty-five in Jn. ) are a peculiar class, declared by
Delitzsch ^ unparalleled in Hebrew literature : initial
Aniens * like group ( i ), but lacking the backward refer-
ence. The sayings that they introduce are only some-
times at all related to what now precedes them. The
double afir)y (twenty-five times) of the Fourth Gospel,
whichoccursevenin Jn. 1338( =Mk. I430, etc. ), Delitzsch
tried (/.<r. ) to explain as = Aram. amen amena {—ameti
a»ter'n(i=:dfiTjf X^7w), which sounded like d/j.rji' d/xriv ;
but Dalman argues strongly against this." F"or a
suggestion of a different kind see Gosi'KL.s, § 50 n.^**
The key to Rev. 814 (6 duriv), ' the faithful and true
witness,' is doubtless the traditional Massoretic pointing
of Is. 65 16 (at least as old as Syni. ) with possibly a
reminiscence of the practice of Jesus and of 2 Cor. 1 20.
Here, again, dfx,rjv is neut. , and the meaning is not quite
so clear ; but probably d/xTiv has about the same mean-
ing as in I Cor. 1 4 16.
The liturRical use of .\men, vouched for in apostolic times hy
this List pass.^ge, is attested, as regards the Kucharist, by Justin
Martyr for the second century (^Apol. i. 65,
3. ElS6Wh6r6. 6 napiov Aao? eireiK^Tj/iti Af-y«ui/ 'Ajiuji'), and,
e.g^., l>y Jerome two centuries later (preface to
Bk. ii. of Com. in A"/, at/ Gal., 'ad similitudinem . . . tonitrui
amen reboat '), while the introduction of Amen in the baptismal
ser\'ice is probably later. Post-biblical Judaism greatly de-
veloped the theory of the use of Amen.^' He who pronounced
it was greater than he who blessed. It opened the gates of
heaven." It must not be uttered in a slovenly or careless way,
nor yet prolonged too much. 1* The synagogue still uses itjl^'and
Mohammedans are in the habit of adding it after reciting the
first Sura of the Koran.
For references to older literature see, e.g:, Vigouroux, Bii.
Diet., s.v. ; for references to passages in Talm. see, e.g., Kohut's
Ar-uch, s.v.; for usage of temple doxology
4. Literature. Onitz, mgif/, 1872, pp. 481-96, and
I'saimen ti /. ^1 ff. ; for Rabbinic treat-
ment, e.g., Jehuda Khalas, Se/er lia-Afusdr, Pereq. 4 (ed.
Mantua, 42); V'osef Caro, Beth Yosef (Orach- IJajiiti) ed.
1 Ciratz accordingly argues that our Psalms are a synagogue
arrangement.
2 This is hardly true of K.
3 Kxcept Judith 13 20.
* VV & H give, in .square brackets, also a final ' Amen.'
» All except 2 Pet. 3 18.
• Also Rev. 1 7 (after i-ai ; neither doxology (?) nor benedic-
tion). Rev. 1 18 ijn. 5 21 2jn. 13 are excluded in RV. Cp
yd^98, n. 2.
' 'Talm. Stud. ix. lni.r\v aiir)v' in ZLTh., 1856, pp. 422-4.
8 All in sayings of Jesus. The five finals (.Mt. t> 13 2820 Lk.
2-* S3 Jn. 21 25 Mk. 16 20) are wanting in the best MSS.
9 See Dalm. Gram. T93 (cp 71 77 4", 228 146).
1' See now also Dalman as cited below, g 4.
11 See Shebu'oth as above and many other places. For an
example of ' Amen ' in conversation see Aboda Zara 65 a.
'2 Sliahhath \iab mid. of p.
"iJ^r. 47 a.
" Authorised Daily Prayer-Book, N. M. Adler, 1891.
137
AMMI
Venice, 1550, 1 fol. 84^85^. On the whole subject see H. W.
Hogg, ' Amen, notes on its Significance and Use in Hiblical and
Post-biblical times," /('A'l»i-2i (061, and in connection there-
with Nestle, ' The Last Word in the Hible,' Exfiositorv Timet,
January 1897, p. 190/; To the above must now be added
Dalman, Die Irorte Jesu 185-7 ('98). 11. W. H.
AMETHYST (nDJjnX, AMceYCTOC [BAF], -coc
[L], ,imfl//\'s,'i/s. Il,^W *^^)- The amethyst is a variety
of (juartz (SiOo) or rock-crystal (see Crvstai.) of a clear
purple or bluish violet colour (from iron jxiroxide or
manganese), often marked by zigzag or undulating lines
(the colour being disposed in clouds). The Greek name
(Rev. '21 20 ; cp Kx. '28i9 = 39i2 [8619 in ©]), which was
adopted into Latin, implies an ancient belief that the
wearer of an amethyst could drink wine freely without
fear of intoxication. The source of the Ijelief is found
in Theophrastus {Lap. 31), who is the earliest Greek
writer to mention the stone, which he calls rd dfxidvaov.
It is a simple case of sympathetic magic, for Theophrastus
says {Lap. 31) rb bi dfjiiOvaov olvwirbv ttj xP^I- '■ '^ 's
wine-coloured, hence its amuletic potency against the
effects of wine. Greek engravers, accordingly, not in-
frequently cut Bacchanalian subjects on this stone.
Hence the point of several epigrams in the Anthologia
Gncca {e.g., ix. 752, on the ring of Cleopatra, adorned
with Methe, Drunkenness ; and ix. 748, on a gem
engraved with a figure of Bacchus). It seems also to
have been believed that the amethyst caused those who
wore it to dream, or to have propitious dreams (cp the
extract from Burhan in Lag. Mitth. 1 236). Hence
the engraved ahldmd of the ' Breastplate ' of P ( Ex.
28 19 = 39 12 ; explained by Kimchi as the dream-stone ;
.ncSnK from oSn 'to dream') has been commonly
identified with the amethyst (thus apparently (5), so
much engraved by the Greeks. Cp Pkixiou.s .Stones.
Del., on the other hand {Ifeb. Lang. 36 n.), derives the name
from .-Ihlamu, an Armenian people and district often mentioned
in Babylonian and Assyrian texts, supporting the suggestion by
referring to Sennacherib's repeated mention of .\rmenia and its
neighbourhood 'as a rich mine of certain precious stones.
Bond! considers it an Egyptian loan-word {ekhnome), while Di.
connects it with n'cSn, the mallow, and adopts the explanation
'green malachite.' \V. R.
AMI (*PN), Ezra257t=Neh. 759 Amon {q--'-. s)-
AMINADAB (aminaAaB [Ti. WH]), Mt. I4 and
(AAMeiN [WH], mg. aAam) Lk.333t AV = RV
AMMIN.\I).\R ((/.7'. , l).
AMITTAI ("npN, § 52, from nON, ' truth,' perhaps a
theophorous compound ; AMA6[e]l [B.\L]), father of
the prophet Jonah (2 K. I425 Jonahl if).
AMMAH, The Hill of (HSX ny25 ; o BoyNOC
AMMAN [B], -MA [-^j. EMMAG [L], OMMATON or AMM.
[Jos. ^///. vii. I3]), an unknown hill 'that lieth before
(jiah'(?), where Joab and .Xbishai stayed their pursuit
after Abner (2S. 224!). From a comparison of tf. 24
and 25 it is probable that we should restore the name
also in v. 25 for ' one hill,' AV ' an hill" (nnK 7\^z\).
So Bu. (SBOT), Sam. ati loc, following We.'s suggestion that
the two hills are the same. Otherwise Klo., who in v. 25 con-
jectures D'a^K (n^i*;;), the ascent of Adummim.
In V. 24 Sym. (yiirn, gully) Theod. (ii6p<iytoY<>0 and Vg.
{aqutedtictus) give the word a meaning which it l>ears only in
post-biblical Heb.; moreover, since the word ,^^^{ has no article
prefixed, it cannot be an appell.ative here.
AMMI (Hos. 2i, and, in Lo-ammi, 223[25]). See
Lt)-I<rii.\M.\n.
AMMI, Names with. The element 'ammi ('Oy) or.
at the entl of words, 'am {WO) has been interpreted in
_ ... . three different w.ays— viz. , as meaning (i)
1. initial i^j^j^.j people or (2) [my] kinsman or uncle,
*™™^' ~. or else as being (3) the proper name of a
" . god.
'"^ So long as this group of names* was
regarded by itself in the light of Hebrew philologj' alone,
1 The exact limits of the group are uncertain ; for in the case
of several names that have been included in it, it is open to doubt
138
AMMT
the interpretation of \iiiuni or 'am by ' people ' seemed
the most olivious, aiul was most generally adopted for
all names alike. The result was not quite satisfactory ;
for ' the people of Cj<k1 ' or ' my peo]jle is God ' ('am mid)
was, to say the least, an improbable meaning for the
name of an individual. In the light of comparative
philology and newly recovered parallel names in other
languages, it became clear that ' people ' was not the real
meaning of the element in at least some of the names.
Names containing 'aiiimi are common in the S. .Arabian
inscriptions; hut in Araliic 'amm signifies not 'people,' hut
' paternal uncle ' ; the latter, therefore, is the most reasonable
interpretation of the element in .Arabic words.' A closely
similar interpretation is also thoroughly justifiable in Hebrew
names ; for the sense ' uncle,' or perhaps rather the wider meaning
'kinsman,' is secured for 'am in Hebrew by a comparison of the
parallel phrases vni3K hvK «1DK: and ITIV 7K ' V.I \ cp the use of
Ass. aww/ for ' relatives ' irl Am. TaJ>. 4b 32 ; A'S:>io6. Such
an interpretation oCammi in Semitic names generally is further
supported by the fact that names of this type are found side by
.side in the same languages with names identical in form contain-
ing another element (see Am, Names wiTH)denoting a kinsman ;
thus, e.g:, in Helirew we have the series Am»ti-e\, A/>i-e\, Jfi-c\
( = .-f/»7-el) ; Ammi-nax\i\h, W/i/-nadab, W/'/'-nadab ; and, in S.
Aral)!an (following CIS 4, 'e.g., no.s. 73 lo'.'O i 6956 i), 'Am-
karlb, >f*«-karlb, Akhu-Vaxlh, Z?,W-karib.2
The interpretation oVammi by 'uncle' (or 'kinsman')
in the S. Arabian names and in several at least of the
Hebrew instances (.\mmiel, .\mminadab, Eliam, .Ammi-
shaddai (?). .\mmihud, .Anmiizabad, Ben-anmii) is now
generally adopted ; and this much at least may be
regardetl as well established, — that names in .\mmi
originated from the same circle of ideas as names in
Abi, Ahi.
On certain ambiguities common to all the.se classes see Am,
ii. (viz. on their syntactical interpretation, § i^ ; on the lium.-in
or divine, § 4, and on the general or .special character of the refer-
ence, g 5).
With regard to the present group in particular a
further question has arisen, viz., whether Ammi be not
2 Not — d' ■ p 'he proper name of a deity, and whether,
in consec|uence, we ought not to assume
the worship of this deity where such
proper name.
names are found. The facts which have raised this
question are these : —
(i) Compounds with 'atitmi are parallel not only to compounds
with ahi, ahi, but also to compounds with divine proper names ;
thus in Hebrew we have Ammiel, /oel ; Kliam, Eli/a/( ; Atntiii-
n.idab, J '('//^nadab (cp Moabite CA('w<»j.//nadal)), Rehab '«>«
(Rehoboam), and Rehab_)'a/t. (2) The chief god of the Kataban
(or -valad 'amm — a S. Arabian people) was called '.-Vmm, and
Kmu was a name given to the god Xergal by the Shuhites on
the W. of the Euphrates; cp also the name .\m.mon (q.v., § i).
These facts, however, are insufficient to warrant us in
separating names in 'ammi, at least so far as their origin
is concerned, from names in Abi, .\hi. Still, it is clear
that 'amm{i), originally an appellative, aijplicable and
applied by different clans or peoples to different gods,
became in certain cases the projjer name of a deity ;
and, where this usage can be independently proved to
have lieen current, it is reasonable to interpret 'am in
such cases as the proper name of a deity (cp the parallel
case of Baal) ; but we are scarcely justified in inferring
from the mere existence of names in 'ammi among a
certain people that the proper name of their deity was
'Amm; in particular it is very hazardous to conclude |
that the Hebrews worshipped a distinct deity 'Amm.
The compound personal and local names m'am (final)
present some considerable difficulties, which require
„ T.- 1- further consideration. Is the sense ' kins-
3. rina.1 am. . /• . ,
man for am always the most natural
whether the text is sound, sometimes even in its consonants.
The apparent ca.ses of initial 'ammi are the following six : —
Ammiel, Ammihud, .'\mmihur, Amminadab, Ammishaddai,
Ammizabad, and the place-name Amad ; those of final 'am the
following .seven: — Ani.am, Kliam, Ithream, Ja.shobeam, leka-
meam, Jeroboam, Rehoboam. and the five place-names Jibleam,
Jokdeam, Jokmeam, Jokneam, Jorkeam. Cp also Ben-ammi.
See Jekoboam ; al.so Amasa, Amasai, Amashai.
1 Glaser produces evidence from the Minsan inscriptions to
show that ammi,' as a term for God, was long in use, though
at a distance from Palestine : see Hommel, ZDMGi^i^d ('95).
Cp, however, Gray's remark, HPN 53.
3 But cp DoD, Names with, where a different view is taken.
139
AMMIHUR
one? Or may we in some cases prefer the sense
'people,' 'kinsfolk,' on the grounds put forward in
HP.V 59 (cp 215) ? The question is sometimes compli-
cated by the uncertainty of the form in MT. It must
also be remembered that Kehoboani (Rehab' am) was the
son of an .Ammonitish mother, and that the eponym of the
Ammonites is called I5en-ammi (see Ammon, § i); also
that some have conjectured that Jeroboam was of foreign
origin. Cp Ibi.kam, Ithkicam, Jashohkam, Jkka-
MK.v.M. Ji.KOHoAM, JoKNEAM, etc. (see col. 138, n. 1).
As to the history of the names. Actual usage proves
_. - that, like compounds with abi and ahi,
IS ry Semitic compounds with '(/otw/ (=kins-
man) are of a very ancient origm.
We find at least two names (.Ammi-satana, Ammi-zaduga) of
the type among the kings of Babylon belonging to the ^ammu-
rfibi dynasty (c/>r (I faooo B.C.), and not improbably a third in the
name Hammurabi itself. 1 The non-Iiabylonian character of
these names has gained general acceptance in .spite of Jen.sen's
criticism (/?^ 10342^ ['95]); according to Winckler (C/130)
they are of Canannitish, according to Sayce (A'/'(2) 3 io_^.) and
Hommel {A H T <)i jff'.), of Arabian origin.
Names of the type are certainly common in the early
S. Arabian inscriptions ; and Hommel goes so far
as to assert that the biblical names Ijeginning with
'ammi are, like those of the kings of the Hanmiurabi
dynasty, of Arabian origin, and were introduced among
the Hebrews at the time when they had close intercourse
with the Arabs in Sinai (Z/Al/V; 49525. n- i ['95])-
However this may be, it is clear not only that these
names are of ancient origin, but also that at a still com-
paratively early period they fell into disuse among the
Hebrews, and also, according to Hommel (AIIT 86),
among the S. Arabians. The only question with
regard to the Hebrew instances is whether one or two
of them (especially Ammi-sh.\ddai, q.v. ) are late — i.e.,
post-e.xilic — artificial formations. Hommel has recently
defended the genuine anticjuity of 'Ammi-shaddai on the
ground of its virtual equivalence to Animi-satana (see
above) ; but, even granting his premises, his conclusion
does not necessarily follow, and, as a matter of fact,
the equivalence is questionable ; for ( i ) the translitera-
tion of Ammi-satana is uncertain: some — c./^., Sayce
(PSBA, Nov. '97, p. 292) — transliterate .'\mmiditana ;
and (2), if it be correct, the word is quite as possibly a
3rd sing. pf. (so Winckler, I.e.) as='our mountain.'
Cp Shaddai, § 2.
The most recent discussions of these names (together with
references to the literature, which is considerable) will be found
in firay, Jl/'.V 41-60 198./! 245 253^ 323, Expositor, Sept. 1897,
173-190, and Hommel, AJIT afiZ^ff. ic6ff. g. B. G.
AMMIDIOI, AV Ammidoi (ammiAioi [B]), i Esd.
520. See Ch.\di.\.sai.
AMMIEL ("piCpj;, § 46, 'El is my [?] kinsman,' cp
Eliam and Amad, and see Ammi, § i/, amLcJihA
[BAL]).
1. Danite'spy'(Nu. 13i2[P]).
2. Father of Machir, 2 S. 94 (a/jLarip [P.], -/h^it/A [L]), 5, 17 27
(a^ijjp [A]).
3. Doorkeeper (i Ch. 26 5).
4. Father of Hathsheba, iCh.35 (TjAa [L]), called in 2 S.
II3ELIAM, 2. See AniTHOPHEL.
AMMIHUD (n-in^rsy, • my [?] kinsman is glory," § 46,
see Am.mi, § i, cp also Ahiiiud ; e/VMOyA [BA], ^M.
[L])-
1. Father of Talmai, king of Ge.shur ; 2 S. 1837 Kr., Kt.
■nn-cr. .A.MMmuR (,a.v.).
2. Father of Elishama (i), temp. Moses ; Nu. I1021874853
1022t [P] (e|aiou« [FL], <7€fi. [AF in 1 10, and F in 748 IO22J);
I Ch. 726 (AMtoueii [B], -ov« [A]).
3. Father of Shemuel (2), temp. Joshua; Nu. 34 2o [P]
(o-t/oiiovJ [B], tfj.. [Pv'l'AFL]).
4. Father of Pedahel, temp. Joshua; Nu.34a8 [P] (^tvia-
Ml«ltov« [B], a/iioui lAFL]).
5. F"ather of Uthai, one of the b'ne Perez; iCh. 94
(craiu./oiiou [Bl, afiiovS [AL]). The name is not found in the ||
NVh. II4. See .Xthaiah.
AMMIHUR (-l-in-Ci;). father of Talmai, king of
Geshur (2S.I337 Kt. ; Kr. [ace. to Gi. also Kt. in some
1 Cp HPN 56, and see Ham (i.). But cp references in Muss-
Arnolt, Ass. Diet. 320, s.v, xammu.
140
AMMINADAB
textsj ; 0"*^, etc. . Ammihuij [^.v. , i]). Kr. may be a
niiscorrection, since a compound of ^1^ would l)e not
unlikely for a native of the S. Palestinian Geshur (sec
Gksiilu, 2). Cp perhaps the Nab. and Sin. nin ; and
sec UUK.
AMMINADAB (^n^'Oy, § 46, 'my kinsman
apportions,' or 'the [divine] kinsni;ui is munificent';
AM[e]lNAA<\BlHAL]).
1. K.ithfr of I'^isheba, .Aaron's wife, and of Nahshon ' head ' of
Iu<l:ill (scL- Kl-IMlhRAl (Kx. 1)2^, a^ivaBafi (.\) ; Nu. 1 7, -«a/Lt [F];
23 7 12 17 10 14 1 1') aL^iva£ap[V\i). The names of father and son
have been introduced into the genealogy of iJavid (Ruth 4 19 A
iCh. 'iio; also Mt. I4 Lk.333, where AV .\minaoab (on the
variations .\minadani, .\d.in, see Tisch.] ; cp We. De Gent. 17).
2. \ Levite, temp. iJavid (i Ch. 15 10/;).
3. b. Kohath, i Ch. 022(7] (lo-o-oap U\], i.e., Izhar, the MT
reading in the II v. 38). See Izhar (i), Elisheua.
4. See .\bihaii,, 5.
AMMINADIB, an imaginary name in Cant. C 12 AV,
= 3''"I3''py, a reading .sui)ported by (D (AM[e]iNAA(\B
[BNa/), and the St. I'eter.sburg Heb. MS (Strack) and
other codices. To be consistent, however, AV should
have recognised the existence of a proper name also in I
7 1 [2] CSVV butk-naiiil' ; EV 'prince's daughter'; d. I
vaSa/S [BNJI, and rendered 'O daughter of Nadib,' or
with ©'^ (^. aMt''<^^tt/i) ' of Anmiinadib. ' The dramatis \
persoiur of the pastoral poem or drama will then receive 1
the addition of the fiither of the heroine (so (jriitz). It |
has iK-en shown elsewhere, however (see Cantici.KS, |
§ 6/. ), that the supposed drama or pastoral poem and
its i)lot are non-c.xistent ; we are not in want of an
' .Anmiinadil). ' In 7i[2], the rendering of YN , 'O I
prince's daughter,' is suflicient, and 3•^: {»<uiib) at the
end of 6 12 probably means ' prince,' as in 7i[2]. That |
' aninii and nddJb in 612 are separate words is expressly
stated in the Massora, and most of our MSS follow
this rule (so, too, Rashi and Ibn Ezra). On the right ,
reading and translation of 6121*, and the right position
of 611/. , see Canticlks, § 16. T. k. c. |
AMMISHADDAI (^^rSV. §§42, 46. &M[e]ic<\AAi
[B.VF], -Ae [I']), father of Ahiezer (i), temp. Mose.s
[P]; Nu. I12225 (cam. [A]). 76671 10 25 (mi. [A])t.
The name seems to be a genuine old Semitic per-
sonal name (cp, perhaps, Ammi-satana at Babylon,
2161-2148 B.C.), and may mean 'The divine kinsman
is n\y Lord.' Cp Sii.\uij,\l, § 2^ (end); AMMt, § i.
T. K. C.
AMMIZABAD (inrsy ; see Ammi. § i), apparently
son and lieutenant of Bknaiah, i (i Ch. 276) ; but the
passage is obscure and certainly corrupt (AaiBaza6
[B], AMI PAZ. [A], amCINAZABaA [I-. pointing to the
reading .Vniinadab], i^JuJ»f )-^ See D.WID, § 11 r.
AMMON, ammonites! The people are called
'Children of .\mmon ' (pDJ/ ''221) or '.\mmonites'
CJItSy, etc. ) ; only twice is the tribe referred
to as ' .\mmon ' ( i .S. 11 11 [but see ©J, Ps.
837). For 2 Ch. 20 1 see Meum.M {c), and for 2 Ch. 2G8,
ib. (b) n.
<P HAL ajii/iiwi/ but ofi/iai; in Gen. 19 38 [ ADE], Nu. 21 24 [B once,
AF twice]; Deut. 21937 [BatbA] 3 11 [HaJi'AFL] i6[l'.AFL];
Ofifxuv Zeph.28[K*]. The Ethnic a/ji/u.ai'[<]iTTjs, or a/ia. [A
in 2 S. H I y^ 23 37, I K. 14 21] ; and afjiiiuv[t]i Ezra 9 i
Neh. 2 10, but a^/iio»'tn)v [L] Nell. /.c. and in 13 1. The
Ammonite persons mentioned in OT are Raalis, Hanun,
Naamah (2), Nahash, Shimeath, Shobi, Tobiah, and Zelck ;
and in .Vpocr. .Achior and Timotheus.
In the cuneiform inscriptions the land of Ammon is
called Bit-Amman (shortened into Ammdn), on the
analogy of BIt-Humri (Omri) = Samaria, us if Ammon
were a person. The ancestor of the tribe, however, is
not said, in the Hebrew Genesis, to be Anmion, as the
ancestor of the Moabites is .styled Moab, but Ben-ammi
(■a>'"|2 ; Gen. 19 38 [J]). The name of the reputed
ancestor is indeed given in Gen. 19 38 (B.AL ; with which
Vg. agrees) as Ammon ; (KdXtffev rb ivofxa ainou
1 See Barnes, The Peshitta Text 0/ Chronicles.
141
AMMON
'kufxiv ,bvlb%Tou ftvovi fiov. The received Hebrew text ,
however, appears to regard the name of the father of
the Ammonites as Ben-ammi ('son of my kinsman'),
and it should be noted in this connection that ©'*'*'- (not
\'g. ) of V. 37 inserts an etymology for Moab, viz. ' from
my father.' The Yahwists etymologies are, as they
stand, examples of pojxilar jjaronomasia. llicy may
point the way, however, to more prol^able explanations,
and we may safely regard Ixjth ab ' father ' and 'am
(' uncle,' ' kinsman ') as divine names.
Gesenius long ago compared the compound proper names
Amniiel, Amminad.-ib,t and J. Derenbourg in 1880 suKKested
(AV-.y 1 123) th:it .\mmi may be a name of the i<x;al divinity
of the .Xnimonitcs, comparing the Annnuiiitish royal n.ime
Amminad.ib (Del. /'ar. 294), which on the analogy of Kammu.5-
nadab = Chemosh-nadab, should contain a divine name. .\
comp.irison with the parallel names shows however that Ammi,
if a divine name at all, was clearly known as such over a much
wider area than the narrow territory of Ammon (cp Names, { 46;'''
Am.mi, ii. § 2).
According to Judg. 1 1 13 22, the land ' from Arnon unto
Jabbok and fronj the wilderness unto Jcjrdan,' was
- , originally occupied by the Ammonites, who
z. ijana ,• ,.,.., ,,., .... _■,..„ , ._
and
were dispossessed by the Amorites under
1. Name.
p , Sihon, some time before the Israelitish in-
" ■ vasion. This evidence, however, is of doubt-
ful value, since the section Judg. 11 12-29 's of uncertain
origin, and may be no longer in its original form (see
Bu. Comm. 81 ; and cp Bu. A"/. Sa. 125 ; Ki. Gisch. 2
So). At any rate, all that Nu. 2I24 (cp Judg. II21/. )
affirms is that the Israelites concjuered the land of
the .Amorites 'from .\rnon unto Jabbok, (that is) unto
(the land of) the Ammonites,' and, as the same verse
continues, 'the border of the Ammonites was Jazer"
(so Ew., Di. , NOld. reading -iij?' with ©"ail i,istea<I
of vj) — i.e., the frontier town of the .Amorites towarr.s
Anmion was Jazer (see v. 32). According to this state-
ment, the .Anunonites occujjied the east of the district
now called Belka, a view which accords excelleiuly
with the e.isterly position of the ancient capital city
Rabbah or Rabbath-.Xnmion, and is no doubt accurate
for the period to which ]E belongs.
Little is known of the social condition of this people ;
but there is nothing to suggest a high degree of cixiiisa-
tion. There were no doubt other ' cities' lx;sides Rabbah
(Judg. 11 33 2 S. 1231) ; but they were too insignificant to
be mentioned by name. Although the district of
Rabbah (see R.\HB.\h) was exceptionally well irrigated,
the total area of tillage lx?tween the Israelite frontier
and the arid steppes to the east was narrow. Some of
the Ammonitish clans must have ranged over these
steppes as nomads. Their population, too, must have
been comparatively small. According to all analogies
they would enter frcmi time to time into loose and
shifting alliances with the neighbouring tribes ; so that
their fighting strength would be subject to great and
sudden fluctuations.
The real history of the Ammonites does not iK'giii
till the time of Saul, though we ha\e
one very interesting and probable tradi-
tion from the legendary period of the Judges (see below
on Jephthah).
We do indeed hear, in a passage that sounds like history
(Gen. 14 5), of a people, called Zuzim, whom Chedorl.iomer ' smote
in Ham' (CnZ) — a name which is most probably corrupt (see
Ham, ii.), but which .some regard as another form of Amnion ;
and it is tempting to identify the 2uzim with the Zamzumrnim,
whom, according to Deut. 'I10/., the .\mmonitts in early times
dispossessed, liut what we he.ir of the Z.;uTiziimmim ha.s a
family likeness to the legends of other aboriginal r.ices which
were expelled by more powerful invaders, and the author of
Dt. 1-440 (D^) did not write till .ifter 597 B.C. (K.ue. Hex.
270). In his time there were various influences at work to
hinder the accurate writing of history, .-ind it is even doubtful
whether we can safely accept what he tells us of the early
1 Cp also Nestle, Eig. 50. 187 (n.). _
2 For further evidence in favour of a Semitic god Ammu,
Ammi, see Hommel's review of Meissner's ' Beitr. zum altbab.
Privatrecht,' ZDMGi^siiff. ['95]: but cp Jensens cnticism
{.ZA 10342/ ['9S])-
143
3. Traditions.
AMMON
relations between the Israelites on the one hand and the
Moabites and the Ammonites on the other (Dt. 291937).
All we can say is that the story in Gen. 19 36-38 (J) proves an
early Israelitish sense of kinship (combined however with moral
repugnance) to the Moabilcs and Ammonites, so that it is not in
itself incredible that the Israelites should have refrained from
attacking these two peoples. True, in Jos. 13 25 (I') we are told
that 'half the land of the Ammonites' was assigned to the tribe
of Gad ; but the district intended here may be the .\nioritish
kingdom of Sihon, and so prc-suppose the view of history given
in Judg. 11 13-22 (see above, § 2).
Dt. 234 [3] affirms that the Ammonites and Moabites
hired Balaam to curse Israel, and did not supply Israel
with provisions, as a punishment for which they are to
be excluded from the Israelitish community to the tenth
generation.
The spirit and purport of this passagej however, is at variance
witli that of Dt. 227, and the narrative of lialaam in Nu.
22-25 (mainly JE) speaks only of the Moabites. For several
reasons it is very probable that Dt. 23i-8 [2-9] (see Hai.aam,
I 7) is a record, not of the pre -exilic, but of the post -exilic
period when ' the problem as to who should and who should not
be admitted into the community wxs a burning question ' (Ku.
Hex. 265). At any rate the view which this passage presents
of the Ammonites cannot be accepted.
It is of more historical interest that in Nu. 22 we
have a combination of two distinct traditions (E and J)
respecting the origin of Balaam, one of which represents
him as an Ammonite (see B.\l.\.\m, § i).
The settlement of Israelitish tribes in Gilead and
Bashan (see Manas.skh) could not but excite the
animosity of the neighbouring peoples. No doubt
there was a chronic border-warfare sometimes develop-
ing into more serious hostilities, sometimes mitigated
by truce, alliances, or the subjection of one or oilier of
the combatants. In Judg. IO6-I27 we have an account
of the deliverance of the Israelites of (jilead from
Ammonitish oppressors by a recalled outlaw named
Jephthah. The traditional stories have Ijeen much
edited (see Judgks, § 17) and tell us naturally more
about Jephthah (who was one of the actors in a most
4 Saul and '"°^''"S tragedy) than about the Am-
■ jj . , monites. \\'e are ujjon safer ground
^ ■ in the story of Saul. The victory of this
heroic chieftain over the Ammonitish king Nahash, who,
encouraged by the weakness of cis-Jordanic Israel, had
besieged Jabesh-gilead, and displayed his deep contempt
for his foes, is doubtless historical (iS. 11). It is also
thoroughly credible that David, when out of favour with
Saul, received friendly treatment from Nahash (so we
must interpret 2S. IO2). Equally intelligible is it that
a change ensued in the relations between David and the
Ammonitish court when the former had taken up the
work, interrupted by the death of Saul, of liberating
and u.iiting the Israelitish tribes. Only we must not,
it would seem, place the war with the Ammonites too
late. The gross insult offered by Hanun, the son of
Nahash, to the ambas.sad()rs of David implies that the
power of the latter had not yet been so consolidated as
to wipe out the recollection of the days of Israel's
humiliation. The insult was bitterly avenged. Amnion
and its allies were defeated, and the power of the former
was, for the time, broken (see 2 S. I231).
It is noteworthy that .Shobi, son of Nahash, of Rabbath-
ammon, was friendly to David during Absalom's revolt (2 S. 17
27), that Zelkk, an Ammonite, was amon^ David's 'thirty'
(2 S. 2337), and that Solomon had an Ammonitish wife(NAAMAH,
2) whom one account (.see Klostermann) makes the grand-
daughter of Nahash, and who became the mother of Rehoboam
(i K. 14 21 ; the details in i K. 11 1-8 are untrustworthy). See
Nahash, 3.
It is probable that the Ammonites recovered their
independence after Solomon's death. Later, like the
6 Assyrian '''"^^ °'^ ^'- '^'''^^'' '^^^' became tribu-
Ae-e t^riL's of the Assyrians ; this is e.xpressly
° ■ mentioned by Shalmaneser II., Tiglath-
pileser III., Sennacherib, and Esarhaddon (Schr. KGF
and COT). So far as our oldest evidence goes, they
caused no serious trouble again to the Israelites till the
time of Jeroboam II. , when, as Amos tells us (Am. 1 13),
they made incursions into Gilead, and displayed great
143
AMMON
inhumanity, which probably from their own point of
view was but justifiable revenge. The Chronicler,
indeed, relates victories over the Ammonites won by
Jehoshaphat and Jotham (2 Ch. 20 275. cp 268) ; but
these, according to Robertson Smith {OTJO") 146),
are Midrash. From Jer. 49i, we may infer that after
the deportation of the trans-Jordanic Israelites in 734
the Ammonites occupied the land of Gad ; and, even if
Jer. 49 be post-exilic, the fact is too probable to be
doubted. It is this outrage upon ' Yahwe's people '
which seems to be alluded to in Zeph. 28-ii Jer. 926 [25]
2521. Once again the vindictiveness of the Ammonites
was manifested when, in the reign of Jehoiakim, they
madp incursions into Judah as the auxiliaries of
Nebuchadrezzar (2K. 242). This is probably referred
to in Ezek. 2I28/. [25/.]. Later, however, the general
fear of the Babylonian rule seems to have altered the
policy of the Ammonites, for Jer. 27 3 brings before us the
king of .\mmon entering into a league against Babylon
with Zedekiah and other princes. It is to this act of
rebellion that Ezekiel refers (21 18-32 [13 _^]) when he
anticipates the punishment of the Ammonites, while in
25 1-7 he threatens the same people with destruction for
their malicious demeanour at the captivity of the Jews.
Did the Anmionites withdraw in time from the anti-
Babylonian league? It is a verj' probable conjecture,
and, strange as it may seem, Jewish fugitives are said to
have sought refuge with Baalis, king of Ammon, who
instigated them basely to assassinate the noble
Gkdai.i.mi, I (Jer. 40 14).
In later times we find an Ammonite' among the chief
ojjponents of Nehemiah, and at the same time con-
p . nected by marriage with distinguished
andSeek. \^^ (N'eh. 618 134 ; cp T.,.ua„, ,Y
Other Ammonitish women had married
into Jewish families (EzraDi/. ) — i.e., according to
Kosters, into families which had remained on Jewish
soil and not been touched by the reforming spirit of
Ezra (see Ezra, ii. § 12). This would be all the easier
if we are right in inferring from Jos. 18 24 {z'v. 12-28
belong to P) that in post-exilic times there was in
Benjamin a place called ' Village of the Ammonites '
(CnKi'iiAK-H.XAMMONAi). It is to this period of mixed
marriages that we should not improbably refer the com-
position of Dt. 23 1-8 (see above), in \\hich passage are
mentioned the same three peoples as in Ezra 9 2. '^
Nearly three hundred years later the Ammonites
(Tiniotheus) are among the enemies defeated by Judas
IMaccabaiUS (i Mace. 56-iS) ; they are also mentioned in
a psalm assigned by some to the same critical period
(Ps. 887).* Up to this time, then, Ezekiel's threat
(ICzek. 25) against the Ammonites as well as against
the Moabites and (virtually) the Edomites that they
should be dispossessed by the ' sons of the East '
{i.e., the Arabian nomads) had not been fulfilled so
far as the Ammonites are concerned. Their fate,
however, cannot have been very long delayed. In the
fifth century B.C. we already find 'Arabians' among
the enemies of Nehemiah (Neh. 219 47 [i]), and we can
hardly doubt that by degrees the Ammonites, like the
Moabites before them, had to amalgamate with the
land-hungry intruders.
It is true, Justin Martyr, who died i66 A.D., states (cp 7"r)7»//.
119) that the Ammonites were still numerous in his time; but
Josephus {.4nt. i. 11 5) once says precisely the same thing of the
Moabites, though elsewhere he speaks of the Moabites and
Gileadites as .Arabians (.-!«/. xiii. 9 :), which agrees with the
statement of Origen {in Jolnim 1 i) that the term Ammonites
had become merged in that of Arabs. This makes it probable
that the-omission of 'Ammonites' in i Esd. 869 ( = Ezra".t i)
was not accidental but deliberate.
The close connection of Ammon with Moab, and, in
1 See, however, Reth-horon, 4.
2 Prof. Ryle (Ezra and Neh. 115) thinks that ' the mention of
the Ammonite, Moabite, and Egyptian together, suggests the
influence of Deut. 283-7 UffV Outhe XSBOT) assigns the
enumeration of the peoples to the Chronicler.
•' Cp also AcHlOK.
AMMONITES
a less degree, with Israel, and the fact that the Moabites
7. Language.
spokea dialect of Hebrew(see Hkhkevv,
§ 6) renders it almost certain that the
Ammonites also si>oke the ' language of Canaan. ' This
view is confirmed by Ammonitish proper names, e.g.,
Hanun, 2S. lOi (j»n 'treated graciously ') ; Nahash,
iS. Ill (c^m 'serix;nt'); Naamah, iK. Hai (noya
'pleasant'); and the royal names Amminadab (see
alwve, § i), Puduilu = Abdeel (Jer. 3G26), and Ba'sa=:
Haasha (Schr. CO T li^y). Bacthgcn's argu-
ment (in his licit riige) for the polytheism of the
_- .. . Ammonites is based partly on Judg. 106,
^*"^' partly on the analogy of Moahitish
religion. The only extant Ammonitish proper name,
however, which can be held to be compounded with
a tlivine name other than that of the supreme God,
is Haalis (see B.\Al,ls). At any rate Milcom was
as much the great national god of Amnion as
Chcmosh was of Moab (see Moi.ocii) ; the strange
slip by which Jephthah is made to speak of Chcmosh
as the god of Ammon suggests that ' Anmion ' has been
substituted by an editor for ' Moab ' in the passage
(Judg. 11 12-28) in which it occurs. In 2 S. 12 30 where
Nlilcom [q-v.) should be read instead of vialkdni
'their king," reference seems to be made to a huge
statue of Milcom in the capital city. The statement
that Solomon became a worshipper of Milcom in
Ills old age rests on no good authority (see Soi.o.mo.n").
When we pass to later times, it is tempting to infer with
A\'o. (//(7(-' 156, n. i) from the name of Nehemiah's
Ammonitish enemy that the worship of Yahwe had
begun to attract the Ammonites. The dissolution of the
old national bonds may have favoured the growth of a
monotheistic tendency. t. k.c. (w. h.B. )
AMMONITES (D"'3ir3r), 2Ch.20i, RV'e- Meunim
(y.t-., M).
AMMONITESS (D^Jby), iK. 14 21 31 2Ch. 1213
2\.
.Sou Am.mom.
AMNON (|i:pN*, in 2S. 132ot pJ^pS^, i.e., 'safe'?,
by some regarded as a diminutive used in a con-
temptuous sense [cp Dr. TBS, ad loc. W'r. Ar. Gra»i.(-^
I. §269; Ges. Heb. Gram. [ET 98] 250. n. i] ; We.
[//(7'-' 24, n. 2] explains as |-13*t3S, ' my mother is the
serpent," see Nun ; amnoon [BAL], ammcon [A, 2S.
13 1-6 lort]).
1. David's elJcst son (see David, § 11 iii. <i), slain by
Absalom in revenge for his outr.ige on Tamar (2.S. 82 Viiff. ;
iCh.Sit).
2. In genealogy of J I' UAH (iCli.42ot).
AMOK (piO]^, ' deep, inscrutable ' ), post-exilic priestly
family; Neh. 12720 (om. BN*A ; AMOyK [L and. in
V. 7, X^-' "'t-'- '"!'•, in V. 20 X-:-^ ""K- '"f- AMOy])- '"^ee
I';ZKA, 2, § 6 i^, § II.
AMOMUM (AMtoMON [Ti. WH following N*AC]),
an unidentified aromatic substance, mentioned only
in RV mg.. Rev. 18 13 (RV Spice, AV om. with
BX'^ ; Wyclif, however, gives ' amome"). The classical
' amomum ' ( = ' blameless ' ?) was a shrub of Eastern
origin ( ' Assyrium vulgo nascetur amomum,' Verg.
/;V/. 425), from which were made oil for funeral rites
and unguents for the hair. As, however, it is used
also of any odour pure and sweet (Salm. ad So/in.
284), its identification is uncertain. It may possibly be
the vine Cis.ut.t vi/igena (Linn.), a native of Armenia.
The modern term is applied to a genus of aromatic
plants (X.O. Zingibraceae), including the cardamon and
seeds of Paradise.
AMON (pON), Jer. 4625 RV. See Xo-.\M()N.
AMON (Jinx, |bX, § 67 ; ' firm ' ? ' workmaster ' ? but
see below), i. (a/iiws [BA], -wj/ [L] ; .CUO(.) Fairly
well attested as the name of the son of king Manasseh,
himself also king of Judah ; 2 K. 21 18-26 (a/x/jiuv [A]),
10 145
AMORITES
iCh. 3i4 (afjivwy [B»A», see Swete]), aCh. 3820-25.
After a reign of 'two years' {drca 638 B.C. ; see
CnKONOLOcy, § 36) he was assassinated by certain of
his courtiers (see Kittel, //;j/. 2378). The event pro-
duced a profound sensation. Amon, though disliked
by religious reformers, was a favourite with the people,
who avenged his death. If his name is derived from
the Egyptian (Theban) sun-god, it is an interesting
proof of the fluctuations of [xjlitical party (Egyptian and
Assyrian) in the reign of .Manasseh (cp Israel, § 36).
2. (arfintip [AL]) less certainly, the name of a governor of
Samaria under Aliab ; iK.-''J26 (^rfinp [H], Aniiutv 1AJ) =
2Ch. IS25 (l>t/p 11'.]). © pleads strongly against the correct-
ness of the form Amon. Semer or Semmer, indeed, can
hardly be correct, but Knier or Kmmer is the © form for the
Immerof MT in Jer. 20 i and elsewhere (see Immkk), and out
of this form both Amon and Semer (TCC') can easily have arisen
as misreadings. See Sta. ZATIV t> 173-175 ('851.
3. {aixtei [1^].) The b'ne Amon (so Sl'I), a group of
'Solomon's servants' (see Nethinim) in the great post-exilic
list (see Ezra, ii. § 9); Neh. 759 (i)>ifi/ui IR«<A])=Kzra257
Ami ('ON; cp ©■- everywhere; rj/iet [U.\])=i Ksd..'i34 Allo.m,
RV Allon (oAAwi/ [H], o«A. [A], i.e., AA and AA for M).
T. K-. c.
AMORITES (*lip,X, collective, and always with
article, except Nu. 2l29Ezek. I645; AMOPRAIOI [BAI,]).
Other © readings are :— a/u/iiopp«oi (Is. \~ g »], afjiappaioi |l)t.
1 4 F, 2 K. 21 II A, I Ch. 1 14 I.], Ofioppei [Judg. 108 li], a^opis
[Gen. 14 13 A], aiJ.op[e]i [Kzra t) i I'AJ, a/i/xopaiot [i K. 7 14 .A],
A )ui»/ /</■).
In the List of Peoples ' the .\morite ' apjx^ars among
sons ' begotten ' by Canaan (Gen. 10 16 J = i Ch. 1 14I.
The term is used : (1) of a pre-lsraelitish people living L. of
the Jordan, Nu. 21 13 21 25 Josh. 24 8 (all E), .also Josh. 2 10 '.» 10
OE), Dt. I4 3289 Judg. 108 II I K.419 (©HLom.), Ps. 13.". 11
130 19, and elsewhere ; (2) of a people on the W. of Jordan,
Josh. 10 5/. 24 12 15 18 (.all E), also Josh. 7 7 (JE), 5 i 10 i2(both
D), Judg. 1 34-36 0 10 ; I K. 21 26, 2 K. 21 1 1, i ,S. 7 14, 2 S. 21 2 ;
(3) of a southern people, Dt. 1 7-44, cp C.en. 14 7 ; (4) of the ancient
population of Canaan in general, Gen. 1.'. 16 (J or R), 4S22 (E),
Am. 29/:, andls. 179(Lag. WRS Che. following ©"KAor) with
the Hiviles.
The Amorites are mentioned also in the lists of
Canaanitish peoples subjugated by the Isr.aelites (Gen.
15 21 E.v. 3 8 and elsewhere). The lists commonly
include the Canaanites, Girgashites, Hittites, Hivites,
Jebusites, and Perizzites, and once, in Gen. 15 19-21,
the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, and Rephaim,
for which reference must Ix; made to the separate
articles. On the variation in the order of these enumer-
ations, which are obviously ' rhetorical rather than
geographical or historical,' cp Dr. Dent, qb ff.
The passage in Amos (29/^) is remarkable, because
Amorite is used, precisely as by the Elohist (E), as a
general term for the primitive population of Canaan, and
because the Amorites, as an extinct race, are invested
with a half-mythical character (like the Anakim).
Wellhausen (C//341 f.) regards the designation
'Amorites' as substantially synonymous with that of
Canaanites, though not cjuite so comprehensive.
According to this view, the Canaanites, in the time of
the biblical narrators, are still living in the land (/.<'. ,
in the cities of the plain which were not occupied by the
Israelites). The Amorites, on the other hand, are
thought of as the old inhabitants of the hill-country E.
and W. of the Jordan, now inhabited by the Israelites.
Thus the Amorites belonged exclusively to the past ;
they had their day and ceased to Ix; (Gen. 151. This
explains how it is that, although under ordinary peace-
ful circumstances the Canaanites are sjwktn of as the
old inhabitants of the land, whenever mention is made
j of war and conquest, the Amorites at once take their
place (Gen. 48 22). So Moses' adversaries, Sihon and
Og, are kings of the 'Amorites' ; and, similarly, it is
with the twelve kings of the .Amorites that Joshua has to
deal W. of the Jordan. Winckler however (Gl 1 ^"2 ff.)
disputes the synonymity of the terms ' Canaanites '
and ' -Amorites ' on the ground that, as the Amarna
letters show, the coast -land as far N. as Sidon or
even farther, was called Kinahi (= Canaan), and that
1. Prophetic
activity.
AMOS
the Amorite population had its seat in the interior. He
explains the distinction in the nomenclatures from the
different local origin of the two writers (an Ephraimite
and a Judahite rcsijectivcly). On the e.xtra-biblical
facts, and on the inferences to be drawn, see Canaan,
§^ 3-9 and cp I'HtK.MCIA.
AMOS (DV^y. § 56, 'borne [by God]'; cp Ama-
SiAii. Ar. -OmJis. Phcen. DDyjO'J'X ; amcoC [B.\g]).
.\mos is the earliest of the projjhets of
whose discourses and predictions we
possess written records with an ac-
comfianying statement of their authorship. Of the
external facts of his life we should know little but for
the narrative digression in 7 10-17, which interrupts the
series of prophetic visions on the fall of Israel. From
a statement there iissigned to Am.aziah, ' the land is
not able to bear all his words,' we may reasonably
infer that .Anios's ministry in the northern kingdom had
lasted for some time, when it w.-is brought to an abrujjt
close by an act worthy of the heroic 1-^lijah. Amos, it
appears, came forward at length in a place where
success was more difficult than anywhere else, and
uttered a prophecy to this effect — 'Jeroboam shall die
by the sword, and Israel shall tie carried away from its
land." It was in Bethel, the seat of the royal temijle
corresfxjnding to that of Jerusalem in the south, and
probably at some great festival, that Amos said this ;
and the priesthood, faithful to its royal head, took the
al.arm. S'ot so much because the prophet had threatened
the reigning dynasty (for he had not done so in the
interests of any upstart noble) as because he h.ad begun
to weaken the moral courage of the Israelitish people
(Jer. .384). With the half-contemptuous s[)eech, ' Carry
thy prophecies to those in the neighlK>uring country
who may think them worth paying for,' .\ma/.iah, the
head priest of liethel, by the royal authority, bade
Amos fly from the land of Israel. Amos would not
retire without a parting lestiinony. These are his
significant words : ' No prophet, no member of a
guild of prophets, am 1 ' ; that is, I am no ecstatic
enthusiast, like the prophets of Bethel, whose pro-
phesying is a trade, and whose oracles are mere
heathenish divinati<jn (cp Mic. :jii). 'But a sheep-
breeder am I,'^ he continues, 'and one who lends
sycomore figs' (see Shf.kp, Sycomork) : that is, I am
above the sordid temptation to take fees. ' Yahwe
took me from following the flcx:k ; Yahwe said unto
me, (jo, prophesy unto my people Israel.' That is,
My prophesying has an immediate practical object
which concerns the whole nation, and it is due to a
moral impulse which has come straight from Israel's
God. Then, in answer to the command. Prophesy
not against Israel, .^mos repeats his message with a
startling person.al application (cp Is. 22 17 18).
Such was .-Vmos — a strange phenomenon to the head
priest of Bethel, as representing an entirely new type of
2 Home prophecy. Whence then did this projihet
come? Was he a native of Israel or a
' sojourner ' from Judah ? The heading of the book (on
the origin of which see below, § 4 ) at first sight appears to
be decisive in favour of the latter view. Budde has
made it probable ^ that we should render ' Amos, who
had been among the sheep-breetlers, (a man) of Tekoa.'
In any case, Amos is represented asa Tekoite. Now, there
is no trace in ancient or in modern nomenclature of more
than one Tekoa (iJ.v.). That Amos Ix^longed to the
southern kingdom has, nevertheless, been doubted, ^
1 Read ^pi3 with Oort, We. (©UAg, aliroAot) ; cp 1 i. Mesha
is also called ^p■1J (2 K. 3 4). The word refers to a breed of
stunted sheep, valued for their fine wool (see Shkei>\.
2 Kohut, Semitic Stu<iies jo laSJT.
3 According to Oort, Atnos was an Israelite who cultivated
sycomores in his own country, but after his expulsion dwelt
among the shepherds of Tekoa (Th. T'2b lai, etc ['91]). Gratz
(and so formerly Oort), following Kimhi, supposes a second
Tekoa in the north.
147
AMOS
on the twofold ground ( i ) that the interest of Amos is
absorbed by (northern) Israel, and (2) that Tekoa lies too
high for sycomores to be grown there. As to the first
point, Amos, though deeply interested in Israel, is not,
like the native Israelitish prophet Hosea, a sympathetic
observer of the life and manners of the north. The
inner impulse from above sending him to Israel is
psychologically accountetl for by the' vastly greater
importance of Israel as compared with Judah in religion,
in politics, and, we may add, in literature. As to
the second, Amos may very well have possessed a
plantation of sycomores in some low-lying district in
the Shephelah or in the Jordan valley (see Syco.mokk).
We may accept it, then, as a fact, that Amos was a
Judahite, and sprang from a place famous in the time
of David for the quick wits of its inhabitants (2 S. Ha).
9 'D-anoKofi/.n ^^^ situation, too, of Tekoa, was
6. rreparauon. ^.^,j ^^^^^^ ^^ develop the future pro-
phet's cap.-icities. From the extensive view which his
own hill commanded, he would gain, at any rate, a
sense of natural grandeur, though we must not infer
from this that he was capable as a Tekoite of writing
Am. 4 13 and the parallel pa.ssages.i Not far off,
he would meet with the caravans of the Dedanites
(Is. 21 13) and other Arabian peoples, and would
imbitxj from them a longing to see other men and
maimers. Possibly, too, such an idiom as CTD'Q 'ac* c;?
(4 10) may be explained from Arabian influence (so
We. ).'^ Whatever the social position of Amos may have
been, he was not tied to the soil, and may, before
his journey to Samaria, have wandered, either on
business or from curiosity, far away from home, and
have seen and heard much of which his neighbours were
ignorant. To suppose this is not to deny that even
the stayer at home had opportunities of hearing news,^
but to try to understand the alertness of Anios's
intellect, the width of his knowledge, and the striking
culture and refinement of his style. At any rate, it is
plain that he studied thoroughly, on the spot, the con-
dition of life and thought in the northern kingdom, and
we must regret that we have no further contemporary
traditions respecting him, than that contained in 710-17.
One very singular tradition, indeed, we have, which
appears to be a very late distortion of his story. It is
the story (i K. 13) of the man of God from Judah, who
went to Bethel in the reign of Jeroboam I. and threatened
the altar there with destruction by an earthquake ■• (cp
Am. 3 147991). Though this teaches us much con-
cerning a late view of prophecy, however, it affords no
fresh glimpse of Amos.
A post-exilic editor says (Am. li) that Amos pro-
phesied during the contemporary reigns of Uzziah of
4. Notes of J"'^'''^^' ^^'^ Jeroboam II. of Israel. Of
date Uzziah there is no express mention in
the book ; but the description of the care-
less ease of Jerusalem in 6i(Z accords with the circum-
stances of his reign ; to Jeroboam II. the prophet refers
in 79, and his biographer in 7ioy". The heading also
states that the prophecy as a whole was delivered (i.e.,
in its original form) 'two j'ears before the earthquake."
Unfortunately, our only other authority for this earth-
quake* in Uzziah's reign is about as late as this note
(Zech. 144). It is no doubt plausible to defend its his-
torical character by referring to 4 n ( ' I wrought an over-
throw among you'), and by our prophet's vivid idea of
earthquakes as one of God's means of punishment (88; cp
Is. 21921). Am. 88, however, is certainly an interpola-
\ion, and it is not impossible that the rather too precise
1 G._ A. Smith {HG 315) has given eloquent expression to
this view. In T7ve/ve Prophets, however, he admits the late
origin of the passages.
2 On the intellectual opportunities of Tekoa see Stickel
{Hiofi 269-276), who makes Job to have been written in this
district.
S Robertson, Early Religion 0/ Israel 510.
* Klo. Sam. u. KSn. J40, and cp Kings, { 8, note.
8 Jos. (Ant. ix. IO4) gives a long fabulous story about it.
AMOS
statement in 1 1 is merely an exegetical inference from
736 (cp 78 8a). which seemed to the editor to imply
that Israel's punishment had been twice postponed, and
that each postponement nuant a year's grace (so (i.
Hoffmann ; cp Chronolocjv, § 3). It is remarkable
that the author of the heading, if he had access to
tradition, did not rather refer to the solar eclijisc pro-
phcsie<l in 89 (in its i)resent form). This seems to be
the eclipse which an Assyrian list of eixjnyms assigns
to the month Sivan 763 B.C.' It is less important
that, according to the same list, i^estilenccs ravaged
Assyria in 765 (the year of a campaign in the land
of Hadrach, near Damascus and Hamath) and
in 759. Pestilence in the land of Israel is indeed
mentioned in Am. 4 10 ; but it is described as ' after the
manner of Kgypt. ' The Egyptian Delta was of course
not the only source of pestilences : the Assyrian plague
_. may have germinated elsewhere. Still, it
. ircum- ^^.„^.^jp5 tpye t^at the period indicated by
these last dates sufficiently accords with
hints dropped in the Book of Amos. For e.xample, the
Israelites, according to Amos, have no -ipprohensipn
of a Sfjeedy attack from .Assyria. The circumstances of
the period just mentioned enable us fully to account for
this. Shalmaneser III. (783-773) had too nmch trouble
with the land of Urartu(see Ararat, § 2, As.syria, §32),
and his successor Asur-dAn III. (772-755) had too
many revolts at home to put down, to tje dangerous to
the kingdom of Israel. .Assyria t>eing thus occupied,
it was easy for Jerotx)am II. to recover from Damascus
(repeatedly humiliated of late by A.ssyria) the districts
which Hazael had taken from Israel. Hence, when
Amos wrote, the e.\tent of the Israelitish dominion was
' from the point where the Hamathile territory begins
(non Ki3^) to the torrent of the Arilbah,' a definition
which is presumably equivalent to that in 2 K. 14 25, which
gives ' the sea of the Arabah ' — i.e. , the Dead Sea. The
prophet's hearers delighted to sun themselves in this
new prosperity, and boasted of the capture of Lodeb.xr
and K.\RN.\IM in Gilead as a great military feat (see
LoDEHAR, and We. on Am. 613). True, melancholy
thoughts of the past would sometimes intrude — thoughts
of the recent terrible earthquake, of the famines and
{jestilences, of the friends and neighbours lost in battle,
and of the revolting cruelties of the Syrians and their
Ammonitish allies in Gilead (I31346-11). Nor is it
arbitrary to connect the splendour and fulness of
Israelitish ritual in the prophet's time with the popular
anxiety lest Yahwe should renew the troubles of the
past. On the whole, however, the tone of Israelitish
society is joyous and optimistic. As in Isaiah's earliest
discourses, the upper classes appear as self-indulgent
and luxurious, and, as in Isaiah, the women come in
for' a share of the blame (4i ; cp Is. 3 16). Not only
the king (i K.2239) but also the nobles have houses
inlaid with ivory (815 cp 64(2). Feasting is habitual
(64-6), and the new custom of half-reclining on tl\e
divan* has lieen introduced at Samaria (3i2iJ). The
good old sentiment of brotherliness is dying away ;
oppression and injustice are rampant (26-8 89 end, 10
4 1 5 11/. 846). This indicates that great economic
changes are going on (Isaiah makes the same com-
plaint. Is. 5). Side by side with this we notice a
keen interest in the ritual side of religion (44/. 521-23
814 9i). Jubilant worshippers sing the praises of the
incomparable 'God of Jeshumn' (023 ; cp Deut. 8826),
and, as they think of his deliverances in the past, they
even 'desire the battle day of Yahw6' (5 18). Amos, a
stranger, alone sees below the surface of things. He
does not, indeed, once name Assyria,* and seems to have
1 -See Schr. COT 2 193; Sayce, TSBASng; Schr. A'GF
338 yC, and cp Chron(>lo<;v, § 24.
■■* In 3 12 render ' that sit in Samaria in the corner of a couch,
and on the cushion of a divan ' (for peTJl read arcs, an obvious
correction, which We. has somehow not made). See/(7^ 10 572.
• According to ©uaq^ however, there is once an express
mention of Assyria (89, -nrK = "lirK, for TlPKi Ashdod).
AMOS
no clear idea of the geograjjhy of the region ' beyond
Damascus ' ; but every one knows what he means when
he warns his hearers that Yahw6 ' will raise up against
them a nation '(614 ; cp Is. 626, where read 'ijS). and
' will carry them into captivity Ijeyond Damascus ' (52?).
On the whole, we may prolxibly date the original pro-
phecies of Amos between 765 and 750 n.c. *
'ITiere are only two passages which may Ix; regarded
as inconsistent with this date, as referring to later
6 Obi actions '^^'^"'^- (a) In 1 5* it is predicted that
i ■ »„- „.« « ^ 'the iieople of Aram shall go into
to 766-760 B.O. eaptivity unto Kir,' which was ful-
filled, according to 2 K. IG9, on the capture of Dam.ascus
by Tiglath-l'ileser III. in 732. The prediction, how-
ever, was not meant to be taken so literally. ' Unto
Kir' is evidently suggested by the tradition (97) that
the Aramteans came from Kir ; the prophet cannot
mean to lay stress upon such points as the locality of a
captivity ; ■* otherwise, why does he describe the scene of
Israel's captivity so vaguely? The 'fulfilment' in
2K.I69 is obviously due to interpolation; the later
view of prophecy differed from that held by the great
prophets themselves. (/>) The other passage is 62, which,
as emended by Geiger'' (to make sense), reads thus,
' Pass ye to Calneh, and look ; and go thence to Great
Hamath, and go down to Philistian Gath ; are ye
better than these kingdoms, or is your region greater
than theirs?" These places, says the writer, have
already succumbed to the common enemy : how can
Israel ho[3e to escape? Calneh (not the Calneh
of Gen. 10 10, but the N. Syrian city Kullani) was
conquered by Tiglath-pileser III. in 738, Hamath by
Sargon in 720, and Gath by the same king in 711 ;*
and the passage breaks the connection Ijctween 6 i and 5,
and is not in the rhythm which is so closely adhered
to in 61 3-7. The verse must, therefore, be a later
insertion, by a scribe or editor who had read Is. IO9
(Calno = Calneh), and is properly a marginal gloss on
the words, ' Woe to them that are at ease in Zion ' (♦^i i ).
Observe that Great Hamath (H. Rabba) contr;ibts v.ith
the simple Hamath of v. 14.
A strict analysis is indispensable, both for a sound
view of the origin of this book, and for a clue compre-
... hension of the great proi)het himself.
■ - „* ^^^ We nmst, therefore, test the common
assertion that the lx)ok possesses such a
true literary unity as Amos, when in retirement, might
naturally wish to give to his remembered prophecies.
5>o much, at any rate, is clear, that, as it now stands,
the book has three well-marked divisions. (1) Chaps.
1 2-2 16 present a series of judgments on the peoples of
Syria and Palestine, each framed on the same plan,
and coupling the description of an unpardonable moral
fault with the declaration of punishment. The most
detailed of the accusations is that brought against
Israel, which forms a striking culmination of the series.
The vaguest and least impressive is Judahs, which
comes next before Israel's, and somewhat spoils its
effect. ( 2 ) Chaps. 3-6 seem at first sight to contain three
discourses, each introduced by ' Hear ye this word '
and closing with a prediction of national ruin. Upon
a closer examination, however, none of the ' discourses'
1 The reason offered for a later date (745-744) by Zeydner
and Valeton (in Wildebocr, A7«/. no) is insufficient. Any
observer who was not blinded by a fanatical rcllK'ous belief
could see that the inactivity of Assyria was only temporary, not
to mention that the year 765 saw the .Assyrians on the northern
border of Palestine. Resides, the events which accomp.-\nied
the accession of Tifilath-pileser III. in 74s w'ere of too exciting
a nature not to have suggested to .Amos a fuller and more precLse
threatening than we find in his prophecies.
2 On the former part of this verse see Beth -EDEN and
AvEN, 3.
* On 0's readings see KiR.
* Urschri/l g6/. Torreys hesitation to remove v. a from
the context which it distorts (J^L, 1894, p. 62 yC) seems very
needless.
5 Schr.'s view of Calneh {COT 2143/ ; HIVB I254) seems
untenable (see Calnbh).
ISO
AMOS
proves to hiive more than a semblance of unity. The
section may be analysed into ten loosely connected
passages — 3i/ 83-8 89-15 41-344/. 46-13 5i-i7* 518-27
61-768-14. (3) Chaps. 7-9. This is a series of live
visions, interrupted, first by a short biographical elucida-
tion of the third vision (7 10-15), and then by a threatening
address (84-14), and followed by an evidently composite
discourse, closing with most unexpected promises of the
regeneration of Judah.
Now, if this summary is correct, it becomes im-
possible to maintain the true literary unity of the book.
More than one editor must have been concerned
in its arrangement, and the latest editor has had
considerable difficulty in so disposing his material
as to produce three portions, each one of a reason-
able length. Considering that the book of the Twelve
Minor Prophets comes to us from the post-exilic
age (see C.\NON, § 39), and that the primary object
of the later editors was not critical accuracy but
o Ti J. -T edification, we are bound to look out
8. Ir ost-exilic > ■ ,- •,• •
. very sharply for post-exilic msertions.
^P.l2.
Such an insertion we find at the very
outset. The opening verse (I2) has
been often viewed as the te.xt of the following dis-
course ; but it seems very ill-adapted for that purpose,
for the object of the discourse is not to exhibit the
connection between Yahw^ and a privileged sanctuary,
but to show that even Israel (which has so many altars
of Yahwe, 28) shall be punished like the other nations.
Nor is the elegiac tone of 1 2b at all in harmony with
the cycle of stern declarations which follows. The
truth is that 1 2rt is borrowed from Joel 3 [4] 16a, where
alone the words suit the context, and 1 2b has a close
phraseological affinity to Joel and other late writings.'*
It is no argument to the contrary that in 38 Yahw^ is
said to ' roar ' and that the phrase ' the top of Carmel '
is used by Amos in 93 : the editor had naturally made
some slight study of the language of Amos. The
reason of the insertion will be clear if we compare
(a) I9/. with Joel 82-6, {b) In /. with Joel 819, and
(c) 9 13 with Joel 3[4]i8. These passages can all be
shown to be late insertions, and 1 2 can be understood
only in connection with them.
First, as to (a) and {b) it will be noticed that I9/.
differs from 16/. only in the substitution of ' Tyre' for
- , , , y. 'Gaza,' and in the addition of the
ap. 9/. 11/. ^yQ^jjg_ • ^x\d remembered not the
covenant of brethren.' (Even if, with Winckler, we
correct ns in v. 9/ into n;>s — i.e., the N. Arabian
Musri [see MiZK-MM], — part of the following argument
is still applicable. ) It seems incredible that Amos
should have condescended to repeat himself in this
way, and doubtful whether the early Israelitish prophets
knew anything about such an act as is imputed to Tyre
in 1 9. And what can be the meaning of ' the covenant
of brethren' in Amos's mouth? Many critics, indeed,
have found in the phrase an allusion to the alliance
between Solomon and Hiram (RV mg. refers to i K. 5i
911-14) ; but this was a purely personal connection, and
lay far back in the past. We might also think of the
covenant between the kings of Israel and Tyre pre-
supposed in I K. I631/. ; but would the Elijah-like
prophet Amos have been the man to recognise this?
Moreover, this was a personal or family covenant,
whereas the charge against Edom in In, that he
'pursued his brother with the sword,' presupposes a
true national covenant resting on kinship (cp Mai. I2).
1 Observe that between Am. 615 and 16 something analogous
to w. 7 10 must have fallen out (jrzi. 8 9 are an interpolation).
Vv. 14-17 should correspond to 7iv. 4-7 10-13.
^ Vax metaphorically, as Joel 1 10 ; n'lKJ, as Joel 1 19 / 2 22 ;
ITT as Joel 1 12. Cp also 1 2/^ as a whole with Jer. 9 [10] 9 23 10
2537: Is. 339; Nah. 1 4 (all post-exilic passages except the
first). See Che. Introd. to WRS's i^n Isr. xv./. [Volz. has
lately expressed the same view (/)/> vorexil. Jah7<ef>ro/etie
p. i9j/C), which Nowack (A7. Proph., ad loc.) does not refute.]
AMOS
This view is confirmed by Obad. 12, where ' in the day
of thy brother ' implies the same charge that is brought
against Edom in the words quoted from Am. In.
Thus, the fault imputed to Tyre is that it co-oijerated
with Edom in the time of Israel's distress, by making
raids into Israelitish territory and selling captive
Israelites to their unnatural 'brethren.' Was there
ever such a time of distress for Israel between the age
of David and that of Amos? It is, of course, the
history of Judah, not that of N. Israel, that we have
to search, for the claim to the overlordship of Edom
was maintained by the Davidic family. The answer
depends primarily on the results of our criticism of
Chronicles. If we can regard the Chronicler as an
only slightly prejudiced recorder of old traditions,
we may believe that the Philistines and Arabians broke
into and plundered Jerusalem (2 Ch. 21 16/ ), and
conjecture that Tyrian slave -merchants drew their
profit from the circumstances. F'urther, if, some time
before that, the Edomites revolted from Judah and
defeated King Joram (this, happily, is a fact attested not
only in 2 Ch. but also in 2 K. 820-22), it is easily con-
ceivable that Edomitish passion vented itself in a great
slaughter of fugitive Israelites. Is it worth while, how-
ever, to defend the integrity of Am. 1 and the accuracy
of the Chronicler by such a lavish use of conjectures ?
A prophet such as Amos was could not have fastened on
such an offence of the Edomites to the exclusion of the
cruel treatment of I'^domites by Judahites referred
to in 2 K. 147 (cp 2Ch. 25i2), and we ought not to
imagine a case of special barbarity in the ninth century
when there is a well attested one in the sixth. It was,
in fact, at the fall of Jerusalem in 586 that the P3domites,
who had no such stern moralists as Amos and Isaiah to
reprove them, filled up the measure of their revenge, to
the indignation of Jewish writers, who forgot the cruelties
of their own ancestors. Hence, to explain Am. 1 11-12
aright, we must refer to Ezek. 25 12 35 5 Is. 84 Obad.
10-14 Ps. 1377, together with Joel 8[4]i9 ; and, to under-
stand I9/. , we must compare (besides the passages just
mentioned) the description of the offence of Tj're in
Joel 3(4)2-6 (subsidiary evidence for the late date of
Am. In/, is given below ).' If it be asked, when
these judgments on Tyre and Edom were inserted, the
answer is, during (or much more probably after) the
Exile, at a time when some fresh insult on the part of
the Edomites reminded Jewish writers of earlier and
deeper injuries (see Is.MAH, ii. § 14).
Next as to (c). Plainly, Joel 3(4)i8rt is the original of
Am. 9i3<5. Theopposite view would be inconsistent with
K Qfi the fact that Am. 9 13(1 is dependent on
10. Chap. y8-i5. ^j^g j^jg passage Lev. 265« (see Levi-
ticus). Am. 9 13, however, is not a later insertion in the
section in which it occurs. From 9n (or rather from
98) onwards, we are struck by affinities in expression
or idea to works of the Babylonian and Persian periods,
and by corresponding divergences from the st)le and
thought of Amos. "^ That v. 7 cannot have been the
conclusion of the prophecy is certain ; but we have to
regard w. 8-15 as a post-exilic substitute for the original
close. The editor cannot endure the idea of the final
destruction of the whole house of Israel, and so he
makes Amos declare in a strangely softened mood that
only the 'sinful kingdom' [i.e., that of Ephraim) will
be wiped out, whereas the less guilty Judahites will
1 Notice (1) the vague description of the offence of Edom.
Does it consist in the purchase of Israelitish slaves from the Tyrian
slave-merchants? or in the slaughter of Israelitish fugitives? or,
more probably, did Edom prove that 'he kept his wrath for
ever' in both these ways? (2) The mention of ' Teman ' and
' Bozrah,' which names seem first to occur in Jer. 487 13. Cp
the threat in 1 12 with that in Obad. 9.
2 For the evidence, which is singularly strong, see Cheyne,
'Notes on the Prophets,' Expositor, Jan. 1897, pp. 44-47. On
Am. 98-15 see also Preuschen, ZATW\h2^.2^ (95); Torrey,
'Notes on Am. 27 etc.,' JBL 168-172 ('96); T>r'\\er, Joel and
Amos 120 jff., who vainly endeavours to diminish the force of
the arguments.
AMOS
suffer the milder doom of dispersion among the nations.
Even this will Ix; only for a time. Israel shall return,
the old Davidic kingdom shall lie restored, and the
sweet commonplaces of prophetic idylls shall be fulfilled.
Now, can we not see the reason of the insertion of the
opening verse or prologue? It was to assure the post-
e.xilic readers of Amos that the threats of the prophet
had long since been fulfilled, and that restored Zion
should be safe under the care of its lion-like divine
protector. In other words, Amos was to be read in the
light of the concluding portion of Joel. The insertion
of the epilogue (98-15), in which we ought to note the
reference to Kdom (cp Joel 819), has a similar reason.'
Here, then, are already four certain |K)st-exilic inser-
tions. The companion passages now to lje enumerated
are eciually noteworthy. No .satisfactory ])icture of the
prophet Amos is possible till we have recognised them.
Kirst, Am. 2^f> is too deficient in concreteness to
be the work of Amos, and is, on phraseological
11. chap. 24/ F°""'''' '^''-'•' , ^\^°' l^"" '"*"^f °[ "^^
^ '■' judgment upon Judah also must be late.
This is e%-ery way a gain. In particular, we can now
see lietter how thoroughly Amos was ab.^orlxid in his
mi.ssion to N. Israel. He cannot perhaps forget Judah ;
but his native country is only a fragment : the national
pulse beats most vigorously in Kphraim (cp Is. 98/.
[7/.]). The post-e.\ilic editor, however, felt the need
of a distinct reference to the sin and punishment of
Judah, which he meant to Ije taken in combination
with the encouraging statements of 1 2 and 9 11-15.
It was a different feeling which prompted the insertion
12. chaps. 4 12^13 °'^ ^ '3 ^''''^ ''■'^''''^ •* "'' '^. connected)
rofa f 5 ^f- 9 sf. The conception of God
■'' ■'' had become deeper and fuller ; the
germs long ago deposited by the preaching of Amos
and Isaiah had, through a widened experience, develojjed
into the rich theology of II. Isaiah and the Hook of
Job. Not only by the wonders of history but also by
those of nature was the sole divinity of Yahwe proved,
and an ordinary reader of .\mos inserted these doxologies
(as we may call them) to relieve the gloom of the pro-
phetic pictures. 3 Another such insertion was made
(according to the text used by ©) in Hos. 184.
We now pass on to .-\m. .'126. The construction and
rendering of this passage have been much disputed.
13. chaps. 52662. "" the assumption that Am. 525-27
was all written by .Amos, it is
perhaps easiest (see Driver) to render cnurr, ' So ye
shall take up . . . (Saccuth' your king and Kaiwan
your god, which ye made for yourselves),' 'nS^ni.
'and I will carry (you) into exile.''* But how
unnatural this is ! Nowhere else does the prophet
mention an inclination of the Israelites to the worship
of Assyrian gods, and the carrying of .Assyrian gods by
Israelites into Assyria is a very strange feature in a
threat. Hence the whole verse is more than probably
1 There are similar interpolations in Hosea {e.g., I7 1 io-2 i
[2i-3]and the words' D.-ivid their king 'in 3 5). See Hosea, § 4.
i' Cp 2 K. IO15, Deiiteronomistic. Critics on the other side
quote Is. 624; Hos. 2 2 [4]; Ex. 18 16 ; Deut. 30io; but they
do not meet the argument from weakness of style, and produce
no parallel for the second part of the description of Judah's sin.
Moreover, the two Pentateuch pas.sages are not in point. Nor
have critics realised the consequences of admitting the post -exilic
origin of the prophetic books in their present form.
3 The style is that of II. Isaiah .and the later poets (cp Stickel,
Hiob p. 276), not that of Amos. The strings of participles
remind us of Is. 40 22./: ; Job 12 17-24 ; Zech. 12 i ; D.-in. 221/
Notice also ((13 (cp Cheyne, /nt. Isa. xxi. 252), 'nsa^Sj; Tn
pK, no'D, S'Ds, mo'^'i-, j'Saa, mSvo nj3n. In 95 nixasn ''-
violates the us.ige of Amos (but cp (P). The ideas are equally
late, though they are such as .\mos, h.id he met with them,
would have owned. Inter alia, comn. the third descrip-
tive phr.-ise in 4 13 with Ps. 13!t 2. It is prob.-ible that bif.
originally stood after 413. Am. fls/, however, presumably
retains its original position.
■• On the text see, besides the comment.iries, N. Schmidt,
JBL, 1894, p. I _/?: ; Torrey. ib. p. 61 ; WRS .-ind Che.,
Profih. Isr.i'ii y^ff.\ G. Hoffmann, ;?^ /"/r 3 112/ : Tiele,
Gesch. van het godsdienst 315. On the construction see Dr.
in Smith, /?5(2) 122 (art. Amos).
513-15 629
AMOS
a later insertion, which took th<; place of a passage
that had become illegible. The case of Is. 104rf
seems exactly parallel (see SHOT, ad U>c.). Whether
or no Succoth-iienoth, the name of a god in 2 K. 17 30,
contains the divine name .Saccuth,' we may suppose that
the writer of the inserted passage merely antedates a
worship introduced into .Samaria by the Babylonian
colonists after 722 ».< . The awkwardness of the con-
nection need not surprise us (this against Konig, Synt.
§ 368 (^) ; the 1 in cnKrji is simply the Waw explica-
tivitm so often prefixed to glosses. Render, ' That is,
ye carried in procession ' ; cp Is. 45 20. See Chiun A.nd
SUCCOTH.
Am. 62, another insertion, has been treated of
already (see § 6 \b\f. We pass on to 8811/ Verse 8
. . , o 1 is not at all suitable as a description of
r 'P^' '4 jj^g threatened punishment (see We.,
Nowack). The comparison with the
Nile recurs in an interpolated verse
(95). Passing on, we note that v. 13 speaks of literal
thirst (suggested by the mention of the festivals in
V. 10) ; but in v. 11 the hunger and thirst are meta-
phorical. Verses 9/. 13/. announce a sudden cata-
strophe; but in V. II f. a lengthened time of misery is
descritied. The passage is clearly late, and is parallel to
Is. 820/. (partly late). The silence of prophecy is
spoken of as a sore trial in Ps. 74 9. Other probable
late insertions are 814^513-15 (cp Mic. 76), and the
expression Tn^ in 65 (see David, § 13) ; and 69/ is
at any rate misplaced. To these it is plausible to add
the reference to ' those who are at ease in Zion ' in 6 i
(but it may he better to correct p's into ,-ii-in ; so Che.
/(^A' 10573) I also 87, which, as Duhm points out, may
be a gloss on v. Z ; certainly it interrupts a noble
passage {v. 8 for K33' read nnn- with We. , or, much better,
3K3'). The last insertion is 98-15 (see § 10).
After these insertions have been removed, may we
safely suppose that the rest of the book represents what
IB Pre exilic '^""o^ ^''^''^' '" P"^''ic ? No : the analogy
editing.
of the prophecies of Isaiah makes such
a supposition highly improbable. Let
us be content with knowing that we have a truthful
record of the prophetic certainties of .Amos, even though
he did not always utter them in public. The manner
and the contents of the passages into which the true
Book of Amos falls must he our guide in determining
the class (whether that of public or of private prophecies)
to which they severally belong. It is both inherently
difl^cult and contrary to analog)' to suppose that 1 2-
2 16 was ever really uttered ; at any rate, l2-'J6,7 s is
more adapted to produce an effect on readers than on
hearers. Nor can we possibly imagine that the visions
in chaps. 7-9 were used by the prophet as texts of spoken
addresses ; passages from discourses are no doubt here
and there introduced, but they come from the arranging
hand of the editor of this part.
It is a further question whether the arrangement of
the different sections may be due to .Amos himself. In
answering it we must leave sufficient room for the f^rmvih
of the book. It is not unreasonable to suppose that on
his expulsion from Bethel the prophet paid a visit (per-
haps a second visit; cp6i) to Jerusalem, and there
'noted' his prophecies 'in (on) a book for a later
day' (Is. 808), when the judgment upon Israel should
have been .accomplished. There, too, he may have
committed his record (enriched with some never-spoken
prophetic certainties) to the custody of those ' disciples '
of Yahwe and of his prophets (see Is. 816), who l)egan
the long succession of students and editors of the re-
ligious literature. In their hands we may suppose that
the book assumed by degrees its present form. .At any
rate, a written record of .Amos must have become
quickly known ; for Isaiah, it is clear, steeped himself in
the originality of Amos before displaying his own truly
1 So Del. Par. 21s/., but see Succoth-Benoth.
154
AMOS
original genius. To Hosea, however, such a record
cannot be proved to have Ix-cn known (see We. on Hos.
814 4 IS IO58) : in other words, the circulation of Amos's
prophecies was, originally at least, confined to Judah.
The latest editor of the book, as we have seen, was
post-exilic.
A special interest attaches to the description of the
visions, together with the historical interludes in chaps.
7-9, partly because they exhibit the growth of Amos's
prophetic certainty resj^ecting the fall of Samaria, and
partly because, like Is. 6 7 1-8 18, and 20 (in their
original form), they appear to come from a partly
biographic, partly prophetic, work, written or dictated
by the prophet himself.
Some have been surprised to find 'a plain country-
man ' like Amos possessed of such a refined and yet
. , vigorous style.* They forget that the
16. ^niOS S differences of culture in the East are still
^ ■ sometimes comparatively trifling, and that
a man of low rank may express himself with considerable
elegance. It is still more in point to remark that the
most classic Arabic poems are the work of men who
had a calling similar to that of .Amos, while, even
under the new Moslem empire, sons of the desert were
wont to appear at court and win a rich guerdon by the
finished style of their improvisations. Such critics have
also forgotten the opportunities of self-culture which, both
at Tekoa and elsewhere, Amos must have enjoyed ; and
when even G. Baur and Ewald point to certain ' sole-
cisms in pronunciation and orthography ' as evidences of
provincialism, it may be replied that the errors in ques-
tion may reasonably be ascribed to late copyists.- That
Amos delights in images drawn from nature is clearly
no fault (see, e.g., 2934/812519, and the first, second,
and fourth visions). Only one of them is distinctively
the comparison of a shepherd (812) ; and Amos is just
as willing to speak of wonders of which he knows only
by hearsay — such as the giant cedar trees (29), and (if
the text be correct) the inundation of the Nile (88) — or
of which he has a true Israelitish dread — such as an
earthquake or a solar eclipse (88/), or the mysterious
sea which yields no harvest (G12; cp arpvyeTos), and
which somewhere hides the terrible serpent of primitive
mythology (93 ; see Skri'knt, § 3/ ). It is a pity that,
for reasons already given, we cannot speak of Amos as
a sympathetic observer of the sky* — fhat is an essential
characteristic of a much later poet (see Job). As a
literary craftsman he ranks high. In 1 3-2:6 we have a
literary prophecy, which, until .\mos forgets his art in his
grief at the manifold offences of Israel, is marked by great
regularity of structure. .So in 46-ii we have the literary
model of an equally symmetrical passage in Isai.ah (Is.
98-21 [7-20] 526-30 10 1-4), and in 62 we have a short
but strictly rhythmical elegy. .Altogether, the Book of
D crrpft of -^'"^^ forms a literary as well as a pro-
0 "cinaditv P'^*^'"'^ phenomenon. It is true that
orig y. ^^Yx as a writer and as a speaker he
must have had models ; J and E were, of course, not the
only writers of the pre-Amosian period, and Elijah and
Elisha (of whose doings a faint echo has reached us)
were not the only prophetic reformers (.Am. 2 11/ 87).
There is no occasion, however, to suppose that there were
prophets of precisely .Amos's type before him — prophets
who had exactly his conception of their duties, and
were also, in a qualified sense, writers. It would be a
mistake to infer, from Amos's use of formula, that he
was acquainted with earlier written prophecies. Pro-
phetic formulae could be transmitted by word of mouth
1 Against Jerome's application of Paul's self- depreciating
language in a Cor.ll 6 to Amos sec Lowth, Prerlect. 21 (Lectures,
ET,2 97/).
2 Take, e.g., pn^*' ("9) for P"^'. The same form occurs in
Jer. 3326, Ps. 1059, l)oth post -exilic passages. In 5 11 0P13
is not a ' dialect form ' for doi3 \ the scribe wrote x! by an error,
and then corrected it by writing o- Read simply nn with We.
3 GASm. (HG 3.5).
AMOS
as well as by the pen. That Amos had left Tekoa at
intervals before his prophetic call is not only inherently
probable, but also follows from such a passage as 87/ (if
correct), which .Amos could hardly have written unless he
had had the most vivid and direct ocular evidence of the
effects of a true prophetic impulse even before his own
turn came to receive one. His originality is shown,
not only in his prophetic message, but also in his being
(probably) the first to conceive the idea of using the \>&\\
in aid of the voice. The /Jra-literature of the priests
had already taken a considerable development (Hos.
812); Amos was, it appears, the first prophet who
followed the exanipie of the literary priests. The im-
portance of this step it was Ijeyond his i)ower to esti-
mate. Within a generation h.; expected Israel as a
nation to disappear ; but he thought it worth while to
gather disciples who, like himself, could praise Yahwe
even in the midst of ruin ; and, after all, who could tell
but Yahw6 might have some other secret to reveal to
one of these — to a Hosea or to an Isaiah ? See § 18.
That Amos's message is a gloomy one is in accord-
ance with his conception of the divine character. In
18. Pessimism. •''" ^f 'I'^'^J^'^' ^^e divine purpose
could not be one of peace, though
it required an immense devotion to Yahwe to be able
to declare, seemingly unmoved, that He purposed the
complete destruction of Israel (or, as we should say, of
Israel and Judali). In spite of the universal scepticism
which meets him (for how, it is said, can Yahwe be con-
ceived of apart from his people?), .Amos persists in his
message, and even conceives the possibility that legend-
ary supernatural agencies may be used to make the
destruction more complete (93). It is not, therefore,
open to us to account for the confidence of Amos simply
by the advance of the Assjxian power. He does, indeed,
regard Assyria as the chief destructive agent (614 7 17) ;
but Assyria, when Amos spoke and wrote, was passing
through a period of decline ; consequently his conviction
must have some other ground which naturally sharpens
his eyes for the still present danger from Assyria.
To this it must be added that, according to Amos, it
would be easy for A'^ahwe, if the agency of Assyria
were not available, to bring some other hostile nation
from some corner of the earth, just as he ' brought
up the Philistines from Caphtor, and the Arama^ns
from Kir' (97). The real ground of Amos's prophetic
fjessimism is the increasingly unsound religious con-
dition of his people. He may very possibly have ad-
mitted that there were fifty or at least ten Israelites
who lived by the same pure religion as himself ; but
he could not conceive of Yahw^'s saying, ' I will not
destroy the land for ten's sake. ' The righteous must,
according to him, suffer with the wicked (9 10 was in-
serted to correct this idea), though he might perhaps
have left a door of hop>e open for those who, like him-
self and his disciples, had close personal contact with
the true God : the nation might perish ; but when this
had happened, God nught have some secret purpose for
those who ' knew ' him.
Of this vague hope we hear nothing from Amos
(cp Isaiah). What the popular religion was, we
know but too well. Whatever the nobler minds
may. have believed, 'the mass of the people,' as
Robertson Smith well says, ' still thought of Him as
exclusively concerned with the affairs of Israel,' and the
connection between Yahwe and Israel had a non-moral,
natur.al, basis. Ritual tended to make morality almost
superfluous, and by its increasing costliness actually
promoted that injustice and inhumanity which Yahw^
abhorred. There were also immoral superstitions at
which Amos glances less (see 27) than Hosea. To this
19 Idea of P^''"''^'0"s system the religion of Amos
Ood '^ diametrically opposed. Once, at any
rate, he uses the striking title, ' Yahwe,
the God of the Hosts' (627 is admittedly a genuine
passage) — i.e., the God of celestial as well as earthly
156
AMOS
legions — together with ' the Lord Yahwi ' (perhaps nine-
teen times), in antithesis to tlic nationalistic expression,
' Yahwir, the God of Israel.' The Vahwe whom he
himself worshipped was, in virtue of his perfect moral
nature, the Sovereign alike of nature and of nations.
Amos had not, indeeil, fathonicd the depths of this
conception as had the Second Isaiah and the author
of Job (.\m. 4i3 and the parallel passages are later
insertions : see alx)ve, § 12) ; but he is already to
all intents and purposes an ethical monotheist, and
his conviction of the impending destruction of Israel
does but intensify his sense of the majesty of the one
Gotl. He does not, indeed, reject the old belief in the
connection lx:t\veen Yihwe and Israel altogether (cp
7 15 "my people Israel'): he moralises it. For some
wise object, Yahwe brought Israel out of Egypt (3i S>7),
and enteretl into a [XMsonal moral relation to it ; but his
will, at any rate, is not unknown to the other nations, and
their history is equally uiuler his direction. Once, in-
deed, under the stress of moral passion, Amos even
places the ' sons of Israel ' on a level w ith the ' sons of
the Cushites'- ; this occurs near the end of his prophecy
(y?), and is evidently intended as a final wiiiulrawal of a
temporary and conditional privilege. It is not, how-
ever, on all the nations of the earth, but only on those
which are in close pro.ximity to Israel, that judgment is
pronounced by Amos, as the spokesman of Yahw6 ; he
aims at no theoretic consistency. These nations are to
suffer the same doom as Israel at the hand of Assyria,
b<_'cause they, like Israel, have violated the unwritten
law of justice and humanity. [Thus we can divine
Amos's free attitude towards the lately written cthico-
religidus priestly laws (see I'2xoi)US, § 3). He is prob-
ably acquainted with such laws (28 ; cp Ex. 2225/. ) ; but
he docs not recognise them as of primary authority, for
lie nowhere appeals to them.'] And if by many favours,
including the crowning favour of prophecy (2ii), Yahwe
has made himself specially known to the Israelites, it
follows that he will judge Israel more strictly than he
will judge the other nations (3 12). As a faithful friend,
Amos assures his people that if they would only ' seek '
the true Yahw^ they would 'live' (5414) — :.c., would
escape captivity and enjoy prosjx;rity in their own land
(cp Hos. 62/). He has no ho|>e, however, that they
will do so : the false pojiular religion is loo deeply rooted.
Indeed, Am. 5 has been so much interfered with by
editors that it is doubtful whether vv. 4 14 can l>e
appealed to as authorities on such a point ; ?■. 14, at all
events, appears to belong to an inserted section (see
Nowack).
It is not idolatry that Amos complains of. When he
says, ironically, 'Go to Bethel and transgress' (44), he
20. Denuncia- "''"^"f' ^' ^'^ expressly tells us, ' Carr>'
. . out the prescriptions of jour wilfully
devised ritual law. ' Nor can we venture
to say that a protest against the ' golden calves ' is im-
plied,* for no prophet is more explicit than Amos in
mentioning the sins of his people. The two passages
in which a reproof of Israelitish idolatry does apjjear to
occur are certainly interpolations. In 814, for ' the sin
of Samaria"' we should read 'the god of Bethel' (cp
Gen. 31 13), in parallelism to 'thy god (t;',^Sn), O Dan,'
and ' thy patron (read ;;-it with W'i. and see Uod),
O Beersheba,' and the whole of 526 is a later insertion,
1 'Thy Cod (O Israel)' is put into Amos's mouth by a later
editor (4 12/' ; see atiove, § 12).
'^ Who these Cushites are, is uncertain (see Ci SH i. 8 2 A).
Apparently they had recently experienced some calamity.
* Here he contrasts with Hosea, who clearly invests the
written tlirflth which arose in certain priestly circles with primary
authority (Hos. 8 12). Perhaps, as Duhm suggests, Hosea was
himself a priest.
•• .So Davidson {Expositor, 1887 (i), p. 175). To .say that
Amos docs not protest against the 'golden calves,' is of course
not 10 assert that he thinks them worthy syml>ols of Yahwfe. Cp
St. Gl'f 1 579; WRS, /'n>//«. 575/
0 "The text appears to have been altered^ by the same editor
who inserted the reference to ' the two iniquities ' in Hos. 10 10.
157
AMPHIPOLIS
I and is not true to the facts of the age of Amos (see
above, § 12). What Amos most vehemently denounces
I is sacrifice. One may perhaps be tempted to suppose
j that he says more than he means, and that he docs not
object to sacrifices altogether, but only to the Ix-'lief that
when duly performed they can change the mind of the
Deity. His language, however, seems too strong to Xx:
I thus explained away, especially when we find him ap-
: pealing in support of his statement to the fact that in
the olden time, when Yahwe w;is so near to Israel, no
sacrifices were offered (625). Is there, then, no form
of worship in which ^'ahwe delights? None, except
the practice of righteousness — i.e., justice and humanity
(see 021 24). liut, alas, the Israelite will not recognise
this. Pilgrims who are wholly indifferent to plain
moral duties crowd to the sanctuaries of Bethel and
Gilgal, and even to the far-off southern shrine of Beer-
sheba' (55 814, cp Hosea4i5), and parade their devo-
tion to the different local forms of Yahwe in i)ious
o;iths, as if the true Yahwe could Ije pleased with the
offerings or the oaths of such worshippers. How
painful will be the awakening from this moral sleei),
when the greatest of all realities makes its existence
known, annihilating at one blow the sanctuaries of
Israel and their worshippers (9i)! Such was the an-
nouncement of the shepherd of Tekoa.
21. Estimate
Taken in connection with the ideas on
which it is based, it seems to justify us
I in calling him a surprising phenomenon. 'Ihat the
phenomenon can be partly explained there is no doubt.
Neither Amos nor his special follower Isaiah is so
entirely abnormal a product as an unthinking study of
the works of either might suggest (see rKoi'Hixv).
But not the most comprehensive study of the history of
Israel will altogether account for their appearance. And
if they neither of them saw the whole truth, and lx)th
needed the correction of history and of later prophets
and sages, we may still pay them the reverence which
belongs to those who first uttered great moral and
religious truths with the power that lx;longs to God-
possessed men.
See references in art. and cp also We. Die kleinen Prophcten
(for a corrected text), 1892, and his Hist. 0/ Isr. and Juii. KT,
. , 1891, pp. 81-E6 ; WR.S Proph. A.(2) 120-143, 194.
22. Special 401; l)r.,art. ' Amos,' /JAV-'i (with full biblio-
helps. graphy) ; also /<)(■/ atui Amos (Camhr. I'ible),
1897 ; Duhm, Die Tluol. ti. Pto/>li., 1875, pp.
109-125; Smend, Alt-test. Ki/.-gcsch., 1893, pp. 159-188; \\ i.
C/ <)\ff.\ Oort (on the home of Amos, and on tlie genuineness of
413589956), Th.T, 1891, pp. 121-126; G. Hoffmann (on the
text of Amos), ZA7II', 1883, pp. 87-126; Schmidt, y/f/,, 1894,
Fp. 1-15; (j.VSm., Tivelve Prophets \(i\--i\o\ Nowack, AV. Pr.
97] (thorough and judicious). T. K. c.
2. .Vmos (.\|xa>f [XBCD]) is the best supported reading in
Mt. 1 to, where, however, King Anion (^.T'.) is plainly intended ;
so TR and EV. It is a constant variation in ©ah.
3. An ancestor of Joseph, Mary's husband (Lk. 825 [BKA]).
On the two lists see Ge.nealogies ok Ji:sls.
AMOZ (pDX, § 57. ' strong' ; amcoc [BNAOQFL],
AMM. [A in 2K. 192 20 1 Is. 372]; amos), father of
I.S.\I.\H, I (Is. li A/V\OCrGIN] = AMOC HN [N*"''], 2O2
[NAQ om.], 2 Ch. 2622 [BA oin.]).
AMPHIPOLIS (AMcjJinoAiN [Ti. WH], ttoAin
[N*]). one of the most important }K)sitions in northern
Greece ; it stands on a Ijend of the river Strynion,
between the lower end of lake Cercinitis and the head of
the Strymonic gulf, thus commanding the pass leading
from the east into Macedonia ( Li v. 45 30). Consequently
it was a station on the ]'ia l-.i^iatia, ' the great military
road which ran through Macedonia and connected
Rome with the Hellespont' (Cic. De fnn: cons. 2
§ 4). Paul, therefore, ' passed through ' Amphipolis
' Hal. thinks that a northern Beer-sheba (perhaps Beeroth) is
intended (A'A/ 11 72-77) ; but if Klijah went on pilgrimage to
Horeb, which was not even in Palestine, why should not N.
Israelites have gone to a venerated spot in S. Israel? n3^ is
precisely the right word to use of a sanctuary across the border
(cp 6 2).
158
AMPLIAS
on his %v;iv Irom Philippi to Thessalonica (SioSfVffavrfs,
Acts 17 it).
The site was intimately connected with some of the most
interesting passages in Greek history ; but it would he a mistake
to imagine that the apostle or his companions cither knew or
caicd for these things. It is now Ntochori. [l.cake, North.
6>. 3i8i/.) w. J. w.
AMPLIAS. or rather as in RV Ampliatus (AAAnXr-
ATOC [•"'■ ^^'H]), saluted as ' my lieloved in the Lord'
(Rom. 168t) ; not otherwise known.
The name was not unfrcquently borne by slaves. In the
list of the seventy disciples (Pscudo-I)orotheus) Aniplias is
represented as having been bishop of Odessus or Odyssus (on
the Hlack Sea, near the site of the modern Varna).
AMRAM (D"ipy, § 77, ' in good condition ' ? or, 'the
[(li\ ino] kinsman is e.xalted ' ; AMBpAM [BL ; A in Ex.
Nu.J, AMp. [.VF; Bin Xu.]).
1. b. Kohath, head of a Levitical subdivision, and
father of Moses, Aaron, and Miriam (Ex. G 1820 ; Nu. 3 19
a/x^pa/x [-M"]. -/3pa;'[L]; 2658/ i Ch. 62 [628]) ; from
him come the Amramites (■dt.cV'^ ^'"- 32?, 0 a/ipafxeis
[B], a/xjipaa/x' fis [.\], -pan' «j [K], -pav eis [L] ; i Ch.
2623, a/J-pa/j-i [.\J). -See Licvi.
2. One of the b'ne Hani, 2, in list of those with foreign wives
(KZRA i. 8 5 end) Ezra 10 34 (fiapleli [H], an^pa/oi [N], aixppaiJi
(cat (.\l.l)=iEsd.!>34 Omakkus, RV Ismaickus (jxaripo'; [15],
i(r/0L. [.\], aiipafi [L]). See Ezka, ii. g 14 /'.
3. I Ch. 1 41 (["ran), RV Hamkan. See Hemdan.
AMRAPHEL (^a^PS ; amap^&A [ADEL] ; Jos.
'Afxapa ^I'iSrjs), king of Shinar ((}en. 14 i 9!) = Ham-
murabi, king of Babylon, who, according to trustworthy
cuneiform data, may have flourished about 2250 n.c.
This assumes that iBiZH is corrupted from "msn or ( Lindl,
Savce) sk ^-cn ; but sec Ciikdori.aomkk (§ 4/),
and op Schr. COT 2299/:; Hommel, Ji.4(? 169, .-I'/fT
193; Wi. JOF iJ,3f.\ Bezold, FSBA 1188 ['88].
Targ. Jon. ingeniously, if uncritically, identifies Am-
raphel with Nimrod, who 'commanded Abram to
be cast into the furnace.' If the identification with
Hammurabi be accepted, we may be reminded that
Nabopolassar and Nebuchadrezzar delighted to imitate
this founder of Babylonian greatness, both in his
building plans and in his niclliods of administration
(see B.\BVI,0.\'IA,§ 66, and cp Rogers, Outlines of Early
Dab. Hist. 27-30). It m.ay be that some Jewish
favourite at the Babylonian court, who had received a
Babj'lonian education (Sanabassar or Sheshbazzar for in-
stance— note the Babylonian name), heard Hammurabi
spoken of. and made historical notes from cuneiform
tablets on events which had happened ' in the days of
Amraphel,' also that one of these was adopted by later
writers as the basis of a Midrash on Abraham and
Melchizedek. On the other hand, those who identify
NiMKOi) (</. J'. ) with Nazi-maraddas (Nazi-maruttas) may
incline to think that the setting of contemporary history
may be derived from an early pre-exilic traditional
source, though the narrative in its present form is un-
doubtedly the production of post-exilic writers. The
latter view is the more difficult one, but not therefore
to be hastily rejected. Cp Lehmann, Z~wci Haupt-
probleme der altoricnt. Chronologic (1898) 84, and see
Abr.\h.\m, § 4, Chkuoki-.xomkr (g§ 2, 4 end), H.\m
(i. ), Mki.cmizeukk (§ 2), Sh.weh, i. t. k. c.
AMULETS is the RV rendering of fiha^im. D^'t^'n'?,
Is. 820, a word used elsewhere of any charm (Is. 83,
C'n? p33 , RV ' skilful enchanter' — not 'eloquent orator '
or ' skilful of sjxiech ' as in ,\V and AV mg. ), or, more
specifically, of a charm against serpents (Jer. 8 17 I'ccles.
lOii). In Is. 820 some sort of female ornament is
meant, most probably earrings (so .\V), which seem
to be treated as idolatrous in Gen. 354. Doubtless, as
WR.S suggests ( ' Divination and Magic ' in /. Phil.
14 122 ['85]), the amulet is worn in the ear to prevent
an incantation from taking effect. Among early
159
ANAHARATH
peoples amulets and ornaments are closely connected
(cp We. Heid.'^^ 165). When the early significance
of the protective power of the object is forgotten it
serves as a simple adornment.' The Syr. equivalent
kfdilM is proix;rly ' a holy thing,' and the same idea is
seen in the occurrence of the root in the old Yemenite
htdts, 'pearls'; cp WRS Rel. Sem.i^) 453; and see
M.\Gic, § 3 (3). cp also Ring, § 2.
AMZI (*VPX, § 52, perhaps abbrev. from Amaziah).
1. In the genealogy of Ethan : i Ch. O46 [31] (afie<r(r«ta [B],
fLataaia [.\], atiaaia (L]). See also Lkvi.
2. In genealogy of .\daiah, 3, the priest (see Malchijah, 3);
Neh. 11 12 (ajia(r(e]i [H.X], -<riou (Lj, o/xco-art [K]), omitted, how-
ever, in the il i Ch. 9 12.
ANAB (23J?. ANCOB [AL]). a hill-town of Judah,
Josh. 1050 (anoon [B], anaB [L]), one of the seats of
the Anakim ; Josh. II21 (anaBcoG [f^D- I' is doubt-
less to be connected with Hinianabi (3jj'-['v), mentioned
in Am. Tab. 237, 26 with M.ngdali (see Migdai.-G.\d)
and other cities of the land of Gar (.SW. Judah). There
is still a place of the name ('Andb) on the west side
of the Wady el-Khalil, about 14 miles to the SW. of
Hebron, and 4 or 5 m. W. from Shuweikeh (Rob. BR
2 159 ; so P E.Mem. 8392/ ). See also Anub.
ANAEL (anahA [BXA], i.e., ^N33i^, Hananeel).
brother of Tobit and father of ACHIACHARUS (Tob. I21).
See also Aman.
ANAH (njy, meaning uncertain, cp Gray, HPN
no ; ANA [B.ADEL]), a Horite clan-name (Gen. 36).
As the text stands the descent of Anah is represented
in three ways. Anah is
1. Daughter of Zibeon(aiva«'[L]), \nvv. 214, 'Hivite'
in V. 2 being obviously an old error of the text for
' Horite.'
2. .Son of Seir and brother of Zibeon, v. 20 {a.i.vav
[L]), I Ch. l38(A»'a^[L]).
3. Son of Zibeon, v. 24 bis (ojvav [.AD], atcac [L],
uva [E], uvas [AE]), also i Ch. 140/. (^uvav [B], wvafj.
[A ; T'. 41 ova], avav [L]), 25 bis 29.
The first of these may, however, safely be disregarded.
'Daughter of Zibeon' is a variant (based on v. 24) of
' daughter of Anah ' (dependent on w. 20 25), which has
intruded into the text ( so Di. , Kau. ). As to ( 2 ) and ( 3 1 ,
the differences of statement need not surprise us, for
the genealogy only symbolises tribal relations. Anali
was originally a sub-clan of the clan called Zibeon, and
both alike were ' sons of Seir ' — i.e. , Horites. A twofold
tradition, therefore, could easily arise. The ' mules '
which, from v. 24 AV, Anah would appear to have
' found in the wilderness ' are an invention of the Mid-
rash, some Rabbis explaining cc" (lafifiv [ADE],
eafiiv [L]) by ijfj.lovos, others by tj/ulktv {Her. rabba,
par. Ixxxii. ). The ' hot springs ' of Vg. and RV are
purely conjectural ; the word cc'.ri is evidently corrupt.
As Ball points out (SDOT Gen. crit. notes, 93), it
may have come in from v. 22 (cp'rr). In -^v. 2 14 and
18 (where ®ael omits), Anah is called the father of
Oholibamah, the wife of Esau. See Bashemath.
T. K. c.
ANAHARATH (JTinJX ; peHpcoG k. ANAxepeG
[B], P6NAG K. AppANeG [A], AancrgG [L]), -1 site
on the border of IssACiiAR (Josh. 19 19)!. The reading
seems corrupt (note the conflate readings of €^"A).
Perhaps we should read mrnx and identify with
'Arrdneh, a village on rising ground in the plain of
Esdraelon, a little northward of Jenin ( = En-gannim).
So Schenkel's Bib.-Lex. and Riehms NIVBC^) (after
Knobel).
Knobel's alternative view (adopted from de Saulcy by Conder)
identifies Anaharath with en-Na fira, which is not far from Iksal
(Chesulloth)and .S,-,l."in\ (Shunem), and is therefore not altogether
unsuitable, but somewhat remote from every attested form of the
ancient name.
1 For analogies cp Cuttings of the Flesh.
160
ANAIAH
ANAIAH (n;3y, § 33. -Yahwi has answered';
ANANia(c> L'*^-^'']> *hus identifying the name with
Anamaii).
1. In list of Ezra's supporters (sec Ezra, ii. f i^f. ; cp i. | 8)
at ihe reading of the law (Neh. 84 = 1 Esti.043 Ananias, 4).
2. Signatory to the covenant ; Neh. 1022 [23J (Ata [B] ; Acaia
[An'I). See EZKA, i. § 7.
ANAK. See Anakim.
ANAKIM kV ; W , less correctly, Anakims (D^pjr ;
aiul D'pjrn ; in Targg. generally rendered N*^33
' giants '-.'eNAKLellMCBAFL], but -n [l-»'"Dt. 'iio]';
es.icim).
The Anakim are mentioned in Dt. '2ioyC2i Josh. ll2xyC
14 12 15 Jer. 475 ((B"Kaij; Heb. reads 'of their valley'); else-
where called 'sons of Anak ' (?:>', ivolk [BAL]) Nu. 1823 {tvax
IBFl) ; Dt. 92/* and (MT ' sons of the Anak ') Josh. 15 14a ; Judg.
1 20 ; 'sons of the Anakim,' l)t. 1 28) uioi yfyofTtoi/ (BALJ) 92a
(viol 'Y.vaK) ; ' the children CT'?:)of Anak ' (MT ' the Anak ') Nu.
1323a 28 ((va\ (B), ai.v(LK [A]), Josh. 15 14^. The phrases are
ex.ictly parallel to ' Rephaim ' and 'children of the Kapha' (see
Rki'haim); indeed in Dt. "in a writer of the Deuteronomic
school, ' interested in history and archaeology ' (Kue.), makes
the .Anakim a branch of the Rephaim.
These and other descriptive terms (which are not to
be mistaken for race-names) are given at any rate to
some portions of the pre-Israelitish pojjulation of
Palestine, whoni, like the Amorites, tradition endowed
with colossal height (cp Nu. ]333).^ On the inhabitants
of Palestine generally see C.\NAAN.
.According to Josh. 11 21 (D.^), the .Anakim were to Ijc
found in the mountains about Hebron, in the fenced
cities Debir and .Anab, and, in general, in the mountains
of Judah and Israel, whence Joshua and Israel drove
them out. Verse 22 also states that a remnant of them
survived in the Philistine cities of Gaza, Gath, and
Ashdod (cpjer. 47$® ; oi KaraXonroi fi>aK(ifi[Bi<AQ],
where MT has 'the remnant of their valley'). The
oldest narrator, however, gives the credit of their expul-
sion to Caleb, who drove out from Kirjath-arba the
three sons of .Anak : Sheshai, Ahinian, and Talmai — i.e. ,
the three triljes or clans which bore those names (Josh.
1514). The editor of Judg. 1, quoting this passage,
refers the deed to the tribe of Judah {v. 10) ; see
Hkhkon. In later times, a too literal interpretation of
'sons,' and genealogical interest, led to the transforma-
tion of .Anak, and — what is still stranger — of Arba'
('four') in the place-name Kirjath-arba, into personal
names. Thus .Anak (virtually a personal name where
it has the article) becomes father of .SuKSH.M, .Ahiman
( I ), and Tai.mai ( i ), and son of Kirjath-arba ; cp Josh.
21 II (MT piji-rt), 1513/ Judg. lio {evafji [A]).
The proof of this is supplied by ©bal, which in Josh. 15 13
21 II instead of ' father of Anak ' has fxrjTpdiroAii' [Tuif] tuax.
This no doubt represents the original text, which stated that
Kirjath-.-irba, or Hebron, was .^n important city (a ' mother,' cp
2 S. 2O19) of the Anakim. A later scribe, prepared to find a
genealogical notice and therefore surprised to find the word
'mother' in apposition to Arba, altered 'mother' (CN) into
'father' ('an). Thus he obtained the statement that Hebron
was the city of one Arba, who was the father of '(the) Anak.'
In Josh. 14 15, however, lie took a different course. 'I'he true
reading must be that of (EJHal which gives (ne.-irly as in the
parallel pass,iges) n-oAtt ap/3« ([L], ap^o [A], opyojS [B]), fiTjrpo-
no\i^ TUiv ei'aKle]in auTij. For this the scribe substituted 'the
city of .Arba, the greatest man among the An.ikim.' The con-
sequence was that Sheshai, Ahiman, and Talm.-ii (the three
Anakites mentioned in Josh. 15 14) became, literally, 'sons of
(the) Anak,' and grandsonsof Arba— no contemptible acquisition
for genfcalogists. So virtually Schleusner|(lhes., j.z/. /uujTpo-
iroAn); but see especially Moore, Judges ■2x /. Cp also
Sclnv.illy, Z.l Tir, 1898, p. 139^ T. K. c.
ANAMIM (0*03^), one of the peoples of Mizraim,
Gen. 10 13 = I Ch. 1 nf ; unidentified. See GEOGRAPHY,
§ 15(2)-
ANAMMELECH {•r\hjp;]}, anhmcAex [B]. amh-
[A] ; om. L ; (.i3*^A.V. ; Auamelech), a Babylonian
J Anak, 'long-necked' (St. and most), or 'those with neck-
laces' (KIo.), with which cp Heb. 'dndk, 'a chain for the neck,'
Aram, 'unak, Ar. 'unk, ' neck.'
11 161
ANANIAS
deity, whose worship was carried by the Sepharvites
into Samaria when, along with the inhabitants of other
Babylonian cities, they were transplanted thither by
Sargon. As in the case of the kindred deity Adramnie-
lech (see, however, .AUKA.M.MHl.Kcii, i), the worship of
Ananmielech was accompanied by the rite of human
sacrifice (2 K. I731). The name Anammelech is
probably to be explained" as Anu-malik ' Anu is the
decider or prince ' 1 (Schr., Del.), although there is no
evidence that Anu enjoyed any special veneration in
Sippara (see SeI'HARVAIM). a city that was especially
devoted to the worship of Samas the Sun-god.
It is very possible, however, that the text is corrupt (Hommcl
proposes a rather elaliorate restoration [A>/. T. H \y>/.\). It
IS also possible (see Nisroch) that Anammelech is merely a
faulty variant of .Adrammelech (rather Adarmelech). ©I- in
2 K. 17 31 has only aSpaixf^tx-
Anu was the god of Heaven, and with him were
identified a number of gods representing personifications
of powers or localities of the upper region, such as
Ural, Ansargal, Atilar, Etnur, Du'ur, Liihma, Ekiir,
A lata, Alala-alam, and Enuriila. He stood at the
head of the Babylonian pantheon, forming one of the
supreme triad of Babylonian divinities, in which he was
associated with licl, the god of Earth and of created
things, and Ea, the god of the Abyss and all that is
beneath the earth. See B.\hylonia, § 26. According
to G. Hoffmann {'/.A, 1896, p. 258), however, the
name is •i'?c[n]3V — '•<'-. Anath-malk. Cp .Astar[t]-
Kemosh and Melk[at]-.Astart. Anath (Anta) was the
consort of .Anu (see .An'.\th). l. w. k.
ANAN (|3J?, § 50; shortened from A.vaniah).
I. Signatory to the covenant (see Ezra, i. § 7) ; Neh.
1026[27] {y\va.\x [B], ■f)va. [k]. -ac [.A], r)i.va.v [Lj).
2. .Anan (a.v\v\av [BAL]) in i Esd. 630 = Hanan, 3 ([jn)
Ezra 2 46.
ANANI CpiJ?, § 50, abbr. from Ananiah, cp -Sab.
p:y and Palm, 'jjy ; manci [B], anani [AJ, -iac
[L]), descendant of Zkkuhhahki, (i Ch. 824).
ANANIAH (n;^JV, BN*A om., anania [N^-*"'*-''"^],
AN I A [I']) in Benjamin, mentioned (:■. 32t) in the list
of villages, Neh. 11 20-36 (see E/.KA, 2, § ^b, § 15 {i)a),
along with Nob and Ramah (Neh. II32), and possibly
represented by the modern Beit-Hanina, 3 J ni.
NNW. of Jerusalem.
ANANIAH {T\im, §§ 33. 50; anania [BAL]).
ancestor of one of Nehemiah's builders (Neh. 823).
ANANIAS (ananiac [BAL]), the Gk. form of
Hanamah or Anamaii.
1. RV -Ann IS, nig. Annias, a family in the great post-exilic
list (see Ezka, ii. § 9), mentioned only in i Esd. 5 16 (oi'vcit
[B], aivvia.% [.A], om. L). The name has probably arisen from a
misreading of Hodiah (nnn read n'jn) I cp Neh. 10 17 y?, and
see HouiAH, 2. Cp also Meyer, EJ 143, 155.
2. I Esd. 9 21 = Ezra 10 20 Hanani, 3.
3. I Esd. 9 29 = Ezra 10 28 Hananiah, 7.
4. I Esd. 9 43 = Neh. 8 4 An Ai ah, i.
5. iEsd.9 48(a>'i/ias[B])=Neh.8 7 Hanan, 4.
6. A kinsrn.-in of Tobit. The .irchangel Raphael, while in
disguise, cKiimed to be his son (Tob. 5 12). He is designated
Ananias ' the great,' son of Semeus or Semelius (see Shemaiah,
23), also called 'the great.'
7. b. Gideon, ancestor of Judith (Judith 8 i, om. B).
8. In Song of Three Children, v. 66 (® Theod. Dan. 3 8k) ; see
Hananiah, i.
9. Son of Nedebaios {Ant. x.v. 52, Ne/3e5ai6j in
some MSS [AE] ytSe^aioi ; cp Nedabiah), high
priest, circa 47-59 A.D. , under Herod Agrippa II.,
king of Ch.alcis. He is mentioned in Acts 232^ 24 i as
the high priest before whom Paul was accused during
the procuratorship of Felix. He flourished in the
degenerate days of the priesthood, and, though
Josephus says {An(. xx. 92) that after his retirement
he 'increased in glory every day,' allusion is made
to him in the Talnmd (Pesahim) in terms of the
greatest contempt. Cp Annas (end).
1 In which case cp Anu(m) Sarru = Anu the king, the usual
title of the god Anu (Muss-Arn. Ass. Diet. 65).
ANANIEL
lo. Husband of Sapphira (f.v.), Acts 5 1. See
Community of Goods, § 3.
ir. A 'disciple' at Damascus, who was the means
of introducing l^aul, after his conversion, to the
Christian community there (Acts 9 10-19).
, ANANIEL (ananihA[BSA]; Heb. [ed. Neubauer]
7NJ:n, Hananccl), Tobit's grandfather (I'ob. li).
ANATH (r\2V,; anaG [HAL]), a divine name,
mentioned in connection with Shamgar in Judg. 831
(AeiN&x [B]) '"'d 56t (KCNAe [A]). If Shamgar
ig.v.) were an Israelite, and b. Anath (' son of Anath')
his second name, it would be tempting to take ' Anath '
in ' ben Anath ' as shortened from Ebed Anath ' servant
of Anath" (so Baethgen, Ilei/r. 141 ; but see Noldeke,
ZZ?.l/(; 42479 ['88]). More probably, however, Ren-
anath is a Hebraised form of the name of a foreign
oppressor who succeeded Shamgar' (certainly a foreign
name), and in this case Anath must designate a foreign
deity. Who then was this deity ? Evidently the
well-known goddess worshipped in very early times in
Syria and Palestine (as appears, e.g., from the names
mentioned below), and adopted, as the growing
evidence of early Babylonian influence on Palestine
scarcely permits us to doubt, from the Babylonian
pantheon. An(a)tu was in fact the daughter of the
primitive god .Anu, whose name is mentioned as that
of a Syrian deity in 2K. I731 (see Anammei.kch,
Seph.^RV.^im). Of her character as a war-deity there
can be no doubt. In ancient Egypt, where her cultus
was introduced from Syria, she was frequently coupled
with the terrible war-goddess Astart, and on an Egyptian
stele in the British Museum she ap[5ears with a helmet on
the head, with a shield and a javelin in the right hand, and
brandishing a battle-axe in the left. She was, therefore,
a fit patron-deity for Shamgar or for Sisera. That the
fragmentary Israelitish traditions make no direct refer-
ence to her cultus, need not be matter for surprise.
The names Anathoth, Bi:th-an.\th, Beth-anoth,
compensate us for this omission. Wellhausen thinks
that we have also one mention of Anath in Hos. 148[9],
where he renders an emended te.xt ' I am his Anath and
his Asherah' (in clause 2) — surely an improbable view.
For a less difficult correction see Che. Exp. Times,
April 1898.
For ArchsEology see Jensen, Kos)n. 193 ■211/. \ E. Meyer,
ZDMG 31 717 ['77]; Tiele, Gesch. van den Godsdienst in die
oudheid, etc. ('93), 224 ; WMM As. u. Eur. 313. t. k. c.
ANATHEMA. See Ban, § 3.
ANATHOTH (ninsy, anaGcoG [RAL]), a town of
Benjamin (cp below, 2), theoretically included by later
writers among the so-called I^vitical cities (see
Levites), Josh. 21 18 P; i Ch. 66o[45] (AfX^ox [B],
-toe and anaGcoG [A], cnaGcoG [L]. Neh. 727
NAGcoG [A ; om. B]).
The form of the ethnic varies in edd. and versions2(cp also
Antothijah). -Abiezek, 2, is called 'nh|yn, 28.2827, AV
the Anethothite (awodeiTTjs [B], a.va6uS. [A], -loCi [L]),
'n"in3j;n, iCh. 2712 (AV, Anetothite, 6 ef o^aea>9 [BAL]),
and finally 'nhjy^, i Ch. 11 28 (AV Antothite, ofafliodteli
[BA], -<oflm7? [L]). The last-mentioned form is used to designate
Jehu, 5, in i Ch. Vl 3 (o ameu>e[«]i [BAL], -)3u>9ei [«] ; 4, ava6<ad«.
[({] not in Heb. or ®i'a). RV in each case Anathothite.
The name appears to be the plural of An.\th, and
may refer to some images of that goddess which once
stood there. Under the form Anath the place seems
to be once referred to in the Talmud ( Yoma \oa),
where its building is assigned to Ahiman the Anakite.
Tradition said that Abiathar, the priest in David's
time, had 'fields' at Anathoth (1K.226); and
1 Reading in Judg. 56, 'In the days of Shamgar and Ben
Anath.' The notice in 3 31, which is much later than the song
(see Moore) is, of course, valueless.
2 Ba. and Ginsb., however, read everywhere 'DIDij; (cp the
former's note on i Ch. 11 28). ' Exceptionally in Sam. I.e. Ginsb.
163
ANDRONICUS
Jeremiah was born of a priestly family which had
property there (Jer. 1 1 2927 827-9, o-vavo.Owd [A*t'. 7]
37 12). It is once referred to by Isaiah (Isa. IO30), and
is mentioned in the great post-exilic list (see Ezra, ii.
§ 9), Ezra 223 = Neh. 7 27 = i Esd. 5 18 {ivarov [B]).
The connection of Anathoth with Jeremiah gives a
special interest to its identification. A tradition, not
older than the 15th century, fixes it at Kariet el-'Enab
(Robinson's Kirjaih-jearim) ; but, as Robinson has
shown, it can only be the village now called 'Atiata,
which is situated NE. of Jerusaleni, just at the
distance required by the Onomasticon, and by the
reference in Isa. IO30. 'Anata is well-placed, but only
froin a strategical point of view. Eastward and south-
eastward its inhabitants look down on the Dead Sea and
the Lower Jordan — ^striking elements in a landscape, no
doubt, but depressing. Jerusalem is quickly accessible
by the Wady Sulem and Scopus, but is not within
sight. Here the saddest of the prophets presumably
spent his earlier years.
2. b. Becher (q.v.) in genealogy of Benjamin [§ 9, ii. a],
iCh.7 8(ai'ae<oi'[BAL]).
3. Signatory to the covenant (Neh. 10 19 [20]). See Ezra,
i. § 7- I- K. c.
ANCHOR (AfKYPA). Acts2729. See Ship.
ANDREW (AN^peAC [Ti. WH] 'manly'), one of
Chri.st's twelve disciples. Like Philip, he bore a
Greek name ; but so did many Jews of his time, and
in Dio Cassius (6832) we meet with another instance
of a Jew called Andrew.
Besides the account of his call (see Peter), and
his inclusion in the lists of the apostles (see Apostle,
§ i), nothing is said of Andrew in the Synoptics, except
that, in Mk. 183, he appears as one of the inner circle
within the twelve, for he is one of the four who question
Christ ' privately ' about the impending ruin of the
temple.
In the Fourth Gospel the picture is more fully drawn,
and in one respect completes and explains the account
of Andrew's call given in the Synoptics. We read that
he belonged originally to Bethsaida (Jn. 1 44), that he
was a disciple of the Baptist and heard his witness to
Christ, that he and a companion (no doubt John) asked
the wandering teacher where he dwelt, and went with
him to his temporary home. Then, having ' found
the Messiah,' Andrew made his brother, Simon Peter, a
sharer in his joy. We next meet with Andrew,
on the E. of the lake of Galilee, at the miraculous
feeding of the multitude, on which occasion it is he that
tells our Lord (68/) of the lad in the crowd who
has ' five barley loaves and two fishes. ' Once more,
when the end is near, he shows in a memorable scene
his special intimacy with the Master. When Greeks
approach Philip with the 'desire to see Jesus,' it is to
Andrew first that Philip communicates the request
which they together lay before Christ (Jn. 12 22).
The rest of the NT, apart from the list of the
disciples in Actsl 13, is absolutely silent alx)ut Andrew.
Such other tradition as we have is worthless.
Eusebius (^i5'iii.)speaksof him as preaching in Scythia, and
we have in Andrew's 'Acts' the story of his martyrdom, at
Patrae in Achaia, on a cross shaped like the letter X. Acts
of Andrew the Apostle were in circulation among the Gnostics
of the second century, but survived only in various Catholic
recensions of much later date. Harnack enumerates (i) Acta
AndrtiF et Matthiie (and their mission to the Anthropophagi)
in Greek (edited by Tisch. Act. A/>ost. Af>ocrypli.), Syriac
(edited by Wright, Apoc. .Acts 0/ the A/>ostlcs), Ethiopic, and
Coptic (fragmentary). The Latin version survives only in its
influence on the Anglo-Saxon Andreas and Elene by Cyne-
wulffand in the Mi> acuta />. Andreir by Gregory of Tours;
see Lips. A/>okr. Af: -gesch. 1 543^, cpp. 27. (i) Acta Petri et
Andretr, in Greek (fragments edited by Tisch.) as well as in an
Ethiopic recension and a Slavonic translation (cp Lips. 1 553^/^).
(3) Martyriunt Andreie in various Greek recensions (one edited
by Tisch.), and in Latin (Harnack, Altchrist. Lit. 1 t^y /., cp
Lips. 1 564 y?;). A 'gospel of Andrew' is mentioned in the
Decretum Gelasii.
ANDRONICUS (anAronikoc [VA ; anAroyion]
2 Mace. 4 38 A*). 1. The Deputy of Antiochus Epiphanes
164
AN EM
ill Antioch, who (according to a Mace. 431^), at the
instigation of Menelaus, put to death the deposed high
priest Onias — a deed for which he was himself slain with
ignominy on the return of the king. See MACCABEES,
Second, § 3, end.
2. Deputy of Antiochus at (Jerizim (a Mace. 623).
See Maccabees, Second, § 3, end.
3. Andronicus and Junias are named in Rom. I67 as
kinsmen and fellow-prisoners of I'aul, as of note among
the apostles, and as having been ' in Christ ' before him.
The expression 'kinsmen,' if taken literally, seems to
imply that they were Jesvs by birth ; ' fellow-prisoners,'
on the hypothesis tliat Rom. 16 3-20 Ix^longs really to
an Ephesian Epistle, has l)een conjectured by Weiz-
siicker to allude to an imprisonrm-nt which they shared
with Paul in Ephesus, most likely in connection with
the great 'affliction' (2 Cor. 1 8-11), which uhimately
led to his leaving that city (.\cts 1923-20 1) ; on the
application of the term ' apf)stle ' to them see
ApoSTLii, § 3. The name Andronicus was not un-
common among Greek slaves ; and it has been con-
jectured that this Andronicus may ha- e been the
Jewish freedman of a Greek master.
In the lists of 'the seventy disciples' which we owe to the
Pscudo-Dorotheus and the Pseudo-Hippolytu.s Andronicus is
spoken of as bishop of ' Pannonia,' or of 'Spain.' In the frag-
ments of the (( Inostic) n-ept'oioi '\utdvt'Ov, he and his wife Drusiana
figure prominently as hosts of the apostle John at Kphesus, and
he is represented as having been made by that apostle rrpoe&pov,
or president, of the church of Smyrna. In the Greek church
Andronicus is commemorated, along with Crescens, Silas, and
Epsnetus, on 30th July. See Lipsius, Apokr. Ap.-gesch.
(Index, p. i8^).
ANEM (D:V)' iCh.673[58]-Josh.l92i En-gannim
[q.v.).
ANER (i:^). I- (Sam. Dljy ; avvav [AZ?EL] ;
Jos. eNNHpoc. a Hebronite) Gen. 14i324t. Perhaps
a local name; cp Nelr, a hill near Hebron {ZDMG
l'-i479 L'sSj). The correctness of the name Aner, how-
ever, is doubtful. The at'vai' of (S points to jry, Enan
(/.(•., place of a spring), a name which may refer to
one of the si.x springs near Hebron — e.g. , the deep
spring of Sarah called 'Ain Jedideh (Baed.*^) 137), at
the E. foot of the hill on which ancient Hebron lay.
2. (a^ua/) [B], (.vr\p [A], a.v. [L]) a city in Western
Manasseh ( i Ch. 670 [55!) — perhaps a corruption of
T.XANACII (-Ji-n) ; cp Josh. 21 25. t. k. c.
ANETHOTHITE, ANETOTHITE. See Ana-
TIIOTH, I.
ANGEL. The English word ' angel ' is a transcrip-
tion of d77fXoy, ©'s translation of Heb. mal'dkh
1. Names. nf<?D)- The English word denotes
primarily superhuman beings ; but both
the Hebrew and the Greek terms are quite general,
and, signifying simply messenger, are used indifferently
of human or superhuman beings. ^ Other terms, less
ambiguous in this particular respect, also occur.
These are : ' gods ' (dmVk. cp Ps. 8 5 [6], and see AV, RV
mg. ih. 8'2i6 97 7 138 i), 'sons of [the] god[s]' (o'^Wrtl 'J',
cpGen.624 Jobl62i 387, or d'Sk •:2, Ps. 20 i 89 6f7], EV
text), ' (sons of] the mighty,' ' mighty ones ' (oTax. Ps. "8 25, cp
Ih. 103 20, nj "123), ' holy ones ' (c>C*ip. Jb. 5 i Ps. 89 5 [6] Zech.
145 Dan. 4 14 [17] 8 13), 'watchers' (VTy, Dan. 4 14 [17]), 'host
of lieaven (□<2ci;i x^s, i K. 22 19 Dt. 17 3), ' host of the height '
(cha xas. Is. 2421), or 'host of Y.ihwc'(nirT Ka^i, Josh. 5 14,
cp use of Kas in Ps. 1032i 1482 Neh.96, and 'God's camp,'
Cm':;N nmr:, Gen. 32 2 [3]). Iti the case of Ps.fi8i7 [18] (<sSk
IKJC*) we owe the AV rendering 'thousands of angels' to old
leb. tradition (Targ. S.aad. and Abulw.), which treated the
difficult jKjc- as a synonym of -jnSs (cp Del., ad he). RV
' thousands upon thousands ' is equally hazardous ; cp Dan. 7 10.
In the NT also we find other terms in use : ' spirits ' (n-i-eu^ara,
Heb. 1 14), ' principalities' (apx<»'', Rom. 838), 'powers' (iufo/ifiS
' Karppe {Joum. As. ser. ix., 9 128) reads -jVo. a derivative
of -^Sn, as if ' the walker ' = ' the messenger," or Yahwi marching
(Is. 03 1, SBOT) as opposed to Yahwi mounted on the cherub
(Ps. 18 10 [I I]). "^^^
165
ANQEL
ii., i^oytrlax, Eph. O12), 'thrones' (0poi/oi, Col. 1 16X and
'donunions' (icupi6t>)t««, i/'.): ip further Cremer, Lex. ATO
20^ 237, and the Heb. and NT Lexicons, i.jv.
The earhest OT writings contain no definite or
systematic angelology, but indicate a prevalent Ijclief
2 Pre-exilic '" ^^^'^^ superhtiman beings Ix^sides
Yaliwe. These were (i) the 'other
gods' or ' gods of the nations,' who were credited with
real existence and activity ; cp, e.g., Nu. 21 29 Judg. 1 1 24
and V. Baudissin, Slud. 155-79- (2) Closely connc-cied
with these were the 'sons of God' — j.<r. , memlx-rs of
tlie divine guild. There is but one pre-exilic reference
to these (Gen. 62 4), whence it api)ears that they were
not subject to Yahw^, but might break through the
natural order of his world with impunity. (3)
Attendants on Yahw6 — in Is. 6 some of these attendants
are termed Seraphim (see Serai'HIM), but others
distinct from these seem to be implied ; cp v. 8. In a
similar scene (i K. '2219-22), those who attend Yahwe
and form his council are termed collectively ' the host
of heaven.' Such divine councils are also implied in
Gen. 322 11 7 (both J ) ; cp the plurals in these passages
with that in Is. 68, and the question in i K. 222o. In
another passage (Jos. 5 14^)— the pre-exilic origin of
which, however, has Ijeen questioned (Kue. Hex. 248
ET)^ — the host of Yahwe appears as disciplined and
under a captain. According to some, the ' hosts ' in
the phrase ' Yahw^ (God of) hosts ' — a phrase current
in early times — were angels (Che. Frofh. /s.*^' \\\ff.\
see further Names, § 123). The original text of
Deut. 33 2/. contained no reference to angels (see
Dillm. Comrn.; cp also Driver). Another element in
early Hebrew folklore worthy of notice in the present
connection is the belief in the horsemen of the air
(2 K. 2 12 617). For a parallel in modern Bedouin
folklore cp Doughty, Ar. De. 1 449. ' The melaika
are seen in the air like horsemen, tilting to and fro.'
Angelic horsemen play a considerable part in later
literature — e.g., in Zech. , Apoc.
The most noteworthy features, then, of the pre-exilic
angelology are the following ; — (i) except in Gen. 28 32,
these beings are never termed ' angels.' ' Angel ' occurs
frequently in the singular, but only in the ■ jihrase
'angel of Yahwe' (more rarely, 'of God'), which
denotes, not a messenger of, and distinct from, Yahwe,
but a manifestation of Yahwe himself in human form
(see TiiKOPiiANiES, § 4). Kostcrs treats even Cien.
2810-1217 32i[2] I81/. 19i/. as statements of the
manifestation of the one God in many forms (cp W'KS
Rel. Sem. 426/., 2nd ed. 445/), and concludes that,
before the Exile, -jh^d was used exclusivel}- of appear-
ences of Yahwe. Against this, Schultz's reference
{OT TheoL2^ig) to i S. 299 2 S.14 17 1927[28] is not
quite conclusive. (2) These attendants on Yahwe are
not also messengers to men. Even if the angels of
Gen. 28 32 be distinct from God, they bring no
message. For such a function there was no need so
long as Yahw6 himself appeared to men. (3) Beside
these .sulxjrdinate divine beings that attend Yahwe,
but have no relations with men, there are other beings
('other gods,' 'sons of the gotls') which are not
subject to Yahw^, and do enter into relations with men.
Comparatively few as are the early references to
angels or kindred beliefs (cp Demons, § 1), they are
... 3'et such as to justify us in attributing a
■ comparatively rich folk-lore on these matters
to the early Hebrews ; but it is not until the exilic and
post-exilic periods that angels come into prominence
theologically. They do so then in consequence of the
maturing belief, on the one hand, in the transcendence
of Yahw^, on the other, in his supremacy. The develop-
ment of angelology at this time must also have been
favoured by the contact of the Jews with the Persians ;
and some details of the later doctrine may be due to
the same influence — e.g. , the naming of angels, although
the great majority of the names themselves (as in
166
ANGEL
Enoch 6 69) are quite clearly Hebraic, though of a late
type (cp JIPN, p. 2IO).
With the growing sense of Yahw^'s transcendence,
belief in his self-manifestation in human form ceased ;
and thus the phrase 'angel of Yahwe,' set free from
its old meaning, now came to denote one of the lieings
intermediate between Yahw6 and men. At first it was
apparently the title of a particular angel (Zech. 1 ii/. ), but
subsequently it Ijccame a quite general term (note the pi.
Ps. 10320, cp 347[8] and NT passim). It is now by
angels, and no longer directly, that Yahwe communicates
with men — even prophets. The e.xperience of Ezekiel
marks the transition — Yahwe speaks to him, sometimes
directly (44 2), sometimes through another (40 3). With
Zechariah the change is complete. He never sees
Yahw6 ; he receives all divine instructions through angels
(contrast Am. 7/. ). Daniel receives the explanation of
his visions in the same way ; and in NT, warnings or
other conmiunications of the divine will are given by
angels (Mt. 1 20 '2 13, Lk. 1 19, ActslOsso). The angels
thus become the intermediaries of Yahwe's revelation ;
but they are also the instruments of his aid (Ps. 91ii
Dan. 828, and frequently ; cp later, 2 Mace. 1] 6 3 Mace.
61S, Susan. 42^ [in LXX, but not in Theod.], Bel
and Drag. 34-39 ; cp Acts 82639/ Tobit, passim. Acts
\llff., and especially Heb. 1 14), or punishment (Ps.
7849355/ Enoch 533 6Ti62ii 63i Apoc. Bar. 21 23
Rev. 6/, also in © Job20is 8823 40ii \z<. 6 in Heb.
and EV] and see further below, § 5). Especially
prominent in the apocaly[)tic literature is the cognate
t)>lief in the intercession of angels with God, in behalf
of the righteous, or against the unrighteous : see, e.g. ,
Enoch 9 10 152 406 (where the function is specially
referred to Gabriel, 4O69 ; yet cp also Tob. 12 12 15 where
Raphael intercedes) 99316 104 i Rev. 83/ Cp also in
or, Zech. 1 12 Job 5 I 8823 Eccles. 56[5], and perhaps
in N'T, Mt. I810, unless this be a case of angelic
i^uardianship.
In other respects also, the later angelologv shows the
influence of the growing sense of Yahwe's transcendence ;
the angels, exalted far above men by
4. Supremacy
of Yahwe.
the functions just mentioned, are them-
selves aba.sed before God (Job 4 18).
The awful exaltation of even angels above men, is
prominent in Daniel (Dan. 816-18 IO16/). The count-
less number of the angels is emphasised (Job 8823, Dan. 7
10, and later, Enoch 40 1 718 Mt. 2653 Heb. 12 22 Apoc.
Bar. 48io 51 n 59ii), and they are divided into ranks.
Even in Zech. the angel of Yahw6 is a ' kind of grand
vizier receiving the report of (less exalted) angels'
(Smend). This conception of ranks becomes, later,
more detailed' (see Dan. 10 13 12 1 Tob. 12 15, and
Enoch — e.g., chap. 40), and creates in Gk. the term
d/)xa77fXos (see Charles, Book of Enoch, p. 67 ; i Thcs.
4 16 Judeg); it may be traced farther, in NT, in the
J [The influence of non-Jewish upon Jewish beliefs can here
scarcely be denied. These are the facts of the case : In Daniel
(1013) we hear of a class of 'chief princes,' two of whom
(Gabriel and Michael, 11) are named (chaps. 10-12 ; cp also
Raphael and Ukiel). In Tob. (12 15) the number of the 'holy
angels who present the prayers of the saints, and go in before
the glory of the Holy One,' is given as seven (if the text is
correct). In Enoch the number of the chief angels varies
between, three, four, .six, and seven (see chaps. 20 40 z 78 i 89 i
90 21 31, and other passages). Manifestly this highest class of
angels was suggested by the Zoroastrian Amesha Spentas
or Amsha.spands (' immortal holy ones '), who (like the counsel-
lors of the king of Persia, Ezra 7 14) are seven ; and this seems to
be confirmed by the reference to the archangels in the Book of
Tobit, which also mentions the Zend name of the chief demon
(see AsMODEUs). In referring to this Iranian belief, however, we
must not forget the possibility that it is to some extent
historically connected with Babylonian .spirit-lore. The cultus
of the seven planets is no doubt primeval in Babylonia, and
may have spread thence to the Iranian peoples. To explain
the belief in the archangels soleljj from Babylonian sources would
be plausible only if the Zoroastrian Gathas, which are pervaded
by the belief in the Amshaspands, were not earlier than the
time of Philo. For this bold theory see Darmesteter, Le
ZendaveUa 3 56 ('93), etc. ; but contrast the same writer's
earlier theory in SBE (ZcnJavcsta, i. Introd.).— t.k.c]
167
ANGEL
references to the 'seven spirits of God' (Rev. 4s cp
82), and to Michael (Judeg Rev. \1^) and Gabriel (Lk.
1 19) ; probably also in the use of several terms together,
in certain passages [e.g. , thrones, dominions, principali-
ties, [jowers, C'ol. 1 16), and perhaps in the term ' elect
angels' (i Tim. hi\).
The doctrine of Yahwe's supremacy involved either
an absolute denial of the existence of other super-
human Ixiings or their subordination to him. To the
latter method of acconmiodation post-exilic angelology
owes some striking features. Thus, the patron angels
of nations (clearly referred to in Dan. IO1320 12i,
probably also in Is. 24 21/: Joel 3 [4] 11 Pss. 82 58 10 ; see
Che. Book of Fsahns^^'i 229^ and comm.) are merely
the ancient 'gods of the nations' — for which, in this
connection, cp especially Dt. 419 292$ f 338 © — trans-
formed to suit the new doctrine. Again, the 'sons of
the lilohim '- — formerly independent of Yahwe, whose
laws they broke with impunity — now become identified
with the angels (cp Ps. 29 1 with 1032o, and @'s transla-
tion of Gen. 62 [not L] Job 16 etc., cp also Lk. 20 36) ;
as such they constitute his council and do his bidding
(Jobl6 2i; cp Zech. In/). Similarly, the host of
heaven, which in the later years of the monarchy had been
favourite objects of worship (cp, e.g., Zeph. I5 Jer. 82
Dt. 4 19), and therefore rivals of Yahwe, now again
become subject to him and do him homage ( Neh. 9 6) ; he
is as supreme over them as over men (Is. 45 12, cp 40 26) ;
he is equally supreme over all gods (e.g. , cp Ps. 964).
On the other hand, the difficulty with which Yahwe's
claim to universal w^orship against all others was
B Suuremacv "^^^^^^I'^hed is also reflected in the new
"incomDlete ^"g^'lology. Yahwe's supremacy over
^ ' the 'gods,' or the 'host of heaven,"
was won and maintained only by force (Job 252 cp
2I22 Is. 2421 3445; cp 27 1 — for the passages in Job
see Davidson's, for those in Isaiah, Cheyne's Comm.).
This incomplete assimilation of the ' other gods ' etc.
to beings wholly subservient to Yahw^, combined with
a growing dislike to attribute evil or disorder directly
to him, led to the differentiation of angels as beneficent
or maleficent (see Demons, § 5, Satan, § 3) ; but the
or nowhere lays stress on the moral character of
angels, or knows anything of their 'fall.' Conse-
quently, angels were divided not into good and bad,
but into those who worked wholly, and those who worked
only partly, in obedience to God. This latter division
still seems to hold its own in NT alongside of the former ;
and, for this reason, in passages such as Rom. 838
I Cor. 1024/, the question 'Are the angels referred to
good or bad?' is probably out of place (cp Everling).
For several centuries after the Exile the lx;lief in
angels did not gain equal prevalence in all circles : thus
G Schools '' "*^^''^'' mentions them (on Gen. 1 26 2r see
of belief.
Di
) ; the Priestly Chronicler does so but
rarely — save when quoting directly from hi
sources — and Esther, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, and
Maccabees, are marked more by the absence than by
the presence of such references ; ' Angel ' does not
occur in the Hebrew of Ecclus. 4821. Still later the
differences become conspicuous ; the Sadducees were
credited with complete scepticism (Acts238); the
EssENES {t/.v. , § 3) attached an exaggerated importance
to the doctrine ; the popular Pharisaic party and all
the NT writers share, in general, the popular beliefs.
Yet in John angels are alluded to only in 20 12 I51
(a pa.ssage based on an OT narrative), I229 (a saying of
the populace), and the intrusive verse 54; the epistles
contain no mention of them (cp the comparative
infrequency of references in John to demons {i^.v. , § 6).
Several features of NT angelology have been already
incidentally discussed ; they are common to both Jewish
7 Annr>a1vnaaa '"^"^ Christian Writings. Scarcely less
S NT influential over the writers of the NT
than the OT were the apocalypses then
already extant — especially Enoch. It is in Enoch we
168
8. Jesus.
ANGEL
first see elaborated a doctrine of the ' fall ' of angels.
The fall is regarded as the punishment for the intercourse
mentioned in (ien. 62-4. !i"d for an improper revelation
of 'the secret things of the world' (cp in NT Jude 6
2lVt. 24). Through their fall they Ijecome inferior
to men, who therefore judge them (En. I44-7 102; cp
I Cor. 63 Heb. 2). Enoch .should be especially com-
pared with Revelation.
The influence of the OT may be clearly seen in the
NT angelophanies, which seem moflelled on those of
the early OT narratives, — only that now, under the
influence of the later development, the angel is quite
distinct from God (ActslOs/ is not an exception).
These angelophanies abound in the nativity and re-
surrection narratives and in Acts (519826-40 10 3-7 30-32
127-11 2723), but are conspicuous by their absence from
the narratives of the life of Christ — the badly attested
passage Lk. 2243 being unitiuc, except so far as Mt.
4ii = Mk. I13 (contrast Lk.iijf.) may be considered
parallel.
Jesus accepts the popular belief in the existence of
angels, but never (even in Mt. I810 or 2653) counte- ■
nances the l>elief that they influence life in j
the present — perhaps in the parable of the i
wheat and the tares (,Mt. 1824-30 37-40) he directly
discountenances it. All he says of them has reference
to themselves alone, or to their relations to men after
life. Thus, at the second coming they will accompany
the Son of Man (Mt. I627 and parallels ; Jn. I51), and
will then separate the good from the evil {e.^. , Mt. 1841 ; I
cp Lk. I622). They do not marry (Mt. 2230, and |
parallels); their knowledge is limited (Mt. 24 36 = Mk.
I032) ; and they rejoice over repentant sinners (Lk.
1 .') 10 ; cp Lk. 1 2 8/ , with w hich contrast Mt. 1 0 32/ , and
cp earlier, Job 8823). In particular, Jesus breaks away
from the prevailing tendency to make angels the inter-
mediaries of revelation : he himself liecomes the sole
revealer (Mt. 11 27 Jn. 176 ; cp 146^), he will himself
always be with his disciples (Mt. 2820), and will instruct [
them directly (Lk. 2I15), or through the Spirit whom '
he sends (Jn. 1326 I41726). Thus this part of the
doctrine of angels was doomed to give way to the
Christian doctrines of the abiding presence of Christ
and of the Holy Spirit. It still survives, however, in
Revelation (li 17i2l9; cp also in the contemporary
Jewish .'Ipoc. Bar. 55 3, 'The angel Ramid who pre-
sides over true visions'); also in Acts (103^ 2723?)
— yet here alongside of the new belief (10 13-16). Paul
p . already shows the influence of the teaching of i
■ Jesus — he claims to receive his gospel direct
from him (Gal. I1215/: cp Acts93-6)— but still shares
((jal.819) the common belief (Acts 753 Heb. 22 Jos.
.•I///. XV. 03 ; cp Dt. 882 ©) in the past instrumentality
of angels in revelation, perhaps also in the present
possibility ofthe same (Gal. 18; cp?4i4). With him, too,
angels still play a large part in human life ; his own
practice and practical exhortations are governed by
this l)elief (i Cor. 49 63 11 10). An emphatic warning,
however, is uttered against a practice (which was
springing up in some quarters) of worshipping angels
(Col. 2 18 cp Rev. 19 10). In the same epistle the
creation of angels is asserted (I16) — a point to which,
as might be expected, no reference had been made in
OT, where they are once mentioned as being present at
the creation of the world. Job 887 (in Jewish literature,
cp Jub. 2 2 Apoc. Bar. 216). The question whether
Paul associated angels with cosmical forces turns on
the interpretation of ra <TT0ix^7a rod Kde/xov, Gal. 4 3
Col. 2820 (see, on the one hand, Lightfoot, in loc, on
the other, Everling, as cited Iielow, and cp lu.KMENT.s).
Such an association would, at least, have accorded with
the tendency of the time : note the angels of winds,
sun, fire, and water, etc. (Rev. 7i 19i7 14i8 16 cp
Heb. 1 7 and Jn. 54, and, somewhat earlier, Enoch
60 11/; 61 10). The tendency began much earlier; in j
the or angels and stars are closely associated (cp Job !
169
ANKLETS
387 Is. 344, and, in general, the double meaning
attaching to the phrase 'host of heaven'); and the
transition from Ps. IO44 to a fixed belief in elemental
angels is easy. See Persia.
The literature of the subject is large ; all the Old and New
Testament Theologies contain discussions ; on the OT, Fie|)en-
bring's Thiol, de Cancien Test. 1888 (KT,
10. Literature. New York, 93) and Smend's A T KeL-geuh.
(•<V3) are soecially helpful. The chief mono-
graphs for the OT are by Kosters (' De Mal'ach Yahwe ' and
' Het ontstaan en de onlwikkeling dtr Angelologie onder Israel '
rZ/.Tit 367-415 ['75], 10 34-69 113-141 ['76]; for the Pauline
Doctrine, by Everling (Pie Paulinische Angelologie und
Daiitonologie ['881). On the vocabulary of the subject see M.
Schwab, / 'ocahu/aire de C angelologie (tapris maniiscrits
hel>reu.r (Paris, '97). The question of foreign influence is dis-
cus.sed by Kohut (Ueher d. jiid. Angelologie u. I>,'monologie in
ihrer Abluingigkeit voin I'arsismus); for further literature on
this point see Che. OI's 282. See further the valuable discus-
sions of Montefiore (///^(i. Led. viii., esp. p. 429^), and Clicyne
ipPs 322-327, 334-337)1 and cp Lueken, Michael <^()9i).
G. c. G.
ANGLE (Is. 198Hab. I15). See Hook, 3, Fisii. § 3.
ANIAM (DJ/^3N, surely not ' mourning of the people '
[Ges.], but miswritten [see ©"] for c^-Vk. see Eliam ;
differently Gray, ///*.V 44 n. i, who would omit ., and
derive from cy: ; aAiaAeim [H]. aniaaa [A], eN. [L]),
in genealogy of Manasskh (i Ch. 7i9t). T. K. c.
ANIM (D'JV' AiCAM [B], <^NelA^ [A], -iB [L]).
Josh, losof, a hill town of Judah, mentioned after
Eshtemoa (a name etjually distorted in ©"). I'erhaps
the modern el-Ghuwein, which lies to the south of
el-Khalil (Hebron) between es-Semu" and Tell 'Arad.
ANISE (anhBon [Ti. WH], Mt. 2323t)or Diu.(RV
mg. ) is the plant Ancthuvi ^raveolens.^ The correct
rendering is 'dill,'^ and the plant is distinct from
Pimpinella Anisum, which is the modern ' anise.' The
biblical plant is described (Fluckiger and H anbury's
Pharmacop-aphia '-' 327 /. ), as ' an erect, glaucous
annual plant, with finely striated stems, usually one foot
to one foot and a half in height, pinnate leaves with
setaceous linear segments, and yellow flowers. It is
indigenous to the Mediterranean region. Southern Russia,
and the Caucasian provinces, but is found as a corn-
field weed in many other countries, and is frequently
cultivated in gardens. ' ^
It is mentioned in Mt. 2823, along with mint
and cunmiin,^ as being subjected by the scribes and
Pharisees to tithe. This practice accords with the
general principle stated at the commencement of the
Mishnic tract on 'tithes' ('Whatsoever is food, and is
private possession, and has its increase out of the earth,
is subject to tithe ' — a rule based on the precept of
Deut. 1422, 'Thou shalt surely tithe all the increase of
thy seed, that which cometh forth of the field year by
year'), and the liability of dill in particular to tithe is,
in the Talmud, specially mentioned (see the references
in Celsius, Hierobot. 1 497). N. -M.— W. T. T.-D.
ANKLETS and ANKLE -CHAINS. These have
ever been favourite ornaments among Orientals.' Prob-
ably the oldest specimens are some in gold and
silver which have been found in Egypt, where they
appear to have been worn by men as well as women.
The chains obliged the wearers to take short and
tripping steps. To enhance the effect, bells were (at
1 The Syriac and the Ar.abic versions correctly render by the
word sitehhetid, shihitt—a name for this plant which is probably
derived from Persian (see Liiw, 373). t^ r l
2 This, though supplanted by 'anise' in all the English
versions from Wyclif onwards, is the word used in the A.S.
version, ' myntan and dile and cymmyn."
3 Virgil gives it a place in the flower-garden (h.cl. 2 48), and
Pliny in the veget.ible-garden (//A' xix. 8 52). Cp the Creek reff.
in Liddell and Scott. . . ,
•« In the parallel passage in Lk. (11 42) dill is not mentioned—
'mint and rue and every herb (jrofAoxai'Oi').' >. .
» Cp Ar. halhal, and Ok. ntpic^vfu.ov and ir«fM(Tit»Ai«, the
latter of which is 0s rendering of the Heb. DjaO (in the plur.
or dual) ' breeches.'
ANNA
any rate, in later times) attached to the chain — a practice
which is alluded to in terms of disapproval in the Koran
(5«r. 2431). Ornaments of this nature are referred to
in Is. 3 18.
They are here called C'03}/|,1 RV ' anklets,' AV ' tinkling orna-
ments' (® e/xn-Xdicia), a word from which comes the denominative
verb in 7'. 16 (r!:D3yn □rf'i'Jin ' they make a tinkling with their
feet,' ® irai^ovcrai). Similar is ^^{?"i Is. 3 2ot, RV ' ankle
chains,' AV ' ornaments of the legs,' © uncertain (cp Targ.
K'SjT 'Tc) ; cp mi'SK. ^Jn- 31 5°. RV as above, AV ' chains,' ©
^KiSuyy. In spite of its apparently obvious connection with ty^
'to walk,' rnys 's applied also to ornaments worn on the arms :
see Bkacelet, 5.
ANNA (anna [BNA]), the Greek form of the name
Hannah.
1. Wife of Tobit (Tob. Igf.).
2. Daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher (Lk.
236-38). Like Simeon, she represents the class of
those who ' waited for the consolation of Israel,' and,
like him, she is said to have had the gift of prophecy.
Being constantly in the temple, and prepared for the
honour by fastings and prayers, she was enabled to
meet the child Jesus and his parents, when, like
Simeon, she burst into a prophetic song of praise.
She is also, it would seem, a prototype of the
' widows indeed ' (see Widow) of the early Christian
community (i Tim. 659): hence the particularity with
which the circumstances of her widowhood are described.
The name Anna or Anne became common among Christians
from the tradition that the mother of the Virgin Mary was so
called.
ANNAAS (c&NAAC [A]), lEsd. 523 AV = Ezra235
Sen A AH.
ANNAS (ANN AC [A]). lEsd. 932 RV [Heb. J^H,
§ 5o] = Ez. 10 31 Harim.
ANNAS and CAIAPHAS (annac [Ti. WH] ; kai-
A4)Ac[li- ^^IIJ)- ln6.\.i). Quirinius, who on the de-
position of Archelaus became governor of Syria, followed
the custom of the Herodian family and appointed a new
high priest. His choice fell on a certain Ananos (so in
Josephus) or Annas (so in NT), son of Sethi (Jos. Ze^i)
who continued to hold the office until the change of
government in 15 .•\. I). Valerius Gratus, who succeeded
Quirinius, gave the post in succession to three men, none
of whom, however, held it for more than a year. The
second of the three was a son of Annas, called
Eleazar by Josephus {An/, .xviii. 22). Atlast, in 18 A.D.,
Valerius found in Joseph, called Caiaphas, one who was
strong enough to hold the office till 36 A. U. Then
Vitellius (35-39 .A.D. ) once more, in 36 and 37,
appointed, one after the other, two sons of Annas
named Jonathan and Theophilus (^«/. xviii. 4353).
Jonathan still held a prominent position in 50-52 {/i/
ii. 12 sy.), a point of which we have good proof in the
fact that Peli.x caused him to be assassinated (B/h. IS3
Anf. -xx. 8s). As in Acts 46, Annas, Caiaphas, Jonathas
(so D ; the other MSS have Joannes, EV John), and
Alexander are assigned high-priestly rank, and the first
three can be identified from Josephus, Jonathan being a
son, andC.MAPHAS, according to Jn. 18 13, a son-in-law,
of Annas, we seem to have good reason for conjecturing
Alexander to be the Graecised name of Eleazar the son
of Annas. .
Cai.M'H.as, then, was the acting high priest at the
time of the trial of Jesus. His long term of office shows
that in his relations with the Romans he nmst have
been oljsequious and adroit. Mk. and Lk. do not
mention him in their account of the passion ; but in
Jn. II49I813/ 2428 and Mt. 26357, we read that he
presided over the proceedings of the Synedrium ; he
therefore it was who rent his clothes. According to
1 Cp 03? a fetter (?) in Pr. 7 22, the pr. name HMV (see
AcHsAii) and the Ar. 'ikds, a chain connecting the head and
forefoot of a camel — the usual method of hobbling the animal.
ANOINTING
Jn. 11 49-52, he became also an involuntary prophet as to
what the death of Jesus meant.' With regard to his
character in general, the accounts accessible to us give
no details.
The most important personality in the group would
appear to have been old Annas. This seems to be
sufficiently implied in the fact that four of his sons'
and a son-in-law successively held the high - priestly
office^whether we assume that Annas expressly wrought
for this end, or whether it was simply because those in
power sought by this means to win him over to them-
selves. Only on the assumption that he was, in truth,
the real manager of affairs, can we account for it that,
according to Jn. I813-24, he gave a private hearing in
the case of Jesus, as also that Lk. (Lk. 82) names him
as colleague with Caiaphas, and (.'\cts46) enumerates
him in the first place, along with Caiaphas and two
of his high-priestly sons, as holding high-priestly rank.
Other instances, however, of a similar co-ordination of
past high priests are not unknown ; for example, in
the case of Jonathan, son of Annas (/?/ ii. I25/. ), of
Ananias son of Nedebaios (Ant. xx. 92-9; see AnaniA-S,
9), and of the younger Ananos and Jesus son of Gamaliel,
both of whom were high priests for some time during
the years 62-65, and had the conduct of affairs in their
hands during the first period of the Jewish wars.
The Annas (Ananos) just mentioned, son of Annas,
appointed in 62 A.D. by Agrippa II., availed himself of
the confusion following on the death of Festus to procure
the death of his enemies by tumultuary sentence. Among
the victims of his tyranny was, it would seem, James,
the brother of the Lord. The passage relating to it in
Josephus (20 91), however, may perhaps be a Christian
interpolation (see James, § 3, end). In any case, the
king himself, even before the arrival of the new pro-
curator, put an end to Annas's reign of terror by
deposing him from the high-priesthood after a tenure of
three months. H. v. s.
ANNIS. (anngic [B]). I Esd. 5 16 RV, RVmg.
Annias, AV Ananias [q.v., i).
ANNTJUS (annoynon [A], om. BL), i Esd. 848, a
name not in Ezra 8 19 — in Ezra's caravan (see Ezra, i.
§ 2, ii. § 15 (i) d) — supposed by some to be a corruption
of ' with him ' (IDX) in Ezra, which may itself be a mis-
read sign of the accusative (so ©"*'-).
ANOINTING. In the OT two distinct Hebrew terms,
j frequently occurring, are translated in EV by 'anoint,'
1. Terms.
,hile a third (-;o:) is mcorrectly so under-
stood in Ps. 2 6 by Targ. and Sym. and
also by Ewald (cp We. Heid.K^^ 118). [a) tjio {siik)
is always (Dt. 2840 Ruth 83 2S.I220I42 2Ch.28i5
Ezek. I69 Dan. IO3 Mic. 615) used of the application of
unguents to the human body as a matter of toilet, and
hence Ex. 30 32 means that the holy anointing oil
shall not be used for ordinary toilet purposes, (b) nc'D
(vidshah) and its derivatives.^ In this case we have to
distinguish between the primary physical, and a secondary
and metaphorical use. In its physical sense nao is used
(1) rarely, probably with the retention of the original
meaning of the root, of rubbing an unguent or other
substance on an object,—*.^'., oil on shields (Is. 21 5
t It has been suggested that the reference to his prophesying
may have arisen out of a popular etymology of Caiaphas, cp Ar.
*«'//■= soothsayer ('qui movit vestigia et indicia rerum, physio-
gnomus,' Freyt.) ; cp Nestle, /?/''7"/r. 40 149, and see Palm. Gram.
127, n. 4. Blass thinks that Nestle has upset the etymology
from KS'3 'stone' and KB'3 'oppression,' by showing that the
name in .\r.-imaic is written with p, not 3.
2 The fourth, .Matthias, was appointed to the oflfice for a
short time, between 41 and 44, by Agrippa ; perhaps .\nnas did
not live to .see this, and certainly he did not survive to see the
priesthood held by his fifth son, .Ananos II. (in 62 a.d.).
•' On the.se, as well as on several matters referred to in the
course of this article, Weinel's study ' nrO und seine Derivate '
(/.ATli^ 18 1-82 ['98]) should be consulted. Unfortunately, it
appeared too late to be used in the preparation of the present
article.
ANOINTING
aS. l2i), paint on a ceiling, Jer. 22i4 (here translated
in EV by ' painted '), — and probably we should interpret
the word similarly in the recurring phrase {e.g. , in Ex.
292) 'wafers unleavened anointed with oil' ; (2) of the
application of unguents to persons or things as a religious
rite ; for details see below (§ iff.), but observe that,
with the possible' exception of Am. 66, npo 's never
used in the sense of :jic- In its metaphorical sense
na'O is used of the divine appointment or selection of a
man for a particular purjKDse — viz. , for the kingship
(iS. lOi 15i7 2S. 127 2 K. 93612 Fs. 457[8] 892o[2i]
2 ('h. 227 ; cp below, § 5). For the relation of the term
n'ro to the usages under discussion see Messiah, § i.
'Anoint' in Ps. 92io[ii] corresponds to Heb. SSj,'^ in
Ps. 235 it corresponds to jb*! ; ' anointing" in the prob-
ably corrupt passage Is. 10 27 corresponds to ice* (©"•*'^Q
oni. ) and ' anointed ones ' in Zech. 4 14 (AV ; but RV
' sons of oil ' ; ©"K-^O viol r^j TrtirTjros) to •\r\-i'r\ "33.
In NT the EV also confuses two sharply distinguished
terms. XP"^' which in the LXX, as in classical Greek,
may be used in a physical sense, is in the NT used ex-
clusively (Lk. 4 iS [cp Is. 61 1] Acts 427 IO38 2 Cor. 1 21)
of (jod in a metaphorical sense ; for we can hardly
regard the quotation from Ps. 457[8] in Heb. I9 as an
e.xception. The derivatives xpiatx-o. (ijn. 22027) and
XptcT^s are used similarly ; but the compounds fjxploj
(Rev. 3 18 also Tob. 68 [9] 11 8) and fVtxpiw (Jn. 96ii)
retain the original physical sense.
Thus the NT use of XP"^ resembles the meta-
phorical use of nro- The other NT term, d\ei(po}, is
ahc'iiys used of the application of unguents to the body,
whether (like the Heb. rj^o which it frequently represents,
e.g., Ruth 3 3 Micah6i5, cp also 2 K. 4 2 0"'^'-) for
toilet purposes (Mt. 617 Lk. 73846 Jn. 11 2), or medicin-
ally (.VIk. 613 Ja. 514), or as a tribute of respect to
the dead (Mk. 16 1 cp Jn. 1237).^
From the foregoing analysis of the terms, it will
be clear that ' anointing ' was practised by the
Hebrews both for secular and for sacred
purposes. The unguent used was olive oil,
with or without the addition of aromatic spices ; for
details see On.. Anointing formed among the Hebrews,
as among many other peoples (cp, d'._o'., PI. NN xVd. 1-6),
a regular part of a full toilet, being in particular
associated with washing (Ruth 83 Ezek. I69 Sus. 17) ;
the omission of it was a sign of mourning, the
resumption of the practice a sign that mourning was
over (2 S. 142 Dan. 10 3 [cp Mt. 617] 2 S. 1220 Judith IO3
cp Is. 61 3 Eccl. 98) ; and hence ' to anoint ' is a suitable
figure for 'to make glad' (Ps. 23$ cp 457 [8]). The
head and face appear to have been most usually anointed
(Ps. 104i5 Judith 16io Mt.617 Lk. 738 cp Ps.235 I4I5
Eccles. 98), and the anointing of the feet to have been a
special luxury (Lk. 746 Jn. 12 3). The medicinal use of
unguents is referred to not only in Ja. 5 14 Mk. 613,
but also in Is. 16 Lk. IO34. On anointing the dead
see Embalming.
Leaving the significance of anointing as a religious
rite to a final section, we will here simply classify the
-i Rplie-iniK? persons or objects which were so
H+» a-nnlnH^o. anointed ; and first the persons, (a)
"'0" p^ri"^ l'^ ^'>^- '" '^« OT,%eciallySr!
'^ the earlier wntmgs, there are numerous
references to the anointing of kings (cp, e.g., 1 S. 1631a
1 Possible, but hardly probable (cp Gcs.-Ru., J.7'. riUS)- The
feast described in the context is sacrificial: see i'. 4"and cp
WRS AV/. Sem.^'i) 241, 258, 430 n. 4, and note that the word
used in 7/. 6 for bowl (pnta) is elsewhere exclusively used in
connection with .sacrifice ; cp Driver (ad loc.\ who, however,
takes the passage as a description of effeminate luxury.
* The text, however, is very questionable. Many (r^. Cheyne,
Psalms (1», Baethgen), following ®ujiart Sym. Jer., point 'n^3
instead of 'n?3, and translate ' my old age ' or ' my wasting
strength' instead ot 'I am anointed.' In Psalmsi") Che.
reads ■n'?0 = nxS3.
3 In Mk. 14 8t ' anoint ' is iivpi^ut (see Myrrh, a).
173
2. Toilet.
ANOINTING
9 16 2 K. 23 30 Ecclus. 4613), and so fre()uently of the
Hebrew kings to whom the term 'Messiah of Yahwe'
belonged pre-eminently, if not exclusively, in the days
of the monarchy and even later (Lam. 4 20) ; for the
anointing of a Syrian king (by a Hebrew prophet) see
1 K.19i5. and cp the general reference in Judg. 9815,
and ^w. 7V/I*. 376 ' Manahbi(r)ia, king of Egypt, . . .
established my father . . . over the kingdom, and
poured oil on his head.' {b) The prophet. How far it
was usual to anoint a prophet we cannot say ; but we
have one allusion (in a narrative of the 9ih or 8th
cent. ) to such an anointing which camiot be reasonably
explained away ; if ' anoint ' in i K. 19 15^ i6</ Ix; literal,
it would be unnatural to consider it in i'. 16^ (as in
Is. 61 1 ) metaphorical ; cp Ecclus. 488. (c) The priest.
References to the anointing of priests, as part of the
rite of consecration, are numerous in P. We have to
distinguish, however, Ijetween those passages which refer
to the anointing of the high priest (Aaron) alone, and
those which refer to the anointing of the priests in general
(for the former cp Ex. 29? Lev. 812 6 2o[i3], and, outside
P, Ps. 1332 Ecclus. 4015; for the latter, E.x. 3O30
40:3-15). It seems proliable that passages of the
latter class are secondary (cp We. CH 141/. ; Di. on
Lev. 8to-i2; Nowack, Arch. 2 124). In this case the
anointing of the high priest may be inferred to have
been an earlier custom than that of anointing all
priests. This would account for the origin of the term
n'tiicn pan, 'the anointed priest' a|)plied to the high
priest (Lev. 43516 622[i5]; cp Nu. 3^25 Lev. 21 1012
2 Mace. 1 10, and perhaps Uan. 925/ ), and for its subse-
quent disappearance when all priests were anointed (cp
D'na'Dn C':rT2.T Nu. 33). We may infer from Zech. 4 14 that
the custom of anointing the high priest was at least as
ancient as the close of the sixth century ; but we have
no earlier evidence. On the other hand, the contrast
between a priest and ' Yahwe's anointed (iS. 235 — a
Deuteronomic passage), and the different terms in
which the Chronicler (iCh. 2922) and the earlier
historian (iK. 235) refer to Zadok's appointment, are
worthy of attention. Cp further (for some differences of
view) Haudissin, Die Gesch. des AT Priesterthums 25/.
48/ 140 253.
Lifeless objects also were anointed, [a) Gen. 28 18
31 13 35x4 are, as far as OT is concerned, isolated
references to the anointing o{ sacred pillars
4. Lifeless
objects.
(see Massebah) ; but the custom was well-
known in antiquity (cp Di. on Gen. 28 18;
WRS Rel. Sem.i'^^ 232). {f>) The tabernacle and its
appurtenances. P contains directions or statements
about anointing ' the tent of meeting ' and all its furniture
(which is mentioned in detail, Ex. 30 26), or 'the
tabernacle and all that is therein' (Ex. 4O9 Lev. 8 10
Nu. 7i), as part of the rite of consecration. Special
reference 'is made to the anointing of the altar (Nu.
7108488). In Dan. 924 we find an allusion to the
anointing of 'the most holy' (probably = the altar) in
the reconsecration after the pollution of the temple by
Antiochus h^piphanes.
NT contains no reference to anointing as a religious
rite, unless, indeed, we ought to infer from Mk. 613
Ja. 5 14 that magical — and so far religious — pro-
perties were attributed to the oil used in anointing
the sick (as distinct from the wounded, Lk. IO34) ;
but before the close of the second century A. u. it had
come to form part of the ceremony of baptism. See
Smith and Cheetham, Diet, of Christ. Antiq., j.tt'.
'Chrism,' 'Unction'; Mayor's Comni. on James
(on 514).
Anointing occurs repeatedly as a metaphorical term
to express a religious idea. As we have seen (1) the
K Twr ♦ 1, Heb. term (nrc) is sometimes ani the
0. metapnors. ^.p ^^^^ ^^^,^^ ^,^.3^.^ ^^^ j^^,^.
phorically with God as subject. The metaphor may
have originated in, as it was certainly subsequently
used to express, the idea of God pouring out his spirit
ANOS
on a man (or people) for a particular purpose — e.g. , on
Saul to smite the Amalekitts (iS. 15i7), on Jehu to
smite the house of Ahab (2 K. 96/ ), on ' the Servant '
' to preach good tidings ' (Is. (il i). Thus, after Yahw6
has anointed Saul (i S. lOi), the spirit of Yahwe comes
mightily upon him {v. 6), cp i S. I613; and the con-
nection lx;t\veen the outpouring of the spirit and
anointing is clear in Is. 61 1 (Lk. 4 18) 2 Cor. 1 21. and
especially in Acts 10 38. Similarly, ' the anointing from
the holy one' (ijn. 22027) is the illumination of the
Holy Spirit, which teaches those that receive it con-
cerning all things. Hence, the term ' anointed ' could
suitably Ix; applied to Israel as a people — e._i,^. , Hab. 3 13 ;
see further Messiah, § 3. In Ps. tf)? 892o, the
whole phrase ' to anoint with oil ' is used with CJod as
subject ; in these cases either the whole phrase is a
metaphor, or mdla/i has accjuired a quasi-causative
sense.
On the relation of the various terms and customs
to one another there have been different views, some
fi Primiti a °^ which must te briefly referred to.
._ Some {f.£: , Kamjihausen in the article
sigmncance. . ,.^„^. ■ j,^ // , , -/j ,2, , j,^.,i,.(. ,he religious
from the toilet use, seeing in the rite of anointing
both the means of setting apart to (Jod some person or
thing as clean and sweet-smelling, and also the symbol
of such a condition. But (i) it may Ix: questioned
whether the sharp distinction of terms relative to
the two uses (cp § i) lie not against this view; (2)
there is no positive evidence that the Hebrews in-
terpreted the rite in this way, unless we so regard the
custom of mi.xing sweet -smelling substances in the
anointing oil — a custom which cannot be traced liefore
P ; and (3) the metaphorical use cannot be satisfactorily
explained in this way. Reasons have l>een given in the
preceding section for thinking that the religious rile of
anointing men was at any rate understood at an early
period to symboJi.se the outpouring of the divine spirit ;
but it is possible that this symbolism is not original,
even in the case of persons. It certainly does not
e.\plain the anointing of things — particularly the pillar
at Bethel. This custom Roliertson Smith {ke/. Sem.(^>
233 379#. especially 313 ^, cp S.\ckikick) seeks
to explain as a sacrifice, the oil being a substitute
for the animal fat which was smeared (smearing, it is
to be remembered, being the original sense of ne'e)
by the Arabs on similar pillars, and played a consider-
able part in many other forms of sacrifice. Fat being,
according to ancient thought, one of the great seats
of life, was peculiarly fitted for the food of the gods
(hence the anointing of the pillar), and also for imparting
living virtue to the persons to whom it might be applied
(hence the anointing of things or other persons). In
this case the view that anointing symbolised the impart-
ing of the divine spirit, is a refinement of the idea in
which the custom may l)e presumed to have originated
(cp CovKN.VNT, § 5 end). The anointing of the temple
and sacred furniture will then l>e a survival similar to
that of sprinkling them with blood. G. n. o.
ANOS (ancoc [B.\ ; om. L]), i Esd. 934. apparently
V.AM.Mi of l';zral036.
ANT(n^p?,'MYpMH?[B*<A];>r;;/?Vrt,Pr.663025t).
Classical writers often refer to the
industry, forethought, and ingenuity
of the ant, and especially to its habit
1 The etymoloRy of this word is very doubtful. It has been
proposed to derive it (i) from a doubtfid Heb. verb ^j^^ (cp Sio)
' to cut,' referring tither to the shape of the ant's body ( = ' in-
sect '), or to its habit of cutting seeds from the corn-ears, or to the
incision it is supposed to make in the seeds themselves to prevent
their .sproutine (though this la.st was hardly known to the ancient
Hebrews); (2) from .\r. namala 'to creep' or 'to ascend by
creeping ' ; (3) from asuppo.sed root akin to Heb. ck:. ' to make a
slight sound '. The connection with Ar. namaltt is certain ;
but pos.sibly the meaning of the verb may be derived from the
noun. A kindred word is Ar. anmul, ' fingertip ' (Lag. Uebers.
21). The Syr. equivalent is JfKj»»a«a(' keen-scented "?) ; Ar.
has the same word as Wch.—nanila.
1. Name and
allusions.
2. Species.
ANT
of storing grain -seixls beneath the ground in time
of harvest. '
Thus ifllian tells us that so great is the industry of ants that,
when there is moonlight, they work by night as well as by day.
It was noticed how carefully their work was organised; they
were descrilied as marching like an army, the oldest acting
as generals ; when they reached the cornfield, the older ants
ascended the stalks and threw down the grains to the others,
who stood around the fix)t. Each took its part in carrying
away the food to their .subterranean homes, which were care-
fully constructed with several chamliers, and protected above by
walls of earth to keep out the rain. The seeds were divided
into two, .sometimes uito four, segments, and in other cases
Ceeled, to prevent their sprouting ; if wetted by rain, they were
rought out and carefully dried in the sun. The ant showed
a weather-knowledge far surpas.sing man's. It was in all respects
a TToAiTiKov ^(^v, and is so classed by Aristotle along with the
cmne and the bee.
The same observations are repeated in later times by
Arabic and Jewish writers.
The Mohammed.ins .seem to have a.ssociated the ant with
.Solomon: the 27th chapter of the Koran is styled 'the ant,"
becau.se it mentions that Solomon, on his march, once entered
'the valley of ants,' whereupon an ant said, 'O ants, enter
into your habitations, lest Solomon and his army tread you
underfoot and perceive it not.' It was a custom with the Arabs,
.says lioL-hart, to place an ant in the hand of a new-born child,
with a prayer that he might grow up wise ami .sagaciou.s.
The only two passages in the OT which mention the
ant obviously refer to some species of Harvesting Ant
— probably either to Aphanogaster (for-
merly called Attn) barhara, or to A.
stnictor, or to Pheidole 7negacephala, which are to this
d.ay found in Syria, and, indeed, all round the Mediter-
ranean basin.
Numerous other species of ant have been descril)ed in
Palestine ; but, as far as is known, they resemble in their habits
the ants of temperate and colder climates, and do not lay up any
store of provi.sions against the winter : it is po.ssible that, like
the latter, they pa.ss the cold season in a torpor or winter sleep.
The harvesting ants all belong to the genus
Aphnenogaster, or are closely allied to it. Their habits
_ .. were well known to the ancients and
arves mg ^^ niedineval writers. These observers,
generalising on insufficient data, as-
sumed that all ants stored up food for winter con-
sumption. When, however, the centre of learning
shifting farther N. from the shores of the Mediterranean,
the leaders of science were found in central and northern
Europe, the position of things was reversed.
Naturalists, noticing that the ants whose habits
they observed did not store grain and seeds, arrived
at the conclusion that no ants did, and attem]5ted to
explain the accounts of the earlier writers by pointing
out that they had probably mistaken for seeds the
pupre which, when anything disturbs the ants' nest, are
at once seized and Iwrne to a place of safety. The
consensus of opinion, accordingly, until about a quarter of
a century ago, was that ants never lay up stores of food.
The investigations of Moggridge and Lespes, how-
ever, showed that, although this opinion is probably
correct as far as ants in more northern climates are
concerned, many of the ants in the countries bordering on
the Mediterranean store up seeds collected from different
plants. Not only do they collect seeds that have fallen,
but they also frecjuently tear the fruit or seed-pod off the
plants and bear them to the formicarium or nest.
They will, moreover, travel considerable distances to
obtain their food, marching in two nearly continuous
parallel lines, the length of the column sometimes
measuring 24 yards or more. The two lines are moving
in contrary directions — the one toiling laden with spoils
towards the nest, the other hurrying back with empty
mouths to the harvest ground.
Thenests both of .4. harbara and of A. structor are
simply excavations in the ground — long cylindrical pas-
4 N tu • sages or rounded hollows, the floors of which
storintr ■^'^''' '° some extent smoothed and cemented.
°' In these hollows, about the size of a billiard
J Seethe list ofpa-ssaees quoted in Bochart, Hier. — among
them Hor. Sat. i. 1 3j ; Virg. Ain. 4 402 ; Plin. NH 11 30 ; itiian,
2 25 4 43 6 43. A brief account of the Jewish notices by Rev.
A. Lowy in PSBA 868 [1880-81].
176
ANTELOPE
ball, the seeds are stored. In one nest Moggridge
counted seeds from twelve different species of plant, and
he enumerates eighteen distinct tx}tanical families con-
taining plants which furnish ants with seeds. . /. structor
is frequently found in the neighl)ourhood of towns or
villages, and even in the streets ; A. barbara, usually in
the country.
The ants" nests are entered by one or two holes,
whose presence is usually indicated by small heaps of
refuse, partly composed of the earth excavated from the
nest, and |Kirtly built up of tiie husks and other useless
matter, w hich is carefully removeil from the seeds Ixifore
the latter are stored up. All this refuse is scrupulously
removed from the nest, which is kept very clean. The
ants do not allow the seeds to sprout ; possibly by
making an incision in them.
The amount of seed collected and stored in the
granaries is very considerable and may cause serious
loss to the agriculturist ; from one nest an amount of
seed estimated at i lb. in weight was taken, and there
nmst be many hundreds of nests to the acre. The seed
stores of the ants of Palestine are suflicie'itly important
to l)e mentioned in the Mishna, which records the rules
adopted as to their ownershij).
The industry of the harvesting ants, and the amount
of work they .accomplish, justify their being held up as
e.xamples of untiring energy. They begin work early in
the morning and keep at it far into the night, working
as hard in the dark as in the sunlight. Meer Hasan
.\li in his History of the Mussulmans describes how-
eight or twelve very small harvesting ants will find it
difticult to nune a grain of wheat, and yet they manage
to transport such grains over a distance of looo yards
to their nest. Their great sagacity is shown in
numerous ways — the complexity of the organisation
of their colonies (involving the differentiation of
individuals to jjcrform different duties), their powers of
communicating one with another, and their slave-
making pro|x;nsities. Their habit of laying-up food
for the future, and even (in some South -American
species) of actually cultivating certain fuTigi for food,
places them with the Ijees and wasps, as regards intelli-
gence, second only to man in the animal kingdom.
The ants belong to the order Hymenoptera (which
includes l)ees, wasps, and saw-flies), and to the family
Forniicida-. N. m. — a. IC. S.
ANTELOPE (ixri t'o, Dt. Hs; Nin /J', Is. 51 20 ;
Opyi L©"-^'- •» J^>t. ; and Aq. Syni. Theod. in Is.];
ceyTAlON [O'*'*'^-'' in Is.]), an unclean animal mentioned
along w ith the pygarg and chamois. The above is the
rendering of R\' and is much preferable to .W Wild O.X,
\\'ii.i) Bui-i. (which is based upon Targ. Gr. Ven., and
is accepted by Kim. ), although wild o.xen and wild
bulls were common enough throughout Palestine and
Mesopotamia (see Catti.k, § 4). The allusion in Is.
{I.e.) to the capture of the animal by nieans of a net
wholly agrees with what is known of the manner in
which antelojxis, gazelles, etc. were usually captured.
The species here intended may be the Antilope
leucoryx (or ory.x, cp (S), or the A. huhalis. Against
the former proposal the objection has been raised that
the ory.x is called in the modern vernacular of N. Africa
yuhmur, which = Heb. Tcn' 'fallow-deer' (see Rok) ;
but it is not uncommon for the same name to be given
to memlx-TS of different species by different peoples. ^
On Ox-.\n iKi.oi'K see U.NicoRN (beg.). S. A. C.
ANTHOTHIJAH (n^»nh3y) I Ch. 824t RV, AV
Antothijah (./.T. ).
ANTICHRIST (antixPICTOC [Ti. WH]). History
1 History • "^ ^^"^ Question.- Researches into
Earlv Per^d ''^'^ meaning of ' Antichrist ' have
■' ' always started from the exegesis of
• I'or oilier ex.imples see Unicorn, note.
2 Cp. Liicke, /./«/. in d. OJTfnb. Jolt. 35-) ff. \ Bornemann,
' Die Thessalonicherbriefe ' in Aleyer's Handbuch ^oojff'.
l'-2 .77
ANTICHRIST
3 Thess. 2 1-I3 and certain jxissages in the Apocalypse
(chap. 13).
The first period of the history of the discussion em-
braces the Greek and I^atin ecclesiastical writers down
to the l>eginning of the Middle Ages. Within this
}x.'riod the tradition is unusually stable. The Antichrist
is taken to l)e a manifestation which is to be made at
the end of time— a definite personality, as to whose
origin, career, and end, perfectly definite and tradition-
ally fixed views are set forth, which rest but partially
on the NT. This exegetical tradition, the importance
of which is greatly undervalued by recent commentators
such as Hornemann, is, for reasons which w ill afterwards
apjjcar, of the utmost value. To say that the naive
dogmatic lx;lief of the church-fathers in ' the truth of
this eschatological phant.isy dow n to its least detail '
was absolute does not in any way disprove the correct-
ness of their e.xegesis.
Of the two methods that came into vogue during the
Middle Ages — the ecclesiastico-political method with
jx)lemical purpose (since Joachim of Floris, .afterwards
in chief favour with Protestant scholars, especially in
the form hostile to papal claims) and the universal-
historical (perhaps, since Nicolas de Lyra) — neither
advanced the cjuestion in the le.ast.
The beginnings of a truly scientific maimer of looking
at these as well ,as at other eschatological traditions
_ TUT. J were made by certain .Spanish and l-Vench
2. Modem. , .. . .u .. , ,
Jesuits, who threw themselves mto the
polemic against Protestant attacks with great learning
and acumen. Their first step was to revert to the
tradition of the church fathers, which they endxxiied in
extensive works. ' Thus the futurist method w.as
restored to its ascendency.
This method maintained its ground, until quite recently,
among all scientific interpreters of the apologetic scIkxiI. There
is one point, however, in which the exegesis of the moderns— as,
for example, Hofman (Si/iri/t/h-itvis) and Luthardt {Ou- l.ihrc
von den letzten Dingen) ami ahiiost tlie whole boily of Kiiglish
writers on the sulyect falls far l>elow that of the church
fathers: the concrete eschatological figures are more or less
spiritualised. Thus, Antichrist becomes an impersonal general
tendency; the 'temple '(2 'I'liess. 24) is interpreted as meaning
Christendom ; and the Ka.f(\usv, as law and order.
It is in the work of Ludovicus Alcas.ar {I'estigatio
arcani sensus in Apocal. , Antwerp, 161 4) that we find the
earliest indications of a thoroughly scientilic, historical,
and critical handling of this ciuestion. The labours and
the method of the Jesuit scholars, however, were afti-r-
wards made available for the Protestant Church by Hugo
GroUus {A nnotiit/ones, Paris, 1644), who in the treatment
of Antichrist may l)e regarded as the founder of the
'historical' or ' preterist ' method. He interpreted
2 Thess. 2i-i2, point by point, as referring to the
occurrences of the reign of Caligula. In this method
he was followed by Wetstein, Hammond, Clericus, and
Harduin ; and, since Kern ( Ti/b. Z. f. Theol. , 1833. i. ),
the preterist interpretation of the Antichrist has lx.'come
almost univers.al, but as referring to Nero redivivus (so
F. C. B.aur, Theol. Jahrbb., 1855 ; Holtzmann, in BL ;
Hilgenfeld, ZWT, 1862, 1866; H.ausrath ; and many
others, including Renan, L Antichrist. 1876). Follow-
ing an example partly given by Kl6pjx;r, however,
Spitta {Zum Gesch. u. Lilt, iles I'nhristenthums
\oc) ff.) h.as again sought the explanation of the prcnlic-
tions reg.arding Antichrist in the circumstances of the
reign of Caligula.
Abandoning this (on the whole, mistaken) line, a few-
scholars have sought an interpretation of Antichiist in a
_ ^. . Jewish tradition dating farther Ixick than
^ ^ ' the Christian era and not resting on any
historical events.
Among these scholars may l>e named Reiche, I)e Welte, Lilne-
mann, and Horneinann (in their respective commentaries) and
Kahler (in /'A'A*). Ewald's observations in Jahrb. /. bibl.
Il'iss., 1851, p. 250, and i860, p. 241, are of special interest:
1 Malvenda's De Aniichrisfo (Lvons, 1647) being perhaps the
fullest. The commentaries of Rilwira (Salamanca. 1591) and
Ulasius Yiegas (Ebora, 1601) were specially inlluential.
4. NT.
ANTICHRIST
for the first time he combined 2 Thess. 2 with Mt. 24is^ and
Rev. 11 "iff., and thus the problem ceased to be one of exegesis
merely. The best work in this direction has been that of
Schncckenburger (see HOhmen's survey of his writings in /<i/«/-^.
f. (ieutsche 'I keol., 1859), who endeavoured systematically (as
the only true method) to ascertain the kindred Jewish tradition
that lay at the basis of the NTpassages. (Prelimmary researches
in the same sense had been contributeil by Corrodi, Krit. Gcsch.
des Cliiliasmus 1781^ ; Hertholdt, Christol. Juti., 1811, § 16;
and GfrOrer, JahrhuiuUrt des Heils ii^d ff. ^o^ ff- 436.)
Schnerkenburger also brought Mt. 24 Rev. 11 ami jn. 643 into
the field of his survey, and his view may be said on the whole to
have stood the test of time.l
Still more recently Bousset {Der Antichrist in der
Ueberlieferung des Judenthttms, dcs NT. u. der Alien
Kirche, 1895), following up the suggestions of Gunkel's
Schopfung 71. Chaos (1895), and the method then for the
first time securely laid down, has souglu to supplement
these investigations in two directions: (i) by a com-
prehensive induction based on all the eschatological
portions of the NT that belong to the same circle of
idciis, and the careful exclusion of all that do not
so belong; and (2) by an attempt at a comprehensive
and complete presentation of the tradition (which comes
before us in the NT only in a fragmentary way) as it
is to l)c met with in the Jewish sources, and, still more,
in the later Christian exegetical and apocalyptic tradition.
This tradition is in great measure quite independent of
the NT, and in all probabilitj' dates, as far as its sources
are concerned, from pre-Christian times. '■'
The NT Tradition. The name avrLxpiffroi occurs
in the NT only in the Johannine l-^[)istlcs ( i Jn. 2 18 22 :
43: 2 Jn. 7), and thus in all probability its
formation belongs to the late NT period.
For an answer to the question who or what is
meant by the name, it is best to start from tlie well-
known (probably Pauline) passage in 2 Thess. 2i-i2,
where we read that before the end of all things the man
of sin, or, rather, of lawlessness (6 AvOpcoiros rijs duo/uLias),
the lawless one (6 ivofws), the son of perdition (6 vibs rrjs
djrwXeias), nmst be revealed. This ' man of sin,' it is
clear, is to make his appearance as a false Messiah — an
observation which, from the outset, precludes us from
referring the expression to any foreign potentate such as
Caligula •• or Nero. He is sent to ' them that are
perishing' (namely the Jews), because they received
not the love of the truth (the true Messiah).'' He does
not employ any outward force, but accomplishes his
work by means of false signs and lying wonders (cp the
tradition of the Church fathers, as continued by De
Wette, Ewald, Schneckenburger, B. Weiss, Lunemann,
Bornemann). He will make his appearance in Jeru-
salem. In this account of the Antichrist the specially
perplexing assertions are that he is to seat himself
in the temple of God and that he is to declare himself
to be God. This last act, at any rate, does not belong
to the ro/e of a ftilse Messiah. It is also doubtful
who or what ought to be understood by 6 Karix'^",
rb Kar^x^"- ^^'^ power that stands in the way of
the manifestation of .Antichrist. If once a reference in
the passage to a Jewish false Messiah be accepted, the
mystery of iniquity (lawlessness : rb /jlvctt. rrji dvofxias)
will most probably mean the cruelty which the Jews
as a whole had begun to show towards the Christians
(same authorities as above). At this point we obtain
a clear light ufKjn Rev. 11. The perplexing fact
that there the beast rises out of the deep and makes
its appearance in Jerusalem (a view of the passage that
appears certain — not only from 11 8, but also from the
connection of 11 12 with 11 3 — as against the other inter-
pretations referring it to Rome) is explained by 2 Thess.
2. The beast that rises out of the deep and appears in
1 This applies also to the first part of the Apocalyptische
Studien of B. Weiss, 1869.
2 Attempts in this direction had already been made by
Bertholdt and Schneckenburger.
3 a Thes.s. 24 does not at all fit in with Spitta's interpretation
of the pa.ssage as referring to Caligula's proposal to set up a
statue of himself in Jerusalem.
« CpJn.643.
179
ANTICHRIST
Jerusalem is the Antichrist. If this be so, we are
supplied with the following additional elements in the
tradition : ( i ) a great drought that comes over the
world in the last times (in Rev. through the two
witnesses) ; (2) the two witnesses, their slaughter by
the .Antichrist, and their resurrection ; (3) a previous
assemblage of many nations in the neighbourhood of
Jerusalem. The dim and fragmentary character of the
whole narrative, however, is striking. In .another pKace
in the .Apocalypse we find another parallel to the figure
of the -Antichrist — in Rev. \'6\\ ff. The beast that ' had
two horns like unto a lamb' (RV) is designated by the
author of Revelation himself as a False Prophet. When
it is spoken of as 'coming up from the land' (not
'earth' as in EV), we may reasonably understand
Palestine to be meant. This false proj>het also does
his work by means of signs and wonders. Here we
meet w ith a new and rather perplexing consideration : the
sealing on their foreheads anil hands of those whom he
has led astray, and the buying and selling of them th.at
is thus made possible. To the same great group of
traditions a part of the eschatological discourse in the
Synoptic (iospels (especially in Mt. ) also appears to
belong. Older theories of the ^diXvyfia ttjs ip-qfiilianci
of Mt. 24 15 having broken down, and Spitta's explana-
tion of it as referring to Caligula being beset with
difficulties (indeed, an apocalypse which arose only in
40-41 A.I), could surely not have found its way among
utterances of the Lord which were already Ixiconiing
fixed), we seem comp>elIed to fall back on an older
tradition, and to explain the strange phrase of the Anti-
christ of 2 Thess. 24 sitting in the Temple (on these
points cp .AuoMiN.VTioN OF Uk.soi..\tion). In this case
we arrive at new elements in the tradition : the subsequent
flight of those who have lx;lieved, the shortening of the
days ( Mt. 2422), and the picture of the end of the world
and of the final judgment (.Mt. 24 2gff.). Here again
the fragmentary brevity of the tradition is surprising.
If we now survey these eschatological fragments as a
whole, two conjectures immediately force themselves on
5. Results. "'= <'! *^^' all' these eschatological
ph.antasies were not independently con-
ceived by the various authors from whom we derive
them ; ^ that, on the contrar)-, the authors are mostly
reproducing a tradition which already lay before them ;
and (2) that it is a single consistent tradition that
underlies all these (partly coincident, partly com-
plementary) fragments. If the second conjecture
be true, we may venture to think that the tradition
in question has not been lost beyond all possibility of
recovery. In point of fact, our very first glance at later
Christian apocalyptic literature satisfies us that this
literature rests upon a tradition which is but partially
dependent on the NT.
The Tradition 0/ the Early Church regarding Antichrist.
Sources."^ The tradition becomes tangible as soon as we have a
Christian literature copious enough. The
6. Early Church influence of this tradition is already visible
tradition. '" '^e Teaching of the 'Twelr'e Apostles
(chap. Hi). Irenacus (Ad7'. haer. 5 25-3o)also
presents himself in this connection. Special importance, how-
ever, among the earlier witnesses, attaches to Hippolytus's
airojeift; ittpX toC ai'TixPiVrov, the Cantten A/>ologeticum of
Commodian, I.actantiuss Inst. Div.l \^ ff. (Commodian and
Lactantius have a place of their own in the tradition), and the
Commentary on the Apocalypse of Victorinus. A further group
of writings ascribed to an ecclesiastical writer of very- great
influence, Ephraim Syrus, must be mentioned. Under his name
are current three Homilies on the .Antichrist : (i) One in Syriac
(De L.imy, 3187^, — all of it genuine with the exception of a few
chapters); (2) one in Greek (.Assemani, 2222-30 3 134-143),
perh.-ips genuine ; and (•<) one in Latin (Caspari, ut sup. ic&jf.).
The historical event from which all these prophecies start is the
1 See the detailed argument for the impossibility of this in
Gunkel, SchSpf. u. Chaos.
^ .See .Malvenda, De Ant/chri>to{i6^j): Ebert, 'On Com-
modian's " Carmen Apologeticum " ' in Arh. d. kdn. Sachs. Ges.
d. Wissensch.h-),iT ff,\ Caspari, Brie/e und Abhandlun^en
('90) 2oZff. 429_^ and, for the Liter period, Zezschwitz, / om
rSmischen Kaiserthum deutscher Nation, 1877 ; Gutschmid,
Kleine Schri/tenhy>%ff. : W. Meyer, Ludus de Antichristo,
180
ANTICHRIST
beginning of the great barturian migrations, the invasion of
the eastward regions of the Kninan Kmpire hy the Huns (Gog
and MiiKog). Allied in character to the foregoing are
Cyril's Catechesis (xv), the psctido-Johannine Apocalypse
('lisch. AfHX. afocr.), and the Commenlary on the Apocalypse
by Andrew of Cxsiirca. Dependent on Kphraim's (ircck
homily are the irrpi njt <rurr<A«ia« toO Koaiiou (cd. Lagarde) of
the pscudo- Hippoljlus, and the Dioptra of I'hilip Solitariu:t
{^\off.; Migne, /'. (,>. 127). This whole moss of tradition is
exceedingly valuable on account of its archaic oriental ch;tractcr.
Of the older church fathers, Jerome also {AJ Algasiaui, Quaist.
xi. ; /« Danieltm vii. and xi.) and Thcodoret {ffieret. /al>.
623), but not Augustine, and, of the later, John Damascenus
(«ite«rn 427) claim special attention.
As, in the uniform view of these apocalyptic interpreters, the
advent of the Antichrist is after the downfall of Rome, one might
reckon almost with certainty on finding evidence of the currency
of the tradition about the time of that downfall. Such evidence
we actually possess in the primary document which was the com-
mon source of both the so-cillcd Apocalypses of Daniel, the Greek
(ed. Klostermann, Analtrta), ancl the .Armenian (cli. Kalemkiar,
H'ivm-r /.. ti 1277; \ cp Zahn, Forschungcn 5 119^^). Atjain,
at the time of the Slohamniedan conquests a new rallying-point
was given for this eschatolojjical tradition, as we see in the apoca-
lypse of the pseudo-.\Iethodius(7th century, OrthoiioxografhaK-),
Basel, 1569), closely connected with which is the later .Apocalypse
of Peter, now extant in Syriac, .\rabic, and llthiopic redactions
(Hratke, ZIVT, 1892), and also a series of late Byzantine
(V'assiliev, Aneciioia Gra-co- liyzantina i, Moscow, 1893),
and late Jewish apocalypses (Jellinek, lict-ha-Muirash; cp
Bousset, i^ff. iT\Jf.'). This l)ody of tradition reached the west
through a compilation (/V Antichristo) by the monk -Adso
(Migne, /'. Lat. 101 1291^.), b:ised on the l>ook of Methodius
and on a .Sibylline book, which last is to be found also (in a
red.icted form) in the works of Heda (.Migne, 90 1183) and dates
perhaps from the fourth century. Lastly, an isolated and very
archaistic source is to be found also in the Apocalypse of
Zephaniah (Stern, ZA, xS86).
7 He ' who ^ii''j"'"ecl is a brief summary of this
letteth ' tradition as it occurs, almost uniformly,
in the sources that have Ijeen named. ^
In the first place, the universally prevalent conviction is that
the (toTe'xioi' (2 Thess. 27) is the Roman empire. This, we may
be sure, was the view of Paul also : if he expected a Jewish
false Messiah, then the one power left which could ' hinder ' was
the Roman empire (cp on this point 4 Esd. 4t_^.). The
political rrf/f- played by this idea in the history of Christianity
may be seen in Tertullian (A/'o/. 32, ad Sca/>. 2) and Lactantius
{/nst. div. 7 25). Of equally universal prevalence is the
conception of .\ntichrist, not as a Roman or
8. Antichrist, foreign ruler, but as a false Messiah, who is
to arise among the Jews themselves in
Jerusalem. .Almost universally (with the exceiitions to be after-
wards mentioned) it is predicted that he is to c-.t.ililish himself
in the temple and lay claim to Messianic (.md, so f;ir. (li\ine)
honours. (Sometimes, as in Ascens.Jes.ib, Vici. in A/oc. 13 13,
and in the Ethiopic Ajjocalypse of Peter, we read that he will
set up his statue in the temple— doubtless a reminiscence of
the Caligula episode.) After the destruction of Jerusalem,
accordingly, the expectation that the Antichrist will rebuild
the temple in Jerusalem becomes univers.-il. He will show
special frivour to the Jews, will receive circumcision himself, and
■will compel others to do so. He will arise from the tribe of
Dan (t/.v., g 9 ; Jewish ha^gada is at the root of this [cp Tcs/atn.
Dan s/. : also the omission of Dan in Rev. 7 5 ^, as to which
see Iren. v. 30 2, perhaps also even i Ch.(i6i (46l(see.SV;<)r)69l54]
7 12) ; see Schneckenburger-Hiihmer, 412). If, bearing all this in
niind, we once more turn to 2 Thess. -J 97?: Jn.543 Rev. 11 3^, it
jmmetliately becomes plain that any ' historical ' or preterist
interpretation of the .Antichrist is out of the question. On the
basis of a hagg.-jdic view of Dan. 11 43 78, there came into
the tradition this further element, that the .Antichrist, at
his first appearing, is to comiuer the kings of Egypt, Ethiopia,
and Libya. Another invariable element of the tradition under
consideration is the enumeration of the miracles to be wrought
by the .Antichrist, particularly celestial signs (Rev. 13 iiyi), and
miracles of healing (although that of raising the dead is Iwyond
his reach). Hereupon the .Antichrist will achieve the dominion
of the whole world, and gather round himself to his capital all
peoplesand vast armies(4 Esd. 13 iJT. Apoc. Bar. 40 Rev. 1 1 9^.).
_ Next, a great drought and famine will come upon
9. Conflict, the whole earth (differently and less clearly put in
Rev. 11 6), and in these straits the Antichrist will
order his servants (spoken of also as demons) to mark men with
his mark (according to the Latin Homily of the pseudo-Ephraim,
a serpent mark), so that only those who bear it shall be permitted
to buy bread (Rev. 13 \6/.). Against the .Antichrist come
forward the two witnesses (almost unanimously taken to be
Elijah and Enoch), who disclose his real character, .so that
many turn away from him (otherwise, and very obscure, what
we read in Rev. 11 3^). It is noteworthy that in many sources
there is no inention of the resurrection of the two witnesses —
doubtless an incident introduced for the first time by the author
ANTICHRIST
of Rev. n. At the preaching of the witnesse* a coniiderabl«
company of Israel are converted and l^c^in the opposition to the
Antichrist O^rhaps Rom. 9 20 is to be interpreted in thi.* con-
nection). The 144,000 who are scaled in Rev. 1 $ ff. certainly
have their explanation here. The faithful now l>ctake thcm-
.selves to the wilderness or to the mountains (.Mt. 24 16^.) ; but
the rlays of Antichrist's reign of terror shall be shortened. The
years shall Iwcume months, the months days, the days hour*
(Mt. 24 22). Then the .Antichrist will send his armies in pursuit
of the faithful who have fled into the wilderness ; but there they
shall l«; delivered by the angel.s of (lod or by the Mcvsiah
(Rev. 1213^.), and the army of^ the Antichrist destroyed (cp the
mysterious angelic battle outside the city, in Rev. 14 14^., and,
in connection with this, the appearance of the lamb with the
,« T« X i c '44.000 in Rev. 16 1 J^.). The Antichrist is
10. Defeat of finally slain, according to authorities, by the
Antichrist. Messiah, with the breath of his mouth (Is. 11 4
2 Thevs. 2 B^the same statement is found in
late Jewi.sh .sources, such as Targ. Jon. on Is. 1 1 4 and others).
Perhaps .in older tradition may be traced in the view that
the archangel Michael is to be the conqueror of the Antichrist
(Dan. 12 I Rev. 126, Ass. Mas. 10). Now is seen a mighty
sign in hea\x-n (Mt. 2430) — the sign of the Son of Man —
interpreted _ by_ later writers (cp alreaily />/>/. 16 6, inuitlov
iKitfTaroot iv ovpavio) as referring to the Cross, but originally, we
may be sure, betokening the Divine Judge of the world (Housset,
154). Then follows the coming of the Divine Messiah to judg-
ment, amid mighty convulsions of nature (Wi.Hii) /. Rev.
6i2 7f".). From the four corners of heaven desolating storms
burst upon earth ami cleanse it (Rev. 7i z^^), and before the
divine advent descends a tempest of fire, whicli burns the earth
down to its depths, and dries up the sea and the rivers
(Rev. 21 i).
At the very first gLince it is plain that, in this tradition, we
are dealing not with an artificial exegetical mosaic of the various
passagesof the New Testament (and the Old)
11. Coherence which here come into account, but with an
of tradition, original l)ody of tradition, organically and
inherently consistent ; and that the separate
escbatological fragments of this tradition in the NT become
intelligible only when they are brought into their organic place
in the scheme of the tradition as a whole, so that their essential
consistency becomes m.inifest.
Origin of the Tradition. — Naturally we turn, in the
first instance, to the eschatological ideas of the O'l".
Schneckenburger will have it that the
idea of the Antichrist comes from the
prophecies concerning Gog and Magog
1 For the references in detail see Bousset, Der Antichrist,
Gott. 1895.
t8z
12. OT
eschatology.
in Kzck. (38/.). That in every form of the tradition
the prophecy concerning Gog and Magog occurs in
close connection with the story of the Antichrist is
indeed true to the extent that they are made to a])iK'ar,
sometimes after (Rev. 2O7/. ), and sometimes Ix-fore,
the time of his rule. Positive identification of (Jog
with Antichrist, however, does not occur till the seventh
century, and even then only in Jewish sources. Many of
the details of the traditions can be traced, as has tieen
already said, to Jewish haggada. In this particular
point Dan. 7 11/ is approximated to most nearly; but
even here there is a marked difference, and the
originality of the view outlined above is conspicuous.
In Daniel the disturber is a foreign power ; but here
the seducer, who personates God or simulates the
Messiah, rises up from amid the people of (jod.
Thus there has lx;en an important development since
Daniel. Perhaps, as was suggestt?d in conversation to
the present writer by Prof. Smend, the historical occasion
for this advance was supplied by the experiences of Israel
under the Maccal>ees and the Herods. In any case, we
RT 1 tiutst note a parallel in Jewish .Apocalyptic.
■ That ideas allied to those in our tradition
were active among the Jews al>out the time of Christ is
shown by 4 I^sd. biff. (56 ; regnabit quern non sperant),
Apoi. liar. 36-40, Sibyll. ^63 ff. (2167^), Test. Dun 5.
Ass. Mas. 9,ff., and the (probably Jewish) nucleus oiAsc.
Jfs. (323-413). Now, in this tradition, the constantly
recurring name of the great enemy of the last times — a
name already known to the apostle l^ul (2 Cor. 615) —
is Belial (Beliar). Rut, according to many passages
of the Testaments, Belial is a spirit of the air, ruler of
the evil spirits. According to Test. Dan ft. the Messiah
will fight against him in the last days. The supporters
of Belial are the children of Dan. In Sib. 863 ff.
(probably dating from the time of Cleopatra). Belial is
already presented in an aspect closely resembling that
182
ANTICHRIST
of Antichrist (still more so in the Ascensio, which, how- I
ever, has unquestionably undergone Christian revision). !
In the Ascensio the angel Samtnael interchanges parts
with Belial, and Sammael figures also in later Jewish j
tradition as the enemy of the last times' (on the origin '
of Belial, and on the various developments of meaning, {
see Bkmal). Suggestions of the same idea occur in '
Lk. IO18 Jn. 1231 (Col. 215). Here we would seem to
have an aspect of the tradition that, in point of time and
contents, comes a great deal nearer that of Antichrist
(2 Cor. 615: 'and what concord hath Christ with
lieliar?'), which is not of historical but of purely
eschatological origin : the idea of a rebellion of an
angelic power against God at the end of time. Perhaps
it is out of this figure — behind which in
turn stands the wilder figure of the dragon
rising in relx,'llion against (Jod in the last times, which
Gunkel conjectures to have its origin in the Babylonian
creation-myth (see Cke.vtion, § 2/. ) — that, under the ex-
periences of the Maccabean period, the humanised figure
of a pseudo- Messiah came into existence. In this way
we can explain also the superhuman traits in the picture,
such as his declaring himself to be God (2rhess. 24),
and his sitting in the temple of God (cp the myth of the
storming of heaven by the dragon in Rev. 12 1^).
These conjectures find further confirmation in the fact
that, in later tradition, the ghostly-demonic element in
the portrayal of Antichrist comes again more con-
spicuously to the front, and the Antichrist is even
represented .as a dragon who rebels against God (cp
the writings of I*2phraim Syrus, and Apoc. Zeph. ).
Points of Contact with other Traditions. — One
legend that comes into relation with that of Antichrist
14. Dragon.
16. Nero
redivivus.
in many ways is that of Nero redivivus.
Not that the figure of Antichrist had its
beginning in the story of Nero. Originally
both legends had currency side by side. It was only
after Nero's return at the head of the Parthians (at first
conceived of in a purely human way — cj) the nucleus of
Rev. 17) had become indefinitely delayed, and after men
had liegun to expect the returning Nero only as a spirit
from the under-world, that they gradually transferred
to him some traits lielonging to the Antichrist- (cp
Sib. ^61 ff. , where, in like manner, Belial is interpreted
to mean one of the Cnesars ; see Ai'oc ai.vitic, § 95).
Such an amalgamation of the two figures is already
met with in Rev. 13 and 17 (in their present form).
The old form of .Antichrist, however, retains such
vitality that in the end (Rev. 13 n^^) it appears as a
second beast, servant of the first and on the same scene.
A similar and (as far as its occasion is concerned) still
more manifest doubling of .•\ntichrist is seen in Com-
modian's Carmen Apoloi^eticiim, in Lactantius (as
above), in Martin (see Sulpicius Severus, Dial. 2n),
and in the ^i^Xiov K\riiJ.€VTOi (Lagarde, Reliq. juris
eccl. Zoff.). There is a complete fusion in the Ascensio
Jesaiir, and in the commentary on the Apocalypse
of Victorinus. This complicated figure of Nero redivivus
took special hold on the Sibylline literature of the second
century,^ and here again, in the delineation of this, we
meet once more with the old features of the dragon
myth. A fusion between the Antichrist tradition and
the Simon Magus legend has already been observed by
Schneckenburger, and tr.aced in a variety of points by
the present writer. The same tradition comes into
fusion w ith the later .Alexander legend and the old German
saga of the end of the world (Muspilli, EJda).
On this and other connected subjects see Houssct, /)fr .,4«/;-
christ, in the English translation of which (1896) special atten-
tion has been bestowed on the index (see, e.g., 'Simon Magus,'
'Alexander'). See also K. VVadstein, 'i)ie eschatologische
Ideengruppe; Antichrist, Weltsabbath, Weltende und Welt-
eesicht in ihrer christlichmittelalterlichen Gesammtentwicke-
lung,' ZiVT, 1895 and 1896. On the Armenian form of the
t V.X^jtnmcn^cr, Kfttdecktes /ttdentum 1 70^; cp .^sc. /es. 7 g.
> This has been already remarked by Schneckenburger.
' Cp Zahn, ' Apocal. Studien ' in Z.y. kirchl. Ltben u. IVtss.
183
ANTIOCH
Antichrist-Iegena see Conybcare, Acnd., 26th October 1895 ;
and on a singular Mohammedan tradition see Lvdda at end.
w. B.
ANTILIBANUS (antiAiBanoc [BA], om. «).
Judith 1 7. See Lkh.V.NO.N.
ANTIMONY (11-1S), Is. 54.. RV mg.. F:V 'fair
colours.' See P.MNT.
ANTIOCH (ANTioxeiA [Ti. WH]). i. in Pisidia ;
more correctly, ' .\ntioch towards Pisidia' ('Aj'ri6xeta
T) irpbi lliffidiqi), to distinguish it from the Antioch on
the Me.ander (the form ' Pisidian Antioch,' 'AvTioxfia.
7) WiaiSia [Ti. WH], Actsl3i4, arose to distinguish it
from the more famous .Antioch of Syria). It was
really a Phrygian city ; but in NT times it was of course
included within the Roman province Galatia. Stralx)
(p. 577) accurately descrilx;s it as lying 'on a hill,' on
the south side of the range now called Sultan Uagh, in
Phrygia Parorea ; but it was not until 1833 that
Arundell found its ruins at Yalobatch. The town was
founded about 300 H.C. by the Seleucid kings, and the
transportation of 2000 Jewish families to the fortresses
of Lydia and Phrygia, as recorded by Josephus {Ant.
xii. 3), must in part refer to Antioch. By Augustus it was
made a Roman colony (6 B.C. ) ; hence its coins Ijear the
legend Cajsarea. Antioch was adopted as the centre of
military and civil administration in Southern Galatia,
and from it rarliated the roads to the colonies designed
to check the unruly highlanders of Pisidia and Isauria.
As an element in the pacification of this district, the
privileges of the Jews were confirmed by the Emperors,
and Paul found a large Jewish colony in the city. The
Romanisation of this part of Galatia was in especially
active progress during the reign of Claudius, 41-54 .A. n.
At the time of Paul's visit, therefore, Antioch was at
the height of its importance. Besides its relations with
Apamea (on the W. ) and with Iconium, Lystra, and east-
ern Asia Minor, it must have had a commercial connection
with the Pamphylian seaports, among them Attalia and
Perga ; and Paul must have reached Antioch by following
this southern trade-route, which probably ran through
Adada [Kara Bavlo, Bavlo being the modern pro-
nunciation of the apostle's name). There was a large
body of Jewish proselytes in Antioch, many of them
women of position through whom the Jews were able to
influence the magistrates against the apostles (.Acts
13 so). The magistrates had summary jurisdiction over
disturbers of the public peace, such as the apostles
were alleged to be (cp v. 44, irao-a t) ttoXis avvrix&V-
and z'. 45, Iddvres tous 6x^ovs) ; but the 'casting of
them out of the borders' of the colony could not imply
permanent banishment — at any rate in the case of Paul,
who was a Roman citizen. Accordingly we find the
latter returning to Antioch from Derlx; (Acts 14 2.) and
perhaps revisiting the city at least twice (.Acts 166 18 23,
see Galati.\ ). If the trade of Antioch was concentrated
in the hands of the Jews, we can the more easily under-
stand Paul's first success here in Asia Minor : the new
teaching did not conflict with any commercial interests of
the gentile inhabitants, as it did at Ephesus and Philippi,
while at the same time the Jewish proselytising had
prepared the people for its reception. It is also not
without significance that on the death of king Amyntas,
some seventy years l)efore Paul's visit, the ancient
worship of ' ^ien ' (MV 'AffKaio^. 'ApKoios Strabo,
'A<TKrjif6i coins) had been abolished, so that there was
probably no gentile hierarchy in existence to oppose the
apostles. Hence the effect of their preaching w.as more
marked here than in any other case, except Corinth
(Acts 134448/). .All the more strange is the sub-
sequent unimportance of the South Galatian churches.
2. In Syria (i and 2 M.acc. AV Antiochia). This
great city, the third metropolis of the Roman world,
1 Citv *^^ Queen of the Ivist {rj Ka\^ Athen. I75 ;
'■ oricntis apex pulcher), and the residence of
the imp«srial legate of Syria, survives in Antdkleh,
184
ANTIOCH
a town of only 6000 inhabitants. It is situated at
the point of junction of the ranges of Libanus and
Taurus, on a fine site hard by the left bank of the
Orontes, just where the river turns westwards to run
lx;tween Mt. Pieria on the N. and Mt. Casium on the
S. , to the sea 16 m. distant. A little higher up the
river .Antigonia had Ixx-n built in 307 n.c. by Antigonus ;
but seven years later Scleucus Nicator transferred its
inhabitants to his new city of .Antioch.
.Stralx)'s meagre account (p. 750) is the foundation
of our topographical knowledge of the city. Like the
district in which it lay, Antioch was a rerpdiroXti, an
agglomeration of four parts.
The first contained the population of Antigonia ; the second
the bulk of the citizens. 'Ihe third part was the creation of
SeleucusCallinlcus (246-226 B.C.), and the fourth, on Mt. Silpius,
of Antiochus Epiphanes. Each part had its own wall ; but in
addition, the whole vast area, larger than that of Rome, was
surrounded by huge walls running over the mountains and
across the ravines. From Nicator's time dates the well-known
statue ' the Fortune ' (Twvi;) of Antioch, a work of the Sicyonian
Eutychides, a pupil of Lysippus (Paus. vi. 2 7). The memory
of it is preserved on the coins, and in a small marble statuette
in the Vatican. The goildess, a graceful gentle figure, rests
negligently on a rock ; while the river, a vigorous youth, seems
to swnn out from under her feet.
Seleucus Nicator also embellished Daphnf, (Aci^i/tj
[V.\]), 5 m. distant from .Antioch, but reckoned a
suburb. It was a spot musical with fountains ; its
groves, crowded with temples, halls, and baths, were
the seat of a cult of Apollo and Artemis.
.•\mong its artistic treasures was a statue of .Apollo Musagetes
by the .Athenian Hryaxis. The precincts of Daphne were
endowed with the right of asylum and naturally became the
haunt of villany — of runaway slaves, debtors, and cut-throats
(Tac. Ann. 36o; Tiberius in 22 a.d. attempted to regulate this
abuse in several cities) : if we may trust the story of Onixs in
2 M.-icc. 4 33, D.iphne 'flung awav the one rare chance of shelter-
ing virtue.' The site is now called Bet el Ma, the ' house of
Water.' It retains no traces of its former magnificence.
From this suburb, which Roman wealth, Greek art,
and Oriental licentiousness conspired to make unique
even in the ICast, .Antioch took its distinguishing name
— i] iirl Aa<pvri. In itself the title bore no reference to
the pleasure pursuits of the suburb — as though insinu-
ating that there the true life of the city was to be found :
it was a genuine official title.
.Accordingly we find it on coins (cp '.\i'tiox«'<oi' tSiv iir\
KoAAipoT) ; Tiov iv tilvy&oviif ; toic jrpot tcS idpoi). Hence
I'liny (//,V,'i 21 [18]) writes ' Antiochia Epiclaphnes.' Tacitus
(Ann. 2 83) transliterates the Greek, and calls the suburb itself
' Epidaphna.'
Holm has summed up in a striking sentence the
historical position of .Antioch under the Seleucid kings.
2. Character -■^J*^""^^ ^'°^^ 'o the sea (avatrXovi
ai't)r]ij.cp6i> Strabo, p. 751), it was yet
no seaport ; on the borders of the desert, it was yet
something more than a centre for the caravan trade
Ixitween the East and the Wx-st. The city reflected the
character of the kingdom of which it was the capital, a
kingdom which itself also was neither a genuine naval
nor a genuine land power. Antioch was a Greek city,
just as the Seleucid kingdom was an attempt to impose
upon the Orient the political ideas and forms of Hellas.
Yet, in the capital as in the kingdom at large, there was
no true Hellenism ; the commingling of Oriental and
Western elements resulted in the jjerpetuation of the
worst features of both races, and the moral worthlessness
of the Syrian found in the brilliance and artistic tem-
perament of the (ircek merely the means of concealing
the crudities of his own life. The characteristic
failing of the Greek also was e.\hibited on a great scale.
.A third element, and that the one most important
for biblical history, was provided by the Jews. The
colony was in fact coeval with the city, for it dated from
the time of Seleucus Nicator, who gave the lews the same
privileges as he gave the (Greeks (Jos. .-///A .\ii. 3 1). > For
this connection with the Syrian kings see i Mace. 11 42/
Herod completed the marble-paved street which we can
1 According to 2 Mace. 49 (cp also v. 19) Jason conferred on
the people of Jerusalem the status of citizens of Antioch
(Antiochians) on which see T/i. T 12 544 ('78).
185
ANTIOCHUS
trace from the ' Gate of St. Paul ' to the modem town
(Jos. An/, xvi. 53). Thus all the forms of the civilised
life of the Empire found in Antioch some representative.
In its agora, said Libanius, the customs of the world
might \)K studied. In no city was pleasure more earnestly
pursued. Daphnici mores were proverbial ; the Orontes
was synonymous with suix.Tstition and depravity (Juv.
Sat. 862). Yet it would ix; of value to discover to what
extent the lower and middle orders of the [x)()uIation
were really affected by the lu.\ury and abandon of which
we hear so much ; that is after all but one side of the
city's life, and there is a temptation to exaggerate it.
There w;is little real intellectual life ; epigram and light
prose were the most flourishing forms of literature.
Cicero {Fro Arch. 3, § 4) is exaggerating with his
' eruditissimis hominibus lilx-ralissimiscjue studiis ad-
fluenti." Antioch is far less celebrated than Alexandria
in the literature of the first and second centuries A. D.
This intellectual attitude is a fact of some imjxjrtance,
in its relation to the first Christian teaching.
The mixture of Roman, CJreek, and Jewish elements
admirably adapted .Antioch for the great part she playrd
S.Christianity, l'!/^': '■■'^'''>' '?'''°''>' °^ <^hristiamty.
wiiiiBuiaiiiujr. J j^^ ^ijy ^^.^^ j^^^ ^^^^^^ ^j. ^^^ church.
There, as elsewhere, Judaism prepared the ground for
the seed of the word (cp Chrys. Horn. xxv. ). ' Nicolas,
a proselyte of Antioch," one of the first deacons (Acts 65),
was only one of a ' vast nmltitude of Greeks ' w ho in
that city were attracted to the Jewish doctrine and
ritual (Jos. BJ \'\\. 83 ; cp Acts 11 19-21). The ancient and
honourable status of the Jews in Antioch gave to the
infant church a firm and confident organisation. Very
early the city became a centre on a level with Jerusalem in
importance (Acts 11 22 26-30 13 i). The cosmopolitanism
of its inhabitants inevitably reacted upon the Christians
in the way of familiarising them with universalist ideas,
and Antioch conseciuently became the centre of mis-
sionary labour. It was Paul's starting-point on his
first journey with Barnabas (Acts 13 1-3), and thither he
always returned with his report of work done ( Acts 1 4 26/
1530 I822). It was at the instance of the church at
-Antioch that the council of Jerusalem sent the circular
letter to the gentile Christians (,Actsl523 Gal. 24-14),
and, according to .Acts 11 26 (on which see Christian,
beginning, and § 2 [end]), it w.is in .Antioch that ' the
disciples were called C:hristians first ' — undoubtedly as a
nickname. W'e know that the |x;ople of Antioch were
noted for their scurrilous wit (Philost. /'/'/. 3 16 Zos. 3n
441 Procop. BP'IZ). w. J. \v.
ANTIOCHIA (ANTiox[e]iA [ANV]), i and 2 Mace.
AV, RY .Antioch, 2.
ANTIOCHIANS (ANTioxeic [V.A]), 2 Mace. 4.9
("XIAC L-A]!, and in AV also v. 9 (-XON [V]), where
RV has ' titizcris of Antioch.' See Antioch 2, § 2 n.
ANTIOCHIS (ANTiox[e]lC [V'A]). concubine of
Antiochus 1\'. l'2piphanes (2 Mace. 430).
ANTIOCHUS (&NTIOXOC [ANV] ; anticoxoc [N*
once, \'* once, .A once]), i. Antiochus III., surnamed
the Great, was the son of Seleucus Callinicus, and
ascended the Syrian throne at the age of fifteen, on the
death of his brother Seleucus Ceraunus. He is the
earliest of the great Sklkucid.*: (</.:•.) mentioned in
the .Apocrypha, but Antiochus II. Theos and .Antiochus
I. Soter (his grandfather and great-grandfather re-
spectively) are alluded to in Dan. 11 (see Daniel, § 6).
His reign (223-178 B.C.) embraced a series of wars
against revolted provinces and neighbouring kingdoms,
wars in the prosecution of which his disasters and
successes were equally great. The events of his life aiii
briefly alluded to in Dan. 11 10^ — notably his expedition
in Asia Minor in 197 B.C. (cp v. 18) which, after varying
fortune, ended in a crushing defeat at the hands of
Scipio .Africanus near Magnesia in 190 B.C. (cp v. 18).
This was one of the exploits of the Romans which
ANTIOCHUS
Judas the Maccabec is said to liave heard of (i Mace.
8-8)- . . . ...
The account in its present form is not free from inaccuracies.
Thus, the writer states that Antiochus, the 'great king of Asia,'
had with him 120 elephants (?'. 6, incep. oj'tioi't («*]); but accord-
inz to Livy (37 39) there were only fifty-four. ' It is not
unlikely that in the popular tradition the original number was
exaggerated' (Cambr. liible, ad ioc.). Cp MAtcAHEt^s, First,
I 10.
One of the conditions of the humiliating peace imposed
in 1 88 B.C. was that twenty hostages, incluc'ing a son of
the king (cp i Mace. 1 10 and lx;low, 2). should be sent
to reside in Rome. .Antiochus the Great was killed in
an attempt to plunder the temple at Elymais (187 n.c. ),
and was succeeded by his son Seleucus IV. I'hilopator.
See SiiLEUCio^:^
2. Antiochus IV. Epiphanes ('E7ri(/>aj^s ' the illus-
trious ' [cp I Mace. 1 10 where A -eij], called in mockery
'Ewi/itti'ijs 'the madcap'), youngest son of no. i. On
his place as hostage (see above, i) being taken by his
nephew Ukmktkius, he returned to the East, and — his
elder brother, Seleucus IV., having meanwhile been
murdered — seized the Syrian throne (175 B.C. ), and soon
became famous for his conquests in Coele - .Syria,
Palestine, and Egypt (cp i Mace. 1 ibff. 2 Mace. 5i ^,
and see Dan. 11 21^). During his Egyptian campaign
he twice took Jerusalem ( i .\Iacc. 1 20^ 2 Mace. buff.).
In spite of the presence of a strong favourable Hellenistic
party (see Jason, Menelaus), Antiochus appears to
have seen that he could never hope to subdue Judita
until he had rooted out the peculiar Jewish religion (see
Israel, § 69/ ). He accordingly promulgated a decree
enjoining uniformity of worship throughout his dominions
(i .Mace. 141^), and even went so far as to endeavour
to force upon the Jews the worship of heathen deities
(see Abomination, ii. ). His persecuting policy w;\s
responsible for the rise of the .-\ssiDEANS, and stirred up
the successful resistance of the Maccabees. His end
(164 B.C.) is variously described. According to i
Mace. 61-16 he was visiting a rich and celebrated temple
in Persia (see Ei,ym.\is), when tidings of the ill-success
of his troops in Judaea, and remorse for his sacrilege at
Jerusalem, caused his death — according to Polybius
(31 2) at Tab.B in Persia.^ The usually accepted
reference to his end in 2 Mace. 1 10-17 is not very prob-
able, see Maccabees, Second, § 7. He is doubtless
alluded to in Ps. 75 ^f. , and there are numerous references
tohis life and character in Daniel(^.i'. ,§§i, 6, 8, 10, 18).
The post-Talmudic tract Megillath Antiochus is a legendary
account, in Aramaic, of the persecutions in his reign ; cp Schii.
Cjy\ 123 (see Maccaukks, Second, § 11). See Sei.euciu.«.
3. Antiochus V. Eup.ator (Ei>7rdTW/3), the young son
of -Antiochus IV. Epiphanes (see 2, above), was left
under the care of Lysias, whilst the father conducted
his wars in Persia (i Mace. 832/). On the death of
Epiphanes (164 B.C.) Lysias obtained the regency,
ousting his rival Pun. IP, 5, and set up Epiphanes' son as
king, giving him at the same time the surname Eupator
(i Mace. 614^) — 'on account of the virtues of his
father' (Appian). Together they entered Jud:ea (see
Israel, § 75 beg. ) and, encamping at Beth-zacharias, be-
sieged Bethsura (see Beth-ZUr). The Maccabreans were
defeated and the famous Eleazar [q.v. , 7) was killed (i
Mace. 6 28 ff. ).^ The war was brought to an abrupt close,
however, by the news that Philip had occupied Antioch,
and a hasty peace was concluded restoring to the Jews
the privileges they had enjoyed previous to the persecu-
tions of Antiochus F^piphanes (cp Isr.ael, /.c. ). In the
following year (162 B.C. ) the king and his guardian were
put away by Demetrius [q.v., i] (i Mace. 7i^ 2
Mace. 14i^). See SeleuciD/E.
4. Antiochus VI., surnamed Theos (Oe6s), son of
Alexander Balas, spent his early youth as a ward of
1 His father, Antiochus III. the Great, died whilst engaged
in this same district upon a similar errand. Tradition may have
confused the son with the father.
* 3 Mace. 13 21 ascribes their ill-success to treachery (see
RhodocusX
187
ANTIPATRIS
an Arabian (see Imalcue). He was brought forward by
Tryphon, a former follower of lialas, and set up as king
in opposition to Demetrius Nicaior (see Demetrius,
2) who was rapidly becoming unpopular (i Mace.
11 39 54 ; 145 B.C.). On his coronation he received the
surnames ' Ejiiphanes ' and 'Dionysus.' Henceforth
he became a mere UkA in the hands of Tryphon, who
ultimately found an opportunity of slaying him ( i Mace.
1831). See further Tkvi'Hon, SELEUCiUiK.
5. Antiochus VII. SidCtes(2::i5^7;$), — »".«., man of Sid6
in Pamphylia, — called also Ei/at^ris (Jos. Ani. xiii. 82),
was the son of Demetrius I. and younger brother of
Demetrius 1 1. N'icator. The capture of his brother by
the Parthians gave Sidetes the opportunity of asserting
his claim to the Syrian throne in opposition to the
unpopular Tryphon. To win over the Jews he wrote,
from Rhodes, to Simon ' the chief priest and governor,'
and by advantageous concessions, remission of royal
debts, and the formal f)ermission to coin money, attained
his end (1 Mace. \;)iff. ; acrtwxos [k* v. i]). Tryphon
was besieged at Dor [v. 25), and ultimately forced to
flee to Orthosia {v. 37). 'Ihe situation immediately
changed. Antiochus felt his position secure, and sent
Athenobius to Simon demanding Joppa, Gazara, the
citadel of Jerusalem, and the arrears of tribute (28 _^).
The refusal of these demands brought about war, and
Cendkheus was dispatched against the Jews (ir>38^).
Sidetes appears no more in i Mace. ; but in the time of
John Hyrcanus (see Macc.vhi:es, i. § 7) he came and
Ixjsieged Jerusalem (133 B.C.), and five years later met
his death whilst fighting the Parthians under Phraortes
II. (.\rsaces VII., 128 B.C.). See Seleucid.e.
6. Father of Numemus (i Mace. 12 16 14 22).
ANTIPAS (&NT[e]inAC [Ti. WH], abbrev. from
dfTiiraTpos. see Jos. ^«/. xiv. I3; cp Cleopas from
KXeoTTarpos). i. See Herodian Family, 2.
2. The 'faithful witness' of Pergamum named in Rev. 213.
According to the ^!c7a Sancto>-um (.\pr. 11) he was bishop of
Pergamum, and suffered death (by the ' brazen bull ') under
iJoiiiitian.
ANTIPATER (^NTinATpoc [AKV]), son of Jason
[3], an ambassador sent by the Jews to the Lacedae-
monians (i Mace. 12 16 14 22). See Sparta. For the
Antipater from whom Antipatris (see below) was named
see Hekodian Family, i.
ANTIPATRIS ( ANTinATRlC [Ti. WH]) was founded
by Herod the Great on ' the finest plain ' of his kingdom
... . — i.e., .Sharon — in memory of his father
1. Allusions. ,i^„jip.^jgr (Jos. /?/i.2l9),but also, as the
history of the town abundantly proves, for strategical
reasons. The other details given by Josephus are, that
it lay 'close to the mountains' {BJ\.\^) o\\ the plain
of Kaphar Saba (Ka</)ap(7a/3a), fertile and well-watered,
that a river encompassed the city, and a grove of very
fine trees (.•f«/'. xvi. 52). In another passage, probably
from a different source, Josephus identifies it with
Kaphar Saba (Xa/3apfa;3a ^ vvv 'AvrnraTpls KaXeiTat),
and tells how, to resist Antiochus on his march against
the Arabians (circa 85 B.C.), Alexander Jannaeus made
a deep ditch and a wall, which however Antiochus
destroyed, extending thence, a distance of 150 (?)
stadia, to the sea at Joppa {id. xni.l5i). During
Roman times Antipatris was a station at or near the
junction of the military roads from Lydda and from
Jerusalem respectively to Cresarea, where the latter
road issued from the hills. Thus Paul was brought
by night from Jerusalem to Antipatris and thence, part
of his escort returning, to Cnesarea (Acts233i). The
return of so much of Paul's escort is explained by the
fact that, Antipatris l)eing according to the Talmud
{Tnlm. nab., Gittin, j6a) on the limits of Jewish soil,
all danger of an attack by the threatened Jewish ambush
(.Acts 23 16 20 ^ ) was now past. There, in 66 A. D. ,
Cestius Gallus halted on his way to Lydda {li/'n. 19 1),
and to this point, on his subsequent retreat from
Jerusalem, he was pursued by the Jews (ib. 9). There,
ANTONIA
too, in the same year, Vespasian halted on his march
from Cx'sarca to Lydda (ib. iv. 8i).
AiUipatris is not marked in the Tab. Pent. The
Bordeaux I'ilgrinj (333 A.n. ) j;ivi.s it as 10 k.m. from
_.. Lydda and 26 from Ciu-sarea ; the ///'«. Ant.
' as 28 from Ca;sarea ; and Eus. and Jer. in
the Ofiom. as 6 S. from Galgulis (in all probability the
present Jiljuliyeh). Schiirer (Hist. Zi-^o) and others,
following Rob. (i^A'4 139/. ), identify it with the present
Kefr Sfiba, 23 R. m. (as the crow flies) from Cajsarea.
Hut, as Kefr Saba is no less than 17 R.m. from Lydda
and 2 R.m. N. from Jiljuliyeh; as, besides, it has no
ancient remains, nor any such wealth of water or en-
compassing river as Josephus descrilxis, it is more
probable that Antipatris lay farther S. on the upjx;r
waters of the 'Aujch, which are about 29 R.m. from
Cajsarea, 4 S. of Jiljuliyeh, and about 11 N. of Lydda,
in a district which better suits the data of Josephus.
Here Dr. Sandreczky and Sir C. W. Wilson {FEF
Qu.Sf., 1874, p. 192/.) have suggested the site of
Kal'at Rds el-'Ain, at the very copious sources of
the 'Aujeh, which they identify with die crusading
castle of Mirabel (el-Mirr being a neighbouring place-
name). They point out, too, that the valley of the
'Aujoh would Ije a more natural line for the great ditch
of .\le.\ander Janiuvus than a line from Kefr Saba to
the sea. Although Neubauer [G^og. du Talin. 80 jf.)
tiiinks that tiie Talmud distinguishes between Kefr Saba
and .Antipatris, this is doubtful, for, while their names
are given separately, both are defined as border towns
■ — Ijctween Samaria, a heathen country, and Judaea.
These are all the data for the question of position.
Without excavation on the sites named, and the dis-
covery of the rest of the Roman road — probably the
road by which r\aul was brought — traced by l':ii Smith
in 1843 from Gophna to the plain, but lost at the edge
of the hills [Biblioth. Sac .\ ^^'& ff.) , it is imix^ssible for us
to be certain where exactly Antipatris stood. We cannot
exjject to find many ruins on the site. Unlike other
Herodian sites, it is not stated to have Ix^n embellished
by great buildings ; and the town did not afterwards
develop. Huhl (Pal. 199) f;ivours Ras cl-'Ain.
In 333 the Bordeaux Pilgrim calls it a vtutaiio, or change-
house, not a chitas like Lydda (the next 'change' he mentions
— Hetthar, 10 R.m. towards Ca;sarea — is perhaps the present
e{.Tlreh, PEF Mem. 2 166). In 404 the Peretp: S. I'autce calls
it 'semirutum oppidulum.' In 451 it had a bishop {Acts 0/ the
Coun. o/Chalceiion : cp Descr. Parochice Jerusalem, circa 460),
and in 744 it still contained Christians. With their disappear-
ance before the .^rabs, the Greek ecclesiastical name would
vanish, and has not been recovered (but see the curious state-
ment of a native in /'A'/-" .V^-w/. 2 134, that the name of Kefr
S.'iba is Aiuifatrus). The Crusaders wrongly identified Antipatris
with ' Arsuf, tlie ancient Apollonia. c. A. S.
ANTONIA, see Jkkusalkm.
ANTOTHIJAH,or rather RVANTHOTnijAH(n>nh3y,
n^»rinpV [Oi.], n^phay [BS.]; probaWy a feminine
adjective formed from .Anatiioth [^.t'-]), in genealogy
of UlNJA.MIN [q.v.. § 9 ii. /3), I Ch.824t (ANOOGAie
[ANABcoeiA. A] KAI A,eeiN [€5"'^], ANAea)e(5j.L]).
Al^OTHITE ('ninpy), i Ch. ll 28 AV. See
Anatiioi H, I.
ANUB(3-i::;; eNNcoNtCn], erNcoB[A], ANcoB[L];
Axoii), a Judahite, descendant of Coz (RV Hakkoz)
( I Ch. 48). Probably to be identified with Anak (We. ).
ANUS (annac [B]), I Esd. 948 AV=Neh.87
Han AN, 4.
ANVIL (DyS), Is. 41 7t. See Metal Work.
APAME (ahamh [BAl, -hh- [L]; \-^ <=^<*: apeme),
daughter of Bartacus and concubine of Darius (i Esd.
4291.
APAMEA (Jer. Talm. Kil. 932^ N*DDN. but oftener
N^ODDX), mentioned in the Vg. text of Judith3i4,
apparently as a district ( ' pertransiens . . . omnem
Apameam ' ) in the line of march of Holofernes.
189
APHARSACHITES
■Airafi>>»ni,oneof the ten districts of N. Syrui under Rome(I>tol.
C^tyr. V. 16 19), took its name from 'Atroficta, a fortified town
(named after Seleucus Nicator'.s Persian wife), built on a hill
some six or more miles east of the Orontes, half-way between
Emesa and Antioch, and now represented by important ruins
under the village that occupies the site of the old citadel, now
calleil l<al'atelMudllf. Sec .Stral>o, p. 752; Ritter, Erdkunde
17, Abth. ii. 1075-86 ; E. Sachau, Keise in Syrien u. Meso^t.
Ti-Zji (photographs and map) ; also reff. in Hoettg. Lex. Jos.
APE(D*Dp, D^Sip; meHKOi [BAL]; si,ni<r, 1 K.
IO22, Xiewv TopfiTuiv [BL], cp 7'. 1 1 ; 2 Ch. 021+). An
animal mentioned among the rarities brougiil from Opiiir
by Solomon's fleet. The Heb. /kH/iA, 'ajx;,' is evidently
a loan-word,' and is usually connected with Jta/>i,^ the
Sanscr. name of the ape ; thus the home of the animal,
though r\ot necessarily the situation of Ophir, will be
indicated. It is mentioned in each case, in MT (the
phenomena of (S are here very peculiar), in connection
with the jjeacocks (if the common theory is correct)
imi^orted by Solomon from Oi'UiK. Perhaps ' monkey'
would Ije a more correct modern English rendering than
'ape,' which suggests the tailless quadrumaiia, wiiile
the animals of this order represented on the Assyrian
and Egyi^tian inscriptions have tails. Just so, Kr)Aot.
would have been a lx;tter Greek rendering than iriOrjKoi
(the LXX word), if Aristotle is correct in making the
iri9riKoi tailless. Four kinds of motikeys are repre-
sented on the Assyrian monuments. Those on the black
obelisk of Shalmaneser II. seem to belong to an Indian
sjjecies ; they appear in company with the Indian
elephant and the Bactrian camel (Houghton, 'On the
Manmialia of the Assyrian Sculptures," TSPA 5319/
Vn^)- Monkeys (,^(7^) and balloons were nmch in
request in Eg>-pt. Queen Ha'tsepsut ('Hatasu,' i8th
dynasty) received them among other rarities from
the (African) land of Punt ; see the picture of the
native ambassadors leading specimens of the Cyno-
cepluilus Hamadrj'as and the Cynocef^halus Bubuinus.'^
Halevy, however [K'EJ'lltif. ), would identify Solomon's
C'Eip and c\'3n (see Pkacocks) with the tuku and
kukupi mentioned in the Amarna tablets in the requests
of the Asiatic princes — i.e., different sorts of vessels full
of aromatic oil, etc.'* Plutarch [de Is. et Osir. 81) gives
an account of the sixteen ingredients of the ICgyjJtian
K\)(pi.^ N. M. — A. K. s.
APELLES (AneAAHC [Ti- WH], contracted from
A7ro\\6oa»poj) is saluted in Rom. 16 10, where he is
called 'the approved {Sokl/jlos) in Christ,' an exjjression
which seems to suggest that he had shown constancy
as a confessor in time of trial. Nolliing further is
known of him. Weizsiicker suggests that his Christian
activity may have been chiefly within the household of
Aristobulus also mentioned in v. 10 (Ajost. Age 1 399).
In the list of the 'seventy apostles' which we owe to Pseudo-
Dorotheus, Apelles is represented as bishop of Heraclea ; that
of Pseudo-Hippolytus mentions Smyrna. According to the
viro/uiTj/ua of Peter and I'aul by the Pseudo-Symeon Metaphrastes,
he was consecrated bishop of .Smyrna by Peter.
APHAEREMA (^ctiAipeMA [NV']), i Mace. 11 34
RV, AV Al'HKKK.MA.
APHARSACHITES (N'SD'lDX [Ba.]; '"laX [Gi.];
Ac})ApcAXAiOi [B.\], but -CAKKAIOI [B] in Ezra56;
-RACBaxaiOI [L] ; see also next article), a word used
(P>.ra56 tJ6t) apparently as the title of certain ofticers
under Darius. Another form is Ahuaksathchitks ; see
Ezra 49, where the word is misunderstood (see Ezra, ii.
1 If it belongs to the original text : see Edonv, § 2 A
2 Whence also Ki\fio^ or ttijjro?, and Eng. a^e.
' Edwards, Pharaohs, Petlahs, ami KxJ>lorers 292. See
also the apes and baboons on a wall-painting in a tomb. El
Bersheh (Egypt. Explor. Fund), Pt. IL, plate .vi. ; cp p. 29.
* See Am. 'Tab. B 28 = Wi. 294, col. 2,40; i kukupu 5a . . .
(ka]-du naktamiSu, 'a kukupu . . . with its lid ' ; col. 3, 43 . . .
kukubu samni {abi, '. ._ . a kukubu of gixxl oil"; B 5, i, 25
(recto) samni .5a tabu aljiya uSiranni II duk kukupu, 'send me,
my brother, good oil, two vessels kukupu ' (so Hal., not in Wi.).
£>uk or tuk (pi. tuke) is the ordinary ideogram for ' vessel,
receptacle.'
* The Assyriological notices are mostly due to Prof. Cheync
APHARSATHCHITBS
§ lo) and treated as the uanic of a tribe settled in
Palestine by Asnai'I'KR. Its etymology is still very
uncertain. See G. Hoffmann, Z^ 254 /• ; Marquart,
Fund. 64 ; and Andreas in Marti, Bibl.-aram. Gram.,
Glossary, p. 53*.
APHARSATHCHITES, The (N^^JilpnDN [Bii.] ;
N-DHDIDX [Gi.]; 4)&pece^x<MOl L'^]. A(J)ApCAe-
[A]VA<i)ApACT&X- [L]). I':z>a49t. See Al'HAKSAClI-
ITES.
APHARSITES (S^DnSN [Bii. Gi.]; A(t)p&CMOi [B].
A(J)APC- [Al ; cJ)ApAceAlOI [1^1). mentioned in I'>.ra49t
as a tribe settled in Palestine by AsNAPi'EK. Various
attempts al identification have Ijcen made {Persians, by
Kawlinson, Pulp. Com. ad loc. , but see A'AT^"^^ 376;
Par sua, a Median tribe, by Del. Par. 327) ; but the
word is Ijest regarded as a scribe's error, related (some
think) to N-32-12X (EV Apiiaksachites, Kzraf)6 66),
or, more probably, miswritten for Nnea 'scribes.' The
last letter of n-i-eu (MT K-^tn^, see -Tarpki.itks) was
attached bv dittography to the ne.\t word (Marquart,
Pun J. 64).'
APHEK(pD.^f Acj)eK [BAL]). It is not easy to
determine how many i)laces of this name are mentioned
in the OT. Only one of them has Ix^en satisfactorily
identified.
1. In Josh. 134 (ra0e/c [B], a^e/ca [A], -kk. [L])
.\phek appears as the limit of the Sidonian country,
apparently as its northern limit towards the Giblites or
Byblians. This Aphek, therefore, is commonly identified
with Aphaca (now Afka), famous for its sanctuary of
Astarte, which lies at the source of the river of Byblus,
the ,\donis or (as it is now called) Nahr Ibrahim ; cp
Lucian, Dea Syria 6-8.
2. The Aphek assigned in Josh. 19 30 to the tribe of
.\sher is mentioned in Judg. 1 31 (where the name
is written p-EN, Ai'iiiK, a^eK [AL], vaei [B]) as one
of the towns which the Canaanites were able to maintain
against the invaders. Here also some suppose that
.\phaca is meant ; but it is difticult to believe that .Asher
ever attempted to extend so far north, and, as it appears
from Josh. 17iii that .Asher had a theoretical claim to
l)art of the plain of Sharon S. of Mt. Carniel as far at
least as Dor, it is probable that Aphek in Sharon (no.
3) is meant.
3. In Josh. 12 18 {o<l>iK [B]) we read, in the list of the
kings smitten by Joshua, ' the king of Aphek, one ; the
king of Lasharon, one ' ; but it is better to emend the
verse with the aid of ©» (•0</>^(c r^s 'ApwK) and read ' the
king of Aphek in the (plain of) Sharon, one' (see Di.
on the passage). This Aphek in Sharon, as W'ellhausen
has pointed out, is the city {a) from which the Syrians
of Damascus made repeated attacks on Samaria, i K.
2O2530 (a</)eKa [B.\], -kk. [L]), aK.lSi?,^ and {b
and c) from which the Philistines assembled their forces
for war with Israel before the battles of Gilboa ( i S.
29 1 ) and of Eben-ezer (i S. 4i ; Jos. a/i^eKa or a<p€Ka).
(a) As regards the Aphek of Kings : that it lay in a
lowland plain is clear from i K. 20 23, and that the plain
is that of Sharon follows from 2 K. 1822 (S^, where we
find the addition (undoubtedly genuine) 'and Hazael
took the Philistine from his hand from the Western sea
to .\phek. ■ Aphek therefore lay on the verge of Philistia
—i.e.. in Sharon— and we must understand that, both
in Benhadad's time and in the time of Hazael, the Syrians
avoided the difficulties of a direct attack on the central
mountain-land of Canaan by striking into the maritime
plain south of Carmel and so securing the mastery of
the fertile coast-land without having to besiege Samaria.
Their route would, in fact, be the present great road from
Damascus to Ramleh through Megiddo.^ At Aphek,
APHEK
soinewhcre in the north of the Sharon Plain, they had a
great military post from which they could direct their
armies either against Samaria or against the Philistines
(2K. 12i7[i8]).
{b) As regards the Aphek of Samuel : it is clear that
a point in the northern part of the Sharon Plain, on
the road to Megiddo and the plain of Esdraelon, is
appropriate to i S. 29 1. The mustering-place of the
Philistines cannot have teen in the heart of the Hebrew
territory, least of all at such a place as el-Faku' on Mt.
Gilboa (in the rear of Sauls army !) where it is absurdly
placed by Conder and Armstrong. It is argued that
the Philistines were at Shunem (iS. 284) tefore they
reached Aphek ; but to argue thus is to forget that i S.
283-25, the story of Saul and the witch of Endor, is
a distinct narrative, by a different hand, and that 29 1
originally followed directly on 28 if.
(c) Finally, the attack on central Israel which issued
in the battle of Eten-ezer and the destruction of Shiloh
(iS. 4) would naturally te taken to have teen made
from the same .Vphek, were it not that commentators have
assumed that the position of Eten-ezer, and therefore
of Aphek, is fi.xed somewhere near Mizpah by i S. 7 12.
It is certainly safer, however, to distinguish the battle-
field of Eten-ezer in i S. 4 1 from the stone Eten-ezer
set up by Samuel many years later, than to assume the
existence of two Apheks fitted to te the starting-point
of a Philistine campaign (cp Eben-ezkk). And here
also it is to te observed that chaps. 4 and 7 are derived
from distinct documents, and that the historical value
of the second is very insecure.
Eriini w hat has been said it will appear without further
argument that it is illegitimate to seek an Aphek in the
region, between
Mt. Tabor and the Sea of Galilee, to
1 On this passage see Asher, § 3.
- ■- ■'•/., ET, 39 [but cpGASm. //G
401/].
■-' .See We. C// 254 ; cp //ist.,
s'Cp the route of Al-NabulusI, ed. Tuch.
350
which Eus. and Jer. give the name of Saron, or to place
the .\phek of Kings at the caravan-station of Elk in the
mountains to the E. of the Sea of Galilee. This may
be the Apheca near Hippus or Hippe of OS 91 24 and
219 72 ; but is not a biblical site. W. K. S.
The existence of an Aphek in Sharon is put te-yond
doubt by the following additional evidence. Firsf, in
the lists of Thotmes III. {c 1600 B.C.) nos. 60-76
form a group V)y themselves ; 62 is Joppa, 64 Lydda, 65
Ono. Then come 66 Apukn, 67 Suka, 68 Yhm. At
this last place, Thotmes had to decide which of three
roads he should take over Carmel. Yhm must therefore
have lain near the most southerly road— that is, somewhat
south of the mouth of the Wady 'Abu Nar— and may
be the present Yemma by the high road along the edge
of the Samarian Hills. Suka is doubtless the present
Shuweikeh, 2 m. farther S. Apukn therefore lay
between it and Ono. Maspero, it is true, identified
Suka and Apukn with the Judoean Shocoh and Apheka
of josh. 154853; butW. Max Miiller {As. u. Eur. 161)
has shown that the list contains nothing S. of Ajalon.
The n of Apukn may te the common termination of
place-names jr. Max Mtiller says it may also te
read as i. Secondly, in the autumn of 66 A. D. Cestius
Gallus, advancing on Jerusalem from Caesarea, reached
Antipatris, and ' sent before ' a party to drive the Jews
out of 'the tower of Aphek' (IIi;p70S 'A^ckoO). After
taking the tower he marched on Lydda (Jos. DJ\\. 19 i).
This agrees with the data of Thotmes III. and places
Aphek te'tween the River "Aujeh and Lydda. Here
there is now no place-name which affords any help in
the case, unless it te that of the village Fejjeh — i.e.,
originally, Feggeh — about 9 m. NE. of Joppa (which,
however, does not lie quite near enough to the E. limit
of the plain to suit Lucian's text of 2 K. 1822), and it
ought not to te overlooked that in a list of mediaeval
Arab place-names quoted by Rohricht {ZDPV, 1896)
there occur both Sair Fuka and Fakin. A,^ain, in a
fragment of Esarhaddon (681-668 B.C.) a city Apku is
descrited as 30 ' kasbu-kakkar ' from Raphia on the
Egyptian frontier. Schrader( A'.-/ rC-' 204), who translates
kasbu-kakkar by * double leagues," takes Apku to lie on
APHEKA
the K. of the lake of Ciennesaret {i.f., the present Fik)
and the Aplick of i K. 2O26, etc. This, however, seems
less likely to give the distance from Raphia of a place so
situated than of an Aphek on the plain of Sharon. The
'Aujth, it may Ix; remarked, is 70 m. from Raphia.
It oufjht not to Ix; overlooked that the particularis-
ing of one Aphek as ' in Sharon ' (Josh. 12 18, see
above, 3) implies the existence of other Apheks in the
land. f;. A. .s.
APHEKA (Hi^QN, a^jaka [AL], (|>akoya ['5]). an
miidctiliticd citv in the mountain-land of fudah (Josh.
ir)5;tl-
APHEREMA, RV Ai'I1/Kkkm.\ (AcJjAipeMA [N],
A4)ep. \y'-'^] fUiSii ). I .Mace. 1134, probably a
CJnvciscd form of the city-name I-".rnK.\iM (i/.z'., ii. ).
APHERRA (A(i)eppA [HA]), a group of children of
Solomon's servants (see NiCTlllNlM) in the great post-
exilic list (I'>.K.\, ii. § 9, § 8(), one of eight inserted in
I I-".sd. 0^4 (om. L) after I'ochereth-hazzeljaim of j I'.zra
257 = N'eh.7 59-
APHIAH(n'DX; A(t)eK[BL], -(t)AX [A*]. -(J)ix [A'']).
iS. Oif, according to MT, one of Saul's ancestors;
but '.son of Aphiah, a Hcnjamitc,' should probably l)e
' of Gilxjah of Benjamin ' (p' j3 [njvajc). So virtually
Wellhau.seii ; but he did not notice that Aphiah (cp ©
and note that k = ];, e.i;., in Rcba \u. :n8) is a corrup-
tion of (jilx-ah. This was reserved for Marcjuart {I'lnul.
15). T. K. C.
APHIK (p*pX), Judg. 1 3it- Sec .\i'iiKK, 2.
APHRAH, HOUSE OF, R\' Eeth-lcs-Aplirah (n'5
rr\^t>- OIKOY KATAreAooTA [HA(JJ), Mic. I10+, the
name of a town not identified with any certainty. The
determination of the site of Beth-le-Aphrah cannot be
separated from the larger question of the text of the
whole passage, Mic. 1 10-15, which cannot be discussed
here (see Taylor, MT of Mic. ; Ryssel, Untersuch. on
the Hook of Mic. 26 ff. ; We. Kl. Pn>ph. ; Wi. A T
Unters. 185/., AOF\io^). So much, however, is
plain — the vocalisation cannot \vi trusted, especially
in view of the paronomasia ( ' house of dust ' RV mg. ),
and even the consonants were differently read by ©.
The older writers {e.g. , Winer, so now also Xowack)
identified -Aphrah with Ophr.-mi {q.v.)\ cp Pesh. 'the
houses of Ophrah.' But the context seems to demand
some place farther ^^^ and S. Winckler, w ith his rather
too ingenious emendation ' Bethel ' (reading iSjr'^N for
"icy r\-\-:'^ AOF, I.e.), seeks to avoid this objection by
reading '(Jilgal' for the historically im[)ossible '(iath,"
and (with We.) ' Bekaim ' (see BociiiM) for the very
questionable bdko (133) in 1 io«. Ww/.. [KG I!, ad loc),
followed by Miihlau in H\VB<-\ suggests a ' Afrd that
Yakut [Mo jam el bulddii, sub voc. ) mentions as 'a castle
in Palestine near Jerusalem. ' Ges. -Bu. suggests doubt-
fully lietogabra (Kleutheropolis, Be it Jibrln), which,
however, represents an Aram, xiaj n'a(-N'estle in '/.DPV
I224/). Perhaps the name of the Wady el-Ghafr
running E. not far S. of Mirash may be an echo of
Micah's Aphrah. So GASm. [Twelve Proph.X^Z^),
Che. (JQR, July 1898). The ■? in .iisy'? seems to be a
scribe's error (as if ' in the dust ').
APHSES (VVSn). I Ch.24i5t AV, RV H.vpi'izzez.
APIS (^in; o &nic [BXAQ J. ott. [Q* (superscr.
a (J' f<'")] ; Egyptian Hapi), the bl.ick bull-god of Mem-
phis (sc-e Egyht, § 14). Though the name of this famous
deity does not occur in EV, he is mentioned once in OT
(Jer. 46 isrz). © alone has preserved the true division
of the words : for r^nDj, AV ' are swept away ' (similarly
RV Pesh. Vg. ), we must read rn D3. 'hath fled Apis'
[^(fivyev 6 'Airts). Cp Konig, Syntax 210, n. i.
For an analogous correction see Giesebrecht and Cornill
aJ loc. and cp C.VLi", Goi.dk.n, § 2.
13 193
APOCALYPSE
APOCALYPSE, THE (Hook ok Revki.ation).
According to the best authorities (NC.\ [in subscription]
1 Name ^^' ^^' ^^' ^^ ' ' '' ^^^^)' '^*^ *'''*^ ''"'"'
■ , , ' a7^o^aX^'j'lJ \(t)a.[v^vo^<. Later MSS add toi/
ftZlCl Pid.C6 /I ■, ^-^ 1 • V
in NT "^0^070" (v '*"^' many cursives), or tov
aTTOffToXov, or tov air. Kai evayYeXiffrov
( P vg. cod. , Syr. ).
In almost all MSS the Apocalypse now holds the
last place in the NT. The stichometry of Cod. Claro-
montanus (D, Paul) arranges as follows : Evang. Paul.
Cath. Apoc. Act. (see (Jreg. Prol. '.i 136 ; cp also
what is said alxjut the Evangeliaria, 175 and 368). In
the Syriac version of the A])ocalypse which has t)een
edited by Gwj-nn, the book was preceded by the Fourth
(jospel. The hiatus in Cod. D was perhaps originally
occupied by the Apocalypse and Johannine Epistles
(Bousset, TI.'A, 1892), thus giving the order Evang.,
-Apoc, Epp. Joh. , Acts. All this jjerh;i|3s indicates that
the Apocalypse and the other Johannine writings were
originally handed down together. In point of fact,
Tcrtullian actually speaks of an ' instrumentum
Johannis,' which consisted of .Apoc. and i Jn. [Resiirr.
38, 39 ; Pud. 19 ; Pi/ga 9 ; Pnrscr. 33). Cp Ronsch,
Da.<: neue Te.st. Tertull. 528.
The Book seems to be presupposed in two places in
the Ignatian epistles, [a) Ad Eph. 153 : '"« tI'M"' aiToO
2. External
evidence ;
canonicity.
(NA read \aol in Rev. 21 3) k(x.I avrbi
^ (V rj/j-iv Oeos. [b) Ad Pliilad. 6 i : oi'rot
€//oi aTy)\a.i. elaiv Kai rd^oi vcKpQv icp' oh
yeypavTai fiovov opofxara avOplwwv (cp
Rev. 3 12/. , in the ej)tstle to the church of Philadelphia).
Andrew of Ctesarea, UKjreover, mentions Papias, amongst
others, as bearing witness to the Apocalypse (raiVr;
TTpojxapTvpovvTwv t6 OL^LbiTLaTov), and on Rev. 12 7
adduces (.3240 ^. , ed. Sylb. ) two observations taken
verbatim from Papias. That Eusebius does not mention
the testimony of Papias is doubtless to be accounted
for by the historian's unfriendly attitude towards the book.
Iren;uus appeals in support of the traditional number
666 to 'elders' who had actually seen John. (In all
probability we could reduce this testimony of the elders
to that of Papias alone : Harnack, Chron. der alkhristl.
Lit. 1333^.). We find a writer so early as Justin
asserting the book to be apostolical [Dial. 81 : Trap'
ir)iLiv avrip ris v dvo/xa 'lajdvprji eh twv dTrocrT6\un>
XpLffTod ev dwoK. ) and canonical [Apol. 1 28 : (is fK rdv
r]fX€T€/>wi' avyypa/x/jLaTwv fxaduv dvvaade). This early
recognition of the Apocalypse as a canonical writing
need not surprise us : the book itself puts forward a
claim to this character (1 18/: 22 18).
In the second half of the second century we find the
Apocalypse widely recognised.
It is generally current (a) in Asia Minor, alike among Mon-
tanists, anti-Montanists (Apollonius ; Euseb. //A" v. 18 14), and
mediating writers (.Melito of .Sardis; I'b. iv. 2i) 2; ;
3. 2nd and (/■) in Caul, both with Irenaeus (,-/,/^'. Jhr>.
Cent. ■'■ rt 3 ^- iii- 1 I 34 .\i. I v. :;0 i 3) and in the
writing; of the church of Lugdiinum and Vienn.i
(in Pais, ///i v. 1 58). {c) In .Africa, as already mentioned,
Tertulliart knows of an insiruiiientuiii Jo/iannii to which bi.tti
the Apocalypse and i Jn. belong; the Arts of J\'rpetua and
Feliciias shows acquaintance with it (cp cc. 4 and I'.'), (if) In
Egypt the /udiciiiin Petri seems to know the book (Hilgtnf.
Naz'. Test.'cxtr. Can. Reccptuin loi); (<•) for Antioch, lii^hop
Theophikis (Eus. II Ii iv. 24 i) is our witness 10 the same efTuct ;
and (y ) for Home, the Muratorian Canon, (g) Clement of .Mex-
andria cites the Apocalypse (I'ud. 2 108 iig; Strom. 0 106),
Origen is unaware of any reason for doubting its apostolic origin
{in Jos. J loin. 6; cp Eus. HE vi. 209).
The situation changes, however, in the third century.
As early as in the second century Marcion had refused
, to recognise the book (Tert. Adz: Marc. 45)
4, oFu , ., _ __ii_,i » _f .u„ \i — : .^**^;k..*.^.
Cent.
and the so-called sect of the Alogi attributed
both the Apocalypse and the Fourth Gosjiel
to Cerinthus (Epiph. //«/-. 51, Philastr. Hirr. 60 --
Hippolytus ; cp Iren. iii. 11 9) — probably on account of
their own hostility to Montanism (after Irenxus ; Th.
Zahn, Kaiioin-gesch. 1239^, Bousset, Koinm. 16/).
This opposition by the .Alogi was continueil by the Roman
presbyter Caius, who, in his dispute with the Montanist Proclus,
194
APOCALYPSE
also attributed the work to Cerinthus (Eus. HE iii. 28a). From
the refutation of Cains by Hippolytiis ((cn/)aAaia acaro. raiov,
As-iem. Bihl. Or. iii. 1 15; fragments in Gwynn, Hermalh. 6
3)7-418 ; cp also the writuijj catalogued in the inscription on the
throne —iiirfp toO ko-to. '\\oa.vvi\vtva.-f^tKLovKaL\ airoKaAvi^cuit) we
learn that Caius directly took up and continued the criticism of
the Alogi.
The criticism of Dionysius of Alexandria (Eus. HE
vii. 25) was more moderate and more effective. He
does not liold Cerinthus to have l)ecn the author of the
Apocalypse, but conjectures that it must have l)ccn the
work of some other John than the son of Zchedee,
arguing from a comparison between the Apocalypse on
the one hand and the Cjosijel and Epistles on the other
as to style, language, and contents. The criticism of
Dionysius was afterwards taken up by Eusebius, who
was the first to provide a firm basis for the conjecture of
Dionysius as to a second John by a reference to what
Papias says of ' both ' Johns {HK iii. 39) and inclines to
class the Apocalypse with the spurious books, voOoi \ IIP.
iii. 254).
Henceforward the view of Dionysius and Eusebius
became the prevailing one in the Eastern Church.
The book was recognised, indeed, by Methodius of Tyre
(.?;w/r'j. I5O5 84^) and I'amphilus (. )/o/., ed. de la Rue,
4 25 3^), but on the other hand unrecognised
0. Eastern l,y Cyril (fatcch. 4 33-36), Greg, of Naz. (Carm.
Church. 33)1 the Synod of Laodicea (Can. 64, see Zahn,
iif>. cit. 2 197 Jf.), the Afiostolical Constitu-
tions (Can. 85 (84]; Zahn, 2 191^^), the Janihics of .Seleucus
(Zahn, 2 217). The Apocalypse is not mentioned by Theodore
of Mopsuestia, or by Chrysostom (cp the wpo6e<opia of the
Synopsis of Chrysostom, Zahn, 2 230), or by Theodoret. In the
Stichometry of Nicephorus manipulated in Jerusalem (circa
850; Zahn, 22882967^) it figures among the Aniilcgomena ;
in the list of the sixty canonical books it is not found, though it
is again introduced into the Syno/>sis of .\thanasius.
The unf;ivourable judgment of the Syrian church re-
garding it is very noteworthy.
The Doctrine 0/ Addai which, in the form in which we now
have it, dates from about 400 A.U., recognises, as authoritative
scripture, nothing beyond the four gospels (Diates-
6. Syrian saron), the Pauline Epistles, and Acts. p'rom
Church, 'he Peshitta it is wholly absent. Whether Ephraim
recognises the Apocalypse as canonical is, to say
the least, doubtful. The Greek works that pa-ss under his name,
beingofuncert.ain authenticity, cannot here betaken into account,
and thus the evidence that he did appears to rest mainly on a single
passage (Opera, Assem. 2 232, cp Rev. 01-3).! In any case,
the noteworthy fact remains that Ephraim cites the Apocalypse
but little, and develops his apocalyptical ideas on lines supplied
by other writings. Besides, the Syrian Church did not look upon
the book with favour.^ Jacob of Edessa (oh. 708) cites it
(Ephraemi opera, ed. Assem. 1 192), and ."• r Salll) (oh. 1171),
bishop of Mabug (MabbOgh), comments on it (Gwynn, Ixx.xvii
ci); but Kar-Hebrsus (oh. 1286) holds it to be the work of
Cerinthus or of the 'other' John (Assem. Hihl. Or. 3 15), and
'Ebed Je'Su' (oh. 1318) omits it from his list of canonical scriptures.
In an Armenian Canon also, by Mechitar of Aivirank (1290),
the .Vpocalypse is reckoned among the Aiitilegomena.
Though the opposition to the Apocalypse was thus
„ . - persistent in the S3Tian Church, it gradu-
■ „ ally died away in the other Eastern prov-
^° inces.
The book is acknowledged by Athanasius, Didymus, Cyr. Alex.,
Nilus, Isidore of Pelusium (Egypt),^ Gregory of Nyssa,
Epiphanius of Salamisj and Johannes Damascenus. Andrew,
archbishop of Csesarea \n Cappadocia, wrote his commentary on
it in the first half of the fifth century. He was not, however,
followed in this until the ninth century, when Arethas, his suc-
cessor in office, also undertook the task.
In the Western Church, on the other hand, the
Apocalypse was accepted unanimously from the first.
8 West Hippolytus (sec above) defended and com-
■ mented on it in a no longer e.\tant work,
and makes copious quotations from it in his Com-
mentary on Daniel and in his De Antichristo.
Similarly, it is recognised by Lact.antius (fnstit. 2 2 T 10,
epit. 42; cpTis^X Hilary {De Trin. (52043), Ambrose
1 Owjnn(7"/j<' Apocalypse 0/ St. John in a Syriac I'ersion,
Dublin-London, 1897, p. ciii) cites also De Lamy, Hymn. 1 66
— a pass.ige which the present writer finds himself unable to
accept as proof.
2 Thomas of Harkel, it is true, included it in his translation,
as probably also (according to the latest researches of Gwynn)
did Philoxenus of Mabug (Mabbugh).
3 See Lflcke, V^ersuch einer vollst&ndigen Einleitung in die
Offenbarung Johannis (*), Bonn, 185a.
195
APOCALYPSE
(De Virg. 14, De Spiritu 3 ao), Rufinus {Exp. in Symh. 37) ;
on Novatus, Commodian, Arnobius, and others see Lardner,
Credibility o/the Gospel History.
Augustine (in Evang.-Joh. 1836, Epist. 118, Civ.
Dei 2ii7) insists on the identity of the author of the
Gospel with the writer of the .^pocalypse.
The liook was acknowledged at the synods of Hippo (39p)and
Carthage (397). As early as the end of the third century it was
commented on by Victorinus, bishop of Pettau (i;;^. 303 a.d.).
j He was followed by the Uonatist Ticonius (Ixrfore 380).
An exceptional position was taken up by Jerome, who,
under eastern influence, relegated the Af>ocalypse to the
second class of script urce ecclesiastiae {in Ps. 149),
as also afterwards by Philastrius, if it be indeed the case
that the book was not mentioned in the Canon of his
De hceresibus 87/.
At a later date the capitulum Aquisgranense {Corp. Jur.
Germ., ed. Walter, ii. l77y;, cap. 20), adopting the decision of
the Synod of Laodicea, removed it from the Canon.
At the Reformation the view of Jerome was revived
by I'',rasmus in his Annotationes. Luther's well-known
_. „ adverse judgment, pronounced in his
I .. ' preface of 1522, rests more on a religious
■ than on a scientific foundation. Sub-
sec|uently he gradually modified his view in a sense more
favourable to the book. In his translation, however, he
indicated his unfavourable opinion so far at all events
that he relegated James, Jude, Hebrews, and the Apoca-
lyi)se to the end of the NT without pagination. The
last edition of the NT in this form appeared in 1689.
C'arlstadt {Libellus de caiumicis scriptttris, 1520),
falling back on the criticism of Eusebius, classed the
Apocalypse among the seven Aniilcgomena. The
opposition to its reception lasted down to the following
century, and disappeared only after the introduction of
John Gerhard's cunningly devised distinction between
canonical and deutero-canonical writings {Loc. theol. i.
cap. 9, § 241). In the reformed churches the opposition
disappeared much earlier — from the time of Calvin,
indeed.
In the eighteenth century the question was again revived by
Abauzit (Discours hist, surtapoc. (in (Euz'res diverses, torn, i.,
1770); Hermann Oeder {Christlich freie Untersuch. iib. d.
sogcnanntc Offenh. Joh., published by Sernler, Halle, 1769),
reverting to the view of Caius of Rome, attributed the book to
Cerinthus. He was followed by Sernler (Freie Untersuch. des
Canons, 1772, and in many controversial writings), and byCorrodi
(Gcsch. des Chiliasmus, 1781). The best defence was that of
Ha.n\v\g {Apolo/;ic der ApoA., 1780-83). Cp also the .successive
editions of J. D. Michaelis, Junl. in die gSttliclien SchHften
from 1750 onwards.
Our sources for the text are the following : —
A. Greek .1A9.9.— (t) Uncials. It exists in KAC (89-5 14 V 14-17
85-016 IO10-II3 1013-182 19 5-22 21 being absent), also in P
Porfirianus Chiovensis s^c. 9 Act. Cath. Paul.
10. Text:' Apoc. (10 12-17 I 1912-20 2 226-21 being absent),
the material. =i"J Q ('" Tischendorf, li), Vaticanus 2066
sa;c. 8 (Apoc. only). (2) Cursives. Of these
some seventy are more or less collated. Their readings can be
learned from the editions and collations of Mill-Kuster (1710),
IJengel (i734#), Wetstein (1751-2), Matthsei (1782-88, torn, x.).
Alter (1786-87), Birch {\'arite Lectt. in Apok., 1800), Scholz
('30-36), Scrivener {Codex Augiensis, 1859; Adversaria
Critica, '93), Tregelles ('57-72), Ti.schendorf (ed. octava major),
Alford {.Me^v Test. vol. iv. ed. 2, 1885), Simcox (/. Phil. 22
28577:).
B. I'ersions. — (i) Latin. — .\ good deal is now known about
these. The oldest stage is represented by h (Floriacensis), the
Latin translation used by Primasius (Haussleiter, Forschungen
zur Gesch. des Kanons iv.) ; the intermediate, by the Gig.as
Holmensis (ed. Belsheim, '79). The best material for the
Vulgate is lirought together in Lachmann (.\o7\ Test.) and
Tischendorf. (2) Syriac— A valuable Syriac rendering
(probablv the Philoxeniana) has recently been edited by Gwynn
{op. cit.y^ The Syriac MSS hitherto known (see Gwynn, xiv._^.)
represent the text of Thomas of Harkel. (3) Importance also
attaches to the still comparatively unexplored Coptic (see
Goussen, Stud. Theol. i.) and Armeni.-»n versions.
C. Church Fathers. — There are copious citations in Origen,
Hippolytus (especially in the De Antichristo and in the com-
' See F. Delitzsch, Handschriftliche Funde, 1861 ; B. Weiss,
'Die Joh. -Apok.' in Texte u. Untersuch.' i ('91); W.
Bousset, ' Text-kritische Studien ' in Texte u. L 'ntersuch. 1 1 4
('94); Gwynn, The Apocalypse in a Syriac version, 1897; on
which see T. K. Abbot, 'Syriac version of Apocalypse,' Htrm-
athena, 1897, pp. 27-35.
2 See last note.
196
APOCALYPSE
nietitarj- on Daniel; »ee the new edition by lionwetMih and
Acheliii), and Cyorian. The text used hy Andrew of Ca:>area
and Arelha.1 in tneir commentaries han nut a-s yet t>een fully
cstalilished. The text of the lost coninicntary of Ticonius can
1m-xi l>e made out from the excerpt from the commentary on the
INrudo-Augustinian Homilies.
In the attrnipi to classify this material, it is l>est to
Ikj;!!! witli ilu- class which shows the latest text— namely,
11 Clasaifica. ^ ' ^ ^^^ Arethas class, so named because
tion. '^ "^"^ ^^ *'"'' order was used by Arethas
for his Commentary (hence also many
cursives of this class are, strictly sijcaking, MSS of
Arethas-Comnientaries). To this class belong Q and
about forty of the more or less known cursives. The
material being so defective, separate groups within the
class can hardly be distinguished.
Tentatively and under great reservation a few may here be
suggested, (i.) 9, 13, 27, 93 are somewhat closely connected
(cp 7V,/r, j8^, p. 658) ; {ii.)2, 8, (14), 140, 151, 29, 50, 97 (the last
three very mtimately related), 94; (iii.) 6, 11, 31, (47); (iv.)
lastly, y, 14, 93 show near affinities. The group "formed by (v.)
7, 16. 39, 45, 69 represents the transition-stage between this class
(i) and the next class (2).
The second class, which we can detach from the rest
as having arisen out of a Liter redaction, is (2) the so-
called ' .Andrew ' class — the cla.ss to which the text used
by Andrew (see alxne, § 10 (') in his conmientary
belonged. It falls into several clearly distinguishable
sulMjrdinate groups.
(i.) The group consisting of 35, 68, 87, 121 stands almost
entirely apart, presenting .is it does many points of contact
with the .\reth.as group, but often showing a very peculiar text.
The following three groups, on the other hand, are very closely
akin : (ii.) i, 12, 36, 81, 152 (often with a very archaic Latinising
substratum); (iii.) 28, 73, 79, 80, 09 ; (iv.)io, 17, 37, ^9, (72], 91,
96, (154], 161. Cod. P admits of Ijeing ranked with this class as
a whole, but cannot be associated with any of the subordinate
groups in particular.
Of all the known cursives there are only (3) four — [26],
38, 51, 95 — which it h.-is hitherto been found impossible
to classify ; they show an ancient te.xt.
It is as yet difficult to detect the 'Western text"
12. 'Western Jf":^ '^.':''') '" the Apocalypse ; hut
Text ' ^^' gradually l>ecome practic-
able as in recent years new sources
have lieconie accessible.
Witnesses to it, though only in part, are the uncial K (with a
very erratic and only ijarlially ancient text), the text of Priniasius
(identical, according to Haussleiler's investigations, with C'y-
prian's text, and thus old African), the fragments of A, the (ligas
Holniensis g; Ticonius (containing a later development of the
text), and the Syriac version edited by Gwynn and designated 2
(the later version known .ys ,S shows a text almost everywhere
corrected in accordance with the .Arethas class, though in many
places also it contains a text older than 2). To the same cate-
gory l)elong also, in part, the ^roup i, 12, 36, 81, 152 (cp (Iwynn,
cxli.) and, finally, the Armenian version, which, unfortunately,
is not yet sufficiently known (note the coincidence of i, 12, 36,
etc. with arm. ; cp Uousset, Koiiiih. 178). .A further point
worthy of notice is the close affinity of K, 2 (S), and Origen ; one
might almost venture to constitute N20r. a distinct group in the
Western Cla.ss (Housset, 181 ; Gwynn, Iv^).
Distinctly the best text is that presented by ACVg.
The \'ulgate furnishes us with good means of con-
13 Result ^""""'"S 'h^ t^"' °f -^^^ especially where
the two differ or where (J is wanting.
A\g. , therefore, w here C is wanting, often constitutes a
stronger testimony than that of all the other witnesses
together.
' I John am he that heard and saw these things '
(228 k\' ; cp 1 4 9). Are we to identify this John with the
14 V^ntaaaaA '^postle, the son of Zebedee? Within
author '^^ ^^"^ ''^'^'^ ^^ '♦ "''S^' f'^''"'>' ^
urged against this identification. The
first to submit the question to thorough discussion was
Dionysius of .Me.xandria (see above, § 4) ; in the result
he attributed the txjok to another John. 'Ihis theory
of a second John, adopted also by Eusebius (HE
iii. 39 I ff.), w.as revived in the present century (Hleek,
Ewald, de Weite, LUcke, Neander, Diisterdieck.
etc. ), the John of the .Apocalypse l)eing usually in this
case identified with the ' IVesbyter ' of Eus. HE
iii. 39 1 ff. Criticism advanced another step, however.
«97
APOCALYPSE
I and declared the whole tradition regarding the presence
of John the .AiH)stle (and Evangelist) in .Asia Minor to
have been due to a confusion Ijetween his name and that
of the presbyter.
.So Vogel, Der EvaH^tlist Johannts, 1801-4 ; LiitzcllieTger,
Die kinklicht Trattilton fiber den Aposttt Joktinn,s, 1840;
Keim, Cesch. Jesu voh Sazam, 1867, 1 161 / ; Scholtcn, Per
Af>. Johantus in Kleinasien, 187a; WeiflTenbach, Dot t'ufiat-
fragment, 1874 ; Thoma, Das Johannisev., 1882 ; and other*.
.Against .Scholten cp Hilgenfeld, /UT, 1876 77, also Zahn,
St. A'r. 1866, p. 649^. ; Actajoannis civ., .Steitz, St. Kr., 1868,
p. 509^., Herzog, A' A' 11 78^
The question is difficult. The first remark to l)e made
upon it is that the assumption that there were two Johns
16 Onlv '" '^^''^ Minor— the ajwstle and the presbyter
one John *^"''^ ""'X slender supix)rt in ancient
in Asia "'■^'^''''""- Whatever the interpretation we
Minor '"'^^ ''"^ ^^ ^^^ important testimony of
Fapias preserved by Eu.sebius {I/Ji iii.
39 1 ^), it is at least certain that I^ipias spe-aks not of
two Johns in Asia Minor — the ajKjstle and the presbyter
— but of one John, whom we are to look for as a near
neighlxjur of Papias in space and time. Of a second
John the second century and the first half of the third
know nothing ; he is unknown to Iren;vus and to those
who disputed the claims of the Fourth {jos(x;I, to the
Alogi and to Caius, to Tertullian, to Clement, and to
Origen. Not till the time of Dionysius of .Alexandria is
reached do we find any indication of the sort (Eus. I/E
vii. 25i6). Even Dionysius alleges no other evidence
than that in his day two graves of ' John ' were shown.
The inference he draws from this— that there must have Ijcen
two Johns — is by no means a stringent one. It would not lie less
reasonable to suppose that in his day the precise burial-place of
John was no longer known, or that the twofxi^/iiaTa represented
two distinct holy ' places ' of John (so Jer. <ie vir. ill. 9 : ilu,r
tiientoricf ; Zahn, Acta Jo. civ). For this supposition, Kusebius
h.xs supplied a plausible basis by combining the statement of
Papias about two Johns with the traditions mentioned by
Dionysius about two graves of John at Ephesus.
If the assumption that there were two Johns in Asia
Minor proves to tie a baseless hypothesis — and its base-
ifi Vi th lessness is shown bv the fact, among other
Presbyter *'^'"S^' ^'^•'' """ ' J"*^" ' ^^ ^^^ ^''"o*" '^
" ■ so often spoken of w ithout distinguishing
phrase of any kind— the question which next arises is as
to whether this John was the ajnistle or the presbyter.
At this point the inijxirtant testimony of Fapias turns the
scale in favour of the presbyter. For his contem]j<3rary
and the authority w hom he cjuotes is — next to Aristion
— the ' presbyter ' John (Eus. ///•.' iii. 394) ; and Aristion
and John are doubtless also to Ik- identified with the
Trpfff^vTfpoi whom, according to Eus. ///;' iii. 393, Fapias
could still directly interrogate. The evidence of 2 Jn.
and 3 Jn. , claiming as they do to l>e written by the
Tfxa^VTfpos, points in the same direction. Moreover,
as has already lieen ix)inte(l out (^ 14), the .Apocalypse
I apparently does not profess to have Ijeen written by the
I apostle. On the other sitle, it is true, we already find
Justin [Dial. 81 ; see above, § 2) asserting the apo.stolic
authorship. It is, however, noticeable that Ircnanis —
for whom the tjospel, the Epistles, and the .Ajjocalyjise
are all by one and the same author — sjwaks of John
as an apostle only in indefinite expressions similar to
those in (ial. 1 19, but elsewhere invariably designates
I him as 'disciple' (/ia^Tp-i^s) ; see liousset, op. cit. 41/
I Further, Ircn.tus, who calls Papias a disciple of John.
i also speaks of Folycarp as his fellow disciple ( Eus.
//^iii. 39i). If we refuse to supjxjse that Iren;eus
had already confounded the presbyter with the apostle,
then the great teacher of Folycarp was also, according
to Irenaius, the ' presbyter ' John ; for Fapias was a
disciple of the presbyter. In the Muratorian canon,
further, John is called simply ' discipulus,' whereas
Andrew is 'apostolus.' The testimony also of Foly-
crates in the letter to Victor (ap. Eus. HE\. 24 a_^)
claims particular attention in this connection. Here,
in a passage where everything turns upon the exact
titles of the persons named. Polycrales designates
APOCALYPSE
as the <rroix<** of Asia Minor (i) the apostle Philip
and his daughters ; (2) John who lay on the bosom
of the Lord, fidprvi Kal SiSdffKaXoi, who was buried
in Kphesus, 6s (yevrjd-rj lepei's t6 iriraKov ire(f)o-
priKu)i ; (3) the bishops Polycarp, Thrascas, Sagaris,
F'apirius, Melito. Polycrates thus designates, plainly
with intention, the author of the Fourth Gospel also
as teacher and witness, not as apostle. Indeed, the
traditions relating to the Fourth Gospel Ijeconie much
more intelligible if we are al>le to assume that the
witness (Jn. 19 35, ^Ktivos olStv) is not the Galihean
apostle, the son of Zelx.'(lee, but another John, a
Jerusalemite (Fiousset, h'omin. 43/.). It may also be
remarked that the statement of the Fourth Gos[x;l —
that the beloved disciple was ' known unto the high
priest' (18 15) — -harmonises well with the account of
Polycrates, 'who Ix-came priest' (5s ie/iei/y eyevijdr) ;
cp further, II. Dclff, .S7. A>. , 1891, and Harnack,
Chronol. I456/. ).
The inference from all this would seem to be that the
(one) John of Asi.i Minor, who was the presbyter, was
one who had seen Jesus indeed, but not one of the
numljcr of the apostles. The John of the Apocalypse
(cp the superscription of the lipistlcs) is thus the
presbyter.
Whether the .\pocalypsc was really written b\' him is
another question. In order to understand how the
17 Rpal Apocalypse and the Fourth (iospel could
authorship ' ''""^ ''*^ attributed to the same disciple
^' of the Lord, it is necessary to remove
them both a little distance away from him. John
is only the eye-witness, not the author of the Fourth
Gospel ; .so, in like manner, in the Apocalypse we
may have here and there a passage that can be traced
to him, but the book as a whole is not from his pen.
Gospel, Epistles, and Apocalypse all come from the same
school. They show also at various points linguistic
affinities (Housset, Komm. ■202 ff.). They had, moreover,
at first the same history : they were, it would seem, the
favourite writings of Montanism, and were all three
alike rejected by the opponents of Montanism, the
Alogi.
The earliest Cireek fathers who in any measure
attempted to interpret the Apocalypse were Iren;BUS,
Hippolytus, and .Methodius :
Iren;»;iis, in Adv. /f,rr. 5; Hippolytus, in Comm. on Daniel,
in airoSetfis ;repi toD acnypio-Tou, in extant fragments of the
_ KecJaAaia Kara. Vaiov, and in a no longer
18. Interpreta- extant commentary on the book itself;
tion : - Greek -Methodius in Sym/>. 150584^ Of
and Latin. continuous commentaries originating in the
(Ireek Church we possess only those of
.Andrew (5th cent., ed. .Sylburg) and of Arethas (9th cent., ed.
Cramer).
The oldest Latin commentary, which contains much
interesting and ancient material (for example, the
interpretation of various passages referring to Nero), is
that of Victorinus of Pettau (o/'. 303). We possess it
only in Jeromes redaction. Haussleiter is about to
edit it in its original form. An e.xceedingly powerful
influence was exercised also by the commentary of
Ticonius.
This work is, unfortunately, no longer extant, and has to be
reconstructed, as far as the materials allow, from the pseudo-
Augustinian Iloinilite in Afioc. (Migne, Pat. Lat. 35), the
commentary of Prim.asius {oh. 586, ed. princ. Ha.sel, 1544),
and (mainly) the great compilations of Beatus, written in 776
(in .-{/'ocrily/'sim, ed. F'lorez, i77o).''
In his commentary, written before 380 A.ii. , wholly
from the Donatistic point of view, Ticonius consistently
carries out the spiritualistic interpretation. In his
explanation of the millennium pas.sage (20 i^) he was
afterwards followed by Augustine (Mousset, Komm. 65).
Down to the Middle .\ges the exegesis of the book
continuetl to follow that of Ticonius, if his Donatistic
tendency \vi left out of account.
1 Cp also below, 8S 28 and 34.
2 See Liicke, Einl. in dit Offeyibarung ^'^^ 1853; Holtzmann,
HK \\ Bousset, Komm. ^iff.
3 See Haussleiter, ZKW'L 7 -iyiff. \ Bousset, Komm. (>off.
I9Q
APOCALYPSE
Apart from the works already named, mention must be
made of those of Cassiodorus (Comfilexiones in apocalyfuin
[ed. Scipio Maffey, Florence, 1721]), Bcda (oA. 735; expianatio
apocalypsis in Biblioth. I'atr. Cologne, vol. v.), and Ambrosius
Ansbertus (c. 770 : in Af>ocalyftiim UM x., Bihl. Patr., Col., ".t
2). Dependent, in turn, on Ansbertus are Alcuin (Migne, J'nt.
y.a/. 100)and Haymo of Halberstadt [84J] (Migne, 117), while
Walafried Strabo s Glossa oniinaria (Migne, Pal. I. at. 114)
depends on Haymo. To the same class of interpretations
l)elong the ]>erforniances of Ansclm of Laon (Migne, ItVJ),
Bruno of .\ste (.Migne, Wo), Rupert of Deutz (Migne, lOit),
Richard of St. Victor (Migne, I'.Ml), Albertus M.-ignus (O^eia,
Lyons, 1651, tom. 12), a commentary, prokibly in reality of
Waldensian origin, which is found, in two recensions, among
the works of Thomas Aquinas (Opera, Parma, 1869; tom. T.\
3247^ 5."j^-). Hugh of St. Caro(i263; J'oslilla), Dionysius
Carthusius (14th cent.). Thus the single commentary of
Ticonius continued to dominate the whole interpretation of the
Apocalypse until far down in the Middle Ages.
The next interpreter of the Apocalypse to attain wide
influence was Joachim of Floris (soon after 1195;
10 Tnar>>iim Hxpositio . . . abbatis Joachim in Apoc. ,
i». joacmm. Venice, 1527). With him the fantastic
futurist (chiliastic) interpretation Ijcgan to gain the
upix;r hand over the formerly prevalent spiritualising
view. He was at the same time the originator of a
'recapitulation theory,' which he carried out into the
minutest details. As ' the Age of the Spirit,' associated
with a mendicant order that was to ajjpear, occupied a
central place in the prophecies of Joachim, he naturally
became the prophet of the ' opposition ' Franciscans,
and his works were accepted by them as sacred. It
was in these circles accordingly that his immediate
followers in the interpretation of the Apocalypse arose
(Peter Johannes Olivie, Ubertino de Casale, Sera-
phinus de Fermo, Annius Viterbiensis, Petrus Galatinus) ;
but his influence spread very widely in the course of
succeeding centuries, and a continuous chain of many
links connects the name of Joachim with that of
Cocceius, who, in virtue of his Coj^ita/iones de apoc. S.
Joannis (Leyden, 1605), is usually taken as the typical
representative of the modern ' recapitulation theory. '
Among the precursors of the Reformation the anti-
Roman and anti- papal interpretation began to gain
20. Reforma-
tion.
ground, although the only methodic:
exposition of this view that can be
named is the commentary (by J(jhn
Purvey?), emanating (rom \\'yclifiitei circles and
written in 1390, which was afterwards published by
Luther [Commen/arius in Apoc. ante centum annos
editus, 1530).
The founder of a consistently elaborated universal-
historical interpretation was Nicolaus de Lyra (1329,
„, -- . 1 ''^ ^^^ Postils, which have been often
h- t^^^ 1 " printed). He is followed by certain
nfpthofT Catholic interpreters, and, in method
at least, by Luther, who in his pre-
face of 1534 (Walch. , 11) gives, in the sp.ace of a
few pages, a clever but fantastic interpretation of the
entire book, in which, as might be expected, the anti-
papal interest holds a central place. Luther's view-
continued to dominate the interpretation of the Apoca-
lypse within the Lutheran church.
it prevailed from the time of Lucas Osi.tnder (BiHiorum
sacrorum, pars 3) down to that of Jo. Gerhard (.Xnnot. in
Apoc. /oh., ]ena., 1643) .ind Abr. Calovius (Hi/'lia K07: Test.
Illtistr., tom. 2 Frankfort, 1672 — a learned work with valu-
able introductory material and persistent polemic .igainst Hugo
Grotius ; for a list of the commentaries dependent on Luther
see Bousset, Komm. 94). None of the works mentioned was
of any value for the real interpretation of the book ; the
.\poc:dvpse and its interpretation, so far as the Lutheran Church
in Germany is concerned, became merely the arena for anti-
(iatholic polemics.
Within this period the number of works produced in
Germany and Switzerland on this subject without
dependence on the dominant Lutheran view was very
small.
.\mong them the Dilis^ens atque eruiiita enarratio lihri
Apoc. Joh., 1547, of Theodor Bibliander is worthy of notice;
in it we can discern in the treatment of chaps. 12 and 13 the
1 Cp Wycliflfe's own interpretation of Rev. 20 in the Dialofcui
in Neander, KG 6 228.
22. Scientific.
APOCALYPSE
beginnings of an interprct.-xtion looking to contemporary con-
ditions. Kullin^cr (I'redigUH, 15^7) and Junius (Afioc. Joli.
lUuitratit, 1591) have a good deal vn common with Hil>liander.
Wildest and most fanUistic of all are the English
commentaries of this [x^riod.
Among them may \x named Napier of Merchiston, the
inventor of logarithms (A Plain nisan'try 0/ the ivhoU Rtvela-
tion 0/ Saint fohn, 1593), Thom.-is Hrightman (AfuKalyfisis
A/>oca/y/>sfos, Frankfort, 1609), Joseph Nietle (Clavii a/>,na-
lyptica, 1627), and .Sir Is.-iac Newton {Cf/iscrrations u/><in II: f
I'rophfcies 0/ Daniel and the Apocalypse 0/ St. John, 1732 —
dcjMindent upon Mcde).
'I'hc history of a strictly scientific interpretation of
the .\|)()c:ilyijsc, on the other hand, must bo held to
Ix'jjin wit!) the learned commentaries of
French and .Spanish Catholic theo-
logians. They meet the Protestant polemic with con-
spicuous and indeed often astounding erutlition, and,
going back to tiie pointof view of the earlier (.'hurch
fathers, lay the foundations of .n cautious and for the
most part purely escliatological interpretation.
In this connection the works of Franciscus Ribeira (1578),
Ulasius Vieg.xs(i6oi ? cpalso Hell.irniinus, Df SuiHino /'onti/ice,
lib. tert. De .^ntichristo), Hcnedictiis IVreyra ( i ^^.06 ?), and Cor-
nelius a I^apide (1626) are well worthy of mention.
Conspicuous alwve them all is the Ve^ligatio arcani
sensui in Afocalypsi of Ludovicus ab Alca/.ar. That
writer was the first to carry out consistently the idea that
the .\pocalypse in its earlier part is directed against
Judaism, and in its second against Paganism, so that in
ch.ips. 12 / we read of the first persecution of the
Christians in the Roman Empire, and in ch. 19 of the
tinid conversion of that Empire. He thus presents us
with tlie first serious attempt to arrive at a historical
and psychological understanding of the book.
The ide.-» worked out Ijy .Mcazar had already been expressed
by McMtc-nius in the preface to his edition of .Arethas (("/•;, uinenii
Coiitiitrntor., ed. .Morelius et Hentenius i), and by .Salmeron
(C^ptra, 12, Coliv^ne, 1614, 'In sacram Jo. Apoc. prailudia ').
It ouRht to be added here that the explanation of the wounded
head as referring to Nero Redivivus is found (for the first time
since Victorinns) in the commentary of the Jesuit Juan Mariana.
It U.1S fro'u the Jesuits that Protestant science first learned how
to v.ork thi, field.
(irotius [Aftnot. ad XT, Paris, 1664), who is so often
spoken of as the founder of scientific e.\egesis, is, in his
remarks on the .Apocalypse at any rate, entirely depend-
ent on .Mcazar, whose interi)retation, indeed, he has not
improved by the details assuming references to universal
history and contemporary events which he has introduced
into it.
(Irotius in turn was followed by Hammond (cp the Latin
editions of Clericus, torn. 1, .\msterdam, 1698, and Clericus's
notes to Hammond), Bossuet (i633), and Herva;us (1684). In
Holland and ( lermany the fantastic school of interpretation
continued to flourish for some time longer, prominent repre-
sentatives Ijeing, in Holland, Vitringa, with his profoundly
learned acaKpio-tt ajroKoAui/ifait (1705; dependent on Mede),
and his many followers, and in tlermany, Bengel, with his
commentary (1740-46-58) and sixty practical discourses on the
Ap<3calypse. Much greater sobriety is shown by ^oh. Marck
in his fn Apoc. Coinm. 1699, with its copious exegetical material
and valuable introduction; also by a group of eschatological
interpreters in which .are included F^leonora Peters (1696),
Antonius I Iriessun (1717), and Jo.-ichim Lange {.-Ipokalyptisches
Liclit u. Kfc/U, 1730).
In the eighteenth century, although Aubert de Verse
(/.<: I If/ lie I' apocalypse, 1703) followed the lines laid
23 Since dow n by Grotius, Hannnond, and Hos-
18th"century. ""T'- ^''^ "''^rpretation founded on
' allusions to contemporary events gained
the ascendency, and in a very narrow form. At this
lx;riod it took for the most part the very unfortunate
course of endeavouring to treat the w hole of the AjxJca-
lypse, after the analogy of Mt. 24, as a prophecy of the
destruction of Jerusalem.
In this category must be placed the expositions of A))auzit
{Kssai siir Tapoc., 1733), Harduin (1741). Wetstein (A/7'<-//«i a*/
crisin atquc interpretationcm .^'7'ed. Semler, 1766), Harenbcrg
(1759), Hartwig (cp g 9), and, finally, Zidlig (1834).
On the other hand, we find much that is rightly said
in Semler's noies to Wetstein in Corrodi's Gesch. des
Chiliasmus. And a return was made to the sounder
general principles of Alcazar by Herrenschneider
APOCALYPSE
{Inaugural disi., Str.issburg, 1786) and by Kichhorn
(Cummenlarius, 1791). Even those shreds of the
interpretation that l(xjks to universal history, which had
still jx'rsisted in showing thcm.selves in .Alcazar's work,
were now stripped away, and thus a provisional resting-
place was reached.
This stitge is seen in the works of Bleek (Theol. Ztschr. 2,
licrlin, 1820, I'orlesungen iiher d ie A Pol; . publi-hcd by Hossb.ich
ill 1862), Kwald (Cow///;. 1828, Die Johann. S^hriften, 2, 1862),
De VVette (Kurze Krklitrun^, 1848-54-62), I.iitke ( / enuch cinet
vollst&ndigen liinleitung tn die Offenba
1852), V * *
(■59-87)-
ttie Offent'arung, 1812, 2nd
1852), Volkmar ('62), and also, for the most part, iJiisterdicck
In all these works the interpretation from contem-
porary history is consistently carried out. All set forth
from the decisive observation that in chap. 11 the preserva-
tion of the temple is jiredicted, and all, accordingly, date
the book from Ijefore 70 A.I). Further, they .-ill rightly
recognise that the main drift of the .Xpf/calyiJse is
directed against Rome ; all, too (e.vcept Diisterdieck),
recognise Nero Redivivus in the woundeti head. In
particular, since the discovery, independently arrived at
by Fritzsche, lienary, and Reuss, that the nunilxT 666
is intended for pij ^Dp, the reference to Nero has Ijecome
the rocker de bronce of all exegesis of the Apocalypse.
In passing, mention may be made ol some works which,
although following obsolete exegetical methods, are not without
a scientific value: Hengstenberg ^'49-'5i-'6i), Kbrard ('53), Kiliot
{Hone Apocalyptictf, 1851; univ. -hist.), .\iiberlen ('54-'74),
Christian ('61), Luthardt ('61), Alford (A'rtf Testament, 4 2),
Kliefoth ('74), P.eck {Erkl. von Offenh. i.-xii. ; eschatol.) and
Kiibel (in .Strack-Zdckler's IfK, 1888; this takes a mcdi.-iting
course between the standpoints of contemporary history and
eschatology). See also Zahn, 'Apokalyptische Stutlien," in
ZKHL, 1885-85.
The interpretation of the Apocalypse entered on a
new ph.^se ' as soon as doubts arose regarding the unity
of the work and the method of literary
24. Question
of unity.
criticism to be applied. The conjecture,
which had l)een hazarded more than once,-
that the .Apocalypse was really a com[X)site work was
again taken up independently (i) by Daniel \'blter, at
nr T>«j_ i- _ the suggestion of W'eizsacker, whose
26. Redaction i u t-u . i u
hvDothe-is P"'"' ^^ ^'■''^- ^^^ particular hypo-
nypoineois. ^,^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^, \o\xqx » as to the
composition of the .Apocalypse may for convenience
be called the redaction hyjxithesis [Ueberarbeitungs-
Hypothcse).
He .issumed in his first sketch, which he has not substantially
modified, a fundamental text (Crvndscliri/t) consisting (apart
from .single verses) of 1 1-4 4-fi 7 1-8 8/ 14 1-7 18 19 1-4 14 14-20
195-10 dating from the sixties, and an appendix IO1-II13 17,
dating from 68-70 a.d. This underwent three (or rather four)
redactions, of which the latest was in 140 A.u. — or, at all events,
later than 130.
The work of Vdlter is based on a few happy observa-
tions. For example, he saw that 14 14-20 really forms the
close of an apocalypse, recognised the divergence Ijetween
7 1-8 and 79-17. the true character of lOi-ll 13, — and so
forth. Nevertheless, broadly, \'olter's performance
gave the student an impression of excessive arbitrariness,
and was rejected on almost every hand.
Against the first edition see Harnatk, TL/,, 1882, Dec. ;
Hilgenfeld, ^Cll'T, 1882; Warfield, /'/w/, Ke7'. 1884, p. 228;
against the second edition, Jiilicher, G'tP.-i, 1886, pp. 25-38; Zahn,
ZKH-L, 1886.
The question was next taken up from an entirely
different side (2) by E. Vischer ( ' Die Offenb. Joh. eine
jiidische Schrift in christlicher fiearbeitung,' in l^exle u.
Unters., 1886, 2nd ed. 1895); the result has been a
lively and fruitful discussion. Vischer lx;lieved himself
to have discovered that the ruling chapters (11/.) of
the Apocalypse can be understood only on the as-
1 In connection with what follows see Holt?mann, JPT, 1891;
Baldensperger, /../. 7'lieol. u. Kircltc, 1894 ; .A. Meyer, Theol.
Rundschau, 1897, Hefie 2-3.
2 (;rotius, Hammond, V'ogel (Comm. vii. De Apoc. J ok. i8ii-
1816), Bleek (lierl. theol. /.tschr. 2 24oyC; he aljandoned his
view in Beitr. 2. Evang.-Ktitik, 1846, p. 81 ; St. h'r. 1855, p.
220^).
3 Die Entsteh. der Apok., 1882, and ed. 1885; Tk. T, i8<}i,
pp. 259i?: 608^; Prot. KZ, 1886, p. 32/ ; Dot Problem der
Apoc., 1893.
APOCALYPSE
sumption of a Jewish origin. As he nevertheless con-
tinued to Ijc convinced of the essential unity of the
book, he inferred that in the form in which we now
have it it is a Ckristian redaction of a Jewish •writing.
To the Christiaiv redactor, besides isolated expressions,
he attributed the following passages: 1-3 59-14 79-17 1^ "
139/ 14I-S13I3 103 I615 17i4 199-'»i3^2U4-6 2l5*-8
226-21.
Vischer's able treatise found wide acceptance. Among those
who signified their acceptance of his main thesis were Iselin
(Theol. /.. aus iter Schveitz, 1887 ; ' Apocalyplische Studien ') ;
an anonyi '■ ^ '' •""■ ""■^ '- ■ '^ i-.,i. :_
TLZ,
ZATn\ i886, pp. 167-71 ; Overbeck
1887, p. 28 / ; Mdn^^oz in Re-,: tie tlUol. et phil.
161 ; Krriger in CGA, 1887, pp. 26-35; Simcox in Ex-
poiitor, 1887, p. 425/; On the other hand, Viiher (/J/V Offenb.
Jolt, keine ursfiriint;!. jud. Apok., 1886), Beyschlag (St. Kr.
1888), and Hilgenfeld (ZW'T, 1890) declared themselves against
it.
Athough it must be cordially acknowledged that to
Vischer belongs the honour of having first raised the
question in its entirety, it nmst be said that he was
not successful in his attempt to solve it. He has
neither proved the Jewish character of chap. 11 / nor
justified his fundamental thesis regarding the unity of
the book. We shall Ix; doing him no injustice if we
classify him among those who uphold the ' redaction '
hypothesis.
The earliest exponent of the ' sources ' hypothesis
{QueUen-Hypotkese), which has lately come into coiu-
__ _ petition with that of redaction, was VVey-
26. Sources , . 1 1 1
. ., . land,whowrote almost contemporaneously
hypothesis. ^^.,^j^ y.^^^^^^ ^.^1^ ^_ jggg pp ^^^.^^^ .
and Om-verking en Compilatiehypothesen toegepast op de
Apocal. van /. , 1888). Weyland finds in the Apocalypse
tico Jewish sources (N and 3) which have been worked
over by a Christian redactor.
K corresponds, roughly, to Viilter's primary document ; 3 to
the first and second of VOlter's redactors (in Vulter's Appendix
K and 3 are separ.-\ted). Weyland's Christian redactor corre-
sponds in a general way with Vischer's redactor. In 1894 Kauch
(Die Offo.b. des J.) signified his adherence to Weyland.
Against both the hypotheses we have just described
serious and far-reaching objections present themselves.
_, . ,. Against the 'sources' hypothesis must
27. ODjectlons. j^ ^^ggj jj^ substance! the linguistic
unity of the Iwok (see below, § 34); against the redaction
theory it has to be observed (</) that the fundamental
document made out by Volter and his followers (see
above, § 25) has no special character of its own, inasmuch
as all the really living and concrete passages occurring
within it are attributed to the redactor ; {h) that the
disapp)earance of every trace of these numerous later
redactions is remarkable.
From such considerations the necessity for a third
way became apparent. This third way was first
„ . pointed out by Weizsiicker in his Apo-
h Jf™. ^tolic Age. He rightly discerned in the
fiypo • Apocalyptist's thrice repeated number
of seven the fi.xed plan of an author who wrote the
Apocalypse as a whole, and gave to his work the
character of a literary unity. Into this literary
unity certain interpolations intrude with disturbing
effect (71-89-17 11 1-13 12 i-ii 12-17 13 17). Thus Weiz-
siicker arrived at his fragment hypothesis. According
to him the Apocalypse is a literary unity proceeding
from a single author, into which, however, apocalyptic
fragments of various date have been introduced by the
author himself. In the opinion of the present writer
these are the lines along which the true solution of the
problem is to be sought. All later investigators in this
field have followed one or other of the three hypotheses
just enumerated.
Oscar Holtzmann (CrV 2 658-664) assumes a Jewi.sh ground-
work into which again a still older source (13 14 6-13) has been
worked in a Christian revision. Pfleiderer (Urchristenthum,
1887, pp. 318-56) steers an eclectic course ; Sabatier (Les i^ri^inei
littcraires de Capocalypse, 1887) and Schoen (L'origine de
fapoc. 1887) represent a combination of Weizsacker and Vischer
(regarding the Apocalypse as the work of a Christian author who
has embodied Jewish fragments in bis book).
203
30. Gunkel.
APOCALYPSE
A thoroughly elalxjrated ' sources ' theory is that of
Spitta {Offenb. Joh. , 1884). In diametrical opposition
2fi Snitta. '" Weizsacker, he claims to see, in the
■ P thrice repeated series of seven, three
sources.
These are (a) the seal source or Christian primitive Apoca-
lypse U (U ■= Urapokalypse), written soon after 60 A.u. (practjc-
alfy, apart from the specifically Christian inteqjolations of the
redactor, chaps. 1-tl and "9-17 81 19 9 10 228-21); (h) the trumpet
source J(l), a Jewi.sh writing (J = Judi.sch)of the reign of Caligula
(7i-a 89 IO1-7 11 15 12 13 14i-ii I613-20 19ii-2o liOi-is 21 1-8);
(c) the vials source Ji2), from the time of Pompcy (containing,
approximately, the remainder of the book).
These three have been worked together into a collected
whole by a Christian redactor. (The additions assigned
to iiim by Spitta are of alxjut the same e.xtent as those
assigned to him by Vischer. )
The sources theory was next carried to the utmost
by P. .Schmidt {Anmerkungen iiber die Comp.der Offenb.
Joh., 1891).
Erl>es(/>/> Oj^enb.Joh., 1891) in his separation of the literary
sources agrees in the main with O. Holtzmann, but also main-
tains with Volter (whose hypothesis he simplifies) the thoroughly
Christian character of the whole book. Bruston (Les origines
de l^ apocalypse, 1888) pursues a path of his own. .Mi-ndgoz
(.■Xniiales de bihliogr. tlieot. 1 ('88] pp. 41-45) assumed two
Jewish apocalypses and a Christian redactor.
The unity of the book is defended by certain scholars :
Not only by the critics of Vischer mentioned above, but also
by B. Weiss (AY«/., and Texte u. V ntersuch. 8 1891), Bovon
(Revue de tlu-ol. et phil., 1887, pp. 329-62), Hirsclit (Die Apoc.
u. ihre neueste Kritik, 1895), and Bloin ( Tit. T, 1883-84). .\n ex-
pectant attitude is taken by H Holtzmann (Junl., 1892 ; Hand-
koiiim., 1893).
Finally, altogether new lines of investigation were
opened up by (Junkel in his Schbpf. u. Chaos ('94). He
controverted sharply, and sometimes per-
haps not altogether fairly, both the current
me.thods of interpreting the .\pocalypse (that which
looks to contemporary history for a clue, and that
which adheres to literary critical methods), and pro-
posed to substitute for them, or at least to co-ordinate with
them, a history of apocalyptic tradition. He insisted
with emphasis upon the thesis that the (one) Apocalyp-
tist was not himself the creator of his own representa-
tions ; that his prophecies were only links in a long
chain of tradition. In his investigation of this apo-
calyptic tradition he greatly enlarged the scope of the
usual question ' Jewish or Christian ? ' by his endeav-
ours to prove for chap. 12 a Babylonian origin, and
in other places also (see below, § 40) to trace Baljylonian
influences in the book. Even if we grant that Gunkel
has often overshot the mark, — as, for example, when
he refuses to recognise Xero in the beast and its number
— it is undeniable that his book marks the beginning
of a new epoch in the interpretation of the Apocalypse.
Stimulated by Gunkel, and accepting some of his
results, Bousset {Der Antichrist in der Ueberlieferung
_ . des Judenthians, des neuen Testaments,
31. iJOUBSet. ^^^^^ j^^ ^^.^^^ Kirche, 1895) proceeded
to illustrate Gunkel's method by applying it to a definite
concrete example, investigating the entire tradition
regarding .\ntichrist, and endeavouring to show that
in this instance a stream of essentially uniform tradition
can be traced from New Testament times right through
the Middle Ages and beyond them. In his view the
Apocalypse can be shown to be dependent in a series
of passages, particularly in chap. 11, on this already
ancient tradition regarding .Antichrist.
This view has been controverted by Erbes (T/ieologisckt
Arbeiten aus detti r/teinischen ivissenschaftiichen Prediger-
verein geivaudt, Neue Folge, 1, Freiburg, i. B., 1897), who, as
against it, argues for the contemporary-history method in its
most perverse form.
Finally, in the Kritisch-exegetische Kommentar ('96),
Bousset has sought to bring to a focus the result of the
labours of previous workers. In his method of inter-
pretation he follows Weizsacker (fragment hypothesis),
and therefore gives a continuous commentary, describing
the character of each particular fragment in its own
I place. In his exegesis he has given special attention to
204
APOCALYPSE
the indications of (Junkcl, and to the result of his own
researclies on the sul)jcct of Antichrist.
To Sinn up the result of the lalxjurs of the last fifteen
years upon the Apocalypse. It seems to be settled that
P It ^^^ Ajx)calypse can no longer Ik: rej^arded
32. Kesuits. ^ ^ literary unity. Against such a view
criticism finds irresistible considerations.
.■\mong these is the intuiigruiiy between 7 j-8 and 79-17, as
also th.-\t Ijctween 7 i-8 and 0 12^, the two explanations of the
144,000 in 7 i_^ and 14 ij/"., the interruption of the connection
caused by 10-U 13, the jieculiar new becinning made in 12 i, the
sini;ular character of chap. 12, the tioublelte presented bv chaps.
13 and 17, the fact tliat in 14 14-20 a Last judBment is depicted,
whilst that involved in 13 does not arrive till I'J 11^; the observ.-i-
tion that in chap. 17 two representations of the beast and his
associates are given alongside each other (see below, § 45) ; and
the isolated character of chaps. 17 and 18, 21 9-22 5.
Further, the chapters do not represent the same religious
level. Chap. 7 1-8 (cp 20 7-9), with Us particularistic character,
is out of harmony IxJth with cliaps. 1-3 and with "9-17 ; in 11 \/.
the preservation of the temple is expected, whilst in 21 22 the
new Jerus.nlem is to have none.
Moreover, different parts of the book require different dates :
chap. 11 1-2 must h.ive been written Ijefore 70 a. I)., chap. 17 prob-
ably when Vesp.-isian had alre.idy been emperor for some time ;
whilst the svriting, as a whole, cannot, at the earliest, have been
llnislied before the time of Do
\
This result holds good notwithstanding Gunkd's
warning against the overhasty efforts of criticism. That
a variety of sources and older traditions have been
worked over in the Apocalypse will not be denied even
by the student who holds that it is no longer possible
to reconstruct the sources.
It may seem doubtful whether a general character,
date, and aim can be assigned to the Apocalypse ;
T? 1 f ^°'^' '^ ^'^^ been seen, the work is not a
33. Keiative jij^^^ary unity. Still, if there be good
f ^^ J grountl for the critical conclusion indicated
structure. :_^^^^.^^ that the Apocalyptist is himself
an inde|x'ndent writer who has simply introduced various
fragments into his corpus apocalypticum (Weizsiicker,
Schon, Sabatier, Bousset), a relative unity has already
been proved for the Apocalypse. This conclusion is
contirmed, step by step, when the details of the book
are examined.
The relative unity is shown (i) in the artificial
structure of the whole.
Four separate times do groups of seven occur (epistles, seals,
trumpets, vials) ; within these groups the prevailing distribution
is into 4 + 3. The delineations of judgment and its horrors are
reijularly followed by pictures of joy and heavenly bliss ; cp
7 11 14-19 14 1-5 15 1-4 19i-io. Everywhere artificial con-
nections are employed in order to bind the separate parts
together into one whole : cp, for example, 1 20 and 4 i, 64 and
I4 10 5-7 11 11 13; also 19 2 14689-11 165-12^; also IS 19
7 8 21 2.
(2) Further, the relative unity is shown clearly in
the uniformity of the language throughout.
The following are the more important
34. Of language facts.» Throughout the entire boi)k are
and style. found (a) strongly marked gr.ammatical
irregularities — anacolutha and impossible
constructions {f.g., 1 ^f. 12 7), and confusions of case, especially
with following participles(l4 io2 18 [see the reading of X] 20812
5 11/ Oi 7 4 9^;^; s 9 9 14 10 8 11 1 14 6 12 14 10 12 1748 IS i2y:
10 6 20 2 21 27 [reading of K]). In 1 13 and 14 14 (to Like only one
instance) the reading ii/itoioi' vl'ov avOpiunov cannot have been
due to two separate persons.
(/') Hebraisms, especially the repetition of the demonstrative
pronoun in the relative cl.ause (38 72 9 138 12 208, cp I2014
179, also 271726 3x2 21 O4 21 6), and the Hebraistic »cai' (3 20
10 7 149/).
(<) The const rue tio ad sensum is specially frequent (e.g..
Ait/. 5 6 12/ 74 93^. 13 11 4 15 13 14 143 173 II 16 194 14);
sometimes involving a plural predicate after a neuter plural
subject (324 4589 5 14 920 11 2 13 18 1^4 16 14 18 3 23 21 24).
Less clearly attested is the simple ungramm.atical confusion of
gender (9 7 14 19 19 20 21 14 22 2 ; see the MSS.).
((j) Various other systematic peculiarities of idiom. For
example, irpoaKvvtiv governs the dative when the object is
efO«(4 10 7 II 11 16 19 4 229, cp 14 7) or JpaKajr (13 4), whilst, on
the other hand, we have wpoo-ic. to ^piov, ttji' e'tKOva, 13[4l8 13 15
14 9 1 1 [19 20) 20 4 (in 16 2 also we should read tfji' t'lKova accord-
1 A justification of these results in detail will be found in the
Author's Commentary on this l)Ook (Introd. pp. 183-208). In
some cases, where the reading adopted is less strongly attested,
the citations are in brackets.
205
APOCALYPSE
ing to the readings of K, which are wrongly given in the primed
editions). The instrumenlal dative is extremely rare in the
Apocalypse j its place is often taken by the construction with
Hebraistic ty, or even (but rarely) with 6ia and the accusative
(4 1 1 12 1 1 13 14). The vocative is rarely used (twice only : kv/h*,
11 17; ovpavi, IS 20). After a neuter plur.'il ihe predicate is
usually also plural (1 19 8 11 I64 lti2o[18i4| 20 12 21 4). The
Apocalvptist, except in a very few cases, construes 6 KaBrnityot
itrC with the accusative, tow KoBi'itLtvov ini with the accusative,
TOW Ka0rijxii'ov ini with the genitive, T<j» KoBriiitixf ini with the
dative ; he writes «»rl to litriunov, but tni Tiuf inrutnutv (ex< tp-
tion in 14 9), and f'lrl riji' Kt<fM\r)v invariably (except in 12 1).
He construes either €7ri rji yrj? or «it rijf yiji' (14 16, «<ri Trif yiji'),
«»rl r^ #aAa<r<jTjs or «i« Tijf da^atraav. He invariidjly construes
ypajftfLv, ioTofai ini with accusative (14 i ytyp. in\ tuv fitTunutv
and 10 5 iaTai-ai «'irt ttjs yVjt are no exceptions but only con-
firmations of other rules). Noteworthy, also, is the coiist.int
vacillation in tense between present and future, and, in descrip-
tions, between present and aorist. The Apocalyptist uses llie
infinitive almost invari.ably in the aorist. Exceptions occur in ilie
case of p Aim IV, of which he apparently never makes an aorist ;
ahio in Il6l3i3(?). On the other han<l, following the rule that is
customary elsewhere, he construes fjw'AAtii' almost always with the
present infinitive. The copula is often wanting, particularly in
relative sentences (1 4 2 13 5 13 9 1 1 20 ic). A clumge in the use
of subjunctive and indicative is made only after iVa (oirut does
not occur at all), but here also a certain regularity prevails. A
quite extraordinary use of iva occurs in 12 14 and 14 13 (cp Jn.
856 92 11 15). In its use of particles the book displays an
oppressive monotony : Kai is predominant everywhere ; only in
the epistles to the seven churches is the style somewhat
livelier.
The arrangement of the words is markedly Hebraistic. In
choice of words it is remarkably so. 'I'he following characteristic
phr.ases and turns of expression may be noted :— Aoyo? toO 9<oO
Ka'i fiap-rvpia 'lijcroi/ ; o Kvpio^ 6 6(iii o navroKpaTuip ; oTi'Of Tou
dvfxoi) TTj? opy*)? » ^**"' *i5 TOU9 aiuiua^ tujj' atwfuji' ; Aifjiimj Tov
TTDpot <cal Sfiou ; (^uAal yAJxrcrai Aaoi tdti) ; /Si^Aov ni? iVirit ;
^poi'Tttl (^Mui/al aarpaiTai creicrfios ; 7rj)-yai_ viaTiup ; 6 iiv Kai o ^v
Kai 6 fp\6^€i'o^ ; AoAcii/ and aKo\ov0(iu fxtrd', oi'Ofxa avru*;
fitTo. Taiira ; aAr)6i»'0« ; oouAos (in a pregnant sense), iJ.apTvpia,
fi.apTvp(lv ; heiKvvtiv \ ciicdi' ; cr<f>dTTfiv ', <rKr)fovi> ; njptii/ rat
tiToAav. Compare, furllier, the eiuimcrations in 0 15 11 18 l;f 16
19518 20 12 (tlie formula fiocpoi Kai fieydXoi); the beatitudes
(jiaicapios ; I3 14 13 10 15 19 9 206 22714): the doxologies (lb
4 II 59 12/ 7 12 153 19 I 6); the formul.e introduced with ii&t
(\3ioiS l-i iil7g);'JiA0€i'rir)p.epa(,ipYi'i,iopa etc.; tii7lli8147
15 18 10 197).
The general style of the Apocalyjise is monotonously
diffuse : article and pre[5osition are almost always
rejjealed when there are more substantives than one, as
also is the governing word before the governed. Whole
clauses are gone back upon and repealed in the
negative : Hebrew parallelism is not unconuiion.
We are now at last able to form a tolerably clear
conception of the personality, the time, the circum-
stances, and the literary aims of the apo-
■ calyptist who planned the .Apocalypse, as a
whole, in the form in which we now have it.
(a) The Apocalyptist writes at a time in which violent
persecutions have already broken out — indeed they are
beginning to become, so to say, epidemic.
Of the seven churches, four— Ephesus, Pergamum, Smyrna,
Philadelphia — are passing through such times of trial. The
martyrs already form a distinct class in the general body of
believers. They are destined to have part in the first resur-
rection—before the thousand - years reign begins (204^. cp
Tgj/'.). The seer beholds them under the altar (69^.). All
through the book this time of struggle is kept in mind (13 i
149^. ISijf 106 17 6 IS 20-24).
{!>) The .Apocalyptist predicts a still mightier and
more strenuous struggle.
In this struggle the predestinated number of martyrs is to be
fulfilled (69^:). Philadelphia is to be preserved^in this Last
great tribulation (3 10 ; cp the jxeyoAij #Ai'i/«t of 7 14). This
time is not far off: the martyrs who have already suffered arc
bidden endure only a little longer (0 1 1). Therefore, ' Blessed
are they that die in the Lord from henceforth ' (oir' oprt ; 14 1 3).
(c) This Struggle turns, and will in the future turn,
upon the worship of the beast. That this beast is
in one sense or another the Roman Empire or con-
nected with it, is admitted on all hands. It is important,
however, to consider the grounds on w hich the .Apocalypse
opposes Rome. Rome's horrible deed is not, as might
perhaps be guessed, the destruction of Jerusalent, nor
yet — in the first instance, at le;isi — the Neronian per-
secution, but the worship of the beast — i.e., Cwsar
worship (cp 13 149/". 152/: ItJs/ »o 17619ji/: 20
4-6; cp Mommsen, J?dm. Gesch. Ssaon.). — What the
306
APOCALYPSE
book predicts is the great conflict about to break out all
over the world between Christianity on the one hand and
the Roman Empire (with the Roman state religion, the
worship of the emperors) on the other (cp Antichrist,
§7).
(</) This great battle will begin with the return of
Nero Rcdivivus.
In common with the rest of the men of his day, the
Apocalyptist shares the popular expt-ctatioii of tlie coming again
of that emperor. Nero is(13 3 12 14) the head that was wounded
to death and afterwards healed. He is only ' .as it were ' (u)«)
slain, like the lamb (.'> 6). For as the latter continues to live on
in heaven, so does Nero prolong a shadowy existence in hell.
Out of the abyss (17 s) he will again return, and as Roman
Kmperor demand acloration. Then will l>e the days of the great
future struggle. Hence the name of the beast is 656 — i.e.,
nop nn: (cp An iichkist, § 15).
((•) Thus the date of the Ai5ocaly[)se admits of lieiiig
ajjproximately determined. The ciui of tlic first century
is already sufficiently indicated by the fact tiiat the
Apocalyptist expects the return of Xero from hell (Th.
Zahn, 'Apocal. Stud.' inZA'II'Z., 1885, pp. 561-76,
1886, pp. 337-52 393-405 ; see below, § 45). The
following consideration points to the same inference,
liehind the Apocalyptist in point of time there already
lies a great persecution. He himself is again living in
limes of persecution, and is expecting worse to come.
Inasmuch as the former persecution must be assumed
to be the Xeronian, we are compelled to carry the
Apocalypse down to the later period of Domilian.
When we do so the fact that 11 i ff. points
to a time before the destruction of Jerusalem need
not cause us any luisgiving : doubtless the passage
comes from an earlier source. On the other side we
sh(juld be able to fix an inferior limit for the date,
could it be shown that the epistles were already known
to Ignatius (see above, § 2). The date thus indicated
— the close of the first century — was in ]joint of fact the
date at which, it would seem, the general persecutions
of the Christians, turning substantially on the rendering
of divine honour to the emperor, first broke out (see
CiiKisTiAN, § 6). Tiie Apocalypse, as we now have it,
presupposes conditions very siinilar to those which we
meet in the well-known corresjjondence between I 'liny
and Trajan. In this it is not implied that the Apocalypse
could not have been written some ten years or more earlier.
In the conclusion just indicated we find ourselves in
agreement with the best attested tradition as to the date
of the writing of the Apocalypse.
According to Irenitus (v. 30 2 ; cp v. 20 7), the Apocalypse was
'seen ' at the close of Domilian's reign at Patmos, and therefore,
of course, to say the least, not written earlier (cp Vict. Pettau.
Comin. on Apoc. 10 11 ; Eus. HE iii. 18 1-3 ; Jer. Dc vir. iltus.
p; Sulp. Sev. Chron.'l-},\). .A. different tradition is met with, it
IS true — perhaps in Tertullian, who (De pru-scr. Hit-r. 36)
mentions the martyrdom of John (by boiling oil — a death from
which he was miraculously delivered), and his subse(|uent banish-
ment, in connection with the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul
(but see, on the other hand, Scot-piace 15). It is certain that at
all events Jerome {Adv.Jcmin. 1 26 [2 16]) understood Tertullian
as assigning this martyrdom and banishment of John to the
reign of Nero (cp Eus. Dem. ETans:. 3 ; the superscription of
the .Syriac translation of the Apocalypse edited by Ludovicus
de Dieu ; the Gnostic Acts of John; Theophylact [who gives
the date as thirty-two years after the Ascension ; cp the notes
of some of the Greek cursives of the Fourth Gospel : thirty years
after the Ascension, under Domitian (I); Erbes, 48]). Finally,
Epiphanius (Hier, .51 12 33) will have it that the book was written
under Claudius. The same statement occurs in the Commentary
of Apringius (upon whom see Rousset, CGN, 1895, p. 2), whence
it found its way into that of Heatus (ed. Florez, 33).
The Apocalj'p-se is distinguished from the apocalyptic
literature of Judaism from the time of the book of
37. Details
of criticism.
36. Personality
of Apocalyptist.
Daniel onwards by the high pro-
phetic consciousness which it displays.
The Apocalyptist as he stands at
one of the turning-points of the world's history looks
with a clear eye into the future and feels himself to be a
prophet. He is a Christian of an especial type. For
the prophets are servants of God in a peculiar sense
( 1 1 I O7 11 18 226 [cp 153]) : they are the fellow-servants
of the angels (229) ; other Cliristians are so only in
so far as they follow the revelation of the prophets
207
APOCALYPSE
(229). God is master of the spirits of the prophets
(226 cp 17 17 19 10). Hence the author directly claims
for his work the rank of a sacred book. It is intended
from the first to Ije publicly read ( 1 3) ; those who hear
it and obey what is written therein are blessed ( 1 3
227), and whosoever adds to or takes away from it falls
under the most grievous curse (22 18/). The frec|uent
mention of tiie propliets along with the saints {i.e..
Christians in general)— see 11 18 166 I82024 — is a proof,
not, as many critics have supposed, of the Jewish, but of
j the Christian, origin of the related passages. The .Apoca-
lypse in this respect was the forerunner of Montanism,
and it is no matter for surprise that it was specially
valued in Montanistic circles. It is also noteworthy
' that the Apocalyptist speaks to his own age and time.
( Whilst Daniel is represented as receiving, at the close of
his vision, the command to seal the book for long, here
! in sharp contrast we read (22 10) ' Seal not up the words
i of the pro]5hecy. ' The Apocalyptist seems to have been
j a Jewish Christian of universalistic sympathies. For
i him the name of Jew is a name of honour (29 89) ; he
seems to uphold a certain prerogative for the Jewish
I peo|)le(7 1-8 11 1-132O7/. ). He shows himself intimately
familiar with the language of the OT.
Into the apocalyptic unity thus defined, isolated frag-
ments ha\e been introduced in a manner which can
still be more or less clearly detected.
Of these the more imjiortant at least must
now be discussed, and some detailed
account of the more noteworthy results of criticism given.
Of recent critics the majority (Vischer, \'61ter,
Weyland, Pfleiderer, O. Holtzmann, Schmidt) regard
; _, , p the epistles to the seven churches (chaps.
aps. - . ^_g^ ^^ having been originally separate
from the rest of tlie book and as having been prefixed
j only after the Apocal3'pse had in other respects assumed
its present form ; but Spitta has shown good grounds
for believing that chaps. 1-3 and 4-6 ought not to be
separated, and (as against Vischer and others) has
established for the whole of chaps. 4-6 that Christian
character which unquestionabl)' belongs to ^d ff. Thus
Spitta takes chaps. 1-6 as a single original document
((Christian primitive apocalypse = U).
He seeks to prove this by pointing out that there is a definite
close at the end of (>, and a fresh beginning of a new apocalypse
in V I (so also P. Schmidt). But the sixth seal (Oi2_^.) does not
represent the final catastrophe ; it only pictures a great earth-
quake in the typical apocalyptic manner. In t3i5_^ the end is
still to come, and if, with .Spitta, we pass on to 79-17 immedi-
ately after 617, any representation of the end of all things h.as
completely disappeared from our reconstructed Apocalypse. In
any case, it is impossible that one should fail to recognise
an interpolated fragment in the .short passage (C9-11) relating
to the fifth seal. We have an exact parallel to it in 4 E.sd.
435 (cp also /Ethiop. Enoch 47). And the tradition of 4
Esd. must l)e regarded as the original one. It speaks quite
generally of a predestined number of the righteous which has
to be fulfilled before the coming of the end, whilst in the
Apocalypse the conception is applied to the predestined number
of the martyrs— a modification which can be explained very
easily from his general position (see above, § 35).
Spitta's view that 7 1-8 constitutes a fresh beginning,
which has nothing to do with the preceding chapters,
is certainly correct ; but neither has
the passage anything to do with that
which follows it (79-17) ; as to this practically all critics
are agreed. These facts, however, will not justify us in
attributing 79-17 to the redactor (as do Volter, Vischer,
Pfleiderer and Schmidt), nor yet in carrying out a system
of deletions in chap. 7 (as do Erbes, Wej-l. , Rauch) until
the two disparate sections have been brought into
harmony. Our proper course is to recognise (cp also
Spitta)- in 7 1-8 an interpolated fragment — probably
Jewish.
The sudden mention of the four winds, which are held by the
angels and are nowhere in the succeeding narrative let loose,
points to this conclusion, as also does the introduction of the
144,000 I.sraelites of the twelve tribes — a numl^er which in 14 1_^
is interpreted in a sense inconsistent with the original ' '
Bousset has hazarded the conjecture that here
have a fragment of the Antichrist legend.
39. Chap.
41. Chap.
12i-io.
APOCALYPSE
The next passage wliicli presents sjx;cial difficulties is
11 1-13. Here all critics are agreed in recognising a
_. fragment interpolated Ixilsveen the sixth
'. P' trumpet and the seventh (cp 9 11 and
'"'^' 11m). Further, almost all critics agree
in regarding chap. 10 as an introductory chapter
connected with this fragment. On closer examination
it is found, moreover, that 11 1-13 really consists of two
smaller fragments: (a) lli /, a prediction of the
preservation of the temple, written before the destruc-
tion of Jerusalem, and presenting points of contact with
Lk. 2124; (/'I the prophecy relating to the beast and
the two witnesses (11 3-13). This latter piece is of
an extremely fragmentary and enigmatical character.
Certain matters are introduced without any preparation :
the two witnesses, the l)cast from the ahyss, the war of the
beast with the witnesses, the jjeoples and tribes rejoicing over
the death of these last. .\li these are disjecta membra which
point to some larger connection.
In this passage, too, Housset has sought to show that
we have a fragment from the Antichrist legend.
In accordance with Jewish :ind primitive Christian anticip-ition
tlie .\ntichrist is destined to appear as a (jod-defying ruler in
Jerusalem, to lead the people astray and tyrannise over them, and
to gather together a great army from all nations. Against liim
will arise the two prophets Elijah and Enoch, and Israelites
to a definite number (7 1-8?) will be converted. A great famine
and drought will come. Then .Xntichrist will put to death the
two witnesses, and the end will draw near. It is evident that
here we have a coherent tradition, of which some fragments are
preserved in ch.ap. 11.
Chap. 12 is the most difficult in the book. It
also falls into two sections, 12 1-12 and I213-17, and
betrays itself as a foreign intrusion both by
its unfamiliar character and by its strange
and bizarre representations.
.\. Dietrich (Abraxas) was the first who sought to trace in the
chapter an adaptation of the myth of the birth of Apollo : he
liL-ld tlie i^x^iiaiil tu^jitive woman to be Leto, the dragon was
tlii; I'Nihoii, the child (who in the original legend himself slew
llu- l'\tlii)ii, Mich.icl liL-iiig a later introduction) was Apollo.
The water which in the ("ireek myth figured as a protecting
power h;is here become auxiliary to the dragon.
Recently Guiikel, in his Schopjiitig u. Chaos, has
directed special attention to this chapter, and shown
that an adequate understanding of it could Ix: arrived
at neither on the assumption of a Christian nor on that
of a Jewish origiti (\'ischer, W'eyland, Spitta) — that on
either hypothesis there remains an intractable residuum,
bearing a mythological character. Here, accordingly, as
elsewhere in the Apocalypse (cp the seven angels, stars,
candlesticks, torches [EV 'lamps'], e3'es, pp. 294-302;
the twenty-four elders, 302-8 ; Armageddon, 263-66,
and p. 325 n. 2; the numlx;r 3^, pp. 266-70; also
chaps. 13 and 17, 379^), he found elements taken from
Babylonian mythology, and in particular the myth of
the l)irth of the sun-god Marduk and of the persecution
of Marduk by the dragon Tiamat. The difficulty
in this construction of Gunkel's is that down to the
present date it has been impossible to find in the liaby-
lonian mythology any trace of the myth of the birth
and ])ersecution of the youthful sun-god. Bousset
(Apok. 410/;), however, has called attention to parallels
with one chapter in Egyptian mythology (the myth of
the birth of Horus).
In the result, there seems much probability in the
supposition that chap. 12 embodies a myth of the birth of
the sun-god and the persecution of the young child by
the dragon, the deity of winter and of night. The Apoca-
lyptist has changed the sun-god, however, into the ttois
'iTjffoOj Xpiarbs, the persecutor into the devil, and the
deliverance of the child into the resurrection (observe
the inconcinnity of this adaptation). In this treatment
of the material laid to his hand, he was not able
to give full significance to the flight of the woman,
which is so prominent a feature in the original myth.
This is accordingly only briefly touched on in 126 ; but
it receives copious and special treatment in the second
half of the chapter {w. 13-17). Hence the incongruity
between 12 1^ and 12 13/; which \\'eizsacker pointed
out.
14 20Q
APOCALYPSE
What historical occurrence is intended by the flight
of the woman in 12 13-17 is not quite clear. Usually the
42 ChaD *^'^'^' '** ^*"'"" '^^ refi-'Ting to circumstances
, A *^* connected with the destruction of Jerusalem
'^''^" — either to the destruction and (in a sense)
the deliverance of Judaism, or, better, to the flight of
the primitive Christian ( hurch.
Erijes, who seeks to explain ch. 13 as referring to the Caligula
period (see below), interprets the flight and deliverance of the
woman in connection wuh the first persecution of Christians
at Jerusalem, strangely taking v. 17, 'the remnant of her seed
who hold the testimony of Je.sus,' as pointing to the Jews (I) at
the time of the Caligula persecution. Spitta actually takes the
persecution of the woman as representing an occurrence in
heaven. ' The remnant of the seed of the woman ' represents,
he thinks, the actual Israel as contrasted with the ideal pre-
existent Jerusalem (Israel?). Others (Vischer) interpret the
rentnant as meaning believers as distinguished from tlie Nlessi.ih.
Chap. 13 also contains two passages of a peculiar
character — tho.se describing the first beast and the
.•o /^i. 10 second. O. Holtzmaiui, Spitta, and
43. Cnap. 13:,., , . '. . ,
i.v c i. I. J. I'-rbes were agreed m recoijinsinij here
the first beast. ^ j^^^.^,^ (Holtzm.. Sp.) or a Christian
(Erb. ) source dating from the time of Caligula.
Independently of each other, they all (as had already
been done by Th. Zahn) acceiited the numlier 616
which is given in some .\I.SS (C. 11 Ticoiiiiis),
instead of 666, and inter]3ieted it as meaning Tdibs
Katcrap. The beast demanding worship, whose image
{('iKihv) is repeatedly spoken of, is, on this view,
the half- mad tyrant Caius Caligula, who in 39 .\.n.
ordered his i)rocurator, I'etronius, to set uj) his statue in
the temple at Jerusalem. Parallels to this prop-hecy
belonging to the same date were found in Mt. 2-1
( ' abomination of desolation ' ) and in 2 Thess. 2. The
' wound ■ (irXrjyri) of the beast was interjjreted by Spitta
as meaning the sickness which befel Caligula towards
the beginning of his reign. These conjectures are by
no means impossible ; but if they are acceisted,
certain important particulars in the cha[)ter must be
deleted — in particular, references to the wounded head
of the beast. This and the number 666 {-op jnj) show-
distinctly that (in its present form) the chapter was
intended to be understood of the return of Xero
Redivivus. Whether an older source dating from Cali-
gula's time has here been worked over remains doubtful.
As compared with this interpretation, the view which takes
the wounded head to be Julius Ca;sar (Ciunkel, P.ruston) has
little to be said for it— since the number 666 in that case remains
unexplained ; nor c.in we reasonably interpret the deatli-wouiid
to mean the interregnum of (ialba-Otho-Vitelliiis, or refer the
number to the Roman empire (Aareti'os, Diisterdieck ; C'CII 1ST>
Ewald). '
Still greater has been the perplexity of interpreters
over the second beast. All attemjjts to make it out to
™^ be some definite personality have hitherto
, been unsuccessful. Bousset {Cumm. ad loc.)
vf ^'^'t upholds the view that it is in reality a modifi-
cation of the older conception of Antichrist,
who is here represented as serving the first l)east, the
Roman emperor, and perhaps is to be interpreted as
signifying the Roman provincial priesthood, the active
agency in promoting the worship of the emperor.
The objection usually urged against referring the pass-
age to Nero — that the beast whose number is 666
cannot mean Nero the man ; that it must mean the
Roman empire — is not valid. To the .Xpocalyptist Xero
Redivivus is at the same time the incarnation of all that
is dreadful in the Roman empire. The number of the
beast is the number of a man : cp 17 "■ ' and the lieast
... is himself also an eighth ' {koX avroi 5y8oos e<XTiv).
Chap. 17 is intimately connected with chap. 13, and this
duplicate treatment of the same subjects is in itself proof
_, .. „ sufficient that the .\pocalyptist had l)efore
ap. /. him older prophecies, which he has worked
over more than once. In this chapter also the reference
to the returning X'ero is clear. Since Eichhorn, h<iw-
ever, it has further been recognised on all hands (cp Ue
Wette, Bleek, Lucke), and with justice, that the kings with
w hom the beast returns for the destruction of Rome are
APOCALYPSE
the Parthians, whose satraps might already be regarded
as independent kings (Momnisen, Rom. Kaisergesch.
5521). Thus our present chapter also conies into a
larger historical connection. As early as the year 69
A.I), a psoudo-Nero had raised commotions in Asia
Minor and (Ireece (Tac. Hist. 2if. ; Dio C;issius, 649 ;
Zonaras, 11 15) ; in the reign of Titus a second pseudo-
Nero showed himself on the Euphrates (Zonaras, 11 18)
and was acknowledged by the I'arthian King Artabanus
(Momm.sen, 5521). About 88 A. u. a third pseudo-Nero
again made his appe;irance, also among the Parthians,
and threatened the Roman empire (Suet. i\'cro, 50 ; Tac.
IJis'. 1 2). In this form we find the same expectation
also in the fourth Sibylline book, written shortly after
79 -X. D. {Sil'vll. 4 119^ ^yi ff-)< ^"d '" 'he oldest portion
of the fifth book, written about 74 A.I). (5143^ 361^) ;
in the last passage it is associated with a denunciation of
Babylon and a prophecy of the rebuilding of Jerusalem
(Rev. IS 21) ; cp Zalms exhaustive researches (as above,
§ 35)- tiy '*"'l^ iwwv: and place our chapter (perhaps
associated with the threatening utterance against Rome
and the prophecy of a new Jerusalem) belongs to the
same circle of expectations and predictions. It was
doubtless written in Asia Minor ; but the e.xact date is
disputed.
According to 17 10 the Apocalyptist represents himself as
writinj; under the sixth eniptror, five having died and .1 seventh
having yet to cume, to be succeeded by the eiglilh, who is to be
one of the seven (Xero). In reckoning, it is possible to begin
either with Juhus Ocsar or with .\ugustus, to count or not to
count the interregnum of C.alba-Otho-Vitellius, and finally to
ask whether the p.issage was really written under the si.xth
emptror, and not, rather, as a vaticinium ex enentu, under the
seventh or eighth. Thus interpreters have taken the si.xth
emperor to be now Nero (so all who hold the Apocalypse to have
been written before 70 a.u. ; also V'Olter), now "Vespasian, and,
conformably, take the chajiter to have been written now under
the last-named emperor, now under Titus (the .seventh ; Wey-
land) or Domitian, who is then taken, on rationalising lines, as
Nero Redivivus (Erbes).
The parallels cited above appear to render the reign
of \'cspasian the most probable date. The writer —
probably a Christian — expected after Vespasian a short
reign for his successor al.so. The tradition was that
seven Roman emperors were destined to reign. There-
after Xero was to come back with the Parthians, and,
in alliance with these, to take vengeance on Rome, the
bloody persecutor of the Christians (176; 'with the
blood of the saints ' ; the words ' with the blood of the
martyrs of Jesus ' appear to be a gloss). The denuncia-
tion of Rome (chap. IS) connects itself very well with this
prophecy (see Sibyll. 5).
It is further to be noted that chap. 17 has already, in
the form in which we now have it, undergone redaction.
On the nne hand, Nero is simply the eighth ruler who was one
of the seven ; on the other, he is the beast who comes up from
the abyss. On the one hand, he wages war along with the
Parthians against Rome ; on the other, he wages war along with
the kings of the earth against the lamb. In this redacted form
(17812-14 or 15; cp also Volter) Nero is designated as the
dread spectre of the time of the end who comes back from hell.
Now, we find the same expectation in chap. 13, where Nero is
plainly represented as dead (ws eiriftaytievev, 'as though it had
been smitten unto death ') and as counterpart (Wiederspiel) of
the lamb that had been slain and is to come again. This mode
of repre.senting Nero probably comes from the latest redactor.
Parallels to it can be found in the later portions of the fifth book
of tlie Sibyllines (33/^ 215-26), and in the eighth book (1-215).
The legend of Nero Redivivus first arose towards the
end of the century, a full generation after Nero's death,
when he could no longer well be supposed to be still
alive among the Parthians (cp Zahn, as above). Its
reception into the Apocalypse supplies one of the
elements for determining the date of the book.
Chap. 16 12^ (the sixth and seventh vials) also must
have originally belonged to chap. 17. In this passage the
46 Various =^"5'"' Po^''^^"' his vial upon the Euphrates,
fraBinenta '^^^ ''^^ ^^'^^ '"'^^ ^ made ready for the
^^ ■ kings from the east' (cp 9i3j^, with its
reference to the angels bound and loosed at the
Euphrates ; on which, see Iselin in TAeo/. Z. aus der
APOCALYPSE
Schweiz, 1887, as above, § 25). The representation of
the gathering of the kings at Armageddon (Har-
Magedon) in this passage is noteworthy ; it is not very
intelligible, as we read of no mountain of Megiddo, but
only of a plain (but see Armageddon). It recalls the
ancient accounts of battles of the gods upon the moun-
tains (Gunkel, Schopf. 263^ 389 n. 2).
Chap. 14 14-20 also appears to be an ancient fragment.
It thus early sets forth a final judgment by the Son of
\lan. The passage, however, is so very fragmentary
that it is hardly possible for us to make out what its
original character may have been (cp the expression
'without the city' in 14 20). liousset has sought to
explain it by reference to the Antichrist legend.
Fragments of older date seem to have been in-
troduced into the account of the chaining of the
dragon, the millennium, the irruption of (Jog and
Magog (2O1-10; cp 2O9, irapffxjioXT} rCiv ayiwf, ttoXij
■qyairy}fj.ivri, and .^thiop. Enoch 56, Sil'vll. '6 319-
322). The description of the binding and loosing of
Satan recalls the Persian legend of the chaining of the
dragon Azi Dahak on Mt. Dcmavend. Finally, a
continuous piece — perhajjs of Jewish origin (see 21 24 26
222) — lies before us in the description of the new
Jerusalem, 21 9-225.
We ought to compare Tob. 13 16^, Ps. Salom. 17 23^, Sil'vll.
6247-85, 414-33, and the Hel)rew Apocalypse 0/ Elijah, edited
by M. Buttenwieser, 65-67. In this last-named Jewish source
also we find the new Jerusalem coming down from heaven.
To summarise the results of the forcs^oing analysis :
With the conclusion of the epistles to the seven churches
47 Summarv (chaps. 1-3) the Apocalypse, properly so
^' called, begins. Here the first six seals
succeed one another uninterruptedly, till the interpolated
fragment in 7 1-8 is reached. As a pendant to this
fragment, with its distinctly Jewish character, the Apoca-
lyptist proleptically introduces in 79-17 a picture of the
blessedness of believers from every nation who have
come out of the great tribulation. Now follow the
seventh seal and, arising out of this, the seven trumpets
(chaps. 8-11). Between the sixth and tlie seventh trumpet -x
the passage 10 i-ll 13 has lx;en interpolated. In chap. In
the Apocalyptist indicates to some extent what the ' dis-
position ' of the remainder of the book is to be (cp 10 n).
It is to be observed that in chaps. ^ ff- , in addition to the
distribution under seven trumpets, the Apocalyptist has
attempted a second under three woes. The first woe
answers to the fifth trumpet ; the second, the mention
of which might have been expected after the sixth
trumpet, does not come up until 11 14, after the great
interpolation has been reached. The third great woe
(which is not expressly named by the Apocalyptist)
is doubtless indicated in 12 12. It is hardly likely that
we have here a redaction from an older source.
Before, then, he comes to the culmination of his
prophecy, in chap. 13, the Apocalyptist casts his glance
backwards in chap. 12. Borrowing the imagery of an
ancient sun-myth, he depicts the birth, persecution, and
rescue of the Saviour, and afterwards the persecution of
the Church. In chap. 13 he goes on to foretell the coming
final struggle, the last great ,ind decisive battle between
the faithful ones and the beast who demands adoration.
For him the supreme crisis of this struggle still lies in
the future, when Nero Redivivus is to appear. In the
bright picture which he prophetically introduces at 14$
by way of contrast to chap. 13, he adapts and modifies
7 1-8. 146-13 is intended to effect the transition to what
follows. 1 4 14-20 is a smaller interpolated fragment.
The great finale remains. The Apocalyptist still had
to work in the prophecies contained in chap. \7 /. \
by way of introduction to these, chap. 1.')/ are given.
Then follows, after an intermediate passage (19i-io),
the picture of the final judgment (19ii-2l8); after
which we have a new fragment, 21 9-22 5, followed by
the close.
Literature. — The literature of the subject has been indicated
in the course of the article. w. B.
APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE
APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE
CONTKMS
Introductory 08 i-4)-
Apocalypse of Karuch (§g 5-17).
Enoch ; Kthiopic (fS 18-32), Slavonic (88 33-41).
Ascension of Isaiah (88 43-47)-
Jubilees (88 48-58).
Assumption of Alose.s (88 59-67).
Sec Ai'OCKVi-HA for references to the following less important apocalypses.
Abraham (Apockyimia, 8 O- Elias (Ai-ockvpiia, 8 21, no. 10).
.\ci.im (ii>. 8 10). E»dras {i7>. g 22, no. 13).
Bartholomew (ib. g 10 (1) «).
iMc
i (//'. 8 10, nos. I [a], no. 2, and g
Testaments of xii. Patriarchs (f| 68-76).
Psalms of .Solomon (gg 77-85).
Sibylline Oracles (gg 16-98).
Paul (Apocrypha, g 13).
Zcphaniah (//'. g 21, no. i).
Introductory : The objects and nature of apocalyptic
literature (§g 1-4).
I. Ai'ocai.yi'sk of Baki'CH J. — A composite work derived
' . from at least five authors, written mainly in
1. Synopsis Palestine, if not in Jeru.salem, by Pharisees
of Article. ""• ^.u. 5o-(,o. Preserved only in Syriac
(8§5-i7).
II. Lthiopic liooK OF Enocm. — Written originally in Hebrew
or Aramaic by at least five Assidcan authors (20^.64 D.c.) in
Palestine. Part I. chaps. 1-3(5 earlier than 170 n.c. Part II.
chaps. 83-!H), i66-i6i B.C. Part III. chaps. »1-104, 134-95 B.C.
Part IV. (the Similitudes) chaps. 37-70, Q4-64 '..c. Part V. (the
Bi)ok of Celestial Physics) chaps. 72-78, 82, 70. Part VI.
(Fr.iKments of a lost Apocalypse of Noah) (8§ i8-32).2
HI. Slavonic Hook ok E.moch, or The Hook ok the Secrets
OF Enoch. — Written by an Alexandrian Jew, mainly frnm pre-
existing materials, about a.d. 1-50. Eclectic in character ;
preserved only in Slavonic (§§ 33-41).
IV. Ascension ok Isaiah. — A composite work, written
originidly in Greek, partly by Jewish, partly by Christian
authors, a.d. i-ioo. Preserved in Ethiopic and partially in
Latin (§8 42-47).
V. H()oK OF Ji'BiLEES.— Written originally in Hebrew by a
Palestininn Jew. a Pharisee of the Pharisees, probably 40-10 B.C.
Prt^. i\.'l ill luliinpic and partially in Hebrew, Syriac, Greek,
Lati:., .::ia Sl..^ . ..ic (§S 48-5S).
>Ni OK MosKs.— Written in Palestine, in Hebrew,
'harisee. Preserved only in Latin (§§ 59-67).
KNTS OF THE XII. Patkiarchs. — A Composite
originally in Hebrew by two Jewish authors
Vl..\sM MI'l
7-30 A.D., by a
VII. Testa
work written
representing respectively the legalistic and the apocalyptic sides
of Pharisaism, 130 B.c.-io a.u., and interpolated by a succession
of Christian writers from the close of the jst century down to
the 4th century a.d. Preserved in Greek, Armenian, and
Slavonic versions (§§ 68-76).
VIII. Psalms ok Solomon. — Written originally in Hebrew,
possiblv in Jerusalem, by two or more Pharisees, 70-40 u.c.
(88 77-85).
IX. SiiiVLi.i.NE Oraci ES. — Written in Greek hexameters by
Jewish and Christian authors, mainly by the latter — the earliest
portions belon;;ing to the 2nd century B.C., the latest not earlier
than the 3rd century A.D. (§§ 86-98).
Introductory. — The object of apocalyptic literature
in general was to solve the difficulties connected with
2 Problem ^ be'ie'^ ^^ God's righteousness and the
suffering condition of his servants on
earth. The righteousness of God postulated the
temporal prosixirity of the righteous, and this postulate
was accepted and enforced by the Law. But while the
continuous exposition of the Law in the post-e.xilic
period confirmed the people in their monotheistic faith
and intensified their hostility to hcathenisiti, their
e.xpectations of m.aterial well-being, which likewise the
Law had fostered, were repeatedly falsified, and a
grave contradiction thus emerged between the old
prophetic ideals and the actual e.xperience of the nation,
between the promises of God and the bondage and per-
secution which the people had daily to endure at the
hands of their pagan oppressors. The difficulties arising
from this confiict between promise and experience might
be shortly resolved into two, which deal respectively
with the position (i) of the righteous as a community,
and (2) of the righteous man as an individual.
The or prophets had concerned themselves chiefly
with the former, and pointed in the main to the restora-
tion (or 'resurrection') of Israel as a nation, and to
Israel's ultimate possession of the earth as a reward of
righteousness. Later, with the growing claims of the
individual, and the acknowledgment of these io the
1 On other Apocalypses of Baruch. see below, Apocrypha,
8 20.
'.i On chaps. 71 80/, see g 30/
213
S I 49).
religious and intellectual life, the second problem pressed
itself irresistibly on the notice of religious thinkers, and
made it impossible for any conception of the divine rule
and righteousness which did not render adecjuale satis-
faction to the claims of the righteous individual to gain
acceptance. Thus, in order to justify the righteousness
of God, there was postulated not only the resurrection
of the righteous nation but also the resurrection of the
righteous individual. Apocalyptic literature, therefore,
strove to show that, in resj^ect alike of the nation and
of the individual, the righteousness of (jod would be
fully vindicated ; and, in order to justify its contention,
it sketched in outline the history of the world and of
mankind, the origin of evil and its course, and the
final consummation of all things ; and thus, in fact,
it presented a Semitic philosophy of religion (cp
Chronology ok OT, § i). The righteous as a
nation should yet possess the earth either in an eternal
or in a temporary Messianic kingdom, and the destiny
of the righteous individual should finally be determined
according to his works. For, though lie might perish
untimely amid the world's disorders, he would not fail
to attain through the resurrection the reconipen.se that
was his due in the Messianic kingdom, or in heaven
itself. The conceptions as to the duration and character
of the risen life vary with each writer.
The writings that are treated of in the rest of this article,
however, deal not only with the Messianic e.x|)ectations
but also with the exposition and aijjilication of the Law
to the numberless circumstances of life. As Schiirer
has rightly observed, the two subjects with which Jewish
thought and enthusiasm were concerned were the Law
and the Messianic kingdom. These were, in fact, parallel
developments of Pharisaism. As we have the former —
its legalistic side — represented in the Book of JubiUcs,
so we have the latter — its apocalyptic and mystical side
— set forth in the Book of Enoch. The Tcstannnts of
the Twelve Patriarchs give expression to lx)th sides of
Pharisaism ; but this book, as we shall see in the
sequel, is really a composite work and springs from
authors of different schools. The rest of the books here
discussed belong mainly to the apocalyptic side of
Pharisaism.
It is a characteristic of apocalyptic as distinguished
from prophecy that the former trusts to the written, the
3 Method. ^^^^'^'^ '° '^^ spoken, word. This is due
largely to the fact that the prophet
addresses himself chiefly to the present and its concerns,
and that, when he fixes his ga/.e on the future, his
prophecy springs naturally from the circumstances of
the present. The apocalyptic writer, on the other
hand, almost wholly despairs of the present ; his main
interests are supramundane. He entertains no hope of
arousing his contemporaries to faith and duty by direct
and jxjrsonal appeals. His pessimism and want of faith
in the present thus naturally lead him to pseudonymous
authorship, and so he approaches his countrymen \s ith
a writing which purports to be the work of seme
great figure in their history, such as Enoch, Moses,
Daniel, or Baruch. The standfxjint thus assumed is as
skilfully preserved as the historical knowledge and
conditions of the pseudonymous author admit, and the
future of Israel is ' foretold ' in a form enigmatical indeed
214
APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE
but generally intelligible. All precision ceases, howcvei ,
when we come to the real author's own time : his
j)redictions, thenceforward, are mere products of the
religious imagination, and vary with each writer. In
nearly every case, we should add, tliuse books claim to
Ix; supernatural revelations given to the men by whose
names they are designated.
It will not be amiss here to notice the gross mis-
.i[)prehcnsion under which Jost, Graetz, and other
4. Historical
value.
Jewish writers laboured when they pro-
nounced this literature to be destitute
of value for the history of Jewish
religion. To such statements it is a sufficient answer
that from 200 n.c. to 70 A.n. the religious and political
ideals that really shaped the history of Judaism found
their expression in this literature. It is not in the
discussions and logomachies of tlie Rabbinical schools
tliat we are to look for the intiuences and aims that
called forth some of the noblest patriotism and self-
sacrifice the world has ever witnessed, and educated the
nation for the destinies that waited it in the first century
of our era, but in the ajjocalyptic and pseudepigraphic
books which, beginning with Daniel, had a large share
ill |)reparing the most religious and ardent minds of
(Jalilee and Judiua cither to i)ass over into Christianity,
or else to hurl themselves in fruitless efforts against the
invincible might of Rome, and thereby all but annihilate
their country and name. Still it is true that the work of
the scribes and the exposition of the schools had opened
the way for this new religious and literary development.
The eschatological element, moreover, which later
attained its full growth in such pseudepigraphical
writings as Daniel, Enoch, Noah, etc., had already
strongly asserted itself in later prophets such as Is.
•24-27, Joel, Zech. 12-14. Not only the beginnings,
therefore, but also a well-defined and developed ty[)e of
this literature had already established itself in the OT.
Its further developments were moulded, as we have
pointed out above, by the necessities of the thought and
by the historical exigencies of the time.
Cp Smend's introductory essay on Jewish apocalyptic, ZA TIV
5 222-250 ('35) ; Schiirer, //I'si. 644^; Hilgenfeld, />/«' /«>/.
Apokalyptikin i/irergeschichtlicken Ilntivickelung, 1857 (Kin!.).
I. The Ai'oc.m.vp.sk ok Bakuch. — The Apocalypse
of Baruch was for the first time made known to the
5. The Syriac
modern world through a Latin version
Baruch.
of Ceriani in 1866 {Mon. Sacr. i.
273-98). This version was made from
a Syriac M.S of the sixth century, the text of which was
also in due course published by the same scholar, in
ordinary type in 1871, and in a photo-lithographic
facsimile in 1883. An examination of the Syriac version
_ . , , makes it clear that this version is a
6. A transla-
tion from
translation from the Greek. It occasion-
_ . ally transliterates Greek words, and
the text is at times explicable only
on the supposition that the wrong alternatives of two
possible meanings of certain Greek words have been
followed by the translator. Even before Ceriani's
publication, however, we had some knowledge of the
Apocalypse of iiaruch ; for chaps. 78-8(), which contain
Baruch's Epistle to the nine tribes and a half that were
in captivity, had already appeared in Syriac and Latin,
in the London and the Paris Polyglots, in Syriac alone in
Lagarde's Lib. Vet. Test. Apoc. Syr. 1861, in Latin
alone in Fabricius's Cud. Pseiidep. Vet. Test., and in
I'.nglish in Whiston's Authentic Records. Ceriani's Latin
version was republished in F"ritzsche's Lib. Apoc. Vet.
Test. ('71) in a slightly emended form; but, as the
Syriac text was still inaccessible, I'Yitzsche's emendations
are only guesses more or less fortunate— generally less.
We have just remarked that the Syriac version is
_, a translation from the Greek. We shall
.' . I now enumerate the reasons from which
„ Y it appears that the Greek was in turn
translated from a Hebrew original.
(i.) The quotations from, or unconscious reproductions of, the
2 IS
OT agree in all cases but one with the Mas.soretic text against
©. (li.) Hebrew idioms survive in the Syriac text. Thus
there arc niany instances of the familiar Hebrew idiom of the
infinitive absolute combined with the finite verb, and many
breaches of Syriac grammar in the Syriac text are probably to Ijc
explained as survivals of Hebrew order and Hebrew syntiix.
(iii.) Unintelligible expressions in the Syriac can be explained
and the text restored by retranslation into Hebrew. '1 bus,
among many others, the pas.sages 'Jl 9, 11, 12, 'J4 2 and
02 7 can be restored by retranslation into Greek and thence
into Hebrew. The Syriac in these verses is the stock rendering
of ftKatoOcrdat, and this in turn of
pis ; .
but
•'■"f
also^Sixaiot
eti/ac, and this is the meaning required in the' above pas.sages,
where the Greek translator erroneously adopted the commoner
rendering. (iv.) .Many paronomasitr discover themselves on
retranslation into Hebrew. See Charles, Apoc. Bar. 44-53.
The final editor of this work assumes for literary
purposes the person of Baruch, the son of Xeriah.
8 Contents ^^^ scene is laid in the neighbourhood
■ of Jerusalem ; the supposed time is the
period immediately preceding and subsequent to the
capture of the city by the Chakhuans. Baruch, who
begins by declaring that the word of the Lord came
to him in the twenty-fifth year of Jeconiah,* speaks
throughout in the first jxjrson. If we exclude the letter
to the tribes in the captivity (chaps. 78-87), the work
naturally divides itself into seven sections, separated from
one another in all but one instance (i.e. after 35) by
fasts which are, save at the end of the first section, of
seven days' duration. The omission of a fast after chap.
35 may have been due either to an original oversight of
the final editor or to the carelessness of a copyist.
That the text requires the insertion of such a fast is to be con-
cluded on the following grounds : — According to the scheme of
the final editor events proceed in each sectinn in a certain
order (see Charles, Apoc. Hnr. g, <6, 61). Thus first we
find a fast, then generally a prayer, then a divine message or
disclosure, and finally an announcement of this to an individual
or to the people. Thus in the tifth section, il-34, we have a
seven-days' fast (21 1), a prayer (-214-26), a revelation (22-30),
and an address to the people (21 24). Then another seven-days'
fa-t should ensue at the beginning of the sixth section (30-40).
With the exception of this omission events follow in this section
as in the others.
These sections are very uner|ual in length — 1-56
57-8 9-124 125-20 21-35 36-46 47-77 — a fact that,
though it does not in itself make against unity of
authorship, confirms the grounds afterwards to be
adduced for regarding the work as composite.
1. The first section (l-'ie) opens with God's revelation to
Raruch regarding the coming destruction of Jerusalem. But a
time of prosperity .should return.
2. According to the next section (5 7-9 i), Baruch fasts until
the evening, and the Chalda;ans encompa.ss Jerusalem next day.
In a vision Baruch sees the sacred vessels removed from the
temple by angels and hidden in the earth till the last times.
The angels next overthrow the walls, the enemy are admitted
and the people carried away captive to Babylon.
3. In the third section (9 2-12 4), Baruch fasts seven days, and
receives a divine command to tell Jeremiah to go to Babylon ;
but Baruch himself is to remain at Jerusalem to receive God's
revelations regarding the future. I5aruch bewails Jerusalem
and the lot of the survivors. ' Would that thou hadst ears, O
earth, and that thou hadst a heart, O dust, that ye might go and
announce in Sheol and say to the dead : " Blessed are ye more
than we who live."'
4. In the fourth section (12 5-20), Baruch fasts for seven days,
and is told by God that he will be preserved till the end of time
in order to bear testimony against the nations that oppressed
Zion. When Baruch complains of the prosperity of the wicked
and the calamities of the righteous, God answers that the future
world is made on account of the righteous — that the blessings of
life are to be reckoned not by its length but by its quality and
its end. Baruch is bidden not to publish this revelation (20 3).
5. In the fifth section (21 i-S.'i), Baruch fasts, as usual, seven
days. He deplores the bitterness of life, and suppliaites God to
bring about the promised end. God reminds him of his ignor-
ance, and declares that the end, though close at hand, cannot
arrive till the predestined number ot men be fulfilled, and again,
in answer to Baruch's question respecting the nature and the
duration of the judgment of the ungodly, descril>es the coming
time of tribulation, which will be divided into twelve parts At
its close the Messiah will be revealed. Baruch summons a
meeting of the elders in the valley of Kedron, and announces to
them the future glory of Zion.
6. The sixth section (3rt-40) should begin with the mi.ssing fast
of seven days. Shortly after, he has a vision of a cedar and a vine
1 We may observe here that Jeconiah reigned only three
months, and was carried captive to Babylon eleven years before
the fall of Jerusalem.
APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE
wiilth symbolise the Roman power and thetriumphofthe Messiah.
When liaruch asks who shall share ni the future hlessciiness, God
answers : • To those who have U-lieved there will be the blessed-
ness that was spoken of aforetime.' Haruch then (4-I-47) calls
together his first-l)<>rn son and seven of the elders, tells them of
his approaching end, and exhorts them to keep the law, lor ' a
wise man will not be wanting to Israel, nor a son of the law to
the race of Jacob.'
7. After a fast of seven days, Taruch in the seventh section
(47-77) prays for Israel. The revelations that ensue tell of the
coming tribulation, liaruch bow:. Us the evil eflccls of Adam's
fall. In answer to his request, he is instructed as to the nature
of ihe resurrection bodies. Then, in a new vision (.■)3-74), he sees
a cloud a.scending from ihe sea and covering the whole earth.
There was lightning about its summit, and soon it began
to discharge first black waters and then clear, and again black
waters and then clear, and so on till there had been six black
waters and six clear. At last it rained black waters, darker
than had been all that were before. Thereupon, the lightning
on the summit ot the cloud flashed forth and healed the earth
wheie the last waters had fallen, and twelve streams came up
from the sea and became subject to that lightning. In
the fillowing chapters the vision is interpreted. The cloud is
the world, and the twelve successive discharges of black waters
and clear waters symbolise six evil periods and six good periods
of the world's history. The eleventh pcriutl, s\ iiil>(>li-,t(i by the
black waters, pointed to the supposed present trilnilantiii of Jeru-
silen?. The rest of the interpretation follows i , tin future tense.
The twelfth clear waters point to the renewed prosperity of Israel
and the rebuilding of Jerusalem. The last black waters that
were to flow pointed to troubles, earthquakes, and wars over
the whole earth. Such as survived these were to fall by the
haiulscf the .Messi.ih. These bl.ickevt of .ill the waters were
to Ik- f..ll.)\sca hy clear waters, which s\inl>.)Ii/i:(l tlie blessedness
of tin: Mo-iaiiic times. This Messianic jirriiHUhould form the
l)iiii:iil.iiy line- lii-tween corru])tion ami iiicurruiiiioii. 'That time
i>5 til.- I .n-iiiiiinati'.n <if that which is corruptible, and the begin-
ning ■ .f i!i. a wliirli is inc.rruiiiible.' liaruch thanks God for
the ivAclat 1.111 \iniclisafc(i. lie is then informed of his coming de-
partuie from the earth, but is bidden first to g.) and instruct the
people. He admonishes them to be faithful (chap. 77), and at
their reiiuest sends two epistles, one to their brethren in liabylon
(' the two and a half tribes ') and the other to the tribes (' nine
and a half) beyond the Euphrates. The latter is given in
chaps. 7S 87. It is probable that the lost letter to the two tribes
and a half is identical with, or is the source of, the Greek Haruch
39-429. See Charles, Apoc. Bar. 65-57.
From the discovery of the Apocalypse of Rainich in
_ . . ,, 1866 till 1 89 1, it was regarded by scholars
9. Kabiscns ^^ ^^^ ^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^ author. In the latter
tneory ot ^^^^^ KalMscli, in an article entitled ' Die
sources. Qudlen der Apocalypse Baruchs ' {JPT,
1891, PI). 66-107), showed beyond the possibility of
(luestion tliat the work was composite and derived from
at least three or four authors.
Thus he distinguishes 1-24 i, 302-34, 41-52, and 75-87 as the
groundwork written after 70 A.D., since these chapteis imply
the destruction of the temple. He further observes that these
parts are marked by a despair which no longer looked for peace
and happiness in this world, but fixed its regards on the world
of incorruption. In the other jjieces of the book there is a
strong faith in Israels ultimate triumph here, and an optimism
which looks f.>r the ,ni,>uniiii..ti..i, of Messianic bliss in this
life ; and. as Kabisch ri-htiv ..marks, the ten. pic is still standing.
These other secti'.ns, l„,wJv,:i-, are the w,.rk n,,t of .,ne writer
but of three, being cunstituied us follows : a short Ap..c. 24 3-
2!t, the Vine and Cedar Vision :i(i-40, and the Cloud Vision
53-74 : 30 I '•>'! 2-4, 35 are due to the final editor.
This theory is certainly in the right direction. It is
<)|)LMi. however, to unanswerable objections. 'I'here is
no unity in the so-called groundwork.
10. Present
writer's
results.
When submitted to a detailed criticism, it
exhibits a mass of conflicting conceptions
and staten)ents. The results of such a
criticism mav lie stated briefly as follows (for the details
see Charles.' .-//<^t:. liar. 53-67). 1-26 31-35 41-52 75-
87 were written after the fall of Jerusalem, and were
derived from three or possibly four authors, Bj, Bj, B3,
and possibly S.
Bi = l-i>i 43-447 45/77-82 84 8()/, written by a Pharisee
who expected Jerusalem to be rebuilt and the dispersion to be
brought kick from exile.
R.., = 9-12 13-25 302-35 41/ 448-15 47-52 75/ 83, also by
a Pharisee who looked for no national restoration, but only for
the recompense of the righteous in heaven.
P,3 = S5, written by a Jew in exile.
S. =106-124, possibly by a Sadducee, but perhaps to be as-
signed to H.J.
The rest of the lx)ok was written before the fall of
Jerusalem. It consists of an Apocalypse 27-30 1 ( = Ai)
217
and the two Visions 36-40 ( = Aj) and 53-74 • ( = A,
already mentioned. All these different elements were
combined by the final editor, to whom we owe also
42-6 2t5 284/. 322-4 and possibly some other additions.
Jewish religious thought busied itself, as already
observed, mainly with two subjects, the Messianic hope
«... . and the Law ; and in proportion as the
.. . one Ijecame more prominent the other
criteria. j^^.„ j^^^ ^^^ background. Now, the
chapters written Ixifore 70 A.U. are mainly Messianic.
Chaps. 27-30 i (Ai) and 30-40 (.V.) take account of the I-aw
only indirectly, whereas in those written after that date the whi le
thought and hopcsof the writers centre in the Law as their presei t
mainstay and their source of future bliss. In chaps. 53-74 (A:/,
again, the Messianic hope and the Law are eijually emphasized.
iTiis writing marks the fusion of early Kabbinism and tie
popular Messianic expectation. (See Charles, oJ<. cit.)
In the sections B, and B,2, on the other hand, written
after the fall of Jerusalem, we have two distinct outlooks
as to the future. In B, the writer is still hopeful as to
the future of Jerusalem.
It is delivered into the hands of its enemies indeed, but only
for a time (41O9). The consolation of Zion should yet be
accomplished (44 7 hi i 4), and the ten tribes brought back from
their captivity (7S 7 84 10). Moreover, the retribution of the
Gentiles was close at hand (82 2-9), and in due time would arrive
the judgment, in which God's justice and truth should exact
their mighty due (809).
In B.2. on the other hand (and if possible still more in
B3 = chai3. 85), the writer is full of irremediable desjjair
as to the earthly fortunes of Zion and its people in this
world (106-11).
Destruction awaits this world of corruption (21 19 31 5). The
righteous have nought to look for save the new world (44 12). the
world that dies not (.'d 3), the world of incorruption (85 5). Only
in the world to cmie will every man be recompensed in the
resurrection according to his works (50/), when the wicked
shall go into torment and the righteous shall be made like unto
the angels.
In the sections written l)efore the fall of Jerusalem,
the Messianic element, which was wanting in B,, B.^,
and B.J, is predominant. The three Apocalypses '27-30
(.Aj) 36-40 (Aj) 53-74 (A,) have many features in
common — such as an optimistic outlook as to Israel's
earthly prosperity, the earthly rule of the Messiah till the
close of this world, and the material blessings of his
kingdom. There are, however, good grounds for regard-
ing them as of different authorship. The Messianic reign
is to close with the final judgment. On the Escha-
tology of the book see, further, IvsciiATOLoGV, § 78.
All the elements of this book are distinctly Jewish.
Its authors, as already observed, were Pharisees, full of
confidence in the future glories of their
nation, either in this world or in the next,
12. Author-
ship.
notwithstanding their present hum
tions. They entertain the most lofty coiicejitioiis as to
the divine election and the absolute pre-eminence of
their race.
It was on Israel's account that not only the present world
(14 19) but also the coming world (107) was created. Israel is
God's chosen people whose like is not on earth (is 20); the
perpetual felicity of Israel lay in the fact that tlty had not
mingled with the nations (-18 23). The one haw which they had
received from the one God (4824) could help and justify them
(51 3); for so far as they kept its ordinances they could not fall
(4S22): their works would save them (14 12 51 7<>3 3). In <!iie
time also all nations should serve Israel ; but such of them as h.-\d
injured Israel should be given to the swa.rd (72 6). The carnal
.sensious nature of the Messiah and his kingdom (20-30 30 ; -40
72-74) is essentially Pharisaic. There w.is to be a general
resurrection (42 8 12); but apparently only Israel .should l.e
saved (51 4).
1 It is possible to determine approximately the earlier limit
of the composition of .-\;t by means of what we might call the
Enochic canon. This is : No early Jetvish book -u-hich extols
Enoch could have been ivrittcn after 50 a.d., ami tlu attribu-
tion 0/ Enoch's words and achievements in a Jc.vish tvotk 10
other O T heroes is a sign that it was written after the Pauline
preaching 0/ Christianity. This hostility to I- noch from 50
A.U. onwards (cp Knoch) is to be traced to Lnochs .-icccptance
among the Christians as a Messianic prophet. Kor the grounds
and illustrations of this canon see Charles, .-iyVv. Bar.
21-22, loT. Now, in .50 5-11 of this Apocalypse many of 1 noch s
functions and revelations are assigned to Moses. Hence Aj
was written after 50 A.D.
ai8
APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE
The affinities of Apoc. Bar. with 4 Esdras are so strik-
ing and so many that Kwald ascribed the two books to the
. _ Aflinitv •'''^'"^ author. Though this view has not
th 4 F ri '**^'''" ^'^cepted in later criticism, it will
not be amiss to draw attention to these
affinities, (r) The main features of the two books are
similar. They have one anti the same object — to de-
plore Israel's present calamities and awaken hope in the
coming glories, temporal or spiritual, of their race.
In both the speaker is a notable figure of the time of the
Babylonian captivity. In both there is a sevenfold division of
the work, and an interval (as a rule, of seven days) between each
two divisions ; and, whereas in the one Ezra devotes forty days
to the restoratiiin of the scriptures, in the other Haruch is
bi Idsn to spend forty days in admonishing Israel before his de-
parture from the earth.
(2) They have many doctrinal peculiarities in common.
According to l)oth, man is saved by his works (4 Esd. 7 77 8 33
97, A(>. Bar. 22l4i2etc.); the world was created in belialfof
Israel (4 Esd. 6 55 7 1 1 !• 13, A/>. Bar. 14 19 l.'> 7 etc.) ; man came
not into the world of his own will (4 Esd. 8 5, Ap. Bar. 14 11 48
15) ; a predetermined number of men must be attained before
the end (4 Esd. 436/, Ap. Bar. 2845); God will visit his
creation (4 Esd. 5 56 0 18 it 2, Ap. Bar. 20 2 24 4) ; Adam's sin was
the cause of physical death (4 Esd. 3 7, Ap. Bar. 23 4) ; the souls
of the good are kept safe in treasuries till the resurrection (4 E.sd.
435-377328095, Ap. /)'jr. 3O2).
This list might have been indefinitely added to.
On the other hand, there are clear points of divergence.
14 Divereence ^" ^'-^'^^''^^s the Messianic reign is limited
from 4 Esd *° "^°° years (7 28/ ), whereas in Baruch
this period is quite indeterminate.
Again, in the former {729) the Messiah is to die, and
the Messianic reign is to close with the death of all
living things ; whereas in the latter, according to 30, the
Messiah is to return in glory to heaven at the close of
his reign, and, according to 73/, this reign is to be
eternal, though it is to belong partly to this world and
partly to the ne.xt.
Again, in Esdras the writer urges that God's people should be
punished by Gods own hands and not by the hands of their
enemies {Jji() /.), for these have overthrown the altar and
destroyed the temple, and made the holy place a desolation (10
217C). In Haruch it is described at length how the holy vessels
were removed by angels and the walls of Jerusalem demolished
by the same agency before the enemy drew nigh (0-8).
On the question of original sin likewise these two books are
at variance. Whilst in Esdras the entire stream of physical and
ethical death is traced to Adam (3 7 2iyC 4 307 48), and the guilt
of his descendants minimised at the cost of their first parent
(yet see S 55-61), Haruch derives physical death indeed from
Adam's transgression (17 3 23 4 54 15), but as to ethical death de-
clares that "each man is the Adam of his own soul " (54 19 ; yet
see 4842).
It will be clear from the facts set forth above that
the relations of these two apocalypses constitute a com-
15 Real ^'^'^ problem. If we attempt to deal with
,' .. this problem on the supposition that each
book is derived from a single author, no
solution is possible ; and the barrenness of criticism
hitherto in this direction is due to this supposition of their
unity. When, however, we come perforce to recognise
their comjiosite nature, we enter at the same time on
the road that leads to the desired goal. For a pro-
visional study of the relations lietween the various con-
stituents of this apocalypse and 4 Ksdras, the reader
can consult Charles, Apoc. Bar. 67-76. The results of
this study tend to show that, whilst some of the con-
stituents of 4 Ksdras are older than the latest of Baruch,
other constituents of Baruch are decidedly older than
the remaining ones of 4 Esdras.
The points of contact between this apocalypse and
the NT are many ; but they are for the most part
IR PI f insufficient to establish a relation of de-
to NT^**" pendence on either side. The thoughts
and expressions in questions are explicable
from pre-e.xisting literature or as commonplaces of the
time.
Such, among many others, are Mt. 3 16, Ap. Bar. 22 i, Mt. 26
24, Ap. Bar. 106, Lk. 21 28, Ap. Bar. 287, Rom. 818, Ap.
Bar. 15 8.
The following passages are of a diflferent nature
and postulate the dependence of our apocalypse on the
219
NT, or possibly, in one or two of the instances, of both
on a common source.
With Mt. 16 26, 'For what shall a man be profited, if he
.shall gain the whole world and forfeit his soul? or what shall a
man give in exchange for his soul?' cp Ap. Bar. 61 15, ' For
what then have men lost their life, or for what have those who
were on the earth exchanged their soul?' Also with i Cor. 15
19, ' If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all
men most miserable,' cp Apoc. Bar. 21 ij, ' For if there were
this life only . . . nothing could be mure bitter than this.' Also
with I Cor. 15 35, ' How are the dead raised and with what
manner of body do they come?' cp 4i> 2, ' In what shape will
those live who live in that day?' Cp also Lk 1 42 with Ap.
Bar. 54 10, Jas. 1 2 with 52 6, and Rev. 4 6 with 51 2.
As the Apocalypse of Baruch was written between
50 and 100 A.D. it furnishes us with the historical setting
17 'Valufl ^""^ background of many of the NT prob-
■ lems, and thereby enables us to estimate
the contributions made in this respect by Christian
thought. Thus, whereas, from 492-51, we see that the
Pauline doctrine of the resurrection in i Cor. 15 35-50 was
not an innovation but a developed and more spiritual
exposition of ideas already current in Judaism, it is clear,
on the other hand, from the teaching of this book on
Works and Justification, Forgiveness and Original Sin
and Freewill (see Charles, op. cit. pp. 80-85), what a
crying need there was for the Pauline dialectic, and
what an immense gulf lay herein between Christian and
Rabbinic teaching. No ancient book is so valuable in
attesting the Jewish doctrine of that period.
Bihliof^raphy. — In addition to the works already mentioned,
the reader may consult Langen, De Apoc. Bar. comtii. ('67) ;
Ew. CGA ('67), 1706-17, 1720; /fist. 0/ Israel, 857-61;
Drummond, The Jeiois/t Messiah ('77), 1 17-132; Kneucker,
Das Buch Bar. ('79), 190-198; Di. ' Pseudep." in PRE^^,
12356-358 ; Deane, I'scudtp. ('91), 130-162.
II. The Book of Enoch. — By the exegesis of later
times, the statement that ICnoch walked with God (Gen.
24 ; see Enoch) was taken to mean
18. Jewish
view of
Enoch.
that he enjoyed superhuman privileges of
intercourse with God, and in this inter-
course received revelations as to the nature
of the heavens and the earth, the present lot and the
destinies of men and angels. It was natural, there-
fore, that an apocalyptic literature should seek the
shelter and authority of his name in ages when such
literature became current. In the Book of Enoch pre-
served in Ethiopic we have large fragments of this
literature proceeding from a variety of Jewish writers
in Palestine ; and in the Book of the Secrets of Enoch
preserved in Slavonic we have further portions of it,
written originally by Hellenistic Jews in Eg\-pt. To
the latter book we shall return.
The Book of Enoch as translated into Ethiopic
belongs to the last two centuries B.C. All the writers of
, , the NT were fannliar with it and were
_ ■ , . . more or less influenced by it in thought
Enoch : its , ,• • t • » ; •
, and diction. It is quoted as a genuine
lorDune . production in the Epistle of Jude( 14/) and
as Scripture in that of Barnabas [Ep. 43 It) 5)- The
wl^ho'cso{^.\^(i Secretsof Enoch, Jubilees, Test. xii. Pair.,
Apoc. Bar. and 4 Esd. laid it under contribution. With
the earlier Fathers and Apologists it had all the weight of
a canonical book ; but towards the close of the third and
the beginning of the fourth centuries it began to be dis-
credited, and finally it fell under the ban of the Church.
The latest references to it are to be found in Synccllus
and Cedrenus, who have preserved large fragments of
the Greek version. The book was then lost sight
of till 1773, when two MSS of the Ethiopic version
were discovered by Bruce. From one of these M.SS
Lawrence made the first modern translation of Enoch
in 1821.
Enoch was originally written in Heb. or Aram.,
T jre "°' '" Greek. On this question the
i . gu g . ^.j^jgf Apocalyptic scholars are practi-
cally agreed.
In the case of chaps. 1-32 this view is established beyond the
reach of controversy ; for in IO9 19 188 27 2 28 i 21) i 31 i of the
Greek version we find that the translator transliterated Heb. or
APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE
Aram, words that were unintelliKible to him. The name view
as lo the remaining chapiers has been amply proved in the
Joum. As. ('67) 352-395 by Halivy, who regards the entire
work as derived from a Hebrew orii-inal. See also Charles,
Book 0/ Enoch, 21-22, 325. Recently some Dutch and flerman
scholars have argued for an Aram, original on the ground that
three Aram, forms have l»ecn preserved in the Gi/eh ( Ireck frag-
ment— \\t.. ^ov«a in 18«, (Lavio^apa. in 28 i, and fia^ijpa. in L'l» i.
The first is, it is true, an .\ram. form of •^15 and the two latter
onaip. Thisargumcnt, however, is inconclusive. Wc find oxava
in2 K. H9/' [U.\*l asatransliterationof nin, and Xiva in Neh.
'J 14 (HKJ as a transliteration of ['V; and there are other inst.-inces
of the siime pcailiarity in €*. Hence the presence of such
Arani.ii>nis in a text is not sufficient in itself to establish an
Aram, original.
The Hel). original was translated into Greek, and
from (ircok into J-2lhiopic and Latin. Of the Greek
21 Versions ^■'^'■'*'"" c^^V^- 6-94 84-IO14 158-16i
^Greek '''^^ ^' come down to us through Syncel-
lus((/rf. 800 A. u. ). and 8942-49 through
a \':itican MS. ; hut tlie most important fragment of
this version— the CJi/ch tJreek fragment — was discovered
only a few years ago by the Mission Archtologique
I'^ranfaise at Cairo, and published in 1892.
.M. I,od's critical edition of this frajjnient, accompanied by a
translation, appeared almost simultaneously, and next year it was
edited by the present writer, with an exhaustive comparison of
the llreek and Ethiopic versions of 1-32, as an .Appendix to his
work on Rnoch. The other Greek fragments will be found in
the same work. The Gizeh fragment was edited also by Dill-
mann (.S7;.-i;r ['92], li.-liii. 1039-1034, 1079-1092). The frag-
ments of the Greek Knoch with a critical apparatus are to be
published in the 2nd edition of vol. iii. of .Swete's Cambridge
The Latin version is wholly lost — with the exception
of 1 9, which is found in a treatise of the Pseudo-Cyi)rian
22 Latin. *^"'''''^*^ -■^"' ^'ovutiatium (see Zahn's
(n-sth. it XTliclicn h'anoris, 2797-801), and
100 1-18, which owes its thscovery to Mr. James, in
an eighth-century MS in the Hrit'ish Museum. This
fr:iginent is critically edited in Charles's Ihiok of Enoch,
372-375' .I-inies, Apocrypha Auecdota, 146-150.
The Ethiopic version alone preser%es the entire text,
and that in a more ancient and trustworthy form than
23. Ethiopic. thf otl''-''- versions. It has fewer
'^ additions, fewer omissions, and fewer
and less serious corruptions.
_ \. The Kth:\>/>ic .1/.S".S".~Tlie Ethiopic MSS are comp.-ira-
tively many. I here are about twenty scattered throughout the
libraries of Europe ; half of them are found in the liritish
Museum. The best of all the known MSS is undoubtedly that
design.itcd Orh-nt. ./V,- in the Hritish Museum.
I I. Fditions 0/ the I'.tkiopic Text.~Ox\\y two editions have
api)eared— that of Lawrence in 1S38 from one AIS, and that of
iJiUmann in 1851 from five M.SS. Unhappily, these MSS
were late and corrupt. The present writer hopes to issue a
text based on the incomparably better MSS now accessible to
scholars. Such a text is actually presupposed in his Translation
and Commentary of 1893.
III. Translations and Commentaries. — Translations accom-
panied by Commentaries have been issued by I-awrence ('21),
Hoffmann Cas-'^S), Dillniann (-53), Schodde (52), and Charles
^'??,^V P*" ^^'"'"•T'n's and Schoddes Translations the reader
will find a short review in Charles (6-9).
_ IV. Critical fntjuir.es. - Some account of these will be found
in Schiirer, Hist. 70-73. and in Charles's Jiook pf Knoch, 9-21
309-31 1. Of the many works on this book the following deserve
spcial mention here. Lucke, Kinl. in d. Offenh. dcs Joh.^i)
( >2); Ew. Abhandl. ah. d. nth. Jiuches Henokh Entstehunc,
Sinn, und Zusammenseizung {'55); Kostlin, ' Ueb. die
Entsteh. d. B. Henoch' (T/ieol. Jahrh. 1856, pp. 240-279 370-
j86); Hilgenfeld, Die j fid. A/>okalyfitik ('57), 91-184 ; Geb-
hardt, ' Die 70 Hirtcn des Buches Henoch und ihre Deutungen '
(Merx's Archiv /. wissoischafll. Er/orschung des AT, 1872,
vol. 11. Heft 2 163-246) ; Dnimmond, The Je^vish .Messiah (87),
17-73; Eipsius in Smith and W^ct:'^ Diet. o/Chr. .fi/V- ('80),
2124-128; Schiirer, Hist. 0 54-73 ; Lawlor, y^Krw. I'hil. vol.
xxy. pp. 164-225 I97].
The Hook of iMioch is a fragmentary survival of an
entire literature that once circulated under his name.
24. Com- '^° *'''^ ^^'^^ ^^ plurality of books as-
positeness S'o"ed to Enoch front the first may in
some sense point : as, for instance, the
exi)rcssion 'books' in 104 12 ; Te.tf. .vii. Patr. Jud. 18 ;
Origen, c. Cchiiin, 554. and elsewhere. Of this literature
five distinct fragments have been preserved in the five
books into which the Book of Enoch is divided (1-36
37-71 72-82 83-90 91-108). These bookswereoriginally
separate treatises ; in later limes they were collected
and edited, but were much nmtiiaied in the course of
retlaction and incorporation into a single work. In
addition to this Enoch literature, the final editor of the
Ixiok made use of a lost ai)OcaIypsc, the Hook of Noah
(mentioned in Jubilees 10 13 21 10), from which he drew
C-Il (?) 17-19 3Di2-/ 41 3-8 43/ 547 i:>i 59/ G5-
6925 106/ Another fragment of the Hook of .Noah
has l)een embodied in the Hook of Jubilees (see below,
§57).
We have already remarked that in the five books into
which the whole work is divided we liave the writings
25. Criticism.
of five different authors. I'cfore we
proceed to give some of the grounds
for this statement, we shall give in merest outline the
different constituents found in the work by the chief
scholars who have studied the subject.
I.iicke in his Einl. (see above, g 23) regards the book as con-
sisting of two parts. 'i'he first part embraces l-3t> 7:;-10.'>,
written at the l)egiiining of the Maccabean revolt, or, accortiing
to his later view, in the reign of John Hyrcanus ; the second
consists of the Similitudes (3i>-71), and was written in the early
days of Herod the Great. In the latter, however, there are
some interpolations. Hofmann (J. Chr. K.) ascribes the entire
work to a c:hrisiian author of the second century. In thi-. view
he was followed later by Weisse and Philippi. Hofmann
deserves mention in this connection on the ground of his having
been the first to give the correct interpretation of the seventy
shepherds in ^'.)/. Ew. in his Ahhandl. (see above, § 23) gives
the following -cKeme :— Book I. (37-71) f/Vc(? 144 n.c. ; Book II.
(1-10 SI 1-4 S4 1I1-105) circa 135 B.C.; Book 111. (20-3t; 72-!iO
\^&/.) circa 128 n.c. ; 108 later. Book IV., the Book of No.ih
(li 3-8 8 1-3 97 10 1-3 n 22* 17-19 547-552 (M)i-io24 25 04-ti9 16),
.somewhat later than the preceding. Kostlin in his essay (see
above, g 2q), a coiitrilmtioii of great worth, arrives at the follow-
ing analysis : the groundwork (l-lii 21-3«) 72105) circa 1 10 I'.c. ;
the Similitud<>s (37-71 and 17-1'.») before 64 B.C. ; Noachic
fragments (54 -j-bh 2 1)0 ('.5-i;',i 25, possibly also 20 829-20 lIMiy:).
108 is an Essene addition. Hil-cnfeld (<?/. cit.) regards the
groundwork, consistinj; of 1-10 20-30 72-105, as written before
98 11. r. ; .-ind the remaining chapters as coming from the h.ind
of A C liiisti.in (Jnostic after the time of Satuminus. The
int. lestiM- study of Tideman ('ThI'. I1875] 261-296), and the
work> of l.ijisius, Schiirer, Drummond, enumerated above (iJ 23),
and .Schodde ( /'^^ Book 0/ Enoch. iE82)can only be nienti iied
here. As Dillmann changed his mind three times, and in each
instance for the better, it will be enough to give his final
analysis. The groundwork (1-36 72-105), in the time ol J,,hn
Hyicaims; the Similitudes and 17-19, before 64 K.c. : the
Noachic fragments (li 3-s 81-397 10 i 11 20 39 i 2a 54 7-55 2 00
Oj-f.'.t 25 lOli/.) ; 108 from a Liter hand.
We shall now proceed to di.scuss this question
26 Results '^'■'^■'-■''y' '^"'l endeavour to carry the
criticism of the book one further stage
towards finality.
Disregarding the interpolations from the Hook of Noah
already mentioned as well as the closing chapter, we find
liiat all critics are agreed in ascribing the Similitudes
(•37-70) to an authorship different from the rest. The
remaining chapters (1-36 72-104) have been regarded by
all critics except Ewald and Lipsius as proceeding from
one and the same author ; but these scholars, while differ-
ing from each other, have not i>ersuaded any one but
themselves as to the justness of their res{x;ctive analyses.
In their contention, however, as to the composileness of
these chapters they were undoubtedly right. This
question has been gone into at length in Charles's />'<)<'*
of Enoch, 55 /, 187-189, 220 /, 260-263, where
grounds are given for Ix^lieving that sections 1-36, 72-82,
83-90, and 91-104 are writings distinct as to author-
sliiji, system of thought, and date. We must now
proceed to sketch briefly the various independent writings
contained in the entire work, assigning to each its most
probable date.
Part I., consisting of chaps. 1-36 (for the Noachic
interpolations, see § 24), was written at latCit before
170 B.C., and mainly from the prophetic
standpoint of such chapters as Is. C;"*.
This is, undoubtedly, the oldest part of
the book, being anterior to 72-82, 83-90. 91-104, as it is
used by the writers of these sections.
As 83-00 was written not later than 161 B,c., l-3<3 must be
some years earlier, and, as there is no allusion to the 1
27. Chaps.
1-36.
APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE
of Antiochus Eplphanes, the above date, 170, is the latest
reasonable limit for its composition.
This book — /'.c. , 1-36 — is the oldest piece of Jewish
literature that teaches the general resurrection of Israel,
describes Sheol according to the conception that prevails
in the NT as opjjosed to that of tiie O T, or represents
Gehenna as a final place of punishment (cp EscnATO-
i.ocY, § 63). The problem of the author is to justify
the ways of God to men.
The rii;liteous will not suffer always (1 1). Sin is the cause of
this sufTering, and the sin of man is due to the lust of the angels
— the Watchers ('.leg 10 IOk). Hence the Watchers, their
companions, and their children, will be destroyed (104-1012).
Their destruction will form the prelude to the first world-judgment,
of which the Deluge will form the completion (10 i-^). Sin still
prevailed after the l>eluge, however, through the influence of the
evil spirits that went forth from the slaughtered children of the
Watchers and the daughters of men (10 1). These act with
impunity till the final judgment. In the meantime character
finds its recompense in some measure immediately after death
(•-'•2). In the last judt:ment the Watchers, the demons, and all
classes of Israelites with one exception, will receive their final
award (Iq-li;)). This jntlginent is preceded by a general
resurr;-ction of Israel ('-'2). The wicked are cast into Ciehenna
(■J72); the earth is cleansed from sin (IO20-22); the Messianic
kingdom is established, with Jerusalem as a centre (265) ; and
Hod abides with men (203). The (Jentiles are converted (IO21).
The righteous eat of the tree of life (264-6) and thereby enjoy
patriarchal lives (09). As to what befalls the rmhteous after the
second death there is no hint in this fragmeiUary section.
Part II., consisting of 83-90, was written between
p, 166 aiul 161 n.c. , niaiiilv from the same
83 90^^' ^'■^'"'l'"'"^ =^s Daniel. On a variety of
grouiuls, we are obliged to discriminate
this section from the preceding.
It will be enough to mention that, whereas in this there
is a Messiah, in the preceding there was none ; in this the
life of the righteous is apparently unending, in the other it
was finite ; in this the scene of the kingdom is the New
Jer'is.-ilem set up by Ciod himself, in the other it was Jerusalem
and the entire earth unchanged though purified. Finally, the
picture in 83-00 is developed and spiritual, whilst that in 1-SO was
naive, primitive, and sensuous.
The date assigned above is not difficult to fix.
The Hasidim (see AssiDEAN's), symbolised by the lambs that
are born to the white sheep (006), are already an orL;aiiised party
in the -Maccabean revolt. The lambs that become horned are
the M;\ccabean fimily, and the great horn who is still warring
while the author of the section is writing is Judas the Maccabee
(OO9), who died in 161 ii.c.
Cliapters S3-90 recount two visions : 83/. , dealing with
the first world-judgment ; 80-90, dealing with the entire
history of the w-orki till the final judgment. In the
second vision the author considers the question of Israel's
unmerited suffering.
Israel has indeed sinned ; but the punishment immeasurably
transcends its guilt. These undue severities, the author shows,
have not come from the hand of (;od ; they are the doing of
the seventy shepherds into whose care Ood committed Israel
(SO 59). These shepherds or angels have proved faithless to
their trust ; but not with impunity. An account has been taken
of all their deeds (8961-64), and for them and for their victims
there is laid up a due recompense (90 33). Moreover, when the
outlook is darkest, a league of the righteous is organised
in Israel (OOfi). In it there will arise a family from which
will come forth the deliverer of Israel, Judas the Maccabee
(OO9-16). Kvery effort of the Gentiles to de>troy him will prove
vain, and God's appearance in person to judge will be the signal
for their destruction. The apostates will be cast into Gehenna,
and the wicked angels into an abyss of fire (90 20-25). ('od
himself will set up the New Jerusalem (90 28 29) ; the surviving
Gentile-i will be converted and serve Israel (90 30); the righteous
dead will be raised to take part in the kingdom ; and finally
the Messiah will appear among them (90 37). The Messianic
kingdom lasts on earth for ever, and its members enjoy ever-
lasting blessedness.
It will be observed that this is the earliest appearance
of the Messiah in non-canonical literature (see Mkssi.mi,
§ 5 ; EsciiATOLfXJY, § 60). He has, however, no role
to play : he has not as yet vindicated for himself a place
in the apocalyptic doctrine of the last things.
Fart III., consisting of 91-104, was written between
134 and 95 B.C. The well-defined opposition of the
p, Pharisees and the Sadducees depicted in
■ ^ ' this section cannot have been earlier than
the breach between John Hyrcanus and
the Pharisees (see IsRAKi,, § 78; -SCKIBKS, § i8| ; hence
not earlier than 134 B.C. On the other hand, it cannot
223
have been later than 95 B.C., as the merely passing
reference to |x.T.secution in 103 15 could hardly be inter-
jjreted of Jann.eus after his .savage massacres of the
Pharisees in 95 B.C., which won for him the title, ' the
slayer of the pious. '
This section was originally, like 83-90, an independent writing.
In adapting it to its present environment, the redactor of the
entire work broke up its original arranijement. In order to
recover this we must read it in the following order :— 92 91 i-io
93i-io 91 12-19 9-4-104. On a variety of grounds (see Charles,
Hook 0/ I'.noch, 260-263), we must attribute this work to quite
another author than that of either of the preceding sections.
In passing from 83-90 to 91-104 we enter on a world
of new conceptions (cp Esch.\toi.()OY, § 64/.). In
all previous apocalyptic writings the resurrection and
the final judgment have been the prelude to an ever-
lasting Messianic kingdom ; whereas in the present
writing the.se great events are relegated to the close
of the Messianic kingdom, and not till then do the
righteous enter on their reward. This kingdom is
temporary (91 12-15) ; there is no Messiah ; the right-
eous with God's help vindicate their just cause and
destroy their oppressors. On the close of the kingdom
follow the final judgment (91 15) and the risen spiritual
life of blessedness in a new heaven (91 10 9"23). In
this view of the future the centre of interest has
obviously passed from the material world to the
spiritual, and the Messianic kingdom is no longer
the goal of the hopes of the righteous. Their fiiith finds
its satisfaction only in a blessed immortality in heaven
itself. This immortality is an immortality of the soul
only (103 3-4). As for the wicked, they will descend
into the pain of SheOl and abide there everlastingly
(98310 10478). Here (lO;]?) Sheol appears as Hel'l
for possibly the first time.
30. Similitudes : I'^'iY^' "^'^^ Si"»litudes. consisting of
chaps 37-70 3/-/0, were written between 94 and 79
^ ' ■ B.C. , or between 70 and 64 B.C.
' The kings and the mighty,' so often denounced, are the
later -Maccabean princes and their .Sadducean supporters : the
later Maccabean princes, for the blood of the righteous was
not shed (as the writer complains, 47124) before 95 n.c;
not the Herods, for the Sadducees were not allies of the Herods,
and Rome was not as yet known to the writer as one of the
great world-powens. This last fact necessitates an earlier dale
than 64 B.C., when Rome interposed authoritatively in the affairs
ofJiKla;a.
In his attempt to solve the problem of the suffering of
the righteous, the author of the .Similitudes has no
interest save for the moral and spiritual world. I lis
view, too, is strongly apocalyptic, and follows closely
in the wake of Daniel.
The origin of sin is traced one stage farther back than in 1-3(5.
The first authors of sin were the Satans (407). The Watchers
fell through becoming subject to these and leading mankind
astray (546). Though the Watchers were forthwith confined in
a deep abyss, sin still flourishes in the world and sinners deny
the name of the Lord of Spirits (38 2) and of his Anointed (48 lo),
and the kings and the mighty oppress the children of God (02 11).
Suddenly there will appear the Head of Days, and with him
the Son of Man (40 2 34 482), to e.\ecute judgment upon .all alike.
To this end there will be a resurrection of all Israel (51 1
61 5), and all judgment will be committed to the Son of Man
(4I9 0027), who will judge all according to their deeds (41 1).
Sin and wrong-doing will be banished from the earth (492), and
heaven and earth be transformed (45 4 5), and the righteous
will have their mansions in Paradise (39 6 41 2). The Elect One
will dwell among them (45 4); they will be chad in garments of
life (()2 15 16), become anpels in heaven (51 4), and continue to
grow in knowledge and rigtiteousness (585).
It will be observed that the Messianic doctrine in this
section is unique, not only as regards the other sections
of Enoch but also in Jewish literature as a whole (see,
further, Eschatology, § 66).
The" Me.ssiah exists from the beginning (48 2) ; he sits on
the throne of (5od (463 473), and pos.sesses universal dominion
(026); and all judgment is committed unto him (r)927). If we
turn to the other sections we find that in 1-30 and 91-104 there is
no -Messiah at all ; whilst in 83-90 the Messiah is evidently
human, and has no real role to play in the doctrine of the last
things.
If the reader will turn to the list of Noachic interpola-
tions (see above, § 24) lie will find that many of them
are to be found in this section.
224
APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE
They have M a rule been drawn from an already existing
Apocalypse of Noah, and adapted bv an editor to their present
contexts in Knoch. This he docs by LorrowinK from the Simili-
tudes characteristic terms, such as ' Lord of Spiriis,' ' Head of
Days," 'Son of Man,' tu which, however, either through ignor-
ance or of set intention, he generally gives a new connotation.
Chapter 71 does not belong to the Similitudes. It shows
the s.-iine misuse of characteristic phrases as the interpola-
tions just referred to (see Charles, Book of Knoch, 183/ ).
I'ait v., the Hook of Celestial Physics, consists of
31. Celestial ^2-78 82 7!>. This like the preceding
Physics (Chaps,
sections, is a work of independent
to TQ 00 tci\ '-luthorship. There are no means of
li-1^, \il, 79). j^.t^.r,„ining ^s ^jate.
It h.is sufTcrcd from both disarrangements and interpolations
at the liands of the editor of the wliole work. In the first phice,
^9 /• '■'' •'' 'nanifest intrusion written from a standpoint quite
dinerent from tliatofthe rest. In the next place, S2 does not
st.md in its original position. The opening words of 7l> in fact
prcsupp<jse 82 as already read. We have found a similar disloca-
tion of the text in Part III.
Part VI., the Noachian and other interpolations.
These have been enumerated above (§ 24).
The influence of Enoch on Jewish literature (to exclude
32. Influence <«■• the moment the NT) is seen in
of Enoch J'tbiiecs (written about the begmning of
the Christian era), in the Slavonic Enoch
(1-50 .\. I). ), Test. xii. Pair. , Apoc. Bar. , and in 4 Esdras.
In Jewish apocalyptic before 40 A.D. Enoch was
the chief figure next to Daniel ; but his acceptance by
tiie Christians as a Messianic prophet led to his rejec-
tion by the Jews. See note on § 10.
In patristic literature, Enoch is twice cited as .Scripture
in I-:p. Harn. (43 I65). It is also quoted with approval,
tliough not always by name, by Justin Martyr, Iren. and
Athenag. , Tert. , Clem. Alex. , Orig. , Anatolius. Thence-
forward it is mentioned with disapproval by Hilary,
Chrys., Jer., .August., and finally condemned in explicit
terms in the Const. A p. 6 16.
Far more important than its influence on Jewish litera-
ture, was its influence on NT diction (a) and doctrine [b).
(rt) We shall here draw attention only to the indubitable
instances. Knoch is quoted directly in Jude n /. Phrases,
clauses, or thouphts derived from it, or of closest kin with it,
are found in Jude 4 n / ; Rev. 2 7 3 10 4 6 li 10 9 i 14 20 20 13 ;
Kom.,S33 95; Kph.l2i; Ileb.Us; Acts3i4; Jn.62227;
Lk.935 I692335; Mt. 1928 2541 20 24.
{b) The doctrines in Enoch that had a share in mould-
ing the analogous NT doctrines, or formed a neces-
sary link in the development of doctrine from the O T to
the NT, are those concerning the Messianic kingdom and
the Messiah, Sheol and the resurrection, and demonology,
on which reference must be made to the separate articles
on these heads and to E.sch.\TOLOgv. We here content
ourselves with remarking, as regards the doctrine of the
Messiah, that four titles, afterwards reproduced in the
New Testament, are first ajjplied to the personal Messiah
in the Sintilitudes. These titles are 'Christ' or 'the
Anointed One,' 'the Righteous One,' 'the IClect One,'
and ■ the Son of Man. ' The first title, found repeatedly
in earlier writings but always in reference to actual con-
temporary kings or priests, is now for t!v lirst time (48 10
r)24) applied to the ideal Messianic king that is to come.
It is here associated with supernatural attributes. The
second and the third of these titles, found first in Enoch,
have passed over into the NT — the former occurring in
.\cts 3 14 75^ 2214. the latter in Lk. 935 2835. The last
title, that of ' the Son of Man,' is historically the source
of the New Testament designation. To the latter it
contributes some of its most characteristic contents (see
Charles, Book of Knoch, 312-317).
III. TiiK Book of thk Skckkts of Enoch. — This
book has, as far as is yet known, been preserved only in
33 Secrets ''^'^^■""'*-- For the sake of convenience
of Enoch
we shall call it ' the .Slavonic Enoch,
its fortunes.
in contradistinction to the older book.
which for the same reason we shall
designate ' the Ethiopic Enoch. '
15 22e:
This new fragment of the Enochic literature has only
recently come to light through certain MSS, some of
which were found in Russia and some in Servia.
Although the very knowledge of such a Ixxjk was lost for
probably twelve hundred years, the book was nmch used
by both Christians and heretics in the early centuries.
Citations appear from it, though without acknowledg-
ment, in the Hook of Adam and Eve, Apoc. Moses and I'aul
(400-500 A.D.), Sibylline OracUs, Asc. Isa. and /./. 0/ liar.
(70-90 A.O.). It is quoted by name in the apocalyptic portion*
of the Test, o/the xii. Patr. {circa i A.U.). It was referred to
by Orig. and probably by Clem. Alex., and was used by Iren.
Some piirases of the NT may be derived from it.
There are five Slavonic MS.S : in two of them the complete
text is found, while the remaining three supply oniy a shortened
„, and incomplete rcclaction. Kor the edition uul>-
34. Ine lished by the present writer the two best of the
Slavonic al>ove MSS (A and H) were translated and put at
MSS. '''^ service of the editor by Mr. Morfill. The
editor had at his disposal also .M r. .Moi fill's transla-
tion of Prof. Sokolov's text, which is founded on these and other
MSS. In i8g6 Prof. IJonwetsch published his Das .Slavische
Henochbuclt, in which he gives a German translation of the MSS
A and H side by side, preceded by a short introduction.
36. LanfTuajre. .. ^''l T^*" "'^'" ^'^'^. °^ ^^^ ' ^'^vonic
* «* Enoch was written m Greek.
This is clear from such statements as (i) 30 13, 'And I gave
him a name {i.e., Adam) from the four substances : the Kast, the
West, the North, and the South.' Adam's name is thus derived
from the initial letters of the Greek nan.es of the four quarters—
avaTo\ri, Jijais, apxro?, jiorritiPpia. This derivation was first
elaborated in Greek : it is impossible in the Semitic languages.
(2) The writer follows the chronology of 0. (3) In 60 4 he
reproduces the 0 text of I)t. 32 35 against the Hebrew. (4) He
constantly uses Ecclesiasticus, which was current chiefly in
Egypt.
(6) Certain portions were based on Hebrew originals.
Such a hypothesis is necessary to account for the cjuota-
tions from it or references to it which ajjpear in the
Test. xii. Fair. The fact that the latter work was
written in Hebrew obliges us to conclude that its author
drew upon Hebrew originals in quotations and references.
36. Place. The book was written in Egypt.
This is deducible from the following facts : — (i) The variety of
speculations which i: holds in common with Philo and other
Hellenistic writers : thus souls were created before the foundation
of the world, 23 s (cp Philo, De Somno,\ 22 ; Wisd.81920).
Again, man had seven natures, 309(cp I'hilo, De MundiOp. 40).
(2) The whole Messianic teaching of the OT does not find a
single echo in the work of this Helleniscd Isr.-ielite of Kgypt,
although he shows familiarity with most of its books. (3) .Such
monstrous creatures as appear in chap. 12 are n.ttural products of
the Egyptian imagination. (4) The syncretistic character of
the creation narrative in 25 y? betrays Egyptian elements.
Materials originally derived from this book are discoverable in
Joel and Cedrenus (1050-1200 a.u.), though in these authors the
_ . ,. materials are assigned to other names. Two
37. lielation pass.-iges of the Hook 0/ Adam and Eve (see
to other Apocuvfha, § 10) in 1 6 and 8 are all but
works. quotations from '294y! and 31 2 of our book.
Again in the Apoc. Moses, 19 (ed. Tisch.
1866), we have a further development of 14 2-4 of our text, just
as in Apoc. Paul. 64 ovrot iiniv 6 jrapaieio-o?, tvOa. . .
SevSpov . . ev if (iraverravfTO to nvevfi-a to ayiov is a Christian
adaptation of 83, 'And in the midst (of Paradise is) the tree of
life — on which (jod rests when he comes into Paradise." The
section on the derivation of Adam's name in the anonymous De
Montihus Sina et Sion, 4, is to be traced ultimately to 30 13, and
Augustine's speculation, De Civ. xxii. 30 5, on the eighth eternal
day to 33 2.
Still earlier we find almost a verbal reproduction of 50 5-51 i in
the Sibylline Oracles, 2 75. In Irena;us, Contra //ter.v.'2S^,
the Jewish speculation of 33iy; is reproduced, and possibly in
Origen (see Lommatzsch ed., vol. xxi. 59). However this may
be, there is no doubt as to the direct reference to 24-30 33 8 in the
De Princip. i. 3 2 : ' Nam et in eo libello . . . quem Hernias
conscripsit, ita refertur : Priiiio omnium crede, quia unus est
Deus, qui esse fecit omnia . . . sed et in Enoch libro his similia
describuntur.' There are good grounds for believing that in a
still earlier period (50-100 A.i>.) the writers of Asc. Isa. 816
and oi Apoc. liar. 43 were acquainted with 19 i and 31 2 of this
book respectively. In Ep. Ham. 15 5-8 and probably in 18 1
the thought and diction are dependent on 32 a-33 and 30 15.
In the NT the similarity of matter and language is
sufliciently great to establish a close connection if not a
literary dependence.
With Mt. 69, ' Blessed are the peacemakers,' cp 52 II, 'Blessed
is he who establishes peace ' ; with Mt. 634 35 37, ' Swear not at
all,' etc., cp 49 I, 'I will not swear by a single oath, neither by
heaven, nor by earth, nor by any other creature which God
made. . . . If there is no truth in men, let them swear by a word,
226
APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE
38. Date.
yea, yea, or nay, nay." Again, with Mt. 7 20 and 25 34, cp 42 n
and 9 i ; with Jn. 14 2 cp 01 2 ; with Eph. 4 25 cp 42 12 ; with
Rev. 9 I and 10 5/ cp 42 i and 667. Still earlier we find this
book not only used but quoted by name in the '/'est. Van j,
where the statement riiv irvtvii.aTiav n^s irKavrK • avtyvioy yap tv
^/SXfp 'Kyti}\ TOu BiKaCov, on o ap^uiv vfjuau tarci' o XaTava^ is
drawn from 18 3, 'These are the iJrigori (i.e. ' Eyprfyopoi) who
with their prince Satanail rejectel the noly Lord." l inally, the
references to Enoch in Tes/. Naph. 4, Test. Sim. 5, Test. Benj.
9, are adaptations of 34 2-3.
The question as to the date has, to a large extent, been
deterniined already. The portions which
have a Hebrew background are at latest
pre-Christian.
This follows from the fact of their quotation in the Test. xii.
Patr. Turning to the rest of the book, we find that the ter-
tninus a quo is determined by the fact that it frequently uses
Ecclus. (cp 43 2/. 47 5 52 8 61 2 4, etc. ; see the writer's edition
of the Slavonic Enoch). The Ethiopic Enoch, further, is con-
tinually presupposed to be in the background. Its phraseology
and conceptions are reproduced (7 4/! 3349/! 35 2, etc.). At
times its views are put forward in a developed form (8 i ^y. 40 1^
64 5), and occasionally divergent conceptions are enunciatea
(16 7 IS 4). Fmally, explanations are claimed to have been given
by this writer which, as a matter of fact, are to be found not in
his writings but in the Kth. En. (■;ee 40 5/ 8/). It is possible
that the Book of Wisdom also was used by our author ; see 05 4.
Since, therefore, Ecclus. , the Efh. Enoch, and Wisdom
(?) were used by this author, his work cannot have been
earlier than 30 B.C.
The terminus ad quern must be set down as earlier
than 70 A.D. For (i) the temple is still standing. (2)
This book was known and used by the writers of Ep.
Barn, and Asc. Isa. , and probably by some of the
writers of the NT. We may with reasonable certainty,
therefore, assign the composition of the book in Greek to
the period 50 A. D. The author is thus a contemporary
of Philo, with whom, accordingly, we find that he holds
many speculations in common. Much of the book, how-
ever, goes back to a Hebrew background of an earlier
date.
The author was thus an orthodox Hellenistic Jew who
lived in I'.gypt. He believed in the value of sacrifices
(426 59 I 662) — though he is careful
to enforce enlightened views with
regard to them (-loa/. 61 4/) — in the law (.528/), and
in a blessed immortality (5O2 656 8/.), in which the
righteous will wear ' the raiment of God's glory' (228).
In questions affecting the origin of the earth, of sin, and
of death, he allows himself the most unrestricted freedom
and borrows from every quarter. Thus Platonic (30 16),
Egj-ptian (252), and Zend (584-6) elements are in-
corporated in his system. The result is highly
syncretistic.
The book opens with a short account of Enoch as ' a very
wise man ' whom ' God loved and received so that he should see
the heavenly abodes, the kingdoms of the
40. Contents, wise, great, and never-changing God.' In
chap. 1 two angels appear to Enoch and bid
him make ready to ascend with them into heaven. In chap. 2 he
admonishes his so is and directs them not to seek for him till he
is brought back to them. Thereupon (3-6) he is carried up
through the air into the first heaven, where he beholds a great
sea, and the elders, the rulers of the orders of the stars, and the
treasuries of the snow and ice and clouds and dew, and the
angels who guard them. Thence the angels bear him to the
second heaven (7), where he sees the angels who had rebelled
against God, imprisoned and suffering torments. These angels
ask Enoch to intercede for them. Next, he ascends to the
third heaven (8), where is Paradise, with all manner of beautiful
fruits and ' the tree of life on which God rests when he comes
into the garden,' and the four streams of honey, milk, oil, and
wine, that water the garden, and go down to the Paradise of
Eden, between corruptibility and incorruptibility. The angels
inform Enoch that ' this place is prepared as an eternal inherit-
ance ' for those ' who turn their eyes from unrighteousness, and
ace )mplish a righteous judgment, and give bread to the huuirry,
and clothe the naked, and raise the fallen . . . and walk with-
out blame before the face of the Lord.' Enoch is then t.aken to
the northern region of this heaven (10), and shown 'a very
terrible place' of 'savage darkness and impenetrable gloom,"
with 'fire on all sides, cold, and ice.' He is told that 'this
place is prepared as an eternal inheritance ' for those ' who
commit evil deeds on earth, sodomy, witchcraft "... who
oppress the poor, who are guilty of ' stealing, lying, envy, evil
thoughts, fornication, murder,' who ' worship gods without life.'
Thence Enoch is conducted to the fourth heaven, where he is
shown the courses of the sun and moon (11), and the phoenixes,
39. Authorship.
and the chalk.-idi i ? (12 ; cp Cockatrice), and the eastern and
western gates of the sun (13-10), and ' an armed host serving the
Lord with cymbals and organs' (17).
In 18 he is taken up to the fifth heaven, where he sees the
Watchers who had rel>elled ; their brethren were already
confined in torment in the second heaven. Then he passes to
the sixth heaven (19), where are the angels wh.> regulate all the
powers of nature and the courses of the stars, and write down
the deeds of men. Finally, he is raised to the seventh heaven
(20 /), where he sees God sitting on his throne, and the
heavenly hosts in their ten orders on the steps of the throne,
and the .Seraphim singing the trisagion. He falls down and
worships (22). At God's command, Alichael takes from him his
earthly robe, anoints him with the holy oil, and clothes him
with the raiment of God's glory. Thus Enoch becomes like one
of the glorious ones. Under the instruction of Vretil (chap. '23), he
writes 366 books, in thirty days and thirty nights, about things
in heaven and earth, and about the souls of men created from
eternity, and their future dwelling-places.
In 24-26 God makes known to Enoch how he created the
invisible out of the visible ; how he commanded Adoil (possibly
a corruption of Uriel, regarded as = light of God), and Arkhas
(possibly from pj( or Aram. Kpnx = earth), to come forth and
burst asunder ; and so the light on high and the world below
were produced. And God divided the light and the darkness
(27), and made the seven heavens, and caused the waters
under the heaven to be gathered into one place, and made the
earth from the waters (-8). Such were the creations of the first
day. And on the second day God created the heavenly hosts
(291-3). And one of the archangels (.Satanail) rebelled, and
God cast him down (284/) from the heights. On the third
day (30 I 2) God caused the earth to produce trees and herbs,
and planted Paradise. On the fourth (30 3-6), he ordered great
lights to be in the various circles of the heavens — Saturn,
Venus, Mars, the Sun, Jupiter, Mercury, the Moon. On the
fifth (30 7-18), he created the fish of the sea, and the fowl of
heaven, and every thing that moveth on the earth, ami on
the sixth he made man from seven substances, and called him
Adam, and showed him the two ways. While Adam was in
Paradise he could see the angels in heaven (31) ; but Satan
envied him and deceived Kve. And God established the
eighth day (33 1-2), at the beginning of which time should be no
more. The corruption of the earth and the deluge are then
foretold, and the preservation of Noah (3.'>). God bids Enoch
return to the earth for thirty days and teach his sons during
that time (30-38). Enoch admonishes and instructs his sons,
tells them what he has seen, and gives utterance to nine
beatitudes (39-42). He impresses on them the incomparable
dignity of goodness — 'none is greater than he who fears God'
(43). They are not to revile the person of man, but to present
their offerings ; yet they must not value these unduly, but con-
sider the heart from which they spring (44-40). Enoch gives his
books to his sons (47) ; instructs them not to swear (49) ; and bids
them in meekness accomplish the number of their days, and
be open-handed to those in need (.'iO/). Again he enunciates
seven beatitudes and the woes with which they are contrasted
(52). The departed .saints, he says, do not intercede for the
living (.■)3). At the close of the appointed time (55-59) Enoch
again addresses his sons. He declares that no soul sh.all
perish till the final judgment, and that the souls of beasts will
then bring charges against the men who ill-treated them.
Further instruction follows, as to sacrifice and man's duty to
the needy, and warning against contempt and lying (00-t)3).
The people assemble in Achuzan to take leave of Enoch, who
addresses them on various topics and exhorts them to faithful-
ness. He is then carried up to the highest heaven. His sons
build an altar in Achuz.in and hold high festival, rejoicing and
praising God (04-08).
The value of the book, in elucid.ating contemporary
41. Value.
and subsequent religious thought, may
be exemplified by the fresh evidence it
contributes on the following beliefs : —
1. The inillennium. — This Jewish conception is first
found in 322-332. From this its origin is clear. The
account in Genesis of the first week of creation came in
pre-Christian times to be regarded not only as a history
of the past, but also as a sketch of the future of the
world. Thus, as the world was created in six days, its
history was to last 6000 years ; for 1000 years with God
are as one day(Ps. 9O4; Jub. 430; 2 Pet. 38); and as
God rested on the seventh day, so at the close of 6000
years there should be a rest of 1000 years — i.e., the
millennium.
2. The seven heavens. — The detailed account of the
seven heavens in this book has served to explain
difficulties in the NT conceptions of the heavens, and
has shown beyond the reach of controversy that the
sevenfold division of the heavens was believed by Paul,
by the author of Hebrews, and probably by the author
of Revelation. On the Secrets of Enoch see also
ESCHATOLOGY, § 75.
228
APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE
IV. The Ascension of Isaiah.— This apocryph
has come down to us in its entirely only in the Kthiopic
. . version. It is a composite work, as we
■f f ^f" ■ ' shall see ; and two. if not three, of
Its lortunes. j^^ constituents existed independently
U-fore ilR-ir incorporation in the present work. Of
these the oldest is undoubtedly 2i3ia and Si^-m,
which contains an account of the martyrdom of Isaiah
(cp Isaiah, i. § i. end). From this section, which is of
Jewish authorship, seem to have been derived such state-
ments as : ■ they were sawn asunder, they were tempted,
. . . they went about in sheepskins . . . being des-
titute . . . wandering in deserts and mountains' (Heb.
1137/-; cp 2io-i2 5i ^).
The next probable reference is in Justin Martyr (c. Tryph.
120), where he says : ' ye sawed (Isaiah) in twain with a wooden
saw.' So we find it in Tn. In Tertul. (Di: /•a/ienlia,li) the
reference is unmistakable, while in Orij;en the book or its
matter is discussed : it is there called airoKpxxfiov Hiraiow, or
simply anixcnxttov (A/, a^ A/ricanum,9 ; Ad Matt. 13 57
23 37 ; In Jesaiam homil. 1 5). The first reference to the
!«coii(i part (t)-ll) is in Epiph. (Htur. 40 and tiV 3), where we
are told that certain heretics made use of this work, which he
calU TO avafiaTiKOV 'Htroiov, to support their opinions. Jerome
s|>eaks of an .Isctnsio Isaur, and in the list of the Canon
edited by Montfaucon and others it is called 'llaaiov opaaif.
The various constituents of the book were written
originally in Greek. Thus, in 4 19 21 6 8 @ is
.. followed where it difl'ers from the
43. Language, ^gi^rew. Of the tireek the greater
part has come down to us in a M.S found in the National
Library in Paris, and edited by Gebhardt in Hilgenfeld's
Zeitschrift (1878) — though it is not the original work,
but a free recast and rearrangement of it (see below).
Translations from the Greek were made into Latin,
Ethiopic, and Slavonic. Of the Latin version, 6-11
44. Versions. "^T *'''''"^ '" ?^ sixteenth century
and were prmted at \ enice m 1522,
hut had long been lost to view when Gieseler re-edited
them in 1832. Two other fragments, 214-813 and
71-19. were discovered and published in 1828 by Mai.
though that editor was not aware that they belonged
to this apocryph. Happily, as remarked above, the
entire work has been preserved in Ethiopic, and on the
whole faithfully, as we can infer from the Greek and
the Latin fragments.
The sources of its corruptions are often immediately recognis-
able by retranslation into Greek. Thus in U35 the Ethiopic =
'qui se ad te .advertit,' the Latin =' praicipiens.' The original
of both is fTriTpfTToji', as we find in the Greek ; but the Kthiopic
translator has followed an inappropriate meaning. That followed
by the Latin translator is admissible ; but the context requires
the ordinary sense of <irtTpe'n-coi'= ' permitting.'
The Kthiopic version was first edited by Laurence in
1 8 19 from one MS, and afterwards in 1877 by Dillmann
from three M.S.S. To the latter edition are appended
the Latin fragments. Next year, as we have already
noticed, Gebhardt edited the Greek text. Although
a free recast of our apocryph, it is very valuable for
critical purposes, and in many respects confirins the
critical acumen of Dillmann. Still there is need of
a work which will give a text emended and corrected
with the help of this Greek MS as well as of the
Slavonic version and will deal more exhaustively with the
different elements from which the apocryph is composed.
This need Charles has tried to meet in his forthcoming
work. The Ascension of Isaiah.
Ewald was the first to recognise the composite
structure of this book, finding in it the works of three
distinct authors. Subsequent criticisms,
however, have only in part confirmed
his analysis, and the best work as yet
done in this direction is that of Dillmann. Dillmann's
hypothesis is as follows : — There were originally two
independent works : one, an account of the martyrdom
of Isaiah (2i-3i2 52-14), of Jewish origin ; the other,
the vision of Isaiah (6-11 1 23-40), of Christian author-
ship. These two works were next combined into one
volume by a Christian, who supplied them with a
prologue and an epilogue ( 1 1 / 43-13 11 42/. ). Finally,
45. Composite-
ness.
when the lx)ok had assumed this shape, another editor
inserted 1 34a 3 13-5 1 15/ 11 2-22 41. This will do as a
provisional hypothesis, but it is not final ; and Gebhardt,
Schtirer. and Deane are wrong in saying that it is
borne out by external testimony, averring that in the
Greek work there is no trace of the sections 3i3-5
11 12-22. By a minute examination of the (jreek certain
phrases which imply the author's ac(|uaintance with
81317 4 8 11 19 are discoverable (see Charles, op. cit.).
llms the final editing was completed before the
comjxjsition of the Greek legend. Further, since 813
is found in one of the Latin fragments published by
Mai, this section (i.e., 3 13-6 1) was already present
before the Latin version was made. Too much stress
must not l>e laid on the fact that 1 1 2-22 is represented
in the Latin version by only a few lines ; for it is
characteristic of this version to abridge the text it is
rendering.
The following is an outline of the contents of tlic
book.
In the twenty-sixth year of his reign Hezekiah summ-ns
Maoassch in order to entrust to him certain writings toiicliing
the future (1 1-6). Isaiah foretells to Hezc-
46. ContOntB. ki.T.h his martyrdom at the hands of Manasseh
(1 7-13). On the death of Hezekiah, Manasseh
abandons the service of (iod for that of Satan ; and thus, owing
to the evils perpetrated in Jerusalem, Isaiah and other prophets
withdraw into the wilderness (2). Thereupon Halkira, a
Samaritan, accuses Isaiah and the prophets of prophesying
evil things against the king and the people. .\s Herial h.is
fained possession of the king's heart, the king sends and sti/cs
saiah (3 1-12). There is a sudden break in the narrative
here (the conclusion of the martyrdom of Isaiah follows in
62-14), to explain the reason of Berial's anger — viz., Isaiah's
vision and the revel.ition in which he laid bare the future rule
and destruction of Sammael, as w'ell as the cominp redemption
by Christ. In fact, we have the' history of the Christian Church
summarised briefly from the coming of Christ to the Neronic
persecution and the last judgment (313-61). In this short
apocalypse we have the account of an eye-witness of the condition
of the early Church, 50-80 a.d. Church organisation is still
in its infancy ; the rulers are called presbyters and p.xstors ;
bishops are nowhere mentioned. There are disputes alicjut the
second advent ; prophecy has not yet disappeared ; the vice and
greed of the Christian teachers are unsparingly dealt with.
The writer feels that the end is at hand. On 52-14, see above.
With 6 begins the vision which Isaiah saw in the
twentieth year of the reign of Hezekiah ; he discloses it to the
king and to Josab his son. In this vision Isaiah is conducted
by an angel through the firmament and the six lower heavens,
and is shown the chief wontlers in each ("_/;). Next he is raised
to the seventh heaven, where he sees all the righteous from
Adam downwards. He is then told of the coming advent of
the Belovedinto the world, and of his crucifixion and resurrection.
Finally, he sees the Beloved in the form of an angel, and
likewise the Holy Spirit in the same form, and ' the Great
Glory ' — i.e., God — worshipped by the Beloved and the Spirit
(9). In 10, Isaiah hears God commissioning his Son to descend
into the world, and thereupon follows an account of this descent.
In the concluding chapter are revealed the birth of Jesus and
the history of his life on earth down to his crucifixion and
resurrection and ascension through the seven heavens to his
seat at the right hand of t'.od.
The Martyrdom of Isaiah proper (2 1-3 12 52-14), which
is of Jewish authorship, was written some time in the
_ . first century of our era ; the Vision (6-11)
■ * ■ probably about its close ; and the apocalyptic
section {3t3-5i) circa 50-80 A. D.
For additional bibliography on this book, see Schurer, Ilisi.
6 145-146 ; Charles, The Asicnsion of Isniah.
V. The Book of Juhilees.— The Book of Jubilees,
which is really a haggadic cotnmentary on CJeiicsis, is
P , , miportant as being the chief monument
_■,.. _ (practically the sole monument) of legal
Ju 1 ees , j^^j^ Pharisaism belonging to the century
1 8 va ue. ininiediately preceding the Christian era.
Just as we have the other side of Pharisaism, its
apKjcalyptic and mystical side, represented in the Book
of F.noch, so here we have its natural complement in
the hard and inexorable legalism to whose yoke, accord-
ing to the author, creation was subject from the beginning
and must be subject for evermore.
Jubilees is not only indispensable to students of the
NT and of the history of the Pharisaic movement : it
is likewise of first-class importance as a witness to the
readings of the Hebrew text of Gepesis about the
APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE
beginning of the Christian era. In this resjject it
comes next in worth to (55 and the Samaritan text, and
presents us with much earUer readings than are to l)e
found in the Syr. or Lat. versions, or in Targ. Onk.
In the matter of determining the respective values of
the Samaritan, (P, and Massoretic chronologies its
evidence will be practically of decisive weight.
This book has been variously named at different
stages of its career. Its original name seems to have
M ^^'*-'" 'Jubilees,' and not the 'Book of
**• *'*™®- Jubilees.' So we find it in the Syriac
fragment, and likewise in Epiplianius, where it is desig-
nated rd 'lu)(iri\aia or ol 'lulirjXatoi.
It is also called ^ Aen-Ti) r<Ve<ris in Kpiphanius, Syncellus,
and others -a title pointing back to kqii riTNna- This name
was given to it not because of its smaller bulk — for it is greater
than that of thccanonical (lenesis— but on the ground of its inferior
authority. Other variations of this title are Miicpo-yeVeo-is and
TO. KtiTTo. Vevfdeuii. In the .Abyssinian Church it is named
the ' Hook of the Division,' from the first words of the in.scription
at the beginning ; and we find still other designations. "Thus,
in the decree of Gelasius, according to Ronsch's emendation,
we find ' l.iber de filiabus .Vdae, hoc est Leptogenesis.' This
name, as Ceriani observed, was given to the book because it
contains the names of all the Patriarchs' wives and assigns
them a prominent role in the course of events— a view that is
confirmed by the Syriac fragment. Again, it seems to be
identified by Syncellus with ' the so-called Life of Adam ' —
6 Aeydfiei'os pioi '\&dfi. ", — for he cites as from that book three
pass.iges that occur in Jubilees. This Li/e of Adam may have
been identical with a part of Jubilees, or a later enlargement of
a portion of it. Jubilees is once described as the 'Testament
of .Moses," an4 once as the ' Apocalypse of Moses, but only by
very late writers.
Such being the origin of Jubilees and the conditions
under which it was produced, it was naturally written
^ in the sacred language of Palestine.
gu g . Qj- ^j^jg ^^ have direct testimony in Jer.
£■/. 78, ad FaHolam, mansioric i8, where he discusses
a Hebrew word for which he could cite no authority
save that of this book. The entire cast and the idiom
of the book confirm the statement of Jerome.
We have further testimony to the .same effect in the title of
the Syriac fragment, in which the present book is design.ated
'The Hebrew l?ook called Jubilee.s.' It is, further, impossible
to deal with the textual corruptions unle.ss we deal with them on
this presupposition. In the case of many of these it is only
necessary to retranslate them into Hebrew in order to discover
the original misconception or misreading of the Greek translator.
Some interesting transliterations of Hebrew words, moreover,
still survive in the text.
Finally, fragments of the Hebrew original have come down
to us embedded in the Midrashim. In these at times an entire
sentence survives, preserving not only the words, but even
their original order, as we can infer from the evidence of the
versions.
There were probably four versions of Jubilees —
Greek, .Syriac, Kthiopic, and Latin. The first two were
made from the original Hebrew. Of
the Greek only some fragments have
come down to us in Ki^iphanius and through such
annalists as Syncellus and Cedrenus. Of the Syriac
only a small fragment, containing the names of the
Patriarchs' wives and a few other facts, survives.
The Kthiopic and the Latin versions were made from
the Greek version, not from the original text. The
_.. . . former survives almost in its entirety,
" ■ and from an exhaustive comparison of
the Ix-'st attainable text with all existing materials we
find that it is most accurate and trustworthy. It is,
indeed, as a rule, servilely literal.
It has, of course, suffered from the corruptions naturally
incidental to transmission through MSS ; but it is singularly free
from the glos.ses and corrections of unscrupulous scribes, though
the temptation to bring it into accord with the Kthiopic ver-
sion of Genesis must have been great. Only in about a dozen
instances did the temptation prove too great, with the result
that changes were introduced into the text in subservience to
that version.
Of the Latin version (made, as we have seen, from
, ^. the Greek) more than a fourth has been
63. Latin. , '
preserved.
First published in i86i by Ceriani (,Moh. sacra et prof.
torn. I, fasc. I, pp. 15-62), it was next edited with great
learning by Ronsch in \%T\(I)as Buck dcr Juh. unt. Beifug.
d. revidirten Testes dcr . . . lat. Fragiiiente). Ronsch
231
61. Versions.
55. Date.
emended the text in many passages ; but as he was not aware
that it had been corrected in conformity both with © and
with the Vg., and as^ further, he Wad only a late representative
of the ICthiopic version before him, his work is defective and
far from final. A critically revised text of these fragments is
given in Charles's edition of the Kthiopic text.
The Kthiopic MSS, of which there are four, belong respect-
ively to the National Library in l'aris(.\), the British Museum
(H), the University Library in Tubingen (C),
64. Text of and to M. d'Abbadie (D). B is by far the
Jubilees, most valuable ; next in value comes A ; C and
D are late and very corrupt. In addition to
these MSS, however, there is a vast wealth of materials for
the criticism and reconstruction of the text in the Mas. and
Sam. Texts, and in the Gr., Syr., Aram., and Lat. versions of
Genesis ; in the fragments of the Greek, Syriac, and Latin
versions of Jubilees mentioned above ; and in abundant other
documents of a less directly serviceable nature. _ (a) The
Kthiof>ic Text has been edited twice — first by Di. in 1859 from
two MSS (C, D), and next, by the present writer from \, B, C,
D.l Though Di. made no use of the critical materials just
enumerated in the formation of his text, and it was, accord-
ingly, in no .sense a critical edition, it was a great boon to
scholars at the time. (b) Three translations have ap-
peared : the first by Di. in 1850 from one MS (i.e., C) ; the
.second by Schodde {BiH. Sacra, 1885) from Di.'s edition of
the text ; and the third by the present writer {JQ/^, 1894,
1895) from the text published in 1895 referred to above.
Jubilees cannot have been written later than 70 A.D. ;
for the temple is throughout supposed to be standing.
As the book repeatedly uses Enoch (1-3G
72-104), it cannot have lx.-en written much
before 60 B.C. Though there is some evidence that
would place it nearer the earlier than the later date,
we shall leave the date undefined for the present.
__ . .. The author was a Palestinian Jew and
66. Author. T1U
a Pharisee.
Frankel's view {MGli'/, 1856, pp. 3"-3'6, 38o-40o)that it was
written by a Hellenistic Jew belonging to Kgypt is rendered un-
tenable by the fact that it was written originally in Hebrew. Nor
can the writer have been a Samaritan, as Beer supposes {Das Buck
derjuh., 1856 ; Noch ein Wort Hb. d. Buck derjub., 1857) ; for,
whereas the text agrees in turn with MT, ©, Syr. Vg., with
Onkelos, and even with the Ar. against all the rest, it never, strange
to say, agrees thus with the Samaritan. This evidence is con-
clusive in itself; but we might further observe that, in speaking
of the four places most favoured of God in all the earth, the
author enumerates Eden, Sinai, Zion, and the mountain in the
E.xst, but not Gerizim. Again, that he is not a Sadducee is proved
by the fact th.-it he believes in angels and in the immortality
of the soul. Nor, finally, was he an Kssene ; for, though some
characteristics (a highly-developed angelology, the doctrine of
the immortality of the soul without the resurrection of the body,
the exaggerated reverence for the Sabbath and the number
seven) would seem to argue an Kssene origin, such an origin
is absolutely precluded by the enforcement of animal sacrifice
and the absolute silence as to the washings and purifications
that were of such importance among the Kssenes. 1 hus, though
in some legal questions of less moment (Beer, Das Bucli der
Juh.) the author's views are at variance with traditional Pharisa-
ism, in all essentials he isemphaticallyaPharisceof the Pharisees.
That Palestine was the home of the author is deducible
in the first instance from the language in which he
wrote. A Hellenistic Jew would not have written in
Hebrew. Again (not to press other details), the duty
of absolute separation from the heathen, which is re-
peatedly enforced, would have been impossible of fulfil-
ment for any Jew outside Palestine.
There are several lacunce in the book ; but as far as
evidence is forthcoming, these seem to
67. Integrity. ^ ^.^^^^^ ^ j^ppg^^rs, on the other
hand, to be free from interpolations.
.\ curious phenomenon, however, presents itself in chap. 7.
Verses 20-39 '^^^ 'o '^*= ^" extract from the Book or .\pocalypse of
Noah, be^mning in an indirect form with t. 20 and changing
into the direct with v. 26, whence to the end Noah admonishes
his sons in the first person. These verses are similar to the
Noachic interpolations in the Book of Knoch (see above, § 24).
The contents of Jubilees may be briefly described as
a haggadic commentary on the biblical text, from the
KB n \ ♦ creation of the world to the institution
88. contents ^^ ^^^ Pas.sover, in the spirit, and from
and character. ^^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^.■^^^. ^^ ,_^^^^ Judaism. Its
aim is to prove the everlasting validity of the law. The
work assumes the form of a revelation to Moses, made on
Mt. Sinai by the ' angel of the presence ' in the first year
1 The Eth. J'ers. of the Heb. Book of Jubilees, ed. from four
MSS. R. H. Charles, M.A., 1895. Clar. Press, Oxford.
APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE
of the Kxodus. The author thereby seeks to secure a
divine sanction for the additions he makes to the bibhcal
narrative. Anmng these the most important novelty
is his chronological system.
In this system the basis of rcckonine is the jubilee period of
forty-nine yc.-irs. This jubilee period is subdivided into seven
year-weeks of seven years each. Hence, in ordtr to dale any
event exactly, the author determines it as occurring on a certain
day of a certain month of a certain year in a certain year-week
of a certain jubilee period. Fifty of these jubilee periods are
assumed as the interval between the creation and the entrance
of the Israelites into Canaan. His year strangely consists of
fifty-twowecks(;>., 364 days), and, in opposition to the Pharisaism
of his time, he claims that the year sliould Iw regulated by the
movements of the sun without reference to those of the moon.
The dates assigned to the various events, though presenting
many difTiculties, favour in the main the Samaritan chronology.
Another object of the author is to carry the Jewish
cultus back into the patriarchal or even pre-Adamite
jK-riod.
Thus we are ^iven to understand that the angels observed the
rite of circumcision ; while, as regards the great annual festivals,
the Feast of Weeks was observed by Noah and .\bram, the Feast
of Tabernacles was first celebrated by .\bram about the time of
the birth of Isaac, and the Day of Atonement was established
by Jacob in memory of the loss of Joseph. .Again, the law
regarding the purification of women after childbirth (I^v. 1'2) is
traced to the fact that Adam was created in the first week and
Kve in the second ; to this is due the command ' Seven days for
a man-child and two weeks for a maid-child.'
Certain variations from the prescribed ritual are observable in
relation to the festivals. Thus, the injunction of fasting on the
Day of .\tonement and the exclusion of the uncircumciscd from
tlic Passover .ire omitted ; while in the case of the Fe.ist of
Tabernacles there is no reference to the custom of drawing water
from the pool of Siloam and pouring it out upon the altar.
Though in the last instance the author agrees w^th the Sadducees,
it must be admitted that the practice was a Pharisaic innovation
and that the Sadducees had the law on their side.
.\nolher notable characteristic of the work is the in-
creasotl rigour of many of the Levitical ordinances.
Thus, the man who eats blood is to be utterly destroyed, and
the father wlio gives his daughter, or the brother who gives his
sister, in marri.age to a heathen, is to be stoned to death, and the
woman to be burned. Death is to l>e the universal penalty
for breaking the Sabbath ; and the Sabbath is broken by buying
or selling, by lighting a fire, by drawing water, by talking of an
intended journey, or by lying with one's wife.
Another no less interesting characteristic is the care
either to leave unrecorded or to palliate the faults of the
Patriarchs as well as to multiply their virtues.
Thus, from the first they were scrupulous observers of the ritual
and ceremonial law before its authoritative promulgation on
Sinai. There is no mention made of Abram's deceit at the court
of Pharaoh ; Jacob's answer to Isaac's question ' Art thou my
very son Ksau ? ' is cleared from verbal falsehood by representing
him as answering ' I am thy son. This quibble is found likewise
in the Talmud, and may therefore have been a stock interpretation
of Jewish exegesis. Again, whereas in Genesis Levi is cursed
for his share in the destruction of Shechem, in Jubilees he is
highly honoured for the same action and his posterity elected to
an everlasting priesthood. We find the same view taken by
Philo (De Ebrietate, 23).
Akin to the aim just described is the attempt to
justify from the standpoint of a later age the severities
practised by Israel in their conquest of C^anaan.
It is a Jewish prototype of Rousseau's Social Contract. .Thus
it is represented that, in the presence of an angel, Noah divided
the earth by lot amongst his three sons, and bound them and
tlieir successors by the most sacred oaths to observe the arrange-
ment. Destruction was invoked on the head of him who trans-
pressed it. According to the sequel, Canaan seized upon Shem's
inheritance ; and thus our author justifies the extermination of
his descendants by Israel.
As has alreadybeen pointed out, though the immortality
of the soul is taught, there is no resurrection of the body.
In the restored theocracy that is foreshadowed there may
be a Messiah. See, futnher, Escii.vroi.cxJV, § 72.
For the literature of this book .see Ronsch, Das liuch dcr Jub.
422-439; Schurer in loc. ; Charles, '/'//<■ Hook of JuhiUes.
VI. The Assumi'tion of Mosks.— Of this book.
which from the twelfth century was regarded as lost, a
. large fragment was rediscovered by
09 Assumpl. <^.eriani in the Ambrosian Library in
raoB. . Its j^^ji^j^ ^^j published by him in 1861
lortunes. ^ ,^^^^ ^^^^^ j ^^^^ ; pp j-.g^). This
fragment was part of an old Latin version, and is
written on a palimpsest of the sixth century — the same
MS thai contains the Latin version of Jubilees —
which originally Ijehjnged to the monastery of llobbio.
Before this discovery, however, we were, from various
sources, in some degree acquainted with the contents of
the lxx)k.
Thus, the account of the strife l>etween the archangel Michael
and .Satan alxiut the bodv of Moses was drawn, as we know
(Origen, De Princip.Zix), from the apocryphal book entitled
\XiK Asctmio Mosis—i.e.,a.viXif^<.'i Muvtrc'uf. Many other writers
testify to the existence of this apocryph. Besides the reference
already noticed in Origen, there are other references or
citations in Clem. Alex. (.V/rcJW*. 1 23 153 0 15 132); in Origen
(In Josuam liotnii.'li), Didymus Alex. (/« ep. Juti. inanat.
in Gallandi, lUblioth. J'alr. t) 307), in Kvodius, Apollinaris, the
Stichometries, and in the Acta Synoiti Nktrm/-, 'J 18. This l.l^t
reference must be given in full as the passage quoted is fiiuiKl in
Ceriani'sfr.igment,— MfAAuifon-pw^jiTT;? Miuucni^ ifiiyairovPiuv,
(i>( ytypairrai iv ^ip\if 'AvaATJt(itu)^ Muvo'cuif, irpo<r<taA»(ru/iifi-os
'Irjaouv vibi' Nauij (ca'i iioAtyo/iecos irpot avTOV «</ii} " (toi npotBcd.-
<raTO ixt 6 fl<bs jrpo Kara/SoAi^^ xbir/iov •Ii'ot fit TTJt ito^jjicij? ainoii
li.«Tin)v. The words quoted are thus rendered in the l-itin
fragment (1 14) : Itaque excogitavit et invttiit me, qui al> initio
orbis terrarum pra:paratus sum, ut sim arbiter testamenti illiii-..
The rest of the quotations are in the main from the part of this
book which is lost.
Of the derivation of our Latin text from the Grt< k
there can be no question. Thus Greek words are traiis-
.... literated ; as chedrio from K(5p6u 1 17.
* ■ , /tere/// us {romtpijfjiOiS 11, c/idsishomOXixfii
p^ , 87, and acroHstia from aKpo^varia b ^.
' Again, we are not infretjuently obliged Ut
adopt not the Latin text but the Greek it presupposes,
which has been misrendered by the translator. Thus
' ab oriente uscjue ad occidentcm,' which means 'from
the east to the west,' is derived from d(p' i]\iov dvartX-
\ovTos l^ixP'- dvofx^vov, which means also ' from sum ibc
to sunset '^the meaning required by our context. lor
similar instances see 11 11 18. Finally, retranslalion into
Greek makes it evident that in the c;\se of some cor-
ruptions in the Latin the error arose through the con-
fusion of different though similar forms of words ; cp
27 84 56 11 16. In 4 I we have the Greek article rendered
by /lie.
The derivation of our text from a Semitic original was
Stoutly denied by N'olkmar, Hilgenfeld, and others.
This position, however, can no longer \x
61. Meore'W pgr^gvered in. A Semitic original nmst
onginal. ^^^^. ^ conceded. It remains a matter
of debate whether the balance of evidence is in favour
of an Aramaic or of a Hebrew source. Rosenthal
decides for the latter; Schmidt- Merx, Colani, and
Carriere for the former. Notwithstanding all that has
been advanced by these three scholars, however, in
support of their contention, the evidence points decidedly
in the direction of a Hebrew original.
Rosenthal restores three or four passages by means of retrans-
lation into Hebrew. In Charles's Assumption o/Mosts (1897)
the necessity of such an hypothesis is shown alike in the Hebrew
character of the Latin version and in the possibility of removing
most of its corruptions by means of retranslation into Hebrew.
Thus in ((36 we must follow the Hebrew presupposed by the
Latin ; next, in l> 4 there is a play upon words po.ssible only in the
Hebrew ; .again, there are Hebrew phrases and constructions
reproduced in I 18 24 7 83 12 t) i 102. Finally, it is only through
retranslation into Hebrew that we can understand the text ur
get rid of its corruptions in 49 5 5 10 9 10 16 12 7.
Schiirer has already jxiinted out (///.>/. 882) that the
Latin version we pos.sess is in reality a ' Testament of
Moses,' although ()UOted in the .Acts of
62. Real name
Test. Moses.
the Council of Niciea as the AvdXTj^ts
Mti>i'(r^<«)S, and has conjectured that
' these designations were the titles of two separate
divisions of one and the same work, the first of which
has been preserved, whereas the quotations in the Fathers
almost all belong to the second.' The piesent writers
studies tend in some degree to support this conjecture.
Thus in the Latin version (1 15 and 10 14) Moses siicaks of his
death as an ordinar>- one, and the same fact undoubtedly was
stated in 10 12 before it was interpol.-ited by the editor who joined
the ' Testament " and the ' .Vs-sumption of .Moses ' into one I 00k.
Thus in 10 12 the text is: 'erunt enim a morte— rcceptione —
m(ea) usque ad adventum lUius tempora CCL.' Schmidt-NIerx
omit ' morte,' and Hilgenfeld omits ' receptione," these critics
failing to see that 'rcceptione' was introduced by the final
234
APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE
editor into the text of the 'Testament' which recounted nothing
of Moses' Assumption, in order to prepare the reader for
the main subject of the added work, the ' Assumption of
Moses.'
Schurer apparently assumes that both the ' Testament '
and the ' Assumption ' were from one and the same
autlior ; but the facts stated above are against this sup-
position. The Latin fragment is the AiaO-^Kri Mwi/a^wj
mentioned in the Stichometry of Nicephorus. It is
there said to consist of iioo lines. Of these about half
have survived. Some writers have sought to identify
this ' Testament ' with the Book of Jubilees. This is
impossible. Since 4300 lines are assigned to Genesis
in Nicephorus' Stichometry, this ' Testament of Moses '
would have above 5000 or 6000 if it were the
Book of Jubilees, for the latter is much longer than
Genesis.
About one-half of the original Testament has been
preserved by ourl^atin N'ersion.^ It is possible that the
latter half dealt with certain revelations about
63. Lost
portion.
creation made by Moses, and that it closed
with his disappearance in a cloud, so that his
death was hid from human sight.
We make this conjecture on the ground of the following
statement in .in old Catena on the Pentateuch (Fabric. CoiY.
Psc'utf. l^.T.ii. 121-122). ' Est quidem in apocrypho mysticoque
codice legere, ubi t/e creatis rebus subtiiius agitw, nuhein
lucidam, quo tempore mortuus est Moses, locum sepulchri com-
plexam oculos circumstantium perstrinxis.se ita, ut nullus neque
morientem legislatorem necjue locum videre potuerit, ubi cadaver
conderetur.' On the 'bright cloud' see also Jos. A>U. iv.
849.
On the question of the date of the Assumption of
Moses the opinions of critics oscillate between the
fi4 n t death of Herod the Great and the death of
■ * *■ Bar-Cochba. The later date is impossible.
Ewald, Wieseler, Drummond, Dillmann, and Schurer
assign it to the first decade after Herod's death ;
Hilgenfeld assigns it to 44-45 .\.D. ; Mer.K to 54-64
.\.D. , and so also Fritzsche ; Baldensperger to 50-70
A.o. On various grounds all these determinations are
unsatisfactory. The real date appears to lie between
4 B.C. and 30 A.D. It cannot be later than 30 A.D.
Towards the close of chap. 6 it is stated that the sons of
Herod should reign for a shorter period {breviora tempera)
than their father — -a statement that could have been
made only while they were still living, since it is true of
Archelaus alone ; for .Antipas reigned forty-three years,
Philip thirty-seven, and Herod himself only thirty-four.
The book must, therefore, have been written at the
latest less than thirty -four years after Herod's death
(4 B.C.) — i.e., earlier, at all events, than 30 A.D. The
limits may, however, be defined more closely ; for the pre-
diction that Herod's sons should rule for shorter periods
than their father, may owe its origin to the general
expectation that the sons of such a wicked king could
not long preserve their authority, but still more to the
actual deposition of Archelaus in 6 A.D. — an event that
would naturally be construed by our author in the
light of a divine judgment and suggest to him the
prediction that appears in the text as to the impending
fate of Philip and -Vntipas. Hence the earliest limit of
comp>osition is 7 A.n.
As for the author, he was not a Sadducee ; for
according to chap. 10 he looks forward to the establish-
fifi Author "^^"* °*^ ''^'^ -Messianic kingdom by God in
■ person. Nor is it possible, with Wieseler
and Schiirer, to regard him as a Zealot ; for ( i ) there
is not a single incentive held forth to encourage men
to take arms in behalf of the theocracy; (2) the
actual advent of the kingdom is brought about,
not by any action of the righteous in Israel, but
^ It is to be remarked that we have in this Latin Fragment a
clear instance of dislocation of the text. The perception of this
fact removes some of the main difficulties in the way of inter-
pretation. In order to recover the original order, we have
to restore 8 yC to their original position, before 6. For the
grounds of this restoration of the text, see the present writer's
edition of the book.
as.";
by the archangel Michael (10 1-2) and God himself
(IO3-7) ; (3) the author's ideal of duty as regards pre-
paration for the Messianic kingdom is that depicted in
9 — i.e. , absolute obedience to the law and non-resistance.
The faithful Israelite was quietly to do his duty and
await God's will. The writer, accordingly, glorifies the
old ideals cherished and pursued by the Hasid and
Early Pharisaic party, which the Pharisaism of the
first century B.C. had begun to disown in favour of a
more active role in the life of the nation. See § 81.
God would in his own good time interpose in person
(10); at all events, he would avenge the death of
his servants (9;). Our author pours the most scathing
invective on his religious and political opponents, the
Sadducees, whom in 7 he describes in terms that
freciuently recall the anti-Sadduccan Pss. of Solomon.
(Through some ine.xplicable misapprehension, Schiirer
and others have regarded this chapter as a description
of the Pharisees. ) The author, therefore, was a
Pharisee, and a Pharisee who was the antithesis of the
Zealot exactly in those respects in which Pharisaism
differed from Zealotism. His book was designed as a
protection against the growing secularisation of the
Pharisaic party through its adoption of political ideals
and popular Messianic beliefs. To guard against the
possible suggestion of an Essene author, we may remark
that such a derivation is absolutely precluded by the
recognition of animal sacrifices, by the declaration of
the speedy coming of the Messianic or Theocratic
kingdom, and by the strong sense of national life, unity,
and triumph. See Charles's T/te Assumption of Moses,
pp. 51-54 ; and cp Eschatology, § 73.
The following is an outline of the contents of Ass. Moses
I1-9: Introduction. 10-17 Moses tells Joshua that he is
about to die, and commits certain books of prophecies to his
.safekeeping. In 2y; the subsequent history
66. Contents, of Israel down to the captivity is briefly but
clearly outlined. In their captivity the
tribes remember that all that had befallen them had already been
foretold by Moses. In 4, owing to the prayers of one who is
over them (Daniel), God will take pity on them and raise up a
king (Cyrus) who will re.store some fr.igments of their tribes to
their own land. These will mourn because of their inability
to sacrifice to the God of their father.s. Judgment (5 i) will
overtake their oppres.sors (the .Seleucid kings). Yet they them-
selves (the Sadducees and the Hasids) will be divided as to
what is true, and the altar and temple will be defiled by men
who are not priests (as Menelaus, who was a Benjamite), but
slaves born of slaves (5 2-4) (the pagani.sing high-priests who
were nominees of the Seleucidae), and many of them (the Sad-
ducean priesthood and aristocracy), moreover, will be respecters
of persons and unjust, and their country will be filled with
unrighteousness (55-6). Then (81-5) a fresh vengeance will
alight upon them, in which the king of kings (.\ntiochus) will
crucify tho.se who confess to their circumcision, and force them
to bear on their .shoulders impure idols, and to blaspheme
the word. A man of the tribe of Levi (0 1-7), whose name
is Taxo {i.e., Eleazar [2 Mac. 0 19] ; for, as Burkitt has dis-
covered, Taxo is a mistake for Taxoc = Taf(i)<c = pia3n which by
gemetria = -itl;'?K)> *>'• say to his .seven .sons : ' Let us fast three
days, and on the fourth let us go into a cave which is in the
field and die, rather than transgress the commands of the God
of our fathers.' In G 1-7 we are told of the assumption of royal
power by the Maccabees, and of Herod as their succes.sor who
IS to reign for thirty-four years. He will beget sons, who will
reign as his succes.sors, but for shorter periods. Then follows
((iSyC) the capture of Jerusalem by a king of the west (V.irus).
Soon after, Judaea becomes a Roman province. The author
next launches out into a scathing denunciation of the Sadducees,
of whose injustice, greed, and gluttony we have an account in 7.
Thereupon (lOi-io) the times are fulfilled, and God appears to
judge the enemies of Israel (10). Moses is then represented as
exhorting Joshua to guard these words and this book (10 11).
When Joshua deplores his inability to lead Israel (11), Mo.ses bids
him not to depreciate himself and not to despair of the future of
his people (12). Here the fragment ends.
Ceriani, Mon. Sacr. vol. i. fasc. i (1861); Hilgenfeld,
Messias Juderorum (1869), 43';-468, cp Prol. 70-76, and
Clem. Rom. Epist.'i' (1876), io7-it!5; Volkmar,
67. BibliO- Mose Prophetieund Himmel/ahrt(x'&bi)\^QVm\6.\.
eranhv and Merx {.A>v/iiv /. iviss. Er/orsihung dts
* ^ ^' ATs, I. ii. 111-152, 1868); Fritzsche, Libri
Apoc. VT (1871), 700-730; cp Prol. 32-36; Drummond, The
J enuish Messiali(\%Tf), 74-84 ; Baldensperger, Das Selbstbevmsst-
sein JesH (1888), 23-31, 114-118; Deane, Pseudepigr. (1891),
05-130; .Schurer, hiist. 67^-83; Charles, The Ass. of Mos.
(iSgy). For complete bibliography, see the two works last
mentioned.
836
APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE
VII. The Testaments OF THE XII. Pairiarchs. —
The earliest reference to this Jxjok by name is in
_ .. Origen in his Horn, in Josuam, 156 (Ed.
n * ■*"" I-oinmatzsch 11 143) : ' in aliquo quodam
Jratr. ; its
fortunes.
lilx;llo qui appellatur testanicntuni duo-
decini patriarcharum, quamvis non habca-
tur in canone, talem tanien quendani sensum inveninms,
quod per singulos jjeccantes siiiguli Satana; intelligi
del)eant' (cp Reuljen 3). It is possible, indeed, that in
the preceding century the ideas of Fragment 17 in
Stieren's edition of Iren;i:us (18,56-837) are derived
from this took — t'f ili;' 6 Xpicrris TrpcxTvtrwdri Kal
iircyviJoaOri Kal iytwrjOr]' iv fiiu yap t<^ 'Iwariif) irpoerv-
■nuidrf 4k S^ toO Aei'i Kal toO 'loi''5a r6 Kara adpKO., ws
§aai\ivs Kal lepfvi iytw^Or) ' 5m 5^ tou i^i/^f tj" 4v rcjj
vaiii (TTfyvuxxdr] . . . 5ia Si tov Befiafiiv, tov Ilai'Xoi',
fh irdvTa rbv Kbafxov Krjpvx^fli iSo^dcOr}. This con-
junction of Simeon and Levi is found in Sim. 7 ; I-ev.
2 8 ; Dan 5 ; Gad 8 ; Jos. 19 ; lienj. 11. Since, how-
ever, it is now demonstrable that the Christian elements
in the Testaments are due to interpolation, it is not
possible at the present stage of criticism to determine
the relative chronology of these elements and the
writings of Irenitus.
The passages in TertuUian Adv. Marc. 5 1, Scorpiace 13,
wliich most critics from Clraho onwards have regarded as based
on lienj. 11, are due, as Schiirer has already recognised, simply
to the patristic interpretation of Gen. 41t 27. This eleventh chap,
of Benj., which contains the striking account of Paul, is not
found in the .\rmenian version, and is for the most part wanting
in the Greek MS R. On these and on other grounds we may
safely regard it us one of the latest of the Christian interpola-
tions.
There is possibly an allusion to this book in the con-
temptuous words of Jerome, Adv. Vigilant. 6. The
Testaments are next mentioned in the Stichometry of
Nicephorus, in the Synopsis Athanasii as well as in the
anonymous list of books edited by Montfaucon, Petra,
and others. In these lists the book is simply calletl
ITaTpidpxtt'' After this date the Testaments are lost to
knowledge till their reappearance in the thirteenth
century, when Robert Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln,
translated them from Greek into Latin. The MS
from which the translation was made is the tenth
century Cambridge MS of this book (Sinker). This
Latin version was the parent of almost all the European
versions.
The work consists, as its present title indicates, of
the dying commands of the twelve sons of Jacob to their
_.. . children. I2ach Testament deals with a fresh
■ and special side of the ethical life, with some
virtue or vice which finds apt illustration in the life of
the particular patriarch. Thus, according to the titles
in .Sinker's text, Simeon deals with the vice of envy,
Zebulun with compassion and mercy, Dan with anger
and lying. Gad with hatred, Joseph with chastity, and
Benjamin with a pure mind. These titles are appro-
priate ; but in manuscripts O and R all mention of
the virtues and vices is omitted ; in P they are
generally wanting, and when they are given they differ
in all but two instances from Sinker's text, while in the
Armenian version they are wanting in Simeon, Issachar,
Zebulun, and Benjamin; for 'concerning chastity' in
the title of the Test. Joseph we have ' concerning envy ' ;
they differ in the case of Levi, (iad, and Asher ; only
in the case of Judah do they give a divided support
to the Cambridge MS, which Sinker follows. We may,
therefore, regard the title of each Testament as origin-
ally consisting of the word Ata^^KTj, followed by the
name of the patriarch to whom it was attributed.
It is possible, moreover, that the title was originally still
shorter—/.^. , as we find it in the Oxford MS, merely the
name of the patriarch. The fact that in the Sticho-
metry of Nicephorus and in the Synopsis Athanasii,
as well as in the anonymous list of books edited by
Montfaucon, Petra, and others, this book as a whole
is designated simply IIarpidpx«' points in the same
direction ; and this evidence is the more weighty since
237
the adjoining books in these lists have their full titles
given. This supposition receives further support from
the initial words of the Testaments themselves. In the
case of seven of the Testaments the contents are simply
described as the \l/yoi of the Patriarchs, which they
spake or ordained (XaXeti', dirtlv, or SiaridfaOai) before
they died. It is only in the ca.se of the remaining five
that each is descrilx.'d ;is a SiadriKr; which the patriarch
i spake, enjoined, or ordained (XoXeTi/, dirfiv, ivriWfaOai,
I SiariOfffdai.). It is probable, theiefore, that the original
title of the entire lx)ok was ' The Twelve Patriarchs."
In tiie next place, it is noteworthy that in each of the
Testaments three elements are distinguishable. ( i ) In
70. Contents.
each instance the patriarch gives a brief
or detailed account of his life, in which
his particular virtues or vices are vigorously empl asiseil.
The biblical notices of his life are expanded and en-
riched after the manner of haggadic Midrash. In a
few instances their place is taken by materials that
conHict directly with the biblical narrative. (2) The
patriarch next proceeds to press upon his children a
series of exhortations based upon and naturally sug-
gested by the virtues or the vices conspicuous in his
own career ; they are to imitate the one and to shun
the other. (3) l-'inally, the patriarch gives utterance to
certain predictions which bear upon the future of his
descendants, and the evils of overthrow and captivity
which they will entail upon themselves by their sins and
apostasies, and their broach with the tribes of Levi and
Judah. These predictions are generally (a) of purely
Jewish authorship ; but many are (i) distinctively
Christian.
To account for the difficulties which confront us in
this work, Grabe (Spicileg. Patrum'^-^ [1714], 1 129-144
71 Com- 335-374) was the first to suggest that the
■.. " book was written by a Jew and subse-
pOBlteness. ^^^^^^^, interpolated by a Christian. This
hypothesis was for the time so successfully combated
by Corrodi (A'r//. Gcsc.h. des Chiliasmus, 2ioi-iio) that
most subsequent writers, such as Nitzsch, Liicke, Ritschl,
Vorstman, Hilgenfeld, Dillmann, and Sinker, have
practically ignored the question of the integrity of the
book and confined themselves mainly to the discussion
of the religious and national affinities of the author.
Nitzsch (/A- Ttst. xii. Patriarch, litro I'T psnid., Witten-
berg, 1810) describes the author as a Jewish Christian of Alex-
andria who had imbibed many of the Essene doctrines that were
then current. Ritschl {Entstch. der altkathol. Kirdte, 1. Aufl.
322 ^) assigns the book to a Gentile Christian, appealing
principally to Benj. 11 (a chapter really due to Christian inter-
polation : see 8 68). Ritschl's view w.-is vigorously assailed by
Kayser (' Die Test. d. Zwulf Patr.' in Reuss and Cunitz's Hcitr.
zu den theol. Wisscnscha/tcn [i?5il, 107-140), who on several
grounds derives the book from Ebionitic circles, reviving on a
large scale Grabe 's theory of interpolation in order to arrive at
this result. Kayser's treatise was in turn examined by Vorstman
(^De Test. xii. Patriarcharum origine et prctio, 1857), who,
after a det.ailed criticism of Kayser's arguments, concluded that
the Testaments present no trace of Ebionism, but were the work
of a CJentile Christian. Hardly had Vorstman thus vindicated
the view of Ritschl when a second edition of this schol.y's
work (see above) appeared, in which his former contention
(pp. 172-177) was abandoned as impossible, and the theory of a
Nazarene authorship was advocated. Ritschl's first view, how-
ever, has received the continued support of Hilgenfeld (Zli'T
[1858], 395^ [1871] 302^), whilst I.angen(Z?rtj JudeiitAum in
Pal. zur /.eit Christi, 140-157) and Sinker {The Test. xii. Patr.
(1869), 16-34; art. 'Test. xii. Patr.' in Smith's Dictionary of
Christian iiiofrraf'hy, 4^;65-874) hold fast to the theory of a
Jewish Christian authorship.
If there were no other methods of determining the
questions of authorship and date than those pursued by
Nitzsch and his successors, finality or even progress
in such matters would be a sheer impossibility. To
Schnapp (Die Test, der xii. Patr. untersurht, Halle,
1884), however, is due the credit of lifting the criticism
of this book out of the arena of fniitlcss logomachies by
returning to Grabe's hypothesis of Christian interpolation
of an originally Jewish work. Schnapp's theory is that
in its original form the book consisted of biographical
details respecting each of the patriarchs and of exhorta-
tions suggested by these details. Thus the work com-
238
APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE
prised only two of tlie three elements mentioned in the
preceding section (§ 70). Subsequently, however, tlie
book was worked over by a Jewish writer, who inserted,
generally towards the end of each Testament, sections
dealing with the future fortunes of the tribes and other
matter of an apocalyptic nature. Finally, at a later
period still, the book thus enlarged was revised by a
Christian, who in some passages merely modified the
text by slight changes, but in others made large inter-
polations. Thus we have three writers concerned in
the Testaments : the original Jewish author, the Jewish
interpolator, and the Christian interpolator. It is not
difficult to prove that in the main this theory is true.
Thus in the Testament of Joseph we have two partially
conflicting accounts derived from diflferent authors — i.e., 1-lOai,
and 10^-18. As early as 1869, indeed, Sinker suggested a com-
posite authorship as the solution of certain difliculties in the
narrative ; but he made no attempt to verify this hypothesi.s, and
so it was reserved for Schnapp to establish beyond question the
dual origin of this Testament and the oiher Testaments. The
same compositeness is observable on a smaller scale in Benj. 2,
where 'ib conflicts with %i and with every other reference to
the same subject in the rest of the Testaments. Again, in
Levi 2 <l>s hi eiroi.fj.aCi'Onev ... 6 cc 17) KapSC(f fiov we have a
large addition which conflicts with the words before and after.
Levi sy. riKOofxev eU BcS^A is open to the same criticism. Again,
in Dan t>, in adjoining sentences, Levi is commended as the
guide and stay of Israel and denounced as the leader in Israel's
apostasy. It is needless to multiply such instances further.
The presence of additions to the list from a Jewish interpolator
is unquestionable.!
It is, however, no less certain that all the Christian
passages have been inserted in the text not, as Schnapp
supposed, by a single Christian interpolator, but by a
succession of such interpolators.
The grounds for this conclusion will be found in Conybeare's
valuable article ' On the Jewish authorship of the Twelve
Patriarchs ' (JQJf ['93], 375-398). By collating the Armeni.an
version with the Greek text of Sinker, this scholar has shown
that most of the Christian passages in the latter are not to be
found in the former. Thus when the (Ireek MS used in
making the Armenian version was written, the process of
Christian interpolation had advanced only a short way in the
direction in which later it progressed so far. _ In the Armenian
version we have thus a striking confirmation of the critical
sagacity of the scholars who saw in the Testaments a Jewish
work interpolated later from Christian sources. With the fresh
materials at our disposal, there is a splendid opportunity for
a critical edition of the text, and a scientific edition of the
work in which the various elements will be duly discriminated,
their dates as far as possible determined, and their bearing on
history elucidated.
We have now arrived at a stage when we are in a
position to consider the question of the original language
.J of the Testaments. Apart from Grabe,
.Lianguage. ^^ notable critic has advocated a
Hebrew or Aramaic original. This is only what might
be expected, since nearly all the students of this book
believed in its integrity and Christian authorship.
However, now that by means of external and internal
evidence we have come to see that the book was origin-
ally Jewish, the question as to its original language
can no longer be evaded. On two grounds the present
writer is inclined to advocate a Hebrew original. Space
does not suffice for dealing with the first here. Let it
merely fje observed that fragments have been found in
the Testaments which are not exjjlicable on the assump-
tion of a date later than 100 B.C. This and other
kindred questions will be dealt with at length in the
present writer's forthcoming edition of the Testaments.
The second reason for supposing a Semitic origin is to
be found in the language. Dr. Caster ( ' The Hebrew
text of one of the Test. xii. Patr. ' PSBA, Dec. 1893,
Feb. 1894) gives some evidence which points in this
direction.
In the article just referred to, indeed, he publishes what he
claims to be the 'actual Hebrew text of the Testament of
Naphtali' entitled 'l^nSJ riNTlS- ' '" 'his text,' he writes, 'we
have undoubtedly the original version of the Testament, free
from any interpolation.' He adds : 'The Greek counterpart of
the Hebrew makes no sense and has no meaning at all : while
the Hebrew is rounded ofi" and complete, and perfectly clear.'
It is not necessary to traverse these statements at any length.
1 Most of Schnapp's conclusions have been accepted by
Schiirer (///*/. 5 114- 124).
First of all, the style of the Hebrew is not earlier, as Dr.
Neubauer informs us, than the 7th or the 8th century A.D. In
the next place, even if it were early, it can lay no claim to being
the original of the Greek 'Testament.' All that could be urged
is that the two texts possess some material in common. Their
aim and their spirit are as antagonistic as possible. This Hebrew
Naphtali, in fact, is a strong polemic against Joseph, whereas in
the Greek Test. xii. Patr. as well as iti Jubilees, Joseph is
universally extolled for his goodness and virtue, and the various
patriarchs are punished in proportion as they are hostile to
Joseph. By the name of Joseph in this polemical treatise we
are probably to understand the ten tribes and their successors
the Samaritans. Though this treatise was probably com-
posed long after the Christian era, it is based on old materials,
.some of which are common to it and the Greek Test. Naph. ; and
thus Gaster is probably right in observing that in chap, fi the
text must be corrupt where the ship that comes sailing by is said
to be fietTTOv rapixuiv, ckto^ vavriai' koX KvfiepvrjTov. The (xeo'Tbi'
rapix'^"—' full "f "^alt fish ' — cannot be correct. It was probably
due to a corrupt dittography of nVc N'^a, as n'po N>C, for in
the Hebrew 'Testament' the text runs □• 3S1 n^Sin n"3N njm
Subjoined are some of the arguments for a Hebrew
original.
(i) Hebrew constructions and expressions are frequent. Thus,
(rvviiiv iv Tii to/xu (Reub. 3)= n-|in3 ]2 > '''^^ ■"■(p tf f Ae'f aro (6) =
'2 nna; irai'Tas aiirou? (Jud. l) = n'?3, /Sapiis (/*.) = large — i.e.,
123 ; ^<'* (!*) transliteration of n3 • iroielv y-er ai/rov Kpicriv
(Joseph. 12) = ny aac'D , ■!£'];, etc. (2) Paronomasiae, which are
lost in the Greek but can be restored by retranslation into
Hebrew, are frequent. Thus in Sim. 2 17 tJ-r/Trip ixov €Ka\e<Te /if
'Zvp.fi^va. OTt riKova-e icvpioj ri)? fieTjcreios avT>)?= '.-^f riN ',';x Nipni
rTn':'Sn hlt^yDC '2 Pi'Cr- I" Levin Ua\«re TO ovop.a. aiiTOV
l>)pcraju.. OTi fu t- yfj rjiXMV napoiKOi ^nei' = ct;nj "ICr nX Nipnl
1iS"lN3 ir\T Dnj 'D ; (Kd\ea-(V avTOV Mepapl o €(7Ti niKpia
/iOu = <-no t<^n mo ice nx NnpnV, 'luxa^eS . . . irfx^ri iv
AlyvTTTw- ci/Sofos yap Vl''^ "3K n^DJ "2 "C2 m'^U 123' I" 2ab. 1
cyio (Ifjii Za^ouAiiji', «6<rts aya9r) rot? -yoi/eCo-i |Uiou = -|3l mn j'^jai
31^. In Naph. 1 ei- navoipyia eTroirjae 'yaxrjK . . . Sia toOto
iK\ri0riv Ne(/>eaAei> ^ 'S^gj 'nKipj pS • • • "^m nhnZZ- I" 'he
closing words of this same chapter we have two paronomasise on
the name Bilhah. creice ttji/ BaAAav, Ae'ywc' KcuvoarrovSo^ fiou
ij 6vyaTr\p- evOv^ yap rfx8€i<ra i<nrev&i 0r]Ka.Cti.v = nrh2'nH 1*7'
nvh n':',i3 ■•■-2 'n'?in3 nSnanaK"?- In Issach. i. &ia t6c ilktBov
iKXrier)v 'l(Taxap = ^2C't/' "HNipj l^m- The Hebraisms given in
no. I might occur, it is true, in an Hellenistic Greek original ;
but it is otherwise with regard to the 'linguistic' phenomena
just dealt with. These undoubtedly postulate a Hebrew
original. (3) A third and final argument enforces the same
postulate. There ate certain passages, obscure or unintelligible
in the Greek, which become clear on retranslation into Hebrew.
Thus in Zab. 4 i^aXov eaBUiv is unintelligible Greek. This is
the text of C and O. R and P correct the text, the former
giving iKaOiixav itrdieiv, and the latter T^p^avro ecrOieiv, both of
which yield an excellent sense. They are, however, merely
late emendations, and we must therefore start from the best
attested text t^aAoi- e<TeUi.v = S^xV ICT" = ' they served up
food ' It is possible, indeed, that the idea of R is right, and
that 1ST' i^ corrupt for 13c"- Hence 'they sat down to eat.'
In Gad 4 it is obvious from the contrast instituted between
oKiyo\pvx^a- and fioKpoOvtiia that we must take the former not
in its natural meaning as ' faintheartedness ' but as ' impatience. '
Hence we have here a mistranslation of nn nsp- Exactly the
same contrast appears in Prov. 2a 15, and the sarne false render-
ing in (5. Again, in Gad 7, atfyaipeZrai avra iv kokoU must
mean ' He taketh them {i.e., riches) away from the wicked,'
or 'when [wc«] are wicked." Thus iv KaKoU seems due to
confusing C"J,'C'"10 and C'i'n3> and should be iv kokoU.
Before leaving the question of a Hebrew original it
will be well to notice some of the arguments advanced
by Mr. Sinker in favour of the original being Greek.
(i) He urges that the very title at SiaOrJKai k.t.\. is against the
hypothesis of a Hebrew original. But it is probable that the title
was merely ot t^' jraTpia^x<i' L ^^^ ^ ^^' ^"'^' ^^^. ^"^ argues that
such paronomasia as aOtreiv, vovOfTelv (Benj. 4) ; avaCj>eaii,
a<j>aCpe(TLi (Judah 23); ei' Ta|ei, iraKTOv ; and Tofis, orafia
(Nap. 2 3) imply a Greek original. As regards the first pair,
they are late interpolations, since the passage in which they
occur is wanting in the Armenian version and in O R. As
regards the second pair, P reads avaipe<rii in both cases, R
omits a^aCp€(ri<:, and the Armenian version omits avaipe<m. It
is probable, therefore, that there was no paronomasia in the
early Greek version. There is no weight attaching to the other
paronomasia; cited. (3) Again, Mr. Sinker speaks of the use
of certain philosophical terms as favouring a Greek original.
But these are found also in (B. (4) -^gain, the use of 0 in
Judah 24, which he presses in favour of a Greek original, is
no longer a valid argument, .since we find from the Armenian
version that the passage in which it occurs is a Christian
interpolation.
We may, therefore, reasonably conclude that the
groundwork of the Testaments was originally written
240
APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE
in Hebrew. The additions of the Jewish interpola-
tor were, as far as I have examined them, in the
same language. Christian inter|M)lations were intro-
duced at the close of the first century of the Christian
era, and some jjrobably as late as the tliird or the
fourth.
The earliest versions were the Greek, the Syriac, and the
Armenian. Of the Syriac version only a fragment survives,
73 VflrsionB preserved in the lirilish Museum (Cat. o/
I i. V ersions. ^^^.^^ ,^ ^ ^. ^.^j j,,. , ^^ Of the W r„unian
version six M.SS, varyinR in dale from 1220 to 1656, are in
Venice (in tlic Library of the Mcchitarists of .San Lazzaro);
one, of 1388, in Vienna; another, of the fourteenth century,
in the library of Lord de la Zouche : and a ninth, in the pos-
session of the Ikitish and Foreign Hible Society-. An edition
of the Armenian version by the Mechitarist Fathers is soon
to issue from the press. No trace has as yet been discovered of
a Latin version anterior to that of Grosseteste in the thirteenth
century. This version and the later European versions are of
no critical worth. There is also an old SlaTonic version
published by Tichonrawow in the Denktit. dcr altfuss. Aiocri.
Lit., St. Petersburg, 1863.
F'ourl of these MSS have already been made known to the
public : the Cambridge MS of the tenth century, and the
_ . _T. Oxford MS of the fourteenth, through Sinkers
I*, ine edition of the Greek text; t!ie Vatican MS
Greek MSS. of the thirteenth and the I'atmos .MS of
the sixteenth, through the Appendix he pid)-
hshed m 1879. These four MSS are designated by their editor
respectively as CORP, and this notation has been followed
in the present article.
It has already been observed that the process of
Christian interpolation probably extended from the
75 Date *''°^'^ °^ ''^^ ^^^^ century a.d. to the fourth.
As regards the apocalyptic sections (see
Ks( ii,\TOl.OGV, § 61), which are due to a Jewish inter-
polator, we have no means at present of determining
their date with any exactness. Some of them are the
oldest portions in the book, and were probably written
in the second century B.C. ; but some of them are very
much later, since they contain citations from the Kthiopic
.mid the .Slavonic Enoch. As far as the present writer
has examined them, he is inclined to regard them as all
springing from a Hebrew original. The date, therefore,
of these interpolations may possibly extend from the
second century n.c:. to 30 A.n. It may be added,
partly on the evidence of the Armenian version and
partly from the context, that it is clear that in Levi 15,
Judith 23, and Dano, there are no references to the
Roman destruction of the temple in 70 A.n. The
groundwork may have t)een written about the l)eginning
of the Christian era. We can hardly suppo.se it
to be based upon Jubilees, for it never mentions
it ; yet, since it possesses in common with it a vast
mass of biographical details as well as the same chrono-
logical system, it is natural to regard both works as
almost contemporary and as emanating from the same
school of thought.
No attempt has l)een made to give a systematic
stateiiKMit of the Christology, since the passages relating
76 Christ- *° ^^'^ subject are derived not from one
ology " ^^ '"''*-''■ °'' period, but from a variety of
scribes and times. The value, therefore,
of the ( "hristological portions in this book is slight.
\'11I. TiiK Psalms of .Solomon.— Very little is
77 Pss Sol • '^"°^^" °^ ^^^*^ early history of these
its fortunes ' P^^''"^- ^"'3' -"^'■'' direct and undoubted
references to them are found in early
literature.
Four of these occur in catalogues of canonical and uncanonical
books — viz., in the .Synopsis Athnnasii, the Stichometry of
Nicephonis, the ' Sixty Hooks,' and the table of contents in the
Alexandrian MS. The fifth reference is found in the fiftv-ninth
canon of the Council of Laodicea, which ordains oti'ou 4<i
tJiiurtKOVt i|/oA(xoi>s KiyetT0ai iv rj) iKK\r)(Ti(f, ovSi aKamvKrra
fiifi\ia, oAAi fiofa to KavonKo. TJjt TroAain? «tal (t<ni'V)s SiaOriKt)^.
The sixth belongs to the twelfth century, and consists merely of
a note on this canon. With doubtful references we have here
1 Mr. Sinker has .since discovered two other Greek MSS ;
and these six MSS, with the other versions, he is using as the
foundation of a new Greek Text which, we hope, will see the
light soon.
It is obvious, therefore, that the book never attiincd
a large circulation. On the other hand, as Ryle and
James point out, ' where it was read ' it was ' read with
res|x'ct ' ; for ' it is the solitary instance of an OT
book which, from being merely dvTiXtyofjui'oi' , Ijccame
diruKpv<pov.' As Ijclonging to the former it apjx-ars in
the first two lists above mentioned ; as an dir6Kpv<t>ov
it is enrolled in the ' Sixty Ikxjks."
It is notable in the next place that, whereas these
psalms are designated in the first two lists as ^aXuoi
78 Extent ''°''' '^^^ (I'abricius (^'3ai) ZoXonwvroi and
xf/aXfjiol (cat <f55ai (varia leclio-T]) ' ^o\o-
nQfToi, ctIxoi, ^fip, in the next two they are descrilx:d
simply as \f/a\fxoi ^oXofiQvTos, with the addition of t^ in
the ca.se of A. The Ixjok, therefore, circulated as early
as the fifth century in two forms : one consisting simply
of the eighteen ' Psalms of .Solomon,' the otlar of
these together with certain Odes. The first form is the
older. The second probably originated in an att(iii|)t
to supplement a defective edition of the first by certain
odes or songs, jiartly of Jewish, partly of Christian,
authorship, that were current under Solomons name.
For if we accept the numlx-r of ffrlxot assigned to tin/
psalms in the MSS {i.e., looo), we must regard the
present psalms as deficient to the extent of 300. On
the other hand, as the Stichometry of Xicephorus assigns
2100 arixoL to the psalms and the odes combined, the
odes themselves must have been about the same length
as the psalms. Of the odes only five have \x-vn
preserved. These are edited in an apijcndix to the
edition of Ryle and James.
Up to the present, five MSS of this book have been found ;
but of these the Augsburg MS has long Ijecn lost, though we
poss(-.s a rt-cord of its readings in de la Cerda's
79. Text, clition, ul,i,l, was based upon it. The second
cod V i, thai of Vienna (=V). This MS w.is
collated by Haupt f.,i II il^, nfuld's two editions {ZHT/t. (iE68],
133-168, and Messias Juduprutii, 1869, pp. xi-xviii 1-33); but
the collation has been recently shown to lie most inaccurate. The
next edition is that of (leiger, Der I'satt. Salomo's lurau^g. u.
erkl. (1871), based on the same critical materials as Hilgcnfeld's.
Though agreeing with Hilgenfeld .as to the date and situation,
Geiger maintains, in opposition to him, the Hebrew original.
Fritzsche's edition was published in the s:ime year (Liltri afoc.
VT grnce, 569-89); and that of Pick in 1883 (/'»«/•. Kn:
775-8i3)- The third codex is the Copenh.agen one (=H), to
which attention was first called by Clraux in the Re-,'. Ciit.
(1877), 291-293. The Moscosv ( = M) ami Pans (=P) MSS
were discovered and collated by Gebhardt. All these authorities
have been used in the edition of Ryle and James (liaA/ioi
2oAo/uaJ>'ros, T/te Psa/tiis 0/ the rharisi-(s, 1891). In this
edition, eminent alike for its learning and for its critical insight,
the reader will find everything worth knowing on the subject. "•^
For the remaining literature on these psalms we must refer the
student to this work {Inttoii. i;i-L'l), and to Schiir. (in loc); 1 ut
we must not forget two of the most fruitful studies that have yet
been made — namely, an article by Movers in Herder's A'm//c«-
Lt.vicon (1847), and an Appendix to We.'s Pie J'har. u. Satiti.
(1874), which contains the tr.-inslation with notes.
The date must be determined by the references to
1 Ryle and James m.ake it clear that in both cases ' we should
read the plural, against the best MS.S.'
2 Since the above account was written two new editions of
the text have appeared. The first is that of Swete ('/'Ae OT in
Greek, 3 765-787). This editor h.as m.ade a valuable contribution
to the criticism of the text by means of a hitherto uncollated
MS (which Gebhardt designates R) belonging to the Vaticari.
.•\ccording to Gebh.ardt, however, his coll.ation of this MS is
deficient in point of .accuracy. The second edition is that of
O. von Gebhardt (i/zaA^iol SoAo/uaifTO^ — Die I'salmen .Snlomonis
zu/it ersten Male tnit lienutzuni:: li. Athoshaiiiiscliri/ten und
d. Cod. Casanatensis, Leipzig, 1805). In the formation of his
text Gebhardt has used the .MSS C H J I. R. Of these only
H (the Copenhagen MS) was used by Ryle and J.-imcs, and
H R by Swete. Hence C J I- are here used for the first time.
These are respectively the Co<ld. Il>eriticus, I_nura-Klostu, and
Casanatensis. The remaining MSS, M P V, Clebhanlt
regards as not deserving consideration. He gives the following
genealogy of all the MSS. Z represents the archetype : —
IG
2^1
APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE
contemporary events ; and, as these are many and
80 Date ^'"^ried, there will be little difficulty in assign-
ing a definite period to the activities of the
authors.
The book opens with the alarms of war (1 2, 8 i) in the midst
of a period of great material prosperity (1 if. 8 7) ; but the
prosperity is only seeming: from their ruler to the vilest of the
people they are altogether sinful (17 21/). The king, too, be-
longs to the family that has usurped the throne of David (IT 6-8).
A righteous judgment, however, speedily comes upon them.
A hostile army advances against them, led by a 'mighty striker,'
who came from the ends of the earth (8 16). The princes of the
land go forth to meet him with joy, and greet him with the
words, ' Blessed is thy path : come ye, tnter in with peace ' (8 18).
When he has established himself within the city he seizes its
strongholds (821); he casts down its fenced walls with the
battering ram (2i). Then the Gentiles tread Jerusalem under
foot ('J 20) ; yea, they pollute even the altar with their presence
("i 2). Its princes and wise counsellors are put to the sword,
and the blood of its inhabitants flows like water (S 23) ; its sons
and daughters are carried away captive to the West (8 24 17 14)
to serve in bondage ('.'a), and its princes to grace the triumph of
their conqueror (17 14). Hut the dragon who has conquered
Jerusalem (2 29), aimed at lordship of land and sea, and thought
himself to be more than man, at last meets with shameful death
on the shores of Kgypt, and there is none to bury him (2 aoyC).
There can be little doubt now as to the interpretation
of these facts. The family that had usurj^ed the
throne of David are the Asmonasans, who, since 105
B.C., had assumed the regal name. The 'mighty
s;triker ' who comes ' from the ends of the earth ' is
Pompey. The princes who welcomed his approach
are Aristobulus II. and Hyrcanus II. When the
followers of the latter opened the gates to Pompey, the
party of Aristobulus shut themselves up within the
temple, where they were besieged by Pompey and their
defences battered down with battering-rams. The
massacre that follows, and the carrying away captive to
the West of princes and people, agree only with the
capture of Jerusalem by Pompey. Finally, the cir-
cumstances attending the death of the conqueror on
the shores of Kgypt recall the death of Pompey in a
manner that cannot be misconceived.
We conclude, therefore, that the second psalm was
written very soon after the death of Pompey in 48 B.C.,
and that i, 8, 17 were composed between 63 and 48,
as they presuppose Pompey's capture of Jerusalem but
show no knowledge of his death. Psalms 5, 7, 9, 13,
and 15 seem to allude to the same sequence of events as
I, 8, and 17, and therefore to belong to the same period.
In 4 and 12, on the other hand, 'the sinners' are
denounced ; but as yet no visitation by the Gentiles is
spoken of, nor any interposition of the Gentiles in Jewish
affairs foretold. Hence these psalms are probably
anterior to 64 B.C. Psalms 3, 4, 11, 14, and 16 betray
no distinctly historical colouring ; but there is nothing
in them which ref|uires us to assume different authorship
and date from those of the other psalins. We may,
therefore, with Ryle and James, safely assign 70-40 B.C.
as the limits within which the psalms were written.
It may be added that Movers, Del. and Keim have identified
the invader of Palestine with Herod ; but this is impossible on
many grounds ; and just as many difficulties are against Ew.'s
identification of this personage with Antiochus Epiphanes. In
fact, all modern critics support the view advocated above.
The authors were clearly Pharisees. Thus they divide
their countrymen into 'righteous' [Ukolioi; 238/ 83-57/.
81. Author- i^ „^f i '"if ; "'""'^'■^ ' .( W^^ot :
238 di3 49 1.356710), ' samts ( Off lot ;
3 10 47 8 40 etc. ) and ' transgressors '
{■inxf)6.vo^oi\ 4 II 1321 27 12 1-4 17 27), of whom the former
were the Pharisees and the latter the Sadducees. They
assail the ' sinners' for having usurped the throne of David
(1758) and laid violent hands on the high-priesthood
(176). This assault on the Asmona;an house evidently
emanates from a Pharisee.
The authors further denounce the priests for polluting the
holy things by their uncleanness and their neglect of the true
observances (2358 13 26), and likewise for outdoing the heathen
in their abominations (1 8 89). Their attitude, moreover, to the
law, theirconception of the theocracy, their ideal of the bearing
of a righteous man in the case of (^entile oppression, all alike
mark them out as belonging to the Pharisaic school. To the
243
ship.
same school appertains the doctrine taught regarding future
retribution and the Messiah. In regard to the last, Ryle and
James observe with justice that the Messianic conception in
these psalms ' marks the revolution which had passed over
Pharisaic thought since the time, not a century before, when
Israel's mission in the world was identified only with the fulfil-
ment and dis.semination of the law. . . . The heroic deeds of
Judas Maccabeus and his brothers had rekindled the ardour
of the people for a Jewish dynasty and a Jewish kingdom ; and
the Pharisaic supporters of a theocracy were powerless so long
as their teaching showed no sympathy with this patriotic
enthu.sia.sm.' But as it was hopeless to look for Israel's re-
demption to the helpless and huied later Asmonajans, so it is
just at this crisis that the author of these psalms 'comV>ines
the recognition of the failure of the Asmonsean house with the
popular enthusiasm for a Jewish monarchy ' (p. 57). Thus the
Pharisees ' appealed to the patriotic feelings of those who had
no power to appreciate the abstract beauty of the old legalism.
By its hope for a "son of David " it proclaimed the downfall of
the Levitical Asmonaean house. By its ideal reign of "wi.sdum
and righteousness," it asserted the fundamental Pharisaic position
that the law was supreme.' Thus 'the Messianic representation
of our .seventeenth psalm marks the stage at which Pharisaic
thought passed beyond the narrow limits of its earlier teaching,
and availed itself of the popular a.spiration for an earthly
kingdom.' "This step, however, 'entailed upon the theocratic
party no policy beyond the exercise of patience till God should
raise up the king, and until then the minute ob.servance of this
law' (p. 58). Against the attitude adopted by the writers of
this book the Assumption 0/ Moses is a protest from beginning
to end (see above, § 65).
We give below (§ 85) some grounds for assuming
that pss. 1-16 and 17-18 are due to different writers.
As the main interests of the psalms centre in
00 T>i„««. Jerusalem, the writer probably lived in that
82. i-iace. ^j^y
It is 'the City of the Sanctuary' (84); in it shall the song
of triumph be sung when God brings back its children from the
east and from the west (11 1-3). Though Jerusalem has now
been trodden under foot by the Gentiles (2 2), the Messiah will
cleanse it from all .such pollution (17 25 33), and thither all the
nations of the earth will go up to .see the Messiah's glory (17 34).
The psalmist's indictment of the Sadducean members of the
Sanhedrim (4 i), and his account of their vices and abomination.s,
are best understood as coming from a contemporary inhabitant
of Jerusalem. To the writer of psalms 2, 8, and 17 that city
is the centre of all the world, and the history of other nations
or world-empires is of moment only in as far as it connects itself
with 'the Holy City.'
The circumstances connected with these psalms point
undoubtedly to a Hebrew original — i.e., their compos!-
83. Language. ^'°";. "''':« 70-40 b.c, by a Pharisee
° ° residmg m Jerusalem ; — and, notwith-
standing Hilgenfeld's strong advocacy of a Greek
original, all modern scholars admit that the psalms
were coinposed in Hebrew.
This fact was first established by Geiger in opposition to
Hilgenfeld's view. It has further been substantiated by Kyle
and James with a fulness and insight that cannot fail to win
conviction (Inlrod. pp. 77-87). .\s for the (jreek
84. G-reek translation, we may provisionally accept the date
'Version, assigned by the editors just named, who, by a
hypothetical train of reasoning, show that it ' is
not later than the middle of the first century a.u.'
We will now sketch in a few words some of the teaching
of these psalms regarding the Messiah and the resurrec-
88. Eschatology. 'T' ^■'''''' f '"''^f'^ \°- '''' ^^"''''^•
01. ijDv,ua,uuiu5j-. jl^g writer of p.salm 1/ returns to
the conception of the prophets and describes him as
'the son of David' (I723). He calls him also 'the
Anointed One" (t'. 36, cp 186 8) — a title that had been
applied a few years before to the ideal Messianic king
in association with supernatural attributes ( Enoch 48 10
524). Here, however, the Messiah is a man and nothing
more.
He is to be raised up by God himself (17 23, cp 186). He is
to destroy the supremacy of the Gentiles (the Romans) and
drive them f jrth from the borders of Israel (17 25 27 31). The
' proud finners ' (the Sadducees) will be expelled from the
heritage of God which they had unlawfully seized (t/v. i()/. 41
51). The Messiah will purge Jeru.salem from all impurity and
make it his capital {vv. 33-35) ; he will bring b.ick to Palestine
the dispersed tribes (r-.'. 28 34 50) ; the Gentiles will become
tributary and be converted to the faith of Israel (^n>. -^xf. 34).
He shall himself be free from sin {v. 41), and all his people will
be holy (?'. 36). Further, he will not conquer by force of arms
iv. yf), but will smite the earth with the word of his mouth
f . 39). Finally, his rule is temporary (z*. 42) : ' He shall
not faint all his d.iys." Only the surviving righteous share in
his kingdom (17 50); the departed righteous are not raised to
participate in it.
244
APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE
As these hopes of the Messiah are confined to
pss. 17/, and as not even the remotest hint of such
hopes can be discovered in the preceeding sixteen
psalms, it appears necessary to assunie for them a
difference of authorship.
In these, we should ohserve, there is not a hint that redress
for present evils is to be looked for from the Messiah. In every
instance the Psalmist expresses his faith that wrong will be set
right, either by ('lod's present judgments, by which his righteous-
ness is or shall be justified (2 36 4 9 87 i> 3), or by his final
judgment of the world, when the righteous shall rise to eternal
life (:{ 16 14 6), and hell and destruction and darkness shall be
the heritage of transgressors (14 6 ITi 14). This final judgment
is spoken of as a ' visitation ' of God upon the righteous and
the wicked (3 14-16 1") n/.) \ it is likewise called in respect of
the righteous 'the day of mercy for the righteous' (14 6 186),
whereas in respect of the wicked it is named ' the day of the
judgment of the Lord ' (15 13).
Since there is in pss. 1-16 only a resurrection of the
righteous, Sheol was conceived as the perpetual abode
of the wicked, 16 2. Into Sheol, thus conceived as hell,
the wicked enter immediately on death (16 2 coni|)ared
with 14 6 15 11). The intermediate r.bode c^" the
righteous is probably to be regarded as the ' treasuries '
to which we find the first reference in Elh. En. 100 s.
.See also Kscn.ATOLocY, § 67.
IX. TiiK SiHYi.i.iNE Oracles. — The Sibylline
literature belongs to a class of productions highly
86 Prona characteristic of Hellenistic Judaism.
■ jjjj i " ' These,' as Schiirer a[)tly remarks, ' were
Literature J^'^^'^h works under a heathen mask.'
However divergent the outward form
assumetl, they all exhibited one characteristic in common :
they addressed themselves to heathen readers, under
cloak of some name that was influential in the heathen
w orld, and in the form most natural to their alleged origin.
liulireclly or directly, their aim was the propagation of
Judaism among the Gentiles. Whilst the works ascrilnid
to Hecat;rus and Aristeas belong to the former category
(indirect propaganda), the Sibyllines are distinctly of
the latter.
The .Sibyl was regarded in the ancient world as an
inspired prophetess. .She Iwlonged to no prophetic
an et.-u 1 order or priestly caste, but held a ijosition
87. Sibyls, f I . II 1 1 ,
' free anil uncontrolled as a superhumanly
gifted organ of the will and counsels of the gods.
The number of such Sibyls is variously stated at different
times. Heraclitus in Plutarch (/-><• i'ylhice orac. «)), Aristo-
phanes (Pax, logs), and Plato {fVuei/r. 2-J), speak of only one.
Tacitus {Ann. ti la) is doubtful whether there were more th.an
one. Pausanias (Descr. Cnec. 10 12) mentions four, while Varro
(in Lactantius, X)/7'. /«j///. 1 6) specifies ten. For further in-
formation on this subject the reader should consult Ale.x.indre,
Orac. Sibyl, (ist ed.), i8s6, 2 i-ioi ; Maa.ss, de .Sihyllari,m
In.iicihus (1879), and the arts, on the subject in Smith's Diet. 0/
Gr. ami Rom. Jiiogr., and the J<ncy. Brit. (9).
Written accounts of the oracles delivered by the
Sibyls obtained in Greece and Asia Minor only a
88. Sibylline
private circulation. Still though they
Oracles were not preserved by the State or
publicly consulted, we must not under-
rate their importance in the life and thought of the Kastern
classical world. In Rome, however, they acquired
(|uite a unique position. It is not necessary to treat
here of the very ancient collection of these oracles, said
to have been purchased by King Tarciuin, or to record
the frequent occasions on which they were consulted by
the state liefore their destruction in the fire that con-
sumed the Capitol in B.C. 83. (Alexandre [2198] has
traced sixty such occasions. ) Their place was soon
afterwards taken (75 B.C.) by a collection, amounting
in all to about 1009 verses, made in Greece, Asia
Minor, Africa, and Italy, by order of the Senate.
(.After being revised under Augustus, it seems finally to
have been burnt by the order of Stilicho in 404 A. D. )
Inasmuch as such oracles enjoyed high authority and
a wide circulation in the East, — inasmuch, likewise, as
they were anonymous in origin, free from authoritative
revision, and capable of modification or enlargement at
pleasure by those in whose hands they were for the
24s
time being, — they offered to the missionary spirit of
Hellenistic Judaism a form of literature which would
readily admit the disguised expression of its highest
beliefs, and at the same time procure for them a
hearing in Gentile circles. It is not unlikely, too, that
the prolongetl search of Roman officials for Sibylline
oracles in the East may have further stimulated the
inventive faculties of the Alexandrian Jews, and led to
the composition of many of the verses in our present
collection. In this method of propaganda the Christians
proved themselves later to Ik: apt jnipils of the Jews.
So common, indee<l, had lx;come in early Christian
times the invention of such oracles that Celsus
(Orig. coiitr. Cels. 5 61) terms Christians 1.i^v\\i.aTal,
believers in sibyls, or sibyl-mongers.
This charge of Celsiis was not unmerited ; for with
the exception of a citation alwut the tower of Haljel
made by Alexander I'olyhistor, 80-40 K.C. (see Eus.
Chron.\2^), and found likewise in Josephus {Ant. I43),
it is to Christian writers that we are indebted, not only
for all other references, but also for the preservation of
the entire collection that has come down to us.
Hcrmas {Vis. '1 ^) mentions the Sibyl, but not her verses ; but
quot.-xtions are frequent in Clement Alex, and Lactantius. A
collection of the P.atristic <|uotations from the Sibyllines will be
found in Struve {Fragittcnta ii/<rortint Sibyllinorunt quir apud
Lactantium refieriuntur: 1817), in Vervorst {De Cariiiinitus
Sibytlinis apud sanctos Patres discefitatio, Paris, 1844),
in Besangon {De Veniploi que Us Pi-res de f^^hse ont /ait des
oracles sibyllins: Montauban, i8si), and in .Alexandre (2
254-3' •)•
The Sibylline Oracles, as we now have them, are a
chaotic medley. They consist of twelve books — there
were originally fourteen — of various
89. Stirviving
collection.
authorship, date, and religious con-
ceiition.* This arrangement, which is
due to an unknown editor of the sixth century
(Alexandre), does not in itself determine identity of
authorship, or of time, or of religious belief ; for many of
the books are merely arbitrary groupings of unrelatetl
fragments. As the editor, moreover, was guided by
caprice as often as by any discernible principle of
editing, it is not strange that the same passage fre-
quently recurs in different contexts.
The first printed edition of the.se Oracles was published at
Ba.stl, in 1545, from an .'\ugsburg (now a Munich) MS, and
consisted of eight books. .\ metrical Latin
90. Editions, translation of these books by Sebastian
Cxstalio appeared in the following year,
and an emended Greek text from the same scholar in 1555.
The most valuable of the early editions is that of Opsopotrus
{i.e., Koch), Paris, 1599, in which fresh MS evidence-is brought
to bear upon the text. These were followed by that of (Jal-
laeus, Amsterdam, 1689 ; but his work is of no critical worth.
These eight Sibylline books were likewise reprinted in Ciallandi's
Bibliotheca Vett. Patr. (Venice, 1788). Book 14 was first
edited by Mai in 1817 from a Milan MS and Books 11-14
from two Vatican MSS in 1828 by the same scholar. Books 9
and 10 have not been recovered. .Ml these editions have been
superseded by the first edition of -Alexandre's Oracuta Sihyllina
(2 vols. Pans, 1841-1856), and his second edition of 1869, in
which the valuable excursuses of the first are omitted ; and by
the edition of Fricdiieb (Leipzig, 1852). The latter has a useful
introduction, and is accompanied by a translation into German
hexameters ; hut the text is untrustworthy.
By far the best text that has yet appeared is that of
Rzach, Oracula Sihyllina (Vienna, 1891). For the
formation of this text fourteen MSS have been used ;
the text has been further emended by an exhaustive
collation of quotations in the Fathers. Our citations
will be made from this text.
F'or further literature on the subject, see Alexandre's work
(ist ed. 271-82; 2nd ed. 418-419); Schiirer {Hist. 6288-292).
English readers will find the subject well treated in the work
of Schiirer just mentioned ; Edinb. Km. (July 1877, pp. 31-67);
and Deane {Pseude/igr. 1891, pp. 276-344).
The relation of the Jewish and the Christian Sibyllines
to the ancient heathen ones it is practically impossible
_ . to determine, i. They assumetl, of
91. Kel. to course, the outward form of the older
heathen Sibyl. Orades, being written in Homeric
hexameter verse ; but they transgress e\ ery rule of pro-
sody. Short syllables are lengthened through the in-
246
APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE
fluence of the accent, or even without it, owing to the
exigencies of the verse ; and long syllables are likewise
sliortened.
For peculiarities of metre and syntax, see Alexandre,
Excursus, 7. It must be acknowledged, however, that many
of these disappear in the better text of Rzach. Of acrostic
verses, which, according to Dionys. Hal. (462) and Cicero {De
Div. 254), was the form of the most ancient Sibyllines, only one
specimen is still preserved — viz., in 8 217-2S0, the initials of which
are IHSOY2 XPEI2T02 ©EOY YI02 2nTHl> 2T.\Yl'02.
It should be observed, further, that without tht; last word 1 the
initialsof the title compose the word IXHY2— 'a fish '—a frequent
symbol of the Christian faith on early monuments.
2. As regards the matter, it is more than probable
that the later Sibyls used much of the older material
lying ready to hand.
Thus, in 3 414-413 (the passage about Helen), 'the Erinnysfrom
Sparta,' is from a heathen source ; so likewise the punning
couplet in 4 99-100, which frequently recurs :
K<C\. 2dnoi' a/i^o? an-acj-ac vir" i)iofe(7-<ri. KoXv^eL
A^Aos 6' ovK en StJAos, a.hr\Ka. hi navra to. A)]Aov.
Another notable instance is S 361, where a line from an ancient
Delphic oracle is given verbatim. See Herod. 1 47.
We must turn from such questions to discuss the
various elctuents of which the work is composed.
These, as we have already observed,
92. Composite
character.
94. 397-829.
are both Jewish and Christian, and the
latter largely preponderate. Owing,
however, to the character of the work, it is not always
possible to distinguish between the two. It is therefore
only on some of the smaller portions that we can arrive at
any certainty. Much is of a neutral character, and, as far
therefore as internal evidence goes, may equally well
have proceeded from either class of writers. There is a
great lack of external evidence. We shall now deal
with the various elements of the work in their chrono-
logical order as far as that is possible. Our space does
not admit of an analysis of all the books ; we shall,
however, give a short survey of the more important.
The first and oldest part is 397-829- and probably the
Proteniiiun. The latter is not found in our M.SS ; it
_ istakenfromthe.-/(//^«/o/)'6V/;«ofTheophilus
■ - ^^' (180 A.I).). It consists of two fragments,
oemium. ^^ thirty-five and forty-nine lines respec-
tively. Rzach (pp. 232-238) and Alexandre link them
together by another short fragment of three lines. On
very inadec|uate grounds the latter editor assigns them
to Christian authorship ; but they contain nothing of
an essentially Christian cast (on their
contents, see EscH.VToi.OGY, § 58).
W'ith regard to 897-829 opinions are conflicting.
Bleek regards verses 97-807 — with the exception of 8350-
380, a later Christian interpolation — as the work of
an Alexandrian Jew, 170-160 B.C. ; Hilgenfeld thinks
that the whole of 97-817 was written about 140 )5. c;. ;
Ewald brings down the date to 124 B.C. Alexandre
assigns 897-294, 4S9-828, to 168, but 295-488 to the age
of the Antonines. The strongest evidence in favour of
Alexandre's view is to be found in the difficulty of inter-
preting adequately such passages as 8464-473 as applying
to the civil war and the dissensions of Marius and Sulla
(Friedlieb, p. 33).
397-818 falls naturally into three groups: (a) 97-294 ; (i)
295-488 ; (c) 489-8i8.'' The first (a) opens abruptly with the
building and the destruction of Babel (97-104). Then the earth
is peopled and its rule is divided between Cronos, Titan, and
Japetos (106-110). In the strife that subsequently arose between
the Cronides and the Titans these races were destroyed, and
tliere arose in succes.sion the great kingdoms of the earth — those
of Egypt, Persia, Media, ./Etliiopia, Assj-ria, Macedonia, again
of Egypt, and of Rome (ii8-i6i). This closes the retrospect of
the Siljyl ; now begins her prophecy (162-166). First, she
predicts the rise of the Jewish (under Solomon), the Macedonian,
and the Roman kingdoms ; during the reign of the seventh king
of Egypt, of Hellenic race, the people of God will again become
powerful (167-195). Then are recounted the judgments of God
1 A Latin rendering with the last seven verses omitted is
given in Augustine's De Civ. IS 23.
2 Where Kriedlieb and Alexandre give 828, Rzach gives 829
verses.
3 In the detailed analysis that follows, certain verses, un-
important for the present purpose, are (for the sake of brevity)
left unaccounted for.
247
on the kingdoms of the world and on the Jews (196-212). Next,
the Sibyl takes as her theme the praise of the Jewish nation,
their virtues, and the salient points in their hi.story from their
departure from Egypt down to Cyrus (218-294). The
second group (ft) is mainly concerned with judgments against
Babylon, Egypt, Gog and Magog, Libya (295-333), and likewise
against individual cities (341-366). Then follows the promise of
Messianic prosperity and peace (367-380), and this group closes
with oracles regarding Antiochus Epiphanes and his successors,
and various countries, towns, and islands (381-488). In 419-^32
we have the celebrated diatribe against Homer. The third
group (f ) opens with oracles against Phcenicia, Crete, Thrace, Gog
and Magog, and the Hellenes (489-572). Then Israel is praised
for its worship of the true God (573-600). Thereupon ensues a
second prophecy of judgment and a call to conversion, and an
account of the evils that were to befall the ungodly (601-651).
Then the Sibyl foretells the coming of the Messianic king, who
would take vengeance on his adversaries ; next comes a detailed
.account of the period of Me.ssianic prosperity (652-731), and,
finally, the signs that are to herald the end of all things (796-808).
The Sibyl declares that she is neither the Erythrsan Sibyl nor
yet the Cuma;an (809-818).
3. Though it is obvious from the above epitome that
897-818 is not a single and homogeneous composition but
rather an aggregate of separate oracles, we are safe
(with SchiJrer) in regarding the three groups as derived
in the main from one author, and as dating from the
same period, the reign of the seventh Ptolemy, which is
referred to in all three groups (192-193, 316-318, 608-610).
I Ptolemy VII. Physcon reigned first in conjunction with
I his brother Ptolemy VT. Philometor (170-164 B.C.). He was
then banished, but recovered the throne in 145 and reigned as
sole king till 117 B.C. That the composition dates from the
latter period is clear (520-572) from the prophecy of the com-
plete subjugation of all Hellas. As Hilgenfeld, Schiirer, and
Drummond point out, this cannot have been written before the
fall of Corinth (146 u.c). The doom of Corinth is actually
referred to (487), and possibly that of Carthage (492-503).
Verses 388-400, which deal with the Seleucid kings, were
written (according to Hilgenfeld's interpretation) about 140 B.C.
Therefore, since the author represents the Messianic kingdom as
beginning during the reign of Ptolemy Physcon, we may safely
take 97-818 to have been written in the second half of the second
century B.C. The Procemium, with which we h.^ve already
dealt (see above § 93), most probably formed the introduction
to these verses, and Schfirer adduces external evidence from
Lactantius (iv. (i 5) to that effect.
Before proceeding to discuss 3 1-96, we should add that
Friedlieb and others reject 819-828 as a later addition, as these
verses are at variance with 809-811.
With regard, however, to 81-92 all previous critics
seem to have gone wrong in connecting 63-92 with the
preceding verses. In 63-92 the end of all
""■ things is to come during the sway of Rome
over the world (75-80). In 1-62, on the other hand,
only the partial judgments that are to take effect on
the coming of the Me.ssianic king in 49/ are re-
counted. The Sibyl then promi.ses in 61/ to eimmerate
the cities that are to suffer ; but here the account breaks
off, and not a word more is said in 63-92 in fulfilment
of her promise. Hence these two sections are of
different authorship. 63 - 92 is certainly late and
Christian. On 81-62, see .also Esch.\toi.<)GV, § 68.
In 63-74 we have a rejiroduction of the myth concerning
Nero, according to wliich Beliar was to return in the form
of that emperor and work many mighty signs. This
idea recurs in 2 167-170 (a distinctly Christian product),
and in the Asc. Isa. 3i3-5i (cp Antichrist, § 15).
As regards 3 1-62, it may be derived from one author,
and V. 52 may refer to the triumvirate of Antony,
Octavius, and Lepidus. In that case this section was
written before 31 B.C.
Book 4 is, with Friedlieb, Ew.ald, Hilgenfeld, Alexandre, and
Schiirer, to be regarded as of Jewish authorship, and was
written about 80 a.d. or somewhat later. This
96. Book 4. date is determined by two allusions : the de-
struction of Jerusalem (70 a.d.) in 115-127, and
the eruption of Vesuvius (79 a.i>.) in 130-136. The latter was
to be the immediate precursor of the vengeance that was to be
wreaked on Rome by Nero, returning with many m>Tiads from
the East (137-139). There are no grounds for a-ssigning this
book, with Ew. and Hilgenfeld, to Essene authorship ; for, with
the exception of the reference to ablutions in 163-165, there is
no mention of anything characteristic of the E.ssenes, and the
words in question are most naturally taken as referring to
proselyte baptism (Schurer). The teaching enforced in 179-192
shows that the author cannot have been a Jew of Alexandria,
but probably belonged to Palestine ; for the eschatologj' is
very naive. From the bones and ashes of men's bodies God
248
APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE
will fa-shion anew the bodies in which they will rise to judgment.
The judgment will then proceed according to their deeds. The
wicked will again die, but the righteous live again on earth.
This recalls Enoch 1-30.
Hook 6 i^rofesses to be the work of an Eeyptian Sibyl, the
sister of Isis (t». 53). It is mainly Jewish ; but there may be
Christian elements, 'J'here is a marked absence
97. Book 6. of ideascharactcristicof JudaismorChristianity,
and also of internal connection. Fricdlicb
iiltriliulcs the book to an Egyptian lew in the time of Hadrian ;
.Mcxiindre to .1 Christian Jew of Alexandria in the age of the
Antonines. Tlie first fifty-one lines are in effect a chronological
oracle ending with Hadrian. As the rest of the book deals
with Egyptian affairs, it is probably of different authorship and
date, and we may, with Ewald, Hilgenfcid, and Schiirer, accept
80 A.I), as an .-ipproximate date for 52-531. Some passages are
decidedly Jewish : 7n>. 260-285 (announcement of woes upon the
idolatrous Gentiles ; but of blessing on Israel), t?: 397-413 (the
destruction of the temple in Jerusalem); tta 414-433, 492-511 (the
building of a new temple in Egypt which is to take the place of
that already destroyed at Leontopolis) ; there .ire others also.
The one pass.-ige that seems to be certainly Christian is 256-259 :
Jesus, the
APOCRYPHA
«Tt it Tit iferat auTis an' ai0«poc '(oxot air^p,
oi iraJidfiai jjn^iutrtv ini (vAov ayXaoKapwov
'V'fipaiiuv ox api<rTO«, of jjiAiov iroT« arrtatv
'^vri<Ta<i p>)(T(i T< <caA^ xat ;(<iA((ni' aytoif .
Book 6 is the work of a Gnostic (?) Christian.
natural son of Joseph, is united with d'hrist at bapt'sm. The
OB P 1r A a ^""'"^^*cril)escertain incidentsat the baptism
»8. COOKS 6-8 son1ewh.1t after the manner of the apo<:rypb;d
11-14 1/. gospels. Hook 7 is of like authorship
.ind is not earlier than the third (see above,
§ 91, 1) century a.d. Hook 8, in which the famous acrostic
oixurs, is of Christian origin but of divided authorship. 1-429
belongs to the second century; 430-501 to the third. A.s to
Hooks 1 /. and 11-14, there is a great \ariety of opinion.
.Mexandre as.signs the former to a Christian author of the third
century, and the latter to an Alexandrian lew of about the
year 267. Kriedlieb places \/. at the close of tne second century ;
11-14 he ascribes to Jewish writers of the second and the third
centuries A.u. respectively; \'i /. to Christian writers of the
third century.
Some of these judgments are simply hypotheses ; there is still
room for indefinite study on these questions. K. 11. C.
APOCRYPHA
CO.N'rK.NIS
I. THE APOCRYPHA PROPER (§§ 3-8).
I. Narrative (§ 4/). II. (a) Prophetic.il (8 6).
(rt) Historical (§ 4). (//) Apocalyptic (§ 7).
(/') Legendary (S 6). III. Didactic (i 8).
II. OTHER APOCRYPHAL UTERATURE (§§ 9-31).
Old Tkstamknt (§§ 10-25). I^- New Testamk.nt (§§ 26-31).
I. Legendary (§8 10-18).
11. Ajxicalvptic (§§ 19-23).
III. Poetical (8 24).
IV. Didactic (§ 25).
It is proposed in the present article to gi
first place, a general survey of the very miscellaneous
.. - collection of books known as ' the .Apo-
article crypha ' (details Ix'ing reserved for special
articles), and then to proceed to an
enumeration and classification of the larger literature
which lies beyond the limits of that collection. Fuller
treatment of the subdivision ' .\pocalyptic,' however,
will be reserved for a special article ( see above, .\poc.\LYP-
■nc). where will be found an account of the following
nine works: — Apoc. of Baruch, Ethiopic Hook of Enoch,
Slavonic Book of Enoch, Ascension of Isaiah, Jubilees,
Assumption of Moses, Test. .\ii. Patr. , Tsalms of
Solomon, .Sibylline Oracles. The later Christian litera-
ture will Ix; excluded, only those writings being con-
sidered which contain portions assignable, at latest, to
the early years of the second century.
The name .Apocrypha (nom. pi. neut. of Gk. adj.
dir6Kpv(poi, hidden) is used to denote a large body of
2 Name J^^^'s'^ ^"'^ Christian literature, consisting
of writings which either their authors or their
admirers have sought to include among canonical scrip-
tures, but which have ultimately failed to secure such a
position in the estimation of the Church at large.
This special usage of the word is derived from the
practice common among sects, religious or philosophic,
of embodying their special tenets or formulai in books
withheld from public use, and communicated to an inner
circle of believers. Such books, generally bearing the
name of some patriarch, prophet, or apostle, were called
by their possessors apocryphal, the designation imply-
ing that they were hidden from the outer world, and
even from the ordinary members of the sect itself ; in
such cases the epithet apocryphal was used in a laud-
atory sense. Since, however, the books were forgeries,
the epithet gradually came to take colour from that fact,
and in process of time it w.as employed to indicate other
writings that had been forged. In the common parlance
of to-day, it denotes any story or document which is false
or spurious.
One of the earliest instances — and certainly a typical instance
—of the use of the word apocryphal m its laudatory sense, occurs
249
Hibliography (§ 32).
in the
I. Gospels (8 26/).
II. Acts (8 28).
III. Epistles (8 29).
IV. Apocalypses (8 30).
V. Didactic (§ 31).
in a magical book of Moses edited from a Leyden papyrus of the
third or fourth century by Leeman and by Dicterich {A/>ra.tas,
109). The book may be as old .is the first century A.u. Its
title is Mujvo'eut iepa. |3i/3Ao? an-OKpvt^ot «7ri<taAoi'/i«V>) oy6d>) ij
oyi'a, '.\ Holy and Secret Hook of Moses, called the Eighth, or
the Holy.' For the earliest use of the word in iiia/aiii /■artetii, on
the other hand, we have to turn probably to Cyril of .Mexandria
(348 A.u.) ; and for a more frequent and clear employment of the
adjective in a disparaging sense, to Jerome, whose constant u.se of
it is probably responsible for our employment of it at the present
day as the equivalent of ' non-canonical.'
Finally the name .Apocrypha has come to Ije
applied, and is now applied, by the reformed com-
munions to a particular collection of writings. While
some of these are genuine and authentic treatises,
others legendary histories, and the rest apocryphal in
the disparaging sense of bearing names to which they
have no right, all come under the tlefinition proposed
above, for each of them has at one time or another been
treated as canonical.'
I. The Apocrypha Proper.
3. Apocrypha This collection of books may be
proper : classified in several ways. We might
classification, classify them critically thus : —
1. Additions to canonical fioohs : —
I Esdr.is (interpolated form of Ezra) : see below, § 4, ii.
Additions to Usther : see below, 8 5. i-
Additions to Daniel : see below, g 5, 2.
Prayer of Manasses : see below, § 6, 3.
2. Pseudepigraphical writings : —
4 Esdras : see below, § 7.
Wisdom of Solomon : see below, § 8, 2.
Baruch : see below, § 6, 1.
Epistle of Jeremy : see below, 8 6, 2.
3. Legentiary or Haggadic writings : —
Tobit : see below, g 5, 3.
Judith : see below, 8 5, 4-
4. Genuine atul authentic treatises : —
Ecclesiasticus : see below, 8 8, i.
I, 2 Maccabees : see Ijclow, g 4, i.
Probably the most natural and convenient division
lit does not seem necess.iry to devote space here to comment-
ing upon the u.se of the word Deutero-canonical, a.s applied to
these books by the Church of Rome; for it is expressly said by
the authorities of that Church that no distinction of authority is
implied in the term
250
APOCRYPHA
will be one depending upon the kind of literature which
each book represents, as thus :^
I. Narrative : (a) Historical ; (/') Legendary (or Haggadic).
II. (a) Prophetical ; or (/>) Apocalyptic.
III. Didactic.
1. (a) Historical. i. T/ie Books of Maccabees.
I Maccabees. — An important and generally trustworthy
4 Historical ^^'^'^''y' extant in Greek. It was
■ translated from a Hebrew original,
which survived as late as the time of Jerome. On
this and the following see Maccakeks, Books of,
2 Maccabees. — Extant in Greek ; an abridgment of a
work in five books by Jason of Cyrene ( see 2 23 ). Prefixed
to it are two letters, from the Jews of Jerusalem to
the Jews of ligypt, commonly held to be spurious (see,
however, Maccabees, Second, § 7).
3 Maccabees. — Greek. A fragmentary history of an
attempted massacre of the Jews under Ptolemy Philo-
pator, and of their miraculous deliverance. This book
and the following are not included by the Roman Church
in its Canon, and do not appear in the Vg. though found
in ©.
4 Maccabees. — Greek. A j^hilosophical discourse,
illustrating t!ie triumph of Reason over Matter, by the
story of the martyrdom of Eleazar, and of the ' Seven
Maccabees ' and their mother. The work was tradition-
ally attributed to Josephus. An edition of the Syriac
version with kindred documents, prepared by the late
Prof. Bensly, has been printed under the supervision
of \V. K. Barnes.
ii. I Esdras.^ — Greek. A recasting of the canonical
Ezra, to which is added the legendary tale of the Dis-
pute of the Three Courtiers (known to Josephus). This
book api)ears in Vg. as an appendix to the NT ; but no
authority is attributed to it by the Church of Rome.
See Esuras, Books of, First and Second.
(/;) Legendary, i. Additions to Esther. — Greek.
They consist of a number of letters, prayers, visions,
- , and the like, which are found inter-
° "■ calated into the canonical book of
Esther in (5. See EsruKK, § 10.
2. Additions to Daniel. — Greek. These are three in
number : —
(i. ) The Story of Susanna, prefixed to the book,
(ii. ) The Song of the Three Children, inserted in ch. 3.
(iii. ) The Story of Bel and the Dragon, following ch. 12
and attributed to Habakkuk.
They are found both in the © Version and in that
of Theodotion. What is said to be the Hebrew original
of part of the Song of the Three Children has been
recently found by Dr. M. Gaster in the Chronicle of
Jerahmeel, and printed by him in TSBA , 1894. Cp
Daniel, § 5.
3. Tobit. — Greek and ' Chaldee. ' A romantic narra-
tive of the period of the Captivity, written not later than
the first century a.d. at latest, and perhaps in Egypt.
The book has a literary connection with the story of
Ahikar (see Achiacharus). The date cannot at
present be considered at all certain. The ' Chaldee '
or Aramaic version (on the name see Aramaic, § 4,
end), published by Dr. Neubauer in 1878, is probably
not the earliest form of the book. Of the Greek there are
three recensions, and there are three old Latin recen-
sions besides Jerome's Vg. version. There are also
two Hebrew texts, one derived from ©, and the
other from the Aramaic. Dr. Gaster has printed some
fresh Hebrew texts of the story in TSBA, 1896. See
Tobit.
4. Judith. — Greek. A romance which, in its present
form, may date from the first century B.C. It tells the
story of the deliverance of the city Bethulia from the
Assyrians under Holofernes, through the bravery of
Judith, a Hebrew widow. No miraculous element
appears in the story. See Judith.
1 So called in EV and (S (^.^. Swete [R]). In (S a (subscr.)
it is called 6 tepevs ; in Lag.'s Luc. it is Effipas B', and in Vg. it
is 3 Esdras.
251
6. Prophetical.
7. Apocalyptic.
APOCRYPHA
II. [a] Prophetical. i. Baruch. — Greek. A
pseudepigraphical book {i.e. one written under a false
name), ascribed to Baruch son of Neiiah,
amanuensis of Jeremiah. It consists of
two parts : (i) 1-38, which may date from the times of
the Persian supremacy, possibly has a Hebrew original,
I and certainly shows close affinities with Dan. 9 ; (2)
i 89-09 (end), originally written in Greek, probably after
I 70 a.d. ; chap. 5 is modelled on the nth Psalm of
Solomon. Edited most fully by Kneucker. Appended
to this book is —
2. The Epistle of Jeremy ( Baruch 6 in our Apocrypha).
— Greek, also pseudepigraphic, purporting to be a letter
I of Jeremiah addressed to the Jews at Babylon, inveighing
against the worship of idols.
I 3. The Prayer of Manasses. — Greek. This is attri-
I buted to Manasseh, king of Judah, when in prison. It
is very likely an extract from a legendary history of
Manasseh, of which other portions appear to be quoted
(in connection with the i)rayer) in the Apostolical Con-
stitutions ['lii.'); or possibly it was written with a view
to insertion into the text of 2 Chron. 3."5. It is not in
the Roman canon, but is appended thereto.
' (/') Apocalyptic. — Of this large and important
class of writings only one specimen
is contained in our Apocrypha,
namely : —
4 Esdras.^ — Latin, Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopia, and Ar-
menian. The original Greek is lost. Only chaps. 3-14
appear in any Version save the Latin ; chaps. \f. If)/", are
later accretions, probably of two different dates, \f. being
perhaps of second century, and 15/ of third century;
3-14 are a Jewish apocalypse, probably written about
97 A.D. ; 1/. are Christian, 15/. most likely Jewish.
Rejected by the Roman Church, it is printed as an
appendix to the Vg. "See EsDRAS, Books of and
Apocalyptic Literature, §§ 13-15.
III. Didactic, i. Wisdom of Jesus the Son of
Sirach, commonly called Ecclesiasticus. — Greek, avowedly
_.. , . . translated from the Hebrew of which a
■ considerable portion has lately been re-
covered. A genuine authentic treatise, in parts of
high literary e.xcellence. The author was a Palestinian
Jew of the second century B.C. See Ecclesias-
ticus.
2. Wisdom of Solomon. — Greek. Written under the
name of Solomon, perhaps by Philo (according to an
early tradition), certainly by a Jew of Alexandria in the
first century. It is of great merit in parts ; but the tone
deteriorates towards the end. The book seems, more-
over, to be incomplete. See Wisdom, Book of.
II. Other Apocryphal Literature.
Our survej' of the remaining literature is a much
more difficult matter. The idea of classifying the books
9. Other
literature.
upon chronological principles must be
set aside at once as impracticable ; the
data are in a majority of cases far too
vague. The simplest division that can be made is
between those books which have to do with the OT and
those which associate themselves with the New. ^^'ithin
those the classification will be made, as in the case of the
apocrypha already described, according to kinds of
literature represented ; writings which unite more than
one element will be arranged according to their most
prominent feature. In the case of the OT literature,
slightly modifying our previous classification, we can
includs all the documents we possess under the following
headings : — i. Legendary or Haggadic Narratives, ii.
Prophetical and Apocalyptic books, iii. Poetical, iv.
Didactic.
1 Called 2 Esdras in EV, but oftener, as here, 4 Esdras — i.e.,
4th after ist Esdras, the Heb. Ezra, and Neheniiah. _ It is
called 3 Esd. when Ezra-Neh. are counted one book, as in ©.
In an Amiens MS chaps. I/. 3-14 \b/. are called 3rd, 4th, and
Sth Esd. respectively.
252
APOCRYPHA
A. Old Testament (§§ 10-25).
I. Legendary or Haggadic Narratives (§§ 10-
,18). I. Testament {ox Apocalypse, or
10. Adam and i>,nitcnce)of Adam: Book of the Conflict
Eve, etc. ^y ,^J^„^ a„j y/^,^ — K.xtaut partially in
Greek. Latin, Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic [and Coptic].
These versions represent variously developed forms
or fragments of a Jewish romance dealing with the
life of Adam and Eve after the Fall, and with their
death and burial. We no longer possess the romance
in its original form.
The remains of it must be sought in the following documents :— ■
(a) (Ireek Apocalypse of Moses, more properly Aujyijo-i? n-epl
•Afiiji Kdl Euav. Kdited by Tischendorf (Apocalypses Apocry-
plue, 1866) and, in a fragmentary text, from the best M.S, by
Ceriani (Monumenta sacra et pro/ana, 621). It is principally
concerned with the death of Adam and Kve, and includes an
important narrative of the Kail. It is essentially Jewish.
W Latin I'ita Adce ct Evte : extant in many MSS, printed
by Wilh. Meyer in Ahh. il. Munch. Akad., Phdos-plulol.
Kl. 14, 1878. It covers the same ground as (a) and introduces
elements which occur in (y) and (5).
(y) Arabic and Ethiopic Book of Adam ami F.ve or Conflict
of Adam antl Eve. A long romance, Christianized throughout,
dealing with the sufferings an.l t^m,.t,>tums of "vd.im and Eve
after the Fall. The history i- 1 i-i i • the birth of Christ,
and has close affinities with li , <iiKr« (ed. Bezold ;
Schatzlwhle). It is derived m . n. 1 .i iVum tlie lost Jewish
romance. First translated by i )iiini.inn (/'rt.v Christl. Adamhuh
des Morsenlamies, 1853): Ethiopic text by Trumpp in Abh. d.
Miinch. Akail. 15, 1879-81 : English Version by S. C. Malan
{Hook of Adam and K7'e, 1882). See too the article 'Adam,
Books of,' by Hort, in Diet. Christ. Biogr.
(6) Greek, Syriac, and .\rabic fragments of the Testament
of Adam. Prophetic and apocalyptic in character; some are
extracts from the old romance in its original form ; others are
Christianized. Edited by Renan in Joum. As. (1853, pp. 427-
471); the Greek by M. R. James (.^/iJcry/Aa Anecdota : Texts
ami Studies, ii. 3 138).
(e) Coptic. .\ leaf from a Moses-Adam apocalypse, gnosticized.
Edited by Schmidt and Harnack in Sitzungsber. d. k. pr.
Akad. d. Il'iss., 1891, p. 1045. It is now recognised by
Harnack to be part of the late Coptic Apocalypse of Bartholomew.
2. Book of Jubilees, Little Genesis [Leptogenesis),
Apocalypse (or Testament) of Moses. — -A 'haggadic
coinmoiitary upon Genesis.' The book is in the form
of a revelation made to Moses on Mount Sinai by the
angel of the Presence. Hence it has been called the
Apocalypse of Moses. The narrative communicated by
the angel begins with the Creation, and extends to the
giving of the law, and the whole time is reckoned in
periods of Jubilees: hence the name Book of Jubilees.
The events narrated in Genesis are for the most part
sketched slightly with the addition of details of a legend-
ary character : hence the name I^ploi^enesis, ' a detailed
treatment ofGenesis' (see, however, EscHATOLOGY,§49).
These details include the names of the wives of the
patriarchs, the wars of Jacob and P2sau, the last words of
Abraham and Isaac. Much of the legendary element
in Test. xii. Fair, (see below) is derived from this book :
see Apocalyptic, §§ 48-58.
3. Testamentsofthe Three Patriarchs ( Abraham , Isaac,
and Jacob). — Referred to in the Apost. Const. (616).
■n ^ ■ Books under these names, combining the
11. Jratri'
APOCRYPHA
vision narrated in Gen. 15 : edited by N. Bonwetsch in
Studien zur Geschichte d. Theolugie u. h'irche, 1897.
5. Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. — A book
combining the three elements of legendary, apocalyptic
and didactic matter in twelve sections, each of which
gives the last dying speech of one of the sons of Jacob ;
see Apocalyptic, §§ 68-76.
6. Life (or Confession) of Aseneth. — A Jewish legend
of early date; Christianized.
axchs.
legendary, apocalyptic, and didactic ele-
ments Christianized, are found in Greek,
Slavonic, and Roumanian ( Testament [or Apocalypse']
of Abraham), and in Arabic and V.\.\\\o\i\c [Testaments of
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob). They narrate the circum-
stances attending the deaths of the three patriarchs.
Their early date is maintained by the present writer
(one is cjuoted by Origen), but is not universally allowed.
Dr. Koiiler [JQR, 1895) assigns an Essene origin to the
Test, oj' Abraham.
Edited by M. R. James (' Test, of Abraham ' : Texts and
Studies, 22) and by Dr. Caster (' Roumanian version of Apoc.
of Abraham,' PSB.-\, 1887). The Greek version is printed from
one MS by Vassiliev (WwtWo^a Gra-co-Byzantina, 1893).
4. Apocalypse of Abraham.— S\3.\on\c, from Greek.
An interesting Jewish book with Christian insertions.
The first part is haggadic, and gives the story of Abra-
ham's conversion : the second is an expansion of the
2S3
12. Aseneth.
Extant in (ireek and
Syriac (and Latin). It is connected
with the Test. xii. Pair. , and narrates
the circumstances attending the marriage of Aseneth
with Joseph. There is much beauty in the story. The
Latin version was. according to the present writer's
belief, made by or for Grosseteste, at the same time
as that of the Testa?nents.
The Greek and Latin are edited by P. Batiffol, Studia
Patristica, 1889. The Syriac will be found in Land, Anecd.
Syr., and Oppenheim, Fal-ula Josephi et Asenethu; i8£6. See
Hort's article in Vict. Chr. Biogr.
7. Testament of Job. — A Midrash on Job, containing
a mythical story of his life. Christianized to a very
^ f ~ limited extent. It is ascribed to his brother
13. Job. j^T^pj^5 (Nahor). Job's wife is called .Sitis.
Elihu is represented as inspired by Satan. The story
is worth reading.
It exists in Cireek and seems to be quoted in the Apoc. Paul.
Printed from a Vatican MS by Mai (.Script. Cet. .X.n: Coll.
7 180) ; a French translation in Mignes J)ict. des Apooyf'lus ;
edited last from two MSS by M. R. James, Apocryplta A,ux-
dota, ii. 1897.
8. Testament of Solomon. — Greek. Practically a
magical book, though interspersed with large haggadic
sections. It is mainly Jewish, though
14. Solomon, (Christian touches have been introduced.
^ It narrates the circumstances under
which Solomon attained power over the world of spirits,
details his interviews with the demons, and ends wilh
an account of his fall and loss of power.
Ed. first by F. F. Fleck in W'issenschaftl. Reise; reprinted
in Mignes Ccdrcnus, vol. ii., as an appendix to Psellus's
writings. A German translation by Bornemann in lllgen's
Z.f. Kirchcngesck., 1843.
9. Contradictio Salomonis. — A work under this name
is condemned in the " Gelasian " Decree de recipicndis
et non recipiendis libris. It was in all likelihood an
account of Solomon's contest in wisdom with Hiram,
and was the groundwork of the romance still extant
in many forms and under many names — e.g. , Dialogue
of Solomon and Saturn (Anglo-Saxon), Solomon and
Kitovras (?.<?. Kentauros, Slavonic), Solomon and Mar-
colph ( Latin, etc. ). Josephus mentions the Hiram-legcnd.
See on all these books J. M. Kemble's Introduction to the
Anglo-Saxon Dialogue 0/ Solomon ami Saturn, ^tlfric Society,
1843, and compare Achiachakus.
10. Ascension of Isaiah. — Partly haggadic, but chiefly
important as an apocalypse — under which heading it
will be treated. See Apocalyptic, §§ 42-47.
11. Pseudo-Philo's Libct antiquitatum Biblicarum.
—Latin, from Greek, and that from Hebrew. Printed
,- Ti A thrice in the i6th century (in 1527, in
Pvf-? ^55°' ''^"^ '" '599). this book had
practically escaped the knowledge of all
modern scholars (except Cardinal Pilra) until Mr.
Leopold Cohn reintroduced it to the world in an article
in the Jewish Quarterly Pez'ieiv, 1898. It is a haggadic
summary of Bible history from Adam to the death of
Saul, full of most interesting visions, prophecies, and
legends.
The Latin version, the only form in which the book is
known, very much resembles the version of 4 Esd. hour
fragments published by the present writer (Prayer of Moses,
Vision of Kenaz, Lament of Sella, and Song of l)a.\id = Apoc.
Anecd. i.) turn out to be extracts from this work of I'seudo-
Philo. It is apparently pre-Christian and merits careful study.
12. Book of Jasher. — \ haggadic commentary upon
the Hexateuch, containing ancient elements, but pre-
served in a mediaeval form. There is
16. Jaalier. ^ prench translation by Drach in Mignes
Did. des Apocryphes, vol. ii.
254
APOCRYPHA
13. /?,>i>^ of Xoah. — Haggadic and apocalyptic frag-
ments of this work arc incorporated in the Hook of Knoch ;
17. Noah.
there is also a Hebrew Midrash under this
name printed by Jellinek in Bet-ha-Mid-
rasc/i, 3 155. I^artly based on the Book of Jubilees. See
Ronsch and Charles, and cp. .VfocALYiTic, §§ 24, 57.
14. Book of Lamech. — The title ' Lamech ' occurs in
Greek lists of apocryphal Ixjoks. A story of Lamech
18. Lost Books. ''^''''' '^ '"°""'^ separately in Slavonic
may or may not be identical with
this. There can be little doubt that the old book
treated (as the Slavonic one does) of the accidental
slaying of Cain by Lamech.
15. Book of Og. — In the Gelasian Decree a book is
mentioned as ' The Book of Og the giant, whom the
heretics feign to have fought with a dragon after the
Flood.' It was, according to the present writer's
belief, identical with a book Wpar^y^arda. tCov Viyo-vruiv
or Treatise of the Giants, which is mentioned in a list
of Manicha;an apocrypha by Timotheus of Con-
stantinople (Fabricius, Cod. apoc. NT 1 139). It
was no doubt a Jewish haggada, containing, to judge
from the title, some stirring incidents. Possibly
it may h.ave given a Jew ish form of the ancient Dragon-
myth of Babylonia, on which see Gunkel (Sc/iopf ).
16. Peiiilettce of Janiies and Mamhres. — Mentioned
also in the Gelasian Decree, and perhaps, like the
Panitentia Cypriani, a confession of the wicked magical
arts of the two Fgyptian wizards. See an article by
Iselin in Hilgenfeld's ZIVT, 1894. There is a fragment
(in Latin and Anglo -.Saxon) apparently belonging to
this book in the Cotton MS Tib. B.V. ; but it has not
}'et been printed.
17. Esther. — Origen on Romans (92 : p. 646)h.asthe
following passage, which clearly refers to a romance
about Esther : ' We have found it written in a certain
book of an apocryphal nature (secretiore) that there is
an angel of grace who takes his name from grace. For
he is called Ananehel (oiAnahel), which being inter-
preted means the grace of God. Now in this writing
it was said that this angel was sent by the Lord to
Esther to give her grace in the sight of the king. '
There are, besides, many haggadic histories — e.g. ,
of David, Jonah, the Captivity, and (see J?ez'. St'm.
1898) the Rechabites— in Syriac, Carshunic, Arabic, and
Ethiopic, which are still unpublished ; they are to be
found in MS at Paris and elsewhere.
See Zotenberg's Cat. des JIfSS Syriaqucs and Cat. dcs
MSS lltkiopiques itc la Bibliotlu-que Nationale, and Wright's
Catalogues of Ethiopic and of Syriac MSS in the British
Museum. Much Slavonic apocryphal literature also rem.ains
unknown to critics, though most of it has been printed. See
Kozak'slist of Slavonic apocryphal literature \n JPT asvix., and
Bonwetsch in Harnack's Altchristl. Lit. 902-917.
II. Apocalyptic. i. Book of Enoch; and 2.
19. Apocalyptic : ^'"''^' £ Enoch. -^^^ Awjca-
Enoch, e?c ^^7'^' §§ '^'^^ ^'''^ 33-4i respec-
tively.
3. Sibylline Oracles. — Greek hexameter verse, in four-
teen books of various dates. See -Apckt.xlyptic, §§ 86-98.
4. Assumption of Moses. — (^)uoted in the epistle of
Jude, as well as by later Christian writers ; extant in
Latin, incomplete. See Apoc.VLYPTIc, §§ 59-67.
5. Apocalypse of Baruch. — A long and important
apocalypse, closely resembling 4 Esdras in style and
20. Baruch. '^°"Sht. See .Apocai yptic, §§ 5-
Jeremiah. etc. ]!' ''"'^ also below under /Mroaster
(§ 23, no. 15).
6. Other Apocalypses of Baruch {a), (b), (c). — As far
as is known at present (a) is contained in only a single
Greek MS (Brit. Mus. Add. 10,073): edited by M. R.
James, Apocr. Anecd. ii. , with a translation of the
Slavonic version by W. R. Morfill : Ftonwetsch also
has published a German translation of the Slavonic.
The Greek text has two Christian passages. In
the main it may very well be Jewish and of early date.
It contains revelations about the course of the sun and
25s
APOCRYPHA
moon, the history of the Tower of Babel, the \'ine
(Christian), and the offering of the prayers of men to
God by .Michael, [c) An Ethiopic Apocalypse of Baruch,
preserved in a British Museum MS (118 in Dill-
mann's Catalogue) is apparently the production, in jjart
at least, of an Abyssinian Christian. This, or another,
is mentioned in Wright's Catalogue (.\o. 27, 6, etc.).
A cjuotation from Baruch not found in any existing
book of his, is in the Altercatio Simonis et Theophili
{Text eu. Unters. I3), and a larger one in some MSS
of Cypriani's Testiinonia,'62g. It is noticed by Ur. J.
Rendel Harris in Tlie Rest of the Words of Baruch, p. 10.
7. Reliqua verborum BarMchi [The rest of the words
of Baruch), or Paralipomena Jeremice. — Greek and
Ethiopic. There is hardly anything really apocalyptic
in this book, which is a Christian appendix to the
Apocalypse of Baruch, haggadic in character. It
narrates the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchad-
rezzar, the miraculous rescue of Ebed-melech, and the
martyrdom of Jeremiah.
Printed first in Etliiopic by Di. {Chrestotiiathia Aithiopica),
in Greek by Ceriani (.Mon. sacr. et pro/.), and lastly in (ireek
by Dr. J. Rendel Harris (/v«/ of the IVords 0/ Baruch, 1889).
Harris regards it as an eirenicon addressed by the church of
Jerusalem to the synagogue after the Bar-Cochba rebellion. It
was often printed in variously abridged forms in the Greek Mctuea.
8. A short Prophecy of Jeremiah is uniformly attached
to the Epistle of Jeremiah in Ethiopic MSS of the
Old Testament. It consists of only a few lines, and is
written to justify the quotation from 'Jeremy the
prophet ' in Mt. 279. It is addressed to Pashur. Jerome
had seen a Hebrew volume in which a similar passage
occurred. Dillmann printed it in his Chrestomathia
ALthiopica, 1866 (p. viii n. 2).
9. Ascension of Isaiah. — See APOCALYPTIC, §§ 42-47.
10. Apocalypse of Elias, and
11. Apocalypse of Zephaniah.
The first of these was supposed to be the source of
Paul's quotation in i Cor. 29, ' Eye hath not seen,' etc.
91 Plina '^^^ second is c|uoted by Clement of
Zephaniaretc. -^'^T^"^- They both survive in
*«7yiiaaxia,ii, cui-. ^^^.^ dialects of Coptic. fragments of
10 and II were published by Bouriant in the Mi'inoires
de la Mission archc'ologique au Caire. Stern translated
them into German in ZA, 1886. The whole, with
additional fragments, has been edited by Steindorff in
Harnack and Gebhardt's Texte u. Untersuch. The
Apocalypse of Elias is fairly complete : the editor assigns
only one leaf to the .Apocalypse of Zephaniah and a large
fragment to an unknown Apocalypse. It is the present
writer's belief that this last is from an Apocalypse
of Zephaniah. Both are seemingly Christianized forms
of Jewish books, containing sections descriptive of
heaven and hell, and prophecies of Antichrist, and his
conflict with Tabitha and the two witnesses. There
is an Apocalypse of P'.lias in Hebrew and one was
printed in Jellinek's Bet-ha-Midrasck and edited in
1897 by Buttenwieser. A passage from a Gnostic
Vision of Elias is quoted by Epiphanius [Hcer. 2613).
12. A Revelation of Moses, containing a visit to the
unseen world, has been translated from Hebrew by
Dr. Gaster (JRAS, 1893).
13. An Apocalypse of Esdras, extant in SyTiac,
edited by Baethgen from a late MS, and published
with a translation in ZATll' {Higg-
210 ['86]), is by some thought to be
an old Jewish apocalypse which was remodelled in
Mohammedan times. There is an Ethiopic Apoc. of
Esd. in fhe British Museum (see Wright's Catalogue).
14. The same remark applies to a Persian History of
Daniel edited and translated by Zotenberg in Merx's
Archiv (I386), which in its present form is certainly
mediaeval. The Armenian, the Coptic, and the Greek
"Visions of Daniel,* which are printed respectively by
J It may be noticed in this connection that in ®a of
Theodotion's Daniel the whole book is divided into twelve
Visions (opatrcit).
22. Esdras, etc.
APOCRYPHA
Kalemkiar, by Woide, by Klostermann, and by I
V'assiliev (Anecdota linrco-Hyzantinii, 1893), arc also
very late, but contain ancient elements. See on these \
lKK)ks W. Itousset's recent work. D<r Antichrist, and
compare .A.ntk iikist. It is ihouKiit by Zahn that
Hipixjlytus commented upon the a{xx,ryphal .Vpocalypse
of Daniel as well as on the canonical Apocalypse (/-or-
sihiingfn,^>\-2o).
15. liMks of Zoroiister. — Zoroaster, as we learn from
the tlementines ( AVf<);w. 1 29 ; //om.9i). was identified
_ . with Ham, son of Noah ; and mystical
. ■ prophecies, most likely of Jewish origin.
Apocalypses, ^^re current under both names. Clement
of .Mcx.uuliia quotes a prophecy of Ham (Strom. G642);
and there are oracles of Zoroaster in Greek verse (with
commentaries by Cicmistius Pletho and Michael I'sellus)
printed, e.g., in Opso|)a;us's Sibyllitia, 1607. Zoroaster
was also identified by Mastern scholars with Riruch.
.Sok)mon of Bassora in the Book of the Bee cites a
])rophecy of his concerning the .Star of the Hpiphany (ed.
Builge, circa 37). The prophecy is, of course, Christian.
16. Hooks of Sitfi. — The .Sethians poss'ssed writings
called Books of Seth and others under the name of the
Allogi-Nfis {dWoyivth), a term which meant the sons
of .Seth. Hippolytus (A'(/. ILcr.) (juotes much from a
Sethian book. Pscudepigrapha of this kind, however, to
which might Ix; added the prophecies of I'archor (Clem.
Alex. ), the (losix,'l of I'2ve (l'",piphaiiius), and Justin the
(Inostic's Book of Baruch (Hippolytus, Rif. //<,r. 5),
are hartlly to be reckoned among apocryphal literature,
since there seems to have been in them little or no
attempt at verisimilitude of attribution.
17. Prayer of Jo.<iepk. — Quoted by Origen and Pro-
copius (in Genesiin). It represented Jacob as an in-
carnation of a pre-existent angel Israel ; in the fragments
we i^ossess, Jacob is the speaker. The lx)ok extended
to 1 100 (XTixoi, Ix-ing of about the same length as the
Wisdom of Solomon.
18. Elddd and Medad. — .\ prophecy attributed to
these two elders (for whom see Nu. 11) is quoted in the
Shepherd of Hernias ( /'/.f. 234). It consisted of 400
arix^'- (atwut twice the length of the Song of Sfilomon).
111. I'OKTICAI.. I. Psalms of Solomon. — (ireek,
from Hebrew (lost). A collection of
See
24. Poetical, eighteen ^^r nineteen) Psalms.
.■\lf)C.\I,Vl'TK-, §§ 77-85.
2. Additions to the Psalter.— (a) Vs. l.'il, on David's
victory over Cjoliath, is appended to the © Version
of the Psalter. It is a very simple composition, of
some merit, (b) Three apocryphal psalms in .Syriac,
edited by W. Wright (PS/i.-t, 1887, p. 257), viz. a
prayer of Hezekiah, a psalm on the Return, and two
thanksgivings by David on his victory over the lion and
the 'wolf.' They are probably Jewish, and of con-
siderable anticiuity.
3. A Lamentation of Job's Wife, inserted in the
© text of Job 2, is closely connected with the
Testament of Job.
I\^ DiUACTlc— The three main inemlxTS of this
__ j».j .. cl.a.ss, the Wisdom of Solomon, Baruch,
20. Uiaacuc. .^^^^j ^^^ y,^^,^^\^ of Jeremy, have Ix-en
already noticed (§ 8, 2 ; § 6, 1 ; ami § 6, 2 resi)ectively).
The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (see .Apoc.V-
LYi'Tic, §§ 68-76) have a large didactic element. lie-
sides these there is little to note, save perhaps certain
Magical Hooks of u\/oses. — Extant in Greek papyri
found in Egypt ; they have been printed by Leemans
and Dieterich (in Abraxa.';). They are not purely
Jewish ; Jewish names are employed, but there is a
large Orphic element. The story of Achiacharus (see
.Acm.xc ii.XKUs) also ought to Ije mentioned in this place.
Besides the many extant books and titles, there
were j)rol)ably others of which we know nothing ;
yet it is the Ijelief of the present writer that many
more apocalypses at least have been postulated by
recent criticism (e.g., Spitta on the Johannine .\poca-
17 257
APOCRYPHA
lypse. and Kabisch on the apocalypses of I-^ras and of
Baruch) than the prolxibilities of the case will warrant.
B. .\/;ir T/-sjyi.wj:.vr (^ 26-31).
Under this head only a few of the most prominent
NT apocrypha can be mentioned ; much of the
literature is excludetl by its late date.
1. GosPKl-S.* I. Gospel according to the Hebn-ivs. —
The relation of this txx)k to the canonical CJosi)el of
28 OoBnela ^'^^tthew cannot l>e discussed here (see
- ' t ' Gosi'Ei.s). The facts known alx^ut
ragmen ary ^^^ \,odk are that it was in Aramaic, that
Jerome translated it into Cjreek and into
Latin, and that in his time it was in use among the
' Nazarenes ' of .Syria. Jeromes versions have perished ;
but he rei^eatedly (|uotes from the Latin one. The frag-
ments preserved by him, by Origen and I-^usebius, and by
Codex Tischendorf 1 1 1. of ninth centur)' (566 in Gregorj-)
numl)cr about twenty-two. They will be found in
Hilgenfeld's NT extra Canonem receptum, 4, in the
monograjihs of Nicholson, and Handmann (Texte u.
( 'nters. ), in Westcott's /ntrod. to the Study of the
Crospels, and in Zahii's Gesch. des NTlichen Kanons,
22, etc. The fragments <|Uoted contain additions lx)th
to the narrative and to the sayings of Jesus. .Some
of the sayings differ only in form from similar sayings
in the canonical gospels ; others are independent. The
account of the ba|)tism is distinctly Ebionitic. The
longest continuous passage describes the ajipc-arance
of Jesus to James the Just after the resurrection.
2. Gospel of the Pb'iunites or Gospel of the Twelve.—
I'.piphanius is the only writer who has preserved us any
fragments of this gospel (adv. Har. 30), and from these
it is plain that the book was a ' tendency-writing ' put
into the mouths of the Twelve Apostles (who descrilx;
their call, using the first i)erson), and related to the
Greek Matthew. It was naturally strongly Ebionitic,
and it began with the baptism.
3. Gospel according to the Egypt iaris. — Probably the
earliest (jnostic gospel. \ passage is quoted by Clement
of .Alexandria, who tells us that one Julius Cassianus,
a Docetic teacher, used the same words; they also
appear in the so-called second epistle of Clement (of
Rome). The passage Cjuoted is Encratite in its Ijearing.
4. Gospel according to Peter. — Of this book we have
knowledge from the following sources : — (i ) A fragment
of a letter of Serapion, Bishop of Antioch (.\.I). n.o-
203), addressed to the church of Rhossus, condemning
the gospel (after perusal) as Docetic (l'".us. //A' 6 12).
(2) A statement by Origen (In Matth. tom. 17k>) that
the book represented the lirethren of Jesus as sons of
Joseph by a former marriage. (3) A long and im-
portant fragment, containing an account of the Passion
and Resurrection, found by the French Archa-ological
Mission in a tomb at .Akhnihn in 1885, published first
in their Me moires (1892), and repeatedly since then.
Among German editions must lie mentioned those of
Harnack, of Schut)ert, and of Zahn ; among English
ones, those of Robinson and of Swete. The literature is
very considerable. The conclusions uixjn which critics
seem agreed at this moment are : that the fragment is
Docetic and anti-Jewish, though saturated with allusions
to the Old Testament ; and that it shows a knowlc<lge
of all four canonical gospels. Its use by Justin Martyr is
held probable by most, but denietl by Swete (p. xxxiv/. ).
5. The Fay urn gospelfragment. — Contained in a tiny
fragment of [japyrus among the Rainer papyri at
Vienna ; discovered by Bickcll. It gives the words of
Christ to Peter at the Last Supper in a form which
diverges largely by omissions fronj any in the canonical
gos|X'ls. Hort contended for the view that it was
a fragment of a patristic homily and merely a loose
quotation. Ed. Harnack, Texte u. I' nters. 5 4. etc.
6. The Logia. — This is the name given by the first
editors, Grenfell and Hunt, to the contents of a
1 On these see also Gospels (index).
2^8
APOCRYPHA
single leaf of a jjapyrus book found by them at Oxy-
rhynchus. It contains a small number of sayings of
Jesus which in part agree with sayings contained in the
canonical gospels and in part differ from them. Harnack
believes them to be extracted from the Gospel according
to the Egyptians ; but it is as yet not possible to express
a final opinion on their character.
7. Ctospel of Matthias. — Probably identical with the
Traditions of Matthias, from which we have quota-
tions. It was most likely a Basilidian work, for the
Basilidians professed to regard Matthias as their special
authority among the apostles. See Zahn, Gesch. d.
NT Kanons, ii. 2 751.
8. Vivva. Ma/)ias (the Descent of Mary), quoted by
Epiphanius (//«•/-. 26 12), was a Gnostic anti-Jewish
romance repre.senting Zacharias as having been killed
by the Jews because he had seen the God of the Jews
in the temple in the form of an ass.
9. Zacharias, the father of John Baptist. — A. Berendts
in Studien zur /.acharias-apokryphen u. Zach.-legende
gives a translation of a Slavonic legend of Zacharias
which may be taken from an early book, subsequently
incorporated into the Book of James.
Almost every one of the apostles had a gospel fathered
upon him by one early sect or another, if we may judge
from the list of books condemned in the so-called
Gelasian Decree, and from other patristic allusions.
Of a gospel of Philip we have fragments, descriptive
of the progress of the soul through the next world,
showing it to have been a Gnostic composition ; it was
probably very much like the Pistis Sophia (a long
Gnostic treatise in Coptic), in which Philip pla3's a
prominent role. The Questions of Maty (Great and
Little) was the title of two Gnostic books of the most
revoking type, quoted by Epiphanius [HcEr. 268).
A Coptic papyrus volume recently acquired by Berlin
contains texts as yet unpublished of two Gnostic books
connected with the names of the Virgin and John, and
also a portion of some early Acts of Peter.
For the most part, however, these heretical pseudepi-
grapha, where we know anything of their contents, must be
27 Fxtant ''assigned to a period later than that con-
Gospels.
templated by our present scope. Of extant
apocryphal gospels two must bementioned.
1. Book of James, commonly called Frotevangeli um
(this name being due to Guillaume Postel, who first
noticed the book, in the sixteenth century). — Extant in
Greek, Syriac, Coptic, etc. A narrative extending from
the Conception of the Virgin to the death of Zacharias.
The James meant is perhaps James the Just. In
one place, where Joseph is speaking, the narrative
suddenly adopts the first person. Origen, and perhaps
Justin, knew the book. A Hebrew original has been
postulated for it. It is undoubtedly very ancient, and
may possibl}' fall within the first century. From it we
ultimately derive the traditional names of the Virgin's
parents, Joachim and Anne. The work has been edited
by Tischendorf {Evangelia Apocrypha).
2. Acts of Pilate, often called the Gospel of Nice-
demus. — Greek, Latin, Coptic, etc. In two parts:
(i) an account of the Passion and Resurrection ; (2) a
narrative of the Descent into Hell. Part I. may be
alluded to by Justin Martyr, who more than once
appeals to Acts of Christ's Passion. It is possible,
however, that he may be referring to another apocryphal
document which exists in many forms— the Anaphora
Pilati or official Report of Pilate to Tiberius. In any
case, the Acta Pilati ( Part I. ) in some form probably
date from ixirly in the second century. Edited by
Tischendorf [I.e.) ; see also Lipsius, Die Pilatusakten,
and Schubert on the Gospel of Peter.
II. Acts. i. Ascents of James {' Ava^dfiol'IaKw^ov),
only mentioned by Epiphanius [Hcer. 30). — An Ebionite
and anti- Pauline book of which we most
likely have an abstract in the end of the
first book of the Clementine Recognitions. It contained
259
APOCRYPHA
I addresses delivered by James the Just in the Temple.
I See Lightfoot, Galatians, 330, 367.
2. Acts of Paul and Thecla. — Greek, Syriac, etc.
I Tertullian tells us that this romance was composed in
j honour of Paul by a presbyter of Asia, who afterwards
j confessed the forgery [De Baptismo, 17) ; and Jerome,
j quoting Tertullian ( probably from the Greek text of the
I same treatise), adds the detail that the exposure took
j place in the presence of John. In the present writer's
opinion, this may be a false reading : ' apud Iconium '
' may have Iieen corrupted into ' apud Joliannem." Un-
doubtedly the romance is the earliest of the kind which
we possess. It details the adventures and trials of a
! virgin, Thecla of Iconium, who was converted by Paul.
; Ed. Lipsius (Acta Petri et Pauli). Professor Ramsay
I contends for the historical accuracy of much of the local
j detail. It is now clear that this episode formed part
of the Acts of Paul which has just been discovered
by Carl Schmidt in a fragmentary form in Coptic. Until
I the text is published, however, little can be said.
The Acts of Paul, Peter, John, Thomas, Andrew, and
Philip have all survived in part. They may be referred
to .some time in the second centurj'. The author of all
of them, save the first and last, was most likely one
Leucius. The Passions and Acts of the remaining
apostles are all later.
III. Episti>k.s. I. The Abgarus Letters. — A letter
from Abgar Uchama, king of Edessa, to our Lord,
29. Epistles. ^?-^r^^ him to visit Edessa and take
*^ up his abode there, and an answer
from our Lord, promising to send an apostle to Abgarus.
are given by Eusebius {HE\\-i), who translates them
from Syriac, and derives them from the, archives of
I Edessa. They are very early, and are intimately con-
I nected with the legend of the apostolate of Addai or
Thaddasus at Edessa. A fragment of a fourth-century
papyrus text of the letters (which are very short) is in
the Bodleian. They arc found also in Syriac.
2. Epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans. ^'Lalin. It
was founded upon Col. 4 16, and is a short cento of
Pauline phrases. An Epistle to the Laodiceans is
mentioned in the Muratorian Canon. See Lightfoot's
Colo.ssians, ZM ff- < ^^'^ Zahn, Gesch. d. NT Kan. ii. 2
566 ; also CoLOssiANs and Ephesians, § 14.
3. Epistle of Paul to the Alexandrines. — Also
mentioned in the Muratorian Canon, and nowhere else.
Zahn (I.e. 58) has printed, from the Bobbio Sacranient-
ary and Lectionary, a lesson purporting to be taken
from the Epistle to the Colossians, which he assigns to
the Epistle to the Alexandrines, or to some similar
Pauline apocryph.
4. 'Third Elpistle of Paul to the Corinthians (and
letter from Corinth to Paiil). — Armenian and Latin
(and Coptic). These are now known to have formed
part of the Acta Pauli.
There are but few other spurious epistles, and these
are all of a distinctly later character.
IV. Apocalypses. 1. Apocalypse of Peter. — Greek.
Quoted by Clement of Alexandria and by the heathen
antagonist of Macarius Magnes (who is
28. Acts.
30. Apoca-
possibly Porphyry), and mentioned
yP ■ the Muratorian Canon. We have now a
considerable fragment of it, which was discovered in the
same MS as was the excerjit from the Gospel of Peter
(see § 26 no. 4). This contains the end of a prophecy of
Jesus about the last times, and a vision of the state of
the blessed, followed by a much longer description of
the torments of various classes of sinners. It was
probably written rather early in the second centuiy,
and has had an enormous influence on later Christian
visions of heaven and hell. Dieterich, in his Nekyia,
has pointed out the strong influence which the Orphic
literature has had on the writer. A trace of the influence
of this apocalypse on Latin documents has been recently
pointed out by Harnack in the Pseudo-Cyprianic tract
De Laude .Martyrii, and earlier by Robinson in the
260
APOLLONIA
Fassion of St. Perpftua, and there is a possible trace in
the earlier tract De Aleatoribus. The Arabic and the
Kthiopic Revelation of Peter <ir lUhiks of Clemenl (see an
article by Hratke in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschr. , 1893) seem "ot
to contain the old book embedded in them ; but as yet
they are not very well known. Ed. Dieterich, Harnack,
James.
2. Prophecy of Hystaspes. — Lost. There are quotations
from it in the Preiuhin^ of Aj«/ (quoted by Clem. Alex. ),
in Justin Martyr (Apul. 1 20 44), and in Lactantius (Div.
Just. 7 15 «8). In every c.ise it is coupled with the Sibylline
Oracles, with which it is clearly to be associated, as a
Christian forgery in pagan form. Amniianus Marcellinus
(236) calls Hystaspes a ' very wise king, father of Darius,'
Lactantius, ' a very ancient king of the Medes, who has
handed down to posterity a most wonderful dream
as interpreted by a prophesying boy (sub interpreta-
tione vaticinantis pueri).' The same author represents
Hystaspes as s;iying that the Roman name was to Xx
wiped out, and, further, that in the last days the
righteous would cry to God and God would hear them.
Justin says that he prophesied the destruction of all
things by fire, and the quotation in Clement makes
him declare that the kings of the earth should hate and
persecute the Son of God— the Christ— and his followers.
It is this last passage which fixes the book as Christian
rather than Jewish.
V. DiD.ACTic. 1. Teac/irri^^ of the Apostles (mAachb).
— Greek. The literature of this manual of ethics and
31 Didactic '-"'^"'''-"'^ discipline is enormous, and the
history of its various forms cannot be
attempted here. It was discovered by Philotheos
Brycnnios in a MS of 1056 at Constantinople, and
printed first in the year 1883. It consists of two distinct
parts ; the first an ethical manual which may be founded
on a Jewi.sh document, and reappears in the Epistle of
Harnabas ; the second relating to church matters, con-
taining disciplinary rules ami liturgical /or;«?//rr. Ojjin-
ions as to its date differ widely. Harnack would assign
it in its present form (which is probably not primitive) to
130-160. It forms the groundwork of the 7th Book of
the .Apostolic Constitutions.
2. Preaching of Peter. — Apparently an orthodox
second-century book, of which Heracleon and Clem.
Alex, have preserved important fragments containing
warnings against Judaism and polytheism, and words
of Jesus to the apostles. Another set of fragments,
which there is no sufficient reason for repudiating,
contains a lament of Peter for his denial, and various
ethical maxims. There are strong similarities between
the first set of fragments and the Apology of A ri slides.
Dobschiitz (in a monograph in Texte u. Unters. ) rejects
the second set. The relation of the book {a) to a
supposed Preaching of Paul, the existence of w hich is
very doubtful, and (/^) to the l^seudo-Clementine literature,
is by no means clear. A Syriac Preaching of Simon
Cephas, published by Cureton, has none of the matter
appearing in the quotations from the Greek book.
T»-wi' 1. '^"'^ '^^ books noticed above, and the
32. BlDllOgrapny. later documents not named (which are
many), the student must consult : —
J. A. F"abricius, Coilc.r Pseutlepig. Vet. Test. Hamburg,
1713 and 1723; Cotiejc Apocryphus NT, ih. 1719, 1743 (ed. 2);
O. \. Vr\lzsche, LiM r.T. pseudefii^aphi select! : A. Hilgen-
feld. Messias Jmiteoruni ; E. Schurer, GJl'; Strack and
Zflckler, Apokryphen d. AT: Wace and Salmon, Speakers
Comm., Apocryplia; J. C. Thilo, Codex Apocryphus Nm>i
J est anient i : Ti.schendorf, Evan^. Apocr. (eci. 2, 1876); Acta
Ap. Apocr.; Apoc. Apocr.; Lipsius, Die Apokr., Apostel-
geschichten, u.Apostellegenden; Miene, Diet, des Apocr.; James,
Apocrypha Anecdota, i. ii.; Vassiliev, Anecdota Grieco-Byzan-
tina; I.ipsius and M. Bonnet, ^c/a Apostolorum Apocr. i. ii.
Editions of individual writings have been specified under their
proper headings. M. K. J.
APOLLONIA (attoAAconia [Ti. WH]). A town
on the I.gnatian Road, in that part of Macedonia which
had the name Mygdonia and lay between the rivers
Strymon and Axius. It was nearLake Bolbe (Betschik
Gdl) ; but its exact site is not yet known. From the
361
APOLLOS
I /tin. Ant. we learn that it was 30 R. m. from Amphi-
I polis. and 37 from Thessalonica. I^ike places it to
the S. of the lake, at the modern village Polina ; and
1 this is probably right, though others are inclined to look
I for it more to the W. at the post -station of Klisali,
which is seven hours from Thessalonica. Ajx^llonia
was at any rate on the main road between Amphijxjlis
and Thessalonica by the Aulon, or pass of Arethusa.
Paul and Silas, therefore, ' passed through ' the town
on their way to Thessalonica (Actsl7i).t w. j. vv.
APOLLONIUS (AnoAAcoNioc [VA] ; Ai-oi.-
LONIUS ; hflaOj^ o!^S/).
I I. (.'-^oii) of riiKA.si..\s [4^.1'.] ; the governor of Cocle-
syria and Phoenicia who, according to 2 Mace. (85-44),
induced Seleucus 1\'. to plunder the rich temple treasury
of Jerusalem (see Hici.ioDOKUS). He may possibly be
the same as —
2. The governor of CcelesjTia imder Alexander
Balas, who came to the help of Alexander's rival,
Demetrius II. (Nikator), who made him chief of the
army. This is more explicable if, as in Polyb. xxxi.
21 2, Apollonius was the foster-brother {(n'ivTpo<f>os) of
Demetrius I. He was Ijesieged at Joppa, and was
entirely defeated by Jonathan near Azotus (Ashdod) in
147 H.c. (i Mace. 1069/:). Jos. {.int. xiii. 43) calls him
Aaoj (or rather Tads. Niese)— /.<'. , one of the Dai (the
classical Daha;) on the E. of the Caspian Sea— and
erroneously represents him as fighting on the side of
Alexander Balas.
3. General of Samaria, one of the officers of
Antiochus Epiphanes, beaten and slain by Judas
the Maccabee, 166 B.C. (1 Mace. 3io_^). He'is prob-
ably the chief tax-commissioner {Apxoiv ipopoXoyiai).
who previously (168-167 »-t- ) lif>d been .sent to hellenise
Jerusalem, and by taking advantage of the sabbath had
routed the Jews and occupied a fort there ( i Mace. 1 29^
2 Mace. 524/: ). He may perhaps l)e identified with—
4. The son of Menesthcus sent by Antiochus Epiphanes to
congratulate Ptolemy VI. Philometor on his accession (iii to.
7rp<iiTOKKr)<j-ia : 2 Mace. 4 21).
5. Son of Ge.nnkus (6 tov Vewatov); a Syrian general under
Antiochus V. Eupator (2 Mace. 12 2).
APOLLOPHANES (AnoAAO(t)ANHC [VA] ; Syr. has
♦m^aliya/, .\polloiiius?), a Syrian .slain by the men
of Jud^xs the Maccabee (2 Mace. IO37).
APOLLOS (attoAAwc' [Ti. WH]), according to
iCor. , our most important source, was a missionary
1 In 1 Cor ^"*^ teacher who continued Paul's work
in Corinth after the first visit of the latter
(36), and was afterwards his companion in Ephesus,
though not p>erhaps at the time the Epistle was being
written (see ^f in 16 12). Shortly before the writing of
the Eirst Epistle four parties had arisen in Corinth
(1 10-12), one of which claimed to be ' of Paul,' and
another ' of Apollos ' ; it argues, therefore, delicacy of
feeling in Apollos that he did not comply with Paul's
invitation to revisit Corinth again. The invitation
itself, on the other hand, makes it plain that there
were no verj- fundamental differences between the two
men, least of all as to doctrine. Yet neither is it con-
ceivable that the party -division turned upon nothing
more than the personal attachment of their individual
converts to the two men respectively. On that sup-
position there would Ix: nothing so blameworthy al>out
it ; and it would Ix; impossible to explain the existence,
alongside of them, of the party of Christ, and still more
of that of Peter. Our earliest authority for Peters ever
having been in Corinth at all is Dionysius, bishop of
Corinth about 170 (Eus. //£ \\.2!>6). who, contrary to
all the known facts of history, will have it that Peter
' Hy contraction, or rather abbreviation, like Z-qva^ from
Zijr<i&upot, Wnvvai from Wiivfavipoi, and so on (cp Names,
8 86, end). The fuller form is more probably 'AjroAAwnot than
'ATToAAoiwpoj, of which the usual contractions were 'AiroAAot,
"ATTfAAat, or 'An-eAAjj^. The reading '.ViroAAoii'iot is actually
given by D in .Acts IS 24. By analogy the accentuation '.XtroA-
X«« ought to be preferred to the currently adopted 'AiroAAwt.
262
2. In Acts.
APOLLOS
came both to Corinth and to Italy simultaneously with
Paul. Thus the formation of an Apollos party, as dis-
tinguished from the party of Paul, can have been due
only to the individuality and niai.ner of teaching of
Apollos. Paul finds it necessary to defend himself
against the charge that ' wisdom ' is absent from his
teaching. His answer (liy-lU) is that in substance
' wisdom ' is really contained in the simple preaching of
the Cross, but that in form he offers it only to Christians
of mature growth, and (this not l)eing the Corinthians'
case) that he h;is purposely kept it in the background
in his dealings with them. 'I'he teachers who offered
' wisdom," and thus excelled Paul in the eyes of many of
the Corinthians, however, were assuredly not the Judai.sers
among whom the parties of Christ and of Peter found
their supporters. Apollos, therefore, must be meant.
Paul actually says that on the foundation laid by him-
self in Corinth, liesides the gold, silver, and precious
stones, wood, hay, and stubble have been built ('512).
But the energy with which he pronounces his judgment
in 1 19/ 29 25 can be explained only by the fact that the
adherents of .Apollos overvalued their teacher and
subordinated substance to form.
With this agrees the notice in Acts 18 24-28 (our
secondary source; see AcT.s),' that -Xpollos was an
elocjuent man, mighty in the Scriptures,
and an Alexandrian Jew. We ma)' ac-
cordingly assume that the distinguishing quality in
.Apollos' teaching of ' wisdom ' showed itself in an
allegorising interpretation of the O'V, such as we see in
Philo or in the Epistle of Barnabas. But the fact that
he was a Christian and taught the doctrine of Jesus
' exactly' (d/cpi/3uJs : IS^s^/)) contradicts the statements
(on the one hand) that he knew only the baptism of
John (1825c) and (on the other) that he had to be in-
structed more perfectly in C^hristianity by I'riscilla and
.\(iuila (1826;^ <:)■ Whilst, therefore, it is possible for us
to regard 182425^^05 derived from a written source
which the compiler had before him, I82SC266C would
seem to be later accretions. The effect of these last
expressions (even if they are traditional) is to represent
Apollos as sulxjrdinate to Paul ; for, according to
lit 1-7, the rest of the disciples of John must receive the
gift of the Holy Ghost for the first time at the hands of
Paul. As to the rest, the fact that in 19 1-3 mention is
made of these as of something new goes to show that
originally in 18 25 there was no reference to a disciple
of John. Further, Acts 18 28 is not easily reconcilable
with what is said in i Cor. 36 : that the mission of
Apollos was directed to the same persons as that of Paul,
and that the church of Corinth consisted almost entirely
of Gentile Christians (i Cor. 122 compared with 7 18).
In that case .Acts 1826a may be attributed to the same
author to whom 1828 (and 1825c 266 c 7) nmst be ascribed.
Of the most recent attempts to deny the existence of the con-
tradictions indicated above none can be pronounced successful.
Blass(^.r/. I'ivies, 7, 1895-96, pp. ■ii,iff., 564, and P hilolo^ of the
Cos/iels, 1898, p. y> /.) supposes Apollos to have derived his
knowledge of Christianity from a book where, as in the .second
canonical gospel, the baptismal precept was wanting. _ Arthur
Wright (/ixp. Times, H, 1897-9S, pp. 8-12, 4377C) replies, with
rea.son (as it seems to us), that such use of a book could not have
been intended by the word Ka.Tr])^el(T9al.. It is only of aKoveiv
that HIa.ss has been able to show that in some few cases it is
practically equivalent to ' learning by reading ' (see the example.s,
in Stephanus, 'J'/ics. I., Paris, 1831, p. 1268 A and 1!. They are
not, however, all of them quite certain. Nor is Jn. 12 34 a case
in cKjint ; the meaning is ' Our teachers have read in the law,
and have told us by word of mouth that the Christ abideth for
ever '). No single in.stance can be adduced in which Ka-n]\fl(r-
©at denotes acquisition of knowledge without intervention of a
teacher. In p.articular, in Rom. 2 17,/; the meaning is, 'thou
bearest the name of a Jew and . . . provest the things that
differ, being instructed out of the law ' [by frequenting the
synagogue, or the instruction of the scribes] ; and even in those
cases where cucoveii/ has practically the sense of 'read,' the
underlying idea is always that the book is read not by the
'hearer' himself, but by some other person, as, for example, a
slave, so that the primary sense of the word has never entirely
disappeared. In the case of .\pollo.s, howe/er, the idea that he
1 The reference to Acts 18 24-38 occurs in | 11.
263
APOSTLE
used a Christian book, not however reading it himself but getting
it read to him by some other person, is too far-fetched to be
brought into reciuisition here. To the suggestion (referred to by
Blass, Acta Apostolorum, ed. philol. 1895, <»'' lo<^-) that
Apollos may have been orally instructed by a man whose know-
ledge of Christianity in its turn was limited to the contents of a
book from which the baptismal command was absent, it has to
be replied that the supposition is irreconcilable with the aKpifiiot
of Acts 1725.1 Wright himself, however, contributes nothing
new to the solution of the question except the emendation of
iKaXti into an-eAaAci (so U), the verb being then taken as mean-
ing ' to repeat by rote ' or at least ' to glibly recite.' Even if such
a meaning could be established for the word, it would not nearly
suffice to remove the difficulties of the passage. Lastly, Balden-
sperger (_Der I'rotoi; lies ^ Jivan,^eiiums, i86<5, pp. 93-99) is con-
strained to take refuge in the view that what Apollos taught
aKp'^uv; consisted only of iMessianic matters as enumerated in
such passages as Heb. eiyC; that the editor of the source of
Acts here employed .says to 7r«pi tou 'IijaoO only from a point of
view of his own, meaning all the while not the historical Jesus
but simply the Messiah in the larger sense, in whose coming the
disciples of John also believed. If this be .so, he could not
possibly have expressed his meaning in a less appropriate and
more misleading way.
Tit. 3 13, the only other XT passage in which Apollos
is named, catuiot be used as a historical source ; and
_ , there is no ground for the conjecture that
. . what constituted the difference between
P ■ Apollos and I'aul lay in the value attached
by the former to the administration of baptism with his
own hands (i Cor. 1 13-17), and that thereby he gave an
impulse to the practice of baptism for the dead ( i Cor.
1.529). Paul, indeed, regards the church of Corinth,
although he has personally baptized hardly any of its
members, as wholly his own (i Cor. 4 15 and often).
On the other hand, the hypothesis put forward by
Luther (as having already been suggested somewhere)
that Apollos wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews is, at all
events, preferable to any other that ventures to con-
descend on a name.
In the lists of ' the Seventy ' (Lk. 10 i), dating from the fifth
and sixth centuries, Apollos is enumerated, and has the diocese
of Cajsarea assigned to him {C/i)on. J'asc. Bonn ed., i. 442,
ii. 126). p. VV. S.
APOLLYON (AnoAAYOON [Ti. WH], Rev.9ii.
See An.\i)DON.
APOSTLE (^noCToAoc. ' a messenger ') 2 was the
title conferred by Jesus on the twelve disciples whom
, „, he sent forth, on a certain occasion, to
_,■ , , preach and heal the sick. In the earliest
(jospel tradition the disciples appear to be
spoken of as apostles only in reference to this special
mission (Mk. 814 [NB]= Lk. 6 13. cp Mt. IO2 ; and Mk.
63o = Lk. 9 10) ; but the name soon Vxicame a customary
designation, and is so employed in Lk. (175 24 10) and
Acts (I2, etc.). The nuinl)er twelve was symlxslical,
corresponding to the twelve tril)es of Israel ; and when
Judas fell from his ' apostolate ' (.Actsl25) the number
was restored by the election of Matthias.* It is used
in this symbolical and representative sense in Rev. 21 14.
Lists o/the T~,velve.—\n the four lists (Mt. IO2 iMk.3 16 Lk.
614 Actsl 13) the names fall into three groups of four names,
the first name in each group being constant, while the onier of
the rest changes. Thus : —
I. Mk. Peter James John .Vndrew.
-Ml. Lk. Peter Andrew James John.
.\cts Peter John James Andrew.
II. Mk. Lk. Philip Bartholomew Matthew Thoma.s.
Mt. Philip Bartholomew Thom.-is Matthew.
Acts Philip Thomas Bartholomew Matthew.
III. Mk. Mt. James Thaddajus Simon the Jud.is
of .Alphajus Cananjean I.scariot.
Lk. (.\cts) James .Simon Zelotes Judas of Judas
of .\lpha;us J.ames Iscariot.
Mark's order of the first group recurs in ftlk. 13 3. It puts first
the three who were selected as witnesses of the raising of Jairus's
daughter (Mk. 637), of the Transfiguration (82), and of the
Agony (14 33). "Their importance is further marked by surnames
given by Jesus, Peter ( = Ceph.T.s) and Boanerges. Mt. and Lk.
1 Plass now {Phil. 0/ Gospels') expressly rejects the idea.
2 ijroo-ToAot, a stronger word than dyytAos, properly denotes
not a mere messenger, but rather the delegate of the person who
sends him. It seems to have been used among the Jews of the
fourth centurj- A.D., of persons sent on a mission of responsibility,
especially for the collection of moneys for religious purposes.
S On this subject, see Matthias, i.
264
tliu locality in whic
l)y the NT of the
APOSTLE
drop the Aramaic surname Boanerges, and class the brothers I
together (' Peter anil Andrew his brother'). In Acts the order |
is accounted for by the prominence of Peter and John in the
rninj; chapters. This seems to have h.id a reflex action on
writer's mind, for in l.k.Ssi O28 we have ' Peter and John
and James,' though where Peter is not mentioned we nave .
' James and John,'^9 54. |
The original signification of the t m (delegate or
missionary) is recalled by its application to Barnaljas
p . and Saul (Actsl44i4), who had been selected 1
under the direct guidance of the Spirit from
among the prophets and teachers of the church of !
Antioch and sent forth on a mission . enterprise, j
I'aul in his epistles defends his claim to be an ap(5stle |
in the highest sense, as one directly commissioned by
God ; and in this connection he empliasises his personal
ac(iuaintance with the risen Christ (Gal. 1 1 2 Cor. 11 5
1 Cor. 9 I : ' Am I not an apostle, have I not seen Jesus
our Lord?'). As 'apostle of the Gentiles' (Koni.
11 13) he received full recognition from the chief apostles
in Jerusalem ((Jal. '2 7-9).
The stress laid by I'aul on his own apostolate, as ' not
a w hit behind ' that of the Iwelve, was probably a
^., main factor in the subset|uent restriction of
®"' the title to the original apostles and himself. '
In the N'T, however, it is certainly applied to Barnabas, j
as we have seen, and almost certainly to Silvanus
(i Thess. 26), .\ndronicus, and Junias (Rom. 16 7) —
apart from its more limited reference in the case of the
'apostles of the churches' (2 Cor. 823) and Epaphro-
dilus (Phil. '225 'your apostle'). Moreover, we see it
claimed in the church of ICphesus by certain persons to
whont it is denied only after they have been tested and
'found false' (Rev. 22).
Rules for deciding the v.-ilidity of such claims are given in the
early ni.iTiual called / /te Tituhine: o/tlie Af'OstUs. This book,
Lh shows us a jjriinitive type of Church life existing in
ility in which it was written, confirms the view suggested
extension of the title of apostle beyond the
\ of the Twelve and Paul. Apostles are here spoken of as
teachers essentially itinerant ; ranking above the prophets who
may or may not ne settled in one place, and in no specified
relation to the bishops and deacons who are responsible for the
ordinary local administration of the community. Even as the
first apostles were sent forth ' without purse or scrip,' .so these,
'according to the ordinance of the gospel,' move from place to
place, and are not to remain in a settled church more than two
days, nor to receive money or more than a day's rations. These
wandering missionaries are referred to by Kusebius as ' holding
the first rank of the succession of the apostles ' (//A'3 37 5 10 ;
he avoids the actual designation 'apostle,' perhaps in deference
to later usage) ; and the strict regulations in the Teaching prove
that there was danger lest the frequency of their visits should
become burdensome to settled churches.
It is interesting to observe that the tradition of the application
of the title to missionaries survives at the present day in the
Kast. Among the ( Ireeks the word for a missionary is icpaird-
o-ToAot, and the delegates of the .\rchbishop of Canterbury's
mission to the Nestorians are regularly called apostles by the
Syrians of Urmi.
Having thus clearly established the wider use of the
term ' apostle,' we must return and consider the uniciue-
4. ApoBtolate. ^f'^ °^ ^'^\ ,P"^!"°" °f^"P'f ^^ '^^
" Iwelve and I'aul, to whom par excel-
lence the title Iwlongs. The distinction of their office
which first comes under notice is that they were witnesses
of the Resurrection. This is emphitsised at the election
of the new apostle in Acts lai/ 'Of the men which
have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus
went in and out among us, one of these must with
us be a witness of his resurrection.' Their personal
discipleship to Jesus, however, and the special training
which he had bestowed upon them, had fitted them
to Ix; not only the preachers of faith and repentance
to the multitudes, but also the authoritative instructors
of the ' brethren ' (cp .Acts 242 ' the apostles' doctrine ').
Their commission was derived directly from Christ,
even as his was from the Father (Jn. 2O21, and cp
I Clem. 45 : ' Christ then is from God, and the
apostles from Christ'). In pierforming cures they lay
stress upon the fact that they are his representa-
tives ; their acts are in fact his (cp especially Acts
3 16 934). Certain functions are in the first instance
26s
APPEAL
exercised exclusively by the a[x>stlcs : as the laying on
of hands, to convey the Pentecostal gift to the Iwip-
tized, and the appointntent of local ofticers in the
church. In the earliest stage, t(x>, the contributions of
wealthy lx:lievers are laid ' at the apostles' feet ' ; though
at a later lime it is ' the presbyters ' who receive the offer-
ings made for 'the brethren in JudiL-a' (Acts4 34/. 1 1 y^).
The authority implied in their commission is nowhere
formally defined ; but on two important occasions we
are permitted to observe the method of its exercise.
'Hius, in the appointment of the Seven the apostles call
on the whole Uxly of believers to elect, and thereuiKJii
themselves apjxjint the chosen persons to their work by
a solenm ordination. ,\gain, when the c)uestion of the
obligation of (jentile Ixjlievers to observe the Mosaic
ritual arises in .Antioch, it is referred to ' the apostles
and elders ' in Jerusalem (see Cou.scil,, ii. ), and a letter
is written in their joint names ( ' the apostles and elder
brethren). This letter is couched in terms of authori-
tative advice rather than of direct conuiiand ; ami the
authority which it implies, with regard to the distant
communities whose interests are involved, is moral
rather than formal.
In the churches of Pauls foundation we find that
apostle acting with a consciousness of the fullest
authority, in appointing presbyters, conveying the gift
of the Spirit, and settling all kinds of controverted
questions (.Actsl423 196 i Cor. 7 17)- His relation to
the Twelve is marked by a firm sense of independence
together with an earnest desire for concerted action.
In the case of Timothy at Ephesus and of Titus in
Crete we see him delegating for a time during his own
absence his apostolic authority.
For the relation of the apostolate to other forms of
the Christian ministry, see Chukch, § 12.
Hishop Lightfoot's note ' on the name and office of an .Apostle '
(Comm. on Gal. 5th ed. 92-101) had, even Ijefore
Literature, the recovery of the Teaching, destrojed the
fiction of the limitation of the term in the first
age. It needs now to be supplemented by Harnack's important
discussion, Lehre tier Apostel, 93-118. The whole .subject
ha.s been freshly and vigorously treated by Hort in Ecctesia
{/>assim). J. A. R.
APOTHECARY (Hpl E.x. 3O2535. Hj^-n Eccl. lOi).
The Hel). word means 'perfumer.' See CoNKKCiioN.
Pkkfl'.MK. ©'s term is fxvpfxl/ds, the medical or magical
aspects (see (papnaKia, -Kfvfiy, -koi/ in ©) of whose
trade may be seen in Ecclus. 388, where his skill in
compounding the medicines (i-. 4 (papfxaKa, medidimcnla)
that the Lord created out of the earth is referred to.
In Neh. 38 is mentioned a guild of perfumers, one of
the 'sons' or members of which was Hananiah (the
idiom is effaced in R\', and misrepresented in A\',
which gives ' son of one of the apothecaries ').
APPAIM (D'SX, e4)p<MM [B]; ActxJ). [A]; co4)eiM
[L]), a Jerahmeelite (i Ch. 230/).
APPARITION (<})antacma). Mt. 1426 RV. See
l)i\ iNAiKiN, S 3 131, Soul.
APPEAL. On inferior and superior courts, or what
might Ije called courts of review or of appellate juris-
diction in the Hebrew commonwealth, see Govkkn-
MKNT, §§ 19, 31, and L.wv and Justick, § 16. As
regards Roman criminal procedure, — the ap(x.-al of Paul
to C;«sar is best understood from the narrative of
?"estus to Agrippa (Acts 25 14-2')- Accused by his
compatriots in ' certain questions of their own super-
stition,' and asked whether he was willing to go to
Jerusalent and there hv: judged, he had 'appealctl' («xi-
KoKfaafiivov) to be reserved for the hearing {Siitvwaiv.
cosrnitionem) of C.-Bsar. The aix)stle as a Roman
citizen was well w ithin his rights w hen he invoked the
authority of the emperor and thereby virtually declined
the jurisdiction alike of the Jewish courts and of the
Roman procurator ; and his reasons for choosing to do
so are not far to seek.— Under the republican pro-
cedure every Roman citizen had the right oi frroocatio
266
1. Name.
APPHIA
ad fopulum. From the time of Augustus the populus
ceased to exercise sovereign criminal jurisdiction ; the
emperor himself took cognisance of criminal cases as a
court of first instance, having co-ordinate jurisdiction
with the senate. — The quiestio procedure continued as
before to be the ordinary mode of trial.
APPHIA (An(t)l<\ [Ti- WH], etc., appia, etc. Cp
especially Lightf. Col. and Phikm. ZT^ ff\ probably
the wife of Philemon (Philem. 2),
APPHUS (cA(t>ct)OYC [A]; CAH*- [NV]), i Mace.
25. See J()N.\TH.\N. 18, MACCABKKS, §5.
APPII FORUM, RV • Market of Appius" (ATTnioy
(t)OpoY [ • '■ WH] ; modern I-'oro Appio), a well-known
halting-place on the Via Appia, where Paul was met
by brethren from Rome (Acts 28 15)- The distance from
Rome is given in the I tin. Anton. (107) as 43 R. m.
(and so perhaps //. Hier. — e.g., Migne, PL. 8794,
but in other edd. [6ir/] as 37).
For inscription on XLlil milestone, found near Foro Appio,
see CIL x. pt. i. 686. The road leading to Appii Forum from
the .south through the district of the Pontine M.-irshes was often
abandoned in favour of a journey by boat (cp Horace, Sat. i.
5 1-26, where .\npii Forum is described (/. 4) as being ' Differtum
nautis, cauponibus atque malignis. See also Three Taverns.
APPLE (man; Pr. 25ii Cant. 235 78[9] 85 Joel
1 i2t, see also Fruit, § 12), by some understood as a
generic name including various fruits, and
by others supposed to mean not the apple
but the quince, citron, or apricot. The origin of the
Hebrew name is not quite certain ; but there seems no
sulVicient reason for rejecting the accepted derivation
from n33, to breathe ; ^ the name thus alludes to the
perfume of the fruit. msn in post-biblical Hebrew,
aiul the corresponding word iuj/liA - in Arabic, ordin-
arily denote the 'apple' ; and this rendering is, so far,
supported by the ancient versions — Greek, Syriac,
Arabic, Latin, and the Targum. It must be admitted,
however, that all the words used — fi7J\ot>, hazzord,^
nun, tufdh, malum (s. pomutn) — are capable, with or
without the addition of an epithet, of being applied
to other fruits ; ixffKov, indeed, originally meant ' large
tree," or fruit in general, and only gradually became
confined to the apple ; * cp the very wide use of
pomiim, poma in Latin. Still, an examination of the
biblical passages where nisn occurs seems to show
that soiue particular fruit is intended ; and the question
must 1)6 answered by considering ( i ) which kind of fruit
possesses in the highest degree the qualities of beauty of
colour and form, of fragrance, and of efficacy in over-
coming the feeling of sickness ; and (2) which fruit-tree
was most likely, under the conditions of climate and of
botanical history, to be found abundant in Palestine
during biblical times. [Though all the six occurrences
of men are possibly, not to say certainly, post-exilic,
the antiquity of the cultivation of the tree (or class of
trees?) in Palestine is proved by the place-names
Tappuah and Beth-Tappuah. ]
The following identifications have been proposed : —
(i) apricot (Tristram, FFP 294) ; (2) apple (especially
2. Identifi-
cation.
WRS, /. Phil. 136s/.); (3) citron or
orange ( Del. Comm. on Proa<. ) ; (4) quince
[Houghton, PSBA I242-48 [1889-90]).
1 It seems doubtful whether there was, a.s postulated by L5w
(.Aravt. Pfliinzennamen, 156) and Houghton (I'SBA I247
[1889-90]), any word nSD to swell, even in Rabbinic Hebrew.
It is at all events unknown to biblical Hebrew, to Syruic, and to
Arabic. See, further. Lag. Uehers. m, 129; and F. Hommel,
A«/sdtze u. Ahliauill. 107, and in ZDMG 44546 ('90)-
2 This must be a loan-word in Arabic (Friinkel, Aram.
Fremdiv. 140), probably from Aramaic, though no trace of it
has yet been found in Syriac.
8 Lag. is inclined to derive this, the Aramaic equivalent of
mSB, from the .\rmenian word for apple (hntsor) and thus prove
that the fruit came to Semite lands from \tmf^n\^{Uebers. II. cc.) ;
but Hommel shows the probability of the word being genuinely
Semite, connecting it with an Arabic root /janaza (Au/sdtze u.
AM and/. 107).
* Hehn and Stallybrass, IVanderings 0/ Plants and Animals,
499-
267
APPLE
1. With regard to the first of these — the apricot
(Prunus Armeniaca, L. ) — it is to be remarked that it is
not mentioned by Theophrastus, and does not appear to
have been known to the ( ireeks or the Romans l«fore the
commencement of the Christian era ( De C. Ori^. <"-'' 171).
Its original home was E. Asia (probably China), whence it
gradually spread westward to Armenia (jjlt)A.ov WpfxevioKov,
malum armeniacum) ; but Tristram is certainly wrong in
saying {^Nat. Hist. 335) that it is native there.
The present abundance of the apricot in Palestine is
almost certainly post-biblical.
2. The apple — Pyrus Malus, L. — is found without
doubt in a wild state in Northern Asia Minor, especially
about Trebizond, and occasionally forms small woods.
It extends eastwards to Transcaucasia, and apparently to
Persia (cp Boissier, Fl. Orient. 2656). Sir Joseph Hooker says
that it is 'apparently wild' in NW. Himalaya and W. Thilict,
but that everywhere else in India it is cultivated (/■/. Brit. Ind.
2375). De CandoUe (0>7>-. 180) thinks the apple was indigenous
and cultivated in Europe in prehistoric times; but Boi.ssier(/.f.)
restricts its natural occurrence to Macedonia and Euboea.
In any case the original apple clearly required a cool
climate. Under cultivation there have been obtained
varieties which will tolerate and even require a warmer
one ; ' but these are notoriously modern inventions, and
it is absurd to take account of them in considering the
ancient history of the fruit. In truth the original apple
. — and the apple of biblical times was presumably some-
what similar — cannot have Ijeen very attractive : it was
in fact a ' crab ' only about an inch in diameter.
Sir Joseph Hooker says (from his own knowledge)
'Palestine is too hot for apples." With this agrees
Tristram's account :
'Though the apple is cultivated with success in the higher
parts of Lebanon, out of the boundaries of the Holy Land, yet
It barely exists in the country itself. There are, indeed, a few
trees in the gardens of Jaffa ; but they do not thrive, and have
a wretched, woody fruit. Perhaps there may be some at
'AskalSn. What F^nglish and .American writers have called
the "apple," however, is really the quince. The climate is far
too hot for our apple tree ' (XffB 334^^).
As there is no evidence of the apple ever having been
found native in Syria, those who render tappuah ' apple '
have to show ( i ) that it was introduced from without
(Pontus), and (2) that it became established when
introduced. Both propositions are improbable. What
is said above of the introduction of a few modern sorts
into S)Tian gardens is true ; "'' but it is imjjossible to infer
from this fact that the biblical tappfiah was the apple.
The strongest argument for the apple is that tuffdh is
used in modern Arabic for this fruit ; but, as we have
seen above, the word may have wider significance, and
it is exceedingly probable that in such passages as
those quoted by Robertson Smith in an article (Journ.
Phil. 65/) which, though short, appeared to him
(prematurely?) to be almost decisive, it is really the
quince that is meant. Even if ' apple ' be the usual
modern meaning of tuffdh, it is far from uncommon in
botanical history for a name to pass from one to another
of two plants so nearly allied as the quince and the apple.
[J. Neil {Pal. E.xplored, '82, p. 186) differs widely
from Prof. G. Post of BejTout (Hastings, DB, ' Apple'),
who argues that the apple as grown in Palestine and
Syria to-day alone fulfils all the conditions of the tappuah.
Post remarks, 'almost all the apples of Syria and Palestine
are sweet (Cant. 2 3). To European and .\merican palates they
seem insipid. But they have the delicious aroma of the better
kinds. . . . Sick persons almost invariably ask the doctor if
they may have an apple ; and if he objects they urs^e their case
with the plea that they only want it to smell." This being so,
it is needless to conjecture that 'such an epicure as Solomon
would have had many of the choicest kinds,' for, according to
Post, the 'ordinary and (to us) disappointing Syrian apple can
still, without poetic idealisation, be referred to in the language
of Canticles. But was Canticles written for Syria?]
3. No citrus (orange or citron) will do.
"The citron has its home in the sub-Himalayan tract of N.
1 Thus the best American apples succeed in Great Britain
only under glass.
2 Similarly, in the Deccan four sorts of apples are now found ;
but these are all introduced, two from England and two from
Persia.
268
APRONS
India. Thence it spread W, through Mesopotamia and Media;
hence its cuirent botanical name, Citrus tnfdica, L.' It is
first mentioned by Theophrastus (to ^^Aoi' to (irfiiKov r\ rh
ittfiViKov; Hilt. iv. 42); but he says that it is not eaien (ovk
iaVUrai). It was probably, therefore, not much developed by
ciiltivaiiun.
The koniaiis did not know the citron. Their citron
wootl was the wood of Callitris quadrivalvis. Vent. ,
from N. Africa. The true citron was prolxibly not
introduced into Italy till the third or fourth century A.D.
[The claims of the citron- (to be the tuppuah) are so
exceedingly slight that its introduction into I'alobtine
is chieHy interesting in conneciion with the leist of
Taljernacles, at which, in the time of Jos. , it was carried
by the Jews (a custom which is continued to the present
day: see 'The Citron of Commerce,' Kno liulUtin,
June 1894). It was introduced at any rate during the
peri(xl of their relations with Media and Persia, and we
find it depicted upon Jewish coins (see Stade, Gl'I2,
facing p. 406).
The statement of fos. {Ant. xiii. l.S 5) i«, that according to the
law of the Feast of T.-ibernacles blanches i)f the palm and citron
tree (0vpaovv Tcii' ^oiviiciov Kai Kirpimv) were to be l)orne by every
one: elsewhere (/A iii. 10 4) he specifics the Myrtle, the willow,
and boughs of p;dni-tree and of pome-citron (>iVjAo« rijv ireptrf'as).
The T.ilmudic law particularly ordained that the fruit should
be held ill the left hand, and the branches (or z'?^^) in the right.a
I he priestly l.iw, on the other hand, has not the precision which
the translators and exegetes of a later age gave to it. In Lev.
'-•3 39 /?: (H), among the requirements for the feast of ingathering,
stanifs the 'fruit of goodly trees,' or (better) 'goodly tree-fruit'
("n.l I'j; 'is; cp ©bal^ xopirbc (vAou iipaiov), which Targ.,
Pesh., and ancient Jewish tradition identified with the orange
or citron. ■• This identification is open to question, and the
expression may In- coiuicctn! preferably svith the 'fair boughs'
mentioned in the account of the Feast of Tabernacles, a .\Iacc.
\Q6(^. (KAdfovt uipaiovt ; ratitos virides ; Pesh. om.). Nor is
the citron specifically mentioned in the somewhat fuller and l>-ss
vague list in Neh. 815 (the Pesh. apparently renders ' jjalmtrees '
by 'citrons'), although commentators found an allusion to n in
the pc- i'J,', the fat or oily tree (AV 'pine,' KV ' wild-olive ').]
The orange was unknown to the ( Ireeks and Romans.
It was introduced into Mediterranean countries by the
Arabs alxjut the ninth century.
4. Whereas the development of the modern apple is
most probably to be attributed to the northern races, the
quince [Pyriis Cydoiiia, L. = Cydonia I u/^uiris, I'crs. )
is a fruit characteristic of the Slediterranean basin and
recjuires a warm temperate climate. A native of W.
Asia, it extended to the Taurus, and thence spread
through all Mediterranean countries.' The best sort
came from Crete ; hence /xfjXov Ki'Siiviov and Malum
coto/ifiim, and the various European names (Codogno,
Ital. ; Coing, Fr. ; and Quince, Engl. ). Hehn {I.e. 185)
says : ' The golden apples of the Hesperides and of
.\talanta were idealised quinces ... Its colour, like
that of the pomegranate, made a lively impression.'
This would well accord with the reference in I'rov. 2.') 11 ;
whilst the well-known aroma of the quince (much stronger
than that of the apple) would explain Cant. 2578[9]. It
is true that the taste of the fruit, unsweetened, is harsh
and bitter, and there is hence some difficulty in re-
conciling our theory with Cant. 23; but something
must Ix; there allowed for the idealisation of the picture,
and undoubtedly the fruit could be prepared in such a
way as to have a delicious taste. Moreover the whole
classical history of the fruit is saturated with erotic
suggestion, and this falls in with the repeated mention of
it in Canticles. N. M. — w. t.t. -d.
1 Sir Joseph D. Hooker (/"/. Brit. Ind. 1 514) gives its range
as Garwhal to Sikkini.
"^ anriK, from Pers. turunj. For the various traditions con-
nected with it cp Levy, s.v. See I.aw, 46.
* The Daphnephoria as depicted by Leighton is a familiar
and popular illustration of this custom.
■• Rashi referred to the annual beauty of the tree, and the
Talmud supplied that m,T = -n'n— '.<•., w3<of>— an allusion to the
fact that the citron grows beside all waters (cp Field, Hexaf>la,
ad he). See De Candolle ((V/;^.(2» 143 /), who quotes Risso
to show that the citron was not recognised by the translators of 0.
If •\■\^n i"* really a genuine (and ancient) Semitic word (cp above,
f I, n 3), it is tempting to read it here instead of Tin-
» De CandoUe, 189, says: 'Avant I'ipoque de la guerre de
Troie.'
269
AR, AR OF MOAB
APRONS. For n'nin, the ( fig-leaf » coverings of
Gen. 37 (AV '"»• ' things to gird alx>ut,' KV •"«• • girdles * ;
g^i.Ai. nepizcoM&TA). see GiKiJi.E. 2. For nr.9^0
(Ruth3i5 AV ■"») see M.VNTLE, § 2. no. 3. The
ci/juKivOia [Ti. WH] of Actsl9i2t (used for healing
purposes) aie the semicinctia or aprons worn by servants
and artisans.
AQUILA (akyA&C [Ti.WII]) is the I^ttin name by
which alone we know one of tite Jewish con)p.anions of
I'aiil. ,\ Jew, native of Pontus, he had removed to
Rome and there carried on his calling as tent-maker ;
probably it wiis also in Rome that he married his wife
Prisca or Priscilla, whose name is alw.ays .issotiatcd with
his — most connnonly indeed placed Ijefore it. 'I he
banishment of the Jews from Rome by Claudius (cina
A.D. 49) led to the settlement of Aquila and his wife in
Corinth (.Acts 18 2). Here, presumably, their actiuaint-
ance with Paul l)egan and they were converted to
Christianity. It was w ith them that the ap(-.stle, also a
tent-maker, lodgetl on his first visit to Corinth. (.\ftcT-
wardss Ux^king back upon his relations with them at this
time [Rom. 16 3] he applies to them the words : ' fellow-
workers in ('hrist Jesus, who, for my life, laid down
their own necks ; unto whom not only 1 give thanks,
but also all the churches of the ( jentiles. ' \ From Corinth
A(|uila and Priscilla accompanied Paul to l-lpliesus (.Acts
18 iS), and here they remained behind while he went on
to Jerusalem. At this time Apollos (q.v.) arrived in
Ephesus, and the zealous pair undertook to ' expound
unto him the way of God more perfectly ' {^\ 26). Writ-
ing to the Corinthian Church after his return to l-"phestis,
Paul enclo.ses the mes.sage : ' Atjuila and Prisca salute
you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their
house' (i (or. It) 19). What is meant by this church is
not <iuite clear ; but the expression shows that they niu.st
have held a somewhat prominent and periiaps oflicial
position in the I'^phesian comnmnity. That Ejihcsus
contiimed (or was supposed to have contiinied) to be
their home long after Paul left it is shown by the .saluta-
tion addressed to them in 2 Tim. 4 19. That tlu-y are
saluted in Rom. 1 0 .; siiows (on the assumption that Rt in.
16 3-20 is an integral part of the epistle in which it now
occurs ; see Ro.m.ans) that at rome period they must
have returned to Rome for at least a season ; but the
occurrence of their mimes here is one of the facts that
are held to make it probable lliat the salutations of Rom.
16 3-20 really belong to an I-'phesian epistle.
F.cclesiastical tradition has little to .say of either Aquila or
Priscilla ; in some late forms of the legend of Luke, .Aquila and
Pri.sc»<j are represented as having been the discip'es and lifelong
companions of that evangelist, and as h.iving had his tlospel
entrusted to them by him. They are enumerated in the lists of
the 'Seventy' (Lk. 10), dating from the fifth or sixth century,
Priscrtj being sometimes read for Prisca. See Lipsius, Afokr.
A/>.-gesch. i. 203,^ 399 ii. '-'367.
AR, AR OF MOAB, is mentioned in the two ancient
songs which celebrate Israel's passage across Moab : —
Nu. 21 15, ' the slope of the valley that stretches to the
se;tt ' or site ' of Ar ' (-10, hr [BAL]) ; t. 28, a 'fire hath
devoured Ar of Moab (dk^C "iJ" ; Mwa/i [L]; ?ws M.
[BA], —;.(•., 'o ny ; so Sam. and some Heb. MSSl and
consumed the high places of Arnon. ' This '.Ar Moab is
usually taken to Ix; the same as the 'Ir Moab, ' city of
Moab' (3N1D TV ; irliXiv Mwa^ [BAL]). 'which is on
the Ixirder of Arnon at the uttnost part of the border '
(Nu. 2236), where Barak met Bal.iam when became to
Moab from the Iv ; and indet^d ny in those ancient songs
mav te the primitive spelling of tj-. It is also the '.Ar
Mo'al) of Is. 15 I (ii yioiaSfiTis [BNAQP]), there parallel
to Kir Moab, another chief fortress of the country, the
present Kerak. It may also be ' the city (i-y) in the
midst of the valley* — i.e., of Arnon (Deut. 236 Josh.
189 16 and 2 S. 245). In harmony with these passages,
it is called the 'border of Moab' in Deut. 2i8 (©'^»''■
Apo7;pl ; but in vr.g (Aporfp [A*"'"*"*" FI.]) and 29
(ApoTip [BEL] ; Apor/X [A]) of the same chapter it seems
270
ARA
to mean a district rather than a town, and in this con-
nection it is interestiiij; that ©"^ renders '.Ir A/oab in
Is. 15 by Moabitis. Our present knowledge of the tojx)-
graphy of Moab does not enable us to identify the site of
'Ar, the city.
We may be sure it wa.s not the njodern Rabba (so the PKF
map), the Areopolis which in the fourth century of our era was
the capital of ^loab. Others have suggested the Mehatet el-Haj
on the left bank of the Arnon opposite Aroer (see llurckhardt,
•i>'-- 374)-
More probably (cp N'u. 2236) it lay at the VI. end of
one or other of the Arnon valleys.
There l.anger (A'c/.v,-(^<-r;V/»/, xvi.) has proposed Lejfm (Legio?)
described by Doughty (./rrt/'. Jh'strrta, 1 20) as a 'four-square,
limestone -built, walled town in ruins, the walls and corner
towers of dry block-building, at the midst of every wall a gate.'
G. A. S.
ARA (XnS ; &PA [n.\] -Ai [L]), in a genealogy of
AsiiKK (-/.-■. , i. § 4), I Ch. 7 fSh Perhaps N1N should lie
pronouiucd XnX ( Ura) for -Inj-VIN ( Uriah). See Ul.i.A.
ARAB (3"3NI, AipCM [H]. epeB [AI>]), a site in the
hill-country of Judah (Josh, ir.32). If DUMAII {q.v. , 4)
is ed-l)onieh, there ni;iy possibly lie an echo of Arab
in er-Riibiyi'h, the name of a site, with ruins, in the
mountains of Judah, .S. of Hebron [PliFMcm.ozii
360).
ARABAH (nnnyn, h AP&B&[BAL], often translated
by H npoc 'eic, eni, kata) Aycaaac, sometimes by
KaB' inpoc) ecnepAN 115.VLJ), as a common noun,
from a root probably meaning ' dry' (cp Arabia, § i),
is used as a parallel (Is. 35 16, etc.) to "l2"ip, 'desert-
steppe,' and to n^V )*"IX' ' parched ground,' with much
the same force. As a proper name, with the article, it
is generally confined to the great depression of the Dead
Sea valley, ' the 'Arabah. ' So correctly in R V ; in AV
it is more usually translated ' plain ' (r/.?'. , 6) or ' wilder-
ness' (but in Josh. 18 18 ''Arabah,' ©"^'- liaidapafia, see
Hi:th-.-\kabah). Along with the hill-country, the slopes,
the Shephelah, and the Xegeb, it is reckoned as one of
the great parallel divisions of the land (Dt. I7 Josh.
] 1 16 128), and it is clear that the name was applied not '
only to the depression from the Lake of Galilee (Dt.
:>i7 ; cp .\KBATTis) to Jericho (2 K. 2r)4) and the Dead ,
Sea (which was called the Sea of the 'Arabah : Dt. 449, I
etc., Josh. 3i6, etc.), but also to the rest of the same
great hollow as far as the Gulf of 'Akabah (Dt. 1 1).
Different parts of the Arabah were called 'Arboth [
(construct plur. of '.-\rabah) ; cp Josh. 5 10 Jer. 39 5. etc., |
KV 'plains of Jericho' ; Nu. 22 1 263, etc., 'plains of '
Moab.' See too Akbattis.
To-day the name E/-'A raha is confined to the south of the line
of cliffs that crosses the valley obliquely a few miles south of the
southern end of the Dead Sea ; and all N. of this is known as
El-Chor, ' the depression ' (Rob. BA' 2 490).
The singular geological formation of the 'Arabah is
indicated under Palkstinf; (§ 3). Here it is sufticient to
explain how such a name was applied to the valley even
X. of the Dead Sea. In spite of the enormous possible
fertility of the Jordan valley under proper irrigation, the
vast stretches of jungle, marl, saline soil, and parched
hillsides out of reach of the streams, along with the
sparseness of cultivation in most ages (owing to the great
heat, unhealthy climate, and wild beasts), fully justify
the name 'Arabah. In the NT also the valley is called
a wilderness (ttJ ip-fifjufi Mk. 1 4).
For the 'Arabah S. of the Dead Sea, see Rob. BR i. and ii.,
Yi\\\\,PHFMe»t., 'Geology,' and for the part N. of the Dead
Sea, Stanley, SP 7 ; Conder, Tent IVork in Pal. 14 ; C.ASm.
//(; •-'•-'/• G. A. S.
ARABAH, BROOK OF THE, AV River of the
Wilderness (n3"TJ?n 7T\)), is in Am. 614 the southern
limit of the land of Israel in opposition to the northern
Pass 'of Hamath. The name occurs nowhere else;
but by some has been taken as another form of
Brook of the 'Arabim (d'3-ij;.t ; EV Bkook of the
Willows [AV™?- Brook of the Arabians] —
rather of the Populus euphratica : ZDPl'2 iog).
271
ARABIA
given in Is. 15? as the southern boundary of Moab.
This may be the long Wady el-Hasy (or Hessi, PEF
Map) which Doughty (Ar. Des. I26) describes as dividing
the uplands of Moab and Edom, and running into the
S. end of the De;id Sea ; by some thought to be also
the Brook /.KKKI). It is doubtful, however, whether the
Israelite kingdom could ever have Ix^n described as
extending S. of the Arnon. Hoffmann ['/.ATW Z
"5 ['83]) suggests that the Brook of the Arabah
may have lain at the N. end of the Dead Sea. ©s
rendering, tov xeiMppoi' tu)v Svff/J.wi> [B.\(^], is no help.
It is to be noted that N. Israel under Jeroboain II. in
the time of Amos is staled in 2 K. IIqs to have extended
from ' the entering in of Hamath unto the Sea of the
Arabah.' The diOiculty is increa.sed by the uncertainty
as to whether Aitios means to include Judah. G. A. S.
ARABATTINE (akpaBatthnh [AN]), i Mace.
53t -W, i<\' Akkahaitlnk.
ARABIA, ARABIANS (3"}^ ; gentilic '•inj? and in
Xch. "2-11?, pi. D'niy, also once D'X'2"iy, 'and once
Kt. □'*2-lV ; ApABLeJiA decl. and indecl. LBSAL, etc.],
-BICCA [BXA], ApAy (-aBoc) [BXAL. etc.], APAB[eJi
[BN.\]).
'1 he name 'Arab' (any) seems originally to have
meant nothing more than ' desert ' : hence ' jjeople of
_ ,. the desert.' So Isaiah' uses the word,
OT usaire ^" ^^^'^ forest in the desert {'iirab ; but
usage. ^ iairipa%) ye halt for the night' (Is.
21 13). More usual in Hebrew is the fem. form 'linibah
{f.^if., Job24 5 396), a word employed as a proper name
to denote the desolate valley, in which the Dead Sea is
situated, reaching to the north-eastern extremity of the
Red Sea (.see Arab.AH, i. ). In the OT the term 'Arab,
as the name of a particular nation and country, is confined
to comparatively late writings ; it must therefore appear
highly improbable that the Homeric 'EpefxfioL ((A/. 484)
are to be identified with the Arabs. The lists in Genesis,
which specify various Aral>ian trilies, do not mention
the name — a very significant indication of their anticjuity.
The word being certainly an appellative ('desert') in
Is. 21 13 (with I'lV cp Hal). 1 8 ©, Zeph. 83 ©), the heading
a'jpa Kbc, ' Oracle concerning the Arabs,' cannot be in
accordance with the author's real meaning. ^ No certain
instance of the use of 'Arab as a proper name occurs
before the time of Jeremiah. He speaks of ' all the
kings of 'Arab ' '•' ( any 'aSn^'T'O TNi, Jtr. 25 24). The words
which follow in M'T, aij-rr '2*70 ^dtiki. are of course a
dittography ; in order to make sense the scril)es pro-
nounced 3"iyn 'the mixed people,' a form which really
occurs in 7'. 20, as well as in Ez. 3O5 and i K. IO15
(where © reads layn for aij'^)- 1 he Greek text of Jer.
2524 {k. irdvTai t. ffVfji/uKTOVi [BNQ],'* it may l>e noticed,
does not presuppose a repetition, and moreover (followed
by Co.) omits the word 'kings,' necessary though it is
to the sense. The phrase, ' like a 'Ar.ibf in the desert '
(Jer. 32, KopiJovTi [BXA] ; Aq. a/xn/- [Q ■"«■]), m.iy be
explained to mean either ' like an Arab ' or ' like a
Nomad ' — the word has not yet acquired a strictly ethno-
graphical signification. The same thing applies to a
passage dating from the end of the Babylonian Exile,
' No '.4ra^/ shall pitch his tent there, nor shall shepherds
cause their flocks to lie down there' (Is. 132o, "ApaSfs
[BX.\"'8]). InEz. 2721, however, .^ra<* (315;; Apa^[e]ia
[BAQ], with the note eairepa [Q'"^]), appears as the
name of a people, coupled with Kedar, a desert tribe very
frequently^mentionedat that period(see Ishmael, § 4[2]).
^ Isaiah's authorship, it is true, has been disputed (see IsAtAH,
§<)).
2 (B omits it ; but Aq. Symm. Theod. all have it.
3 f;iesebr., however, while agreeing as to the dittography
which follows, denies that 'and all the kings of '-•? ra^ ' are the
words of Jeremiah ; the closing words of the yerse (' who dwell
in the wilderness ') alone are genuine; they give the locality of
those ' who have the corners of their hair polled ' (7'. 23). Cp.
926 (25I, 'all that have, etc., who dwell in the wilderness."
* ® A has K. IT. T. <r. avToi).
272
ARABIA
It would seem that the name of the Arabs came into
use among the Helirews at a time when the old names
Ishmael, Midian, etc. , were disappearing from ordinary
sixxxh. This change may Ix; connected with the fact
that during tlie |)ori(xl in {|uestion various triUs
were advancing front the S. into the northern deserts
and dispossessing the former inhabitants, who, in all
probability, were closely akin to the Hebrews. Such
shiftings of the population have occurred repeatedly
in the course of ages. However unproductive the
districts to the K. and to the S. of Palestine may
apixair to us, they are nevertheless, from the point of
view of the Nomads, decidedly preferable to many parts
of Arabia projxir.
1 rom the ninth century H.c. and onwards, the name
2 Other ^^ '^'^ Arabs occurs in the Ass\Tian inscrip-
. lions, where it presents a variety of forms '
{.trudi, Aruhu. Aribi, etc., the adjective
being Arbaya).
The name Urbi {KlilZ^f. ), however, can scarcely be,
as I )elitzsch (/.(-.) su[)poscs, aiKJther form of the same
word and the eijuivalcnt of tlie .\rab I'/fi (.vhich appears
to t»e quite late) and of the Hcb. ziy- The Arabs
metitioned in the cuneiform inscriptions were probably
all, or for the most part, natives of the Syrian desert,
though we have no reason to assume that the name was
applied to them exclusively as distinguished from the
inhabitants of Arabia proper.
The inscriptions of the Persian King Darius {c.j^.,
Behistun, i, 15) mention Arabaya among the subject
lands, always placing it after Babylonia and Athura
(i.t-., Assyria, Mesopotamia proper, and po.ssibly
northern Syria) and before Kgypt ; here also the
word must refer to the great deserts of Syria — perhaps
also to those of Mesopotamia and the Sinaitic penin-
sula. ^Ischylus (/V;x 316), the first extant Greek
writer in whose works the name occurs, speaks of a
distinguished Arab in the army of Xer.xes, and the
contemporary authority whom Herodotus follows in his
account of the Persian army makes mention of Arabs on
the same occasion (Herod. 769). While the notions
of .(Eschylus, however, about the geographical position of
the Arabs, are altogether fantastic— he represents them as
dwelling near the Caucasus {Prom. 422) — Herodotus
shows himself nmch lx;tter informed. He applies the term
Arabia to the whole peninsula (cp Herod. 2 n 3107-113
439) ; but, as might have been exix-cted, he refers in
particular to tho.se Arabs who inhabited the country
between Syria and Egypt (21230347/: 88091, etc. ).
It is also to be remarked that, in accordance with a
peculiar classification, he gives the name of Arabia to
that part of Egypt which lies to the E. of the Nile valley
(28, etc. ). Xenophon(.4«(z/^. vii. 8 25) speaks of a governor
set by the Persian king over ' Phoenicia and Arabia,' by
which is meant the S. of Syria, including Palestine and
the neighbouring desert — a separate governor l)eing set
over 'Syria and Assyria." Similarly in the Cyropudia
he doubtless always means by Arabia the desert lands
which were to some extent dependencies of the Persian
Empire, not the peninsula itself; we must remember,
further, that Xenophon had no definite ideas about
these countries, through which he had not himself
travelled. The nanie Arabia is used, in particular,
for the desert of Mesopotamia {Ariab. i. 5i); it can
hardly be an accident that this very district is called
'Arab by Syriac writers from the third century after Christ
and onwards. Whilst, however, the term is regularly
applied to that part of the desert which remained! under
Roman dominion till the Mohammedan conciuest, the
eastern portion, which belonged to Persia, is more
commonly known as liiih 'Arabdye (or Bd 'Arbdyd in
the Arabicised form ) — »'. e. , * land of the Arabs. ' Traces
of this usage are found in late Greek authors also.
A strictly ethnographical sense belongs to the word
1 See Del. Par. 295 304^ ; and cp Schr. KGP, \oaff.
18 273
ARABIA
Arab ' in the w ritings of a contemporary of Herodotus,
3 Later OT -^'-■'^*^'"'"*'' ^*'>" suftered nmch from the
writers.
enmity of an Arab (Neh. 219616) and
enumerates ' the Arabs ' as such in the
list of his opponents (Neh. ^^ [i]). The Arab in<|uestion
bears a name which, according to the Massoretic vocal-
isation, is to l)e pronounced Gkshkm (q.v. ) or Gashmu,
and apjx-ars in the Greek text as I'T/ffdM [BNA], Waatt.
[L] ; the correct form is probably Cuihumu. a well-
known Arabic name. It is very likely that at that time
the great migration of the Nabata-ans had already
happened(see F.DOM, §9, Nabat.i;.\ns). The Chronicler
too refers to ' the Arabians. ' They brought tribute, he
tells us, to thepiousKingJehoshaphat (2Ch. 17"). He
relates, also, how God punished the wicked Joram by
means of the Philistines and • the Arabians who were
beside the Ethiopians' (2 C h. 21 16, cp 22 1), and how
he succoured the pious L'zziah in the war against ' the
Arabians that dwelt in Cji;k-h.\ai. ' ['/.J'.] and other
nations (2Ch. 267) — all this is written from the point
of view of the author's own time (circa 200 It.c), and
! has no claim to Ix; regarded as historical.
\ By the Vjcginning of the.\Iaccal)ean period the kingdom
of the Nahat.i=:ans [^.f.] had long been firmly estab-
lished. At that time various other Arabian trilx.'s were
also to be found in the great Syrian desert, and hum.
among these certain families and persons rose to great
power during the decline of the Seleucid Empire. In
several Syrian towns we find Arabian sovereigns, and at
Palmyra, at least, there was an Arabian aristocracy ;
elsewhere also Arabian chieftains occasionally played
an important part in the politics of that period, i Mace,
several times mentions Nabat.tans and other Arabs
(525 39 93s ]1 17 39 I'-is' ; cp 2 Mace. 58 12io/.).
The apostle Paul, after his conversion, retired into
Arabia (Gal. 1 17) — probably some desert tract in the
4 NT ^'^''•'^''*'^" kingdom. When he speaks of
Arabia he of course includes the Sinaitic
peninsula (Gal. 425). Similarly, • Arabs " (Arabian jews
or proselytes) in Acts2ii probably means natives of the
Nabatrean kingdom (see Nai!AT.+:ans) or of the Roman
provinceof Arabia which covered almost the whole extent
of that kingdom. The province was constituted by .\.
Cornelius Palma, governor of Syria [circa 105 A. P.).
At what ix;rio(l certain trilxjs began to call themselves
Arabs, and at w hat period the name was adopted by the
_ Mi- whole nation, cannot Ix.- determined.
O.wauve ihcdistinguishedscholar, D.H.Miiller.i
AraDian usa^e. . . 1 u . u % v ■
^ has mamtamed that the name ' Arab
was unknown to the natives of Arabia till Mohammed
introduced it as a national designation. This view , how-
ever, is scarcely tenable. The present writer does not
happen to have made any notes on the occurrence of
the name in the pre-Islamic poetry ; '■* but the verse in
Tabari, i. 1036 5, which dates from the begiiming of the
seventh century, is a sufficient proof of its occurrence—
the poet, who can have known nothing of Mohanmied,
s|x;aks of 3000 Arabs as opjwsed to 2000 foreigners.
The events there descrilied happened in the neighbour-
hood of the lower Euphrates — that is to say, in a district
where Arabs, Aramaeans, and Persians frequently came
into contact with one another, and where, for that very
reason, a special term to denote the Arabian nationality
and language was absolutely required. When we take
into account the frequent conmiunication between the
Arabs of this district and those of the distant W. and
S. , and the great uniformity of the Arabian nation, it
must appear highly probable that the name had long
been generally usetl in Arabia itself.
1 Neue Freie Presse, 1894, 20th .April.
2 He would not lay great stress on the words kurd 'ara-
biyittin, 'villages of Arabian women,' or kuran 'arablyatin,
'Arabian villages,' in a verse ascribed to the old poet Inira°-al-
kais (about 550 A. D.), 392 (Ahlwardt), the fragment being veo'
obscure and the text not quite to be trusted. Nor could he affirm
the genuineness of the verses ascribed to old poets in A^dnt ix. 10
second last line, x. 1-J9 2 where the word 'Arab occurs.
874
ARAD
Hassan and other poets contemporary with Mohammed make
use of the word 'Arafi and its uliiral A' rat as a term known to
every one (see the Diwan of Hassiin, ed. Tunis 10 i 17 4 103 13,
Agdnl xW. 15628). It is also very likely that in the common
phrase, 'no'A'ii is to be found there,' the word 'v-Jri^ means
simply ' an Arab ' and hence 'any human being.' Still more
conclusive is the fact that the verb ' arrciba or draha which
occurs in one of the oldest wjets signifies 'to explain,' properly
' to speak in .\rabic ' {i.e., 'distinctly ') ; hence this name for the
language must have l)een current long before the Prophet.
That .-krab was already employed to denote the country and its
inhabitants is shown, further, by the words ' irdb, ' horses, or
camels, of pure native breed," and mtirih, 'possessor, or con-
nois-ieur, of such horses,' both of which terms were commonly
used in the early days of Islam.
The plural form .I'rdb, ' Rcdouins,' is presumably de-
rived from the primitive sense 'desert.' In the Koran
the A 'rdb are several times distinguished from the in-
habitants of the towns. When we find that a poem,
composed shortly tx;fore Islam, mentions ' the nomadic
and the settled .\ 'rab, ' ' the latter class must be undfirstood
to consist of the inhabitants of small oases, who retained,
on the whole, the customs of the Bedouins, and differed
widely from the people of the towns. .Since, however,
the I5edouins always formed the great bulk of the natives
of Arabia, it is not strange that, from the earliest days
of Islam, the name Arab was frequently used specially
of them. So in the great Sab:ijan inscription of Abraha,
the .Abyssinian prince of Yemen, in 543 a.d. , the name
any (or, with the postpositive article, pn;-) seems to signify
the Nomads.'- T. N.
ARAD (nnj?; araA [B.\L] ; arad; for gentilic
Aradite, see telow). i. .\. South Canaanitish town,
with a king or chieftain of its own, conquered by the
Israelites, Josh. I2.4 (a[c]pa(9 [B], aSep [.\L], iierad).
The reference to the 'king of Ar.ad ' in Nu. '21i, and
the abrupt notice in Nu. 3040, arc useless for historical
purposes, the former all but certainly, and the latter
certainly, having been inserted by a later editor (see
.VIoore on Judg. 1 17, Di. on Nu. .')34o). This removes
(ine of the chief difficulties connected with the notices of
-Arad (cp Houmah, Zkphath). Another difliculty
arises from the reference in Judg. 1 16 to ' the wilderness
of Judah which is in the Negeb of Arad ' {^i.e., in that
part of the .\egeb to which .Arad belonged). The ex-
pressions appear to Prof Moore to be self-contradictory,
the Wilderness of Judah and the Negeb being distinct
regions (Judges, 32). He points out as an additional
ground for scepticism that ©ba differs from MT in
reading nx-jn instead of 3jjn.^ It would be unsafe,
however, to assert that in usage the term ' wilderness
of Judah' cannot have included the Negeb S. of .Arad
— *'..,^. ,the IVddy el-.\fi!h {sceSWJV, CiTY OF ; Judah)
— and, as to ©'s reading, we may certainly disregard
it, chiefly on the ground (suggested by Prof. Moore
himself) that there is no steep pass (niD, Kardjiaa-is)
in the neighbourhood of .Arad.
The site was found by Robinson at 7>// 'Arad, which
is a round isolated hill 17 m. SE. of Hebron, and the
details given by Eus. and Jer. {OS 2I455 8722882)
are (juite consistent with this identification. There are
indeed no relics here of the ancient city, and only
scanty remains of ancient bridges ; but this does not
prevent Gu(5rin from pronouncing Robinson's view ' ex-
tremely probable, not to say certain ' (/«,/<fe, 3 185).
The city of Arad, it may lie noticed in conclusion,
existed long after the 'age of Joshua,' for Shishak in-
cludes it in his list of conquered cities in Palestine
(WMM, As. u. Eur. 168). 'Aradite,' therefore, may
well be restored in 28.28253 (see Harodite). The
J Dlwiin 0/ Hassan ihn Thdhit, 51, /. <) = Aghdn{, 14 126.
- .See Ed. tllaser, /^wei Inschri/ten tibcr den Dammbruck
von MArih, 33, etc.
3 tit Tr\v iprifiov ttji' oi<rav «V Tci rarip 'lovSa, 7/ i<m.v cVi icara-
Pa<rtio^ '.KpaS [B]; e. t. J. 'lou^a t. o. iy tu I'drio eirt Kara-
^acrrwf 'Apoj [.AL], if tw votu is a duplicate rende'rins;, and to
be rejected. So far, van Doorninck, Bu., and Ki. (///JM268)
are right. It is prern.-iture. however, to assume that 1-1133 is the
original reading ; it is really a conjectural correction of a false
reading (due to repetition) 13103.
275
ARAM
connection of David (q.v., § i, note on 'Bethlehem*;
cp also Aruath) with S. Judah throws a new light
on the interest of narrators in the fortiuies of .\rad and
Zephath.
2. (lupijp [B] ; ofMti [.A]) in a genealogy of Bknjamin {g.v., | 9,
iu P) I Ch. 8 IS. T. K. C.
ARADUS (apaAoc [AXV]), iMacc. ISzaf. See
Arvad.
ARAH (rriX [so in pause, cp Baer ud Ez. 25], § 70,
' wayfarer ' ?).
1. b. Ulla, in genealogy- of .Asher {q.v., § 4), i Ch. 7 39! (o/xrx
[B.A]); ©I. omits Ulla and Arab, and ascribes the remaining
names in v. 39 to Ithran (v. 38).
2. In the great post-e.\ilic list (see Ezra, ii. § 9, § 8<-); Ezra
2 5 (r,pa [B], opes [A], o>p«[Ll)=- Neh. 7 10 (npa [BA], -^ |,y], rfipa
[I.l)= I Esd. 5 10 Akks (ap«« (l',A|, Tjtpo [I,]). His son .Sliechan-
iah [6J was the father-in-law of the Anunonite Tobiah, 4 (Neh.
618 Tjpac [UN.A], Tjipa [L])
ARAM (C"1X; (5"^'- araaa. cypiA, o cypoc, 01
CYpoi ; on Aramseans see lx;low, § 7).
The EV commonly translates ' Syria ' or ' Syrians ' (cp how-
ever Hos. 12 12 KV ' Aram '), but occasionally (viz., Cen. 10 2j_/:
22-1 Nu. 2:i7 iCh. I17 2 23 734) retains the Hebrew form
'Aram'(on Mt. 1 3/. AV, and Lk. 833 AV see Ra.\i, i, .Akm).
The gentilic 'B^iN, on the other hand, is always translated
' SjTian ' (except Dt.265, RVmg. 'Aramean'; .TsnK iCh. 714
EV ' Aramltess '). n'lpn.K is rendered by ' Syrian language ' (Is.
36 I r 2K. IS 26 EV Dan. 24 RV), or ' Syrian tongue' (Ezra 4 7
AV), ' Svri.ic ' (Dan. 2 4 .AV), and by ' Aramaic ' (Dan. 2 4 Ezra
47 both RVmjj.).
Aram appears in Gen. 10 22 (kpafiuv [.K"]) as one of
the sons of Shem. This in itself does not prove anything
1 Name ^ ^° ^^^^ nationality and language of the
people in question, for the classification
adopted in the chapter is based, to a large extent, on
geographical and political considerations. But there is
no reason to doubt that .Aram here stands for the w hole,
or at least for a portion, of those ' .Semitic ' tribes whose
language is called ' .Aramaic ' in the OT (Ezra 4 7 Dan. 24)
and is placed in the mouth of L.aban the .Aramasan.
according to the ancientgloss inCien. 31 47. In later times
the name was still known, though often supplanted by
' Syrian,' which the Greeks employed, from a very early
period, as the ecjuivalent of the native Aram and its
derivatives. Aram may perhaps be the source of the
Homeric 'Epe/j.i3ol (Od. 484).
It has long been known that Aramaic was used as
the official language in the western half of the .Achae-
menian empire. From 2 K. I826 ( = Is. 36ii) we might
have concluded that this language occupied a similar
position under the Assyrian rule ; moreover, if Friedr.
Delitzsch be right [Par. 258), an AssjTian and an
Aramaic ' secretary ' are mentioned together in a cunei-
form inscription. The recent excavations at Zenjirli
have proved that in that district, to the extreme .\. of
Syria, .Aramaic served as a written language as early as
the eighth century B.C., although the population was
not purely .Aram.-ean. On the other hand, the .Aramaic
inscriptions of Tema, to the N. of Medina, bear witness
to the existence of an Aramasan colony in the NW. of
Arabia about 500 B.C. That Mesopotamia proper [i.e.,
the country bounded by the Euphrates, the Tigris, the
N. mountain-range, and the desert — hence exclusive of
Babylonia) was inhabited by .Aramxans appears from
the OT. Moreover, an inscription of Tiglath-pileser I.,
who is placed about 1220 B.C., mentions an Aramasan
trilie in this district, in the neighbourhood of Harran
(Schr. A7i I33). .\ similar statement is found in an
inscription three centuries later (ibid. 1 165). Hence the
Greeks, from the time of .Alexander onwards, called
this country "^vpia ij fuffr) tQv ^^0Ta^lu}v, or, more shortly,
V MecroiroTafiia (see .Arrian, passim). On the lower
Tigris and Euphrates, near the confines of Susiana. — that
is to say, in much the same region that was afterwards
known as ' the land of the .Aramajans" (Beth Aramdye,
in Persian Suristdn), and contained the royal cities, —
there were nomadic (?) Aramaeans according to an in-
2. Language.
ARAM
scription of Tiglath-pileser III. (745-727 B.C.), and an
inscription of Sennacherib (705-681 B.C.). (See Del.
I.e. 238, .Schr. K.i /■ 1 16, A'/y 285). The name occurs
also in a few other .Assyrian inscriptions ; but, owing to
the imperfection of the writing, it may sometimes be
doubted whether the word is really mK, 'Aram,' and
not some such form as cnv- Din, or oin- It is remark-
able that the cuneiform inscrijjtions, at least according
to tho opinion of IX-I. and Schr., never give the
name of ' .\ramaeans ' to the .Aramaic-speiiking popu-
lations W. of the Euphrates, whereas in the O'l' this
is the .\ramaean country par excellence (cp Akam-
NAIl \R.\IM, .\IkS()I'OT.\.MIA, § I ).
1 houi;;li at several periods the whole, or the greater
p;irt, of the .Ariinuean nation has bc-en subject to a
single foreign power, the Arama.-ans
have never formed an independent
political unity ; in fact, so far as we know, there h;is
never existed a state comprehending the Aramaans of
the main part of Syria or of Mcsoixjtamia jjroper, to the
exclusion of other races. From a very early time, how-
ever, the population of these couiUries mast have been
pre<l(>minantly .Vrama'.an, as is shown by the fact that
all the other nationalities were gradually eliminated, so
that, even Ixjfore the Christian era, the various dialects
of the .Aramaic (or, as the Greeks say, Syrian) language
prevailed almost exclusively in the cultivated lands which
lie lietwcen the Mediterranean and the Mountains of
.Armenia and Kurdistan. Aramaic was used by the
neighbouring Arabs iis the language of writing ; it also
took possession of the l.md of Israel (see § 5, end). It
is indeed very unlikely that, as early as the time of
Solomon, there w;is an important .Arama.'an element in
Palestine, as W. .Max Miiller supposes [As. u. Eur.
171 1 ; the ending (/ in many names of Palestinian cities
in the list drawn up Ijy the Egyptian king Sosenk is
probably nothing more than the Hebrew ending r\-, ex-
pressing motion towards — the so-called H^ locale. Even
in some books composed before the Exile, however, the
influence of the language spoken by the neiglibouring
Aramaeans is occasionally perceptible. Ihis iniluciice
became very much greater after the Exile (when those
Israelites who remained, or founded settlements in
Juda.-a, Samaria, and (ialilee, were at first feeble in
numbers) and little by little the .Aramaic tongue spread
over the whole country. Though the language of such
parts of the O T .as Esther, Ecclesiastes, and several of
the Psalms is Hebrew in form, its spirit is almost entirely
Aramaic. The compiler of Ezra inserted into his book
an extract from an Aramaic work composed, it would
seem, alxsut 300 H.c; and half of the Hook of Daniel
(which was written in 167 or 166 R.c. ) is in Aramaic.
Moreover, a dialect of this language was spoken by
Christ and the apostles, and in it the discourses reported
in the Gospels were originally delivered. Nor did the
Latin language (under the Roman rule) ever threaten
to supplant the prevalent Aramaic. Greek, it is true,
gained some footing in Syria, and, since it was the
vehicle of intercourse and literary culture, exercised a
great influence on the native dialects. It was the con-
quests of the Moslems, however, that suddenly brought
to an end the ascendency of Aramaic after it had lasted
for more than 1000 years. The Arabic language \\;is
diffused with surprising rapidity, and at the present
day there are only a few outlying districts in which
Aramaic dialects are spoken.
What group of tribes the author of Gen. IO23 includes
under the name of .Aram, we are unable to say precisely.
3. In
Pentateuch.
Of the ' sons of Aram ' enumerated there is
unfortunately none that can be identified
with toleral)le certainty (see Gkogr.M'HY,
§ 24). The position of ' Uz.' although it occurs
several times in the OT, is unknown. It must, however,
have been situated not far from Palestine. ' Mash "
is usually supposed to lie the country of the Mdcrio;' 5poi
(Strabo, 506, etc. ), the source of the river Mashe i^n har
277
ARAM
Mashl, in Arabic Hirmds), which flowed by Nisibis
([pseudo-JDionysiusof Tcl-Mahri?, ed. Chalxjt, 718, and
Thomas of Marga, ed. Budge, 346 19) ; this is, however,
by no means certain. Other theories rcsjjecting the
names in Gen. 10 23 might be mentioned ; but they are
all oj^en to tjuestion.
A second list, in Gen. 22ai, represents Aram as a son
of Kemuel, son of Nahor and brother of Uz, Kescd
(EV Chesed ; the eponym of the Chaldeans), llethucl,
and others. Ik-thuel is called an ' Aranuean ' in Gen.
'^620 285, as is also his son Ealian in fjen. tiiJaoSl 2024.
The passages in question lx;long, it is true, to different
sources ; but they may have been harmonised by the
redactor. All these statcnients seem to p<jint to the
district of Harran (Hakan. q.v.), where, as Hebrew
tradition aflirms with remarkable distinctness, the patri-
archs (.Abraham, Jacob), and the patriarchs' wives
(Kelxjcca, Leah, Rachel), either were Ixjrn or sojourned
for a long time. Here, in remote antit|uity, Hebrew
trilxis and Aramaean tribes (represented by Nahor)
prolxibly dwelt side by side. ' Hence it is said in iJt.
2t5 5 'a nomad Aramitan w.as my father.' In one of
the sources of Genesis the country of Laban is called
'Aram of the two rivers,"-* which seems to mean, as
has long been held, the Arania.an land between the
Euphrates and the Tigris, or tjetween the Euphrates
and the ChabOras (Kiepert, I.eltrb. J. alt. Geogr. 154).
Wiiat is meant by Paddan Aram, however, the name
given to the dwelling-place of Laban and his kinsmen
in the other source (see Paua.n), is not clear. In As-
syrian (?) and Aramaic Paddan signifies 'yoke,' and by
a change of meaning, found also in other languages, it
conies to denote a certain area of land, and finally
' corn-land," but not a ' plain,' as is sometimes assumed
by those who wrongly take the phru.se ' field of .Aram '
(Hos. 12i3[i2]) to be a translation of ' Paddan .Aram.'
This latter can scarcely be the name of a country. It
may denote a locali/y situated in the land of .Aram. We
might, therefore, Ix; templed to identify Paddan Aram
with a place near JJarrdn called J'addiind (see Wright,
Cat. Syr. MSS. 1127a; Georg Hoffman, O/usc.
Acstor. 129, /. 21), in Gr. <f)a5ava (Sozom. 633), and in
Ar. Fadddri, in the neighbourhood of which Tell luiddar.
is situ.ated (see Yakut s.v.). It is, however, a somewhat
suspicious consideration that several of the passages
which have been cited mention the patriarchs in con-
nection with the place. I lence the name m,ay l:>e due to
a mere localisation of the biblical story on the part of the
early Christians. .According to the luu-rative of Balaam,
' Pethor' is in .Aram (.\u. '2'2s 23? ; see PethuK). If
Schr. (fCAT 155^ A'/> 1 133) be right in identifying
it with the city of Pitru, mentioned in .Assyrian insciip-
tions, and situated on the river Sagur (Sajur) — that is to
say, not far from Mambij (Hierapolis) — the statement
that Pethor is on the Euphrates itself cannot be quite
correct. Such an inaccuracy, however, would not be
surprising.
AA'hat historical foundation there may be for the
accoimt of the subjugation of Israel by Cushan
Rishathaim (y.r'. ), 'king of .Aram of the Two Rivers'
(Judg. 38-io), is uncertain.
Of all the .Arama;an states, by far the most important
from the point of view of the Israelites, during the
kingly period, was Damascus, the in-
■ habitants of which, from the time of
David {q.v., § &b) onward, were often at w;xr with their
Israelite neighbours ; but there must also have been
much peaceable intercourse between the two nations.
In most cases where the OT speaks of .Aram the
reference is to Damascus (even though the latter name
be not expressly mentioned), the small Arama.an states
of the neighbourhood being sometimes included. That
1 On this point see Israel, i i.
2 It is not neces.sary to .suppose with W. Max MQlIer {I.e.
252, 255) that the Dual naharaim is a mistake for the plural
nfkArlm. On this subject, however, cp Akam- naharaim,
Mesopotamia, | i.
278
4. D
ARAM
this mode of speaking was acmally current in early
times is proved by such passages ;is Am. 1 59 Is. 7 2 4/ 8.
Cp Dam.\scus.
Not far from Damascus lay the Aramasan districts of
Maacah {(/.v., 2) and Geshur (q.v., i). That Maacah
__ , was .\ram:ean is not expressly stated —
G ^ except in i Ch. 196. where the text is very
P h ^ doubtful ; ' but it seems to Ije indicated by
Gen. '2i2^, where Maacah is represented as
a .son, or daughter, of Nahor by a concubine. Moreover,
in I ("h. 7 16 Machir, the chief representative of the trit)e
of Manasseh teyond the Jordan, is the husband of
Maacah, and in v. 14 t>f the same chapter he is a son of
Man;isseh by an .\ram;ean concubine whence we may
infer that the Israelite tribe which had penetrated
farthest to the XH Ix-came mingled with the
Aramx-ans of Maacah. That the Maacathites were not
included in Israel, though they dwelt among the
Israelites, is stated in Josh. 13 13. Their geographical
situation is to some extent determined by the fact that
Alx'l, though regarded as an ancient Israelite city (2.S.
2019), is sometimes called Aljel-bCth-Maacah, 'Abel in
the land of Maacah ' (2 S. 2O14,- etc. ), in order to dis-
tinguish it from other places bearing the name Abel.
In accordance with the statements in i K. 1020 2 K.
ir>29 (to which must be added 2. S. 20 18, a passage
preserved in <!5 but mutilated in M T), this Abel is now
generally admitted to be identical with the northern
.\bil, near Hunin, on one of the brooks which unite to
compose the Jordan (see Abi:i.-Bi:th-M.\AC.\h). That
this region, on the sloj^es of Hermon, was the home of
the Maacathites appears from Dt. 814 Josh. I25 13ii 13,
where they are mentioned together with the Geshurites,
another foreign people who continued to dwell among
the Israelites (Josh. 13 13), and Ijelonged to .Aram (2 S.
I'jS; cp also i ("h. 223, where the text, it nnist be
admitted, is ol)scure and seems to be corrupt). Not far
off was the territory of Rehob or Beth Rehob, which
included the city of Dan (Judg. I828), often mentioned
as the northern limit of Israel, the modern Tell el-kadi,
a few miles ea^t of the aforesaid Abil. In Josh. 19 28
Rehob, it is true, is reckoned as belonging to the
Israelite tribe of .\sher ; but, according to 2 S. 106, its
inhabitants were .Aramrtans. Thus it appears fairly
certain that several Aram;tan tribes were settled near,
or within, the borders of the northern tribes of Israel
( Naphtali, Asher, and Eastern Manasseh). In these parts
the Aram;^;an population seems to have extended, with
scarcely any interruption, as far as Damascus. The
.Xramneans of Maacah and Rehob fought on the side of
the Ammonites against David (2 S. 106= i Ch. 1961
David married a daughter of the king of the Geshurites,'
and she Ijecame the mother of Absalom. It is remark-
able that she bore the name of Maacah (2 S. 83= i Ch.
82), which, as we have seen, occurs often in con-
nection with Geshur ; and the same name was given by
Absalom to his daughter,'* afterwards the mother of two
kings of Judah ( i K. 1 5 2 10 13 2 Ch. 1 1 20/: ). After he
had murdered his brother Anmon, .\bsalom took refuge
with his grandfather the king of Geshur, and remained
there for a considerable time (28.1838 I42332). The
king of (ieshur must, therefore, have lieen to some extent
indejxindent of David. Of all these Aramtean tribes
we he.ir nothing more in later times ; but one of them
has left a trace in 'the Maacathite' (see Ma.'VCAH, i),
an appellation borne by the father of Jaazaniah, a con-
temporary of Jeremiah the prophet (2 K. 2523 = Jer.
1 Instead of ,13J,'D CINi the ' .\rama:ans of Maacah,' the
jKirallel passage 2. S. 106 has nDJ-D "]Sc, 'the king of Maaoih,"
for which (S" reads /Sao-iAf'a "A^oA^/c. Here the word '.X/aoA^k
is certainly due to a mistake ((pAl. have /iiaaxo) ; but /SavtAea
[BAL] supports the M.-ussoretic reading -^■z-
2 In this verse we should no doubt read ,13;© n'3 n^3K with
Ew., Wellh., and others.
* See, however, Geshi'R, 2, where the view is proposed that
David's wife was from the Southern Geshur.
* On this see, however, Maacah, ii.
279
ARAMAIC LANGUAGE
408). These -Aramseans, who were so closely connected
with the Israelites, probably played an important part
in the diffusion of the Aramaic language over Palestine.
Another state, also descriljed as Aram;tan, was that
of ZoBAH (g.v. ) (2 S. 1068 ; cp i Ch. I!)6 Ps. 60 [title]).
- „ . . which seems to have lx;en for a while of
6. iuODftlL T .
greater consec|uence. In it was situated the
city of Bkrotiiai (2S. 108), no doubt identical with
Bkkoth.'vh {(/.v.), which in Ez. 47 16 is placed between
Hamath and Damascus. With this it agrees that,
according to the statements of the historical books,
Zobah had relations with Hamath on the one side, and
with Damascus on the other. Its site must, therefore,
be approximately in the neighbourhood of Emesa ; and
we may hope that arch;e<3logical researches will throw
further light upon the subject.'
The statement about Sauls wars with ' the kings of
Zobah' (iS. 1447) is open to grave suspicion ; it is, in
fact, doubtful whether the warlike operations of Saul
ever extended so far (see Saul, § 3). A little later,
however, we find Zobah and Damascus assisting the
Ammonites in their war against David (see D.WiD,
§ %b). Al length Hadad'ezer, king of Zobah. even
brought to his help Aramieans from beyond the
Euphrates, but was utterly defeated, together with the
king of the .Ammonites, and David carried off a rich
booty. Upon this the king of Hamath, who had been
at war with the king of Zobah, sent an embassy to the
Judasan king, expressing great satisfaction (2S. 810).
According to 2 S. 2836, one of David's heroes (among
whom were several non-Israelites) came from Zobah ;
in I Ch. 11 38, however, the reading is quite different (see
Zoh.Xh). a servant of the above-mentioned Hadad'ezer,
named Rezon, fled from his master, became the chief of
a band of robbers, and after Davids death founded a
kingdom at Damascus (i K. 11 23 ^ ; see Dam.\sci;s,
§ 3). It is not ea.sy to extract a satisfactory sense from
the passage which descril)es the capture of ' Hamath of
Zobah' by Solomon (2Ch.83), and there is reason to
suspect the integrity of the text. After the time of
Solomon we find no mention of Zobah in the OT ; but
-Assyrian monuments bear witness to the existence of
this city in the seventh century B.C. — if, as seems likely,
the same place be meant.
In the account of the wars of David against the
Ammonites and their allies, these latter are classed
,. .together under the name of 'Aramieans'
7. Aramaeans. ^^ g i^zf. ,4/:) ; but this is perhaps
nothing more than a classification a potiori. It is of
more importance to notice that the army of Nebuchad-
rezzar is called by a contemporary ' the army of tlie
Chaldeans and of the Aramaeans ' (Jer. 80 n). That the
great mass of the Babylonian army was composed of
Aramasans might have teen naturally inferred, even
if we had not this explicit statement on the subject.
Cp Noldeke, 'Die Namen der .-Xram. Nation u. Sprache,' in
y.DMG '25 113^. ; Ktrcrupio-i 2vpios !£vpof in Hermes, h 443^. ;
.nnd the section on the Aramaic dialects in .Art. ' Semitic
Languages,' /CB(^), published separately in German, Die Sent.
Sprachen, Leipsic, 18S7, p. 27^, 2nd ed., 1899.
2. .An .Asherite (iCh. 734!; [ouclopoi' [B], o/xifL [.AL]). See
also Ram, i, and .Akni. t. N.
ARAMAIC LANGUAGE.^ Aramaic is nearly re-
lated to Hebrajo- Phoenician ; there is, nevertheless.
_^ . . .a sharp line of demarcation. Of its
. ueopr p original home nothing certain is
extent. known. In the O T ' Aram ' appears
at an early period as a designation of certain districts in
Syria (sea Ar.\m, § i) and in Mesopotamia. The
language of the Aramnaans gradually spread far and
wide. It occupied all Syria — both those regions which
had been in the possession of non-Semitic peoples, and
1 It would appear that the As.syrian inscriptions sometimes
mention this place as Suhutu or Subiti (sec I )el. Par. i-jc^Jf. ;
Schrader, KG F 122, h'AT 182^); but they have not enabled
us to fix the site.
• Revised and adapted bv_ the author from art. '.Semitic
Languages ' (Aramaic section) in EB{^) L'l.
280
ARAMAIC LANGUAGE
those which were most likely inhabited by Canaanite
tribes. Last of all, Palestine Ixjcame Aramaised ( il>. § 2).
Towards the E. this language w:is spoken on the
Euphrates, and throughout the districts of the Tigris
S. and W. of the Armenian and Kurdish mountains ;
the province in which the capitals of the Arsacides and
the Sasanians were situated was called ' the country of
the Aram.-i.-ans.' In Babylonia and Assyria a large, or
perhapxs the larger, portion of the population were most
probably Aramreans, even at a very early date, whilst
Assyrian was the language of the government.
Some short Aramaic inscriptions of the Assyrian
period, principally on weights, have long l)cen known.
To these have rccenlly lx.en added longer
2. Earlier
history.
ones from the most northern part of .Syria
(Zenjirli, alx)ul 37' N.). In these, as in the
weight inscriptions, the language differs markedly from
later Aramaic, esiK.'cially by its close approximation to
Hebrew -Can.a.anitc or, jx^rhaps, to Assyrian; but
Aramaic it undoubtedly is. It is to Ix; hoped that more
of these inscriptions, important alike for their language
and for their contents, m.iy yet be discovered.^
In the Persian period Aramaic was the oflicial language
of the provinces W. of the Mujihrates ; and this explains
the fact that some inscriptions of Cilicia and many coins
which were struck by gtwernors and vassal princes in
Asia Minor (of which the stamp was in some cases
the work of skilled Greek artists) lx.'ar Aramaic in-
scriptions, whilst those of other coins are Greek. This,
of course, does not prove that .Aramaic was ever spoken
in .Asia Minor, and as far north as .Sinope and the
Hellespont. In l'"gypt Aramaic inscriptions have
been found of the Persian period, one lx.'aring the date
of the fourth year of Xerxes (482 H. c. ) ; - we have also
official documents on papyrus, unfortunately in a very
tattered condition for the most part, which prove that
the Persians preferred using this convenient langu.age to
mastering the difficulties of the Egyptian systems <>f
writing. It is further possible that at that time there
were many .Aranirt-ans in l\gypt, just as there were many
Phci-nicians, Greeks, and Jews.
This preference for Aramaic, iiowtver, probably
originated under the Assyrian ICmpire, in which a very
Large pro[X)rtion of the population s])oke Aramaic : in
it this language would naturally occupy a more important
position than it did under the I'crsians. Thus we under-
stand why it was taken for granted that a great Assyrian
officer could speak Aramaic (2 K. 1826 = Is. 36 11), and
why the dignit.aries of Juriah apjiear to have learned the
language (idid.): namely, in order to communicate with
the Assyrians. Tlie short dominion of the Chalde.ans
prob.ably strengthened this preponderance of Aramaic.
A few ancient .Aramaic inscriptions have been dis-
covered far within the limits of .Arabia, in tiie palm
oasis of Teima (in the north of the Hijaz) ; the oldest
and by far the most important of these was perhaps
made somewhat before the Persian period. ^ We may
presume th.at .Aramaic was introduced into the district
by a mercantile colony, which settled in the ancient seat
of conmiercc ; and, in consequence, Aramaic may
have reniainetl for some time the liter.ary language of
the neighbouring .Arabs. Those .Aramaic monuments,
which we may with more or less certainty ascribe to the
Persian f)eriod, exhibit a langu.age which is almost
absolutely uniform. The Egypti.an monuments bear
marks of Hebrew, or (better) Phoenician, influence.
Intercourse with Aramaeans caused some Aramaic
1 Cp A ttsgyahingcn inSendschirli, S.-ich.iu, KSnigl. AT us. zu
Berlin, Mittlieil. aus lienor. Sainml. 1893 ; also O. H. MuUer,
altseiii. fnschri/t. r. Sentischirli, Vienna, 1803; HaUvy, Rer.
Sent., Paris, 1804, and on the language, Nsfd. 7.DMG 47 99 ;
D. H. Muller, ' Die Riuinschrift des B.irrekub,' ZKMW 10 ; Wi.
in MIT,,\^: Halivy, Rn'. Sem. 1897; G. Hofrm.-inn, /.A,
1897, T,\T ff. Two old Aram, inscription.s from Nerah (near
Aleppo) have since been brought to light ; cp Hoffmann, il>. ^ot ff.
2 See the Palfeographical Society's Oriental Series, plate
Ixiii., and CIS 2, no. 122.
3 See CIS 2, nos. 113-131.
38Z
words to be imported into Hebrew at a comparatively
Rihli 1 '^^'"'y fl^'«^- This influence of Aramaic on
\ . Hebrew steadily grew, and shows itself so
■ strongly in the language of I-kclesiastes, for
example, as almost to comjx-l the inference that Aramaic
w.-is the writer' s mother-tongue, and Hebrew one sulisc-
quently acc|uirc<i, without coniplete mastery.
Certain portions of the OT (I:zra4 8-<;i8 712-26 lian.
24-828 ; also the ancient gloss in Jer. 10 11) are written
in Aramaic. The free and arbitrary interchange lietween
Aramaic and Hebrew, lx!tween the current iK)pular
siK-ech and the old sacred and learned langu.ige. is
peculiarly characteristic in Daniel (167 or 166 H.r.l;
see Da.\ii:i., ii. § 11/ Isolated p.ussages in I'.zra
perhaps lx;long to the Persian pK.'ri«>d, but have certainly
been remodelled by a later writer.' Still in Ezra \vi;
find a few antic|ue forms which do not occur in Daniel.
The Aramaic pieces contained in the OT have the
great advantage of being furnished with vowels and
other orthographical signs. These were rot inserted
until long after the composition of the books (they
are sometimes at variance with the text itself) ; but
Aramaic was still a living language when the punctua-
tion came into use, and the lapse of time w.as not
so very great. The tradition ran less risk of corruption,
therefore, than in the ca.se of Hebrew. Its general
correctness is further attested by the innumerable
points of resemblance Ijetween this language and
Syriac, with which we are accurately acquainted. The
Aramaic of the OT exhibits various anticjue characteristics
which afterwards disapjx'ared — for example, the forma-
tion of the passive by means of internal vowel-change,
and of the causative with //a instead of witha— phenomena
which have been falsely ex[)lained as Hebraisms.
IJiblical Aramaic agrees in all essential respects with
the language tised in the many inscriptions of Palniyra
A KT v. f + (lieginning soon t)efore the Christian
4. Nabatsean, etc. ^^^ ^^^ extending to about the end of
the tiiird century), and on the Nabata.'an coins and
sloiie inonuinents (concluding about the year 100 A.I). ).
Aramnic was the language of Palmyra, the aristocracy
of which were largely of Arabian extraction. In the
northern portion of the Nabata-an kingdom (not far
from Damascus) there w,as probably a large .Aramaic
population ; but Arabic was spoken farther south. .At
that time, however, Aramaic was highly esteemeil as a
cultivated language, for which reason the Arabs in
question made use of it, as their own language was not
reduced to writing, just as in those ages Greek inscrip-
tions were set up in many districts where no one sjioke
(ireek. The great inscrijjlions cease with the over-
throw of the Nabativan kingdom by Trajan (105 A.D. ) ;
but, down to a later perio<l, the .Arabian nomads in those
countries, especially in the Sinaitic peninsula, often
scratched their names on the rocks, adding some bene-
dictory formula in Aramaic. These inscriptions
having now l)een deciphered with completeness and
certainty, there is no longer room for discussion of
their Israelitic origin, or of any similar fantastic theories
concerning them. That several centuries afterwards
the name of ' Nabat«?an ' was used by the .Arabs as
synonymous with ' Arama-an ' was probably due to
the gradual spread of Aramaic over a great part of
what had once btxn the country of the Nabata-ans. In
any case, Aramaic then exercised an inmiense influence.
This is proved by the place which it occupies in the
strange Pahlavi w riting. v.arious branches of which date
from the time of the Parthian empire. Biblical .Aramaic,
as al-so the language of the Palmyrene and the NalKita-an
inscriptions, may be descrilxjd .as an older form of
Western Aramaic. The opinion that the Palestinian Jews
brought their Aramaic dialect directly from Babylon —
whence the incorrect name ' Chaldee ' — is untenable.
1 The decree which is said to have been sent by Artaxerxes
(Ezra 7 1 2-26) is in its present form a comparatively late pro-
duction (cp Ezra, ii. S lo).
282
ARAMAIC LANGUAGE
By the time of Christ Aramaic had long been the
current popular speech of the Jews in Palestine, and
^_ the use, spoken and written, of Hebrew
(in a greatly modified form) was confined to
scholars. Christ and the apostles spoke Aramaic, and
the original preaching of Christianity, the £1)077^X10;',
was in the same language. And tliis, too, not in
the di.alect current in Jerusalem, wiiich roughly coin-
cided with the literary language of the period, but in
that of Galilee, which, it would seem, had developed
more rapidly, or, as is now often but erroneously said,
had Ixicome corrupted. Unfortunately, it is impossible
for us to know the Galilean dialect of that period with
accuracy. The attempts made in our days to reduce
the words of Jesus from Greek to their original language
have, therefore, failed.
In general, few of the sources from which we derive
our knowledge of the Palestinian dialect of that period
_ can he implicitly trusted. In the syn-
gum. . ^gogy^s jt ^y^s necessary that the reading
of the OT should be followed by an oral ' targum ' — a
translation, or rather a paraphrase into Aramaic, the
language of tlie people — which was at a later period
fi.xed in writing ; but the officially sanctioned form of
the Targum to the Pentateuch (the so-called Targum
of Onkelos) and of that to the prophets (the so-called
Jonathan) was not finally settled till the fourth or fifth
century, and not in Palestine but in Babylonia. The
redactors of the Targum preserved, on the whole, the
older Palestinian dialect ; yet that of Babylon, which
differed considerably from the former, exercised a
vitiating influence. The punctuation, which was added
later (first in Babylonia) is not so trustworthy as that of
the Aramaic passages in the OT. The manuscripts
which have the Babylonian superlinear punctuation
may, nevertheless, be relied upon to a great extent.
The language of Onkelos and Jonathan differs but little
from biblical Aramaic. The language spoken some
time afterwards by the Palestinian Jews, especially in
Galilee, is exhibited in a series of rabbinical works —
the so-called Jerusalem Targums, a few Midrashic works,
and the Jerusalem Talmud. Of the Jerusalem Targums,
at least that to the Pentateuch contains remains that go
back to a very early date, and, to a considerable extent,
presents a much moreancient aspect than that of Onkelos,
which has t>een heavily revised throughout ; ^ but
the language, as we now have it, belongs to the
later time. The Targums to the Hagiographa are, in
part, very late indeed. All these books, of which the
Midrashim and the Talmud contain much Hebrew as
well as Aramaic, have been handed down without care,
and require to be used with great caution for linguistic
purposes. Moreover, the influence of the older language
and orthography has, in part, obscured the characteristics
of these popular dialects : for example, various gutturals
are still written, although they are no longer pronounced.
The adaptation of the spelling to the real pronunciation
is carried furthest in the Jerusalem Talmud, but not in
a consistent manner. All these books are without
vowel-points ; but the frequent use of vowel-letters
in the later Jewish works renders this defect less notice-
able (cp Tkxt, § 64).
Not only the Jews but also the Christians of Palestine
retained their native dialect for some time as an ecclesi-
7 Christian ^^'''^'^' ^"^ literary language. W'e possess
p j' . translations of great portions of the Bible
ratestinian. (g^pgcially of the Gospels) and fragments
of other works in this dialect by the Palestinian Christians
dating from about the fifth century, partly accompanied
by a punctuation which was not added till some time
later. This dialect, the native country of which was
apparently not Galilee, but Judaea, closely resembles
that of the Palestinian Jews, as was to be expected
1 This in opposition to Dalman's Grannn. d. jtid. pal. Aram.
(Leipsic, 94)— a book highly to be commended for the fulness
and accuracy of its facts, but less so for its theories.
283
from the fact that those who spoke it were of Jewish
origin.
Finally, the Samaritans, among the inhabitants of
Palestine, translated their sacred book, the Penta-
ft og„--:x-n teuch, into their own dialect : see Tkxt,
Sect § ^'^- "^^^ '''■"'''''^ ^'"'^>' °^ ^""'^ ^™"*-
lation proves that the language which
lies at its base was very much the same as that of the
neighbouring Jews. Perhaps, indeed, the Samaritans
may have carried the softening of the gutturals a little
farther than the Jews of Galilee. Their absurd attempt
to embellish the language of tlie translation by arbitrarily
introducing forms borrowed from the Hebrew original
has given ri.se to the false notion that Samaritan is a
mixture of Hebrew and Aramaic. The introduction of
Hebrew and even of Arabic words and forms was
practised in Samaria on a still larger scale by copyists
who lived after Aramaic had become extinct. The later
works written in the Samaritan dialect are, from a
linguistic point of view, as worthless as the compositions
of Samaritans in Hebrew : the writers, who spf)ke .Araljic,
endeavoured to write in a language with which they were
but half acquainted.
All these Western Aramaic dialects, including that of the
oldest inscriptions, have this characteristic among others
9. Western
dialects.
in common, that they form the third fx^r.son
singular masculine and the third person
plural masculine and feminine in the im-
perfect by prefixing^, as do the other .Semitic languages.
And in these dialects the termination d (the so-called
status emphaticus) still retained the meaning of a definite
article down to a tolerably late period.
As early as the seventh century the conquests of the
Moslems greatly circumscribed the domain of ,'\ramaic,
and a few centuries later it was almost completely
supplanted in the W. by Arabic. For the Christians of
those countries, who, like every one else, spoke Arabic,
the Palestinian dialect was no longer of importance.
They adopted as their ecclesiastical language the dialect
of the other Aramaean Christians, the Syriac ( Edessan ;
see § 1.1 Jf.). The only localities where a \\'. Aramaic
dialect still survives are a few villages in Anti-Libanus.^
The popular Aramaic dialect of Babylonia, from the
fourth to the sixth century of our era, is exhibited in the
■, ^ T, \. t ■ Babvlonian Talmud, in which, however,
^^^l^""^*^ as in the Jerusalem Talmud, there is
and MandsQan. ■ 1 ■ r \ i
a constant mmglmg of Aramaic and
Hebrew passages. To a somewhat later period, and
probably to a somewhat different district of Babylonia,
belong the writings of the Mandaeans, a strange sect,
half Christian and half heathen, who, from a linguistic
point of view, possess the peculiar advantage of having
remained almost entirely free from the influence of
Hebrew, which is so perceptible in the Aramaic writings of
Jews as well as in those of Christians. The orthography of
the Mandaeans comes nearer than that of the Talmud
to the real pronunciation, and in it the softening of the
gutturals is most clearly seen. In other respects there is
a close resemblance between Manda;an and the language
of the Babylonian Talmud. The forms of the imperfect
which we have enumerated above take in these dialects
n or /. In Babylonia, as in Syria, the language of the
Arabic conquerors rapidly drove out that of the country.
The latter has long been extinct — unless, which is possible,
a few surviving Mandajans still speak among themselves
a more modern form of their dialect.
At Edessa, in the W. of Mesopotamia, the native
dialect had already been used for some time as a literary
_ . language, and had been reduced to rule
■ ^y'^**' through the influence of the schools (as
\ ®^ . is proved by the fixity of the grammar and
Aramaic, ^j^^ orthography) even before Christianity
1 On this subiect we h.-ive now very valuable information
in a series of articles by M. P.irisot (/<M«r«. As., 1898); moie-
o\er it is hoped that Professors Prym and Socin will soon be
able to furnisn more ample details.
084
ARAMAIC LANGUAGE
acquired power in the country, in the second century. At
an early period the Old and the New Testaments were here
translated, with the help of Jewish tradition (see Tkxt,
§ 59). This version (the so-called PesWtta or I'eshito) be-
came the Bible of Aram^an Christendom, and Kdessa
became its capital. Thus the Aramx-an Christians of the
neighlxjuring countries, even those who were subjects of
the Persian empire, adopted the Edessan dialect as the
l;\nguai;e of the church, of literature, and of cultivated
ituercourse. Since the ancient name of the inhabitants,
' .Xramu-ans,' just like that of "EXXTji/ej, had acc|uired in
the niinils of Jews and t^hristians the unpleasant signifi-
cation of 'heathens,' it was generally avoided, and in
its place the Greek terms ' Syrians ' and ' .Syriac ' were
used. '.Syriac,' however, was also the name given by
the Jews and the C hristians of I'alestine to their own
language, and ' Syrians ' was applied by both Greeks
ancl Persians to the .\rama;ans of liabylonia. It is, there-
fore, incorrect to employ the word ' Syriac ' as mean-
ing the language of ICdessa alone ; but, since it was
the most important of these dialects, it has the best
claim to this generally received apjiellatioa. It has, as
we have said, a form very definitely fixed ; and in it the
above-mentioned forms of the imperfect take an n. As
in the Babylonian dialects, the termination li has become
so completely a part of the substantive to which it is
addetl that it has wholly lost the meaning of the definite
article ; whereby the clearness of the language is j^er-
ceptibly impaired. The influence exercised by Greek is
very apparent in Syriac.
From the third to the seventh century an extensive
literature was produced in this language, consisting
_. ... chietlv, but not entire! v, of ecclesiastical
12. Its nistory. ^^.^^j,^ j^^ ^^^ development of this
literature the Syrians of the Persian empire took an
c.iger part. In the Kastern Roman empire Syriac was,
after (ireek, by far the most important language ; and
under the Persian kings it virtually occupied a more
prominent position as an organ of culture than the
Persian language itself. The conquests of the Arabs
totally changed this state of things. Meanwhile, even
in Edessa, a considerable difference had arisen lx,'tween
the written language and the popular speech, in
which the process of modification was still going on.
About the year 700 it became a matter of absolute
necessity to systematise the grammar of the language
and to introduce some means of clearly expressing
the vowels. The chief object aimed at was that the
text of the Syri.ac Bible should Ix; recited in a correct
manner. It happened, however, that the eastern pronun-
ciation differed in manyrcspects from that of the W. The
local dialects had, to some extent, exercised an influence
over the pronunciation of the literary tongue ; and, on
the other hand, the political separation Ixjtween Rome
and Persia, and yet more the ecclesiastical schism — since
the SjTians of the ?2. were mostly Nestorians, those of
the W. Monophysites and Catholics — had produced
divergences l)etween the traditions of the various schools.
Starting, therefore, from a common source, two dis-
tinct systems of punctuation were formed, of which the
western is the more convenient, but the eastern the
more e.vact, and generally more in accordance with the
ancient pronunciation : it has, for example, a in place
of the western <>, and 0 in many cases where the western
Syrians pronounce u. In later times the two systems
have been intermingletl in various w.ays.
Arabic everywhere put a speedy end to the pre
dominance of Aramaic — a predominance which had
lasted for more than a thousand years— and soon began
to drive Syri.ac out of use. Nevertheless, up to the
present day Syriac has remained in use for literary and
ecclesiastical purposes, and may perhaps be even spoken
in some monasteries and schools ; but it has long Ijeen
a dead language. When Syriac became extinct in Edessa
and its neighlxjurhood is not known with certainty. It
is very desirable that theologians who interest them-
ARAM-NAHARAIM
selves scientifically in the history of the first centuries of
Christianity should karn some Syriac. 1 he task is not
very difhcult for those who know Hebrew.
In somedistricts of northern Mesopotamia, of the Mosul
territory, of Kurdistan, and on Lake Urmia, Aramaic
19 w H • dialects are spoken by Christians and
13. Weo Bynaxs oc^-^ionaHy ,,y j^ws. Among these
la ec 8. jj^.^j ^j. L,'pp,i^ fj^j liecome the most
important, since American missionaries have formed a
new literary language of it. Moreover, the Roman
Prop.aganda has primed books in two of the Neo-Syriac
dialects.
On the Aramaic dialects In general, see Nnldeke, ' Die X.Tmen
d. Aram. Nation u. Spraclie,' in /.DMC '.'.'> 113 _ff. ('71);
Wrisht, Cw«A Cratiim. Sctii. \^Jf.\ K.ui.
14. Literattire. Cramtn. d. JIM.-Aram. bff. The 'Aramaic
inscriptions from Assyria, Habylonia, Asia
Minor, and F.>;ypt are found in the .second part of the C7.S'(tlie
Sinaitic and I'ahnyrene inscriptions have not yet appeared).
For the Nabata-an the most im|>ortant publication is Kutin^'s
Nahattiische /nschri/titi, lierlin, 1885. Others are to be found in
various journals. Of these the most considerable is the i^reat
inscription of Petra, first edited by l)c Vo^\\i, J.As., 1896,
8304^ Many Sinaitic are contained in Kuting's .V/«a;//V/»<'
Inschr. ('gt), and of the Palmyrene the (comparatively small)
collection in iJe Vogiii's La Syrie C'»-«/rrt/f( 1868-77) is the most
convenient for use. Majiy others are to be found scattered
through journals devoted to Oriental subjects, the most imp<jrtant
being the great Fiscal biscription in P.ilmjTcne and (Ireek: see
ZDMG 42370^ ('88), where the literature is cited. .\ few
Palmyrene inscriptions, annotated, are appended to Sevan's
Coiinnentary on Daniel.
The most complete S>riac grammar is Nf'ildeke's Syrisclie
C>n>/n/ia(iA: {Leip^ic, '80; 2nd ed., 'gS). Duval's (Paris, '81) is
useful for comparison with the other Aramaic dialects, and
Neslle's, in the Porta Lin^tarvm ( ^rientalium (2nd ed. , Berlin,
'88), is an introductory handbook. To theologians wishing to
learn Syriac, Roediger's Chrcstomathia .<:yrinca(yrA ed., Halle,
'92) may l>e highly recommended. .Articles on the Nabataian, the
Palmyrene, and the Cbristian-Pnl.-tinian dialects by Noldcke
are to be fecund in the / '> 1 ', ■ > , - ■' 111537/; 'lAa^jf. ['63, '65,
'70]. Of S\ri;i. (iiiii f .r a long time was the
only otie of i;. m r.\l : three have appeared,
P.iyne Siiiiih's Liriat / // ; inately not yet finished),
Brockelmaiin's and lirun s. Of j.;|..ssaries to the Aramaic in-
scriptions, we must now add to Ledrain's J>ict. ties noiiis
froprcs Paltuyreniens ('87) the glossary of Stanley A. Cook
(Cambridge, '98) and Lidzbarski's J/anMuch der nordsetiii-
tischen Ef'igraphik ('98).
For the various dialects used in early Jewish literature, includ-
ing the Hebrew parts of it, we have, besides the old lUiMorf
(Hasel, 1639), J.^cob Levi's Neuheb. u. Chald. llorU)/'.
(Leipsic, 1876-89), and the shorter one of J. I>alman (part 1,
Leipsic, '07). Levy h.ad previously edited a Chald. M'ortcrh.
iihcr die Tar^nanim (leipsic, '67).
On the biblical Aramaic there are, besides the grammar of
Kautzsch ('84), the little lx>oks of .Strack (2nd ed., Leipsic, '97)
and of Marti (Leipsic, '96). For the Targum dialects there
is no grannnar that meets the requirements of modern science.
Nor is there yet an adequate grammar of the Aramaic dialect
of the Babylonian Talmud, although the little tract of S. 1).
l.,uzzatto, Elevicnti gramtnaticaiidi Caldeo Inhliio e dcldialetto
Taliitudico Bahilontse (Padua, '65), is a verj- useful work. For
the Palestine Jewish dialects see iJalman's Clranmiar (Leipsic,
'94); for the Samaritan, the grammar of IJhlemann (Leipsic, '37)
and Petermann (Berlin, '73). Neither of these, naturally, repre- ,
sents the results of modern scholarship. For the Mandaic, see
that of Niildeke (Halle, '75), for the Neo-Syriac that of the s.-ime
author (Ijeipsic, '68), and especially the most valuable grammar
of A. T. Maclean (Cambridge, '95). T. N.
ARAMAIC VERSIONS. See Tkxt, §§ 59/., 64.
ARAMEAN C?i)"lX), Ut. -265 R\''"--, and AramitesB
(n'f3")N), I Ch. 7i4 EV. See Aram (beginning).
ARAM-MAACAH (HSyp DIX), i ( h. 196 RV.
Sec Ma.mah, I.
aram-nahaeaim (Dnn? ons). i:v pres.-r^es
the form Aram-naharaim only in Ps. 60 (title : fi^iroTroTofttaK
<rvpw IBKT], >x. crvpiai' [R]) and in Dt. 285 [4] RVme- ; else-
where the phr.ise is invariably remlered
1. OT expression. Mksoi-otamia, even in Jucfg. Hio (so
H (rupiat iroTafiCii') where .MT has
simply .\ram (C1X ; <rvpi« [.\ ; L oiri. altogether]). The other C
forms are; Judg. 3h, TrOTOfiuf <rvptas (Bj, <rvpia^ ixf trowoTafiCa^
iroTO/iu)!' [AL] ; 1 Ch. 11*6 avpia<: fji«roiroTaitiat [BkALJ.
Apart from Judg. 38, where its genuineness is more
than doubtful (see Clshan-kish.\thaim), and the
confused editorial data of i Ch. 196 and Ps.GOa (title in
s86
ARAM-NAHARAIM
EV), which are, of course, too latt- to be anytliing but
antiquarian lore,' the phrase Arani-nahar(a)im occurs
in ^^^ only twice — once in J, defining the position of
the ' city of N'ahor' (or perhaps rather ' of Harran' ; see
Nahok), (Jen. 24 lo, and once in I), defining the position
of Pethor on the west bank of the Euphrates (Dt.
23 5 [4]). Whilst the two towns in (|uestion are Aramaean
cities known in later "^ as well iis in earlier * periods of
history, the stories connected with them in the passages
cited are legends of prehistorical times, whose interpre-
tation is necessarily more or less conjectural (see Nahok,
FiAl.AAM). We have no other evidence for the actual
currency of a compound geographical expression Aram-
nahar(a)ini. Indeed, Aram is propjerly a race-name
rather than the name of a district : apart from the
passages cited, there does not appear to be any un-
ambiguous case of its use, whether alone or in combina-
tion, as a geographical expression. Xaharim, or Naharin
(see l>elow, § 2), on the other hand, is well known as an
ancient name for Northern Syria and the country stretch-
ing eastwards from it. Aram-Naharaim, or (better)
.\rani-Naharim, might then be, like Aram-Zobah, etc.,
properly the name of a people rather than of a territory
— unless, indeed, .\ram tx; perhaps a simple gloss ex-
plaining Nahar(a)im (cp the converse case of Yahwe-
elohim in Gen. '2). That Nahar(a)ini is a dual ('the
two rivers ') is extremely doubtful (cp Moore on Judg. 38)
— the word, as already hinted, should probably be pro-
nounced Naharim (see § 2).
The term Mksoi'd 1 ami,\ {q.v., § i) is explained by the Greek
geographers as me.-iiiing ' between the rivers ' ; but they need not
have been right in assuming thit the rivers referred to were two.
It seems not improl).ible that the (Ireek name is really connected
with the ancient name.-*
The form Xahariii (the spelling varies : on this pro-
nunciation see W.\IM, As. u. Eur. 25 i , 252 n. 3[-/« can,
of course, also Ije read -en. — WMM]) is |
2. The name
Naharin.
3. Extent.
attested by the Egyptian records of the j
New Empire, when this name seems to
take the place of the earlier phrase Up])er Ruterm [ih.
249). W. M. Miiller regards the form as plural ^ i
(252) ; but it may also be a locative like ICphraim, etc. !
(see Namf.s, § 107). \
In Assyrian or Babylonian inscriptions the natne has
not yet Ijeen met with (see § 3) ; but in the Amarna .
letters it occurs repeatedly as nidtu Nahrima or Narima,
from which we learn tlie valuable fact that in I'hojnicia
(Gebal) and Palestine (Jerusalem) the form with tn was j
usual. j
Naharin (Nahrima) was, as the meaning of the name
('river-land') would suggest, a term of physical rather
than of political geography. It need not,
therefore, have been used with a very
great definiteness (cp the ancient names Wapairoraixia.,
Polyb. V. 69 ; and the mod. Riviera) ; and the inscrip-
tions, in fact, bear this out. j
It seenis to have extended from the valley of the '■
Orontes, across the Euphr.ates, somewhat indefinitely
eastwards [As. u. Eur. 249). Explanations, based on
the view that aim is dual, like those of Dillmann (the
territory between the Chaboras and the Euphrates), of
.Schrader in h'A 7''''^' (between the middle Euphrates and
the Halih), and of Hal6vy in Rev. St'm. July 1894 (the
neighbourhood of Damascus, w.atered b\- the so-called
Abana and the Pharpar) seem less satisfactory. In
its widest application, the whole water-system drain-
1 The pa.s.sages in which the phrase has been inserted are
obviously borrowed from 2 .S.
2 Pethor mentioned by .Shalmaneser II.
3 Pethor mentioned by Thotmes III.
■* it is at least worth considering whether Mesopotamia may
not be a translation of the Arama;an expression ^JOjJ JNaS
'district of rivers,' a natural rendering (cp the Syriac Heth
'.\rbriye for Xenophon's '.Kpafiia) of Naharim ('riverland '),
afterwards — by an easy misunderstanding (of which there are
examples) — due to the two like-.sounding words l>eth — suppo.sed
to mean iei^vetn rivers.'
s If the suggestion made in the preceding footnote be adopted,
troTO/xui' implied in Mesopotamia will be plural.
287
ARARAT
ing into the Persian Gulf could be called ' the waters ' or
' the great water system ' 'of Nah.arin ' {As. u. E.ur. 253-
255). In its stricter (narrower) apjilication it probably,
at one time, included or formed part of H.anig.albat
(Hani-rabbat). On the history of this whole district
see Mksopotamia. h. w. h.
ARAM-ZOBAH (naiV D1S). .See Aka.m, § 6.
David, § 9, and Zobah.
ARAN (n^, perhaps ' mountain goat' — cp Ei'HKR —
but Nold. and Di. question this ; arRAN [HAL]), a
'son' of Dishan the Horite ; Gen. 3t)28 (pK [Sam.];
ARAM [AE])=i Ch. I42 (&PAN [E])- C. Niebuhr
(influenced by the preceding name Uz) prefers the
reading Aram, which is supported by some Heb. MSS,
Targ. Jon., ©^ Vg. .and Onk. (cp Cesch. I29). The
MT is, however, probably correct (cp Oren,' i Ch. 225),
though if Oren is the right pronunciation of jik in i Ch.
225, it is probably correct .also in i Ch. I42, and vice
versa (see We. De gent. 39).
ARARAT (0"inX' ; ararat [BAL]). i. Ararat is
mentioned in the C)T .as a country ; 2 K. I937 (arapa9
1. Country
biblical
[H]. apaAaA[A]) = Is. 37 38(ApA\eN[e]iA
[BNAO(^)]) ; cp Tob. 1 21 [apa.pa.0 [BJ) AV
aUusions ■^^^**^' J"^""- ^1=7 (apate har' eMoy
[BN] ; apa.peQ\.\\, apaper (l.^). The first
two passages referred to are parallel ; they relate
that the two sons of Sennacherib (Sin-ahi-irba), after
having slain their father, ' escaped into the land of
Ararat' (so RV). A collateral confirmation of this
report is given by an inscription of Esar-haddon" (.\sur-
ah-iddina) which states that on the news of the murder
of his father he quickly collected the forces (with which
he was probably carrying on a campaign in Cappadoci.a
or Cilicia), marched against Nineveh, and defeated the
army of the murderers at Hanirabbat (Hanigalmit?
Schrader). This district lies in the neighbourhood of
Melitene, just where, at a later time, the Romans
entered .Armenia {i.e. , .Arar.at). In Jer. /.c. the prophetic
writer summons the kingdoms (or, as (S^X, the kings) of
.Ar.arat, Minni, .and Ashkenaz to fight against Babylon.
This too agrees with the representations of the inscrip-
tions, which constantly distinguish between the land of
Mannu and Urartu or Ararat. Mannu (which lay to
the .S. or SE. of Lake L'rflmTa) was generally subject
to the .Assyrians, but at least once was conquered from
them by .Argistis son of Menua.s (see Tiele, //./(/' 208,
215). See further Minni, Ashkenaz.
The name Urarti appears in the A.ssyrian texts from
the ninth century onwards. It appears to be inter-
. . changeable with N.airi {i.e., the streams),
■ ■'^^fsy"^^ the old Semitic name of the country,
' ■ which it bore, for example, under Tiglath-
pileser I. {circa 1108 B.C.) and, as appears from the
notices in the Egyptian inscriptions of the eighteenth
dynasty, at a much earlier date {circa 1400 B.C. ). The
kings, who are called by the Assyrians Urartians, never
apply this name to themselves. .S.arduris I. , the first
king whose inscriptions, written in As.syrian {circa 830
B.C.), have come down to us, calls himself king of
Nairi, a title which the .Ass\Ti<ans n.aturally did not
grant him, Ixjcause they themselves laid claim to his
country. His successors, who use their own language,
call their land Biaina, out of which the later name Van
has arisen, a name which must at that time have been
transferred from the district where the kings resided to
the wholjs kingdom.
Next, as to the extent of the kingdom of Urartu or
Nairi. The greater p.art of the later .Armenia was,
sometimes at any rate, included within its limits ; for
Vannic inscriptions have teen found even in Malatlyah,
ne.ar Palu on the Upper Euphrates, and as far away as
the Russian province Erivan. It would appear that
originally Nairi denoted a more southerly region, where
1 On Oman see Araunah. '- 3 R. 15, col. i.17.
ARARAT
the Tigris and the Muphrales rise, wliilst Ararat proper
( Urarti | lay to the X. , in the plain of the Araxes ; but that
Ixitween the eleventh century and the ninth, the L'rartians
(whom their language shows to have l>een a non-Semitic
jx-'oplc) conciuered the more southerly region, and estab-
hshed there the thief se^at of their dominion — a con(|uest
which they were enabled to make by the great decline
of Assyria at that time. Afterwards, both names, Nairi
and Urartu, were used for the whole country. The
Assyrian king S;irgon broke the power of Urartu f<jr a
long time ; but his successors did not succeed in their
endeavours to destroy it, and so it is not uimatural that
Assyriologists have sometimes defended the pre-e.\ilic
origin of the long prophecy against Babylon at the end of
the liook of Jeremiah, on this ground among others, that
the kingdoms of Ararat and Minni are still well known
to the Israelites, and considered to Ix; formidable
powers.' Kuenen, however {(>//<fJ-' 2 242 = /w«/. 2
232/), hiis sufticiently shown that these arguments are
not conclusive. l'ro]x.'r names like Ararat and Minni
simply prove the literary and anlicjuarian research of the
author, and the jihenomena of the prophi cy as a whole
ap|x;ar to Ixnh the present writers to presuppo.se a jxjriod
later than that of Jeremiah, (.'-^ee Jkkk.miaii, ii. ).
2. Ararat is mentioned also in the post-e.\ilic version
of the Deluge-story. The statement runs thus: 'And
3 Deluee- '^*^ ^^^ reste<l . . . upon the mountains of
■ . "'Ararat' ((Jen. 84 RV ; Samar. text ann.T).
^' This is precisely parallel to the statement of
the cognate Babylonian story (see l)Ki,UGi:, § 1) : ' The
mountain of the land of Ni.sir stopped the ship,' or, as the
following lines give it, ' The mountain Nisir stopped the
ship." That Nisir (protection? deliverance?) is proijcrly
the name of a mountain or mountain range seems to be
clear from .Xsur-na.sir-pal's inscription (see A'// 1 77), and
Ararat too, in the intention of the Hebrew writer, will
l)e tlie name of a mountain or mountain range. The
situation of Nisir is clear from the inscription just
referred to. It was in Media, K. of the Lower Zab,
and S. of the Caspian Sea. There lies l-'-Iburz, the
Hara. berezaiti, or Hara haraiti bares, thus named by
the N. Iranians after their mythic sky-mountain. Now,
it is remarkable that Nicolaus Dam.iscenus (in Jos.
.////. i. 36, cp also OS*'-) 209 48) names the mountain of
the ark Iferis, and places it 'above Minyas' — i.e., Minni
(Mannu). Baris ( fia res = high) appears to Ix; a fragment
of the Iranian name of Elburz, which this writer took
for the whole name.'^ It may I)e conjectured that this
was the mountain which the Hebrew writer, in accord-
ance with the Babylonian tradition, had in view. If
so, he gave it the name which it bore in his own time,
Hara haraiti, shortening it into Ararat, not ix'rha[js
without confusing it involuntarily with the land of
I'rarti, which latter name may have hatl a ilifferent
origin.
It was natural enough that the most widely sjjread
tradition accepted the identity of the .\rarat of the
Hebrew Deluge-story with the kingdom of Ararat spoken
of al)ove. There {i.e., in the plain of the Araxes) a
lofty mountain rises, worthy, so it may have appeared,
to be the scene of such a great event as the stranding of
1 Sayce, Cri/. ^ron. 485/ Prof. Sayce is uncertain whether
leremiah 'has m.-\de use of some earlier pronhecy of which
Nineveh was the burden, or whether 'the prophecy belongs to
a time when Haliylon had already taken the place of Nineveh,
but when in other respects the political condition of W. Asia
still remained what it was in the closing days of the Assyrian
Kmpire." ' In any case the prophecy must be earlier than the
age of the .second Isaiah, to which modern criticism has so
often referred it." This was printed in 1894, five years after the
appearance of vol. ii. of the most authoritative summary of
'modern criticism,' Kuenen 's OmierzoeM'i), and two years after
that of the (lerman translation. Prof. Tielcj who, in i886
{liAii 480), from an incomplete view of the critical arguments,
maint.-iined Jer. ,50/ to have been written before Cyrus among
the e.xiles in Babylon, now accepts Kuenen's main conclusions
as expressed in the work referred to.
2 Whether Lubar, the name of the mountain of the ark in
Juhilees, chaps. 5 and 10, has any connection with liaris, it is
unimportant to decide.
19
289
ARAUNAH
I the ark. Of its two conical peaks, one is crowned
with iK-rpetual snow, and rises 17,000 ft. alxive the sea-
: level ; the other is 4000 ft. lower. That the Hebrew
i writer thought of these mountains is in the highest
degree improbable (.see Di. Ceitesis, 131). Another
tradition identified .\rarat with the land of Cardu (so
I'esh. , Targ. ) —i.e. , the ancient Korduene or Karduchia
on the left bank of the L'p|x.T Tigris, and the mountain
I of the ark with the Jelx-l Jfidi, SW. of I.akc \'an,
\ which has Ijccome the traditional site with the .Moslems.
In the Table of .Nations (Gen. 10) the name of
Ararat does not occur ; but Ashkenaz, kiphath (or
Diphath), and Togarmah (see sixjcial articles) jjrobably
denote districts of \V. and .NW. .Armenia.
: For the geography of Urartu cp esjjccially Sayce,
j 'Cuneiform Inscr. of \'an,' /A*. /.V xiv. pt. ii. 388/:,
where, however, the .Armenians, who entered the country
from the W. , and are related to the .Aryan races tjf
Asia Minor, are regarded as Iranians. It is against
this view that, shortly after the first mention of the
name Urartu by A.sur-niisir-pal, names of an Aryan
i sound occur in an inscription of his son Shalmaneser II.
I (.Artasari and Data). c. i-. r. — w. ii. k.
ARARATH, AV"'*.'- 4 Ksd. 1345; KV Ak/aki:tii.
ARARITE ('"1>N*I1), 2. S. '2333^ kV ; .W H.\k.\k-
ITK, 3.
ARATHES (apaBhc [VA]). i Mace. ir>2.. kV, .\V
Aki.\k.\tiiks (</.:■. ).
ARAUNAH (n;)-)N, so Kr. everywhere in 2 S. 24,
but Kt. nniNn V. 16, n':-is r. is, njnx ^r. 22-
24), orORN.\N (|:"1N in Ch.), a Jebusite. whose threshing-
floor, consecrated by the presence of the angel of ^'ahuc,
David ])urchased as a site for an altar (cp MoKl.Ml).
The story is told in two forms, which agree in es.sentials.
On I Ch. 21 20 see note to Kittel's translation in SHOT
(2 .S. 24 16 f. I Ch. 21 IS f. 2 Ch. 3i, opva [B.\I.] ; cp
opova Jos. Atit. vii. 33, opovva ih. I34I. 'The real name,
however, was not .Araunah, which is thoroughly un-
Hebraic, and presumably un-Canaanitish. 'The critics
have in this case not lx;en critical enough. Even Budde
{SHOT, Heb. ed. , note on 2 S. 24 16) admits, rather
doubtfully, the form .Araimah. Klost. prefers ©s
form Orna, which, however, is no better than the Oman
of the Chronicler. One has a right to require a definitely
Hebrew name, and such a name for this Jebusite MT
actually gives us in 2 S. 24 18— viz. , ,TrK= .T:nN .Adonijah
(cp 0^«'ia[s] [.AL] = . Adonijah in 2 S. 84, and in ©' of
I Ch. 32, and in 1 K. 1/.). It is [jroposed, therefore,
to correct '.Araunah' into '.Adonijah' throughout, except
in V. 23 (on which s(,'e lx.'low) ; cp ' .Adonilx?zek,' mis-
written in Judg. 1 for ' .Ado.n'izedkc ' {q.v.).
'The critics have Ix-'en very near making this correction.
'They ha,\e rightly rejected the pretty romance based on
the phrase ' .Araunah the king' in 2 S. 2423 (M'T), from
which Kwald (///.f/". 3 163) inferred that .Araunah w;is
the old dethroned king of Jebus. 'They have also
rejected the makeshift rendering of RV, ' .AH this, O
king, doth .\raunah give unto the king,' Ijecause a
subject sjxiaking to his sovereign was bound to call
himself humbly "the king's servant' (cp i S. 2619 i K.
1 26). .As Wellhausen first saw , the sense required is, ' .All
this doth the servant of my lord the king give unto the
king.' 'This means correcting ,n:i-iN into "jnK. and pre-
fixing 135,' — a capital correction which only needs to lie
supplemented by the emendation of nriK elsewhere into
.Tann (see alwve).
An additional argument h;is thus Ix-'en gained for the
substitution of ' .Adonijah ' for ' .Araimah. ' 'The cor-
rection is certain, and it is of the highest interest. The
Israelite king and his Jebusite subject worship the same
god — the go<i of the land of Canaan. Adonijah too
was not an ex-king, but simply a member of the J<-busite
comnninity. which continued to exist even after the
conquest of Jerusalem. <S'- (2 S. 66 'Opi'd. Heb. |\qj)
290
1. In Galilee ?
AREA
apparently identified the place witii the tlireshing-floor
at Perez-Uzzah (see Nacmun). t. k. c.
AREA (ya-lX ; AppoB [B], arBo [A] -Be [10). ' the
greatest man among the Anakim ' (Josh. His). See
A.NAic, and IIkhkon, i.
ARBAH (y5")S) Gen. ^o^j AV. See Hebron, i.
ARBATHITE Cn^nyn)— /.«. , a man of Beth-arahah
(2 S. '_'3 3i I Ch. 1132)- See Abi-ALBON.
ARBATTIS AV, or rather Arbatta RV (cn
arBaktoic [AX'^-^]; -Banoic [X*], -Batn. [V*],
-TAN. ['^''J ; ^ g- '" Aibatis ; the .Syriac gives the
strange form .'/n//^rt/, J^?»/ )• i ^^^cc. fjzs.f Simon
the Maccabee, after his successes in Galilee against the
Gentiles, brought Iwck to Judaea ' those [Jews] that
were of (reading iK for iv) Galilee and in Arbatta.'
A district rather than a town is obviously to be under-
stood. Ewald (Hist. 5314) thinks of the plain called
el-Batlha on the NE. shore of the Sea of Galilee (cp
the Syriac form) ; more probably the Arabah or
Arabolh (nmyi of Jordan is intended. See Arabah, i.
ARBELA (eN ArBhAoic [AXV]), i Mace. 9 2.
Bacchides and .Alcimus, in their second expedition into
Jud;T?a, ' went forth by the way that leadeth to Galgala
(yaXaaS [codd. 64, 93]), and pitched their tents before
Masaloth (RV Mesaloth ; fxeaaaXoid [.V], jxaiaa. [XV]),
which is in Arljela. ' There are four alternative e.\-
planations (but see CHisi.oTH-'rABOR).
J'/rsf : Josephus (A/i/. xii. 11 1) seems to have read
for 'Galgala,' 'Galilee,' which Wellhausen (//C; (^> 261,
n. 2, where he quotes the parallel case,
Jos. xii. 23 ©" Trjs Va\ei.\aias) adopts,
and, without explaining Masaloth, takes Arbela to l)e
the well-known spot at the head of the cliffs overhanging
the western border of the plain of Hattin, the modern
Irbid. The interchangeableness of the two forms
Arlx'd and .\rl)el is proved by the Arab geographers.
Nasir-i-Khusrau, 1047 A. n. , calls it Irbil ; Yakut in
1235 A. I)., and others, call it Irbid. The limestone
caverns near Irbid were the haunts of bandits, who
were only with difliculty dispossessed by Herod the
Great ; the methods he employed are graphically
descrilied by Josephus (Anf. xiv. 15 4 ^^/ '• 16 2 jr.).
Robinson, who, with most moderns, accepts this identi-
fication, conjectures that Mesaloth ' which is in Arbela'
represents the Heb. n^'PDn in the sense of s/ej>s, storeys,
terraces, and describes the fortress on the face of the
almost perpendicular cliff (3 2S9). \\'ith more reason
Tuch [QiicTst. de Flav. Jos. Libh. Hist.), followed by
Wellhausen (I.e.), proposes to read ;\Iecra5u)^ (cp HP
93, MacrtraSw^) as if for nniiip 'strongholds.' The
objections to this identification are that Josephus is the
onlj' authority for the reading raXtXaiac, and that, by
all we can learn from him, the task of reducing Arlxila
would have cost Bacchides more time than in the
circumstances he was likely to be willing to spend.
The direction through (ialilee by Arbela would, how-
ever, be a natural one for the Syrians to take.
Second : As natural a line of march for the Syrian army
lay along the coast down to the mouth of the valley of
n xt A" 1 „ Aijalon, and up that valley or one of the
2. By Aljalon? p_.^rallel defiles farther S. On this hne
there was a Va\ya.\a., the present Jiljuliyeh, a little more
than 13 m. NE. of Joppa, on a site so important that
the main road might well be descril)ed as bhov ttjv els
ra\7aXa. There is, however, no trace along it of a
UaiffaXdid or an 'Ap^ijXa.
Third: If Bacchides wished to avoid the road by
the coast and up Aijalon, which had proved so fatal to
. Nicanor, he may have taken the road
3. InSamana? ^^^^ Esdraelon S. through Samaria,
which Holofemes is represented in Judith as taking —
the road which this book (4?) expressly calls 'The
391
ARCHES
anabaseis of the hill-country, ' ' the entrance into Judaea. '
Upon it there stand two Gilgals, one near Shechem,
and one 5 m. N. of Gophna, which Ewald {Hist. ling,
ed. 5 323) takes to l:)e the Galgala of the narrative (but
see Gll.G.M.). On this route Masaloth might be Meselleh
or Meithalun, respectively 5 and 8 m. S. of Jenin, each
of them a natural point at which to resist an invader.
A greater difficulty is presented by iv 'Ap^riXoii. The
plural form evidently signifies a considerable district.
Now, Eusebius {OS^'^> 'Ap^r)\d) notes the name as extant
in his day, on ICsdraelon, 9 R. m. from Lejjun, while
the entrances from Esdraelon on Meselleh and Meithalun
are gh R- ni. from Lejjun. It is therefore possible that
the name 'ApjirjXd co\cred in earlier days the whole of
this district. The suggestion is, however, far from Ixiing
capable of proof. The chief points in its favour are
the straight road from the N. , which was regarded as
a natural line of invasion, and the existence along the
road of a Jiljuliyeh, a Meselleh, and a Meithalun.
Fourth : There is some MS authority ' for reading
7aXaa5 instead of 70X70X0 ; and if the march of
J p-i An Bacchides be conceived as having been
4. in Uileaa ? tj^^ough Gilead, the Arl^ela of i Mace.
92 may tx; the 'AplirjXd (mod. Irbid) which Eusebius
(O.S' 21473) vaguely defines as a certain village Ix-'vond
Jordan on the confines of Pella. This Irbid, however,
lies very far E. and not in a direct line from the N.
I-A-en from Damascus, it would be a roundabout way
for the Syrian troops marching with speed on Jerusalem.
(We can hardly compare the advance of Antiochus III.
upon Ptolemy IV. [Polyb. 5 6], in the course of which
] Antiochus, after taking Tabor and Bethshean, crossed
I Jordan and overran Gilead from Arbela to Rabbath-
j anunon).
Of these four alternatives the first and third seem the
most probable. The difficulties of all, however, are so
great that most historians {e.if. Schiirer and Stade) shirk
discussion of the line of march, and bring Bacchides
without delay to the walls of Jerusalem. G. A. s.
ARBITE, THE ("anxn), 2 S. -2335. probably an
error for Archite. See Paarai.
i ARBONAI (aBrcona [BA], xeBRcoN [X] ; ji^:^
'Jabbok' [Syr.]; ma?ntrc). In Juilith 224 it is stated
i that Nebuchadrezzar ' went through Mesopotamia, and
destroyed all the high cities that were upon the river
(xetM"P/'os) Arbonai till ye come to the sea. ' X'arious
commentators, following Grotius, have taken the Cha-
boras to be meant. There is much plausibility, however,
in the suggestion of Movers that the proper name may
have arisen out of a failure to understand the original,
which he conjectures to have been •^,^:^ irv^ ' (the cities
which were) beyond the river,' i^y having Ijeen taken
for a proper name and supplied with a CJreek ending.
ARCHANGEL (APX<\rreAoc[Ti.WII]), Judeg. See
Angel, § 4.
ARCHELAUS (ARxeXAOC [Ti.WH], Mt.222t). son
of Herod the (Jreat by Malthake, and elder brother of
Herod Antipas. By his father's will he was made ruler
over Jnd;ea and Samaria, and his visit to Augustus for
the confirmation of this inheritance doubtless suggested
a point in the parable Lk. 19 12/: Upon his coins he
bears the family name of Herod and is called ' Eth-
narch,' for ' king ' he never v.iis, in spite of his assump-
tions (cp Jos. ,/;//. xvii. 45)- He may, however, have
l>een popularly called 'king.' (Cp Jos. ,-i///. .xviii. 43,
and the use of ^affiXevei in Mt. 222. See further
Herodian Family, 3. )
ARCHER. See War, Weapons.
ARCHES is the rendering in the EV of n'"lS7^N, etc. ,
in Ez. 4O16/: The word cS'N or cSn occurs in MT
only in this chapter ; but (S"'^'- transliterates ai\a/i
also where MT has cSiK. cSn. Whatever explanation
be adopted of the variation of form, the meaning is
1 HP oSov «n Y^v yaXaaS [cod. 64], o. nji' tit yoAooi [cod. 93].
ARCHBVITES
doubtless the same throughout — viz. , ' porch. ' ?iee
Porch, P.m-ack. Tkmpi.k.
That the priticiple of the arch early became known
to Israel is a probable inference from the shape of their
To .M lis.
ARCHEVITES (Kt. "lanN. cp Kau. Gram. d. bihl.
Aram. §(il6; Kr. NM3->N ; 6 Swetc, ApxHyoi ;
ApxoYCl [IVl ; AXYAioi [AJ ; Apx- [LJ), mentioned in
Kzra49tasatril)esettle<lin Palestine by AsN.\l'l'KK(^.r'. ).
The word is not to lie regarded as meaning inhabitants of
Krech (kyssel, Kyle), or as etjuivalent to d/)xocTes (Jen-
sen, TLZ, 1895, n. 20), but rather as miswritteii for (>)i,
K;(n)53. 'who are Cuthieans ' (see 2 K. 17 24 'from
Babylon and from C'uthah,' etc. K So Marc). Fun J.
64/
ARCHI ('3"!N*n), Josh. I62 AV, RV ARCiiiTiiS.
ARCHIPPUS (APXinnoc [Ti. WH]) is included as
a ' ffUow-soldier ' of Paul and Timothy iti the address
of the epistle to Philemon (Philem. 2), and in that to the
C'olossians (417) he received this message : Take heed
to the ministry {6iaKoviav) which thou hast received in
the Lord, that thou fulfil it.' Most probably he had
recently become the minister (more than 'deacon' in
the narrower sense) of the church at Colossa,-, perhaps
in succession to Epaphras, who was now with the
apostle. In .7/. Const. (746) he is said to have teen
apostolically ordained bishop of I.aodicea in Phrygia.
ARCHITES. A\- Akchi (-3>Sn ; toy APXI \^'^ •
©"'^ combine the word with the following Ataroth,
XarapwOei [B], ApxiATdvpooG [AJ), a clan mentioned in
the difficult phnise niTjy ^SIXH ^-133 (Josh. 162) in
the delimitation of the southern frontier of Joseph.
Probably we should reverse the order of the last two
words and read ' the border of ,\taroth-of-the-Archites. '
Indeed, we might plausibly go a step further and change
•3iKn to mun (or "n-iNn), ' Addarites ' (or 'Arditcs').
See Ataroth, 2. That the name Archi lingers in that
of the village 'Atn 'Arik, 5 m. WSW. of Beitln
iPEFA/em. 87), is at best a hazardous hypothesis (cp
Ottli, and Buhl Pal. 170/.). The home of the clan
of Archites to which Hushai and, according to © (2 S.
23 n nai, 6 'Apovxatos [BA], 6 Apax<- [L]; and f. 35
*3"'Kn, [tov Ovpai] oepxfc [B], 6 Apaxfim [A], 6 Acpapei
[1.]), Shammah ['/.v., 3 and 4] and Paarai, two of
David's heroes, belonged, may have been farther S.
ARCHITECTURE. See Conduits anu Reser-
voirs, FoKTKi.ss, House, Palace, Temi'le, Tomb.
ARCHIVES. See Historical Literature. § 5.
ARCTURUS, AVs rendering of liy (Job 99) and
C"l? (JobaSi-'i ; K\' Bear. Most probably, however,
try in JobQg has arisen from dittography of ncy which
precedes, for V'03 follows without 1. The whole verse
seems to lie an unmetrical interpolation (see Bickell) ;
Duhm. agrees as to e-j,-, and gfx,'s so far as to excise ?'<■.
8-10 (so also Beer). Observe that Am. 58, which is
certainly (see Amos, § 12) an interpolation, and very
possibly alludes to JobQg (as Am. 4 13, also interpolated,
may allude to Job98), does not include ry among the
constellations. We have, therefore, only to explain the
r-y (c^'V?) of Job3832. That the Pleiades are meant is
not unlikely (see Stars, § 3 (a); cp Tg. (8832) Sy Knjt
NrtmsK, ' the hen with her chickens ' ). Cheyne, however,
prefers ' the Lion with his sons ' (on Job 38 31, etc.' //?/.,
1898, 103/:). Epping's list of 'stations' for Venus
ami Mars, obtained from Seleucidean tablets, gives as
the tenth ' the fourth son behind the king ' (p Leonis).
The ' king' is Regulus (o Leonis) ; he is preceded by
ris an ' Lion's head' (t Leonis).
(«<nr«poi' [BKAl; klynthd [Pesh.]; nrcturum \W%. Op], vts-
perum \ib. 38 32). In 5»9 ©, Pesh., presuppose the order yo3>
rV' nO'>) t:p Mazzaroth, Orion, Pleiades.
C. F. B. — T. K. C.
993
AREOPAGUS, AREOPAQITB
ARD ('^'^N, Gen. 4621 Nu. 2640! cp Arik)N. Akod),
perhaps a lx;tter form than Addar (tik) of || i Ch. Sjt
(Oen. apaA [ADL; B lacking; Jos. c&poAoc] :
Nu. aAap IBJ, AAep [AKL] : i Ch. aAci [B], ApeA [A],
aAap [LJ) in genealogy of Benjamin (q.v., §9; ii. /j) ;
variously designated son of Benjamin ((ien. .MT), son of
Bela ( \u. and i Ch. ), son of (Jera b. Bela (Gen. [ADL ;
B lacking]). Gentilic Aruite (-t-k ; ©"'* om., 0 AJtpt
[L,/.r],.
ARDATH, R\' Ardat, the name of a field mentioned
only in 4 Esd. 926 as the scene of a vision of Esdras.
The Kth. and Syr. read Arf-had, which Fritzsche and HilKf.
follow. 1 he Lat. Vss. var>- -.—ardath (Vg.j, adar (.S*l, ardati
\.\\, etc. ; cp Bensly ad loc. .Supported by the description in
T. i4 ('a field . . . where no house is Imilded '), Volkmar would
emend to Arha, 'desert' (more correctly Araha). .Similarly
Kendel Harris, who, however, connects Arba with Kirjalh-arba
{Kest 0/ H'oriisof liaruch, Camb. 1889), in which ca.se the 'oak '
in 14 I will be Aljraham's oak of Hebron. On the other hand,
we should then expect rather the usual name Hebron, or, at
least, the fuller form, Kirjath-.\rba. If .Ardat is indeed lo be
sought for in this district (in 3 i Ksdras is in H.ibylon) we minht
follow T. Kec. more closely and identify it with the well-known
Arad, which also was situated in a de.sert. See Akad, i.
ARDITES C'nnKn). Nu. 2640. See Ard.
ARDON (i'n>S; opNA [BA], aBAcom [L]). b.
Azubah, a Calebite (i Ch. 2i8t). See Azubah, i.
ARELI (^"pN-IN; Gen. 46.6; apihAic [^]. &pOH-
Aeic [A], AnHAeic [L] ; Gen. i.e., also TCO apihA
[BFL], om. A; see .Ariel), b. Gad. In Nu. 2(ji7i*
the name is u.sed also collectively with the art.
(EV 'the Arelitea'; o ApiHA[e]l [BFL]), with con-
sciousness that 'son of Gad'.— Gadite clan. I)(jubt-
less V. iji, should t)e corrected to ' Of .-\riel ('^KnN';:), the
family of the Arielites ('S^t^^t,^),' and it is possible th;it
the names should rather be Uriel, L'rielites (see N'amks,
§ 35). T. K. c.
AREOPAGUS, AREOPAGITE (Acts 17. 9 eni ton
&p[e]lON nAfON [Ii- WHJ i:V' 'unto [the] .Areopagus' ;
1 The hill '^' '"' '^"^ ' ^^^^^ "'"' ^^' ' ^^'"«-'opaR"s ' ;
hence the title .Areopagite, .Actsl7 34t,
ApeonAreiTHC [lij. ti- [^^'H])- Dirticulty is
caused by the fact that the name signifies Ijolh a
hill and a court. The hill is that formless mass
of rock which lies towards the NW. below the .Acro-
polis, separated from it by a depression now largely
filled with earth (Herod. 852; Luc. Pise. 42). 'I'he
NE. corner of the hill is a precipice, to the top of
which we ascend by means of sixteen ruined steps, cut
in the rock at the SF",. angle. At the head of the stair
are the remains of an altar. The deep chasm at the
foot of the precipice was connected with the worship
of the Semnai (Eumenides or Furies). 'The whole
place was sacred to the most awful associations.
Mythology had here lent to the majesty of the law a
2 The Court "^'^^^ solemn background. ' As a Court,
the .Areopagus was, before the develop-
ment of the democratic spirit, the supreme authority in
Athens. Its powers were of two kinds, definite and
indefinite. ' The definite powers were : — ( 1 ) a limited
criminal jurisdiction ; (2) the supreme direction of
religious worship especially of the cultus of the F^umen-
ides. The indefinite powers were : — a general sup)er-
vision or guardianship (i) of all magistrates and law
courts ; (2) of the laws ; (3) of the education of the
young ; and (4) of public morals — in addition to which
there was (5) the competence to assume in political and
national emergencies a dictatorial authority."
Diu-ing the earlier history of the city the court held its
sittings, for the trial of blood-guiltiness, upon the hill
itself. For the hill was the Hill of the Arae, the Curses
or Imprecations — ' the place for the solenm irrevocable
oath, the natural court for the trial of terrible offences
of blood-shedding that might not be tried under a roof."
Moreover, to the avly city, the Areopagus was the
294
AREOPAGUS, AREOPAGITB
place without the RaU-s, a place Id eoiulciim the rriminal,
to erect a inoimineiit for the outcast tyrant, to bury the
stranger (Roliert, Aus Kydathen, loi). It was during
the earlier and the later periods of Athenian history that
the Court of the Areopagus (17 ex tov 'kptlov wdyov
(ioi'Xri) enjoyed its powers to the full. In the interval
Ephialtes, aided perhaps by Theniistocles (Arist. Const.
Ath. 25; 462 H.c. ), abolished most of its indefinite
functions, and thus deprived it of its strongest influence ;
it lx;canie merely a ' crinjinal court of narrow competence. '
Thenceforth, as in Aristotle's time, it dealt only with
cases of wilful homicide, of poisoning, and of arson
{Const. .If/i. 57), while the suiJerintendence of religion
was in the hands of the King Archon. As indictments
for impiety ( ivdei^ei^ dcrfjSfias) came, in their preliminary
stages, before the latter, cases which once would have
gone before the Areopagus were now tried before the
popular jury-courts. It was in this way, therefore, that
Socrates, accused like Paul of not worshipping the gods
of the city and of introducing new divinities,' was tried.
As the regular place of business of the King Archon
was the Stoa Hasileios — the associations of which were,
in later days, exclusively religious — it was within that
portico that the charge of impiety was brought against
the philosopher. It is probable, h(5wever, that the
.Areopagus also alwa3'S met within the Stoa (Dem. ?'//
_ Iristog. 776) when ritual did not demand a midnight-
sitting on the o]jen rock — in other words, in all cases
other than those of murder. When, with the advent of
the Romans, the Areopagus reappeared, after its long
eclipse, as once more the supreme authority of the city
(cp Cic. /■:/>. nd Fam. xiii. 1 5 ; Nat. Dear. 274),
and the specific control of religion fell again within its
competence, it would naturally continue to meet there.
There it was, therefore, and liefore that body, that
P.aul was summoned. To speak of him as ' perhaps
3 Paul •'^''^"'''"» °" ^^^ ^■'^■"y stone where had once
stood the ugly Greek who was answering the
very same charge ' (Farrar, St. Paul. 3qo) is to sacrifice
historical truth to sentiment. We must relinquish the
fond idea that Athens has the interesting distinction of
being the one city of the world where we can tread in
the very footsteps of the apostle. The view now
generally taken errs in a double manner. It maintains,
first, that the proceedings were in no sense legal or
magisterial ; and secondly, that they were upon the hill.
The marginal rendering (AV v. 22) is no doubt right in
representing that it was before the court that Paul was
brought. Can we believe that a crowd of idlers,
parodying the judicial procedure of the court, could
have lx?en allowed to defile the neighbourhood of ' that
temple of the awful goddes.ses whose presence was
specially supposed to overshadow this solemn spot, and
the dread of whose name was sufficient to prevent Nero,
stained as he was with the guilt of matricide, from
setting foot within the famous city' (Suet. \er. 34; Dio
Cas. 4314)? Such a view requires better support
than is given by the bare assertion that ' the Athenians
were far less in earnest about their religion than in
the days of Socrates, and if this was meant for a trial
it could only have Ijeen by way of conscious parody'
(Farrar, op. cit. 390, n. 3). Xor can an appeal to
Acts 9 27 prove that firiXa^d/ievoi (Acts 17 19, A\' 'took')
is here not used in the sense of ' arrest. '
The view advocated by Curtius {Stadts^rrsch. von Athen,
262/ ) is correct. Paul wa,s taken not to the Areopagus
hill, — a place not adapted either for hearing or for
speaking, upon an occasion such as this, — but to the
Stoa Rasileios (iirl tov 'Apeiov iriyov ; cp Acts 9 21
16 19, etc.) for a preliminary examination {a.v6,Kpi<m).
There it was to be decided whether the new teaching
would justify a prosecution for the introduction of a
new religion. Standing in the midst of the assembled
1 Cp Xen. .'item. 1 i with Act.s 17 18. Yet there is probably
no consciou.s reference on the part of the Christian writer to the
trial of Socrates, though the contrary has been asserted.
295
ARBTAS
Areopagites [ev /u^cri^ tov Wpeiov jrayov, cp Cic. ad
.///. i. 145; Foiiillcs d' l-.pidaurL',\t'&, 'Apftos 7r(i7oj
Xj70I's iwoi-^aaTo), he made his defence. Much of what
fell from his lips may be presumed to have awakened
an echo in the breasts of his audience (on the speech see
Hi:i,l.KNiSM, g 9) ; but the mention of the resurrection
of the body seemed to remove the case altogether out of
the domain of the serious and practical. The court
refused to continue the examination, and Paul was
contemptuously dismissed (^x^f^'afoj' i'. 32/ ). Curtius,
Pnulus in Athen, modifies his view. For another view,
see Rams. Paul. 243/ See al.so Findlay, Ann. Brit.
Srh. 1 78/ w. J. W.
ARES (Apec [HA]), I F.sd. ■iio=E/ra25, Ar.\h, 2.
ARETAS (ApeTJkC [Ti- WH]), an ancient name
(strictly Harlth.1 ; nn'^^ in inscriptions: i\<f., Euting
A'afi. hischr. N'o. 16) of Nabat.tan princes, mentioned
in the story of Jason the high priest (in the time of
Antiochus Epiphanes), 2 Mace. 08 (A/jfraj [V'A]).
The Arfitas of this passage is called ' king of the
Arabians'; he was hostile to Jason (^.7-.). Another
Aretas was master of Damascus in the time of Paul —
three years after the apostle's conversion. His ' ethnarch '
sought (see Ijelow) to apprehend Paul, who, however,
made good his escape (2 Cor. 11 32/). The story of
the Nabataians has lx!en told elsewhere (see D.\MASCU.S,
§ 12, Nabat/KANs). It is certain that about 85 B.C.
they had possession of Damascus ; but it should he
added that the autonomy of Damascus in 70-69 b. r. is
established by numismatic evidence. The first collision
\\ ith the Romans was in 64-62 B. c. , when the
Xabataian king, Aretas III., intervened in the struggles
between Hyrcanus and Aristobulus. Damascus now
came under Roman sovereignty. During the following
decennia the Xabattean kingdom became involved in
the wars occasioned by the Parthians — with varying but
for the most part ill success. The king also had various
disputes with his neighbour Herod the Great. Aretas
IV. (9 B.C.--40 A.ix) had tact and skill enough to
keep terms with Augustus ; his daughter Ix-came wife
of Herod Antipas (Jos. Ant. xviii. oi), but was set
aside in favour of Herodias. Disputes on frontier
questions furnished the aggrieved father with pretexts
for war. Vitellius was ordered by Tiberius to
avenge the defeat inflicted by Aretas upon Herod ;
but the death of the P2mperor put an end to the scheme
(cp Chronology, § 78). At this time, according to
2 Cor. 11 32, Damascus must again have fallen into
the hands of Aretas ; Damascene coins of Tiberius do
not occur later than 33-34 A.n. A tempting con-
jecture is that it was Caligula that sought at this price,
after his accession,' to buy over Aretas, against whom
Tiberius had so recently ordered war ; yet, in our
complete ignorance of this chapter of history, we are not
precluded from supposing that Tiberius himself in 34
A.n. had already taken occasion to present Aretas with
the city as a peace-offering (cp Chronology, § 78).
A violent capture of the city by Aretas is not to be
thought of : such a deed w ould have called for exem-
plary punishment at the hands of the Romans. Equally
improbable is the view of Marquardt (Rom. Staatsz'er-
7ualtung, 1 405) and Monuusen {Rom. Gesch. ln,^t)
that Damascus had remained subject to the king of
Arabia continuously from the beginning of the Roman
period till 106 .\. o. For ( i ) in Pomjx'v's time Damascus
belonged to the Decapolis (Plin. HM v. 18 74; Ptol.
V. 1522; cp Dh:c:abolis, § 2); (2) in the reign of
Tilwrius it was the Roman governor that gave the
authoritative decision on a cjuestion of frontier between
Damascus and Sidon (Tac. Ann. xvii. 63) ; (3) we have
im])erial coins of Damascus with figures of Augustus,
Tiberius, and Nero ; (4) in Domitian's time there was
a cohort raised in Damascus, the Cohors Flavia {CIL
1 So also Gutschmid (Excursus in Euttng's Nab. Inschr. 85)
and Schurer (GJ V \ 618, ET2 357/).
296
AREUS
2870 ; 5 194, 652^. ) ; (5) Damascus was not included in
the Roman province formed out of the N'abatiean
kingdom in 106 A. I).
What it was that induced Aretas's ' ethnarch ' in
Damastus to [jersecute i'aul, it is impossible to say.
r'erha])s he regarded Faul as a turbulent and dangerous
Jew ; |)erhaps he wished to propitiate the other Jews in
Danuiscus, who were many and powerful (Jos. lij
ii. 2O2; vii. 87) — so powerful that the synagogues had
been able to hand over to the ' young man ' Saul and
his helpers such Jews as acce|)ted the (iosjx;l. The
subseciuent years, down to the ab.sorplion of the
kingdom by the Romans, offer no incident of s]x;cial
interest. It is, however, significant that in 67 A. D. , in
the Jewish war, Malchus II. (Malku) contributed
auxiliary troops to the army of Vespasian (Jos. /// vii.
42). Shortly lx;fore this, Damascus nmst have been
retaken from the Nabatwans by Nero, for imperial coins
of Damascus are again met with from 62-63 onwards.
Consult Schiirer, C,JV\ bio/., where further litera-
ture is referred to ; and cp Dama.scl's, § 12 ; Naba-
T/^:AN.S. H. V. .s.
ABEUS (&PHC [ANV, but cp Swete ; Jos. apeioc])
I Ma.r. VI 20 AV. See Si'ARTA.
ABOOB. I., a territory in Rashan, alwavs in the
phrase ahN b2n (Dt.34.3/. aJ-1iS.-|), 'district' or
•circuit' of Argob (nepiXOjpON ApfOB' [BAL] ;
once (\pBOK [B*]). It was taken by Israel in the war
with Og, and coiUained sixty cities with walls and gates
(1)1.84/.). ^\ e are ignorant of its precise situation.
In Dt. 84 it seems equivalent to ' the kingdom of Og
in Hashan' (cp 1K.413 where 0 is corrupt); but
in V. 13 it stands in apposition to 'all Bashan. ' The
term 'district,' literally meaning 'line' of Argob,
which seems to imply very definite limits, has led
many (Targums, Porter, Henderson, and the Pal. Surv.
Maps) to identify it with the present Lcja, the low,
rough plateau of congealed lava, whose sharp edge dis-
tinctly marks it off from the surrounding plain. For
this, however, there is no other evidence ; nor does the C) T
narrative carry the con(|uest of Israel so far to the N'lC.
The one certainty is that Argob lay in Hashan. The
addition in Dt. 814 that it ran up to the lx)r<ler of (ieshur
and Maachah is indefinite, and the te.xt of the rest of
this verse, which identifies Argob with the conc|uest of
Jair, is corrupt. The Havvoth-Jair were tent villages
and lay in (Jiilead ; the cities of .\rgob were fortified and
lay in Bashan. The only places with names (whether
in (Jreek or in modern times) of any similarity are the
'Vayafia (so Pa7a/3ai' i K. 4 13 [L]) of Jos. A^it. \m. If) 5,
a fortress E. of Jordan, whose site is unknown (cp
Reland, Pa/. 201), and the modern Rajib (Rujcb) and
W'ady Rajib (Rujeb), which, however, lie in (Jilead. The
name Argob may be derived from Heb. regeb, a.c/01/ {see
K/.i-A.). Besides authorities named, see Eus. OS ; Wetz.
A'fi.sfhfr. iiher Ha u ran, etc. 83; G.\Sm. HG 551 ^. ;
Dr. (/(/ Deut. 84-5. On archieological remains, see
Bashan, § 3. g. a. s.
2. Argob and Arieh (nnKrrnKi aj-iK-riK), two names
mentioned in connection with Pekah's conspiracy against
Pekahiah (2 K. ir)25), but whether of officers on the side
of the king, who shared his fate {his gififion'm , according
to Targ. Jon.), or of conspirators along with Pekah. it
is difficult to say, owing to the corrupt slate of the text.
Argob (opyo^ lli.M,] oo)k^i) is not suitable for a personal
name. It is a well-known place-name (see above, i), and Arieh
(op[«]to I HI,], apt* [A], wh*^ ) has the article prefi,\ed (as if ' the
lion'). The Vjj. (' percussit eum . . . juxta Argob etjuxta Arie ')
accordingly treats the names— we think correctly— as names of
places 2 (cp Tisch.), in which ca.se they are doubtle.ss glosses.
Argob may have easily arisen from the preceding J10'1»»(BAL cm.)
' In Jos. 14 15 ®n gives Apyo^ for t;3^K ; see Kirjath-arba.
■•J Not to be connected with apta (Kus. OSt^l '2S8 10), or rather
an'tiia (Jer. t/: 14<'>26); see Arlm.\h.
297
ARIEL
or may be a gloss upon the ' Gileadites'' (see below). St.
(ZA'/'H't) 160) for 'Arieh' would read TK^ riin^ and !iugge»U
that ' Argob and Havvoth Jair ' were originally glosses belonging
to r. 29. On that theory', the origin of the difficult DK (prefixed
to both names) becomes clear.
The MT leaves it obscure whether the ' fifty men of
the sons of (Jileadites ' ' were fellow -conspirators with
Pekah (so <S"'-, which reads AvSpts) or whether they
were slain along with the king (so (5'* AvSpas, V'g. viros).
<E5"* (not E) presents a different reading, ' fifty of the
four hundred,' which, if correct, must refer to .some
IxKly-guard. This may Ix; a trace of the true text, and
Klostermann accordingly restores 'he (Pekah) smote
him . . . with his (Pekahiah's) 400 warriors, and with
him ( Pekah) were fifty men of the Gileadites.' Pkkah
[</.''■] w;is possibly a Gileadite.
ARIARATHES.RVAKATll^;s(Ap^eHc[^■A].Apl<^p•
[N|l. Kiic of the so\er(Mgns enimicrated in i Mace, iri22.
Ariarallii's \'l., Pliilopator, king of Cappadocia (163-
130 H.c. ), is obviously intended. See C.vhpauocia.
ARIDAI (nnX; ApcAloc [BAE] ARCeoc [N] ;
but cp .-\KiSAi), son of Haman (Eslh. 99). See Esthkk,
§ 3 (end).
ARIDATHA (XnnnX ; c&rBaxa [BNAE], but cp
Gr. readings of Pokatha), son of Haman {g.v.), Esth.
98. See i;.STiiKK, § 3 (end).
ARIEH (nnsn), 2 K.]:.25 ; see Argob. 2.
ARIEL ("PNns*, but '?N>N: in .S. ; ^PIhA [BAE]I.
I. A personal name. So(i. j Gen. 46 16 Nu.2617, © ;
MT ■''?N"1N (see Akei.i [EV], where ©'s readings are
given), the eponym of a family of (j.\u {(/.i'.) in P;
(ii. I ICzra 816 ( = iEsd.843, EV Iduki.. mg. Akiki, ;
i5oi'7;Xos [BA]), head of family, temp. Ezra (see EZRA, i.
{5 2, ii. § 15 (i)d); and (iii. ) 2S.-2320 [BE; A omits]
= I Ch. 11 22 [BXAE], a Moabite whose two sons-' were
slain by David's warrior, Benaiah. So RX','* Kau. //S,
l'".w. We. Dr. Some more striking action, however, ia
re<|uired in such a context, and it is Ijest to adopt some
form of Klostermann's emended reading, which makes
Benaiah the slayer of two young lions (so Bu. in S/i( >'/').
Marcjuart, however, suggests that for Ariel in 2 S. we
should read Uriel (cp L'RIAII, i [2S. L'825]), and the
author of X.AMES (§ 35) makes a similar suggestion for
Ariel, 2, and for Arei.I {</.■::).
2. .\ prophetic name for Jerusalem, Is. 29 1/. 7 (6),*
probably to be read Uriel (Sn'In) in vz: i, 2a, 7, and
Arial ( "'nhn = S'In ) in v. zb. Uriel (or Uruel?) would
be a modification of Urusalem (c'?ri"iN ; Am. Tab.
Urusalim ; see Jkrusai.em), and mean originally,
God's enclosure or settlement (cp Jkklei.). Arial
(cp Ar. irat"", hearth) means altar-hearth," as it prob-
ably does in Mesha's inscription Cskix //. 12, 17/.). The
prophecy containing it was written during Sennacherib's
invasion (see IsAlAH, ii. § 20) ; it aimed at dissipating
the false confidence of the people in the security of
Jerusalem. The pro{)er name of the city was Urusalem
(which afterwards became Jerusalem). Isaiah alters
this into Uriel (Uruel ?) in order to make a paronomasia.
In a year or two the city against which David had
encamjied svill be l)esieged by a greater than Da\id,
and so great will Iw the slaughter in its streets that its
1 Argob and Gilead lie close together.
^ D'lySj ":ZC.. a fusion of lySj '320 and C"iy^jn"|2(s') "P' );
cp Kau. lis, crit. note.
» MT omits ' sons ' in both places, and ®Raj< in Ch.
* RV ' the two (sons of) .Ariel ' : AV ' two lion-like men.
* In V. 7 © has a doublet ; itpouaakrfu (BZP both times, and
AQ second time], i^A [KAQ'* first time], tA^Ji ot y' af>i>|A [Q mg.
first time), iiAji (K second time).
6 The same word prok-xbly occurs with thus meaning in Kzekiel's
planofthetemple;Kz.43i5/(7'. isa'^K'^H; 15^ AV. i6« AV. VkTj
V. 1 -a 0a>? fiov e? ■ T|TOt opo« Ov iis TO Ov<n.a.<rn\piov ovruf
(KoAeire [adnot in Q"'S]).
2q8
ARIMATHJEA
name will Ixjcome no longer Uriel, hut (by a slight
modification) Arial — i.e., altar-licartli. The reading
Uriel seems to have been known to the author of
3I9: ' 'says Yahwe, who has a fire (tk) in Zion and
a furnace in Jerusalem.' The other explanations of
this prophetic name are (i) lion, or lioness, of God
(ICw., Di.,Che.,/ja. ''») ; (2)hearth of God(Del., Konig,
Kittcl); (3) altar-hearth (Stade, Duhm, Che., SHOT).
Of these, the third is probably the easiest ; but none of
theni ([uite accounts for the selection of the new name
for David's city, nor for the expression 'and will
iK'come to me like (an) Ariel {v. 2b). T. K. C.
ARIMATHiEA (Api/v\<\eAiA [Ti- WH]), Mt.'2757.
etc. Sec R.\M.\TI1.\1.\I-Z(J1'111.\I.
ARIOCH (^r-lS ; aricox [BADKL 87, X-^"]. -XHC
[87 in Dan. 2 i4/.]). Probably a Hebraised form of an
old Babylonian name (see Chkuoklaomer, § 3) u.sed,
(i) possibly with arcli:vological accuracy, in Gen. 14 19
of an ally of an ancient king of Elam ; (2) by a literary
fiction, of Nebuchadrezzar's captain of the guard (Dan.
'214/ 24/ ) ; and (3) of a king of Hlam (so the Syriac)
in alliance with Nebuchadrezzar (Judith 1 6, a/Jtacre [N*].
Cp Bezold, Babyl. Assyr. Lit. 53.
ARISAI Cpnii! ; Poi'^aiov [RSL], -^avov [A],
milcss we regard this as an intruder and identify Arisai
with the succeeding name Ap^atos ; see Arii).\i), son of
Hainan (I':s. Og). See EsTiiEK, § 3 (end).
ARISTARCHUS (arictapxoc [Ti- WH]), a Thes-
salonian (.\cts204.27 2), one of Pauls comi^anions in
travel (.Actsl929), was among those who accompanied him
from Europe on his last recorded visit to Jerusalem (Acts
2O4), and also on his voyage to Rome, having joined him
at Cresarea (.•\cts27 2). As the apostle's ' fellow-prisoner'
((nij'atxMa^<»"'05) he unites with him in saluting the
(Jolossians (Col. 4 10). Cp Colossians, § \o f. He
joins in the salutation to Philemon (Philcm. 24), but in
this passage is designated simply as ' fellow -worker,'
Epaphras alone being called ' fellow-prisoner. ' Erom
this it has been inferred, with mucli probability, that the
companions of Paul relieved one another in voluntarily
sharing his captivity.
In the lists of the 'seventy disciples' given by the Pseudo-
Dorotheus and Pseudo-Hippolytus (not earlier than the fifth
cent.), Aristarchus is bishop of .\pamea in Syria. Psendo-
1 )orotheus also has it that along with Pudetis and Trophimus
he was beheaded in Rome at the same time as Paul.
ARISTOBULUS (apictoBoy\oc [VA ; Ti. WH], a
Greek name adopted by Romans and Jews, and borne
by several memlx,TS of the Maccabean and Herodian
families).
1. The teacher (5i5c{(r(caXoj) of Ptolemy (no. i), towhom
Judas (the Maccabee) sent letters (2 Mace. 1 io|. He is
the well-known Jewish- Hellenistic philosopher of that
name, who resided at the court of Ptolemy VI. Philo-
metor (180-145 n. c. ). He was of priestly descent (dir6
ToO tO}v xP"''^**"' 'fp^wv -yivov^, J'. 10 ; cp Lev. 43 |nr,T
n'r^n), and was the author of (among other writings)
certain works on the Pentateuch, fragments of which are
preserved in ("lenient of .Alexandria and in l-Aisebius.
See Schiir. 6'//' 2 760^, Ew. (7 TV 4 355, and Kue.
Godid. 1 433./
2. ' They of the household of Aristobulus ' are saluted
in Rom. 16 10. It is not implied that Aristobulus him-
self was a Christian. The name was a common one
in the dynasty of Herod. The list of the ' seventy
disciples ' given by the Pseudo-Dorotheus names Aris-
tobulus as bishop of Britain.
ARITJS f<\pHC [ANN' ; 0 is not certain, see Swete],
ARirs), I Mace. ]22o RV; see Si-akta.
AEK. See Deluge, § 10.
1 Isal.ih's aiithnrship is doubted (Che. Intr. Isa. 204) It is
iinlikely that I.saiah e.vilained Uriel 'Cod's fire"; the parono-
masia in 7'. ih would then disappear Moreover TN in the
sense of fire seems to be late. Cp 30 32/: ; 33 17 (late).
209
ARK OF THE COVENANT
ARK OF THE COVENANT or Sacred Ark (|nN ; 1
KiBcoToc L15ALJ ; .ikc.i).
There is nothing more significant than the changes in
the titles of sacred objects. We must, therefore, be
-J careful to place these titles in their chrono-
A k^^f " l<'g't"=^l "rder. According to Seyritig(/./ '/'IF
ArK o 1^ ,,6 ['91]) the oldest name of the ark (or
ixOO, CuC. g.j^.rgj chest) is ' the ark of Yahwe the (Jod
of Hosts (SCte'oth) w ho is enthroned upon the cherubim. '
This title is reached by an analysis of the designations of
the ark in [a] 28.62 and (b) iS. 44 (both passages
belong to early documents). The titles given in {a) are
'ark of G(xl ' (hd-elOhiin), and 'called by the name of
Yahwe Seba'oth that is enthroned upon the cherubim.' '■^
In {b) the title is ' ark of the b'rilh of Yahwe Seba'oth who
is enthroned upon the cherubim.' Recombining the
supposed oldest elements in these titles, .Seyring obtains
the title mentioned above. This usually careful scholar,
however, has overlooked, in dealing with {b), (5's reading
in the preceding verse — viz., ' the ark of our God" (tt]v
Ki^ccrbv ToO dfov rj/jLwv [B], r. k. rris SiaOi^K-ijs tov 6. i].
[A], T. K. T. S. Kvpiov T. 0. i]. [L]), which is self-evidently
more correct than the Deuteronomic formula* of MT,
and, taken together with i;. 6 (' ark of Yahwe '), justifies
us in assuming that the equally simple title ' ark of
Yahw6 ' stood originally in v. ^a and v. 5, and ' ark of
God' (cp ZT'. II 17 19-22) in v. ^b. Nor has Seyring
noticed that after ' ark of God ' in {a) the relative clause
which follows is superfluous, and presumably a later
insertion. It must Ije added that it remains most
improbable that the divine name Yahwe Sgba'oth is
older than the .Assyrian period, to which indeed Amos
who undoubtedly uses it belongs ; at any rate the theory
that this name represents Yahwe as the God of Israel's
hosts, and has any special connection with the ark, has
insuperable difficulties.* Thus, so far as (a) and (/') are
concerned, the popular names for the ark were very
short— viz. , 'ark of Yahwe,' 'ark of God,' and 'ark of
our God,' — and from the context of the former passage
we find that there was a still shorter name, ' the ark '
(2S. 64), which occurs thrice in old parts of Samuel,
and five times (or seven, including Josh. 81417; sec
Kau. i/S) in the He.xateuch. The title 'ark of God'
(ctiSn.t piK. or twice d'hSk ]Sik) occurs often in old
parts of Samuel, and also in Chronicles. In a solemn
speech of David in i Ch. If) 12 14 we find the sonorous
phrase ' the ark of Yahwe the (iod of Israel,' which re-
minds us of the phrase used by the Philistines in i S. 5
7/. II.' Side by side with 'the ark of Elohim' we
naturally find the phrase 'the ark of Yahwe.' It
occurs first in the composite work JE, and may rea.son-
ably tx; ascribed in the first instance to J, though in some
passages it may have been inserted by the editor, either
as an altogether new addition, or in lieu of the phrase
' the ark of God,' which was probably used in E. Once
(Josh. 813) we find this remarkable addition 'the Lord
of the whole earth,' which, apart from jj'. h 13, occurs
only in late writings, and, as Seyring points out, is
1 Cp Ass. eru, erfnu{erintiu), 'box,' 'receptacle' (Deluge,
§10).
2 The same renderings are given for n3n, Noah's ark, but
not for nrB, the ' ark ' in the bulrushes.
3 This rendering implies that CC', ' name,' occurs twice in MT
by pure accident. Otherwise we should have to suppose that
the name by which the ark was called was ' the name of Vahwi
Seba'oth," etc.
* Smenc}'s arguments {Kel.-gesch. 185 ^), weakly met by
Marti (Cesch. dcr Isr. Rel. 140), appear conclusive, only he
should have fortified himself by .Assyrian parallels. Thus, Asur
is said to rule kis.sat ilani ' the mass, or entire multitude, of the
Ciods,' Nebo to be the overseer kiSsat Same u irsitim 'of the
m.-uss (multitude) of heaven and earth.' .Amos and his school
represent Yahwe as the lord of all supernatural beings in the
universe, in opposition to all rival deities. See, however, Names,
8 123.
* On these points see further, Rudde's crit. note in SBOT;
Conard, X.-iTlf 12 71 ['92], n. i ; We. TBS 167 (especially as
to the right rendering of i Ch. 136).
ARK OF THE COVENANT
presumalily due to a post-exilic writer whose idea of
Yahwi: differetl from that of JM The phrase ' the ark
of Yahw^' passed from JIC into the terminology of the
historical lxx)ks in general (including Chronicles).
A new title for the ark si-ems to have been coined by
the auiiior of the original Deuteronomy (I)eut. 108), and
adaiJted from him by writers and editors
2. Ark of
b'rith.
who shared his religious point of view, and
even (strange to say) by the Chronicler, who,
in general, stands so completely under the influence of
the I'riestly Code. This phrase is ' the ark of the b'rith '
(usually rendered 'covenant" ; see below), either simply
(Josh. 3-()) or in various combinations, such as 'ark of
the d'riiA of Yahwe," 'ark of the />'rif/i of IClohim,' and
' ark of the d'ri/k of Adonai. ' The Deuteronomislic editors
have freely introduced the term b'rith into the titles
of the ark in the older sources which they edited. The
work of the editor clearly betrays itself in such phrases
as n'lan |hKn (Josh. 314), .li.n'-nna jmn (Josh. 817),
where the editor has forgotten to make the omission of
the article, necessitated by the introduction of a de-
p)en(lcnt genitive.
And now as to the correct meaning of the phrase
nna.T jinx- It is rendered by ©"-^l ir\ Kifiiorbi rrjs dia-
OrjuTji, by Vg. (irta fadtris and area testaiiifnli (Nu.
14 44*. and by EV 'ark of the covenant.' That b'rith
cannot, however, in this phrase mean ' covenant ' in our
sense of the word is clear from i K. 821 ( =2 Ch.6ii),
where we are told that 'the b'rith of Yahwe' was 'in
the ark.' The phrase is parallel to that in E.\. '25 16 21,
' intothearkthoushalt putthetestimony'(rny."i nx). which
(see below ) is a technical term for the 'two tables' of
the Decalogue. Hence Kau. US rightly rejects the
obscure if not misleading phra.se ' ark of the covenant,'
and substitutes 'ark with the law (of Yahwe),' which is
at any rate, by common admission, the best appro.xi-
mate rendering (cp CovKN.ANT, § i ).
The latest phase in the historical development of the
names of the ark is marked by the title which occurs
eleven tin\es in the I'riestly Code and also
3. Ark of
'gdflth.
in Josh. 4 16 (introduced into JE by the
editor ?), meaning ' ark of the publicly
delivered ordinance' (©"'^'- tj Kifiuirbs t^s diaOrjhij^ rod
fxaprvpiov, \'g. una testimunii, EV, ark of the testimony).
The meaning given above is confirmed l)y \\\. 31 18 (1^ ?)
32 1 5 (H) 3429 (P), where we hear of ' the two tables of
the rni;-' Probably this new title appeared to the
priestly writer clearer and more definite than that
introduced by Deuteronomy. It did not, however,
displace the older phrases, which reapjiear not only in
Chronicles but also in the Greek Apocrypha, and {k.
T% Sta07jKr]i) in the NT (see Ixjlow, § 15).
On looking back, we see that the names and titles of
the ark fall into three classes. We have, first, the names
' ark of Yahwe,' ' ark of God,' ' ark of our (iod,' which
indicate that the ark contained an object which in some
way symlxilised and represented Israel's (Jod ; and next,
the names, 'ark of the law,' 'ark of the ordinance,'
which suggest that the object contained in the ark was
inscribed with laws; and lastly, attached to the older
names, titles such as those in Josh. 8(11)13 2 S. 62, which
indicate a desire to correct the materialistic interpreta-
tion which might seem to convert the ark into an idol.
A critical study of the texts is the necessary commentary
on these deductions from names. The following
sections aim at bringing together the chief notices of
the ark, indicating the sources from which they are
derived, and then, at fitting points, giving the reader
some idea of the results which follow from a critical
treatment of these notices.
We t\im first of all to the documents called J and E
(as far as we can separate the one from the other) in the
Hexateuch. It is more than probable ' that both J and
J See the analysis of Ex. 82 / in Exouus, ii. | 3, and cp
Bacon, Exodus, 143, 146 ; We. CH 95 ; Di. Kx. u. Lev. 345.
E. in their original form, relatetl how Yahw6 or E16hini,
at Sinai or at Horeb, directed an ark to Ijc made as a
4. Traditional ff'^'^}^' ^is personal presence as
oricin of '*'"'^'*'-"'' '^^ ^"^ I^*"P'*-"- ^ ^"=**^ passages
*■_ ..p were omitted by the editor, who pre-
■ ■ ferred the much more suitable account
(so he must have deenied it) given in P (see Ix-low, § 13),
but has preserved the tradition of J and E that, lioth
in the wilderness and on the entrance into Canaan,
the ark led the van of the host. In referring to this J
([uotes two poetic fornmhe (Nu. IO3536), which he says
were sjjoken by Mo.ses at the lK.ginning and the end of
a day's march, but which more probably arose at a later
time.' Whether J and V, agreed with Deuteronomy in
stating that the ' two tables of stone ' were placed in the
ark is a matter which can Ix; only conjecturally decided.
There is, however, a very strong probability that they did
not. E's story, at any rate, is much more forcible if
we sup(K).se no renew al of the shattered tables ( V.\. 32 19),
and we cannot believe J to have differed on this im-
portant point from V.. Historical considerations (.see
below, § 10) confirm this conclusion. In particular, the
ark was not, in the succeeding narratives of J and \\. a
symbol of the revealed law, but the focus of divine
powers. Twice, we are told, the Israelites omitted to
take the ark with them and were defeated (Nu. I444
Josh. 74), and on the latter occasion Joshua prostrated
himself Ixifore the ark,'-^ and remonstrated with Yahwe,
the God of Israel. The crowning proof of the potency
of the ark was given when the Israelites cros.sed the
Jordan (according to one of the traditions, at harvest
time), and captured Jericho (Josh. 3/". 6). The Deuter-
onomic editor has made the former part of the narrative
dirticult to restore to its original form (which was a com-
bination of J and E); but it is probable that J and V.
already described the priests (not, ' the priests, ti.e
Levites ') as bearers of the ark. In the latter part it is
not very difticult to recover a simpler, more natural,
and presumably earlier account, in which no e.vprtss
mention is made of the ark, and nothing is said of tl.e
falling down of the walls of Jericho (on the narrative
see JosiHA, ii. § 7).^ Thus far, then, the most genuine
tradition is clear and intelligible.
[' The invention of portable sanctuaries, and esp>ecially
of portable idols, may possibly go back to the nomatlic
Semites and to a time when the gods were still tribal
rather than local ; but the probabilities are all against
such a view. There is less trace of such an institution
in Arabia than in any other part of the Semitic world,
and nowhere else is the principle so strongly marked
that a trilx; that changes its seats changes its gods.
Even the ark of Yahwe is not carried back by Heljrew
tradition to patriarchal times ; the patriarchs do worship
only where they have a fi.xed altar. It is, therefore, more
likely that portable symbols of the godhead first arose
among the settled Semites and in connection with the
religion of the army in war. In this connection the idea
of a portable god involves no great breach w ith the con-
ception that each deity has a local home, for w hen the
campaign is over the god returns to his temple. When
the notion of portable gods was once established, however,
its application could easily \xi extendetl and would serve
to smooth away the difficulty of establishing new jierma-
nent sanctuaries in conquered regions or colonies over
the sea. A Greek colony always carried its gods with
it, and it is probable that this w:is often done by the
Phoenician colonists also. Even in Israel we find that
the sanctuary of Yahw^ at Dan was constituted by
setting up the image from Micah's .sanctuary (Judg. 18
30), just as David gave a religious character to his new
capital by transferring the ark to it. ']■•
But by what critical process can we bring simplicity
I Delitzsch, however, defends the Mosaic authorship, ZKW
3 22S-215 ['82].
•■i So MT and C- ; ©baf omit 'the ark (oQ."
3 We. CH i2r. Ki. lint. 1 282/
< From WRS, Burnett Lectures, and series. Lect. I. (MS>.
ARK OF THE COVENANT
into the episode of the capture and restoration of the
_ , sacred ark by the Philistines ( i S. 4 i-7 i ) ?
5. (capture g^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^ a.hnitted. That at the
^^ end of the period of the Judges the ark
^^ ° ^' rested at the Kphrainiitish sanctuary of
Shiloli is a trustworthy statement, guaranteed by i S.
43/. (cha|). .3 we must regretfully pass over, as coming
from a different hand and later writer ; sec Samuki,,
ii. ). It must, also, Ije a fact that the Philistines
had defeated the Israelites near I'Iben-ezer (IsK.\i:i.,
}; 1 1 ). Tradition doubtless added that the leaders of
Israel attributed their misfortune to the absence of the
ark from the host, and that they therefore fetched the
sacred chest from Shiloh. The immediate conseciuences
are graphically described. On the arrival of the ark
the Israelites were in a state of wild delight ; and the
Philistines who heard the shoutings were proportionately
alarmed, for ' who (said they) can deliver us from these
great gods?' {(f/Mim). Nevertheless, with the courage
of despair, the Philistines renewed the fight with complete
success, and were even able to carry off the ark in
triumph. Then begins a series of wonderful incidents
from which it is difficult to e.xtract a kernel of early
tradition. Stade thinks (Gl'I 1 202/ ) that in chaps,
f) and 6 he can find the remnants of two distinct accounts ;
but the recognition of this would only diminish the
number of difficult features in the narrative. It would
obviously not provide an intelligible statement of facts.
Of the difficult details referred to there is only one which
it is necessary to criticise here. It is a statement which
the study of the Assyrian monuments seems to make
historically impossible. The Philistines, we are told,
under the pressure of pestilence, returned the ' gods '
which they had captured from Israel. Ancient nations
did not act thus in such circumstances. For example,
we know that the image of the goddess Xana (see
Xan.i:.\) was taken from Erech by an Elamite king,
and detained in Elani for 1635 years. Did an}' calamity
ever suggest to the Elamites the idea that Nana was
chastising them for the insult to her image? No.
Asurbanipal, king of Assyria, had to devote all his
energies to the task of crushing the Islamites before he
could restore the image to its ancient home (cp .A^IR-
RANl-PAL, § 8). Similar stories of reconciuered idols
are told in connection with the names of Asurbanipals
grandfather Sennacherib (cp AssvKi.v, § 20) and the old
Babylonian king Agu-kak-rime. '
The fragmentary document which we have thus far
studied closes with the statement that the ark was placed
in the house of Abinadab at Kirjath-jearim, and that
Abinadab's son was consecrated to keep it. It is to an
entirely different (and probably earlier) source'-^ that
we owe the narrative of the bringing of the ark to Zion.
We learn here that at the time when David bethought
himself of the ark, it rested at a place called Baal in
Judah (2 S. 62 ; see Driver ad loc. ). During the whole
of Saul's reign and during David's seven-years' reign in
Hebron, it had lain forgotten in a provincial town.
Neither Saul nor David had thought of taking it into
battle ; nor, so far as our evidence goes, had it been
visited by the people. What, then, had been the effect
of the repeated attestations which the divine judgments
had given to its supernatural power ? Let us see whether
the narrative in 2 S. 6 (which appears to be older than
that in i S. 4i-7i), when critically treated, suggests any
way out of our manifold difficulties. It is permissible,
and indeed necessary, to disregard so much of chap. 6
as relates to the death of Uzzah (a passage which in its
difficulty resemt)les parts of the story in i S. 5 / , and
the growth of which can be accounted for), and to fix
our attention on the simpler narrative in vv. 10-15, the
kernel of which is that, early in David's reign, the ark
1 Tide, BAG 128/ 305/ 392 if: , referred to by Kostcrs, TliT
27 364 ['93].
2 The reference in 2 S. 6 3 to the house of Abinadab seems to
be an editorial insertion (see Kosters, op. cit. 368).
was in the house of one Obed-edom of Gath, and that
David fetched it thence with much jubilation to Zion.
How came the ark to be there ? That David of his own
accord entrusted such a sacred object to a Philistine is
highly improbable ; but how if Obed-edom was not a
Philistine sojourning in Judah., but a foe residing in his
native town of Gath ? How if the ark had never left
Philistine territory, though it had been shifted from
Dagon's temple to a private house? How if David
acted as Assyrian kings acted in similar circumstances,
and reconcjuered the precious object which was to him
in some sense the dwelling of his God? This is
the hypothesis of Kosters, who held not only, with
Kittel and Budde, that 2 S. 21 15-22 is properly the con-
tinuation of the narrative in 2 S..') 17-25, but also that
the secjuel of the story of the battle in Gath (2 S. 21 20)
was once the notice that David fetched the ark from
the house of Obed-edom in Gath and deposited it for a
time at Baal.^ After this, according to Kosters, came
originally the story of the capture of Jerusalem (an event
which this critic places after the hostilities referred to in
2 S. i)\T ff.), and of the bringing up of the ark to Zion.
The editor to whom the present form of 2 S. 61-12 is
due apjiears to have had a religious rather than a his-
torical motive. The facts as stated in the original
narrative might suggest to some readers that Yahwe
needed the interference of David to deliver him from
captivity : in other words, that David was stronger than
his God. The editor shrank from inventing an entirely
new narrative, but, to counteract that idea, put the
central facts in the traditional story in an entirely new
setting.
This hypothesis, the present writer has long felt,
is absolutely required to clear up an important historical
episode.'^ Without it the central facts of tradition, in-
cluding David's almost ecstatic joy (2 S. 614), are hope-
lessly obscure. A glance at 2 S. 6 1 / will convince the
reader that there is nothing arbitrary in the view pro-
posed. That vv. 2-i2« caimot have been the original
sequel of v. i must be clear. Unless v. i is simply mis-
placed, it must have been followed by a record of some
martial exploit of David. To the present writer it seems
])robable (see David, § 7) that the exploit consisted in
a great victory near Gath (cp 2.S. 2I20/. ), which so
weakened the Philistines that they offered to restore the
ark on condition of David's making with them a treaty
of peace, and that David him.self fetched the ark from
Obed-edom's house. It will te remembered that when
David defeated the Philistines at Baal-perazim he had
'taken away the images' (2S. .521) which, by their
presence, should have ensured a Philistine victory. It
seems probable that when the Philistines restored the
ark David gave back the captured ' iniages. ' Clever-
ness was a characteristic of this king. It was all-im-
portant to him not to wage an internecine warfare with
the Philistines, and he therefore ' contented himself with
a peace honourable for both parties' (Kamphausen).
The original story may have referred to this restoration
of the images captured at Baal-perazim, and this com-
jKJund name may have suggested the mention of ' Baal '
and ' Perez-uzzah ' in 2 S. 6 as it now stands. In a
certain sense, indeed, the ark uuis recovered from Baal-
perazim.
Our next notice of the ark is in 2 S. 7, a passage full
of varied interest, though in its present form not older
than the sixth century. It tells us (and no doubt the
1 The rea.*5n why David deposited the ark at Baal was, accord-
ing to Kosters, that he had not yet conquered Jehus or Jeru.salem.
Those who hold another view as to the time of the conquest of
Jebus will give a different reason. David had indeed conquered
ebus, but had not yet adapted it by fresh buildings to ser\e the
purpose of a capital. See Daviu, § 10.
2 Since the above was written, Winckler has made another
attempt to produce an intelligible view of the hi.stor>' of the ark
(Gl T^ff.). It is difficult to see that there is any .solid ground
for his very revolutionary hypothesis ; but, at any rate, he
perceives a problem which escaped the earlier writers before
Kosters.
304
ARK OF THE COVENANT
statement is historical) that David wished to huikl a
cedar-house for the ark, but was forliiddcn l)y an oracle.
We can understand, therefore, that for
6. Fernianent
abode.
a time (as 2S. lln suggests) the ark
was still carried with the army as an
insurance against defeat.* The capture of it by the
Philistines, however, had already given a blow to the
primitive, fetishistic conception of the ark, and an
occasion arose when David, it would seem, was inwardly ^
moved to express a far higher view. It was probably a !
turning-point in Israel's, as well as in David's, religious
development. The circumstances were these. David was
fleeing froni Jerusalem before Absalom. Zadok wished j
to carry the 'ark of God' with David and his body- j
guard. The king, however, protested, and commanded 1
Zadok to carry it back, ' that it may Ixj seated in its
place' (2S. ]o25, ©'-). He was conscious (if t'. 26
may be followed) that Yahwe might have cause to be
displea.sed with him, and would rather suffer his punish-
ment meekly than seem, by having the ark with him, to
demand the interposition of Yahwe as a natural right.
Henceforth, therefore, the symbol of Yahwe's presence
should no more ' leave its place ' : Yahwe would direct
Israel's aflairs, both in p)eace and in war, from Zion.
ICarly in Solomon's reign the greatest of all Israel's
sanctuaries was erected. Much as the original passage
of .Solomon's biography has been edited (see Kau. //i'
and cp (5), it is beyond ciuestion that this king trans-
ported the ark from its temporary abode to the sanctuary j
of his temple. There — so both he and David hoped —
it was to serve as a national centre, and complete the
unification of Israel. The hope was, however, dis-
appointed ; nor do even the writers of Judah spend a
word on the ark, or give a hint as to the feelings of the
people towards it.
Our ne.xt news of the ark is indirect, and conies from
an exilic or post-exilic passage of the I^ook of Jcrcniiaii
(3i6). The passage runs thus: 'In
7. Disappear-
those days no more shall one say, ' ' The
"•"'"'• ark of the h' nth of Yahwe," neither
shall it come into one's mind, neither shall one think
upon it, nor miss it. neither shall it he made again.'
The full inqjort of the words may be doubtful ; but at
least one thing is clear — the ark, on the possession of
which the weal or woe of Israel had once seemed to
depend, had passed away. This is too patent from
later writings to be denied. I'",zra 1 and i Mace. 4 do
not mention the ark among the sacred vessels. Josephus
(/^v. 05) declares that the Holy of Holies contained
nothing at all. Lastly, Tacitus, relating the entrance |
of Pompey into the temple, uses the emphatic words,
' Inde vulgatum nuUas inlus deum effigies ; vacuam '
sedem et inania arcana' [Hist. 69). How the ark
disappeared will Ije considered presently (see next §).
Sufiice it to add here that the sepher tofdh or ' Book of
the Law ' succeeded to the undivided reverence of true
Israelites, and is still, with its embroidered mantle and
ornaments, the most sacred object in every synagogue.
When, then, and how did this holy thing, which, ac-
Cf)rding to Jer. 3 16, was by many so painfully missed, pass
o T4. r_4. out of sight? We have accounted for one
8. Its ia.te. ■ , . . ,
strange gap in our historical notices respect-
ing the ark : how shall we explain the still longer and
stranger lacuna which extends from (say) 960 to 586
H. < :. ? Why is it that neither the historians nor the
prophets of this period (so far as we possess their works)
refer to the fortunes of the ark or to the popular rever-
ence for it in their own time? Three answers seem
possible. ( t ) Soon after 960 the ark may have l)een
captured by an enemy — a calamity which was deliterately
suppressed by the historians, just as they suppressed the
1 We must not refer here to i K. "2 26, which .states, according
to MT, that .-Miiathar used to ' bear the ark before David ' —
i.e., in his campaigns. The right reading is, not jiix. 'ark,' but
n^DK. ' ephod ' ; cp i S. 23 6 9. Cp the s.-ime mistake in i S. 14 18,
MT. (So first Thenius.)
20 303
destruction of the temple of Shiloh. Cliesebrecht and
( 'ouard have j)ointed to the invasion of Judah by Shishak
(Se.sonk I.), king of Kgypt, alxiut 928, as the occasion
of this (see i K. 14 26). Ihe objection is that Shishak's
campaign, as the bas-reliefs at Karnak apjK;ar to pr<ne.'
was against Israel as well as Judah, and that, Egypt
being too weak at that time to think of jjermanent con-
quests, the expedition must have been simply due to
vainglory and to greed. If Shishak took away from
Palestine anything in the nature of an idol, it must have
been the ' golden calves' of Jerolxjam, and not the out-
wardly unattractive wooden chest in the sanctuary of the
temple of Rehoboam. I^>sides, Reholxjam and his priests
would never have allowed the cajjture of the ark to
become known : they would ci-rtainly, in the interests of
the temple, have substituted a new chest, for which
pious fiction the supposed discoveries of Babylonian kings
mentioned by Tiele [liAC, 461) may perhaps furnish a
parallel. (2) The ark may have been carried away with
the temple treasures in 785. by Joash, king of Israel
(2 K. 1414), who would hardly have omitted to reclaim
the long-lost treasure of the I-:phraimitish sanctuary at
Shiloh. The objection to this is that the ark had Ion;;
ceased to be the special possession of a trilie, and that
events had proved that Joash could well dis|jen.se with
the ark, while to have carried it away would have been
an offence against the great hero of united Israel — David.
(3) The ark (which was probably renewed by the priests,
when decayed from age) may have retained its place till
the great catastrophe in 586, and previously to this may
have lost much of its ancient prestige owing to the
growing sense of the inconsistency of identifying such an
object as the ark with the great God Yahwe, and
perhaps also to discourses of the prophets against a
superstitious reverence for the ark which have been lost,
or even su[)prcssed by editors. This view — which is in
the main that adopted in 4 Ksd. IO22, and implied by
the legend in 2 Mace. 25 (cp below, § 15), that Jeremiah '-
hid the tabernacle and the ark and the altar of incense
in a cave — is by no means an improbable one. The
only obvious objection to it can easily be met. The
assertion in Dent. 10 4/ that the ark was simply the
repository of two inscribed tables of stone need not
imply that D, like P, is an arch:tologist, and that the
object which is thus wrongly descritx^d no longer existed.
It is more natural to suppose that, like the other fetishes
to which this writer is so vehemently ojjposed, the sacred
stones which (as we shall see) were the objects venerated
of old in the ark still held their place, concealed from
view but secure. The Deuteronomist, speaking in the
name of Moses, could not help assuming the sanctity of
the ark and its contents. In the interests of piety,
however, he transformed (as far as words could do it) the
nature of the objects in the ark. That venerable coffer
was not, he meant to say, in any sense the dwelling of the
deity, whom no temple could hold (i K. 827) : it siinjily
contained a perfect written embodiment of the funda-
mental demands of Israel's righteous tiod.
This leads us to consider the origin and affinities of
the ark. Yor the ark of the Deuteronomist (and of I'l.
with its two inscril)ed tables, no parallel has
9. Real
nature.
Ixien found. Prof. Savce indeed refers
Mr. Rassam's discovery of a coffer with two
inscribed alabaster tablets in a little temple at Balawat.
near Mosul ; •' but the coffer (which was not placed in
the sanctuary) also was of alabaster, and with its con-
tents corresponds to the chests containing sacred Ixjoks
which were among the regular appurtenances of Egj'ptian
(anil probably of Syrian ) lemiiles, but were not meant to
be carried. For the ark known to the earliest Hel rew
traditions, however, there are many monumental
1 .St. GVI 1 -,53/ ; WMM, As. u. Eur. 166-169.
2 In the Ta\m\xd (Hitrajoth, I2(i)it is Fosiah who hides the
ark and other sacred objects, including the pot of manna (see
below, § 15).
» Sayce, Hihbert Lectures, 65 ; cp Pinches, TSBA 7 83.
306
ARK OF THE COVENANT
parallels. In Egypt, for instance (from which Reran
too hastily derives the Israelite ark), no festal pro-
cession could be sculptured or painted without them.^
The arks, with their images, were placed on boats,
which were ornamented at the ends with heads of
the divinities within ; the king himself, being divine,
also had his ark-boat. Such an ark-boat, too, is
referred to in the strange story of the daughter of the
king of Bahtaii," where an image of the god Honsu is
said to have txjen transported to .Syria, to deliver a
princess from tlie spirit that oppressed her. These
shrine-boats must originally have had their parallels in
Babylonia : the constant expression for the sacred arks
in the cuneiform texts is <■///'/'/ ■' — •/. e. , ' ships. ' Within the
best-known historical periods, however, it was in simple
arks or coffers that the images of the gods were borne
m procession at the Babylonian (and Assyrian) festivals.
Thus it appears that two things were essential in a
sacred ark— that it shouUl ixj of a size and a material
which would permit it to be carried, and that it should
contain a representation or mystic symbol of a deity.
The ark known to David and Solomon doubtless com-
plied with these conditions. It was a simple wooden
box, such as the ancestors of the Israelites had used in
their nomadic slate for their few valuables,'* without either
the coating of gold or the cherubim with which the
reverence of a later writer provided it. As to its
p . . contents, the inscribed ' tables of stone,'
■ "^ ®^ ^' which we should never have expected
to find in the Holy of Holies, were but a substitute of
the imagination for some mystic symbol or representation
of Yahwe. Of what did that symbol consist ? We are,
of course, bound to do what we can to minimise the
fiction or error of the Deuteronomist ; but we must not
deviate from the paths of historical analogy. These
duties are reconciled by the supposition that the ark
contained two sacred stones (or one).° This view, no
doubt, imjilics a survival of fetishism ; but there are
traces enough of fetishism (on which see Idolatuy, g 4)
elsewhere in Hebrew anticiuity to justify it. The stones
(or stone) miist have been ancient in the extreme. They
(or it) originally had no association with Yahw^ ; they
represented the stage when mysterious personality and
power were attached to lifeless matter. Being portable,
however, they were different from the sacred stones
of Bethel, Bcth-shemesh, .Shechem, and En-rogel,
and are most naturally viewed as specimens of those
b.netyls, anim.ated stones, which, according to Sancho-
niathon, were formed by the heaven-god, and were
presumably meteorites. They may have belonged
originally to the tribe afterwards called Ephraim; and
when the several tribes united in worshipping Yahwe,
the Gorl of Moses, the l-^phraimitish ark with its contents
may have Ijeen adopted as the chief sacred symbol of
Yahwe. Theearliest narrators (see above, § 3, end) viewed
the ark (which was virtually one with what it contained)
as a substitute for the immediate presence of Yahwe, the
sin of the 'Golden Calf at Sinai having proved the
Israelites to be unripe for such an immense privilege.
The primitive Israelites, however, who knew nothing of
the story referred to, nuist have regarded it, not as a
substitute, but as the reality itself
The portableness of the Israelitish ark did not, it is
true, lead to its being carried about in processions. The
11. Treatment.
reason is that, to the Israelite, the object
within the ark was much more than an
1 .See the procession of the arks of Amen Re", Mut, and Honsu
(the Theban triad) in the second court of the temple of Ram[e)ses
III. at Medlnet Hfibfi (Wilkinson, Anc. Egyf>tians, 8289),
and Plate V. in Naville's Festival Hall ofOsorkon, i (cp p. 18).
2 Maspero, i?/'(2) 840-45.
3 Del. Ass. HWB s.v. elififnt. On the processional arks in
Babylonia, see Tiele, ZA 2 179^; C. J. Ball, PSBA 14 4.
■• Cp Doughty, Ar. Des. 1 227.
» Cp Vatke, Die Rel. des AT 321; St. GVl ^sif- \ Benzinger,
Hehr. Arch. 370. There were and still are two sacred stones,
a black and a white, built into the wall of the Ka'ba at Mecca
(WRS, KiH. 297/.).
307
I idol. It was not merely one of a class of objects, each
of which contained a portion of the magical virtue of
the deity whom it represented : ^ it was the only object
with which Yahw^ w;is so closely connected that the ark
(for reverence forbade mention of the stones) and Yahwe
were practically synonymous terms. It was, therefore, too
sacred to be moved for a slight reason. Worshippers
would rather make a procession round or before the ark
(cp 2 S. 6 14) than bear it in procession themselves. The
reverence implied in the story in 2 S. 66/ may represent
the feeling of an age later than David's ; but circumstances
had long been leading up to that extreme exaggeration.
The higher the conception of Yahwe became, the greater
was the awfulness which encompassed the ark,-^ until (it
appears probable) by a natural reaction the nobler
Israelites rejected the fetishistic conception of the ark
and its contents altogether. Thus we get one great
distinction between the ark of the Israelites and other
sacred arks : it was not subservient to idolatry. The
only occasions on which it left its resting-place were
times of war. Then, indeed, it was carried with the host
into the fray, just as the Philistine images were carried
into battle by the Philistines (2 S. 52i) — not to speak of
Arabian and Carthaginian parallels. •* It was not specially
a 'warlike palladium,' however, except for the jjeriods
when war rather than peace was the normal state
of the people ; ■* and we have found even David, at a
great crisis in his life, deciding to put his trust in his
God without the presence of the ark.
The notices of later writers are valuable mainly for
the religious history of the period of their authors. They
,n T i show us how, near the close of the pre-exilic
■ . (and afterwards in the post-exilic) age, pious
men imagined to themselves the nature and
circumstances of the ark. It is, therefore, unsafe to
infer with Bertheau, from 2 Ch. 803, that the ark was re-
moved from the sanctuary by Manasseh ; unsafe, also,
to infer, with the old C^ambridge scholar Spencer, from
P's description of the ark, that it was designedly made
like the arks of Egypt, in order that the Israelites
might miss no splendour or elegance which had charmed
their eyes at Zoan. That Manasseh, with his S3'ncret-
istic liberality, would have removed the ark is altogether
improbable. Spencer's theory, on the other hand,
may contain an element of truth, and is, at any rate,
more plausible than the view developed out of P's account
by Riehm.® It is probable that the priestly legislator
(P.i), in his description of the ark, did, unconsciously
and in no servile manner, take suggestions from the
sacred chests of Babylonia and Egypt, which he had
seen or heard of. The simple chest of which J and E
had doubtless spoken was unworthy (he thought) to
be in any sense the symbol of the ' Lord of the whole
earth.' Not such an ark could Moses have ordered
to be made, for Yahwe was all -wise and must have
' filled ' the artificers of the ark and the talx^rnacle ' with
a divine spirit in wisdom and understanding ' ( Ex.
8031). We must not, however, overlook the
references to the ark in writings of the Deuteronomic
school. We are told (Dt. 108) that Yahw6 'separated
the tribe of Levi to bear the ark of the b'rith of Yahwe,'
and in Dt. 3I9 (cp 25/!) we find a special title given to
' the priests the sons of I^vi,' which is derived from this
function (cp Josh. 83). For other Deuteronomic references
to the ark, see Dt. 8X25/ Josh. 833 i K. 815 619 8921.
1 Cp Maspero, /v/'(2> 843, n. 2.
2 Cp 1 S. 0 20, ' And the men of Beth-shemesh said. Who is
able to stand before Yahwe, this holy God?'
3 .See WRS, Rel. Sem.i^) 37.
* Kautzfch and Kraetzschmar (see ' Literature ') hardly seem
to hit the mark. We cannot lay any stress on the titles in i S.
4 4 2 S. <■> 2, on grounds stated .ilready (above, S ')•
B Riehm thinks (//;F/f(2|, art. ' Biindeslade ') that the ark was
constructed in such a way as to show the diametrical opposition
between the religion of revelation and the religion of nature
worship, the presence of Y.ahwe (symbolised by the cherubim on
the .irk) being conditional on Israel's performance of its covenant-
duties.
ARK OF THE COVENANT
W'c now reliirn to the much more important notices ]
in the I'riestiy Code and in Chronicles. A full descrip-
p, tion of the ark is given in lix. '25 10-22
, ■. . 37 1-9- It was made of acacia wood.
aescnption. .,.,jj^ statement is jwssibly based on tradi-
tion which is particular as to the materials of sacred
objects. The shittah-tree grows not only in Arabia,
but also in parts of Palestine : the ark, therefore, could
be renewed if necessary. It was oblong — two cubits
and a half in length, one and a half in breadth and u\
height. Ciold was overlaid on it within and without,
and on the lid, which had a projecting golden rim (it),
was a plate of pure gold (nii;3 ; see Mickcy-.skat),
sustaining two golden cherubim (see CHiiKUH, i. ), or
winged figures, whose wings extended over the ark.
From these cherubim Yahwe promised to comnuniicate
w ith Moses, and reveal his will for Israel. According
to \i\. 30 26, the ark was to Ije anointed along with the
tal)ernacle and the rest of its furniture. When made,
it was broiight, we are told, to Moses (3935), and
placed by him in the tal)ernacle, screened by the veil ^
(/.£'., in the Holy of Holies ; see 2633/). In Lev. Itiz
the sanctity of the ark is emphasised by the command
that .\aron (/.<•., the High Priest) shall enter the Holy
of Holies only once a year. In Nu. 831 the charge of
the ark is committed to the Kohathites, and in 4 5 it is
commantled that when the talK,Tnacle is moved Aaron
and his sons (i.e. , the priests) shall carefully cover up the
ark with the veil, Ixifore the Kohathites take it up, in
order that the latter may neither see (v. 20) nor touch
{t. 15) the holy things. In 789 (RV) the Voice {i.e., of
Yahwe) speaks to Moses from the 'Mercy-Seat.' The
gloss in Judg. '2O27/ — a gloss added luider the influence
of I'., -states that the ark was at Bethel in the days of
Phinehas, and the editors, who follow 1\, doubtless
understood that the ark was always in the tabernacle
till the battle of Aphek (cp T.\hkrn.\ci.k).
The Chronicler adds scarcely any fresh incidents to the
accountoftheark, and edits the earlier narratives in SanuK'l
,- r>v, ;„!»_ =!»'• Kings on the assumption that the
14. Cnronicler, , • ^ r.i n .1 !• 1 1
. regulations of the Pncstly Code were ob-
served throughout the history. In I Ch.
\r> \f. he makes David say, ' None ought to carry the ark
of (jod but the Levites,' and they carry it according!}' ;
and at first sight it apix;ars as if the Philistine Obed-
edom liecame a Levite (i-<\ 1821 24) ; see however Obkij-
E1K)M, 2. A profound sense of the sanctity of the ark
is shown in iCh. 282, where the ark or the 'Mercy-
seat' is called ' the footstool of Cod,' and in 2 Ch. 811,
where Solomon refuses to let Pharaoh's daughter dwell
in the palace of David, ' because the places (?) are holy,
whereunto the ark of Yahwe hath come.' In 353,
Josiah commands the Levites to ' put the holy ark in
the Temple ' : 'it shall not t)e a burden on your
shoulders. '
The only direct references to the ark in the Psalms
are in Ps. 1328 (cp 2Ch. ()4i), where it is styled
tlV I"?*' '^^ °f ^^y strength'; and in Ps. 786i,
where God is said to have delivered his ' strength *
{i.e., the ark) into captivity. An indirect reference has
often been supposed in Pss. 24 47 and 68 ; but this in-
volves the untenable assumption of their pre-e.\ilic origin.
The ark is only twice mentioned in the NT. It and
its contents are described in Heb. 94 as in P2, e.xcept
IB WT ^^^ ^^^ P°' ^^ manna (see above, § 8, note)
■ is said to have been in (instead of beside) the
ark. In Rev. 11 19, after the seventh angel has sounded,
' the temple of God in heaven ' is opened, and the ' ark
of God's covenant ' is seen within. The words ' in
heaven' (6 iv t(|5 ovftdvi^) are however probably an
editorial insertion (Spitta). It is the earthly (not the
heavenly) temple that is referred to, and the meaning
of the statement is that the ark which was hidden (so
1 This seclu.sion i.s in harmony with the tran.scentlentalism of
the later conception of the divine nature. I
309
ARMAGEDDON
tradition variously said) by Jerenuah or Josiah, shall
suddenly reapjjear in the sanctuiiry in the latter days.
Sec, Iwsidc.s Spencer, De Ugihus Jielirtforum (it&<), .Sc)iing
(on the ii.-inies of the ark), /iA //K 11 1 14-124 r9i ] ; Coiiard (011
the religious and national import of the ark),
16. Literature. -^.-/ 7 /r 12 ('92); Kaui/wh (on ihc tide
Yahwfc .Seba'oth), /'■. <M'861, 17-22; Kostcrs,
TA 7", 27 361-378 ['93] ; iJi. on Kx. 2!) ; Nowack's and UenzinKcr*
//rfi. An/i.\ VVinclcler, C/ 1 I'gjl, 70-77; Kraetzsthmar, />/>
liuniifS7'orstelluMg, 1896, pp. 2o£-22o; Hiihr, SymMik, 1 482, etc.
(on other sacred arks) ; .Simpson, ' Ark -shrines of Japan,' TUBA
'•i 550-554- T. K. C.
ARKITE ('piyn— ».r., the "Arkite. man of 'Arka ;
ApoyKAiOC [ADICL, Jos. Ant. i. 62 ; cp .'-'am. 'pHJ?]*, a
( .inaanite ( Pha-nician ) tribe, (Jen. 10i7= i ( h. 1 15 (om.
H. AP&K€I [I-]) ; sec- Gi.ocKAl'i.V, § 16, 1. Arka (cp
apKT\, Jos. I.e.) is mentioned among the cities taken
by Tiglath-pileser III. (cp KAT<-'> 104, 254/.), and.
at a much earlier period, in the Aniarna tablets (<..;'..
78, 12, Irkata ; once [126, 22] Irkat; the Arkmilii
of Thotmes HI. seems to Ik; a collateral form).' The
lofty tell commanding the remains of the ancient city
was discovered by .Shaw in 1722. At its S. foot flows
the Nahr '.\rka in a deep rocky Ijetl, towards the sea,
two hours distant. To the 11 of the tell is the villaf,'i;
of 'Arka, about 12 m. N. of Tri]X)li.s. It was an
important place in the Roman jjeriod, when, throii^ii
being the birthplace of Ale.xander .Severus, it was called
C;esarea Libani. It was famous for the worship of
.Astarte. See Smiths Did. Class. Ceoi;. s.r. .Ina;
Schii. (;/r I498 n.
ARMAGEDDON, RV Hak-M.\(;i;i.()N (APMApeA-
^UJN [1 R]. AP MAreAcoN L^'^ lij' ARMAreAcON I 1 '■
1 Howunder- ''''■'^'•^' ''"''• ■^"'- ^^'■'■"'".^''•'^^"' ' ^P
RtnoH hv epMAKCAcoN.vers. Memph. ), theiKune
th "*" ^^^"^ ^^^' ^^'^^^ battlefield ( Rev. IC. I'Sl.
^^ °^" lietween the sixth vial and the seventh is
inserted a vision ( Rev. 16 13/. 16) which has no comiection
with the context, Ijeing apparently the setjuel of the vision
of the three angels in Rev. 146-ii. The three angels
proclaim the coming judgment ujion the world-power
and the way to escajxi it ; the three demoniacal s|)irits
(from the dragon, the beast, and the false proplKt)
seek to counteract this by ' gathering the kings of ihe
whole world for the war of the great day of (Jod the
Almighty.' The junction of forces is made at 'the
place which is called in Hebrew Har-Magedon. '
Two c|uestions have to be asked : (i) What did the
writer understand by Har-Magedon (if this is the correct
reading)? and (2) What was the meaning of the term
in the source, whether written or oral, from which he
drew? It is in the highest degree probable that the
writer himself interpreted the phrase, ' the mountains of
Megiddo' (cp Apyapi^iv= Mount Gerizim, Eupolemus
ap. Eus. /-"/;' 9 17). Itoth from its natural advantages
and from its history the Plain of Megiddo (Zech. I'Jii)
would have been the more obvious scene of such a great
gathering ; but the writer could plausibly justify the
substitution of ' mountains ' for ' plain ' by the much-
studied apocalyptic descriptions of Ez. 88821 392417,
where the hordes of Gog are said to meet their end
'upon the mountains of Israel.' Megiddo itself is, of
course, a hill-town, though close to the great Plain of
which it commands the southern entrance : there is
nothing incorrect, therefore, in the phrase ' the
mountain-district of Megiddo.' Har-Magedon is no
doubt half-Hebrew ; but it would Ix; strange if readers
of Jewish (Jreek could not interpret it (cp terms like
Na7e(3 in 0 1. See Apoc.M-VI'se, § 46.
If, however, we hold it to be probable that the small
apocalypse (.see Spitta, Offetib. 568) to which 16 16 Ix-longs
j». . . is a translation of a Hebrew original, and
?"^ certain, at any rate, that the writer built
meaning. ^^ ^ considerable extent on traditional
1 Cp the ethnic Irkanatai on the monolith of Shalmaneser
II. (292; KliXiy^t). So Honiniel, Cesc h. 6o<), Ed. Meyer
'Glos.sen z. d. Thontaf. von el -Am.,' jKgyptiaca ("97), p. 69;
cp WMM, As. u. Eur. 247.
310
ARMENIA
semi -mythic stories eschatologically interpreted, it
lx;c()ines a question whether his interpretation of the
name of the great battletield as meaning ' mountains of
Megiddo' is correct. The restoration of the original
text offered by a writer in Z.l'J'U' 7 170 ['87],
nao •\n ("will gather them unto his fruitful mountain ' —
/.(•., the mountain-land of Israel), does not give a
delinite locality, which seems to lie required in this
context. Nor are the attempted numerical explana-
tions cjuoted by Spitta {Offciib. 402) more prol),ible.
Ciunkel, therefore, thinks (Scho/>/. 266) that ' Harma-
gedon ' mast tx: a name of mythic origin, connected
in some way with the fortimes of the dragon who is
the lineal heir of the Rabylonian dragon Tiamat, the
personification of chaos and all evil (cp Crk.\tion,
§1). On p. 389 of the same work Zimmern com-
nunucates a conjecture of Jensen that fj.ayeduji' is
identical with /xiyadojv in the divine name 'TecrefiiyaSwv ,
the husband of 'Epecrx^y"-^ ( = Bab. Ereskigal), the
Babylonian goddess of the underworld. Sec Khchi.
Mils. 4949, where in a magic formula given by Kuhiiort
from Greek papyri we read, ^fois xdov'101% 'Tfce/jnyaSuv
Kal Kovprj lie per e(f>6vrj 'Hpfcrx'7a\ k.t.X. (see also
HAi>.\n-RiMMON). The same two (doubtless Baby-
lonian) names occur on a lead tablet from .Alexandria,
Rhein. Miis. 18 563, where the former is given as
'Te(rf/i/xt7a5w»'. It would be natural that the spot where
Tiamat was defeated (and was again to be defeated) by
Marduk siiould Ix; called by a name which included that
of a god of the underworld. T. K. ('.
ARMENIA Cl^I^^vI, 2 K. U»37 Is, 3738t AV, RV
Ar.vkat.
ARMLET (Tp-13, e.wnAoKiON [H.\FL]), so RV for
.WT.MU.i.r in i:x. 3;') 22 InepiAeJiON ? [1UFL]K Xu.
31 50. It may be doubted, however, whether the word
does not mean an ornament for the neck (so R\'mg.
N'eckl.ACK) — perhapsa necklace consisting of a number
of little spheres, cp Ar. kumzal"" , a little ball. See
Okn.vmknts.
ARMONI ("Jb-jN, • Talatinus'?; epMWNOCi [H].
"Niei [A], A)(| [I.])' ^ -''"n of Saul sacrificed by David
to the vengeance of the Gibeonites (2S. 2l8t). .See
Rizi'.\n. Neither he nor Mephibosheth [i], the two
sons of Rizpah, is mentioned elsewhere.
ARMOUR, ARMS (D*'?3), i S. 17 54. See Bkea.st-
I'l.Aii:, I, 1Ii:lmi:t, (Jki;avks, Shiki.i) ; and cp War,
and Wkai'ons.
ARMOUR-BEARER (c'?? Nb'J, which happens to
occur only with a suffix, VP^ 'J, Judg. 954, etc. , or in the
consir. St., nXV ^^3 N^'X 2 S. 2337 iCh. II39).
Abimelech, Saul,Joab, all had armour-bearers ; Goliath's
S(|uire is called a shield-lx;arer (i S. 177). On the age
of armour-bearers, cp WRS, OTJO'i 431 ; Che. Aids
to Crit. 77 n. Is. 52 11, .nin' -hz "N'r: (KV ' Ve that
bear the ves.sels of the Lord') is taken by most com-
mentators (.\ben Ezra, Kimchi, Cheyne formerly) to
mean ' armour-tearers of N'ahwe ' ; but this is im-
probable (see Di. ad loc. ).
ARMOURY. In Neh. 3 19 PC'SH, ' weapons, arming,'
1(5, T) (TwaiTTOvaa), and in Jer. ,'(025 "I^IX, 'treasure,
store,' are probably contractions for pw'JH IT'S, ' house
of weapons,' and "IVINH D"'?, 'house of treasure'
respectively. In Cant. 44 ' thy neck is like the tower
ot David builded for an armoury ' m'SPH"? is difficult.
Vg. renders it cum propugnaciilis. while © merely
transliterates {daXiriwe [BS], -X0i. [.\]), and O.S'^' 202,
84 has daXwiioO — iwdX^t) ^ v\pr)\d. The meaning
'armoury' has no philological basis (see Del. ad loc),
and yet it is the only meaning which suits the context.
Cheyne {Exp. Times, June '98) supposes corruption of
ARMY
the text and reads d'bW^ ' for the shields. ' The neck
of the Shulamite is compared to the tower of David
adorned with small metal plates — i.e., perhaps to the
'house of the forest of Lebanon' in which were sus-
pended the shields and targets of gold. Fancifully the
j)oet represents these shields as suspended on the outside
(cp Kzek. 27"). Budde and Siegfried agree in placing
the 'tower' at Jerusalem.
ARMY (Nny. '?'n, nsnyp). The main army of
Israel, like that of all primitive nations, and, in the last
1. General
resort, of all nations, consisted of the
levy.
whole able-bodied adult male population.
In Nu. li-3(P), twenty is fi.xed as the
age at which a man became a soldier ; but it is not
probable that any such regulation was rigidly observed
in practice. This general levy constituted the fighting
force of Israel in the wilderness, at the time of the
settlement and under the 'Judges,' and remained its chief
military resource throughout its national history. Under
the 'Judges,' the armies mentioned are, for the most
part, the levy of the tril)es or clans immediately con-
cerned. On sjxjcial occasions, however, such as the war
against Sisera, and Saul's relief of Jaljesh-gilead, all the
fighting men of Israel were summoned, and their
olx;dience to the sunmions was represented as a para-
mount religious duty.
The armies obtained from such levies varied greatly
in number and efficiency ; a clan, or even a trilx;,
whose immediate interests were threatened, would
readily take the field in its full strength. An appeal
for a general levy of Israel would scarcely ever be more
than partially responded to; Deborah (Judg. 5) com-
plains of the absence of Reuben, Gilead, Dan, and
Asher ; the national leaders sought to prevent such dere-
lictions from duty by the most solemn appeals to
religious sanctions — Deborah curses Meroz (Judg. r)23),
and Saul, when a spirit (or impulse) from (iod came
upon him, threatened to cut in pieces the o.xen of all
recreants (i S. 116).
When armies were required these national or tribal
levies were called together by messenger (c"DN''?n T2
I S. 11 7), sound of trumpet (ntjic* Judg. 634), or erection of
standard, or other signal (d: Jer. 46, see Ensig.n') ;
when the emergency was over they dispersed to their
homes. They were well suited to carry on or repel
border forays, but could not maintain prolonged \Nar-
fare, esp)ecially at any distance from their own territory,
or even oppose adecjuate resistance to any formidable
invasion. These levies were composed entirely of
infantry ("Sn iS. 4iol54); the Israelite territory, in
early times, was chiefly hill -country, where cavalry
force could neither Ije formed nor used. The first
Israelite who is mentioned as possessing horses is
Absalom, 2S. 15i (cp Horse, § 3).
Such armies were very loosely organised. As Well-
hausen (HI 436 ['8:5]) points out, 'what there was of
p , permanent official authority lav in the
i. uommana. j^^^^^j^ ^^ j,^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^j ^^^^^ of' houses ;
in time of war they commanded each his own household
force.' So .Abraham leads the expedition to rescue Lot
(Gen. 14), and Jair conquers the ' tent villages of Jair '
(Nu. 3241). Similarly, P descril>es the ' princes ' of the
tribes as also their captains in war (Nu. 1/ ). Deborah
(Judg. 514/) speaks of the princes and leaders of Is-
sachar and other trilies (see Government, § 21). In
practice, howt;ver, the hereditary heads of tribes and
clans were often set aside on account of the ability and
self-assertion of other leaders. Indeed, these hereditary
heads of houses play a very small part in the actual
history, possibly because history emphasises what is
exceptional. The 'judges,' whose main function was
to head the Israelite armies in special emergencies, were
men called by a kind of divine inspiration. Gideon
and Saul are not the heads of their trilies or even clans :
312
ARMY
Gideon's family was • p<ior in Man:isseh and he was
the least in his fathers house' (Judg. (Jis). and Sauls
family is descriljed in almost identical terms ( i S.
9ji). In the absence of any other widely recognised
authority, the priests of the great sanctuaries, and
especially of the ark. sometimes assumed the conmiand
of armies, when called by anibition or the sense of
duty (l)KBOKAH ['/.J'.], the house of KlA [i/.r.]. Samukl
[</.i:]). When the trilxis were partly merged in the
kingdoms, and the clans and families were in a measure
superseded by the t<iwiis and village conmmnities, the
levy would naturally follow the new order (Amos 63).
Probably under the kings the levies did not always '
assemble by clans, but men were collected by the royal
officials from the various districts (cp CJovkknmknt.
§ 20). In any case, the organisation of the levies was ;
subordinated to that of the standing army, and they
were divided into 'thousands.' 'hundreds,' 'fifties.' and 1
'lens,' institutions which are said by an ancient iradi- |
tion, I'.x. 18 25 (JK), to have originated with Moses. ■
A second important element of the military strength .
of Israel, as of all nations at a simil.ar st;.ge of develop)-
P , ment, lay in the jjcrsonal following of
3. Bands, i^j^.jj ^1^^ mndc war their occupation. I
These ' bands ' (inj, also used of a division of an army) '<
may be roughly likened to the vassals of feudal \
chiefs, the ' free companies ' of the middle ages, and j
even to the banditti in unsettled districts. As in the
case of England and Scotland, the ' bands ' flourished
sjiecially on the frontiers ; the territory of Israel had |
a frontier very long in proportion to its area. Such ,
' bands ' could take the field much sooner than a clan-
levy, and would be better disciplined and nmch more
oxix,Tt in warfare. More than once they rendered |
signal .service to the nation. The ' vain fellows ' whom !
that captain of banditti, Jephthah, gathered round him
(□'P'"! C'C'JN. Judg. II3) were the kernel of the army |
which defeated Amnion, and David's following was one 1
chief instrument in the restoration of Israel after (lilboa. '
I S. '2'2-30 gives us a detailed account of the formation,
character, and career of such a IkkIv (see U.wii), t; 4).
It was a self-constituted frontier-guard, living on the
plunder of the neighbouring trilxis and by levying
blackmail on their fellow-countrymen, whom they
claimed to protect. The warlike services rendered by
the 'bands' were accompanied by serious drawbacks.
They added to the danger of civil war ; they embittered
the relations with neighbouring trilxis ; and they were
capable, like David, of taking service with foreigners
even against their own countrymen. We do not hear
of them after David's time ; they would scarcely be
tolerated by powerful kings, but were sure to reappear
in unseltletl times.
As the main function of a king was that of permanent
commander-in-chief, a monarchy implied some sort of
. standing army and permanent military
organisation. In time of peace the king
kept a l)odyguard as the main support of his authority,
and this bodyguard formed the nucleus of the army in
war (cp GOVKRNMK.VT, § 18). We find Saul ' choosing '
3000 men (i S. ISa) and sending the rest of the people
to their tents. He did not keep these chosen men as
a i>ermanent army, for in 1 S. 24 2 he chooses another
3000 when he wishes to pursue David. Probably he
did his l)est throughout his reign to keep by him a
l)icked force, which was virtually a standing army. He
had a permanent commander-in-chief, Abner (iK3S"Tb
I S. 1450), and his personal following must have in-
cluded other permanent military oflicers (cp Govf.RN-
MKNT, § 21). David's band of followers during his
exile served as the kernel of a much more complete and
extensive military organisation. The office of com-
mander-in-chief remained a permanent institution, and
the captains of the host (h'm nir 2S. '244) also appear
as permanent officers. A bodygnard, practically a
313
ARMY
continu.alion of David's companions in exile, was forme<I,
and its captain is mentionetl as one of the great officers
of state (2.S. 818 •2'J23 2^23. ,ip''irn-'^Ki nap: C'5r''f,7lo
K3->lV). Now, however, the Ixxlyguard had come to
consist of foreign mercenaries, ' C'hereihites and Pele-
thiles,' probably Philistines (see CllKKKriiiTKS, C.\IMI-
TUK). In 2.S. 15 18 we find 600 Philistines from (iath
in Davids army ; (P's fjaxvro-^- however (in a
doublet), suggests a reading gihbdrhn, or 'mighty
men.' for gittim, or '(iittites.' If the latter :s the
correct reading, the (iittites njay have l)een either
part of the Vxjdyguard, or else an indeixindent band of
mercenaries (see David, S i i(<i)). I'he Cherethites and
Pelethites are not mentioned after the death of David ;
but the iKxlyguard of foreign mercenaries nmst have
remained a pernwnent institution. 1K.I427 s|X'aks
of the captains of the guard, literally 'runners' ('njr
C>~in), that kept the pal.ace gates (cp 2 K. 10 25).
2 K.'l 1 4 sjx;aks of ' the centuri'Mis of the Carites and of
the guards' (c's-;'''! ns^ niKSn "li;-), where the Carites
are possibly identical with the Cherethite.s. If the
reading in 2S. 238 is correct, and if -r^B* in •c";'C'n cki
(AV ' chief among the captains ' ; RV ' chief of the
■•aptains ' ) is rightly explained as referring to the third
occupant of a chariot (Tpio-rdrTjj [HAL], ICx. 14? I.'m.
etc.), it may indicate the use of chariots by David,
though it is probably u.sed in its later sense of ' captain '
(see Chariot, § 10).
With the very doubtful exception of these ' shalishim,'
we have no reference to Israelite chariots and cavalry
before the end of Da\id's reign.
According to FA' of 2S.S4, he reserved horses for a hundred
chariots out of the spoil taken from H.-id.id'ezer lien Rehol), kin>;
of Zol)ah; (pliAl. translates 'reserved for himself a hundred
chariots.' Reuss and Kantzsch translate 'a hundred cli.iriot
horses.' No reference is m.-ide to the use of these ch;iri..ts or
horses in war ; moreover, the passage prob.-\bly belongs to the
last editor of Samuel.
Solomon, however, established a force of 1400
chariots and 12,000 hor.semen (i K. IO26I, and accord-
inglv we find mentioned among his oflicers ■ captains
of his chariots and of his horsemen ' (vc^gEi 12:-; -c\ i K..
922). Occasional references occur in the later history
to Israelite chariots and horsemen (2 K. S21 \'-\i)- Prob-
ably the armies of Israel and Judah were modelled on
the' army of Solomon till the end of these monarchies ;
but their main reliance would be on the infantry. To-
wards the close of the Jewish monarchy a quasi-religious
feeling against the use of chariots and cavalry seems to
have arisen, and Dt. 17 16 forbids the king to nniltiply
horses (cp. Dt. 20i I.s. 31i). The references to the
houghing of horses by Joshua (Josh. 1 1 69) and David
(2 S. 84) are probably due to a Deuteronomic redactor.
Nothing is said alxnit paying soldiers. In earlier
times the Israelites w ho formed the national levy would
„ . . find their own weapons and pro-
6. Maintenance. ^^^^^ ^he latter l>eing often obtained
from the enemy by jjlunder or from friencls by gift
or exaction. Probably throughout the history the
general levy was mostly provided for in this way ;
though, as the royal government became more jKiwerful
and more completely organised, it may have done
something towards feeding and arming these levies
(see (iOVERNMK.NT, § 20).
The bodyguard and the rest of the standing army,
including the charioteers and cavalry, stood on a
different footing. They were maintained by the govern-
ment (i K. 427), chariot cities being assigned as a pro-
vision for the chariots and cavalry. They w ere probably
paid ; certainly the foreigners in the Ixxlygu.ard did not
serve for nothing. The plunder taken from enemies
would be an important part of the renmneration of the
soldiers, and a principle of division Rnween the actual
combatants and the reserve is laid down in i S. 3024-
The rules as to exemption from military service in
314
ARMY
Dt. 20 are probably an ideal based on traditional public
opinion.
No reliance can be placed on the numbers which are
given for Israelite armies. At the same time, the two
kingdoms seem to have been populous in prosperous
times, and a general levy of able-bodied adults may
sometimes have attained very large dimensions.
Under powerful kings the Israelite armies were
strengthened by the au.\iliary forces of subject allies
— e.i^., Edoni (2 K. 3). Doubtless such assistance was
sometimes purchased, after the manner of the narrative
in 2 Ch. 25.
The details as to the Levites in the account of the
deposition of Athaliah in 2 Ch. 23 |cp 2K. 11) were
6. Levitical ^'J'^t'^^' «"gg,'^^»^^ »^>- ^^^^ institutions of
* the Chronicler sown tune (6/r(.(j 300 h.c).
guar . 'ph^se details seem to show that the
Levitical guard of the Temple was then in e.xistence.
As this guard is not provided for in the Priestly Code, j
it was probably formed after the time of Ezra. Possibly
the Trpo(XTdTr]s rov iepov [VA] in 2 Mace. 3 4 may have
been the captain of this guard. If so, however, it is ]
difficult to suppose that the present text is correct in
ascribing him to the tribe of Benjamin (see, however,
Bknja.min, § 7 end). The capt^n of this guard, under
the title of arpaTriyJs, is mentioned by Josephus in his
account of the time of Claudius Cajsar (y4«A x.\. 62),
and of the destruction of the Temple (BJ vi. 03), and
in Lk. 22452 and Acts 4 i .'12426. Probably the officers,
VTT-qpiTai, who assisted in the arrest of Jesus (Jn. I83, cp
73245) l)elonged to this body.
In the post-exilic period, under the suzerainty of the
Persians, and of the Greek kings of l"'gypt and Syria,
p . ... the Jews could scarcely be said to have
7. l-OSt-exiUC. ^^ ,^j.|^^y .pj^g ^^^^^ Qf. >,rehemiah ,
clearly shows that they had to trust to their own energy |
and courage for protection against hostile neighbours ; j
but they fought as a city militia rather than as a peasant
levy.
The revolt of the Maccabees made Judrea a military
power. The long wars not only habituated the bulk of
the people to arms, but also produced a standing
army, which soon included many foreign mercen-
aries. Jewish soldiers also received pay ( i Mace. 1 4-32),
probably, however, only picked bands that formed the
standing army and ranked with the other mercenaries.
Josephus (/?/i. 25) tells us that Hyrcanus I. (135-107
B.C. ) was the first Jew who maintained foreign mercen-
aries {^evorporpeif). .Alexander Jannasus (106-79 B-C. )
employed Pisidian and Cilician mercenaries, and at one
time was at the head of a mercenary army of 1000 horse
and 8000 foot, in addition to 10,000 Jews. These
mercenaries are styled 'Greeks' (i?/i. 435, cp 04).
As the Jews had long been suVjjects of the (jreek kings
of Egypt and .Syria, their armies would be equipped and
disciplined after the Greek fashion.
When the l-^ast fell under the supremacy of Rome,
the Herods, as clients of Rome, formed their armies on
P the Roman model. Indeed, Herod the
■p . J Great was at times in command of Roman
forces, and Jewish and mercenary ' cohorts '
(aireipai) are spoken of as fighting side by side with
the Romans (/:?/i. 156 IO2). Herod's army consisted
largely of mercenaries drawn chiefly from the Teutonic
subjects and neighbours of the empire — Thracians,
Germans, and Ciauls i/J/ i. 389).
The insurgent armies in the Jewish war were very
heterogeneous. The national government appointed
militiiry commanders for the various districts, among
whom was Josephus. He tells us that he organised an
army of 100,000 on the Roman model, including 4500
mercenaries, a bodyguard of 600, but only 250 horse-
men : a typical Hebrew army in its constitution. The
garrison of Jerusalem is said to have consisted of 23,400
men, including Idumrt-ans and bands of Zealots. They
seem to have possessed some organisation and dis-
315
ARNAN
cipline, but were divided into adverse factions (11/
V.61).
The armies of the other states of Syria did not differ
essentially from those of Israel. From the first, however,
9. Foreign
they made use of chariots and cavalry,
and throughout the history, e.xcept
during the reign of Solomon, the Syrians
were superior to the Israelites in these arms (Josh. 11 4
17i6 Judg. I1947 iS. l;J5 2S. 84 iK. 2O125 2231.
etc.). On the other h.ind, the great military empires
of Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon possessed a much more
extensive and effective military organisation. They
had corps of chariots, light-armed and heavy-armed
cavalry and infantry, together with archers and slingers
and engineers. Their armies included large forces of
mercenaries and tributaries. P'or military purposes
these great empires stood to the Syrian kingdoms in
about the same relation as that of a first-class European
power to the smaller Asiatic states.
It is not necessary to notice the Persian army, and
of tiie armies of the Ptolemies and Seleucides we need
say only that they were modelled on the Macedonian
armies of Philip and Alexander, with some modifica-
tions due to Oriental influences. For example, they
employed elephants (i Mace. I17, etc.).
Ihe Roman army is incidentally alluded to in the
NT. The legion (Mt. 2653 Mk. 5915 Lu. 830) varied
P considerably at different times in numbers
and in constitution ; during the early
^' empire it was a composite force, consisting
of about 6000 legionary infantry, together with cavalry,
light-armed auxiliaries, and military engines. The
legionary infantry, or legion proper, were divided into
ten cohorts. The ' band ' (crTret/ja) which took Jesus
(Mt.2727 Mk. 15i6 Jn. I8312) was probably a cohort
(so RV'"S) forming the Roman garrison in Jerusalem.
The same cohort is mentioned in Acts 21 31. In Acts
10 1 we read of the Italian band, and in 27 1 of the
Augustan ' band.' The It.ilian ' band ' may have been
an independent cohort of Italian volunteers (.Schiir. (/"//'
1 386). The ' Augustan band ' (airdp-qs "^e^aarris) may
have been part of the Sebastene — i.e., .Samaritan —
auxiliaries, who, according to Jo.sephus [A>if. xx. 87),
formed a large part of the Roman garrison of Palestine.
The name might be, and doubtless was, understood as
' Augustan ' as well as ' .SeVmstene ' (the title ' Augustan '
was borne by some of the Roman legions). See further,
Cornelius, § i. The officers of the legion were the
tribunes and centurions. Six tribunes were attached to
a legion and were associated in command. We fre-
quently find a tribune holding independent command of
a cohort or larger force : the ' chief captain ' (Jn. I812
Acts 21-25), x''^'apX05' commanding the cohort at Jeru-
salem was a tribune. Each cohort contained ten centuries
or bodies nominally consisting of a hundred men ; these
were commanded by centurions. As the independent
cohorts were organised on the model of the legions, it is
probable that the cohorts, tribunes, and centurions of the
NT belonged to the auxiliary forces. Mommsen says of
the Roman garrison in Palestine that it consisted, as
elsewhere in provinces of the second rank, of a
moderate number of cavalry and infantry divisions,
in this case of Samaritans and Syrian Greeks —
subsequently one ala and five cohorts or about 3000
men. The province, therefore, did not receive a
legionary garrison. A small force under a Roman
commandant occupied the citadel at Jerusalem. During
the time of "the Passover this was reinforced by stationing
a stronger division of Roman soldiers in one of the
temple buildings (Prov. Rom. Emp., ET, 2 186).
W. H. B.
ARNA [arxa) b. Ozias, in the genealogy of Ezra
(4 V.I.A. I2), apparently = Zerahiah in ;i Ezra 74-
ARNAN (|:iN ; orna [BA], apncon [L]). Accord-
ing to MT of I Ch. 321, the ' sons of Arnan ' occur in the
316
ARNI
genealogy of Zerubbabcl. <P. V'g. and Syr., however,
make Arnaii the son of Kephaiah. The name might
nieaM ' noisy ' ; but ptx elsewliere, as a jiersonal
name, tx:ing corrupt |see Akalnah), and the names of
the other descendants of Han.aniah (see K\) lx;ing com-
pounded with -iah, it seems plausible to correct to .Tnx
(Adonijah), which m.ay have been abbreviated '"nK
(whence, by corruption, uttt or pnK)- T. K. C.
ARNI (&pNei [Ti.WH after NBLXF]). Lk.333 RV.
is the reading to be pr<;fcrred to A\' ARAM. See
Ram, !.
ARNON (panS). Nu. 21 u ; see Moab.
AROD (nnx, ApoAei [B*], &poAA[e]i [B'bAF],
AopAA [i-J(. Nu. -JGiz^tien. 46i6, Arodi (""mt*.
APOH^IC [A], &YAPIC [^l OppoAeiC |l'|i. for which
gentilic form 1-V in Nui /.c. has Arodite. A name in
genealogy of Gad {t/.v. ), Cp Akkli.
AROER ("lynu. nyij^; in judg. 11=6 niinr ; ;.<•.,
' bushes of dwarf juniper " ' [I>aj^. Semi/. 1 30] ; ApoHp
[BAL] ; gentilic Aroerite, ^"lyiy. see Hotiiam, 2).
1. A city ' on the edge of the torreiit-valiey of
Arnon,' see Moab. (Dt. 236 etc.; cp rW-'> 21231
8G?S, iv' 6<ppvo% rod 6povs, in vcrticf moiitis) ; the
descriptions agree with the position of the ruins of
'Ard'ir, on the edge of the precipitous N. bank of the
ravine of the .Arnon (Burckhardt, Syria, 372 ; Tristram,
iMoab, 129-131). The spot is about 11 m. from the
mouth of that river, .\roer marked the S. limit of the
Reuljenite territory and of the Israelitish possessions
eastward of the Jordan, Nu. 3234 t)t- -36 812 448 Josh.
122 {apvijjv [B]) 13916 2 S. 245 {ap07)\ [B]) 2 K.
IO33; cp Judg. 11 26 iM-np [A], om. L); i Ch. 58.
In Jer. 48 19 (post-exilic) and in the inscription of Mcsha
(1. 26, ijnj') it appears as Moabitish. The Moabites had
in fact pos.sessed it before the Israelites, in successicjii to
the .\morites (cp Nu. 21 26). That Aroer on the Arnon
is meant in 2 S. 24 5 is now generally admitted (see Ur.
TBS 285 f. ). The expression ' the cities of Arocr ' in
Is. 172 is geographically difficult ; there is no doubt a
corruption of the text (see (5 and cp SBOT).
2. A place K. of Kabbath-Ammon, Josh. 1825 [apajia
[B], -/jwTj/) [.-\]) Jud. ll.ist; not idenlitied. Jer. (rW'i
965) says it was on a mountain 20 R. m. N. from
Jerusalem.
3. A place in the far south of Judah, i S. 30 28
(mentioned after Jattir), and probably Josh. 15 22
(mentioned after Dimonah). Identified by Rob. with
the ruins of '.Ir'ara, 3 hrs. I'^SK. from Beersheba.
(The payovr]\ of ©'-in i S. is perhaps from apovrjX :
see AoADAil. ) T. K. c.
AROM (ApoM [BA]), I Esd. 5 16. See Hashum.
ARPACHSHAD (TJ'^SIX), Gen. 10 22 RV ; see
below, .Arphaxad, i.
ARPAD, AV twice (in Is.) Arphad (nSIN, d.p<t>d.\
[B.\L]. ARPiiAD, .\ss. Arpaddu). 2 K. 1 S 3V( a/)<?ia\ [li],
-<^r [.\], 19.3 {-<^a.d [B]), Is. IO9 (not in 6), StJig and
;!7 13 {-^aB [BSAD (Q)]), jer. 4923 (-<^afl[A], o^iaS [«*]).
Of these pas.s.ages Is. IO9 is the most important, because
we can unhesitatingly fix its date and authorship. Isaiah,
writing in 711 B.C., makes the Assyrian king refer to
the recent capture of Hamath and Arpad (reckoned by
the -Assyrians to Hatti-land) as a warning to Jerusalem.
Arpad had been frequently captured by the early .\ssyrian
kings, but was finally subjugated and .Assyrianised by
Tiglath-pileser III. in 740. From this time it takes its
place among the Eponym cities. Its importance prob-
ably lay in its command of a Euphrates ford, though it
was not on that river. We find that a city Xibiru ( • the
ford ' ) was reckoned to belong to the governor of Arpad.
Arpad is now Tell-Erfad, 13 m. from Aleppo to NW.
C. H. W. J.
1 'Aroer' Ls an Arabising 'broken plural' oK'ar'Hr, 'dwarf
juniper," a plant which abounds in rocky localities (see Heath).
ARPHAXAD
ARPHAXAD, RV better Arpachahad (IBbSTK ;
Ap(t)A5AA (I'.ALJ; -Ahc U"^J). 'Ill-- third '.son- of
Shem.Gen. 102224; cpGen. 11 10-13 (all 1'), i Ch. 1 17/.
(©» omits these two) 24. The name has Ijecn much
discussed.
Bochart and many after him (e.g. Franz Del., Kautzsch in
HWli, and N.lld. ZDMC, 36, 1S2 I'82), ^eutyr. Cr. 20)
identify it with the Arrapachitis of Ptol. (vi. 1 2), a region on the
Upper Zab, NK. from Nineveh. On this iheoiy, however, -s/mii
(iC'Vemains un.iccounted for, as we can hardly, with 1 .ag. (Symm.
1 54), have recourse to the Armenian f<i/. Jos., on the other
hand, long ajjo identified Arph.Tx.id with the Chaldxans {.■Inf.
i. *54), and (los., l-,w., Schr. ((V'/loy), Sayce (Crir. Mnn.
147), adopting tliis view, reg.ird the ICOSTK as compounded of
an assumed noun r-ijj, ' boundary ' (Ar. 'ur/at), and 1^3 =
C"lL"2, 'Chalda;a.'
Two things at least are certain ; we cannot dispense
with Babylonia in this context, and in (jen. llio^
.Arpachshad is represented as the source of the Terahite
family to which .Abraham lx.-longed. The latter part of
the name nr22-K must, therefore, Ix; ~fz—ie. , Chalda,-a.
It is eciually clear, however, that the .Assyrian province of
Arbaha (which may, or may not, lie the Arrapachitis of
Ptol. ) would tx; very appropriately introduced after
Asshur, and that, apart from the last syllable (-shad),
.Arpachshad has received from the earlier critics no ex-
planation that is even plausible, except that of Bochart
and Noldeke.
Butting these facts together, the present writer
suggested [Expos. Feb. 1897, pp. 145^) the following
theory. .Arp.ichshad, or at least •\czz~k, is really not
one word but two words — .Arpach ("riN) and Chesed
(ibr). The former is the Heb. name of the Assyrian
province of .Arbaha or [KB 2 88/.) .Arabha, which,
according toWinckler, isnot.\rrapachitis, butadistrict N.
of the Tigris, S. of the Median Mountains, and W. of
Elam.' The latter is Chaldaja (see Cuksko). (Jen.
IO22, therefore, upon this theory, originally ran, ' 'I'he
sons of Shem ; Elam and Asshur and Arpach— (.'hesed
and Lud and Aram. ' \'erse 24, as E. Meyer and Dillmann
agree, is an eilitorial interpolation (cp 11 10^). 'l"he
form Arpachshad in 11 \off. will be due to the editor,
who misunderstood ir233iNi in 10 22, and it will not Ije
too bold to restore ira — if-, Chesed. The alternative*
is to suppose the original reading to have lx.-en riEiK
1^3 — ■«■<'■. .Arp;ih Chesfxl, which the scril^e, through an
error of the ear, changed into .Arpach Chesed {ztr\V.
Hommel, however [Acad. 17th Oct. 1896; .AHT
212, 294-298), prefers to ex])lain the word as I'r-pa-
keshad, an ' Egyptian v;xriant ' for the Heb. Ur-kasilim,
pa being taken as the F!gyptian article ; he compares
the old (?) Egyptian-Hebrew name Putiel, and the
Semitic-Egyptian pa-bd-ra — ha-haal (W.MM, As. n.
Eur. 309). If only we had sure evidence that there was
an Egyptian mania in early Palestine similar to the
Semitic mania of the I'gyptians of the Middle Ijnpire,
and could also think that P had access to records of ex-
treme antiquity, fairly accurately preserved, this e.xplana-
tion would at once liecome plausible. A comprehensive
study of the names in P, however, does not compel us.
indeed it scarcely permits us, to make the second of
these assumptions. Putiel (</•"'•) is distinctly an
artificial name, and if Arpachshad should really l>e read
Ur-pa-keshad we should on this analogy be inclined to
regard it as artificial too. In it.self a reference to
Ur-kasdim would no doubt be admissible, since this
place or district is referred to by P (11 31) as well as by
Jj. It is chiefly the presence of 3 (p) in il"3£:-;n th.at
• Prof Jensen informs the writer that he ha* independently
formed the same opinion as to the orijjin of Arpiich'^had, but
that he prefers to identify Arpach with Arrapachitis = mod.
AlbaU. This view has occurred to the writer also.
2 The transition from h (in Arlxiha) to 3 in -p-K has not then
to be accounted for. On the former theory, the Priestly Writer,
who was not indebted either to a cuneiform record or to a
Babylonian informant, received the name in a slightly incorrect
form, the final h having been softened in pronunciation to ch.
ARROW
prevents us from reading Ur-Casdim (written 'irz ix) in
(ien. 10 22 between Asshur and Lud.
2. The name given in Judith i. to the king of Media who \vas
formerly identified with Deioces the founder of Kcbatana, or with
Phraortes his son. The name, however, has been borrowed to
};ive an air of antiquity to the narrative, and, as in the cases of
Hoi.oKKKNKS, and others in this book, stands for some more
modern personage, probably Mithridates. See Judith, ii.
T. K. C.
ARROW, see Wkai'ons, Divination, § 2 (i).
ARROWSNAKE in (Jen. 49.7 .\V"«=;b*DC^.
• cerastes,' erKAGHMeNOC [6»'^"'-''-] (see Skri'ENT, § i.
no. 10), and in Is. 34 15 RV = nS-l (exiNOC [©"w*^""]).
AV Gkkat Owl ((/.v., 2) ; see Serpent, § i, no. 8.
ARSACES (APCAKHC[AX, -(tik. (Xonce) V]). 'king
of Persia and Media,' by whom Demetrius Nieator
(Di.Mi.rKius [2]) was defeated and made a prisoner
(I .Mace. 14-'/". 1522). See Persia.
ARSARETH, RV Arzareth (so Lat. arzareth, also
iu-zaren,arzar; AV'^e- Ararath) — i.e. JTinX "^X (cp
Dt.2927 [28] Jer. 2226) — ' the other land,' 1 the region, a
journey of one year and a half lieyond the Euphrates,
where the exiled tribes were supposed to be settled
(4 l".sd. 1345 ; cp 7'. 40). This belief in the 'Lost
rril)es ' is found already in Jos. {Ant. .\i. i^-z).
ARSIPHURITH(Apc[e]i<t)OYpeie[H-\]),iEsd.r.i6.
RV ; see joKAH.
ARTAXERXES (Xn*^'L*'nJi)-!X, Ezra47«, or Xri*;;*C'",
Ezra 4 7-^, or wXnL*';;-, Ezra4S 7 17" 81 Neh. 2i 5 14 136,
Baer's text ; Ac^peABA [15] ; ApeACACGA [A] ; Ap-
CApCAeA[wS*'--''(«/^/-///.')]; ApxASep^HcLX'-"]; Arta.v-
erxes). The following variants occur : —
Kzra47(r/'8 {aaacpQa. [B], apTOLtTatrQa |.\]), k {apcrapOa [I!],
a.p I 9a \\\), t> 14 (aa-Tap9a [H]), 7 i {a.p9acre(rea | F.l), 7 t i (atro-ap-
ea9a [I!]), 12 {a(rapea$a [B\]), 21 (ap(rap9a9a [I!]), Si (ap9acT9a.
[H]), Xeli. 2 1 {ap(Ta9ep9a [B|, ap(Tapa-a9a [N'cl)]^ aprafepfr)?
[Nc.a]), 5 14 {apa-evaOa [HJ, aapiraSa [Xj, ap9aaacr9aL [A]), 136
(ap<Toa-a9a [BN]).
Artaxerxes is the name given to the king of Persia,
who, we are told (Neh. 2i 014 1.J6), gave per-
mission to Nehemiah his cuptearer to rebuild the
walls of Jerusalem, and to this end made him governor
{peha ; cp Assyr. bel-pahati, town governor, and pihatu,
province, satrapy). The same name is borne by the
king who permitted Ezra and his band to return to
Palestine, and, along with his ministers and princes,
lavished tokens of favour on the returning exiles (Ezra 7/1 ).
The statement in Ezra 47-23 that earlier efforts of the
Jews to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem ceased at this
king's conmiand is unhistorical (see Ezra, ii. § lo),
and the account in Ezra 7 11-26 of the favour shown
by him to the temple and its ministers is probably
e.xaggerated (see Ezra, i. § 2). It is certainly in-
correct to name him along with Cyrus and Darius
as having promoted the building of the temple (Ezra6 14),
for this had already been completed in the reign of
Darius.
The name, which is certainly identical with the
Persian Artakhshatra ( ' the true, or legitimate, kingdom,'
an expression taken from the teaching of the Avesta ;
Assyr. Artaksatsu, Susian Irtakshazsa, — forms more
closely approximating the Hebrew), was pronounced by
the (Jreeks .\rta.verxes (so in i Esd. B ; but Aprap^ep^-qs
A*B^" sometimes). The king intended is beyond
doubt one or another of the three Persian rulers who
bore that name. The attempts to identify him with
Cambyscs, or with Pseudo-Smerdis, or with Xer.xes,
on the false assumption that .\rtakhshatra was not a
name but a title, were abandoned long ago. The only
question is, Which of the three?
The third in the list, Artaxerxes Ochus, is excluded,
both by chronology and by the known character of
that energetic despot and zealot for the Mazdean
1 Less probably niN ['"IK. land of Arat — i.e., Ararat (Volkmar).
ARVAD
creed, which alike prohibit the supposition that he can
have been the lx;nevolent patron of Nehemiah and Ezra,
Which of the remaining two is meant is still disputed
among scholars.
As in Kzra 4 6_/C the name follows immediately on that of
Ahasuerus, and no more precise designation is added, it is
natural enough to think of Artaxerxes I. If, however, as seems
proljable (see Ezra, ii. § 10), Kzra did not come to Palestine
till after Nehemiah, and if it be true, as we read in Ezra"?,
that the date of Ezra's arrival was in the seventh year of
Artaxerxes, while the established date of Nehemiah's arrival
is the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, then Ezra's expedition
must have been under Artaxerxes Mnemon, and so more
than half a century after Nehemiah's mission. This, however,
is not at all probable, and it seems preferable to assume that
the date assigned to Ezra's arrival (in the seventh year of
Artaxerxes) is an invention that had been suggested by the
transposition of the two expeditions.
We have thus good reason for assuming, with Kuenen,
Ryssel, Ryle, and others, that by Arta.xer.xes we ought
throughout to understand Artaxerxes I., Longimanus,
a surname which is doubtless to be taken in the same
sense as the expression in the inscription of Darius
(Naks i Rustem, inscr. a, § 4, /. 43/.) to the effect that
the spear of the Persian reaches far. He is descrited
as having been a good -hearted but weak sovereign,
ruled by his wives and favourites,— an account which
harmonises with what we learn from Nehemiah.
c. P. T.— w. H. K.
ARTEMAS (ApreMAC [Ti. WH], most probably a
coiUraction from ApreMlAcopOC '• see Varro, De Ling.
Lat. 89 (§ 21), and cp .ApoLLo.s, § i n. ), a com-
panion or messenger of Paul, mentioned once in the
Pastoral Epistles (Tit. 3 12 : ' When I shall send Artemas
unto thee . . . give diligence to come unto me ').
In the lists of the '.seventy disciples' which we owe to Pseudo-
Dorotheus and Pseudo- Hippolytus he appears as bi.shop of
Lystra.
ARTEMIS (ApreMic [Ti. WH]), .VctslQz+z?/ 34/
RV'";.'-; EV Diana.
ARTILLERY (^^?), 1S.2O40AV; AV'e- 'instru-
ments,' R\' We.\pons (q.V.).
ARTS and MANUFACTURES. See Trade and
Commekck, and Handicrai- TS.
ARUBOTH (m2-|N'— /.f. as in RV Arubboth ; €n
ApABcoe [A], . . .' Bhp BhO • • • [L] ; • • . 6.
Bhp . . • [B]), I K. 4 lot, the seat of the third of
Solomon's twelve prefects (see Bi;n-I Ii'.-Sed). The third
is one of the districts omitted by Jos. {.{iit. viii. 23,
ed Niese). See Ben-Hesed. Cp Schick, ' Wady
"Arrub, the Aruboth of Scripture,' FRF Qii. St. Oct.
1898, pp. 238/:
ARUMAH (np-1-|X3, Kr. HD-m, with prep. 3;
&PH/V\a[B], ApiAi\A[ALand as't-i 225, 2], kum.i [Vg.]),
the place where Abimelech dwelt before his capture of
Shechem — obviously not very far from that town (Judg.
941). Perhaps it is represented by the modern el-
'Ormah, 6 m. SSE. from Shechem, where there are ruins
still (Van de Velde, Rcisen, 2 268). Otherwise the
place is quite unknown.
For ,ia7r.a (f. 31 ; eJ'/i/)i'</)3[B];ierd 5a>pwj'[AL]), .W
'privily,' RV 'craftily,'^ RV'"i.'- -in Tormah ' (so Jos.
Kimhi, who took it to be the name of a town), it is
best to read ,iD"iN3, ' in -A.rumah. ' Eus. WTongly identifies
it with pov/xd. near Diospolis = Lydda (cp Rumah).
ARVAD ("I1")X[Ba.],Tl"IN* [Gi.]), whence the gentilic
Arvadite (HnX), CJen. 10i8= i Ch. 1 i6t (so (Sbaql
everywhere Ap&AlOC but Apovadei i Ch. I16 [L];
Egypt. 'Araiut[u], etc.; Assyr. usually ArM[u]at/a;
APAAoc.'for ApfAAoC. I Mace. I.'j23; Targ. Jer.
^N3"jnp3N— ?.^. , of Antaradus ;— Jos. Ant. i. 62 Apoy
Amoc. etc.; mod. Ruwdd, etc.), a town referred to by
Ezekiel (27 8 11) in his elegy on Tyre as one of some
thirty cities and countries that had contributed to its
' ncina would mean rather ' deceitfully ' ; but the form is
anomalous— it would be easier to read nC'1^'3.
320
ARZA
splendour and diRiuty — men of Arvad, he says, rowid
its ships (?•. 8) and manned its walls {v. 1 1 ) — and likcwi:,*.-
mentioned ('Apados, the only Syrian place named) in the
list of nineteen places in i Mace. ISaj (see Maccabkks,
KiKs T. § 9|. Arvad was the most northerly of the great
Phoenician cities, ancestress, with Sidon and Tyre, of
Tripoli, which lies some thirty miles farther south.
HuilC on an islam! (la kahal titlmli, Kli 1 io8, /. 86/), about
half a mile ionn from N. to S., and a liltic over a quarter of a
mile hroail, lyinj; slinlitly less than two miles from the mainland,
it dared to resist Thotmes III. when ap|>areiitly most of the
other Phoenician cities yielded without force (see his .\nnals in
UniKsch, Hist, o/ Kgy/>t ^-^VVV 1 376/.); and Tislath-pileser I.
tells how he embarked in ships of Arvad and sailed on tne Cireat
Sea. It was still inde|x:iident in the ninth century k.c, :iiid
in the time of Sarijon it and Tyre and (lebal were the really
im|)<>rtant Phivnician centres. Cp also A^L'K-ua.m-i'AI., f 4,
end.
In the days of Kzekicl it was sulxDrdinate to TyTe ;
but in the Persian age it regained its ancient iniixjrtance,
and in the time of .Mexaiuler exercised control ovor
quite an extensive tlistrict on the mainland.
In the first half of the second millennium ii.c. there must have
l)cen more equality l>etween the Arvadites of the mainland and
those on the island, if W. Max Miillcr is ri).;ht in lielieving that
the Kgyptiaii name corresponds to a plural form fl'ni'lK. 'J"he
ruins of the gigantic wall that once surrounded the island on
three sides (see Pietschin., as below, and esp. Kenan, I'l. ii.y.)
prove that the Arvadites knew other things besides rowing.
Kus. (Chron. Armen. ed. Aucher, 1! 172/;) records that AKa)<liis
was rounded in 761 11. c, and Strabo(xvi. 2 13/) states, althininh
only with a ois <^a<rii',l that it was founded by fugitives (inni
Sidon. We cannot, of course, assign to the eighth century the
real founding ofAradus or even— what 1 lillinann (on (ien. 10 18)
seems to suggest —the founding of the insular town asdistinguislied
from a settlement on the mainland (cp the later Antaradus, mod.
TarjOs [see Targ. above)). The words of .\5ur-nasir-pal quoted
above (cp A'/'(-t 2172) preclude this. The Kgyptian inscrip-
tions show that in the second millennium it.c. Aradus was one
of the most important PhuL-nician cities (see Pikhnicia).
/.//(•;vi/»/r<-;—Strabo (/.(■.); Pietschmann, OVjf A. li. PhBn. 36-
40; W.M.M, As. u. Eur. iZ6 /., COT 1 87^; Renan, Miss,
lit- riu'n. 19-42; i;. J. Chester, Suti'. West. Pal., .Sftrial
I',ipi-rs, ■j'^--j'i ; see further relT. in Vigouroux : a map of island
in .\dmiralty Charts No. 2765, or \V. Allen, The Dead Sea,
'•. t^'id. ]1. VV. H.
ARZA (Xy-lX ; coca [B]. arca [A], aca [K]). King
Haa.sha's prefect of the palace at 'i'irzah, and doubtless
Ziniri's accomplice in the assassination of the king ( i K.
High, see /iMKi. The form of llie name appears to Ixj
somewhat uncertain
ARZARETH (./A'z.-//jy;r//), 4]:.sd. 1845. RV ; AV
.\k-. \i;i.i 11.
ASA (SDN. § 51 ACA [ I5.\L].2 perhaps short for n;pN
i.e., 'Yahw6 healeth';— cp .Aram, aiul .\r. ',i.ui. 'to
heal,' .\ss. ,iju, 'a physician,' a title applied to the god
ICa f Del. .Iss. H WH\ ; the name may express a pious wish
tiiat Vahwe would heal — i.e., restore prosjxjrily to— his
pfo|)le ; cp Hos. 7i 113)-
I. Son of Abijah and third king of Judah (first half
of 9th cent. n.c:. ; see CHKOSOi.txjY, § 32). Of .\sas
long reign but one event is handed down to us on the
l)est authority (i K. ].'> 16-22), and it si)e.aks in favour of
the royal annals that they have not buried such an action
of the reigning king in oblivion. T'he subject of the
narrative is nothing less than the purchase by Asa of help
from the king of Damascus against Judah's northern
brethren. All the silver and gold that was still to l)e
found in the royal treasury, Asa, we are told, sent to
Ik-nhiidad, king of .Aram, to brilje him to transfer his
covenant of friendship from Israel to Judah. Thus it was
to Jiuiah that the first Aramnean invasion of Israel was
due, and we can believe the statement of the Chronicler
that .Asa s conduct did not pass without prophetic rebuke
(2 Ch. l()7-io; on the details no stress can be laid).
The situation of Asa was, it is true, difficult. \\y
pushing his frontier to Ramah, Baasha threatened to
1 It has been .supposed (e.g. Ges. Thes.) that the name Ar%'ad
means ' Kefujje.'
■- Mr. Hurkttt argues that \.<rw^. .Asaph, ' was once the render-
Wg of the I. XX ' for Asa, as <rip"x '" for kto S'ra (Camhritt^e
Unri'ersity i.e^rter, March 1897, p. 699/). Cp. Asahh, .,.
21 321
ASAHEL
reduce the kingdom of Judah to vassalage, for Ramah
was only 4 m. from Jerusalem. The diversion caiLsed
by the Arama-an inviusion removed this danger. Asa
I summoned ' all Judah ' to the ta.sk of pulling down
the fortifications executed by Baasha at Ramah, and
I with the material fortified (Jeba and Mizpah, the one a
i little to the NK. , the other to the S\V. . of Ramah. It
j is t|uite another writer who tells us that Asa 'did that
I which was right in the eyes of Vahwe, like David his
I father' (i K. l.'»ii|. To the Deuteronomistic compiler
matters affecting the ciiltus were more imjiortant than
was [Kjlitical morality ; a later writer, the Chronicler, has
a much more complete justification (if it were but trust-
worthy) for his religious eulogy of .Asa. The details of
I K. ir> 12-24 are dealt with elsewhere (see Baasha,
j Bi;nhadai), §2(1), etc.).
( Three other points alone, in the compiler's own state-
ments, need to Ix; referred to. The name of Asa's
mother is given {v. 10) as ' Maai-Rh (©'"- ava), and she
is called the daughter of Abishalom,' whilst in i'. a
Maacah is l)ie name of the mother of Abijah. Most
probably • .\bishaloni ' in -■. 10 is a mistake for ' Uriel '
, (see 2 Ch. 132) ; but it is not altogether impossible to
I hold with \\'ellhau.sen that .Abijah and Asa were brothers
(cp Maa<aii, ii. 4I.
The second ijoint is that in his old age, according to
the compiler, Asa had a disease in his feel (i K. I523).
The ( hronicler accepts this (doubtless traditional) state-
ment, but gives it a new colour, partly by changing the
date of the war lietween .A.sa and Baasha (on which see
' CllKOMCl.KS, § 8. and WRS, OZ'/CW 197), partly by
the remark (cp Mkdic.i.nk) that 'he sought not to
Yahwe, but to the phy.sicians ' (2 Ch. 16 12). Whether
the assumption that there was a class of ])hysicians who
treated disca.ses from a non-religious ixjint of view is
justifiable may Ix: c|uestioned.
The third point is a tantalising mention (i K. ir>23)
of 'all Asa's warlike deeds CinT^r^r)-' Is this, as
Klosterniann supix).ses, an allusion to the victory over
that (.'tishile king, who, according to 2 Ch. 14 9- 15,
invaded Judah with a huge force, and came as far as
Marcshah (see Zkkaii, 5)? Or does not the compiler
make the most of the achievements to which .Asa, it is
jjrobable, could legitimately lay claim (cp i K. 15231,
not always w ith much Ix^nefit to his reputation ?
2. I'ather of Hkkkcuiaii, 2 ; i Ch. 9 16 (()cr(ra[B]) ;
omitted in '} Xeh. 11 17. T. K. C.
ASADIAS (acaAioy fB] caAaioy \-^l ■''^dei), an
ancestor of Baruch (Bar. 1 1) ; cp. Hasadiaii.
ASAEL (Tob. li, acihA [BN.A] ; Itala, Asihel .■
Eth. Wzhil ; Heb. versions 7Nb'y, 7'L*'{<), a name
occurring in the genealogy in Tob. ] i. The genealogy
is omitted by the .Aram, version, but given in a very
regular form in the Heb. (ed. Xeubauer), Itala, and N.
The (ireek texts, however, mark oft" Asiel {sic) from the
other names by saying Ik toO awipnaroi ' .\ffir]\, a dis-
tinction preserved in \'g. ' ex tribu et ci\ itate Ne|)hthali,"
though tlie word 'AffujX is omitted. They are, therelore,
probably right also in their orthography, since, according
to (Jen. ■1(524 Nu. •_'<;4S ( \1- ], etc.. Aair]\ is a .\aphtalite
clan (see Jahzki.i,). If this is so the name is '"Ksn".
ASAHEL {biir^b'y. § 3. ; acahA[HNA]: acc [I^.
but I Ch. 1 1 26 as in B] ; atraT/Xoy Jos. ), youngest (? 2 .S.
2 18) son of Zeruiah David's sister, and brother of Joab
and .Abishai. He was renow iie<l for his lightness of foot
{ifi. ). .As in the case of his unfortunate cousin, almost all
we know of him is the story (2 S. 219-25) of his death
at the reluctant hands of Abnkr (t/.v. ). ' There lacked
of David's servants but nineteen men and Asahel ' (t. 30):
such is the statement of David's loss in the l«ttle of
Gibeon. With this special mention agrees the fact that
his name stands first in the list of the ' thirty ' henxs
in 2 S. '2S and i Ch. 11 (but cp Amasai). It is true,
another account is given in the new version of the list of
333
ASAHIAH
heroes in i Ch. 27 {v. 7), where we find Asahel com-
mander of a division of David's army. The incom-
patibility of this statement with his death before David
became king of Israel was obvious. The present te.xt,
accordingly, adds ' and Zebadiah his son after him,' for
which ©"^ has ' .son Kal oi d5e\<l>oL,' to which (S"- adds
diriffw avTOV.
2. An itineratiiiK Levitical teacher temp. Jehoshaphat, 2 Ch.
178 (la,r[(]ir,\ [H.V], Ao-t.jA [L]).
3. An overseer of chambers in the temple temp. Hezekiah
(2 Ch. ;n i3t).
4. 'l-'atlier' or ancestor of Jonathan [13], temp. Ezra;
EzralOi5(acn)A.[l!], <rar,. [N*], N'Aasini)=i Esd. <.i 14+, AzAEL
(aiarjAof).
ASAHIAH (r^lC'V.). 2 K. 22.2 14, RV A.saiah, 2.
ASAIAH (IT'b'y, § 31, ' Yahwe hath made' ; ac<MA
[BAI,]).
1. One of the Simeonite chieftains who dispossessed tlie
Meunim [see RV], i Ch. 434-41 (.\cria [1!]).
2. ' K.in;i's servant ' to 'osiah, 2 K. '22 12, AV Asahiah (lacrai
[A], A^apias [L]), 14 (ao-aias [BA] a^apia? [LJ) = 2 Ch. 34 20
(Icraia [I')], IcDtrias [1>]).
3. A .Merarile family, i Ch. 630 [15] (.\<j-a^a [h]), 156 (.Vaai
[B], a<ra,a^ [A^)), .1 (atrata? [A]).
4. A Shilonite fimily, i Ch.9s (A^<ra [B]), probably same as
(3), but cp Maaskiah, ii. i8(Neh. II5).
ASANA (<\cc<\NA [B]), I l':sd. .'131 = Ezra 250, Asnah.
ASAPH (^DX an abbreviated name, § 50, ACAct)
[BALJ).
1. The father of Joali, the recorder, 2 K. 18 18
(liiiaacpar [BA], Lwax vlos aa<pav [L]), 37 ((ra<pav [B]) =
Is. :3()3 22; but (3 suggests the reading ' Shaphan ' or
■ .Shaphat. ' 1
2. The keeper of th(; royal ' paradise ' or forest
(probably in Palestme), Xeh. 28 (affacpaT [L], aSoatos
[Jos.]).
3. The eponym of the Asaphite guild of singers,
E/.ra24i 3 10 Xeh. 744 Hi? (only N^^-'' L in 0) 22 [aaa^
[BX]) I Ch. 2i>i/., and elsewhere, who is represented by
the (.Chronicler as a seer (2 Ch. 2930) and as a contem-
porary of David and Solomon, and chief of the singers
of his time, Xeh. I246 i Ch. I51719 (Aa-a/3 [N]) ItJs
(A(ro-a(^[N]) 2Ch. 0 12, etc.- On the later equation of
.A.saph with the .\r. Lokmiln and Gk. /Esop, cp S^orjr
of A/tikar, Ix.wii. /. Complicated as the history of
these guilds is, we are able to see from Ezra 241 that
at one time the terms ' b'ne Asaph ' and ' singers '
were identical, and that the singers were kept distinct
from the Levites. The guilds of the b'ne Asaph and
b'ne Korah were the two hereditary choirs that
superintended the musical services of the temple. They
do not seem to have been very prominent before the
Exile. More important, however, was the triple division.
This comprised the three great names of Asaph, Heman,
and Ethan (or Jeduthun), which were reckoned to the
three Levitical houses of Cjershom, Kohath, and Merari
(i Ch. 6 ; see P.s.\lm.s). A still older attempt to incor-
porate the name among the Levites may, according
to WRS, O/yC'-' 204, n. I, be seen perhaps in the
occurrence of the name Abi ASAPH {q.v.), the eponym
of the Asaphite guild, as a Korahite. Of the threefold
division of singers a clear example may be seen in Xeh.
1224 where Hashabiah, Sherebiah, and Jeshua, the chiefs
of the Levites, are appointed to praise. Similarly, in
Neh. 11 17 three singers are mentioned — Mattiiniah,
Abda, and Bakbukiah. Mattaniah and Abda are
descendants of Asaph and Jeduthun. ' Bakbukiah '
we should correct to ' Bukkiah,' a son of Heman.
Thus, e.ach of the three great guilds finds its repre-
sentative. See Ethan, 2, Hkman, Jp:duthun.
The name Asaph occurs in the titles of certain Psalms
(see Psai.ms).
4. The best supported reading in Mt. I7 {aaatj}
[Ti. WH], cpRV"'*-'-; on this reading see Asa, footnote)
1 In 2 Ch. 34 15 ©A ),3s a<Taj> for sc*.
2 In 1 Ch. '-'lii (P'i reads .\j3iafa</)ap, which corresponds very
nearly to i Ch. 9 19 (0 Xfiia<ra4). In 2 Ch. 2i> 13 ©H reads Ao-a.
ASCENT OF THE CORNER
where TR and EV have Asa. See (jEnkai.ogies of
Jksus, J? 2 (^.
ASARA (ac&p&[BA]), I Esd. 531 RV ; AV Azara.
ASABAMEL, a name occurring in the inscription set
up in honour of Simon the Maccabee (i Mace. 14 28).
The writing begins as follows : — ' On the i8th day of Elul
in the 172nd year, this is the third year of Simon, the
high priest ev aapafxeX (so (5^. whence AV SARAMKt.,
€v aa-apaiJ-eX [NV], asaramel [Vg.]) in a great congrega-
tion ' — etc. It has long been recognised that this ex-
pression is a transliteration of some Hebrew word which
stood in the original, as is the case with the difficult
sarbeth sabanai el in the title of this book (see MACCA-
BEES, EiKST, §1). By some it is taken to represent
a place— ^.^.^., it might be a corruption of Jerusalem
(Castellio) — or to represent the Heb. hv; Dj; "isn, ' the
court of the people of (lOd ' — i.e. , the great court of the
temple (Keil ; cp Ew. GeschS"^^ 4438) — or n>d liin, the
court of Millo (Grotius), or "jn dj? nyc*. ' the gate of the
people of God.' It is better, however, to see in this
expression an honorific title. From 1 Mace. 1842
we see that contracts were dated from the first year of
Simon ' the great high priest, and captain and leader
of the Jews' (cp the titles given him in I447 and 15i),
and it seems natural that in an inscription written in
honour of Simon we should find more than the simple
title 'high priest.' (Cp the Pesh. ^^ira,..).^ )s9.
' leader [or " great one "] in Israel '). Hence Asaramel
is taken by many (Wernsdorf, Scholz, Grinnn, Ztickler,
etc. ) to represent Sv cy "ib, ' prince of the people of
God.' The great difficulty would then lie in the
presence of the preposition kv. This, however, may
have been inserted by a copyist who supposed that the
word was the name of a place not of a person. 1
Possibly iv is an integral part of the word, and we
should read Sn-cj,' ■!>■.:. 'the sprout (cp Is. lli) of the
people of God,' or, better, 'r.s-cj; i^j, ' protector of the
people of God ' (cp v. 47/,).
ASAREEL, or, better, RV Asarel ("^Nlb'X, § 67 ; cp
P^nt^'N, and sec Ahab, § 4, n. 5 ; iccrahA [B],
ec. [A] (\cepH. [E which adds koi iwa.Xi'-P-\)< ' son ' of
(the unknown) Jehaleleel (i Ch. 4 16) and 'brother' of
ZiPH ('/.i'., 2), Ziphah and Tiria.
ASARELAH (n^XIV'i^ [Ba. Ginsb.]. ^73; cp
'PNTJ'N; epAH\ [B], lecmA [A], AcelpH^<^ [L]), a
'son of Asaph' i Ch. 252; called Jesarclah, I-^V
Jesh.\relah (nSjsnt;'; ; ia-epL7)\ [B], i<Tpe-r]\a[A]) in v. 14.
ASBACAPHATH (<\cBAKA(l)<\e [B] ; in Pesh. the
name is KSjs)^*./), i Esd. 569 RV"e-, AV (1611)
Asbazareth, RV Asbasareth (AcBACApee [A]), the
name answering in i l'>sd. 069 ©"-^ to the lisarhaddon
of ]| Ezra 4 2 (which is reproduced by ©'•, axopBav).
The right reading is aa^a<pad, which represents ns2DX-
This is evidently an alternative to the reading isjdn of
Ezra 4 10, and it suggests that the writer of the gloss in
Ezra49/ (see ' Ezra' in SHOT) found, not [nmox, but
ns:D.x, in his text of Ezra 4 2. So Marq. [Fund. 59);
but, in connection with the difficult theory that the name
originally given in Ezra 4 2 was pnaN = |ijnD. Sargon ;
see A.SNAPPER.
ASCALON (^^ckaAcon). i Mace. 1086, etc., RV
A.SHKKI,ON [q.v.).
ASCENT OF THE CORNER (HSBn n!>y ; ana
1 The prefixed iv is explained by Schiirer {Gl'l 1 197, n. 17)
as a corruption of o-eyer ([JD), which corresponds to the Gr.
(TTpoTTjyos. Renan's suggestion {Iftst. <t Isr. ix. cap. 1 ad Jin.)
that ev acrapa^ieA is a corruption of some it'isli, may be mentioned :
in his view the expression is similar to those which Arabian
authors often add to the names of persons.
324
ASEAS
M6CON THC KAMnHC [B] I AN&B&CeaiC THC K.
[NA]: THC A. T. rwNiAC [L]) Neh. 831 RV. See
Jekusai.im.
[BA]),
Ksd. 932 = Ezra IO31,
ASEAS (ac&iac
ISSIllAII, 5.
ASEBEBIA, RV Asebebias (AceBHBiAC [BA]).
I l.sd. 847- I>.ra8i8, SUKKKUIAH, q.v.
ASEBIA (AceBiAN [A]), i Esd. 847 AV, RV
Asebiaa i:zra 8 19. Hashabiah, 7.
ASENATH (n:pN; AceNNcG [ADE], -cnc. [K]).
ACCeNeO [I-l. daughter of Potiphcrah, priest of On ;
wife of Joseph (lien. 41 4550 4(i iuf). A genuine
Egyptian name. See JoSKPii 1, § 4 I a""^ «" the apo-
cryplial ' Life of Aseneth,' Ai'ocryi-ha, § 12.
ASER, RV AsHEK (achp [BA]), Tob. 1 2. See
Hazok, I.
ASERER. RV Skkau (cepAp [BA]), i Esd. 5 32= '
Ezra 253, SisKRA, 2. \
ASH (pX, niTYc). fjetter RV Fir-Tree, seems to I
tx- naini'd (Is. 44 14) as a tree used by makers of idols. I
If Oirn is genuine (see below) we may reasonably hold I
it to l)e the .Assyrian irin — cedar or fir. I
' Fir ' is supported by the versions (tti'tv?, pinus) and by the j
Rabbis (retT. in ties. Tlies.); Tristram's suggestion, J'inns \
hal,f>ens:s. Mill, the Aleppo Pine {NHB, 33s), is attractive.
That Hcb. Orel
improbable ; px
cannot be
Fraxinus ortiiis, L., the Manna Ash, a native of -S. Kurope,
not found farther E. than W. .\sia iMiuor. Celsius (11 ierobot.
1 i%^ff.) held jix to be the ardii of AbulfadI, and the 'thorny
tree" th.nt he meant it is not difficult to make out. Rhus pxy-
cai:'' r '' ' ' b:it like Sorjtus A-uciiparid)
is I . '<>re (1e [ Egypie, 205), and
that ■ ;liough not yet proved, is by
no p uiria, which also might be
thou.L;lit i)f, r.xiuliK-. .Siv/v^.v .[u^ :<piiria more closely.
The reading, however, is uncertain, px occurs only
in this passage, and a Mass. note calls attention to the
' small r,' which seems to point to a reading nx ' cedar.'
Perhaps a better emendation would be Sk (' God ').
So Rio. and Che. (SHOT, Heb. 138), following ©. The
« ord TTiTu? is wanting in nearly all the best ISISS (RNAQP) of
(?, and in others appears as a Hcxaplaric addition with an
asterisk. The text of the whole verse as it appe.ars in (P" and
other M.S.S is simply — Ikoi^ci/ ^v\ov eK tov Spviiov 6 iil>vTev<reii o
Kvpio<; Kal iierb? ifiriKvvei' (the Peshitta is even shorter, ' the wood
that w.xs cut down from the thicket, that by rain was nurtured ').
I'ctween eKO^ev and ^v\ov Origen inserted in the Ifexaplaric
te.\t this addition, from .Aq. and Theod., eauTcp kc'6/jovs, koX
eAajSt't/ aypiofiaXa.vov Kai Spvi^ Koi iKaprepuitTev avT(^ aiKl similarly
added niTW after 6 (cv'pios ; see Field's llexnpla in loc).
N. M. — \V. T. T.-U.
ASHAN (;^y; acan [BAE], AceNNA[A]. acanna
[I/), an unidentified site in the lowland of Judah,
apparently in its most .southern part (Josh. I542, ancox
[B], AceNNA [A], -CANN. [E]), assigned in Josh. ] 9?
(AC^^^ [-^1) to Simeon, and named among the priests'
cities in i Ch. 659 [44] = Josh. 21 16 (where for MT ry, EV
A I.N, AIN [A], NAeiN [L], we should probably read
jr;*. -\shan ; cp0" aca ; so Bennett in .S/jO 7'). A.shan
m;iy perhaps I)e the same as the Bok-A.sh.^n \(J.v.\ or
CuoH-.\snAN (RV C'OK-ASHAN) of I S. 3O30, the site of
some well or reservoir.
ASHARELAH (n'rNlbVX, Rii. Ginsb.), r Ch. 252
kV, A\- .\S.\KKI.AH.
ASHBEA (yi'J'N, § 42. for Sy3L"N? ; ecoBA [BA],
AceBA [E]). The 'house of Ashliea ' included 'the
(Judahile) families of the house of those that wrought
fine linen ' ( i Ch. 42i) ; or Beth Ashljea may be the name
of their dwelling-place. Nothing further is known of
this weaving guild.
ASHBEL h%^% § 43 : ACBhA [ADL] ; acaBhAoc
[Jos.]; Sam. ^X3B>N), gentilic Ashbelite, Nu. 2638
325
ASHDOD, AZOTUS
(^Sa^N, ACYBHp[e]i [BAF], -coyBhpi [E]). in a gene-
alogy of Benjamin (4'.t/.,§9ii.[y3J), Gen. 4621 = Nu. 2»538
(acyBhp [BAF], -coyB [E])=iCh. 81 (caBa [B]) ;
ap|)arently represented by Jkdiakl in 1 Ch. 76-ii (v. 6).
Probably the name is a corruption of Isiikaai. (ii.v.).
ASHCHENAZ (TJS'^'K), Jer. 51 27 AV ; RV Asii-
KE.NAZ, q.v.
ASHDOD, AZOTUS (nni^N, 'strength, strongly-
founded' or iHjrhaps 'man |inen]of I)<xl, Uudu ' ; cp
AbiuiLK. Bi.Ni;-HEK.\K ? ; AZa)TOC [B.XNQI'EI, hence
its name in .\pocr. , NT, etc.), gentilic Asbdodite, .\N'
Ashdotbite nntri*. Josh. 133 (AZCoT(e)ioc [B\E| ;
pi. fem. ni-inc'N; Neh. 1823 in Kr. ni'T^e'K ; azcotiac
[B.\E], -|AaC [N]). ^ famous Philistine city .some 2-3
m. from the Mediterranean coast, about half-way
Ixitween Gaza and Joppa. It was one of the five
confederated towns of the Philistines, and stood far
above the others in importance — a pre-eminence due
doulitless to its commanding position on the great
military road Itetween .Syria and Egypt, at the spot
where a branch of it leads off to Ekron and Ramleh.
It survives in the modern Esdud, a miserable little
village on a woody and beautiful height, to the W. of
which, at an hour's distance, are still found the
traces of a harbour now called Minet el-Kal'a. •
JE assigns .\shdod to Judah (Josh. I546/. , affr)5u0,
affeiedwff [B], acrSuj/x [A, in v. 47 om.], eadujS [E]) ; but
this statement clearly needs modification in view of
Josh. 133 (1).. ; cp 11 22. afffXSo} [BJ, aduB [.\], aarjSoid
[F], acy(55ix>d [E]), which is supported by the fact that
Israel seems never to have sulxlued the Philistine strong-
hold (2 Ch. 2()6 is doubtful). In Samuel's time the ark
was removeil thither from Eben-ezer, and placed in the
tem])le of Dagon ( i S. 5/. ), whose cult was more particu-
Inrly associated with .\shdod (cp i Mace. IO83 1 1 4).-
Aslulod is denounced by Amos with other Philistine
towns for the infamous slave-raids upon Judah, and the
same prophet alludes to it again in terms which show
that in the middle of the eighth century it was a place
of no little repute (39 [|i Egypt], ©"^ ^eads '.Assyria,'
against which cp We., Now. ; Aq., Sym. , Theod. read
-Ashdod). Although unmentioned in the annals of
Tiglath-pileser'scampaign against Philistia and Pha-nicia
(cp Wi. Gl'I 1223) it probably suffered at his hands.
On the other hand, we are fortunately well-informed
of its fate some years later in the siege alluded to
in Is. 2O1 (711 H.c.).^ As a commemorative record
relates (cp A'./r<-> 398/, KB 265/.), Azuri |cp Heb.
T,^y, Azzur), king of Asdudu, had been sujierseded ■*
by his brother Ahi-miti (cp Ahimoth, Mahath), who
in turn was overthrown by the anti- Assyrian party (the
Ha-at-ti) ^ in favour of Yaniani (or Vavani = the
Ionian?). Ashdod was besieged, not by Sargon, but,
as the MT more correctly states, by his general
or Tartan [q.v.]. This siege, as Is. 206 suggests,
involved the surrounding peoples, and ultimately
resulted in the flight of Yavani to the land of Musri.
which belongs to Miluhha, the district lying in N.
Arabia, bordering on Edom (see Mizraim, § ^b).
The same tablet records the destruction of (/;■) liimtu
Asdudiinmu, which, according tt) Schrader, is ' Gath of
1 In early Christian times 'A^coto? irapoAtot and '.Xftoxot
(xecrd-yeios are keut distinct. Josephus sometimes .speaks of .Ash-
dod (and similarly of Jabneh, Jamnia) as an inland town (./«/.
xiv. 4 4, lij i. 7 7), at other times as a coast town (Attt. xiii. l."! 4).
There may have been a harbour here in the time of Sargon ; cp
above.
■■2 Hence it has been conjectured that Dagan-takala in the
Amarna tablets (A"Z> .")2i5 /.) belonged to Ashdod.
3 For the date, etc., cp Ch. I»tr. \io/. ; Wi. Alt. I'nt.
'42-^
•• He had sought to ally himself with the surrounding kings
against As.syria. Another inscription relates that the men of
Philistia, Judah, Edom, and Moab had sent presents to Pir'il,
king of Musri, for a like purpose (cp A' A' -^n/. and note).
' These Ha-at-ti of Ashdoil seem to have been closelv related
to Musri (cp also Wi., " Musri, etc." in Ml'G, 1898, 1 26/.).
3=6
ASHDOTH-PISGAH
the Ashdodites' (cp ' Gath of the Philistines,' Am. 62,
and for a wider use of Ashdod see below). Others
(Del. Par. '2i<)/., \Vi. Che.) read as two names, and
explain the latter as c'n inc-N — i.e., the port of Ashdod
(cp note I, below).
Ashdod soon regained its power, and in the following
century the 'great city of Syria' (Herod2i57) was be-
sieged by Psammetichus for twenty -nine years, an
allusion to which is seen in Jer. 252o (less probably also
Zeph. 24: seeZKi'H.\Ni.\ii, ii. ). further evidence of its
independence may l)e seen in the mention of Ahi-milki,
king of Ashdod, temp. Esarhaddon {A'AT^'^ 355 12).
The Ashdodites were allied with the Arabians and the
.\mmonites against the Jews of Jerusalem (Xeh. 4? [i]),
and Xehemiah, denouncing the foreign marriages,
mentions the women of Ashdod (also of Ammon and
Moab), whose offspring speak a degraded dialect called
rnnc'K (Xeh. 1823/ , afwri(rr[e]i [BNAL]) : cp the allu-
sion in Zech. 96. The use of Ashdod in these passages
is peculiar, and, if genuine, suggests that the name
Ashdod comprised also the surrounding district (cp
Schrader's explanation oi asdudimtnu above). ^
Ashdod and its neighbourhood was ravaged by Judas
(i Mace. 068, cp 415), and in 147 li.c. his brother
Jonathan defeated Apollonius there and burnt the temple
of Dagon (i .Mace. IO77 ^, cp 11 4). John Hyrcanus
burnt the towers in the surrounding fields after defeating
Cendelxtus (i Mace. 16 10). In the time of Alexander
Jannreus it Ixilonged to Juda;a (Jos. Ant. xiii. I54) ; but
it was separated from it under Ptolemy (Jos. BJ i.l ^].
In the XT it is mentioned only once, in connection with
Philip's return from (Jaza to C;fsarea (Acts 8 40). See
Schiir. Gil 267/, \\i. (;/7 I223/. ; and cp Pun.is-
TINKS. ,s. A. c.
ASHDOTH-PISGAH (HipSSn nhC'N) is uniformly
traiislatfil, in RV, 'the slopes (manf. or springs) of
Pisgah' [\n. 817 449 [liL-re also AV] Josh. I23 [no
marg. note] I820; for <2>'s readings see Pisgah). In
like maimer, the Heb. nh^^x, rendered ' springs ' in Josh.
10 40 128, is in RV ' slopes.' The declivities or shoulders
of a mountain plateau, where it sinks sharply into the
plain, are meant. The word is perhaps derived from
na-N, in the sense of 'pouring out';- the explanation
usually given is that the Ashedoth are the line on the
mountain-side where springs break forth. See PiSG.\H.
ASHER {-V^- ACHp [BAL], ^CH [A*Xu.772],
iachB [B, Josh. 17 10]; Jos. ACHpoc ; gentilic ^"!"'N
1 Name and -^-slierite), the eponymous head of the
origin.
tnl)c of the same name. Unimportant
for the history of Israel — it is traced
by the Yahwist to Zilpah, Leah's maid (Gen. 3O12/. ),
— this tribe, perhaps more than the other Zilpah and
Bilhah tribes (see Israki,, § 5), raises questions diffi-
cult to answer. Is the popular etymology (Gen. 30 13,
probably also alluded to in the 'Blessings') correct,
or does the name not rather point to some deitv^
in which case it is natural to connect it with the root
■irN (•\V-), 'to be propitious,' whence the name of the
Assyrian God Asur?* In what relation does Asher
stand to a once somewhat important state called Aseru,
' So in I Mace. 14 34 Gazara (in reality 17 m. to NE.) is
' upon the borders of Azotiis ' ; cp also (doubtfully) 2 Ch. 'lu (,.
■-' Delitzsch compares the Ass. iit/u, pi. iSdati, the 'base' of
anvthing (Prol. 46 ; cp Dr. on Dfut. 3 17).
=' Tiele long ago wrote, ' Asher, like Gad, is a god of good
fortinie, the consort of Asherah ' iVergelijIc. Gescli. Tan de
^'■Sy/'t. en Xtesofiotain. Godsdiensien, 1872, p. 542), and both
parts of this statement may still be defended. So Che. Proph.
/s.O) 1 ,03 (on Is. 178). Cp Del. .^.m. //Jl^B 148. G. A.
Barton (//>/, 15 174 ['96]) suggests a connection with the divine
name implied in the name Abd-a.sirta referred to towards the
end of g I (see Ashkrah, § 3). Jensen (Hittiter u. Armenier)
offers proof that the name of the consort o*" the goddess Asratii
was Hadad or Rammun the storm-god. Had he also the title
A.sir? Lastlv (;. H. Skipwith UQK H 241 ['99]) even sug-ests
ASHER
As[s)nru, which occupieil W. Galilee in the time of Seti
I. and Ram.ses II. (W.\IM, ^/j. u. Eur. 236-9)? Did that
ancient people to some extent throw in their lot with
the invaders from the wilderness (cp Hakm£I>her), or is
Asher in the O T simply a geographical name for some
Israelites who settled in a district already long known
as Asher? Honmiel {A HI' 228, 237) thinks that
the Asherites were one of several Israelitish trilx;s
which, l^efore the time of Moses, had encami^ed in
the district between Egypt and Judah (cp Shihok-
LIB.NATH) and that they are the Habiri referred to in
the Amarna letters as having burst into Palestine from
the south. Jastrow, on the other hand, inclines to
identify the Habiri with the Asherite clan Heber (see
below, § 4) and to connect the Asherite clan Malchiel
with the followers of Milkili, the writer of several of the
Amarna letters, while G. A. Barton suggests that the
sons of Abd-asirta (b'lie l-",bed Asera), of whom we hear
so much in the letters of Rib-Addi of Gebal, may have
become an important constituent part of the O T tribe
of Asher, so that it inherited their name in abbreviated
form. That the OT Asherites were at all events not
2 Earlier ^^^^ closely bound to Israel is proved by
references """^ earliest historical notice of the tril)e,
■ according to which it took no interest in
the rising against Sisera : ' Asher sat still at the shore
of the sea, and abode by his creeks' (Judg. 517).'
Moreover, that they were somewhat mixed up with older
inhabitants appears clearly enough in Judg. 1 32. 'Whilst,
therefore, the fertility ascribed in the ' Blessings of
Jacob and Moses ' to the district where Asher dwelt,
although it at once suggests the popular etymology (see
above), is known to have been really characteristic
of the part of (jalilee in cjuestion (see reff. in Dr. on
Dt. 8824, and cp BiuzAii h), we can hardly say how far
the distinctness from the Phoenicians of the coast,
apparently implied in 7'. 25 of the later Blessing, was an
actual fact. On the other hand, the writer of the
account of Ishhaal {q.v., 1) seems to have thought
Asher worth mentioning as included in the I5enjamite
claim (see AsHiKiTKS, Geshur, i). It is not surpris-
ing in view of the prevailing vagueness, that the ' Bless-
ing of Jacob ' speaks of Zebllu.n in almost the same
words that the Song of Deborah had applied to Asher,
and that the ' Blessing of Moses ' then associates I.s-
SAc:nAR with Zebulun. Definite boundary there can
hardly have been, whilst the distribution of the popula-
tion must have changed somewhat from age to age. We
need not wonder that the account of Ashcr's territory
3. Boundaries. "^'^'"^ the priestly compiler has given
us in Josh. 1924-31 (in which some
scholars have found traces of JE) is unusually vague.
Not many of the places can be identified with certainty.
Ai.AMMKLKCH (Wady el - Melek), Jifhthah-ei. (Jefat),
Cabui, (Kabul), Kanah (JjLana) have probably been identified,
and possibly also P^bron (i.e., AiiOON, i.) and Ham.mon, i
(Umm el 'Amfld). Ummah should probably be read Accho.
Shihor-Limsath {(/.7>.) may perhaps be the Nahr ez-Zarka.
MisHAi, and Hosah {qq.i'.) are probably to be recognised in
Egyptian and Assyrian inscriptions.
That Accho or .\chzib or Sidon was ever included in
an Israelitish tribe Asher, is a purely ideal conception,
and the same is clearly true (Judg. I31/. ) of other cities
in the list. For indications of an Aramaean element in
the population (2 S. 106) see Ar.-KM, § 5.
The tribe to the S. of Asher was Manasseh. In
Josh. 1 7 1 1 we have a Yahwistic passage which is
commonly interpreted as declaring that Dor lay within
the limits of territory ideally assigned to Asher, although
it really belonged to Manasseh. This interpretation
gives support to the hypothesis that Shihor- Libnath
(Josh. 1926) is to be taken as the southern boundary of
Asher, and to be identified with the river Zarka, which
enters the sea almost midway between Dor and CiKsarea.
If Asher really moved northwards from an earlier home
1 On the statement in Judg. 6 35 723, that Asher took part in
the conflict with Midian, see .Moore, ad loc.
Dor is represented as belonging to Asher, since, as a matter of
fact, it and the cities mentioned with it
ASHER
in S. Palestine (see above, § i). traces or at least
memorials of it may have long survived (see Siiihok-
LlHNA Til). This would make it not quite so difficult to
understand the account of P, even if it is a fact that he
really brings Asher farther S. than Carmel (Josh. 1926).
The linguistic peculiarities of the verse Josh. 17 ii support the
sugcestion of Dillmann (ad loc.) that all that follows the word
' .\shcr ' except ' the three heights ' belongs really to r. 12, taking
the pl.ice there of the words ' those cities "(cp Judg. 1 27) ; ' but we
do not know what ' the three heights ' are (though they certainly
might include ' the heights of Uor ' ; cp Josh. 11 2 l'.'2j). Ihere
Is, however, little historical importance in the question whether
- • ■ • • ■ . Ash. .
remained in the posses-
sion of the Canaanites or Phoenicians.
On the other three sides the territory of Asher is even
less defined. According to Josh. 19 27, it was conter-
minous with Zebulun on the M, while according to
V. 34 it stood in the same relation to Naphtali. It is
diflicult to bring it into relation with Issachar. In
general, Asher nmst l)e regarded as the norlh-western-
most district connected with Israel, and as stretching
indefinitely W. and N. and losing itself gradually
amongst the Phoenicians of the coast.
(i. ) P's genealogy of .Asher (given twice : Nu. 2644,
probably the more original, =(jen. 4617), which is re-
, _ , . produced in almost identical form by
4. Genealogies, ^j^^ Chronicler (iCh.730/.). is very
simple, consisting probably of (primarily) the three
clans, the Imiiites (perhaps really Jamin ; so (P^^l j^
Nu. and perhaps ©" in i Ch. ), Ishvites (doubtful), and
IJeri'ites.
With the last mentioned are associated as secondary clans the
Hel>erites (known as a Kenite name)2 and the Malchielites
(known as a personal name in the Amarna letters from S.
Palestine) as ' sons,' and Serah (perhaps an Aram, name ; root
not found in Hebrew) as sister. There is no earlier mention,
however, of any of these names in connection wiili .Asher,
though the first and third are well known in the central high-
lands of Palestine.
(ii.) To this simple genealogy the Chronicler appends (i Ch.
731 i-^9) a remarkable list of one Malchielite and over thirty
Heberites — remarkable because the names are not of the dis-
tinctive type that abounds in the Chronicler. The list, if we
remove certain textual corruptions,'' looks as if it were meant
to be schematic (t'.t'., 3 sons and 3 x 3 j^randsons, followed by
.some seventeen in the fourth, fifth, and sixth generations); but
we cannot reach a text that inspires confidence. It nuist be
remembered, however, that many of the names may well be
foreign. Harnepher has been referred to above. The alTinities
of some of the names are worthy of note ; note, <r.J^^, the rem.irk-
able groups Heber, Ithran, Jether ; so also Beria, Shelesh =
Shilsha »iv. 37 (Shalisha? cp ®B), Shual.
Lk. 236 speaks of a certain Anna as being of the
trilKj of Asher (but see Gkneakogiks, i. § 8).
2. Tob. I2 RV, AV AsKK. See Hazor, i.
II. w. 11.
ASHER ("I'J'X ; achr [RAL]), a town on the
southern border of Manasseh, mentioned in Josh.
17? (RV') in the following terms : — ' And the border of
Manasseh was from Asher to Michmethath which is
before ['•''•. I-- of] Shecliem.' After this we are told
that ' the border went along to the right hand {i.e., to
the .S.J, unto the inhabitants [/.<•., the district] of En-
tappuah. ' These statements nuist Ix; taken in connec-
tion with the description of the N. bortler of Ephraim
in 166, where the names which corresiK>nd to Asher
and Michmethath are Michmethath and Taannth-
Shiloh, and Taanath-Shiloh is stated to lie E. of Mich-
methath. On the assumption that En-tappuah is .SW.
of .Shechem (see T.\PPUAH, 2), .\sher nmst lie some-
where to the E. of Shechem, between Michmethath and
Taanath-shiloh. Thus far we have proceeded on the
1 'Dor' in Judg. I31 ®B*i- is no objection, for it does not fit
the context, and is probably simply an insertion bused on the
passage in Joshua.
2 Note that for Jehubbah (i Ch. 734) ®b reads ic. utpafi—r'.e.,
Hobab?
8 Ahi in 71. 34 should certainly be 'his brother.' Probably
Hotham (r'. 37) is a miswritten Helem(cp7'. 35), in which c.ise
' sister ' (I'l/tOtftttm) in t. 32 may be a duplicate of Hotham.
Ulla (v. 39), as it ought to resume some name already mentioned,
may be a corruption of Shual, which we should perhaps restore
for Shua in v. 32.
329
ASHERAH
theory that RVs reading is correct ; it is in fact that of
most scholars, including Dillmann and Kautzsch. The
rendering seems, however, to need revision. Consider-
ing that MlcuMKTHATii [q.v.) stands in 17 7 hi close
proximity to Asher (without any connecting anJ), and
that it would be natural to distinguish this .\sher from
the better known one (with which indc-ed Kerr in
PEFQu Si., 1877, p. 45, actually confounds it) by add-
ing the name of the district in which it w;is (cp ' Kedesh-
Naphtali'), it seems probable that Michmethath is the
name of a district, and that we should render (against
the accents and Targ. , but in accordance with ©*'•),
'And the Ixsrder of Manasseh was from Asher of (thei
Michmethath,' the starting-point alone lx;ing mentioned
in the opening clause, as in 152 (so Reland, J. Schwarz,
Conder). The description in 17? will then exactly
correspond to that in 106 in so far as Michmethath is
the first point mentioned on the border between
Ephraim and Manasseh. ' .Asher of the Michmethath '
might l)e .some place in the N. of the district called ' the
Michmethath. ' If this district is the plain of el-Makhna,
two ruined places at once suggest themselves, now called
the upjjer and the lower Makhna respectively ((ju<;rin,
Sam. 1 459/1 ). Mere, however, no villages preserve
any traces of the ancient name. Eus. and Jer. \OS
2"2li29 9828) suggest another identification. They refer
to a village called Asher, 15 R. m. from Neaiwlis on
the road to Scylhopolis, a description which points to
J't-vasir, I R. m. N'l''. of Thelx;z, where the 15th R.
milestone has actually lieen discovered (S^journi?, K'ci'.
liibl., 1895, p. biy /.). Tiyasir is now a mud hamlet ;
but it succeeds a place of some importance. Rock-cut
sepulchres abound ((jucrin, Sam. 1 108). It is not
probable, however, that Eus. and Jer. had a clear or
cor?ect view of the Ixjundary line, and the transition
fr'ini Asher to Teva.^ir\s not an easy one. (The latter
name seems to be the i)lur. of taisir, inf. 2 coiij. of
yasara. So Kampffmeyer, /.DP] \^-z.) T. K. c.
ASHERAH, plur. Asherim, the RV transliteration of
the Heb. nTJ'X (pi. D*"^L*'N ; in three late passages
rilX'S), a word which AV, following 6
(aAcoc [B.AFL]) and Vg. [lucus), renders
grove, groves. That this translation is mistaken
has long l>een universally recognised. R\'
avoids the error by not translating the word at all ; but,
by consistently treating the word as a proper noun, it
gives occasion to more serious misunderstanding.
The lisherd was a wooden post or mast, which stood
at Canaanite places of worship (Ex. 34 13 Judg. «25 and
frequently), and, down to the seventh century, also, by
the altars of Yahwe, not only on the high places, or at
Samaria (2 K. 136) and Bethel (2 K. 2315). but also in the
temple in Jerusalem (2 K. 236). The ashera is frequently
named in conjunction with the upright stone or stele
{ma.^seM, hammdn ; see Massebah and IliOl.ATKV, § 4).
The pole or post might Ix; of considerable size (cp Judg.
625/) ; it was perhaps sometimes carved (i K. 15 13),*
or draped (2 K. 287), but the draping especially is
doubtful. The shape of an ashera is unknown. Many
Cypriote and Phamician gems and seals representing an
act of adoration show two (more rarely three) posts,
generally of alwut the height of a man, of extreniely
variable forms,'- which are supposed by many archreo-
logists to be the asheras (and masse/'as) of the OT
(see Phoenicia). This is not improbable, though
direct evidence is thus far lacking ; but in view of the
1 ' A shocking thing (Jewish tr.adition, phalhis) as an ashera ' ;
on 2 K. L'l 7 see below.
■- .See Lajard, Culte ife Mithra, 18477:; Ohnefalsch-Richter,
Ky/>ros, 1893, where a great many of these pieces are collected.
Similar figures are found on Assyrian reliefs, and on Carthaginian
ci/>/<i. We may compare the Kcyptian tifJu column (at Busiris),
the Indian sacrifici.il post (Oldenberg, Ktligion dei Veda, 91),
the so-called 'totem-posts' of the N. American Indians, etc
See in general Lippert, Kulturgcschichte, 2 iltff., and Jevons,
Inir. Hist. Rel. 134/
330
post.
ASHERAH
great variety of types, and the age and origin of the
figures in question, it can hardly be confidently inferred
that the asheras of the Old Canaanites and Israelites
were of similar forms. The representations do not give
any support to the theory that the ashera was a phallic
emblem.
It is the common opinion that the ashera was origin-
ally a living tree (Si/ri on Dt. 12 3, Aboda zara, fol. 45
2. Not a tree. ";!'■• ? ^'- °" ^^- ^^">' ^°'" "^^'"^
the pole or mast was a conventional
substitute. 1 This is antecedently not very probable.
■]"he sacred tree had in Hebrew a specific name of its
own (el, eld, elon, or, with a different and perhaps
artificial pronunciation, alia, allon), which would natur-
ally have attached to the artificial representative also ;
nor is it easy to explain, upon this hypothesis, how the
ashera came to be set up Ijeneath the living tree (2 K.
17 10). The only passage in the OT which can be cited
in support of the theory is Dt. I621 : ' Thou shalt not
plant thee an asherah of any kind of tree (RV) beside
the altar of Yahwe thy God,' or, more grammatically,
'an ashera — any kind of tree ' (ry Sa mrx). As, how-
ever, in the seventh century the ashera was certainly not
ordinarily a tree, this epe.vegesis would be very strange.
In the context, whether the words in question be
original or a gloss, we expect, not a restriction of the
prohibition such as this rendering in effect gives us, but
a sweeping extension of it. We must, therefore, trans-
late, ' an ashera — any wooden object. ' '-'
It does not appear from the OT that the asheras
belonged exclusively to the worship of any one deity.
The ashera at Ophrah (Judg. 625) was sacred to Baal ; the
prohibitions of the law (Dt. l(52i/) are sufficient proof
that they were erected to Yahwe ; ^ nor is there any
reason to think that those at Bethel, Samaria, and Jeru-
salem were dedicated to any other god. The assertion,
still often made, that in the religion of Canaan the
massefias were sacred to male, the asheras to female
deities, is supported by no proof whatever.
From certain passages in the OT (especially Judg. 87
I K. 18 19 2 K. 234),'* it has been thought that there was
3 A eoddess ' ^'"^° ^ Canaanite goddess Ashera, whose
^ • s}-mbol or idol was the ashera post.
.Since in the places cited the names of Baal and Ashera
are couijlcd precisely as those of Baal and Astarte are
elsewhere (Judg. 2 13 106 i S. 74 [&"''- ra dXcnj
A(Trapu6] 12 10 [©"al ^^^^s &\cT€<nv]), many scholars
have inferred, further, that Ashera was only another
name or form of the great Semitic goddess, Astarte
(Tiieodoret, Qiiwst. jj in iv. Reg., Selden, Spencer,
etc. ) ; whilst others attempt in various ways to distinguish
them — e.g., Astarte, a pure celestial deity, Ashera, an
impure 'telluric' divinity (Movers); or the former a
goddess of the Northern Canaanites, the latter of the
Southern (Tiele, Sayce). Conservative scholars such as
Hengstenl)erg, Bachmann, and Baethgen, however, have
contended that in the passages in question the symbol
of Astarte is merely put by metonymy for the name of
the goddess ; and many recent critics ^ see in these
places only a confusion (on the part of late writers) of the
sacred post with the goddess Astarte. ^ A critical
examination of the passages makes it highly probable
1 See Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kyfiros, etc., PI. Ixxxiv. 3 and 7,
where in precisely similar relations to the scene a carved post
(supposed ashera) takes the place of a cypress tree.
- j'j; is not only a tree, but also a stake (Dt. 21 22 and often).
That the trees depicted on Phoen. coins, etc., were called asheras
(Pietschmann, Phonizier, 213) is merely inferred from the OT.
^ The condemnation is based, not on the fact that the presence
of these symbols presumes the worship of other gods, but on the
principle that Israel shall not worship Yahwe as the Canaanites
worship their gods (Dt. 122^).
■* In 2 K. 21 7, ' the image of the ashera,' the word image is a
gloss; cp V. 3 and 2 Ch.337. On i K. 15 13 and 2 K. 287, see
above. In i K. 18 19 the 400 prophets of Ashera are interpo-
lated (We., Klo., Dr.).
5 We., G. Hoffmann, E. Mey., St.. WRS, and others.
8 This confusion is found in a still greater measure in the
versions.
331
ASHES
that in the OT the supposed goddess Ashera owes her
existence only to this confusion. In the Amarna corre-
spondence, however, there is frequent mention of a
Canaanite who bears the name Abd-asratum, equivalent
to Heb. ' Ebed-asherd, sometimes with the divine deter-
minative,^z.*. , Servant of (the divine) Ashera. This
has not unnaturally been regarded as conclusive evidence
that a goddess Ashera was worshipped in Palestine in
the fifteenth century b.c.^ The determinative might
here signify no more than that the ashera post was
esteemed divine — a fetish, or a cultus-god — as no one
doubts that it was in OT times ; cp Phoenician names
such as 'Ebed-susim, Servant of (the sacred) horses
[CIS i. 46, 49, 53, 933, etc.); or 'Ebed-hckal, Ger-
hckal (G. Hoffmann), which might in Assyrian writing
have the same determinative ; further, Assyr. ekurru,
'temple, sanctuary,' in pi. sometimes 'deities' (Del.
HWB 718). The name of the 'goddess Asratum,"
however, occurs in other cuneiform texts, where this
explanation seems not to be admissible : viz. , on a
haematite cylinder published by Sayce (7. A 6 161); in
an astronomical work copied in the year 138 B.C.,
published by Strassmaier [7.A 6241, /. <^ ff.) ; and in a
hymn published by Reisner [Sumer.-babylon. Hyninen,
92) — in the last in connection with a god Amurrii,
which suggests that the worship may have been intro-
duced from the West. See Jensen, ' Die Gotter Ainur-
ru(i',) und Asratu,' ZA 11 302-305.
The word ashera occurs also in an enigmatical
Phfijnician inscription from Ma'sfib, which records a
dedication ' to the Astarte in the ashera of El-hammon '
(G. Hoffmann) ; where it is at least clear that ashera
cannot be the name of a deity. The most natural
interpretation in the context would be ' in the sacred
precincts.' In an inscription from Citium in which the
word was formerly read (Schroeder, ZD.MG 35 424,
'mother Ashera'; contra, St. ZATW l^^^f. ; cp
v.. Mcy. in Roscher, 2870), the reading and interpreta-
tion are insecure (see CIS i. no. 13). Cp PncK.\ici.\.
The etymology and the meaning of the word are
obscure. The most plausible hypothesis perhaps is that
4. Etymology.
usher tm ongmally denoted onXyihn sign-
posts set up to mark the site or the
boundaries of the holy place (G. Hoffmann, I.e. 26).
The use of the word in the Ma'sub inscription for the
sacred precincts would then be readily explained, and
also the Assyrian asirtu plur. asrati [esreti), defined
in the syllabaries as meaning ' high place, oracle, sanc-
tuary.' In any case, ashera is a nonien ufiitatis, and its
gender has no other than a grammatical significance.
Forsome further questions connected with the prophetic
opposition to the use of asheras in the worship of Yahwe
and the prohibition in the laws, see Idol.'vtky, §8.
The older literature is cited under Ashtoreth \q.v.]. For
recent discussion see We. CM 28iyC note ; St. Cl'f 1 458^, cp
^,-17'/Fl345, 4 293^ t)3i8y:; G. HotTmann, Lfher einige
plum. Inschriftcn, id ff. ; WRS, Rel. Sc,„.<^) 187^ On the
other side, Schr. ZA 3 364. Reference may be made also to
Baethgen, Beitr. ziZJT. ; and to Collins, P.^BA 11 ■2^1 _^., who
endeavours to show that the ashera was a phallic emblem sacred
to Baal. G. V. M.
ASHES (1SX, of uncertain derivation) is used in
various figures of speech typifying humiliation, frailty,
nothingness, etc. : e.g. , to sit in, or be covered with,
ashes (Job28, cp Ez. 273° Lam. 3i6), to eat ashes (Ps.
1029), to follow after ashes (Is. 44 20, Che. ad loc, cp
Hos. 12 1). To throw ashes on the head (2S. 13x9 Is.
61 3), or to wear ashes and sackcloth (Dan. 93 Esth.
4i Jonah36, cp Mt. II21 Lk. IO13), was a common way
of showing one's grief; see Mourning Customs, § i.
The combination ' dust and ashes ' (ieni isy ; cp also
Dust) is found in Gen. 1827 Job 42 6 (cp Ecclus. IO9) —
note the striking assonance isn nnn iNB Is. 61 3, 'in-
stead of ashes a coronal ' ; cp Ewald's ' Schmuck statt
1 Schr. ZA 3 364, and many. The name is once written
with the common ideogram for the goddess Iltar (Br. Mils. 33
obv. 1.3).
332
ASHHUR
Schmutz." 'Proverbs of ashes' (Job 13 12) is a sym-
bolism of empty triHiiig sayings. '
To denote the ' ashes ' of sacrificial victims the alx)ve
word is found only in Nu. I99/ , where the ashes of the
burnt heifer are represented as endowed with the power
of rendering clean or unclean the person who came into
contact with them (cp Hel). 913). The usual term is
jC'T iiekn, prop. ' fatness,' which comes to be used of the
ashes of the victims nnxed with fat. From l.ev. 1 16
(P) it would seem that these were placed on the ea.st
side of the altiu-, and afterwards removed to a place
' outside the camp' [ib. 4 12, cp 610/ [j/.J P).''^
It is noteworthy tliat |C''n occurs only twice outside P: viz.,
Jcr. 31 40 and i K. 13 3 5 (the latter in a passage which is a late
atUlition to the book ; see Kings, § 5, n. 1). JB'^3 n'S 'ashes
(RV mg. 'soot'; cp Ges.-bu.) of the furnace,' Ex. '.is 10 ((P
aiOiiAi)) is quite obscure ; see Furnace, ^jrofio?, (D's usual
rendering of "lEK (cp also in NT I.e. above), is found aj;ain in 2
M.UX-. 13 5, in connection with the tower full of ashes at llerea (2)
wherein Menelaus met his death. 'Vi<t>pa (of which the verb
re^pou), 'to turn to ashes,' is used in 2 I'et. 2 6 of Sodom and
(Joniorrah) is found only in Tob. (i 16 8 2, ' ashes of perfume ' (or
' incense,' RV)and Wisd. 'J3, ' our body shall be turned toashes.'
ASHHUR (so RV) ; AV AsiiuR CVjntf'X, § 81, origin-
ally ' man of Morus ' [on this class of names see
also Ei.in.M)]; in iCh. li24. acxco [15], acAooA [A],
ACCcap [I-]; in 4, CARA [1^]. Acxoyp [^J. Acocop
[L], .isi/HK, .-issik), mentioned apart from tlic more
important branches of Hezron — Jerahmeel, Ram, and
( hclubai (Caleb) — as a posthumous child (i Ch. 224 45),
father of Tekoa (see Juuah).
ASHIMA {^lp'\^^ : Ac[e]iMAe [BA], accnaG [L]).
a Ilamathite deity (2K. ITjof). On the true form of
the name (cp (P) and its moaning, see Ham.\TH.
ASHKELON (fl'Ppy'N, deriv. unknown, ack&AcoN
l]iSAL]:3 ethnic ^Ji^ptJ'is*, -[e]iTHC. Ashkelonite,
josh. 133 RV, AV EshkAI.omtk) ; mod. '.Askaldn
[with initial V]), one of the five cities of the Philistines,
the only one (it is generally held) •* just on the sea coast
(cp Jer. 477), lies 12 m. N. from Gaza. The site is a
rocky amphithentre, with traces of an old dock, filled
with Herodian and Crusading ruins. It has no natural
strength ; its military value seems to be due to its com-
mand of the sea, though the harbour w;is small and
difficult of access.
Under the Kgyi)tian rule Ashkolon was a fortress ;
letters from its governor Jitia appear in the Amarna
correspondence (Am. Tab. 211/), and Alxl-hiba of
Jerusalem complains that the territories of Askaluna
and Gazri have joined in the alliance against him {ib.
180, 14). Ashkelon seems to have revolted from
Rameses II. (WMM, As. u. Eur. 222 ; cp Egvi'T, §
58), and from Meneptah (see Egyi'T, § 60, n. ) ; but it
was reconciuered by them.' The storming of the city
t In I K. '20 38 41 it is almost certain that with RV we should
point "12X instead of ^E^< (AV a.shcs)and render ' head-land ' ; see
TUKISAN.'
2 Hence the denominative [ii"^, ' to clear away the fat-ashes '
Nu.4i3 Ex.273 ; see Altak, § 13.
3 Asiialonand Ekron are confused in ffS more than once ; a:.,
■♦ [With regard to the site of Ashkelon proper, it is possible to
hold that, like other Philistine cities, it lay a little inland ;
Antoninus Martyr (ch. 33, ed. Gildemeister, 23), indeed, in the
sixth century a.d., expressly distinguishes it from the sea-side
town, and in 536 a.d. a .synodical letter was signed, both by the
Bishop of Ascalon and by the Bishop of Maiumas Ascalon. Ac-
cording to Clermont Ganneau (see A'<t'. archiol. 27 368), the
inland town was on the site rej^resented by the modem villages,
Hamameha.nA el-Mejdel (^xx: Guirin./W. '2129; CI. Ganneau,
^rc/i. Res. in Pal. 2190). In a (ireek transl.ntion of a lost
Syriac text (published by Raabe) Ascalon appears to be described
as bearing the name of n-oAaia — i.e., ireKtiO. (dove) — in allusion
to the sacred doves of Astarte, and as l)eing about 2 m. from the
sea. The .\r. name Ilaindmeh means dove. There are, how-
ever, two other theories respecting el-Mejiitl, one of which pos-
sesses much plausibility (see Migdal-Gad).]
* Ascalon (Askaini) is one of the places in Palestine which
Meneptah, on the Israel-steli, claims to have captured.
333
ASHPENAZ
I is represented on a wall of the Ramesseum at Thelses ;
' the inhabitants are depicted in the sculptures w iih Hiltiie
features.
Ashkelon is not enumerated among the towns of
; Judah in Josh. 15, and apparently in Judg. 1 18 also we
'' ought, with 0, to read a negative ; cpjosh. I33. It was
Philistine in the days of Samson (Judg. 14 19), Samuel
(iS.(5i7), David (2.S. l2o), Amos (.\m. 1 8), Zephaniah
\ ('247), and Jeremiah (Jer. 252o 47s 7), iii"l i'l the tjreek
age (Zech. 95). It was taken by Sennacherib (Schrader,
A'AJ'<-> 165/, hkalitita), who deposed its king .';^idka
in favour of Sarluddri, son of Rukibti, 701 B.C. In
I the time of Asurbanipal it had a king Mitinti.
i The fish-goddess, Derketo (see Atakcjatis), had a
temple to the east of the city on a tank, of which,
Ixitwcen t7-.l/(y</t'/and ' AskaLin, some traces still remain.
I After the concjuest of Ale.xander the Great, Ashkelon
I became, like the other Philistine cities, thoroughly
[ Hellenic ; but, more prudent than they, it twice ojx.-Med
I its gates to Jonathan the Maccabee (i .\lacc. 1086 II60),
and again to .\le.\ander Jann.eus. It was the birth-
place of Herod the Great, who gave it various buildings
(Jos. /y/i. 2I11); and was afterwards the residence of
his sister Salome (Jos. /V/ii. t).!). It is said to base
Ijeen ' burnt to the ground ' by the Jews in their revolt
against Rome (Jos. yy/ii. I81), but then to have
repulsed the enemy twice {ib. iii. '212). In Roman times
it was a centre of Hellenic scholarship ; antl under the
Arabs, who called it the ' Bride ' and the ' .Summit of
Syria,' was a frequent object of struggle. It was taken
by the Christians in 1154 ; retaken by ."^aladin in 1187 ;
dismantled and then rebuilt by Richard in 1192 (cp
Vinsauf, Itin. Ricard. {)\ff.)\ and finally demolished
in 1270. There are considerable ruins, which have
been described by Gu^riu {Jiui. 2153-171}, and, best
and most recently, by Gulhe {ZDJT 'lii^ ff. , with
plan; cp /"/iV-' J/*"///. 3 237-247). The neighbourhood
is well w.atered and exceedinglj' fertile, the Ascaloma
cicpa, scallion (shallot) or onion of Ascalon, being among
its characteristic products. See, further, PuiLlsTiNKS,
and, for Rabbinical references, Hildesheimer, Jieilr.
zur Ceoiir. FaUistinas, \ ff. G. A. s.
ASHKENAZ (n^C'wN' ; acxanaz [BADEL] ; .is-
CK.Mi/.). The people of Ashkenaz are mentioned in
Gen. IO3 and ((\cxeNez [A]) i'l ;i 1 Ch. 1 6 in connection
with Gomer ; in Jer. 51 271 (acxanazcOC or -aiOC
[Bis-\], acka. [Q]) after Minni. There is no occasion
to connect their name with the propier name Askanios in
Hom. //. 2862 18793, nor with the Ascanian triljes in
Phrygia and Bithynia, and infer that the original home of
Ashkenaz was in Phrygia (Lenormant, E. Meyer, Di. ).
Rather Ashkenaz must have been one of the migratory
peoples which in the time of Esar-haddon burst upon
the northern provinces of .Asia Minor, and upon .Armenia.
One branch of this great migration appears to have
reached Lake Urumiyeh ; for in the revolt which Esar-
haddon chastised (i R 45, col. 2, 27 jf.), the Mannai,
who lived to the SW. of that lake, sought the help
of Ispakai 'of the land of Asguza,' a name (originally
perhaps Asgunza) which the scepticism of Dillmann
need not hinder us from identifying with Ashkenaz, and
from considering as that of a horde from the north, of
I ndo- Germanic origin, which settled on the south of
Lake Urumiyeh. (See Schr. COT'I^gs; \Vi. GBA
269; ^7^6488491; similarly Friedr. Del., Sayce,
Knudlzon. ) T. K. C.
ASHNAH (^3E^'^^^ acna [AL]). the name of two
unidentified sites in the lowland of Judah ; one apparently
in the more north-easterly portion (Josh. 1633 accA
[B]), the other nuich farther south (I543, iana [BJ,
ACeNNA[A], -CANN. [I-]t).
ASH-PAN (nnnO), i K. 75o.Wn>ir.; see Censer, 2.
ASHPENAZ (T^Bt^N, ABiecApi [©«'], [rcol ac<J)A-
Nez [ Theod. B.\]), chief of the eunuchs under Nebuchad-
334
ASHRIEL
rezzar (Dan. I3). The current explanations are un-
tenable,^ and the cause is obvious. The name is
corrupt, and has been brought into a delusive resem-
blance to Ashkenaz. An earlier form of the name,
equally corrupt, and brought into an eciually delusive
resemblance to an ancient Hebrew name, is Abiezri
(niyax ; see Ahiezer, i) ; this is the form adopted by @.
What is the original name concealed in these two
api)arently dissimilar forms ? © enables us to discover
it by its reading, evidently more nearly accurate than
that of MT in Dan. 1 11 — /cai direv ^avtrjX 'A^Le<rdpi rip
di'ttSetx^^"'''' apxtevMovxij) eTri rbv AavirjX. . . . The
MT indeed, in tv. ii 16, represents Daniel as com-
numicating with a third person called Melzar, or ' the
Melzar' ; but a comparison of i/z'. 37-1018 shows that
this representation must be incorrect. It was the ' prince
of the eunuchs ' that Daniel must have addressed in
t'. II ; a slight transposition and a change of one point
are indispensable (see Mici.ZAU). We have now, there-
fore, four forms to compare ; (a) nrj'zx, (''') usui<,
{c) i^hcn, and (rf) n^'ca^ (Fesh. in v. n). Of these,
(a), (c), and (d), virtually agree as to the last two letters
(if in a we neglect the final ', which is not recognised in
Syro-Hex. or by l""phrem). These letters are n^-. Next,
{a), {d), (t), and((/)agree as to the presence of a labial ; the
first two arefor a mute, the others for a liquid. Also(i^)and
{c) attest a S ora 3, and (a) and (</) a ', which might be a
fragment of a *?, while (/;) and (d) present us with a a, of
which they in (a) looks like a fragment. Next, (a),{i),and
(r) attestan n or a n, and lastly, (a), (c), and {d) agree as to
1. The almost inevitable conclusion is that the name
of the chief eunuch was -li-Nti''?^, commonly pronounced
Belshazzar. Tliis is not the only occasion on which the
name Balsarezer ( = Belshazzar) has suffered in trans-
mission (see BiLSHAN, Sakkzkk). t. k. c.
ASHRIEL
("pNnb'N), iCh. 714AV, RVAsrihl.
ASHTAROTH {n)-\n^'V—i.e., Ashtoreth in her
different representations ; — ACTApooe [BAL], -T&fOO.
[n'' Josh. 9 10], AcGakpoOM [A Josh. 1831] ; the adjective
is Ashterathite, '•ri^Flt^'y, o (\CTAptoe[e]i [BA], eecT.
[.i]. ec0Ap6oei [L], I Ch. 1144). Ashteroth-Karnaim
(□*3"li? niri'J'J? ; ACT<Npa)e Kd,pN<MN [A], -Tep- KA.IN.
[!■:]) — i.e. , ' Ashtaroth of the two horns ' ? — ' Ashtaroth
of (=near) Karnaini ' ?) in Uen. 145,^ and Be-esh-
terah (n-irT_;'J?3, i.e., ny}:;^^, D'Z, or 'house of
Pf Astarte'; Bocopan[B], -ppA[L], Bee-
1. Keierences. ^^^^ ^^^^^ j^ ^^^^ 2i 27, but nnnE^y
simply in Dt. I4 Josh. 9iol24 I31231, where it appears,
along with Edrei, as a chief city of Og, king of Bashan ;
and in i Ch. 656 [71] (ACHpooB [B] pAMa)e [A^']) as a
Levitical city. Then, in Am. 613 (Griitz's restored
reading) we have Karnaim as the name of a city E.
of the Jordan taken by Israel, and in i and 2 Mace.
Karnaim or Karnion as a city in Gilead with a temple
of Atargatis [t/.i'.] attached to it. The lists of
Thotmes III. {circa 1650 B.C.) contain an 'A-s-ti-ra-tu
(AV-'(-')545 ; WMM, As. u. Eur. 162, 313 ; cp Ashtarti"
Bezold and Budge, Tell el-Amarna Tabl. in B}-it. Mii.
43, 64). Whether these names represent one place or
two places is, on the biblical data, uncertain.
It is significant, however, that Eusebius and Jerome
1 For example, Halivy compares Pers. aspanj, 'hospitium'
{/As., 188 !, 228jy;) ; Nestle too explains ' hospes ' from the
Armenian 0fari^. 38). Frd. Del. and .Schr. offer no explanation.
2 If sve adopt the form Ti'JO. ^ slight difference in the summa-
tion will be the result.
•* Here it is described as the abode of the Rephaim at the time
of the invasion of Chedorlaomer. Or were there two neighbour-
ing cities? Kuenen, Buhl, and Siegfr.-St. read ' A.shtaroth <ind
Karnaim,' claiming ©l as on their side. Probably, however, the
ri^^ht © reading is Atrraptofl Kapi/aic [AL] (see Nestle, Marg.).
Moore explains ' the Astarte of the two-peaked mountain ' ; see
especially G. F, Moore, JBL 156^. [97]), and cp col. 336, n. 3.
335
ASHTORETH
(05(2) 20961 1 84 s 26898= 108 17) record the existence in
2 The OS '^''"''^ ^^^ '" Batanea of two places called
■ gi+ga Astaroth-Karnaim, ' which lay 9 R. m.
apart, between Adara (Edrei) and Abila'
of the Decapolis ; one of them, 'the city of Og,'
(say) 6 R. m. from Edrei, the other ' a very large town
of Arabia [in which] they show the house of Job ' ; and
in the Peregrinatio of S. Silva of Aquitaine (4th cent.)
Carneas is mentioned as the place where she saw Job's
house. Now, at the present day there is a Tell 'Ashtarah
on the Bashan plateau, on the W. of Hauran, 21 m. E.
of the Lake of Gahlee (long. 36° E. , lat. 32' 50' N. ),
1900 ft. above the sea ; and 2 m. N. lies El-Merkez,
where the tombs of Job and his wife are shown, and
there was the ancient Christian monastery of Job, while
1 m. farther N. , at Sheikh Sa'd, is a basalt monolith,
with Egyptian figiu-es, known as Job's stone (see Erman,
ZZ)/^/ '15 205-211). In this neighbourhood, then, must
have lain one of the Ashtaroths of the OS. It does
not suit the datum of the latter — ' between Adara
and Abila ' ; but this ma}' be one of the not infrequent
inaccuracies of the OS. From this Ashtaroth Eusebius
l^laces the other 9 R. m. distant. Now, 6 R. m. S. ,
near the W. el-Ehrer (the upper Yarmuk), lies Tell el-
Ash' ari, which some (like van Kasteren) take as the
second Ashtaroth.^ This, Buhl [Cicog. 249) prefers to
find 8 R. m. S. of Tell 'Ashtarah in Muzeirlb, the great
station on the //(//road, with a lake and an island with
ruins of pre-Mohammedan fortifications. A market has
been here since the Middle Ages, and the place must
have been important in ancient times. Moreover, it
suits another datum of the OS. in lying about 6 R. m.
from Edrei.
Much more difficult is the question of identifying
any of these sites, or the two Ashtaroths of the OS. ,
OT "t ^^''^ *^^ corresponding names of OT.
SI es. yj^^^gg jjj jj^jg p^^f Qf Palestine have
always been in a state of drift. That Tell 'Ashtarah
is the 'Ashteroth Karnaim of Gen. 14 5 or the 'Ashtaroth
of other texts has in its favour, besides its name, the
existence of a sanctuary, even though this has been
transferred in Christian times to Job. On the other
hand, Muzeirib must have been of too great import-
ance not to be set down to some great place-name
of the OT ; and its accessibi.ity from Edrei suits the
association, frequent in the OT, of the latter with Ash-
toreth. As to the Karnaim of i Mace. 026 (which, of
course, is the same as the Karnaim of Am. 613), it cannot
have been Muzeirib, as Buhl contends, for in such a case
the lake would certainly have been mentioned in con-
nection with the assault of Judas upon it (a lake is
mentioned near Caspis or Casphon \_q.v.'\ which Judas
took previously) ; and in 2 Mace. 12 21 Karnion is said
to be difficult to get at bia. ttjv iravTuiv tQv tottcji'
(TTevoTTjTa. This does not suit Muzeirib, or Tell
'Ashtarah, or Sheikh Sa'd. Furrer, therefore, has sug-
gested for Karnion A'rcn or "Grcn, the .Agraina of the
Romans, in the inaccessible Lejd. Till the various
sites have been dug into and the ancient name of
Muzeirib is recovered, however, we must be content to
know that there was an 'Ashteroth Karnaim near Tell
'Ashta7-ah, and that possibly there was a second site
of the same name in the same region in OT times.
On the whole subject see especially /CDPf xm. xiv. and xv.,
Schumacher, Across the Jordan (203-210), and Buhl, Stud, zur
Topos^r. dcs y.Ostjordanlandcs, 12 JT-t •/'«'• 248-250; also
Moore, JBL It) iS5.ff^-' 'i''"^l> f'^"' •">" Kgyptological explanation of
the name ' Ashtoreth of the two horns,' WMM, As. u. Kur. 313.
G. A. S.
ASHTORETH (JTIPIB'J?), a goddess of the Canaanites
1 Sub A<rr. Kapvaeiv. ~ Sub Kapvaetfi.
3 So Schumacher. ' The double peak of the southern summit
oi Tell el- Ash'ari, formed by the depression running from N.
to S., would make the appellation of K.arnaim, or "double-
horned," extremely appropriate ' {.Across Jordan, 208). In a
Talmudic discussion as to the constructions for the Feast of
Booths it is said that Ashteroth Karnaim was situated between
two mountains which gave much shade {Succa, ■za; cp Neub.
Ge'o^-. 246). Many regard this statement as purely imaginative.
336
2. Chaxacter.
ASHTORETH
and PhoL'nicians. The Massoretic vowel-pointing, which
^ is followed by ICV, gives the word the vowels
■ of bi'isheth, ' scandalous thing ' (cp Molech
for Melik) ; the true pronunciation, as we know from
tlic dr. 'AffTdprrj (so even ©"al ; alongside of aarapujO
[HAL]) and from Augustine,* was ''Ashtart.' In the
or the name in the plural (the 'AshUiroth) is coupled
witii the JJaals, in the general sense, ' the heathen
gods anil godilesses,' "^ a usage with which the Assyrian
i/tini u-istardti is compared. Solomon is said to have
built on the Mt. of Olives (i K. II5, cp 33) for the
rhiLnician 'Ashtart a high place, which was destroyed
more tlian three centuries later by Josiah (2 K. 23 13).
( )f the character of this goddess and her religion we
k-aru nothing directly from the O T. Her name docs
not occur either in the prophets or in
historical texts in any other connections
than those cited above ; it is nowhere intimated that the
licentious characteristics of the worship at the high places
were derived from the cultus of Astarte. The weeping
for Tanunuz (I'>.. 814), which Clyril of Alexandria and
Jerome identify with the Phu'iiician mourning for Adonis
(so (?'-'•'"*.'•), was more probably a direct importation of
the Babylonian cult.-* This is doubtless true also of the
worship of the ' Queen of Heaven ' (Jer. 7 18 [©bkaq
tt; (jTparigL toj ovpavov], 44 17 _f.), whatever the name
may mean (see Qikkn OK Hkavkn). The law which
forbids women to wear men's garments, or men women's
(Ht. 225), may Ix; aimed at obscene rites such as obtained
in the worship of many deities in Syria and Asia Minor,
but need not refer specifically to the cult of Astarte.
Many inscriptions from the mother -country and
its colonics, as well as the testimony of Greek and Latin
^ . writers, prove the prominent place which
■ , ^^y"^ the worship of .\starte had among the
Phuenicians ; Egyptian documents place
the ''Ashtart of the Hittite country' by the side of the
' .Sutech of Heta,' the principal male divinity; the
Philistines deposited Sauls armour as a trophy in the
temple of 'Ashtart (i S. 31 10 ©"al ^^ a(rTapT[€]i.ov } ,
jjcrhaps the famous temple at Ashkelon of which
Herodotus writes (lios);'* the stele of Mesha, king of
Moab (9th cent. B.C.), tells how he devoted his prisoners
to .Vshtar-Chemosh ; a city in Bashan often mentioned
in the OT lx;ars the name Ashtaroth (cp also Ashteroth
Karnaim, Gen. 14 5, and Bceshterah, Josh. 21 27; see
Asiitakoth). '.Ashtart w.as worshipped in Babylonia
and .\ssyria under the name I star (considerable frag-
ments of her myth have been preserved) ; in Southern
Arabia as '.\thtar (masc. ); in Abyssinia as 'Astar ; ^
in Syria as '.\tar or '.Athar (in proper names : cp Atak-
<;.\ris [(/. V. ] — Dercdto). The .\rabs are the only Semitic
people among whom we do not find this deity ; and
even here it is possible that al-Lat and al-'L'zza were
originally only titles of Astarte. The normal phonetic
changes in the word show that the worship of Astarte
did not spread from one of these peoples to the others,
but was common to them Ixjfore their separation.
The fem. ending is peculiar to the Palestinian branch
of the race, and, as has Ix.-en observed, in Southern
.\rabia '.\thtar was a god, not a goddess.
Unlike Baal, Astarte is a proper name ; but under
this name many diverse divinities were worshipjjed.
The I star of Arbela was recognised by the Assyrians
themselves ;is a goddess different from the Istar of
1 Qua-s/. 16 in Jnd., Estart, Astart. Confirmatory evidence
is Kiven by the Kgyptian transcription.
_ - judj;. 2 13 106 I S. 7 3 (^hal Ta ak^^ 4 12 10 ((Sbai. rots
oA(re<Ti»'); all belonging to the later elohistic(K-j) or deiiteronomic
school.
^ The identification of Tanimuz with Adonis is found also in
Melito (Cureton, Spicil. 25). The connection of the myths is
unquestioned. See Tammuz.
< It is, of course, not to lie inferred that the Philistines wor-
.shipped Astarte before they invaded Palestine. The temple was
an old Canaanite sanctuary.
5 HaMvy's discovery- is confirmed by the recent publication of
the .\xum inscriptions.
4. Character.
22
337
ASHTORETH
Nineveh ; the Istar of Agade from the Istar of Urku
(see Assyria, § 9. Babvi.onia, § 26). The inscription
of I'lshmunazar shows that more than one 'Ashtart had
a temple in Sidon ; and we know many others. Whether
those differences are only the conse(|uence of natural
divergence in the worship of the priniitive .Semitic deity,
in the immense tract of time and space, or, as is alto-
gether ntore jjrobable, in great part due to the identifi-
cation of originally unconnected local nutnina with
Astarte, the result is the same : ' there were many
Astartes who were distinguished from one another by
character, attributes, and cultus — a class of goddesses
rather than a single goddess of the name.'-'
Astarte was often the tutelary divinity of a city, its
'proprietress' [ba'alat); and then, of course, its pro-
tectress and champion, a warlike god-
dess. On the other hand, she was a
goddess of fertility and reproduction, as apjx;ars strik-
ingly in the myth of the descent of Istar. These two
characters might l)e attributed to different .AsUirtes,
as among the .Assyrians (cp the Aphrodites) ; but
they might also coexist in one and the same goddess,
and this is doubtless the older conception.
The figures from Babylonia and Susiana, as well as
from Phoenicia and Cyprus, which are believed to rc|)re-
sent Astartes, express by rude exaggeration of sexuality
the attributes of the godiless of generation.* That
the cultus-images of .\starte were of similar tyjies is not
probable. At Paphos she was worshipped in a conical
stone, and many representations show the evolution
from this of a partially iconic idol.
In the astro-theology of the Babylonians the planet
Venus was the star of Istar. It is a common but ill-
founded opinion that in Palestine Astarte was a moon
goddess. The name of the city, Ashteroth Karnaim, is
often alleged in support of this theory. Kven if the
translation, ' the horned .\starte,' Ix; right, however, it is
a very doubtful assumption that the horns represented
the crescent moon — it is cjuite as natural to think of the
h(jrns of a cow or a sheep, or of an image of the goddess
made after an I-'gyplian type (see Ecivi'T, § 13) ; "• — and
it is a still more unwarranted assumption that Astarte
was elsewhere in Palestine represented in the same \\ay.
It would be a nuich more logical inference that the horns
were the distinctive attribute of this particular .Astarte.*
The other testimony to the lunar character of Astarte is
neither of an age nor of a nature to justify much confidence
[De dea Syr. 4 ; Herodian, v. G4). The point to be in-
sisted on is that the widely accepted theory that Astarte
was primarily a moon goddess, by the side of the sun
god, Baal, has as little foundation in the one case as in
the other.
In Dt. 7 13 ' the 'iishtdroth of the flocks ' are parallel
to the 'offspring of the herds,' from which it has l)eeii
ingeniously argued that among the nomadic Semites
Astarte was a sheep-goddess (W'RS, Rel. Sent. <"-' 3 1 o, and
469^) ; but this also seems hazardous.
Of the cultus of -Astarte we know comparatively little.
Religious prostitution ( I kit. 1 199 ; Stralxj xvi. 1 20 ;
6 Cultus ^P- J'"'^"'- ^^-f'- f"-""- ^''^-'^^ '' ^' '''■" '*'-''''•
* 6, etc. ) was not confined to the temples
of Astarte, nor to the worship of female divinities.
Nu. 25 1-5 connects it with Baal-peor ; Am. 2? Dt. 2.'Ji8
(17), etc., show that in Israel similar practices infected
even the worship of A'ahwe. There is no doubt, how-
ever, that the cultus of Astarte was saturated with these
abominations.
' In the period from which most of our monumental evidence
comes, still another cause must l>e recognised : syncretism with
the Egyptian religions (see E;(;ypt, | 16).
2 This use predominates in Hebrew, which has, indeed, no
other word for ' goddess ' ; but, as has been remarked above, it
is found in Assyrian also.
3 Heuzey, Rn>. Arcli/ol. xx.vi.v., 1880, p. \ ff.\ Ohnefalsch-
Richter, Ky/>ros, etc. On the origin of this type sec, however,
S. Rein.-ich, R,-!>. ArclUot. 3 se'r. 2ii, 1895, p. 3b' ff.
■« Cp the representation of Haalat of Byblos, tV.V 1 i, PI. I.
8 On Ashteroth Karnaim see //>*/, It) 155^.
338
ASHUR
The origin and the meaning of the name are obscure ;
but tliis is liardly a sufficient reason for supposing that
the nicjst universally worshipped of Semitic divinities was
of non- Semitic extraction (see Haupt, /.DMG 34
758). The relation between Astarte anil Aphrodite is
an interesting and important question, upon which we
cannot touch here.
Literature.— f^tXAcn, De Dis Syris, syn. ii. ch. 2 ; Movers,
Phonizier, 1 55<)-65o ; Scholz, Giitzendienst nnd ZaubcKwesen
bei den alten //ebniern, 259-301 ; Baudissin, art. 'Astarte und
Aschera'in/'^AX'*) "2147-161 (where the lit. in full may be found);
Raethgen, Beitr. zur seinit. RcL-gesch., 1888 ; E. Meyer, art.
'Astarte' in Roscher's L,.v. dcr grivch. it. Rom. Myth. 645-655,
in part corrected by his art. ' H.ial,' //'. 28677?! ; Harton, ' Ash-
torethandher liilluence in the OT,'//'^- '^^17,ff-\ ' The Semitic
Isblar-cult,' //<\''raita, 9 133-165 10 1-74. See also Driver's very
COJnprolicnsive article ia Hastings, DB. g. F. M.
ASHUR (>in'^\S), I Ch. 224 AV, RV Ashhuk.
ASHURITES, THE (n-l^'.^H, ton GAceipei [B],
GacoyP ['^^' ezpi I f- ; ' Jezreel ' follows]), are mentioned
in 2 Sam. "Jgy among various clans subject to the i
authority of Ishbaal. Posh. Vg. read n^c'jri, the j
Gcshurites, which is accepted by some (see Gksuur), j
while others (Kamph. Ki. Klo. Gr. ) folh^w the Targ. {
(iCK n'aT '?;•. cp ©") and read nt^xri (cp Judg. 1 32)
— i. e. , ' the Asherites, ' whose land lay to the W. of Jordan !
above Jczrcel, which is mentioncu ne.\t, the enumeration
proceeding from N. to S.
ASHVATH (nV^'i;; AceiG [BA], -coyaG [L]), iu a '
genealogy of AsHiiR (y.T'. , § 4 ii. ), i Ch. Jssf.
ASIA(h <\ClA[Ti.\\'H]). Great uncertainty prevailed
during the apostolic period as to the usage of the names 1
of the districts of Asia Minor. The boundaries of several !
of the districts had long been uncertain ^those between j
Mysia and Phrygia were proverbially so (Strabo, 564). |
This confusion arose from the fact that the names i
denoted ethnological rather than political divisions, and
belonged to diverse epochs. They are like geological
strata, which are clear enough when seen in section but
impossible to disentangle when represented on a single
plane. A further complication arose when the Romans
imposed upon the country the provincial system. Tiie
official nomenclature was applied without any account
being taken of the older history or of ethnical facts or ;
popular usage. In the case of Lycia, Bithynia, or j
Pamphylia there was no distinction of any moment I
between the old and the new usage ; but in the case of
Galatia and .Asia the difficulty of distinguishing the j
precise sense of the names is very great. !
The province of Asia was formed in 133-130 B. C. when i
Attains III. of F^ergamus left his kingdom by will to ;
Rome ; the name Asia had early come into use because i
there was no other single term to denote the ^gean j
coast lands. The area of the province was subsequently |
increased, first by the addition of Phrygia (116 B.c;. ) ;
we are, therefore, confronted by the difficulty of j
distinguishing whether, in any given case, the word Asia
is restricted to the coast or extended to the entire j
province — in other words, whether it includes Phrygia
or not.
In Acts 2(5, Asia indicates the towns of the highly civilised
coast land, for the enumeration is popular and Greek in style,
as is proved by the mention of Phrygia alongside Asia : accord-
ing to the Roman mode of speaking, Phrygia was included in
Asia, with the exception of that small part round Antioch
(Phrygia Galatica) which fell to the province Galatia. Such
names as Phrygia,Mysia, or Lydia were to a Roman without
any political significance, being merely geographical terms
denoting parts of the province of Asia, used on occasion to
specify exactly the region referred to by the speaker (Cic.
pro Flac. xxvii. § 65; Asia vesira constat ex Phrygia, Mysia,
Caria, Lydia). Such use can be paralleled from the NT. In
Actsl67 Kara ■ri\v 'iUvtjiav (Ti. WH] is used to define rigidly
the point reached by the apostles when warned from Bithynia.
In Actsfig, a decision is more difficult. The Jews who 'dis-
puted 'with Stephen were probably those educated in the schools
of .Smyrna or Pergamus ; but we cannot on a priori grounds
decide that some of them did not belong to Phrygia. Here,
therefore, .-Xsia may or may not be used in its Roman sense.
So also in Acts 21 27 = 24 18.
339
ASIARCH
The whole question of the sense in which geographical
terms are used by the writer of Acts centres round Acts
166, where the apostles are forbidden to preach in .Asia
{Kuikvdivrt^ . . . XaX^crai t6v \6yov iv -rg 'Affiq,
[Ti. WH]). Those interpreters {e.^i;^., Con. and Hows.
I324) who take the preceding words (oi9)\dov Se tt)v
^pvylav Kal raXarur/c x^po-" [I '• WH]) to express the
opening up of new ground by missionary enterprise
N. of Antioch in Pisidia are compelled to restrict
the prohibition of preaching in Asia to the coast land —
in other words, to take I'hrygia, Galatia, and Asia in
their popular non-Roman sense— for all Phrygia N. of
Antioch belonged to .Asia in its Roman or administrative
sense. Yet we must ask if the simple Si7J\doi> (AV
'gone throughout') can be taken to imply preaching.^
If, however, the apostles did not jireach in their pa,ssage
through the district called here ij 'I'puyla Kal VaXariKr}
Xwpa, there appears to be no necessity for giving a
popular meaning to the geographical terms here used,
unless in the interests of what Ramsay calls the N.
Galatian theory (see Gal.vtia, §§ 7-30, especially
§§ 9-16). On this view, then, the words indicate such
parts of Galatic Phrygia as had not been traversed at
the time of receiving the prohibition (or, more probably,
that part of Phrygia which belonged to the province
Asia), together with Old or North Galatia. In favour
of this is the fact that the part. KuXvO^fres must be
prior in time to, i.e. contain the ground of, the action
denoted by Sif/X^o;', — ' they traversed . . . because they
had been forbidden.' If, in face of the difficulties of
the N. Galatian view, we fall back upon the S. Galatian
theory, the district ij <bpvyia Kal VaXariKT] x^P"- i""St
be regarded as partly identical with that called Tr]v
YaXariKTjv x^po^" ko.1 'i>pvyLav in Acts 18 23 (which can
hardly be other than that of the S. Galatian churches) ;
and also it must already have been traversed wholly or
in part be/ore the prohibition to preach in Asia (Rams.
Expos. May 1895, P- 39^ ; Church, 5 ed. p. 75).
Ramsay consequently attempts to interpret the words
SiTJXOov KuiXvO^vrei ns = 8l7JX0ov Kal iKuiXvOr^aav
{duXdofTes eKboXvOj^aav), or on purely subjective grounds
adopts, with Lightfoot, the reading BieXOouTes 5^ from
inferior MSS {Si. PauK^K p. 195). It seems better to
take SiTJXOoi' Of as resumptive and as summing u]5 the
previous verses, with an ellipse — ' so then they traversed
. . . (neglecting Asia) having been forbidden ' : in
which case, here, as elsewhere throughout the narrative
of Paul's journeyings, the word Asia is used in its
technical, Roman, sense.
This sense is clearly the best in the following passages : —
during Paul's residence in Ephesus, 'all they wliich dwelt in
Asia heard the_ word of the Lord Jesus' (Acts 19 10; see also
7m. 22, 26 /!). The deputies escort the apostle from Corinth as
far as Asia (.\cts2O4); other instances in the same chap, are
7'7'. 16 (Ephesus was virtually capital of the province) .ind 18.
In 272, Kara •rijii' '.^crt'ac ron-ous [Ti. WH], there is nothing
to forbid our taking the word in its Roman sense. Similarly,
in tlie Epistles, the technical sense is required —f.c., Rom.
16 5, Epasnetus the first-fruits of Asia (RV); i Cor. 10 19, the
churches of Asia; 2 Cor. 18, (probably) alluding to the riot
at Ephesus, or to dangerous illness there ; 2 Tim. 1 15. The
Roman province is meant also in i Pet. li, where the enumera-
tion Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, Bithynia (= Bithynia-
Pontus) sums up all Asia Minor within the Taurus, p'inally,
in Rev. 1 4, the seven churches of Asia are those established in
the chief towns of the Roman province. In i Mace. 86,
' Antiochus, the great king of Asia,' the word is used in a wider
sense = .Asia Minor, with Syria (so also 11 13, ' the diadem of
Asia'; 1239 18 32 2 Mace. 83 : cp Jos. ^nt. xii. 3 3 1847). In
2 Esd. 1546, ' A.sia, that art partaker in the beauty of Babylon,'
the sense is still wider= Persian empire (10 i ; cp Herod, i.96
177 : Jos. Ant. xi. 8 3). vv. J. W.
ASIARCH (01 ACIAPXAI [Ti. WH], AV ■ the chief
of Asia' ; RV 'chief officers of Asia'). An officer
1 See Acts 1541, 5t^pX«ro, but with fnia-rripii^tav ad<'ed ; I64,
6t«iropeuo«'TO, but with wapeSiSoa-av added. On the other hand
we have 13 14, iteAdovTes anb Trjs Ilepyi/s — no preaching on the
ro.-id : and 17 i, SioSevVavres ttji' '.\ij.<fiiTTo\iv koX ttiv 'AiroKkioviav
[Ti. WH), where also there was no attempt at evangelisation, so
far as we can tell. (But see Rams. Expos. May 1895, p. 385/:)
340
ASIBIAS
heard oi only once in the NT — viz. , in the account of
the riot made by " Demetrius and the craftsmen ' at
Ephesus (Acts 1931). The annual assembly of civic
deputies (koivov 'Affias), over which he presided, was
combined, in Asia, as in other provinces, with an
annual festival in honour of the reigning emperor and
the imperial system.
Soon after the victory of Actium, in fact as early as 29 B.C.,
Augustus had allowcti temples to himstlf and Konia to be
dedicated in I'erganius, the tie jure capital of Asia, as well as in
Nicomcdcia and Ancyra, the capitals respectively of Hiihynia
and Galatia(Tac. Ann. iv. 374). This blending of a religious
with an administrative institution became a leading idea of the
imperial policy ; but, as rcKards the pomp of the festivals and
the civic rivalries excited, the institution nowhere developed as
it did in Asia. Naturally, the conduct of the games and festival
in honour of the emperor fell to the president of the provincial
Diet.
As the Asiarch bore most of the expense, though
some was borne Ijy voluntary subscription or appoi tioiicd
to the several towns, this jjoiitico-religious oflice was
open only to the wealthy— the prosperity of Tralles,
for example, was shown by its continuous series of
Asiarchs ' — and the title was retained after the expiration
of the year of office. To find Paul counting friends
among the Asiarchs — i.e., among those who then held
or who previously had held the office — throws, therefore,
a valuable side-light ujion the attitude adopted towards
Christianity by the upper classes of the provincials : it
was an .Asiarch, Philip, who at Sniyrna resisted the cry
of the mob to ' let loose a lion on Polycarp ' ( Eus.
///^4.5. §27)-
It would be a mistake, then, to imagine that the
Asiarch, as such, had any connection with the Ephesian
worship of ArUmis.
In fact Ephesus, like Miletus, was expressly rejected by
Tilicrius as a claimant for the honour of an imperi.-il temple,
proliably beciuse of the risk of Ciesar's worship being over-
shadowed by the local cult (Tac. Ann. iv. oo 6). It would
naturally, however, have the rii;lit to put f >rs\ard a candidate
for the Asiarchate. We lie.<r of similar officrs in other pro-
vinces— e.g^., a tialatarch, a I'.itli\ 'lianh, a Syriarch, and a
Lyciarch." The Last at any laic i> clearly urigiually a political
officer— the head of the League (Strabo, 665).
There was thus, at first, but one Asiarch in office at
a time in all Asia — the president of the Diet at Ephesus ;
but as temples dedicated to Cnesar multiplied in the
province,- and each of them became the centre of an
annual festival, the chief priests at such temples per-
formed the functions discharged at the festival at
Ephesus by the .Asiarch, and finally the presidency of
the festival even at Ephesus was taken from the chair-
man of the Diet and given to the chief priest. The
Diet and its civil functions thus fell into the background,
and the name .Asiarch came to mean the priestly
provider of a popular festival in coimection with the
worshi]) of a dead or reigning emperor. With the
growing importance of this worship the religious influence
of the priestly Asiarchs extended ; and as the worship of
the emperor became the outward sign of loyalty to the
empire, it was through the provincial chief-priesthoods
that the old and the new faith came into contact.
Hence Julian writes to the Galatarch as the proper
medium for his anti-Christian propaganda. (See
Momms. Provinces, 1 344 fol. ET, Rams. Class. Nev.
8174. A different view in a long article by Brandis
in Pauly's /?. /inc. new ed. s.v.). W. J. vv.
ASIBIAS (AceBei&c [B], aciBi&c [A], /weAxiAC
[E]), in the list of those with foreign wives (see Ezra,
i. § 5, end), I Esd. 926= Ezra 10 25 (caBia [N]. a. [A.],
Bom.). See Mai.chij.mi, 5. Asibias is probably a
Graicised form of Hashabiah.
ASIEL (hii'bV. § 31 ; ACIh\ [B.AL]). i. a name
in the genealogy of Simeon (i Ch. 435).
1 (tal aeC Tivet ef avrfii eliriv 01 <rpo>TevoiTes Kara. t»|I' inaL(>xCa.v,
otit 'A(ridpx»f KoXova-iv (Strabo, 64Q).
2 .Already in 26 a.d., for example, a temple was erected in
Smyrna to Tilierius, jointly with his mother Livia, and the
Senate (Tac. .-1«». iv. 154563).
ASNAPPER
2. A scribe, 4 E^sd. 14 24 (as/hhl).
3. Tob. 1 1 RV, AV AsAKL (q.v.).
ASIPHA (ACei<t)<\ [A]), I Esd. 5 29= Ezra 2 43-
HA.SUPHA.
ASKELON (ihp^^'it.), Judg.liS AV, RV Ashkelon.
ASMODEUS, kV AsmodaeuB (acmoAaycI'M. -Aai-
OC L^AJ, -Aeoc [N]), called ' the evil demon ' (Tob. i<8,
17). Considering ( i ) the close connection of the story of
Tobit with Media, (2) the affinity of the seven archangels
in Tob. 12 15 to the seven Mazdean Amesha9[x;ntas, and
(3) the impossibility of deriving Asmodeus or .Asmodai
(or the later Hebrew forms, on which see below) from
ncrK. ' to destroy, ' we are obliged to look for an arch-
demon of similar name and attributes in Mazdean
demonology. The Asmodeus of Tobit has two attri-
butes : he is lustful (like a satyr), and has the power
to slay those who oppose his will (Tob. 38 G15 ©"'^).
Now, it is true that there is no demon in Mazdeism of
similar name who has exactly those characteristics ; but
one of the seven arch-demons who are oijposed to the
seven Mazdean archangels is called .\cshma, and is
the impersonation of anger (the primary meaning) and
rapine. So constaiuly is he mentioned in the .Avesta
beside .Angra Mainyu or Ahriman (with his weiipon ' the
wounding spear') that we could not wonder if he l)e-
came naturalised in the spirit-world of the Jews in the
Persian period. Once adopted, he would naturally
assume a somewhat difl'erent form ; his attributes would
be modified by the sovereign will of the popular imagina-
tion. This was actually the course of history, as
modern critics hold. By the time the Book of Tobit
was written Adshma had already a well-tlefined ro/f,
and, though vindictive ;is ever, had exchanged the
field of battle for less noble haunts. The Asmodai <>f
Tobit is, in fact, the counterpart of Limth {t/.v.), and
in still later times divided with her the dominion of
the shedim or demons. Asmodai, or, as his name is
written in Targ. and Talmud, 'Ki:;rN or "icc'K. ";'s as
dangerous to women as Lilith was to men, thougli we
also find him represented in a less otlious character
as a potent, wise, and sometimes even jocular elf (sec
Gittim, 68(7, in Wiinsche's 1 er bab. Tnlm. 2180-183).
The second part of the name .Ashmodai is of uncertain
origin. Most connect it with the Zend dunut. ' demon ' ;
but, though the combination Aeshmo dacvo is not im-
possible, it is nowliere found in the texts. Kohut's
explanations [Jiid. Angelologie and Aruc/i, s.v.) are pre-
carious.
Cp Zemiavesta and Pahlavi Texts in SBE; Spiegel, ErAn.
Atter:humskunde,'i.-L-ii /.\ Grunhaum, Z/X1/0 31 204, etc.;
Kohut's /«</. Ant;eioiogie, 72, etc. T. K. C.
ASNAH {TMj:?\<, -thornbush' ; acena [BA] ; -nna
[E] ; asena). The B'ne .Asnah, a family of Nethinim
in the great post-exilic list (see EzKA, ii. § 9), Ezra25o
= 1 Esd. 531, -As.XNA {aaaava [B], acra. [.A]) — Neh.Tsa
6'- (EV, following BNA, om. ).
ASNAPPER, RV Osnaim'AK, better Asfinappar
("iS:DN ; NA(t)Ap [A], AceNN. [l''l. caAmanac-
CApHC [L], .is!iX.iPii.4R), Ezra49/ To ' the great and
noble .Asfinappar' is ascriljed the transplanting of
several nations into Samaria from Ixiyond the Euphrates.
The two epithets naturally suggest that an .Assyrian king
is referred to, and, as Bosanquet in G. Smith's Hist,
of Assurbariipal. 364 ['71], suggested, the king can only
tie the conqueror of Susa— Asur-bani-pal (^sjrK from
SB](2n)DN = S£3-:3"iDN)-^ This view is confirmed by the
discovery (due to Marq. Fund. 59) of a various reading
for 1BJDK which underlies the impossible .Asbacaphath
{q.v.) of I Esd. .'■j 69, viz. 1E1CN. The two readings
supplement each other, and are e.xplained by a common
original nsjaDX, which is clearly .Asur-bani-pal. This
great king's name must have stood both in Ezra 4 2
1 An explanation, in the form which Gel/er gave to it (.4^^75^
['75D, now widely accepted. Cp, however, HalAvy, REJ ix. la.
342
ASOM
( ' Esarhaddon ' being an ignorant scribe's alteration)
and in the source from which the statement in Ezra 4 2
is derived (perhaps 2 K. 17 24, which at present merely
refers to 'the king of Assyria'). See further, AsuR-
HAM-I'AL.
ASOM (acom [HA]), I Esd. 9 33 = Ezra 10 33.
IlAsniM.
ASP (IDS, p^'then: AcniC [HAL]) in Dt. 3233 Job
20.4-6 (ApAKCON LJ''^5AC]) Is. 118 AV, in I's.f,84 91 13
■VV"'>-'- (BaciAickoc [HSARTJ), and in Rom. Sist;
probably sonic species of viper (cp AUDER, 2), see iJER-
I'KNT, J; I, n. 5.
ASPALATHUS (ACTTAAAeoc [BSA] ; balsamum) is
associated with cinnamon and other perfumes in the
Praiseof Wisdom ( licclus. 24 15). Theophrastus [Hist.^j)
mentions it along with various spices, etc. , used in making
unguents, and in Pliny (//.V2224) it is 'radix unguentis
expetiht-.' Fra;is, the most recent writer on classical
botany (Synopsis Plantarum Florce Classics, 49), refers it
conjecturally to Genista acanthoclada, D.C. , a native of
Greece and the Grecian archipelago ; but the most that
can safely be said is that it seems to have teen a prickly
shrub, probably leguminous, with a scented wood or
root. The ante-Linnoean commentaries devoted much
attention to it, but with no more definite result. It
has evidently been lost sight of since classical times,
and supplanted by other perfumes. w. T. t.-d.
ASPATHA (XnSDX, (t)AC^<^[I!^*'■"]. ^lAfA [N*"''],
(})A. [A], cJ)ACA [!>]. one of the ten sons of Ham.\N
((/. 7'. ) E.St. 97. I'ott and Hcnfey ex])lain the name as
the Pers. aspadata, ' ab ecjiio sacro datus ' (cp Be.-Rys. ) ;
but the MT reading is too insufficiently supported.
ASPHAR, THE POOL (Aakkoc^ accJjapLwXV; Jos.],
A- &c4)AA [A] ; /ari/s Asphar [Vg.]), in the wilderness
of Tekoa, is mentioned in coimection with the struggle
of Jonathan and Simon the Maccabees with Bacchides
( I Mace. 933 ; cp Jos. Ant. xiii. 1 2). The Be'cr Asphar
is probably the modern Bir-Selhiih, a considerable
reservoir in the wilderness, 6 m. WSW. of Engedi,
and near the junction of several ancient roads (described
by Rob. BR 2 202) ; the hills around still bear the name
Safrd, an equivalent of .Vsphar. A less probable identifi-
cation is that with the ruins and cistern, es-Za'fcrdneh
to the S. of Tekoa (Buhl, Pal. 158). G. A. S.
ASPHARASUS (accIjapACOC [BA]), i Esd. 53 =
Ezra22, .Mizi>ar.
ASRIEL ('?X"'-l':;*X, § 67, ecpiHA [BAL] ; the patro-
nymic is Asrielite, *V5<;?"P''^n. -A[e]i [BAF], cep. [L]).
a Gileadite family, descended from Manasseh through
Machir, losh. 1/2 (lezemA [B], epi. [A]), Nu. 2631
(cepi. [I'll- In I Ch. 7 14-19 (AcepeiHA [B], AV Ash-
rikl; see Manasseh), a very different Manassite gene-
alogy, the name is probably dittography of the syllables
immediately following (ync'N ; cp also text of ©"); read,
' The sons of Manasseh whom his concubine the Ara-
niitess bare ' (cp (jen. 4620 (S). The name may be old,
though it comes to us from late writers.
ASS ("llt^n;- fem. pnX;' ONOC [BAL]; asinus,
asina]. Wild Ass (NIS or" -ihr = Chald. Tli; ; ^ ovos
aypios ; onager), and Young Ass (IT, wu\os [B.\L]).
The followi.^g are the passages : (a) for 'ass' Gen. 12 16 223
40 1 1 14 ((0 TOKaAd^), K.x. 13i3 Nu 22 28 Dt. 22 10 Judg. 5 10
(viTo^vyiov [Ah]) 15 15 2 K. 62s Is. 21 7 Zech. 99 ((P ujrofwyioi')
Mt. 2I2 I.k. 13i5 etc.; (/•) for 'wild ass' Job6 5 11 12 (© ofo?
ep7)f<.iTT)s) 24 5 (© ovoi) 3;t 5 Ps. 104 11 (O ovaypot.) Is. 32 14 Jer.
1 The usual rendering of "IN3 or li3 in (B.
2 Root npn, 'to be red.' On the form cp Lag. Uebers. ii,
Barth, iVB'ig^.
* The Ar. verb '<!/««« = 'contracto brevique gressu incessit ' ;
but this may be denominative. priN has of course no connection
wilh asintis : see Lag. Ann. St. 817.
■• Lag. derives -iny from' arada, 'he threw a stone far,' re-
ferring to the effect of the animal's trampling hoofs {Uebers.
sSyi). KTB seems to be connected with the notion of swift flight.
343
ASSAPHIOTH
2 ^4 (® tiT\arvvtv) \i f> Dan. .5 21 ({p ovaypwv) Hos. 8 <> (© om.)
(Jen. 16i2t KV ((S oypoiico?) ; there w;is pc-rhaps originally a
reference to the wild ass ;.lso in i S. 24 14 [15J 2020, where MT
now reads fyT3=FLEA [g.v.]. (t) For 'young ass' Is. 306
(® ovcx;), 24 (<S /3oe?), KV 'foal' Gen. 49 11 32 16, EV 'colt'
Zech. it 9 and (ȣ> oi-o?) Job 11 12, EV 'ass colt ' Judg. IO4 12 14.
A comparison of the passages in which licn and jinx
respectively occur shows that the former was more
used for carrying burdens and for agriculture, the
latter for riding. Hence some have thought that [mn
denotes a superior breed and not simply ' she-ass ' ; but
this opinion is now given up. We must conclude that
she-asses were preferretl for riding. As the name licn
shows, the Eastern ass is generally reddish in colour ; ^
white asses are rarer, and, therefore, used by the rich and
distinguished. This explains the reference in Judg. 5 10. '^
The -i'li (young ass, colt, foal ; in Ar. specifically wild
ass; see Hommel, Sdugetliiere, 127^ ) was used variously
for carrying burdens (Is. 306), for agriculture (t-. 24),
and for riding on (Zech. 99). On Judg. IO4 12:4, see
J AIR. On the place of the ass and on its employment
among the Jews see generally Jos. c.Ap. 2-j.
I The ass has been from the most ancient times a
domesticated animal, and probably, in Egypt at any
rate, preceded the horse as a servant of man. It is
1 even questioned whether the wild stock from which it
i was derived survives at the present day, some authorities
'. holding that the Hocks of wild asses met with in various
■ parts of Asia and Africa are but the descendants of
those ^^hich have escaped from the domesticated state.
The domestic ass, Etjuus asinus, is believed to be
descended from the wild ass of Africa, E. asinus, of
which there are two varieties, Africanus and Somalicus ;
and the strong disinclination to ford even narrow streams
which these animals show, and their delight in rolling
in the dust, are regarded as indications that their origin
is from some desert-dwelling animal. In former times
this species seems to have extended into Arabia.
In the East the ass plays a large part in the life of
the people, and has received a corresponding amount
of care at their hands. Much trouble is taken in breed-
ing and rearing the young. Darwin distinguishes four
different breeds in Syria : ' first, a light and graceful
animal (with an agreeable gait), used by ladies ; secondly,
an Arab breed reserved exclusively for the saddle ;
thirdly, a stouter animal used for ploughing and various
purposes ; and lastly, the large Damascus breed, w ith
. . . peculiarly long body and ears. '
The wild asses which roam in small herds over a considerable
part of Asia are sometimes regarded as belonging to one species,
the Equus hetnionus ; sometimes to three, the E. hemip/<us
found m Syria, the E. onager, the Onager of Persia, Heluchistan,
and parts of Northern India, and the E. hentionus of the high
table-lands of Tibet. Sven Hedin describes the last-named as
resembling a mule. Living at such high altitudes it has un-
usually large nostrils. These are artificially produced by the
Persians, who slit the nostrils of their tame asses when about to
use them for transport purposes in mountainous districts. The
Syrian species or sub-species rarely enters the N. of Palestine
at the present time. Wild asses congregate in herds, each with
a leader, and are said to migrate towards the south at the ap-
proach of winter. They are so fleet that only the swiftest horses
can keep pace with them, a fact recorded both by Xenophon
and by Layard ; and they are so suspicious that it is difficult
to approach within rifle-shot of them. They are eaten by the
Arabs and the Persians. N. M. — A. E. S.
ASSABIAS (acaBi&c [10). RV Sabias, iEsd.19
=:2Ch. 359, Hashabiah, 6.
ASSALIMOTH (ACCAAiMcaG [really -^c caA. A]),
I Esd. 836 AV= Ezras 10, Shei.omith, 4.
ASSANIAS, RV Assamias (accamiac [B]), i Esd.
8 54=: Ezra 8 24, Hashabiah, 7.
ASSAPHIOTH (AccAcJjeicoe [B]),
:Ezra255, Hassophereth.
Esd. 533 RV
t the ?".gyptians execrate the
Tuf^ttifa, Kixi bvuiSri t»|»' ;(/)odi/
1 Cp Plutarch s statement tl
ass Sia. TO TTvppou yeyoi/eVai to
(quoted by Bochart).
2 niins nijilN, not strictly 7vhite, but white spotted with red,
as the .>ame word means in Arabic, where it is specially applied
to the she-a.ss.
344
ASSASSINS
ASSASSINS, the RV rendering of ciK&pioi [Ti.
Wll], M..in! -i.e., ' dagKwmon ■ : Acts 21 38 (AV
niurdurers.). They are so called from the sica or small
curve<l sword, resembling the Persian acinaces (Jos.
Ant. xx. 8 to), which they carried under their cloaks.
'rhou<;h used generally without any political meaning
(cp Schiir. (/'/7I480, note), the term sicarii came to
be employed to denote the biiser and niore fanatical
associates of the zealots, who.se jwlicy it was to eliminate
their antagonists by assassination. See ZEALOT.
ASSEMBLY 0'}P^ ' 's frequently used, especially in
post-exilic literature, to denote the theocratic convocation
of Israel, the gathering of the ixjojjle in their religious
capacity. It thus Ix-conies synonymous with iKK\y)ffla
(so generally (p ; in Nu. 2(146 10 12 owafwyi), so Lk. 4
13 14), which in the N'l" is used of the Christian church,
in contrast to the Jewish kdhdl of the Mosaic dispensa-
tion. See CjlfKCH, § I. Closely allied in meaning
and usage is niy (from i;", 'to appoint': a company
assembled together by appointment), employed to de-
note the national body politic. Mosaic Israel encamped
in the desert (cp Kue. Einl. § 15, n. 12). Both, e.g.,
include the .i,^r (cp for 'y I'",x. I'iig, for 'p Nu. Ifus ;
see .SrR.\N(iKR AND SojouKNKK ), but are sometimes
interchanged (cp Nu. I646/. [17 10/.] 20). The dis-
tinction between the two, which was doubtless always
observetl, is clearly seen, e.g., in Lev. -i ij /. ('if the
whole congregation of Israel shall sin, and the thing be
hid fronj the eyes of the assembly . . . when the sin
therein is known then the aw^'w^// shall offer' . . . ),
where the kCihiil is composed of the judicial representa-
tives, the picked members of the ,-;ny (cp also Ut. '2.'.\\f.
where certain classes of the people — i.e., Ihe'edd/i —
may not enter into the kahal). See Sy.nedkiu.M.
Apart from their occurrence in the more secular
meaning of ' nnillitude, lunnlxir, swarm," both Sip and
r\-\]! occur but rarely in pre-Deuteronomic literature.
Snp(>)KV 'assembly": cp Kx. IO3 Lev. 4 13^ and Jer. Si'.ij
(crvcaywyj)) .')0g (ycuyai) K/. 'Ji'.j.i (d\Aos), etc. (2) KV 'congre-
gation': i K. I ra 108(of the^v'A?/;)
Pr. 5i4Mi. \ 'assembly': Nu.
1515'- lt)47 . .^35 1 Judg. '2I5 (see
Jrix,i:s, § I ,) ,. ;-„;..,.',, , ..... The coUocatiun
'day of assembly' Di. 'J 10 IU4 (& um.) ISiO, refers to tbe d.iy
on which the Law was given upon Sinai. For its more secular
meaning cp Clen. 35 1 1 (P)'- Ez. 17 17 (© oxAo? KV ' company ') ;
(;en. •283'-i -184 (P)'-! Nu. 2'24 (K),'-' .VV 'multitude,' RV 'com-
pany' (ui Kz. li)4o "2346, (B 6xAo9, RV ' assembly '). Cp also
I S. 1747 '• the assembly of Israel present at the fight between
D.-ivid and (loliath (E? see .Samukl, g 4). The earliest occur-
rence is probably tien. ii'.l6 (tP crucrTatrij) the kiihdl of Simeon
and Levi (parallel to -|ia). Closely related is TyT'T\'p ' assembly,'
Neh..')7: cp Dt.3342(AV 'congregation'), and i S. 19 20 (after
(P ; cp.S /><'/'«</ /,)<■. The passage is Midrashic). The verb (*P
«ft(c)cAT)(7ia^ni', fKK\.) is equally rare in pre-exilic literature; cp
Jer. •2<>q l)t.4io 31 1228 also i K. 8iy. l'22i (see Ki.st;s, g 5)
Judg. 201 (see Jtl)ca;s, § 13) Kx. 32 1 (E) ((rvncrrai'ai) 1''46
(Trapc^ijSoATJ) and 2 S. '20 14 (E? cp under Sheba).
niy, ' congregation ' (<B usually avfaytoyri) EV Ex. 16 1 7?; Xu.
2O11, etc. EV 'a.s.sembly,' Ps. 22i6 [17] Pr. 614; but RV
'congregation,' Lev. 84 Ku. 89 lOz/. Iti2 '208 Ps. S(m4. In
? re-exilic literature cp Nu. "2011 (R?); Jer. ('118 (<P noiixvia) and
los. 7i2 ((B eAi.//«iu«) (in both corrupt?) 1 K.85 12 2o(cp above)
Judg. 20 I 21 10 13 16 (cp above). In a wholly secular sense, cp
Judg. 148 swarm (of bees), Ps. 6830 [31] multitude (of bulls).
' Assembly ' also re[)resents the following : —
I. .T^j;, nnsj? * asdrdh, dsereth, apart from Jer. 92 [i]
* Srtp (to caIl) = Ar. kala (to speak); cp Syr. ff'hal to call,
collect ; kahliina brawler. The change from ' calling ' to
' assembling is easy ; cp use of Heh. pj-rjj. The relation between
S'n'p (assembly) and \x. kala is analogous to that between nio,
council, etc., and Syr. s'wiidha, talk, conversation (in C.en. 496
they are parallel), 'p finds an interesting parallel in Sab. nVnp
irinv. t'l^ assembly of 'Athtar (.\shtoreth). On the usage of
kd/tiiUcc Holzinger, ZA 77C9 105/ ['89].
2 In these f)as-ages ® has crvfayuyi).
3 From ixy, to press, restrain ; cp •n];': ' detained '(1 .S. 21 7 Jer.
86 5) ; perh. 'y a taboo, tem/>us clausum ; cp WRS, Sent. 456, who
notes the proverbial 3'iyi '\>-i'^ 'one under a taboo and one free.'
Cp .Ass. eseru, to bind, enclose ; uftirtu, magical spell, constella-
tion (Muss-.\rnolt).
345
ASSHURIM
where it is used of a ' band ' of evil doers (avvoioi, KV
'assembly'; Che. emends to n"i:n. JQJi, July i8y8), is a
technical term for some public religious convocation im-
pcjsing restraints on the individual (EV, SoLKMN ,-\s-
siMHi.V) ; cp 2 K. IO20 (in honour of Baal, i(p[<Ja
[M.\], 0(paw(ia [L]), Joelli4 2i5 ('y ^tnp parallel to
Cii inp, tfe/)oir[e]ia = .Ti;y), Am. 621 (parallel to ;::.
iravriyvpii), and Is. 1 13 ('ji jik, read 'p c^i'. and .--i-e
Jastrow, Amer. J. J'lieol. '98, p. 336 ; vrjcrfia k. dyp.a't).
Technically, 'd.uirdh is used almost wholly in post-
exilic writings (© invariably i^ubiov, finale, close ; cp C> s
title Ps. 28 [29]), of (a) the assembling upon the sevemh
day of unleavened cakes, Dt. 168' (kV'"'i.'- Cujsi.ng
Fkstivai,) ; (b) the eighth or sujx'rnumerary day — in
ecclesiastical language the octave — of the Feast of
Booths, Lev. 2^36 Nu. 2935 (KV"'K- as al)ove) Neh.
818 ; similarly the eighth day at the close of .Solomon's
dedicatory festival (2 Ch. 79), and [c) the I-'east of
Weeks, Jos. Ant. iii. 106 (acapda) and in the Mishna.
2. lyii's, mo ed (Nu. 162);'c'K"ip, famous in the congre-
gation, RV, preferably 'called to the assembly"; 0
fiov\-r\\ cp also P.s. 74 8 RV'tf- ( EV synagogues. ©
eopTT]). 'Fhe locution lyio S.nk, ' tent of congregation
(RV meeting) ' (G aK-qvT) /xapTvpLov), occurs frec|uently in
P.also Kx. 337 Nu. 124 Ut. 31 14 (H). Nu. 11 16 (J) ; and
outside Hex. in i S. 222 ^ ; but (P" om. ) i K. 84 (© t6
ffKTivwfjia Tov /jLapTvpiov) (see KiSGs, § 5). Cp also
CuNGKKG.\TioN, MoUNT OK ; Sv.NAGOGLE ; and see
Tahkknacle.
lyiO is properly an appointed time or place (like my from
ly) ; cp Gen. IS 14 (0 icatpds), etc., I„im. 26 ((P eopr^), etc. ; hence
used of a .sacred season or set feast (Hos. 9 5, (P iravTJyupn, etc.),
probably also one set by the moon's appearance (cp (len. 1 14
© icaipos). In designating feasts it is employed in a mucli wider
sense than in (see Feasts, g 6, Dance, § 3). It is Used not
only of the year of Release (Dt. 31 10 iD icaipo?), and of the
Passover (Hos. 129(10] © kop-n\),'^ but also of the Sabbath, New-
Year, and Day of Atonement (cp Lev. 23 © iop-ri]).
3. Kipc, mikrd'; Is. 1 13 'd K-.p, the calling of assemblies
(<5 r]fi4pa fieydXrj) ; cp Is. 4 15 (© ra Trfpii;vi;\cfi). The
locution cn'p K-:po> ' '^o'y convocation " (6 kXtjtij, or
^iriK\-r]Tos ayLa\ only in P (Ex. 12 16 Lev. 23 2 J". Nu. 28
1825/ 29 I 7 I.:i I.
4. niD. sud, Jer. 6 II (© avvayuryrj) l.'i 17 (© aivtSpiov] ;
Ps. 897 [8] 111 I, kV 'council,' G jiovXri ; also in Lz.
139, AV"'e- RV 'council,' RV'"*.'- 'secret,' <S iraiSda.
See Council, 3.
5. n'lSDN 'S^|3, badledsuppoth, Eccl. 12 n ((5 irapa jQiv
avvOffidTuv), masters of assemblies, a reference to the
convocations of the wise men (cp Ph. nscN ]2, ' memlwr
of an assembly ' ) ; RV""*.'- ' collectors of sentences ' ;
Tyler, ' editors of collections' ; Haupt, ' \ crses of a cob
lection'; Che. 'framers of collections' — /.f. ,'k 'V>S (A^''-
AV/. Li/r, 182). ""='
6. <*.-K\T7(ria (cp above) Mt. lGi3 IS17 Acts 1932 394'
Heb. 1223 ; see C'Ht.Kt ii.
7. ffifaywyrj (cp above) Ja. 22 AV, RV""*-'-; R\'
Synag()(;uk ((/.!'.).
ASSHUR. See A.'^svkia.
ASSHUR, CITY OF. See Telassar.
ASSHURIM (Dn-I^'N, AcoypiM [A]; AccoypieiM
[D L] ; AccoypiHA [I"-]), ''i^ *""'st born of Ui-.dan (Cen.
'2'>3). The name is enigmatical. Hommel(,-///7'239/')
thinks that we should read Ashurim, not Asslfurim,
and that .-\shur is the fuller and older form of Sulij.
InaMinnean inscription ((ilaser, 1 155 ; cpWi. .lO/'zS/.
and see /.DMCt, 1895, p. 527) l"-gypt, Ashur and 'Ibr
Naharan are grouped together (see Kbkr). The same
territory, extending from the ' River of h-gypt ' (?) to the
country between lieersheba and Hebron, may perhaps
be meant in Gen. 25 18, where the gloss ' in the direction
t The only pre-exilic occurrence of 'y in a technical sense ; but
note that according to .St. (7/'/1658, tn\ 1-4 5-8 are doublets;
cp Nowack, A n'l. 2 154 note.
2 We., however (AV. /V<»/A.('')> reads "jmyj, and Now. cViy
346
ASSIDBANS
of nitj-K ( ' ' Ashur ") ' was misunderstood by the authors of
the vowel-points. The reference intended was, according
to Hominel, to Ashur in S. Palestine ; he proposes to
read Ashur, not Asshur, also in Nu. 2422 24. The latter
view, at any rate, is very improbable (see Balaam, § 6).
Cp also Gksiiuk, 2.
ASSIDEANS, RV ' Hasidaeans," RV™2; 'that is
Chasidim' (d^CiAAlOl [ANVJ), is a transcription of the
Hebrew hasidim, pious ones (AV, generally, saints).
It is often used of faithful Israelites in the Psalms
(17 times in plur. , 5 times in sing.), and sometimes un-
questionably of the so-called Assideans [e.g., IIG15
149 1 5 9). In I Mace, the name appears as the designa-
tion of a society of men zealous for the law ( i Mace.
242 — according to the correct text as given by Fritzsche),
and closely connected with the scribes (i Mace. 7 12/).
It is plain from these passages that this society
of 'pious ones,' who held fast to the law under the
guidance of the scribes in opposition to the 'godless'
Hellenising party, was properly a religious, not a
political, organisation. For a time they joined the
revolt against the .Seleucids. The direct identification of
the Assideans with the Maccabee party in 2 Mace. 146,
however, is one of the many false statements of that
book, and directly contradictory to the trustworthy
narrative of i Mace. 7, which shows that they were
strictly a religious party, who scrupled to oppose the
legitimate high priest, even when he was on the Greek
side, and withdrew from the war of freedom as soon
as the attempt to interfere with the exercise of the
Jewish religion was given up. We are not to suppose
that the Assidcan society first arose in the time of the
Maccabees. The need of protesting against heathen
culture was doubtless felt earlier in the Greek period.
The 'former hasJdim,' as a Jewish tradition [Nedarim,
10 a) assures us, were ascetic legalists. Under the
Asmonean rule the Assideans developed into the better
known party of the Pharisees, and assumed new relations
to the ruling dynasty. It appears, from the Psalter of
Solomon, which represents the views of the Pharisees,
that the party continued to affect the title of ' pious
ones' [Hxnot), but less frequently than that of 'righteous
ones' (Skatot). Indeed, the third Jewish party of the
.■\smonean period had already appropriated the former
name, if we may adopt Schlirer's derivation of Esskne
{q.v.). See We. Pk. u. Sadd. ('74), p. 76/:, whose
results WRS adopted, and cp Schiir. Hist, /i 7^1 212;
Che. OPs, 56 (on the u.se of 'Assideans'), and other
passages (index under khasuiim). W. K. S. — T. K. C.
ASSIR (T'DX. ' prisoner ; but perhaps rather TDX
= Osiris ;^ cp HuR).
ASSYRIA
1. (In Ex. ao-eip [BF], ojtn\p [AL] ; in i Ch. apfo-ci, acrepei,
acretp [I?], acreip [.\], aTijp acrep \\.\ ; Asir). The enoiiym of one
of the families or divisions of the Korahiie guild of Levites ;
Ex. 024[P]. Cp I Ch. 622/: 37 [7/ 20], and for the inter-
pretation ofthe.se discrepant genealogies see Kokah.
2. Sonof Jeconiah(i Ch.3i7 ; a<7-€ip(HAL]). .So AV, following
a Juwi.sh view that Assir and Sliealtiel are the names of two
different sons of Jehoiachin(.S"a«Atvr'/-/M, 37 a; Midrash Vayikra,
par. X.; Midr. Shir /la-Shiriin, on 86; so Kinichi); but the
best texts (Ha., Ginsh.) make ' Jeconiah-.'Vssir ' the name of
one man. Kau. /AV and SBOT rightly restore the article
before Assir (the preceding word ends in ,n). Render, therefore,
' Jeconiah the captive ' (so RV). Cp Shealtiel.
ASSOS. or ASSUS (accoc [Ti. WII]), Acts
20 13,^ a town and seaport in the Roman province of
Asia ; now liehram Kalessi. Strabo, who ranks Assus
and Adramyteum together as 'cities of note,' pithily
describes the former as lying in a lofty situation, with
splendid fortifications, and communicating with its
harbours by means of a long flight of steps (610, 614).
So strong was the position that it gave, rise to a pun by
the musician Stratonicus, who applied to it the line
haaov W\ (Ss Kiv da^aaov 6\iOpov irelpad' iKr/ai.
' Come anigh, that anon thou mayest enter the toils of
death' (Hom. //. vi. 143). The joke lay in reading
'Aaaov id' =' Come to Assus.' The town was always
singularly Greek in character. Leake observes that its
ruins give ' perhaps the most perfect idea of a Greek city
that anywhere exists.' The material is granite, which
partly accounts for their immunity from spoliation. One
of the most interesting parts is the Via Sacra, or Street
of Tombs, extending to a great distance to the NW.
from the gate of the city. It is bordered by granite
colfins, some of them of great size. In Roman times,
owing to its supposed power of accelerating the decay
of corpses (PI. //N '2g8 8627), the stone of Assus
received the name sarcophagus. Paul must have entered
the city by the Street of Tombs on his last journey to
Jerusalem (Acts 20 13 14). The apostle had landed at
Troas and walked or rode the 20 m. thence to Assus in
time to join his companions, who had meanwhile sailed
round Cape Lectum.
A good account of Assos is given in Fellows, Asia Minor,
52; Murray's Handbook 0/ .A. .It. 64: for its inscriptions see
Report o( the: American K.vpedition, 1882. w. J. W.
ASSUERUS (acyhroc [B] etc.) Tob. 14i5t AV,
RV Ahasuekus [q.v., no. 3).
ASSUR (i) (-|1K>N) Ezra42 Ps. 838 AV, 4 Esd.
2 8 EV (As.'!ur [ed. Bensly]) Judith 2 14 etc. AV, RV
As-SHUR ; elsewhere RV Assyria {(/.v.).
2. (acoyP [BA]), I Esd. 53i = Ezra25i> Harhuk.
A
ASSYRIA
Names and References (§ \/.).
Country, etc. (§§ 3-6).
People, Language,'- Religion (§
Civilization (8i 10-17).
Excavations (§ 18).
' 7-9)-
CONTENTS
Chronology (§§ 19-21).
Personal Names (§ 22).
Early History (§§ 23-25).
First Kings (§ 26).
Shalniane.ser I. (§ 27).
Tiglath-pileser I., etc. (§§ 28-30).
A.sur-nasir-pal (§ 31).
Shalmane>,er II., etc. (8 32).
Tiglath-pileser III., etc. (§ 33/).
Bibli..graphy (§ 35).
Assur, the name of the country _known to us as
Assyria, was written in Hebrew ~I-1B^X, EV AssiiuK,
„ or more fully -VjCTK pN, in the LXX
I. Names. ; - ' ' ,_.,
ACCOYP ^nd ACCYPIOC (©'- sometnnes
ACOYP) ^y Josephus and the (Jreek historians ' Xaavpia,
in the CJreek of the Alexandrian epoch '.Aroi'pi'a, and
in Aramaic Athiir, Athiiriyd, in which form the name
survived as that of a diocese of the Nestorian Church.
Other forms occurring once in ® are : — ao-ovp in E and in A ;
otro-ouptct/Lt in D, in A, and in L respectively ; -piTjA in E ; ao-crupos
1 Nestle, Eisrennamen, 11 1 : Che. Prof>h. Is.
on Is. 10 1 in SBOT; see also Names, f 82.
2 For literature see Babylonia, § \^ff.
2 144 300, and
in Al ; a<roupi/i in A; crvpioi in B* ; aovp in B-ib jja'a-bca
(and twice in A) ; To«p in N*.
By the Assyrians themselves the name of their country
waswritten phonetically 'i^ *— >-^ or »^ >-^ KI^I'
or (combining the two) V" ^— *^ KI^I' ^'^'^ ^'^"^
■^ and /T£T being determinatives respectively for
'land' and 'place.' .Subscquentl\-, the two signs that
formed the word, >— ( -as) and >-^ ( = J«r), were run
together and the name was written ■';;;^ -^i^ KIeI»
1 In 2O13 Vg. translates apoKre? atrirov (Ti. WH) by cum
sustulissent de Asson, taking the word (incorrectly) as the name
of the city.
348
ASSYRIA
V" *-*-V» ^"<^ finally the writing of the name was
abbreviated to the single horizontal stroke that forms its
first syllable. \^ .^^ -^ ^Jg. The name
v.as also written V ^Hf- JJ Ip E-^H' "^^ ^"f
Vr -V or V ->f --V <^-i-'-> 'land of
tlu! goii Asur."' In fact, it is prob.ible that the city
of Asur, from which the land of Assur was named,
received its title from the national god. Other in-
stances are known in which a god has given his name
to the country or city that worshipped him. The
land of Ciuti that lay to the K. of Assyria beyond
the Lower Zab appears to have taken its name from
(juti its national god, whilst the god Susinak gave his
name to the city of Susinak or Susa, the principal
tow II on the banks of the Eula.'us. The general term
among the (jreeks for all subjects of the Assyrian
empire was 'Affavpioi, which was more usually short-
ened into ^vpioi or i:,vpoi.'^ The abbreviated form
a( the word was, however, gradually confined to the
western Aramaic nations, being at last adopted by the
Aram:t!ans tlicmselves. These peoi)le. on Ijecoming
Christians, drojjped their old name in consequence of
the heathen associations it had accjuired in their transla-
tion of the XT, and styled themselves Siir'ydye,
whence the modern term ' Syriac. ' The unabbreviated
name was used to designate the district on the banks of
the Tigris, and this form of the word, passing from the
Greeks to the Romans, finally reached the nations of
northern Kuroiie.
References to Assyria or the Assyrians in the OT
are very numerous, though they are in the main con-
_.. .. . fined to tlie historical and the prophetic
references.
books ; the former describing the rela-
tions of Assyria with the later kings of
Israel and Judah, the latter commenting on these
relations and ottering advice. The prophets, in their
denunciations and predictions, sometimes refer to the
Assyrians by name ; at other times, though not actually
naming them, they dcscrilie them in terms which their
hearers could not possibly mistake.
The principal references may l)e classified under the following
three headings : (<i) Geographical use of the name As.syria : to
describe the course of the Tigris in the account of the garden of
Eden (den. 'J 14), and to indicate the region inhabited by the
sons of Islimael ('Jo 18). (/•) Rcfeniic f -, \., in.if is of history:
the f>undation of tlie .Assyrian cmiii:.' (Imh. luu), and its
classification among the naliuiis f 10 .■ ■) ; Mr ii.ili .in's tribute (2 K.
\'i \()/.) \ the captivity ofiiorilvrn Im:i' 1(1s. '.i 1 ;s 23); 2K. 1.') 29 ;
I Ch. 526); the assis'tan..- , ,f Ah,/ l,y Tighuh-i.il._sor, followed
by the capture and u.r.i iviis- nl I i.uiiascus (2 K. Hi 5-1S ; 2 Ch.
2820/); Hosheas suj.jc. Hull h, Shalmaneser (2K. 173); his
treachery and pnnishmtnt (17 4); the siege and capture of
Samaria (17 57C 18 0-12), and the colonisation of the countrj- by
foreigners (17 24 ff'.) ; Sennacherib's invasion of Palestine and
Hezekiah's payment of tribute, his refusal to submit to further
demands, the escape of Jerusalem from the Assyrian vengeance,
and Sennacherib's death (2 K. IS i3-l'.'37 ; Is. 3C. and 37 ; 2 Ch.
S"2i-23); the trade of .Assyria with Tyre (Ezek. "27 23) ; gcieral
references to past captivity or oppression by Assyria (Is. 524;
Jer. .^>0i7; Lam. 5 6; Ezek. 289^?; 23); reference to the punish-
ment that overtook -XssjTia (Je: . '>0 18) ; reference to the coloniza-
tion of Palestine by Esarhaddon (Ezra 4 2). (t) Pmphetic
criticism and forecasts : evil or captivity threatened or foretold
as coming from Assyria (Nu. 24 32 ; Hos. 9 3 11';; Is. 7 17^
10 5 23 13; Ezek. 23233222; Ps.S3 8): the futility of depending
on Assyrian he!p(Hos. .5 137117: 8 ^/. IO4-6 12 i : Jer. 2 18 -6);
the participation of Israel in Assyrian idolatry (Ezek. 1<>28 23
5^); prophecies of the return from rr.piivity in Assyria (Hos.
II II ; Mic.7 12 ; Is. 11 11 16; Zech. lOio); predictions of over-
throw or misfortune for Assyria (Nu. 2424; Mic. 65/; Is. 10
■Hj^. 1425 3O31 318; Ezek.'3l3^ ; the prophecy of Nahum ;
1 Throughout the present article the form fi$.\\r is employed
for the name of the god and city, AS-Snr for that of the land. In
the inscriptions the name of the land is written with the doubled
sibilant, an original Assyrian form that is not inconsistent with
the later Greek and Aramaic renderings of the name (see N6l-
deke, /^A 1 268^). The name of the god, however, is written
in the inscriptions both with the single and doubled sibilant, of
which the former may be regarded as the more correct on the
basis of the Greek and Hebrew transliteration of certain proper
names, in which the name A5ur occurs (see Jensen, iCA 1 i^.
and Schrader, ib. 209 _^).
2 On this see Svria.
349
ASSYRIA
Zeph. 213; Zech. lOii); references to Assyria as taking part
in the final cuiiveisii^ii and reconciliation of mankind (I-. ID
23^. 27 13). In some of these pa.%sages, however, Assyria may
= Syria {g.v.).
It is difficult to define exactly the Iwundaries of
Assyria. The extent of the country varied from time
p ... to time according to the adtiitional
J*' f ^''^ territory actiuired in con<|uest by its
and extent. j„onjirchs, and the name itself has at
times suffered from a somewhat vague and general
application. The classical writers employed it in a
conventional sense for the whole area watered by the
Tigris and the luiphrates, including northern Baby-
lonia, whilst its use has even been e.xtended so as to
cover the entire tract of country from the coast of the
Mediterranean to the mountains of Kurdi.stan. In a
definition of the extent of Assyria projier, however, any
vague use of the name may be ignored, for, although
at one time the Assyrian empire embraced the greater
part of western Asia, the provinces she included in her
rule were merely foreign states not attached to herself
by any organic connection, but retained by force of
arms. In general terms, therefore, the land of
Assyria may be said to have been situated in the upper
portion of the Mesopotamian valley about the middle
course of the river Tigris, and here we may trace
certain natural limits which may be regarded as the
proper boundaries of the country. The mountain
chains of Armenia and Kurdistan form natural barriers
on the N. and K. On the S. the boundary that
divided Assyria from Babylonia was in a constant
state of fluctuation ; but the point at w hich the chaiacter
of the country changes from the flat alluvial soil of the
Habylonian plain into the slightly higher and more
undulating tracts to the X. gives a suflicienlly well-
defined line of demarcation. On the W. , Assyria in
its earliest period did not e.\tend Ix;yond the territory
watered by the Tigris; but, finding no check to its advance
in that direction, it gradually absorbed the whole of
Mesopotamia as far S. as Babylon, until it found a
frontier in the waters of the Euphrates.
The chief feature of the country is the river TiGlUS
(^.7'.), which, rising in the mountains of Armenia, runs
_ . . . southward and divides Assvria into an
4. Description, j, ^^^ ^ ^y ^-^^^-^^^ .^^^^ jj,„.j „f
Assyria which is situated on the I-:, or left bank of the
Tigris, though the smaller, has always been nnich the
more important. The country on that side of the liver
consists of a continuous plain broken uj) by low detaclicd
ranges of limestone hills into a series of shallow valleys
through which small streams run. All the main tribu-
taries, too, that feed the Tigris rise in the Kurdish moun-
tains, and flow through this K. division of the countiy.
The E. Khabur, the Oreat or Upper Zab, the Little or
Lower Zab, the.Adhem, and the Diyala join the Tigris on
its left or E. bank. Being therefore so amply sujiplied
with water, this portion of the country is very fertile,
and well suited by nature for the rise of imiwrtant
cities. On the other hand, W. Assyria, which lies
between the Tigris and the Euphrates, is a much drier
and ir.ore barren region. The fall of the two rivers
between the point where they issue from the .'^purs of the
Taurus and the point where they enter the Babylonian
alluvium — a distance of si.\ hundred or seven hundred
miles — amounts to about one thousand feet, the Tigris
having the shorter course, and lieing, therefore, more
rapid. The country l«-lween the rivers consists of a
plain, sloping gently from the NW. to the SIO. In
its upper part this region is somewhat rugged ; it is in-,
tersected by manv streams, which unite to form the
Belikh and W. Khabur. The rivers flowing S. join the
Euphrates, and the district through which they pass
is watered sufficiently for purposes of cultivation. In
the SW. , however, the supply of water is scanty, and
the country tends to become a desert, its slightly
undulating surface being broken only by the Sinjar
range, a single row of limestone hills. The disUict
350*
6. Cities.
ASSYRIA
S. of these hills is waterless for the greater part
of the year ; the few streams and springs are for the
most part brackish, while in some places the country
consists of salt deserts, and in others vegetation is
rendered imposible by the nitrous character of tiio
soil. It is true that on the edges of this watorkss
region there are gullies (from one to two miles wide)
which present a more fertile appearance. These have
been hollowed out by the streams in the rainy season,
and, being submerged when the river rises, have in the
course of time been filled with alluvial soil. At the
present day they are the only spots between the hill-
country in the north and the Babylonian plain in the
south where {permanent cultivation is possible. It has
been urged that this portion of the country may have
changed its character since the time of the Assyrian
empire, and it is possible that in certain districts
extensive irrigation may have considerably increased its
productiveness ; but at best this portion of Assyria is
fitted rather for the hunter than for the tiller of the soil.
The land to the left of the Tigris is, therefore, much better
suited for sustaining a large population, and it is in
this district that the mounds marking the
sites of the ancient cities are to be
found. Asur, the earliest city of -Vssyria, is
indeed situated to the west of the Tigris, near the spot
where Kal'at .Shcrk.it now stands ; but its site is witliin
a short distance of the river, and it was the only city of
importance on that side of the stream. .\part from
its earliest caisital, the chief cities of Assyria were
Nineveh, Calah, and Dur-.Sargina. Nineveh, whose
foundation must date from a period not much more
recent than that of .\sur, was considerably to the N.
of that city, ojiposite the modern town of Mosul
( Mtnv.u'I), on the I'",, bank of the Tigris, at the point where
the small stream of the Khosr empties its waters ; its
site is marked by the mounds of Kuyunjik .and Nebi
Yunus(cp Nl.N'KVEii). Calah, founded by Shalmaneser
I., corresponds to the modern Ninirud, occupying a
position to the S. of Nineveh on the tongue of land
fonned by the junction of the Upper Zab with the
Tigris (cp Cai.aii). Dfir-.S.argina, 'the wall of
Sargon,' was founded by that monarch, who removed
his court thither ; the site of the city is marked by the
modern village of Khorsabad, to the NE. of Nineveh
(cp S.\kc;on). It will be seen that there was a tendency
throughout .Assyrian history to move the centre of the
kingdom northwards, following the course of the Tigris.
Other cities of importance were Arba'il or Irba'il
(Arbela) on the K. of the Upper Zab; Ingur-Bel (cor-
responding to the modern Tell - Balawat), situated
to the .SE. of Nineveh ; and Tarbis, its site now
marked bv the village of Sherif-Khan, lying to the
NW. of Nineveh.
From the abo\e V)rief description of the country, it
may be inferred that .Assyria [jresents considerable
- -KT^f.. 1 differences of climate. !•".. Assyria was
6. Natural ., . , , . •' .
resources ^ favoured region, possessmg a
good rainfall during winter and even in
the spring, and having, in virtue of its proximity to the
Kurdish mountains and its abundant sujjply of water, a
climate cooler and moister than was generally enjoyed
to the W. of the Tigris. In this latter region the some-
what rigorous climate of the mountainous district in the
N. presents a strong contrast to the arid character of
the waterless steppes in the centre and the S. The
frequent descriptions of the extreme fertility of Assyria
in the classical writers may, therefore, be regarded as in
part referring to the rich alluvial plains of Babylonia.
Not that .Assyria was by any means a barren land. She
supplementetl her rainfall by extensive artificial irrigation,
and thus secured for her fields in the hot season a
continual supply of water. Her cereal crops were
good. Olives were not uncommon, and the citrons of
Assyria were famous in antiquity. Fruit trees were
extensively cultivated, and, although the dates of Assyria
351
ASSYRIA
were much inferior to those of Babylonia, orange,
lemon, pomegranate, apricot, mulberry, vine, and fig
were grown successfully. The tamarisk was an ex-
ceedingly common shrub ; oleanders and myrtles grew
in the eastern district ; but, except along the rivers and
on the mountain slopes, trees were scanty. The trees,
however, included the silver poplar, the dwarf oak, the
plane, the sycamore, and the walnut. Vegetables such
as beans, peas, cucumbers, onions, and lentils were
grown throughout the country. Though Assyria could
not compete with Babylonia in fertility, her supply of
stone and minerals far exceeded that of the southern
country. Dig where you will in the alluvial soil of the
south, you come upon no strata of rock or stone to
reward your efforts. In Assyria limestone, sand-
stone, and conglomerate rock were common, whilst
gray alabaster of a soft kind, an excellent material for
sculpture in relief, abounds on the left bank of the
Tigris ; hard basaltic rock and various marbles w ere
also accessible in the mountains of Kurdistan. Iron,
copper, and lead were to be found in the hill counti^'
not far from Nineveh, while lead and copper were
obtained from the region of the upper Tigris in the neigh-
bourhood of the modern town of Diarbekr. Sulphur,
alum, salt, naphtha, and bitumen were also common ;
bitumen was extensively employed, in place of mortar
or cement, in building (cp Bitumkn). Of the
wild animals of Assyria the lion and the wild bull
are those most often mentioned in the historical in-
scriptions as affording big game for the Assyrian
kings. Less ambitious sportsmen might content them-
selves with the wild boar and the deer, the gazelle, the
ibex, and the hare ; while the wild ass, the bear, the fox,
the jackal, the wild cat, and wild sheep were to be
found. The most common of the birds were the kite
or eagle, the vulture, the bustard, the crane, the stork,
the wild goose, wild duck, teal, tern, partridge (red and
black), the sand grouse, and the plover. We know
from the monuments that fish were common. Of the
donu^stic animals of the Assyrians the principal were
camels, ho^ses, mules, asses, oxen, sheep, and goats.
Dogs, resembling the mastiff in appearance, were
employed for hunting. From the fact that heavy stone
weights carved in the form of ducks have been found,
it may be assumed that the duck was domesticated.
The -Assyrians belonged to the northern family of
Semites, and were closely akin to the Phoenicians, the
7. National
Aramaeans, and the Hebrews. Their
character.
robust physical proportions and facial
characteristics are well known from the
monuments, and tally with what we know of their char-
acter from their own inscriptions and the writings of the
Hebrew prophets. Is. 33 19 describes the Assyrians as
' a fierce people ' — an ei)ithet that fits a nation whose
history is one perpetual warfare. The dividing line be-
tween courage and ferocity is easily overpassed, and in a
military nation, such as the Assyrians were, it was but
natural that there should be customs which to a later
age seem b.arbarous. The practice of impaling the
defenders of a captured city was almost universal with
the -Assyrians ; the torturing of prisoners was common ;
and the practice of beheading the slain, whilst adding insult
to the vanquished, was adopted as a convenient method
of computing the enemy's loss, for it was easier to count
heads than to count todies. The difference in character
between the -Assyrians and the milder Babylonians was
due partly to the absence of that non-.Semitic element
which gave rise to and continued to influence the more
ancient civilisation of the latter (see B.\byloni.\, § 5) ;
partly, also, to differences of climate and geographical
position. The ferocity and the courage of the
Assyrians are to a great extent absent from the
Babylonian character. It has been asserted that the
Semites never make great soldiers, yet there have been
two prominent exceptions to this generalisation — the As-
syrians and the Carthaginians. The former indeed not
352
MAP OF SYRIA, ASSYRIA, AND BABYLONIA
INDEX TO NAMES (A-J)
Piirfn/fifsfs indicating articles that refer to the place-names are in certain cases added to non-biHical names having
tio biblical equivalent. The alphttbettcal arrangement ignores prefixes : el (the), J. (/ebel, mt.), Kh. (h'hirbat,
■ruin'), L. [lake). Mt., N. {.Xahr, 'river'), R. [river).
J. 'Abdul "Am, Ea
Abu Habtah, F4 (Babylonia, || 3 14)
Abu-Shahrein, H5 (Babylonia, | 3)
Accho, B4
Achmetha, 1 3
Achzib, H4
Acre, B4 (Damascus, f 4)
Aderbai^an, (i2, Ha
R. Adheni (A'zam ?), G3 (Assyria, i 4)
Adiabfnc, Fa (Disi-ersion, | 6)
'Adlan, B4
R. Adonis, B3 (Aphrk, 1)
'Afrin, Ca
Agadi, F"4 (Babylonia, i 3)
Agamatanu, 1 3
'Ain Kadis, B5
'Ain Tab, Ca
'Akarkuf, G4 (Babel, Tower of, | 7)
'Akka, B4 (Beth-emek)
Akkad, G4 (Babylonia, | i)
Akku, B4
Akzibi, B4
Alalia [Eg. "Asi], A3 (Cvprus, i j)
Albak, Vji
Aleppo, Ca
Alexandretta, Ca
Aniatu, C3
Amedi, Ea
Amid, Ea
Amida, Ea
N. Amrit, B3
J. el-Ansariya, C3
Antakieh, Ca
Anlarados, B3 (Akvad)
Antioch, Ca
Apaniea, C3 (mod. Rum K'ala)
Apamea, Da (mod. Kal'at el-Mudik)
Aradus, B3
Ararat, Ei
Arba'ilu, Fa (Assyria, f 5)
Arbela, Fa (Assyria, | 5)
Mt. Argaeus, Bi (Cafpadocia)
W. el-'Arish, As
Arka, C3
Arliite, C3
Armenia, Ei (Ararat, f a)
Ar Moab. B5
Arpad, Ca (Assyria, i 32)
Arpadda, Ca
Arrapachitis, Fa (Arphaxad)
Arvad, B3 (Assyria, jf 31)
Asdudu, B5
Asguza ? Ga (Ashkenaz)
Ashdod. Bs
Ashkelon, B5
N. el-".A.si, C3
'Askalan, Bs
Askaluna, Bs
Asshur, Fa
Assur. Fa (Assyria, | i)
Assyria. (13
Asur, F3 (Assyria, | i)
AtropatC'iie, Ga
R. A'zam? G3
Azotus, B5
Babylon, G4
Babylonia, Gs
Bagdad, G4 (Babel, Tower of, | 7)
Bagdadu, G4
Bagistana, H3
Balawat, Fa (Assyria, i 5)
Baldeh, B3
R. Balicha. Da
R. Balihi. Da
Barzipa, G4
Basra, Hs (Babylonia, f 14)
Batrun, B3
Bavian, Fa (Babylonia, | 58)
Beersheba, Bs
Behistun, H3 (Babylonia, %\ u 13)
Beirut, B4 (Berothah)
R. lielikh. Da (Assyria, | 4)
lieroea, Ca
Berytus, B4
Biaina, Fi (Ararat, | 2)
Bir es-Seba', Bs
Birejik, Ca (Carchemish, | 3)
Birs-Nimrud, G4 (Babylonia, f 3)
Biruti, B4
Bit Yakin, H5 and 1 5 (Chaldea)
Borsippa, G4 (Babylonia, | 3)
Botrys, B3
' Brook of Eg)'pt,' A5
Byblos, B3 (As-SYRiA, I 31)
Caesarea, B4
Calah, Fa (Assyria, | 5)
R. Calycadnus, Aa (Cii.icia, | i)
Caphtor, Ba
Cappadocia, Bi
Carchemish, Da
Carmania, inset map (Carmanians)
Mt. Carmel, B4
Carpasia, B3
Carrhae, Da
Caspian Sea, Ii (.\RAkAT, | 3)
R. Chaboras, E3
Chalcis, C3
Chalybon, Ca
Chittim (see Kittim)
Choaspes, 1 4
Cilicia, Ba
Circesium, E3
Citium, A3 (Cyprus, g i)
Commagene, Ca
Ctesiphon, G4
Cuth, Cuthah, G4 (Babylonia, i 3)
R. Cydnus, Ba (Cilicia, f 1)
Cyprus, A3
Damascus, C4
Daphne, Ca
Diarbekr, Ea (Assyria, i 6)
R. Dijla, Fa
R. Diklat, Ea
Dilmun? 16
Dimashk, C4
Dimaski, C4
Dinaretum Pr. , B3
R. Diyala. G3 (Assyria, i 4)
Dor, B4
IXir Kurigalzu, G4 (Assyria, | 28)
Dur Sargina, Fa (Assyria, | 5)
Du'ru, B4
Ecbatana, I3
Edessa, Da (Aramaic, f 11)
Edi'al, A3
Edom, Bs
Elam, H4 (Babylonia, i 22)
Elamtu, H4
Mts. of Elburz, la (Ararat, | 3)
Ellasar, Gs
Ellip, H4
Mt. El vend, I3
Emessa, C3 (see Hemessa)
Epiphania, C3
Erdjish Dagh, Bi
Erech, G5 (Babylonia, i 3)
Eridu, Hs (Babylonia, | 3)
Esdud, Bs
R. Eulaeus. I5, H4(ASlrbani-pal, | 6)
R. Euphrates, Da, F4(Babyu>nia, I14)
R. Furat, Da, F4
Gambulu? Hs (j^ur-bani-pal, |6)
Gargamil, Da
Gauzanitis, Ea
Gaza, Bs
Gebal, B3
(jedrosia, inset map (Carmanians)
Ghazza, Bs
Ghiuk Su, Aa
Gimir, Bi
Cidk Su, Ca
Gordaean Mts. , Ga
Gozan, Ea (Assyria, | 32)
Great Sea, B3, B4
Great Zab, Fa
Gubli, B3
Guzana, Ea
Habur, E3
Hadrach, C3 (Assyria, f 32)
Halab. Ca
Halwan, Ca
R. Halys, Bi (Cappadocia)
Hamadan, 1 3
Hamat, C3
Hamath, C3
Haran, Da
Harran, Da
yarran(u). Da
J. el-Hass, C3
yatarikka, C3
Hatte, Ca (Canaan, | 10)
Hauran, C4
Hauran, C4
Hawranu, C4
Hazzatu, Bs
Hebron, Bs
(H)emes(s)a, C3
Hesban. Bs
Heshbon, B5
yilakku, Ba (Cilicia, g 2)
Hillah, G4 (Babylonia, i 3)
Hit. F4
Homs, C3
Hulwan, G3
R. yusur. Fa (see Khawsar)
Nahr Ibrahim, B3
Ichnae, Da
Idalium, A3
Imgur-Bel, Fa (Assyria, | 5)
Irbil, Fa (.\ssyria, f 5)
Isin, Gs (Babylonia, t 49)
Issus, Ca (Cilicia, | i)
Jebeil, B3
Jebel Judi, Fa (Ararat, | 3)
Jerabis, Da
R. Jihun, Ca
Joppa, B4
SYRIA, ASSYRIA
ENCYCLOP/<
AM) HAinLOXTA
1^. Siuit 42 of Uremw. F
INDEX TO NAMES IN M.\P-Confinued (K-Z)
N. cl-Kablr, B3
N. el-Kabir. B3
Kadesh-bariiea, Bs
Kaisariyeh (Mazaca), Bi
Kaisariyeh, B4
kalah, F2
Kal'at Dibsa, D3
Kal'at el-Mudik, C3
kal'at Sherkat, F3 (Assyria, i 5)
kaldu, Hs. H6
Kalhu. Kalah. F2
Kana, B4
Karaja Dagh, Da
kardunias G4, H5
Karkisiya, E3
R. karun, I5
Kassi, 1 3 (Babylonia, § 56)
Kebben Maden, Di
Kefto, B2 (Caihtur, § 4)
Keniiisrin, C3
R. Kerkhah, 15, I4
R. Khabur, F2 (Assyria, § 4)
R. KhabQr, E3 (Assyria, § 4)
el-Khalil, B5
R. Khawsar, ' Khosr,' F2 (Assyria, § 5)
Khorsabad, F2 (Assyria, § 5)
Kirruri, G2 (Assyria, § 31)
Kis, G4 (Babylonia, S§ 3 47)
Kittim, A3
Kizil Irniak, Bi, Ci
koa, G3
Korduene, G2 (Ararat, § 3)
Kue, B2 (Cilicia, $ 2)
kummuh, Di (Assyria, § 28)
kurdistan, G2 (Assyria, § 3)
Kuma, H5
N. Kutha, G4
KutQ, G3 (Babylonia, | 69)
kutu. G4
Kuyunjik, F2 (Assyria, | 5)
el-Ladikiyeh, B3
Lagas, H5 (Babylonia, § 3)
Laodicea, B3
Larnaca, A3
Larsa, G5 (Babylonia, i 3)
R. Leontes, B4
N. Litani, B4
Lower Zab, G3 (Assyria, § 4)
Lycaonia, A2 (Cappadocia)
Malatya, Di
Nahr Malik. G4
Ma'lula. C4 (Aramaic, S 9)
Man. Fi
Manda. H2 (Cyrus, § 2)
Mar 'ash. C2
Marathus, B3
Maridin. E2
Mt. Masius, D2
Kh. Ma'sub. B4
Mazaca. Bi (Cappadocia)
Media. I3 (Babylonia, S 56)
Mediterranean, B3. B4
Melitene. Di (Ararat, $ i)
Memphis, inset map (Asur-bani-pal,
f i)
Meshech. Ci
Mesopotamia, E2
Mie-Turnat. G4
Mitani, 1)2 (Assyria, i 28)
Mosul. F2 (Assyria, jl 5)
Mukayyar. G5 (Babylonia, § 14)
Muiku, Ci (Assyria, i 28)
Musri, C2 (Assyria, § 28)
Musri, b5(AsHuoD)
Nabataea, C"5 (Asur-bani-pal, | 9)
Kaharina, D2 (Aram-naharaim, | 2/.)
Na'iri. Ei. Fi, Ga (Ararat, f 2)
Namri. H3
Nasibin. E2
Nebi Yunus. Fa (Assyria, | 5)
Nicephoriuni. U3
Niffer, G4 (Babylonia, f 3)
Nimrud. F"2 (Assyria, | 5)
Nineveh. F2 (Asur-bani-pal, | 2)
Mt. Niphates, Ei
Nippur, G4 (Babylonia, f 3)
Nisibis, Ea (Dispersion, | 6)
Nisin or Isin, G5 (Babylonia, § 49)
Mts. of Nisir, Ga (Deluge, § 2)
Opis. G3 (Cyrus, f 2)
Ornithonpolis. B4
R. Orontes, C3 (Assyria, S 31)
Osrhoene, Da
Palastu. B5 (Canaan, § 17)
Palmyra, D3 (Aramaic Language, $ 2)
Paltos, B3
Parthia. inset map
Pedias. Ba (Cilicia, f t)
Pekod. H4
Philistia. B5 (Canaan, | 17)
R. Physcus, G3
Pitru. Da
Pukudu? Hs
R. Purattu. D2, F4
R. Pyramus, C2 (Cilicia, § i)
R. Radanu, G3
Rakka. D3
Ras el-'Ain, E2
Rasappa, D3
Reieni, E2
Rezeph. D3
Rhesaina. Ea
Ribla, C3
Riblah. C3
Ruha, D2
Rusafa, D3
Ruwad, B3
es-Sabaha. C3
R. Sagurri, C2
Saida, B4
R. Sajur. Ca (Carchemish, § 2)
Salamis, A3 (Cyprus, § 2)
Salchad. C4
Salchah. C4
Samaria, B4
Samairah. F3
Samerina. B4
SamOsita, Da (Cappadocia)
Sarafand. B4
Sarepta, B4
Saruj, Da
R. Sarus. Ba (Cilicia, § i)
Sebastiya, B4
Seleucia. G4
Senkereh. Gs (Babylonia, § 3)
Serug. Da
Shatt el-' Arab. H5
Shan el-Hai, H4, Hs (Babylonia, § 3)
Shatt en-Nil. G5 (Babylonia, g 3)
Sherif Khan. Fa (Assyria, g 5)
Shinar. G4
Shirwan. H3
Shoa? G4
Shushan, I 4
Sidon, B4 (Assyria, | 31)
Sidunu. B4
R. Sihun, Ba
Simirra, B3
Si- vB3
Singf- .^ Ea
Sinjar Range, Ea (Assyria, g| 4 16)
Sinzar, C3
Sippar, F4 (Babylonia, || 3 54)
Sirpurla, Hs (Babylonia, gg 3 48)
Soli. Ba (Cilicia, g i)
Sophene, Di
R. Subnat. Ei (Assyria, g 27)
Sumeisat, Da
Sumer, H5 (Babylonia, g 1)
Sumra. B3
Sur, B4
Surru, B4
Susa. I4 (Cyrus, g i)
^>usan, I4 (Cyrus, g 6)
Susiana (Aram, g 1)
Susiana. Is (Babylonia, g 10)
Sutu. G4
Syrian Desert, D4
Tabal, Ci (Asur-bani-pal, g 4)
Tadmur. D3
Tantura. B4
Tarabulus. B3
Tarbis, Fa (Assyria, g 5)
Tarsus, Ba (Cilicia, g 1)
Tartus, B3
L. Tatta, Ai (Cappadocia)
Taurus, Fi. Ba (Cappadocia)
Tell 'Arka, C3
Tell Aswad. G4
Tell-Erfad. Ca
Tell Ibrahim, G4 (Babylonia, g 3)
Telloh. Hs (Babylonia, g 3)
Teredon. Hs
Thapsacus, D3 (Assyria, g 16)
Thebae. inset map (A5ur-bani-pal, g 1)
R. Tigris. Fa, H4 (Assyria, g 4)
Tiphsah, D3
R. Tornadotos, G3
Tracheia, Aa (Cilicia, g 1)
Tripolis. B3 (Damascus, g 4)
Tubal. Ci
R. Turnat. G3
L. Tuzla. A I
Tyre, B4 (Assyria, g 31)
Tyros, B4
Udumu, Bs
R. Ulaa. I5
R. Ulai, Is
Upe. G3
Upper Zab, Ga (Assyrta, g 4)
Ur, G5 (Babylonia, g 3)
Urartu, E;i (Ararat, g i)
Urfa. Ruha, Da
Uruk, Gs
L. Urumiyah, Urmia. G2 (Aramatc.
g.3)
Ur(u)salim, Bs
L. Van, Fi (Assyria, g 11)
W. el-'Arlsh, A5
Warka, Gs (Babylonia, g 3)
Yarn. B4
Yamutbal, H4
Yapu, B4
Zab (Upper or Greater), F2 (Assyria,
Zab'( Lower), F3 (Assyria, g 4)
Zabatus, Major. F2
Zabatus, Minor, F3
Zabu, Eln, F2
Zabu Supalu, F3
Mt. Zagros, G3
Zenjirli, C2 (Aramaic Language, g 2)
Zerghul. Hs
Zeugma, C2
Ziniri, G3 (Assyria, g 32)
ez-Zib, B4
ASSYRIA
only (lis[)layed the energy of conquest, but also combined
with it a gresit |X)wer of administration by which they or-
gaiiisc<l the empire they had acciuired. It was, however,
the custom of the ( ireek historians, and aflerwanls of the
Romans, to paint the Assyrians as a singularly luxurious
and sensual nation. Their monarchs, from the founder
of the empire down to the last king who held the throne,
were doscrilx.>d as given up to pleasure. It is po.ssible
that as regards the later empire this tradition contains
a substratum of truth, for the growing luxury of Assyria
may well have l)een one of the causes that brought
alK)ut her fall. For the earlier and the middle [Xiriotl of
Assyrian history, however, the statement is proved to l>e
untrue, lx)th by the records of Assyria herself and by the
negative evidence of the Hebrew jjrophels. [liese con-
temiK)rarics of Assyria, who hated her with the bitter
hatred which the o|)pressed must always feel for their
o|)pressors, rarely, if ever, denounce her lu.xury ; it was
her violence and robbery that impressed her victims. In
the language of prophecy the nation is pictured as a lion
(Nah. 2 12), and it is not as a centre of vice but as ' the
bloody city ' that Nixlium foretells the destruction of her
capital (3i).
The Assyrians s|x)ke a .Snnitic language, which they
inherited from the Habylonians — a language that was
8 Laneuaee '"°''*-' closely allied to Hebrew and
.° ° ' .\ramaic than to Arabic and the other
dialects of the S. .Semitic group. They
wrote a non-.Semitic character, one of the varieties of
the cuneiform writing (see B.\HVH)NI.\, § 5^). Like
their language, this system of writing came to them
from the Habylonians, who had themselves inherited it
from the previous non-Semitic inhabitants of Babylonia.
The Assyrians, although retaining the Babylonian signs,
made sundry changes in the formation of them, and in
some it is possible to trace a steady develojiment through-
out the whole period covered by the Assyrian inscri[)tions.
The forms of some of the characters in the inscriptions
of ahnost every .\s.syrian king display slight variations
from those emiiloyed by his predecessors. Indeed, in
some few cases, the forms used at different [)eri()(ls
differ more widely from one another than they do from
their Babylonian original. The literature of the
Assyrians was borrowed. In a .sense tin y were with-
out a literature, for they were not a literary [)eople.
They were a nation of warriors, not of scholars.
In this they present the greatest contrast to tluir
kindred in the S. Possessed of abundant practical
energy, they were without the meditative temperament
which fosteretl the growth of Baliy Ionian literature ;
and, although displaying courage in battle and devotion
to the chase, they lacked the epic spirit in which to tell
the tales of their enterprise. The majority of the his-
torical inscriptions which they have left behind them are
not literature : they are merely lists of con(|uered cities,
catalogues of ca|)tured spoil, and statistics of the slain.
Though not original, however, the As.syrians were far
from Ixiing illiterate. They took over, root and branch,
the whole literature of Babylonia, in the copying, the
collection, and the arrangement of which they {lisplayed
the .same energy and vigour with which they prosecuted
a campaign. It was natural that the jiriests and scril>es,
whose duty it was to copy anil collate, should attempt
compositions of their own ; but they merely reproduced
the matter and the methods of their predecessors. In a
word, the Assyrians nuide excellent librarians, and it is
to their powers of organisation that we owe the greater
part of our knowledge of Babylonian literature. Since,
therefore, the language, the system of writing, and the
literature of the Assyrians were not of their own making,
but merely an inheritance into which they eiUered, the
description of them in greater tletail fiiUs more naturally
under the article Babvi.oni.x (see § 19 J^.).
The religion of the Assyrians resenibles in the main
that of the Babylonians, from which it was derivetl.
The early colonists from the south carried with them the
'^^ 353
ASSYRIA
gods of the country which they were leaving ; but from
the very first they apjxiu to have sonjewhat mixlified
9 Religion '^*^ system and to have given a dis-
°^ ■ tinctly national character to the pantheon
tiny tiorrowed. This end they achievetl by the intro-
duction of the worship of Asur, their |>ctuliarly national
god, who was for them the symljol of their sejiarate
existence. A.sur they stn alK)ve all the Ribylonian
deities, even Anu, Bel, and 11a taking a sulK)r«linate
position in the hierarchy. It is true that we hnd Bcl
mentioned at times as though he were on an ((jual
footing with A.sur, esjiecially in the d(iuble royal title
"(jovernor of Bel, Representative of .\siir,' while
Assyria is sometimes termed • the land of Bel ' and
Nineveh ' the city of Bel." These titles, however, were
not inconsistent with Asur's sui)remacy. He was • the
king of all the gods,' and any national success w.as
regarded as the result of his initiative. It was Asur
who marked out the kings of As.syria fKoni their birth,
and in due time called them to the throne. It was he
who invested them with [jower and gave them victory
over their enemies, listened to their prayers, and dii tated
the policy they .shoultl pursue. The .Assyriati army w<Te
'the troops of .\sur ' ; the national foe was ' .\'i:r's
enemy"; and every ex[)edition is stated to have Ix-en
undertaken only at his direct conimand. In fact, the
life of the nation was con.secrated to his service, and its
energies were speiu in the attempt to vindicate his
majesty among the nations that surrounded them. His
symlx>l was the w inged circle in which was fri-(|uently
enclosed a draix.-d male figure wearing a head-dress w ith
three horns and with his hand extendetl ; at other times
he is representeil as holding a lx)w or drawing it to its
full extent. The synilx)l may, jx'rhajjs, Ix,- explained
as a visible re[)resentalion that Asur's might had no
etjual, his influence no limit, and his existence no end.
This synibol is often to Ix; found on the momnnents as
the accompaniment of royalty, signifying that the
Assyrian king, as Asur's re|)resenlati\e, was under his
es[K'cial protection ; and we find it not only sculptured
above the king's image but also graven on his .seal and
even endjroidered on his garment. It is possible that
we may trace in this exaltation of the god Asur the
Semitic tendency to monotheism, the complete vindica-
tion of which first fomul ex[)ression in the Hebrew
prophets. It must not Ix- supposed, however, that the
new deity stood in any op|)osition to the older gods.
These retained the resjx'ct and worship of the Assyrians,
and stood by Asur's side — not so powerful, it is true,
but retaining considerable influence and lending their
aid without prejudice to the advancement of the nation s
interests.
The spouse of A.sur was Belit-- that is, 'the Lady"
pnr excellence — and she was identified with the goddess
Istar (see especially 3 R. 24, 80 ; 53, n. 2, 367! ). and
in particular with Istar of Nineveh. Another goddess
who enjoyed es[xxial veneration in Assyria w.as Istar of
.Arlxila, who became particularly prominent under Sen-
n.icherib and his succes.sors, and was generally men-
tioned by the side of her naniesake of Nineveh. She
was especially the goddess of battle, and from Asur-
bani-p;\l we know the conventional form in which she
was presented. This monarch, on the eve of an engage-
ment w ith the Klamites, feeling far from confident of his
own success, api^ealed for encouragement antl guidaniv
to Istar of Arljela. The gotldess answeretl the kings
prayer by apjxjaring that night in a vision to a certain
seiT while he slept. On recounting his dreani to the
king, the seer descrilxxl the appearance of the goddess
in these words : ' Istar, who dwells in Arlx'la, enteretl.
On the left and the right of her hung Cjuivers ; in her
hand she held a bow ; and a sharp sword diil she draw
for the w aging of battle. '
Besides Asur and Istar. two other gods were held in
particular respect by the Assyrians — Ninib, the gotl of
battle, and Nergal, the god of the chase. Almost all
354
ASSYRIA
the Assyrian kings, however, had their own pantheons, I
to whom they owed especial alle;:;iance. In many cases
the names constituting the pantheon occur in the king's, i
inscriptions in a set order that does not often vary. !
Such were the principal changes which the Assyrians ,
made in the pantheon of Babylonia, the majority of
whose gods they inherited, with their functions and
attributes to a great extent unchanged. It is true that
our knowledge of Ikibylonian religion, like that of
Babylonian literature, comes to us mainly through
Assyrian sources ; but though it passed to them, its origin
and development are closely interwoven with the history
of the okler country. The cosmology of the Assyrians
and their conception of the universe were entirely Baby-
lonian (see B.VHYLONi.v, § 25) ; their astrology [ib. ^ 34),
their science of omens {§ 32), their system of ritual and
their ceremonial observances ( § 29/ ) were an inheritance
from the temples and worships of the south.
Though in language, writing, and literature Assyria so
closely resembles Babylonia, in her architecture she
... presents a striking contrast. The alluvial
,'■ " plains of the southern country contained no
stone, and the Babylonian buildings were,
therefore, mainly composed of brick. The resources of
As.syria were not so poor ; the limestone and the alabaster
with which her land abounded stood her in good stead.
The palace was the most important building among
the Assyrians, for the principal builders were the kings.
It was erected, usually, on an artificial platform of bricks
or earth ; in which fact we may possibly see a survival of
a custom of Babylonia, where such precautions against
inundation were necessary. The platform was generally
faced with stone, and was at times built in terraces which
were connected by steps. The palace itself was com-
posed of halls, galleries, and smaller chambers built
round open courts, the walls of the former being orna-
mented with elaborate sculptures in relief. It is only
from their foundations that our knowledge of the Assyrian
palaces has been obtained. From these remains a good
idea of their e.xtent can be gathered ; but there is no
means of telling the appearance they presented when
complete. Their upper portion has been totally de-
stroyed : it is a matter of conjecture whether they con-
sisted of more than one story. The paving of the open
courts was as a rule comjiosed of brick ; but sometimes
stone slabs, covered with shallow carving in conventional
patterns, were employed.
The temple was subordinate to the palace. Our
knowledge of its appearance is based mainly on its
representation on the monuments, from which it would
appear that the .\ssyrians inherited the Babylonian
zikkurratu (temple-tower), a building in stages which
diminish as they ascend (see B.\bvu)NI.^, § 16, beg.).
Unmistakable remains of a building of this description
were uncovered on the N. side of the mound at Nimrud.
Another type of building depicted on the monuments
has been identified as a shrine or a temple ; it was a
single-storied structure, with a broad entablature sup-
ported by columns or pilasters.
The domestic architecture of the Assyrians has
perished. The dwellings of the more wealthy must have
resembled the royal residence. On the bas-reliefs are
to be found villages which bear a striking resemblance to
those of modern Mesopotamia ; and, having regard to the
eternal nature of things eastern, we may regard it as not
unlikely that the humbler subjects of Assyria were housed
neither better nor worse than the villagers of to-day.
It was to adorn their palaces and temples that the
As.syrians employed the sculptured slabs and bas-reliefs
■iA.ii a 1 + ^^''^ which their name is peculiarly
10/^. sculpture. ..associated. The majority of these have
come from the palaces of .\sur-nasir-pal, Sargon, Sen-
nacherib, and Asur-bani-pal. The work of the earliest
of these kings is distinguished from that of his successors
by a certain breadth and grandeur of treatment ; but
the constant repetition of his own figure, accompanied
355
ASSYRIA
by attendants, human or divine, becomes monotonous.
The woik of Sargon presents a greater variety of subject
and treatment ; but it is in the sculptures of Sennacherib
and .\iur-bani-pal that the most varied episodes of
Assyrian life and history are portrayed. It was natural
that battle-scenes should chiefly occupy the sculptor ;
yet even here the artist could give his fancy play.
Whilst he was bound by convention to dejiict the vulture
devouring the slain, he could carve at the top of his
slab a sow with her litter trampling through a reed-
bed. Armies in camp or on the march, the siege of
cities or battles in the open, the counting of the slain
and the treatment of prisoners — all are rendered with
absolute fidelity. When an army crosses a river and
boats for transport are not to Ix; had, the troops are
represented as swimming over with the help of inflated
skins' — a custom that survives on the banks of the
Tigris to the present day.
Though the sculptures of Sennacherib and Asur-b.ini-
pal have much in common, as regards both their matter
and the method of their treatment, each king had his
own favourite subject for portrayal on his monuments.
Sennacherib liked most to perp)etuate his building
operations ; Asur-bani-pal, his own deeds of valour in
the chase. Sennacherib erected two palaces at Nineveh
— the one at Nebi Yunus, the other at Kuyunjik — but
it is only at Kuyunjik that the palace has been thoroughly
explored. On the walls of this latter edifice he caused
to be carved a series of scenes in which his builders are
represented at their work. Stone and timber are being
carried down the Tigris upon rafts ; gangs of slaves are
collecting smaller stones in baskets, and piling them up
to form the terrace on which the palace is to stand ;
others are wheeling hand-carts full of tools and rojjes for
scaffolding, or transporting on sledges huge blocks of
stone for the colossal statues. The hunting-scenes of
Asur-bani-pal may be regarded as marking the acme
of Assyrian art. Background and accessories are for
the most part absent. Thus, grotesque efforts at per-
spective, common to the most of early art, are avoided,
with the result that the limitations in the methods of
the early artist are not so apparent. The scenes
portrayed are always spirited. The figures are all
in motion. Whilst the elaboration of detail is not
carried to an extreme, action is represented with com-
plete success. This series of hunting-scenes contains
pieces of great beauty. It is in striking contrast to the
large majority of Assyrian sculptures, which tend to
excite interest rather than admiration. Still, even the
earlier work has not entirely failed in its purpose —
ornamentation. The stiff arrangement of a battlefield
has often a decorative effect ; and the representation of
a river with the curves and scrolls of its water contrast-
ing with the stiff symmetrical line of reeds upon its bank,
is always pleasing. Indeed, from a decorative point of
view, Assyrian art attained no small success. Traces
of colour are still to be found on some of the bas-reliefs,
on the hair and beards of ligures, on parts of the cloth-
ing, on the belts, the sandals, etc. ; but the question
whether the whole stone-work was originally covered
1 A singular detail may be noticed with refer<;nce to the
representation of the.se skins. The soldier places the skin
beneath his belly, and by means of his arms and legs paddles
himself across the water. Even with this assistance he would
need all his breath before his efforts landed him on the opposite
bank ; but in the sculptures each soldier is repre.sented as
retaining in his mouth one of the legs of the inflated skin, into
which he continues to blow as into a bagpipe. The inflation
of the skhi could be accomplished far more eflfectually on land
before he started, and the last leg of the beast could then be
tied up so that the swimmer need not trouble himself further
about his apparatus, but devote his entire attention to his
stroke. This, no doubt, was what actually happened ; but the
sculptor wishes to indicate that his skins are not .solid bodies
but full of air, and he can find no better way of .showing it than
by making his swimmers continue blowing out the .skins, though
in the act of crossing. This instance may be taken as typical
of the spirit of primitive art, which, diflident of its own powers
of portrayal, or distrusting the imagmation of the beholder, seeks
to make Us meaning clear by means of conventional devices.
356
ASSYRIA
with paint, or only parts of it picked out in colour, can-
not be dLcided.
I".ven more famous than their sculptured slabs are the
colossal winged lions and hunian-heatled bulls of the
Assyrians. They fired the imagination of the Hebrew
prophet Kzekiel, and they impress the beholder of
to-(lay. These creatures were set on either side of a
doorway or entrance, and were intended to be viewed
both from the front and from the side — a fact that
explains why they are invariably represented with five
legs. A very curious effect was often produced by
running inscriptions across the bodies of these bea.sts
without regard to any detail of carving or design. Asiu-
nasir-pal was a great offender in this respect. Not con-
tent will) scarring his colossi in this manner, he ran
inscriptions over his bas-reliefs as well, and displayed a
lack of imagination by reiseating the same short inscrip-
tion again and again with but few variations.
Carving in the round was rarely practised. A stone
statuette of A.sur-nasir-pal, a seated stone figure of
Shalmaneser II., and some colossal statiii.s of the god
Nebo have teen found ; but, though the proportions of
the figure are more or less correct, their treatment is
exceedingly stiff and formal. Modelling in clay, how-
ever, was common. A few small clay figures of gods
have been discovered, and we possess clay models of
the favourite hounds of Asur-bani-pal. We know, too,
that the stone bas-reliefs wore first of all designed and
niotlelled on a smaller scale in clay : the British Museum
possesses fragments of the.se clay designs, as well as the
rough drafts on clay tablets which the Assyrian masons
copied when they chiselled the inscriptions.
In their metal work the Assyrians were very skilful.
This we may gather both from the monuments and
11. Metal
work.
from the actual exam|jles of the art that
have come down to
A good majority
of the originals of the metal trappings,
ornanuMits, etc., that are represented on the monuments
nmst have been cast. The metal weights in the form of
lions are among the best actual examples of casting
that we possess. In the British Mu.seum, moreover,
there is to be seen an ancient mould that was emjiloycd
for casting. It was found near Mosul, and, although
it must lie assigned to a period about two centuries
subsot|uont to the fall of Xineveh, it probably represents
the traditional form of that class of matrix, and we
shall not be far wrong in supposing that such moulds
were extensively employed in the Assyriati foundries of
at least the later empire. The mould in question is
made of bronze, and is formed in four pieces which fit
together accurately. Three holes may be observed on
the Hat upjjer surface. Into these holes the molten
metal was poured. When the mould was opened after
its contents h.ad Ijeen given time to cool, there would
be seen lying within it three barl)cd arrow-heads.
It was, however, in the more legitimate art of metal-
beating that the .Assyrians excelled. Much of the em-
bossed work that adorned their thrones, their weapons,
and their armour was wrought with the hammer, while
the dishes and bowls from Nimrfid and the shields from
the neighIx)urhood of Lake \'an are covered with
delicate rcfoiiss^ work, the design on the upper side
lx;ing finished and defined by means of a graving tool.
The largest and finest examples of this class of work
that have been preserved are the bronze sheathings of
the gates of Shalmaneser II., which were excavated at
Tell-Balawat in 1879 and are now to be seen in the
British Museum. The bronze gates of nations in
antiquity were not cast in solid metal. They would
have been too heavy to move, and metal was not ob-
tained in suflScient quantities to warrant such an ex-
travagance. The gate was built principally of wood,
on which plates of metal were fastened ; the object
being to strengthen the gate against an enemy's assault,
and especially to protect its wooden interior from de-
struction by fire. The metal coverings of Shalmaneser's
3S7
ASSYRIA
gate consist of bronze bands which at one time
strengthened and adorned it. .\ brief inscription runs
round them, while the space is filled with designs in
delicate relief illustrating the battles and conquests of
the king and in general treatment resembling the bas-
reliefs of stone to which reference has been made.
Iron was used by the Assyrians ; but bronze was the
favourite substance of the metal-worker. Specimens of
the bronze employed have been analysed, and it has Ix-en
ascertained that it consists roughly of one part of tin to ten
parts of copper. We know from the jewels represented
on the monuments that ornamental work in silver and in
gold was not uncommon, and specimens of inlaid work
and of work in ivory have been found at Nimrud. Many
of the examples we possess, however, betray a strong
Egyptian influence, apparent in the general method of
treatment and in the occurrence of the scarabieus, the
cartouche, and a few hieroglyphs. Thus they must be
regarded not as genuine Assyrian productions, but rather
as the work of I'hucnician artists copying Egyptian
designs. Enamelling of bricks w as extensively employed
as a means of decoration. The designs consist some-
times of patterns, and sometimes of scenes in which
men and animals take part. The colouring is subdued,
and the general effect is harmonious. The fact that
the tones of the colouring are so subdued is regarded
by some as a proof that they have faded. Some
excellent examples of enamelled architectural orna-
mentation in terra-cotta have been found at Nimriid.
They bear the name of Asur-nasir-pal.
Engraving on gems and the rarer stones and marbles
was an art to which the Assyrians especially devoted
_ . . themselves. There have been found a
. oea s, e c. ^^^. g,.j^,g ^^^^ g^^j^ ^■^^^^ ^^^ ^^.j^j j„
shape ; but the general form adopted was that of a
cylinder. Those of cylindrical form vary from about
an inch and a half to two inches in length and from
about half an inch to an inch in diameter. They were
pierced along the centre so that the wearer could
suspend them from his [person by a cord. The use to
which they were put was precisely similar to that of the
signet ring. A Babylonian or an Assyrian, instead of
signing a document, ran his cylinder over the damp
clay tablet on which the deed he was attesting had
been inscribed. No two cylinder seals were precisely
alike, and thus this method of signature worked very
well. As every wealthy Assyrian carried his own seal-
cylinder, it is not surprising that time has spared a good
many of them. (It may be noticed in passing that the
class of poorer merchants and artis;ins did not carry
cylinders. When they attested a document they did so
by impressing their thumb-nail on the clay of the tablet.
\Vhether a certain social status brought w ith it the privi-
lege of carrying a cylinder, or whether the possession
of one depended solely on the choice or rather on the
wealth of its possessor, is a question that has never been
solved. )
The work on the cylinders is always intaglio, the
engraver aiming at rendering beautiful the seal im-
pression rather than the seal itself. The subjects repre-
sented, which are various, include acts of worship, such
as the introduction by a priest of a worshipper to his
god, mythological episodes, emblems of gods, animals,
trees, etc. : the engravings are generally religious or
symbolical. The official seal of the Assyrian kings
forms the principal exception to this general rule ; it is
circular and represents a royal jjcrsonage slaying a lion
with his hands. The character of the work itself varies
from the rudest scratches to the most polished w orkman-
ship, and it may be regarded as a general rule that the
more excellent the workmanship the later the date. The
earlier seals are inscriljed by means of the simplest form
of drill and graver, and the marks of the tools employed
for hollow ing are not obliterated, the heads of the figures
being represented by mere holes, while the bodies re-
semble fish-tiones ; it should be noted, however, that
358
13. Pottery.
ASSYRIA
early Babylonian seals of great beauty have been found
at Telloh.
It is strange that the Babylonian and the Assyrian,
living in a land of clay, building their houses of brick
and writing on clay tablets — -in fact, with
jjlastic clay constantly passing through
their hands — produced no striking s|)ecimens of pottery.
'They employed clay for all their vessels ; but the forms
these assumed do not show great originality, and or-
namentation was but niggardly applied. That the
Assyrians were glass-blowers is shown by the discovery
of small glass bottles and bowls. ^
The domestic furniture of the Assyrians does not
demand a detailed description. .\11 that was made of
14. Furniture
and em-
broidery.
wood has perished. Only the metal
fittings survive ; but these, with the
evidence of the bas-reliefs, point to a
high development of art in this direc-
tion. Perhaps the most sumptuous specimens of As-
syrian furniture that the monuments jwrtray are the
throne in which Sennacherib is seated before Lachish,
the furniture in the ' garden-scene' of Asur-bani-pal (both
in th-j British Museum), and the chair of state or throne
of Sargon on a slab from Khorsabad in the Louvre.
Of the art of embroidery, also, as practised by the
Assvrian ladies, the invaluable evidence of the monu-
ments gives us an idea. The clothes of the sculptured
figures are richly covered with needle-work, especially
on the sleeves and along the bottom of robes and tunics,
while the royal robes of Asur-nasir-pal are embroidered
from edge to edge. The general character of the
designs, whether consisting of patterns or of figures,
resembles that of the monuments themselves.
One other subject must be noted in this connection, — •
it does not strictly fall under the heading either of art or
__ , . of architecture, though it is closelv con-
15. Mecnamcs. ^^^,4^.^ ^.■^^Y^ branches of both'!— the
knowledge of mechanics that the Assyrians display.
To those who have had any experience in the remo\al
or fixing of Assyrian sculpture, and know the thickness
of the bas-reliefs and the weight of even the smallest
slab, the energy and skill recjuired by the Assyrians to
quarry, transport, and fix them in position is little short
of marvellous. Yet all this was accomplished with the
aid of only a wedge, a lever, a roller, and a roj^e.
Representations of three of these implements in use are
to be seen in the building-slabs of Sennacherib.
Among mechanical contrivances may be mentioned the
crane for raising water from the rivers to irrigate the
fields, and the pulley employed for lowering or raising
a bucket in a well. The ingenuity of the Assyrians
is apparent also in their various engines of war and the
elaborate siege-train that accompanied their armies. The
battering-rams, the scaling-ladders, the shields and
pent-houses to protect sappers while undermining a
wall — not to mention their chariots, weapons, and
defensive armour — all testify to their mechanical skill.
The position of Assyria was favourable for commerce.
Occupying part of the most fertile valley of W. Asia,
. ^ _ she formed the highway between E.
16. Commerce. , ,,, ^r ,
and W. Of her two great rivers, the
Euphrates approaches within one hundred miles of the
Mediterranean coast, yet empties its waters into the
Persian Gulf. At the time of the .\ssyrian empire a
highway of commerce must have lain from the Phoenician
coast to Damascus and thence along the Euphrates to
the Indian Ocean. Many important caravan routes
' They shine with beautiful prismatic tints. Most glass that
has been buried for a considerable period, indeed, whether of
Assyrian, Egyptian, Greek, or Roman manufacture, presents
this iridescent appearance. It is a popular error to .suppose
that it possessed these tints from the beginning and that the
art by which the colouring was attained ha.s perished with
those who practised it. The ancients must not be allowed to
take the credit due to nature. The earth and the atmosphere
acting on the surface of the glass have liberated the silex,
and the process of decomposition is attended with the iridescent
appearance.
359
ASSYRIA
also lay through Assyria. Nineveh maimained com-
mercial relations with the districts around Lake UrQ-
miyah, and with Ecbatina, while to the west he
PhcEnician traders journeyed by the Sinjar range to
Thapsftcus on the Euphrates, thence south to Tadnior
and through Damascus into Phoenicia : a second western
caravan route lay thr<jugh Harran into upjx.-r Syria and
Asia Minor, while Egypt's trade with Assyria as early as
the fifteenth century is attested by the Amarna tablets.
The prophet Ezekiel has borne witness to the presence of
Assyrian merchants at Tyre in his time ; j'et it was the
nations that traded with Assyria rather than Assyria
with the nations, for the Assyrians were es.sentially a
jx'ople who preferred to acquire their wealth by con-
(|uest rather than in the market-jjlace. The internal
trade of .Assxria is represented by the contr.act tablets
dating from the ninth century to the end of the empire,
that have Ijeen found at Kuyunjik. These tablets —
not nearly so many as those discovered throughout Baby-
lonia {i/.v., § 19, beg. )— deal with the sale of slaves,
cattle, and produce, the purchase of land, etc., and tear
witness to the internal prosperity of Assyria. They are
written more carefully than the majority of those of
Babylonia ; and the Babylonian device of wrapping the
tablet in an envelope of clay on which the contract was
inscribed in duplicate, with a view to its safer preserva-
tion, was not often adopted.
The form of government in Assyria throughout the
whole course of her history was that of a military
p despotism. The king was supreme. He
. ' was Asur's representative on earth and
under the special protection of the gods.
Whatever policy he might aaopt was Asur's policy,
and it was the duty of every subject of Assyria to carry
out his will. The nation therefore existed for the mon-
archy, not the monarchy for the nation. The kingship
rested on the army, on which it relied to quell rebellion
and maintain authority as well as to conquer foreign
lands. The army was in consequence the greatest
power in the state. Its commander-in-chief, the ttirtan
or tartan, held a position next to that of the king him-
self, in whose absence he led the troops and directed
operations (cp T.\Kr.\N). The saku was an impt)rtant
lower oflScer ; the rab-kisir was his superior ; and the
iud-sake and rah-sake were only second to the tai tan
(cp R.\BSH.\KKH). The tides of many court officers are
known ; but it is difficult to ascertain their functions.
The more important were eligible for the office of the
limmu, to which they succeeded in order, each giving his
name to the year during which he held office (.see § 19
and Chronology, § 23). In a military state such as
Assyria a system of civil administration, it may be said,
had almost disappeared. The governors of the various
cities in the realm, whose duty it was to maintain order
and send periodical accounts to the king, were not
civilians. In fact, every position of importance in the
empire was filled from the army. Priests and judges
exercised a certain authority ; but it was small in com-
parison with that of similar classes in Babylonia.
18. Excava-
tions.
It was Assyria that at first attracted
the attention of explorers, though within
recent years Babylonia has enjoyed a
monopoly of excavation and discovery
In the year 1820 Rich, the resident of the East India Com-
I p.any at Bagdad, visited Mosul and m.ide a superficial examina-
tion of the mounds of Kuyunjik and Nebi Yfinus. He obtained
1 some fragments of pottery and a few bricks inscribed in cunei-
form characters, and he published an account of what he had
seen. It w.-is not until 1842 that attention was again attracted
to these mounds. Botta, the French Consul at Mosul, then
began to explore Kuyuniik. His efforts, however, did not meet
with much success, and next year he transferred his attention to
Khorsabad, 15 m. to the N. of Mosul. There he came across
the remains of a large building that subsequently proved to be
the palace of Sargon, king of As.syria (722-705 B.C.). The
majority of the sculptures that he and Victor Place excavated
I on this site are to be found in the Louvre ; some, however, were
obtained for the British Museum by Sir Henry Rawlinson.
1 In 1845 Sir Henry Layard explored the mounds at Nimrfid
360
ASSYRIA
ami Kuvunjik. undertaking excavations at these places for the
trustees of llic Hritish Museum; these diggings were continued
by Loftus, Kassani, and others, under the direction of Sir
Henry Rawlinson, who was then serving as Consul-General and
political agent at Bagdad, and they resulted in the discovery of
the principal remains of Assyrian art that have hcen recovered.
At NimrOd the palaces of A5ur-na>ir-pal (884-860 B.C.), Shal-
maneser II. (860-824 "-C-). !"1<1 Ksarhaddon (681-669 B.C.) have
been unearthed (cp Cai.ah), and at Kuyuniik (cp Nineveh)
the palace of Sennacherib (705-681), and that of ."VSur-bani-
pal (669-625). The bas-reliefs, inscriptions, etc., from that palace
are preserved in the Hritish Museum. At Kuyunjik (1852-54)
the famous library of .A5ur-bani-pal, from which the greater
part of our knowledge of Babylonian and Assyrian literature is
derived, was discovered. At Kal'at Sherkfitand at Sherlf Khan
excavations were successful ; important stone inscriptions and
clay cylinders of the early kings were found at Kal'at Sherkat.
The ye.ars 1878-79 were times of remarkable discoveries. Dur-
ing this peri(xl the 'finds 'at Kuyimjik included the great cylinder
of .\Sur-bani-pal {(^.v.), the most perfect specimen of its kind
extant ; at Niniriul a large temple dating from the time of
ASur-nfisir-pal w.is unearthed, while excavation at Tell-Halawat
resulted in the recovery of a second temple of A5ur-nasir-pal
and the bronze coverings of the gate of Shalmaneser II. (cp
supra). Besides the excavators and explorers of Assyria to
whom reference has been made, two others should be mentioned
— George Smith and K. A. Wallis Budge. George Smith, in
the years 1873, 1874, and 1875-76, undertook three expeditions
to that country, on the last of which he lost his life. The most
recent additions to the collection of cuneiform tablets from
Kuyunjik were made by Budge in the years 1888 and 1891.
Of the Assyrian antiquities which have been recovered, most
of the sculptures of Sargon from Khorsabad are in the Ix)uvre ;
Berlin possesses a stele of Sargon found at Cyprus (cp Sargon)
and a stele of Ksarhaddon ; a few slabs from the palace of A<5ur-
nasir-pal have found their w.iy into the museums at Edinburgh,
the Hague, Munich, Ziirich, and Constantinople, and others
from Kuyunjik int.) priv.ue galleries; almost all else is to be
found within tlic ualU .if the I'.ritish Museum.
Tlierc are Rjur main sources of information for the
settlement of Assyrian chronology — the so-called
19. Chronology. ' '"fonym lists "(see l)elow), the chrono-
°-' logical notices scattered throughout
the historical inscriptions (see § 20, beg.), the genea-
logies some of the kings give of themselves (see § 20,
end), and lastly those two most important documents
which have been styled the ' .Synchronous History '
(§ 21, beg.) and the 'Babylonian Chronicle' (§ 21,
end).
The early Babylonians had counted time by great
events, such as the taking of a city, or the construction of
a canal (cp CiiKONoi.or.Y, § 2, teg. ). This primitive
system of reckoning, by which a period or date could
be but roughly estimated, gave place among the later
Babylonians to the fashion of counting time according
to the years of the reigning king.
The Assyrians adopted neither of these methods.
They invented a system of their own. They named
the years after certain officers, each of whom may pos-
sibly have been termed a limn or limmu, though the
majotnty of scholars agree in regarding this term as
referring not to the officer himself, but to his period
of office. These officers or eponyms were appointed
in a general rotation ; each in succession held office for
a year and gave his name to that year ; the office was
similar to that of the archonate at Athens or the con-
sulate at Rome. Lists of the linimus have teen pre-
served from the reign of Ramman-nirari II. (911-890
B.C. ) down to that of .Asur-bfini-pal (669-625 H.c. ).
Some of them merely state the name of the e[X)nym ;
others add short accounts of the principal events
tiuring his term of office. Now, it is obvious that the
dates of all the years in this known succession will te>
known if there te any of them that can te determined
independently. It fortunately happens that there is such
a year. From the list we know that in the eponymy of
Pur-Sagali in the month of Sivan (May-June) the sun
was eclipsed, and astronomers have calculated that there
was a total eclipse at Nineveh on the 15th of June 763
B.C. Hence the year of Pur-Sagali is fixed as 763, and
the dates of the eponyms for the whole period covered
by the lists are determined (see further Chronology,
S 24, and cp telow, § 32).
For the chronology tefore this period other sources
must be sought. Approximately it can sometimes be
361
ASSYRIA
determined by means of data supplied by the inscriptions
20 Earlier '^^ '^^ kings in the form of chronological
neriod. "o*'^^'^^ o*" remarks. For example. Sen-
^ nacherib in his inscription engraved on
the rock at Bavian (see Kli1\x(> ff.), in recounting
his conquest of Babylon (689 u.c. ), adds that Kamman
and Sala, the gcxls of the city of Kkallati wl)ich
Marduk-nadin-ahO, king of Akkad, in the time of
Tiglath-pilcser, king of Assyria, had carried away
to Babylon, he now recovered and restored to their
place after a lapse of 418 years (cp telow, § 28).
According to .Sennacherib's computation, therefore,
Tiglath-pileser I. must have te-en reigning in the
year 1107 B.C., and from the inscription of Tigl.ath-
pile.ser himself on his cylinders (cp below, § 28, lx.'g. )
we know that this year is probably not among the first
five of his reign (cp te-low, § 28). Moreover, Tiglath-
pileser himself tells us that he rebuilt the temple of .Anu
and Ramman, which si.xty years previously had teen
pulled down by A.sur-dan because it had fallen into
decay in the course of 641 years since its foundation by
.Samsi- Ramman (cp below, § 25). This notice, there-
fore, proves that Asur-dan must have teen on the throne
about the years 1170 or 1180 B.C., and further approxi-
mately fixes the date of Samsi-Ramm.an as about the year
1820. The date of one other Assyrian king can
be fixed by means of a reference made to him by one of
his successors. Sennacherib narrates (cp below, {5 27)
that a seal of Tukulti-Ninib I. had teen brought from
Assyria to Babylon, where after 600 years he found it
on his conquest of that city. Sennacherib conquered
Babylon twice, once in 702 and again in 689 ; it may
te' concluded, therefore, that Tukulti-Ninib reigned in
any case before 1289 B.C., and possibly tefore 1302
B.C. We thus have four settled points or pegs on
which to hang the early history of Assyria.
Further assistance in the arrangement of the earlier
kings is obtained from genealogies. Ramman-nirari
I. , for example, styles himself the son of Fudil
( = Pudi-ilu), grandson of Bel-nirari, great grandson of
Asur-uballit, all of whom, he states, preceded him on
the throne of Assyria. Most of the Assyrian kings of
whom we possess inscriptions at least state the nante
of their father, while in one instance we know the
relationship between two early kings from a consider-
ably later occupant of the throne, Tiglath-pileser I.,
informing us that Samsi Ramman was the son of Ismi-
Dagan and that each was an early patesi of Assyria.
We thus know to a great extent the order in which
the kings must te arranged, and in cases where a son
succeeds his father we can assign approximately the
possible limits of their respective rules.
A further aid is found in the ' Synchronous H istory '
of Assyria and Babylonia. This inscription was an
„ . oflicial document drawn up with the
■ ^ " aim of giving a brief sunmiary of the
nous nistory, relations tetween Babylonia and As-
syria from the earliest times in regard
to the boundary line dividing the two countries. The
chief tablet on which this record is inscriljetl is. un-
fortunately, broken ; but much still remains which renders
the document one of the most important sources for
Babylonian and Assyrian history. From it we ascer-
tain for considerable periods which kings of Babylonia
jind Assyria were contemporaries.
Simil.ar information for the jx^riod from alx>ut 775 to
669 B. c. is obtained from the Babylonian Chronicle.
Now, we know the order and the length of the reigns
of a great majority of the Babylonian kings from the
Babylonian lists of kings that have been discdvered, and
the dates of some can te fixed, like those of the earlier
Assyrian kings, from subsec|uent chronological notices
(cp Babylonia, §38). The dates and order, there-
fore, of the kings of both Babylonia and Assyria can
to sonje extent te approximately settled inde|x^ndently
of one another, and each line of kings can te controlled
362
ASSYRIA
from the other by means of the bridges thrown across
between the two by the ' Synchronous History ' and the
' Haljyioniau Chronicle.'
A further means of control is supplied by the points
of contact that we can trace between Assyria and Egypt.
Such are the P2gyptian campaigns of Asur-bani-pal re-
counted on his cylinder inscription and the letter from
Asur-uballit to Amenophis IV., recently found at Tell
el-'Amarna, and now preserved in the GTzeh Museum.
These points of contact are not, however, sufficient
to warrant a separate classification ; and to go to
Egyptian chronology to fetch help for that of Assyria
would be to embark on an explanation igfwii per
Ignatius (cp Egypt, § 55/., and c;hronology, § 19).
Assyrian chronology, therefore, unlike that of early
Babylonia, may be regarded as tolerably fi.xed. The
dates of the later Assyrian kings, with the exception
of the successors of Asur-bani-pal, can be settled almost
to a j'ear, while the dates assigned by various scholars
to the earlier Assyrian kings, though differing, do not
differ very widely. The data summarised above,
which must form the basis of ever}' system of Assyrian
chronology, are not elastic beyond a certain point.
Thus, whilst no two historians agree precisely as to the
dates to be assigned to many of these earlier kings, the
maximum of their disagreement is inconsiderable, and
the results arrived at by almost any one of them may
be considered approximately correct.
With the Semitic races in general and the Baby-
lonians and Assyrians in particular pro[)er names re-
„ tained their original forms with great
persistency. Among these two nations,
in fact, many names consist of short sentences, complete
and perfectly grammatical ; indeed, were it not for the
determinatives placed before them to show that they are
names ( T for males, ^^ for females) the difficulty
of reading Assyrian texts would be considerably in-
creased.
The following are translations of some of the names
of Assyrian kings the interpretation of which may be
regarded as certain. Where the real Assyrian form
of the name differs from the form now in common use
it is added in brackets : —
Ismi-Dag.an . .
. . ' Dagon hath heard.'
Samsi-Ramnifin .
. . ' Mv sun is Rimmon.'
Asur-I,Cl.iii;i;u .
. . 'Asur is lord of hi.s people.
Puzur-.V;iir . .
. . ' Hidden in A.sur.
Asur-nrKlin-alic .
. . 'Asur giveth brethren.'
Asiir-uhallit ■. .
. . ' A.sur hath quickened to life.
Hel-nirari . . .
. . ' I5el is my helper.'
Kammfm-nirari .
. . ' Rimmon is my helper.
Shalmaneser (Suln
.anu-asaridu) ' Sulman is chief.
Tukulti-Xinib .
. . 'My helpis Ninib."
BC-1-ktui.ir-u.ur .
. . ' Bel, protect the boundary !
Ninib-pal-Ksara.
. . 'Ninib is the .son of ESara.'
Asur-dan . . .
. . 'Asur is judge.'
A.?ur-res-isi . .
. . 'Asur, raise the head!'
Tiglath-pileser (T
ukulti-pal-Esara) 'My help is the son of
E.sara.'
A^ur-bCl-kala . .
. . 'Asur is lord of all.'
A.sur-nasir-pal .
. . '.\sur protecteth theson.'
Asur-nirari . .
. . ' .\sur is my helper.'
Sargon (.Sarru-kinu) . ' I'he legitimate king.'
Sennacherib (Sin-ahe-erba) 'Sin (i.e., the Moon -god) hath
increased "brethren."'
Esarhaddon (.\Sur-ah-iddina) ' A.sur hath given a brother.'
A.5ur-bani-pal . . . ' Asur is the creator of a .son.'
A<5ur-etil-ilani . . . ' Asur is prince of the gods.'
Sin-.sar-i.5kun . . . . ' Sin hath established the king.'
The beginnings of the Assyrian empire are not, like
those of Babylonia, lost in remote antiquity. It is far
_. . more recent in its origin. The account
23. History, contained in Gen. lOn to the effect that
the .Assyrians went forth from the Babylonians and
founded their own cities is supported by all the evidence
-we can gather from the inscriptions. It is true that no
actual account of this emigration has yet been found
lamong the archives of either nation ; but every indication
of their origin tends to support the biblical account,
for the .\ssyrians in all that they have left behind them
363
ASSYRIA
betray their Babylonian origin. Their language and
method of writing, their literature, their religion, and
their science were taken o\'er from their southern neigh-
bours with but little modification, and their very history
is so interwoven with that of Babylonia that it is often
difficult to treat the two countries separately.
The period at which the Assyrian offshoot left its
parent stem, though not accurately known, can be set
24. Settlement.
within certain limits. It must have
lx?en at least before 2300 ».c. 'I'he
Babylonian emigrants, pushing northwartls along the
course of the Tigris, formed their first imjjortant settle-
ment on its W. bank sotne distance to the X. of its
point of junction with the Lower Zab. Here they
founded a city, and called it Asur after the name of
their national god, — a city that long continued to be
the royal capital of the kingdom.
The oldest Assyrian rulers did not bear the title of
king. They bore that of issakku, a term ecjuivalent to
25. Earliest "-"f ti^l" /f «'• ^fumed by many rulers
. of the old Babylonian cities m the S.
ru ers. .j,j^^ jjhrase ' issakku of the god .Asur ' is
not to be taken in the sense of ' priest. ' In all probability
it implies that the ruler was the representative of his
god — an explanation that is quite in accordance with the
theocr.atic feeling of the period.
The earliest issakkus at joresent known to us are
Lsmi-Dagan and his son Samsi-Ratnman. The latter
built a temple to the gods Anu and Ramman, which,
Tiglath-pileser I. tells us, fell into decay; 641 years
afterwards Asur-dan pulled it down, and 60 years later
it was rebuilt by Tiglath-pileser hirnself This refer-
ence enables us to fi.\ the date of Samsi-Ramman at
about 1820, and it is usual to assign to Ismi-Dagan,
his father, a date some twenty years earlier, circa 1840
B. c:. In addition to his buildings at A.sur, Samsi-
Ramman restored a temijle of Istar at Xineveh. The
names of other issakkus are known, although their dates
cannot be determined.
Bricks, for example, have been found at Kal'at-Sherkat, the
site of the ancient city of Asur, which bear the name of a
second Sam.si- Ramman, the son of Igur-kapkapu, and record
that he erected a temple to the national god in that city. .An-
other brick from the .same place is inscribed with the name of
Iri.sum, the son of Hallu, commemorating his dedication of a
building to the god Asur for the preservation of his own life
and that of his son.
There are no data for determining the relation of
Assyria to Babylonia at this period. Whether the early
issakkus still owed allegiance to their mother country
or had already repudiated her claims of control is a
question that cannot be decided with certainty. It is
generally supposed, however, that at some period be-
tween 1700 and 1600 B.C. .Assyria finally attained her
independence.
The oldest Assyrian king whose name is known to
us is Bel-kapkapu. Ramman-nirari III., in an obscure
i»c T- + V4 passage in one of his inscriptions,
26. Jrirst Jnngs. ^ig^tj^^s Bel-kapkapu as one of his
earliest predecessors on the throne of Assyria. This
passage is, however, the only indication we possess of
the time at which he ruled. The first Assyrian king of
whom we have more certain information is Asur-bel-
ni.sisu. With this king our knowledge of Assyrian
history becomes more connected, and we can
C!>ca 14 o. jrj^(,gip greater detail the doings of the various
kings and the relations they maintained with Babylonia.
The soarce of information that now becomes available
is the 'Synchronous History' (see above, § 21).
From this document we learn that A.sur-l)el-ni,sisu w.as on
friendly terms with Kara-indas, a king of the third Babylonian
dyn.-isty, with whom he formed a compact and determined the
boundary that should divide their respective kingdoms. These
friendly relations were maintained by Puzur-Asur,
ctrca 1440. l^jngofAssyria, who concluded similar treaties with
Burna-BuriaS, king of Babylonia. Puzur-A5ur was probably
succeeded by A5ur-nadin-ahe (.circa 1470). This king is mentioned
in a letter of A.sur-uballit to Amenophis IV., king of Egypt, in
which he refers to A.5ur-nadin-ahe as his father. How long the
friendly relations between Assyria and Babylonia continued we
364
ASSYRIA
cannot say; but it was impossilile that friction should always be
avoided. Assyria was proud of her indei)eiideiice, while Haby-
lonia could nut but be jealous of her growing strength. _ Thus it
was not long before their relations licLaiue hostile. It i.s under
Asur-uballi( that we first find the two nations in
circa 1410. ^ conflict. Asnr-uballij, to cement his friend-
ship with Babylonia, had given his daughter Muballifat-Seru.-i in
marriage to a Babylonian king, and K.ara-harda<S, the ofTspring
of this union, in time succeed<.-d his father on the throne. He was
slain, however, in a revolt, and Nazi-bugaS, a man of unknown
origin, was srt up in his stead. To avenge the death of his
grandson, ASiir-uballi; invaded Babylonia, slew Nazi-l)uga5, and
set the youn;4cst son of Burna-I'urias, Kurigalzu II., on the
throne. (Such is the account given in the 'Synchronous His-
tory' of A.^ur-uballij's intervention in Babylonian affairs. It
may be mentioned, however, th.it a parallel text contains a
somewhat different version of the afT.iir, with which the account
in the 'Synchronous History' has not yet lieen satisfactorily
reconcilei.!.) Kurigalzu did not long maintain friendship with
Assyria. .Soon we find him at war with A5ur-ubrilli}'s soni
Q an;l successor, Bel-nirari. Bel-nirari, he wever, de-
circa I3«0. f^.^^^.;! i,;,,, ^^ ti,e ^.jiy of Sugagu, and .-ifter plunder-
ing his camp added to the Assyrian territory half of the
country from the land of Sub.iru to Babylonia. liel-nirari's
son I'udi-ilu {circa ijoo) retained the territory his father had
acquired, but did not attempt to make further encro.achments
on the S. He undertook successfid expeditions, however,
.against the tribes on the E. and SK. of Assyria. We possess
an inscription on a brick from liis i)alace at Asur, and another
inscription of his on a six-sided si in.- (in I'r British Museum)
records that he erected a temple to S:ui:.is ilio Sun-god. His son
■ T~ . . Kamman-niran I., after sircn-tlieiiing the .\ssyrian
Lina 1345. rule in the territory recently acquired by his fattier,
turned his attention to his S. boundary. He conquered the
Babylonian king Nazi-maruttas in Kar-I§tar-Akarsallu, and
added considerably to his empire.
R;iiniiiaii-nir;iri was succeeded by his son .Slialmanesor
I. lie has lelt us no account of the cxpedilions he
circa i x-xo. undertook ; but that he was a great con-
27. Shal-
L
cjueror we gather from a reference in the
aiuials of Asur-nasir-iial. This king fe-
maneser I., i^^j^-s that in his reign the Assyrians whom
®"°' Shalnianeser, king of Assyria, a prince
who preceded him, had settled in the city of Halzidipha
revolted under Hulai, their governor, and took the royal
Assyrian city of Daindamusa. 'J'hese places lay on the
upper course of the Tigris ; and it is evident from
Asur-nasir-iJal's account that .Shalnianeser had formed a
sort of military outpost at this spot which shows that he
must have undertaken successful expeditions against the
countries to the XW. of Assyria. We may conclude
that it was in consecjuence of this extension of his territory
along the Tigris that .Shalmaneser transferred his
capital from Asur in the south, which had formed the
royal residence of Assyria, to Calah, a city of which he
was the founder, as we learn from Asur-n.asir-pal. This
new capital was situated about eighteen miles S. of
Nineveh (cp Calah). Shalmaneser, however, did not
neglect the older capital. He enlarged its royal palace
and restored the great temples. We know also that he
restored the great temple of Istar at Nineveh.
On his tleath he was succeeded by his son Tukulti-
Ninib, who, like his father, busied himself in extending
the NW. limits of his kingdom. At the
circa I2QO. r 1 .. , ■ .
sources of the Subnat, a river that joins the
Tigris some distance above the modern Diar-bekr, he
caused an image of himself to be hewn in the rock.
He con(iuered Babylonia, and for seven years governed
the country by means of tributary princes. Though
we have not recovered any actual inscription of this
king, we possess a copy of one made by the orders of
Sennacherib, on a clay tablet in the British Museum.
The original was inscribed on a seal of lapis-lazuli, and
Sennacherib tells us it had been carried from Assyria to
Babylon. Six hundred years later, says Sennacherib,
on his conquest of that city, he found the seal among
the treasures of Babylon and brought it back (cp above.
§ 20). The inscription itself is short, merely contain-
ing the name and titles of Tukulti-Ninib, and calling
down the vengeance of Asur and Ramman on any one
who should destroy the record. How or at what period
the seal was brought to Babylon cannot be said with
certainty ; but it is not improbable that it found its way
36s
ASSYRIA
there during Tukuhi-Xinib's occujiation of the country.
This occupation was not permanent. At the i-\\tl of
seven years the nobl<-s of Babylon revolted, and set
Ramman-sum-usur, or Ramnian-sum-na.sir (the name
may Ix; read in either way), on the throne there as an
inilepondenl king. Tukulti-Ninib was not a popular
ruler, for he was slain in a revolt by his own ncjbles,
who set his son, A-sur-nasir-pal, upon the throne. We
possess an Assyrian copy of a letter written by a Baby-
lonian king named Kanimiln-sum-nasir to Asur-narara
and Nabfi-daian, kings of Assyria. If, as has been
suggested, the writer of this letter and th<! king who
succeeded Tukulti-Ninib on the throne of Babylon are
identical, we obtain the names of two other Assyrian
kings of this period.
A few years later, under Bel-kudur-usur {circa 1210), we find
the -Assyrians and Babyh^nians again in conflict. Bel-kudur-usur,
tlieAssyrianking, wasslaininthebattle ; butNinili-
Circa 1205. pal-ESara retreated with the Assyrian armv, and
when the Babylonians followed up their advantage by an
invasion of Assyria he defeated them and drove them from the
country. The Babylonians, however, tboujjh repulsed, appear
to have regained a considerable part of their former territory
from the Assyrians. The next occupant of ti
The 1
, the son of Ni
pal-K
throne
He retrieved
tained at the
iina 1^00. jjij. disasters which his father had sus
hands of the Babylonians. He invaded Kabyl
Zainama-suni-iddin, captured the cities of Zaban, Irria, and
Akarsallu, .-ind returned with rich booty to Assyria. The only
other fact that we know of this king was that he pulled dov. n
the temple of Kamm.'m and Asur which had been erected by
S.imsi-Ramman, but had since fallen into decay. His must
have been an energetic reign, to justify the eulogy pronounced
on him by his great-grandson 'I'iglath-pileser I. This monarch
describes him as one ' who wielded a shining sceptre, who ruled
the men of Bel. u hose dnds .111(1 offerings pleased the great gods,
and who live. ■.•.■ Asluir dfm u.-is Muceeded
by his son Mir i\ a 1150), of ^vl}(J^e rri.;n ue know
[40.
■a l,y lii
Ami
Circa 1 120.
28. Tiglath-
pileser I.
. ^^ iiMiii J i,i;:atn-;)ile>er c.iMs ' tlienii^^lity
king who conquered the hums uf tiie fue ;uid (-sertlirew all the
exalted' ; and from a clay IhavI of liis. iKaiiny r.n inscription,
we learn that the propl, -, of Lnllumi and KutT were among
those he overthrew. lie u as victorious against the Baljylonians.
The Baliylonian kint;, Nrhialiad.nv/ar I., desiring to extend
the northern limits of liis coantiv invaded Assyria and besieged
a border fortress. _ Asur-rc.;-iM, however, summonrd his , hariots
of war, and on his advance llie r)al)ylonian-. r ing
their siege-train. Nebuch.idrez/ar, witli 1 .od
troops, soon returned ; but .\sur-res-isi, alter i ua
army, gave him battle and inflicted on liim aiiusnin- ueieat.
The Babylonian camp was plundered, and forty chariots fell into
the hands of the Assyrians.
On the death of Asur-res-isi the throne passed to his
son Tiglath-pileser I., whose reign marks an
epoch in Assyrian history. He is, moreover,
the first Assyrian monarch who has left us a detailed
record of his achievements. The great
inscrii)tion of this king is contained
on four octagonal cylinders of clay which
he buried at the four corners of the temple of Ramman
at Asur to serve as a jjermanent record of his greatness
and of the extent of the ,\ssyrian empire during his reign.
I'",ach of the four cylinders contains the same inscription.
Where one is broken or obscure the text can be made
out from the others. '
In the course of the introduction with which he prefaces the
account of his expeditions he gives the following description of
himself: 'Tiglath-pileser, the mighty king, the king of hosts
who has no rival, the king of the four quarters, the king of all
rulers, the lord of lords, . . . the king of kings, the excellent
priest who, at the command of the Sun-god, was entrusted with
the shining sceptre and has ruled all men who are subject to
Bel, the true shepherd whose name has been proclaimed unto
the rulers, the exalted governor whose weapons Asur has
commanded and whose name for the rule of the four quarters he
has proclaimed for ever, . . . the mighty one, the destroyer who
like the blast of a hurricane over the hostile land has proved his
power, who by the will of Bel has no rival and has destroyed
the foes of Asur.' On the conclusion of this preface the
inscription goes on to recount the various campaigns in which
Tiglath-pileser was engaged during the first hve years of his
reign. He first advanced against the inhabitants of .MuSku
(the Meshech of the OT ; see Tubal), who had overrun and
conquered the land of l^ummuh, which lay on both sides of the
Euphrates to the NW. of Assyria. Tiglath-pileser, therefore,
crossed the intervening mountainous region and defeated their
I Translation in KB \
366
I4-47-
ASSYRIA
five kings wiih great slaughter. ' The bodies of their warriors,"
he says, 'in the destructive )>attle did I cast down like a
tempest. Their blood I caused to flow over the valleys and
heights of the mountains. Their heads I cut off, and around
their cities I heaped them like . . . Their spoil, their posses-
sions, their property without limit, I brought out. Six thousand
ni-Mi, the remainder of their armies, who before my weapons h.td
fled, clasped my feet (/.»•., tendereil their submission). I carried
them awav and reckoned them as the inhabitants of my land.'
Tiglath-pileser then attacked the land of tCummuh, burnt the
cities, besieged and destroyed the fortress of .ScriSe on the
'Pilaris, and captured the king. He defeated the tribes that came
to the assistance of Kummuh, and after receiving the submission
of the neighbouring city of Urartinas returned to Assyria with
great booty, part of which he dedicated to the gods Asur and
Ramm.'in. This expedition was followed by one agamst
the land of Subari (or Subarti), in the course of which he
defeated (our tliousand warriors of the Hatti (see Hit riTK.s)aiHl
captured one hundred and twenty chariots, .\nother campaign
in the mountainous regions of the NW. met with similar
success, and resulted in the submission of many small states and
cities. Tiglath-pileser now devoted his energies to extending
his border in another direction. He crossed the Lower Zub and
overran the districts of Murattas .antl Sarada'us to the S. of
Assyria. Shortly afterwards, however, he returned to the N.,
whence he brought back with him the captured images of
twenty-five gods, which he set up as trophies in the temples of
his own land. Tiglath-pileser next extended his conquests still
farther north into the district around tlie upper course of the
Euphrates. The mountains he passed with great difficulty, and
crossed the Euphrates itself on rafts which his troops constructed
out of the trees that clothed the hill-sides. Here twenty-three
kings of the land of Na'iri, alarmed at his approach, assembled
their combined forces to give him liattle. ' Hut,' writes Tiglath-
pileser, 'with the violence of my mighty weapons I oppressed
them, and the destruction of their numerous host I accomplished
like the onslaught of the Storm-god. The corpses of their
warriors I scattered in the plains and on the mountain-heights.'
After completing the sulijugation of the district he restored the
kings he had captured, and in adilition to the spoil he had taken
he received from them as tribute twelve thousand horses and two
tho'.isaTid oxen. The .Vssyrian king now turned his troops
against the region of the VV. Euphrates. He subdued the
district around the city of Carchemish, and even extended his
conquests beyond the river, which his army crossed on rafts
buoyed up by inflated skins. The last campaign of which we
have a detailed accoiuit is th.at against the land of Musri to the
X. of A.^vi-ia. the inlia'.itants of which, when at length driven
int., Ih-lr ,':l,ief city of Arini, Icn.leied their submission. Tiglath-
pil -^ir thin mar.luMl thrciui;li the ?ieii,'hb(>iirini; cnuntrv carrying
with him hie and sword, burning the cities he look and digging
up their foundations. The royal scribe, speaking in his master's
name, concludes his record of these early conquests of Tiglath-
pileser with the following summary : ' In all forty-two Lands and
their kings from beyond the Lower Zfib, from the border of the
distant mountains .as far as the farther side of the E)uphrates up
to the land of Hatti and as far as the upper sea of the .setting
sun (i.e., Lake Van), from the beginning of my sovereignty until
my fifth year, has my hand con(|uered. One command have I
caused them to bear; their h<)-.[ages have 1 taken; tribute and
tax have I imp jsed upiu thcni.'
The cylinder-in> aiption of Tiglath-pileser does not recount
the later expeditions of his reign. From the 'Synchronous
History," however, which deals with his relations with Baby-
lonia, we learn that Tiglath-pileser, king of .Assyria, and Marduk-
nadin ahe, king of Babylonia, had 'a second time' set in battle
array their chariots of war that were assembled above the Lower
Zab in .Vrzuhina. ' In the .second year " they fought in Akkad,
where Tiglath-pileser ' captured the cities of L)rir-Kurigalzu,
Sippar of the Sun-god, Sippar of .Anunitu, Babylon, Opis, the
great cities together with their f irtifications ; at the same time
h; plundered .\karsallu .as far as the city of Lubdi, and the land
of Su'ii (on the Euphrates to the NW. of 15.al)ylon) in its entirety
up to the city of Rapiku he subdued.' 1 The phrase 'a second
time' i-^ puzzling, for the 'Synchronous History' does not relate
a previous campaign of Tiglath-pileser against Babylon. Some
scholars therefore suggest that it refers merely to the former
struggle of Asur-res-isi, Tiglath -pileser's father, with the Baby-
lonian king Nebuchadrezzar I.; but it must be remembered that
Tiglath-pileser did not meet with unvarying success in his re-
lations with Babyloni.a, for Sennacherib mentions that during
his reign Rammfin and Sala, the gods of the city of Ekallati,
had been carried off by Marduk-nadin-ahe, king of Akkad (cp
above, 8 20). The question whether this conquest of Ekallati
was before or after Tiglath -pileser's successful Babylonian
campaign is still indeed an open one ; but the supposition is
plausible that Marduk-nadin-ahe's advance against Assyria was
;n the first year of hostilities between the two countries, and
that his success was merely temporary, being followed 'in the
second year ' by Tiglath-pileser's extensive conquests in Baby-
lonia as related in the ' Synchronous Hi.story.'
Tiglath-pileser was a great hunter. He kept a record of
the beasts he slew in the desert. This was inserted in the
cylinder-inscription after the account of his campaigns. PVom
it we learn that with the help of the gods Ninib and Nergal
ASSYRIA
he .slew 'four wild oxen, mighty and terrible in the desert
of the land of Mitiini and in Araziki, which is in front of the
land of Hatti," ten elephants in the district of Harran and on
the banks of the Khabur, one hundred and twenty lions on
foot, and eight hundred with spears while in his chariot. He
caught four elephants alive, and brought them back, together
with the hides and tusks of those he had slaiuj to the city of
A5ur. No less energetic was the king in his building
operations. The temples of the gods in .Asur that were in ruins
he restored ; he repaired the palaces throughout the countrj-
that his predecessors had allowed to fall into decay ; he extended
his water-supply bjr the construction of canals; he accumulated
considerable quantities of grain. As a result of his conquests,
he kept As.syria supplied with horses, cattle, and sheep, and
brought back from his campaigns foreign trees and plants, which
became acclimatised.
The reign of Tiglath-pileser was a period of
great prosperity for Assyria. He pushed his conquests
until the bounds of his empire extended from below
the Lower Zab to Lake Van and the district of the
Upper P-uphrates, and from the mountains to the K. of
Assyria to Syria on the W. , including the region wateretl
by the Khabur. He was a good warrior ; yet he did
not neglect the internal administration of his realm,
devoting the spoil of his campaigns to the general
improvement of the country. In fact, the summary lie
gives of his own reign is a just one : ' To the land of
A.sur I added land; to its people I added people. The
condition of my people I improved : I caused them to
dwell in a jseaceful habitation.'
The prosperity which .\ssyria had enjoyed under
Tiglath-pileser does not appear to have long survived
his death.
-At the time of Asur-bel-k.ala, Tiglath-pileser's son, relations
between Assyria and Babylonia were of a friendly nature.
Asur-bel-kala .at first made treaties with Marduk-sapik-zer-mali,
king of Babylon ; and later, when Ramman-aplu-iddina, a man
of obscure extraction, ascended the throne of Babylonia, he
further strengthened the connection between the two countries
by contracting an alliance with the daughter of the Babylonian
king. Samsi-Ramman, another son of Tiglath-pileser I., also
succeeded to the throne, but whether before or after his brother
Asur-bel-kala cannot be determined. The only inscription of
this king that we possess records that he restored the temple of
the goddess Istar m Nineveh.
Such are the only facts we know concerning the
immediate successors of Tiglath-pileser I., and at this
29 (raT) poi'it a gap of more than one hundred
years occurs in our knowledge of the
ciira 1070-950. history of Assyria. We may surmise
that the period was one of misfortune for the empire.
What little can be gathered from the inscriptions con-
cerning these years speaks of disaster.
Shalmaneser 11., in his monolith-inscription,! states that he
recaptured the cities of Pethor and .Mutkinu (beyond the
Euphrates), which had been originally taken by Tiglath-pileser
I., but had meanwhile been lost by .\ssyria in the time of a king
named .Asur- . . . (the latter half of the name being broken).
"This king may be identified with A.sur-erbi, and in that case he
must have met with at least some .success in the W., for we
know that at a place on the coast of Phoctiicia Asur-erbi cut an
image of himself in the rock, near which at a later time
Shalmane.ser II. caused his own to be set. The names of two
other kings are known: Erba-Ramman and ASur-nadin-ahe,
whose reigns must have fallen during this period. They
are mentioned in the so-called 'hunting inscription' of A5ur-
nusir-pal as having erected buildings in the city of A.sur, which
were restored by Aliur-nasir-pal.
No direct light is thrown on this dark period by the
' Synchronous History.' As, however, it is written with
a strong Assyrian bias, its silence is an additional tes-
timony that during this period Assyria must have suffered
misfortunes.
When we once more take up the thread of Assyria's
_- . history, our knowledge of the succes-
30. Predeces- •„., '. . „, ,.• „^ • .,1,k.„i.„„ ,i„,..„ .^
sors of A.
sion of her kings is unbroken down to
the time of Asurbanipal.
Tiglath-pile.ser II. heads this succession of rulers ; but of him
we know nothing beyond his name, which occurs in an inscrip-
tion of his grandson Ramman-nirari II.,2 whostyles
Ctrca 930. him 'kiuiiofhosts, king of Assyria." Tigl.alh-pileser
1 1, was succeeded by his son Asur-dan II. Of this king we know
that he constructed a canal, which, however, in the course of thirty
years fell into disrepair, and was therefore made gootl
9"' by ASur-na.sir-pal. Ramman-nirari II., who succeeded
his father, has left iehind him only the short inscription (just
KB I igS.
367
1 KBXxioff.
2 A"51,
368
ASSYRIA
mentioned) recording his own name and those of his father and
grandfathtT. He was an energetic ruler, as Is evinced by the
.Synchronous History," which records various successes of his
against the Habylonians— first against the Babylonian king,
SamaS-mudammik, and later against his successor, Nabu-iSum-
iikun, who had set himself by force upon the throne. From this
latter monarch he captured many cities and much spoil. He did
not, however, press his victor>'. He concluded a truce with
the Babylonian kine, either Nabn-5um-i5kun or his successor,
and each added the other's daughter to his harem. His
„ son, Tukulti-Ninib, succeeded him, and from an inscrip-
°9°- tion of this mon.irch at .Sebeneh-Su we m.-i>r infer that
he undertook successful expeditions to the N. of Assyria, at least.
Tukulti-Ninib was succeeded by hisson Asur-nasir-pal,
one of the greatest monarchs Assyria ever pro-
■*■ duced. The ann.als of his reign he inscril)ed on
a slab of stone, which he set up in the temple of
. r the god N'inib at Calah. In this inscrip-
31. Asur- jjy„ 1 Qpj. of the longest historical inscrip-
nasir-pal. ^j^^^ ^j- ^ggyrj^ he gives an account of
the various campaigns he undertook.
In the first years of his reign, he tells us, he went .-\g.-iinst the
land of Numme, a mount.iinous tract of country to the N. of
Assyria, and subdued the l.-inds and cities in its neighbourhood.
'I'he king then proceeded against the district of Kirruri that lay
along the W. shores of L.-ike Uriimiy.-ih. Turning W. from
Kirruri, he p.tssed through the land of Kirtii on the Upper
Tii^ris, .ind city after city fell into his hands. He returned to
Assyria with the booty he had collected, .and brought with him
Bubu, the son of Hubfi, the governor of Nistun, a city where he
had met with an obstinate resistance. This wretch he flayed
alive in .\rl>cla, nailing his skin to the city wall. In the s.-ime
year he again repaired to the region of the Upper Tigris, against
the cities at the foot of the mountains of Nipur and Pasatu.
He then passed westward to the land of Kummuh, quelling a
revolt in the city of Sfiru on the Khfibur, and seizing the' rebel
le.-uler Ahi.ibaba who was brought back to Nineveh, where be
W.XS flayed. The tribes siirn.unilini; the disatTeited region
tendered their submission. In the next )e.ir the tirst act of the
king was to stamp out anotlier rebellion. Neu ^ was l)rought to
him that the city of Halzidipha, wliieli .SluUiuaneser II. had
colonised (see above, § 27, beg.), was in a state of revolution, and
had att.icked the Assyrian city of Damd.-imusa. While on his
way against the rebels be set up .an im.age of himself, at the source
of the river .Subnat, beside images of two of his predecessors,
Tiglath-pileser I. and Tukulti-Ninib. He then defeated the
rebels at the city of Kin.abu, which he captured, and pro-
ceeded to punish the revolt with severity, fl.aying the rebel
leader Hulai. Next he attacked the city of Tela and burnt it,
mutilating the prisoners by cutting off their ears and h.ands and
putting out their eyes. These wretches, while still alive, he
piled up in a great heap ; he made another heap out of the
heads of the slain, while other he.ads he fastened to trees round
the city ; the youths and maidens he burnt alive. These details
may suffice to show the brutal practices of this great conqueror.
ASur-nfisir-pal next proceeded to the city of Tu.sh.a, which had
been deserted by the Assyrians in consequence of a famine.
After restoring and strengthening its w.alls, he built a palace for
himself and brought back the former inhabitants of the city.
After his return he again undertook a pillaging expedition
in the mountainous regions of the north. The next two
years were mainly t.aken up with campaigns in Dag.ara and
Zamu.a, which were in a state of insurrection, Nur-R.ammrin,
the chief of Dagara, leading the revolt. The war w.as a pro-
tracted one, and three expeditions were required before order
was completely restored. These expeditions were followed by
others in the region of Kummuh, and in the land of Na'iri.
From his residence at Tusha, the" king then crossed the Tigris
and captured Pitura .and certain towns round the city of
Arbaki. Asur-n."isir-pal records at this point the death of
Ammeba'la, one of his nobles, who was murdered by his
subordinates. The king's anger, however, w.as appeased by a
large tribute, although, according to one .iccount, he flayed Hur-
Ramman, the chief rebel, and nailed his skin to the w.-ill of Sin.abu.
One of the most important campaigns in the reign of .\sur-
nasir-pal was that against the land of Suhi. Although S.adudu,
the ruler of th.at land, obt.ained help from N.abu-aplu-iddina,
king of Babylonia, his capital Suru was taken and he
himself escaped only by flight. A second campaign led to the
subjugation of the whole district and a considerable extension
of the Assyrian sphere of influence along the Euphrates.
ASur-nSsir-pal next crossed the river and c-irried his arms into
N. Syria. He first made his w.iy to C.archemish and received
the submission of Sangara, king of the land of Hatti. Pro-
ceeding SW. and exacting tribute from the districts through
which he pa.ssed, he crossed the Orontes and marched .S. into
the district of Lebanon. The cities on the coast of the
Mediterranean, including Tyre, Sidon, Byblos, and Armad
(.\rvad), sent presents. In the N. districts he cut down cedars,
which he used on his retunj in building temples to the g<>d>.
One more expedition .ASur-nasir-p-al undertook on the N. of
Assyria, traversing the land of |yummuh and again penetrating
to the upper reaches of the Tigri.s.
24
KB \ soj:, K PCI) 2 134^.
3^9
ASSYRIA
Asur-na.sir-pal firmly established the rule of .\.ssyria in
the NW. and the .\. , while he extended his empire
eastwards and laid the foundations of Assyria's later
supremacy in the W. on the coast of the Meditenanean.
He w.as one of Assyria's greatest contjucrors ; but his
rule was one of iron, and his barbarity was exceptional
even for his time. He was a great builder. .\t
Nineveh he restored the royal palace and rebuilt the
temple of Lstar. The city of Calali, which Shalmaneser
I. had founded, he rebuilt, [leopling it with captives
taken on his e.\[)editions. He connected it with the
Upf)er Zal) by means of a canal, and erected two temples
and a huge palace, from which his bas-reliefs, now in
the British Museum, were obtained (cp alx)ve. § 18).
Asur-niisir-pal w.as succeeded by his son .'^lialnianeser
I I, who extended the kingdom of his father beyond L.ake
ggQ Van and Lake l'ri"in)iyah. He exer-
cised a protectorate over Babylonia in
32. Shalmane- t^e .s. , and his kingdom 'included
Ber II. and Damascus, which he had concjuered.
successors. During his reign, for the first time in
history, .Assyria came into direct contact with Israel :
he mentions .\hab of Israel as one of the allies of
Benhadad of Damascus (cp Sh.m.m.ankskr II. ). His
later ye.ars were troubled by the revolt of his son Asur-
danin-pal ; but his younger son. .Sam.si-Ramnian, put
down the rebellion, and on his father's death succeeded
to the throne.
On a monolith of .Sam.si-R.amm.nn II., now in the British
Museum, is :ui inscription in arcliaistic characters narrating
_ four campaigns of this mon.arch. He restored order to
°^4- the kingdom, which had been thrown into confusion by
the rebellion of his brother, and, having established his own
authority over the territory subjugated by his father, ex-
tended it on the E. He routed the Habyloni.an king, Marduk-
balatsii-ikbi, in spite of the large army the latter had collected,
comprising drafts from Elam and Chaldea in addition to bis
regular troops.
Sanisi-Rammfin II. was succeeded by liis son.
Raminan-nirari III.
Two inscriptions on stone slabs from Cal.ah, an inscription
on some statues of tlie gixl Nebo, and an inscription on a brick
P from the mound of Nebi-Viim"is, are the records actually
°'^' d;aini; from his reign; but these are supplemented by
a sliort noti, e in the ' .Synchronous Histor>-,' and by the Eponym
Canon, wliicli adds short notices of the principal events during
each year of his reign.
Ramman-nirari III. undertook expeditions in Media.
Parsua. and the region of Lake Urumiyah on the K. ;
concjuered the land of Nairi on the N. ; and subjugated
all the coastlands on the W. . including Tyre, Sidon.
Israel. ?",dom, and I'hilistia. Mari', king of Damascus
(see Bknh.VDAD, § 3), attempted no defence of his capital.
He sent to Ramman-nirari his submission, paying a
heavy tribute in silver, gold, copper, and iron, besides
quantities of cloth an<i furniture. A considerable
portion of Babylonia also owned the supremacy of
Ramman-nirari. In his inscription on the statues of
Nebo, he mentions the name of his wife Samnmramat
(the Assyrian form of the Greek Semiramis). He was
a great monarch. His energetic rule and extensive
co!K|uests recall those of .Shalmaneser II. his grand-
father.
Of the three kings that follow not much is known.
„ Shalmaneser HI. succeedetl Ranmian-nirari, and
^ ^' froni the I'.jwnynj t.anon we gather that he
undertook campaigns against I'rartu (.Armenia), Itu",
Damascus, and Hatarika ( Hadrach). He was succeedetl
by .\.sur-dan HI. This king made foreign ex-
^^ ■ petlitions. His was a troubled reign. The
most important event recorded in his time was the
eclipse of the sun in 763 (cp above, § 19, end ; Amos. § 4 ;
EcMi'SK, §1). The same year saw the outbreak of
civil war : the ancient city of .\sur had revolted. In
761 the rebellion was joined by the city of Arapha. and
in 759 by the city of (jozan. In 758, however, after it
had lasted six years, the revolt was brought to an end ;
Gozan was captured, and order once more restored.
The troubles of Assyria during the reign of Asur-dan
370
ASSYRIA
were aggravated in the years 765 and 759 by visitations
of the plague. On liis death he was succeeded by Asur-
nirari. Although at the beginning of his reign
'^^^' this king undertook expeditions against Hadrach
and Arpad, and later two campaigns against the Ziniri,
for the greater part of his reign he was inactive. In
746 the city of (,'alah revolted, and next year a man of
unusual energy usurped the throne, and,
ASUR-BANI-PAL
33. Tiglath-
assuniing the name of Tiglath-pileser,
^ , ■ extended Assyrian supremacy farther than
it had ever reached. In the reign of
'riglath-j)ileser III. Assyria came into
'"'-'■ close contact with the Hebrews, a con-
tact that continued under each of his successors until
the reign of Ivsarhaddon. The events of their reigns
and the influence they exerted on the history of Israel
and Judah are described in the separate articles on these
successive kings.
Tiglath-pileser III. was succeeded in 727 by Sii.\L-
727-669.
m.\ni-.si:k IV. (t/.v.), and he in 722 by the
usurper S.\kgon {'/.z'.), to whom succeeded
in 705 his son .Sknn.vchkkih {</.i: ), in 680 his grandson
lOsAkiiAUDON ('/.<'.), and in 669 his great-grandson
Asur-bani-pal. For the expeditions of the last-
named monarch in Egypt, IClam, Arabia, etc. see
A5uk-hani-I'.\L. His literary tastes found expression in
the collecting of a great library at Nineveh. The Eponym
list and his own iiiscrii)tions cover only the fast
part of his reign ; his later years are clouded in
uncertainty, and the date of his death is a matter of
conjecture. The period from his death
34. Decline
until the fall of Nineveh is equallv ob-
and fall "'"" ""' '"" ^' •"'""-'"'" '^ '^T
scare. We know the names of two of
his sons, .\sur-etil-ilani and .Sin-sar-iikun, who both
occupied the throne ; but the length of their respective
reigns and even the order of their succession are matters
of dispute. It used to be assumed that during this
period Assyria was entirely stripped of her power and
foreign possessions ; but this view has now been modified
in consequence of recently discovered contract -tablets
dated from both northern and southern Babylonian cities
according to the regnal j-ears of the last two Assyrian
kings. These prove that the Assyrian supremacy in
Babylonia continued for some little time at least. As-
syria's power, however, was waning. A long career of
concjuest had been followed by an age of luxury, and her
strength was sapped. The Scythian hordes that had swept
across W. Asia had further weakened her. Thus, when
Nabopolassar, repudiating.Assyrian control, allied himself
with Cyaxares. king of Media, and their combined forces
invaded the country, her resistance met with no success.
, , Though Xineveh held out for two years, the
circa 606. . "^ , , , 1 , ,
city was at last captured and destroyed, and
Assyria was annexed to the empire of the Medes.
The most recent, and at the .same time most scientific, work on
Assyrian art and architecture is Perrot and Chipiez's //isL de
fart dans rantiquite, vol. ii., Chahiec ft
38. Bibliography. Assyrie, Paris, 1884. Of works which ap-
peared soon after the discovery of the re-
mains of .Assyrian art, and do not attempt a scientific treatment,
one of the earliest was liotta and Flandin's Monuments de
Ninive, 5 vols., Paris, 1849-50. The two works of Sir Henry
Layard, Nineiieh and its Remains and Monuments of
Nineveh, contain a good account of his discoveries. In Assyrian
Discoveries, Lond. 1875, George Smith has described the results
of his own explorations.
For the history of Assyria the principal work is Tide's Bab.-
Ass. Gesch. Gotha, i886-83. Reference may also be made to
Hommel's Gesch. Bab. u. Ass. Berlin, 1885-88, the Gesch. Bah.
u. Ass. by Miirdter and Delitzsch, Calw and Stuttgart, 1S91,
and Winckler's Gesch. Bab. u. Ass. Leipz. 1892. Among
Knglish works dealing with the history of Assyria, see George
Smith's Assyria (SPCK, Oxf. 1875), and Prof. G. Rawlinson's
Five Great .M anarchies 0/ the Eastern World, vols. i. and ii.
Lond. 1871. Both these works have been superseded on several
points in consequence of later discoveries.
Assyrian history can be rightly understood only if followed in
the inscriptions themselves. Translations of most of the his-
torical inscriptions of Assyria are given in Sclirader's KB i. and
ii. Berlin, 1889-90, each of which contains an explanatory map.
A series of popular English translations of Egyptian and As.syrian
monuments was foiiiidoj and edited by Dr. S. Birch of the British
371
Museum and entitled RP (12 vols. Lond. 1S73-81), of which vols,
i. iii. V. vii. ix. and xi. deal with Assyrian and Babylonian
inscriptions. These translations have now, of course, been
super-seded. In a new series edited by A. H. Sayce (6 vols,
Lund. 1888-92) the old methods and plan were not modiiied.
As a collection of all the points in the OT illustrated or explained
by the monuments, Schrader's COT'\% still unrivalled.
For works treating of the religion of the Assyrians see Baby-
lonia, S 71.
For the student who would gain a more than superficial know-
ledge of Assyriology it is needless to give a list of works, as this
has already been done in Bezold's Bab. Ass. lit. Leipz. 1886;
the literature since 18S6 can be ascertained from the bibliographies
appended to the ZA and to the American Journal 0/ Semitic
Languages and Literatures, and from the Or. Bibliographie.
L. W. K.
ASTAD (actaa [A]), I Esd. 5i3 RV=Ezra2i2.
AZGAD.
ASTAEOTH (mntrr), Dt. l 4 ; RV Ashtaroth.
ASTARTE. See AsaroKETH.
ASTATH (ACT&e [BA] ^zfAA [E]). i Esd. 838 =
Ezra 8 12, .\zc;ad.
ASTROLOGER (Dan. l2oetc., ^if^). RV En-
chanter; and Is. 47i3t (u^P'J' ""l^'n), RV"'*f-
'divider of the heavens.' See Stars, § 5; also
Divi.NATiON, § 2 (5) and M.\Gic, g 3 (4).
ASTYAGES (actyafhc [BAQ]), according to
Theodotion's text of Bel and the Dragon {v. 1), was the
predecessor of Cyrus in the kingdom of Persia. See
CviiLS.
ASUPPIM and HOUSE OF ASUPPIM (i Ch. 20 17.
n*S3.^^; eic TO <\CA<l)eiN [A], e.r. ececj). [B] ;
Toic AC&cJjeiAA [E]; r. 15 'NH n^3, oiKoy &cA(t)eiN
[A], O. ece(JjGiN[B], o. &C<\ct)[L]; 1^ ^ .^fPesh.l;
RV in each case ' the storehouse.' In Neh. 1225t AV
renders thesameword ' the thresholds '[marg. 'treasuries,*
' assemblies '] ; ©bnal, fV jQ (Twayayeiv fie [different
vocalisation]; RV 'the storehouses'), a word used by
the Chronicler to describe certain storehouses situated
at the temple gates {.\eh. I225), perhaps specially the
soutiiern gate (i Ch. 2615). See Temple.
ASUR(AC0YP[B-^]), I Esd. 531 RV = Ezra25i.HAR-
HUR.
ASUR-BANI-PAL. Though mentioned by name
only once or twice in OT (see .\snapi'KK), Asur-bani-pal
is important to OT literature from his deportation of
troublesome populations to the region of Samaria (see
Samaria, Samaritans, and cp below, § 12) ; also
from references to his camp.aigns in Egypt and Arabia in
the prophecies (see Is.MAH, ii. §9, and Xaiilm, §2). He
was one of Assyria's greatest kings, and famous not less
for his devotion to art and literature than for his extensive
concjuests. His name, which is best read .Asur-bani (or
bani)-apli, means ' A.sur is the creator of a son.' He was
the eldest son of Esarhaddon, and ascended the throne
in 668 B.C. His succession had teen secured by his
having been publicly proclaimed king before his father's
death, while his brother, Samas-sum-ukin, was installed
in Babylon as viceroy or tributary prince.
From the moment of his accession he was plunged
into a prolonged war in Egypt, for Tarku (Tirhakaii),
king of Ethiopia, in the words of
A.sur-kani-pal, ' forgot the might of
Asur, Istar, and the great gods my
lords, and trusted in his own strength ' : that is, he
raised a large army and descended upon Egj'pt. The
prefects and governors appointed by Esarhaddon fled at
Tarka's approach. He captured Theljes, descended the
Nile to Memphis where he lixed his capital, and pro-
claimed himself king of Egypt. On receiving the news
of this disaster, .^sur-b.ani-pal determined to recover
Egypt. During the p.assage of his army through Syria
and along the coast of the Mediterranean, reinforce-
ments in men and ships, in addition to the customary
tribute, were received from twenty-two subject kings of
372
1. Ist Egyptian
campaign.
3. 2nd Egyptian
expedition.
4 Sietre '^^^^'^ '" ^^^ midst of the sea'
Of Tyre *^!=scription of the
^ ' his predecessors,
ASUR-BANI-PAL
Palestine and Cyprus, among whom Manasseh, king of
Judah, is mentioned (cp EsakhaudoN). Tarku,
hearing of the advance of the Assyrians, sent out his
own forces from Mcmijhis. At Karbaniti, within the
Egyptian lx)rder, the forces of TarijU were utterly
routed, while the king himself abandoned Memphis
and escaped by Iwat to Thelxis, leaving his capital and
the whole of Lower I'^gypt in the hands of the Assyrians.
The various governors and petty kings, who had
formerly been tributary to Esarhaddon and had been
expelled by 'larkfi, now returned, and joined their
own forces to those of the Assyrians, upon which the
combined armies ascended the Nile in a fleet of boats
to dislodge Tarku from Thelies. In forty days the
journey was accomplished. Tarku abandoned the city
without striking a blow, and retreated into Ethiopia,
leaving the whole of I'.gypt in the hands of the Assyrians, j
He did not, however, abandon his designs upon |
Egypt, and, as his former attempt at open opposition '
n T) li. li'i<J proved unsuccessful, hij now resorted I
supprelsed. '° '"^^'^i^^''': I'^^rceiving th.t the native |
^'^ Egj'ptian prmccs were far from contented
under the military sway of the Assyrians, he ojiened secret I
negotiations with them, Nikfi (Niccno), Sarruludari, and
I'akruru leading the conspiracy on the Ej;yplian side.
It was agreed that they should transfer their allegiance I
to Tarku, who in return would leave them in undisturbed
possession of their principalities, and that, while he
attacked Egypt from the south, they would raise a revolt
in the interior. The Assyrian generals, however, sus-
pecting that some treachery was afoot, intercepted their
messengers, and learnt the full e.xtent of the plot. Niku
and Sarruludari were bound hand and foot and sent to
Nineveh, while their fellow-conspirators were slain. Tl,o ;
revolt, thus prematurely hastened, was ciuelled without !
difficulty. Tarku was once more driven from Upper j
Egypt, and soon afterwards died. j
A5iir-k"ini-pal, in restorin}; the country again to order, appears [
to have mitigated liis former rigour, seeking to conciliate rather
than to suppress the native rulers. Niku was ikikIijiumI. He u.is j
clothed in costly raiment ; a ring was set upon lii> (i!i',-tr, and .a |
fillet of gold about his head (as an emblem of his rc-.un.iti.jii) ; and ;
with presents of chariots, horses, .and mules, lie returned to j
Kijypt, where he was once more installed as governor in Sais,
wiule his son Nabu-sezibanni was appointed governor of Athribis.
Ethiopia, however, could not long keep her eyes from I
Egypt ; and, although Tarku was dead, the ambitions
of his country did not die with him. |
was not long tefore Urdamane, his
successor, marched northwards and
took I'jiper Egypt (cp Egypt, § 66). He advanced
from Thelx;s to meet the Assyrian expedition sent
against him, but was worsted in the battle, returned
to the city, and thence fled farther south to Kipkip.
The Assyrians marched on Thelies, and the city
itself, together with immense booty, fell into their
hands, 'fhey carried back with them to Assyria two
huge obelisks, and thus set the fashion, adopted by
all the later conc|uerors of Egypt, of perpetuating their
victory by means of the monuments of the conquered
country itself. 'With full hands,' writes .^sur-bani-pal, ' I
safely returned to Nineveh, the city of my rule. ' This
successful exjxjdition, however, had no lasting effect.
Egypt was too far off to remain for any length of time
the vassal of .Assyria. Psammetichus, the son of Nikfi,
obtained the supremacy over the whole country, and
permanently shook off the .Assyrian yoke.
After his second Egyptian campaign Asur-bani-pal
directeti his forces against Ba'al, king of Tyre, ' who
good
city (see Tyre). Like
Asur-bani-pal failed to
capture a stronghold so favoured by nature. He
erected towers and earthworks, however, and attempted
to cut off communication from the sea as well as from
the land, and ntaintained so effectual a blockade that
Ba'al, at Last reduced to extremities, sent Yahi-milki to
373
6. Elam.
ASUR-BANI-PAL
ask for terms. A5ur-bani-pal contented himself with
levying tribute on the city, and with demanding the
kings daughter and niec-es for his harem, together
with their dowries. After humbling Tyre, it was
no hard matter to obtain the submission of the less
imjxjrtant princes of the Mediterranean coast. .\mf)ng
these were Vakinlfi, king of the island-city of Akvad,
Mugallu, king of Tabal, and Sandasarmu, king of
Cilicia (Cil.lciA, § 2).
Gyges ((jugu), king of Lydia, also apjx^rs to have
heard of the success of the Assyrians, and to have .sent
p -in his submission. Eor some years he
. ,r° maintained these friendly relations, and
uy la, etc. ^^ ^j^j^ j^,^^.^ attributed his success over the
Cinmierians, in proof of which he sent to Nineveh two
captive Cimmerian chiefs bound hand and foot with
fetters of iron. Towards the end of the reign of Asur-
bani-pal, however, Gyges severed his connection with
Assyria, and aided Psammetichus (Psametik) in his
struggle for I",gyptian indei>endence (cp Egvi-t, g 67).
Asur-bani-pal was now free to turn his attention to the
eastern borders of his kingdom.
During the absence of the Assyrian army in its distant
camp:ii.;ns, the E. frontier of Assyria had been coiistanlly
vi.>l:ited by the king of Mannai (see Mi.nm). Asur-bani-pal
determined to chastise Al)5eri. He marched northwards, and
foiled an attempt of his opponent to surprise the Assyrians by a
niL;ht attack. A|)scri fled to his capital Izirtu, while .A.s'ur-
bruii-pal laid waste the country. On his death in a revolt he
was succeeiled by his son Ualli, who bought terms of peace
from A5ur-bani-pal.
The most warlike nation on the E. of Assyria, how-
ever, and indeed her most powerful enemy, was Ei..\M
((/. '■. ). Urtaku its king had shown his hostility
to Assyria already in the reign of Esarhaddon,
by attempting to stir up a rebellion in Chaldea ; and
although, when his people were suffering from famine,
he had received assistance from .\sur-bani-pal himself, he
now proposed an invasion of Babylonia, hoping thereby
to cripple the .Assyrian power.
Acting on the advice of his general, M.arduk-?Suin-ibni, he
formed an alli.uicc with P.cl-iklsa, king of Gambulu — a coiuiir>
situated in the lower b.asin of the Tigris, on the shores of the
Persian tnilf— and having won over to his side Nabfi-5um-Iris, a
governor in Chaldea, he crossed the Babylonian border. On
news being brought to Asur-bani-pal that the Elamites h.id
advanced like a flight of locusts' and were encamped against
Babylon, he set on foot an expedition, and, marching southwards,
drove Urtaku beyond the frontier.
On the death of Urtaku, shortly afterwards, the throne
was seized by Teumman, who immediately sought to rid
himself of the sons of the former kings, Urtaku and
Ummanald.as I. His intended victims, however, escajjed
with their friends to the court of Asur-bani-pal, where
they were in kindliness received, and protected. This
incident caused a renewal of the war between Elam and
Ass}Tia. An interesting fact, which throws light on
Assyrian prophecy, is related. On theeve of the campaign
Asur-bani-pal prayed solemnly to the gotidess Istar, who
to encourage him appeared in a vision to a seer, and
promised victory to the Assyrian arms. ^ Confident of
success, Asur-bani-pal set out for Elam, and pressed on
up to the walls of Susa. Here, on the banks of
the Eula;us, there was a decisive battle, in which the
Elamites were utterly routed.
'The land of Klam," writes .Asur-bani-pal, 'through its extent
1 covered, as when a mighty storm approaches ; I cut off the
head of 'I'eumman, their king, the rebel who had plotted evil.
Beyond number 1 slew his warriors ; alive in my hands I took
his fighting men ; with their corpses as with thorns and thistles
I filled the vicinity of Susa ; their blood I caused to flow in the
Eulseus, and I stained its waters like wool.'-
.Asur-bani-pal divided the land, proclaimed as vassal
kings Ummaniga.s and Tammaritu, the two sons of
Urtaku who had cast themselves on his protection, and,
1 See the striking p.-iss.-ige in the annals (Smith, J/ist. 0/
Assurb. 123-126).
* (5 K 5, 43, a^rvp klnta nahdsi. A'a^rjjw =' red - coloured
woo!.' The adverb, nabdsfi, 'like red wool," ace. to Ruben,
JQR 10 SSI, is an Ass. loan-word in the Song of Deborah,
corrupted in our text.]
374
ASUR-BANI-PAL
returning by way of Ganibulu, exacted a terrible venge-
ance from that land.
We now approach the greatest crisis in the history of
Asur-bani-pal. On ascending the throne of Assyria he
7 Revolt of ^'^'^ appointed his younger brother Samas-
BabyloE
sum-ukin king of Babylon, without re-
suppressed. V
nouncing his own suzerainty. Samas-
sum-ukin, however, was dissatisfied with
his dependent position, and resolved to revive, if
possible, the relations between .Assyria and Babylon.
His own resources being insufficient for subjugating
Assyria, he began to form a coalition of the neighbouring
nations, all glad of an opportunity to strike a blow at
their powerful neighbour. The Chaldeans and the
Aranirean tribes of the coast gave assistance ; Um-
manigas, king of IClam, threw over his patron Asur-
bani-pal, and joined the revolt ; Arabia, Ethiopia,
and possibly Egypt, sent help. Asur-bani-pal did not
lose an instant, but set out with the whole of his force
to the SE. , where he successfully kept his enemies in
check.
Fortune favoured him by neutralising to some extent the
assistance which Samas-sum-ukln expected to receive from Elam,
his most powerful ally. That country was thrown by internal
revolution into a state bordering on anarchy, Ummanigas and
the whole of his family having been slain by Tammaritu, who
in turn was dethroned by Indabiga.5, and only saved his life by
flight to Assyria.
Asur-baui-pal hastened to attack the allied forces, easily
defeated them, and proceeded to besiege the four cities
—Babylon, Borsippa, Sippara, and Cutha — in which
they had sought shelter after their defeat. The
defenders held out stubbornly for some time. When
all was over, Sama5-sum-iikin, to avoid his brother's
vengeance, set fire to his palace and perished in the
flames.
After stamping out the rest of the rebellion and
restoring order throughout Babylonia and Chaldea,
8 Subiueation ^^^""""bani-pal directed his forces against
^f r-if™ Elam, where for the next two or three
of Elam. , ■ , , T T
years he carried on a war with Um-
manaldas II., who had ascended the throne of Elam
after slaying Indabigas, his predecessor. It is true that
for a short time during this period Ummanaldas was
driven into the mountains by Asur-bani-pal, who set
Tammaritu on the throne of Elam in his stead ; but,
as soon as the Assyrian army had withdrawn, Um-
manaldas came out from his retirement, gathered his
forces, and compelled Asur-bani-pal again to take the
field against him. On the appearance of the Assyrian
army Ummanaldas retired, allowing Asur-bani-pal to
capture the cities and lay waste the country on his
march. At length, however, he hazarded a battle.
He met with a signal defeat and was again driven to
take refuge in the mountains, while Susa and its ac-
cumulated riches fell into the hands of the conquerors.
' Uy the will of Asur and Istar,' boasts Asur-bani-pal, 'into its
r daces I entered and sat myself down rejoicing. Then opened
their treasure-houses, within which silver and gold, furniture
and goods, were stored, which the former kings of E:iam and the
kings who had ruled even to these days had collected and placed
therein, whereon no other foe besides myself had set his hands :
1 brought it forth and as spoil I counted it.' He recovered also
all the treasures with which §amas-sum-ukTn and his predecessors
had purchased Klamite support. Susa itself was rased to the
ground ; the royal statues were carried to Assyria ; the groves
were cut down and burnt, and the temples violated.
After the subjugation of Elam the annals of Asur-
bani-pal relate a series of conflicts with Arabia (.Smith,
9 Arabia ^^"^- °f ^^^^'^^- 256 #)• This was the
last great war in which this monarch
is known to have engaged. At the beginning of his
reign he apjxiars to have had friendly relations with the
Arabian king Uaite' ; but on the revolt of .Samns-sum-
ukin the latter joined the coalition against Assyria.
Uaite' himself attacked Palestine, overrunning Edom and
Moab, and penetrating almost as far N. as Damascus.
Here, however, he was defeated by the Assyrians.
Leaving his camp standing, Uaite' fled alone to Nabataea. He
375
ASUR-BANI-PAL
appears, however, to have surrendered to ASur-bani-pal, who
threw him into chains, and kept him a prisoner in a kennel
with his hounds— .'\diya his wife, and the king of Jsedar, his ally,
sharing the same fate. The other division of the Arabian army,
which had joined the forces of .Samai>-sum-ukin, shared his defeat
and perished in Habylonia. Abiyate", their leader, surrendered
to Asur-bani-pal, kissed his foot in token of submission, and was
appointed king of Arabia in the place of Uaite'. No sooner,
however, had he returned to his country, than he associated him-
self with the Nabataeans in a series of joint attacks on the frontier
of Assyria. Asur-bani-pal, therefore, crossed the Tigris with his
army, and embarked on a difficult march through the -Syrian
desert. The Assyrians, after some minor conflicts in which they
were successful, eventually engaged the main body of the
Arabian army in the mountains of Hukkuruna, to the SK. of
Damascus. The Arabians were defeated, Abiyate" and Ayamu
were taken, and A5ur-bani-pal set out for Assyria with immense
numbers of captives and herds of cattle ; on his return camels
were distributed throughout Assyria ' like sheep."
The annals conclude their record of the wars of
Asur-bani-pal with an account of his
10. Closing
years.
triumphal procession through Nineveh in
celebration of his victories.
Ummanalda.?, the Elamite, who had shortly before been
captured, Tammaritu and Pa'e, two other captive Elamite
kings, with Uaite', the king of Arabia, were fastened to tlie
yoke of the chariot in which he rode. He then entered the
temple of his gods, offering sacrifices and praising them for the
triumphs they had vouchsafed him over his enemies.
Asur-bani-pal probably reigned till 625 B. c. ; but of his
later years the royal records do not speak. It is im-
possible to assign with certainty a reason for this
silence. Possibly the kingdom, which had been shaken
to its foundations by the revolt of Samas-sum-ukin
during these years, showed signs of its approaching end.
It is certain, at any rate, that the Medes, whom Asur-
bani-pal had earlier in his reign defeated, again showed
signs of activity (see Per.sia) ; and it is probable that
during his reign the wild hordes of the Scythians
descended from the N. and the NE. , slaying and
plundering and carrying all before them. The question
whether the empire of Assyria declined only under Asur-
bilni-pal's successors, or had already become disintegrated
before his death, is one that cannot be answered with
certainty.
Turning from foreign politics to the internal condition
of Assyria during the reign of Asur-bani-pal, we find tl
11. Policy and
country superficially, at least, prosper-
buildings, etc. °^,'- ^Though the constant wars of
° Asur-bani-pal must have been a great
drain on the manhood of the nation, his almost un-
varying success resulted in a great accumulation of
wealth — ^the spoil of the conquered cities. Not only
did his generals carry off" the gold and silver, and
anything else of value that was portable ; not only
did they drive to Assyria the flocks and herds of the
whole country : the population itself they deported.
It was the Assyrian policy (see above, § i) to weaken
the patriotic feeling of the conquered races in this way,
and so to lessen the chances of revolt. A secondary
object of the conquerors, however, had reference to
Assyria herself, for huge bands of captives were brought
back in chains to replenish the labouring populace at
home. Many of these wretches found their way into the
possession of private owners ; but the majority of them
were retained as slaves by the king himself, who, like
his predecessors, sought to gratify his desire for splendour
and to perpetuate his name by the erection of huge
buildings in the capital. The most important of these
buildings of Asur-bani-pal was his own palace, which he
built to the north of that of his grandfather Sennacherib
— the remains exist at the present day in the
mound of Kuyunjik opposite the modern town of
Mosul. The walls of its chambers he lined with
sculptures in relief, representing his own exploits on
the field of battle and in the chase, in which the details
are most carefully and elaborately carved, while the
designs themselves mark the acme of Assyrian
art. Asur-bani-pal restored the palace of Sennacherib,
strengthened the fortifications of Nineveh, and built
376
ASYLUM
or restored various temples throughout Assyria and
Babylonia.
It was the custom of the classical historians to
represent Asur-bani-pal as of an effeminate and luxurious
disposition, spending his life at Nineveh in idleness and
dissipation. The Assyrian records have dissipated this
illusion. Though it is probable that many of his
campaigns wore conducted by his generals, the king's
personal valour in the field and in the hunt is undoubted.
His skill as an administrator is testified by his organisa-
tion of the inuiiense territory actjuired in his victorious
campaigns. His palaces and buildings, even to this
day, boar witness to his love for art and architecture.
It is for none of those things, however, that his memory
is honoured alxne that of other kings of Assyria. He
was the first of his nation to make a systematic and
universal study and collection of his country's literature,
and it is to the lii^rary he collected in his palace that we
owe the greater part of our knowledge of Babylonian
and Assyrian literature and language. L. w. K.
ASYLUM, a sanctuary, within whose precincts those
who take refuge may not be harmed without sacrilege.
1. General
principle.
In early times, holy places, as the homos or
haunts of the gods, extended over every-
thing in thorn the protection of their own
inviolability. Wild animals, and sometimes even
domestic animals which strayed into them, shared this
protection with debtors, fugitive slaves, and criminals,
as well as the victims of unjust pursuit or violence.
Manslayors sought refuge in them from the sword of
the avenging kinsmen, and the right of asylum had an
especial importance among those peoples in which the
primitive law of blood vengeance was most persistently
maintained.^ The right of asylum was possessed by
different sanctuaries in various degrees, depending on
proscription, the holiness of the place, and other circum-
stances ; it sometimes extended to an entire city, or even
to a mark beyond its walls. Even within the same
sanctuary it was, of course, a greater sacrilege to drag
the suppliant away from the altar or from the image of
the god, or to slay him there, than merely to violate the
sacred precincts. In later times the abuse of those
privileges led to legal regulation and restriction (cp,
c.j(., Tac. Ann. 860-64 414).
In Israel the oldest law (Ex. 21 12-14) recognises the
riglu of asylum, but denies its protection to the
2. Early
murderer wUh malice aforethought : ' from
practice.
lx.'side my altar thou shall take him to die. '
Doubtless every altar of Yahwe (Ex. 20 24/. )
was an a.sylum ; but not all wore equally venerated, nor
would the village high-place protect the suppliant as
securely as the more famous sanctuaries. The only
historical instances in the OT in which men who fear
for their lives take refuge at God's altar are those of
Adonijah (iK.l 50-53) and Joab (iK. 228-34; on the
text cp © and Klo. ). Adonijah was i^orsuaded to leave
the asylum ; Joab, by Solomon's orders, was slain at
the very altar.
When the drastic reforms of Josiah (621 B.C.)
destroyed and desecrated all the old holy places of
3 In Dt ^^'^^^^ '" ^'^ kingdom except the temple in
Jerusalem, one of the necessary measures of
the reform laws was to provide a substitute for the asyla
thus abolished ; since it was obviously impossible that
manslayors from the remote parts of the land should
escape to Jerusalem. Accordingly, six cities of refuge
are appointed — three E. of the Jordan (Ut. 441-43),'^ three
W. of it (Dt. 192/) — with eventual provision for three
more, in Philistia, Phoenicia, and Coi'le-Syria (Dt. 19
8-10). The distinction between manslaughter and
murder is clearly defined and illustrated , the case is
1 So, e.g., in Greece ; whilst in Rome, where blood vengeance
was early abolished by law, the right of asylum was almost
exclusively reserved for slaves.
2 These verses are out of place, and probably secondary ; sec
Dec riiKONo.MV, f 20.
377
ASYNCRITUS
tried at the place whore the offence was committed, and
if the verdict Ix; nmrdor the elders of the city in whose
territory the defendant resides arc emjxjwered to take
him from the asylum and deliver him to the next
kinsman of the murdered man, as the natural executor
of the sentence. '
The post-exilic law also (Nu. 359^, cp Josh. 2O-2-6)
appoints six cities of refuge (c''i:t:.i "^y), and defines the
y _ crimes in substantially the same way ; but it
differs radically from the Deutoronomic legisla-
tion in providing (i) that the manslayer shall bo brought
from his asylum to be tried l)ofore tlio ' congregation '
('eddh) — i.e., the religious conmiunity of the post-oxilic
Jerusalem (Nu. 351224/ )— and (2) that at the deatli of
the high priest the manslayer may without peril return
to his home and estates (z'z/. 25 28).^* Further, it is ex-
plicitly forbidden to compound the crime by taking a
bloodwite, or to allow the homicide upon payment of a
fine to leave the city of refuge before the death of the
high priest.
The cities designated are, E. of the Jordan, Bezer,
Ramoth in Gilead, and Golan in Bashan (Dt. 441-43
5 C"f f Josh. 208); W. of the Jordan, Kodesh in
refuge.
Galilee, Shechem, and Hebron (Josh. 2O7).
The last three wore all venerable sanctuaries,
older, indeed, than the Israelite invasion, and wore
probably chosen not only on account of their location,
but also because they wore already asyla of established
sanctity. It may bo assumed that this was the case
also with the cities of refuge E. of the Jordan, of which,
with the exception of Kamoth, we know little. Jewish
scholars, with some plausibility, maintain that, besides
those, all the other Levitical cities, of which there
wore forty-four, many of them .seats of ancient sanctu-
aries, possessed the right of asylum in a lower degree. ■*
Whether this system was ever actually introduced in its
whole extent is doubtful. Neither in the brief years
between Josiah's reform and the fall of the Jmhvan
kingdom nor after the restoration did Judah pos.soss
more than a small jjart of the territory contemplated by
these laws.
In the (jrook poriiKJ, and later (under Roman rule)
many Hellenistic cities in Syria enjoyed the privileges of
p ,, . asvlums. Not to speak of the famous
b. raxaiieis. sa-„^;ju_.^ry of Apollo and Artemis at
Daphne, near Antioch, where the Jewish high priest,
Onias, is said to have taken refuge (2 Mace. 433^,
cp Strabo, .xvi. 26), the title dcn'Xos appears on coins (jf
Ctv'sarea, Panias, Dioca;sarea (Sepphoris) in (ialileo,
Ptolomais(.\cco), Dora (Dor), .Scythopolis (Beth-sheanI,
Gadara and Abila in the Decapolis, and others. .\c-
cording to Josephus [Ant. xm.'l^), this character was
conferred on Jerusalem by Demetrius I. ; but i Mace.
IO31 knows nothing of it. C'p. Ashtokkth, ^\siii;k.\ii.
There is no recent and adequate work on this subject. / I'lc
Law 0/ Asylum in Israel, by A. P. Rissell (I.eipsic, 1882) is a
lalioured attempt to prove that the laws must all have originated
in the age of Moses. See also S. Ohlenburg, DU Inl'lischcn
Asylc in talmudischem Gnvande, 1895 ; and compare .Stengel,
art. 'Asylon' in Pauly-Wissmva, Keal-encycl. der class.
AllertuiHswiss. On the wide diffusion of the fundamental con-
ception of asylums, and on its possible origin, see J. ( :. Frazer's
article on ' i'he Origin of Totemism and Exogamy ' in J-'ort.
Ret'., April 1899. G. V. .M.
ASYNCRITUS (AcyrKPlTOC [Ti.J, -yNK. [WH])
is one of live who. with • the brethren that are
with them,' are saluted in Rom. 16 14. They seem to
have been Christian heads of households, or perhaps
class leaders of some sort.
.\syncritus figures in the list of the ' seventy disciples ' by the
1 In all these particulars there is a striking and instructive
resemblance to the Athenian code of Draco (624 B.C.).
■-In this provision it is evident that the sojourn in the city
of refuge is regarded as a species of exile, a punishment which
was removed by a general amnesty at the ascension of the new
high priest, the real sovereign. Accordingly, in the Mishna,
and in Jewish jurisprudence generally, residence in the city of
refuge is railed .iWr?, 'exile,' cp e.g. Makkoth,^\.
3 See Mainionides, Yad IJazaka, Hilkoth Roseah, ch. 8.
378
ATAD
Pseudo-Dorotheus as bishop of ' Urbania," and in that of the
Pseudo- Hippolytus as bisnop of ' Hyrcania ' ^doubtless the
preferable reading). In the great Greek Merura he is com-
nicinorated aloiit; with Herodion and Agabus on 8th April.
ATAD (TJXn), Gen. 50 lo. See Abel-Mizkaim.
ATAR (atap [A]), I Esd. 528 RV = Ezra 242. Ater. 2.
ATARAH (HTJi;, 'crown'; atara [BL], erepA
[A]), seioiui wife of Jerahmeel (iCh. 226). In
genealogical phraseology this signifies that the clan
occupied a new region (cp Caleb's wife Ephrath ; and
see .\zrBAii, Calkh), and presumably, like Caleb, it
moved farther N. , in which case we may compare
Atarah with .\ rkOTH-BicTH-JoAB, mentioned along with
Bethlehem, etc., in iCh. 254-
ATARGATIS, TEMPLE OF (to ATeprATiON [AV]).
2 Mace, rjjo; cp i Mace. 543 A In the walled enclosure
of this trans- Jordanic temple the Ammonites and
Arabians defeated by Judas the Maccabee, after throw-
ing away their arms, took refuge (see Ashtakoth, § i).
It was in 164 B. c. , the year after the re-dedication of the
temple at Jerusalem, which had animated the foes of the
church-nation to a deadly {persecution (i Mace. 52).
Judas had already acted with the severity of the old
Israelitish law of war, dealing with the trans-Jordanic
towns and the heathen part of their peoples as Joshua
had dealt with Jericho (i Mace. 5s 28 ; cp Josh. 624, JE),
but with the added zeal against idolatry justified by
Dt. 75 123. Naturally, this champion of monotheism,
like his successor Jonathan at Ashdod (x Mace. 10 83),
had no scruple in violating the temple precincts. The
unarmed multitude he slew (2 Mace), and the temple-
buildings, with all the objects polluted by idolatry, he
burned ( i Mace. ).
Atargatis (nnjnny; cp Vogii^, Syr. Cent. n. 3; also
injnny ; cp ZD.\IG ['52J 6 473 / ), to whom the temple
l)clonged, is in The Spfaker's Commentary (n. on
I Mace. 526) identified with Astarte. This is a natural
error, for Carnaim is no doubt Ashteroth-Karnaim — so
called from the addiction of the town to the worship of
various forms of Ashtoreth or Astarte. We know, how-
ever, that these deities were different ; for at Ascalon
there were temples of Astarte and of AtargAtis (DerkCto)
side by side. All that is true is that the first part of the
name .Vtargfttis {i.e., ^rlv) is the Aramaic equivalent of
the Phoenician and Heb. [n]inr;' without the fem. end-
ing (see PiiffiNici.A) ; but the religious significance
of this Atnr ('.Vttar for 'Athtar) is profoundly modified
by its union with 'Athe (usually written ,iny or tiv)' a
Palmyrene divinity whose name is well attested, and
occurs in many proper names. ^ AtargStis is, in fact,
that form of Astar[te] which has absorbed into itself the
characteristics of another deity called 'Athe (cp Ashtar-
Kamosh in the inscription of Mesha). Lucian, in his
De Dea Syra, has left us a minute account of the temple
and worship of the Syrian goddess (who was no doubt
Atargatis) at Hierapolis (Mabug), which illustrates the
Jewish hatred of it.
The connection of this 'omnipotent and all-producing goddess'
(Apiileiu.s) with sacred life-giving waters has been studied by
Prof. W. R. Smith (^RS(^) 172-175). See also Prof. W. Wright,
TSBA 6438/.; Haethgen, Beitr. 68^. 256/; Baudissin, art.
' Atargatis,' in Herzog-Plitt, PRE vol. i. (who notices the differ-
ent forms under which the goddess was represented) ; Puchstein,
ZA !) 420 ; Roscher, Lex. s.v. 'Astarte,' 4 (a). t. K. C.
ATAROTH (niTOi;, 'crowns' or 'wreaths,' cp Is. 28 1
Zech. 611 14, etc. ; aVapcoO [BAL]).
1. iCh. 254. See Atkotii-Beth-Jo.\b.
2. Ataroth-Addar (tin ni-ipy. Jo.sh. 16s, aa-rapoiO
Kai tpoK [R], ar. k. aSap [A], ar. a8ap [L] ; 18 13, AV
Ataroth-Adar, fiaarapioOopfX [B]. ar. aSdap [A], ar.
(Soap [L], called also simply Atakotii, Jo.sh. 16 2,
Xarapwdei [B, where x 's all that is left of 'Dnw]),
perhaps the present 'A/drd on the high road from
1 The oldest centre of the wonship of 'Athe is thought by
Hommel {PSBA, 1897, p. 8 1 ) to have oeen the E. of Asia Minor,
whence the cult spread to W. Asia Minor and N. Syria.
379
ATHALIAH
Jerusalem to Bethel, 3^ m. S. of Bethel, and 6 E. of
the upper Beth-horon (see Gu6rin, Judie, Ztf. ; but
on the other side Robinson, 2 314). As it is a lien-
jamite locality, we might plausibly identify Aduar with
the Benjamite clan-name Aduar, Aku [y.f.].
3. An unknown site (ni-c;;. Josh. I67, affrapwd [B])
between Janoah and Naarah, on the north-eastern frontier
of the territory of Ephraim.
4. A city of Gad (ni-.oy, Nu. 32334, arapuv [A] 34,
aarapwO [F'»'<1]), mentioned in the inscription of Mesha
(/. II, TOO]}) as recontjuered by him, along with a ' land
of 'Ataroth (/. 10) dwelt in from of old by the men of
Gad.' The name survives as that of a mountain, and
a ruined site 'Attdrus, at the top of the Wady Zerka
Main, 10 m. E. of the Dead Sea. (Tristram, .\/oiib,
272-276.) The US (Eus. 21451, acrrapwO : Jer. 87 17)
wrongly identify with no. i, presumably confusing Joab
with Job, whom tradition associates with Ashtaroth-
Karnaim. See Atroth-Shophan. g. a. s.
ATER ("IPK, § 66 ; athp [BA] ; ' left-handed ' ? cp
Judg. :ji5 Heb., and the Lat. name Sca;vola).
1. The B'ne Ater of Hezekiah (•l^'pin"'? "ICK'':2 ; arrjp tu e^«ia
[RKA]), a family in the great post-exilic list (see Ezka, ii. 8 9,
§81:), Ezra 'J 16 (a^fp tw e^eict |L])=Neh. "21 (a^rjp tu t^exia
[L]=i Esd. 615 (oT7;f> ef«tov [A], a^-qp t. [B], a^rjp t<j) t^cKia
(L), Aterezias, RV .'^tek of Ezekias. Atkr Hkzkkiah,
AV Atbk Hizkijah ('Tptn IBK), appears also among the signa-
tories to the covenant (see Ezra, i. § 7), Neh. 10 17 [18] (airip
t. [BN], arrip e. [A], a^rip efexias [L]).
2. The B'ne Ater (viol arrip (BKA], vioi of.jp [E]), a family of
doorkeepers in the great post-exilic list (see Ezra, ii. § 9)
(C"l>.'L"'rt '32), Ezra 2 42 (iiiot arr. [A]) = Neh. 745 (viol arTjp viov
arrjp '[B])=iEsd.5 28, Jatal, RV Atar (om. B, arap [A]
ATERGATIS (to AreprAXiON [V.\]), 2 Mace. I226
RV, A\' Ataugatis.
ATETA (^THTA [A]), i Esd. 528 RV = Ezra242,
Hatita.
ATHACH ("^jnr, 'inn'?[Ges.]; noo [B], nomBc
[TR], Ae^r t'^]' NAreB [L]), one of the towns of Judah
to which David sent a part of the Amalekite spoil
(iS. 3U3ot). According to Wellhausen, Driver, and
Budde, it is the Ethek {i/.i:) of Josh. 1042 {lOaK [B],
adtp [AL]), 197 (tfOfp [BJ. (ifO. [A], ecrep [L]) ; these
scholars decline to decide which of the variants is correct,
though Budde retains -;n>' in the text of i S. The voo,
voixfie, and vaytfi of certain MSS may, however, point
to a various reading Nob. Gu(5rin visited a place called
Nulhi, near Khai-ds, and \\'. of the Kh. K'lld (Keilah),
which, he thinks, may be meant by vofi^e {/udi'e, 8349).
That there must have been several places called Nob
is generally admitted. Klostermann suggests 2:y, yi.v.iB
(Josh. 11 21), a place near Hebron (Hebron follows),
and the question arises whether Nob itself may not Ix;
a shortened form of Anab (see Nob). In Josh. 11 21
(5" gives ava^o}0 = r\2:i!. out of which both pn Tociien
[17. T'.] and -^nv Athach may perhaps have arisen by the
loss of one letter and the transposition and slight
corruption of other letters. It so happens that there
are to-day two 'Anabs S. of Hebron called the great and
little. These may represent the Anaboth or Grape-
towns. T. K. c.
ATHAIAH ( n^nr, § 39, meaning obscure ; cp Gray,
//PN297: A0eA[B]. -€Ai [A], -ee[N]. AGAPAceAcCL];
y4Ti/^JA.'i), in list of Judahite inhabitants of Jerusalem
(see Ezra, ii. §5 [b], § i5[i]«), Neh. 11 4= iCh. 94t.
Uthai Cn-li; ; rooe[e]i [BA], oyei [E]). where differ-
ent links are given Ijctwecn him and Perez.
ATHALIAH (in^^nr, nhrsa, §§ 39. 5=: -vahw^
is great' ; cp with Che., Ass. etellu, 'great, high,' also
' lord,' used of gods and kings [Del. Ass. HWli, J.t'.]).
I. {yodoKia. [BAL], but -BOX. [A vid. in 2 K.lli3]).
Daughter of .Ahab and Jezebel, and wife of Jehoram,
A TH ART A3
king of Judah (2 K. 81826 11 1^13*0). The death
of AilA/.iAii (</.?., 1) (lc[)nvf<l Athaliah of her proud
position as qiit-en- mother (nya;). Having apparently
no other son whom she could place on the throne, she
dottrnnni'd to put to death all the surviving nuile
nicnilxrrs of the royal family, and to govern in her own
name. For six years (841-836 B.C.) she maintained
herself on the throne — a singular fact which raises
cjuestions more easily asked than answered. We hear
of nothing done by her for her adopted country ; but
whose interest was it to preserve the memory of this ?
On the story of her deposition and violent death, see
JoASM (i). Observe that the massacre of the royal
princes by Athaliah, adopted by the Chronicler in 2 i li.
'22 10. is inconsistent with the massacre attributed to
Jehoram in 2 Ch. 21 4 and the captivity of all Jehoram s
sons but Ahaziah, imagined in 2 Ch. 21 17.
2. In a geiiealocy of Uk.sjami.n [§ 9 ii. ft], i Ch.836 (oyoSoAia
[Bl, yo9oA.a|Al. o«wa[l.l).
3. .-V family in Kzra's caravan (see Kzka, i. § 2, ii. J 15 [i]
if), K/r.iK; (afl.Att ll!|, a0\ia [A], yotfoKiou [L])=I Ksd.833
JuTimilAs lA' (yoeoAiou [UA], -liov. [L]).
ATHARIAS, KV Attiiakias (&TeApiAC [HM)- ^
Ksd. ;".4.j- ]:zia26!, Tikshatha {(/.v.).
ATHARIM (anriN), in the expression 'NH TQl (Nu.
21 it I is t.iktn by R\' for a place-name (' by the way of
Atharim ' ; so qAon AOApeiN [ HJ. O. -el^^ [AFL]) ; by
AV and R\'"«- (following 'I'arg. and Syr.) as equivalent
to C'fn { ' [the way of J the spies '). That onnun should
have been substituted for nnnn is. however, highly im-
probable. Dillmann has suggested that the word may be
connected with the .\rab. athnr, ' vestige' or ' footprint,'
and proposes to translate ' the caravan path. ' Tlie
expression may Ije corrupt (see Kadic.sh, § 3 i. ).
ATHENOBIUS (aGhnoBioc [AN\];, friend of An-
tioclms \'1I. SidCtes, and his envoy to Simon tlic liigh
I'ricst I I Mace. 15 28-36).
ATHENS (a0hnai). \\'e nmst repeat the words of
Sir.il«) — d\\d 7ap «t's ir\i]Oo% eiJ.wiirTii}v tGjv irfpl rrjs
1 Its art '"'•^■^f'^^ Tai'Trjs vpLvoi'/ji.^vuvTeKaldiafioo)-
unappreciated. ^''"•"' T*"? '^^^'""if"'' (P- 3?6). There
IS, mtieed, an essential unpropricty
involved in making Paul's visit to Athens the occasion
for a ri'sumif of the architectural and artistic treasures of
the city.i 'V\hat the apostle might have seen we can
learn from I'ausanias ; what he did see may safely be
reduced to a minimum. ' .\ Hebrew of the Hebrews,'
who, 'after the most exact sect,' 'lived a Pharisee,"
could at txjst feel only indifference to the history of the
heathen, and his spirit could not fail to l>e ' stirred '
at the fre<juent signs of ignorance of (jod visible on
every hand in their cities, even though he had been
brought up 'at the feet of a Kabban Gamaliel, whose
liberality of sentiment is, after all, largely problema-
tical. Not one of the associations which are valuable
to us crowded into the apostle's mind as he landed
at PhalOrum or Pira:us. And the many-sided art of
Athens had no message for a man of his intensity and
whole-hearted devotion to the task of destroying the
paganism in which that art was rootetl.
Much more valuable, and more difficult also, is it to
realise the spiritual atmosphere in which Paul found
2 Intellectual '^'"^'^"'^- The ixjriod of Athenian great-
atmosphere. IT '" P°''''" ^'''^ '""S ^^" P""^'-
.Athens now only a free city of the
Iirovince of Achaia was not even the seat of the governor
(Str. 398). In art and in literature also she was no
longer the schoolmistress of nations ; in every depart-
ment of mental activity the creative faculty was dead.
In the domain of philosophy alone the manipulation of
the dry Iwnes of logical science continued to give the
semblance of life. Here also the spring of Athenian
wisdom had run dry. The masters of the schools
• Still more would this remark apply to the only places in the
or where Athenians are referrcU to (2 .Macc.O i 9 15) : on the
reading (Vg. has Aniiockenum in 61) see Grimm, ad locc.
381
ATHENS
sprang from Asia, Syria, or the Eastern Archipelago ;
(jrc-ec-e proper was representetl exclusively by third- or
fourth-rate nien. Nevertheless, for centuries Athens
continued to be regarded as the chief seat of Greek
philosophy ; nor did she renounce her claim as a semin-
ary of philosophy to the most imjwrtant place, even
when she had to share that honour with other cities, such
as .\lexandria. Koine, Rhodes, and Pauls own 1 arsus.
The whole city, indeed, resembled one of our University
towns at an epoch of intellectual stagnation. The so-
called education of a Roman was incomplete unless
some time had been spent in loitering through the groves
and porticoes of Athens. ' Two schools in particular,
markedly different and decided in their peculiarities,
stood opiK)sed to each other— the school of the Stoics
\\\ ho insisted almost exclusivelyon the universal clement),
and that of the Epicureans, who gave prominence to the
individual element in man, pursuing happiness by looking
w ithin. The Stoics regarded man exclusively as a think-
ing being ; the Epicureans, as a creature of fc-eling '
(Zeller, The Stoics, Epicureans, and Sceptics, 27).
Probably in no other city of the world at that time was
it easier to meet ' certain philosophers of the Epicureans
and of the Stoics' (Acts 17 18). A well-known and
curious parallel to the ajxjstle's visit is afforded by the
Life of .Apollonius of Tjana. On his way up from his
ship to the city Apollonius met many pliilo-soijliers.
some reading, some perorating, some arguing, all of
whom greeted him {Phdoi. lit. 4 17). In a word,
Athens at the time of Paul's stay, and more notably
afterwards, was a city of pedagogues ; and 'le pedagogue
est le moins convertissable des hommcs ' (Kenan, .S7.
I'aul, 199). In the midst of this academic element Paul
found himself alone (i Thess. 3i). For his inner life at
this time we must look to the Epistles, not to Acts. He
was more attracted by the eager artisans of Thcssalonica
and the earnest men of business in Coriiuh than by the
versatile anti superlicial schoolmen of .\theiis (cp 1 I liess.
I9). Still, it would be unfair to attribute his fa. lure
entirely to the Athenian character' (Dcmades said that
the crest of Athens should have Ix-en a great tongue) :
allowance must l)e made for the inevitable exaggeration
of the reformer, whether in morals or in politics : his
perspective is distorted. Nor is it fair to count it
blame lo .\thens that she was regariled as ultra-religious,
bn.iJiha.i)xoviaripo\<%, Acts 1 7 22 (this opening compli-
ment of the apostle's speech admits of rich illustration;. -'
It would be a mistake to see in the altar dedicated to
the unknown god (.Acts 17 23) a desire to include in their
Pantheon any and every deity that might possibly be
worthy of honour (see Unknown (iou). Worship
found expression in art, not in the minutiiv of formalism.
Athens was, therefore, pre-eminently a city of statues,
and Renan is right in remarking that the prejudices of
Paul as a Jew blinded him : he took all the statues he
saw for 'objects of worship' [aefiacr/xaTa, Acts 17 23 )•
We are not guilty of ' corrupt Hellenism ' in attempting
a true estimate of the a]X)stles altitude.
.\n explanation of the disap[)ointing effect of Paul's
teaching nmst be sought in the position of the Jew ish
3. Paul's
colony in Athens, and not solelv in
failure B^-ratetl commonplaces on .\thenian character
and philosophy. The colony was evidently
not a large one ; there would Ik; little to attract Jews
thither in preference to Corinth. Paul s work among his
countrymen in Athens was slight : he ' conversed ' w ith
them {5t(\^yfro, .\ctsl7i7). No trace of any building
which could have lxH;n a synagogue has been found, w ith
the exception of the nuuble {/nscr.y£t. A'om. A tit. 404)
1 Qtiotations might be multiplied to illustrate Athenian
loquacity (Acts 17 21; cp Thuc. i. 70, i^wT(poiro<ot ; Ar. t.q.
1263, Tjj K<x>}i'atwi' iroAei = ' Gapcnians ' ; Dciiiosth. t'kil. \.
10, 43 ; Mcnand. /•>. Geoix- 9 ; Plutarch fiaaim).
* I'aus. i. 17 1, 0to\)% iv<Tt^ov<Tiv aAAwy trAror : f.^., they
erected an altar lo .Mercy ; i.l.'4 3 ' KOrfvuioi^ trtpKrvoTtpov ti ij
Toiv oAAotf ii Ta Otia i<TTi (7irov£>)( : I'hilos. / it. vi. 2, i^tAo<h>Ta( :
^ul. A/isa/>. ^iA6»«ot ; ytl. f^ ar. Hist. v. 17, Toaovror V
AOiifatoit Jcio-ifatfiofias.
382
ATHLAI
containing the words avrr) ij wvXr] rov Kvplov (Ps. II820);
this might have iMjlongcd to the entrance of a synagogue.
The Hellenic belief &ira^ davJvTOi ovth (crr dvaffracris
was not, in Athens, reduced by the powerful solvent of
Judaism. Hence, the moment the apostle uttered the
words ' raised from the dead ' his audience revolted.
Elsewhere his difficulties centred round another point —
whether Jesus was the Messiah or not. In Athens,
where Jewish thought had no hold, the idea of the resur-
rection of the body was unfamiliar — least so to the
Stoics, although it would !« an anachronism to quote
here the remarkable approach made by such Stoics as
Seneca to Christian modes of thought. Little wonder,
then, that Paul's work at .Vlhens was a comparative
failure, and that he felt it to be so (Acts 17 34 i Cor.
23). His visit to the city was a mistake ; and perhaps
it was from the first due to accident. In the hurried
departure from Heroea (.Acts 17 10^), there would be
little time for making plans or for choosing modes of
transport, and the apostle's abode in Athens seems to
have Ijeen largely, if not entirely, due to the necessity
he was under of waiting for his companions (Acts
17.5/.). W. J. w.
ATHLAI c^r^v = n;7nr, §§ 39, 52, athah.vh, ,/. v. ),
in list of those with foreign wives (see Ezra, i. § 5, end),
Ezral028 {da\€L | H], -/x [X], o(^a\t [A], 0eXea [L];
ATIf.lLAl)=l I-:sd. 9 29 .\MATIIKIS, RV E.MATHKIS
(efxaeOis [H], -aOeis [A], OeXeei [L]).
ATIPHA (ATect^A [BA]). I Esd.532 = Ezra254. Ha-
TIIMI A.
ATONE, ATONEMENT (^33, © e5iAACKeiN ;
□•"123, (5 e5iA(\CM(\; NT kataAAaph)- The e.x-
[)ression ' to atone ' (nBs) generally describes the effect
of the sacrifices in removing guilt. The pure religious
idea of atonement, however, as \V. R. Smith remarks
(OTVCCi 439) is to be found in the Prophets (and,
surely, in Ps. 51 ; see in: i [2] 2 [3] 7 [8] 9 [10] ; also,
with nsD in 603 7838 799). There it has no relation to
.sacrificing, and we cannot fail to see the appro]jriate-
ness of this scholar's explanation of ^^^ kippei- as mean-
ing primarily ' to wipe out." This is in accordance with
Syriac usage ; but the only OT passage in which the
sense of 'wipe out' is possible is in Is. 28 18, where the
reading is much disputed (Houbigant, Lowth, Du. [but
not Di., Che.] read nrni instead of isdi), and where it is
at any rate open to us to obtain the sense ' wiped out '
indirectly from the common reading ( ' covered over' ; cp
Gen. 614). The usual view is that a propitiation is ex-
pressed by kipper metaphorically, as a ' covering ' (cp Ar.
kafiira : in i. stem tt'xU, in ii. expiavit), as when Jacob,
fearing Esau's anger, says, ' I will cover his face with a
present' (cp Gen. 20 16 Job924). The Hebraistic usage
of the word is well set forth by Driver, Dent. 425, 439.
W. R. Smith's note in O 776' (^' 438-440 also deserves
attention ; but OTJC^^ 381, etc., should here be com-
])ared.
In the NT ' atonement ' is given by .W for KaraWayr],
Rom. 5 11; but RV, with a proper regard to consist-
ency, substitutes 'reconciliation'; cp 2 Cor. 5 18/^,
'the ministry, the word, of reconciliation.' Elsewhere
KaroXXayij occurs in Rom. 5 10/. 11 15 ; cp Col. 1 21 ; it
is hardly one of (5's words, being found only in 2 Mace.
020. See further, Atonemk.nt, Day of, Mkkcy-
sic.vr, Ransom, Sacrifice ; and cp WRS, /^e/. SemJ"^'
237, 320, 437, etc. ; also We. CH 335/
See also Ritschl, Die christl. Lehre von d. Recktfcrtigting
u. d. Vcrsfihnung,\\.; Weiss, Bihl. Theol. 0/ NT 1 4x9-452
■J 202-216; D.-ile, flu Doctrine 0/ the Atonement; Wilson,
Ilulscan Lectures on the Atonement (1899). The semi-popuKir
literature is extensive.
ATONEMENT, DAY OF (DnSSH DV ; later,
■l33ri DV ; in Talmud N2"} NO'r, 'the great day,'
NOV, ' the day,' and N3T X01V, ' the great fast ' ; cp
Acts279, H NHCTeiA — ;^s the only fast enjoined by the
law).
383
ATONEMENT, DAY OF
The law relating to this day (Lev. 1(!), which as it
now stands connects with the story of .Nadab and
1 Ana.lvBiB '^'^'^" '" Lev. 10 1-7, is not in its present
' fi ^ form a homogeneous unity.' This is
evident, not only from the duplicate
verses 6 and 1 1 , and from peculiarities of the arrange-
ment, but also from the contents of the law.
The chapter as a whole treats of two quite distinct subjects :
viz., (i) the warning of the high priest that he is to enter the
Holy of Holies not at pleasure, but only under certain specified
precautions ; (2) the ordering of a yearly Day of Atonement, for
which an exact ritual is prescribed, i. is contained in 71V. 1-4
6 12 13 34 <5, and belongs to Po ; 2. is itself composite, (a) ft'.
29-34 a give complete directions for the annual observance of a
day of fasting and humiliation, on which the sanctuary and
people are to be cleansed by ' the priest who shall be anointed '
(cp8i2) — i.e., the high priest of the time; the atonement is
supposed by the lawgiver to Ix: carried out in accordance with
the ritual (which, originally, immediately preceded it) of Lev. 9,
an.', with the law of the sin-offering laid down in Nu. 1624. On
critical grounds this law also must be held to belong to Pj. {b)
v~j. 5 7-10, 14-28, on the other hand, by which the quite peculiar
ritual of the Day of Atonement is prescribed, are the work of a
much later hand.
Why and when these various portions of the present
law were combined into one are questions that will be
discussed elsewhere (see Leviticus, {5 6/., and Hexa-
teuch) ; the important fact, gained from critical
analysis, is that the Day of Atonement, as far as its
ceremonies are described in Lev. 16, is of comparatively
recent origin, and the result of a very interesting
development.
This conclusion is supported by a variety of con-
siderations, [a) That the pre-exilic worship knew of
„. - no such day as is descrilxid in Lev. 16 is
■j ° evident, not only from the alisence of all
develop-
ment.
mention of it (an omission which cannot
be accidental, the other high days being
referred to), but also from the fact that consciousness of
sin and sense of need of a propitiation, which are the
necessary conditions of such an institution, first became
prominent in the time of Ezekiel (see Fea.st.s, § 11).
{b) The earliest trace of public days of fasting and
humiliation in the exilic period ajjpears in Zech. 735819;
the four yearly fasts there mentioned were com-
memorative of the national calamities at the fall of
Jerusalem, and appear to have been still observed in
post-exilic times.
ICzekiel, in this as in other respects the forerunner of the
priestly law, had enjoined two atonement-days (the first day of
the first month and the first of the seventh, 4u i8-2o).2 A
young bullock as a sin-offering was to be brought, and with its
blood were to be smeared the posts of the house, the four
corners of the altar, and the posts of the gate of the inner court
— 'so shall ye make atonement for the house'; together with
this, certain sin-offerings for prie.st and people are enjoined for
the passover-day (Ezek. 45 22).
(<r) When we turn to the detailed account of the
reading of the law in Neh.8/, we find mentioned a
joyous celebration on the first day of the seventh month,
and a celebration of the Feast of Taljernacles on
the fifteenth, without any reference to a Day of Atone-
ment on the tenth.* On the twenty-fourth day, on the
other hand, a general fast with confession of sin was
held, by no means in accordance with the ritual of
Lev. 16 14-28. This makes it clear that what stood in
the Law-book used by Ezra (P„) was not the Levitical
ritual (Lev. 16 14-28), but only a precept of a yearly fast-
day with sabbatic rest — in other words, the precept laid
down in Lev. 16 29-34.
The change from the tenth to the twenty-fourth at the first
celebration is intelligible enough on the a.ssumption that the
fast-day was not at first so prominent in the law-book as it
afterwards became in Lev. 1(> 14-28.
Even in the still later list of high days in Lev. 2827
and Nu. 297 we do not find any reference to the
specific ritual of Lev. 16 14-28; the tenth day of the
1 .See Benzinger's .study, ZATW ^ts/. ['89), and cp Stade,
Gl'l •! 258, and Lkviticis, g 2.
2 The text of Kzek. Vi 20 should lie emended in accordance
with (SBAO, gr,n3 <y«3tr3-
3 Cp Keuss, Gesch. dcr heil. .?tAr.(2) v^oof. (Holzinger, Hex.
750, note, differs).
384
ATONEMENT, DAY OF
seventh month is simply marked by fasting, sabbath
ri'st. and the usual sin-offerings. I'he Day of Atone-
m<'nt fioscribed in Lev. 16 must have lx?en the result of
a long [iroccss of development, and the ])ericope formed
by Lev. 1(55 7-'o «4-28 niust l»elong to the very latest
portions of 1'. The precept in Kx. 30 lo is, of course, a
still later adtlition to the ritual, enjoining that the blood
of the sin-offering should also be applied to the altar of
incense.
It is a significant fact that, as the later title proves
(see aljove, § i), the Day of Atonement became the
3. Fundamental '""'' in^'ortant in the ecclesiastical
principle, etc.
year ; Jewish feeling in the later age
inevitably led to tliis. Now :is to
the meaning of the law. The terms of Lev. 16 permit
no uncertainty. The law has reference to the thorough
purilication of the jxiople and sanctuary. The sin-
offerings throughout the year have left many unknown
or 'secret' sins; and since the people, the land, and,
above all, the sanctuary are rendered impure by sin
(Lev. l.'isi Nu. 19i3-2o Kz. 45 18 Lev. 16io), there was a
danger tliat the sacrificial services might lose their
eflic.acy and e\en that Yahwe might desert his defiled
sanctuary. This was the re.ason for the institution of
the Day of Atonement — that the Israelites might
annually make a complete atonement for all sin, and
that the sanctuary might Ije cleansed (Lev. I633). The
leading idea of the entire Priestly Law found here its
best expression. The Day of Atonement cjuickened,
on the one hand, the {xjoi^le's sense of sin and dread of
Vahwe's avenging holiness, and, on the other hand,
their assurance of reconciliation and of their renewed
holiness. This holiness was guaranteed by their re-
ligious system, the etTicacy of which, marred by sin,
was again restored by this solenmity of expiation. It is
the key-stone of the whole system, the last consequence
of the |)rinciple, ' Ye shall be [ceremonially] holy, for I
am holy. '
If we turn to the ritual, we can without difTiculty
discover its fundamental ideas. The liigh priest, after
bathing, puts on i)lain white linen garments instead of
his elaborate vestments, for he is to appear as a humble
suppliant before the Holy One whom only the pure may
ajiproach. Of course, before lie can make atonement
for the people he must first do so for himself and for his
'house' — i.e.. for the entire priesthood. On entering
the Holy of Holies he is to envelop in a cloud of holy
incense-smoke the place of God's personal presence,
lest he die. The ritual of blood-sprinkling, as far as it
is peculiar to this day, is only an elaboration, recjuired
by the extreme closeness of the approach to (Jod, of the
usual procedure in sacrificial offerings. The conception
has been explained by Roljcrtson .Smith * as an inherit-
ance from primitive ideas about sacrifice. See Sacki-
FlCK, § 22. I. B.
The Day of Atonement has been called by Delitzsch
the (;«><)(1 lYiday of the Law. This can hardly be
4. Propitiatory '»=^'."'f'"e'l ^^ith regard to its earlier
Character. P*-;"°a- ^^^ocxX Friday was not in-
stituted to restore the impaired cere-
monial holiness of the community ; it had from the first
a reference to the individual and to spiritual religion.
It w.as otherwise with the Yom Kij^piirim, even if its
institutors were not personally opjxjsed to the supple-
menting and counteracting agency of teachers of a
nobler religion. We will not deny that the poetic
prayers composed for the ' great ' day ' during the
Dispersion touch the Christian deeply from their extra-
ordinary spiritual dejith and their sense of individual
religion. These prayers, however, are no evidence
of the spirit of the original institution. It is not
necessary to dwell on the A/azel-ritual. The ritual
of the Day of Atonement has grown (this can Ix: shown
by literary analysis as well as by archaeological con-
1 Rtl. St->,t.{-2) 40/:
25 38s
siderations),^ and the Azazel-ritual is the latest portion
of it. 'We might perhaps supixise tli.it those who con-
tinuc-d Lzra's work were not up to his level ; but when
we look at Lev. 1629-34rt, which is the earliest part of
the law (cp 9y_^.), we still hnd in it provisions op|x>sed
in tendency to the pure religi<jn of the greatest prophets
and psalmists. I'he procedure with the blood may Ije
arch.i'ologically explained so as to minimise the shock
which it causes us ; it may also \xi spiritualised, so as
to assume a totally new appearance ; but it is, as
has been stated, out of harmony with that prophetic
religion which is restated in I'ss. 40 50 51. It is also
in this part of the law that we find an expression which,
when correctly explained, condenses the uns|jiritual
elements of the law into a nutshell. It is the expressirm
sabbath iabbdthon, which may well Ix; more ancient than
the day to which it is api)lied. k\' renders I-ev. l(J3i
thus : ' It is a sabbath of solemn rest unto you, and
ye shall afflict your souls; it is a statute for ever.'
Jastrow {Amer. Joiirn. Theol. \^\i ff. ['98]) has made
it probable that Sabbaik and sabba/Jion answer — the
latter more exactly'- than the former — to the Haby-
lonian ceremonial term hibatlum, which means a day
of propitiation with reference to the dies itefasti of
the kings. If so, the terms iabbath and lablathCm,
which are derived from nar, to rest, imply that by the
usages on the day to which these terms are applied,
rest is given to an angry (jod.^ The expression 'to
afHict the soul' {'inrid nfphesh), used in the same verse,
is not less archaic in spirit, even if much later in use ; *
it was adopted by late theologians as a synonym of the
old word D1S. 'to fast.' This, too, implies an un-
spiritual doctrine — viz., that by denying the body
certain generally desired goods the mind of a deity
can be inlluenced by his worshipper.
To examine the full force of the ceremonies of the
Day of Atonement, archa'ologically viewed, is not our
purpose. Our purpose is to emphasise their strictly
propitiatory character. That same character liclonged,
according to the Jewish liturgy, to the ritual of New
Year's Day (AW has-Sauah). It was belie\ed,* through
the influence of Babylonian mythology, that the fate of
man was decreed on Ntnv Year's Day (the festival of
Creation), and that on the Day of .Atonement the
decree was 'scaled.' No wonder that the nine ilays
which intervened Ixjtween the first day of the seventh
month (New Year's Day) and the tenth (the Day of
Atonement) were regarded by the Jews as penitential
days. Precisely when this view of New Year's Day as
the Day of Destiny began to l)e taken, we know not.
Probably it began among the Jews of the Eastern
Dispersion. It gives a new force, however, (i) to the
collocation of Yom K'ippiirhn and RoS /Ms-Sdndh in the
same month, and (2) to the designation of both days
(see Lev. 2^24) as iabbdthon. To what extent, if at all,
the ritual of these days is a revival of primitive custom,
is obscure. It is quite possible that in primitive times
Israelitish ritual, at any rate in certain places, approxi-
1 The literary .analysis of Lev. l(i is passed over in SBOT
(Heb. ; 1894); m the article ' D.iy of Atonement ' in Hastin^is,
Dli\-2ooh \'ofi\, the omission has l>een supplied from Ben-
zinger. Driver's moderating remarks, however, do not affect
the position taken up by Stade and i'.enzinger, who are both
fully awake to the incompleteness of merely literary analysis
of ancient laws. The deficiency noted in SIH ' /' is also to be
observed in the Leviticus in Kautzsch's new translation (NS).
Cp Lkviticcs.
■•2 Sabbath, acc. to Jastrow, ' is the distinctively Hebrew name
given to a particular Sabhdthfn ' (c/*. cif. 34^/.). .4abbathon =
liab. iahalium; the terminations corresjwnd (Jastrow, 332X
3 The most common term for ' propitiation ' was »«* //M/' (lit.
' rest of the heart ') ; iliii ( = CV> ' day ") niih libhi has the sense of
' day of propitiation ' ( lastrow, 330).
•• It occurs in Is. 68^510 Ps. 3513; also in Ix;v. I631 282732
Nu. 297. That the historical Isaiah, in disparaging fasts, does
not use the phrase (Is. 1 13, but cp ©) is significant.
5 See KBZn/. (Marduk comes at Z.-igmuk, the beginning
of the year, 'to destine the fate of my life'); cp Karppc
on 'Jewish New Year' in Rev. S/tn., and Jensen, KosmoL 84-
86, 238.
386
ATONEMENT, DAY OP
mated rather more to Babylonian than was afterwards
the case. One could wish this to be true, for it would
then be easier to account for the ceremonies of the
Vom Kippiirim, so archaic in spirit, and so contrary to
the tendency of I er. 31 31-34 Kzek. 8625-27 Mic. 719.
At any rate, the propitiation-days of the post-exilic
Israelites were nobler than those of the Babylonians, in
_ , . as far as they were for the benefit of
6. comparative ^j^^ ^^^^-^^ people, and not merely for
nobiUty. jj^^j ^f j,^^ xxAcxs. The Babylonian
regulations of the 'days of appeasement' {mbattum =
}in32') bear upon the conduct of the king ; but, since ' the
whole congregation is holy," those of the Yom Kippiirim
necessarily touch the conduct of all faithful Jews and
even of 'sojourners (Lev. I629). In this respect the
Jewish religion has a much closer affmity with the
Zoroastrian than with the Babylonian or the Assyrian.
If the provision for giving the uneducated populace
a visible sign of the forgiveness of all its sins and the
removal of their punishment appears to us barbaric and
unspiritual (see .Vzazki., § i) — if, too, the populace was
only too likely to misinterpret the comprehensive ex-
pressions of Lev. 16 162130, and to think that all sins
whatever were cancelled by the ritual — we must remember
(as regards Azazel) the compromising spirit natural to
large educational churches, and (as regards the other
point) the difficulty in an l-Lastern language of guarding
against all possible misinterpretations of phrases. A
misinterpretation it certainly is when a Mishna treatise
declares that — •
' The goat which is di.smi.ssed atones for all (other) trans-
gressions, as well the light as the grave, the intentional and the
unintentional, those foreknown and tho.se not foreknown '
{Shebiioth 1 6).
The analogy of Lev. 4213 etc. Nu. I524 distinctly
shows that in such propitiatory ordinances it is accidental
transgressions (,ij;e'3), not deliberate transgressions
(ncn "vy), that are referred to ; and in Yomd%() we read,
' He who says, I will sin, the Day atones ; to him tlie
Day will bring no atonement. ' ^
In NT times the Jews had advanced religiously
beyond the contemporaries of Ezra. In the Epistle to
the Hebrews and in that of Barnabas
we meet with a Christian gnosis ; but
there was, no doubt, also an allegorising gnosis that was
Jewish. There must have been both poetic symbolisers
(cp Ps. 5l7[9]) and typologists. What Barnabas says
(78) about the scarlet cloth tied on the neck of the
• scapegoat ' is absurd ; but it is an exquisite allcgor}'
that the I'^pistle to the Hebrews suggests in the words
(Heb. 10 19-22)—
' Having therefore holdness to use the entrance into the holy
place with the blood of Jesus— the entrance which he dedicated
for us — a fresh and living way — through the vail, that is to say,
his flesh, and having a great priest over the house of God, let
us approach,' etc.
Christians are, strictly, no priests (Christ is the
'great priest'); but the rending of the flesh of
Christ, which brought him, the perfect one, near to
God, enables his followers to make a nearer approach
to the divine presence than the greatest priests and
prophets of the age before him could make. The
entrance of Christ into the heavenly regions through
death is likened to the entrance of the high priest
once in the year into the Holy of Holies. Of these
two entrances the same epistle speaks thus (Heb.
9i2):
' Nor yet through blood of goats and bulls, 2 but through his
own blood, he entered once for all into the holy place.'
The Jewish high priest entered the holiest through
the blood of goats and bulls. The goat was the
offering for ■ the people ; the bullock for the high
priest himself (Lev. 16 11 15). Christ entered through
his own blood. The high priest went in once in the
J So Heb. 9 7, ' not without blood which he offers for himself
and for the errors (iyi'orjuaTui') of the people.'
2 So the best MSS (ABKD).
387
6. NT references.
year ; Christ once for all, as the representative of his
people, that they might ever after have free access to
God. ' Once for all ' (^^Ciirat) is to be e.xplained by
925, 'the high priest enters the holy place every year
with blood not his own ' [iv aifxari. aXKorpiif)).
The point is not how many times in the day the high priest
entered the holiest, but that he entered on one day in the year.
Of course, he went in more than once on the 'great day'; the
Mishna says four times — (1) with the incense ; (2) with the
blood of the bullock ; (3) with that of the goat ; (4) after the
evening burnt -offering, to bring away the censer and the
-plate. Lev. 1613-15 also implies more than one en-
There is a reference to the ritual in Heb. 13 n, where
the death of Jesus outside the gate is compared with
the burning of the remnants of the sin-offering without
the camp. This, however, as Davidson has shown, ^ dis-
joints the ritual, and is really a mere isolated analogy.
The treatise y'(>?nd (cp also Jos. Ant iii. 10 3 and l-",p.
Barn. ch. 7) throws much fresh light on the details of the
.. -n X -1 • ritual ; we must not, however, suppose
7. Details in , ... ,, ,. ,,
„. , that It IS \n all respects literall}' accurate.
^^ ■ In the Cambridge MS (Palestinian re-
cension) it is called Massekeih A'ippnrim, wliich is its
true title, as the commentarj^ of Maimonides on the
Mishna also proves. J. Derenbourg has attempted a
restoration of the oldest recension (see below, § 8).
The minute directions for the purification of the high priest
need not detain us. Three confessions of sin {umidfiy) form the
most beautiful part of the ritual ; they are preserved in Yomd
3842 and O2, and have passed with slight changes into the
Jewish liturgy. In each of the.se confessions the sacred
Tetrngrammaton (,^^n•) occurs ; altogether it was pronounced
ten times, and as often as the high priest came to the name
those who stood near fell on their faces, while the multitude
responded : ' lilessed be the Name, the Name of tlie glory of
his kingdom, for ever and ever.' The first part of the service
(including the blood-sprinkling) was gone through close to the
Most Holy J'lace. the rest was performed close to the
worshippers, in the eastern part of the court of the priests, north
of the altar, where stood two goats and an urn with two lots.
The high priest drew the lots, and it was held to be a good
oinen if his right hand drew forth the lot 'for Yahwe.' To the
horn of the ' goat for Azazel ' a ' tongue ' of scarlet cloth was tied.
The high priest then went to the bullock, over which he had
already confessed the sins of hini.self and his hou.se, and now
confessed tho.se also of 'the .seed of Aaron, thy holv tribe.'
Hearing the censer and the incense, he was seen to disappear
within the sanctuary. There he stood alone ; he rested his
censer on a stone called pTflt" ^ which stood in the place of the
ark. Outside the Holy of Holies he uttered a prayer ; it had
to be a short one, lest the people should become anxious.*
Again the rite of blood-sprinklii g is performed in the Holiest,
and then the 'goat for Yahwe' is sacrificed. A third time the
high priest enters the Holiest, and again there is blood-
.sprinkling in all parts of the sanctuarj-. Forty -three such
sprinklings have purified the sanctuary. But the people at
large have to receive the visible sign of forgiveness. The ' goat
for Azazel ' now becomes prominent. A widduy or ci>nfe.ssion
is uttered over the animal's head, which is now to be led to the
precipice marked out for the destruction of the goat. Men of
rank from Jerusalem accompany it ; cries and curses hasten its
progress (see Azazki., § 4). Meantime the high priest puts on
his 'golden vestments' ;■* then he puts them oflf again, and a
fourth time (see above) enters the Holiest.
The evening of the ' great day ' closed with a banquet
for the high priest and his friends, and with dancing
in the vineyards for the maidens of Jerusalem. Prob-
ably this dance was primitive ; it attached itself to the
Day of Atonement, as a natural mode of relief to tired
human nature ( Taanith 4 8). See, further, Dancing,
§ 8 ; Canticles, § 8.
The treatise Vptitd i^Mishna by Surenhusius ; Yomn alone
ed. Strack ; cp Wiinsche, Der hab. Tabu. 1 340 J?;) : J. Deren-
bourg, ' Essai de restitution de I'anc. r^dac-
8. Literature, tion de M.ass(;chet Kippourim," R FJ no. U
^1-80 ('83); Maimonides, Hihhnth yom hak-
kippuriiti, in Dehtzsch, Hebrcivs 2 464 _^ ; Kuenen, Hex. 86,
312; Oort, r/i/" 10 142-165 ('76): Benzinger, Z.r/'/KO 65-88
('8g); articles by Delitzsch in HU'BC^), and mZKlVl 173-183
('80), reviewed by Kuenen, ThT 17 207-212 ('83); Spencer, De
1 See his instructive essay, Hebrews ('82), 196-202.
2 Commonly explained ' foundation,' and illustrated by Job
386. *
S Such a 'short prayer' is given in Jer. Yomd, gb (Del.
Gesch. (ierjud. Ppesie, iZj/.).
* Cp Ecclus. 50 9 II, and the verses from the Abodah in
Del. Jiid. Poesie, 21/.
388
ATROTH
Up. rit. iii. Diss. viii. ; D. HoflTmann in Berliner's Magasin f 76),
\ff. ; Adler, ZATW Z xi^-iij, ('83) ; Stade, CVI 2 182, 258^?:;
Schultz, or Theol. 1 367/, 2402^ ; KUershcim, The '1 empU
('74), 563-288; Driver, 'Atonement, Day of,' in HaNtings, DB
1199-201, and 'Leviticus' in SliO T (V.n^.'); Di. on Lev., and
Nowack's and lienzinger's Arch;cologies.
§§ 1-3 1- »■: §§4-8 T. K. C.
ATROTH ( Nu. 3235 AV). See ArKOTJi-SHornAN.
ATROTH BETH -JO AB (nSV H'? Tiysq)i—i.e.,
' crowns of the house of Joab ' ; ATApcoG OlKOy ICOAB
[B], A- o- icoBaB [A], ATAPCO K. BHeiOJAB [!']')• '1"
unknown locality, mentioned in i Ch. "254 along with
Bethlehem and Netophah, in a Calebite connection ;
its people were sons of Salma b. Hur b. Caleb (see
jABli/). Salma was the 'father' of Beth-lehem, the
burial-place of Joab's father Zkruiah [g.v-]. Meyer
(/i«/. 147) suggests a connection with the valley of
Charasiiim.
ATROTH - SHOPHAN, AV Atroth, Shopman
(\z:vc' n'nqr ; cco(t)Ap Lu.vj, -an LK], co(t)AP [l],
Eus. 21454). a town of Gad (Nu. 8235) ; perhaps one of
the two localities in Moab still called 'Attarus. See
Atakoth, 4.
ATTAI ('rir, perhaps abbrev. of Atiiaiah).
1. Son of the Kgyptian Jarha by the daughter of Sheshan the
Jerrihintelite : his son was Nathan; iCh. 235/; (eeOei [I!J,
i.eec (LI, u9e[e]i [A]). See Jarha, Jkrah.mkkl.
2. One of David's warriors; i Ch. 12ii (eeoi [BN], f06[f]t
[AL]). See David, §..,«, iii.
3. Son of Kehoboam ; 2 Ch. 11 20 (ie9e[e]t [BAL]).
ATTALIA (ATTAAeiA [-ia Ti. \VH]). A town on
the coast of Paniphylia, fouiulcci by .\ttalus Philadelphus,
king of Purgamus, for the Syrian and Egyptian trade,
which it shared with Perga. There has been some
discussion about the site, as Strabo (p. 667), enumerat-
ing from west to east, mentions Olbia, the river Catar-
rhactes, and then Attalia ; from which it would seem
tliat Attalia must be the modern Laara. Ptolemy,
however, is more e.xact : he puts it west of the Catar-
rhactes. Thus, it is equivalent to the modern Adalia,
which is still a port with considerable trade. The town
has a picturesque appearance, being perched on the
long line of cliffs created by the calcareous deposits of
the Catarrhactes, which pours over them in torrents to
the sea. The remains are almost entirely Roman.
The apostle Paul passed through the town on his return
from his ' first missionary tour ' in the interior (Acts
1425). It is still a bishopric. [See Pkkga, and
Ramsay, Hist. Geogr. of Asia Minor, 420.] w. j. w.
ATTALUS (attaAoc [ANV]). Three kings of
PerganuLs bore this name ; but we are here concerned
with the last two— .\ttalus IL , Philadelphus, 159-138
B.C., and his nephew Attalus IlL, Philomctor, 138-133
B.C. The Pcrgamene kings were all allies of Rome,
and the last made the Roman people his heir (see Asia).
In I Mace. 1.5 22 we read that 'Lucius, consul of the
Romans,' wrote letters in favour of the Jews to Ptolemy,
Attalus, Ariarathes, and others. Attalus II. is probably
meant; but, as the date of the letters falls in 139-138
B.C., it is possible that they were sent to his successor.
Attalus III. was the son of Eumenes by Stratonice, the
daughter of Ariarathes, king of Cappadocia, who was
a close ally of the Romans, sharing the fate of Publius
Licinius Crassus in the war with the Pergamene pre-
tender Aristonicus, 130 B.C. Josephus {Ant. xiv. 10 22)
c|uotes a Pergamene decree in favour of the Jews about
the time of Hyrcanus. W. j. w.
ATTHARATES (attapath {V>\ atGapathc [A],
AeApACBAC [!>]), I E.sd. y49::=Neh. 89, Tirshatha.
ATTHARIAS (atGapiac [B.\]). iEsd.540, RV =
Ezra L'bi, Tikshatha.
ATTIRE. For Ezek.23.5 (c'Sno. fhfillm) see
Turban; for Jer. 232 (nnrp. kiHurim) see Girdle;
for Prov. 7io (ny, nth) scc'dres-S, § i (4).
1 After ©L we may assume a separate place-name Ataroth ;
see Atarah.
AVIM, AVIMS, AVITES
ATTUS (attoyc [AL]). i Esd. 829, RV=Ezra82.
Hattush, I.
AUGIA (ayKeIia [BAL]). i Esd. 538. Not in |1 Ezra
26i = Neh. 763. .See Barzillai, 3.
AUGURY ('one who practises augury," R\' Lev.
19-'6 IH.IS1014 2K.2I6; AV 'observer of limes,'
pir^). See Divination, § 2 (2).
AUGUSTUS (AYroyCTOC [Ti. ^^T^]), an honorific
title lx.'sto\ved upon Octavi.in (27 B.C.), and from him
handed on to his successors. It is applied to him.
along with the title of Ci4-:.SAR {q.v.), in Lk. 2i EV.
For his reign, in as far as it concerns Jewish history,
see Hkrodian Fa.mii.v, i, and Israp:i, ; and for the
dilTiculties rai.sed by Lk. 2i w ith regard to the census, see
j Chronology, § 59/
In Acts 262125 the AV 'Augustus' for aefiaaroi
should rather be, as in RV, simply 'the emperor,' or,
j as in RV"'a-, 'the Augustus.' The reference is to
I Nero (see C^K.SAR). For 'Augustus's band,' or rather
j (as in RV) 'the Augustan band' (.\cts 27 1 aireipyji
TlejiaaTTJ^), see Army, § 10.
AURANUS (AYPdNOY [^"-^l : cp Avaran), leader
of the Assassins in Jerusalem in the time of Lysimachus
! (2 Mace. 440).
; AUTEAS (aytaiac [BA]), i Esd. 948 = Neh. 8 7,
j IIOI;l.\H, 2.
AUTHORITIES (e^OYCiAi. iPeL322). Sc-e
Angels, §§1,9.
AVA (j;-U'), 2 K. 1724 AV ; RV AvvA.
AVARAN (ayapan [AXV]), i Mace. 25. See
Eleazak, 7 ; NLvccAHKKs, i. § 3 ; cp Auranls.
AVEN (JIN; CON [B.VQP] in Hos. 108 Am. 1 5, but
hAioy TJoKeCxiC [B.VQ] in Ezek. 30i7t). i. In
Ezek. 3O17 the reference is doubtless to the I'^gyjitian
Heliopolis (see O.n).
2. In Hos. 108 (EV ' the high places of Aven ') Targ.
Jon. has '?Nn'2, Bethel, which explanation is given by
all .ancient and most modern interpreters ; but, in con-
sideration of the well-attested use of pn (aven) in the
sense of ' false worship,' ' idolatry' (see, e.g., Hos. 12 12
[11]), it is a question ( i ) whether we should not render with
G. A. Smith, ' Destroyed are the high places of idolatry,
the sin of Israel,' and (2) whether, when we have regard
to the parallel passage Am. 79, and to the probably not
infrequent occurrence of glosses in the MT of the pro-
phetic writings (see, e.g., Mic. I5/.), the words riNcn |U<
should not lie either omitted or printed in a diflerent
type as an editorial insertion. The passage, as Well-
hausen remarks, gains greatly by this omission. Vg. 's
reading, e.xre/sn idoli, favours the view here taken of
j\y. Ibn Ezra paraphrases c'Sya niC3 ' the high places
of the Baals. '
3. In Am. 1 5 M.aundrell (1697), Grove, W. A. Wright,
and G. A. Smith (with Hitzig) are inclined, in com-
pany with (S, to identify the ' plain (or broad valley)
of Aven' (Bikath-Avkn ; so AV"'S) with the great
plain between Lebanon and Antilibanus (the so-called
Bcka), in which the famous temple of the Syrian Helio-
polis (Baalbec) was situated. The vocalisation jijj will
then imply a play on the name — not On, but Aven.
This, however, is a far-fetched supposition. On
( = Egyptian Ann) represents ;he secular, not the re-
ligious, name of the Egyptian Heliopolis (see Bkth-
Shemesh. 4). It is very doubtful, moreover, whether
the second Heliopolis (Baalbec) was an Aramtean city
in the time of Amos, and it is a plausible view of W'ell-
hausen that [ik, ' false worship,' has been substituted
for the name of some god. Cp Winckler, A T Unter-
such. 183, n.
AVENGER (^SiK Nu. 35 12. See Goel.
AVIM, AVIMS, AVITES. See AvviM.
390
AVITH
AViTH (n')v, in i ch. Kt. nvv \ reeeA[i]M
[R.\1)I::L]), the city of Hadad I., king of Edoni, Gen.
3635 I Ch. I46 (reee<\M [A], eyie [L])- €5's reading
of the Hebrew must have Ijeen c'nj. Cjittaim, which is
clearly correct. 'Ihc city of the next king had a name of
similar meaning (Masrekah). See GiTTAiM. T. K. C.
AWA, AV AVA (Xiy or H-ir ; Vg. AvaA) ; 2 K. 1724
(&IA [HA], AIAN [Lf). RV ;' also Iwah, AV IvAH,
7\W (omitted or only represented in corrupt form in & ;
Vg. jr.i). 2K. 1834(<\YA [A]; not in ©'"-), 19i3
(oyAoY W' AYTA [A], om. L) = Is. 37i3 (oyrAYA
[BXOg"'*.'j. erroyr^YA f^]- oyre or oyxA [Q*]).
In the latter group of passages the punctuation implies
an exegetical mistake (see commentators on Is. ) : the
name throughout should Ix; Avva or Avvah, and it
used to be thought that the city referred to the same
as that from which the king of Assyria brought colonists
to the 'cities of Samaria' (2 K. 1724)- It is clear,
however (Wi. .IT rntcrsuch. 101/ ), that 2 K. 17 24 31
have been interjjolated by some one who supposed
Sei'HAKVAI.m [y.i'.] in 2K. I834I913 to be the Baby-
lonian city of that name. It is only in the speeches of
Sennacherib's envoys that .\vva has a right of existence ;
'Avva or 'Avvah, however, is surely a corruption of
'Azzah (,ny), 'Gaza.' Tiglath-pileser, when he con-
quered Gaza in 734 B.C., appears to have introduced
the cultus of Asur (Wi. GBA 228, 333). 'Where,'
then, ' are the gods of Sepharvaim and of Gaza? ' (So
Che. Exp. Times, June 1899.) T. K. C.
AWIM (D''-'!y, so RV ; AV AviM, AviMS, Avites
[Avvites, K\']). i- According to Dt. 223, the Avvim
inhabited the Philistine coast 'as far as Gaza' before
they were ' destroyed ' by the Caphtorim — i. e. , the
Philistines. The same late writer, in whom the anti-
quarv's interest is prominent,^ states that the Avvim
dwelt in villages or settlements {xS'-yin ; see Hazok) ;
(S and Vg. , however, read o'lnn. ' the Hivites ' {01 evaioi
[BAKL] ; //«■«-/). In Josh. 132-6 (an editorial insertion
which expands the simple statement of J E in z'. i) we
find the Avvim again introduced, and described (if
RV is right) as belonging to the S. of Philistia ; prob-
ably, however, ' on the south ' belongs to the whole
region defined in vt'. ib 3. Here © and \'g. once more
read 'the Hivites.' Sir G. Grove (in Smith's DB)
suggests that the Avvim may be identical with the
Hivites (cp © Vg. above) ; but the latter name is
imifornily found in the singular ('in.T)- The word
might, to a Hebrew ear, mean, yet probably does not
mean, 'ruins' (cp Iim). Not improbably it is a
mutilated form of ca-iy, ' Arabians ' (Che. Exp. Times,
June 1899). The Avvim (so-called) were Bedawin
who had begun to adopt a settled life.
2. E"!'^' ^'i'^ def. art., 'the ruins' (aniv [B], aueifi [AL],
Vg. Aviin), an unidentified place in Benjamin (Josh. 18 23). It
is mentioned in immediate connection with Bethel and Parah,
and on this account has been conjectured by Knobel to be the
same as Ai.
3. In Josh. 15 29 (Sal reads ' Avvim ' for ' Iim." See IlM (i).
4. The people of Avva (^.7'.), 2 K. 17 31. ® again oi fvaioi
IBAL (there is a second rendering, aiioi/et^ in L)] ; Vg. Hevtei.
T. K. C.
AWL (rV^P, lit. -borer'; 'onHTlON [BAFL]).
An instrument for boring, mentioned in the description
of the 'law of slavery' (l':x. 216 Dt. 15 17)- It prob-
ably resembled the Egyptian boring instruments de-
picted in Kitto (s.v.), or those more recently discovered
by Bliss at Tell el Hesy (see A Mound of Many Cities,
81). Such instruments were used by workers in leather
(see l-:rman. Life in Ancient Egypt, 450/.). Cp
Sl.AVKRY.
AWNING (HDSp. cp Gen. 813). Ezek. 27; RV, cor-
recting the punctuation C^IDDD, AV ' that which covered
thee'). Cp Dress, § i (4).
1 Cp Kue. Hex. 117-119 ; Mey. GA 1 217 (8 179)-
391
AYEPHIM
AXE. I'Vom the rude stone chisels and hatchets
('celts') of palaeolithic man, bronze and iron axe,
hatchet, tomahawk, and adze were gradually developed.
Various early forms of these implements (needed alike
in war and in peace) are found in our museums of
Egyptian and Babylonian antiquities ; the monuments
also give ample evidence of their existence. See Handi-
crafts and Weai'ONS.
Of the or words for ' axe, ' three at least may be
nearly synonymous :
I- \^^h gat-zen (securis); Dt.lSs (iftVr)); 20 19 (ixiSripoi) ;
I K.67 (jr«'Aeicus) ; Is. 10 15 ('a^iinj), everywhere an implement
for felling trees or hewing large timber for building. The word
is used thrice in the Siloam inscription (//. 2 4), in the .sense of a
quarryman's or miner's pick. On2S. I231 2 K.65, cp Iron, § 2.
2. DT\p,^ar</d„i,'ai^iyr,,seairis(]udg.948Ps.'Hs iS.132oy:
Jer. 4622!), perhaps specially used for felling trees; if so, it
would have a heavier head than the garzen.
3. '?'B'3, kaihi, ire\€KVi, securis, P.s. 7461; in Tg. Jer.4622
for Heb. DTIj7. RV gives 'hatchet,' apparently to suggest a
diminutive axe. (D, Sym., Pesh., however, read, not lI'n^BB
' its carved work," but ?''J'5? 'its gates.' The rather improbable
word ' iJ'3 should perhaps be ('3ij* 'knife' (Che. Ps.i"^), and
in the light of the Tg. we should emend msVo to nVB'?!^
' two-edged ' (Herz, Che.P), ' with two-edged axe ').
Somewhat different from these, and probably adze-
shaped, is :
4. l:iyO> vta'sAd, xuivfv\La. [B'^AQ, reading npS1D?l, ascia in
Jer. IO3 Is. 44i2l(<ric€Trap»'u), //wrt, AV ' tongs '), and by emenda-
tion of the text in Is. 10"35-' (Duhm) and Zech. 11 3 [2]) (see
FoKEsr). Kimhi understands something lighter than the
kardom, or 'axe.' In Jer. IO3 maasad is a tool suitable for
fashioning or carving wood.
Two Other words are doubtful.
5. ain In Ezek. 269, EV 'axe,' an insecure rendering. The
text is possibly corrupt (see Co.; rais naxaipan [BAQ], tois
ojrAois [Qn'U]).
6. •■!;.'.;!?, 2 S.I231 (vnoTOiievi [A])=i Ch.203, TtliO, which
Berth, and Kittel conform to Sam. The text, however, perhaps
needs more extensive emendation. Che. reads 'jnan nilJCS
a marginal correction of the mjD3 (after cc'l) which found its
way into the text (ICxp. Times, x. 1899, p. 285). See Saw.
Of the NT names the afiVij of Mt.Sio Lk.39 is the wood-
man's axe ; but Rev. 2O4 (ireAeicifecreai ; cp © 1 K. 5 18) refers
to the axe of the headman (Trt'Aeicus).
Axes were among the emblems of high rank in Egypt
and at Mycenas (see the axe figured in Erman, Egypt,
73 ; Schliemann, Mycena, 252). In the O T it is rather
the mace that is the favourite emblem of sovereign
power (see Rod). There is, however, a sarcastic passage
in Bar. 615 which suggests that the axe could be an
emblem of divinity ; and we may perhaps illustrate it by
Frazer's learned note on Paus. x. 14i. The double-
I headed axe is characteristic of so-called Hittite sculptures.
j The Labrandean Zeus of Caria also is represented on
! coins as carrying a double-headed axe {labriis = a.\e in
Lydian ; Plut. Quccst. Grcrc. 45). There appears on the
coins of Tenedos a similar axe, which, being generally
accompanied by a cluster of grapes, may be a symbol
of the worship of Dionysus. Cp also Ohnefalsch-
Richter, Aypros, 1 257.'^ Of course, the bow and the
sword, not the axe, are the emblems of Yahwe, though
in Ezek. 92 the supernatural agents of Yahwe carry
mauls (or like weapons). See Ba Tri,i;-.\XE.
AYEPHIM (D''2T), the rendering of R\''"^'- in 2 S.
16 14, where the text has, 'and the king and all the
people that were with him came weary." So C
4K\e\vfji^i>oi [BL], 6 iKXeXvfidvos [A]. The name of
1 nsJ^D as it stands does not make sense. For proposed emen-
dations see Che. {.'iSOr. Isaiah, Heb.), Duhm, Di.-Ki.
2 'With a terrible crash' (ninyjis) « only a conjectural
rendering of MT.
3 Perhaps, however, the axe was depicted as a survival of the
time, before the introduction of coined money, when it may
have been the unit of barter (Ridgeway, OH^-in 0/ Metallic
Currency, etc., 317/)- Perhaps too the 'tongue' (jirS) °^
gold in Josh. 7 21 was in the shape of an axe ; see Exp. Ti
1897, p. 61.
392
AYYAH
some place seems to Ix? rfquired by the context. If
Aycphini l)e indeed a placo-nanR-, the locality it indi-
cates remains unidentifie<i. On the other hand, it may
Ik; a corruption, or the place-name may have dropjx-d
out. Cp \Vc. in liK. ; ©' adds irapd rbv 'lopddfT/c.
G. A. s.
AYYAH (n;y [liii. (Ji.]), 1 Ch. r^St RV"'K=AV
G.\z.\ [./.7. , 2 J. Sec .\l, I.
AZAEL (azahAoy I'^AJi, i Ksd. 9i4 = I>-ral0is.
AS.MII.I., 4.
AZAELUS (azahAoc Ll^J). i Ksd. 9 34=Hzral04.,
RV .\Z.\KKKI., 5.
AZAL, or rather RV AzKi, (*?>*>? : l&COA [BNr].
ACAhA I-\Q]*. ihti point to which the cleft of the moun-
tain is to rc.ich when Yah\v6 descends ujxjn the Mt.
of Olives in battle (Zech. 14 5)- This place, presumably
situ:ited near Jerusalem, is often identified with the
eciually obscure Hkthkzkl. Kohler, Wright, and
others (after Vg. Symm. ), with less probability, take
':•!»«"'?« to Ix: an adverbial expression, ' very near, hard
by" (cpOlsh. § 167^; but sec also Konig, § 330 / [7]).
Clermont (ianneau thinks of the Wady Yasul, a little
valley on the right of Uie '.\in el-Loz, in the Wady
en- Nar (/'/■. V-V"-. iSyi.p. loi).
AZAUAH (■"in^S'N*. ecceAiOY [-^L]), father of
Shaphan the .secretary, 2K. 223 (eAloy [H]l = 2Ch.
318(ceAi&(HAl).
AZANIAH (n;3TN, § 32, • Yahui' weighs,' cp Jaazan-
iah ; AZ&N[eli& [BA], -nihA [N], azaioy ni). a
Levite si'^natory to the covenant (see I'.ZK.V, i. § 7),
Neh.lOQl...).
AZAPIIION (ACC&<t)eicoe [B]). lEsd.Sjj AV =
Ezraiiss RV, Has.soI'HKKKTII [(/.;'. J.
AZARA, RV AsAKA (ac&RA [BA]), a family of
Netiiimm mentioned after Phinees ( = P[h]aseah) in
the great post-exilic ILst (.see KzKA, ii. § 9), i Esd. Ssif.
Unmcntioned in || ICzra249 Neh. 7 51.
AZARAEL (ozeiHA [BA]), Neh. I236 AV, RV Aza-
RKF.I., 4.
AZARAIAS. I. AVSakaias, i Esd. 81 (azaraioy
[B], CAPAIOY |AL]) = Kzra7i, Skkaiaii, 7.
2. .\\" .AzAKiAS (2 Esd. 1 1) ; see Azakiah, 3.
AZAREEL, or rather, as in RV, Azarel ('PNITIJ. §
28 ; ' (iod helps ' ; ezpiHA [AL], cp Azkikl).
1. One of David's warriors (iCh. 126; o^/)«u|A. [BK], «At>jA
[A]; fi^A(Ll). .See David, $ 11, a. iii.
2. One of the sons of Heman (see Lkvi), i Ch. 25 18 (a^apta
IB); o^c>)AlI,]; cp Uzziel).
3. .V D;uiite 'prince' under David (i Ch.27 22 ; a.^a.(>a.T\\ [B],
afp.,A|l,l). .See David, 8 M, <-. i.
4. A priest in list of inhabitants of Jerusalem (see Ezra, ii.
I 5 [*1. % '5 fO a), Neh. 11 13 (»<j-5pi7|A [BK]); in the procession
at the dedication of the wall (see Exka, ii. § 13 i'), Neh. 12 36,
AV Azakaei. (oi'et.jA [HK*A], o^pecTjA [N'^'^p superscr.]).
5. In list of those with foreign wives (see Kzka, i. § 5, end),
Ezra 10 4 1 (»^€pr,A [P.], e<rpi7,A [«])= i Esd. 934 (Esril, RV
EzKil., «fp(e|iA |H.\1, e<7-piT)A [L]), apparently repeated as
Azaki.. s (//.. o.C,a.r^K [A], -o« [I'.l, oni. L).
AZARIAH (nnrr, §§ 28 84 [or •innri?; in nos. I,
2, 6, 7, 8, 13, 15, 19, 20 ; cp Baeron i Ch. 238], ' Yahw6
helps' ; cp Elkazar, Azkikl ; azariac [B.\L]).
1. b. Zadok ; priest, temp. Solomon, i K. 42 (afap«i
[B]). See Bkn-hur.
2. Chief priest, temp. Uzziah (2 Ch. 2617-ao).
3. Chief priest, temp. Hezekiah (2 Ch. 31 10-13).
In I Ch. 69-14 (535-39) the name of Azariah is borne by
the twelfth, the fourteenth, and the twentieth in descent
from .Aaron in the line of Eleazar (it. 9 n i3ofapta[B]) ;
of the fourtc-enth it is said that he ' executed the priest's
office in the house that Solomon built in Jerusalem '
(iCh. 610/ [.I36/. ]). Omissions and transpositions
allowed for, the three Azariahs in this series may be
held to lie identical with nos. i. 2, and 3 above; at
AZAZEL
the same time, it is difficult to su|)ix>se that the Hilkiah
of iCh. t5i3/. (539/) should Ije distinguishe<l from
the Hilkiah of i Ch. 9ii and EzraTi (fa/)«toi^ [BJ; ; if
we identify these, .\zariah (3) was a contemporary of
Josiah, not of Hezekiah. This name ap|x;ars also as
Azarias, .\zaraias, Aziei, Ezerias, and ICzias.
4. Expounder of taw (see EzKA, ii. f i-^/. ; cp i. | 8; ii. | 16
[5I, « iShb). Neh.87(om. BKA)= i Esd. fl 48 (Azarias), and
signatory to the covenant (see Ezka, i. $ 7), Neh. 10 2 I3I (ai^a.ju.a.
[BK<:-3AJ, l;a.xo^'.<y.^ [«*]). See also Neh. 3 23 (a^ap.a [BKA]),
24 (^T)fla^ap(t]ia (liKA], oikov of. [L]). He is apparently the
Ezka of Neh. 12 i 13.
5. A Kohathite Levite (i Ch. 6 36 [21], o^op»a [BL], cp 2 Ch.
2S> 12, l.Tiiy). In I Ch. (i 24 [9I his pl.ice is taken by U/ZIAH, 2.
6. 1). Nathan, su|)ervisor of .Solomon's twelve prefects (i K.4
5). Probably he had to see that the contributions of the diflTtr-
ent departments were punctually furnished. His father was
most likely the well-known prophet who in 2 S. 12 1 is called
simply Nathan (so Ew., We., Klo.). Others (e.g., Biihr) make
Azariah Solomon's nephew ; cp 2 S. 6 I4(© opclejia [B*L1). See,
however, ZAnUD.
7. \ son of King Jehoshaphat, twice enumerated (as Azariah
and .Azariahu) in 2 Ch. 21 2, out omitted in (B jl'l.
8. A son of Jchorani, king of Jud.ih in 2 Ch. 226 (oxo^cliat
I [BAL]) ; but it is clear from 2 K. 8 29, as well as from 2 Ch. 22 i,
[ that Ahaziah [2) is meant. In 2 Ch. 21 17 he is called Jkjio-
AHAZ(^.7'., 3).
9. King of Judah ; otherwise known as Uzziah (f.v., i).
' 10. One of the ' three children,' companions of Daniel ; othcr-
' wise called Abkdnego [f.7>.] (Dan. I671119 Song of Three
I Children, v. 66 [®, Theod. Dan. 3 88], Azaki as, 7).
[A]).
I. A Judahii
of Ethan, iCh. 28 (^apeia [B]; a^apia
12. A Jerahmeelite, i Ch. 2 38_/C (a^apia [B]).
13. b. Odkd, a prophet of Judah, whose prophecy to King .A.sa
is recorded in 2 Cn. 15 1-8. The prophecy is attributed to Oded
in f . 8.
14. Son of Jeroham ; one of the captains who were associated
with Jehoiada in deposing .\thaliah (2 Ch. 23 i).
15. Son of Obed ; another of the captains associated with
Jehoiada (2 Ch. 23 i ; cp i Ch. 2 38/.).
16. Son of Hoshaian ; an opponent of Jeremiah, Jer. 43 2
(a^axou>ias [«*]). Cp Jaazaniah, i.
17. Le.ider (see Ezka, ii. § 82) in the great post-exilic list (//.
ii.9), Neh. V 7 (a^apia [BN], -pea [A])=Ezr322, Sekaiah ; see
Ezka {apaia<: [B.\*J, crapaiai [.\a!L]).
18. In procession at dedication of wall (see Ezka, i. § i^g),
Neh. 12 33, faxapiat [BN] (see B.-ier), cp (4).
19. An Ephraimite, temp. Ahaz, who took part in restoring
the captives of Judah, 2 Ch. 28 12 (ovSeia [Ii]).
20. b. Jehallelel, a Merarite Levite, 2 Ch. 29 12 (fovopiat
IBA]).
AZARIAS (azarIAC [BAL]), the Greek form of
Azariah.
1. I Esd. 9 21 = Ezra 10 21, Uzziah, 3.
2. In list of Ezra's supporters (i Esd. 943), wanting in || Neh.
8 4 ; see Be. ai^ loc.
3. I Esd. 9 48 = Neh. 8 7, Azariah (A
4. RV AzAKAiAs (2 Esd. 1 i), b. Helkias ; see Azariah (3).
5. The name assumed by the angel Rafhaei. \q.T.\ when
accompanying Tobit (Tob. 5 12 O613 78 9 2).
6. A captain in the army of Judas the Maccabee, i Mace. 5 18
5660 (in 7'. 56 ^axopiat [.\K]).
7. .Song of I'hree Children, 66 (© Theod. Dan. 3 88); see Aza-
kiah (10).
AZARU (azaroy [B]). i Esd. 5 15 RV; AV Azlra.s.
AZAZ (TTr, ozOYZ [BA] ; but L gives lojAZAZ— '•«'•.
Joazaz) : cp .\zaziah, a Reulienite name (i Ch. 5 Sf).
AZAZEL (^TNTI?).' Of the two goats set apart for
the great Day of Atonement (see Atonement, Day
, y ... , ok), one was chosen by lot for a sin-
1. lieviwcai offering for Yahwe, the other for '.Aza'zel
practice. ^^^. jgg.,^) i^^^^^ j^e sin-offering had
been made in behalf of the people, the high priest was
to lay both hands upon the head of the goat for '.\zazel,
and confess over it all the sins of the Israelites (cp the
confession of sin in Mishna, Vdrnd 62), laying them on
its head and sending it out into the wilderness to Azazel
(y. 21/.). The meaning of this act, which is further
described in the Targum of pseudo-Jonathan, is clear.
The goat symbolically bears away the sins of the people.
Something analogous is found in I^v. 14 4^, where, for
the purification of the leper, one bird is to be killed, and
the other, charged with the disease, is to be let loose
1 AV renders 'scapegoat.' For the renderings in ©, see col.
395, note 7.
394
AZAZEL
into the open field. Cp also Zech. f>%ff., where sin is
carried away bodily into the land of Shinar.^
The meaning of Azazel is much disputed ; it is, of
course, a subject closely connected with the incjuiry into
.^ the origin of the custom. It is at least
2. wno was .„• ,, — , „„ \^r^^^\ ,^
Az&zel ?
certain that, as Azazel receives one goat
while Yahw6 receives the other, both must
be personal beings.
The theory of the Jewish interpreters (Tg. ps.-Jon., Rashi,
Kimhi ; cp Ibn Ezra's references to current views), that Azazel
is a place in the wilderness, is inadmissible ; and equally so are
the views of Aq., Syinm., Jer., AV, that it means the goat
itself (rpo-yov !ntep\cni.tvo<i and oAitfi'co?, capfr emissarius, ' the
scape-goat'), and of Mer.x in Schenkel's Bib. Lex. 1 256, and
others, that it is an abstract term = ' complete removal or
dismissal ' (from \'''?ij;), a view probably taken by ©.2
It seems most natural to connect the belief in question
with the demonology and angelology which developed
so largely in the post-e.\ilic age (^wocA 678 196IO4).
One group of interpreters, on this view, take Azazel as
a prominent memlier of the class of se'irim, or demons
of the field and the desert, to whom sacrifices were
offered in post-e.\ilic times (Lev. 17? ; see Satvr, § 2),
— to whom possibly all the sins of the people with
their evil effects were symbolically sent every year (so,
with various modifications, Ew. , Di. , Dr. \_Iixpos.\ Now. ,
Benz. ). We need not, however (with the first three
scholars), regard the conception as a primitive one, or
as having been taken over by the religion of Yahw6 from
an earlier stage ; and least of all is there any imitation
of the symbolic vengeance taken by the Egyptians on
Set-Typhon^ (see Brugsch, Rclig. u. My f hoi. d. alt.
Aeg. 710). On the other hand, Cheyne ( ' The Date and
Origin of the Ritual of 'Aza'zel ' in ZATIV 15 i53-'S6
['95]) considers it to have been one of the objects of the
ritual ' to do away with the cultus of se'irim by sub-
stituting a personal angel for the crowd of impersonal
and dangerous se'irim.''* His arguments for this very
attractive view are (a) the form of the name (deliberately
altered from '^Niiy, ' God strengthens' ; cp ^n'lij;, i Ch.
15 21), which seems to be akin to that of the other names
of angels; and (/) more especially the passages of the
Book of Enoch referring to Azazel as a leader of the
evil angels (Gen. 6124). ' Azazel is therefore of literary
not of popular origin ; he is due to the same school of
speculative students of Scripture to which we owe the
other names of angels, good and evil, in the later
literature.' In any case, we nmst admit that the old
interpreters w'ho identified Azazel with Satan * had
some plausibility on their side (Orig. c. Ceh. 6305;
Iren. H<vr. 1 12, followed by Spencer, Hengstenberg,
Kalisch, and Volck). We may at least venture to say
with Reuss ® that ' the conception of Azazel lies on the
way which led later to that of the devil. ' For Azazel
is certainly described as in some sense a being hostile
to God. 1. B.
It is strange that so many modern critics should have
failed to comprehend the ritual of the scapegoat, and
"R cfint ^^^^ rejected with much positiveness the
'... . only natural explanation of the name
cn icism. ^^aj,cl, so that it has become a kind of
dogma that "^mtj; is not from "^j* jiy, but either a weak-
ened form of SiViK, meaning ' averruncus," or ' porro
abiens,' or ' amolio ' (Ol. , Merx, Stade, Kautzsch-Ges. ,
Volck), ^ or else a broken plural of difficult interpretation
1 P'or extra-biblical parallels, see below, g 3; also Ew. Ant.
158 ; WRS, Ret. Se»t.w 422 [and for an Assyriological explana-
tion of the reference to the wilderness, see Ritual, § 10].
2 Cp, however, below, note 7.
3 This view has left a trace in Smith, JJB(^) 1 297, but has
received no sanction from Di. or Dr., whose names are mentioned.
Against it see Diestel, jZt./. hist. '1 lieol. ('60), pp. 159^
< I'rof. G. F. Moore suggests a reference to Nachmanides on
Lev. 168.
* The Rabbinic identification of .Satan with Sammael as ' chief
of the Satans' (Midr. R. on Dt. 11 3) may here be chronicled.
8 Gesch. (ier Schri/ten des A 'H^l, 501.
7 Some critics refer to ® a.s having initiated the theory of an
abstract formation. Certainly in Lev. 10 10 <5, ©bafi. renders
VtKiyS »i« '"I" oiroirojijnji' ; and in v. 26, ets at/wo-ic. What the
395
AZAZEL
(perhaps some particular class of unfriendly demons ;
see Steiner in Schenkel, Bid. Lex. 5599, and Bochart). '
The truth is that the old derivation of Azazel
from <^/iij;, 'to Ix; strong' (see Tg. ps.-Jon., Saadia),
needed to assume a new form in order to commend itself.
The explanation of the name as 7K TKjy (which was retracted
by Diestel its author) implies an un-Hebraic mode of formation,
says Di., and the names of angels compounded with 7K
belong to the later Jewi.sh theology. The former objection is
not absolutely decisive ; the name .\birel \n Jubilees seems to be
h« T3K (see Abrech). Still, there is no neces.sity to follow
Diestel ; the later Jews could form names correctly, and the ex-
planation offered above, which, with the connected theory, may
claim to be virtually a nevv one, is not open to iji.'s objection.
Di.'s second objection points the way to the true reason why
modern scholars have often given such far-fetched and improbable
(however learnedly justified) etymologies. They felt that a name
formed on the analogy of Michael and Gabriel must be late ; but
their theory compelled them to suppose that Azazel was early,
and that the name Azazel in Enoch (like Belial and Heelzebub,
Delitzsch ventures to add) was simply borrowed from the OT.*
Thus the light thrown on the name by the 15ook of Enoch was
missed. Nor was sufficient u.se made of the Mishna treatise
called i'dmd, with its strange but not imaginary details, although
the description comes from a time not very far removed from that
of the later portions of the priestly code. Nor did critics give
heed enough to the facts of comparative folklore, which illustrate
certain details in the 1 'Oiiui.
The more we study the Priestly Code, the more we
are struck by the combination of firmness and laxity
which its compilers display. They are firmness itself as
regards the essential principles of the law,'* but very
com]5liant to minor popular superstitions. Nothing,
therefore, can be more probable than that the legal
authorities to whom the later portions of Lev. 16 are due
gave their sanction to a custom which it had perhaps
been found im|)ossible to root out, on condition of its
being regulated and modified by themselves. Assum-
ing this to have been the case, we can explain the
name Azazel, and even account for the spelling, which
has struck many scholars as inconsistent with the ety-
mology h« ny. From the point of view here adopted —
viz. , that the priestly code is not Mosaic, but a com-
bination of diverse elements due to many different persons
in the exilic and the post-exilic periods, and framed in a
statesmanlike, compromising spirit — there can he no
doubt that the view here mentioned is correct. There
is no uncertainty as to the meaning of the name Azazel,
and very little as to the origin and significance of the
rite.
To supplement the account of the present writer's
theory given above, it may be said that, like Diestel
, - . , formerly, he opposes the widely
4.Jewishsuper- ^^^^^^J ^.^^. ^^^^ ^^-^^j ^^.^^ ^
KaKodai/JLUV to whom the sin of the
jjeople and the resulting calamities were sent, and that
the belief goes back to pre-exilic times.
The first part of this view was that of Benzinger (Arch. 478)
in 1894 ; it is, however, scarcely tenable. The sultan of they/««,
to whom the se'irim propitiated by the Jews in post-exilic times
correspond (see Satvk, § 2), has no personal name ; he and his
subjects are impersonal. If Azazel were a demon we should
hear of him in other parts of Leviticus. Nor is it likely that
even a later legislator would have adopted Azazel as an evil
demon.
translator meansbythi.s,however,isa7roir«/x7ro/iiei'os(soTheodoret,
Qutest. 22 in Lev.), in short, he agrees with Aq., Symm., Jer.
in deriving the name from Ij; and 7jJ?. This gives the right in-
terpretation of airoTroMn-oios [R.^FL], which answers to Azazel in
V. loa. Aj/erruncus, in this view of the facts, is not the
equivalent of ®'s term, as Ew. (Anf. ^63) supposes.
1 Del. is ^ot happy in his explanation, ' Defier of God." He
traces the name to Arabic mytnology: 'azz is used of a horse
which successfully resists its rider (ZA'/K 1 182 ('80]) ; but
Konig is no more successful— ' fortis decedens' is his rendering
{Lehr^eb. 2 a, 417).
2 So Driver (Expositor, 1885, b. p. 215). In Hastings' DB
(art. ' Azazel ') no very definite conclusion is reached ; but
reference is duly made to the too generally neglected analogies
of other popular religions.
I» Kalisch rightly says that, 'although Azazel and his goat are
a stain on the Levitical legislation, they do not taint the_ main
principle of Judaism — Ckxl's absolute sovereignty' {Leviticus,
2 804).
396
AZAZEL
Az&zcl' to the Jewish theulugiaiis (including the authors
of the scajx'Koat-ritual) was a fallen angel , evil no doubt,
yet not altogether unfriendly to man, for he was the
true TulKiI-cain, one of the ' sons of KlOhim ' mentioned
in (icn.61/. 4^ (sf'e Enoch 6 6/! 81 and es|>ecially
10 4-8 l:}i). lie was said to have been Ixjund hand
and foot, and placetl in ' an opening in the desert which
is in Dudael ' ; rough and jagged rocks have Ix^n laid
up)n him. Now, DudaCl is not ' God's caldron ' (Di. ),
but (Cjeiger, Charles) a fant.istic modification of Hadudo
in llcth H.adudo, where w;is the crag (p'^j) down which,
according to Yoma (0 4 ; cp Tg. ps.-Jon. Lev. IG22),
the • goat for Azazel ' was pushed, which crag Schick ■*
identifies with nuxl. Bet-hudidun, on the edge of a chalk
cliff, overhanging a rocky chasm, at the right distance
from lerusalein. The coincidence seems too striking to
permit a doubt as to the true character of Azazel.
It w.as this personal angel (the later Jews gave a
quasi-pcrsonality to the angels) that the author of the
sea I )egoat- ritual substituted for the crowd of se'irim (or
earth-denjons) to whom the people sacrificed ; just as
the scafjegoat was the substitute for the sacrificial
victims.^ The need must have been great indeed. In
the marriage songs of the Canticles we twice find (it is
probable) the strange apjx.'ai, ' I charge you, O ye
(iauijiUers of Jerusalem, by the fairy-hosts and by the
tree-spirits. ' * In such a poem the name of Yahwe could
not be lightly used : all the world, however, knew of the
su(jernatural beings who haunted thickets and some-
times inhabited trees, and like the Jinn to-day, were
sometimes friendly to man, sometimes unfriendly."
The substitution apjxiars to have produced an effect :
at least, the Chronicler, in the third century, represents
the custom of sacrificing to the scirhn as pre-exilic
(2 Ch. 11 15). Certainly, too, we may infer from the
details resi)ecting the n'7rcon TVS' ( ' the dismissed goat ')
in Yomd that the popularity of the institution was great.
The cries, 'Take (tlioin) away and get out,' ^ reported
by the Gemara on Yomd 6 4, show how intensely the
lower classes (Rabylonians thoy are disparagingly
called) believed in the removal of their sins by the goat.
Sec also lip. Barn. 7 ; Tertull. adv. Marc. 87 ; adv.
J lid. 14; Just. c. Ttyph. 40. That the 'goat for
Azazel ' was really pushed over the precipice ( Yomd,
G), we have no reason to doubt. It is instructive
to notice, however, that the scrilje who inserted the
directions in Lev. 16 could not bring himself to put
down all that actually happened. WTiat we re;id is
that Aaron was to confess all the sins of the Israelites
(there is great emphasis on ' all ') over the goat, and to
send him away in the charge of a certain man into a
solitary land (pr^\ fnx v. 21/.). This is explaineti in
Tg. ps.-Jon., "and shall send him away by a man
prepared from tlie preceding year, to take him into a
rocky desert which is Beth-hadure ' (see above). In
compensation for this, it is Leviticus that gives us one
detail not preserved in Yomd. In v. 10 it is said that
the goat for Azazel is to be presented alive before Yahw6,
that atoning rites may be performed over him ("133^
vSy) ; which recalls the direction about the ' living
bird' (see § i) that forms a parallel to the scapegoat in
the law of cleansing the leper (Lev. 14 6/ ).
* Another form of the name may have been Uzziel (cp Tg. ps.-
Jon. on (len. 64 with Enoch 0). The form Azael also is found.
* It is not worth while to e.\amine tlie Jewish interpretations
of this strange pcussaRe (see Enoch, Tg. ps.-Jon., Jude).
3^r/)/T3i,4^. CSo].
< Sec WRS, Rel. 5«« (2) 418, 422, 468.
B Cant. 2 73 5, ni'j'K^^ ni>«3i:3. The change in the pointing
is very slight : Sk should be \. The usual explanation is very
fanciful (see Budde). The sacred trees (especially the locust-
or .■.-irob-trees)are still reverenced in Palestine as being possessed.
8. See WRS, Rtl. Sfm.fll i3'-i33; Haldensperger, PEFQu.
St., July 93, p. 204^ Some of the jinn are believed to be
dangerous to newly married people. Don't play with love, says
the passage (Cant. 2 7),— for fear of the //«>..
^ KS1 '?'IB KS1 ViD-
397
AZGAD
To resume and to supplement : the usages described
in YOmd are a combination of a primitive s-icrifice to the
demons of untilltxl or (especially) mountainous country
with a superstitious custom still widely prevalent, accord-
ing to which evils of all kinds were sought to Ix- got
rid of by the device of lading them on some .inimal,
which was thereupfjn driven away from the community
like the scajiegoat (see Lyall, Fortnif^htly Jinirw, 1872.
p. 131 ; IVazer, Golden Hough, 2189-193; K. F. Knight,
Wlure Two l-.mpires .Meet, 221/). Such customs,
as Frazer points out, tend to become periodic, like the
rite of the sca|x.'goat. See, further, Atunemknt,
Day ok.
Diestel,' Sct-Typhon, Asasel, und Satan ' in 7.t./. hist. Theol.
i860, p. 159^.; Oort, Th. T 10 150-155 |'76); Haiidissin,
.Studd. zur setn. Kfl.-gesch. 1 iSoyC ; Drlvir,
Literattire. K-tpos. 1885/-. pp. 214-217; chevne, /..-nn-
'•^ '5.1 ff- I'QSI'. and articles by Driver in
Hastings Dli, and by Voick in Herzog, PRE^'^), Cp also DL
and Kalisch on Leviticus, and Nowack, Hebr. Arch. 2 166.
§ 1/ L B.; §3/. T. K. C.
AZAZIAH (-in^TTl?, § 29, ' Yahwfe is strong,' or
' strcigtlK-ns • ; pzleJl&C [HKAL]).
1. A l.cvite inusici.nn, temp. David (see Lkvi), i Ch. l!>2i.
2. An Kphrainiitc, leinp. Davi.l (i ( h. 27 20).
3. A Lcvitc, temp. Hezckiah (2 Ch. :il 13 ; OX«« [A]).
AZBAZARETH (AcBACApeG [A]), i Ksd.569 AV.
R\"'t.' .-\SHA( APHATll.
AZBUK (,>13rr ; azaBoy \>^\ X ['*]■ AzBoyx [A].
ezAoYK [L] .i/.noc], father of .\f,iii;miah [2] (Neh. 3
16 i). Possibly of non-Jud;ean origin ; cp Mcy. Ent.
147 167.
AZEKAH (HipTr, azhka [BNAQL]), a town in the
lowland of Judah (Josh. Ij ;5, 'laj'TjKO [H]), not far from
the supposed scene of Davids combat with (ioliath (i
S. 17 i). This was in the Valk hk Ei.ah ( II '. es-Snnt,
on the upper course of the Sukcieir) near Socoh (Shu-
weikeh), which is about 12 m. S. from Aijalon and 2 m.
S. from Jarniulh. .\zekah is mentioned as one of the
points to which the pursuit of the five kings by the
Israelites e.Mended after the battle of Beth-horon (Josh.
10 10). Ii was fortified by Rehol>oam (2 Ch. 11 9, ' k^iKO.
[L]), besieged by Nebuchadrezzar (Jer. 847), and re-
inhabited by Jews in post-e.\ilic times (Neh. 11 30).
Perhaps an echo of the name survives in lUr ez-Zdg, N.
of Socoh (cp Buhl, Pal. 90, n. 92 ; and see, on the
other hand, Seylxild, MDPV, 1896, p. 26).
AZEL (H'N). 2ech. Hs RV = AV Azai,, q.v.
AZEL (?V^it. § 50; abbrev. from Azaliah. q.v.\
eCHA [RA], acahA [I-]), a descendant of Saul, in a
genealogy of Bknjamin [q.v., § 9, ii. [/i]), i Ch. 8-57/
(aCCAHA [L]) = 943 (eCAHA [HS]). 944 (ecAHA [N]).
AZEM (D>*r), Josh. 1529 AV. RV Kzem.
AZEPHURITH, RV Aksii'hlkitii (Apcei(})OYpeie
[BJl. I Esd. r)i6=l':zra2i8, JOKAll.
AZETAS (azhtac [B.\J, om. L), a family in the great
post-e.\ilic list (see Ezra, ii. § 9, § 8 c) in i Esd. 615,
but not in || l"zra'2 16= Neh. 7 21 ; perhaps the name owes
its presence to some mistake (Mey. E.nt. 155 n. ).
AZGAD (natr, § 43—/. e. , • strong is CJad ' [cp Azbaal.
67.S' 1 118, and see Gad], or, 'fate is hard' (?) ;
AZTaA [AL]). The B'ne Azgad, in the great post-
e.xilic list (see Ezra, ii. § 9I, Ezra2i2 (reckoned at
1222: affyad [B], a/37. [A], aataS [L]) = Neh. 7i7
(reckoned at 2322 ; affyad [B], ayerad [A], a<rTo5 [N])
- I Esd. 5 13. AV Sadas, RV Astad {afr/ai [H, where
the numlier of the family is given as 1322 J. affxaa [-\]).
A band of no males of them came up with Ezra,
Ezras 12 (see Ezra, ii. § 5 « ; § 3) {aaraS [B]) = i Ksd.
838, EV A.STATH, RV'i.'- Azgad (aaraO [BA]), and
they were represented among the signatories to the
covenant (see EzKA, i. § 7), Neh. 10 15 [>6] {aayaS [B],
affrad [K]).
398
AZIA
AZIA (ozeiOY [»])•
UZZA, 2.
i<::sd.
AV Ezra 2 49,
AZIEI (4 F,s(l. 1 2) in the genealogy of Ezra, see
AZARIAH, 3.
AZIEL (^ii'tV. I Ch. 1520). See Jaaziei,.
AZIZA {HyW. § 83 : -strong' ; ozei [L], -a [BK],
oft^o [A], in list of those with foreign wives (KzuA, i. § 5, end),
Kzra 10 27=t Ksd.H28, Sakdel'S, RV Zakueus {itpaXia, (I?),
fapfiaiat [A], os'tt [L]).
AZMAVETH (niDTy, perhaps ' Death is strong' [cp
Cant. 86j, a possible name for a hero [sec AniMOTH,
and cp Gray, HFN 231]; ace. to Kittcl the ending
should Ix; -moth or -muth {SHOT i Ch. 1 20] ; oni. BA,
AZMCoe V^"'- "'*^-]. ACM- [I-])- A lienjaniite place near
Geba (Neh. 1229), usually identified with el-ljizmch, a
village 4 m. XH. of Jerusalem, between Jeba' and
"Anata ( ZDP / ' 2 155 ; PEF Mem. 89).
The b'ne Azmaveth occur in the great post-e.xilic list (see
EzKA, ii. § 9), Ezra 'J 24 (uioi aa/itufl [ lij . . . af. [A] . . . a^ud
[L])=Neh. 728 (iffipc? |3r;Co(r/iia>9 [RN], a. ^tfi' . [.\], uioi OL<T6)i.mB
[L]), Bethaz.mavi;th (moiy n'2)= i Ksd.5i8, RV 1!iimas-
MOTH, which is preferable to AV Bethsamos (jSaiTao-^ui' [B],
Bai#a(T/aiu0 ^a^;uaj6 |.\1).
AZMAVETH (nipm,! see above; acmooG [BL],
AZ^^• [A]).
1. One of David's thirty mighty men, 2S.2331 (acr^ud [B*],
O-HU). [Bb], -as /nue [A], afeA,ui<oi'[L])=i Ch. 11 33 (a^^a>r [BN]),
anativeof lUiiUKi.Mlv'.i'.lC.pnna [iCh.]and -Sri-ia [2S.] being
both miswritten for 'P"in3 [We. Dr.]). Azmaveth, the ' father ' of
Jeziel and Pei.et, 2 (i Ch. I23; a<r/tx(o0 [N]), two of David's
warriors, may, however, be the place-name; cp above. .See
David, § II (a)ii.
2. b. Jchoadah or Jar.ah ; a descendant of Sanl in a genealogy
of Benjamin (§ 9, ii. [^]), iCh. S36 (craA/Aui [B])=:942 (ya^aiuS
[BN]).
3 b. Adiel, one of Davids ovevseeis (i Ch. 2725). See
David, § 11 (r) i.
AZMON (I'lD^T), an unidentified site, marking the
western ])ortion of the southern frontier of Judah liefore
the point where ' it went out at the brook of I'^gypt '
(Josh. ir)4 Xu. 344 5t). <5 has Atre/uwfa [iUl],
iieX/xojj'a [B-V], kc^Kp-uiva, [AFL] ; Targ. has cDp. on
which last precarious reading Trumbull bases his
identification of Azmon with 'Ain el-Kaseme in the
W. Kaseme. With .\zmon cp Ezem (dsj;).
AZNOTH-TABOR (inPI niJ^X— /.k, 'ears, or
outliers, of Tabor' — § 99 ; cp Uz/.i:n-Sheek.\h), a land-
mark of Xaphtali, doubtless near Mt. Tabor, Josh.
1934 (eNAG e^Boop [B], AZANOOe 0. [A], AZCoG e. [!>])•
According to Onom., a^avojff (O.S"''-> 224, 88) lay near
Diocnesarea or Sepphoris ; cp Chisloth-Takor, and
see Taiujk.
AZOR ( Aztop [Ti. WH]), Mt. 1 13 ; see Genkalogies,
ii. § 2.
AZOTUS (azcotoc [AXV], Jos. .f ;//. xii. 11 2, ezAC
[ed. Xiese], azAC AZARa). the 'mount' to which
Macchides pursued the Jews in the battle (Apr. 161 B.C. )
in which Judas the Maccabee lost his life (i Mace. 915),
is unknown. Michaelis has very plausibly conjectured
that the expression may be due to a mistranslation of
the Heb. inn nncx (cp Ashdoth-Pisgah), meaning
the slopes where the hill country of Judah descends into
the Shephelah. Ewald (GwcA. (•'' 4 422, n. 2) compares
Atara W. of Bir ez-Zet, a small hill.
2. The Azotus (a^wros [Ti. 'WH])of Acts84o i Mace.
4 15 568 1077 f- 84 11 4 1434 16 10 Judith 2 28 is Ashuod
[i/.v.]. Some (including Buhl, p. 188) also identify with
Ashdod the Azotus of i Mace. 915.
AZRIEL ("PXnrr.^ perhaps ' help of God,' § 29).
' On the vocalisation and (S's readings cp Hazarmaveth.
2 "^tj; is an Aram, pronunciation (cp '?N'^7^'), and it is note-
worthy that here, contrarily to its usual practice, ® prefers the
Hebrew vocalisation (cp Kittel, SBOT ad loc).
399
AZZUR
1. One of the chiefs of Manas.seh-beyond-Jordan, iCb. 5 24t
(.a«p.,A[Bl, «^p. IA], *fp. [I.]).
2. \ Xaphtalitc, i Ch. 27 igt {t<rpn.r\K [B] ; but some Hebrew
MSS have UzziEl., a reading supported by ©al o^itjA).
3. Father of Seraiah [2), Jer.3026t (e<rpi>)A [BN], ecrf. [A),
«<rfip. [Q]).
AZRIKAM (Di^nm, €zpiK*M [AL]).
1. Levite, in list of Judahite inhabitants of Jerusalem
(KzKA,ii. 8 5 W, 8 15 [']«), Nch.ll i5(e^p(i[B], «XP" Ik* "JJ.
e^piKav [nc.aj, ecr^pt [A])= i Ch.i>r4 (ea-ptiKav [B], a^iKo^ [L]).
2. A descendant of Zerubbatiel, iCh. 823 (egptiKav [B],
fo-piKoii [A], a<Tp. 1 1-1).
3. Descendant of .Saul in a genealogy of Benjamin (§ 9, ii. [p]),
iCh.S38 (efp««at [B"], efp«« [BabJ)= i Ch.944 (^fvSpeiKav
4. 'Ruler of the house' under Ahaz, 2Ch.2S7 (eySpeixav
m,,ip,Kay[A]).
AZUBAH (na-ITi;, 'forsaken-; AZOyBA [BAL]).
I. Wife of Cm.ku [f.v.] in iCh. 2i8/. {ya(;ov^a
( B, .\ in T. 19], a/Soi/fa [L]). The names in this passage
are as j)eculiar as the constructions. Kittel {SHOT)
renders an emended text thus : ' And Caleb b. Hezron
took Azubah (deserted one) to wife, and begat Jerioth
(tent-curtains) ; and these are her sons, Jesher (up-
rightness), Shobab (backsliding), and Ardon. ' As to
the names of tliese sons, Jesher may be read Jojashar
(Vahwe is right), and Shobab Jashub (one who turns
to (jod), and Ardon Oman (© opva). But -,b" can
hardly be thus used of God (in spite of Dt. 324 Ps.
119137), and Oman, or (iCh. 821 MT) Arnan, has
a suspicious aspect. Hence Klostermann [Gesch.
115) takes V. 18 to be a record of a shortlived colony
of Calebites, founded on the spot where there had
been a pastoral settlement. He renders ' Caleb b.
Hezron made the deserted one — the woman of tent-
curtains — to bear children, namely. Upright, and Back-
slider, and Destruction ' (reading riiy'T nc'N, Tk?*, and
p3x). The colonists began well, but ' left the paths
of uprightness ' (Pr. 2 13), and were given up to ' destruc-
tion ' (=She5l, Pr. 15ii). Wellhausen also (Z)? Gent.
33/) notices the symbolic character of the names;
nr\ according to him, =|nc'', Jeshurun ; rni••^"n3 (so
he reads) is a tent-dwelling woman ; n3Mj?. the desert
region inhabited at first by the Calihibites.
2. Mother of Jehoshaphat, i K. 2242 (dfae^a [B])
= 2Ch. 2031. T. K. c.
AZUR (>VTy), J(
AzZLK[^.t.., I/].
Ezek. Ill AV; RV Ijetter
AZURAN, RV AzARU, RV"?- Aztira (azaroy [B].
-^oup. [A], om. L), family in the great post-e.\ilic list (see Ezra,
ii. § 9, § 8 c), in I Esd. 5 15, but not in || Ezra 2 16 = Neh. 7 21 ;
probably identical with Azzuk, 2(Xeh. 10 17 [iS]). Note in each
case the occurrence of the preceding names, Adin, Ater, and
Hezekiah.
AZZAH. AV Gaza (H-Tr, pAiAN [B], pAZHC [A],
aAia [L]), iCh. 728RV. Many Hebrew MSS here
read .tj? (Ayyah ; cp (P"), a reading recommended
by the context. The place was apparently N. of
Shechem. See Gaza.
AZZAN (I^y, ' gifted with strength ' ; oz<J [BAFL]).
father of Paltiel, 2 (Nu. 3426t).
AZZUR 4"V1W [1-ri; in 2], • helped [by God] ' ) ; see
Names. § 56, and cp Azuri of Ashdod.
1. Father of Hananiah, the prophet, of Gibeon, Jer.28 [(B ch.
35] I (a^(op [BNAQD; AV Azur.
2. Father of Jaazaniah [4I, Ezek. Ill (.^p [B], lo^ep [A],
aiovp [Q], a^« [Q'nff], iffep [I'Ll) ; AV AzuR.
3. One of the signatories to the covenant (see Ezra, j. 87);
Neh. 10 17 (aSovp [B], of. [NAL]) ; AV Azuran ; perhaps also a
Gibeonite?
BAAL
BAAL
B
(7i«'3 ; ® often h BaaA. indicating that the
reader is to substitute aicxynh ; ihe substitute has
1. Meaning ''"'""' '^^ ''''>' '"'" ""-" '^•^^ '" ^ ^■
of name: ^*"9 25. as the corresponding flt^'S
local numiiia. ^•'^ '" "**-' '^'^^- '*^-''' ^'f Jer. 324 and
elsewhere; see Di. A/B/i.l Phil. -hist.
Kl. 188 1 ) is a word common to all the Semitic languages,
which iJriniarily signifies owner, proprietor, possessor. It
is used, for example, of the owner of a house, a field,
cattle, and the like ; the freeholders of a city are its
l>t'\i.'im. In a secondary sense ba'al means husband ;
but it is not used of the relation of a master to his
slave or of a superior to his inferior ; nor is it synony-
mous with the Hcb. and Pha.n. ddon, Syr. mar, .-\rab.
rabb, in the general sense of lord, master. When a
divine being (<V) is called baal it is not as the lord of
the worshi[)per, but as the proprietor and inhabitant
of some place or district, or the possessor of some
distinctive character or attribute, and therefore a comple-
ment is always required. Each of the multitude of local
B.i.ils is distinguished by the name of his own place.
There was a Baal of Tyre, a Haal of Sidon, a Baal of
Harran, a Baal of Tarsus ; a Baal of the Lebanon, and
a Baal of Mt. Mcrnion ; a Baalat of Byblos,— and so
on.- We know that in some cases the Baal of a
place had a proper name : the Baal of Tyre w as
-Melkart ; in Southern Arabia Dhu Samawi was the
Baal of Bakir, '.\thtar of Gumdan, and so on. In
other cases the local Baal was distinguished in some
other way. The god of Shechem was Baal-berith
(ix.-rhaps as presiding over an alliance; but see B.\.\i.-
hickiph) ; Baalzebub (to whom was ascribed control
of Hies ; cp B.V.m./.khuh) had a celebrated oracle at
Kkron ; a /3a Vapvws, Koipavos kui/jluv (Baal-markod), is
known from inscriptions found near Beirut ; a kjjto ^]}2
{sanatorf) in Cyprus, and so on. In Baal-gad and
Baal-zephon the second element seems to be the name
of a god (see F(jktunk. B.\al-Zi;i'hon). On Baal-
hanunon and Baal-shamem see below, § 3/ There is
nothing in these jjeculiar forms to shake the general
conclusion that Baal is primarily the title of a god as
inhabitant or as owner of a place.
There were thus innumerable Baals — as many as
there were towns (Jer. 228 11 13), .sanctuaries, natural
objects, or qualities which had a religious significance
for the worshippers. Accordingly, we frequently find
in the OT the plural, Baalim, the Baals, which we
must interpret not, as many still do,=' of the multitude
of idols, or of local differentiations of one god, but of
originally distinct local numina. The Baals of different
places were doubtless of diverse character ; but in
general they were regarded as the authors of the
fertility of the soil and the increase of the flocks (Hos.
25 12), and were worshipped by agricultural festivals
and offerings of the Ixiunty of nature (IIos. 2 8 13). An
interesting survival of this conception is the Talmudic
phrase, field of the baal, place of the baal, and the
Arab ba'l, for land fertilised, not by rain, but by
subterraneous waters (cp A'el. .Sew.*-) ^7 Jf.). Proper
names of persons such as Hannibal (Favour of B.aal),
Hasdnibal (Help of Baal), Baal-yatan (Baal has given),
Shama'-ba'al (Baal hears), compared with similar Yahwfe
names, Hananiah. Azariah. Jonathan, Shemaiah, show
that Phoenician parents acknowledged in the gift
J See WRS, Rel. Sem.f^ a^ff.
2 Cp ill the OT Haal-hazor, B.aal-i
and the like.
' For e.xample, Baethgen.
26 401
meon, Baal-peor, Baal-tamar,
of children the goodness of Baal, as Israelite parents
that of Yahwe.
That B.aal was primarily a sun-god was for a long
time almost a dogma among scholars,' and is still often
2 Not sun- ''*^I'*-'''^''^^- ""s doctrine is connected with
, theories of the origin of religion which
* are now almost universally akindoned.
The worship of the heavenly bodies is not the Ijeginning
of religion. Moreover, there was not, as this theory
assumes, one god Biuil, worshipped under difllerent
forms and names by the Semitic peoples, but a multi-
tude of local Baals, each the inhabitant of his own
place, the protector and benefactor of those who
worshipfx;d him there. Even in the astro-theology of
the Babylonians the star of BCl was not the sun : it was the
planet Jupiter. There is no intimation in the OT that
any of the Canaanite Baals were sun-gods, or that the
worship of the sun (.Shemesh), of which we have ample
evidence, both early and late, was connected with that
of the Baals ; in 2 K. "23 5 cp 11 the cults are treated as
distinct.
The hammdiuvi (c'wn). included in the inventory of
places of idolatrous worship with massibas and asluras
3 Baal- ^''^' '^^^ '^"'^ elsewhere), have indeed, since
v.ow,^^J Rashi, Ijeen connected with the late biblical
nammon. ■ .,• . ■ . - , ^ .
and Mishnic hamma (.i^n). sun, and ex-
plained as sun images (RV), sun pillars;- and it has
further l)een conjectured that the hammdnim belonged
specifically to the cultus of Baal-hammon, whose name
occurs innumerable times in Punic inscriptions. ^ and is
commonly explained ' the glowing Baal ' — i.e. , the Sun.*
This translation, however, can hardly be right : the
article would be expected : according to all analogy,
liammon should be a genitive. ' The deity which dwells
in the sun-pillars ' would be formally possible ; but w ith
the direct connection of Baal-hammon with the sun, one
of the chief arguments for interpreting hammdnim to
mean ' sun-pillars ' falls to the ground. In this state of
the case we cannot be sure that Baal-hammon was a
solar deity ; and if fresh evidence should prove that
he was, it would Ije unwarrantable to infer that the Baals
universally bore the same character.
Another Baal, whose cultus was more widely diffused
than that of Baal-hammon — in later times he rose
4 Baal '^'^^''^ ^1' ^'^c local Baals, and perhaps in
shamem. "^'^"y places supplanted them — was I5aal-
shamem, whose name we must interpret,
not ' Lord of Heaven,' but ' The gotl who dwells in the
heaven,' to whom the heavens Ijelong.' Philo of Byblos
identifies B.aal-shamem (»ci'ytos ovpavov) with the Sun
("HXtoj ; see I'ragm. Hist. Gr. 3 565/ ) ; Macrobius says
that the god of Heliopolis was at once Jupiter and Sol
(Sal. 1 23) ; a PalmjTene bilingual (Vog. , no. 16) seems
to give "HXtos for prH'^. hi" the reading is not quite
certain. The Greeks and the Hellenised Syrians identify
Baal-shamem with Zeus \e.g., Z. fi^yiffros Kepai'fios),
which is better in accord with the obvious significance
of the name. *
When the Israelites invaded Western Palestine and
1 See, for example, Creuzer, Symb. u. Afytk.i^) 2413; Movers,
Phdrt. 1 169^
'^ It is singular that this interpretation did not suggest it.self
to any of the ancient translators. See further, Ma^^eba, | 6.
•* In Phoenician also E!-hammon.
■• In a Palmyrene inscription a /lammdnd is dedicated to the
sun ; De Vogui, no. 123 a.
* The name is equivalent to Dhfi .Samawi in Southern Arabia.
8 liaal-shamem in Dan. 12 11 (perverted by Jewish wit to
Sikkils Somem, ' the appalling abomination ') was probably a
Roman Jupiter (see Abomination, ii.).
402
BAAL
passed over from a nomadic to an agricultural life, they
J ., learned from the older inhabitants not only
R *1 ^ ^°'^ *° plough and sow and reap, but also
* ■ the religious rites which were a part of
Canaanite agriculture— the worship of the Baals who
gave the incre;\se of the land, the festivals of the
husbandman's year. At first, probably, this worship
of the Baals of the land went side by side with that of
Yahw6, the God of their nomadic fathers. When
Israel came into full possession of Canaan, however,
Yahwe himself tx^came the Baal of the land. Names
like Jerubaal (Gideon), Eshbaal (son of Saul), Baal-
jada (son of David), prove that Israelites in whom
the national spirit was strongest had no scruple in
calling Yahwe their Baal. The worship on the high
places was worship of Yahwe in name ; its rites were
those of the old Baal cult. The prophets of the eighth
century, especially Hosea, denounced this religion as pure
heathenism. In whose name it is practised is to them
immaterial : it is not the name but the character of
God that makes the difference between the religion of
Israel and that of the heathen.
In the preceding century Elijah had roused the spirit
of national Yahwism in revolt against the introduction
of the worship of the Tyrian Baal (Melkart) by Ahab,
and Jehu had stamped out with sanguinary thoroughness
the foreign religion ; but this conflict was of a char-
acter wholly different from that in which the prophets of
the eighth century engaged with the Canaanite Baal-
religion practised in Yahwe's name. In the seventh
century, with the introduction of Assyrian cults, there was
a marked recrudescence of the kindred Old Israelite and
Canaanite religions, which provoked the violent measures
of Josiah, but was only temporarily checked by them, as
we see from Jeremiah and Ezekiel.
With the cultus of the Baals in Canaan we are
acquainted chiefly through the descriptions which the
_ , prophets give of the Baalised — sif venia
6. Uaal cultus. -,^,.^^_worship of Yahwe. The places
of worship were on the hill-tops, under the evergreen
trees ; they were marked by asheras, masscbas, ham-
mdnim. Images were not always, perhaps seldom,
present : an image required a shrine or temple. At the
altars on the high places, offerings of the fruits of the
land and the increase of the flocks were made ; ^ beside
them fornication was licensed — nay, consecrated. The
Baals had their priests (Chem.^rim, q.v.) and prophets.
At the great contest on Carmel they leap upon the altar,
and cry, and gash themselves with knives ' after their
manner. ' We may supplement these scanty notices by
descriptions of Phojnician worship, especially of the
Tyrian Baal, Melkart, and of the Punic ' Kronos,' in
Greek authors. See, further, High Places, Idolatry,
and, with reference to human sacrifices, Molecil
.Selden, De Dis Syris, 1617 ; Movers, Die Phdnizicr, i. ;
M (inter, Religion iter Kart/niger ; Oort, Worship of Baalim
in Israel, translated by Colenso, 1865;
Literature. l^audissin, art. ' \\z.:x\; PR £(?■); Pietschmann,
IVidnizier, 1889, I'ii ff. \ Baethgen, Beiir.z.
seinit. Rel.-gesch. ; K. Meyer, art. ' Baal ' in Roscher, Lexikon
derGriech. u. RSm. Myth. 2867^ w. R. S. — G. F. M.
BAAL (Sl?3. ' Lord ' ; cp "rjSo, i Ch. 835).
1. In a genealogy of Rkuisen ; i Ch. 55 {iwrjk [B],
/SaaX [.\], /9aXa [L]).
2. In a genealogy of Benjamin {q.v. , § 9, ii. ^) ; i Ch.
830 (/3oaXa/fat/tt, i.e. ^aa\a /cat? [B], /3aaX [/cat vrjp]
[A], /iaeX[/cai .-aSa/S /cat vrjp] [L]) = 936 (/3aaX [BA],
/3aeX [L]). It is more probable that MT, followed by
some ancestor of ©'', dropped Ner (31:1 [131]) in i Ch. 8
than that it has been added elsewhere (so SBOT).
The conjecture (We. TBS 31 n. ) that Baal and Nadab
are to be read together as a compound name is thus
unsupported ; it is also unnecessary, since Melech
1 Punic temple inscriptions defining the dues of the priests
for v.irious kinds of sacrifice (so-called Tariffs of Marseilles and
Cartha!,'e) show that both the animals offered and the classes of
sacrifice were closely similar to those of the Hebrew laws.
403
BAALE JUDAH
(tI^o) likewise occurs (i Ch. 835 etc.) alone as a proper
name. See Names, § 42.
BAAL (/I'll), I Ch. 4 33t. See Baalath-beer.
BAALAH (n7j?3, § 96). i. See Kirjath-Jearim.
2. A city in the Negeb of Judah, Josh. I529 (/3aXa
[B], paaXa [AL]). In Josh. 19 3 the name is written
Balah (n^a; (iuXa [B], /3eX/3wXa [A], jioXa [L]), and
the place is assigned to Simeon. In i Ch. 4 29 it appears
as BiLHAH (nri^£; a/SeXXa [B], jSaXaa [A], (iaXaaS
[L]). The reading is uncertain and the site unknown.
3. Mt. Baalah, a landmark on the bound.ary of
Judah between Shikkeron and Jabneel, Josh. 15 n (8pia
iirl Xi^a [B], fipoj yrjs /3aXa [A*], o. y. ya^aXa [.A" *'],
o. T?js fiaaXujv [L]). The site is unknown, unless with
Clermont-Ganneau (J?ev. Crit. '97, p. 902) we should
read n,-i: for n,n, and identify the ' river of the Baal '
with the Nahr Rubin (see Jabneel, i). More than
one river in Palestine, doubtless, was dedicated to Baal.
BAALATH. See Kirjath-Jearim.
BAALATH-BEER ("IX? nSl'3, Josh. 198 B&p€K
[B*], BAXeK [B^'']. BAAXeepHppAMtoG [A], B<Jk<\Xe0
BHppAGMcoe [L]) or Baal (i Ch. 433). also called
Ramah of the South (333 DOT, Josh. 198) or Ramoth
of the South (i S. 30 27 pafxa. [BL], , -^ [A] vbTov) ;
perhaps the same as the Bealoth (nvr3, fiaX/jLaivav
[B], ^aXwd [AL]) of Josh. 1.^24 (and V K. 4 16 ; see
Aloth), an unidentified site in the Negeb — probably
its most southern part — of Judah. The name implies
that it had a well and was a scat of Baal-worship.
BAAL-BERITH (fin? hv2-Le., ■ the [protecting]
Baal of the covenant '),i a form of the Canaanitish
Baal worshipped at Shechem (Judg. 94). called El-
berith (n''"l!l ^N, 'God of the covenant") in Judg. 946
RV.
© has in Judg. 94 BooA^epie [B], paaX Sioe^foj? [A], /3aaA-
/3«p[ei9] «io0>)/CT)s [L]; in v. 46 /Sai^p PepcO [B], /SooA fiiaerjicris
[A], r,\ Sia0. [L]; in 833 /3aaA /Setp [A], ^ooA/Sepete [L], ^aoA
Sia0riKr}v [BJ.
The covenant intended was probably that between
Shechem and some neighbouring Canaanitish towns,
which were originally independent, but were at length
brought under Israeliti.sh supremacy (Ew. , Rue. , We. ).
Of the rival views — viz., {a) that the covenant was
between Baal and his worshippers (Baethgen, Sayce
in Smith's DBi'^^), and {6) that it was between the
Canaanitish and the Israelitish inhabitants of Shechem
(Be. , Ki. ) — the former gives an undue extension to
a specially Israelitish idea, and the latter misconceives
the relation of the Israelites within Shechem to the
Canaanites. Gen. 14 13 cannot possibly establish the
former (Baethgen), nor can the name of Gaal's
father, or the speech of Gaal (q.v.) in Judg. 928, be
used to support the theory of an influential Israelitish
element in the population of Shechem. Any Israelites
who might be dwelling in Shechem would be simply
Dnj or protected strangers, and not parties to a covenant.
The temple of Baal-bcrlth had a treasury from which
the citizens made a contribution to Abimelech (Judg.
94). It was there that Gaal first came forward .as a
leader of the rebellion (927), and within its precinct the
inhabitants of the tower of Shechem (the 'acropolis,'
We. ) fipund a temporary refuge from Abimelech at the
close of the revolt (946). The deuteronomic editor
mistakenly accuses the Israelites of apostatising to Baal-
berith after Gideon's death (Judg. 833; see Moore's
note). T. K. C.
BAALE JTJDAH. See Kirjath-jearim.
1 ' Or may not B.-uil-berith, El-berith, simply mean " God of
the community" (cp Cuvknant, § 5)? The origin.-il story
probably gave the name of the god of Shechem' (Prof. N.
Schmidt).
404
BAAL-GAD
BAAL-GAD (13 bv2. ' Lord of Good Fortune' ; cp
Guduh;il--(;u<l H;iiil [ Hoffnjann. Ueifr eiHij^v ph6n.
Inschrr. 27J ; BaaAfaA L''"LJ, and through corruption
BAA(&)rAA(&) IMAJI.i 'in the valley of I^ebanon,
under Mt. Hc-rnion,' is thrice mentioned in Joshua (11 17
127; 135 ToXvaa [H], 7a\7a\ [A], fiaeXyao [L]) as
marking the northern limit of Joshua's contjuests.
'though Sayce and others identify it with Ba'albck
iK'cause it is descril)ed as in the nypa of Lebanon, it is
much more probably the Baai.-hekmon of 1 Ch. ;'<23
(cp also the 'mount Rial-hermon ' of Judg. 83), now
known as nrinids ; sec C>i:SAKliA, § 7 /. , and Uan, ii.
BAAL-HAMON {'i'\^r\ 'pya ; BeeGAAMtoN [B],
BeeAA- [N]. BeeA. [AJ). a place where, according to
a marriage song of no historical authority (Cant. 811),
Solomon had a vmey;ird which he entrusted to keepers.
Some (f..^"-. , Del., Oettli) have identified it with the
Balamo(n) of Judith 83, which seems to have been
not far from Dothan. It is obvious, however, that
some well-known place is meant, and the ieferences to
N. Israelitish scenery elsewhere in the Song of Songs
give some weight to Griitz's conjecture that for ' Baal-
hamon ' we should read ' Baal-hermon ' (Judg. 83 i Ch.
523). If Socin (BciedJ^^ 331) is right, Baal-hermon
and Baal-gad are the same, and are to be sought at
the mod. Ila.sbeiya (see, however, C^k.sarea Piiii.ipi'i) :
on the luxuriant terraces on both sides of the valley
vinos and other fruit-trees are still cultivated. Most
probably, however, ' in Baal-hanion ' is due to a corrupt
repetition of ' to Solomon. ' Bickell is right in omit-
ting it. T. K. c.
BAAL-HANAN (p^n-'pr?. § 42. 'Baal has been
gracious' ; tpjohanan, Ph. 7r23n, and the well-known
'Hannibal,' also Ass. Baalhanunu, COT, I89).
1. Ben Achbor; one of the kings of Edom, according to
Gen. 8638/. (^aXaevvuv [A], /3a\ae«'a«' [D], ^aXaefvwp
[E], fiaaXevuv [L]) = i Ch. 1 49/ {(iaXaeuvuip [B], (3a-
XaevvCJ [.\], fiaWevuv [L]). Strangely enough, the
name of his city or district is not given. Moreover,
the scrite's error c'nay ( ' Hebrews ' ) for c'"i3Dy ( ' mice ' )
in I S. 14 II (see Bu. SHOT) suggests that ma:;' p (ben
Achlwr) in v. 38/^ may be a variant to niyn p in v, 32.
Now, as Hadad II., an important king, (probably) tlie j
founder of a dynasty, has no father's name given, it |
seems likely that Baal-hanan is the lost father's name ;
and thus the tc.vt should run, ' .\nd Saul died, and
Hadad, ben Baal-hanan, reigned in his stead ' (so
Marq. Fund. 10/.; see, however, Bela [ii.]). See
Edom. § 4, Hadad.
2. A Gederite ; according to the Chronicler, super-
intendent of olives and sycamores in the Shephelah of
Judah in the time of David ; i Ch. 2728 {jiaXavas [B],
/SaXXam [A], ^aXaavav [L]). See David, § iic.
BAAL-HAZOR (l^'n Sv?, §§ 93. 96). 2 S. 1823.
See H.\/,OR, 2.
BAAL-HERMON (pDin "pyS; §93, B&lAeiM [B*],
BaaAcim [B''], BaaA epMtoN [AL]). 1 Ch. 523 ; see
Baai.-(;ad. Baal-uamon. and. especially, C.ksarea
PHII.II'PI.
BAALI ("hp:!). Hos. 2i6 EV ; mg. rightly 'my
lord ' AV, RV ' my master.' See Hosea. § 6.
BAALIM (D^'pran). Judg. 2 II. See Baal, § i.
BAALIS (D'hvi ; B6A[e]iCA [BXc.aAQ], BeNeCA
[X*] BaaAiC [Q'"^]. cp Sw. ad loc. ; Jos. Ant. x. 93.
§ 164. Ba&Aimoc — ie-. Dvl'2 as some Heb. MSS
read), king of the Ammonites, the prime mover in the
murder of Gedaliah (Jer. 40 [47]i4 ; cp 41 10). The
name is interesting as an etymological problem. Some
render ' .Son of exultation,' on the precarious supposition
that in this name and a few others 3 stands for ja (see
1 Through confusion of X, a, and 8 in the uncial
405
BAAL-PERAZIM
Bidkar) ; while Baethgen {Lkitr. tur Sem. Rel.-gesch.
16) compares the Phoenician cni'^i^Cl^ 1, no. 308 ; CKi3V.
ib. no. 50) and renders ' husband of Isis ' — a still more
precarious derivation. See Ammo.N, § 8. W. R. S.
BAAL-MEON (jirn "Pra ; §§ 93 96 ; Nu. 3238 Ezelc
2.')9 I Ch. .")8), otherwise Betb-baal-meon (Josh. 13 17),
Beth-meon (Jer. 4S23). or Beon (i>2 ; .Nu. ■^'l^).
(S's rc.idinRS are: in .\u.3-Ji8, ^tcA^tu)!- (HAL); in Ezek.
•J.'ig, .n-ai'ay.uyTjt [1!*], «.ra^oj -nr^-i [Hat^AQ) ; 1 Ch. 5 R, ^«A-
p.a.(ra<i>v \\\\, -^auj)'[.\l, ■fxtoji-II-]; in Josh. 13 17, oikou fi«A0<ofl
11!], 01. ^tKa.y.uiv\\\, oiKou? ^ttA/iu>e[L] ; in Jer. 4b 23, 01x01/ /xauc
[P.AQl, 0. y.auS [K*], o. 7a^u)^ [K^a); {„ Nu. 323^aiof IBFviJ.L],
^o/aa lAJ).
The place is assigned in Numbers, Joshua, and
Chronicles to the Reutenites. It is twice mentioned,
once as lieth-baiil-meon and once as Baal-nieon, in the
inscription of Mesha (//. 9 30), from which we learn
that it was Moabite before the time of Omri and became
so again under Mesha. It was Moabite also in the
time of Jeremiah (Jer. 4823), and in that of Ezekicl,
who names it with Beth-jeshimoth and Kiriathaim as
' the glory of the country ' (Ezek. 259). It is represented
by the modern Ma'in, in the W. Zerka Ma'in on the
Moabite plateau, 2861 ft. alxjve sea-level, 5 m. SW.
from Madaba. There are extensive ruins [BaedJ'^^ 177)-
It may probably be identified with the Maccab:ean
Bea n- [q. V. ]. The Onomastica ( (95<-' 32 40 101 32) quote
the Reubenite city under the forms (iatav, Basan, iroXis
ToO 'Afioppaiov.
BAAL-PEOR (nir? hl% BeeA(|)ertop ©BKAFRrL),
or, rather, the Baal of Poor (so RV"'K- Nu. f:53 ; see
Baal, §1), the Moabite god to v. hose cult Israel yoL-ed
itself while in Shittim (Nu. I.e. JE, Dt. 43 Ps. 10(•)29■
thrice in later writings abbreviated to PiiOR ['/.v., 2jl.
The name occurs in Hos. 9 10 as a pUnf-itaiiw—^'n.
abbreviation, it would seem, for Beth-Baal-Ptor (see
Beth-Peor). The nature of the worship of this god
is unknown, although it is not improbable that it was
a local cult of Chemosh (Gray, Hi'N 131). lor the
old speculations, based mostly upon precarious et)-
mologies, see Selden, De Dis Syris. See, furilicr,
Pedr, and cp Baudissin, Sfudien, 22,2, Bacthg. Beili:
14/. 261, and Di. Num. ad loc. , Dr. Icut. mi loc.
BAAL-PERAZIM (D'>"J?-^r3, § 89), a place men-
tioned in connection with a battle between David and
the Philistines in the valley of Rei'HAIM [q.v.), hard
by Jerusalem, 2S. 020 (eTrdfw [or, tTr'dvw] SiOAOirilj'
[B.\L]);i I Ch. 14ii ^/.f (<^aX(/)a^icrfiM • . . SiaAOTTTj
(papiffiv [B], <f>a\aaS' tpadeiaei . . . SiaKoirriP (papKiv
[{<], ^aaXcpapafffLV . . . SiaKOTri] (fjapaafif [.\], fia(\-
(papaaiv bis [L]). According to the mrrator, the
name was so called because David had said. ' Yahwe
has broken through my foes before me as at a breaking
through of water," Baal-perazim (i.e., ' Lord of acts of
breaking through ') being regarded as a title of the God
of Israel. The same event seems to be referred to in
Is. 2821, where tlie place is called Mt. Perazim {6poi
dcreiiQv [BXAQ], tbj 6p(i diaKoirruv [Aq. in Q™« J. if ri^
6p(i Tu)v diaKOTTuif [Sym. Theod. in Q'"2]). This form
of the name suggests the most complete explana-
tion of David's question, ' Shall I i;o vp against ihe
Philistines?" (I'.ig). He asks whether he shall come
upon the Philistines from the chain of hills which bounds
the valley of Rephaim on the east (in v. 20 read, ' And
David came /n>»» B;ial - perazmi , ' with © and Klo. ) ;
he starts, be it remembered, from Jerusalem (see David,
§ 7). On the next occasion he did not ' go up' (on the
hills), but came upon his foes from the rear (r. 19).
In spite of this narrative, which is written from the later
Israelitish point of view, the name Baal-perazim must
have existed long before David. It is analogous to
RiMMON-PKRKZ, which means ' Rimmon (RammSn) of
Perez.' and belonged properly to some point in the
chain of hills referred to, which was specially honoured
ss^VD, being preceded in v. 20a by «« tmv.
406
BAALSAMUS
by Canaanitish Baal - worshippers. David, however,
beyond doubt took Haal as synonymous with Yahw e ;
the name gave him a happy omen, and received a fresh
significance from his victory. Whether ' Perazim ' was
originally a name descriptive of the physical appear-
ance of the hills E. of the valley of Rephaim, or whether
it had some accidental origin, cannot be determined.
BAALSAMUS (BaaAc*.moc [BA]), i Es(1.'943 RV
= Nfh. 84, .\iAASKI.\H, 15.
BAAL-SHALISHA, RV Baal-Shalishah, {hv2.
n^'^^, BAiecAp[e]lC&[B*A™l(ras(ra A?)], Bh0C&A|-
c& U-]), in Ephraim, evidently near Gii.GAL (2 K. 442),
doubtless identical with the Bethsalisa and B<m9-
CApiCAG of Jer. and Eus. (O5107ii 23992), 15 R. m.
N. of Diospolis (Lydda). These conditions seem to be
met by Kh. Sirisid, which is exactly 13 Eng. m. , or
about 14J R. m. from Lydda (PEFQ, '76, p. 68).
Four miles farther on is the village Kh. Kefr. Thilth,
with which Baal-shalisha is now identified by Conder
{FEFM-2'2'&s). In illustration of 2 K. i.e. the Talmud
{San/i. 12 a) states that nowhere did the fruits of the
earth ripen so quickly as at Baal-shalisha. See Sha-
i.isii.\, L.\ND OK, and cp Zi;i.zah.
BAAL-TAMAR ("iDn hv'^—i.e. , ' Baal of the Palm,'
§§ 96 103, Ba&A GAAAdikP [BAL]), an unidentified locality
in the neighbourhood of Gibeah, where the Isr.aelites put
themselves in array against the Benjamites (Judg. 20 33).
Some think of ' the Palm of Deborah ' (Judg. 45), which,
however, was too remote (Moore). Eus. (05 238 75)
speaks of a Beth-thamar near Gibeah.
BAALZEBUB {1^1] ^^3 ; eN To^ [eN th A
V. 2, B.\ 77'. 6i6; ^id, Toy. T. ?■. i/.] B(\<!kA MyiAN
[B.\], taking Zcbub or MyiA =^s the name
1. Not
Fly-god.
of the god
Jos. Ant. ix. 2i), a god
of I'^kron, whose oracle was consulted by
Ahaziah king of Israel in his last illness (2 K.
\2f.6i6-\). The name is commonly explained 'lord
of flies.' True, there is no Semitic analogy for this ;
but Pausanias (viii. 267; cp J. G. Frazer's note on v.
14 I ) tells us of a Ze(>s dirbfj.vio'i who drove away danger-
ous swarms of flies from Olympia, and Clement of
Alexandria attests the cultus of the same god in Elis
{Protrept. 238) ; and we may, if we will, interpret the
title ' a god who sends as well as removes a plague of
flies ' (so Baudissin), which lifts the god up a little. Let
us, however, look farther.
Bezold [Catalogue, K. 3500) thought that in an
Assyrian inscription of the 12th cent. B.C. he had met
9 M t jtaH with Baal-zabubi as the name of one of the
f 7phuh sods of the Ebir nari (on which see Ebkr,
§ i), in which case Baal-zebub was a widely
known divine name, adopted for the god of Ekron.
The restoration of the final .syllable -bi, however, is ad-
mittedly quite uncertain, and the reading Baal-sapuna
(see Baal-Zephon, i) seems much more probable.^
Winckler, therefore, suggests that Zebub might be
some very ancient name of a locality in Ekron ^ (no
longer to be explained etymologically), on the analogy
of Baal-Sidon, Baal-Hermon, Baal - Lebanon. No
such locality, however, is known, and Ekron, not any
locaUty in Ekron, was the territory of the Baal. It
o ■n«_i — 's, therefore, more probable that Baal-
3. Real name , , . , , r «• . ; u- u
Baal zfibfll ^s"^^", ' lord of flies (which occurs
only in a ' very late ' narrative, one
which has a pronounced didactic tendency),'' is a
contemptuous uneuphonic Jewish modification of the
true name, which was probably Baal-zebul, ' lord of the
1 \Vi. GI 1 223, 225 ; Hommel, AHT 196, 255. Halivy has
made a similar mistake (see next note).
2 \\A\ii\y (R,-,i. shn. 1 23) thought that he had proved this;
but in Am. Tab. 174, 16, to which he refers for an Ekronite
Zabubu, the right reading is .Sapuna.
3 Kuenen, Ond. 1 409 (§ 25', n. 8).
407
BAAL-ZEPHON
high house' (cp i K. 813, and Schrader's note in COT).
This is a title such as any god with a fine temple
might bear, and was probably not confined to the god
of Ekron (in the Panammu inscription of Zeiijlrli, /. 22,
the god Rakubel bears the title n'a h]!^, ' lord of the
house'). The second part of it strongly reminds
us of E-sagila, the 'high house' of the god Marduk
(see Babylon, § 5). ' High house ' (zebul) would at the
same time refer to the dwelling-place of the gods
on the -\ii)0 "(.t or ' mountain of assembly ' in the far
north 1 (see Congregation, Mount ok). There is
some reason to think that the Phoenicians knew of such
a dwelling-place. The conception is implied in the
divine name Baal-Saphon, 'Lord of the north' (see
Baal-Zephon), and in the Elegy on the king of Tyre
(Ez. 28 12^) ; and theSemitised Philistines also probably
knew of it. At any rate, the late Hebrew narrator —
or, if we will, an early scribe — may have resented the
application of such a title as ' Lord of the high house '
(which suggested to him either Solomon's temple [n'3
"^^T I K. 8 13] or the heavenly dwelling of Yahwe [}ij;c,
lit. 26 IS Ps. 686]) to the Ekronite god, and changed
it to ' Lord of flies,' Baal-zebub. See Bkki.zebub.
This explanation throws light on three proper names, —
Jezebel, Zehul, and Zebulon — also on Is. 6815,
' from thy zi'/'ul (high house) of holiness and glory.'
The same term s3ii/ could be applied to the mansion
of the moon in the sky (Hab. 3 11, We. ). T. K. C.
BAAL-ZEPHON (pS>* hv^), or, no doubt more
accurately, Baal-Zaphon (pS^' '3).
1. The name of a Phoenician god, formed like Baal-
Gad, liaal-Hermon, and meaning ' Baal of the north.'
Though not mentioned in OT, it is important as enabliiig
us to account for certain ancient Israelitish proper names
(Zapiion, Zephon, Zephonites, Ziphion), and also
for the enigmatical reference to a mountain abode of
the Elohim, situated ' in the recesses of the north' (Is.
1413; see Congregation, Mount of). The latter
conception was evidently believed by Ezekiel (2813/)
to be familiar to the Phoenicians, and is clearly con-
nected with the divine name in question, which describes
and designates ' the Baal whose throne is on the sacred
mountain of the gods in the north' (Baethg. Beitr. 23,
261). The Assyrian inscriptions contain several refer-
ences to this god. A text of Esar-haddon speaks of Ba.il-
sapunu as one of the 'gods of Ebir-nari ' (see Ei'.er, i),
and more than one mountain-district nwy have bone
the name of Baal-Zaphon.'^ The chief seat of the god,
however, must have been in the centre of Mount
Lebanon. Elsewhere (Copper, § 3) other texts are
referred to in which Ba'ali-sapuna is described as rich
in copper, which appears to have been the case with
Lebanon. Altogether we cannot be wrong in identify-
ing Baal-Zaphon with Baal-Lebanon, ' the Baal of
Lebanon." The relation of this national deity of the
Phoenicians to the Baal-Zaphon of Goshen requires
separate consideration (see 2). On the question whether
Baal-Zaphon was known under another of his names in
Philistia, and even perhaps among the Israelites, see
Beel-Zebul, § 2. T. K. C.
2. ^eeXffeircpbjv : so most MSS, but many MSS ^
P£€\ff€<f>i>)v ; Vg. Beelsephon (sejon in Jer. OS; Targ.
pss-'j^ya, cp Syr. Bg'el-SCphftn ; Arab. Walton, ' Safun,
the idol,' safun at-fdgiith), a place near the point where
the Isrjjelites crossed the Red Sea, and opposite their
encampment (Ex. 14 2 9 Nu. 33?). The name is usually
understood to point to a national Phoenician god of the
1 This is .ikin to the theory of Movers, who makes Baal-zebul
(' Lord of the he.avenly dwelling ') originally a name of Saturn,
a theory which lacks evidence.
2 TigIath-pileserIII.(A'A'ii. 26/) speaks first of the mountains
of Lebanon and then of the land of Ba'ali-.sapuna as far as the
mountains of Ammana.
3 E.^., AF 7 10, perhaps L. This form also seems to be
Hexaplaric (see the Boheiric version ; the older Sahidic text
has ir0 for <^).
BAANA
same name ; but the Egyptians who mention a goddess
Ha'alt(i)-sapuna as worshipjK-d at Memphis ^ connect
this cultus, very significantly, with that of Sa/>ii\u), a
local god of Western Goshen (see GosJiKN, § 2). This
divinity was, therefore, evidently not a I'hoinician deity ;
her domain, at any rale, was either in or near the
region of (joshen. Conse(|uently, the Haal whom this
local Ha'alt or Hettis implies was not also the Phoenician
Haal-Zephon, though whether he had an independent
origin or not, cannot as yet be determined. Like most
of the local names of Goshen, Haal-Zephon (or rather —
see (1) — -Haal-Zaphon) is clearly Semitic-
The honour accorded by the l-".gyptians to the consort
of ' Haal-Zephon ' no doubt proves the importance of that
town of Goshen. It is difiicult, however, at present, to
determine the situation of the place (see Kxouus, i. § 6).
The expression 'be/ore Haal-Zephon, over against it"
(obscured in Nu. 33?/. ) need not signify ' eastward of,"
which in ordinary Hebrew would be the most natural
meaning ; it seems rather to indicate here some point
not yet touched on the NIL. (or S. ?).
Such iiltiitifications as that with Heroopolis (Forster), 'Ajrud
(Niebuhr), etc. had to be given up even before tlie
Goshen and Heroopolis was determined by Naville's
tions. For the value of more modern theories (Hrugsch, = Mount
Casius ; Kbers, on the 'Atuk.-i mountain, SW. of Suez; Naville,
on Lake Tinisah, near Sheikh en-Nedek), see Exodus, i. § t J/'.
I, T. K. C. — 2, \V. M. M.
BAANA (N3r3, probably = Baanah [lx.-low] ; Baana,
[BXA]).
1. b. Ahilud (or perhaps better Ahimelech ; see Ani.tn, 2 ;
Ahimki.hch, i), .Solomon's prefect in the \alley of Jezreel ;
lK.4.2(/3aKX<'[Hl, "o-^a;^<i[L]).
2. b. Hushai, prefect in Asher ; i K. 4 16 (/Saai^as [A],
^ai'aia? [I,]). His father, Hushai, is no doubt the well-known
courtier of David (2.S. 1') 52). Cp Ailii.uu, 2.
,. I.uher of Zawik |r/.7'., 3] ; Neh. 84 (om. A ; /Sa^oa [L]).
4. 1 i:v,1.58 = Xeh.77, Haanah, 3.
BAANAH (n;r3; cp Nabataean "|Ji;3 [ CAS' 2 220];
B&AN& [RSAL])!
1. b. Kimmon, a P>eerothite, one of the murderers of Ishbaal,
2S. 4 2^ Oai/aia [L], and in H ^aajti [fT'. 59], /3a/oi/Lia l?'. 6|;
Jos. ^aii'n.%, Pavao9a). See Rechab, i, Ishhaal, i.
2. 1' ather of one of David's heroes, 2 S. 2^ 29 (j3e>/ta/u.eti/? [15],
^aavaai [A])= i Ch. 11 30 (coofa [BN] j3ai/a [L]).
3. A leader (see KzHA, ii. § 8 <•) in the great post-exilic list
(/■/i. ii. § 9), Kzra22 (/3aAAeia [B], /3ai/aa [L])=Neh. 7 7= i Esd.
5 8, 1!aana [4]. Possibly the same as Baana, 3 (above).
4. Signatory to the covenant (see EzKA, i. § 7) ; Neh.
10 27 [28] (om. L).
BAANI (BAAN[e]l [BA]), i Esd. 9 34 = Ezra 10 34,
Bani, 2.
BAANIAS (Bannaiac [BA]). i Esd. 926, AV =
EzralO-'s, Hknai.mi, 7.
BAARA (X'ni?3), a 'wife' of Siiaiiaraim {^.z'.), in
genealogy of Hk.nj.vmin (§ 9 ii. ji), 1 Ch. 88 (iBaaAa
[B], BAAP& [A], BaAaa [L]).
BAASEIAH (nyL*'i;!3, no doubt a textual error for
n^wT'3, see Maasi.ia'h), a Gershonite Levite ; i Ch.
640 [25J (maacai [HJ. Baacia [A], Bacia [LJ).
BAASHA (NL"r3 or wSb'^a, § 51 [cp Ba. on 2 Ch.
I61], BaACA [H.\L] ; Jos. .Inf. viii. I23, BACANHC ;
BA.is.i. Ba'sa occurs on the monolith inscription of
J .Sail. 4 I, rev. ; cp \V^I^L As. u. Eur. 315. The reading
Ba'a/y (so Goodwin, Brugsch, etc.) is incorrect.
2 What Baal-Zaphon (at any rate the Baal-Zaphon of Goshen)
signifies, is disputed. ' Watch-tower ' (■v/nss) '' certainly does
not mean. Gesenius (after Forster) compared the Gk. Tv^wi/
(originally a wind god), who was identified by the Greeks with
the Egyptian .SV/, Sijfl (EcvfT, g 14), on the basis of the later
confusion with the giant Tuc^ufevs. Quite inadmissibly. Nor
can the equation be supported by the unfortunate assertion that
'Tep' was a name of 'Set' (cp Renouf, ///M. Lects. for 1879,
p. 114). A much more reasonable explanation is ' master of the
north,' i.e., 'north point'; Baal-Zephon was indeed near the
north end of the Gulf. Others {e.g., Kber.s) explain Zaphon as
' the north wind,' this wind being important for the sailors on the
Red Sea, who would make their orisons at the sanctuary of Baal-
Zafhon. Cp the name Baal-sapuna on Hamathite territory
(Tig.-pil. 111.), Hommel, AllT, 255, WMM, As. u. Eur.
315. See also Zaphon.
409
BABEL, TOWER OF
Shalmaneser II. as the name of an Ammonite king
[Lei. Par. 294, Schr. K'.IT-^ 196, .Mt.urdy, Jlist.
I'ruph. .Man. I273]),' b. Ahijah, an Issacharite, lx;camc
king of Israel in succession to Nadab, whom he
conspired against and slew at the I'hilistme town of
Giblxithon, afterwards killing all the rest of Jerolwam's
family ( I K. 1527 /). The fact that the Philistines
were able to resume war against Israel leads to the
supposition that there had Ix-en a military revolution
in which Baasha, one of Nadabs generals, was the
leader (cp Ki. Hist. 2254). His reign was marked by
his energetic ojx;rations against Asa "■' {q.v. ). By build-
ing Ramah (iK. I517) Baasha had endeavoured to
shut off Jerusalem from intercourse with the outer
world, and Asa was saved only by the purchased aid of
Benhadad (q.v. , § 2), who invaded Israel ' unto Na])luali '
(v. 20, c|> ©). We know but little of his ' acts ' or of his
'might' (iriTaJ, i K. 165)- He was one of the few
kings who died a natural death. He was buried at
Tirzah, which was still the royal residence (i K. 15 21 33),
having lx;en made such by Jeroboam (see Tirzah).
Baasha was the head of the second dynasty, which
was e.xtirpated at a later time by Zimri, ' in accordance
with the word of Yahwe which he spake against Baasha
by Jehu the prophet' (see Jkhu, 2, b. Hanani). The
fate of the house of Baasha b. Ahijah, as also that of
Jerolxjam b. Nebat, is referred to by later writers ; cp
I K. 21 22 2 K. 99. See Iskaki,, § 29, Ciiko.nk i.ks,
§ 8, and, for his date (about 900 B.C.), Ciiko.\i)1.(j,-;v,
§32-
BABEL,-' TOWER OF (Cien. 11 1-9). The story of
the lower \?^j'P), when its lacunar have been tilled up,
is to this effect. All mankind had still
1. OT story.
one language, and kept together. On
one of their nomadic journej-s they found a spot which
.suggested the adoption of a settled life ; it was the plain
of Shinar. Having no building material, they de\ ised
the plan of baking clay into bricks, and using bitumen
for cement. They were the first city-btiilders. Their
design, however, \\as to build, not only a city, but
also a stupendously high tower which should Ix; at once
a monument of their strength and a centre or rallying-
point that would prevent their ever being disper.sed.
Uneasy at their newly awakened activity, Yahwe ' came
down ' to take a nearer view of the buildings, and then
returned (to his lofty mountain abode, Ezek. 2814) to
take counsel with the sons of ElOhim. This, he said, is
but the beginning of human ambition ; nothing will
soon lie too hard for man to do. Come, let us go
down (together), and bring their speech into confusion.
Hence arose the present variety of languages and the
dispersion of mankind, and hence the name of the well-
known city called Babylon.
This naive narrative, which is Yahwistic, probably
comes from the same writer as the story of Paradise. ■•
Both narratives present the same childlike
2. Genera,! curiosity .about causes, the .same strongly an-
Character. thropomorphic and in some sense polytheistic
conception of the divine nature (cp z<. h/. with
1 We. {Heid.i^) 62) suggests that KC'i'a may l^e a contraction
for KC'"'?J?3' .Similar contractions are seen in the Phoen. CCCJ'3
and Aram, (from the Hauran) |cri*3- Sa ispossibly a divine
name and seems to recur in the names Abishai, Ammi-sha (f t
Amasa), etc.; see Jerusha. It may also be the same as the
god Ii- mentioned in a S. Arab, inscription (Exp. T. 10329).
Its identification with a Palm, deity nc is open to question.
2 Cp the tradition referred to in Jer. 41 9 (©N omits the name).
3 On the name (^'^^), see Bauvlon, § i, and below, col.
411, n. 4, and 8 6.
4 According to the non-critical view, the sur\'ivors of the
Deluge made their way from the mountain on which the ark had
rested to the land of Shinar (so Sayce, Crit. Man. 155). The
Deluge-story, however, makes Shem, Ham, and lapheth them-
-selves the progenitors of the different sections of mankind, and
has thus no need of the Tower-storj . Even if such a narrative
had been intioduced into the Deluge-story, how could 'Shem,
Ham, and lapheth ' be called 'all the earth ' (11 1)? See We.
CU 13 ; but cp Stade, ZA T\V 14 276^. ['94I.
410
BABEL, TOWEB OP
8 22) ; both, therefore, have in all ages given occasion to the
enemy to blaspheme. Philo {Di Cot^usione l.iiisnarum)
thought that, to avoid ' the most surpassing impiety," the
anthio|X)niorphisms must be interpreted allegorically. If we
are not prepared to follow him in this, we must once more apply
the mythological key (see Adam and Eve, jt 4).
It is perhaps the second extant chapter in the mythic
chronicle of the first family that we have l)efore us : the
passage which originally linked the story of the Tower
to that of Paradise has been lost (see Nki'HII.IM). It is
clear, however, that the first men had not gone far from
Paradise : they are still on their journeys ' in the east '
when this ambitious project occurs to them (see Gi:o-
GRAPHY, § 13).
Tlie narrative may be regarded in two aspects.
While explaining how the city of Babylon, wiih its
_ . . gigantic terrace- tern pies, came to be built
■ . °^ (see § 4), it accoimls for the division of
of diverse
tongues.
men into different nations, separated in
abode and speech. Not to lie able to
imderstand one's neighbour seemed to the primitive men
a curse (cp Dt. 2849 Jer. 5 15)- It is not improbable
that there was an ancient N. Semitic myth which ex-
plained how this curse arose. It is said that there
are many such myths elsewhere,^ and some of them
(e.g., that reported by Livingstone from Lake Ngami,
and that mentioned in the Bengal Census Report for
1872 — to mention only two of the best attested) have
a certain similarity to the Hebrew story. It is credible,
therefore, that the X. Semites ascribed the curse of many
languages to the attempt to erect a tower by which men
might climb up ' above the stars of Cjod ' and ' sit on
the mountain of assembly ' and ' make themselves like
the Most High'2(Is. H13/.).
The old myth, like that which seems to underlie the
story of Sodom {}.v.), said nothing as to where the
_. . . , town to which the tower belonged lay.
-^ , °: When, however, through some devastat-
■^ ' ing storm, one of the chief temple-towers
of Babylon (see B.\BVLONi.\, § 27) fell in remote days
into disrepair, wandering Aramaaan trilxis may have
marked it, and, connecting it with the ' balx;! ' of
foreign tongues in Babylon, may have localised the
myth at the ruined temple-tower.^ ftalbel, they would
have exclaimed : ■* it was here that (iod confounded
men's sjx;ech, and the proofs of it are the ruined tower
and the name of Batel.
It is remarkable that the polytheistic element in the
old myth should have been so imperfectly removed.
6. Character
of myth.
Even the writer who adopted and retold
the story was still far off from the later
transcendental monotheism. The changes
which he introduced consisted in omissions rather than
in insertions. Yahwe still has to come down to inquire ;
he still has to communicate the result to the inferior
divine beings, and bring them with him to execute judg-
ment ; but, though he needs society, as ruler Yahw6
stands alone : there is no triad of great gods, as in
Babylon. It is also worth mentioning that the narrator's
idea of civilisation is essentially a worthy one. No city
can be built, according to these early men, without a
religious sanction. Enos, as another myth appears to
have said, is at once the beginner of forms of worship
1 .See F.BIS>), art. Babkt., Tower <of (Sayce), and cp Luken,
Die Traditionen, 318-322.
2 In a Babylonian hymn we find the god Bel identified with
'the great mountain whose top reaches to heaven' (Jensen,
Kosinol. 21).
3 In the original myth there was no hyperbole. In the
localised myth, however, the de.scription ' whose top reacheth
unto heaven' seems parallel to a phrase in Dt. I28, and to
similar descriptions of Egyptian obelisks (see lirugsch, Egypt
under the Pharaohs, 310) and Assyrian and Babylonian temple-
towers (so Tiglath-pilcser ; 'its temple - towers I raised to
heaven,' Del. Ass. UWB 162; and Hammu-rabi, '(the temple)
whose top Is high as heaven he built, KB iii. <?, 129.
< A popular etymology would connect Bdbel with Aram.
ba/hel much more easily than with Heb. bd/at (ficK Olshausen,
Lehrh. | 189a), as Bu. supposed in 1883 {I'rgesck. 3S7). On-
kelos on Gen. 11 9 gives ^373 for '^e ^"^^ of M"!.
411
and the father of Cain the city-builder (see Cain, § i).
On the other hand, the idea that God grudges man the
strength which comes from union, and fears human
ambition, is obviously one of the 'beggarly elements'
of ethnic religion from which Jewish religion had yet to
disengage itself.
We have seen that there was not improbably an old
N. Semitic myth of the interrupted building of a tower
fi OT form not *° account for the dispersion of the
■RQ>^17lnT,i'lT, nations. Should such a myth one day
uaoyioman. ^^ discovered in Babylonia, 1 it will
certainly disappoint many p)ersons by not mentioning
the ' confusion of languages,' nor giving Babylon as the
scene of the events, { 1 ) because the Ass. bullulu means
'fundere,' not ' confundere, ' and (2) because the city of
Babylon was regarded as of divine origin, and its name
Bdbilw-AS, explained as Bdb-ili, 'the gate of God,' or
' of the gods ' (cp Bahylon, § i). The latter reason is
decisive also against the theory '■^ that the Sibylline story
of the Tower of Babel and the cognate one of .AbydCnus ^
rest on Babylonian authority. That two of the reporters
of the story give the polytheistic ot Ceot proves nothing,
for the plural was sufficiently suggested by the Hebrew
narrative {y. 7). The non- biblical features of their
version, though in one point (the object ascribed to the
builders) probably an accurate reconstruction of the
earliest myth, are of no authority, being clearly derived
from the imaginative Jewish Haggada,"* which is re-
sponsible also for the part assigned by later writers
to Nimrod (Jos. Ant. i. 42 ; cp Dante, Inf. 31 76-81).
Where was the tower referred to in the Hebrew
r. o-i. .narrative? Few scholars have declared this
7. Site of
tower.
problem insoluble ; but almost all have
missed what seems the most natural answer.
Benjamin of Tudela, who travelled about a.d. 1160, sup
it to be the mound called by the Arabs Birs Nimrud, which, he
says, is made of bricks called al-ajur.^ This agrees with the
Midrash (AVr. rabha, par. .x.xxviii), and is probably implied in the
strange gloss of © in Is. 10 9. In the sixteenth century Balbi
and Ralph Fitch, and in the seventeenth John Cartwright, give
descriptions of the ' Tower of Balx:l ' which are plainly suggested
by the huge mass of brickwork, 6 or 7 m. W. of Bagdad, known
as Tell Nimrud or'Akarkuf (see Del. Par. 208 ; Peters, Nippur,
i. i88_/C). Pietro delia Valle in the eighteenth century preferred
the great mound near Hillah called Bdbil, which, however, as
Rassam has shown, represents the famous hanging gardens (see
Baiiylon, §§4 8). In the nineteenth, C. J. Rich and Ker Porter
revived the Birs Nimrud theory, and most scholars have followed
them,** largely influenced by Nebuchadrezzar's Borsippa inscrip-
tion. No one has put this view so plausibly as J. P. Peters, in
an article which appeared since this article was written (JBL,
1896, p. loC^). The statements of the king are no doubt well
adapted to illustrate the disrepair into which (see $ 4) the tower
originally intended must have fallen, even though they do not,
as Oppert once thought, descrilje the 'confusion of tongues.'
Let us pause upon them for a moment. They tell us that the
temple-tower {zikkurrat) of Borsippa had ' fallen into decay
since remote days,' and indeed that it had never been quite
completed by its original builder. ' Rain and storm had thrown
down its wall ; the kiln-bricks of its covering had split ; the
bricks of its chamber were in heaps of rubbish. ' To restore it,'
says Nebuchadrezzar, 'the great Lord Marduk impelled my
mind.' t
Borsippa, however, is not the place we should natur-
ally go to for the tower. Babylon, and Babylon alotie
(which was always distinguished from Borsippa) must
cover the site. The late Jewish tradition is of no value
whatever : it grew up, probably, during the Exile,
when Nebuchadrezz;u-'s restoration of the ' temple of the
1 The story as it stands is not, as Stade (ZA TIV, 1895, p. 157)
and Gunkel (Sclidpf. 149) (not, of course, on the ground of the
supposed di.scovery in TSBA 5303,^, RP't \i<)_ff. \ cp Sayce,
Hibb. Lect. 406) have held, Babylonian.
2 Gnippe, Die gHech. Culte u. Mytlun, 683 ; ZA TW 9 154
['89]; Sta. ZAriV\b-i.^i 161 ['95].
t. Sibyll.Z<)T ff.; Jos. Ant.\.\-i\ Syncellus, Chron.
ed. Dindorf, 81 ; Eus. Chron. ed. Schoene, 1 33. Cp Bloch, Die
Quet/en des Ft. Josephus, $^ /. ['79]; Freudenthal, //*//<:««/.
Studien 1 25.
« See Jubilees\0 19-26 (Charles, /QR 6 208/).
5 The Arabic 'rt;«rr'<" comes through .Aram, from As.s.
agvrru, ' kiln-bricks ' (often) ; both words are used collectively.
6 For Sir H. Rawlinson's view, which differs from the views
mentioned above, see G. Smith's Chaldaan Genesis, edited by
layce, 171.
r KB3b 52-55; cp cor
1.09/
1. Name, etc.
BA6I
seven lights of heaven and earth ' was recent. In the
tikkurrat of the great temple Ivsagila (see Babyi.on,
§§ 4, 5), represented, according to Honiniel, by Tell
'Amran, we have the true tower of HalK.-!. Nebu-
chadrezzar himself speaks of this tower in the Borsippa
inscription. ' K-temcn-an-ki,' he says, 'the tikkurrat
of Babylon. I restored and finished." An account of
this building has been given from a Babylonian tablet
by the late George Smith. He tells us that ' the whole
height of this tower alxjve its foundation was 15 gar, or
300 feet, exactly eciual to the breadth of the base ; and,
as the foundation was most probably raised above the
level of the ground, it would give a height of over 300
feet at)ove the plain for this grandest of Babylonian
temples. ' > What vicissitudes this zikkurrat, or its pre-
decessor, passed through in early times, who shall say ?
T. K. C.
BABI (BaBi [A]), I Esd. 837 = Kzra8ii, Bebai, i.
BABYLON. The word "paa (©"■^'- BaByAoon).
B.'UmjI, designating the city which, in course of time,
liecame the capital of the country known
as Babylonia, is the Hebrew form of
the native B;lb-ili ( ' gate of God," or ' Gate of the gods ').
The Accadian or Sumerian name, Ka-dingira, is a
translation of the Semitic Babylonian. Of the other
names of the city, Tin-tir, ' Seat of life,' and \\ or E-ki
(translated ' hcjuse ' or 'hollow') are among the best
known. The existence of these various names is prob-
ably due to the incorporation, as the city grew, of out-
lying villages and districts. .Among the places which
seem to have been regarded, in later times, as a part of
the city, may be mentioned Su-anna (a name sometimes
apparently interchanged with that of Babylon itself) ;
To, which, though it had, like Babylon, a pihatti, or
district of its own, is nevertheless described as being
'within Babylon'; and Suppatum and Litamu, ap-
parently names of plantations ultimately included in the
city.
The date of the foundation of Babylon is still un-
certain. Its association in Gen. 10 10 with Erech,
Akkad, and Calneh implies that according to Hebrew-
tradition it was at least as old as tho.se cities, and con-
firmation of this is to lie found in the bilingual Creation-
story (see Ckkation, § 16 d\, where it is mentioned as
coeval with l->ech and Nippuru, two primeval cities, the
latter of which has l)een proved by the excavations to
dale back to prehistoric times.
No detailed history of the rise of the city has yet
come to light. Agum or Agu-kak-rime (about 1550 I!. C.)
spx.-aks of the glorious shrines of_Marduk
and Zirpanitum, in the temple l"-sagila,
which he restored with great splendour. About 892 H. c. ,
Tukulii-Ninip, king of Assyria, took the city, slaying
the inhabitants, and carrying a vast .amount of spoil (in-
cluding the property and dues of the great temple
IC-sagila) back with him to .Assyria. Sennacherib, how-
ever, went farther than his predecessor. He says that,
after having spoiled the city at least once, he devoted
it to utter destruction. The temples, palaces, and city-
walls were overthrown. The debris having been cast
into the canal Arahtu, that waterway was still further
dammed up, and a flood in con-secjuence ravaged the
country. ICsarhaddon, when he came to the throne,
began the rebuilding of the city, restoring the temples
w ith much sjilendour ; and the work of beautifying them
was continued by Samas-sum-ukin and .Asur-bani-pal,
his sons, the former as king of Babylon, and the latter
as his suzerain. Later, Nabopolassar continued the
work ; but it was left for his son Nebuchadrezzar to
bring the city to the very height of its glory. Later
still, Cyrus held his court at Babylon (.Su-anna), where
vassal kings brought him tribute and paid him homage.
The siege of the place and the destruction of its walls by
t See Sayce, Hibb. Led., App. ii.; but cp Jensen, Kosmol.
2. History.
BABYLON
Darius Hystaspis were the beginning of its decay.
Xerxes is said (Herod. 1 183) to have plundered the
tenjple of BClus of the golden statue that Darius had
not dared to remove, and Arrian (836) states that he
destroyed the temple itself on his return from Greece.
He relates also that Alexander wished to restore this
celebrated fane,' but renounced the itlea, as it would
have taken ten thousand men more than two months
to remove the rubbish alone. Be this as it may,
Antiochus Soter, in an inscription found aj Birs-
Nimrud, mentions having restored the temple lO-sagila
(the temple of BClus), showing that some attempt was
made, notwithstanding Alexander's abandonment of the
task in despair, to bring order into the ch.aotic mass of
ruin to which it had apparently been rc<luced. The
people of the great city had, in all probability, by
this time almost entirely migrated to Seleucia, on the
Tigris ; but the temple services were continued as late as
the third decade B.C., and probably even into the
Christian era. The temple was still standing in 127
B.C. (reign of the Kharacenian king Hysp;isines), and
had a congregation, who worshipped the god Marduk
in combination with Anu, this twofold godhead lx;ing,
apparently, called Anna-Bel. .\ small tablet, dated
' 2i9lh year, Arsaces, king of kings,' records the lj<jr-
rowing by two priests of E-sa-bad (the temple of the
goddess Gula at Babylon) of a certain sum of silver
from the treasury of the temple of Bel. This date,
which is regarded as .Arsacidean, shows that certain
temples, including the tower of BClus, remained, with
their priesthood and services, as late as the year 29 B.C.
{Bab. Or. Record, 4 133).
Rather more than 50 miles .south of Bagdad, on the
east bank of the Euphrates, lie the ruins siill identified
by tradition as those of Baliylon. These
remains consist of a series of extensive,
irregularly-shaped mounds covering, from north to south,
a distance of about 5 miles. Bfdjil, the northmost ruin,
has, according to .Ainsworth, a square superficies of
120,000 ft., and a height of 64 ft. The next in order
is the Mujellibch, of about the same superficies and a
height of 28 ft. After this come two mounds close
together, the Kasr or ' j^alace,' and that called '.Amran-
ibn-'.\li to the south of it. These two together have a
suiierlicies of 104,000 ft. , and a height of 67 ft. , or w ith
the bens, or stone monument, 115 ft. Most of these
two mounds is ' enclosed w ithin an irregular triangle
formed by two lines of ramparts and the river, the area
being alxuit 8 miles' (Loflus). Other remains, includ-
ing two parallel lines of rampart, are scattered alwut,
and there are the remains of an embankment on the
river side. On the W. bank are the ruins of a palace
said to be that of Neriglissar.
According to Herodotus (1 178-187), the city ff)rmed a
vast square, 480 stades (55J miles) in circumference.
3. Buins.
4. Greek
descriptions.
Around the city w.as a large ditch of
nmning water, and beyond that a great
rampart 200 cubits high and 50 bro.ad,
there lx.>ing on it room enough for a four-horse chariot
to pass, and even to turn, in addition to space sufficient
for ' chambers facing each other. ' The top, therefore,
would seem to have resembled a kind of street. The
wall was pierced by a himdred gateways closed with
brazen gates. On reaching the Ivuphrates, which ( Hero-
dotus says) divided the city, it was met by walls which
lined the banks of the stream. The streets were arranged
at right angles. Where those which ran down to the
Euphrates met the river-wall, there were gateways allow-
ing access to the river. On each bank of the Euphrates
1 A confirmation of this occurs in the tablet Hu. 88-5-12, 619,
which is dated in 6th ye.-ir cf Aliks.-ind.nrrls (Alex.nndi-r), and
refers to lo mana of silver .-us tithe paid ana aakii la f(>iri sa
E-sangiUso to be read, according to the Aramaic docket), 'for
the clearing away of the dust (rubbish) of E-sangil (E-sagila)'
(Oppert in the Comptes Kemius de tAcad. des Inscr. et Be/Its
Lettres, 1898, pp. 4i4^.).
414
Scale: i inch = 4000 yards.
Scale of Miles
234
4000 \'ai-(Js
Present River Beds
Dry Beds
Ancient Lateral Irrigants, now dry..
Date Palms _
UnciHtiuated and Desert.
Cultivated, Gardens etc
Itlt
Prominent Mounds and Ruins i^'^M'' Swamps, Marshes, and Rice Grounds... ■-^- ^
// aitirO-Jloti.'aU tc.
THE SITE OF BABYLON
rompiled mainly from surveys by Jones, Selby, Bewsher, and CoHing^^'Ood, 1845-65, with corrections to 1885
(published by the India Office). Small additions, etc., from Ki(:jx;rt's ' Kuiiicnfckior der Umgegciid von Babylon '
in Ztschr. d. Gesellsch. J. Erdkundc su Berlin.
BABYLON
were certain forlifk-d buildings, the royal palace lx;ing
on one side, anil the temple of Helus on the other. The
latter was a tower in stages, with an exterior winding
ascent leading froni stage to stage, and alxjut half-way
up a resting-place for the visitor. The top was sur-
mounted by a sjKicious chaix,'l, containing a richly
covered bed and a golden table. iN'one passed the
night there, according to the priests, except a woman of
the country whom the god had six.'cially chosen. Lower
down was another chapel containing a seated statue of
/cus (llel-Marduk) and a large table, Ixjth of solid gold.
Outside were two altars, one of them of gold ; and it
was here that the golden statue that was carried away
by Xer.xes formerly stood. Herodotus sjjeaks also of the
large reservoir, constructed, he says, by <.)ueen Nitocris,
and of the embankments and the bridge that she made,
the hist lx.-ing a series of piers of stone built in the river,
connected l)y wooden drawbridges which w ere w ithdrawn
at night. Nitocris caused to l)e erected over the most
frecjucnted gale of the city, the tomb which she after-
wards occupied : but this, he says, was removed by
Darius, who thought that it was a pity that the gate
should remain unused, and coveted the treasure that she
was supposed to have placed there, which he failed to
find. The houses of the city, according to Herodotus,
were three and four stories high. He does not mention
the hanging gardens.
Ctesias (ap. Diod. Siculus, 27,'.) makes the circuit
of the city only 360 stades (41 m. 600 yds. ). It lay on
l)oth sides of the Euphrates, which was crossed by a
bridge at its narrowest point. The bridge was similar
to that descrilxid by Herodotus, and measured 5 stades
(3032 ft. ) in length and 30 ft. in breadth. At each end was
a royal palace, that on the E. being the more splendid.
There was a part called the twofold royal city, which
was surrounded by three walls, the outmost having a
circuit of 7 m. 'Fhe height of the middle wall, which
was circular, was 300 ft. ; that of its towers, 420 ft.
The inmost wall, however, was even higher. The
walls of the second enclosure and those of the third
were faced with coloured bricks, enamelled with various
designs. Among them were representations of Semi-
ramis and .Ninus slaying the leopard and the lion.
The two palaces were joined by a tunnel under the
river as well as by a bridge. DiodOms mentions the
square lake, and describes the temple of Belus, which,
he says, had a statue of Zeus (Hel-Marduk) 40 ft.
high, and statues of Hera and Rhea (probably Zir-
panitum [see Succotii-Bk.voth] and the goddess
Damkina). He describes the famous hanging gardens,
which were scjuare, and measured 400 ft. each way,
rising in terraces, and provided with earth enough to
accommodate trees of great size. (Eor other Oeek
accounts, see (i) Arrian, Anab. 7251, and Plut. Alex.
74 ; (2) Diod. Sic. 27-10, Curt. Ruf. 5i 24-35 ; (3) Strab.
I615; (4) Diod. 19ioo, 7 and IMut. Demetr. 7; (5)
Philistr. V'it. Apoll. I25; to which may be added (6)
Berossus in Jos. Ant. .\. 11 1, C. Ap. \\<)f., and Eus.
Frap. Ev. ^^t^ c d).
The best native account of the glories of Babylon is
probably that of the well-known king Nebuchadrezzar
6. Nebuchad- ^'^'^ '^^ ^°^ *~"'^ '""''-''' ^" ^'^°'" ^'^*^ '^''^
^„ ,_ owed much — who, inileed, may Ix; said to
rezzar a , .• n I 1 . 'nu
account.
have practically rebuilt it. The most
ptjrtant edifice to him was the temple
of Bclus (i'L-sagila, later called IC-saggil or E-sangil),
and with this he lx.'gins, speaking first of the shrine of
Marduk, the wall of which he covered with massive gold,
lapis-lazuli, and white limestone. He refers to the
two gates of the temple, and the place of the assembly,
where the oracles were declared, and gives details of the
work done upon them. It was apparently a part of
this temple that he calls E-temen-ana-ki, ' the temple
of the foundation of heaven and earth," and descrilx;s
as the ' tower of Babylon ' (sikkiirat Babili), stating
that he ' raised its head ' in burnt brick and lapis-lazuli
27 417
BABYLON
(cp BABt:i,. Tower ok. § 7). .\fter referring to
various other shrines and temples, he speaks of Inigur-
Bel and Nimitti-Bel, the two great ramparts of the
city, built, or rather, rebuilt, by his father Nal)o-
polassar, who, however, had not Ijeen able to finish
them. Nebuchadrezziir goes on to descrilje what
he and his father had done on these defences — the
digging and bricking of the moat, the bricking of the
banks of the Euphrates, the inijjrovement of the road-
way called Aa-ibur-.s;ibu, the elevation of which Nebu-
chadrezzar raised ' from the shining gate to (the ro.idway
called) I.star-sakipat-tebi-sa,' and so on. In conse(|uence
of the raising of this stret;t, the great city gates of the
walls Imgur-Bcl and Nimitti-Bel had to be made higher.
They were at the same time decorated with lapis-lazuli
and figures of bulls and ser|)ents, provided with doors
of cedar covered with bronze. Then, to strengthen the
city still further, Nebuchadrezzar built, 4000 cubits Ix.--
yond Imgur-Bel, another wall (with doors of cedar
covered with bronze), surrounded with a ditch. To
make the approach of an enemy to xhc. city still more
difficult, he surrounded the tlistrict with 'great waters'
like unto the sea. .After this he turned his attention
to the royal palace, a structure which reache<l from the
great wall Imgur-Bel to the canal of the rising sun,
called Libilhegalla, and from the bank of the Euphrates
to the street .Aa-ibur-sabu. It had been constructed,
he says, by his father Naboj)olassar ; but its foundations
had been weakened by a flood and t)y the raising of the
street. This edifice Nebuchadrezzar placed in good
repair, and adorned with gold, silver, precious stones,
and every token of magnificence, after rearing it high ' as
the wooded hills. ' Other constructions that he made
were a wall 490 cubits long (apparently intended to serve
as an additional tiefence to a part of the outer wall)
called Nimitti-Bel, .tikI, Ixitween the two walls, a struc-
ture of brick, surmounted with a great edifice, destined
for his roj-al seat. This pal.ace, which joined that of
his father, w;rs erected in fifteen days. After adorning it
with gold, silver, costly woods, and lapis lazuli, he built
two great walls around it, one of them being constructed
of stone.
There is a substantial agreement between thisdescrijj-
tion and the description of the Greek writers. E-sagila,
6. Native
and Greek
accounts.
'the high-headed temple,' is the temple of
Belus ; the palace constructed in fifteen
days is that referred to by Josephus as
having lx,'en built in the same short period
{A fit. .\. 11 1). Nebuchadrezzar does not refer to the
reservoir mentioned by the Greeks ; but we may recog-
nise it in the 'great waters, like the mass of the seas,'
which he carried round the district, and designed for the
same purpose — namely, defence against hostile attack.
The walls, Nimitti-Bel and Imgur-Bel, are the outer
and inner walls resjx.'ctively, and the latter may lie that
which, according to Herodotus (above, § 4), ran along
the banks of the river. The hanging gardens are not
referred to by Nebuchadrezzar, and it is therefore very
doubtful, notwithstanding the statement of Ctesias,
whether this king built them. Such erections were not
uncommon in Assyria, and it is even possible that they
were due to the initiative of a king of that country.
In the palace of .Asur-b.ani-pal at Kuyunjik, which was
discovered and excavated by R;\ssam, was a room the
bas-reliefs of which were devoted to scenes illustrating
that king's Babylonian war, one of which shows a garden
laid out on a slope, and continued alx)ve on a structure
of vaulted brickwork, an arrangement fairly in accord
with the description of the Babylonian hanging gardens
given by Diodorus and Pliny ; and it is noteworthy that
the latter attributes them to a Syrian (.Assyrian) king
who reigned at Babylon, and built them to gratify a wife
whom he loved greatly. This bas-relief was regarded
by Sir Henry Rawlinson and George Smith as repre-
senting the hanging gardens at Babylon, and a neigh-
bouring sculpture, which shows a series of fortified walls,
418
BABYLON
three or more, as well as a palace, prolxibly reiiresents
the walls of the city as they wore in the time of Asur-
bani-pal and his brother Samas-sum-ukin, with whom he
waged war. The palace has columns supported on the
backs of lions.
A few additional details concerning the city are
given by some of the many contract-tablets found on
7 Details from ^'"^ ^^^- ^''*-* ''''^ ^^*^^' ^°"'*^ °^ ^'^®
'., . . canals, and the streets and roadways
the contract- ' , , ^ c. .i.
tahl t seem to have been named after the
gods. We read of the gates of Zagaga,
Ninip, and Sama.s, and of the canal Nar Hanitum.
Others of the canals received the names of the cities to
which they tlowed {<:,i,'. , the liorsijipa canal, and the old
Culhah canal). Tlie tablets confirm the statement of
Q. Curtius that the houses of the city did not till all
the space enclosed by the walls, the greater part of the
ground lx?ing apparently fields, gardens, and plantations
of tiate-palnis and other trees, sufficient to furnish all
the provisions that the city needed in event of siege.
There is no mention, in the native records, of a bridge
across the I'.uphrates, such as is described by the
Greeks; but a contract -tablet of the time of Darius
seems to refer to a bridge of boats. There is no con-
firmation of the statement that there was a tunnel under
the river.
There have been various conjectures as to the
identification of the different ruins on the site of
Babylon. Rich thought that the hang-
ing gardens were represented by the
mound known as Babil, and this is
the opinion of Rassam, who found there ' four ex-
quisitely-built wells of red granite in the S. portion of
the mound.' They are supplied with water from the
Euphrates, which Hows alxjut a mile away, and their
depth is about 140 ft. Originally, he thinks, they were
8. Identifica-
tions of ruins.
BABYLONIA
about 50 or 60 ft. higher. Rassam regards Mujellibeh
as representing the palace begun by Naboix)l:issar and
finished by Nebuchadrezzar in fifteen days. Remains
of enamelled tiles of various colours and designs are
found, he says, only on that spot. The Kasr he takes
to l)c the remains of the Temple of Helus, though he
frankly admits that there are many difiiculties in the
way of this identification. As the latest opinions,
carefully formed by one who has frequently been on
the sjx)t, they will probably be considered to possess
a special value.
ihe two queens, Scmiramis and Nitocris, to whom
so many of the wonders of ancient Babylon are attributed,
are not mentioned on the native monuments of the
Babylonians, as far as we are at present acquainted
with them.i In all probability, the explanation of this
difficulty is that they suggested the erection of the
works in question, and the reigning ruler (probably their
husbands) carried them out. Only careful exploration
of the sites can decide satisfactorily the real nature of
each ruin — by whom it was built, or rebuilt, or restored
— and the changes that it underwent in the course of
ages. The discovery of the wells at Babil seems to
place the nature of that ruin beyond doubt, though
Oppert [Comptes Rendus, 1898, p. 420) thinks that its
distance from the other remains is too great, in view of
the fact that Alexander, when suffering from a mortal
illness, was carried from the castle to the baths and the
hanging gardens (Plut. Alex. ch. 76 ; Arrian, Exp. Al.
725). Much more may be expected from the German
exj)lorations.
There is a thorough article on the history and the
topography of the city of Babylon in Pauly-\\'issowa's
Realenc. der class. Alterthumswiss. ii. ('96). On the
Babylon of the NT see Petek, Epistles ok, § 7, and
cp Rome. t. g. i*.
Names and Description (§§ 1-4).
Language and Script (§§ 5-9).
Decipherment and Excavation (§§ 10-14).
Architecture and Art (g§ 15-18).
Literature and Science (§§ 19-24).
Religion, augury, etc. (§§ 25-34).
BABYLONIA
CONTENTS
Mythology and Legend (§ 35/!).
Chronology (§§ 37-3^).
Historical Periods (§ 40).
Early Semitic Kingdoms (§ 41^).
Sumerlan Kingdoms (§§ 43-47).
Ur, etc. (§§ 48-52).
Babylon (§§ 53-70).
Dynasties a-8 (§8 56-62).
Nabonassar (S 63).
Assyrian suzerainty (§ 64).
Neo-Babylonian Empire (§§ 65-70).
Bibliography (§ 71).
The country of Babylonia, called by classical writers
BaBy^'^JN''^) t^kes its name from that of its principal
1 Names *-"'^-' "•'^"^■'-"^' (^•''•' § ')• ^" ^"^^ C»'^
the city and the country are not sharply
distinguished ; both are frequently included under the
Hebrew /33. In other passages the country is termed
"ITJl/', Shinar (see Shi.nak), while in post-exilic times
the whole nation are referred to as D^'^LJ'3, ' Chal-
daeans,' and the country as D'^^'B ]'1X. ' the land
of the Chald.vans ■ (see Chaluka). Among the
Babylonians themselves there was no single name for
the whole country until the third Babylonian dynasty
(eighteenth to twelfth century B.C.), when the Kassite
designation of a portion of the country as Karduniash
was extended and adopted in the royal inscriptions as a
general name for the country, — a use of the term that
was retained throughout the whole pericxl of the nation's
history. The whole of Babylonia could also be expressed
by the double title Sumer and Akkad, which the Baby-
lonians adopted from the previous non- Semitic in-
habitants of the land, Akkad designating the northern
half of the country and Sumtr the southern half. The
use of the former name was extended in the Neo-Baby-
lonian i^eriod, and the word in such phrases as ' the
king of Akkad ' and ' the army of Akkad ' was emplo)ed
to designate the whole country. The terms til rat
arba'im, 'the four quarters,' and kiHatu, 'the v.'orld,"
which occur in the royal titles iar kibrat arba'im, ' king
of the four quarters,' and lar kiHafi, 'king of the
world,' were employed to express extensions of the
Babylonian empire beyond the natural limits of the
country (cp Mesopotamia).
The natural features that bound the countr}- of Baby-
lonia are the Persian Gulf on the S. , the Arabian desert
„ _ ... on the W. , and the Tigris on the E. ,
2. Description. ^^.^^^ ^^^ y^^^-^ ^^^^, ^^^^^-^ ^^ ^^^ ^_
may be placed roughly at the line where the slightly
elevated plain to the N. changes to the alluvial level.
At the present day Babylonia in the S. differs con-
siderably in size and conformation from the ancient
asi)ect of the country. The soil carried down by the
Tigris and the l-.uphrates is considerable, and the
alluvium so formed at the head of the Persian Gulf
increases to-day at the rate of about a mile in seventy
years ; moreover, it is thought by some that the rate
of formation was considerably more rapid in ancient
times. Thus in the early period of Babylonian his-
tory the Persian Gulf extended some 120 to 130 miles
farther north than it extends at present, the Tigris and
the Euphrates each entering the sea at a separate mouth.
The country was thus protected on the S. by the sea,
and on the W. by the desert which, lising a few feet
above the plain of Babylonia, approached within thirty
1 On S.nmnuiramat tlie wife of Ramman-nirari (or Addu-nirari)
III., see AssvRiA, 832. Apparently the onl^ queen who reigned
in her own right w.is Azaga-l!au or Hau-cllit, in whose reign on ens
similar to those belonging to the time of Sargon of Agacfc and
his son were composed. She belongs to a very early period.
I
3. Cities.
BABYLONIA
miles of the Euphrates ; and il was only from the N.
and E. sides that it was ojxin to invasion. From the
nujuiitainous country to the K. , across the Tigris, the
Kassite and Klaniite tribes found it easy to descend
upon the fertile Babylonian plain, while after the rise
of the Assyrian empire the boundary between Assyria
and Babylonia was constantly in dispute.
The principal cities of the country were situated in
two jjrouijs : one in the north ; the other in the south,
nearer the se;i. The southernmost city was
Eridu, tlie modern Abu-.Shahrein, situated
on the Euphrates not far from the ancient coast-line of
the Persian (iulf. To the W. of Abu-Shahrein the
mound of Mukayyar marks the site of the ancient city
of Ur (see Ur). Between the Tigris and the Euphrates
to the NW. of Ur st(wd Larsam or Larsa, the modern
Senkereh, and to the \V. of Larsam the city of Erech,
the remains of which are buried under the mounds of
Warka. To the 1',. of Warka, on the 1 ,. bank of the
Shatt-el-I.Iai, the mounds of Telloh ^ represent the city
of Sirpurla, or Lagas (as it was knovsTi in the later
period of its history) ; the two cities, Isin and Maru,
the Sites of which have not yet been identified with
certainty, complete the list of the principal cities in
the S. The N. group of cities consists of Babylon,
situated on the Euphrates, near the modern town of
Hillah (see Babylon) ; Borsippa, marked by the mound
of Birs-Ximrfid, not far from Babylon, on the SW. ;
Cuthah, the modern Tell-Ibrahim (see C^uth.xh), to
the N. of Babylon ; Sippar, the modern Abu-Habbah ;
the city of Kis, still nearer the metropolis ; and Nippur,
the modern NitTer (the southernmost city of the group),
to the N. of the Shatt-en-Xil. The site of the city of
Agade, which was in the northern half of the country,
probably not far from Babylon, has not been satis-
factorily identified.
The present state of the country differs consider-
ably from that presented by it in ancient times. All
4 Na.tiira.1 ^"'^'^"' writers describe Babylonia as ex-
' ceedingly fertile and producing enormous
quantities of grain ; but at the present day
long neglect of cultivation has rendered the greater part
of it an arid waste, varied in the neighbourhood of the
rivers by large tracts of marsh land. There are still
visible throughout the country embankments and
trenches which mark the courses of ancient canals, by
which the former dwellers in the land regulated their
abundant water-supply, which w;is not allowed to swell
the areas covered by the swamps, but was utilised for
the systematic irrigation of the country. The whole
land, in fact, was formerly intersected by a network of
canals, and to the systematic irrigation of its alluvial
soil may be traced the secret of Babylonia's former
fertility.
The principal products of the country were wheat
and dates. The former gave an enormous return.
The latter supplied the Babylonians with wine, vinegar,
and a species of tlour for baking ; from the sap of the
date tree was obtainetl palm-sugar ; ropes were made
from its fibrous bark, and its wood furnished a light
but tough building material. Wine was also obtained
from the seed of the sesame plant : and barley, millet,
and vetches were grown in large quantities. In addition
to the palm, the cypress was common ; poplars, acacias,
and pomegranates grew in the neighlK)urhoo<l of the
streams ; but the cultivation of the vine, and of oranges,
apples, and pears, was artificial. The enormous reeds
which abound in the swamps were used by the Baby-
lonians for the construction of huts and light boats, and
for fencing round the fields.
The domestic animals of the Babylonians w^.e camels,
horses, oxen, sheep, goats, and clogs ; while the lion,
the wild ox, the wild boar, and the jackal were the
principal wild animals found in the country ; gazelles
and hares were not uncommon ; a great variety of birds
1 Perhaps = Tell L8^.
421
BABYLONIA
haunted the marshes and the plains ; and fish, princi-
pally Ixirbel and carp, were abundant in the rivers.
The language sjKjken by both the Babylonians and
the A.ssyri.uis is usually referred to as 'Assyrian.' It
B Laneuaee ^'''^"8^ '" ^^"^ northern group of the
«^^^ * ^'"'''•'^ languages, claiming a closer
relationship to Bhcenician, Hebrew
(see Hkbrew La.sgi;A(;k), Syriac, and the other Ara-
maic dialects (see Aramaic LAN<;f.\GK), than to the
niore southern group, which comprises the Sabwan or
Himyaritic, the Arabic, and the Ethiopic tongues. But
while in its non\inal and verbal formations it exhibits
the Semitic idea of inflection from roots, and while
those roots themselves are found in the other Semitic
languages, it has Ix;en subjected to a stronger foreign
infiuence and has assimilated, to an extent that is not
met with in any other of the Semitic languages, a
considerable body of non-.Semitic words and expres-
sions. The influence exerted by the previous inhabit-
ants of Babylonia upon their Semitic conquerors was
indelible, and throughout their whole literature, especi-
ally in their mythological and religious compositions,
words of non-Semitic origin are constantly met with.
The language possessed the vowel sounds, a,a, e, e, i, I, u, u,
and the consonantal sounds b, g, d, z, h, (, k, I, ni, n, s, p, s, k,
r, .?, and t, representing the Hebrew 2, J, 1, I, n
6. Sounds, (u., c), £3, 3, L,, a, j, o, b, s, p, n, p, and n-
The existence of the e sound in Assyrian has
been questioned, and it is true that the signs containing e
and / are constantly interchanged ; but tliat the e sound
was used, at least for a certain period, may be regarded as
practically certain, for not only is it required to explain cer-
tain vowel-changes which occur, but it is also vouched for by
the Greek and Hebrew forms of certain Babylonian words, and
by the occurrence of some twelve signs in the syllabary, the
existence of which is more naturally explained by the supposi-
tion that they contain the vowel e, than by the assumption that
they are merely duplicates for certain other signs which un-
doubtedly contain the vowel /. The pronunciation of the
consonants is in the main the same as that of the equi\alent
consonants in Hebrew. With regard to the pronunciation of
the consonants i^, p-, d, i,/, and /, it is possible that in Assyrian,
as in Hebrew and Aramaic, they were pronounced as spirants
when coming between two vowel sounds ; in writing, however,
no distinction is indicated. It may be noted, that, while the
Assyrians made no distinction in their pronunciation of Jt and
^, the Babylonians pronounced the latter as ^; that among
the later Babylonians, at least, m appears to have been pro-
nounced as 71 ; and that the pronunciation of jby the .Assyrians
gradually approximated to s. The Semitic sounds represented
by the Hebrew consonants jj, ri, !> n{'-^-, C)i ' ^"d y (/.(•., ^
and ^), are not distinguished in the A.ssyrian syllabary, as will
be apparent from the following examples given in transliteration,
the equivalent roots in Hebrew or .\rabic being added in paren-
theses : akdlu, ' to eat ' (Sdn) ; aldku, 'to go ' (-jSi) : cdeshu,
' to be new ' (cinn) : eberu, ' to cross ' {y^) ; erebu, ' to enter '
(s^y^) ; alddu, ' to bear ' (i"?!) ; and eniku, ' to suck ' (py). That
these sounds were not distinguished is due to the fact that the
Babylonians did not originate their own system of writing, but
borrowed the system they found in use among the eanier in-
habitants of the country.
This method of writing has been termed ' cuneiform,'
since the wedge ( Latin cuneus) forms the biisis of the
_ -m-iiin- written character in the later periods
*■ of its development. Each character
or sign, in faci, consists of a single wedge, or is
made up of different kinds of wedges in various
combinations, the wedges of most common occurrence
being the upright wedge ]f, the horizontal wedge »— , and
the arrow head \, while the sloping wedges \» ^, and
y Occur in several characters. The characters are
written from left to right, and, except in some poetical com-
positions, no space is necessarily left between the words ;
every line, however, with one or two isolated exceptions,
ends with a complete word. The following Assyrian
signs will serve to illustrate some of the methods of com-
biijation adopted in the formation of the later char-
acters: >f , >^, ^-VT, ._£Yy, ^T, ^^ffl ^T.
tz]^^, <]^, ■:J«^y, ^^^ Jgy^. In the earliest forms
BABYLONIA
of the writing, however, there is no trace of the wedge :
_ . . the characters consist of straight lines.
8. Ungin. ,j.j^jg jg j^jg ^^ jj^^. f^^^ ^Yiai cuneiform was
merely a descendant of a system of picture-writing.
In the case of many of the ch.nracters which occur in the mcst
ancient inscriptions it is still nossihle to recognise the original
i which underlie ihem. For example the sign for 'heaven,'
'god.' 'high,' is a st.ir with eight points, or possibly a circle
intersected by four diameters; the sign for 'sun 'is a rough
circle representing the sun's disk ; the sign for 'ox ' is the head
of an ox with horns ; the sign for ' grain ' is an ear of corn.
All the characters, however, did not descend from pictures.
Some were formed artificially by combination. Thus the sign
for ' water ' when pl.iced within that for ' mouth ' gave a now
sign with the meaning ' to drink ' ; the sign for food placed
within the sign for ' mouth ' gave a sign with the meaning ' to
eat ' ; the sign for ' wild-ox ' was formed by placing the sign for
' mountain ' within that for ' ox ' ; while other signs were formed
by writing a char.icter twice or three times. Moreover, it is pos-
sible thai the artificial formation of characters was customary to
a con^i<lL•r.^ble extent. According to a theory recently put
forward by I )elilzsch,l certain strokes and combinations of strokes
to be traced in the oldest forms of many of the characters had a
meaning inherent in themselves^ and formed the motive on the
basis of which the signs containing them were developed. This
question, however, is one on which it is impossible to form a
conclusion until more of the inscriptions of the earliest period,
recently discovered, have been published.
In the later forms which the characters assumed the original
lines g.-ive way to wedges from the fact that the scribes employed
extensively soft cl.ny instead of stone as a material on which to
write. .V line formed by a single pressure of the style naturally
assumed the form of a wedge, while the increased clearness
and uniformity which resulted secured for the wedge its final
.-idoption. In addition to the changes which occurred in the
forms of the characters, there was a development in their signifi-
cation. Originally representing complete words or ideas, they
were gradually employed to express the sounds of the words
tb'.>y represented .-ipart from their meaning ; and thus were
developed their syllabic values.
The Babylonians adopted this method of writing from
_. . . the non-Semitic race (see below, g§ 43,
9. rrmciples. ^^ ^^^ ^^.,^^__^^ ^j^^.^. ^^^^^^^j -^^ possession of
the country, and they adapted the system to their own
idiom.
To characters or groups of characters representing Sumerian
words they assigned the Semitic words which were equivalent
to them in meaning ; they also employed the signs phonetically,
the sylLibles they represented consisting either of a vowel and
a consonant (simple syllables) — e.g:, ha, id, su — or of a vowel
between two consonants (compound syllables)— (r.^.,w/rt!/,^vV, /«/.
The system w.os further complicated by the fact that the majority
of signs were polyphonous — that is to say, they had more than
one syllabic value and could be used as ideograms for more than
one word. A sign, therefore, might be used in one of three ways :
as a syllable in a word written phonetically, or as an ideogram
for a complete word, or as one sign in a group of two or more
signs which together formed an ideogram fur a complete word.
That this mixed method of ideographic and phonetic writing
was often found ambiguous is attested by the methods which the
Babylonians took to simplify it. (i) One of these methods con-
sisted in adding to a word what has been termed its determina-
tive, a sign attached to a word to indicate the class of thing to
which it refers. Thus a special sign was placed before male proper
names, another before female proper names ; the sign for ' god '
was placed before the names of deities; the sign for 'country'
regularly preceded the names of countries ; similar determinatives
were used before the names of cities, mountains, rivers, tribes,
professions, woods, plants, stones, garments, vessels^ certain
animals, the names of the months, stars, etc., while in a few
classes the determinative is placed after the word, as in the case
of places, birds, fish, etc. A determinative was never pro-
nounced : it was designed only as a guide to the reader, indicating
the character of the word it accompanied. (2) Another aid to
the reader consisted in adding to an ideogram what has been
termed \\^ phonetic complement — that is to say, the final syllable
of the word for which it is intended. By this means the reader
is not only assisted in assigning the correct word to the ideogram,
but also, in the case of verbs, is enabled to detect with greater
ease the stem and tense intended by the writer. Even with this
assistance, the writing, with its list of more than five hundred
characters, was necessarily complicated. The use of ideograms
was never entirely given up, and, although in the Neo-H.-iby-
lonian period simple syllables were employed in preference to
compound syllables, the Assyrians and Babylonians never
attained the further development of an alphabet.
The dccii)herment of the Assyrian and Babylonian
. inscriptions resulted from the labours
10. Decipher- ^^ scholars who had previously devoted
ment. themselves to the interpretation of the
cuneiform inscriptions in old Persian.
From the sixth to the fourth century B.C. the Persians made
1 Die Entstekuf^ des iltesten Schri/lsystems (Leipsic, 1897).
423
BABYLONIA
use for their inscriptions of a character which they had borrowed
originally from the Babylonians. Other nations of W. Asia al.so,
such as the Su.sians and the people dwelling around Lake Van,
borrowed from Babylon the idea of cuneiform writing, in some
cases making use of the Babylonian characters, in others modif>--
ing them to a greater or less extent. 'Ihe changes introduced
by the Persians when they borrowed the idea of writing by means
of wedges were considerable, for, instead of employing a sign-list
of several hundred characters representing syllables and complete
words, they confined themselves to thirty -nine, each of which
represented a single alphabetic value. Of the various systems
of^ cuneiform writing, therefore, the Persian was by far the
simplest. The Achaemenian kings who ruled in Persia at this
period numbered among their siibjects the peoples of Susia and
Babylonia, these countries having by conquest been added to
their empire. When, therefore, they set up an inscription
recording their campaigns or building operations, they aaded,
by the side of the Persian text, Susian and Babylonian transla-
tions inscribed in the cuneiform characters employed by these
two nations. There are thus engraved on the palaces and rocks
of Persia trilingual inscriptions in the old Persian, Susian, and
Babylonian characters, and it will be obvious that as soon as
one of these three characters could be read the way would be
opened for the decipherment of the other two. Of the three
the Persian, with its comparatively small number of signs, is
(as we have said) the simplest, and it was therefore natural that
it was the first to attract the serious attention of scholars.
C.rotefend, in a paper published in 1802, supplied the key to a
correct method of decipherment. Taking two short inscriptions
in the old Persi.-in character which Niebuhr
11. Grotefend. had copied at Persepolis, he submitted them
to an analysis. The inscriptions, he found,
coincided throughout, with the exception of certain groups of
characters, which, he conjectured, might represent proper names.
On this assumption each inscription contained two proper names,
the name of the king who set it up, and, it might be supposed,
that of his father. IJut the name which occurred first in one
inscription was the name which stood second in the other— that
is to say, the three different groups of characters must represent
the names of three monarchs following one another in direct
succession. From the fact that the inscriptions were found in
the ruins of Persepolis it might be concluded th.it their writers
were Persi.in kings; and when he applied, by way of experi-
ment, the three names Hystaspes, Darius, and Xerxes, he found
that they fitted the characters admirably. On his further de-
ciphering the name of Cyrus he obtained correct values for more
than a quarter of the alphabet.
Of the forty Persian signs, of which one is merely a diagonal
stroke employed for dividing the words from one another, Grote-
fend's first alphabet included thirty. He subsequently sug-
gested values for thirty-five characters ; but he did not improve
upon his original alphabet. He correctly identified a, u, d, p,
/, r, s, and / ; his values kh, dj, and tli were practically correct ;
and his v was not far off the correct value h. About 1822 St.
Martin took up the investigation, working at the decipherment
for the next ten years, but without much result ; he identified / and
V, however, and for the \oweI /, which had been read as o by
Grotefend, he gave the improved reading^'. The characters for /«
and « were identified by Kask in 1826, and Burnouf in his memoir,
published ten years later, identified k, b, and s, while his readings
q andjf A for two other characters were great improvements on the
suggestions of Grotefend and Sl ftlartin. In the same year
Lassen produced his first alphaliet, improvements on which he
published in 1839 and 1844, in a few cases m.iking use of the sug-
gestions of Jacquet and Beer which had been published soon
after the jippearance of his first alphabet. He suggested correct
readings for at least ten characters, and improved readings of
some others. This final alphabet did not contain many incorrect
identifications. The scholar who did most, however, for
the decipherment of the cuneiform inscriptions was the late Sir
Henry Rawlinson. He first turned his attention to the subject
in 1835, when stationed at Kirmanshah,_ on
12. Rawlinson. the western frontier of Persia. At that time
he had only heard of Grotefend's discover^- ;
he had not seen a copy of his alphabet, and did not even know
on what inscriptions it had been based. Thus he began the
work of decipherment from the beginning. For his first analysis
he took two short inscriptions similar to those u.sed for the
purpose by Grotefend, which yielded him the names of Hys-
taspes, Darius, and Xerxes. During the next year he had
increased his list of names by the correct identification of
Arsames, Ariamnes, Teispes, Acha:menes, and Persia. It was
not until the autumn of 1836 that he first had an opportunity of
seeing the works of Grotefend and St. Martin. Then he pcr-
ceivea that his own alphabet, based as it was on longer in-
scriptions, was far in advance of the results obtained by them.
In 1837 he copied the greater part of the long inscription at
Behistun, containing the annals of D.irius, and forwarded a
translation of the first two paragraphs to the Royal .\siatic
Society ; but next summer, while at Teheran, he heard that
Burnouf's publication had meanwhile anticipated many of
his improvements. In the autumn of 1838 he obtained the
published copies of the Persepolitan inscriptions, and with the
help of the allied languages of Sanscrit and Zend, analysed
every word in the inscriptions that had up to that time been
copied. He then found that Lassen's alphabet confirmed many
of nis own conclusions ; but he obtained assistance from it in the
case of only one character.
4=4
BABYLONIA
It will ihus be seen that Rawlinson worked out the characters
of the Persian alphal>et for hiiiiNcIf independently of his prede-
cessors and c<mlenii).>raries ; but it was not on this achievement
that he himself based his title to originality. He justly claimji
that, whereas his predecessors had succeeded only in reading a
few proper names and royal titles, he had l>ecn the first to present
to tne world a correct grammatical translation of over two
hundred lines of cuneiform writing. This translation was in the
hands of the Royal Asiatic Soi.iety, and was being prepared for
publication in 1839, when his duties in Afghanistan put an end
to his studies for some years. It was not until 1845 that he
found leisure to complete the work, in which year he published
his memoir containing a complete translation of'^the whole Persian
text of the Behistun inscription.'
Now that he had completed the decipherment of the
old Persian cuneiform inscriptions, Rawlinson turned
_ . his attention to the Mahylonian cuneiform.
■ . ^ .\ comparison of the third column of the
Hehi.->tun inscription with the now known
Persian text occurring in the first column w;is the
starting-point of his studies, and in 1851 he published
the text and translation of the liahylonian part of this
inscription, at the same time demonstrating the fact that
the Babylonian characters were polyphonous. The his-
torical inscriptions on cylinders, slabs, and stelai that
had l)een found in Assyria and Babylonia meanwhile
atTorded ample material for study, and other workers
lent their aid in the decipherment. In the years 1849-
1852 Hincks contributed papers to the Royal Irish
Academy. His most important discovery was the
tietermination of the syllabic nature of Babylonian writ-
ing. Subse<iuently Rawlinson, Hincks, Xorris, and
OpiJert, while devoting themselves to the further interpre-
tation of the historical inscriptions, classified the principal
grammatical rules of the language, and so brought the
work of decipherment to an end.
The earliest explorers of Babylonia did not undertake
systematic excavation. They devoted themselves to
14 Exeava surveying and describing the ruins that
tiona were still visible upon the surface. Tiie
most valuable memoirs on the subject
are those on the site of Babylon compiled by Rich, who
from 1808 till 1821 was the H(mi. IC;ist India Company's
resident at B.agdad. Systematic excavations were
first undertaken in Babylonia during the years 1849-55,
under the direction of Sir Henry Rawlinson assisted by
Loftus and Taylor.
In 1854 Rawlinson excavated at Hits Nimrfid near the
Euphrates a few miles SW. of Hillah, a mound that marks the site
of a great zikkurrat erected by Nebuchadrezzar II. within the
Ixiundaries of the .ancient city of Borsippa. Here, in addition
to tracing the plan of the building, he found fine cylinders
recording Nebuchadrezzar's building operations. He also suc-
cessfully excavated the mounds I<:asr and Biibil, to the N. of
Hillah, within the site of ancient Babylon ; and during the same
period excavations were conducted at the mound of NiflTc-r
to the SE. of Hillah, marking the site of the ancient city of
Nippur, and in H. Babylonia at the mounds of Warka, the site
of Erech, Senkereh the site of Larsa, and Mukayyar the
site of Ur. While Rawlinson was carrying on these extensive
excavations, the French furnished an expedition which was
placed under the direction of Kresnel and Oppert, and during
the years 1851-54 did valuable .service, especially in surveying
and describing the site of the ancient city of Babylon. In 1878
the Trustees of the British Mu.seum again undertook systematic
excavations, which were continued down to the year 1883 under
the direction of their agent H. Rassam. Excavations were
undertaken in the neighbourhood of Hillah, at Tell-Ibrahim, the
site of the ancient city of Cuthah, and at Abu-Habbah, the site
of Sippar, where exceedingly rich finds of tablets and cylin<lers
^'•^'■c "jaJe. The various expeditions of George Smith and E.
A. Wallis Budge resulted in the recovery of many Babylonian
inscriptions. The French have obtained rich finds of sculptures
arid inscriptions of the early period at Telloh, in consequence of
the exertions of de .S.-\rzec, who, since his appointment as French
\'c<=-consul at Ba.s.sorah (Basra) in 1877, has devoted himself to
the thorough excavation of tlie mounds that mark the site of the
ancient city of Sirpurla. The most recent excavations are those
of the .Americans at NifTer, which were begun in 1888; they
were atily conducted by Haynes, and have only recently lieen
di.scontmued.
With the exception of those at Telloh, the mounds
of B.abylonia, unlike those of A.s.SYKi.A (</.j'., § 10), do
not j-ield many sculptures or reliefs ; but the excavations
have enabled us to trace the history of the brick-built
1 SctJRASXQ.
BABYLONIA
palaces and temples, whihr the ' fmds ' comprise votive
tablets of stone and inscrilx.-d alabaster vases, buildiitg-
inscriptions u|x>n cylinders, and thousands of inscrilied
clay tablets, many of which are of grc-at literar)-, his-
torical, and scientific interest.
As the soil of Babylonia is alluvial, it is entirely
without metals, and even without stone, lx>th of which
IB Buildinir had to l^e imported from other countries.
*•• This scarcity of stone had a consider-
able intiueiice on the character of Babylonian architecture.
The difficulties of trans|x>rt prohibited its adoption as
a building material except to a very small extent, and
as excellent clay was obtainable throughout the whole
of Babylonia, all the temples and jxilaces as well as
private dwellings were com[X3sed throughout of brick.
The bricks were of two kinds, baked and unbaketl.
The former, though merely dried in the sun, formed a
serviceable building-material, and in some cases entire
buildings are com|)ose<l of them. The usual practice,
however, was to build the greater part of the structure
of sun-dried bricks and then to face it with bricks
dried in the kiln, the thin layer of harder material
on the surface protecting the whole structure from
rain and flood and change of temjjerature. Buildings
of unburnt brick were often strengthened by thick layers
of matting composed of reeds, while the interior struc-
ture of faced walls was in some cases strengthened at
intervals by courses of baked brick. The bricks them-
selves vary considerably in size. Many of them were
stamped with the name of the king for who.se use they
were made, which lends considerable aid in settling the
date and history of many structures. For binding llu-
bricks together two kinds of cement were emplovi.-d, tlx-
one consisting of bitumen, the other of [jlain clay or
miul, in some cases intermixed with chopjx'd straw.
The latter was used the more extensively, bitumen lx.'ing
employed only where there was sjx-cial need of strength,
as at the base of a building where injury from rain was
to l)e feared (see Bitumkn). Conduits of baked bricks
were employed for carrying off the water from the
larger buildings (see also Brick, § 4).
The [)rincipal building with the B.ibylonians was the
zikkurralu or temple, consisting of a lofty structure
16. Temples. "''"S '" huge stages one' al>ove the
*^ other, composed for the most part of
solid brick and ascended by a slairca.se on the outside ;
the image of the god to whom it w;is dedicated was
placed in the shrine at the top. The remains of these
tem[)Ie-towers at the present day are co\ered by huge
mounds of earth and debris, and thus it is difficult to
trace their plan and estimate their original dimensions.
The larger ones, however, have Ixvn examined at different
times. That at Warka, which at the present day rises
more than a hundred feet above the plain, measures
some two hundred feet scjuare at its base, and consisted
of at least two stories. The temple at Mukayyar is
built on a platform raised alwut twenty feet al)ove the
plain ; it is in the form of a parallelogram, the sides
measuring 198 ft. and 133 ft., and the angles pointing
to the cardinal points. Only two stories are at present
traceable, of which the lower one is strengthenetl by
buttresses. The upjjer story does not rise from the
centre of the lower, but is built rather at one end.
There are s;\id to have lieen traces on it, at the Ix^u'inning
of the century, of the chanil)er or shrine which may
have originally contained the image of the god. The
zikkurrat at Nippur is of a somewhat simil.ar construc-
tion. It is built in the form of a parallelogram, on
the NW. edge of a large platform, the four corners
also pointing to the four cartlinal points. In this temple
three stages have l)cen traced, and it is not probable
that there were more. In the later Babylonian period the
number of stages was increased, .as in the temple of Bel
or Marduk at Babylonia, and that of Nabu at Borsippa.
both of which were finally rebuilt with great magnificence
by Nebuchadrezzar H. (see B.abyi.on, Nkblxhad-
426
BABYLONIA
RKZ/.ak). Rising on their platforms high alx)ve the
houses of the city and the surrounding plain, these
ancient temples must have been impressive, though in the
early period they were entirely without ornament or colour.
The remains of but few Babylonian palaces have
been unearthed, that at Telloh being the one liolonging
Oth ^'^ ^^^ early jjeriod that has been most
h id' ^a •''ystematically excavated, while the finest
° ' example of the later period is the palace of
Nebucliadrezzar at liabylon with its hanging gardens
(see Habvi.un, § 5/ ). Of the domestic architecture of
the Babylonians not many remains have been recovered.
The site from which the finest examples of early
Babylonian art have liecn obtained is Telloh, where
m Ar+ excavations have afTorded evidence of an
art so highly developed that its origin
must be set back at least 2000 years lx;fore the con-
solidation of the Semitic kingdom of Babylonia (see
Iwlow, § 54). Large seated statues, in diorite, of Ur-
Bau and (iudea, carved in the round, stone slabs and
plates sculptured in relief, small figures and carvings
in marble, stone, ivory, and bronze, bronze and silver
vessels, cylinder-seals, and ornaments of various kinds
attest the skill of these early Sumerian artists, who were
the teachers of the Semites by whom they were eventu-
ally displaced.
.'\t a later period the Babylonians ornamented the
interior of their jmlaces and houses by covering the
brickwork with plaster, on which they painted ; or they
coated the walls with enamelled bricks. The develop-
ment of sculpture, however, unlike that of Assyria, was
hampered by the lack of material in which to work, and
it is not surprising that the carvings that have come
down to us never approach the level attained by the
reliefs of the later Assyrian kings.
Of the many thousands of Babylonian and Assyrian
inscriptions that have l)een recovered only a small
,- ,.. . i)roportion can be classified as literature
19. Literattire. • ., . . r.u . t^ u
in the strict sense of the term. Perhaps
the largest section of the inscriptions consists of the
contract tablets, which throw an interesting light on the
social and commercial life of the people, but in no
single instance can be regarded as of literary value. ^
Similarly the many texts of a magical and astrological
nature (see below, § 33/.), tablets containing forecasts
and omens, tablets prescribing offerings and ceremonies
to be performed before the gods (§ 30), can hardly take
rank as literature, though their classification and study
is leading to a more accurate knowledge of Babylonian
religion and belief; while the great body of letters and
despatches dealing with both public and private affairs,
written as most of them are in a terse, abbreviated
style, are worthy of study from a philological rather
than a literary standpoint.'*
When all these deductions have been made, however,
there remains a considerable number of texts on the basis
of which the liabylonians and Assyrians may justly lay
claim to the possession of a literature consisting of both
20. Poetry.
poetry and prose. The [principal examples
of Babylonian poetry are presented by the
legends, 3 the m.ajority of which are written throughout in
metre, by mythological and religious compositions and
penitential psalms, many of which are composed in
Sumerian with interlinear Assyrian translations, and by
the many prayers, hymns, incantations, and litanies
1 See Oppert and Menant, Documents juridiquts (Paris,
1877); Strassmaier, Bah. '/V.r/? (Leipsic, 1899, etc.); Melssner,
Beitr. sum althah. Privatrtcht (I^eipsic, 1893) ; and A7) 4.
2 See BucIkc and Hezold, I'cll ct-Aniarnn 7ViM'/j (London,
T892); Hezold, Oriental Diplomacy (London, 1893); KBh\
Del. Beitr. z. Assyr. 1 ; and R. F. Harper, Assyrian and Baby-
lonian Letters (IjCtniXon, 1892, etc.).
' See George Smith, Chaldean Genesis (London, 1B80):
IV. R; Haupt, Ba6. Nimrodepcs (Leipsic, 1884); E. T.
Harper, Beitr. z. Assyr. 2 ; Jeremias, Izdubar Nimrod (Leip-
sic, 1891); Jensen, Kostnologie (StrassburR, 189-1); Zimniern in
Gunkel's .Schspf. (Oott., 1895); and I>el. Abh. d. KSnigl.
sacks. Gesells. d. Hiss., Bd. 17, n. a ('96).
427
BABYLONIA
which occur on tablets by themselves, or are preserved
in the ritual texts intersjjerscd with directions for the
performance of ceremonies. ' 1 1 has long been recognised
that Babylonian ixjctical compositions, like those of the
Hebrews, are written in a rough metre consisting of
verse and half-verse, the Babylonian scriljes frequently
emphasising the central division of the verse in the com-
positions they copied by writing its two halves in separate
columns. More recently it has Ixjen pointed out"'* that
in many compositions, in addition to this central division,
each verse is divided by a definite number of accented
syllables or rhythmical Ijeats.
The feet or divisions so formed do not contain a fixed number
of syllables, but consi.st of a single word tr of not more than two
or three short words closely connected with each other, such as
prepositions and the substantives to which they are attached,
words joined by the construct state, etc., the metre in some
tablets being indicated by blank spaces left by the scribe. The
commonest metre is that consisting of four divisions, in which
the two halves of the verse are each subdivided ; but this, in
many texts, especially in some of the pravcrs, is interrupted at
irregular intervals by a bne of only three feet.
In many of the legends, moreover, the single verses
are combined Ixith by sense and by rhythm into strophes
consisting of four or two lines each.
The b<.'st examples of Assyrian and Babylonian prose
are the longer historical inscriptions Iselonging to the
21. Historical ^^^"^ ^r^"^^' This class of inscription
inscriDtiona "'-■'"=^"'^s a more detailed treatment.
^ ■ Ap;irt from its literary value, it is the
principal source of our knowledge of the history of the
Babylonians and Assyrians themselves, and supple-
ments and supports in many particulars the biblical
narrative of the relations of Israel and Judah to their
more powerful neighbours.
Unlike all other classes of inscriptions, which were
written with a style on tablets made of clay, the
historical inscriptions assume a variety of forms. The
shortest form consists merely of a king's name and
titles, which are stamped or inscril)ed on bricks built
into the structure of a temple or palace which he had
erected or restored. In some cases the actual stamps
that were used for this purpose have been recovered.
Similar .short inscriptions were engraved during the old
Babylonian period on door-sockets of stone. Another
class of short inscription records the dedication of
temples on their erection or when they have been re-
built ; these are frequently written on clay cones
fashioned in the form of pegs or nails, which may very
possibly have had a phallic significance. The cones
of Guclea and Ur-Bau are those most frequently met
with, while clay cones of different sha[x;s were engraved
by Mul-Babbar, patesi of Isban, Sin-giisid, Kudur-
Mabug and other early Babylonian kings ; cones of
bronze, ornamented with the figure of a god clasping the
thicker end, have also been found at Telloh. Dethca-
tory inscriptions were also written on circular stones,
{perforated through the centre ; when these are small
they are usually descrilxjd as ' mace-heads ' ; but the
use to which the larger ones were put has not been
ascertained. The ' mace-heads ' of S.argon I. , ManiS-
tusu, and Nammaghani are good examples of the
former class. Small scjuare tablets of diorite, but
more commonly larger oblong tablets of limestone
inscribed on lx)th sides, were employed for votive in-
scriptions ; those of Rim-Aku and of liis wife, of
yammu-rabi and of Samsu-iluna, are particularly fine
examples of this class of inscription. In the later
Babylonian period, when such a votive inscription of
an early Babylonian king was found in the ruins or
ancient archives of a temple, a pious liabylonian would
frequently have an accurate copy of it made in clay,
1 See IV. R ; Haupt, Aik. und sum. Keilschri/ltexte {\jt\^
sic, 1881-2): Zimmern, Bab. Bussps. (I^ipsic, 18S5) and Surpu
(Leipsic, 1896); Urunnow, ZAi/. ; Kniidtzon, Assyr. Ceb. an
den Sonnengott (Leipsic, 1803); Tallqvist, Mat/lU (I.eipsic,
1895) : King, Bab. Magic and Sorcery (London, 1896) ; and
Craig, Rel. Texts (Leipsic, 1895-7).
a Zimmern, ZA 8 and 10.
438
BABYLONIA
which he placed as an offering in one of the temples in
Babylon. Several archaic inscriptions have tlms boon
preserved in Neo-Hahylonian copies. The famous stone-
tablet recording the endowrncnt of the temple of the .Sun-
god at Sippar by Xabu-pal-idilina, which was found in
a clay cotTer with the sculptured portion protected by
clay shields provided for it by Nalx)polassar nearly three
hundred years after it was engravetl, is uiii(|ue.
Clay viises and bowls were em[)loyed by some of
the Assyrian kings for recording thfir building <)|K'ra-
tions, the inscriptions running in parallel linos round
the outside, while v;ises of alabaster which were pre-
sented to the temples fre<|uenlly bore the name and
titles of the king who dedicated them. Inscriptions on
statues are not frcciuently met with in the later jx^riods
of Babylonian and Assyrian history, the short inscrip-
tions on the statues of .A.sur-iiasir-pal, the longer
inscription on the seated figure of Shalnianeser II., and
those on the two large figures of the god Nebo, being
the principal examples ; at Telloh, however, long in-
scriptions of the non-Semitic kings Gudea and Ur-Bau
are found engraved on their statues of diorite. Slabs
of stone, marble, and alabaster were employed for
longer historical inscriptions. These were sometimes
treated as tablets and engraved on both sides, as in the
memorial tablets of Ramman-niniri I. ; but more
frequently they were intended as monuments, and set
up in the palaces of the kings who made them ; parts
of many are decorated with sculpture, and in some in-
stances with portraits in relief of the king whose deeds
they record. The later Assyrian kings also engraved
their records on the colossal wingeil bulls and lions
that flanked the entrances to their palaces, and by the
side of, and even ujwn, the bas-reliefs which lined their
walls. In some places on the borders of Assyria, as in
the district of Lebanon and at the source of the Tigris,
inscriptions to record the farthest point reached by some
military expedition were engraved in the living rock.
Clay, however, was the material most extensively
employed, and for the longer historical inscriptions
22. Clay prisms, f "^ ^°'"'" "^ P.7'" ""^ f ""^'^•' ^^'^^
^.^ found to offer the greatest amount
of surface in the most compact form ;
the two earliest prisms that have been discovered are
those of Gudea, each of which contains about two
thousand lines of writing.
The annals of several of the Assyrian kings also were inscribed
on clay prisms, goixi examples of which are the four eight-sided
prisms' of Tiglath-pileser I. (see Assyria, § 28), the famous
six-sided 'I'aylor' prism 2 of Sennacherib, which contains an
account of his siege of Jerusalem (see Sennachkkib), the six-
sided prisms^* of Ksakiiaudon (g.v), and the fine ten-sided
prLsms-* of A.'Sur-b.'ini-pal.
Small barrel-cylinders were employed by some of the Assyrian
kings, including Sargon, Ksarhaddon, .\sur-bani-pal, and Sin-
Sar-iikun, and larger ones, containing accounts of his first three
campaigns, by Sennacherib. Barrel - cylinders, however, are
principally associated with the later Babylonian kings. Most
of them contain accounts of the building operations of Nkbu-
CHADKKZZAK II. (t/.v.) and Nabonidus. The two latest barrel-
cylinders that have been recovered are those of Cvrus (.see
below, § 69), describing his taking of Babylon (s^S n.c'.), and of
Antiochus-Soter (280-260 B.C.), recording his rebuilding of the
temple of K-zida m Borsippa.
Large clay tablets with one, two, or three columns of writing
on each side were employed for long historical inscriptions.
Among the best examples are the t-Tblets of Tiglath-pileser
III., which were found in the SE. palace at NimrQd, the tablet
of tNarh:iddon inscribed with his genealogy and an account of
his building operations, the tablet giving an .iccount of A5ur-
bani-pal's accession to the throne of .Assyria, and of the installa-
tion "f his brother as viceroy of Babylon, and those recording
A-Sur-bani-pal's conquests in Arabia and Klam, his campaigns
in Egypt, and the embassy of (iyges, king of Lydia.
The .Assyrians and Babylonians themselves were
ardent students of their own literature, compiling cata-
23. Eesearch. ^°^^^ °^ ^^^^^ principal literary com-
positions, and writing explanatory
Ubiets and commentaries on many of the more difficult
texts. Their language itself and their method of writing
i Translation in /CBl 14-48. a Translation in A'i52 8o-ii3.
• 1 ranslation in KB 2 124-140. * Translation in A'B 2 152-236.
BABYLONIA
were studietl in detail, archaic forms of characters being
collectetl into lists and traced back to the pictures Iroin
which they originally sprang. Syllalxiries giving the
values of the ch;u-acters in Sumerian, and their .Assyrian
names and meimings, were compiled. (Jollections of
grammatical paradigms for every class of tablet were
made for the use of lieginners ; examples of verlxil
formations were collected and classified ; and exjjlana-
lory lists of ideographs were made, arrangetl in some
inst.ances accoriling to the forms of the characters with
which they l)egan or ended, in others according to
the meanings or roots of their Assyrian e(|uivalciits.
Perhaps the most interesting of the granmiatical tablets
are the lists of synonymous words, which served the
purjjose of a mo<lern dictionary.
The most notable scientific achievements of the
Babylonians were their knowledge of astronomy and
-. , . their method of reckoning time.
24. Astronomy. .,.,_ . ■ ■ **
•' 1 hese two achievements are to a
great extent connected with each other, for it w;\s owing
to their astronomical knowledge that the Babylonians
were enabled to form a calendar. lYom the earliest
times, in fact, the Babylonians divided the year into
months, partly of thirty and partly of twenty-nine days,
and by means of intercalary months they brought their
lunar and their solar year into harmony with each other.
Their achievements in astronomy are the more remark-
able as their knowledge of mathematics was not extra-
ordinary : though we pos.sess tablets containing correct
calculations of sijuare and cufx; roots, most of their
calculations, even in the later astronomical tablets,
are based principally on addition and subtraction.
Herodotus and other ancient writers concur in tracing
to Babylonia the origin of the science of a.stronomy, as
known to the ancient nations of Europe and W. Asia.
In more recent times some scholars have asserted, with
less probability, that Indian and Chinese astronomers
also obtained their knowledge, in the first instance, from
Babylon. That the Babylonians themselves took astro-
nomical observations from the earliest periods of their
history is attested by general tradition ; and, though the
forms this tradition assumed sometimes exhibit extra-
ordinary exaggeration, — as in the calculations referred
to by Bliny, according to one of which the Babylonians
possessed records of astronomical calculations for
490,000 years, and according to another for 720,000
years, — there is not sufficient reason for rejecting the
tradition as having no substratum of truth, and it is not
improbable that the Babylonians, even Ijefore the era
of Sargon I., were watching the stars and laying the
foundations of the science. The first observations
naturally belonged rather to the practice of astrology
and can hardly be reckoned as scientific, and it is not
until the later periods of Assyrian and Babylonian
history that we meet with tablets containing astronomical
as opposed to astrological observations.
The Assyrians made their observations from specially
constructed observatories, which were not improbably
connected with the temples ; the observator)' was
termed a i// tamarti , or ' house of obser\ation ' ; and
we possess the reports of the astronomers sent from
these observatories to the king recording successful
and unsuccessful observations of the moon, the un-
successful ob.servation of an exi^ecttxl eclipse, the date
of the vernal equinox, etc. The astronomers, as a
rule, sign their names in the reports, and from this
source we know that there were important astronomical
•schools at Asur, Nineveh, and .Arbtla in the seventh
and eighth centuries R.c. ; the many fragments of
tablets containing lists of stars, obser\'ations, and
calendars, which date from the same periotl, are, how-
ever, of an astrological rather than a scientific character.
-Although we first meet with astronomical inscriptions
on Assyrian tablets, it is probable that the Assyrians
derived their knowledge originally from Babylonia, and
we may see an indication of this origin in a fragment of
430
BABYLONIA
an Assyrian conimentar)- ruffiriiig to an astronomical
inscription which had lieen brought to Assyria from the
ancient city of Agade. At a later perioti there were
imimrtant schools of astronomy in Habylonia, at Sippar,
Horsippa, and Orchoe ; but it is from inscriptions
obtained from the site of the first of these three cities
alone that our knowledge of Babylonian astronomy is
principally derived. Excavations undertaken at Abu-
Habbah, the site of Sippar, resulted in the discovery
of many fragments of astronomical tablets (Ixilonging
principally to the Seleucid and Arsftcid eras) written
in the later cursive Babylonian ; and these, though
in but few instances unbroken, have sufliced to vindi-
cate the scientific character of Babylonian astronomy.
Though the Babylonians may have liad no correct
conception of the solar sj-stem, they had, at least in
the later period of their history, arrived at the con-
clusion that the movements of the heavenly bodies
were governed by laws and were amenable to calcula-
tion ; and from the tablets we gather that they both
observed and calculated the time of the appearance
of the new moon, and the periodical occurrence of
lunar and solar eclipses, that they noted the courses of
the ]5lnnets, and that they included in their observations
cort.iin of the principal constellations and fixed stars.
As in all primitive religions, the gods of Babylonia
were in their origin personifications of the forces of
nature. The various phenomena of
26. The gods.
25. Religion;
the world were not regarded as the
, ^ , result of natural laws. They were ex-
cnaracter. i . ■ . .1 , •.
plamed as due to the arbitrary action
of mysterious beings of more than human power. The
tempest with its thunder and lightning was mysterious
— it must therefore be the work of a god ; the light of
the sun is the gift of the god, to whose unwearying exer-
tion its movements in heaven are due ; heaven itself is
a realm as solid as the earth on which men walk ; and
each must be controlled by its own peculiar deity. In
fact, Babylonian religion was a worship of nature in all
its i^arts, each part the province of a deity, friendly or
hostile to man, subject to human passions, and, like
man, endowed with the powers of thought and speech.
Many of the gods resembled mankind in having human
bodies ; some resembled animals ; and others were
monsters, partly man and partly beast. They differed
from man in the possession of superhuman powers ;
but no one deity was all-powerful. The authority,
even of the greater gods, was specialised, and beneath
them were a host of demons endowed with various
qualities, but of more narrowly limited influence.
Such is the general character of the Babylonian
pantheon regarded as a whole ; but it was not in the
mass that the Babylonians themselves worshipped their
gods, and this fact serves to explain the varying
theology presented by the Babylonian religious texts.
Every city, for examjjle, had its own special god (cp
§ 68), who was not only the god of that city but also,
for its inhabitants, the greatest of the gods ; so too in
the temple of any god a worship|x;r could address him
in terms of the highest praise, and ascrilx; to him the
loftiest attributes, without in any way violating the
canons of his creed, and with no danger of raising the
jealousy or wrath of other deities. In fact, in the
rial)\lonian system, there w.as no accurately determined
hierarchy, and the rank and order of the various
deities was not strictly defined, but varied at different
periods and in the different cities throughout the land.
The tolerant nature of the Babylonian deities and the
elasticity of their character explain the ease with which
foreign deities were adopted and assimilated by the
pantheon, while the origin of this elasticity may lie
traced back to the mixture of races from which the
Babylonian nation sprang.
In spite of the varying nature of the Babylonian
pantheon, it is still possible to sketch the general
character and attributes of the principal Babylonian
431
BABYLONIA
deities. At the head of the jiantheon, from the earliest
{x;riod, stood a powerful triad consisting of Anu, the god
of heaven, Bel, the god of the earth,
and Ea, the god of the abyss and of
hidden knowledge. Xext in order comes a second
I triad, comprising the two chief light-gods and the god
I of the atmosphere: i.e.. Sin, the Moon-god, Sama.s, the
i Sun-god, and Ramman, the god of storm, thunder and
j lightning, clouds and rain. All of these gods had their
own cities, which were especially devoted to their
j worship. Thus the worship of Anu was centred at
Erech, that of Bel at Nippur, and that of Ea at Eridu ;
j the oldest seat of the worship of Sin was Ur, though in
j Harran also there was an important temple of the
1 Moon-god ; and the cities of Earsa and Sippar were
the principal centres of the Sun-god's worship. The
city-god of Babylon was Marduk, whose importance in
the pantheon increased as that city became the capital
of the country, until in process of time he came to be
identified with Bel, ' the lord ' par e.xcelliiue. The
nearness of Borsippa to the capital explains the close
connection of Kabu, its city-god, with Marduk, whose
attendant and minister he is represented to have lieen.
The god Xinib, whose name is read by some as Adar,
was of solar origin ; the fire -god, who plays an
important part in the magical beliefs and ceremonies
of the Babylonians, was Xusku ; and the god of battle
was Xcrgal, the centre of whose worship was at Cuthah.
The Babylonian goddesses were in most cases of
minor importance ; they were overshadowed by the
male deities with whom they were connected, and the
principal function of each was to Ijecome the mother of
other gods. In some cases their very names betray
their secondary importance, as in that of Anatu, the
spouse of Anu, and that of Belit, the spouse of Bel.
The spouse of F3a was Damkina ; Xingal was the lady
of the Moon-god, .Ai of Samas, Sala of Ramman. Tai-
metu of Xabu, Gula of Ninib, and Laz of Xergal.
The relationships of the gods to one another are not accurately
determined, in .some cases contradictory traditions liaving been
handed down ; Sin, Samas, and Ninib, however, were regarded
a.s the children of Bel, though .Sama.s also passed as the .son of
Sin and Ningal, Marduk was the son of Ea, and Nabu the son
of Marduk.
On a different plane from the other goddesses stands
Istar, one of the most p)owerfuI deities in the p.antheon.
She appears in two distinct characters, under which she
assumes different titles, and is credited with different
genealogies. As the goddess of battle she was hailed
as Anunitu, the daughter of Sin and Xingal, and was
worshipped at Agade and at Sippar of Anunitu ; as the
goddess of love she was termed Belit-ilani, the daughter
of Anu and Anatu, and the chief seat of her worship
was the temple of E-ana at ?".rech ; it was here that the
unchaste rites, referred to by Herodotus as having been
paid to the goddess Mylitta, with whom Istar is to be
identified, were performed. Her name was connected
in legend with Dumuzi or Tammuz, her youthful lover,
on whose death, it is related, she descended to the
lower world to recover him.
The conception of the Babylonian deities as actual
personalities endowed with the bodies and swayed by
the passions of mankind, and related to one another by
human bonds of kindred, was not inconsistent with the
other and more abstract side of their character which
underlay and was to a great extent the origin of the
human attributes w ith w hich they were credited. Thus,
the return of Tammuz and Istar to earth was the
mythological conception of the yearly return of spring.
Moreover, as each force in nature varies in its action at
different seasons, so each of its manifestations may be
connected with a separate deity. The attributes of
several gods can thus Ijc traced to a solar origin.
Whilst SamaS represented the sun in general, special
manifestations of his power were connected with other
deities ; Nergal, the god of war, for example, represents
433
BABYLONIA
tli<; sun's destructive heat in summer and at noon-day,
Ninib the sun on the horizon at sunrise and sunset, and
Marduk, the sixx-ial friend of man, its temperate heat
in the morning and in s[jring. The iisjx.*ct of the
heavens at night also plays a considerable part in the
origin of the gods of Habylonia. Thus each of the
planets was connected with one of the greater gods : the
fixed stars represented lesser deities, and HOl and Ka,
though ruling the earth and the abyss, also had astro-
logical characters, in virtue of which they divided with
Anu the control of the sky.
The worship of their deities by the Rabylonians was
attended by a complicated system of ritual and ceremony.
27 TemnlsB '' formed one of the most important
^ ' asix-'cts of the national life, and, as
tlu-ir temijles were the largest of their buildings, so the
priests were the most powerful class in the conmiunity.
In each city the largest and njost im[x)rtatu temple was
that devotetl to the city-god. Thus the chief temple at
Babylon w;xs E-sagila, the centre of the worship of
Marduk ; the great temple at Horsippa was E-zida, the
temple of Nabu ; the principal temple at Nijjpur was
E-kur, the centre of Bel's worship ; and ]£-hul-hul the
temple of the Moon god at Harran, E-barra the temple
of Samas both at Si[)par and at Larsa, and l-'.-ana the
temple of Istar at Erech, were the principal temples in
each of these cities. Situated on a lofty platform and
rising stage upon stage, these ziggurats or temple-
towers dominated the surrounding houses, and were
more imposing than the royal palaces themselves. At
the summit of each the image of the god reposed in his
shrine, and around its base clustered the temple offices
and the dwellings of the priests. To each temple was
attached a trained and organised priesthood, devoted
exclusively to the worship of its god, and preserving its
own ritual and body of tradition. The temples were
under the direct patronage of the kings, who prided
themselves on the rebuilding and restoration of their
fabrics as much as on the successful issue of their
campaigns, while the priesthoods were su[)ix)rted by
regular and ai)pointed offerings in addition to the
revenues they drew frcmi the lands and property with
28 Priests ^^''''-"'^ ^'^*^ temples were endowed. The
influence of the jjriests upon the people
was exerted from many sides, for not only were they
the gods re[)resentatives, whose services were reciuired
for any act of worship or intercession, but they also
regulated and controlled all departments of civil life.
They represented the learned section of the nation, and
in all probability the .scrilnjs belonged entirely to the
priestly class. They coin|x).sed and preserved the national
records, and although some of the later As.syrian kings
collected libraries in their palaces, this was probably
accomplished only with the co-operation of the priest-
hood and by drawing on the collections of tablets
preserved in the great temples throughout the country.
A still more powerful influence was exerted by f
the priests on the common people in connection with
their social life and conmiercial transactions, inasmuch
as the administration of the law was in their hands.
The religious functions discharged by the priesthood
were twofold. On the one hand, they carried out
the regular sacrifices and services of the temple to
which they were attached ; on thi- other, they were
always at the service of any one who w ished to present
an offering or make intercession in his own behalf.
In their former capacity they celebrated regular feast-
days in every month as well as the great festivals of
the year, such as the New Year ; in the latter their
ministrations were niore personal, and consisted in
introducing the individual suppliant into the presence
of the deity and performing for him the necessary rites.
29. Claims ^''^'^''^y Babylonian had his own god and
of religion. S^'t'ess, to w hose worship he dedicated
himself. They, in return, were his patrons
and protectors. When any misfortune happened to
28 433
BABYLONIA
him it was a sure sign that his go<l and goddess were
angry and had removed from him their countenance
and protection, an<l in such a predicament he would
have recourse to the t<;mple of one of the greater go<ls,
whose influence he would invoke for his restoration to
the favour of his patron deities. The protection of his
go<l and g(Mldtss were neces.sary to preserve a man
from the spiritual dangers that surrounded him, for
he Ix-lieved that on every side were evil go<ls, spirits,
demons, and sjxjctres, who were waiting for any oppor-
tunity he might give them to injure him. Any sickness
or misfortune, in fact, he regarded as due to a spell
cast upon him which had its origin in one of several
causes. It might be the result of an act of sin or
imjjurity committed by him with or without his own
knowledge ; or it was the work of an evil spirit or
demon ; or, finally, it was due to the machinations of a
sorcerer or sorceress. Whatever its cause, his only
hope of recovery lay in recourse to the priests, through
whom he could approach one of the gods.
P>om the carvings on Hal)yIonian cylinder-seals we
know the attitude that the suppliant must assume when
30 Relijrious ''"''^ "^^° '''" presence of the god. He
Observances. '^ '^P'^^^^^^'f ^ ^'•'"^'ing with both
hands raised before hnn, or, with one
hand raised, he is Ijeing led forward by the priest,
who grasps the other. The penitential psalms and
incantations preserved on tablets from the library of
Asur-bani-pal indicate the general character of the jxiti-
tions he must make, consisting of invocations of the deity
aildressed, confessions of sin, and prayers for assistance,
recited partly by the priest and partly by the suppliant
himself. Many tablets record the offerings that nmst
l)e made liefore the gods, comprising oxen, sheep,
lambs, birds, fish, bread, dates, butter, honey, oil. date-
wine, sesame w;ine, pieces of precious woods, gold,
jewels, and precious stones, plants, herbs, and flowers.
Many' magical rites and ceremonies were performed by
the priests, such as the knotting and unknotting of
coloured threads, the burning of small images made
of a variety of substances, including bronze, clav,
bitumen, plaster, wood, and honey, to the accompani-
ment of incantations ; the throwing into a bright fire
of certain substances, such as a fleece, a goat -skin, a
piece of wool, certain seeds or a [xjd of garlic, a special
form of words Ijeing recited by the priest as he per-
formed the rite ; the dropping of certain substances
into oil and the pouring out of libations. Such cere-
monies and rites were not regarded as symbolical,
but were supposed to be sufficient in themselves to
secure the suppliant's release from the sfxill or ban to
which his sufferings or misfortunes were due.
The prediction of future events also plays an important
part in the religion of the Babylonians and Assyrians.
31 AuBTirv ^'^ ^^"^ '^^°'" Ix-'ing carried on in secret
gury. ^j^j ^^^ ^ j^^^ isolated soothsayers, augury
was practised as a science by a large and organised body
of the priesthood under the direct control and patronage
of the king. This Ixjing the case, it is not surprising
that a considerable jx)rtion of the native literature deals
with the subject of omens and forecasts. Almost every
event of common life was regarded by the jjious
Babylonian as perhaps a favourable or unfavourable sign
re<|uiring the interpretation of an ex[)crt, and necessitating
a journey to the temple. Those whose duty it w:is to
furnish the interpretation of such an event did not
necessarily pretend to second sight or rely on a vision
or any divine communication ; their answer was based
on their own knowledge, actjuired by sjjecial training
and study. In the course of time all events and the
consequences said to result from them had been written
down ; the tablets on which they were inscribed had
been divided into clas.ses according to the subjects of
their contents ; and many were collectetl into series.
Thus an important temple would contain a small library
dealing with the subject, retjuiring to be mastered by
434
BABYLONIA
the novice and always at hand for the consultation of
the augurs themseh es. Many of tliese tablets have been
preserved, and it is to them that we owe our knowledge
of tlus important department of Babylonian religion.
The text of an omen-tablet consists of short sentences,
each of which generally occupies one line of the tablet.
„ ^ The construction of the sentence is in-
. ■ , . . variably the same, and may be rendered
by the following formula : ' when (or if)
so and so is the case, such and such an event will
happen.' There arc, therefore, two ways in which we
may classify an omen — cither by its protasis or its
apodosis. Regarded from the latter point of view,
all omens may be roughly divided into those that relate
to public affairs and those that relate to the fortunes of
an individual. Thus certain occurrences may be looked
upon as foretelling the death of the king or the future
condition of the country, whether there will be a plentiful
harvest or a famine, whether there will be war or peace,
and, if war, in what cjuarter it may be exixicted. Those
which relate to private affairs, on the other hand,
concern themselves with the health, sickness, or death
of a man or of his wife or child, or foretell the stability
or destruction of his house. Some few tablets indeed
relate to special classes, such as those which foretell
accidents that may happen to women during pregnancy ;
but in the majority of omen-texts the apodosis is couched
in general terms and the same phrases regularly recur.
In fact, the events foretold are not very many, and may
generally be classed under the headings of death and
life, sickness and health, famine and plenty, war and
peace ; the predictions are cast in a vague form, and
details, such as the place or manner of a man's death,
arc but rarely specilicd. In the protasis, on the
other hand, we find an almost Ijewildcring variety of
subjects, which admit, however, of a rough classification.
What is perhajas the largest section centres round the
phenomena of human birth, the predictions being based
on the manner of delivery and on the appearance of the
child ; and not only were miscarriages and the births
of monstrosities regarded as of peculiar import, but
variations in the a[)pearance of normal offspring also
formed the basis of prediction.
Different parts of the body of a newly-born child are dealt
with independently, and to have grasped correctly the significance
of every part must have required a long course of training and
study of the tablets. The state of the eyes or the liair, the
position and size of the ears, mouth, hands and feet, the re-
seml)lance of the face to that of certain animals, were all carefully
considered. The parturition of animals also was made a special
.study, the appearance of the offspring of lions, oxen, horses,
and other animals, the colour of their hair and the number and
position of tlieir limbs, being regarded as significant. Omens
were drawn from the appearance of the various parts of the body
of an adult, male or female, especially in sickness, such as the
state and colour of the eyes, the ears, and the hair, the state of
the heart, the lungs, the buttocks, and other members of the
body, the resemblance of the head to that of a bird or beast, the
condition of the urine, etc. ; with a view to predictions, studies
were also made of the actions of a man, such as that of eating,
and certain other of his natural functions. Another large cla.ss
of omens were drawn from the appearance of animals, such as
the colour of the horns of oxen and the direction in which they
curve, while the actions of certain animals (pigs, horses, etc.)
were likewise studied. If a man is walking and wishes to know
the future he must notice the direction in which an animal moves
round him, and he must note if a lion, or a hvena, or a bird
crosses his path. If he sees a snake at ihc entrance of a gate or
at the doors of a temple, or dogs and calves as he is going out
of a door, he must visit the augur for an interpretation. The
appearance of animals, snakes, or scorpions in a man's house,
or in a pakice or a temple, w.as of .significance, while the sling
of a scorpion was a warning of various events, different results
following from stings on different toes. The appear,ince and
flight of birds were exhaustively treated, and a man was wise if
he did not disregard the flappings of a bird's wing and did not
fail to observe the direction in which it flew should it flutter
round his head. Another cla.ss of omens _ laid stress on the
locality of certain events : those occurring in cities and streets
received a treatment different from that of occurrences in the
fields and open country. Predictions were made from the slate
of a house, its walls, etc., and even from the state of the furniture
which it contained. The lime of the events or observations was
in some instances considered imponant, and in these cases the
month and day were specially noted.
435
BABYLONIA
As omens were taken from so many common objects
and occurrences, it was natural that dreams and visions
„„ _. should be regarded as indications of
33. Dreams. ^ •
future prosperity or misfortune, and that
the objects or animals a man might behold in a dream
had each a different signification. Thus, if he beheld
in his dream certain people, or seemed to be fighting
with a relation, such as his father or grandfather, the
visions had a special meaning, while the fact that the
[jerson he fought with was alive or dead at the time was
also of importance ; a[)i)aritions of spectres and demons
in a house were indicative of the future. In the majority
of omens the conditions on which they were based were
chance occurrences and events ; it was, however, possible
to obtain information as to the future by artificial
means, such as by okserving the entrails of viitims, by
kindling fire on an altar and noting the direction in
which the smoke rose, or by observing the flickering of
the flame of a lamp.
^\'ilh omens it is difficult to say how far the facts on
which the predictions were based were merely signs of
. . . prosperity or misfortune which would
. s ro ogy. pQj^g jj^ j^j^y ^j^gg j^j^jj j,,,^ f^j. fj^gy
were regarded as in themselves the actual cause of such
prosperity or misfortune. In the case of astrological
forecasts, however, which are closely connected with
the omens, it seems probable that the latter concejition
preponderated. The astrological phenomena that are
mentioned were not merely passive indications of the
future, but active forces influencing the lives and fortunes
of the individual and the state. The practice of astrology
■was based principally on observations of the sun and
moon and stars, their relative positions at different
times, and the various combinations presented by them.
Another large body of forecasts was based on eclipses
of the sun and moon, the results varying with the time
of the eclipse, the appearance of the sun and moon
during the eclipse, and the direction in which the shadow
travels. Forecasts were based also on the appearance
of meteors and shooting stars, on observations of light-
ning, clouds, and rain, on the direction of the wind, on
the various directions in which a cloud may travel, and
on the colour and shape of clouds and their resemblance
to animals, fishes, ships, etc. As in the case of the omen
talilets, the Babylonians possessed a grc-at body of astro-
logical literature ; observations and forecasts in course
of time were collected, grouped, and classified ; and
large works upon the subject were copied out on con-
secutive tablets for the training and u.se of the astrologers.
Many tablets belonging to these larger works have come
down to us ; there are also preserved in the British
Museum small oblong tablets containing the answers
of astrologers who had been consulted as to the future,
as well as their reports on recent astrological observa-
tions and the interpretation to be set on them.
Around the figures of their gods the Babylonians wove
talcs and legends, which, originating in remote antiquity,
„ , 1 ^^cre handed down through countless
30. Jaytnoiogy. generations, being added to and modi-
fied by the hands through which they passed. They
were collected and arranged during the later periods
of Ass}Tian and Babylonian history, and it is in these
comparatively recent forms that they are preserved
in the literature that h.as come down to us. It is true
that the tablets containing the legends of Adapa and of
the goddess Eriskigal were found at Tell el-Amarna
and date from the fifteenth century B.C. ; but not one of
the tablets containing the other legends is earlier tiian
the seventh century B.C. The antitjuity of the legends
themselves, however, is amply attested by the divergent
forms which in some cases the same legend assumes, as
related on different tablets lx;longing to the later Assyrian
and Babylonian periods, or referred to in the works of
classical writers. An additional interest attaches to two
sections of the legendary literature of Babylon from their
close resemblance to the narrative of the early part of
436
BABYLONIA
Genesis, relating to the creation and the deluge.
Whether we are to trace the ultimate origin of both the
Babylonian and the Hebrew versions of these legends
to the previous non-Semitic inhabitants of Babylonia
need not concern us here. The contents of these
legends and their relation to the Hebrew narratives will
also Ixj more conveniently treated elsewhere (see Crka-
TioN, Dki.ugk, Caimiks, Enoch, Noah). The
legends of the creation and the epic of Gilgames are
certainly the most famous portions of Babylonian myth-
ology ; but they form only a part of the legends and
beliefs thai were current in the various cities of Baby-
lonia. Kven those which have come down to us on the
tablets present a great variety of subject and treatment.
Istar's descent into Hades is one of the best preserved
of these legends. It contams a description of the lower
world, and records how at each of the gates that lead
thereto the goddess is stripped of a portion of her
a|)parel until she enters naked into the realm of Allatu,
and how she is detained there but is eventually brought
back to earth to put an end to the troubles of men and
animals that had followed the departure of the goddess
of love. The Plague-god was a prominent figure in
Babylonian mythology, the legends describing in detail
the ravages he caused among the cities of the land.
Two oilier legends may be mentioned brietly : that of
the Zu's theft of the destiny-tablets, and tlie legend of
Adapa and the South-wind. In the former, Zu is
recoriled to have (led with the tablets to his mountain,
and, although the other gods would not venture against
him, he was eventually captured by Samas the Sun-god
in his net. The legend of Adapa relates how Adapa,
the son of Ea, was fishing one day in the sea for his
father's household when the South-wind blew and ducked
him under ; how in anger he caught the South-wind,
and broke her wings ; and how he came to heaven into
the presence of .\nu, who summoned him thither on
noticing that the South-wind had ceased to blow. In
many of the legends animals and birds
endowed with thought and speech are
introduced : as in the legend of Etana's flight to heaven
with the eagle, the legend of the Eagle, the Serpent and
the Sun-god, the legend of the Fox, the legend of the
Horse and the Ox, and the legend of the Calf. Not
only do gods, heroes, and animals figure in the mythology
of Babylonia, but also ancient kings, whose actual
existence is attested by the remains of their buildings
and inscriptions, were raised to the level of heroes or
demi-gods in the popular imagination, and their names
•became centres round which in the course of ages legends
have clustered. The most famous of these is the legend ^
of the birth of Sargon of Agad^, who is said to have
been of lowly origin ; his father he knew not, and his
mother set him floating on the Euphrates in a chest of
reeds smeared with bitumen ; but Akki the irrigator
rescued him, and while he was serving as gardener to
his benefactor, the goddess Istar loved him. Eventu-
ally she invested him with the rule of the kingdom.
Naram-Sin the son of .Sargon, Dungi king of Ur,
Nebuchadrezzar I., and other ancient kings, figure
in the legendary literature.
The data available for the settlement of Babylonian
chnjuology vary for each of the three periods (see lielow,
37. Chronology: § '^°> '"'° ^'^j? \he history of the
First nerit^ country may be divuled. In the
^ first period a single date has been
fixed for us by a reference in one of the cylinders of
Nabonidus, from which we infer that Sargon I. lived
about 3750 B.C. When Nabonidus states* that 3200
years have elapsed since .Sargon laid down an inscription
which he himself found, he is naturally giving only an
approximate estimate of the period during which it had
lain buried. There is no reason, however, for doubting
the general accuracy of the statement ; for the Babylonians
were careful compilers of their records, and Nabonidus
1 See A'S Sa 100 j^. "i KBU 104.
437
36. Legends.
BABYLONIA
had access to sources of information which have not
come down to us. This one date, therefore, gives us a
fixed pxjint in the early history of the country. In
settling the chronology before and after this point we
do not gain much assistance from the list of dynasties
preserved from the history of HCrossus, who places in
the earliest period ten kings who ruled Ix.-fore the flood.
Similarly a tablet from Kuyunjik containing the names
of certain kings, who, it states, ruled after the deluge,
is not of assistance, esf>ecially as the names it docs con-
tain are arranged not chronologically but on a linguistic
basis. In settling the chronology of this period,
we have, in fact, to fall back ujxjn the internal and
external evidence of date afforded by the archaic inscrip-
tions themselves, (i) The internal evidence consists
principally of the royal genealogies contained by the
inscriptions, from which the relative dates of the kings
so mentioned can be a.scertained. Good examples of
the use of such evidence are afforded by some of the
inscriptions of the kings and patesis of .Sirjjurla : as,
for example, t>y the inscriptions of Ivdin-gir.i-nagin, in
which he calls himself the son of Akurgal, and of
Akurgal, who styles himself the son of L'r-.\in.a ; or
that of P',ntena, in which he is called the son of En-
anna-tunia and the descendant of Ur-Xina, or the gate-
socket of En-anna-tuma II. from which we learn that
Eiitena was his father ; or the circular stone plate con-
taining an inscription of the wife of Nammaghani, in
which she is referred to as the daughter of Ur-Bau,
proving that Nammaghani succeeded Ur-Bau through
his wife's title to the throne. (2) The external evidence
afforded by an inscription is obtained partly by a study
of the general style of the writing, the forms of the
characters, etc. ; partly by accurately noting its relative
position with regard to other inscriptions near which it
may happen to be found, the different depths at which
inscriptions are unearthed in some cases giving a rough
idea of their comparative ages. It must be admitted,
however, that the e\idence to be obtained both from
paUeography and from systematic excavation is in its
nature extremely uncertain and liable to various inter-
pretations. Such evidence is of service when lending
its weight to that obtained from other and independent
sources ; but when it is without such sup[)ort it cannot l)e
regarded as indicating more than a general probability.
For the chronology of the second jx-riod we have the
genealogies to Ix; obtained from the historical inscriptions,
38. Second
as well as the chronological notices which
occur in some of them. From the latter
" ■ source, for example, we gather that Burna-
Burias lived some 700 years after Hammu-rabi,^ that
Sagasalti-Buriaslived about 800 years before Nabonidus, '■*
and that Marduk-nadin-ahe defeated Tiglath-pileser 1.
418 years before Sennacherib conquered Babylon" (cp
AssvKi.\, § 20). Our principal source of inforniatiuii,
however, lies in the chronological documents of
the Babylonians themselves. ( i ) One of the most
important of these is the ' List of Kings,' a list of the
names of the kings of Babylon from about 2400 to
625 B.C., in which the kings are divided into dynasties,
the length of each reign and the total length of each
dynasty being added ; ■* a smaller list of kings contains
the names of the kings of the first two dynasties.' (2)
Prom the document known as the ' Babylonian Chron-
icle ' ^ we obtain a record of events in Babylonia and
Assyria from the early part of Nabonassar's reign
(about 745 H. c. ) to 6^9 R. c. , the first year of the reign
of Samas-sum-ukin, and this information is supplemented
by (3) the ' Ptolemaic Canon ' (see Chro.noixxiy, § 24^ ).
which also begins with the reign of Nabonassar. The
fragment of a second Babylonian chronicle refers to
kings of the first, fifth, sixth, and seventh dynasties,
while part of a third chronicle supplements the narrative
1 KB %b 90/ 2 KB ih 106/
» Bavian inscription. * KB 2 286/, or R P^) 1 \f,ff.
« KB 2 288y:, or RP^) 1 13/ ^ KBi 274^, or RPf?) 1 nff.
438
BABYLONIA
of the ' Synchronous History ' for certain portions of the
third dynasty. Finally, (4) the ' Synchronous History ' ^
(see Assyria, § 21, beg. ) itself connects the history of
Babylonia with that of Assyria, with certain breaks,
from about 1480 to 810 B. c:.
For the third period of the history the succession of
the kings is known from the Ptolemaic Canon, which,
_, . , ill addition to the names of the kings, gives
■ . ^ the lengths of their respective reigns ; and
perio . jj^^_ information so obtained is controlled by
the many Babylonian contract tablets which have lx;en
found dated according to their regnal years.
The history of Babylonia falls naturally into three
main periods. The first period comprises the history
of the country from the earliest times
lown to the consolidation of its various
elements into a single empire ruled by
40. Historical
periods.
Semitic kings with their capital at Babylon. The
second period begins with the first dynasty of Babylon,
to whose greatest king, Hammurabi, was principally
due the consolidation of the Babylonian empire, and
extends to the fall of the power of Assyria, whose later
kings included Babylonia in their dominions. The
third period comprises the history of the Neo-Babylonian j
empire.
The length of the first period can only be appro.\i- I
mately determined, for it reaches back into remote |
antiquity ; the second period deals with the history of
some sevcMiteen hundred years, extending from about
2300 to 625 n. c;. ; the third period is by far the shortest
of the three, for it contains the history of an empire
which lasted for less than a hundred years, from Nabo-
polassar's accession to the throne of Babylon in 625 B.C.
to the capture of the city by Cyrus, king of Persia, in
538 B.C.
During the first period the name of Babylon is not
known. The country is under the successive domination
of the more ancient cities of the land until the Semitic
element eventually predominates. During the second
period Babylon holds her place as the centre of the
country in spite of the influx of Kassite and Chaldean
tribes and the opposition of Assyria. In the third period
the magnificence of Babylon became one of the wonders
of the ancient world.
In treating the earliest period of the history of the
country we are, to a great extent, groping in the dark.
p .. . Our [principal sources of information are
. , the archaic inscriptions found on many
perioa. ^^ ^j^^ ^^^^^ ^^ ^^^ ^j^ Babylonian cities,
and these have been considerably increased by recent
excavations. In order, then, to understand clearly the
problems they present, it will be necessary to proceed
gradually from the points that may be regarded as
definitely fixed into the regions where conjecture still
holds her own. As the earliest date that can be
regarded as settled is that of Sargon I. , it necessarily
forms the basis or starting-point from which to re-
construct the history of the period.
Nabonidus, the last king of Babylon, on a clay
cylinder found at Abu-Habbah records the fact that
while restoring the temple of the Sun-god in that city
he came upon the foundation-stone of Naram-Sin, the
son of Sargon, which for 3200 years no king that went
before him had seen. As the cylinder of Nabonidus
was inscribed alx)ut the year 550 B.C., we conclude
that Naram-Sin lived about 3750 B.C., and Sargon his
father about 3800 B. c.
During the French expedition to Mesopotamia (185 1-
1854) Oppert found in Babylon an alabaster vase in-
scribed in archaic characters with the name of Naram-Sin,
to which was added the title ' king of the four quarters. '
The vase, which was lost in the waters of the Tigris on
23rd May 1855, formed the only remains of this king
that were recovered until the American expedition in
1888.
J A'£ 1 i94if.
439
BABYLONIA
Of Sargon, however, two inscriptions were known ;
the one on the cylinder in the possession of M. de
Clerq, the other on a mace-head in the British Museum.
Some doubt was thrown on the identification of this
king with the Sargon of Nabonidus ; for, whilst the
name of the latter was written hargina, that of the
former was Sargani-.sar-ali. Such an abbreviation,
however, was not unu.sual in the n.ames of many of the
early kings, and the identity of the two names is now
put beyond a doubt by the discovery at Nippur of
inscriptions of Sargani-sar-ali in the same stratum
which held bricks stamped with the name of Naram-Sin.
That the empire over which Sargon ruled was exten-
sive is attested by the legends that at a later period
gathered round his name (see above, § 36). His name
and that of Naram-Sin occur in an astrological tablet,'
in which expeditions against I'ha-nicia, Elam, etc., made
by these two kings during certain lunar phases and
astrological conditions, are recounted ; and, although it
would Ix; rash to regard such statements as historical
on the authority of this tablet alone, they at least bear
witness to the permanent hold which the name of Sargon
had attained in the popular imagination. In a cylinder '■*
of Nabonidus found at Mukayyar (Ur) the title ' king of
Babylon ' is ascribed to both Sargon and Naram-Sin ;
but it is probable that the city of Agade, not Babylon,
formed the centre of their empire, as ' king of Agade '
is the title by which Sargon invariably describes himself
The site of this city has not been identified ; but it is
probably to be sought in Northern Babylonia.
Both Sargon and Naram-.Sin were Semites, and the
_ ... extent of their empire shows the progress
, .■ , which the Semitic invaders were making
° ' towardsthefinalsubjugationofthecountry.
The name of another king who was probably of Semitic origin
is Uru-mu-u5, possiljly to be read as .Vlu^arsid, and from the
fact that his inscriptions were found at Nippur near those of
Sargon, which they closely resemble in character, it may be
assumed that he belonged to about the same period. His
name has been found on alabaster vases which he dedi-
cated and placed in the great temple of Bel at Nippur; the
vases, he states, formed part of the spoil captured on a successful
expedition against Elam and Hara'se to the K. of Babylonia.
Moreover, ManiStusu, whose name occurs on a mace -head
preserved in the British Museum, must also be assigned to
about the same period.
In addition to the empire established by Sargon,
there is not lacking evidence of the existence at this
time of other Semitic kings and principalities. The
inhabitants of Lulubi spoke a Semitic dialect, as is
evinced by the inscription engraved on the face of the
rock at Ser-i-pul, a place on the frontier between
Kurdistan and Turkey. The inscription accompanies
and explains a relief representing the goddess Nini
granting victory over his foes to Anu-biinini, king of
Lulubi, and from the archaic forms of the characters
the work must be assigned to a period not later than
that of Sargon. It is also probable that the inhabitants
of Guti, a district to the NE. of Babylonia, were
Semites ; for an archaic inscription of a king of Guti,
which was found at Sippar, is written in Semitic
Babylonian. This, we may assume, was carried to
Sippar as spoil from the land of Guti, though it is also
possible that the stone containing the inscription was
a gift of the king of Guti to the temple at Sippar, the
inscription being composed, not in the king's own
language, but in the Semitic dialect of Sippar.
Still, whilst a few of the in.scriptions of this early
period are undoubtedly Semitic and may be adduced as
. evidence of the first settlements of the
43. btunenan g,.,„ites in Babylonia, the majority of
the inscriptions that have come down
to us are written in a non-Semitic tongue (to which the
late Sir H. Rawlinson gave the name Accadian), now
generally known as Sumerian.* These inscriptions
3 For many years a controversy has raged around the
character, and even the existence, of this language. The
theory put forward by Halivy that Sumcrian was not a
440
BABYLONIA
have been found in the moiimis which mark the sites
of the ancient cities of the land, and were the work of
the previous inhabitants of the country whom the
invading Semites eventually displaced. One of the
most important of their ancient cities is to-day repre-
sented by the mounds known as Telloh, situated to
the N. of Mukayyar and K. of W'arka, on the E.
b;\nk of the Salt-el- 1 1.ii. These mounds mark the site
of a city called by the kings and governors who ruled
there Isirpurla. but known at a later time as Lagas.
The excavations that wire l)egun on this site by Ue
Sarzec in 1877 have resulted in a rich harvest of in-
scriptions on statues, cylinders, cones, tablets, bricks,
etc.. from which it is possible to trace the history of
the city throughout a long [x;riod. Its earlier rulers
called themselves 'kings," the later ones lx.'aring the
title of patesi, which is eciuivalent to the .Assyrian
issakku. The word patesi, whilst implying that the
ruler is the representative of the national god, indicates
the possession of a power less su])reme than that
attaching to the word lugal (.Sem. sarru), 'king,' and
it has Ijeen ingeniously suggested that the change in
title was in consequence of an actual change in the
fortunes of the city, the rule of the patesis being held
to mark the subjection of their city to another jxnver.
The manner in which the succession of the various
kings and patesis was determined has been already
referred to (see above, § 37) ; the following is a brief
description of their history based on those results.
The oldest king of Sirpurla known to us is in all proUability
Uriikafiina. .\fler an interval, tlic length of which is unknown,
we fuid Ur-Nina on the throne; and, as he
44. Rulers of gives to neither his father nor grandfather
Sirpurla the title of king, it is not unreasonable to
or Laeash conclude that he was the originator of a new
° ■ dynasty, a dynasty that we can trace tlirough
several generations. Ur-N ina was succeeded by his son -Vkurgal,
who bore both the titles, king and patesi, and it was not untd
the reign of K-dingira-nagin, .Vkurgal's son and successor, that
the title patesi appears to have ousted that of king permanently.
It is during the reign of E-dingira-nagin, however, that we
find the first record of any extensive military operations under-
taken by the inhabitants of .Sirpurla. To his reign belongs the
famous stele of vultures, carved to commemorate his victory
over the city the name of which is provisionally read as Isban.
E-dingira-nagin was succeeded by Ins brother En-annatuma 1.,
whose son Entena and grandson En-anna-tuma II. con-
tinued the succession. After a second interval comes Ur-Hau,
from whom the throne passes through his daughter to his
son-in-law Nanimaghani. -Vfter a third but shorter interval
there followed (judea, who conducted a successful campaign
against Elam, but, like his predecessors, devoted most of his
energies to building operations. He was succeeded by his son
Ur-Ningirsu ; and hnally there must be placed a second Akur^al
and either before or after him Lukani, whose son Ghalalama
may possibly have succeeded him on the throne.
The monumental inscriptions of these old kings and .
patesis of Sirpurla are, with the e.\ception of one of
.•. mi. • Ur-Bau and several of Gudea, com-
45. Their ,1 j ,,
. _i i- paratively short, and are generally
Cnptions. concerned with the erection of build-
ings and temples in the city, an object to which lx)th
kings and patesis without exception devoted themselves.
The thou.sands of clay tablets, howe\er, which have
been discovered dating from this period, the high point
of development attained in their sculpture and carving
in relief, the elalx)rate but solid construction of their
temples and palaces, are all evidence of a highly !
develojK'd civilisation ; and the c|uestion at once arises I
as to what date must l)e assigned
for the rise of the kingdom of
Sirpurla. Additional interest is lent to the way in
which this question may lie answered by the fact
that even the earliest inscriptions and carvings that
language but merely a cabalistic method of writing invented
by the Semitic Babylonians themselves w.-us for years stoutly
defended by its adherents ; it has now, however, given way
before the results of recent excavations. The thousands of
archaic tablets found at Telloh and elsewhere are written
entirely in Sumerian by a people who both in their inscriptions
and in their art exhibit no traces of Semitic origin. The exist-
ence of .Sumerian as the language of these early inhabitants of
Babylonia is now generally admitted. See also below, g 71 (end).
^16. Their date.
BABYLONIA
have Ix?en disccjvered cannot have l>eeM the work of a
barbarous race, but demand the assumption that at
least one thou.s;ind years, during which they gradually
attained their high level of civilisation and culture, h.ad
])assed.
It will be obvious that, as the date of Sargon I. is
already fixed, the simplest way of answering the question
and of assigning a date to the earlier kings of Sirpurla
is to {ietermine the relation in which they st<j<)d to
Sarg<jn I. Until recently it was imi>.)ssible to come to
any definite conclusion, though it was generally hekl
that the archaic forms of characters on the inscriptions
of the kings of Sirpurla favoured the theory which
assigned to them an early date. The excavations at
Xipijur, however, have now yielded sufficient data to
justify a more conclusive answer.
In the sanie stratum as the inscriptions of .Sargon
and Alusarsid, and not far from them, was found a
fragment of a vase inscrilied with the name of Kntena,
patesi of Sirpurla, who is said to have i)resented the vase
to En-lilla or Hcl, the god of Nipinir. It w<juld Ix-- rash
to conclude from this f;\ct alone that Knten.a was the
contein[X)rary of .Sargon I. , though it may Ije held to
indicate that approximately the same date may lie
assigned to Sargon and the earlier patesis of ."^irijurla.
I';xcavations, however, were subse(|uenlly extended Ix-low
the level at which the records of .Sargon had been found,
and traces of a still more ancit-nt civilisation were
disclosed. An altar with a small enclosure or curb
around it, two immense vases of clay standing at short
intervals fronj e;ich other, probably on an inclined
plane leading up to the altar, and a massive builtling
with an ancient arch, were the principal architectural
remains discovered. However, there were also found
inscriptions which, though occurring at a hifjlier
level and mixed with the inscriptions of Sargon, are
probably to be assigned to a pre-.Sargonic period. As
the majority of these are broken into small fragm<;nts,
it is not unlikely that they were intentionally broken
and scattered by some subsetjuent invader of the country.
Gate-sockets and blocks of diorite, however, were not
broken, and so were ni;ule use of by subsetjuent kings.
Thus both .Sargon I. and Bur-Sin II. used for their
own inscriptions the blocks which already bore the
rough inscription of Lugal-kigub-nidudu, one of the
kings of this early period. The characters in these
early inscriptions, esi>ecially on the vases of Lugal-
zaggisi, the most powerful of these early kings, bear a
striking resemblance to tho.se employed in the inscriptions
of the earliest kings of Sirpurla ( L'rukagina, Ur-Xina,
and K-dingira-nagin), sharing with them certain
peculiarities of form which are not met with elsewhere.
The conclusion that they date from al)out the siiine
period is, therefore, not unwarranted ; and. as this period
nuist Ix; placed Ix-fore Sargon I., we are justified in
assigning to L'rukagina a date not later than 4000 B.C.
To trace in detail the history of the predecessors of
.Sargon I., whose existence w.as not susjx?cted until the
_ . lowest strata beneath the temple of F.ktir
47. e ore ^^ Xippur had been sifted, is a task that
° ' requires some ingenuity. Our only source
of information is afforded by the fragmentary in.scrip-
tions themselves ; but, as many of these tire dupli-
cates, it is possible to reconstruct their original
text. The earliest rulers of Babylonia, such as Kn-
sag-sagana, are found in conflict with the city of Kis,
and spoil from Kis was from time to time placed as an
offering in the temple at Nippur. Sometimes Kis w.is
victorious, and then the king of Ki.s, as in the case of
Ur-.Sulp.iuddu, made a presentation to the temple at
Nippur in his own behalf The ultimate superiority of
Kis, however, w.as assured by its alliance with the
fxjwerful city of Isban ; for Lugal-zaggisi, son of Ukus,
patesi of Isban, on coming to the throne, extended his
sway over the whole of Babylonia. He has left us a
record of his achievements in a long inscription carved
443
48. Ur.
circa 2800.
BABYLONIA
on more than a hundred vases, which he deposited in
Nippur. Though he especially favoured his own city
of Isban, l>och was probably his capital, while Ur,
Larsa, and Nippur were important centres. Lugal-
zaggisi's empire did not long survive him, and the lead
in Babylonian politics passed to the city of Sirpurla.
K-dingira-nagin's conquest of Isban, however, was not
followed up by his successors on the throne ; and the
hegemony passed once more to the north, this time to
Sargon of Agad^, who laid all Babylonia under his
sway, the rulers of Sirpurla exchanging the title of
king for that of patesi in consequence of their subjection
to him. Such may be taken as a general sketch of the
course of Babylonian history up to the time of Sargon I.
It is impossible to say to what race or nationality
Lugal-zaggisi and the earlier kings belonged, though
we may mention the theory of Ililprecht, who sees in
their successes against the cities of Babylonia the earliest
Semitic invasions of the country ; regarding Kis as
their first military outpost, and Isban, which he is
probably wrong in identifying with Harran, as their
military base. Another patesi of Isban who may be
placed in this early period is Mul-Babbar (in Semitic,
Amcl-Samas), whose inscription on three clay cones is
preserved in the British Museum.
After the fall of Sargon's empire, the first city that
appears to have gained a considerable supremacy
throughout Babylonia is Ur. Under Lugal-
kigub-nidudu Ur had already risen to some
importance ; but the city had been incluiled in Sargon's
kingdom, and it was not until nearly a thousand
years after his death that it again recovered
its position. Only two of her kings at this
later period are known to us, Ur-gur and Dungi. In
addition to their title ' king of Ur,' both style themselves
kings of Sumer and Akkad, a title implying that many
cities throughout both southern and northern Babylonia
had tendered their submission and acknowledged allegi-
ance to them. The monuments themselves bear witness
that this title was no empty boast, but had its founda-
tion in a real supremacy.
A seal cylinder in the British Museum bears a dedication to
Ur-( lur, ' the mighty hero, king of Ur,' by a ' patesi of the city of
15kun-Sin, his servant,' while there is evidence that the later
patesis of Sirpurla were subject to Ur, the Louvre possessing a
fragment of a statue dedicated to the goddess Bau by Ghala-
lama, 'son of Lukani, patesi of .Sirpurla, for the life of Dungi,
'the mighty king, king of Ur, king of Sumer and Akkad'; an
inscription with a similar purpose of the time of Ur-Ningirsu,
Gudea's son and successor, is preserved in the British Museum.
That Ur-gur was a great builder is attested by the many
short inscriptions on bricks recovered from the ruins of the
buildings which he either founded or restored. P'rom these we
gather that he built the great temple of the Moon-god in Ur,
while in Erech he erected a temple to Nina, the goddess Istar.
On a brick from a tomb discovered by Loftus at Senkereh,
the ancient Larsa, is recorded the fact that Ur-gur built a temple
to the Sun-god there, and bricks found at Nippur record his
rebuilding of the great temple of E-kur in that city. Excava-
tions at the latter place show that this temple was_ larger than
any of its predecessors; buildings that had been standing since the
time of Naram-Sin he razed to the ground in order to erect his
huge platform of sun-dried bricks, m the NW. corner of which
he built a huge zikkurratu (temple tower) of at least three stories.
Ur-gur thus appears to have erected or rebuilt temples in most
of the principal cities of Babylonia ; in his zeal lor religion,
however, he did not neglect to strengthen his own capital, for
we have evidence that he erected, or at any rate rebuilt, the
city-wall of Ur. His son and successor Dungi, 'king of Ur,
king of Sumer and Akkad, king of the four quarters,' carried on
the work of temple-building to which his father had devoted
himself, and restored the temple of I.^Star in Erech. An in-
teresting clay tablet in the British Museum contains a copy of
an old inscription that once stood in a temple at Cuthah. The
copy was made in the later Babylonian period by a scribe named
Bcl-uballit, and the archaic inscription, which his care has
rescued from oblivion, records the erection by Dungi of a
temple to the god Nergal in the city of Cuthah.
With Dungi our knowledge of the city of Ur and its
supremacy comes to an end for a time. Whether
|. . Dungis succes.sors retained for long their
49. lain, j^^^ij ^ygj. jj^g |.j.gj pj- liabylonia, or sjieedily
sank into a position of dependence to some other city,
we have no means of telling. When we once more
443
BABYLONIA
come across inscriptions we see that the lead in .'■ umer
and Akkad has passed into the hands of the kings of Isin.
At present we possess inscriptions of four kings of Isin ; Ur-
Ninib, Libit-I.5tar, Bur-Sin I., and I5me-Dag.-\n. In the case
of each of (hem, before their chief title 'king of
Ctrca 2500. i^i,,' J5 given special mention is made of Nippur,
Ur, Eridu, and Erech as be^ng under their sway. The order in
which these cities are mentioned is significant. The fact that
Nipinir heads the list proves that Ur sank greatly in importance
after the days when she held the lead in Sumer and Akkad.
A fifth king of Isin, named ISbigirra, is known to us ; the only
evidence of his e.\istence, however, is the occurrence of his name
and title on a fragment of a clay tablet in the British Museum.
The rule in Babylonia now passes once more to the city of Ur,
which regains its old supremacy. ISme-Dagan was the last
king of Isin who retained the title of ' king of Sumer and
Akkad,' and held together the confederation of Babylonian
cities which that name implies ; we (ind his son
50. 2na Dyn. erecting a temple for the life of Gungunu, king
of Ur. of Ur, as a token of homaKe. Under Gungunu
began the second dynasty of Ur, to which the
circa 2400. kings Bur-Sin II., Ine-Sin, and Gamil-Sin be-
long. The many inscriptions on clay tablets
that have been recovered, dated in the reigns of these three
kings, testify to the great commercial prosperity of Babylonia
at this time. The rise of the city ol Larsa followed
51. Larsa. the second dyn.-isty of Ur. The kings of the
former city held Ur as a dependency, and appear
to have extended their rule still farther afield, for they assume
also the title 'king of Sumer and Akkad." The two principal
kings of Larsa were Nur-Kamman and his son Sin-iddina.
Both erected temples in Ur, and the latter founded
Ctrca 2300. a temple to the Sun-god in his capital. Sin-iddina
also, after meeting with success in the field, turned his attention
to the internal improvement of his territory. He rebuilt on a
larger scale the wall of Larsa, and by cutting a canal obtained
for that city a constant supply of water.
Sin-iddina does not mention the name of the enemy
his victory over whom he records. It has been sug-
pi gested, however, with great probability,
■ that it was F.lani whom he repulsed. This
must have been the period of the Elamite invasion
to which Asur-bani-pal refers. On taking the city of
Susa, about 650 B.C., Asur-bani-pal relates that he
recovered the image of the goddess Nana, which the
I-.lamite Kudur-Nanhundj had carried off from Krech
1635 years before — i.e., about 2285 B.C. Though Sin-
iddina repulsed the Elamites, he did not check them
for long. A few years later we find them under the
leadership of Kudur-Mabug, son of Simti-silhak,
again invading Babylonia. This time they met with
more success and obtained a jjermanent footing in
the south. Kudur-Mabug was not king of Elam. He
styles himself ' prince of the Western land ' : that is to
say, he was ruler of the tract of land lying on the
W. frontier of Elam. Erom this position he invaded
the country, and, having established himself as king of
S. Babylonia, he erected a temple in Ur to the Moon-
god in gratitude for his success. His son, Rim-aku,
succeeded him and attempted to consohdate his
kingdom, restoring and rebuilding Ur and extending
his influence over Erech, Larsa, and other cities ; his
usual titles were ' exalter of Ur, king of Larsa, king of
Sumer and Akkad.' It is a period of much interest for
the biblical student (see Cukuoki.aomer).
During the second dynasty of Ur the city of Babylon
had enjoyed a position of independence, with her own
_ . ^ kings and system of government ; but her
03. caoyion. j^fiuence does not appear to have extended
beyond the limits of the city. It was not until the
reign of Hammu-rabi, the contemporary of Sin-iddina
and Rim-Aku, that she attained the position of im-
portance in Babylonia which she held without inter-
rujition for nearly two thousand years. The dynasty to
which Hammu-rabi belongs was called by the native
historians the ' Dynasty of Babylon,' and, as far as we
at present know, forms the limit to which
Ctrca 2400. jj^^.y traced back the existence, or at any
rate the indejjendence, of their city.
The dyn.isty was founded about 2400 B.C. by Sumu-abi, who
was succeeded by Sumula-iluand Zahum his son. It is possible
that on Z.-ibum's death a usurper, Immeru, attempted to ascend
the throne ; but his rule cannot have been for long, as scribes of
contract tablets do not give him the title of king, and his
name is omitted from the list of kings of Dynasty I., Zabum's
BABYLONIA
koii, Apil-Sin, being stated to h»ve directly succeeded his father.
Of the reign of Apil-Sin's son, Sin-nuil>.illi(, we know nothing,
his only claim to remembrance being tliai lie was the father of
^aminu-ralii.
It is difficult to determine accurately the position
otcupietl by Habylon when yammu-rabi ascended the
84 Hamrau- '^''""*-'- '^^ni she was already beginning
rabi ^'^ extend her sway over the districts in
her iniincdiato neighbourhood we may
conclude from a reference on a cylinder of Natxjnidus,
who states that the temples of the Sun-god and of the
goddess Anunitu at Sippar had been falling into decay
'since the time of Zabum ' ; the phrase implies th.-tt
Zabum had at any rate rebuilt these temples, and nmst,
therefore, have includetl Sippar within his sphere of
influence. We may regard it as certain, however, that
the authority of the city had not penetrated into southern
IJabylonia. On Hammu-rabi's accession he first
devoted himself to the internal improvement of his
circa saSe, ^^''''''^''''y- J" th<^ P^^^ L)o'h Babylon and
^' Sijjpar had suffered from floods, and the
recurrence of these he sought to diminish by erecting
dams and cutting canals. One inscription of his,
written both in Sumerian and in Semitic Babylonian
on clay cylinders in the British Museum, reads as
follows : —
yan\mu-rabi, the mighty king, king of Babylon, king of the
four quarters, the founder of tlie land, the king whose deeds
unto the heart of §ama5 and Marduk are well-pleasing, am I.
The summit of the wall of Sippar like a great mountain with
earth I raised. Witli a swamp I surrounded it. The canal of
Sippar to Sippar I dug out and a wall of safety I erected for it.
^anunu-rabi, the founder of the land, the king whose deeds unto
the heart of SamaS and Marduk are well -pleasing, am I.
Sippar and Babylon in a peaceful habitation ,1 caused to dwell
continuously. Hammu-ralii, the darling of Sama^, the beloved
of Marduk, am 1. That which from days of old no king for
his king had built, for SamaS my lord gloriously have I accom-
plished.
In addition to his works at Sippar we learn from
another inscription that he cut the ' Hammu-rabi canal,"
on both sitles of which he sowed corn-fields. He
erected a granary in Babylon, in which he stored grain
for use in years of famine or scarcity. The inscription
recording the erection of the granary has perished ; but
we possess a copy of it in clay, made in the N'eo-Baby-
lonian period by Rimut-Gula, and deposited in Babylon
in the temple E-zida. Hammu-rabi's works of imjirove-
ment, however, were not confined to Sippar and Babylon.
As he extended his authority throughout the country,
he introduced the same enlightened methods, rebuilding
the temples of the gods in the various cities, conciliating
the inhabitants, and out of scattered principalities form-
ing a single and organic kingdom, with its metropolis
at Babylon. The principal enemy to Babylonian
independence at this period was P31am ; but after a series
of campaigns Hammu-rabi signally defeated her, and
effectually hindercnl her advances to the S. and W. ,
after which he was again at liberty to devote himself to
the material improvement of his people. Hammu-rabi
was not the first king of Babylonia to form a great
empire out of scattered elements. Lugal-zaggisi and
Sargon I. had already made this achievement, and it
is not unlikely that their empires considerably exceeded
that of Hammu-rabi in extent. Hammu-rabi's work,
however, is distinguished from theirs by «s permanence.
Whilst Isban and Agad^ soon sank back into compara-
tive obscurity, Babylon remained the chief town of the
kingdom throughout the whole course of its history.
Hamnui-rabi was succeeded by his son Samsu-iluna, the other
65 His '''Pl?? of the first dynasty being KbiSum, Am-
nii-ditana, Ammi-zaduga, and Samsu-ditana,
successors, who follow one another in direct succession.
circa 2230. Samsu-iluna continued his father's work of ir-
rigation, and we know from two inscriptions
that he budt many temples to the gods. Of his successors,
however, we possess few inscriptions, though manv contracts,
dated m the reign of each of the kings of this dynasty, have
been found which throw an interesting light on the private and
social sides of Babylonian life at this period.
The second dynasty consists of eleven kings —
445
BABYLONIA
Iluma-ilu, Itti-ilu-nibi, Damki-ilisu, Is-ki-bal, and his
66. 2nd Dyn. ^^'''''her Su-us-si, (Jul-ki-iar and his son
Uru-Azag. l^irgal-dara-mas, and his grandson A-
dara-kalama, A-kur-ul-ana, Melam-
arca 2090. miiiiai. and Ivn-gamil. Of this dynjisty
we know nothing, though it has U-en conjectured with
some probability that it was during this |jcriod that
the Kassites first invaded liabylonia. IX-scending frcjm
the mountainous territoi^y on the lx>rders of Media
and Elam, they overran the country and took ]X)sses-
sion of the cities ; and at the beginning of tlie third
dynasty we find them firmly seated on the throne.
So far as we know, they were never ejected by force,
but were absorbed in protcss of time by the Semitic
element of the nation, which gradually recovered its
predominance.
There were thirty-six kings of the third dynasty ; but
only the names of the kings at the begiiming and of those
B7 3rd Dvn. ^^ ''^*'' ^'"'^ "^ *'^*^ dynasty have lx.-en pre-
^^ served in the Babylonian list of kings.
Other sources of information, however, now become
available ; the ' .Synchronous History ' gives a rdsumd of
the relations between Babylonia and Assyria, which
during the early part of the third Babylonian dynasty
attained its independence (cp Assvki.\, § 25); the
account furnished by the '.Synchronous Hi.story" is
supplemented by the mutilated text of a somewhat
similar Babylonian chronicle ; the official corresjxjnd-
ence between I^bylonia and Egypt during a small part
of this jieriod is preserved on some of the tablets
found at Tell el-Amarna ; and, finally, inscrijnions of
several of the kings themsehes have been recovered, as
well as contract-tablets dated in their reigns.
The first king of the dynasty was Gandis, who w,xs succeeded
/-/.vvj TTotr ^y Aguni-.si, (ju-ia-.si, Ui-si, .'Vdu-me-ur, and Uz-
cnca 1725. iji.u.n.ai. Here the gap occurs in the list of
kings ; and it is probably at some point in this gap that we
must pLice .\gum, who is known to us from a long inscrijjtion,
a copy of which in Neo-Assyrian characters was preserved in
the library of .\5ur-brini-pal ; from it we learn that he recovered
.• J coo ^"'^ restored to the temple of E-sagila in Babylon
6 ca 1500. (-(.ftain iin.iges of Marduk and of the goddess
Zarpanitu, which had been carried otf to the land of Hani.
A later place in the same gap must be assigned to
Kallimma-Sin (or Kadashman-Bel ? cp Knudtzon, ZA
15 269/), four of whose letters are in the Amarna series;
this correspondence ser\es to indicate the intimate re-
lations between Egyjn and Babylonia at this period,
both the sister and daughter of Kallimma-Sin being
among the princesses of western Asia whom the king of
I'.gypt married. The order of the other kings, whose
names have been recovered and must be placed within
the same gap in the list of kings, has not yet been
ascertained.
It has recently been suggested, for example, that Sag.iSalti-
BurLx?, the son of Kudur-Hcl, should be placed before Kar.i-
inda.5, though a later date is possible ; moreover, Kurigalzu
I., the son of Kadasman-Harbe, is usually placed after and not
before Kara-indas, though a suggestion has latelv been made to
the contrary. According to the 'Synchronous History' Kara-
indaS was a contemporary of the Assyrian king, .-VSur-liel-niSisu,
between whom and A5ur-uballit at least two kings, Pu7ur-A5ur
and A5ur-nadin-ahe, occupied the throne of Assyria ; from the
same document we know that between Kara-inda5 and Kara-
harda.5, the contemporarj' of Aiur-uballit, at least one king,
Burna-Buri.-vS, occupied the throne of B.-ibylon ; yet on the
similar Babylonian chronicle Kara-inda^ is mentioned as the
son-in-law of A5ur-uballit, and the father of Kara-hardaS. It is
p<.)ssible to reconcile these two accounts only on the sup|>osition
that the Kara-inda5 of the ' Synchronous History' is not to be
identified with the son-in-law of A.^ur-uballit. On this assump-
tion, and at the same time admitting that certain pl.-ices in the
order of succession are not definitely ascertained, we are still
able to summarise the chief events of the period. Kara-
ind-oS is the first I'abylonian king mentioned in the 'Synchronous
History," where he is said to have formed a treaty with ASur-
jj bCl-niSiSu, king of Assyria ; simiUir friendly re-
Circa I4»0. l^iions with the northern kingdom were probably
maintained by Kurigalzu I. ami his father Kadaiman-Harbe.
• , , ,_ Burna-Buria.5, the son of KungaUu I., formed a
circa 1440. fresh treaty with Assyria concerning the frontier
between the two kingdoms, and built a temple to the Sungodat
Larsa, as we learn from a brick that has been recovered from its
ruin.s. A.^ur-uballi(, who succeeded A$ur-nadin-al}£ on the throne
of Assyria, strengthened the ties between his kingdom and
446
BABYLONIA
Baliyloiiia by marrying his daughter Muballijat-SerQa to a
king of Babylonia, who bore the name of Kara-inda.^ ; and when
his grandson, Kara-hardas, the son of Kara-indaJ, succeeded
to the throne of Babylon, the relations between the two coun-
tries were still more cordial. The Kassite troops, however,
possibly jealous of Assyrian influence, slew Kara-hardas and set
the usurper Nazi-bug:uS on the throne. The death
Circa 1400. ^,f Kara-hardai led to the invasion of Babylonia by
.\sur-uballit, who avenged his grandson by slaying Nazi-bugaS,
and putting Kurigalzu II., a son of Burna-Buria-JS, the former
king of Babylon, in his place. Kurigalzu II. was ambitious to
extend the boundary of his kingdom ; and with this end in view
he undertook a campaign against Klam, the capital of wliicli he
coii'iuercd and sacked, as we learn from an inscription on an
agate tablet which was found at Nippur. On undertaking
hostilities against Assyria, however, he was defeated by Bel-
o nirari, and was forced to accept the terms offered
Circa 1380. jjy ,i,g i,,,n.r with regard to the boundary between
the two kingdoms. The ne.xt defeat by the Assyrians which the
Babylonians sustained was in the reign of Nazi-maruttas, the son
of Kurigalzu II., when Kamman-nirari inflicted a
circa 1340. gig,,^! Jefeat on the Bal)ylonian forces and extended
the Assyrian boundary still farther southward. Kadasman-
Turgu, whose name was also written Kadasman-Bcl, the son
of Nazi-maruttas, succeeded his father on the throne, and
was in turn succeeded by his son, whose name, occurring in
a broken inscription from Nippur, may probalily be restored
[KadasmanJ-Burias. The Babylonian List of Kings furnishes
the names of the last kings of the dynasty. Of Is-am-me- . . .
-ti we know nothing, and of Sagasalti-Surias only the fact that
he dedicated an object to Bel and placed it in the temple at
Nippur. .Sagasalti-Surias was succeeded by his son Bibe, and
the names of the next three occupants of the throne are Bel-
Sum-iddina, KadaSman-Harbe, and Kamman-Sum-iddina. We
do not know the relations between Babylonia and .Vssyria dur-
ing the early part of this period ; but it is probable that the last
three kings acknowledged the .supremacy of .Xssyria. Tukulti-
Ninib, king of -Assyria, to whom Rammfm-nirari III. ascribed
the title ' king of Sumer and Akkad,' invaded Babylonia, cap-
tured Babylon, and for seven years maintained his hold upon
the country. On the death of Rammrin-i5um-iddina, however,
the Babylonian nobles placed his son Ramman-.'Sum-usur on
the throne, and, proclaiming him king, threw off the As-
syrian yoke. Subsequently, during the reign of Ramman-5um-
.... usur, the Assyrians suffered a crushing defeat ;
cina 1210. their king, Bel-kudur-usur, was slain in the battle ;
and although Ramman-sum-usur, on following up his victory by
an invasion of Assyria, was repulsed by Ninib-pal-Ksara, he
recovered a considerable portion of Babylonian territory. Dur-
ing the reigns of Meli-sihu, and of his .son, Marduk-pal-iddina,
the Assyrians made no attempt to wipe out the reverse they had
sustained. On the accession of Zamama-sum-iddina, however,
A.sur - dan crossed the frontier and recaptured
Circti 1155. several Babylonian cities. Zamama-.sum-iddina
reigned only one year, and was succeeded by Bcl-sum-iddina II.,
the last king of the Kas.site dynasty. Under this king the
country suflcred attacks from Elam, and the discontent and
misery which followed the defeats sustained by the Babylonians
brought alK)Ut the fall of the dynasty.
The fourth dynnsty is called the dynasty of Pas^ ;
who its founder was we do not know, though an early
, , ^ place in it must be assigned to Nebuchad-
■p y. ,^' rezzar I. In one of the two monuments
(Fase). jj^^j ^^.^ possess of this king he styles
himself ' the .Sun of his land, who makes his people
prosperous, the protector of boundaries'; and it is certain
that to a great extent he restored the fallen fortunes of
the kingciom. He successfully prosecuted campaigns
against Elam on the east, he conquered the Lulubi on
the north, and even marched victoriously
3 • jpHQ Syria, .\gainst Assyria, however, he
did not meet with similar success.
On Nebuchadrezzar's crossing the frontier, ASur-reJ-iSi,
king of .Assyria, marched against him, and Nebuchadrezzar,
who was not then prepared to meet an army of the A.s-
syrians, burnt what engines of war he had with him, in order
to facilitate his retreat. He soon returned with reinforce-
ments ; but A.5ur-re5-i5i, who had also strengthened his army,
defeated him, plundered his camp, and carried off forty of his
chariots. A king who reigned early in the dynasty and may
possibly have .succeeded Nebuchadrezzar is Bel-nadin-aplu,
whose name is known from a 'boundary stone' dated in the
fourth year of his reign. Under Mardnk-nSdin-ahc Assyria
and Babylonia were again in conflict. It is probable that this
king enjoyed a temporary success again.st Tiglath-pileser I.,
during which he carried off from the city of
Circa mo. K^allati the images of the gods Ramman and
Sala which are mentioned by Sennacherib in his inscription on
the rock at Bavian. This campaign is not mentioned in the
'Synchronous History," though in the beginning of the account
of the campaign there mentioned, which ended di.sastrously for
Babylonia, the two kings, it is said, set their chariots in battle
array 'a second time" (see Assyria, S 28). This second cam-
447
BABYLONIA
paign consisted of a series of successes for Tiglath-pileser, who,
after defeating Marduk-nadin-ahe in Akkad, captured Babylon
itself and other important cities in the northern half of the
kingdom. .\siir-bel-kala, Tiglath-pileser's .successor on the
throne of Assyria, changed his father s policy and formed treaties
with the Babylonian king Marduk-Sapik-z£r-mati.l On this
king's death Kamman-aplu-iddina, a man of ob-
Circa 1 100. scure origin, was raised to the throne of Babylon,
and A.?ur-bel-kala, in pursuance of his policy, allied himself to
the new king by a marriage with his daughter. Only the
beginnings of the names borne by the last three kings of the
dynasty are preserved in the List of Kings.
The fifth dynasty was called the dynasty of the ' Sea-
land,' and was a short one, consisting of only three
Kth T» '^•"gs, Simmas-sihu, Ea-mukin-zer, and
■ ,„ , '^ Ka.s.su-nadin-ahi. It is not improbable
..^ '■ that the Chaldean tribes, who are not
-' ' actually mentioned in the inscriptions be-
fore the time of Asur-na.sir-pal and .Shalmaneser II.,
were even at this early period making their inlluence
felt, overrunning southern Babylonia and spreading
themselves throughout the country ; and the fact that
at a later time we find them especially connected with
the district termed the ' Sea-land ' in S. Babylonia lends
colour to the suggestion that the dynasty of the Sea-
land was of Chaldean origin.
Of the three kings of the dynasty f^a-mukln-zer reigned but a
few months ; the other two kings, who occupied the throne for
longer periods, are mentioned by Nabu-aplu-iddina in connection
with the fortunes of the temple of the Sun-god at Sippar. At the
time of Simma.s-.sihu this temple was in ruins in consequence
of the troubles and disturbances in Akkad, the powerful tribes
of the Sutu having previou.sly invaded the country, laying the
temple in ruins and breaking up the sculptures. .Simmas-sihu
partially restored the structure of the temple, and placed it in
charge of a priest for whose maintenance he appointed regular
offerings. In the violent death of SimmaJ-Sihu, of which we learn
from the fragment of a Babylonian Chronicle, and in the short-
ne.ssof the reign of Ea-mukln-zer, we may probably see additional
indications of the disturbed state of the country at this time.
Under Ka.ssu-nadin-ahi the general distress was increa.sed by a
famine, in consequence of which the regular offerings for the
temple of Samas at Sippar ceased.
The first king of the sixth dynasty was E-ulbar-sakin-5iim,
and on his accession to the throne K-kur-.'Num-uSabii, the priest
cft ctVi 'nim whom Simmas-§iliu had placed in charge of
60. bin liyn. t^e temple at Sippar, complained to the king
(of Bazi). that the offerings had ceased. On hearing the
circa 1021; ^'^'^ °f 'he temple's resources E-ulbar-Sikin-
•-'■ JSum increased the regular offerings and endowed
the temple with certain property situated in Babylon. The
sixth dynasty con.sisted of only three kings, E-ulbar-5akin-5um
being succeeded by Ninib-kudurri-usur and .Silanim-Sukamuna ;
it was termed the dynasty of the House of Bazi, and each of the
three kings on a fragment of a chronicle is termed a 'son ofBazi.'
From this point onwards for nearly a hundred years
there is a gap in our knowledge of Babylonian history.
After the dynasty of the House of Bazi an
61. Gap. lllamite occupied the throne for si.\ years ;
but his name is not known, nor are the
circumstances that attended his accession.
He did not perpetuate his hold upon the country ;
for on his death the rule again passed
/R h 1 ■ ' *° "■^''''' Babylonians, the kings of the
(Babylon), ^jgj^jj^ dynasty, which was the second
to bear the title ' the dynasty of Babylon.'
The names of the early kings of the dynasty are not preser\-ed,
though Sibir, a Babylonian king whom A!5ur-nasir-pal mentions
as having destroyed a city which he himself rebuilt, is probably to
be placed in this period. The first king of this dynasty of whose
• '■*'§" details are known is SamaS-mudammik, who
circa 910. jy^grgj ^ serious defeat at the hands of Kamman-
nirari II., king of Assyria. Against Nabu-5um-i5kun, his suc-
cessor on the throne, Kamman-nirari scored
Circa 900. another victory, .several B.ibylonian cities falling
into his* hands, though we subsequently find him on good terms
with Assyria and allying himself to Nabu-sum-i5kun, or possibly
his successor, each monarch marrying the other's daughter.
00 Nabi'i-aplu-iddina is the next king who is known
Circa 880. ,„ have ruled in Babylon, and, though he aided
the people of Suhi against A.sur-nasir-pal, his relations with
Shalmaneser II. were of a friendly nature. He is the king who
restored and endowed so richly the temple of .SamaS at Sippar,
digging in the ruins of former structures till he found the ancient
image of the god. He restored and redecorated the shrine, and
with much ceremony established the ritual and offerings for the
god, placing them under the direction of Nabu-nadin-Sum, the
area 1005.
i
1 The name has also been read Marduk-Sapik-kuIlat.
448
BABYLONIA
son of the former priest E-kur-sum-uSab-Si. Marduk-Sum- i
kldina Miccccilcd his father on the throne ; but his tirother '
Q Mardiik-lxil-usati headed a revolt against him, and
Circa B50. ,.^,„,^.|i^.j him to tall in the aid of Shalnianeser
of Assyria, who defeated the rebels and restored the land to
order. Shalmaneser's son and successor, SamSi-Kamman II.,
was not on the same terms of friendship with Babylonia. He
directed an expedition against that country and plundered many ]
cities before meeting with serious opposition. Marduk-balatsu- j
Q ikbi, the Kabylonian kinK, had meanwhile col-
Ctrca a 1 2. |^.,^j ^is forces, which included bands from i:iam,
Chaldea, and other districts ; and the two armies met near the
city of Dur-I'apsukal. Marduk-balatsu-ikbi was totally de-
feated : 50(X) of his troops were slain ; zcxx) more were captured ;
and rich booty, including 100 chariots of war, fell into the hands
of the .Assyrians. Ramman-nirari III., the successor of Sanisi-
Rammfm, also subjugated a considerable portion of Babylonia,
carrying away to Assyria Bau-ah-iddina, the Babylonian king,
together with the treasures of hispalace.
Here the record of the ' Synchrotious History ' ceases,
and there fcjliows another gap, of alxjut fifty years, in
our knowledge of the history of the country.
The next king of Babylon \vho.se name is known
is N'abu-suin-iskun — the first name which occurs after
63 Nabo ^^^ hreak in the List of Kings. His suc-
■ cessor was Xabfi-nasir, the Nabonassar
of the Ptolemaic Canon ; and with this
'■^'' king our knowledge of the Babylonian
succession becomes fuller, as, in addition to the evi-
dence afforded by the List of Kings, the information
contained in the Babylonian Chronicle and the Ptolemaic
Canon liecomes available. In the third year of Nabo-
nassar's reign, Tiglath-pileser III. ascended the throne
of .Assyria ; and one of his first acts was an invasion
of Babylonia, during which he overran the northern dis-
tricts and cajjtured several cities, carrying away many
of their inhabitants. The distress in the country due to
the inroads of the Assyrians was aggravated during
this reign by internal dissension : .Sippar repudiated
Nabonassar's authority, and the revolt was subdued only |
after a siege of the city.
The Babylonian Chronicle tells us that .after a reign of ;
fourteen years Nabonassar died in his palace at Babylon,
and was succeeded by his son Nadinu, the |
'•*■'■ Nadios of the Ptolemaic Canon, who is to l)e iden- I
tified with Nabu-nadin-zer of the list of kings. The 1
eighth dynasty ended with the country in confusion.
Nabu-nadin-zer, after a reign of only two years, was slain i
in a revolt by his son Nabfi-.sum-ukin or .Sum-ukin,
who had hitherto held the position of governor of
a province. After his accession the dynasty soon came
to an end. He had not enjoyed his position for more
th.in a month when the kingdom again changed hands
and Ukin-zer ascended the throne.
I'Vom the fall of the eighth dynasty until the rise of
the Xeo-Babylonian empire Babylonia was overshadowed
64 Assyrian ^^ ^^"^ '^°^^'^'' "'^ --Assyria, the kings of
sii^prnintv '^*^ '''^"*'"'" country frecjuently ruling Ijoth
BuzerainLy. ^^ xingveh and at Babylon. UkTn-zer
had reigned only three years when Tiglath-pileser again
invaded Babylonia, took him captive, and ascended the
throne of Babylon, where he ruled under the name of
Pulu (see TiGLATH-i'ii.KSKK). On his death,
which occurred two years later, he was succeedetl
in Assyria by .Shalnianeser I\'. , who, according to the
iiabylonian Chronicle, also succeeded him on the throne
of Babylon, though in the List of Kings Pulu is succet-ded
by Ululai. The two accounts can be reconciled
by the supposition that Ululai was the name
assumed by Shahnaneser as king of Babylon (see
Shalmaneskk). .Shalnianeser died after a reign of
five years, and, while .Sargon held the throne, .\1ero-
dach-baladan, a Chaldean from southern Babylonia,
freed Babylonia for a time from -Assyrian control. He
sided with Ummanig.as, king of Klam, in his
struggle with .Assyria ; but ten years later was
himself captured by .Sargon after being besieged in
the city of Ikbi-Bel (see MkR(JI)ACII-»ai,AI)AN,
729.
727.
721
703-
709.
Sar<;on). Sargon then ascended the throne of
lijibylon, which he held until his death
m 705.
BABYLONIA
According to the Ptolemaic Canon, the next two years
were a period of interregnum, tliough the List of Kin^s
a.ssigns the thnjne to Senn.acherib. However this may
Ix.', we know that in 703 Marduk-zakir-sum prtKlaimed
himself king ; but he had reigned for only one month
then he was murdered by Merodach-baladan,
iho had escap-d from .Assyria. Merodach-
baladan thus once more found himself king in Babylon ;
but Senn.-icherib marched against him. defeated him,
and caused him to seek safety by hiding himself in
the Babylonian swamps. After plundt-ring Babylon
and the neighlx)uring cities, Sennacherib returned to
.Assyria. leaving the kingdom in the charge of
' ■ Bcl-ibni, a young native Babylonian who had
l)een brought up at the .Assyrian court. On the death
of Merodach-baladan, .shortly afterwards, a rising
headed by Suzub, another Chaldean, brought .Sen-
nacherib again into the country. Bel-ibni also must
have displeased the king ; for, after defeating Suzub,
.V-nnacherib carried BCl-ibni and his nobles to .Assyria,
leaving his own son .Asur-nadin-sum upon the
' ■ throne. .Sennacherib next plamied an ex|jedilion
against the Chaldeans whom Merodach-baladan had
M'ttlcd at Nagitu, on the Llamite shore of the Persian
( iulf, whence they were able in safety to foment insur-
rections and plan revolt. Sennacherib, determined to
^^tamp out this disaffection, transported his troops in
; hips across the Persian (julf. Disembarking at the
mouth of the Euheus, they routed the Chaldeans
and their allies, and returned with much l)o<jty and
many capti\es to the Babylonian coast. .Meanwhile
.Suzub, who had previously esca[)ed .Sennacherib's pur-
.suit, collected his forces and with the help of Llam
captured Babylon and placed him.self upon the throne.
He is to Ix; identified with the Nergal-usCzib
"■^' of the Babylonian Chronicle and the List of
Kings. He, however, ruled for only one ye.ar. Sen-
nacherib, on his return from the Persian CJulf, defeated
his army and sent him in chains to Nineveh. Turning
his forces against Klam, he plundered a considerable
portion of the c<juntry, and was Mopix-d in his
advance into the interior only by the .setting in of
winter. In his absence a relx;! bearing the name
, of Suzub — the .Musezib-Marduk of the Chronicle
^ ■ and the List of Kings — seized the throne of
Babylon. Allying his forces with those of Elam, he
atlemiJted to oppose .Sennacherib in the field ; but the
combined armies were defeated at Hahile. Next year
.Sennacherib returned to Babylonia, captiiretl the cit\
of Babylon, and deported Musezib-Marduk and his
,„ family to Assyria. According to the Babylonian
"■ Chronicle and the Ptolemaic Canon, there now
occurred a second interregnum, though the List of
Kings credits .Sennacherib with the control of Babylonia.
On Sennacherib's murder in 681 his son Esarhaddon
, o was proclaimed king of Assyria. He succeeded
to the rule of Babylonia also, though a son of
Merodach-baladan made an attempt to gain the throne.
He came to Babylon and ]x;rsonally sujjerintended the
restoration of the city, rebuilding the temples and thtr
walls, and placing new images in the shrines of the
gods. During his reign Babylon enjoyed a sea.soii
of unusual prosjierity, and was free from the internal
feuds and dissensions from which she had been suf-
fering.
On Esarhadd(»n's death the throne of Babylon pa.sse<I
, , to his son .Samas-suni-ukin, his elder son, Asur-
^' banipal, having already been installetl on the
A.ssyrian throne during his father's lifetime. For some
years the two brothers were on friendly terms, and when
I'rtaku and the ICUimites, with the aid of some discon-
tented Babylonian chiefs, invaded the country, Asur-
blni-pal assisted his brother in repelling their attack.
I )uring all this time Sam.is-suni-ukin acknow letlged the
supremacy of Assyria and acquiesced in his brother's
active control of the internal aflfairs of botli kingdoms.
•150
BABYLONIA
At length, however, he wearied of this state of depend-
ence, and seizing an opportunity, organised a general
rising against Assyria among the neighbouring tribes
and nations who had hitherto owned her supremacy.
He bought the supp>ort of Ummanigas, king of Klam,
contracted an alhance with Arabia, and at the same
time enlisted the services of smaller chiefs. 'I'hough
one lialf of the Arabian army was defeated by the
Assyrians, the other half effected a junction with the
Elamites. This powerful combination, however, was
neutralised by the revolt of Tammaritu, the son of
Ummanigas, the king of I'^lam. In fact, the dissensions
in the ?',lamite camp proved of great service to Asur-
bani-pal, who completely crushed the confederation that
Samas-bum-ukin had brought against him (see AsUK-
BANI-PAL, §7). Samas-sum-ukm himself was besieged
in Babylon, and, on the capture of the city, he set fire to
his palace and perished in the fiames. According to the
List of Kings, he was succeeded by Kandalanu, the
, Kineladanos of the I'tolemaic Canon ; but this
'^'' king is probably to be identified with Asur-bani-
pal himself, who, on this supposition, like Tiglath-pileser
III. and Shalmaneser I\^ , ruled Assyria and Babylonia
under different names. The last years of his reign are
wrapped in obscurity ; but on his death the throne was
secured b)' Nabopolassar, who was destined
66. Nabo- to raise the fortunes of his country and to
polassax. found an empire, which, though it lasted for
625. If'ss than one hundred years, eclipsed by its
magnificence any previous period in the
varied history of the nation. Nabopolassar, ih fact,
was the founder of the Neo-Babylonian empire.
During the early part of Nabopolassar's reign Asur-
bani-jjal's successors on the throne of Assyria did not
relinquish their hold upon the southern kingdom. They
retained their authority for some time over a great part
of the country (see Assyrl^, § 33/.). Though we do
not possess historical documents relating to this period,
%\e may conclude that Nabopolassar during all these
years was strengthening his kingdom and seeking any
opportunity of freeing at least a part of it from the
Assyrian yoke, and it is not improbable that conflicts
between the Assyrian and Babylonian forces were
constantly occurring. Towards the end of his reign he
found the opportunity for which he was waiting in the
invasion of Assyria by the Medes. He allied himself
with the invaders by marrj'ing Nebuchadrezzar, his
, , eldest son, to the daughter of Cyaxares, and on
the fall of Nineveh had a share in the par-
tition of the kingdom. While N. Assyria and her
subject provinces on the N. and NW. fell to the Medes,
S. Assyria and the remaining provinces of the empire
were added to the territory of Babylon.
Before Natojxslassar could regard these acquisitions
of territory as secure?, he had first to reckon with the
power of ligypt. Necho H., the son and successor of
Psammetichus I. , soon after his accession to the throne
had set himself to accomplish the conquest of Syria. In
608, therefore, le had crossed the frontier of Egypt and
begun his march northwards along the Mediterranean
coast. Vainly opposed by JosiAH (q.v.), he pressed
forward and subdued the whole tract of country between
the Mediterranean and the Euphrates. For three years
he retained his hold on Syria, and it was only after the
fall of Nineveh that Nabopolassar successfully disputed
Ills possession of the country. Nabopolassar did not
himself head the expedition against the Egyptians, for
he was now old ; but he placed the tro<}ps under the
command of Nebuchadrezzar his son. The two armies
, met at Carchemish, where a decisive battle took
°^' place. Necho was utterly defeated ; thousands
of his troops were slain ; and Nebuchadrezzar pressed
after his flying army up to the very borders of Egypt.
While Nebuchadrezzar was still absent on this ex-
pedition Nabopolassar died. His son, therefore, returned
to Babylon and was duly installed as king in his
451
BABYLONIA
st2ad. It is probable that during the early part of
his reign Nebuchadrezzar consolidated his rule in Syria
and on the Mediterranean coast by
66. Nebuchad- yearly exjx?ditions in those regions.
rezzar. After a few )ears, however, the country
604. showed signs of repudiating Babylonian
control. Nebuchadrezzar returned to
the coast to suppress the rising. For some years things
remained quiet ; but soon after the accession of Apries
(see Egypt, § 69) to the throne of Egypt the ferment
revived. After a siege of a year and a half Jerusalem
fell (see Jeru.salem).
Tyre, the siege of which also Nebuchadrezzar under-
took, held out for thirteen years, 585-572 (see I'liCE-
NICIa). Built on an island, it was practically im-
pregnable from the land, while the blockade instituted
by the Babylonians did not prevent the entry of supplies
by water. More successful were Nebuchadrezzar's
campaigns against Egypt. We do not possess his
own account of them ; but an ?2gyptian inscription
records that on one of them (undertaken against Apries)
he forced his way through the country as far as SyCne,
the modern Aswan, on the borders of luhiopia ; and
it is not improljable that the country was subject to
Babylonia during the first few years of the reign of
Amasis II., who succeeded Apries on the Egyptian
throne (see Egypt, § 69). Nebuchadrezzar's hold
upon Egypt cannot, however, ha\e been permanent :
a fragment of one of his own inscriptions mentions
his sending an expedition to Egjpt in his thirty-seventh
year. During his reign the relations between
Babylonia and Media were of a friendly nature, as was
not unnatural from the close alliance that had been
established between the two kingdoms before the fall
of Nineveh. In a war between Media and Lydia, some
twenty years later, the Babylonians did not take part ;
but, when an eclipse of the sun on the 25th of May in
the year 585 put an end to a battle between the Lydians
and Medes, Nebuchadrezzar, in conjunction with the
king of Cilicia, used his influence to reconcile the com-
batants and bring the war to a close.
While constantly engaged in extending and solidi-
fying his empire, Nebuchadrezzar did not neglect
the internal improvement of his kingdom. He re-
built the cities and temples throughout the country,
and in particular devoted himself to the enlargement
of Babylon, completing its walls and rebuilding its
temples with such magnificence that the city tiecame
famous throughout the world (see Nkkuchadkezzar,
Babylon). Nebuchadrezzar died after reigning forty-
three years, and was succeeded by his son Amel-Marduk,
^ mentioned as Evii.-MliKODAC H (ij.v.) in 2 K.
^ ' 11>-2T ff. Of this king we possess no inscription,
though contracts dated in his reign have been found.
He was assassinated after a reign of two
67. His years in a revolt led by Neriglis.sar, his
successors, brother-in-law, who succeeded him upon
ceo. the throne (see Nergal - SHAKKZiiK).
His inscriptions that have been recovered
are concerned merely with his building operations. He
was succeeded by his son Labasi-Marduk, who,
^^ ■ after reigning nine months, was murdered by
his nobles. Nabu-na'id or Nabonidus, the son of Nabu-
balatsu-ikbi, was placed upon the throne.
Nahonidus was a ruler more energetic than his im-
mediate predecessors on the throne. He devoted himself
to rebuilding the ancient temples
68. Nabonidus. throughout the kingdom, and dug in
their foundations until he found the
ancient inscriptions of the kings who had
first founded or subsequently restored them. In his own
inscriptions recording his building opfirations he re-
counts his finding of several such inscriptions, and, as he
mentions the number of years that had passed since they
had been buried by their writers, his evidence with regard
to the settlement of Babylonian chronology is invaluable.
452
555-
i
BABYLONIA
Nabonidus. however, in spite of his zeal for rebuilding
the temples of the gods, incurred the hatred of the
priesthotxl by his altcnjpt to centralise Uabyloiiian
religion. Althou;.ih the rise of Babylon to the position
of the priticipiil city of the land had been reflected in
the importance of Marduk in the Babylonian pantheon,
the religion of the country had never radically changed
its character. It had always remained a bcjdy of local
worshijjs, each deity retaining his own separate centre
of ritual. Nabonidus set himself to centralise all
these worships in Babylon. He removed the images of
the gods from their shrines in the various cities through-
out the country and transported them to the capital.
By this act he brought down upon himself the resent-
ment of the priests, who formed the most powerful
section of the community, and they, by the support
they gave to Cyrus on his capture of Babylon, con-
siderably aiili'd the Persian conquest of the country.
Cyrus, who hail previously conquered the Medes, im-
prisoning Astyages and .sacking Ecbatana, next turned
his attention to the conquest of Babylonia.
69. Cyrus. The Babylonian army was commanded
549. ^y BC-1 - -sar-usur (Belshazzar), the son of
Nabonidus ; but it did not offer an
effective opposition to the Persian forces. .Xfter
g suffering a defeat at Opis on the Tigris, it was
" ' broken. Cyrus marched on and entered Sippar
without further fighting, and Natx^nidus tied. Babylon
itself was taken two days later, and Nabonidus fell into
the hands of the concjueror (cp CvKUs, § 2). In restor-
ing order to the country, Cyrus adopted the wise policy of
conciliating the conquered. He restored to their shrines
the images of the gods which Nabonidus had removed.
The popul.arity he acquired by this act is reflected in
the inscription on his cylinder recording his taking of
the city, which was probably composed at his orders by
the official scribes of Babylon. Although naturally
couched in flattering terms, it bears ample witness to
the pacific policy of Cyrus, who therein allows himself
to be re[3rcsented as the vindicator and champion of
Marduk, the principal deity of his conquered foe :
' He (;'.c. .Marduk) soui;ht out a righteous prince after his
own heart, whom he might take by the hand ; Cyrus, king of
An.^-jn, he called by tiis name, for empire over the whole world
he proclaimed his title. The land of Kutfi, the whole of the
tribal hordes, he forced into submission at his feet ; as for the
men wham he had delivered into his hands, with justice and
righteousness did he care for them. Marduk the great lord,
the protector of his people, beheld his upright deeds and his
righteous heart with joy. To his city of Babylon he commanded
him to gi>, he made him take the ro.id to P.abylon ; like a friend
and helpor he went by his side. His wide-spreading host, the
number of which, like the waters of a river, cannot be numbered,
girt with their weapons advance at his side. W ithout contest
and battle he made him enter into Habyl m his city; Babylon
ii: spared from trioulation. Nabonidus, the kin'.; that did not
fear him, he delivered into his hand. All the people of Babylon,
the whole of Sumer and Akkad, princes and governors beneath
him b iwed dokvn, they kissed his feet, they rejoiced in his
kingdom, bright was their countenance, 'lb the lord, who
through his strength raises the dead to life and from destruction
and misery h.id spared all, joyfully they paid homage, they
reverenced his name." Other pa.s.sages in the cylinder refer
to the zeal displayed by Cyrus for Marduk and the other
Babylonian gods.—' When into IJabylon I entered favourably,
with ex-'ltation and shouts of joy in the palace of the princes
1 took up a lordly dwelling, Martluk the great lord [inclined)
the great heart of the sons of Babylon to me and daily do I
care for his wor-hip. . . . And the gods of Sumer and .\kkad,
which Nabonidus to the anger of the gods had brought into
Babylon, at the word of Marduk the great lord one and all in
their owi shrines did I causi to take up the habitation of their
heart's delight. .May all the gods whom 1 have brought into
their own cities pray daily before Bel and N.-ihu for the lengthen-
mg of my days, let them speak the word for my good fortune,
and unto .Marduk my lord let them say : " May Cyrus the
king that feareth thee and Cambyses his s m [have prosperity)." '
With the capture of Babylon by Cyrus the history
of the Babylonians as an independent nation comes to
70. End ^" ^"^' ' *^^ country never regained her
independence, but remained a province
subject to the powers which succeeded one another
in the rule of W. Asia. Under Cambyses. indeed,
and still more under Darius Hystaspis, discontent be-
453
BACA
came very prevalent in Babylonia. Soon after the
accession of Darius a certain Nadintu-BCl put himself
at the head of a revolt, declaring himself to be Nebu-
chadrezzar, the son of Nabonidus, the last king of
Babylon. Darius stamped out the relx.llion and exe-
cuted Nadintu-BCl. A few years later he {juelled a
second relx;!lion headed by Arahu, who was cajitured
and crucilied, and during the reign of Xer.\es a similar
rising proved equally unsuccessful. These relxillions
were the last struggles of the national spirit to reassert
itself. They met with no response among the general
body of the p>eopIe, who were content to serve their
foreign masters. Babylonia, in fact, remained subject
to the Persians until the conc|uests of Alexander brought
her under Greek control, which she exchanged only for
the Parthian supremacy.
(a) For the history of Babylonia, see the works by Tiele, Hom-
niel, Deiitzscb, and Wincklercited under AssvKiA. Kortheearly
Ix;riod these lii-.tories may be supplemented
71. Bibliography, bv reference to the insciiptions which are
bein,; published in K. de Sarzec s Vif-
couveries en ChaUfe {iti^, etc.), I he Hah. Exf>ed. 0/ the Utih'.
0/ Pennsylvania {\i.^->„ eic), c.liied l.y Hilprccht, and Cunei/onn
Texts from Babylonian tablets, etc. in the British Museum
(i8y6, etc.). Among English histories refeience maybe made
to George Smith's Aa/y-^/z/Vi (Sl'CK, 1877) and G. Kawlinsoii's
Fcz>e Great Monarchies 0/ the Eastern lyorU, vols. i. and ii.
(1871). In Schr.'s KB, vol. iii., translations of many of the
historical inscriptions of Babylonia are given, while the same
author's COT describes the principal points in the O I' which
are illustrated by the monuments. For other works dealing
with the inscriptions of Babylonia, the bibliographies mentioned
I in the article .VssvKlA (§ 34) may be consulted.
I (/') [Oil the religion of the Babylonians we have as yet only
one studeiHs' handbook, Jastrow's Keli^on o/.lssyria and Baby-
\ Ionia (reNicwed by i). G. l-yon, i\ew World, March, 1899).
Sayce's Uibhert Lectures (for \'^%^) on the same subject are
I less systematic. On the cosmology of Babylonia, Jensen's
Kosmologie der Bahylonier is still the most complete authority ;
but editions of religious texts must be consulted by the advanced
. student.]
[ (( ) With regard to books for the study of the language, the first
dictionary to appe.-ir was N.irris's Assyrian Dictionary (181)8-72),
I which he did not live to complete. In his Al/>tiabetisches
I Verzeichniss der Assyrixchen und Akkad isc hen if-'or-ter (1SS6),
I .Str.ussmaier published an immense collection of matcri.d, which
I has been used in subsequent dictionaries; among these may
I be mentioned Delitzsch's Assyrischis U'orterbuch (1887, etc. ;
unfinished), the same author's Assyrisehes H amiivdrterbuch
j ('96), Muss Arnolt's Concise Dictionary of the Assyrian Tan-
I g^a^e (iSg4, etc., in progress), ancl .'Vlcissner's Suf>f>Umente zunt
j Assyrisch-'n U'orterbuch (i%qZ); Bri'innow's Classijied List 0/
Cun iform Ideographs, i88<) {Indices, 1897), contains a full list
of ideographs with their values. The best Assyrian grammar
is Delilzsch's Assy. Granttii. (1889 ; transl. by Kennedy).
(d) The exi.stence of the Sumenan language, which ior long
was disputed, is now generally acknowledged ; but a grammar
of the langu.-ige has yet to be written ; it should Ix: noted that
the views on Sumerian which Delitzsch expressed in his Assyr.
Gram, he has since completely changeti. A list of the Sumerian
values of the cuneiform signs is given by Briinnow in his
Classified List, while Weissbach's Die sumersiche Frage ('98)
may be consulted for the history of the controversy.
I,. W. K.
BABYLONIANS (^33 'J3 : yioi BAByAtoNOC
[B.VJl, F.z. '2.3,5 [BA om. BaB.]. '7 [-ONOC. B], 23; in
Aram. N'^^Il, BAByAcONiOi [B.\L], i:zra49). in every
case the land, not the city, is referred to : cp especially
Kz. •2.'^i5, 'the Ikibylonians. the land of who.se nativity
is Chaldea.'
BABYLONISH GARMENT. R\' Babylonish Mantle
("U'^w' ri"l"lX, lit. 'mantle of Shinar,' so RV'"*-').
Josh. 721. .See M.WTI.K.
BACA VALLEY OF (S32il p'pr, § 103V or Valley
of Weeping (RV, (3 eN TH KOiAaAi Toy kAayO"
MCONOC [B'^^'R]. eic THN koiAaAa t. k. [N'=^-\T1;
cp Aq. Vg. Pesh. ), mentioned only in Ps. 846 [7]. For
the meaning given al)ove cp the W'ady of Weeping
V^J* <^J') found by Burckhardt near Sinai. The name
is frequently explained ' Ixilsam vale ' (so RV'"^) ; but
cpChej-ne, who reads o'3S (tp (5 here and at Judg. 25),
and supposes a play on the name Bfikaim. The pi. o'Kaa
occurs in a Sam. h-i^ ff. (= i Ch. 14 14/!), apparently
454
BACCHIDES
as the name of a spot (see Rephaim, Vau.ey of)
where there were Haca-trees. David took his stand
there to wait for Yahwc's signal to attack the Philis-
tine's.^ © (2S. 524) speaks of it as a 'grove,' mean-
ing an Asherah ; there is no mention of trees in ©.
On the meaning of Haca trees see Mui.bkkry.
BACCHIDES(BakxiAhc. also B&[x1xi^hc ; Barakx-
[i Mace. 78. A], KAKX. l'^- ■■■ 12, A), BakxX- ['^- 9''
N*.\]), the chief general of Dkmktkius I. [</.v., i], who
was sent to Judasa to enforce the claims of Alcimus to
the priesthood ( i Mace. 1& ff.). Almost immediately
after the death of NiCANOK, he was sent again with
Alcimus, and inflicted a severe defeat on the Maccabanxn
party at Elasa,^ who lost their leader Judas (chap. 9,
i6i B.C.). Judiea suffered heavily at the hands of
Bacchides ; nor did any real advantage accrue when
Jonathan took up the leadership {^32 ff.). The capital
and other important strongholds remained in the hands
of Bacchides, who was engaged in fortifying them until
the death of Alcimus (159 B.C.), when he returned to
Demetrius (9 57). At the end of two years the opponents
of the Maccabcean party (whose hands had become
strengthened) agreed to betray Jonathan and his fol-
lowers to Bacchides. This piece of treachery was
discovered and avenged ['ds'^_f-). Bacchides set out
against Jud;t;a (158 B.C.) and besieged Beth-basi, but
met with ill success everywhere, until at last he was
only too glad to accept Jonathan's overtures of peace
(968). The Jewish captives of the former wars were
restored, and the Maccabees had rest for four or five
years.
BACCHURUS (BAKXOYPOC [BA], cAKXoyp [I>].
^./( ( ./ATM, singer in list of those with foreign wives
(see I'l/.KA, i. § 5, end), i Esd. 924 ; but not in ;i I-".zral024
[MT EV ©BKA], though ^^ adds zAKXOyp-
BACCHUS [Liber], the equivalent of the Greek
Dionysus (so RV'i.'- AlONycOC [AV]), is mentioned
in 2 Mace. 67, where it is said that on the occasion
of the birthday of Antiochus Epiphanes (175-164)
the unhappy Jews were compelled to attend the feast
of Bacchus (Aionycia; R\'"'^- 'feast of Dionysia')
wearing the ivy -wreath (ki(J(x6s), the peculiar emblem
of the god. A few years later Nicanor (the general of
Demetrius) threatened to pull down the temple and
supplant it by one dedicated to Bacchus unless Judas
was handed over to him (ib. I433, AiavDo-os [A]). The
worship of Bacchus seems to have been introduced
first by the Ptolemies, of which family he was the
patron-god, and according to 3 Mace. 229 several years
previously the Jews in Alexandria had teen branded
by Ptolemy Philopator (222-204) with the sign of the
ivy ; the object of this obviously being forcibly to
identify the unwilling Jews with the detested worship of
Bacchus. See Cuttings of the Flesh, § 6. His
worship would be specially abhorrent to pious Jews,
since one of the greatest of the Dionysian festivals fell in
the month Elapheliolion (March-April), thus synchronis-
ing closely with the passover. In course of time the
Hellenising Jews and Greek residents were more attracted
by the cult, and when Jerusalem became a Roman
colony (.i^^lia Capitolina) we find Dionysus with his
thyrsus and panther figuring upon the coins as one of
the patron gods.^
The worship of Dionysus flourished at Cassarea,
at Damascus, and in the Hauran. He was the special
patron of Scythopolis, and from him the town Dionysia
fSoada) received its name. Dionysus, however, soon
became identified with the Xabataean deity Dusares
(the Baal, the god of heaven, and of wine). The
1 In V. 24 emend fn^X to nnyp (<7-v<ro-ei<7-/io? [L] for irvv.
xXfiiT/xo? [BAD, 'when thou hearest the sound of a stormy wind
in the tops of the Baca trees." It is in the tempest that Yah we
'goes out against the Philistines."
'^ Doubtless an error for Adasa.
8 See Madden, Coins 0/ the Jews, 1881, p. 252/
455
BADGERS' SKINS
Dionysiac character which the latter presents is not
native: it is directly due to the northern influence.^
The priest of Dionysia (see above) calls himself the priest
of Dusares, and on the coins of Bostra the latter appears
with the Dionysian emblem of the wine-press. Figures
of the vine and wine-cup are still found upon the lintels
in many of the villages in the Hauran. Although the
worship of Yahw6 had little in conmion with that of
Bacchus [ncquaquatn congruentibus iuslitutis. Tacit.
Hist.bh), classical writers, observing the musical and
joyful nature of their ceremonial rites, now and then
fell into the error of making Bacchus a Jewish god
that had been worshipped by the earliest patriarchs (cp
e.g. Plut. Sympo.s.l\(>).
For the various mythological forms of Bacchus, see
Ency. Brif.^'-'^ s.v. 'Dionysus'; and Roscher, s.v.
BAGENOR occurs in an uncertain passage, 2 Mace.
1235, Awcndeo's bi ris tCv tov ^aK-qvopo^ ["^'A]. It is
doubtful whether it is the name of a captain or the
cognomen of a company or division in the army of
Judas. See DosiTiiEUS.
BACHRITES, THE (n33n ; Nu. 2635. 6*'^' [''• 39]
om. ). See Becher.
BADGER, ROCK {'{^S'), Lev. 11 5 RV"^- ; lA"
CONEY.
BADGERS' SKINS, RV Sealskins (D^*L:*nPl my.
C'nrn'ii;, ^'nn, acrmata Y«»KiNeiN&[iANeiN&. Aq.,
Sym., Ezek. I610] [BAL] ; Ex. -2.5 5 26 14 357=3 8619
[BAL om. ] 3934 Nu. 468 [5ep,uartvy iiaKivdivi^l 10-12
1425 Ez. IGiof), are mentioned as the fourth or outer-
most covering of the tabernacle (next above the ' rams'
skins dyed red'), and as outer wrappings for the ark
and different vessels of the taternacle during journeys.
In Ezekiel's figurative description of Yahwe's adorning
of Israel as a beautiful maiden, shoes of this material
are included. As to the meaning of ia/ias there have
been many opinions : five chief views may be indicated.
( 1 ) The ancient versions with one consent understood
a colour : © Syr. Chald. Vg. render ' blue ' or ' violet,'
Ar. Samar. ' black ' or 'dark.' This view, which has
been strongly maintained by Bochart, rests, however,
on no philological ground, and is refuted by the syntax
of the Hebrew words. '■^ Apart from the versions, all
Hebrew tradition is in favour of the view that tahas
is an animal.
(2) In the discussion on this animal in the Talnmd
(Shabb. c. 2, fol. 28) the opinion prevails that it is a
species of i'^'n ^t\ (prob. = ' ferret '), a description which
would roughly suit the badger; and the claim of this
animal has been supported (by Ges. and others) by
comparison with late Lat. Taxus or taxo (Ital. tasso,
Fr. taisson) and Cierm. Dachs.^ The common badger,
Meles taxus, found throughout Europe and Northern
Asia, reaches its southernmost limits in Palestine, where
it is common in the hilly and woody parts of the
country. It is, however, improbable that the reference
is to the skins of these animals. They would be diffi-
cult to procure either in Egypt or in the desert, and
there is no evidence of their being used in those regions
for such a purpose.''
1 For the god Dusares (Ao«(7-ap7js, on Nab. inscr. N-iCIl); see
ZDMG\^^ez,i\^ll, Baethg. Beitr.<)iff., WkS, Kins.V)iff.,
and We. He id. (2) 48^?: The name means ' possessor (du) of j<-\p. '
The latter is often taken to be equivalent to 'Sarah,' in which
case Dusares is equivalent to Abraham— a hazardous theory.
2 D'C'nri is obviously gen. after nhj'^/.*"., equivalent to CVN'
not to C'CHNp, in the phrase for 'rams' skins dyed red.'
3 Philological explanations involving roots common to the
Aryan and Semitic languages are, however, notoriously pre-
carious.
* How little value attaches to the opinion of the Rabbis may
be gathered from another view, strongly supported in the
Talmud, that the ;^nB was a kind of unicorn which specially
appeared to Moses for this purpose, and immediately afterwards
disappeared (Bochart, i. 830).
4.';6
BABAN
(3) A more scientific etymology is that which com-
pares the Ar. tiifias or duhas, ' a dolphin. ' This would
indicate a marine animal, — probably (a) the sea J (RV
text), or (i) the />or/>t>isf (KV"'»>'). or (c) the du^^jvir or
sea-cow. («) has in its favour the adaptability
of sealskins to the purposes referred to, the statement
of .Artemiilorus (in Strab. It) 776) that seals alwundcd
in the Red .Sea, one island there Ijeing called vriaos
t}>(j3K^v, and the actual use of a sealskin covering in
antiquity to protect buildings, Ixicause it w;is supposed
that lightning never struck this material (e.jj. , I'liny,
HN'lsS' Suet. Oct. 90). One species of seal, Moiia-
chus albiventer, undoubteiily occurs in the Mediter-
ranean, and some authorities are of opinion that the
same is true of the common seal, Fhoca vitulina.
(b) The porpoise, like the seal, is as a rule a denizen of
the colder waters of the glote ; but Phoaetia commimis,
the common porpoise of the Hritish coasts, occasionally
enters the Mediterranean, whilst the Indian porpoise,
Ph. phoacnoides, inhabits the shores of the Indian
t)cean from the Cape of Good Hope to Japan, and may
have Ix-'cn captured in the Red Sea. [c] The
Dugong, lieing more like the dolphin, has the etymology
in its favour. According to Knobel (Comm. on E-\. 205)
this animal [Halicore fabernaculi) ' is found in the
Red Sea, attaining a length of 8 to 10 or more feet, is
hunted like the whale, and has a skin well adapted for
sandals or coverings. ' Friedr. Del. sought to strengthen
the case for this identification (Prol. to Baer's lizek. p.
xviy!) by comparison with Ass. talihi, an animal whose
skin, according to various Ass. inscriptions, was used
to cover the Ixjams of ships in the manner described by
Herodotus (1 194). He has since (Prol. 77-79 [86]),
however, abandoned the view that fah.hi wis the
dugong, and supposes it to mean ivether.^ The tlugong
of the Indian Ocean, with the Manatee of the Atlantic,
composes the class Sirenia. They are usually found
in the estuaries of large rivers browsing on sea- weed,
and they are still actively sought off the coast of
(^)ueensland for the sake of their blubl)er and hide.
(4) Much less probable is the opinion of Bottchcr
{Neue Aehrenl. 32^) that vnr\ is a form of v^t\ (he-
goat) with the middle radical hardened ; he supposes
that goat-skin was manufactured into a kind of morocco
leather. It is natural that 'rams' and 'he -goats'
should come together as in Gen. 32i5 [14] aCh. 17ii ;
but apart from this the explanation has little to recom-
mend it.
(5) The latest and perhaps most probable view is
that put forward by Bondi {.-Egyptiaca, iff.), who
makes c'nn a loan-word from Egyptian ths, ' Egyptian
leather,' and gives a thorough discussion of views.
This meaning is especially suitable to Ez. 16io, but
is also appropriate in the other passages.
Of all the e.xplanations those by Ar. duhas or tuhas,
by Ass. tahsu, and by Eg. ths, most deserve attention.
N. M. —A. K. S.
BAEAN (B&l&N [AXV]), i Mace. 54/ RV ; AV
Rk.w.
BAO. .Several of the Hebrew words are much more
general in signification than the English ' bag.' — (i) d"3
kTs{Yi\. 25 13 Pr. I611 Mi. 611 Is. 466) for holding money,
or the weights employed by merchants. In Pr. 1 14
(/3a\\di'Tio«'), l':V renders Puk.sk. (2) ann hdrit (cp
.\r. haritat"", bag of skin, etc., and see Frank. 296)
in 2 K. 523 {dv\a.KO%) of Naaman's bag which con-
tained a talent of silver. In Is. 822 it is mentioned
in the list of women's adornments, and signifies
probably a satchel (so RV ; AV 'crisping pin'). (3)
'';>3 kili, a word of very general meaning (see \'ksski.),
used of a sack for containing corn (Gen. 4225 477101') or
1 Cp Shalmaneser, Monolith inscr. ii. i6, ina elif'f'e ia
maiak ta/iii, ' on boats of skins of wethers ' ; so Wi. for good
reasons; but see references in Muss-Arnolt, Ass. Did. s.v.
'!',ab.5,i-M.'
4S7
BAHURIM
of the instruments carried by a shepherd (Zech. II15).
It is rendered 'bag' only in i S. I74049 (.\V"'K-
'vessel') : see Sling. (4) Tna -ji'rOr ( ^'bind, cp verb in
2 K. 12io[ii], ry,y\ 'and they put in bags'), JobHi;
(^aWavTiov), Pr. 720, aipj 's. 'a bag with holes' (Hag.
16). It is rendered 'bundle' in i S. 2.'»29 (ien 4235 (of
money) and Cant, li; (of myrrh, RV"'k- 'bag'). (5)
fiaWdPTiov, Lk. 123J. RV 'purse'; and (6) yXuffiTo-
KOfj.ov (Jn. 126 1329. RV"'e- ' box ). See Bo.x, 3.
BAGO IBAfO [A]), 1 Esd. 84o=Ezra8i4, Bkjv.m, 3.
BAGOAS (from Pers. baga, 'God' ; see Ed. .Meyer,
Ent. 157 ; cp Bigvai, Bigtl)a, .\bagtha), a eunuch in
the household of Holoferncs ; Judithl2ii_^ ( BAfooAC
[BAi] ; in v. 13 BAfcoc [A*J).
BAGOI (BAfOi [A]). I Esd. 5 14= Ezra 2 2, Bigv.m, 2.
BAGPIPE (RV"«- of n^yi3!p-1D Dan.35IOI5Li"''•
Io K'jD'p, Kr. 'sidI. Gr. CYM4>caNlA., KV 'dulcimer').
The Aramaic word is from avfx(j>wvia, a late (ir. word,
used, curiously enough, by Polybius in his account of
the festivities in which .Antiochus Epiphanes (who is so
frequenth' alluded to in Daniel) indulged (xxvi.lOs xxxi.
48; see D.WIKI,, §7). For the /(;r;« of the .\rani. (p
pSD, <rv/Ji(poiii'oi, 'agreed,' in the Fiscal Inscription from
Palmyra, 137 .\.u. (col. 8, //. 1445). See Music, §4(1 1.
BAHARUMITE, THE (*P-1in3, iCh. II33; o
BeepMeiN [B, X'-'], o -pBeiN [5'^*1. o Barcami [A],
O B&pAMAI [J-J). e\i(knily a scribe's error for 'the
Bahurimite' — i.e., ' the man of B.MliKlM' ('DT-'I'^^n).
The same reading should be restored in 2 S. 2831. See
Bakhumite.
BAHURIM (Dn-ina and Dnn3 ; /3aovp6i/ii [A]; 2S.
3 16 PapaK,, IH], -^i [L]; l(i5 jSovpe./l [R], xopp<i>x [1^1: l"iS
^aopct/u. |H|, Pai.6xoppu)v [LI; 1!» 16 /Saoupei^t [H], XOPP"^'' i'li
iK..:;8 Paa0ovpfl^^. (HI, jSaSoupetfA [AL], /SoKXoPI? ij"'^- ■'"'■
vii. 97]), a place in Benjamin (2 S. 19 16 [17]), not included
in the list of Benjamite towns, which appears prominentl\
in two very interesting narratives — that of the return of
Micn.VL to David, and that of the flight of David from
Absalom. Michal had Ixien given by Davids angry
father-in-law to P.M/n (t/.j. )or Paltiel of Gallim, and
David in his returning prospx,-rity demanded her back.
Followed by her weeping husband, Michal went from
Gallim ^ to Bahurim. There Abner conmianded Paltiel
to return. It may naturally be asked. Why was Bahurim
selected as the scene of this leave-taking ? The answer
is furnished by the story of David's flight. It is clear
from 2 S. 16 1 5 (cp 17 24) that Bahurim lay near the ro.ad
from Jerusalem to the Jordan valley. Abner would have
to lake this road on his return to Mahanaim, and would
naturally wait at Bahurim until he knew for certain that a
visit to Hebron would Ix; acceptable to the king. Mean-
time the envoys of David conducted Michal to Hebron.
Later it was David's turn to pass by Bahurim, when
he sought the Jordan valley as a fugitive (2 S. If) 28).
At Bahurim he would apparently have made his first
halt had not the insults of Shimki compelled him to go
farther'- (2 S. I65-14). It was at Bahurim also that
Jonathan and Ahimaaz lay hid in a well, when pursued
by the servants of Absalom (2 .S. 17 18). The spot
which best answers the topographical conditions is (as
Barclay was the first to see) SI-",, of the village of <•/-
'/sd7v/vi'A (see Laisham). Here, to the S. of the old
Roman road, van Kasteren found in the upper ll'd {v
er-Rawdby a ruin without a name, which he believes to
be on the site of Bahurim {7.DP]'\Ziax ff.). For
a less probable view, fully discussed by van Kasteren,
see Marti, ZDPVZZff. T. K. C.
1 Sir G. Grove (.Smith's />/>') thinks this may be doubtful.
The rendering of (S '-, however, in 2 S. 3 1 5 (wIoC wfAAetfi) suggests
that the verse originally closed with C'?3!D, 'from Gallim.' That
Palti was with Ishbosheth at Mahanaim seems very improbable.
- The name of the village where he ' refreshed himself (2 S.
If. 14) seems to have dropped out. See Avephim.
458
BAITERUS
BAITERUS (BAiTHpoc [BA]). i Esd. 5 17 RV. AV
Mf.tkki;s ; S,CO GlBBAK.
BAJITH, RV Bayith (H^an, 'the temple"; text of
© differs), is l:\ken in EV of Is. 15 2 as the name of a
place, the article fx;ing neglected (cp AiN. 2). It is
perhiips more defensilile to render the stichus containing
the word thus : ' They go up to the temple, Dibon (goes
up) to the high places to weep' (so Ges. and formerly
Che.). The temple referred to might be the Reth-
bamoth of the inscription of Mesha (/. 26 ; cp Bamcjth-
HA.^I.). n"a and na. however, are so easily confounded
(see, e.g.. Is. IU32 Kt. ) that it is still better to read nn'ry
j-3-n rn. ' the daughter ( = people) of Dibon is gone up,'
with Huhm and Cheyne {SBO'J).
BAKBAKKAR C.i^a^il, form strange, probably
corrupt ; Bakar [B], BakB- [AL] ; I'esh. has D-inT,
which in fz'. 8 12, etc. - Heb. DPHV Jeroham), a Levite
in list of inhabitants of Jerusalem (see EzR.\, ii. § 5 [/'],
§ 15 [i] a), I Ch. 9i5 ; not in || Neh. 1 1 16, but perhaps
transposed to v. 17 (where MT and (!f>**<^-a "«• read
Bakhukiaii [</.f.], though <B^^ omits, <3^ ^OKxeias).
BAKBUK (PW2, §§ 38, 71, 'pitcher'; but see
lx!low ; BakBoyk [AL]). The b'ne Bakbuk, a family
of Nethinim in the great post-exilic list (see Ezra, ii.
§ 9), Ezra 251 i^aKovK [L], ^aKK. [B]) = Jseh. 7 53 (/3aK-/3ou
[B], veKov^ [N]) = i Ksd. 5 31! (aKov(p [B], aKOV/j.^ [A] ;
EV, Acub). The name can hardly be Hebrew. It
may te corrupted from Assyr. Habbakuka, a plant name
(see Hab.vkklk). t. k. c.
BAKBUKIAH (n;ip3p2, § 38, ■ pitcher of Yahwe'?
[or else = Bakbuk, ,-i» being probably a simple afforma-
tive (Jastrow; /BL 1:S 127)], cp Bakbuk ; BakB&kiac
j^j^c.a ■!«. iup. L], BX"A om. ), one of the Nethinim;
a singer in list of Levite inhabitants of Jerusalem (see
Ezra. ii. § 5 [/'], § 15 [ij «, and cp Hcrstel, 105),
Neh. 111? (BOKXeiAC [L] ; omitted in || i Ch. 9 16 before
Obadiah = Abda of Neh. ) ; and porter in Zerubbabel's
band (see Ezra, ii. § 6 ^, § 11, and Herstel, no),
Neh. 1225. In Neh. 11 17, of the three persons named,
Mattaniah is a ' son ' of Asaph, and Abda is a ' son '
of Jeduthun. It is plausible, therefore, to take Bak-
buliiah to be the same name as ir|73 (cp ©J-) and identify
with BuKKiAH \^q.v.\ one of the sons of Heman. The
three great guilds of temple-singers will then be repre-
sented.
BAKEMEATS. In his dream Pharaoh's chief baker
carried on his head ' three baskets of white bread '
(••"ih ''^p. Gen. 40 16— so RV and most
1. ua ing. joQ^gj-n scholars ; AV 'three white baskets'),
in the uppermost of which were ' all manner of bakemeats
for Pharaoh,' literally, as we read in the margin of AV,
' meat [food] of Pharaoh, the work of a baker' (40 17).
The best commentary on these verses is the representa-
tion of the royal bakery on the tomb of Ramses III. at
Theljes, which has been reproduced by Wilkinson [Anc.
Eg., 1878, 1 176), and more recently by Erman [Atic.
Eg. 191). The process of making the ordinary house-
hold supply is described under Brkad ; here it is pro-
posed to bring together the scattered notices in Scripture
regarding other products of the baker's skill. In this
connection, it is interesting to note the remarkable variety
of shapes assumed by the bread and pastry in the repre-
sentation referred to. Additional varieties are collected
by I->man from other sources and represented on the
same page. Hiw far the Hebrew court bakers (i S. 8
13) were able to imitate those of Egypt we do not know.
There is certainly no lack of names for different species
of bakemeats in the OT ; but it is now impossible to
p . identify them (cp Brkad). Thus we can
2. OaKes. ^^]y conjecture, although with a fair amount
of certainty, that the cake named kikkar (133, AV
1 Cp Akkub, 2. It is pos.sible, however, that BA omit the
name (L has Bojc^vk), since ojcov^, etc may be a duplicate
of Hakupha Cf.v.y.
4S9
BAKEMEATS
'morsel,' RV 'loaf'), i S. 236, must have been round,
like a Scottish ' bannock ' ; which, from the context,
must hold good also of the barley-cake (Si'ys) of Gideon's
dream (Judg. 7i3t)- The nikki4dim (d'T|5;, possibly
from npj, to prick) may have been thin cakes pricked
over like a modern biscuit, or dotted over with the seeds
of some condiment (sec below). They were part of the
present which the wife of Jeroboam I. took to the
prophet Ahijah (i K. 14 3), and are rendered by EV
cracknels, for which the American revisers prefer to
read ' cakes.' ^ Still, judging from etymology, we may
consider the halld (n'^n), the cake which so frequently
occurs in the sacrificial ritual, as having been jjerforated
(':>'-n, to pierce) like a modern Passover cake. It was
made of the finest flour (^^b)■ Mention is made of
another kind of sacrificial cakes, apparently of foreign
origin, which the women of Jerusalem kneaded and
baked in connection with the idolatrous worship of the
' QUKKN OF HiCAVKN ' {q.v. ), Jer. 7 18 44 19. © merely •
transliterates the Heb. word (crs, x"-^'^^"-'^ [BNAQ] ;
X'3.v^G)vo.% [X*], x«''«"'«s [Q*] in Jer. 44 19), and the
exegetical tradition varies. That these kawudiilm were
some kind of bakemeats is clear from the kneading of
the dough in their preparation (7 18). It is generally
thought that they may have resembled the selinai
(aeXqvai), cakes shaped like the full moon, which were
offered in Athens to Artemis, the moon-goddess, at the
time of full moon (see especially Kue. 's essay ' De
melecheth des hemels,' translated in Bu. 's edition of his
Gesammelte Abh. 208, and the comm. of Graf and of
Giesebrecht in loc. ). A similar custom is said to have
prevailed in the worship of the Arabic goddess Al-'Uzza
(We. Ar. HeiJ.(^) 38/., 2nd ed. 41/).
With regard to what may be called the pastry of the
Hebrews, all that can be said with any degree of certainty
p . is that a more delicate relish was imparted to
■ * ^' the preparation of certain kinds of bakemeats
in three ways, (i) The dough was baked in olive oil.
Thus the taste of the manna is said in one passage (Nu.
118 JE) to l)e like the taste of 'cakes baked with oil"
(RV'"*>'-, jcrn nc''?), generally understood of some dainty
cooked in oil (but F.V^ ' like the taste of fresh oil '). (2)
The dough was prepared by being mi.xed with oil and
then fired. This mode of preparation was extensively
used in the ritual of P: see, for example. Lev. 24^,
where a distinction is made between cakes ' mingled
{rht'2 — see 'j'ja in BDB Lex. ) with oil ' and cakes merely
' anointed (n'TOc) with oil.' (3) In the passage parallel
to that quoted above (i), viz., E.x. 16 31 [P], the taste of
the manna is likened to 'wafers (p'p-t, for which see
Bre.\d) made with honey.' From this passage, from
the prohibition of honey in the ritual (Lev. 2ii), and
from the post-biblical use of the verbal stem ^31 (dbS),
we learn that honey [d'bal) — no doubt both the product
of the bee and the artificial grape- syrup (the modern
dihs: see Hdnky) — was used in the preparation of certain
kinds of bakemeats. ©bal j^ both the passages dis-
cussed (N'u. 118 Ex.1631) renders by iyKpLi, which,
according to Athena'us (in Di. on Ex. 1631) denoted 'a
bakemeat made with oil and honey.' Saadia's word
here is katd'if" [pastilli dulciarii), a species of confec-
tion still made in Syria. Landberg {Proverbes ct Dictons,
125) defines it as 'a flaky paste {patisserie feuilletie')
made with walnut and sugar and, in spring, with cream. '"
Some sort of dainty confection is evidently intended by
the obscure /(W/*o/A (ni3?'? ; 2S. 136 8iot; EV 'cakes')
which Tamar baked for Amnon.^ If the etymology
1 For Josh. 9 5, the only other passage where D*^5pp occurs
(EV ' mouldy "), see Di. in loc.
- The curious in these matters are referred to I^ndberg's book
for a detailed list of modern Arab confections, 123-128 ; cp Wetr.
ZDMG 11 517/
•* On the reading in v. 9 see Cooking Utensils, 8 5 (i.l
460
BAKING
from 33(? (heart) were more secure, we might conclude
that the til-bit in question was heart-shaped.
In Kz. 27 17 we fmd anicmg the trade-products of
Tyre a substance called p'lnnag {21^) which, according
to the Targuin, was a ' kind of confection ' ; so RV'^ti
The meaning is quite uncertain, and probably the text
is (.orrupt (Co. would rtad j:n, wax ; see I'a.n.nag).
I'or the frequently mentioned nv^'VH or grape-cake, see
I'RUIT, § 5 ; and for the use of condiments in baking,
see Food and Spicks. a. k. s. k.
BAKING. See Hrkad, § 2 ; Oven.
BAKING PAN (n?TO), Lev. 2s 7 9- See Cooking
Utknsii.s, § 7.
BALAAM (DI^p3 ; etymology uncertain ; Winckler's
Bel-'ain [G/ 1 120) seems improbable ; cp perhaps Ba-Ium-
1. Two
mc-e (Am. Tab.) and see Ihkea.M, Bki.a,
accounts. -^'■^^•-AIT.ans ; BaAaam [B.\L] ; Joseph.
BaAamoc ). b. Beor ; a soothsayer or prophet
whom Bai.ak, king of Moab, made an.xious by Israel's
victory over the Amorites, summoned to curse his
enemies. Instead of doing so, Balaam bore himself as
the prophetic mouthpiece of Yahwe, whom he acknow-
ledged as his God (Mu. 22i8), and by the spirit of
Elohim (24 2) foretold the future glory of Israel. No
wonder that a prophet of Judah, writing probably in
the dark and idolatrous days of Manasseh, recalled the
history of Balaam, when he would remind his ungrateful
countrymen of Yahwe's ' l>eneficent deeds' (Mic. 65).
Balaam's character has long been regarded as an enigma,
and from Bishop Butler's time onwards many subtle
solutions have been offered. The enigma, however, is
mainly produced by the combination of two traditions
belonging to different periods, and it is the duty of the
critic to distinguish, as far as possible, the two traditions
which, though one in spirit, present a palpable difference
in details.
According to J, Balak, king of Moab, dismayed by
the number of his new and unwelcome neighbours,
called Balaam from the land of the b'ne Ammon^ to
curse Israel. Balaam protested that he could not, for
all the royal treasure, go beyond Yahwe's word ; but he
saddled his ass and set out.^ On the road, the angel
of Yahwe, invisible to Balaam, but visible to the beast
he rode, stopped his way with a drawn sword. Yahwe
endowed the ass with speech, and at last opened the
prophet's eyes to the apparition, and, had it not been
for the fear which held the animal back, Balaam would
have paid for his rashness with his life. Still, he re-
ceived permission to go, and was only warned to refx)rt
Yahwe's oracle faithfully. The Elohist has no
occasion for these marvels. In his account, Balaam,
who is an .-VramtKan of Pethor {q.v. ) on the Euphrates
(or perhaps rather a N. Arabian of Rehoboth by the
river of Musri), did not yield to Balak's repeated solici-
tations till God (ElOhim) appeared in a dream and told
him^ to go with the Moabite ambassadors.
^ From this point it is not possible to separate the
E and J documents with full confidence. In what
follows we have four great prophecies concerning Israel's
future, besides three short oracles on the destruction of
the .Amalekites, the Kenites, and the Assyrians. Prob-
ably the first two of the four great prophecies come to
us in their present form from the hand of the Elohist, ■•
' The word 'confection' here used in the RVms-. refers every-
where else in EV to perfumes or spices (Ex. 30 35, RV ' perfume ' ;
I L-h. 9 ;o, AV omtment,' RV ' confection ' ; Ecclus. 388) ; cp the
confectionaries ' or perfume-compounders of i .S. 8 13.
2 225/,; read psy for iSJ? with Di. after Sam. Pesh. Vg.,
*"il x?'"^ ^^^- '^^'^^- For a third view, however, see Pftiioi;
Nu.22 19.2K1 belongs to E. The rea.son why Balaam went
r°iK° '" -^ extant portions of J.
1 he Elohistic account of the prophecies must, however, have
m.i<1e some reference to Moab, and must, therefore, have con-
tained more thaii is now given in chap. 23.
461
BALAAM
while the hist two are derived from the narrative of the
Vahwist.
Balaam prepares for his work rather after the fashion
of a sorcerer than in accordance w ith the spiritual ideas
2 Oracles o*" 'J*-' ""ew prophecy. In order to inllu-
1 and 2 FEl ^"'^'^ Elohim, he directs Balak to offer
*- ■'■ sacrifices of special solemnity' (seven
altars, seven oxen, seven rams; cp Beer-siii.h.v).
Bamoth-baal, the scene of the sacrifices, was no ordinary
'high place," but (probably) one of those high hills
where huge dolmens still suggest primajval communing
with God, and, as we learn, it commanded a view of at
least ' the utmost part ' of the Israelitish encampment.
This was important, for a curse must be uttered in sight
of those upon whom it is to fall (cp 23 13 a). When
Balaam returns to Balak and his princes after meeting
God, he can but break forth into jubilant praise of
Israel. Curse it he cannot. The people has a destiny
of its own which parts it from the surrounding nations.
The Israelite hosts N. of Arnon are the token of a
mightier multitude unborn. All individual desire loses
itself in the sense of Israel's greatness. Happy is
he who dies in Jeshurun, and, dying, knows that his
people is immortal ! In vain Balak changes the seer's
place of outlook. As Balaam beholds all Israel from
the top of PiSGAH,2 he receives a divine oracle which
confirms and transcends the former blessing. God,
says Balaam, is not a man : he does not change his
mind. Nor can trouble touch Israel, for Yahwfe himself
reigns in their midst ; and the people (if we may trust
the reading^) greet this divine king with exultant shout.
With the strength of a wild-ox, they fling their foes to
the ground. No magical arts avail in Israel's case : even
now all has been decided, and one can but cry ' W hat
has God done ! ' Like a lion, Israel rises up to devour
the prey.
Again sacrificial rites are perfopmed, and again Balaam
has to disappoint the king (.see PeoiO. The third
3. Oracles P'^Ph^^T (J'- together with some striking
3 and 4 fJl P''^''^"*^''' ^° ^^^ second,-* has characteristic
L -•■ features of its own. The poet still dwells
on tlie numbers and prowess of Israel, but adds a
panegyric of its well-watered and fruuful land, and
surprises us by a definite mention of the kingly power
as distinct from the reign of Yalu\e. The king of Israel
is described as raised even above A(;.\G (q.v.). Still
more definite is the fourth prophecy. The seer beholds
in spirit the ri.se of David, and chaunls the victories
which are to crush .Moab and subdue Edom.
The basis of the story of Balaam is evidently a patri-
otic legend, which, as we now have it, presupposes a
4 Origin <^°'"P''^'''''"vely achanced historical period.
of story ^' '^ '""''' ^^^ ^'""^^ °^ ^^^ ''^■'^^' ^^■'^''-"'^ ^•-'<^s
•'■ the angel invisible to man, and speaks
(Nu. 2222-34; cp 2 Pe. 2 16), has a highly primitive
flavour.* Still, this story, though welded with some
psychological skill into the surrounding narrative, is a
decoration derived from folklore, and the narrative as
a whole is designed to accentuate the uselessncss of
jealous and relx^llious feelings in the .-Xmnionitish and
Edomitish neighboiu-s of Israel. Amnion and Edom
1 It is Balak, not Balaam, who s.icrifices ; ' Balak and Balaam '
in Nu.232 should evidently be omitted (as in tSSiAL).
- This is certainly E's meaning in Nu.23i3rt. The second
part of V. 13, which limits Balaam's range of vision to 'the
utmost part of the people,' must be due to a redactor. Its
object is to harmonise 7'. 13(1 [E] with 24 2 (J), which tells us
that Balaam is ntnv taking his first complete view of the people
of Israel. In reality, however, zi. 13 3 destroys the progress
which E intended frorn 2241 102813. .Since a limited view of
Israel h.id not resulted in the utterance of a curse, Bal.ik deemed
it necessary to try the effect of the wider outlook from Pisgah.
3 Cheyne, however, reads nnNEni. ' and the glory of the king
IS among them.'
•* It is doubtful, however, whether Nu.2322 23 is not a Yah-
wistic fragment (see Bacon, Triple Tradition, 228, and cp Di.'s
note). According to Cheyne, niXEH occurs both in v. 21 </and
^ Cp the Babylonian beast-stories, the speaking horse in
Horn. //. 19 404, and the speaking serpent in (jenesis.
463
BALAAM
were older as nations ; but Israel alone had secured
penuanent foothold W. of Jordan, and for a time reduced
the oldest nationalities to vassalage. The story of
Balaam points out that Yahwe had ordained these
privileges of Israel long before. The Moabitish king
and the Amnionitish, Arabian, ^ or Aramcean sooth-
sayer had striven to turn aside the irreversible decree,
and Yahwe had turned the very means they took into the
instrument by which he announced the triumphs and
the unique destiny of his people.
It is much harder to fix the date and origin of the
poems. We can scarcely attribute them w ithout reserve
to J and K, for the points of contact
6. Origin of
between the prophecies (cp especially 2322
P ■ and 248) suggest that an ancient poem
has lx*en exijanded and changed in diverse ways. The
keinel of the poem may go back to the early days of
the kingdom, — even, it may be, to those of Solomon.
The national fortune is painted in glowing colours, and
the historical references stop short at David, who was
the only king to conciuer both Moab and Edom. On
the other hand, the clear sense of Israel's separateness
from the nations (239) had not arisen, so far as is
known, before the time of the literary prophets, and
the phraseology does not permit us to place the poems,
as we now have them, earlier.
The appendix (2420-24), at any rate, is generally
admitted to be comparatively modern (note the exag-
_, geration respecting the Anialekites). The
,. " structure .shows that the oracles are from
pendix. ^1^^ j^.^j^j ^^,^, 24 20, end, with ?-. 24, end).
The writer was quite familiar with the .\ss\Tian power,
and speaks of the deportation of the Kenites by the
.\ssyrians. He speaks of the Kenites, rather than more
famous peoples, because he considers them to be (like
the Amalekites ; cp i S. ISa) within Balaam's horizon.
He also (if the text of 2424 be correct) predicts that
AssvTia in its turn will be destroyed by ships from
Curni.M ((/.J'.). Was he thinking of the Persian
empire (Assyria = Persia, Ezra622), and its overthrow
by Alexander the Great (cp i Mace, li)? The theory
has been widely accepted, and nuich controversy as to
the limits of prophecy has grown out of it. It .seems
bolder than the evidence as a whole warrants (see Ui. ),
and it has lately been pointed out that ' they shall
afilict ' (?3;;, V. 24) is a misreading which has arisen out
of the loss of an ethnic name in v. 23. Analogy requires
that the last of the three little oracles in t'?'. 22-24 should
begin thus :
And he s.-iw . . . and began hi.s oracle, and said,
Alas who will live (survive) of . . .
And the discoveries of the Tell of Zenjirli enable us to
restore the missing name, which was, not ' Samuel '
('I'Nicr. as many MSS and some editions), but
' .Sham'al.' Then in v. 24 we may continue :
And there shall be .ships from the direction of Cj"prus,
And .Vssyria .shall afflict him (l-)^'), and F;ber shall afflict him,
.\iid he too (.shall come) to destruction.-
The kingdom of Sham'al in NW. Syria was not so very
far from Balaam's native place Pethor. (The poet,
at any rate, placed Pethor in Aram.) That it was
di-stroyed by Assyrians and peoples from the other side
of the Euphrates ( = ICber), and plundered by shipmen
from Cyprus, was probably within the recollection of the
author, who is, therefore, not to Ix; regarded as post-
1 See above, § i, second paragraph. Cp Gen. 8632, and see
BeLA(2), MiZKAIM.
'■i The importance of this correction will appear if we compare
the alternative explanation of Hommel (AHT 24$/.), which
produces the following most unnatural and unworthy distich :
' Jackals (C';n) shall come from the north
And wild cats (D';s) from the coast of Kittim,'
where 'jackals' and 'wild cats' are figurative expressions for
wild invaders, and Kittim is, Hommel says, ' the familiar
for the Hittites (var. chittim).' .See Asshukim, Eber.
463
BALANCE
exilic. Assyria may have been no longer at the height
of its prosperity, but was still a conquering power.'
We have passing notices of Balaam in Josh. 249 (E.^)
and in Dt. 284/. , cp Neh. 13 1/. (see Ammonites, § 3).
_ Aii„„,-^ „ In Dt. I.e., as in E, he is an Aramaean
7. Allusions , ,, . u 1 • T 1
to Balaam " Mesopotamia, hired to curse Israel ;
■ but Yahwe turned his curse into a blessing.
The Priestly Writer represents Balaam in a much more
unfavourable light, Nu. 3l8i6 Josh. 1322 (cp Xu.
25 6-18). He is a sorcerer, at whose instigation the
Midianite women seduced the Israelites into sensual
idolatry ; and he died in the battle between the Israelites
j and the Midianites. Jos. (Ant. iv. 66) dwells at great
I length on the corrupting advice of Balaam, given in the
i first instance (cp Rev. 214) to Balak, and in Rabbinical
literature Balaam is the type of false teachers [Abolh,
519; cp Rev. /.f. ) and .sorcerers. Cp also 2 Pet. 2 15
j Judell. For Arabic parallels to the efficacy of
! Balaam's oracles, see Goldziher, Abhandl. zur arab.
\ Philologie, 2b ff.
See Di.'s Count, and cp Tholuck, 'Die Gesch. Bileams,"
]'eimischte Scliriften, 1 406-432 ; Oort, Disput. de Nu.xxii.-
.XX iv., i860; Kalisch, Bible Studies, pt. i,
8. Literature. 1877; Kue. Jheot. njd. is 497-540 r84];
van Hoonacker, ' Observations critiques con-
cernant Bileam,' Le Museon, 1888 ; Halivy, Re^i. sent. 1894,
pp. 201-209; Scbr. CO r 1 143-145 ; We. CH -i^tff.; Kit. Hist.
1 202, 214, 229 ; Kautzsch, Abriss (sketch of literature appended
to //.V), 143; Hommel, GBA 9; Che. Exp. limes, June 1899,
PP- 399-40-'- \V. E. A.
BALAC (B&Aak [Ti. WH]), Rev. 214. See Balak.
BALADAN (H^'^?), 2 K. 20 12 Is. ;59i. See Meko-
DAril-li.VLADA.N.
BALAH (n^3). Josh. I93. See Baal.mi, 2.
BALAK (p'73, BaAak [BAL] ; bai.ac), b. Zippor.
an early king of Moab (Xu. 22-24 Judg. 11 25, and else-
where ; cp Rev. 2 14, Balac), inseparably connected with
Balaam. For the alliteration cp JaVial and Jubal, Beta
and Birsha, l-:idad and Medad, etc. See Bai,.\.\m.
BALAMO, RVBalamon (B^Aes^MCON [BNA]), Judith
83. See Bi.i.MEN.
BALANCE. (i) Mozlndim (D^3m'D,— the dual
refers to the two ear-like pendants 2) are scales for
weighing money (Jer. 32io), hair (Ez. 5i, SjX^ ^iTNOi,
etc. ; cp the metaphor of weighing calamity (Jobt52),
men (Ps. 629 [10], cp Dan. 627), ^ and hills (Is. 4O17).
The dust of the balance is a simile for an insignificant
or negligible quantity (Is. 40 15). The frequent metaphor
of a just or even balance (pis 'c. Lev. I936, cp Job3l6
Ez. 4.') 10 ; a2tt*,r2 'c, Prov. 16 n, RV ' scales ' ), as opposed
to one that is false (nOT? 'd, Prov. 11 n, cp 2O23 Am. 85
Hos. 127 [8] ; y^T 's, Mic. 6ii), is analogous to the well-
known Heb. and Aram, idiom which expresses honour
and integrity by the simile of ' heaviness ' (cp nia and
(2) Vox kan^, nji (Is. 466: only here in this sense),
see Reeu, i, n. Other words wee. {■>,) p^les, oTs, Prov.
16 II RV, AV 'weight,' Is. 40 12 [aTaOtibi LBN.AQ]), EV
' scales ' ; cp the verb in Ps. 58 2 [3] ; but hardly >f'?EO in
Job37i6, 'the balancings (t^ssz) of the clouds?' (see
Budde). (4) ^vy()v, Rev. 65, frequent in @ for the
above.
The balances used in Palestine were probably similar
to those found on Egyptian monuments. One type
consists of an upright pole rising from a broad Ixise w ith
1 Che. Expositor, 1896, pp. 77-80 (following D. H. Miiller,
Die Propheten, 1 215/).
2 In Ar. m'tzdn with z, whereas tidii (=|IN) has d\ see
Frankel, 198.
3 Cp Phoen. oSsVya. ' B. hath weighed out.'
* Cp the deprecation of unfair weights (D'JaK, lit. ' stones ') in
Lev. 19 35 Prov. 11 1 Mic. 0 11.
464
BALASAMUS
cross l)cams turning upon a pin. An arm on either side
fueled in a hook to which the article to be weighed was
attached in Iwgs (cp Wilk. Arte. Eg. 2246, fig. 415,
5 (/, see Bao, i ). Small ones of a particularly ingenious
nature, as well as hand-stales, are found (Wilk. 1 285
fig. 95). .-Xbovc the pole is sometimes placed the
figure of a bal)oon representing 'I'hoth the regulator of
measures. The steelyard (in Kgy|jt) does not seem to
have Ikjcu known until the Roman period.
BALASAMUS (BaaAcamoc |liA)). 1 Ksd. 94.* =
Neh. 84. M.\.\sKi.\ii, 15.
BALD LOCUST (Dr^D ; attakhc [HAFL]). The
.wl'dm is apparently a species of edible locust, or a
locust in a particular stage of growth. .See further
Locust, 2.
BALDNESS. See Clttincs, § i ; Haik.
BALM OIV or nV ; phtinh [rit- AKF] pithnh
[I", once]: cp Ezek. 27i7 .\V"'K- 'rosin'; \"g. resiiia
1. OT S6rl.
(ien. ;}725 43 II, Jer. 822 46 11 T.lS, ICzek.
27 17), a valuable product of Palestine,
the identification of which has given much trouble.
I'.V's rendering, 'balm,' is an imfortunate inheritance
'from Coverdale's Bible (see New ling. Diet. s.v. ). Let
us look fiist at the Hebrew name ns {sdri). The .\rabic
danu or <///"»' ' is identical with it, and since the root
means to ' drip' or ' bleed,' the product referred to nmst
l)e resiiioiis, but it need not be aromatic. From the
or notices we learn that sdrl (EV 'balm') was found
abundantly in Gilead, that it was in early times e.\[)orted
thence to I'-gypt ((Jen. .'5725), was sufficiently prized to
form an appropriate gift to a lord of that country (Gen.
4'5ii), was applied as a remedy for violent pain
(jer. //. cc. ), and was among the chief products of Pales-
tine that were brought into the Tyrian market (Ez. 27 17 )•
Next, we must point out that the modern commercial
name ' balm of Gilead ' has, like the botanical specific
name Gileadensc, no foundation but the hypothesis that
the substance so designated is the OT ' .fiVv of Gilead ' ;
and that from the earliest times resins and turpentines
have been used in medicine, as stimulants and as anti-
septics for wounds, and as counter-irritants for pain.
The ^dri [VN ' balm') of Jer. 822 46 11 is clearly a local
product in Gilead ; its association with mJr (EV
' myrrh ') in Gen. 3725 43 n proves that it was a valuable
article of commerce.
It has lx;en shown elsewhere (B.\i.s.\m) that the so-
called 'balsam of Mecca,' produced by the Balsamo-
„ p^ , , . demiron Opobalsamum, is most probably
Z.J^ODaDiy ^^^ jj^g . ^^j^. Q^ (, ji^^.^j . ^^^ j^^ Hebrew
■ mor, which EV mistakenly renders ' myrrh '
(see Bai.sa.m, .\Iykkh). SSri (EV balm), then, must
l)e something else.
( I ) Arabic usage is in favour of the rendering of R V"'n-
Cjen. 3725 etc., Mastic — i.e., the resin yielded by the
mastic tree, Pistacia Lentiscus.
This tree ' is a native of the Mediterranean shores, and is
found in Portugal, Morocco, and the Canaries ' (Fliickiger an<l
Hanbury's Pharmacogr., 161). According to Tristram (NHH
362), it is extremely common in all the Mediterranean countries,
especially on the African coasts and in the Greek islands, where
it overruns whole districts for many miles. Tristram states, also,
that it is indigenous in all parts of Palestine, though, according '
to Post (Hastings, BD 236 a), it is not now to be found E. of the
Jordan. The mastic of commerce is mainly derived from the
Isle of Scio. Down to the seventeenth century mastic was an
ingredient of many medicines. Unlike most resins, it readily
softens with motlerate heat, even that of the mouth.
As the Arabic word danv (or dirw) is used mainly of
this tree and its products, we are not rash in concluding
that a substance of this kind is intended in the biblical
passages, though it seems unnecessary to limit ns sSrl
to the resin of P. Lentiscus: it may include the resins j
of the terebinth {P. Terebinthus) and Aleppo piff
(Pinus halepensis ; see Ash). The former yields ' Chiaii
1 The Syriac sar^vS, must be a loan-word from Arabic (Lag.
Milth. 1 234).
BALSAM
turpentine,' which has recently been brought into notice
as an alleged remedy for cancer. According to I'ris-
tram {op. cit. 400), the terebinth is not now tapped for
turpentine in Palestme, ' where the inhabitants seem to
be ignorant of its commercial value. ' There is abundant
evidence of the medicinal use of these resins in antiijuity
(see Movers, Plion. Alt. iii. 1 223).
(2.) balanites tegyptiaca, called zakkiim by the Arabs (Tris-
tram, <»/. cit. 336), yields an oil 'prepared by the Arabs of
Jericho and sold in large quantities to the pilgrims as b.alm of
(Jilead.' This, however, was the irep<Tta of (Ireek writers, and
clearly, therefore, distinguished by them from /SoAao/xoi' or
pijTiVrj. It is merely a modern substitute.
(3.) Lastly must be mentioned Lagarde's view that (Ir.
CTTiipof = '"IS (fjr/). There is great probability in this
identification of the words, for (tt- is employed in .several
instances to transliterate <; (j) ; but evidence is wanting to con-
nect •");> with the substance crrvpa^, which seems to have been
called ill Hebrew n:3^ (liblineli). See further SroR ax.
W. T. T.-D. — N. M.
BALNUUS (BaAnyoc [H], BaAnoyoc [A]), i Esd.
93i = Ezral03o. Bi.nnui, 4.
BALSAM appears in RV"'k-, once for Dl^'3 bdsdm
(Cant. 5 if, apcom&TA). and twice in rendering the
i.Heb.basam.P^--^^^'^ °^-^ n?.m •,.-...//. i,ab.
bc'sci/t. 'bed of bal.sam ' ((ant. 51362,
(t>lAA<M TOY APCOM&TOC)- KV text and AV have
'sjiict',' ■ Ixjd of spices." The verb (in .Xram. bi^st'w)
signifies to 'have pleasure.' 'be attracted by desire," '
and in Heb. the nominal forms ^ denote enjoyment con-
nected with one particular sense — that of smell. From
one or othcT of the .Semitic forms comes Gr. fidXaa/xov.
.Although hasdvi and bosem in the above passages may
have the general sense of spice or perfume,^ it is more
probable that, like basdm and ^dXiTa/uLov , they denote the
balsam tree or plant par excellence. We now know
that the proper source of Mecca balsam is Balsamoden-
dron Opobalsamum (see § 4) ; and a tree of this kind
.seems to be intended in the passages from ancient
writers which are here summarised.
(rt) Theophrastus {Hist. Plant. 96) has a long passage about
the production of lialsani. It is produced, he says, 'in the
. hollow about .Syria ' {iv tw auAwi/t tui Trcpi
2. Ancient v,,^,-^^). xhis phrase Stackhouse explains
References. from Strabo as meaning KotAe-Svpia ; but
circa •522 H C ''^ ''^'^ present day Balsainodetuiron Opa-
' " balsatniivi does not grow farther N. than
Siiakim ; it is essentially a tropical plant. Theophrastus, who
is so minutely accurate in all his other details (note his happy
expression <^vAAoi' he . . . o/uoiof iriryofcu, ' with leaves like
rue '), cannot have meant what Stackhouse supposes. It is cer-
tain, however, that the term CtEi.E-SvRlA \q.v.\ in the Greek
period hail a wider application, and Veslingiiis (Opobalsaiiii
I'iiuiiciie, 243) rightly remarks, ' Vallem hie intelligendam esse
Hierichuntis . . . persuademur.' The fruit, Theophrastus
continues, resembles the terminth (turpentine) in size, shai)e, and
colour. The 'tear' is gathered from an excision ni.n<lL- witU
iron at the season when the stems and the upper pans are
tensest (jn-i-yr)). The odour is very strong ; the twigs also art-
very sweet-smelling. No wild bal.sam is met with an \ where.
The unmixed juice is sold for twice its weight in silver ; even
the mixed, which is often met with in Greece, is singularly
fragrant.
(/') Strabo (763) is somewhat less full ; but there can be no
doubt that it is the Mecca balsam plant which he descril)es as
_ grown in a irapaSftcros at Jericho. He says that it is
■t shrub-like (fla/otMcoSes), resembling cytisus and ter-
minth, and sweet-smelling. The juice is obtained by means of
incisions in the bark ; it is very much like a_ viscous milk
(■yAio-;^pu) -yaAojCTt) and solidifies when stored in little shells
()toyx<»pi<»)- He pr.nises its medicinal use, and says that it is
protluced nowhere else.
piodorus Siculus (248) mentions 'a certain hollow" in the
neighbourhood of the Dead Sea as the habitat of the balsam,
o and adds that great revenue is derived from this plant,
becau.se it is met with nowhere else in the world, and is
of great value to physicians.
Pliny too (//.\ l'i25) affirms that the balsam plant is coiUined
1 Curiously enough, Ar. basinia h.ts the contrary sense of
loathing (sKK Lag. Uel'crs. 143) ; but bal.lm denotes the balsam
tree.
2 Heb. does not possess the verb.
S See SiMCE. Bcsem is the word used in i K. 1021025
(Queen of Sheba's visit to Solomon).
466
BALSAM
to Juda;a. ' In former times it was cultivated only in two
A g irclens, Iwthof them royal ; one of them was no more
> than twenty jugcra in extent, and the other less. Ihe
emperors Vespasian and Titus had this shrub exhibited at
Rome; ... it liears a much Mroiij;er resemblance to the vine
\i e., ill the steins; here Phny scenic to borrow from Irogus
Pompeius) than to the myrtle. The leaf bears a very close
resemblance to that of [rue] 1 and it is an evergreen. ... At
the present day it is cultivated by the fiscal authorities, and the
plants were never known to be mure numerous. They never
exceed a couple of cubits in height.'
Josephus makes several references to the balsam. He says
{A/it. viii. Ob) that the first roots of balsam (on-ojSaAo-OfiOi/) were
A n '"■""R^' ''* Palestine by the queen of Sheba. To
90 A. L>. gjyg _^|j jjg^ ^p ^Yie site of Poinpey's camp (at Jericho),
he says it is where that balsam (b7^o^aAa•a;ao^■) which is of all
unguents (fiOpa) the chief grows, and describes how the juice
(oiros) is obtained {Ant. xiv. 4 i). Again, when speaking of the
districts around Jericho assigned to Cleopatra, he speaks of the
Cciousness of this pi int, which grows there alone (.;«/. xv. 42).
itlv, in a second reference to Pompey, he says that the region
of Jericho bears the balsam tree (^oAira/iOi'), wh^se stems
(n-pfju.i'a) were cut with >^harp stones, upon which the juice ' drops
down like tears ' {B/ i. 0 6).
I'rogus, an author of the time of Augustus, is reproduced by
Justin (363). He describes the closely shut-in valley in which
/ / > r-v alone the opobalsamum grows ; the na'iie of the
ISt cent. A.n. ^^^^^ j^ Jericho (Hienchus). _ 'In that valley
is a wood, notable alike for its fertility and its pleasantness,
being adorned w.th a palm grove and opobalsamum. The opo-
balsamum trees h ive a form like pine trees {piceis), except that
they are less tall {iiuigis huiiiUes), and are cultivated after the
manner of vineyards. Ihese at a certain time of the year sweat
balsam.'
It is remarkable that the Greek and the Roman writers
dwell so constantly on the uniqueness of the balsam-tree
3. Balsam in
Arabia.
of Jericho. Some of them, at any rate
{e.g., Strabo, Pausanias, Diodorus), were
not unaware that the plant grew on the
coasts of Arabia ; and Josephus, in his legendary style,
actually attributes to iiuportation from Arabia its
presence in Palestine (.•:/«/. viii. 66). No doubt this is
substantially correct. Prosper Alpinus {De BaLsamo,
1592) and Veslingius [Opobahami I'indicicB, 1643) long
ago investigated the subject. In the time of the former,
balsam plants were brought to Cairo from Arabia ;
Alpinus himself [op. cit. 64) apparently possessed a
living specimen. The Arabic writer 'Abdallatif [d. 1231)
also speaks of the balsam tree as in I'>gypt at 'Ain
Shems (' Fountain of the .Sun') — z'.^. , in the gardens of
Matariya, close to Heliopolis. It was about a cubit
high, and had two barks ; the outer red and fine, the
inner green and thick. When the latter was macerated
in the mouth, it left an oily taste, and an aromatic
odour. Incisions were made in the barks, and the
amount of balsam oil obtained formed a tenth part of
all the liquid collected.^ The last balsam tree cultivated
in Kgypt died in 1615 ; but two were alive in 1612.
This was the only place in Egypt where the balsam
tree would grow. We can well understand, therefore,
that the neighbourhood of Jericho was the only habitat
of the tree in Palestine.
It would, however, be unreasonable to suppose that
the needs of the luxurious class in Palestine in pre-
4. Probably
_ Ronirm times were altogether supplied
OT mor EV
from Jericho. The precious unguent
, derived from the balsam tree, not less
•^ ' than the costly frankincense, was doubt-
less always one of the chief articles brought by Arabian
caravans. The tree that produces the so-called ' balsam
of Mecca ' is the Balsamodeiidron Opobalsamum. This
tree, as Schweinfurth reports,* ' averages above 15 ft. in
height, possesses a yellow papery exfoliating bark, and
produces thin, grayish black twigs, from the ends of
which a small quantity of balsam exudes.' ' It is widely
distributed over the coast territory of Arabia, the adjacent
islands, and S. Nubia' ; but 'the balsam is collected
only in the valleys near Mecca.' It is thus described by'
Dymock (Phnrmaco^r. Ind. 1 317) : ' Balsam of Mecca,
when freshly imported into Bombay, is a greenish turbid
1 Rutie in old editions : but Mavhoff prefers tuhuri (tuheri).
•J See 'Abdallatif, ed. De Sacy, 88 (Budge, The Mie, 181).
:t We quote from a rdsumi of his researches in Pharm.
Journ. April 1894, p. 897.
467
BAN
fluid of syrupy consistence, having a very grateful
odour, something like oil of rosemary. ' Jewish tradition
seems to have held that Mecca balsam is what the OT
writers call sdri — whence the rendering ' balm ' of AV
and RV (text) ; but the tradition was impugned long
ago by Bochart {/licroz. i. 251), and docs not agree
with the use of the .Arabic cognate word danv (mastic;
see Balm, i ). Schweinfurth holds that the OT name
for .Mecca balsam \»as not .u)r/ (EV balm, perhaps
really mastic ; see B.\LM, i), nor bosetn (see above,
§ I ), but mor (see Mykrh). Certainly tnor was (like
Mecca balsam) strongly aromatic and also a liquid
substance (Ex. 3O23 Cant. 5513). whilst the OT refer-
ences do not necessarily imply that sdrl was aromatic.
It is not unlikely that both bdsem (§ i) and mor mean
Mecca balsam. (Cp Kew Ilulletin for Mar. -Apr. 1896,
p. 89. ) .See MVKKIl. N. M. — VV. T. T.-I). — T. K.C.
BALSAM TREES (D\S03 ; RV"'k'. 2 S. 023 i Ch.
14 14 Ps. S46). See Mli.ukkky.
BALTHASAR, RV Baltasar (BaAtacar [B.\Qr]).
Bar. Ill/ See Bki.shazz.vr.
BAMAH (nm, Ez. 20 29). See Hich Pi.ace.s, § 5.
BAMOTH (ni02; BAAAOoe [BAFL]), a station of.
the Israelites Ixjtween Nauai.ikl [q.''.) and 'the glen
((P'^ vcLTtT)) which is in the field [plateau] of Moab,
[by] the summit of [the] Pisgah, etc' (.\u. 21 19). Eus.
{OS 101 22) descril)es it as 'on the Arnon' (like Nahaliel),
which must be wrong. See Bamoth-BAAL.
BAMOTH-BAAL (^r? n'lOB— z.^., ' the high places
of Baal "1 lav in the ^Toabite territory (see Nu. 2241,
RV; cthAh TOY Baa\ [BAFLJ), to the north of the
Arnon, and was assigned to Reulien (losh. 13 17 :
Bmmoon B&aA [B]. BamooG B- [AL]). The order of
enumeration in Nu. 21 19/ , where it is called simply
Bamoth, leads to the supposition (so Di. ) that it must
have Iain somewhere on or near the Jeliel 'Attarus, on
the south side of the Wady Zerka Main (cp Is. 152 :
•the high places'). Conder {Heth and Moab, 144)
and G. A. Smith {HG 562), however, find the Bamoth
in the dolmens immediately north of el-Maslubiyeh,
near the Wady Jideid. The Beth Bamoth of the
Moabite stone is perhaps the same place (cp Bajith) ;
but this whole region is thickly strewn with the remains
of ancient altars and other religious monuments (Conder,
cp cit. ijfOff.). The name Banioth-baal is suggested
also by Nu. 2I28, where the pnN- nis| *|?i;2 (EV 'lords
of the high places of Arnon' — but see ©) are mentioned
in parallelism with Ar of Moab. G. A. S
BAN, RV'HK- Baenan (Ban [A]. Bacn&n [B]), i
Esd. 037= Ezra 2 60, Tobijah, 2
BAN (Dnn), to Ban (Dnnn).
© renders by avaSeiia., ai'dOqiia, a.v(neBey.a.Ti<TtJ.fvov, and
in a few in.stances aTrai^ei'a and other words denoting destruc-
tion ; 6.va.0(iJ.aTiifiv and more rarely avarLOtvai
1. Terms, once, i Ksd.!t4, oi'iepoOi', efoAoflpevfii'j and in a
few instances other verbs denoting ' kill ' or ' de-
stroy.' Vg. has anathema, consecratio, etc. ; occido, consume,
consecro, etc. AV translates curse, utterly destroy, accursed
thine, etc. ; RV, de-Jote, utterly destroy, demoted thing:
The root HR.M in Hebrew denotes devoting any-
thing to Vahwe by destroying it : hirem is any person
or thiiig thus devoted. The root is found in a similar
sense in all the Semitic languages, of sacred things
which men are partly or wholly forbidden to use. It is
esjMJcially common in Arabic : e.g. , the sacred territory
of Mecca and Medina is haram, and the harim (harem)
is ground forbidden to all men other than the master
and his eimuchs. It may be noted that the exclusive
use of the root in the strong sense of devoting by
destroying is characteristic of Hebrew (and of the dialect
spoken by the Moabites ; see §§ 3/.), and that in other
languages hrm bears a meaning more nearly approaching
NDD (unclean), E'lij (consecrated).
468
BAN
(a) Idols are herem in themselves. In Dt. 7=5 the
Israelites are ordered to burn all heathen idols and not
, to bring them into their houses. The idols
2. Law of *'
HGrem.
are hCrem, and make those who keep them
hC-rem. (d) Public herem. The Israelites
or their rulers are ordered to treat as herem in certain
circumstances, guilty citizens or obno.xious enemies. In
I'.x. 22 19 [20] (liook of the Covenant, K) any one sacri-
ficing to any deity other tlian Yahwe is to Ix: made
herem. So in substance Dt. 1.36-ii, though the term
herein does not cKCur till t'. 16. In Dt. 13 i3-:9 [12-18]
any idolatrous Israelite city is to be made herein : all
living things are to lie killed and ' all its siwil ' is to be
burnt. .So far, in (a) as in (7'), the herem is something
abominable in itself and distasteful to God. Its de-
struction is a religious duty, and an acceptable service
to Yahwe. Similarly, in Dt. 20 16-18 all Canaiinite cities
are to be made herein, that they may not seduce Israel
to idolatry. In Dt. 20 10-14, if any distant city refuses
to surrender when summoned, all the males are to be
slain, ami all other ix;rsons and things may be taken as
spoil. The term 'herein' is not used in that paragraph,
anil is perhaps not applicable to it. (c) We gather
from certain passages that individuals might devote
some possession to destruction as a kind of service to
Yahwe, and that also is called herem (see Vow). In a
section of 1' concerning vows, Lev. 27, two verses (28/ )
deal with this individual herem. Other vows may be
redeemed ; but individual (like public) herem must be
destroyed — it may not be sold or redeemed : it is most
holy (i'Ji/i-s/t kihfdshim) unto Yahwe. Among the objects
which an individual may make herem, men are specially
mentioned : they must be put to death. It is startling
to find such a provision in one of the latest strata of the
Pentateuch. Possibly only criminals could be made
herem ; or the text may be fragmentary. Cp Dillmann
and Kalisch on Lev. 272829.
In Josh. 624 we have a provision that metal herem
(obviously because indestructible) is to lie put into the
treasury of the sanctuary. By an extension of this
principle, Nu. 18 14 (P) and V.z. 4429 ordain that herein
shall lie the pro[)crty of the priests.
Herem is met with in Hebrew literature in all periods.
The sweeping statements that all Canaanite cities E.
3. Practice.
and \\'. of the Jordan were made herem
are late generalisations ; but Nu. 21
(JE) and Judg. 1 17 (J), though otherwise discrepant,
agree that the city on whose site Hormah was built
was made herein. Other instances of herem are Jabesh-
gilead (Judg. 21 10 /. ), Jericho (rebuilding forbidden
under supernatural penalty. Josh. 626/. ), the Amale-
kites (iS. 15), and the children of Ham at Gedor
( I Ch.44i). Similar cases— in regard to which, however,
the term herem is not used — are Giheah and Benjamin
(Judg. 20) and Sauls attempt to e.xecute Jonathan (i S.
1424-46). On the Moabite stone (/. 16/) Mesha' says
that he made the whole Israelite populace of Nebo
herem to Ashtarchemosh. The prophets speak of
Israel or Yahwe making herem of enemies (Is. 34 2
etc.) or of enemies' property (Mic. 413), or, conversely,
of the heathen (Jer. 269), or Yahwe (Is. 4828), making
herem of Israel. In the later literature the root hnn
often only means exterminate (2 Ch. 2O23). The old
meaning, however, was not quite forgotten, and in
Ezra 108, if any Jew failed to obey Ezra's summons
to Jerusalem, his property was to be made herem and
he himself excomnumicated. In post-biblical Hebrew
herem came to mean excomnmnication as well as pro-
|)erty set apart for the priests and the temple (Levy and
Jastrow's Dictionaries, s.v. ; S. Mandl, Der Dann,
'98, pp. 24-51) .See, further, Excommunic.\tion.
The character of herein, the diffusion of the root in a
similar sense throughout .Semitic languages, and its use
in the Hebrew sense by the Moabites, show that it was
an ancient Semitic institution belon<;ing to Israel in
common with its kinsmen. Stade ((/Wi/i. 1 490) holds
469
BANI
that a .Semitic people besieging a city vowed to make it
-. . . J herem to their god in order to secure his
4. Ungin ana ^^^ Moreover, the idea of herem —
paralieiB. ^^ ^j^^ ^^ ^^ ^^^ ^.^^^ j^^ allied
languages shows — was kindred to that of sanctity and
uncleaimess. Like these, it was contagious (cp Ci.kas,
§§ 2. 14) : the possessor of herem lx;came herem ( Dt. 7 26
Josh. 618; .\chan). OP legislation, as we have seen,
converts the brilje to a venal deity into a legitimate
I penalty. The various degrees of severity are not im-
portant in relation to the principle.
Herem has something in common with taboos,
especially in its fatal effect on its possessor — e.g., in
New Zealand tabooed food is fatal to any one who eats
it (Frazer, Golden Bough, vol. ii. ' Taboos ') ; — but it is
not so closely allied to tatoos as the idea of uncleanness
(xca; WKS, Rel. iVw.C-) 450/:). The Arab harim
often assimilates to herem : e.g. , clothes used at the
circuit of the Ka'aba are harim, and may not be worn
or sold. Cp also the Roman ceremony of dez'olio, by
which an enemy was devoted to destruction as an
offering to the infernal gods (Preller, Kom. Myth. 124,
466). The instance of Kirrha and the .Amphictyoiiic
council, in which the cultivation of land laid under a
curse was made the pretext for a holy war, may also be
compared with the case of Jericho. w. 11. H.
BANAIAS (Banaiac [B.-V]). i Esd. 93S = K^ral043.
Bknaiah, 10.
BAND. I. In the sense of a troop or company of
men, soldiers, etc. (see .\k.my, § 3).
The rendering of 'agapf>lm, C'SJX (prop, wings, cp Piab.
agappu), 'E.z.\in,^\.z.; gedad, ^^J, 1K.U24 AV 2 K. 1321,
etc. ; hayil, S-n (prop, force), 1 S.IO26 AV Ezra.S22 ; iiiahaneh,
n;n9, Gen. 3-27[8] W (prop, camp), see Mah.asai.m ; and rdi,
E?xn, I Ch.1223 AV Job 1 17; 'by kinds,' Pr. 3U27, represents
a participle i";;''n, /wsPs, 'dividing (it-^clf).' In this sense the
common Gr. word is (nrelpa (cp Mt. 27 27 Mk. 15 16, etc.),
' cohort ' (so RV"i=;-, Acts 10 1).
2. In the sense of a ribbon.
So/iefc-M, 2Z;q, Ex. 288, RV 'cunningly woven band'; -W
'curious girdle.
3. Finally, to denote anything that connects or
encloses, the following words (also rendered 'bonds,'
etc. ) are employed.
'Esttr, •VOH, Judg. 15i4, cp Aram. "I^DN, Dan. 4 15 23 [12 zo] ;
/u-fi/te/, San, Ps.ll06i (RV CoKDS, ?.7'.), and esp. Zech. II7 14,
where ' Bands ' (mg. ' binders ' or ' union ') is the name of one of
the prophets staves; harsubbdth, ni2i"in, Is. uS6 and Ps. T34
(RVnig. 'pangs,' doubtful); mot&h, H^iS, Lev. 20 13 Ez.3427,
RV 'bars' (.Xgkiculture, § 4); iiioscr, -,Dic, Job395 Ps.23,
■nioiekhbth, niDCiS, Job 3831!, of the 'bands' of Orion; see
Stars, § 3(5; 'dbhoth, T\Z^, Job 39 10, elsewhere (in plur.)
rendered ' cords, ' ropes, etc.
BANI C^a. §§5, 52 ; cp Palm, and Nab. ':2 ;
probably shortened from Bknaiah, ' Yah hath built
up'; cp Gen. 3O3 Dt. '209 Kuth4ii, and see Haupt,
Froc. Am. Or. Soc. Ap. 22 [92] ; BAN[e]i fBN.\L],
-Al [L], -AiA [BL], -AIAC [NAL], BAAN[e]i [BX.\])
is a frequently occurring name (chiefly post-exilic), and
in some cases it is difficult to separate the persons
bearing it ; there is often confusion between it, the
parallel names BuNNi and BiNNUi [^j/.?.]. and the noun
B'ne (':2). See Mey. Entsteh. 142.
1. A Gadite, one of David's 'thirty'; 2 S. 23 36 (uibs -yoAoaiiet
IB], vi. yaSSi [A], vu ayrjpei [I.])-i Ch.1138, on which see
Hagri. Cp Davii., S II (11.). . . ,.
2. A family of B'ne Hani occurs in the great post-cxiIic list
(see Ezra, ii. §§98 f), Ezra 2 10 (/Sai^u [B], -vi [A]) = Neh. 7 15
Oavovi [BKA], -aiov [L]) .\V BiNNUi (.;.r'.)= i p:.sd. 5 12 ; and
various members of it are enumerated in Ezra 10 J90a>'0u»i [BK])
= 1 Esd.9 3o(/iai*i fH.A]) EV Mam and among those who had
j married foreign wives (see Ezra, i. § 5) in Ezra 10 34-42: viz.,
j in V. 34 (Awi [BK], ^aiaifi ILl)=i Esd. 9 34 AV Maani, RV
I Baani, and in v. 38 (ol viol ^o^'ou"l [BNAJ. 0ayv«t, cat vioi
470
BANID
Povvei [I.1=MT '"31 '32^ EV Bani and Binnli)= i Esd. O34
(EV Bannls, E1.IAI.1; fiavvovi, ESiaAei? [l!], /3., EAtoAci [A],
Pevvei. icai vtoi /Soiree [L]). It is plausible, however, to correct
Bani into Binnui or perhaps Bigvai in 7'. 34 (cp 214). The
family is also referred to on important occasions in Neh. 817
and 10 13 (fiavovia [I.]?) and as n> Ezra's caravan (see Ezra, i.
i 2, ii. § 15 {i)iO, I i:sd.S36, AV Banid, RV Hanias OSaw.a?
|B], -raiat [L], -vi air- [Al) = Ezra8io (vlo>v [SoAeifiouS, B], ui.
iSaAifiioe, L], ^aavLi [eAei^/aoufl'., A'"'-]) where Bani should be
restored in MT(see Be. tu/ ioc).
3. One of the expounders of the Law (Neh. 8 7 ; see Ezra, ii.
S 13/ ; cp i. 8 8, ii. g 16 [5I 15 [t] f) who officiated at the con-
stitution of the 'congregation' {^^y.\ see Ezka, ii. S 12, §
13 [/]). In O4 (R.-ini Kadmiel ; (ESBnai. yjoi <caS/iiT|,\) the name
is repeated, probably by an error (cp Ryssel) ; (.Iriitz, after
Pesh., reads Binnui for the second Bani. In O5 (pHXA has
simply KafijunrjA. Cp also Ezra 'J 40 (' and Kadmiel of the children
of Hodaviah ')= Neh. 743 with i Esd. ■'Jso (Ka5/xi7)Aoi; icai fiavrov
[\]). In Neh. II22, Uzzi (5) b. Bani (/So^t [K^-a], ^ovvci [I-l) is
called overseer of the Levites at Jerusalem.
4. Signatory to the covenant (see Ezra, i. S 7). Neh. 10 14 [15]
(Pavvi [LI : viol Pavi [BXA] ; cp Bunni, i).
5. A Merarite; 1 Ch. G31 [46].
6. A Judahite ; i Ch. 04 Kr. (©hai, omit).
BANID, RV Banias (BANeiAC [H]), /.^., Bani {,/.v.
2[emll).
BANISHMENT. On various forms of temporary or
permanent exclusion from the community as a con-
sefjuence of crime or ceremonial distjualification, see
IlVN, § 3; ClKAN AND UNCI.KAN, § I $ /■ ) SV'.NA-
(iOGLTK ; EXCOMMUNIC.VnON.
In 2 S. 14 14 allusion is made to Absalom in the word irnj
(F,V 'banished'), elsewhere usually rendered 'outcast' (' out-
casts' or 'dispersed of Israel'); see Disi'ERsion, § i. 'Ilie
nature of the punishment threatened in Ezra 7 26t (it:"!!;') RV"'};-
'rooting out' (naiSda [li.V], naiSeUiv [L]) was alreaijy ob-
scure to the editor of i E.sd. (S 24 : ri/aaipta [BA], ari^ia [L]).
E/ra 108 (' separated [Si2-] from the congregation of the captiv-
ity ') may give an explanation of the phrase.
BANK. For so/m/i, nh':>D, in 2 S. 20 15 2 K. 19 32
Is. 3733 AV (elsewhere EV always Mount) and x°-P°-^
in I,k. 194! (AV Trench, RV't.'- Palisaue) see Fok-
TIFIC.VTION.
BANK (Tp^nezA. Lk. 1923 EV), BANKER (tra-
neziTHC Mt. '2527 RV). See Tkauk and C'om-
MEKt K.
BANNAIA (Bannmoyc [A]), i Esd. 933 AV =
Ezral033. Z-VBAD, 5.
BANNAS (Bannoy [I^A]), iEsd..T26 RV=Ezra
240, Bani, 3.
BANNEAS (Bannaiac [B.\]), i Esd. 926 RV = Ezra
IO25, Bknaiah, 7.
BANNER (D3, hil, HN). See Ensigns. § i, a. b, c.
BANNUS (Bannoyc [B.\]), i Esd. 9 34 = Ezra 10 38.
Bani, 2.
BANQUET, Banqueting House. See Meai.s.
BANUAS IBannoy ['^A]), i Esd. 026, apparently a
misijrint for Bamias (so RV). See Bani (3).
BAPTISM (Batttic/wa, BATTTizem)- Among
the permanent witnesses to the V)irth of Christianity
_ . . out of Judaism is the primary institu-
gl"- fJQj^ of {he Christian Church, the rite of
baptism. W'ith the Jews the bathing of the whole tody
in pure cold water — if possible, in a running stream —
was a recognised means of restoration from a state of
ceremonial uncleanness. Passages like Num. 19iiy!,
31 19, also Is. 1 16 Zech. 13i, and especially Ezek.
36 24^ , may be compared. The pouring of water on the
hands — a symbolic representation, perhaps, of baptism
in a running stream — was a Pharisaic precaution in-
sisted on before every meal (cp .Mk. 73 Lk. 11 38). The
Gentile, whose whole life had been ceremonially un-
clean, was required to submit to baptism among other
conditions of his reception as a Jewish proselyte (Schiirer,
r,V.f(77.* 2569^.; 3rd ed. 3129). See Prosei.ytk, § 5.
The connection between Jewish and Christian baptism
BAPTISM
\ is strikingly illustrated by the regulations prescril)ed for
I the latter in the Didacki, to be noticed presently ; but,
I the ceremonial baptistns of Judaism, though they lie
behind Christian baptism and exert an iiitluence on its
history, are not its immediate antecedent. The Jewish
baptisms were the outcome of the Jewish di.siinction
between clean and unclean — a distinction which was
done away by Christianity (cp W.vshings). Christian
baptism is a purification, not from ceremonial, but
from moral impurity. The historical link is found
in the baptism of John in the river Jordan. John
adapted the familiar ceremony of baptism to a
moral purpose : his was ' a baptism of repentance for
the remission of sins,' a purification of the nation
from that moral uncleanness of which ceremonial un-
cleanness was properly typical. It was by means of
this development of its true significance that baptism
was rescued from mere formalism, and prepared to
become the initiatory rite of the new Christian society.
As Jesus' work took up John's, and as he him-
self had chosen to be baptized by John, it was natural
that his first preaching of rep)entance should be coupled,
like John's, with a baptism. It is significant, how-
ever, that he did not perform the rite himself: only
his disciples did so (Jn. 4 1 / ). Christian baptism
was not yet instituted ; and when it came it was to
add a spiritual element which Joim's baptism lacked.
Meanwhile Jesus was indicating by his own action, and
by his defence of the action of his disciples, that the
frequent i'harisaic baptisms — the ceremonial washi.ig
of the hands, arwl the ' baptisms ' of vessels and dishes
(.\Ik. 74) — had no permanent claim on the conscience;
and certain of his words are directly explained by one
of the Evangelists as repealing altogether the ceremonial
distinction of clean and unclean, and as ' cleansing all
meats' (Mk. 719). Only when the whole purport of
Jewish b.iptisms was annulled was the way clear for the
institution of the Christian rite, one of the essential
principles of which was that it should be performed once
for all, with no possibility of repetition.
On the day of Pentecost Peter answers the inc|uiries
j of the multitude in words which, whilst they recall the
baptism of John, indicate the fuller significance of
Christian baptism : ' Repxjnt ye, and be baptized, each
one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission
of your sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy
Spirit' (.Acts 2 38). .\bout three thousand were there-
upon added by baptism to the original band of Iwlievers.
It is expressly stated that at .Sam.aria, as the result
of Philip's preaching, both men and women were
baptized ' in the name of the Lord Jesus ' ; but the gift
of the Holy Spirit did not follow until the arrival of Peter
and John from Jerusalem (S 12-17 1. I 'i*-' eunuch after
Philip's instructions asks for baptism ; and ' they go
down both together into the water' (83638). Saul is
baptized by .Ananias at Damascus (9 18). When Peter
preached to Cornelius and his friends ' the Holy Spirit
fell on all that heard the word ' ; whereupon the apostle
• commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus
Christ ' (1044.^. ). Special stress is laid on this incident
as the first occasion of the baptism of Gentiles as such
(IO45 11 1 18). It was justified by the ajx)stle on the
ground of the previous gift of the Holy Spirit, which
was the baptism promised by Christ in contradistinction
to John's baptism (1116^).
Baptism was thus recognised as the door of admission
into the Christian Chrrch for Jews and (Jentiles alike ;
and certain disciples of the Baptist whom Paul found at
j Ephesus were baptized afresh ' in the name of the Lt>rd
j Jesus' (195). Of Eydia, the purple seller of Thyatira,
found by Paul at Philippi, we read that she 'was bap-
! tized, and her household ' (1615) ; and of the Philippian
gaoler, that he was Iwptized, ' he and all his straight-
, way,' — i.e., in the middle of the night (I633). .At
I Corinth a few of the earliest converts were baptized by
I Paul himself — Crispus, Gains, and the household of
47a
I
»
BAPTISM
Stephanas ; — but the apostle's languaRc shows that this
was ciuite exceptional (iCor. 1 14-17). In i (or. 1629
Paul nictuions a custom, apparently prevailing in
Corinth, of vicarious baptism in behalf of the dead.
He neither commends nor rebukes it, and it would
seem to have soon died out.^
The earliest notice of the method of baptism is
perhaps that which is found in the DiJachd, and, as we
2. Method.
have already said, it illustrates the recog-
nition of a connection l)et\veen the Jewish
and the Christian baptisms. The Didachi', here as
elsewhere, is strongly anti-Judaic in its lone, and at the
same time shows the inHuence of Jewish practices upon
the conmiunity which it represents. The Mishna draws
six distinctions in the kinds of water available for
various piirific.itory purposes [.\/ik~wad/k 1 1-8, qtioted
by Schiirer, 'J4<>jj^. ), and in certain cases it insists
upon the full stream of running water, in which the
whole body can Ix; inniiersed. The Diduchi (cliajj. 7)
recognises 'living water' — i.e., the running stream —
■other water,' 'cold,' and 'warnC ; and finally allows
a triple pouring, where a sufiiciency of any water for
immersion cannot be had ; but, though it indicates a
preference in the order here given, it admits the validity
of baptism under any of these conditions.
It is sometimes urged that, because ^awTiii'fiv means
'to dip,' Christian bajjlism must originally have been
by immersion. Tn the N'T, however, as in classical
writers, the usual word for ' to dip ' is §a.wTuv (I-k. 1(124
Jn. 1326). ^aiTTl^eLv had a wider usage, and could
be used even of a mere cerenionial handwashing,
as we see from Lk. 11 38, ' he marvelled that he had not
first washed (efiaTTTia-drj) before dinner.' Already the
partial ablution would seem to have been regarded as
symbolical of the whole. It is difficult to suppose that
the 3000 converts on the day of Pentecost could all have
been baptized by immersion. Such a method is indeed
presupposed as the ideal, at any rate, in Paul's words
about death, burial, and resurrection in baptism (Rom.
63 /;) ; but pouring water on the head was in any case
symbolical of inuuersion, and tantamount to it for ritual
puriK)ses.
(ii) In the Xamc, not ' into the name.' Although eh
is the ])reposili()n most frecjuently used, we find iv in
p . Acts'JjS IO48 ; and the interchangeability
rmu a. ^^ ^j^^ ^^^.^ prepositions in late Greek
may be plentifully illustrated from the NT. Moreover,
the expression is a Hebraisni ; cp iv dvo/j-ari Kvplov
Mt. 2I9 ( — Ps. II826 cr2) ; so in the baptismal fornmla
of Mt. 2819 the Syr. version has <QAd (Lat. in nomine).
{/<) In the name of Jesus Christ, or of the Lord Jesus.
The former exjiression is used in Acts 238 10 48 ; the
latter in Acts 816 1 95; cp also Acts 22 16, ' Ari.se and
be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on his
name.' From these passages, and from Paul's words
in I C>)r. 1 13 (' Was Paul crucified for you, or were ye
Ixtptized in the name of Paul ? '), it is natural to conclude
that baptism was administered in the earliest times ' in
the name of Jesus Christ,' or in that ' of the Lord Jesus.'
This view is confirmed by the fact that the earliest forms
of the baptismal confession appear to have Ijeen single
— not triple, as was the later creed. Wlien Philip's
baptism of the eunuch appeared to have been abruptly
narrated, the confession was inserted in the simple form,
' I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God ' (Acts
' Tertullian {Res. 48 c. Marc. 5 10) assumes that the custom
was current in Paul's time, but is wrongly cited as attesting it for
his own day. Chrysostoin (ad loc.) says that Marcionites prac-
tised it : and Kpiphiiiiius (/A/'r. 2S6) had heard of a tradition
that the Corinthians had done the same. This is very weak
evidence for a second-century custom, and it is most probable
that if the practice was found it was due to the pas.saKe m Paul's
Epistle, and cannot be regarded as independent testimony to
the existence of the custom among primitive Christians.
The difficulties in which Commentators who reject the obvious
meaning of the words find themselves involved may be seen at
length m Stanley's Corinthians {ad ioc).
473
BAPTISM
837) ; and the fornmla 'Jesus is Lord' appears soon to
have l)ec(>me a stereolyix.'d confession of C hristian faith
(cp ko. IO9 I Cor. 123 Phil. 2ii) ; moreover the 'ques-
tion and answer ' {fir(pwn}/xa) connecte<l with Ixiptism
in I Pet. 821 would appear to represent only the central
section of the later creed.
On the other hand, we have in Mt. 28 19 the full
fornmla, ' in the name of the Father and of the Son ami
of the Holy(jhost. ' We have no .synoptic parallel at
this point ; and thus, from a documentary point of view,
we must regard this evidence ;is posterior to that of
Paul's Epistles and of .Acts.
The apparent contradiction was felt by Cyprian, who
suggested (/•:/>. 7^1? /.) that in baptizing Jews the
apostles may have been contented with the one name
of the Lord Jesus Christ, as they already lielieved in the
Father ; whilst in baptizing (ientiles they used the full
fornmla, which was given (as he points out) with the
connnand to ' make disciples of all the nations ' or
'Cientiles.' This explanation, however, breaks down
in face of Acts 10 45-48, the opening of the door to the
Gentiles.
Three explanations deserve consideration : (1 ; that
in .Acts we have merely a compendious statement — i.e.,
that as a matter of fact all the persons there spoken of
were baptized in the threefold name, though for brevity's
sake they are simply .said to have been baptized in the
single name; (2) that Matthew does indeed report
exactly the words uttered by Jesus, but that those
words were not regarded as prescribing an actual fornmla
to Ix; used on every occasion, and that the spirit of them
was fulfilled by bajnism in the name of the Lord Jesus ;
(3) that Matthew does not here report the i/>sissima
verba of Jesus, but transfers to him the familiar language
of the Church of the evangelist's own time and locality.
The first of these explanations cannot be regartled as
satisfactory in the alxsence of any historical evidence of
the emploj'ment of the threefold formula in the earliest
times. A decision Ixjlween the second and the third
would involve an ineiuiry into the usage of the evangelist
in other parts of his Gosp)el, and belongs to the dis-
cussion of the .synoptic problem ; but in favour of the
third it may lie stated that the language of the First
Gospel, where it does not exactly reproduce an earlier
document, shows traces of modifications of a later kind.
It has been argued that when Paul (.Acts nt2y; |, in
answer to the statement of the Ephesian disciples of the
Haptist, ' W'e have not so much as heard if there Ix? a
Holy Spirit' (et irvevtia. &.yi6v taTiv), said, ' L'lUo what,
then, were ye baptized ? ' he presupposed the use of the
longer formula which expressly named the Holy Spirit.
The statement can hardly mean, however, that they had
never even heard of a Holy .Spirit, for disciples of the
Haptist could scarcely so speak (Mk. 18): it must refer to
the special gift of the Holy Spirit which Christians were
to receive. .Accordingly, Paul's question simply implies
that Christian baptism could scarcely have been given
without some instruction as to this gift which was to
follow it. In any case, it would be exceedingly strange
that at this point Lk. should not have referred to the
threefold formula, had it been in use, instead of simply
saying, ' When they heard it, they were baptized in
the name of the Lord Jesus ' (.Acts 19 5).
The threefold formula is attested by the Didachi
\ (chap. 7), both in express words and by the mention of
the alternative practice of triple effusion ; but, as the
Didachi shows elsew here its dependence on Matthew,
this is not independent evidence.
Justin Mart3T (chap. V.tZ), in describing baptism to
heathen readers, gives the full fornmla in a paraphrastic
form {Apol.Xtx), 'in the name of God, Father of the
I L'niverse and Ruler, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ,
and of the Holy Spirit.' .Such a paraphrase was neces-
sary to make the meaning clear to those for whom he
wrote.
We find the full formula again in Tertullian some
474
BAPTISM
forty years later (De Bapt. 13, Adv. Prax. 26) ; and
when the First Gospel was widely known it was certain
to prevail. Exceptions are found which perhaps point
to an old practice dying out. Cyprian [Up. 73) and the
Apostolic Canons (n. 50) combat the shorter formula,
thereby attesting its use in certain quarters. The ordin-
ance of Can. A post. 50 runs — •' If any bishop or pres-
byter fulfil not three baptisms of one initiation [rpia
liairTi(Tfw.Ta /utaj fivri<Ttu)s), but one baptism which is
given (as) into the death of the Lord, let him be
deposed.' This was the formula of the followers of
Kunomius (Socr. 524), 'for they baptize not into the
Trinity, but into the death of Christ ' (for other refer-
ences see Usencr, J^elij:,': Untersiich., 1889, I184); they,
accordingly, used single immersion only.
No statement is found in the NT as to the age at
which baptism might l)e administered. CJircumcision,
wliich Paul regards as fulfilled in Christian
baptism (see below, § 5), enrolled the Jewish
boy in the covenant of his fathers on the eighth day
after birth, so that there could lie no doubt that young
chihlrcn were truly members of the holy people. Thus,
if children had been excluded from baptism when
whole families were won to Christianity, we should
almost certainly have had some record of the protest
which would have teen raised against what must have
seemed so inconsistent a limitation to the membership
of the new ' I.srael of God. ' It seems reasonable to sup-
pose, therefore, that where ' households ' are spoken of
as I)eing baptized (.Acts 16 15 31-33 i Cor. 1 16), there must
have been, at least in some cases, instances of the
ba]itism of infants. That Paul could speak of the
children of a believing husband, or of a believing wife,
as ' holy ' is an indication in the same direction.
Paul, as we might expect, sees in baptism the means
by which the individual is admitted to his place in the
one body, of which he thus becomes a
4. Age.
5. Inter-
pretation.
member ; ' For as the body is one am
hath many members, but all the memlx.'rs,
many though tlicy \yn, are one body, so also is the
Christ ; for indeed by one .Spirit [iv evi wvevixaTi) we
all were baptized into one body — whether Jews or Gen-
tiles, whether bondmen or free' (i Cor. 12 12/). Bap-
tism was thus the fundamental witness of Christian
unity (Eph. 45, 'one baptism'); and in both the
passages here referred to it is emphasised as such in
view of the variety of spiritual gifts. A parable of
Cliristian baptism might be found in the cloud and the
sea through which all the Israelites had alike passed ;
' they were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in
the sea' (i Cor. 10 2).
In Rom. 61 J/". Paul regards baptism as effecting a
union with the death of Christ : ' we were baptized into
his death. ' It was a kind of burial of the former self,
with a view to a resurrection and a new life. The same
conception recurs in Col. 2 11/!, where it is immediately
preceded by the thought that it corresponds in a certain
way to the circumcision of the old covenant. It is ' the
putting off ' — totally, not merely partially and symbolic-
ally— of the whole ' Ixxly of the flesh ' ; and so it is the
fulfilment of the old rite : it is ' the circumcision of the
Christ.
In Gal. 826/! Paul further sp>eaks of baptism as involv-
ing a kind of identification with the person of Christ, so
that the divine sonship lx;comes ours in him ; ' For ye
are all sons of God, through faith (or 'the faith') in
Christ Jesus ; for as many of you as were baptized into
Christ put on (or ' clothed yourselves with ' ) ("hrist. ' The
old distinctions, he again reminds us, thus disappeared
— lew and Greek, tx>nd-man and free, male and female
— ' for ye all are one [man] in Christ Jesus ' {eU iark ip
Xp. ■I.).
Eph. .'j26 speaks of Christ as cleansing the Church
by the 'washing {\ovTp6v = 'washing,' probably
not 'laver.' [In © -wz is always XoiTvp: \ovTpji> is
nsmCant. 42 6s Ecclus. 342$ ; so Aquila renders |»m in
475
BARABBAS
Ps. 60 10 108 10]) of water with the word' (eV ^iJ/Mtn).
This last expression finds its interpretation in the pi^fia,
or formula of faith, to which we have already referred —
which, whether as the confession in the mouth of the
baptized or as the baptismal formula on the lips of the
baptizer, transformed the process of ablution into the
rile of Christian baptism. With this passage we may
i compare Tit. 3s, ' He saved us through the washing of
I regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit ' (5ta Xovrpou
! iraXivyei'faia^ Kaldi'aKati'ibcTeojs irv. ay.).
^ This last passage reminds us of the teaching of Jn. 3.
i The relation of that chapter to the sacrament of baptism
is exactly parallel to that of chap 6 to the sacrament of
the eucharist (see Eucharist). W'e are secure in
saying that the evangelist's interpretation of the signifi-
cance of baptism must have followed the line of Jesus'
conversation with Nicodemus as there related. That
a Gentile, or even a Jew who had been neglectful of
the Rabbinical discipline of ablutions, should need to
begin entirely anew in the religious life, to be ' born
again of water and the Spirit,' as a condition of entry
into ' the kingdom of God,' would seem natural. The
marvel and the stumbling-block was that this should Ik;
required of those who, like this ' teacher of I.srael,' had
been strictest in their ceremonial purity ; ' M.'u'vel not
that I said unto i/tee .• ye must Ije born again. '
Jn. , then, recognises, with Paul, the universal character
of the initial rite ; whilst at the same time the narrative
teaches the radical nature of the change in the individual
soul. J. A. R.
BAPTISMS (Bahticwoi). Mk. 74, etc., RV"*,
EV W.ASHINGS [q.v.].
BARABBAS (Bap&BBac [Ti. WH], § 48), the name
of the prisoner whom, in accordance with a Passover
custom, Pilate released at the demand of the Jews while
condemning Jesus to death (so Mt. 27 is-20 Mk. 156-i5
Lk.23i7-2sJn.l839/.).
More precisely than Mt. , who simply calls him a
'notable' (tT iffrjfiof) prisoner, and Jn., who calls him
„. a robber, Mk. descrilies him as lying
^' ' bound with them that had made insurrec-
tion (fitTo, tQv <TTa<7ia(TTU)i' 5e5f/i^i'oj), men who in the
insurrection had committed murder.' As Mk. has not
previously referred to these insurgents, it seems all the
more probable that he is borrowing verbatim from
another source, although about this particular insurrec-
tion we are in as complete ignorance as alx)ut the
Galileans mentioned in Lk. 13 1. Lk. (2319), whofoUows
Mk. , adds that the insurrection had occurred in Jeru-
salem, but says nothing about any fellow-prisoners with
Barabbas, and thus leaves the impression that Barabbas
personally had connnitted murder. Mk. is entitled to
the preference, not only on this point but also when he
represents the Jews as having demanded the release of
a prisoner on their own initiative, as against the less
probable view that Pilate offered them this of his own
accord.
Reference is sometimes made to the analogy of the Roman
Lectisternia ; but of these all that Livj- (v. 138) sa>'s— and that
only with reference to their first celebration — is th.-it during tho.se
days such also as were bound (Tinif/s) were relieved of their
chains (7'mc»/(i), and such was the religious awe inspired by the
proceedings that no one dared afterwards to rebind (vituriri) the
recipients of this divine favour. Thus he says nothing about
release from pri.son ; and his contemporary Dion. Halicar. (I'ig
[ = 10]), .on the authority of the Annals of a certain Piso, who
himself had been censor, while he does indeed speak of such
rele.-ise, limits it to the case of sl.ives who_ had been laid under
arrest by their masters {htS-vfiivrnv fiiv rCiv Otpa-aoirruiv, oirovf
irpoTfpoi' iv TOis i«7/iiois tlxov oi Sfo-iroroi).
Those who find some difficulty in accepting the
narrative as it st.ands may perhaps find themselves
better able to explain its origin on the lines indicated
by W. Brandt, by whom every detail h.as been discussed
with great care (Evangelische Ceschicht:-, 1893, pp.
94-105). Brandt takes the kernel of the story to be
that a certain prisoner who had been arrested in con-
nection with some insurrection, but against whom no
476
I
BARACHEL
crime or at least no prave crime could be proved, was
released on the application of the jx-ople, who intervened
in his l)chalf because he was the son of a Rabbin (see
below, § 2). The incident, even although it was not
simultaneous with the condemnation of Jesus, gave
occasion in Christian circles for the drawing of this
contrast : the son of the rabbin Wiis interceded for and
releasctl, Jesus was condemned. In the course of
transmission by oral tradition the statement of this con-
trast might gradually, without any conscious departure
from historical truth, have led to the assumption that
the two things occurreil at the same time and on the
same occasion. Finally, the liljeralion of a seditious
prisoner — in any case a somewhat surprising occurrence
— seemed explicable only on the assumption of some
standing custom to account for it ; this assumption
must presumably have arisen elsewhere than in Palestine.
The above theory presupposes that ^apa/i/3aj stands
for K3K -13, 'son of the father' — i.e., l.cre, of the
2 rabbinical 'master.' (It was not till after-
* wards that AM'a began to come into use
as a propc-r name [of rabbins], explained by Dalman
[Gratn. 142] as an abbreviation, like '3N, of .t3N : in
the time of Jesus it was a title of honour [.\It. 289]. )
Jerome, imlecd, in his commentary on Mt. J" 16-18 says that
ill the Gospel of the Hebrews (quod scril>itiir jiixta Hehrtros)
Barabbas is explained as ' son of their teacher ' (Jilius mapstri
fiiriiiii), where i-o>~uiii apparently implies an etymology similar
to tliat found in a scholion of a Venice MS in WH App. 19;^ —
viz., that /3opa/x^ai'(only another form for /3apa8j3af ; see Winer,
Grain. W g 5, n. 70) means 'son of our teai:her.' In that case
we must (with ."^yr. hr.) write PappapPav, taking the second
element as being ' teacher, 'and assume that paPfiiiv was explained
as = K33'1, 'our teacher,' or [1^31, 'their teacher.' The mean-
ing, however, is not essentially changed by this, as |3'] (as also
pSl) is, like K3K, a title of honour for a great teacher.
The most remarkable fact in connection with the
name of IJarabbas is that Origen knew MSS, and did
not absolutely reject them, in which Mt. 27 16/ read
'Jesus' {'Irjaovv) Ix^-fore 'Barabbas' — a reading still
extant in s<jme cursives, as well as in the Armen. vers.,
in Syr. sin., and partly also in Syr. hr. Whether the
Gospel of the Hebrews, referred to by Jerome, also had
this reading is uncertain (see WH). In this reading
' Barabbas ' would be only an addition made for the
sake of distinction, as in Simon Bar-jona, but not yet
with the full force of a proper name.
Some support for it might perhaps he found in the fact that
the first mention of the name in Mk. is preceded by 6 Xeyofievo^.
The meaning would then be 'He who, for distinction's sake
g hough it was not his proper name), was called Barabbas.'
nly, in that case, in Mt. the \ty6fi.fvoi> (here \vithout the
article), since it is followed, on the reading at present in question,
by 'ItjiTovv VapaffPav, would simply mean ' whose name was
Jesus Barabba.s' ; and it may be so_ in Mk. also. In any case
It is remarkable that in all the MSS in (juestion Barabbas should
have the name 'Irja-ovs exclusively in ^It. and there only in two
verses, while 7T'. 20 and 26 simply give toi/ Rapaj3/3at', TOf &i
'Iijo-oGi' as an antithesis. Thus we may be tolerably certain that
the name Jesus as given to Barabbas has arisen merely from
mistake.
A fairly obvious explanation would be the conjecture
of Tregelles, that a very early transcriber had ' jjer
incuriam ' repeated the last two letters of vfiiv and that
these were at a later date taken for the familiar abbrevia-
tion of the name of Jesus. If this theory be adopted we
must assume further that a later copyist inserted also in
V. 16 the name 'IriffoOv, which he had found in v. 17 ;
but it is specially interesting to observe that in the
Latin translation of Origen the word Jesus stands in
V. 17 but not in v. 16 also. Cp Zahn, GescA. des NT
A'anons, 2697-700. P. w. s.
BARACHEL ("PNDia. '(Jod blesses," § 28; Bar&xihA
[BXA]), the father of Job's friend Elihu (Job3226).
BARACHIAH (H^Dia, -IH^Dnil), Zech. 1 1 7, the
reading of .\V ed. 161 1, and some other old editions.
See Bekkciiiaii (4).
BARACmAS, RV Barachiah (B&pAXiAC fTi.
WH]), Mt. 2335- See Zaciiaria.s.
477
BARJBSUS
BARAK ipy^. 'lightning,' § 66, cp Sab. Cpn3
Palm. pl3, Pun. JUtrais [the surname of Ilamilcar],
and the .\ss. divine names A'amman-birktt and Gthil-
hirku [Del. Ass. H \\ li 187]), b. Abinoam (Judg. 46-
5 '2; Barak [HI.], Barax l-^J)- See Deborah.
BARBARIAN (BarBaroc). primarily, one who
sp)eaks in an unintelligible manner : ' hence a foreigner
(cp //. '2 667], in which sense it is employed by Paul in
1 Cor. 14 II Acts 28 2. This usage was not restricted to
the Greeks alone : it is met with among the Romans
(cp Ovid, FHit. V. 10 37), and (.according to Herod.
2 158) among the Egyptians. In agreement with this, the
people of Melita, who perhaps spoke .some Phtjunician
dialect, are called 'barbarians' (Acts '28 2 4), and &
uses pdpliapoi to render the tyi'? of Ps. 114 i — a people
'of strange tongue' (Targ. 'K-i3"i3 Ncv)* '^ '^^ ""*
uncommon "E\\77»'es /cai jSap^apot, accordingly, includes
the whole world: cp Rom. 1 14 (also Jos. Anf. xi. 7 i)
and the similar 'Barbarian, Scythian,' Col. 3 11; see
Hkm.knis.m, § 2.
The use of /3ap/3apos became so customarj- that the term was
used actually in referring to the speaker's or writer's own
people ; cp Philo, l^'i'i. Mos. § 5, and Jos. (/>/, pref., $ i), who
applies the designation 'upper barbarians ' to his countrymen
beyond the Euphrates.3 At a later date the word gets the
meaning 'cruel,' 'savage,' etc. (cp Cic. I-'ontei. IO21, ' immanis
ac barbara consuetudo '), in which sense it recurs in 2 Macc.*.i2i
425lii2and in the© of Ez. 21 36 [31] (for MT D-lJ/i, 'brutish').
BARBER (n'?5, Ph. a'?X Ass. ga/lahu). Ez.5i.t
See Bkari).
BARCHUS (BARXOye [A], iEsd.532 RV=l./.ra
253, Bakko.s.
BARHUMITE, THE ('pni^n, 2S. '2^3. ; o Bar-
AlAMeiTHC [H], o Baraiam. [Mai], o Barcom. |A].
O aBenni [!>])• See Bahakimitk.
BARIAH (nn2, MARei [H], BeRiA [AL]), a de-
scendant of Zerubbabel (i Ch. 822).
BARJESUS, the Jewish sorcerer and false prophet
in the train of the proconsul Sergius Paulus at Paphos,
in Cyprus, who (.Acts 186-12) withstood the preaching of
Paul, and was punished with temporary blindness.
At the outset, the names present great difficulties.
In 136 his name (fivo/xa) is expressly said to have been
-_ Barjesus (BapiT/croOj), and such a compound
1. Names. ^^^^^^ ^^ ^ father named Jesus) can quite
easily have lieen a proper name (cp Barabbas, Barnab; s,
Rirtholomew). In v. 8, however, he is abruptly called
' Elynias the sorcerer, for so is his name by interpreta-
tion ' (E\i'/ixaj 6 ixa-yo^, oiJrws yap fieOfp/xtjiKveTai rb
tvopLO. airoL'). A translation has relevance only when
it is a translation into the language of the readers : in
any other case it would be incumbent on the author to
state what foreign language he is translating into.
(a) This Ixiing assumed, we must take it that ' the
sorcerer ' (6 /uAyo^) is the translation. Elymas (EXf/ios),
in that case, would be the word translated. Accord-
ingly, the name has been identified with the Arabic
'a/im, which occurs in the Koran (7io6 [109] 2633 and
36 [34 and 37]) as an adjective following the noun .uihir
which denotes a sorcerer, and has thus been taken to
mean ' wise,' ' able.' I^ss appropriate is the derivation
from Aram. d'Sk or d'^n. meaning 'strong.' Equate
Hdyos, however, etymologically, with EXi'/taj as we
1 Del. (Ass. //;r^ explains Ass. barharu 'jackal.'
a Akin to this are the expressions oi €fai(i Cor. 5 i2/)and rd
iivn (like the Heb. opj, see Gentiles, § i) to denote those-
outside the Christian world. Cp the Talm. use of n'isnK.
3 Similarly, the Jews frequently employed '[wJCIW, Syr.
arinnyd—i.e., ' Aramjean," in the sense if ' barbarian,'— and so
the Syr. translations of the NT, under their influence, ret.iin the
term to translate 'EAAjji-tT, ^fli-titoi,— etc. In process of time it
was felt that a word which was used in the NT to designate
' heathen ' could hardh be borne by a Christian people, and
the old name was modified into aramdyd ; cp. N6. ZDMG
25 113, Wright, Com/>. Gram. 15.
478
BARJESUS
may, it still has to be explained how Rarjesus came
suddenly lo be called by the other name, Elymas.
riie only way in which a plausible explanation could be
reached would be if Elymas (in the sense indicated)
could be taken as a title or cognomen assumed by Bar-
jesus — a foreign tongue being used to heighten still
further the jirestige which he sought to accjuire by it.
It is not as a titli;, however, that the author employs it.
On the contrary, he gives the word witliout the definite
article, and expressly adds that the word which he is
translating was the actual name (dvofxa) of the bearer.
{/>) It was quite sound method, therefore, to take
Harjesus for the name translated, and Elymas for the
translation.
Kven Pesh., in t: 8, for EAv/u,as 6 /layos arl/urarily has 'this
sorcerer Harshuma (so Pesh. reads for Bapujirous in 7'. 6 ; see
l>;low, (t)], whose name, being interpreted, means Klynias."
Klosterm.inn (/VoM'wt' ?'/« A/>o.<tc-iti:iic, 1883, pp. 21-33), how-
ever, is al)le to sujjport this view only on three assumptions,
each one of which is bolder than the otlier. We must read, he
liolds, not EAu^a?, bnt 'Erot/oios ; secondly, we must read, not
Ila^oiTjo-oOs, but '&apir)iTovav, or, to be ex.^ct, the Latin Bar-
/t'sii/uin ; and, in the third place, the '\'}p\ 13 so transcribed
(whether we derive it etymologically from the root ,^^t■•, or, with
more proliability, from the root ic" which underlies V^, prersto
i-st) means 'son of preparedness' or 'son of fitness,' and thus,
by the same Hel)raism as we find in the name Barnabas (<j.v.),
f-aratus, eroifios.
a. As to t'le first of these assumptions, it has to be noted
that the re.iding 'Erot/xos is met with only in Lucifer of Calaris
(oh. 371), and even there not as Hetcemus but as Ktoemus ; D
has Eroi/uia?, which, indeed, we cannot explain, but which,
from its endinj;, is clearly intended to be taken as a proper
name ; parntus is found only in Lucifer, one Vg. MS, and two
Latin ^ISS, in which in many places is found the markedly
divergent text of Acts which Hlass takes to be Luke's earliest
draft (see Acts, g 17)
^. Next, as regards the second assumption. BopiTjo-ovac is
found only in I) ; Barjesuaiii, only in the Latin translation of
D ; Barjesuhaii or rather, according to the one M.S known to
us, Bxricsitlniin, only in Lucifer, '["he corrector of 1) has re-
stored IJapiJja-om-, which, as accusative, fits his reading oro^ari
icaAoiififi'oi' for (L oio/tia, hut, in spite of to oi'O/na, is found also
in .\HLP and the Creek margin of the Philoxenian ; N, Vg.,
Copt., Armen., and the Philoxenian version as well as ' noniiulh'
known to Jerome, read Bapii)<rou — that is to say, the simple
Hebrew form without a Greek termination. On this Jerome
(on the Hebrew names in Acts; Opera, ed. Vallarsi, 899)
remarks, ' nonmdli Barjesu corrupte legunt,' himself declaring
the right reading to be Harieu or F>eiieu, for which, by very
daring etymologising from the Hebrew, he obtains the meanings
malcjiciuiu, or ytalrficus, or in iiialo. Perhaps, however, even
Jerome's aversion to Bapirjcrou rests upon the very obvious
dogmatic consideration put forward by Peda in the eighth
century, ' non convenit hominem Hagitiosum et magum filium
Jcsu, id est, salvatoris, appellari quem e contrario Paulus (7'.
10) filium diaboli nur.cupat.' 'I he form Barjeu in Jerome can
readily be accounted for as merely a clerical error for Barjesu,
or as arising out of the Greek abbreviation IHY which is met
with in the oldest -MSS along with the more frequently occurring
lY for 'Irjo-oC. The explanation in the case of the readings
preferred by Klostermann is much less easy. On this .account,
in spite of their weak attestation, one might be inclined to
regard them as the true ones ; but all the authorities for the read-
ing f>aratus have the word, not in v. 8 instead of EAu^as, but as
an interpolation after Bapujo-ous in 7'. 6, 'quod interpretatnr
paratus.' This addition is met with elsewhere only in E, in
the form o fieOepfirfveveTai EAujxas — rendered in the Latin of this
MS : ^iii7(/ interpretatnr Elymas. It is evident that in neither
case have we more than a late attempt to obviate the impression
that Elymas, first introduced in v. 8, was the name of another
person. Bl.ass, on the other hand, regards the added words as
part of Luke's e.arliest draft. He sees, however, that Luke
could not have written at the same time in v. 8 ' for thus is his
name interpretetl ' (oiiTcu? -^ap nfOfpixrivevtraL to ofo/Ma avrov) ;
and, accordingly, he rejects these words from Luke's earliest
draft. For this he has not a single authority ; and how can he
expl.ain Luke's having, after all, iiurodnced the words into his
second transcript, leaving out those in 7: 6 instead '! Are we
really to believe that with his own hamis Luke changed his good
aid thoroughly intelligible first text into a positively misleading
after-text? Cp Acts, § 17 (/). If, however, the acldition 'ywr/
interpretatur paratus' at the end of 7'. 6 is to !« regarded as a
late interpolation, Lucifer also, who has it, lies open to suspicion :
his form Etccmus in v. 8 may be not taken from an authoritative
source, but a mere conjectural adaptation to allow of the word's
l)eing rendered paratus and itself regarded as a rendering of Bop-
iijiTous. What etymology he was following when he preferred
(or perhaps conjecturally introduced) the form Barjesuban is
a matter of indifference. In ancient times, as the Onomastica
Sacra abundantly show, people made out Hebrew etymologies
in a most reckless way.
BARJESUS
y. Klostermann's proposed etymology, /ar<r/«j, rests upon a
very weak foundation, as no such word as pc" (ViJSwan) can be
shown to exist (the proper name ,nic'', IsH vah, in I .en. 4ti 1 7 has no
importance in this connection), and the root nir or kic which is
used in .Syriac frequently for aftov, icro?, ofioAo?, as also for
<n;i'-, Ofio-, afio-, in compounds, is never used for eroi^o?.!
Besides, as we have said, the co<lex has not Barjesuban but
Baiyesubam. Above all, however, Klostermann's hypothesis
remains untenable as long as one is unprepared to accept the
further assumption that o /uayot after EAv/iiav (or 'Eroifios) in
7'. 8 is a mere gloss to be deleted ; for 6 juayo? nece.ssarily leads
to the assumption dealt with under (a). This had no doubt
already been perceived by the scribe of H, who wrote o y-tya^
(the great) for 6 fidyo?, and so also by Lucifer, if the aittio
■princeps (of Tilius) is right in attributing the reading i>tagnu.i
to him (the only MS of Lucifer at present known has tiia^s).
If Lucifer really wrote tn^ignus, this increases the suspicion
that the other variants in Lucifer are in like manner arbitrary
and unauthorised alterations of the text.
(r) In order to make out Elymas to be a translation
of the name of the sorcerer, stress has been laid on the
remarkable Peshitta rendering Barshuma for Ba/){r?(roi»s.
.Mready, in the seventeenth century, we find Castell (Le.r.
lleptagl. s.v. c?C') and Lightfoot (Hor. Ilehr. ad loc.) inter-
preting Bapiijo-ouv as Jiliiis 7'tilneris, and deriving Elymas
from the .\rabic 'ativta = doluit (□*?«)• Over and above the
reasons to the contrary that have alre.idy been urged under
(1^), however, it has to be observed (see above) that a trans-
lation into Arabic would exjilain nothing to the readers : it
would itself require to be expl.-iined. A somewhat
different turn is given to the matter by Payne Smilh (J'lus.
.Syr. 598). Barshuma was in the first in-tance given in v. 8
as a rendering of Elymas, and only later introtluced by copyists
also into 7'. 6 in substitution for Barjesus in the erroneous
belief that it was the man's proper name. But the Peshitta in
its arbitrary change of text in 7'. 8 (see abo\e (h\ ad mit.) says
precisely the opposite, — that Barshuma was the proper name,
and Elymas the translation. It must, therefore, from theoutsft
have held Barshuma to be a reproduction of the proper name
Barjesus. Thus P.arshnnia probably means merely '.son of the
name ' ; and ' the name ' is most easily to be accounted for as a
substitute for 'Jesus' from the feeling of reverence which we
have already heard expressing itself in Beda [see aVxive (/') /3], a
reverence similar to that shown by the Jews when they said
' the name ' instead of ' Yahwe.'
((/) Van Manen, contrariwise (Paulus 1, Lcyden,
1890, pp. 98 /. 147), holds E.lymas to be the jjroper
name, and interprets Barjesus in the Hebrew sense as
meaning ' son of Jesus ' — i.e. , ' follower of Jesus. '
In this he assumes that the primary document here made
use of by the author of Acts did not refer to the man as a
Jew, or as a sorcerer, or as a false prophet ; that it simply
contained the information that at Paphos Paul came into
opjiosition with one of the older and very conservative disciples
(if Jesus, and got the better of him with Sergius Paulus. This
hypothesis admittedly departs so widely from the text of Acts
that it is impossible to control it thereby.
(e) Dalman {Gram. 129, n. i ['94]) propo.ses a
purely Greek explanation.
'EAu/iiis (so accented) he regards as contracted from 'EAu/natos
(on these contractions see Nami:s, S 86 aiijiit.). In © (except
the Apocrypha] and NT, indeed, the Elamitcs are always
'EAa/ii, 'EAa^irat ; but with the Greeks the forms are as in-
variably 'V-kvixdU, 'EAu/iaioi ; so in Tobit '2 10 Judith 1 6;
I Mace. (5 1 has 'EAu/mat.
Philologically this derivation is the simplest of all ;
but it contributes nothing towards the solution of the
riddle.
The failure of all the attempts enumerated above
renders inevitable the suggestion that here the author of
_.._ . Acts has amalgamated two sources, one
2. l^merent ^^ ^^^^.^ ^^„^,^ ^^^ ^^^^ Barjesus while
the other called him Elymas. Even
Klostermann, in order to explain the peculi.ir distribu-
tion of the names in ',1: 6 8, seeks the aid of this
hypothesis in addition to the hypotheses already referred
to [.above {b), beg.]. The addition, oi'irtijj ■yap fitOfp-
fjiT]V€VfTai rb tvofia aiWov (for so is his name translatt;d),
however, would in any case be a very unskilful way of
amalgamating the two sources unless 6 fJ.dyoi (sorcerer),
as suggested above, Ix; deleted as a gloss. .'^lill, it
once it is agreed to assume two sources, a further and
larger question arises : the question, namely, whether the
addition itself be substantially right — that is to say,
whether the one name Ije really a translation of the other.
Nay, more : it is even conceivable that the two names do
not denote the same person ; that accounts relating to
1 So Nestle, in private letter to the present writer.
sources ?
BARJBSUS
two different persons have been transferred to a single
|xrson. This inference is suggested also by the epithets
iipplii-d ; for, thougli it is not altogether inconceivable
that a 'sorcerer' {ij.dyoi) should be a 'false prophet'
(\l/(t'5oirpo<priTr}s), the two ideas are widely different.
Of the critics mentioned in Actr, | ii, who discuss our
present passage with reference to the distniction of sources,
only Spitta aiid H. Weiss regard 136-12 as all of one piece;
Clemen and Hilgenfeld are convinccti of the opposite, but make
no definite suggestions as to separation of the portions ; Sorof
and Jfingst derive?'. 6/1 from a written source, 77'. 8-12 from
the j)en (if the redactor or from oral tradition. J.,nj;st further
attributes to the redactor the word /xayov in ?•. 6. Vet not even
so are all the difliculties cleared up.
How far the narrative as a whole is to be accepted as
historical hocomes a serious (juestion as soon as it has
3 Credibilitv '^^^'^ traced to more than one source ;
Of Narrative ^"' f crcdihility has been doubte.l
even by .Si)itta, h. Weiss, and others,
who defend its unity. As regards the miracle in
particular, one is not only surprised by its suddenness,
but is also at a loss to see its moral justitication. ( )n
the other hand, a misunderstanding would account for
it readily enough. A sorcerer, a false prophet — nay,
any Jew ( Acts'28 27)— is, in the judgment of the Christian,
spiritually blind, and this is what l^aul and liarnabas
proved of Barjesus in their disputation with him. In
being handed down by tratlition this thought could
easily undergo such a change as would lead to the
repre.sentation that physical blindness had t)een brought
on as a punishment by the words of Paul. On the
other hand, one would e.xpect the blindness, if it is to
be regarded as merited, to be permanent, or, at least,
would expect to be told of some reason for its subse-
<iuent removal, as, for example, that the sorcerer had
ceased to withstand Paul and Barnabas, or even had
become a convert to Christianity. It is very noticeable
that the narrator shows but little interest in the subse-
quent history of the man. The conversion of the pro-
consul (not his existence ; see Acts, § 13 ad fin.) also
is doubtful to many.
-Ml the more does it now become incumbent to
4. Tendency '^""^l"'''^ whether the narrative reveals
in any measure the tendencies dis-
cerned elsewhere in .\cts.
[a) In the first i)lace, and generally, it is clear that
it has a place in the p.arallelism between Peter and Paul
(.Acts, § 4), in respect alike of the miracle of chastise-
ment, the confutation of a sorcerer, and the conversion
of a high Roman officer (cp .Acts5i-io 818-24 10 1-48).
It is also in harmony with that other tendency of .Acts,
to represent the Roman authority as fricndlv, and the
Jews as hostile to Christianity (.'\f;Ts, § 5(1); § 4 ad
iiiif. ; compare very specially the Jewish e.\orcists in
close relation to sorcery. Acts 19 13-16).
{(>) A conjecture of wider scope 1 connects itself with
what is .said of .Simon Magus (see Simon Macus).
If Paul was the person originally intended in the story
of Simon, then in Acts 89-24 we find attributed to
him the one deed which used to be flung in his teeth
by his Judaistic adversaries— that, by his great col-
lections made in Macedonia and Achaia, he had sought
to purchase at the hands of the original apostles that
recognition of his ecjuality with them which they had so
persistently withheld. The roniance of Simon Magus,
however, of which we still possess large portions (see
Simon M.\gus). had for its main contents something
different, viz., that the sorcerer had spread his false
doctrines everywhere and supported them by miracles,
but in one city after another was vanquished in dis[nite
and excelled in miracle by Peter. Thus, apart from
the repetition of the occurrence in many cities, we are
" .See for example, Hilgenfeld, ZIVT, 1868, pp. 36S-67 ; De
Wette-Overbeck on Acts 136-12; Lipsius, Quellen tier rami-
sclttn l\trussage, 1872, pp. 28, 32, a\x,/P/\ 1876. p. s73 : Holtz-
mann, /.ll^T, 1885. p. 431 ; and very specially Krci\k'e\,Josefihus
u. Lukas 180-190 ['94I. Lipsius afterwards withdrew his
earlier view ; .see Apokryph. Ap. -gesch. ii. 1 ('87), p. 52 ; cp.
31 j8i
BARJESUS
told of Harjesus in Acts 136-i2 exactly what is told in
the romance alxnit Simon (that is, Paul), and of Paul
exactly what is told in the romance about Peti-r. Hence
the belief that in I. '16-12 we can discover the same pur-
pose on the part of the author as we discover in 818-24.
He was accjuainted with the unfriendly allegation alxjut
I Paul, did not lielieve it, and wished to set forth another
I view. In the two passages, however, the method is
I not the same. In 8 18-24 it is shown that Paul could
! not possibly have been the infamous sorcerer, inasmuch
as Simon the sorcerer w.is a Sam.aritan and was quelled
by Peter indeed, but fjefore the conversion of Paul. In
136-12, on the other hand, it is shown that it was Paul
hini-self who victoriously met a sorc<.-rer of this kind.
One of the reasons for this divergence is seen in the
desire, already noted, to establish a close parallelism
between Paul and Peter. It is l)elieved possible also to
explain on the same lines why in Acts 136-i2 the scone
is laid in Cyprus, with a Jew in the entourage of a high
Roman officer as one of the dramatis persona. To
Cyprus, according to J osephus [Aut. xx. Tz, §§ 141-143),
belonged the Jewish sorcerer Simon, who, at the instance
of Felix of Judita, procurator (i.e., highest Roman
officer), had induced Drusilla to quit her husband. King
.\zizus of PZmesa, and marry Felix. The purpose of the
narrator would have been sufficiently served had he
been able to say that the sorcerer in question— Simon,
to wit — under whose name the Judaisers imputed to
Paul so much that was shameful, had been met and
vanquished by Paul himself. That, however, was im-
possible ; the tale had already been related of Peter.
Accordingly (so it is supposed) the narrator found it
necessary to give another name to the sorcerer worsted
by Paul.
{c) His choice of the names Barjesus and F.lymas is
still unaccounted for. There is, therefore, a motive for
our attributing a historical character to a certain other
sorcerer, Barjesus (or Elymas), as well as to a Samaritan
sorcerer named Simon. .Although it is not easy to
believe that Peter met the Samaritan Simon, there is no
reason for assuming that Paul did not meet Harjesus.
Indeed, it can easily be conceded that in Acts 136-i2,
just as in Acts 89-24, the author was not consciously
giving a false complexion to what he had heard. He
believed himself able to offer a material correction. He
assumed, that is to say, that what the Judaisers were in
the habit of relating of Simon the sorcerer, while really
intending Paul and his opposition to the ' true ' Gospel,
rested in actual fact upon a mistaken identification with
this Barjesus (or F.lymas), and that the latter was van-
ciuished not by Peter but by Paul. It is less easy to
suppose that Cyprus was given by tradition as the scene
of the occurrence. Even without any tradition, the
name could l)e suggested by Joseplms's mention of the
native place of the Jewish sorcerer, and the name of
Paphos would naturally present itself from the fact that
the Roman i)roconsul had his residence there.
((/) The hypothesis has received developments to a
point where we have to depend on less clear indications.
If the accusations in Acts against Simon and liarjesus
had originally been brought against Paul, what is said
of the intimate relations of Barjesus with Sergius Paulus
would belong to the same class. Now. in Acts 2426, it
is said that Felix often sent for Paul and communed
with him. It is assumed that the Judaisers had gone
so far as to allege that Paul had purchased the friendli-
ness of Felix with money, or even, perhaps, to insinuate
that he had been negotiator lx;tween Drusilla and Felix.
It is to meet those accusations (so it is assumed) that
the writer of .Acts alludes to briliery by Paul as merely
a hoiMj on the part of Felix, and informs us that Paul
had stirred Felix's conscience by a solemn ' rea.soning '
with him about his sinful marriage (24 2$/ ).
(<•) There are two more explicit indications that what
we now read alxjut Barjesus was originally told of Paul.
Kx^piis. 'enemy,' the epithet applied by Paul to Bar-
BAR-JONA
jesus ( 13 lo), is, with or without the substantive iLvdpuiros,
.the standing designation for Simon (that is, Paul) in
the pseudo- Clementine Homilies and Recognitions.
The name, ' enemy of righteousness,' fits Paul and his
doctrine of the abrogation of the Mosaic law through
Christ (Rom. IO4) all the more because his Judaistic
opponents in Corinth came forward as ' servants of
righteousness,' that is, men of strict observance of the
law (2 Cor. 11 15). In that case, the temporary blind-
ing of Barjesus will represent what befel Paul at his
conversion ; even the expressions /xi] ^Xiirwv (without
sight) and x"/"^7'^''^'"'*^ (leading by the hand) in
98/. have their parallels in 1-3 n. Here, then, unless
the whole hypothesis under consideration be rejected,
we may say, with reasonable probability, that the
blindness of Paul at his conversion (whether historical
or not is immaterial) was originally represented by the
Judaisers as a divine visitation for his hostility to the
' true' (that is, the legal) gospel, and that it was simply
passed on by the author of Acts to Barjesus the Jew.
Whatever else be the result of what has been said in
the present section, one thing at least is clear : it is
impossible to reach a definite conclusion unless the
tendency of the author is taken into account.
According to the trepiodoi Bapfdjia — a legendary work
composed by a Cyprian about 488 — Barjesus opposed the
.J . work of Barnabas when, along with Mark
5. Later (^^ctslSsg), Barnabas visited Cyprus for
legenas. ^ second time. He withstood him in
various ways at his entrance into the cities where he
desired to preach, and at last stirred up the Jews to
burn him at the stake at Salamis. (Cp Lipsius, Apokr.
Ap.-gesch. ii. 2, pp. 283-286 278 297.) p. w. s.
BAR-JONA. RV Bar -Jonah, the patronymic of
Simon Peter l-Mt. 16 i7t B<\p ICa)NA [Ti. WH]). See
Peii.k.
Icui'tt is a Gr. contr.iction of tuai'i'rjs (cp Jn. 1 42 2i/k.">' '" vib<;
'Iwai'i'ou [Ti.]. 1. 6 vi. 'Iiudi'ou [WH] ; 21 16 ^. 'Xiaavvov [Ti.], 2.
"lujacou [WH] ; ]:izev. etc. present tcira ; see Var. Bib.), which
corresponds to an Aram. Njnv nn \ cp B. Talm. Hull. 133 a,
Dahn. Jiid.-ral. Aram. 142 n. 9, ancl see Joanna.
BARKOS (Dlp-13, § 82, BepKOOC [L]). The B'ne
Barkos, a family of Nethinim in the great post-e.xilic
list (see K/.u.\, ii. § 9), Ezra'iss (BARKOyc [B], -koc
[A]) = Neh. 755 (B^PKOye [BSA], L om.) = i Esd. 532,
Charcus, RV B.ARCHUs (B^xoyc [B], BARXOye [A]).
The Nethi.s'im [q-v.") were mainly of foreign origin,
and the name Barkos seems to be Aramaic and to
signify 'son of the God Kos or Kaus. ' The name of
this god occurs in many theophorous proper names
among the Northern Semites ; we have Kaus-malak
as king of Edom on an Assyrian inscription (Schr.
KAT'^'f 150), Kosnathan ('n^Dip) in Euting's Nabat.
Inscr. n. 12 1. i, and a variety of Semitic names on
Greek inscriptions from Egypt containing the same
element [Kev.-ArchioL, Feb. 1870, p. 109 ff.). Cp
also the Edomite Kostobaros^ (Jos. Ant. xv. 79).
Names designating the worshipper as son of his god are
common in Aramaic — e.g., the biblical Benhad.M)
[probably], the Palmyrene una. 'son of Nebo' (cp
Barnabas, §1), rncna ':a, 'sons of the son of the
Sun-god,' the Syrian Bar-ba'smin, 'son of the lord
of heaven," Barlaha, 'son of God,' etc. W. R. s.
BARLEY (n-iylf', DnVV'.'' Kpi0H. kriBai [BAL],
Ex.931 Lev. 27 16 Dt. 88 Judg. 7i3, etc.) was in
p biblical times one of the most character-
1. common j^^j^ products of Palestine (Dt. 88), re-
garded as one of the neces.saries of life
(Joellii). It comes second in the series of grains
1 [(coerTO^apo? m.iy perhaps be a scribal error for KoayoPapoi —
i.e., ^\2iD^p — which finds a striking parallel in the name Kau5-
gabri, an Edomite king mentioned on an inscription of Esar-
haddon (cp Schr. /.c.).]
The less common singul.ir form is used for the growing
crop. The name, which Hebrew has in common with Aramaic,
but not with Arabic, is derived from a root meaning ' to be
rough ' or ' bristling.'
483
BARNABAS
mentioned in Ez. (49) as ingredients to be used in
bread-making — wheat, barley, Ijeans, lentils, millet, and
Sfjelt (cp Bread). It may be inferred from a variety of
passages, such as Ru. 217 Jn. 6913, that barley was, even
during the times when it was cultivated along with whe.at,
the staple food of the poorer class (cp Foou). Suuh a
reference as that in i K. 428 (.08) shows us how largely it
was used to feed horses and cattle.^ It may also be
gathered from the part played by the barley-cake in the
dream of the Midianite, overheard by (Jideon (Judg.
7 13), where it stands as a type of the Israelite peasant
army, that as in other countries, so in Palestine, the
cultivation of barley preceded that of wheat, and w.as the
earliest stage in the transition from a nomadic to an agri-
cultural life.'-^ (Cp PI. //A'xviii. 72, ' antiquissimum in
cibis hordeum. ■) This is, on the whole, more probable
than the view of Jos. (.////. v. 64), which has been very
generally accepted, that barley- cake represented the
feebleness of Gideon's three hundred, and we are entitled
to conclude that there was a time when barley was the
staple food of all classes among the Israelites. The
fact referred to in Ex.931/, that in Egypt barley
ripens some time earlier than wheat, is supported by
the testimony of Pliny (//A'' xviii. 106) as well as of
modern writers (see references in Di. ad loc. ).
In the single case in which the use of barley is pre-
scribed in an offering under the ritual law (see Jealousy,
2 R'tual O'^"''"^'' "*"' § 2). it is somewhat difficult to
determine the reason. Some (e.g. , Bahr,
Synibolik, 2 445) have regarded it as expressive of the
sordid nature of the alleged offence and the humilia-
tion of the accused •■' (a wife suspected of adultery).
A reason which has recently found more acceptance
is that in the case of a simple appeal to God for
a judicial decision a less valuable offering was sufficient
than was requisite when a suppliant besought God for
the bestowal or continuance of his divine grace* (Di.
on Nu. 5ii, etc.). The prohibition to mingle oil or
frankincense with the offering will, of course, receive a
similar explanation.
Two-rowed barley {Hordeum distichon), \\hich may
be presumed to be the feral form, is a native of W.
.^ . . Asia. It may have been cultivated by
■'' Semitic races ; but it is not represented
on Egyptian monuments. The kind most frequently
cultivated in antiquity was six-rowed barley [Hordeum
hexastichon). This occurs on the most ancient Egyptian
monuments and on the coins of Metapontum six cen-
turies B. c. It was no doubt derived by cultivation from
the two-rowed kind (cp De Candolle, Orig.^^> 294-297,
and authorities quoted there).
The word 'gerah' (Ex.3013) 'is defined by Rabbinical
writers as equal to sixteen barley-corns ' ; but see Weights and
Measures. n. M. — W. T. T.-D.
BARN (n'l'ljp). Hag. 29; see Agriculture, § 10.
Also for Job 39 12 (p-) and (AV Barnfloor) 2 K. 6 27,
RV correctly ' threshing floor. '
BARNABAS (B&RNaBac [Ti. WH] ; §48), otherwise
Joseph (or Josks).
According to the author of Acts (4 36), the name Barnabas
(=vib? irapoucX^creco?) is derived from the Aram. 13 (son) and
the same root as the Heb. N'3], jrpo(^^Tr)s — the
1. Name, duty of n-apaKAijo-is ('address, exhortation'), ac-
cording.; to I Cor. 14 3, and also according to .\cts
\b^i/., being one of the duties of the irpo(^iiTT)s. When more
1 So in the Physiologvs (Land, Anecd. Syr. 4 ii^f., cited by
Low, 277) barley is called the food of cattle as opposed to wheat
the food of man.
2 Cp, especially, the parallel cited by Budde {ZDPVYi^i)
from Radloff's Aus Sibirien, \ 329. <Jp also Moore on the
passage.
S It is noteworthy that barley formed part of the price paid by
Rosea to redeem his adulterous wife (Hos. 82) ; but this may be
a mere coincidence.
4 See, especially, the full discussion by Nowack (^Arch. 2
249^), who agrees with L)illmann's view, and points out th.-it the
ortering in question is neither a sin-offering nor a guilt-offering
in the ritualistic sense.
484
i
BARNABAS
closely examined, however, this etymology is not without its I
dilficullics. It combines wonls from two different languages,
and moreover fails to account for the form -ya/Ja. Klostcrmann
(PrM. ill! A/xisUllf.tt, i88j, pp. 8-14) seeks to derive the mean-
ing 7rapai(A>)<7-i« from the Aram, nmj 13, filius quieiis, but finds
in it no further reference than to the satisfaction which Harnab.ns I
caused to the apostles by becoming a convert to Christianity, j
I )alman's etymology (pram. li. jiui.-pal&st. Arani&Uch, 1894, \
p. 143), which makes iro/xucAijo'tt a rendering of KCnp, this last |
lieing an abbreviation (not elsewhere met with) of a proper name
.TDfU or JCn? ('3Cn:), takes us very far from the form to be I
explained. Deissm.inn comes nearer the sound when (BiM-
stuilieH, 175-178 I'osj; Xeue BibeUtudien, 15-17 |'97]) he
compares the H.irncbo (133-13) of a Palmyrene inscription of the
year 114 a.d. (see I)c Vogiii, La Syrie Centm/e no. 73), and
the Semitic Bapw/Sout (son of Nebo) on a North Syrian inscrip-
tion of the third or fourth century A.u.l In Is. 4<5i, as also ^
in Na^ouyoSoi'oorop, tiafioviao&av, Nelxj is transliterated into
Greek with a instead of e, and the termination -a? may possibly
have been substituted for -oi/t with the view of disguising the
name of the heathen divinity. (For examples of ■^uch a custom,
see Winer, Grain, d. NTIichen S/>rachiaii<»is,i'') § f) 27a.) On
this theory, the rendering n-apaxATjcrit is merely a piece of popular
etymology. Nestle (/'.*//<'/. sa. r., 1896, p. igy!) is inclined to
take the .S>t. KI12, which signifies wapaKa\eli>, .is the starting-
point of the etymological interpretation ; but he refrains from
explaining more minutely the structure of the form.
If Joseph really did first receive the surname of
Barnabas from the apostles, this seems to have been on
account of his distinction as a sjx-aker. In tliis re-
six-'ct, however, the author of Acts (13 15 16 14 12) invari-
ably subordinates him at least to Paul. Many Jews,
with a view to their dealings with Greeks and Romans,
assumed in addition to their Jewish name a Greek (or
Latin) or at least Greek-sounding surname (e.^. , Acts
I23 1225 ]:Ji9 Col. 4 II, and 'Ia»'i'aros= '|') ; and it may
at least be asked whether this cannot perhaps have
been the case with Harnabas also (see N.VMKS, §§ 48, 84).
According to the l^'-pistle to the Galatians (our
primary source), Barnabas was a companion of Paul in
2 References • ^'^ '"i-ssionary journeys for at least
some time before the council of
Jerusalem. In the council he joined
Paul in supporting the immunity of Gentile Christians
from the Mosaic Law (Gal. 219), which makes it all
the more surprising that he afterwards retreated from
the position he had taken long liefore, that a Jewish
Christian was at lil)erty to cat at the same table
with a brother Gentile freed from the law ((]al. 2 13).
As in the case of Peter, so also in that of Barnabas,
the rejiroach of hypocrisy hurled at both by Paul
on this account may safely be toned down into
one of inconsistency (see Council of Jerusalem,
§ 3). In point of fact, Barnabas Aad shaken off the
Mosaic law ; but he had never thought out all the
bearings of the step so fully as to l>e able to vindicate
it when the venerable and sacred duty of observing the
whole law was so authoiilatively pressed upon him.
From this date it was, of course, no longer possible for
him to work along with Paul on the same lines ; and
thus the dispute at Antioch more than sufficiently ex-
plains why the two separated. The mention of Bar-
nabas in I Cor. 9 6 only proves that at that time also
he was a prominent missionary, and that he held
to the Pauline principle of supporting himself by his
own labour ; it is no evidence that he was personally
known to the Corinthians, or that he had again become
one of the companions of Paul.
In the .\cts of the Apostles the separation of Barnabas
from Paul is e.\plained as due not to a difference on a
3 In Acta '"''^^^'^'' °^ principle, but to a personal
question ; Ikirnabas wished to take John
Mark — a near relation of his, according to Col. 4 10 — as
companion on a second journey planned by Paul and
himself ; but Paul objected, lx;cause on a previous
occasion (.\ctsi313) Mark had left them in the lurch
> In Die IVorte /., ja CoS), Dalman comes over to Deiss-
mann's view, which is also ably defended by C;. B. Gray, Exp.
Times, Feb. 1899, p. Q%i /. Cp also Arnold Meyer, Jesu
Mutterspracfte,^T/.Cg6).
ia Galatians.
BARNABAS
*
(Acts 1636-39). Even if this be accepted as a historical
explanation (and we have no means of controlling it), it
cannot be said to have Ijecn the chief one (see above,
§ 2) ; as to which Acts (see Acis, §§ 4, 6) is scrupulously
silent. In virtiieof the intermediate position, — as between
Pauline and Jewish Christianity, — which was held, as
we have seen, by Barnabas, he is atlmirably fitted for a
mediating role in Acts. Although a native of Cyprus,
he is regarded as a member of the church of Jerusalent
(136/ ; on the sale of his estate, see CoMMU.MTY OK
Got^iJS, §§ I, 5) ; it is he who negotiates Paul's admis-
sion to that church (^27) ; it is on that church's conmiis-
sion that he ins[x.'cts the church which had been founded
by dispersed Christians at Antioch in Syria (11 22-24) ;
it is he who fetches Paul to Antioch from Tarsus and
introduces him to his field of work (II25/. ), and he
also is the apostle's travelling companion when the
collection for the poor Christians there is beitig brought
to Jerusalem (II30 I225); as in this case, .so also in
the so-called first missionary journey, undertaken along
with Paul through Cyprus and the south of Asia
Minor, his name is placed first, at least till 187, and
then again in 14 14 and even 101225. All this is
not easy to reconcile with Paul's well-known inde-
pendence as shown in his letters ; but the journey in
Acts 11 30 1225 must also on other grounds Ik; pro-
nounceil unhistorical (see Council ok Ji:kis.\lem,
§1), and the rest of what is related in Acts 11 is in-
consistent with the order t^s "Zvpia.^ Koi ttjs KiXtxtas
in Gal. I21, as is the rest of what we read in .\cts 9
with Gal. 1 15-20 (cp Acts, § 4, and, for the doubt-
fulness of the contents of Acts 13/, and the probability
of a Barnabas source there, §§ 13 and 10). But,
although the object of the narrative in .Acts is incon-
sistent with history in as far as it seeks to suggest
that the missionary activity of Paul among the Gentiles
was no departure from the views of the primitive
church, — that on the contrary it was authorised and
even set on foot by it, — we may without hesitation accept
as historical (see Acts, § 4) not only the co-operation
of Barnabas with Paul shortly before and at the Council
at Jerusalem, which is vouched for by the Lpistle to
the Galatians, but also the part which he took in the
first missionary journey (.\cis 13/), and even perhaps
in Paul's introduction to Jerusalem (of course accord-
ing to Gal. 1 18/) at his first visit to that city three
years after his conversion. We may also accept in all
probability the second journey of Barnabas to Cyprus
in company with Mark (.\ctsi539). From this jx)int
his name disappears from the NT.
Our later notices of him are of little value. Accord-
ing to Clem. Al. {S/rom. ii. 20, §116; cp Kus. //£
.J . ii. 1 4), he was one of the Seventy of Lk. 10 1 ;
_ . ?■ in the frankly anti- Pauline Clem. Homilies
' (i.9-16), which date from the end of the second
or the beginning of the third century — or rather, in the
sources from which these Homilies were drawn — he was
a personal disciple of Jesus, Palestinian by origin, but
Alexandrian by residence, a strict adherent of the law ;
according to Hom. i. 8, ii. 4, Clement meets him in
Alexandria, but in Clem. Recog. (1 7) the meeting was
in Rome. According to this presumably earlier (but
none the less unhistorical) representation, he pro-
claimed the gospel in Rome even during the lifetime of
Jesus, and therefore before Peter. In Hom. 1 7 this
statement is made only of some person who is left
unnamed, and later means were found for the com-
plete suppression 01 any such tradition, so full of
danger to the authority of Peter and his alleged
successors. From the fifth century onwards its place
w.as taken by the statement tha^ Barnabas was founder
and bishop of the Church of Milan — a statement, how-
ever, accompanied by the clause, ' after he had lieen the
first to preach the gospel in Rome." It was upon this
allegation that the archbishops of Milan afterwards
based their claims to metropolitan authority over the
486
BARODIS
whole of Northern and part of Central Italy. In the
interests of Roman supremacy (which had originally
been helped by it), the allegation was violently disputed
by Roman theologians of the eighteenth century.
In complete independence of the Roman and
Milanese tradition, there arose, after 431 A. D. , the
legend that Barnabas had Ijeen the missionary to his
native island of Cyprus, and had suffered martyrdom at
Salamis. where he was buried. On this plea the
Cyprian church, between 485 and 488 A.r). , obtained
from the I-lmperor Zeno its independence of the Patri-
archate of Antioch. The implied assumption is that
Barnabas was an apostle in the full sense of the word.
Ecclesiastical writers often substitute him for Barsabbas
(.\ctsl23; cp B.\K.SAR.\s, § 2), perhaps on account of
the name Joseph, common to both (the Sahidic and
I'hiloxenian versions have, on the other hand, Joses in
both cases, and there are isolated authorities for
Barnabas alone), but perhaps in order to bring him
nearer the apostolic circle. This object is effected in
a more pronounced way by Clem. Recog. (l6o), which
identify him with Matthias (Acts 1 26). There is an
isolated notice in the ((inostic) Actus Petri V'ercel lenses
to the effect that Kirnabas was sent along with Timothy
to Macedonia before Paul's journey to Spain. Cp.
Lipsius, Apokr. Ap.-gcsch. ii. 2, pp. 270-320 (especially
310), 260, 373.
Tertullian's claim of the authorship of the lOpistle to
the Hebrews for Barnabas is quite inadmissible. It is
... , difficult to attribute to a born Levite
„;■ rfif^^„ (.\cts436) such grave errors about the
autnorsmp. ^^..^^^j^ ^^^ tabernacle) as occur in Heb.
1)3/ "27 ; or to any member of the primitive church of
Jerusalem any such declaration as that in Heb. 23, tliat
he had first received the gospel at second hand through
hearers of Jesus. Nor is such an origin consistent with
the thoroughly Ale.\andrian character of the Epistle.
I'.ven, however, if we must refrain from basing any
argument on the statements about Barnabas in Acts
436, we are still confronted by a decisive fact : the man
who <at a critical moment was so much subject to the
Mosaic law ((ial. 213), could not have spoken of its
abolition and even of its carnal character, as the writer
of the I'".pistle to the Hebrews speaks in 7 12 18 16.
Doubtless the ILijistle to the Hebrews was attributed
to Barnabas because it was supposed that the X6-yos
T/)s TrapaKXTjfffws of Heb. 1822 could only have come
from the eios TrapaKXrjcrews of Acts 4 36.
That Barnabas should have written the anonymous
epistle which since the time of Clement of Alexandria
has borne his name, and on that account has been
included among the writings of the ' apostolic fathers,'
is still more inconceivable than his authorship of the
Epistle to the Hebrews. It goes far beyond Paul in
its assertion of freedom from the law. As to its date,
see under Acts (§ 16). p. vv. s.
BARODIS (B<\pcoAeic [BA]), a group of children of
Solomons servants (see Nicthinim) in the great post-
exilic list (Ezra, ii. §§ 9 8 r , 151 <;), one of the eight
inserted in i Esd. 534(om. ®'-) after Pochereth-hazzebaim
of II Ezra257 = Neh. 7 59-
BARREL {13 y^piA [BAL] ; 1 K. 17 12 14 16 1833)-
See CooKi.vG Utk.vsils, § 2 ; Pottery.
BARRICADE (biVD). 1 S. 17 20 RV"?- See Camp,
§1-
BARSABAS or BARSABBAS (§§ 48, 72)- The
etymology is doubtful. Ba/wa/Sas has been derived
1 Name ^^°"^ "'^ ('son') and k2V or Kap ("Sheba,"
— which, however, as far as we know, is
always the name of a country, never of a personl, from
13 and kis ( = ' warrior ' ; cp Nu. 3I53), or from 13
and K3D (' old man's son '). Baptra^^as ([Ti. WH] the
better attested form of the name) suggests ' child of the
487
BARSABAS
Sabbath.' Dalman {Gram. d. jiid.-paliist. Aramiiisch,
1894, J). 143) instances analogies to show that 'rat? or
'n3B* could by contraction become nap. though Knar "Q
is what we should more naturally expect in such a case.
1. Joseph Barsabbas, surnamed Justus ('IoCo-tos [Ti.
WH]), was nominated, though not chosen, for the
2 Josenh ^'^'^^"^T '" ^^^ apostolate caused by the
" ■ death of Judas. The account of the election
in Acts 1 15-26 could not l)e held to Ix; historical if we
regarded the number twelve for the original apostolate
as having lx;en fixed, and invested with special dignity,
only after the controvcr.sy as to Paul's equality in privi-
lege with the apostles of Jerusalem. But even were we
to set aside the reference to the dwdfKa in i Cor. 15 s, as
being unparalleled elsewhere in the Pauline writings, we
should still be at a loss to explain why Paul never
vigorously protested against an innovation — if inno-
\ation it was — so arbitrary and so derogatory to his
own position. Occasion enough for doing so presented
itself in Gal. 2 and 2 Cor. 10-13. We nmst, accordingly,
ascrilje to Jesus himself the choice of twelve of his
disciples who stood in peculiarly close relations to their
Master. But in that case it was very natural that these
should seek to keep up their number — that of the twelve
tribes of Israel.
Whether the election was in Jerusalem is more open
to question. On the arrest of Jesus all the disciples,
according to Mk. I450 Mt. 2656, had taken to flight,
and that they should have returned to Jerusalem so soon
is not likely. The view of Lk. and Jn. , according to
w hich they are present in Jerusalem on the day of the
resurrection of Jesus (and remain there), cannot lie
reconciled with what we are told by Mk. and Mt. ; the
explanation is that the third and fourth evangelists
found the statement of the first and second incredible.
According to this last, Jesus, in Jerusalem, through the
women, sends the disciples, who are also in Jerusalem,
to Galilee, in order that he may there show himself to
them. The kernel of historical fact, however, is not as
I,k. and Jn. have it, but the reverse: namely, that the
apostles were not in Jerusalem at all, but in Galilee, and
thus in (ialilee received the manifestations of their risen
Lord. It may even be questioned whether they were
again in Jerusalem and able to come forward publicly
and unopposed so early as at the following Pentecost
(see Gifts, Spiritu.m.).
In a still higher degree must the discourse of Peter
in .\ctsl 16-22 be regarded as entirely the work of the
author (see Acts, § 14).
Instead of Tw<r^<^ in Actsl23, there is some (though
inferior) authority for 'Iwcr^s, a reading due perhaps to
a conjecture that the ' brethren of Jesus ' named in Mk.
6 3 were of the numter of the Tw ehe ; the same con-
jecture, if in Acts 1 23 the reading Toxr?)^ be retained,
appears to find support in the fact that in Mt. 1855 the
brother of Jesus in question is called, not as in Mk. 63
'luffrjs, but according to the best MSS 'liO(7ri(p. The
assumption, however, is quite inadmissible (see Clopas,
§§ 4. 5)-
According to Papias (Eus. HE iii. SOg), Justus
Barsabas drank deadly poison with impunity. From
the fifth century onwards he is named as one of the
seventy of Lk. lOi ; in the list of these preserved in
Chron. Pasch. (Bonn ed. i. 400) he is identified with
Thaddaius = Lebb:i.'us ; in that of Pseudo-Dorotheus
{ih. ii. 128), with Jesus Justus (Col. 4 11), to whom the
.see of I'^leutheropolis is assigned. In the Passio Patili
(attributed to Linus, but really dating from the 5th or
6th cent.) ' Bar;/abas et Justus,' in another redaction
' Barnabas Justus,' and in a third 6 '&a.p<ra^a.% 'loiVros,
are enumerated among servants of Nero w ho, converted
by Paul, are cast into prison and condemned to death
by the emperor, but afterwards released after an appear-
ance of the risen Paul to the latter. The identification
of this Justus with the biblical Barsabas seems to have
BARTACUS
irativcly late date. See Lipsius,
01-3, 24 ; ii. 1 94-96, 150, 161,
3. Judas.
1. In NT.
Ixjon made at a c
Apokr. .[p.-i;esth.
281/
2. Another Rirs;il)l)as called Judas appears in Acts
15 1'.- (4. along with Silas, as a pronnnent memlier of the
early church in Jerusalem, and as a irpo-
07)ti7I— th.1t is to say, as a man endowed
with the gift of ira/)d»,\i?(Tis (see Baknah.vs, «} i). The
mission asirilxxl to him — that of conveying the decree
of thecouiuil of Jerusalem — caiuiot, of course, Ix: more
historical than the decree itself (see Coi.NCiL OK Jkku-
SAI.KM, «i lol. 1'. W. s.
BARTACUS (Baptakoy [r^A], Bazakoy TL],
BH/^.n IS (\\'. I), father of Apame. a concubine of Darius
(i llsd. 129). His title or e|)itliet rov OavfxaaTOU is
obscure. Jos. {.hif. \i. 85) gives it as rov dfixaaiov,
which may j)ossibly Ik; for fjudecrrov = old Pers. iiiathista
(simply 'colonel'), and, at any rate, is hardly a mis-
understanding of the rav dav/jiaffro? in i Esd. (RV ' the
illustrious M. '), which is not a very natural epithet.
The form given by Josephus, Pa^efaKOf (cp Syr.
tdaJf) jusi). seems nearest to the original name,
whicli was probably Artabazak. Out of this 'Bartacus'
may ha\e arisen in this way : the MS had ^a^aKov,
and over the first four letters w.is written apra a
correction which the scribe misunderstood (so Marc|.
/■■u.J. 65).
BARTHOLOMEW (BarBoAomaioc [Ti. WH]) is
enumerated in Ml. IO3 .\Ik. 3i8 l,k. G14 Actsli3 (see
Aposti.k, § i) as one of the twelve apostles
of Jesus. The second portion of the n.ime
represents the OT proper name vocalised by MT as
•p?n {doXfJLfi ; for the variants see Tai.mai). In
Josephus {Anf. x.x. 1 i § 5) the name Tholomaios idoXo-
/wijos) occurs as Ixjrne by a roblx-r-chief It is not
necessary to derive from Ptolemy ( TrroXe /ua(os ) ; the tl
insteail of r is against this, though the second 0 for e
presents no difficulty (Winer,**' § 5 20 a'). Bartholo-
mew may have teen either a genuine pro|)er name like
Barnabas, Barjesus, etc. , or a mere addition to the real
proper name of the Ix-arer, given for the sake of dis-
tinction, like Simon B.ar-jona (cp Barabbas, § 2) ; on
the latter supposition we do not know the true name of
Bartholomew. It is the merest conjecture that identifies
him with Nathanael (see Nathanaki.). If we neglect
this conjecture the NT has nothing further to tell us
about Bartholomew.
Kcclesiastical tradition makes him a missioii.-iry to the most
widely separated countries, and attributes to him a variety of
martyrdoms. The oldest writer from whom we have
2. Post- an account of him is Eusebius (///•: v. 10 3), who
biblica,!. represents him as having preached in India (in those
d.^ys a very wide geograpnical expression, including,
for example, Arabia Felix), and as having left behind him there
the Gospel according to Matthew in Hebrew ; but Lipsius (.-J/oX-r.
Afi.-gtsch. ii. 2 54-108 ; cp Krgiinz.-heft. 130/!, 189-191), from the
closely related character of the tr.^dition regarding him and
Matthew, assigns an earlier date to a tmdition that the shores of
the iilack Sea were the scene of the labours of both, although
this tradition is found only in authors later than Kusebius.
• According to other accounts, he preached the Gospel among
the Copts, or (with Thomas) in Armenia, or (with Philip) in
Phrj'gia, and, after the death of Philip, in Lycaonia. In the
lists of the apostles his name is always coupled with that of
Philip, — a fact which makes it all the more remarkable that in
this group of legends he is expressly designated as one of the
' seventy ' disciples of Lk. 10 1. On the other hand, the Parthian
legend which gives Mesopotamia and Persia as the field of
his labours, identifies him with Nathanael. A heretical Gospel
of liartholomciv is mentioned by Jerome in his preface to Mt.
P. W. S.
BARTIM^US (B&RTIMAIOC [Ti. WH] ; on the
accent see IhIow, § 2, end), the name of the blind
iK'ggar whom (according to Mk. IO46-5 )
Jesus healed as he was leaving Jericho
for Joru.salem. The parallel narratives of Mt. and I .k.
show various discrepancies in points of detail. According
to I,k. 1 8 35-43 the healing happened as Jesus was enter-
ing, not when he was leaving, Jericho, and according
489
1. Story.
BARTIM^US
to Mt. 2O29-34 two blind men were heale<l. It might
perhaps Ix; suggested that each of the two evangelists,
or at least Ml., was thinking of some occurrence other
than that recorded by .Mk. ; but, as against this, the very
close coincidence with the text of Mk. shows clearly that
both are dealing with the story which is associated in
Mk. with the name of Bartinueus.
As regards this pjirticular class of miracle, our judgment on
which must depend on our doctrine of miracles in general, so
much at least may Ije remarked, that in speaking to the disciples
of John (Mt. 11 5-Lk.722) of his giving sight to the blind, and
other similar wonders, Jesus meant to be understood in a
spiritual, not in a physical, sense. Otherwise the closing words,
'and to the ix>or the gospel is preached,' would have no force ;
for no proof of supernatural physical power is involved in this
crowning inst.ince. It is plain, however, that the evangelists
understood his words in a physical sense. For in Mt. there is
recorded, Ijefore the account of the message to John, not only
the healing of a leper (81-4) and of a lame man (!* i-8), as in Lk.,
but also the bringmg to life of Jairus's daughter (t» 18-76), which
Lk. records after that message (Lk. 840-56), the healing of a
KuK^dt (t»32y.), which Mk. does not record at all and which Lk.
relates, like the raising of Jairus' daughter, after the message to
John (11 14), and, alx)veall, the healing of two blind inen(927-3i),
which does not apjiear in the parallel narratives. It thus appears
that, in the first gospel, instances of all five classes of miracle
are recorded as liaving occurred before Jesus appeals to them (if
we may disregard the consideration that in Mt.932/; icw^dt is
used in the sense of dumb ; while Jesus in the iness;ige to John
uses it in the sense of deaO- Lk., on the other hand, in whose
narrative the message to John is preceded only by the raising of
the widow's son at Nain (7 11-17), in addition to the healing of a
leper and a lame man (612-26) relates in 7 21 that Jesus wiought
upon many persons in the presence of the disciples of John the
miracles to which he was immediately afterwards to api>eal.
Of these miracles we have no indication in the other evangelists.
The conclusion is that the words ' to the poor the gospel is
( preached ' cannot have Iwen the addition of the evangelists or of
I any of their predecessors. The words destroy the uliysical-
supernatural interpretation which the evangelists seek to put
1 upon tlic preceding clauses. They are the authentic words of
I lesus himself, and they prove that he did not claim to be a
healer of the physically blind.
Some of the critics who argue that the evangelists
have misapprehended Jesus's words do not deny the
historicity of the story of Bartima-us. They point
out that, in .Mk.'s narrative at least, Bartinufus,
' casting away his garment, sprang up and came to
Jesus' (and thus cannot have been completely blind) ;
also that the event helps to render intelligible the
popular enthusiasm at the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem
immediately afterwards. They account for the divergence
of Lk. by pointing out that for the story of Zacchieus
a great concoiir.se of [people before the entry of Jesus into
Jericho is reciuired, and that the evangelist (erroneously)
iMilieved this to have been due to the healing of the
blind man; Mt.'s divergence they account for by
supposing that he had fused together the story of
Bartim:tus and that of the blind man, recorded in .Mk.
822-26, which he had previously passed over. Finally,
they apix-'al to the express mention of the name of the
|)erson healed — a rare thing in the gospels — as guaran-
teeing a genuine reminiscence.
This last argument would, of course, lose its validity
^ should the name prove to be no real name
■ but merely a description.
.\ccording to Payne Smith's Thts. Syr. 588, 1461-2, the
Syrian lexicographers Bar '.Mi («>f/i 885 A.D.)and F^lias of .Anbar
(circa 922) interpret Tinucus as meaning blind (sainya) ; similarly
Ownti. Sacr., ed. I.ag.<'' 17t>35; BaprifiotcK, vibt tvi^Aov ;
and Jerome (A 6610) even gives the corrected form ' Harsemia
filius c.x-cus ' and adds: 'quod et ipsurti conrupte quidam
Hartima;um legunt.' The reading Barscmia, however, has no
support except in Barhebrxus (0/1. 1286 A.i>.), who found in two
Greek MSS ' Samya bar .Samya';! and the interpretation
1 The reading is suspicious for the very reason that it depends
on that of the Syriac translation, which could not render o yib*
Ttfioi'ou liapTiiiaioi otherwise than by the awkward and meaning-
less repetition of 13. It accordingly left o «i<K untranslated, thus
making Timaius the blind man's own name, and designating
him 'D-p 13 'D't3 (so in Syr. sin. and nearly so in S>t. hr. ; cp
Land, Anec. 4 141 : 'JtOTJ 13 'KS't:)- This might be held to
indicate that the combination o uib? Tt^iou'ov BopTijiaiot cannot
be due to the evangelist, who habitually introduces the Greek
translation of an Aramaic expression by o «<7t<i' (8:7 7 11 34) or
o «<rTii' ixe0cl>^irii'*v6iiLeyov (641 15i2 34). Thus o vw Ti(ia»ou is
the m.irginal note of some very ancient reader.
400
BARUCH
'blind' cannot be establi>licd. Hilzig, who upholds it, has
only inferred an Aramaic <De, ' to be blind," as lieing the inter-
mediate step between the Syr. sfiiil and the Arabic ' amiya
of tliis meaning (in Merx's Arvhiv, 1 \oj/., and Kritik fauli-
nischer Brie/e, 1870, p. q/.); but the inference is not sound.
It would appear, then, that the .incient interpretation 'blind'
was hit upon simply because Tut/)A6s stootl near. Neubauer
{Stud. Bib. 1 57;, without expressing any view as to the
etymology, gives KD"n 13 as the origfnal forjn. This rests,
however, only on the writing of the name in some MSS of the
Vet. Lat. with th inste.-id of t, and the termination -cas instead of
•{Fus, — to which, however, the unaniinous testimony of the Greek
MSS is surely to be preferred (only D has Bopirei/iiai). Thus the
most likely rendering of the name would be 'KSa "a, ' son of
the unclean.'
.\:ccptinx this interpret.-ition, Volkmar still regarded the name
ns only a description of the actor in the story. Uncleaniie^s,
he argued, is the characteristic of the Gentile world ; wh.-it
Mk. means to say is, not that an individual man, but that the
whole Gentile world, is freed from spiritual blindness by Jesus —
that is, by the preaching of his gospel {Marcus u. d. Syni>/>se,
422, 502-6, 675, TiiJ. \ Jesus A'azarrniis, 266 yC). But in the
sight of Christianity, Judaism, as well as heathenism, is blind,
and Volkmar linds Judaism, too, represented, in the blind man
whose healing is described in an e.irlier chapter (.Vlk. 822-26 ;
see Marcus, 338 yC, 403-11; Jesus i\azarcnus, 243-5). The
text, however, supplies not the slightest indication or hint that
in the one place the Jews, in the other the Gentiles, are intended ;
in fact, as H.artim.-cus uses the words 'son of David' and
' Rabbuni,' Volkmar finds himself constrained to pronounce him
not a Gentile in the full sense of the word, but a proselyte —
thereby, however, destroying his own position, which is that
the two healings t.aken tojjether express the deliverance by the
gospel of the whole of humanity from spiritual blindness.
We nre shut up, then, to the conclusion that Bartimaaus
is a proper name like Barnabas, Barjesus, and the like,
and it is a nii^ltrr of indifference whether the second
element be tlic appellative "Npa, ' unclean,' or the
personal name 'q-j (I^evy, Neiihcbr. Woricrh. 2 154).^
or the place natne n':d'j {ih. 166), or the second part of
the Syriac place-name -^-j rra {Thes. Syr. 486, 1462),
and whether any or all of the last three forms admit
of being traced to a Jew isIi-Arnmaic root n"t:. ' to close
up' (Syr. CO::)-
Uarlimffius remains a proper name, also, if the second part of
it be supposed to be the Greek name Ti/tatos (found, e.g., in
Plato). Orijen seems to have had this derivation in his mind
when he called Bartimjeus 6t)(9 ti^tjj €7raii'ii/xo«. Such a blending,
however, of Aramaic and Greek is imlikely. On the other
hand, it is not impossili'.e that the Greek word rn.ay have had
influence on the accent. With a Semitic derivation this would
naturally be Bapri/iaio?, as in MarSatos, Zaxx^'O?, and so forth.
But just as, on the analogy of the very common Greek termina-
tion -ai/o?, the accepted pronunciation of Urbanus and Silvanus
was OupiSavos and liAouapos (Koin. 169 2 Cor. 1 19), although in
Latin the accent lay on the penultimate, so conceivably the
name tmder consideration may have been accented Bapri'/oiaios,
even witliout supposing it to be etymologically derived from the
Greek.
For the philology see, especially. Nestle, Afarg. u. Mat., 1893,
pp. 83-92, and for the subject in general, Keim, Cesch. Jcs. z<oii
Naz. 3 51-54 (Er« 61-64). P. W. S.
BARUCH (^•n.J, 'blessed [of God]'; BaroyX
[BXAQ] ; BApOYX'^C [Jos.]), son of Xeriah and brotlicr
of Sek.MAH (y.f. , 4), one of Jeremiah's most faitJiful
friends in the upper class of the citizens of Jerusalem
(cp Jos. Ant. X. 9i, ii^ iina-riuov ctjiodpa oiKiai).
We he.ar of Baruch first in 604 n.c. as the scribe who
committed to writing the prophecies delivered by his
master up to that date, and then in 603 B. C. (?) as
the fearless reader of those prophecies before the
people, the princes, and the king (Jer. 36). After the
roll from which he read had been burned, Baruch
wrote down the substance of the former roll afresh
—a fact not without significance for . the criticism
of the Book of Jkkkmiah il-v-)- In 587 B.C., it was
to Baruch that Jeremiah when in prison committed
the deeds of the land which he purchased from his
cousin Hanamel at Anathoth (32 12), and after the fall
of Jerusalem it was this faithful scribe who was charged
1 Thi.s personal name r^TSt however, is not certainly made
out, for, according to I)alman(7Vj.(?/. Lil.-Blatf, 1893, p. in/.,
and Aram. u. neuheir. U'orter/iuc/i, 1898, p. 162), in the sole
proof-text cited, the reading in the first edition is "DT. which he
explains from jiyae''
491
BARUCH, BOOK OF
with having induced Jeremiah to dissuade his country-
men from seeking a refuge in Egypt (43 3). The
disciple ap[x;ars to have been similar in character to his
master. In the language of strong emotion he com-
plained of the troubles which had come upon him, and
of the wandering life which he was forced to lc:id.
' Seekest thou great things for thyself [i.e., the leader-
ship of a new and better Israel) ? : ' Seek them not ' was
the answer ; for still worse troubles are in prospect ;
but Baruch's own life will be spared (45 1-5 ; cp 12 1-5).
We may be thankful for this brief record of Baruch's
inner life. Its genuineness has l>ecn too hastily doubted :'
the date given in 45 1 is, of course, too early to suit the
contents, and must be interpolated ; but the prophecy
itself is altogether in character with Jeremiah.
No other trustworthy facts respecting Harucli have reached us
In the Midrash .S/tir /:a-S/iiri/ii {on Cant. 6 5) and in Migilla
1 6;^, he is said to have been the teacher of Kzr.a ; and the Midrash
adds that Kzra did not go up to Jerusalem directly after the
edict of Cyrus, because he did not like to miss the instructions of
his teacher. This is obviously an attempt to prove the unbroken
transmission of the oral tradition. An equally great and
equally groundless honour was conferred on IJ.aruch when
liunsen represented him as the 'great unnamed ' prophet who
composed Is. 40-1 f). That various apocryphal writmgs claimed
Baruch as their author is not surprising : Ezra and Baruch, the
two great scribes, were marked out for such distinctions. .See
Al'OCKVl'HA, § 20; Al'OCALVl'TIC LITERATURE, § i> ff-, and
Baruch, Book of.
2. In list of Jud.ahite inhabitants of Jerusalem (see Ezra, ii.
§5^§i5[i]«); Neb. 11 5. Not mentioned in II iCh.92^
3. b. /Cabbai (or Zaccai), in list of wall-builders (see Nehe.miah,
i/, Ezra, ii. §§ 16 [i], 15 d) ; Neh.32o.
4. Priestly signatory to the covenant (see Ezra, i. § 7) ; Neh.
106 [7]. T. K. C.
BARUCH, Book of, a short book which in the LXX is
placed immediately after Jeremiah, and is reckoned by
the Roman Catholic Church as one of the so-called
dcutero-canonical writings.
Its contents may be summarised as follows : —
(Chap. 1 1-2. ) The book is said to ha\ e been written
. P i. i by Baruch the son of Neriah at Babylon
1. contents, j^^ ^j^^ ^^^^^ y^^^. ^^ ^j^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ j^^_
salem was burned by the Chaldeans.
(Chap. I3-14. ) Baruch reads his book in the presence
of Jeconiah [i.e. , Jehoiachin), the son of Jchoiakim, king
of Judah, and in the presence of the other Jewish e.xiles
who dwell at Babylon by the river Sud ( lovh [?]). After
mourning and fasting, they send money to Jerusalem to
the priest Jehoiakim ('Itoa/cet/i), the son of Hilkiah, com-
manding him to offer sacrifices in lx"half of Nubuchodo-
nosor (Nebuchadrezzar) king of Babylon and his son
Belshazzar, in order that Israel may find ntercy. .\t
the same time, the Jewish e.xiles send the following book,
which is to be read publicly on feast days in the Temple.
(Chaps. 1 15-38. ) This section is a confession of sin,
put into the mouth of Israel and accompanied by prayers
that God will at length pardon his people whom he
has so justly punished. Special stress is laid upon the
sin which the people committed in refusing to serve the
king of Babylon, notwithstanding the solemn injunctions
of the prophets.
(Chaps. 39-59. ) Now follows a discourse addres.setl
to the Israelites dispersed among the Clentiles. It begins
by showing that the calamities of the people are due
to their having forsaken God, the only source of wisdom,
and 'then proceeds to console them with promises of
restoration — Jerusalem will be gloriously re-establishe<l
for ever and ever, and the oppressors of Israel are to
be humbled to the dust.
It will be seen that the book is very far from present-
ing the appearance of an org.inic unity. After the
_ .. heading of chap. 1, ' These are the words
2. integrity. ^^ ^^^ ,^^j. ^^.^;^j^ Baruch wrote,' etc..
we might e.xpect the bt>ok itself to follow immediately ;
but, instead of this, we have a long account of the effect
produced upon the people by the reading of the book.
Nor are we clearly informed whether ' the book ' sent
1 Schwally, ;?/<r/r8 2i7.
402
BARUCH, BOOK OP
by the Jewish exiles to Jerusalem (1 14). which they
cite at full length in tlu- following section (1 is-38),
is or is not identical with ' the hook ' written by Haruch.
Moreover, the historical situation descril)e<l in the
narrative (l3-«3) does not agree very well with the sub-
sec|ucnt portion, since the narrative assumes the con-
tinued existence of the temple, whereas 2 26 implies
its destruction, l-'inally, the discourse which occupies
all the latter half of the book lx.'gins quite abruptly and
stands in no definite relation to what precedes : it pre-
supposes, indeed, the dispersion of Israel ; but to Haruch
aiifl to the s[)ccial circumstances of the liabylonian
captivity tiiere is no allusion.
To these general considerations may l)e added several
difliculties of detail. The date given in 1 2 is so ob-
scurely worded that several modern conunentators [e.g. ,
I'.wald and Kiieucker) have felt oblijjvd to emend the
text. Kven if the omission of the month >k; explained,
we still have to decide whether ' the fifth year ' means
the fifth year of Jcconiah's captivity or the fifth year
after the burning of Jcrusalen) ; and to both views there
are .serious objections. Chap. 18 disturbs the sense,
and if it be genuine must originally have stood in some
other place.
Though the Hook of Haruch never formed part of the
Hebrew Canon (for which reason Jerome excluded it
from his Latin translation of the Hible), it
3. Origin.
regarded as authentic by many of the
Christian fathers, from the second century onwards.
Sometimes, owing to the place which it occupies in the
LXX, it is cited as a part of Jeremiah. I-".ven in quite
recent times, it has been maintained by Roman Catholic
theologians that the book is a translation of a genuine
work of the well-known Haruch, the friend and
secretary of the prophet Jeremiah. .\11 competent
critics, however, have long ago concluded that it dates
from a very nmch later period, and belongs to the
large class of Jewish books which were put forth
under false names. Its origin and history remain, how-
ever, in some respects obscure. That 1 15-!? 8 and 89-
5g are by different authors is generally acknowledged :
Ixjth in substance and in style there is a marked con-
trast, the language of the former section tx-ing simple
and full of Hebraisms, while that of the latter is highly
rhetorical. The dates of the various parts, however, and
the (|uestion whether the whole or any part was originally
written in Hebrew are matters about which critics dilTcr.
Ewald ascriljed the first half (1 i-38) to a Jew living in
Babylonia or Persia under one of the latter Acha-menian
kings, and regarded the rest of the lx)ok as having been
written soon after the capture of Jerusaleiu by Ptolemy
Soter (320 H.c. ) ; 4 32 ICwald explained as a reference to
the depwrtation of Jews to Alexandria. Very few critics,
however, are now in favour of so e;irly a d.ate. Kneucker
thinks that the work, in its original form, was com-
posed in the reign of Domitian, and consisted of only the
heading [i.e., 1 1 2 in part, 3), and the discourse contained
in 89-59 ; the confession of sin (1 15-88) was, according
to Kneucker, probably written a little earlier (in any ca.se
after the year 73 of our era) as an independent work,
and was subsequently inserted into the Hook of Haruch
by a scribe, who himself composed I4-14. Schtirer, on
the contrary, whilst admitting that the middle of chap. 1
does not harmonise very well with what precedes and
follows, thinks it on the whole probable that all the first
half of the book (1 i-38) is by the same author, whom
he places soon after the destruction of Jerusalem (70
A.I).), the second half lieing by a different hand but of
about the same period. With reg.ard to the
original Language, Ewald, Kneucker, and others believe
the whole to be a tran.slation from the Hebrew, whilst
Bertholdt, Hiivernick, and Noldcke regard the Greek
as the primitive text. Fritzsche, Hilgenfeld, Reuss, and
Schiirer maintain the theory of a primitive Hebrew text
in the ca.se of the first half only. In favour of this
hypothesis, it may be mentioned that on the margin of
493
BARZILLAI
the Syro-Hexaplar text of Haruch tlure are three notes
by a scribe .stating that certain words in 1 17 and 23
are 'not found in the Hebrew' (cp Ai'<x.KVi'H.\, § 6
As to the question of historical credibility, it is obvious
that if, with the majority of critics, we .ascribe the Ixjok
_. . , to the Roman period, its value as a record
valu "'' ^'^"^^ '"* reduced to nothing. Whether,
for example, the statements aljout Haruch's
residence in Habylon, the river i;oi55, and the priest
Jehoiakim are based upon any really ancient tradition
it is impossible for us to decide. The author of the
first h.alf borrows largely from Jeremiah and from Daniel ;
in the second half we find many reminiscences of Job
and of the latter part of Isaiah ; and it may Ix- that
sources now lost also were employed. It is par-
ticularly important to observe that the closing passage
(4 se-.'jg) Ijears a striking resemblance to one of the pieces
in the so-called ' Psalms of .Solomon' (Ps. 11 — see the
edition of Ryle and James, pp. Ixxii.-lxxiv. ), which prob-
ably date from alxjut the middle of the first century H.c.
Since there is every reason to believe that the Psalms
of Solomon were originally composed in Hebrew (cp
ArocAiAPTic, Sj 83), the close verbal agreement sc-ems
to indicate th.at the author of this part of Haruch
u.sed the Psalms of .Solomon in their present Greek
form.
The most important of iht M.SS containing the Greek text
ofI?arucharel!,A,.indthc.M.nrchali.-inus(9). In K this book Is
missing. Fritzsche's edition of llie Apocrypha
5. Texts and (LiOriafocryphiveteristestaiiientigrtrn, 1871)
COmm. Aoa not accurately represent the H text of
Haruch ; but trustworthy information about this
M.S may be obtained fiom Swcte's Septuagint iii., in the pre-
paration of which the photograuhic reproduction of H was used.
The ancient versions are— (i) the old l^atin, contained in the
editions of the Vg.; (2) another Latin version, first published a^
Rome in 1688 l)y Joseph M.iria a Caro 'lonun.asi ; (3) the Old
Syriac, eilii,ril !> r.iul de Lagarde in his Lihri vetrris tista-
tiwnti ,'. '.ue, i8cii, from a ,M.S in the Hritish
Museiii ; ( t) the Syro-Hexaplar- /.c, the .Syriac
translat I lexaplaric text— contained in the Cotlex
.•\mbr()-.i VIS rcprotluced in photo -lithography by
Ceriani in 1-71 ; (5) the I'ahiopic- a much abridged form of the
text — ed. by IJillmann (Herlin 1804) in the 5th vol. of his Vitus
'li-staiuentutii ./Etliiopictim ; (6) the .Armenian, of which the best
edition is cont.iined in the .\rmenian Itible published at Venice
in 1805 ; (7) the Coptic, edited by Rrugsch in ZA x.-xii.
Of modern commentaries the most valuable are those of
FritTsche (in KurTgef. HaitJh., 1851), Reusch (ErkUirung ties
Buchs Baruch, 1853), Kwald (Proplutcn lies alien Bumies,i.'i)
iii. 1867-68), Kneucker (Das Buck Baruch, 1879), and Gifford
(in Wace's Apoctyf"!'**, 1888). The best general .accoimt of the
book will be found in .Schiirer iCJl', 1886-00, ii. pp. 721-726,
ET). The reader may consult also Hertnoldt (Kinltitung,
1812-19, pt. iv.), Hiivernick (De lihro Baruclii covimentatio
critica, 1843), Hitzig (in XUT 3262-273), Hilgenfeld (//■/>/. 5
199-203, -22437-454, '23412-422), NOldeke (ATliche Lit., 1868,
p. 214 n.), Reuss (Cesch. d. hciligen Schri/len ATs.^-) 1890),
and the article on this book in Smith's DB,^) 1893— an article
valuable chiefly on account of the additions made by Prof. Ryle,
In many MS.S and printed editions the apocryphal Kpislle of
Jeremiah is appended to Haruch, and it is reckoned in the Vg. as
the sixth chapter of the book. The Kook
6. Appendices, of Haruch is not to l>e confounded with the
Apocalypse 0/ Baruch (see Aiocai.yptic
LiTERATURK, § sff-)- The work known as 'The Rest of the
words of Baruch,' ext.-int in CJreek, P^thiopic, and Armenian,
seems to be a ChristL-in imitation of the Apocalypse of Haruch.
We possess, moreover, a third apocalypse of Baruch extant in
Greek and in Slavonic, and a fourth extant only in l-thiopic
The Greek text of the former has been published by James in
his Apocrypha Anecdota, second series [ '97 )(/V.r/i aw*/. '>7»«//m,
vol. 5, no. 1), where some information will be found also about
the Ethiopic apocalypse (Hi.). A. A. B.
BARZILLAI C^T")? ; BepreAA[e]i [HXAL]). The
meaning can scarcely be ' iron.' for such a name would
be without a parallel. According to Nestle (/.DFV
15257; cp Kampfmeyer, ib. 9), the name is .Aramaic
('son of ?'); but the latter part of it is still
obscure.
I. A wealthy Gileadite of Rogflim, who Ix^friended
David in his flight from Absalom at Mahanaim (a.S.
1727). He refused David's offer to live at the court at
Jerusalem, but entrusted to him his son Chimmam
494
BASALOTH
{f.v. ; 2 S. 1932^). David on his death recomnu-ndod
the sons of Barzillai to Solomon (i K. 27).
2. A Oileadite [see(3)], Ezra 2 61 l>{$fp^t\KaU]i. [h], -AAai [ A))-^^
Neh. 7 63 i^ (-AAa lA])=i Ksd. 5 38 /- (Hkkzki.us, RV Zokzhi.-
LEUS, RV'i'B- VHM7.y.l.UMv^; 4>ar)ie\Saiov [H], ^op^tWtov |A]).
3. A man who married one of the daughters of (2) and changed
his name to Harzillai.l In post-exilic times the b'ne Karzillai
were among those deposed from tlie priesthood because they were
unable to prove their pedigree. In i Ksd. .'138 the original name
of the founder of the family is s.iid to have betn Jauuus, AV
Anns (laSfious [I?), lO&S. [A])— i.e., Jaddua (cp Jos. An/, xi. 84 ;
laSSous) ;— but in the parallel p.-\ssages he is simply called Bar-
zillai; Ezra26i« (^ap/SeA^ei [H], ^ep/SeAAat [A])= Neh. V (3 «
OepfeAAat [.\]), and so L in i Esd. 5 38 (^»p^cAAet). The Siime
passage gives Augia as the name of his wife.
4. A man of Abel-meholah (not far, therefore, from Gilead),
whose .son .\ukiki, (i/.t.) also has been thought to bear an
Aramaic name (2 .S. - 1 k).
BASALOTH (BaaAcoB |A]), i Esd. 531 = Ezra 'J 52.
BAZMTH, q.l\
BASCAMA (Backama [ANY]; Backa. Jos. -/;//.
xiii. t)), an unknown place, in Gilead, where Jonathan
the .\Iaccabee was put to death by Trvpho (i Mace.
1,323). Furrer's identification (/.DPVV2. 151) with /dV/-
liazitk on the W. Goramaye (to the IC. of the extreme N.
of Lake Tiberias) is precarious (see Buhl, J'al. 241).
luiually unsukstantiated is the identification witii Bk-
ZKK, i.
BASE. For n:i33, .1332. m'khondh, the word em-
])!oyei.I to denote the structure upon which each of Solomon's
lavers rested (i K.. 7 27 /: 30 32 m /■ 7,1 ff- ^'^ /■ '• 2 K- 1'' '7
L'r> 13 16 2 Ch. 4 14, ^itx"*'"'^ [sing, and pi.] ; Jer. 27 (34J ig om.
KNA, it.^x'^vuiB [Theod.] ; Jer. 52 17 fia.(T(i.<; [BNQF]), see I.avkr ;
also for J3, ken, Ex. 31 9 etc., RV [AV 'foot']. For -t,
r.lrc/ck, Ex. 2.53, 37 17 RV [.\V 'shaft'], see Candlfistick,
S 2, n. 3 ; and for 3:1, .^r?/', Ezek. 4.i 13 RV, .see Ai.tak, § 1 1.
BASEMATH (n!?l"3), Gen. 863 RV ; AV B.xshk-
BASEMENT (Pinil.
\\ kmp:n r.
>,. 41 S RV. .See G.vbhatha,
BASHAN (|y'3, always in prose [except iCh.'(2'3],
and sometimes also in poetry, with the art. pj-^n : the
1 Namp appellative sense of the word, to judge
from the Arab, bitfhaitiat"", was probably
' fertile, rich and stoneless soil' : see Wetzstein, in Del.
J/iob^^) [.\pp.], 556/ : 6"'^'- iSao-aj' or i) ^aaave'iTu),
the name of the broad and fertile tract of country
on the E. of Jordan, bounded (somewhat roughly)
on the .S. by the Varmuk and a line passing through
l-".dre'i and Salchah (mentioned as torder cities in
l)t. 3io), on the !•".. by the imposing range of extinct
volcanoes called the Jebel H.auran, on the W. by
Geshur and .M.a'acah (see Josh. I25), and on the N.
stretching out towards Hermon (cp Dt. 8822 : see
further, on the limits of Bashan, Guthe, ZDPV, 1890,
pp. 231-4). The name (in its Gk. form Maravaia.,-
and its Arabic form Bathaiiiyeh'^) was, however, after-
wards restricted to the southern portion of the area thus
defined, other parts of the ancient ' Bashan ' being dis-
tinguished as Tk.Vchomtis [q.v.) — i.e., the remarkable
pear-shaped volcanic formation in the NE. now called
the Leja — .\uranitis (probably the Jetiel Hauran and
its environs in the SE. ), and (iaulanitis (which, how-
ever, may have included parts of Geshur and Ma'acah,
beyond the limits of Ba,shan proper) in the West. The
principal part of the Bashan of the OT must have
been the broad rolling prairie now called by the Be-
dawln en-Nukra, a word properly denoting the ' hollow
hearth ' dug by the Bedawi in the middle of his tent,
and applied to this great plain because, though it is
J The adoption of the family name of the wife suggests that
she was an heiress.
2 See Schurer, GJV 1 353.
3 Wetzstein, Hauran, 83-88, and in the app. to Del. Ih'ob,!!^)
553-558, where it is .shown also that the modern ' 'ard el-
Bathanlyeh,' or ' L.and of Bathaniyeh,' is the name of a com-
paratively small district N. of the Jebel Hauran and E. of the
Leja, which can never (as was supposed bj- Porter and others)
have formed part of either Bashan or the province of Baravaia.
495
BASHAN
some 1800-2000 ft. alx)ve the level of the sea, it forms
a depression between the hilly Jaulan (across the Nahr
er-Rukkad) on the W. , the Zunileh range on the S. , and
the Jebel Hauran and the Leja on the E. :' the S. and
SE. part of en-Nukra also bears the special name of
Haukan (q.7'.).
Bashan, as defined al)Ove, is distinguished geologically
from the country .S. of it. The Yarmuk forms a natural
2. Character. j"^«l'"g 1'"^' «" '^e S. of which the
limestone comes to the surface, while
on the N. it is covered by volcanic deposits. Jel)el
Hauran, on the .SE. , is simply a range of extinct vol-
canoes ; volcanic peaks extend from N. to .S. in Jaul.an,
along the edge of the Jordan valley, on the W. ;2 and
there are isolated volcanic hills in other parts of the
country. The Leja, that strange ' petrified ocean ' NW.
of the Jebel Hauran, which measures some 25 m. from
N. to S. by 19 from E. to V\\ (.see Trachom Tl.s),
owes its origin entirely to streams of basaltic lava
emitted from the Ghararat el-Kibliyeh, a now extinct
volcano at the NW. corner of the Jebel Hauran. The
soil both of the slopes of the Jebel Hauran and of the
Nukra is a rich red loam,-'' formed by the lava scoria,
which has become disintegrated under atmospheric
.action. The soil thus constituted is celebrated for its
fertility : the best corn grows upon it, and in summer
time the plain is co\ ered far and wide w ith waving crops.
The country is, however, in general almost entirely
destitute of trees : only on the slopes of JeM Hauran,
especially in its central and southern parts, are there
abundant forests of evergreen oak* (cp the allusions to
the ' oaks of Bashan ' in the OT : Is. 213 Zech. 11 2 Ez.
'276, alsols. 339((5^raX[e]tXaia), Xah. I4). In ancient
times, also, it must have supplied rich pastures : the
.strong and well -nourished herds of Bashan are men-
tioned in Ps. 22 13 [12] {B omits) Am. 4 i Ez. 39i8 (©
omits) Dt. 32 14 (^ Taupwv) ; cp also Mic. 7 14 Jer. 0019
(© omits). The lofty conical simimits of the volcanoes
forming the Hauran range (cp Porter, 183. 186, 190, 227,
250) are no doubt the ' mountains with peaks,' which the
poet of Ps.68i6/ [15/] pictures as looking enviously
at the comparatively unimposing mountain of Zion.
The principal towns of Bashan mentioned in the OT
are the two royal cities of 'Og (Dt. I4 Josh. 124 (Baffa
„ „ [B]), 'AsiiTAKOTii, now probably either
6. lOWns. ,pgjj '.\5htera or Tell 'Ash'ari, in the middle
of en-Nukra, and Eukk'i, now Der'at, on its S. border,
(jOI,.\.\ (Dt. 443), somewhere in the W. , and Salchah
(Dt. 3io), now Salchad, a frontier-fortress in a com-
manding position overlooking the desert in the SE.
corner of Bashan, S. of Jebel Hauran. Bosra, l>etween
Edre'i and .Salchah, though not mentioned till i .Mace.
hriitff. {tiodop [AHV*]; but see BosoK), also was, no
doubt, an important place : the site is still marked
by extensive remains belonging to the Rom.an age.
' Threescore fenc(;d cities, with high walls, gates and
bars,' forming the kingdom of 'Og, are likewise men-
tioned in Dt. 84 (ep 1 K. 413) as situate in the 'region
of Argob,' in Bashan. The position of Argob, and,
consequently, the positions of those cities as well, are
uncertain (see Akgoh, 1); but there are remains of
many ancient towns and villages in these parts, esp>eci-
ally in the Leja, and on the sloping sides of the Jebel
Hauran ; according to Wetzstein, for example [Hauran,
42), there are 300 such ancient sites on the F"-. and S.
slopes of the Jelx;] Haiir.an alone.
The dwellings in these deserted localities are of a remark.-\ble
char.-icter. Some are the habit.itions of Troglodytes, being
caverns hollowed out in the mountain-side, and so arranged as
t Wetzstein, Hauran, St n., HioS, 552; GA.Sm. HO 536 /C
See the excellent map of this district published in the ZDPV,
1800, Heft 4, chiefly on the basis of .StuHel's survey.
2 Schumacher, Tliejauiiin, 18-20.
3 Wetzstein, Hauran, ^o/. Cp the map at the end of the
volume.
•» Porter, Fire Years in Damascus,!^* 186, 190, 200, 202, etc. :
Ci.XSm. Gtog. 613^ The mountainous region of Jaulan, \V. of
the kukkad, also is well wooded.
496
4. History.
BASHAN
to form separate chambers ; these are found chiefly on the E. of
the Iel)cl Hauran. Others are subterranean alKKles entered by
shafts invisible from above ; these are frenuent on the \V. of the
Ztimleh ranjje, and at Kdrei the dwellings thus cotisiructcd
form quite an underground iit\-. Commonly, the dwelliii^^
are built in the ordinary niaiiner above ground ; but they
are constructed of massive well -hewn blocks of black basalt
— the regular and indeed the only building material used in
the country — with heavy doors moving on pivots, outside stair-
cases, galleries, and roofs, all of the same material;' of this
kind are, for example, the houses at Burak, on the N. ed^e
of the Leja, at isauwarah, El-Hazm, Deir Kileh, Hiyat, Hit,
Bathanlyeh, Shakfi, Shuhba, K. of it, l^anawfit and Suweidch,
on the vV. slopes of Jeljel Hauran, Salchad, Kureiyeh, and
Hosra, on its SK. slope, and Nejran, Ezra', Khubab, Dfiiiia,
ana Mismeiych, within the Leja itself.- Many of these cities are
in such a nood st.ite of preservation that it is dilTicult for the
traveller to realise th.it they are uninhabited, and in the Leja
especially, where the ground itself is of the same dark and
sombre hue, unrelieved by a touch of green, or a single sign of
life, a feeling of weirdness comes over him as he traverses their
desolate and silent streets.
The arciiitecture of the buildings contain^-d in these
cities (comprising temples, theatres, aqueducts, churclies,
etc.) stamps them as belonging to the (.ira-co- Roman
age, and is such as to show that between the first and
the seventh centuries A.D. they were the home of a
thriving and wealthy people. May any of these cities
date from a remoter antiquity, and be actually the
fortified places pointed to with wonder in Dt. '^\f. and
iK. 4i3? 'i"he ciuestion was answered in the atifirma-
tive by Porter^ and by C\Til (jraham,"* who believed
that they had really rediscovered the cities ' built and
occupied some forty centuries ago ' by the giant race of
the Rephilim ; but this view cannot be sustained. The
best authorities are unanimous in the opinion that,
though in some cases very ancient building materials I
may be preserved in them, the e.xtant remains are not,
as a rule, of a date earlier than the first century, A.n.'' |
Dt. 84/. and 1 K.413 are sufficient evidence that in 1
the seventh century B. c. there were in Bashan strongly ;
fortified places which were popularly supposed to have
belonged to the ancient kingdom of Og ; but none
of the existing deserted cities can be as ancient as this.
At the same time, it is not improbable that some of
the cities built during and after the reign of Herod
inay have stood upon the sites of cities belonging to
a much earlier age, and that in their construction the
materials employed in building the more ancient cities
may in some cases have been utilised and preserved.
As regards the history of Bashan, it is stated in Xu.
21 33-35 that the Israelites after their concjuest of Sihon,
king of Heshlxjn, turned in the direction
of liashan, defeated Og its king, who
came out to meet them as far as his frontier fortress of
F2drei, and took possession of his territory. The
passage is in the context of JE ; but it agrees so closely,
in form as well as in substance, with Dt. 3 1-3, that
Dillmann and other critics consider this to have l)een
its original i^lace, supposing it to have been inserted
afterwards into the text of Xuml)ers for the purpose of
supplying what seemed to l>e an omission. |
All other notices of the same occurrence in the historical books
are Deuteronomic (or later): Israel's ancient victories over
' Sihon king of the Amorites and Og the king of Bashan ' being
two national successes, to which, especially, the writers of the
Deuteronomic school were never weary of referring (Dt. 1 4
Si/?: 447 296[7] 3I4 losh. 2 10 9 10 12 4/ 13 11 A i K. 4 19 ;
see also, later, Nu. 32 33[R), Neh. 9 22 Ps IS,', ii 13t; 19/)
The territory of Bashan fell to the possession of the
half-trilx; of Manasseh ( Dt. 3 13 4 43 Josh. 13 29-31 [/iacrai/ei
^ ^- 3°])- Golan and Wshtaroth are stated in P to have
' See more fully Wetzstein, Hauran, \\ff. \ on Edrei, also,
Schumacher, Across the Jortian, 121^
■-' See for particulars Porter, Damascus, c\\a.\>'>. 10-14; Heber-
Percy, A I isit to Bashan and Argoh, 1895, pp. 40, 47, etc. (with
photographs).
3 Damascus, i"^) 2577:, 263/. ; Giant Cities 0/ Bashan, 12 yC
30, etc. t'821.
* Cainbritige Essays for 1858, p. i6oyr
" Wetzstein, Hauran, 49, lo^yi : Waddington, Inscriptions
Grecques et Latines, etc., iii. 1 534 ; and De Vogui, the
principal authority on the architecture of Hauran, Syrie
Centrale, Archit. Civile et Relig. 4 (cited in Merrill, East
of Jordan, 63) ; GASm. HG 624.
32 497
BASHEMATH
Ix-en l^vitical cities (Josh. 21 27, cp iCh. 656[7i]) ; the
fornter also is named as a city of refuge (Dt. 443 Josh.
208 21 27).
Bashan played no prominent part in the history ; and
it is rarely mentioned in a historical connection. In
iK. 4i3 it forms one of S<jlomon's commissariat dis-
tricts ; and in 2 K. 10 33 it is included in the enumera-
tion of trans-Jordanic regions which were • smitten ' by
Hazael. Its inhabitants may l)e presumed to have
.suffered, like their neighljoiirs in CJile.ad, on other
occasions during the .Syrian wars, and finally to have
been carried into exile by Tiglath-pileser in 734 (2 K.
1529) ; but in neither connection are they expressly
mentioned. .Apart from the prehistoric ' threescore
cities ■ of the .\rgob, settled civilisation appears to have
begun for the region of Bashan about the time of the
(Christian era, when its .Semitic inhabitants first fell
under Greek and Roman influence. The most im-
[xjrtant event in the history of the country, however,
was its incorporation by Trajan, in 106 A.D., in his
newly-founded province of .Vrabia. Then it was that
Roman culture impressed itself visibly upon both the
surface of the country and the character of its in-
habitants ; and towns, with great public buildings, of
which the remains, as descriljed aV)ove, survive to this
day, sprang up in every part of it and continued to
thrive for many centuries.'
The most important works on the topography of J?ashan are,
Wetzstein's Reisebcricht iihcr /fauran und die 'I'rachcnen
('60), and Ciuthe and Fischer's art. in the
6. Literature. /.DP\', 1890, Heft 4, pp. 225--,o2 (containing
Dr. Stubersiiin,-r;„v;.n,l n,an, .-m,! nnm.-rous
biblioL;rrii)hical references); on ^ ' ■ ■ i!m- \ :'- i:!.
Schuiiiachtr, Z/W, i8g7,pi). ■ .11. ., ..
Schumacher, Across the J or. urn. ; ; I'-hm, ...r
Years in Damascus; GASni. //., 575//.. n,, ,-/. Inscnptiuns
(chiefly Greek and Latin) have been published by Wetzstein in
the ^M. of the Berlin Ac. 1863, p. 255-368; Waddington, <?/.
cit. Nos. 2071-2548; Clermont-Ganneau, Rccueild Arch. Orient.
1 1-23; GASm. Crit. A',T'., 1892, p. iiff.\ \V. Ewing, DiiFQ,
1S95 (4 papers) ; CIS'li, fasc. 2, \os. 162-193. s. K. I).
BASHAN-HAVOTH-JAIR (-|\V nvin |l''|n) occurs
in Dt. 3 14 (BAcceM&e AytoG iAeip[R*]. Bacan ayooS
lAeip [H-^'MvHi.) (ut vid.) .\FL]), where A\' renders, 'and
(Jair) called them after his own name, Bashan-havolh-
jair.' This version does justice to the present text, but
certainly does not represent the mind of the original
writer. The awkward (indeed, impossible) expression
Bashan -havoth -jair can Ik.' accounted for only on the
hypothesis that the first element in it (Bashan) is a mis-
placed gloss from the margin. RV seeks to evade the
difiiculty by rendering, ' called them, even Bashan, after
his own name, Havvotii-j.MK.' On the geographical
difficulty which still remains, see H.wvoTH-J.MK.
BASHEMATH, or, as R\', correctly, Baskmatu
(n?py"3 = Apoo/v\ATiNH ? § 54 ; BAce/v\MA.9 [-VD]).
Other readings are: Gen. 2('> ^4 na(re/a/u.oe t.\K] ^acreienafl
/)vid. fjLaa-fOaix [L ; elsewhere PatTe/jLaO] ; :i('i 3 ^acre/n/aafl |l)l;
/3a . . . |D| ; 4 fia<r(^iiJia9 [D\ fia.<r(6fi.a0 [K] : 10 ^a<7-<Tt>iM«^IE] ;
1^ IJia<T€. l.\] iJ.aa-<r(ixa6 [DK]; 17 u.a<T(uua6 [AE] [^ajcrcuatf
[Dvid].
I. Daughter of Ishmael, and wife of FIsau, called
Mahai.ath in Gen. 289 and Hittile (eyMOy [-^J !
X'-.TfA. [K]; xeTTA. [L]) in Gen. 2634 U'l The
names and tribal origin of Esau's three wives are given
twice (cp Anah) : by P in Gen. 2634 289. and by R (?)
in Gen. 362/ A wife Basemath, and descent from
Ishmael and from Elon the Hittite occur in both
accounts (see Cainitks, § 9), but differently assigne<l ;
while the other names have no connection whatever ;
thus —
P Beeri- Hittite Elon-IlUtite Ishmael
I I I
I. Judith 2. Basemath 3. Mahal.ath
R (or J) Elon-Hittitc Zibeon-Hivite Ishmael
I I [Horite?] I
I. Adah Anah 3. Basemath
2. Oholibamah
' See, further, GASm. HG 616^.
498
BASILISK
2. (AV Rasmath, RV Basemath), daughter of Solomon,
BASILISK, RV rendering of r3>* (Is. 14 29). ^^li^PV
(Is. 11 8), for which AV has Cockatrice [q.v.].
BASKETS of various kinds were used by the Hebrews,
and were doubtless not unlike those which are often
found depicted up)on Egyptian monuments — large open
baskets for fruit etc. (cp illustration, Wilk. Ant: Egypt. 1
379), which could be borne upon the head (ib. 383, cp
Gen. 40 16/ ), baskets to collect earth in the manufacture
of bricks (on a supposed reference to which in Ps. 81 6,
see Bkick), or deep wicker ones slung upon a yoke [ib.
380). Especially noteworthy is the large carpenter's
tool-basket made of rush (a kind common throughout
W. Asia), a specimen of which is now in the British
Museum (cp ib. 401). The references to baskets
present m:uiy points of interest ; suffice it to refer to the
diiTicult saying in Prov. 25 ii, which RV renders, 'A
word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in baskets (AV
'pictures'; RV'"-^- 'filigree work') of silver,' where
the implied notion is that the golden-hued apples look
all the more l>eautiful in silver baskets. But (i) go'den,
not golden-hued apples (quinces) must be meant, if the
te.xt be correct ; ' gold ' and ' silver ' must both be taken
literally. (2) ' Baskets ' is an impossible rendering, and
' filigree work,' though more plausible, is still hypo-
thetical. (3) 'Fitly' has no sound linguistic basis.
This is a case in which no weak emendati<5n, affecting
one or two letters, suffices.
Frankenberg has tried such a one ; the sense produced is—
Golden gravings ('nirs) on silver chased work,
(So is) a word spoken to the trustworthy (□■JICN-7J;, cp (S),
i.e., a word spoken to the receptive is as ineffaceable as the
chased work referred to. Not very natural, and not a good
parallel to v. 12.
By emending the te.xt more boldly (but avoiding
arbitrary guessing, and following parallels found else-
where) it is possible to reach this excellent sense ' —
A necklace of pearls in sockets of wreathen gold,
(So is) a word of the wise to him who hears it.
It is really only a slightly different version of the ne.xt
proverb :
A ring of gold and an ornament of fine gold,
(So is) a word of the wise to a hearing ear.
Of the other Hebrew words rendered 'ba.sket,' dtidiyf^, fene'
(Xjp), and sti/ {'?D) were used for general purposes, see Cooking,
§ 2. Xowack (.Irc/t. 1 146) suggests that these were similar in
character to the clay and straw /rmvdii of the modern fellahin.
The former may perhaps denote loosely any pot or jar, since we
find it used for cooking in i S. 2 14 (cp BDB s.z'.). The last-
named (.»vj/), a reed basket (equivalent to the Gr. Kavovv [by which
it is rendered] and Lat. canistrum),'^ has been brought into con-
nection with the reduplicated form 1117070, Jer. G9 (EV 'grape-
gatherers' baskets ' ; © (caproAXos).^ This, however, is doubtful,
and indeed the te.xt is uncertain (cp Pesh.). RV"iiJ- renders
'.shoots'; but this is C'^i^l ; cp Vine. For 31^3 (Am. 81;
ayyos-* [©]), used also of a bird-cage, see Cage.
1 0 helps a little: crapScov = CHS, which should take the place of
fJOl • but «!/ opfii'o-Koi = vna, which must have come from v. 12.
nVDCDl 's ^ corrup-.ion of niiaaca (Ex. 2Sn, .see Ouche.s).
an? 'n^Sn evidently conceals the name of some precious stone
or the like. If so, there is but one possible explanation ; 3,^I•^
comes from o'lnn ( jn^t as ^nt 'D> Gen. 3(5 39, comes from c>n:i::i ;
see Bela, 2), which means pearls strung together (see Neck-
lace). Lastly, i2n probably comes from iin (string or necklace).
Thus V. iia corresponds closely to v. 11a , consemiently v. 11b
must correspond to v. 12b, where, with Bi. (I'rov.(2)), we should
read CDn -\21 (see (S) ; nOID "s based on HDD- r:SX-^y might
come from i.Tjyo'?, ' for its purpose,' but more prolably comes
from iyOir-Sj;, which is equivalent to nyOE' ]m-^]! (v. nb)
Render as above, and cp Got.D.
* On the sacred canistrum of early Christian times, see Smith,
Z>ic/. Christ. Ant., s.v.
8 The KapraWiyi (also in 2 K. 10 7 for ho, and in Dt. 26 2 4 for
K3") was a basket with a tapering extremity.
* ayyoi (cp Dt. 23 25 I K. 17 10, MT <'?3) used of vessels
of various kinds : cp in NT, Mt. 13 48 2.';4 (WH prefer iyyerov).
In Am. i.e. Sym., more suitably, has KoXaOo^ (cp (P in Jer. "24 i
for T;ri), a vase-shaped basket ; especially the basket upon the
head of Demeter in ancient statues.
BASTARD
In the NT mention is made of (a) a-apyavn), a ba.sket of braid-
work (used especially of fish-baskets), in which Paul escaped
from Damascus (2 Cor. 11 33). In Acts 9 25, however, the word
is (b) o-irvpis (WH prefer a-tjivpU), the b.asket in the miracle of
the 4000 (Mt. 1537 etc.). Both were probably larger than(r) the
K6(f)ivo<:, in the miracle of the 5000 (Mt. 14 20 etc.). The last-
mentioned w.xs an essentially Jewish article (quorum copkinus
fanum^ue supellex, Juv. 814), whose size may perhaps be
determined from the use of the word to denote a IJceotian measure
of about 2 gallons (vide Corp. Inscr. Gr., 1625, 46). T. K. C.
BASMATH (npL"2). i K. 4is AV; see Bashe-
MATH, 2.
BASON (Amer. RV Basin). That all the words
(one (jreek and four Hebrew) denote hollow vessels
adapted to receive and contain liquids is certain ; but
what was the general form, and wherein the peculiarity
of each consisted we have no means of determining.
This uncertainty is sufficiently proved by the frec|ucnt
variations in the EV renderings. On the whole subject,
see Bowl, Cup, Gobi.kt, and cp Altar, § lo;
Cooking Utensils, Food, Meals, § 12 ; PcrrrEKv.
I. fJN, aggdn (see BDB Lex. s.v.; Kpa.Tr)p [P.KA etc.]), a large
bason (EV) or bowl used in the temple ritual (Ex. 24 6). In Is.
2224 EV. 'cups'(om. BNAQr, aya^oifl [Theod. Q^e.]). On
a. count of its shape, it is employed in Cant. 7 2 [3]! as a simile
in the eulogy of the bride (EV ' goblet ') ; see Che. iui loc. JQK,
April 1839.
2- l'l£33, k'/dr{cp MH "I'lES goblet), for which AV 'bason,
RV ' bowl ' consistently, occurs only as a vessel used in the
temple & found it unintelligible. 1 Ch. 28 17 (.ni. 11,
Ksifi^avpe [\] K«f)tf). and Ke<j>cl><Dp |L]) Ezra 1 10 (/cec^c^oupi^s [P.],
Xf^oupj) [A], Ken^ovpai [L.]~ I Es 1. 2 13 (i^ioAai ^pvarai [B.\l.]),
and Ezra 8 27! {Ka<t>ovSrfe [B], Ka<j)ovpti [A], L as in 1 jo)=i
Esd. 8 57 (xpviTuifiaTa [BAl.]).
3. P^ID, ntizrdk (a vessel for throwing or to'sing a liquid,
<^taA))).l With the exception of Am. G6 (©liAQj t'ov &i.v\i(Ty.ei'ov
olvov. as though Pi^TD ; see Meals, § 12 and 2 Ch. 4 11), this
utensil is used only in the temple sacrificial rifual. ICV renders
varyingly 'bason' {e.g., Ex. '27 3 .SS 3 2 K. 12i3[i4] etc.) or
' bowl ' (Am. I.e., Zech. 9 15 14 20 Nu. 7 13 etc) ; see Altar, § 9.
4. fjD, sapk, 3l temple utensil (i K. 7 50 2 K. 1213114] Jer.
52 19 [where .\q. (Qmfr) vipi'a, Sym. c^toArj] ; AV ' bowls," but
RV 'cups' [so EV in Zech. 122]), used also in the ritual of
the Passover (Ex. 12 22). The pi. niSD, evidently denoting
domestic utensils, occurs in 2 S. 17 28 (©"al Ae'^rjre?) ;2 but .see
Klo. ad loc.
5. viTrrrjp used in Jn. 185 of the 'bason' (EV) in which Jesus
washed the feet of the disciples (cp viTrrei.v=Yrr\ Gen. 18 4 etc.).
The utensil must have been larger than any of the above.
The Pal. -Syr. (Evang. Hierosol.) renders by ]i_a^<_CC ; cp
Heb. ?pp^ and see Bowl, 7.
BASSA, RV Bassai (Baccai [B]), i Esd. 5i6 = Ezra
2i7, Bk/.ai, q.v.
BASTAI, RV Basthai (BacG&i [BA]), i Esd. 531
= Ezra 2 49, Besai.
BASTARD (ItpP). The mamzer is mentioned along
with the Ammonite and Moabite as excluded from the
'congregation ^ (Dl2%3 2 [3]). The Heb. word is of
uncertain derivation, and the EV rendering is ba.sed
upon the Vss. (sk Tropvrj^ [B^^ mg. gj sup ras A'^L],
B*F om. ). More probably the word means one of
mi.xed or alien birth (so Zech. 96, dWoyevrjs [BNAQ]),
and among the Rabbins it was the term applied to
relations between whom marriage was forbidden (cp
Mish. Vebam, 4 13). It is presupposed by (5 in Nah.
3 17 (6 ffi'fjLfxLKT^i aov [BXAQ]), where MT has i-it:d
(EV 'thy crowned ones'), and is rather infelicitously
accepted by Wellhausen who thinks that the refer-
ence is to the mixed population of Nineveh. Rulxjn
is certainly right in conjecturing :i'Tn:D, ' thy measuring
1 In some ca.ses where several vessels are named © appears
to have transposed piTO : see e.g. Nu. 4 14.
2 Apart from the two exceptions mentioned, © rejrularly
thinks of no 'threshold,' and renders Ovpa npoOvpov (in Jer.
i.e., <Ta<tx)><o6).
' The only kind cS foreign marriage which D contemplates
seems to be found in Dt. 21 10-14. In Dt. 7 1-4 only Canaanitish
peoples are excluded ; but i K. 11 i 2 assumes the exclusion of
other nations, and .so, in Ezra!), D's law is extended to cover all
foreign neighbours (from MS note of VVRS).
500
BAT
clerks" (see Scribk). For bastardy, in its religious
connection, cp Council ok Jkrusalem, § lo.
BAT(?l;'py. lit. 'night-flier'?! NYKTCpiC : vesper-
it I to :'^ Lev. 11 19 Ut. 14i3 Is. 220; also Bar. 62.).
The bats form a well-deliiicd aiul very numerous order
of mammalia, termed by naturalists the Cheiiopleni.
The iK)silion of tlie name at the end of the list of un-
clean birds, and immediately Ixifore the list of reptiles.
accords with the universal opinion of anticjuity that the
bat, in .Vristotle's words, ' belonged both to birds and
to Ijeasts, and shared the nature of both and of
neither ' ; ^ nor is it in any way surprising to find
them included, apparently, amongst birds, for bats
alone amongst manunals have developed the faculty
of true riiglit, and have become so modified by their
aerial habits that their power of progressing on the
ground is markedly inferior to that of most birds and
insects. They show, in fact, a strong aversion to
being on the ground, and, as a rule, at once try to
leave it, by crawling up some wall or tree from which
they can take their Hight.
The nature of their food (either insects or fruit)
makes it necessary for those bats which inhabit tem-
perate climatis either to migrate at the approach of
winter or to spend the cold months in a long winter
sleep, for which purpose they often collect in large
colonies in caves, ruins, or disused buildings. As a
rule the bats of the Old World choose the latter alter-
native, and this seenis to be the case with many of
those found in Palestine. When food again becomes
abundant, they as a rule sleep during the day sus-
pended head downwards by their feet, and leave their
homes onlv to search for food at the approach of twi-
light. The m.ajority of the bats of Palestine (and they
are very numerous) inhabit caves, caverns, tombs, ruins,
and disused buildings of all kinds, where they can avoid
the light, a fact referred to in Is. 220/.
As many as seventeen distinct species of bats, belonging to
four dilTerent families and eleven diOerent genera, have been
described by Canon Tristram. Two or tbree of these may be
mentioned by name. The only representative of the fruit-eating
bats (Meiiacheiroptcra) is Xantharpyia (Cynoitycieris) tfgy/>ti-
aca, a species which is elsewhere arboreal in its habits, but in
Palestine is found living in large colonies in caves and tombs.
A further peculiarity of this species i- that individual specimens
from dilTerent localities vary markedly in size, those from Kurn
in the plain of .Xcre being much smaller than those from the hills
near Tyre, which resemble in size the variety found in Cyprus
and Egypt. This species is very commonly found mside the
Pyramids of Kgypt and is believed to be the one so often figured
in H^gyptian frescoes.
The horse -shoe bat Rhinolophus ferrvm-equtnum is the
St bat in Palestine, swarming in immense numbers in
the caverns .along the Jordan and the Red Se.-i. It hns a wide dis-
tribution, extending from lingland to Japan and all over Africa.
It collects in large colnnies (180 have been found together) m
caves and ruins for its winter sleep, and these colonies are
peculiar as they are exclusively of one sex.
Another British bat very common in the hill country about
Bethlehem, Jerusalem, and the Sea of Galilee, is the l-ng-eared
bat, PUcotus auritus, usually found in caverns. It is always
very late in leaving its restuig-pl.-\ce, not appearing nil twilight
has changed to night; but it continues to hunt for the msects on
which it feeds the whole night through. N. M. — A. E. S.
1 According to Schultens, Clar. Dial. 322, from die root
which appears in Ar. as ^alihi ' to be dark ' (of night), and r]<j;
'to fly.' It must, however, be s.-xid that compounds are very
rare in Hebrew ; and the modification of form involved in this
ca>e is improbable. It might be thought, from the absence of
the word in the cognate languages (in the language of the Tar-
gums it is simply borrowed from Hebrew), that it is a loan-«ord
which came in from a non-Semitic source ; but there is much to
be said for the view that it is connected with Aram, 'artel,
• naked ' (from the char.icter of a bat's wings), as suggested by
Low (see Ges. Hir/mi), or with the root rpjf, which in
Hebrew has the sense of bein^ covered or darkened.
'•^ The Peshitta has in I.eviticus and Deuteronomy the curious
rendering 'peacock,' but in Is.220 Bar.t5ai employs the proper
Syriac word for ' bat ' ; the Arabic version has ' bat ' in Leviticus
and Deuteronomy, but (like the Targum) goes astray in a mis-
taken paraphrase of Is. '2 20.
3 De Fart. Animal. 4 13. For other references see Bochart,
U ierozoicon.
SOI
BATHSHEBA
BATH (n3. deriv. uncertain; cp BDB. s.v.). Is.
5 10. .See Weights AND Measures.
BATH-EABBIM (D'3Tri2, ' daught<r of multi-
tudes,' [Hl)l!]; ByrATpoc noAAcoN [BXA] ; ^Ua
multitudinis; Cant. 7 4 LsJt)- 'Ihe eyes of the bride are
likened to the ' pools in Heshlxjn by the gate of
Bath-rabbim.' With true insight, tiriitz in 1871
recognised the impossibility of the reading Bath-
rabbim ; he suggested Rabbath-.Ammon. Certainly
this is possible; and N\V. of Heshbon, in a lateral
valley of the Wady Hesban, old reservoirs have been
found. We cannot, hovvever, suppose that these reser-
voirs were so famous as to be celebrated in a popular song
beside Carmcl and the Tower of Lebanon. ' Heshbon "
as well as ' Bath-rabbim " must be wrong. Winckler's
suggestion ' Helbfm' {.lOF 1 293 /. ) fits in with the
mention of I^banon, but has no other recommendation.
Considering that there is deep-seated corruption in the
next verse (see H.MK, Gam.kkv, 2), we are justified in
making an emendation which might otherwise seem too
bold. The most famous pools in Palestine, outside of
Jerusalem, were no doubt those known as the Pools of
Solomon (see Conduits, § 3). In the long green vale
of ' Arias, unusually green among the 101 ky knolls
of Judaja," Solomon, according to post-exilic belief,
' planted him vineyards, and made him gardens and
paradises . . and made him pools of water, to water
therefrom the forest where trees were reared' (Eccles.
2 4-6). Probably it is this scenery that has suggested
several descriptive passages in Canticles (Stanley ; Del. ) ;
it was worthy to be mentioned beside Carmel and
Lebanon. Read nb^B* for jucna. and (with Wi. )
"ly for nyc', and render
Thine eyes are like Solomon's pools
By the wood of Beth-cerem.
Beth-cerem, ' place of a vineyard,' was probably the
name of some part of the garden-land referred to in
Eccles. 24-6. See JQR,Avr\\ 1899. Cp Bkth-
Haccerkm. t. k. c.
BATHSHEBA (raC^n?, ' daughter of the oath ' (?),
§ 48 ; in I Ch. 35 r-1"TI2, where the pointing should
be corrected to rit^nS ; in ©'^'^i-_ by a strange con-
fuson, BHpc<NBee'= BeershebaV wife of Uriah the
Hittite, afterwards wife of David and mother of ."Solo-
mon 2 S. ll2-1224(BHecABe6[A]) i K. 1/ (BHecAEee
in In 15). Some think that she was a granddaughter
of .AHITHOI'HEL (q.v.)-
When David first saw Bathsheba, Joab was engaged
in the siege of Rabbath Anmion. The king himself was
reposing, after his years of hardship, at Jerusalem. The
story (which is omitted in Chronicles) is that, walking
one evening on the flat roof of his palace, David saw a
beautiful woman bathing in the court of a neighbouring
house. He asked who she was, and, learning that her
husband Uriah was away w ith the army, ' sent messengers
and took her ' (2 S. 11 4). To avert the shock which an
open act of adultery would have caused to the ancient
Israelitish sense of right, he devised the woful expedient
related in 2 S. 11 6-25. First he had Uriah sent to him,
ostensibly with a message from the camp. He dismissed
him to his house with a portion from the royal table ;
but Uriah remained with the guard of the palace : he
scrupled, if Robertson Smith maybe followed (AW. Sent. W
4S5. 484), to violate the talxx) on sexual intercourse
applied to warriors in ancient Israel. The next night the
king plied him with wine ; but still Uriah was obstinate.
Driven desperate, his master sent the brave soldier back
to Joab, bearing a letter ordering his own destruction.
Uriah was to be set in the place of danger and then
abandoned to the foe. The cruel and treacherous plan
was carried out, and, when Bathshclia's mourning for
her husbitnd was over, David made her his wife.
The story of the rebuke of Nathan, of the revival of
the king's better self, and of the sickness and death of
BATHSHUA
the child of Bathsheba, is well known. It is a question,
however (see Schwally, /.AT IV 12 153 ^ ; Bu. SBOV
89), whether, in the original form of the narrative, 2 S.
1215/. did not follow on 11 27, which means treating the
most edifying |)irt of the story as a later amplification
(see David, §11). Considering what we know of the
gradual idealisation of the life of David (which culminates
in Chronicles and the titles of the Psalms), this appears
far from impossible. The story gains in clearness by the
omission. At any rate, Wellhausen is right in regarding
12 10-12 as an interpolation in the narrative of the colloquy
between David and Nathan. It was suggested by an
intelligent reading of the subsequent history. David's
evil examplewas imitated in exaggerated form byAmnon ;
and Amnon's sin was fruitful in troubles, which cul-
minated in Absalom's rebellion, and darkened all David's
remaining years.
We meet Bathsheba for the last time, just as David's
end was at hand, in the full glory of a queen-mother.
Solomon rises to meet her, bows down before her, and
sets her on a seat at his right hand. She gained her
object, and it is interesting (if Nathan really took the
part assigned to him in 2 S. I21-15) to notice that Nathan
was one of her chief supporters. w. E. A.
BATHSHUA (yVJ'-n?, § 48). I. See B.'vthshkb.x.
2. The words j;Tiy"n3 rendered ' daughter of Shua ' in Gen.
382 12 (o-aua, omitting n3 [ADEL]) are treated in RV of i Ch.
23(7. 6vy. a-ava'; [P>' .\1 ; t. 9. ava^ [B*] ; o-ove [L]) as a proper
name, li.'ith-shu.i.. See Shua.
BATHZACHARIAS (BeGzAXApiA [^l)- ^ '^acc.
632/. Sec HKTIlZ.XCilAKlAS.
BATTERING RAM (DnS [plur. ]), Ez. 4 2 21 22 [27]t.
See War.
BATTLE AXE. The rendering is not very happy,
as will at once be seen.
1. }"30, maf>pei Jer. 51 20 (Siao-Kopn-t'^eis <t\) [BNAQF]) ; or
f '£D, 7ne/<h}f (Prov. 25 18 p6-rra.Kov (BNc.a A] -na.vov [N*]). EVs
rendering ' maid ' introduces an arbitrary distinction. Better,
'battle hammer,' or 'club' (cp H^'Sp). In Ezek. 9 2 isSO 'Vs
(n-Auf ) should possibly be corrected into 'inrJB'a "Ss, ' his destroy-
ing weapon '1 (Che.); 'battle axe' (RVm.ij.), 'slaughter weapon'
(EV), ' a weapon of his breaking in pieces ' (AVmg.) are all difB-
cult to Justify.
2. -1:0 Ps. "•'' 3 RViiig. The usual rendering (Del., Ba., etc.,
accepting MT's vocalisation [nJD] and Verss.) is ' stop the way'
(® (Tui'fcXeto-oi'). 'J'his involves a double ellipsis — 'shut up [the
way), [going] against my pursuers.' It is improbable, however,
that v,a means ' battle axe ' ; crayapis may mean the battle axe
used in upper Asia ; but this does not justify the inference of
critics(I)rus.,Grot., Kenn., Ew., Dri., We., etc). Thetextneeds
emendation (see J.wiii.iN, 7).
BATTLEMENT. For ,npyo, mdakeh, Dt.22 8EV, see
HoLSK, § 4. For niiis, pinnoth, zCh. 26 15 Zeph. 1 16 36 RV,
and ^•j-:i-^,'!l'mdsoth (plur.), Is. 54 12 SBOT, RV pinnacles'
(cp r^r Ps. Sti2 [Ba.]), see Foktkess, § 5. vn:^, kdndph, in
Dati. !'27 K\''"K- is rendered 'battlement.' It is better to read
1J3, kanno (see Bevan, ad loc.\
BATUS (Batoc). T.k. 166 AV"?- ; RV"'ff- Bath.
See \V'i':K;nrs and Mi-.asukios.
BAVAI (M3), Neh. 3i8. RV Bavvai. See Bi.nnui
(SI-
BAY (I'bX), Zech. 637. See ( :()I,oURS, § 17.
BAYITH (rT'Sn), Is. l.-)2 RV ; .W B.vjith.
BAY TREE (nn^X^ Ps. 373-), or. more plausibly, as
1 nMB'D, 'destruction,' we know; but fSO, 'breaking in
pieces,' is unattested elsewhere. Co. recognises that the closing
words of Ezek. 9 i are no part of the true text, but represent a
variant to the equivalent words in v. 2.
2 (S has no rendering of niTK in this passage, since for rniK3
p;n it reads pa"? 'hnD (w« rat <cc'«pous toC S.i.^i.vov [BK.\RT]).
Aq., Symm., and Editio Sexta all render in the .sense of 'in-
digenous tree ' ; and neither Pesh. nor Targ. supports the
rendering of A V or that of RV.
503
BDELLIUM
RV, ' a tree in its native soil.' The word ITITN, 'native
born,' however (from the root mt. 'to arise,' 'spring
forth" [Barth, 152 c.'\), cannot Ix; applied to a tree,
whence Celsius [Hieroh. i. 194^.) supposed the phrase
to mean a.vr\p iirix'^p'^oi-
As Hi., Gr. , Che., Ba. , We., Dr. agree, the right
reading is nx 'cedar.' On the (probably) corruiH
words .Tiyns ( Dr. ' putting forth his strength ' ) and an
(Dr. 'spreading'), see Che. Psa/ms^-K
BAZLUTH (n-lS-3, 'stripping'?; BacaAcoG [N.\]).
The b'ne Bazi.utii, a faiuily of Nethinim in the
great post-exilic list (see Ezra, ii. § 9) Ezra252
(/SatraSwe [B], ^abovwO [L]) = Neh. 754 Bazlith
{(iaaaud [B], ^aXovad [ Lj) = i Esd. .")3i Basai.oth
(^ao-aXe/A [B], ^aaXuiO [A], ^aXovud [L]).
BDELLIUM (nVn?; Gen. 2 12 anOpaS [AEL] ;
Nu. II7 kpyctaAAoc' [B.\FL]), appears in Gen. 2 12
1 Bfidhfilah ^'°'^S ^^'''^ S°'^ ^'"^^ oiiy.x or beryl (see
— B8'X.X ' O''^'^^) ^s a characteristic product of the
~" ' land of Havilah ; whilst in Nu. II7 its
' appearance ' (so RV, lit. ' eye,' not Colour [i/.v. , § 3],
as AV) is likened to that of manna — a comparison the
appropriateness of which is obvious if as is in all prob-
ability the case, the OT bUdholah is the resinous sub-
stance known to the Greeks as ^MWiov, fidSeXKOf.
j8oXx6i'2 (Dioscor. 1 80) or^SAXo [Peripl. Mar. Ervth.,
§§373948/.).
Peiser identifies n'?"I3 with Bab. btdlti, a spice obtained in
Babylonia, and often mentioned in contract-tablets {ZA TIV
1" 347y-)i 'his is important in connection with the Eden-
story (see Par.mmsk). As (Jlaser has shown (Skizze, 2 364_^),
bdellium was distinct from storax (against Hommel, GBA 613
n. i). Bochart, identifying Havilah with the Arabian co.-ist
opposite Bahrain, in the Persian Gulf, naturally explained
n7l3 as meaning pearl (^Hieroz. ii. 5 5). This view, however,
lacks the .support of any ancient version, and, though upheld
by .several Jewish authorities (cp Lag. Or. 2 44), has no solid
foundation. The renderings of © (avSpa^ and Kpiio-raAAos) point
I to some kind of precious stone ; but, as Di. remarks, f5?. 'stone,'
: is prefixed to D^t', the word following, and not to TwlJ. The
Pesh. berulhd (in both places) seems to be due to a mere
scribe's error : r {ox d. It cannot be supposed to be a genuine
Aramaic word.
Bdellium is described by Dioscorides {I.e.) as SdKpi'ov
difSpov dpa'^iKod ^ ; the best sort being ' bitter in taste,
2 Descrintiona ""ansparent, gelatinous (ra.-po^oXXiSes,
Of esJxXiov ^''- ■''!<« bulls hide glue ), oily through-
" ■ out and easily softened, unmi.xed with
chips or dirt, fragrant when burnt as incense, resembling
ony.K ' ; * he speaks also of a black sort found in large
lumps, which is exported from India, and of a third
kind, brought from I'etra. Pliny (XH 12 9) gives
some further details : the best sort grows in Bactriana
(N. Afghanistan), on a 'black' tree 'of the size of an
olive, with a leaf like the oak and fruit like the wild fig' ;
it also grows in .Arabia, India, Media, and Babylon,
that of India being softer and more gummy, while that
brought through Media is more brittle, crusted, and
bitter. The author of the Peripl. mar. Erythr. speaks
of it as growing largely in (iedrosia (Beluchislan) and
Barygaza (Gujerat), and as exported westwards from
the mouth of the Indus. In the older classical literature
bdellium appears to be mentioned only in Plautus
{Cure. loi),* in a list of perfumes.
Two Qf the kinds of bdellium described by Dioscorides
_ . are generally identified by the authorities
with the two substances described as follows,
kinds.
which are still met with in commerce :-
1 In both places ot Aonrot, i.e., Aq., .Symm., and Th., h.ave
/Sie'AAio;', so Vg. bdelliuiit. Cp Jos. Ant. iii. 1 6.
2 The exact form of these two words is uncert.ain. Pliny
(129) has iitaldacon, brochon. On the connection of this group
of names with bedolah, see Del. Par. j6/., ioi. Pott in II'ZKM
798^. ■_
•* The reading of this word is uncertain.
* Perhaps a ' nail ' or ' hoof. '
8 ' Tu mihi stacte, tu cinnamon, tu rosa,
Tu crocinum et ca.sia 's, tu bdellium."
BEACON
1. Oriiinary HiU-ltiuin (African). — 'The driiR isexporlcd from
the whole Somali coast to Mokha, Jidda, Aden, Makulla, the
Persian (nilf, India, and even China' (Fliickiger and Hanhury,
I'liarniacogrSP^ 145). HanUurv says he had it sent him for
sale in London from C:hina ; but in matters of this kind the
immediate port of origin is often substituted for the ultimate
source.
Dymock {Pharmacogr. /n/f. 1 310) says : ' From Berbera
also comes Biiellium.' Farther on he explains that 'to a
certain extent' it 'resembles myrrh,' but that it is darker . . .
less oily . . . strongly bitttr and has hanily any aroma* (I.e.
•?io). According to Mohammedan writers (Ac. 312), 'Goo<l
bdellium should be cle;in, bright, sticky, soft, sweet -smelling,
yellowish, and bitter.' Its Ixjtanical source is BaUamodendron
africanum (see A'rw' Bull. 1896, p. giyC).
2. Indian Bdellium.— \^ymoc\<. {I.e. 310) describes this as
somewhat resenibling the African drug ; 'but the colour is lighter,
often greenish.' 1 )ioscorides, therefore, must have had a very
dirty s.-imple • — a not infrequent experience still. Its source is
Italsamodendron Mukul, a plant the botanical distribution of
which— N\V. India, Heliichistan, and possibly .\rabia— exactly
agrees with the statements of the old authors. The only
tliniculty is the description of Pliny, which it does not (it very
well, as it is a small tree ; but Pliny's statements cannot be
pressed from the botanical point of view : Lemaire (Flore de
yirgile, 125) calls Dioscorides ' bien pr6f6rable 2i Pline.'
As to the third kind of bdellium spoken of by
Dioscorides, Dymock (310) conjectures that it was
■ probably a kind of myrrh. ' n. M. — \v. t. t.-d.
BEACON (■pn, perhaps for pXH from J'lK, see .^sh ;
ICTOC [l^NAOgr]), or rather, as in K\''"k-, M,\sr (cp
Is. 3323 Ez. '275). employed in Is. 3O17 as a simile of
nakedness and desolation. The reference is to the
poles, etc., erected in i)rominent places for signalling
purposes ; cp Knskjns (§ 2).
BEALIAH (nvra, § 35, • Vahwe is Lord'), a Ben-
jamite, one of Davids warriors, i Ch. Tis (BaA&IA
[BX], BaaAiA [A]. BaAaiAC [I']). Ste D.WID, § ir
a iii.
BEALOTH im-^^i;?). Josh. l.'>24. See 15.\.\l.\tii-
BEEK.
BEAN, or rather Baean (RV), The children of (yioi
Baian [.VNVJ; Bi.AX [Vg.j; y>-^ ; BAANOy. Jos.
Ant. xii. 81), an otherwise unknown trilw or community,
who in the pre-Maccab;ean period were a ' snare and
offence" to the Jews ' in that they lay in wait for them
in the w ays. ' Their robber castles or ' towers ' lay,
apparently, somewhere Ixjtween Idumiean and Ammon-
ite territory. This would suit the lieon of Xu. 323 (see
Baal mkon). In one of his warlike expeditions against
the unfriendly surrounding peoples after the reconsecra-
tion of the temple, Judas the Maccabee utterly de-
stroyed the children of Bean and burnt their towers
(i Mace. 54/ ; cp 2 Mace. 10 18/:).
BEANS (Vis. KY&AAOC [BAL] 2S. 1728 Ez. 49)
are twice mentioned as material for food, along with
wheat, Ixarley, and lentils ; in the second pas.sage
Ezekiel is instructed to make bread of a mi.vture of
wheat, barley, beans, lentils, millet, and spelt. The
Hebrew name is found also in post-biblical Hebrew,
Jewish Aramaic, .Arabic, and Ethiopic. Beans are
the seeds of I'icia Faha (Linn.), the cultivated
plant — not certainly known in the wild state, but
in all probability a domesticated form of /■/(/(/ nai--
bonensis"^ — which is a native of the whole Mediterranean
region and extends eastward to X. India. It was the
*ci''a/xoj of the CJreeks, which is mentioned as far back as
the Ili.ad (ki'io/xoi /xeXaj'oxpofS. 13589). \'irchow found
the seeds in the e.xcavations at Troy, and the plant was
cultivated in Switzerland and Italy in the age of bronze.
Beans are, without doubt, one of the earliest articles of
vegetable food among the Europe;in races of mankind.
Cp FCK)D, § 4. C(KJKIN<;. § 7. N. M. W. T. F.-I).
1 Fliickiger and Hanbury say (I.e. 146) that it is regarded
both in London and in India 'as a very inferior dark sort of
myrrh.'
On this point see Sir Joseph Hooke
Magazint, 7220.
the Hotanieal
BEAR
BEAB. I. (SI). The name, common to Heb. ,
1 Name ^^''^'" • •^''- • ''*"'' '■•'^- • '^ ^''O'" ^ ""oot signify-
ing to move slowly and softly.' and thus
befits the bear, which has a stealthy tread.
The Heb. word is generally masc., even when the she-lxrar is
intended; thus 'a iK-ar roblied of her whelps ' is always 3^
S?2r. On the other hand, the pi. Cai Ukes a fern, verb in
2K. 224, and the sing, is apparently fem. in Is. 11 7. (R
renders apKot [H.XLl, but in I'rov. 17 12 wrongly y.ipi.y.va. (HK.\|
(connecting prolwbly with 2.\'i, 'to Ix: anxious'); 'I'heixl. has
dpKTO?. In Prov. '2S15 (P has Auicof [HHA twice], easily ex-
I lained when we rememljer that the .Aram, form of 3KI, wolf, is
,::hh.
The animal is frequently mentioned in O T (in the
.\pocr. in Wisd. II17 Pxclus. '2.') 17 [NA ; but aaKKov
2. Allusions. <'^>L,r'^ 5'"^.U""^, ''"'*^ (Kev.132)
m N I . No difticulty arises m con-
nection with any of the O T passages ; the attacks
of the lion and the lx;ar on David's flock (i S. 17 34 36),
and of the she-lxiars- on the children who mocked
l'",lisha (2K. 224), accord with the ravenous habits of
the animal; 'a bear robbed of her whelps' (2S. 178
I'rov. 17 12 Hos. 138) or 'a ranging tear' (I'rov. 2815)
is naturally regarded as the most dangerous possible
object to encounter ; one of the signs of profound peace
in the Messiah's kingdom is that the cow feeds side by
side with the bear, its natural enemy ( Is. 1 1 7). The roar-
ing, or rather moaning, of the lx?ar is well expressed by
the verb ■^D■^ (Is. 59ii. ©"n^C aTtva^u)). which is ap-
plied also to the howling of a dog, the cooing of a
turtle-dove, the sighing of a man, and the moaning of
the sea. The stealthiness of a tiear's attack is men-
tioned in Lam. 3 10. By the likening of the second
(probably the Median) kingdom in Dan. 75 to a bear —
which ' was rai.sed up on one side, and three ribs
were in his mouth tx.'tween his teeth ; and they said thus
unto it, .Arise, devour much flesh,' — the extreme de-
striictivcni-s.% of the Median concjuests is probably in-
dicated (see further Bevan's Daniel, in loc. ). In Am.
.^)i9 ' as if a man did flee from a lion, and a tear met
him,' we have, as Bochart remarks, a Hebrew equivalent
to the classical
• Incidit in Scyllani cupiens vitare t'haryhdin.':'
In the combination of the 'feet of a bear' with the
body of a leopard and the mouth of a lion in Kev. 132,
we have an instance of the characteristic re-combination
of elements borrowed from OT apocalyptic. The hyper-
telical treatment of old history in later Jew ish literature
is illustrated by the mention in Wisd. 11 17 of wild
teasts, such as lions and tears, among the plagues sent
upon the Egyptians, and by the statement ateut David
in Ecchis. 473 that "he played (Heb. . . . pnr C'TEoS
D'anSi, 'he mocked at . . . ') among lions as among
kids, anil among Ix-ars as among lambs of the flock."
Finally, we notice the interesting reading of ©*<* in
Ecclus. 2.') 17 :
A woman's wickedness altereth her visage
And darkeneth her face as doth a bear (<uv ap«to?).
If this reading te correct, the ver.se will allude to
the tristitia or moroseness often attributed to the te'ar,
I which .several ancient writers speak of as expressed in
its countenance. On the whole, however, it is more
probable that <5" (supported by the Syr. and .Ar. ver-
sions) is right in reading
-And maketh her face dark like sackcloth (ci* vclkkov).
I The Syrian tear, sometimes called Ursus syriacus, is
not six,cifically distinct from the brown tear, Ursus
; 3 Natural '"'''"*• ^'though .somewhat lighter in
I ', . . colour and smaller than the typical
I 18 ory- varieties. It has a wide distribution.
' The other meaning of the .Ar. verb, 'to have a bristly skin,*
is probably, as des. thinks, secondary, and derived from the
noun dulib.
2 It was a common opinion in antiquity that she-bears were
fiercer than the males; thus Pliny; (1149). 'Mares in omni
genere fortiores pr^eterquam pantheris et ursis. '
3 Cp also Is. '.'4 18 Jer. 4S 44.
506
BEARD
being found in several parts of Europe, — formerly all
over that continent, — and throughout Asia N. of the
Himalayas. It is unsociable in its habits, though some-
times male ami female are seen together, and the cubs
accompany their mother. Bears are omnivorous, kill-
ing and eating other animals ; but they have a vegetable
diet also. They are particularly fond of fruit and
honey. In cold climates they hiliernate during the
winter months, and during the period of hibernation
they subsist on the stored-up fats. The young are
generally born towards the end of this period. They
are now practically extinct in S. Palestine, but are
still to te met with in the Lebanon and Hermon
districts.
2. RV rendering of vy (Jobflg) and b>'J? (Job3832),
AV ARCTUKL'.S (if.T.). N. M. — A. E. S.
BEARD. The importance attached by the Hebrews
to tlie Ixjard is fully borne out by the many references
to it found in the O T.
Two worus are thus rendered : (a) f(51, znknn, (pnNAQrLn-oJycui/,
used of the be.-\rd proper, cp 2S. 10 4yC ^ i Ch. 19 47^ Is. 7 20
15 2( = Jer. 4837) etc., and also of the chin 1 (in Lev. Viig/., 14 9
of both man and woman). (f>) Ctit', sdpham (from HSb', ' lip '),
rendered ' beard ' in 2 S. 19 24 [25], is more properly the mous-
tache or ' upper lip ' (so IpBAi, ,xu(rTa| ; EV Lev. 18 45, and AV
mg. Ez. 24 17 22 Mic. 3 7 where EV ' lip ').
The beard was, and still is, in the East, the mark of
manly dignity. A well-bearded man is looked upon as
honourable, and as one who in his life ' has never
hungered' (Doughty, Ar. Des. 1 250). By touching the
beard, or by swearing by it, a man's good faith was
assured [op. cit. 1 268) — a fact which may possibly throw
light upon Joab's treachery towards Amasa (2S. 2O9).
To cut it off wilfully was an insult (2 S. IO4/, cp Is. 16),
and to cut it ceremonially was strictly forbidden ; see
Cuttings of the Flesh, § 3. To shave it was an
outward sign of mourning (Is. 152 Jer. 4Is 4837; cp
Ep. Jer. [Bar. 6] 31) : see Moi;kning Customs, § i.^
Although barbers are mentioned only in a late pass-
age (Ez. 5i, D'aVa ■• n'?J, ' to shave,' on the other hand, is
frequent. Gen. 41 14 [E], 2 .S. 10 4 Judg. 16 17 22, etc. ), they
were doubtless in great request.^ In Egypt the barber
is described as industriously journeying from place
to place seeking employment, carrying in an open-
mouthed bag the tools of his craft — a small short hatchet
or recurved knife (cp A'i"(''3i48). The razor is fre-
quently mentioned in the OT, where it is called ij;?),
taar (Nu. 65 87 Is. 720 Ps. 523 [4] ; but 'sheath' or
' scabbard ' in i S. 17 51 2 S. 208 Ez. 21 4 [9] etc. ), or .Tiio,'*
morah (Judg. IBs I617 i S. 1 n) ; see Kniik.s
In Egypt, apart from priests (and high officials, Gen. 41 14),
the practice of shaving the hair does not seem to have been
very general (cp Egvh r, § 39). On the other hand, the beard
was regul.-irly shorn, and only the shepherds and foreigners
let it grow, apparently to the disgust of the cleanly Egyptians.
Hence the negligent Rameses Vll. is caricatured in his tomb
at Thebes wearmg an unshorn beard of two or three days'
growth. Nevertheless, the beard was looked upon as a symbol
of dignity, and on solemn occasions the want was supplied
by an artificial one. Such beards were made of a piece of
hair tightly plaited and fastened by two straps behind the ear.
The king wore a longer beard, square at the bottom ; one
even longer and curled at the end was the distinguishing mark
' Unless ' chin ' is the primary meaning of \/Jp1. The word [pj
' old man,' is perhaps a derivative, lit. ' gray-beard.'
'- In 2S. I!i24[25] Meribba'al to show his grief leaves his
beard untrimmed.
3 Herod, according to Jos. (/4«A xvi. 11 6), was nearly as-
sassinated by his barber, Trypho. In MH the barber is ISO ;
cp Shabb. 1 2.
* For .niyo (We. TBS 146^!) : hence both names are from tlie
same root, .Tiy^ ' to lay bare.'
6 A Phoenician inscription, fifth-fourth century B.C., from
Larnaka in Cyprus, mentions the ciSj in a list of charge-; in
connection with a temple of Ashtoreth. Unless they were there
to attend to ceremonial tonsures, it is possible that Renan is
right in taking them to be physicians whose business it w.as to
heal the self-inflicted wounds of the worshippers (cp i K. IS 28,
and see CIS 1 86 « ; cp 95).
507
BECHORATH
ofagod.J The people of Punt followed the Egyptians in all
such customs. Canaanites, Assyrians, and Uabylonians,2 on the
other hand, wore long hair and plaited beards, .and in strong
contrast to these are the monumental representations of the
desert nomad with pointed moustache (cp WMM, As. u. hur.
J40, 296). i*
BEAST. For (i) b'hemdh (non?) and (2) hayyah
(■^'n). ' living creature ' — including rpj; and ,-jcna, Gen. 8 17 (P),
but more particularly wild beasts. Gen. 7 14 (I') 872033 etc —
.see Cattle, § 2 (2). For I's. (js 30(31], ' wild beasl of the reeds'
[RV], see Crocodile, Dragon. For (3) ^'//-(T^S), 'beast of
burden,' see Cattle, §2 (3). For (4) Is. 13 22 (C"N; 'wild
beasts of the islands' [AV]) .see Jackal (4), Wolf. For
(5) Is. 13 21 3414 Jer. 50 39 (D"li ; 'wild beasts of the desert'
[EV]), see Cat (end).
(6) IV 2/0, ''wild beasts' [AV] Ps. 6O11 [12] 80i3[i4] is more
scrupulously rendered 'that which moves (or roams)' by Dr.,
Ha;thg., We. [bUOl]. BDB recognises -v/m 'to move.
'Small crcaturiis' would also be possible: cp Talni. Kri
' a worm,' Ass. zizanu, an animal like a locust. Ihe probability
of such a word in bibl. Hcb., however, is not great. The two
passages have to be considered separately. ® gives dilferent
readings : Ps. 'M a)patoT>)s(cp ri Is. CO 1 1), P.s. 80 ovos aypiot [15],
/xeaono? a. [F.i;] /uLoi/ios a. [Nc.aAT], /lioi/os a. [R*]. The Targ.
(in both passages) finds a reference to the Hooi'Oii. See further,
BDB S.V., and (on the text, which is corrupt) Che. Psaliiisi-'i.
NT. For Rev. 11 7 etc. ]3ii etc. (the two mystical dtipia.)
see Apocalypse, §§ 40 43-47, Antichrist, § 4^ and cp Behk-
MOTH AND Leviathan, § 2; Dragon, § 2. For Rev. -1 6 (^uia :
the four 'living creatures') see Cherub, § 3. For Rev. 18 13
etc. {KTrivY)) cp Cattle, § 2, (2), (3).
BEATING (with rods), Dt. 25i-3 etc. See Law
AND Justice, § 12.
BEAUTIFUL GATE (h coraia nyAH [Ti. WH]).
Acts 3 10 ; see Temple.
BEBAI C^a, § 57 ; Hilprecht has found the Jewish
name Biba on a tablet from Nippur; BhB&I [BA],
B0KX6I [L])-
1. The b'ne Bebai, a family in the gre.at post-exilic list (s^-e
Ezra, ii. § 9, § 8<), Ezra2ii (reckoned at 623) (|3a/3ei [B], -^ai
[A])=Neh.7i6 (reckoned at f28) (^»)P[e]i [BNA]) = i Esd.513;
of whom twenty-eight are included in Ezra's caravan (see
Ezra, i. § 2, ii. § 15 [i] d) EzraSii (^a^ei [liAl /Sa^iei |L once])
= 1 Esd.837, Bafi [once] (fiairjp, ^rj^ai [B], ^a/3i [.\ once],
fiaprit. [L once]) and four in list of tho.se with foreign wives (see
EzRA,i. § s end)ECTal028(|3a^[e]i[BNA])=i Esd.029. Itwas
represented among the signatories to the covenant (see Ezra, i.
§7) Neh.10.5 [i6](/3,,Sa.[BN]^^Pa.[L]).
2. An unidentified place mentioned with Chorai and Cola
[yy.7'.], Judith 154 07))3at [A], ai3eA)3ai/ii [N*}*'^-']), perhaps a
repetition of the following name Chuiiai (B and Vg. omit ; if
the reading of {<*, tt'^-^ be considered trustworthy, Bki.mkn
[y.f.], a locality not otherwise improbable, may be intended.
BECHER ("133, 'first-born' ; § 61, or cp, jjerhaps.
Ass. bairu. At.' b.ikr, 'camel' [so BDB Lex.']). A
Benjamite clan. Gen. 4621 {xo^ojp [A], -(Sop [L], -/3a)X
[D]) and iCh. 76 8 {^oxop [A], x^t^^P [I-li ct^Setpa
[B V. 6, omitting all mention of Bela] and aliaxfi,
afiaxeip [ib. v. 8]). The name is wanting in i| Nu.
2638-41, but it is possible that the name IJiccHRR (gen-
tilic npa, Bachkiie, R\' Becherite) in the Ephraimite
list, ib. V. 35 (©■'^^ om.) was originally a marginal
addition to the Benjamite clans, which after being
misplaced has crept into the text (cp Bered, ii.). To
the clan Becher (^entilic Bichri [i/.v.]) belonged the
rebellious Siieba [q.v. ii. (i)], and, if we adopt two very
probable emendations (see Bechorath, Matri), also
Saul. A descendant of the latter bears, according to
the MT, the cognate name Bocheru (but see Bocheru).
It is possible that the name recurs under the form
MiCHKi [q-v.]. See also Benjamin, § 9.
BECHORATH, RV Becorath (JTl'lDB), apparently
1 .See Erman, Eg. 226 n. 4; Wilkinson, 2333.
- The sculotures represent, however, not only eunuchs, but
also what seem to be people of the lowest rank — peasants,
labourers, and slaves — without beard. In the oldest Babylonian
sculptures, on the other hand, the head is completely bare.
The ancient custom w.as perhaps given up through the be.ard
becoming a sign of the military caste (see Perrot and Chipiez,
ArtinChalii.'ii-i-).
3 Illustration, Benz. Arch. 100, 109.
S08
BECTILETH
the son of AriiiAii [</.-■], an ancestor of Saul, i S. 9i
(BAxei ['^]. BextopAG [A], MAxeip/ H-]- '^'^^ "^"i®
is really to be read as BiicHER [y. r. ]; it is the name of
Saul's clan. C,"p Klo. on i S. 9i and Marq. Fund. 14.
BECTILETH (BaiktciAaiG [B], BeKTeAeG and
haktaAai [A], B<MTOYAl<^ \y^*\ BeKTiAeO [N<=-a] ;
Bcth-K'tilath, 'house of slaughter' [Syr. J), The
ri..\iN OK, three days' journey from Nineveh, ' near
the mountain which is at the left hand of upper
Cilicia ' (Judith22i). (Irotius has suggested Ttolemy's
(iuKTaiaW-rj in Syria {P/o/. v. 15 16; cp the Hactiali of
the Tafi. Pnit. 21 R. m. from Antioch) ; but this does
not agree with the situation as defined in the text.
The name of the mountain is given as Ange, Agge
by It. Vg. and as i-X^(' by the Syr. (so Lag.).
For the latter Walton gives /x!^/ ' mountain of
pots,' which suggests that the name may have arisen
from reading bnn. 'potsherd,' for an original ».y-\n, or
KC'in '?n. which actually occurs as a place-name. See
Tki.-Harsha.
BED. Oriental lieds in the olden time cannot always
have been so simple as we are led to suppose that they
1 General S^"^''''i"y are to-day. Both the frame-
_-_j-j.- work and the trappings of the bed were
conditions. • • ui . i /-^r
sometmies richly ornamented. Of course,
manners changed and luxury grew. Kgypt was perhaps
in advance of other nations ; but even in Egypt the
priests were wont to use beds of a very simple kind.
If they had any frames at all, they were wicker-
work of palm-branches, resembling the kafas of the
modern Egyptian (cp Wilkinson, Anc. Eg. 1 185/,
419/ ). 2 The early Israelites were naturally slow in
their material progress. Shepherds, for example,
sleeping in the open air (cp Gen. 31 40), would wrap
themselves in their simlah or rug* (Ex. 2226[25]), and,
if need were, used stones for their head-rests (Gen.
28 11). Tent-dwellers too would be content with that
useful article — the simlah, and this was probably what
Sisera was wrapf)ed in \\ hen he lay down to sleep ■*
(Judg. 4i8). Those who dwelt in the house were
protected from the weather, but knew no luxury.
Great persons had special sleeping-chambers. Ishbaal
for example, was murdered in such a room (3?E'p "nn),
28. 47; cp Ex. 83 [728], 2 K. 612 ; also -\-m 2^8. 13 10;
iK. I15 Ps. 10530 (corr. text), and in the highly
civilised period represented by Ecclesiastes it was per-
haps the usual arrangement (Eccles. 10 20). Considering,
however, how rare special bedrooms are in Eastern houses
now, and also the poor construction of the houses in
ancient Palestine, we can hardly venture to suppose that
a 'chamber of beds,' (niED Tin, 2 K. II2 2 Ch. 22ii)
was common among the Israelites. Guests, however,
enjoyed privacy in the so-called upper-story [v-Kipi^ov
in © and NT), which was on a part of the flat roof,
where coolness could be enjoyed (m-p n''?y, 2 K. 4io
Klo. ,tS;;, i K. 17 19 23). And in such rude houses
as may still be seen in parts of Palestine, and were
doubtless common in antiquity, the upper chamber would
necessarily be the sleeping-room of the family, as long as
the weather permitted (see House, § 2). During the
1 fiox«ip might point to tdo ; but 3 is not unfrequently read
as d; cp V^n, eo4xa<r[e]t [BA], da.^.ia<jti [L], 2 S.II21, and 2T,
«op«^, Hos.l06[BAQr*J.
2 Porphyry calls them by the name bajs, from the Coptic bai,
palm-br.-inch.' Cp ^ai'a, i Mace. 1851 (where the form of the
Greek i< doiil)tfiiI) Jn. 12 13 and Symm. Cant. "9.
3 So the modern Arab sleeps, e.g., on the roof of the mosque
(Doughty) ; a ii„tlat»n (nl^ob) is still the chief article of his
wardrobe— an oblong piece of thick woollen stuff, used for .-in
outer garment by day and for a coverlet by night. See Dozy,
Did. lies I'etevients ,ies A robes, 39.
* For the unintelligible .ID'Db- (Judg. 4 18) read with Che.
'''?9?' • ^ '"°''= technical term than '"IDpO (Gratz) is required.
Moore (ad loc.) frankly states that the main exegctical tradition
pomts to a coarse rug or wrap.
BED
summer, in the absence of a latticed upper chamber, huts
of boughs on the fiat roof could be used (tor a descrip-
tion of such see Schunracher, Across the Jordan, 89).
The bed itself is called generally (a) ,ncD mittah
(from ,nt::, 'to stretch,' cp K\ivr\ from kXLvu} ; Gen.
2 Terms ^^"^^ *'''"^- )= (^) ^re'C miskdbh (proix,-rly ■ place
■ for lying,' Gen. \\i^ etc.) ; and [c) bTy ' 'eres
(properly bedstead, Prov. 7 16).
nED(once Littek \,q.v. (i)), Cant. 3 7 RV) is used in 2 .S. 831
of a bier. 328*0 is used collectively of the bedding, etc. in 2 S.
1728 (where read pi.). There seems to be no distinction
between these three words : b and c occur together in parallelism
in Job 7 13, a and c similarly in Ps.(i6 (7]. The variant render-
ing ' couch ' is employed arbitrarily, for the sake of differentia-
tion, by EV in Job7 13(32^0), by AV in Am. 3 12 (cniO, by
RV ib. (n:3D). and by KV in Am.C4 (^-ij;).
Other words rendered ' bed ' are (d) pjj" yd^ud (properly
'spread out," Ps. 086 [7], Job. 17 13), used also of the bed of
wedlock in Gen. 494 (cp iCh.5:); an extension of meaning
similar to that borne by icoitt) in Heb. 13 4 (but cp Lk. 11 7 etc.) ;
cp .Ar. 'its, conjux. From the same root is derived also («-) yvn
mnsuV, Is. 28 20 (see below on 2 K. 3 1 5).
In NT Koc'nj (cp above), (cAiVrj '(Mk. 730 etc.''^, Kki.vLlt.ov
(Lk. 61924, EV 'couch'), and (cpd^/Saros = Lat. grabbalus,
Mk. 2 4 etc.). The Book of Judith adds <rTpu)fivrj (I89), which
may perhaps = ^3■^p.
I For tV"lSK, Cant. 39 AVmg., see Palanquin, and for WnV,
I ib. 5 13, cp Garden.
j To-day the divan, or platform, which goes along the
j side or end of an Oriental room serves as a rest for the
I 3 Con bedding. This arrangement may have been
Btruction '^"°^^'" '" ^- Israel as early as the time of
■ Amos (see below § 5) ; but, if so, it was con-
I fined to the rich. What we know for certain is that the
; beds were movable ( i S. 19 15 : Saul wishes to have David
; brought to him in the bed), and this characterises all
j periods (see Lk. 5 18 and cp arpwyvvw in Mk. 14 15 Acts
934). Thus (cp below, § 5) they could be used by day
j as seats or couches (Ezek. 234i). In some cases the bed
I was fitted with a head (cp Gen. 4731),* such perhaps as
we find represented on Egyptian monuments (cp Wilk.
op. cit. 1 416 fig. 191). That Og, king of bashan,
had an iron bedstead, according to Dt. 3ii, is a state-
ment of EV which most scholars would question. The
wide application of Semitic words for ' bed ' justifies
the rendering ' couch of death ' — i.e. , sarcophagus.*
Basaltic sarcophagi abound in the E. of Jordan, and
a giant could well be enclosed in ' Hiram's tomb,' as
the Bedouins still designate one of them,* which is said
to measure twelve feet by six.
The cloths or rugs spread over a bedstead were
called Dn3>0 (Prov. 7 16), and very possibly the singular
of this word is to be substituted for the obscure T33
and 1330 found in i 8. 19 13 16 and 2 K. 8 15 respectively
(see above, § 2, on Judith ISg). Neither of the latter
words was understood in antiquity,^ and the revisers
1 Cp Ass. eriu, 'bed, couch,' Aram, ^■^■yj, JLoO^J^ 'couch,
cradle, bier,' new Heb. d'-;?, 'a bower in the vineyard' ; Ges.-
Bu. illustrates by Ar. ' ari, 'wooden frame.'
2 In "4 the word does not appear in the best texts (so RV).
3 For nep, however, © Pe.sh. Gei. read HED, 'staff'; cp Heb.
II21.
•• We can hardly say with Driver (Deut. 53) that 'the
supposed meaning of bnj; is little more than conjectural." The
evidence from a comparison of us.ages is overwhelming. If
E5munaz.-ir can use 33e'Dforhis death-couch, the Deuteronomic
writer may of course use fyV for that of Og. NC'li', indeed,
occurs in a Palmyrene bilingual from et - "Tayyibeh in this
sense. Cp also TCD in 28.831, and the Syr. use of ^flPiiV.
(n. I above). It must be remembered too that the Deutero-
nomist assumes an oratorical style. He ought not to be required
to use the technical Hebrew term for sarcophagus, filN (Gen.
6O26). Cp Schwally, Z.A TW, 1898, p. 127, n. 3 (who would
render either ' bed ' or [cp -Aram. Nctj-l ' bier ').
* So Robinson. The huge size of the sarcophagus indicates
the importance of the man whose body is placed in it. There
is a vast .sarcophagus of a saint near Samarcand.
8 It should be mentioned, howe'er, that in 2K. S15 whilst
©B represents the Hebrew word by xofi^ Aq. and Symm. (and
through them perhaps L) give to (TTpiifia (laion).
Sio
4. Pillowa.
BEDAD
have shown their jx-Tplexity in the former passage by
giving three alternative renderings.
Of pillows we hear nothing in 'OT. In Mk. 438 we
have TrpoffKe<(>d\aiov (cp Kzek. HiiS O,
A\' ' pillow ' ; but it was an extemporised
pillow ; R V better, ' cushion. '
AV — even sometimes RV — does indeed assume the use of
pillows. Thus (a) Vnb'KTD (with suffix) is rendered ' bolster '
by AV in i S. 19i^ 16 2<;7'ii 16, and by .Wmg. in i K. 106 ;
and 'pillow' by AV in Geri. '2Sii 18. The word, however, denotes
properly ' the parts about one's head,' and is thus rendered by
RV everywhere (e.g:, iS. H»i3, 'at the head thereof), and
once even by AV in i K. I".i6, The Heb, word finds its exact
parallel in the rn73"lip (with suffix), 'the parts about (one's) feet '
(Ruth;i8i4). (/) For T33 in iS. 19 13 16, EV has 'pillow,-
while RVmg- offers 'quilt' or 'network' (so Ew., cp ^133, a
sieve) ; but see § 3. (c) The ' i)illows ' of the prophetesses (so
® Trpo<TKe(j>dKai.oy ; cp Vg. Pesh. Targ.) in Ez. 13 18 20 are purely
imaginary. ninDS appears to mean some kind of magical
amulet carried by the prophetesses; cp Ass. iasii, 'to bind,"
kasitu (Del. in Haer, Eztk. xii.yC).
It is impossible to separate the subject of lieds from
that of couches or divans. Amos, as a dweller in the
_ T)j„a.ns ^"""^""y- directs his scorn against the luxury
■ of the rich grandees ' that sit in Samaria in
the corner of a couch, and on the silken cushions of
a bed' (.\m. 3 12^, RV). The rendering of RV is
indefensible : Damascus and damask have no connec-
tion (see Damascus, § 6 n. ). The passage has
been cleared up with an approach to certainty by
critical conjecture : it should run thus, ' that sit in
Samaria on the carpet (n'Sxa) of a couch, and on the
cushion (3|;;^C3) of a divan.' ' From another pas.sagc,
which also can be restored very nearly to its original
clearness (see D.WID, § 12 n. ), we learn that the couches
of the great were richly adorned. The selfish grandees
are described as those ' that lie upon couches (or beds,
ni::D, of ivory,' Am. 64). Such couches were sent as
tribute by Hezekiah to Nineveh [KB 297, 1. :^6), and the
Amarna Tablets (5 20 ; cp 27 2028) speak of ' beds ' (irsu) of
ivory, gold, and wood sent to the king of Egypt. So too
in Esther (1 6 ; cp i Esd. 36) we read of couches adorned
with gold and silver, and covered with rich tapestry an<l
deckings from Egypt (cp Prov. 7 16). Some of the-,c
couches would of course be used as beds. .Such, at any
rate, was the gorgeous bed [K\ivr\) in the tent of Holo-
phernes. The description of it contains the first mention
ofa ' canopy' (/cwi'uiTrtov, Judithl02i ISg 16 19, origin.illy
a fly-net) — one of the results of Greek influence ;
Hei.i.knism, § 15.
BEDAD (nn3 ; Bar&A [BADEL]), the father of Hadad
I., king of Edom, (}en. 3635 iCh. I46 (B&ApAM [L])-
The name is seemingly a corruption of Bir-dadda — i.e.,
probably, Hir is Dadda (two names of the storm-god
best known as Ramman) : cp with this Bir-zur (n:»-i3,
Panammu inscr. from Zenjirli, i, 3). Waiti, the 'king
of .Arabia ' concjuered by Asur-bani-pal, had for his
father Bir-dadda (A'j9 2222/ ), a name which <inswers
to the -Assyrian name Bir- ramman (the eponym for
848 B.C.). Homniel (Beitr. z. Ass., 1897, p. 270)
derives from Be-(Ha)dad — i.e., by Hadad; — cp
Baana, Be-eshtkrah. t. k. c.
BEDAN (|"15 ; badan, or [Cod. Am.] bexedax).
I. In an address ascribed to Samuel we find Bedan
mentioned Ijetween Jerubbaal and Jephthah as one of
the chief deliverers of Israel (i S. 12 n MT). No such
name occurs in the Book of Judges, however, and the
form of the name is suspicious.
Ew. supposed that the initial letter had been dropped, and
that we .should read .\bdon (|''n3y, Judg. I213). Abdon, how-
ever, is one of the six ' minor Judges ' introduced into the
1 Cp .\mos, § 5 n. ; Che. Expositor, vi. b,- 366, JQR 10 572,
and on n'BS, 'mat, 'rug,' 'carpet' see /«/n Is. i26n. For 33^03
Gratz and Nowack give r3'0w*3, 'on the covering of.' But
jr is non-existent ; in Judg. 4 18 it is corrupt (see above).
BEE
historical scheme of Judges at a later time. The Targ. fanci-
fully understands the name a.s ben-Uan— />., Sam.son.
The mention of Sisera in v. 9 entitles us to exf)ect
Barak, which name is actually read by (3 {^apuK [B.\I.,]),
Pesh. So We. , Dr. , Klo. , Bu. , Moore, H. P. Smith.
2. A Manassite, i Ch. 7 17 (/3a5a/ut [H], -Sav [.\h]); perhaps a
corruption of -Vbdon (pay). See .Machik.
BEDEIAH (nn5, more probably a textual corruption
for n\S-|2, I Chy82it [so Gray, NP.V 285. n. 11, who
cites <5" and Pesh.], than an abbreviation for HnSr
[so Olsh. 2771^, 4, followed by BDB], a Levitical name
in the list of those with foreign wives (EzRA, i. § 5 end)
Ezral035 (Barma [B], BaAaia [AL], ma. [S] ;
;^(' = i Esd. 934 Pki.ias, RV Pedias (neAl&C [B],
TT&iAeiAC [A], BA2k(M& UA)- By reading Beraiah
(/.-'.) as above, we gain a second name in which
creation ( Ny^ia) is referred to by the distinctive exilic
and post-exilic term. See Cre.\tion, § 30.
BEE (n-jn-n,' MeAiccA; Dt.144 Judg.Hs Ps.
II812 Pr. 68 (©] Is. 7i8 Ecclus. r)7 [X-^-^] lis 4Macc.
Higt) has for its Hebrew name a word derived
from a root meaning to lead (or to Ix; led) in order.
Thus it means properly a member of a swarm (cp
e.xamen from ex-ago). Besides the familiar incident of
j Samson finding a swarm of bees in the lion's carcase
I (recalling Vergil's story of .Xristaeus and other classical
j allusions, see below), we have in the OT two references
I 10 the angry a.ssaults of Ijees on those who meddle with
their hives (Dt. 144 Ps. llSi2 [.MT] ; '- cp 4 Mace. 14 19).
and a likening of the .\ss)'rian power to a lx?e summoned
by the sound of a hiss to settle on the land of Israel-'
i lis. 7 18). In Prov. 6, at the close of the exhortation
' iu the sluggard to learn from the ant and her ways,
O has the following addition to the Hebrew text : —
Or go thou to the bee
And learn how diligent she i.s,
And how noble (o-e^inji') is the work th.at she doeth ;
Whose labours kings and private men u-^e for health,
And .she is desired and honourable in the eyes of all :
Though she be weak in strength,
By honouring wisdom she is advanced.
We may compare the words of the son of Sirach (11 3).
The bee is little among such as fly,
l^jut her fruit is the chief of sweet things.
The common bee of Palestine is Apis fasciata, Latr. ;
some authorities regard it as a distinct species, others as a
sub-species of the cosmopolitan honey-bee ^-^//w mcllijica.
In favour of the latter view it is stated that when crossed
with races of the same species it breeds freely ; but, on
the other hand, it differs in size and colour from the
English bee, being smaller and lighter, and beautifully
striped. The colonies are large and very many, Pales-
tine being a country well adapted for the needs of
insects which flourish in the sun and feed on flowers.
Bees are found wild, making their hives in crevices of
the rocks and hollow trees, etc. ; and, even at the present
day, many of the .\rabs make a living by collecting wild
honey and bringing it into the towns for sale. Bee-
I keeping is much practised in the East (where honey
I is largely used in cooking), the hives, according
I to Canon Tristram, being tubular structures 3 or 4 ft.
' long, and some 8 in. in diameter, roughly made of
sun-dried mud. The ends of the tube are closed with
\ a tile perforated with a hole for the access of the l)ees.
I Many of the hives are piled up together and covered
I with boughs for the sake of shade. When the combs
• This '-m. word is a nomen unitatis; the collective appears
in .\rab. as dibr or dabr, a swarm of bees, also probably in
j emended text of i S. 14 26, ilS^, its bees (for B*?^) ; so 0, We.,
Dr., Bu., H. P. Smith.
I ■- ® has 'as bees about wax,' which Ba., Che.(l) adopt ; but
I j;n comes from \yj^, a rival reading to ni'3 (Che. /V.C-')). In
I cod. N Ecclus. 57 a corrector h.-is added <o? neAi<r<rai ««crpi^ij<r»|.
^ The ancients believed that it was possible to summon bees
by sounds, such as the beating of metal : .see Verg. Georg. 46$,
and the other passages cited by Bochart (Hicroz. 4 10).
i
BEBLIADA
are stored with honey the end is removed and the comb
pulled out with a hook. It is jxissible that this method
of apiculture is of considerable antiquity — the art was
well known in classical times, and the bee has lK;en, as
Darwin points out, ' semi - domesticated from an ex-
tremely renjole jieriod,' — but there is no reference to
it in the or or the NT.
The temper of this race of bees is very irritable, and
they are very revengeful ; indeed, it seems that the
farther Kast one travels, the more the bee is to be
avoided. This eagerness to attack may e.xplain such
passages as Dt. I44 I's. II812, which, if they referred
to the English \kc, would seem exaggerated. A few
years ago some hives of this Kastern race were introduced
into the South of England, but proved so aggressive that
they had to Ix destroyed. They are very active on the
wing and fly great distances.
The passage in Judg. (148), which describes Samson
finding ' a swarm of Ixjes and honey in the carcase of
the lion," reads strangely. It is, however, by no means
improbable that in the hot dry climate of Palestine the
boily of a lion might dry up (juickly, and it is possible
that the flesh of the animal might have been removed
by ants. The skeleton might then form an attractive
shelter for a hive. On the other hand, liaron Osten
.Sacken ' has recently drawn attention to the w idely-
spread myth called Bugonia, which is that bees are
generated in the bodies of dead animals, more especially
in the carcases of oxen. This myth frctiuenlly occurs
in ancient and medi;eval literature,- and was believed
and quoted by distinguished naturalists as late as the
middle of the seventeenth century. Its explanation,
according to our author, lies in the fact that a true fly
(Erishtlis lenax, one of the Diptera), which mimics a
bee so closely as to deceive those who are not entomo-
logists, lays its eggs in decaying meat. This provides
food for tile maggots. After the pupa stages emerges
the mature insect. As it flies away, it would be almost
certainly taken for a bee. The theory is ingenious ; but
it does not account for the honey in the lion's carcase,
and at present, although the Eristalis undoubtedly lays
its eggs in filth, the evidence that it does so in dead
bodies is somew hat scanty.
A story parallel to Samson's is to the effect that
recently, when the tomb of Petrarch at .\rqua was opened,
it was found that a swarm of bees had made their
honeycomb on the remains of the poet.
The Palestine bee, which is found S. of Mount
Carmel, differs from the Syrian bee found in Asiatic
Turkey X. of that district. The latter is of a deeper
gray. Both races are larger than the Cyprian bee,
which is slender and wasp-like. The Egyptian bee
resembles the Syrian in size, but is yellow and of an
unusually fierce temperament. See also Honky.
N. .M. — .\. E. s.
BEELIADA (in*'?V3. §42. i-c, 'Baal knows.' or
'whom B. deposits' [for safe custody ; cp Ar. wada'a,
' deposuit ' ; see Kerber, /ugfnn. 39] ; the \Iassoretic
vocalisation intentionally disguises the word ?1^3), one
of the sons of D.WiD {'/.'■., § 11 </] (i Ch. 14;. jSaXeySae
[BS], -\\iaoa[A],/JaaXta5a[L]; Ti.'stext eXiaSe). This,
the original form of the name, was later altered by the
scrupulous copyists to Ei.i.^n.v in 2 S. 5 16 (but ^aaXiXad
[L] and -ei/jLaS in B's secondary [see D.wiu, § 11 (d) /3]
list) and i Ch. 38. when Baal had become objectionable
as a name of God (WRS, OTVCC-) 68). Cp Baal. i.
§5-
BEELSARUS (BeeXcApoc [BA]). i Esd.58 = Ezra
22, HlI.slIAN.
BEELTETHMUS (BeeAreeMOC [B]). i Esd. 2i6.
See Ri.iUM, 5.
1 Bullettino dtlla Societd Entomolorica Italiana, torn. 25
l'9il.
^ See the references in Bochart, Hieroz. 4 10.
BEELZEBUL
BEELZEBUL, as in RV'"k ; EV Beelzebub ; a
name of the ruler of the demons (ftpxcoN TcoN A&r
moniojn). Mt. IO25 122427 Mk.3 22 Lk. 11 .5 iS/t
KV follows Text. Rcc, which has 0«Af,/3ov^ (so IVsh.) ; l.ut
final / is better atte.sud 03«Afe^ouA (cA Syr.Hcl.); so '1 i.
Trcg.). W'H, following 15 and partly k, '■•^•"l
1. Form everywhere 0«^.0ouA, which, Weiss insists, must
of name, i's oriKinal ; but this scepticism as to the A in
pecA is paradoxical. The word ^«^«^ouA is in-
explicable and hardly pronounceable, and the famous p.-issjigc
in Mt. IO25, where the oiKohtano-rn^ is said to \x insultingly
called liee(l)zebul, implies the speaker's consciousness that
^ya is one element in the title.
The name differs in two respects from the traditional
name of the god of l':kron : ( i ) its first part is Aramaic,
and (2) its last letter is not b but /.
2. Explanation, j^jj,, ^.^ cannot doubt that BCelzebnl is
identical with Baal-zCbub. This heathen god seemed
at one moment to be the rival of Yahwe (2 K. 1 3), and
his name naturally rose to Jewish lips when demoniacal
possession was spoken of, because of the demoniacal
origin assumed for heathen oracles. The title occurs
nowhere in Jewish literature, and must, therefore, have
lost its popiilarity after the time of Christ. There were,
in fact, so many names of demons that we cannot be
surprised that some once popular names passed out of
use. If we ask how the name Beel-zebub, or rather
Beel-zebul, came to tje popular, the answer is — first, that
the title Baal-zebul was probably not confined to the god
of Ekron, but was once known in Palestine pretty widely,
so that a traditional knowledge of it, as well as of the
synonymous title Haai.-Zki'IKjN [q.v.], can \x presumed
among the Jews and their neighbours even apart from
2 K. 1 ; and next, that Lk. 954 shows that special interest
was felt by the Jews of the time of Christ in the strange
narrative in which the natne Baal-zebub occurs. That
the form Baal-zcbfil was generally preferred may be
presumed froin the best accredited Greek text of the
Gospels — the knowledge of this form nmst have come
to the Jews by tradition and by intercourse vith their
neighbours — but it is probable enough that Bctl-zebhb
also was current, and from Mt. 10 25 we are obliged to
assume that some teachers pronounced the name Beel-
zebud, with the view of interpreting it Beel-debaitha =
olKo5eaii6TT)%. ' lord of the house ' — n and n Ix^ing easily
interchanged.! (.An analogy for this can be found in
the Elohist's play upon Zebulun. as if Zebudun, in
Gen. 3O20. ) The interpretation was correct (see Baai.-
zi-.Bi;n, § 3), though the 'house' of which Jesus and
his contemporaries thought was, not on the mountain
of God (cp BAAi.-ZF.riiON, ' lord of the [niansi(jn of
the] north), but in the ' recesses of the pit ' ^ (Is. 14 15).
Though the demons might be allowed to pervade
the upper world (cp I'.ph. 22). the place from which
they proceeded was the 'abyss' (the Abaddon of Rev.
9ii).
As things now stand, therefore, it is best to suppose
Baai,-ZKBUB [q.v. , § 3] to be a modification in the direc-
tion of cacophony for religious reasons (cp Gog, Magog)
which did not hold its ground. Baftl-zcbul is probably
the original form, and it meant ' lord of the mansion ' —
i.e. , to the Jews of NT times, ' lord of the nether world."
The reading of the recei\ed Greek text is assimilated to
the reading of the traditional Hebrew text.
Over against this view stands that of the old scholar
Lightfoot (still defended by Am. Meyer, Jesu Mutter-
sprache, 49). which connects -zebul with
3. Other ex- 1,3, ■dung," Vai. '?nn. * dung-making." in
planationa. ^ Hebrew ; cp S31'. ' to offer to idols."
The idea is that ' lord of flies " was changetl into ' lord
of dung," to show abhorrence of heathenism. Such
transformations are, no doubt, in the later Jewish spirit;
1 Cp ©."s ZojSoufl for Zabud [q.v., 1].
» She Ol, on this theory, is ironically described as the 70T, the
• palace ' or ' mansion ' of the demons, as in Ps. 40 1 5 (according to
one possible view, see PsALMS, ^.ffOr where We. reads ?3|0) of
the wicked rich.
5»4
BEER
but this particular one is improbable.^ ' Lord of flies'
(could we assume that this was the original meaning) was
itself, as a title, bad enough ; nor would the people, who
feared the demons so much, have ventured to speak too
disrespectfully of the archdemon (cp Ashmedai or
AsmodOus, which to a Hebrew ear meant the ' destroyer'
—not a disrespectful title) ; lastly, on Lightfoot's
theory the name ought to be Beel-zel>el : it is shown
elsewhere that a late editor detected the new Hebrew
word zebel, 'dung,' in the name I-zel)el (Jezkbel).
Lightfoot's theory, then, must be abandoned, as Baudis-
sin holds. But Baudissin's own theory (adopted from
Hitzig) is not really more satisfactory. He thinks that
Baal-zebul is simply a euphonic modification of Baal-
zebub, the consonant which closed the first syllable
being repeated at the close of the second part of the
word. 2
This, however, leaves Baal-zebub unexplained, for
Baudissin's theory of the name is scarcely admissible.
See Selden, De Dis Syris,2(>; Lightfoot, Horcs
HebraiccB, on Mt. 12 24 Lk. 1 1 15 ; Movers, Die Phonizier
('41), 1 260/ ; Riehm's article in HWB^"^). The latter
revives an old theory of Storr and Doderlein that bi'el
dUbdbd in Aramaic might mean either ' lord of flies ' or
'an enemy,' ix^P^^ dfOptuwos (Mt. I328) = Sid/SoXos.
This is doubtless plausible. We must at least admit
that the common people cannot without instruction have
attached a meaning to -zcbul. But how has Beelzcbul
(half Hebrew, half Aramaic) fixed itself in the Gospel
tradition? Pesh. too retains Beelzebub. Baudissin's
article in Herzog, /-'A'A"<^' (learned and thorough) adopts
the ordinary view, as far as Baal-zebub is concerned.
T. K. C.
BEER (-1X2, ' well,' § loi). i. [to (Ppiap [BAFL]).
A station of the Israelites, apparently between Heshbon
and the Anion (Nu. 21i6 [JE]). See Nahaliel ;
Waxueking, § 8 ; and cp, below, Bekr-Elim. The
interest of Beer is not geographical but literary. The
discovery of the well was commemorated (the narrator
gives us to understand) by a song. The song with its
context runs thus, according to MT, —
And from there to Beer : that is the well whereof Yahwfe
said unto Moses : .■\ssemljle the people, and I will give them
water. Then sang Israel this song :
Spring up, O well ; greet ye it with a song.
Well, that the princes have dug,
The nobles of the people have bored,
With the sceptre — with their staves.
And from iMidbar[KV the wilderness] to Mattanah ; and from
Mattanah to Nahaliel ; and from Nahaliel to liamoth.
The historical character of this statement has generally
been assumed. Ewald, however, is on the road to a
very different theory when he remarks that such a well-
song would become a source of joy to the labourers who
thenceforward used it {Hist. 2204). He sees, in fact,
that it is essentially a popular song. Robertson Smith,
too, finely speaks of ' the exquisite song in which the
Hebrew wonien as they stand round the fountain,
waiting their turn to draw, coax forth the water which
wells up all too slowly for their impatience.'^ We
should not expect the origin of such a song to be
remembered ; nor is there anything in the words to
suggest the occasion ascribed to it in JI-'. More prob-
ably it arose in the dry country of the south of Judah,
where springs were the most valued possession (cp Judg.
lis Josh. 15 19 Gen. 2619/;). The ' princes," 'nobles,'
and ' captains ' (for ppnaa we read o'ppno ; cp Judg.
59-14) referred to are the sheikhs of the clan. When
1 D'Sl^, the present writer thinks, has no connection with
^Sa, 'dung.' It is pointed in imitation of D'S?pB', 'abomina-
tions,' and should really be read D'Vlj'jl, 'heaps of stones,' i.e.,
altars of stone. Cp, however, Idol, $ 2 (/').
'^ Hitzig (A7. Proph., by Steiner, 267)compares(S.'s K\i.&aKov\i.
(Habakkuk); Baudissin adds Habel-mandel for Babel-Mandeb.
3 'The Poetry of the OT,' Brit. Quart. Rev. Jan. 1877; cp
RS'^) 135. The expression 'coax forth" was .suggested by
Herder. The fountain is credited by primitive races with per-
sonality.
BEER-LAHAI-ROI
a fresh well has been found, the sheikhs go through the
symbolic form of digging for it with staves, and the poets
of the clan greet the well with a song.
Does MT give us the whole of the song? Can
Midbar be used as a proper name ? Surely not. And,
when we examine the MSS of ©, we find some justifi-
cation for the hypothesis of Budde, that the text of the
itinerary originally ran, ' .And from there to Beer ; and
from Beer to Nahaliel and from Nahaliel to Bamoth.'
and that an editor who knew the song of the well, and
desired to do it honour, inserted it Ijetween the first and
the second items in the list, with the additional line,
'Out of the wilderness a gift ' (see Mattanah). See
Budde, New World, March 1895; Preuss. Jahrbb.,
1895, p. 491^ ; Franz Del. ZA'II', 1882, p. 449^
2. A place to which Jotham [i] fled from his brother
Abimelech, Judg. 921 (^an.-i)p [B], papa. \\\ §r)pa. [L]).
In OS (23873; 106 20) it is identified with a village
called Bera, 8 m. N. of Eleutheropolis. The context,
however, gives us no data for determining the site of
the ' well ' in question.
IJeekoth ((l-v.) and even Beersheba have been suggested.
Kb. el-lilreh, W. of 'Ain Shems, is considerably more than
8 m. N. of Beit Jibrln. t. K. C.
BEERA (XnX?, 'well" ; BmmAa [B], BeHRA [A],
cm. L. ), b. Zophah, in genealogy of Asher (i Ch.
737)-
BEERAH (n"lS3, 'well'), a Reubenite prince, son
of Baal, carried off by Tiglath-pileser, i Ch. 56 (BchA
[B], -HRA [A], B&PA [I-])- He is identified by the
rabbins with Beeri, the father of the prophet Hosea.
BEER-ELIM (D'''?\S IX? [Ba. Gi.], 'well of tere-
binths' (?) or 'of sacred trees' ; 4)pGAp TOY<MA[e]iM
[BNAQF]), a place apparently on the northern border
of Moab, answering to Eglaim on the south (Is. 158).
It is generally identified with the Bekk of Nu. 21 16.
Some identify it also with the Alema of i Mace. 526 ;
but see Alema.
BEERI ClX?, ' belonging to the well ' or ' Beer,' §
76 ; cp above).
1. A Hittite, the father of Judith (i. 1), Esau's wife, Gen.
26 34 Oc7)p [AD], jSaijjA [E], /Saiiop [L]). It is impossible to
reconcile this description with that of Ad.ih in the genealogy in
Gen.3t52, for which see B.\sue.math, i.
2. The father of Hosea, Hos. 1 i (6 /3e.,p[e]t, [BAQ]).
BEER-LAHAI-ROI (^X'l ^TO nX?), a well in the
Negeb, famous in Hebrew tradition as the scene of
Hagar's theophany (Gen. 16 14), and no doubt connected
with a sanctuary (St. ZATW 1 349 ['81]). Beside this
sacred well was the abode of Isaac (Gen. 'J462 25 11).
The name is mentioned only by J ; E, who
gives nearly the same account of the theophany
(21 8-21), speaks simply of ' a well.' According to RV,
Beer-lahai-roi means ' well of the living one who sees
me.'
So the Versions (1(5 14 : <l>peap of ci/aJTriof [ellSof [.\DE], 24 26
25 II : </). riji opao-eois [ADEL] ; Pcsh. in all three ).**.? JJ^S
t*J Ju»)- This rendering, however, is inconsistent with that given
of El Roi in 1013, '.\ God that seeth ' ; we should expect, not
'NT 'n, but "NT 'n, and, even apart from this, 'n cannot be equiva-
lent to hit, ' God ' (the phrase 'n Vx is late). Probably, there-
fore, we should render with We. {Prol.i*) 330; ET 326), 'living
is he who .sees me,' and explain this by the liijht of H.-».!;ar's
words in v. 13, which, as they stand, are unintelligible, but may,
by the correction of U7TI into D'ri7K,l and the insertion of TIKI
between TI'NT and *"inN (the resemblance of these three words
accounts for the omission of one), be interpreted thus : ' Have I
.seen God and remained alive after my vision (of CJod)? ' El Roi
(lit. ' God of vision ') will then mean ' the God who is seen ' (cp
Gen. 22 14).
These explanations of El-R6'I and Beer-lahai-ro'i
are too plainly not original. According to analogy,
'nV (wrongly vocalised lahai) ought to be a noun in the
construct state. Instead of lahai we should doubtless
1 Cp dtV in MT of I S. 3 13 : read D'n'^N with ®bal.
5'6
1. Name.
BEEROTH
vocalise /<'/*/, 'jaw-bone'; ro/f?) is some animal's name,
not known in the later Hebrew, ami perhaps of Arabic
origin. Ttie name misread Lahai-roi should, therefore,
be renden-d ' Antelope's (?) jaw-l)one. '
Another explanation is proposed by Hommel (AHT 209).
Adhering to the points as regards the syllable hat, he compares
the S. Ar. name Luhai-'atkt. He docs not account for ro'i.
Should 'm l)e lin (see Reu)? Samson's Lehi, however, supplies
a more obvious clue.
Uffi, 'jaw-bone.' was a name given to any prominent
crag, from a fancied resemblance to a jaw-bone. .See
Lehi ; and cp Onugnathos {tvov 71'd^oj), a promontory
on the coast of Laconia, and 'Camel's jaw-l>one' (an
Arabic name, Yilkiit, iv. 3539^ ; cp We. Vakidi, 298,
n. 2).i
According to K. the well was in the wilderness of
Beersheba (Hen. 21 14) ; J, more precisely, states that it
_.. was 'on the way to Shur' (16 7), 'between
■ Kadesh and Bered ' {v. 14). Jerome knew of
a 'well of Hagar' ((>510l3); does he mean the tra-
ditional well in the tl ddy el-Muweileft f This strangely
formed wady is at the foot of mountains of the same
name, and Palmer thinks that there was once a large
city here (' perhaps one of the " cities of the south " ').
One of the wells has special sanctity, and is connected
by the Bedouin with Hagar. Two caves appear to be
ancient. The siiialler, at the upi:)er end of the wady,
on the right hand, was apparently a Christian chapel ;
the other, on the opposite side, seems to have served
as the hermitage (Palmer, Desert of the Exodus, 2
354). As to the 'jaw-bone' rock no positive state-
ment can be ventured. On the geographical state-
ment in <■. 14, see Bkkkd, i. To the suggestions there
made it may be added that the 'way to Shuk ' [q.v.)
would be one of the regions called by the Assyrians
Musri. According to the original tradition Hagar
seems to have fled, not to Egypt, but to a N. Arabian
district called by a name which was confounded with
Mizraim (ICgypt). This, and not Egypt, was really her
native country ; this too was the country from which,
according to E, she took a wife for her son Ishmael
(21 21). SoW'i. AOF 30/. See H.\GAR, § i ; Is.\.\c,
§ 2 ; MizkAi.M, § 2 ; MoKi.vu. T. K. c.
BEEROTH (nnXZ; BhrcoG [BXAL]), a city of
Benjamin.
In Josh. IS 25, P(r,poi0a [H], /3r,#u)pa>9 [I.], 2.S. 42 [A omits];
gentilic Beerothito (•rnN^.T ; j3r,pa)eaio9 [I'.AL], 2 Sam. 42/
59; Pr)9u>p. [liA], /Siflapft [L], 2 Sam. 2337; 'rf'^rr, KV Bero-
THITE, 1 Ch. 11 39 ; o Pfp0(i [?,], 6 /3i7pwfl [A], o /Sjjpojfli [L]).
According to Josh. 9 17 {^etpuv [B*], ^r]Owf> [B'^bmEf.]),
it belonged originally to the Gitieonite confederation ;
and, according to 2S. 43, there was at one time a
migration of its inhabitants to CJiitaim (see l.siii?.\.\L, 1).
Men of Beeroth are mentioned in the great post-exilic
list (see KzR.\, ii. § 9, § 8 r) ; Ezra225 = N'eh. 729 (/i7?pa.'s
[B], afiripu)d [L]) = i Esd.5i9 (i^vpoy [B] p(7/pwe? [.\]).
It is named by Kus. (cp Reland, 618-19), and is now
represented by the modern /-.V /i/reh (which still owes
its name to its abundant supply of water), a village of
about 800 inhabitants, in a poor district, about 9 m.
N. from Jerusalem, on the Shechem road. Tradition
assigns it as the place where Joseph and Mary missed
Jesus from the company of returning pilgrims (Lk.
24345).
BEEROTH or THE CHILDREN OF JAAKAN,
RV Beeroth Bene-Jaakan (Ii;'r'."\:? nilX?. • wells
of the b'ne J.i'akan '), a halting-place in the desert, Dt.
106 (BHpco9 YICON lAKeiM [HAL]), where it is men-
tioned Ix-fore MosKROTH.'-^ This notice is pre-Deutero-
nomic, and belongs to a fragment of E's list of stations
> So first We. ProL I.e. ; cp Moore, /i«i'^«, 347. It
natural inference that Kl-roi originally referred to an a
god (so Ball, Genesis, SHOT).
* The Samar. text has lor this verse : ' And the children of
Israel journeyed from Moseroth and encamped among the b'ne
Ja'ak2n.'
5»7
seems a
antelope-
BEERSHEBA
which has been inserted by the editor (Bacon, Trip.
Trad. 207/; cp Meyer, /.ATW 1 118 ; Dr. Deut.
120). In Nu. 3331/ the same name occurs (shortened
into Bknk-Jaakan, jpy* '33 ; (iavaia [BJ ; -viKai' [A] ;
-{i)aKav [F] ; fiaviK. [L]) after Moseroth ; but the list
of stations in Nu. 33 is of late editorial origin (cp Kue.
//ex. 98, 102). The sjKJt probably lay somewhere on
the edge of the Arabah. Cp Jakan, and Wander-
ings, § 8.
BEERSHEBA (rT^IN?, § 107— i.e. , 'well of seven,'
rather than 'seven wells' — see lx;low, § 3 ; BHpCABee
1. References, t'^-^^r.] • 'Vr^' ^^^^ BHRCABeO [A] ;
in den. 21 31 4)peAp opKICMOy
[.\DL], 2633 <|). opKOy [ADEL], it is taken as mean-
ing ' well of the oath ').i One of the Simeonite towns
in the southern territory of Judah (Josh. I92), on the
border of the cultivated land, came to be regarded,
for the greater part of history, as the remotest point
of Canaan in that direction ; whence the phrase
'from Dan to Beersheba' (2 8.17"), which, after
the fall of the \. kingdom, became from ' Geba to
Beersheba' (2 K. 238), or 'from Beersheba to Mt.
Ephraim' (2Ch. 194 ^fnpaa^fe [B]), and in the post-
e.xilic period ' from Beersheba to the valley of Hinnom '
(Xeh. 11 27 /3f77/>(ra/ife [B], /3epcr. [A], 30 littjpaafitf [B],
^fpff. [A]). Vet Beersheba, though the practical, was
not the ideal, border of the Holy Land. This ran
along the ' river of Egypt,' the present Wady el-'Arish,
nearly 60 m. SE. of Beersheba.
An account of the origin of the name and the planting
of the sacred tamarisk of Beersheba is given in the story
of Abraham (Gen. 21 22^. E) ; but another story fx;long-
ing to another document (J) assigns the origin of the
well and its name to Isaac (Gen. 2626-33). It was the
scene of more than one theophany in patriarchal times.
It was an important sanctuary frequented even by N.
Israel in the time of Amos (65 (ppeap toO 8pK0v [B.AQ]),
who refers with disapproval to those who swear by the
life of the divine patron'- of FJeersheba (814). It was
in Beersheba that the two sons of Samuel are said to
have exercised their judgeship (iS. 82), and a day's
journey thence into the wilderness is placed the incident
of the 'juniper' tree in the life of Elijah (i K. 193j5':
/3e/)<ra/3ff [A]). Beersheba was the birthplace of the
mother of King Joash (2K. r2i[2] 2Ch. 24i). In
post-exilic times it was inhabited by men of Judah.
The ruins at Beersheba belong apparently to early Christian
days. The Onoviastica describe it as a large place with a
Roman garrison (103 32 '234 100). In the time of Jerome the
Clace was of some importance ; later, it became an episcop.il see ;
ut by the fourteenth century it had become deserted and ruined.
It is represented by the modern />/> es-Seba, on the
W. es-Seba', 28 m. s'w. from Hebron (Rob. Bk' 1 300
2 Identifi- -^ ■ ' ^ '^''st the arable land of Palestine
cation ' ^'"''"^"y comes to an end with Beersheba,
and the country to the south of it is usually
barren, there are, for nearly 30 m. .S. of Beersheba,
ruins of old villages gathered round wells ; they
evidently date from Roman times.
On Tosh. 192, ' Beersheba and Shelxi,' see Shema (i. ).
[WRS(AV/. Sem.C-) 181) remarks 'The sanctuary of
Beersheba proix-rly consisted of the ' • Seven Wells "
„ T\™i *• vhich gave the place its name. ' Among
3. Derivation. ., » , , ,,,.,. ,,• ,, '.
the .Arabs a place called ' Seven \\ ells
is mentioned by Strabo (I64S4). Rot^ertson Smith has
also given abundant evidence of the sanctity attaching
to the groups of seven wells among the Semites. Even
to-day seven wells or cisterns seem to have the power of
undoing witchcraft (ZDFl'l i<^). This view is due
to Stade (Gesch. i. 127), who thinks that the postposition
of the numeral was Canaanitish ; but, as in the case of
Kirjaih-arta (see Hebron, i. ). the theory is doubtful.
' Well of Seven ' is not inexplicable ; ' Well of (the) Seven
J The Hebrew verb ' to swear ' means literally ' to come under
the influence of seven things.' See WRS, Ket. Stm.^t 161 J^.
2 MT gives ' way ' (cultus) ; see Amos, i ao.
518
BE-ESHTERAH
gods ' is intrinsically a probable meaning. Few persons,
it is to be hoped, go to lieersheba looking for seven
wells. Gautier affirms that there are now only three,
though there may once have l«?en more {Souvenirs de
Terre Sainte,'^-'' 147 ; but cp his letter in Exp. Times,
IO328 (Apr. 99). Trumbull [Exp. Times, 889 [Nov.
'96]) also states that he saw three wells, but adds that
at some distance he saw the remains of a fourth and a
fifth. He admits that there may once have been more
than five. Cp also Dr. Exp. Times, 7 s(>l f- ('>^Y>-
'96). For descriptions of Beersheba as it is to-day,
see Rob. BR 1 204 ; Gu(5rin, Judde, 2 278 283 ; Si^journ^,
Kev. bibliqite, 1895, p. 265.] <;. .\. s.
BE-ESHTERAH (Hnri'JT?) in Josh. 21 27 (Bocop&N
\^\ -??-\.^'\ BeeBApA [A]), perhajjs an abbreviation
for n^riVT jri'5' 'house of Astarte ' (cp Ges. , Nestle,
Eig. 114, etc. ). Homniel, however (Ih-itr.f. Ass. , 1897,
p. 268), explains ' by Ashtar ' ; cp the S. Ar. nnnv^. ' by
Athtar (i.e. , Ashtar).' Cjray (I/PX 127) also is against
the supposed abbreviation of bcfh into be-. See A.sii-
TAROTH.
BEETLE, RV Crickkt (^jl^n ; o(})iomaxhc^
[BAFL] : Lev. Il22t). By the word so rendered is
almost certainly intended a species of locust or grass-
hopper ; the name is one of four used in the verse to
denote ' winged creeping things that go upon all fours,
which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon
the earth. ' The Hebrew name has passed into Aramaic,
post-biblical Hebrew, and Armenian ; in Arabic harjala
means ' a troop of horses ' or ' a troop of locusts ' (cp
Joel24), and the connected verb means 'to proceed in
a long train,' as do locusts. ' Beetle ' is at all events a
wrong rendering ; for the Coleoptera have, as a rule, legs
ill adapted for ' leaping upon the earth,' and are .seldom
or never eaten ; whereas certain kinds of crickets, as of
locusts, are fried and eaten by Eastern nations. It is
impossible, howe\er, to identify the species (if any)
referred to. Cp also Ldcl'ST, § 2.
BEGGAR, BEGGING. See Alms, § 4.
BEHEADING. See L.wv .\nu Justice, § 12.
BEHEMOTH and LEVIATHAN, two real or sup-
posed animals grouped together in Job 40i5-41, but
, ii/r i- * nowhere else in the canonical books
1. Mention Of , however below). •■' Di<hcmdth (nicna)
Behemoth. ; , , ' . , , , -
IS no doubt an intensive plural form, and
means ' a colossal teast. ' It occurs [a) in Job 40 15-24,
probably (b) in Is. 306, but hardly (c) in Ps. 7322.3
In (rt) the animal so called is described at length. This
description is followed by a sketch of Leviathan, and most
critics have thought, specially on the ground of the ' hyper-
bolical ' expressions, that the two pictures are later insertions in
the speeches of Yahwe (see Joii). Whether the expressions
are fitly called 'hyperbolical,' we shall .see presently. Almost
all modern critics, whether they separate Job40i5-41 from the
main body of the speeches of Yahwe or not, have thought that
Behemoth is a Hebraised form of an Egyptian word for the
hippopotamus (p-ehe-iitou, ' water - o.\ '), but there is no philo-
logical basis for this opinion.* In ib) Is. 306 3^J nicna NBp
is probably to be rendered ' Oracle of the monster (behemoth)
1 '.\Kpts according to the order in ©uafl ; a.rrojc.i.'i is men-
tioned in hexaplaric MS.S as a rendering by 'dAAo?.'
2 It will be seen that on one strongly supported theory there
are parallels to this combination.
3 The versions render Behemoth as follows : — in (a) Bripia
[LAAJ, KTtfVI) l.'\(]. ineoa.J, m (I') TiaV TfTpOLltOi
[.\q. Sym. Th.], in {c) K-rrfvuiBr)^ [LXX, .Sym.)
(Ml-no&UiV [LXX], (CTJJI'I)
* So independently WALM (Egyi'T, § 9). The objections are
as follows :-—(i) The final t>i in Behemoth is un.-\ccounted for
(Lejjsius). (2) The Egyptians had several names for the hippo-
potamus (r.^., rert, 'a beast that rolls it.self in the mud'); out
the texts nowhere mention p-ehe-uiou. (3) The form, if it
existed, would be tnOu-ehe (F. C. Cook). It is strange that
Jablonski, who died in 1757, and could know only Coptic, and
that imperfectly, should be consulted in preference to Birch,
who, after supposing himself to have found the old Egyptian
original of Behemoth in bekhatna, discovered afterwards that
the name was really AAi*^ (Renouf, Expositor, July 1897). Cp
Remi'Han. On an analogous attempt to justify the interpreta-
tion of Leviathan as a crocodile, see col. 520, n. 3.
BEHEMOTH
of the south land.'l Tliis is the lit.iding of a .short fragmentary
passage of prophecy, and refers to the description of E(|ypt at
the end of 7'. 7 as ' K.ihab the quelled one ' (.see Rah ad, ii. § i).
'The south-land' (Negeb) is here, as in Dan. 89 W^ff., a
designation of the second of the two empires which endangered
Palestine,— /.f. , Egypt, —the other being ^iiplidn, ' the northland '
(Jer. Ill 15 Zech. 26 \io\y—i.e., in a large sense, Babylonia. So
JJel. The heading in ?'. 6 may be very late.
Delitzsch finds Behemoth also in (r) Ps. 73 22, ' .\s for me, I
was senseless and ignorant, I was a Behemoth toward thee'
(Del., Nowack). This rendering is correct, if the text is .sound,
and if the spe.iker is an individual. If, however, the speaker
i.s to be understood collectively, we may perhaps render, I was
(like) the beasts toward thee.' .So Ba. ; but the absence of the
particle of comparison is a difTiculty. If we compare 49 10 [11]
026(7] it becomes plausible to read, with Griitz, n':i2B
'Fiirn, ' I was devoid of understanding toward thee.'
Leviathan (|n-iS, livyathdn, 'wreathed' — i.e., 'gather-
ing itself in folds'; or perhaps of Bab. origin) is a
2. Of Leviathan, designation of a mythic serpent in
all the passages in which it occurs,
unless Job 41 1 be an exception.'-^ See also Li;vi.\TH.\N".
It is found (if) in Job41i (4O25), 'Canst thou draw up-*
Leviathan with a hook, (and) press down his tongue with a
cord ? ' ; (<^) J ob 3 8, 'Let those who lay a ban u [xni t he sea •• cu rse
it, (those) who are apf)ointed to rouse un " '
27 1, ' In that day shall Yahwe punish Leviathan the fugitive
Leviathan ' ; (/) Is.
serpent, and Leviathan the coiled serpent, and he shall slay the
dragon in the sea ' ; (^g) Ps.74 14, ' Thou didst shatter the heads
of Leviathan, and gavest his [carca.se] to be food for the jackals ' ; 5
(/() Ps. ]04 26,'> 'There do the dragons move along, (there is)
Leviathan whom thou didst form to be its ruler.' To these refer-
ences, two supplied by apocryphal writers may be added : (/)
En. CO7-9, cp 247; ; (_/■) 4 Esd. O49-52 ; cp Apoc. Bar. 294.
In the present article we shall desert the zoological
explanation of Behemoth and Leviathan, leaving the
„ J, ., field open to another writer to represent the
... , more generally received opinion (.see Hll'PO-
my tea ,,q.[.amus, Ckocodii.k). Strong reason
monsters. •,,!,, r •
will have to Ijc shown for not interpreting
the.se strange forms with some regard to mythology.
No one would assert that the author of Job had an
altogether distinct mythological conception ; but modern
commentators who disregard the mythic basis of the
descriptions make a serious mistake.
It was natural in 1887 to look for illustrations of the
Job passages, [d) and [e), to Egypt," though reference
should have been made, not to the fantastic griffins on
certain wall-paintings, but to the idealisation of the
ordinary monsters of the Nile in the mythic narratives
of Re' and Osiris. ' There are supernatural as well as
natural hippopotamuses and crocodiles, and it is a
specimen of these which the poet has given us. The
descriptions are hyperbolical and unplcasing, if referred
to the real monsters of the Nile ; they are not so if
explained of the " children of defeat," with the dragon
Apopi at their head,* which the poet, by a fusion
1 The alternative explanation, ' Oracle of the beasts of the
south ' — i.e., of the desert which adjoins the south of Judah — is
le.ss natural. Why ' the .south ' instead of ' the desert ' ? And why
are serpents called niona, ' beasts ' ? rii'n would have been
more in place. Cp SBOf on Is. 306.
2 (p renders Levifithan as follows : — in (ri')6pa»to>'Ta(Aq. Sym.
Aeutaflai'), in (<') to /xeya ictjtos (.-Vq. Sym. Afuiadar, Th. hfio.-
(coi'Ttt), in (yO rbi' SpaKoi'Ta (.Xi]. .Sym. Th. Xfviajffav) [twice], in
(^) Tuiv SpaKODTuiy (.\q. Afviadav), in (/«) Spdxuiv.
3 -irpai for MT -ii'pri. The final letter of 7/. 24 (now iSK, ' his
snout ') and the first letter of ?'. 25 became effaced. F^wald
(Lehrb. d. I/ebr. Spr. 791) makes an elaborate attempt to
account for the absence of the interrog.itive particle (n) in MT,
baseS on the theory that the Arabic word for crocodile (timsd{i)
existed in the Hebrew vocabulary of Job. Similarly Budde ;
Duhm leaves the point undecided. Against this, see Che. Ex-
positor, July 1897.
* Read C for DV, with Gunkel, to restore parallelism ; cp Ps.
74i3/10J2s/,Is.27,.
B Reading C'^VC*^ ?3KS finOiil \nK Cp Fox.
8 Reading D'3'3n for the scarcely possible ni'Jjjj 'ships'; and
correcting 13 pniJ'S into 'l3-!»':iS. See Che. Ps.f^}
7 Che. /ob and .?<>/. 56, where the first recent critical protest
was made against the dominant theory. Cp the fantastic forms
described in Maspero, Struggle 0/ tlu Nations, 84.
I ^ .See Maspero, op. cit. 159.
520
BEHEMOTH
historically most justifiable,! icU-ntifies with the monsters
of IJjihyloiiian origin called elsewhere Rahab and his
help«TS (Job 5)13). And even in the uncorrected but
still more in the corrected text there are expressions and
statements wliich are hardly explicable except on the
mythological theory. ' How, for exaniple, can the hippo-
potanms and the crocodile lie said to Ije, not niercly
dangerous to approach, but Ixjyond the range of hunters ?
There is evidence that even in early times the I'.gyptians
were skilled in attacking and killing thenj. How, too,
can the ordinary hippopotamus t>e called ' the firstling
of the ways of God" (Job 40 19), and the ordinary
crocodile Ix; said to Ix; feared by all that is lofty, and to
be king over all the sons of pride - (Job 41 u [26]) ?
The Babylonian eiemciits in lic-hemoth and Leviathan,
however, are niore important than the ICgyptian. They
have been pointed out, though with some exaggeration,
by Gunkel, who also noticed how much the text of the
accounts of BChenioth and Leviathan has suffered in
transmission. It may be hoped that by the light of the
mythological interpretation the corruptions may l)e
partly removed. For example, Job4l9-ii [1-3] may be
plausibly emended thus (see J(JK, April, 1897) : —
Surely thy self-confidt-iice proves itself vain ;
Even divine beings ihe fc.ir of him lays low.
An angel shudders when he would arouse him ;
Who then (among mortals) woidd dare to meet him as a foe?
Who ever confronted him and came off safe?
Under the whole heaven, not one !
The un-emended form of this passage, it is true, does not
favour a mythological interpretation ; but it is very
difficult to give it atiy plausible meaning, whereas the
emended text is in perfect harmony with all that we
hear of Leviathan elsewhere. One more proof of the
helpfulness of the new theory may Ix; given. No
passage has pu/.zlcd interpreters more than 40 19 b.
The RV rentiers thus, ' He (only) that made him can
make his sword to approach (unto him). ' u"in. however,
should Ixi n^n (Giesebrecht). The real meaning is, ' that
was made to be ruler of his fellows ' ('n t"Ah "lirvn) — i-^- •
Behc-moth is the king of all land animals. Take this in
connection with Job 41 25 [33]* and Ps. 10426, and it
would seem that Leviathan was regarded as lord of the
ocean, and Behemoth of the dry land. The former
notion was borrowed from the Babylonians ; the latter
perhaps from the Egyptians.'*
Thus the liOhemoth and leviathan passages in Job
represent a fusion, from every ptiint of view most
natural, of Babylonian and I'.gyptian elements. The
dragon is primarily Babylonian : it is Tiamat ( = cinn ;
see Crk.ATIon, § 2/). Behemoth may be ultimately
identified with Tiamat's consort Kingu. Being ignorant
of the mythic monsters in question, the poet naturally
filled u|) the gaps in his knowledge from two monsters
of the Nile which the Egyptians regarded as represent-
atives of the evil god Sit. *
Coming now to (/), Is. 27, we note that the writing
belongs to a prophetic passage which has a strong
apocalyptic tinge, and stands at the head of the period
which produced the aix)calypse of Daniel.* Nowhere
perhaps in the OT is the phraseology more distinctly
1 Hommel {Der hah. L'rsf>r. der iifry/>t. Kultur, 1892, p. 40)
connects Ajxjpi or Apep with Hab. ahiihu, 'storm-flood.' Apopi
is the Tiamat of heaven. His head is .split by the conquering
Re' into two parts ; Tiamat's body is so treated by Marduk.
2 Reading VT^ narSa IDK, with Hudde (improving slightly
on Gunkel). The 'sons of pride' (if j-ntr 's correct) may be a
phra.se equivalent to ' Rabab's helpers. If so, mythic monsters
are referred to.
» nn-'Va'? is probably a corruption of n;n Sj-aV (Che.),
leviathan w.as made to be lord of living creatures (i.e., those of
the ocean-depth, tchum, just mentioned).
* Che. Expositor, July 1897.
* Cp Maspero's StruggU 0/ ihe Nations. Plutarch (De Is.
et Osir. 56) well knew the connection of the two Nile-monsters
with Typhon or Sit.
* Che. Intr. Is. 150/, 155^ ; Lyon, JBL, 1895, p. 131,
quoting Smith's Chaldaan GeHtsis, ed. Sayce, p. 90.
521
BEHEMOTH
mythical. ' I>eviathiln the fleeing serpent ' finds its
explanation in the carving on a seal representing Marduk
with a dagger pursuing the tiragon which flees before
him in the shape of a .ser[x;nt, and ' I^-viathiln the
coiled serix.'tit ' is the mythic phrase for the ocean which
surrounds the earth. '
In (_i,'), Bs. 74 14, a psalmist gives a somewhat different
view of I.eviathan. To him the destruction of leviathan
is past. This is, of course, the original view represented
in the Babylonian Creation-story (see Crkation, § 2).
The passage should most probably Ix; read thus : —
Thou didst shatter the head of Leviathan,
And gavcst up his [carcase] as food for the jackals.
There is no reference to the unburied corpses of the
I'^gyptians (Ex. 14 30); 'the people inhabiting the wil-
derness ■ is an impossible rendering of a corrui)t text
(see ?\)X). We have here sinjply an amplification of a
mythic detail in the story of Tiamat (see the Babylonian
Creation-tablet iv. /. 104 1 — the same detail which
explains a fme passage in the latter part of Isaiah
(Is. 5I9).
Taken by itself {h), Ps. 104 26, it must be admitted,
gives no confirmation to our mythological interpreta-
tions. Leviathan appears as one of the monsters of the
sea, and we are told that Yahwe himself ' formed ' him as
its ruler. The writer may know nothing of mythology.
He has heard this said, and repeats it.
We now turn to {i) and (j), the apocryphal passages.
The former (Knoch (i07-9) runs in Charles's transhition from
the Kthiopic version (155) : — '.Xnd in that day will two monsters
be partecf, a female monster named Levirahan, to dwell in the
depths of the ocean over the fountains of the waters. But the
male is called Hehemoth, who occupies with his breast (?) a
waste wilderness named Dcndain, on the east of the garden. . . .
And I besought that other angel that he should show me the
might of these monsters, how they were parted on one day, and
the one was placed in the depths of the sea and the other in the
mainland of the wilderness.'
The latter (4 Ksd. O49-52) is as follows : — ' Et tunc conseruasii
duo animalia, nomen uni uocasti Hehemolh et non\en secundi
uocasti Leuiathan. Et separasti ea ab alterutro, non enim poterat
septima pars ubi erat aciua congregata capere ea. Et dedisti
Behemoth unam partem qu.x siccata est tertio die, ut inhabitet in
ea, ubi sunt montes mille ; Leuiathan autem dedisti septimam
partem humidam : et seruasti ea ut t'lant in deuorationeni quibus
uis et quando uis.' (I'ehemoth becomes uehemoth in cod. Si and
Enoch in codd. .S.\ [so AV].)
It is needless to pause long on the purely Jewish
elements in these descriptions.- That Behemoth was
created on the fifth day was an inference from Gen. 1 21 ;
the reference to the ' thousand mountains ' comes from
a faulty reading in Ps. 50 10 (where r-^« should be Vn)
combined with an aljsurd interpietation of nima in the
same passage. The chief points to notice are these :
Bfihemuth and Leviathan are not two great water-
monsters, but have their habitation, the one on the dry
land, the other in the deep ; ' the Dcndain of Enoch
may possibly be the Babylonian danninu, which is a
synonym of irsitim, 'the earth," and is hterally 'the
firm. '■• .According to Gunkel, the female monster
Leviathan is Tiamat, and the male monster BihOmoth
is Kingu, Tiamat's husband (on whom see Creation-
tablet iv. //. 119-122). In the Babylonian story these
monsters met their fate at creation ; in Enoch the
assignment of their resjx-ctive dwellings is an incident of
the judgment at Noah's flood ; in 4 Ezra again it is a
detail of creation. It is not safe, however, to dogmatise
too freely on the sources of the apocryphal writers.
Their notions were probably a strange compound, in
which there were exegetical inferences side by side with
corrupted statements of Oriental tradition. One of
these statements appears to have related to the habiuition
of Behemoth — at least, if we may accept Zimmerns
explanation of DOndain, which Dillmann and Charles
1 Cp the mythological .serpent in one form of the Babylonian
Deluge-story (see Dki.cge, S§ 6-q).
2 For details on the late Jewish fancies, see Drummond,
Jewish Afessiah, 352-355 ; Weber, /*(</. Thtol. 160, ao2, 4o-.i, 404.
S C. H. Toy, Judaism and Christianity, 162.
* So Zimmern, in SchSpJ. 6j ; cp Jensen, Kosmol. 161, DeL
I Ass. Hll B 225.
522
unconvincingly connect with pi p-n (comparing Dudael,
Enoch 10 4, which is certainly not a mere ' fiction of the
author '). The view here taken is, of course, quite con-
sistent with Charles's theory [Bar. 53) that the writers
of 4 Esd. 630-725 and Bar. 27-30 both used the text of
an earlier work which contained the story of the six days
of Creation. This lost hexahemeron, just as much as
4 Esd. 638-64, represents not a homogeneous tradition,
but a medley of notions derived from different sources,
Jewish and Oriental.
On ihe subject of this article consult Gunkel, SchSpf. 41-69 ;
Di.'s, Ru.'s, and Du.'s commentaries on Job; Che. 'The 15ook
of Job,' etc., Expositor, July, 1897, and 'The Text of Job,'
IQli, April 1897. See also Dragon, § 4/, Rahab, i. and cp
Hii'i'oi'OTAMUs, Crocodile. On the oscillation of mythic and
semi-mythic statements between the dragon and the crocodile
as the enemy of the Sun-god, cp Clermont-Ganneau, Horus et
Saint Georges (e.xtrait de ia rev. archtol.), 1877, pp. 8, 25.
T. K. C.
BEKAH, RV Beka (rf?!), Ex. 3826. See Weights
AND Mli.VSUKES.
BEL ('pg ; ei'^^AQ BhALoc]. '^^s). Ass. Hlu, like
7L'3 (Rial), is a simple appellative meaning 'lord'
quite as often as it is a proper name (see Phcenici.'\).
In the .Assyrio-Iiabylonian pantheon it is borne by two
deities (see B.\HYi.oNi.\, § 26), the younger of whom,
identified with Marduk (see Merooac}!), finds mention
in writings of the Babylonian and Persian periods (Is.
46 1 Jer. :.U2 \_--ra\ 51 44 (© omits)).i
The extent of the cultus of this god in later times
appears from the many proper names compounded
with Bel in Phoenician, and more especially in Palmyrene
inscriptions.^ lacob of Serug states that he was the
g6d of Edessa (ZDMG 29 131).
BEL AND THE DRAGON, See Daniel, ii. § 21,
and cp §§ 10, 19.
BELA (y?3, ' that which is swallowed up'?: cp Jer.
51 44; BaA&k [A/5L], -AAA [E in Gen. 142]), one of the
five royal cities in the vale of Siddim at the time of
the invasion of Chedorlao.mer [q.v., § 2), Gen. 14 2 8,
where the name receives the geographical explanation,
'that is Zoar.' In fact, in Gen. 19 20-23 we hear of a
small city near Sodom, the name of which was called
Zoar ('/.''.), to commemorate the escape of Lot from
the catastrophe of Sodom and the other ' cities of the
plain.' The writer of the explanation in Gen. 142 8
evidently means us to suppose that the original name
of Zoar was Bela. The author of Gen. 19 (J), however,
does not appear to have known this. In 13 10 the same
writer speaks of Zoar as bearing that name before the
catastrophe of Sodom, and a comparison of the phrase-
ology of 2030 makes it probable that the etymological
myth in 19 20-22 does not really presuppose a change
of name. It is probable that, had the name of Bela
been known in the comparatively early period when
Gen. 19 was written, an etymological myth would have
grown up to account for it — ' Therefore that region is
called Bela, because the ground opened her mouth and
swallowed it up' (cp Xu. I630).
Such a myth did, as a fact, spring up, but long afterwards,
and not as a fruit of the popular imagination. In the Targum
of Jonathan the phrase the king of Bela" (Gen. 14 2) is para-
phrased as ' the king of the city which consumed its inhabitants.'
The same interpretation was given by R. Meir and his con-
temporary Joshua b. Karcha (Bacher, Die Agad t der Tan-
naiten, 38), and is repeatedly given on the authority of ' the
Hebrews' by Jer. (Qucfst. in Gen. 14 2 19 30; Comin. in Jes.
15s); it has also naturally enough found a place in the Midrash
(Ber. rabba, par. 42). Hommel (/I //7" 195-198) boldly identifies
Bela with the ancient city of Malka, which he surmises to h.-ive
been in the trans-Jordanic region ; but his authurity for giving
1 The evidence of some proper names, however, may seem to
show that Bel was not unknown in Canaan at an earlier date
(see .\sniiEL, BiLUAU, Ebal, and cp, doubtfully, Balaam and
Reuben).
2 Whether the Palm. 713 is a bye-form of 7'3 = 73, as Hoffmann
supposes (Ausziigc aus d. Syr. Act. Pers. Mart., 1880, p. 21, n.
159), is uncertain.
523
BELA
this situation to Malku is a tablet which refers not to Malka but
to Melkart (Johns, Expos., Aug. 1898, p. j6o).
It is remarkable that no name is given to the king of
Bela. When we consider the (probable) corruptness
of other names in the passage, it is reasonable to
suppose that the name, being uncouth, early dropped
out of the text. To supply ' Bela," with Bishop
Hervey (Smith's Z?^-'), is unnatural. T. K. C.
BELA (r'pS). I. (BaAak [ADEL], -Ack [E in Gen.
3633]). The first Edomite king, son of Beor (or perhaps
Achbor ; see Baai.-Hanan [i]), of the city of Uinhabah
(Gen. 36 32/. =1 Ch. 1 43/ ). It is singular that a diviner
famous in legend was called ' Bil'am (Balaam) son of
Beor." With NiJldeke (L'nlersuch. 87) and Hommel
(AHT 153) we may venture to identify Bela' and Bil'an),
and all the more confidently if Bil'am belonged to a
region adjoining Edom (see Petiior). Obviously the
temptation which the name presented to an imaginative
narrator must have been irresistible. Targ. Jon. and
Targ. I Ch. 1 44 had already suggested the identifica-
tion. The list which contains the name Bela ben-Beer
is regarded by Sayce as a piece of an Edomite chronicle.
It comes before us, however, as a thoroughly Hebrew
document, and is correlated with the history of the b'ne
Israel (Gen. 3631-39 ; probably J E). Certainly it is no
sport of the idealistic imagination ; a true interest in the
fortunes of a kindred people prompted its preservation.
It may be incomplete, or it may have had some lacuntc
filled up ignorantly, not to speak of the undeniable
corruptions of the text. Let us lake the list as it stands,
and see what we can gather from it.
The list contains eight names (or rather seven, for
Baal-hanan has come in through a scribe's error).
Four kings have their fathers' names given ; ' six are
distinguished by the name of their city, and one is
described as of a certain region (Hu.sham). The names
both of the cities and of the persons (or apparent persons)
are not all correct. Dinhabah, Matkeu, and Me-
ZEHAB are corrupt, and the corruptions efface the im-
portant fact that Bela (whose city was not Dinhabah
but Rehoboth ; cp z/. 37) and Mehetabel came from the
N. Arabian land of Musri or Musur (see MiZRAi.M,
§ 2 i^). It will be noted that one of the names occurs
twice (in v. 39, ' Hadar ' is certainly a wrong reading) :
it is properly the name of a god — of the Aramaean god
Hadad. From this name, and from two other items —
' Bela the son of Beor ' and ' Saul of Rehoboth by the
river' — Bishop A. C. Hervey inferred (Smith's Z?5,(-*j.i'.
'Bela') that there had been an Aramaean conquest of
Edom. The references to Bela and Saul, however, are
not really in point (cp Balaam, § 3), and all that the
doubly attested Hadau, 3 [i. 2]— together with Bedad
— can be held to suggest is that Aramaean influence was
early felt as far south as Edom.
More important is the historical notice connected with
the name of Hadad, son of Bedad (see also Hush.\m).
It tells us of the early occupation of what afterwards
became the land of Moab by the Midianites, whom the
Edomites under Hadad defeated. We can understand
this notice in the light of Gideon's defeat of the same
plundering hordes, described in Judg. 7. To make the
two events contemporary, with Kautzsch in Riehm's
//lVB(-> (art. ' Midian '), seems needless and hazardous.
Oftr most interesting as well as most certain result,
however, is the antiquity of regal government among
the Edomites ; and, from the fact that there is no trace
of dynasties, and from the continual references to the
cities of the respective kings, we may probably infer,
with Winckler, that the kings were of the type of
Abimelech, or at the most of Saul, and that their rule,
except in time of war, was little felt save by their own
tribe. It is true that this will not apply to Saul of
Rehoboth of the River, for this place seems to have
^ Baal-hanan (<7.z'.) was perhaps really the father of
Hadad II. ; ben Acnbor is a variant to ben Beor which has
attached itself to the wrong name.
BELAH
been in Musri, not in Kdoni ; but we should observe the
variation in the phraseology of the account of Saul. It
is not Kiid that his city was Rchoboth, but that he was
' of Rchoboth. ' We may suppose tiiat he entered by
marriage into an Edomite family and then obtained a
tribal sovereignty. He was a Musrite (a native of the
N. .Arabian .\Iusri). The name of the last king (Hadar,
or rather Hadad) is unaccompanietl by the historical
notice which we should have e.xpected ; it is, however,
followed exceptionally by the name of his wife, of whom
we are told that she was a daughter of Matkkd, and a
daughter of Mi:-zahab. The former name is a corrup-
tion of Mizran (.Vlisran), the latter of Mizrim (Misrim).
Misrim was really a correction of Misran. Mehetaljel,
as well as fJela and Saul, was a Misrite. This is a fact
with important historical bearings (see Hadad, i. 2).
T. K. c.
2. In Renealogy of I'.injamin [S 9 (i.)] (BaA« [R.-M.]); Gen.
4ti2i (RV Hki.am, (SaAa [Ar)L])= Nu. 2(> 38 40 ; cp i Ch. 7 6
^oAai IL ; r.A omit] 7 (/3aAae [L), ;3aAe [A], /3aAe« [1!] ; in 7'. 6
a/3«tpa in 15 takes the pl;u;e of lielu and 15echkk [i/.t.]) and 8 i
(^eAeAojA [i!]), and the gentilic Belaite or rather Balite CvV?),
Nu. 2t; 38 (/3aAe[e]i [15ArL|).
■?. b. Az;iz, in genealogy of Reuben (^oAck [I!], -Ae [.\], -Aaa
[LD, iCli. :,s.
BELAH (r?2). Gen. 4621 AV, RV Bhi.a, ii. 2.
BELEMUS ( Bh AeMOC [BA]), i Esd. 2 16 = Ezra 4 7
Bl.siil.AM {i/.z:).
BELIAL. This is an imperfect reproduction of the
Heb. /I?v3 (18 times in historical books, once in Job,
thrice in Proverbs, thrice in Psalms, twice in the psalm-
like passage prefixed to Nahum (ln-15 [2i], see RV]).
On 2 Cor. G15, see below (§1).
It is generally taken to mean ' worthlessness,' whether
1 Usaee and "^"'"•'^' "'' m^^t'^fial, so that the familiar
'tradLon. I'''"-^*^; ' ^r ^'''' T"* f ,^''''''' u."""';'
moan ' good-for-nothmg fellows ; RV"^-
gives ' base fellows. '
So BDB, from '73, 'not,' and *?>"*, 'profit' (?) ; so, too,
RVmj;. in 2.S. 23 6 and elsewhere. Tliis rendering, however, is
not supported by the earliest tradition ; for © renders ' lielial '
by a»'Ofi7)jio, OTO/xia, aTro<7Ta(Tia (.Aq. also gives aTrocTTacria),
and the qualification ' of 15eli.il ' by acre^^s, a<l>puiv, Aot^os,
TTopai'o/u.os, with or without ai/ija as the case may be. We
find also viol napav6fiu}i/ (often), and (Symm.) ai-UTroTa/cTOi,
on;»rdaTaToi. These renderings may imply the etymology '^3
Viy, al'sijueju^oQcr.), and this etymology, though impossible,
is yet more in harmony with biblical usage. Tg. gives K'Dl'^Ci
' oppressors.
Another tradition, however, favours the use of Belial
asa prop>er name. So in ©^ Jud. 20 13 {j3f\ia/j.), Theod. ,
Judg. 1922, and occasionally in Vg. ; so, too, in the
English versions including even RV (on RV'"8-, see
above). This came about in the following way. How-
ever we account for it, it is a historical fact that in the
interval between the OT and the NT Belial (sometimes in
the forms Beliar or Berial) was used as a synonym for
the arch-demon Satan ; it is so used in 2 C^or. 6 15, where
Paul asks. What harmony is there Ijetween Christ
(parallel to ' light ') and Beliar (parallel to ' darkness ') ?
[/ieXtap (BXC) ; cp Jer. 's explanation, cacum lumen,
as if niK -^-2, in OSS-) 764]. lieliar stands for Satan
also in Test. xii. Patr. (often ; e.g. Test. Rub. 2, 4, 6),
the Asc. Isa. (Berial), and Jubilees (ch. 15, ed. Charles).
In the Sib. Oracles (iii. 63^. iv. 137^) Nero, under
the name of Beliar, is to lead the armies of Antichrist ^
(see Antichrist, § 15) ; and, according to Bousset, the
phrase 6 dfOpuvoi rijs dvofiia^ {ib. § 4) in 2Thess. 23
(BX, Tisch. , Treg. , WH ; aixaprias for di^ouias has
also good authority) may be a translation of Belial.
\v. H. B.
Both for the sake of exegesis and on account of the
importance of Jewish semi - mythological modes of
2. Meanings *^°"Sht. it is needful to be clear as to
of word *^^ course of development of the mean-
ings of Belial, and to form a probable con-
1 Cp Deane, Psevdcpigr. 22, 168, 249, and Bousset, Der
Antichrist.
5=5
BELIAL
I jecture as to the origin, or at least the nature, of the
word. G. F. Moore (on Judg. 19 22) gives a better
rendering of Sy''?3 'J3 than most conmienlators, viz. ,
'vile scoundrels' ; this recognises the fact that '3 sug-
gests not merely worthlessness or ordinary viciousness,
but gross wickedness. He also describes the different
etymologies of lielial as extremely dubious, and cannot
find in the Hebrew language any analogy for the word.
In fact the seemingly compound word ,"id"'?3 (Job 2(J7) is
imaginary; it is a corruption of o"'?3n, 'utter vanity."
But Moore passes over Lagarde's acute suggestion (in
Proph. dial J., p. 47, cp Uebers. 139), that '?i"'73 13T
in Ps. 418[9] (cp /. 2) suggests an etymology (a popular
one?) from rhv" ''?3, 'no rising up.' In Expos. ('95*
435-439) the present writer sought to show that Belial
('?;"'?3) is found in the OT in three sen.ses : (i) the sub-
terranean watery abyss, (2) hopeless ruin, (3) great or
even extreme wickedness. The third meaning is com-
mon ; the first and second are rare, and found only in
late passages (see Ps. I84 [5] = 2 S. 225, I's. 418[9J 101 3
[383 '7y'73, so read, = deeds of destruction] Nah. In 15
[2i]), but should, if naturalness of development is to
count for anything, be more nearly original than the
third. It is only in Ps. I84 [5] that Belial is used to
denote the abyss, ^ and it may Ix; objected to the view
that this is the primary meaning that in Asc. Jes. 4 2,
Berial, like Sammael in Tg, appears as an angel of
the firmament (cp I'2ph. 22). However, as Bousset has
shown,- the eschatological tradition of Antichrist
\_q-v., § 13/], one of whose names is Belial, is derived
ultimately from the old IJabylonian dragon-myth, and
we know that the mythic dragon has lor his pro[)er
sphere the sea, though in some mythic developments
he appears as a temporary inhabitant of heaven, from
which at last he and his angels are cast out (Rev. 12 7-9).
It is, therefore, in perfect harmony with the old myth
to suppose that Belial may have been originally an angel
of the abyss, not of the firmament.
We now come to the origin of the word. Beliyya'al
seems to be a Hebrew modification of some earlier word,
planned so as to suggest a po[)ular etymo-
logy, rhT ''?3, ' (from which) one comes not
up again ' (cp mat Id tdraf, the Ass. equivalent of a
Sumerian title of the underworld meaning ' the land
without return," Jensen, Kusiiiol. 218, 222). This
earlier word was most probably borrowed from the
Babylonian mythology of the underworld. The original
word, which was Hebraised just asab/ifitt, 'deluge,' was
Hebraised (see Dici.UGE, § 7), may very possibly have
been Belili,"* which is the name of a goddess of vegeta-
tion, and hence of the underworld, the sister of Du'uzu
or Tammuz, from whom she differs in being unable to
ascend again to earth (see Descent of Isiar, /. 51 in
Jeremias, Bab. -ass. Vorstell. 23 ; and cp Jensen, Kosiiiul.
225, 272, 275). There may have been a middle form
between Belili (which appears to be Sumerian — i.e.,
non-Semitic) and Ik-liyya'al which has been lost ; cp
Nkphii.i.vi, § 2. The Canaaniles and Israelites prob-
ably took the name (which three times [i .^.2025 2 S.
16 7 I K. 21 13] has the article) as a synonym for the
abyss of Sheol. Afterwards it seems to have become
a symbol of insatiable and malignant destructiveness
(cp niin). and hence the phrase "sons (son, daughter)
of Belial'; but the older meaning was not forgotten,
as we see from Ps. 184[5]. The objection of Bau-
dissin (Herzog,'') s.v. 'Belial"), that 'streams of
the under-world" (Ps. I.e.) would be a unique phrase,
is of no moment, for the whole context is in some
important respects unique. It is not a flood from
the sky that overwhelms the speaker ; it is a flood
from below — i.e., the 'waters of death,' which are
1 In" 7/. 4 [sly: TWO, '7i"':»3. Vixr. and nia are parallel, pio
is the world of the dead (or its rulerX as 49 15 [16] ; 7y'^3 and
SiXC should have the same meaning.
'■i Op. cit. 60/., 86/, Q9-IOI.
8 Che. iij-/. Times, S423/ ['97].
526
3. Origin.
BELLOWS
a primitive element in Babylonian mythology (see
Cainitf.s, §6).
Hoinniel, while accepting this identification, proposes
a modification of the theory. He thinks that the Assyrio-
Babylonian phrase quoted above was simply translated
^y'?3 by the Canaanites, from whom the name was
borrowed again by the Babylonians as Belili [E.xp.
Times, 8 472). This is plausible ; but we should like
to know how far this theory would lead us.
In Exp. Tiinrs, 'ia,off., Haudissin returns to the subject. He
still maintains the derivation of Beliyyd al from -'^■^ s.x\A^^-*,
and thinks that some of the occurrences of the word may
possibly be due to editorial manipulation, and that the word
(explained as ' worthlessness ' = ' wickedness ') does not look very
ancient. He also quotes a communication of Jensen, which
Cheyne in his answer regards as favourable rather than other-
wise to the new theory, though Jensen himself expresses his
agreement with Haudissin. See Exp. Times, ix., x., and also
Che. P>a/ms,^') on Ps. 1S4[5] (popular etymology from j;S3,
'to swallow up.' y, however, is intrusive, cp Kcjnig, Lehtgeb.
ii. I402). § I, \V. II. B. ; § 2/, T. K. C.
BELLOWS (nS*?, properly ' instrument for blow-
ing' ; (JjYCHTHp). mentioned only in EVof Jer. 629^
in connection with lead-smelting ; see Metal.s, § 2.
In Egypt bellows were used as early as the time of Thotmes
III. A leather bag was fitted into a frame from which extended
a long pipe to the fire. Two bags were used, upon each of which
the operator pl.-iccd a foot, pressing them alternately, while he
pulled up each exhausted skin with a string that he held in his
hand (Wilk. Anc. Kg. 23127:). In one illustration Wilkinson
notes that when the man left the bellows they were raised as if
full of air, thus implying a knowledge of the valve. The earliest
forerunner of the bellows seems to have been a mere reed or
pipe, which was used by smiths in the age of Usertesen (i 234,
illustration 413, fig. 3).
Whether hand-bellows were used by the Hebrews for
domestic purposes is c|uite unknown ; for a description
of a primitive kind still used in Egypt see Wilkinson
(ii- 313)-
BELLS, in the modern sense of the word, though
used as ornaments at the present day in Syria, do not
seem to ha\e been known to the ancient Hebrews.
The words so rendered require examination.
I- Ii::i'3. p(i'ii>>iBn (\/ = to strike), used of the golden orna-
ments which, .alternately with Pomegranates [,7.7'.], were worn
upon the lower part of the Ephod (Ex.i;S33_/: 'i'.^^s/., KiaSiaveq;
cp also in the Heb. of Ecclus. 457a and gn, and see Cowley and
Neubauer tid loc). Their purpose is related in Ex. 28 35.
2. niS-S, 7ite}illdth(c-p c'PlSsD, 'cymbals'), upon which were
inscribed the words, 'Holy unto Yahwe,' were worn by the
horses in Zechariah's prophecy (Zech. 14 20, AV'mgr. ' bridles ' ;
so *!3 xaXi.v6% and \g./ri.nuin).
In both cases small discs or plates are meant, the
mSso being posSibly similar to the C'Jhnb; or crescents
(see Ni-:CKLACF.) of Tudg. 826.
BELMEN (RV Belmaim) is mentioned, in connection
Mith the defensive measures of the Jews against Holo-
fernes, in Judith 4 4t. The readings are BeAMAiN [A],
BaiA. [B]. &BeA. [vS]; Syr. JJa^^^^^/ (Abel-
meholah) ; Vet. Lat. Abelmam. Belmen would thus
appear to be the same as the Belmain [EV] (BeABMM
[BA], ABeA.[X]. Syr. ilcuOD'^a^^ Vg. Dehna, Vet.
Lat. Ahelme) of Judith 7 3. which, obviously, is re-
garded as lying near Dothan, and therefore cannot be
the Abel-maim of aCh. I64, nor perhaps the Baal-
Hamon of Ct. 811. The place meant is probably
Ibleam (modern Btr Bel'ameh), a town of strategical
importance. In Judith 8 3 this place is probably in-
tended by Bai.amo, RV Balamon (/3a\a/xa)v [BXAj,
Syr. < o>»n\x^> KiaA), and if we might assume that the
translator had a correct text and understood it rightly,
we should be justified in restoring ^aXa/noju for fieX/xaiv
in 44. Certainly none of the readings in 44 can be
accepted as reproducing the original name. T. K. C.
BELSHAZZAR, or as, following the Greek form, he
1 ©, however, not inaptly, finds a reference to the ' bellows of
the smith" in Job. 32 19, where D'Vin nUK, 'new bottles,' is
rendered (j). xoAict'uis (reading D'w'^^).
BELSHAZZAR
is called in Baruch In/!, Balthasar, R V Baltasar
(■l-VSK'^3, or, less correctly, "1-V'4'J<^3 : BaAtacar
i@87Thcod.j_ which is also used as the equivalent of
")-V^?^'Pr5" Belteshazzar,' see Daniel ii. §§213), was,
according to the Book of Daniel, a son and successor
of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon. The length of
the reign of Belshazzar is not given ; but we read
in Dan. 8 1 of ' the third year ' of his reign. In Dan.
530/ [31/] it is stated that he was slain, and that on
his death the empire passed into the hands of Darius
the Mede. All references to Belshazzar in other authors,
including that in the apocryphal Book of Baruch (In/),
appear to have been suggested Vjy the passages in
Daniel ; and, since it is now recognised that the Book
of Daniel was composed in the second century B.C.,
the narrative is open to question.
Till quite lately it was the fashion to follow Jos. (.-i;//.
X. 11 2) in identifying the Belshazzar of Daniel with the
last Babylonian king, Na/3odj'5r?Xos, whom Jos. else-
where calls ^al36i'i>r]dos (in a citation from Berossus ;
see c. Ap. I20) ; in Herod. 177:88 this king appears as
\a.§vv<i)To<i, and in Abydenus (quoted by Eus. Pr. Ev.
941) as Na/ia»'fi5oxos. Against the identification of
Belshazzar with Nabonnedus it was urged that the
latter, according to Berossus, was not even a relation
of Nebuchadrezzar, but ' a certain Bab}lonian ' who
usurped the throne in consequence of a revolution ; nor
was Nabonnedus slain, like the Belshazzar of Daniel,
on the overthrow of the Babylonian empire, but is stated
to have been sent to the province of Carmania (the
modern Kirman). These objections were so serious
that a few writers, in their anxiety to defend the narra-
tive of Daniel, identified Belshazzar with Evil-merodach
(2 K. 2527).
The discovery of the Babylonian inscriptions has re-
futed both of the above-mentioned theories, and has at
the same time confirmed the opinion that the narrative
in Daniel is unhistorical. An unhistorical narrative, how-
ever, is not necessarily a pure fiction, and in this case it
appears probable that the author of Daniel made use of a
traditional storj'. It is now known that Nabonnedus,
the Nabu-naid of the inscriptions, who reigned from 555
to 538 B.C., had a son called Bel-sar-u.sur [i.e., ' Bel,
preserve thou the king'), a name of which Belshazzar is
evidently a corruption. In a celebrated inscription
Nabu-na'id offers up a prayer in behalf of ' Bel-sar-usur,
the exalted (or, my first-born) son, the sprout of my
body (///. heart)': see Schr. COT 2131, and also A'B
Si 96/ Moreover, in certain contract-tablets, dating
from the first, third, fifth, seventh, eleventh, and twelfth
years of Nabu-na'id, Bel-sar-usur, the son of the king, is
expressly named. Several other tablets of the same reign
speak of a ' son of the king ' ; but whether in all these
cases Bel-sar-u.sur is meant cannot be determined, since
Nabu-na'id appears to have had at least one other son."-^
It is, however, generally believed that Bel-sar-usur must
be identical with the prince mentioned in an inscription
of Cyrus, which informs us that in the seventh, ninth,
tenth, and eleventh jears of the reign of Nabu-naid,
' the son of the king ' was at the head of the army in
Akkad — i.e., Northern Babylonia. Unfortunately, this
very important inscription is mutilated, so that we learn
nothing of the years twelve to fifteen of Nabii-na'id, and
in the account of the sixteenth year only a few words
are legible. Of the se\enteenth and last year of
Nabu-na'id there is a long account ; but it would seem
very doubtful whether ' the son of the king ' is mentioned
1 IPapraa-ap ©Th. (Aa?mg.) in Dan. 1 7 and in (P* Dan. 226
456 16 thrice 5 i 8 i.]
2 Darius Hvstaspis tells us in one of his inscriiptions (Spiegel,
Alipers. Kci'linschr.i'^) \o f. ['81]) that early in his reign a
rebellion was raised at Babylon by an impostor who professed
to be ' Nabukudra9ara, son of Nabunita' — i.e., Nebuchadrezzar,
son of Nabfi-na'id. This proves, at least, that at the time in
question Nabu-na'id was believed to have had a son named
Nebuchadrezzar. See Che., Jew. Rel. Life, Lect. i.
.528
BELT
again.* In any case, it is implied that Nabfl-nS'id, not
BCl-s;ir-usur, was at this time commander of the army
in Akkad (see yVSVA/ 7 i39-'76. A'Z; 3 /> 128-137. and
O. E. Hagen, ' Keilschrifturkunden zur Gesch. des
Kbnigs Cyrus ' in the /^^^//r.j^fc s//r /^jjyr. [e<l. Delitzsch
and HauptJ '2214-225 ['94]). We |x)ssess, moreover,
another inscription of Cyrus, describing the con()uest
of Babylonia at considerable length and expressly men-
tioning King Nabuna'id, but without any reference to
a 'son of the king' (see JKAS, new series, 1270-97,
A'^ 3 /i 120-127, and lieilrdge sur y^w/. 2 208-215).
Hence there is nothing to prove that liC-l-sar-usur
played any important i)art at the close of his father's
reign, and it is even possible that he may have died
some years earlier.
Thus it will be seen that, apart from the similarity
of name, the historical prince Bel-sar-usur bears but a
very slight resemblance to the Belshazz.ar of Daniel.
The one is the son of the usurper Nabuna'id ; the other
is the son of Nebuchadrezzar. The one is, at the most,
heir to the throne ; the other is actually king, for docu-
ments are datefi from the year of his accession (Dan. 7 i
81). Moreover, if the ordinary rendering of Dan. 5 7
1629 be correct, Ifelshazzar is represented as sole king,
for a man who can of his own authority make any one
he pleases ' third ruler in the kingdom ' must clearly be
supreme in the state. Since, however, the word trans
lated ' third ruler ' occurs now here else, and is of very
doubtful meaning, it would be unsafe to press this
argument.
In order to prove that Bel-5ar-usur reigned conjointly with his
father, it has sometimes been asserted that king Mardnk-iar-
usur, who is mentioned on certain Babylonian tablets, must be
identical with Hel-5ar-usur ; but Assyriologists now admit that
king Marduk-5ar-usur reigned be/ore Nabuna'id, and identify
him with Nergal-5ar-usur (559-555 B.C. : see 7'SBA ti 108, and
Tide's B.IO 476 n. [i886-88]). It has likewise been urged
that, though Bcl-5ar-usur was not a son of Nebuchadrezzar, he
may have been a grandson of Nebuch.'idrezzar through his
mother ; but the theory that Nabuna'id married a daughter of
Nebuchadrezzar rests upon no evidence whatever.
It remains, therefore, altogether uncertain how the
story in Daniel really originated ; but, besides the
similarity of the names Belshazzar and Bel-sar-usur,
there is at least one reason for thinking that King Bel-
shazzar was not invented by the author. Herodotus,
as has been mentioned, calls the last Babylonian king
Labynetus, representing him as the son of an earlier
Labynetus, the famous Nebuchadrezzar. Further, in
a Chaldaian legend related by Abydenus, the last king
of liibylon seems to have figured as a son of Nebuchad-
rezzar (see Schr. ' Die Sage vom W'ahnsinn Nebuchad-
nezar's," in the /PT, i88i, pp. 618-629). The date
of the historian Abydenus is indeed doubtful ; but he
can hardly have borrowed either directly or indirectly
from the Book of Daniel, so that the agreement of these
three accounts in wrongly describing the last Babylonian
king as a son of Nebuchadrezzar must be due to their
having followed some popular tradition. See also AsH-
I'K.SAZ, SHAKKZER. a. A. B.
BELT (n'TO) Jobl22it RV. AV 'strength.' See
GlKDI.E, 3.
BELTESHAZZAR (l-'iNti'^^a). See Daniel, ii.
§ 13.
BELTIS (Is. 10 4 corr. te.xt). See Gebal.
BEN (|5. S f>-\)> ^ Levite, enumerated between Zecha-
riah and Jaaziel (i Ch. ISiSf). 0'- renders ' Zax- vidi
leiT^X"; but ©"ka^ ^o doubt rightly, omits. The name
is wanting in the parallel list in i Ch. 152o. Cp
Jaazif.i,.
1 ITie passage which Schrader in 1800 translated ' the wife of
the king had died' is supposed by Pincbcs to mean ' tlie son of
the king died' (see Smith's £>B(-), 1893, article ' Belshazjar '),
while Hagen renders 'he [i.e., GulxxruJ slew the .son of the
king ' (he is careful, however, to indicate that the word ' son ' is
doubtful). It is therefore obvious that no argument can be built
upon the clause in question.
34
529
BENE-BERAK
BEN-ABINADAB (3nr3J<-19. ' «>" of Abinadab,
so .\\), the nami- of one of Solomon's prefects, 1 K.
4 II kV AV'i:- (yioy aBinaAaB[A], xinanaA. [L];
0" is corrupt, btit perhajjs xeiN ANAAan represents the
name [Swete reads— )(e|^g ana AanJi ; see .Soi.o.mon.
Klostermann, however, suggests nyax. 'Abiner'; i and
n are easily confounded, and the final 2 in au'SK niay Ije
really the pre|x)sition ('in') prefixed to 'all Naphath-
dor," or 'all the height of Dor' (I'A'), words which
define the extent of the prefecture.
BENAIAH (-in^J-l in Nos. i /. 4/ 11, and n;33 in
Nos. 1-3. 6-1 I ; ' Yah hath built up,' § 31 [see Bani] ;
BanaiaLc] Ll^AL], Bangac. BeNiAC L*<* '" i <-'i-
16 s]).
I. (i.t:3 ; but in 2 .S. 20 23 1 Ch. 11 22 n'ls) b. Jehoiada.
a ' valiant man ' (see Isn-ii.\i, the son OK), only second,
on Davids roll of honour, to 'the three." He was a
Judahite of Kabzeel, and commanded the so-called
Chekktihtks and Pelktiiites (2 S. 818 jSapai \i].
^avayaias [A], 2O23 1 Ch. I817), and David set him
over his bodyguard (nyccD 2 S. 2823). He gave valu-
able support to Solomon against AdoNIJAH (i), and
after executing the sentence of death on Joab, was
appointed to the vacant post of general ( 1 K. 1 32-38
234 [om. 6"] 35 ^avaiov [BA] 44 [om. ©"]).i Three
(or at any rate two) special exploits were assigned to
him in popular tradition (2 S. 2;32o/. = i Ch. 11 22/
[Kavaia B'']). On the first two see Akiee, i ; a correction
of the text is indispensable. The other feat consisted
in his slaying a ' Misrite ' (2 S. 23 21) — i.e., a man of
Musr or Musri (see Mizkaim, § 2). This hero is twice
mentioned in a list of no value in i Ch. 27 (5/ 34). I-.ach
time there is an inaccuracy. In ?■. 5 (1<\') Benaiah's
father is described (by an obvious confusion of names)
as ' the priest ' ; in v. 34 ' Jehoiada son of Benaiah '
takes the place of ' Benaiah son of Jehoiada.' Cp
Jehoiada, 2, and see David, § 11 (c) i.
2. One of David's thirty, a Pirathonite ; 2 S."233o (i,t:3 ; 0
corruptly tov E<f>paBaLov [B], om. AL); i Ch. II31 27 14 (,TJ3).
See PiRATHON.
3. A Simeonite chief (1 Ch. 436 [om. ®B]).
4. A Levite singer of the .second grade, one of those who
played with psalteries set to Ala.moth (y.v.), 1 Ch. IJ182024
OamifBNAI-Dl.-.s.
5. An overseer in the temple in the time of Hezekiah (2 Ch.
31 > 3)-
6. An ancestor of Jahaziel [^] ; 2 Ch. 2O14 (om. ®b).
7-10. In list of those with foreign wives (see EzR.\, i. § 5 end),
viz. — 7. One of the b'ne Parosh (17.?'.), Ezral025 (/uoi-aia [«]) =
I Ksd.926, Baanias, RV Bannkas (fiawaiai [BA]). 8. One
of the b'ne Pahath-Moab (f.v.), Ezral03o; in || i Esd. V'31
perhaps Naidus (vai&oi [B], vaei. [.\], Pavatav, and ^laSaai
[L]). 9. One of the b'ne Bani, Ezra 10 35, in II i Esd.934
MabdaI, RV Mamdai QiatuSau [B], fiavSai [A], Pavaia [L]).
10. One of the b'ne Nebo (^.7'., iv.) (fiavai [L]), Ezral043
= 1 Esd.935 BANAlAsOSai-ai [L]).
II. P'ather of Pelatiah (,f.z>., 4), Ez. 11 1 (i.Tja), v. 13 (,TJ3,
6 ToO pa^awv).
BENAMMI (^pril). Gen. 19 38. See Ammon. § 1.
BENCH (wH"'), Kz. 27 6t AV. See Ship.
BEN-DEKAR, RV Ben-deker (If^V;.'^) ; one of
Solomons prefects, in charge of NW. Judah(i K. 49,
YIOC PHXAC [H], . . . -xa8[I-]. Y- Aakap [AJI. The
name is improbable ; nor is (5''s Ben-Rechab any more
probable. It is reasonable to hold that, as in other
cases, the father of this prefect was an influential officer
of the crown. The prefect's real name has certainly
dropped* out. Klostermann suggests that we may re-
store thus: 'Klihoreph, son of .Shisha the secretary"
(v. 3). Ben-dekar is not impossibly a corruption of
BenelK>rak [1/. v. ]. The locality suits.
BENE-BERAK (pn?"":?), a Danite city, the
modern Ibn Ihrdk, about an hour SI-',, from Joppa
(Josh. 1545: BanaiBakat [B], BanhBarak [AL] :
t In the list given at the end of chap. ii. by ©"t- he is described
as «iri Ttfi a.vXa.(t\i<K «tai «7ri tov -nKivBtiov , i.e., f3; 2^ of 3 S.
1231, for which, however, ®i- has fiaic^/So.
530
BENE JAAKAN
bane et harach [Vg.] ; . ^y^Xs')- It appears in Ass.
(upon an inscription of Sennacherib) as banaibarka (cp
KA 7<-' 172). Jerome mentions a village liareca, which
was situated near yVzotus. The name (properly a clan
name) may be paraphrased, 'Sons of the storm-god '-^
Rammiin or Rimmon ' (who was sometimes called
Rannuan-birku ; see Barak), and is thus of interest as
a survival of the old Canaanitish religion.
BENE JAAKAN (ji?!;! *J3), Nu..333i/.t See
Bkkkuth ok tmk Ciiii.drkn of Jaakan.
K.4.3 AV'"K- RV, AV
1. Name.
BEN-GEBER (^nri|:).
Gkhi;k, i.
BEN-HADAD (TtH \^. §§ 43, 48 ; yioc AAep [BAL]
Y. AAep [A] in 2 K. 1824: aAaA [A] in 2K. I325;
jjj,;^), or rather Bir-'idri ; (5 is at least a witness
to the letter R at the end of the name.
The divine name Bir was confounded by a
Hebrew scribe with the Aramaic bar, ' son,' and trans-
lated into Hebrew as Ben (=(5 vlbs), and DR was
miswritten UD ; hence arose the wrong form Ben-hadad.
The name in Assyrian is (ilu) IM-'idri, where the
ideograph IM is most naturally read Ramman (the
.Assyrian thunder-god ; cp En-RIMMON), but may of
course be read (and probably was read also) Bir or Bur
(cp the name Bir-dadda, and see Bf.dau). The mean-
ing is 'Bir is my glory." See Wi. ATUnters. 68^,
who controverts Schr. and Del. ; but cp Schr. A'A T^^
200, Del. Ctihver Bib. Lex.<!~) 97, and Hilprecht, As-
syriaca, 76-78.
The name Ben-hadad is used as a general name for
the kings of Damascus in Jer. -19 27 ; but as this passage
_ . , , _ occurs in a very late oracle, made up
■ of borrowed phrases, the use is of no
historical significance. In fact, Amos, from whom the
author of Jer. I.e. borrows the phrase ' the palaces of
Benhadad,' means most probably by Benhadad (Am.
1 4) the first king of Damascus who bore that name : he
sjieaks, in the parallel line, of 'the house of Hazael.'
Hazael was certainly a historical person : he was the
successor of Benhadad I. (others say Benhadad H.).
Consequently, Benhadad — in Amos's phrase 'the palaces
of Benhadad ' — cannot be a merely typical name, as in
the imitative passage, Jer. 4927. There are two (some,
however, say three) Benhadads in the Books of Kings,
just as there are (really) two Hazaels (see H.\zael).
I. Bkn-hadad I., son of Tab-rimmon, was the ally
of .^s.'V \_q.v. , i], king of Judah, against Baasha, king of
Israel (i K. If)i8^). He was an energetic king, and
constantly involved in warfare, not only with Ahab of
Israel, whom he appears to have besieged in Samaria
(2 K. 6/ ), but also with Shalmaneser II. of Assyria.
In 854, at the head of a Syro- Palestinian league which
included Israel, he opposed Shalmaneser, not without
success. For, though Shalmaneser claims to have been
victorious at Karkar (near Hamath), he certainly had
to return to .\ssyria to prepare for a more decisive
campaign. Again in 849 and in 848 Shalmaneser,
though nominally victorious, had to return. Convinced
that lie had no ordinary oppxjnent, the Assyrian king
entered on his next campaign with a much larger force
than before. Bir-"idri, however, had taken his pre-
cautions, and again it was only an indecisive victory that
was gained by Shalmaneser. On the relations between
Benhadad and Ahab, in which there was apparently a
change for the advantage of Israel, see Aii.\B, % ^ff.
Benhadad is sometimes referred to, not by name, but
as 'the king of Syria' ; see i K. '22 2 K. .5 68^
Some unnecessary trouble has been produced ( i ) by the
supposition that the period between 'Benhadads'
assistance to .\sa and ' Benhadad's ' death (which
1 Pesh. seems to point to the reading pna-Syai ' the lightning
Baal.'
* Cp the obscure name Boanerges.
531
BEN-HESED
occurred between 846 and 842) was too long to be
assigned to a single king of Damascus, and (2) by the
reading of the name of the opponent of .Shalmaneser II.
as Dad-'idri, which, again, is supposed to be equivalent
to Hadad-ezer. On the first point it is enough to
remark (after Wi. )that Tab-rimmon may (Rezon and
Hezion not being identical) have been for a long time a
contemporary of Baasha and Asa, so that only about
forty ye.ars may have elapsed between Benhadad's war
with Baasha and his death. On the second point, it
may be doubted whether the reading Dad-'idri is
tenable;' the equation IM = Ramman (or Bir) appears
to have been made out (see alwve) ; and even were it
otherwise, it could hardly be held that ' idri is ' the
Aramaic form oi ezer' in niimn (Sayce, Crit. and Man.
316), for an y would have made the alteration of 'idri
into nn,T impossible. 'Jdru {'idiru), whence 'idri
('my . . .'), seems in fact to be derived from 'adaru,
' to be wide, grand ' (mx ; cp Heb. m,i). On the narra-
tive of the death of Benhadad (2 K. 87-15), see Hazaei,.
2. Benhadad II. By this king is here me;int, not
the contemporary of Ahab (often wrongly so designated),
_ I, J J TT but the son of Hazael (possibly the
3. uennaoaoil. grandson of Benhadad I.). The op-
'P ••\~ pression of Israel, begun by Hazael,
'■ was continued by this lien-hadad
(2K. 133). But was his name really Ben-hadad?
Ramman-nirari III. (see Assyria, § 32) mentions a
king of Damascus named Mari', whom he besieged in
his capital, and compelled to pay tribute. This event
must have occurred between 806 or 805 and 803.
Now Benhadad II. is represented as a contemporary
of Jehoahaz, son of Jehu, who probably reigned
(see Chronology, § 34) from 814-798. It is ditti-
cult to suppose that another king named Mari' came
between Hazael and Benhadad. More probably Mari',
and not Benhadad, is the right name of the son of
Hazael. This king may have sought to compensate
himself for the blow inflicted by Assyria, by exercising
tyranny over Israel. (For a different view of the l^n-
hadads see Damascus, § 7.) T. K. c.
BEN-HAIL (7^n"|.'3, 'son [man] of might"), one of
Jehoshaphat's commissioners for teaching the Law (2 Ch.
177). The name, however, is suspicious. Beriheau
quotes Ben-hesed ('son of lovingkindness '), i K. 4io
(MT) ; but the reading there is doubtful (see Bkn-
HESED, § 3). ©BAL and Pesh. read ".^^ for "|3 (toii
viovsTuiv dvvarQv ; but ©'- adds t6v vidv aiK) ; cpGray,
HPN 65 n. 2. If the story of Jehoshaphat's commis-
sion is only ' ideal,' we may surmise that the name Ben-
hail is equally unhistorical.
BEN-HANAN (pn"j3 — i.e. 'son of a gracious one'
— a patronymic ; yiOC 4)&NA [B]. Y- ANAN [A], -nn,
[L]), a son of Shimon [q.v-), a Judahite (i Ch. 420).
BEN-HESED (lDn"\3, 'son of kindness* ; an im-
possible name, see below), the third in the list of
Solomon's prefects (i K.4io, AV 'son of Hesed';
YIOC eccoe [B], . . . ecA [A], aa&xci Y'OC exwLBHp]
[L])-
His prefecture included, at any rate, Socoh ; but
which of the different Socohs ? If we look at the sphere
•Pw»f f f '^'^ ^"^^ prefect whose name precedes his
ueoron / ^^^ ^^^^ southern Socohs mentioned in
Joshua, either that in the mountains near Hebron, or
that in the Shi5phelah, SW. of Jerusalem. If, on the
other hand, we consider the sphere of the two prefects
whose names follow his, a northern Socoh, which is
possibly referred to in early Egj'ptian name-lists (see
I.Del. (Caki<er Bih. /.f.r.<^) 97) conjectures, as the original
form of the name of Henh.idad II., Bin-Addu-'idri, which he
interprets ' the son of .^ddu ( = Ramman) . . .' Pinches h.is, in
fact, found the names Hin (?) -Addu-natan and Bin(?) -Addu-
amar, which occur on tablets of King Nabuna'id. See, however,
Wi. A TUntcrs. 69, n. i.
533
k
BEN-HESED
SocoH, a), will be more suitable. The decision must
Ik.' in favour of one of the two southern places of the
name, ln-causc otherwise the land of Judah will have
h.id no ijri'fi'ct. Which of the two southern Socohs,
then, is theri^ht one? I'rolwhly that in the rich corn-
growing country of the ShC|)hil.ih, lx?cause the prefects
had to supply provisions for the court. ' The whole
Lind of Hcphcr ' also fell to his lot. There are traces
of this name in the N. (Hephkr, i. 2 ; cp Gathhepher,
Hapharaini). Hut if this i)refect is the only southern
one, we must cxjiect the land of Hcphcr to be some
large district (this, indeed, is implied by • the whole
land'). In i Ch. 4i8 we hear of a Hebcr (lan) who
was the father of Socoh. Plainly this Heber is closely
connectcxl with Hebron (as the licros eponymus). 3 and
B are easily confouiuletl from a phonetic cause : we
should, therefore, proUibly re;\d lan {"^K'^JS. ' the whole
land of llelKT," or, better, 'of Hebron" (I'lian).
2. His place of residcnc-e is in MT called Arubboth.
AimIj in Josli. 1552 (see Klo.)does not help us. ©*
2 Residence "'^''^'^^ '^"^ ^^^ ''"°' ^^ reading nmy
at Mareahah 7 ^^ "^=^- -^"^^l^g""^ phenomena else-
where suggest that nia should be n'a,
and that it h.is bc-en misplaced. nNn'a (cp ^atup
in I'. 8 [I!L], i)orhaps for ' Heth-horon ' ) could, of
course, l)e only a nuitilated form of a name. To read
• Hcthlehem ' would \>c nuich too Ixjld, and Rietogabra
(moil. />'(■/ Jihrin) would not suit, since the name occurs
late, and (as Huhl points out. Pal. 192) the description
of the battle of .Mareshah in 2 Ch. 14 9 is opjjosed to the
assumption that there was a town on the site of Baeto-
gabra in early times. It is quite possible, however,
that the neighbouring town of Mareshah had a second
name — sc;ircely IJelh-gibborim, but perhaps Helh-horim,
' place of caves'* — that has lieen corruptefl into Arub-
both. Din*n"3 may have been partly mutilated and
partly corrupted in the record into nxn"3, whence nmK.
especially if c"in was written with the mark of abbrevia-
tion ('nn or Sn). The conjecture is geographically
plausible. .\t the present day Bet-Jibrin is rightly
described as ' the capital of the .Shephelah ' ; ^ this is
set forth more fully elsewhere (see El.KUTHEROPOLls).
Suflice it to remark here that if Het-Jibrin became the
' centre of the district * after the fall of Mareshah, the
earlier city cannot have been less important in the time
of Solomon. If Taanach and Mcgiddo are mentioned
in the record of the prefectures, surely Mareshah,
under this or some other name, must have been men-
tioned too. Now, Het-Jibrin is only 20 min. N. of
Mer'ash (Mareshah).
We have spoken of Iteth-horim as possibly an early
name of Mareshah. This designation would harmonise
excellently with the natural features of the neighbour-
hood of Mareshah and Ha'togabra. The excavation of
the caverns which now fill the district must have begun
in ancient times. The Christian and Islamic marks
and inscriptions which are sometimes found do not
oppose this obvious supposition. Sc-e Ei.EUTHERO-
POI.IS, § 2.
We now turn to consider Ben-he.sed's real name.
Klostermann has made it probable that the first two
3 Real na.ma P^^'fects were descrilied as sons of
Ahiiah 7 '^•idok, the priest, and Shisha (Shavsha),
^ the secretar}', resfjcctively (cp v. 2/.).
It is viT)' possible that non-p should be read isbn-j3.
' son of the secretary, ' and that the prefect was in fact
the .\hijah mentioned in v. 3. This is slightly favoured
by ©i-'s (/x)ax«> but really rests on internal probability
(cp Bii)k.\k). The misreading non^ia is touching, as a
' Beth-horim, 'place of caves,' would naturally come to be
explained ' pUice of the Horitcs' (see Eleutheroi-oi.is, S 2);
the Horites were no doubt regarded as giants (gibb<")r = yi'')<a9 £>),
like the Anakim. Hebron is called in Targ. Jon. Gen. 232 ' the
city of the giants.'
« GASm. HG 231.
533
BENJAMIN
monument of the sufferings of the later Jews under a
Tpn-|J^ '\i, 'an unkindly (cruel) people' Ps. 43i.
T. K. C.
BEN HINNOM(D5n-]9), Josh. 15818.6; EVsonof
HiN.NO.M ' [i/.V.).
BEN HUR, AV 'son of Hur' [</.v.]Cy\r\-\^, 'son of
Horus'?; B<MU)p[BL]. BCN Yioc copfA], oypHC IJos.
Ant. viii. 2 3]), one of Solomon's prefects (i K.4 8);
sec Solomon. The prefect's own name is omitted ;
probably his father's name also ; for the evidence tends
to show that most of the prefects were the sons of
famous men. The name of his city also is wanting.
Yet the hill-country of Ephraim was not deficient m
places of importance. Consetjucntly either Hur or
Ben-hur must Ix; incorrect. Either ' Hur ' stands in
the place of one of David's and Solomon's heroes,
or Berf-hur is a corruption of the name of the prefect's
city. 6*'s rendering may seem to protect Ben. But
nowhere else in ©s version of this section is ^^»
given instead of vl6s (vl6^ is of course an interpolation) ;
if the j3 represented by 0-^ is correct, we m\iz\. suppose
that it is a mutilated form of j,-i3, ' priest ' (as -\o in
non in v. 10 may be of ib2). In this case, Arariah,
son of 2^adok the priest (v. 2), will be the prefect's
name, and his city will be nin== Beth-horon. Azariah,
therefore, stands first in both lists, which is intrinsic-
ally probable. If, however, we follow the ^aiwp of
©"'-, the prefect's city alone has come down to us ;
/Sato)/) may represent Bethhoron. i;n may easily have
come from j'nin Horon (abbrev. from Bethhoron). So,
j in the main, Klostermaim. T. K. c.
BENINU (•iy23,§ 79 (3), 'our son'?; BCNiA/weiN
r^X]. Banoymm t-^l -OYIA [I-]). Levitc signatory to
the covenant (see EzKA, i. § 7), Neh. 10 13 [14].
I BENJAMIN (Wl^2 often ; but pc; =;3 [sic; sc-e Ba.
I note] I S. 9i Kt. ; Names, §§ 48. 73; BeNl&/v\[6]lN
I or Bain. [BALJ).
j The geiuilic is Benjamlte, 'rD-|3 [i.s. O21I, 'rc'n-a
j [Judg.315], al.so 'j'?? in2b. '20i[iS. !»i]ami iS.'.i4; perli.ips
! also in iS.4i2 [cp © ; MT p'ja) ; pi. •:";• '-.2 [judg. Ii>i6
i 1 S. 227I ; «M[Ml[fl"'l>')atos, [.].e^o-[f]i (HAlV), see i Ch. 27 12 ;
I in i.S. 227 iffiffvi. l.\]; in i.^.!t4 <pi> has ia<cnn and (Bl-
I lafiiv; in 2S. 2O1 ©L has apa\et ; in 2 S. 23 29 (B-^ /Saoiaou;
I in Ne. 12 34 0l /juafjidi' ; in Zcch. 14 10 ipN* /Scto/xdc.
Though popularly explained as meaning the propitious
or sturdy tribe' — 'the son of my right hand'- — Ben-
-j jamin was prolxibly at first a geographi-
■ cal name for the people of the southern
\ portion of the highland district called Ephraim (cp the
expression <j'0' pjt in the old narrative i S. 9-10 16),
just as a district of Gilcad (Gad) seems to have Ix-en
i called Safon, 'North' (see Zei'Ho.v ; cp also Teman,
j Temeni, Yemiti, and on the other hand eih-Shiim).
I It is not impossible indeed that this district was already
j known to the Canaanites as ' the South ' ; but there is
nothing to suggest that it was. Indeed, it is a good
' deal more probable that the name means ' south of
I Joseph,' the Hebrews who settled in the highlands of
I Ephraim being known as ' the house ' or ' sons ' ' of
Joseph,' a designation which retained this general sense
till quite a late date. The question is rather whether
I Benjamin, at first a distinct tribe, afterwards became
1 the southern part of Joseph (e.g., by the energy and
success of Saul ; as Winckler supposes), or whether it
was not rather the southern part of Joseph that, under
the influence of forces immediately to be described.
1 Another interpretation was prolalily 'son of da>'s— /".r., of
old age ' (so in Test. xii. Patr. Hcnj. 1 ;— cp Gen. 44 20 ' child
of his old age," c'jpj iS')-
2 In the uncertainty how the
ertainty now tne present text of Judg. 20 16 arose
(cp Moore, (!</ ioc), there is perhaps hardly sufficient ground
for connecting with this etymology the story of the 700 le/t-
handed warriors. Cp, however, also Ehud, and the story of
the Henjamite deserters to David, who could use the bow and
the sling with either hand (i Ch. 1'2 2).
534
2. Land.
BENJAMIN
came gradually to be distinguished from the rest of the
highlanders of Isphraini by the s|x;cial name of Ifen-
janiites, 'men of the south," the S. part, as being
the smaller (cp i S. 9 21), receiving the distinguishing
epithet.
It is not difficult to conjecture how this would
naturally come about. The plateau of Henjaniin. if it is,
as we have seen, historically connected with
Joseph, is hardly divided physically from
Judah. Incleed, although no mean country (ffrei'uiTaros
di 6 KXrjpos ovTos Jjv Sid. rrjv rrji yiji dfXT^fiv : Jos. Ani.
i. 5 22), it differs materially in its physical features from
the northern part of Ephraim, being sterner and less
fruitful— in fact, more Jud:ean. Moreover, valleys,
running down to the Jordan (Suwenit, Kelt) and to the
sea (Merj ibn 'OniCr), exposed it to attack from the E.
(Moab)and from the W. ( Philistines), while aline of strong
Canaanite fortress-cities (Gibeon, etc.) constituted an
additional source of danger to its highland peasants.
That these southerners had a certain traditional fierce-
ness ^ (Blessing of Jacob)- was, accordingly, only a
natural result of their position and history. We cannot
be surprised, then, that they won the right to a special
name and place.
It is thus hardly necessary to assume, with Stade
(Z.ITIV I 348 ['81]), some specific attempt or series
of attempts to overcome by force the Canaanites of the
cities (Jericho, Ai), perhaps under the leadership of the
clan of Joshua, in order to account for the origin of a
separate tribe : the general situation might be sufficient.
Mixture of race may, however, have helped to
diffcri'iitiate the trilie, although at least the Canaanite
p ... elements took a very long time to
3. I'opu a ion. tjg^Qrng thoroughly amalgamated, as
we see from the story of Gibeon (Josh. 9 ; St. GF/ 161),
and still more from the hints about Beeroth {^.v., i. ),■*
which appears to have retained its distinctively Canaan-
ite population at least till the time of Saul : indeed,
even the radical policy of the latter seems to have been
only partly successful (see IsHii.\Ai., i ). If the name
Chei'HAK-ii.\.\mmo.\.\i {//■■!'■) indicates the presence of
immigrants from across the Jordan we must look for the
explanation to nuich later times (Josh. 18 24 P). The
position of Iknijan-.in on the marches of Joseph, however,
doubtless providetl opportunities for mixture also with
other tribes.
Benj.-imin is, ?.?-., explicitly brought by E (Gen. 35 18) into
connection with a tribe called HiiNONl ('/.r'.), while the first
appearance of one or both of them is connected in some way (at
least etymologically) with the disappearance of Rachei. (?.r'.).
If Simeon really temporarily settled m this neighbourhood before
making his way south (cp Israel, § 7), it is at least worthy of
note that in a Simeonite list we find a clan name, Javin 2 (i Ch.
4 2^), and a place name Bilhah (?'. 29; see Baalah, 2). Nor
is It impossible to find suggestions of some connection with
Reuben : a famous landmark on the borders of Benjamin is con-
nected with his name (though the genuineness of the te.xt is per-
haps not bejond question),-* as is also Bilhak (g-z'-), the hand-
maid of Rachel. In Bilhan, on the other hand, to which the
Chronicler in his first genealogy assigns a prominent place
(iCh. Tic), we cannot safely see the remains of a Bilhah clan
(see Bii.hah), for the name may liave been taken from the
Horite genealogy, as Jeush was taken from the Edomite (below,
§ 9 ii. a). Historical probability is certainly in favour of the idea
that, after Dan failed to establish himself, Benjamin eventually
spread westwards— although some of the apparent actual traces
of this are not to be trusted (see Hushim, Gen. 4623 [Danite;
see, however, Dan, § 8] compared with i Ch. 88 11 [Benjamite] ;
AljALoN [i]. Josh. r.»42 (Danite] compared with Judg. 1 35
[house of Joseph] i Ch. .S 13 [Benjamite ; see Beriah, 3]). The
confused connection with Manasseh, however, that seems to
1 The historical figures belonging to the tribe, too, have a
certain passionate vehemence (Saul, etc.).
2 Kor a suggestion of a possible original connection between
the metaphor employed in the Blessing and the constellation
Lupus right opposite Taurus ( = Joseph), see Zimmern's art.
' Der Jakobssegen u. der Tierkreis,' /^A 3 168 ['92].
3 A late editor may be following trustworthy tradition when
he adds CHEPHtRAH in his list (with which cp Ezra 22025 =
Neh. 7 25 29= I Esd. 5 17 19).
■» ' Son (j3) of Reuben " may be a corruption of ' stone (pn) of
Reuben,' which may be not an alternative name of the stone, but
an alternative reading for Bohan (y.f.).
535
BENJAMIN
result from the present text of i Ch. "15 compared with v. 12
is perhaps due merely to corruption of the text. (Shupham and
Hupham m.iy have had no place in the original system of the
Benjamite list, iCh. 76-ii, and being perhaps supplied on the
margin [see below, g 9 ii. a] may, by some confusion, have made
their way into the te.xt also in Alanasseh, 7'. 15 [cp Be. ati loc.].)
What connection with Moab is intended in i Ch. 88 the present
condition of the text makes it impossible to divine (the clause
may be a gloss; see below, § 9 vi.fi). Cp Paiiath-Moab.
Nor perhaps can we venture to interpret historically the sugges-
tion of the Chronicler with regard to a later transference of clans
from Benjamin back to Ephraim (see Beriah, 2, 3). Clan
names common to Benjamin and other tribes are not rare.
The memory of the derivative or at least secondary
character of Benjamin still lived in the earlier days of
the monarchy, as we see from 2 S. 19 20 [21]
4. Age.
(cp also 20 I with 20 21) and (apparently) from
Judg. 1 22, ' and seems to lie reflected in the patriarchal
story (JE) which tells how, last of all, Benjamin was
born in Canaan.- That the differentiation of lienjamin
was relatively ancient, however, we should be prepared
to believe from the fact of the other branches of Josejjh
being called not brothers but sons.* The reference in
the Song of Detorah is too obscure (not to speak of its
perplexing connection in some way with Hos. 58) to La
of much use as positive evidence ; while the story of
Ehud, if it is perhaps hardly necessary, with Winckler
{Gesch. 1 138), to regard the single explicit reference to
Benjamin as an interiiolation (see below, § 5), may
perhaps reflect the conditions of an age when no very
clear line was drawn between Benjamin and the rest
of Josepjh (Judg. 827) — the men of the south and the
men of the more northern highlands. At all events,
by the time of David Benjamin was, owing to the energy
of Saul, a distinct political element to be reckoned
with, although we must not forget that, e.g. , in the story
of the first appearance of Jeroboam, the ' house of
Joseph' is an administrative unit (i K. 11 28). ■•
The peculiar condition of the legends relating to
this tribe provokes an attempt to explain it. This
J must take account of two inconsistent
° ' tendencies — a tendency in favour of the
tribe (Judg. 3 15 i S. 4 12 i K. 3 4 9 2), and a tendency
against it (Judg. 19-21). When we bear in mind the
central position of the tribe, and the abundEnce and
ini[5ortance of sanctuaries within and near its bounds (see
below, § 6), it cannot surprise us that there were many
traditions of incidents in which the tribe played a part.
It is, however, remarkable that some of them have no
special reference to sanctuaries.
We can hardly suppose this due to contending politiial
interests (those of Ephraim and Judah) leading to a sort of
diplomatic flattery of the boundary tribe with a view to seem-
ing its adhesion— just as there evidently was rivalry- of a less
peaceable kind (e.g., i K. 15 17 22). A. Bernstein, who worked
out this view in great detail in his able, if unequal, essay
Ursfirung der Sngen Ton Abraham, I sank u. Jacob, 1871 (see
especially 61), does not take account of the stories unfavourable
to Benjamin outside of Genesis ; and it seems clear th.at
Benjamin was naturally a part of the northern kingdom (i K.
12 21 belongs to a much later date than ?'. 20). The later
history of the tribe, especially after the fall of Samaria (see below
§ 7), would go a long way towards accounting not only for the
preservation but also for the mixed character of much Benjamin
tradition. If we wish any further explanation, it seems reason-
able to seek it in a natural interest, friendly or otherwise, in the
great tribal hero, the mystericjus Saul and his house.
The interest in the tribe is undeniable.
Israel will run any risk rather than that of losing Benjamin
(Gen. 42 38 J); the narrative delights in detailing the various
signs of special aflTection on the part of ' Joseph,' and even Judah
offers himself as surety for him (Gen. 4.39 J) or, according to E,
Reuben the first-born offers his two sons (Gen. 42 37). On the
other hand, all the tribes led by Joseph reprove and chastise
Benjamin, but relent and find a sub.stitute in Jabesh Gile.id
t St., however, supposes that the account of Benjamin has been
lost (Gesch. 1 138).
2 P, however, ignores this (Gen. 81 26).
3 Niildeke (in a private communication) thinks that at an early
time 'Benjamin was a powerful tribe, and that the rise of the
story of Its late origin (as also Judg. 19-21) is to be accounted
for simply as the result of the crippling of its power by David.
* It has been argued by St. from i K..4i8 [19I that it did not
include Benjamin {/.A TIV 1 115 n.); but could we argue from
4 8 that it did not include Ephraim ?
536
BENJAMIN
(JucIr. 19-21),— a story that is strangely parallel to Joseph's accus-
ini; Henjamin (fajsely), the others inlercrdini;, and Juduh offering
to become Hubslitule ((ien. 4433). What iiistorical substratum
may underlie this (iilicah story we have not the means of
determininK. Its laic date and its unlrust worthiness in its present
form apiwar in its practically wiping <>ut the trilw that was not
so very l<>n« after al.le to ^We its first ruler to a united ' Israel '
(see also Itclow, | 7, end, on post-exilic interest in Benjamin).
Benjamin was in a sense at the centre of the religious
life of the land. What the reliKioiis history of
6 Relitrioua-^^'^'^"*^'^" <''"'•• '* '""^y ^^"'^ been we
° can only guess ; but there were sacred
post on. ,„;ij,j,i;.l)as and trees that l)ore the nantes
of Ukuokah (Gen. 358 Judg. 45) and Rachel (Gen.
85 16 ao Jor. 31 15) ;* and Kaniah, CJcba, Gilieah, Mizpeh,
Gibeon, (jilgal,* not only were Canajinitish sanctuaries
but also continueil to Ix; of iniiwrtance as such in Israel ;
indeed, Geba, which (or jjerhaps it was the neighbouring
Gibeah) one writer calls ' (Jibeah of God' (1 .S. 10 5),
was perhaps selectetl by the Philistines as the site of
their n'^sib l)ecause of its sanctity (i S. 13 3 and especi-
ally 10 5; cp Saul, § 2 «. ) as well as because of its
strategic position.^
More iin|)ortant still, perhaps, l^thel itself, the
famous royal sanctuary (.\m. 713), where, according to
the story, Israel encamixxl after crossing the Jordan
(see liocHiM), is said by P to have belonged to
Benjamin (Josh. 18 22). No doubt the Chronicler
afterwards (iCh. 728) assigns it to E]/nraim ; but
(though it may well have been a border town with
connections on both sides) that is perhaps only
because he could not conceive of Benjamin, a trite
that he reg.irded as belonging to the southern kingdom,
extending so far north. At all events, there was reason
enough for the words used of lienjamin in Dt. 33i2
(cp Di. ad loc. and see below, § 8),
'The beloved of Y.ihwe, he dwelleth secure;
He (i.e., Vahwe) eiicompasst-th him .ill the day,
And Ijetween his shoulders'* doth he dwell.'
It seems, therefore, not unfitting that this tribe, martial
though it was, should for all time, whatever view we
take of the character of .Saul, be associated with two of
the greatest names in the history of Hebrew thought
and religion, representatives of two of the greatest of
religious movements : Jeremiah, who was a native of a
Benjamite town, and Paul, who at least lx."lieved that he
was sprung from the same tribe (Rom. 11 1 Phil. 35;
cp Test. xii. Pair., Renj. ch. 11).
Saul's career ended in gloom ; yet his work was not
entirely undone. It was, therefore, a matter of course
7 Later *'^"^^ ^^^ '^^" ^^ Henjamin (especially the
history.
Fiichrites, see below, § 9 ii. ^\, even more
than the rest of the house of Joseph, should
dislike being sulxjrdinated to the newly-risen house of
Judah (SiiiMKi, I », and should embrace any gootl oppor-
tunity to assert their claim (Shkha, ii. i ), and that,
along with the rest of the house of Joseph, they should
throw in their lot with Jkkoboam ( i ). We have, accord-
ingly, no reason to (|uestion the accuracy of the state-
ment in I K. 1220 : ' there was none that followed the
house of David, but the tril)e of Judah only,'* (cp Ps.
80 2 [3] and Hos. 58 with We.'s note, and see IsRAF.l,,
§ 28 ; Jericho is regarded as north Israelite in 1 K.
1527 It) 15^). However, as Jeroboam was not a
Benjamite, and the capitals of the northern kingdom
were always in the northern parts of Josejjh (cp
Zarethan II.), Benjamin does not apix^ar to have
1 On the stone of Bohan or Reuben, see alxjve (S 3).
' Baal-tamaralst) was probably a sacred place. On the special
importance of f'.il^al in early times, see Cikcumcision, $ 2.
^ \Vi. has even tried to show that Gibeah was l)elieved by
some to have been the seat of Israel's famous shrine, the 'ark ' ;
but he takes no account of the discussion of Kosters (ThT
27 361-378 ['93] ; cp .\rk, 8 5).
* Note the Arabic metaphor, WRS, Kin. 46 (foot).
* We cannot argue from 2 Sam. 24 1 9, for 'Judah' here
means, not, as the Chronicler (i Ch. 21 6)oddly supposed, a tribe,
but the southern kingdom (the Chronicler thinks it necessary
to try to explain — see the attempts of 45hai. to understand
him— why Benjamin and Levi were not numbered).
537
BENJAMIN
really g.iined by this step. In fact, it seems to have
eventually gravitated more and more southwards.
Indeed, lying on the border between the two king-
doms, it was important strategically rather than politic-
ally ; and, although we cannot very well follow the
details of the process,' sonic of its towns seem to have
been, at one time or another, and more or less
permanently, incorporated in the southern kingdom.
The blow that the northern kingdom receivetl in 722
was favourable to this process, and in another sense the
sack of Jerusalem in 586. Thus in Jer. 33 13 • the land
of Benjamin' is included in an enumeration of the
various districts of the territory of Judah- viz. , the
Shephelah, Negeb, etc. — just as in 2 K. 238 'from
Geba to Beersheba,' like 'from Geba to Rimmon ' in
Zech. 14 10, stands for the whole land of Judah, and in
Jer. t) I Jeremiah's clansmen are living in Jerusalem ;
and so, in the century following the rebuilding of the
temple, Benjamin is regularly mentioned alongside of
Judah, the combination of names appearing often to
mean the families that were not taken to Babylon (cp
Kosters, Ilcrstel, faisim), and the Jews came to
believe that Rehoboam's kingdom had from the first
consisted formally of these two tribes (cp Ps. 6827 [28]"
Chron. passim, and a late writer in i K. I221 23).
Hence we need not Ije surprised at the fulness with
which Ik'iijamin, as compared with the other Joseph
trilx.'S, is treated in the book of Joshua (Di. 505), or
at the fre<|uent and copious Benjamin lists in the
Chronicler (see § 8/.). Only we mu.st rememter that
these tribal distinctions were in later times theoretical ;
Simon (2 Mace. 34), Menelaus, and Lysimachus were
Ik-njamites ; for the e.xplanation of Mordecais mythic
genealogy (Shimei — Kish — Benjamin) see Esthkr,
(a) Although the priestly writer's conception of the
frontier of Benjamin is not even self-consistent, Beth-
8 I atp Arabah, a point in Judah's N.
WritPr«t' boundary (Josh. 15 6), being assigned
statistics- ^'■'' <'"• ^'^ ''^ J"'^^'^ ■'^"'^ '^^"^ *^^"'
geograpnicai. .^^abah, i) to Benjamin, it can be
idcinifietl roughly.
From the Jordan near Jericho he makes it pass up to
Beth-aven and Bethel (/>V/V/«), where it turns S. to .Ataruth-
addar (possibly 'Attini) and thence \V. to Bcth-horon the nether
(Bn'/'l'r-), returning by Kirjath-jearim and Nephtoah (Li/ta),
circling round tlie south of Jerusalem through the vale of
Hinnom and the plateau of Rephaim, and by the spring of
Rogel, and finally returning by En-shemesh (//(y-<"/-'--f c/jr/^ir//)
and the valley of Achor to the Jordan at Beth-hoglah ('A in-, or
t^a^r-llajla).
What led P to fix on this line, the southern stretch of
which he repeats with greater fulness in the delineation
of Judah (Josh. 155- io|, we cannot say; nor can we
say why he inakes the boundan,- run south of Jeru-
salem.-* The ■ Blessing of Moses has indeed been
taken to imply (Dt. 33 12 ; see above, j5 6) that in the
latter part of the eighth century Jerusalem was held to
lie inside the boundary' of Benjamin ; but ' by him ' in
the first line is probably due to a clerical error, and
line 3 is quite indistinct : nothing points specially to
Jerusalem.-' Stade ((;/'/ 1 162) proposes Gibeon ; i)er-
haps Winckler would suggest (iilx.-ah ; Oort, however
( ThT, 1896, pp. 297-300), pleads vigorously for Bethel,
and nothing could be more appropriate in a poem so
markedly north- Israelitish. It is pl.iin enough, on the
other hand, that Jerusalem is assignctl to Benjamin by
P (though he avoids giving the name of the town, speak-
J See the account in GASm. HG. ch. 12.
2 On the other tribes mentioned in this verse see Zebulun,
NaI'HTALI.
3 .■\ccording to the Talmud the Holy of Holies and some
other parts of the temple sto<xl on Benjamite soil (.Sanhtiir. 54) ;
but the site of the altar, though within Benjamin, was a
piece of land that ran into Benjamite territory from Judah
(\'oma, 12).
4 Unless Jerusalem may be thought to be implied in the
mention of Benjamin before Joseph (Dr. Dl. 389). But on the
order of the tribes cp Di.
538
BENJAMIN
ing simply of ' the Jebusite ') ; and, if we do not know
precisely why he does so, we can at least see that he
has a purpose of some kind, for in Judg. I21 it is quite
clear that the editor has for the same reason twice
substituted ' Benjamin' for the original ' Judah,' which
we find in the otherwise identical Josh. I063. VVe
must conclude that, whatever conceptions prevailed in
later times, in the days when tribal names were really
in harmony with geographical facts of one kind or
another, Jerusalem was counted to Judah.
(d) Many late lists of Menjamite towns have been
preserved. i. The only early one is the rhetorical
enumeration of twelve places on the path of the
Assyrian invader (Is. 10 28-32).
Of the six names in it which are not mentioned in any of the
other lists, two are those of towns the sites of which are known
'with certainty: Michmash {Muj»i<is) uttd Geuim (,El-Jib).
2. P's list (Josh. I821-28) comprises an eastern and a
western group — viz., a group of twelve (to which he
adds in 21 18 two others) and a group of fourteen towns.
Of these twenty-eight the following sixteen may be regarded
as identified, some with certainty, others with a high degree
of probability : Jekicho, Hkth-Hogi.ah, Zemakaim, Bethel,
Parah, (Ieba, Gibeon, Ramah, Beekoth, Mizpeh, Che-
PMIRAH, 'the JEnilSlTE,' GiBEATH, KiRIATH, AnATHOTH,
Almon (see Alemeth).
3. Neh. 1 1 31-35 contains a list of some sixteen towns
alleged to be settled by Beiijamites. The list, which
may be incompletely preserved, is more and more
assigned, by scholars of various schools, to the time
of the Chronicler (see Torrey, Comp. and Hist. Value
of Ezra-Neh. 42 f. ; Mey. Entsteh. 107, 189) ; at all
events, it cannot be early.
Of the eleven new names (unless the Aija of z/. 31 be the
Avvim of Josh. I823) not in the Joshu.i lists, four may be re-
garded as identified beyond dispute : Hauid, Neballat, Lod
(see Lypda), Ono.
4. In the list Xeh. 7 = F.z. 2 = i Esd. 5 (see Ezra, ii.
§ 9), vv. 25-37 2'J-34. -T"! 17^-22 respectively, seem to
enumerate places (apparently places where members
of ICzras ' congregation ' were resident), mostly within
old Beiijamite rather than old Judahite territorj'.
In this list, excluding Xeho (iv.) as being probably merely a
transposition of Nob, we have still five other new names, of
which, however, some seem to be spurious, and only Netophah
and Bkth-Azmaveth (see A/..\iaveih [i.J) can be regarded as
identified with any certainty.
Other places perhaps in Benjamite territory are Baal-
HAZOR (2 S. 1823) and XoiiAil (see Moore, Judges, 443).
I Esd. also adds a Chadi.as and Ammidoi (Chaui-
ASAl).
Lists of Benjamite clan or personal names (sometimes,
_ of course, including place names) are many.
1 . . " They have mostly, however, suffered much
°^ ■ at one stage or another in transmission.
(i. ) P's two (Gen. 46 — Nu. 2t>) are, as usual, different
versions of the same list.
Thej' probably contain two triplets («) Bela — Becher —
Ashbel, and (/') (iERA— N'aaman — .Ahiram ; and a third triplet,
not quite so certain, (f) Sliuphan — Hupham — Ard.
(ii.) The Chronicler's two (i Ch. 7 and i Ch. 8) are
more difficult to understand, l)ut are constructed more
or less on the sanife scheme.
(a) In I Ch. 1 6ff. (sons of the first triplet 1 — of which, how-
ever, Ashbel, ' Man of Baal, 'becomes Jediael, ' Intimateof EI ')2
we have what is of all the lists perhaps the most symmetrical.
Certain peculiarities (such as apparent doublets) make it plausible
to suppose that the symmetry was once even greater. Abijah,
a name that occurs elsewhere in the Chronicler's genealogies
only in priestly families,'* should perhaps be read 'the father of
(cp ' father of Bethlehem,' i Ch. 44). In that way the two places
Anathoth and Alemeth would be assigned to the last-mentioned
son of Becher, just as in t>. 12 Shuppim and Huppiin are ascribed
1 Verse i2rt in a sense represents the third triplet, and 12/'
has names connected in chap. 8 with the second.
2 Cp "jK-n'. I Ch. '.'7 32 = '?yir'. 2 S. 23 8 (Manjuart in a private
communication). We can hardly argue from the Ashbal or
AshbOl of the Peshitta th.-it the change of Ashbel to Jediael is
due to an accident ; for in the Peshitta i Ch. 76 simply substi-
tutes'the corrupt Genesis list (46 2i)of nine names (with its ' Khi
and Rosh Muppim ' for ' Ahiram Shuppim ') for the Chronicler's
list of three sons.
3 On the supposed Abijah, wife of Hezron, see Caleb, ii.
539
BEN-ONI
to Ir = In the last-mentioned son of Bela. Marquart,^ to whom
the detection of this analogy is due, suggests that n'^KI should
be read ,133 Kin- If some form of this theory he adopted it will
be only natural to look for a name (or names) assigned to the
last-mentioned son of Jediael (the remaining branch of Benjamin)
and to find it in Hushim the son of A\\cT (v. 12). This will be
still more plausible if we may adopt the re.st of Marquart's
theor)-, that Aher ^^^t is a miswritten inriK — '•'^•1 AhihOr — and
that Ahishahar, nntJ"nN, isacorruption of the same name(nn'nN).
If Uzzi and Uzziel in 71. 7 are a doublet, ' five ' in the same verse
is not original. Perhaps Ehud etc., in v. 10 are brothers of
Bilhan, the intervening words being a parenthesis.* Whilst v.
12 is thus required to give symmetry to the genealogy, it may
nevertheless be in a sense an appendix.
O) Chap. 8 ha-s in parts the appearance of being constructed
in a very schematic form (though eflforts to detect a general
scheme have not l>een markedly successful), and this seems to
warrant the conviction that the present obscurity is due to
textual corruption. For remedying that some help can be had
from the versions ; but it is not sufficient. Certam suggested
emendations (see an article by the present writer in/Q/x 11 102-
114 ['98]) so greatly reduce the disorder that now prevails that
there seems to be reason to believe that the genealogy was at
one time markedly regular in structure, and that considerable
boldness in attempts to restore it is warranted. It has always
seemed difficult to explain how the historically important Benja-
mite clans— the clan of .Saul and .Sheba(viz., Becher), and that
of Shimei(viz., Gera)— are so sulxjrdinated in this extraordinarily
copious list (they appear to be omitted altogether in Nu. 20;
see, however, Bechek). It is probable that the subordination
is due to corruption of the text. When emended in the way
already referred to, i Ch. 81-7^ is reduced to P's three triplets
with the .additional statement that Gcra was the father of [EJhl'd
(y.r'.) and .Shua[l], or rather, as .\larquart acutely suggests,
Shlmei ({t.?'. ; cp (BS'i lafiei]-<Tana<;). What follows is obscure —
the reconstruction proposed in JQJi!, I.e., Ls in parts not much
more than a guess — but it seems extremely probable that the
names in in'. 1-27, beyond P's three triplets, were originally
attributed to Gera through Ahishahar (once corrupted into
Shaharaim ; see above, [a]) and Hushim (v. 12 being an intrusive
repetition of a later part of the list). Then 7t. 30-38 gave the
genealogy of the Bichrites (for ni33,T 1:31, 'and his firstborn,'
read n23.T '331 'and the sons of the liichrite'), v. -vib being
perhaps a marginal gloss due to some bewildered reader of w.
30-32 (in their new position after the intrusion of v. ■2i/. from
chap. 9). Marqiiart suggests that these nine verses originally
followed the mention of the sons of Bela. For fuller details and
other suggestions the reader is referred to the article already
cited.' It is difficult to avoid the conviction that some recon-
struction is necessary.
(iii. ) In Neh. 11 7/ and iCh. 97-9 we have two
versions of a list of Benjamite inhabitants of Jerusalem,
the original of which it is quite impossible to restore.
The names are grouped in the form of genealogies of a few
persons ; for which, among other reasons, Meyer pronounces
the list an invention of the Chronicler (Entstth. , iZg).
Kosters, however, suggests that the genealogical form is not
original {/fcystfl), and that the authority was a list of Jerusalem
Benjamites living in Jerusalem before the arrival of Ezra.
(iv. ) On the list of Benjamite warriors in i Ch. I23-7,
see David, § 11 (a) iii. On relations of Benjamin to
other tribes, see, further, Raciikl, Bilhah, Joseph.
2. A Benjamite, b. Bilhan, i Ch.7iot (see No. t, § 9, ii. a)
3. A Levite, of the b'ne Harim, in the list of those with foreign
wives, Ezra 1032 (see Ezra, i. g 5, end).
4. A Levite, in the list of wall-builders, Neh. 823 (see Nehe-
k'h, § 1/., Ezra, ii. g§ i6[i], 15^/), perhaps the same as No. 3.
In the procession at the dedication of the wall (Ezra, i.
§ 13 J?), Neh. 1234 Oxtafteii' [L]) ; on which see Kosters, Hct
5. In the
13 e), Ne
Herstel, 59.
BENJAMIN, GATE OF (jp;33 TKr), Jer. 20 2 37x3
387 Zech. 14 10. See JERUSALEM.
BENO (iJ3) is taken as a proper name in i Ch. 24 26/
by EV, in v. 26 by © (yioi BoNNi [A], BoNNeiA yioc
AYTOY [I-]' K O'"- '< '" ^'- 27 <S>'''^ has yiOl AYTOY,
©'^ Y'OC <\y) •'^"'^ ^y J*^""- ^""^^ Targ. That the list
of the sons of Levi is in a most unsatisfactory state
is evident from a comparison with Ex. 617^^ i Ch.
617 [2]^ 29/ [14] and 2321 /. The MT is most
obscure, and, according to Kittel, -t. 20-31 are one of
the latest additions ; one rendering is to take v. 26/
as follows : — ' Of Jaaziah, his (Merari's) son, (even) the
sons of Merari through Jaaziah his son,' etc.
BEN-ONI (*:iN-{3 ; yioc o^ynhc moy [ADEL],
1 In a private communication to the present writer.
2 So Marquart. On foreign names in this list see above, f 3.
3 .See now also Marquart's important article on the same
subject (JQR *"•)■
540
BEN-ZOHETH
rightly interpreting the mind of the writer), the first
name of IJtNjAMiN (§ 3). g'vcn to her new-bom child
by the dyiny kachel (lien. 3j 18). Ben-oni must, how-
ever, have been an early tril«l name. We find the
clan-names Onam and Onan (bolli in Judah. the
former also Horile) ; also a lienjamite city Onu ; nor
can the existence of an ancient city calletl Betm-AVKN
(Bcth-on?) be tienied. To assume, however, with Prof.
Sayce {Fatrianh. Pal. 191/), first that Ileth-el was
also called Heth-on, anil next that the names lieth-on
and lien-oni imply that the name of the god worshipped
at Luz was On, and next that this divine name was
derived from On = Heliopolis in Egypt, is purely
arbitrary. Cp Hkth-AVKN, Aven (3). T. K. c.
BEN ZOHETH (nnirj?, etym. doubtful, probably
corrupt). /(Uii.TH and Ben-Zoheth are mentioned in
1 ( h. 420 [viol ^u>afi [M], vl. ^ux'^O [.A], vl faw^ [L]),
among the sons of Ishi of Judaii.
BEON (li??). Num.323. See Raal-mkon.
BEOR ("lira, possibly miswTitten for AcHBOR ; see
Haal-mana.v |i]; Becop [BAI> : WH in 2 Pet. 215]).
1. Father of the Fxlomite king Hki.A [ii. i], Gen. 8632
(B&i(a)P [L])=iCh. I43 (BAicop [A], c€n<t)a)p. «•'•.
ZipiX)r[L]).
2. Father of Balaam (Nu. 22$, etc., /Satwp [A],
except in Dt. 2:34[5] Josh. 1322 Mi.6s; in Josh. 249
[(3»A omits]), called HosuK in 2 Pet. 2 15 AV (^offop
[Ti. following .\5<cC]; Vg. /iosor; cp the conflate reading
Peuiop<Top [N*]). RV Bi:()R ([/Jfojp WH]). In Nu. 2422
gHAFL reads ry /3ewp ((iaiup [A]) for Heb. ■i];^'?.
BEBA (iri3. -scarcely, ' with evil," cp Rir.sha ; these,
like oilier names in Gen. 14, may Ijc nmtilated and
corrupted forms; BaAAa [-ADL], Bara [I"-]- BaA&C
[Jos. Ant. i. q]), king of So<lom, who joinetl the league
against Chedorlaomer (Gen. 14 2). See CllKDOR-
L.VOMKR, § 2, end.
BERACHAH, RV Beracah (nn"!?, 'blessing';
BepxeiA [BX], BapaX'-^ [AL]). a Renjamite, one of
David's warriors (i Ch. I23). See David, § 11 [a] iii.
BERACHAH (RV Beracah), VALLEY OF (pr^V
nS-l?, koiAaC eyAoYIAC [HM-l). the scene of tile
great thank-Sgiving of Jehoshaphat and his people
(2 Ch. 2O26; in 26a 6 av\(j}i' ttjs evXoyia^ [l^A], i)
KOiXaj TTJi fv\. [L]). The geographical knowledge of
the narrator was evidently good ; but that, of course,
does not make his narrative any m<jre historical (see
Jkho-SHAPHAt). At no great distance from Tekua
there is a broad open wady, on the west side of which
are extensive ruins named Bereikiit. Just opposite the
ruins the wady itself is called the Wady Bereikut ( Rob.
LDR, 275). From the form Bereikut we gather that
the true ancient pronunciation was probably Berechoth,
' reservoirs. " T. K. C.
BERACHIAH (I'TDna), iCh.624 [39]. RV Bkre-
cniAii, 5.
BERALAH (n\X-J5. § 31. ' Yahw6 creates' ; BApAiA
[I-]. BepipA' KAI B- [n.\]). I. A Benjamile, assigned
to the b'ne .Siii.mki (8) ; i Ch. 821. The name is \>ro\y-
ably post-exilic, ' creation' l)eing one of the great exilic
and post-exilic religious doctrines.
2. See Bedkiah.
BEREA, I. An unknown locality in the neighlxjur-
hood of Jerusalem, where Bacchides encamjxxl l)efore
the battle in which the Jews were defeated and Judas
the Maccaliee was slain (Apr. 161 B.C.). The camp of
Judas was at FJasa, Eleasa, or Alasa, also imknown,
but probably Kh. iCasa between the two lietli-horons
on the main road from Sharon to Jerusalem (i Mace.
94/). The liest reading seems to be /Sepea f.ANV] ;
but there is MS authority also for Be7/p-fatf and
1 That is ,iyn3 ; cp i Ch. 7 30.
S4I
BERED
6*17^^0^; Vet. I^t. \vx& Derethiim. Joscphus (/^w/. xii.
IO2) has \ir\O^Ou), or, in some .\ISS, Bi/pfT/O. liwald
thinks of the mo<lern Bir e/.-/eit, i^ m. NW. from
Jufna, or of lieeroth (mod. el Birch).
2. RV BeroBa, Wipoia. [A], -ptvo. [V]), the scene of
the death of .Mknelaus, the modern Aleppo (a Mace.
134).
3. B^poto [Ti. WH] (some MSS ^ipp.), now Verri.t,
or Kara Verria, in Ixiwer Macedonia, at the fofjt of
Mt. Bermios, 5 m. alxjve the left bank of the Haliac-
mon (I'istritza). It has a splendid view over the
plains of the Haliacmon and the Axius ; plane-trees
and abundant streams make it one of the most desirable
towns of the district. Yet it did not lie on the main
road ; which |x;rhaps accounts for its being chosen as
a place of refuge for Paul and .Silas in their midnight
escajje from Thessalonica (.\cts 17 10).
A curious parallel is found in Cicero's speech acainst Piso.
Un.ihle to face the chorus of complaint at Thessalonica, Piv)
' fled to the out-of-the-way town of Beroea ' (inoppidutn dez'ium
Beraam. In Pit. 36).
In the apostolic age Beroea contained a colony of
Jews, and a synagogue (.Acts 17 10). They were of a
• nobler ' spirit (evytviartpoi) than those of Ihessalonica
— possibly because they did not belong to the purely
mercantile class. Not only were many of the Jews them-
selves converted, but also not a few of the (ireeks, both
men and women [rHiv VAXrjvibojv yvvaiKwv tCip (vaxv-
fi6i>uv Kal avSpCiv ovk dXiyoi, .Acts 17 12: the language
seems to indicate that the apostle was here dealing
with an audience at a higher social level than elsewhere).
Paul's .stay here seems to have been of some duration
(.several months. Rams. Paul, 234), partly in order to
allow him to watch over the converts of Thessalonica,
only 50 m. distant ; he may have been still at Ber<x;a
when he made those two vain attempts to revisit them to
which I Thess. 2 18 alludes, and Timothy may have been
sent to them from Bercta, and not from Athens, on the
occasion mentioned in i Thess. 82. The apostle was at
length obliged to c|uit the town, as the ' Jews of Thessa-
lonica' heard of his work and resorteci to their usual
tactics of inciting to riot (aaXtvovre^ roi'i 6xXovi, -Acts
71 13). Silas and Timothy were left in Macedonia ; but
Paul was escorted by certain of the converts to the sea
and as far as .Athens (.Acts 17 14/ ). This hurried de-
parture (ei'^^ujs, V. 14) may have been by the road toDium.
The omi.ssion of the h.irbour is noticeable. In other cases the
name of the harlwiir is given : so in Actsl425 ]6ii I818. The
omission, however, aflfords no proof that the journey to .Athens
wa.s performed by land — a view which tlerives some colour from
the AV ' to go as it were to the sea' (RV 'as far as to ihe sea ').
Possibly one of his escort was that Sopater, son of
Pyrrhus, a Beroean, who is mentioned in .Acts 20 4 as ac-
companying Paul from Corinth to Macedonia. The
Sosipater of Rom. 16 21 is probably another person. We
read in .Acts 20 5 that the escort from Corinth preceded
Paul to Troas : this may have been partly due to his
making a detour in order to revisit Beroea. w. j. w.
BERECHIAH (n;3n3. in Nos. 4/ -in:?"?!, § 28,
' Yahwe blesses ' = Jeberechiali, BApAx[e]lA [BNA],
-X'AC [L]).
1. .Son of Zerubbabel, i Ch. .3 20 (/Sapox;.a [L], -loi (RJ).
2. One of the Lcvites that dwelt in the villages of the
Netophathites, iCh. Uie (-x" [H], -xio? [.A], afi. (Lj), not
included in || Neh. 11. Probably the same as the doorkeeper for
the Ark, I Ch. 1.^23.
3. Father of Meshullam in list of wall-builders (see Nehkmiah,
S i/, F.ZRA, ii., §§ i6[i], 15.0, Neh.34 (-xtavlNAJ, om. B),
30 i^pxtid [ HI*], fiapia [A]) ; cp t> 18.
4. Father of the prophet Zech.iriah, Zech. 1 i 7 (fiaftaxiat
[BK.AQ]). Omitted in the || Ezra 5 i. On the question of his
identity with the Barachias (.AV), or Bakachiah (RV) of Mt.
'2335, see Zacharias, 9.
5. Father of Asaph, a singer, i Ch. 0 24(39l(-AV Bekachiah),
15 17 (-via (Lj).
6. b. Meshillemoth ; one of the chief men of the b'ne Ephraim,
temp. Ahaz, 2Ch. '28 12 (Zaxopias [B], Bopaxtof [.A]).
BERED (TI? ; BapaA [AD] ; -pAK [L] ; b^xmd
[A'g.]). A place in S. Palestine, or perhaps rather
542
BERED
X. AraV)ia, between which and Kadesh lay Bker-
I.AIIAI-Koi [i/.v.] (Gen. 16 14). Three identifications
deserve mention. (i) The Targums represent
it by the same word as that given for Shur in v. 7 — Onk.
by N-i;n Hagra, and Jer. Targ. by KsiSn Hftlusa. The
former word, however (cp Ar. ^/Jr, ' a wall, enclosure '),
.seems to Ix: meant for a translation of the name Shur,
not for an identification of the j^lace. The second
name is clearly the I'.lusa of Ptol., which is now
probably A'A. A'halasn in the \\'ady '.Xsluj, about
12 m. from Ifeersheba on the way to Ruhailjeh or
Rchoboth (see Palmer, PliFQ, 1871, p. 35; Gudrin.
///</d'^, 2 269-273). (2) Eus. and Jer. (05 299 76
1452) identify a certain 'well of judgment' with the
village Berdan in the Gerarite country (in which lieer-
sheba also is placed). This 'well of judgment" seems
like a confused reminiscence of Enmishpat — i.e. , Kadesh
(Gen. 147). Is this Iterdan the same spot which Jerome
(O.S'lOl 3) calls Barad, where, he says, a well of Agar
was shown in his day? (3) If, with Rowlands,
we find Bekk-lau.\i-roi (^.7'. )at 'Ain Muweileh, Bercd
may be some place in the Wady esh-Sheraif, on the
E. side of the Jebel Dalfa'a (see Palmer's map).
T. K. c.
BERED ("113). nn Ephraimite clan, 1 Ch. 720
(BapaA [A], pAAM [!>]. om. [B]), apparently called
in Nu. 2O35, Iii:(iii:u — a well-known Bcnjamite clan
name. When we consider the close relation between
the two tribes, the occurrence of Becher in Ephraim
seems not unnatural (cp Bkriah, 2/.). See, however,
BK( Hlik.
BEEI (*"}3, prob. ='''^X2, § 76, 'belonging to the
well ■ [or to a place called Be'er] ; the name occurs
twice in Phoenician ; cABpei [B], BApi [A], BHpei \}A)<
an Asherite family-name (i Ch. 736).
BERIAH (nrna, perhaps 'prominent,' § 7 ; cp the
play on the name in iCh. 723 with the play on the
name Bkka [/.i'.] in Targ. ps. -Jon. ; B&p[e]lA
[BAL]).
I. \n Asherite cl.-iii indi\iihi.ilised ; Gen. 4<)i7 Nu. 2644/;
((P, 7'. -2^/. ; in 7'. 28 Bepi 1 1,|, in r'. 29 it is omitted) ; 1 Ch. 7 30
(jSepi-yal [H], 7'. 31 -xa |1!|; gentilic, Berilte, Nu. 2O44 (o
/SapcaUlt [H^' vkl F], /Sapm [H*vid], -pat [.\\ /Sepci [L]).
2. An Ephraimite clan-name, in a story of a cattle-
lifting raid in i Ch. 721-23 (beginning at ' and Ezer and
Elead ' ; v. 23 j3apyaa [B], -pie [L]) ; cp 8 13. Accord-
ing to the Chronicler, lieriah was a son of Ephraim,
born after his brother had been slain, and he was called
Beriah because ' it went evil with his [father's] house '
(note the assonance ,nyi3— nyta)- This notice of the
conflict with the men of Gath is enigmatical ; were
there family reminiscences of the border strifes of the
early Israelites which were recorded in documents
distinct from our canonical books and accessible to the
Chronicler ?
We. preserves a sceptical attitude (Pra/.W, 214); Bertheau
and Kittel, however, think that there is here a genuine tradi-
tion, and that, on the destruction of the clans Ezer and Elead,
the Ephraimites of the border districts applied for help to the
Henjamite clans, Shema and Beriah (i Ch. S 13). .According to
S. A. Fries, the basis of this story is an early tradition dealing
with a raid made by F^phraimites into Palestine from the land
of Goshen 2 in the wider sense which Hommel and he himself
give to this term (see Goshen).
It would be unsafe to use these unsuppiorted state-
ments of the Chronicler as historical material. See
below.
3. A clan of Benjamin (§ 9 (ii.) (3)). iCh. 813
{^epiya. [B], ^ap. [A], ^apaa [L]). 16 (;:iap[€]iya [BA]),
probably to be identified with No. 2. It appears to be
1 Note that in Pepiya (iCh. 730 [B], and 813 [B]), fiafyyaa
(i Ch. 723 [B]), and ^apUVya (8 13 [A], 16 [BA]), ^ = soft j; (i.e.,
Ar. '«/"«), which is usually represented by a breathing. Eur •y =
rough u (i.e., Ar. £) see Gaza, Zoar, Ziheon, etc.
2 Pesh. reverses the statement of the MT ; cp Barnes, PesA.
Text Chron. xi.
543
BEROTHAI
stated that the Bcnjamite clan Beriah was adopted into
Ephraim in recognition of the service it had rendered
to the imperilled territory. So liertheau ; cp Bennett,
Chron. 89. Cp also Ephraim.
4. A Gershonite (Levite) family, i Ch. 23 10/ (Bepia [BL] ;
om. A in v. 10). s. A. C.
BERITES, THE (Dn2n), appear, through a cor-
ruption of tlie text, in 2 S. 20 14 (MT), where Kloster-
mann, Kittel, Biidde, and (with some hesitation)
Driver, read DHSan, 'the Bichrites (see BicHRi).
The consonants n^a are, in fact, presupposed by the
strange rendering of ©"* {koL Travres) ev x^'PPf'- '• ©''
Kal vaaa irdXis). The description of the progress of
Sheba (^.v. ii.) now first l)ecomes intelligible.
BERITH (nn?), Judg. 946 A\', RV El-berith. See
Baai.-berith.
BERNICE (BepNiKH [Ti. \VH] for BepCNlKH, the
Macedonianform of c})epeNlKH).cld(-'Stdaughterof Herod
Agrippa I. , and sister of the younger Agrippa(.-\cts2;'i 1323
2630). She was married to her uncle Herod, king of
Chalcis ; and after his death she lived, not without sus-
picion of incest, with her brother Agrippa. She next
became the wife of Polemon, king of Cilicia. This
connection being soon dissolved, she returned to her
brother, and afterwards became the mistress of Ves-
pasian and Titus (Jos. ^«/. .\ix. 5i; x.\. 72/. ; Tac.
I/isi. ii. 8 1 ; Suet. 7'ii. 7 ) ; cp Sch. GVIi., and see
Hekodian F.vmii.y, 9.
BERODACH BALADAN (H^^? "^"IN'13). 2 K.
20 12 EV ; EV"«- Mickodach-Baladan.
BEROEA (BepoiA), 2 Mace. 184 RV, AV Berea, 2.
BEROTH (BHpcoe? [A]), i Esd. 519 = Ezra225,
Bekroth.
BEROTHAH (nn'nZ), a place mentioned by Ezekiel
(47 16; <\BeHpA[Bg], coceHpA[A], BHpa)eV[Q"'sr])
in defining the ideal northern frontier of the Holy Land.
It is apparently the same as Beroth.vi [q.-'.). and
may be regarded as a lengthened form of BcrOth =
Beeroth, 'wells.' As yet it has not been certainly
identified. Ewald [Hist. 3 153) connected it with the
well-known Berytus (the Bi riitu and Bi'runa of the
Amarna letters, the Bi'arutii of the List of Thotnies III.
[so W. M. Miiller], and the mod. Beirut) ; but it seems
clear that a maritime city would not suit Ezekiel's
description. Tomkins would, therefore, place Berothah
in the neighbourhood of the rock-hewn inscriptions
in the Wddy Brissa, NW. of Baalbec, down which
wady a stream is marked in the Carte de IJban as
flowing to the Orontes (PEFQ Ap. 1885, p. 108) ;
but his philological argument seems unsound. Furrer
[ZDP]' 8 34), Socin {Pal.^'\ 369), and v. Riess
{Bib. Ail.) have thought of Bercitan, a village not
far to the S. of Baalbec ; but this is only a plausible
conjecture, and must be judged in connection with
Furrer's general theory of the frontier (see HoR, MOUNT ;
RiBLAH ; Zidad). Cp .Aram, § 6.
BEROTHAI (*n'"l3 ; Klo. would read "'n'l3), a town
belonging to Hadadezer, king of Zobah, 2S. 88 (©"^i-
iK TU'V (tcXeKTQv 7r6Xec<;i', perhaps reading n^"i2S from
T13 'to separate, select' [so Klo.]), possibly another
form of Berothah (see, however, Klo. and the article
Tebah). In I Ch. 188 (where (5* has the same trans-
lation), which is parallel to 2S. 88, for Berothai we
find the name Chun, which must be a corruption,
either of the first three letters of Berothai {i.e., nij) in
one of the earlier alphabetic stages, or of some other
name v^hich the Chronicler found in his copy of the old
narrative. ^ For a suggested emendation see Mero.m, end.
K The reading 'nn3 is probably supported by © in fiot/i
places, and by the (coAAiVrais ( = (K\tKT<ov of (pBAL)of Jos. .'int.
vii. 63. The latter's text, however, must have represented a
conflate reading, for he reads Max«ii<i), which points to psp
'from Gun.'
544
BEROTHITB
BEROTHITE ('n Qn). i Ch. 11 39. Sec Reekoth.
BERYL. The Bcrvl as a mineral species* includes,
1. Description. •'^•si'l« the c.nmon bc-ryl. the aciuam.-x-
*^ nnc or precious ijeryl, and the enterald.
J he similarity l)etwcen the beryl and the emerald
was pointed out by I'liny (37 20); the only points of
distinction are the green colour of the emerald and the
somewhat sujx^'rior hardness of the beryl (7.5 to 8 in
the nuneralogical scale; specific gravity from 2.67 to
If we leave out of account the emerald, the colours of
the beryl range from blue through soft sea-green to a
pale honey -yellow, and in some cases the stones are
entirely colourless. The aciuamarine is so named on
account of its bluish -green colour, ' ^ui viridilatem
puri maris imitantur' (Pliny, I.e.). The beryl crystal-
lises in six-sided prisms with the crystals often deeply
striated in a longitudinal direction. The great abun-
dance of aquamarine and other forms of l)eryl in modern
times has very nmch depreciatetl its value ; but it is
still set in bracelets, necklaces, etc., and used for seals.
That the beryl was known to the ancients there can
be no doubt. Some of the finest examples of ancient
2 Greek ^''^'^■'* ''^"*^' Koman gem -engraving are
nainea, etc. '^°"."'^. '-■'''^''"'•^'l '" '^'O'l (see Kings de-
scription of a huge atjuama-.ine intaglio
over two inches seiunre, Pirc. Stones, Gems, and I'rec.
Mftals, p. 132) : the Romans cut it into six-sided prisms
{cylindri) and mounted them as ear-drops. It is also
clear from the evidence of Pliny (I.e., beiylli) that, in
later times, at least, lx.-ryl was called by the same name
as now, though a|xirt from © (see below) the name
does not appear in any Greek writer till considerably
after Pliny's time.- It ajjpears, however, to have lx.'en
called also a/jidpaySoi ; Theophrastus seems to know
three kinds of smaragtlos, which may well Ixj our true
emerald, our aquamarine, and our common Ixjryl
(/-(//. 23). In Herodotus, too, smaragdos is the
material not only of the gem engraved for the ring of
Polycrates (.'i4i), but also of the pillar in the temple of
Heracles at Tyre ("244), which cannot have lx;cn of true
emerald, as the noble kinds of beryl are never found
of large size.
The Hebrews must be presumed to have known the
beryl. \\'e may perhaps identify it with the shdham
3. Hebrew ^^^'^'^ ' '^°'' ^ ''^"'^ "^ ^^^^ '^e ornaments
name. °" ^^^ ^'S'^ priest's shoulder (I'.x. 28920
= 80927) were of shoham, and © renders
this ff/xdpaydoi. We cannot always trust ©'s rendering
of stone names (see pRiccious Stones) ; but in this
case the ideiitiiication seems suitable. We are told that
on each j,*c'7/r////-stone were inscribed the names of six of
the tribes of Israel, for which purpose a natural hexagonal
cylinder of beryl would be admirably fitted if, as has
Ix-en suggested, the six names were inscril)ed longi-
tudinally on the six faces. The s/i<'ka m-slonvs mounted
in ouches of gold were probably therefore beryls pierced
or simply mounted at the end with bosses (uindi/ici) of
gold, like the Ijeryl cylinders descrilx;d by Pliny.
The importance given to the beryl among the Baby-
lonians and the Phtjcnicians (see above) makes it all the
more probable that the Hebrews would specially value
it. From CJen. 2 12 (later stratum of J ?) it would appear
that the shoham was known in Judah before the e.xile,
and believed to abound, with good gold and bdellium, in
Havil.vh. The Chronicler brings shdham-%x.ox\*is into
connection with the construction of the pre-exilic temple
(iCh. 292; but the reading m.ny be incorrect, see
Ebony, c), while the writer of Job 28 16 classes it with
gold of Ophir and other precious substances.
The etymology of the word shOham (which occurs in
1 On the stone called Rerjl in EV see g 4.
2 The chrysol)erylus, chrysopr.isus, .ind chr>-soUthus of ancient
jeweller>' .appear, to some extent at least, to have been names
applied 10 different shades of beryl.
.35
545
BETAH
Chronicles as a proper name; see Sii«)|ia.m) is at
present uncertain.
±. Ff,r™«i«^. <^e?-KOd. Ukts. ».v.) traced it to a root
4. LtymOlOgy mc-ining ' palenevs,' an if ' the pjilc irtone,'
and versions. «•"'<= Haupt, connecting it with the Asnyrian
j<i////«, renders 'pearl.' Delitzsch, however,
argues that silnitu mediis a ' dark - coloured [itoticl' (Ats
//irji^ZSfi; cyiJ'ar. to/. 130/), and Halfivy tonne, is Assyr
siitHlu with Syr. Htm rather than Heb. i/im (A'ei: Cii/., lESi.
P- 479).
.Shoham is rendered in the various versions as
follows ; —
©I'Ai. pffpvWiov (as in Targ. (pVlTal, Saad. etc.) in Ex. ys 20
= 3!»r3, reproiluced in Kzek.2813 (see Prkcious Stonis);
AtSo? It>|«1 a^apaySov in Kx. 2«9 8'. 27 3«6 ; A. 6 irpdatvoi (Icck-
green) in (len. 2 1 2 ; A. (rapSiov in Kx. 3:> 9 ; A. <roo^ ( liA], ow/vov
[ I.] in I Ch. -JU 2 ; »» Si-vx' (as in Aq. al Kx., I heod. and .Syinm.
at Kx. and Gen., and V«. iDn^chiHus, bm onyx in Ezek.J except
in Job) in Job28i6; Pesh. everywhere U^|«» (hrwi.a) or
//. MO'i^ except in iCh. L'9 2 where its text differs; Aq. in
Gen. J 12 and Vg. in Job '28 16 sardonyx.
RV"'*.'- adds as an alternative the rendering Hkkvi,,'
thus supporting the identification argued for alxjve.
EV follows throughout the usual Vg. rendering, giving every,
where 'onyx' (see Onvx), reserving 'beryl' for the Hebrew
'larshish (see Takshish, Stc.nk ok). Jn the N'l", however,
beryl ' is naturally the EV rendering of PT)pvAAoi'(Kev. 21 2ot).
\V. K.
BERZELUS (zopzeAAeoc [A]), iEsd.533 AV =
Ezra -261, 1',ak/.ii.i,ai, 2.
BESAI 0P3, <5 52 ; BAcep [E]). The b'ne Hesai,
a family of N'ktiiimm in the great post-cxilic list (see
EzKA, ii. S 9), Ezra 249 {^^oii^ [a\]) = Neh. 7 -,2
(/ii77<ret [lU], ^a.i.a. [N]) = r Esd. 03' lUsTAl, R\'
Hastiiai {(iaffdai [HA], ^((ratp [E]).
BESODEIAH (nniO?, ' in the secret of Yah,' § 22 ;
the form, however, is very im|:>robahle [see HiiZAl.KK.i,] ;
read, rather, HHipn, Hasadiah), an Israelite, father of
Mcshullani in the list of wall-builders (see Xkiikmiah,
§ I/, Ezra, ii. j;;; 16 [,], ,5^.), Xeh. .'U (BaAia [H]!
<\BAei<\[N], BaccoAia[.\"''J, BaciAia [L]).
T. K. C.
BESOM (XPiStpP, Is. 14 23t ; Pesh. \^^,^^ ■ Vg.
scopa ; nHAoY BapaGron [HXor], n. BaGron [A]K
a word occurring nowhtTe else in Hebrew or, in this
sense, in any .Semitic dialect.'- ,\ccordiiig to Taliii.I',.
A','sh ha-shdnd, 26 b. , the word, though unknown to
the Rabbis (who called the article .ira^N), was still in use
among the women (cp Jer. Mei^illa, ii. 2). There is not,
therefore, any reason to doubt that \'g. and Pesh. are
right in understanding something to sweep (awavl with
(cp the metaphor in Is. 30 28 [sieve] ; on which see .\(;ki-
CLi.TUKE, § 10). The Ijcsoni of death is not unknown
to mythology (Otto Henne .\m Rhyn, Die Deutahe
Volksa^'e,*'-> 411/.); but the figure hardly needs any
mythological warrant (Che. ad loc).
BESOR (mb'5, Bocop [H.AE], Jos. .-////. vi. 14 6.
BACeAoc). a wady (Sn;). mentioned in the account of
David's pursuit of the Amalekites, 1 S. 3O9/ 21 {z: 21
fifava [B], ^ex'^p [.A]). It was probably this wady
that .Saul ' crossed ' when he chastised the Amalekites
(iS. 15s; re.ad hn:^ "'-i!*^ J^'"- ) : a"<J '" the two
definitions of the .Amalekite territorv in iS. ir.7 ('and
Saul smote the Amalekites, from Ilavilah,' etc.), and
278 (' for those were the inhabitants of the land, which
were from old time," etc.), we should probably read
' from the torrent Hesor even to the torrent [land] of
Musri.' See Tki.km (i. ). According to CJut^rin (Judee,
2213), it is the modern Wady Ghazza which issuts from
the Wady es-Seba' and empties itself into the sea SW.
of Gaza. T. k. c.
BETAH (npi), a city of Hadadezer, king of Zobah.
2S. 88(MT)=iCh. 188(MT), Tibhath. Pesh., how -
' Omitted (through oversight ?) at Ex. 35q 296 13 E7ek.28i3.
2 In Arab, the root means 'incline (the head),' in Eth. 'set
in order.'
546
BETANB
ever, reads Tebah, and this is also favoured in 2 S. I.e.
by (5 {fiaa-^aK [B], -/3ax [A], (jure^aK [L], where ^a
arises from a corrupt repetition of the preceding letter
in this translator's Heb. text). Cp Ew. Hist. 8153, and
see Tebah.
BETANE (Bmtanh [B], Bat. [K]. BAit. [A]), one
of the places to which, according to Judith 1 9, Nebuchad-
rezzar SL-nt his summons. The BiiTll-ANOTH {q.v.)
of Josh. 1559 appears to be meant.
BETEN (|03— /.^., ' vale' or ' hollow" ;—BATNe [A],
BaiBok [B]. BexeA [I-]), an unidentified site in the
territory of Asher (Josh. 192s) called BeGBeTCN by
Eusebius (05 236 41), who places it 8 R. m. to the E.
of Acco.
BETH (n^3. St. constr. of D^?, see BDB) ; the
most general term for a dwelling ; used of a tent in
Gen. 27 15 33 17, but generally of houses of clay or stone ;
also of temples (cp Bajith, Beth-Bamoth [MI, /. 27]).
Combinations of Beth with other words are frequent in
Hebrew place-names (see Names, § 96). In Assyrian,
compounds with Bit are used as names of countries :
e.g. , Bit-Humri = the kingdom of Israel ; Bit-Yakin {i.e.,
Babylonia, the country of Merodach-Baladan).
Among other interesting compounds with Beth are Beesh-
TERAH CO, Beth-eked, Beth-haggan, Beth-lehem, Beth-meon (see
Baal-mhon), Beth-peor.
BETHABARA (BhSaBapa [C^ KT^ UAH]), Jn.128
AV, is the place where John baptized, according to the
reading which became widely current through the ad-
vocacy of Origen, who could find no Bethany across the
Jordan, but found a Bethabara with a tradition connecting
it with the Baptist. Origen, however, admitted that the
majority of MSS were against him. See Bethany, 2.
Origen was followed by Chrysostom ; Epiphanius, like Arm.
(Lagarde), h.is BrjOafipa. In the present text of Origen the form
varies between BrjSapa, Baeapa, BijSaiSapa, and Bi)8apa;3a (the
latter also in Ncb. syr. hcl.(mg.), a;th. ; see \VH 274); in OS
240 12 lOS 6 we find firjOaafiapa, Bethabara.
The traditional site of the baptism of Jesus is at the
Makhadet Hajla (see Betharabah, 2, where, too, it is
suggested that we should read Bethabarah in Josh. 18 22).
The two monasteries of St. John attest the antiquity of
the belief in this site.
Conder suggests the MakhrKJet 'Abara, NE. of Beisan, partly
because of the nearness of this ford to Galilee and Nazareth,
and partly because the river-bed is here more open, and the
banks of the upper valley more retired {PEFQ., 1875, p. 73).
Another suggestion of the same e.\plorer(A, 1877, p. 185)13
philologically weak.
As stated elsewhere (Bethany, 2), the true reading
in Jn. 1 28 was probably^77^a<'a/ipa— ?.e., Beth-NIMRAH,
now Tell-Nimrin, NE. of Jericho.
BETH-ANATH (n;y T\'^—i.e. , ' temple of Anath ' ;
in Josh. BAieeAMe[Bl, BMNAeAe[A], BHeANAe[E];
injudg. BAiGANAxiB], -eeNee[BAL], BeeeNeK[A]),
an ancient Caiiaanite fortress, with a sanctuary of Anath
(cp Beth-ANoth), Josh. I938. It is mentioned unmis-
takably by Thotnies III., Seti I., Rameses II., and
Rameses III. in the lists of places conquered by these
kings (see RP^"-) 552638; Sayce, Pat. Pal. 160, 236,
239 ; W.\1M, As. u. Eur. 193, 195, 220). Accord-
ing to Judg. I33, it adjoined Naphtalite territory, but
(like Beth-shemesh) remained Canaanitish down to the
regal period, subject only to the obligation of furnishing
labour for public works. Eus. and Jer. (05 236 45
105 20) inappropriately refer to a village called Batannea,
15 R. m. E. from Cresarea, possessing medicinal springs.
But the site now most in favour — \4ini//ia, in a valley
6 m. WN'W. from Kedesh — is hardly strong enough
to have been that of such a fortress as Beth-anath
(Buhl, Pal. 232 ; but cp Conder, PEF Mem. 1 200).
BETH-ANOTH (ni3y-n'5 ; BaiGanam [B],
-Ganoon [A], BhGapcoG [L])- A town in the hill
country of J udah (Josh. I559), towards the eastern border
of that region, identified by W. M. Muller with the
547
BETH-ARABAH
Bi-t- n-t of the list of places conquered by Shishak {As.
u. Eur. 168). If the form Beth-anoth be correct, it may
be explained as = Beth-anath, ' house of Anath' {q.v.) ;
cp pi:;; (Josh. 21 n) and pjy, jnc' and ['rnc'. To sup-
pose a popular etymology ' place of answering' {i.e., of
an echo?), with Kampffmeyer {ZDPy I63 ; cp Is.
IO30, SBOT). is needless.
But is the form correct ? Conder and Kitchener {PEF
j1/(?;«. 8311 351) identify Beth-anoth with Beit 'Ainun,
5 m. N. of Hebron, near the sites of IlALHULand Beth-
ZUK (cp Betane). This appears reasonable, and sug-
gests a doubt whether the ancient name may not have
been ji:'V-n'3, Bcth-'emm. It is true that ©"^ favours
Cjy, and ©* p^j; (. in the first syllable being unex-
pressed) ; but the case of Anem (see En-gannim, 2)
shows that the absence of • both in MT and in the
te.xt implied by © is not decisive. A spring is men-
tioned to the west of the ruins of Beit 'Ainun.
T. K. c.
BETHANY ( BhGan ia [Ti. WH]). i. A small village
first referred to in the Gospels, 15 furlongs to the E. of
Jerusalem on the road to Jericho (Jn. 11 18 Lk. I929, cp
V. i), and commonly identified with the Beth-Hini^of
the Talmud. It is no doubt the mod. el- Azariyeh
(from Laz.arus or Lazarium — the / wrongly taken as
the article). El -"Azariyeh lies on a spur SE. of the
Mt. of Olives (cp Mk. lli Lk. 1929). Its fig, olive,
and almond trees give one at first a pleasant impres-
sion ; but a nearer inspection of the few houses is dis-
appointing.
There are various romantically interesting spots connected
by old tradition with Lazarus (cp the Itin. Hieros. ed. Wessel,
596, the Bordeaux Pilgrim, and OSi'^) 108 3 239 10). The
Castle of Lazarus (based on castellum, the Vg. translation of
the Gr. KuJjotT)) is a ruined tower, presumably anterior to the
time of the Crusaders, and hard by is the tomb of Lazarus ; the
house of Simon the Leper also is shown.
2. The Bethany where John baptized (Jn.128, Ti. WH
after N*B.A.C*, edd. , R\') is distinguished from the
Bethany mentioned above by the designation ' across
Jordan' {iripav tov 'lop.); its e.xact situation is un-
known. The reading of TR and of AV is Bethabara
{q.v. ). Another suggestion is that Bethabara ( ' house of
the ford ') and Bethany ( = ,t:i< n'3. ' house of the ship ')
are one and the same place (see GASm. 7/(7 542, n. 12).
The analogy of some corrupt OT forms (cp Kishion)
suggests, however, that the true reading in the traditional
source of Jn.128 would be one combining in the second
part of the name the letters N, B, and R — such a name
as ^ridava^pa. We actually find daivdavajSpa in ©■*
Josh. 1827 for the Bethnimrah of the Hebrew text.
Now, the site of Beth-nimrah ['/.f.] is well known.
It is accessible alike from Jerusalem and from the
region of Jericho (cp Mt. 85), and the perennial stream
of Nahr Nimrin, which flows into the Jordan, would
supply abundance of water. This theory belongs to
Sir George Grove ; it has been adopted by Sir C. W.
Wilson (Smith's Z>/?,'-' s.z: 'Bethnimrah'), and has
strong claims to favourable consideration. Of course,
the insertion of the words iripav rod 'lopS. would be a
consequence of the faulty reading ^rjdavM. T. K. C.
BETH-ARABAH (nn^yn T\'2. or nnTT n^3 ; once,
Josh. 18 18, by a scribe's error [sec ©] simply nri"Trn ;
Josh. 18 18, BaiGapaBa [BAL]; 156i GaraBaam [B],
BhGaraBa [AL], I822 BaiGaBara [B], -araBa [AL]).
I. One of the six cities in the 'wilderness' of Judah
(Josh. 156i), mentioned also as on the boundarj' lines of
Judah and Benjamin (156 [jSai^apa^a BA ; ^-qdapa^a
1 We may therefore dismiss the interpretation 'place of the
wretched one ' (cp the play upon Anathoth, Is. IO30 MT). Beth-
Hini is generally explained 'place of unripe fruit' (cp NrnK,
' unripe fruit,' esp. of figs). The Talmud, however, s,-iys that
figs ripened better at 15eth-Hini than anywhere else (Neub.,
Geog-. Talm. 150). If so, these figs may have led to the name
Bethhhage — i.e., possibly, ' house of young figs ' — but the name
Beth-Hini remains unexplained. Another form of the name
is Beth-oni ('jiK'n'^)-
548
BBTH-ARAM
L] ]8i8) ; see niso Betii-basi. The reference in 18aa
must be considered separately (no. 2). The wilderness
of Judah in 156i is the deep depression adjoining the
Dead Sea, together with tlie overhanging mountains
and the barren country Ixjyond, including probably a
district in the neighbourhood of Arad (see Salt, City
ok). Heth-arabah may have been the first or principal
settlement in that desolate corner of the Arabah or
Jordan valley which forms the N. end of the Dead Sea.
Though mentioned twice, if not thrice, with lieth-
hoglah, it must have been considerably to the S. of
that place, for unless, with Knobel, we put it at Kasr
Hajla (which seems rather to have been Beth-hoglah),
there is no other suitable site for it till we come to
the copious fountain of \lin el- Feshkha, near the
NW. corner of the Dead Sea (31° 43' N., 35° 26' Iv ).
The name lieth-arabah ('the house, or homestead, in
the Arabah ') has, therefore, a special significance (cp
that of Bkth-JK.shimoth, q.v.). This indication of
the site was made in writing by Robertson Smith.
Perhaps, however, it is best to suppose that there
were two settlementr • one near the fountain (viz.,
Beth-arabah), the other (see Middin) at the fountain.
2. It will be still casiiT to adopt this identification
if we may follow ©" in reading not 'Beth-arabah'
but ' Betli-abarah ■ in Josh. I822. The ford ('ulidrah)
referred to in the name (' house or place Ci the ford')
might then be the famous Makhadct Hajla near the
mouth of the IVdJv el-Kelt, the bathing-place of the
pilgrims, wliere tradition places the baptism of Jesus
Christ. Such a Beth-abarah would be more naturally
mentioned between Beth-hoglah and Zemaraim than
a place situated at ' Ain el- Feshkha. The confusion
of the two names was very easy (note the variant Bt;^-
opo/ia in Jn. 1 28). Cp Beth-abara. t. k. c.
BETH-ARAM (Dnn n^2), Josh. 13 27 .'W. RV Betii-
HAK.-\M [q.v.).
BETH-ARBEL ("pxanx Jl^? ; eK roy oiKoy lepo-
BoAM [B]. . . . toy lepoBoAM [Q*], . . . lepoBAAA
[A], TOY lepoBAAA [Q^], Symm. rip oIki^ Touap^erjX),
a place cruelly destroyed by 'Shalman' (Hos. 10i4t;
PVj'. Baer JD^C'; caAaman [BAQ]). Robertson
Smith in 1881 (EBi^) 12296) favoured an identification
of Bcth-arljel with the trans-Jordanic Arbela (see Oi't^)
21472 886), now Irbid, in which case there might be
a reference either to Shalmaneser III. or to a Moabite
king Shalamanu mentioned in an inscription {KB £20)
as a tributary of Tiglath-pileser III. Schrader {KAT^^)
440-442) argues ably for identifying Shalman with the
latter king, who very probably made an incursion into
Israelite territory. The combination of Beth-arbel with
the trans-Jordanic Arbela {Irbid), however, is improb-
able : Shalman should be a more important king, and
Beth-arbel (if this compound phrase may be accepted) a
more important fortress, than Schrader's theory sup-
poses. Wellhausen and Kowack think that Shalman
may be Shalmaneser IV. — the first Shalmaneser known
to the Israelites. If so, the latter part of Hos. IO14
will be a later insertion. The reference to Beth-arbel,
however, remains a difficulty. Surely the reading must
be corrupt.
©^ suggests a correction. Read oyaT n-l, and, as
a consequence, for jaSp read d^W- The murder of
Zechariah, son of Jeroboam II., by Shallum [tj.v., i]
is probably referred to (ir, or mp?, points to a fate like
that of Sisera ; cp nnr, Jndg. 627). A reader of Hosea
justly assumed that Zechariah was not the only person
who was murdered, and took the massacre of the royal
family to be a fulfilment of the stern prophecy in v. 15,
which ends : ' in a storm (lyco. We. ) the king of Israel
shall be cut off ' The words ' mother and children
were dashed to pieces' may, however, refer to the
cruelty of Menahem to the women of Tappuah
BETH-BASI
[q.v., 2], as related in 2 K. 15i6. If so. the inter-
jxjlator combines two striking events which ecjually
formed part of the divinely threatenetl judgment u|x)n
Israel. See Che. F.xpos. Nov. 1897, p. 364.
For a new but diiricult theory of Hos. 10 14 see Herz, Atiter.
J. SeiH. La-ig. 14207/ !'981. The versions give little help
except as to ' Arbecl ' ((B"). ® A preserves a trace of a theor>'
that the reference is to the slaying of Zalmuniia hy (iidc<<ii, in
which case Ps. 83ii [12] wouUI be p.irallel. SoAa^af {XArj], it
is true, docs not .accord wiih this theory ; but .Syro-Hex. points
•o i'JD^S ; <TaXfi.ava is ©K*R 's rendering of Z.ilmunna, and
has «ome authority in Hosea. Vg. gives .Sicut vasta/us est
Srtlinana a doino eiiis qui iudicavit Baal. The conclusive
exegetical objections to this view need not here be stated. See
also Field's Hexapla. t, k. C.
BETHASMOTH (BAiOACA^coe [A]), i Esd. 5.8 RV.
See .\ZMAVKT1I (l.).
BETH-AVEN (jINTfa, cp. Benj. 'ben-Oni'), a
place to the E. of Bethel near Ai (Josh. 72, ^r)Oaiy
[A], pi)Oav [L], from which, indeed, it has been pro-
posed, following ©'"', to eliminate the name, but on
insufficient grounds'), and to the \V. of Michma^h
(1S.I35; where BAietopcoN [B*!-]. BAiecco- [B^']
are obviously wrong; iS. I423 BAMcoe [B]. ThOayn
[or T^ daw, A^"'], BAiecopojN [!-]). The site has
not been identified ; 2 but it must have been the last
village on the edge of the desert country, for to this
it gave the name Wilderness of Beth-aven (Josh. IS 12
(iaieavv [A]; -Ouiv [B] ; -0aovv [L]). All the data
point to the neighbourhood of Deir Diudn — either
that village itself, or Kh. Haiyan, immediately to the S.
For the rest see BirniiiL, § 4. g. a. s.
BETH-AZMAVETH (niDjrn'3), Neh.728: sec
AZ.MAVKTII (i. ).
BETH- BAAL -MEON (jiL'D ^r? 71*3), Jos. 13. 7.
See Baal-meon.
BETH-BARAH (mj n*2, BaiGhra [BA], -Bhra
[L] ; the form of the second part of the name is obscure)
is not to be identified with the Bethabara of Jn. 1 28
(Reland) ; it occurs only in the story of Gideon (Judg.
724), who sends to his fellow-tribesmen in the hill country
of Ephraim, bidding them cut off the Midianites' retreat
by holding against them 'the waters as far as Beth-
barah, and (also) the Jordan.' The latter words
(p-i'n-riNi) seem to be a gloss on 'the waters' (c'C.-:)-
By 'the waters," however, are really meant, not the
Jordan, but the streams emptying themselves into the
Jordan which the Midianites would have to pass. Beth-
barah must have Ijeen situated somewhere in the wady
formed by one of these streams, and there are points in
the narrative which suggest locating it near the mouth
of the Wddy Fdri'ah, between which and the Jordan
the Midianites would find then\=elves in a cul-de-sac
(Moore).
BETH-BASI (BeeSAC I [A], BAiGBAiccei [K]. -Bacc.
[NV], -Bag I [V], ^ \i^ [Pesh.], Beth-besscren \\<i\.
Lat.]), a fortified city in the desert {iv r^ iprjjjLif}), the
ruinous parts {to. Kad-Qprjfxtva) of which Jonathan and
Simon repaired, when menaced by Bacchides (i Mace.
96264). The Syriac (see above; cp Vet. Lat.) reads
Beth-yashan (cp Jeshanah). This is probably correct ;
the corruptions can be easily accounted for. Jos. {Ant.
-xiii. I5) calls the place liet'h-alaga {i.e., Beth-hoglah),
which is too far from the MS readings, but may be
a correct identification, though Beth-arabah also
suggests itself G. A. Smith, however, thinks that the
second i in Beth-basi may be correct. ' In th; wilder-
ness of Judea, E. of Tekoa, there is a Wddy el-Bassah,
which name as it stands means " marsh," an impossible
1 We. supposes SkO'dS cnpo to be a gloss, and pn a con-
temptuous distortion of ^k in the manner of Hos. 4.5, etc. {CH
laO. So Albers, but not Di. or Bennett, SHOT.
* Possibly it was early destroyed. This, as Muhlau remarks,
would account for the disparaging transformation of the name
Bethel into Beth-aven (Kiehm, /('«''^(2) 1 213).
550
BBTH-BIREI
term, and therefore probably an echo of an ancient
name.' r. K. c.
BETH-BIREI. KV Beth-biri (*N12 n*3), i Ch. 431.
Set- Hi. ni-i.i:ii.\()rii.
BETH CAR (13-IT5 ; BaiGxop [HL], BeAx. [A],
[/V\expi| KoppAiooN, Jos. .////. vi. 22 ; jm*' [Targ.]), a
place, presumably in the district of Mizpah, to which
the Israelites pursued the defeated Philistines (i S. 7 11
[Dt. ]). The phrase 'under lieth-car ' is remarkable.
Does it mean ' imder the gates of Ueth-car ' (so We.
riiS 68) ? or does it mean ' to the foot of the hill on
some part of which lieth-car stood ' ? No such name
as IJeth-car is mentioned elsewhere ; hence it is at first
sight too bold to identify it (as PJiF, not disapproved by
GASm. //(; 224) with 'Ain Karim, thenameof a flourish-
ing village a good way to the S. of Nebi Samwil, and
W. of Jerusalem. The name Heth-car, however, is
self-evidently corrupt, and if we may emend it into
' Heth-haccerem ' the identification with 'Ain K'drim
becomes probable (see Bkth-haccekem). Only lA m.
to the X. of 'Ain Karim is Der Yasin, not improbably
to be identified with the Jashan or Jeshanah of i\ 12 (see
Shkn), which need not be the same as the Jeshanah of
2Ch. 1319.
The alternative is to read ' Beth-horon ' (Klo.) ; 3 and n were,
from phonetic causes, easily confounded. ' Under Beth-horon '
would be a very intelligible expression; but Beth-horon is
certainly too far north. The reading ' Beth-jashan,' quoted
from Pesh. (not (P) by G. A. Smith {/fC 22^), is no readwig at
all, but a corruption of the text of i S. 7 11, as We. has pointed
out. T. K. C.
BETH-DAGON (jin n-3, § 95, 'house of Dagon,'
BHeAAr^AiiM [AL]). I. A city of Judah, enumerated
in the third group of 'lowland' towns (Josh. 1041,
payadirjX [B]). The list is so scattered and irregular
that nothing can with certainty be inferred from it as to
the site of Heth-dagon ; but Makkedah (i/.v.), which
is mentioned in the same verse, must have lain off the
mouth of Aijalon (Josh. IO28). Here we find, 6 m. SE.
from Joppa, a Beit-Dejan, and, li m. farther S. , Diljun.
Each of these has been identified with Beth-dagon (see
Rob. /iJ? 8298, Clermont Ganneau, PF.FQ, 1874),
and one of them (the former, according to Eriedr. Del. )
is probably the Bit-daganna mentioned in Sennacherib's
prism-inscription (col. 2 /. 65 ; KBI^-z). It must be
rememlxired, however, that the name occurred in several
places through Palestine — Beit Dejan nearly 7 m. E. of
Ndhlus (see /VrZ-'map), and, according to Jos. {Ant. xiii.
81 BJ\. 2 3), Dagon near Jericho, each on an important
trade route from Philistia to the Jordan Valley. There
may, then, have been more than one Beth-dagon on
the borders of Philistia, and it ought not to be over-
looked that neither Dajun nor Beit Dejan lies in the
Shej)helah proper. On the doubtful phrase ' land of
Dagon ' in Eshmunazar's inscription, and on the god
Dagon, see Dagon, § i. On Dajun see especially
CI. Ganneau, Arch. Res. in Pal. 126/:
2. A locality not yet identified (but cp Conder, Hdbk. to the
Bible, 268), on the Iwrder of .\sher (Josh, lit 27 ; /3ai0€ye>/ee [B]).
3. The temple of l)agon in Ashdod (i Mace. 10 83, /Sr^dSayuf
[_^NC.a cby, ;3oiayo,,. [.N*]). G. A. S.
BETH-DIBLATHAIM ( Q^n^3^-n'2 ; cp Ass. dublu,
' foundation ' ; but see N.\MKS, § 107), a town in Moab
mentioned along with Dibon [i] and Xebo [iii.] (Jer.
4822 = © 3I22, en oiKON A<mBAa0aim [Hg], e- o-
AeBAAeAiM [NA]), evidently the same as Ai.mon-dib-
I..^TH.\IM, which also occurs in connection with Dibon
(Xu. 3346/.). _ This place (called pSan n^), Mehedeba,
and Ba'al Me'on are stated by Mesha on his stele to
have been fortified by himself (/. 30).
BETH-EDEN, AV'">.'-, EV 'house of Eden" (n^2
Di*' ; el ANAptON x<^PPAN [BAQF]), an Aramaean
city or land, with a ruler of its own, but presumably
allied to Damascus (Am. 1 5). No satisfactory identifi-
cation of this place has been made. The vocalisa-
551
BETHEL
tion (|njj not py) forbids us to see in it the llapaSfuroi
of Strabo and Ptolemy, and equally forbids us to regard
it with Wetzstein (Del. /«.(*' 702; cp Vg. de domo
voluplatis) as a poetical name of Damascus. The view,
however, adopted bySchrader {KA T^^ 327)and favoured
by ©"*-"" (see above), that Beth-eden is the Bit-adini
of the inscriptions (see Euen), is not less inadmissible,
for this is too far to the N. of Damascus, and had,
in the time of Amos, long been subject to Assyria (Wi.
ATUntcrs. 183; cp XiJld. ZDMG 38326 ['79]). No
doubt there were other places called I'.dkn {q.v., ii. ).
There is equal uncertainty as to the name Bikath-aven
(see AvKN, 3), which corresponds to Beth-eden in the
parallel line. T. K. C.
BETH-EKED (li^r H'?, EV 'shearing house';
R\"'C- 'house of gathering '),^ where Jehu met Aha-
ziah's brethren, is either a place-name or (more probably)
the designation of an isolated hou.se used on certain
occasions by the shepherds of the district (2 K. 10 12 14 ;
BAiGAK&e [B]; but in v. 14 iv ry aK-qvri [B>^'^'"ir].
■KaA [AL] ; Pesh. has ' and he was overthrowing the
altars that were on the way ' [v. 12], and in v. 14 lay n'3.
cp Cod. \'ind. of Vet. Lat. Belhacar).
BETHEL ("^NrT*?, §§ r, 10, always one word [Bii.
on Gen. 128 Josh. 72], RV wrongly with a hj'phen ;
1 Site 'house of God'— «.^., BAiTyAiON— (cp B&t-
■ TOyAlA. Bphhulia); see Idoi..\tkv, § 2,
MA.SSEBA ; BaiBhA [B.VDEL]; but Gen. 307, BeB.
[D] ; gentilic Bethelite, see Hikl). i. A town
on the border between Benjamin and Ephraim, W. of
the wilderness of Beth-aven (Josh. 18 12 ; on 12i6, where
6-^ omits the clause, and ©"••" has HXa5 for Bethel or
Makkedah, see Tai'PUAH, 2), without doubt the present
Beitfn (from Beitil, by the common interchange of /
and n), a small village (said to have 400 inhabitants),
with ruins of early Christian and Crusaders' buildings,
about 10 m. N. of Jerusalem. It lies on the back-
bone of the central range, a little E. of the watershed,
and 2890 ft. above the sea. Erom the village itself
the view is confined to the plateau, which, like most
of the territory of Benjamin, presents a bleak prospect
of gray rocks and very stony fields, relieved by few-
trees and a struggling cultivation. A few minutes SE. ,
however, lies one of the g^eat view-points of Palestine,
the Burj-Beitln or Tower of Bethel (probably the ruin
of an early Christian monastery), supposed to mark
a traditional site of the tent and altar of Abraham
'to the E. of Bethel' (Gen. 128), and of Lot's view
of the ' Circle of Jordan ' (183-10). Four good springs
2 Traditions '''"'' ^ ^'"'''''^ reservoir amply certify the
. xxauiwuuo. present village as the site of the city,
which 'was called Luz at the first' (Gen. 28 19 ; oIko%
deov [ADEL]). The sanctuary, "God's house,' the
' place' (as it is called in Gen. 28 n, where it is distinct
from the city) which grew famous enough to absorb
the city's name in its own, may ha\e Iain either on
the site of the Burj-Beitin, or on one of the neigh-
bouring slopes, where there is a natural stone circle
[PF.FQ, 1881, p. 25s); and the curious formation of
the rocks in terraces and ramparts has been taken as
the material suggestion of the 'flight of steps' (see
Ladder) which Jacob saw in his dream (Gen.
28 10 ff.)."^ There he raised a pillar, or massebah,
to Yahwe, and afterwards is said (Gen. 85 1-8) by the
same narrator, E (it is J who gives the previous story of
Abraham's altar), to have built an altar and called the
'place' (not yet 'city') 'God of Bethel' (for which (P^'"'-,
Pesh. , and Vg. read ' Bethel ' ). Here Deborah, Reliecca's
1 Cp the Targ. Nvn nr'JD r*a. ' place of the gathering
together of the shepherds.' For 'eked, however, we should
perhaps read nSkedun (CliTi), and omit the next word (in zi. 12,
not in V. 14) hd-rlfUn (C'J/in) as a gloss ; ndkidlm was a less
common word for ' shepherds ' than rd'int.
2 Schlatter (/.ur Topog. 236) infers from Gen. 12 8 Jos. 7 2
(om. ©A) that the sanctuary lay E. of the town, in Deir Diwan.
5Sa
3. ffistory.
BETHEL
foster-mother, died. She was buriwl below the town,
beneath an oak called ' the oak of weeping " (see Ai.i.oN-
BACUTil, Mui.iiKKKY) : trees, it is proUihle. would not
be found on the stony plateau above. The next notice
of Helhel is in the JIC narrative of Joshua's conijuests
(Jos. 7 J 8912 [om. BAK ; j^r)0<xv L]). in which liethcl is
not yet the name of a city (so also the Ueutcrononiist in
Jos.'l2g \yt9 [A] : in v. 16 ' IV-thel ' is with 6"'*'' to Ix;
omitted), but is still distinct from Luz (16a [©"* does
not distinguish them, reading Xoij'a (H in i-. 1, A in v. 3)
after /ia<tf7;\j). The later priestly writer, however,
makes them the same (18 13, cp 2a {^■t\aa.va. [B], /Stj^t/X
(.•\)] ; in Judg. 1 23 the p,-irenthesis is proljably a gloss).*
In Judg. 45 the prophetess Delxirah is said to have sat
under the palm-tree of Detxirah l)ctween Ramah and
Bethel — a statement which the critics who understand
the song of Delwrah to imply that she belonged to the
tril)e of Issachar su|)pose t'^ have arisen from confusion
with the <nhor Delxjrah (see Ukbok.MI). There is no
cogent reason, however, for their inference from the song,
and while a palm is an unusual, it is not an impossible,
tree at the altitude of Bethel : there is one at Jerusalem.
In the story of the crime of the Benjamitcs the priestly
writing tells of a national gathering before God at Bethel
(Judg. 21 2).
In the reconls of the period after tlx' Judges the
name Luz does not occur ; we may suppose it by this
time to have Ijeen absorljed in that of
Bethel, which was still a sanctuary ( i S.
7 16 10_;V The division of the kingdoms brought Bethel
.1 new opportunity : its ancient sanctity was taken ad-
vantage of by Jerolmam for ptjlitical ends, and he made
it one of the two national shrines which he established
in North Israel in order that his people might not go
over to Jerusalem. In these shrines he set up the golden
calves — 'Thy God, O Israel, which brought thee up out
of the land of Egypt ' ( i K. I229). .A priesthood, not
Levitical, was established, and a new altar, pilgrimages,
and feasts were ordained (i K. I230/). In the words
of .\maziah to Amos, Bethel became a royal and national
temple ( ' sanctuary of the king,' ' house of the kingdom,'
Am. 7 13)- 2
A later (perhaps post -exilic) narrative records a
prophecy as made by a prophet from Judah, by which
Jeroboam was judged according to the Deuteronomic
standard, and Yahwe's overthrow of Bethel was predicted
(i K. 13 ; cp 2 K. 1029). There was no such feeling of
guilt or foreljoding of doom, however, among the
prophets of the northern kingdom, for we find a
company of them settled in liethel, and the place
visited by Klijah and Klisha (2 K.22/. 23).
For a national sanctuary the position was convenient.
The present village lies alxjut a furlong off the most
4 Imnortanfe '^^*''^'''>' °' ^^ three parallel branches
Dosition '"'"^ which the great north road here
divides, very near its junction with the
ro.ad by Michmash to Jericho, and not many miles from
the heads of those two other roads which come up
from the coast by the lieth-horons, and by (iophna.
resfKJctively, to meet the north road just mentioned.
That is to say, the main lines of traffic N. to S. and
E. to W. crosst>d at the gates of Bethel. Like other
ancient sanctuaries, it must have h.ad a market ; its mer-
cenariness and wealth are implied by Amos (84, etc.).
Moreover, liethel lay upon the natural frontier l)etween
the two kingdoms on the plateau between the passes of
Beth-horon and Michmash (on the Chronicler's story of
its capture by Abij.ah of Judah, see Abij.mi, i ). The
prophets Hosea and .\mos appear in opposition to
Bethel, not on the ground (taken by the later Deutero-
nomists) that it was the seat of a schism, but because of
1 In Judg. 2 I a Bethel ought proliably to be read for liocillM
2 KM r\2^ r-3» K1.T -Ss-P:if?p 'S, AV ' for it is the kings
ch.ipel, and it is the king's court ' ; RV ' for it is the king's
sanctuarj-, and it is a royal house.'
553
BETHBR
the superstitious and immoral nature of its cult, e>'en
though the object of this w.is Yahwe himself. They
regard it as apostasy from Yahwe (Am. 44, 'Come to
Bethel and revolt * ; r> 5 [ySa^TjX t^**'''], ' .V-ek n».t
Bethel, seek Yahwe*), and its crimes culminate (Ant. 7i3)
in the silencing of his pro|)het .\mos by its priest Amaziah
(sec Amos, § 20). It shall, therefore, Ijear the brunt of
the impending doom (Am. 814 Hos. IO15 \oIko% tov
iffpariX BAQ]). In scorn Amos had said ' Bethel shall
Ix'come AVKN ' — i.e., vanity, falseness, false worship,
idolatry (5 5) : — so Hosea calls it Beth-aven (4 15 58 IO5)
oftener than he calls it Bethel. The nickname was the
readier because of the actual Bktii-.Avkn (i/.v.), which
once stood, and perhaps in the eighth centurj- still stootl.
in the neighlx)urhood. After the fall of the northern
kingdom the heathen colonists naturally adopted the
cult of the 'god of the land,' and Bethel retained its
importance as a religious centre (2 K. 17 28). Isaiah
and Micah do not meiuion Bethel ; it is very doubtful if
Jeremiah does .so (Giesebrecht on Jer. 48 13). The frontier
of Judah, however, must have been gradually pushe<l N.
so as to enclose it, for when Josiah put down ' the high
places in the cities of Judah ' he destroyed the altar in
Itethel and desecrated the site (2 K. 2'54i5). The city
itself must have Inxn inhabited by Jews, for its families
are reckoned in the great post-exilic list [sc-e EzR.\, ii.
§§ 9, 8c; Ezra 228 {yaiOrjX rB]) = Neh. 732 (/St/^t/X
[BN*]) = I Esd. i,2i {fieroXio} [B], i^i/r. [A])]. It was the
most northerly site repeopled by Jews ( Neh. 11 31 ; j3ri$r)p
j^j^c.a 111;;, inf. . q,,, BX*.A]). ' \Ve hear nothing more of
Bethel till it is described as one of the strong places of
Judah which Bacchides refortified in 161 B.C. (i M.acc.
950 ; Jos. An/, xiii. 1 3), and then it disappears from OT
history.
In 69 A. I). Vespasian garrisoned Bethel before his advance
on Jerusalem (Jos. ^/iv. 99); and circa 132 Hadrian placed a
post there to intercept Jewish fugitives (Midrash,
B. Post- AX/ia//, ii. 3 : Ncub. (,V,y. 7a/m. 115). The Bor-
biblical, deaux Pilgrim (333) gives it as Betthar 12 R. m.
from Jerusalem. Kohins.m's theory {LBR, 270),
that Bethel is therefore the Bether of Hadrian's war, is un-
founded. Kuseb. and Jerome call it a vill.ige : the latter
adds (under .Xggai) that where Jacob dreamed there was
built a church— })erhaps part of the ruins at Burj-Beitin. The
Crusaders exhibited tlie rock under the llome of the Rock in
Jerusalem as Jacob's Stone ; but the ' Cartulary of the Church
of the Holy Sepulchre ' ^ives Bethel as a cas;d'c ceded to that
church in 1160, and the site of a tower and chajK:! bi:ilt by
Huguesd'Ibelin(Rey, 378). Sec- < .\\ir\n,Ju,/^e, chap. .'.S ; /•/>•
M(tu. •.'2957; 3057; ; Stanley, .S/'2i7 ; (J.VSiii. //</, chap. xii.
and pp. 289^ 298.
(2) A place to which David sent part of the spoil of
the .Amalekites (iS. 8027!: probably the «ame as
BlCTllfl., if we are not with ©" (and Budde) to read
/Sai('<Toip /.(■., r>KTii-zrK. G. .\. s.
BETH-EMEK (pCI'n n'3. § 99. 'house in the
valley), a place on the boundary of .Asher (Josh. 10 27).
Before Beth-cmek some wortls appear to have dropped out :
perhaps they are representeil by © s <cai tuTtXevat-rai [ra] opia.
(.\fter opio ©U coiitiiuics <Ta<i>6<u^ai6iJ.( , where <ra.(f^ai seems to
be a corruption o( yaiil>9airj\ [-yai i«t>9ari\], prefixed wrongly
to fiaiBfxt ( = Patdf fieit 1 : acraijfla firjOaetifK \.\], croi^a ^OarfitK
[L] ; Symm. tit -niy itoiAouSa). The dcscripiinn in ?■. t; /. is not
cle.ar ; there would seem to be two descriptions of the northern
lx)undary (if 'on the left hand," f. 28, means ' northward.' and
if the equivalent of <cat tiatK. opia is to be inserted before
' northward ' in v. 27).
Robinson was struck by the resemblance of the name
to that of Wmka, 6^ m. NE. of 'Akka (.\crei ; but, as
he himself points out (/>'A' 4 103 108), the situ.ation of
'Amka is too far N. of Jefat (Jiphtah-el ?), and, even if
this objection lie waived, '.Amka is at any rate too far
N. of Kabul (which must be the ancient Cabul).
T. K. C.
BETHER (eeOHp [BE], BaiOhr^ [A'), one of the
additional cities of Judah in Josh. 15 59 <P (cp SHOT).
mentioned after Karem ("Ain Karim) and Gallim (cp
Gibbar). No doubt it is the modern Bittir(7 m. SW.
1 On this list see Ezra, ii., ii 5 [b], 15 I'l «•
> ficu00itp also occurs in i Ch. tJ 59 [A), as a substitute for
oTTaf [Bl— 1.^., Juttah.
554
BETHER
of Jerusalem), which stands on the slope of a steep
projecting hill between the Wady Hittir and a smaller
valley. If we asceiui higher we shall reach a site
admirably adapted for a fortress, where there are still
some ruins connected by popular legend with the Jews.
On the E. side are chambers in the rock and old cisterns.
Neubauer (ddog. Talin. 103-114, cp 90) and Gu6rin
(///(/. 2387-395) had all but demonstrated that this was
the Hether (in'a) or rather lieth-ter (-inn-a). within whose
walls Bar Cochba so obstinately resisted the Romans
under Julius Severus (A. o. 134-5). The proof has now
been completed by the discovery of an inscription stating
which divisions of the Roman army were stationed
there.' It is, therefore, no longer possible to maintain
with Gratz [Hist. 2417) that the Beth-ter of Bar Cochba
was identical with the Betthar of the itineraries, which
was situated between Antipatris or Diospolis and
Cassarea (see ANTIPATRIS, § 2, end). See Gibbar.
Only two ancient statements respecting the position of Bether
need be here quoted. Kus. {/IK 5 6) describes pi.0dr)pa in
these terms : TroAiyi/ij nv fif oxvpuiTOLTt}, tcoc 'lepoo'oAu/oicoi' ov
<T(j>6Spa iroppta 6ie(rT(i(ra, and the Talm. of Jerus. {Taanith,
48), 'If thou thinkest that Beth-ter [spelt with two n almost
always in this section] was near the sea, thou art in error :
truly it was 40 m. away from the sea.' t. K. C.
BETHER, The mountains of (102 ^"in). Cant. 217
EV, following Vg. {Bether). The word Bether, how-
ever, all recent critics agree, is not a proper name : it
qualifies the preceding words. Putting aside the old,
forced explanations of the phrase, such as ' mountains
of ravines' (©"NAcgp,^ KoiXw/xdrov — i.e., c"in3 'nn ; cp
BrniRO.x), and 'mountains of separation ' (between the
lovers), one might conjecture that 'Bether' was the
Syrian plant malobathron, from which a costly oil was
procured, used in the toilet of banqueters (Hor. Od. ii.
77), and also in medicine (Plin. JVH x.xiii. 448). So
Symm. (Field, He.v. on Cant. 217), RV^s- ; Wellh.
Prol.^*) 399; ET 391. Others emend inn into n"CC3,
'spices,' in conformity with 814 (so Pesh. , Theod. ,
Meier, Griitz). The best solution, however, has yet to
be mentioned : nni is miswritten for [c'ln^a. 'cypresses' ;
cp 1 17 (Che.). ' Mountains of cypresses' is an appro-
priate term for Lebanon ; cp ' mountains of panthers '
(18). See /(^>A' 10571, and cp Canticles, § 15 n.
BETHESDA (BneecAA [codieid]_^.^., xiDH n^B
— ' house of mercy ' ; Bh6z<\6& [Ti. WH]), the reading
of TR in Jn. 52, for whicli the best authorities have
Beth/.atha or Rktmsaida. On the topographical
question, see Ji:rus.\lem.
BETHEZEL ('PV'^C ^''5 : ©"*° o''^"" fX^Me^o" ai^ri^s,
i.e.,Tw^'^, 'near her'), an unidentified place in the
Shephelah mentioned by Micah (1 n), who foresees the
captivity of its noble ones (rS'sj;, emended from inni;!?,
©'s reading [(JSiVt^s], where MT has irnoy : so Che. ,
JQR, July '98). It is scarcely the same as Azel (cp
Azal).
BETH-GADER (TlS n'? ; BAiGr&iAcoN [B],
TeA^P f'^]' BHereAAcop [L]), a town, whose
'father' Hareph was of Calebite origin (i Ch. 25it);
the genealogy seems to represent post-exilic relations.
On the analogy of the other great divisions Shobal abi
Kirjath-jearim and Salma abi Bethlehem, Beth-gader
was perhaps no unimportant place, and we may possibly
identify it with Gedok, i.* It is noticeable that the further
divisions of Hareph are not enumerated, as they are in
the cases of Shobal and Salma.
BETH-GAMUL ("piOi JT*?, ' place of recompense ' ?
[cp Gamaliel, ?Xv?p3]; O I KO N r<MMCO A [B],o. fAMCO A A
[A], o. -A [Q]. O- -COAB [{<'=•■'']. om. X*). In Moab on
the table-land E. of the Jordan (Jer. 4823), identified by
1 C\. Can. Acaii. ties inscr., Comptes rendus, 1894, p. i;?yC
2 The position of Geder, with which it might otherwise be
connected, is unknown.
555
BETH-HARAM
some with Kh. /email, which lies to the east of the well-
known DiBON ; according to others, it finds its modern
representative in Umm ej-Jemdl, about five hours S. of
Bosra.
BETH-GILGAL ('pa'?5n H"?). Neh. I229 RV ; see
GILGAI., § 6 (5).
BETII-HACCEREM, AV Beth - Haccherem (n^3
D"!3n, § 103, ' vineyard place'), is expressly called, not
a town, but a ' district' ("Sl/S), near Jerusalem, N'ch. 814
(BhOaxaaa FB], -Oaxxapma [A], -Gakaaa [N], -&v-
XARAM [1^])- From Jer. 61 it appears to have included
a conspicuous height to the S. of Jerusalem which was
usctl as a beacon-station (Baid Oaxo-pf^ [B], BeOd. [K],
Br]ea. [Q], BvdOaxap [A].
Jerome (in his comment on the latter passage) says that it was
one of the villages which he could see every day with his own eyes
from Bethlehem, that it was called Bethacharma, and that it lay
on a mountain. Hence, many since Pococke have placed it on
the so-called Fureidls or ' Frank Mountain ' (2487 ft. above the
sea-level), between Bethlehem and Tekoa, and very near the
latter (so even Giesebrecht). Jerome's
we are unable
but there is now no name near the ' Frank Mountain'
which confirms this theory, and the special fertility which the
name Beth-haccerem implies to have characterised the district
suggests looking elsewhere. After all, it was rather hasty to infer
from Jer. 0 i that Beth-haccerem was bound to be near Tekoa.
Since we have found reason elsewhere (Beth-car)
to correct 'Beth-car' in iS. 7ii into Beth-haccerem,
and to identify this with the beautiful village of 'Ain
Karim, about an hour and a half W. of Jerusalem,
it becomes difficult to resist the conclusion that the hill
referred to by Jeremiah was the /edel 'AH, at the foot of
which lies the village in question. The fruitful olive-
groves and vineyards of 'Ain Karim are watered from a
superb fountain, and would justify the name Beth-
haccerem. The summit of the Jebel 'AH commands a
view of the Mediterranean, the Mount of Olives, and
part of Jerusalem ( Baed. '^> 112). Condor mentions that
tliere are still cairns on the ridge above 'Ain Karim which
may have served as beacons {PEFQ, 1881, p. 271).
One is 40 ft. high and 130 ft. in diameter, with a flat
top measuring 40 ft. across.
Two more references to Beth-haccerem may be indi-
cated. In the Mishna treatise, Middoth 3 4, it is
stated that the stones for the great altar in the second
temple came from the valley of Beth-cerem, which Adler
[JQR 8390) identifies with Beth-haccerem and 'Ain
Karim ; and among the eleven towns which ©"al j^^^g
(but not MT) in Josh. I559 occurs Karem (Kape/i),
which, from the context, can only be 'Ain Karim. Cp
Taiichemonite. For another (probable) Beth-carem
see Batii-RABrim. t. K. C.
BETH-HAGGAN [\IJ\ n^3, domus horti [Vg.], EV
'the garden-house'; better in 6. as a proper name,
BAIGAN [B], BAlATfAN [A'^'d- sup ras], BAiecoptON =
Beth-horon [L]), a place, apparently to the S. of Jczreel,
on the road to which Ahaziah fled in his chariot when
he saw Jehoram slain by Jehu (2 K.927). Jenin, the
lirst village which one travelling southwards would
encounter, may very well be Beth-haggan ( = Beth-hag-
gannim, 'place of gardens'), i.e., En-GANNIM (^.z'. , 2).
If, however, we hold with (Tonder that Megiddo, which
.\haziah reached at last — to die— was Mujedda' at the
foot of Gilboa, a little to the S. of Beisan, it will become
natural to identify Beth-haggan with a northern Beit
Jenn, between Mt. Tabor and the S. end of the Lake
of Gennesaret (Beit Jenn is, in Arabic nomenclature, a
favourite name). Against this view of the flight of
Ahaziah, see GASm. HG 387, n. i. t. K. C.
BETH-HANAN. See Ei.on-beth-hanan.
'BETH-HARAM, AV incorrectly Beth-aram (0*3
D"1in ; oGAprAei, or perhaps -aAcom [B], BhGaram
[.AL]), Josh. 1327 (P). For the true form of the name
see Beth-haran.
SS6
BETH-HAEAN
BETH-HARAN (pn n'3. probably 'house of
Hakan,' BaiOap&n [\i]. -AppA [A]. -N [FL]- ^'u•
3236 [E\), tlie corri-ct and ori|;inul pronunciation of
the name of the place also called Rktii-makam (cp
Gkrsiiom for Ckksmon). Ihe place thus designated
was an ancient Amoriie city, foriilied by the conquering
Gadites. The site is occupied by the modern Tf/I er-
Rameli, which stands up in a wfuly of the same name,
between llesbfin and the Jordan, at no great distance
from the river. The objection to this raised by Guthe
l/.f>l'l' 2-i, n. i) is not decisive.
Rrmich docs inclceiJ imply a form, neth-har3mah ; but this
form is vouched for hy the existence of the Aramaic Beth-ramtha
(see below). It arose out of ISuth-iiaram (a phonetic modifica-
tion of Heth-haran) when the older and correct form of the
name had passed out of use, and so the later form, Bclh-haram,
came to be misinterpreted. Moreover, Tristram's discovery of
a 'conspicuous mound' called Beit Via.rTan(Lan<i 0/ Afoah, 348)
has not been vcrilied by subsequent travellers,' though it is still
recognised in Itaed.(S) (map of Pera.'a), and the identification
(which stands in Di.'s comin.) is retained by von Riess in Bibel-
Atlasy^\, on the assumption that licit Harran (or Haram) is
nearer to the outlet of the wady than Tell cr-Kumeh.
The really conspicuous mound is surely that of Tell
er-Rameh, which is 673 ft. alxsve the sea-level, and
certainly marks the site of an ancient town of importance
(Conder, /V-.7'M/cw., /,'. I'a!. I238). Such a town
was the lieth-ramtha of the Talmud (Xeuhauer, Giog.
Talin. 247), the name of which is attested by Josephus,
Eusebius, and Jerome.'*
Herod had a palace here (Jos. Ant. xvii. 10 6; B/ ii. 4 2) ;
Herod Antipas walled it and called it Julias after the wife of
Augustus, at the same time that Herod Pliilip relniilt Belhsaida
and gave it the same name after the emperor's d.uighter (Jos.
<•(«/. xviii. 2 I ; />'/ii.!)i). Jerome, however, enables us to correct
this statement ((>.V 103 17). Theoldernameof the city was Livias ;
the name was chan>;ed to Julias when Livia was received into
the gens Julia by the emperor's testament (see Scburer, J/ist.
ii. 1 142). Kus. (f '.S' i;34 88) and Theodosius(53o A.i).)also call it
Livias; the latter (/)<r ^ttu Terrie ^Vi«r /«■. 65) describes it as
12 k. m. from Jericho, near warm springs that were efficacious
against leprosy. X. K. C.
BETH-HOGLAH, once (Josh. 156) AV Beth-hogla
(n^jH n'3, § 104, 'place of partridge,' cp Hoglah),^
a Hcnjaniite city on the border of Judah (Jos. 156,
B(Me<^^^AAA^ [B], -Aa [I>]. -OaAa [A]; I81921,
OaAaccan and BeeerMoo [H], BAiOAAAfA [A],
BmBapAa {}'• -I"'! A in 21]). It is the modern 'Ain
(and K.nsr) Hajla, a fine spring and ruin situated be-
tween Jericho and the Jordan S. of Gilgal (cp Di. on
Gen. In and Raed.W I54)-' Under the form Reth-
alaga it is, according to Jos. {Ari(. xiii. 1 5), the place
to which Jonathan fled Ixifore Bacchides, i Mace. 863
(but see Bkthbasi). The Onom. erroneously identifies
Beth-hoglah with Atad (see Abkl-mizraim, end). The
interi^relation ' Betha^la, locus gyri' of Jcr. , according
to WKS (AW. SemJ-^ 191, n. i), may rest upon a local
tradition of a ritual procession around some sacred
object there (cp Ar. hajala, 'hobble, hop') — similar
perhaps to the Ar. ceremonial fawdf [for which see We.
HeidS^"* no).* The form hajla survives also in Ma-
khadet Hajla (see Kkth-arahah, 2), a noted bathing-
place for pilgrims at the mouth of the Wady el- Kelt
(Baed. 169).
BETH-HORON (pin D"?, also pin "1 and ph "1,
and in C'h. jilin "1\ BAlBcopoaN or Bee. [BAI.].
1. Site BeBcopA, BaiO-, -eoopco^ BhS. in Jos. [cp
the modern form Beit 'Ur], probably 'the
place of the hollow ' or ' hollow way ' ) was the name
ofjtwo neighbouring villages, upper Both-horon ('n "1
jivr, Josh. IG5; ^■r\du}puv \\S\) and lower I^-th-horon
(jinnn 'n "l, josh. I63; but in 2 Ch.85 )V7rn and
J See, r.f., Schick, ZDn'lix ; cp p. 2.
2 Jos. gives the name as prieapatiaOa and firfiapafL^a ; once
(Ww/. xvii.106) the text gives i^^aJda. Kus. ((^23487) ^yfi-
paft<f>0a, with a fragment.-iry reference to the a<j-<rupioi. Jer.
(OS '2b 1 1 ; 103 16), ' Betharam domus sublimium vel montium ' ;
quae a Syris dicitur Bethramtha ').
^ The o in Hoglah is not supported, and all the evidence points
to the reading ' Haglah."
* For another explanation see E.n-eglai.m.
557
BETH-HORON
pnnnn — hence the dual form preserved by upwvtiv^ [B ;
but prjdupwv AL], Josh. lOio/. ), near the head and the
foot, resjiectively, of the ascent from the Maritime I'lain
to the j)lateau of Bcnjamiii. and represented to-day by
/W/ 'Or el-Joka and lieit 'Ur et-talit,i (large PEF Surv.
Map. Sheet xvii. ). The road leaves Beit Sira (in which
2. Beth-horon s°"'«^ce Uzzen-sheerah : seeSMKRAU).
road. '^° alx)ve sea-level, on the high
plain of Aijalon ; climbs up the .••|)ur of
the Benjamitc hills in alxsut 50 minutes to the lower Beth-
horon, 1240 ft. ; and thence, dro{)ping at fust for a
little, ascends the ridge, with the gorges of Wady
Selnuln to the S. , and Wady es-Sant and Wady el-
'Imeish to the N., to the uppei Beth-horon, i^ m.
from its fellow and 2022 ft. alxive the sea ; and thence,
still following the ridge, comes out on the Bcnjamite
plateau al>out 4 J m. farther on, to the X. of el- Jib
(dibeon), at a height of about 2300 ft. The .iSi'D or
ascent to Beth-horon (Josh. 10 10) may Ix; the road
towards the up|)er Beth-horon from (jilx;on : it does
rise at first from the plateau before descending ; the
Tito or descent to the two Beth-horons (Josh. 10 n, ©")
is the whole road from the edge of the plateau. More
probably, the two are the same taken from opposite
ends. This Beth-horon road is now no longer the high
road from Jerusalem and the watershed to the Maritime
Plain ; but it was used as such from the very earliest
times to at least the sixteenth century of our era, and
indeed forms the most natural, convenient, and least
exposed of all the possible descents from the neighlxnir-
hood of Jerusalem to the plain of Sharon. The line of
it bears many marks of its age and long use. Carried
for the most part over the bare rock and rocky debris,
it has had steps cut upon it in its sleeper portions, and
has remains of Roman pavement. Standing as they
do upon mounds, the two Beth-horons command the
most difficult passages of this route and form its double
key.
The constancy with which the Beth-horons appear in
history is, therefore, easily explicable (they do not occur,
^-l-i. however, in either the lists of the con(juests
hi to V °f Thotmes III. or the Amarna letters).
^ ^^' According to JE, after Joshua had won
for Israel a footing on the Benjamite plateau and made
peace with Gibeon, the latter was threatened by the
Canaanites. Joshua defeated them at Gibeon, and
pursued them all the way down by the Beth-horons
(Josh. 10 lojj'! ). In the days of Saul the Philistines must
have held the pass from their camp at Michmash (i S.
13i8).'^ Solomon fortified Beth-horon the nether, along
with (jezer, on the opposite side of .Vijalon (i K.917
[om. BL, Jos. firfTX(')po- ', in iK.'iss/ ^aidopujd, A];
2 Ch.85 adds Beth-horon the upper [^aiOixjfujix. BJ).
During his son Rehoboam's reign .Shishak or Sosenk of
Egypt invaded Judah by the Beth-horon passage,
it would appear, for both Ai-yu-ru-u (.Aijalon) and
Bi-tj-h-va-ru-n (Beth-horon) occur in his lists of the
towns he conquered (Nos. 26 and 24 ; see WMM, As.
u. Eur. 166).
In the Syro-Maccabean wars, Seron, a Syrian general,
advanced on Judah by IVth-horon ; Judas with a small
force met him on the ascent, defeated him, and pursued
him out upon the plain (i Mace. 813-24 [©■^ ?'. 16,
/ue^wpwi'j ; Jos. Ant. xii. 7 i). A few years afterwards,
Nicanor having retired from Jerusalem upon Beth-
horon, Judas attacked and slew him, and routed his
army as far as Gczer ( i Mace. 1 39 ff- '< Jos. Aril. xii. IO5).
Beth-horon was among the places fortified by Bacchides
(i Mace. 9 so [^TjOupuiy, \'*], Jos. Anl. xiii. 1 3). See
also Judith44 (fieOwpu [A]).
1 A similar dual (D]yih) is to be read in 2S. 1834 with We.,
Dr., and Bu. SBOT, following ©"'s utprnvrtv {optuv i) [.\»'d],
(rupatfi [I.]).
'i It was probably by the Beth-horons that the Philistines
were routed by Saul (i .S. 13 14) and 'from Gibeon south to
Gezer,' by David (a S. 5 25).
558
BETH-JBSHIMOTH
In 66 A.n. a Roman army under Cestius Gallus, ascending by
Beth-horon, had tlicir rear disordered by the Jews, and after a
short and futile siege of Jerusalem retreated pell-mell by the
same way. Josephus descrilies the difficulties of the ground in
a manner that leads us to suppose that the Romans in their
haste cannot have kept to the high road by the I!eth-horons, but
were swept down the gorges on either side (/>y >'• '9)- Perhaps
because of this experience, Titus, in his advance upon Jerusalem
two years later, took another road ; and Heth-horon is not again
mentioned in the military history of Palestine.
In the division of the land among the tribes of Israel,
the border line lictween lienjarnin and l^phraim ran by
, .. the lieth-horons (Josh. I635 [I- "-'-5.
4. Population. ^^^jjpy^]_ 18 13/ ) which were counted
to Ephraim (Josh. 21 22). They remained part of the
N. kingdom ; and we do not re.ad of any Jews settled
there in post-exilic times. That is to say, they were held
by the Samaritans. Sanballat, one of the chief foes of
the lews in Nehemiahs day. is called ' the Hokonite"
(Neh. 2io. opw»'[€]i [B.\]. avpuvei [S^'''], wpwviTrji [L]
19 I32S, om. BS.V, wpafiT-rji [H^-^"'^], etc.). .Sclilalter
{Z»r Topog. u. Gesch. Pal. 4, 'War Heth-horon der
Wohnort Sanballat's?") seeks to prove that Horonite
means 'from Horonaim," the town in S. Moab (Is. 155
Jer. 483534, and Moabite stone), partly on the ground
that Sanballat is associated with Tobiah the Ammonite ;
but Ammonite may mean ' from Chkphar-Ammoni '
(a town of Benjamin, Josh. I824) ; and Buhl (Gcog. 169)
poitits out that ©s form of Belh-horon 'ilpwvfLV (Josh.
10io[B], cp 2 S. 1334) confirms the possibility of //<irJ//«
meaning 'from Beth-horon.' By 161 B.C. Beth-horon
had become a city of Judoea (i Mace. 95°; ]os.Ant.
xiii. I3, cp 7i).
.XccDrdiiii; to the T.-ilmud, it w.-is the birthplace of many rabbis
(Neul). C„\\r_ Taint. 154). Jerome gives it in the itinerary of S.
Paula, who came to it from Xicopolis {Kfiit.
6. Post-biblical .v. l\iul.JIu,: op., ed. .Misne, i. 883). There
rAfprftnpM are the ruins of a media;val castle in upper
reierences. j5^,h.j,„ron_ but the substructions in both
Tillages are probably more ancient. The name is given by very
few medi.cval travellers (Brocardus, ch. 9 ; Marin. Sanutus, 249),
.and not at all, it would appear, by the Arab geographers— unless
the 'Ur.linah mentioned by Yakut, but not located, be the same
place. The mediiuval pilgrims went to Jerusalem by Ramleh
and the present line of road. In 1801 Dr. Clarke (Tyavels, pt.
ii. vol. i. 628) rediscovered the name.
See Rob. A' A' 3 59 ; Gu6rin,y»</. 1338,346; Stanley, .9/" 212;
GASm. HG 210-213, 254. C. .\. S.
BETH-JESHIMOTH, once (Nu. 8849) AV Beth-
jesimothiniO^'J^n n*5. BHCiMOye [AL]), is assigned
in Joshua (12 5Ac[e]iMcoe [B.A], aicim. [F™'], Bne-
Ac[e]l/V\. [LJ, 13 20 BAieeACeiNcoe [B]) to the
Reubenites (cp Xu. 3349. ^^a y-i<yov ai<n/j.ij0 [BFL],
A. M. AC. [A]) ; but probably it was, like most of the
neighbouring i)laces, in the possession of the Moabites
during a considerable period of the Hebrew monarchy.
We know that it was Moabite in the time of Ezekiel
(Ezek. 209, oIkov daffi/jLovd [B], 0. ^eOaff. [B>>l^i>"A],
o. ^ai^a. [Q*J, 0. jiaid' laa: [Q^]), who speaks of it
along with Baal-meon and Kiriathaim as ' the glory of
the country. ' .Xs ^-qcntxthd it is mentioned by Josephus
(/?/iv. 7 5) as having l>een taken by Placidus ; Eus. writes
^■qdaiixovd [0S(-^ 26627) and ^r)da<jinov0 (233 81);
Jerome {if>. 103 9), writing liethsimuth, describes it as a
village bearing in his day the name himuth, opposite
Jericho at a distance of 10 R. m. 'in meridiana plaga,
juxta mare mortuum. " The name and description point
to the modern Khirbet es-Suweimeh. The name Jeshi-
moth may be comjiared with the Jeshimon ' on the face'
of which 'the headland of Pisgah looked down ' (Nu.
21 20); for probably this Jeshimon ( = ' desolation ') is
not the Jeshimon of Judah, but the barren land off the
XE. end of the Dead Sea. With this name Honimel
[AHT 197) compares Yasumunu, the name of a
Palestinian district mentioned by an early Assyrian king.
Cp G.\Sm. //(; 564, n. I.
BETH-LEAPHRAH (n"1?l?7 n*3), Mic. 1 lof RV,
AV Al'llR.MI, IIolSK OK.
BETH-LEBAOTH (niNa? n^3, §§ 93. 104,— /.e-..
•abode of lions,'— Josh. 196, BAGARcae [!'']• BaiOaA-
559
BETHLEHEM
Bag [A], BHGAeBACoG [L]), or, simply. Lf.haoth (Josh.
ir»32. AaBcoc [B], -coG [AE]1. an unidentified site m
the Negeb of Judah (Josh. 1632), assigned to Simeon
(Josh. 196). The pamllel passage in i Ch. 43' has
Bktii-biri ('kts n-a), which has probably arisen from a
corruption of the text. For ' and at Beth-biri and at
Shaaraim ' C? has Ka.\ oIkov ^paovfiaewpfifi [ B], k. 0.
PapovfJL • <T. [.A], K. iv tiai0^ap€ifi k. (v ffaapi/i [L].
BETHLEHEM iDn^'n*? Ru. I19, etc. ; Dn? n*3
iS. 206, etc.; BHGAeCM [I- commonly] some codd.
BeGXeeM, BAiGAee\\ [15A]; Jos. BhGXccmh and BhG-
AeMA ; gentilic Bethlehemite. *pn?ll"n*3, BhG-
AeeMeiTHC. i S. IGiS. etc.) meant, to the Hebrew,
■house of bread' ; N.\.mks, §10; on a less obvious
explanation of H. G. Tomkins, see Elh.\nan, 1, end.
I. Beth -lehem -judah (nT.i^'a Judg. 17? /^. etc- )•
the modern Beit Lahm, 2350 ft. above sea-level. 5 m.
_. .S. of Jerusalem (Jos. , 20 stadia, ,////. vii. I24).
1. Site. ^ jjjjjjj Qfj- jj^g j^jgf^ ro^j JO Hebron, on a spur
running \\. from the watershed, surrounded by valleys
among the most fertile of Juda;a. The site is without
springs (the nearest being one 800 yards SE. of the
town, and others at Artas i^ m. away), but receives
water from an acjueduct from the Pools of Solomon
(Conduits, § 3) compassing the SE. end of the spur,
and from many cisterns— of which the greatest are
three in front of the great basilica ; there are three
others from 12 to 21 ft. deep, on the X., called Biar
Da'ud. The immediate neighbourhood is very fertile,
bearing, besides wheat and barley, groves of olive and
almond, and vineyards. The wine of Bethlehem
('Talhaml') is among the best of Palestine.
So great fertility must mean that the site was occupied,
in spite of the want of springs, from the earliest times ;
, but the references to it in Judges— as the
2. OT refer- j^^^^g ^f tj^g ^evite who sojourned in
ences. Mjc.ah's house (17? 9). and of the young
woman whom the I5enjamites maltreated (19 1/ 18)— and
in the Book of Ruth are of uncertain date, and into the
clear light of history Bethlehem first emerges with David. '
It was his home (i S. 206 28, very early), for the waters
of which, when it was occupied by the Philistines, he
expressed so great a longing— probably as a pledge of
his fatherland's enfranchisement— that his three captains
broke the enemy's lines, and drew water from the cistern
' in the town's gate ' (2 S. 2Zuff., from the same early
source), which tradition has identified with the Biar
Da' fid (but Gu6rin, /«</. 1 i3o#. following Quaresmius,
prefers those in front of the basilica). Other references
to Bethlehem as David's home are i S. I614 17 12 15 58
(from later strata). .Asahel, brother of Joab, was buried
in Bethlehem in his fathers grave (2S. 232). Thus.
Joab, like his leader, was a Bethlehemite. Except for
a statement of 2 Ch. 116 (©«*'^ iSat^aeeAi). that Reho-
bo.am fortified Bethlehem, the town is not mentioned
again till Micah, who describes it if) 2) as still one of the
smallest of the townships of Judah, but illustrious as
the birthplace of the Messianic king (see Micah, ii. %2b).
According to Jer. 41 17. the Jews who in 586 B.C. fled to
Egypt rested at Gidroth-chimham (see Chimham), near
Bethlehem. The Bethlehemites carried into captivity
by Nebuchadrezzar repeopled their town after the return
(Ezra22i fiapOaXaifi [B], ^edXai/Ji [.\]\ Neh. 726 Bom.,
BedWee/x [S], j3ai<TaXeeM [A], cp 7: 6 ; i Esd. 5i7 payed-
Xu/jxov [B], ffaidXiVfxuf [A]. ^id\(en [L]). Bethlehem
is the scene of the lx:autiful story of Ruth, in connection
with which it is necessarj- to note that Moab is clearly
visible from about Bethlehem : thus. Ruth in her
adopted home must often have had her own fatherland
in sight. In the lists of the MT of Joshua (P) Beth-
lehem is not given ; but it is added with ten others in
the <5"A'- text of l.')59 (/cat e(f>pada, aimj «tti \^aid\(eii) :
©'s reading must be genuine, since the group which it
t If it docs so even then : see Davio, g 1 a.
560
Christian ,
times.
BETHLEHEM
includes is too important to have been omitted from the
original.
TIk; name Kphrathah or Kphrath of this po-ssnge is
assif;iiL(l to Ik'thU-hcni also in Mic. 5a[i] (the rca<ling
« rnhmth '^■'-•* '"" •''''''EX ^^ ""' certain ; hut tlu- refer-
s. tpnram. ^^^^^ ,^ Ilcthlchem is clear), in Ku. 4ii.
virtually in Ru. I2 (L om. ) in i S. 17ia (U om. ),* and
probably also in I's. 1326. Apart from Micah. the
documents in which i:phrath[ah] occurs arc proU-ibly
so late that we might reasonably suppose that Hethlehem
was the earlier name of the town. On the other hand,
these documents are proliably based on very early
material : Micah (if Mic. fn is his work) takes the
name as well known. It is possible to argue from
I Ch. 21950 44 (fiaiOXaSfy [B], /3at^Xae/i [A]), that
Ephrath[ah| was the name of the whole district in
which Ik-thlfhcnt lay.
Bethlehem is not mentioned by Joscphus after Solo-
mon's tiiiio, nor in the Hooks o{ Maccalxms; which
proves how insignilicant it continued to be. As the
place conunanded the fertile wadies and water-supply
around it, — the Philistines had deemed it important
enough to occupy — this silence is very remarkable.
Bethlehem reappears in Mt. 2 I.k. 2 as the
birthplace of Jesus, distinguislied still as
lirjOXd/j. TTji 'lovoaias ( Mt. 2 1 5, cp 6 8 16),
•the city of David' (Lk.'24i5 cp Jn.742). I.k. de-
scribes the new-l)orn child as having been laid in a
manger (X.ABDI.i omit the dertnite article of TA'),
' because tlure was no room for them in the A'Jiii/i ' ;
they had retired then ' to a stall or cave where there
was rocjm for the mother and a crib for the babje."
It is sij,'nilicant that Bethlehem appears to have been
chosen, along with the sites of the crucifi.xion and the
resurrection, for special treatment by the Emperor
Hadrian. .\s he set up there an image of Jupiter and
an image of Venus, so he devastated liethlehem and
planted u[xin it a grove sacred to Adonis (jer. l-.pist. ad
Pan!., ri8 3). This proves that even before 132 A.D.
Bethlehem was the scene of Christian pilgrimage and
worship, as the birthplace of Jesus. (The Talmud also
admits that from Bethlehem the Messiah must come :
Berachoth, 5(1.) .About 150 A.D. Justin .Martyr (/^/'(i/.
c. Tryph. 70 78) de.scril)cs the scene of the birth as in a
cave near the village. This tradition may be correct :
there were many ancient cave -stables in Palestine
(Conder, Tent Work, chap. 10), and caves are still used
as stables. In 315 A.u. the site of Bethlehem was
still 'a wild wood' (Cyr. Jcrus. dttcch. 12 20). Con-
stantine cleared it and built a iKisilica. Soon after, in
Jerome's time, a cave in the rock near the basilica w.is
venerated as the staVjle, and in a neighlx>uring grotto
Jerome himself prepared his translation of the Bible.
From that day to this the tradition has been constant.
The centre of interest in modern Bethlehem is, there-
fore, the large basilica .S. Maria a Pra-sepio, surrounded
and fortified by the Latin, the Greek, and the Armenian
monasteries. .Although the architecture is mi.xed and of
many |x;ri<Kls, the bulk of the church is that built by
Constantine. Cp De Vogti<?, Ei,'lises Je la Palestine,
Eutychius (<r/rra 937, ouotecl by Ouirin, 2 i6i).isserts, indeed,
that the church is ,i building of Justini.in, who pulled down Con-
stantine's as tix) small and raised a grander edifice. Procopius,
however, in his Pe .-Jidi/ic. Justin., whilst recording that this
emperor built the walls of Bethlehem (6 8), does not mention any
basilica there of his construction, a.s, had there been one, he must
have done. Probably Justinian only added to Constantine's
church, and the building is, therefore, the most ancient church
in Palestine and one of the most ancient in the world. The fine
mosaics are from the court of the Kmperor Manuel Comnenus
(«Vr<i 1169 A.I).), and the rafters by Philip of Burgundy (in 1482).
1 In the latter two passages Ephrathite means, of course, ' of
Ephrath[.ihr= Bethlehem. It is interesting that in PKF(^, Jan.
1898, .Schick attempts to prove that Ramathaim-rophini, the
town of Samuel 'an Ephrathite," was in the neighbourhood of
Bethlehem. 'Ephrathite' in i S. 1 1 probably means Ephraimite
(cp Jadg. 125 where for 'n"J2K ®b has E</)pafleiTi)« but (S*L «
Tov Et^patfi).
36 561
BETH-MERH
Under the chancel is the (irotto of the Nativity, called
also the Milk-Clrotto and the (Irotto of our I-ady,
' mghAret el halib' and ' mghAret-es-Seiyidc.' Wc have
seen the precariousness of the tradition which sanctions
it : it is only prolxible that Jesus was Ixirn in a cave, and
there is nothing to prove that this was the cave, for the
site lay desolate for three centuries.
Among recent works, consult Tobler'* monograph, Ptthldtrnt
in J'aliistina, and Palmer, ' I>a» jetzige iicthlchcni,' iCDl'V
1789^, with map an<t name-lists.
2. Bethlehem of Zebulun (Josh. 19 15, Battf^oi' [B]),
now lieil l.ahm, 7 m. NW. of Nazareth. ' a miserable
village among oak woods' (Gudrin, CaliUe, 1 303 ; Rob.
liR 8113). In the Talmud it receives the designation
.Tns, perhaps a corruption for ,Tn:i:, ' of Nazareth '
(NeuV>auer, G^og. Talm. 189/.) The combination of
two names so famous in the Gos|x.-l history is remark-
able. Most scholars take this Bethlehem to have Ixhjii
the home and burial-place of the judge Ibzan (Judg.
128 10). Joscphus and Jewish tradition assign hint to
liethlchcni Judah {Ant. v. 7 13). G. A. S.
BETHLOMON (BaiGAcomcon [A]), i Esd. 5i7 =
Ezra'Jji, Hkihikhkm, § 2.
BETH - MAACHAH (nDin?TI'3), 2.S. 2O14. See
Ani;i.-i(i.iii-M.\.\(:iiAH.
BETH-MARCABOTH (nbanr^H n'3, § 96— ».^..
'the house of chariots') and H A/AK-SfSAlI ("^VH
np-ID, — i.e. , ' station of horses ' ) are mentioned together
in Josh. 195/ (P) in the list of Siineonite towns.
The (P readings are : for Belh-marcal)Oth ; in Josh. 19 5 3ai9-
lia\fptP [B], -OapL^apxaaPwO |.\], /3»)fla>iaAvaaxa>» 1 1-l ; in I Ch.
431, where the Hebrew article is omitted, Pai0fiapttiiui0 [H],
-PXa^ (cai f>/fiapia/3u>S [L], -0'' ijiap\afiw6 l.\]. For Ha^ir-susah ;
in Josh. 1!* 5 <Tap<Tov<Tttf [B], actpaovaifj. [\], .\|<Talp<Tou<rif(I.I ;
in I Ch. 4 31, Hazar-susim [see l>el(jw| rjfii(TvtTt<Topafi (B], >)^i<rvf
t'wl opan [B^'l>], riiiiavfoxTipi [A], aafpaovai \\.].
The names seem to indicate posts of war-horses and
chariots, such as Solomon is said to have established
(i K. 919IO26). The two places may possibly be
identical respectively with Maumannah and Sansan-
N.MI, • cities ' in the Ncgcb towards Edom. The
latter are the older names ; for Madniannah, at least,
appears in i Ch. 249 (which belongs to the list of pre-
e.xilic settlements of the Calebites), whilst it is imjKjssible
to assign a very early date to i Ch. 431, where lieth-
marcabolh and Hazak-.sl-.si.m (cn^O nsn) are mentioned
as Simeonite towns ' before the reign of Uavid. ' That
the two places actually were regular stations for horses
and chariots may be taken for granted ; but it may be
questioned whether they were so before jxjst-exilic tunes,
when the Persians established post-stations on the route
from the Shfiphelah into Egypt (by (iaza to Pelusiuni).'
On this view Sansannah may very well be the modern
Simsim, a village in an olive-grove on the road from
Eleutheropolis to Ciaza (9^ m. NE. from the latter
town), and Madniannah may be conjectured to be the
mcxlern K'hdn Yunus, 14 m. S\\ . from Gaza (.so
Gu(^rin, ///</. 2 230). A'hdn Yi'inits has always lieen
an important station. It may te noted that in the time
of Micah (1 13) Lachish (about 8 m. from Simsim) also
was a chariot city. C|) Makc.XBOTH. w. R. s.
BETH-MEON (pI'O n'5), Jer. 4823. See Baal-
Mr-oN.
BETH-MERHAK, AV 'a place that was afar oft,"
RV"'*.'- 'the Far House,' (pn")^n n'3, CN OiKtxj
Tt)J MAKRAN [BAL], procul a domo). Beih-merhak
is either the proper name (so Ges."-", BOB doubtfully), —
in which case the name is Beth-hammerhak, like lieth-
haccerem, — or a description (Iav., The., Ke., Kau. US,
' the last house ' ) of the place outside Jerusalem where
David waited with his attendants until the people and the
body-guard had passed, 2 S. 15 17 (on the text, which
is doubtful, see Dr. HPSm. and KIo. ad Av. ).
1 It is evident that chariots went down to Eg>T)t by this way
at least as early as the eighth cent. B.C. Cp Gen. 465 Mic. 1 13.
S6a
BBTH-MILLO
BETH-MILLO (SiVp n^3), Judg. 96 RV^-; see
Jekusaijim.
BETH-NIMRAH (H^pj n*2. perhaps ' place of pure
water'; cp Ar. tuiviir. Ass. namri, 'transparent'; but
sec NlMKIM :iiul XaMKS, §104; Nu. 3236 NAMRAM
[I5l'l. amBran [A], [n]a/w. [1-]: Josh. 1327 bainBan-
aBraLISJ. BHeANA/v\pA[l-J, BhGamna [A]), or Niinrah
(Nu. 323 namBra [B], -MR- L^'J' amBram [A], mam-
Bran [L]). one of the Aniorite cities which were after-
wards 'built' by Gad (Nu. 3236), is the ^rjOvafxfipii
and Bethaynnaris of Eusebius and Jerome ( OS1j2 43 ; ib.
102 i). a village still extant in their day. about 5 R. m.
N. from Livias (Rktii-Hakan. q.v.), the |-ioi n"3 and
TD3 n"3 of the Talmud (cp Del. ad loc ), the modern
Nimrin, a well-watered oasis on the brink of the Jordan
valley some 13^ miles E. of Jordan (cp Baed. /'«/.(•'' 162).
Beth-nimrah is nowhere mentioned under this name in
or outside of Numbers and Joshua, but it is identified
by many modern critics with the waters of NiMRiM (q. v. ),
and, as stated elsewhere (BETHANY, 2), Beth-nimrah
may be the original of the variants Bethany, Bethabara,
in J 11. ]28.
BETHORON (Judith 4 4), RV Beth-horon [q.v.].
BETH-PALET, or (Neh. II26) Beth-phelet, RV
always Bethpelet (t27S"n*5, 'house of escape"), an
unknown Calebite town (cp Pelet [i], i Ch. 247), on the
Edomite border of Judah, Josh. 1;")27 (Baic})aAaA [B],
BAie(t)AAe0 [A], BHe4>eA. [I-]), mentioned in the list
of Judahite villages (see Ezk.v, ii. § 5 [/'], § 15 \i\a) ;
Neh. 11 26 (BhBc1)aAt [S'=-^ ■">•'•], BHe(})AAAT [L], om.
BS*A). For the gentilic Paltite ('c'^sn), corruptly
Pki.onite (i), see Pai.tite.
BETH-PAZZEZ ((*-VSTI''5), an unknown point on
the border of Issachar, Josh. 192i (BhrCA4)HC [B],
BAiect)ACHe [A], BhGcJjacchc [L]). Compare the
equally obscure name Happizzkz.
BETH-PEOR (nWS Jl*?, oiKOC (t)OrwR [BAFL]), a
placenamedin 1)1.829 446 346 Josh. 1820. Injosh.l32o
(BAl9cJ)oroOR [BL], Be0- [A]) it is enumerated among
the cities of Reuben ; in Dt. 829 446 the ravine (k';) in
front of C^ic) it is mentioned as the place where Israel
was encamped when the Deuteronomy discourses were
delivered ; and in Dt. 346 the same ravine is mentioned
as the place of Moses' burial. The exact site is un-
certain ; but it seems clear that it cannot have been
very far from the Pisgah ridge. Eusebius states (C>5('-'
23378) that Be^<^070/) was near Mouut ^o-^op (cp ' the
top, or head, of Peor," nivsn vivtr\, Xu. 2828), opposite
to Jericho, 6 m. above Livias [i.e.. Tell er-Rameh ; see
Beth-haran) ; and (O^C-' 21847) that Mount ^oywp
was opposite to Jericho, on the side of the road leading
up from Livias to Heshbon, a part of it being 7 m. from
the latter place ( 1 15 1-2). If we may judge from the map
in the Survey of E. Palest. , the ascent from Livias to
Heshbon would be made naturally either along the
Wady Hesban (cp Palmer, Desert of the Exodus, 525/;
Tristram, Moab, 346) or along the more circuitous road
N. of this, said by Tristram (p. 343) to be the one
ordinarily used. The statements of Eusebius, if correct,
would thus point to a site near one of these two
roads, some four or five miles N. of Neba. The
•head of Peor' (Nu. 23 28) might be an eminence in
the same locality. The opinion that this was the site
is supported by the mention, in Josh. 18 20, of Beth-
j)eor next to the 'slopes (mt?K) of Pisgah,' — i.e., in
all probability, the declivities on the S. side of the
Wady 'Ayun Musa. The ' ravine in front of Beth-
poor' might thus be the Wady Hesbfin. Conder
\fRFQ 1882, p. 85/; Heth and Moah,^'^) 146 /)
suggests a site farther to the S. — e.g., on the crest of a
hill above "Ain cl-Minyeh, 8 m. SW. of Neba, com-
manding (see Nu. 2328 ; and 242 compared with 25 1)
563
BETH-REHOB
an extensive view of the lower valley of the Jordan.
Peor, however, the spot at which Baal of Peor was
worshipped (which can hardly have been far from
Beth-peor), would seem (Nu.25i-3) to have been more
readily accessible from the plain of Shittim (the (jhOr-
es-Seiscbfin) than 'Ain el-Minyeh would be; Nu. 2828
compared with v. \\ makes it probable also that it was
less distant from Pisgah ; whilst, as we have seen, what-
ever other indications we jx>ssess point to a site N. of
the Nebo-Pisgah ridge (the modern Neba, Ras Siaghah),
rather than to one S. of it. Until, therefore, it has
been shown that there is no eminence in the neighbour-
hood of the Wady Hesban conmianding the prospect
implied in Nu. 2828 and 242 (ci)25i), it is here that
the ancient Beth-peor must be sought. Travellers will
perhaps explore this region with the view of ascertaining
whether there is such a height. Cp Peor. S. R. d.
BETHPHAGE (BHe4)ArH [Ti. WH], Bf.thpiiage],
a locality near the Mt. of Olives, on a small hill on the
road from Jerusalem to Jericho. It is mentioned
together with Bethany \(].v., i], and probably lav to
the E. of it (Mt. 2I1 Mk.lli Lk.1929). Orige'n in
Mt. (vol. xvi. chap. 17) describes it as a place of priests*
(c]5 05('-* 188 75). According to various passages of
the Talmud, Beth-phage was the name of the district
extending from the base of Olivet to the walls of
Jerusalem, and, according to the Talm. Bab. {Men. xi. 2,
78 b), Beth-phage was one of the limits of the Sabbatic
zone around Jerusalem (cpGEZER), whence CI. Ganneau
would identify it with Kefr et-Tur (see PEFQ 1878,
p. 60 ; but see Beth-Zur).
The current explanation of the name is a little more
plausible than that of Bethany (q.v.). BrjOtpay-r} (the
"jxa n'3 of Talm. ) would naturally mean ' place of
young figs' ; cp :s in Cant. 2 13 with Delitzsch's note.
This, however, may be no more than a popular ety-
mology. Nestle (P/ii/. Sac. 1896; cpZlVT, etc. xl.
148) is convinced that the narrative of the barren fig-
tree, which in Mt. 21 17-19 Mk. 11 12-14 '^ localised in
Bethany, has arisen out of this faulty popular explanation
of Beth-phag^. It has often been remarked that there
is a startling peculiarity in this narrative as compared
with the other evangelical traditions. See also A.
Meyer, /esu Muttersprache, 166.
The mediaeval Bethphage was discovered by Guillemot
and Clermont-Ganneau in 1877 between the Mount of
Olives and Bethany. In his account of this discovery
the latter scholar offers the suggestion that the ' Village
of the Mount of Olives ' [Kefr et- Tiir), which admittedly
stands on the site of some important ancient village,
may be the Bethphage of the Gospels and of the Talmud.
This view would clear up the Talmudic statement
respecting the Sabbatic zone already mentioned. See
PEFQ 1878, pp. 51-61.
BETH-PHELET (t:^S-n^3), Neh. 11 26 AV. See
Beth-palet.
BETH-RAPHA (XDVn*?), in an obscure genealogy
of Chelub (= Caleb), iCh. 4i2 (BaGraian [B], -pe<})A
[A], Bh0RA(})AN [L]). No place of this name is
known ; Rapha appears to be a clan-name, unconnected
of course with 'Rcphaim.' Rapha [2] appears to
occur as a name in Benj.\min (§ 9, ii. /3).
BETH-REHOB [irr\, n^3, pocoB [BAL]). an
Aramaian town and district, which with Zob.\H and
M.\ACAH sent men to the help of Ammon against
David (2S. 106, ih. 8, RiaiOB [roaB A]; BaiBraaB
[L in both]).2 See Aram, §§ 5, 6. It is stated in Judg.
y In the Talmud, k:s also means ajaw or cheek, and from Dt.
18 3 we learn that the cheeks (Syr. has KJTS) belonged to the
portion of the priests (cp Reland, 653). Hence^ on the .supposi-
tion that IJcth-phage meant ' place of cheeks,' it was presumed
that there was a school of priests here.
2 A reference to a similar defeat at the hands of Saul in i S.
1447 (cp © Pai6tu}(> [B], -pow/Si [L], Pe0<op [A]) is open to
suspicion ; see Saul, § 3, and cp Wi. (jy/ 1 142^;
BBTHSAIDA
18 38 that Laish-Dan was in 'the valley that lieth by
IJcth-ri'liob ' {oiKOi /)oo/3 [H], o. pow^ [L], o. rwfi [A]).
Bcth-rehob is doubtless the Kkiiob of Nu. 13ai, which,
according to P, was the most northern jxjint reached
by the sf)ics* (/>a«/^ [l^]- po<^^ t'J)- A connection
with the Asherite Rkhob (i. 2, 3) is improbable (though
not injpossible, see Akam, § 5).*
The exact site of Heth-rehob is uncertain. It can
hardly be the JcIk-I Hunm, finely situated above the
great plain of Hiilch to the W. of Bflnias, and re-
markable for the remains, partly ancient, of a fortress
(so Kob. B/e 4370/.). Others have thought of Kul'at
liusra, about 1 hour N. of Dan ; but may not the
site of the fmvn Ik'th-rehob be placed quite as reason-
ably at Hani.is itself =' (see CiCSAKEA, § 7/.)?
BETHSAIDA (BneCAl^A [Ti]. BhGcaiAa [WH] ;
Syr. J^> fcs-fci ; place of tishing or hunting). Josephus
J .. tells us {Ant.xs''\\\.2i) that the Tetrarch
■ ***■ I'hilip raised a village (koim'/) liethsaida on
the Lake of Gcniu-sareth to the rank of a city, and called
it Julias, after Julia the daughter of Aujjustus. Else-
where he descrites Julias as in the Lower Gaulonitis
(/^/ii. 9i), close to the Jordan ( I'if. 72), near where the
latter runs into the lake {BJ'\V\. IO7). Pliny (v. 15) and
Jerome (Comm. Mt. I613) also place it E. of Jordan.
In conformity with these data, the site has been fixed on
the fertile and very grassy plain El-Buteiha, in the NE.
corner of the lake, either at et-Tell, a mound with
many ruins, close to the Jordan where the latter issues
from the hills, or at Mas'adiyeh, by the mouth of the
river (to which Thomson [Land nnd Book, ed. 1877,
360] heard the name Bethsaida attached by Bedouin).
Fish abound on either side of the Jordan's mouth and
(presumably) in the river itself. There can be little
doubt that this was the ' city called Bethsaida ' (Lk. 9 10 ;
e/y riirov fprifiov iroXews Ka\oviJ.ivrj^ ^V^- 's "ot found in
K'^-^BL, etc. , which reads ds iroXiv KoXovfxivriv ^r]d. ;
so Ti. \VH, etc. ) to which Jesus withdrew, as being
in Philip's jurisdiction, when he heard of John's murder
by Antipas (cp Mt. I413). Lk. places near it the
feeding of the five thousand, which Mt. (14 14^) and
Mk. (631^) describe as in a desert (i.e., uninhabited)
but grassy place (Mt. I419 Mk. 639 'green grass,' such
as grows in the Buteiha, in contrast to the paler herb-
age of the higher and drier parts), to which Jesus pro-
ceeded by boat, followed by multitudes on foot. J.
also describes the scene on the E. shore of the lake
(61), and says 'there was much grass in the place'
(v. 10). A site on the Buteiha suits also the Bethsaida
of Mk. 822, for Jesus was already E. of Jordan (v. 13)
and went thence to the villages of Cassarea Philippi
(v. 27). All interpreters of the Gospels are virtually
agreed about this.
The question has been raised, whether there was
not a second Bethsaida. After the feeding of the five
TVrv f? ' thousand, Jesus, it is said, constrained his
■ *^' disciples to go before him to the other side
to Bethsaida (Mk. 645, (is t6 iripav irpbs §t]9.). This
has forced some scholars, one or two nmch against
their will (Reland, Pal. 653/:, Henderson, /^rt/. 156/.),
to conclude that there was a Bethsaida to the W. of
Jordan, either a suburb of Julias, separated from it by
the river, or at 'Ain Tabigha (Rob. LBR 358/.), 4 m.
along the coast, where there is a b.ay containing fish
in abundance, and the modern shrine of Sheikh \-ily
es-Saiy<itf, 'Aly of the Fishermen, and strong streams
(F^wing). But, in the first place, the phrase ' to go to the
other side' does not necessarily imply the passage from
the E. to the W. coast of the lake, for Josephus speaks of
' sailing over ' {SifvtpanJJdriv) from Tiberias to Taricheae
1 The mention of the ' entrance to Hamath ' here is possibly
a gloss (cp Moore, Jud^. 399).
■■' In 2S. 83 12 the king of Zobah is called 'son of Rehob';
see Hauauezer.
» So Thomson, Land and Bcok,(^)7iS ; Buhl, Pai. 240; Moore,
/•^r- 399-
BETH-SHEAN
(FiV, 59), though these towns lay on the same side;
and, secondly, Jesus would not seek agaiei the territories
of Herod Antipas so soon after leaving them for those
of Philip, but would most probably return to what
Lk. tells us he had just chosen as his lie.idquartt rs.
We may \x certain, then, that the Ikthsaida of Mk. 645
is still Itothsaida Julias.
Nor need we seek for another in the ' liethsaida of
Galilee' to which the Fourth Gos[x;l (1 44 [45] 122i) says
a John 1 '''■'' ■'^"'^'''-■^' I'eter, and Philip Ix-longed.
f 112 ^ ^" ''"'' '''"*^ °^ '^"^ Great War (66-70 A.D.)
'•*^ ■ the name Galilee appears to have been
extended round the Lake — Josephus calls Judas of
Gamala the Galilean (.^«/. xviii. 16) — and at e\cn an
earlier date the jurisdiction of the ruler of Galilee may
have comprised part of the E. coast (cp /// xx. 4).
Besides, a town which lay so immediately on the Jordan
might easily be reckoned to Galilee. In any case,
by 84 A.D. the E. coast was definitely attached to the
province, and Ptolemy (v. 15), writing alx)ut 140,
places Julias 'in Galilee.' That being so, it is sijjni-
ficant that it is only the Fourth Gospel that sj^aks
of ' Bethsaida of Galilee.' There is, therefore (as held
by Wilson, Recov. of Jerus. ; Thomson, Land and Book,
ed. 1877, 372 _/; Holtzmann, //^T', 1878, pp. 383/.;
Furrer, ZDPV 266 ff.; Socin and Ben/inger in Baed.
ed. 1891, p. 256; GASm./JG4S7f-: Buhl, /'a/. 241/:)
no reason conijx:lling us to the theory of a second or
western Bethsaida. It is interesting that the disciple
of Jesus called Philip should come from Philip's Julias.
Karly Christian tradition and the medi.-cval works of travel
agree in showing no trace of more than one Bettisaida. The
site shown for it, however, is uncertain, and may have varied
from age to age. Eusebius and Jerome define it only as
on the Lake (C?."^). Epiphanius (//ai-r. ii. 51 13) merely says
it was not far from Capernaum. Willibald's data (722 A. P.),
which place it on his journey between C;ipernaum and Chora-'in,
suit the E. bank of the Jordan (in spite of what Robinson says)
even if Chorazin (y.v.) be Kerazeh, but Gergesa (Khersa) may
be meant.
In all probability Bethsaida remained locally distinct
from Julias after the erection of the latter by Philip.
The custom of Jesus was not to enter such purely Greek
towns as Julias must have been ; yet, according to Mt.
11 21, he did many 'wonderful works' in liethsaida.
Julias had fourteen villages round about it (Jos. .-/«/.
XX. 84). Schumacher suggests for Bethsaida some ruitis
on the Lake called el-'Araj, which were joined with
et-Tell (Julias) by a Roman road (ZDPr 9ig).
G. A. s.
BETHSAMOS (B<M0ACMCoe [A]), i Esd.5.8 AV ;
RV"'«- .AZM.WKTII {i/.v., i. ).
BETH-SHEAN (JNy'Tl*?, § 90, cp Ba-y-/i-.Sa-'d-ru,
i.e.. ^Nirn^3, WMM .-/.r. u. Eur. 153 ; BaiGc^aJn
, pn-.-i.:--, [B.\L]), or Beth-shan (ii.'-n*3, in /<;//.?*
1. i-osiuon. ^.^.j^^. BHecAN[Al,BAie.[L]).orBeth-
san (i Mace. 552 T2 40 {ptQaa. (-A)]/), niod. Beisdn,
320 ft. below the sea-level, was finely situated on a low
table-land above the Jordan valley, at the mouth of
the W. J.ilud, which leads gently up from the Jordan
to Zer'in (Jezreel). The Jordan itself is three miles
ofr(cp Zakkthan, § 1) ; but Beth-sh&in was unusually
well supplied with water, being intersected by two
streams. .Amid the extensive ruins rises the fell of the
ancient fortress, 'a natural mound, artificially strength-
ened by scarping the side* (PEP Mem. 2u>S).
The illustration given in the Memoirs of the Survey will enable
the reader to divine the grandeur of the prosptct from this
eminence. ' The eye sweeps from four to ten miles of the plain
all round, and follows the road westward to Jezreel, covers the
thickets of Jordan where the fords lie, .ind ranges the edge of the
eastern hills from Gadara to the Jabbok ' (G.\Sm. JJC 357).
This 'farthest-seeing, farthest-seen fortress' must
have been hard for the Israelites to conquer ; yet
„. . till it was in their hands they were ex-
2. History, ^.i^jjgjj from one of the main roads between
western and eastern Palestine, and from the occupation
of a coveted portion of the Jordan valley. That Beth-
566
BETH-SHEAN
«;hean was included in one of the prefectures of Solomon's
kinsjilom is certain (i K. 4 iz, 6 oIkos Sav and [iaicra(l)ovT
—i.e., ly 'iff 'a [B], 6 oikoj crav ami ^edcrav [A], oIkos
aaav and ^aiOtr. [L]).' On the death of Saul, on the
other hand, we find it in the hands of the Philistines
(i S. 31io, jSai^e.u [B], 12, -dcrafj. [B], 2 S. 21 12, ^atO
[B]) ; and, though Beth-shean may be one of the
'cities of the Jordan' (i S. '.ilj, corr. text) which the
Israelites deserted after the battle of Gilboa, it is
equally likely that it was still a Canaanitish city when
captured by the Philistines. We know, at any rate,
that it retained its Canaanite population for some time
after the Israelite occupation of Palestine (Judg. 1 27,
^aidrjX [B], ^eOffav [L] ; Josh. 17", Kcudoav [B*''],
^aiOaav [B""K], 16 ^aidaiirav [B]). It may possibly
have been as late as the time of David that this
great fortress fell into the hands of the Israelites.
Standing on the road from Damascus to Egypt and
also from Damascus by Shechem to Jerusalem and
Hebron, it liad a commercial as well as a military
importance which would have attracted the notice of
such a keen-sighted king as David.
From the Macedonian period onwards Beth-shean
bore the strange Greek name Scythopolis (see Judg. 1 27,
© (3. •^ eariv I,KvdCov ttjXis ; 2 Mace. 1229-31, etc.),
which probably records the fact (or belief) that some
of the Scythian invaders of the seventh cent. B.C. (see
ScYTHi.\.N"s) had settled here. In NT times it was one
of the most important cities of the Dkc.-M'OI.is (^.v., §2).
BETH-SHEMESH (::^D-J' n*2, §95/—/.^., 'temple
ofthcsun'— BaiGCAMYC [B.\L] ; gcntilic '•L^'Pt^nT!''?,
6 £V /3. [B.\], 6 eK /3. [L], in i S. 614, ''. iS ^aLdcra/jiv-
ffsiT-qi [BL], ^edda/jLvaiTijs [A], EVBeth-shemite).
I. Bethshemesh or Ik-shemesh (C'Ow' Tl?, Josh. I941.
TTOAlC CAMeC [AL], TTOAeiC CAMM^YC [B]). a
Levitical city (Josh. 21 16, BeGCAMec [A], thn CAMec
[L] ; I Ch. 659 [44]. BacamyC [B]) on the borders of
Judah (Josh. IT) 10, noAiN hAiOY [B.\L]) but assigned
to Dan (Josh. I941), is the modern '.Ain Shcms,
917 feet above sea level, on the south side of the broad
and beautiful and still well -cultivated W. es-Sarar,
opposite Zorah and two 'm. from it : 'a noble site for
a city ; a low plateau at the junction of two fine plr'ns'
(Robinson). It is a point in the lowland on the road
from Philistia (Kkron) to the hill-country of Judah
( I Sam. 6 9 i2h 13 15 19 I3ee9atj.vs [A], i2'i 20 '^eOaa. [A]),
and probably was an ancient sanctuary, since the field
of Joshua the Beth-shemite was for some time during
the Philistine domination the resting-place of the ark.
In truth, it is difficult not to identify it with the Sama-
sana of the Palestinian lists of Rameses II. (A'/^C-*627 ;
WMM .4s. u. Eur. 166) and Rameses III. 2 [RPV)
639), whose sanctuary may be presumed to be connected
with the myth of S.VMSON [q.v.). It was at Beth-
shemesh that Amaziah of Judah was defeated and
made prisoner by Jehoash, king of Israel (2 K. 14u-i3,
II pT]d<TafJi.ve [A], 13 ^€0. [.\], 2 Ch. 2.")2i-23). According
to the Chronicler, it was one of the cities in the lowland
of Judah taken by the Philistines from Ahaz, ' king of
Israel' (2Ch. 28iS). The place was still shown in
the days of Eusebius and Jerome, who give its position
as 10 R.m. E. of Eleutheropolis on the road to Xico-
polis — a statement which suits the identification given
above. There are many traces of ancient buildings.
2. An unidentified city within the territory of Naph-
tali. apparently in its northward portion (Josh. 19 38,
0€<ra-anvi [B], OacrfMoi'^ [.A], fitOa-afii^ [L]). From Judg.
I33 ijieda-afj-vi [.\]) we learn that, along with Bethanath,
its population continued to be chiefly Canaanite.
3. An unidentified city on the border of Issachar
(Josh. 1922, /3ai^(r/xas [-A], ^i^o-a/MS [L]), perhaps = (2),
if the latter lay in the extreme south of Naphtali.
1 The double mention of Beth-shean probably ari.ses from a
corruption of the text.
3 '1 he latter was discovered by Sayce at Medlnet Habu in 1892.
567
BETHUL
4. A city of Egypt, mentioned in Jer. 43 13, (rjXtou
TToXews [BNAQ]) ' he shall break the obelisks of I^'th-
shemesh in the land of Egypt. ' It is commonly supposed
(t'.i,--. , by Griffith in Hastings' DB) that what is meant is
Heliopolis, the city of the sun (see On) ; but n'3 is
simply dittographed from nu in nuss. We should
read cdc nuso, ' pillars of the sun ' or obelisks (Wi.
AT Unters. 80/ ; Che. Intr. Is, 102, n. 2).
BETH-SHITTAH (HtSt^H 71*3 — «.^., 'place of
acacias') is mentioned in Judg. 722 (Bh9C€At& [B],
BACeeTTA [A], B&ieACeTTA \yA) as a point to which
the panic-stricken Midianites fled before Gideon. It
was on the way toward Zererah (see Zaretiian,
begin. ), but has not been identified ; probably it was
well down in the Jordan valley, at the mouth of some
wady where acacias flourished. The identification with
Shatta on the north side of the W. Jalud, 5 m. NW. of
Beisan and 6 m. E. of Zer'in (cp Rob., Conder, etc.)
has little to recommend it : it lies much too near the
supposed scene of the surprise. More, perhaps, could
be said for Beisan. Others compare el-Meshetta (see
iMDPV, 1895, pp. 8i ff.; Schumacher, ZDPV,
1564 writes mashatta) 14 m. SSE. of Jogl>ehah. The
whole narrative is, however, composite (see Judges, § 8),
and the Heb. construction favours the assumption that
Zererah does not belong to the same source as Beth-
shittah. In J Midian flees east from Shechem to the
other side of the Jordan, whereas from v. 24 it appears
that in E's narrative they turn S. (to Zarethan) through
the Jordan valley, where they are intercepted by the
Ephraimites (cp Moore, Judg. 212).
BETH-SURA (h BeBcoYPA [A]), i Mace. 46i;
2 Mace. 11 5 k\' Bethsuron. See Beth-zur.
BETH-TAPPUAH (msri-n^3. § 103— ?.<?., 'place
of tappoah' ; sec Ai'I'i.e), a town in the hill-country of
Judah (Josh. 1553. BaiGaxoy [^^l BeeeAnct)OYe [A].
Bh09a4)- [E])i having a traditional connection with its
greater neighbour Hebron (i Ch. 243, see Tappuah, i),
and very possibly identical with the fortified town called
Taphon [q.v.) in i Mace. 950. If the similarity of
names, the vicinity of Hebron, and the fruitfulness of
the district prove anything, the modern Teffi'ih is the
ancient Beth-tappuah. The village so named is 3i m.
W. by N. from Hebron, and stands on a high hill, the
slopes of which are planted with aged olive-trees;
indeed, the whole of the Wddy Tuffdh abounds in fruit-
trees of all kinds. Traces of old buildings remain, and
there are two ancient wells (Rob. LBR 2428 ; Gu(5rin,
JudJe, 3374). Several ancient sites named Beth have
lost this prefix. Thus the ,tcj n'3 of Xu. 32 36 is modern
Nimrln.
The notices of Eus. and Jer. (a? 235 17 104 17 ; cp 156 20)
are of interest only as showing that there was another place
on the confines of Palestine and Egypt bearing the same name.
Whatever the fruit called t.-vppuah was (see Afi'Le), it was as
common in Palestine as quinces and apricots are now.
BETHUEL ('PN-'in?, for "pX-inO, ' man of El ?— cp
Methushael, and .see Caimtks, § 7 ; hardly for Ass.
bit Hi, ' house of a deity ' ; BaBoyhX [.ADEL]).
1. B. Nahor ; father of Laban and Rebekah (Gen.
2222/. 24 15 [J]). In Gen. 252o285 [P] he is called an
' Aramaean,' as is also his son Laban in 31 2024. See
Aram, § 3.
2. See Bethul.
BETHUL (>in3), aSimeonitetown(Josh. 194, BoyAa
[B], BaGoyA [AE]). called Bethuel ("PN-IDa, BaGoyn
[B], -oyA [A1. -OYhA [E]) in i Ch. 430, and corruptly
Chesii, (^"-03) in 11 Josh. 1030 (BaiGhA [B], XAceip[A].
CeieiA [E]). The form 'yif.ni may perhaps be classed
with Penuel ; for elision of N cp Hamul. It is
doubtless the Bethel C^K-n^a. ^aidr/X [AL], ^aiOaovp
—i.e., Beth-zur [B])i of i S. 30 27, mentioned along with
1 The situation of Beth-zur is less suitable (We., Dr.).
568
BBTHULIA
Jattir and other places in the Negeb ; but the site has
not yet been identified. Tiiere was probably a liethel
near tjaza. '
BETHULIA (BctyAoya [I5XA1, [the preferable
reading; but B&itoyA{)YA l'*'*!- BaityAoya C^XA]
are also found]; Hinmi.i.i [\'g.]; «N'J> f^.^^), the
centre of the action in tlie book of Judith ('2 21 [X*]
46 [N], BaitoyAia 6iof. h7 iff.). In the shorter
version of the narrative its place is taken by Jeru-
salem, and there is little doubt that Bethulia (properly
Bctylua) represents Sk-H'S, "•* the house of God — viz.,
Jerusalem (sec Judith, ii. ). So already Reuss, who,
however, together with Welte, derived the name from
n'i'?i« n'3. liertholdt's conjecture .tSw3, ' virgin of
Yahw(!>,' may b<! worth noticing.'
Accordingto the representations of the book (cp 4673),
Bethulia lay near Jezret;!, upon a rock by a valley, i
commanding the pa.sses to the S. (so Hulil, J\il. 201, !
n. 627). \'arious id(.'ntifications have been suggested. |
Some have sought for it near the nioilern Kefr Kud, formerly j
Capharcotia, NE. of the plain of Dolhan (Hi., cp also Kiehm) ;
other suKRestions are the fortress SAnur (Grove in Smith's DB), \
Kh. Haifiik el-Mellah (Marta, quoted in ZOPl' 12 117), lenln
(Ew.), IJeit Ufa (Schultz), and plausibly no doubt ('- and tii being
often confounded), Mithiliyeh or Misilia (Conder ; Socin, also
inclines to this view, Biid. (2), 226). More recently, Torrey
(Joum. Am. Or. Soc. 20 160 j: ['99]) argues ably in favour of
Shechem.
So large and important a place as Bethulia — with its
rulers and ciders (61416), its streets and towers (72232),
and its siege, lasting for foiir-and-thirty days, by an
immensely suijerior army (720) — cannot reasonably be
identified with any small and insignificant locality. It
remains to be added that the mention of Jerusalem
and Bethulia as two distinct places (cp 46 I55/) is
probably to Ije assigned to a time when the identity of
the ideal Bethulia with Jerusalem was forgotten.
s. A. C.
BETHZACHARIAS, AV (by misprint?) B.\th-
z.\cnAKi.\s(BeezAXApiA[A], BA'tB. [NV] ; Jos. Beez.,
BHT2.)r the scene of the defeat of Judas the Maccabee
by Lysias, and of the death of his brother Eleazar
(i Mace. 632/). Its position is defined by Josephus
{An/, xii. 94) as 70 stadia (N. ) from Bethsur ; it is thus
represented by the modern Bi-i/-Sakdrid (described by
Robinson'-' 8283/. and PEF Mem. 835108).
BETHZATHA (BhOzaGa). the reading adopted by
Ti.WH in Jn. 62, where TR has Bictiiksu.v. For the
evidence, see WH. ii. App. 76 : perhaps the purest
form would be 'R-qe^aj.da., ' the place of the olive ' (cp
Br.zi.TH).
BETH-ZUR (1-1 Vrr-a, BeecOYP [AL], § 96, ' house
of rock,' or. on the analogy of Belh-el, ' house of /.ur'
— a divine name. Nestle, Eigennatitcn,.\7,r\. i ; Honunel
AHT 319; see Zuk), a city in the hill-country of
Judah, mentioned between Halhul and Gedor-» (josh.
1558. /3at^(Tocp [B] ; cp i Ch. 245. where Bethzur—
7e5(Toi'/) [B], [itjOarovp [.\L]— is the 'son' of Maon), is
stated in 2 Ch. 11 7 {^aiOffovpa [B], rr)v ^ai0(T. [.\],
Tr)v jiaidffovp [L]) to have lx;en fortified by Rehoboam.
It was head of a district in Nehemiah's time (Xeh.
3 16, ^-rjffop [BN], jBijdffovp [.\]). FrcMjuently an object
of struggle in the Macc.abean wars (r; ^aidffoi'pa, ra
(/3. [NV], -^ ^eda-.. raji. [AN], i Mace. 42961 6726314950
95» ; IO14 fiai0(Tovpoi [V*] ; II65 I4733),* it was in the
time of Josephus (An/, .xiii. 56) ' the strongest place in
' Rethel (Ptj9(Xia), a populous village of Gaza with very
ancient and mucb-revered temples, is mentioned by Sozomen
(v. I.'. 14, p. 202). [ MS note of WRS.]
2 For the form lietylua, cp the magical stones Rjetylia, which
derive their name from Heth-el ; and on interchange of the
forms Hethu- and Beth-, see Hethul.
* So Jerusalem is referred to as (tomj in Sibyl!. 3784-786
(Apocalvptic Litekatl'kk, g 86 ^.). Cp Daughter, 4.
* Possibly also in i S. 30 27 (see Bethel, 2).
* In 2. Mace. 13 1932 ®a has t. ^aiOo-. 11 5 Pt0<TOvpo>v (A],
paiBaovputv [V],
569
BEZAANANNIM
all Judtca,' and was still an inhabited village {^r)d<Tupu
Kethsoro) in the days of i:u.sebiub and Jerome (OS
10427; 32626). It is represented by Be/ Stir (liurj
Sur), and occupies a position of strategic iniiwrt-
ance as commanding the road from Jerusalem to
Hebron, 4^ m. N. from the latter city. The modern
village has a ruined tower, and ' there are hewn stones
scattered about, as also some fragments of colunms,
and many foundations of buildings. ... It must have
been a small place' (Robinson).
If the statements in 2 Mace. 11 5 (KV BETHsuK<)N)are reliable
there must have been a second Betli-zur in the neighbourhtMxl of
Jeru.salem. Grimm suggests the modern village of Uet-Sahur,
half-an-hour SE from Jerusalem. .Schick, with more probability,
identifies it with the modern Kf/r-et- fur (ihc Kt. form of Beth-
zur) on the central height of the Mount of Olives (PEFQ, Jan.
•895. P- 37. see Camb. liih/e on i Mace. 429). See, however,
Beth I'd AGE.
BETOLIUS (BeroAico [B]), i I£.sd. 52. AV ; RV
Betolion ^ ICzra 2 28, Bkthkl.
BETOMESTHAM, RV Betomesthaim in Judith
4 6, or Betomasthem, 1<\' Betomasthaim in 1.54
(BaitomaLiJcBaim [BJ, -AceeN ,NJ, BeTOMecBAiM
[A]; ^iSJa-»- fcwwS ; om. 6»< Vg. in 46 and ©*
Vg. .Syr. in 1^4) lay ' over against Jezreel in face of the
plain thai is near Uothan. ' If ' toward ' (Kara irpbai>nrov)
can be taken as meaning ' eastward of ' the plain of
Dothan, %ve are able to determine its position pretty
nearly ; but the exact site has not been identified.
BETONIM (D*Jb3, § 103— «.?., 'pistachio nuts,'
BoTANei [B], -NIN [•^]. -NeiM [I']*, in Gadite
territory (Josh. 1826), may perhaps be Ba/anah, 3 m.
W. from es-Salt (Ramoth-gilead).
BETROTHAL. The Heb. verb is tHN 'dras (6
MNHCTeYec9Ai). on which see Makkiagk. § 1.
In 2.S. 814, RV rightly has 'betrothed' instead of AV
'espoused.' So also in Mt. 1 18 Lk. 1 2 25. InLev. IQaot
the verb is rpn, and seems to denote marriage by capture
rather than marriage by purchase. In l^x. 21 8/. f it
is ij", RV ' espouse. ' There is some disorder in tlie text.
BEULAH(n^H;3. 'married'; 01KOYAA6NH [BN.XQ],
Aq. ecxHAACNH. Symm. Theod. CYNCOKiCMeNH).
the symbolical name (Is. 624) by which Zion may fitly
be called when her land is ' married ' (Sysn ; cp B.\al).
Two primitive and related ideas underlie the expression.
The first is that the people of a land, as well as all
other 'fruits' (Dt. 284), arise from the fertilising influ-
ence of the land's Baal or divine Husband (cp A'i"'->
107/); the second, that a peojile which remains
faithful to the land's divine Husband is sure of his pro-
tection. The former is merely hinted by means of the
contrast of the two names ' Desolate ' and ' Married '
(Is. 624) ; in Is. 54 1-6, on the other hand, it engrosses
the mind of the prophetic writer. It is on the latter,
as the context shows, that the writer of Is. 62 (who is
not the author of Is. 54) wishes to concentrate our
attention. Zion is at present despised (v. 7), and her
harvests are plundered by the heathen (f. 8/ ); but
when her land is once more ' married,' she will be
entitled to the protection of the God of the whole earth.
The sense of the passage has been obscured by an error in the
vowel points. For ^'J3, ' thy sons' (p. 5), read ~":3 'he who
buildeth thee up' (cp 54iiy: Ps. 147 2). See Du., Che.
(SBOV), and on the other side IJi., who gives no parallel, how-
ever, for the startling play upon meanings which he assumes.
T. K. C.
BEZAANANNIM (D*3?ry3) occurs in Josh. 19 33
RV'tr-' ' the c»ak of Bezaanannim,' where EV has 'the
oak in Zaananmm,' a view of the text now pretty
generally abandoned. The ' oak (or sacred tree) of Itezaa-
nannim ' is a landmark on the \\'. border of Naphtali,
following Heleph, and jireceding Adami-nekeb and
Jabneel, and is usually identified with ' the oak of Bezaa-
naini' (following the points), or of ' Bezaanim," or 'of
Bezaanannim (K're) in Judg. 4ii, where RV has 'the
570
BEZAANANNIM
oak in J^anannim,' and has inconsistently omitted to
record the modern view of the text in the margin. 0
roads in Josh. 19 33 Kal /twXa Kal (iecrefufiv [B], k.
/iijXwi' Kal (ifCfvavtn [A], at. wXa/j. attyavfijj. [L] ; in
Judg. 4 II ?a)j Spi'is trXfOfeKTOvvTUf [IJ ; so Thcod. ],
rpbi Spvy ava-travotJ.evwv [AL] ; see Field's Hexapla.
The difficulty connected with the phrase is twofold,
(i) In Joshua I.e., this famous tree is placed on the
border of .Naphtali ; but Judges I.e., read in the light of
J'ldg. 4 17 624, makes the tree much nearer to the battle-
field, which, according to Judg. 01921, was by the
stream Kishon. (2) The name is inexplicable, whether
we read Q-jysa (Bezaanim?) or D':jys3 (Bezaanannim ?).
If, however, several times in Judges (see Kadksh), and
once in Judg. 4 (see HAROsiiETJi). the name pB'-ii3 =
rnp has lieen correctly restored, it is plausible to
suppose that the incomprehensible name, pronounced
sometimes Bezaanaim or (better) Bezaanim, sonieliines
Bezaanannim, may conceal the same old name, especially
as in Judg. 4 11 the words 'which is by Kedesh ' are
added. It is extremely probable that both in the
far north (see Kauksh, 2) and in the territory of
Issachar there was a place which bore the name of
Kadshon (Kidshon); the people of either place could
be called Kadshonim (Kidshonim). Nor need we
hesitate to emend D'jysa (the form which the best critics
prefer) to D':iP"i3. a form which should be restored,
as the present writer has sought to show, in Judg. 522^
(see Kadesh^). It is easier to suppose that the ' oak'
or ' sacred tree ' which forms the subject of this article
was near the Kidshon (Kedesh) of Issachar than to follow
the Priestly Writer in Joshua, who places it on the border
of Naphtali. The error of the latter seems to have
arisen from the statements in Judg. 469/. , which place
the mustering of the Israelitish warriors at Kedesh-
Naphtali. The error of the scribe who wrote c'jysa
was facilitated by an inopportune recollection of the
form D'Ji'jD Kena'anim (Canaanites). Whether he also
thought of the new Heb. nj;s3, 'ditch, dike, pond' (cp
,15(3, 'marsh,' Job 811 4O21), cannot be determined
(cp Neub. Giogr. Talrn. 225).
An identification of ' Bezaanim ' with Kliirbet BessOm, E. of
Tabor, on the plateau of the Sea of Clalilee, was proposed by
Conder in PEFQ '77, p. 25 (so Tent Work, 2132); cp
GASm. HG 396, who considers it 'well supported.' But we
must first of all be sure of the reading of the name. It is
remarkable that tradition still affirmed that the 'oak of . . .,'
which was a fixed element in the story, was 'by Kedesh.'
Of course, cnp"nx "IC'K is not required when we read
^-ytn'p 'iS^V.~~{'i< to 'he sacred tree of the Kidshonim.'
T. K. C.
BEZAI (*V5. § 52 ; Hilprecht has found the Jewish
name Bisa on a tablet from Nippur [PEFQ, Jan. 1898,
P- 55])- ^'^^ t)'ne Bezai, a f;imily in the great post-
exilic list (see Ezra, ii., §§ 9, 8^), Ezra2i7 (Bacoy
[B], -cc. [A], BAcei [L]) = Neh.723 (Becei [BX],
Baci [A], -CCH [L] = iEsd.5i6 Bassa, RV Bassai
(BacCAI [B]. -CCA [A], -ccei [I-]); represented among
the sig;natories to the covenant (see EzR.\, i. § 7),
Neh. 10 18 [.9] (BHcei [BA], BHBei [N], Becei [L]).
BEZALEEL, RV Bezalel (Sn'?V3. §§ 22. 29. ' in the
shadow of God'; cp Bksodkiah ; ^ecreXerjX [BAL]).
The form is improbable. .Sil-Bel, ' Bel is a shelter,' the
name of a king of Gaza in Sennacherib's time {A'A T^)
162), even if correctly represented, is not parallel. Read
VxsSn. 'God rescues,' and cp the Phcen. names h'iZ^i^n,
\hnyaziK. The number of the artificial religious names
of later times has been exaggerated.
I. b. Uri b. Hur of the tribe of Judah, a Calebite (i Ch. 2 20),
a .skilled workm.in in gold, silver, and br.iss, who together with
Aholiab executed the work of the tal>ornacle (Ex.31 2 8630
8« 1/ 37 1 38 22, all P). He is mentioned in 2 Ch. 1 5 as
having made the brazen altar.
a. One of the b'ne Pahath-Moab in the list of those with
1 JQR, 10 567/C rgS].
571
BIDKAR
foreign wives (see Ezra, L j 5, endX Ezra 10 30 OttreATjA [BA],
Ptva. [K], p*(T(r€Ktri\ IL]= i EsU. 9 31, Sesthel (<r«<r#j|X [BA]).
T. K. C.
(PI?, cp § 100, 'gravel'? cp Syr. ; BezeK
[BAL] ; JiE^iu). I. A place at which Saul mustered
the force he had raised for the relief of Jabesh-gilcad ;
1 S. 118 (a^if^eK fv (iafia [H] ; fv /Sefe/c [A] ; ^aov\ tv
pafia [L]). Eusebius {OS*"^ 23752) locates two neigh-
bouring villages of this name 17 R. m. from Neapolis
on the road to Scythopolis ; beyond doubt Khirbet Ibzik,
14 Eng. m. from Nabulus and nearly opposite the lower
end of Wady Yabis, with which Eshtori Parchi (a.d.
1322) identified it. See I'EF Mem. 2231237.
2. A place at which Judah and Simeon, in invading
the S. of Palestine, encountered and routed the
Canaanites under Adoni-bezek ; Judg. 1 4 /. (jSoffic
[A] ; om. B* in v. 5). Many scholars, from Eusebius
downwards, identify this with No. i ; but this is in-
admissible.
Judah and Simeon set out from the neighbourhood of Gilgal
(Judg. 1 \(>/. '2 i) to invade the region in which they afterwards
settled ; the end 'of the story of Adoni-bezek conducts him to
Jerusalem, which was probably his own city (Adoni-zedek, king
of Jerusalem ; see Adoni-Hkzkk and Adoni-Zedec). Ibzik
lies wholly out of this sphere of action and in a quite different
direction.
The Bezek of Judg. 1 must be sought much farther
south. Conder would find it at Bezkeh, 6 m. SE. of
Lydda {PEF Mctn.Z^lb) ; but this view is scarcely
probable. In view of the change which the name of the
king has suffered, it may be questioned whether the
name of the place has been correctly preserved.
G. F. M.
BEZER("I>*3, § 106, 'fortress'; Bocop [B.\L]). a
levitical city and city of refuge, Dt. 443 Josh. 208 21 36
(om. MT ; Boctop [E]). i <^h. 678[63j— the Bozrah [i]
(n^VH) of Jer. 4824 (6 /3offop)— is described in Josh. 208
as lying in the wilderness on the (.Amorite) ' Mishor' or
Tableland, and is usually identified with the modern
fCesur el-Besheir (or lieshir), about 2 m. SW. of Dibon,
and about the same distance N. of Aroer. King Mesha
of Moab in his inscription (/. 27) says: ' I built Bezcr,
for ruins had it become.' With this place some have
identified BosoR (</.i'., 2).
BEZER ("1V3 ; coBaA [B], Bacar [AL]), in genealogy
of .\SHER [§ 4 (ii.)], I Ch. 737t.
BEZETH (BHzee [A], BhOzaiG [S], BaiGzhG [V].
BHRZHeoi [Jos. .-/«/. xii. IO2 ; but BHezHeu), ib.,
BHRZHGco.xii. 11 1 ; Schlatter, ZDPVlSt^:^]), a place
near Jerusalem where Bacchides encamped, and, having
slain some deserters and prisoners, threw them into ' the
great pit ' which was there ( i Mace. 7 19). 'I"he readings
of @»< and Syr. in this passage (J»? fc**» [ed. I-ag.])
point to an original Beih-zaith (house of thtr olive).
Hence it is possible that Bezeth may lje the later liezetha
(' place of olives '), the name given to the N. end of the
plateau, on the S. part of which lay Jerusalem. See
Bethz.\tha, Jerusalem, Olives, Mount ok.
BIATAS (c})iAeAC [A]), iEsd.948 AV = Neh.87.
Pei.aiah, 2.
BICHEI {*"p3, § 61 ; Boxopei [BA], BeA^AAi [L])
in Sheba b. Bichri (2S. 20 1/:), a gcntilic from Becher
y.v.\ The plural BichritieB (D^^DSn) is postulated
by (S"* (fttl irctires iv \appti) in 2 S. 20 14 in place of
Bkrites [</.-.'.]. SeeSHKUA, ii. (i), Benjamin, §9, ii. /3.
BIDKAR (ip^na : BAAeK [L], -ka [B], -kar [B^A]).
BaAgkar [B»™«], Jehu's adjutant (K"X*), 2 K. 925.
The name is noteworthy, because the chief support of
the theory that 3 at the l>eginning of proffer names some-
times stands for ' son of is that Pesh. here has bar-elikar
(hence '3 = "ijjTp. ' son of piercing ' — a suitable name for
a warrior ; cp Lanzknecht ; cp Ass. bindikiri [Del. ZKF
i
BIBB
2i7»]. and see Bkndeker). For other examples, all
doubtful, see Ges. Thes. col. 349 ; Kanig. Uhrgeb.
2248; and against this Ols. Heb. Gr. 613. Halevy
{Kech. /m/.ui., KliJ, Jan.-June 1885) thinks 3 in all
these words = ['l^K. For this 3 = p theory we can hardly
cite the one or two cases in rhai-nician, probably
accidental {CIS i. 192a, 3933). Dofs ©"-s WaltK imply
a rendiri},' vc''?p n fna. ' H- chief (pNi) of his (Jehu's)
captains ' ? w. R. s.
BIER (n^p. kAinh). 2S.331: (copoc). Lk. 7.4-
See Dr. AD. § i.
BIQTHA (Nn33 ; Bcop&ZH [BNL"]. [oApe] BooA
[.A]), a chamberlain of Ahasucrus (Ivstli. 1 10). Marq.
\Fund. 71) finds its Gr. equivalent in i^rifiadaOa [A], for
Pa^tjOaOa, whence he restores httmi (misre;id Kmts) = O.
Pers. biigaJdta, ' given by God ' ; cp UagoAS, and see
ESTHKK. ii. § 3.
BIOTHAN (|n32. etymology doubtful ; BAfAQAN
[Xc.ai..,: su|..] . lJX.\Lom. ; Jos. B&rA0coOc). Kslh. 22i.
or Bigthana. Esih. 6a (NJOjII ; © as in '2ai ; Jos.
EaBatmoc)p a chamlx^rlain of Ahasuerns, who, in
sth. 12 I. is called Gabatha {yaSada [BNAL*]). See
lusTHi.K, ii. § 3.
BIGVAI ('133, rather lUr.oi, i.e., Bagoas [(/.v.];
BAfOYA r '*^1' -OYiA [I-])-
1. .\ Ic.iiltr (see K/ka, ii. 8 8<-)in the great post-exilic list (ib.
ii. § 9), Kzra ;i 2 (fiarovai IB], ^ayouot [L])= N'eh. 7 7 (fiaroei
[BK], /Sayomai [Al)=i Esd. 5 8, AV Reki.ius (/3opoAftov [I!\l,
fiayovai [L]) ; signatory to the covenant (see Kzka, i. g 7), Neh.
10 16 I17I Oayo<ri (I!), -o" 1«<A1, /3a<roui [L]).
2. Family in great post-exihc list (see Ezra, ii. $$ 9, 8<r),
Ezra '2i4'<fiaoyti IH), ^oyoua [.\viclj, .o„ai (!.])= Neh. 7 19
(fianti [BKA])=i Esd. 5 14, Bagoi OSocroi [B], ^ayoi [A], -ovat
[LI).
3. Family in F^zra's carav.-in (see Ezra, i. § 2, ii. § 15 |i.] </),
Ezra 8 14 (fiayo |l!|, yafiovaei (A), yo^ovia [L))= i Esd. S40
BAl.oOal-ai II'.], ^ayo(AI). Cp HkgAI.
BIKATH-AVEN (JJX-nr|"52), Am. I5 AV^e See
AVEN, 3.
BILDAD n^)2. § 43. BaA^aA [BNAC], -Aac [A]),
the Shuhite (see SiiUAii), one of Job's friends (Job 2 n
and elsewhere). The name either means ' liel has loved'
(cp Nold. 7.DMG 42 479 ['88]), or is a softened form
of Bir-dad, which appears to lie at the root of Bedad
(so Del. Far. 298). See ElidaD, and cp DoD.
BILEAM (D;;*??, § ^^), i Ch. 6 7° [55]- See Ibleam.
BILGAH (nS*??, 'cheerfulness'?).
1. Hr.i(i of the fifteenth course of priests, i Ch. 24 14 (/3fAya
\A\, -oi |I-1). (P" lias tji^rip, which must represent Immcr, tne
bead of the sixteenth course. (ytX/Sa, the name of the head of
the fourteenth in ©" (MT 3K3S''], is merely a transposed form
of Bilgah in a different pl.-ice in the list.)
2. A priest OSoAyat [Kc.amfr.]^ p,A. [L] ; cm. BKA) in Zerub-
bahel's band (Ezra, ii. §6/0. Neh. 12 5 ; in z/. i8(j3<iAya[Kc.ame.],
/5<Aya? [L] ; om. RN.\) a ' father's house.' Cp also Bit-CAi.
BILGAI (BeArA[ell [AL], -Ac[eliA [BN]). a priestly
sit;ii:itory to the covenant (see l.ZKA, i. §§ 6, 7), Neh.
lOS [9]. No doubt the same as Bii.GAll.
BILHAH (nnba : BaXAa [BADEL], but I Ch. 7 13
BaAam[B], -Aaam[I.])-
1. The 'mother' of the tribes Dan and Naphtali,
according to J ; also represented as the maid of Rachel
(mother of the house of Joseph) and concubine of Jacob
and his eldest son Reuben.
We have not. unfortunately, the means of detetmining
how far we are warranted in regarding these relations
as representing traditions of fact, and how far they may
be imaginative incidents of the story. W.-is Bilhah, e.g. ,
a tribe (Canaanitish ? .\ram:ean ?), elements of which
were taken up into some of the clans of the house of
Joseph (the first Israel) in the earliest days after their
arrival in W. Palestine before they crystallized into the
three well-known branches (Manasseh-NIachir, Ephraim,
573
BINDING AND LOOSING
Benjamin) ? Or does the name, which occurs nowhere
outside of Genesis (and the equivalent i Ch. 7 13), simply
indicate that not only Uan but once also Naphtali tried
unsuccessfully to settle somewhere in the Highlands of
Ephraim before U:taking itself to the extreme north ?
Or, once more, is this true only of Dan, the inclusion
of Naphtali being then due simply to its geographical
nearness to Dan in its later seat, and to its worthiness
to stand by the side of the noble Rachel tribes (Judg.
5 18)? Again, is the Reuljen story (Gen. 35 aa i Ch. [> 1)
to be brought into connection with the other traces oif
the extension of the house of Joseph (cp Reuben's
interest in the fortunes of Joseph : Gen. 37 aa a9 : E. )
beyond Jordan (Maciiik ; Ei-hkai.m, Wool) ui), or is it
to be explained, as .Stade {GescA. 1 119) explains it, as a
memorial of the primitive society that survived E. of the
Jordan when there had be«.n a change in W. Palestine ?
Or are we to give serious consideration to a combination
(G. H. B. Wright) with the story of liOHA.v (cjj Bii.JiAH,
2) the son of Reuben (Josh. l.Ob 18 17), as an indication
that Reubenite elements were once actually to be found
W. of the Jordan ( ' in that land ; ' Gen. 3;') 22) ? That
there really was contact between Benjamin and the
Bilhah trilje Dan was a matter of course ; Ono and Lod
ultimately l>ecame Benjamite (cp Be.njami.n, § 3 ; We.
L>e lient. 12 n. i). It was Rachel, however, not Bilhah,
that died when Ben-oni was born.
2. In Simeon (i Ch. 429). See Baalah, 2.
n. \v. 11.
BILHAN (;n'?3, %77; cp Bilhah ; BaAaan [BA]).
1. A HoKiTE {g.v.), Gen. 8627 (^oAoo^ [D"'' EL]) ; i Ch. 1 4a
(-aoMlBLl).
2. In genealogy of Benjamin (§ 9, ii. o) : i Ch. 7 10 OSoAaofi
I LI).
BILSHAN {\^h^. § 83 ; perhaps Bab. BeHun ; but
more probably we should read Bel-sar, a mutilated form
of Bel-sar-ezer — i.e., liab. Bel-sar-usur ; — cp ©»"•*' in
I Esd. ). A name in the great post-exilic list (see EzKA,
ii. § 9), borne by one of the ten (Ezra), or eleven (Neh.,
I Esd. ), persons w ho accompanied Zerubbabel from
Babylon (see Ezra, ii. § 8 <•). Ezra2a {^affcpafi [B],
^aXaffafx. [A], -Xacrai' [L]) = Neh. 77 {(iaaipav [N],
^aaaav [.\], jiaKcr. [ B]. Lom.)=i Esd. 58 Beki.sakus
(^(eXaapov [H.\], /jaXcrap [L]). If Bel-sar is correct,
may not this be the Sharezer of Zech. 72 (see Sharezer,
2)? This undesigned coincidence (if accepted) may
have important bearings on criticism. T. K. C.
BIMHAL (Sn?D3), in genealogy of Asher (§ 4 [ii.]),
1 Ch. 733 (imaBahA [B], BamahA [A], BaamaB [L])-
BINDING AND LOOSING (Mt.1619 18. 8+). The
explanation givi-n uncU'r Ma(;ic (§ 3 [4]) may account
for the origin of the Jewish phrase 'binding {~sti) and
loosing' (I'n.i) ; but in usage 'to bind' and "to loose'
mean simply ' to forbid ' and ' to permit ' by an indis-
putable authority, the words of authoritative prohibition
and permission being considered to be as effectual as he
spell of an enchanter (cp tok, Targ. Ps. 585[6]). The
wise men or rabbis had, in virtue of their ordination, the
power of deciding disputes relating to the Law. A
practice which was permitted by them was said to be
' loosed ' (inio), and one which was forbidden was
called ' bound ' (iick). Such pronouncements were
made by the diflferent schools ; hence it was said, ' The
school of Shammai binds; the school of Hillel looses.'
Theoretically, however, they proceeded from the San-
hedrin, and there is a Talmuilic statement that there
were three decisions made by the lower ' house of judg-
ment' to which the upper 'house of judgment' {i.e.,
the heavenly one) gave its supreme sanction {Afassoth,
23^). Probably, therefore, Jesus adopted a current
mode of speech when he said to the disciples that what-
soever they bound or loosed on earth {i.e., in expound-
ing the new Law) should be bound or looj^ed in heaven
(Mt. 18 18). Probably, too, it is a less authentic tradition
574
BINDING AND LOOSING
which makes Jesus give the same promise to Peter
individually (Mt. I619). Nowhere is it recorded that
the great Teacher made Peter the president (kx-o) of
his council of wise men. The words which immediately
precede Mt. lt)i9(J — self-evidently taken by the editor
from another context — rei)rcsent Peter, not as an ex-
pounder of the new transfigured Law, but as a practical
administrator (cp Is. 2222). It is in favour of the view
here adopted (viz., that the words on 'binding' and
' loosing ' were addressetl to the disciples in general and
not to Peter individually) that in Jn. 20 23 the power to
remit and to retain is granted to the disciples collectively,
not to any one of them individually. Though the use
of Kpareiv in that passage has no exact Hebrew or
Aramaic equivalent, the saying is not a new one, but
a paraphrase of Mt. 18 18. T. K. C.
BINEA (n^;2, Ny:3), in genealogy of Bknjamin
(§9, ii. [ji}), /Ch.837 (Bana [B], BA&N. [AL]) = 943
(Baana[15XL], Ban. [A]).
BINNUI ('"133, ' a building up" ; on form cp Na.mes,
§5).
1. F.-imily in great post-exilic list (see Ezra, ii. §§ 9, 8 c), Neh.
7 1 5 (/Sat-om [BNA], -v<xiOV [Ll) = Ezra2 10, Bani [g.7:, 2] Oai-ov
[H], -oui [.\], -vaia [L])=i Esd. 612, Bam (/3ai/ei [B.\], -i/aia
[L]).
2. A Levite, temp. Ezra (see Ezra, i. § 2, ii. g i; [i}d), Ezra
833 (aTrb e^avvaia. [B], uios /Saraia [.\L])= i Esd. 863 Sabha.v,
R\' Sadannus {(Ta^avvov [BA], vibs ^afaiou [L]), and prob.ibly
Neh. \i2\ (MT 'the son of; Kai vloi [BNA], k. oi v. avrov
[L]) ; so Sinend, /J/V Listen, etc. Most probably the same as
3. A Levite in the list of wall-builders (see Nehe.miah, § \/.,
Ezra, ii. §§ i6[i], 15 ,T), Neh.324 (/Sai-fi [BNA], -i/aifl.]): sig-
natory to the covenant (see Ezra, i. § 7), IO9 [10] (^ava.iov
[BN.VL], aj3. [X*^-^]), possibly the s.ame as the Levite Binnui in
Zerubb-ibel's band (see Ezra, ii. § 6/5) 128 0a>'ovi [BN.\], (cat 01
viol amoO [L]). In Neh. 3 '8, Bavai C.^a ; /3e«ei [B], /Sefep
fN), /Sei/ei [.\], jSai'ttt [L]) seems a textual error.
4. and 5. One of the b'ne Pahath-nioab, Ezra 10 30 (^avouei
[BN], 3arou[e]i [\L])=i Esd. 0 31, Bai.nius {&aXvov% [B], -ouos
[.\], /Sai'oui [L]) and one of the b'ne 15ani (Ezra 10 38; Bai/out
[BKA], jSoi'm [L])= I Esd. 834, Ei.iALi ; both in the list of those
with foreign wives (see Ezra, i. § 5 end).
BIRD. References to birds generally are very frequent
in or and XT.
The following terms (translated in EV ' bird ' or ' fowl ') are
used to denote the members of the family Avcs collectively:
,,. , '■|iy, 'oph, Eccles. 10 20 Is. 16 2 Hos. 9 11 : niss.
1. Kinds I ' ' •
referred to. •">^'"'' Gen. 714 Lev.uey: ^x ff.-. r^i "rya,
ha'al kdnu/ih, Prov. 1 17 ; and [of birds of prey]
b;V, 'ayit, Gen. 15 11 Is. 18 6 4; 11 Jer. 129 Ezek. 39 4 Job 28 7
(li.TN, 'ayyah); ntTfiva. and ra Trereifa, Mt.820 1832 Lk. 0 58
Rom. 1 23 Jas. 3 7 ; to. nrriva, i Cor. 15 39, and [of birds of prey]
opreov. Rev. 18 2 19 17 21.
Birds of the smaller kinds are not so often distinguished
as the larger ; but special reference is made to several
species, both large and small. Mention seems to be
made, for example, of the Bittern, Buzzard (see
Glede), Blue Thrush (see Sparrow), Cormorant,
Crane, Dove, Egyptian Vulture (see Gier Eagle),
Griffon (see Eagle), Hawk, Heron, Hooi'OE. Sacred
Ibis (see Swan), Kite, Night Hawk (?), Osprey,
Ossifr.'\ge, Ostrich, Owl, Pigeon (see Dove), Par-
tridge, Peacock, Pelican, Quail, Raven, Stork,
Swallow, Tern (see Cuckow), Black Vulture (see
Vulture), and the domestic fowl (see Cock), details
and discussions concerning all of which will be found
in the special articles. Sp.vrrow occurs occasionally in
the EV as a translation of the word (i\s^) which denoted
any small passerine bird.
That feathered animals (f|33 Vya) abounded in Pales-
tine is clear from the many references to them in OT
_ and NT, and lapse of time has produced
2. use. ^Q change in this respect (see Palestine).
Naturally the eggs and the birds themselves were used
for food '(Ex. 16 12/ Nu. 11 32 Job66 Neh. 5i8 Ps. 7827
Lk.lli2 Acts 10 12 116; see Fowls, §§ 4, 6, and cp
575
BIRSHA
Food, § 8) ; the Torah divides them into clean and un-
clean (Lev. 11 13 Dt. 1420; see Clean and Unclean,
§ 9). Many contrivances for capturing birds were in
common use (PS.9I3 1247 Prov. 1 17 6s 723 Am. 85
Eccles. 9 12 Jer. 027 Hos. 7 12 98 Ecclus. 11 30). The
Torah protects them against cruelty (Dt. 226/.).
Sometimes the captives were tamed and treated as pets
(Job4l5 [4O29], Bar.3i7 Ecclus.27i9 Jas.37). Only
in cases of extreme poverty does the Torah allow birds
to be used for sacrifice (see Sacrifice). Naturally,
common small birds, on account of their abundance,
were of little value ; they were probably so numerous as
to prove a nuisance (Mt. 10 29 31 Lk. 126/ ; cp LnnJ
and Book, 43). To what extent — if any — birds were
studied for omens in Israel as in Babylonia (see Baby-
lonia, § 32, Magic. Babylonian, § 3) it is difficult to
determine (see Lev. I926 Dt. I810 2K.2I6 2Ch. 336
iK. 433 [5 13], and cp DiviN.vnoN, § 2, beg., and
Schultz, OT Theol. 1 250^ ET).
.Allusions to their habits in metaphors, similes, and
proverbial expressions prove how prominent they were
3. Literary
in the life and thought of the people (cp
-Agriculture,
[5, and see Lowth,
^fiusXs'';;f-" - f ^--t ^-/.^ ^//^^^
J/ebrews, Lect. vii. vol. 1. E I 1787).
They were evidently observed with the keenest interest
as being links between earth and heaven, and regarded
with a certain awe (Job 12 7 2821 35 11 Eccles. 10 20). It
was noticed how thev cared for and protected their young
(Dt. 32ii E.x. 194 is. 31 5 Mt. 2837); how and where
they made their nests (Ps. IO41217 Ezek. 316) — some-
times (according to a pleasing but very doubtful inter-
pretation) in the very temple itself^ (Ps. 843 [4]); in
what sad plight they wandered about when cast out of
the nest (Prov. 278 Is. I62 Ps. 1027[8]); how swiftly
they flew away when .scared (Hos. 9ii Ps. lli); how
eagerly they returned to their nest (Hos. 11 11); how
free from care they were (Mt. 626) ; how regularly they
migrated (Jer. 87 Prov. 262); how voracious they were
(Gen. 40 17 Mt. 184 Mk. 44 Lk. 8s) ; how they descended
from the clouds in a bevy (Ecclus. 4817), and with what
delight they gathered in a leafy tree (Dan. 49 [12] Ecclus.
279 Mt. 1832 Lk. 1819); how sweetly they warbled
(Eccles. 124 Wisd. 17i8 Cant. 2i2 [see, however. Vine]
Ps. 104 12) ; how God recognises and protects them (Ps.
50 1 1 Lk. 1224); and how they praise and reverence
him (Ps. 148io Ezek. 38 20). Further, Israel's enemy
is often pictured as a rapacious bird that sights its prey
afar off and swoops down ujxjn it (Is. 46 11 Jer. 129''*
Dt. 2849 Rev. 19 17 21). Thus, ' to destroy ' is to give a
man's flesh to the birds of the air for meat (Gen. 40 19
Dt. 2826 I S. 174446 I K. 14 II I64 21 24 Ps. 792 Jer. 733
I64 197 3420 Ezek. 29s). A place is desolate when
its only inhabitants are the birds of the air (Jer. Ezek.
31 13 324 Is. 186), and an utter desolation when even
these too have perished (Jer. 425 I24 Hos. 43 Zeph. 1 3).
The saying in Mt.820, where Jesus contrasts himself
with the birds which have nests, has not yet been made
perfectly clear (but see Son of Man).
BIRSHA (yu'n?. scarcely ' with [or, in] wickedness ':
the name is corrupt ; cp Bera), king of Gomorrah who
1 Cp WRS Rel.Sem.f^> 160, and Che.'s note, Psa/msiV. The
common view of the meaning is untenable on all grounds- —
exegetical, historical, metrical. 1. No natural exegesis can be
given, if 'id nx. ' thine altars,' has any relation to the bird.s. 2.
The sanctity of the temple proper would certainly have excluded
the winged visitors ; Jos. BJ v. 56 speaks of pointed spikes on
the top of the (Herodian) temple to prevent birds from sitting
even on the outside. This seems to have been generally over-
looked. 3. The psalm consists of long verses (lines) divided by
a caesura into two unequal parts. ' Thine altars, my King and
my tiod,' is too much to form the second and shorter portion
of one of the.se verses. See Che. /'sa//its,(^l and cp Baethg. ati
ioc. .who attempts an exegetical compromise.
2 Read thus, ' Do I count my heritage a carcase torn by
hyaenas (i'ias HEIpri ; © o-TrijAaioc vai'iT)? = 's nij'c)^ Are
vultures round about it ? '
576
BIRTHDAY
joined the league anainst «. Heduki.ao.MER (§ a), Gen.
14 J (BAPCA [A/JKL] ; B&A.MAC. Jos. Ant. i.9i).
BIRTHDAY (Dn^n DV, hmcra reNecccoc [ADK],
r. H. [I.]. (;<n.402o; rCNeclA LTi ^VM]. Mt. 116
Mk. tiiil. The only express nienlion of the celebra-
tion of the anniversary of birth in O T or NT is in con-
nection with kings: Pharaoh's birthday (Gen. 40ao),
when the ' chief butler ' was restored to his ottice and
the ' chief Ixiker ' hanged ; Antiochus Kpiphanes' birth-
day (a .\Iacc. (>7) ; ' and Herod's birthday (Mt. 146 Mk.
fiai), when Herodias's dancing was the occasion of
the execution of John the liaptist. When it is said
in Jobl4 that Job's sons 'were wont to go and feast
in the house of each one upon his day," 'his day'
denotes a weekly and not an annual feast ; and in Hos.
75 'the day of our king' may refer to the anniversary
of his succession quite as well as to a birthday. How-
ever, this silence on the subject is no warrant for us to
conclude that the Israelites did not follow the general
custom of observing birthdays, especially those of kings
(see, for Egypt. A"/'"'* 4 77. and for Persia, Herod. 9 no).
The curses invoked by Job (.'^i-ia) and Jeremiah
(20 14-18) on the days of their birth imply that under
happier conditions these days would have been re-
membered in more cheerful fashion.
Doubts have been raised as to whether Herod's yeviaia,
meant his birthday or the anniversary of his accession.
The Mishna {Ahoda /.ara, 1 3) mentions as heathen
festivals, calends, saturnalia, Kparrifffis, kings' days of
ffv^ffia (H-D'yj cr). and the day of birth and the day of
death. It is probable that the last two mean the actual
days and not the anniversaries ; the /tpar^trets would
naturally be the anniversaries of accessions and the
tt'O-yi cv the birthday. So Talm. Jer. Aioi/a Zara,
\y)C takes 'j cv as .Tt'Sn cv (birthday), but Bab. Aboda
Zara, loa understands 'j cv as anniversary of accession.
Tfv^aia is used as birthday in late Greek (in classical
Greek it is anniversary of death) and never as anni-
versary of accession : thus the sense of birthday seems
well established. Cp .Scliiirer, Nisi. 226, and the Talm.
Lexx. of Levy and Jastrow on H'D'yi ; also Griitz,
A/GU7 2O230 ['71]. See also Lord's D.\y, § 2.
\V. H. B.
BIRTHRIGHT {r^'i)22, Gen. 2531: npcoTOTOKiA,
Hob. 12 10) ; see FiKsmoKN. Law and Jistice, § 14.
On the stcjry of Esau and Jacob sec I'.s.M', g 2.
BIRZAITH (n'na, Kr. ), AVBirzavith(nin3, Kt. ;
BHZAie [H], Bepz&ie [A], B<\pzee [L], in genealogy
of AsiiKK (§ 4 i'-). I Ch. 73it. The name (? fl'T 1X3,
' well of the olive tree ') seems to suggest a locality.
BISHLAM (QX*'3 ; eN eipHNH [RA], cn eipHNH
peOYV\ BeAxee/w [L]), Ezra47, for which i Esd. 2i6
has Hki.k.mus (BHAeAAOC [HA] or BeeAciMOc [L]).
the name of a Persian otlicer of unknown origin, who
joined with others in writing a letter of complaint
against the Jews. (5"* takes the name as descriptive
of the tranquil state of the writers of the letter {it>
"'pV??) ; but Bishlam is clearly a proper name. It
either means 'in jieace,' cp Bkzalkel, Hiksiia, or,
more probably, like those names, it is a corruption.
The true name may Ije lialiylonian. It may perhaps be
recovered if we start from one or the other of the forms
presented in the MSS of i Esd., where the proper
names are sometimes more accurately preserved. Ball
(I'ar. A/>ocr. ad loc). adopting fi-fi\(fj.os, supposes a
corruption of Bab. Bel -i bus — /.<-., 'Bel made.' It
would seem, however, that the /SefXiriyuoj of <5'- nuist
be more original, and this form may have arisen from
Bel-Sum-i§kun— i.^., 'Bel m.ade a name ' (Nestle, A/arg.
23. 29)- T.K.C.
V ' i?X/ '**' *^^^' °^ '*" king's birth every month ' : so 9 and
Pesh., \ g- oni. Kara piriva. Grimm siigRested that 'every month '
IS from 1 Mace. 1 59 ; but it is probably genuine (see Lord's
^'^v, g 2).
37 C77
BISHOP
BISHOP (eniCKOnoc)- The word is of rare occtir-
rence in the NT.'
'1 he elders of the church, sunimonrd from KphcMis to .Milrlu*
to receive Pauls farewell charge (Atls •JO 17), are llius addrc^vrd :
, r, ' ' "'"= '"=<='l '" yourselves and to the whole
1. Occurrence fl„tk. wherein the Holy Ghost halh set you
of name in NT. a'* overseers (viiat . . . ierro <iri<ricbirov«) to
feed (or rule : irotfiotVeif) the church of God '
(t'. 28). It is not clear from this passage whether the word ia
used as a definite title, or merely as a description implying that
«»r»<r(to»r»j, oversight or superintendence, was a function of the
presbytcrate. In the address of the Kpistle to the Philippians,
however, we have ' bishops and de.-icons formally mentioned ; it
IS difficult, in view of the later us;ige of the words, to sup|x>se
that this is merely a general description of 'those who rule and
those who serve. In i Tim. 3 j J. the bishop and the de.icon
are again brought together. The qualifications of a bishop arc
enumerated : 6ti GUI' t'ou iiriaKowov «.t.A., where the article U
commonly regarded as generic, or at lea.st as not implying that
there was only one bishop in the Kphesian church. In "Tit. 1 sjf-,
in connection with the duty of appointinj? presbyters in the
towns of Crete, a similar description of a bishop's qualifications
is given (6tl yap TOy iiti<TKonov k.t.K.) ; but no reference Ls
m.-ide to deacons. The only other occurrence of the word is in
I Pet. 225 where it is applied to Christ himself, 'the shepherd
and bishop of your souls. It is not ncessary to interpret these
titles as metaphors drawn from the Christian ministry.
We note, then, that the word is found in all cases on
Greek ground, and it \Mjuld seem as if those who in the
Palestinian churches were called ' presbyters ' were in
the Greek churches spoken of at first as ' bishops ' and
then indifferently as ' jjresbyters ' or as ' bishops.' This
view, however, assumes that iiriaKowo% was already at
this time in use as a title of office ; and the assumption
requires a careful examination. It will Ix- lH.-st to Ugin
such an examination with what is admittedly the latest
portion of the NT evidence.
I Tim. 3i^ ' If a man seeketh iiriaKovT) he desireth
a good work. The bishop, therefore, luust be without
2. (a) Pastoral ';<'P''oach,' etc. {d ti% iinaKoirr,s
Epistles. opJyfTai. KaXoO (pyov (iridvfiet btl
olv rbv iiriaKoirov avfiriXrjfjLirTov (li>ai
Af.T.X. ). The whole conception of the function of an
iwluKovos, as it is here descriljcd, suggests that the
authority which he wields is indeijcndent, not merely
that of a memlx.-r of a governing board. To begin
with, (iriffKoirri does not give any idea of assessors : it
is distinctly personal. It is a position of independent
importance and control, such as a man may naturally
desire. Secondly, the epithet ' given to hospitality '
{(f>i\6^evos) suggests a personal responsibility ; the
Church's duty of showing hospitality to Christians from
other parts seems naturally to centre in some one person ;
we could scarcely have had ' Presliyters must be given
to hospitality' {du oT^v irpta-^vT^pov^ (t>i\o^^voi>s flyai).
In like manner, ' apt to teach ' (oiSanTiKoi) would scarcely
be a qualification for a member of the prcsbyteral Ixsdy
as such ; and the same may Ije said of the epithets fj.r}
irdpotvos, fj.r] TrXriKTrji, ' not passionate or ungoverned in
temper.' The control of his own house, again, gives
the thought of independent jurisdiction in the case to
which it is made a parallel — ■ how shall he act as
(TTifjLfXtjTTfii of the church of God ? '
The singul.ar noun with the article may, according to
Greek usage, be taken generically ; but we must ob-
serve that ( I ) when the w riter passes on to give a similar
list of qualifications for a deacon the plural is use<l :
• Deacons in like manner . . . Women in like manner
. . . Let deactnis \>c husbands of one wife ' [diaKOfovs
uxraiTw^ . . . 7i'i'a(Acas uxraiTwj . . . Sidicovoi laTwaoty
fiids yvvaiKos &v5pfs (in the last case the use of the
singular with the generic article would have avoidetl an
awkward phrase)]; (2) in Tit. 1 7, we have an e.xact
parallel: Sti yap t6v (Trianoirov k.t.\., where we
might easily have had 5ft yap <Vt(7/c6iroij k.t.X. ; (3)
the usage of the article in the Pastoral I'.pistles is a.
further reason for hesitating to explain it here as generic,
for the article is very sparingly employed, and then:
1 (.\naIogous to MH fjn, superintendent in the synagogue or
elsewhere. See Jastrow's Z.*jr.].
BISHOP
seems no example at all parallel to these in any of the
three Epistles.
The difficulty is to some extent met by insisting on
the use of iiri(TKOiroi as a descriptive epithet rather than
as a formal title : ' He who exercises iiriaKOiry).' In so
far as his status in the Church is dwelt on, such a man
would be spoken of most naturally as ' one of the
elders ' ; but here the subject in hand is the function to
be exercised by him individually. That function is
iirtffKOTrr) : in the exercise of it he is (irLffKoiros. The
watchful oversight which is regarded as ' an excellent
work ' is not an eminent position, but a responsible
activity. He who is lo exercise it needs to have certain
special qualifications We feel the contrast when we
come to SiaKSvovT waaiTus, which introduces in an
ordinary way the members of a large and subordinate
class.
The passage in Acts 20 is, as we have seen, quite
indeterminate. If eirlffKoiros can be shown to be a title
, ,, ~^., in use at the time in question, we may
1^ ■ ' . . render the words, ' hath set you as
JMl writings, jjj^^opg . Otherwise we should perhaps
render them, ' hath set you for oversight.' The phrase
in the Epistle to the Philippians, if taken quite by itself,
would, in the light of later history, be naturally rendered
' with the bishops and deacons ' {ffvi> i-jna-Kdiroa Kal
SiaKJfois), notwithstanding the absence of the definite
article. If, however, iirldKotros be not yet found as a
title, a less definite interpretation may be allowed. The
decision between the two views must depend on a
further consideration which shall include the use of the
term 5iaKovo% at this period [see DEACON, § 6], and
the use of (iriaKoiros outside the NT, in other than
Christian contexts, and in the earliest Christian
writings.
In the use of iwlaKOTro's, iiriffKOTre'li/, in other than
Christian contexts, a great width of meaning is notice-
^ able, due, no doubt, to the original signilica-
_. ■ . . . ' tion which fitted the words for application
usage.
to any person who exercised an office of
superintendence. The commissioners who
superintended Athenian colonies, various other commis-
sioners or inspectors, magistrates who regulated the sale
of provisions, and, apparently, financial officers of a
temple or of a guild (Lightf Phil. 95 ; Hatch, Organisa-
iion of Early Christian Churches, 2>7 /■) — ■^H these are
spoken of as iiricTKOiroi, or are said iiricrKoirf'tv. Nor
was this the only term which had a similar largeness of
reference : quite parallel is the usage of iwifieXelv and
iirififX-qT-qs (Hatch, see above).
In the EXX the word eiriaKoiroi is equally wide in
the persons and offices which it embraces. Taskmasters,
captains or presidents, and commissioners, are in turn
so entitled ; and as a synonym in the last of these cases
we find also iiriaraTai (Lightf.; see above).
All this evidence points to the fact that i-rrlffKOiro^ and
iiriffKowfLi' were words which naturally offered themselves
as descriptions of any persons charged with responsible
oversight, and were the more available in that they had
no predominant association with any one class of officers
in particular. The words were, as far as possible,
colourless, much as our words ' preside' and ' president'
are to-day.
Hatch's position, adopted by Harnack, in reference
to €iri(TKoiroi is as follows : — The most important corporate
B Hatch's '^u'^'^''"" °^ ^^^ earliest Christian communities
'. , was that of providing for their poor and sick
^' memliers. They were, in fact, benevolent
societies, and as such they had p.arallels all around
them in the heathen world, in the countless clubs and
guilds wliich combined social purposes with certain
religious practices. The finance officers of these heathen
societies were called iiriaKoirot. Now, the duties which
the Christian iiri(TKOiros had to perform .are described as
intimately connected with the care of the poor, with
hospitality to travelling brethren, and with the manage-
579
BISHOP
ment of the common fund which was devoted to these
and similar purposes. It is probable, therefore, that
both the title and the functions of the Christian iwLaKOiroi
are directly derived from his heathen counterpart.
The best examination of this theory is that by Loen-
ing [Gemeindevcrfassung des Urchristenthums, 21 ff.).
6 Criticism ^'^''^'' Pointing out the very general signifi-
ofit.
cation of the word ivlffKowoi in Greek
literature — a signification which enabled
it to be applied to any person in authority for whom
there was no fixed title already, and so to be used with
great freedom by the LXX as a rendering for various
officers mentioned in the O T — he takes up the evidence
of the inscriptions on which Hatch's theory mainly rests.
They fall chronologically into two classes. The first
class is pre-Christian : one inscription of the Macedonian
period in the island of Thera, which contains a decree
ordering certain iwlaKoiroi to receive moneys and invest
them ; and two inscriptions of the second century b. c. ,
in the island of Rhodes, relating to municipal officers
not further defined. Those of the second class lx.'long
to the second and the third century A. n. , and are found
in a district E. of the Jordan. They are ten, and
refer to municipal officers. In one case the officers are
charged with some responsibility for the moneys of a
temple. In this district they seem to have formed a
kind of municipal board, chosen from various \.r\\y&s
or divisions of the community. Further, in a Latin
inscription of the fourth century certain episcopi regulate
prices in the market.
This appears to Ix; the whole of the evidence on which
the statement that iirlffKoiroi were the finance-officers of
clubs and guilds is found to rest. In Loening's opinion
it points exactly in the opposite direction.
As to the other part of the argument, — viz., that the
Christian iirlcKoiros is, as a matter of fact, a finance-
officer, — that is no peculiarity of function linking itself
especially to the title. To the presbyters at Jerusalem
gifts are brought ; and presbyters are warned not to
e.xercise their office ' for filthy lucre ' (EV ; alffxpoKepSws,
1 Pet. 52) : moreover, in Polycarp's letter tp the Philip-
pians (chap. 11) presbyters are charged with duties to-
wards the poor and are warned against covetousness.
The word iiriaKoiros in itself suggests a far wider re-
sponsibility than the mere charge of finance : it implies
superintendence of persons as well as of things.
Loening even goes so far as to suggest that the word
iwi(TKoiros was chosen just because it had no fixed
associations either in the Jewish or in the Greek world,
and was, therefore, free to be used in a community
which stood in contrast to all other communities sur-
rounding it.
In the extreme scarcity of evidence, we may be
content to say that the theory that the Christian
iwl(TKOiros derived his title and functions from those of
the officers of the Greek guilds or of the Greek munici-
palities has not been established.
We may say, then, that the NT evidence seems to
point to the existence in the apostolic age of two classes
_ . oi administration — a class of rulers and
* , . a class of humbler ministrants who acted
conclusions, ^^^j^^ ^^^-^ ^^^^^^ ^^ ^^ ^ ^j^^ j^^^,
of these has a distinctive official title its members are
called Elders ; but, since their function was summed
up in the general responsibility of oversight (iirurKOTrT/)),
they could be spoken of as 'overseers' {iiriffKOwoi). a
term which was already passing from a mere description
of function into a definite title. The men of the second
class aided those of the first in the humbler parts of
their ministration. They were naturally described liy
the general designation of 'servants' {SidKovoi) ; but
this term too is passing in the apostolic age into a
recognised title. On the whole, it seems simpler to
suppose that the latter stage has been reached in Phil. 1 1
and in the Pastoral Epistles ; but the decision of this
point is not a matter of serious importance.
BISHOP
In the later history, the second class retains its
desipnalion, which in some localities conies to t»e a. title
of considerable dignity. The first class, on the other
hand, presently underRtxis a subdivision : one nieniljer
comes to stand out alxjve his fellows, and, whilst all
continue alike to be Klders, the title of iiriffKoiros,
which in itself connotes an individual responsibility and
importance, is not unnaturally appropriate*! as the
designation of the one who has come to lie the supreme
officer of the community. The causes which led to a
monarchical development are still wrapt in obscurity ;
but the appropriation of the name iirla Koiroi to the
chief ruler is not hard to understand. We arc fortunate
_. .in possessing a document of the last
f R^m decade of the first century, by which we
can, to some extent, test the position
which we have taken up. The Epistle of Clement of
Rome to the Corinthians was occasioned by the ejection
from their oflice of certain lilders of the church in
Corinth. As the writer may cjuite well have had
personal knowledge of one or more of the apostles, his
evidence is of high importance, not only for determining
the existing organisation of the church in Corinth (and
probably in Koine as well) in his time, but also as
indicating the Iwlief that this organisation was instituted
by the apostles themselves.
First let us consider the use of the designations in
question in the most important passage.
(8 42) ' The apostles . . . appointed their first fruits (cp i Cor.
10 15), having tested them by the Spirit, to be ori-rstYrs and
servants («U eirtcritojrouv »cai ftoxoi'ovf) of them which should
believe.' The words have clearly become titles, and their use
as such is justified as being not new, but foretold in Is. 61 6.
It is curious that iioKoi/ous in this citation is an insertion of
Clement's, and is not found in the I-XX. He is clearly quoting
from memory, and his memor)- h.is played him false. (8 44) ' The
apostles foresaw that there wouKl be strife about the title (or
'oflTice ') of oversight (trtpl toO ofo^arot tVj? kir>.<iKoiri\<i).' Hence
they appointed the aforesaid and provided for successors to
them. It is a sin to turn such, if they have discharged their
ministry bhimelessly, out of their «jri<r>cojn}. ' Blessed,' he goes
on at once, 'are the Ehicrs who have gone before,' and are safe
from such treatment. In § 47 we have the offence described as
a revolt '.igainst the KIders ' ; in 8 54 we re.id ' Let the flock of
Christ be at pe.ice along with the appointed KIders ' ; and in
f 57, ' Do ye wlio began this sedition submit yourselves to the
Elders.'
It is plain, then, that the persons whom the apostles
' appointed as iirlaKoiroi' and as their successors, are
spoken of also as ' the apjxjinted l-llders." These Polders
are not to be rashly ejected from their XeiTovpryia or
iirtffKotrrj.
The difficulty which Clement's epistle presents in the
matter of these designations belongs to the earlier
chapters, liefore he has come to speak definitely of the
Corinthian disorders : he seems to use the term ' elders '
as though he referred not to an office, but only to a
grade of persons dignified by that name in contrast to
the young {oi v^ot).
In the first of the passages in question (§ i) he praises their
former orderliness, 'submitting yourselves to your rulers (or
" leaders," roit jfyovfitt^n vfLutv), and paying the due honour to
the elders that were among you : and on the young ye enjoined
modesty and gravity ; and on the women ' certain appropriate
duties. Similarly, in g 21 we h.ive, Met us reverence our rulers
(toit^ irpoTf-yovfifVout rifiuiv), and let us honour our elilcrs, let us
instruct the young ... let us guide our women aright." Here
we seem to have a contrast between 'rulers' and 'elders' : and
it has been held (r.g^., by Harn.ick) that the ' nders ' are a class
of persons whose authority came from their possessing the
charisma of te.nching (cp Heb. 13 7 24), whilst the KIders are an
undefined grade of senior members of the Church to whom
honour is due on .iccount of age and length of disciplesbip.
But the word I'f'oi, occurring in f)oth passages (not t'eioTtpoi, as
elsewhere so often), Ls an important clue, which has not been
sufficiently attended to. Clement is in fact alluding to a pssage
of Isaiah, which he cites with some additions in § 3 : so,' he
says, 'of old the mean rose up against the honourable, the
Toung against the elder (oi viox. irii Toiit irp«<r^vT«'pout),' Is. 85.
t would be possible to interpret 'the nders' as the civil
rulers to whom Clement several times applied the term ^you-
ftrrat (I 37); but on the whole it seems most natural to sup-
pose that at first he is c-\refully avoiding definite references
to the Corinthian revolt, and only preparing the way for ius
direct rebuke. Thus he spteaks in the most general terms of
'the rulers,' and passes rapidly away from the word 'elders,'
581
BISHOP
just introducing it as a hint beforehand, but dwelling on the
root-meaning which was still strongly felt in the word, and
contrasting it with ot vioi in accordance with the OT pasjtoge
which is in his mind.
No argument, therefore, can safely be baseil on the
rhetorical use of the word ' elders ' in the o|)ening part
of the letter. No doubt the KIders were elder men ;
and no doubt the revolt came from some of the younger
men : this was a part of its heinousncss, and the covert
allusion would Ix: understood by those to whom the
letter was addressed.
The development of the monarchical episcopate lies
outside the limits of the NT ; but even
9. Later
within the Canon we find indications of a
op t. tj.nje„j,y ^hich the later history enables
us to interpret as moving in this direction.
We have noticed that all passages which descrilw the
functions and responsibilities of Elders sjxink of them
as a class and in the plural numljer ; whilst, on the
other hand, where the duties of oversight {iitiaKoiri))
are pourtrayed, the iirhKowo^ is spoken of as a single
person, charged with responsibility — and this in one
place in sharp contrast to the diaKovoi, and in the other
immediately after KIders have been mentioned in the
plural number. From this we may gather that, in as
far as a memljer of the ruling class was thought of as
^TTt'cr/iOTros, it was natural to consider him by himself as
exercising an independent control and holding a position
of eminent authority.
As far as terniinologj', then, is concerned, the way was
prepared for the distinction that presently came into force.
10. ' Episcopos '
easily
individualised.
The word Airier Kowoi suggests an in-
dividual, just as the word irpfff^vTfpoi
suggests the nienilx.'r of a ruling class.
the word dtaKovoi the memV)er of a
serving class. The class of rulers, however, did not
need two designations, and when the course of develop-
ment led to a suiireme officer it was easy and natural to
appropriate to him the word (■jrlaKoiroi. while his inferior
colleagues were simply termed irpeff^vTepot.
But this consideration does not really give us any
guidance as to the causes of the change from government
«,, by a body of co-ordinate iirianoiroi or
foreshadowed ^'p'''^'''^'P<''.'^ government by a single
. „_, f 7rt(r*.-07ro5 with a consultative college ot
TrptfffivTtpoi., among whom he is primi/s
inter pares. The apostolic age, however, presents us
with several foreshadowings of the monarchical rule
which presently became universal. In the church in
Jerusalem the position of James, the Lord's brother,
was one of real if undefined authority, and, though not
marked by any special title, it closely resembles that
of the bishop of the second century. We have the
statement of Hegesippus that on the death of James his
cousin Symeon was appointed by general consent to
fill his place (Kus. HE iii. 11). Here, then, was a
monarchical type of government, naturally evolved an<l
continuously recognised ; and such an example could
not fail, as time went on, to exercise an influence on
other communities.
In the Greek world the churches of Paul's foundation
were from the first controlled by the strong hand of
their foimder. It is true that he urged them to corporate
action of their own in the exercise of juristliction and
discipline ; but he himself commanded them with an
authority beyond challenge, and his commands were
otieyed. In certain cases he transferred this his apf«-
tolic authority to delegates, such as Timothy and Titus ;
but only, it would stem, for a period, and in order to
cope with s[XK.-ial neetls. Still, in doing this, he had
given a practical proof of the advantage gainetl by the
presence in a conununity of one who could rule with
supreme authority ; and this temporarj' sway would
doubtless help in determining the tendency of subse-
quent development.
These examples, however, would have been powerless
582
BISHOP
by themselves to produce so great a change, had there not
_. , been elements in the life of the communities
*^ which made for the concentration of authority
, . in particular hands. It is often said that
c airman. ^^^^^^ ^^ element is discoverable in the
working of the presbyleral college itself. Any board
which meets for the transaction of business nuist
needs have a president. The ho der of this position
would naturally acquire a large share of the authority
of the Ixsard itself ; in time he would tend to become a
supreme officer over the whole community. This
suggestion is open to two serious criticisms. On ihe
one hand, there is no ground for thinking that in
parallel cases at that period such a development from
oligarchical to monarchical rule came about. Presidents
of this kind were often elected for a month or for a
year, and in any case did not acquire an independent
authority. Moreover, the term ' presbyteral college '
may be challenged, if it is intended to suggest that the
practical administration of the Church was carried on
by means of formal meetings of the Elders as such.
We have no evidence of any kind that they regularly
met in this way. It is probable that they had special
seats in the assembly of the community ; but that they
met by themselves for the transaction of business and
required a chairman is a hypothesis for which no evi-
dence has yet been given.
It is only when we turn our attention away from the
administration and fi.\ it on the common worship of the
.„ Rather '^'^"'''^'^' ^^^' ^^*^ begin to get any rays of
leader in
worship.
light on this problem. If we knew better
the history of the eucharist, it is not un-
likely that the history of the episcopate
would cease to be so perplexing. In the disorders
which disgraced the Lord's Supper in Corinth, and in
Paul's regulations for checking them, we hear nothing
at all of any kind of presidency or leadership. In the
same church before the end of the century we find
elders spoken of as the leaders of the eucharistic worship
and as ' offering the gifts. '
The picture which, fifty years later, Justin draws of
the eucharist in Rome, shows us a single officer, spoken
14 Justin's °^ simply as 'the president' (6 Trpoeorws
. Tuiv d8e\(pui'), receiving and offering the
eucharistic elements, and making the
eucharistic prayer, to which the whole congregation re-
sponds with the Amen* (§ 3). Likewise, after the read-
ing of the Gospels or the Prophets ' the president ' makes
an exhortation based upon what has been read. He is,
moreover, the depositary of the collection made in
behalf of the poor, and has a general responsibility for
widows and orphans, for the sick and needy, for prisoners,
and for travelling brethren from other communities
(.4/>. i. 65-67). This president is clearly the bishop,
though Justin's language does not help us to decide
whether he was at that time known in Rome by the
title iwiaKowos or not. If he was, it by no means
follows that Justin would have said so. He is writing
for heathen readers, and he avoids technical terms ; or,
if he finds it convenient to use them, he explains them.
Thus, in speaking of the deacons, he describes them as
' those who with us are called SiaKovoL ' (oi KoXovfievoi
Trap' i]fjuv dLOLKOvot) ; and his usual term for the Gospels
is ' the memoirs of the apostles,' to which in one
place he adds 'which are called gospels' (A KoXe'iTai
(uayyeXLa). We can argue nothing from the absence
of the designation ' bishop ' : had he cared to introduce
it, he would no doubt have done so by the phrase ' he
who with us is called iiriffKOiroi' (6 KaXoOfjievoi trap'
rjfjuv eiriffKoiroi). But the person is there, if the name
is not ; and we see that important collateral functions
belong to the officer who presides at the eucharistic
service. He appears as at once the instructor and the
almoner of the whole community.
It is a long step, however, from Clement to Justin, and
it is of some importance to us that we should have evidence
583
BITHIAH
of a like development in other parts of the Church.
Two passages may be cited which point in the same
, . P . direction for the eastern side of the Medi-
Chiurch ^'-"'■'"''^"•^''^"- ^- I" 'he Didaa^ (chap. 10/ )
the prophets are spoken of as holding a
position of special importance in reference to the eucharist:
they are not bound by the prescrilxid formuUi; of thanks-
givings, but may ' give thanks as they will.' This
implies that, if present, they naturally take a prominent
part in the service. They may order an atfa/)^ to be
held {opi^ftv Tpiir fi^av) ; and to them the first fruits are
to be given, ' for they are your chief-priests' (chap. 13).
The same document declares, however, that the ministry
(XfiTovpyia) of the prophets and teachers was likewise
exercised by the bishops and deacons (chap. 15). It is
safe to suppose that if no prophet were present the
conduct of the service would \>e in the hands of the
permanent local ministry, .although in this case there
woulfl be no exemption from the duty of using the
prescriljed formulae.
2. The Ignatian Epistles, as is well known, portray
the completed development of the three orders for
certain Asiatic churches at a comparatively early period.
It is noteworthy that the one bishop is expressly con-
nected with the one eucharist (for references, see
Eucharist). No eucharist is to be held without
the bishop, or some person deputed by him to conduct
it. There is ' One bishop, one altar, one eucharist '
(eh iiricTKOiroi, iv dvcnacTTripiov, fxla evxcLpicrrla).
We may feel confident, then, that in the development
of the eucharistic service we have an element — jx;rhaps
the most important element — of the development of the
monarchical episcopate.
As soon as this monarchical rule had been established
in a church various sacred parallels which would Ix;
_. . taken as confirmatory of the divine order of
■ ^°* the institution, would l>e observed. The
° ' bishop and his presbyters might be com-
pared with Christ and his apostles. Or again, the three
orders of the Christian Church — bishop, presbyters,
and deacons — would find a ready analogy in the high
priest, priests, and Levites of the Jewish ritual. Such
parallels would serve to confirm the validity of the
institution, and would facilitate its adoption in other
localities.
Meanwhile, the extraordinary ministry of apostles
and prophets had passed or was rapidly passing away.
Some of the functions which they had e.xercised were
essential in the Church ; and these devolved as a heritage
upon the permanent ministry. The prestige which had
attached to their e.xercise passed over in the main to
the chief officers of the community, who thus came to
lie regarded, with a large measure of truth, as the
successors of the apostles, wielding apostolic authority
as the rulers of the Church and the defenders of the
Christian faith. J. A. R.
BISON ip''!. dison), Dt. 14 st AV^e- ; RV l;as
PVGAKG [q.V.].
BIT (:n?D), Ps. 329 EV. See Bridle, 3
BITHIAH (n;n3; reAiA [B], BeeeiA [A], <l)<\e-
Goyi'Sk {}-•])' ' daughter of Pharaoh," and wife of Mered
ben Ezrah, in the genealogy of jLii.VH (i Ch. 4 18). On
the assumption that 'Pharaoh' (,ny-i9) is correctly read,
Bithiah (which might lie explained 'daughter — i.e.,
worshipper — of Yahwe ' [Olsh. § 277^]) mi^ht be a
Hebraised form of an Egyptian name such as Bint-Anta,
' daughter of Anta ' ('Anath), to indicate that the bearer
of the name had entered the Israelitish community.
This, however, does not accord with the view implied
in the vowels of the name of Bithiah's husband. Mered
apparently means 'rebellion,' and suggests a warning
against the wickedness of taking foreign wives (see
Ezra9i, and cp 2 Ch. 2426). It would be inconsistent
with this that Mered's wife should bear the honourable
584
BITHRON
name ' daughter of Yahwi- ' : we should expect to find
the old heathen name retained. I'erhaps, then, Hithiah
is not the rijjht name ; ©"'s ytXia suggests to Kittcl
.tH'- •'*"'' ®'' * <t>ciOdovia may conceivably Ix; based on
nina. which in turn may have sprung from nSna. pro-
ducing a description of Mered's non-Jewish wife as 'a
young Egyptian princess' (Mered's otlier wife 'the
Jewess' (JKIHIJIJAH (</-t:)] is not named). However,
the corruption is antecedent to ©, and the whole story
(half-told, half-implied, by the text as it now stands) is
imaginary. The idea of the double m.arriage of Mered
had not occurred to the original compiler ; the true text
conveys no warning against mixed m.arriages. Four at
least out of the live names, Mered. Hitliiah, Pharaoh,
Jehudijah, arul Hodiah, are corrupt; [x-rhaps indeed
all five are. Mered, or, more strictly, M-R-D, has
probably come from M-R-TH, which is an incorrect
form of R-M-TH — i.e., Ramoth — or rather of Jarnmth
(see Mkkku). * Hithiah ' is not improbably a corruption
of 'Kcaliah' (.rSya, i Ch. 12s [<^^i- ^i- 6]). Pharaoh
should rather be n^ps, a clan name (cp Pirathon).
Ha-Jehudijah (RV'"*.') and Hodiah are plainly the
same name (in v. 19 read Snvit, ' his wife"). Accepting
this view, we have two accounts of the family of Mered.
It is not cjuite certain, however, that the i)erson mis-
called Mered is represented as having two wives.
Hodiah may have been deliberately substituted for
Bealiah, from a dislike to the first element in that name.
We are now rid of the only case in the OT of a name
compounded with Jah (,t) — of such names there are 157
— being borne by a foreigner (cp Gray, Hl^N 158).
Next, another mistake has to be noted. It is plain that
I (h. 4 17 as it stands is not right. The remedy is (with
Berth, and Kitt.) to transpose j'. \%b to the middle of
V. 17, inserting of course I'^m after n,nni. This gives us,
as the children of Rithiah or Realiah, Miriam (?),
Shammai, and Ishbah the father of Eshtemoa. Eshtemoa
also occurs (together with Keilah) in the list of the
children of Hodiah [v. 19), while Gedor, Soco, and
2^inoah are connected with Mered through Hodiah's
double, Ha-Jehudijah — an important notice (seeMERKu).
It is perhaps sad to have lost what was supposed to Ixj
an early testimony to the presence of an l'",gyptian ele-
ment at and about Eshtemoa, as contrasted with the
more purely Jewish character of Gedor, Soco, and
Zanoah ; but we gain an attestation of the traditional
importance of Jarmuth. It may be added that in
Jewish legend Hithiah becomes the foster-mother of
Moses {Wtyyikra, K.. par. i ). T. K. C.
BITHRON (prisn. THN nARATeiNoycAN [BAL],
)Qa^^ w»-djL, beth-horon) ' the groove' or 'cleft'
par exieUrme situated between the Jordan and Maha-
naim (2 S. 2291), and possibly to be identified with
the \V. 'Ajliin, along which, though at a later time,
ran a Roman road from 'Ajlun to Mahanaim (Buhl,
Pal. 121); see Im'hr.mm, Wood ok. For the sense
of Bithron cp ©s rendering of ina in Cant. 2 17 [iprj)
KoiXwfjArwv (like KoiXds in © for pcy). The reading
Bithron is not certain, and the \'ss. give little help.^
although 'Vg. (cp also Aq.'s fiedwpwy) suggests that
there was another Beth-horon E. of Jordan (see HoRO-
NAIM). Thenius's conjecture, Beth-haram, is im-
probaV)le.
BITH'yNIA(BieYNlA[Ti. WH]), the district round
the central Sangarius (SaJtaria) in the NW. corner of
1 Oeopranh '^^''^ Minor, extending from the mouth
6 P y- Qj- ji^g Rhyndacus [EJrenos Chai) east-
wards to that of the Sangarius.
The Ixiiimlary between liithynia and the province of Asia
coinciiie<l, not, as niisht have Ijeen expected, with the line of the
Rhvndacus, hut with that of the range of the Mysian Olympus
{Kcshish Dagh) lying N. of the river (Fliny, //.V5i4a). The
• 8 is unintelligible and, to judge from its similarity to the
Heb. (cp We. Dr. iui loc), has arisen perhaps from a trans-
literation.
585
BITHYNIA
eaxtern frontier is often made to coincide with the Billaios or
with the I'arlhenioit, or even to extend Ixryond the Litter river,
in spile of Stralxj's statement that the mouth of the .Sangarius
marked the Uiiindary (543, rrtv BitfvKtay opi'^tt irpif roit
cK/3oAaif). Inland, it ran out far K. of the river ; but the line
is indeterminate. .\uCording to I'li.iy (/AV 6 149), the Micro* or
Sibcris separated iiithynia from the province (iaialia; but the
boundary fell some la m. K. of that stream (Kanis. Hist, lirogr.
0/ A.M 195), whence it ran W. between the Sangarius and its
tributary, the Tcmbris.
The will f)f Nicomedes III., the last of its kings, left
Hithyiiia to the Romans in 74 B.c:. ; but it was not until
2 Ristorv ^'* "■' ■' ^'"-■" '^'-' sultan of Pontus had Ixren
^' finally exjielled from Asia, that Pomjjcius
could undertake the organisation of the jirovincc (cp
Plin. /•-'/. aii J'rai. 79). With it was now combined
the whole of the kingdom of Pontus, with the exception
of those districts towards the IC. , as well as those in
the interior (Paphlagonia), which were assigned to native
dynasts in recognition of their services to Rome (Str.
541. See Niese in Hermes, 1839, and Rhein Mus. 38
567 ['83]). Amisos, which lay immediately E. of the
Halys {/s'izil /rntck), was the most easterly community
of that part of Pontus which was combined with the old
kingdom of Nicomedes to form the Roman province.
This dual origin of the province was recognised in its official
title, Pontus et Iiithynia (so generally in inscriptions, both Lat.
and Gr. ; cp Appian, Mithr. 121, CIG 3532 3548, CI L l>%iti).
The reverse order is perhaps upon the whole later, encouraged
by the gradual growth in importance of the western section.
Either name, apparently, niigiit be used to denote the entire
province (cp Tac. Ann. 12 21 with Dio Cas. tK)33; CH'i ly^r,,
Bull. Hell. 11 212). In administration also the two pans
retained a certain degree of foriiLiI independence, each having
its own metropolis and Diet {com ilium).
In the distribution of provinces by Augustus in 27
B.C. Pontus- Hithynia remained senatorial — i.e., its
p . governors, who were of Pnvtorian rank,
. °,.' bore the title 'proconsul' (Str. 840, Tac.
Apostolic. ^^^ l74lt)i8). The ofticial residence
was Nicomedeia. Under the ineffective supervision of
the Senate the province gradually became disorganised :
its finances fell into disorder, and unregulated collegia
gave birth to turbulence and faction. In order to carry
out the necessary reforms, the younger Pliny was sent
into the province in 112 A.d. His importance arises
from his official contact with Christianity {£pp- "d 'J'rai.
96 and 97. See Hardy, Pliny'.': Correspondence, 51 /,
Rams. Church, 196/, and cp Christia.v, § 6/.).
In the early period of post-apostolic history Hithynia
is illustrious ; but it has little connection with the
apostles themselves. The salutation of i Pet. 1 1, where
Pontus and Hithynia are mentioned separately, bears
witness to the rapid evangelisation of the province.
Before 112 A.D. Christianity had made such progress in
Biihynia that jjagan ritual was interrupted and the
temi^les in great part deserted (Pliny, Ep. ad Trai. 96).
We get a hint that there, as in Ephesus, trade interests
were at the bottom of the att.ack then made upon
the Christians. The conlagio istius superstition is (super-
stilio prava immodica), as Pliny calls the faith, would
most easily enter the province by way of Amisus, along
the route leading from the Cilician Gates by Ty.lna and
Cit'sarea MazAca in Cappadocia. Ramsay {Church,
225) conjectures from Pliny's letter that its introduction
nmst fall about 65-75 A.D.
Amisus is now Samsun. Even in Strabo's time it was
gradually displacing Sinopg (Sinufi) as the great harbour on
the north coast. The route from Carsarea Ma/aca northwards
T'/Vi Aqux Saravenx, Euagina, and .\m.Tseia, to .\inisus, is even
to-day ' the only ro.-id practicable for arabas, and must always
have been a great trade-route' (Rams. //ist. Geo^r. a/ AM,
268).
The interpretation of the word Bithynia in Acts I67
is connected with the question concerning the Galatian
. . ., churches (see Galatia). On the N.
4. Acts 107. Galatian theory, the object of Paul's vain
attempt to enter Bithynia must have been to reach either
Amisus or Amastris ; for a design of preaching in the
barbarous interior is improbable. The direct route to
Amastris went, it is true, by way of AncjTa in Galatia. ;
586
BITTER HERBS
but on the other hand no such route could have brought
the apostle ' over against Mysia ' (so RV ; Kara ryjv
"hlvalav). F'urther, both in Roman and in ordinary
usage Amastris, and still more Amisus, was a city of
Pontus, not of Hithynia ; and only the word Pontus
could have been allowable as a single term to express
the dual province to which it belonged (as is clear from
Str. 541 compared with 543, in sjieaking of Heraclea).
The expression ' to go into Bithynia ' can only be taken
to imply W. Bithynia — i.e., the district round Niccea
and Nicomedeia, where the wealth and administrative
machinery of the province were centred. Dorylaion
(E-iki-shehr), only a few miles S. of the Bithynian
frontier, was the point to which all the roads from the
south converged ; Paul and his companions must have
l)een somewhere in this neighbourhood when they were
suddenly diverted westwards (Acts I67). W. J. W.
BITTER HERBS. BITTERNESS (Dni?? ; ni-
KpiAec' laitunr agnstcs, Ex.128 Xu. 9ii; niKpiA.
ainarltudiries. Lain. 3 15 ; in Mishna also in sing.) are
twice mentioned along with nWD as the accompaniment
of the paschal feast. Probably such herbs — whether
separately or mi.xed — as lettuce [Lactuca Scariola, var.
sativa), chicory {Cichorium Intybus), and endive {Cich-
oriuin Endivia) are meant. Doubtless they originally
came into use simply as a relish or salad, ^ though the
prescription of them in the Law may have to do with the
atoning significance of the Passover ; their association
with the sufferings of the people in Egypt is probably
a later view (Xowack, HA 2 173). See, further, Pass-
OVKK.
'Bitter herbs,' rather than 'bitterness' (©, EV),
seems to be the projier rendering in Lam. 3 15, where
D'TO answers to n:v'?, ' wormwood,' in the parallel
clause. N. M. — w. T. T.-D.
BITTERN, RV Porcupine ("liSf?, eyiNOC,'' ej-icius ;
Is. II23 34ii Zcpli. 2i4t). The identity of this animal
1 Ph'l Intnr C^^'^- '^''/A'"') 's far from certain : opinions
1. rmioiogy. ^j. ^^^^^ variety have been held.
The ancient versions un.-inimously render 'Hedgehog' (or
'Porcupine' — the two were scarcely di.^Hinguished), and this is
in general supported by Jewish tradition, though Rashi thinks
that in Is. 34 11 Zeph.214 a bird is meant, and D. J^imhi
interprets 'Tortoise''* in all three pass.iges (see their com-
mentaries in locc.\ Of modern Bibles Wycliffe's has in all
three pl.-ices 'Urchin,' and so Luther (followed as usual by the
Dutch), ' Igel.' Junius and Tremellius in their Latin O T render
anataria (' duck-eagle ') ; Coverdale, followed by the Great
Bible, has 'Otter' in Is. I423 and 'Stork' in Is. 34 11 Zeph.
2i4, while the Geneva Bible has in Isaiah 'Hedgehog' (I423
mg. or 'tortoise'), and ni Zephaniah 'Owl' (mg. or 'hedge-
hog'). The p'rench Protestant version seems alone to have
anticipated AV in the rendering 'butor' (mg. ou ' bievre ').
The Roman Catholic Bibles follow the Vulgate. 5
The etymology of the Hebrew word is not, however,
uncertain.
It is derived from a verb which in Assyrian means ' to plot,'
transitively (Sargon, KIB 2 b6/.), and in Arabic (i) 'to inflict
a blow on the neck of another' ; (2) ' to have a thick or loose
neck.' The original sense is perhaps better seen in Syriac,
where the saijie verb meatis 'to gather iiito a heap orball
(trans, or intrans.); the sense of drawmg together also underlies
the Assyrian use (cp 'intrigue,' intricarc). The verb occurs
but once in OT Hebrew (in Piel form), Is. 38 12—' I have rolled
up (or possibly 'shortened,' see Dillmann ad he.') like a weaver
my life,' — a simile referring to the treatment of the finished
J iriitpi's is, according to Dioscorides (2 159), the wild variety of
iript.% (chicory or endive); Pliny (xix. 838) mentions it as the
bitterest sort of Icutuca (see the reff. in Di. on E.x. 128, and
in Nowack, If. 4 2173): Picris echioides is probably intended
by both. It does not of course follow that the meaning of
On'nO is identical with that of niKpiSe^.
3 Vegetable food with meat is a dietetic necessity, and wodld
naturally be e.iten raw until it was disco' ered th.-it certain kinds
were best cooked. It is a matter for curious inquiry why so
many .salad herbs were bitter, at any rate in their feral form.
Dandelion is a striking example.
' Also used to render fPl, Is. 1823, and TIBp, Is.34i5.
* Which he wrongly supposes to be the meaning of Ar.
kunfudh.
* Explanations of these various renderings will 1>e found in
Fuller's Miscellanea Sacra, 1 18 ; Bochart's Hieroz. 836.
587
BITUMEN
web : t the use of the noun .TTSjp in Ezek. 725 accords well enough
with this derivation.
Kipp5d is equivalent in form to Aram. kuppHdha,
Ar. kunfudh ;'-' and that these are the words for 'hedge-
hog ' in their respective languages is made clear for Ar.
(e.g. ) by Uamiri's account (Haydt al-Haiwdn, Bulak
edition, ii. 219) and for Aram, by the Syr. Physiologus
(Xjun^s Anecdota Syriaca, 442/.).' The instances of
ni£3j3. Kisip, in late Heb. and Aram, prove the same for
post-biblical Jewish usage (see Lewysohn, Zoologie dcs
Talmuds, 100).
Whilst the philological evidence is thus entirely in
favour of the rendering 'hedgehog' or 'porcupine,' it
_ 2oolooTr "^"^^ ^^ admitted that, zoologically,
°^' there are considerable difficulties. The
animal is always spoken of in connection with desola-
tion, and once in relation to pools of water ; and,
whilst both these conditions would be natural in the
habitat of the Bittern, they have no particular associa-
tion with either ths Hedgehog or the Porcupine.
Again, in Is. 34 n, the nisp is mentioned among birds ;
and in Zeph. 2 14 it is prophesied that the Pelican and
the kippod shall lodge together in the capitals of ruined
Nineveh, while 'a voice' (if the text may be trusted)
shall sing in the windows. The answers made by
Bochart to these objections — that the Porcupine or
Hedgehog was regarded as an unfriendly, desert-loving
animal on account of its formidable equipments ; that
we can find parallels to the mention of a beast among
birds in such enumerations as Lucian's ' large oxen, and
horses, and eagles, and bears, and lions ' ; and that the
capitals on which the animal is to sit may tie those of
fallen columns — are ingenious, but perhaps scarcely
satisfying. It has been suggested that the translation
' bittern ' may be reconciled with the etymology by
considering the fact that this bird has the power of
drawing in its long neck so that its head almost rests
upon its breast.'* .Still, it is not easy to set aside the
argument derived from the meaning of the word in the
cognate languages.
The Bittern, Botaurus stellaris, is found in marshy
and reedy places throughout Europe, Asia (including
India), and Africa, Canon Tristram records its occur-
rence in the marshes of Hideh. It is a nocturnal bird
of considerable size, and is remarkable for its loud
booming note. Formerly a conmion bird in suitable
localities in Britain, it is now but a winter visitor. It
is grouped with the Herons in the family Ardeidce.
(Cp also CoRMORA.NT and Pelican.)
For Is. 34 1 1 (I'lrr; RVin*:. ' bittern ') see Owl, § 2(4)
N. M. — A. K. .S.
BITTERNESS, WATER OF (D-I^n -D), Xu. 5i8
RV, AV ' bitter water.' See JEALOUSY, Okdeal ok.
BITUMEN, the proper rendering (i) of 'HDn,' as
RVniK- recognises (ac4)aAtOC ; bitumen; EV has
t This evidence seems enough to show that the original sense
was 'to contract or 'cause contraction by striking,' not to
'cut ; and that those were misled who, like Fuller and nearly
all the older scholars, explained the name of the animal from
the latter sense. In post-biblical Hebrew and W. Aramaic the
sense of cutting is fairly common ; but this may be explained
partly perhaps from a misinterpretation of WEj? in Is. 38 13,
and partly from association with Or. kotttm and its derivatives :
cp Syr. Kupdd (N.S. kiipta), 'a piece of flesh' — late Or.
KOiraZiov.
2 So i^tbiopic kefi/iz. It seems more probable that the
Arabic word is a loan-word from .Aramaic, than that llEp is
borrowed. Frankel, however (/I ra/«. Fremdw. xiv.), holds that
the latter is the case.
3 Cp, for Syriac, the other references cited by P. Smith.
■Kuppedkd appears to be used for the ' owl ' in Kul. iv. Dim.
(367).
* Cp Brehm's Thierleben (Leipsic, '79) 6 388. ' When it
(the Bittern) rests and is at ease, it holds the body erect in a
somewhat forward position and draws in its long neck to such
an extent that its head rests upon its neck.'
5 Ar. homar. Perhaps with reference to the reddish colour
occasionally observed ? (Diosc. 1 99).
588
BIZJOTHJAH
slime") in Gen. 11 3 14 10 Kx. 23t; Imt also (a) of
")^l3, which, like its Aram, cognate, is an .\ss. loan-word
(KV riTcil) in (Jen. 6 14!, where its occurrence furnishes
one of the proofs of the liabylonian origin of the
Deluge- Story (see Dkluge, § 13). In the Ilab.
Deluge-Story six ' !ars' of kupru (las. ' bitumen") and
three of »(W//* (naphtha : Jensen) are poured upon the
outer and inner sides of the ship, respectively. Iddu,
' naphtha," is the word used in the legendary account of
the infancy of Sargon I. (3 K. 458a ; A'/^<'' 556) : — ' she
placed me in a basket of reeds, with iddu my door
she shut " ; in the similar story of Moses the words
TOn, 'bitumen,' and npj. Pitch {q.v.), are combined
(I'.\. 23 do-^aXroj tnaao. [B*'*"], but d<r^aXr6m<ro'o
[U*.\K]). The origin of bitumen, or asphalt, and
naphtha need not delay us long. Together with
petroleum and mineral tar, they form a series of sub-
stances which are the result of certain changes in
organised matter. These substances merge into each
other by insensible degrees, and it is impossible to
say at what point mineral tar ends and asphalt begins.
N.iphth.-i, which is the first of the scries, is in some places
found flowing out of the earth as a clear, limpid, and colourless
liquid. As such it is a mixture of hydrocarbon.s, some of which
are verv volatile and evaporate on exposure ; it fakes up oxygen
frocn the .-lir, becomes brown and thick, and in this state it
is called petroleum. A continuation of the same process of
evaporation and oxidation graduallv Iraiisfnrms the material
into mineral tar, and still later into solid ghissy asphalt.
Asphaltic deposits are widely diffused throughout
the world, more especially in tropical and sub-tropical
regions — for example in the basin of the Dkad Sea
(q.v., § 6). The asphalt of the Dead Sea (which was
very well known to the ancients) is not at present of
commercial importance ; but the sources of the supply of
ancient Babylon, the bitumen springs of Hit (the Is of
Herod. I179), are still used. At this very old city on
the Euphrates the shipwrights adhere to the ancient
fashion of boat-buikling. Tamarisk and mulberry
branches form the substratum, which is covered with
mats and thickly Ixismeared with bitumen (cp Ex. 23).-
Bitumen was much used in architecture (see Gen. 11 3).
Unburned brick protected by a plaster of bitumen
proved the most indestructible of materials (see Assyria,
§ 6, Bahyi.onia, § 15, and cp Peters, Nippur, 2162).
Bitumen was used in ancient times as a fuel (Verg.
Eel. 883), for medicinal purposes (Jos. Zf/ iv. 84)
and for embalming (see I^.mhai.ming).
BIZJOTHJAH, RV Biziothiah (H^nvn), among
the cities of Judah in the Xegeb (Josh. I528). C*-^ {koL
oX Kuifiai avrOiv k. at €Trav\(ii av. [L om.]) enables us to
restore thus — .Tni:3l ( ' and her villages '). See We. C//
132, and HoUenberg, A/ex. Uebers. d. B. Jos. ("76), 14.
BIZTHA (Kn-T3 [Ba., Ginsb. for common 'T3],
AAAZAN [BX»L^],' B&Z. [X<=-*]. -Z€A [A]), a chamberlain
of.-\hasiierus (lOsth. lie). If any reliance could be put on
the reading of the Vss. , one might, with Marq. (I-'und.
71), compare /uaj'av with O. Pers. mazddna — i.e., pia, or
(ia^av, with ^a^avrjs, the name of a eunuch of Darius III.
BLACK (D-in. "irrj*, nii^, "^^'n) and blackish
("l"ip) Job6i6 ; see Coi.oL-Rs, § 8. " BLACKNESS; for
Prov. 79 RV and Joel 26 Xah. 2io, see Colours, § 17 ;
for Jol)3 5 ib. § 8 n., for Is. 0O3 id. § 8.
BLAINS (nyarn^X), E.x. 99/ 1. See Boil, § 3.
BLASPHEMY (nVKJ 2K.I93 Is. 373: niVN3
Neh. 91S26; 'X: EzJk'soij; BA&c4)HMi<\ Tob. TiS
1. The word. ' ^''''"- '^^ ^"- ^'-^3' 2665). The word
so translated is derived from a root
({•Kj) meaning literally 'to scorn or reject" (see 2 S.
12 14 Ps. 74 10 18 Is. 525). In Hebrew, therefore, it can
naturally be used to describe an attitude of hostility
J Perhaps connected with hamtu, ' burning, fiery ' (HaKvy).
2 .See the illustration called 'A Noachian Boatyard at Hit,'
Peters, Nippur, 2 16a.
589
BLASPHEMY
towards God or man, things holy or things pro fan
(Jer. 3324 Is. GO 14 i S. 217).
* lihi-sphemc' (tp the verb 'to blame" Romanic hlatimare,
L. hlatphitmlre, and sec Murray, s.v.), however, occurs in (he
KV as a rendering also of the following words : ina i K.
21 1013 AV (RV 'curse'J RVmg. 'renounce"; cp DaC. on Job
I5); (JIJ aK..10633 EV:=^Is.37623 KV, Kzek.2027 KV, N„.
1530 KV(AV ' reproach "), Ps. 44 i6[i7) KV ; (Cy.TnK) apj Lev.
24ii C' DC*) V. 16 EV, and the Gk. ^Ao<r<^i)>icif 2 Mace 10^4
(not V) 12 14 Mt. 2739 Mk. 828 (followed by to 6»«m<» toO ««oC),
Rev. 136, I Pet. 4 14.
In I Mace. 738 'blasphemies' is the rendering of
8vff<priijdai ; in v. 41 ' to blaspheme ' represents the
related verb Svfftprjfxfiv ; the object of the blasphemies
is the temple. It is important to determine the sen.se of
(i\aff<pT]fi.(ii' accurately, lx.'cause the sense of ' to blas-
pheme' in EV follows this exactly. In a word, the
conce[)tion of 'blasphemy ' in current English is narrower
than the conception that we find in this supposed pattern
of English speech, which includes all modes of reviling
or calumniating (jod or man (see 0 on 2 K. 196 [Heb.
lEijJ 194 [Heb. n':i,i] and Is. 525 [Heb. ^kjo uncertain
coiij.]. and cp Acts 1845 186 Jude 9 with Lk. 521 Jn.
IO36).
.•\mong the Hebrews (whose view, it is needless to
say, profoundly affected our own common law)
2 OT RAnti '''^^P'i''"'y or the expression of unjust,
. derogatory opinions regarding God or his
government of the world was made a
capital ofl'ence (Lev. 24 11 ; cp i K. 21 13, and see Jos.
ylnf. iv. 86) ; the blasphemer must be 'cut off' from his
people (Lev. 24 15 P; see Law and Jr.sricE, § 13).
It was forbidden to use the name of God lightly (can
Dt. 5 11), whether to ask a blessing or to invoke a curse
(cp Ex. 2O7, and see Blessi.n(; and Cl'Rsi.ng, § i, and
Schultz, OT Theol. 2 122^ [I'"I ])• Whenever I.sr..el
is brought to shame Gods name is scoffed at by the
heathen (Ps. 74 10 18). At a later date it was held to be
a mark of profanity even to pronounce the real name of
the (jod of Israel (see Lev. 24 11 and cp Names, § loq).
Josephus [Ant. iv. 86), and the Rabbis interpret I'^x.
2228 as a prohibition of blaspheming 'strange gods' ;
but the interpretation, however much in the interests of
the Jews themselves, imjilies a misunderstanding of the
use of eiohim (see Schultz, 2127). It was on a charge
j_p of blasphemy — claiming to be the Christ, the
Son of God — that Jesus was found wortiiy of
death (Mk. I461-64 Mt. 266s ; cp Jn. IO33), and ' for
blasphemous words against ' the holy place and the
law" Stephen was condemned to be stoned (.Actseis
756^). See Stei'iik.ni. By blasphemy against the
Holy Spirit in Mk. 829, Mt. I232, was meant originally
a definite offence of the scrilx.'s and Pharisees, who had
ascribed Jesus" cures of demoniacs to a power derived
from the prince of the demons. This was blasphemy
against the divine power which had come upon
Jesus at his baptism (.\Ik. lio Mt. 3i6 Lk. 822). In
Mt. 1232, however, a later interpretation is given, which
implies that the disciples of Jesus had thorou.i;hly
absorbed the idea of the indwelling Spirit. The Holy
Spirit is put in .antithesis to the 'Son of Man.' One
who fails to pierce below the humble exterior of Jesus
may be forgiven. One who not merely rejects, but
o[x>nly disp;irages, that great gift which ' the Heavenly
lather will give to those who ask him" (Lk. II13)
cannot Ix; forgiven : the inward impediment in the nuui
himself is too strong. The idea of the original distinc-
tion was suggested by that in the Law (Num. 1627-31),
•A parallel to it will be found in the Mishna (Sanhedr.
10 i) — ' He who says that the Law is not from Heaven
has no ^wrt in the world to come ' (n3.t oSiy)- The
later interpretation, however, has no parallel, and is a
' This rendering of Tp3 is very doubtful ; but it is quite
possible that in passages like Job 1 5 i K.21 10 13 a later editor
substituted ij-q for siyp or J'kj. In Ps. IO3 we may even have
side by side the correction ^H? *nd the original reading j'KJ.
S90
BLASTING
profhict of the Spirit of Christ working in the hearts of
tlie lirst disciples.
BLASTING (liDTj'; e^^^^ ANeMo4)eopi& [Dt.
2822 2Ch. G28], eNnypiCMOC [i K. 837]; ©"•"-'
nYPcocicL'*^m. 49]; 6''»«^''Qr, A(})opi<\. 6* A<t)eo.
©><* airo. [Hag. 217]) is, as we learn from Gen. 41,
a term specially applied to the blighting effect of wind
upon corn. The root in Arabic means blackness ; and
the Heb. word thus descrii)es a blackening (almost
burning) process which is regarded as due to a severe wind
— a sense which is expressed by the various renderings
of ©. The word is in each passage coupled with pp-\-
' mildew." Nevertheless, it is doubtful whether wind is
in itself sufficient to account for such a blackening. In
the British Islands wheat when young assumes a yellow
colour from cold, a well-known physiological effect.
Under a burning drying wind, it might turn brown,
but scarcely fi/aci. Further, it must be noted that in
Gen. 41 6 the corn was in ear ; it had made its growth,
but the ears were /kin — i.e., diseased. It seems prob-
able, then, that the effect conceived in the dream was
that produced by ' corn smut,' Ustilago Carbo ; and that
this is the real meaning of \-\tpr3. ' Mildew ' is the other
common disease of corn, Puccinia graminis.
N. M. — w. T. T.-D.
BLASTUS (BAactoc [Ti. WH]), the chamberlain
(6 ivl Tov KOLTu)vos, prcffectus cubiculi) of King Herod
Agrippa I. (.\cts 12 20).
BLESSINGS and CURSINGS (Tjl?, to bless— a
denominative from "^IS, tlie knee, with the lower part of
the leg; perhaps 'to cause to make progress,' — and
")"!X, to curse [cp Ass. anini (i) 'to curse,' ardru (2) 'to
bind '], and their derivatives n3"13, rT^XP, in parallelism,
chiefly in poetic and legal sources of JED and later
imitations ; cp Gen. 27 29 Dt. 11 26 Josh. 8 34 etc. ).
© represents -^^ by fvXoyeiu, ^^-^.z ^Y fvXoyia (also NT
words). In Hebrew for 'cursing' we find also (a) 77pi ri7 7p
(prop, to belittle?) frequently. (/') T\h«, verb and noun, cp ny32'
,"I^X ' oath of cursing ' Nu. 5 21 (RVn'S- ' adjuration '), rendered
'execration,' Jer. 42 18 44 22, and RV only Jer. 29i8; its
derivative n7Nri occurs in Lam. 365t. (c) CVn Dnnrt) see Ban.
('0 3:ip only in the Balaam stories (Nu. 22ii 23 8 24 10) and
possibly to be connected with ^pj (prop. ' to pierce') rendered in
Lev. 24 II 16 'blaspheme.' From the Jewish tradition which
explained it to mean ' pronounce, .speak aloud ' arose the deep-
rooted belief that the divine name was not to be uttered under
any circumst.ance (see Names, § 109 n.). Idolatry, § 8. (f)
n^Ur, Is. 65 15, EV ' curse,' properly ' oath ' as in RVmg. ; see
Oath and cp Covenant, § 5.
The NT words are {a) a^aee^ari^iu Mk. 14 71 (in © for
mn> Cinn) ; KaTafaee/u.alTi^w], Mt. 26 74 Rev. 22 3 ; see Ban.
(/') (caTapafofiai] Rom. 12 14 Jam. 89 (in © for ^Sp, "IINX also
KttTapa lial.3ioi3 .and (caTdSenia (RV'"S- 'anything accursed')
Rev. 22 3 ; cp also cTriicaTapaTos ' under a curse,' Gal. 3 10. (c)
KaKoKoyeiv Mt. 15 4 Mk. 7 10, RV ' speak evil of (in © for '?'?p) ;
see Oath.
In the primitive sense of the word, a blessing or a
curse was a spell, pronounced by ' holy ' persons, and
containing a divine name, or divine names, which drew
down the divine favour or disfavour {i.e., prosperity or
adversity), as the case might require, on certain other
persons. It was a consequence of the hardness of life
that curses were more frequently in demand than
blessings. Thus (a) the breaking out of hostilities
between states naturally led to the solemn utterance of
formulae of cursing against the enemy. These invoca-
tions would be uttered at the opening of a campaign, and
especially when the warriors were on the point of
advancing against the foe. Goliath, we are told,
'cursed David by his gods' (i S. I743). The battle-
shout certainly had a religious character ; and, if it did
not always devote the enemy to destruction, at any rate
it invoked a blessing on the national side. Cp Ps. 68 1-3
and the story of Bai.AAM [q.v.].'^ (b) The laws too had
1 Nu. 22 6 shows that Balak, according to the narrator, was
about to tight with the Israelites.
BLUB
sometimes an increased sanction through the cursing
formulas attached. Thus KB iv. mentions a statute
respecting the maintenance of boundaries, which is
enforced by a curse on any one who should violate it.
To this category of curses belong those in Dt. 28.
It is true that a series of blessings is attached to the
series of cursings. Moses, from his close connection with
the Deity, had a special power of blessing and cursing.
After him the priests had a similar power, which they
e.xerted in the interests of the faithful community (cp
Ukim and Thu.mmim, § 6). The uplifted hands of the
priest drew down (as it were) a blessing on Israel (cp
Lev. 922 Nu. 623-27) and a curse on Israel's enemies.
So potent, indeed, were the blessings and the curses ot
the reputed founder of Israel that they could be said to
lie on the two sacred mountains which enclose the
original centre of the people — the valley of Shechem —
ready to descend, as the case might be, with rewards or
punishments (Dt. 11 29).^
Within the family it was the father who (according to
primitive ideas not unconnected with the worship of
ancestors) had the mystic privilege of determining the
weal or woe of his children (Gen. 925^), and more
especially when his days were manifestly numbered (see
Esau, § 2, Isaac, § 5, Jacob). Nor does it appear
that the early Israelites limited this power by moral con-
siderations (see Gen. 27 35). Obviously, however, such
a limitation was a necessary consequence of a pure
monotheism. The post-exilic writers declare that only
the offspring of the righteous can be blessed (Ps. 37 26),
and that the observance of God's laws ensures his favour
without the aid of priests or enchanters. Fear not,
then, said the later sages to their pupils, if thine enemy
curses thee : ' the curse causeless shall not come ' ( Prov.
262).
Still, even in post-exilic time we sometimes find a
strange half-consciousness that curses had an inherent
power. It was worth while to curse a bad man,
to ensure his full punishment — such is the idea of Ps.
109 — a strange survival of primitive superstition.
In the discourses of Jesus we find blessings and
curses. They are, however, simply authoritative declara-
tions of the eternal connection between right-doing and
happiness, wrong-doing and misery {e.g., in the case of
Judas).
Parallels to the Israelitish view of blessings and
cursings outside of the Semitic peoples hardly need to be
quoted. The objective existence of both, but especially
of curses, was strongly felt by the Assyrians and
Babylonians, as the magical texts show. The Arabian
beliefs on the subject are also very suggestive, as
Goldziher has pointed out. See Magic, § 2 n. , and
on the ' curse-bringing water' (Nu. 5i8^)see Jk.-vlousv,
Watkr of. t. k. c.
BLINDNESS (DniJD, Gen. 19 n 2K. 618; p-Vir,
Dt. 2828 Zech. 124). See Eye, Diseases, and Medi-
CI.\E.
BLOOD. For blood in law and ritual, see Sacrifice ;
Passover ; Clean and Unclean, § iff. ; Covenant, g 5/. ;
Kinship, § ly. ; and Food, § 9. For 'avenger of blood' ("TKj
D^n ; Dt. 196), see GoEL. For ' issue of blood ' (putrts a'i^arot ;
Mk. 525), see Disease, Medicine.
BLOOD, Field of (Arpoc AlMATOc). Mt. 2/8. See
Aceldama.
BLUE (n^53^). E.x. 254, etc., a variety of Purple.
See Colours, §§ 13, 15.
' Blue ' is employed in EV of Esth. 1 6 to distinguish certain
kinds of stones. "Thus for ^^ we have AV ' blue marble,' AVmg.
1 The blessing and the curse referred to were those attaching
to the fulfilment and the non-fulfilment of the commands of the
Law. They were ' laid before ' Israel _ by Moses, and were
to be ' laid ' by them on their arrival in the promised land,
probably by solemn proclamation, on Mounts Geririin and Ebal
respectively. In Dt. 27 i2y; we have a later writer's interpreta-
tion of this command. See Kue. ThT, 1878, pp. 297.^
BOANERGES
'marlile,' RV 'while marl.le ' ; ;inil for ninb KVinK- 'stone
of l)lue colour,' KV ' black inurbic' See, however, iMakulk,
and cp Colours, | i6.
Kor ' lilucnc-is ' in I'rov. 20 3i)t AV (yijg n^Tan, ' blucness of
wouiul ') k\' lia>, belter, 'Mriiws that wound.'
BOANERGES (BoANHprec [Ti. Treg. WH follow-
ing NAIU', etc. ; BoANAp. L-^*J. '^'^ BoANCp-)' a name
given, according to Mk. 3 17,' to James [i] and John
the sons of /oliedce. The reading of N, etc., points to
Poavi) pyti as the accepted an.ilysis of the name, and
the evangelist explains it by viol fipovrrjt, ' sons of
thunder." Kach element, however, presents some
difficulty.
1. The difficulty in taking Boane- to be '33, line,
' sons of, ' is to account for oa = sheivd.
Attempts to explain it as ,-\ phonetic 'corruption' have been
unsatisfactory. '1 here does not appear to be any historical
foundation'-'for Hretschneider'scxplanationSofoa as a corrupt pro-
nunciation of a provincial (Galilean) a, or for Hugh liroughton's
statement-' {Works, 620) that the Jews pronounced s/i,"!i'ii as oa.
It is more plausible to regard the corruption as textual.
Since shinuii = a. is natural enough (cp jSanj-^opafc, Josh. 11*45
(.•\]), and shnvit=o is not unknown (cp e.g. lepoPoafi), oa
might be a conflate reading.* Dalman (Cram. 122, n. 2)''
supposed the transposition of an o which originally stood after
p (see l>elow). He now prefers to regard either o or a as a
gloss ((/ arte Jesu, 39, n. 4). In some such way the double
vowel must have arisen ; it is strange that the MSS'' have not
preserved any trace of variation in the first syllabli-.
The orthography, therefore, cannot be explained
quite satisfactorily. We may be reasonably certain,
however, about the signification.
2. This cannot be said of the second element in the
word. The evangelist (or a scholiast) understood p-^i^
to njean ^povT-fj, ' thunder ' ; but we do not know what
Semitic word it was supposed to represent, nor can we
say whether the interpretation was an original hypothesis
or a really current belief.
(o) In the Syriac versions (Pesh. and Sin.) pye? appears as
Vi-\. That may, however, be nothing more than a translitera-
tion. Only in Arabic does c*:! me.^n ' thunder.' If it occurs in
the OT at all 8 it probably means 'throng.' In Aram, it means
'tumult," rushing,' etc. Ifpyc^is cit, therefore, it can hardly
mean ' thunder.' i*
Jerome, indeed, conscious of this, declares {Connii. ad Dan.
1 7) that the true reading is {ciiieniiatius Ugitur) benercem (var.
banertein, banare/ieiii) —i.e.. sons of r^'eiii, C'JTI (cp V.\. li' 16
Pseudo-Jon.) — and this reading he quietly assumes in his I.i/>.
tie nomiit. Heb. under ' John.' That he ignores it in the Comm.
on Mk., however, probably shows that it is a mere hypothetical
emendation,!" not a variant reading (cp IJartim^us, § 2).
Apparently, therefore, we must adhere to pyfs.
(/3) The second letter of pyes, however, might represent not j
but y, as in pey^ii = ncy-l ; but pyT is no nearer ^pom; than c':n-
Hesides, y Iwcomes y, as a rule, only when it is represented in
Arabic by g, not by ' ; but although there is in .\r. a word
ragasa, the phonetic equivalent of which in Hebrew would be
Cjn> ra'aSa (not ra'^asa) agrees most closely with g-y-i in
meaning, and a B'jn = n»'a/a would not as a rule appear as
py«.
The common word for 'thunder' in Hebrew and Aramaic
would not conflict with this phonetic principle ; the nearest word
in Arabic to Hebrew ra'am is ragama. Drusius (.Jr/ voces NT
Comm. prior 30 [1616)) therefore and Glassius (/',*//. Sacra,
[1625]) revived the theory of Jerome that py«t should be pytii,
regarding the s as merely a Greek termination substituted for
a final consonant, dropped as, e.^., in Gehenna. No doubt -es
would be rather a strange termination for a man's name ; but
Boanerges is not a man's name : it is the name of two men.
Indeed Suidas gives the name as ^ooi/epyet? (as if the
' There is no hint of such a name anywhere else in the NT
(cp, however, || I,k. ll 14 [D]) ; but too much must not l)e made of
that. Glassius pointed out that Boanerges is professedly a name
shared by two men (more conveniently called ' the sons of
Zebedee'), one of whom met an early death (Acts 12).
2 Cp the strong language of Kautzsch, Gram. d. Bibl.-
Aratn. q.
3 NT Lex., s.v.
* Adopted by Lightf. {Hor. Heb. ad loc), who instances
Moao-fliia (Slrabo, 764) for *<7>''?.
0 So (practically) GlassiusYd. 1656).
* So now Arnold Meyer, /fiw Mutterspraclu.
7 See below ifi).
8 MT has B-n in Ps. 55 15 and nifJT in (54 3 (cp im in 2 i) ;
but m each case it has been questioned whether the text is
correct. See Che. /'f.<2i.
* There is no reason to suppose that in the passage cited by
Lightfoot (Megillah B. acjrt, mid.) the word means ' thunder."
1" A corruption of oyn into pyn (see /3) would be easy.
38 593
BOCHIM
plural of PoaKtpvjjt). Be/a, on the other hand (Adnotationtt
majores, ati loc. [1594]), tried to improve on I>rusius by .suggest-
ing that a mistake had occurred in a Semitic text : cjn was
misread ojn- It 's difficult to sec how this could I>c. A
Semitic text containing the name Din'33 would not need t<j give
an explanation of the name (cp col. 490, n. i). On the other
hand, a Greek translator could not have given the supposed
Correct translation if he had misread the word.l
(y) There remains the possibility that s = \ (see e.g. Ahaz,
BoAZ). Kautz.sch (.I.e.) suggests that py«t may represent
Ml'^ ('"?!)> ' anger ' (cp Dan. 3 13 and, as used of thunder, the Ar.
irtajaza 'r-ra'd") ; and this solution is adopted by I ).ilman (I.e.),
who further accounts for the translation ^po»^<). by comparing
Job 372, 'iVp Tjn, used of thunder^ l\ « ^^*--> O*!^*).
The historical origin of the name not lx.-ing known
(cp Jamks, i. § i), we cannot determine the second
Semitic element with certainty. There is no evidence
that ' Hoanergcs " can ever have meant strictly ' sons of
thunder.' On the other hand, what is said in the
Gospels of the sons of Zebedee gives a certain appro-
priateness to such a title as i:i <33, taken in the sense of
' angry," ' soon angered " (or the like). h. \v. h.
BOAR (Tm. eye). Ps. SOisCm]- See Swi.ne (end).
BOAZ. I. (Tr'a hardly, 'quickness' [BDB Lex.'\;
Ass. piazu or biazu means a wild boar or the like ;
but sec jAcuiN AND HoAZ ; Booc [HA], ooz A and
L in Ku. 2i5 48iCh.2ii/.) of liethlehem. kinsman
of Naomi and husband of Rltii [y.f. ]. According to
the post-exilic genealogy, Ku. 4i8_^ (cp i Ch. 2ix ff.),
he was the son of Salmon or Sai.mah. and the ancestor
of David (§ i, n. 2). See Ruth, Huzitk.
2. The name of one of the two pillars set up before
Solomon's temple (i K. 72i = 2 Ch. 317). See Jachin
AND H().\Z.
BOCCAS(Bokka[HA]), I Ksd. 82= !':zra74, Hikki, i.
BOCHERTJ ("n^a, § 61 ; for the ending -u, cp Jethro
and see Gkshk.m), a son of Azrikam, .Saul's descendant
(rCh. 838 = 944). ©'**<AL_ however, punctuated and
read — doubtless correctly — ' Azrikam his firstborn '
(TrpiiyTl}TOKo% avToO : nba).
©'- makes up the six sons of Azel by enumerating irMpta in
the fifth place, besides a^apias in the third.
BOCHIM (D'D3, § 103, 'weepers," kA&y0mcon
[HAL]), the name of a place near Gilgal, where tlie
b'ne Israel sacrificed after the visit of the angel of Vahwe
(Judg. 2irt D-Sari; S" KAAYGMCONec [H]). and also
probably of a place in Judah (Mic. 1 10 emended text ;
see below). The name of the former place is interpreted
' Weepers " ; but the passage which refers to this (tf. i^-
5a) is an insertion (see Judges, § 4) based upon la,
where we may expect to find the older and more gener-
ally used name of the place. Here, however, © com-
bining two readings gives ^Trt rbf KXaiO/j-Qva Kal iwl
^aiOijX (on the corrupt Kal [firl] rbv oIkov laparjX, see
Moore ud loc. ), and the latter, which suits the con-
text well, is accepted as correct by most critics ( Hu.
Ri. Sam. 10 ff.. We., Mey. , Kue. , Hu. , Kilt.).
We nmst therefore correct Bochim in \a to
'Bethel." The explanation of ' Itochim " in v. 5a
suggests a doubt as to the correctness of the present
form, which may have been changed to agree with a
more than half sportive derivation from n:2. ' to weep. '
The correct pronunciation must have been BCka'im
(d'K33. D"23) — /.?., 'Baca-trees' (seeMui.BEKKY). These
trees were probably abundant near Bethel, and it is
possible that the 'Tree of Weeping' (Ai.i.on B.vclth)
grew near them. The play on the name would, at any
rate, be familiar to the ancient Israelites, and may have
led to a variety in the pronunciation of the name (cp
Mareshah, Moresheth).
1 Of course a gloss embodying a true tradition may have made
its way into a translation of a faulty MS.
* J. F. K. Gurlitt had considered this word in his careful
discussion in St. Kr. (1829, pp. 715-738).
* So now also Arnold Meyer, Jesu Muttersprache, 51/.
594
BOHAN
There is an early testimony to the form Bochim in
Mic. lio, if iodd^Vk 133 (I"'V ' wt-ep not at all ') may be
emended into i^^n 0"33a (©'■!'"'•'• [I^V] /3ax«M). ' '"
Hocliim (HOka'im) weep' (Eihorst, We., Now., Che.,
omitting the intrusive Sk, 'not'; cp Che. JQR, July
1898). No locality called Bekaim near Micah's native
town is known to us. This causes no difficulty. There
may have been many places where Haca-trees grew.
Tiie alternative correction, ' In Acco weep not ' (Reland,
Hitzig, etc. ), is geographically inadmissible. We cannot
well suppose a Philistine city of that name (G. A. Smith),
nor does Micah concern himself with Philistia(cpGiLOH).
BOHAN, THE STONE OF (;n3 jaX, Baicon [BA]).
an unknown point on the boundary between Judah and
Benjamin (§ 3), Josh. 156 (BecoN [I^]). I817 (Baam
[A], -N [I^])- Bolian is called in both places the son
(sometimes sons [©'"- in 18 17]) of Rkuhen ; possibly,
however, the stone or rock was a well-known landmark,
thus designated on account of its supposed resemblance
to a thumb (jna)-
BOIL, BOIL (Botch)i of Egypt. The Heb. word
{*nr, si'/iin [\\U 'an inflammation,' from a root found
1 OT names '" ^^^' ^"'^ '^'"- ' '"caning ' to be hot ') for
■ , ~ the ' boil ■ in the si.xth plague of Egypt,
■ and the ' botch of Egypt ' in Dt. 2827, is
applied again to the ' boil ' of Hezekiah and to some
diagnostic sign that occurred in one or more of the
various contagious and mostly parasite skin-affections
included under the common name of njns (see
Leprosy) in Lev. 13 18/ 2023 — the variety called ' burn-
ing boil'- (really a pleonasm) being clean, and the j
variety of boil which gave place to a white or bright ■
spot being unclean. The reference is almost certainly
to local or limited spots of inllammation, although it is
hardly possible to give a modern name to them or to
identify them.
In Dt. 2835 and Job 2 7,' the same word is applied to a skin-
disease ' from the sole of tlie foot to the crown of the head ' ; but
probably it is so used without any precise nosological intention,
and merely to express a peculiarly loathsome affliction.
It is only the boil disease specially associated with
Egypt that is here considered.
There occur four other references to diseases specially
Kgyptian but not called ie/tin. Two of these (Dt. 7 15 and 2S 60,
Dni-2 nnp ['in::], 'the evil diseases of Egypt,' and 'all
the diseases of Kgypt ') are in admonitory passages written in
a popular style. In the third (Zech.l4 18), a plague is to
smite the Egyptians if they do not come up to keep the
Feast of Booths. It is the same afTliction that is to befall
the olher peoples who neglect this ordinance, and there is
nothing, as the text now stands,-* to indicate that the writer is
1 Botch is a name commonly, and with the definite article
distinctively, given to plague in the Elizabethan and the Stuart
periods. In the Edinburgh treatise on pla^iue by Dr. Gilbert
Skene (1568) it occurs in the form of ' boiche." In the l-'ision 0/
Piers Ploughman the spelling is bocke, and the meaning specific
or generic (' byles and boches and brennyng agues '). The most
probable etymology is Fr. />oche, meaning pocket, poke, pock
(cp also It. bozza, a bubble), and applied in the plural, les
poches, like the Spanish las bubas, to epidemics of camp sick-
ness, about A. n. 1528, which seem to have been typhus, but
may have included bubonic cases, or perhaps cases of true
plague. The translators of the AV seem to have meant by
'botch' the familiar bubo plague of their time. Milton also
may use the word in its exact sense of bubo plague, where he
says of the sixth plague of Egypt : ' botches and blains must all
his flesh emboss' (PLVliZo). With the disappearance of
plague from Britain after 1666, the word lost its technical
incaaing.
2 Rather, 'scar of the boll,' J'na'.T riDlS (r/. 23 ; cp RV).
3 [.\s Budde points out, the expressions in Dt. I.e. are
borrowed from the Prologue to Job. That section of tho book
appears to be based on a folk-tale ; the designation which it
gives to Job's malady is, therefore, general, not technical. We
must remember, however, that in Lev. 13 i8_^ the pnc is the
forerunner of leprosy, and that in the speeches of Job the
symptoms of his malady, though poetically expressed, point (as
most scholarsadmit) to leprosy in its worst form. See Lei'«osv.]
•• [The text is disfi,^ured by two errors due to dittography.
One is the word ' not ' before ' ujxjn them,' repeated from v. 17 ;
the other is ' the nations that go not up to keep the Feast of
Booths," repeated from v. 19. ® has simply koI cb-I tovtovs,
59S
BOIL
thinking of the ' botch of Egypt.' The reference in the fourth
{Am. 4 10), however, may possibly be to some actual epidemic
in the liistory of the northern kingdom. The ' pestilence in the
manner of Egypt ' may well be equivalent to the yrx or ' botch '
of Dt. 28 27, which should mean some specific disease, such as
the ' cinerods ' (KV ' tumours ' ; or plague-boils) of i S. 56, with
which it is coupled, ceitainly means. As the sixth plague is
specially called one of ' boils and blains,' this also may be taken
to stand for some definite boil-disease of Egypt.
We must now consider which of the boil diseases of
Egypt is meant by /<%/«. It is stated that the boil
2 Shfihin ^'^'-■o'^P'^"''^^ ^X blains broke forth upon
of Eeviit ^^''' '"^'^ ^"'^ beast. This, if nosologically
°^" ■ meant, would exclude bubo plague, as being
unknown in cattle. On the other hand, anthrax, which
might be correctly described as the boil of cattle, is
equally excluded, inasmuch as in man it is never
epidemic, but only sporadic. If we might suppose
the narrative, or (as the critics say) the interwoven
narratives, of the plagues to be based on a simpler
narrative, or simpler narratives, which would bear to be
treated as matter-of-fact description, we might expect
that in the original narrative the sixth plague repre-
sented the plague proper (bubo plague), which is con-
fined to man, whilst the fifth stood for epizootic disease
in general.'
Certainly the special association of bubo plague with
ancient Egypt is historically correct, so that the word
'botch' in the AV is a happy choice (cp § i, n. i).
Besides the constructive evidence as to the disaster
which is said to have befallen Sennacherib's army
before Pelusium (see Pestilence, and, on the historical
points, Hezekiah, i), there is, indeed, no extra-biblical
testimony to bubo plague in Egypt earlier than about
300 K. c. , and even this testimony has been only indirectly
preserved.
Oribasius, who was physician to the Emperor Julian, cites a
passage from Rufus of Ephesus, a physician in the time of
Trajan, wherein he describes bubo plague with singular clear-
ness ; it is indeed rare, as Darembcrg remarks, to find in ancient
authors such positive marks of the identity of a pestilential type.
Rufus says that the disease was most common, and very mortal,
in Libya, Egypt, and Syria. He adds that Dioscorides and
Poseidonios had enlarged upon pestilential buboes in writing
upon the pestilence which in their time ravaged Libya —
supposed to have been the same great epidemic, about 127 B.C.,
which is mentioned by Livy, Julius Obsequens, and Orosius.
Rufus further says that the pupils of one Dionysius, 6 KupTos,
make mention of these pestilential buboes. An ancient Greek
gloss to the Vatican codex of Oribasius explains that Dionysius
with the above surname (' Hunchback ') comes into the bio-
graphies of Hetmippus. This would fix his date prior to
280 B.C.
Whilst the botch of Egypt cannot, upon independent
testimony, be traced farther back than 300 B.C., it is
highly improbable that it was first seen then. As
Lorinser points out, the endemic influences favouring
plague in Egypt, depending upon the peculiar alterna-
tions of wet and dry soil (caused by the periodic rise
and fall of the Nile), were there long before.
Pariset {Causes de la Peste. etc., Paris, 1837) has argued
with great cogency that the elaborate pains taken in the best
period of ancient Egypt to preserve the soil from putrefying
animal matters, human and other, were inspired by the risk of
plague, and must have been in a high degree effective. It is
clear, however, that any failure of the sanitarj' code would give
plague its opportunity, the pressure of population and the
climate or hydrology being constant, and that such failure may
reasonably be assumed at first as an occasional thing, and then —
from the time that the ancient civilisation, with sanitation (en-
forced by religious sanctions) a principal part of it, began to
decay under the influence of Persian, Greek, and Roman con-
quests—as permanent.
without the negative particle, but it has the second insertion.
A critical edition should give the text thus: 'And if the
Egyptian people go not up nor come, upon them will the stroke
come with which Yahwfe will strike. . . .' The close of the
sentence may early h.ave become effaced. The plague intended
A^as, at any rate, not that of the other nations, which was want
of rain.]
1 The qualification (' in general') is designed. What is said
of the 'murrain' upon the horses, camels, asses, oxen, and
sheep is expressed in .-x sense too comprehensive for any single
epizootic malady (e.g., anthrax is a disease that oxen and sheep
suflTer from in common, but not horses, nor, so far as is known,
asses and camels).
596
BOILS, PLAGUE
That the sanitary precautions did utterly break down
under Mohamnictlan con<iucst, and that l)ul)o plague
did Ix'come for fourteen centuries the standing |x;stilenc-e
of I'".gypt. we know as matter of fact. We know also
that it was from IVlusiuin that the great plague of
Justinian's reign (543 A.n. ) starte<l — to overrun the
whole known world. It is probable, further, that
the pestilence in Lower Kgypt at the time of the
mass;icrc of Christians in the episcopate of Cyprian
included bubo plague. The valuable testimony pre-
served by Orilxisius as to Kgyplian, Libyan, and
Syrian pestilential bulxjes, as Kirly as 300 B.C., has
been already cited. If beyond that date we are left to
conjecture, there is still a high probability that the plague
was known in Kgypt at a much earlier date.
This historical bubo plague of Kgypt answers best
to the sixth plague. The bf^il brt-aks out in the
3 Nature "^^^nncr of the plague bubo, which may be
of disease '>'"K'« or niultiple. Its situations are the
armpits, groins, and the sides of the neck ;
and it consists of one (or of a packet) of the natural
lymphatic or absorl)ent glands of those regions enlarged
to the size of a hen's (or even a turkey's) egg, often of
a livid colour, hard, tense, painful, and attended with
inflanmiatory swelling of the skin for sciie distance
around it. Just as in Asiatic cholera and yellow fever
there are ' e.xplosive ' attacks so suddenly fatal that the
distinctive symptoms have hardly time to develop, so
there may be death from plague without the bubo or
the botch. Still, the latter is the distinctive mark of
plague, the same in all countries and in all periods of
history.
Other signs of plague were livid or red h-xmorrhagic spots of
the skin (called ' the tokens ' in Knglish epidemics), large car-
buncles (especially on the fleshy parts), and blains (niyay^K),
which were really smaller carbuncular formations or cores with
a collection of lluiil on their summits. Besides the pain of the
hard and tense buboes, there were often delirium, gentle or
raving, vomiting, quivering of muscles (affecting gait and
speech), and many other symptoms as if from a deadly poison.
.\bout three days was perhaps the average duration of fatal
cases.
Usually half the attacks were mortal. In the beginning
of the epidemic there would Ixj but few recoveries, while
4 Mortalitv '^^ ^^^ ^^^ °^ '' ^^ many as four out of
^' five might recover. Recovery was most
likely when the buboes broke and ran ; sometimes the
suppuration, esjjecially in the groin, would continue for
months, the victims being able to go limping in the
streets. In the history of plague in London, which is
continuous from the Hlack Death of 1348 to 1666, the
great epidemics came at intervals, and, in those for
which we have the statistics, carried off from a fifth to a
si.xth of the population, including but few of the richer
class. With a population of nearly half a million in
1665, the highest mortality from plague was 7165 in
the week i2th-i9lh .Sejjtemlxjr. Scjmetimes for a suc-
cession of years the deaths from plague kept at a high
annual level, especially during the sunmier and autunm
months. During the whole three centuries of plague
in Ivondon there were few years which did not have
some deaths in the warmer months. From what
is known of the mediaival history of plague in Cairo
(from Arabic annals ; cp von Kremer in S IVA W, Fhil.
Hist. Class. Hd. .xcvi. ), and of its modern history (cp
Pruner, h'rank. des Orients), it appears to have come,
as in London, in terrific outbursts at intervals of years,
and to have l)een at a low level or apparently extinct in
the years between.
The plague season in Egypt, within the period of exact
records, h.-is begun as early as September and as late as
Januarj', has reached its height in March and April, and has
ended with great regularity, almost suddenly, about St. John's
day (24th June), the height of the epidemic corresponding with
the lowest level of the Nile. There has l>een no plague since
1844. The last Kr<-at epidemic was that of 1835, described by
Kingiake in ' Ilothcn.' C. C.
BOILS, PLAOUE (D'V^T). Deut.28a7 RV°«. See
E,MERODS.
BOSOR
BOILING PLACES fni^V'50). I-:2ek.46a3. EV ;
and BOILING HOUSES iQ''?¥'5?pn n'3), v. a^, RV,
Sec ( c;()Kl.N<., g I.
BOLLED {i.e., 'swollen,' see Skeat, Elym. Diet.;
RV'-u- 'in flower'; ^V'^l, cnepMATlZON [BAL] :
Ex. 93it). The Hebrew word occurs only once, but
s evidently (see Ges. Thes., I^vy, Targ. IJ'^. l4ai,
NHWB 1 296) connected with yaj, 'cup'; and the
Mishnic usage (Ges. I.e.) is in favour of its referring to
the flower-cup (perhaps as a closed bud), rather than
(as <5 supposed) to the formation of the seed-pods (see,
however, Tristram, NUB^'^) 445).
BOLSTER (nb'vS"!?), I S. 19 13 267. See Bed, §4 (a).
BONDAGE (m'nr, AoyAeiA). Ex. I14 Rom. 815.
etc., and BONDMAN (13^. AoyAoc). Dt. 15i5 Rom.
6 16, etc. See Slavery.
BONNET. For nrSJO, migbadh. Ex. 2840, etc. (RV
'headtire'), see Mitre, § 1(1); for "IX^, pl'er. Is.
320 (RV 'headtire'). Ezek.44i8 (RV 'tire'), see
TL'RHA.N', § 2.
BOOK (IDD, Gen. 5i etc.; BiBAoc, Lk. 84 etc.,
BiBAiON, Lk.4i7 etc.). .Sec \VRrn.N(i, § 3, end;
HisKJKicAL Lit., ^g 3, 5, 16 ; Ca.no.n, §§ 1-4, 20.
BOOK OF LIFE([h]BiBAoc [thc] zcohc). Philip.
43 Rev. 85. Cp Ex. 3232 Is. 43. and see Law AND
JusTici:, § 14.
BOOT (jiXp), Is. 95 Wt. RV">c- See Shoes, § 3.
BOOTHS (ni3D), I^v.2342/. See Taber.naclk.
Pavilion, i, Succoth, and cp Te.vt, § i, and
Cattle. §§ i, 5.
BOOTY (T5, etc.), Jer. 4932, etc. See Si'oiL.
BOOZ (Boec [Ti. WH], MLI5, Booc [Ti- WH],
Lk. 832). RV has BoAZ.
BOR-ASHAN (IV'r^ia ; Bcopacan[A], BhrcaBeg
[BL]; \^. lacu Asan; Pesh. btralan), the true MT
reading (Gi. Bit.) in iS. 8O30, where many printed
edd. have }trr~l"l3 (AV Chok-ashan, RV Cuk-
ASHAN). Probably the same as Ash AN [q.v. ).
BORDER. For mJDD, misgerefh (a) in Ex. 2025 27
{(TToliavT)), 371214 ("S oni.), in P's description of the 'table,'
see Ai. lAK, S 10 ; (/') in i K. 728y; 317; 357^ 2 K. l(i 17 in descrip-
tion of the laver bases (trv^xAeta'^a ; in 7 28 trvvK^fifTTov : in
7 29 <7vy<Ai^a [A); in 7 31/; ^laTnfya [.\ ; om. HL] : KVnit'.
' panels'), see Lavek, § i ; for pj3, i,,tti<i/>h (Kpd<TneSoy) in Nu.
1538 (RV"!*:- 'corner' [of garment)), see Fki.sges ; for Kpda-
nt&ov, -Mt. 9 20 1436 RV, see Fkinoes.
60RITH (soR/ru), 4E:sd. I2. See Bukki, i.
BORROW {hii'C', E.X. 322; AanicacGai, Mt- 542).
and LEND (HiSh, Ex. 2224 [25] : Aanizgin, I-k. 634).
See Law and Justice, § 16, Trade and Com.merce.
BOSCATH (ni^Va). 2 K.22i AV ; RV IJozkath.
BOSOR (Bocop [Ti.]), 2 Pet. 2.5 AV, RV Beor
(?.-.•.. 2).
BOSOR (Boccop [A], -oco. [NV*], -cctop [V»].
and in t. 36 -qco- [A ; cp Is. 846 681, in ©]), a town of
(jalaaditis, taken by Judas the Maccabec in 164 B.C.
(i Mace. 52636), is identified by some with Rezkr {f.v.,
i.) in Moab. Galaaditis, however, was the name of
the country N. of Moab (G.\Sm. f/G 549, n. 5), and
the campaign in which Judas took Bosor was waged
in the latitude of the Yarmuk. If Bosora {y.v.) be
the present Busra, Bosor may be the present Busr-el-
Hartri, in the SE. corner of the Leja, which the
Arabian geographer Yakut in 1225 A.n. (1 621) still calls
only Busr \_sic\ The passage in which it is mentioned
is obscure; w.idf. are probably corrupt. (Cp We.
598
BOSORA
//^W 212, n. i). Herod the Great, in order to keep
the Leja. in his power (Jos. Ant. xvii. I2), fortified a
villaije called Bathyra, and this may have been the
same as Hosor (cp GASm. HG 6i8). G. A. s.
BOSORA (B0CCOP& [A], -oco. [N], -ocoppA [V ; cp
© iCh. I44]. I Mace. 526; Jos. BocopA[--^«^- xii. 83]),
in Gilead, held by some to be the Bozrah in Moab
spoken of in Jer. 4824, must have lain farther N. (see
BosoR, ii. ). Hence many (Ewald; PEF Map; etc.)
more plausibly take it to have Ijoen Bostra, the capital
of the Roman province of Arabia, modern liusrd, 22 m.
SE. of Kdrei (cp Porter, Fii'e years^'^\ 12 ; Merrill, E. of
Jordan, 53, 58 ; Key, Dans le Haouran Atlas ; Buhl,
Pal. 251). See, however, Bathyra under BosoR, ii.
G. A. s.
BOSS (33, text doubtful), Job 1526. See Shield.
BOTCH (rnL*'), Dt. 282735 AV; RV Boil [q.v.,
§2/.).
BOTTLE. The statement that ' what we call
bottles were unknown to the Hebrews' (Riehm,
H\VB<-\ art. 'Flasche') needs qualification. It has
long been known that the Egyptians manufactured
glass from an early period. The Phoenicians and the
Assyrians were well acquainted with glass (see the
relative volumes of Perrot and Chipiez, Hist, de l' Art,
etc. ), that manufactured by the former being of special
repute in antiquity (see Glass). It is impossible,
therefore, that among the imports from Phoenicia,
glass bottles should have had no place. They must
alwavs, however, have been a luxury of the rich (cp Job
28 17' [RV]).
The ' bottles ' of Scripture fall into two very different
classes : ( i ) leather skins for holding and carrying water,
wine, and other liquids, and (2) earthenware jars for
the same and other purposes.
For the Hebrews in the nomadic stage of civilisation,
as for the Bedouin of the present day, the skins of
beasts of their Hocks supplied the readiest
1. Skins as
bottles.
and most efficient means of storing and
transporting the necessary supply of water
in the camp and on the march. This method was
found so simple and so satisfactory that it was retained
in a more settled state of society, and, indeed, has
prevailed throughout the East until the present day.
The writers of classical antiquity, from Homer down-
wards, contain many references to this use of the skins
of domestic animals. The skins used by the Hebrews
for this i^urpose, as in modern Syria and Arabia, were
chiefly skins of the goat and of the sheep. When a
smaller size than ordinary was required, the skin of
a lamb or of a kid sufficed ; for larger quantities there
was the skin of the ox} and, perhaps, of the camel
(Herod. 89). Among the Hebrews the pig-skin was, of
course, excluded.
The method of preparation varied in complexity and
efficiency according as the peasant prepared his own skins (cp
Doughty, Ar. Des. 1 227) or employed a professional tanner.
The head and the lower part of the legs are cut off (such is the
method at the present day), and the animal is skinned from the
neck downwards, somewhat as one removes a tight-fitting glove,
care being taken that no incision is made in the .skin of the
carcase. When the tanning process is completed (cp Tristram,
iV7/.5(6) 92, Robinson, .5A'(') 2 440), all other apertures having
previously been closed, the neck is fitted with a leather thong,
by means of which the skin is opened and closed (cp Leathek).
In the OT we find such skin bottles designated by a
variety of names.
Such are (a) non, h?meth (aa-Kot [ADL]), the water-skin
(probably of a kid) which .\braham put upon Hagar's shoulder
(Gen. 21 nj^-i)- The Hedouin name is gi'riy — i.e., iirfiai""
(Doughty, ofi. cit. index). In Hos 7 5 (RV 'heat'), and in
Hab. 2 15 (RV ' venom.' mg. 'fury'), the RV more advisedly finds
another word of similar sound (non). {b) 1K3, nodh, like the
senilly (samilat"") of the modern Bedouin, is the milk-skin of
the nomad Jael (Judg. 4 19 ; cp Doughty op. cit. passim). It
1 According to Lane (Afod. Rg^.) an ox-hide holds three or
four times as much as a goat-skin {kirba).
599
BOX TREE
also occurs frequently as a wine-skin— Josh. 8413 1 S. 16 ao, etc.
As a water-skin it is used metaphorically in Ps. 5(5 8(9] (' put my
tears into thy bottle'), where there is no reference to the much
later ' tear-liottles,' so called, and where the text is doubted
(see ®). The exact sense of Ps.11983, where the poet likens
himself to a 'bottle (RVnig. "wine-skin") in the smoke,' is
doubtful (see the comm. in loc.). (c) 733, nehhel, and 733, nebhel,
also frequently of the ordinary wine-skin (d<r<cdt [BAL]), i S.
10 3, etc. {d) 3iK, ''''/'/t, has the .same signification in Job 32 19,
where we read of 'new bottles . . . ready to burst. Budde
('96) renders ' skins with new (wine),' which gives us an 0 1"
parallel to the familiar passage in the NT (Mt. i) 17= Mk. 222
= Lk. 637/;) — 'Neither do men put new wine into old wine-
skins,' etc. — where the RV has rightly discarded the mislead-
ing rendering 'bottles.' In Judith 10 5 we have the curious
word ao-fcoTrvTiVr/ [BA], — RV a leathern l)ottle' of wine.
Vessels of earthenware also are mentioned in the OT
as receptacles for wine. Such was (a) the papa, Jer.
2. Earthenware l^"" {^^^^o, ^,,6,), mad^ by the
bottles. potter, jxjrhaps with a narrow neck
which caused a gurgling sound {.\t.
bakbakat"'*) when the jar was being em[)tie(l. It was
also used to hold honey, i K. I43 (ord/i^'os [.\L ; om.
B] ; EV Cruse {([.v., 2]). {b) The name V33 was also
given to wine-jars or ampullee of earthenware, as is
clear from Is. 30 14 ( EV ' [potters' J vessel ' ; AV"'K- ' bottle
of potters'), and Lam. 42 (EV 'pitcher'). In both
these passages © has 6.-y^iov. We have no indication
of the size or even of the shape of the earthen nebhel
(see PoTTKRY ; also Crlsk). a. r. s. k.
B0W(ni:'i5), Gen. 27 3, Bowstrings (Dnn^O), Ps.
21 12, RV. See Weapons.
BOWL. The various Hebrew and Cireek words will
be dealt with in the articles mentioned below.
1- i?'?i. g'il<''a-', Ex. 25 31. See CuF, Meals, § 12.
2- '"'^r'l gullAh, the bowl or reservoir of a lamp, Zech. 4 2 yC
(AajnTToSioi/) ; see Candlestick, § 2. Used in a simile in Eccles.
12 6 (to afSeVioi). The globe-shaped bowls or capitals of the
twin pillars of Jachin a.su ]jO.\z (i Y^.~ ^if., ra <rTpenTa [as
though D'Sli? see Fringes] 1| 2Ch. 4i2/, AV 'pommels,'
YuAae [BA], /3<i(Teis [L]). See Pii.i.ak.
3. -liS3, i-ep/ior, I Ch. 28 17, etc., RV. See Bason, 2.
4. pniD, fuizrak, Ex. 27 3. See Bason, 3.
5. nVpyO, vtenakkiyyoth, icuaflos [BAFL], used in temple
ritual especially upon the table of shew-bread, Ex. 25 29 3" 16
Nu. 4 7 Jer. 52 19 (where AV ' cups ').
6. ^^, kaph, I K. 7 50 ; see Bason, 4.
7. 7Sp, sephel, a larger bowl or bason, probably of wood,
Jud. 525638 (A€»c<inj [BAL]; in 525 Aok. [.\L]); cp Pal.-Syr.
8. <TKd<t>ri, Bel, 33, a vessel for holding food (in .\cts27 163032,
a boat).
9. (^laAij, Rev. 5 8 15 7, etc. (.W 'vial'). In OT it represents
p^JS; see Bason, 3; Meals, § 12, and cp generally Bason,
Cui', Goblet, Pottery.
BOX, synonymous in AV with jar or cruise, not a
case of wood or metal.'
1. -S./«/l-A(2K.9i3; RV and in i S. 10 i, AV ' vial' ; (ESbal
<j>aK6i). Shape and material are both uncertain.
2. For the ' alabaster box ' (r) aAajSaerrpos) of Mk. 14 3, etc.
AV (RV 'alabaster cruse '), see Ckuse, 4, Alabastkk.
3. In RVrntJ. of Jn. 12 6 13 29, where EV has lUo, 'box' is
suggested as an alternative rendering of yXuxraoKOiiov, which
originally and etymologically signified a case in which the mouth-
pieces (yKuxTtrai) of wind instruments were kept. Later it
assumed a more general significance and denoted any similarly
shaped box or case. ©hal employs it to indicate the chest
(piK) set up by Josiah in the Temple (2Ch. 24 8^), whilst
Josephus uses it of the ' coffer ' (t;ix i S. 6 B^. EV ; see Coffer),
or small chest, in which the Philistine princes deposited the
golden mice. In the Mishna it is used to signify a cnse for
books (NDpDl^J in Lexx.) and even a coffin (cp the parallel u.se
of. loculus) ; in the latter sense also in Aquila (Gen. 50 26, of
Joseph's mummy-case ; .see Coffin). Thus it would appear
that the preferable rendering in John (I.e.) is that of RVnig.
A. R. S. K.
BOX TREE, BOX, RV^g. -cypress"; once (Ezek.
276 ; © otVoi'S d\<ra>5ets) RV' Boxwood ("l-'ltJ'NJH,
1 For this EV employs 'chest.'
600
i
BOZBZ
KCApoc* Is. 41 19 60 13) is by several modern scholars
idciitifie<l as the 'sherl)iir (Ar. and Syr.), a kind of
juni[H-r, = .\ss. lurmenu (see Ix-Iow). K V"'if- and SliO T,
however, give ' cypress ' ; the sherbin resembles the
cypress in its habit and general appearance (Tristram).
Cp note 4, Ixilow.
The Hebrew word was formerly explained as derived from the
rod nc»K (akin to ic*'! Ar. yanira), ' to be straight ' (lies. Thet.),
and so as denoting a tall straight tree ; but such different views
h.ive recently been put forward as to the affinities and meaning
of the root that it is unsafe to form any inference from this
etymology.- Hofrni.inn,-' indeed, rejecting the traditional vocali-
sation of llcKn, suggests that it is philologically akin to Assyr.
iurnihiu (\ic\. Par. 107), Aram, lartvaind or iurblnd.* If this
were made out we should be tolerably certain that mp-Kn is the
ihtrbin or a similar tree ; but the pfiiloloiiical step is difficult.
Cheyne (Is., SHOT [Heb] 129) 'can hardlv doubt that the
obscure ^^CO i" Is. 4O20 is a corruption of pic -/.f., sherbin.'
If so, nifKB would seem to be distinct from the sherbin.
The interesting mention of this tree in ICzek. 2/6 (RV
• b(ix-wo6d ') is concealed in AV by a false division
of the word in MT;* the second clause most probably
means ' thy deck they have made of ivory inlaid in'
h'iissi/r-wood from Cyprus' (see ClirrriM).
It is clear from Is. 60 13 that nio-Kn was a familiar tree
in the forest growth of Lebanon ; and this favours the
identification with the box [liuxus loiii^i/olia), which
grows there as a small tree about 20 ft. hijjh (Tristram,
NHli. 339). In support of this Rosenmiiller (Mineral,
and Hot. of Bible [ET], 301/.) aptly compares Verg.
..^w. 10 137 (' quale per artem inclusum buxo . . , lucet
ebur') with Ezek.'276.« Others (Ges.<'-''>- Bu.C-') have
thought that the latter reference rather points to a//««
tree, so often used in antiquity for ship-building ; but
"iiB'Kn is at least distinct from c'iia (fir) and n,-nn (pine?),
along with which it is twice mentioned in Is. 40-66.
The sherbin, according to Tristram (I.e.) is Juniperus phd'
nieea, but in the Survey of W. Palestine he expressly says of this
mm vidi ; nor does it, according to the authorities, grow on
Lebanon. It seems more prob.able that xhttskerlnn i\i Juniperus
o.vyeedrus, which is known to grow on Lebanon.
On the whole there seems no sufficient reason for
abandoning the tradition that tb-kh is the lx>x.
N. M. — w. T. T. -D.
BOZEZ (VVi3 ; BAzec [H], -e [I-l). and Seneh
(i^^'P ; ceNNAAp [BI-]). two rocky points, one on the
N. the otlier on the S. side of the Michmash gorge ( r S.
14 4/ t). See MlCllM.ASH.
BOZKATH, and 2 K. 22 1 AV Bosc.vth (ni^Va ; BDB
Lex. quotes .Ar. bcnkat"", an elevated region covered
with volcanic stones). One of the towns of the lowland
of Judah mentioned between Lachish and Kglon, but as
1 O's rendering of Is. 41 19 is so defective that it is im-
possible to tell wliich Greek word represents TB'Kn ; but in 60 13
it is Kt5po<; [HN.\Q]. .\q. and The. simply tr.insliter.ite
(6aa<Tovp): Sym. h.is jrufos in chap. 41 and wcukj) in ch.i]). tK)
(unless TTufos is out of its order). I'esh. also is defective in Is.
41 19, giving for IIK'K^? innn ril^ simply 'goodly cypresses'
(sanvaine), while in Is. GO 13 IIC'KB is rendered 'cypresses.'
Targ. has in both places J'^iaCN. ' l^ox trees' (so the Jewish
commentators) ; Vg. renders fiu.rus in 41 19, but pinus in t>0 13.
2 .See especially No. in /^P.MGWjiis ['Sei ; Honimcl, il>.
^53' ['92I; Lag. [//>ers. 143. N<5. connects all Heb. deriva-
tives of ^e•J^ with the single root (meaning ' to go ' or ' step ')
which appears in Ar. '////rand Syr. alkni ; Hommel still main-
tains a second root, akin to -yo' Ar. yasara; while Lagarde ex-
plains 7!>r? (Ps. 1 I etc.) by invoking a third .\r. root asara.
' P. 27 of his tract 't'obcr einige phonik. Inschriften' (in ,
Ahhandl. d. A-Snifrl. Ceselheliaft d. Ifiss: zu Gdtt. v.il. 36). !
4 Low (387/) holds that the two Syr. words do not mean
miite the same tree : that the former is Juniperus flxyeedms ;
the latter (fern, in form surMntd) is the ordinary cypress
Cupressus sempemirens ; but he does not make out a clear
case. Hoissier ([•'lorn Oricntalis, 5 705) h.ns under Cupressus
setiiper!'it-rns—:\^ a localitv—' Persia borealis in montanis ibi
Ssiin>i Kuhi audit.' This looks as if it might be philologically
akin to suri'an and sanvaina.
s For C*"ir><-n3 read D"iyKn3.
* According to Sir Joseph Hooker the wood of Pu.rus lon^-
folia is still prized in Damascus for making domestic utensils
and inlaid wood.
601
BRACELETS
yet unidentified (Josh. 1539 ; fiaaridwe [B], -fftxaff [L],
liaaxo-9 [.A]). A certain Adaiah (i) of Bozkath was
the grandfather of King Josiah (2K. '."2i; -vovowB
[BALJ).
BOZRAH (nnV3, § 106 ; BocoppA [HAD in (Jen.
Ch.]. Bocop [BN.\(^r in Is.]).
Elsewhere © translates: iv ni<rv avri)s [B**AQ), }cT.A9fi;
6xvpui^aTa<iuTi7t(BK.\Q], r. 22; TetVfiuc oirriK (H.\Q), Am. 1 12;
€i'«At>.i(BA(^], .Mit.aia.
1. A capital of the land of Edom (Am. 1 12 Is. .34 6
63 I ;' /3o(rpa [<J"'i>' ] ; Jer. 491322), also mentioned in
Gen. 3633 (liwToppa [L]. om. K)=i Ch. 1 44 i^oaa.
[L]) as the city of Jotjab b. Zerah, king of Kdom, and
less certainly, though still probably, under the name
MiBZAR (if.v.) in (ien. 3642. All these passages may
be exilic or even jwst-exilic ; but it is hardly safe to infer
that Bozrah was not known to the Jews before the
Exile; indeed. Gen. 3633 may be ultimately derived
from a pre -exilic document. Bozrah is the JloM>r
(§o(iop) of f).S<-) 23258 102 18. descrilxjd as 'in the
mountains of Idumaa.' It seems to Ije the modern
Buseire, in the district of Jebal (CJebalenc), northward
from I'etra, and 2J hours SSW. from 'I'afileh, called
' little Bozrah ' to distinguish it from the niore famous
Bozrah in the Hauran. So Buhl, Edomiter, 37 ; cp
Doughty, Ar. I)es. 1 31 38/.
2. (Jer. 4824.) See Bezkr, ii. T. K. c.
BRACELETS. Bracelets were worn to protect the
exposed parts of the arm and hand against physical
injury, and as amulets against the malign influences
which were believed to affect the organs of action (WKS,
Kel. iV;«.<'^* 453)- 'I'hey served also as ornaments.
They were made of gold (Gen. 24 22 Nu. 31 50) ; but
doubtless, like other ancient peoples, the Hebrews em-
ployed other less precious materials, as horn and
enamelled earthenware. Signet rings were sometimes
worn round the wrist (see Ring). Bracelets were worn
by )nen and women ; the finer forms were among the
insignia of royalty and the adornments of brides (for
references see below).
Five words have to Ix; considered.
Of these we may first of all reject two words, (i) nn (Kx.
85 22), and (2) '?'ri3 (Gen. 38 1825), which are wrongly rendered
'bracelet ' in .W. See Hook, 2 ; Rino, g i, and cp Conn.
3. TCi, s/i»iid (Geti. 24 22, etc. Nu. 31 50 Kzek. 10 11 'J342
EV 'bracelets,' (P i^e'Aca) ; cp.Ass. samiidu, to bind on ; the same
root ap|X-ars in the Heb. IDij, yoke. Golden Cn'OS, weighing
ten shekels, were given to Rebekah by Elea/ar, who placed them
on I'Oth her hands. So in Kzek. 1(5 11, the br.icelels are
worn on both hands. In Nu. (I.e.), TCS i"* conjoined with
.Til'^N, a'ld the Conimenlators mostly explain the former as
an ornament for the wrist, the latter for the upper part of the
arm. Targ. usually renders 'S by K^I'C', 'chains.' The form
of these bracelets varied, a favourite device being the serpent.
On ICgyplian br.icelets see Wilk., Anc. £g. 2342 ; on .Assyrian,
Per. and Chip., Art in CItaldea, 2357, and see fig. 241.
4. T\-V0, "ierdh. Is. 3 19 (EV ' bracelets,' RV'nin. ' chain.' Targ.
***?' ''!!'??> 'chains of the hands'). Cp modern .Arabic ornamtnt
j/^ivSr (Frank. 56). The root Is Ttc", to twist. Perh.ips a nnv
of spirals made of twisted gold is meant. In the Mishnah "^ '^'
is applied to chains round the necks of horses and al.so to
bracelets worn by women.
5. rriysK, ^ei ddah. This word occurs in MT in Nu. 31 50
(AV ' chains,' RV ' ankle-ch.iins ') .ind 2 S. 1 10 (EV' bracelet ' ;
® in both places xAi'Swf). Wellhauscn's suggestion to read
'"^^l^V'??, after Is. 820, has been widely accepted; but Nestle
(Marg. 15) defends MT and supposes that .Saul was des|>oiled
by the Amalekite of only one of the several bracelets that he
wore. Hudde in SBOr accepts VVellhausen's correction, but
(on the basis of Nu. 81 50) regards •^^i'SJfJI as also possible.
That kings went into K-tttle with various ornaments is well
attested (see Crown); this is further supported by i K. 2230.
It may l)e that .S.iul's bracelet contained his signet (King,
Antique Gems, 1 38). As with .Saul, so with Joash, the crown
and bracelet are associ.ited as royal insignia if (with We.)
niiS^V.T is read for nnyri, 2 K. 11 12 (WRS, (r/ycW 311, n.)t
1 Text doubtful : see Text, | 64, and cp SBOT\\ii\i.\ adloc.
BRAMBLE
^imhi, however, obtained much the same sense by connecting
nny with 'ij;, 'ornament.' The Targum on 2 S. 1 lo renders
by KnsalC. which is usually applied to the phylactery (Dt.
68). A phylactery was, however, also worn on the left arm.
'sK is apparently connected with niys (occurring only in Is.
520), into which We.'s emendation reduces mysK- If the ar- I
rangcment in Is. 3 18-23 's suggested by the natural order of
the parts of the body, niVi' may be an ornament rather of the
arm than of the leg. IJarth, A7> 151, compares Ar. W«</, ' arm,'
which removes some of the difficulty presented by the usual
derivation from ^y^i, to step or walk. See, however, Anklets.
I. A.
BRAMBLE has in EV three meanings.
1. ISN, 'at,i<l (fidtivof, rhainntts); Gen. 50 lo/T (EV Atad
as in ©'), Judg. 9 147:, EV 'brambles,' and Ps. 689 [10], EV
'thorns.' It is a genuine Semitic word, found also in W.
Aramaic as ^-ycM or KQBKi >" Syriac as hatta 1 (? hatela), in
Arabic as atad (ligna rhamni nigri, Fr.), and in Assyrian as
etidu, etidt'u (Ges.-Bu., s.v.). The root with which it appears
to be connected (cax) has in Arabic the sense of ' uttering a
rasping, though not loud,- sound]; and the possibility of a
connection with the sense of pricking or tearing like a thorn
Ls apparent. There is general agreement that pdfi.vo% was
about equivalent to the modern botanical genus Rhatnnus.
Dioscorides-* distinguished three sorts (cp Fraas, Syn. Plant.
Flor. Class.); while in modern times Tristram (_FFP 264/;)
has enumerated sixteen species of Rliamnece as found in
Palestine.
Perhaps the most likely identification for ncK is with Rhamnus
palirstina (Boiss.), which represents in Syria the R. oleoides of
Greece and S. Europe.
2. nin, ko^h, very frequent; EV usually 'thorn' or 'thistle,'
AV once (Is. 34 13) 'bramble.' It denotes a plant of the thorn
or perhaps of the thistle kind : see Thorn.
3 ^oTOV, which occurs seven times in © (in six of these as the
rendering of ^30) and five times in NT, is once (Lk. G44)
rendered 'bramble bush,' elsewhere Bush {q.v., § i [i]).
N. M. — W. T. T.-D.
BRAN (ta niTYPA [BAQ]). The ' burning of bran
for incense' {0vfj.iu>ffai r. ir. ; to Mylitta?) is mentioned
in Bar. 6 (Pip. Jer. ) 43 [42]! as one of the incidents in
the unchaste idolatrous worship of the women of
Babylon. See Incknse, § 8.
BRASEN SEA [T\^n}r\ D^), 2 K. 25 13 ; see Layer ;
Sea, Brazen.
BRASEN SERPENT (n"J'n3il ^U^), 2 K. I84. See
NiCHLSHTAN, § 2.
BRASIER (nX), Jer. 8622/ RV. See Coal, § 3.
BRASS, or BRASEN, EV's_ rendering of n^TO,
n'hoseth (Gen. 422 and often), C^-inj, ndhui {]oh^x-2.-\),
Hw'-im, n'hrddh (Lev. 2619, etc.), VpIJ, n'hui (Dan.
232 etc.), xaAkoc (Mt. IO9, I Cor. 13 I, Rev. 18 12),
and xaAkion (Mk. 74)-
EV invariably renders thus except in Ezra 8 27 AV (see
Coi'PEr), in 2 S. 22 35 AV, where nrmj 'ndtoseth, is rendered
'steel,' and in Jer. 15 12 AV has 'steel,' see Ikon, § 2) ; cp 2 Tim.
4 14, where xa\Kev<; is ' coppersmith ' In Gen. 4 22 RVmg. gives
'copper, and so elsewhere' as a note on 'brass.' In Ezek. I7
^Vd ncn: 'S rightly rendered 'burnished brass ' (© e^a.(TTp6.nTmv
XoAicos ; Tg. below), as also is x'J^^toAi/Sacos in Rev. I15 2 18.
In Ezra 8 27 T\Vni is qualified by the epithet 3ni'P(RV 'bright'),
which we should probably point an!sp = 3n7sp, 'glittering' (in
Tg. Ezek. I7 for "rS,?, 'polished'). .1310, which follows (EV
'fine'), arises out of dittography, and should not be rendered
(Che.).
That copf)er is meant is shown by the words, ' out of
whose hills thou mayest dig brass' (Dt. 89); cp the
chapter in Holland's Pliny (1601), headed 'Mines of
Brass. ' See Copper and cp Egypt, § 36 end.
1 This the Syriac lexicographers render into Arabic as 'ausaj,
which means a ' thorny shrub ' (this is the right meaning of our
word bramble, see .Skeat, s i>.\
2 From the absence 0/ loudness in the sound is derived the
sense of Heb. b« — properly a 'whisper,' and thence 'softness,'
'stillness.' See also Divination, § 4, iv.
3 It should be noticed that the Auctarium ad Dioscoridem
confirms the identification of riBIJ and pdfivoi by the gloss
'Pdiivof 'A.(t>po\ ('Africans'— /.r, probably Carthaginians)
'AraiiV.
603
BREAD
BREAD. From the earliest times of which we have
any record, bread was the principal article of food
among the Hebrews, a fact which e.x-
1. Prepara- ,.^^ ^j^^ ^^^ ^^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^
tion. . , , , . " \ ™, . •.
for food in general. The prmiitive
custom of making the ears of wheat and barley more
palatable by the simple process of roasting ( 'Sa, ' parched
corn ' ; i S. 17 17, etc. ) was still common in historical
times. For the preparation of bread, however, the
ears must be crushed or ground so as to admit of
being kneaded into a paste. In early times the flour
was produced by crushing the ears between two stones
(see illustrations of these primitive ' corn -grinders'
found in Palestine in Bliss, Mound of Many Cities, 85),
a process common in Egypt under the Old Empire and
later (see Ernian's Egypt, 190), and still practised in
the ILast. The mortar and pestle were a later develop-
ment. The preparation of flour by pounding the ears
in a mortar (nDTD, Nu. 118) is a familiar scene on
Egyptian monuments. The flour obtained by these pro-
cesses must have been of a coarser grain (c-nj) than that
procured by the use of the handmill (D'rri ; see Ml 1,1,).
A still finer quality than the ordinary npjD was named
nSo (see Food, § 3 \b\).
In the earliest times bread was entirely unleavened.
The requisite quantity of flour or barley- meal, which
varied, naturally, according to the size of the household,
was placed in a shallow wooden basin (rriKB'D ; E.\. 728)
— earthenware, for obvious reasons, is little used by
nomads — well mixed with water and kneaded. Salt
was no doubt added when procurable (cp Lev. 2 13/^).
When the kneading was completed, the dough (pss) was
ready for the firing. Cakes thus prepared were named
niva, 'unleavened cakes,' and these still form the
usual bread of the Bedouin. In a more advanced
stage of society, the bread was made in this way only
in cases of emergency (Gen.lQs), or for purposes of
ritual, as at the Passover. The ordinary bread of the
Hebrews was made lighter by fermentation. A small
piece of to-day's ' batch ' was laid aside, and when the
time for the next baking arrived this piece of leaven
(ixb) was broken down into the water in the mxc'S, the
flour was mixed therewith, and the whole thoroughly
kneaded and allowed to stand ' till the whole was
leavened. '
The next stage is the process of firing, or rendering
„. . the dough more digestible by the
, . ■ ,^^?' application of heat. Three modes of
kinds of cakes. ^^\^^ ^^^ ^^^^^ -^ ^^^ q^_ ^ -^ ^^^
East at the present day.
{a) The simplest method is that still in use among
the Bedouin. A fire of wood, or of wood mixed with
camel's dung, is kindled on the sand, or on extempor-
ised hearthstones. When these have been well heated,
the embers are raked aside, and the flat pieces of
dough laid on the hot stones and covered with the
ashes just removed. After a few minutes, the ashes
are again raked aside, the cakes turned, and the ashes
replaced. In a few minutes more the cakes are ready
(see Rob. BA' 2416/., Doughty, Aral/. Des. 1 131 etc.).
Such 'a cake baked on the coals' was termed njy
D'Dyi (IK. 196; cp Gen. 186 Hos. 78. ©«ai-^ ^y^p^l
<pla$, by the Vg. correctly rendered fanis subcinericius,
' ash cakes ' ).
(b) A second mode of firing bread is one much in
vogue at the present day among Bedouin and fellahin
alike. A girdle or thin iron plate (Siia npnp ; Lev. 25
Ezek. 43, ^^'^^ Ti](ya.vov), slightly convex in shape, is
laid over a small fire-pit, in which a fire has been
kindled as before, and on this plate or girdle the cakes
are fired. Its Syrian name is sag (Landberg, Prov. et
Diet, du Peuple Arabe, 14). Cakes baked in this way
604
BREAKFAST
seem to have been called by the Hebrews D'nn (i Ch.
(c) The most usual mode of firing, however, especially
in towns, was no doubt by means of the oven ("n:ri).
The tannur, then as now, was a large earthenware jar
in the Ixittom of which the fire was placed. As
reprcsentLHl on Kgyptian monuments, the cakes were
fired by tn-ing applicii to the oulsiiU of the jar (Wilkinson
234; Krman, l:gypf, 191). The usual method at the
present day, however, is to allow the fire to burn down,
and, while the enibcrs are still glowing, to api)ly the
cake to the inside of the jar. The dough is first
pressed into flat round cakes (like a .Scotch bannock);
each of these in its turn is made to revolve by a rapid
movement of the hands, till it has expanded to a
diameter of about 18 inches, and become as thin as a
sheet of thick paper. It is then laid on a cushion, by
means of which it is applied to the wall of the tannur.
These thin wafer-cakes are called in the OT p'p (in
Syria, markiik). The tannUr may be larger, and
consist of a pit, wider at the bottom and narrowing
towards the top, pl.astered with clay. The ovens used
by the txikers of the street in Jerusalem named after
them (Jer. 3721) were jirobably of this sort. (For
further details see FURNACK, 5).
The preparation of the daily supply of bread for
the household was essentially the care of the women
(Gen. 186 i S. 2824 etc. ). In the wealthier households
this duty would devolve on slaves, male and female
(i S. 813). In later times baking became a special
trade in the cities (Jos. Ant. xv. 92), and especially in
Jerusalem (see alx)ve and cp the ' oven tower,' Neh. 3 n
1238), where the large influx of pilgrims at the great
festivals would promote the industry.
It is impossible now tD identify the various species of
cakes mentioned in the O T. If to those mentioned in
the course of this article we add 133 the ordinary round
cake or bannock (i S. 236), and ,i^n, the etymology of
which points to its being pricked or perforated, like
the modern passover cakes, we have exhausted the
varieties that can be identified with any approach to
certainty. See further B.\kkme.\t.s, also F(X)D, §§ 1-3.
A. K. s. K.
BREAKFAST (aricton [Ti. WH]), Lk. II38 kV"i.'-
See .\ 1 1. A IS, § 2.
BREASTPLATE, COAT OF MAIL (pntr [^T.^
i_K.'J-Jj4 Is.r.917], I'V-li," or pnp Jer. 464 51 3, Syr.
Kl'iJk)- ^^'e find the Uryon mentioned as part of the
defensive armour of Goliath and David. That it was
commonly worn by Israelite kings is evident from i K.
2234 (aCh. 1833). In the description of Goliath's
armour in i S. 175 ( ' coat-of-mail' KV) the addition
of the word D'a'pirp to pny gives a valuable clue :
Goliath's coat of mail was covered with bronze scales.
This meaning is certified by Dt. 14 9 (Lev. 11 9), where nt-^rg
denotes the scales of .1 fish. Moreover, it is derived from a root,
L-L"p, ihat signifies rubbing or peeling off. Ar. ka'ssa. in cunj. iv.
expresses the peeling off of .skin during recovery from disease.^
The weight of Goliath's armour, according to i S.
175, was 5000 shekels, which m.iy lie roughly computed
as .ibout 200 lbs. The close intercourse that tliere was
between Egypt and I'hilisiia'- makes it not improbable
» In Job4l2«[i81 the word nnc* (in-. Xry.) is taken by ®,
Vg., and Targum as = jin;r> and modern comm., including Ew.,
have adopted this view. Some colour is given to this inter-
pretation by V. i5(Heb.), which describes the .scales of Levia-
than, which the coat of mail of the enemy might be held to
resemble ; biic this is too slight as an argument. The
immediate context suggests weapons of offenct, and if © is
correct in translating the preceding aw. Ary. I'BD by lapv we
have a fair piesumption that Del. is ri^ht in comparing Ar.
tiryafn or sinvat"», ' pointed dart ' or ' arrow," with the word
"■T?? in this passage (so RV). Duhm follows Hoffm. and reads
n-jp 'javelin,' cp Syr. itdkatthd.
» Meyer, GA, it<iff., i-fiff., 298.
60s
BREASTPLATE
that the heavy coat of mail worn by Goliath trsrmWed
the Egyptian cuirass worn by a royal (x5rsona;.:e, in
which yellow, blue, red, and green metallic scales were
tastefully arranged in symmetrical rows (Weiss, Kos-
tiimkunde, Abth. 1 56). Wilkinson has descrilx-d the
ICgyptian cuira.ss as consisting of about ' eleven horizon-
tal rows of metal plates well secured by bronze pins.'
At ' the hollow of the throat a narrower range of plates
was introduced. The breadth of each plate or scale
was little more than an inch, twelve of them suflRcing to
cover the front of the body, and the sleeves, which were
sometimes so short as to extend less than half-way to
the cltjow, consisted of two rows of similar plates.'
The Assyrian warriors in earlier times wore a heavy
coat of mail covering the entire Ixxly with the exception
of the arms. Occasionally the coat of mail did not
reach farther than the knees. In later times the leading
warriors were i)rotected by jackets made of leather or of
stout material, on which metal plates were sewn or
rivetted (or they were provided with iron or bronze
studs). Broad girdles were used for tying in the long
coats of mail. Upon a bas-relief, from Niiiirud,
portrayed in Layard's work we see an Assyrian chariot
in which the bowman is mail-clad even around his neck
and ears. It is not improbable that Ahab wore a heavy
coat of mail somewhat resembling the Assyrian (but
shorter), as we know that he took every precaution for
personal protection.
The statement that he was mortally wounded by an arrow
which pieiced ' between D"rl!' a"d the coat of mail ' has been
variously interpreted, ©hal i„a y.i„ov toO Tivt<>^ova% k.-i.K.
does not yield any satisfactory sense. The use of ^2^ in Ls. 41 7
((B <TuV^At)yu,«), and the fundamental signification of the root,
point to 'nvcis' as a probable rendering, if it could yield any
ndecjuate sense in the context. Thenius and other authorities
follow Luther in holding that what is meant here is an attach-
ment or appendage to the coat of mail. The coat of mail
protected the breast, whereas the appendage guarded the lower
portion of the body, and the arrow jienetrated through the
intcrv.-xl that separated them (so Kichm, IllFIl). This ajjj^ars
to be the only intelligible explanation, and etymology warrants
the rendering of the word c'pai.l by 'attachments' or 'append-
ages ' {i.e., to the cuirass).
Respecting the coats of mail or corslets with which
Uzziah is said to have provided his troops (2 Ch. 2tii4)
we have not definite information or any sufiicient clue to
guide us. The corslets (AV ' brigandines ') which
Jeremiah (164) bids the cavalry of Pharaoh Necho
put on may have consisted of some thick woven
material covered with metal scales ; but here, as in the
case of Neh. 4 16 [10], we are left in much uncertainty.
For Xeh. 4i6[io] a useful hint m.iy be derived from
Herod. 763, where we learn that the ."-iyrian (or Assyrian)
contingent of Xerxes' army wore \lveoi OuiprjKei, which
were probably close-fitting sleeveless jackets of co.irse
felt. Probably the ta/ini (unnn). AV ' hal«rgeon,*
RV 'coat-of-mail,' of Ex.2832 (cp 3O23. both passages
from P), was a corslet of this character.
Etymology here does not help us as the word is from the
Aramaic root .|; ^^ {fthj>eal 'to fight') and therefore means
simply 'fighting garb.' Targ. Onk. renders it J^r, 'breast-
plate.' ® (Ex. 28 28) is based on another text. Kn.'hcl is on the
right track when he says in his comment (cited by Di., ad loc):
' We are reminded of the KivoOwpa^ of the Greeks (//. 2529 Sjo).
Egypt excelled in its manufacture.'
In the Greek period (300 P.C. and later), the ordinary
heavy-armed soldiers wore coats of fine iron chain-mail
{OJipa^ aXi;<r(5arr6s), a series of links connected into a
continuous chain (Rich).
It is significant that €5 gives this intcrjiretation in
I S. 175. and we may conclude from i Mace. 635 that
during the entire Greek period this was the kind of
cuirass usually worn. What form of breastplate was
pictured before Pauls imatjination as a symbol for the
righteousness of a Christian w.irrior (Eph. 614, cp Is.
59x7 and i Mace. 58) — whether a corslet of scale
armour (column of Antoninus), or a cuirass of ■ broad
metal plates across the chest and long flexible bands
606
BREASTPLATE
(laminct) of steel over the shoulders ' (depicted on
the column of Trajan) — can only be conjectured.
Excellent woodcuts representing both may be found
in Rich's Diet, of Roman and Greek Antiquities.
Compare also Warre-Cornish's Concise Diet, of Greek
and Roman Antiquities. O. C. VV.
BREASTPLATE, Priestly (]w''n ; Ex. 284. nepi-
CTHSion [I'AL]; elsewhere jO AoriON [BAF], to
AoreioN [I'J. ' oracle ' ; but twice [Hx. 256 (7) 3r.8 (9)]
6"'" has no^HRHC where MT has j^H) or BREAST-
PLATE OF JUDGMENT (DD^'P ' ;t*n, Ex. '28 15 ;
A. TOON KRlcecON [B.VL] ; often in 0). an object
worn on the ephod of the High Priest. It seems to
have been a square piece attached by its corners to the
shoulder-straps of the ephod (see Ephod, § 3) and of
like material — probably a species of pocket whose outer
side was adorned with precious stones. The etymology
of the word is uncertain.
Di. rejects the probable derivation from the root hasuna, ' to
be beautiful,' and would prefer to connect it with j^h, sinus or
'fold' in which something is carried; cp Ewald, Alterth. 390.
Oil the stones in the breastplate, see I'KKCiors Stones, and
cp Ukim anl) Thum.mim, and Nowack, UA -1 119.
O. C. W.
BREECHES, in the proper usage of the word, denotes
the (iividcci garment reaching from the waist to just
below the knees, eciuivalent to the Lat. feminalia
and Gr. nepiCKeAH. a.s distinguished from braca
(jbracctr) or anaSyPI^^C. which reached to the ankles
— the garment ordinarily denoted by the word ' hosen '
at the time when the AV was ntade. The earliest
form of the garment seems to have been simply a loin
cloth (cp GiRDi.K, 1). Generally, however, the long
mantle worn in the East made a special covering for
the legs unnecessary, and even the warriors who are
depicted upon the monuments with their short tunics
have the leg l)elow the knee wholly bare with the
exception of sandals. Noteworthy, on the other hand,
are the lacings which protect the shins and knees of the
follower of Asur-bani-pal ( Per. and Chip. , Art in Chald.
ii. pi. X.); see further .Shoi-.s. Breeches, in fact,
seem to be a distinctively Persian dress (see Herod. I71
7 61), and do not appear to have been known among
the Israelites— at all events not before the exile. 1 Apart
from the ch.aracleristic priestly d'DJDO (see below, 3),
g.arments of this nature are mentioned only in Dan. 3 21
1. ?2-ia, sarhdl (Dan. 821 27t), RV ' hosen,' ^ sup-
ported by a consensus of opinion (Theod., Aq., Sym.
Pesh. , Hi., Ew. , Behrmann, etc.).
In this case the word is derived from Gr. (rapa^apa, crapd^aXXa
(I.ag. GVj. AMi. 207, p"ra. Aram. Lehniu. 48), probably of Pers.
origin (cp mod. Pers. shahvdr). In Targ. and Talm., on the
otlier hand, 'q (originally not connected with the above) denotes
a 'mantle'; so Jewish exegetes (.\ben-Ezra, etc.) and AV
('coats,' mg. 'mantles') in this passage.
For more than one reason the AV is probably
better. ' Coats ' or ' mantles ' suits the climax in v. 27,
which describes the powerlessness of the fire over the
Three, better than RV — their bodies were uninjured ;
nor was their hair singed ; their mantles (flowing loose
robes, easily inflammable) were unchanged, nor had the
smell of fire passed on them.
2. c"£29. patlis, in j'i,T;r'DS (or rather jirt'ras [Bii. Gi. ]),
Dan. 821, is an exceedingly obscure term for which are
offered such diverse renderings as ' hosen ' ( AV), ' tunics '
(RV), -turbans' (RV">.').
' Turb.ans ' m.ay be safely dismissed as unphilological and im-
probable (see TuRii an) ; for the rest cp Syr. |>A^^ (") Persian
tunic (cp RV) (1^) breeches, also a kind of leggings (cp A V) ; .see
Payne-Smith, Thes. The Jew. -Aram, p'^s occurs in only one
passage independent of Dan. 821, and apparently denotes some-
1 Much later, in the Roman period, hiaccte, feminalid, and
fascitr all found their way into Juda:a (Hriill, Trachten d.
Judtn, 87).
2 Evidently retained in its older sense. The modem 'hosen
is applied to stockings.
607
BRICK
thing worn upon the feet ; but the text is prob.-»bly corrupt (see
I^vy, S' tiW'li, s.v. rirs), although Kohut (Aruch Coni/ileluiii,
s.v. c'as) argues for its authenticity. It is not improbable that
POB 's ? ^''^-s. '° "^aio; this is indirectly suggested by the
philological evidence and the versions (C^ reads only ttvo of the
three terms), and is directly .supported by quotations in the old
Latin fathers. For a discussion of ^310 and tro^ see further
Journ. Phil. 'IfijpTff. ['99].
3. The priestly linen breeches (na-'pJDO [0:3 to cover,
hide], ir(pi(TKe\rj Xiva, feminalia, Pesh. transliterates
Trepi^tofia) were to be worn along with the holy linen
coat, the linen girdle, and the linen turban by Aaron
on the Day of Atonement as he entered the holy place
within the curtain (Lev. I64 [P]). It is probably
by an oversight that they are specially mentioned in
I'',cclus. 45 8 along with the long robe and ephod (or
rather the kuttdneth and ine'il ; so Heb. ) as part of his
' apparel of honour. ' Ordinary priests also wore them
on sacrificial occasions (Ex.2842 3928 Lev. 6 10 [3] [all
P], lizek. 44 18 [the b'ne Zadok]).
According to Jos. {.'Int. iii. 7i) the ixavaxatniv [Niese] was a
girdle (Siafujxa) t of line twisted linen. It was the undermost
of the priestly garments and possibly the most primitive, since
the older law of Ex. 'M 26 (J E (according to liacon, E]) seems to
imply that the wearing of the garment was not originally
compulsory for priest or layman. The change seems to l>e due
to a primitive conception of holiness. Clothes which had come
in cont.act with a holy place or function became taboo (Ar.
hartm), and therefore useless in ordinary life. The way to
avoid this misfortune was to perform holy ceremonies naked
(just as the Hedouins made the sacred circuit of the Kaaba at
IVIecca in a nude condition), or in holy vestments borrowed from
the priests (cp 2 K. IO22). The law of Kx. 2026 is apparently
aimed against the former custom (for which see further WRS,
A'5"(-') 45iyC). See Dkess, Priest. i. a. — S. A. C.
BRETHREN OF JESUS (Mt. 12 47 Mk. 832 Lk. 820).
See Cl()1'.\s, >i'itt-' Ja.mks, § 3, Simon, 4.
BRICK (n:?"?, derived by Gcs. from ^/ p"?, 'to be
white,' as if bricks were originally made of a whitish
1. Of the
Hebrews
clay ; but this is a forced etymology ; 0
TtAinBoc)-^ The Hebrew word for brick
is not limited to sun-dried bricks. There
is no doubt, however, that the Israelites, like most
Eastern nations, used this kind almost exclusively ; in
Gen. 11 3 burning bricks is mentioned as a foreign
custom, analogous to the use of asphalt (see Bitumen)
for mortar, and we may safely disregard EV''s rendering
•brickkiln' in 2 S. I231, N'ah. 814.* Sun-dried bricks
of a very early period have been found in Palestine ;
burnt bricks seem to date generally from the Roman
period. It will be remembered that the houses of the
mass of the Israelites were made of sun-dried clay (see
Housk) ; it was of the same material that their bricks
were composed.*
The true countries of brick-m.^kers and brick-builders were
Egypt' and Mesopotamia. In Egypt, not only all houses, but
also all palaces, many tombs (including several of the smaller
pyramids), and some temples, were constructed of Nile-mud
bricks.
The representations of brick-making which are to be
found in Egyptian wall - pictures are very instructive.
_ . . They not only show the process with great
^ ' clearness, but also illustrate most vividly
° the serfdom of the Israelites on Egyptian
ground. The most famous picture, for example, repre-
sents foreigners — chiefly of a Semitic type — at work,
1 We are reminded of the manner in which the Ar. m'tzar has
evolved from the simple izdr ; see Girule, 1.
2 Some scholars consider itKivOa<i, the Greek term for brick,
to have been Imrrowed by the Greeks from the Phoenicians in
the form H/)Hnth. [rtj^'i. Ass. libitlu, seems to come from
latiUtu, 'to throw down flat"; see Libnah, and cp Del. J'rol.
93/1
3 See'the commentaries of Driver, H. P. .Smith and Lohr on
2S. I.e., and on the whole p.issage see David, § 11, c. ii. RV at
Jer. 43 9 alters the unintelligible 'brickkiln' of AV into 'brick-
work.'
* .'Mtars, also, were made of earth ; cp the obscure Is. 653
(see Sacrikice). On the law in Ex. 20 25 (E?) see .Ni.tak. S 3.
8 Cp the fact that the Eg. word for brick, dohel, Coptic t«/3«,
took root in Asia ; cp Arabic tfii (whence Etbiopic tib. Span.
adobe).
608
BRICK
su|x:rintendcd by Egyptian ' task masters ' armed with
sticks.
The onalogy to the labour of Israel as described in Ex. 1 it
to sirikini; that iimny; » rilvrs have ventured to regard the uicture
OS refeiring to the circuiiiktaiiccii wiih which that record deals.
'I'he scene, however, rcpre.scnts 'brick -making for the great
magazine in KaMcrn Thebes ' (Opet, mod. A'armai), ana the
explanatory legend states that the labourers are 'captives
brought by his ni.-tjcsiy (I)hutmose or Tholmes III.) for work
on the temple of Anion ' ; many (not the majurity) of tlie working
men seem to be African c.ipiivcs.
The picture illustrates the whole process of brick-
making.
We see the lalx>urers hoeing the ground with the wooden
Egypti.in hoe (see At;mcLi.ruKK, fig. 3), carrying the black
earth (.Nile-inuil deposited at the aimiial inundation) in baskets 1
to a clean (sandy r) place, moistening it with water taken from
shallow ponds, cvidetitly at some distance from the Nile, and
kneading it with their feet. The wooden moulding-frame Is
filled with m.iterial of the right consistency, and emptied on the
ground ; then the square heaps of mud, placed in rows side by
tide, are left to dry.-
These I-.qyptian bricks were usually twice the size of
our modern ones. Many of thcin (from dynasty 18
3 EcTrntian '^"^^■•'^'■''^) ^■•^■"'^ stamix-d with the name
bride °^ ^ '^'"■'''' '" ^^"^^ ''^'^' '^''"^ belonged
to public buildings ; someliines the
stamp shows the name of the building, and sometimes
in addition to this the name of the oflicer charged
with the construction of the building. •• Stamps as
well as moulds have been preserved to modern times,
and bricks with the name of Rameses II., ' the Pharaoh
of the oppression' (but see Kcypt, § l,^ ff-), are shown
in our museums. We often find chopped straw or reed
mi.xed with the mud to make it more consistent and to
prevent cracking during the drying. According to
E.x. 5i8 the pharaoh showed his malice by doubling the
work of the Isr.ielites. Apparently we are to under-
stand that, instead of furnishing straw from the royal
domains and from the magazines of a fifth part of the
other fields, he forced tlie oppressed strangers to gather
the straw from the fields themselves. This, however,
they could not well accomplish tluring their scanty
leisure time ; besides, the stalks wtre used (and are
still used) as fodtier, esjx'cially when not quite dry.
Nor is it any e.isier to see how they could get old straw
of the previous year (from the refuse heaps of farm-
yards, etc. ?) in quantities sufticient for their ' tale of
bricks." For the rest, we frecjuently find not only
foreign captives, but also the I'.gyptian serfs, referred to
in Egyptian texts as making bricks under constraint.
We now turn to the second brick-building country —
Mesopotamia. Owing to the scarcity of stone in
4. Babvlonian ^'^^^-^'o"'^ proper, brick was the only
■' ' building material, stone iK'ing reserved
for the ornamentation of edifices, and the construction of
certain parts, such as the threshold(see H.MiYi.oMA, § 15).
Whilst in 10gy])t rain is so scarce that buildings of sun-
dried brick have a certain durability, the climate of
Babylonia is less favourable. The Babylonians, accord-
ingly, made their constructions more solid. They built
walls of an enormous thickness : for example, the great
enclosure of Ribylon which Nebuchadrezzar erected
with the clay dug from the ditch of the city (cp
Babylon, § 5). Moreover, their unfavourable climate
forced the liibylonians, though wood was at least as
scarce in their country as in I'^gypt, to use burnt bricks,
esixicially for the outer layers of their thick walls.
This led to a high development of the art of glazing
and colouring bricks. We find large walls covered with
elalxjrate paintings, whilst in Egypt such enamelled
> [Does the phrase, 'his hands were freed from the basket'
(Ps. SI 6 [7) RV; 'task-Uasket,' I)e Witt), refer to these baskets?
Cp Del. ad lac.; but ^1'^0 is open to grave suspicion (sec Che.
Ps.n\ a.n,u:.).\
• i-i^'i* ''"Sypdan method of representing obiects in [perspective
IS likely to give the impression that the bricks are placed one
above another.
* It has been inferred from this stamp that the government
manufactured bricks for sale, and even that it had a brick-
monopoly ; but this is verj- improbable.
39 609
BRIER
tiles were used much more rarely and always on a
smaller scale. Crude bricks, however, sometimes of
enormous size and always without straw, were the
common material, especially in the earlier times.
Hence we have brick stamps with, for example, the
name of such old kings as Sargon of AgadiS and
Naram-sin.
In Nineveh, sun-dried bricks seem to have been the
building material in general use. On Ezek. 4i, which
mentions Ezekiel as portraying the siege of Jerusalem
on clay-tiles, see Ezek. SHOT (\Lng.), p. 98^
w. .M. M.
BRICKKILN (jaiptj). 2.S. I'ij. Nah.3.4 and (RV
Brickwork I J<r. 489. See alxne. § i.
BRIDE (n^2) Is. 025. Bridegroom (inn) Jer. 7j4.
See .\I.\KKiA(;i;.
BRIDGE (re(t)YPOYN [A]), 2 Mace. I213 AV ; RV
Gkfuvkun.
BRIDLE. The various I leb. and Gr. words will be
found dealt with in the articles s|>ecified below.
1. Di0.-.3, nia/tsdin (^vKoK^), Ps. 3!» 1 1 12] KV, lA'nn;- ' muz/le '
(cp Catti.k, 8 9). Most inappropriate ; read •'''•-•?, ' a guard '
(Ps. 141 3 nT.CC'), with Her/, Che.
2. ni'?SS, tn*sii/,Hh, 2ech. 14 2o AVms;., KV Hi:r.Ls [^.r'., 2].
3- ^?> nietlug, 2 K. 10 28(xaAivot) || Is.3;29 (xoAti-o?), I'rov.
263 (Kti-Tpof). EV is no doubt correct. Cp the place-name in
3 S..SI, .MKrHH<;-.\.M.MAii.
4- 19"}} resen. Is. 30 28 ((B doubtful), Job 30 11 ixakivot),
Ps. 32 9 («r>)(uos). Job 41 13 [5] EV (flw/>a|). Perhaps ' bit ' would
be a better renilcrint;.
5. X"-^'""* Jas. 33 RV, .\V 'bit'; Rev. 14 20 KV (cp Eur.
Aicesiis, 492); cp HoKSK, jj 2.
BRIER. Six Hei)rcw words have to Ix; considered.
I- D':,713,' barkdnhn (Judg. 87 i6t), are mentioned
along with ' thorns of the wilderness ' as the instruments
with which Gideon ' taught,' or rather ' threshed ' (r. 7 ;
C|) Moore's comm. ad loc. ), the men of Succoth. The
etymology of the Hebrew word being unknown and
its occurrence so rare, it is scarcely worth while to
speculate as to the kind of thorn intendeil.
We may notice that according to I5oissier, 3 602 (quoted by
Aschcrson in l,o\v, 429), h-rkiin is in nio<iern times an .Araliic
name for I'haceof'af'pus scoparius, Hoiss. The r'arallcli-in witli
'thorns of the wilderness' in lx)th places is enou^ih to rt'";ite the
absurd idea invented by Micbaelis and adopted by dtsenius
that C'J^"13 meant 'threshing-wains.' The method of torture
alluded to is that of carding (see Moore).
2. TCC*. samir, occurs eight limes in Is. (56 "232425
9 18 [17] 10 17 274 32 13),"- in seven of these along with
n'c*, a word of similar meaning, tc;? is a genuine
Semitic word, and Celsius (2 188 cp Friinkel, 89)
pointed out its aftinity with Ar. sumur, some kind of
thorny plant. The Hebrew word seems a general one
for thorny plants, of which there are many kinds in
Palestine (Tristram enumerates sixteen sjiecies of Kluiiii-
nctc, Fl'P 263 ff. ). The ancient versions give no
help towards a nearer determination of the species.
3- 1S"0, iii-par (Kovvi'a [Sym. kvU] Is. 55i3t). a
wilderness-plant, probably of the nettle kind, as its name
is apparently connected with r^-c ;= rx-, ' to burn.'
© .Aq. Theod. took it to Ije the ' fleah.nne' ; Sym. and Vg. the
'nettle'; Pesh. renders ftitkra, prolnbly 'savory.' Any of
these will suit the passage well ei)oiii;h ; under the new dis-
pensation this plant was to give place to the myrtle.
4- C"3T3. sdrdbhini, AV"'>:- 'rebels' (irapoiaTp-fiaovai
[Sym. Irafjiol, Th. 5v<tko\oi] Ezek. 26t), is not a plant
name.
According to the testimony of all the ancient versions, the
word is almost certainly to be read as the participle (C':"I3) of a
verb common in Aram., 'to gainsay falsely" or 'iilly' ; and the
' O merely transliterates ; in v. 7 .\q. renders rpayaxiu^ac
and Sym. rpt^oAot/f (see KiKi.D, a J Ak:).
2 In the other three places where TCC* occurs (Jcr. 17 i E/ek.
89 Zech. "12) it is rendered 'diamond' or 'adamant' (se«
AuA.MA.vT, S 3)-
610
BRIGANDINB
following word, D'JPD, is perhaps a mistake for D^bb (' despising ')
or some such word, so that the clause would read ' though they
gainsay and contemn thee ' (see Co. ad loc). There is no support
anywhere for a word D'3^0 meaning 'briers.'
5- p'?p. sillan (<tk6\o^, Ezek. 2824),' is connected with
Jewish Aram. kiS'o. Syr. salwd, Ar. sulld, Mand. Kn'S'O
(Low, 150), all of which mean a 'thorn' or 'pricking
point.'
6. pin, hedek (dKavdai,^ Prov. 15i9 [where EV
•thorns'"] Mic. 74t). is by Wellhausen (A7. ProphS^^ 149)
connected with Ar. hadika, .an enclosed garden or
orchard ; he reads in Micah n3iD20 mtr' pinp D3ia (' ihr
Bester ist aus der Dornhecke und ihr Gradester aus dem
Gestriipp '), thus producing a good parallelism. On the
other hand, Low (147), following Celsius (ii. 35^), ex-
plains the word by reference to Ar. hadak, which, accord-
ing to Lane [s.v.), is Solanum cordatum. Tristram
(FFP, 368) identifies it with Solanum sanctum, L.
(sometimes called the apple of Sodom : see Biid.*^' 152).
We m.iy at all events gather from Prov. 15 19 that a
thorny plant capable of forming a hedge is intended.
For Heb. 68 AV [r/st'/JoXotj, see THISTLE [4]. N. M.
BRIGANDINE (|np), Jer. 464, RV ' coats of mail' ;
see Bkeasti'l.\te (i. ).
BRIMSTONE {i.e., brenston, 'burning stone';
T\'''yZi\, gophrith; ddoy -.^ sulphur).
The passages are Gen. 19 24 Dt. 29 23 [22] Job 18 15 Ps. 11 6 [7]
Is. 30 33 349 Ezek. 3822 Lk. 1729 Rev. 917/ 14 10 19 20 20 10
21 8t). Gophr'ith is apparently connected with TS3i ' bitumen '
BUKKI
(cp the Aram, and Ar. forms with initial k\ but surely not of
Bactrian origin, as L.igardc-* supposed.
Almost invariably the passages in which brimstone
is mentioned relate to divine judgments ; there is no
direct statement of any use to which sulphur was
put by the Hebrews. They cannot have known any-
thing of the industrial uses of that mineral, which have
so largely added to the wealth of the regions where it is
most easily obtained [e.g., Sicily). The only objects to
which it was applied by the ancients, according to Plin.
HNZhis, are the making of lamp wicks [ellychnia],
the fumigation and cleansing of wool, certain medical
remedies, and, lastly, religious purifications * (cp Od.11
481 483 ; after the slaughter of the suitors).
It may be conjectured, however, that sulphur was used in
the so-called Toi-heth (q.v.) of the Valley of Hinnom (cp Is.
80 33), and one conclusion may safely be drawn from the many
descriptions in which brimstone is referred to— that the Israelites
were not unacquainted with the volcanic phenomena known as
'solfatara ' or those known as 'fire-wells' (as emanations of car-
buretted hydrogen, when they take fire, are frequently called).
These ' fire-wells 'occur in many of the districts where mud-
volcanoes appear, in Europe, Asia, and N. America.** Reminis-
cences of phenomena of this kind apparently underlie certain
parts of the account of the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah
in Gen. 19 and the other passages (see above) where the same
narrative is directly or indirectly alluded to.
It is probable that the Hebrews, like the Greeks (see
//. 14415 Od. 12417) and the Romans (Plin. HN Sois),''
associated the ozonic smell whicn often so perceptibly
accompanies lightning discharges with the presence of
sulphur. This may help to explain the passages which
describe or allude to the overthrow of Sodom and
Gomorrah as having been brought about by a rain of
fire and brimstone from heaven (Job 18 15 ? Gen. 19 25j
Ps. 116 Ezek. 3822 Lk. 1729).
BBOIDEBED COAT, RV ' coat of chequer work '
1 On D':i?D, Ezek. 2 6 see above, 4.
2 The reading of ® in Mic. 7 4 (dn <rr\<s iKTjMyoiv) presupposes
a reading pnh^J (Vollers in ZA TiVi 10).
S Probably from the same root as dvia,/uinus, and wholly un-
connected with Seo9.
4 Beitr. 74 27 ; .?^w. 1 64/ ; Sym. 2 93/
CpOv. Met.U^<)^/.,
Lurida supponunt foecundo .sulfura fonti,
Incenduntque cavas fumante bitumine venas.
8 See Sir Archibald Geikie in Ency. £r/f.fJ) 10 251.
7 Fulmina, fuU^ura quoque sulpuris odurem habent, ac lux
ipsa eorum sulpurea est.
611
()*2t?'n nana), ex.
Tunic, § 2.
See Embroidery, § i ;
See
BROIDERED WORK (Hap-I), Ezek. 16
E.MHkOIDKKV, § 1.
BROOCHES (D^nn), Ex.3522 RV ; AV 'bracelets'
[see Hook, 2]. See also Buckle, 1.
BROOK. The Hebrew word usually thus rendered
is?n3, nakal {xeifidft^ovs; cp in NT Jn. I81), which,
like the Ar. wiidy, denotes not only the flowing brook
itself (cp |n*X 7n3, Am. 524), but also, like the Ar.
%uddy, the drierl-up river bed ' (cp the term 3T3X, Jer.
15 18). Hence Job likens his unstable brethren to
a brook whose supply of water cannot be counted on
(Job 615).
In Is. 19 6, lii-D nk'i y'Dre mdfSr, 'the brooks of defence,"
means rather ' streams of Egypt ' (so RV). ^^<', y'Sr, a word
which bears resemblance both to the Eg. 'io{t)ru*, ' river,' and to
the Ass. ia'uru, 'stream,' is applied usually to the Nii-E.
P*SX. 'aphik, in D^'O 'P'BK, aphikc mayim, ' water-brooks,' Ps.
42 2 [3] Joel 1 20 (irijyou, a<f>t<Tfii v&dTiov), is a poetical word
which, from its radical idea of holding or confining, denotes
properly a channel (cp Is. 8 7). It is otherwise rendered ' stream,"
'river,' ' waters,' etc., and occurs in various involved figurative
meanings, in Job 12 21 (AV 'the mighty'), 40 18 (AV 'strong
pieces'), 41 15 [7] (D'^O T?*^, AV 'scales").
Vs'D, mii/ial, rendered ' brook ' in 2 S. 17 20, is a word of un-
known etymological history (for Fr. Del. 's identification with the
Ass. mekaltu, ' a canal,' cp Dr. ad loc. and ZDMG 40 724). The
word, if not corrupt (We. conjectures some such word as
~ni) or out of its place, is quite unknown.'
'For Brook Of Egypt (cn-^O Sn:), Is. 27 12 RV, see Egypt,
River ok. For Brook of the Arabah (.lanjjn '^np). Am. 614
RV, sec- Arauah, Brook of the. s. A. C.
BROOM (Dn'l), I K. 194 RV^e-. AV Juniper.
BROTH (P"1^), Judg. 619/ Is. 65 4t. See Cooking,
§ 3 ; S.\ckifice.
BROWN (Din), Gen. 30 32/ AV ; see Colours, § 8.
BUCKET [h'^, cp Ar. dalw'"', Ass. dilAtu), Is. 40 15
((cdSos [BX.'\Qr]) ; in Nu. 1i^ {(r-KipjM [BAFL]), used
figuratively of Israel's prosperity. See Agriculture,
§5-
BUCKLE. I. According to some authorities the nn
(c(|)pAr'AAC, armillas) of Ex.3522 was a buckle (AV
'bracelets,' RV 'brooches'). See Ring.
2. So, too, the mi'i'K of 2 S. 1 10. See Bracelet
(5)-
3. irSpirr] (iMacc. IO89 II58 I444) was a gold
buckle, bestowed in one instance as an honourable
distinction on Jonathan by king Alexander Balas, ' as
the use is to give to such as are the kindred of the king
(i Mace. 10 89).
Such buckles or brooches formed the fastenings of the outer
garment on the breast or over the shoulder. They were of
various shapes, the commonest being a flat circular ring with a
pin passing through the centre (Rawlinson). The use of golden
buckles (like that of the purple robe) was reserved to men of dis-
tinction (see passages cited, and cp llivy, 3931) ; see Crown, S 4.
BUCKLER. For |3p, mJgen (2 S. 2231 --VV), T\yi.
ftnnak (Ps. 352), •"I'lnb, sohcrah (Ps. 9I4) see Shield. For
npn, romah (i Ch. l/s) see Spear (so R'V).
BUGEAN (BoYfAlOC [BNAL"], bugaius), Est. 126
AV. See Agagite.
BUKKI ("pa, § 52 ; abbreviated from -in'ipa ;
BOKx[e]i [L]; see Bukkiah).
1. .'^aid to have been the fourth in descent from Aaron in the
line of Eleazar : i Ch. 0 5 51 [5316 36] (?/. 5 B«« [B), -luxai [.\] ;
^ ^n: is accordingly sometimes rendered ' valley ' : cp, e.g., Dt.
2 36 2 Ch. -.'O i6 33 14 in RV.
2 The Targ. identifies 'j^'o with the Jordan. No help can be
obtained from the Versions, unless the JieAjjAuflacri (rireuioiTtsof
(Bl be correct, in which case Q'on ^3*0 "i^y ^ •> corruption of
some such word as D'lJSD or Q'ViiJJO (elsewhere late). See
also H. P. Smith, ad loc.
6l3
BUKKIAH
v.^i .««t (P.AD; Ezra 7^ (BoK«(fli (UAl)=i E«d.8a, Uoccas
(IloKita [ItA]). In4KMl. la the name appears as Ituritb
(Honth).
■1. l>.inite ; one of the chiefs chosen to divide Canaan (Bax«i^
[I»l. -XX' I' 1. -««"P I'l. »o««' I'^l). Nu.34aa [P).
BUKKIAH (•in'pa. jx-rhaps connected with the
Syr. verb \es.^. and. if pointed H^'i^S. signifying
'Yahwe has tested,' §§ 39, 52); one of the sons of
Hcnian. l C h. 2r)4 13 ( BOYKCIAC [B]. BOKKIAC, KOKK.
[A], BoKXiAC \\'\ Ui-oa). See Bakbukiah.
BUL (713, [xrhaps ' r;un-month,' from 7l3* ; cp in
Ph. 73, CIS i. no. 31 ; its identification with the Pahn.
divine name 713 (in 7l313y, etc. ) is not certain ; B&aA
[BA]. BoyA ['^l). ' K. 638. See Month, §§ 2, 5.
BULL (T,3. Jt-r. f>2ao; 19, Gen. 32i5[i6] ; litr.
Job21 10 ; T3k I's. 50 13. and T&YPOC, Heb. 9 13). See
Caitle, § 2. For the bull in mythological representa-
tions, see Calf, Goi.dkn ; Catti.k, § 14; CiiKKtu.
§ 7 ; anfl cp Stars, § 3 a. For the brazen bulls (2 K.
16 17), see Ska, Brazkn. It is worth adding th.at
bull-lights are often represented on wall-paintings in
Egyptian tombs (see P. E. Newberry, El Bersheh,
pt. i. , p. 28, n. 1).
BULLOCK ("IS), Ex. 29 10. See Cattle, § 2.
BULL, WILD(Nin). Is. 51 20, AV ; RV Antelope
BULRUSH (lb;iX). Is. 585 (RV 'rush'), and BuL-
Rusiiics (N^i), K.\. 23 Is. I82 (RV in the latter 'papy-
rus'), both words elsewhere Rushes [q-v.).
BUL"WARK. For h^X), hel (AV occasionally, RV
usually ' rampart '), see Fortress, § 5 ; for n39, pinnah, 2 Ch.
2615 (RV ' battlements,' mg. ' corner towers '), see Hattle-
MENT and FouTKEss, § s; for ^ii^D, wa/A^ (Eccl.9 14), and
•lisO, ni.isor ( I )t . 20 20), see War.
BUNAH (n:-13 'intelligence': cp in Palm. W13,
Vog. Syr. Ceri., no. 3), a Jerahmeelite (BanaiA [B],
Baana [A], amina[L]). iCh. 225.
BUNDLE (l'n>*), Gen. 4235 of money; Ct. I13 of
mvrrh ; i S. 25 29 of life. See Bag (4).
'BUNNI ('33, '':-13 and '])-13, §§ 5. 79 ; cp Bani).
1. A Levite, Neh. !>4 Oofnat [L] ; transl. vi6<: (BKA]), see
Ezra, ii. § i:j(y.); possibly identical with the signatory to the
covenant (see Kzka, i., 8 7), Neh. 10 15 [16] Oan [I5KA], fioKxti
or vioi [1.]), whose name, however, is perhaps due to ditto-
graphyofliAM [n. 4I in ;•. 14 (.-,].
2. Another Levite, one of the overseers of the temple, Neh,
11 15 (\\H.\ om., ^vva [L], -ou [Kc.amg. sup.]) ; not mentioned in
y iCh.'.ii4.
BURDEN (Nb??, massd—i.e., 'lifting up"; hence
either ' burden ' or ' utterance ' [' to utter 'is 'to lift up
the voice']). 'Burden' in EV, when used of a pro-
phetic revelation, should rather be 'oracle' (as RV'"*.'-
2 K. 925 etc.). Cp Pkophecy. The term innssd
became a subject of popular derision in the time of
Jeremiah, owing to its double meaning (see above),
so that Jeremiah pronounces a divine prohibition of its
use (Jer. 23 33,^ ). It continued, however, to be used in
the headings of prophecy. As to the application of
masui, once only it denotes divine judicial sentence
(2 K. 925; cp Jer. 2336); elsewhere there is no such
limitation of meaning. In Prov. 30i beyond doubt
K3p should be emended to Scto, in 31 1 to VtrD (see
Agur, Lemuel).
©HKAQ renders variously A^fx^xa (In the Minor Prophets
regularly), pi^a (Is. \:> i 17 i 22 i and 21 1 [Q]), opa/xa (Is. 21 i
also iK 15 1 [A], 22 1 [A], and 23 1 [KAQn>K ]), and opa<rit (Is.
BURIAL (n-yi3p), Is. 14 20. See Dead, § i.
BURNING (ns-l^). 2Ch.21t9. See Dead. § i ;
Law and Justice, § 12.
613
BUSH
BURNING AGUE(nnii?; iKT€poc[AFL], ikthp
[? B]i, l.<v. ijt; lof ; see Diseases, § 6, Medicine.
BURNT OFFERING (H^ir). Ix.-v.l3; see Sacri-
fice.
BURNT OFFERING, ALTAR OF (H^yn n3|p).
Ex. 3O28; see Altar, §2/ ; Sacrifice.
BUSH represents in AV three different Hebrew words.
1. njo. ifn<!h (/Sdroi, rubus : Kx. 82-4 Dt.33i6 Mk.
1236 Lk. 644 [EV 'bramble bush'] 2O37 ActsTsosst)
1 Hebrew ^•^'"^'^'^ ^ rough thorny bush — which is
terms '''* original sense of our ' bramble ' — as
is shown by the use of the same word in
later Hebrew, in Aramaic, Arabic, and As.syrian, and
confirmed by the rendering of the ancient Versions.
Low (275), following Forskfd (Flor. Aig. Ar. cxiii. ),
identifies it with Kubus fruticosus. Some, on the
ground that the bramble is not found on Sinai, assume
that a kind of acacia is referred to. These Hebrew and
Greek words are used in OT and NT respectively only
in connection with the theophany to Moses in Iloreb
(Sinai), except in Lk. 644.' In OT (Kx. 82-4 I)t. 33 16).
and in Acts? 3035, the term refers to the actual bush;
in Mk. 1226=Lk. 2O37 (see RV) to the section of
Exodus containing the narrative (see below, § 2).
2. n'bi iidh (x^w/xij', virgultum, EV 'plant,' Gen.
25; AciTi7, arbor, EV 'shrub,' Gen. 21 15 ; also Job
304 7t") is in Gen. 25 probably used in a general sense
of any wild-growing shrub ; in the other passages the
reference may be more specific. Low (78), who cites
the Syriac and Arabic equivalents — sihd and //"// —
identifies it with Artemisia judaica L, but allows that
the Arabic word is used by Syriac lexicographers for
various species. See also W'etzstein, Keiseber., 41.
3- C'V^n^.' nahilOiim [JM-yas, foramina, AV ' bushes,"
RV 'pastures,' mg. 'bushes,' Is. 7i9t) is almost
certainly connected with the root Snj, Ar. nahata (see
Barth, /V/i2i5), whose projjer sense is that of leading
cattle to the drinking-place. The noun, therefore,
means ' drinking-places ' — like Ar. manhal or maurid.
This is better than the more general rendering
'pastures.' 'Clefts' (€5, Vg. ) rests on a false ety-
mology; and 'bushes' (Saad. etc., A\') is seemingly
due to conjecture (Ges. Thcs.).
The theophany in the bush (Ex. 82-4) is remark.able.
Elsewhere the ' angel of Yahw6' is a theophany inhuman
2. The 'burning ^°''"\=^"' ^T ^^P^^^'^'y <"«'«
. , , ° x'-L'.ibT,) the only special appearance
^^ ■ is that of fire. The nearest parallel
is Judg. 1320, where the angel ascends in a flame of
fire ; but the human form of the appearance is there
unmistakable. The story in the form which it assumes
in E.xodus appears to have resulted from a fusion of two
widely current beliefs — that fire indicated the divine
presence (see Theoi-hany, § 5), and that certain
trees were the permanent abodes of deities. It seems
probable from the character of the reference in I)t.
3oi6 that there was current a different form of the
story, according to which the bush was Yahwc's
pi-rmanent dwelling ; for the phraseology (.130 'J2C*.
' who dwelt in the bush ' ) indicates the same per-
manency of the divine presence as was subsecjuenlly
supposed to characterise the teniple. Renaii, however,
would read *3'o -i,zc, ' who dwells in Sinai ' (cp v. 2), and
certainly in Exodus the fiery appearance is clearly re-
garded as, like other thcophanies, teni|X)rarj'. Rolx-rt-
son Smith (A"*"/. iVw.'-' 193/ ) cites some parallels from
non-biblical sources, and argues that ' the origin.al seat
of a conception like the burning bush, which must have
its physical basis in electrical phenomena, must prob-
' mo occurs also as the proper name of a Rock, i S. I44 (see
Michmash).
3 Where & (^x*"*^'' '"^x""') '>** been led a.stray by the
likeness of the word to the verb n'S? i but Aq. and Sym. have
^vrd (in r'. 7 .Sym. ifivTa. iypia).
611
BUSHEL
ably be sought in the clear dry air of the desert or of
lofty mountains. ' We need not rationalise and suppose
a bush of the nedk, overgrown with the Loranthus
acacift, which has an abuntiance of fire-red blossoms
(so the botanist traveller Kotschy, in Furrcr's art.
' Dorn," DL2ii). Cp further Baudissin, Stud, zur
sem. Religionsgesch. 2 223 ; Jacob, Altarab. Parallelen
sum ATjf. N. M., § i; G. B. G., § 2.
BUSHEL (MOAlOCi modius), a measure of capacity ;
Mt. 5i5 Mk. 421 Lk. Il33.t See Weights and
Measures.
BUTLER (ni5^"P), Gen. 40 1 41 9; cp Cupbearer,
and see Mkals, §11.
BUTTER (HNOn). Gen. 188. See Milk.
BUZ (n3). I. Second son of Nahor, Gen. 222i
(Bar^ [A] -f [L])- As Buz is mentioned in connec-
tion with Dedan and Tema in Jer. 2523 (Pwy [BN^AQ],
-d [K*], Bci^f [Q'"^]), it must have been an Arabian
people. Buz and Hazo (q.v.) are connected by Del.
(Par. 307 ; Riehm's H\.VB(-), 124) with the Biizu and
Hazii of the annals of Esarhaddon (Budge, Hist, of
Esark. 59-61, KB, 2130/". ), two districts not to be
exactly identified, but evidently in close pro.vimity to N.
Arabia. Esarhaddon's description of the land of Bazu
is not an inviting one ; it was a desolate, snake-haunted
CADES
region. Probably Buz should Ix; vocalised Boz (t"i3), to
accord with Bazu and the vowels av and w in the Gk.
forms (cp Erankel, Vorstudien su der Sept. 116).
2. A Gadite {ia^ovx<Ht. [BJ, Bou^' [L], Axt/Sovf (A ; see Ahi,
I]), iCh.6i4t.
BUZI (*TU, probably a gentilic ; see Buz), father of
the prophet E/.ekiki. {q.v., § i), Ez. l3[2] (BoyzLejl
[BAQ], ne(t)<\YAiCMeNOC [Q""-'])-
BUZITE (nia. o BoYz[e]iTHC [BNC], oToy Boyzi
[A]; ©uNAc ajds thc AydellTiAoc Xt*JPAc). a
gentilic noun from Buz {q.v.), applied to Elihu, the
fourth speaker in the poem of Job (Job322), who is
also said to have been 'of the family of Ram." From
the fact that Ram is the name of a Judahite family, to
which Boaz and David are said to have belonged (Ruth
41921), and that an Milm appears in i Ch. 27i8 as
'one of the brethren of David,' Dcrenbourg (REJlb)
conjectures that ' Buzite ' should rather be "Bozite' =
' Boazite ' ('lyia). To complete this theory Elihu ought,
it would seem, to be David's brother. Unfortunately
' Elihu ' in i Ch. 27 18 is most probably corrupt, and,
even if not, ' brethren ' is a vague and uncertain term
(see Ei.iHU, 2). Moreover, dramatic propriety naturally
suggested the description of Elihu as an Aramwan Arab.
Ram (q.v., 2) is probably a fictitious name, like Elihu
and Barachel. t. k. c.
c
CAB, RV Kab (ip ; kaBoc [BAL]), 2K.625t, a
dry measure, one-si.\th of a seah (see Wkights and
Measures). So at least Jewish authorities (see Bu.x-
torf, s.v. 3i?) ; but in this passage 2p ('cab ') is prob-
ably a scribe's error for 13 ('cor'). See Dove's
Dung, Husks.
CABBON (p23, xaBra [RA], xaBBco [L]), an un-
identified city in the lowland of Judah, mentioned
between Eglon and Lahmas (Josh. I540). It is pos-
sibly the same as the M.\chbe.n.\ — AV M.\chbenah
(mzzrp; /j-axaji-nva [B], -afxrjva [A], /xax^ava [L]) —
mentioned among the Calebite towns enumerated in
iCh. 249, and may perhaps be represented by the
present el-Kubeibeh, lying between Kh. 'Ajlan and
Kh. el-Lahm, sites that have been proposed for Eglon
and Lahmas.
CABINS (nr.Jn), Jer. 37 i6t, AV ; RV Cells {q.v. ).
CABUL ("p-na; xooBa [macomcA] [B], xaBcoA
[A]. XO. [E]), a town in the territory of Asher (Josh.
1927), the xa^wXw (variants -\y\ -/3o\. , -^a\. ,
7a/xaXa)>') mentioned by Josephus ( I'it. 43, 44, 45) as
a village on the confines of Ptolemais, 40 stadia from
Jotapata (modern Jefat), may safely be identified with
the modern A'a^///, 236 ft. above sea-level, 9 m. SE. from
Acco. It is probably the xa/SonXw;/ (but other codd.
read fa/3oi/\wv), which Josephus (5/83) gives as on
the sea coast of Tyre and forming the E. frontier of
Lower Galilee. The name was current at the time of
the Crusaders as Cabor or Cabour, a fief presented
in 1186 to Count Joscelin by King Baldwin IV., and
it gave its name to a family ( Rey, Colonies Franques en
Syrie).
In I K. 9 10-13 it is told how Solomon, on the com-
pletion of his buildings in Jerusalem to which Hiram
contributed, gave to the latter ' twenty cities in the land
of Galilee,' but Hiram was dissatisfied with them and
' they were called the land of Cabul unto this day '
^Heb. Vns jnx, (S"-^'- 6piov for "joa ; Jos. ^«/. viii. 53,
615
XO/SaXwy, described as bordering on Tyre ; c. A p. I17,
XO-^ov\(i3v, ' a piece of land in Galilee ').^ For the state-
ment of Josephus that in Phoenician the name means
'unpleasing' (ovk a.pi(jKOv) there is no evidence. Yet
the true explanation ought not to be far away. If we
could recover it we should see that the popular wit was
not so poor as Hiller, Ewald, and Thenius supfwsed
[i^22-':'^. 'as nought"). Cheyne (PSBA, 21 inf.
['99]) would correct 'land of Cabul' into 'land of
Zebulun ' ; ['?i3] may have l)een written 'Sist, and when
the mark of abbreviation had been lost, some learned
scrilje may have corrected ^ui into Su3. The witticism
would be like that which explained Beelzebul as ' lord
of dung,' and 'Izebel as 'what dung' (see Beelzebul,
Jezebel) ; it would be a new popular etymology of
Zebulun. The ' twenty cities,' on this hypothesis, were
in the lower part of the Galil, which, in the time of
Josephus, and probably also when iK. 911-13 was
edited, extended as far as Xa/3oi'\wi' or Cabul. Of
course the writer does not mean to say that the name
Zebulon was now given for the first time ; he only offers
a new justification for the name. For a less probable
view C^ua corrupted from '?''?j ; cp S^a, 'dung'), see
Klostermann. (Cp also Bottg. , Topogr.-hist. Lex. zu
Josephus, s.i'. ' Chalabon.') By its own evidence (' unto
this day') the story, in its present form, is by no means
contemporary with the events with which it deals.
The Chronicler, whose views would not allow him to record
the cession of a p.irt of the Holy Land to the Gentile, so alters
the story as to make it appear that it was Hiram who 'gave the
cities to Solomon'! (2Ch.8 2). The AV translators have
attempted to reconcile this with the story in Kings by rendering
' gave ' ' restored ' (RV ' had given ').
CADDIS, RV Gaddis (taAAic [AV], -ei [N]), sur-
name of JOANNAN (1 Mace. 22). See Maccabees,
J- §§ I 3-
CADES. RV Kedesh (KHAec [AN], kgA. [V],
I Mace. 11 63). See Kedesh, 3.
1 A scholiast (Field's //ex., I.e.) interprets Vl3D l>y iowA«o«.
616
CADBS-BARNB
CADES-BARNE UaAhc Barnh [BNA]). Juciith5M
AV ; k\' Kadimi-Haknka.
CADMIEL (kaAmihAoy [A]). iEsd.5»6 AV.
k\' Kaumh-.l.
C-SSAR (kaicap [Ti. WH]) is used in the NT
as a tale ol Augustus (Lk. 2i) and Tilierius (id. Si).
The latter emperor is. moreover, the ' C.x-sar ' of Mt.
2217/: Mk. 1-.>m/: I.k. 2022^ (cp 232) and Jn. 19.2/:
Claudius C';i'sar is named in Acts 11 28 (AV. but KV
om. C;i'sar with Ti. W'H). and is alluded to in ActslT;.
The 'C:vsar' of Paul (Acts258/: 2632 2724 2819) is
Nero, whose 'household' is mentioned in I'hil. 422(0!
iK TTJi Kalffapos olniai). The reference here is hanlly
to n)en>l>ers of his family, but. as in the case of
Stephanas in i Cor. 16 15. to ihe /amt/ia or household
slaves. See further Ai'OCALVPSE, § 43^, Iskakl,
§§87-115.
CSS ARE A. I. Csesarea Palsestinse (kaicaria
[Ti. Wll], -eiA [Jos.]; in Talm. '<-\D'P. mod. Arab.
1 Earlipr ^'■^-^'^'^'''''y''^^' '''^ only real port south of
hiatorv *^>*''"'*^'' *'^ built by Herod the CJreat (on
■'' the nanie, see § 3) in time for it to become
the capital of the Roman province of Judrta. and to
play the great part in the passage of Christianity west-
ward from Palestine which is described in Acts. The
site was that of a Phcinician (cp Jos. ./«/. xiii. I54)
settlement with a fortification called the Tower of
Straton C^Tpdruvoi llvpyos) — a Hellenic form of a
Phcenician proper name. Astartyaton (Pielschmann.
GescA. der I'hon. 81 ; Hildcsheimer, ]ieilr. z. Ccoi,'.
Palest, ^ff., where the variant reading ti? '?-i:a or ic,
' Devil's -Tower," given in Talmud W Shchiith, vi. 1 36,
and in Talmud B Mfi^i/la is explained as a Jewish
nickname for a town called after a worshipper of
Astarte). There was, according to Strabo, a landing-
place {irpdaop/jiov /x^")- At the end of the second
century n.i. . the town was under a 'tyrant.' Zoilus
(Jos. .Int. xiii. Pia); but Alexander Jann.x-us took it for
the Jews, along with the other coast towns {/fi. 15).
These were enfranchised by Pompey and made suljject
to the province of Syria (/</. xiv. 44). After the Rattle
of Actiunj they were presented to Herod the Great
along with Samaria and other places by Augustus (id.
2. Rebuilt by "^•J.^'- »yP '° !*^'' T^ ""'''^ ^"^'^
Herod contmed his building designs to the L.
side of the Central Range. Now, how-
ever, in alliance with Rome, he came over the watershed,
and out of Samaria built himself a capital which he
called after his patron, Sebast6. Requiring for this a
seaport that should keep him in touch with Rome, he
chose Straton's Tower as the nearest suitable site to
Sebaste. He laid the lines of a magnificent city, which
took him twelve years to build (id. xv. 96 ; ' ten years,'
xvi. 5 1 ).
Josephus describes the thorough and lavish archi-
tecture.
In the usual Creek fashion, there were palaces, temple,
theatre, ampliithentre, and many arches and altars. There were
also vaults for draining the city— as carefully constructed as the
buildings .nlxjve ground. A bieakwater 200 ft. wide was formed
in 20 fathoms depth by drooping enormous stones. The south
end was connected by a mole with the shore, and the mouth of
the harlwur looked N., the prevailing winds on this coast Iwing
from the SW. (id. xv. it6 ; Ji/ i. 'Jl 5-8). 'lo-day the remains of
the breakwater are 160 yards from shore, and the mouth of the
harbour measures 180 yariis (P/:/- At em.).
Herod called his litv, like Sebaste, after Augustus, Kattro/Mta
"Xtfiatrrri, and his harbour .\ifi>)i' 2«^a<rTO«. When Cl.-tsarea
Philippi was built (see below, § 8), Herod's sea-
8. Names, p^rt came to be diNtinguished from it by the names
Kaiirapfta irapoAiof, K. t\ iir'i SaAoTTT), and even
K. 1^ »rp<K Sc^aarijt .\i^(Vt (on a coin of Nero, l)e Saulcy,
NHiiiism. de la Terre Sninte, 116), and Carsarea Palajstina;.
The name of Straton survived long (Jos. Ant. xvii. 11 4, Slrab.
XV., Kiiiphanius />«• pond, et nuns. 125, Ptol. v. 16). The
Talmud calls the city after the harbour, Leminah.
Csesarea became the virtual capital of all Palestine.
617
C^SAREA
'Ccesarea Jud.i-.Ts caput est.' says Tacitus {//isf.ijt).
A. A nytman '' ^''^ thoroughly Roman ; the Talmud
ciU '''' ■^''.<'^''*''' ^) <:»"* 't daughter of
'■ Ildom. the mystic name for Rome. The
Procurator lived there ; there was an Italian garrison
(ActslOi; cp CoKNKi.its. § 1); and in the temple
there were two statues- of Augustus and of Rome.*
Though there were many Jews (Jos. Ant. xx. 879. BJ
ii. 13; 144/. iii. 9:), the inhabitants were mainly
(Jcntile.
Here, then, very fitly, was poured out upon the
(Jentiles the gift of the Holy (Jhost (Actsl045). There
j-_ had been a Christian congregation from
references. '^^ •^•'"■""\ P"^^'*''^' V"'" ''?"'•'■ °"^' °'
the seven Deacons, took up his residence
there ( Acts 8 40 ; cp 21 8 16). Atx)Ut 41 A.l). there
came to a Roman centurion CoKNKMLS (q.v.) a divine
mess;ige to send to Jojjpa for Peter, who was prepared for
this by a vision which taught him that God would make
clean all that the Jewish law had hitherto prohibited as
unclean. Peter came to C;vsarea. made the profound
and tiecisive acknowledgment that God accepts in every
nation him ' that feareth him and worketh righteous-
ness." preached Jesus, saw the descent of the Spirit
upon the little Gentile company, and baptized them
(.\ctslO). This proved the turning-point in the opinion
of the church at Jerusalem (chap. 11). and prepared the
way for the acceptance of the missionary labours of
Paul, to which from this stage onwards the Book of
Acts is devoted.
Ca-sarea is next mentioned as the scene of the awful
death of Herod Agrippa I. (I219I, to whose government
it had Ijeen given over : some of its coins bear his
superscription (.Madden, Coins of the Jeii's, 133, 136).
After him it passed again to the Roman procurator
of Judaea, and became tlie chief garrison of the troops
under him. Paul arrived at Citsarca on his voyage
from rCphesus (Acts 18 22). and there he was tried with
a fairness and security that were impossible in Jeru-
salem (chap. 2.')). The contrast between the two cities,
which is so evident in this story, proves how thoroughly
Roman and imperial Ca-sarea was. liesides receiving
so fair a trial. Paul, during his two years of residence
in the town, was not threatened by the Jews, as he had
been in Jerusalem. From the harbour of Ca.-sarea Paul
sailed on his voyage to Italy (27 i).
The subsequent history of the town is soon told. Contests
between its Jewish and CJentile inhabitants led to, and were
among the first incidents of, the great revolt of
6. Later the Jews against Rome, 66 y/; a.d. (Jos. Ant. xx.
history. ''7 9; /i/ii.iSy ^^*/- ISi v'n.^j). Vespasian
made the town his headouarters, and was there
proclaimed emperor in 69. He established there a colony, but
without the 'jus Italicum," under the title Piima Flavia Augusta
Carsarea, to which, under .\le\ander Seveius, was added Metro-
polis Provincial Syri;e Pale^tina; (Pliny, //A' v. 13 69 ; and coins
m De Saulcy, Aum. dt la V.S. 112 ^. pi. vii.). This deter-
mined the rank of Ca;sarea in the subsequent organisation of
the Church. Its bishop became the Metropolitan of Syria :
Eusebius occupied the oflTice from 315 to 318. Otigen had made
it his home. Procopius was born there. When the Arabs came
it was still the headquarters of the commander of the imiwrial
tro<jps ; ill 638 it was occupied by 'Abu "Obeida. Like all the
coast towns, it lost under Arab domination the supremacy which
the Greek masters of Syria, in their nccevsity for a centre of
power on the sea, had Iwstowed upon it. It became a country
town, known only for its agricultural produce (Le Strange, J'at.
uniter the .Mosleiiis, 474). '1 he advent of a western power with
the Crusaders revived it for a little ; |{aldwin II. took it in 1102,
and rebuilt it ; the present niins are mostly of Crusaders"
masonry. Saladin took it in 1187, Richard I. in 1191 ; and St.
Louis added to its fortiticati.ms. It wa.s linally demolished by
the Sultan Hibars in 1265, and since his time has lain in ruin.
(See further on details Keland, J'al. 670^ ; Schurer, hist.
4 84if; ; GASm. JIG I ;& jr.).
2. Casarea Philippi (KAiCAp[e]iA h 4)iAinnoY.
both in NT [Ti. WH] and Jos. 1, so called after its
7 Site of C '^°""'''^'"' I^""-"' (see Hkkodian Family,
PhiliDDi ^* ^^'' "-''"'"'^h, son of Herod, to whom
"" ' the district w.as granted in 4 B.C., occu-
pied a site which had been of the utmost religious
1 Philo, Legat. adCaJum, 38, mentions the 'S.tfiacttlov.
618
CAGE
and military importance from remote antiquity. Just
under the S. buttress of Hermon, at the head of the
Jordan valley, alxjut 1150 ft. .above the sea, is a high
cliff of limestone ('from 100 to 150 ft.,' Robinson,
LBR 406) reddened by the water, infused with iron,
that oozes over it from above. A cavern occupies
the lower part of the cliff, filled with the debris of its
upper portion, and from this debris there breaks one of
the sources of the Jordan. It is probably the sanctuary
known as B.\.\L-c;.\i) (q.v.) or Baal-hermon.' Close
by is a steep hill, crowned with the ruins of a mediaeval
castle, Kal'at es-Sulx-beh, and at its foot the miserable
village of Hiinias. Probably here (G.ASm. //(/ 480),
rather than at Tell el-Kadi, the site favoured by most
authorities, lay the city of Laish that was afterwards
Dam [q.v.).
The place must have been early occupied by the
Greeks, both because of its sanctity, and because of its
_ ... strategical position. Polybius (16 18
8. its mstory ,^g^^ mentions it as the scene of the
ana name. ^^^^^ ,^^^^^^ j^ ^^^^^ Antiochus the
Great won Palestine from the Ptolemies. The Greeks
displaced the worship of Baal by that of Pan.
The uave, in which there is still legible an inscription, Ilai't
T« <coc Niific^ac?, was called to \\a.vti.ov (Jos. ^«i'. xv. IO3, BJ
i. 21 3 iii. 10 7), a name afterwards extended to the whole hill
(lUis. //A' " 17). The village and the country around were
designated bv a feminine form of the same adjective, Waviasi or
IIawas(Jos. 'Ant. xviii. 2 i xv. 10 3 xvii. 8 i, etc. ; Pliny, v. 18 74).
In 20 B.C. Herod, having received the district from
Augustus on the death of Zenodorus, the previous lord
of these parts {Ant. xv. IO3 B/ i. 21 3), built a temple to
Augustus and set in it the emperor's bust. The first
year that it came into his possession, 3-2 B.C., Philip
the Tetrarch founded his new town, and called it
Cfesarea after Augustus (--^w/. xviii. 21 /?/ ii. 9i ; coins
in De Saulcy, TVurn. de la T.S. 313^ pi. xviii.). So
it came to be known as Philip's Ccesarea {A/it.xx. 93),
or as Caesarea Panias (see the coins). When Philip
died the Romans administered the district directly, both^
before Agrippa I. to whom it was given, and in the
interval Ixitween him and .Vgrippa II., who embellished
it and changed the official designation to Nepwcids in
honour of .\ero {.Int. xx. 94). The town's full title was
' C;i'sarea Sebasti, Sacred and with Rights of -Sanctuary
under Paneion ' (De Saulcy, pi. xviii. 8). Later the
name C;«sarea was dropped and Paneas survived, the
Arabs when they came changing it to its present form
of Bfinias. A shrine of El-Khidr ( = Elias = St. George)
now occupies the site of the temple to Augustus.
CiKsarea Phijijipi is twice mentioned in the Gospels.
Jesus is said to have come not to the town itself, but to
^j_, the parts {to, fiipt), Mt. I613) or villages
references thereoH^ll^- 827). Probably he avoided
it <is he avoided other Gentile centres
(e.^^., Tiberias) established by the Herods, but in the
great saying which he is said to have uttered in this
neighbourhood, 'Thou art Peter and on this rock will
I build my church," it is possible to see some reference
by contrast to the heathen worship founded upon that
cliff of immemorial sanctity above the source of Jordan.
In the Jewish war Vespasian rested his troops in Cicsarea
(Jos. B/ iii. 97), and in celebration of the close of the war Titus
and .\grippa II. exhibited shows on a large scale (ib. vii. 2 i).
In Christian times Caesarea Philippi was the seat of a bishop ; and
Eusebius {HE 6 18) relates that the woman whom Christ healed
of an issue of blood (I.k. 843) was a native of the town, where a
statue commemorated her cure. Castle and town were the sub-
ject of frequent contests by both sides during the Crusades.
For further details see Rel. Pal. ' Pane.xs ' ; Schurer, Hist.
iii. 132 ; Stanley, SP 391 ; G.VSm. HG \Tiff. G. A. S.
CAOE. Cages (or rather wicker-baskets, cp Am.
82) for confining birds in are mentioned twice in EV
(see Fowls, § 10): (i) in Jer. 527 the houses of the
wicked are as full of (the grains of) deceit as a cage (aiSs
kilub = K\ia?b%, AV"»B- 'coop,' ira7ty [BXAQ]) is full of
birds ; and (2) in Ecclus. 11 30 the heart of a proud man
t Once corruptly Baal-hamon {q.v.)
619
CAIN
is like a decoy partridge in a cage (or basket : iv Kap-
TdWifi [BX.\]. cp Ar. kirtall"", a fruit -Ijasket). A
cage (njiD) for lions also is mentioned in Ezelc lOg RV
(see Lion).
(3) ^\iKaKr\, rendered 'hold' and 'cage' in Rev. I82 (RV
' hold '), denotes rather a prison (so RVmit-).
CAIAPHAS (K&i&ct>&c [Ti.], K&i&'<})AC [WH],
K(\f4>AC [CDabc]), Mt. 20 3 Lk. 82 Jn. 18 13, or perhaps
Caiphas. See .Annas and Caiaphas.
CAIN ("i^ri ; [zaJkanagim [B], [zanco] akcim —
i.e., I^i'pn : m^T [A], [zANOy] AKCN [I^]). a town in
the hill country of Judah (Josh. 1557), niay possibly Ije
the mod. Vakin, 3 m. SE. from Hebron {PKF Mem. ii.
312, 371 ; but see G.ASm. HG 37Q). CpAMALKK, § 6.
CAIN(Pi5; KAIN [.ADEL], ca/n). In Gen. 4 we
have accounts of two different Cains, linked together by
the editor. The proof of this will Ix: briefly indicated
below (§§ 2-4) ; it will be convenient to treat first the
more ancient and simpler of the two stories.
I. Cain is the name of the hero who in Gen. 417 is
represented as the founder of the city
1. The city-
builder of
of Enoch' (Hanok). The name evi
r X tr ^ ff ^'^"''y comes from an early, though not
■ ^'^J'-'^^I'- a genuine Hebrew, tradition; another
document (5 ^ff. ) gives it as Cainan {q.v. ). Its natural
meanings are 'smith,' 'artificer' (Ar. kain, Aram.
kaindyd) ; '^ for the connection with kdndh, ' to produce '
(also ' to acquire'), suggested in Gen. 4i,^ is philologi-
cally difficult. The more general sense ' artificer ' suits
best for Cain the city-builder, and the more special one
' smith ' for the second part of the compound name
Tubal-cain. Both these names are attached to heroes
who at the outset of the tradition must have possessed
a divine character (see Cainites, §§ 5, 10).
2. The central figure of the narrative in Gen. 4 2^-16
also is called Cain.
2. The nomad of The story has come to us in a somewhat
(Jen. 42^-16. abbreviated form. Its substance is as
follows. Once upon a time Cain and his
brother Abel sacrificed to Vahwe. Cain, being a husljand-
nian, brought of the fruits of the ground ; .Abel, as a .shepherd,
offered the fat parts of some of his first-born lambs (cp Nu. 18 17).
Both, as w.-is usual in ancient religion, looked for a visible sign
that their gifts were accepted. What the expected sign was at
the .sanctuary to which they resorted, we are not told (cp WRS,
Ret. Sem.i"^) 178), and we may pass over later conjectures. At
any rate, we learn that only Abel's sacrifice wa.s accepted (see
AiiF.L [i.]). Now Cain, had he been wise, would have demeaned
himself humbly towards Abel, for who can .say to God, What
doest thou? (Job 9 12). Instead of this, he cherished evil
thoughts,-* as an oracle, perhaps sought by Cain, warned him.
' And Vahw^ said to Cain, Why art thou wroth ? and why is
thy countenance fallen? Surely, if thou doest well, thou ctnst
lift up thy head, and if thou doest not well, thy sin must cause
it to fall : from irritating words abstain, and thou take heed to
thyself? And Cain quarrelled with his brother .Abel, and when
they were in the open country . . . ; and Cain assaulted his
brother .Abel, and slew him.' Then follows a fresh oracle,
containing a curse upon Cain, who is condemned, not only to
banishment (cp Hom. //. 2 6^5), but also to a life of restless
wandering. The curse, however, is mitigated by the promise of
protection against outrage, by means of a 'sign' which will
indicate that Cain is under the care of Yahwe.
According to the older commentators, with whom
^ See, however, col. 623, note 3.
2 Di. and Del. support this etymolog>' by the very doubtful
^rj3 commonly rendered 'his spear' (so ©bal), 2 Sam. 21 16,
where a better reading is i>3'p, ' his helmet ' (Kau. JfS, Bu.,
H. P. Smith, .tfter Klo.).
3 Kve exclaims, nn-nK P'K Tl'jp. '•''• 'I have wrought, or
produced, a man with the help of Vahwe.' This can hardly
be right ; "HK is too vague, and the variations of the comment-
ators prove their dis.satififaction with the text. On Marti's view
see col. 621, n. 2. Considering that .-jjp is one of the words mean-
ing ' to create ' (see Crhation, S 30), we may as,sume that Eve,
in the pride of her motherhood, likens herself to her ( ".o<l, and says,
' I have created a man even as Yahwfe.' Targ. Onk. re.-ids for
nKi DKO- This is nearer the truth, pio probably comes from
r\T(i- ih fell out, and D was confounded with K (cp Judg.
* Che. Exp. T., July 1899 ; cp Box, ib., June 1899, and Ball
{SBOT).
6ao
CAIN
even Delitzsch must be grouped, this b the same Cain
„ . as the builder of the first city, and he is
■ ,^^ ^°° also the first-born son of the first man.
' This view is critically untenable (see
t AIM I IS, § 2), mainly on account of the improbabilities
of the course of events which it assumes.
The first man has been, as we know, driven out of Paradise
for traiisKrevsinK a divine command. According to the traditional
view, however, nis first-born son Cain is so little imorcs-sed by
the punishment that he murders his own brother. More than
this, he Ix-comes the direct .inccstor of another murderer, who
apparently goes unpunished, and who is also (contr.iry to the
spirit of 2is) a polygamist. Now note another point. The
original dwelling of Cain is not, as we are to suppose was that
of the first m.in and his wife after their expulsion from Paradise,
to the east of the garden of Eden (see 334), but in a cultivated
and well-pcouled land where Yahwi is worshipped with sacri-
fices, and holds familiar intercourse with men (even with Cain)
— apparently S. Palestine (on 4 t6 sec later). Nor is there any
curse upon the ground which Cain tills; it is his own self-caused
curse that drives him unwillingly into the land of wandering —
i.e., into the desert. There, however, without any explanation,
he gives up his unsettled life, and advances further in civilisation
than before. He builds a 'city.' This is not to be explained
by the ingenious remark' that even nom.id tril)es in Arabia
have central market stations (Ar. karya, plur. iitrd), for 'city'
is evidently used as a general term ; Cain is as much a city-
builder as Nimrod, and only .as such (or, upon IJudde's theory,
as the father of a city -builder) could he find a place in the
Hebrew legend of civilisation. How are these inconsistent
statements to be reconciled ? Every possible way has been
tried and has failed. It was high time to .ipply the key of
analysis ; and no one who has once done this will wish to
return to past theories (see Cai.nitks, § 2).
It may Ije assumed, then, that the story of Cain and
Abel once had an indeixjndent existence, and circulated
,. rv_i • < at one of the sanctuaries of Southern
4. Origin of
story.
Palestine. It is probably not a borrowed
Canaanitish inyth, but an independent
Israelitish attempt to explain the strange phenomena of
nomad life — the per{x;tual wandering in the desert and
the cruelly excessive development of the custom (in itself
a {xjrfectly legitimate one, according to the Israelites) of
vengeance for bloodshed. As Robertson Smith (follow-
ing Wellhausen) rightly remarks, Cain is the embodiment
of ' the old Hebrew conception of the lawless nomad
life, where only the blood-feud prevents the wanderer in
the desert from falling a victim to the first man who
meets him," .and the mark which Yahwe sets on Cain's
person for his protection is ' theskarf or tribal mark (cp
Dt-), without which the ancient form of blood-feud, as
the nflfair of a whole stock, however scattered, and not
of near relatives alone, could hardly have been
worked '2 (cp KiNsmi', §1/, and (Juttings, § i ).
Now we can guess why the nomad of the story is called
_ Cain ; Cain is the eponym of the Kenites
of name (^^° ''"'^ '" '^'^^ called ]]?. ; but cp Amalek,
§ 6 / ), whose close alliance with the
Israelites and location in the wilderness of Judah are
well known. That the Kenites should be so well
acquainted with a more civilised mode of life, and yet
adhere to their nomadic customs, was a surprise to the
Israelites,' and the stor)' of Cain and Alx;l grew up to
account for it. Nothing but a curse seemed to explain
this inveterate repugnance to city life, and a curse im-
plied guilt ; while the unbridled vindictiveness of the
nomads (see Gokl, § 2/ ) was explicable only by a com-
passionate command of Yahwi. who after all was the
God of the Kenites as well as of the Israelites, so that
the distinguishing mark of this tribe was also a sign that
its members worshipped Yahwe and were under his
protection. Cain, then, represents the nomad trilx; l)est
known to the Israelites. He is contrasted with Abel
(i.e. the 'herdman' ; see Abel [i.]), because the pastoral
» HaKvy, RE/Un.
a W. R. Smith, Kinship, ais/; cp Stade, Z.-i TW 14, t^ff.
1*94]. Marti (/,//. Ccntraibl. May 22, 1897) finds a prophetic
reference to this mark in Oen. 4 i, pointing rij<, and rendering ' I
have acquired a man, a bearer of the sign of Yahwe.' .So inde-
pendently Zeydner [Z.4Tlf^ IHiioJf. ('98)]; but the sign is
surely not circumcision. See Stade, o/. cit. 267.
» Ewald suggested this (//isi. 1 271). The theory is most
fully worked out by Stade, not, however, without extravagances
(see Amalek, | 7).
631
CAINITES
life, when com timed with a fixed domicile, seemed to
the Israelites the ideal one. That the Kenites them-
selves would have sanctioned this portrait of their
eponym is not probable. They presumably represented
him with some of the noble features natural to a hero of
solar origin. We cannot, therefore, say with Neubauer
(PSD A 11 283) that the story of Cain and Abel is a
fragment of Kenite folk-lore.
To the memlKr of the Yahwist circle who worked up
the two (not to say three) Cain stories together we niay
ascribe 4 i 2<7, and the words ' on the east of Kden '
in V. 16. The addition of the latter words converts nij
in the poetical phrase lij j-ik. ' land of wandering ' — de-
rived presumably from the old tradition — into a prosaic
proper name, which is boldly identifictl by Sayce and
Boscawen with the land of the Manda or nomads — i.e.,
the mountain ranges of Kurdistan and Luristan. The
original narrator meant presumably the land between
Judah and Edom, where the Kenites lived.
The al)ove contains some fresh points ; but Stade's es.say,
'Das Kainszeichen,' Z.XllV 14250^. \')\^Tjff'. l'94-'95] =
Aktuieiiiische Reiien ['99], 229-273, gives the most complete
critical treatment of the subject. Cp Houtsnia, ' Israel en
(jain,' Till', '76, pp. 82-98. T. K. C.
CAINAN, or rather, as in i Ch. 1 2 and RV,
Kk.nan (|J'p. ; KAINAN [KAL]). I. Thesonof Enosh
(Gen. 59-14). That Kenan is a humanised god has
been shown already (sec Cai.n, § i) ; Cain and Kenan
are forms of one name (cp Lot and Lotan ). pp or p'p, it
may be added, is the name of a god in Himyaritic inscrip-
tions ( ZZ;J/<7 31 86; CIS 4. no. 20; WRS, i<el. iVw.«43).
2. A son of Arphaxad in ©aukl of (len. IO24 (Kaicofi [.A])
11 13, and therefore in Lk.336. The name is due to an inler|)ola-
tion, made in order to bring out ten members in the Kentalu;;y of
(jen. 11 10-26. The real tenth from Noah, however, is 1 crah,
the failier of .\braham. x. K. C
CAINITES. the name generally given to the
descendants of Cain mentioned in (ien. 417-24. Tra-
TT V, dition, as Kwald said long ago, is the
Tradition.
commencement and the native soil of all
narrative and of all history, and its circle
tends continually to expand, as the curiosity of a peojile
awakens to fresh objects, and as foreign tratlitions are
intermixed with those of home growth. Questions alxsut
the origins of things are especially prone to crowd into
the circle of tr.adition, and, when the various traditions
respecting remote antiquity come to lie arrangetl, it is
natural to connect them by a thread of genealogy.
There is a real, though but half-conscious, sense among
the arrangers that what is being produced is not history
but a working substitute for it, and so there is the less
scruple in taking considerable liberties with the form of
the traditions, many of which indeed, being of tliverse
origin, are inconsistent. The Hebrew traditionists, in
particular, were evidently filled with a desire to bring
the traditions into harmony with the purest Hebrew
spirit. In minor matters they agree with the tradition-
ists of other nations : in particul.ar they limit the super-
abundant material for genealogies by the use of round
numbers, especially ten.
Much progress has been made in the study of Gen. 4
and 5 since liwald's time ; but that profound critic has
„ . the credit of having alre.ndv noticed
a. lien. 4 17-24. ,j,.^j ^^^ ^j^^^y ^^ (.^j„ .„,^j ^j^., j^ ^^j
as early as the genealogy which follows. This conclu-
sion may now be taken as settled : Gen. 4 f-t6 and 17-24
are, generally sjxiaking, derived from separate tradi-
tional sources. 1 Both sections are indeed Yaliwistic ;
but the tone and character of their contents is radically
different.
The true meaning of Gen. 4 17-24 was seen first by
Wellhausen. The section contains relics of an Israel-
itish legend which made no reference to the destruction
of the old order of things by a deluge, and traced the
I See Wellh. JDT, 1876, p. -K^iJ- { = C/r 10/), who was
followed by WRS, EB{}'), .art. ' 1-imech ' (Sa), .ind Che. EB(V^
art. 'Deluge' ('77]. So Ryle, Early Surrattvts, 79 [92].
CAINITBS
beginnings of the existing civilisations. The legend is
partly based on nature-myths, for the Hebrews wore
not as unmythological as Renan once supposed. Their
myths, however, were to a large extent borrowed :
when the Hebrews stepped into the inheritance of
C.'anaanitish culture, they could not help adopting in
part the answers which the Canaanites had given to the
question, ' Whence came civilisation ? '
The Canaanitish culture-legend is unhappily lost ; but
the fragments of Philo of Hyblus (Miiller, Fr. Hist.
_ -t- Vi ^'^- 3566/!), when critically treated,
3. Canaanitisn ^^^,^^j ^^^^^^ ^^ j,^^ elements of two
culture legend. Phoenician culture-legends, in one of
which the invention of the useful arts and of occupations
was ascribed to divine lieings, whilst in the other it was
ascribed to men (Gruppe, Z>/V,^/-wA. Culte u. Mythen,
\i,oT ff. ; cp Pucenicia). HOrossus, too, as far as we
can judge from fragmentary reports, appears to have
accounted for knowledge of the arts by a series of mani-
festations of a divine being called Oannes, which took
place in the days of the first seven antediluvian kings of
Babylon ( Lenormant, Les Origines, 1 588/. ). This sub-
stantially agrees with the statements of the tablets that
the bringers of culture were the great gods, such as Ea,
' the lord of wisdom," and his more active firstborn son
Marduk (Merodach), the creator. A striking confirma-
tion of this is supplied by the mythic story translated by
Pinches [see Creation, § 16 (r)], where Marduk is
said to have made, not only the Tigris and the
Euphrates, but also cities and temples.^ City-building
is in fact everywhere one of the characteristic actions of
humanised nature-deities (Osiris, Jemshid, etc.), and it
would be inevitable that the civilised Canaanites should
trace the origin of cities to semi-divine heroes {y)yj.Oiuiv
y^fos av8pQv, II. 12 33), if not to the creator himself.
Still, though the Canaanitish culture-myth is lost, we
may be sure of one point — viz. , that it was largely in-
fluenced by Babylonian myths, the supremacy of Baby-
lonian culture in Palestine at a remote age being amply
proved by the Amarna tablets.
When, therefore, we find in Berossus^ a list of ten
antediluvian kings at the head of the mythic history of
... , Babylonia, it is not unnatural to suppose
_■ that the genealogy of the ten patriarchs in
Uerossus. ^^^ g_ ^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^ shorter one in Gen. 4
is so closely allied, is derived from it, and to attempt
conjectural identifications of the Hebrew and of the Hel-
lenised Babylonian names. This course, w hich has lx;en
adopted by Hommel, the present writer does not think
it prudent to take, ( i ) because we are ignorant of the
phases through which the Berossian list has passed, and
{2) because of the violent hypotheses to which this course
would often drive us.
By taking the Hebrew names, however, one by one,
and using I3abylonian clues, it does not seem hopeless
_ . to reach probable results. C.\IN, for in-
stance— the name which meets us first — -
means 'artificer.' Can we avoid regarding this as the
translation of a title of the divine demiurge, borrowed
from Babylonia through the medium of the Canaanites ?
p , Moreover since E.noch, the son of Cain,
evidently belongs to the same legend, and
indeed shares with his father the honour of the foundation
of the first city' (to which his own name is given), we
cannot hesitate to regard Enoch too as of divine origin.
This view, indeed, is as good as proved if the statements
1 RT*^ 6 I to; Zimmern in Gunkel's Schdff. 120. Cp these
lines (01)v. 37, 39, 4c) —
Lord Merodach [constructed the housel, he built the city,
[He built the city of Nifler], he built K-kura the temple,
He built the city Erech, he built K-anna the temple.
2 Fragm. ix.-xi. in Lenormant, Essai de Coiiim. sur liirose,
341-251.
3 Or did Enoch not rather build the city himself? So Budde,
who emends 133 cr:> ' '"ifter his son's name,' into icrD. ' af'er his
own name' {Urgfst/t. xioff.), thus making 'Enoch' the subject
of the verbs ' builded ' and ' called.'
623
CAINITES
in Gen. 5 22-24 (P) are traditional.' We are told that
Enoch lived 365 years (a solar numljer).'- that he ' walked
with God, and (then) disappeared, for God had taken
him.' The number is attested alike by the Hebrew, the
Sam. and the LXX text, and even if we lay but little
stress on that, the phrases quoted seem unmistakably
primitive, and imply that, in the original form of the
story, Enoch was a semi-divine hero who, at the close
of his earthly days, was taken to the paradise of God.'
When, too, we consider the clear parallelism Ixitween
Enoch and Noah, and Ixilween Noah and Xisuthrus or
Par-napistim (the hero of the Babylonian P'lood-story ;
see Dki.UGK, § 2), it Ixjconies reasonable to identify
Enoch with Par-nai)istim's great visitor in Paradise (he
went there to obtain healing for his leprosy), whose
name is perhaps most correctly reail Gilgame.s. Gil-
games, like Enoch, is a divine being — whether we
regard him as a hero who becomes a god, or (more
plausibly) as a god who becomes a hero, is a matter of
indifference — and like Enoch he is associated with the
sun.'' As Enoch in the Hebrew tradition is the an-
cestor of Noah, so (inverting the relation) Par-napistim,
the Babylonian Noah, is the ancestor of Gilgames. The
latter is said to have crossed the ' waters of death ' * to
pay a visit to Par-napistim in Paradise, and we may
presume that, in the earlier form of the Hebrew narra-
tive, his counterpart (whose original name was certainly
not Noah) received the same reward as Enoch for
' walking with God.' Both Par-napistim and Enoch are
distinguished for their piety, and not only Gilgames but
also Enoch (as we may infer from the emended text of
Ezek. 283, and as is expressly stated in the Book of
Enoch., which has a substratum of genuine, even if
turbid, tradition),'' has been initiated into secret lore,
and knows both the past and the future. Lastly, Enoch
gave his name to the city of Enoch, which at any rate
implies lordship (cp 'city of David,' 2 .S. 579; 'castle
of Sennacherib,' KB 289 ; and see 2 S. T228) ; and
perhaps in the primitive myth was even represented as
its builder. So Erech, of which the ideographic name
is Unuki or Unuk {i.e. the dwelling), is incidentally
called in the epic ' the city of Gilgames,' Gilgames being
at once its king and (according to an old text) its
builder.^ Why the Hebrew compiler did not adopt
Gilgames as well as Unuk from his Babylonian in-
formant,^ we cannot tell. The foundation of the
1 It is plain that there must have been some fairly complete
account of P^noch in P's time ; indeed, the referenci;s in Kzek.
14 14 'J8 3 (emended text) imply such an account in e.\ilic times.
See Enoch, § i.
2 The Chaldeans at first estimated the duration of the astro-
nomical revolution of the sun at 365 days, afterwards at 364 J
days. To this they accommodated their civil year of 360 days
by means of an intercalated cycle (Lenormant, Les Urigines,
I250). Cp Year, 85.
3 The Egyptian kings, as sons of Re', were said (as early as
the Pyramid Texts) to ascend to heaven, borne by the mystic
griffin called ifr^(see Sera fhim).
4 We know from another text that GilgameS was the vicegerent
ofthesun-god (Jeremias, op. cit. 3). hommel makes Gilgamei
a form of Gibil the fire-god (Gibilgamis). On the epic of
GilgameS see Deluge, g 2, and Jastrow, Keligion 0/ liahy Ionia
and .-Issyria, chap. ■-'3, p. 467 T^T [The present article was
written before the appearance of Prof. Jastrow 's work.]
* On the 'waters of death' in the legend see Maspero, 585;
Jeremias, 87. The same mythic stream is found m a ver>-
mythological section of a psalm (Ps. 185(4]), where the ' floixis
of Death ' (:na •'^:cO are parallel to the ' floods of Perdition '
('?y'?3 '■?: ; see Belial, § 2). So Che. /'s.f^
t> On both points see Enoch, § 2. Di. was before his time
when, in 1853, he admitted that the late legend of Enoch might
conceivably have some traditional basis (Das Buch Henoch, p.
x.\vii).
1 See Jeremias, of-, cit. 17, and cp the inscription quoted
from Hilpiecht by Winckler (.AOF 377) and Hommel (.-}//7"
129), in which occur the words ' the walls of Erech, the ancient
building of Gilgames.'
8 The theory here advocated is that David's Babylonian scribe
Shavsha brought several B.ibylonian myths and legends to
Palestine, including that of the hero GilgameS, king of L'nuk or
Erech. He thus opened a fresh period of Babylonian influence
on Palestine. Hilprecht's discoveries give increased probability
to the identification of Enoch with Unuk, which was already
proposed by Sayce in 1887 (Hib. Led. 185).
624
CAINITES
extremely ancient city of l>ech (before 4500 B.C.,
Hilprccht), however, was at any rate well worthy of
mention in the Hebrew culture - legend. It is, in the
present writer's opinion, not improKnble that I-^noch
once occujiied a still more dignified position as hero of
the Israelitish FhxKl-story (see NoAll, Di.i.iCK, § 17).
We t-ike the next three names together. The last of
tlu-m is evidently not a divine title, but a simple hero-
. J nanie. This prepares us to exixxt that
„ V . '. the first and second may be so too. In
Twr fv!"^*f V, "•i»>vloMia, if Alorus, the first king in the
metnuseian. ,j^.r,-,^^j.jn Ust, may be identified with some
one of the great deities, his successors at any rate are
only demi-g(Kls or extraordinary men. Moreover, to
appreciate the Hebrew culture-legend, it is necessary to
remind ourselves that when the city of Enoch had, by
divine help, \xxn erected, there was still plenty of work
for senu-divine men to do in triumphing over wild beasts
and barbarians. The hunting exploits of Gilgames
(who was first reduced from lx;ing a fire-god to the pro-
portions of a heroic man, atid then restored in the same
legend to the divine company) have in all probability a
historical kernel. It is easy to believe, too. that the
hero called Metiii".s.\el ^S.s'C''n.'2 ; as if Mittn-su-ili,
' the liegeman of Cod ' ; Ma^oi«ra\a [AL] ; Mathumel ;
Gen. 4iCt). or, following the tetter re.nding of 0'^'-,
Methuselah ('the liegeman of Sarhu'), was originally
viewed as a king who taught men good laws and
restrained wild animals and wild nien.
The origin of the first of these names is obscure.
Jered (so i Ch. I2 W) or J.\KKU (q.x\ for Or. read-
ings ; (Jen. 515) might indeed be an adaptation of the
Ribylonian .\rad in Arad-Sin ('servant of Sin, the
moon-god'), which would be a possible title of the
hero Gilg.ames (see tablet ix. of the epic). Ikad (q.v. ;
Gen. 4 18) or nither I'.rad (cp ©adkl I'mgaJ) is, however,
text-crilically a lietter reading, and to connect this with
the city of Eridu ^ is not free from objections. Probably
the word is based on a contraction of some Babylonian
name. The next name, which is best read, with
Lagarde and Roljertson Smith, not Mkiiuj.\ki, ((/.-:)
but Mahalalel, can Ix; well explained by the help of the
Bcrossian hero-names 'A/iTjXwc, 'A/u\\apoi. -Mahnlal
is a Hebraised form of the conmion Babylonian word
am/'/, 'man' (cp Evir.-MKKon.Acn) ; the final syllable,
-e/, is a substitute for some Babylonian divme name.
Selah in Mf.thl'SELAH {n^vtm, Gen. 52i/ 25^ i Ch.
1 3t : tmOovffaXa [AL], fiadd. [B in i Ch. 1 3] ; Afathit-
sal(i) is doubtless Mabyloiiian ; it is reasonable to see
in it a Hebraised form of .un/ru, 'brilliant' (Jensen) or
'gigantic, very stiong' (Del.), which is an epithet of
Gibil the fire-god, and Xinib (?) the god of the eastern
sun.'-^ One of the royal names in the lierossian list is
'Afi^lJ.\f/ifjLot, which Friedr. IX'lit7..sch and Hommel explain
Aviil (Ainil) Sin — i.e., 'liegeman of Sin," — and, with
great probability, identify with Methuselah. The
moon-god in fact well deserves the title Inrhti, and the
tradititmal connection of the Hebrews with Haran and
Ur makes some veiled references to the moon-god almost
indispensable in the culture-legend.
Lamech (r;cS ; Xafxtx [B.\L ; Ti. W'H] ; Lamcck ;
Gen. 4iS-24 525-31 i Ch. 13 Lk. 336t) must'have \ytxn
8 Lamech *"' ""l'^"'''^"' personage in the old Hebrew
culture-legend, for in the earlier of the two
genealogies not only his three .sons, but also his two wives
and his daughter, are mentioned by name. His own
name admits of no explanation from the best-known
Senntic languages, nor is it at all necessary that it should
be specially approijriate for the barbaric eulogist of blood-
vengeance who speaks in Gen. 4 23/. It is a needless
' So Sayce (////'. Led. 185), who infers from Gen. 5 18 that
Krech (Unuk) rceived its earliest culture from Kridu. Gen.
4 18, however, makes Knoch the father of Ir.-\d.
■- Jensen, Kosmol. 105, 464. .So Hommel (e.g. F.xf>. Timet
8 463), who atlopts the form Sarrahu (this is found with the
determinative ilu, ' god ').
6aS
CAINITES
assumption that the song of I.amech is 'an exultant boast
and menace called forth by l.amech's savage delight at
finding himself possessetl of the new and effective wcj»|x»ns
devised by his son TuUal-cain.' ' The song must be
interpreted by it.self, without preconceivetl opinions. In
it the hero declares that not only seven lives (.as in the
case of 'Cain'), but seventy-seven, will Ix: ret|uired to
avenge the blo<xl of murdered ' Laniech.' This implies
that Lamech's story was once told in connection w ith that
of Cain the murderer : in fact, that Lamech, like Cain,
is the representative of a trilje, and siK-aks thus fiercely
out of regard for trilwl honour, which to him consists
in the strict exaction of vengeance for bIoo<l.'^ Still, the
Lamech who is descended frf)m Enoch ought to have
some importance in the developtiient of culture ; he
camiot Ijc merely a bloodthirsty nomad. It would seem,
then, that the Lamech of (jen. 4 18 was originally dis-
tinct from the Lamech of 23/ The latter is. pro|x.'rly,
the personification of a nomad trilx; which named itself
after the divine hero Lamech, just as Kain (or the
Kenites) named itself after the divine hero Kain or Cain.
What, then, does the divine hero's name mean? .Sayce
and Honmiel coimect it w ith Laiiiga ( = Ass. noc.i,'"'''
' artificer '), a non-.Semilic title of the mcKjn-god. This is
plausible, though the Assyrian title ti<ii,\!;iir is applied
also to Ea. A fragment may have been iiitnxluced here
front a fresh culture-legend which took for its st.irting-
point another divine teacher, the ' Ix-getter of gods and
men,' ' whose will created law and justice.''*
The names of Lamech's two wives are, of course, de-
rived from the poem in tjen. 423. Sayce and Boscawen
- - . , would make them feminine lunar tleitics
— one named Darkness, the other .Shadow
— but without indicating any similar titles
of the moon in the tablets. I'robaljly the poet simply
gave the tribal hero's wives the most Itecoming names
he could think of. Adah {r.j;; A5a [AE], A'56a [LJ ;
Ada; Gen. 419-23) may have been known to him
already as the name of a wife of Esau (Cien. 3G2, I' ;
but from an older source ; see Ai)AH, 2), and Zii.i.AH
(.i^s, 'shadow'; "^tWa [.\EL] ; Selhi ; Gen. 419-23)
w.as a suggestive description of a noble chieftainess,
whose presence was like a refreshing and protecting
shade (Is. 322). Naa.mah \,icj,;3, § 67; votfjia [Ai;].
-fj-fia [L] ; Noema ; Gen. 422). too, the daughter
of Zillah, may derive her name ('gracious') from
her supp<3sed physical and moral charms ; another
of Esau's wives lx.-ars the equivalent name Basemath
(Gen. 363). It is possible, however, that, as she is the
sister of Tubal-cain, her name may Ik." of mythic origin,*
and that she had a role of her own in the original story.
TUUAI.-CAI.N is described in Cien. 422 (emended text)
as ' the father of all those who work in bronze and iron."
10. Tubal-cain. ;^\ '"■'' ''-''* '''*' "^""'^ ""^lit seem to
... uw«.A-%,<»,4^ belong to the heroseponynms of Tubal
(so Lenormani,), which was a people famous for its
' instruments of bronze' in the time of lizekiel (Ezek.
2713). Tubal, however, was much too far from Pales-
tine to be mentioned here, and 1 ahal\x\ the time of Asur-
bani-pal seems rather to have been famous for horses
{COT\(^). .Mxjve all. it is diflicult to disregard the
general tradition of antic|uity that the first worker in
metal was a divine Ijcing (cp Enoch 81, where the fallen
angel Azazel teaches this art). Tubal-cain, then, is
probably like xo''<rwp (the Phu-nician Hephaistos*). a
humanised goil. and the first part of the name is pre-
sumably not of Persian but of Babylonian oiigin.* It
1 Drysdale, Early Bible Songs, 159, following Ewald and
Budde.
« Cp St. ZA rn; 14298 1^4] = .-ii-a,l. Reden, 259.
* Hymn to the miwn-gfxl, .Sayce, Hibbert Led. 160/C
4 So WR.S (AA'(!*), art. ' I-imech '), comparing ' N'aaman,*
originallv a divine title. Cp I^normant, Les Origines, aooyC
8 See ^hiIo of Byblus in Eus. PE i. IO9, and see Creation,
I 7, PlItHNICIA.
« We can h.irdly derive the name from Bil-gi ( = Gibil) with
Ball, and it is the merest coincidence that tshdl or /ii/U/ in
626
11. Jabal,
Jubal.
CAINITBS
should be noticed that -coin in Tubal-cain is wanting
in ® {do^eX [AEL]). lYobably it was added to explain
why the hero was regarded as the father of smiths.
Tubal is, in fact, probably a pale form of the god of
the solar fire, Gibil or Nusku ; but, of course, he is
not only a fire -god. Like Gibil and like Hephaistos
(see Roscher, /.ex. ), he is the heavenly smith (© fitly
calls him xa^ff^s. a term which in //. 15309 is applied
to Hephaistos), and was perhaps once addressed in the
words of a famous Babylonian hymn : —
'Gibil, renowned hero in the land, — valiant, son of
the Abyss, exalted in the land, — Gibil, thy clear flame
breaking forth, — when it lightens up the darkness, —
assigns to all that bears a name its own destiny ; — the
copper and tin, it is thou who dost mix (?) them, — gold
and silver, it is thou who meltest them. ' *
We may well suppose that in the earliest form of the
Hebrew legend Tubal was the instructor of men in the
art of getting fire. According to Philo of Byblus, fire
was discovered by three ' mortal men ' called Light,
Fire, and Flame, and was produced by rubbing two
pieces of wood together. 'This,' remarks Robertson
Smith, 2 ' is the old Arabian way of getting fire, and
indeed appears all over the world in early times, and
also in later times in connection with ritual. Probably
some ritual usage preserved the memory of the primeval
fire-stock in Phoenicia.' There was no such ritual usage
among the Israelites, and so the legend of the inven-
tion of fire disappeared.
Jabal and Jubal have names descriptive of occupations,
and evidently of I'alestinian origin. The former (^t ;
o^eX [A], -13-nX [L], -7;5 [K] ; /aM ; Gen.
42ot) is the reputed ancestor of tent-dwelling
shepherds. His name describes him, not as
a ' wanderer ' (Dillm. very questionably), but as a herds-
man (cp Heb. S^r, Phoen. h2\ 'ram'); it is another
form of the name Abel (</.t;. ,*end). The latter, Jubal
(hzv ; toi'^aX [AEL] ; Jubal; Gen. 42it), is the ' father*
of the guild or class of musicians (cp Var, Ex. 19 13,
'ram's horn'). That the inventor of the kinnor and
the ' I'igiih should be the younger brother of the first
shepherd, is certainly appropriate. One of the thirty-
seven 'Amu, or Asiatics, represented in the tomb of
Hnum-hotep (see Music, § 8, Joseph, § 10) as desir-
ing admission into Egypt, carries a lyre. (We must
not quote the parallel of David, for i Sam. 16 14-23 does
not recognise him as a shepherd ; see D.wid, § i «,
note). Tubal, however, is less appropriate in this
company, partly Ijecause of his lofty origin, partly be-
cause smiths belong more naturally to agricultural and
city life.
The three names Jabal, Jubal, and Tubal stand
outside the genealogy propjer, just as Shem, Ham, and
to o • • 1 I=^pheth stand outside the genealogy of
12. Unginai -^^,^j^_ ^^^ Abram. Nahor, and Haran
form Ot list. Q^tside that of Terah. By this knot in
the genealogical thread the editor indicates that a new
and broader development is about to begin (Ewald).
How is it, then, that the Cainite genealogy as it stands
contains but six names ? The parallel table in chap. 5,
which has virtually all these names, adds three to them
at the beginning, and one at the end. Now it is
remarkable that the three prefixed names are also given
in 425/ It is not improbable (cp ®) that this
passage in a simpler form — omitting ' again,' ' another,'
and ' instead of .Xbel,' etc. , and adding ' and Enos begat
a son, and called his name Cain ' — once stood before 4 17,
and that Noah, who is the son of Lamech in 5i8/. , once
took the place of Jabal, Jubal, and Tubal. This would
make the table begin Adam, Seth, Enos, Cain, and
close Lamech, Noah. We might also restore it thus,
Persian means (i) dross of metal, (2) copper or iron. 'I regard
the h as resulting from a radical iv or v, and as changing later
to /and/' (.Mr. J. T. Platts).
1 Maspero, Daiun of Civ. 635 (see references).
8 Burnett Lectures, second series (MS).
627
CALAH
Enos \=ada.ni), Seth, Kenan . . . Lamech, Jabal,
Noah. This would have the advantage of retaining the
founder of the pastoral mode of life as the father of the
founder of agriculture, but seems to involve the excision
of Jubal and Tubal. We might, more naturally
perhaps, suppose that Jabal and Jubal were later
additions from another cycle of legends, and that the
earliest genealogy began with Cain and ended with
Tubal, both originally divine beings. We should then
get a genealogy of seven. In any case we must reject
the common view that \-iif. is a fragment of a Yahwistic
table which traced the genealogy of the Sethite side of
the first family, and that the .Sethites, according to the
Yahwist, were good, the Cainites bad. There is no
valid evidence that the genealogist wished to represent
any of the Cainites as wicked, or that culture was
opposed to religion. Cain, the city-builder, was a
worthy son of Enos, who was the first to use forms of
worship (see E.NOs). For there was no more truly
religious act, from a primitive point of view, than the
building of a city. (For the continuation of this subject
see Sp:thites. )
Buttmann's Myihologus, vol. i. ('28), first led the criticism
of the genealogies into the right track. For recent discussions,
besides Siade's article alre.idy referred to
13. Literature, and Dillmann's Gen., see Lenorniaiit, Les
Origincs, 1 5 ; Ho^cawen, Exp. 'limes, 5
351^ (M.-iy '94); Goldziher, Heb. Myth. 32, 113, 127-130, 200;
Bu. Urgescli. 183-247 ; Kyle, Early Narratives 0/ Genesis,
78-83. On the Berossian list of ten antediluvian patriarchs
see Maspero, Daivn 0/ Civ. 564/ ; Del. Par. 149; Hommcl,
PSBA, 10243-246. "The last-named scholar holds that his
identifications, especially AmIlu = Enosh, Ummanu = Kain.in,
and Nuhnapi.sti = Noah, prove that there is the closest relation
between the ten Hebrew patriarchs and the ten Babylonian
antediluvian kings. He infers from this that the author of the
so-called priestly code must have written centuries before the
exile. This hasty inference will not captivate a careful student.
That the priestly writer had access to early traditions is a part
of the critical system here advocated. _ The identifications of
Hommel, however, need very careful criticism (see Noah).
T. K. C.
CAKE. It is impossible to ascertain precisely the
meaning and characteristic feature of certain of the
many Heb. words which are rendered ' cake ' in EV,
and it must suffice merely to record the terms in
question.
(a) nV'VK, asisah, Hos.Si (RV) etc., see Flagom (3),
Fruit, 85.
(^) ^i'Pl, d'bhelah, i S.30i2 etc., see Fruit, § 7.
(c) n'rn, hallah, 2 S. 619 etc., see Bakemeats, § 2, Bread,
§3- ^ '
(d) p3, /tawt</rt«, Jer.7i8 44i9,t see Bakemeats, § 2, Fruit,
§5. ^'
(e) .1337, I'bhibhdh, 2 S. 1368 io,t see Bakemeats, § 3.
(_/) (jOE'rr) toS, I'sad, Nu. 11 8, see Bakemeats, § 3.
ig) WD, maog, I K.17i2 etc., and (Ji) njj;, 'ug;gdh. Gen. 186
etc., cp Bread, § 2.
(/)'?i'7!£, stlol (Kt., V'"?^ kr.), Judg. 7 13, see Bakemeats,
§2.
C/) P't?^. raklk, i Ch. 2829 etc., see Bakemeats, § 3,
Bread, § 3.
CALAH (n*?!; xaAax [A]. "K [EL], kaA&X l^y,
vs 12 XAAeK [E] ; Chale ; Ass. Kalhu, Kalah) is
named in Gen. 10 n/ as one of the cities originally
founded by Nimrod in Assyria. Asur-nasir-pal, king of
Assyria, ascribed its high standing, at any rate as a
capital, to Shalmaneser I. (A'/?lii6 //. 132-135).
Layard, Rassam, and G. Smith proved by their
excavations of the mounds of Nimrfid 20 m. S. of
Nineveh (Kuyunjik) that the city lay in the fork
between the Tigris on the W. and the Upper Zab on
the E. Protected on two sides by these rivers and on
the N. by hills, fortified by a long N. wall with at least
fifty-eight towers, it was a strong city.
The town was an oblong, well supplied with water by a
canal led through a covered conduit from the Upper Zab. and
richly pl.inted with orchards and g.irdens. At the SW. are
the remains of a platform, built of sun-dried bricks faced with
638
ay Nineveh. When AJur-nisir-pal rebuilt the town and palace,
finished the great wall, and enclowed Calah with its canal, he
CALAMOLiALUS
ttone, 600 yard* from N. to S., by 400 yards wide, and 13 feet
a)H>ve the level <>f ihc Tigris, which once washed its western
face. On this platform stood palaces built or restored by the
kings Shalmane.scr I., Aiur-nasir-pal, Shalmaneser II., Tiglath>
pilescr III., Sargon, Ksarhaddon, and A.fur-etil-ilani. At its
S'W. corner stood the sikkuratu or temple-lower, 167 J feet
s(|uareat the base and still 140 feet hit;h. Next to it was the
temple of Nebo, but in the Sargonid period Ninip was the
town-god {KB 4 133, no. i, /. 16).
Of municipal history, apart from the history of the
country, we know little.
Calah was faithful to Shalmaneser II. during his son's
rebellion (KB 1 176, //. 45-50), but revolted from Asur-nirari in
746 ii.c. (KB 1 in). It was clearly the court residence under
the alx)ve- mentioned kings; but in the official lists it never
stands first (cp Eponym lists KB 1 ao8^). As a centre of
jpulation it evidently was inferior to ASiur, and totally eclipsed
r-nisir-pal rebuilt the town and palace,
,nd enclowed Calah with its can
peopU'd it with captives.
Like other great cities of Assyria and Babylonia,
C.ilah probably had its archives which, with the literary
collections of the kings, formed the nucleus of a library.
Few tablets have hitherto l)ccn found at Nimrfld, and it is
inferred that Sennacherib removed the Calah librarr to Nineveh.
Many astrological and omen tablets in the Kuyunjik col-
lections were executed at Calah for Nabu-7ukup-keni, 'principal
librarian,' ra/'-iiu^-tarri', 716-684 B.C. For explorations and
identification of site cp Layard, Ninf7>eh ami its Remains, G.
Smith's Assyrian PiscoTejit-s. For further conclusions respect-
ing library, see C .Smith, Chald. CenesisX^ c. II. VV. J.
CALAMOLALUS ( kaAamwAaAoc [A]), orCalamo-
calus (-cokaAoC l'^]), i Ksd. 522, represents the ' Lod
(see l.Yi)U.\) Hadid' of II E/.ra233=Neh.737. ©'- has
CALAMUS (n.3|^) occurs in Cant. 414 Ezek. 27i9.
and ■ sweet calamus' in Hx. 3O23 Is. 4824 (RV""*!- ; but
EV ' sweet cane ' in Is. ), for the usual Kkkd [q.v., i b).
CALCOL (>3"73 ; on the name see Mahol ; xaAx^A
[A]), a son of Zerah b. JuDAH, i Ch. 26 (xaAka [B],
KaAxaA [I-]), clearly the same as the son of Mahol
of 1 K. 431 [5 11], AVChalcol(xaAkaA [B], xaAkaA
[L]). See Mahol.
CALDRON, AV rendering of the following words : —
nn^p I S. 214 Mi. 33. so RV; n*p Jer. 52i8/ (RV
•pots')Ezck. II3711, soRV; TH 2 Ch. 35i3, so RV—
for all of which see Cooking. § 5 ; and |b3N Job4l2o
[12], RV RisiiKS {q.v., 2).
CALEB (3 I'D, §66; on the meaning see below;
XAAeB [HAL]; gent. ^3^3. 'Calebite,' EV 'of the
house of Caleb,' i S. 'lil Kr. [kynikoc (BAL)],
see Nab.\l ; Kt. reads 13^3 ; cp the similar variant in
Judg. 1 15 ©BAL^ XAAcB KATATHN KApAlAN AYTHC).
No. ZDMC, 40 164, n. i. ('86), finds the sense 'raging with
canine madness,' objecting to Robertson Smith's identification
with 3V3, 'dog ' (see /. Ph. 989 ; Kin. 200, 219).
1. Name. Dog-totems, nevertheless, were not impossible in
the ancient Semitic world (see Dog, § 4), and a
connection with 373 was early surmised (see Nabal, n.). We
find the name Kalba in Babylonian contract-tablets as late as
the times of Nebuchadrezzar II. and Cambyses (KB 4 199293X
Hommel (.AUT 115) makes kalibu or kalahi mean 'priest';
while Sayce (Early Hist. Heh. 265) compares kalhu as used in
Am. Tah. (e.^., 54, 18) for 'officer, messenger' (but this is
improbable). The name seems to be primarily tribal.
Caleb was a Kenizzite clan which at, or shortly
before, the Israelite invasion of Western Palestine
- p . established itself in Hebron and the region
Histo south of it, and in the course of time
•'' coalesced with its northern neighbour, the
tribe of Judah (naturally, not without admixture of
blood; cp. Maacah, Caleb's concubine, i Ch. 248).
The b'ne Kenaz, to whom Caleb and Othnikl belong
(Nu. 32i2 Judg. I13J), were of Edomite extraction,
and the Calebites were nearly related to the nomadic
Jerahmeelites in the south-eastern quarter of the Negeb
(i Ch. 29 etc. ) ; see Jerahmeei^ (On the Kenites, see
below, §4.)
How Caleb came to be settled in what was regarded
6a9
CALBB-BPHRATAH
as the territory of Judah, is variously described (Josh.
15i3, cp 146_^ Dj, etc.). According to Josh. 1. '113 ^
(cp Judg. 1 10^), Caleb invaded from the N., in
company with Judah, the region which he subsequently
occupied (see Anak) ; but in the story of the spies, in
the oldest version of which Caleb alone maintains the
possibility of a successful invasion of Canaan from the
S. and receives Hebron as the reward of his faith' (see
Numbers), we seem to have a reminiscence of the fact
that Caleb made his way into the land from that quarter.
In David's time Caleb was still distinct from Judah ( i S,
30 14 ytXfiovt [B], x<Aoi'/^ [L] I for the conjecture that
David was a Calebite prince, sec Davio, § 4, n. ).
On the other hand, in the list of the spies (Nu. 136 P),
and in the conmiission for the division of the land
S Preexilic <^'"-^^'9 ''>' ^'''''''*' ^- J'"-''"'-^'^*--"
oji.iiii<. appg^jps as the represent a live of Judah, a
chief {nasi) of that tribe :'■* and in the post-exilic
genealogical systems, Caleb and Jerahmeel, ' sons of
Hezkon ' {q.v., ii. [i]), are great-grandsons of the patri-
arch Judah (I Ch. 29[CHEi.unAi = i Ch. 4 I, Cakmi(i)],
i&Jf., 42 [xaXf/x. A]i^.), whilst Kenaz becomes a son of
Caleb (4 15).
These representations reflect the fact that, in uniting
with Judah, Caleb became the leading branch of that
exceedingly mixed tribe. The Chronicler indeed
hardly knows any other Judah ite stocks than these
Hezronites.
The seats of the Calebites in pre-exilic times are to
be learned most fully from 1 Ch. 242_^, where we find
set down as sons and grandsons (branches) of Caleb
the well-known cities and towns, Ziph, Mareshah (so
read for Mesha), Hebron, Tappuah, Jokdeam (so for
Jokko.vm), Maon, Beth-zur ; for Maon and Carmel
cp also I S. 25 2/. The clan had possessions also in
the Negeb (i .S. 3O14).
After the ICxiie their old territory was chiefly in the
possession of the l'"domites, and the CalcLites were
p . ... pushed northwards into the old seats
4. rost-exilic. ^j j^^^j^ ^j^jg situation is reflected
in another stratum of the composite genealogy ( i Ch.
2:8-24, 50-55, cp ig), where Caleb takes Ephrath (the
region about Bethlehem) as a second wife (observe the
significant name of the former wife Azub.\h \_q.v.'\ ; cp
also Jekioth). Through his son Hur the clan falls
into three divisions : Shobal, Salnia, and Hareph, the
fathers of Kirjath-jearim, Bethleheiu, and Bethgader.
The further notices of the subdivision of these clans are
fragmentary and complex (see Beth-g.\uer, Jabez,
Shobal). It is at all events noteworthy that the
passage concludes with the end of a list of Kenites,
and a connection between these and the Calebites
becomes plausible if Chelub and Reciiah in 1 Ch.
4 11/. are indeed errors for Caleb and Rechab (cp
Meyer. Entsteh. 147).*
It is not improbable that the names Azbuk, Colhozeh,
Rephaiah b. Hur (temple-repairers, etc. , temp. Nehe-
miah) are of Calebite origin {ib. 147, 167).
See further Kknaz ; also Kuenen, Rfl. Jsr. 1 135^, 176.^1
Gr.ntz, ' Die K'jlub.Yitcn odcr Kalebiten,' .1/G7<y 26461-492, and
especially We. Dc Cent.; CII 337/
CALEB -EPHRATAH, RV Caleb -Ephrathah (3^5
nn'^2N), is mentioned in i Ch. 224! -is the place where
Hezron died. Wellhausen and Kittel, after ©"'^^^ {koX
fitrb. rb airodavdv eaepuiv [eerpw/t, A ; -v, L] ^X^ei*
Xa\e/3 ds e<f>pada [L dffrjKde X«Ae^ irpbi «ppada]),
read : ' after the death of Hezron. Caleb came unto
Ephrath the wife of Hezron his father ' •• (We. De Gent.
14). Klostermann {Gesch. 112) thinks it more natural
to read Segub (for Caleb).
1 In P Joshua is named along with Caleb.
2 The name Jephunneh as that of Caleb's father is not earlier
than D3 ; on Josh. 146, 13 (JK and Dj), see Joshua, | 9
S Note also that xhv, tbe Targ. rendering of Kenites, is
possibly derived from Salma. Cp Neub. Geogr. 427, ^29.
* l.e., n'3K for .T3K ; Abijah, (4), thus disappears.
630
CALENDAR
'Even after the Exile the Hebrew, like the Arab genealogists,
seem to have used the marriage of a son with his father's wife
as one device for throwing the relations of clans and townships
into genealogical form.' (WRS Kin. 90, and see We. Pro/A*)
2i7yC ET 217.)
CALENDAR. See Day. Week, Month. Year ;
cp also ClIKONOI.OGV, §1^
CALF (h:V. Ex.324, etc.; mocxoc. Rev. 47). See
C.\ TILE, § 2 a-c.
CALF, GOLDEN. Portable images of a bull overlaid
with gold occupied, down to the time of the prophets,
1. References. '"^ P'-o"""^'"' Position in the equipment
of the Israelitish sanctuaries. We
hear of them in the great sanctuaries of the northern
kiiigflom : in Dan ' and Bethel, where they are said to
have been set up by Jeroboam (i K. 1223 jf. 2 K. IO29
Hos. IO5); in Samaria, the capital of the kingdom
(Hos. 85/); and perhaps also in Gilgal (Am. 04/.
Hos. 4 15 9 15 12 II [12]). On the other hand, there were
none in the temple of Jerusalem (which had the brazen
serpent : see Nehushtan), and, strange to say, we
do not find any allusion to such images as existing in
the otiier sanctuaries of Judah — either in 1 K. I421-24,
where such reference would have been apposite, or in
Amos or Hosea. The last named in particular, who
pursued the calf-worship of the northern kingdom with
such bitter invectives (85/. 10s), would hardly have
been silent on the subject had the same worship prevailed
in Jerusalem also. Though Judah appears to have
participated, more or less, in the cultus at Bethel, the
worship of such images seems to have been confined
chieHy to the northern kingdom.
The bulls belonged to the class of images called nzBD
('molten images ' ; see Idol, § i c), which might be either
solid or merely covered with a coating of metal. To
the latter class the golden bull of Jeroboam (Hos. 182)
probably belonged (see luor., § 4/.). Because of the
value of the metal it is not probable that the images were
of great size. Hence we can understand the choice of
the word Sjj?, ' calf : not the youth but the small size of
the animal represented is the point to be conveyed — not
perhaps without an implication of contempt.
As for their origin, these images were originally
foreign to the Yahwe religion. To the nomads of the
2 Oriffin ^^'•'^^erness, who did not breed cattle, the
° ' idea of choosing the bull as an image of
divinity could hardly have occurred. On this ground
alone the narrative of the golden calf made by Aaron
in the wilderness (Ex.32 JE) can prove nothing for
the origin of this form of worship in Mosaic times.
Apart from the impossibility of making such an image
in the wilderness, the narrative seems rather to be
intended as a scathing criticism on the absurdity and
sinfulness of bull-worship as viewed from the prophetic
standpoint. According to the Deuteronomist, Jeroboam
was the originator of bull - worship ; but it is hardly
likely that he would have introduced an entirely strange
image into the sanctuaries of his kingdom. Probably
the older Decalogue (Ex. 34i7; cp 2O23), in speaking
of ' molten images ' as distinguished from plain wooden
images, referred to images of this description, which
also are intended perhaps by the images of Micah
(Judg. 18).
It has often been held {e.g. by Renan and Maspero,
and doubtfully by Kbnig) that bull-worship may have
been an imitation of the worship of Apis at Memphis
or of Mendes at Heliopolis ; but the Egyptians wor-
shipped only living animals, and in any case the
adoption from Egypt is unlikely. The nomad inhabit-
ants of (Joshen took over from the Egyptians hardly
anything of their culture and religion. On the other
1 The text of i K. 12 30 is obviously corrupt, or at least
imperfect. ©'- adds, 'and before the other, to Bethel." Klo.
conjectures th.it the original text said nothing of a ca(/"\n Dan.
His_ restored text, however, only accentuates, if possible, the
ancient fame of the sanctuary. See also Farrar, i.e., § 2, end.
631
CALNO
hand, the religion of Israel shows the strongest evidence
of Canaanite influence. Among the Canaanites the
bull was the symbol of Baal ; ^ the cow, the symbol of
Astarte ; and these symbols were taken over from the
Ph<jenicians by the Greeks. Thus the probabilities are
that the Israelites derived the practice from the Canaan-
ites. They changed the significance of the symbols,
seeing in them a representation of Yahwe and his
conquering might and strength (Xu. 2822 248). Though
in the time of Jeroboam such worship was regarded as
allowable, the so-called older decalogue certainly forbids
molten images (see above). The later decalogue, which
may be regarded as representative of prophetic times,
forbids all idolatrous worship of Yahwe. Hosea rails at
the worship of the bull (85 IO5). The Deuteronomistic
narrator, too, in the Book of Kings regards the conduct
of Jeroboam as an apostasy to idolatry. He emphatic-
ally describes bull-worship as ' the sin of Jeroboam,
wherewith he made Israel to sin ' (i K. 14 16 15 26 16 26
2 K. IO29 etc.). To the Apis-worship of Egypt we
have but one reference — in Jer. 4615, where we should
probably read 'Why hath Apis fled? (why) hath thy
steer not stood firm ? ' See Apis.
See Kon. Haitptprobleme, 57; Baethg. Beitr. 198/;
Robertson, Early Kel. of Isr. 215-220; Farrar, 'Was
there a Golden Calf at Han,' Expos. , i893(^,pp. 254-265 ;
and cp Sayce, Hihhert Lectures, 289/. ; Jensen, Kosinol.
88/.; C. W. Goodwin, TSBA22S2. i. B.
CALITAS (KAA[e]iTA[i]c [B]), i Esd. 9 23 = Ezra
IO23, and I Esd. 948=Xeh. 87 Kelita.
CALKER(Ezek. 279»7t; P"J3 'i^nTO). See Ship.
CALLISTHENES (KAAAicGeNHC [AV] . a follower
of -Xicanor [i], who, according to 2 Mace, was burnt
for firing the temple gates (2 Mace. 833).
CALNEH(n3^?). I. (xaAannh [AD^L], taAanni
[E]). A city included in the earlier kingdom of Ximrod,
Gen. 10 10 (J). See Nimrod, § i, Shinar.
Rawlinson {Anc. Monarchies, 1 i8) identifies it with Nippur,
supposing that the Talmudic statement, 'Calneh means Nippar"
(foiiia, loa), represents a genuine tradition. The context, how-
ever, shows that it is a pure guess ; -13'j is connected with 'nj-j, a
Greek loan-word (i/v/i^j;) meaning 'bride,' and m^-^ with
n^3, the old Hebrew for 'bride' (see Levy). Pressel (/'i^A'i2))
claims a consensus of critics for identifying Calneh with
Ctesiphon NE. of Babylon, on the left bank of the Tigris (so
Targ. Jer., Kphr. .Syr., Eiis., Jer.), which Pliny (ti 30) places
in the province of Chalonitis. 'J'his conjecture, too, may be
dismissed.
The inscriptions alone should be consulted ; and,
since none of the ordinary names of the Babylonian cities
resembles Calneh (or Calno), we are justified in examin-
ing the non-Semitic (ideographic) names. .Among these
we find Kul-unu ('dwelling of offspring'), which, in
Assyrian times, was pronounced Zir-la-ba or (in an
inscription of Hammu-rabi) Za-ri-lab. The situation
of Zirl,i!)a is uncertain (see Del. Par. 226) ; but the
fact that Sargon mentions Zirlaba at the end of a list
of Bal)ylonian cities which apparently proceeds from
south to north (A'/? 252/ ) suggests to Hommel that
it was not far from Babylon [Die semit. Vdlker, 1 234/ ).
To P>ied. Del. in 1876 [Chald. Gen. 293) this identifica-
tion appeared certain. It is, indeed, not improbable,
especially if we may point .ij^p (cp © as above, and
\h'£) ; but we should like some fuller evidence that
Kul-unu was really remembered as the old name of
Zirlaba.
2. (©"-^"S ?rdi/Tfs, as if Da'?!), a N. Syrian city, con-
quered by the Assyrians (Am. 62, on which see Amos,
§ 6 \b\). See Cai.no. t. k. c.
CALNO (ij'??. xaAannh [BNAQF]), Is. lOgt. the
city called Calneh [2] in .Am. 62 (on which see
1 Cp Tob. 1 5, 'the heifer Baal' (r. ^aaX r% SafidXei [B], t<S
lx6<rxH> W)-
63a
CALPHI
Amos, § 6 [*]) and Cannkii [j^.r.]- (rather Calneh) in
E7.ek.'2723.
f> ciiiiroiinds it with Cai-nrh [i], and connects it with the
builiiini; of the 'tower,' which, since Mabyloii is nientionetl just
before, can only mean the tower of Italx-I (see Hahki.); itisnot im-
probable ihiU ^ idcnli.ies Caliich with llorsipiia. according
tn the Talinudic tradition that the tuwcr of Hai)el was at
Uon>ippa. This is, "f course, worthless. 0's Hebrew text was
corrupt : p'cana was misread T{^, ' fort ' ; tbik became aiy,
•Arabia.'
Doubtless Calno is Kullani, a place near Arpad, con-
quered in 738 by riKlath-pileser III. (Tiele, Wi., Fried.
Del., (Ik-., Killel). T. K. C.
CALPHI, RV Ch.\lphi (a name formed from the
root fptl, whereby a child is designated as a substitute
for one lost ; cp aA<J>AIOC. and sec Names, § 62),
father of judas [3], i Mace. 11 7^^ (o TOY XAA<|>ei [••^^' ]•
o TOY XA<t>- L^J- o x^yeoY [Jo^- ^"''- x"' ij?]; >"
the Syr. \S^^ s-^nt and ../wft.^V Cp Alph^klts,
Clopas, § I.
CALVARY (kpan ION [Ti. WH], Calvaria). Lk. 23
j^t .W, tlie \'g. rendt-ring (I,at. calvariu—?>V.\i\\) of
Kpaviov (kV 'The skull ). The || passages preserve
the .Si-mitic form G()i-(;<)Tii.\ ('/."•.).
CAMEL (V0|, © kamhAoc; Gen.l2i6 24ioi4
etc., Kx.93 Judg.65 I K. IO2 iCh.2730 Ezra267
1. Name.
Tob. 92, and el.suwhere, including six pro-
phetic passages; Mt. 34Mk. 16 etc. ; see
also Dkomkdakv). The Hebrew name' is common
to all the Semitic languages, which proves that the
animal was known before the parent stock divided
— one of the facts from which Hommel and others
have inferretl that the original home of the Semitic
race was in Central Asia.''' The name was borrowed
by the Egyptians ; it passotl also into Greek and
Latin, and most modern languages. The origin of
the word is uncertain f von Kremer {Sem. Cultiirent-
lehnuiii^en, 4) connects it with Ar. jamala, ' to heap,' as
meaning the ' humped animal ' ; whilst Lagarde ( I 'ebers.
49) follows Bochart in his etymology from Vpa. ' to
requite.' the name thus indicating the revengeful temper
often shown by the animal.
In the frequent mention of the camel in the historical
books of the OT there can Ix; little doubt that Canielus
9 R'hr 1 dromedarius is meant (see below, § 6),
references *^""^''' *''" ^^^'^''''^ ambassador may
conceivably have seen a two-humped
camel at Nineveh or Babylon. ^ We naturally expect
to hear of its use by the Arabian * and other nomad
tribes ; and accordingly the Ishmaelites (Gen. 3725 [J]),
the Midianites (Judg. 65),' and the Amalekites (i S.
153 279) by turns come before us as possessors of
camels. The mention of them in connection with
Job (Jobls), and with the Queen of Sheba (i K.
10 2), also needs no comment. David's camels (i Ch.
1 n^33, bikrHh, like the Ar. btUir (Lane, 1 240) and Ass.
bakm (Del. Ass. HWB) denotes the 'youiiK camel," Is.iiOe Jcr.
223(RVnii.'.). EV renders less aptly Dko.mkdakv (,/.j/.). The
word C'OTnrriK, aliaitlranlm (Ksth. 81014, .\V 'camels,'
RVrng.' mules'), is rather an adj. qualifying ' swift steeds' ; so RV
'swift steeds that were used in the kind's service' (cp Pers.
khshatra, realm; V>V>V> Lex.). The reauing, however, is dis-
puted. See HoKSK, g 2.
* See this and other views summarised in Wright's Comp.
Gram. Son. Lane. \ff.
* See the l)as-reliefs on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser II.,
and this king's monolith inscr., obv. 28 (A'A 1 156^:),
' dromedaries (udrdti) with two humps ' ; cp Del. Par. 96.
* For an account of the numerous references to the camel in
Arabian literature, and of the many names of the 'camel in
Arabic, see Hommel, .Sdui^ethiere, \y)ff.
* ' Iloth they and their cattle were numberless,' says the
narrator. So too the Reubenites carry away 50,000 camels
from the Hagrites (i Ch. 621). Precisely so Tiglath-pileser II.
states that he had taken 30,000 camels as prey from the Arabs
(cp Hommel, GH.A 66!;), and A5ur-bani-pal says that he took so
many camels from the Kedarenes that camels were sold in
Assyria for from \\ (silver) shekels to half a shekel (A'.5 2 225).
On the notice in Judg. 831 see Crescents.
6^^
CAMEL
27 30) may have been kept for purposes of trade ;
they were put under the charge of an Ishmaelite, who
from his calling Ijore the name of Omi.. Other kings
may have followed David's example ; Hezekiah's camels
were carried away by Sennacherib (Schr. LOT 2 286).
That Syrians should have usetl them (2 K. 89) is
natural ; but in the hilly region of Palestine the atmel
cannot have been a common tjuadruixxl. It is true
this animal appears again and again in the patriarchal
story, and there is no difficulty in supixjsing that Jacob
acquired camels in Mesopotamia. There i.s, however,
great difficulty in the statement (Gen. 12 16) that camels
formed part of a present given to Abraham by the
pharaoh (see Ix;low, § 3/ )•
The camel's saddle is mentioned only once, Gen. 31 34
(•jo:!-! 13, © TO. aoL-yfuiTa, EV 'the camel's furiiiture '),
and derives its name from its round basket-shaped form.
See LiTTKK, Saddi.k.
The (lesh of camels was unclean food to the Israelites
(Dt. 14? Lev. 11 4). By the Arabs, on the other hand,
camels were both eaten and sacrificed (WkS A'el. Sem. i'-'
218). N. M.— A. K. .s.
[The assertion that the ancient Egyptians knew the
camel is unfounded. The picture of a camel on one of
1 Not known "'*' C-'hiopian) pyramids at Meroc ^
3. wot Known ^j^^.^^g />/,>t/«. 028) and on Greek
"^ syP • terra-cotta figures — e.g. , of a travelling
Arab (not, as has been supposed, an Egyptian) in
Marietie [Abydus, 240) — and the references in Greek
papyri,'- prove nothing more than that the animal was
known in Egypt in Roman times. It is surprising
that it never appears earlier — e.g., in representations of
battles with the nomadic Semites who rode on camels.
The Egyptian artists evidently disliked to represent the
animal — not lx;cause of its ungainly ap|x;arance, for
they have rather a fancy for delineating strange
creatures, but out of religious antipathy (WM.M As.
u. Eur. 142). The statement that the camel is
mentioned in Pap. Anast. i. 285 is groundless. The
passage contains an exclamation of the Asiatic princes,
awe-struck at the bravery of an Egyptian soldier —
''a-ba-ta ka-ma \i-r(l)ii ma-ha-'ira n-'-mu, which seems to
mean, 'Thou art lost (nian?) like God ('?)«-icr) a hero
(n,io) indeed {Xr.na'am).' Even if this explanation' be
rejected, the idea of Chabas {Voyage, 220) that the
Asiatics are here calling for ' camels meat ' is most
ridiculous. The other passages ajjpealed to refer not
to the camel (the pretended kamaly) but to a large
species of monkey [kay. ky), which is said to come
from Ethiopia (where there were no camels in 1300
B.C.; see above), and is described as docile — learning
an amusing kind of dance, and carr)ing its master's
walking-stick. See the pa.ssages collected by \\MM
{As. u. Eur. 370), ■• and the judicious remarks of Wiede-
mann, Sl>.-\ 13 32. Even the I'^gyptian name of the
camel X (or cr) amOYA (ph'ral JaaaAY^I ) 's foreign (not
irom gti mil I [Lagarde, i'ebers. 49] but from an original
*gaiii,'>/}, and does not seem very old. W. M. M.]
[ I'he diflicuUy of the narrative in Gen. 12 10-20 is very
great so long as it is assumed that it correctly represents
^_ . the Hebrew tradition. Supposing, how-
4. Ul rei. ^^,^^^ jj^.^j jj^^ mention of the pharaoh were
^P due to a misunderstanding, and that the
early Hebrew tradition knew only of a visit of .Abraham
t Roman period ? Even in Persian times orthodox Ethiopians
were apparently deterred from using the animal by fear of
contracting ceremonial defdement. The more southern tribes
had no camels ; see, e.g:, Mariette, .lAwx. drv. 13, 87. The animal
can hardly live in the regions .S. of Mero€.
■- /C.g-., in Grenfell, (7riei Papyri (245 etc.), camels appe.y
fretjuently in the Kayum after 100 a.i>. It is, however, signifi-
cant that they .sometimes bear 'ApafiiKa. xopayMo^a as brand-
marks (i /. 50 a). The camels on the ro.'ds to the Red Sea
(Petrie, Ko/>tos, 27, /. ai, Strabo, etc.) were driven by the desert-
tril)es.
3 Partly after Erman, Z.A 'tj, 36.
•• Add the passage on >frv-apes from the St. Petersburg tale
and De Morgan, Cat. Monum. i. 644 (^i-animals from th«
SQdan).
634
6. NT reff.
CAMEL
to the land of Musri (see Mizraim, § 2 [3]), the difficulty
arising from the mention of camels in Gen. 12 16 would
disappear. The dilliculty of Ex.93 (J), where a
murrain is predicted on pharaoh's cattle including ' the
camels,' cannot, however, be removed by such an
expedient. Here it appears simplest to suppose that
the narrator gave a list of those kinds of animals which,
from a Palestinian point of view, would be liable to the
murrain.
Two proverbial expressions about the camel occur
in the Gospels (the one in Mt. 19 24 Mk. IO25 Lk. I825,
the other in Mt. 2824). The reading
Ka/xiXos (a rope?) for KafirjXoi has been
suggested for the former. It is as old as Cyril of
Alexandria and is evidently the conjecture of a non-
Semitic scribe (see Nestle, ExJ>. T. 9474). Ka/xrjXot is
correct. Analogous proverbs can be quoted — e.g. , ' In
Media a camel can dance on a bushel' (/eiam. 45 a) —
i.e., all things are possible. T. K. c]
As has been indicated above there are two species of camel.
One, the Camelus drometiurius, is found in SE. Asia ranging
from Afghanistan and Bokhara through NW.
6. Zoology. India, Persia, Arabia, .Syria, and AsiaiMinor,
and in N. Africa ; this species reaches its most
southern point in Somali-land. The second, or Bactrian, camel,
C. bactriantis, lives in the high plateaus of central Asia. Both
species are said to exist wild, but it is generally thought that
the herds found in a state of nature are descended from
domesticated animals and are not truly feral. This view is
supported by the recent observations of Sven Hedin. They
have been introduced into many parts of both the Old and the
New World, and where the climate has proved suitable have
been very useful as beasts of burden.
Numerous breeds of the C. dromedarius are found in the
East, and show as great diversities in character and use as do
the various breeds of horse. The breeds, many of which are
distinguished by a complex system of branding, may be roughly
divided into two classes : the riding, called in Egypt and Arabia
Hagln and in Indian Saivari, and the baggage animal, called
respectively the Gaiiial and Unt. The word dromedary is
often restricted to the former animal, which often maintains a
pace of 8-10 miles an hour for a long period, _ \yhereas the
baggage camel rarely exceeds 3 miles an hour. Riding a camel
for any length of time usually induces sickness^ the movement
of the two legs of each side together producing a most un-
pleasant swaying motion. Enormous herds, such as we read of
in the OT, are still kept by the natives both of the Sudan and
of NW. India, and breeding stables exist iti many parts of the
East. Camels produce but one young at a time and the period
of gestation is twelve months ; the young are suckled for a year
or Ic^nger. The average length of life seems to be considerable
— from forty to fifty years— and if well treated the camel will
continue to work hard until well over thirty.
The power which it undoubtedly possesses of doing without
food is to some extent dependent on the hump ; when the
animal is underfed or overworked fhis structure begins to dis-
appear and the condition of the hump is thus an unfailing sign
of the state of its health. Similarly the power of doing without
water is due to a structural peculiarity of the two first compart-
ments— the rumen and reticulum — of the complex stomach of
the camel. Each of these chambers has its wall pitted into a
series of crypts or cells which are each guarded by a special
sphincter muscle, and in these crypts a certain amount of water
is stored — perhaps two gallons at most. The fluid can be let
out from time to time to mix with the more solid food. Camels
ruminate, and their masticated food passes straight into the
third division of the stomach. In spite of this provision for
storing water, no opportunity should be lost of watering camels,
as it is most inadvisable to trust to this reserve, and they are apt
to overdrink themselves if kept without water for too long a
time. The stories about travellers saving their lives by opening
the stomachs of camels when dying of thirst are probably
imaginary ; the camel exhausts its own supply of water, and
even if a little be left it is quite undrinkable. Their flesh is
eaten at times by natives, who consider the hump a delicacy.
Their dung is used for fuel in the desert.
From the earliest times the hair of the camel has been woven
into fabrics. The hair from the hump and back is torn or shorn
and woven into a tough, har^h cloth ; but a finer, softer material
is also prepared from the under-wool. The milk is consumed
by the natives, who both drink it and convert it into butter and
cheese.
Although the camel has been domesticated from a very early
date, and although, without its aid, vast rej^ions of the world
would prove untraversable, and consequently it has always been
the servant of man, there is considerable divergence of opinion
as to the real character of the animal. Perhaps the Latest
writer, Alajor Leonard,! may be quoted as one who has had
sixteen years' ' practical observation and experience of camels in
India, .Afghanistan, Egypt, and the Soudan'; he says, 'To sum
The Camel, its Uses and Management ('94).
63s
CAMP
up the average specimen of a camel. He can abstain from food
and water — the latter more especially — longer than any other
animal. He is stupid and patient to excess, submissive and
tenacious to a degree, docile and obstinate to a certain extent,
vindictive and passionate when roused, not easily excited nor
usually alarmed, though at times liable to a panic or stampede
— an animal in fact whose characteristics are every bit as
peculiar as his structural peculiarities.' Another admirable
epitome of the character of the camel as a baggage animal is
given in kudyard Kipling's 'Oont.' a. K. S.
§ 1/ 6 N. M. —A. E. S. ; § 3 W. M. M. ; § 4/ T. K. C.
CAMON (pOj^; pamnoon [B]. -mmco [A], kaA-
KCON [L]), an unknown locality in Gilead ; the burial-
place of Jair {q.v. 1) (Judg. IO5). It was doubtless one
of the Havvoth-Jair (q.v.). Reland (679) rightly
combines it with the Kafj.ovv which, in 217 B.C.,
Antiochus III. the Great captured along with Pclla and
Gefrun (Polyb. v. 7O12). To the W. of the place
identified by Buhl with the ancient Gefrun or Ephron
(q.v., i. 2) in N. Gilead, and i m. S. of the high road
from Irbid (Arbela) to the Jordan, lies a village whose
name, Kumeim, 'little summit,' is doubtless a corrup-
tion of the ancient Kamon.
Eus. and Jer. (O^" 272 66 110 20) identify Camon with a place
in the 'great plain' called Kaixfiiova, Cimona, situated 6 R. m.
N. of Legio, on the way to Ptolemais. This Koiiij-utva., however,
which is evidently Tell kaimun (see Jokneam), is clearly on
the wrong side of the Jordan.
CAMP (n:TO;i nARCMBoAH [BADEFL], Gen.
322[3] Ex. 14 19 Heb. 1.3 n). A camp is so called from
the cut-c'in^ of the tents over their occu-
1. Military.
pants ( i^'nn ; cp MH ni:n)."'^ The term
(n:no) is applied primarily to an assemblage of tents of
nomads (Gen. 322i[22], EV 'company'; Nu. I319,
EV 'camps'). Of the early Israelitish nomad camps
we have no contemporary records ; Doughty (Ar. Des.
I221 2309) observes that some Bedouin tribes pitch dis-
persedly and without order ; others in a circle, to protect
the cattle. The latter style is that of the m-a (Ar.
duwdr), of which we hear in Gen. 25 16 Nu. 31io i Ch.
639 [54] Ezek. 254 (AV 'castle,' but in Ezek. 'palaces,'
RV 'encampment').
The military camps of a later age are referred to
elsewhere (see War). Suffice it to remark here ( i ) that
the encampments of the Hebrews were probably round
rather than square : this was a legacy from their nomad
state (see above) ; the barricade which surrounded the
camp was called Vjyp ([i S. 1720265.' AV 'trench,'
RV 'place of the wagons,' mg. 'barricade'; in 17 20
(S'^ and in 265 Aq. and Sym. or Theod. (TTpOY^vXucis,
Tg. Nsipn.D — ie., xap'i'C'^Ma] — i.e., a 'round' line of
defence, cp hi^, 'round').'* Also (2) that their camps
have left no impress on names of places, as the Roman
castra has on English place-names. Mahaneh-D.'VN
\(].v.'\ owes its name to a misunderstanding. We do
find, how^ever, the strange archaising phrases, ' the camp
of Vahw^' (2Ch. 3I2) and 'the camp of the Levites'
(iCh. 9i8; cp Nu. 2i7 P), in connection with the
description of the temple services. Is. 29 1 has been
thought to describe Jerusalem as the camp — i.e., dwell-
ing— of David (so BDB) ; but this is far from certain ;
the prophecy of Yahw^'s encampment against Jerusalem
is thereby obscured.
This leads us to speak of the camp in the wilderness,
as conceived by P (Nu. 1-4). Of course, it must be
^ , . , historically true that there was a sacred
2. In the .__. ■ .< , .u 1 u.,,. — ,„\^
wilderness (P).
tent in which the ark or chest contain-
ing the sacred objects of the Israelitish
"nomads was placed when the Israelites halted in their
wanderings (see Ark, 4). This tent, glorified into the
so-called Tabernacle (see Tabernaclf.), forms the
1 *ninn 2 K. 68 '(shall be) my camp' is corrupt; Th. Klo.
Gratz. Benz. after Pesh. read 'N?nri, ' ye shall be hid.
2 On 'jn in Jer. 37 16 see Cei.i..s._
8 AVing- 'midst of his carriages.'
•* ©L in 17 20 has jropt>ij3oAij ; 2(5 5 ©bal Ao/uin^iTj and Aq. also
Ka\}.irfi.
636
CAMPHIRE
centre of the camp as dijscrit)0(l by P. The case is
analogous to tliat of Kzc-kicl's ideal division of the Holy
Land in tlie future ( Ilzok. 48), in which his sacerdotal con-
ceptions tind expression. The ralx;rnacle is the place
of Yahwe's presence. This is why it is the central
point, ininiediately round which the Invites encamp,
forming an inner ring of protection for the ordinary
Hebrew lest by inadvertently drawing near he should
bring down upon himself the wrath of Yahwe(Nu. 1 50-53)-
The positions of the various tribes are i^iycii in Nu. 2j on
each side of the tabernacle, but separated from it by the Levite.s,
three tril>es encamp -a leading trilje flanked by two other triljes
with their ' ensigns ' (hik)- 1 ""■•* "" *•"= K. is Judah flanked by
Is-sachar and Zebuhm ; on the S. keulien flanked by Simeon and
Gad ; on the W. Kphraim flanked by Manasseh and Benjamin ;
u\d on the N. Dan flanked by .\sher and N.iphtali. It has
generally been held that the four leading tribes were dis-
tinguished by the possession of large standards {■}'), whereas
the other tribes had only sm.iller ensigns (niN) ; but this rests
perhajjs on a misinterpretation of 7J31, which, as the contexts
and. in part the versions show, means a company ; see the
discussions in/^^A^ " ('98) 92-101 ; and cp Knsu..s.
The foregoing details are to be gathered from what have been
fenerally rej^arded as parts of the primary narrative of P.
"urther details as to the Levites are given in 3 14-3'', which has
been attributed (i-.jtr., by We. €// 179^) to secondary strata
of P. Accordinc to this section the various Levitical divisions
encamped as follows :— Moses, Aaron and his sons (3 38) on the
K., the Kohathites on the S. (3 29), the C.crshonites on the W.
^323), and the Merarites on the N. (3 35) of the tabernacle.
The K.istward is manifestly regarded as the superior position ;
the relative importance of the remaininc three positions is less
obvious ; but it may be observed that the E. and S. sides are
occupied by the children of Leah (exclusive of Levi) together
with ( ;.-id ; the W. by the children of R.-ichel, and the N. by the
children of the handmaids (exclusive of Gad).
The priestly writers appear to have conceived of the
camp as sc|iiare, and this is probably another indication
that we have to do with an ideal (not a historical) camp ;
for there is some reason for believing that the actual
encampments of the Hebrews approximated to the
round rather than the scjuare form (cp §1). Though
the other hexateuchal sources furnish few details as to
the camp, the direct statement of P^x. 33; (E) that the
tabernacle was outside is quite irreconcilable with P's
account that it formed the centre of the camp. The
central position of the tabernacle, the intermediate
position of the Levites between the tabernacle and the
secular tribes, and the superior position assigned among
the Levites to the sons of Aaron, are not matters of
history, but the expression, in the form of an idealisation
of the past, of a religious idea.
T. K. c. , § I ; G. B. G. , § 2.
CAMPHIRE ("IS3; KYnpoc [BSAC] ; Cant. 1 14
[om. H], 4 13), the earlier spelling of ' camphor,' should
be Hknn.V (as in R\') — i.e., Lawsonia alba, Lamk. ,
a plant described by Tristram (NIIB 2,2,9 f) as still
growing on the shores of the Dead Sea at Engedi
(Cant. 1 14). According to Boissier (/•'/. Orient, ^t^a),
it is frequently cultivated in Egypt, Arabia Petrnsa, and
Persia ; and it is probably indigenous to N. Africa,
Arabia, Persia, and W. India (Bentham and Hooker,
Gen. PL 1 782). The ' cluster ' ^ of Cant. 1 14 is that of
the flowers.
Pesh. and Targ. have the .same word as _MT, with which
Kvirpof also is identical : and the Syriac lexicographers st.^te
that this rneans the hannd of the Arabs— the plant from which
they obtain the dye for the nails. The Oreek references to
Ktnrpo-- will be found in Liddell and Scott, s.v.
N. M. — \V. T. T.-n.
CANA OF GALILEE (kana thc taXiAaiac [Ti.
WH]: I'csh. kiiina) appears only in thc Fourth Gos{)el,
as thc scene of Christ's first miracle (John 2 i n 446),
and of his healing of the nobleman's son lying sick at
Capernaum (4 46-54), and as the home of Nathanael
(21 2). The only evidence as to its position is that it
lay higher than Capernaum ; Jesus went down from
it to the hotter (2 12).
Tradition and present opinion are divided between
^ 73PK, which elsewhere means a cluster of grapes — possibly
of dates I'n Cant. 7 7/ [8/]. See liudde.
637
CANAAN, CANAANITB
the modern Kcfr Kennil, a hamltt almost 3J m. NE. of
Nazareth, ,with a fine sjiring, and Khirbct Kana or
Kanat el-{jelil, on a promontory of Gebcl Kana over the
plain of Buttauf, alwut 8 m. N. of Nazareth, with
ruins, tombs, cisterns, and a [xxjL
The data of Antoninus Placentinus, 570 A. D. (///». 4), suit Ke/r
Kenna, at which the media:val writers Phoca.s, John of Wiirz-
burg, and QuaresmiuSjplace it ; so also in modern times (Juerin.
De Saulcy, Porter, Tristram, and Conder. Kuscbius and
Jerome ((AS) identify it with Kanah in Aslier (Josh. I'.i 28); to
them, therefore, it would not have been at Kefr Kenna, but may
have been K3nat el-Gelll. The data of Thcudosius (530 a.d.)
suit Kfinat el-Gelll, and so in the Middle .Ages do those of
Saewulf, Hrocardus, Ketellus, Marinus .Sanutus ; and others ad-
here. Robinson, who was the first modern to revive thc claims
of Kanat el-Gelll, descril)es the position, details the traditional
evidence, and points out that the name is the equivalent of the
NT one. while Kenna, with the double «, is not (UK 3 204-8).
He has been followed by Ritter, Renan, Thomson, Stanley, and
Socin.
The name K.anat el-Gelll is not above suspicion ; it
may be the creation of an early ecclesiastical tradition,
just as Robinson himself points out that an attempt has
been made by the native Christians in the present
century to transfer it to Kefr Kenna. On the other
hand, Josephus resided for a time in a village of Galilee,
called Cana (/V/. 16); if this be the same as his
residence m the plain of Asochis (/</. 41), he means
Kanat el-(5elil.
Conder {PKF Mem. \ 288) suggests another site for Cana in
' Ain Kana, on the road between Reineh and Tabor.
G. A. .S.
CANAAN, CANAANITE (jy33, ^:V33, xanaan,
XANANAlOl)- Coins from Laodicea of the time of
, _, . . .Aiitiochus iV. and his successors, liear
1. Fhoenician , , , . . n i-
usaire 1 ^^"^ '''-'^"'^ l>"=^ •=** '*^^**- ' °^ ^'^'^^''^^'
° ' a metropolis in Canaan ' — probably the
Phcrnician town whose position is indicated by the
ruins of Umm-el-'Awamid, 8. of Tyre. Well known,
too, is the statement (wrongly assigned to Hecat;vus
of Miletus) that Phoenicia w.as formerly called x"^
(Herodian, irepi /J.ovrjpovs X^^ews, 19; similarly Steph.
Byz. x""- oi'^ws 7; 4'oiviKT] (AraXetro). In accordance
with this, Philo of Byblos (2, 27) calls the eponym of
the Ph(i'nicians ' Chna, who was later called Phoinix '
(d5eX</>6j x*** "^^^ irpwTov fx.fTOPofxaaGd'Tos <polviKos), and
in Bekker, Anecd. iii. 1181, 6 X"^^ (g*^"- '''^^ X"^) '^
identified with Agenor (the father of Phcu-nix), ' whence
the Phoenicians also are called Ochna' [bBiv Kal 17
'i'oiviKT] dxi'a \^yfTai). Here we have the shorter form
A'«<:' (;':3 ; cp Olsh., Lehrb. d. hebr. Spr., 2i^a), so
often met with in the Amarna tablets under the form
Kinahhi, side by side with the fuller form Kinahiii,
probably with the article prefixed (v;2n) as in Egyptian
inscriptions (see below, § 6).
As a geographical term Canaan shares the indefinite-
ness that characterises much of the O I", and indeed of
__ all .ancient, geographical nomenclature.
^ ■ In its widest sense the term seems to
have been used to denote all of what may be roughly
classed as Southern Syria, from the foot of .\It. Hcrmon
to the lower end of the Dead Sea, including territory
l)oth to the E. and to the W. of the Jordan clear to
the Mediterranean. Such appears to lie the case in the
Book of Joshua (11 3). More commonly, however, it is
restricted to the lands lying to the W. of the Jordan —
that is Jud.i!a, Phtrnicia, and Philistia proix;r. As
Judaj.a, however, became more sharply marketl off from
Pha-nicia and Philistia, it is natural that to Hebrew
writers Canaan should have come to mean the latter
districts more particularly. So in Is. 23 n the term is
applied to Phoenicia and perhaps to the entire coast, and
in Zeph.25 to Philistia. As an ethnic term, C.anaanite
is similarly applied to the inhabitants of the W. Jordan
district in general, while at times — as in Nu. 13 29 — the
seats of the Canaanites are more specifically limited to
the sea-coast and the Jordan valley. Corresponding to
1 This section is by the author of thc article Phcenicia,
638
CANAAN. CANAANITB
3. Geographical
inference.
the identification of Canaan with Phoenicia, which is also
in accord with the usage of the term Kinaljhi in the
Aniarna Tablets (§ lo below), the term Caniuinite
comes to be associated with the mercantile activity of
Phtrnicia, and in consequence appxjars occasionally —
as, e.g., in Hos. 128 Is. 2:3 8 — in the general sense
of merchant. According to Targ. and many moderns,
it has this sense likewise in Zech. l-lai ; Wellhausen
and Nowack would add, emending in accordance with
C"-^. Zech. 11 7 II.
The indefiniteness and the shifting character of both
the geographical and the ethnical terms point to
political changes in which were in-
volved the people to whom the term
Canaanites was originally applied :
indeed, the indefiniteness is the direct outcome of these
changes. .Analogy warrants us in assuming as the
starting-point a more limited district, and that with the
extension of Canaanitish conquest or settlement the
term Iwcame correspondingly enlarged, though it is
not necessary to assume that the correspondence between
actual settlement or possession and the geographical
application of the term Canaan must have lx?en complete.
'Y\\ii pn-d&ini nance of Canaanites in important sections
of the W. Jordan lands would have sufficed for imposing
their name on the whole district.
The Egyptian inscriptions come to our aid in enabling
us to determine where to seek for the origin of the term.
„ .. In the accounts of their Asiatic campaigns,
T^ ^^ which begin about i8oo B.C., the rulers
evi enc . ^(. ^j^^ ^-^j^ restrict the name Ka-n-'-nj
to the low strip of coast that forms the eastern limit
of the Mediterranean ; and, since it is only the northern
section of this coast that affords a sufficiency of
suitable harbours for extensive settlements, it is more
particularly to the Phoenician coast-land that the name
is apjilied. From the Phoenician coast it naturally
came to be extended by the Egyptians to the entire
coast down to the Egyptian frontier, the absence
of any decided break in the continuity of the coast
leading to the extension of the nomenclature, as it led
in later times to the shifting character of the southern
boundary of Phoenicia proper. The name of Philistia
for the southern part of the coast does not occur in the
Egyptian inscriptions. It was from the
coast, therefore, that the name was ex-
teniled to include the high lands adjacent
to it ; and it is interesting to note that, whilst the geo-
graphical term never lost its restricted application to the
coast strip, the ethnographical term Ka-n-'-ne-mau —
i.e., Canaanites — embraces for the ICgyptians, accord-
ing to Miiller [As. u. Eur. 206 / ), the population
of all of Western Syria, precisely as in biblical sources.
The combination of the Egyptian with the OT notices
seems to justify the conclusion that the coast population
sent into the interior offshoots which made permanent
settlements there. In this way both Canaan and the
Canaanites acquired the wide significance that has been
noted, whilst the subsequent tendency towards restricting
the name to the sea-coast is an unconscious return to
the earlier and more exact nomenclature.
The etymology of the term Canaan bears out these
historical and geographical conclusions. In the Egyptian
inscriptions (cp also aVjove, § i) the
word appears with the article — ' The
Canaan ' — which points to its being a descriptive term ;
and, even though we agree with Moore {/'A OS, 1890,
pp. Ixvii-lxx) that the testimony is incomplete, the,
use of the stem yjj in Hebrew in the sense of ' to be
humbled ' suggests the possibility that this stem may,
!n some other Semitic dialect, have been used to convey
the idea of ' low,' even though that may not have been
the original sense of the stem. If we keep in view the
prefixing of the article to the term, and its original
application to a strip of land between the sea and the
mountains, no more appropriate designation than ' the
639
5. History
of Name.
6. Etymology.
lowland ' can well be imagined ; and this explanation
of (Janaan, though not unanimously accepted, is at any
rate provisionally tenable. ' Certainly it seems to be an
ancient one ; for when it is said that the Canaanite is
the one who dwells by the sea and along the side of the
Jordan (Nu. I329) -».*., in the two 'lowland' districts
of Palestine — the very artificiality of the indicated limits
suggests that it was the etymology of the word which
led the writer to such a view in contradiction to so many
other passages where Canaanites are spoken of as
occupying mountainous districts also.
By the side of the term Canaiin, however, there is in
the OT another which is used, especially by the Elohist,
1 Hmnniaa ^'^ Cover precisely the same population —
"Sot namely, 'the land of the Amorite.' It
is the merit of Steinthal {/.. f. Volkcr-
psychologie, 12 267) and of E. Meyer (ZATIVI 123
['81]) to have definitely demonstrated this important
point. See Amokitics. At the same time, it is to
be borne in mind that when the coast -land is speci-
fically referred to, the term Amorite is not used, but,
as already pointed out, either Canaan for the whole
coast or Canaan for the northern and Philistia for the
southern. Whether the Yahwist (J) is equally con-
sistent, as Meyer claims, in using 'Canaanite' for the
pre-Israelitish population of the W. Jordan lands is
open to question. The theory cannot be carried through
without a certain amount of arbitrariness in the distribu-
tion of the verses belonging to J and E respectively (see
M'Curdy's note, Nisf. Proph. Mon. I406-S).
Moreover, the cimeiform documents and Egyptian
inscriptions furnish an explanation for the double
8 In EffVDtian nomenclature that places the facts in
». in tgyptiian. ^ somewhat different light. From the
Egyptian side it is clear that the term ' Amoritic ' land
was limited to the mountain district lying to the east of
the Phojnician coast-land but extending across the
Jordan to the Orontes (WMM, As. u. Eur. 217^).
The southern and the eastern boundaries are not sharply
defined. The former is placed by Mtiller, on the basis
of Egyptian inscriptions, at the entrance of the plain —
the so-called Beka — l)etween the Lebanon and the
Antilibanus, and, whilst the Orontes might seem to
furnish a natural eastern boundary, it would appear
that the early Egyptian concjuerors extended the limits
still farther to the east. At the time of Thotmes III.
the Hittites had not yet made their appearance. Later,
in the days of Rameses III., when the Hittites form
the most serious menace to Egyptian supremacy in
Western Asia, the Orontes l)ecomes a more definite
boundary of the ' Amoritic ' district, while as the
Hittites encroach upon the territory of the Amorites,
the term Hittite begins to displace ' .\morite ' for the
northern mountain district of Palestine. This process
_ 1 '^ completed about 1000 B.C. .At that
1 . ' time, however, the term ' Amoritic ' had
y ■ already been extended to the southern
range of Palestine — not by the Egyptians, but by the
Babylonians and Assyrians. It is in cuneiform docu-
ments of (about) the twelfth century that we first
come across the term ' land of A-mur-ri' (as the signs
must be read, instead of A-har-ri, as was formerly
supposed). Nebuchadrezzar I., king of Babylonia,
whose date is fixed at circa 1127, calls himself the
conqueror of the ' land of .Amor ' ; and Tiglath-pileser I.
of Assyria, whose reign coincides in part with that of
Nebuchadrezzar, names the great sea of the Amoritic
land as the western lx)undary to his conquests.
Long ere this, however, as the use of the Babylonian
language in the Amarna tablets {circa 1400 B.C. ) shows,
1 [So G. A. .Smith, //C 5, whilst BDB .and Buhl (Pal. 42)
decline a decision. Moore and E. Meyer (O'.-J 176) reject the
derivation from yjp, 'humilis esse,' which is the property of the
uncritical Augustme (Knarrat. in Ps. IO47). .Augustine says
(/■'xfios. Ep. ad Rom.') that the pea.sants near Hippo, when
asked as to their origin, answered in Punic, Chartaiti, id est,
Chananaeos esse. ]
640
CANAAN, CANAANITE
Babylonia had come into close contact with the I'hiu-
nician coast and the interior. As a niatter of fact, one
of the earliest rulers in Southern Babylonia of w lion* we
have any record, Sargon I. , whose date is fixe<l at 3800
B.c:. , is declared, in a tablet presenting a curious mixture
of 'omens' and historical tradition, to have jx-netratefl
Ijeyond the western sea (i.e., the Me<literranean), and
there arc indications that he actually set foot on the
island of C yprus (see Max Ohnefalsch-Kichter, Kypros,
83). Sargon s|»eaks only in a general way of having
proceede<l to the ' west ' land ; but the ideographic
designation in the text in cjuestion — Maktu — is the
same as that which the later Assyrian rulers employ for
the territory which includes Canaan in the projx-r s»-nse.
The same compound ideogram is the ordinary term for
' west ' in the legal literature of Habylonia ; and the
suggestion that it is also to be read Anmrru — Mar
bemg a playful acrologisni of Amur and Ti;, indicat-
ing perhaps direction — is plausible. In any case there
apjxjars to he. some close connection between Mak Tl;
and the name Amurru.' The text in which Sargon's
western contiuests are spoken of is probably of a very
much later date than Sargon himself ; but the value of
the tradition, and at all events of the geographical
nomenclature, is unimpaired by this fact. The Amarna
... . tablets, which constitute the remains of
10. In Amarna
tablets.
Egyptian archives of the fifteenth
century B.C. , confirm the great anticjuity
of the term Amtirru. In the letters to their royal
master written by otiicers under Egyptian suzerainty,
the term is of not infrecjuent occurrence, and an ex-
amination of the passages proves that it is applied, just
like the corresponding term in the Egyptian inscrip-
tions, to the mountainous district lying immediately to
the east of the coast-land of ' Canaan ' in the Egyptian
sense — /. <r. , of Northern Palestine. The eastern limits
are again not sharply defined. In the period to which
the Amarna tablets l)elong, the Hittites are lieginning
to extend their settlements l)eyond the Orontes ; but
lietween ' Hatti ' and 'Amor' land there was a district
known as Xiihassi, which reached to Damascus. This
may, roughly, l>e regarded as the eastern frontier
of the ' Anmrru ' district. The agreement Ixitween
the Egyptian and the .Amarna nomenclature extends to
the term 'Canaan,' which, under the form Kinahhi, is
limited in the Amarna tablets to the northern ' lowland '
or sea-coast. It was quite natural that, from being
applied to the interior district of Northern Palestine, the
term 'Amurru' should come to Ije employed for the
interior of Southern Palestineas well, just as the I-",gyptians
extended the application of ' Canaan ' to the entire
Palestinian coast. When the Assyrian conquerors in
the ninth century lx.-gin to threaten the
11. In later
Assyrian.
Hebrew kingdoms, they include the
dominion of the latter under the land of
' Amurru. ' The term ' land of Ismel ' occurs only once
in Assyrian inscriptions, and even this passage is
not beyond dispute. .Again, since the '.Anmrru'
district in the pro[3er sense was the first territory that
the earliest Babylonian and .Assyrian con(|uerors set
foot in after crossing the Orontes, it also happens that
the term t)ecomes for them the most general designation
for the ' W'est. ' On the other hand, it must be noted
that this development in the use of ' Amurru ' is directly
due to Babylonian intluence. and forms part of the
heritage lxH|uealhed to later limes by the period of early
Babylonian control over the land l)'ing to the west of
the Orontes.
-At the comparatively late period when .Assyria,
12 Land of "^"""P'^K ^^^ place formerly held by Baby-
Hittitea 'o"'-"^' Ijegins her cont|uests, the '.Amoritic'
power in Northern Palestine was seriously
1 For a discu.s.sion of the .subject and a somewhat different
view, see .Schr.ider, 'Das land .Amurru," SBAW Dec. 20, 1894.
Cp also Wi. CI 1 ('95), 51-54. An analogy for thus indicating
• westward ' by a reference to a land lying to the west is to be
fiaund in the OT designation oi Negeb for "^ south."
21 641
threatene<l by the IIilTlTF.S (</.7'. ). In extending their
s«ttlemcnts Ix-yoiul the Orontes they encroachi-d u|X)n
" .Amoritic " territory. The distinct traces of this west-
ward movement of the Hittites are to l»e found in the
Amarna tablets already mentioned. Indeed, the move-
ment forms the key to the [)olitical situation of Palestine
in the fifteenth century B.C. The .Assyrian coiu|uerors
accordingly, when procce<ling to the W'est, invariably
began their campaigns by a passage of arms with the
Hittites. This, taken together with the waning strength
of the 'Amorites,' led to another change in the geo-
graphical nomenclature — the extension of the term
Hatti or Hittite to Northern Palestine as far as the
Mediterranean, so as to include, therefore, Phci-nicia
pro[>er. For Southern Palestine the older designation
'.Amurru' held its own. and the differentiation thus
resulting between 'Hatti' and 'Amurru' assumed a
practical significance which was quite independent of
the original application of the two terms.
It will h.ave Iteconie evident from this sketch of the
early fortunes of Palestine that care nmst l^e exercised
p , in draw ing conclusions from geographical
, . .' nomenclature. The Hittite power does
j^'l^P ^?* not extend to the sea-coast Ixjcause of the
msUncMons. ^^^^^.^^.^^ ^f 1,,^. geographical term, and
so the ethnographical application of Amoritic cannot Ije
determined from the geographical usage.
That ' .Amur ' originally designated a particular trilw,
or possibly a group of trilx^s, settled chiefly in the .Anti-
. .. libanus district, is one of the few
14. Amontes. ^^^^^ ^^ ^ deduced from the early
ICgyptian monuments. These .Amorites of Northern
Palestine are frec|ucntly represented by the Egy])tians
as a blond j^eople with a cast of countenance that marks
them off from what are generally considered to be
Semitic traits (see Petrie, Racial Types from the Egyptian
Monuments). It would be hazardous, in the face (jf
our imperfect knowletlge, to enter upon further specula-
tions as to their origin. There are go<xi reasons for
„ . believing that already at a very early
]X"riod the population of Palestine pre-
° . .. sented a mixture of races, and that
" " ■ through intermarriage the dividing lines
between these races became fainter in the cour.se of lime,
until all sharp distinctions were obliterated. Hence the
promi.scuous grouping — so characteristic in the Hexa-
leuch — of Amorites with Perizzites, Hivites, Hittites,
etc., of northern and southern Palestinians, without any
regard to ethnic distinctions. The problem of differentia-
ting Ix-'tween these various groups whom the Hebrews
encountered u])on settling in Palestine is at present
incapable of solution. Future discoveries will prob-
ably emphasise still more strongly the heterogeneous
character of the tribes. Their unorganised condition
made them a comparatively easy prey
conquerors and yet difficult to ex-
terminate. The early Babylonian and
16. Their
absorption.
ligyptian conquerors were content with a general
recognition of their supremacy on the part of the
inhabitants. Native Palestinians were retained in con-
trol, and all that was demandt>d was a payment of
tribute from time to time. When, however, the
Hebrews jiermanently settkxl in Southern Palestine,
alxjut 1200 B.C., the early inhabitants lost much of their
political prestige. In the course of time, also, ntany of
the groups were reduced to a state of subjection, varying
in degree, but in all cases, except in the case of the
inhabitants of the co.ast, sufficiently conjplete to prevent
any renewal of former conditions. With the successful
establishment of the b' ne Israel in the lands to the west
of the Jordan, the history of the pre-Israelitish inhabit-
ants comes to an end in Southern Palestine, e.xcept so
far as the infiuence of these Canaanitish groups upon
the religious life of the Israelites is involvctl. The
Hittites in the north, of course, survixe ; but the other
groups, including the Amorites, gradually disappear,
642
19. Disunion.
bility of any permanent political union
CANALS
either sinking into a position of utter insignificance or
aniali;amating witli the Hebrew tribes(seeGt)VKKNMKNT,
§ 15 /; ; IsKAKl., § 8). Tlie freciuent injunctions in the
Hexaleuch warning the people against intermarriage
with these conquered groups are clear indications that
such intermarriages must have been common.
A new element in the ethnographical environment of
Palestine that appears simultaneously with, or shortly
p. ... .. before, the invasion of the Hebrews is
17. rmiisiines. represented by the Philistines, who,
coming (it would apix:ar) from some island or coast-land
to the west of i'alestine, succeeded as a sturdy seafaring
nation in making settlements along the inhospitable
southern coast of Palestine. Their non-Semitic character
h:is been quite definitely ascertained ; but, once in i
Palestine, they appear to have exchanged their own
language for one of the Semitic dialects spoken in the
land to which they came. It is rather curious that
these Philistines, who generally lived in hostile relations
with the Hebrews, and at various times threatened
the existence of the Hebrew settlements, were eventu-
ally the people to give their name to a district
which they never possessed in its entirety. In
the latest Assyrian inscriptions, however, Pilastu still
appears in its restricted application to the southern
coast-land, and it is not until the days of the Roman
conquest that the equation ' Palestine = Philistia -f-
Canaan ' becomes established.
On the basis of the Egyptian and the Assyrian inscrip-
tions and of the OT, the history of Canaan may be
_. . . . divided into three periods: [a) the
18. Historical pre-lsraelitish period, from about 3800
penotts. g^ j^ ji^^ definite constitution of the
Israelitish confederacy ; [h) the Israelitish supremacy
from circa 1100 H.C. to circa 740; [c] decline of this
supremacy, ending with the absorption of Canaan by
Assyria and Babylonia 587 R.C. After the return of
the Hebrews from the so-called Babylonian exile, the
history of the north and south Ixjcomes involved in the
various attempts to found a universal empire, under-
taken in succession by Persia, Macedonia, and Rome.
The characteristic note in the history of Canaan
dow n to the period of Persian supremacy is the impossi
among the inhabitants. liven the
Hebrews, united by a common tradition and by religion,
yield to the inevitable tendency towards political division
instead of union. This tendency stands in close relation-
ship to the geographical conditions (see G..\..Sm.
Hist. Geogr.). The land is split up into coast-land,
highland, and valleys ; in consequence of which, it
presents climatic extremes suflicient to bring about
equally sharp contrasts in social conditions. The
resulting heterogeneous disposition of the population
appears to have rendered united action (except in extreme
necessity) impossible even among those sections most
closely united by blood and traditions. [For further
details regarding these three periods of Canaanitish
history see the articles I.sk.\kl, § 6, Hittitk.s, I'hck-
NICIA. Philistinls. etc.]. M. J.. JR.
CANALS (DnS*). E.x. 7 19 Nah. 3 8 RV^k- See
Egypt, § 6. The Hebrew word denotes the arms or
canals of the Nile (ix-n). On artificial water-courses in
Palestine see Conduits.
CANAN.ffiAN (o KAN&N&IOC [Ti. WH], cananceus
\S%-\ fif Iff [Pcsh.]), the designation applied to Simon ■
the apostle ( Mt. 104 Mk. 3 18 RV ; mg. * Zealot '). The
word does not mean an inhabitant of Canaan (so AV
Ca.n.VANITK, based upon TR Ka.vo.viTr\%), which in Gr.
is usually expressed by xa''tt»'aios (x = 2); nor has it
anything to do with Cana. It is a transliteration of
l»':K:i3. the i)l. of jk3,t (cp Bib. Heb. \ni^), which in
Lk' 6 T5 Acts 1 13 is' represented by the Gr. equivalent
j;7j\<i)Tris, Zealot (^.t'.).
643
CANDLESTICK
CANDACE (kanAakh [Ti. WH]), queen of the
Ethiopians {AldioTTuf}, is incidentally mentioned in Acts
8 27. For the kingdom of Ethiopia which continued to
maintain its independence against the Roman enijjerors,
see Ethioi'IA. Its queen was often called Candace ;
this seems, indecii, to have been regarded as an oflicial
title, somewhat like ' Pharaoh' (or rather 'Ptolemy'?)
in Eg)'pt. The name occurs in hieroglyphics on a
ruined pyramid near ancient Meroe : see Lepsius, Denk-
maler, v. pi. 47 (pyram. 20 of Be^erauieh). There, a
queen is called Ainen-'aryt and K{e)ne{e)kv.^ It is
diflticult to say which of the two or three queens called
Candace w;is buried in that tomb.
I. Stral>o(82o; see also I )io Cass. 6829; 54 5) speaks of the
one-eyed virago Candace (ttJs ^aertAtVtrijs . . KafSouojt, ij koB'
rjna^ Tip^t noi/ X'lBioiriov, av&piKt^ ns ■yui'n TTfTriipuijieVi) TOr irtpov
riiv 6()>0aXniov) who in 22 li.c. attacked Kgypt, overiiowered the
three cohorts of Roman soldiers stationed at the first cataract
and devastated the Thebaid, but was easily defeated by the
legate Petronius, and pursued to her northern capital, Napata,
which was destroyed. 2. Pliny (0 35) seems to refer the reign of
Candace ('regnare foeminam Candacem') to the time when
Nero's explorers passed through Nubia ; his a.ssertion that the
name had become somewhat common among the queens of
Meroe ('quod nomen multis jam annis ad reginas transiit ') is
usually pushed much too far against the monumental evidence.
The Ethiopian officer of .^cts 8 cannot well have had
any connection with the Candace of Strabo ; but his
mistress may not improbably have been the contemporary
of Nero.
Nero's explorers reported the southern capital as in ruins, in
consequence of internal wars between the Ethiopians ; most
likely, the royal residence had already been shifted .S. to Wady-
es-Sofra and Soba, where ruined p.ilaces and temples of the latest
style have been found, but the kingdom appears still to have
taken its name from the capital Meroe where the kings were, at
least, buried.
For the condition of the Meroitic kingdom at that
time and the part played by the queens (or rather kings'
mothers), see Etiuoi-ia. \v. m. m.
CANDLE (n: ; AyXNOc). Job 186 Mt. 5.5 etc. ; cp
below, and see Lamp.
CANDLESTICK, the P2V rendering of (i) m'nordh
rrilJp Ex. 25 31 etc. (AyXNIa). 'lie well-known candela-
brum of the temple, and (2) Aram, ncbrasta NTOnSp
(deriv. uncert. ), Dan. 5$ {Kd^MTTd^C [Theod.], <j)a)C
[©]), to the former of which liie present article will con-
fine itself, leaving to the articles Lamp and Tkmpi.E
further remarks upon the use of lights in temples or
shrines, and of lights (and 'candlesticks' or rather
' lampstands ' ) for secular purposes.
There is no critical evidence to support the supposition
that the temple candelabrum described by P in Ex. 25 31 jf.
2>~ \T ff- existed before the Exile. On
1. Not pre- ^j^g contrary, an old passage i S. 3 3
exilic. (written, perhaps, at the beginning of
the seventh century B.C. [Bu. , SHOT; cp Sa.mikl, i.
§ 3 ('^)]) speaks only of a 'lamp' (nj) which seems to
have burnt from night-fall until the approach of dawn.
Solomon, it is true, is said to have had ten golden
inTrtoroth in his temple, five on either side ( i K. 7 49/- ) i '
but they are not mentioned in 2 K. 25 13-17 (in the d Jer.
52 19 their introduction is due to a glossator), nor do we
find any trace of them in the templfe descrilxjd by Ezekiel
(Ezek. 40/. ), or in the restoration of temple-treasures
by Cyrus (Ezra 1 6/. ).^ These facts, as well as internal
evidence, support Stade's conclusion that the passage in
I K. is an interpolation (ZATWiiti f. ['83]. GVI
I230 ; cp Now. HA 240 n. 2, and Benz. ad loc). The
^^
1U?>
read
for
the disficured fifth sign. _ j, . ,
2 .Apart from the instruments used in tending thts candlestick
an<l the lamps themselves, mention is made only of the ' flowers '
(rns, ® in Ki. Aofiiro«[(]ia [in Zech. 4 2 = Vi, ' bowl '], in 2 Ch. 4 21
Ao/s'iaes [/./•., D^np^';'!?, ' tongs ']).
3 Unmentioned also in 2 Mace. 2 5 and the Apoc. of Baruch
644
CANDLESTICK
ten candlesticks of the temple of Solomon have probably
been evolved from the imaj^ination of a later scnlx.*, who
seems to have adopted the numl)er ten to agree with the
ten ' bases ' (n'llic) ; cp i K. 7 39- Obviously it is no
real objection to our view of the critical value of i K.
7 49 that the Chronicler mentions candlesticks of gold
and silver among David's gifts to Solomon in i Ch. '28 15.
That this verse in its present f(jrm h;is suffered ampli-
fication api)cars from a comparison with ©.
Tradition tielii that these ten candlesticks (Jos. augments the
nuin)>cr to 10,000 1 [.-tnt.viii.'.ij]) citlicr were already present
along with the Mosaic candelalirum, or were exact copies of it
(cp a Ch. 4 7, CCSw'03). Naturally Solomon's great wealth was
considered a sulTicienf explanation of the otherwise curious fact
that, where.xs he employed ten candlesticks, the Mosaic taber-
nacle and the second temple were content with one. Bammiiihar
Rahha, 15, adds that the candlestick was one of the five things
taken away and preserved at the destiuction of Solomon's temple.
The candlestick of gold, called also the ' pure candle-
stick ' (Lev. 244), is described at length by P in Kx.
3 DeacriDtion. 253:^ ( = 37i7#)- It was placed out-
shewbread (see the \'g. addition to Nu. 8 a). The
m'ndrdh comprised the t;v (AV shaft),^ njD (branch,
KoXafdaKOi), y'33 (AV bowl, RV cup, KpaHjp, scyphus),
ninsp (knop, atpaipuj-fip \ Targ. Pesh. 'apple'), 2 and
rns (flowers, Kpivov [similarly Targ. Pesh. Vg. 'lily']),
perhaps collectively ' ornamentation.' The workman-
ship was nc'i7a. ' beaten-work ' or repoussd (so 0
Topf I'Tiis ; but /TTf/jf 6j in Xu. 8 4 Ex. 37 i4[i7] ; Jos. , on the
other hand, has Kfxwf'M^J'OJ. 'cast'). From an upright
shaft three arms projected on either side. Each branch
comprised three cups described as C"li3rp> ' shaped like
[or ornamented withjalmonds' (^(creTVTrii/xfi'oi Kapi'iffKoi'j
— see .Almond), together with ka/tornm\ />i!>a/i. Under
each pair of branches w.as a kajior (Kx. 2535), and
four sets of kaftor and pdrnh were to be found ' in the
candlestick' (.Tiijr:3. i.e., on the shaft, v. 34). These
four may have included the three of v. 35, in which
case the fourth was between the base and the lovsest
pair, or near tlie summit. Possibly, however, the
four sets came between the topmost pair of branches
and the summit (cp the illustration in Keland Z>^ ^S>6i//V.f
Ttmpli, facing p. 35). The centre shaft in Zechariah's
vision was surmounted by a bowl ( 1 2 Sj XajuirdStoi').
From Jos. (.•/«/. iii. 67) we learn that the candelabrum was
hollow, and comprised o-i^aipia, xpii'a with poitTKOi and
KpartipiSia, seventy ornaments in all.^' It ended in seven
heads ' (toToiAAriAai,' and w.ns situated obliquely (Aof<oO before
the t.-ihle of shewbread, and thus looked K. and ,S. ® 's version of
Ex. 37 17^ (differing widely from the present MT) supplies the
interesting statement that from the brancbes (icaAa/iicrKOt) there
^oceedeti three sprouts (fi\a<rroC) on either side ' c'f lo-ov^cfoi
oAAjjAois.' Rabbinical tradition (cp Talm. .l/(«ni</;. 28^^, Abar-
> -■]; (Ex. 25 3 1 37 1 7 Nu. 3 4) is difficult. RV renders ' base ' ;
so Pesh. (aXLfldi [i.e., ^ao-it], l^) ; but AV finds support in <D
Vg. (icauAov, hostile, stipes, and in Ex. 37 iT^ovectis [used also of
the 0*13 ' staves ' for carr>'ing the ark]). — 1» when used of
inanimate objects denotes the 'flank' (cp Ex.40 72 24 I.cv. 1 ir
Nu. 82935 2 K. 16 14). The specific mention of the 'base'
of the candlestick accordingly seems uncertain, unless perhaps
we .should read 1*2, '.stand,' ' base ' (cp 2 Ch. (5 13), instead of T'".
On the other hand, the candlestick may have had originally no
ba.sc (cp alwve, ji 4).
3 Perhaps a pear-shaped ornament : cpSyr. J<K^ t/sx and see
BDB, s.v.
* It is difficult to see how he obtains this numt)er. Six
branches each with 3 sets af g,M,i, kaftfir, and /»•/-«// (32 yl),
including the shaft with 4 similar sets (f. 34) arid the 3
ka/tirlm (v. 35), amount to 69 (54-1-12-^3). Perhaps to this
we mu.st add the figure at the summit of the central shaft
(iwssibly ornamented in a different manner). The artist in a
Hebrew MS of the first half of the thirteenth century (Hrit.
Mus., Harley, 5710, fi>l. 136a), following a different interpr. ta-
tion of I'.x. 25 33, assigns only one perah and kaftfr to each
branch, including the shaft. Each of the seven branches has
•^gtbl hit, and at the extremity a lamp (T3). Below the ka/tdr
joining the lowest pair of branches the artist has drawn
(reckoning downwards) s^ptrak, a ka/tdr, and a.gebla.
64s
S. History. '^^^^'''^^'
CANDLESTICK
banel, Rashi. etc., on Ex. I.e.) maintained that the candelabrum
stooti three ells in height and measured twoclls txrtwccn the outer
lights ; and that it stood upon a triixxl (.Maimonides ; cp C'rcniut,
0^sc.isk.sc. vi. 22/.). Tlie seven lam jw were provided with pur«
olive oil (Ex. 27 30/.), and for ihe general service were supplied
' tongs ■(D'n)?'^), 'snuff dishes '(n'tPrC), and variotu 'oil vessels'
(19?* '??)•' The lamps were to \x tended daily (Ex. 30 7/.) ; hut
tr.idition varied as to how many were kept lit at one time.'* The
light wa< never allowed to be extinguished, and tradition rekues
that the approaching fall of the temple was prognosticated by the
sudden occurence of this mishap (Talm. i'oma, 39;^); cp the
lament in a Esd. 10 22 (written after the fall of JerusalcmX
lumen candelabri nostri extincluin est.
It was forbidden to reproduce the candlesticks exactly (cp
Oni.is and the temple of LeoiUopolis, li/ vii. 10 3); but this law
could l>e evaded by making them with five, six, or even eight arms
{Ah. iCara, 43a).*
The holy candelabrum is referred to comparatively
seldom in subse(|uent writings.* It forms the motive in
ision (/ech. 4, cp kev. 114).
C. 170 Antiochus I'.piphanes carried it
off along with the golden altar etc. (i Mace. 1 21, j^
\i<Xvla. ToO (t>urr6s [AKJ, om. V) ; but a fresh one
(tradition relates that 11 was of inferior material) was
reconstructed by Judas after the purification of the
temple ( 164 B.C. , i Mace. 449). Jesus the son of Sirach
employs the Xvxi'ot (K\dfj.ircoi> ^ni Xi/xvtaj ay ia^ as a
simile for beauty in ripe old age (Kcclus. '26 17). The
same is doubtless the Xi'xvia lepd seen by I'ompey (.-/n/.
xiv. 4 4), which, with its seven Xi'^^oi, was one of the
three famous objects in the temi)le of Herod (///v. 55).
Its fate at the fall of Jerusalem is well known. The
holy candelabrum, or, more probably, a copy of it, was
carried in the triumph of Titus (/// vii. 55), and was
depicted upon the famous arch w hich bears his name.
X'espasian deposited it in the temple of Peace, and after
various vicissitudes (.see Smith, D/P'^\ s.v. ) it was placed
in the Christian church at Jerusalem (533 A.O. ). AH
trace of it has since been lost. Possibly it was destroyed
or carried off by Chosroes II. of Persia, when, in 614, he
took and pillaged Jerusalem (see Levesque in V'igouroux,
L>B, s.v. ).
Curiously enough, Joscphus, in his account of the
triumi)h of Titus, states that the workmanship (^^ok) of
the candlestick was not the same as that which had been
in the temple.' As was the case with other objects in
the triumph, it was probably constructed from the de-
scriptions of the captives ; besides, such conventional
candlesticks were not imknown at that time.* The
gritlin-like figures depicted upon the base of tlie
candelabrum may be possibly ascribed to the artist ; so
far as can lye judged, they do not resemble the mythical
symbols from Palestine or .Assyria. Consef|uently, in
endeavouring to gain an idea of the original seven-
branched candlestick, one nuist not adhere too strictly
to the representation upon the .Arch of Titus.
The language em()loyed to descrilx; the sacred
m'ndnih shows that it must have closely resembled a
tree.^ Seven-branched trees are freciuenlly met with in
sculptures, etc., from the E,* and, as Robertson Smith
observes. ' in most of the Assyrian examples it is not easy
to draw the line Ijetween the candelabrum and the sacred
tree crowned with a star or crescent moon ' (/i'5<-' 488).
Since it is only natural to look for traces of Assyrian or
' Zech. 4i2 mentions also riTFiJS, 'pipes,' for conveying the
oil (fiufuiTJjp*^).
a Cp Ex. 27 20/ 2 ( h. 13 II and Jos. Ww/. iii. 8 3. Rabbinical
tradition held that only otu was lit by day. This, it h.xs l>een
suggested, was the lamp upon the central shaft (called 'lim -uX
' Thus, e.g., in the \ east of Tabem.icles (see Succah, o 2).
* The evidence for the existence of more than one in post-
exilic times rests only upon Jos. iif/vi. 83. With Wm/. xii. 64
(i M.-ICC. 1 2i) contrast //•. 7 6.
* BJ vii. 55 [ed. Niescj. The passage is not free from
olxscurity. Noteworthy is the remark that slender arms
(xavAio-Koi) resembling the form of a trident were drawn forth.
(See \ 4.)
8 Cp their use as symbols in Rev. 1 \-i/. 2iff'.i$.
7 Cp simil.irly the candelabrum in the temple of the Palatine
Apollo (Pliny, 34 8).
8 A seven-branched palm upon a coin of the Maccabees ; see
Madden, Coins c/the Jru>s, 71, n. 7.
646
CANDLESTICK
Babylonian influence in tlie second temple, it is not
improljable that the tn'nordh was originally a represent-
ation of the sacred seven-branched tree itself, possibly
indeed the tree of life.^ The six arms, instead of
coming up and forming a straight line with the toji of
the central shaft, ])iobably tapered off, the extremities
of each pair being lower than those of the pair above
it, thus i)resenting more accurately the outline of a tree.
Examples of candelabra with the arms thus arranged
are not unknown.'^
It is not imp<issible that the Ethrog and Lulab
('citron' and 'palm-branch' ; cp Ai'PLt;, § 2 [3]) of
the Feast of Tabernacles (wherein c.indlesticks played
so important a part) are to be connected also with this
sacred seven-branched tree, from which, it has been sug-
gested, the m'nordh has teen evolved. The specific tree
represented was one which, for various re;\sons, was con-
siilered the most unique and valuable. The choice may
have depended more strictly upon the belief that it was
supposed to represent the tree of temptation in the
Paradise myth (so at all events in Christian times ; cp
Didron, .\fanut'l J' /conoi^raphie chrt'iienne, 80).
See Reland, /A' .S><)///.f Tcmf>li ; H.O^xU, Disguisitin . . . de
ccuitirlahri . . . struct urn (1708); Reinach, L'Arc de Titus
(Paris. 18.J0); and Vigouroux, DB, s.v. 'Chandelier,' with the
literature there quoted. S. A. C.
CANON
CANE, SWEET (HJp), Is. 4824 Jer. 620. See Reed,
I (*).
CANKERWORM (P^* : Broyxoc or akric). Ps.
10034 Jer. f)! 14 27 Joel 1 4 [twice], 225 Nah. 3i5i6t; in
Ps. and Jer. A\' h.is Catk.kj'1I,lkk. The Hebrew jf/^*
is usually regarded as denoting a young stage in the
history of the locust ; but this seems doubtful. See
Locust, § 2, n. 6.
CANNEH ( n33 ), Ezek. 27 23, MT, usually taken for the
name of a ])lace in Mesopotamia with which Tyre had
commercial dealings, anil identitied with Calneh (see
Schr. in Riehm's //IJV^^), 1 256). Cornill even reads
'Calneh' (,13^3), appealing to a single Heb. MS which
reads thus, and to variants of (5 — viz., xa^Xo" [AB],
XoXkoX [V]. But the name is really non-existent ; the
words rendered ' and Canneh and Eden ' should rather
be ' and the sons of J'"den.'
Everywhere else we read either of Beth-Eden or of B'ne Eden ;
it is not probable that there is an exception here. The
Xa>'aa[H], or xavojav [AQ] of ®, is not ,1333, but yjj or jyj^,
where y or jy is a relic of py, and J3 a corruption of '33. NIost
M.SS of 0 give only two names, and the second name is not
Canneh (as Smith's DJi*'^'), but a corruption of IVne Kden. The
discovery (for such it seems to be) is due to Mez (ircsch. der
Stadt Harrdn, 1892, p. 34). t. K. C.
i. Contents of OT canon (S§ 5-14).
Extent and cl.assification (§ 5).
Order of books (SS 7-9)-
In Sci)tuai;int (§ loyC)
In (osephus, Ierome(§8 12-14).
ii. Cl-<>sfs<; OF CANON (§S 15-22).
Early tradition (§§ 15-17).
Gradual growth (§§ 60-6^).
Evidence of orthodox writers (§§ 65-68).
Evidence of unorthodox writers (§ 69).
CANON
INTRODUCTION: THE IDEA OF .\ CANON (
A. OLD TESTAMENT.
The Great Synagogue
■4)-
Eli.as Levitaand
(g§ .8-21).
Scientific method (8 22).
HiSTOKV OF CANON (§§23.59).
First canon : the Law (§§ 23-27).
Second canon : the Prophets (§§ 28-42).
Why not canonised with Law (§§ 28-35).
Traditions, etc. (§§ 36-38).
B. NEW TESTAMENT.
Versions (§ 70).
General traces of NT (§ 71).
Muratorian canon (§ 72).
Bibliography : OT and NT (§ 75/).
Date (§§ 39-42).
Tliird canon : Hagiographa (§§ 43-59).
Principle observed (§§ 43-47).
Date (§8 48-55)-
Resume (8 56).
Non-Palestinian views (8 577C)
O r canon in Christian Church (8 59).
Books temporarily received (§ 73).
Result (§ 74).
The word canon is Greek ; its application to the
Bible beloni^s to Christian times ; the iclea originates in
1 Greek -'"^'=^'*'"-
■ I he Greek (6) Kavwv (allied to Kayua,
Kavt}, ' a reed ' ; borrowed from the
Semitic ; Heb. ,-::p) means a straight rod or pole, a rod
used for measuring, a carpenter's rule ; and, by met-
onymy, a rule, norm, or law ; a still later meaning is
that of catalogue or list.
-As applied to the books of Scripture Kavdof is first met
with in the second half of the fourth century ; thus, /3t/S\ta
KavoviKO. (as opposed to aKavoviffra) in can. 59 of the
Council of Laodicea {circa 360 A.D. ), and ^. Kavovi^b-
fieva in .Vthanasius {e/>. fcsf. 39 ; 365 A. D. ) ; Kaviliv for the
whole collection is still later. The original
2. Early
usage.
signification is still a question. Did the
term mean {a) the books constituted into
a standard ; or {fi) the books corresponding to the
standard {i.e. of the faith ; cp Kavujf iKK\r)<na<XTLK6s, k.
1 Perhaps originally a symbol of the universe— the tree of life
beini; viewed as distinct in its origin from the sacred mount.iin of
Elrihim with which in a later myth it was combined. (Cp j achim
and HoAZ.) It is noteworthy that a seven-branched palm is
represented by the side of an altar on an old Greek vase .
(Ohnefalsch-Richter, h'yfiros, pi. 155, fig. 3).
2 Cp PEF Twenty-one Years IVork in the Holy Land, 154,
the representation upon an amethyst reproduced in Reland, De
Sfiol., facing p. 35, also ih. facing p. 42. The older form may in
time have tended toappro.ach the conventional form represented
upon the arch of Titus, which agrees with later Jewish tradition.
This form, resembling a trident in its oiitline, is especially noted
by Jos. .-IS a novelty (B/ vii. 5 5). For illustrations of the latter
variety see Martigny, Diet. Ant. Chr/t. ('77) 113 ; the plates in
Calmet's Dictionary ; and one at Tabariyeh (Perrot-Chipiez, .,^ r/
in Jud. 1 250).
647
T^s d.\rjO€ia^, K. TTJt irlffTeus) and measured by it (cp
A.-ai'oi'ccrat in Ptolemy's Letter to Flora, circa 200 A. D. ,
in Holtzmann, p. 115/.), or perhaps underlying it ; or
(( ) the Ixioks taken up into the authoritative catalogue
or into the normal number? The subject is discussed
with full references to the literature in Holtzmann, pp.
142 ^ It is not improbable that the word passed
through various phases of meaning in course of
time.
The idea involved is clearly fixed ; 0f6irv€VffTai ypa<pai
(.\mphilochius, ofi. 395), iriaTtvOivra dtia flvai ^ifiXla
(.\thanasius, ut sup.) are expressions concurrently used
to convey the same meaning. It was, as we saw alxjve,
a loan from Judaism, and within the Christian domain
origin.ally applied only to the sacred b<X)ks of the
synagogue — the OT. So already in the NT itself (2
'Tim. 3 16). The doctrine of the synagogue was that all
the writings included in its canon had their origin in
divine inspiration, and that it was God who spoke in
them (Weber, § 20 1 ). This canon, with the doctrine
attached to it, passed over to the Christian church and
became its sole sacred book,' until new writings of
Christian origin came to be added, and the Jewish
canon, as the Old Testament, was distinguished from
the New.
The composite expression ' canonical books ' has an
analogue in the usage of the synagogue. From the first
century A.D. such books are designated
C'T.T m C'KSas ( ' that defile the hands ' : -
Yiidayiin 3 2 4 5' 4 5 6 ; cp F.duyoth 5 3, and
1 But see also below, gj 57-59. ' See below, g 40.
8 See below, ( 53.
648
3. Hebrew
terms.
CANON
WcIkt, §21 i). Of this surprising expression still more
surprising explanations have Ixx-n oftcrecl.
Thus (<i) Huhl still prtfcrs iliat drawn fri)m VaJayiiii, 456,
accDnlinK to which the drsiKiiation was intriidct) to prevent pro-
fane uses of worn-out synaKO^uc rolls. (/-) Wel)cr, Strack, C
H. H. Wright, and Wildclxjcr adopt that suKgested hy Shahbath,
13/*, 14a. According to this the object wjis to secure that, a»
unclean, the siicrcd writings should always l>e kept apart, and
thus kept from harm such as might arise, e.g., if they were kept
near consecrated corn, and so exposed to attack from mice, f )
A. (leiger (Hinlerlnsifiu Scliri/Uti, A 14) actually maintains that
only such rolls as had l>cen written on the skins of unclean beasts
were intended to be declared unclean.
All such explanations are disposed of by Yadavim
84. where there is a sixxial discussion of the question
whether the unwritten margins and outer coverings of
sacred rolls detile the hands. I'nder none of the aljove
explanations could any such c|uestion as this possibly
arise. The fact that detilement only of the hands is
4. Sanctitv •''*"''''"'*^' ^° '^^ sacred writings demands
^' moreattentionthan it has hitherto received.
Interpreted in positive terms this can mean only that
contact with them invohes a ceremonial washing of the
hands, esiK'cially as the ruling in the matter occurs in
that Mishna treatise which relates to, and is n.^nied from,
such hand -washings. The expression would be an
unnatural one if it implied a command that the hands
should l)e washed before touching (so Fiirst, p. 83). As
enjoining washing a'ter contact it is ciuite intelligible.
The Pharisees (under protest from the Sadducees ; cp
rW. 46) attributed to the sacred writings a sanctitv of
such a sort that whosoever touched them was not allowed
to touch aught else, until he had undergone the same
ritual ablution as if he had touched something unclean. '
The s;ime precept, according to the stricter view, applied
to the prayer ribljiinds on the iephi/Dm (Vad.'H^; see
Fronti.kts, end). To this detilement of the hands
the correlative idea is that of holiness ; "^ Vxjth ciualities
are attributed together, but only to a very limited numljer
of writings, namely the canonical (cp Yad.Zs). See
also Ci.EA.v, § 3.
A. OLD TESTAMENT.
I. E.XTINT AND AKKANGEMKNT OK TIIK OT CANON.
— The extent of the OT canon, so far as the synagogue
6 No of '^ concerned, is exactly what we find in our
'books' '^*-"'"''^^^' printed texts and in the Protestant
translations. The original reckoning of the
synagogue, however, does not regard the books as thirty-
nine. The twelve nunor prophets count as one book
called ' the twelve," iry c'W (so already in Haba /iathra,
x-^b, i5(Ztext), Dodekapropheton ; soalso Sanmel, Kings,
and Chronicles ; whilst Ezra and Nehemiah form one
book of Ezra. Thus 1 1 -t- 3 -(- 1 = 1 5 have to be deducted
from our 39, leaving only 24.^ See ^ w ff.
The twenty-four canonical books fall into three main
divisions: ,nin (the law) with five books, c"k-3: (the
6. ClaSBi- P''0P'i<^'s) ^''h eight, and o'^ina (the writ-
fication '"''^^' ^=i&'oSrapha) with eleven. ■• The
prophets consist of four historical books
(Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings) and four prophetical
( Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve Minor). Since
the Massoretic period (cp Strack, /^A'A'-* "439) the first
group has borne the name of d':ic-kt C'N'3J ( ' former
prophets') to distinguish it from the second, c-k"2j
C':T'.nK ( ' latter prophets '). Among the Hagiographa a
distinct group is formed by the five (festal) ' rolls ' — ~an
J .SeeWRS, Rel. Sem.n\ ,6,, 452. He well adds th.-it the
nigh priest on the Day of .Atonement washed his flesh with water,
not only when he put on the holy garments of the day, but also
when he put them off(I.ev. 1(124 ; )Vw<i, 74).
' With this corresponds the Mishnic name of the canon «3n3
ITip.l. while the names isort. DTao tacitly supplement the idea
of holiness. To these exactly answer the NT expressions ypa<^l
oyiat, Ifpo ypoMuara, y\ ypai^ij, ax ypa<f>ai. For other names sec
below, and for fuller details cp Strack, 438 /
* Hence a very common old name for the collection, still fre-
quently in use : ' the twenty-four books,' C'IBO nyaiKl 2'"li."V,
written also C"1E0 V 2-
♦ Hence the old collective title D>3inD1 D'K'ZJ niW with its
Massoretic contraction -yn-
649
CANON
n^Vjo — printed in modern impressions in the order of the
feasts at which they are read in the synagogue : Canticles
(Passover). Kuth (Pentecost). I-imentations (9th Ab.
Destruction of Jeru.salem), Ecclesi;istcs ( Talwrnacles).
hjither ( Purim ). Only once ( in the liaraytha ' Uerachoth,
Ijb) do we find the three larger |j<jetical b<x)ks— Psalms,
Proverbs, and Job — grouped together as c'l'nj C'lw:.
and the three smaller—Cai'iicles, ixclesiastes, I^-imenta-
tions as c';cp C".":in3. Finally, Daniel. Ezra, Chronicles
close the list.
Compass and threefold division of the canon are
already taken ;is fully settled in a very old and authori-
7 Uncertain ''''''^'^ passage in the tradition of the
order synagogue, viz. the liaraytha liaba
Bathra, i^b i^a ; but as to the order
of the books within their several divisions the same
passage gives a decision for the first time. The ex-
planation of this is that in the oldest times the sjicred
writings were not copied into continuous co<iices. Each
book had a separate roll to itself.'^ Accordingly, in the
preceding Baraytha (fiaba liathra, iT,b), we find the
question started whether it be jx-rmissible to write the
entire Holy Scriptures, or even the eight prophets, on a
single roll. On the strength of some precedent or other
the (|uestion is answered in the afiirmative ; and this
leads up to the further question as to the order in which
the single Ixwks in the second and the third divisions
I ought to \y<i written. This plainly shows that there was
as yet on the subject no fixed tradition, and therefore too
great importance ought not to be attached either to the
I Mishnic determination of the question or to the departure
from Mishnic u.sage which we meet with.* Both, how-
ever, are worthy of attention.
The order of the prophets proper, according to our
passage, ought to be: Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, the
8 Pronhets '"*^'^'^- "^'^ jx)silion of Isaiah seems to
^ ■ have struck even the teachers of the
Gemara as remarkable, and is explained by them in a
fanciful way. The Massora gives Isaiah the first place,
and in this it is followed by the MSS of Spanish origin
(as by the printed texts), while the Oerman and French
MSS adhere to the Talmudic order. Just Ix.-cause of
its departure from strict chronology, we are justified in
assuming that the Talmudic order rests on old and
good tradition. We may safely venture, therefore, to
make use of it in the attempt to answer the (|uestion of
the origin not only of the individual books but also of
the canon.
For the first books of the Hagiographa, the order
given in our printed texts — Psalms, Proverbs, Job —
9 Haeio- ^^'^''^^ '^ ^^^^ '^^ ^^^ (ierman and French
irraDha •^'•'''■'^' B'^es place in our passage to this
*^ P * order: Ruth, Psalms. Job, Proverbs. .Sup-
posing this to be the original place of the Book of Ruth,
we might account for its later change of [xjsition by
a desire to group together the five festal rolls. This
explanation, however, is impossible for the reason that
the Massora and the Spanish MSS put Chronicles in-
stead of Ruth in the first place and lx;fore the Psalter.
Of course, the same purpose is served by either arrange-
ment: each of them prefixes to the (Davidic) Psalter
a lx)ok which helps to explain it. The liook of Ruth
performs this service inasnmch as it concludes with
David's genealogical tree and closes w ilh his name ; and
the liook of Chronicles does so in a still higher degree,
inasmuch as, in addition to the genealogy ( i Ch. 1<)ff.).
it gives an account of David's life, particularly of his
elatx)rate directions for the temple service and temple
music. Thus the claim of the Psalter to the first place
1 Bara>nha (J<n""^2) is a Mishna tradition which has not been
taken into the c.nnon of the Mishna, but comes from the same
period (about 200 A.n.). On the very important passage referred
to cp Marx, Traditio etc.
" The Law w.is an exception ; its five books as a rule consti-
tuted but one roll, although the five fifths (prOW) were to be
met with also separately (cp Mei^i/la, 27a).
•' Cp the excellent synoptic table in Ryle {Cohch o/OT, 281X
CANON
is only confirmed by both variations (that of the Talmud
and that of the Nlassora) from the usual order. ^ On
the other hand, the Massora and the Spanish MSS
sujJixjrt the order, Psalms, Job, I'roverbs (Job Ijcfore
Proverbs), which therefore must be held to be the older
arrangement, the other being explained by the desire to
make Solomon come immediately after David.
The arrangement of the five "rolls" in the order of
their feasts is supported only by the German and the
French MSS. The M;issora and the Spanish MSS
have — Kuth, Cant. Keel. Lam. Esth., whilst Baba
Bathra, after transjwsing Ruth in the manner we have
seen, gives the order — Eccl. Cant. Lam., then intro-
duces Daniel, and closes the list with P^^sther. We
may venture to infer from this ( i ) that the arrangement
of the Megilloth in the order of their feasts in the
ecclesiastical year is late and artificial ; (2) that about
the year 200 .\.D. they had not even been constituted
a definite group ; (3) that the inversion of the order of
Daniel and Esther, and the removal of Ruth from the
head of the list, were probably designed to effect this,
the position of Daniel before Esther having thus a claim
to t>e regarded as the older ;''■ and (4) that the original
position of the Book of Ruth is quite uncertain, because
the first place among the rolls may have been assigned
to it by the Massora simply because it had been deposed
from the first place among the Hagiographa. We may,
further, regard it as probable that Proverbs was origin-
ally connected, as in Baba B., with the other Solomonic
writings. Finally, it may be taken as perfectly certain
that Ezra and Chronicles closed the list.-*
The definition, division, and arrangement of books
as given above, which rests on real tradition, and must
Th T"3nr constitute the basis for our subsec|uent
investigations, is violently at variance
with that of the LXX. It will be sufficient merely to
indicate the differences here, for, as compared with the
canon of the synagogue, that of the LXX represents
only a secondary stage in the development.
(i) The arrangement of the LXX is apparently in-
tended to be based on the contents of the books. The
poetical books are, on the whole, regarded as didactic
in character, the Prophets proper as mainly predictive,
whilst the Law leads up to the historical books and is
closely connected with the Former Prophets. As the
Prophets are placed at the end, the progress of the
collection is normal — from the past (historical books)
to the present (didactic books) and the future (books
of prophecy).
Certain, however, of the miscellaneous collection which forms
the Hagiographa — those, namely, that are historical — are trans-
ferred to the first division, where a place is assigned them on
chronological principl'js. Ruth (cp 1 1) is inserted immediately
after Judges, whilst Chronicles, Ezra, and Esther are appended
at the end. Lamentations, on the other hand, regarded as the
work of Jeremiah (cp 2 Ch. 3625 and the opening words of the
book in (5), is transferred to the third division (prophetic books)
and appended to Jeremiah ; whilst Daniel closes the entire collec-
tion. Lastly, Job, regarded as a purely historical book,* serves
to effect the transition from the historical to the didactic writings.
Of the prophetical books, the Dodecapropheton heads the list
(in a somewhat varying order of the individual books), pre-
sumably on account nf the higher antiquity of the writings which
open it.
(2) Samuel and Kings together are divided into four
books of Kings. Chronicles is divided into two books,
as is also (subsequently) Ezra. (3) In varying degrees
new writings unknown to the Hebrew canon are inter-
polated.
1 Cp also 2 Mace. 2 13/ ; Lk. 24 44.
2 This is supported by Jerome in Prol. Gal. (cp the text in
Ryle, 287 ff.). Other variations, it is true, occur in the same
author.
3 It should be added that the MSS show the utmost
irregularity in their arrangement of the Hagiographa; cp Ryle,
Excursus C, aSiyC, and, for some important details, A. Kahlfs,
' Alter u. Heimat der vaticanischeii Bibelhandschrift," GOJV,
1899, Heft I (Philol.-hUt. Klasse).
* There is, however, considerable vacillation as to its position.
For other variations, which are very numerous, cp Ryle, 213
^. , and the table appended to 281.
651
CANON
The very various arrangements of the Hebrew canon
which have been adopted in the Christian Church can
,, T>,.+i, J ^11 be traced back to the LXX, with
11. Rutn and , , , .
T^^ more or less far-reaching corrections
biised on the canon of the synagogue.
Among all the divergences of the LXX from the syna-
gogue arrangement, there is only one concerning which
it is worth while considering whether it may not jx)ssibly
represent the original state of things as against the syna-
gogue tradition : Ruth is made to follow Judges, and
Lamentations Jeremiah. If the actual state of the case
be that these two books ranked originally among the
projjhets, but were afterwards transferred to the Hagio-
grajiha, the historical value of the threefold division of
the canon is very largely impaired. Now, this order
of the books is supported by the oft-recurring reckoning
of twenty-two books instead of twenty-four (cp above,
§ 2), a reckoning which can be explained only on the
assumption that Ruth and Lamentations were not
12 Josenhua '^^""'^ separately, being regarded
. dO epnus. ^^ integral parts of Judges and Jere-
miah. Our sole Jewish witness to this is Josephus (c.
A p. i. 8 ; circa 100 A.I). ). He gives the total as twenty-
two, made out as follows: Moses, 5; Prophets after
Moses, 13 ; hymns to God and precepts for men, 4.
The last-named category doubtless means the Psalms
and the three Solomonic writings. Thus Daniel,
Esther, Ezra, Chronicles, and even Job, are, as his-
torical books, reckoned with the prophets, and Ruth
and Lamentations are not counted at all — that is
to say, they are included in Judges and Jeremiah. ^
Here clearly a compromise has been struck be-
tween the threefold division of the synagogue, which
places the prophets in the intermediate position, and
the division of the Alexandrians, which arranges the
books according to subjects. The Alexandrian canon
is obviously in view also in the pointed addition [/3t/i\ta]
t4 dLKaiws wein<jT€viJiiva,'^ by which the lx)oks not con-
tained in the canon of the synagogue are excluded.
\\'e may conclude, therefore, that also the reason why
Ruth and Lamentations are not reckoned as separate
books is that the LXX is followed ; and thus we have
no fresh testimony here. There is a further remark
to be made. That the seven books just mentioned
should be removed from the prophetic canon, if they
once were there, to a place among the Hagiographa**
could be explained only by a desire to have the festal
rolls beside one another. In the oldest tradition, how-
ever, there was no such group of rolls (see above, § 9).
The supposed motive, therefore, could
13. Origin of
No. 22.
not have been operative. On the other
hand, the number twenty-two has an
artificial and external motive, not indicated by Josephus,
but mentioned by all the Church fathers from Origen
downwards : ■* there is thus one book for each letter of
the Hebrew alphabet. This childish fancy is carried to
an extreme point when the books are reckoned as twenty-
seven (an alternative which is offered by Epiphanius and
Jerome) to do justice to the five final letters also : the books
of Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, and Ezra are divided,
the fifth being sujjplied in Epiphanius by Judges and
Ruth, in Jerome by Jeremiah and Lamentations. That
this is mere arbitrary trifling is obvious.
On the other hand Jerome gives also the number
twenty-four (Prol. Gal.), cautiously describing it as a
reckoning accepted by ' nonnulli,'
14. Jerome, etc.
Ruth and Lamentations thus being
t For various blundering attempts to put another meaning
on the canon of Josephus, cp Str.ick, 428, Ryle, 166. Briggs
(see o/. (■;■/. below, § 75, p. 127 yC) inclines to the opinion that
Josephus did not recognise as canonioil the Song of Songs and
Ecclesiastes. See, on this {>oint, below, $ 52^
* The word 6tla after iucaiia^ is disallowed by Niese as an
interpolation.
3 A thing improbable in itself, as implying a degradation.
See below, § 43.
* Cp the passages in Ryle, 221, and still more exhaustively
in Strack, 435 ^.
652
CANON
counted among the Hagiogrripha. A symbolical sense,
b;»s«-<l on Rev. 4 4 10, is found for this nuiiilK-r also. In the
ProIogiU" to Danii-1 , however, Icromc adojits 24 as the only
reckoning : he counts 5, 8, and 11 books to each of the
divisions respectively, thouj;h he docs not mention the
total. Sup|)ort is given to the liaraytha Itaha D. 14^, i ^a
in like manner by the contcmi>orary testimony of liera-
cholh i-jh, which cjuotes Cant. Keel, and Lam. as ' writ-
ings," and by the Targum of Jonathan on the prophets,
where Ruth and Lam. are wanting. Finally, our oldest
witness — 4th Esdras, proliably written under Domitian
(85-96 A. I). ), and therefore contemiwrary with Josephus
— represents F",zra as writing at the divine command 94
books (chap. 14) — i.e. , after deduction of the 70 esoteric
book.s. the 24 books of the canon.*
The number twenty-two, therefore, certainly comes
from a Jewi.sh source ; but it is a mere play of fancy.
The original place of Ruth and Lamentations, accord-
ingly, was in the third part of the canon.
II. Tradition relating to the close of the
CANON. — Even had there been a binding decision of
16. No
a qualified body by wliich the numlx-T
■. . . of books (twenty-four) was declared
canonization. ,^. ^^,,^^,^^\ j.^,, ,.^,1 other books wt
excluded from the canon, there could hardly have beeh
any tradition of it. According to the idea of the mean-
ing and origin of canonicity entertained by the synagogue
(the sole custodian of tradition), and inherited from it by
the Christian Church, canonicity dei)ends on inspiration,
and this attribute each of the twenty-four books brought
with it into the world quite indei)endently of any ruling,
and in a manner that unmistak.ably distinguished it from
every other writing. The growth of the canon was
represented as being like that of a plant ; it began
with the appearance of the first inspired book, and
closed with the completion of the last. The cjuestion
accordingly was simply this : When was the latest
canonical book coni|X)sed? or, if this admits of being
answered. Who was its human author?
To this question the tradition of the synagogue actually
offers an answer, — in the same Daraytha liaba Hat lira
\j\b 15a in which the order of the Prophets
16. Baba
Bathra.
and the Writings is determined. The passage
proceeds thus : — ' And who WTote them ? '
— and names the writers of the several books in exact
chronological see] uence. The last of them is Ezra. With
him, therefore {i.e., according to traditional chronology,
about 444 B.C.), the canon closed. -
One can easily understand that, once Ezra had been
named as the latest author of any biblical book, men
did not remain content with the assertion (cjuite correct,
if we admit its premises) which attributed to him the
closing of the canon merely de facto, without deliberate
act or puqxjse. Rather did each succeeding age,
according to its lights, attribute to him (or to his time)
whatever kind of intervention it conceived to be neces-
sary in order to secure for the canon a regular and
17 4 E d orderly closing. The oldest form of
this kind of tradition, so far as known
to us, goes back earlier by a whole century than the
tradition of the synagogue. It is to be found in the
passage of 4 Esdras (chap. 14) that has been referred
to already.^* lizra {v. \%ff.) prays God to grant him by
his Holy Spirit that he may again write out the books
J The numbers differ in the various forms of the text. Besides
04 we find 904, 204, 84, 974. All, however, agree in the decisive
figure 4 ; cp Ryle, 156^ 285.
■• The real date of Ezra and the promulgation of the law
related in Neh. 8-10 will be con.sidered elsewhere (see Chkon-
OLOGY, i 14; Nemenuah). The results of the present article
would not be altered es.sentially by fixing it, e.g., in the year
427 or even 397, instead of 444. In what follow*, (herefore,
444 B.C. means simply the date of Neh. 8-10. A full discus-sion
of the point and a survey of recent literature will be found in C.
F. Kent, A History o/the Jetfish people during tlu Babylonian,
Persian, and Grrek periods. New York, 1899, pp. 195^ 354.
• For what follows cp Ryle. Excursus A, 239 ff., where a
very copious literature with fully translated quotations is (jivcn.
653
CANON
(here called 'the law," iorah. in which perhaps lingers
a trace of an oliler form of tradition) which had Ixwn
burnt (with the temple, one understands). Cjo<l bids
him take to himself five comjxinions, and in forty days
and nights he dictates to them ninety-four Ixjoks (see
alxjve, § 14), of which seventy are esoteric writings, and
the remaining twenty-four are the canon of the OT. Of
this legend no further trace has hitherto l>cen found in
the remains of Jewish literature ; ' but w ithin the Christian
Church it shows itself as early as the time of Irenaeus,
frctiuently recurs in certain of the fathers (so Tertullian,
Clem. Al., Orig. , ICuseb. , Jerome, etc. ), and is prevalent
throughout the scholastic ix,-riod, although there it is
weakened by references to the powers of ordinary human
memory.
The fx;riod of the humanists and of the reformation
extinguished this as well as many other legends ; * but
,_, if the old legend disap|xsired, it was only
^ . to make way for .t mo<lern one, not mystic
_ , but rationalistic in character. This latter
y ag gu . Qi,t;,i„^.(i credence through ICIias I^-vita
{ob. 1549), who says** that Ezra tuid the men of the great
synagoi^ue (nSnjn nc:3 Tzk), among other things, had
united in one volume the twenty-four lK)oks (which until
then had circulated separately) and had classilied them
into the three divisions alxjve mentioned, determining
also the order of the Prophets and the Writings
(differently, it is true, from the Talmuflic doctors in
Baba Bathra). This assertion satisfied the craving of
the times for a duly constituted lx)dy, proceeding in a
deliberate manner. Accordingly the statement of Elias
Levita, especially after it had been homologated by J.
Buxtorf the elder in his Tiberias (1620), became the
authoritative doctrine of the orthodoxy of the seventeenth
and eighteenth centuries. To it were added, as self-
evident, though Ivcvita said nothing of them, the authori-
tative decree (Ilottinger), and the separation of the non-
canonical writings (so already Huxtorf, and after him
Leusden and Carpzov).*
It is vain to seek for the tradition on which Elias
Levita based his rciirescntation. The Talmud, which
j says a great deal about ' the men of the great synagogue,"
has not a word to say alxjut this action of theirs w ith
reference to the whole l)ody of Scrii)ture. The medi«;val
Rabbins also touch on the matter but lightly. We con-
clude therefore that, to suit the needs of his time, Levita
merely inferred such an action from the existence of the
body in question.*
The evidence for the very existence of a body of the
kind reciuircd, however, is extremely slender. From the
^. . middle of the seventeenth century it
t^ "** was continually disputed anew. If even
na ure. ^^.^ moderns must admit that there was
a body of some kind, the kind of existence that we can
accord to it supplies the strongest refutation of the state-
ment of Elias Levita. The cjuestion as to what we are
to understand by ' the men of the great synagogue ' (or
Strack gives the originals of the most important pa-S-sages ; cp
also Fabricius, Codex I'seudepigraphus IT 1 (i7'3)i »>53^.
2(1722), 2S9 j^
1 Cp, however, the elucidation of the passage in Baba B.
nb 15a, below, I 21.
2 See, for the attacks directed against it on rationalistic
grounds in the Protestant as well as in the Catholic church,
Kyle, 247 /?:
3 See third preface to ,tfassorelh hammassoretk (1538, ed.
Ginsburg, 1867, p. 120); cp Str.ick, 416.
* Cp the p.-issages quoted in Kyle, i^x ff- It should be
added that the same step had l)cen taken already in the late
post-Talmudic tractate Aboth de K. Xathan (chap. 1). where it
is said of ' the men of the great synagogue ' that they decided on
the reception of Proverbs, Canticles, and Kcclesiasles, again.st
objections that had been urged (see the passages in C. H. H.
Wright, 11). We shall see below that an artificial antedating
can l>e clearly demonstrated here.
i When Iy;vita points out that the order of the Prophets and
the Writings, as fixed there, was diflTcrent from that in Baba B.,
this only goes to show that the sages of the Mishna still found
something for them to give decisions a)>out. Elias Lcviia forgets
that these sages found the books written on separate rolls, and
that, therefore, there was not \et any order to fix. Cp above, § 7.
654
CANON
rather ' assembly ') in the sense in which the expression
was originally used, may be regarded as now fully
cleared up. Hy a brilliant application and criticism of
all that tradition had to say and all the work of his
modern predecessors, Kuencn ^ demonstrated that tiiis
' synagogue ' is no other than the great assembly at
Jerusalem described in Neh. 8-10 : the assembly in
which the whole txidy of the j^oople, under the presidency
of Nchemiah and through the signatures of its re|jre-
sentatives, pledged itself to acceptance of the law-book
of Ezra. This assembly, as the latest authority men-
tioned in the OT, was afterwards, by the tradition of the
synagogue, made responsible for all those proceedings
of a religious nature not referred to in the OT, which,
nevertheless, so far as known, dated from a period
earlier than the tradition laid down in the Talmud.
Since this last, however, with its most ancient (and
almost mythical) authorities, the five ' pairs' and Anti-
gonus of Socho, does ncjt go back farther than the second
century B.C., there gradually grew out of the assembly,
whose meetings began and closed within the seventh
month of a single year, a standing institution to which
people in that later time, each according to his needs
and his chronological theories, attributed a duration
extending over centuries. This was made all the easier
by the chronology of the Talmud bringing the date of
the Persian ascendency too low by some 150 years, and
thus bringing the beginning and the end closer together. -
The activity as regards the canon, then, which Elias
Levita and his followers ascribe to ' the men of the great
svnagogue, implies for the most part a comparatively
late and false conception of the character of that sup-
posed body, ^^■hat ancient tradition has to say about
it remains well within the limits of time assigned to it by
criticism. In Daba B. 14^ 15^, ' the men of the great
synagogue ' have assigned to them a place immediately
before Ezra ; they write Ezekiel, the Uodecapropheton,
Daniel, and Esther. When, therefore, Ezra had con-
tributed his share (l^zra and Chronicles), forming the
closing portion of the series of the twenty-four t)ooks,
the canon was forthwith complete. It is evident (i)
that here the activity of ' the men of the great synagogue '
docs not extend below Ezra's time; and (2) that it
extends only to four books, not to the whole canon.
Therewith the absolute untenableness of Levita's as-
sertion becomes apparent. Expedients have been
'W 'f ' ""^sorted to in vain; as, for example,
fh"t ^ that 2T\-2, 'to write,' means in the
01 DOOKS. Baraytha to ' collect, ' or to ' transcribe
and circulate,' or both together (cp Marx, 41). 'The
writer ' of the Mishna most certainly means the author of
the books — so far as there can be a question of authorship
where, in the last resort, the author is the Holy Spirit.
Of authorship nothing but writing is left. This, accord-
ingly, is the sense assumed by Gemara and by rabbinical
exegesis. What we are told concerning ' the men of
the great synagogue ' is not more startling than it is to
learn that Ilezekiah and his companions wrote Isaiah,
Proverbs, Canticles, and Ecclesiastes, — books of which
tradition is unanimous in saying that the last two were
t Over de mnnnen tier groote Synagoge (.\msterdam, 1876),
translated into German liy K. BuJde in his edition of Kuenen's
collected essays {Gcsamiiiflte Abhandl., 1894, p. \(i\ff.').
- Kuenen's proof has, in Great Britain, been accepted (among
others) by Robertson Smith (OT/Cl:-) 169/), Driver (IntrodA^
xxxiii), and (at least in all essentials) by Ryle, to whose very care-
ful Excursus A (239-272) the reader is especially referred. It has
indeed found an uncompromising opponent in C. H. H. Wright ,
(^Koheleth, 5 ff". 475^), whose arguments, however, amount to
little more than this — the necessity (which in fact prodiiced
the legend) for some corporate body by whom the religious
duties of that time could have been discharged. This, however,
cannot convert what is demonstrably legend into history. What-
ever has to be conceded is granted already by Kuenen {Ges.
Abh. I156, 158); and writers like Strack (PRE(% 18 310, foot-
note*) are skilful enough to reconcile the demand for such
'organised powers' between Ezra and Christ with Kuenen's
results. The most recent apology for the tradition is that of S.
Krauss ('The Great Synod,' JQR, Jan. '98, p. 347^)- Of
course he does not defend the theory of Elias Levita.
65s
CANON
wholly, and the second in great measure, written by
Solomon two centuries before Hezekiah. Here, in fact,
it is the miraculous that is deliberately related. The
meaning is that .Solomon had only spoken (cp i K. 5 12/. )
what is contained in these books, and that 200 years
later, divine inspiration enabled the men of Hezekiah to
write it out, and so make it into canonical books. By
exactly the same operation ' the men of the great syna-
gogue ' were enabled to write out what an Amos and a
Hosea, a Micah and a Nahum, and so forth had spoken
in the name of God. There is nothing to surprise us
about such a view as this, if we remember what we have
already found in connection with 4 Esdras (above, § 14).
In the present instance, indeed, it is only a portion of
the OT that comes into question, not the whole mass as
in 4 Esdras ; but, on the other hand, in 4 Esdras it is
only the reproduction of books that had been lost that
is spoken of, whilst here it is their very composition.'
That stories such as these should ever have passed
current as real historical tradition resting u[X)n facts is
surprising enough. Almost more astonish-
21. Origin
of fancy.
ing is it that such baseless fancies should
not yet have l^een abandoned, definitely and
for good, by the theology of the Reformed Churches.
Whether the tradition is genuine need no longer be
asked. The only (juestion is, How was it possible that
the Mishnic doctors, and perhaps those who immedi-
ately preceded them, arrived at such a representation?
This question in some cases already greatly exercised
the exegetes of the Gemara, and even led them to
attempted corrections; and Rashi [ob. 1105) gives a
solution of some of the knottiest points which, if we are
to believe Strack,- represents the view of the Baraytha.
According to this explanation, Ezekiel, Daniel, and
Esther did not write their own books, because they
lived in exile, and outside the borders of the Holy Land
it was impossible for any sacred book to be written.
Even, however, if this view had some element of truth
in it, it hardly meets the main point. The writing of
each book the scribes, as was natural to their order,
sought to assign to a writer like themselves, a veritable
S(>/>her(see Scribe), and attributed the authorship of any
book only to one to whom writing could be assigned on
the authority of a proof text. In the case of books
whose reputed authors could not be shown to have
been sophh-Jm, the authorship was attributed to the
writers of such other books as stood nearest to them in
point of time.
That Moses was a scribe was held to be shown by Dt. 31 9 24
(the P.ook of Job also was attributed to him on account of its
supposed antiquity), and the same is true of Joshua (Josh. 24 26).
Similar proof was found for Samuel in i S. 10 25, and to him
accordingly w.-is assigned, not only the book that bears his
name, but also Judges and Ruth. In the case of David, if the
words 1S^7 in 2 S. 1 18 were not enough, there was at all events
sufficient proof in i Ch. 23^ and especially in 28 11 ; means
were found also for reconciling the tradition that he wrote
the whole Psalter with the tradition (oral or written) which
assigned certain psalms to other authors. It was declared that
he wrote the psalms, but '"1) 7j^ of those other writers. Of
Solomon all that was said in i K. 5i2 was that he spoke, not
that he tvrote ; but no one felt at any loss, for in Prov. 25 i
the production of a portion of his Hook of Proverbs is attri-
buted to the Men 0/ Hezekiah, king p/ Judah. These genuine
scribes were utili.sed to the utmost. They had ascribed to them
not only all the Solomonic books, but also the book of their
contemporary I.saiah, although Is. 8 1 might well have been
taken as saying something for the prophet himself. Whether in
this in.stance some special cause contributed to the result, or
whether it was merely that prophet and scribe had at any cost to
be kept .separate, it is impossible to .say. For Jeremiah, the
one prophet in the narrower sense of the word amongst those
who are named, Jer. 36 spoke too distinctly to be ignored ; that
Kings also should have been attributed to him is at once .suffi-
ciently explained by 2 K. 24 i8, and chap. 25 compared with Jer.
52. Next in order as biblical authors come ' the men 0/ the
great synagogue,' who, as contemporaries of Ezra the scribe /ar
excellence (himself also one of their number) but at the same
1 That the two legends have an intimate connection is by no
means improbable.
2 Op. cit. 418, with the quotation there given ; cp also
Ryle, 263/
656
CANON
time also as sif^atories of the art in Nch. 10 i, were expressly
called to this. Why K/ckicI (the Ncrilw, if any scril»e there was
aniunk; the pruphets), to whom the act of wntint; is re{>catc(lly
attribtitcU (:)7 16^ 43"). ■■•hould not have heen credited with
his own hook, may t>crhaps he rightly explained by Kashi. The
twelve prophets could not have written severally their own
books, fwcause all the books together form (see g 6) biit one
book (a somewhat different turn is Kiven to this in Kashi), and
as the latest of them belonged to the period of the great syna-
gogue, and, indeed, according to tradition, were actually
memljcrs of that body, the assignment of the authorship to it
presented no difficulty. Finally Daniel and Esther, regarded
as books of the Persian period, easily fell to their domain. Kzra,
with his account of his own time, closes the series. Some
explanation is needed of the fact that whilst ' the genealogies in
Chronicles down to himself (this is no doubt the easiest
explanation) also arc assigned to Kzra, no account is taken of
the remaintler of that work. The most likely reason is that the
main portion of Chronicles was regarded as mere repetition
from Samuel and Kings, the origin of which had been already
explained.
It is not of the slightest importance to consider how
far this attempted explanation of the origin of the various
books is in agreement with the real thought of the
Baraytha ; in any case it remains pure theory, the pro-
duct of rabbinical inventiveness, not of historical tradi-
tion. Apart from a fixed general opinion about certain
individual l)ooks and alx)ut the Pentateuch, the tangible
outcome of the lx;liefs of the whole period with which
we are dealing is that the canon was held to have been
closed in the time of lizni. The theory upon which
this belief proceeded will occupy us later (§ 44/ ).
.\s against this congeries of vague guesses and
abstract theories, science demands that we should
22 Scientific '^^''^"^'"'^ ^^'^^ ^^o^^ separately, and
■ .. J endeavour, with the evidence supplied
™® ^ by itself, and with continual reference
to the ixxly of literature as a whole, to ascertain its date
and to fix its place in the national and religious develop-
ment of the Jews. This is the task of ' special introduc-
tion ' ; but its results must always have a direct bearing
on the history of the canon. This history must give
close attention also to all the external testimonies relative
to the formation and to the close of the canon, and, after
weighing them, must assign to them their due place.
Above all, it must trace out all general opinions and
theories, such as we have been considering, ascertain
their scope and meaning, and satisfy itself as to the
period at which they arose, and as to their influence on
the formation of the canon. In so far as we succeed in
these endea\ours, we shall arrive at a relatively trust-
worthy history of the canon.
III. History of tiik OT canon.— (i) The first
canon: the Law.^ — Whatever difficulties we may have
1 W. J. Reecher (see below, § 75) offers a solemn protest against
the fundamental proposition of this article (as of all modern
discussions of the subject) — a triple canon, collected and closed
in three successive periods. He denies that there is any evidence
of a time when the Law alone was regarded as canonical, or
of a time when the Law and the Prophets stood in authority
alxive the Writings. He denies that the other OT writings
were originally regarded as less authoritative than the Penta-
teuch. He sees in the canon of the OT an aggregate of sacred
books growing gradually and continually to a definite time
when the part written latest was finished and the collection was
deemed complete. Law [or rather. Message], Prophets, and
Writings are nothing but three different names for the same
books — e-g., the prophetic writings. We are not told how
these terms came to he the names of three different parts of
this collection. The fundamental fact that the Law alone was
promulgated and m.ide authoritative by Ezra and Nehemiah,
IS obscured by Heecher by the .statement that the term ' book
of Moses ' is applied to an aggregate of sacred w'ritings including
more than the Pent.iteuch. His only proof is Ezra (5 18, where
' we are told that the returned exiles set up the courses of the
priests and Levites, "as it is written in the book of Moses."
The Pentateuch contains nothing in regard to priestly or
Levitical courses. Possibly the reference is to written precepts
now found in i Chronicles.' Beecher does not translate accu-
rately. The text
courses and the Levites in
that the priests and the Levites are set up ' as it is written in
the book of Moses' ; but it does not necessarily mean that their
courses and divisions were based on the same authority. Heecher
never mentions the fact that the Samaritans accepted only the
Law (see below, g 25), nor does he investigate what gram of
truth is contained in the same statement as to the Sadducees
657
CANON
I in dealing with the later stages of the history of the canon
and with its close, there is no obscurity alMUt its com-
23. The Torah. '"*^"'^«--";'^"'- 1' ^^^ '"deed by those
' men of the grtmt synagogue, to whom
orthodoxy assigns the close of the canon, that its founda-
tions were laid, in the clear daylight of well-authenticated
history. Front the twenty-fourth day of the seventh
month of the year 444 B.C. onwards, Israel possessed a
canon of Sacred .Scripture. It was on this day that the
great popular assembly described in Neh. 9/. solemnly
pledged itself to 'the Hook of the Law of Vnhw6 their
God ■ (83), ' which had been given by the hand of Moses
the servant of God ' (IO30), and had been brought from
Babylon to Jerusalem shortly before by Ezra the scrilx:
(Ezra 76 11 14 Neh. 8i/. ). In virtue of this resolution
the said law-book at that time became canonical ; but
only the law-book.
.Already, indeed, in the eighteenth year of King Josiah,
between 623 and 621 B.C., there had been a solenni act
of a similar character, when the king and people pledged
themselves to the law-book that had Ixren found in the
temple, the 'book of the covenant' (2 K. 2:i). The
entire editorial revision of the liooks of Kings, and
especially the express references to the law-lx>ok(i K.
23 2 K. 2825, and above all, 2 K. 146 compared with
Dt. 24 16), clearly prove that it had canonical valitlity
during the exilic period, whilst the book of Malachi
(cp esp. 'l^ff. 85 8^ 22) shows that also in the post-
exilic period down to the time of Ezra it continued to
hold this place in Jerusalem.' The critical lalxiurs of
the present century, however, have conclusively estab-
lished that this first canonical book contained simply
what we now have as the kernel of our Book of Deutero-
nomy.
The law canonised in 444 was a very different docu-
ment. The only possible question is whether it was the
oj. Tf ft entire Pcnt;\teuch as we now have it,
24. Its extent. ^^ ^^^j^, ^^^ jviestly Writing, the latest
and most extensive of the sources which go to make up
the Pentateuch. The latter is, so far as we can at
present see, the more likely hypothesis. In that case
what happened in 444 B.C. was that the Deuterononiic
Law, which had until then ruled, was superseded by
the new Law of Ezra. A determination of this kind,
however, was unworkable in view of the firm place which
the older book that had been built up out of J V. and
D •^ had secured for itself in the estimation of the people.
Accordingly, the new law was revised and enlarged by
the fusing together of the Priestly Writing and the earlier
work, a process of which our Pentateuch, the canon of
the Law, was the result.
This last stage was most probably accomplished in
the next generation after that of Ezra, and completed
before 400 B.C. We have e\ itlence
26. Samaritan
Torah.
They .set up the priests in {hy) their
in (fy) their dirisions.' This means
of this in the fact that the schis-
matic coninnmity of the Samaritans
accepts the entire Pentateuch as sacred. It is true that
the solitary historical account we possess (Jos. Ant.
xi. 72-84) places the separation of this community from
that of Jerusalem as low down as the time of Alexander
the Great (about 330 B.C. ) ; but the cause that led to
(see below, g 38), or consider the reason why the T.aw is wanting
in 2 Mace. 2 13 (see below, g 27). On the other side, it may be
hoped that he will find the difficulty caused by the Book of
Joshua, a difficulty greatly exaggerated by himself, removed
(in fact turned into a nelp) in g aSyi of this article, written two
ye.-irs before his paper was published. This is only one of many
instances. The theory of the triple canon of the OT, based
on incontestable facts, is not as mechanical as Beecher repre-
sents it. It is able to satisfy every demand for organic growth
in the collection of O T writings. Beecher's paper (a total
failure, it seems to the present writer, in the m.-iin point) may
do much good in cautioning against too mechanical a concep-
tion ; but it did not furnish to the present writer any occasion
to alter the views develo[)ed in this article.
1 The reasons for saying that the references in Malachi are to
Dt. and not to Ezra's law-book cannot be given here (see
Now. AV. Proph. 391 ; but cp Mai.achi).
3 On this and on the larger critical question cp Hexateuch.
6£8
CANON
the separation — the expulsion of the high priest's son,
the soii-in-law of Sani)allat, who founded the community
and sanctua.;.' of the Samaritans — is rather, according to
Neh. 1828, to be referred to the period of Nehemiah
(about 430 B.C.). It has already been mentioned (§
19) that Jewish chronology has dropped a whole century
and a half, -o bringing the periods of Nehemiah and
Ale.\ander into immediate juxtaposition ; and this is the
explanation of the confusion found in Josephus. We
may suppose that Ix'fore the final separation of the
Samaritans there elapsed an interval of some decades
which would give ample time for the completion of the
Law.^ This does not e.xclude the possibility that adjust-
ments may have been made at a later date between the
Samaritan Pentateuch and that of Jerusalem, or that
later interpolations may have found their way into the
Samaritan law. The compass of the work, however, must
have remained (to speak broadly) ^ a fixed quantity,
otherwise the Samaritans would not have taken it over.*
At the same time the Samaritan canon, which con-
tained nothing but the (complete) law, is our oldest
witness to a period during which the
26. Torah =
entire canon.
canon consisted of the Law alone,
canon and Law being thus coextensive
conceptions. If alongside of the Law there had been
other sacral writings, it would be inexplicable why
these last also did not pass into currency with the
Samaritans. There are other witnesses also to the
same effect. The weightiest lies in the simple fact that
the name Torah or Law can mean the entire canon,
and be used as including the Prophets and the Writings.
We find it so used in the NT (Jn. IO34 I234 l.'jzs
I Cor. 1421), in the passage already cited from 4 Esdras
(142o), and, at a later date, in many passages of the
Talmud, the Midrashim, and the Rabbins (cp Strack,
439). This would have been impossible if the words
'canon' and 'law' had not originally had the same
connotation, other books afterwards attaining to some
27 2 Maor ^^^""^ '^^ '^"^ sanctity of the Law. The
o Game thing is shown by an often-quoted
'^' and much -abused passage in 2 Mace.
(213). There we read that Nehemiah, in establishing
a library, brought together the books concerning the
kings and prophets (to. trepl tuiu ^aaiX^uv /cat Trpo(p7jTuiv)
and the (i)ocms) of David (to. toD AaviS) and the letters
of kings concerning consecrated gifts (to the temple :
^TricTToXas ^aaiXeijjv wepi avadefidruiv). The passage
occurs in a letter from the Jews of Palestine to their com-
patriots in Kgypt, and is an admitted interpolation in a
book which is itself thoroughly unhistorical ; it is thus
in the highest degree untrustworthy (cp MACCABEES,
Second, § 7). As evidence of what could be believed
and said at the time of its composition, however, in the
first century B.C., it is unimpeachable. When we
find the Former and Latter Prophets and the Psalms
catalogued as forming part of a library, and, alongside
of them and on the same level, letters of kings (heathen
kings of course), it is clear that there is no idea of sacro-
1 This explains why the Book of Nehemiah closes with the
expulsion of the son-in-law of Sanhallat, but says nothing as to
the setting up of the temple and church of the Samaritans.
There is no occasion for scepticism as to the entire story in
Josephus (as in Kautzsch, PKEi"^), art. ' Samariter,' 343/;).
2 See below, g 37.
3 Against the completion of the law at this date Duhih
(/esai'a, iSgz, p. vyC) urges objections. He thinks that as late
as the time of the Chronicler (third century B.C.) the so-called
Priestly Document had not yet been fused with J E and D ; for
the intention of the Book of Chronicles is, in his opinion, to
continue the Priestly Document (which comes down only to the
end of Joshua), not the older work embracing the Book of
Kings, which indeed it sought to supersede. Neither intention,
however, can be attributed to the Chronicler. In fact, he begins
with the creation, his method being to write out at full length
the genealogies from Adam downwards, taking them from the
work that lay before him (JED P). Since, however, he is writing
a history only of Jerusalem and the temple, he passes over all
that does not relate to this. At the same time, even if the
Chronicler had used nothing but P, this would not prove more
than that, after its fusion with the other sources, P continued
to be used also separately for a long time.
659
CANON
sanct books. The Law is not mentioned in the same
connection ; as the sacred canon, it receives a place to
itself and has nothing to do with the library. Whether
all the contemporaries of this author shared his view
is another matter ; in any case, the possibility of such
a view being held is proof of the original isolation of
the Law. Moreover, it appears from this passage that
at the time when it was written, or within the writer's
circle, the legend of the closing of the canon by I'.zra can
have teen prevalent only in the (narrower and historically
much more accurate) sense that the canon of the Law re-
ceived its validity as such by Ezra'saction. Thefact, more-
over, that in the LXX the version of the Law appears to be
distinctively an official work, not theresult of private enter-
prise, confirms the inference already drawn from the
exclusive attention given to the Law in the period repre-
sented by Ezra.
( 2 ) The second canon : the Prophets. — The nucleus
for a second canon was laid to the hand of the scribes
oa J P ^ of the fifth century in the very fact that the
* canon of the Law had been set apart to a
place by itself. It is one of the certain results of the
science of special introduction that the Priestly Document
on which Ezra's reform rested, followed the history of
Israel, including the division of Canaan, down to the
end of the Book of Joshua : the portions derived from
it can still be distinguished in our present Book of
Joshua. The same holds good for J E D. We can go
further. It may still be matter of dispute, indeed,
whether the material for the subsequent books (Judges,
Samuel, Kings) also was derived from J and E ; but so
much is indisputably certain, that the Deuterononfic re-
daction embraced these books also, in fact, the whole of
the Former Prophets, and that at the end of Kings the
narrative itself is from Deuteronomistic hands. As
even now each of these books is seen to link itself very
closely to that which precedes it, it follows that JED,
ultimately at least, in the form in which the work
was used in the fifth century, included the Law and the
Former Prophets. That the Law might attain its final
OQ -D + form as a separate unity, therefore, it was
teuch.
not enough that P and JED should be
worked up into a single whole. This
whole must be separated from the history that followed
it. How and when this was effected we can imagine
variously. According to the view taken above, what is
most probable is that in 444 the entire Priestly Writ-
ing, including the closing sections relating to the
entrance into Canaan and the partition of the country,
was already in existence and canonized in its full extent.*
Not until its subsequent amalgamation with the corre-
sponding sections of J E D did the hitherto quite insig-
nificant historical appendix to the 'law,' strictly so
called, acquire such a preponderance that the division
was found to be inevitable. It was made at the end
of the account of the death of Moses, and thus a portion
of the Priestly Writing also (as well as of J E D) was
severed from the body to which it belonged. In any
case, however we may reconstruct the details, the great
fact abides that, after the Law had been separated, there
remained the compact mass of writings which afterwards
, _ came to be known as ' the former
P ^^J prophets,' a body of literature which
take an exceptional position from the simple fact that it
had once been connected with the sacred canon, and
must necessarily have been prized by the community as
a possession never to be lost.
Equally certain is it that by far the larger proportion
of the ' latter prophets ' was already in the hands of
' T tt '^^ scribes of the fifth century. In these
Pro h«t ^^ books God spoke almost uninterruptedly
P by the mouth of his prophets — in itself
1 A last trace of some reminiscence of this short period during
which the Book of Joshua still belonged to the ' law ' may be
seen in the Apocryphal Book of Joshua of the Samaritans.
CANON
reason enough for assiRning to thcin the attribute of
hohncss. If, m^vcrthelcss, th(; hooks wi-n: not reckoned
to the canon, the explanation is to be sou);ht in the
practical character of the lirst canon : lO/ra gave to the
community in the canon of the I^iw all that it letjuircd.
It was not new when he gave it ; he only gave over
again what G<xl had once already given through Moses
to the people as his one anil all. If the {xxjple had
remained true to this I^aw, not orly would they have
escaped all the dis;isters of the past, but also they would
never have needi-d new revelations from (jod through
his prophets. These prophets contributed nothing new ;
they were sent only to admonish the unfaithful people
to observe the Law, and to announce the merited
-- Pro punishment of the imj)enitent. The I^w
." thus had permanent validity, whilst the
■ work of the prophets was transitory ; the
l.»a\v addressed itself to all generations, the prophets
each only to his own, which had now passed away.
The generations that had sworn olx.'dience anew to the
l.aw under K/.ra, therefore, had no need for the propliets.
Should similar circumstances recur, it might Ix; ex-
pected that Cjod would send prophets anevv ; but the
prevailing feeling was, no doubt, that the time of un-
faithfulness, and consequently of the prophetic ministry,
had gone for ever.*
The view here set forth is that of the O T itself, pre-
eminently that of the Deuteroiioniistic school, where it
is constantly recurring. ^ Indeed, since the Deutero-
nomic and the Priestly Laws alike, each in its own
way, had assiniilated the results of the work of the
prophets, this view must be called, from their point of
view, the right one. Accordingly it has throughout
continued to lie the view of the synagogue, as can be
proved from many passages in the Talmud and the
33. Historical '"^'i'l'-=^^him.-' It explains at the same
books
tmie why it is that the historical books
' prophetic*
(Joshua-Kings) are called 'prophets.'
They speak just in the manner of the
prophets of the unfaithfulness of past generations to the
law, and of the divine means — chiefly the mission of
prophets — used to correct this. Both relate in a similar
way to the past. For the same reason the prophets,
conversely, are called history ; for ' tradition ' in the
sense of 'history' is what is meant by KnoScK {ash-
lemtii), the Massoretic term for the canon of the
prophets, the d«j<<3j {nSi'iin), as a whole (cp further,
Strack, 439).
We can thus very easily understand how it was that
the Pr<)[)hets could not be canonized simultaneously
34 Not vet ^^'''^ '^^ Law. To pledge jjeople to the
canonized P''°Pl^*-"'s '^'^^ not possible, and the obliga-
■ tion to the I^aw would only have been
obscured and weakened by a canonization of the Prophets
at the same time. The idea of canonicity had first to
be enlarged ; it had to Ix; conceived in a more abstract
manner, on the basis of a historical interest in the past,
before the canonizing of the Prophets — that is to say,
their Ijeing taken in immediate connection with the
Law — could become possible.''
Of course a considerable period of time must have
been required for this ; and the same result follows from
38 Freelv ^^^ established facts of 'higher criticism.'
edited. ^^ *^^ Prophets properly so called, not
only are Joel and Jonah later than the
completion of the Law, but also the older books, over
wide ajeas of their extent, bear more or less independent
1 With every reservation let it \yc noted here that in Mai. 3 23
•he promise is not of a new prophet, but only of the return of
Klijah, an<i that in Zech. 13 2_^ to come forward as a prophet
is to risk one's life.
2 Compaie also, however (especially), the confession of sin
which in Nehciniah precedes the uking of the covenant (parucu-
larly ?t/. 16 ff. 26 29 / 34).
» .SeeWeW, 18/78/:
* Cp the passage (2 Alacc. 2 lO, already spoken of, in which
such a historical interest appears, but leads only to the foundatioo
of a library, not to the canonizing of its contents.
661
CANON
evidence of a seconilary literary .activity.' These pheno-
mena are so manifold, and there are traces of periods
so widely separated, that we must believe not a few
generations to have borne a part in bringing the pro-
phetical books to their present form. Yet these extensive
additions and revisions, at least most of th(;m, must of
course have taken place before the canoniz;ition.
This obvious conclusion is indeed contradicte<l by the
tradition of the synagogue, which tells us that the books
36 Gan in °^ ''^*'' P''"P''<^'s ^*'<^''^" « ritten by ' the men
tradition. "/ "^"^ great synagogue ' on which view
the canon of the prophets was already
complete in 444 B.C. Nor does this assertion, the
baselessness of which we have already seen, stand alone.
It is backed by others. Josephus (c. Ap. 18) says
e.\|)ressly that it was down to the time of Artaxer.xes,
the successor of Xerxes (/.^., Artaxerxes I., Ix)ngimanus,
465-424) that the literary activity of the prophets con-
tinued. The passage in the Mishna in which the un-
broken chain of tradition is set forth {I'irki AbOth, 1 i)
repn;sents the Law as having been handed down by the
prophets to the men of the great .synagogue ; which
again brings us to the same date, and dispenses with
the need of any further testimony.
It is exactly this chain of tradition, however, that
supplies the interval of time that we need. 1 he passage
goes on to say : Simon the Just was one of the last
survivors of ' the men of the great synagogue ' ; he
handed on the tradition to Antigonus of Socho. by
whom''^ in turn it was transmitted to Jose b. Jo'czer
and Jose b. Jolianan, the first of the so-called 'pairs.'
That the chronology of this section leaves much to be
desired is clear.-* It seems to be as good as certain,
however, that the fourth of the five pairs lived about
50 B.C., the third about 80 B.C. The same ratio would
bring us to somewhere alxjut 140 or 150 B.C. for the
first ' pair,' whilst the time of Antigonus and Simon
would fall about 200 B.C., or a little earlier. In that
case, Simon the Just would Ixj the high priest .Simon II.
b. Onias who is briefly mentioned by Josephus {Ant.
xii. 4 10). The cognomen of 'Just,' however, is given
by Josephus {Ant. .\ii. 25 4 i) to Simon I. b. Onias, who
lived almost a century earlier, soon after 300. If we
must consider that he is the Simon who is meant, it
is clear that the alleged chain of ti.adition is defective
in its earlier portion, only a single name having leachcd
us for the whole of the third century. Further, .Simon
the Just is the connecting link with ' the great syna-
gogue,' and as the assembly that gave rise to this name
was held in 444, there is again a gap, this time of a
centurv', even if we concede that Simon reached a very
advanced age. The long interval between Smion the
Just and 444 B.C., however, is not to be held as arising
from a different view about the synagogue ; it is to be
accounted for by the hiatus (already referred to. §§ 19,
25) in the traditional chronology between Nehemiah and
Alexander the Great, similar to that which brings Zcrub-
37 Activitv ^^^' '"'" immediate relation with the
in interval '''"*^ °'^ Fzra.'* It is within this vacant
period that we must place those redac-
tions, the fact of which has been so incontestably proved
by critical inquiry. The main reason why the synagogue
has no recollection of this period, is that during this
time the activity of the scribes (with the history of
which alone the chronology busies itself from Kzra
onwards) had no independent life, but devoted itself
almost exclusively to the .sacred writings of the past,
and left its traces only there, so that whatever it
' This is true especially of Isaiah, Micah, and Zechariah ; but
most of the other Ixjoks show the same thing in some degree.
The (If^iails belong to the special articles.
2 ' i{y whom ■ is plural according to the text, the reference
including perhaps Simon the Just. Zunz (37 n.) would interpret
' from the successors of Antigonus, mediate or immediate ' ;
but this is hardly permissible.
S See Schdrer, CJV 'i-i^i^ff.
< Cp also Jos. Ant. xi. 0 i, with 7 i andS i.
663
CANON
accomplished was put to the credit of the earlier times.
This holds good, in the first instance, of the Law, to
which considerable additions were still made as late as
the third century (see above, § 25). Still more
extensive was this activity in the case of the prophetical
books ; it was now that they took their final literary
shape. 1 The additions naturally corresponded to the
thou;.;hts and wishes of the age in which they arose ; on
the lines of older models, the elements of hope and of
comfort received a nmch fuller development, and thus
the prophets were made of practical interest for a
present time that, contrary to expectation, had turned
out badly. 2
It is possible that we even possess a proof that the
canonization of the prophets did not take place quite
38 Canoniza ^''"^'3"' opposition and dispute, a
tion Derhana ^^'"^ '" "^''"" "°' ''"P^bable. In the
a ttd <^hurch fathers we meet with the very
PP * definite assertion that the Sadducees
had scruples about acknowledging any sacred writings
(especially the Prophets) in addition to the Law.^ It
cannot be supposed that there is here any confusion
with the Samaritans, who are expressly named along
with them as sharing the same view ; a somewhat
easier view is that what is referred to is their rejection
of the oral legal tradition. ^ Let it be borne in mind,
however, that we here have to do with our best Christian
authorities on matters Jewish — Origen and Jerome, the
former of whom was contemporary with the period
of the Mishna. That neither the Mishna itself, nor
yet Josephus, has a word to say on such a dangerous
subject, is intelligible enough. It is, of course, not for
a moment to be supjjosed — even though this is suggested
by some of the passages cited — that the Sadducees re-
jected the prophets, or, in other words, refused to
recognise them as having Vx;en channels of divine
communications. On the other hand, it is not difficult
to believe that these conservative guardians of the old
priestly tradition should have resisted the addition of
a second canon to that of the Law, which until then
had held an exclusive place. In doing so, they would
only have been maintaining the position of 444 B.C.,
whilst in this, as in other matters, the Pharisees repre-
sented the popular party of the time. The controversy
1 Cp We. //G i=;5^ 2nd ed. 190^; Montefiore, On\-in
anii Crou'th 0/ A'f//ci<"i (////'. L,rt. 1892), 401 j: the
assertion, frequently repeated in the tradition of the synagogue,
that it was expressly prohibited to commit to writing the
traditional law cannot of course, strictly speaking, be main-
tained (cp Strack, art. 'Thalmud' in PR£n 18 331 /^). Still
it is not impossible that there lies at the bottom of it a true
reminiscence. Hardly, indeed, such a one as Strack supposes
(P- 3337^) ; but rather this : that the addition of all sorts of
nm<ell<e to the canonical Law was definitely put a stop to, and
that, as a reaction against this tendency to add, there arose,
some time (say) in the course of the second century, a certain I
reluctance to write the further developments of the law — the
Hal.'ikOth— until at last the codification of the Mishna put an end
to this.
2 Kyle's conjecture (p. 117) that the gradual admission of the
Prophets to a place in the public reading of the synagogue pre-
ceded and led to their canonization, rests unfortunately on an
insecure foundation, as we do not know whether th,- Haphtara
goes back to a sufficiently early date. The first mention of the
public reading of the Prophets is in the NT (Lk. 4 i6_/C ; Acts
13 15 27), the next, in a very cursory and obscure form, is in the
Mishna (Megilla, 846), and, very full and clear, in the Tosephta
(/J//rf ///a, 4 [3], ed. Zuckermandel, 225^). This much may be
taken for certain, that the reading of the Pronhets came in very
considerably later than that of the Law. That what led to it
was the destructive search after copies of the Law in the time
of Anliochus Epiphanes (i Mace. 1 57) is pure conjecture. Even
if proved it would be insufficient for Ryle's purpose. For the
age of the HaphtSroth, see Zunz, $ /., Ryle, iidyC; and on
the Haphtaruth in general, .see Schi'irer, 23797! It is necessary
to raise a note of warning as to Gr.'itz, x'jbff.
3 See the passages textually quoted m .Schurer, 2342 : Orig.
c. Cels. 1 49 (ed. Lommatzsch, 18 93); Comm. in Matth. 17,
ch.ip. 35 yC on chap. 222931 /T (ed. Lomm. 4 166 169); Jer.
Contin. in Matth. 22 31 /. (Vail. 7 i 179); conir. Luci/erianos^
:. 223. /
1; Phitosi
'phumena, U 29 ; Pseudo-Tert. adv.
chap. 23 (v. 2 197) ;
llier. chap. 1.
•* Vet in the last-cited passage there follows immediately :
' Prajlermitto Pharisa:os qui additamenta quaedam legis adstru-
endo a Judacis divisi sunt.'
663
CANON
about defiling the hands (M. Vadayim, 46) may have
been a last echo of this.*
Lastly, we must endeavour to fix an inferior limit
for the date at which the prophetical canon was fixed.
39 Inferior ^""^ ^^ literary close of the prophetical
Umit = EcclU8. '-■oH^-<-;'i«"..^^'-' fortunately have an ex-
tcrnal testmiony almost three centuries
older and much more exhaustive than 4 Esdras and
Josephus, namely the hymn to the great men of the
past with which Jesus b. Sira (Kcclesiasticus), in chaps.
44-50, concludes his didactic poem. From Enoch
downwards all the righteous are panegyrised, exactly in
the order in which they occur in the Law and the
Former Prophets. The kings are treated quite on the
Ueuterononiistic lines. David, Hezekiah, and Josiah
receive unqualified praise ; Solomon is commended only
half-heartedly, whilst Rehoboam is spoken of as a fool,
and Jeroboam as a seducer. F^lijah and Elisha find
their place in the series immediately after these two
kings, whilst between Hezekiah and Josiah comes Isaiah.'
Of him we are told in one and the same sentence what
we read in chaps. 36-39 ( =2 K. 18-20), and that under
mighty inspiration he foresaw the far future and ' com-
forted them that mourn in Zion ' (cp 40 1 ). This proves
that not only chaps. 36-39, but also chaps. 40-66, already
were parts of the Book of Isaiah, and thus that the hist
essential steps to its final redaction had been made (cp
Che. Intr. Is. xviii. ). Still more significant is it that
after Jeremiah (who is associated with Josiah, as Isaiah
is with Hezekiah) and after I-^zekiel, the twelve prophets
{o'l 8J}d€Ka irpo<}>riTai) are mentioned, and disposed of
collectively in a single panegyric. Here already, that
is to say, we have the same consolidation as we have
seen (§ 21) in the Mishna (where a single authorship in
the persons of ' the men of the great synagogue ' has to
be found for the one book of the twelve). We may be
sure that Jesus b. Sira found the twelve books already
copied upon a single roll, and thus in their final form.
By his time the prophetic canon had been closed.*
The conclusion of this hymn (chap. ftO) answers the
question as to the date of its author. It is the panegyric
on Simon b. Onias who was high priest in Jesus b. .Sira's
own day. In this instance, it is certainly not .Simon the
Just (cp § 36) that is intended, if it were only on account
of the absence of the surname distinctively given in
Josephus and the Mishna. The question is decided for
Simon II. (circa 200) by the prologue of the translator,
grandson of the author, who made his version later than
132 B.C. (see EcCLESiASTicu.s, § S).-* We therefore
1 The arguments for utter rejection of this statement can best
be read in Winer, ///Fi?(3>2 353/ The view taken in the text
seems to be shared by We. when he writes {f/G 251 ; 2nd ed.
2S6 ; 3ril ed. 297) : ' They (the Pharisees) stood up against the
Sadducees for the enlargement of the canon.' Another view is
expressed in /rra/.C) 514.
2 The precedence here given him has no bearing on the place
assigned to his book in the Prophetic canon (cp above, § 8).
1 1 is the chronological succession of the persons that is being
dealt with.
3 The doubt raised (not for the first time) by Bohme (in
ZATW ~ ■2io ['87]) against the genuineness of 4!> 10a, where
the XII are referred to, was excellently disposed of by Niildeke
(ZA TII^S 156 ['88]), by the evidence of the Syriac translation
(which rests immediately on the Hebrew), and by showing that
in T. loi^, according to Cod. A and others, the correct reading
is the plural napeKa\eiTav (followed by yap instead of Se), and
iKvTpMO-aino, so that 10* refers not to Ezekiel but to the XII.
Another_ circumstance ought to be noted. If the praise of
Ezekiel is completed in v. By?, it agrees in length and substance
exactly with that of Jeremiah in v. 7, with that of Hezekiah
(apart from Isaiah) in 4824/r, and finally with that of the XII,
if V. 10 is taken as applying wholly to them. To place 10*
before loa as Zockler {Die Apokryphen lies AT, etc., 1891,
p. 3487?) silently does is quite inadmissible. To all this must
now be added the testimony of the lately discovered Hebrew.
The genuineness of 48 23 J^. is doubted by Duhm (Jesaja,
1892, p. vii), but without any reasons being given. On p. xiv.
he appears to be able to accept the genuineness.
4 The arguments by which J. Hal^vy {P.tude sur la partie
du texte Hcbreu de t Eiclesiastique reccmment decou-jcrte,
1897) endeavours to prove that Simon I., the Just, is the hero
of chap. 50, have failed to convince the present writer. Still
it should be kept in mind that even if Halivy were right the
664
CANON
conclude — and the conclusion ajjrces wiih the course of
the dcvdopmenl traced alx)vc — that the pro|)hi'tic collec-
tion alreatly existed as such, pretty much in its present
form, about the year aoo B.C.'
Notable reasons for the same conclusion are suppHed
l)y the Mook of I )anicl ( written aliout 164 B. c. ). In the first
I )laie there is a reason of a ixjsitive character :
40. Other ,„ y_, ^^^. ,j„j j^.^ ^^u /. cited as oncca
■ ('in the [Holy] Scriptures'). Of greater
weight, howrver, is a negative reason : the Hook of
Daniel itself found a place — not among the Prophets, but
— among the Writings. Other reasons for this niight Ix;
conjectured ; '■' but the most probable one still is that
at the time of its recognition as canonical the canon
of the I'rophets had in current o|)inion l)een already
definitely completed. The time of atlmission, how-
ever, nmst lie taken to h.ive been considerably later
than the dale of com|X)sition (164 B.C.), and so this
evidence does not go for much. Still less important
is the further fact, that the work of the Chronicler (com-
posed during the first half of the third century) is not
included among the I'ormer Prophets. Its S[)ecial
character as a Midrash to already accepted biblical
lx)oks must long have prevented its attaining the dignity
of canonization ; but a further circumstance helped to
impede its recognition. The immediate contiguity of the
Former I'rophets and the Pooks of Jeremiah and Ezekiel
(brought to their final form at an early date) must
comi)aratively .soon have c(jme to be regarded as fi.xed
and unalterable.*' whilst, on the other hand, to apjx'nd
Chronicles to the later prophets w.is plainly imjx)ssible.
It remains, then, that the completion of the n;//<r//«//—
we nii_L;ht almost sav also of the canon— oi the Prophets
41. Prophetic ''''') '''^*^!Lj" /=°"'-^'^ ^f '^'^ ^hi'-'l
^ centurv. This, however, does not vet
canon v, ' . ,. . . •
subordinate. \''']^ "' ^l ^" altogether unambiguous
rindmgwuh reference to their 'canoniza-
tion.' It is only misleading if we allow ourselves, with-
out (jualillcation, to carry back the idea of ' canoniciiy,'
in the fulIy-develo|X'd form which it finally reached, to
the earliest beginnings of the formation of a canon. It
was impossible for the Projihcts ever to receive a
canonical value in the .same sense in which this was
given to the Law ; the subordinate character of the Pro-
phetic canon remains fixed for all coining time.^ Holi-
ness was, and continued to be, a relative conception,
and we do not need to give to the designation d'tSCH
in Dan. 82 the same fulness of meaning that it has in the
Talmud. The gulf lx.>tween the Law and all the remain-
ing Ixioks could be bridged only artificially, and we
know with certainty that the bridging idea — the idea of
a property conmion to all holy Ixxjks, that of ' defiling
the hands ' — was an invention of Pharisaic scholasticism,
withstood by the Sadducees even after the destruction
of Jerusalem (YaJ. 46). Until this bridge had been
securely constructed there was no idea of a canonicity
that included all three portions equally. This is proved
by a fact to which we have already referred, — the Saddu-
cean recognition of nothing but the Law. liefore a
definitive union of the Prophetic canon with that of the
date of Ecclesiasticus ought not to be pushed back more than
fifty or -sixty years. The author may be describinj; in his old
age remembrances from his early youth. See Kautzsch in StK'r,
1808, p. 198/
• The possibility of much later additions to the books admitted
to this canon is unfortunately by no means excluded, as is
sufficiently evidcnceil by the simple fact that even the Pentateuch
continued to be added to long after its canonization (see § 37).
Thus there is nothing in the nature of the case to prevent us from
attributing the appendices to Zechariah (ch.ips. 9-14) to the later
Maccabean period, as We. {f/G 228, n. 2, 3rd ed. 274, n. 2)
appears to do (cp Zkchariaii ii.), or admitting the interpo-
lation of p.iss.iges in Isaiah (already enlarged by the addition of
chaps. 40t>f!) .xs is indicated by Duhms results. In these cases,
however, we are justified in demanding very conclusive arguments.
- Cp, for example, Duhm, o/. cit. vi. n. i.
S llence also the exclusion o:' the Book of Ruth.
* As to this cp the very significant passage (Mt^Ua, aja)
quoted in Marx, 39, n. 3.
665
CANON
I^w could be eflfected the way had to be prcjjared by a
continually rising appreciation of the proplietic literature,
and by an ever-growing conception of its s;mctity. To
this result the Maccalx^n jxrritxl must unquestionably
have contributed much. Such [lassages as i Mace. 4 46
5*27 l-l4» ami the .Song of the Three C hildren (i'. 14 ; cp
Ps. 749) show not only how far jx-ople then felt them-
selves to be removed from the prophetic times, but
also how highly those times were thought of. .Stiil we
must lx,'ar in mind the pas.sage in 2 Mace. ('213) already
referred to (§ 27), which seems to show that, even in
the last century B.C., it was still possible to six;ak of the
Prophets and of profane writings, in the same breath,
as jxirts of the same library.
On the other hand, it can Ixi shown that there was
once a tim<! in which the Prophets, but not the Hagio-
42 PrODhets Si^'^P^i^. could be spoken of along with
nreceded ^''^ ''"'^ '^ included among the sacred
HM-ioeranha ^^'"'''"Ks- -^s the name ' the Law * can
o o P ■ ijg uj^.(| (Q designate the whole tripartite
canon (see alxjve, § 26), so also ean the double name
' the Law and the Prophets.' (Cp, in NT, .\lt. 617 7 12
Lk. 16 16 29 31 .Acts 2823, and, in the tradition of the
synagogue J^cs/i /nish-Shann, 46 ; Jiabu Ii. 8 14 ; Talm.
J. Me:{iiLi, ,3 i ; also Hiiha Ii. 12, t>).^ It m.iy also be
pointed out that the name Kabbald ('Tradition') in-
cludes the Prophets and the Writings (cp the numerous
passages in Zunz, 44 n. a), but the synonymous e.vpres-
sion Ashlcm/a (see alxjve, § 33), if we are correctly
informed (Strack, 439), the prophets only.
(3) The third cation: the Hai^iographa. — Here,
again, there is no possibility of doubt that, at the time
43. Distinction ^f""/'^*-' prophetic collection was
between them. !=^°^''''' "'"^^^ «^ ^'^*'^' ^^ now find
in our third canon was already m
existence, and yet it did not gain admi.ssion into the
collection and found no place in the canon of that day.
At bottom the reason is self-evident ; it was a collection
of pro])hets that was Ix-ing made, a collection, that is to
say, of writings in which G(k1 himself spoke, enforcing
the Law by the mouth of his messengers. Such other
writings as were then e.vtant did not profess to be
m.T CN3 ( ' oracle of Yahwe,' i:V ' thus saith the Lord '),
the immediate utterance of the (io<l of Israel. One of
them, indeed, the earlier nucleus of the Psalter, was in
use as the hymn-book of the Temple services ; but to
have admitted it into the canon on that account would
have Ix-en very nnich the same .is if now a Christian
church were to place its hynmal among its symlx)lical
books. There was necessary, .tccordingly, a further (cp
S 34) extension of the idea '.Sacred Writings' or (using
the word with caution) of the idea of the 'canon,' and
(so to say) a reduced intensity, Ix'fore any further books
could find admission, not of course into either of the
canons already existing, but into a third, suborilinate in
rank to these. It is obvious, further, that again a con-
siderable period must have elapsed before this extension
of the idea could make w.ay, and thus render jxjssible
the admission of Ixxiks which, at the time when the
projjhetic canon was closet!, were still unwritten.
Hesides the (obvious) condition of a lx)oks having a
religious character, the only remaining condition de-
44 End of '"•^"'^"' '^V '''^' ''^^^ implied in the ex-
nronhetie P''*"ded idea of canon is the condition
^ -j^j of date. Those lxx)ks were accepted
™ * which were considered to have been
written during the prophetic periixl.
Our earliest witness to this is Josephus. In the p.ossage already
referretl to above (c. Ap.\»), after setting forth his tripartite
division of the sacred writings (5-^-13-^4), he goes on to s.ny : —
OTO hi '.KprcL(ip(ov M'XP' ''<'" *<•*' 'i^'^' ]^povov ytypairrai /liy
ixaa-ra, nia-rtiu^ i' oi'x Ofioiat rifiuirai Ton npi) avnuf ita rb fti|
•yevfo^ai ttji' Tuif irpo</>ino»' atcpi^TJ {lajox'if. I hat is to s.iy, the
closes with
prophetic period
th Artaxerxes (Ezra and Nehemiah),
1 Oratz, isoyr, wishes to exclude the Hagiographa in both
cases. It must be concealed that the evidence for their inclusion
cannot be regarded as being so certain in the case of the ' Law
and the Prophets ' as it is m that of the ' Law ' alotie.
666
CANON
snd canonicity (even in the case of non-prophetical books) is
guaranteeil only by coiitemporaiieouMness with the continuous
series of the prophets. This view is confirmed by the Talmudic
tradition. Tos. Vadayim, 2 13 (p. 683) rules that ' books such as
Ben Sira [Ecclesiaslicus] and all books written -jS'iti Jk30 do
not defile the hands.' This i;S'K1 JK3p— /.^., 'from that time
forward '—is the standing expression for the cessation of the
prophetic period. Corresponding with it is the other phrase ly
)K3 (' ""til then '), denoting this period. Further confirmation
IS found in San. 28/1 : ' Books like Ben Sira and similar books
writ ten />y;« 7i<»/ //«/<> omvar./s may be read as one reads a letter '
(cp on this, Buhl, 8 a). The point of time is fixed by a passage
in Sfder otam rahba, 30, .-is the time of .Mexander the Mace-
donian : ' I'he rou^^h he-goat (Dan. 821) is Alexander the
Macedonian, who reigned twelve years ; until then the prophets
prophesied by the Holy .Spirit \ from that time/ortvardmcXvn^
thine ear and hearken to the words of the ivise.''^ If Alexander
the Great here takes the place of Artaxerxes in Josephus, the
explanation is simply that, according to the Jewish chronology
and cotiception of history, H.-iggai and Zechariah, Ezra and
Malachi all lived at the same time, which is contiguous with that
of Alexander.2
We now know, therefore, that it is not out of mei^
caprice, but in accordance with a settled doctrine, that
4 Esd. r4 and B.iha B.ithra \^a declare all the canonical
books to have been already in existence in Ezra's time.
The time limit was a fixed one ; difference of view was
possible only with regard to the person of the author.
From this doctrine we deduce the proposition : Into the
third canon, that of the Hagiographa, were received all
books of a religious character of which the date was
believed to go back as far as to the Prophetic period, that
is, to the time of Ezra and the Great Assembly.
The reason for the setting up of such a standard is
easily intelligible. Down to the time of the Great
45 Rnaqon -Assembly, the Spirit of God had been
of limit operative not only in the Law but also
outside of it, namely in the Prophets ; but
' from that time onwards ' the Law took the command
alone. ' Until then ' it was possible to point to the
presence of the factor which was essential to the pro-
duction of sacred writings, but ' from that time onwarils '
it was not. Hence the conviction that the divine pro-
ductive force had manifested itself even in those cases
where the writing did not claim to be an immediate divine
utterance ; but only down to the close of the prophetic'
f)eriod. The proposition we have just formulated is
sutticient to explain the reception or non-reception of
all the books that we now have to deal with. Job was
received as, according to general belief, a book of
venerable antiquity ; Ruth .as a narrative relating to the
period of the judges, and therefore (as was invariably
assumed as matter of course in the case of historical
narratives) as dating from the same time ; the Psalms as
broadly covered by the general idea that they were
' David's Psalms' ; Proverbs, Canticles, and Ecclesiastes
as resting on Solomon's name ; Lamentations as rest-
ing on that of Jeremiah ; Daniel as a prophet of the
Persian period (which in its whole extent was supposed
to fall within the prophetic age) overlooked in the earlier
collection. The same consideration held good for
Esther, regarded as a history book. At the close comes
the Book of Ezra — separated from the general work of
the Chronicler-' — which, in its account of the Great
Assembly, contained the original document on the close
of the Prophetical period and so, ;is it were, puts the
4fi AnnAn colojjhon to the completed canon. Had
dkes '^'^^' ^'"^ "°'^' *^''*" Chronicles—/..?. , the first
part of the Chronicler's work — been in-
corporated with the canon simultaneously with the
incorporation of its second part, the Rook of Ezra, the
two would never have been separated, and even arranged'
in an order contrary to the chronological (cp Historic.m.
LiTEUATURK, §15). We may therefore say with all
confidence that Chronicles did not come in till after-
1 ' The wise ' are the (pKJst - canonical) scribes ; cp Weber,
121^
- Cp copious proofs for this point, already more than once
touched on above, in Marx (see below, \ 75), 53, n. 4.
3 Cp Chronici.es, i 2 and Ezka, f 8.
667
CANON
wards, as an appendix to the canon. The reason for
its original exclusion w.as no doubt the consciousness that,
strictly, it was but a Midrash to other canonical books.
The second part of the Chronicler's work, once canonized,
tended to take the other along with it ; possibly too the
Book of Chronicles may have been helped by the minute-
ness with which it goes into the temple service — a feature
to which at a later date, in the Massoretic arrangement
(see above, § 8), it was indebted for a first place among
the Hagiographx From this one certain case, the last,
may be inferred the possibility that other books also,
especially the immediately preceding ones ( Ezra, Esther,
Daniel ; perhaps also Ruth : see above, § 9), were only
gradually added, one by one, to the third canon by
way of appendices. At least, they all of them have the
appearance of being, as to their contents, appendices to
the two halves of the Prophetic canon, whilst the remain-
ing si.x books form a class by themselves. W'e are not,
however, in a position to speak with certainty here.
Conversely, all other writings, so far as not excluded
by reason of their language or some exception taken
47 Excluded ^^ ^^^^^ contents, may safely be supposed
books. ^° have been excluded either because,
manifestly and on their own confession,
they did not go back to the Prophetic time, or because
their claim to do so was not admitted. ^ The first-men-
tioned reason must have been what operated in the case
of works of so high a standing as i Slacc. and Ecclesi-
asticus ; as instances of the application of the second
principle, we may take (in contrast to Daniel) the books
of Baruch and Enoch.''
The attempt to determine the date at which the
canon of the Hagiographa, and with it that of the
48 Date cniir*-" OT, was finally closed, is again
• r _j 1- '-A surrounded with the vcrv greatest diffi-
inienor limit. ,. , . . i • -.u c .u
culty. Let us, to begm with, fix the
terminus ad quern. It is given us in the passages,
frequently referred to already, in Josephus {c. Ap. 1 8)
and 4 Esdras (chap. 14), where the entire corpus of the
or Scriptures, in twenty-two or twenty-four books, is
set apart from all other writings. As to the extent of
the canon, unanimity had been reached by at least
somewhere about the year 100 A.D.
For a superior limit we shall have to begin where our
investigation as to the prophetic canon ended — with
the son of Sirach. In his hymn he com-
memorates, as the last of the heroes of
49. Superior
Umit.
Israel, Zerubb.abel and Joshua as well as
Nehemiah, thereby conclusively showing that he was
acquainted with the work of the Chronicler (49 ii_^ ).
Moreover, he makes use of p;issages from the Psalms.
Neither fact proves anything for a third canon ; the
fact th.at he found his ideal and patterti in the prophets
is rather against this (2433: ert hiha.(SKO.\ia.v wj- irpo-
ip-qreiav iKX^^)- The prologue of his descendant (later
than 132 B.C.) shows still more unmistakably th.at no
definite third canon w.as then in existence, even although
already a certain number of books had begun to attach
themselves to the L.aw and the Prophets. Three times
he designates the whole aggregate of the literature which
had been handed down, to which also his ancestor h.ad
sought to add his quota, as 6 vouos /cat oi rpoip^at.
Kal tA dWa ri kut' ai'ToiH iiKoXovdTjKSra ; 6. y. k. ol
irp. K. TO. dXXa wdrpia ^i^Xia ; 6. v. k. al irpo<f)rjT(iai (oi
xpofprJTai [C]) K. TO. XoiirA n^v ^t^Xiwv. What is thus
designated by three different indetermin.ate expressions
cannot have lieen a definite collection. That of these
books, in whole or in part, there were already Greek
translations we can gather from the Prologue ; but we
get no help either from this or from the LXX generally.
1 ' Some found their way in, others not, on grounds of taste —
the taste of the period,' says Wcllhausen (Kin/.l*' 557, 6th ed.
512). No doubt considerations of taste must have had influence
on the decisiori whether the books in question came up to the
st.indard ; but it was the doctrine that formally decided.
2 As to Ecclesiasticus note the express testimony of Tosephta
and Gemara (above, § 44X
668
CANON
In I Marc. 7 16/ we fui'l I's. 79 2 / cited with the
formula <cara TOf \biyo¥ fle (TOi>t X^TOit oOi [A]) lypa^t,
in other words., a* Holy Scripture. In 259/ I^aiiicl and
his three friends are named as patterns in immediate
connection with I-^lijah, David. Caleb, and others ; 1 54
seems to cjuotc Daniels prediction ( Dan. 927). We here
see, somewhere about the close of the second or the
beginning of the last century H.c. the Hook of iMniel
for the first time coming into evidence as a fully ac-
credited authority — we could not possibly have expected
so to find it at any earlier date.
Unfortunately these testimonies, such as they are, are
foUowetl by a very wide hiatus. Fhilo (ob. circ. 50
Phil A. i>. ) is our next resort; but, great as is
■ the extent of his writings (all proceeding
uncompromisingly on the allegorical method of biblical
interpretation), they do not yield us much that is satis-
factory in our present inquiry.* Nowhere do we find
a witness to a tripartite canon." Of the canonical
books he nowhere quotes llzj,'kiel, any of the five
Megilloth, Daniel, or Chronicles.' The blank is a great
one. Still we may find some compensation in the fact
that at least the IJook of Kzra is cited with the solemn
formula applicable to a divinely inspired writing.* A
certain conclusion as to the incompleteness of the canon
cannot be draw n from this silence regarding many txx)ks.
On the other hand, real importance attaches to the
following piece of negative evidence : Philo, although
(as an Alexandrian) he must have Ijeen actiuainted with
many non-canonical books, and indeed actually l>etrays
such acquaintance, in no instance uses them in the
same way as the canonical. This allows as probable
the inference that a definitely closed canon was known*
to him ; only we are not able to say from any data
supplied by him what was the extent of that canon in
its third part.
Our next witness is the NT. In Lk. 2444 we have
evidence of the tripartite division, for ' the psalms ' prob-
WT '^'^'-^ stands a potiori for the whole of the
third canon. I'xclesiastes, Canticles, E.sther,
and lizra are not referred to at all. Of course here
again nothing certain is to be inferred from the silence ;
but, if other considerations came into play, this fact
also ought to \x. taken into account. On the other
side, the certain reference to Chronicles in Mt. 2:^35.
Lk. 11 SI* is entitled to have weight. The quotation
of Dan. 722 in i Cor. 62 also must !« referred to.®
There thus remains a space of something like two
centuries — say from the end of the second century B.C.
1 Cp Homemann {Obtervatioms ad illustraliontm etoctrinir
de coHoru yr. ex /'hi/one, 1775, copious extracts from which
are given in Eichhorn's hint.*** 1 123^). Till the appearance
of Prof. H. K. Kyle's Phi/o and the Holy Scripture K^'i), the
statements of Hurnemann had never been verified with sufticient
care ; though, on the other hand, they had not in any point l»een
shown to l>e inaccurate. Prof. Kyle s results do not, however,
differ much from those of Homemann.
'•* Apart from De I' it. Lontemfil., f 3, probably a work of a
much later time, (.'p Lucius, Die Tluraf>euten, 1879, and
Schurer's review of Conybcare's Philo about the Contemplative
Lite, TLZ, 20th July 1895.
* That I Ch. 7 14 is quoted in the tract De rongr. qiurr. erud.
rni/ia, 8, is asserted b^ Hcrzfeld (CIV 3q6 (1B57I ; but cp also
Kichter's edition of Philo, 1828), and has been taken over from
him l>y all subsc(|uent writers ; but it is rather Cs enlarged form
(enlareed perhaps from Ch.) of Gen. 4«5 20, which varies from Ch.
Kyle (Philo. etc., p. 289) finds i Ch. 9 i /. quoted (De Prtem. et
Porn. I 13, ii. 420); but there is very little likeness Ijetwecn the
two pa.vsages (see, however, the next note). Of the minor
prophets only Hosea, Jonah, and Zcchariah are made use of;
but this guarantees the entire liodckapropheton.
* Unless here (De con/. Linguarum^ i 28, 1/) the whole of
I Ch. 3 Ijc intended, rather than (as is universally assumed)
Ezra 8 2 (see in iCh.3 22 the one descendant of David men-
tioned in E?ra 8 2). Cp the plur. oi iui^axiain*^ «.t.A. and c»
0a(riA(«ou( ^ifiAoif.
' IJy many the expression 'from ... to' there used is
•ctually taken to mean ' from the first book to the la.st lxx>k of
the OT." TT)en the passage would prove the close of the canon
with the Book of Chronicles, and, in fact, its close altogether ;
but the expression may refer to the sacrilege implied in the
locality of Zechariab's murder.
CANON
to about 100 A.I). — within winch we are unai)ie to jxjint
out .itiy sure indications of the close of the third canon.
62 NodecUion- '^y'*^^ <!'• i73-^) thinks it can l^e made
2nd CM^ B O °"' *"^ "^ ^""^y ^'«^ '^"^'^ °' P*""^
* ability that the close took place as
early as the second century B.C., between 106 and 105,
the year of the death of John Hyrcanus II. His one
p>ositive reason ' is that the civil wars and scholastic con-
troversies of the last century B.C. must have withdrawn
interest from such things and made impossible any
union of schools or any public step that could alter the
slittus quo. That there ever was a union of schools,
however, wc have every reason to deny ; the extension
of the canon w.is in all proljability only one of the
internal affairs of the Pharisaic school (cp alxjve, § 37).
Prom this it necessarily follows that there is no question
alxjut any public step being taken — say a deliljcrate
decision, reached once for all, or a decree of any
authoritative assembly.
We actually have express information, however, of
such a decision at a much later time. It is obvious
M' h ^^'^* ^° ^"''^ thing would have been
■ neces.sary if a binding decision had al-
ready lj<.'en long in exi.stence. Wc refer at present to
the controversy of which we read in the Mishna ( Yad.
85 ; tp l.diiyoth, 53).
The general proposition there laid down runs as follows :
'All holy scrintures (cnpn »3ri;)2 defile the hands ' (cp alxjve,
I 3); next follows the particular: 'Catiticlc-s and Ecclc->iaste»
defile the hands.' Then wc have the controversy. ' K. Juda
said : Canticles indeed defiles the hands ; .-is regards Ecclesiastes
opinion is divided. K. Jose said : Ecclcsiastci does not defile
the hands, but as regards Canticles opinion is divided. K.
Simon said : About Ecclesiastes the schojl of Shaniniai gives
the laxer, the school of Hillel the severer decision (here compare
the elucidation in liduyoth,!)-}, that according to the former
(.Shammaij Ecclesiastes does not defile the hands, according to
the latter it does).» K. Simon b. '.\z.-iy said : To me it has l<een
handed down from the mouth of the seventy-two elders that, on the
day on which K. Elitzer b '.A/arya was made supreme head, it was
decided that (Ijoth) Canlicles and Ecclcsia.stes defile the hands.
R. 'Akiba said : God forbid that there .should ever have been
difference of opinion in Israel about Canticles, as if it did not
defile the hands; for the entire world, from the l>eginning until
now, does not outweigh the day in which Canticles was given to
IsraeL For indeed (•2) all .Scriptures (c'2in:) ^re holy (z:~p),
but Canticles is holy of holies (z'tr\p tnp)- If people were
divided in opinion, it was as to Ecclesiastes alone. R. Johanan
b. Jehoshua, the son of K. 'Akiba's father-in-law, said : -As the
son of 'Azay says, people were thus divided in opinion, and it is
thus that the matter has been decided.' ■•
It has Ix^n contended that the dispute here was not
about the question of canonicity, Ixjth Uxjks Ijeing clearly
^ . included in the ojxrning sentences under
, ®^^§r the category of holy, and that the word
Of aispute. ^^. .j^ preserve, lay aside, hide,' the
technical exjjression for the treatment with which the
boTiks in question were threatened, dfx-s not mc*an ' to
pronounce ajjocryphal ' but only something like ' to
exclude from public reading.'' Iloth contentions are
incorrect. The word in question is not used v\ith
reference to Fxxlesiasticus or other a[XKryphal works,
simply h>ecause no one had ever sjxjken of canonizing
them, and thus thcTe could not possibly be any (juesiion
alxjut doing away with them or removing them. And
that our passage certainly is discussing the question
whether the two books are Holy .Scripture or not, is
1 A second argument adduced by Kyle, that ohuined by
reasoning backwards from the position in Josephus, is toned
down by Buhl (p. 27) to the more moderate view that ' the third
part . . had already received its canonical completion before
the Christian era."
* By this we are certainly, in accordance with 82, to under-
stand the entire canon. On the other hand, the CZTS men-
tioned later may mean merely the Hagiographa.
' One easily perceives that in point of fact here also the
stricter school of^Shammai remained true to its reputation, and
no less so the laxer school of Hillel.
* The tract, Aboth de h'abti Nathan (chap. 1), as we saw
above (I 18), carries this decision back, as also in the case of
»Ct
tity _
• Cp Ryle, p. ,43^
669
Proverbs, to the time of 'the Great Synagogue.
' '.p especially Buhl, 7 / 26, and Ryle, 187 / On the
other hand, Cheyne (OPi, 457) acknowledges that the queuioo ia
that of canonicity.
670
CANON
made unmistakably evident by the words of R. 'Aklba.
In this tinal stage of the development the question
caiiniJt jjossibly be whether {x-'rhaps, though integral
[jarts of Holy Scripture, they nevertheless do not defile
tlie hands : it is established that ' all Holy Scriptures
defile the hands.' Then follows the Mishnic dfcision
that the books of Canticles and Kcclesiastes also belong
to this class ; after this, the discussion which preceded
the decision, and the grounds on which it was reached,
are given.
In this connection the precise fi.xing of the day on
which this decision was arrived at is important — the day
on which at Janmia (Yabna) R. Gamaliel
. J J ^^.^^ incidentally deposed from his
place as president of the court of justice, an incident for
which we have also other early testimonies.^ This
event certainly falls within the decades that immediately
followed the destruction of Jerusalem — whether so early
as 90 A.D. (the usual assumption) is questionable, but
100 A.D. will not in any case be very wide of the mark.
This period, then, saw the settlement of a twofold
controversy, which, as regards one half of it at least,
had already occupied the schools of Hillel and Shammai
about a century before. This last point is conceded
even by a zealot like R. 'Aklba ; his unrestrained
exaggeration as regards Canticles is only a veil to cover
the weakness of his position.'^ We hear nothing of any
decision of the question preceding that of Janmia.
That, after the proceedings of that stormy day, the
question should have been discussed again some decades
later ( R. 'Akiba oh. 135), need not surprise us. No
new decision is arrived at : the c|uestion is answered
by a confirmation of that of Janmia. ■*
Thus, then, about the year 100 A. 11. there was
still, as an unsettled controversy, the same cjuestion
as to the canonicity of two books, which as regards one
of them ( Ecclesiastes ; see Ecci,i:si.\STK,s, § 3) had
been a notorious point of difference between the two
great schools of the Pharisees."* By that time, however,
1 For brevity"^ sake it will be enough to refer to the e.xceed-
ingly careful histury of the activity of the scribes, with copious
proofs, given in ,Sch;ircr (2 301^/.).
2 The remark has a wider application to rabbinical Judaism
generally and the other Megilloth : cp We. EinlXM 554, 6th ed.
•> The reader is referred to Buhl (28 ff.\ Wildeboer
(58 ff.\ Kyle (192 _^), and the articles PuRiMand Nicanor
for the later and less amply attested disputes about Esther,
Pro\erbs, Ezekiel, and Jonah (mentioned in the order of the
degree of their attestation). It is only in the case of the Book
of Esther (q.v., § 12) that such disputes can have been really
serious. In the case of Ezekiel, there may be a genuine remin-
iscence of the embarrassment caused to the .scribes by the
discrepancies between the Law and Ezek. 40-48, perhaps al.so of
the objections raised by the Sadducees on this account. In
part at least, we must admit the truth of Strack's remark
(p. 429) that 'in many cases the discussions leave one with the
impression that the objections were raised merely that they
mi;:ht be refuted." This impression, however, no way impairs
that of the real seriousness of the decision of Jamnia. That
the four books mentioned above are not named in }'«</. 85
proves in any case that at that time serious objections to them
were no longer entertained, and as we are here dealing only with
the close of the canon, not with the individual books of which it
was composed, this fact must .suffice for us.
■* This is not inconsistent with the fact (which we learn from
various sources) that Simon b. Shetah (who belonged to the third
of the five ' pairs,' in the first half of the first century B.C.)
quotes Eccles.T 12 as Holy Scripture (for details see Buhl, p. 157".).
He represents the one side of the case. _ The subject is one
that belongs to ' special introduction ' ; biit, in passing, the present
writer may be allowed to express the view that, in the present
text of Ecclesiastes, traces are to be clearly found of the
assistance which it was found necessary to give, in order to
secure for this book a place in the canon. In 12 10 it is testified
of the preacher (nSnp) that he was a well-meaning and respectable
man (of course otherwise unknown). The contradiction to 1 1,
where he is represented as being 'the son of David,' 'king in
Jerusalem,' is glaring. These words, as also 1 12 16, a good deal
in 24-9 and perhaps also 7 15^ and certainly 12 11-14 are inter-
polations, by means of which alone the reception of the book
mto the canon was rendered possible. It is self-evident that
Canticles also became a part of the canon, only by virtue of its
superscription which ascribes it to Solomon. A valuable light
is thrown on R. '.-^kiba's a.ssertion that Canticles had never
been disputed, and at the same time a trustworthy evidence,
671
CANON
the question had long been (substantially) a settled one,
as is shown by the passages <|uoted from Josephus and
4 Esdras ; settled, however, not by any single decision,
but only by the gradual clearing up of public opinion.
Of other books in addition to the twenty-four there is
no question whatever, and as regards those two about
which alone any difficulty is possible, common opinion
came to Ije so decidedly in favour of what claimed to
be the stricter but in reality was the looser opinion,
that the zealot R. 'Akiba comes forward fanatically on
the side of Hillel.
We may now venture to figure to ourselves what was
the probable course of the development, and what the
w^ Ti li attitude assumed bv various sections of the
66. Result. ," , ,
community towards the decisive questions.
It is probable that among the Sopherim (professional
students of Scripture) of the last century B.C., but
without the co-operation of the Sadducean priestly
nobility, there was gradually formulated a scholastic
doctrine as to which of the many religious writings then
current ^ could establish a just claim to a sacred char-
acter. We have already seen by what standard the
writings were judged. As this doctrine gradually took
shape, unanimity was reached on every point except
on a dispute with reference to two minor books,
in which, as was natural, the victory was ultimately
gained by the more liberal view. This doctrine of the
Sopherim, as being the view of those who were the only
qualified judges on the special subject, readily gained
admission amongst such as were in doubt and sought
to inform themselves.'-' Thus the learned Philo, though
living in Alexandria, takes very good care not to con-
travene the stricter practice ; what we know about the
opposition offered to the books of Ecclesiastes, Canticles,
and Esther, even suggests the possibility (incapable of
course of proof) that his silence about certain books
(cp above, § 50) really arises from a still greater strict-
ness. -As a convert to Pharisaism, Josephus professes
the school doctrine of his teachers with an emphasis all
the greater because his own personal leanings were
(perhaps) against such exclusiveness. On the other
hand, though the doctrine made way, yet the majority
of the people betook themselves quite naturally to the
mass of apocalyptic and legendary literature, which,
in the century immediately before and after the birth of
Jesus, exercised a very great infiuence, and did much
to prepare the way for Christianity. The formulated
theory possessed obvious advantages, however, and the
Jewish war and the destruction of Jerusalem left the
Pharisees in sole possession of the leadership of Israel.
This is shown most clearly by 4 Esdras. Against his
will, the author of that book is constrained to acknow-
ledge the divine authority of the canon with its tuenty-
four constituent parts. Being, however, a thoroughgoing
partisan of the apocalyptic literature, he outdoes the
Pharisees. To the seventy books-' w hich they exclude he
attributes a still higher authority, placing them in an
esoteric as distinguished from an exoteric canon.
By the end of the first century the scribes had settled
the last of the questions controverted in the schools,
and not long after the beginning of the second century
(R. 'Akiba t)/^. 135), to refer to the decision at Janmia
is decisive. Later, following in '.Akiba's footsteps, the
scribes succeeded, not only in obliterating every trace
showing how long its true character still continued to be known,
is conveyed by the information that R. 'Akiba himself hurled
an anathema against those who sang the Song of Songs with
wanton voice in houses of public entertainment (Tosephta,
Sank. chap. 12 ; cp WRS, O/yO'^l 186).
1 To this period and not to the fourth or the third century B.C.
bel(Jngs the complaint, e.xpressed in the epilogue of Ecclesiastes
(Eccles. 12 12), as to the making of many books.
2 If, as we have conjectured, the Sadducees were in general
opposed to, or suspicious of, the recognition of any sacred
writings besides the Law, there would be an open field
for a view like that of the Pharisees, which took a middle course
between Sadducean rigour and the fashionable tendency to the
endless multiplication of religious literature.
>* In round numbers of course.
672
CANON
of variations in the text, but also in driving from circu-
lation the whole bocly of extra-canonical literature.'
Christianity, however, in the vigour of its youth,
eniaiicii Kited from the authority of the scrities, continued
_. , to pursue the old ways. In the rejected
♦1 ^* literature it discovered prophecies of the
tlanity. .,p|^.;jring of Jesus ; and what the Pharisees
(Icstioyi-d in the origin.al language it eagerly handed
down in translations and revisions to succeeding genera-
tions. The N'T writers show no scruple in quoting
extra-canonical Ixjoks as sacred, and we find ascril)ed
to Jesus some expressions quoted as Holy Writ (Lk.
Il4g; Jn. 7,18) which are not contained in the OT.''
What is more, examples of this form of Jewish literature
fused with Christian elements, or worked over from the
Christian ]M)int of view, have found their w.iy into the
canon of the NT itself— a fact which only lately has
lx?gun to receive the attention it deserves.^
This indei)eiulent drift of tendency within the Christian
Clnirtli greatly increases the difliculty of estimating the
Al so-called 'canon of the Alexandrians. '■' As
D8. Alex- jg ^^.^.|j j.„o^^.,^ py^.n tl,y oldest extant
andnan j^j^^^ ^^ ^^^ j^^ contain, in addition to the
canon, canonical books, a greatly v.i.rying number
of writings which are not recognised in the canon of
the synagogue, and indeed in some cases were not even
originally written in Hebrew. On the other hand, the
oldest of these MSS are several centuries later than the
Christian era, and are the work of Christian copyists.
It Ix'comes a question, therefore, which is the earlier:
the freer praxis of the Alexandrian Jews or that of
primitive Christianity ; whether the greater compass of
the LXM canon of the Alexandrians influenced the view
of the Christian conmiunities or whether the influence
flowed the other way.* The probability is that, in fact,
the influence worked both ways. What principally con-
cerns us here, however, is this. About the middle of
the first century A. I). , when the Greek-six!aking Christian
comnmnity began to break entirely with Judaism, the
narrow Pharisaic doctrine of the canon had certainly
not as yet ix.Mietrated into the domain of Hellenistic
Judaism so deeply as to delete comjilotely, or to exclude
from the M.SS of the LXX, all the books that Pharisaism
refused to recognise. The vacillation in individual MSS
nuist at that time have Ixjen even greater than it is in
thf)se which have reached us ; although on this point
definite knowledge is unattainable. It is certain, how-
ever, that to some extent precisely those txxiks belong-
ing to this category w hich Lay nearest to the heart of the
Christian community in its most primitive days (especi-
ally Knoch and 4 Esdras) have come down to us in no
Creek M.S. The conclusion is that the additions to the
LXX are for the most part older than Christianity.
The doctrine of the Pharisees, however, ultimately
won the day also in its pro[x.'r home. Not only did
1 Indeed it was supposed, until the recovery in 1896 of part of
Kcclesixsticiis, that they had actually suctx-eded in extirpatinK
it -so far, that is, as it was not able to hide itself under the
veil of exegesis in the Hagijada, Midrash, and Talmud (We.
/yC 2J2, second ed. 287). Kven Kcclesiasticus would lie no
exception if we coidd admit the contention of I). .S. Margoliouth
( '/'Ac- Origin 0/ the ' Orii^inal Hchmv ' of /'.cclesinsthusy 1899).
In his opinion the 'Original Hebrew' is a l).id retranslation
(from the Syriac version and a Persian translation of the Cireek)
made after looo a.d. by an Arabic-si>eaking Jew [or Christian'?]
who was taught Hebrew by a Jew with a pronunciation similar
to that of the Christians of Urmi. The reader will probably
hesitate to accept this theory ; still it cannot l)e denied that
M.irgoliouth has availed himself with great skill of many weak
p)iiils of the Hebrew text, which in any case need a thorough
investigation.
'- .\s to this cp Wildeboer, 48 /., who must be held in all
essentials to have the better of the argument as against the
vigorous polemic of Ryle, 153^
•* See, for example, Ai'OCAi.ypse.
■* In fact, to speak strictly, there never was such a canon.
The Alexandrine collection of Holy Books never underwent that
revision in accord.nnce with the Pharisaic conception of 'defil-
ing the hands ' which finally fixed the Hebrew canon.
* On this point there seems to be some self-contradiction in
Uyle, if we compare pp. 146, 208 yC with i8oyC
22 673
CANON
it succeed in extending its influence over the Hellenists
by means of the new (jreek translation of A(juila ; but
p . . . also the Church itself ultimately surren-
t to '''^'''■■*'- •^ strange and significant fact !
Heh ^anon ''''*^'" •il'oul >5o A.U. onwards there
■ constantly occur patristic statements on the
extent of the OT canon, which avowedly rest ujKjn Jewish
authority. This certainly had its advantages ; for in
this way many Ixjoks of merely tcmp<jrary value were
excluded which, if rendered authoritative, could hardly
have furthered the interests of Christianity. On the
same ground trjo, the return of the Reformers to the
canon of the synagogue is justifiable, esjjecially when,
as in the case of Luther, the relative imjwrtance of the
Apocrypha is duly recognised. On the other hand, it
mu.st im confessed that even the unanimously accepted
canon ' of the Church is not without Ixwjks of a similar
character (notably ICsther and Canticles; also ICcclesiastes
and Daniel), and that thus the distinction between
canonical and uncanonical lx)oks (if they are judged
by their intrinsic value) is a fluctuating one.'* liesides
this, it is certain that in the excluded Ixxjks, of which
we know so many already, and are continually coming
through new discoveries to know more, there has come
down to us a treasure of unspeakable value for a know-
ledge of religious life as it was shortly before and after
the time of Jesus, and so for an understanding of the
origin of Christianity (see AfcK kyi'II.\, Ai'ocai.vi'TK I.
K. H.
n. NKW TF-STAMMN r.
The problem of the NT canon is to discover by wli.it
means and at what jx-'riod a new collection of sacred
, books came to Ix; invested with all the
60. Jesus'
Words and
Deeds.
dignity which lx.'longed to that of the
Synagogue. Jesus had claimed to sfx.-ak
with an authority in no way inferior t<
that of the OT, and had placed his own utterances
side by side with some of its precepts as fulfilling or
even correcting them. The renienilx;red words of Jesus
thus lx;canie at once, if the expression may tx; allowed,
the nucleus of a new Christian canon. At first they
circulated orally from hearer to hearer. Then narra-
tives were compiled recording the .Sacred Words, and
the no less Sacred Deeds which had accompanied or
illustrated them. Some narratives of this kind underlie
our (jos[x-ls, and are referred to in the preface to the
Thinl Gos|x.l. In course of time these were superseded
bv the fuller treatises which lx?ar the
61. UOspelS. ^;^„,^.5 yf apostles or the chosen com-
panions of apostles ; and their superior merit, as well as
the sanction thus given to them, soon left them without
rivals as the authorised records of the Gosjx^l history.
They were read side by side with books of the O'V
in the public worship of the Church, and were appealed
to as historical documents by those who wished to show-
in detail the correspondence between the facts of
the life of Jesus and the Jewish prophecies alxiut the
Messiah. This stage has lx;en definitely reached by the
time of Justin Martyr ; but as yet there is no clear
proof that a special sanctity or inspiration was predicated
of the books themselves. The final siej), however,
could not long be delayed. The sacredness of the
Words and Deeds of Jesus which they contained, the
afjostolic authority by which they were recommended,
and, above all, their familiar use in the services of the
Church, gradually raised them to the level of the ancient
Scriptures ; and the process w;\s no doubt accelerated
by the action of heretical and schismatical bodies,
claiming one after another to base their tenets upon
t There is, however, a singular passage in the sixth of the
Anglican Articles of Religion limiting ' Holy Scripture ' to ' those
canonical books of the Old and the New Testaments, of whose
authority wasneveranydoubt in the Church, 'which Bishop West-
cott(('>« the Canon oj'the .\' /I*), 494) cannot undertake to explain.
■- See Cheyne, Founders, 349, and cp preceding note.
674
62. Epistles.
CANON
certain of these documents or upon others peculiar to
themselves.
Meanwhile a sinular process had been going on in
regard to other writings of the apostolic age. These
were for the most part letters, written
in many instances to particular churches,
and designed to meet sjjecial needs. The writers
betray no consciousness that their words would come to
be regarded as a permanent standard of doctrine or of
action in the Christian Church : they write for an
immediate purpose, and just as they would wish to
speak, were they able to be present with those whom
they address. In their absence, and still more after
their death, their letters were cherished and read again
and again by the churches which had first received them,
and by others who naturally welcomed such precious
relics of the apostolic age. I"or the apostles were the
authori-sed instructors of the Christian Church. In the
age which succeeded them, ' the Lord and the apostles'
became the natural standard of appeal to which reference
was to l)e made in all matters of faith and practice.
For some time ' the tradition of the apostles,' as handed
down in the churches of their foundation, was regarded
as the test of orthodo.\y. Oral tradition, however, is
necessarily variable and uncertain. It was natural that,
when actual disciples of the apostles were no longer
living, ajipeal should more and more be made to their
written words, and that these should be set side by side
with the Gospels as the primary documents of the
Christian faith. Here again the same elements as
before come into play, though probably at a slightly later
period — viz., the liturgical use of the epistles, and the
necessity of maintaining them intact against the muti-
lations or rejections of heretical sects.
In the collection which was thus gradually being
formed by the pressure of various circumstances and
Oth \^''th no distinct consciousness of the creation
books.
of a canon, a place was found beside the
Gospels and the epistles for two otht
books. The Apocalypse of John opened with the
salutation of an epistle ; and, even apart from this,
its ajjocalyptic character claimed for it a special and
abiding sacredness ; moreover it contained an express
blessing for those who should read and listen to it, and
a warning against any who should presume to alter or
add to it. The Acts of the Apostles would find an
easy entrance, partly as an authorised account of the
deeds of apostles written by one who had contem-
poraneous knowledge of them, and still more as being
in form the second part of the Third Gospel and properly
insejjarable from the earlier book.
Thus, side by side with the old Jewish canon, and
without in any way displacing it, there had sprung up a
, new Christian canon. Although its exact
64. A new
limits were not yet precisely defined.
and local variations of opinion were to
be observed with regard to the acceptance of par-
ticular books, we find the idea of such a new canon
in full play in the writings of great representative
men of the period from i8o to 200 A. n. — of Irenaeus
speaking for Asia Minor and Gaul, of Tertullian in N.
Africa, and of Clement in Alexandria. The Church is
by this time fully conscious that she is in possession of
written documents of the apostolic age ; documents to
which reference must be universally made, as to a final
court of appeal, in questions of right faith and right
action. The authority of Jesus and his apostles is, in
the main, embodied for her in writings which she reads
together with the OT in her public services, quotes as
Scripture, and regards as the inspired revelation of
divine truth. Of the stages by which this result has
lieen reached the writers referred to have nothing to tell
us. It was, as we have seen, the issue ot an un-
conscious growth, natural and for the most part un-
challenged, and so leaving no recorded history behind
it. If the Church was awakened to a consciousness of
675
CANON
her great possession, and to the importance of insisting
upon its integrity, by the attempts made by heretics to
defraud her of portions of it, there is no evidence of
deliberate efforts on her part to build up the conception
of a new canon in opposition to them ; much less of
any formal declarations, such as those of later times,
defining what books should or should not be included
in it. In the stress of controversy she fell back on the
treasures which she possessed, and realised that in the
books which she was accustomed to read for the in-
struction of her children she had, on the one hand, the
full and harmonious expression of all those positive
truths whose isolation or exaggeration formed the
groundwork of the several heretical systems, and, on
the other hand, the decisive contradiction of the
negations in which their capricious selections had
involved those who rejected any part of the common
heritage.
2. That the sketch given above of the gradual growth
of a new canon with its twofold contents, in the period
6B. Evidence
of orthodox
wnters
anterior to Iren;x;us, Tertullian, and
Clement, is justified not only by in-
trinsic probability but also by the
riMnen't°ftt references of early Christian writers
' ' to books of the NT, may be seen by
consulting the collections of such references accessible
in modern treatises upon the canon. Here a brief
outline of the evidence must suffice.
In the Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians
{circa 95) we have two jirecepts introduced by a com-
mand to ' remember the words of our Lord Jesus' (cp
Acts 20 35) : in neither case do they exactly agree
with the language of our Gospels ; they may be the
result of a fusion due to citation from memory, or they
may possibly be derived from oral tradition. The
epistle is saturated with the phraseology of the Pauline
Epistles (Rom., i Cor., Eph. ; less certainly Tim. and
others) and of the Epistle to the Hebrews ; but these
are not directly cited, and the expressions 'Scripture'
and ' it is written ' are applied to the OT alone.
In the genuine Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch (shorter
Greek recension, circa no A. D. , Lightfoot) the only
direct citation of words of Jesus ( ' Lay hold and
handle me and see that I am not a spirit [Sai/xoviov]
without body,' Ad Sinvrn. 3) is possibly derived from
an apocryphal book or from an oral tradition. The
language of these Epistles shows traces of acquaintance
with Mt. and Jn. and with several of the Pauline Epistles.
The Epistle of Polycarp (circa no .^.D. , Lightfoot) is
largely composed of quotations from NT books | especially
Mt. , Lk. , I and 2 Jn. , i Pe. , and the Pauline Epistles).
There is but one (somewhat uncertain) instance of the
citation of NT words as Scripture.
The Epistle of Barnabas (circa 98 A.D. , Lightfoot:
though most scholars place it later) prefixes to the
saying ' Many called but few chosen,' the formula ' it
is written.' If this be cited from Mt. 22 14 — and a later
reference makes it not improbable — then we have here
the earliest use of this formula in reference to a book of
the NT.
The Teaching of the Apostles (date uncertain :
perhaps 1 10-130) introduces a form of the Lord's Prayer,
which has variants both from Mt. and Lk. , by the
words, ' as the Lord commanded in his Gospel, so pr.ay
ye' (chap. 8; cp chaps. W, L*)). It clearly presup-
poses a written Gospel, and shows acquaintance with
Mt. and Lk. It has embodied an ancient (perhaps
Jewish) manual, ' The Two Ways ' (used also in Ep.
Barn, and elsewhere), and also certain early eucharistic
prayers which incorporate the language of Jn.
The Apology of Aristides, the Athenian philosopher
(circa 125-130 A. D. ), addressed to the emperor Hadrian
(ace. to Eus. and the title of Arm. vers. ; the title of
the .Syr. vers, would place it a few years later, under
Antoninus Pius), twice refers expressly to writings of the
Christians ; in the first instance, after enumerating the
676
CANON
main events of the life of Jesus — including his birth
• from a Hebrew virjjin ' and his ascension — it distinctly
ap|x.'als to the written Gosix;! for corroboration. It
also cintxMlics lanKuage from the E|jistle to the Koinans.
The Sht-phfiJ of Jlertnas (date uncertain : 1 10-140)
betrays a close acquaintance with many NT books,
though it makes no direct citations either from OT or
fronv NT. The language of our four Cjospels (even of
the Apixjndi-v to Mk. ). of the Pauline Kpistles including
the Pastoral Epp. , of 1 I'e. , Acts, .\poc. , and alxjve all
of J:is. . is adopted by the writer ; and even 2 Pe. seems
to have lieen used.
Hefore we come to the fuller testimonies of Justin
Martyr and subseciuent writers it is necessary to
P \ examine the evidence to Ix; derived from
" ■ Papias. His date and the interpretation
to Ix: [)laced on his fragnientary remains have been
the subject of much criticism (see esp. Lightfoot, Essays on
Supernatural Religion, 142-216). He was the hearer
of at least two {personal disciples of Jesus, and his
great work may V)e i)laced circa 130-140. It was
entitled Xoyluv KvpiaKdv i^yjyi^afit, ' Expositions of the
Oracles of (or 'concerning') the Lord.' As \6yia is
a term used in the NT of the OT writings, the title
of the book naturally suggests some kind of com-
mentary on the writings relating to Jesus — i.e., on
written Gospels which held a recognised position of
sacredness in the Christian Church. It is probable
that similar conmientaries on one or more of the Gosix;ls
had already tjcen composed by Gnostic writers : thus
Basilides is said to have written twenty-four books on
' the Gospel ' [circa 1 1 7- 1 38 ). Such books are disparaged
by Papias as wordy and misleading ; he prefers to fall
l)ack on the testimonies of the living disciples of those
who had seen the Lord. He gives accounts, not free
from diflicultics, of the composition of Gosfx-ls by
Matthew and Mark. On the whole, the facts seem to
be most readily accounted for if we suppose that
Papias in his five books expounded and illustrated by
traditional stories the four Gospels as we at present
know them. Euscbius further expressly informs us that
Papias used i Jn. and i Pe. There can be little
doubt that his chiliastic views were based on the
Apocalypse.
Justin Martyr (circa 152), when mentioning the
words of the institution of the Eucharist, says : ' So the
y^^ a[)ostIes handed down in the Memoirs
made by them, which are called Gospels '
(Afi. 166). In descrit)ing the Sunday worship, too, he
refers to 'The Memoirs of the Ajxistlcs' {A/>. 1 67 ; see
L<)Kn'.s D.AV), and these Memoirs (dirott.VT)txovtuft.aTa)
are placed on a level with the ' Writings of the Prophets '
as an alternative means of edification in the gatherings
of the Christian Church. Justin's >ise of them, here
and in his Dialogue with the Jew Trypho, is conditioned
by the necessities of his argument. In tliemsclves they
would have no weight w ith heathen or Jewish o|)ponents.
The OT prophecies, however, could l)e freely appealed
to in either case, as the argument rested on their fulfil-
ment rather than on their sacredness. Justin accordingly
uses 'The Memoirs of the Apostles' as historical
documents in proof of the fulfilment of Messianic
predictions in the recorded events of the life of Jesus.
Twelve times he refers to them directly in the Dialogue
— all the instances being in connection with his exposi-
tion of Ps. '22. In every case, both here and in the
Apologv, the reference is fully accounted for by the
supposition that these ' Memoirs ' were our four (iospels,
the phraseology of each of which can be traced in
his writings. Where he most carefully describes
them, after referring to an event recordetl only by Lk. ,
he says that ' they were compiled by Christ's apostles
and those who companied with them." This exactly
agrees with the traditional authorship of our Gospels,
as written two by apostles (Mt., Jn. ), and two by
followers of apostles (Mk., Lk.). Justin likewise refers
677
67. Justin.
CANON
for corroboration of his statements to official Acta
/'ilati : he may perhaps have lieen accjuainted with a
more primitive form of the a[xjcryi>hal materials still
surviving under that debignation. There is, however,
no satisfactory evidence that he used any ajxxryphal
Gospel (unless perhaps a ' Protevangel ' or Gospel of
the Infancy). He refers directly to the Apocalypse as
written by the apostle John (Tryf>h. 81), and shows
acquaintance with most of the Pauline lipistles.
From Justin we pass to his pupil Tatian [circa 150-
160 A.u. ), who helps to confirm our conclusions as to
„ . . Justin himself by his use of our four
' Gospels and no other in his Dialessaron.
This remarkable lx)ok, which for a long period must
have Ixien the only (j(>s(x;l of many .Syrian churches, is
known to us mainly through a Comnientary upon it
written by Ephraim, and preserved to us in an Armenian
translation ; and also through an Arabic version of the
Dialessaron itself — made, however, after the later text
of the Peshitta Syriac had been substituted for Tatian's
own text, which had many interesting variants of an
early type. The two sources of evidence suiJplement
each other, and make it certain that Tatian's Gos(x.'ls were
none other than our own. There is some reason for
thinking that Tatian also introduced into Syria a col-
lection of the Pauline Epistles.
3. Although Tatian adopted heretical opinions after
the death of his master, his great work on the Gosjx:ls
_ appears to be quite indejjendent of these
■ , and was accepted without question by the
ortnociox : .^,.^- < j^^^^.^ ^ ..iU be well, however, to
Basilides,
etc.
notice at this pomt the evidence to Ix: derived
from other heretical leaders in regard to the
estimation in which various books of the NT were held
by those who were dissatisfied with the teaching of the
main body of the Church. It will suffice to take three
writers of whom we have a considerable amount of
information preserved to us. Basilides of Alexandria
flourished in the reign of Hadrian. His Expositions
on the Gos[x:l, in twenty-four books, have already been
mentioned. Accepting, with Hort, the account pre-
served in the Refutation of Heresies (generally ascrilx-d
to Hippolytus) as representing portions of this work,
we meet with the striking fact that quotations from the
NT, introduced with the words ' The .Scripture saith,'
and ' as it is written,' are found in a heretical writer at
a period at which they cannot with certainty be said to
be so introduced by any writer within the Church.
Several passages from the Pauline Epistles are so cited
by Basilides. He also used Mt. , Lk. , Jn. , and appar-
ently I Pe.
Marcion (circa 140) undertook to restore the sim-
plicity of Christianity on the basis of Paul, whom he re-
garded as the only true apostle. He rejected the OT
and retained of the NT only Lk. in a nmtilated form,
and ten I'pislles of Paul ; the Pastoral Epistles and
the I-'pistle to the Hebrews not being included in his
canon. There is no indication that he applied any other
standard than that of correspondence with his own
dogmatic position, in making what must be considered
the earliest attempt at the conscious definition of a NT
canon.
Heracleon (circa 170, or earlier), a disciple of
Valentinus. wrote a Commentary on Jn. , of which con-
siderable fragments are preserved by Origen. His
system of interpretation shows that he held the exact
words of the Evangelist in the highest veneration, as
instinct with spiritual meaning. He also commented
on Lk. , and shows acquaintance with Mt. , Heb. , and
the Pauline Epistles including 2 Tim.
Thus the first certain citations of NT writings with
the formula familiarly used of the OT, the first attempt
at defining a NT canon, and the first commentary on
a NT book, come to us not from within but from without
the Church. These are striking evidences of the
authority generally accorded to the NT writings ; in
678
CANON
the words of Irenreus (iii. 2?) : 'So strong is the position
of our Gospels, that the heretics themselves bear witness
to them, and each must start from these to prove his
own doctrine.'
4. The early history of the Old Latin and the Old
Syriac versions is wrapt in obscurity ; but there is
„ . reason for believing that the translation of
■ .^^ ^ parts at least of both these versions must
versions. ^ pieced not much later than the middle
of the second century (see Tkxt, §§ 20, 32). The Old
Latin version seems to have been made in N. Africa,
and to have included, probably before the time of
TertuUian, all the books of the later canon, excepting
Jas. , 2 Pe. , and possibly Heb. When the Scillitan
Martyrs (N. Africa, 180 A. n. ) were examined as to
what was contained in their book-chest, their brief
recorded reply was '• Rooks and Epistles of Paul, a just
man.' Such was their description of the writings which,
doubtless, were used by them in their services. It is
conditioned by the circumstance of its utterance before
heathen judges ; it would be wrong to conclude from
it that the Pauline Epistles were placed by them on a
different level from the other sacred writings. The Old
Syriac of the Gospels has till lately been known only
from Cureton's imperfect MS ; but the palimpsest
recently found at Mt. Sinai enables us to reconstruct
this version for the most part with approximate certainty.
A selection of comments by Ephraim on the Acts of the
Apostles, and his Commentary on the Pauline Epistles,
preserved in Armenian translations, point to an Old
Syriac version of these books also. The older MSS of
the rexised Syriac version (the Peshitta) do not contain
2 and 3 Jn., 2 Pe. , Jude, and Apoc.
We have been concerned hitherto with tracing the
growth of the conception of a XT canon, without
considering, except incidentally, the
71. General
traces of NT.
range of writings included in it. The
influence of the main body of the NT
literature upon the writers of the period with which we
have been dealing cannot be at all fully appreciated
from our scanty analysis. Their writings must them-
selves be studied line by line, if we are to understand
the debt xshich they owed, as regards both ideas and
phraseology, to the documents of the apostolic age.
In that age new conceptions had been given to the
world, and a new terminology had been formed for
their expression. The next age reproduced these ; but
it was not itself creative. This is seen, for instance, in
the technical terms of even the boldest of the Gnostic
speculations. Whatever may have been men's conscious
attitude towards the XT writings, it is clear that they
are dominated by them from the very first. Gradually
they come to recognise them more and more as their
masters ; and then, both within the Church and outside
it, we find them definitely declaring the limits of the
canon to which they owe this allegiance.
Marcion's list of sacred books has already been
noticed. The next list of which we have any knowledge is
72. Muratorian
unfortunately a fragment, and tells us
neither its date nor its author's name
■ or locality. It was published in 1740
by Lodovico .-\ntonio Muratori, the librarian at Milan.
Hence it is known as the Muratorian canon. It is in
barbarous Latin, in a seventh or eighth century MS ;
but its original must have been Greek, and it is generally
agreed that it was written in the West (perhaps at
Rome) towards the close of the second century. Light-
foot conjectured that it was a portion of the ' Verses
on all the Scriptures' assigned to Hippolytus. The
fragment commences with the end of a description of
Mark ; it goes on to speak of Luke and John, and refers
to the different beginnings of the four books of the
Gospel. .After .-\cts come the Epistles of Paul ; the
seven churches to which he wrote being paralleled with
the seven of the Apocalvpse, and enumerated in the
following order — Cor. , Eph. , Phil. , Col. , Gal. , Thess. ,
679
CANON
Rom. Then come four private letters — Philemon and
the Pastoral epistles. Two other epistles are de-
clared forgeries — viz. , those to the Laodiceans and to
the Alexandrians. Then we have Jude, two epistles
of John (i Jn. has been quoted from at an earlier
point, so that these may perhaps be 2 and 3 Jn. ), and
the Wisdom of Solomon, 'written in his honour.'
Then the ' apocalypses of John and Peter alone we
receive, which (sirtg. ) some among us will not have
read in the church. ' The Shepherd of Hermas ' ought
to be read,' but not reckoned either with the prophets
or with the apostles. After a few more lines as to
rejected books, the text being very corrupt, the fragment
suddenly closes. The omissions are deserving of notice —
nothing is said of i and 2 Peter, James, and Hebrews —
but the omitted epistles were undoubtedly (if we e.xccjit
2 Peter) known at this time in the Roman church. It
is difficult, therefore, to draw conclusions from their
omission in a fragment of whose history so little can Ijc
ascertained and whose text is so obviously corrupt. The
Muratorian canon is fully discussed by Zahn, Hist, of
the Canon ('90) 21-43: quite recently Dom Amelli of
I Monte Cassino has published fragments of it from other
! MSS [Misc. Cassin., 1897).
' 5. The inclusion (though with an expression of
P , variance of opinion) of the Apocalypse of
1 , * .. Peter in the 'Muratorian Fragment' leads
temporarily ^^ ^^ ^^^. something of books which for
I ■ a time claimed a place in the canon, but
[ were ultimately excluded.
The Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, and the
Homily, miscalled his 'Second Epistle,' are contained,
I after the Apocalypse, in Cod. A (the great Greek BiVjle
of the 5th cent, in the Rrit. Mus. ). The Epistle of
Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas hold a similar
place in the Sinaitic Bible (X, 4th cent. ). The two
latter books are occasionally cited as Scripture in
patristic writings, and this is the case also with the
Teaching of the Apostles.
Of apocryphal (iospels two deserve special notice.
The Gospel accorditig to the Hebrcivs is known only
by a few fragments, which show that it bore a close
relation to our First Gospel. Clement of Alexandria
and Origen quote from it, although they insist on the
sole authority of our four Gospels. The Gospel accord-
ing to Peter, a considerable fragment of which was
published in 1892 from a MS found in Egypt, is known
to have been used in the church of Rhossus near
Antioch. Serapion, Bishop of Antioch (190-203), at
first permitted its use, but subsequently disallowed it on
the ground of Docetic errors. The extant portion
embodies the language of all our four Gospels, though
it often perverts their statements. There is no trace of
the use of any other Gospel in its composition, though
certain phrases may possibly be borrowed from some
earlier apocryphal book. Its composition may with
probability be assigned to circa 165. Its testimony to
the canon is thus somewhat parallel in date and extent
to that of Tatian's Diatessaron.
The Apocalypse of Peter, of which a fragment was
recovered at the same time, was an early book which
powerfully influenced subsequent literature of a similar
kind — e.g., the Apocalypse of Paul. It seems to be
responsible for much of the mediaeval conception of
heaven and hell. It presents curious coincidences with
2 Peter. It is c|uoted as Scripture by Clement of
Alexandria ; and as late as the fifth century it was read
on Good Friday in certain churches of Palestine.
6. Our inquiry has revealed to us that towards the
close of the second century, by the time of Irenneus,
_ . TertuUian, and Clement — writers whose
^ ■ testimonies are so abundant that we need
] not dwell upon them here — the Church had attained to
i a conscious recognition of a canon of the New Testa-
ment. Three classes of books have come into view :
1 (i) the main bulk of the NT books, as to which no
680
76. Biblio-
graphy : OT,
CANOPY
doubt at all is expressed by writers within the Church ;
(2) books whose |)<)sition in the canon was challenged
in certain (|uartcrs, although they ultimately were
included ; (3) Ijooks which were read in certain churches,
but were ultimately classed as non-canonical. With
regartl to books of the second of these classes the later
history of their reception will be found under the
special articles devoted to them, and in the works to
which reference is made lx;low. With regard to the
third it may suffice to say that the verdict of the Church
has been fully justified by the fact that no serious effort
has ever lx.'en made to reinstate them. J. A. K.
Literature of the Subject. i. OT Crt«e?«.— The
following works dealing with the OT
canon may tie mentioned. The authors
are arranged in alphalx-'tical order.
\V. J. Heecher, 'The alleged Triple Canon of the OT,"
J HI. 1896; C. .\. \W\%'g,i., General Introduction to the Study 0/
Holy Scripture, 1899 ; liuhl, Ka'ion u. le.xt d. .A Ts, 1891 ; I)e
Wctte-Schratler, Kinl. in d. .11', 8th ed. 1869; Duhni, /)as
lUich Jesaiii, 1892, Die Kntstehung des .■{ T, 1897 ; Kiirst, Der
Knnon des .-//', 1868; (Iraetz, Koheleth, 1871 ; Holtzmann,
Kinl. in d. X t', 3rd ed. 189-' ; Koenig, Hssni sur la/oriiiation
du Canon de I'Ancicn Testament, 1S94; Marx, Traditio Rahhin-
orum veterrima, etc. 1884; WRS, OTJO-^, 1892 ; Kyle, The
Canon 0/ the OT, 1892; Schiirer, CJl' ii. i8?6; Strack, art.
' Kanon des .\T ' in /'A'A(2| 7 ; Weber, System der altsyn. fial.
Theotogie, 1880; We. ' Die Sammlung der Schriften des .M ' in
IMeek, /.7«/.(-»» ('78) and /■.'m/.i«l ('93); Wildehoer, Die Kntste-
hung des .{'/'-lichen Kanons, 1891 (KT 95); C.H.H. Wright,
The Hook 0/ Koheleth, 1883 ; Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen
I'ortriigc der Judeii, irtA ed. 1832. Moreover, Wildeboer in
his valuable article, ' De voor-Thalmudische Joodsche Kanon'
{Thcologische Studii'n, 1897) cites the following books and
articles, written, with the exception of the first, by Roman
Catholics: T. Mullen, The Canon 0/ the OT, 1893; A. Loisy,
Histoire du Canon de r.AT, 1890; Magnier, ktude sur la
Canonicitf des Saintes Kcritures, I. 1892 ; B. Portner, Die
Autoritiit der dcuti rokanonischen Biicherdes .A Ts, 1893 ; J. P.
van Kasteren, De Joodsche Canon (Stud. op. godsd. nvtensch.
en leiterk.-gehied, xxviii.), 1895. K. B.
ii. NT Canon. — A brief outline of a subject of the
highest importance, which bristles with jjoints of contro-
76 Biblio- ^^"''^y' "^^^ necessarily passed over in
BxaDhv • NT ^'''-'"'^'^ ^ \Mg^ portion of the evidence,
° " ^ ■ ■ and needs to be supplemented by a list
of books in which the various topics are treated in de-
tail and, in some cases, from a different point of view.
The following will prove most useful to the modern
student : —
\Vestcott On the Canon 0/ the NT (7th ed. 1896), a mine
of information on the early Christian writini;s ; Liglitfoot's
Essays on Suf>ernatiiral Religion (rcpuhlislicd 1889), specially
importantfor Papiasand other early writers : Salmon's Historical
Introduction to the .i'V7"(8th ed. 1897), a vigorous examination
of adverse criticism ; Sanday's Hampton Lectures on lnsf>iration,
a careful and sympathetic account of the present position of
controversy; 'VVeiss's Introd. to the NT (1886; ET, 1887),
aclear exposition of the early history; Zahn's Gesch. d. NT
A'rtJ^'wi (1888-92), together with his Forschungcn (in five parts
1881-83), by far the most exhaustive treatise that has appeared ;
Harnack's examination of vol. i. pt. i of this work in Das N'T
um das Jcthr 200 ('89), a severe criticism — his own position is
stated Dositively in his Dogmengesch. (1885; 2nd ed. 1888, pp.
304-328) : Jiilicher's h'.inl. in das A"/' ('94), an able statement
of a position intermediate between Weiss and Harn.-ick. Har-
pack's preface to his Chronologie der altchr. Litteratur ('97)
is a noteworthy utterance, indicating the abandonment of the
Tiibingcn positions in regard to the dating of N I" documents.
[Holtzniann may also be mentioned as an eminently fair-
minded guide, and abundant in literary references (AY«/. in das
A'7'Pi, 1894). Among older books, see Credner, /.ur Gesch.
des Kanons ("47), and his Gesch. des A' 7" Nations; edited by
Volkmar ('60), important for the historv of the study of the
canon ; also Hilgenfeld's Einl. in das N'T, 1875.] j. a. R.
60-74, 76, J. A. K.
SS 1-59. 75. K- B.
CANOPY (HSn), Is. 45 RV. AV 'defence'; see
Tknt, § 4.
CANTICLES. We have before us a book which
has siii;i;(stod as many problems as Shakespeare's
1 Problems •^"""*^'s- ^he name which we give to
it, therefore, should not be a question-
liegging name. We will call it in this article neither
'Canticles* nor 'Song of Solomon." but, following the
best interpretation of 1 1, 'Song of Songs' — the
681
CANTICLES
choicest of all songs (like 'servant of servants,' Gen-
9 as — i.e. , ' lowest of servants ').
The first ditficulty arises when we seek to determine
precisely the subject of the .Song (§§ 2-4) ; the next,
when we investigate its poetical forni (§§ 5-1 1), and
seek to fix its date (§§ 13-15). We will consider these
difticulties in order ; but the first cannot be treated
completely (§§ 10/ 17) until we have overcome the
second.
I. ^w^yVr/ (preliminar}'). Jewish tradition laid down
very positively that, l)oth as a whole and in its several
_ Tj. . - - parts, the Song descrilx;s the phases of
tefpretatiS: f "^'-'J-^ |-f "--'j' '^ ^^T'l
^ love. I he bride was the syinlxjl of
Israel, the bridegroom that of its divine king; and by
the labours of countless homilists the .Song lx:canie a
lyric record of the intercourse Ix-'tween the Lord and
his people from the I-',.\odus (cp jer. 22) to the Messianic
time. Of tho.se exegetical labours, or rather poetic.il
bro<jdings, we have a summary in the Midrash ha-
Shirini (transl. Wunsche, liihlioth. h'abbin. i /. 6),
with which the not less fervidly-written Targum (of
post-Talmudic origin) may Ix; compared.' This theory
was introduced in a modified form into the Christian
Church mainly through the influence of Origen, of
whom Jerome says that, ' while on the other books he
surpassed all others, on the Song of .Songs he surjjassed
himself (Origen, Op. 3ii). This theologian treated
the bride as being either the Church or (an important
variation) the soul of the believer. The lx)ldly avowed
heterodoxy of Theodore of Mopsuestia, who interpreted
the Song solely as relating to the Lgy[)tian marriage of
Solomon, was fruitless. Its condenuiation at the second
coimcil of Constantinople (553 .\.I). ) postjjoned the
acceptance of the literal interpretation in the ( hurch for
a thousand years. The great .St. Hernard w role eighty-
six sermons on Song 1 and 2 alone, and his exami)le
fostered similar mystical studies in the Latin Church.
Only among Jew ish commentators was a natural exegesis
not wholly unrepresented.^ Ibn I-",zra, in particular, is
so thorough in his literal exegesis that it is doubtful
whether he is serious when he proceetls to allegorise.
Though Luther was moving in this direction, no
CJhristian scholar before Sebastian Castellio (i:;44)
ventured to maintain the purely secular character of the
poem, and all that medi.tval mysticism could do was
to exercise its right of selection from the two allegoric
views. The idea that the bride was the Christian soul
became the favourite : partly because it seemetl to pro-
mote edification, and partly because it conunendcd
itself to the romantic spirit of the young western
nations. Thus, Dante surprises us when [Cffii'iiio. 2
15, end) he identities the bride with Heavenly Wisdom.*
Even in the time of the Reformation we find the
evangelical ' Horace of the cloister,' Fray Luis de Leon,
translating the .Song mystically in ' ottava rima'; and
in our own d.iy Bishop Alexander, though a Hebraist, has
made an earnest poetic protest in favour of a mystic
and against a dramatic theory (Am-wj, 1886, pp. 26-51).
Grammatical exegesis, however, destroys the basis of
the old verse-by-verse allegorical interpretation. The
- „ . only question possible is, whether a general
■,, allegory of subject may have been intended
legory. ^^. ^j^^ poet — whether he considered the
earthly love that he descrilx.'d to have a true symbolic
resemblance to the sjjiritual love.* The answer is, that
1 On the Jewish interpreters see S. Salfcid, Das Hohelied
Salomds hei denjiid. Erkliirertt des .Mtttelalters ('79) ; on both
the Jewish and the Christian, W. Riegel, Die Auslegung des
Hohenliedes inderjtid. Gemeinde u. dergriech. KirrMe ('qi).
2 See Salfeld, 52; Gratz, Schir ha-.Schirim, ug/"., and cp
M.-xthews, Abraham Ibn Ezra's Commentary on the Canticles
('74), Preface.
3 Dante's Jewish friend, Immanuel ben Sh'lomoh, identified
the bride with the ' material intellect ' (Salfeld, 91). The
biblical point of contact is Prov. 8.
* Hp. Lowth is one of the chief defenders of a secondary and
gener.-il allegorical sense. He appeals not only to ' the most
68a
CANTICLES
such a symbolic resemblance is inconsistent with the
spirit of Hebraism. It is true that the relation between
Yahw6 and his people is described in the prophets by
the symtx)lism of wedlock (Hos. 1-3 ; Jer. 22 3 ; Ezek.
16 ; Is. 50 1 5456). It is true, also, that the phrase ' to
love (anw) Yahwe' occurs frequently in Deuteronomy
and (less often) in the Psalter, and that the word nii
(used in the Song) is applied once by Isaiah (5 1) to
Yahw6. Still, the notion implied by the prophetic
allegory of wedlock, as well as by the phrase ■ to
love God,' is not that of free inclination on Israel's
part towards the All-beautiful One, but rather of an
obedience which is in the first instance the condition
of divine protection, though, as favours multiply and
the essential goodness of the divine commands appears,
it becomes a habit and a passion. In Deuteronomy,
therefore, the love of Yahwfe is prescribed as a duty
not invited or presupposed ; and even in the Psalter,
where devotional feeling finds the freest expression,
there are only three passages in which the phrase
'to love Yahwe' occurs (Ps. 3I23 97 io(?) HSzo),
and in the first of these it occurs in the imperative
mood. It is in harmony with this that three other
passages (Ps. on 6936 119132) contain the fuller phrase
' to love Yahwe's name,' which appears to mean (see
Is. 566) the performance of religious duties with a
certain fervour. Such a conception of the love of
God we find in the Koran (Sur. 829; cp I996). It
was one of the Jewish elements in Mohammed's
teaching, and failed to satisfy later generations of
Moslems. In Syria and in Egypt, and still more in
Persia, arose a mystic type of devotion, which sought
by contemplation to lift the veil between man and God.
The mystic love-songs of the Cairo dervishes, and the
fine love-poems of the SQfi-poet Hafiz, have been com-
pared by Orientalists with the Song of Songs ; but it has
been forgotten that, fervid as the love of God became
among the later Jews, it never divested itself of the
chastening restraints of legalism, and that, in Persia at
least, mystic poetry is one of the fruits of a national
reaction against the aridity of Islam. It is still stranger
that Sir William Jones and Sir Edwin Arnold have
compared the Gitago\inda of the admired Indian
poet Jayadeva (14th cent. A. D. ), in which it would
appear (but may we not suspect an afterthought
of the poet?), 'from the few stanzas scattered through
the poem where the author speaks in his own person,
that he means his verses to be taken ' in a mystic sense — ■
Krishna symbolising the human soul, the shepherdesses
the allurements of sense, and Radha the knowledge
of, or meditation on, divine things. Surely the pan-
theistic atmosphere in which Jayadeva lived, and the
excessive imaginative fervour of the Indian genius, are
altogether unlike the conditions under which the Song
of Songs must have been penned.
How came it, then, it may be asked, that the Jews
of a later time, in their exegesis of the Song, adopted a
-. . . , theorv which is, strictlv, contrary to
4. Ungin 01 j,^g gj-j|.;^ ^f Hebraism ? 'Probably thus.
. allegorical y^r^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^ Mishna ( Taanith,
interpretation, ^g^ ^^,^^ ^^^^^ j,^^ destruction of the
temple, passages from the Song were sung at certain
popular yearly festivals. We know, too, that after the
great catastrophe all expression of exuberant joy was
forbidden. Now, what in those gloomy days was to be
ancient authority,' but also to the analogy of P.s. 45 and (more
safely) to pas.sages in the prophets. Such a position, however,
was tenable only provisionally. The Rishop expressly rejects the
most poetic form of the allegorical theory, for which alone most
Christians have cared — it was defended by Bossuet — that
which explains the Song of the lovin? intercourse between
Christ and the soul. Surely the election of a Gentile Church
('dark but comely') might have been foreshadowed at a less
expenditure of poetry. Rightly, therefore, did J. D. Michaelis
and the acute Bp. Warburton criticise Lowth for not going
further. Lowth answered th.it without allegory the place of the
Song in the canon could not be justified. All his literary taste
could not dissolve his narrow notion of the authority of the
683
CANTICLES
done with the S>ong, which tradition already ascribed to
Solomon ? The answer was ready : — Consecrate it by
allegorical interpretation. This course corresponded
to the change which had passed upon the national
character. The enthusiastic element in Jewish piety
was becoming, in adversity, more intense. This element
needed the expression which it found in the Song of
Songs (see Berachoth 57^, where nn'on is ascribed to
the Megilla of the Song of Songs as well as to the Book
of Psalms). It should te added, however, that even
after 70 A. i). the natural interpretation found some
supporters. At the synod of Jamnia (90 A.D. ) K.
'Akiba had still to defend the sacredness of the Song of
Songs (Mishna, Yadayim, 35), and in Sanhedrin, loi a,
we find a solemn anathema on those who treat the Shir
ha-Shirim as a secular song (icj J'cd)- The grounds on
which this secular character was asserted may be guessed
from \\\& Aboth de R. A'afan, chap. 1, which states that
'formerly' some counted the Song 'apocryphal' (ii«),
quoting in support of this, not 7 1-9, but 7 u/
It is about, or soon after, 90 A.D. that we find the first
traces of the allegorical view (see 4 Esdras 52426 726,
and R. Simeon ben Gamliel's allegorical interpretation
of Song 3 II in TaanithAZ). Before that time Jewish
teachers seem to have shrunk from quoting the Song ;
even Philo neglects it. Nor is any use made of it (or of
Koh^leth) in the NT. Eph. 527 alludes perhaps to Ps.
45 13, but certainly not to Song 4? ; and the parallelism
between Rev. 320 and Song 52-6 (Trench, Snrn
Churches, 225 /. ) is incomplete. This silence on the
part of early Jewish and Christian writers shows the
weakness of the argument from tradition adduced by
the allegorists.
II. Poetical form. Is the Song of Songs a drama or
a bundle of loosely connected songs? The earliest
-J , . . advocate of a definite dramatic theory
5. Foetical ^^,^g ^j^g learned Jesuit, Cornelius a
form : history L,^pj^jg (t 1637), who, like Ewald,
of views. divided the poem into five acts. Our
own Bishop Lowth takes up a middle position. He
finds no trace of a regular plot, and only one thing in
which the Song closely resembles the Greek dramatic
models — the chorus. He allows, however, that the
Song may be classed with imperfect dramatic poems,
such as the Eclogues of \'irgil and some of the Idylls of
Theocritus. The first scholar to adopt the second
solution of the problem was Richard Simon ; but the
first to make it plausible was Herder.^ Influenced partly
by the disintegrating tendency of the newer criticism,
but still more by an irresistible impulse to search for
traces of old popular poetry, he boldly denied the con-
tinuity of the poem, dividing it into about twenty-one
independent songs (with a fragmentary conversation for
an appendix), threaded like so many pearls on a neck-
lace. These songs are sometimes very short ; but
brevity. Herder thinks, is the soul of a love-song ; nor
is it important to determine the exact numl)er of songs.
Herder does not deny a certain pleasing appearance of
unity, but ascribes this to the collector, who wished to
show the gradual growth of true love in its various
nuances and stages, till it finds its consummation in
wedlock. In its present form the .Song may be taken
to consist of six ' scenes ' ; but the critic apologises for
the term, and insists that the poem was intended to
be read, and, as it stands, is neither a theatrical piece
nor a cantata. Herder's * exquisite little treatise ' ^
could not fail to make an impression. It gained the
approval of Eichhorn and Goethe ; but, without a more
1 'Lieder der Liche. Die altestrn und schdnstcn aus dem
Morgenlande (1778). See Herder's W'erke by Suphan, Bd. 8,
and cp Havm's Herder^ i 175, where it is shown that it was really
Bishop Percy's Keliques which opened Herder's eyes to the
element of folk-song in the OT. Herder, however, came to
recognise that this element was somewhat modified in the Bible
by a certain inherent and distinctive sanctity.
2 We have borrowed this and a few other characteristic phrases
from the EH article ' Canticles ' by Robertson Smith for the
pleasure of quoting from such a fine piece of critical exposi:ion.
684
I
CANTICLES
thorough justification than Kichhorn gave, it could not
permanently subvert the rival theory. Apart from its
cKxiuent defence of the literal interpretation, its chief
contribution to biblical study is perhaps this — that it
has unintentionally proved the im|)ossibility of recover-
ing the original songs (if songs there were) and of
retracing the plan (if plan he had) of the hypothetical
collector. Goethe apix,'ars to have felt this. Tempted
himself, as he tells us in the Westostlicher Divan, to
select and arrange some of ' these few leaves,' he took
warning from the failure of previous efforts, and left the
poem in its hopeless but lovely confusion.
A first step in the criticism of the Song was taken by
Evvakl in his early commentary (1826). He did not
as yet venture to suppose that the ' cantata' was really
acted on the stage ; but from the first he asserted its
genuinely dramatic character, and in 1839 he repaired
his original omission {Die poet. lUicher ties A T, Btl. i. ).
Was this a step backward ? Only in appearance.
Until the necessity of disintegration had been convin-
cingly proved, l-'.wald was always on principle opposed
to it. The cleverness and moderation of his critical
theory, aided by his growing reputation for broad and
deep scholarship, led to a very general adoption of the
dramatic hypothesis, though the names of De Wette,
Cjesenius, Bleek, and Magnus may be quoted on the
other side. The last-named scholar, however, did not
effect much for his cause. His theory ' involved the
assumption that the editor often displaced part of a
song, sacrificing the unity of the original lyrics to an
artificial composition of the whole. ' It is only fair to
add that in 1850 Rottcher did his best to make the
opposite view absurd by introducing into the supposed
Hebrew drama ' the complexities and stage effects of
a modern oiicretta. ' In i860 Renan obst.-rved, with
truth, that the dramatic theory had become ' almost
classic,' and in 1891 and 1893 it was put forward as
correct in the Introductions of Driver and Konig. Other
eminent defenders of this theory are Hitzig (1855),
Ginsburg (1857), Kuenen (1865), Delitzsch (1875),
RolxTtson Smith 1 (1876), Kaempf (1877), Kohler
(1878), Stickcl (t888), Oettii (1889). Bruston (1891),
Martineau (1892), and Kothstein (1893).
By degrees, however, the theory of the separatists
recovered from the effects of Magnus's imprudence.
It began to pass into a new phase, and to e.xercise
a stronger attraction. Diestel (art. ' Hohes Lied,'
Schenkel's ///i^. Lex. iii. ['71]) ; Reuss ('79, in La liible,
etc. . also Gesch. der Schriften des A Ts^"^^ ['90]. 231-239);
Stade (GVf, 2i<)7 ['88]); Cornill (/••////. ['91], pp.
236-240); \i\.\dd& (New World, March '94, pp. 56-77);
Kautzsch (HS, '94; /,//. of t/ie OT, 148-151), and
Siegfried {Holieslied, '98) have done much to show that
the view of Herder had not yet Ijeen adefjuately con-
sidered. Among these Buckle deserves prominence for
being the first to utilise adec|uately the information re-
specting Syrian marriage customs given by Consul Wetz-
stein in 1873.
Before reviewing this theory ourselves, we shall do
well to examine the dramatic hypothesis more attentively.
6 Dramatic '"^ ^'^^ forms which it has taken are
hypothesis
numerous and varied ; in dividing the
considered l"^'" '""^ '^^^^ ^"'^ scenes critics are by
no means unanimous.^ According to
Reuss, this wide divergence is fatal to the hypothesis.
It seonis foirer to admit that if it could be made out (i)
that there is a plot, and (2) that there is any reason 10
' Of this lamented scholar's later views we have, unfortunately,
no record.
2 The dramatic schemes of Ew. and Del. are given in full by
Dr. /«/'rc*/.(«) 438-444. Delitzsch finds only two chief characters,
Solomon and the Shulammite. Passages like 2 10-15 and 4 8-15,
which seem to speak of a shepherd-lover, really refer, he thinks,
to Solomonj who adopts the circle of ideas and images familiar
to his rustic love. Against this absurd view, see Oettii, 157.
M.-irtineau, on the other hand, eliminates the king altogether.
So too C.istelli, who describes the poem as an idyll in dialogue,
the chief personages of which are the Shulammite and her lover.
685
CANTICLES
expect a drama among a Semitic people, we might
excuse this divergence as an unfortunate consetjuence of
the absence of stage directions.
i. First, then, is there any plot? The dramatists (as
we may call the defenders of this the<jry) answer that
there is. Stickel even discovers two plots, developed
by distinct pairs of lovers — the Shulanunite (who is a
vine-dresser) and her 'friend' (lii), and a shepherd
and shepherdess of Lelxinon (besides the royal suitor,
Solomon). The two latter are intro<luced in three
scenes, 1 7-8 1 15-24 4 7-5 i. They know nothing alxjut
the Shulammite and her ' friend. ' The fxjot has inter-
woven the two movements to amuse the audience and
produce a jjleasing contrast Ijetween the different fortunes
of the two pairs of lovers. All very conceivable !
Double musical themes can be treated in fugues : why
not also in Hebrew drama, granting that a regular
Hebrew drama ever existed, and that Stickel's view of
the text is justified ? However, all that this critic has
shown is that 1 q f. and 1 15-17 are out of connection
with the previous verses ; and in the case of the latter
passage an easy emendation ^ enables us to recognise a
continuous speech of the bride in 1 i2-2i.
Most critics, on the other hand, are content with one
plot, and approach more or less closely to the dramatic
scheme of Ewald, according to which the heroine is a
maiden of Shulem or Shunem in Issachar (see Shi;.ni;.m),
who has two lovers, the one at a distance, the other (till
he finally disappears) near at hand ; the one poor but
favoured, the other royal but treated with disdain. In
chap. I4/. we find the maiden, who makes no secret of
her country origin, in the ' chamlxirs ' of the king among
the ' daughters of Jerusalem ' (the ladies of the palace) ;
but in 85 she suddenly appears, approaching her
mountain home on the arm of her betrothed. FVom
the context it is thought to be clear that the suitor
whose riches are contemned (87, cp 11/.) is King
Solomon, to whom the flattering compliments offered
to the maiden in previous chapters must be assigned.
How, then, came ' the Shulammite ' to exchange her
free country life for the irksome splendour of the court ?
It is inferred, from 611/., that she had been surprised
by Solomon's courtiers (who had often lx.-en employed,
no doubt, in similar abductions) on a royal progress in
N. Israel. She ' had gone down into the nut-garden
to look at the green things of the valley,' when
'suddenly,' she says, 'my desire brought me to the
chariots of my noble people' (Ewald). It is some
excuse for Solomon that, if Ewald may be followed,
' the Shulanmiite ' had not even been betrothed to the
shepherd when she was carried off. (R. Martineau,
however, thinks that between the third and the fourth
scene — i.e., between the 3 6- 11 and 47-16 — ' the Shulam-
mite ' and the shcjiherd lover have l)een formally l)e-
trothed. ) Then, how came the girl to be delivereti
from her royal captor? Renan has offered a very
modern solution of the problem ; but it is one w hich
has no basis in the text, and may be safely neglected.
Most have supposetl (cp 89/.) that the escape of ' the
Shulanunite' was due, not to any favourable combina-
tion of circumstances, but to the effect produced upon
Solomon by her own frank and loyal character ; ' all
the actors,' says Ewald, ' recognise the restraints of the
true religion. ' Will this view hold ? Is it conceivable
that the luxurious Solomon should have lieen represented
by any p>opular p)oet as releasing one of the ' maidens
innumerable' in his 'chambers'?'^ Is it probable that
such a maiden would have had, in the poet's fancy, the
liberty implied in the early scenes of the 'drama,' or
that she would have met Solomons advances m thatextra-
1 1 15 has evidently been interpolated from 4 i, and the opening
word of 7'. 16 has been put in to match the first word of 7'. 15. An
address of the heroine to her lover is out of place in this context
(Bickell).
* Stickel quotes an examnle of such magnanimity from the
life of the Caliph Mahdi (Krenier, Culturgesch. dcs Orient,
2 127) ; but can we compare the characters of the two sovereigns?
CANTICLES
ordinarily absent manner which Ewald's view of 1 9-26
sii|)|)oses? Wli)- slioukl the recurring phrase ' daughters
of Jerusalem ' (cp ' daughters of Zion,' 3ii) have such a
limited reference as the dramatic theory requires ? Then,
as to the Shulammite and her abduction. Theory apart,
what right have we to assume that the intercourse
iniplied in the poem between the girl and her lover
was prior to marriage? To this point we shall have
to return. Can we safely infer from the title that
Shulem or Shunem was the girl's home? The title
occurs in a single passage (H 13 [7i]); but there is
no allusion elsewhere to confirm this supposition.
Next, how can Ewald base such a romantic story
simply on the very obscure passage, 6"/.? Lastly,
how do we know that the Solomon of history or
legend plays any part in the poem? As Castelli,
himself one of the dramatisers, has well pointed
out, Solomon is mentioned by name only in some
simile or figurative contrast.' Thus in Is the heroine
likens herself for comeliness to the curtains of the
pavilions of Solomon (but we should rather read with
Uriill, We., and Wi., nsS:r, the name of a nomad
Arabian tribe; see S.\i,M.\H, 2). In 87-11 Solomon's
litter is spoken of jestingly; and so, in 811, 'to the
costly vineyard of Solomon the heroine prefers her own
symbolic one, which does not require the anxious super-
vision of others.' There is a fourth passage in which,
according to an extremely probable correction of the
text, Solomon is named,— 68 y] :
' Sixty cjueens had Solomon, and eighty concubines,
and maidens innumerable. One is my dove, my spotless
one.'
Here again there is a contrast between Solomon's
large harem and the speaker's single incomparable bride.
Can we, then, be sure that where the phrase ' the
king ' occurs alone, it is not a honorific designation of
the bridegroom ? And this suggests the question, which
Castelli, however, does not raise, whether the term ' the
Shulammite ' is not as purely figurative as ' the king ' ?
Several writers (e.j^. , Klostermann) have conjectured
that the story of Abishag the Shunammite ( i K. I3/)
supplied the plot of the supposed drama ; but consider-
ing the difficulty of making out any plot at all, and the
fact that 'the Shulammite' is referred to only in one
passage, we may ask whether it is not more probable
that the term is applied metaphorically, and is equivalent
to 'the fiiirest of women' (18 59 61)? If we omit
611/. as misplaced (doubtless a correct view), and read
tiio and 13 [7i] together, we shall see how natural it
was for the poet to seek out some striking variation on
the rather hackneyed phrase just mentioned. The
passage will run thus :
' Who is she that looketh down as the dawn, fair as
the moon, clear as the sun? Turn, turn, thou Shulam-
mite, that we may look upon thee.'
It is usual to assume that the spectators, being
ignorant of the heroine's name, address her with blunt
directness as a girl of Shunem, and that she answers by
the modest question, ' What do you see in the simple
Shulammite girl ? ' It is much more natural to suppose
that ' the Shulammite' (.Shunammite) is a term not less
complimentary than ' fair as the moon ' in v. 10, and
points back to the Abishag of tradition. ^ And should it
be asked why .Abishag's name is not mentioned, we may
venture to express the opinion that when the song was
written there was probably in the Hebrew text of i K.
I31S, I Sam. etc., not jf3X. but a very different word
(see Shulammite).
There are many other difficulties of interpretation
which might be mentioned. For example, how are we
to understand the movements of ' the beloved ' ? Are
' Castelli, Delia poesia hihlica, 311
2 This view was proposed by Stade in 1887 {GVI 1 292), and
adopted by Hu. in his excellent essay, Nenv World, Mar. 1894,
pp. 62-64. Budde desiderates an OT analogy. Perhaps ' Zimri '
insK. »3i(seeRV)issuch.
687
CANTICLE
all the meetings of the lovers, except the final reunion,
in reminiscence or in sleeping or waking imagination
only ? Can we conceive of a drama in which each
of the actors seems almost if not quite uninfiuenced by
the sj)eeches of the other? Not so did the Vahwist and
the Elohist and the author of the Prologue of Job
manage their dialogues. Less important is the difficulty
which arises from the changes of scene, a weakness
which need not surprise us in primitive plays. We
must be careful, however, not to attach too much
imi)ortance to European parallels. Kenan, for ex-
ample, goes too far when he refers to the comparatively
elaborate pastoral play called Li Gieus de Robin et de
Marion, or Li Jens du Bergier et de la Bergiere,
composed in 1282 by Adam de la Halle for the diversion
of the court.' It would be more natural, with R.
Sanmel ben Meir (Kasnoam), to compare the simple
pastoretas of the Troubadours ; but even that might be
misleading.
ii. We have now to ask, further. Have we a right to
exjject a Semitic drama, however primitive in form '
7. No Semitic
drama.
That Semitic nations are not at all
devoid of general dramatic capacity
may be granted. In Mohammedan
countries the rdwi ( ' reciter ' ) still displays all the
faculties of an actor, and stirs his hearers to the depths
as he tells the story of 'Antar or the tales of the Arabian
Nights ; and there is an unmistakably strong dramatic
element in Arabic works such as the ' .Sessions ' of Hariri.
It cannot have been otherwise with the Israelites.
They too must have laughed and wept as they listened
to their story-tellers. At all events, the relics of their
literature contain genuinely dramatic passages : see, for
example, the stories of Jacob and Samson (evidentU- of
traditional origin), of Ruth and Job. Even in the
psalms and prophecies we have pieces like Ps. 2 24
7-10 Is. 63 1-6 28 8-11 Mic. 6 6-8, and the colloquies
in the Book of Job have at least a distant affinity to
the drama of character. Still, there is no evidence
that the transition to a drama was ever made by a
Semitic people. We have an Assyrian epic, but no
Ass\rian drama. Least of all can we reasonably
expect to find one in the OT. Theatrical performances
were not known at Jerusalem before the time of Herod,
and to all good Jews such heathenish practices were
detestable (Jos. Ant. xv. 81 ; cp BJ i. 21 8). Hence
the dramatic theory of the Song is plausible only if the
composition of the poem be placed at Alexandria
(during the Greek period). \\'hy, upon this sup-
position, did not the dramatist write in Greek, as did
Ezekiel, the author of the drama on the Exodus called
'E$a7co7T7? In a word, the difficulties of the dramatic
theory are insuperable.
{b) The Israelites, however, had a still more character-
istic gift — that of lyric poetr)-. Singing and dancing
p . formed essential parts of their festivities,
8. f opuiar ^^ ji^g^. g^j„ jQ among the Bedouins ;
yn P ry- ^,^^ when these festivities were occa-
sioned by some great local or national event, a dramatic
element would naturally infuse itself into the popular
songs, and this all the more easily because the custom
of alternate song, which is in its nature dramatic,
was very ancient (cp Ex. 152i iS. 21ii). Ewald
thinks that the Song (which is, according to him, a
cantata) was originally intended for a festival of the
independence of the N. kingdom, and that it was per-
formed in five days, an act in a day. This view suits
his theory of the ' plot ' of the Song ; but it is no
longer tenable — we have seen that the references to
' Solomon ' are figurative, and that ' the Shulammite ' is
also a mere eulogistic term.
Why should not we take up again the suggestive
idea of Bossuet and Lowth that the Song was intended
for use on the seven days of the marriage festival (cp
1 TM&tre franfais au vtoyen age, par Monmerqui et Michel,
102-135. (Renan's account differs.)
9. Syrian
wedding
festivities.
CANTICLES
Gen. 29a7 Judg. 14i2 Tot), n 19)? On such occasions
there would, of course, Ix; altiTuale songs by the bride-
groom and the bride, and to this Jeremiah refers when,
describing the calamities of invasion, he says that Gotl
will ' cause to cease from the cities of Judah and from
the streets of Jerusalem the voice of mirth and the voice
of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice
of the bride" (Jer. 734 2rMo). There is also an illus-
trative p.nssage in the Mishna (TiuiHtlhAi, already re-
ferred to), and the strangeness of the notice affords the
best guarantee of its truth. It was customary at the
' Wood Festival ' (^v\o<(>opia) on the 1 5th of Ab (August)
and at the close of the Day of Atonement' for the
' daughters of Jerusalem ' (cp Song 1 5, etc. ) to go out
ami dance in the vineyards, and whoever had no wife
went thither also. (Was it a relic of 'marriage by
cai)ture'? Cp Judg. 21 21. ) There was also alternate
sinjjing, and the youths were wont to use the words of
Song 3 II. See D.XNCK, § 6.
It is from .Syria, where so many old customs have
survived, that we get the fullest confirmation of Hossuet's
idea. Let us turn to .Song36-ii (trans-
lated by the present writer in JQR,
July 1899), where the words referred
to so strangely in the Mishna occur.
Solomon is here introduced riding in his palanquin
'with the crown with which his mother crowned him
on his wedding-day,' escorted by sixty warriors 'with
the hand on the sword.' What this means we can tell
from von Kremcr's account of the nmrriage processions
in Moslem villages in the Lebanon.'^ The procession
goes from the house of the bridegroom to that of the
bride, and in it there is a band of youths armed with
long poles, which they keep striking together, and hold
in such a way as to form a kind of roof over them.
The poles were probably in olden times lances : the
open country was not secure from bandits (Hos. 69 ; cp
Ps. lOS).** The ' crown ' is, of course, that of the bride-
groom (cp Is. 61 10) ; ' in the war with Vespasian,'
says the Mishna (iV/*;, 914), ' the crowns of bridegrooms
were forbidden." The Solomon of 3 11, then, is not the
Solomon who made himself a state-litter, but a happier
though a humbler mortal. It is, in sooth, a pretty jest
to liken the bridegroom with his nu[)tial crown and
the sixty ' companions" (Judg. 14 11) who roof him over
with their [xjles to the luxurious Solomon in his gorgeous
palan(iuin with his martial bodyguard around him ;
and the jest has a wholesome moral.
A nmch fuller account of the customs of the Syrian
peasants in the month of weddings (March) is given by
Wetzstein.* During the seven days after a wedding,
high festivity, with scarcely interrupted singing and
dancing, prevails. The bridegroom and the bride play
the parts of king and cjueen (hence the week is called the
' king"s week " ), and receive the homage of their neigh-
bours ; the crown, however, is at present in .Syria (as in
Greece) confined to the bride (contrast Song3ii). The
bridegroom has his train of ' companions ' (to borrow the
ancient term, Judg. l-lii), and the grander the wedding
the more of these there are. The bride too has her
friends (cp ' daughters of Jerusalem," Songls, etc. ), the
maidens of the place, who take an important part in
the reception of the bridegroom (cp I's. 4514 Mt.
25 1-13). In the evening of the great day a sword-dance
is performed. In the Arabian desert it is the young
1 The tenth of Tisri must anciently have had a festive char-
actir : can it have been a prelude to the joyous Feast of booths
(Kohlcr)V
2 Mttti-lsyrien urui Damascus (^'$-i), p. 123.
3 Wetzstein says that the bridegroom's friends are really
armed. He thinks that ' by reason of fear in the night ' (.Song
3 8) may allude to the insecurity of the villages.
■• .Appendix to_ Delitzsch"s Hoheslieii (1875), 165-167, 170-
177 ; cp Wetzstein in Zt. /I'ir F.lhnologie, 1873, pp. 287-2^4.
Even among ihc /ella It }n of Palestine there seems to be a vestige
of the sword-dance. The bride on her camel is conducted to
the house of the bridegroom holding a drawn sword, /'JiJ-'Q,
April 1894, p. 136.
CANTICLES
men of the trilx; who thus display their agility (Doughty,
ylr. Dei. 2 118); but in the Syrian wedding festivals
the sword-dancer is the bride. When tak<ti in con-
nection with another Syrian custom and with the passage
of the Mishna mentioned alwve, this may Ix; thought a
relic of primitive 'marriage by capture." (The con-
nected custont referred to is this — that when, on the
morning after the wedding, the royal seat has Ixen
erected, a crier comes forward declaring that the ' king'
— the bridegroom — has made a campaign against a
hitherto impregnable fortress, and calls ujxjn him to say
whether he has succeeded or not. The ' king ' answers
in the affirmative, and upon this the seven days of
rejoicing begin. ) However this may Ix;, the sword-
dance at the Syrian weddings has a significance of its ow n.
It not only displays the physical gifts and capacities of the
bride, but also syndwlises her womanlyself-respect, which
keeps all intruders afar off (cp SongSg 10). ' The figure
of the dancer, her dark waving hair, her serious noble
bearing, her downcast eyes, her graceful movements,
the quick and secure step of her small naked feet, the
lightning-like flashing of th(; blade, the skilful movements
of her left hand, in which she holds a handkerchief, the
exact keeping of time," form a .scene which contributes not
a little to make the 'king"s week " the happiest in a .Syrian
peasant's life. The dcscrijition throws a bright light on
SongG 10 13 7 1-6 (which forms a connected passage).'
The opening verse is probably six)ken by the chorus of
neighbours on the approach of the bride with the sword ;
it abounds with res|>ectful compliments suitable to the
occasion. / ". 13^ also Ijclongs to the neighlxjurs, who
call to the bride to turn that they may see her tetter.
Then, to draw out their admiration further, the bride-
groom asks them why they are gazing as fixetlly at this
paragon of beauty — this second .Shulammiie — 'at the
dance of warlike hosts," i.e. at the \\ar-dance, or
sword-dance (c'^rrrn n'^r.irs ; u>s x°P°'- ^'^''' Tapf/i/ioXiIi' ;
so Budde). It often happens in the Syrian desert, says
Wetzstein, that when a woman performs this dance on
occasion of a victory of one trilx; over another, and some
young man shows special a<lmiration of the dancer, he
is called upon to fight unarmed, according to certain
rules, with the dancer, and may chance to pay for his
boldness with his life. To this the question in Song
613^ may allude. Song 7 1-6 (which is in a different
metre from 6 10 13) exactly answers to the .Syrian ■uuif/
{i.e., 'laudatory descrijition") sung during the sword-
dance by the leader of the chorus. We must not criticise
it too severely. The tone is that which popular taste
required and (to judge from the 7^v/.f/ quoted by Wetz-
stein) still requires in Syria.
On the day after the wedding, w hen the ' king " has
announced his 'victory' over the 'fortress,' Jinolher
was/ is sung. This time the attractions of the lady are
described with less unreserve, in deference to wifely
dignity. Such a 7i'<!s/ we seem to have in Song 4 1-7.
Is the bridegroom, then, exempt from laudation? Not
in modern .Syria, nor in the .Song. True, in Song 36-ii,
sung (it would seem) during the procession from the
bridegroom's house to that of the bride, flattery goes
no further than to liken the crownetl bridegroom to
Solomon. The young wife naturally goes further. The
W'(/.r/ itself is found in Song 5 10-16. Prefixed to it is
a speech of the bride describing a weird dream that
she has had, in which she believes so firmly that
she begs for the help of the ' daughters of Jcriusalem '
in restoring her to her beloved. These are the chief
songs of this class; but in Song64-7 we have at least
a fragment of a laudatory description of the bride, part
of which is an ill-connected quotation from 4 1-3. Wetz-
stein assures us that the 7<'(ijr/"- passages are the weakest
p.art of the wedding-songs, and accordingly, he adds,
the 7<w.r/-portion of the Song of Songs is much inferior
poetically to the rest. Certainly the most striking part
' On rt iiy^, see above, S 10. Reiiss despairs of 0 10-13 with-
out reason.
690
CANTICLES
of the Sonsf of Songs is the passage which contains 7 xi-
87 (excepting the interpolated verses 83-5'). It is a
song such as might have been sung on the evening of
the wedding-day. The opening description is true in
idea, though imaginary in its incidents. It is true in
idea ; for every marriage, according to the poet, should
arise from the free affection of one man and one
woman. It is imaginary in its details, for the incidents
are inconsistent with what was allowable in courtship.
For real songs of courtship such as an Israelite might
have used, see Riickert's Hamdsa, bk. iv. ). The closing
eulogy of love as ' strong as death, inflexible as Sheul,
whose flashes are flashes of fire, [whose flame is] a flame
from heaven ' '■' (86), is noble.
The poetical form, and therefore also the origin, of
the Song of Songs seems to be no longer doubtful.
Fully twenty years ago (1878) the present writer rejected
Ewald's interpretation of Song (5 11/., but still thought it possible,
1 n Prpqpnf ^^ omitting interpolations and transposing
. •'^^®°®"'' certain misplaced passages, to restore some-
Writer's rela- thing like the original sequence, and to re-
tiOQ to WetZ- cognise a loose imperfect plot such as quick-
i. ; witted hearers and spectators might have
divined. He saw also that the poem was
based on pl)pul.^r songs,'* and admitted the critical significance
of the information furnished by Wetzstein. ' When we consider,'
he then wrote, ' that processions and the choral performance of
lyric poems were familiar to the Israelites from Samuel down-
wards, it becomes a highly probable conjecture that this custom
of the Syrian peasants was already in vogue in the times of the
or writers. This is confirmed by the remarkable coincidence
between the time when the incidents of the Song are supposed
to take place (see Song 21-13) and the time of the peasants'
weddings in Syria (March is the most beautiful time of the
Syrian year).' He further noticed two or three of the ivasf-
passages in the Son^, and (after Kohler) the implied reference
to the sword-dance in Song 61013 ('''• '^y- being misplaced).
He was far, however, from realising the extent to which the
Hebrew songs were analogous to the traditional Syrian, and
thought that a part of the Song related to the happy courtship
of the rustic lovers ; nor did he understand the reference to
Solomon or the meaning of 'the Shulammite.' To Budde
he owes it that he has adopted a more consistent theory.*
The book is an anthology of songs used at marriage
festivals in or near Jerusalem, revised and loosely con-
_ . . nected by an editor without regard to
temporal sequence ; in saying which, we
do not deny that the kernel of the work may have been
brought, from some other part of the country, perhaps
in the north.
What of the supposed indications of unity? These
are found partly in the phraseology ('Solomon,' 'the
king,' 'daughters of Jerusalem,' 'my
12. Apparent
unity.
beloved,' 'my friend,' the seeming re-
frains in 27 85 84 ; as well as in '2,17(1
46rt ; and in 2i7^ 814/^), partly in the poetical colour,
partly in the feeling or spirit, and of course in the
circumstances. This agreement tetween the several
parts of the poem is not as great as has been supposed.
As Bickell observes, ' (jeneratim omnia verbotenus
repetita serius inserta sunt ' ; in © such repetitions are
even more plentiful than in MT. The genuine points
of phraseological agreement are quite accounted for by
the traditional conventions of these love songs. That
the feeling, the poetical colour, and the circumstances
are the same, harmonises with the assumed origin of
the songs. The prominence of the mother (1684
825) is to be explained not (with Ewald, 334) by ' the
Shulammite's' supposed loss of her father, but as a vestige
of the matriarchate ( Mutterrecht). With regard to Song
I4 and Song 8 10, which, taken together, may seem to
show that the heroine had been placed in a royal palace
but had ' comjjelled her assailant to leave her in peace '
t These verses are not in the metre of the rest of the passage ;
the two former come from 2 6_/C (cp 3 5), while the last has been
suggested oy 3 6.
2 Or, 'a most vehement flame.' The final ,t may be simply
an aftormative (Jiiger, Jastrow).
3 See Foutulers o/OT Crit. (1893), 350.
■* r.udde's attempt (Neiv World, March 1894) to show that
some of the less poetical passages are due to the collector and
reviser of the songs, who now and then misunderstood the texts,
cannot here be considered.
691
CANTICLES
(Robertson Smith's paraphrase of 8ioi^), we should hold
that the ' chambers ' of 1 4 are those of the crowned
bridegroom, and that the ' peace' of 810 belongs to the
characteristic figure of the ' fortress ' (see above).
Historically, the Song would gain, could it be shown
to be pre-exilic. What would not one give for the
-J . light likings of ancient Hebrew maidens,
■ and for a nol)le popular protest against
the doubtful innovations of the unpatriotic Solomon?
Robertson Smith in 1876 held that the Song of Songs
was just such a protest. ' The conservative revolution
of Jeroboam was,' he remarks, ' in great measure the
work of the prophets, and must therefore have carried
with it the religious and moral convictions of the people.
An important element in these convictions, which still
claims our fullest sympathy, is powerfully set forth in
the Canticles, and the deletion of the book from the
Canon . . . would leave us without a most necessary
complement to the Judaian view of the conduct of the
ten tribes which we get in the historical books. ' The
reference to the harem life of Solomon, however, is con-
fined to two verses (Song 6 8/. ) ; it is rather sportive than
polemical, and, attractive as the protest-theory is, it is
opposed to a sound exegesis (see above). *
For a pre-exilic date there is no solid argument,
(a) The title, which is not by the author (note nrx),
„ , is of course not more trustworthy than
..." ' the headings of the ' Solomonic ' psalms.
exUlC. ^^^ .pj^g points of contact with Hosea (cp
Song2i3 4ii 611 with Hos. 14 6-9) and Prov. 1-9 (cp
Song 4x1 14/. with Prov. 53 7 17 5 15-17) prove only that
different poets used similar (conventional) images. More-
over, recent criticism tends to show that Hos. 14 2-10 and
Prov. 1-9 are post-exilic, {c) The phrase d"ic'*c3 ' (going
down) straight," used of wine, in Song 79 Prov. 2331,
is indecisive, whether Prov. I.e. is early or late. (</) The
mention of Tirzah beside Jerusalem (Song 6 4) need not
point to ' the brief period when that city was the capital
of the dynasty of Baasha ' (but see TiKZ.\H), for (if MT
is correct) it is the beauty of the site of Tirzah that is
referred to — a beauty which could not pass away with
a dynasty. Most probably, however, we should emend
the text thus, ' Thou art beautiful as the narcissus, comely
as the lily of the valleys ' ^ (cp 2i). If so, Tirzah is
not mentioned, [e) That the references to Solomon
prove nothing, we have seen already. It will, therefore,
be absurd to base an argument on the comparison of
the lady in Song I9 with one of Pharaoh's mares. If
the bridegroom could be likened to Solomon, the bride
could be likened to one of Solomon's finest Egyptian
horses, especially if the songs were written while Pales-
tine formed part of the Grseco- Egyptian empire (cp
Theocr. Id. 15 52/ ). Whether Solomon really obtained
horses from Egypt, is a question which need not be
discussed here (see MiZR.MM, § 2a).
For a post-exilic date the main arguments are these :
(rt) The position of the book among the Hagiographa.
(/;) The beauty of Jerusalem is mentioned late (Ps. 482
50 2 Lam. 215). (<r) The absence of
striking archaisms of thought and ex-
pression, {d) The importance attached to rare exotic
plants and to garden-cultivation points to Babylonian
influence (see Garden). See Song 4 12-15, where the
following plant-names, which are of foreign origin, and
very possibly late, deserve attention.
T\-hr\v(. (also Ps. 45 9, l^te, where, as here, it is coupled
with lb ; cp Prov. 717, and see Aloes), [ic^p (also
Prov. 7 17 Ex. 30 23, both passages late), D3n3 (&""•
1 MT is hardly defensible. Fair women would not be com-
pared to cities. Tg. paraphrases ' as the women of Tiran (jjnn),'
or Tirzah (Neub. Gfogr. du Tahn. \Ti). Bickell and Bu. omif
'as Tirzah, comely as Jerusalem,' as weakening the effect of
' terrible ' which follows; but nC'N, 'terrible,' is simply a corrup-
tion of D'pOi/ (in the phrase 'V rUCIC, ' lily of the valleys '). On
m'?jn:3i see Ensigns, § i b.
693
15. Post-exilic.
CANTICLES
Xf7,), TT) (also 1 12), and, following Grtitz, D"ni (for the
tautological omj), new Hch. for 'roses. '^
The fondness of the poet of Canticles for spices led the ancient
scrihcs into some very strange textual errors — viz., (i) 4 6, 'to the
mountains of myrrh OS'I) and the hill of frankincense ' (W^V.l),
where -on should be pcnn. 'Hermon,' and njiaV should be
JUaVn (cp ©HKA) ; very probably, also, the correct reading in
r. 8 is ' from the hills of the cedars, from the mountains
of the cypresses' (cTTID m.-IO O'llH HU'^iC); (2) 814, in the
' mountains of spices' (D'Cra), 'F3 should certainly be n'tyiia, to
which, if We.'s view of -una n.l, 'mountains of malobathron '
(We. /'»<>/.(*> 409), '•' was that of the early scribes, we may add
217 where we should read C'nh3 H, ' mountains of cypresses '
(see Bether).
Add njK = new Heb. niiJK. 6 n, and perhaps -isb
= Kt'<TTpo%, 1 14 4 13 (plur. ). Last, not least, we have
the Persian loan-word for plantation or park, D^":!3, 4 13 ;
elsewhere only Nch. 2 8 Eccl. 2 5, though the exact
history of the form is doubtful.
One Greek loan-word S has been found in [VnSK, 'palanciuin,'
S9 = </>op€ioc (so O ; but .see Littkr). In the Midrash '« is ex-
plained by Kcr-ie— /.^., <i>6pr\ij.aL. In Sota 49^ it is said that the
use of the bridal litter (pnSN) was forbidden by the Jewi.sh
authorities during the Bar-Cochba war. On the gorgeous
<l>op(la of the .Syrian l.idies under Antiochus K^piphanes, .see
Polybius (ap. Athen. .'J 22). The only doubt can be whether 'j<
is not a gl()>s. .Metrical rea.sons .suggest its excision (Hickell).
(e) Among the distinctly late words are pn-)H
3 10 76* (for Judg. 822-27 is not, as it stands,
ancient; see Budde) ; vv. 5 15 Esth. 16; 3n (plur.).
6it Job 812;
i 5 ; nSi'3n, 2 I Is. 35 i ;
C'inn, 1 10 (nn, Aram, and new Heb. ) ; Sna. n'ac'n. rsrt
' to glance,' D'3'in ' smoke-holes,' 29 ; 3dd, 1 12 ; rtiiir:,
2i4 Ezck. 3820 (.\ram. Kj-n) 'a step' ; -n-jp, 21315 7 12
and perhaps Is. 168 (for ItlD^c^ see SBOT, ad loc. ;
op Duval, REJ I4277) ; inp. 'winter,' 2ii ; nisip, f)2ii ;
0"0'P7, 52 ; pic* (plur. ), 32 Prov. 78 Eccl. I245 (cp Griitz.
49); ^Ja (Piel), 53; i'Dp(Piel), 'to spring,' 28 ; nt:], ' to
keep,' 1 6 8 II 12 ; ,ij?o, 'enclosed,' 73. (/) Grammatical
forms. Note n-jn, 1 15, etc.; n'na, I17; nrx, 'where,'
I7 (cp -il, Dan."728); njrx, ■how'?53, Es'th. 86. Also
rfornc-K, 22 times. na^cJ, I7, like 'pW, Jon. 1 7, and
irK "7^3, Eccl. 817, ,i|iS icJk, Dan. lio. '^r, 16 812 ;
Vr, 37 (exactly the Mishna usage), [g] Tn, 44, for
Ti^, may perhaps point to the post-exilic period (see
li^nk. Z^ 7- mi 127).
The preceding list of arguments, though not ex-
haustive, should be sufficient. Linguists, such as Gesenius
among Christians and M. Sachs among Jews, long ago
recognised the modern character of the Hebrew. The
question, however, was a complicated one, and ingenuity
did its best to save an early date, and with it (it
appeared) the historical value of the Song. It is time for
critical students to look at the facts more frankly. We
can now show that this anthology of songs is post-exilic,
and may conjecture that it is nearly contemporary with
that 'song of love' (and of spices), Ps. 45. It is not
easy to find a period more suitable to all the data than
one of the early and fortunate reigns of the Ptolemies
(cp rounders, 353). A still later date is suggested by
W'inckler [Altor. Forschungi-n, 295).
Like the other poetical books, the Song of Songs
suffers from many, often most unfortunate, corruptions
16. Text °^ ^^ ^^^^ • ^'"^ dislocations of passages
have added to the difficulties of the inter- j
1 The first mention of roses elsewhere is in Ecclus. (see RoseX j
This would allow us to date the .song in 300-250 ii.c. There were
roses in liabylon in Herodotus's time {llerad. 1 195).
2 He was anticipated by Field (Otii:. Hix. 2415),!
''•e rendering of Sexta as ^aAa(3<i)ep(ou). ' Dat ct malobathron
»ria, says PI. (//.\'12i).
8 Another of the supposed Greek words arises from a corrup-
)n of tlie text. See Armoury.
tion ot the text. See Armoury,
* pjIK in 7 6, however, is corrupt,
693
CANTICLES
preter. Grktz was the first to recognise the bad state
of the text. Among recent scholars Hickell and Budde
have done most ; Hickell's chief results have been in-
corporated in Hudde's excellent commentary. Pcrles,
in his Analeklen ('95), has considered aIx)Ut ten
passages, and the present writer has endeavoured to
correct some of the chief errors UQH and Exp. Times
for 1898-99 and A-t/oi/Vor, Feb. 1899, 14s/:). Among
these corrections it may Ix; mentioned that, according
to Bickell, ■ the Shulammite ' in 7 i is due to corruption ;
against this view, however, see Hudde, who points out
that, since the phra.se ' the Shulammite' is not tantamount
to a declaration that the bride is a Shulammite damsel,
and only means ' one who is as fair as Abishag the
Shulaiumite,' it is no gain to the adherents of the dramatic
or idyllic theory to have the correctness of n-a^w.T
assured to them. Contrary to ISeries (who on this point
is an adherent of (Griitz), Bickell further thinks that 3'ij <Ey
in 612 (see Amminadik) also is not the true reading.
He regards 3-1: "cy na (n3 derived from ni3 in ni33-o
which is corrupt) as a doublet of [,i] anj [<cj,'] na in 72,
and renders ' my noble kinswoman ' ; Budde prefers to
wait for more light. Perles has pointed the way to a
better solution by grouping 612 and 72 with 77. Here,
the present writer thinks, we should read na na.iK
iTEJity, 'loved one, Shunammite damsel,' and, con-
sequently, he makes the same restoration in 612 and
72 — t.?. , p'OTr na. Certainly Bickell is right in re-
fusing to have anything to do with the ' chariots '
of which MT and therefore also EV speak in 6 12. The
whole story of the Shulammite's having been surprised
in the nut-orchard by the king's retinue (cp Driver,
In/rod., 442, 446) breaks down, when strict criti-
cism is applied to the text. On Cant. 36-ii, which
is disfigured by curious corruptions (one of which is the
famous j'v-iSN, RV 'palanquin'), see Litter.
We must now endeavour to estimate the value of the
Song. We shall not Ije ungrateful for the material
17 Value ^^'^''^^ '' supplies to students of manners
■ and customs and the distribution of plants ;
but it is nuich more iniportant that it opens a window
into the heart of ordinary Israelites. {a) The Song
reveals a very pure conception of true love, as springing
out of a free inclination of one man and one woman,*
and rising into a passionate and indestructible union of
hearts. If the songs were written (or even if they were
only edited, revised, and suppleiuented) in the early
Greek period, what a contrast they offer to much that
was current at the luxurious court of the Ptolemies !
{b) The Song shows also a genuine love of nature.
' The writer inspires us with his own delicate joys. The
breath of spring still breathes through his words,
its scents, its fresh moist greeniiess, the old hopeful
spring notes heard in the woods, again are all here. '^
There is nothing more lovely than the spring of
Palestine, and this old fjoet felt it. Where the images
are bizarre, we need not put it down to him. The was/-
songs were, and still are, governed by strict convention
(cp Wetz. in Del. 174-177). Ovid and Theocritus
are not without some of these strange love images.'
(c) ' Race -psychology ' also may gather something.
Twice the heroine falls into a perplexing confusion
between dreamland and reality (Song3i-4 52-7). This
can be paralleled from Arabic love [X)etry, in which the
dream-form of the beloved receives an objective exist-
ence, and lovers even give their respective apparitions
a rendezvous (see Hiiiruxsa, Kreytag, 22 ; Lyall. Trans-
lations, 12). * ((/) If the poem is post-exilic, it shows
us that there were times and seasons (cp Eccl. 34) of
which legalism could not overshadow the joyousness.
^ It reminds us of the fine love-sentiment of the Arabic
HaniAsa.
■ 2 W. G. Forbes, Serifwns C85), p. 147.
3 Cp especially Song 1 9 with Theocr. Id. 18 30.
•• See JJamdsa, 612, and Cf Journal Asiatigue, 1838, p. 374
etc.
694
CAP
In this and in other respects our notion of the post-exilic
period may perhaps need revision.
Is this, then, the whole worth of the Song for us?
Being canonical, must it not have some subtle religious
value which has teen overlooked ? ^
The answer is (i) that wfc have no right to assume
that R. 'Akiba's well known saying about the Song at
the Synod of" Jamnia (see Canon, § 53) represents the
point of view of those who first admitted this popular
and supposed Solomonic work among the Kethubhim ;
and (2) that the mistake of a Jewish Synod cannot be
perpetually endorsed by Christian common -sense and
scholarship. We have therefore to revise our con-
ception of the word ' canonical ' in its application to the
OT writings.
Hesiiles the commentaries of E\v., Hitz., Gratz, Del., Stickel,
Oettli (AV/C, 98), etc., consult WRS, art. 'Canticles,' /iBW,
Hriill's review of Kaempf, Jalirh. f. jiid. Gfscli. u. Lit. 1877, p.
138^ ; Hu.'s rev. of Stickel, TL/, 24th March 18S8, his art. in
Neil' li'orld, March 1894, and his fine commentary, 1898; also
R. Martineau, Ann-r. Journ. 0/ Philolof^y, 1892, pp. 307-328;
Bickell, Carmina VT »u-trice (^%2)\ Siegfried, C, Prcd. u.
iro/iesHcd (:<)9'); Riedel, Die Aus/cg: ties Holienlicies in <icr
jiid. Geiitein<ie u. der christl. Kirckc ('98). T. K. C.
CAP (rreTACOC [AV] ; according to one view it has
been borrowed in Aramaic under the form tJ'tDD Dan.
821 ; hut see Hkkkchks, 2 ; Tukb.vn, 2 ; and c^ Journ.
Phil.l^yx)/.). the Greek broad-brimmed (fr. irerdi'-
vvfii) felt hat which Jason made the Jewish youth
wear (2 Mace. 4 12 RV ; AV 'hat'). It was worn
(originally) chiefly by shepherds and hunters, was an
attribute of Hermes,^ and so became the badge of the
palajstra.
This a'isumes that the te.\t is genuine (note that vnoTaaa-uiv
in ©A precedes). The Syr. reads Jl^^aA^B fc^Jl-l: cp 2 S.
1231 (Pesh.), where MT has jaSp. Did the translat.^r think of
eTTiTaais? Equally obscure is the origin of the Vg. in liipa-
naribus, though the infamy and vice of the later gymnasia, the
fact that the 'Ep;oiaia were celebrations of a more or less free
and unrestrained character, and the alhislon to vicious practices
in 2 Mace. 64, make \\. possilUe that a genuine tradition has been
followed.
CAPER-BERRY (HjVaX, KAnnARlc [BKAC]).
Eccles. r2 5t RV. That the Hyssop (q.v.) is the
caper-plant {Capparis spinosa, L. ) is a favourite theory.
Still more prevalent is the view that the word rendered
'desire' in .\V RV'"e- of Eccles. I.e. ('the almond tree
shall flourish, and the grasshopper shall be a burden, and
desire shall fail') denotes the berry of the caper-plant.^
The difficulties of translation are as great in the third of
these clauses as in the others (.^i.mond. Grasshopper).
The Revisers of O T changed ' desire ' into ' the caper-
berry,' but could not determine on a satisfactory verb ;
' fail ' therefore remains, with ' Or, burst ' in the margin.
Thus much at any rate is plain : the noun in this clause
must denote some object in the physical world.
The rendering 'the caper-l>erry ' (©, Aq. Vg. ) •* has
been adopted by nearly all modi-rns, among whom G.
F. Moore ^ deserves special mention because of the
fresh light which he has brought from Mishnic and
Talmudic sources. The rendering ' desire ' ( Abulwalid ;
Parchon) is a worthless modern guess.
In spite of the agreement of scholars, the clause
remains obscure, mainly from the difficulty of interpret-
ing the predicate nan. (i) Plutarch {Sym/). 62) speaks
of the caper being used as a relish to induce appetite
for food ; medi;Bval Arabic writers mention its effects
1 Even Herder fell into this error ; see Haym, Herder, 287.
2 In middle and low Latin petasunt becomes the winged
shoe of .Mercury (Uufresne, ed. Favre).
3 That this fruit, and not the berr>'-like bud familiar in
modern times, is intended appears clearly from the Talmudic
references (see I^w, Pjtanz. 264), and the exhaustive discussion
in Moore's art. referred to below.
■* Pesh. has a double rendering : (i) the caper, (2) misery —
the latter seemingly based on a supposed (but impossible)
abstract use of the fern, of |1'31< ; cp Sym. ^ (iriiroi'o; and Field,
Hex. i\oT,.
6 See his article, JDL 10 55-64 ('91).
69s
CAPERNAUM
in stimulating sexual impulse (Wetz. in Del. Koh.
452) ; ^ and it was in traditional use (especially the fruit)
in the middle ages as a stinmlant in senile disorders.'^
It has been sought, accordingly, to explain -isn as mean-
ing 'fail of effect' (so RV text), and this will do as a
makeshift : when even the caper fails, nothing is left to
try. Unfortunately, it is ditficult to believe that the
Heb. verb can have this meaning ; Delitzsch's explana-
tion of it as a case of internal Hiphil ( ' produces failure '
— i.e., ' fails') is most unlikely.
(2) Others have thought of the bursting of the ripe berry and
the scattering of its seeds as a synonym for death (so RVniK);
but this is quite untenable, (a) because of the fact that the root Tlfl
is nowhere used in a physical sense in Hebrew,* (/') because the
context requires a phrase descriptive of old age rather than of
death, and (f) because of the botanical impossibility of the inter-
pretation, there being no evidence that the fruit of Capparis
spinosa is dehiscent.
Unless, therefore, we give the Heb. verb the very
unusual sense of ' fail ' we can only say that probably,
as in the other clauses, the metaphor indicates some
feature in the old man's appearance or physical state,
and Moore's suggestion, to emend isn into some
derivative of ms appears a good one.
N. M. — vv. T. T.-n.
CAPERNAUM is the transliteration of the Text.
Rec. KATTepNAOYM ; but KBDZ, followed byTisch.,
1 TJnmo '1''<=S-. WH, etc., read KA(})ApNA,OYM (so
• "*™«- Pesh. and Jos.). The original was, there-
fore, cinj 1S3. village of Nahum. It is not mentioned
before the NT, and this, coupled with the fact that ied
prevails in the composition only of comparatively late
names, is proof of an origin shortly before the time of
Jesus. Whether by N'ahum is meant the prophet, we do
not know. In Jerome's time it was another Galilean
town that was associated with him (GASm. Tiwlve
Proph. 279).
Capernaum became the home of Jesus (kv oi'/cCfJ
iariv, Mk. 2i) and 'his own city' (Nit. 9i) after his
2 References rejection by the townsmen of xNazareth.
2. Keierences. j^^^^ he preached (Mt.85 Mk. I21
93336 Jn. 6 etc.); did many wonderful works, healing
Peter's mother-in-law and many others (Mk. I3134), a
paralytic (Mt. 9i Mk. 2i Lk. 018), a centurion's servant
(Mt. 85 Lk. 7i), a man with an tmclean spirit (Mk. I23
Lk. 433), and (by a word from Cana) a nobleman's
servant (Jn. 446) ; and called the fishermen Peter and
Andrew (Mk. I16), and Matthew or Levi, who sat to
receive toll (Mt. 98 Mk. 2i4 Lk. 527). In spite of all
this, the body of citizens remained unmoved, and Jesus
pronounced woe upon the place (Mt. II23 Lk. Idis,
R\'). These passages imply that Capernaum was a
TroXis, with a Roman garrison, a synagogue (built by
the centurion), and a customs-station ; and that it lay
down in the basin of the lake (Jn. 2 12 Lk. 431), and on
the lake shore (Mt. 413), and (presumably from the
customs station) on the great high road from Damascus
past the N. end of the lake to the Levant (cp way of
the sea quoted in Mt. 415/. from Is. 9i[S23]). A
comparison of Jn. 617 with \It. 14 34 would seem also to
imply that it lay on or near the plain of Gennesaret at
the NW. corner of the lake.
The name has entirely disappeared, and amid the
scattered evidence of writers since the NT and the
, various groups of ruin which strew the
. ?■ °.^f^® . * lake shore between Gennesaret and the
Identifications. ^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^ j^^^^^^ diversity of tradi-
tion and of modern opinion has naturally arisen.
Two sites divide the authorities — Khirbet el-Minyeh
(several mounds with indistinguishable ruins and an old
Khan also called Minyeh on the N. corner of Gen-
nesaret) ; and Tell-Hum, a heap of black basalt ruins
1 It should, however, be noted that neither Dioscorides (2 204)
nor Pliny (13 127 20165^) mentions either of these effects.
2 So Tragus (l^e Stirp. Hist. Comm. 1552, 8968) writes to
the effect that, cooked, and taken with oil and vinegar, it is
used with benefit in cases of palsy, gout, 'phlegm,' 'spleen,'
sciatica, in urinary troubles, and as an emmenagogue.
3 Even if it were, the Hiphil would not mean ' to burst.'
696
CAPERNAUM
with the remains of a wliite marble edifice and a curious
tomb two miles and a half farther west, und two miles
and a half from the mouth of the JoiJan. Between
these two the evidence is not quite conclusive.
For Tell-Huin there is usually cjuoted the evidence of
Josephus, who says that, having lieen thrown from his
To nhuB '^°''^ '" '^ skirmish with the Roman forces
P ■ in Jordan, he was carried to a village
called Kf<f>apvo}>jui)v {fiifi. 72). and thence to Tarichea;.
Even if this reading were correct, Josephus, with injuries
so slight as ho reports, might as easily have been carried
the 5 m. to Gennesaret as the two and a half to 'I'ell-
Hum, especially as his desire seems to have been to get
to Tariche;«. It is suspicious, however, that he calls
the place a village (kui/hij), and Niese fixes the proper
reading as K€<papvu}K6v. The only other evidence
Josephus gives favours Khan Minyeh. He descrilxis
(/Viii. 108) the plain of Gennesaret as watered by 'a
most copious fountain ' called by the people of the
country Capharnaum. Tliis Robinson Ijelieves to Ije
the 'Ain et-Tin, close by Khan Minyeh ; more proli-
ably it was the 'Ain el-labigah, whose waters were
conveyed in an aqueduct past the site of Khan Minyeh
into the plain. Tell-IIum, on the other hand, has
neither fountain nor spring.
The Christian and the Jewish traditions are divided.
Jerome places Capernaum 2 R. m. from Chorazin, a
K ni._;„*j datum which, if Chorazin be Kerazeh,
6. Christian . , ,,, ,, ,,_ t. 1 u' 1 e
. T j„v, agrees With I ell-Hum. So do the data of
and Jewish ,..,/■ , , , r
traditions heod<.suis(.7mz53o). who, workmg from
Magdala round the N. end of the Lake,
places Capernaum 2 R. m. on the other side of Hepta-
pegon, presumably 'Ain el-'labigah. Isaac Chilo in 1334
\Carmoly ItiiUtaires, etc., la Terre Sain/e des xiii.-
x--ii. Sih/fs, 260) came to Kefar Nachum from Irbid,
and found it in ruins with the tomb of Nahum. In
1561 the Jichiis /la-Tsrdikim {/fi. 385) mentions
Tanchum with the tombs of Nahum and Rabbi
Tanchum {c\> Jichus hu-Abot id. 448). Taking Kefar
Xachum and Tanchum as identical, some find in
'Toll-Hum 'a corruption of 'Tanchum.' This is the
case for Tell-Hum. It really rests on the evidence
of Jerome and Theodosius (for it is not certain either
that Kefar Xachum and Tanchum were identical or
that 'Tell-Hum' is derived from 'Tanchum') ; and it
is opposed to the evidence of Josephus. Yet in recent
times it has received a large increase of support (Dr.
Wilson, Lands of the Bible, '2.\y!)-\\()\ Thomson, Land
and Hk. ed. 1877, 352-356 ; Sir C. Wilson, Rain-oy
of Jerusalem, 375-387; Guc'rin, Galil. '\^i-jf.\ Schaff,
ZJil'V^ \-nff. \ Furrer, id. ^Id-x, ff. , and in Schenkel's
liib. Lex. 8495; Frei, ZDPV 2 115; van Kasteren, ib.
11 219/; Schiirer's ///'v/. 471 ; Buhl, Pal. 224/.).
On the other hand, .\rculf s description of Capernaum
(670 .\.D. ), as being on 'a narrow piece of ground
V)ctween the mountain and the lake.' suits Khan
Minyeh, but not Tell-Hum. Arculf adds that it lay
on the shore non longo circuitu from the traditional
spot on Gennesaret where the loaves were blessed.
He did not visit it, but saw from a distance that it
had no walls. Willibald's data (722 A.O. ) suit any
point l)etween Mejclel and Bethsaida, and equally in-
definitive are all other references till Isaac Chilo
in 1334 states that the town is now in ruins, but
was formerly inhabited by Minim — i.e., Jews who had
Ixicome Christians — all sorcerers (cp Neubauer, Gt'oi^.
du Taint. 221). Many find Minim in Minyeh. In
answer to objections to this (Furrer, ZDPl'2si ff;),
another derivation has I)een suggested through the older
Arabic spelling el-mutiya, common in Kgypt and Spain
for 'villa,' 'steading,' 'hamlet,' etc. = Lat. mansio, Gr.
fjiOiH) — from which it is said to be derived (Gildemeister,
y.DPJ' ii^^ff.). In any case, a place lay here in the
eleventh century called Munyat Hisham (Kazwini's
Lexicon), and in 1430 El-Munja, a village so large that
the whole lake was called after it. (Tristram gives the
697
CAPHTOR
form 'Miniyeh,' which Delitz.sch derives from Mineh,
harljour). And (Juaresniius in i6i6-a6 (Llucid. 'J'err.
Sane. 2568) says that by the site of Capernaum there
was in his time a KhSn called by the .Arabs Menieh — i.e. ,
Minyeh. Ruins have l)een found lK)th on the plain, by
Robinson {LPh' 348-358) and Merrill (/;. of Jordan,
301 /), who traced a city wall, and on the hill by
Schumacher {/.DPI' 1870).
On the whole, then, the balance of opinion is in favour
of ' Khan Minyeh.' So Robinson, Conder, Henderson
6 Probablv <^'''- '58/). Keim (Jesus. Engl. ed..
"°,* ^ '^367^). Stanley {SP 384), G. A. Sm.
Khan
Minyeh.
{//is/. Ceo^. 456/.), Ewing (in Hastings,
D/{). The site suits the biblical data,
is required by the data of Josephus, and has tradition
in its favour from the seventh century onward.
G. A. s.
CAPHARSALAMA (x(\4)<\pc&A(\M& [N'V ; so
J^yr.], KA^). Ul'S. |, (JJAPC. [*<*]. X<^P4>APCAPAMA [A] I.
the scene of .Nicanor's unsuccessful att.ick U[)on Judas.
1 Mace. 731 (cp Jos. .-/«/. .\ii. 104). The name is ob-
viously c'^e' "1B3, which is met with in the Talnmd also.
Most commentators (.Michaelis, Grimm, Keil) seek the
site somewhere to the .S. of Jerusalem, on the ground
that Nicanor's subsequent movements were first to Jeru-
.salem and then farther northwards to Heth-horon.
liwald and Schiirer, however, prefer to identify it whh
the Carva Salim mentioned in a pilgrimage of the year
1065 as near Ramleh and not far from Lydda (Ew. //is/.
ri32i, Schiir. GJV\i(x) n. ; cp Le .Strange, /\il. under
Moslems, 471/! ). In the time of the crusaders ' Capar-
salcm ' is again mentioned as a casale of the Knights
Hospitallers. Mukaddasi's location of it ' in the district
of Caesarea on the high road from Ramleh northwards '
agrees with the data in i Maccabees. In that region
we find at the present day a village .Selmeh 3 m. E. of
Joppa and Khirbet es-Sualimiyeh 6 m. farther N. across
the 'Aujeh. Kh. Deir Sellam^ 12^ m. \V. of Jerusalem
and I m. S. of the present high road to Joppa, suits the
Maccabean, but not the mediaeval data. The same
remark applies to the other Kh. Deir Sellam 4 m. N.
of Jerusalem. Cp also the important W. Selman up
which runs one of the main roads from the Maritime
I'lain to Jerusalem. G. A. s.
CAPHENATHA, RV Ciiai>hi:natha (xA(})eN<N0A
[ANV], Jl^i^amo [I-ag.], but jj^v^Aa^caa [Walton]),
a locality on the E. of Jeru.salem, which Jonathan
the Maccabee repaired {iweuKevaai), i Mace. 1237t.
The reading is uncertain, and the etymologising
attempts of the older Lighifoot and others (Kn':sr, ' un-
ripe dates,' Kn2D2, from silversmiths or some treasure
house) are best avoided. Sepp and Furrer ( 77,/, 1896,
col. 470) identify the place with the Tyroptron valley
(see Jkrls.M-KM), in which case ivtaKfvaae (dirfffKiaaaf
[\']) will have to be emended.
CAPHIRA (K&(t)ipAC [A]), I Esd. rji9 = Ezra225.
ClIKI'llIKAH.
CAPHTOR (linD? ; Dt. 2 23 Am. 9 7. KATinA-
AOKIAC [BAQL], KAnA. [F] ; Jer. 47 [6 20] 4t. om.
1 Not PrptP HN.VQ. a'b'kai KAnnA. [(.'"'^ll. also
1. woi ^>reLe. o^.^^,rring in plural form Caphtorim
(Dnh23; KA(})eopieiM [I-l om. H), Gen. IO14 (x&.
[AEJ)= I Ch. 1 12( AVCaphthorim; XA<}>op.[-\='-]) : Dt.
223t (.W Caphtorims, KAnnAAoKCC [MAFL]) ; the
land and properly the |x>ople whence came the Philistines.
In Gen. IO14 (see lielow)iand Dt. 223 Caphtorim is a
synonym for Philistines. Caphtor is now generally
identified with Crete, an important island of which the
mention is perhaps to be expected ; see Gkogkai'HV.
t The words,' whence came the Philistines,' in Gen. 10 14 should
follow 'Caphtorim.' Probably they are a misplaced (incorrect)
gloss from the margin.
698
CAPHTOR
§ 15(7). In Jer. 47 4 't is expressly called an 'k ('island'?),
and the Philistines (?) are sometimes called ' Cherethites. '
The Zeus Cretagenes in Gaza may also suggest a con-
nection of the Philistines with Crete. These are Dill-
mann's arguments. Mut ( i ) Crete does not appear to be
mentioned in the Assyrian or the Egyptian monuments ;
(2) the sense of »« is not to be limited to ' island " (BDH,
'coast, border, region'); and (3) in Jer. I.e. <5^ gives
rov% KaraXoiirov! tC>» v:/)ffo)v — i.e., the text which it
followed was without ' Caphtor ' ; the ' islands ' or
' coast-lands ' miijht be the Phoenician colonies (WMM).
As for 'Cherethites,' the current explanation, 'Cretans'
,p, (so too (5, Pesh. ), is very uncertain ; cp
■ . ,'^®" •n'jB probably = Pulasati (Purasati), which
_ . is the name of one of the trilies of sea-
pirates from the coasts of Asia Minor
which harassed I^i^ypt under Rameses III. The prob-
ability is that <ni3 is a slightly modified form of the name
of another such trilje. Now, the tribe which is constantly
coupled with the Pu-ra-sa-ti in the Egyptian inscriptions
is tliat of the Ta-k-ka-ra or Ta-ka-ra-y. It is reasonable
to infer that "rn3 is a form of Takaray, which was
Hebraised in two ways : ( i ) by placing the first con-
sonant third instead of first ('ma, as if = cut off?), and
(2) by omitting the first syllable (na ; but see Cakites).
We look to Egyptology, therefore, for light on this
problem.
According to Ebers,! Caphtor is the Egyptian Kaft-ur, ' Great
Kaft." This scholir held that Kaft was the name current in
Rijypt, first of all for the populous Phcenician
3. Caphtor not colonies in the Delta, and then, more widely,
FhOBnicia~ for the Phoenicians of Phoenicia and their
colonies. Kaft-ur would therefore mean
'Great Phoenicia' (cp Magna Graecia). This view, however,
though not without plausible justification, is no longer tenable,
as W. M. Miiller has fully shown CAs. u. Eur. z^i ff.\
Keftd is the name of a country which, together with
Asi (the Alasia of Am. Tab. ) — i.e., Cyprus — represents
-, i p-i- • the western quarter of the world in the
4. UUt l^ilicia. ^gg ^f Thotmes III. No doubt it is
Cilicia that is meant ; hence in Lepsius's Denkinaler,
63, it is mentioned with Mannus ( = Mallus, a region of
silver mines) as inhabited by the same people. E.
Meyer (who himself, however, still inclines to identify
Caphtor with Crete) writes thus^ of the land of Kaft
(i.e., Miiller's Kefto) : — ' The inhabitants of this land,
the Kafti (formerly wrongly read Kcfd) carried on a
sea trade, and possessed a richly-developed decorative
art which is closely related to the MycenjEan. Upon
the ligyptian monuments they present throughout, in
contrast with the inhabitants of the Phoenician seaports,
a wholly non-Semitic type of features, and appear in the
inscriptions as a western people outside the pale of the
Semitic world. Rightly, therefore, have Pietschmann,
Steindorff, and W. M. Miiller rejected the equation
Kaft = (jboii'iKT; of the bilingual decree of Canopus and
sought for Kaft in Asia Minor, perhaps in Cilicia.'
N^ow, when we consider that tlie sea-pirates called
Purasati and Takaray are stated to have come from the
' islands ' [i.e. , coast-lands), it is obvious that, if Purasati
(at any rate) has been rightly identified in Hebrew litera-
ture, Caphtor, whence the PClistim (Philistines) came,
must be a name for some part of the sea-board of Asia
Minor, and we may expect to find its original in the
Egyptian inscriptions. That original must surely be
Keft6 (or Kaft), which appears to have been Hebraised
as Caphtor. That Caphtorim should be called a son of
Mizraim(Gen. 10 14) is not surprising, for Caphtorim here,
as well as in Dt. '223, means, not the people of Caphtor
(the coasts of Asia Minor) but the Philistines, who, as
Miiller has shown, were subject to Egypt in Shishak's
time and earlier (cp David, § 7). It is indeed doubtful
whether either Amos or the Yahwist (J) can be pre-
sumed to have known the true meaning of Caphtor, for
1 Ag. u. die BB. Mosis, 130 jf. ['68]. So formerly Sayce,
{Prit. MffH.i-^) 136).
* In a special communication for the present work. Cp
WMM, As. u. Eur. ZAlff-
699
CAPPADOCIA
as early as the fourteenth century the name Keftd had
passed out of general use. As a name for Cilicia it
was superseded by Hilakku (see Cii.K :IA, § 2). Hence
the false tradition, identifying Caphtor with Cappa-
docia, could easily arise, just as another incorrect
tradition identifying the Cherethites with the Cretans
(on the other side see Chkrethites) arose. See
WMM, As. u. Eur. 337, 390, to whom this (probably)
right explanation of Caphtor is due. That the final
r in Caphtor still needs to be accounted for is admitted.
T. K. C.
CAPPADOCIA (KATTnAAoKiA [Ti. WH]) Acts 29
I Pet. 1 if. Cappadocia, from a similarity of sound,
was wrongly identified by the translators of (5 with
C.M'HTOR (see readings in previous article). It is
allowable, however, to find it in the Gomer (see
Geography, § 20, i) of Gen. IO2; certainly the
region called Gimir by the Assyrians was in or near
Cappadocia. A still older name for Cappadocia seems
to have been Tabal (see Tubal) ; the Tabalreans were
scattered abroad on the invasion of their lands by the
Gimirrai. The connection of Cappadocia with the
early Hittites can only be mentioned here (see HlT-
TITES).
Cappadocia is mentioned twice in the NT : Cappa-
docian Jews listened to Peter's sermon (Acts 29), and
his first epistle is addressed to Christian residents in
the province (i Pet. li). Jews must early have found
their way into this part of Asia Minor, which is inter-
sected by the commercial highways leading to Amisus
on the Euxine and to Ephesus on the .i^gean.
Strabo (534) sketches the area included under
the name of Cappadocia. In the earliest times it
embraced the entire neck of the Anatolian peninsula.
Subsequently it was split up into the two independent
monarchies of Cappadocia Proper (7; ir/)6s rep Tai''p(f>,
r\ fxeydXr]) and Pontus {ij irpbi t<^ II6vT(f) K.),
separated from each other by the broad irregular
elevation of the Tchamli Bel and Ak Dagh (Strabo,
540 ; Rams. Hist. Geogr. 315). In the south the
Pylne Cilicias and the ridge of Taurus marked the
frontier against Cilicia. Lake Tatta was part of the
western boundary. In the S\\'. Cappadocia merged
into the vast level plains of Lycaonia and South
Galatia ; eastwards it extended to the Euphrates. The
frontier varied greatly, however, at different epochs,
especially towards the N. and the E. Cappadocia
is a cold elevated table-land, intersected by mountains,
deficient in timber, but excellent for grain and grazing
(Str. 73, 539). Its chief export seems to have been
slaves (Hor. i^/. i. 639: Mancipiis locuples eget crris
Cappadocum rex) ; but they were not of much account
(Cic. Post Red. 614). Red ochre (Zu'WTrtKTj yoiXros :
Str. 540) of good quality was exported : the em-
porium was Ephesus — not Tarsus, as we might have
expected. Several monarchs of Cappadocia Proi^er
bore the name Ariarathes (cp i Mace. I522). Its last
king, Archelaus, was deposed by Tiberius, who reduced
the country to the form of a province, in 17 A. D. (Tac.
Ann. 242; Jos. Ant. xvi. 46).
In Imperial times the C.-xppadocian ro.ids fall into three
groups :—(x) those on the north, and (2) those on the south, of
the river Halys, in both cases leading eastwards to the fords of
the upper Euphrates ; (3) transverse roads leading northwards
from the Cilician Gates : one of the chief among these last was
that which afterwards became the pilgrims' route to the Holy
Land (Rams. of>. cit. 255). The capital, Mazaca (Ma^<uta, from
Mosoch, the ancestor of the Cappadocians: Jos. Ant. 1. li i. Gen.
10 2), occupied a central position actually upon the Euphrates
trade-route, at the northern foot of Mt. Argseus. It was re-
founded by Claudius, who gave it the name Caesarea, about 41
A.V). Because of the strength of the new religicm in it, Julian
expunged it from the list of cities. By his time the whole
town had been christianized (irai/fiijinei Xpcirriai-i^oi'Te?) and its
great temples of Zeus Poliuchus and Apollo Patrous had long
been destroyed (.Sozom. HE U\: Rams. of>. cit. 303). This
is the more remark ible as southern Cappadocia was the strong-
hold of the worship of Ma (Enyo), whose priest rivalled the
king himself in power (Str. 535). At the time of Strabo 's visit
the Hieroduli of the temple numbered over six thousand, and
700
CAPTAIN
almost all the [wople of Comana were connected directly ur in-
directly with the worship. At Vcnasa there was a similar
cstahlishnicnt dcvolcil to the worship of Zeus (Sir. 537, Hams.
•/. cit. 392). It is only in later ecclesiastical history that the
towns of^C.-jppadocia are celeliratcd— j-.^., Nyssa, ISIazian;Jus,
Samosata, Tyana. For the Chri.stianity of Cappadocia, see
Rams. Ch. in K. /;«//.(»» 443.^ W. J. W.
CAPTAIlf . The lavish use of this old Knglish word
in KV is |)cr|ilcxing. We shall mention the words
which it represents, suggesting in some cases substitutes.
EV is by no means consistent : the words referred to are
sometimes rendered differently (cp Ofkicek, I'RINCK,
Ruler).
I. lia'al, 7j,'a in rinpS 3, properly 'one who was on the
watch,' Jer. 37i3t.
a. liphsilr, TODO Jer. 51 37, Nah. 8 17 (RV ' marshal "). See
Scribe.
3. Si\g1d, TJ3 I S. 13 14, prop, the foremost one ; hence
■prince' [RV usu.illy) or ' leader " [EV 1 Ch. 12 27 13 i).
4. Kilsl, K'ir: Nu. 23 etc. (RV 'prince'; better 'chief '—/.^.,
one who is entrusted with authority). In Kzekiel often for the
.secular head of the Messianic kingdom. Often too in P if.g-,
Nu. 1 16 2 3).
5. Pihdh, nnD a K. I824 Is. 869. Here and here only the
word means 'general ' ; a glossator (see SBOT, Is.) used it in a
wrong sense. Elsewhere it means ' governor,' ' satrap ' (see
GOVKRNOK, i).
6. Kiifin, I'S^ Jud. Il6 (a 'decider'—/.^., chieftain, RV
'chief,' except Dan. 11 18).
7. Kai, 3T in late Heb. for 11, e.g., 2 K. 258, 'captain of
the guard ' (.\Vn>K- ' chief marshal ' ).
8. Kdi. c'K-i ' head,' Nu. 14 4 1 Ch. 11 42 (RV ' chief) ; 2 Ch.
18 12 (RV ' he.id ') ; cp Government, § 26 n.
9. Saint, 1i'\v Dan. 215; syn. with 'captain (an see 7) of
the guard,' r. 14.
10. Sails, IT'Sr 2 K. S> 25 ; see Akmy, § 4, Chariot, § 10.
II. Sar, nir in 'explain of the host,' i K. 1 25 ; 'captain of
thousands, hundreds,' i S. 22 7. Elsewhere ' prince,' even Is.
10 rt and 31 9 (where read 'captains '). See Army, § 4, Govern-
MliNT, § 21.
12. 13. 14. Three words mistranslated 'captain' are T|, n|,
and »]?^N in 2 K. 11 4 19, Ezek. 21 22 (AVniff. and RV 'battering
ranis') and Jer. 13 21 respectively.
The (Jrcek words are : —
15. opxijyos Heb. 2 10 (RV 'author'), prop, 'one who takes
the lead ' ; cp i Mace. IO47 Heb. 12 2.
16. o-TpaT>)-ybs ToO Itpov (I,k. 22 4 5' Acts 4 i etc.), the com-
mander of the temple Levites ; see Army, 8 6-
17. <rrpaTO»r«5<ipx»)? Acls2S 16 (RV after K[.\Bom.]), 'captain
of the guard,' a military tribune ; cp Jos. />'/ ii. 19 4.
18. x"'^'apxo« J"- !'> '2, chiliarch, see Ar.mv, § 10.
CAPTIVITY, EXILE. These parallel and practi-
cally synonymous expressions ('ac', .T3t:', n'3B', v^'^'X"
/ioXwTfi'eti', -ri^fiv, ^uyptiv, and nS:, niS:, ^'nSj, ' to
strip, make bare [a country],' fieroLKi^fiv, etc. ) occur
together in such phrases as ' the captives of Egypt
and the e.xiles of Ethiopia' (riD ni'''J-nN1 D'lsD "ivnK ;
Is. 2O4), ' into e.xile, into captivity shall they go" (nSlJ3
isS' '3t;-a ; Ezek. 12 n), 'the children of the captivity
which were come out of exile' (nVun-'^a '3r~0 D'Kan ;
Ezra 835). The captivity and exile incidental to conquest
are intended. On what is known as The Captivity or
Exile par excellence, see Israel, § 32^, and cp
Dispersion.
In Is. 51 14 nys (EV 'the captive exile") means, literally,
nothing more than ' he that is bent down ' (see RVnitj), but
the text is corrupt (see Che. SBOT, ' Isa.,' Addenda). In
Js.22i7 -'tj^TS. 'will carry thee aw.iy with a mighty captivity,'
in AV, ought to be rendered, as in RV, ' will hurl thee away
violently.'
CARABASION (kapaBacCeIicon [HA]. E om.)in
I Esd. 9 34 .seems to stand for the ' Vaniah and Meremoth '
of II rj!ral036.
CARAVAN nnnX,' which is properly the fern, col-
1 Strictly, the rendering rests upon the change of finiK and
rSmn (' ways,' cp AV) into n'irriKi which b supported by most
moderns.
CARCHEMISH
lective form of HIX, ' a traveller,' Jud^,' 56 RV"*-, Job
618/ RV ; elsewhere (in CJen.;i7.5 Is. 21 13), '(travel-
ing) company," which in JobGiyrcprcicuis n^vH. See
Trade .^^I) Commerce.
CARBUNCLE is given in RV^e- as rendering ndpAei.
T\^2 {& ANBpAi). for which EV has 'emerald.' Both
renderings are uncertain ; for a third, see E.MKRAl.D.
Whilst under the head of carbunculus Pliny prob-
ably includes the ruby, which is simply the red
corundum, and the spinel, we may with safety assume
that neither of these stones can have licen in the high-
priest's breastplate. For, Jlrit, there is no proof that
the ruby, which is only found in Ceylon and in Hurmah,
or the siiinel, were known to the Hebrews and their
neighbours any more than they were to the Greeks till
after the time of Theophrastus ; secondly, owing to its
hardness the ruby has hardly ever been engraved on,
and any instances that are known Ix^long to the late
Roman period. On the other hand, '1 heopliraslus
{La/>. 18) descriljes his carbuncle {AvOpaC^} as a stone
red in colour {ipudpbu fiif ti^ xP'^Moti, jr/j6s 5^ t6v
ijXiov Ti.04ix(vov AfOpaKOi Kaiofxivov irotei xpoav), a
statement that fits well the carbuncle, and tells us that
it was engraved for signets (i^ &v kuI to. a<Ppayi5ia
yXi'xpovaiv). The nophck of the breastjjlate may
therefore have been a garnet. See, further, Precious
Stones.
2. On the np-^a ofEx.28i7 89ioEz. 2813! (EV 'carbuncle*)
see Emerald.
3. On the rniJK ':2K of Is. 54i2t (EV 'carbuncle') see
Crystai,. vv. r.
CARCAS (D3-13 ; GaraBa [BNL(^)], oaBaz [A]).
a chamberlain of Ahasuerus (Esth. 1 10).
CARCHEMISH (^J'^D?"!?. in Jer. and Is. CrbSIS ;
Egyptian A'a-ri-ka-ma'i('})-I<i ; early Babylonian [circa
2200 B. C. ] Karkamis ; 1 Assyrian Gargamil, Gargarmei),
a city on the Euphrates (Jer. 462 ; so also Sargon, la
kisad Piiratti[see'^"\. Sargon, 172]).
The readings of the versions are : Jer. 46 2 xapM<'« ["".Al,
(tapxa/m. ((,)] ; 2 Ch. 35 20 .\V Cl/ARCHFMlSlf. xapxafi- 1 l.j. H.\
om. ; cp I Esd. 1 23 (25) A V CHARCHAMIS xapxa/iu^ ( IJ], itaAxo/i.
[.\], xa.p\a^ii<; [L] ; in Is. 10 9 CCSISJ ''■ represented by ttji'
^utpav •riji' (ndvtt) Ba/SvAuirof [HR.\Q] [?] ; Charcatnis.
The site of Carchemish was fixed by G. Smith, shortly
before his death at Aleppo in 1876, as being at Jerabis
on the W. bank of the Euphrates. .Such, at
least, apixjars to be the most probable form of
the name (G. Smith in his latest diary speaks also of
a place called Yaraboloos). Maundrell gave the name
as Jerabolfls (Bohn's ed. 508) ; Sayce (Hist. Nev., Jan.
1888, p. 109, n. ) adopts Jerablils for Carchemish on
the authority of Skene, Wilson, and Trowbridge. The
form Jerabis is that heard by Sachau (Reise in Syrien,
168) ; and Pococke long ago gave Jerabecs as the
name of a place distinct from Hierapolis ( Travels in
the East, 2 164). Jerabis (variously spelled) is there-
fore adopted by .'^^chrader, Delitzsch, G. Hoffmann, and
Professor W. Wright of Cambridge ; Peters, however
[S'ippur, text, map, and index), adopts Jerabus [sic).
Jerabis is the plural form of Jirbas given by Yakut.'-'
If Jerablus were correct it would still remain to be
shown historically how Hierapolis (of which it is an
obvious corruption) came to be applied to the ruins of
Carchemish, seven hours away. The Syrian Hierapolis-
Mabug (the Turkish Benibi, from Greek Ba^/it^v?;, cp
Ass. lia-am-bu-ki), to which the name Jerabliis certainly
does belong, was the seat of the worship of the Arama?an
1 Cun. Texts from Bab. T.-ib., etc. in the British Museum.
Pt. ii. no. I, obv. 8 ; no. 6, obv. 11.
2 Nold. and Hoffmann identify with the Greek Europe? or
Oropos (Syr.form Aghropos). Yakut's words (2688) are:
' D.-iir ^Cinnisri is on the E. bank of the Euphrates in the region
of el-Jeziraand Diyar Mudar, opposite Jirbhs (Jirbis is SyrianX
From Dair IjLinnisri to Manbig the distance is four farsahs, and
from Dair IjLinnisri to Sarfl^ seven farsahs.'
1. Site.
CARCHEMISH
goddess Atargatis (g.v.). G. Smith's words are (see
Del. Par. 266/), ' Grand site[;] vast walls and palace-
mounds 8000 feet round [;] many sculptures and mono-
liths with inscriptions [;] site of Karchemesh. ' Some of
the sculptures and inscriptions are now in the British
Museum. The ruins extend half a mile from N. to
S. by a quarter of a mile from W. to E. (Pococke,
i.e.).
Carchemish was the northern capital of the Hittite
empire, the Assyrian mat Hatti, clearly a great trade
_. . centre, and seems to have been a fortress-
^* city commanding the principal ford of
the Euphrates on the trade route from the Mesopotaniian
plains into Syria. As the mounds lie between Berejik
and the junction of the Sajur with the Euphrates, it is
certain that a strong force at Carchemish could block
the route of an Egyptian army into Assyria. About
1600 B.C. the army of Thotmcs III. had to meet the
people of Ka-ri-ka-mai(?)-sa (W'.MM, Asien, 263) ; and
the I'2gyptian captain Amenemhbe took some of the
inhabitants prisoners. Tiglath-pileser I. [circa iioo
B.C.) says that he defeated and plundered people be-
longing to the city of Carchemish, and when the rest
fled and crossed the Euphrates he sent his troops across
on floats of inflated skins and burnt si.x cities at the
foot of Mount Bisri (A'/>l32, /. 49 ff.). It is clear that
his victory did not give command of the ford and that
he did not take the city itself. Asur-nasir-pal (circa
880 B. c. ) received from Sangara, king of (mat Hatti)
the Hittites, in the neighbourhood of Carchemish, tribute,
the magnitude and variety of which attest the wealth
and prosperity of the land (A'Z?lio6, /. 65^.). Shal-
maneser II. about 858 B.C. defeated an alliance of
Sangara with his neighbours and received an enormous
tribute from him {k'B\i62, I. 27 ff.). On the bronze
gates of Balawat a picture of the fortress is twice given
in relief. Sargon II. in 717 B.C. actually captured the
city, took its king Pisiris prisoner, deported its people,
and settled Assyrians in it (A'/?238, //. 10, 22 ; Wi.
Sarg., passim). From this time it was the capital of
a regular province of Assyria, and had its own saknii
or governor, who took his place among the Eponyms
(692 B.C.). A strong proof of its commercial import-
ance is afforded by the fact that by far the most common
unit of monetary value in Assyria down to the last was
the maneh of Carchemish. On the battle of Carchemish
in 605 B.C., see Egypt, § 68 ; Isk.\el, § 40.
See further Hittites, and cp Maspero, Dc Carchemis of>pidi
situ, etc., Struge:le of Nations, 144/; Schr. A'G/'" ('78), p.
221 ff.; G. HofTmann, Ahkamil. /. d. Kunde dcs Morgcnl.
(D. M. C), vii. no. 3, p. 161: Del. Par. 265-268 ; Wright, PSR.A,
1880-81, pp. y>/.; iSIenant, Kar-Kdniis, sa position, ttlc, 1891.
C. H. \V. J.
CAREAH ( K(\pHe [BA]) 2 K. 2023 AV, RV Kareah,
CARIA(thn Kd.piAN[XV], t. -i^a[-A]), the southern
part of the Roman province of Asia, mentioned as one
of the countries to which a Roman note in favour of
the Jews was sent in 139 B.C. (i Mace. 1023) ; see Mac-
cabees, First, § 9. At that date Caria was autonomous.
Previously the greater portion had been assigned to
Rhodes (in 189 B.C.), but after the war with Perseus
(168 B.C., cp I Mace. 8s Pol. 30 5) it was declared free.
After 129 B.C. Caria was part of the province of Asia
(Cic. Pro. Flac. 65). Jews were settled in many Carian
towns — Cnidus, Halicarnassus, Myndus, Miletus — and
in the islands off the coast — Cos, Rhodes, etc.
w. J. w.
CARITES (nsn), used thrice in RV of the royal
body-guard, 2 K. 114 19 (.W Captains ; ton XOppCell
[B.\L], xopei [A 7'. 19], and 2 S. 20 23 mg. (so Kt.,
Kr. wrr;, EV Ciieretmites \q.v.\ xeAeGGei [B],
Xepe. [A], TOY TtAinGiOY [L, see Benaiah]). Perhaps
the Carians, the famous mercenary folk (cp, e.g. , Herod.
2152), are meant (see Dr. ad loc, Caria, above, and
, cp Cherethites). Even so, we must not infer a real
703
CARMBL
acquaintance with the western part of Asia Minor.
The name may have meant little more than foreigners.
(For another view see Capmiok, § 2.) f. b.
CARMANIANS, RV Carmonians (Carmonii [ed.
BenslyJ, -mini [.-\*], -;/<? [.\**]), for which some MSS
read Armenii, on the principle of substituting the un-
known for the known, a people, mentioned in the ' vision
horrible' (4 Esd. l.')3o), who were to go forth 'as the
wild boars of the wood ' and ' waste a portion of the
land of the .Assyrians with their teeth' (so RV) ; see
Swine. They are probably the inhabitants of Kerman
a province on the N. shore of the Persian gulf, lying to
the W. of Gedrosia. Kerman is now the name of a
province in the SE. of Persia.
In language and customs they were akin to the Persians
They were not unknown to ancient classical authors (e.g.,
Nearchus, Arrian Ind. 38 ; Strabo, 15 727, the latter of whom
gives a very gruesome account of some of their crueltiesX
The events hinted at in the vision probably refer to the
conquests of the Sassanides, more especially of Shdpur
or Sapor I. (242-273 A.d. ), and to their expeditions
against Valerian (258 A.D.) and other generals. We
may thus see in the wasting of a ' portion of the land
of the Assyrians ' (v. 30) Sapor's expedition towards
the NW. where he overran Syria and destroyed
Antioch. The dragons of .Arabia (v. 29 ; cp the ' fiery
flying serpents ' of Is. 306) would then be the Arabian
forces of Odenathus and Zenobia, who drove him back
beyond the Euphrates ; and the retaliation described
in V. 33 would refer to the repulse of the Palmyrene
troops, their dislodgment from the banks of the Orontes,
and the fall of Zenobia at the hands of Aurelian
(272 A.D. ).
See E^SDKAS, FOURTH BOOK OF, § 5 {h). [For the history of
this period cp WRS, ' Palmyra,' and No. ' Persia," A/H'JK]
CARME (XAPMH [B.\]) I Esd. 525. AV=Ezra239
Harim, I.
CARMEL ("PO-I? orhm;3r}—i.e.. 'the garden-land';
KAPMhAoc [B.\L]). I. (.Sometimes also Sai^n nri,
1 Name and '^P'^^ """^ kapmhAion-) The name
Carmel, which is properly a common
*^ ■ noun meaning a plantation of choice
trees (cp Span, carmen), is employed both with and
(Josh. 1926 Jer. 46i8 Nah. I4) without the article as the
proper name of a mountain. The reference is to the
richly wooded character which Mt. Carmel had anciently
and possesses still in a large degree (cp 'The Black
Forest ' ).
It is convenient to distinguish three separate applica-
tions of the name : (i) as denoting the range of hills
extending for some 12 or 13 miles from the sea coast
in the NW. to the W. el-Milh in the SE. ; (2) as
including also the farther prolongation (called er-
Ruhah) of this range for other 12 or 13 miles in a
south-easterly direction, as far as to the neighbourhood
of Jenin ; (3) as designating the promontory or head-
land in which the range ends at its northern extremity,
leaving only a narrow passage between the mountain
and the sea. The range and the promontory combine
to form a striking feature in the configuration of Palestine.
The symmetrical arrangement by which the country as
a whole falls into longitudinal sections, running north
and south, distingu shed as the littoral zone, the hill-
country, and the zone of the Ghor (see Palestine,
§ 6/.), is broken by Carmel alone, intruding into the
Mediterranean plain, and interrupting the continuity of
the mountain zone so as to form the plain of Jezreel.
' Topographically it is thus important ; and, though
Carmel is not often expres.sly named, the presence of
this natural barrier and the adjoining plain had a
considerable influence on the course of immigrations
or invasions from the time of the Philistines and Pharaoh
Necho down to that of Bonaparte.
The eastern slope of Carmel falls sharply towards
the plain of Esdraelon ; but westward its declivity
704
CARMEL
towards the Mediterranean is gentle. On this side its
CDiitifjiiration presents a series of divergent buttresses
n U * sejiarated by valleys and oixning up like
* a fan towards the coast. This western
region, properly, belongs to the massif of Carinel,
and Conder says, quite rightly. 'Carmel is Ijcst
deseril>ed as a triangular block of mountains.' From
the summit of tiie main range and, indeed, from
almost every [xjint along the ridge extensive views to
Sf)uth and north are obtained, and Carmel in turn is
visible and conspicuous from a great variety of distant
points. The range reaches a maximum elevation of
1810 feet a little to tlie south of the village of 'Msfiyeh.
Ocolu^ically it is cretaceous and nummuliiic limestone, con-
taining fo.ssil cchinoderms and 'gcodes' — /'.^., .silicious contre-
lioiis known as septarium or vulgarly as cats' heads, called by
the ancient \i\\^nm«. lapiiiti juiiiiici or KUJah's melons (l.ortct.
La Syrie ifaujounfhui, 172). There are many caves, and sonic
volcanic rocks. The fauna includes the roelnick, the leopard,
and the wild rat. The flora, which is luxuriant, is wholly
wild. The most common trees are the pine, oak, lentisk, carob,
olive ; traces of modern agriculture are to be found only in the
neighl)ourhood of the villages and of the sea-coast. It was
otherwise in ancient times, as is shown by the very name (above,
g 1). At various points in the range ancient wine and oil
presses have been discovered, and traces of Roman n«ds have
been pointed out to the present writer by Dr. .Schumacher.
There is every ground for believing that formerly
Carmel was covereil much more luxuriantly than n is
- OT rAff ""^^' H""nce the comparison m Cant. 7 5[6]
3. Ul ren. ^.jf^j^^^ ,^^.^^ j^ ,,^g Carmel'), and the allu-
sion to the • sjilendour of Carmel' in Is. 352. Its pro-
minence is referred to in Jer. 4618, where it is said that
the king of Babylon will come ' like Tabor among the
mountains and like Carmel by the sea.' In conjunc-
tion with Sharon, Lebanon, and Bashan, Carmel serves
as a type for a land that has been singularly blessed
by (iod (Jer. .^iOig Mic. Tm). The devastation of Carmel
implies the severest chastisement for Israel (Is. 889 Jer.
426 .\m. I2 Nah. I4). Its thick woods offered shelter
to the fugitive, as .Amos (93) indicates in an allusion
that admits of explanation without supposing that the
mountain was held to give protection against Yahw6
(for the i'ea cp Ps. I397-12). The passages which
assign to IClisha an abode on Carmel do not necessarily
mean that he was comix-lleti to seek an asylum there
(2 K. 225 425). In the time of Strabo Carmel was still
a place of refuge for the p>er.secuted (I6759).
We cannot say with certainty to which tribe Carmel
belonged.
'fhe one reference in this cmmection (Josh. 19 26) in the
delimitation of .\sher is somewhat enigmatical (see Ashkk, § 3),
and in any case tan relate only to the extreme headland. The
trilies of Manasseh, Is.sachar,and Zebulun must all have touched
on C.irmel. Ooubtless the tribal limits varied from age to age,
and there must have been periods of Pha;nician ascendancy.
In later times ("armel belonged now to Samaria, now
to Galilee, sometimes even to the province of Tyre.
In Ahab's time it certainly formed [xirt of the do-
minions of that monarch, and it Ix-came the .scene of
the memorable contest between Elijah and the prophets
of Raal.
Tradition places the scene, and the altar of Yahwi which Elijah
repaired, at a point called KI-MohrakaC place of burning '), where
there is a Roman Catholic sanctuary 1 700 feet above the sea-level,
two hours south from' Esftyeh. Beneath this spot, at the base of
the mountain, near the Kishon, there is a hillock, the so-called
Tell-el-KassIs (' hill of the priest,' not ' of the priests '), which is
pointed to — but, of course, with no historical certainty — as the
place where the prophets of Haal were put to death.
There are no data for fixing the scene of i K. 18 in
one locality more than another, and tf. 41-46 leave us
as much in the dark as the rest of the narrative. Some
interpreters take the 'mountain' in 2K. I9-15 to be
Carmel ; but it is natural to look for it somewhere
on the road Ixjtween Samaria and Ekron. It h.-is also
l)een supjiosed to be intended in Dt. 33i9 (' Issachar
.nnd Zebulun . . . shall call the peoples unto the
mountain'); but 'what mountain is meant is quite
indeteniiinate. There may have been more than one
mountain sanctuary in Zebulun and Issachar ; and the
reference may be to these generally ' ( Ur. ad loc. ).
23 705
CABMI
Carmel had a widespread rejiutation for sanctity.
Thotmes III. has been quoted as a witness. Mas|xro,
. rw*i,«_ ~^m i'l fa*-"', thinks that he can recogtii.se
*• "*°" ""• the • holy headland ' (rnp cKi) of Carmel
in the name Ru-4Q-kds, no. 48 in the Palestinian place-
list of Thotmes III. {NH<->h^^) ; but this is uncertain.'
Jamblichus(/'i/. J'ylh.3 i5)asserts that Pythacoras sojourned
on Carmel. Tacitus (Hi^t-'-l^) speaks of it as a place con-
secrated by the presence of an oracle, Ix-sidc an aliar that
was unadorni-d by any ima^e of the deity. Suetonius (/ Vj/. 5)
relates that Vespasian s.icriticed at this sfKit, and heard from the
priests the prophecy of his greatness. Among
6. Later times. Alahommcdans the memory of Elijah is in-
<liss<)lubly .issociated with Carmel, which the
Arabs to this d.iy call Jclxrl .Mar Ely.-.s, Mount St. Elias, where
they have set up wclys and mosques in his honour.
Still greater h.as its importance been in the Christian
world. Many anchorites established themselves there
from the earliest times. In 1156 St. Berthold of
Calabria founded the order of Carmelites and built
their first monastery at the north-western extremity of
the range near ' Elijah's grotto.'
In 1253 the monastery was visited by St. Ix>uis (Louis IX.)
of France, who is sometimes, but wrongly, represented as its
fou'ider. Dedic.ited to 'Our lady of Mount Carmel,' it has
had a very chequered historj'. The Carmelites were often per-
secuted ; and their house was destroyed or turned into a mosque.
In 1799 it was used as a hospital for the sick and wounded of
Napoleon's army. In 1821 it was destroyed by 'Abdallah-pasha ;
but a Carmelite friar, (iiovanni liattista di Frascati, success-
fully undertook to collect funds for its restoration. The present
building, 560 feet above the sea-level, is due to his efforts ; by its
side stands a lighthouse. ' FJijah's grotto' forms the crypt of
the church ; another grotto near, which formerly belonged to
the Christians bat has now been taken by the Moslems, is
represented as having harboured a school of the prophets in
Elijah's time, and as having given shelter to the Holy Family on
their return from Egypt.
A little way above the monaster)-, on the crest of the
hill, a large sanatorium {l.uftkurhaus) has been built
by the German colony in Haifa.
^ These colonists pursue agriculture on the sIojkjs of Mount
Carmel, and, by their success in vine-culture es|>ecially, have
d"nionstrated the possibility of bringing b.ick to the scene of
their labours some portion of its ancient prosperity.
Besides papers in PKFQ, .see especially v. .Schuljert, Rrist in
das Moi-genland, 8202-220; Guerin, Palestine: Samarie,
2240-250, 260-273; Furrer, W'andertingen
6. Literature, durch das heil. Latuii-\ 317-329; Conder,
Tent-Uork, 88-95: (lASm. //(/ 337-340;
L. Gautier, Souvenirs de 'Jerie-Sainte^"^^, 227-248. Lu. G.
2. A town in the hill-country of Judah (Josh. I555)
{XfpfJ-f\ [B.\L]), the scene of incidents in the life of
Saul (i S. L'.i2i and David (i S. 252 f.).'^ The gentilic
•Sp-iliri, Carmelite (Kap/iTJXtos), is apjilied to David's
wife Abigail [^.v.. i] (2S. 22 KapurjXdTov [A], etc.)
and to Hkzro(i Ch. 11 37). The town is mentioned
(Xep/uaXa, Carrnr/a) hyV.us. and Jer. ((^A n03i27276/. )
as situated 10 m. from Hebron, and as having a Roman
garrison. It is the modern Karmal, 2887 ft. alx)ve
the sea-level, about 8 K. m. SIC. from Hebron (accord-
ing to Robinson, who thinks Eusebius and Jerome have
exaggerated the distance ; see also Palestine Survey
map, sheet xxiv. ). Robin.son speaks of the ruins as
' extensive ' ; the principal ruin is that of the castle, which
he assigns to Herod or the Romans, but Conder to 12th
century .\. n. The site is upon the edge of the wilder-
ness of Jud.-ea ; but to the west the land is broad and
fertile, not unlike scenes of upland agriculture in Scotland.
The name Carmel is therefore suitable. There are many
remains of vineyard terraces, and a reservoir.
G. A. S.
CARMI (W3. § 70; xaPm[€]i [R-AFL]), appar-
ently shortened from lieth-hac-cerem * or Beth-haccarmi
[see T.miciikmomtk], and note in Josh. I559 the name
Carem (karcaa [BAL]).
1 More precisely, Maspero places the tmvn of Rosh Kodshu
on the slope of the promontory (Struggle f/ the Aatioiis, 136 ;
ZA, 1879, p. 55). W. .M. Midler (As. u. Eur. 165), however,
points out that the grouping of the names proves that Ru-
sa-kd$ cannot have been fiir from Carmel.
2 Carmel ought also to be read for Rachal in iS. SOag; so
©HI . See Rachal.
S In that oue it cannot be compared with the Nab. n. pc
706
CARMONIANS
1. Father of Achan (?.f.) ; Josh. 7 1 18 [R om.] i Ch. 2 7t. In
I Ch. 4i Carmi, el>ewhcre c.illed son of Zabdi (or iCh. 26 of
Zimri), is m.ide sor. of Judah ; but we should rather read
Cheluhai (cp 29) with We.
2. b. Reuben, sui>jK)sed ancestor of the Carmltes ('D13n)i
Gen. 40 9 Ex.614 Nu.266 iCh. 631.
CARMONIANS (Carmonii [ed. Bensly]). 4 Esd. 15
30, AV C.\RM.\NIANS.
CARNAIM (kapnain [AXV]). i Mace. 543/: and
Camion (karnion [AV]), 2Macc. I221. See Ash-
T.vKoni.
CAROB TREE (to Kep&TiON [Ti. WH]), Lk. 15 16
RV"'K Sec Hl'sk.s.
CARPENTER {XV t^'lH. 2 Sam. 5 n ; tcktcon. Mt.
1355). See Handicrafts, § 2.
CARPUS (KApnoc [Ti. WH]) appears to have been
Paul's host at Troas ; it was with him that the aposile
left the cloak and books mentioned in 2 Tim. 4 13. He
is named in the lists of ' the seventy disciples of our
Lord' compiled by the Pseudo-Dorotheus and Pseudo-
Hippolytus (see Disciple, § 3) as bishop of Bercea in
Thrace.
CARRIAGE. This English word, which has else-
where in KV, with various special applications as
indicated by the context, the obsolete sense of ' some-
thing carried,' is found in the sense of ' vehicle' in Lev.
159, RV"'?- (see Saddle), and perhaps in iS. ITzo
257, AV"'c- (see Camp, § i, War).
CARSHENA (N3L;n3) in Esth. 1 14 MT, one of the
' seven princes ' at the court of Ahasuerus. ©'s equiva-
lent seems to be apKeffatos [HN'^^AL^], -caoi [^*]r
whence Marq. {Fund. 67) would restore njc^-ii ; cp O.
PcTS. 7t>ariM'i/id, 'wolfish.' See Admatha.
CART (n^U') I S. 67. See Chariot, § 2.
CARVING, CARVED WORK. See Handicrafts.
CASEMENT (nrJ'X), Prov. 76, RV Lattice (§2(2)).
CASIPHIA (X"'QD3). An unknown place, near
Ahava and Babylon, whence Ezra obtained Iddo (i. ),
the chief man there, and his brethren ' the Nethinim,
Ezra 8 17 {Macrcpev rod tottov [L])=i Esd. 845 [47] (see
below ).
The other renderings are based on the connection of x'SD3
with <"|D3 'silver, money,' Ezr.1817 (apyvpioi rov Tonov [BA]) =
I Esd. 8 45 [47], EV 'the pl.ice of the treasury' (rwron-oi [toO]
ya^O<i)vKa.KtOV [HA], T. T. TUlf -Kl'lOl' [L], . . . TOIS fv T. T.
ya.^o<^vKa.^iv [13.\L]). It is perhaps possible that thi< place was
no town, but merely a college, or a locality where Levites
were educated (cp He.-Ry. Kzr. ad loc.).
CASLEU (xAceAey [AN"^-^]) i Macc.ls4 AV. See
Chisi.ki;.
CASLUHIM (D^n^p?, Gen.l0i4 iCh.lijf). See
Geography, § 15 (3).
CASPHOR, in i Mace. .'^36 AV Casphon (xACct)CON
[X] : KA- [V] ; xAC(t)coe [A], but in --. 26 KAC(t)a)p
[.VN":*], KAI CKACJJW [V], KACc{)a> [X*]; Jos. Ant. xii.
83. XAC4>0MAKH. etc. , where m&KH = the nameMaked),
a town of Gilead (see under B(jsor), taken by Judas
the Maccabee in his campaign beyond Jordan ( i Mace.
536). It is doubtless the same as the Caspis, RV
Caspin (see Gkphyrun), of 2 Mace. 1213 (KAcn[e]lN
[V.\], A'aspa [Syr.]), a fortress described as strong and
fenced about with walls and near a lake 2 stadia broad.
These data suit the present el-Muzeirib, the great
station on the II.ijj road, which is not identified with
any other OT name (but see .XsiiTAROTH, § 2), and
in antiquity must have Ix^en a place of importance : its
ancient name has not been recovered.
The identification of Casphon with Khisfin (see Furrer, in
Riehm's Ull'B 1 834^;) is philologically improbable, and has no
I For vnK '(to) his brother,' we must read VnKI, 'and (to)
his brethren," with Vg. and I! i Esd. ©bal.
CASTOR AND POLLUX
special recommendation. With Khisfin cp Talm. Ha.sfi\-a. On
Muzeirib see Schum.icher, Across Jordan, 157^ There is
another large lake, el K hob, 16 m. N. of iMuzeirib. G. A. S.
CASSIA represents two Hebrew words. i. ,Tip
(Ex. 30 24 Ezek. 27i9t) appears, along with myrrh,
cinnamon, calamus, and olive oil, as an ingredient of the
holy anointing oil. It is mentioned, along with bright
iron and calamus, among the wares brought into the
Tyrian market. The origin of the word is unknown,
nor is it found in any of the cognate languages : some
have thought that it reappears in the kittC) spoken of by
Dioscorides (1 12) as one species of cassia.
(G(BAl-L renders Tpij in Ex. 3O24, where Ka<r<ria, (v^aXor), and
Koo-Tot are mentioned in other M.SS as alternative renderings :
in Ezek. 27 19, where ®"AQ omits, Aq. has (nrapriov, Sym.
trTOKTri, and "Tlieod. KaiSSa. Pesh. and Targ. identify it with the
niyxp or ' cassia ' of Ps. 458 [9] (see below).
Scholars are agreed that probably what is intended is
some kind of cassia.
Celsius (2 186) notices the mention in Mish. AV/. i. § 8 of
nj^S riip, 'white cassia,' as cultivated in Palestine; but this,
according to Low (349), must have been quite a different plant.
2. n'lysp Ps. 45 8 [9], the word which passed into
Greek as Kaala'^ and thence into other languages,
is almost certainly a derivative of the root ysp ( = Ar.
kada'a), to 'scrape' — properly 'to reduce to fine dust'
(WRS in /. Phil. I671/). A 'powdered fragrant
bark' is thus indicated. The word is too general to
allow of certain identification with any particular species ;
but probably what is intended is something akin to the
modern 'cassia bark' (i.e., the bark of other kinds of
Cinnamormim than that which yields the true cinnamon).
The use of the Heb. plural to denote a substance of
this kind is natural. ^ The word in the singular is found
as a female name ; see Keziah.
Fl. and Hanb., Pliarm.fi) 519, say: 'That cinnamon and
cassia were extremely analogous is proved by the remark of
Galen, that the finest cassia differs so little from the lowest
quality of cinnamon that the first may be used for the second,
provided a double weight of it be used."
A very probable source of cassia is C innatnomum iners^ Bl.
The Pharmacopwia indica says : ' May be used as a substitute
for Cinnamon, to which it can hardly be reckoned inferior.'
C. iners occurs in S. India and throughout the Malayan region.
It yielded the 'cassia bark' once so largely exported from N.
Canara. See Cinnamon. n. M. — W. T. T.-D.
CASTANETS (DTJWO), 2 S. 6 st RV. See Music,
§3(3)-
CASTLE. Two buildings are distinguished in AV
by this title: (i) the ' citv [rather, citadel] of David'
in I Ch. II5 (nniVP) 7 (HV^)' ^'^^'■^^ ^^ harmonizes
with 2S. 5? by rendering 'strong hold,' and (2) the
barracks (lit. camp) attached to the fort Antonia (Acts
21 34 37; xa/jcju^oXi)). See Jerusalem, Temple.
3. RV also gives the title to the btrah^ (nT3) of Susa (AV
'palace '). See Palace, Shushan ; also Fortress, Tower.
4. The word is also used in AV, quite wrongly, for ."TI'B'
prah, which is rather a nomad 'encampment' (so R\0, Gen.
25 16 etc. (distinguished from C'lsn. ' villages '). See Camp, f i,
Catti.f., § I n.
CASTOR AND POLLUX. RV The Twin Brothers
(AlOCKOYPOi['l"iAVH] ; so RV'"K- 'Dioscuri'), the sign
\'Kapa.(T-r\fx.ov) of the Alexandrian ship in which Paul
sailed from Melita to Puteoli (Acts28ii). Castor and
Pollux, the sons of Zeus and Leda and brothers of
Helen, appear in heaven as the constellation Gemini.*
See .Stars, § 3/ They were the tutelary deities of
sailors, and (it may be interesting to note) were held in
especial veneration in the district of Cyrene, near
Alexandria {Schol. Pind. Pyth. 56). Catullus (427)
1 The spelling with one s is correct in Greek and Latin (Lag.
Mittheil. 2357).
a For niP'sp Hcrz and Che. (Pf.P)) would read P«B, 'are
shed."
3 A longer form is Mraniyyak (only in plur.), 2 Ch.li 12 2. 4
(cout>Ied with micdnllm, ' towers ').
* On their mythological forms see more fully E£W s.v., and
Roscher J.?'. 'Dioskuren.'
708
CAT
speaks of a boat dedicated to the same deities, and for
other examples of names of ships see Smith's Class.
Diet., s.v. 'Insigne.' It is probable that images of
Castor and Pollux were fixed at the lx)w of Paul's ship,
since it was customary for a ship to carry at the Iww
a representation of the sign which furnished the name
(the insiirnf), and at the stern a representation of the
tutelary deity (tiie tutela). Herod. (837) makes refer-
ence to the Pataikoi (origin doubtful), figures of hideous
muscular dwarfs which the Pha-nicians stuck up on the
bows of their galleys (cp Phcknicia, and see Perr.
Chii). Phacn. 2x7/., and note the illustration of such a
galley, ib. 19).
CAT. Cats (F.V) or rather Wii.n C.XTS (oAoi/poi) —
for the context retjuires us to take a.l\. in this sense —
are mentioned in the ' Kpistle of Jeremy' (Bar. 622)
with bats, swallows, and birds, which alight upon the
bodies and heads of idols. Wild cats (pSinn) are recog-
nised by the Tg. of Is. 1822 (for 0'3B, see Jackal) 34 14
(for D"N, see Jackai, [4]), but not of Hos. 96 (where
'nn is a faulty reading for r^'iin, 'thistles'). We must
not infer from the lateness of these words that it was only
at a late date that the Israelites became acquainted with
wild cats. They no doubt knew the felis maniculata
(the original of our own domestic cat), which to-day is
very common on the K. of Jordan (though it is scarce
on the W. side), and is found, indeed, throughout
Africa, Arabia, Syria, and Palestine (Tristram).
We need not wonder that no reference is made in the
OT to the domestic cat. The Egyptians themselves
had prob;ibly tamed the wild cat only to a certain
extent ; it accompanies the fowler on his expeditions
(see woodcuts in Wilk. Anc. Eg. 1 236/ ). The stories of
Herodotus (-266) are absurd. Bastit, the goddess of
Bubaslus, was 'a cat or a tigress' (Maspero).
The rendering ' wild cats ' in Tg. of Is. (see above)
is not a(loi)ted by modern translators. All that we
can be sure of is that the writers of the descriptions
referred to had in view some definite wild animals.
Wolves, hyenas, jackals, and wild cats (including
' martens') were in their minds; but it is not easy to
distribute them among the various Hebrew terms.
Many commentators, after Bochart [Hieros. 862), give
'wild cat' for Heb. d"'.s (Is. 132i 34i4 Jer.5039 fs.
7-1 14 [text doubtetl]). Certainly EV's 'wild beasts of
the desert ' (as if from ,ts) is inappropriate ; the ety-
mology assumed also is' very doubtful. The ancient
versions are inconsistent, and the Heb. writers would
not have condemned them. See Jackal, Wolf.
CATECHISE Cl^n) Prov. 226 AV™?-; EV • train up,'
with wliich cp Lk. I4 mg. , ' the things which thou wast
taught (/caT7;x77<^'7s) by word of niouth'; Acts 1825 mg.
'taught byword of month {Kary)xi)lxivo<i) in the way
of the Lord.' That oral instruction is meant by
KUTTixfiv is undeniable ; cp Jos. Fi/. 65, ' when thou
meetest me,' Kal avros <re iroXXd KaTtjxriffU), ' I will inform
thee of many things. '
The Revi.sers of the OT seem to have thought that sjich a
peculiar word a.s -[jri may have had a technical meaning such .is
KOTTixeri' at length .acquired. In MH a derivative of i:n (~»n)
means the 'gradual introduction of children into religious
pr.ictice": e.g^., 'Wherein consists the child's training C^'Sn),
)'oma S2a, with reference to the fasting on the Day of Atone-
ment. Certainly the word -jjn elsewhere always has a technical
meanmg. It seems to mean religious initiation or dedication,
whether of a person (so perhaps --jn Oen. 14 14) or of a building
(see Dkdicatk ; cp -pjn, Enoch). The first part of Prov. U.
IS very obscure, and probably corrupt (see Che. £jrfi. 7. .Sept.
1899). Oral instruction there doubtless was in the post -exilic
period to which Proverbs seems to belong (see Education, | i) ;
bu' "IJn is not one of the technical words of the wise men for
communicating instruction.
CATERPILLER (p^J), Ps. IO534, etc. AV, RV
Cankkkwok.m, see Loc'fST, §2 (6), and (S'pn) i K.
837 etc. EV, see LocusT, § 2 (9).
709
CATTLE
CATHUA (koy& [R]. kaBoya [A], reAAhA? [I-]),
a family of .Nkthinim in the great post-cxilic list (see
Ezra, ii. § 9) i I-Isd. 5jo, immentioned in ll Ezra 247
Nch. 749. unless the name may Ix: identified with
Gahar (in3 for inj?), or perhaps with (Jiui^kl
[</./.v.].
CATTLE. ' The nomad origin of the Semites is plain
from the fact that numerous words relating to the life
1 Nomadic life '''"'* ■'Associations of nomads (e.g.. ox,
■ shc-ep, etc. ) are conmion to all the
dialects. In the case of the b'ne Israel, not only
idioms and figures of speech, but also old traditional
names and even direct statements, confirm the view,
which is in itself highly probable. Note, for example,
the name Rachel, 'the ewe' (WKS /eei. Sem.f-' 311),
and the description of Abram as a ' nomad Aram.x-an '
(n3k 'OIK Dt. 26 s)- A still earlier ancestor, Jabal (the
name is again significant), is called the ' father '—».^.,
founder — of nomadic life (Gen. 4 20 ; cp Cainites,
§")■.
It is important at the outset to bear in mind the
difference between nomads ('tent-dwellers,' Gen. i.e.)
and those who have settled down as agriculturists.
Of the constantly recurring struggle between these two
classes a vivid picture is presented in the narrative of
Zeeb and Zalmunna (Judg. 8), chiefs of the Midianites,
a people which, as depicted in the OT, may serve
as a good illustration of the nomad class. The dif-
ference between the two ckisses may not be complete ;
for traces of nomadic origin will continue to be visible,
even after the shepherd's tower, or the cattle kraal, with
its nucleus of tents, ^ has develo{jed by successive stages
into the fortified city (liro i-y ; see 2 K. 17 9 18 8 and
cp Benz. NA 125 /). It is equally important to
remember that the state of civilisation of a settled peojile
is not readily assimilated by those on a lower grade.
The importance of this in its bearing on the early history
of Israel can hardly be exaggerated^: with the b'ne
Israel the transition from the nomadic to the settled state
was a long process. The compilers and expanders of
the patriarchal legends shrink from representing their
heroes as pure nomads : they feel that, if so represented,
these heroes would be grossly inadequate types of their
far-off descendants. We have, however, evidence that
the later Israelites had, in the more northern parts of
their own land, representatives of the old nomadic life
in all its simplicity (see Reciiakites).
The words commonly employed in Hebrew to denote
cattle in general are :
1- '■'JifP.""'^«<-A(cp •l,:pe, 'property'), EV usually 'cattle'(so
•"VPP T^** , 'nomads, 'Gen. 4032), a term denoting 'possession,*
-y , comprising, therefore, the things which are the
2. Names for u>ual and almost pcculi.ir property of nomads,
cattle. I' is used, accordingly, in a much wider sense
than jKs (EV 'flock'; but AV 'cattle,' Gen.
8O40 etc.), which denotes the small cattle, sheep, and goats,
or sheep alone (cp i S. 25 2). Miknrh does not include, however,
servants ; nor, as a rule, horses or as.ses (but see Ex. It 3 Job 1 3X
2- '"'?.^'?^ bfhemaJi, ••nji'ov, includes all the larger domestic
animals : in Neh. 2 12 14 it means a .saddle-animal. It is usually
contrasted with man, wild beasts (I'n, icttjmk), birds, and crawl-
ing things (cp Ps. 148 10). The word is not, however, free from
vagueness, for it may l:>e applied to wild animals, and even (in
plur. form) to an imaginary animal (see Uehk.moth, || i, 3X
3. fy?, be'ir, KTi\vo'i (' cattle ' Nu. 20 4 Ps. 78 48), ' beast," used
1 In the present article will be found what requires to be said
about large cattle. Small cattle also are included in treating of
pasturing, tending, breeding, etc. ; but their species and Hebrew
names will be con.sidered under Sheep and Goat.
* '"'7*?> properly the circuhr encampment of nomadic tribes:
cp Gen. 1^ 16 Ezek. 1h 4.
3 Hommcl (.-!// 7" 20S) remarks on the resistance to
Babylonian civilisation displ.iyed by the nom.-id Aramaran
trilws mentioned in the Ass. inscriptions of the eighth and the
seventh centuries. Strong historical evidence would have to be
shown to justify the conclusion that the Israelite 1
essentially different from these.
CATTLE
of beasts of burden (Clen. 45 17 cp 44 3 13) and of cattle generally.
The Ar. ba'lr"" is used of both the camel and the ass.
4. nSxVs, mlla'khah ' property ' (cp Ex. 22 7 [6], 10 [9]), used
of cattle in Gen. 83 14 and, as including them, in i S. 1.^9.
5. N-ID ;«<V/-' ' fat cattle,' 1 K. 1 9 (RV fatling, cp ftdcrxot
<riT«uTOs) ; generally used with 11!? or "^i^S-
C. nif, se/t, rendered ' small cattle ' or ' cattle ' in Is. 43 23 Ezek.
34 17, is the n<i»t. unitntis to jNi, see Skeep.
7. C'b'^K, aldphlm (pi.), ' oxen ' ; cp Prov. 14 4 Is. 30 24, etc.
To denote the animals of the bovine kind the
Hebrews used :
(a) ni?3, ixittar, a generic word, which frequently occurs in
parallelism with [KS. It is often used individually (cp ""i^^'ja,
a single ox or calf: see Gen. 18 7), and frequently employed to
define a word more closely — e.g., with SjJ? Lev. 9 2, is Ex. 29 i.
Its usual nom. unit, is -li") i^*". used without reference to age or
to gender, to denote an ox or cow. It is used of a young
calf in Ex. 22 30 [29], Lev. 22 23, and is once collective. Gen.
32 5 [6]. (/') ia,/rtr, fem. nns, parclh, bull, cow, defined by
ipa J3 Ex. 29 I and used of a seven-year-old, Judg. 625. (c)
'rjy, -egel, fern, n^^'j^', 'eglah, a calf, used of a three-year-old (Gen.
159 cp Is. 15 5), and also of a young cow that already gives milk
(Is. 7 21); see Heii-kk. (</) 1"3N, 'ahhir ' mighty,' used poetically
of oxen (Is. 34 7), but also of horses (Jer. 8 16, etc.).
With regard to the practices of ancient nomadic
pastoral peoples we are but ill-informed. It is probable
_ ,. that formerly (as now in Arabia) the same
re g. ^,|^^ would not breed more than one kind
of domestic animal. Tliere is still a broad distinction
between the camel-breeding tribesof the upland plainsand
the shepherd tribes of the mountains (WRS Rel. Sem.^^>
311). The steppes of E. Palestine have always been
more suitable for sheep and goats, and the northern
mountains for oxen. E. of the Jordan, however, cattle
were turned loose, 1 and, becoming wild, acquired a
name for their ferocity and from their habit of gathering
in circles round any object that attracted their attention
( Ps. '22 12 [13] f. ). At the present day shepherds frequent
the cool mountain-heights in the summer, and find late
in the autumn an abimdant supply of green leaves and
twigs for their sheep and goats in the cedars round
Lebanon and Raalbek.
The parts of Palestine which were most suitable for
the pasturing of herds — the parts which deserve the
name of n:pa jnx (Xu. 32 i 4) — were those situated to the
E. of Jordan (the modern region of Belka) and in the S.
plains of Judah. The enormous tribute paid annually
by Mesa, * the shepherd ' {ip}), attests the richness of
the country (cp Nu. I.e.). Places specially mentioned
in connection with herds and flocks are Carmel ( i S.
202), Shechem ((Jen. 37 12), Dothan (Gen. 37 17). Sharon
(i Ch. 2729 Is. 65 10), Tekoa (.\m. 1 i), Gedor (i Ch.
439), Bethlehem (i S. I611), Midian (Nu. 31 32 cp w.
8/.). Edom (Is. 34 6), and Kedar (Ezek. 27 21).
In prehistoric times there were several kinds of oxen,
all wild : a Eurojiean bison. Bison bonasus, Linn., still
. preserved in the forests of SE. Europe; the
4. apecies. ^rus, Dos primigcnius, and Bos longifrons,
now extinct, probably belonging to the same race as
our Bos taiirus or domesticated oxen. Our modern
cattle are derived from the last-named. In Palestine
at the present day horned cattle are found only where
fresh pastures are easily accessible. In the wilderness
5. of Judah horned cattle of a rather undersized kind
may be seen in great numbers. Farther to the N. there
is a larger and better bred race, used for tilling. These,
as a rule, belong to the same species as our cattle, the
Bos taurus. N. of Esdraelon there is a light-coloured
and stalwart variety usually known as the Armenian. In
the valley of the Jordan, especially towards the N., there
is a species of Indian buffalo, Bos bubalis (Ar. gdmus), a
1 Each tribe has its own ivasm (see WRS Kin. 212^.) or
special mark (cp perhaps niK> Gen. 4 15 Nu. 2 2, and see Cain.
S 6 ; Cuttings, g 6). With this it was customary to brand
the cattle. See, for .specimens of such cattle marks, Doughty,
Ar. Des. 1 125, and cp Drake, Unexplored Syria, 1 ZAi/.
CATTLE
cluinsy animal with remarkably long horns (generally
flattened and angulated). From its size and general
appearance the species has been confounded with the
ancient ri '^/« (see Unicok.n) ; but it belongs to compara-
tively recent times. It has been introduced into several
of the Mediterranean countries — e.g., Egypt, Asia
Minor, and Italy. E. of the Jordan horned cattle are rare
(Tristram, Moab, 251), although the best country for
them is said to be there (cp Buhl, Fal. 60).
Cattle-breeding holds a large place upon the Egyptian
monuments ; their evidence goes to show that the so-called Zebu
was most common, and that several species of it were bred.
The long-horned kind generally had their horns bent like a lyre
or, less commonly, in the shape of a cre.scent. Short-horns
appear rarely in the Old Empire, but are more frequent in later
times. Another kind was hornless ; it is never represented as
ploughing and threshing, and hence may have been regarded
as belonging to a ' fancy ' class.
A new kind appears in the New Empire. It has horns some-
what wide apart, and bears a big hump.
We have no means of ascertaining any of the ancient
methods of breeding (a certain kind of which is pro-
_ ... hibited by the law in Lev. 19 19) or of
B. tattle- j.^,^jjj,j.jj^g ^^j.^g^j pj^^jg j^jj^.j,,jj,g They were
rearing. ^.^^ earliest of domesticated animals. They
preceded by a long time the domestication of the sheep.
The bones of one species, the Bos primigcnius or Urus,
have been found in the remains of the neolithic Swiss
lake-dwellings.
The pastures were probably free to all comers, since
in primitive times there was hardly any property in
land. A pasture is useless without a watering-place (cp
Judg. 1 15, where the importance of the possession of
water is clearly shown ; see Moore, ad loc. ), and
property in water is doubtless older and of more import-
ance (cp WRS Rel. Sem.^'^> 104/.). The right to a
pasture was obtained by digging a well ; and, among
the Hebrews as among the Arabians, the wayfarer was
always allowed to water his beasts so long as he ditl not
hinder the owners of the water. 1 See .Spkings. The
district upon which cattle pastured is called njns, lit.
'place for feeding.' Cp 'yn i K. 4 23 \y. 3]); arn: ^^
'a broad pasture' (Is. 3O23) is doubtful {SBOT).
"1310 (EV 'desert,' 'wilderness') denotes properly a
pasturing ground where herds are driven, from nan ' to
drive (herds)' ; cp BDB Lex. s.v. •i3t''^
Other words to denote the pasturing ground are HN:, nU
the pastoral abode (gen. rendered 'pasture,' or 'sheep-cote,'
once 'stable,' Ezek. 25 5 EV). Similarly J'^T couching-place,
Jer. .')06 (Ilni: Piov. 24 15 of an abode of men). To denote more
narrowly confined areas, we find }NS nil-lDS sheep-folds (i S. 243
Zeph 26, etc.), ms3 an enclosure (Mi. 2 12), niSD (Gen. 33 17)
' booths,' temporary night-shelters (see below).
When required to be specially fattened, cattle were
withdrawn from the open pastures and kept in a stable
P3-1D- See Am. 6 4 i S. 28 24 Jer. 46 21 Mai. 4 2 (320) ;
' stall," lit. a place for tying up ; cp also "sn (Hab. 3 17)
and ,1^30 (Hab. 3 17 Ps. 5O9 7870) ' fold.'
The/f«j4 are called D-THBV (Ps. 68 13 [14] RV ' sheepfolds,' AV
'pots'), or c;nsc'3 U"dg.'5 16 Gen. 4914), properly perhaps
'double-pens.' Moore (on Judg. I.e.) and Che. (on Ps. I.e.)
prefer the sense 'dung-heaps.'
The manger or crib is D13N (Is. 1 3 cp Lk. 27 13is
<f>dTvri), whence the denominative D13N • fattened,'
1 A stricter law is alluded to in Dt. 2 6 28.
2 Similarly, E'^Jp, the common-lands of a city (especially a
Leviticil one), in Nu. 35 2 'suburbs' [EV], is perhaps originally
'place of driving' (BDR); cp RVmg. ' pasture-l.inds.' Che.
(loubts the sense of ' driving ' and proposes a fresh explanation,
making the word practic.-illy syn. with nif ' field.' Hence the
applied sense 'reserved land'— /.<•., belonging to the community
or to the sanctuary. Sec JQ A', July 1898, p. 566.
3 ,T113 wall, like the Ar. gadtraf-, denotes the fold. Here
may be added "l?>n, which may originally have meant a ' cattle-
yard ' : cp BDB, s.v.
4 ,inj< (cp BDB, s.v.) ' stall ' is used generally for horses, but
also for other animals ; cp 2 Ch. 32 28.
712
CATTLE
applied to oxen (Prov. ISi; ; and also birds i K. 4 43
[53]). 'l"o eat the ' stalled ox ' (which was looked upon
as a luxury ; cp Prov. 15 17) is termed a reproach by Amos
(Am. ()4)— himself once a herdsman.
Apart from the ordinary herbage (jyT, Nu. 224 afc-j;),
cattle had si)ecial foo<l (K'iBOa), which was either
chopix'd straw (pn) or 'mixed fodder' (S'Va; ' cp Job
65) made more palatable by the addition of salt, or a
salt herb (pen ^'^2. Is. 30 24).
From the references in the OT we are able to gain a
„. , , fairly clear idea as to the duties and
P ' customs of those who had charge over
^^'^^ cattle.
The usual word to denote such an occupation is njTl (or
IKS '•), nj|7p 't ; less frequently "Cfc* nxi, and 1^} (for the !a.st
see Shkki'). Hy far the greater numlwr of references deal,
as we should naturally expott, with the tending of sheep and
goats, and the specific word for a 'cattle-man' (^p.^) occurs
only once (.Vmos 7 14).
The shepherd, clad in a simple garment (Jer. 43i2)
like the mod. Ar. humus, goes forth at the head of his
flock (-ny ; cp Jn. IO4), all of which kno'v his voice and
respond to the name he gives them (ib. v. 3). He takes
with him his shepherd's bag (c'pn 'Sa, i S. I740) or
wallet (t25pV'. ib., I.V Scrip), staff (Vpp, see esp. Gen.
32io [11] ; and cp B^l". njVf?, Ps. 284). and. as a means
of defence, a sling (I'S;?, i S. 17 40). He ' gently leads'
his flocks I^^V.,, Is. 40 II Ps. 282) to the best pastures,
where he makes tiu-in lie down by streams (Ps. 282);'^
though it must Iw admitted that the reading in
Ps. 232^ is uncertain (see ^,'he. /^j. '-'). The dangers
from wild beasts^ [''-S-, lions. Is. 31 4 i S. 17 34)
and nomadic marauders (Job 1 14 17) were very real.
No doubt there was the solace of the pastoral
reed'* (see Judg. .'116, and cp Job 21 12 i S. 16 18), and
later writers s])oak of the sheep-dog (Job 30 1 Is. 56 10/ ,
see Doc, § i), well known to the Assyrians. By
night the shepherd had to keep watch in the open
air (Lk. 28, cp Nah. 3i8) ; but sometimes a temporary
shelter was made (.Ass. tarhasu= j-3n and masallii
are so explained), whence 'shepherd's tent' ('j;t Sr\»^
Is. 3812; cp DTin nijsrp, Cant. 18) becomes the type
of an uncertain dwelling-place.* In other cases
towers were built for the shepherds (cp Gen. 35 21, and
see 2 Ch. 26 10) ; traces of them are to lie found at the
present day. The 'duars' in the Sinaitic peninsula
consist of stone towers put together without mortar, and
bear a striking resemblance to the ' Talayot ' of the
Balearic Isles, and to the beehive -shaped houses of
Scotland. They are enclosed by low walls of massive
rough stones, and are occupied by cattle (cp Maspero,
Dawn of Chi. ^S^ /■ '> see also Doughty, .-i r. Des. 1 13).
The sheepfolds also, as their name implies, were sur-
rounded by walls (cp Jn. 10 1).
When the shepherd returned to his master the sheep
were carefully counted by l:)eing made to pass under the
staff (cp Lev. 2732 Jer. 33 13 Ezek. 2O37) — a representa-
tion of the shepherd ' telling his tale ' is not infrequent
on Egyptian monuments. As for wages, it may be
doubted whether the practice described in (icn. 3028^
was usual : possibly the usual reward was the milk of
the flocks (see i Cor. 9? — cp, on the other hand, Zech.
11 13, which speaks of a money payment).
t From SSl 'to pour out'; or, 'to pour over' (so Ass.
baliilii) ; hence ' to mix.' Cp \^a.X../arritgo, and see Anointing,
i I. The denominative occurs in Judg. 1921.
2 Frd. Oel. makes 'jVnj' = '3S3T, ««'<«/« ( = Sn3) in Ass. being
a syn. of rabiisu 'to lie down.' But see Franz Del.'s note.
3 .Similarly in Assyria: cp Maspero, Daivno/Cw. 767^".
* Cp the illustration from Assyria, Maspero, I.e. The shep-
herd seated plays upon a reed to the delight of his dog.
* .At the present day a sheep-pen is made of boughs. It is
called liailra (see Hazor), and the trail of boughs in the sandy
desert is always a sign of the nomad mamil (encampment); cp
Doughty, A >: Des. 2 220/!
713
CATTLE
The status of the shepherd varies according to the
society in which he lives. Among primitive pastordl
7 8ta.tna P*-""!''*^* *^*-' sh'^'^'h himself, or even his
daughters, tend the flocks (cp Gen. 29 9
Ex. 2 16 — //. 6423), as is the case at the present day
in various parts of the Sinaitic peninsula (see Kn. -Di.
Ex., ad loc). The early kings of Israel owned large
flocks, and the post of chief shepherd (cp ,i:;:p -ur, Gen.
476, also I Ch. 2729 I Pet. 64. dpxffolfjLtju, and magiiter
regit pec oris, Liv. 1 4) was important and full of dignity.
Hence the designation ' shepherd ' (.ntn) was a noble one
and was used of the kings of Israel (Jer. 234, ep ,ip ' to
rule ' 2 S. 52) as well as of those of Assyria, and becomes
the origin of the lieautiful NT phrase ' the good
shepherd.' Perhaps it is inevitable that the adoption
of a more settled mode of life should Ix; unfavourable to
the repute of the shepherd. To the Egyptians, for more
than one reason, shepherds were an 'alxjinination ' (Gen.
4634: cp Aho.mination, 4) ; ' Asiatic '(/.«'., barliarian)
and ' shepherd ' were to them synonymous terms (see
Ec.VPT, § 31). Similarly in Palestine, as the Jews
advanced in prosperity, the prestige of the shepherd's
calling diminished. In Rabbinical times a shepherd was
precluded from bearing witness, because one who must
have fed his flocks upon the pastures of others would
naturally be dishonest (cp Sanfi. 252, Jos. .Int. xvii. IO7).
Besides the use to which cattle were put in ploughing
and threshing (see Agrk lltlkk. § 8), they were also
_ . used as draught animals (cp iS. 67_^).
■ .^? " Their MiLK (q.'c:) formed one of the main
articles of diet, and their skins were used
for clothing (see Le.vtiier, Wool). Pastoral life
probably meant usually a diet of milk and game ; and
the use of cattle for food was somewhat restricted (see
Rel. Sem.<-^ 296/.). The young animal was, however,
preferred and considered a special dainty. At the
present day, it is said, the sheep is eaten only at
festivals, and goat-flesh is not used as food save by the
very poor. In sacrifices cattle were frequently used,
and huge hecatombs are mentioned in connection with
the temple services ^ (cp i K. 863 2 Ch. 56 75 2933 etc. ).
Cattle, being almost the only property of nomads,
become, among primitive people, a medium of exchange.
When the first coins were made in Greece, this was
commemorated by stamping the head of an ox upon
the ingot. Cattle and wealth are, therefore, almost
synonymous terms.
Cp n^:p 'possession and Ass. j«^«//rt/K 'herd*; . "ijpp 'cattle,'
and '"litP ; D"03: and Syr. |<w»'\i ; 1^ ^jjj orig. an animal
for_ riding (Nestle, ZDMG 33, 707 ['79] ; />tcus and pecunia ;
KTifVO<i and icni/xa).
The earliest legislation (Ex. 20-23) was intended for
a people who, having advanced beyond the pastoral
9 Treatment ^^^^'^' ^""^^^ occupied chiefly in agricul-
■ , ... ture. The prominence given to the ox,
0 ca e. ji^g sheep, and the ass is as noticeable
as the ab.sence of all reference to the horse and the
camel. Remarkable also is the humanity which char-
acterises these regulations. Cattle are not to l)e muzzled
(con, cp ccnci while threshing (Dt. 254) — a law which
holds good to the present day (cp Dr. ad loc), and
was in vogue in Egj'pt, where one sees representa-
tions of an ox and an ass threshing unmuzzled (cp Erm.
Eg. 432, and see Agricui.tire, § 8). According to
another enactment, oxen were not to work upon the
sabbath (Ex. 23 12). Notwithstanding the strictness of
the sabbath, it was customary to water the cattle on
that day (Lk. I315). Other laws respecting cattle-
stealing and damages caused by oxen are given in Ex.
21 28/:; cp ib. 22 10 [9]/: The law dealing with the
case in which a beast entrusted to one's care has been
maimed or torn (P^x. 22io \ji\ff.) provides that the pro-
> nao, properly 'slaughterer (of cattle),' is applied to a cook
and, strangely, to a member of the royal body-guard. See
Executioner, and cp OT/C^) 262, n. i.
CAUDA
duction of the maimed part is to suffice as a guarantee
of good faith and that no restitulion is to be required
(see UiiJ'Osrr). It was, therefore, to the advantage of
the shepherd to be able to produce a leg or a piece of an
ear as a proof (cp Am. 812). Jacob, however, declares
to Laban that instead of producing ' that which was
torn of beasts ' (nSTa) he has made good the loss himself
(Gen. 31 39).
The early Semites, like other pastoral peoples, paid
great reverence to cattle, their kinship with whom they
_ long continued to recognise. This
10. Keverence „•...,„ „,i,i;,; , „„;„. .„ vt„.i •,.
for cattle.
gives additional point to Nathan's
parable : the ewe lamb was, to a poor
man who nourished it, more nearly a daughter^ than it
could Ije in later times. No doubt the special veneration
for cattle was connected with the idea that man owes
his food in large me;isure to them (cp WRS I.e.).
A full treatment of this subject would lead us too far.
Nor can we consider here the Israelitish form of the
legend of the ' Golden Age ' (cp Hesiod, ll'orks attd
Days, 109^), and the contrast between J's description
of the peace between man and the lower animals (cp
Is. 116/) and P's representations of man as their lord
and master. The worship of the domestic animals is
another subject which invites attention. The most
ancient evidence for it is supplied by the Babylonian
zodiacal mytholot^y. '-^ In Egypt, too, the worship of
sacred animals takes us back to an incalculable antiquity.
Witness, for example, the bull-worship of Memphis and
other cities (see Egyi'T, § 14), which has been connected
with Israelitish idolatry. Notice, too, the worship of
the cow Ha'thor, the ' lady of heaven,' which reminds
us of the cow-headed Ashtoreth of Sidon. See further
Cam-, Golden; Ashtoreth; Azazel; Clean, § 17.''
A. E. s. — s. A. c.
CAUDA(kay^A [Ti.WH]), Acts 27 16. SccClauda.
CAUL (properly a close-fitting cap or net- work), as
applied to an article of dress, occurs as the EV rendering
of D'p*3"' Is. 3i8 (mg. ' networks," as though = "2LJ' ;
© eMTTAOKidv)- To complete the parallelism of the
verse, we should read, with Schroeder and others,
D^D'lDL", ' little suns ' ; see Necklace, n.
In its anatomical sense, 'caul' in Hos. 138 ([Da"?] ^^Jp;
(7vyK\ei(T/j.6i Kapdia^) apparently refers to the peri-
cardium. It is used similarly in E.x. 29 13 Lev. 34 10 15
etc. to render n^n'v (lit. 'excess'; © Xo/iis), an uncertain
expression which has occasioned difficulty from the
earliest times. It denotes probably ' the fatty mass at
the opening of the liver which reaches to the kidneys,
and becomes visible upon the removal of the "lesser
omentum," or membrane extending from the fissures of
the liver to the curve of the stomach' (Dr. Lev. SDOT,
ET). On the Vss. , and various interpretations, cp
Di. -Rys. on Lev. 33;'* and, on the probable reason
of the choice of this particular part of the body for
offerings, see Liver.
CAVES (iTiyJp, ml'drah; cnHAAION ; spelunca).
The limestone strata of Syria and Palestine readily lend
themselves to the formation of caves and ravines. The
springs issuing from limestone rock generally contain
carbonate of lime, and most of them yield a large
quantity of free carbonic acid upon exposure to the air.
To the erosive effect of water charged with this acid,
combined with the mechanical action of the sand and
stones carried along by the currents, the formation of
caves and ravines in such rocks is chiefly to be ascribed.
1 Cp the Egyptian paintings which represent men talking to
cattle, and decking them with fringes.
2 On the ' Bull ' of the Zodiac, which is the Bab. Gud-an-na
(equivalent to our Taurus, or else to Aldebaran), see Jensen,
Kosmol. (njff.
3 J. U. Diirst's Die Rinderv. Bab. .Ass. u. Ag. (Berlin, '9q)
— a contribution to the history of domestic cattle — appeared
after the present article was in type.
■• The old view that ydthereth was the greater lobe of the lung
has nothing in its favour.
71S
CEDAR
What are now ravines have in many cases originally
been subterranean watercourses, which have been un-
roofed by the degradation of the rock. Some of the
Syrian caverns are of great size ; Strabo, for example
(756), speaks of the ffTrrjXaia fiadvffTo/xa of Ituraea, and
mentions one capable of holding 4000 men. Books of
travel, from William of Tyre and Quaresmius onwards,
abound with references to such caves and the local
traditions respecting them (Tavernier, Maundrell, Shaw,
Robinson). Those of Palestine are frequently men-
tioned in the Bible as places ofrefuge and shelter for the
terror-stricken (Is. 219 Rev. 615 cp Zech. I45), the out-
lawed (David), the oppressed and the persecuted (Judg.
62 iS. 136 I K. 18 4 13 199 '3 Ezek. 3327 2 Mace. 611
Heb. 1 1 38), and the criminal (Jer. 7 n Mk. 11 17 and |]),
and as places of sepulture (Gen. 23 n Jn. II38).
Whether the word Horite ' means ' cave-dwellers ' has
been questioned ; yet that in many parts of Palestine
the earlier inhabitants continued to use caves not only
as storehouses but also as dwelling-places cannot be
doubted. Of their connection with worship in pre-
Christian times there is little or no direct evidence.
Still, it appears safe to hold ' that the oldest Phoenician
temples were natural or artificial grottoes, and that
the sacred as well as the profane monuments of Phoe-
nicia, with their marked preference for monolithic forms,
point to the rock-hewn cavern as the original type that
dominated the architecture of the region' (WRS /?(•/.
Sem.P> 197), and it is probable that the Greek fxiyapov
was borrowed from the Phoenician myD {ib. 200). The
association of so many of the Christian sacred sites
in Palestine (<?.,^., Birth of Mary, Annunciation, Meet-
ing of Mary and Elizabeth, Birth of the Baptist, Trans-
figuration and Agony of Christ, Repentance of Peter)
with grottoes is the arbitrary invention of legend-
mongers. See, further, Maarath, Mearah, Hebron
(Machpelah), Makkedah, Etam, Eleutheropolis ;
also Aduli.am (where it is shown that 'cave' ought
to be read ' hold'), and (on the grotto of the Nativity)
Bethlehem, § 4.
CEDAR (nX ; KeApoc [BAL]), Cedrus Libani
Loud., bears in Heb. a name which is found also in
Aramaic, Arabic, and Ethiopic, and is probably derived
from a root signifying ' to be firm' or 'well-rooted,' of
which another derivative might be the D'HS '^ of Ezek.
2724. It appears that Aram, 'arzd and Ar. 'arz, like
Kibpo^,"^ may denote not only the cedar, but also the
juniper {/uniperus Oxycedrm), and, possibly, pines of
various sorts.* It may be, then, that nx is not to be
strictly confined to Cedius Libani;^ but it is highly
probable that this tree, which has been associated with
Lebanon from early times, is the one usually intended,*
and in such a passage as Is. 41 19 the cedar is expressly
distinguished from other conifers. OT writers em-
ploy the cedar as a type of beauty (Nu. 246), majesty
(2 K. 149), strength (Ps. 295), and loftiness (2 K. I923).
The wood, which was much more precious than that of
common trees like the sycamore (i K. 10 27), was largely
used in the construction of great buildings like the temple
(see also Alt.\r, § 8) and Solomon's palace; cedar
1 Cp iin '" Job306 I S. 14 II. See Horite.
2 Best translated 'durable'; certainly not (as EV)' made of
cedar- wood.' [But the text is in disorder.]
3 On this see the Index to Schneider's Theophroitus, s.v.
KtSpOi.
* So in modern times we are told of el- Arz — 'in the mouth of
uneducated Syrians it designates one of the pines, Phius
haUpf'emsis, which grows in great numbers on the mountains
{Joum. Linn. Soc. 16 247).
B Lovv (57) says, ' V^H seems to have denoted both the cedar
and the /uniperus Oxyceiirus, L.' According to the same
authority, Aram, arzd denotes first Pinus cedrus, then all
conifers.
8 Hooker, however, regards it as 'an open question whethei
the C. Libani is one of those which supplied most of the timber
employed in building Solomon's temple (Nat. Hist. Rev.. 1862,
p. 14), and there seems to be a general consensus of opinion
that the wood used for purification (Lev. 14 Num. 19) was the
juniper.
716
CEDRON
beams were most highly esteeim-d for covering interiors
(Cant. 1 17 Jcr. 2214). The ust- made of this wood in
the ccri-mony of cleansing the leper (I^ev. 14 4^) or
the person rendered unclean by contact with a dead
body (Nil. 15)6), seems to lie due to the esteem in which
it was held for durability and incorruptibility (see Ui.
on Lev. 14. Nowack. HA 2289). See Cl.KAN, § 16/
Of the existing cedars of 1 .ebanon the first accurate
account was that given by Sir J. D. Hooker in Nat.
Hist. Rev., 1862, pp. 11-18. The group which he
visitetl was that in the Kadisha valley, N. of Beirut,
near the sunmiit of Lebanon (Dahr el Kodib). He
found there about 400 trees, disix)sed in nine groups —
the trees varying from about 18 inches to upwards of
50 feet in girth.
Another interesting account is that of Dr. Leo Anderlind,
who \isited them in 1884. 1 He speaks of three groups — one at
Haruk, a second 4 m. KSF.. of Bsherre, and the third 18J m. N.
of that place It is the second of these, the same that Hooker
visited, which he particularly describes. The greatest height
of any of the trees, he savs, is alx)ut 82 ft.; but the majority are
between 46 and 72 ft. The oldest of them were the strongest
trees he had ever seen.
According to Tristram (NHB 344), ' at least nine
distinct localities are now ascertained."
[.According to Dr. Post (Hastings' DB 236^), it is uncertain
what tree is meant by 'lirazlm in Nu. 24 6. He remarks that
' the cedar of Lebanon does not grow in moist places,' but ' seeks
the dry sloping mountain side, where nothing but the moisture
in the clefts of the rocks nourishes it.' He concludes, therefore,
that ' unless we suppose that the location of the 'ardzim is
poetic licence, we must suppose some water-loving tree to be
intended in this passage.' It was well to bring forward this
difficulty, which is overlooked by Di. The remedy lies close at
hand. iJsage requires that the 'cedars' should be described as
the trees which Yahwe planted. We have to read in a D'llJtD
'like cedars' and in l> probably D'3^V^ 'like poplars' (Che.
Kxp. T. IO401 6 [June '99]).]
N. M.— W. T. T.-D.
CEDRON (KeApcoN [ASV]), iMacc.153941 AV.
See (jKDKK.mi, i.
CEDRON (toy KeApoY [Ti.], toon KeApcoN [WH]
Jn. 18 1, RV KiDKO.N.
CEILAN, RV KiLAN (K[e]iAAN [BA, om. L]). The
sons of Ceilan and Azetas are a family in the great post-
exilic list (see E/R.\, ii. § 9, § 8 f) i Esd. 5i5, not
mentioned in || Ezra (2 16) or Neh. (7 21).
CEILINO, in modern house-architecture, means the
covering of a room which hides the joists of the floor
above, or the rafters of the roof. Down to the seventeenth
century, however, the word was applied also to the inner
lining of the walls of a room, and in modern shipbuilding
it still denotes the inside planking of a ship's bottom
(see AVw I'^'tg. Diet. s. v. ). The Hebrew words (see
below) rendered ' ceil.' ' ceiling.' in E\' are to be taken
in this more extended sense. See further, Chambkr,
HOL'.SE. Tkmplk.
1. JSp. sippun, 1 K. 6 15 (aoKOs) ; cp "irED, sifklnSh, Jon. 1 5
(the ' sides ' or ' innermost parts ' of the ship). The verb is used
in I K. tig "37 Jer. 'li 14 Hag. 1 4.
2. In 2 Ch. 3 5 C'rn3 'i'V .IBn means 'he covered "(or panelled)
[the greater house] 'with fir.'
3. 1'nr, sahif'h, Kzek.41i6t, a word otherwise unknown.
Co. proposes to emend yy ri'nc' to ry 'i2n ; see 2 Ch. 3 5 as
above, and ip the 'iris of Nu. 173/: [1638^:; a 'covering' of
the altar].
CELLS (nV.3n), Jer. 37 16 AV^e- RV, .\V ' cabins,' 2
a questionable rendering of a Hebrew word which
is probably corrupt. The words ' and into the cells '
are quite unnecessary after ' into the dungeon house '
("iia.T n-a^Sx), and may be a gloss. See Prison.
AVrng. RV (cp ,Tv>KA«i<r/xo« [QmK]) is a guess. In late Heb.,
Syr., etc. (K)ni3n denotes 'shop' (cp ipiya.vn\^ia. [.\q.), er-
gastulnm) or 'tavern.' Moreover the form is difficult (Hevan,
Dan. 30, n. 1). Cs x*P** (BAQ, xa. [K], al. yij.) points to the
1 Published in the Allgem. Fors'- u. Jagd-Ztitung, at the
end of 1885, and also in the /.DPI' 10 8gJ^
* ' Cabins ' in the sense of ' cell ' is now quite obsolete.
CENSER
reading n('hn. Cheyne suggest* reading nVlirvi ' the lowest
part (of the pit)' : cp Ps. 88 7 Lam. 8 55.
CEL08YRIA (koiAh cypiA [BAL]), i Esd. 217.
RV ((Kl.l SVKIA.
CENCHREA, or rather, RV, CKNCiikK^; (KeNXP€Al
[Ti. VVHj). A town and harlxjur on tjie Saronic gulf,
now marked by the village of h'ifhries. It served as
the eastern port of Corinth, which lay alxnit s*ven miles
(Str. 380, says 70 stadia) to the west, just as I>echa;um
was the port for the Italian trade. Strabo calls
Cenchre.TE a village {klj/jlti), which indicates its sub-
ordination to Corinth : it was, in fact, merely a landing-
place for goods and passengers.
AI)out 4 m. to the north, at Schoenus (modem Kalamaki), was
the jioAxot or tramway upon which vessels of small tonnage
made the passage from the one sea to the other (to iTTtvuiTa-
rov ToC "laflfioO: Str. 335, 369: cp Thuc. 87, Pol. 4 ig, Die
Cass. 51 5). The idea of substituting for it a canal cut through
the Isthmus was very ancient. The scheme was entertained in
turn by Periander, Demetrius Poliorcctes, Julius Cajsar, Caligula,
Nero, ard Herodcs Atticus. Nero actually began the work in
67 A. o., bout the time of Paul's final visit to Corinth. Ves-
pasian sent him six thousand Jewish prisoners from Galilee
(Jos.^/ iii. 10 10). Traces of this cutting were to be seen on
the line which has been adopted by the modern engineers who
have brought this ;(p6»-ov M*y* ayu»»'t<rna to completion (i88i-
1893)-
Half a mile to the SW. of the .Saronic entrance to the
canal are the remains of the Isthmian sanctuaries and
Stadium which furnished Paul with the imagery of
I Cor. 924-27.
The pines from which were cut the victors' garlands are
mentioned by Strabo (380) and Paus;inias (ii. 1 7). The road to
Corinth led through groves of pine and cypress and was
bordered with tombs — among them those of the Cynic Diogenes
and the courtezan I^is(l'aus. ii. 'J^). Coins (of .\ntoninus Pius)
give a representation of the harbour of t enchrea; flanked on
either side by a temple, and containing a standing brazen
colossus of Poseidon (Pans. ii. 2 3) and three ships. Coins of
H.adrian show the two harbours, Lecha-iim and Cenchreae, as
nymphs turned opposite ways, each holding a rudder, inscribed
LECH., CKNCH.
It was from Cenchreas that Paul sailed at the close of
his first visit to .Achaia (.Acts 18 18 cp 'JO3). The
voyage between Greece and .\sia took a fortnight in
Cicero's case {Ep. ad Att. 51369); but he sailed slow ly
(cp Thuc. .3 3). Phoebe, a deaconess of the church at
Cenchrea,', ' carried under the folds of her robe the whole
future of Christian theology' (Renan, Saint Paul, 219),
for to her, on the eve of her departure to Italy on her
private affiiirs. Paul entrusted his letter to the church
at Rome (kom. 1(5 1 2).' See Erazer, Pausanias, 87/.
Good map of the Isthmus in Baedeker's Greece, EI',
229. \v. J. w.
CENDEBEUS, RV Cendebaeus (KCNAeBAioc
[AXV]; but KCNAeBeoc [A once], AcBaioc |N*V
once], and AAlBeoc [N once]), the general left by
Antiochus VII. in command of the sea-coast, who ' pro-
voked the people of Jamnia,' and also fortifie<l Kidron
for the purpose of invading Juchva. He and his army
were put to flight, near Modin, by Judas and John,
the two sons of Simon the Maccabee (i Mace. I538-
16 10). According to Zockler. he is the Cendd of the
Arabian legends, a N. Kx. prince hostile to the Jews
(cp Blau, /.DMG 25 577)- Schurer(r;/7 1, § 7. n. 31),
however, derives Cendebeus (as also koi»5i'/3£i/j) from the
Lycian town KdvSv^a.
CENSER, the utensil used for offering In'CENSE.
In Il^V it represents i. n'T^iTD the vessel for oflTering T\'pp
'incense' with; Ezek. 811 2Ch. 20iot(© Bvnian^otoi', which
is found once in NT— Heb. 84 [R\n,>i. 'altar of incense']).
From the same root is derived niiri^S, 2 Ch. 30 14, ' altars
(RVn>B- vessels] for incense.' Cp In'CENse, { i.
2. ■■'Bnp (.y/ snatch up ; irvp(e]<oi) Lev. 10 i 16 12 Nu. 166 ^
17=^ EV, but AV alone in Nu.414 (irvpioy) i K. 750 (.WmR.
'ash pan'; SuiVicri) 2Ch. 4 22 (fluto-iti) and miptiot'). In these
passages RV gives 'firepans,' and both .W and RV in Ex. 27 3
' [Unless it be held that Rom. 16 i-ao is a letter of introduc-
tiori given to Pha:be by Paul for the Church at Ephesus. So
JiJlicher, Eint. in das y /', 73 (cp Colossi ans, j( 4) ; M'GifTert,
Chr. in Ap. Age, 275. Cp, however, Roma.ns, \\ ^ 10.)
718
CENTURION
883 2 K. 25 IS and Jer. 52 19 (where .W"'S. 'censers'). The
rendering ' snuffdishes ' occurs in Ex. 2038 3*23 Nu. 49 (see
Canolestick, 8 2). ® generally irvpMiov which recurs in
Ecclus. 50 9 (EV 'censer'). See Incknsk, § 4.
3. Ai^afuTOf (Rev. 835) etymologically ' frankincense ' : cp
njia^n in i Ch. 0 29 (© Ai^>/u>tos : here only, but once in A and
cp 3 Mace. 5 2).
CENTURION (eKATONTAPXHC [Ti.] -oc [WH]),
Mt. 8 5. .See .\KMV, g 10.
CEPHAS (kh({)AC [Ti. WH], Aram. N20 'a rock,'
cp Ass. A'ti/>u, and Heb. D'D?, Jer. 429 Job 30 6; see
Lag. Pfiers. 58). See Peter.
CERAS (khrac [BA]), I Esd. 529. See Keros.
CETAB, RV Ket.^b (kht&B [BA ; om. L]). The
b'ne Cetab are a family of Nethini.m in the great
post-exilic list (see Ezra, ii. § 9) i Esd. 5 30, not men-
tioned in II Ezra (2 46) or Neh. (7 48).
CHABRIS (xABpeiC [BXA] ; in Judith 8 10 xa/^P""
[HX], x«»/^Pf'M [A]; in 106 xa/^P"" [BN.\]), son of
(lOthoniel, and one of the rulers of Bethulia. (Judith
615 8 10 10 6.)
CHADIASAI (AV they of Chadias) and Ammioioi
(.W Ammidoi), two clans in the great post-e.xilic list (see
E/.R.\, ii. § 9, § 8c). I Esd. 5 2ot XA^ilACAl [B], x&A-
'<\C<M [A"''] ; AMMlAlOl [B], -Aioi [A] [Lorn.]), where
they occur after the Men of Beeroth (i Esd. 5 i9 = I£zra
5 25 = Neh. 7 29). The names may be identified (though
not with confidence) with Kedesh [i] (Josh. 1623), or
perhaps Hadashah {ifi. 2: 37) and Hlmt.ah (ib. v. 54).
CHJEREAS (xMpeAC [A]). 2 Mace. 10 32 37. AV
CHKKK.\S.
CHAFF (I'b etc.). See Agricultl'ke, §§ 9, 15.
CHAINS is the word used in EV in translating
Hebrew terms which signify ( i ) ornaments and insignia,
and (2) means of confinement and punishment. Though
chains were no doubt well known to the early Semites,
it is chiefly the latter variety that we find depicted upon
the monuments ; actual remains, moreover, have been
found in excavating (Place, Nineve, iii. pi. 70). Chains
for confinement consisted of rings around each foot
joined together by a single link ; the arms were similarly
treated (see Botta, Monuments de Ninive, i. pi. 82).
1. Chains were worn as articles of adornment upon the foot
(mV:»X, see Anklkts, Bracelet, 5), arm (mc', see Bracelet,
4), and neck (D\mn, p:j;, see Necklace). For chains .such'as
were worn by Joseph and Daniel, as expressive of rank (T31,
and Bibl.-Aram. N^'jon), see Necklace. To denote some
kind of architectural ornamentation we find nipwi^ iK. 621
(Kr. 'W; Ezek. 723, doubtful), and niip^!?,! iK. 717 2Ch.
3i6(cp 2Ch. 35), see Pillar, Temple. Of these Heb. words
the former is used in Is. 40 19 (nipni, text doubtful) of the chains
fastening an idol, the latter denotes the chain worn upon the
high-priest's ephod (ni"i;^'lir, Ex.2822, niiyiC*, 39x5; jcpocrd?
[B-M-], Kpiaa-a-. [I.]; also Ex. 2814 (cpoo-falioTos [BAFL]); see
Breastplate, ii., Ephod, Ouches. For chain-armour see
Breastplate, i.
2. As a means of confinement, ropes or cords were perhaps
more commonly employed. For chains the general term is CpUNJ
Nah. 3 10, etc., or, with closer reference to the material, '733
''l"!?i ' fetters of iron ' (Ps. 1498)— both, in parallelism, in Ps.
105 18. Other terms are pj'S (Collar, 3) and T\vn}, 'brass'
(Lam. 3 7).2 The use of the latter in the dual (C'nfm, Judg.
16 21 2S. 334, etc.) does not necessarily imply the binding of
both hands and feet by these bronze fetters. The < -reek words
are Seo-fiO? (Jude 6), tretpd (2 Pet. 24), ire'iij and aAucrij (in
parallelism, Mk. 54 I,k. 829); the last -mentioned term is used
in Acts 126, where the Roman custom of chaining a prisoner to
two waiders is exemplified. See Prison.
CHALCEDONY. What the ancients understood by
• The .\ramaic form of this word (unSrSr) 's represented also
in the new Hebrew nSc'Sc', which became a regular word for
chain, and meant also a chain for measuring.
2 The RV 'chains' for D'nin 2 Ch. 33ii is too bold. See
Manasseh.
719
CHALDBA, CHALDEAN
the word is uncertain, i. It is met with only once in
the Bible (Rev. 2119; xaAkeAcon [Ti.], xaAkhAcon
[WH] ; others, karxhAcon ; culciJonius). In modern
mineralogy chalcedony is a variety of amorphous cjuartz
' semi-transparent or translucent ; white, gray, blue,
green, yellow, or brown ; stalaclitic, reniform, or
botryoidal, and in pscudomorphs or petrifactions ' [Ency.
Brit.^^ 16 389). The word chalcedony is usually applied
to the white or gray variety, the brown chalcedony lieing
known as the sard (Sardius), the red as the carnelian
(see S.aruius). The chalcedony also occurs in stratified
forms ; when white layers alternate with black it is
called onyx (see Onyx). When the white alternate
with others of red or brown colour it is called sardonyx
(see S.VRDONYX). Pliny, who lived not far from the
time when the Apocalypse took shape, does not speak
of the chalcedony as a distinct stone, but only of
' Calchedonii [or 'carched.'] smaragdi ' as an inferior
kind of emerald, mentioning that the mountain in
Chalcedon where these stones were gathered was in his
day known by the name of ' Smaragdites' ^ (HN 37 72-73).
Symmachus, on the other hand {circa 200 .\.D. ), gives
Kapxv^^"'-'"^ for -\3i3 in Is. 54 12 (AV 'agates,' RV
' rubies ' ). This rendering suggests an original nana
(cp the reading x°PX°P [BQ]. Kopxopos [A]) for 1213
in Ezek. 27 16 (AV 'agate,' mg. ' chrysoprase,' RV
'rubies'). See Precious Stones, Rlbie-s.
2. Chalcedony {karkedmi) is the usual Pesh. render-
ing of uc. s'bho (axoLTT)^, achates, 'agate' of Ex. 2819
39 12). Notwithstanding the reference in Ezek. 2722 to
the precious stones imported from Sheba - we can hardly
connect the stone uc with the country called Sheba.
As Fried. Del. points out {Heb. Lang. 36) it is the Ass.
Subu — i.e., the shining or precious stone {abnu tiosku or
akru), KaTi^oxTfjf. This stone occurs among others in
a list of stones enchased in gold for the royal breastplate.
On Delitzsch's suggested identification with the diamond
{Prol. 84 f.)^ or the topaz {Heb. Lang. 36) cp what is
said under Precious Stones, Diamond, Topaz.
Tradition is in favour of the rendering ' agate. '
.•\gate, so named, according to Theophrastus, from the river
Achates, in Sicily, is one of the numerous modifications of form
under which silica presents itself, almost in a state of purity,
forming 98 per cent of the entire mineral. The silicious particles
are not so arranged as to produce the transparency of rock-
crystal, but a .semi-pellucid, sometimes almost opaque substance,
with a resinous or waxy fracture : and the various shades of
colour arise from minute quantities of iron. The same stone
sometimes contains parts of different degrees of translucency,
and of various shades of colour ; and the endless combination of
these produces the beautiful and singular internal forms, from
which, together with the high polish they are capable of receiving,
agates acquire their value as precious stones. Agates are
usually found in detached rounded nodules in that variety of
trap rock called amygdaloid or mandelstein, and occasionally in
other rocks. The varieties of the agate are numerous, and are
now, as in the time of Pliny, arranged according to the colour
of their ground.
3. It is not apparent why RV"?- should suggest
•chalcedony' for r't'in in Ex.2820 (EV 'ber}'!').
See Tarshish, Stone of. w. r.
CHALCOL (xA^x^^ [A]. \d.KKd.\ [L]). i K. 4 31
[5 11], RV Caixol.
CHALDEA, CHALDEAN, CHALDEAN (D^"=lb?.
XaAAaioi [BXAEQL], Ass. A'aldu), is used in Gen. 11 28
X. ineis^amu. ^n equivalent for Babylonia. The land
of the KaldQ proper lay Sli. of Babylonia projjer, on
the sea coast as it then was. Its true capital was Bit
1 Cp Aiflbs (TuapaySirrii of Esth. l6 (S and see Marble.
* Theophrastus (La/>. 34) tells us that the best precious stones
came from Pseplio (€<c ttj? i/(e<^a) KoAou/ttfi'J)? X"/"")- This is
probably the same as the P.sebo of Strabo (822) a lake and
island S. of Meroe (mod. T.sana or Tana) near the head of the
Blue Nile (see Reclus, GA>^. Univ. 10 258 262).
3 The difficulty of believing that the Israelites knew and
perhaps even engraved the diamond is only minimised by Del.,
not removed (see Adamant, Diamond), though it is not so
serious in the case oS S'hhd (mentioned only in P) as in that of
JWw/<'w(Ezekielan<l P).
720
CHALPHI
Yakin ; its usual name in the Assyrian inscriptions was
mill Tanitini. the Stra-laiid. If Dclitzbch (Par. 128,
etc.) be c«rrect in his derivation of the name from
the Kassitc |)coplc, the wider application to liiibylonia
may have been a leRacy from the Kassite dynasty there.
On the other hand, the Kassites (Del. calls them A'ossiier)
had a lanRunRe quite distinct from that of the Kaldu, w ho
spoke Semitic. The Kaldu are carefully distinguished
by .Sennacherib both from the Arabs and from the
Aranuvans. Mero<lach-lialadan, the usurper in Ikibylon
during Sargon's reign, and the inveterate foe of Assyria
till .Seiuiacherib hunte<i him from Ilabylon to Hit-Yakin
and thence to e.\ile, v.as a Kaldu. There is no reason
to think he had any right in Habylon ; on the other
hand, nothing shows him to have been more foreign
than were the Assyrians. In fact, the Chaldeans not
only furnished an early dynasty of Habylon, but also
were incessantly pressing into Babylonia ; and, despite
their repeated defeats by Assyria, they gradually gained
the up|>er hand there. The founder of the New- Baby-
lonian kingdom, Nal)opolassar {circa 626 n.c. ), was a
Chaldean, and from that time Chaldea meant Babylonia.
The use of the term Chaldee, introduced by Jerome
to distinguish the language of ccrtam chapters in
2. 'Chaldee,' ^■^"'^' ''^"'^ Ezra (o-'irs ]ic*S: L)an. I4),
gtg^ is incorrect. The only correct expression
is.\ramaic(seeCn.\l,l)K.\,§2 ; D.WIEI.,
§ 12; Aram, § 2; Ar.\m.\ic Language, § i # ).
Another jjeculiar usage must be mentioned. We find
' Chalfieans ' used in Dan. as a name for a caste of
wise men. As Chaldean meant Babylonian in the
wider sense of a member of the dominant race in the
times of the New Babylonian Empire, so after the
I'ersian conquest it seems to have connoted the Baby-
lonian literati and lx?come a synonym of soothsayer or
astrologer (see Daniki., §11). In this sense it passed
into classical writers. Whether any association of
sound with kall7, the specific name for magician in
Assyrian, helped the change of meaning is difficult to
decide. The modern so-called Chaldees have no racial
claim to th» name, and it is very questionable whether
the traces of alleged Chaldean culture discovered at
Telloh are correctly assigned to this people.
See Dclattre, Lcs Chaldeens, \Vi. Unters. Alior. Gfsc/i.,
Mff-1 a"d die Histories of Assyria and Babylonia; also Beitr.
tur Assyr. 8 1 13. C. H. W. J.
CHALPHI (xAA4)ei [VA]), i Mace. 11 70 RY, AV
CAI.I'UI.
CHAMBER. Of the structure of the chamber of the
ancient Hebrew house we know but little ; it would
naturally depend upon the style of the rest of the build-
ing. In modern Syria, floor, wall, and ceiling are
commonly made of beaten clay (cp n'o Ezek. ISn),
which is often coloured with ochre. Wood, neverthe-
less, is not rare. The Ckii.ing, if of wood and flat, is
of curious and complicated joinery ; or, if vaulted, is
wrought into many coves and enriched with fretwork in
stucco ; the walls (n'p) are adorned with arabesques,
mosaics, and the like, which, set off by the whiteness
of the stucco, present a brilliant effect. Enamelled
inscriptions, specimens of the most intricate Arabic
caligraphy, originally intended to keep oft" harmful y/V/wf,
surround the walls. On the number and arrangement
of chambers, see House, i.
Of the various Heb. words for ' chamber ' Tin and •Tf^ (cp
vtrtpwof) are used of rooms in private houses ; see Bed, § i.
nan is used particularly of the nuptial chamber ; see Tent, f 4.
Other terms are used especially of rooms in a temple or palace.
nSP^ (i Ch. 9 26 Jer. 35 2 4, etc.) or r\2m (Neh. 3 30 12 44 13 7),
a room in the temple occupied by priests and temple-servants,
also a room in the royal palace, Jer. 3iii2 2o; and (once) ot a
meal-chamber 1 in a ^<t/n<z/< (i S. 9 22 A V ' parlour ') ; see Hu.h-
^ Or, 'feasting hall." For another probable instance see 2 K.
10 22 emended text (see Vestry). WRS Rel. Sem.P) 254 n.
suggests that A«<ryTj, club-room, is derived from '^ ; but see Lewy,
Die sctHit. Ftemdu: im G rice It., 94.
721
CHAPITER
Place, | 3. V^sf (i K. 0 5 7 3 Eak. 41 $^) and kp (, K. U 211
aCh. 12it Ezek. 407_^) are similarly u«ed of temple-chambert.
In the case of two words the suggested rendering, 'chamber,' it
certainly incorrect ; J/'X^ (i K. »I 5 AV) means properly a ' story,"
as in RV (see Tkmplk), and 3J (K/elc. 10 24 31 39 RVmtj.
'vaulted-chamber'), in parallelism with nZ"^, refers evidently to
some mound for illicit worship (KV better 'eminent place').
CHAMBERLAIN. In Esth. I1012 etc., EV uses
'chamljerlain ' (for D'lD), perhaps as a more English-
sounding title than Eu.NUCH [q.v.\ On Jer. 51 59
(AV"'K- 'chamlxirlain') sc-e Skraiaii [4].
Blastus, in Acts 12 20, is a court officer in ch.irge of the king's
bedchamljcr (o «»rt toO xotTufot toO fiactKiut^); but in Rum.
Its 23 oiKoraMOt (AV ' chanil>erlain ') is used in a wide sense (R V
'treasurer'); cp I,at. arcariut, and a gloss of Philox., o «'iri
■njt iimo<ri'ac rpant^r)^. The same title occurs in iiiM.ripiions
(cp Marni. Oxon. 85, ed. 1732, NciAu oixofOfiai '.Vcriat ; see
W. A. Wright in .Smith's DH^'i^ s.v.).
CHAMBERS OF THE SOUTH (ID'H nnn). Job 99,
and probably 879 (emended text). See SfAKS, § 3 r,
EAKTII, I'oi K (QUARTERS OF, §2(_ia).
CHAMELEON, i. RV Land-crocodii.e (HS, etym.
uncertain), one of the reptiles mentioned as unclean
in Lev. 11 30. 6 (x&AAAiAetON [KE]. x&mh. [BA]) and
Vg. [chatmrlcon) have the same rendering as AV ; the
Arabic version has hardaun, which means probably
a species of land -crocodile. Bochart (Ifieroz. 43)
argues from the Hebrew name, which is the same as
the word for ' strength,' that what is me.uit is the Arabic
-uHiral, the largest and most powerful sort of lizard.
The Talnmdic references, on the other hand, seem to
point to a smaller animal ; but they are too general to
convey any definite information (Lewysohn, Zoologie da
Talmuds, 223/.). N. M.
2. .W MOLE (ncr:B) in the same verse. See
Lizard, 6.
CHAMOIS ("ICT, derivation uncertain, cp Lexx.;
KAMHAon&pAAAic[B.\FL], Dt.l 45!). a 'clean' animal,
nienti<Mied along with the fallow-deer (S*k), the roebuck
('3S and -flon'). the wild goat (ipj*), the addax ([irn), and
the antelope (ikb) ; see Clean, § 8. Many ancient
interpreter.- {©, Vg. , Arab. , .Abulw. , Kimhi, etc. ) thought
that what .vas meant was the giraffe ; but the home of
the giraffe lies far away from Palestine. A more
probable rendering is the ,xs'T or ' w ild goat ' of the
Targums, which suits the context better. 1 he chamois
(Rupicapra tragus) extends from the I'yrenees to the
Caucasus, but is not known to have ever inhabited
Palestine, whereas of mountain sheep and goats there
have been found three kinds. Tristram and Post think
that zcmer may be the wild sheep [Oiii tragelaphus) ;
but, though that sheep lives in Northern Africa, and an
allied or identical s{x;cies occurs in .Arabia, it is doubtful
whether it has lived in Palestine. See Goat.
X. M.
CHAMPION. For i S. 17 4 23 EV (D'32n -J'^N)
see Goliath, § 2. For 1 S. 17 51 EV (113^) see War
and cp Giant, 3.
CHANAAN (xanaan) .•\cts 7 n 13 19 Judith 5 3 etc.
AV, RV Canaan; and Chanaanite (xananaioc)
Judith5i6 AV, R\' Canaanite.
CHANCELLOR (DIt: hv^), Ezra4 8^ SeeREnUM, 5.
CHANNUNEUS, RV Chanuneua (xanoynaioc
[B.V'Ji, I i:sd. 848 = E/.ra8io, .Mkkaki, 3.
CHAPEL (C;''JPP). Am. 7 13 -^V, RV Sanctiary
(if.v. ). Cp Bethel, § 3, «. For i Mace. 1 47 2 Mace.
10 2 11 3 .AV see SANCTUARY.
CHAPHENATHA (xA(J)eNAeA l^^^l). 1 Mace.
21 37 RV, .\V Cahhenatha.
CHAPITER (i.e., capitellum ; 'capital': so Amer.
RV).
CHAPLET
(') B'^i^. f^^y of '^e heads of the pillars in P's account of the
tabernacle (Ex.3638 881719; ®UAiL Ke<j>a\L^). See Taber-
nacle.
(2) T\'y\2, kOthJreih (■\/T]3 'to surround,' whence 1713 'crown')
is used (a) of the crowning portion of Solomon's pillars Jachin
and HoAZ (i K. 7 16-20, iirCdttia (H.\L] ; 2 K. -lb 17, xui9ap [HA],
inieetia [L] ; 2 Ch. 4 12/, -peS [HA], -pcuS [L] ; Jer. 52 22, ytltroi
[HK.AQ], <ce</>aAiSe? [Q'"*.']); see Pillar : and(/')in the descrip-
tion of Solomon's ' bases ' for the lavers(i lC.7 3i); but see Layer.
(3) nS;i, s^pheth (\/nSi 'to overlay'), also of the crowning
portion of Solomon's pillar (2 Ch. 3 15, ®bal doubtful). See
Pillar.
(4) "liBM, kaphtdr (deriv. uncertain) occurs with the same
meaning, if we are to follow RV and AV"ig- (Amos9i, to XKaa-
rrjpiov [BQ>»g] = n']23, 0v<TLa<rTrjpLOV [AQ*] = ri3Ta ; Zeph.214;
Toi <t>a7vu)ii.aTa [BX.\Qr]). But /-a/A/^r elsewhere has a different
sense (see Candlestick, § 2). Read perhaps mnis (Che.).
CHAPLET, RV for n^f? Prov. 1949! (AV 'orna-
ment' ; © CTe4)ANOc)- Wisdom isa chaplet, or wreath,
or garland of grace, upon a man's brow. Chaplets or
garlands of flowers were common in the second century
B.C., at banquets (Wisd. Sol. 28 cp 3 Mace. 48): see
Meals, §11. f'or the chaplets of bridegrooms, see
Crown. Of similar import are the ariiiixara of Acts
14 13 (EV ' garlands '), the usual headgear of sacrificers
to Zeus.
Some critics hold that there is a hendiadys in the passage
and that the meaning is raupous e<rTe;a;u.eVovs (garlanded oxen).
Ornaments resembling crowns were placed on royal animals by
the Assyrians (cp also Ksth. 08 and see Crown), and on victims
for t!ie altar. 'The very doors, the very victims and altars, the
very servants and priests, are crowned ' (Tertul. £>e Cor. x.).
CHARAATHALAR (xApAAeA\Ap [A]), lEsd. 536
= Ezra '259 = Neh. 76i. See Cherub (ii. ).
CHARACA, RV Char.'vx (ton X^PAKA [VA], a
town in Gilead, with a Jewish colony (2 Mace. 12 17, see
Ton), described as 750 stadia from C.\sphon {q.v.).
The distance must be exaggerated. About 120 stadia
NE. from Muzeirib appear el Hurak and el Hureiyik.
G. A. S.
CHARASHIM, THE VALLEY OF, {a) iCh. 414
(RV Gk-h.vrashim), called in (b) Neh. 11 35 ' the valley
of craftsmen ' (RV'"*.'- Ge-uaharashim). In [a) MT has
D'cnn N'3 ; in {b) 'nn 'J.^ The fundamental rendering
of ® is 777 apaaeifji, which assumes various distorted
forms. ^ In i Ch. I.e. this valley is described as occu-
pied by craftsmen (workers in wood, stone, or metal ;
cp EV'"B), who traced their origin to Kenaz. The
' father ' or founder of the family was Joab b. Seraiah.
According to Kittel's analysis, however, the words ' father
of the valley of craftsmen, for they were craftsmen,' are
a later addition to an old record (Chron. in SBOT). If
so, it becomes easier to admit that the name D-tnn N'J
must be corrupt. The statement of the Talmud (Jer. ,
Meg. 1 r) that Lod and Ono were situated in the Ge-
harashim is surely impossible. The ' plain of Ono '
(Neh. 62) is the natural phrase. Most probably 'j (ge)
is a corrupt fragment of <33 [b'/ie], and the name
originally meant, not 'valley of craftsmen,' but 'sons
of sorcerers,'* i.e. , members of a guild of sorcerers. It
was a spot connected by ancient tradition with Philistine
sorcery (cp Is. 16 Mic. 7i3). Conder's identification,
therefore {PEFQ, '78, p. 18) falls to the ground.
T. K. c.
CHARCHAMIS, i Esd. 1 25 AV and CHAR-
ClIEMISH, 2 Ch. 3520 AV. See Carchemish.
CHARCOAL (anGpakia [Ti. WH]), Jn. 18 18 2I9
R\'"'K. See Coal, § 3.
CHARCUS (Baxoyc [B]). 1 Esd. 532 AV= Ezra 2 53.
Bakkos.
1 The pointing is exceptional ; the ' effect of analogy ' (KSnig,
i. Ih9)? Dirferently Olsh. 348. R.ither corruption of the text.
'■^ In I Ch. 4 14 ayeaSSaet'p [B], yijv patrei^i [A], (f>apai [L] ; in
Neh. 11 35 Y^ apa(r[«]i/x [ c.a nig. inf. L], om. B«<*A.
3 In Is. 33 cx'nn = ' charmers' ; cp RV"'*,'-.
723
CHARIOT
CHAREA (xApeA [A]), i Esd. 5 32 = Ezra 2 53,
Haksha,
CHARGER, a somewhat archaic expression denoting
a 'platter' (which, indeed, takes. its place in the Amer.
Vs. of OT), is employed by the EV to render : —
(i) iViyp, ie drd/i (Nu. 7 13 19 and throughout the chapter [P] ;
0 Tpu/SAioi' as in Mt. 2623 Mk. 14 2o), the tabernacle offering
given by the heads of the tribes, elsewhere rendered ' dish.'
See Meals, § 9.
(2) ^'}}^,, 'igartdl ; 'chargersof gold .. of silver," enumerated
among the temple vessels restored by Cyrus (Ezra 1 9, om B,l
\livKriipei, — i.e., wine-coolers [AL], phialce [Vg.]; || i Esd. '2 13,
<x-Kovh\i\ia. [BAL]). Agdrtdl (yi\\\Qh is found with slight varia-
tions in Aram., MH, and Arab.) is taken to be a loan-word from
the Hellen. Or. )cdpTaA[A]o9 'basket'; cp Basket.2
(^) TTiVaf (.Mt. 148 II Mk.(i25 28), the dish upon which was
brought the head of John the Baptist ; Lk. 11 39, EV 'platter,'
along with 'cup.' See Meals, § 9. In Mt. 23 25 7rapoi//ts.
CHARIOT (naa-ip, nS-ip. nDn). Of the three
Heb. words denoting ' chariot ' merkdbh is post-exilian
1 Names (^ ^- ^^ [4 26]). It is employed in Lev. log
■ and Cant. 3 10 for the seat of the chariot or
palanquin (© iwLaayfjLa [another transl. has KdOicr/xa'],
i-n-ifiacns [Vg. Rashi]). In nearly every case rckhebh is
used collectively for a body of chariots. The instances
where it is employed to denote a single chariot (like
merkabhdh) are comparatively few (Judg. 528 2 K.
921 24). Occasionally it designates the chariot-horses
and riders (2 S. 10x8), or the horses only (2 S. 84 ; cp»
Is. 21 7 9). On the other hand, merkdbhah expresses
the individual chariot, Ass. narkabtu, Ar. markahat"" ,
Syr. markabhtha — all alike derived from the common
Semitic root [rakhabh), to mount or ride, and corre-
sponding in meaning to Latin currus and Greek &pfj.a..
The word in Heb. is frequently employed, not in a
purely military sense, but to denote a state carriage or
travelling conveyance. Examples of this use may be
found in Gen. 41 43 4629 Lev. 1.^9 i K. 12 18 and Is.
2? (?). This word must be kept quite
distinct from another term, 'agdldh (,-i^jj,'),
' cart ' or ' waggon, ' employed in the conveyance of
agricultural produce (Am. 213).^ The cart was em-
FlG. X. — Assyrian Cart (temp. Tiglath-pileser III.).
Brit. Mus. Nimrud Gallery, no. 84.
ployed in very early times by the Israelites (i .S. 67
2 S. 63) before chariots were introduced among them.
Its form probably approximated to that of the accom-
panying figure (fig. i), taken from one of the reliefs
of Tiglath-pileser III. Each cart holds three occupants
and is drawn by two oxen ; the wheels have eight
spokes. A still more primitive kind of cart, employed
by the Asiatic nations, possessed wheels which con-
sisted simply of circular discs, whilst the earliest and
most primitive form of all consisted in a mere frame-
work with ' a board or seat, placed between two asses
to which it was strapp>ed, on which the person sat as
1 The first word in fw XP""''<" k.t.A. [B, om. AL], has per-
haps come in by mistake for kB" representing the evvfd Kal
eiKoo-i at the end of the verse ; so H. A. Redpath (in a private
communication).
2 But Kap' itself is possibly a Pers. or Sem. loan-word (BBM,
s.v. ; cp Frii. Aram. Fremdva. jT_f.).
3 The poetical use of this word (in the pi.) for war-chariot
in Ps. 469 [10] is isolated; indeed, the text is not undisputed
(see Weapons). On Am. 213 see al.so Agkicultuke, § 8.
724
CHARIOT
on an open liuer' (Dr. Samuel IJirch). The appended
illustration (fig. a), taken from a nionunient belonging
to the fourth Kgyplian dyn-
asty, clearly exhibits this
earliest nuxle of conveyance.
It should Ix remembered
that in the luxst camels,
asses, and mules are more
convenient and general as
a means of transport, both
for burdens and for human
beings, than are wheeled
vehicles ; and this was
specially true of ancient
times.
The subject of the present
article, however, is mainly
the IVar-chariot. The striking fact that the ancient
_ Hebrews for centuries refused to employ
so valuable a military aid as the chariot,
ith the Canaanites
Fig. 2. — Ancient Kg>ptian
conveyance (4lh dyn.)
After Wilkinson.
chariots
introduced
late.
their encounters
was due to several co-operating causes.
I''irst among these was the nomadic
origin and character of early Israel. The Cana.-inites,
like the Egyptians, may have borrowed the form of
their chariots from their northern neighbours, the
Syrians or Hittites. This, however, is by no means
certain, for among the Amarna Tablets, we have a
despatch to the Egyptian monarch from one of his
vassals in Canaan, in which the latter, in anticipation
of an invasion by the Hittites, requests the aid of chariots
and troops from the king of Eg)pt. ' Not improbably,
therefore, Egypt may have Ijeen the pro.ximate source
whence Caiiaanite civilisation borrowed the chariot
From Josh. 17 16 Judg. 43, however, we learn that the
Canaanite war-chariot was plated or studded externally
with iron, a feature which seems to l)e more probably
Hittite than Egyptian.- A second reason why Israel
_... . remained destitute of this imjxjrtant
1 COimtry ^^1:^,^^.^ j^ (^ ^ found in the physical
unsuitable. ,- r ^ t^ • .
configuration of Canaan. Dunng the
earlier period of the Hebrew occupation, the district seized
by the sons of Jacob was the central or mountainous
region, where chariots and cavalry could not easily
operate. Interesting illustrations of this difficulty in
emjiloying chariots may be derived from the inscriptions
of Tiglath-pile-ser I. {circa iioo B.C.). In Prism Inscr.
col. ii. 70-74 we read : ' mighty mountains and difficult
country I passed through — so far as it could be traversed,
in my chariot ; and that which could not be traversed,
on foot. By the mountain Aruma, unsuited for the
advance of my chariots, I left my chariots behind
..." (Winckler in A"/? i ; cp also col. iii. 47-49).
How difficult the Canaanites found it to make effective
use of them against the Israelites, may be inferred
from the later experience of the Syrians, who attributed
their constant defeats to the fact that the deities of the
Hebrews were potent in the mountainous country (i K.
20 23) whilst their own operations, which were largely
carried on with cavalry and chariots (cp v. 21 and
Shalmaneser II. 's Obelisk Inscr. 65, Monolith Inscr.
col. ii. 90), would be successful only in the plains. It
can readily tx; understood, therefore, how the Hebrew
race, by clinging to the central mountainous region and
not venturing too far into the Shephtlah or low country,
as well as by dint of sheer braver}' and the skilful u.se of
bow, sling, and spear, were able, down to the time of
David, to defy successfully the armies of Canaan and
Syria. A third reason was that reli-
gion— in its tendency, ever conservative
of a nation's past — sanctioned the an-
cient custom of warf;ire, and regarded horses and chariots
1 Cited by Zimmern in ZDPy 13 134^
2 See the representation of a chariot of the Rutennu, figured
in Wilkinson, Anc. Mg: 1 230, in which the four-spokeii wheel,
as well as the body of the chariot, is evidently plated with
metal ; and cp Iron, | 2.
7^5
6. Religious
conservatism.
CHARIOT
as a foreign innovation corrupting Israel's allegiance to
Yahw6. This view, constantly reflected in prophecy
(Hos. I7 14 4 [3] Mic. 59[ioJZech. 9io), becanieembxxlied
in the Ueuteronomic legislation (Dt. 17 16), and expressed
in song (Fs. 2O7). When, however, under Uavid, Israel
became an aggressive state and entered into conflict
with Syrian and Hittite cavalry and chariots in the
plains, the stress must have been severely felt by the
Hebrews, and it is not surprising that chariots and
horsemen were gradually introduced into Israel's military
service. This is clear from 2 S. 84, where, following
©, we should restore S^ (' for himself ; ontitted in MT
from religious scruples) ; the passage means that David
reserved 100 chariots and horsemen for his own use.
His successor, Solomon, is said to have provided Israel
with 1400 war chariots, which were quartered in sp)ecial
cities (i K. 9 19 10 26 ; see Hkth-makcahoth). In his
reign the purchase of horses and chariots Ixicame an
organised trade ; they were imported (though Winckler
denies this ; see Mizkaim, § 2 [a]) from Egyjjt, at the
cost of 600 shekels, or about ;^8o for each chariot ' (v.
28/.). From this time onwards we constantly read of
chariots and horsemen both in the northern and in the
southern kingdom (i K. I69 2234 2 K. 821 13? Is. 2?
Mic. 59 [Heb. ]). In col. ii. 91 of Shalmaneser ll.'s
great monolith inscription we are startled to find that
Ahab's contingent of chariots, 2000 in number, largely
exceeded that of any other state in the confederacy that
encountered the Assyrian army at Karkar in 854 B. r.
(cp Ahab, § 7). From Is. 30i6 31 1 369 we may infer
(with Kamphausen) that the supply of chariots and
horses from Eg)pt was one of the grounds of alliance
between that power and Judah.
Since Egypt was the land from which the Hebrews
obtained their supply of this arm, we turn to its nionu-
„ .. ments for illustrative material ; and this we
• Byy obtain in abundance from the eighteenth
dynasty onwards (vol. vi. m I.cpsius
Denkmciler). Before the eighteenth dynasty ( 1 500
B.C.) chariots and horses were unknown in Egypt, and
there is good evidence to show that they were borrowed
from the North Palestinian race called Rutennu.''*
The Egyptian chariot usually contained two persons.
Nowack (HA 1 367), however, is wrong in his a.sser-
tion that this was invariably the case. In Lepsius'
Denkmdler (Abth. iii. Bl. iS7f) ^'^ have numerous
illustrations of chariots with three figures. According
to Sir Gardner Wilkinson, however, this was not
common, except in triumphal processions, ' when two
of the princes or noble youths accompanied the king in
their chariot, bearing the royal sceptre, or the flabella,
and required a third person to manage the reins." On
the other hand Hittite chariots frequently contained
three occupants (see below, § 9). Lepsius [Denkmdler,
Abth. iii. Bl. 160) exhibits figures of Eg>ptian chariots
in which the right-hand warrior lx:ars the bow while the
left carries the shield. Here, as in many other cases,
we find the reins tied round the body of one of the
combatants while he is engaged in action. On another
page (BL 165) we have a chariot with the soUtary royal
1 In I K. IO28 (2 Ch. I16) the text is ver>' uncertain in the
latter part of the verse. In MT of i K. IO28 we read .tipo?
"!TO3 nipp injp^ -l^sri nn:. h .seems simplest with Kamph.
(in Kau. HS) to cancel the first nipa a"'! '" render the whole
verse ' And the export of the horses of Solomon was from Egypt >
and the royal merchants used to fetch a troop for pa;>-ment.
This is certainly preferable to the other suggestion, to which Ki.
in his note on 2 Ch. 1 16 (SBOT) refers— viz., to make a trans-
position and read . . . Kijao Kipo l^Cn "inai ' the king's traders
getting every time a troop . . .' This use of the distributive
construction is very forced. Ki. himself finds a reference in
nii::icl to Kue— ;.f., E. Cilicia. See the note referred to and
cp MiZRAIM, S 2 (d).
2 Sayce (traces 0/ the OT 123/ 134) has shown that thU
Egj'ptian name included the Hittites. It is signific.-»nt that
the Palestinian peoples chiefly associated chariots with the
Hittites and the Eg^'ptians; 3 K. 76 (on which, however, se«
Ahab, I 6).
726
^- 3- — Egyptian
Archer (Thebes).
After Wilkinson.
CHARIOT
occupant, Rameses II. , drawing the bow, while the reins
of his two horses are tied around his middle. Indeed,
one of the most striking features in these vivid scenes of
combat, is the multiplicity of functions discharged by
the chariot rider. The accompanying figure (fig. 3)
exhibits an archer in the act of
drawing his bow with the right
hand. A whip consisting of a
stick handle with leather thong
attached, is suspend-
ed from his wrist,
while round his waist
are fastened the
horses' reins.
It is obvious from
the representations
which portray the
manufacture of differ-
ent portions of the
Egyptian chariot,
that it was almost
entirely constructed
of wood. It was light and open from
behind, so that it could be easily mounted,
and consisted of ' a wooden framework, sometimes
strengthened and ornamented with metal and leatlier
binding. The tlat bottom was formed of a kind of
network, consisting of interlaced thongs or rope, which
gave it elasticity and mitigated the jolting ' (Wilkinson).
The occupants of a chariot nearly always stood. In
rare instances the car was provided with a seat in which
the royal personage sat. The furniture consisted of a
bow-case, which was placed in a slanting position
pointing forwards, and was often ornamented with the
figure of a lion. There were also receptacles for arrow's
and spears, which, as
a general rule, slanted
backwards (see fig. 4).
The diameter of the
wheel was a little over
three feet. The felloe
was in si.x pieces and the
tire was fastened to it by-
bands of hide passing
through long narrow
holes. 'The yoke, resting
upon a small, well-padded
saddle, w.xs firmly fitted
into a groove of metal ;
and the saddle, pl.iced
upon the horse's withers,
and furnished with girths
and a breastband, was
surmounted by an orna-
mental knob ; and in
front of it a small hook
secured the bearing rein.
The other reins passed
through a thong or ring
at the side of the saddle,
and thence over the pro-
jecting extremity of the yoke, and the same thong secured the
girths.' Further details may be found in Sir Clardner Wilkinson's
exhaustive work, from which the above description has been
borrowed.
The chariots of the Assyrians were of stouter and
more solid construction than those of the Egyptians,
. . since the former were intended to sustain
, • t • ■ ^^^ w-ear and tear of rough and rugged
9th cent.
CHARIOT
, and in a slanting position as in the Egjptian examples.
We notice, in one case depicted in Asur-nasir-pal s
obelisk, an attendant on foot bearing a shield, and
holding the reins. This meets us again on one of the
monuments of Tiglath-pileser III.
\'ivid representations of the chariots of this period
may be found in the reliefs of the Nimrud gallery in
the British Museum. One excellent example, rej^rotluced
in the accompanying figure (fig. 5), is borrowed from a
Fig. 4. — Egyptian chariot with bow-
and arrow-cases (Thebes). After
Wilkinson.
paths in distant campaigns. Thus
often find that the tires and felloes of the
wheels amoimted together to as much as eight or ten
inches in thickness. In the early part of the ninth century
B.C. we find chariots of this description employed by
Asur-nasir-pal. Upon the obelisk of this monarch we find
the archer standing on the right hand and the driver on
the left, and these are their respective positions in nearly
all the examples depicted on the Assyrian monuments.
We observe, moreover, in all the portrayals belonging
to the ninth century and the early part of the eighth,
that the two receptacles for arrows are placed on the
right side, and are disposed crosswise over one another,
727
Fig. 5. — Hunting-chariot of A5ur-nasir-pal. Brit. Mus. NimrOd Gallery.
hunting-scene in which the monarch Asur-nasir-pal is
engaged. Note that we have here, as in many other
instances of this period, three horses — a contrast with
Egyptian usage, in which the number never exceeded two.
The pole of the chariot is fixed to the base of the ' body,'
to the upper part of which is fastened, on the left, a large
heavy shaft ^ attached to rings upon the shoulder-pieces
of the central as well as the outer horse on the left side.
The rein on the right-hand steed passes through a ring
on his shoulder, and is attached to the bit. The
use of bits with ancient Egyptian, as well as
Assyrian, war-horses can admit of no doubt. As in
other examples, the two receptacles for arrows cross
each other slantwise on the right side of the chariot —
for that was obviously tlie side on which the archer
most conveniently stood, thus preserving his right hand
and side unencumlx;red by his companion in the use
of the bow. A battle-axe stands among the arrows in
one receptacle, whilst an extra bow is inserted among
those in the other. We notice in this example, as in
all others portrayed on the monuments of this period,
that the axle of the wheel, as in the Egyptian chariot,
is placed under the hindermost extremity of the body
of the vehicle, in order to ensure more steadiness ; con-
sequently part of the weight of the chariot and its occu-
pants rested on the horses. In another specimen on
the reliefs of this period we again observe three steeds
harnessed to the chariot, while in this case the driver
holds a whip. Near the front of the chariot, between
the two occupants, rises a pole surmounted by a sym-
bolic device, from which hang ornamented tassels. In
other examples a spear may be seen in the receptacle
that slopes backwards. Often the horses are richly
ornamented with crests, sometimes with a necklace- or
collar. Leather straps pass beneath and in front of
the animal. We find tassels hanging down apparently
from a metal boss on its side. Otherwise the animal
is unprotected.
Among the reliefs of Tiglath-pileser III. we observe
a state-chariot with two horses and three occupants.
There is no archer. The king stands on the right and
the driver on the left. The driver has three reins in each
1 Weiss (in Kostiimkunde under the head of Ass)Tian chariots)
describes this as merely 'a broad strip of cloth or leather,' but
confesses that it is obscure as to its nature or purpose. The
present writer's personal inspection of numerous examples in
the Nimrud gallery leads him to regard it as much more solid
in structure, and as probably intended to yoke the third steed
to the other two horses. When a third horse ceased to be yoked
to the chariot, at the close of the eighth cent., this large and
heavy shaft no longer encumbered the Assyrian chariot.
2 Not improbably this contained amulets or charmSj like the
crescents on the camels' necks in Judg. 8 21. See \Vhitehoiise,
Primer of Hebrew A ntiguities, yt/. and footnote.
728
CHARIOT
hand, a whip in his right. In front stands an attend-
ant holding the reins. The monarch is shaded by
an umbrella. We notice two new points.
The receptacle for arrows stands upright.
Also the wheels are now njuch enlarged,
being aljout 4^ feet in diameter, with tire and felloes of
8. In 8th
cent.
Fig. 6. — State-chariot of Sentuicherib. Brit. Mus. NimrQd
Gallery.
considerable thickness. Mr. T. G. Pinches is disposed
to think that the inner rim of the wheel was of metal,
and appearances would seem to justify this conclusion.
It is pxjssible, however, that we have here plating, not
solid metal.
The state chariot of .Sennacherib, which we here repro-
duce (fig. 6), exhibits wheels at least 4^ feet in diameter,
with eight spokes. We notice the thickness of the
tire and felloes, and the metal studs or nails on the
outer circumference. .\ large umbrella is fi.xed in the
chariot. Here the driver is on the right hand, the
king on the left. We also observe no receptacle for
arrows, lx)w, or battle-axe ; from the close of the eighth
century onwards the archers become dissociated from
the chariots ; in the tinie of A§ur-bani-pal they usually
constitute a separate corps.'
Fi(.. 7.— Hittite Chariot. After Meyer.
Of the Ilitlitc chariot we obtain the clearest con-
ception fronj Egyptian portrayals, and a special interest
9 Hittita ^'°"S^ *° '^ because it is probably to be
chariots ''•^S''^"'*-"*^ ^^ '^^ prototype from which the
Egyptian was derived, and the Israelite
vehicle was ultimately, if not proximately, borrowed.
1 In one case, however (45), we have a single -horse chariot
carrying two archers with quivers on their backs. Moreover,
the large upper shaft to which reference has been made dis-
appears altogether from the time of Sennacherib onwards. Not
more than two horses are harnessed to the chariot. Also it
becomes simpler in form, while the wheels become larger. In
the repre-sentation of ASur-bani-pal's war against Klam (Nimrud
gallery <S, 49) we observe that the wheels have as many as
twelve spokes. In some cases there is only a single occup-int.
In others there are several occupants, and an umbrella is fixed
in the chariot when it conveys a royal personage or some
nobleman of distinction.
729
CHARIOT
In one respect it differed from the Egyptian, \\t. in
carrying three, not, as a rule, two occup.ints. This
is important, as it seems to throw light ujkju Hebrew
usage, to which we shall presently refer. The ordinary
weapons of the chariot-fighter were bow and arrows. In
the annexed figure (fig. 7) it will be observed that the
two-horsed chariot h;is among its three riders a shield-
bearer, who apparently occupies the central position.
The driver on the left holds only a single rein in each
hand, though he is driving two stc-eds, which are held
together by a strong collar and undergirths. Simplicity
and strength combined with lightness are the chief
characteristics of the Hittite chariot.
Among the ancient Hebrews, as among the Assyrians,
Egyptians. Hittites, and Greeks, the horses were always
in T !♦• 1, arravcd side by side, never one Ix.'hind
hS^t • •'^""'^^'^■'■- Mor.over, with the Assyrians
cnanois . „„,, .,... j.j,^.p,i.^„s fj,^. chariot usually
'Shalish.'
and
held two p<"rsons. This was the case
perhaps occasionally in Israel ; but various considera-
tions lead to the inference that the chariots as a
rule held thrt-e, as among the Hittites, the occupants
Ix-ing the driver, the bowman, and the shield -bearer.
(In the case of Jehu, he himself handles the bow,
2K. 924. ) It is therefore as something [.eculiar and
exceptional that we find Jehu recalling to IJidkar that
they were riding in pairs ' behind Ahab, as his Ixxly-
guard, when the latter w.as confronted by Elijah near
Naboth's vineyard (2K.925). This Hebrew -Hittite
usage may explain the word c^'Vc* (/<'///,• see Akmv,
§ 4) which, in its origin, signified one of the three
occupants of the royal chariots that accompanied the
king to battle. The word is used during the regal period
in the .sense of a distinguished attendant of the king who
accompanied him in his chariot. This is evident from
2 K. 925 where Hidkar holds this position in relation to
Jehu. It is significant that in i K. 922 the lalisiin
(cz'^v) are placed in close connection with captains of
chariots (331 '^j;-), and formed a body-guard conmianded
by a sjxicial officer, "chief of the Hdlisim' (c"tr"'3'.T iTKi) ;
1 Ch. 11 n [2 S. 238]. Compare the use of /i//// in Ex.
147 l.'>4. That the sdlis held a high position is clearly
shown in 2 K. 7 2 17, where he is descrilx.'d as one ' on whose
hand the king leans." (Probably the term is used here
as equivalent to cr'^'B"! rKt- )
In addition to the shalish the king w.as frequently
accompanied by ' runners ' (c'sn), who were prepared
to render assistance when the king dismounted from
the chariot, or to hold the reins (as in the reliefs of the
Assyrian kings to which we have already referred), or
to discharge any other duty in the king's service, 2 S.
l.'ii iK. I5 2K. IO25II4 (see Army, § 4). In the
time of David there was a special body of fifty men
detailed for this special function.
We know that the Persian kings took with them on
their exiseditions ap/xdfM^ai — four - wheeled carriages
covered with curtains, specially employed
for the conveyance of women and children,
may be inferred from Herod. 7 41
Xenoph. Cyrop. vi. 4 11. Probably these closely resembled,
or were identical with, the dx^/"*""* ("Opdvia (vdvaia — •
adapted for sitting or lying down. According to 2 Ch.
3023/. Josiah, when mortally wounded, was removed
from his war -chariot into a reserve chariot (.n:ro3yi)
which was probably regarded by the Chronicler as par-
taking of this character.
In later times chariots were provided with scythes
{dpfxara SpciravTi<p6f>a, Xenoph. ^nafi.\.7 to Diod. Sic.
1 7 53). This device does not meet us among the .ancient
Egyptians and Assyrians ; ^ but we know that scythe-
bearing chariots were employed by the Persians and
1 So C'TCX Q'331 should be interpreted (Thenius and others).
Oral m.ikes cncs the object of the participle.
3 Against the view that scythes are referred to in N'ab. 2 3 [4I
see Ikon, f 2.
730
11. Persian
chariots.
CHARITY, FEASTS OP
later still by the Syrians (2 Mace. 182). It was probably
the Persians who introduced this formidable addition
to the war-chariot. (Cp Xenophon, Cyrop. vi. 1 30. )
The diflerent portions of the chariot receive special names in
the Heb. of the OT. ' Wheels," D'SBIK, are mentioned in Nah.
3 2(cp Is. 2827 Prov. 2O26). Another name, more
12. Parts Of jiescriptive, was ' rollers,' O'ViSjI (Is. 5 28 Ezek.
Chanot. 10 2 e 23 24 20 to). I he ' spokes ' of the wheel
were called C'|:3a'n, while the 'felloes' had the name D'33 or
ria^. The wheel revolves by a nave (onffn), round an axle(T).
See Wheel. All these terms are to be found in the locus das-
sicus, I K. 7 32yC
The pole of the chariot, Sj7, was (according to Mish. Kelim
144 24 2) fastened below the middle of the axle, passed under the
base of the 'body' of the chariot, and then, curving upwards,
ascended to the neck of the horses. To this, draught-animals
were fastened by means of the yoke, assisted by cords or wide
leather straps. Beyond these broad features it is doubtful
how far we are justified in following the details contained in a
treatise of the Mishna composed centuries after the latest OT
literature.
That the chariot, which was so closely associated with
the public functions of Oriental monarchs, both in war
_ .. . and in peace, entered into the religious
13. ice igl conceptions as an indispensable portion
conceptions. ^^^^^ paraphernalia of divine monarchy,
cannot awaken surprise. The chariot, therefore, has its
place in ancient Semitic religion. Just as the Hellenic
religious imagination endowed Helios with horses and
chariot (as the Homeric Hymn clearly testifies), so
Canaanite religion endowed the Sun-god .^/wo*^ with the
same royal accessories (cp Horsk, § 4). This feature
in the cultus of the Sun the Hebrews blended with the
worship of Yahw^ in the precincts of the sanctuary at
Jerusalem, in the days that preceded the Reformation of
Josiah ( 2 K. 23 1 1 ). The combination of Yahwe, the God
of Israel's armies and of the sky, with the Sun was not
unnatural to the Hebrew mind, as their literature testifies
both early and late. Cp i K.812/. (an old fragment
of the Book of Jashar restored by We. from ©-^ in i K.
853); Ps.l9i-784ii[i2].' Yahw^, as Lord of hosts, has
chariots among his retinue. These were the ' chariots
and horses of deliverance ' whereon Yahwe rode forth to
conquer and terrify Israel's foes in the days of the
Exodus (Hab. 38 /.) With this graphic touch in the
Prayer of Habakkuk we may compare the fiery chariots
of 2 K. 2 II 617 1814- as well as a phrase occurring in
the magnificent triumphal ode, Ps. 68 18. o. c. w.
CHARITY, FEASTS OF (m Ar^nAi [Ti. WH]),
Judei2 .-W. Sec 1-acii.\kist.
CHARME (xAPMH [H.\]), i Esd. 525 RV=Ezra239
= Neh. "42, H.\RIM, I.
CHARMER (inn inn, Deut. ISn, etc.; D3n
D'Cnn, Is. 33 RV'ng'). See Magic, § 3.
CHARMIS, one of the three rulers of Bethulia : Judith
6.5 S" 106 (xAp/weiC [BN], xaAm. [A]; in 810 106
X&pM[e]lN[BSA]).
CHARRAN (x&PRAN [Ti. WH]), Acts 72 4. RV
Hakan, i.
CHASEBA (xAceBA. [B.\], om. L), an unknown
family of NkthiniM in the great post-exilic list (see
Ezra, ii., §9), mentioned only in i Esd. 531, between
the Nekoda and Gazzam of || Ezra 248 Neh. 750/
CHAVAH (n-in). Gen. 820 AVne-. EV Eve. See
Adam and Evf., § 3.
CHEBAR ("132, xoBAp[BAQ]), the name of a Baby-
lonian stream, near which Ezekiel had prophetic visions
1 But cp nATTI.EMENT.
3 The Kakiib-el, 'chariot of El' (line 22). of the Zenjlrli
Panammu inscription furnishes an interesting parallel. It is
possible, however, that Rakub (cp the Ar. rakuh"", 'a camel
for riding') may mean the divine steed (cp the Heb. Kcn'ib, Ps.
18 II ; but see Cherub, 8 i, begin.). It is mentioned frequently
along with the deities Hadad, El, Shemesh, and Reshef. See
D. H. Miiller'sart. in Contemp. Rev., April 1894.
731
2. Its date.
CHEDOR-LAOMER
(Ez. li [adnot. Q™8- Barycmoc] 3 823 1015:^-^22 483 ;
on 815, which is a gloss, see Tel-abib). In spite of
the apparent resemblance of the names (but note the
different initial letters), the Chebar cannot be the same
as the Habor (iian) — Babylonia never included the
region watered by this river — but must be one of the
Babylonian canals (Bab. ndrdti ; cp ^zi nnnj, Ps. 137 i).
This was first pointed out by Noldeke (Schenkel,
BL, I508 ['69]). The final proof has been given by
Hilprecht, who has found mention twice of the {ndru)
kabaru, a large navigable canal a little to the E. of
Nippur ' in the land of the Chaldeans.'*
CHEDOR-LAOMER [-\'dV'>'\13, so eastern reading,
but '1Cy?T13 western reading [Ginsb. Intr. to Mass.
_. crit. ed. 203/. ; conversely Strack, Kohut
^' Semitic Studies, 566] ; xoAoAAofOMOp
[AEL]-A\A. [Z>], -AAr- [D]). according to (ien. Hi was
aking of Elam, whosedominion extended as far as the SE.
of Canaan, where five kings, of whom those of Sodom
and Gomorrah were the chief, served him twelve years.
In the thirteenth year, however, they rebelled, and in
the fourteenth year they were defeated by the Elamite
and his allies. In the sequel of the story (I'v. 12-24)
we are told how Abram with his own servants and some
allies pursued the victorious army and rescued not only
the captured kings but also his nephew Lot (see
Abraham, § 2). The question whether this narrative
is trustworthy, and whether the Chedor-laomer of the
story and his allies are historical personages, is ruled by
the other, as to the date of the chapter containing it.
That the chapter is quite an isolated piece,
and formed no part of the writings
from which the Hexateuch was composed, may be
considered ascertain. Some scholars, however, (e.j^.,
Kittel) assign it to the eighth century B.C., and
are of OD'r.icn thai the author had an older writing
before him ; according to others, it is not older than
the fourth century B. c.^ The former hold that the
antiquity and the authenticity of the story are attested
by the following facts : — ( i ) that at least the name of
the chief king is purely Elamitic ; (2) that the Rephaim,
the Zamzummin( = Zuzim), and tjie ICmim really occupied
in ancient times what afterwards became the dwelling
places of the Ammonites, Moabites, and Edomites,
whilst the Horites (Gen. 8620), according to Dt. 2 10/:
and 20^, were the oldest inhabitants of Seir ; (3) that
Amorite-S if. v.), the name of the people established,
according to v. 7, in Hazazon-tamar ( = Engedi, 2 Ch.
20 2), is the ancient name of the people of Canaan
(Gen. 1.516 4822 Am. '29), and that several names
(En-mishpat, Hobah, Shaveh), words, and expressions
not occurring anywhere else, as well as the exact
description of the campaign (vv. 5-7), bear the impress
of antiquity and trustworthiness.
The arguments of those who ascribe the narrative to
a post-exilic Jew, whose aim was to encourage his
contemporaries by the description of Abram's victory
over the great powers of the East, his unselfishness,
piety, and proud magnanimity towards heathen men,
mostly take their starting-point in the second part of the
chapter.
It is pointed out that the names of Abram's allies, Mamre
and Eshcol, occur elsewhere (Gen. 13 18 23 17 19 209 8627 50 13
Nu. 13 23) as place names ; that Melchizedek (Malkisedek) and
Abram are represented .is monotheists ; and that the patriarch
pays tithes to the priest-king, a duty not prescribed at all in Dt.
(see 1422-29 2tii2 7?!), but characteristic of the post-exilic
sacerdotal law (Xu. 18 21-28).
' The criticism extends also, however, to the first part,
1 A tablet published by Dr. Clay in vol. ix. of Hilprecht's
Bnbylonian Expedition 0/ the Unrv. of Pennsyhania (pi. 50,
No. 84, I. 2). It should be added that Clubar=%,rfaA, so that
naru Knt{b1')aru = Gxax\A Canal.
2 See, e.g., E. Meyer. GA 1 1(^5/: ('84); Kue. Hex. 324 (R=):
St. ^y4»'6 323('86); We. t // ^o /: ('89); Che. OPs. 4^2, 165,
270 ('91), cp Foundtert, ■iyjf. ; Holzinger, Einl.
(■93)-
d. Hex. 425
CHEDOR-LAOMER
with which we are here chiefly concernc-d. It is remarked
that there is no evidence of the historicity of the campaign
in question, which is, in fact, as closely as possible con-
nected with a view of Abraham which we know to have
been |)Ost-exilic (cp Ei.IK/.F.K, i ). Moreover, it is difficult
to resist the impression that the names of the kings of
Sodom and Gomorrah— viz. , Bera' and Birsha' (com-
pounds conveying the idea of 'evil,' 'Ixidness') — and
the name given in the narrative to the town of Zoar —
viz., IJela" = ' jx-'rdition ■ (see Hei.a) — perhaps also that
of the king of Zelxj'im, which the Samaritan text gives as
Shem-ebed = ' slave- name ' — are, some of them at least,
purely symbolical and therefore fictitious. (See, how-
ever, in each c;ise, the special article. )
What is certain is this : Chedor-laomer, = Kudur-
lagamar, is a purely IClainitic name, which is not,
-J indeed, found as a royal name on the
p. , monuments, but is of the .same type as
laomer.
Kudur-nanhundi (Kutir-iiahhuiite in Old
Susian). the name of a king who in the be
ginning of the twenty-third century B.C. conquered the
whole ; and Kudur-mabuk, the name of another king,
who, probably later, was master of a part of Babylonia.
Lagamar(u) (I^ikamar) occurs as the name of an
Elamitic deity, not only in 5 R (p. vi. . coll. 6, 33), but
also in the Inscriptions of Anzan-Susinak,* and seems
to be the same as Lagamal, the (jueen of the town of
Kisurre (2 R pi. Ix. 15^ = 14^^). Hence the name cannot
be the invention of a Hebrew writer. It can hardly be
doubted, either, that Arioch, king of Ellasar, is really no
other than Eri-aku {i.e., servant of the Moon-god),
the well-known king of L.arsa, son of Kudur-mabuk.'-'
These discoveries h.ive opened a wide field for ingenious
combinations. It hxs been observed th.it Kudur-mabuk is
called in one of the inscriptions of his son by the name
Adda-martu, ' Father of the West.' Now, the word Martu
being commonly use<l, at least in later times, to designate
Western Asia, especi.illy Canaan {t/iat Aharri, or perhaps
better vtat Amurri, the land of the .Amorites), .'\dda= Father
has Ijeen interpreted to mean conqueror, and this has been taken
as evidence ihat, in a very remote period, Cana.in fell under
EIninite domijiion. It is a pity that we must call attention to
a weak p< int in this theorising. Kudur-mabuk is not the same
as Kudur-lag.nmar, and Aiida-martu seems to be only a synonym
o{ Aiitia-yainuihala, a title which the .same kin^, as ruler of a
western province of Elam, bears in other inscriptions (see Tiele,
BAG 123/).
The attempts to make out the two other Eastern
kings to be historical [XTSoiiages must be considered
4 Amraohel ^•^''"'■''^- According to Jos. Hal(5vy,
Td 1 Amraphel is the famous Babylonian king
Hammu-rilbi him.self, whose name is ex-
plained in Semitic as Kimta-rapaUu ['atn = kim(a,
rap/iel=rapaltu = rapa^tu); whilst, according to Hommel
{on A 364^.), he is Hammu-rabi's father Sin-muballit,
because Sin is. sometimes named Amar and inuhallit
may conceivably have been condensed itito pal {phel).
(See also .Xmraphei.. ) With more confidence Shin'ar
is stated to Ije a Hebraised form of Suiner (see Schr.
A'.'f T). Unfortunately, this is by no means certain.
Though Hammurabi was king of Babylon, and there-
fore of Akkad, he was not king of Sumer so long
as Eri-aku was king of Larsa. Not till he had put an
end to the Elamite dominion in Babylonia could he be
called king of Sumer, and then neither Eri-aku nor an
Elamite king could join with him in the contjuest of
Canaan. As to Tid'al, king of (ioyim, we may read
his name Thargal, following (5'''- ; we may identify
the Goyim with the jjeople of Gutium ; we may even
go so far as prudence permits in theorising on the latest
discoveries: but all this d<ies not make TiDAl, ('/.f. )
historical. All that we can say is that the writer of
6. Conclusion.
Gen. 14 no more invented the names
of Amraphel and Tid'al (or Thargal)
1 F. H. \\'cisst).-\rh, ' .Vnzanische Inschriften,' in Ahh. d.
phif.-hist. Ciaise ,i,-> K. Sachs. Cfsellscli. d. H'issensch. xii.,
Leips., 1891, p. I.'; (9 > 't' -.cparate copy).
2 This, ratlu-r lluin Riiii-sin, has been proved by Schr. to be
the correct reading of the name (Sitz.'ber. k. I'reuss. Ak. Pkil.-
hist. Classe, 24 Oct. 1895, xli.).
733
CHEESE
than those of Chedor-laomer and Arioch ; the former
are very possibly corruptions of the niimes of histcjrical
personages whom we are as yet unable to iilcntify.
Nor do we assert that the whole story is the product
of the inventive faculty of the author. That m very
remote times, Babylonian kings extended their sway
as far as the Mediterranean, is not only told in ancient
traditions (e.g. , of Sargon I. ), but has also been proved
by the Amarna tablets. From these we learn that as
late as the fifteenth century B.C., when the kings of
Babylon and Assyria had no authority beyond their ow n
borders and Egypt gave the law to Western Asia,
Babylonian was the official and diplomatic language of
the Western Asiatic nations. Hence it is not imjxjssible,
it is even probable, that a simil.ar suzerainty was
exercised over these nations by the Elamites, who were
more than once masters of Babylonia. Our author,
whether he wrote in the eighth century B.C., or,
which is more probable, in the fourth, may have found
this fact in some ancient record, and utilised it both for
the glorification of the Father of the Faithful and for
encouraging his contemporaries.
So much appears to be all that can be safely stated
in the present state of research. Scheil, however, is of
6 Further °P'"'°" ( 9^) that the Ku-dur-la-a'g-ga-
'., . mar (?) whom he finds in a cuneiform
■ epistle was the Elamite king of I^rsa who
was conquered by Hanmiu-rabi and .Sin-idinnam, and,
therefore, cannot have Ix.-en any other than the son
of Kudur-mabuk, who, as king of Larsa (Ur), had
adopted the name of Rim-sin (Eri-aku?). Pinches has
discovered a cuneiform tablet in the Brit. Mus. col-
lection which has naturally excited great hopes among
conservative critics. It is sadly mutilated ; but it is at
least clear that names which may be the prototyi^es of
Arioch, Tid'al, and possibly Chcdorlaomer, were known in
Babylonia when the tablet w.is inscrited. The tablet
dates, probably, from the time of the Arsacid.x' ; but it
is tempting to assume that the inscription was copied
from one which was made in the primitive Babyloni.an
period. It should l>e noticed, however, that the form
of the first name is not Eri-aku but Eri-(I)P)[E]-a-ku,
and that the third name is not read with full certainty,
the second part lieing -ma/, which is only conjecturally
made into lah-mal. There is also a second tablet on
which two of the names are mentioned again. Pinches
reads the one Eri-e-ku (possibly Eri-e-ku-a), and the other
Ku-dur-lah(?)-gu-mal. In a third inscription the
name Ku-dur-lah(?)-gu-[mal] appears. The second of
the three names is mentioned only in the first tablet
as Tu-ud-hul-a, where, since the Babylonian n answers
to the Hebrew y in S;nn. Pinches and Schrader agree
in recognising the Tid'al of Gen. 14. But not by a
single word do these inscriptions confirm the historicity
of the invasion ' in the days of Amraphel. '
[The doubts here expressed are fully justified by
L. W. King's more recent investigations. Both Scheil's
and Pinches' readings of the res[)ective inscriptions are
incorrect, and 'though Ku-dur-ku-ku-n»al (Kudur-KU-
KU-mal) is styled (in Pinches' inscriptions) a king of
Elam, there is no reason to suppose that he was a
contemporar>' of Hammu-rabi. He might have occupied
the throne at any period before the fourth century n.c]
To the references already given may be added— G. Rawlinson,
Fri'e Monarchies, \H)/., where older works are cited; Tiele,
B.-\G 65/.: Hommel, GHA i23jf. ; Schr. AW 7"-' li^ jr.=
COT 1 \ioff. ; Opi)ert, Voniptrs-rendtis dr FacaJ. des inscr.
9 dte. 1887 ; Pinches, Acts of the Geneva Oriental Congress,
also his paper read Ijefore the VictorLi Institute, Jari. 20, 1896 ;
Schr. ' Ueber einen altoriental. Herrschernamen ' in SR.Al^',
1895, no. xli.; Fr. v. Scheil in Keciieil lie /"rot'rtw.r (Maspcro)
\^^jff., ' correspondance de Hammurabi, roi de liabylone, avec
Sinidinnam, roi de Larsa, oil il est uuestioii de Codorlahomor ;
cp Hommel, AHT, 173-180; L. W. King, Letters and Inscrip-
tions 0/ IJanimuriiH, vol. i., 1898. c. V. T. — \V. H. K.
CHEESE (aVnin *v*in, i s. i7i8 ; np*i. 2s. 1739;
nraj. Job 10 io[. " See MiLK.
734
CHELAL
CHELAL (T'73), one of the b'ne Pahath-moab in the
list of jKTSons with foreign wives (see E/.KA, i. § 5 end),
Kzni 10 30 ((5 has joined Chelal with the preceding
name Adna (nnjj) and reads Aidaiue XarjX [B ; with
ESatve B'lb]. ESei'fx H\ [X], E5^e Kai Xa\r)\ [A],
Aiavaarjif XaXfiavaL [L]). The || i Esd. 931 has quite
different names — 'and of the sons of Addi ; Naathus,
and Moossias, Laccunus,' etc. (©'-, however, reads ESva
A-ai 2::i5ta /cai XaXa/j-avai). See Lac:i;nus.
CHELCIAS, RV Hei.kias, i.e., Hilkiah, g.v. (xeA-
k[€]iac [BAQ cod. 87Theod.]).
1. The father of Susanna (Hist, of Sus., tv. 2, 29, and [cm.
cod. 87] 63).
2. .\n ancestor of Baruch (Bar. 1 i).
3. .\ priest (I!.-ir. I7)
CHELLIANS (xaAAaicon [B], xeAecON [N*A], Syr.
Lj^a). In Judith 223 mention is made of 'the
children of Ishmael, whicli were over against the wilder-
ness to the S. of the land of the Chellians.' The com-
paratively easier reading Chaldeans, which is attested
by (S'^, Syr. and Vet. Lat. , is no doubt rightly con-
sidered by Grimm to be a deliberate rectification of the
te.\t. See Ciikllus.
CHELLUH, RV Chkluhi, mg. Cheluhu (^n-"l?5.
Kt. ; •"ini'pS, Kre; xeAlACOyB [L ; probably through
the influence of eAlAC. "'■ 3^]). mentioned in the list
of persons with foreign wives (see EzK.\, i. § 5, end),
Ezral035 (xeAKeiA [BX], xeAiA [A]) = i Esd. 934.
EV Enasihus (eca(T[e]c/3os [BA]).
CHELLUS (xeAoYC [BA]; xecA. [N], ^ci:::^^ [Syr.]),
one of the places to which Nebuchadrezzar sent his
summons, according to Judith 1 9. The Halhul of Josh.
1058 may be meant ; but the reading xeo'Xoi'S suggests
rather Chesum.oth or CE^ISLOTH-TABOR, which is
given by Jerome and Eusebius as C/iasa/us or x'^^'f^oi'^
{OSi^K 91 4, etc., 30264). See Chellian-.s. Another
identification should be mentioned. Chellus is perhaps
the same as the place which in Jos. An(. .xiv. 1 4 is called
a\ov(Ta, by Jerome and Eusebius a//us, aWovS {OSi-K
8r>6 211 89), viz. nsi'jn (Targ. Jer. Gen. 16 14 ; cp
Gen. 20 1 in Ar., and see Bered), or Elusa. Cp We.
Net\/.i-< 48, n. I ; WRS, A'in. 293/.
CHELOD (xeAeoyA [B], xecAMoyAA [«*].
XeAAloyA [X":-^]. xeAeoyA [A]). 'Very many nations
of the sons of Chelod ' (Judith 1 6) assembled themselves
to battle in the plain of Arioch in the days of Nebu-
chadrezzar and Arphaxad (!). What we ought to
understand by Chelod is cjuite uncertain.
Vet. Lat. has Chelteuth, and Syr. has ' against the Chalda;ans.'
One very improbable conjecture is that \a.\iMV (Calnkh) is
intended ; another, hardly less unlikely, is that the word is the
Hebrew "I7h (' weasel '), and that by the opprobrious designation
of 'children of the weasel' are meant the Syrians (Ew. GV'I
a 543)- ,
CHELUB (3173, § 67, probably a variation of Caleb,
cp below).
(i) .\ Judahite, doubtless to be identified with Caleb (§ 4);
similarly We. (Gent. 20), who reads 'Caleb b. Hezron ' (i Ch.
4 II xaAe^ [BAL], Caleb [Vg.] • ">N'^ [Pesh ]). His designa-
tion 'brother of Shuhah' (,nmtI'"'nN) is not clear; ©ba read
'father of -Xchsah,' possibly a correction (Ki. SBOT). Cp the
still further corrupt Pesh. ' brother of .'\hiah'(JL»ji»ff wkOtClAti )•
(2) Father of Ezm, i Ch. 27 26 (xo/3ouS [R], xeAou^ [A], ^a- [L]).
CHELUBAI (*3-'l'??, § 67, a gentilic [ = ''3'?3 : see
I S. 203 Kre] used instead of the proper name Caleb),
b. Hezron. i Ch. 29 (o X^AeB [A], o X^BeA [B], o
XaAcoBi [E], . .o\ <v, [Pesh., a corruption]); see
Cai.kh, § 3, Cakmi, I.
CHELUHI (xeAiA [A]). Ezra 10 35 RV, RV"'g-
Cheluhu, .\V Chei.i.uh.
CHEMARIM (QnpS), Zeph. I4 RV 2 K. 23 s mg.
Hos. 10 5 nig. ; AV Chemarims, Zeph. I4. Rather
Kfimarim.
735
CHEMOSH
The original Heb. word appears also in 2 K.Ms, where EV
gives 'idolatrous priests,' and in Hos. 10 5, where EV has 'priests.'
It is also highly probable that in Hos. 44 we should read, with
Beck 'for mypeople is like its Chemarim ' 1 (®, however, (09
ai'TiA<y6/i.(i'o; ttpfiif, perhaps an error for -01 Itftivai (Schleusnerj)
© transliterates Xiu/iapet^ ([B.^] 2 K. /.f. ; but Itptlt is also
supported, see Field, //ex eui loc.) ; it apparently omits in Zeph.;
(in Hos. it had a different Heb.). Vg. varies between aruspices
(2 K.) and trditui (Zeph. Hos.); Targ. between k'TCID (2 K.
Zeph.) and •nin'?D ' 'ii«: ministers thereof ' ; Pesh. adheres to
As to the meaning, if we appeal to the versions, we
find only the dim light which an unassisted study of the
context can supply. Evidently the term was applied to
the priests of Baal, who served at the high places under
royal authority, but were put down by Josiah. But
what special idea did the word convey? In itself it
meant simply ' priests ' ; in Zeph. 1 4 KHmdrim and
Ko/itinim are put side by side to express the idea of a
priesthood of many members ; and in Hos. 84 (if the
view proposed above be adopted) we have lihndrim used
of the priests of N. Israel, when these are spoken of
objectively, and then ko/ien, when the priests are ad-
dressed as an organic unity. But the word Klmdrim
probably also conveyed the idea of a worship which
had Syrian affinities. Certainly it cannot be explained
from Hebrew ; -cd does not mean ' to be black ' (cp
Eci.ii'SE), and even if it did, the ' black-rol>ed ones ' is a
most improbable designation for ancient priests.* The
word is no doubt of Syrian origin (see the Aram, inscrip-
tions in CIS 2 nos. 113 130). The primitive form is liumr,
whence Aram, kumrd (never used in an unfavourable
sense) and Heb. /cfmdrim are normally formed. Lagarde
{Armen. Stud. 2386) compared Arm. c/iourm ; but it is
more obviously reasonable to compare the Assyrian
kummaru, which is given as a synonym of lubaru za/iu
— i.e., 'a clean vesture' (Del. Ass. HWB 2,'i7 b., cp
254 b. ). The term fiUmdrim probably described the
Syrian and Israelitish priests in their clean vestments
(cp 2 K. IO22, the Baal festival) when ministering to
their God. To derive it from an Aram, root meaning
' to be sad ' is much less natural.
Delitzsch compares Ass. kaiiidrv, ' to throw down ' ; the
term, he thinks, describes the priests as those who prostrate
themselves in worship (.4 Ji. and Heb., 41, 42; so Che. I/os.
103, III). Finally, Robertson Smith,'^ noting that the word
belongs to a race in which the mass of the people were probably
not circumcised (Herod. '2104, cp Jos. Ant. viii. IO3, c. A/>. i.
22) while the priests were (Dio Cassius, "9ii; Ep. Barnab.
96 ; cp Chwoison, Ssabier, 2 114), conjectures that /iuiii>n means
' the circumcised ' {.\r. /en.
I, ' glans penis ').
CHEMOSH (:^'10^, in M/ E;'03 ; on name see § 4,
end; x^MCOC [B^bXAFQE], amcoc [B* Judg. 11 24],
1 TW K' Oa;wj), the national god of the Moabites
1. moaDS (jK. II7, Jer. 48713). Moabisthe
nauonai p^^pig ^f Chemosh ; the Moabites are
^' his sons and daughters (Nu. 21 29; cp
the relation of Yahwe to Israel, Judg. 5 11 Nu. 11 29
Judg. 11 24 Is. 45 II, etc.). A king of Moab in the time
of Sennacherib was named Chemoshnadab (A'amusu-
7iadab;* cp Jehonadab) ; the father of Mesha was
Chemoshmelech ; ^ a gem found near Beirut is inscribed
'nx'OD^ * (cp Heb. n;n;, "^x-n' ; Phccn. >n'Ta, iVcin-). The
stele of Mesha king oif Moab, contemporary with Ahab,
Ahaziah, and Jehoram of Israel (2 K. 1 3), in the middle
of the ninth century B.C. (see Me.sha), was erected to
commemorate the deliverance which Chemosh had
wrought for his people.
1 Continue, DOV jnsn B?r3l, 'and thou shall stumble, O
priest, in the daytime ' ; at the close of the verse read, with
Ruben, ^'C.n, ' thy Thummim ' (addressed to the priest).
2 Cp Mishna, Middnth 64. .\ priest who had become unfit
for service put on black garments and departed. One who was
approved by the Sanhedrin clothed himself in white, and went
in, and ministered
3 /T^'OI s.v. ' Priest.'
* KB '2 go/.; CO'/' 1 281.
* Others read Chemoshgad.
6 Kenan, Miss, de P/ifn. 35a.
736
2. Other
Moabite gods.
CHENAANAH
The injicnplion tells us that Omri had oppressed Moab for a
loiiK time Iwcaiisc Chemosh was wioih wiili his land (/. 4/);
the Israelites had occupied the district of Medelia forty years,
hut Cheiiiosh had now restored it to Moali {//. 7-9) ; Cheniosh
drove out the kinj; of Israel lK:forc Moiih from Jaiiaz (//. 18-21);
at the bidding of Cliemo>h, .\l»:>ha foujjht a^jainst Nelx) and
look it (//. 14-17); at his command, he mailc war on Horonaim,
and Chemosh restored it to Moab (//. 31-33); the inhabitants of
captured cities were slaughtered, ' a spectacle (? fi'i) for Chemosh
and Moab" (//. iiy.); men, women, and children were devoted
to Ashtar-Chemosh (//. 15-17)— the D^n (sec Ban); the spoils of
Israelite sanctuaries were carried off and presented to Chemosh
(//. 12/. 17/).
The religion of Moab in the ninth century was thus vciy
similar to that of Israel : the historical books of the OT |
furnish parallels to almost every line of the inscription.
We learn from the OT that human sacrifices were
offered toChemosh, at least in great nation.il emergencies;
the king of Moab, shut up in Kir-hareseth and unable
to cut his way out, ofiercd his eldest son upon the wall ;
the effect of this extraordinary sacrifice w.os a great
outburst of Chemosh's fury upon Israel, which compelled
the invaders to return discomfited to their own land
(2 K. 827). Priests of Chemosh are mentioned in Jer.
487; the language of Mesha, 'Chemosh said to me"
(//. 14, 32), supposes an oracle, or i)erh;i()S prophets.
The worshi]) of Chemosh rus the national god did
not cxchulc the worship of other gods ; Mesha's inscrip-
tion speaks of Ashtar-Chemosh (/. 17)
— that is, most probably, an 'Ashlar
(.Astarte) who was associated in worship
with Chemosh,' perhaps at a particular sanctuary. The
worshij) of Haal-peor (Nu. 2."), cp Hos. 9 10) was prob-
ably a local Moabite cult — there is no ground for
identifying the god with Chemosh. (See B.'\al-pkok. )
[Mcth] I'.aal-meon (Mesha, //. 9, 30; OT) was, as the
name shows, the seat of another local Baal cult. Mount
Nebo may have received its name in the period of
Babylonian supremacy ; but we do not know that the
worship of the Babylonian god was perpetuated by the
Moabites. Cp Xi;no.
The statement of Eusebius (OS 228 66/?:, s.7>. 'Apivd) that
the inhabitants of Areopolis in his day called their idol 'Api^A,
' Ijecause they worship))ed Ares," seems to be the product of a
complex misunderstanding.
In Judg. 1124, in the arguiuent of Jcphthah with the
king of the .Xnunonites, 'Chemosh thy god' is set
p. , over against ' Yahw6 our god ' in such a
3. onemosn ^^.^^, ^^ ^^ .^^^^^, ^^^^ Chemosh was the
Mb n-it''">-'^l K'^*' "f -^'"'"on. From many
passages in the C) T we know, however,
that the national god of the Anmionites was Mikoin
(see Mll.roM) while Chemosh was the god of Moab.
The hypothesis that Chemosh and Milcom are but two
names of the .same god (.Milcom originally a title) is
excluded by the contexts in which they ajj'pear side by
side {e._^., i K. II33). N'or is it sufiicient to sujipose
that Chemosh in Judg. 11 24 is merely a slij) on the part
of the author or a scribe for MiUom : closer examination
shows that the whole historical argument applies to
Moab only, not to Anunon. Whatever explanation
may lie given of this incongruity (see Moore, Judi^es,
283 ; Bu. tiiihter, 80/ ), the passage caiuiot be taken
as evidence tliat t!hemosh was the god of .\nmion as
well as of the sister people Moab. The statement of
Suidas {s.v. Xafius) that Chemosh was a god of the
Tyrians and .\mmonites is, as the context shows, a
confused reminiscence of 1 K. 1 1 5 7.
From the name viufiaa/SijAo?, the second mythical Babylonian
ruler after the flootl (Frat^. Ifisi. (7r. 2 503), it has been surmised
that the worship of Chemosh was of Babylonian oriRin ; the
narnc of the city Carchcmish on the Euphrates has been ex-
plained as 'Citadel of C"hemosh ';_ neither of these theories has
any other basis than a fortuitous similarity of sound.
.Solomon built a high place for Chemosh on the
MoiNT OK Oi.iVKS (1 K. Il7<i), where, according to
2 K. '23 13, it stood until Josiah's reform — more than
three hundred years.
1 Cp Phocn. rnncUDVo and 'the Astarte in the ashera of
El-hamman,' in the Ma'sub inscription.
inscription.
737
CHEPHIRAH
During the long reign of the theory — not yet univer-
sally abandoned — that all the gods of the nations were
4 N t ftf heavenlylxxliesor njetetjricpheiKjmena,
cy, 'If® ( hemosh was by some thought to \k. the
i^nemoBn ; re- ^^^^ , ^^^^^^ identified with Milcom-
presentations. M„i^^.h.saturn ; the one opinion has
as little foundation as the other. In Roman times
Rabbath-moab, as well as the more northern .\r-moab,
was called Areopolis, and this name — perhaps originally
only a Gra;cising of Ar (Jerome) — w.as understood as
• City of .Xres. ' Coins of Kabbath-moab in the reigns of
Getaand .Severus ( Kckkel , iii. 504 ; cp .Mionnet, v. 591,
Sup|)l. viii. 388) exhibit a standing warrior in whom
the tyix; of Mars is to Ix; recognised ; but even if we
were sure that the old Moabite god of the city is
represeiUed, and not the Nabataan Dusares, we could
learn nothing alxjut the nature of C hemosh in O T times
from so late and contaminated a source. Confusion of
Chemosh with Dusares is probably to Ixj assumed in
the statements of Jewish writers that the idol of Chemosh
was a black stone — the same which is now adored by
Moslems in the Caaba at Mecca. ^
The etymology of the name Chemosh is quite un-
known : a fact which gives good reason to believe that
he is one of the older Semitic gods.
I). Hackmann, ' Ue Chemoscho Moabitarum idolo,' 1730 (in
Oelrich's Cotleclio of>uscutorum, 1768, pp. 17-60), Movers,
J hSiiizit-r, 1 3347?! ; Scholz, Cotzendienst
6. Literature. ««</ '/.auhcrivtsen hei di-n aiten Hehriiern,
\-](iff- \ Baudissin, in PKE'!^) s.v. ' Kemosch '
(with full literature); IJaetlit'en, Beitr. 13-15. G. Y. M.
CHENAANAH (njyj?, § 73, ' towards Canaan ' (?) ;
XANAAN [HL]).
1. In genealogyof Benjamin (89(11.)), i Ch. 7 \o(\avo.vav [.^1).
2. Father of the false prophet Zedekiah, i K. 'J- 11 (^aoi-a
[B], x<iv<xva.\\\)i^; 2Ch. 18io(xai'aoi'a[.\])23.
CHENANI ("333 : cp Chenaniah), Levite officiating
at constitution of ' congregation ' (see I'",/.k.\, ii. }:§ 12, 13
[/.J); Xeh.94 (om. B.. Yioi xanani [for MT Bani
Chenani, N-'-'A], xoONeNlAC [l-])-
CHENANIAH ("in^m and n;33?, §31 : [eJiexoNiAC
[I'>NLJ ; cp Chenani), chief of the Levites, who was
over ' the song,' or ' the carrying' (viz., 'of the ark' —
text obscure: see Ki. and Be. ad loc.) \ i Ch. I.'j22
(kconenia [HN], xo). [-^ll. 27 (kai xencniac [-^1.
XONCN- [L]), '2t)29 (xcoNjeNeiA [1^]. X'*>xeNiAC L-^].
XONeNIA [l']»-
CHEPHAR-HAAMMONAI, R\' Chephar-ammoni
(••yifSyn 1D3 — /'.(•., 'village of the Ammonite'; see
Bknjamin, § 3 ; — Kr. has n^itOyn ; KAPA(t)A K.
Ke4)eipA KAI MONei [B; MONei represents also *3Ei;];
KA(i)HpAMA,\IN [A]; KA4)ApAMMC0NA L'-l*' ^" """
identitied place in Benjamin, mentioned with OriiM
[</.T'.] (Josh. 18 24 P). The name is possibly of post-
exilic origin (cp P.\h.\tii-m().\b). See A.mmon, § 6,
and Bi niiioKo.N, § 4, Tohij.mi, 4.
CHEPHIRAH (nTD3; in Josh. n-l'Mn ; 'the
village'? or 'the lion'? KA(|)[elipA [BX.\]. Ke4)eipA
[l,]i, a town of the Hiviles, member of the Gibeonite
confederation (Josh. 917: xt<pnpa. [A], kc^. [BK], Kfcfnjpa
[LJ), afterwards assignee! to Benjamin (Josh. 18 26:
Xf<pfipa T-V]. <f>- [B]). and mentioned in the great post-
exilic list (see V.7.HA, ii. § 9, tj 8 r. ) Kzra 225 = Xch. 729
(xa^tpa [•■^3)=' ^sd. 5 19, C.\i'iiiK.\ (01 (k irapas [B],
. . . Ka^tpas [.\], K((f>npo- [I-]), 's the modern Kefireh,
alKHit 5 m. WSW. from el-Jib ((iibeon).
In I Ks<!. .'iiq PiRA (AV, oni. RV ; weipa.^ [B]), the second
n.-ime after Caphira, is apparently a corrupt repetition (cp ®B's
form of Caphira). Buhl (/'«/. 169) suggests that Kephirim (EV
'villages') in Neh. 62 may l>e the same as Kephirah.
1 Lek-iuh Toh on Nu. 21 20. By a strange blunder W. L.
Bevan and Sayce (in Smiths DB<>') s.v.) have turned this into a
black s/nr.
2 The forms Kiavtvia, etc., point to a reading n'ii^3 (cp aCh.
31i2yC), whilst I(xoi"af points to n'32' or rather to ri'313% a
.scribe's error for n*33131 (cp Ki., Chron., SBOT).
738
CHEQUER WORK
CHEQUER WORK (|'5*^*n), Ex.28439 RV. See
Emhkoidkky, WicAviNG ; also Tunic.
CHERAN (p? ; XAPPAN [ADEL], a Horite clan-
name (CJen. 8626). See DiSHON.
CHEREAS. RV Ch.kkeas (xaircac and ^ep- [A],
Xep&iAC [\jl. brother of TiMOTiiKis (i/.v.). and com-
maiuk-r of the fortress at CJazara (2 Mace. IO3237).
CHERETHITES (D^niS, 'niSn. © in Sam. and
K. o xcpe99ei. or [by assimilation to Pelethites]
0 xe^eeeei ; Vg. Ct-rethi ; ®'in Prophets KpHTCc). a
people in the south of Palestine. In the days of Saul
and David a region in the Negeb adjoining Judah and
Caleb bore their name (i S. ;30i4 xo^^" [B] XfP'?^" [A]
XO/)/)t [L]). From v. 16 it appears that the inhabitants
of this region were reckoned to the Philistines ; in Zeph.
25 and Ez. 25 16 (AV Cherethims), also, Philistines and
Cherethites are coupled in such a way as to show that
they were regarded as one people. P'inally, in the
names mentioned in the prophecy against Egypt
in Ez. 30 5,' where AV gives, 'the men of the land
that is in league,' we should restore 'the Cherethites'
('n-i3n '33? ; so Cornill, Toy). It is to be inferred that
the Cherethites were a branch of the Philistines ; or,
perhaps, that they were one of the tribes which took part
with the Philistines in the invasion of Palestine, and that,
like the latter, they remained behind when the wave
receded (see Philistines, § 2, Caphtor, § 2). The
© translators of Zeph. and Ez. interpreted the name by
Cretans ; and in this, although they may have been
guided only by the sound, they perhaps hit upon the
truth. ■■' An early connection between Gaza and Crete
seems to be indicated by other evidence (see Gaza).
Except in the three passages already cited, the name
occurs only in the phrase, ' the Cherethites and Pele-
thites' (-nl^srii 'nirn ©gen. (peXeddei) as the designation
of a corps of troops in the service of David — his body-
guard (2S. 8 18 15 18 -207 23 Kr., i K. I3844 i Ch. 18 17 ;
ffijuaTo<pv\aK€s Jos. Ant vii. 64, etc. ).^ They were
commanded by Benaiah, i, and remained faithful to
their master in all the crises of his reign (2 S. 15 20
1 K. 1).
Only the strongest reasons could warrant our separat-
ing the C'herethites of David's guard from the people of
the same name spoken of in the same source (i S. 3O14).
There are no such reasons : 'niDn has the regular form of
a gentile noun ; and, although much ingenuity has been
expended on the problem, all attempts to explain the
word as an appellative have failed. The name Pelethite,
which is found only coupled with Cherethite in the
phrase above cited, also is a gentile noun ; the etymo-
logical explanations are even more far-fetched than in
the case of the Cherethites. The presumption is that
the I'elethites also were Philistines ; * and this is confirmed
by the passages cited from Zeph. and Ez. ; 'rt^s is
perhaps only a lisping pronunciation of 'nii'Ss. to make
it rhyme with 'niD-
It need not surprise us that David's guard was com-
posed of foreign mercenaries. The Egyptian kings of
the nineteenth dynasty recruited their cor/>s d'^lile from
the bold sea-rovers who periodically descended on their
coasts ; Rameses II. displays great pride in his Sardinian
1 \Kf>i\Tf<i in ® is obviously misplaced ; this version has been
conformed to the Hebrew ; hence the insertion xal tutv vliiv
■njs fiioflnicT)? jiiov. Davidson's view (icpiJTes = Put) will hardly
stand. In three places ® has At/Sues for Put. See Chub,
Gkographv, § ?2.]
- Lakemacher, Ewald, Hitzig, Stade, and others. For another
view see Cachtor.
8 [The readings var>' : thusx'peSi [L in 2 S. 8 i8], x^TTfi [R in
doublet 2 S. 15 18], xfT«i (L ib.\, A om. doublet xopfO0ei [A in
2 S. 207 ; L omits and in t. 23I ; trpeis [RL] and xep»)Si [A] in
1 Ch. 18 17, xoPfx- [L in 1 K. I38 44]). Variants for Pelethites
are <^eA«TT«t [B in 2 S. 818] <o<^fAee»« [A ti.] -rflfi [R in doublet
2 S. 1.5i81, .ind<fraATeta[R]-Tia[K]4aA6eflt[A]iniCh. 1817. L
has uniformly </)eATi, but <f>f\9i in 2S. 15 18, (^ep<0t in i Ch. 18 17,
and n\ivOiov in 2 S. 2O23 ; see Renaiah, 1.]
* Abulwalid, Laketnacber, Ewald, etc.
739
CHERITH
guards, and Sardinians and Libyans are the flower of
the army of Rameses III.' The Philistines were more
skilled in arms than the Israelites, and doubtless liked
fighting better : cp Ittai the Gittite, and see Army, §4.
It is the opinion of some recent scholars that where
David's j^Mon'm (EV ' mighty men ') seem to Ix; spoken
of as a Ixxly, the Cherethites and Pelethites are meant ;
see especially i K. 1 8 10 compared with v. 38. This is,
however, not a necessary inference from the verses cited ;
and conflicts with 2 S. 20? (cpl5i8 6). More prob-
ably the ^bborim were the comrades of Da\id in the
days of his outlawry- and the struggle with the Philistines
for independence. See Davip, § 11. In 2 S. 20 23 for
'Cherethites' the Heb. text (Kt.) has Carites ('-en).*
In 2 K. II4 19, where this name again occurs, it prob-
ably means 'Carians.' The Carians were a famous
mercenary folk, and it would not surprise us tcj find
them at Jerusalem in the days of Athaliah (sec Cakites).
That the soldiers of the guard in even later times were
usually foreigners has been inferred from Zeph. 18/ and
from Ez. 446^: see WRS O/yCW 260/., but also
Threshold. For mercenary troops in post-exilic times
see Army, § 7.
Literature. — Dissertations by Joh. Benedict Carpzov (1661),
and Hen. Opitz (1672), in Ugol. Ihes. 27423^., 451 ff.\ ].G.
Lakemacher, Ohservaiiones Philolngicee, P. II. (1727), pp. 11-44 ;
Conrad Iken, Dissertationes Philologiio-Tfieolo^ine (i-ng), pp.
111-132; B. Rehrend, Die Kreti uud Plcti ; ihre inhaltliche
Bedeutung und Geschichte ('88) — extract from MGIVJ ('87),
pp. 1 1 7- 1 53 ; Riietschi, PRE(^) 8 268 ^^ g. F. M.
CHERITH (nn?, xopp^e [BAL] ; xoppA \_Onom.-\).
Elijah {q.v.) has just informed .-Xhabof the impending
drought, when we are abruptly told that ' Yahwes word
came unto him, saying. Get thee hence' [i.e., pre-
sumably from Samaria), 'and turn to the east (,^c^g)
and hide thyself in the torrent-valley of Cherith which
is before (<33-'?l') Jordan' (i K. 1735)- This occurs in
the first scene of the highly dramatic story of Elijah.
In the second he appears in the far north of Palestine
— at Zarephath, which hardly suits Robin.son's identifi-
cation {RR\^=,^) of Cherith withthe VVady el- Kelt
(which is rather the Valley of Zeboim \q.v., i.]). at
least if these two scenes stood in juxtaposition from the
first. Besides this, the two names Kelt and Cherith
begin with different palatals and since the expression
■ l^efore Jordan ' is most naturally explained ' to the E.
of the Jordan,' ^ it is plausible to hold with Prof G. A.
Smith that the scene of Elijah's retreat must be sought
in Gilead {HG zfio). Let us, then, look across
the Jordan eastward from Samaria (where Elijah may
have had his interview with Ahab). The \\TKly 'Ajlim
and the Wady Rajib have been proposed by Thenius ;
the Wady el-Yabis by Miihlau. But, as C. Niebuhr
{Gesch.\-i()\) points out, Elijah would certainly go to
some famous holy place. Of the burial-place of Moses
(Niebuhr) we know nothing ; but i K. I93 9 suggests
that the sanctuary was in the far south. It is true,
Eus. and Jer. (O5 30269 II328) already place Cherith
{Xoppa, Chorath) bej-ond Jordan. Josephus, however,
makes Elijah depart 'into the southern parts' {Ant.
viii. 132). What we have to do is to find a name which
could, in accordance with analogies, be worn down and
^ Many other examples in ancient and modem times will occur
to the reader.
2 In 2 S. 20 23 Kt. 'n^rt is perhaps not a purely graphic
accident ; cp also i S. 30 14 L x°PP<-> ^^'^•
* ['3S"'?y in geographical and topographical expressions means
commonly .^«.f/ ; cp i K.II7 2 K. 23 13 Dt.3249 Gen. 23 19 2.5
_iS, etc. Besides the vaguer meaning of be/ore (e.g., Clen. 16 12)
it is sometimes made definite by the addition of a word or of an
expression in order to denote a particular direction — e.g.. Josh.
l-efore the Valley of Hinnom tfes/ivard
158, the
(Zech. 144), and the Mount of Olives, which is^^/ijfr Jerusale
the F.nsi iZ-}r)ri) : cp Nu. 21 11 Josh. 18 14. Lastly, it is used in
the sense of overlooking; cp Gen.l8i6 1928 Nu.'23 28 (cp Dr.
on I Sam. 1;")7, Di. on Josh. 17 7, and especially Moore, /«<J^«,
10 3). In iK. 173, TDij?, 'eastward,' should be corrected to
in^SIO, ' towards the desert ' (as 19 4).]
740
CHERUB
corruptfKl into nna. Such a name is hbhi, Rehoboth.
The valley of Rehoboth (the W'ddy Riihailjch) would
Ix: fitly described as onsO '3B"Sy, 'fronting Misrim'
(see MiZRAiM) ; cp Gen. 25 i8. The alteration of c'lXD
into f-pi'n was made in order to suit the next story, in
which Zki'HATH {i/.v.) had been already corrupted into
ZAKEI'HATH. t. k. c.
CHERUB, plural form Cherubim (3n3. D'2-J3.
D^anS; xepoyB- xepoYB(e]i/v\, -re]iN Li^-'^M: e'y
1 Lata Jewish "'"'"«y ••'si'ute.l ; I's. 104 3 may allude
oClr.nW,, l"'"^ popular [p:.st-cxilii] identification
angeioiogy. ^^^ ^riS and nn"). but >t^r«* being,
like ypr\(/, a loan-word, a Hebrew etymology is in-
admissible). In the composite system of Jewish angei-
oiogy the cherubim form one of the ten highest classes
of angels, while another class is distinguished by the
synonymous term 'living creatures" {Aajyd/A). These
two classes, together with the 'ophannim or ' wheels," are
specially attached to the throne of the divine glory, and
it is the function of the cherubim to be bearers of the
throne on its progresses through the worlds. The
Jewish liturgy, like the ' Te Deum,' delights to associate
the ' praises of Israel " (Ps. '22 3 [4]) with those offered to
God by the different cla.sses of angels, and singles out
for special mention in a portion of the daily morning
service the 'ophannim, the hayyoth, and the slraphim.
We find an approach to this conception in the Apocalypse,
where the four fwa (Rev. 46-8), though — like the twenty-
four Trpfa^vTfpoL — they are always mentioned apart from
the angels, and discharge some altogether peculiar
functions, are yet associated with the angels in the
utterance of do.xologies ' (Rev. 48011-14191-7).
A siniilar view is suggested in the ' Similitudes ' in
Enoch, in one passage of which (61 10/. ) ' the cherubim,
seraphim, and 'ophannim, and all the angels of power '
are combined under the phrase ' the host of God," and
unite in the ivscription of blessedness to the ' Lord of
Spirits," while in another (chap. xl. ) the 'four faces on
the four sides of the Lord of Spirits " (a reminiscence of
Ezek. 16) are identified or confounded with the arch-
angels. Elsewhere, however, a somewhat different
view is presented of the cherubim. They are the sleep-
less guardians of the ' throne of His glory ' (71 7) ; they
arc t!ie ' fiery cherubim ' (Hii), and together with the
seraphim (exceptionally called ' serpents,' SpaKovrcs) are
closely connected v.ith Paradise, and placed under the
archangel Gabriel (20 7). From these facts we gather
that in the last two centuries B.C. there were different
ways of conceiving the cherubim. Some writers had a
2 Ezek ''Si/' 6 ^""""Ser sense of the peculiarity of
Isa ifi-'i- * ^^^ nature of the cherubim than
^' others, and laid stress on such points
as their connection with the divine tire, and with Paradise
and its serpent-guardians. Whence did they derive a
notion sr) suggestive of mythological comparisons?
The most reasonable answer is, I'rom the earlier
religious writings, supplemented and interpreted by a
not yet extinct oral tradition. A tale of the serpents by
the sacred tree (once probably serpent-demons) may
have been orally handed down, but the conception of the
fiery cherubim in God's heavenly palace is to be tracetl
to the vision in Ezek. 1, and to the account of the
' mountain of God ' in Eden, with its ' stones of fire ' and
its cherub -guardian, in Ezek. 28 13/ 16. These two
passages of Ezekiel form the next stage in our journey.
The latter nmst be treated first, as being evidently a
faithful report of a popular tradition. Unfortunately
the received Hebrew text is faulty, and an intelligible
exegesis of the passage is rarely given. Keil, for
instance, admits some reference to Paradise, but feels
' "The differences lictween the fia of Revelation and those of
Ezekiel, both as to their appearance and as to their functions,
are obvious. But without the latter how could the former have
been itnagined? The traditional Christian view that the apoca-
lyptic fia symbolise the four Gospels can hardly be seriously
defended.
741
CHERUB
obliged to infer from the epithet ' that covereth' (^3^o.^)
that ' the place of the cherub in the sanctuary (Ex. 2.') 20)
was also present to the prophet's mind. ' .\or is the
diflliculty confined to this epithet and to the c<)ually strange
word (nrcc) which Vg. renders 'extentus,' and EV
' anointed ' (so Thcodot.); the opening phrase ariTnu,
whether renderetl ' thou wast the cherub ' or 1 pointing r\H
differently) 'with the cherub,'' baffles comprehension.
It is necessary, therefore, to correct the text of w. 13/.
16^ ; we shall then arrive at the following sense : —
' Thou wast in Eden, the divine garden ; of all
I precious stones was thy covering — cornelian, etc. ; and
of gold were thy . . . worked ; in the day when thou
wast made were they prepared. To be . . . had 1
appointed thee ; thou wast upon the holy, divine moun-
tain ; amidst the stones of fire didst thou walk to and
fro.'- Then wast thou dishonoured (being cast) out of
the divine mountain, and the cherub destroyed thee
(hurling thee) out of the midst of the stones of fire."
The sense now becomes fairly clear. We have here
a tradition of Paradise distinct from that in Gen. 2 and
3. Favoured men, it appears, could be admitted to
the divine garden, which glittered with precious stones
(or, as they are also called, 'stones of fire) like the
mythic tree which the hero (jilgames saw in the
Babylonian epic,** or like the interior of the temples of
Babylon or Tyre,* or like the walls and gates and
streets of the new Jerusalem in the .\f>ocalypse. But
these privileged persons were still liable to the sin of
pride, and such a sin would l)c their ruin. This Ezekiel
applies to the case of the king of Tyre, who reckoned
himself the favourite of his god, and secure of admission
to Paradise.
The idea of the passage is closely akin to that ex-
pressed in Is. 1413-15. The king of Babylon believes
that by his unique position and passionate devotion to
the gods he is as.sured of entering that glorious cosmic
temple of which his splendid terrace-temples are to him
the symbols. Towards Marduk he is humility itself,
but to the unnamed prophet of Yahwe he seems proud
even to madness. From that heaven of which in his
thoughts he is already the inhabitant, the prophet sees
him hurled as a lifeless corpse to an ignoble grave.
This is just what Ezekiel holds out in pros[)ect to the
king of Tyre, and the destroying agent is the cherub.
How different this idea of the cherub from that of the
apocalyptic fwa !
We have again a different conception of the
cherubim in Ezekiel's vision (Ez. 1).* The prophet
has not the old untjuestioning belief in tradition, and
modifies the traditional data so as to produce effective
_ . . ^ symbols of religious ideas. Out of the
■ ^ ■"' elaborate description it is enough to
select a few salient points. Observe then that the one
cherub of the tradition in ch. 28 has now become four
cherubim (cp Rev. 46-8), each of which has four faces,
one looking each way, viz. that of a man, a lion, an ox,
and an eagle, and human hands on his four sides.
They are not, however, called cherubim, but hayyoth.
1 So Co., following ®BAQ, Sym., but in other respects reading
p. T 4 as above.
2 According to the ordinary view which m.ikes the Tyrian
prince a cherub, the plumage of the cherub of K/ekiel's tradition
was resplendent as if with gold and precious stones. But surely
it wxs not merely as a griffm, nor as a grirTins fellow, that the
Tyrian prince was placed (as the prophet dramatically states) in
Paradise, but as one of the ' sons of Elohim" ; and the covering
spoken of is a state-dress besprinkled with precious stones.
'Stones of fire" means 'flashing stones," like the Assyrian aban
t'sdti, ' stone of fire," one of the names of a certain precious stone
(Friedr. Del. /'an 118).
3 Tablet IX. See Jeremias, [zduhar-Ximrod, 70.
* For Babylon see >f ebuchadre?7ar"s inscription, R r<^ S \cnff-,
where he describes the beautification of the temple R-sagila at
freat length. Gold and precious stones are specially mentioned.
or the temple of Tyre see Herod. 244 (the two brilliant pillars).
Gold was also lavishly used in the temple of Solomon.
* There is a second description in IO8-17, but it is the attempt
of a later writer to improve upon Ezekiel's account, and to pre-
pare the way for v. 20. K. 14 should be omitted as a verj- care-
less gloss. See Comill, and on r. 14 cp Davidson.
74a
CHERUB
('living creatures'), until we come to 93, and Ezekiel
tells us (lOzo) that he did not 'know that they were
cherubim' till he heard them called so by God (10 2).
By this he implies that his own description of them
differed so widely from that received by tradition that
without the divine assurance he could not have ventured
to call them cherubim. Sometimes, however, he sixjaks
of them in the singular ('the living creature,' 1 20-22 ;
'the cherub,' 93 IO24, if MT is correct), apparently to
indicate that, being animated by one 'spirit,' the four
l>eings formed but one complex phenomenon. The
fourfold character o'' the cherub is caused by the new
function (relatively to the account in ch. 28) which is
assigned to it ; in fact, it has now become the bearer of
the throne of God (more strictly of the 'firmament'
under the throne I2226). But the whole appearance
was at the moment bathed in luminous splendour, so
that the seer needed reflection to realise it. We will
therefore not dwell too much on what must be to a
large extent peculiar to Ezekiel and artificially symbolic,
and in so far belongs rather to the student of biblical
theology. All that it is important to add is that the
divine manifestation takes place within a storm-cloud,
and that a fire which gives out flashes of lightning burns
brightly between the cherubim ; also that there are
revolving wheels txiside the cherubim, animated by the
same ' spirit ' as the living creatures, and as brilliant as
the chrysolith or topaz ; and that in his vision of the
temple Ezekiel again modifies his picture of the; cherubim,
each cherub having there but two faces, that of a man
and that of a lion (-11 18/ ).
.Another group of passages on the cherubim is found
in the Psalter, viz. Ps. 18 10/ [11/.] 80 1 [2] 99 1, and to
^ „ . the latter we may join not onlv I's.
4 Some post- 33 [4], but phrases in i S. U 2S. 62
exihc passages. ^ ^l^'\^^ 2 K. 19 15 ( = Is. 37 16).
All these passages are post-exilic.^ In the first we read,
' He bowed the heavens and came down, and thick
clouds were under his feet ; he mounted the cherub and
flew, he came swooping upon the wings of the wind.'
That there is a mythical conception here is obvious,
but it has grown very pale, and does not express much
more than Ps. 104 3(^. The conception agrees with
that of Ezekiel ; the cherub (only one is mentioned, but
this does not exclude the existence of more) is in some
sense the divine chariot, and has some relation to the
storm-wind and the storm-clouds. The other psalm-
passages appear at first sight to give a new conception
of the cherubim, who are neither the guards of the
'mountain of God,' nor the chariot of the moving
Deity, but the throne on which he is seated. It may
be questioned, however, whether the phrase ' enthroned
upon the cherubim ' is not simply a condensed expres-
sion for ' seated on the throne which is guarded by the
cherubim. ' Both in the Psalter and in the narrative-
books it is the heavenly throne of Yahwfe which is
meant, the throne from which (as is implied in Ps.
80i[2]99i and 2 K. 19 15) he rules the universe and
guides the destiny of the nations. That is the only
change which has taken place in the conception of the
cherubim ; they have been definitely transferred to
heaven, and, strictly s[>eaking, their occupation as
bearers of the Deity should have gone, for the ' angels '
are sufficient links between God and the world of men
Or rather there is j-et another point in which the cherub
idea has been modified; it is indicated in Ps. 223(4)
where, if the text is correct,^ Yahwe is addressed as
'enthroned,' not upon the cherubim, but 'upon the
praises of Israel.' The idea is that the cherubim in
heaven have now the great new function of praising
God. and that in the praiseful services of the temple,
where God is certainly in some degree present, the
tin the three passages from S. and i Ch. the phra.se 20^
C'lisn has been interpolated (cp Ark, § i).
2 See Che., PsJ^', ad loc, where the text of the deeply
corrupt verse is restored with .some confidence.
743
CHERUB
' congregation takes the place of the cherubim. This at
any rate agrees with later Ixjliefs, and may be illustrated
by the direction in Ex. 2020 (P) that the faces of the
cherubim on the ark shall be ' towards the mercy-seat '
[kapporeth). The meaning of the priestly theorist (for
the description is imaginary, the ark having long ago
tlisappeared) is, that the cherubim are a kind of higher
angels who surround the earthly throne of Yahwe and
contemplate and praise his glory. It is also stated
that their faces are to be 'one to another,' and, if
we add to this that they have to guard, not Yahwe,
i but the sacramental sign of his favour, we get three
j points in which the cherubim of the priestly writer are
I cl().sely analogous to the seraphim of the vision of Isaiah
I (Is. 6).
We now come to the cherubim in the temple of
Solomon. Carved figures of cherubim were prominent
„ . , in the decoration of the walls and the
. doors, and two colossal cherubim stood
" ■ in the dfblr or 'adytum,' where they
' formed a kind of dais, one wing being horizontally
stretched towards the lateral wall, whilst the other over-
shadowed the ark, a felicitous arrangement resulting in
charming effects'^ (see i K. 623-35). Obviously they
are the guards of the sacred ark and its still more sacred
contents. (Jp Temi'I.e.
There is no record of any myth which directly
accounts for the temple-cherubim. But an old tradition
p ,. said that after the first human pair had
6. i'araaise ^^^^^ driven out of the divine garden,
story. Yahwe 'stationed at the east of the
(iarden of Eden the cherubim and the blade of the
whirling sword,' ''' and the function of these two allied
but independent powers was ' to guard the way to the
tree of life' (Gen. 824). Neither in this case, nor in the
jircceding one, is any account given of the physiognomy
of the cherubim. In the height of the mythological
period no such account was needed.
We see therefore that the most primitive Hebrew
myth descrited the cherubim as beings of superhuman
power and devoid of human sympathies,
whose office was to drive away intruders
from the abode of God, or of the gods.
Originally this abode was conceived of as a mountain,
or as a garden on the lower slopes of a mountain, and
as glittering with a many- coloured brightness. But
when the range of the supreme god's power became
wider, when from an earth -god he became also a
heaven-god, the cherub too passed into a new phase ;
he became the divine chariot. We have no early
authority for this view, but the age which produced the
story of Elijah's ascent to heaven in a fiery chariot
(2K. 2ii) may be supposed to have known of fiery
cherubs on which Yahw^ rode. At a still later time,
the cherubim, though still spoken of by certain writers,
were no longer indispensable.* The forces of nature
were alike Yahwe's guards and his ministers. Mythology
became a subject of special learning, and its details
acquired new meanings, and the cherub-myth passed
into an entirely new phase.
There is much that is obscure about the form of the
primitive Israelitish cherub. It was in the main a land-
animal, but it had \yings. That is all that we know,
though a probable conjecture (see below) may lead us
further. As to the meaning of the cherubim, they have
been thought to represent the storm-clouds which some-
times hang around the mountain peaks, sometimes
rush 'on the wings of the wind,' sending forth arrow-
1 Perrot and Chipiez, Art injudcra, 1 245-
2 The sword is not the sword of the cherubim but that of
Yahwe; it is the same with which he 'slew the dragon' (Is.
'J7i). M.-irduk, too, has such a sword (see Smith, Chald,
Gen. 86 I'So], and the illustration, opp. 114).
3 In Hab. 3 8 a very late poet speaks of Vahwb as riding,
not upon a cherub, but upon horses. This is a return to a very
old myth (see tablet 4 ot the Babylonian Creation epic, p. 52,
Zimmern's restoration in Gunkel's SchSpf. 411).
744
7. Develop-
ment.
CHERUB
like flashes of li(;htning. This theory is consistent with
the lanRuafjc of I's. IX9/ liz. 1 4/ 24, and the passages
ill l-.nixh, but hardly explains the symbolism of the
_ , , cherub in its earliest historically known
6"*' forms. At any rate, we can aftirm posi-
tively that the myth is of foreign origin. Ixnorntant
thoui,'ht that he had tracctl it to Babylonia,* on the
grounil that kirubu occurs on a talisman as a synonym
for .tWw, a common term for the divine bull-guardian of
temples and palaces. This theory however is not con-
firmed as regards the derivation of ana (see ZA 1 68/
['86]). \\c may indeed admit that Rzekiel probably
mingled the old I'alestinian view of the cherub with the
iinalogoui U;ibylonian conception of the divine winged
bulls. But, so far as can be seen at present, the early
Hebrew cherub came nearer to the griffin, which was
not divine, but the servant of the Deity, ?nd the origin
of which is now assigned to the Hiltites of Syria.* The
idea of this mythic form is the combination of parts of
the two strongest animals of air and land — the lion and
the eagle, and a reminiscence of this may perhaps be
traced in the reference to these animals in Ez. 1 10. It
was adopted by various natif>ns, but to understand its
true significance we must go, not to l'"gypt nor to
Cireccc, but to the Hiltites, whose originality in the use
of animal-forms is well known. The Hittite griffin
apjx-ars almost always, in contrast to many Babylonian
representations, not as a fierce Ijeast of prey, but seated
in cahn dignity like an irresistible guardian of holy
things. It is only on later Syrian monuments that the
Sun-god is represented in a chariot ■'' drawn by griffins,
wiiich agrees with a statement respecting the Indian
sun-god in I'hilostratus's Life of Apollonius (348).
The Egyptians imported this form, probably from Syria
or Canaan at the beginning of the New Empire, but
the griffin never ac(|uire(l among them the religious
significance of the Spiiin.x.'' The I'hccnicians, and
probably the Canaanites, and through them the Is-
raelites, evidently attached greater importance to the
grilfin or cherub, and it is said that among the dis-
coveries at Zeiijirli in X. Syria(see Ak.\m.mc Lanou.\(;i;,
§ 2) is a genuine representation of this mythic form as
described in Ez. 41 18/.* Whether the sculptured quad-
ruped with a l)earded human head, Assyrian in tyfx;,
discovered by M. Clermont-tJanneau in the subterranean
quarries in the north of Jerusalem,'' is rightly called a
cherub seems very doubtful.
For a Keneral sketch of the different conceptions of winged
composite animals, see H. Teloni, /,A 1)124-140 ['91I, and cp
Fiirtu.iiiglcr's art. in Roscher, Lex., cited alre.ady ; also, for OT
criticism, Valke, Die Rel. des A /', 329-334 ['35I. T. K. C.
CHEKUB (in?: XApoyB [BN».\]). a town or
district in Babylonia, unless Cherub- Addan- ImnuT
should be taken as one name, I-'./ra'Jsg (xApoyc [BJ.
XepoYB [.}!-]) -N«-h. 76, (xepoyB L»'<'-'^^ -"A], ax- [>-])
= iEsd. r)36 (xapaaGaAan [B], xepoyBiAAN [E].
XApA AAaAap [-^l'. where the former two of these
names are run together (Cl!.\R.\.\TH.\l,.\R, RV Cll.\K-
.\.\iii.\i..\n) and the names are regarded as personal
rallier tiian as local.
CHESALON (p^D?; xacAcon [B]. -caA- [AE]>.
on the N. side of Mount Jearim, one of the places
1 See I-enormant, Les origines, \wijf.\ Schrader, COT
I40; Frd. Del. Par. 153; Che. is.^^) 'Jag?/ Delitzsch,
however, still holds to a connection between 3n3 and Ass.
kMrahu (?) = karilhu ' mighty ' (Ass. //ll 7>, 352). Sayce com-
pares the quasi -human winged figures represented on .^s-
syrian walls as fertilising the 'tree of life," the date-palm (Crit.
Mon. 102; cpTylor, PSR.l, Vi^^^ff. [iSSg-qo]).
' Furtwangler, in Roscher, Lex. Bd. ii., art. 'Gryps.'
> Rakubel(D. H. Midler) or perh.-ips Rek.nb'el or Rakkfd.el
(G. Hoffmann) is one of the gods of the Syrian district of
Ya'di (Zenjirli inscriptions). G. Hoffmann explains Rekab'cl
'charioteer of El ' (ZA, 11 ['96], 2V^).
■* Furtwangler, in Roscher, Lex. Bd. ii. (ut suf>.) ; cp Ohne-
falsch-Richter, Kyf>ros, 434/I
5 See ZA <i 420/ ['94). « Rtv. crit., 16 Mai, 1892.
745
CHILMAD
' which in Joshua (15 10) mark the northern frontier of
the tribe of Judah. It is the modern Kesld, 2087 ft.
above sea-level, on a high ridge immediately to the S.
of the Wady (ihurab, and about half-way between
Karyat el "Enab (Robinson's Kiriath-jearim) and EshiV
(Eshtaol). (See Rob. HR 'lyo 3 154) In the time of
Eusebius and Jerome, who pl.ice it on the Ijorder, the one
in Benjamin and the other in Judah, it was ' a very large
village in the confines of Jerusalem' (OS, \a\o.cij)v,
Chasalon). Stanley (.S7^ 496) fitly comp.ires the name
and situation with that of Chesulloth or ChisLoth-
TAHOK (iJ-V.).
CHESED (nb'3, xacaA [Z>], x&czaA [A]. XA2&9
[L]), son of Nahor by Milcah (Gen. 2222), the eponym
of a branch of the Chalda;ans. See Aram, § 3,
ARI'HAXAI).
CHESIL ('?'P5), Josh. 1530 = 194. Bktmll.
CHESNUT (poll?). Gen. 3O37. RV I'i.ank.
CHEST. 1. p^<l, in 2 K. I29 /• [10 /.] = 2 Ch.
24 8 ^, used of a box with lid [rh^, see Door) and
hole (in) into which money might be dropped (pAcoC-
COKOMOC [B.\L], eHC&YPOC [Jos. Ant. ix. 82]). The
same word is used of a coffin (Gen. 50 26, see Dkau,
§ 1 ), and of the Ark of the Covenant (see Ark, and cp
Coki-kr).
2. c"ana 't:3, Ezek. 2724, EV ' chests of rich apparel,'
but though t:3 (see Treasure Holski, like 6riaaip6i
(Mt. 2 11), might conceivably mean a re|)ository for
costly objects, yet the parallel expression ' mantles (not
1 ' wrappings,' as R\') of blue and broidercd work ' shows
that 'ijj must mean 'garments,' or the like, n and i
I are so easily confounded that we need not hesitate to
j read 'ija (Che. ), rendering ' rolx-'S of variegated stuff.' ^
See Emhroihery, and cp Uress, § 4.
I CHESULLOTH (ni-JD?), Josh. 19.8. See Cms-
LOTU-TABOK.
CHETTIIM (xeTTieiM [ANV]), i Mace. 1 . AV.
RV CiiiTTiM. See KrrriM.
CHEZIB (2*T3), Gcn.SSst- See Anizin, i.
CHIDON ip'3), I Ch. 139. See Na( iio.v.
CHIEF, CHIEFTAIN. The former, like ' captain.'
is often used in .W as a substantive witli a convi nicnt
vagueness to render various lleb. words (surh as
K'r:, C'Ni. .132. ['iip) which apjx-ar to be used in a more or
less general sense.
For 'chief ruler ' or 'chief minister ' (2 S. 8 is 20 26 iCh.Sa),
cp Priest and Prince; for 'thief man' (Trptiros Actsjs;), see
Mei.ita ; and for 'chief of .Asia,' (.Acts 1!) 31) see Asiakc h.
Chiektai.v occurs only in Zech.'.>7 12 5/ RV for ']•''»<, for
which see Duke.
CHILDREN, SONG OF THE THREE. See
DA.MI.I., ijj! 19, 22.
CHILEAB (2i62, § 4). son of David (2 .s. 33I In
I Ch. 3i he is caUed Damki. (</.;•. 4).
CHILIARCH (xiAiApxoc [Ti. WlIJi, Rev. 19.3
R\"'n- .See Army, § 10.
CHILION {]vh3; § 74. xe\\d.\OJN [L]). and
Mahi.on (ppnp, MA&AcON [B.\L]. § 74). 'sickness'
and 'wasting,' the names given to the sons of Naomi
in the narrative of Ruth (Ruthl2 KeAAicoN [B],
XcAecoN [-Vl ; J'- 5 xe^<M'j^>N [B]. xeAeooN [-^] ; 49
XeAAitoN [B]. XAiAecoN [■'<])■
CHILMAD (np^3, XAPMAN [B.\Q]), Ez.2723. MT.
usually supposetl to be a place or land not far from
Assyria. If this be correct, it must at any rate be some
fairly well-known place or lancl. But no name re-
sembling Chilmad occurs anywhere else, and, as two
t Cp Ass. burrumu, ' variegated cloth ' (Muss-AinoItX
746
CHIMHAM
corruptions of the text have already been found in this
verse (Canneh, Shkba, ill.), we may presume a third.
Read with Targ. 'and Media' (nci). Less probably
(iriitz, ' Babylon and Media ' (not Saa) ; Mez and
Bertholet, 'all Media' ('la-^a). \>2 should be dis-
regarded. It came from '?3i ; the scribe began to
write Sdt too soon, t fell out owing to the t which
precedes ; restore i. T. K. c.
CHIMHAM (DnpS, §§ 66, 77, or [2S. I941] tTO?.!
or [Jer. 41 17 Kt.] DniD?— ;.^., if the text is right,
' blind' [cp o».AA. cictrus fuit, and note Nestle's view
on the Aramaean origin of Barzillai] ; XAMA&M
[B], XANAAN [A], AXIMAAM [L], AXIMANOC. Jos.
.-///A vii. 11 14 ; in Jer. 41 17 -XAMAA [B]. "XAMA [S],
"XAMAAM [AQ*]), one of the sons of the Gileadite
Barzillai, in whose stead he entered the service of David
(2 S. 1937 [3S]/. XAAW [B*] 40 [41]). Most probably
his real name was .\hinoam (avrnn) ; note the i in
Jer. 's form, the j in 2S. , the Gr. forms with a^t and v,
and the Egyptian form (? see below) with n-ma (Che.).
Following Kw. [Hist. 8216), Deans Stanley and Plumptre
have supposed that he carried on the family tradition of
hospitality by erecting at Bethlehem a khan or hospice
for travellers (see Jer. 41 17, cnps rrna, RV-uK- ' lodging-
place of Chimham'). This view, however, is based
on the faulty reading nnp- This should be corrected
into niTiJ, which is the reading of Jos. (see Ant. .\. 95),
of .^q., and of the He.vaplar Syri.ac (see Field), and
has been adopted by Hitzig and Giesebrecht. In the
text represented by © [see Swete] the t in rmij had
become a 3. Gidroth-chimham — i.e., ' the hurdles, or
sheep- pens, of Chimham' — seems a probable name
for a locality in a pastoral district. ' Chimham ' (or
.\hinoam ?) is appended to distinguish this Gederoth
from other places of the same name. It is just
possible that the family of Chimham or Ahinoam had
property there. Among the names of the places in
Palestine conquered by .Seti I. we find Ha(?)-ma-he-mu,
' the city of Kaduru in He(?)-n-ma.,' which m^y possibly
belong to the same place (WMM As. u. Eur. 193,
202). -viz., Gidroth-chimham (Sayce, Pat. Pal. 157),
or rather (jitlroth-ahinoam. T. K. C. — S. A. C.
CHIMNEY (na-lNI), Hos. 133. See Coal, § 3.
Lattice, §2(1).
CHINNERETH (n-133, in Josh. 1827 yeNepee [B],
xeNcptoe [AL]; 1935. KGNepee [B], xen. [L],
XGNepoG [A]; in Dt., JT^JSp, 'from Chinnereth ' ;
MAXANApee [B], AnO MAXGNep. [AF], AHO X [L]).
the name of one of the 'fenced cities' of Naphtali
(Josh. 1935). Possibly it is also referred to in i K.
1020, where we should perhaps read 'and Abel-beth-
maacah, and Chinneroth, and all the land of Naphtali. '^
It is of great antiquity, for it occurs under the form
kn-na-ra-tu in the list of places conquered by
Thotmes III., n. 34 (i?/--) 5 45 ; WMM As. u. Eur.
84). It is also given (i), with the prefix 'sea of
to the Galilean lake (Xu. .34ii \xfvapa BF, -epf.d
AL] Josh. 1827); (2) to the same inland 'sea'
without that prefi.x (Dt. 8 17, cp Josh. 112 and see below).
The site of the town can no longer be identified.
Jerome identified it with Tiberi.is (0.9n'2 29) ; some rabbins
with a town .it the S. of ihe Lake called Beth-jerach (probably the
Tarichxa of Josephus). Others included Sanbari (the Senna-
brisof Jos. j9/iii. O7) under the designation; a third extended
the application of the name to Heth-shean (Ber. raJ'ha,
par. 98, Wiinsche). This vagueness sufficiently shows that •
nothing was known as to the site of the ancient town. Cp
Neubauer, Grog. 'I'alm., ■2n/.
On the derivation of Chinnereth, see Gennesaret.
T. K. c.
1 The Kt. reading DniC2, Jer. 41 17, may safely lie disre-
gardeii.
^ ''7rE3 p^r'7^ rm m:3 nx'!- i11 in MT's rinaa may conceal
TKI. ©, in 2Ch. Ifli4, however, presupposes '"jniJJ nnss
(rav ircpixwpovf ; see Ki., SBOT).
CHISLOTH-TABOR
CHINNEROTH ([Gins.] fin:3 or [Ba.] nn33, the
' pluralis f.x/insivus' of Chi.n.n'ERKTii) is the name
applied (i). with the prefix 'sea of to the Galilean
lake in Josh. I23 {xevepfO [BFL], x^^v. [A]), (2), with-
out this prefix (cp Dt. 8 17), to the same lake in Josh. 11 2
((cei-f/jwtf [B], xffpe^^t [A], -f0[FL]), (3), in the spelling
CiNNEKOTH (.-VV only), to a district (?) in Naphtali
laid waste by Benhadad king of Damascus (r K. 15 20,
XevepfO [AL], x^^po-O [B]). See CiTY, § 2 (/. ), n. The
second and third passages need a brief comment. In
I K. l.")2o, Ewald [Hist. 2290, n. 6) explains 'all Chin-
neroth ' to mean the W. shore of Lake Merom and the
Sea of Galilee and of that part of the Jordan which
flows between those lakes ; Theiiius, the basin which
extends from Lake Merom to the upper point of the
Sea of Galilee. Such a large extent of meaning,
however, is improbable. Unless we adopt the cor-
rection suggested above (Chinnereth) it is best to
suppose Chinneroth to mean here the shores (or the W.
or E. shore alone) of that famous lake. In support of
this explanation, the second passage mentioned above
(Josh. 11 2) may be appealed to.
The text, however, is not quite correct. The rendering ' in
the Arabah south of Chinneroth ' (RV) can hardly be defended.
The difficulty lies in 333, for which it is better with Di. to read
133 ((Bhafl a.-neva.vTi.) ; we shall then get the phrase ' in the
Arabah over against Chinneroth.' This may be a designation
of the fertile plain called el-Ghuiveir, the Gennesaret of the
Synoptic Gospels, in which the town of Chiunereth was presum-
ably situated. Cp Gennesaret, and Judah upon Jordan.
CHIOS (xiOC [Ti. WH]: Chius), the beautiful and
fruitful Scio, the central member of the triad of large
islands lying off the coast of Asia Minor. It has little
connection with biblical history, but the solitary mention
of it (Acts 20 15) very clearly indicates its geographical
position. Paul returning from Macedonia, to keep
Pentecost at Jeru.salem, touched at Mitylene in Lesbos ;
next day he was ' over against ' Chios [Ka.Tt)VTi](Tap.iv
j dvTiKpvi Xtof) ; probably somewhere about Cape Argen-
j num. mod. Asprokavo, which was a place of anchorage
(Polyb. 168). On the third day at Samos. The ship
1 evidently anchored each night and sailed with the early
! morning trceze, which prevails generally in the ^gean
; during the summer, blowing from the N. and dying
i away in the afternoon. The run from Mitylene to Chios
is something over 50 m. Herod's voyage as related in
Jos. Ant. xvi. 22, in the reverse direction, illustrates the
apostle's journey.
I Strabo describes the town as having a good harbour with
: anchorage for eighty ships (645). Paul possibly lay becalmed
in the channel (about 7 m. wide), and may not have landed. The
i island was noted for its wines (Stralxj, 645, 657X \v. j. w.
i CHISLEU, RV Chislev (I'Pp?, in Assjt. Kisilivu,
cp KAT^) 380. in Palm. '?"l'rD3 DeVog. Svr. Cent.
1 nos. 24, 75): Zcch. 7i x^^ceAey [ABF-*], -ciA.
[Xi?"^-b]. -cA. [r*], pACiAey or r^c. [X*]); Neh. 1 1,
cexeHAoy [Bl, -xgnA. [B*^'''], -xehA [^^*]. xeceAey
; [X-:-^ '"?•], xAcenAoY [A], XACAAey \.^A)- AV has
I Cast,EU in I Mace. 154 452 (xacrtXev [AN<:n']. -aa\.
', [.S*], but xAceAeoy [A in 452J). -See Month, § 5.
! CHISLON (fl'?p3 ' confidence ' ? xAcAcxiN [BAFL]),
I the father of Elidad (Nu. 34 21).
CHISLOTH-TABOR (lUri-ni^M ; § 99 ' loins ' or
' flanks ' of Tabor ; cp .Xznoth-tabor, ' ears ' or ' peaks
of Tabor; xACeAa)BAie [B], -caA^^oG BaGoiR [A],
-ceAAAB BaBcop [L]), Josh 19 12 or in v. if Chksll-
LOTH (ni^D? ; XACA\6oe [B], AXAceA- [AL]), lay
on the border between Zebulun (Josh. 19 12) and
Issachar {v. 18). It is the Xaloth (SaXwtf) of Josephiis
(B/'\\\.Zi Vit. 44\ the Chasalus or XaireXoi'S of
Eusebius and Jerome — desiTilied by them as a small
village on the plain below Mount Tabor, 8 R. m. from
DiocjEsarea or Sepphoris (O.S"<2)9l4 9435 22859). It is
represented by the modern Iksdl, 460 ft. above sea
level, 7 m. SW. from Sepphoris, 5^ m. N. from Shunem,
748
CHITHLISH
and nearly 3 m. W. from the base of Mount Tabor.
The name has been suggested as an emendation for
Mai<Ta\w0 or yieffffa\ti>6 in i Mace. 9a and of Chellus
in Judith 1 9 (sec CiiKi,t.t;s). The position of tlie place
on the main road N. , in the pass between 'ral)f>r and
t!ie hills of Na/.areth, explains its strategical value, as
witinssed in its various ap[)earances in history.
CHITHLISH (L*'^^n3). Josh. IS^oRV. AV KrniLisH.
CHITTIM {D*n3). Is. 23i AV. etc.; Gen. IO4
KllIlM {./.-:).
CHIUN (I-V3) and SICCUTH (n"l3p). Am. 526 RV.
' Vca. yc [O house of Israel] have borne .Siccuth your
. , ..„ kinj;, and Chiun vour iniaRcs, the star of
1. Idenwn- y^^^j^ ^,^^^1 . ,\v, kv-mf differ by rendering
catlOiL j^,|2D. • the talx-rnacle (of). ' These words
have long been a puzzle to scholars. The priniary
question is, whether they should Ite considered apjjella-
tives or proper nouns. The i)roblem is ancient, as
appears from the phenomena of the versions (.see l>eiow,
§ 2). Into the syntactical and cxegetical difficulties of
V. 26, taken with its context, we cannot here enter ; our
object is to consider the explanation of the above-
mentioned words offered by Schrader (6V. A>. 324 Jf.
[■74], and COT 2 141/. ), which, though widely acccjjted,
fails to satisfy some good critics. According to Schrack-r's
theory n'33 is to be pointed n?30 and |V3 |V3, the former
representing the divine name Sakkut, the latter Kaiwan.
0(ipert had already recogni.sed in Chiun the Babylonian
Kaiwan, and this identification may be regarded as
almost certain. The word is of frequent occurrence in
Babylonian mythological and religious texts as the name
of the planet Saturn. It is of uncertain meaning and
etymology.
Other .Semitic peoples have preserved the same name, prob-
ahly as loan words, for Saturn is called by the Mandsans [xr3,
by the Syrians t OjLO, and by the Persians Kahvdn (for
references to the occurrence of the word in Babylonian texts, see
JciKcn, h'osiiiol. iMjf.).
The name Siccuth presents much greater difficulties.
Schrader has sliown that the name Sak-kut, which is
probably the same as the Siccuth of the text, is used in
a H.ibylonian list as a name, or an ideographic writing,
for the god Ninib (2 R. 5740). Ninib, however, appears
to be the god of the planet Kaiwanu or Saturn (see
Jensen, A'osmol. 136^ ; Lotz, Qiurst. de hist. Sabbati,
27^). We seem, therefore, to be brought to the con-
clusion that Sakkuth and Kaiwan are the same (which
would he. still more clear if it could be shown with
certainty that S.\G-u5, 2 R. 32 no. 3 /. 25, might be read
Sak-kut, as Opjiert and Schrader believe). Not all the
steps in the argument made to coimect Sak-kut and
Kaiwan are perfectly clear. Still, indirect confirmation
of the correctness of the result h;is lately come to hand,
the two words having been found together in a mytho-
logical text. In the Surpu texts S;ik-kut and Kaiw.anu
are invokeil together (4 R. 52 col. 4 /. 9; cp Zimmcrn,
Beit, zur Kenntniss der Bab. Rel., 1896, p. 10/. 179).
In this text at least the two words Sak-kut and Kaiwan
appear together as they do in Amos.
[Not impri)l>ably_, according to Che., there is a reference to
Saccuth- Kaiwun in 2 K. 17 30 (see Si'c. orn - P.f.noth) and
another to Kaiwan in a pa-is.ige of Kzekiel. 'The ini.ni;e of
jealousy" in lizek. 8 3 5 is not a possible title; .nKjip sei-nis to
be a corruption of IK1'3. The word for 'image' is 7DO ; it was
probably a statue of Kaiw.nn which E/ekicl saw (in ecstasy)
"HDrthward of the .nltar gate' in the outtr court of the temple,
unless indeed '<C3 (Idol, g i c.) should rather be QoS— '/-i
laniassu, one of the names for the colossal winged bulls which
gu.inlcd the entrances of Assyrian and ISabylonian palaces and
temples (cp Ezek. 835 where, however, read Hie?, 'at the
entrance,' with Gra. for nK33)- At any rate, we now seem to
know the period to which the inter|K)lation of Am. 626 refers
(see further Che., Kxp. Times, lOi^j, Dec. '98)].
The connection of Siccuth and Chiun with the Baby-
lonian name and the ideographic value for the planet
Saturn agree well with their juxtaposition in Am. 526,
and if 'Sk 330 and ds'dSx are transposed, the verse
749
CHOIR
becomes at least intelligible (see Schr. ib., and cp Orelli,
ad loc. ). 'Ihe phenomena of 0's text, however, and
2 Tart **'*" ''"^''*^ ^^ '^* ^\'X , suggest the inference
■ that there may be a more deeply - se;iied
corruption (see Amos, § 13).
[Korthefiijo of Heb. text €*u*0 Symm. give tt)i» <jKi\vr\¥ —
i.e., nSO (cp Acts7 43). ''e»h. oiUajOC, A<j. <ri«r«ta<r/iovt,
Theo<l. T^v oftaaiv, Vg. tal>ei-naculuni, Tg. (I-ig.) ni3'D. which
confirms MT. For n'3 (Heb. text and 1 g.), Aq. and .Symm.
have xi-oitv, Theiid. a.y.tt.vaui<Tiv , Vg. iiiiaii;inetn iSnr ® sec Kf.m-
I'HAN). Tlic pointing of MT seems to \x suggested by that of
ppP, ' al>omination ' = ' idol ' ; cp 7\^i. For references to recent
critics see Amos, | 13, and cp Che., Exp. Jan. 1897, pp. 42-44.]
R. W. K.
CHLOE (xAoH [Ti. WH]). a woman of whom
nothing is known, save that ' they of Chloe ' (01 xAoHc)
were the first to let Haul know at Kphesus of the
division which had arisen in the Corinthian church
(t Cor. In).
Whether she belonged to Ephesus or to Corinth, who the
members of her household were, whether even .she was a
Christian or not, are questions on all of which only conjectures
can be offered. It is possible, but hardly probable, that
Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus (i Cor. 1(J \T /.) may have
been servants of Chloc.
CHOBA (xojBa [HA], x&B& (s). <..» O^ [L-U'],
j t. »* [Walton]), called in Judith ir>4y: Chobai
(xcoBai [BX^'A], xcoBa [N*], in If.s xojBa [BNA],
^^ <^ .,,. [l^ag. ]), is mentioned in connection with the
defensi\e measures of the Jews against Holofernes
(Judith 4 4). Reland (p. 721) proposed the Coabis oi
the Tab. Pent, near Jericho, a site that would agree
with both the Greek and the Syriac of Judith 4 4 ; and
in connection with it Conder {PEF .Mem. 2231) ])oints
to the ruin el-Mekhubby and the cave ' Ardk el K hubby
on the Roman road 3 m. from TUbds (see Thebez) and
1 1 from Beisdn.
CHOENIX (xoiNi5: in Ezek.45io/ ©"aQ for
Bath), a measure of capacity Rev. 66 RV™?- (EV
' measure '). See Wkight.s and Mkasl-kk.s.
CHOIB. The subject of the hereditary choirs, or
better, guilds of singers is considered elsewhere (see
1 M ho PSAI.M.S). We content ourselves here
em rs. ^-^^^ ^^^ Talmudic statements relative to
the Temple choir in the narrower sense of the word,
postponing, however, the question of choral psalms.
The Talmud affirms that the choir in the Second
Temple consisted of not less than twelve adult Levites,
nine of whom played on the instrument called the
Kinnor (lyre?), two on the Neliel (lute?), while the
remaining one beat the .selsOlim (cymtwls). This
number might, however, be exceeded on the occasion
of festivals (Mish. Erach. 23-5). No statement is made
as to the number of the singers whom these musicians
accompanied, from which Cratz infers that the instru-
mental and the vocal music were performed by the
same persons. This seems to illustrate Ps. 92i[i] 3[4]
(Che.)-
Good is it to give thanks to Yahw^,
To m.ike melody to the name of the Most High,
'I'o the sound ofthe horn and the lute,
To the sweetly sounding notes ofthe lyre.
Certainly the most important duty of the choir of
Levites was the service of song. The Talmud also
states that boys' voices were called in to modify the
deep bass of the men's voices. The choir-boys did not
stand on the platform with the Ix»vites, but lower down,
so that their heads were on a level w iih the feet of the
Levites. They were sons of persons of rank in Jeru-
salem ('trn' *Tp"33, Talm. Erach. 13/^). See Griitz,
Psalmen, 65/ ; Del., Ps. 26/., 372 ; and cp Music,
§ 1.3/
The duty of the choir is briefly summed up in Neh.
1224 2 Ch. 513. It is T^\Th\ \Sjh, i.e., to raise the
„ _ . strain of praise ( HallfilQ = praise ye) and
■ ** y* thanksgiving (H6du = give ye thanks). See
IIallel, Conkession, §3. The formula of 'thanks-
CHOLA
piving which served as a refrain in the later eucharistic
songs was, ' P"or he is good, for his loving-kindness is
for ever' (2 Ch. 5 13 736 Ezra 3 n Jer. 3:iii— the last
passage has been expanded by a late writer — and cp
the psalms beginning 'Give thanks unto Yahwe').
Were there any female singers in the temple choirs?
From Xch. 767 Pcritz infers that there were ('Women
ill the Ancient Hebrew Cult.' /BLlI nZ ['98]).
Strange to say, the word 'choirs' occurs but once, and only
in RV'iitJ. Mattaniah (if this mg. is right) was ' over the
choirs' (MT nn;.-!), Neh.128. Del. {Psalmen 26), Ry., and
Kau. (//.?), however, give 'choir' as the rendering of niin
in Neh. 1231, where RV has 'companies that gave thanl;s.'
This may be accepted, but the mg. 'choirs' in 12 8 is but a con-
fession of the great improbability of MT. Neither n'n'H "*""
r'T.T (which Ry. and Ron. prefer) can be naturally defended.
Re.-id niliTSy. 'over the thanksgiving' (Bottch., Ol., Guthe).
EV in Neh. 12 8, therefore, virtually corrects the text, ©l irt\
ruiv i^oixoKoyr)(T(iav : (puNA pointed mi^ri (ejri Ttt>»'X"P<"'')- Cp
Neh. 11 17, and see M.\ttaniah, 2. t. K. C.
CHOLA (xooAa [B]), Judith 15 4 RV, AV Coi.a
(,/.r.).
CHOR-ASHAN, RV Cor-.vshan (|L*'y-li3), 1S.3O30.
See AsHAN and BoK-ASiiAN.
CHORAZIN (xopAzeiN[Ti. WH]Mt. 1121 Lk. IO13
F.us. OS^-^'.iO'iT! xtop)- III these two passages Jesus
calls woe upon Chorazin andBethsaida (and immediately
after on Capernaum) as towns in which his wonderful
works have produced no effect. From his direct address
to all three, they appear to have lain together within his
sight. Jerome (C>.S'(-' 114 7 Chorozain) places Chorazin
2 R. m. from Capernaum (Euseb. 12 R.m., but this
seems a copyist's error). In his commentary on Is. 9i
Jerome describes the town as on the shore of the lake —
like Capernaum, Tiberias, and Bethsaida. From this
Robinson (A'A'Sasg/; ) argues for the site at Tell Hum.
But about I m. N. of Tell Hum, in a shallow
wfuly running from the Lake into the hills, there are
black basalt ruins, including those of a large syna-
gogue, with Corinthian columns, which bear the name
AVracM (/V:/-M/<v//.l 400-2). Now, Willibald (722)
says that he went from Capernaum to Bethsaida, thence
to Chorazin, and thence to the sources of the Jordan — a
course which, in spite of what Robinson asserts, suits
Kerazeh as it does not suit either Tell Hum, or any
other site on the Lake. Accordingly, most moderns,
since Thomson discovered the site in 1857, agree that
Kerazeh is Chorazin, and take Jerome's statement as
either vague or inaccurate. (Robinson thinks the name
may have drifted from Tell Hum to Kerazeh.) Jesus
calls Chorazin a city and treats it as comparable with
Tyre and Sidon. The ruins are extensive, and there
are traces of a paved road connecting the site with the
great trunk road from Capernaum to Damascus.
The 15ab. Talmud (Mfnahoth 85(1) praises the wheat of
Chorazin (cvi^ cp Neubauer, Geog. Talin. 220). In the days
of Eusebius and Jerome (330 and 400 a.d.) the place was in
ruins. Willibald found a Christian Church there. G. A. S.
CHOREE (xopBs [BA]), i Esd. 5i2 RV=Ezra29
Zacc.m.
CHOSAMEUS (xocAMAOC [B], -omaioc [A],
I^a-VXm cxd qj cia(*i a_!O.*09) [Syr. ] ), i Esd. 9 32. The
name follows .Siiuon (=.Shimeon in || Ezra IO31), and
hence may represent one of the three names in Ezra
10 32 otherwise omitted in i Esd. Possibly in a poor
MS only the final -; of Malluch and the third name
Shemariah were legible, and out of these the scribe made
Choshamiah(Ban, I'ar. Apoc). Otherwise the name has
arisen from Hashum (ciiE^n), "v. 33 ; but the Syr. } ;-v»-r
still remains a difficulty.
CHOZEBA, RV Cozeba (n3T3), iCh. 422t. See
AcHzin, I.
CHRIST (o XPICTOC [Ti. WH]), Mt. 24. See
Messiah, § 2, end.
75'
CHRISTIAN, NAME OF
CHRISTIAN, NAME OF. A\e can readily under-
stand that the followers of Jesus confessed to the name
of their Master whenever occasion arose. On the other
hand, the time, the place, and the circumstances of the
origin of the name Xpi(rria«'6$ as a specific designation
are obscure. According to Acts 11 26 the matter seems
a sinii)le one ; but, with this passage before us, it is
1 Infreauencv •"em-irk^We how seldom the name
" ^' occurs elsewhere in the records of
early Christianity. In the NT the only other places
where it is found are Acts 2628 and i I'et. 4i6. It is
certainly not alluded to in Acts 5 41 ; for ' the name' on
account of which the apostles here suffer dishonour was,
as we are expressly told in v. 40, the name of Jesus.
This passage, accordingly, lielongs to the same category
as Mk. 93741 — where, Ijesides, the words 'because ye
are Christ's' after kirl T<p dySnari fxov (so Ti. ) may be
merely the explanatory marginal gloss of some early
reader — and ^lk. 13 13. In Ja. 27 also, the ' honourable
name ' by which the readers are called is not the nanie
'Christian,' but the name of Christ himself as their Lord ;
for the expression is to be explained in the same sense
as .Am. 9 12 ( ' the heathen, which are called by my name ' )
— viz. , by reference to 2 S. I228 ( ' lest ... it be called
after my name ' ). All passages of this class must here be
left out of account, inasmuch as they do not presuppose
the specific name ' Christian. ' The name is presupposed,
as far as the NT is concerned, only in Lk. 622 [rb dvofia
Outside of the NT, according to the exhaustive re-
searches of Lipsius.i the name does not occur in either
of the epistles ascriljed to Clement of Rome ; it is
absent from Barnabas, Hernias, Polycarp, the Pse'udo-
Clementine Homilies, Tatian, and the Cohortatio ad
Circvcos. The Pseudo-C/emenfi/ie Recognitions, as also
the Catholic Acts of Peter and Paul, have it only in a
few passages of later insertion ; so also with the Gnostic
writings. As a word in regular use it makes its earliest
appearances in the Apologists — Justin, Athenagoras,
Theophilus, Minucius Felix — and in the ' Epistle to
Diognetus,' in Ignatius, who uses also the word Xpiar-
laviafxhs, in the ' Martyrdom of Polycarp,' in the
Catholic Krjpvyfxa TliTpov, in the letter of the churches of
LugdQnum and \'ienna (I^us. //A'5i/), in Irenosus,
TertuUian, and Clement of Alexandria. To this list
must be added the passage in the Teaching of the Twelve
Apostles (124), discovered after the publication of
Lipsius's essa)'.
Lipsius, it is true, points out allusions to the existence
of the name ' Christian ' in older writings. As far as
Hernias, however, is concerned, the only valid passage
is Sim. ix. 174-
The phrase is tTrl tuj oi'dfiari toC viou toO 6tov Ka\ei(rCai.
Such expressions as to oi/o^ia toO vlov toO ficoO <f>opelv (ix. 13 2^?
14 s_yC H5 3) or Aa^i^arcif (ix. 13 7) or <j>epeiv (Polycarp, *i 3) do not
necessarily presuppose the word XpicTtaro?, and the simple
phrase to ovofia (j)opdv(Si»i. ix. 13 2yC), or na.(rxfi-v Sia to ora/ua,
or €veKa tou ofo/xaros (ix. 28 3 5 ; F/V. iii. 1 q 2 i), in several cases
is clearly in juxtaposition to the words to oro^ta toO vlov Toi)
6eov or ToO Kvpiov (Sim. ix. 13 3, 28 2-6 ; / 'is. iii. 5 2).
Even I Clem. 143 /. cannot with certainty be taken in
the sense which is so abundantly plain in Justin {.-Ipol.
1 4) : Xptcrtaj'oi elvai KarriyopovfieOa ' t6 di xpujarbv
/McrelffOai ov SiKaiov. This play upon words seems,
besides, to be sufficiently explained by the consideration
that xP'^o'Tiis had at that time the same pronunciation
as xP«<'"''(5s- TertuUian {A/>.3; Ad A'at. I 3), however,
expressly says that the Gentiles perperam or corrupte
pronounced it Chrestiani. XprfffTiavoi is the reading in
all three NT passages of the uncorrected N ; it pre-
ponderates in the inscri[)tions ; and Justin, according to
.Blass (Hermes, 1895, pp. 465-470), associates this word
with xpiJcTiis in his Apology {'\. 4 46 49 ; ii. 6, where, as he
says, KiXPV<^Oa.i ought to be read), just as in his Dialogue
with Trypho he associates it with XP^^*-"- Blass con-
1 ' Ueber den Ursprung u. d. altesten Gebrauch des Christen-
namens ; ' Gratulationsprogramm der theologischen Facultiit
Jena fiir Hase, 1873, pp. 6-10.
CHRISTIAN, NAME OP
jectures from this that the PaRiiiis to wliom the
ApoU>g\' is addressed had derived ihe words ' anointed,
followers of tlie anointed,' which were mysterious to
them, by a [xjpular etymology fron» x/"?*'"'""* : ""<^' Justin,
for simphcity s sake, accepted the derivation without
seeking to correct it.
We have thus seen that the name was left unusetl by
a series uf Christian writers at a time when it was already
2. Possible
early origin.
familiar to the younger I'liny {Epist. 10
96 [97]) in 112 A.D. , to 'I'adtus [Ann.
1544) in 1 16-1 17 A. I). , and to Suetonius
(AVr.i, 16) ill 120 A. I). 'I'he plain fact is that they did
not necil it. I'or designating their conununity there lay
at their command an ample variety of expressions,' sucli
as 'brethren,' 'saints,' 'elect,' 'called,' 'that lx;lieved,*
'faithful,' ' disciples,' ' they that are in Christ,' ' they that
are in the Lord,' 'they that arc Christ's,' and ['any . . .
of the way'?]. It follows that, notwithstaruling its
absence from their writings, the name of Christian may
very well have originated at a comparatively early time.
It can hardly, however, have been current at so early
a date as that indicated in .Acts 11 26.
The famine predicted at that time, according to Acts 11 28,
occurred in Palestine l)ct\veen the years 44 and 48. (The belief
that it extended over the whole of the habitable world is a mis-
take.) The prediction itself must, of course, have been earlier.
Indeed, the expression, ' which came to pass -n the <lays of
Claudius," may be held to imply that it was made before tlie
accession of that emperor— that is to say, before 41 A.u. Wiih
this it agrees that the death of Henxl Agrippa I. (44 A.u.) is
mentioned in the following chapter (I'J).
Some fifteen years later, or n)ore, the claim to be
' of Chri.st ' was made by a single party in Corinth
(iCor. 112^
I'resumably certain personal disciples of Jesus had first applied
this designation to themselves, whilst denying to Paul the right
to l)c so called, as also his right to the apostleship (2 Cor. In 7).
Paul, on the other hand, takes great pains to establish the right
of ail believers in Christ to the designation (i Cor. 1 13 823 ; also
7 22 10 23 Rom. 8 I Gal. 3 29 5 24).
Thus it can hardly have been already a current name.
As for Jesus himself, it is permissible to doubt whether
he used in their present forms such e.xpressions as we
now find in Mk. it 37 41 13 13 — that is to say, with the
eiui)hasis upon his own name. The theory that he pre-
supposes the currency of the name ' Christians ' in Lk.
622 is absolutely excluded by the consideration that,
according to the same gospel, he does not himself lay
claim to the name of Christ till later (9 20), and even then
wishes it to be kept secret, and further that, according to
the same author (.Acts 1 1 26), the name ' Christians ' did
not arise till a considerable time after his death.
All this makes it more than doubtful whether the
writer had even here any trustworthy authority for
assigning the occurrence to so early a dale. I lis reason
for doing so may have been simply that the founding
of the first Gentile Christian church seemed to be the
most likely occasion for its coming into u.se.
The suddenness with which the name ' Christian '
becomes one of frcciuent occurrence in the writings of
the a|)ologists shows that the word first
:x>came necessary for Christians in their
dealings with Pagans. In speaking to
the Letter, such periphrases as ' those of Christ ' were
found to be inadecjuate : a definite name was wanted.
In fact, it is probable enough that the name came from
the heathen themselves in the first instance. With such
a view of its origin Acts 11 26 fits in very well. -\t all
events, the name did not come from the Jews. These
were still looking for their Messiah. By using a name
which signified ' those of the Messiah,' they would by
implication have justified the sect that regarded Jesus
as such, and so have stultified themselves. Even Herod
Agrippa II., notwithstanding his Greek training and the
indifference towards his ancestral religion which this
carrietl with it, could not have gone so far ; moreover,
he still held by Judaism to the extent at least that he
t a5«A(^ot, ayiot, eicAeicToi, kAijtoi, TrterrcvoKT*?, irttrrot, /ia^rai,
01 iv Xpio-Tu), ot oyrri'i iv Kvpi(f, oi tou Xpiorou, oi nis 65o0 oi'Tts.
753
3. Used by and
with Pagans.
insisted uiK)n King .Azizus of F.mcsa and King Polemo of
Cilicia l)cing circumcised Ix-'fore being allowed to marry
his sisters Drusilla and Ikrrenicc (Jos. .-/«/. xx. 7 i 3 [§S
'39. 145/])- If- accordingly, the saying attributed to
him in Acts 2628' is authentic, the name 'Christian'
must by that time have become so thoroughly established
that its etymological meaning was no longer thought of.
The whole scene, however, is in full accord with the
tendency of Acts (see Acts, § Si) to set forth Paul's
innocence, and at the same time the truth of Christianity,
as accepted by the Roman authorities; and this of course
is more effectively done by the mouth of a Jew. An
obvious iiarallel is the statement of Merod Antipas in
the gospel by the same author (Lk. '2.'J6-i5) ; but its
historicity is oix.'n to grave suspicion, both in view of
what we know of Henxls relations to John the Haptist
and in view of the fact that the story is absent from the
other gos|K.'ls. Even if Pauls meeting with Herod
Agrippa II. is historical, the word Xpiariavds may very
easily have come into the narrative out of the author s
own vocabulary. We are informed by the same writer
(.\cts 2 1 5) with much greater precision that 'sect of the
Nazarenes ' (aipeffis tu)p Naj'wpatwi') was the name given
by the Jews U) the Christians, as we learn also from
Tertullian (.hh: Marc. 4 8) and Jerome (in Jes. ch. 5 i8y.
4'J7 52 s). It was not till afterwards that the expression
was restricted to a particular sect of t'hristians — a fact
by which Epiphanius allowefl himself to Ix; misled. He
tells us [Har. 289) that the Jews, in their public prayers,
which were oftered ihree limes daily in their synagogues,
pronounced a .solemn curse upon this sect — a curse
which, as we learn from Justin (Diul. 16 and elsewhere),
and indeed as we see from the nature of the ca.se, applied
rather to all Christians.- Its Hebrew name, Hirkat-ha-
Minim, shows that the Jews liad still another name for
the Christians — and this name could also be Graecised
into 'S\ivaloi.
As for the ])lace where the name Christian arose, the
apparent Latin termination used to be thought to (joint lo
4. Place of
origin.
a western, indeed (lac. ./«//. If) 44) to a
Roman, origin ; but that it was there that
the name first came intcj use is by no
means said by Tacitus, whilst in such a word as
Herodian, '\lpi^5iavo% (Mk. 36and elsewhere), we have
evidence that in the Greek- s[x-aking domain this col-
loquial Latin fcjrmation of personal names (f.^., Citsa-
riani), in incorrect imitation of forms like Pompeiani
(where the / is part of the root), was not unknown.
The ancient Greek grammarians recognise the termina-
tion -avos for derivatives from town .ind country names,
and even designate it specially as the rvnoi ' Xaiavos, as
being met with, not in Circcce itself, but in .Asia
(Buttmann, Am:/. Gr. Sprachlehre, § 11954; many
examjyles in Lipsius, 13-16). In this matter, therefore.
Acts 11 26 is not open to criticism (yet sec alxjve, § 2).
The time at which the name arose could not with
assurance be placed earlier than 79 .A. U. , even if a certain
p .. inscription (which disappeared soon after
0. rompeu ^^^ discovery) at Pompeii, on the wall of
inscription. ^ j^uji^ing ,';u first sui)poscd to have bc-cn
a Christian meeting-house), had actually contained the
letters iiKisTi.Wt.
This reading might very well have Ken a derivative from the
tolerably frequent proper name Chrestus (see above, § 1); but,
in point of fact, the reading is only a conjecture, and, according
to Kies<lings original transcription (which is still extant), the
word really was ct'pistiru- — whatever that may mean.
The architecture of the house shows it to have been
an 'inn' (caupona), provided even with a cei/a mere-
tricia, where, accordingly, it is hardly likely that Christian
1 The best-attested rcidinj:, iv oKiytf fie ireifl«i? XpiiTTiavov
irot^O'ai (unless we are to read, with IK, yfi-«aSai or, with .A,
ire«*]7, or, to conjecture with Hon, Troroitfat (instead of fit
rrtiBfii) is perhaps most e.-\sily explained as a Laiinism : ' you
are persuading me somewhat to act the part of a Christian '
{(Shristianutn agere ; so Potwin, Bihl. Stur. iSSg, p. 562_/C).
2 This solemn curse is said to have first taken shape at Jabneh
in the time of Gamaliel ii. (80-177 a.d.).
754
CHRISTIAN, NAME OF
6. Early per-
secutions.
meetings would have been held ; in fact, the inscription,
which ixji^ins with the words, ' Vina Nervii,' was prob-
ably an advertisement of wines. '
An answer to our question can, therefore, be hoped
for only from examination of the history of the Christian
persecutions. The character of these
has been placed in an entirely new
light by the proposition of Moinmscn
in 1885 {Rom. Gesch. 6520, n. ), which has since then
been more fully and elaborately develojjcd by him
in .Sybel's Hist. Ztschr. 64389-429 [90], and accepted
by C. J. Neumann [Der. roin. Staat u. d. Allgeni.
kirchf, 1 16 [90]) and by Ramsay (chap. 10, g 5)
— that ' the persecution of the Christians was always
similar to that of robbers.' On this view, every pro-
vincial governor had, without special instructions, the
duty of seeking out and bringing to justice latrones,
Si7cn7f^n>s, plagiarios (kidnappers), and fures [Dig.
i. 18 13 xlviii. 134), and for this end was invested, over
and alwve his ordinary judicial attributes, with a very
full power of magisterial coercion, which was not
limited to definite offences, or to a regular form of
process, or to any fixed scale of punishments. Only,
as far as Roman citizens were concerned, banishment
was forbidden, and the capital penalty was reserved for
the judgment of the emperor.
i. 'Lr^i^al Status of Christians. — While actually throw-
ing into still further obscurity the date of the origin
of the Christian name, this discovery of Mommsen's
(above, § 6) sheds much light upon the question of legal
position. The points on which the scholars named, as
well as others, are agreed are, brieliy, these. Among the
duties of a Roman citizen a fundamental place was held
by that of worshipping the ancestral gods. Hy these in
the earliest period were meant only those of the city of
Rome ; but subsequently those of Latium were included,
and finally all those of Italy and Greece, as soon as
they had been formally recognised by decree of the
senate. Non-citizens were forbidden to proselytise to
strange gods, but not to worship them, so far as this
did not appear to Ije of danger to the state. The
Christian religion, however, was held to be dangerous
in this way, as denying the existence of the gods of the
state. The Jewish religion was, strictly, under the
same ban ; and, therefore, circumcision w.as laid under
severe penalties by Hadrian, and, as far as non-Jews
were concerned, by Antoninus Pius and Septimius
Severus also. For themselves, however, the Jews,
apart from the prohibition by Hadrian just mentioned,
possessed religious freedom on the ground of special
privileges conceded to them, particularly by Julius Caesar
and .-Vugustus, in accordance with the favoured position
which they had enjoyed, long before the Roman rule,
in F^gypt and elsewhere in the East. These privileges
included exemption from military service, which would
have interfered with their strict observance of the
sabbath, and exemption from the obligation to appear
before the courts on th..t day. When Caesar, on
account of susj^ected political activity, suppressed
curtita collegia ftrirter antiquitus constituta {Snel. Cces.
42), the Jews were expressly exempted. New cor[X)ra-
tions in the older {i.e., senatorial) provinces required
the s.anction of the senate ; in the imperial provinces
still under military government that of the emperor
himself was doubtless sufficient. It is probable that
burial societies had a general sanction from the senate.
Apart from these, however, there were many societies
which had never obtainerl any special concession.
They were left alone if they did not apjxiar to be
dangerous ; but at any moment they could be suppressed
by the pcjlice. In the cases of those wliich had lx«n
sanctioned by the senate, suppression was made lawful
1 So Victor Schultze, Z./i Kircluns^csch. 1S81. pp. 125-130,
and also, as regards the text, C/Libjt) ('7;)- }"^ inscription
ought not, therefore, to be relied on, as it is still relied on by
Ramsay (CAKrc/jP) chap. 12, § 5, p. 268, and St. Paul, chap. 15,
§ I. ed. 1896, p. 346).
755
only by a new senatorial decree. Now, the Christians
could never have obtained such a concession, for their
religion did not belong to the class of permitted re-
ligions. In their case, accordingly, the well-known
rule (Z>/>. xlvii. 22i) did not apply: ( ' permittitur
tenuioribus stipem menstruam conferre, dum tamen
semel in mense coeant . . . sed) religionis causa coire
non i)rohib^'ntur, duin tamen per hoc non fiat contra
senatus consultum, cjuo illicita collegia arcentur."
They had, therefore, to hold their meetings simply on
sufferance, and were never for a moment free from the
risk of |>olice interference. Still, they did not expose
themselves to {Xirsecution or to death merely by holding
unauthorised meetings. l-'or such an offence these
[XMialties were much too severe. When a sodalitas
of this sort was broken up, unless its object had bwn
in itself criminal, the members were subjected only
to a mild jiunishment. In fact, they were allowed
to divide among themselves the funds of the society,
which were confiscated in the case of all capital offen-
ces. Persecution and capital punishment fell to
the lot of the Christians, therefore, only because their
religion was regarded as criminal. In the case of
Roman citizens it implied a violation of the duty to
worship the gods of the state ; in the case of pro-
vincials who were not citizens, ddtJTrjs as against the
local gods of the place was in like manner implied.
In a (legally) very lax sense they were accused of
saci-ilegiuvt, which originally meant only theft of sacred
objects. Over and above this, all Christian subjects
were chargeable with the offence of refusing to worship
the Emperor, an offence legally construed as majestas,
or crimen Iccsic majestatis — more precisely, as iiiajestatis
imperaloruin — the majestas popiili Romayii not being
touched by this class of offences. Thus, either as
sacrilege or as majestas, Christianity could at all times
be prosecuted, and — certainly in the case of non-
citizens, probably also in that of citizens — by the mere
exercise of arbitrary coercive power. The penalties
under either charge were, approximately, the same.
ii. Correspondence of Pliny and Trajan. — Thus we
gain a new light on the correspondence between Pliny
and Trajan (see above, § 2). Let it be premised that
by the Jlagitia (2), as may be gathered from the
allusion in the words cibum promiscuum et innoxium
(7), were certainly intended the cpulcv Thycstecv and the
concubitus Oedipodei, which, as we learn from Justin
{Apol. I26 2 12) and other writers of the second century,
were laid to the charge of the Christians. Acts 20 8
already appears to be inti^nded to meet the familiar
accusation. The story ran th.at tefore the beginning ot
these orgies all lights were jiut out. Pliny's question,
then, whether the mere fact of being Christian {nomen
ipsmn), or whether only the crimes a.ssociated therewith
ought to be punished, is, from what we have seen,
already answered in the first sense, and is so decided
by Trajan also. On the other hand, Trajan's injunction,
conquirendi non sunt, with which also is to be associated
his order to disregard anonymous letters of accusation,
is an important mitigation of the law, as is his other
direction that a Christian who formally renounces his
Christianity by sacrificing to the images of the gods
shall be exempt from punishment. Such a degree of
favour could, from the nature of the case, never be
shown to the robber or to the thief, with whom,
nevertheless, the Christian is classed. Let it be
noted, also, that Pliny had no difliculty in deciding on
his own responsibility the earlier cases that came
before him (2-4). His reference of the matter to the
emperor was first occasioned by the largeness of the
numlx'r of those who ultimately came to be denounced,
and by certain leanings, on grounds of pwlicy, towards
clemency (49/ ), to which Trajan gives his sanction by
both of his decisions.
We must, therefore, no longer hold to the view that
in this rescript (which, although originally intended
756
CHRISTIAN, NAME OP
only for Pliny, was shortly afterwards piiblishrti, along
wilh the whole correspondence, and taken as a norm
by other provincial governors) the |)ersecution of the
Christians was now for the first time authorised.
Accordingly, we must proceed to investigate such notices
;is we have of earlier persecutions, and esjK-cially to
discuss the (|uestion whether in these cases the notnen
Chiititiuum w;xs known to the authorities and consti-
tuted the ground of accus;ition.
iil. Claudius. — Of Claudius we arc informed by
Suetonius {CltiuJ. 25) that Judaus impulsore Chresto
assidue tumultuantes Kama expulit. It is quite im-
possible, however, to determine whether by Chrestos
(on the form of the name, see above, § 1) we are here
to understand Jesus, the preaching of whom by
Christians divided the Jews in Koine into two parties,
or whether Suetonius conceivetl him to have been
|)ersonally present in Rome, or whether we should lake
hiin to be a Jewish agitator of whom nothing further is
known, .\clsl82 is by no means decisive f<jr the first
or the second alternative, even if we are to supjwse that
Aquila and Prisca were already Christians when they
came to Corinth.
iv. romponia Grercina. — Of Toniponia Grascina wc
learn from Tacitus (Ann. I332) only that in 57 :\.v. she
was accused superstttionis externa', and that she was
ac(|Uittc(l of the charge by her hustxiiul. the consular
A. I'laiiiiiis, before whom she had Ix-en brought for
trial. At that time, however, the Jewish and I'gyiHian
religions were regarded as foreign, just as much as
the Christian, which has been supposed to be meant in
her case (Tac. Ann. '1 85 ; Suet. Tib. 36). For full
details see Hasenclever, JPT, 1882, pp. 47-64.
V. A'eronian Persecution. — Tiie notices we have of
the Neronian persecution are very obscure.
Tacitus (.-(««. 1544) says: 'abolcndo rumori (of havinj;
planned the burning; of Rome) Nero subdidit reos et qujesi-
tissimis ptcnis alTecit, quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Christi-
aiios appellabat . . . prinium correpti, <|ui fatebantur, deinde
iiulicio eorum multitiido ingens baud proiiide in crimine incendii
quam odio generis humani coniuncti sunt.' Conjuticti here
could mean only that the ingen.i ntuttitmio was added to the
primuni c(Jrrf/^/(Ramsay, chap. 1 1, § 3) ; the reatling ( onvicti for
coniuncti is a conjectural emend^ition almost universally adopted.
At the outset the only thing quite clear is that the
Christians were from the first accused not as Christians,
but as incendiaries. Otherwise Nero could not have
been freed from the suspicion of being the guilty party.
The Christians, however, were innocent (subdidit) ; and
the ground on which they were condemned, accordingly,
was not so much (hand proinde) the evidence that they
had tjeen incendiaries as the odium generis humani.
liy this expression there cannot be understood a hatred of
which they were the objects : Roman society, w hich
alone could be regarded as cherishing it, cannot
possibly have been spoken of as genus humanum by
Tacitus, .^till, understood as cherished by the Christians,
' hatred of the human race ' is no less an idea foreign
to all legal conceptions, nor could it be supposed to
represent another ground of accusation against them,
over and above that ot incendiarism.
Weizsacker (.4/. Zeitalt. 478, 2nd ed. 462 ; ET 2 143) and
Ramsjiy (chap. II , 8§ 2 4) try indeed to make out that this actually
was brought as a charge against them by referring to Suetonius
(S'ero 16) : afflicti suppliciis Cltristinni, genus hominum
superstitionii nova- ac ntaleficir, holding that by tnaUficiuni
witchcraft and poisoning are meant, and that it was precisely
for these offences against society that the two punishments
bestiis ohjici and crucibus affigi were thre.itened, and (according
to Tacitus) inflicted. These same punishments, however, were
attached to many other crimes also. Suetonius says nothing
about the conflagration as having occasioned the accusation
against the Christians. In other words, he follows an entirely
different account, and we are not justified in seeking to explain
Tacitus by referring to Suetonius. The two authors agree only
in believing that the occurrence in question was confined
to Rome.
The main question, then, in the case of Tacitus, is as
to what it was that the persons first accused made
confession of ( fatebantur). The answer seems to lie to
our hand : se incendium fecisse. Such a confession may
757
very well have lx?en made by them, though innocent,
under torture. As regards the ingens multitudo nothing
more was re(|uirttl than merely some v.igue suspicions, or
a few false witnesses, to whom the judges, on account of
the conmionly assumed general perversity of the Chris-
tians (iheiT odium generis humani), were only too ready
to give cretlence. There remains, therefore, a possi-
bility that the religion of the accusetl did not come into
(juestion at all, and that Tacitus and Suetonius have,
unhistorically, carried back the name Christiani from
their own time into that of Nero. W ere this not so,
the reader, moreover, would expect to find in Tacitus a
name indicating the characteristic attribute of those
denoted by it ; after quos per Jlngitia invisos vulgus one
would exiX!Ct not Christianas but some such expressi<jn
as Jlagitiarios appellabat.
Another interpretation oi fatebantur is not less i)os-
sible. It is tliat at hist only those who h.ad already
habitually confessed thcin.selves in public to Ix; Christians
(fatebantur se Ciiristiano^ esse) were apprehended, and
that only aftenvards, on the evitlence obtained from these
in the course of the legal jiroceedings, a great number
(ingens multitudo) of those who had not hitherto made
any such public profession shared the same fate. The
Christians were laid hold of lx:cause it was hoped that
popular belief would readily attribute the incendiarism
to them. Although, on this supposition also, their re-
ligion con.stituted no ground of accusation, it was recog-
nised as distinct from the Jewish ; whereas if the other
inlerj)retation o[ fatebantur is adopted the Christians may
have been regarded simply as Jews : Tacitus {Hist. 5 5)
attributes adversus omnes hostile odium to the Jews also.
Clement of Home further (i. 5i-()2) tells us only that
the (.hristians suflered, without informing us why ; and
I'aul's trial in Rome could throw light upon the question
before us only if we knew what was its result, (ja'lio
was not led by the accusation, as cited in Actsl.Hi3,
to suppose that Paul taught a religion dangi-rous to the
.state. The representation, too (though not necessarily
the fact), is oj)en to suspicion on account of the ' tcnd-
ency ' observable in Acts (see Acts, § 5i). In a
word, the little that we really know of the Neronian
period does not enable us to tome to a decision on
the question as to the date and origin of the name
' Christian. '
Ramsay, however (chap. 11, S8 2 6/1), considers that in the
second stage the Neronian persecution was permanent, otherwise
than in the first stage. As the persecution is mentioned by Sue-
tonius along with oihermc;isures of police which must have Iwen
of a permanent nature, he holds that it must have had the same
character : in the .sei:ond stage, of course, the persecution was not
on account of incendiarism, but on account of alleged witchcraft
and o\.\\v.r jiagiti a. Tacitus, Ramsay believes, al.so gives proof
of this permanence of the persecution under Nero when he says,
untie . . . vtiseratio oriebatur tanquam non utiiitate publica
seJ in stnrtiatn unius ahsuiiierentur; and Sulpicius .Severus
(ii. '.'03) is understood to speak to the same etTect — hoc initio in
Christianos satiiri caeptum : post ctiavt datis legibus r, tigio
vetabatur pnlamque edutis propositis Ckristianuiii esse non
licehat. Immediately up< in this, however(ll7 Vl\ ; 3rd ed.pp.
244, 255), Ramsay e.\:plains that the word post refers to other
emperors th.in Nero, and also concc-des that the e.vpressions
edicta and leges are 'loosely and inaccuratelv ' employed by
Sulpicius. Further, the unde in Tacitus traces the niiseratio
to the horrors of the public celebration of the executions and
Nero's personal participation in them — incidents which were, of
course, not of constant recurrence. The argument based on the
context in Suetonius is too precarious to rest history upon, even
apart from the doubtful interpretation o( nialrficir.
vi. Titus and Vespasian. — We read in Sulpicius
Severus (ii. 306-8) that, in a council of war, Titus finally
decided on the destruction of the temple in Jerusaletn
quo plenius Jud<eorum et Christianorum religio toile-
retur : quippe has religiones licet contrnrias sibi, iisdem
tamen (ab) auctoribus profectas ; Christianas ex Judetis
exstitisse : radice sublatc stirpem facile perituram.
Now, even were we to reject, as a falsification of
history from motives of complaisance, the very different
statement of Josephus, an eye-witness (IJJw. 43-7), that
Titus wished the temple to be preser^■ed, and were we
to carry back the words of Sulpicius Severus to Tacitus,
758
CHRISTIAN. NAME OF
whom he elsewhere always follows, we should still be a
long way from having proved the account of Scverus to
be historical. It is in the highest degree improbable
that Titus had such erroneous ideas as to the depend-
ence of the Christians on the temple, while attributing
to them such dangerous qualities and so great a degree
of independence as apart from the Jews. Even Momni-
sen(/?i>m. Gesch. 5539 ; ET Provinces, 2216/. ). on whose
authority Ramsay relies, detects here traces at least of a
Christian editor. Ramsay, however (chap. r2i/. ), re-
garding the speech as a progranmie for treatment of
Christians, holds it to be 'a historical document of the
utmost importance,' and further .assumes that the pro-
gramme was actually carried out by Vesp.asian. For
this he has not a word of proof to allege apart from the
statement of Suetonius ( / 'vsp. 1 5 ) — nequc cirde cujusquam
unquain hvtatHS est et (by the three last words he
conjecturally tills a hiatus )y'//5//j suppliciis ilhcrimavit
ctiain et ingemuit — which, he considers, we are entitled
to interpret as referring to processes against Christians.
\\'ere this the case, it would be natural at least to
e.xpect that these should have begun immediately after
the destruction of the temple ; but, according to
Ramsay, they did not begin till towards the end of the
reign of Vesp.asian. As far as the documents are
concerned, this last hypothesis finds still less support
than that of Vespasian's Christian persecution as a
whole. All that can be said for the hypothesis is that
it is requisite in order that, by the shortness of the per-
secution under Vespasian, the silence of Christian writers
respecting them may be explained (see below, § 16).
vii. Domitian. — With regard to Domitian, Suetonius
(Dom. 15) tells us that eight months before his death
Flavium Clemcntem patnielcm sit inn contemptissim.e
inert ice . . . repenteex tcnitissimasiispicione tantumnonin
ipso ejus consulatu in te rem it. Cassius Uio ( Ixvii. 14 i/. ).
according to the excerpt of the monk Xiphilinus, adds
that at the same lime his wife, Flavia Domitiila, wp.s
banished to the island of Fandataria: eirrjxt>V oe ajx<poli'
fyK\r]fj.a adeorrjTOS. i<4> '^s ^i' dWot i's to. tQv 'lov8aiu}i'
ijdr] fJo.ve'XXovres ttoWoI KaTe5iKda0r](Tav. Now, Chris-
tian legend, and in particular the Vseudo-C/emcntii/e
Keco^nitiLiiis and Iloiiiilies, speak of Flavius Clemens
as Bishop of Rome, and of his father as, like the
consular in Suetonius, related to the imperial family ;
the daugliter of his sister (also called I'lavia Domitiila)
became involved in ,a Christian per.stcaiion, .and was
banished to I'cjntia (the island adjacent to Pandataria).
This Last statement is all the more important because
Eusebius {('/iron. ann. 2110, 2112 Abrah.: HEm. I84)
takes it from a heathen chronographer, Bruttius or
Brettius, who wrote before 221 a.d. For further
details see Lipsius, Chronol. d. riiin. Bischbfe, 152-161.
It is alike natural and difficult to assume that Clement
and Domitiila represent each only one person, and that
person a Christian. The charges in Cassius Dio, taken
by themselves alone, show either that the question was
one not of Christi.ans but of Jews, or that Christians at
that time still remained undistinguished from Jews.
The view that they were Jews can hardly be main-
tained.
In the heathen writer Rruttius, Domitiila figures expressly as
a Christian, and in all later Christian writings Domitian is
represented as a violent persecutor of the faiih (see, e.g., Melito
ap. Euseb. HE iv. iiig). He is called by Tertullian {.■if>ol. 5)
portio Xeronis de crudelitate ; and, though the heathen Juvenal
(\y]f.\ it is true, says something to the same effect, the
Christian bases his .iccusation e.xpressly upon the persecution of
his brethren in the faith.
We are. then, left with the second interpretation of
the words of Cassius Dio, that they relate to Christians.
Rams,ay's method of evading this (chap. 12, § 4) is surely
forced— that in Dio's time (211-222 A.D.) it w.as 'a
fashion and an affectation among a certain class of
Greek men of letters to ignore the existence of the
Christians and to pretend to confuse them with the
Jews.' Further, in the collection of temple money
759
(now a state tax) from the Jews, according to Suetonius
(Dom. 12), those also were taken account of qi/i vel
improfessi Judaicam vixerent vitant (or : Judaicam
fidem similem viverent vitam) vel dissimuiata orii;ine
imposita genii tributa non pependissent. As at that
time \.he judaicus /iscus acerdissime cutus est. it would
be very remarkable if here we were not intended to
understand both the Jewish Christians regarded as cir-
cumcised persons and the Gentile Christians regarded
as proselytes. The Roman officers, we know fiom
.Suetonius, in cases where it was necessary, satisfied
themselves as to the fact of circumcision by ins|)ection.
Even though greed may well have been a motive for
conniving at the profession of the Christian religion, it is
plain that the danger to the state presented by the Chris-
tians cannot have been taken very seriously. We
are led to the same conclusion by the story (as far
as it can be believed) of Hegesippus (in Eus. HE
819/) that Domitian released the graiulcliildren or
Jude, the brother of Jesus, as not Ix'ing dangerous
persons, although they confessed themselves to be not
only descendants of David, but also Christians. It was
not till the end of his reign that the persecution began,
viii. A'en'a. — As far as the accusations under Domi-
tian had reference to Christians they are covered by the
regulations of Nerva (Cassius Dio, Ixviii. 1 2, after
Xiphilinus).
Tertullian {Afifll. 5) and Hegesippus (Eus. HE iii. 20 5)
erroneously .attribute the regulations to Domitian himself. Tlie
text of Cassius Dio is : -ous re KptfOfj-fvovi in' acre^tia aii>rfKt Ka'i
TOVT f^ei'yorra? KaTTyyoyc . . . T015 6e hr^ aAAot? ovr* a(7e/)eia9 OVT
'louOaiKoO fiiov KaraiTia<T0ai Tiva^ <Tvi'fXuipri<Tei'.
The preceding discussion of the Christian persecutions
m.akes it evident that the grounds upon which these
were conducted were by no means clearly
7. Result of
discussion.
set forth, .and that (partly on this account,
but mainly from want of information) we
can hardly venture to suppose the persecutions to have
been of so great frequency as we should have expected
on the principles laid down by Monuusen and Ramsay.
In particular, had they been so frec|uent, the hesitation
of Pliny— or, at all events, that of Tr.ajan — would be
quite inexplicable. Ramsay's answer (chap. 10, § 6), that
Tr.ajan's words — neque eniin in universiim aliquid quod
quasi certain formam haheat constittii potest— refer to
Pliny's doubt whether or not the question of age should
be allowed to make a difference in the punishment, is
quite inadmissible. Xeque eniin does not refer to the
decision upon a matter which was still in question. It
refers, in commendation, to a judgment which Pliny had
already taken : actum quern debuisti . . . secutus es.
Thus R.amsay's conjectures of .some archive which
Trajan caused to be searched for the decisions of his
predecessors upon previous references by other pro-
curators luust also be rejected. Whatever the principles
of the government, and however strongly they may
have led, if rigidly interpreted, to unieni tting search
for and punishment of Christians once tluse had been
definitely distinguished from Jews, they can have been
carried into practice only in an intermittent way. In
the conditions of privacy in which, as we know, the
Christians carried out the exercises of their religion,
no direct danger to the state can have manifested
itself. In Pergamum Antipas was the only martyr
(Rev. 213). Therefore, Trajan's conquirendi non
sunt was a mitigation in principle, indeed, but not
necessarily in practice. If only parties could be
found to denounce, persecutions could be instituted,
after Trajan's time, on a much greater scale than
before under the infiu-nce of the stricter — but seldom
used — principle of conquirere. Such, according to all
documents, was in reality the case.
For the period before Trajan we know of persecutions only
under Nero and Domitian. Tertullian, for example, was not
aware of any others (.-ipot. 5), and .Melito in his .Apology t >
Antoninus Pius {ap. Eus. //A" iv. 269) expressly says that only
Nero and Domitian (fiovoi wdvriov ^tpiov Kai Ao/ieriatvf) had
given up the Christians to the slanders of denouncers. To the
760
CHRISTIAN, NAME OF
*»me purpose we have the Malemeni of Ori^cn (r. Cr/s. .''h)
that oAtyoi xard icatpovt xai c^oipa ti/apiSuijroi . . . T*0yri-
Kaaii' ; liver a(;ain!tt which tlie iroAv n-Aijtfof cjcAcktwc spoken of
liy Clemens Kumanus (i. I) i) in (he reit;n of Nero, and the ingem
tnu/titut/o o( 'tiu:ilU!i, must, of course, not be overlooked.
In view of such delinitc statements as these, it is not
|X>ssible to explain the silence of our authors —especially
that of Christian authors — on the persecutions which
Kamsay infers to have been instituted under \'csiiasian
and Titus, as being due only to the shortness of those
reigns — or rather the shortness of the portions of them
in wliich jx^rsecutions occurred (above, § 6. vi. end) —
or to the fact that the Christians had no eyes for any-
thing except the imminent end of the world (kamsay,
chap. 12. § 2).
Kamsay, it is true, finds support by assigning i Pet.
to about the year 80 A. I) — that is to say, the reign of
'I'ilus (chap. 13 1-3) — or to 75-79 .\. D. , in the
8. Date of
1 Pet.
-•ign of \'csi)asian (ExpuMlor, Oct. 1893,
p. 286). He does so, however, on grounds
the validity of which de|x;iids on liiat of his hyfwjthcsis.
He show> M ith truth thai the ci)istle presupposes accusations
on acciiuni of the mere noiiifn Christianiiiii (ii^/.), and that it
was conifiosed at the beginning of a jwrsecution (4 12 3 14 17 2 14).
It has also Ijcen rightly urged that there is no reason for assign-
ing it to the year 112 on the mere ground that then for the first
time a persecution of Christians over the whole oiKovf<«V>) (.'19)
liecime i)os>il)le. On the other hand, before that date there
had l)cen no persecution which had touched or threatened the
provinces named in 1 1 and gave cause to anticipate its extension
over the whole habitable wiirld.
When the contents of this letter are considered, no
one who can Ix.' reached by critical considerations
will unreservedly maintain its genuineness, containing
as it does so little that is characteristic of I'eter and so
much that is reminiscent of I'aul.
The presence in 1 1 7 of the words Biairnopa and ioKi)xioi',
which here are superfluous and disturbinjj, and have their
appropriate place only in Ja. 1 i 3, shows its dependence on
that epistle, which in its turn depends not only on the
J-.pistles of I'aul but also on that to the Hebrews (I I 31, cp Ja.
'J 25). Dependence on James is shown also in i IVt. 05 /I, which
is Twrrowed from }a..-ii<J'. In the latter passage the our is
logical (Beou 44... 0(ut), and in the former, therefore, in like
manner, the oAArJAois of 7'. 5 should have Ijeen followed by some
such expression as 'submit yourselves one to another,' if the
writer had been following a natural and not a borrowed train of
thought.
.As for the word aWorpLociriaKoiroi , the only satis-
fiictory explanation of its use m i Pet. 4 15. to di-note a
criminal of the same class as <j!>oi'ei''s antl K\iwTr)^, is
that of Hilgcnfeld, according to whom what is intended
is the class of dflatores, who made a trade of denunci-
ation, which was first made criminal by Trajan (Plin.
Panei;yr. 34/.). Hy aWoTpiofinaKOiroi Ramsay under-
stands people who stir up .strife Ixnween memlxtrs of
the same family, or between servants and masters.
This accusation could lie very easily brought against
Christians, as soon as they began to attcmjjt conversions.
Ramsay's assertion, however, that Nero gave power
to the courts of justice thenceforward to regard
such persons as magicians and to punish them as
criminals (chap. 15 i), rests upon no documentary evi-
dence : it proceeds solely upon his own imerijrotation of
the muli-JictP of Suetonius (.above, § 6, v. ). Nor has
Ramsay made out (chap. 8, §§ i 2, pj). 280 /'. 290) that
I Pet. presupposes search for Christians to have been
made by the state.
Were this so, the epistle could, of course, have been written
only either before Tr.ii.in's decision, coiujuiremii non sunt, or
after the re-enactment of c<»«^«;'»fr6- by Marcus Aurelius ; but
here again it has to be remarked that, if only there were de-
nunciations enough — and Ramsay himself (chap. 10, g 2) is aware
how readily these could at any time appear among the class of
sellers of s.icrificial animals ( Fliny to Tmjan, 10), or among people
in the position of Demetrius (Acts 19 24-34), or of the masters of
the damsel with the spirit of divination (Iti 16-19) — 1 Pet. 31568
become intelligible enough, even after the publication of Trajan's
contjuirendi non sunt.
We may still hold, therefore, that 1 Pet. was written
in 112 A. D.
The one new thing we have learned is that, when
I Pet. touches upon the subject of punishment for the
mere name of Christian (4t6), it is describing not a
new attitude of the authorities but one that \\w\ have
JK-en taking for .vjme time. This very fact makes it
im{X)ssible to use this passage as Ramsay does as fixing
the date of the epistle for the transition jK-riofl during
which puni.shment of Christians only for flat^itia was
giving place to a system of ix:r>ecution for the mere
name. Ramsay (chap. 1 3, § i ) argues that this last mode
of jH-Tsecution ntust have been new to the author,
Ijccause at the same time his language const.mtly pre-
supposes the continuance of the old state of things ;
but the exhortation in \ 15 that none should .suffer as a
flagitious jxjrson is not in any case out of place, even if
Jiagitia had not thitherto been the only ground on wliich
the |)unishment of Christians procveticd ; against such
Jlagitid Paul also constantly warns his readers ((jal.
5 19-21 I Cor. &<) /. 2 Cor. 122<j f. Rom. I.'ii-i3), and
that at a time when there was no thought of ( hristian
I>ersecution. Further, the hoix; of being able by ' seemly
behaviour ' and ' good works ' to convince the secular
jxjwer of the injustice of jK-rsecution ( i I'et. 2 12 3 13 etc. )
is one that Christians can never have wholly abandoned,
and it found a reasonable justification in the plea of
Pliny (27-10) for mild treaunent of those who had Ix'en
denounced. We can understand its jx-rsistence most
easily on the assumption, as made alxne, that [Xfrsecu-
tion was only then beginning.
The very positions argued for by Mommsen (and
accejited by Ramsay) make it clear that there never
9. Conclusion.
had Ixen a ]x.'riod during which
Christians, although recognised as a
distinct religious society, were ]ninished for /liii^'ilia
merely, and not on account of the iionieu. The strength
of Mommseiis view lies precisely in this : that the
name, as soon as it w.is known, also became punish-
able. .According to Mommsen, we must also conclude,
conversely, that where flagitia alone are punished the
noiinn is not yet known. Kven for the time of Nero
this argumentation would be conclusive, had he not
wanted incendiaries. But if, as Ram.say says. Chris-
tians under Nero were already recognised as distinct
from jews, then J/ai;iti(i other than fire-raising — as, for
example, witchcraft — cannot, even in the second stage
of the Neronian [X-Tsecution (on the assumption of theie
having Ix-en such a stage at all), have been the sole
ground on which condemnation [iroceeded. On
the (|uestion as to the date at which Christianity first
began to be recognised as a distinct religion we must
confess ourselves comjiletely at a loss. Only this much
is certain : that it had come alxaut l^efore the time of
Pliny's governorship. From what has Ixen said al ove.
the view of Neumann (and Lipsius) appears the most
plausible : the view, namely, that the distinction first re-
ceived recognition under Uomitian, and, more precisely,
in the last year of his reign. To this Weizsacker and
others' object, with good reason, that it is highly improb-
able that Christians should have pas.setl for jews so long.
The simple facts that they ilid not accejjt circumcision,
and frec|uented, not the synagogues but meeting-places
of their own, and moreover often came into conflict
with the Jews, made the recognition of a distinction
inevitable — especially as the Roman authorities, most
notably in matters affecting societies, were wont to
take careful cognisance of even the minutest trifles, and
of course, in a forntal investigation, had means readily
at their disposal for eliciting every detail. If we had
nothing but Suetonius's account of Nero to go ui>on,
these considerations would certainly Ix held to Ix
conclusive even for the time of Nero ; but we have
Tacitus, who makes us hesitate ; aiW what is said alxjut
Domitian goes against Weizsiicker's conclusion. Chris-
tian sources give no hope of a decision. Ramsay's citation
of I Pet. does not hold good ; that of the Apocalypse
1 E.g., Keim, the only one besides Lipsius (and Carr, E.rf'Oi.,
June "98, pp. 456-463) who has r J- /*r^/tMt» taken up the Question
of the origin of the name of Christian (Aus dem L'rchriiten-
thum, 1878, 1 171-181).
762
CHRONICLER
is worthless as long ;»s the unity and the date of the
t)Ook continue to be as iiuesiionahle as they are ; and
the Pastoral Epistles are loo doubtful. Moreover, it is [
not at all certain that they sjjeak of flagitia as the [
ground of persecution, so as to necessitate their being
assigned to the period of Nero, even if Ramsay s
view is adopted as correct ; for 2 lirn. 29 does not
necessarily mean that Paul suffers ^icfrtwjf he is rejjarded 1
as a Ka.KOvpyo% — it can just as well mean that he suftirs j
the same |X"nalties as those to which a K(j.Kovp-^o% is
liable, but that the cause of them is in his case his
pre.ichmg of the gosptjl (eV <^)— in other words, his
Christianity. In like manner, it is quite as conceivable in
2 Tim. 3 12 that the nomen is the cause of the sufferings
of all Christians as that jlagitia are. As for the Third
Gospel and Acts, according to what has been said above
(§ 2), they show only that their author, about 100-130
A. D. , was acquainted with the name, and knew nothing
as to its origin that rendered it impossible for him to
place its date ab:)Ut the year 40. All that the
present discussion can be regarded as contributing
towards the solution of the question is the conjecture
that the ]\agans, in as far as they knew the true
character of Christianity at a time before that which we
have definitely ascertained, hardly took any cognisance
of it — on account of the infrequency with which it came
under public notice. i'. vv. s.
CHRONICLER (T3Tp), 2S. 8162O24, Is. 3G3,
R\'"'*-'- ; E\' kK.roKDKR ^/.k ).
CHRONICLES (D'p^nna"n)
TOKICAI. LlTKK.ATUKE, § 13/
CHRONICLES. BOOKS OF.
Chronicles is a single book
Events uf the Times.
The full title would be D'Cn nm Ifia, Book oj Events of
the Times ; and this again appears to have been a designation
commonly applied to special histories in the more
1. N{III16> detiuite shape — Events 0/ tlie Times 0/ King
David, or the like (iCh.-jr24 Esth. IO2 etc.).
The Greek translators divided the long book into two, and
adopted the title nopoAeiTrd/xei/a, Things {o/tcn\ otniited \scil.
in the other historical books ; cod. A adds /3ao-iAeu»i/ respecting
the kings or Tiii' Waaiktiiav Iou6a : see Bacher, ZA I'M' V'iy^sff-
('95)1- Jerome, following the sense of the Hebrew title, sug-
gested the name o'iChronicdn instead o^ Paralipomenon primus
et secumius. Hence the English Chronicles.
The book of Chronicles begins with Adam and ends
abrujjtly in the middle of Cyrus's decree of restoration.
The continuation of the narrative is
K. 14i9- SeeHis-
In the Hebrew canon
entitled DVO'H "-QT^,
2. Connexion
with Ezra-
Nehemiah.
found in the Book of lizra, which
begins by repeating 2 Ch. 3t)22/. , and
tilling up the fragment of the decree of
Cyrus. A closer examination of those parts of E/.ra and
Nehemiah which are not extracted word for word from
earlier documents or original memoirs, leads to the
conclusion that Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah was origin-
ally one work, displaying throughout the peculiarities
of language and thought of a single editor (see § 3).
Thus the fragmentary close of 2 Chronicles marks
the disruption of a previously-existing continuity. In
the gradual compilation of the canon the necessity for
incorporating in the Holy Writings an account of the
establishment of the post-exilic theocracy was felt, before
it was thought desirable to supplement Samuel and
Kings by adding a second history of the pre-exilic
period. Hence Chronicles is the last book of the
Hebrew Bible, following the book of Ezra- Nehemiah,
which properly is nothing else than its sequel.
Whilst the original unity of this series of histories can
hardly lie questioned, it will be more convenient in th^
present article to deal with Chronicles alone, reserving the
relation of the several books for the article Histokic.'M.
Literature {q.v. , § 14/ ). The author used adifterent
class of sources for the history of the pre-exilic and the
post-exilic periods respectively ; and thus the critical
questions affecting Chronicles are for the most part quite
distinct from those w hich meet us in the book of Ezra-
763
CHRONICLES, BOOKS OP
Nehemiah. Besides, the identity of authorship cannot
be conclusively demonstrated except by a comparison of
results drawn from a separate consideration of each book.
Of the authorship of Chronicles we know only what
can be determined by internal evidence. The colour
, Date °'^ '^^'^ language stamps the book as one
of the latest in the OT (see § 11); but
it leads to no exact determination of date. In i Ch.
29?, which refers to the time of David, a sum of
money is reckoned by darics (but see Dram), which
certainly implies that the author wrote after that
Persian coin had long been current in Judea. 'J he
chief passage appealed to by critics to fix the date,
however, is iCh. 319^, where the descendants of
Zerubbabel seen to be reckoned to six generations (so
Ewald, liertheau, etc. ).
The passage is confused, and © reads it so as to give as
many as eleven generaliDns (so Zunz, NOld., Kuen. \ 'JS* 5 ; cp
Kiln, g 54 3/') ; whilst on the other hand those who plead for an
earlv date are disposed to a.ssume an interpolation or a corruption
of tlie text, or to separate all that follows the naiiie of Jesaiah
in V. 21 from what precedes (.Movers, Keil). It seems impossible,
however, by any fair treatment of the text to obtain fewer than
six generations, and this result agrees with the probability that
Hattush (v. 22), who, on the interpretation which we prefer,
belongs to the fourth generation from Zerubbabel, was a con-
temporary of Ezra (Ezra .S 2).
Thus the Chronicler lived at least two generations after
Ezra. With this it accords very well that in Nehemiah
five generations of high priests are enumerated from
Jeshua (Tiio/), and that the la.st name is that of
Jaddua, who, as we know from Josephus, was a
contemporary of Alexander the Great. That the
Chronicler wrote after the period of the Persian
supremacy was past has been argued by Ewald (Hist.
1 173) and others, from the use of the title King oi
Persia (2Ch. 3623).
The official title of the Achaemenidae was not ' King of Persia,'
but 'the King,' 'the Great King,' t .e 'King of Kings,' the
'Khig of the I--ind.s,' etc. (see KW) 1 iii^ 0151 ^ '■'('SjT-Y,
and ttie first of these expressions is that used by Ezra (7 2- /. 8 1
etc.), Neh. (1 11 Siff.), and other Jews writing under the
Persian rule (Hag. 1 i 15 Zech. 7 i Ezra 4 8 11 b6/. etc.).
What seems to be certain and imijortant for a right
estimate of the book is that the author lived a consider-
able time after Ezra, probably indeed (Nold. Kuen.)
after 300 B.C., and was entirely under the influence ot
the religious institutions of the new theocracy. This
standpoint determined the nature of his interest in the
early history of his people.
The true importance of Hebrew history had always
centred in the fact that this petty nation was the people of 1
4 Character • ^''^^"■^^' ^'^''" spiritual God. The tragic
it<»'pvr>lanatinn '"terest which distinguishes the annals |
Its explanation, ^f Israel from the forgotten history
of Moab or Damascus, lies wholly in that long con-
test which finally vindicated the reality of spiritual things
and the supremacy of Yahwe's pur[)ose, in the political
ruin of the nation which was the faithless depositary 01
these sacred truths. After the fall of Jerusalem it was
impossible to write the history of Israel's fortunes other-
wise than in a spirit of religious pragmatism. Within
the limits of the religious conception of the plan and
purpose of the Hebrew history, however, more than one
point of view might be taken up. The book of Kings
looks upon the history in the spirit of the prophets — in
that spirit which is still echoed by Zechariah (I5/):
' Your fathers, where are they ? and the prophets, could
they live for ever ? but my words and my statutes, which
I commanded my servants the prophets, did they not
overtake your fathers ? so that they turned and said, Like
as Yahwe of Hosts thought to do unto us ... so hath he
dealt with us. ' Long before the Chronicler wrote, how-
ever, there had been a great change. The new Jerusalem
of Ezra was organised as a municipality and a church,
not as a nation. The centre of religious life was no
longer the living prophetic word, but the ordinances of the
Pentateuch and the liturgical service of the sanctuar)-.
The religious vocation of Israel was no longer national,
764
CHRONICLES, BOOKS OP
but ecclesiastical or municipal, and the historical con-
tinuity of the nation was vividly realised only within the
walls of Jcriis iliin and the courts of the temple, in the
solcnui assembly and stately ceremonial of a feast day.
These intluencos naturally operated most strongly on
those who were olttcially attached to the sanctuary. To
a Ix;viie, even more than to other Jews, the history of
Isra»l meant aljove all things the history of Jerusalem,
of the temple, and of the temple ordinances. Now
the author of Chronicles lx;trays on every page his
essentially levitical habit of mind. It even seems
possible, from a close attention to his descriptions of
s;icred ordinances, to conclude that his special interests
are those of a common l>;vite rather than of a priest,
and that of all levitical functions he is most partial to
those of the singers, a member of whose guild Ewald
conjectures him to have been.
'lo such a man the older delineation of the history of
Israel, es|xx;ially in Sanmcl and Km^s, could not but
apiHjar to be delicient in some directions, whilst in other
respecis its nairative seemed superlluous or open to
misunderstanding, as for example by recording, and
that without condemnation, things inconsistent with the
pentateuchal law. The hisioiy of the ordinances of
worship holds a very small i)lace in the older record.
Jerus;\lem and the temple have not that central place in
the Book of Kings which they occu|)ied. in the minds
of the Jewish community in post-exilic times. Large
sections of the old history are devoted to the religion and
politics of the northern kins;dom, which are altogether
unintelligible and uninteresting when measured by a
strictly levitical standard ; and in general the whole
problems and struggles of the earlier period turn on
[joints which had ceased to Ix; cardinal in the life of the
new Jerusalem, which was no longer called upon to de-
cide lx;tween the claims of the Word of Yahwe and the
exigencies of political affairs and social customs, and
which could not comprehend that men absorlx;d in
deeper spiritual contests hatl no leisure for such things
as the niceties of levitical legislation.
Thus there seemed to be rcwni for a new history,
which should contine itself to matters still interesting to
the theocracy of /ion, keeping Jerusalem and the
temple in the foreground, and developing the divine
pragmatism of the history, with reference, not so much
to the prophetic word as to the fixed legislation of the
Pentateuch (especially the I'riest's Code), so that the
whole narrative might be made to teach that Israel's
glory lies in the observance of the divine law and ritual.
1. Outline of Chronicles. The book falls naturally
into three parts, i. htlrodiictory nsmnt! (i Ch. 1-9). —
_ . . For the sake of systematic completeness
^on en S. ^j,^^ author begins with Ailam, as is the
custom with later Oriental writers. He had nothing,
however, to add to the I'entateuch, and the period from
Moses to David cotitained little that served his purpose.
He, therefore, contracts the early history ( i Cli. 1-9) into
a series of genealogies,' which were doubtless by no
means the least interesting part of his work at a time
when every Israelite was concerned to prove the purity
of his Hebrew descent (see Kzra259 62, and cp Genk-
Ai-cxilES, I. § 3). The greatest space is allotted natur-
ally to the trilxjs of jLi).\n and Levi (</</. v.) (23-423
6 [5 27-6 66]) ; but, except where the author derives his
materials from the earlier historical books (as in 1 3i-i6
654-81), his lists are meagre and imperfect, and his data
evidently fragmentary. Already, however, the circum-
stances and interests of the author betray thentselves ;
for even in these chapters his principal object is evidently
to explain, in a manner consonant with the conceptions
of his age, the origin of the ecclesiastical institutions of
the post-exilic comniunity-
Observe th.it i Ch.O^-ija is excerpted (with merely clerical
differences) from Neh. 11 ^I'-i^ (on the passage see Kzka, ii. §
which Uii
5 [*1. 8 15 I'l ") ; and that the 'age to '
tie genealogies in
t See the articles on the several tribes.
76s
I Ch..Si7-j4 ;4nil Hjj.4o(cp9 35-44> and »ee Hknjami.s, | o) are
carried, jihows that ihcir puriiose i* to give the pedigree of ptjst-
exilic families who traced tlicir descent frum iJavid and S.uil
re»pectivelj'. In ch. 'J We. {Degftii.; cp more briefly /'ro/A*l
i\iff. [K 1 ib.\) ha.s shown that xn>. ^ 25-33 43-5oa, funning the
kernel of the chapter, reUite to pre-exilic Judah, whilkt vt>. 1017
18-34 34-4' 5o^'55 (like the greater part of 4 1-23) have reference
to the circumstances of the p<»t-cxilic community ; the chief aim
of ch. 2 is to explain how the Calebiu-s, who Ijclore the fall of
Jerusalem had their home in the S. of Judah, liad in post -exilic
times to find new homc-s in the more northerly parts of Judah
(sec Caleb, | 3/).
2. Israel before the schism ( i Ch. IO-2 Ch. 1 1. — From
the death of Saul (1 Ch. 10) the history becomes fuller
and runs parallel with .Sanmel and Kings. The limita-
tions of the authors interest in past times appear in the
omission, among other i)articulars, of David's reign in
Hebron, of the disorders in his family and the revolt of
Absalom, of the circumstances of .Solomon's accession,
and of many details as to the wisdom and splendour of
that sovereign as well as of his fall into idolatry.
3. I he Soulherii Kingdom \-i Ch. 12-30) — In the
later history the northern kingdom is quite neglc-cted, and
political affairs in Judah receive attenti'.n, not in pro-
portion to their intrinsic importance-, Inr. according as
they serve to exemplify (Jod's help to the obedient and
his chastisement of the retmllious. That the author is
always unwilhng to speak of the misfortune-, of gcxnl
rulers, is not to be ascribed with some critics to a
deliberate suppression of truth, but shows that the Ixxjk
was throughout composed not in purely historical
interests, but with a view to inculcate a single i>r.iclical
lesson.
U. Additions to Kinx-s- i- 'he more ini|j<jrtant
additions which the Chronicler makes to tlie old
narrative consists of (1/) statistic.il lists (1 Ch. 12, see
D.wiD, § II, iii.); [b) full details on points coiukh ted
with the history of the sanctuary (see HlsroKK.M.
LlTEKATUKK, § 15) aiid the great fe.lMs (see I'l Asl'-s),
or the arch;eology of the Levitical ministry (see
Lkvites), iCh. l;J15 1G (these three chapters ex-
panded remarkably from 2S. 6) 22-29 2 Ch. 29-31
3.'> 1-17 etc. ) ; and (t) narratives of victories and defeats,
of sins and punishments, of ol)edience and its reward,
which could be made to point a plain religious lesson in
favour of faithful observance of the Law.
See the following pass.nges : — 2Ch. 13;-2i (.M'ijah), 14 9-15
(Zerali). l.') i-i5(.\s.-i and the prophet A/ariah), 107-10 (Asa and
Haii.mi), l!i 1-3 (Jehoshapliat and the prophet Jihu), 20 Ichosha-
ph.it and .Moab, etc.), 21 i i-i7(Jehoram), 25 5-10 12-16 (.Vnia/i.ih)
These narratives often include jirophetical discourses,
inculcating the same principle of the theocratic loii-
dilions of success and failure, with nmch uniformity ot
expression, and in a tone very different from that of the
prophets who ajipear in .Samuel or Kings.
2. Attention should Ijc iliiected also to the short
insertions, introduced often into the narratives excerpted
from the older historical books, for the puri)ose of
supplementing them at some point where they api>-ared
to the author to ncx.'d explanation or correction.
Such are the notes on ritual i Ch. l.')27(i 28/' (David); 2 Ch.
hiil'-iyi 61376 8 13-15 (Solomon); 236f/' 13 (mid.ilf) 18 (from
TS) i<» (deposition of Athaliah); 3*9 ('the Levitcs') 12 (from
'and the') 13, etc. ; the reflections in i Ch. 21 1/. (joabs census);
2 Ch. S I li (Solomon's wife's palace); 12 i.; (Kehoboani humbling
himself); X^-^ib (Yahwe delivers Jehoshapbat) ; 2'J 3/' ^b (cause
of .Ahaziali's wickedness); 2'i 27<z (to ' N'ahwe,' cause of plot
acainst .Ama/iah); 20 21 (miitdlc) 23 {middle; consequences of
Uz/iah's leprosy) ; 27 6 (eflects of Jolham's piety) : 33 23 (char-
acter of Anion).
The minor variations of Chronicles from Samuel and
Kings are analogous in principle to the larger additions
and omissions, so that the whole work has a consistent
and well-marked character, presenting the history in
quite a different perspective from that of the old
narrative.
Here, then, a critical question arises. Is the change
of perspective wholly due to a different selection of
items from authentic historical tradition ?
May we assume that everything which is
new in Chronicles has been taken exactly from older
6. SoTiTces.
766
CHRONICLES, BOOKS OP
rources, or must we judge thnt the siandpoint of the
author has not only governed the selection of facts, but
also coloured the statement of them ? Are all his
novelties new data, or are some of them inferences of
his own from the same data as lie before us in other
books of the OT?
To answer these questions we must first inquire what
were the materials at his command. The Chronicler
makes frequent reference to earlier histories which he
cites by a great variety of names.
1. I'he Book of the Kinj^^s. — That tlie names ' Hook
of the Kings of Israel and Judah,' ' Ikiok of the Kings
of Judah and Israel,' ' Hook of the Kings of Israel,'
and ' At^airs of the Kings of Israel' (2Ch. 33i8, Ileh.)
refer to a single work is not disputed. Under one or
other title this book is cited some ten times (iCh. 9i
2Ch. IGii 2r)26 27? 2826 33i8 8627 368, also 2O34
3232, noted Ijelow).
That it is not the canonical Kings is manifest from
what is said of its contents.
It must have been i|iiite an extensive work, for among other
tilings it contained genealogical statistics (iCh.!>i), as well as
other particulars, not mentioned in the existing Bouk of Kings
(see 2 Ch. '2.1 7 'i'i 18 3t58) ; and it incorporated certain older
writings of (or about) prophets -in particular the Dcbariin
{Words, or r.ither J/a/A-ri-, i.e., History') of Jehu ben Hanani
(jCh.--'034, where read with RV, 'which is'inserted in') and
th^ Vision of Isaiah (2Ch.3232).
Now it is noticeable that, where the Chronicler does
not cite this comprehensive work at the close of a king's
reign, he generally refers to some special authority
which bears the name of ^ proplu-t (i Ch. 2929, Samuel,
Nathan, and Gad ; 2 Ch. 929, Nathan, Ahijah, and Iddo ;
12i5, Shemaiah and Iddo; 1822, Iddo; 2622, Isaiah).
Never, howe\'er, are both the Book of the Kingx and
a special prophetic writing cited for the same reign. It
is therefore highly probable that, in other cases as
well as in those of Jehu and Isaiah (see above), the
writings cited under the names of various prophets were
known to the author only as parts of the great Bo^k of
the Kings.
Even 2 Ch. 33 19 (cp v. iS), where AV departs from the received
Hebrew te.xt, but probably expresses tlie correct reading,! seems
r.ither to confirm than to oppose this conclusion (which is now
disputed by very few scholars) except in the case of Isaiah's
historv of U/ziah (2 Ch. 2(522), where the form of the reference
is different.
The references to these Dclbarim will thus not imply
the existence of historical monographs written by the
prophets with whose names they are connected ; they
will merely point to sections of the Book of the Kings,
which embraced the history of particular prophets, and
were hence familiarly cited under their names.
2. The Midrash of the Book of the Kings. — Whether
the Book of the Kings is identical with the Midrash
{ RV, badly. Commentary) if the Book of the Kings (2 Ch.
2427) is not certain. On the one hand, the peculiar
title would suggest a distinct work ; on the other hand,
it is not apparent wh)', if (as its title shows) it was a
comprehensive work, dealing with the kings generally,
it should be cited for only one reign. The term
'Midrash,'"- moreover, from v-p to search out, investi-
gate,— as applied to Scripture, to discover or develop a
thought not apparent on the surface, — denotes a didactic
or homiletic exposition, or an edifying religious story
(such, for instance, as that of Tobit or Susannah) ; the
Midrash here referred to will thus have been a work
intended to develop the religious lessons deducible from
the history of the kings. This, however, is just the
guiding motive in many of the narratives, peculiar to
Chronicles, for which the author cites as his authority,
the Book of the Kings ; the last-named work, therefore,
even if not identical with the Midrash of the Book of
1 ' The Seers ' : .so ®, RVmj,'., Bertheau, Kuenen, Ball,
Oettli, Kautzsch. Budde and Kittel read Vlin his seers (cp
j: 18). Those who follow MT (as Ew. Hist. I184, Keil) find
in v. 19 an unknown prophet Hozai (cp AV"ig- RV).
2 Though common in Rabbinical literature, it occurs other-
wise in the OT only in 2 Ch. 13 i2.
767
the Kings (as ILw. We. Kue. with much probability
suppose), will nevertheless have been similar in character
and tendency (cp below, § 9, end).
The Midrash of the prophet Iddo (aCh. 1822) will
have been either a particular section of the Midrash of
the Book of the Kings, or, more probably, perhaps, a
separate work of the same character, which was attributed
to Iddo as its author, or in which the prophet Iddo
played a prominent part. For allusions to other
authorities, see i Ch. 5 17 2827 2724 2 Ch. 3025.
3. Conclusion. — All these writings must have been
/AfZ-exilic works ; nor is it probable that, except for
some of his statistical information, the Chronicler had
access to any sources of early date other than the
canonical histories of the OT. The style (see below,
§ 1 1 ) is conclusive evidence that no part of the additional
matter ' peculiar to Chronicles is an excerpt from any
pre-exilic writing.
The general conclusion is that it is very doubtful
whether the Chronicler used any historical work not
accessible to us, with the exception of this lost Book of
the Kings. Even his genealogical lists may have been
derived from that work (iCh. 9i), though for these he
may also have had other materials at command.
4. Sources of the Canonical Kings. — Now we know
that the two chief sources of the canonical book of
Kings were entitled Annals ['events of the times'] of
the Kings of Israel and Judah resfjcctively. That the
lost source of the Chronicles was not independent of
these works appears probable both from the nature
of the case and from the close and often verbal
parallelism between many sections of the two biblical
narratives. Whilst the canonical Book of Kings, how-
ever, had separate sources for the N. and the S. king-
doms, the source of Chronicles was a history of the two
kingdoms combined, and so, no doubt, was a more
recent work, in great measure extracted from the older
annals. Still it contained also matter not derived from
these works, for it is pretty clear from 2 K. 21 17 that
the Annals of the Kings of Judith gave no account of
Manasseh's repentance, which, according to 2 Ch. 83 iZf ,
was narrated in the great Book of the Kings of Israel.
5. Dependence of Chronicles on Kings. — It was
formerly the opinion of Bertheau, and other scholars (e.g. ,
Keil), that the parallelisms of Chronicles with Samuel
and Kings are sufficiently explained by the ultimate
common source from which both narratives drew.
Most critics hold, however, that the Chronicler also
drew directly from the canonical Samuel and Kings, as
he unt|ucstionably did from the Pentateuch. This
opinion is probable in itself, as the earlier books of the
or cannot have been unknown to the author ; and the
critical analysis of the canonical Book of Kings shows
that in some of the parallel passages the Chronicler
uses words which were not taken from the annals but
written by the author of Kings himself. In particular.
Chronicles agrees with Kings in those short notes of the
moral character of individual monarchs which can hardly
be ascribed to a hand earlier than that of the final
author of the latter book (cp e.^., 2Ch.2032/. [.Asa]
with 1 K. 2243 ; 242 [Joash], with 2 K. I23 [2] [Jehoash] ;
25i-4 [Amaziah], with 2K. I42/. 5/, etc.). It is of
course possible, as Bertheau (xliv. / ) and Kuenen
(§ 32 15) suppose, that the author of the chief source of
Chronicles had already incorporated extracts from our
canonical book of Kings ; and in general the connec-
tions of the successive historical books which preceded
the present canonical hi.stories are sufficiently complex
to make it unwise to indulge in positive assertions
on a matter in which so many poss1t)i+itJes may be
suggested.
1 Including the genealogies and statistical matter, which (in
.so far as they are not colourless lists of names) .show unmistak-
able marks of the Chronicler's hand, and must therefore be
regarded as his compilations: see, e.g., the late expressi»ns in
I Ch. '230 4 21 2233383942 5i 2 etc.
768
CHRONICLES, BOOKS OP
In' studying Chronicles a sharp distinction onpht
always to l>».- drawn lx;tween the parts exccrptwl (without
_. . substantial alteration) from the earlier
7. ITeatmenti p,,„^,„ipaj historical books and the
01 sources. ^^.^^^^ peculiar to the Chronicler. The
recently pul)lishcd edition of Chronicles by Kittel
(SHOT), in which such excerpts are coloured light red,
will materially assist the reader in doing this.
The question arises, What is the historical value of
the passages peculiar to Chronicles? After what has
iM-en saitl, it can hardly Iw doubtful that, excej)! for
some of his statistical information, his one genuine
ancient source was the series of the ' Former Prophets,'
Sanmel and (more largely) Kings. The MS.S of these
lx)oks which he employed preserved occasionally a
better reading than is found in the existing M T ; but
where he adds to the earlier narrative or departs from
it, his variations are seldom such as to inspire con-
fitience. In large measure these variations are due to
his assumption, the validity of which he never questions,
that the religious institutions of his own time must have
existed in the same form in old Israel.
1. Hii^k Places. — Living in a time when high places
were universally regarded as idolatrous, the Chronicler
could not imagine that a good king had tolerated them.
Thus, whereas i K. 15i4"J243 state th.it As.-i and Jehoshaphat
dill not abolish the hijjh places, the Chronicler (aCh.Hs 176)
says that they did abolish them.
2. Ln'itical Choirs. — .\gain, he assumes that the
Levitical organisation of his own time, and esjxicially
the three choirs of singers, were established by David.
Had this really been the case, the silence of the older history
would be inexplicable ; indee<l the Hook of Ezra-Nehcmiah
shows that, even at the time of the return from Habylon, the
system with which the Chronicler was familiar had not been
elaborated, for the ' singers ' there still form a separate class
not yet incorporated with the Levites.
(rt) The narrative in 2 S. t> of the removal of the ark to Zion
does not say a word respecting the presence of Levites upon the
occasion. In iCh.l3 \b/. this omission is made good: the
Invites, including the singers, take a prominent part in the
ceremony ; the mishap of Uzzah is represented (1513) as due to
the fact that the ark had not at first been properly carried by
the Levites, and a psalm composed of parts of three /oiZ-exilic
psalms (105 J-15 90 1-13(1 100 1 \t /■) is placed in David's mouth
(IO8-36).
(J)) In I K.83 the ark is borne by priests (in accordance with
Dt. 31 9, and all pre-exilii: allusions); but in 2Ch. .'>4 'Levites'
is substituted for ' priests,' to bring the passage into conformity
with the later Levitical law.
(c) In 2K.II Jeholada's assistants in the revolution which
cost .\thaliah her life, are the foreign body-guard, which we
know to have l)een employed in the temple down to the time
of Kzekiel (44 7) ; but in 2 Ch. 'I'i the Carians (see Ciiekkthites)
and the foot-guards give place to the l^cvites, in accordance
with the rule of the second temple, which did not allow aliens
to appro.-ich so near to the holy things. ' Delilierate altera-
tions' (He.) are in conse<nience introduced throughout the
narrative : and a new colouring is imparted to the whole
occiirrencak
((/) There are other incidental allusions, also, which show that
the author is really describing institutions of a date later than
the age to which he refers them. Thus (i.) not only do the
gates mentioned in iCh.'iO (under David) presuppose the
existence of a temple, but also the Persian name Pakiiar {q.i>.\
given to one of them (7». 18), shows that the writer is thinking of
the po-.t-exilic temple, (ii.) The allusions in 2Ch.l3ii (in the
speech put into Abijah's mouth) to the golden candlestick and
the evening burnt-offering, point also to the usage of the same
age : in the pre-exilic tenmle the number of golden candlesticks
was not one but ten (iK. "49; see, however, Candlestick,
$ i), and the evening sacrifice of the pre-exilic temple was not a
holocaust but a cereal oblation (nmo : iK. I836 2 K. 16 15
Ezra 9 4). 2
In his descriptions of pre-exilic solemnities, as in the
s(x;eches which he places in the mouth of pre-exilic
characters, the Chronicler is unconsciously an unim-
' S. portion of Rol)ertsoii Smith's article in the /•."/> is here
omitted ; and this and the following section (§ 8) exhibit the (pre-
sumably) more matured view expressed by the author in OTJCW
(92), pp. 140-148 (cp ed. I, pp. 419-423).
2 Cp 1 Ch. 2l28-22i (exciismg David's sacrifice on Araunah's
threshing-floor and explaining why he could not go to Giljeon);
3 Ch. 1 3^6<l (legalising the worship at the high-place of Gibeon ;
cp iCh. IO39/); ~g/. (i K.865/, altered to harmonise with
the practice of the post -exilic temple); and the short notices
rclatmg to ritual, especially the functions of the singers, instanced
above (J s, end ; cp | 7I2]).
peachable witness to. the religious usages and beliefs
of his own time ; it is inconsistent with sound historical
principles to treat his testimony with regard to antiquity
as of etjual value with that of the older and more
nearly contemporary historical writings, where the two,
whether directly or by legitimate inference, are at
variance.
Another principle traceable in the Chronicler's addi-
tions is the tendency not merely to lay .stress upon the
doctrine of divine retribution, but also to
8. The
represent it as acting immediately (see
25
769
prophets the nnributive justice of (jod is
manifest in the general course of the history— the fall of
the I lebrew nation is the fruit of sin and relx-llion against
Yahwes moral commands — but (jods justice is mingled
with long-suffering, and the prophets do not suppose
that every sin is punished promptly, and that temporary
good fortune is always the reward of righteousness.
The aim of very many of the additions made in
Chronicles to the old history, is to show that in Israel
retribution followed immediately on gnf)fl or l^id con-
duct, especially on otx;dience or disoln-'dience to pro-
phetic warnings.
(a) In I K.2248 we read that Jehoshaphat built Tarshish-
ships (/.<■., great merchant vessels) at Ezlon-geber for the S.
Arabian gold-trade ; but the ships were wrecked before st:irliiig.
For this the Chronicler seeks a religious reason. .\s i K.
proceeds to relate that, after the disaster, .Ahaziah of Israel
oflfered to join Jehoshaphat in a fresh enterprise, and the latter
declined, the narrative of i K. 2248 is so altered in 2Ch.2035y:
3ji as to represent the king of Israel as having been partner in
the ships that were wrecked; whilst in 7'. 37a there is an
addition stating that Jehoshaphat was warned bvapiopbetof
the certain failure of an undertaking in which he was assocuited
with the wicked Ahaziah.
ii) In 2 K. 3 we read of a war with Moab in which Jehosha-
phat was associated with the wicked house of -Ahab, and c.ime
offscathless. In Chronicles this war is entirely omitted, and in
its pl.ice we have (2 Ch. 20) an expedition of Jehoshaphat alone
against Moab, Ammon, and Edom, in which the Jewish king,
having opened the campaign — with the assistance of the Levites
— with suitable prayer and praise, has no further task than to
siK)il the dead of the enemy who have fallen by one another's
hands.
(c) Kings states simply as a fact that Shishak invaded Judah
and carried off the treasures of the temple and palace : the
Chronicler inserts between i K. 1425 and 26 a notice explaining
that this was because Rehoboam had forsaken Yahwe, but that,
as he and his princes had humbled themselves, they should not
be entirely destroyed (2 Ch. 122/'-8 ; cp 7'. 12).
00 'n Kings, Asa, who according to i K. 1.5 14 was a good
king all his days, had in his old age (7'. 23) a disease in his feet.
With the object, apparently, of accounting for this, the Chronicler
explains (2Ch. I67-10 ; cp the addition in 7'. i2Al) that three
years previously he had shown a distrustful spirit by contracting
ari alliance with Benhadad (which is mentioned in i K.I517-22,
without any mark of disapproval on the part of the narrator).
The singular dates in 2Ch. I.')i9 10 1 (which place Haasha's
invasion at a period which, according to i K. 1^33 1<)8, was ten
years after his own death) are most naturally explained as an
attempt to bring the fault sufficiently near the punishment.
(e) Similarly the misfortunes of Jehoash, Amaziah, and .\zariah
are explained by sins of which the older history knows nothing
(sCh. 24 23_/C 2.') 14-1620^ 20 5 16-20); 2 and Pharaoh Nccho
himself is made a prophet, that the defeat ai.d death of Jusiah
may be due to his rejection of a divine warning (2Ch. 352iy;),
whilst on the other hand, Manasseh, whose character as dcpicte«l
in 2 K. 21 1-18 2326 (cp 24 3 y: Jer. I54) is without a redeeming
feature, is represented as a jienitent (2 Ch. 33 12^ 15^^) in order,
it would seem, to justify his long reign.-*
All this is entirely in the style of the Jewish ' Midrash ';
it is not history, but ' Haggada,' moralising romance
attaching to historical names and events. The Chronicler
himself, it will be remembered (see above, § 6 [2], gives
the name of * Midrash ' to two of the sources from which
» Where the 'yet' of RV should be 'and also" (viz., as well
as in the alli.-ince with Henhadad).
2 2 K. 15 5 mentions only the feet that Uzzi.ah became a lcj>er.
' Cp 1 Ch. 10 f}/^ (the cause assigned for Saul's death), 2 t t .
122(^(causeof Shishak's invasion), 21 io(^(causeof Libnah's rev olt),
227 25 20.* 28 5 19 2ayC(Ahaz's troubles attributed to his idolatrv),
3O12A In 2Ch.244-i4 2822/ 24yC the older narratives of
Kings have been not less curiously transformed than in aCh. "3
(see .ibove, §7^); Be., ad loc.\ Kue.«), | .SO ai, | 81 2 ; We.
ProlA*), 1Q3, \()i/. (ET 194, i^i/.\. The correspondence
between Hiram and Solomon (2Ch. 23-16: cp iK.52-9) has
been rewritten bj- the Chronicler (with reminiscences from other
parts of Kings) in his own style.
770
CHRONICLES, BOOKS OP
his materials were derived. There need be no uncer-
tainty, therefore, as to the nature of his work when it
departs from the older narratives of S. and K.
Another peculiarity of the Chronicler is to be found
in the incredibly high figures with which he deals.
David (i Ch. 22 14) amasses 100,000
9. Exaggerations. t.ilents of gold and 1,000,000 talents of
silver for the temple (contra.st the much
more modest estimate of even Solomon's revenue in i K. 10 n/.) ;
the army of Abijah numbers 400,000 men, that of Jeroboam
800,000, of whom 500,000 perish in one day (2 Ch. 13 3 17) ; Asa
musters 580,000 soldiers, Zerah 1,000,000 (Hsg), Jehoshaphat
1, 160,000 (17 14-19), — although in 20 12 he complains that he
has ' no might,' — Uzziah 307,500 (2613); of the army of Ahaz
120,000 are sl.iin in one day, while 200,000 women and children
are taken captive (286 8).
Manifestly such figures cannot be historical. The
past was magnified, as it was also idealised. The
empire of David and his successors was imagined oh a
scale of unsurpassed power and magnificence ; pre-exilic
Judah was pictured as already in possession of the in-
stitutions, and governed — at least in its greater and
better men — by the ideas and principles which were
in force at a later day. The past was read in the
light of the present, and the history, where necessary,
re-written accordingly. No doubt in many instances a
traditional elentent lies at the basis of the Chronicler's
representation ; but this element has been developed
by him, and embellished with fresh details, for the pur-
pose of giving expression to the ideas which he had at
heart, and of inculcating the lessons which he con-
ceived the history to teach. It is probable that the
new conception of Israel's past history, and the char-
acteristic didactic treatment of it, did not originate with
the Chronicler himself, but had already appeared in
the Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah or the Midrash
of the Book of Kings, which he so frequently cites as
his authorities (cp Be. xxxvii. ).
A usage, not peculiar to the Chronicler among OT
writers, which must be carefully taken into account by
in Th ^^^ historical critic, is that of giving
, . information that is reallv statistical in
genealogies, ^^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^ narrative.' This is the
principle which underlies many of the OT statements of
genealogical relationships, and which alone explains the
variations between different accounts of the genealogy
proceeding from a single ancestor : information as to
the subdivisions of clans, the intermingling of popula-
tions, and the like, is thrown into a genealogical form
(see Genealogies, § i). The most striking example of
the application of this principle is the ethnographical
table of Gen. 10 (cp also 2220-24 25 1-4 13-16, and parts
of 36) ; but these instances by no means stand alone ;
there are many in i Ch.1-9.
Thiis it is avowedly the intention of 22442-45^9-55 42-5 11-14
17-23 to indicate the origin of local populations: in 243 Hebron,
the town, has ' sons.' .Several of the names in 2 4 are also those
of Kdomite clans (Wellh. Dc Geitti/'us etc. 2^/.) ; these came
gradually to be treated as belonging to Judih, and the cnn-
nection was afterwards exhibited artificially in a genealogical
scheme. Caleb and Jerahmeel were not originally Israelite;
Caleb belonged to the Edomite clan (Gen. 3<) 11) of the Keniz-
zites (Jos. 146-14); and clans bearing the name of Caleb and
Jerahmeel are in David's time (i S. 27 10, cp 30 29; note also
the terms of Jos. 1415a) still distinguished from Judah: in
course of time, however, they were regarded as an integral part
of the tribe, and a genealogy was formed (i Ch. 2 18 25) to give
expression to the fact.l
A different application of the same principle seems
1 So in 722 Ephraim is not an individual, but the tribe ; and
in 1. 21 kzer and Elead are, no douht, Ephraimite clans. Cp
Bennett in Expos. Bib. chap. iv. esp. p. 87^
to lie in the account of the institutions of Levitical
service which is introduced in connection with the trans-
ference of the ark to Jerusalem by David. The author
is not concerned to distinguish the gradual steps by
which the Levitical organisation attained its full develop-
ment. He wishes to describe the system in its complete
form, especially as regards the service of the singers,
and he does this under the reign of David, who was the
father of Hebrew psalmody [cp OTJC^^^ 223/.] and
the restorer of the sanctuary of the ark.
The style of the Chronicler has remarkable peculiari-
ties. It is not merely that it presents characteristically
11 Stvle ^"^^^ linguistic novelties (which are not con-
^ ■ fined to the vocabulary, but, as Konig's
Syntax der hebr. Spiachc fully shows, extend to the
Syntax), but it has also a numl)er of special mannerisms.
Even the reader of a translation can see that this must
be the case. Modern words, often with Aramaic affini-
ties, inelegant syntax, cumbrous and uncouth sentences,
in strongest possible contrast to the ease and grace of
the earlier Hebrew historical lx)oks, — these are the
predominant marks of the Chronicler's style ; and so
constant are they that there is hardly a sentence, not
excerpted from Samuel or Kings, in which they are not
observable.^ For details we must refer to the Intro-
ductions and Commentaries (see e.g.. Be. xiv.-xviii. ;
Dr. Introd. 535-540 ; V. Brown, Hastings' DB
1 389-391). It might be thought, by those unacquainted
with the Chronicler's manner, that the speeches in
Chronicles might form as a whole an exception to
what is here stated, and that they might conceivably
be based on some special sources of older date. But
this would be a great mistake. The tone and literary
style of the speeches which have parallels in Samuel
and Kings are both very different from those which
have been added by the Chronicler. The latter not
only reflect, almost uniformly, the ideas and point of
view of the Chronicler himself, but also exhibit frequently
the same literary peculiarities. There can be no reason-
able doubt that they are, one and all, his own compo-
sition.'^
He.'s work in the Kurzgef. Hdh. (ed. 2, 1873) is still a most
helpful commentary ; .see also Keil ('70) ; Zockler in lunge's
Bibelweik ('74); Oettli, Kg/. Komm.
12. Bibliography. ('89); Rawlinson, speakers Comm. ('73);
Ball (learned), EUicott's Cotnm. ('83);
Bennett (suggestive). Expos. Bib. ('94). On isagogic questions
(structure, sources, credibility of narrative, etc.), the principal
works are De Wette, Krit. I'ersuck iiber die Gtaub^viirdigkeit
d. Cliron. i8o5 {Bciirage, vol. 1); Keil, Apolog. I 'ersuch. ('33), and
Eiiil.^^) ('7.3)1 §§ 138-144 ; Movers, Krit. Unterss. fiber die Bibl.
Citron. ('34) ; Graf, ' Das Buch der Chron. als Geschicht.squelle,'
in Die Gesch. Biicher dcs ATs (66), p. 114-247 (see also Be.
viii.); Ew. Kist.\i6g ff.; De Wette- Schr. Einl. ('69), U
224-2^(3; We. t'roU*) 169-228 [ET, 171-227]; Kue. Ond.i'^) §§
28-32 (very thorough) ; Dr. /«/>%/. (") 516-540 ; Wildeboer, Letter-
kunde, § 25 ; Konig, Einl. § 54. Cp al.so Bu. ' Vermutungen
zum " .Midrash " des Buches der Konige' in ZA 77/', 1892, p. 37
ff. (speculative) ; Ki. Chronicles, Critical Edition, etc., with
Notes, .SAY) 7' (Hebrew), '95; W. E. Barnes, ' Religious Stand-
point of the Chronicler,' Avi. Joum. Sent. Lang, ami Lit.,
Oct. '96: 'Chronicles a Targum,' Ex. Times, 8316 yC ('97);
An Apparatus Criticus to Chronicles in the Peshitta Version
('97) (contains a rather surprising number of variants in the
primary MSS); F. Brown, art. 'Chronicles,' Ha.stings' DB
('98). \V. R. S. — S. R. D.
, 1 The peculiarities in question may often be observed even
in the short .sentences which the Chronicler sometimes intro-
duces into a narrative otherwise e.xcerp'ed without material
alteration from Samuel or Kings : e.g., i Ch. 21 t (icjO> 3 end
(nrCN). " end (Sap), 2Ch. 23(2) 5ii^i3a 12 12 I83 end, -^ib,
etc.
2 For illustrations see Dr., 'The Speeches in Chronicles,'
Expositor, Apr. and Oct. 1895, pp. 247-254, 294/;, 304-307.
771
CHRONOLOGY
CHRONOLOGY
I. Difficulties (if 1-15X
LmIcIc of System (§ i/l).
Must dates late and hypothetical
(«« 3-.5)-
II. SOORCKS OK HkI.P.
Astronomy {§ 16^!).
Egypt m 18-22).
Introductory ({| 3ij-4a).
I. LiKKOK jKSUs(gji43-63X
1. Baptism (jj 43).
2. Length of public ministry (|J
44-46).
3. Its begmning (Jt 47-49).
OLD TESTAMENT-*
1. OT data as 10 reigns (§ 7)
2. Mahler's theories (§ 17).
3. Assyriological dates (§ 25).
4. Reigns : Solomon to Jehu (§ 32).
CHRONOLOGY
CONTENTS.
A. OLD TESTAMENT.
Assyriology (88 23-26).
Menander (J 30).
Caution (» 27).
III. Results.
Karlicst certain OT dates ($ 28).
Approximate earlier dates (§8 29, 3
B. NEW TESTAMENT.
4. Year of death (88 50-56).
5. Ve.-ir of birth (§8 57-62).
6. Conclusions (8 63).
II. Life ok Paul (88 64-80).
I. Entry into Europe to imprison-
ment at Rome (88 64-71).
TABLES.
5. Survey : Solomon to Herod (8 38)
B. NEW TESTAMENT—
6. Secular History (8 41).
7. Life of Jesus (8 63).
BIBLIOGRAPHY (8 85).
Chronology of the several periods
(IS 3'-37).
1. Solomon to Jehu (I 32).
2. Certain dates : Jehu to fall of
Samaria (8 33).
3. Chronology of N. Israel (8 34).
4. Chronology of J udah (88 35-37).
2. Earlier period (88 72-75)-
Confirmation of results (88 76-78).
3. Closing period (8 79/).
III. Churches in Palestine (| 81/).
IV. Other Dates (8 83/.)
8. Paul's middle period (8 71).
9. Paul : first period (8 75).
to. Paul : last period (8 80).
II. Other dates (8 84).
A. OLD TESTAMENT.
The advant.iges afforded by a fixed and uniform
chronological system of delining historical events seem
1 No fixed ^" *-"^'''''^"' ^'^^' °"^ might exi)ect to find
era some such method of determining dates
in use from the very earliest times.
History, however, shows that a long development
was needed to lead to this simple result. Only in
connection with a universal history did the desire
for a uniform and comprehensive method of determining
dates spring up. The impulse towards a real universal
history and a general chronology came, not when the
attempt w.as made to collect and record all human
events, but when men learned to look at them from a
single point of view and to comprehend them in a single
plan. The roots of such a universal history lie in the
prophets of Israel, who regarded the plan of Yahw6
as realising itself in the experience of the nations of
the earth as well as in the history of Israel ; and its
actual tx'ginnings, strange as it may seem, are to be
found in the Apocalyptic writers, who regarded history
as a comprehensive whole (see Apocai.yi'Tic, § 2).
This mode of regarding history was continued by
Christianity. It is not strange, therefore, that Chris-
tianity felt the need for a universal chronology and
found a way of meeting that need, thus proving its
own world -embracing significance. This is not the
place to enter upon the long and involved history of
the adoption of the Christian era. which, after its author,
the Roman abbot Dionysius Kxiguus of the first half
of the sixth century, is also called the Dionysian era.
In order, however, to obtain a fixed starting-point from
which to reckon, we must simply state here that the
year i~i.e. , the year of the birth of Christ— is equivalent
to the year 754 of the era of Varro— /.^. , the era of the
city of Rome,— and to the first year of the 195th
Olympiad ; and, also, that King Herod died in the
year 750 of the city of Rome, and so in the year 4 b.c.
(cp.Schur. c;//'l 343.345).
The same phenomenon of gradual arrival at a satis-
factory chronological method is reixiated in the narrower
sphere of the national history of the several nations.
We never find a settled era, a definite date from which
years were counted, at the very Ix'ginning or even at
an early period of a nation's history. If anything of
this kind h.as seemed to appear in early times, it has
always turned out to be in the highest degree uncertain,
or really to rest on later calculations. Nor is the
773
OT any exception to this rule. Only once had the
Jews before Christ a national era, and that was for a very
short time. When .Simon the Maccabee had obtained
from the .Syrians complete freedom from taxation along
with the acknowledgment of the political inde{x;ndence
I of Judea, documents and contracts were dated by years
of Simon, the High Priest and Prince of the Jews, the
first year of Simon the High Priest ( i Mace. 1 3 41/
1427) representing the 170th year of the era of the
Seleucides ( = 143-142 B.C. ).i
On the other hand, since the time when the Jews
fell under the dominion of .Syria, they had used the
so-called era of the Seleucidaa {^aciXela 'EWtjvuv.
I Mace. In; ^a<rt\e/a 'Aa<rvplu}v [Assyrian = Syrian],
Jos. Anf. xiii. 67 ; nncc p:!; = «'^<i contractuum amongst
the Jews, and year d'yawnaye amongst the Syrians).
This era has for its starting-point the defeat of Nicanor.
the general of Antigonus. by Seleucus .N'icator, and the
final est.ablishment of the dominion of the Seleucidfe
in Syria and Babylonia in the year OI. 117, \—i.e., 312
B.C. It is used in the Books of the Maccabees, but
there, it would seem, with this difference, that in the
first book it begins, not, as was usual elsewhere, in
the autumn, but in the spring of 312, thus about half
a year earlier. ^ This era reached in general as far as
the Syrian power, and although, usually, where states
were able to obtain freedom they introduced new eras
of their own, none was able to maintain itself so long
as that of the Seleucidas. It remained in use, indeed,
among the Syrians for centuries alongside of the Arabic
era, which counts from the Hegira {hijra, flight of
Mohammed), i6th July, 622 a.d.
Real eras are not met with in the OT in earlier times.
We cannot cite as an exception the practice of the Jews
during the Exile, of counting the years since they were
carried away from their land (ijniSj'?, Ezek. 33 21 and
40i ; pa'i.T niSA 2 K. 2527 ; also Jer. 5231, and Ezek.
1 2, and, without mention of the point from which the
reckoning is m.ade, Ilzek. 81 20i '29i 17). In truth,
they desired nothing more eagerly than to be delivered
from the need of counting in this way. Besides, there
1 ^Vhether the numljers 1-5 that are found on silver shekels
and half- shekels with the inscription ,icnp O^CIT or D'ScnV
nenp.T refer to another era than this of Simon's, and, if so, to
some pre-Christian era, h.-is not been decided. That Simon
had coins stamped, however, is hardly to be doubted (cp
1 Mace. 15 6; al-so Schfirer, «/. cit. 1 192^ 6367?".).
2 So Schurer, o^. cil. 1 33 ; We., however (IJG it^/. ao8X
regards this assumption as unnecessary (cp Year, 8 9).
CHRONOLOGY
was along with it a reckoning from the final fall of
Jerusalem (Kzek. 40i), while Kzek. 1 1 (if the text has
reached us intact) must rest on still a third mode of
reckoning.^ It is, moreover, a very unsafe hypothesis
which ventures to retain in the case of the statement of
2 Ch. 16 1 (as a whole clearly untenable) at least the num-
Ih-t 36 as based on trustworthy tradition, and proposes
to find therein a trace of a Judjean era, thought to date
from the division of the kingdom (Sharjje, Chronoloiry
of the Bible, 29; cp Hrandes, Ahhandl. 62). Nor,
lastly, are we any more justified in finding any trace
of a real era counting from the Exodus in the late
passage 1K.61, where the building of Solomon's
temple is assigned to the 480th year after that event.
This number does not rest on tradition : it has been
reached by calculation based on some hypothesis. No
corroboration can be obtained from the numbers in
the late Priestly Code — if the |)assages containing them
are original even there — numbers which date the events
of the journey through the wilderness by years from the
deliverance out of Egypt (onsp i'lND Vxib'-'ja nxs'^; cp
Ex. 16 1 19 1 Nu. li 9 I 3338). Nor can any support,
in fact, be found for the notion that the Jubilee period
was turned to chronological purposes. There is not the
slightest trace of a real carrying out of the regulations
concerning it mentioned in Lev. 209^: even the Books
of the Maccabees speak only of Sabbatic years, never of
Jubilee years ( i Mace. 649 53 ; cp Jos. Ant. xiv. I62).
In spite of this lack of a proper era, the OT is
not without notes and data intended to serve as a
means of fixing events chronologically.
2. Miscel-
In addition to isolated observations
laneous data. |^q,^^. ji^g i^^g important that they are
incidental ) setting an occurrence in relation to another
prominent event {e.g., to the death of the king, as in Is.
61 I42S, or to an important expedition, as in Is. 20 1,
to the building of a city, as in Nu. 1822, or to an
extraordinary natural phenomenon, as in Am. li), we
generally find, in the case of any important OT person-
age, the year of his life or his reign specified ; and in
the books edited during the Exile the date of the events
narrated begins to be given by years of the reigning
king. Besides, there are the various synchronistic data
often supplied by headings of books {e.g., in the case of
certain of the proj)hets), and by the Books of Kings,
which have a complete .synchronistic record for the time
of the coexistence of the two kingdoms of Israel and
Judah. Finally, the evidence of the contemporaneous-
ness of certain events furnished at times by the historical
narrative itself is of the highest imjiortance.
The weightiest question, however, is, to what degree
of credibility this chronological material can lay claim.
Before undertaking the examination of this
3. Late
origin.
CHRONOLOGY
sources have been worked, they are due, in the main, to
the latest exilic editors. Then, it must I)e regarded as
])roved that the superscriptions of the prophetic books
containing detailed information concerning the time of
the res[)ective prophets do not come from the prophets
themsdves, but are much younger additions, such as the
erudition of later ages delighted in. This a[)|)ears from
the inexplicable double date (by kings of Judah and of
Israel) found in Hosea and Amos, as well as from the
inaccuracy, or the crowding, of the data in Is. Jer. and
Ezek. Nor is the remarkalile addition in Amosl i, ' two
years before the earthquake,' any excejition to this rule :
the fact that a later event is employed to define the date
shows that the statement is a subsecpient addition, and
it is therefore very probable that it rests on the exegesis
and calculation of the scriljes (cp Hoffmann, /.ATW
3 123 ['83]). lastly, it is remarkable that the text
presents no uniformity of reading in the matter of re-
cording dates : nay, that there are even to Ije found un-
filled blanks. Thus in iS. 13i the numl>ers have Ix.'en
omitted from the formula giving the age of .Saul and the
length of his reign, and in (5" the whole ver.se is
omitted.' There are also other places in the LXX where
such chronological data are lacking — c-g-, Jer. 47 1
[B.AN] — and elsewhere in the old versions we come on
considerable variations from the traditional Hebrew text.
All these are marks that indicate a late origin for the
chronological numljers and warn us in the most emphatic
way to submit them to a thorough examination.
As regards the oldest period, with which Genesis
deals, the time down to the Exodus, it is known that
the numbers supplied by the Samaritan
4. Oldest
period.
question for the .several points of the history,
we must premise some general considera-
tions that thrust themselves on our notice. First of all,
there is the remarkable fact that these chronological
notes are to be found in greatest abundance in those
parts of the historical books that are confessedly to be re-
garded as the youngest. In the Pentateuch they belong to
the post-exilic Priestly Code or to additions of even later
date ; in the other historical books into which the older
1 In that case nothing would meet the requirements of the
passage but a reckoning that counted from the reform of Josiah
(622). Of any such mode of reckoning we know nothing, any more
than we do of a reckoning by Jubilee periods, or of a Babylonian
era meeting the requirements of the text (cp Kue. Kinl. 260 n.
4). Wi. (.1 T Unters. 94-96) therefore alters the text, and reads
Ezek. I I thus, 'yann [read T\'V^^Vr\\ 'B'-ScT nwi \T1, "or
'C'Sra. [read n'y'3inl 'yain r\WZ M'I. which must be under-
stood like 81, and give an earlier date than 81. It would be
better, however, to assume the original reading to have been ' in
the fifth year ' (cp the following verse)— /.<•., ri''c"Onn .13r3i — and
that from the fact of Jeremiah's having predicted seventy years j
for the Exile ('2.'j 11, cp 2<J 10) while Ezekiel gave only forty (4 6),
a later writer drew the inference that Ezekiel prophesied thirty
nars after Jeremiah, and accordingly inserted as a date in Ezek.
the thirtieth year of the Exile (Duhmt. '
77.=;
and the LXX texts, and even by the Book of
Jubilees (dating from the first century A.D. ),
differ in many points from those of the Massoretic text.
The divergence will be made most plain by a comparison
showing the sum of the years according to each tradition. In
Gea ."i the period from the creation of the world to the beginning
of the flood is, according to the Hebrew text, 1656 years; accord-
ing to the Samaritan, 1307 ; and, .-iccording to (B", 2242. In Gen.
11 ro^ the interval from the birth of Shem to the birth of Abra-
ham IS, according to the Hebrew text, 390 years ; according to
the .Samaritan, 1040; and, according to the text of©", 1270.
In this no account is taken of the variations exhibited by
the other MSS of 0 itself, nor is it inquired whether the
tradition represented by any one given text is free from internal
inconsistency (cp, e.g.. Gen. 11 10, 'two years after the flood,'
with Gen. 632 76, and Gen. 11 loa; further Gen. 12 4 with Gen.
11 26, 32).
This state of matters shows, what was indeed prob.able
to begin w ith, that there was no fixed tradition concern-
ing the early history of Israel : that, indeed, even at so
late a time as that of the LXX and the Book of Jubilees,
there was no clear idea of how the period in question
.should be measured. Thus the numbers of the Hebrew
text, since they are not earlier than the Priestly Code,
go back at the best only to the fifth century B.C., and
do not rest on tradition, but have been reached by the
application of some artificial theory. Since they are
useless, therefore, at least for chronology (if indeed one
could ever have hoped to obtain such a thing for those
earliest times) it is unnecessary to attempt to discover
what the actual theory underlying thein is.
It will be enough to mention that v. Gutsclunid observed that
2666 — the number of years resulting from the summation of the
Massoretic numbers for the period (Gen. h to Ex. I240) from
the creation of Adam to the ExckIus- is exactly two-thirds of
4000 years. These 4000 years he took to represent a period (of
100 generations of 40 years each) assigned for the duration of
the world. In this way he sought to explain the artificial
origin of the sy.stem (cp Nold. Untcrsuch. zur Krit. des AT
1 ©L follows MT, ®A is lacking at this point (see further
Dr. T/}S).
2 The number 2666 results from the addition of 1656, the
number of years from the creation of the world to the beginning
of the flood (cp Gen. 5), -(-290, the sum of the years from the
flood to the birth of Abraham (cp Gen. 11 10^) -I-75 to the
departure of Abraham from Haran (Gen. 12 4) +2r5 to the
departure of Jacob for Egypt ( = 25 to the birth of Isaac [Gen.
21 5I, -i-6o to the birth of Jacob [Gen. 25 26|, -(-130 years o*"
Jacob's life (Gen. 47 g 28]), -I-430 years of stay" in Egypt
(Ex. I240X
776
CHRONOLOGY
III). It l« worth while, however, iioliciTin the rol.ilion in which,
according to Oppcrt ((/O'.V, 1877, pp. aoi-aaA the C haldean
numl>cts for the first ages in l^rOsLsus and tlic statements in
Genesis stand to each other. The Chaldeans reckon from the
beginning of the world to Alexander 215 myriads of years, of
which 17 myriads represent the time Irom the first inan to
Alexander. Tlius they allow for the creation 168 myriads of
years. Now, the 7 days of the hihlical account of the creation
give 168 hours. Thus in the creation age a myriad of years is
represented in the hihlical account hv an hour. Again, for the
time of the first ten men down to the Hood, the Chaldeans reckon
433,000 years,! ( leiiesis 1656. If both numliers Iw divided by 72,
we get 6txx) and 23 respectively, and 33 years— /.r., 8400 days^
represent i»oo weeks, while 6000 years is 5 times 1200 years.
Hence the Chaldeans seem to have reckoned 5 years (i.e. 60
inonths)asa/i/f/>-«/«(fOJ«), whercClenesis has reckoned 1 week.
1656 years (('•enesis) = 7aX33 years = 72X 1200— ;.^., 86,^oo—
weeks; 4i2,oQoyears (Chaldean) = 86,400 lustra. This remark-
able rel.nlion, which can hardly rest on pure accident, presupposes
a coinpUcalcd calculation, and a very late origin for these
nunilwrs. Whatever be the theory underlying the numlwrs of
Genesis, one thing, therefore, is certain : for a sure chronology
of the times Iwfore the Kxodus, the OT nurnliers, appcariiTg .is
they do for the first time in the youngest sources of the Penta-
teuch, afford no security.
Tlic case is no better with the chronology of the
Intel \al that extends front the Kxodus to the building
of the tcniiile of .Solomon. We have
here, indeed, a check in i K. 61 which
6. Exodus to
Temple.
makes the buildinjj of the temple Ix-gii
in the .jSoth year after the I-",xoiius ; but this number
did not make its aijjxarance till a time when the temi)Ie
of Solomon was no more (cp above, §1). It bears,
moreover, the clear impress of Ixing artificial ; for it
plainly counts from Moses to David twelve generations
of forty years each, which we can easily identify as
follows : Moses, Joshua, Othniel, Khud, Deborah,
Gideon, Jephthah, .Samson, l-'.li, Samuel, Saul, and
David. This explanation of the origin of the numljer
480 is corroborated by the fact that the five 'little"
judges in Ju. 10 and 12 ap[)ear to have lx}en inserted
into the Deuteronomistic Hook of Judges later (on
the object of their insertion, see Jl'DGKS, § 9). Nor
can anything certain be obtained from the individual
numliers, since they are neither quite clear nor free
from gaps.
It remains obscure, e.g^., how the numbers relating to the
supiemacy of the Philistines and the judgeship of Samson (13 i
1 '1 -'o and lli 31) are related to each other ; how the twenty years
from the arrival of the ark at Kirjath-jearim to the victory of
Samuel over the Philistines are to be fitted into Samuel's
history (1 S. 7 2) ; and how the ninety-four years of foreign
oppression are to be combined with the data concerning the
length of rule of the individual Judges.2
The tradition also presents gaps, however, since it does not
mention the time during which Joshua was the leader of the
Isr.ielites, and in r S. 13 t the numbers for Saul are entirely
wanlinii. Finally, ©hal allows Kli in i S. 4 18 only twenty
years instead of the forty of M T : and the frequently recurring
round numl>ers— such as 40 for .Moses, Othniel, Deborah-Barak,
Gideon, Kli (0 20) and David: ?o ( =- 2 X 40) for Ehud; and
20 (^«,") for Samson, for Eli (according to ®), for Samuel, and
(approximately) for lola (23), and Jair (22)-go to set in still
clearer light the unhistorical character of the data.
The matter may rest, then, as Noldeke left it at the end
of his chronology of the period of the Judges (op. cit. 197),
with the verdict that ' neither for the several divisions
of the period of the Judges nor for its whole duration
1 Cp KA 7-(2) 419 n.
2 If we reckon together the numbers for this period, we get a.s
follows :— 40 (stay in the wilderness) 4-40 (Othniel, Ju. 3 it)+8o
(Ehud, 830) +40 (Deborah- Harak, 5 3r) +40 (Gideon, 828) 4-23
(Tola, 10 2) -f 22 (Jair, 10 3) -f 6 (Jephthah, Vl^') +7 (Ibzan, Vl^
-f 10 (Elon, 1-2 11) +8 (Abdon, VI 14) -f-20 (Samson, 1(5 ^r) -f-40
(Eli, I S. 4 18) -1-20 (.Samuel, 1 S. 7 2) +40 (David, rK. 'iti)+4
(Solomon, i K. ti i) = 440 years. If we deduct the ' little' Judges
(Tola, Jair, Ibzan, Elon, and .\lxlon = 7o), we shall have a total
of only 370 years. For Joshua and Saul, for whom the numtjers
are lacking, there still remain, to complete the 480 years, accord-
ing to the first calculation 40 years, according to the second
no. If, however, we are to insert between the periods of the
several Judges the 94 years of foreign oppression (-=8 (Cushan
Rishathaim, Ju.3 8] -l-t8 [Kglon, ;( 14) -H20 (Fabin, 4 3] +7
(Midi.-»nites, 6r] +3 [Abimelech, 922) -(-t8 [Alnmonii.s. IOh]
+ 20 [Philistines, cp 13 i l.'iao and lt>3r]), we get 534 or 464
years— according to the first reckoning already 54 years too
many, with nothing left for Joshua and Saul ; according to the
second, onjy sixteen years for these two together, a period far
from sufficient for the deeds of both.
m
Nebuchad-
rezzar.
CHRONOLOGY
is a chronology any longer attaiiiable. ' It is, therefore,
also useless to seek, by calculation from these iiumlnrs.
to ascertain the time of the leadership 0/ Joshua and
the reign of Saul. The furthest we can go is to
conclude, from passages like Am. 2 to 625, that an old
tradition estimated the journey through the wilderness
at forty years. (On the chronology of the Book of
Judges, seejL'lKiKS, § 15.)
It is much harder to deal with the chronological
dates for the jjeriod from the building of the temple by
. .Solonjon to the concjue-st of Jerusiilem
irlK™?a/i_ '^y Nel>uchadrezzar. In various im-
portant instances we now meet with
st.ttements concerning the year of the
reigning king to which the event narrated Ix-longs.
Thus in regard to events of war we read : 'In the
fifth year of King Kehotoam .Shishak King of I'.gypt
came up against Jerusalem' (i K. I425), and ' In the
ninth ye-ar of Hosea the king of Assyria took Samaria '
(2 K. 176). .So also in regaid to home affairs : ' In the
thiT-e and twentieth year of King Jehoash the priests
had not rejiaired the breaches of the house' (2 K. Vli).
Clear as such passages seem to l»e, we need to know
which year of a given king was called the fiist the
year in the course of which he ascended the throne, t)r
the first comijlete year at the Ix-ginning of which he
was already seated on the throne. Sound information
on this point is still more indisix'tisable, however, for the
understanding of the further data for our period supplied
by the Hooks of Kings. These give the sum of the
years of reign of each several king. If, however, for
any interval that can be defined by means of events
rel.ated, we add together these amounts, the totals for
the parallel kingdoms of Judah and Israel do not agree.
The question becomes very complicated when at each
accession the date is regularly defined synchronistically,
by years of the contemporary ruler of the neighbouring
kingdom of Israel or judah. This synchronism again
leads to a reckoning of its own. What we have first
to do is to estimate the value of the various chrono-
logical data which form a sort of framework for the
whole history of the period. Then we can determine the
importance and range of the individual dates assigned by
years of accession.
The statements concerning the duration of a reign as
well as the synchronism of its l)eginning form parts of
_ . J the brief reviews which pass judgment
7. Keigns ana ^^^ ^^^j^ Vwiv from the standpoint of
Bynchromsms. ,,^,. i:)euteronomic law (see KiNf.s,
BtJOKS OK, § ^ ff.)- The two chronological elements,
however, have a diverse origin ; for the synchronistic
notes betray their character as ' subjective additions of
the I".i)itomator. ' It is clear, to begin with, that
this noting of synchronisnt was not in actual use during
the existence of the two kingdorus : apart from dates
of accessions, we find it only once — at the fall of
Samaria (2 K. I89 10), the point where the system comes
to an end.
It would be natural to maintain that the very construction
of the chronological notes leveals their tlivcrse origin : the
verb "jSd ^^^ '" 'he same sentence one meaning for the words
that precede, and another for those that follow. It is to l>c
construed as inchoative ( = 'he ticcame king') as well as pro-
gressive ( = 'he reigned'). P"or instance, in 2 K. 14 23 'In the
fifteenth year of .Vniaziah the son of Joash, king of Judah,
Jeroboam the son of Joash, king of Israel -^D ( = became king,
and also =^ reigned) forty-one years in Samaria.' If here and
there (i K. 1625 1(5 29 2252 : 2 K. 3 r 15 13) -U;;.., is added to
"iSd> 'hi'* only proves, it would seem, a sense of the irreconcil-
ability of expressing both the date of accession and the duration
of the reign by the simple verb -^yQ. The double sense of this
verb, however, is peculiar to such annals, and is to be explained by
the brevity of the style. Exactly so in the list of kings of Tyre
given by Josephus'(f. .-<i». 1 18) from Mcnandcr of Ephesus,
i^aikfvatv is used in both senses at the same time: 'he
became king' as well as 'and he reigned.'
The decisive proof, however, of the secondary char-
acter of the synchronistic numbers is reached only when
778
CHRONOLOGY
we compare them with the years of reign. It then
appears that the former has been attained by calculation
from the latter, although the method that has been
followed cannot in all points be discerned.^ A tabular
CHRONOLOGY
exhibition of the data will be the best way to make this
clear. In the first column we give the date reckoned
from an imaginary era of the division of the kingdom,
and in the last the references from the Books of Kings.
TABLE I. — Old Testament Data as to Reigns : Solomon to Fall of Samaria.
SVNCHRONISM.S AND Ll.NGTH OK REIONS.
ii
:!!
Israel.
JUDAH.
References
Length of Reign.
Length of Reign.
to the Books
It
Synchronistic Date.
0 , e
Synchronistic Date.
lA
°.=.i
2.1
of Kings.
u-S
0 >-=
^1
1.-0
1°
iq
<&
<1
^
ist year of Jeroboam
22 years
^
ist year
ofRehoboam
17 years
17 years
I K. 14 20/
18
i8th „ Jerobo.iin .
..
=
ist ,,
Abijah .
2 ,1
3 .1
iK. 15i/
20th „ Jeroboam .
ist ,, Nadab
20 years
=
ist ,,
Asa . . .
4< 1.
.K.i5 9y:
21
I year
2 II
=
2nd „
Asa .
I K. 16 25
ist „ Baasha .
23 years
24 11
=
3rd „
Asa .
I K.. 1533
i 45
ist „ Ela .
I year
2 11
=
26th „
Asa . . .
lK.l.i8
46
ist „ Zimrl
4 years
7 days
=
27th „
Asa .
I K. If, 15
50
ist ,, 'Omrl
7 ).
12 years
=
3ist „
Asa .
.K.16 23
57
ist „ Ahab
22 „
=
38th „
Asa .
4° II
I K. 16 29
60
4th „ Ahab
19 ,.
—
ist „
Jebostaaphat .
25 II
I K. 2241
76
ist „ Ahaziah .
I year
2 „
=
17th „
lehoshaphat
I K. 2252
77
ist „ Jehoram .
12 ,,
=
i8th „
jehoshaphat .
21 J,
2K 3,
8.
5th „ Jehoram . .
—
ist ,,
Jehoram .
7 II
8 "„
2 K. 8 ,6/
83
i
89
I2th ,, Jehoram .
12 years
"-
ist „
Ahaziah .
— '
1 year
2K.825/
r2K.1036
L.V2?2
Sum of Ye.ars of reign in
srael .
98
=
Sum of Years of reign in J
ist year of Athallah .
udah . . 95
ist year of Jehu
28 years
6 years
6 years
95
7th „ Jehu .
ist „ Jehoahaz.
28 years
_
ist „
Jehoash .
40 II
"7
14 >>
17 ,.
—
23rd „
lehoash .
2K.13I
'31
ist „ Jehoash .
..
16 „
=
37th „
jehoash .
37 II
2K. l:!io
:72
2nd „ fehoash .
,5
—
ist „
Araaziah .
29 ,,
2 K. 14 I 2
.46
ist „ Jeroboam (IT.).
_ "
41 11
—
15th „
Amaziah .
40 II
2K. U23
172
27th ,, Jeroboam (11.) .
ist „ Zechariah
63 "'„
=
ist „
Azariah .
52 ,1
2K.15,2
209
I year
iyear
=
38th ,,
Azariah .
2K. l.'.S
ist „ Shallum .
0 ,.
h „
=
39th "
Azariah
2K.15.3
210
ist ,, Menahem
1 1 years
10 years
=:
39th „
Azariah .
2K.IO.7
ist „ Rekahlah
2 ,,
2 II
=
50th „
Azariah
2 K. 1.123
223
ist „ Pekah .
20 „
=
52nd ;;
Azariah
52 1,
2 K. 15 27
224
2nd „ Pekah .
=
1st „
Jotham .
15 II
16 ■„
2 K. 1532/
239
17th „ Pekah .
27 ..
=
ist „
Ahaz
16 „
2K. I61/
250
ist „ Hoshea .
9 II
=
I2th „
Ahaz .
•3 ",i
2K.171
252
3rd „ Hoshea ,
-
ISt ,,
Hozeklah .
2K..81
258
9th „ Hoshea .
9 „
7th „
Hezekiah to Fall
of Samaria
7^ II
62, 1
1 so 2 K. 18 1
2so 2 K. 18 10
258 years
24It'. yrs.
258 years
260 years
This table shows that at the end of the 258th year
after the division of the kingdom, there had elapsed 258
.synchronistic years, 24iy^j years of reign in Israel, and
260 such years in J udah ; and we have thus the singular
equation 258 = 241^5^ = 260. The result is even more
singular, however, when we examine separately the parts
Ixjfore and after the first point of coincidence obtained
through a contemporaneous accession in both lines.
Before the year of accession of Jehu and Athaliah there
were only 88 years according to the synchronisms for
98 years of reign in Israel and 95 in Judah ; but for the
second part there are 170 years according to the syn-
chronisms for only 143/5 years of reign in Israel and
165 in Judah. Whilst thus, in the first period, the
number, according to the synchronistic calculation, is
smaller than the sum of the traditional years, in the
second period, which is longer by about a half, it ex;
ceeds the traditional years not inconsiderably. Similar
variations for smaller periods can easily be proved by a
glance at the table. Nor can we equalizer the syn-
1 It has recently been shown by Benzinger (Comm. zu den
Kffnigen. 1899, pp. xviii.-xxi.) that the synchronisms start from
two different points and proceed upon two distinct methods of
reckoning, one ot which is followed by preference in the Hebrew
text and the other in (Bl.
779
chronistic and the traditional numbers by assuming that
the latter represent a popular way of counting according
to which from the middle of the first to the beginning
of the third year was considered three years, as in the
case of the siege of Samaria (2 K. 18 10). The excess
of the traditional values in the period before Jehu could
perhaps be thus explained, but not their defect in the
following period. Nor is it possible by altering the
individual numbers to bring the synchronisms into
harmony with the years of reign ; even were one to alter
all the synchronistic statements, this would do nothing
towards removing the differences between the numbers
for Israel and those for Judah. Thus, almost along the
whole line, the discrepancy between synchronisms and
years of reign is incurable.
We must not fail, however, to appreciate a remark-
able agreement. The sum of the synchronistic years is
very nearly equal to the sum of the years of reign for
Judah (258 = 260). The slight dift'ereiice of two years
can have no weight, and can perhaps be entirely
removed. In the surprising statement of 2 K. 13 10 that
the accession of Jehoash of Israel happened in the 37th
year of Jehoash of Judah, we may follow v. i and change
37 to 39 ; for, according to that verse, Jehoahaz, who
had acceded in the 23rd year of Jehoash of Judah,
CHRONOLOGY
tfigncd 17 years. In this way the sum of the years of
rfiRn in the hnes of Israel and Judah, according to the
synchronisms, would be increased in each case by two
years — for Jchoahaz would have reignetl, according to
the synchronism, i6 years instead of 14, and Jchoash
39 instead of 37 — while the iradiiioual numbers would
undergo no alteration. Kven without this slight cmen-
d.ition— adopted in the ^/t/Z/K-eilition of the LXX. and
demanded by Ihenius. Klosterniann, and Kamphausen
— it IS apfwrent that it is the sum of the Judean years
of reign that forms the basis on which the synchronistic
iui!nl)ers are calculated. In this process, however,
though the individual sums have not Ixx-n disregarded,
it has Ixx-n impossible, especially in the case of the
kings of N. Israel, to avoid important variations.
Care, however, has been taken not to alter the synchronism of
events.' It is worthy of note that the following requirements
are s,itisfied : — Jeroboam's reign runs parallel with those of
Rehoboam and .Abijah (i K. 14 30 1.^7) ; ISaasha is king during
the reigy of Asa (i K. 1.^) 16) ; Jehoshaphat .survives Ahab
and .\haziah, and reigns contemporaneously with Jehoram
of lsr.-iel (i K. -J-J 2 /f. 50 ; 2 K. ^jjf-) ; the deaths of Jehoram of
Israel and Ahaziaih of Judah fall in the same year ('2K.1>);
Amazi.ih and Jehoash of Israel reign contemporaneously (2 K.
14 »jr.) ; and Pekah is a contemporary of Jotham and Ahaz (2 K..
1537 ir, 5^).
.Although the synchronistic dates have thus not Ijeen
attained without regard to tradition, they are obviously,
as belonging to the youngest parts of the te.xt, not a
standard for chronolog}'. They apply to the past a
method of dating with which it was quite unacquainted.
This is true not only of the practice, which could never
be carried out in actual life, of connecting the years of
one kingdom with reigns of kings in a neighlxjuring
kingdom, but also of the methodical practice, pre-
su|)[X)sed in such a custom, of indicating in an e.vact
and regular way the years within one and the same
kingdom, by the years of reign of its king for the time
iK'ing. In such te.xts as we can, with any confidence,
assign to pre-e.\ilic times, we find nothing but popular
„ . chronologies associating an event with
.. ■ . . some other important event contcm-
ronJlog^' P^T ^^•■? ' ^'' '%'' ''-'" '"'V
"^ The few dates accordmg to years of
kings given in the older history (as, e.g. , i K. 14 25 ; 2 K.
127) may be ignored. They are too isolated, and must
rest (r.i,'., in the writings and portions which treat of the
latest pre-exilic times) on subsec]uent calculation, or be
due to interpolation (cp also the dates introduced by
the Chronicler in deference to the desire felt at a later
date for exacter definition of time, of which the Books
of Kings still knew nothing: 2C"h. 1823 I510-19, .ind
especially 16 1)— though it is perhaps possible that,
even without there being a settled system, some pro-
minent events might, occasionally and without set
purpose, be defined by years of reign. In any case,
dating by native kings must be regarded as at least
older than the artificial synchronism between Judah and
Israel.
Dating by the years of kings was thus never sys-
tematically used by the Hebrews so long as they had
9 Babvlonian "•'^''o"-'^! "^'"g^- Th'^X learned this
' , useful method from the Babylonians,
and then introduced it into their his-
torical works compiled during the exile (cp Wi. AT
Untersuch., esijecially pp. 87-94). Thus the question
how the Hebrews dealt with the year of a king's death
— i.e., whether they reckoned the fraction of a year that
remained before the teginning of the next year to the
deceased king, or made the first year of the new king
begin at once — disappears. There can Ix; no doubt
that the synchronisms, as well as the dates and ye.ars
of reign in general, presup[X)se the Babylonian method
(the only satisfactory one), according to which the rest
of the year in which any king died was reckoned to the
^ 1 W'c need take no account of the independent narratives of
CnKDNiCLKS {q.T., f 5); they do not agree even with the
traditional years of reign.
* Whether the account is correct need not here be considered.
CHRONOLOGY
last of his reign, and the first year of the new king was
the year at the Ijeginning of which he already wore
the crown.
By giving up the synchronisms we are thrown back
for the chronology of the monarchy on the sums of the
10 Yaara "i*^^^ ^^ reign of the individual kings.
^' llie ho|x.' of finding in these numbers
o reign, trustworthy material for chronology, and
thus sohing the singular e<iuaiioii «iiereby alwut 342
Israel itish yejirs represent aoo Judean years, could be
realised only on one condition. One might simply sub-
tract the 242 Israelitish year.« from the total for Judah, and
regard the excess of 18 years as falling after the con()uest
of Samaria. Nor is there anything in the synchronism
to prevent this operation, for that may have started from
an incorrcxt calculation in putting the fall of Hoshea as
late as the reign of Hezekiah. A clear veto, however, is
laid on this procedure on other grounds. If we subtract
the superlluous 18 years (6 years of Hezekiah and the
last 12 of Aha/.) from the total for Judah, all that is left of
Ahaz's reign parallel with the Israelitish years of reign
is the first 4 years. Therefore I'ekah, who was nuirdered
nine years Ix.fore the fall of Samaria (2 K. 176), nmst, at
the accession of Ahaz, have Ix.-en already five )ears dead,
which is impossible, since, according to 2 K. \^iff., this
king was attacked by him. The exjx-'dient of simple
subtraction, therefore, fails ; the embarrassing etjualion
remains, alxiut 242 Israelitish years = 260 Judean : nay,
since no objection can be raised against the contem-
poraneousness of the deaths of Jehoram of Israel and
Ahaziah of Judah, 144 Israelitish years = 165 Judean.
If the totals are thus une(|ual, very great inequalities
appear, naturally, in the details. F.lforts have been
made to remove them ; but this has not been achieved
in any convincing way.
2 K. l.'i 5, e.g., slates that during the attack of leprosjr from
whicli his father Azari.ih suffered in the last years of his life,
'Jotham was over the palace and judged the ijcople of the l.ind.'
Kvcn were we to found on this statement tlic theory that the
years of reign of father and son ih.nt ran parallel to each other
were counted twice over in the mimlR-rs 52 and 16 assigned to
their respective reigns, and also to suppose that during all
these 16 years the father was still alive, there would still remain
144 Israelitish ye.-irs= 149 Judean.
Mistaken attempts of this kind are, moreover, the less
to be taken into consideration that, as \\ ill appear (ij 35/'),
even the lowest total of 144 years for the inter\'al from
Jehu to the fall of Samaria is more than 20 years too high.
Frc)n\ all this it results that the individual numbers of
years of reign, as well as the totals, are untrustworthy and
useless for the pur[X)ses of a certain chronolog)-, even if
it be admitted that, within certain limits or in some
points, they may agree with actual fact.
„ . , The untrustworthiness of the numbers
\ , ,. lx;comes plainer when the principle ac-
ca cu a ion. ^,^i.jji^g to which they are formed is
clearly exhibited.
In 1S37 K. Krey ^see below, \ 85) argued that, at le.ist in the
case of the Israelitish kings, the several sums assigned to the
respective reigns rest in general on an arlilicial fiction. He
then thought that the series of kings uf Judah, and indeed those
also of the house of Jehu, 'show no such artificiality ' ; but (ace.
to Bleek-We. JiinM 265) he soon observed a playing with
figures also in the items for Judah. 'lo begin with the
kings of Israel down to Jehoram, we find an average reign of 12
years. In the case of Omri and Jehoram tliis is the exact
number, whilst for Jeroboam, liaasha, and .\hab we have 22 1
(/.<■., in round numbers 2X 12), and for the rest — Nadab, £lah,
and .'\haziah (the immediate successors of the kings provided
with the double period)— 2 years e.ich. This is as if we had 8
kings with 12 years each, making a total of 96— more exactly 98
years. Moreover, the totals for the first and the last four of
these are each almo.st exactly 48. In the ne.\t part of the series,
as We. emphasises, we have for the 9 kings from Jehu to Hoshea
a total of 144 years, which makes an average of 16 for each.
One might also urge the remarkable fact that, even as Jehu
with his a3 years reigned about as long as his two successors,
so the 41 years of Jeroboam II. also exactly equal the sum
of the reigns of his successors. In the Judean' line, on the
other hand, a similar role is played by the figures 40 and 80.
Thus, down to the destruction of Samaria in the 6th year of
Hezekiah, we have Rehoboam -f-.Abijah 20, .Asa 41, Jehoshaphat
1 Strictly, Baasha has exactly 34 assigned him.
CHRONOLOGY
+ Jehoram + Ahaziah + Athaliah 40, Jehoash 40, Amaziah +
Azariah 81, Jotham + Ahaz+Hczekiah 38 years; and from this
point onwards till the last date, the 37th year of Jehoiacliin, we
have Hezckiah + Menasseh + Ainon 80, and also Josiah+Joahaz
+Jehoiakim+Jehoiachin 79! years. If we might still, with
Kamphausen, be inclined to find in all this only a freak of
chance, our suspicion would be raised on comparing the total
for the kings ol Israel (circ. 2^0) with the number in i K. 0 i
(480), and still more on observing that 480 is also the total of
years from the building of the temple of Solomon to the begin-
ning of a new epoch— the epoch that opens with the conquest of
Babylon by Cyrus and the consequent possibility of founding the
second Theocracy and setting about the building of the second
temple. (The 36-7 years of Solomon from the building of the
temple +260 years, to the fall of Samaria +1332 years, to the fall
of Jerusalem +50 years of the Exile, give e.xactly 410 ye;irs )
There can hardly, then, be any ntistake about the
artificiality of the total as well as of the various
items. If .so, the origin of the present numbers for the
years of reign of the individual kings, on which the
synchronistic notices are founded, must fall in a
period later than the victory of Cyrus over Babylon,
and chronology cannot trust to the correctness of the
numbers.
For all that, it may be conjectured the numbers in
individual instances an; correct ; but which are such
. cases, can be known only in some way
■ independentof the numbers. Sometimes,
indeed, the narrative of Kings or a prophetic writmg
can decide the point ; but without help from outside we
could not go fixr. In itself it cannot be more than
probable that the last kings of Judah appear with the
correct numbers. 'rhes.i numbers give Hezekiah 29
(2 Is.. I81 2), Manasseh 55 (21 1), Anion 2 (21 19), Josiah
31 (22i), Jehoahaz \ (232i), Jehoiakim 11 (2.336),
Jehoiachin | (248), and Zedekiah 1 1 years (24 18) ; thus,
139I years in all, embodying an estimate of 133 years
front the fall of .Samaria to the conquest of Jerusalem.
Thus, the earliest that the dates according to years of
kings can lay claim to consideration is in Jeremiah and
lO/cekiel. Here grave mistakes in retrospective calcula-
tion (for even they rest on that) seem to be excluded by
the nearness of the time. Naturally no account can be
taken of the statements of the Book of Daniel, which
did not originate till the .second century B.C. ; it knows
the history of the fall of the kingdom of Judah and of
the exilic period only from tradition, and cannot be
acc|uitted of grave mistakes (.see D.\nikl, ii. § 9/". ).
For the last period, reaching from the fall of Jerusalem
to the beginning of the Christian era, we have in the
Hebrew OT itself but few historical re-
13. From
Fall of
Jerusalem
onwards.
cords. Beyond the introduction of the law
in the restored community the historical
narrative does not conduct us. For the
short interval preceding it we are referred
to the statements in the prophets Haggai and Zechariah
and in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. These, how-
ever, show that the Jews had learned in the interval
how to date exactly by years of reign. The writings
mentioned give dates by years of the Persian kings.
All difficulties in the way of a chronology of this period,
however, are not thus removed. The names Darius and
Artaxerxes leave us to choose between the several bearers
of these names among the Persian kings. Hence both
the first and the second of the three Dariuses have been
regarded as the Dariawesh mentioned in the OT, and
even all three Artaxerxes have been brought into con-
nection with the Artahsasta of Ezr. -Xeh. Then, again,
the transpositions and actual additions that the Chronicler
allows himself to make increase the difficulty of know ing
the real order of events. In the case of Darius,
indeed, only the first can, after all (in spite of Havet and
Imbert), be seriously considered.
The chief interest, accordingly, lies in deciding as to
the date in Ezra 7 7/ which sets the return of Ezra in
the seventh year of Artahsasta. It is
14. Advent
of Ezra.
to be noted that this passage (i
.) has
CHRONOLOGY
date is open, from its position or lack of connection, to
the suspicion of not being original. Kosters accordingly,
leaving this datum wholly out of account, maintained
(Hers/el, '94) that Ezra made his first appearance in
Jerusalem with the Cola (see Iskakl, § 57) immediately
after Nehemiah's second arrival there, while Arta.xer.xes
I. was still on the throne, and introduced the law then.
V'an Hoonacker, on the other hand, accepted the datum
of Ezra 7 7/., but believed that it had reference to
Artaxerxes II., and accordingly set down the date of
Ezra's arrival as in the seventh year of that king
(397 H.C. ). [Marquart ('Die Organisation der jiid.
(jemeinde nach dem sogenannten Exil,' Fundamenfe
isr. u. jiid. Cesch., '96) ^ thinks that the careers of
Nehemiah and Ezra can fall only a few decades earlier
than the reported deportation of Jews to Hyrcania
under Artaxerxes III., Ochus. Nehemiah's Artaxerxes
was, he thinks, Artaxerxes II., Mnemon. He finds no
trace of I%zra's presence in Jerusalem during the
twelve-years' governorship of Nehemiah ; the reference
to I",zra in Neh. 1236 is an addition of the Chronicler.
Nehemiah, too, is nowhere mentioned in Ezra (Neh.
89 IO2 are interpolated). Internal evidence alone can
determine the date of Ezra. Neh. 13 is connected
naturally with Ezra9i-1044. Ezra's arrival then
follows in the time after Nehemiah's return to Susa ;
the text of Iv.ra 77 (which belongs to the redactor) has
suffered in transmission ; 368 or 365 was the original
date reported. Nehemiah's second arrival, at any rate,
fell after the promulgation of the Law (Neh. 13 1);
Marcjuart proposes to read in Neh. 136 'at the end of
his days' [vz^\. implying a date between 367 (364) and
359. Cheyne, in a work almost devoid of notes, but
called ' the provisional .summing up of special re-
searches,' differs in some respects in his chronological
view of the events alike from the scholars just referred
to, and from I^d. Meyer, who is about to be mentioned.
(See his Jnvish Religious Life after the lixile, '98,
translated, after revision by the author, by H. .Stocks
under the title Das religiose Leben der Ji/den nach dem
Exil, '99). Like Marquart he doubts the correctness
of the text of Neh. 5 14 ; but he is confident that the
Artaxerxes of Ezra-Nehemiah is Artaxer.xes I., and
that Nehemiah's return to Susa precetles the arrival
of Ezra with the Gola. The incapacity of Nehemiah's
successor (the Tirshalha?) probably stimulated Ezra to
seek a firman from the king, though the terms of the
.supposed firman in Ezra 7 cannot 1)6 relied u|)on.
Ezra seems to have failed at the outset of his career,
and it was the news of this failure, according to
Cheyne, that drew Nehemiah a second time from .Su.sa.
Klostermann's treatment of the chronology in Herzog
cannot be here sunmiarised. — El).]
Ed. Meyer's thorough discussion [Eittst. '96K how-
ever, has convinced the present writer that we are not
entitled to call in question the arrival of Ezra before
Nehemiah, and consequently that the datum of Ezra
77/ may be right after all. If so, Ezra returned to
Jerusalem with the Gola in 458 B.C., having it for his
object to introduce the law there. In this, however, he
did not succeed. It was not until after Nehemiah had
arrived in Jerusalem in 445 B.C. clothed with ample
powers, and had in the same year restored the city walls
with his characteristic prudence and energy, that Ezra
was at last able to come forward and introduce the law
under Nehemiah's protection (445 B.C.). From this
date onwards till 433 B.C. (cp Neh. 136) Nehemiah
continued in Jerusalem. Shortly after 433 B.C. —
perhaps in 432 B.C. — he obtained a second furlough.
How long this lasted we do not know ; but its import-
ance is clear from Neh. 184-31.
The OT offers no further chronological
been revised by the Chronicler (see EzKA
AND Nehemiah, Books of), and in l»th verses the
783
16. Later
times.
material for determining the dates of the
last centuries before Christ.
But the essay was
npleted 29th .\ugu.st 1895 ' (p. 28).
784
CHRONOLOGY
The apocalypse of Daniel cannot be held to bridge over the
gap between Kzra and ibe lime of the Maccal»ccs with any
certainty, for it is the peculi;>rity of these a)>ucalypscs to point
to past events only in a veiled way, and it is, in fact, only what
we know otherwise of the complications |>etwecn Syria and
Egypt, and of the doings of Antiochus Kpiphaiies, that niake:<
an understanding and an estimate of the descriptions in the
Rook of Daniel possible. Besides, its intimation (S^i^ff.) that
from the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadrezzar (586) to
the death of Antiochus Kpiphanes (164), we are to_ reckon a
periixl of 70 year-weeks — 490 years — shows how inaccurate
the chronological knowledge of the writer was, and how much
need we have to look around for other help.
-Astronomy would furnish the surest means for deter-
iniiiinij the cxait year and day of events, if the OT con-
j, J taiiK-d indubitable accounts of solar or
ABtronXTcal ^""''"^ "^^^^ ^^^'^^VV^^y^^-^^-^.^l'
, such accounts are lacking. One might
be tempted to go so far as to supixjse
a solar eclipse to explain the sign on the sun-
dial of Ahaz given to Hezekiah by Isaiah (Is. 388);
|)crha|)s also the 'standing still of the sun at (iitjeon'
17 MnhlAT-'a (Josh. 10 12-14). Rationalistic as this
8 stem "'^y ^'^■"'- '■'''• ^^''''''-''' ^'^'^ § 38 f'""
^ ■ title of work) has not been content to
stop here, but has discovered many .solar eclipses in-
timated in the OT : he even finds them in every pro-
phetic passage that speaks of a darkening of the sun. In
this way he has been able to determine astronomically
a whole series of events. Before we can accept these
results, however, we must examine more carefully the
foundation on which they are reared.
For example, Mahler assigns the Exodus to the 27th March
1335 n.c. which was a Thursday, because fourteen days before
that d.iy there occurred a centr.il sol.ir eclipse. This calculation
rests on T.ilmudic data 1 that assign the darkness mentioned in
Ex. 10 21 to the ist of Nisan, and explain that that d.-\y, and
therefore also the 15th of Nisan, was a Thursday. In Kx. 10 22,
indeed, we read of a darkness of three days ; but Mahler argues
that this note of duration really belongs not to v. 22 but to v. 23,
and is meant simply to explain how 'intense and terrifying was
the impression which the darkness produced on the iiiliabitants
of Egypt' — 'so that no one d.ired for three days \.o leave his
house." It is just as arbitrary to assume in (Sen. 15 '^ff. an eclipse
enabling .■\braham to count the stars before sunset, and then to
use the eclipse for fixing the date of the covenant then con-
cluded (Berith ben hab-lx-thfirim). The time at which search
CHRONOLOGY
Is to be made for this eclipse Mahler reckons x< 410 yearn
before the Excxlus, since Kabbinic tradition thus explains the
number 430 assi)jned in Ex. 1*240 to the itlay in Egypt, whilst on
the other hand it makes the 400 years a.vsigned in (>en. 15 it
to the bondage l)cgin with the birth of Isaac. The desired
eclipse Mahler finds on 8th Oct. 176* h.c. about 430 years
before tlie Exodus (1335 B.C. ; .sec above). Even more artihcial,
if possible, is the Kabbinic exegesis of (Jen. '28ii and 8232 on
which Mahler relies for the determination of the beginning and
the end of the twenty-years] stay of Jacob in Haran. The
solar eclipse indicated according to him in (ien. 28 11 (' l>ecausc
the sun w.is set ') must have been, he argues, in the evening, and
would thus l>e the eclipse that occurred on the 17th Feb. if 01
li.c, whilst (Ien. 3*232 ('and the sun rose upon him") must
indicate a morning eclipse, which occurred on 3olh .May 1581
B.C. If we add that for the victory of Joshua at ( iil>eon (Josh.
10 12-14) he has found a solar eclipse calculated to have occurred
on 31st Jan. 1296 B.C., we have for the earliest period the following
items : —
Mahler's supi'oski> Earlv Dates.
Abraham's Berith lx5n hab-l)elb;'irim (Gen. 165 ff.) \-jf)\ B.C.
Jacob's journey to Haran (Gen. L'S 11) . . 1601 ,,
Jacob's return home (Gen. 8231 (32)) . . . 1581 ,,
Exodus (Ex. IO21) . 27ih .March 1335 ,,
Joshua's victory at Gibeon (Josh. 10 12-14) . • "296 ,,
The attempt to do justice to Is. 38 8 by the assumption of a
.solar eclipse is at least more interesting. According to this
theory, all the requirements of the narrative would l)e met if a
solar eclipse had occurred ten hours Iwfore sunset, since in that
case the index could have traversed over again the ten degrees
which, owing to the eclipse, it had 'gone down,' and the dial would
have again made its usual indication. Such an eclipse has, more-
over, been found for 17th June 679 B.C., whence, since the sign in
question belongs to Hezekiah's fourteenth year, his reign must
have covered the years 693-1 64 B.C.
The further calculations which fix a whole series of dates on
the ground of misunderstood passages are likewise quite unsatis-
factory. Thus, .Vinos is made (897;) to announce to Jeroboam
II. the solar eclipse of 5th May 770 n.t. ; Is. 1(>3 and .Micah36
are made to refer to that of the nth Jan. 689 B.C. in the time of
Hezekiah ; and J<x;l, who is represented as living in the time of
Manasseh, is made 10 indicate no fewer than three solar eclipses
(21st Jan. 662, 27th June 661, and 15th .April 657 n.c; cp Joel
210834415). It is further urged that we should refer Ezek.
30 18 and 32 8 to the solar eclipses of 19th May 557 and ist Nov.
556 ; Nab. 1 8 to that of i6th March 581 ; ' Jer. 4 23 28 to that on
2ist Sept. 582 (in the time of Josiah); and Is. 8 22 to that on 5th
March 702 B.C. (in the time of .Ahaz) ; and, finally, ih-it even the
light against .Sisera can, according to Ju. ^20, be wiih certainty
fixed for 9th -Aug. 1091 B.C.
By combining these ' results ' with the numbers of the OT
Mahler believes himself justified in producing the following
chronological table for the time of the Monarchy :—
TABLE II. — Mahler's remarkable Chronology : Divujed Monarchy.
Kings of Judah.
945-928 Rehoboam
928-925 Abijam ( - Abijah) .
925-884 Asa
883-858 Jehoshaphat
860 (j/V)-852 Joram
852 Ahaziah
852-845 Athaliah .
845-805 Joash
805-777 Amaziah .
777-725 Uzziah
17 years
3 »
I year
7 years
725-709 Jotham
709-693 Ahaz .
693-664 Hezekiah .
664-610 Manasseli .
610-609 Amon
609-579 Josiah
579 Joahaz
579-568 Jehoiakiin
568 Jehoiacliin
568-557 Zedekiah .
Kings of Israel.
945-924 Jeroboam 22
924-922 N.-idab 3
922-899 Baasha 24
899-898 Elab 2
898 Ziniri
898-892 Oniri and Tibni \
892-887 Oniri / ■ ' ■
887-866 .Ab.1l)
866-864 Ahaziah
864-852 lehoran.
days
years
31
3 months
II years
3 months
II years
It is only a pity that the imposing edifice thus erected
in the name of astronomical science rests on a founda-
tion so unstable — an artificial phantom, dependent on a
Rabbinical exegesis, it.self a ntere creation of fancy.
The or itself having thus failed to give sufficient
1 B. Talm. Shahbdth, 87-5, etc. ; see Mahler, Bibl. Chron.
Ajr.
78s
852-824 Jehu 28 „
824-807 lehoaha/ '7 ,,
807-792 Joash 16 ,,
792-751 Jerobo.-im II 4' .1
739 Zechariah 6 months. Sh.illuni . . i month
738-728 Menahem ben Gadi .... 10 years
727-726 Pekahiah ...... 2 ,,
726-706 Pekah ben Remaliah . . 20 „
697-688 Hoshea ben Elali . . ■ 9 .1
1 Mahler finds here a reference to the fall of Nineveh. He
argues that the battle against the Lydians in which the day
became night (cp Herod. 1 103),— a battle which preceded the
fall of Nineveh— fell, not on 30th Sept. 610 B.C. but on 28th May
585 n.c. -Again, the solar eclipse with the announcement of
which Zephaniah (1 15) connects an allusion to the expedition
undertaken by Phraortes against Nineveh at least twenty-five
years before its final fall is (ace. to Mahler) one that happened
on 30th July 607.
CHRONOLOGY
chronological data, we have to inquire whether the
. foreign nations, which so often come
18. Help from jj^^ough the events of history into
Egyptian contact with Israel, can help us. In
cnronology. ^^ ^^j^^g ^.^ ^^^^^^ consider in the first
place the Kgyptians. It is to Egypt that the narrative
of the origin of the people of Israel points ; thither
escaped the remnant of the community of Gedaliah ;
and in the interval between these times, as also later,
the fortunes of Palestine were often intertwined with
those of Egypt.
The Egyptians themselves possessed no continuous
era : for the quite unique mention, on a stele from Tanis,
of the 400th year of the king Nubti (accord-
19. NO jj^g j^ Stcindorff probably none other than
Hxed era. ^^^^ ^^^ ^^.^ ^j- 'Y-Ams), is too obscure and
uncertain, and would not help us at all even were it
more intelligible. Nor yet does the Sothis-period help
us much. This was a period of 1461 years, at each
recurrence of which the first days of the solar year and
of the ordinary year of 365 days once again coincided
for four years, or, what amounts to the same thing, the
Dog-star, from whose rising the solar year was reckoned,
again appeared on the ist of Thoth. The period was
never used for chronological purposes. ^ Nor have the
monuments fulfilled the expectation, not unreasonable in
itself, that by the help of inscriptions giving dates accord-
ing to two methods it would be {X)ssible, by calculation,
to reach a more exact chronology for Egyptian hiotory.
The most learned Egyptologists, indeed, can themselves |
determine Egyptian chronology only through combina- '
tion with data from outside sources. The conquest of |
I'-gypt by Cambyses in the year 525 B.C. furnishes i
their cardinal point. Erom this event, the years of |
_ . , reign of the kings of the 26th dynasty
20. i-enoa ^^^^ ^^ ^^^^ ^.j^j^ certainty by the help
Of certainty. ^^ ^^^ ^^^^ supplied by the monuments,
Herodotus, and ManC-tho. What lies before Psamlik I. ,
the first pharaoh of this dynasty, however, is in the
judgment of Egyptologists more or less uncertain, and
therefore for other chronological determinations the
records of that earlier time are either not to be used at
all or to be used with the greatest caution.
Still, even this short period, from 664/3 (the accession
of Psamtik I.) to 525 B.C., is a help to us by supplying
points of reference. Through synchronisms of Egyptian
and Judean history several events of the time are to a
certain extent fixed. Thus Necho II. (middle of 610
B.C. to beginning of 594 B.C.) is admitted to be the
king who fought the battle at Megiddo that cost Josiah
his life. So mention is made in the OT of Hophra
(Apries), who reigned 588-569 B.C., and was even down
to 564 nominally joint ruler with Amasis (see Egypt, §
69). Thus we gel fixed points for the contemporaries
of Necho II. — Josiah, Jehoahaz, and Jehoiakim ; — and
for the contemporaries of Hojihra — Jeremiah, and the
Jews in Egypt (Jer. 4430) — although neither for the
battle of Megiddo nor for that of Carchemish can the
year be determined from Egyptian data. On the other
hand, these Egyptian data are sufficient to prove that
the astronomical edifice of Mahler is quite impossible.
For the time before Psamtik I. the rulers of the
.. 25th dynasty may be fixed approximately.
21. 25tn 'p.^„m,-^n,on ruled alone only a short time.
Dynasty. ^^^^ therefore may fall out of account. The
data for his three predecessors do not agree (cp Egypt,
§66/.).
Taharka reigned, according to the monuments, 26 years ; ac-
cording to Manetho, 18 (var. 20).
Sabatako's reign, according to the monuments, was uncertain ;
according to Manetho it was 14 (var. 12).
1 The confirm.ition that \\?i\\\KX (op. cit., p. 56 ^.) seeks for
1315 B.C. as the date of the Kxodus in the .statement that under
Menephthah, whom he holds to Ije the pharaoh of the Exodus,
was celebrated the beginning of a Sothic period, which may
have happened in the year 1318 B.C., is certainly weak, since
the pharaoh who according to Ex. 14 was drowned could not
have reigned after that for 17 years. See Exodus.
787
CHRONOLOGY
Sabako reigned, according to the monuments, 12 years; ac-
cording to Manetho, 8 (var. 12).
If we assign to Saba/ako Manftho's number of years
( fourteen y^and take, as our basis for the rest, the numbers
of the monuments, we get the following : — Taharka,
690-664 B.C., iabattiko, 704-690 B.C., and Sabako,
716-704 B.C. Still, according to the view of .Steindorff,
to whom we are indebted for these data, Taharka may
have reigned even longer than twenty-six years, perhaps
along with Sabatako. ^ Since, however, Ed. Meyer
gives .^abako 728-716, Sabatako circ. 704, and makes
Taharka as early as 704 real master, although not till
689 official ruler, of Egypt (cp Gesch. Ae_^. 343^).
all sure support is already gone. Besides, although
according to Meyer (op. cit. 344) the identity of i^abako
with the Assyrian Sab'i and the Hebrew niq (So', or,
more correctly, Save' or Seweh) in 2 K. 17 4 is indubit-
able, Steindorff has grave doubts as to the phonetic
equivalence of these names, and finds no Egyptian
datum for the battle of Altaku. It is, therefore, very
difficult to get from Egyptian chronology any certain
light on two OT statements relating to Egypt — viz.,
that Sennacherib sent messengers to Hezekiah when he
heard of the expedition of Taharka (2 K. I99 ; Is. 37 9).
and that Hoshea of Israel had dealings with j<io of
Egypt, and was therefore bound and put into prison by
Shalmaneser (2 K. 174)-
For the chronology of the OT in still earlier times,
there is, unfortunately, nothing at all to be gained from
Egyptology. According to i K. 11 40
22. Earlier
times.
14 25 (cp 2Ch. 122), .Shishak (.Sheshonk)
was a contemporary of Solomon, and in
the fifth year of Rehoboam went up against Jerusalem.
In spite, however, of the Egyptian monument at Karnak
bearing the list of cities conquered by him, his date
cannot be determined on Egyptological grounds (on
biblical grounds it is usually given as about 930 B.C.).
As to 'Zerah the Cushite' (2Ch. 149^), we need not
expect to find any mention of him in Egyptian sources
(ZER.A.H).
The clay tablets found at Tell el Amarna (see IsR.\F.L,
§ 6), indeed, make some important contributions to
I our knowledge of the relations of Palestine to Eg>-pt ;
: but for the chronology they afford nothing certain.
: We must get help from the chronology of Babylonia
; before we can, even approximately, determine the date
j of the correspondence. Then it seems probable that
I Amen-hotep III. and Amen-hotep IV. reigned in Egypt
I either about 1450 B.C. or about 1380 B.C., at which
time, therefore, Palestine must have stood under the
I sceptre of Egypt : the contemporaries of Amen-hotep
I III. — Burnaburias I. and Kurigalzu I. of Babylon — are
assigned by Winckler to 1493-1476 and 1475-1457 B.C.
respectively, and the contemporary of Amen-hotep IV.
— Burnaburias II.— to 1456-1422, whilst R. W. Rogers,
on the other hand ( Outlines of the History of Early
Babylonia, 1895, p. 56), gives 1397-1373 as the probable
date of Burnaburias II., and C. Niebuhr [Chronol. der
Gesch. Isr., Ae^^., Bab. u. Ass. von 2000-700 £.c.
untcrsucht, 1896) accepts only one Burnaburias and
places him and his contemporary Amen-hotep IV. in
the beginning of the fourteenth century B.C. As in
these tablet inscriptions the name of the Hebrews has
! not so far been certainly discovered, so, in the Egyptian
monuments generally, we cannot find any reminiscence
of a stay of Israel in Egypt or of their departure. 1
Theories about the pharaoh of the oppression and the
pharaoh of the Exodus remain, therefore, in the highest
degree uncertain. Neither Joseph nor Moses is to l>e
found in Egyptian sources : supposed points of contact
(a seven-years famine, and the narrative of ManCtho
alx)ut Osarsiph-Moses in Josephus, c. Ap.l^jiS; on
this cp Ed. Meyer, Gesch. Aeg. 376 f. ) have proved, on
1 On the inscription of Menephthah discovered in 1896, see
Egypt, § 58/, and Exodus, §§ i, 3.
CHRONOLOGY
nearer examination, untenable.* Apart, therefore, from
the dates of the rulers of the twenty-fifth and the twenty-
sixth dynasties, there is very little to be gained for OT
chronology from Kgyptology. On Egyptian Chronology
see also ICoYPT, § 41.
Assyriology offers much more extensive help. It is
much better sujjplicd with chronological material, since
23 HelD from " P«-^sesses. for a scries of 228 yt^rs,
,' ". inscriptions containing careful itsts of
Asaynoiogy. pp^)„y^^ X\iA%, that is. giving the name
of tlie oflicer after whom the year was called, and
mentioning single important events falling within the
year. These brief notes alone are quite enough to give
the lists an extraordinary importance. Their value is
further increased, however, by the fact that the office of
I-4X)nym had to be held in one of his first years,
commonly the second full year of his reign, by each
king. Hence the order of succession of the Assyrian
kings and the length of their reign can be determined
with case, especially as names of kings are distinguished
from those of other E[X)nyms by the addition of the
royal title and of a line separating them from those that
precede them (cp Assyria, § 19^). The monumental
cliaracter, too, of these documents, exem;>ting them, as
it docs, from the risk of alteration attaching to notes in
books, gives assurance of their trustworthiness. Nor is
the incompleteness of the list supposed by Oppert a
fact. In regard to the order of succession no doubt is
possible.
The establi-shment of this uninterrupted series of 228
years can be accomplished with absolute cert.^inty (as
24 MAthod ^^^ ^^^^^ ^** below) by the help of an
eclipse of the sun assigned by the list to
the Ei)onym year of Pur Sagali of Gozan.^ In order
to be able to determine the eclipse intended, however,
and thus to fix the year astronomically, we have first to
bring into consideration the so-called Canon of Ptolemy*
— next to these Assyrian Eponym lists, px-'rhaps the
most important chronological monument of aiitic|uity.
This Canon is a list giving the names of the rulers of
Babylon — T^abylonian, Assyrian, and Persian —from
N'abonassar to Alexander the Great (the Egyptian
Ptolemies and the Romans are appended at the end),
with the nuiulK-r of years each of them reigned, and the
eclipses observed by the Babylonians and the Alex-
andrians— the years being reckoned according to the era
of Nalwnassar^/.i'. , from that prince's accession. The
trustworthiness of this document is proved, once for all,
by the astronomical observations it records,* from which
we le;\rn that the beginning of the era of Nabonassar
falls in the year 747 H.c."
The Canon can be combined with the Assyrian
Eponym lists, and the establishment of the latter with
certainty effected in the following way. On the one
hand, the Ptolemaic Canon assigns to the year 39 of
the era of NalK)nassar, 709 B.C., the accession of
Arkeanos ( =Sargina on the fragment of the Babylonian
list of kings) ; and, on the other hand, As.syrian cl.ay
tablets identify this year, the first of the rule of Sarrukln
(/.^. , Sargon or Arkeanos) over Babylon with the
1 Cp also Wiedemann's review {TI.Z, 1894, No. 25, p. 633), of
fjiroche's Questions chrcinoloi^iques (Angers, 1892), where the
Exodus is assignoil to 1492. The judgment of this competent
reviewer is that ' the book is well-meant, but brings the question
of the Rxodus no nearer to a solution.'
2 KB, 1 210/
!* It liears the name 'Ptolemaic Canon' because it was in-
cluded in his astronomical work by the geographer and mathe-
matician Claudius Ptolemaeus, the contemporary of the Emperor
Antoninus Pius (therefore circ. 150 A.t>.).
■* The proof is strengthened by the fragments of a Babylonian
list of kings published by Pinches in PS HA ft 193-204 (May, '84 1,
part of which constitute an exact parallel to the beginning of the
Circek list, and completely confirming its statements concerning
tlic names and reigns of the rulers.
* More exactly (since the dates are reduced to the common
Egyptian year) on the first of Thoth ( = 26th Feb.), not (as
according to Babylonian oflficial usage might have been ex-
pected) on the ist of Nisan ( = 3ist March) (cp Hommel, CBA,
488, and see below § 26X
789
CHRONOLOGY
Eponym year of Mannu-ki-A.5ur-Ii' (.Schr. KAT^, 491)
the thirteenth of Sargons rule in Assyria.' Hence we
may identify this Eponym year of Mannu-ki-A5ur-li'
(the thirteenth year of Sargon's reign in Assyria) Iike^*'ise
with the year 709 B.t:. ; and, as the series is uninter-
rujited, all its dates become known. We can, then,
obtain astronomical confirmation of the correctne.ss of
this combination (and so also of the tnist worthiness of
the Ptolemaic Canon and the Assyrian Eponym lists) in
the way hinted at already. For, if the Eponym year of
Mannu-ki-A^ur-Ii' is the year 709 B.f'. , the Eponym
year of Pur-Sagali, to which, as we saw above, there is
assigned a solar eclipse, must I)e the year 763 B.C.;
and astronomers have computed that on the 15th June
of that year a solar eclipse occurred that would be
almost total for Nineveh and its neighbourhood. Thus
the Assyrian F-ixsnym list may safely be used for chrono-
logical {)ur[)oses.
On the ground of the statements of this list, then,
we have, for the years 893-666 B.C., fixed points not to
„_ »-_„ii. be called in question by which to date
the events of this period in Israel ; for
the Assyrian inscriptions not only supply direct informa-
tion concerning certain events in Israel's own history,
but also in other cases fix the date of contemporaneous
events which the narrative of the OT presupposes.
Then the Ptolemaic Canon, which from 747 B.C. on-
wards accompanies the Assyrian Eponym list, continues
when the Eponym list stops (in 666 B.C.), and conducts
us with certainty down to Roman times.
We are thus enabled to determine Ijeyond all doubt
the background of the history of Israel and Judah from
893 downwards, and obtain down to Alexander the
Great the following valuable dates : —
TABLE III. — AssvRio-B.\BVi.oM.\N u.ates
893 B.C. TO Alkx.andkk thk Gkk.vt
890-885 Tuklat-Adar.
8S4-860 Asur-nfisir-pal. ,
85 1-325 Shalmaneser II. (.Sal-ma-nu-u55ir)
824-S12 .Sam5i-Rammfin.
811-783 Ramman-nirari (III.).
782-773 Shalmaneser III. (.Sal-ma-nu-uS-iJir)
772-755 A5ur-dan-ilu (.V.^urdan I II.)
754-746 A5ur-niraru.
745-727 Tiglat-pileser III. (Taklat-habal-iSarra)
726-722 Shalmaneser III.
721-705 Sargon (.Xrkeanos, 709-705, king of Babylon).
704-681 Sennacherib (Sin-achi-irib).
680-668 Esarhaddon (.Vsarhaddon, A5ur-ab-iddin = Asaridinos
in Pt. Can.).
667 = first year of the reign of A5ur-bani-pal, who perhaps reigned
till 626.
The continuation is supplied by the Ptolemaic Canon
which specifies the rulers of Babylon : —
667-648 Saosduchinos ( = .^ama5-5um-ukin).
674-626 Kinilanadanos.
625-^05 Nabopolassaros ( = Nabfi-habal-usur).
604-562 Nabokolassaros (=Nabu-kudurri-u.sur, njfK'^"l3?23 and
nVKn3133).
561-560 Illoarudamos( = AviI-Marduk, ^l^D S'Ik).
550-556 Neriga-solasaros ( = Nirgal-Sar-usur).
553^539 Nabonadios ( = Nabu-na'id).
538-530 Kyrus (= KuruJ, V^^t).
529-523 Kambyses (= Kambuyija).
521-486 Dareios I. ( = Darayavu5, trvi^).
485-465 Xerxes ( = KhSayarSa, trillC'-Nl).
464-424 Artaxerxes I. ( = Artakh.^atra, KWB'nrnK).
423-405 Dareios II.
404-359 Artaxerxes II.
358-338 Ochus.
337-336 Arogos ( = .\rses).
335-332 Dareios HI.
Here follows Alexander the Great, who died in 323 B.C.
With regard to this summary it is to be noted that (as is %
matter of course in any rational dating by years of reign— it
is certainly the case in the Ptolemaic Canon) the year con-
1 From the thirteenth year of his reign down to hLs death in
the .seventeenth (and so, as the Ptolemaic Canon states, for five
years) Sargon must have reigned over Babylon also.
27. Care
CHRONOLOGY
sidered as the first of any king is the earliest year at the begin-
ning of which he was already really reigning ; in the preceding
year he had begun to reign on his predecessor's death. Short
reigns, accordingly, which did not reach the beginning of the
new year, had to remain unnoticed, as that of Laborosoar-
chad (I^ba5i-Marduk) in the year 556, which, according to
. . HerOssus, lasted only nine months. It is
26. Beginning further to be noted that the beijinning of
of year. 'he year did not fall in the two lists on the
s.-ime day. The Eponym lists make the
year begin on the first of Nisan, the 21st of March, while
the I'tolemaic Canon follows the reckoning of the ordinary
Epypti.-in year of 365 days, the beginning of which, as compared
with our mode of reckoning, falls one day earlier everv four
years. Thus, if in the year 747, as was indeed already the
case in 748, the beginning of the year fell on the 26th of
February, the year 744 woidd begin on the 25th. For a period
of a hundred years this difference would amount to twenty-five
days. Thus the beginning of the year 647 ii.c. would fall on
the ist of February; ; and so on. Therefore for the period 747-
323 B.C. the beginning of the year would always fall somewhat
near the beginning of ours.
If, then, the chronological data of the OT were trust-
worthy, as soon as one cardinal point where the two scries
— that of the OT and that just obtained
— came into contact could \x established '
necessary, ^^.j^j^ certainty, the whole chronology of tlie |
OT would be at once determined, and the insertion of ;
the history of Israel into the firm network of this general
background would become possible. In the uncertainty, |
however, in which the chronological data of the OT are j
involved, this simple method can lead to no satisfactory '
result. All points of coincidence must be separately
attended to ; and, although we may start out from a
fi.xed point in drawing our line, we must immediately |
see to it that we keep the ne.xt point of contact in view. -
Unfortunately, in going backwards from the earliest
ascertainable date to a remoter antiquity such a check |
is not available. j
The earliest date available, as being certain beyond '
doubt, for an attempt to set the chronology of the OT
28. Earliest "".\*^'^'" ^T '' '^V''\ ^^'^ "''•• '"f '
, . ^rp which Ahab king of Israel was one of :
certain Ul ^^^^ confederates defeated by Shalman- I
aates. ^^^^ jj (g^^.g^^^ ^^ Karkar (Schr.
KGF, 356-371 and A'AT^-\ 193-200). Since, how-
ever, the OT contains no reference to the event, it is
of no use for the purpose of bringing the history of
Israel into connection with general history till we take
into consideration also the next certain date, 842 B.C., ;
in which year presents were offered to the same .\ssyrian !
king, Shalmaneser II., by Jehu (A',-//'*-', 208-211).
Within these thirteen years (854-842) must fall the death I
of Ahab, the ri'igns of .\haziah and Jehoram, and the
accession of Jehu. Of this period the most that need
be assigned to Jehu is the last year, which may have
been at the same time also the year of Jehoram's death ;
for it may lie regarded as ciuite probaljle that it would
be immediately after his accession that Jehu would send
presents to the Assyrian king to gain his recognition
and favour. On the other hand, the traditional values
of the reigns reciuire for .\haziah two years (i K. 2252),
and for Jehoram alone twelve years (2 K. 3i) : so there
appears to be no time left for Ahab after 854. The
death of Ahab, however, cannot he assigned to so early
a date as 854.^ The reigns of Ahaziah and Jehoram,
therefore, must be curtailed by more than one year.
The course of events from 854 to the death of Ahab in
the struggle with the Syrians has, accordingly, been
ranged in different ways.
Wellhausen (//Cl*), 71) .suriposes that, in consequence of the
universal defeat in 854, Ahab abandoned the relation of
vassalage to .\ram that had lasted till then, and thus prcjvoked •
a Syrian attack on Israel. Then, by the victory at .Aphek in
the second year and the capture of Benhad.id, he compelled the
Syrians to conclude peace and to promise to deliver up the
Gileadite cities they had won from Israel (i K. 20). .Xs the
CHRONOLOGY
Syrians did not keep their promise, he undertook in the third
year of the peace the unfortunate expedition for the conquest of
Ramoth-gilead, in which he met his death (i K. 22). Thus the
death of .Ahab would fall about the year 851. Schrader, on the
other hand, sees in Ahab's taking part in the battle of I^arkar
a consequence of the conclusion of peace with Aram tfiat
followed the battle of Aphek, and finds it thus pos.sible to
assign Ahab's death to so early a date as 853. Kven if we
inclined to follow the representation of Schrader (Wellhausen's
is much more attractive), the Assyrian notice of the battle of
^arkar in 854 establishes at least one point, that the beginning
of Jehu's reign cannot be earlier than 842, and the traditional
numbers must be curtailed. On the question just discussed see
also An A II.
The year 842 B.C. may, therefore, be assigned as that
of the accession of Jehu. In the same year also perished
. . Jehoram, king of Israel, and Ahaziah,
. pproxi- j.jj^g ^j. jmjj^j, whilst Athaliah seized
1 Victor Floigl (G.\, 1882, pp. 94-96), indeed, supposes that
Ahab fc-M before Karkar (/.(•., in 854), and not before Kamoth-
Gilead ;_but to accomplish this he has to treat the narratives of
the Syrian wars (i K. 20 1-34 38-43 221-37) as quite untrust-
worthy.
791
mate earlier
dates.
the reins of government in Jerusalem.
If from this date, ecjually important for
both kingdoms, we try to go back, we can determine
with approximate certainty the year of the division of
the monarchy. The years of reign of the Israelitish
kings down to the death of Jehoram make up the sum of
ninety-eight, and those of the kings of Judah down to
the death of Ahaziah the sum of ninety-live ; whilst the
synchronisms of the Books of Kings allow only eighty-
eight years. Since the reigns of Ahaziah and Jehoram
of Israel must be curtailed (§ 28), if we assume ninety
years as the interval that had elapsed since the partition
of the kingdoms this will be too high rather than too
low an estimate. The death of Solomon may, accord-
ingly, be assigned to ± 930 B.C. Wellhausen (//(/''-',
g f. ), indeed, raises an objection against this, on the
ground of a statement in the inscription of Mesha ; but
the expression in the doubtful passage is too awkward
and obscure to lead us, on its account, to push back
the death of Solomon to 950 B.C., or even farther.^
In this connection it is not unimportant that the
statements of Menander of Ephesus in regard to the
Menander.
Tyrian list of kings confirm the
assignment of 930 B.C. as the approxi-
mate date of the death of Solomon.
According to the careful discussion that Franz Ruhl has
devoted to this statement (see below, § 85 end), preserved to us
in three forms (first, in Josephns, c. ^/. 1 8 ; second, in the
Chron. of Euseb., and third, in Theophilus «<//////<'/. iii. 100 22),
we may, assuming v. Gutschmid's date of 814 B.C. for the
foundation of Carthage, fix on 969-936 as the period of reign
of Kipa)/u.o« or Hiram, and on 878-866 B.C. as that of EtflolPaAot
or Ethb.Val. Now, Ahab was son-in-law of Ethba'al (1 K. IC 13),
and since Ethba'al at his accession in the year 878 B.C. was
tliirty-si.x years old, he could quite well have had a marriageable
daughter a few years later, when Ahab, who according to i K.
1(3 29 reigned twenty-two years (about 872-851 B.C.), ascended
the throne. Moreos'er, Menander mentions a one-year famine
under Eithobalos, which even Josephus {Ant. viii.13 2) identities
with the three -year famine that, according to i K. 17, fell
in the beginning of the reign of .Ahab. Further, Eiromos (grg-
936) may be identified with Hiram, the friend of Solomon (cp
1 K. 5182477 329107?;), and, whether we adopt the opinion
that Hiram, the contemporary of David (2 S. 5 11), was the same
person as this friend of Solomon's, or suppose that the name of
the better -known contemporary of Solomon has simply been
transferred to the Tyrian king who had relations with David,
the year ± 930 n.c. for the death of Solomon, agrees excellently
with this Phifnirian synchronism.
1 We. translates lines 7-9 thus :— ' Omri conquered the whole
land of Medaba, and Israel dwelt there during his days and
half the days of his son, forty years, and Kamos recovered it
in my days.' He thus arrives at an estimate of at least sixty
years for Omri's and Ahab's combined reigns, since only by
adding the half of Ahab's rei^n to the part of Omri's reign during
which Moab was tributary, is the total of f.irty years attained.
It is to be noted, however, that ' Israel,' which We. (so also Smend
and Socin, Die Inschr. des K. Mesa von Moab, 1886, p. 13)
supplies as the subject to 'dwelt' (3P'l), is lacking in the
inscription, and that even with this insertion the construction is
not beyond criticism. Is it, in the undoubted awkwardness of
the passage, not possible to translate thus — ' Omri conquered the
whole land of Medaba, and held it in possession as long as he
reigned, and during the half of the years of vty reign fiis son,
in all forty years. _ Hut yet in my reign Chemosh recovered it.'
In that case there is no ground for ascribing so many as sixty
years to the reigns of Omri and Ahab. Nay, the possibility is
not excluded, that 2 K. 3 5 is right in making the revolt of .Moab
follow the death of Ahab, and then the futile expedition of
Jehoram of Israel and Jehoshaphat of Judah against Moab
could be taken as marking the end of the forty years.
792
CHRONOLOGY
If it has been dinTuult to attain sure ground in the
early period of tlic divided monarchy, it is even less
_ - |xj.ssil)ie to determine anything with
f^ r1,°" certainty atmut the period preceding
tne bcnism. Solomons death. If the data of the
OT concerning; the reigns of Solomon and David (40
years each, i K..2ii 11 42) have any value, David must
have attained to jjower alxiut the year 1000 B.C.
Concerning Saul, even iS. l;Ji gives us no real in-
CHRONOLOGY
I formation, and regarding the premonarchic perifxl the
most that can Ix; .s;\id is that, according to the
discoveries at 'rell-el-Amarna the Hebrews were, al>out
the middle of the fifteenth century B.C., not yet settled
in Canaan.'
For the time, tlicrefore, from the partition of the
kingdom down to the year 842 B.C.,
we must Ix: content with the following
estimate : —
32. Schism
to Jehu.
TABLE IV
-ELSTIMATE OF ReIGNS : DEATH OF SOLOMON TO ACCESSION OF JeHU.
Kings of Israici.. Kings of Juoah.
030 (?) -854 Jerohoamof Israel and his contemporaries Rehoboam and Abijah in Judah.
N.idab „
Ha'asha ,, Asa of Judah (irtainly contempurary with Ua'asha.
Klah
Zimri
Omri ,,
Ahab ,, Jehoshapliat, king of Judah, contemporary with Ahab,
Ahab at battle of Karkar Ahaziah, and Jehoram.
Ahab's death
Ahaziah, king of Israel
Jehoram ,, ,, Jehoram, king of Judah.
Death of Jehoram of Israel Death of Ahaziah of Judah.
8S4
854-842
842
From 842 B.C. onwards, there is no fixed point till
we come to the eij;hth century. Then we have one in
the eighth year of the Assyrian king
}. Certain
dates
842-721.
Tiglalh-pileser III. (745-727)— /.f., 738
1!. ( . In that year, according to the cunei-
form inscriptions, this king of Assyria
received the tributu of Men.-ihem of Israel. When the
OT tells of this (2 K. 15 19 /: ) it calls the Assyrian king
I'ul : although elsewhere (2 K. I029 16 10) it uses the
other name, Tiglalh-pileser. Of the identity of the two
names, however, there can he no doubt (A'.//''"' 223
ff., COT, 1 219), and we are not to think of the reference
l)eing to a Hal)ylonian king, or an Assyrian rival king,
or to assume that Tiglath-pileser himself, at an earlier
j)eriod, twenty years or more liefore he Ix-came king
over Assyria, while still bearing the name of I'ul, made
an expedition against the land of Israel (so Klo. Sam.
u. Kfl. ['87] p. 496). If we add that .Ahaz of Judah
procured for hiin.self through a payment of tribute the
help of Tiglath-])ileser against the invading kings,
Pekah of Israel and Rczin of Damascus ; that, accord-
ingly, the As.syrian king took the field against Philistia
and Damascus in 734 and 733 ; and that in 732, after
the conquest of Damascus, Ahaz also appeared in
Damascus to do homage to Tiglath - pileser, there
remains to Ix,- mentioned only the etiually certain date
of the l)eginning of the year 721 11. C. (Hommel, (UiA
676) for the conciucst of Samaria, to complete the list
of assured dates between 842 and 721.
The attempt to arrange the kings of Xorth Israel
during this [)eriod is hampered by fewer difliculties in the
interval 842-738 than are to Ix; found in
that Ix,'tw(x'n 738 and 721. If we assume
that Menahem died soon after paying
tribute, we shall still ha\e in the 113 years
reckoned by the traditionary account from the accession
of Jehu to the death of Menahem a slight excess, since
for the period 842-738 we need only 104 years. Still,
we can here give an approximate date for the individual
reigns. The latest results of Kautzsch (in substantial
agreement with Rrandes, Kaniphausen, and Riehm)
are the following:' — Jehu 841-815, Jehoahaz 814-798,
Jehoash 797-783. Jeroboam II. 782-743 (or l)efore 745),
Zechariah and ."-ihallum perhaps also in 743, Menahem
742-737 (or ± 745 to after 738). I'or the last
period, on the other hand, from the death of Menahem
to the conquest of Samaria, the traditional reckoning
gives thirty-one years, whilst from 737 to 721 we have
hardly sixteen. The necessary shortening of the reigns
' We modify them only to the extent of giving as the first
year of a rcipn the year .it the K-ginning of which the king was
already in power, and adding in parentheses the figures of We.,
in so far as they are to be found in his IJG.
793
34. North
Israel
842 721.
is accom])lished by Kautzsch in this way : l''kahiah
736, I'ekah 735-730, Hoshea 729-721. Wellhausen
has abandoned his former theory that I'ekahiah and
I'ekah are identical, and makes the latter l«i,'iii to
reign in ± 735. To Hoshea, the last king of Israel,
he assigns an actual reign of at least ten years, although
he assumes that according to 2 K. 17 4/. he came
under the power of Assyria before the fall of .Saniari.i.
For the Judiaii line of kings the starting-point is
hkewise the year 842 H.r., in which Ahaziah of Judah
35. Judah
842-734.
■t his death at the hanti of Jehu. :md
.\thaliah assumed the direction of the
gosernment. On the other hand, we do
not find, for the next hundred years, a single event
independently determined with jx-rfcct exactness by
years of the reigning king of Judah. We must come
d<nvn as far as 734 It. <;. before we attain certainty.
We know that at that time Ahaz had already come
to power, and we can only suppose (according to
2 K. l.'i^y/! I that he had not long Ix^fore this succeeded
his father, during whose lifetime I'ekah of Israel and
Rezin of Damascus were already preparing for war.
The presents of King .Ahaz to Tiglath-pileser in the
year 734 B.r. delivered Judah from the danger
that threatened it, and in 732 K.r. in the conquered
Damascus the same king did homage to the victorious
Assyrian, and offered him his thanks (cp 2 K. I67/: and
Schrnder, K.\T''''' 257/:). It is still diflicult, how.ver,
to allot the intervening time to the se\eral kings of
Judah ; for the traditional values for the reigns require
no less than 143 years from the first year of .\thaliah
to the death of Jotham, whilst between 842 B.C. and
734 H.c. there are only 108 years at our disposal.
It is, therefore, necess.ary to reduce seM-ral of the
items by a considerable amount, and it is not to be
wonderefl at that different methods of adjustment have
been eiuiiloyed. The synchronism of events Ix-tween
the hist<jry of Israel and that of Judah is too inadecjuate
to secure unanimity, and the mention (not quite certain)
of Azariah of Juflah in .Assyrian inscriptions for the
ye.ars 742-740 (cp Schr. K.\l''-'', 217^) does not make
up the lack. On one point, hovsever, there is agree-
ment : that it is in the cases of .\maziah, Azariah
(Uzziah), and Jotham that the deductions are to be
made.
The years 841-836 B.r. for .Athali.ah are render»*<l
tolerably certain by the data concerning Jeho.ash, the
infant .son of Ahazi.ah (2 K. 11 1^4^). Then we
need have no mi.sgivings alxiut giving Jehoash, who
was raised to the throne at so young an age, about
forty years. If we take these years fully, we obtain
1 On early traces of certain elements afterwards forming part
of Israel, see Iskaei , f 7/ ; Egypt, | 58/ ; Asher, | 1/
794
CHRONOLOGY
for the reign of Jehoash 835-796 B.C. The date of
his death may, indeed, \ye pushed still farther back ;
but in any case his tinie as determined by these data
cannot Ixi for wrong, for he must have been a con-
temporary of Jehoahaz the king of Israel (814-798),
and, according to 2 K. 12 18 j^. , also of Hazael of Aram
(ace. to Winckler 844-abou'. 804 [?] ). I'Voni 795 to
734 there are left only 61 years, and in this interval
room must be found for Amaziah with twenty-nine
years, Azariah with fifty-two, and Jotham with si.xteen
— no less than ninety-seven years. Even if we allow
the whole sixteen years of Jotham, who, according to
2 K. Ids, conducted the government during the last
illness of his father, to be merged in the fifty-two years
of Azariah, we do not escape the necessity of seeking
other ways of shortening the interval. Amaziah's reign
is estimated too high at twenty-nine years. The only
thing that is certain about him is that he was a
contemporary of Jehoash of Israel (797-783; cp 2 K.
14 8^). It is pure hypothesis to assign him nine
years (We.), or nineteen years (Kamph. and Kau. ),
instead of twenty-nine. The smaller number has the
greater probability, since the defeat that he brought on
himself by his wanton challenge of Jehoash of Israel
best explains the conspiracy against him (2 K. 14 19/ ),
and he would therefore hardly survive his conqueror,
but much more probably meet his death by assassination
at Lachish not long after 790 R.c. (cp also St. (J 17,
I559). From the death of Amaziah to 734 reigned
Azariah and Jotham. To discover the boundary between
the two, we must bear in mind the Assyrian inscriptions
already mentioned, which apparently represent Azariah
as still reigning in the years 742-740, and nmst keep in
view that Isai.ah, who cannot be thought of as an old
man when Sennacherib marched against Jerusalem in
the year 701, receiv^ed his prophetic call in the year of
the death of Uzziah (Isa. 61). Accordingly, we cannot
be far wrong in assigning the death of Azariah and the
accession of Jotham as sole ruler to 740 B.C. More
than this cannot be made out with the help of the
materials at our disposal up to the present time.
If now the year of the conquest of Samaria (721 B.C. )
were fixed with certainty according to the year of the
king then reigning in Judah, this would
appear the next resting-point after 734 B.C.
The data of the O'V do not agree, how-
ever, and none of them is to be relied upon. This
is true even of the datum in 2 K. 18 13, lately much
favoured by critics, that Sennacherib's expedition against
Palestine in the year 701 B.C. was in the fourteenth
year of Hezekiah (so We. /D'/' ['75] p. 635^ ; Kamph.
Die Chrotiol. der Hebr. Kdnige ['83 | p. 28 ; Guthe, Das
ZukiinftsbUd des Jes. ['85] p. 37, and St. (7^7, 1 606 / ).
In order to maintain the datum, it is not enough to say,
■ The people of Judah are more likely to have preserved
the year of Hezekiah in which their whole land was laid
waste and their capital, Jerusalem, escaped destruction
only through enduring the direst distress, than to have
preserved the year of Hezekiah in which Samaria fell.'
The unusual (cp 2K. I819) prefixing of the numeral
before r,ia (cp Duhm, Jesaja, 235) of itself indicates a
later origin, and this is confirmed by what we have already
found as to these chronological data not belonging to
the original narrative. The number fourteen is based,
not upon historical facts, but upon an exegetical inference
from Is. 385, and a consideration of the twenty-nine
years traditionally assigned to Hezekiah, and must there-
fore rank simply with the scribe's note Am. 1 1 : ' two
years before the earthquake. ' ^
Kven when we come to the seventh century, the
expectation that at least the death of Josiah in the battle
of Megiddo would admit of being dated with complete
accuracy by material from inscriptions is not fulfilled.
From Egyptian chronology, which does not mention
1 This is forcibly urged by Kau. (cp. Kamph. op. cit. 94) and
ha.s received the assent of Duhm {I.e.) and Cheyne (Jntr. Is. 218).
795
36. 734-686
B.C.
CHRONOLOGY
the date of the battle, we gather only that it must have
been after 610 B.C. , since the conqueror, Necho II., did
not begin to reign till that year. There is, therefore,
nothing left but to take as our fixed point the conquest
of Jerusalem in the nineteenth year of Nebuchadrezzar
— i.e., 586 B.C. (2 K. 253 8). For the intervening time
we have to take into consideration, besides the death of
Josiah, the data supplied by Assyriology, which place
Sennacherib's expedition against Hezekiah in 701 B.C.
and imply Manasseh's being king of Judah in the years
681-667 (cp Schr. KAT(2), p. 466).
For the whole time from the death of Jotham to the
conquest of Jerusalem, tradition requires 155 years of
reign, whilst from 734 B.C., when Ahaz was already
seated on the throne of Jerusalem — which year, if not
that of his accession, must have been at least the first
of his reign — to 586 B.C., we have only 148, or, since
we may reckon also the year 734 B.C., 149 years. The
smallness of the difference of seven years, however,
shows that we have now to do with a better tradition.
Where the mistake lies we cannot tell beforehand. All
we can say is that it is not to be sought between the
death of Josiah and the fall of Jerusalem, since for this
interval twenty-two years are required by tradition, and
this agrees with our datum that Josiah must have died
shortly after 610 B.C.
Let us see whether another cardinal point can be
found. In 701 Hezekiah was reigning in Jerusalem.
When it was that he came to the throne, whether
before or after the fall of Samaria (721 B.C.), is the
question. In Is. 1 428 we have an oracle against Philistia,
dated from the year of the death of king Ahaz, — a
chronological note which, like Is. 61, may have import-
ance, if the oracle really belongs to Isaiah. Winckler
and Cheyne [but cp Isaiah, SDOT, Addenda^ regard
it as possible that the oracle may refer to agitation
in Syria and Palestine, in which the Philistines shared,
on the accession of Sargon (721 B.C.), when Hanun,
king of (Jaza, induced them to rebel, in reliance on the
help of Sib'e, one of the Egyptian petty kings (cp above
on Sabaka, Sab'i, So', Seweh, § 21). On this theory-
the death of ,'\haz would have to be set down about
the year 720 B.C. As, however, the authenticity of
the oracle is not certain, — in fact hardly probable (cp
Duhm, who even conjectures that originally there may
have stood, instead of Ahaz, the name of the second
last Persian king. Arses [ = .\rogos]) — it is not safe to
take it as fixing the death-j-ear of Ahaz. Of greater
value is the section relating to the embassy of Merodach-
Baladan of Babylon to Hezekiah (2 K. 20 = Is. 39).
Merodach-Baladan was king of Babylon from 721 to
710. When, later, he attempted to recover his
position, he held Babylon for so short a time that an
embassy to the west would be impossible. Thus,
Merodach-Baladan must have sought relations with
Hezekiah between 721 and 709. The beginning of the
reign of Merodach-Baladan, when in the year 721
or 720 he obtained possession of Babylon and held it
against Sargon, commends itself as the point of time
most suitable. After the battle of Diir-ilu, which both
parties regarded as a victory for themselves, it must
have seemed natural to hope that the overthrow of tl.e
Assyrian kingdom would be possible, if the west joined
in the attack. Moreover, Sargon once describes himself
(Nimrud inscr. , 1 8) as ' the subduer of Judah,' ^ which
seems to mean that, on the suppression of the revolt in
Philistia, Hezekiah resumed the payment of the tribute
that had been imposed. In view of this, Winckler seems
to be justified in placing the appearance of the embassy
of Merodach-Baladan before Hezekiah in the year 720
or 719. Approximately, then, the year 721 may be
regarded as assured for the year of the death of .Ahaz.
The first year of Hezekiah's reign is thus 720 B.C.
rather than 728 (Kau. ), or 714 (We. and others). Tlie
discrepancy of four years, which is all that now remains
1 For fuller details see Isaiah, i. § 6, Sargon.
796
CHRONOLOGY
TABLE V. — ^Tabular Survey : Death of Solomon to Herod the Great.
Certain
Dates.
Probiible
Dates.
ISRABI-
JUOAH.
circ. 930
ist year of Jeroboam.
ist year of Bahoboam.
93«>-8S4
Reigns of Jeroboam, Nadab, Baatha, EUh. Zimri.
Omrl, part of reign of Ahab.
Keigns of Rehoboam, Abljah, Ala, part of reign of
854
Ahab at battle of l^arkar.
854-843
Jeboram.
Rest of reign of Jehoshaphat : reigns of Johoram
and Abazlah.
84a
Death of Jehoram (at the hands of Jehu). Tribute of
Jehu to Shalmancser 11.
Death of Ahaziah (at the hands of Jehu).
738
841
lil
797
743
742
739
736
ist year of JehU (841-815).
ist year of Jehoahaz (814-798).
1st year of Johoash (797-7<'3)-
ist year of Jeroboam n. (782-743).
Zecharlah, Shallum.
ist year Menahem (742-737)-
Tribute of Menahem to Tlglath-plleser IH.
Pekahlah.
ist year of Athallah (841-836).
ist year of Jehoash (835-796).
ist year of Azarlah (789-740).
ist year Jotham (739-734)-
734
732
721
701
604
5B6
735
733
729
720
til
607
597
596
ist year of Pekah (735-730)-
ist year of Hoshea (729-721).
Tribute of Ahaz to Tlglath-plleser.
ist year of AhaZ (733-721).
Ahaz does homage to Tiglath-pileser at Damascus.
ist year of Hezeklah (720-693). Embassy of Merodach-baladan from Babylon.
.Sennacherib's army before Jerusalem.
ist year of Manasseh (692-639).
ist year of Amon (638).
ist year of Josiah (637-608).
liaitle of Megiddo. Jehoahaz, king.
ist year of Jeholaklm (6r,7 597).
ist year of Nebuchadrezzar (604-562).
Jehoiachin, kinp.
ist year of Zedeklah (596-586).
FALL OF JERUSALEM.
Dates.
The more important dates of the succeeding centuries.
561 i ist year of Evil -Merodach(56i-56o). Liberator of Jehoiachin from prison.
538 1 ist year of Cyrus (538-53°)-
S2I ist year of DarlUS I. (521-486).
515 Completion of biiildinR of second temple.
464 1st year of Artaxerxes I. (464-424).
445 ist Visit Of Nehemlah to Jerusalem. Building of city-wall.
433 Return of Ncli.iniah.
circ. 432 2.Ki Visit Of Nehemiah to Jerusalem. On the advent of Ezra and the Introduction of the law see above, § 14-
332 ; End of Persian Power : Alexander the Great.
320
312
.97^
167
165
160
143
i42-«35
134-104
103
102-76
75-67
66-63
62-40
40
37-4 B.C.
Be^inninu of Ptolemaic dominion in Palestine, which continued with short interruptions till 198.
lic^itinii,;; of the Era of the .Seleucidae.
Palestine under Syrian dominion.
Antlochus IV. Epiphanes.
Insurrection of Mattathlas the [.riest, of Modein (ti66).
Reintrodtution of regular service in the temple.
Judas Maccabaeus (166-160) falls in battle against Bacchides.
Kxecutioii of Jonathan (kader of M.-\ccabean revolt since 160X
Simon Hi>;h-priest and Prlnoe.
Hyrcanus I.
Arlstobulus I. kini;.
Jannseus.
Alexandra.
Hyrcanus II. and Arlstobulus 11. 1
Taking of Jerusalem by Pompoy. P.ilestine a part of the Roman Province of Syria.
Hyrcanus II. under Roman sovereignty.
Invasion of I'arthians. AntlgOnUS made king (40-37)-
Herod the Great.
1 On the dates of the Maccabees cp We. //(;(2), 229, n. 2 ; and ed. 263, n. 3 ; 3rd ed. 275, n. 2.
797 798
38. Summary
of Results.
chronology
importance.
events in the primitive jieriod it will txi
possible to draw conclusions with regard
to the influence of one event upon another ;
the rapidity of the historical development will enable
us to measure the power of the original impulse ;
and only when the events have received their place in
contemporary history can they be fully understood.
799
CHRONOLOGY
between the sum of the years of reign from the death of
.Ahaz to the conciuest of Jerusalcn), and the interval 720-
586 B.C. — i.e., l)etwoen 1 39 years of reign and 135 actual
vears — cannot be removed otherwise than by shortening
the reign of one or more of the kings. 'Ihe account of
the closing portion of the line of kings has already IxMsn
found to merit our confidence. The shortening must j
therefore l)e undertaken somewhere near the Ijcginning
of the line of kings from Hezekiah to Josiah. The most
obvious course is to reduce the long reign of Manasseh
from fifty-five years to fifty-one ( VV'e. . indeed, assigns him
only forty-five). This, however, may seem arbitrary, and
it will be simpler as well as less violent to divide the
shortening among all the four reigns. If, that is to say,
in the case of the years of reign of the kings from
Hezekiah to Josiah, tradition included (according to
popular practice) the year of accession and the year of
death, we may reduce the numbers for Hezekiah,
Manasseh, Anion, and Josiah by one each, and assign j
them twenty-eight, fifty-four, one, and thirty resjxjctively.
Thus we get the following series : — Hezekiah 720-693 i
(28 years), Manasseh 692-639 (54 years), Anion 638 (i |
year), Josiah 637-608 (30 years), Jehoahaz 608 {\ year),
Jehoiakim 607-597 (n years), Jehoiachin 597 (| year), ;
and Zedekiah 596-586 (11 years). The control over |
the date of the death of Josiah from Egyptian history
which is to a certain extent possible turns out to be not
unfavourable to our results, since I'haraoh Necho II.
began to reign in 610 B.C., and, as early as the end of
606, or tlie beginning of 605, encountered the crown
prince Nebuchadrezzar at Carcheniish (cp, on the date
of this battle which, in Jer. 462, is inaccurately assigned
to the fourth year of Jehoiakim, Winckler, A T Untersuch.
81 ). Hence the year 608 B.C. for the battle of Megiddo
possesses the greatest probability. That, among the
numerous dates for the last decades of the kingdom
of Judah which the OT furnishes, little inaccuracies,
such as that in the passage (Jer. 462) just cited, appear,
is intelligible on the ground (ajiart from others, as, e.g.,
in the case of Ezek. 332i) of their being the result of
later calculation. At all events, these variations are not
to be accounted for, with Hommel (GBA 755), by the
sui)position that the Jews reckoned theyears of Nebuchad-
rezzar, as well as those of their own kings, from the day
on which they ascended the throne to the corresponding
day in the following year. The Jews, in adopting the
exact Babylonian chronological system, and applying it
to their own past history, did not mutilate it and render
it futile.
Keyond the points already referred to (§ 13/.), the
chronology of the times after the conquest of Jerusalem
... in 586 B.C. presents no difficulties worth
■ mentioning. The C!anon of Ptolemy
■ ■ supplies an assured framework into
which the data that have been preserved can be fitted
without trouble.
The tabular sur\ey on the preceding page gathers
together the dates we have established.
At the end is appended a continuation
indicating the most important dates
down to the last century B.C. K. M.
/?. NEW TliSTAMENT.
The chronology of the New Testament is of great
(subsidiary) importance for the study of the origins of
NT Christianity. From the order of the
CHRONOLOGY
Unfortunately, the task is attended with serious diffi-
culty, the causes of which need to Ix; brietly descril)cd.
40 Difficulty ^'^ "'*' *'''^' Christians themselves had
"'■ no interest in chronology, whether with
reference to events concerning them as Christians, or
with reference to events of secular history. This was
due not only to their separation from the world and
their limited horizon, but also, and still more, to their
sense of superiority to the world (Phil. 820), which
seemed to them already in process of dissolution ( i Cor.
731), and to their feeling that they had already begun
to live in eternity. (2) The historical traditions of the
Christians were formed wholly with the purpose of
promoting Christian piety, and were therefore restricted
to a small number of events, the choice of which was
often, as it were, accidental, and the arrangement ac-
cording to subject rather than to time. Our chrono-
logical interest has, accordingly, to be satisfied with
inferences and combinations which often remain, after
all, very problematical ; and the gai)s in the traditions
prevent us from constructing anywhere a long chrono-
logical sequence. (3) Of at least a part of the traditions
the historical trustworthiness is subject to such grave
doubt that we can venture to use them only with great
reserve, if at all. (4) In the NT, apart from some
vague notices in the I'ourth Gosjiel, the only writer who
professedly gives chronological data is the author of the
Third (Jospel and Acts. He gives no account, however,
of the means by which he obtained these data. We are,
therefore, unable to check his statements, and can treat
them only as hypotheses. As far as we know, the old
Catholic fathers — Irena;us, Tertullian, Clement of Alex-
andria, Julius Africanus, and Hippolytus— were the first
to make chronological calculations. Whether they
based them on any independent tradition or limited
themselves to inferences from our Gospels is uncertain ;
the latter is the more probable view. Their data can
receive only occasional mention here.i (5) It has not
yet been found possible to give exact dates to certain
of those events of profane history which come into
question. (6) Further difficulty is caused by the
complicated nature of the ancient calendar, and by
the different usages in reckoning time and in beginning
the year. .Side by side with the various eras we have
various methods of reckoning by the years of reigning
monarchs.^
In the following article the years are designated by
the numlx.TS of our current Dionysian era, on the origin
of which see Ideler i^Hamib.'l^t^ff.). Hy this reckon-
ing the year i B.C. coincides with the year 753 A.IJ.C.
and the year i a.d. with the year 754 .x.L'.c. The
years are treated as beginning on ist Jan., as was the
case according to the Varronian reckoning in the period
under consideration.
^ The facts in detail are to a large extent given by Bratke and
Hilgenfeld in articles on the chronological attempts of Hippo-
lytus in ZU'T, 1892.
2 An excellent guide through this labyrinth is Ideler's //aWii.
abridged and in part improved in his Leiirb. (see below, § 85).
The most important tables (of the Sun and moon, and of eras)
are brought together from astronomical works by (hinipach,
Hiilfsiiiittel d. rechnend. Chronol. 1853. See further liouchei,
Hemerologie, 1868; E. Muller in Pauly's ReaUncyc. d. class.
Alt. s.v. Mra.; Matzat, Kdm. Chronol. two vols. 1885-84.
Special service to NT Chronology has also been rendered by
Clinton, Fasti Hellenic!, 1830, 2 ed. 1851 ; Fasti Komani, 1845-
50 ; and by J. Klein, Fasti Consulares, Leipsic, 1881. Further
bibliographical notices, and many original contributions to the
subject, are to be found in Schiirer, CJl', i. (1690), where, in an
appendix, is given a table (taken from Clinton) of parallel years
by Olympiads, and by the Seleucid, Varronian, and Dionysian
eras. The third appendix discusses the months of the Jewish
Calendar, and on p. 630 /. a bibliography of the very large
literature of that subject is to be found. — Important for the
chronology of the NT are also Wie.seler, Chronol. Syn. der vier
Evangelien, 1843; Chronol. d. a/>. Zeitalters, 1848; and art.
' Zeitrechnung ' in PKE, 1866; Reitr. zur richtigen li'Hrdi-
gung der Kvang. 1869; Lewin, Fasti Sacri, 1865; Lightfoot
on ' The Chronology of St. Paul's Life and Epistles' in Biblical
Kssays (posthumous), 215^ See also B. W. Bacon, 'A New
Chronology of the Acts,' Kxposiior, Feb. 1898.
800
CHRONOLOGY
41. Parallel lAHLK VI.— NT : Parai.i.ki. Da n: s
Dates. FROM Secular History.
.Vl'GlST
TlMKRIli
HAK, 30 n.c.-ipth AuR. 14 A.I)., and
* JK. 14 A.i>.-i6ih M
L-.-4 in., lltroU thf Cfi-al.
^ A.I)., atv
191(1 .\uK. 14 A.D.-ifilh March 37 A.U.
^i>-iQ 11.C., JtmpU begun (Jon. Ant. xv. 11 i ; see Schdrer,
4 U.I. 6 A.I)., Arthtlaus cihnarch of JudKa, Samaria, and
Idiimea (deposed and banished to Vieniic in (laul).
4 u.e.-39 A.U., Antipas, telrarch of (iaiilee and Pcra:a
(banished to Lugdunum). On his relations 10 Aretas
see « 78.
4 H.c. 34 A.D.,' Philip, telrarch of the north-eastern
districts. (.After his death his tetrarchy was governed
UN |>art of the province of Syria.)
The territory of .Xrchelaus was governed
6-41 A. 11. by Kom.in prtKunitors, with their roidence in
Cicsiirea. Of these the fifth,
a6-lK-giiining of 36 a.d., was Pontius Pilate.
36, Pilatf>K\\\ to Rome to answer for his conduct.
36, I'assover, V'iteliius in Jerusalem.
37, Vitellius made war, at the Hmjicror's command, on
Aretas in retaliation for the lalter's war against .VntiuiLs.
At the news of the emperor's death hosiih:ics sus(>ended.
Calicvla, i6th March 37-24th Jan. 41.
37. Uovd Ag'ippa I. receives from C;iligiila the title of
king, with the telrarchies of Lysanias(see Schurer, 1 600-
6oj) aiid of I'hilip ; in
40, also that kX Antipas ; and in
41, also the provinces of Juda:a and Samaria, previously
governed by procurators.
Clai I.ILs, 24th Jan. 4i-i3th Oct. 54.
44, lJeathof/A/-t)ri'.-/AVv//>a/. at Ca.-s;irea. Theterritor>-
of .Vgrippa after his death governed by procurators.
ICxpulsion o^JiU's from Roiiu.
Neko, 13th Oct. 54-<)th June 68.
52-56/60,'^ Antonius J-elix )
56/60^2 (61?], Porciiis Festus - pro<urators of I'alesline.
^4, 19th July, Burning 0/ Rome.
66, Outbreak of Jeiuisli war.
Oalha, Orno, and \iTKi.Lus, gih June 68-2oth Dec. 69.
Ves»"Asi AN — Proclaimed Kmperor ist July 6y in Kgypt while
engaged in putting down the Jewish insurrecti.m.
Recognised as Emperor in the Kast at once, throughout
the Empire not until after the death of Vitellius. llied
23rd June 79.
70, Destruction o/yerusahm.
Tl rus, 79-81.
Do.MITIA.N, 81-96.
93-96, J'ersecutions <if Christians, esjiecially in Rome and
Asia Minor.
Nekva, 96-98.
Tkaja.s', 98-117.
111-113, Correspondence with Plin^, governor of Bithynia,
on the subject of the Christians in that province.
Hadrian, 117-138.
Insurrection of the Jews under liar-kokheba.
Our investij^ation will treat the problems of NT
itironology in the following order : the clironolog}- of
42 Plan Of ''"-" '''^^" °^ •'*'^"'* ^'^^ 43-^3). H'^it of' the
article '"'^^ '^^ '''^"' ^^'^ ^4-80). that of the churches
in Palestine (§ 8 1 /. ), other dates (§ 83/ ).
The first and second of these divisions are wholly
sei)arate from each other.
I. C'iiKON()i.(x;v OK THK LiiK OK Jksus.— The
questions here relate to the year of Jesus' birth '^ {% 57/: ).
the year of his public appxsirance (.§ 47#). his age at
his entrance upon his ministry (§ 43), the duration of
his mini.stry (§ 44/: ), and the year of his death (§ ^o ff. ).
I. The A^e of Jesus at his liaptisw. — \\ is not
surprising that tradition is meagre. In itself, as a
43 Baotism ""-''^'-' ''^''-' '^^ years, ttie matter hatl no
of Jesus ''"^■''*-'^' '^or 'he early Christians. That
Jesus was a man of mature years was
enough : why should they care to incjuire how long he
1 Legates in Syria who had occasion to interfere in ^h«
government of Palestine were :
(i) perhaps at first 3 B.C.-2 B.C., and certainlv I , •
later 6 A.D. -(at latest) 1 1 a.i.. ' / Q"""""^-
7 A.D. Census instituted in Juda^t and Samaria.
(2)35-39 A.I >., /,. I'ite/lius.
'* That Felix entered on his office in 52 (or possibly 5.3) and
that Albinus arrived in Palestine at latest in tbc summer of 62
are directlv attested facts. That Festus succeeded Felix in 60
or 56 is only inferred. See below, $ 65/
* On the day of his birth, for determining which there are no
historical data, but for which the church, after much vacillation,
finally settled on 25th Dec, see Usener, Rcl.-gesch. Inters.
vol. I.
26
801
CHRONOLOGY
1 had livoil quietly at Nazareth ? We have to consider
only twt) jiassjiges. ( 1 ) Jii. 857. If the foolish question.
I ' Thou art not yet fifty yejirs old, and hast thou mxii
I .Xbraham ? ' were autlientic. it would only give a su|Jcrior
limit, plainly put as high as fxjssibie on the ground of
the general impression from Je.sus s ap|)earance. From
this no inference as to any definite iuiml)er could Ijc
drawn, for among the Jews a man Ix-gan to l)e elderly
at fifty years, and the remark would merely have ine:iiit,
' You are still one of the younger men.' If the (|uestioii
is not authentic, it either te.stifies to the impression n)ade
by the account of Jesus in the tradition, that he wius in
the best years of life (cp Nu. 43 39 824/ |. or else the
half-century, as an age which he had not yet .-ittained. is
intended to form an ironical contrast to the many
centuries from .\braham to the then pres«-nt time. In
the anci«-nt church, Irenieus (ii. 'J'25) is the only writer
to make use of this p.nssage for chronology ; he remark.5
that the presbyters in Asia .Minor had on the ground of
it ascrilx-tl to Jesus an age of forty to fifty years.
(2) Lk. ;i23. The text is here not quite certain, and
the sense of the most probable reading is obscure.
(What does dpx^ficoi mean? In the Sin. Syr. it is
omitted from the translation. ) In any case, the presence
of w(Tfl { ' al)out ' ) forbids us to use the number as if it were
e.xact. It merely tells us that Jesus stood in the Ugin-
ning of adult manhood, and leaves undecided the
c|uestion whether he had just entered on his thirtieth year
or was already over thirty.
.Moreover, whether the numl)er comes from actual
historical recollection at all is made uncertain by the
fact that, according to Nu. 4 3 39. from thirty to fifty was
the canonical age for certain ritual acts. It is signilicant
that these two gosix;ls, from Asia .Minor, in so many
ix)ints similar, give for the age of Jesus in these two
pass;iges the two limits of this canonical term of years.
2. V/ir Length of Ihi- Public .Ministry of Jesus. —The
evidence here points on the whole to one year. The
44 Public ''^'^'^'^ years ' in the jiarable of the fig-trix-
Ministry ^^'^' ^'^^' '"^*^ either arbitrarily chosen to
•'' designate a short period or are to be
coniKcted with the fact that the fig-tree commonly lx?ars
fruit in three years (for the opposite view, see Wieseler,
.Synopsr. 202 Jf. ). The ' three days ' of Lk. I,'i32 e.xpress
by a [)roverbial numlx-r l)oth brief time and fi.xed limit
(for the opposite view, Wei/.siicker, Untersuchungen,
311). From Mark and Matthew we get no light, be-
cause of the arrangement of the material by subjects.
The plucking of the e.ars in .Mk. 223 may indicate th«
time when the grain was ripe ; but that nmst have been
lx;twt"en the middle of .\pril and the middle of June,
before which time the harvest in Galilee is not endetl.
Thus, if the incident was in the early months of Jesus'
ministry, it does not imply a duration of more than one
year. One ye;\r seems to have been the idea of the third
evangelist, w ho, like all the writers of the second century
except Irenaus, and like many Fathers of the third
century, may very well liave understood literally the
quotation from Is. 61 1/. which he puts(Lk. 4 19) into
the mouth of Jesus.
In any case, a place can l)e fouiul without diflficuky
within the limits of one year for the entire contents of
the .SynoiJtical gospels, while to fill out several years
the material is rather meagre. The feeling, shared (for
insuince) by Beyschlag {Lehen Jesu, 1 133). that it is
a ■ violent and unnatural prtx:ess ' to crowd the whol«
development into the space of one year, is balanced by
the feeling of the men of the second and third centuries.
F'.ven repe;ited visits to Jerusiilem, if the Synoptical
gospels really imply them, .ire, in view of the nearness
of Galilee to Jerusalem and of the many feasts (cp the
Ciospel of John), easily conceivable within one year.
The early (Christian lathers were not tiisturlied in their
assumption of a single year by the Fourth Gospel with
its journeys to the feasts.
In the Fourth Gospel, apart from 64, if wc accejjt the
802
CHRONOLOGY
most common interpretation of ioprrj (Jn. 5i) as mean-
_ . ing Pentecost, the feasts group themselves
lf° J into the course of a single year: 2 13
" ■ Passover ; 5 1 Pentecost ; 7 2 Talx:rnacles ;
IO22 Dedication; 11 55 Passover. Irenaeus alone
(ii. 223) finds three passovers mentioned in the public
life of Jesus ; and, since he takes the second not from 64
but from 5 1, he, as well as Origcn (on Jn. 43s
lom. 1339). must have had at 64 a different te.xt from any
known to us. The Alogi, also, according to Kpiphanius
[I her. 51 22), found mentioned in Jn. only a passover
at the beginning and one at the end of the ministry.
I'ositive ground for assuming the later inter[X)lation of
64 (which could well have lieen suggested by the
substance of the following conversation) may 1x3 found
in the designation of the feast there, which is d.fferent
from that in 213 and 11 55, a designation combining
(so to speak) 5i and 72. So also the introductory
formula ^v U i-y-^vs ( ' was at hand ' ) is suitable only
in 2 13 72 11 55. where a journey to the fe;xst, which
does not here come in question, is to be mentioned.
Moreover, the meagreness of the narrative in Jn.
is much more comprehensible if the writer thought of
the whole ministry as included between two passovers.
He can hardly have regarded the narrative in chaps. 3-5,
and again that in chaps. 7-11. as sufficient to fill out in
each case a whole year. Otherwise, if the saying with
reference to the harvest (Jn. 435) is to be regarded as
anything more than a proverbial phrase (u.sed for
the purpose of the figure which Jesus is employing)
there would be a period of nine months for which no-
thing would be told but the conversation with Nicodemus
and the bajnizing work of the disciples, and a stay
of si.x months in (lalilee for which we should have
nothing but chap. 6. If, on the other
y ■ hand, only one year elapsed from the
purification of the temple to the destruction of the
'temple of his body,' we should have: 2 13-5 1, only
fifty days ; 5i-72, perhaps 127 days ; 72-10 22, perhaps
fifty-eight days; 1022-121, perhaps 119 days. In
reality, however, even this year will have to he
shortened somewhat at the beginning ; for the purifica-
tion of the temple, which the Synoptists likewise connect
with a [jassover (but with the last one), cannot have
happened twice, and, while it is incomi)rehensible at
the beginning, it cannot be spared at the end of the
ministry. Whether, then, the baptism of Jesus was
before a passover, or whether the journey to John
in the wilderness may have followed a journey to the
passover in Jerusalem, it is wholly impossible to decide.
In the latter case the complete absence from the
narrative of the baptism of all recollection of such a
connection would be singular ; in the former it would
be strange that Jesus stayed away from the passover in
Jerusalem. On the other hand, since the forty days of
the temptation are surely a round number drawn from
OT analogies, they may safely Ix: somewhat reduced ;
and the walk with the disciples through the ripe corn-
fields in Cialilee on the sabbath is then chronologically
quite possible, even if the baptism was not until
immediately after the passover.
3. T/ie Year of the Public Appearance of Jesus.— {\)
In Lk. 3i / we have, as the last of Lk.'s several
„. . chronological notes ( 1 5 26 2 i / ), a
notice of the date of the public appear-
^^Lk^T/^' •'^"^^ °'" ^^^'^ li^M^tist. This notice is
■ ' '' clearly the product of careful investiga-
tion, and it is extremely unlikely that the evangelist
would have taken so much pains about fixing this date
if he had not supposed himself to be at the same time
fi.xing the year (for the Christian, the only year of real
importance in the history of the world) of at least the
beginning of the Messiah's ministry, which last, together
with the baptism of Jesus, Lk. regarded, as appears
from the whole tenor of his narrative, as the immediate
consequence of the appearance of the Baptist. WTiether
803
CHRONOLOGY
he was right in this .short allowance of time for the
preaching of the Baptist we need not decide ; if
the ministry of the Baptist really did last longer, it is
easily comprehensible that the previous time should have
escajjed his knowledge. What year, then, does Lk.
mean ? Following previous writers on the life of Jesus.
B. Weiss and Beyschlag have taken as the starting-
point for Lk.'s reckoning the year 12 A. D. , in which
Tiberius was made co-regent with Augustus. There
is no proof, however, that such a method of reckoning
was ever used. Neither the coins, to which Wieseler '
appealed, nor the great dignity of Tiberius, adduced by
Schegg,'-^ which is in any case to be ascribed to flatterers,
can establish this hyjx>thesis ; and we shall have to take
the death of Augustus as the starting-point. Now,
Mommsen* has proved that until the time of Nerva
the reckoning usually employed was by consuls, but
that when for any rea.son a reckoning by the years of
the emjieror's reign was desirable, the years were
counted from the exact date of the beginning of the
reign.'* Accordingly, Lk. njust have reckoned the years
of Tiberius as Ijeginning with 19th August, 14 A. D.*
The fifteenth year ran from 19th August 28 A. D. ,
to i8th August, 29 .\.u. Although we cannot control
the sources from which Lk. derived his information,'*
it is plain from the table of dates given above that the
notices in Lk. 3 1 do not contradict one another, and we
have no reason to doubt Lk.'s information. We say
this in spite of the fact that in one point he shows
himself not perfectly well-versed in Jewish affairs : the
Roman custom of having two consuls has perhaps led
him to misinterpret the fact that in the time of the
high-priest Caiaphas (from about 18 A.D. to Easter
36 A.u. ), the latter's father-in-law, Annas, who had
been high priest in 6-15 A.n. , was the real leader of the
Sanhedrim. Lk. has taken this to mean that the two
were high priests at the same time (cp the same error in
Acts 4 6).
(2) In Jn. 220, forty-six years are said to have elapsed
from the beginning of the building of the temple to the
beginning of Jesus' ministry and the
48. The temple.
cleansing of the temple. If the forty-
six years are treated as already past, this brings us to
A.D. 28. Everything, however, is here uncertain — the
position of the cleansing of the temple at the lx;gin-
niiig of the ministry, and the authenticity of the
conversation, as well as the evangelist's method of
reckoning (on the supposition that the number comes
from him).^
(3) The public appearance of Jesus was con-
1 Beitr. 190-92.
2 Todesjahr lies Konigs Herodes und Todesjahrjesu Christ i,
18S2. pp. 61-63.
3 Das romisch-germanische Herrscherjahr ' in Neues Archiv
der Geselhcha/t fiir alterc deutsche Gesihichtikunde, 1890,
pp. 54-65.
* The imperial era introduced by Nerva, which took as a
basis the tnbunician year beginning with loth December, the
tribunician ycir in wliich the emperor ascended the throne
counting as the first ot" his reign, did not actually come into
common use until the time of Trajan.
8 The method of reckoning the years of the emperor's
reign (namely beginning with ist Tishri 766 A.u.c.) represented
by Gumpach {I.e. 93) as having been the universal custom,
according to which he makes the fifteenth ye.ir of Tiberius
begin with ist Ti.shri 27 A.D., no one besides himself has
ventured to accept.
6 Keim assumed, without any foundation, that Lk. had
Josephus {.A nt. xviii. 3 ^) before him, and th.-it he supposed the two
revolutions there mentioned as occurring in the procuratorship
of Pontius Pilate, which began in the twelfth year of Tiberiu.s,
to have been in the thirteenth and fourteenth years of Tiberiiis,
and so hit on the fifteenth vear for the Baptist. This is,
however, in contradiction witii the fact of the large number
of single notices in Lk. 3 i, which implies careful investigation ;
and is in itself impossible, since Josephus first mentions the
Baptist in xviii. 62, and has already relate*! the death of Philip,
which happened so late as the twentieth year of Tiberius.
7 Has the evangelist perhaps used Nerva's method of
reckoning? That yields the year 28 A.D. On the different
interpretations of the number, sec Sevin, Chronol. Jesu^), 1874,
pp. 11-13.
804
CHRONOLOGY
tcm|xinuicou.s with the imprisonment of tlie liaptist
M Th« Rftnki.t ( "^k. 1 M - Ml. 4 .. ; Mk. 6 .7/ = Mt.
49. The Baptist, j^^^. ^^ Lk. 3 .S-^,). Jesus was
baptized shortly before that (Mk. lu/. and parallels).
and the e.\ccution of the liaptist happened in the course
of Jesus' public ministry (Lk. 7i8/. = Mt. 11 a/. ; Mk.
()i9-a9= Mt. Us-xa ; with Mk. 614-16= Lk. 97-9= Mt.
The execuliuii is related also by Joscphus (.J/i/. xviii. 5 i/".),
who docs not nive the c.vact date, but is led to mciitioti the matter
in coniicctiun with the defeat of Antijias hy Arctas (in the
summer or autumn of 36 A.U.), which the nation believed to l>c
a judgment of (iod fur the murder of John. Arctas's reasons
for making the war are said to have been two : (1) the divorce
of his daughter by Antipas in order that the latter might marry
Herodias; (2) boundary disputes. From this K.eim, Holtzm.tnn,
Hausrath, Schenkel, and Sevin have inferred that this divorce,
the rebuke of which by John led, according to the Synoptists,
to John's death, must have been not lonj; Iwfore 36 a.d. A
judgment of Clod, however, may well be delayed for six years,
provided the crime which the people believe to be punished
by it is not forgotten ; whilst a favourable moment for executing
human vengeance does not always arrive immediately. More-
over, it appears that boundary disputes were fuially needed to
bring about the actual lontlict.l
From this war, therefore, we can draw no inferences about the
date of the l!a|jti-ii's martyrdom. Aa to the marriage itself,
there is, in the tirst place, no reason to doubt the synoptical
tradition that the baptist's courage occasioned Iiis imprison-
ment, riie account of Josephus neither excludes the assumption
tliat the tetrarch waited for a good pretext Ijcore arresting
John nor makes it imixjssible that his arrest and execution
should have liecn separated by a short imprisonment (cp Mk.
6 20 ; Mt. 1 1 2). That Herodias's daughter w.-is too old to d.ince
at the feast is shown by A. von Clutschmid (Literarisclus
Centralblatt, 1874, p. 522) to l>e wholly undemonstrable, and a
banquet at M.ichaerus is not inconceivable. That, according to
Josepiius, Macharnis should have been at one time in the
possession of -Gretas and shortly afterwards in that of Antipas,
we cannot indeed explain (cp Schiirer, I 365) ; but since Josepluis
finds no difficulty in it, it has no force as an argument. Since, I
however, we cannot fix the date of the marriage, the whole 1
matter does not help us much, 2 and we can only say that there '
is no sufficient evidence that the journey to Rome, on which
Antipas made the acquaintance of his brother's wife, and liis
return to the tctrarchy, >oon after which the marriage occurred,
were not between 27 and 30 A.l).
The history of the Baptist presents, therefore, no
insujierable obstacle to the view that the fifteenth year
of Tilxjrius = 29 A.D.
4. The VfLir of Jesus' Death. — Since the ci^cifi.xion
_- T -j-^*!. certainly liapwned under Pontius
60. Jesus death, j,;,^,^ 'j^^ ^^^^^^^ p^^^^,^,^ ^,^^^. .^ ,
36 A.D. . the latest 35 A.o.
The complete publicity of Jesus' death and its
character as a civil event, its well-understood im- 1
portance as the starting-point of Christianity, its unique i
impressiveness, and its connection with the Jewish ;
passover, must have m.ade it a chief object of the ]
awakeiiinsj chronological interest of the early Christians,
and at the same time have given ground for Ixilieving j
that the date could be fixed with reasonable certainty.
Bl Tk' ^^^ "^'^ suggests that probably the
math d chronological interest of the third '
Evangelist (Lk. 3i /. ) was engaged as :
little for the first public appearance of Jesus as for
that of the Baptist : that it was directed towards the
date of the Lord's death. He prefcrreil, however, not to
interrupt his narrative of the Passion by a chronological
notice, and therefore worked back from the date of the
cnicifixion to the date of the beginning of Jesus' ministry,
and so to that of the beginning of the ministry of the
Baptist. This is confirmed by the fact that the date in
Lk. 3i/ is, with the exception of the 'acceptable year
of the Lord' in 1 19, the last date that Lk. gives. If,
as we have concluded above, Lk. really had a whole
year in mind, he must have put the death of Jesus into
the next (the sixteenth) year of Tiberius — that is, at the
passover of 30 a.d.=»
\ Sec the account, with criticism, of Keim's theory and of
Wieseler's objeciinns to it, in Schiirer, 1 368 ./C
^ Clemen, Chron. iter ^aul. BrUfe, thinks otherwise, and
reckons out 33 a.d. ; but hi> argument is wholly inconclusive.
» A different view is held by Hratke, Sttui. it. h'rit., 1892,
who holds that I.k. regarded the fifteenth year of Tiberius as
805
62. Pilate.
CHRONOLOGY
That Lk. had worked back one year from the sixteenth ye«r
of I iberius wxs the view of Julius Africanus.' On the other
hand, C:iemcnt of .\lcxandria took Lk.'» fifteenth year of
Tiberius .-us the year of Jesus' death ; as did probably 'I'ertullian,
whose statement that Christ was crucified in the consulate of
the two liemini (2(^ A.D.) doubtless rests on Lk. 'A i /., and wa.s
perhaps made on purpose to avoid confuhion from the later
method of reckoning (cp above, i 47) whicli would have led
him to the year 38 A.o. The statement in the received text of
Tertullian that Jesus revealed himself ' anno xii. Tibcrii Ca»aris '
cannot be harmonised with Terlullian's other notices, and looks
like an ancient correction intended to combine the statement in
the text th.it Jesus was crucified in the fifteenth year of 1 iberius
with the later tr.-iditional view of a three-year ministry.
{b) The theory explaining the conduct of Pilate at
the trial of Jesus by the censure rftci\cd from Rome
Ix-'tween 31 and 33 A.u. lacks all founda-
tion ; and so does the theory (Sevin, p.
135) that the hostility lietween Pilate and Hero<l (Lk.
2312) was possible only after the complaint against
Pilate (as to the date of the complaint, cp SchUrer
I411), in which Antipas had a share. Hostility l)etwe<-n
the Roman procurator and Herod's heir must have been
the rule, not the exception.
(< ) If, in spite of what has been said atove, the
fourth I'.vangelist counted three passovers in the public
63 Temple '"'^''"."'^ •'"""^ (cp al>ove, § 45), and the
^ ' jjeriod of forty-six years front the Ix*-
ginning of the building of the tem|jle is to l)e taken
seriously (cp § 48), his chronology also would yield the
year 30 for the death of Jesus.
((/) A final decision cannot be reachetl from the
Jewish Calendar. On the one hand, the .Synoptists |)ut
K4 n f ^^^ crucifixion on Friday, the 15th Nisan,
Crucifixion. ,^.5^^ ^,^ ._,^^^ ^^ ^p^_ y, ^^^ ^,^^ ^^j^^^
hand, although the astronomical new moons have lieen
computed for the possible years with a diflerence of but
a few minutes between the computation of Wurms and
that of Outiemans, and the days of the week can Ix;
y ■ h '^O""^''' difficulty is caused by various
Calendar.
irregularities in the Jewish calendar-
system. First, the beginning of the month
was determined, not by the astronomical new moon, but
by the time when the new moon was first visible, which
depends partly on the weather and on the se.-xson of the
year, ami is always at least from twenty-four to thirty
hours later than the astronomical new moon. In order
to prevent too great divergence of the calendar, it was
prescrilxjd, however, that no month should in any case
last more than thirty days, and that no years should
contain less than four or more than eight such ' full '
months. Secondly, the intercalary years create com-
plication.
A thirteenth month was added to the year whenever on the
i6th Nisan the barley was not yet ripe; but this was forbidden
in the sabbaticiil years, and two intercalary years in succession
were not .-illowed. I he only sabbatical year in our j)eriod (com-
puteil by the aid of i .\lacc. (54953, »"<' J"*- -'''"' "i^'- l'** '• cp
1j I 2) u-.as, according to Schiirer, 33-3^ A.D. ; according to Sevm
and others,'* 34-35 A.D. Any one of the six preceding years
identical with the ' .icceptable year,' and put the death of Jesus
into that ye.ir, 29 a.d. Arguments similar to Hratke's are to be
found in Sanclemente, /V vulgaris irrtr emetuiationf, 1703,
and in Caspari, C lironolo^sch-gtographisclu KinUitung in das
Lebrn Jtsu, 1869.
' So also Schiirer, 1 369. Cp. Gelzer, S. Julius A/ricanus
utui die byzaif.iiiische Chronolot;ie , 1S80, 1 4"^.
- On the attempts to reconcife this discrepancy see the com>
mentaries and the books there mentioned.
» Cp Wurms in Bengel's .•/ri7/.y: d. Th^ol., 1886, vol.
Ideler, Hamib. 1 477-583 ; Wieseler, Ckronol. Sytwpse der
Belr. zur richtigen It'iirdi^'HH^
Ew. UHidereviiHgelisehenOesch., 1869; Clumpach, X'eberden
Vier J<Tz>. (1843), ^"^^ Betr. zur richtigen M'urdigiing der
altjUd. Kaletuler, 1848 ; Oudemans, Kct'. dt I'h^oi. 1863 ;
Caspari, Chronol.-geogr. Einl. i. d. Ltb. Jesu Chrisii, 1869;
Schwarz, Der Jiid. Kal. historisth w. a%trotu>misch untersnckt,
1872 ; Zuckermann, Materialien zur EttHvickelung der altjAd.
Zeitrechn. im Talmud, 1882.
< Cp, besides the above-mentioned work of Gumpach, Caspari,
21-25; Sevin, 58-61; Anger, De tfi/xtrum in Atis Aposto.
lorum rntione, 1833, p. 38; Herzfeld, GescM. d. Isr. 2458^;
Zuckermann, Veber Sabt'athjahrcyclus und Jobel-perntde,
Kreslau, 1857 ; GrStz, Gesch. d. Jud. iii. 1878, p. 636-639 ;
Rilnsch, in Stud. u. Knt. 1870, p. 36iyC, 1875, p. 589^;
806
CHRONOLOGY
might have been an intercalary year. At the end of 28-29 a.d.,
however, lli(;rc was no need of an intercalated month, because
the 15th Nisaii fell on i6ih April 29 A.U., and on 5th April 30
A.D. (so according to Wurms ; according to (iauss and -Schwarz
one day lat>;r). At the end of 30-11 there may have been an
intercalar>' month, for the islh Nisan would otherwise have
fallen on 26th or 27th March, 31 a.u., but with an intercalary
month on 24th .April. In 32 a.d., the 15th Nisan fell on 12th
.April ; in 33 A.u., on 2nd -Vpril. If, however, 33-34 \vas a
sabbatical year, an extra month would have had to be inter-
calated at the end of 32-33, and then the 15th Nisan would have
fall-^n on ist May, 33 a.u., and 21st .\pril, 34 a.u. ; whereas if
34-35 was the sabbatical year, the extra month would not have
l)een inserted until the end of 33-34- Thus, in 31 a.u. the 15th
N isan would have remained 2nd .\pnl. The Jewish empirically
determined dates all fell, however, one or two days later than
these astronomical dates.
If we take the days of the week into account, in the
years 29, 32, and 35 .\.u., neither the 14th nor the
69. The Census.
56. Days of
week.
[5ih Nisan could possibly have fallen on
Fritlay. On the other hand, if 33*34
was not a sabbatical year (and so 32-33
not an intercalary year), the i4ih Nisan may have been
celebrated on Friday, 4th April 33, which would corre-
spond to the view of the Fourth Gospel. This year,
however, is excluded if Jesus died on the 15th Nisan,
and it is impossible in either case if, as is more likely,
33.34 was the sabbatical year, and so 32-33 had
thirteen months. > There is, therefore, no great prob-
ability on tiie side of 33 A.D. On the other hand,
the 15th Nisaii may have fallen on Friday, 23rd April
34 .\.D. This is hardly possible for the 14th Nisan, as
the astronomical new moon occurred at 6.42 p.m., 7lh
April, so that the ist Nisan can have been put at the
latest on 9th .April (so Sevin, 144). No other line of
evidence, however, points to the year 34, and this reckon-
ing by the calendar suits just as well the year 30 of Lk.
3i /, for in that year the astronomical new moon
occurred at 8.08 p.m., 22nd March, so that the ist
Nisan may have been put on Friday, 24th March, and
the 15th have fallen on Friday, 7th April. -
5. The Year oj Jesus' Birth. — Dionysius E.xiguus,
according to the proofs given by Sanclemente (/.t:. 4 8)
and confirmed by Ideler {Handbuch,
57. Jesus'
; 383 f. ), started in his reckoning from
Birth ; Dion, ^j^^ incarnation, and followed the common
ExigUUS. ,^^gti^Q(j for the years of reigning monarchs.
His view was that Jesus was born on the 25th De-
cember, 754 A.U.C. , and so he counted the whole year
754 as I .A.D. The view defended by Noris and Pagi,
that he assigned the nativity to 25th December 753, and
ignored the five following days, is wrong.
In this reckoning, which gradually came to be
universally accepted, Dionysius departed from the
dating for which Irenaeus [Adv. hcBr. iii. 25) and Ter-
tuUian {Adv. Jud. 8) are the oldest witnesses; which
dating, based only on the information given in the
Gospels, put the nativity in 751 .A.U.C. = 3 B.C.
Dionysius, perhaps because he had no means of fixing
the date of the census under Quirinius in Lk. 2, or the
death of Herod in Mt. 2. seems to have reached his
result by putting the public appearance of Jesus one
year later than that of John ( 1 5th year of Tiberius, Lk.
3 1 / ), and reckoning back thirty years. Since we have
seen that the thirty years of Lk. 3 i /. is a round number,
perhaps drawn from the O T, we are thrown back on the
narratives of the nativity.
(a) Lk. gives two points, (i.) He says (I36) that
Jesus was six months younger than the Baptist, whose
nru T» *• 4. conception happened under Herod
68. The Baptist. ^^.^ j^ ^^^ ^^^ however, follow
that the birth of Jesus fifteen months later was also
under Herod, and, even if the evangelist thought so,
Wieseler in Stud. u. Krit. iSgs, p. 527.^ '> Caspar! in Stud,
u. Krit. 1877, pp. 181-190; Riess, Geburtsjahr C/iristi, 18S0,
p. 457^ 229-236 ; and other works mentioned in Schiirer, I 297;
1 See for the year 33 a.d. the exact reckoning in Schegg,
p. 49/1
2 So also Gumpach, HUlfsm. d. rechnend. Chronol. 1853,
p. 94.
807
CHRONOLOGY
1 his view cannot have rested on documentary evidence.
Perhaps Lk. may have drawn his inference from the
fact that the Baptist died six months before Jesus.
(ii. ) Lk. says (2 1-5) that Jesus was born at the time
when a census, ordered by Augustus for the whole
empire, was being taken in Jud;ea and
Galilee, and that this was while Cyrenius
(undoubtedly Publ. Sulpicius Quirinius) was governor
in Syria. ^ Such a census, however, was legally im-
|X)ssible in the reign of Herod, and a governorship of
Quirinius in .Syria before Herod's death is chronologically
impossible, since at the time of Herod's death (4 B.C.)
Quinctilius Varus (who put down the insurrection follow-
ing that event) was still governor in S\Tia. whilst his
predecessors were Sentius Saturninus (9-6 B.C.) and
Tilius (attested for 10 B.C. ). Joscphus, who relates the
last j'ears of Herod in much detail, has no knowledge
of such a census, but says that the census of 7 A.D. was
the first, and something altogether novel for the Jews.
It may Ije that Quirinius was governor of Syria for a
short time (3-2 B.C.) as successor to Varus, as he cer-
tainly was afterwards from 6 a.d. until (at the latest)
II .v.D. ; but in his first (problematical) governorship a
census for Judea, which had fallen to the share of
Archelaus, is likewise impossible. On the other hand,
the census in Judaea under Quirinius in 6-7 A. D. , after
the deposition of Archelaus, is well attested (cp Jos. Ant.
.wii. 125 xviii. 1 1 and 2i .xx. 62, BJ, xi. 1 1. Acts [= Lk. ]
537). and may have been in fulfilment of a general
imperial command intended to be executed as occasion
should arise in the several provinces. This could, how-
ever, have applied only to imjx^rial provinces (including,
therefore, Jud Ka), not to senatorial provinces : that is, it
would not be universal. Further, (i)even this census
could not have included the (ialileans, who were subjects
of Antipas ; and (2) it must have been taken as the
basis for a poll and property tax, at the actual, not at
tiie ancestral, home of the subject, for the latter would
have been in most cases hard to determine, and such a
procedure was in general impracticable. (3) Moreover,
Mary could not possibly be affected by it, because she
was not of the lineage of David (cp Gk.veai.ogiks, ii. K
and in such cases the authorities dealt with the male
representatives of the women.
The account in Lk. rests, therefore, on a series of
mistakes, and the most plausible view is that the evange-
... , list, or the tradition which he followed, for
*^ .T! '/ some reason combined the birth of Jesus with
method. ^^^ census under Quirinius, and assigned to
the latter a wrong date.''^
Perhaps Lk. simply confused Archelaus with his
father, for the former was very probably, like .\ntipas,
occasionally called Herod. This confusion of the two
Herods would have been all the easier if after Herod
the Great's death Quirinius really was for a while
governor of Syria. The same confusion may have
caused Iren.-eus and Tertullian to adopt the year 3 B.C.
for the birth of Jesus. The imperial census of Lk. is
perhaps a confusion of the census under Quirinius, put
incorrectly into the year 3 B.C., with the remembrance
of the census of Roman citizens throughout the empire
which was actually ordered by Augustus in 6 B.C., for
the two events lay only two years apart. Lk. , who
(cp § 47 above, on the two high priests in Lk. 82)
was none too well informed on Jewish matters, may
have inferred from ' the family of David ' that Joseph s
home was really in Bethlehem, antl have suppo.sed this
fact to be the true means of combining the already
current tradition of the birth in Bethlehem with the
incontestable tradition that Jesus was a Nazarene. If
1 See the conclusive investigation by Schfirer, 1 ^33i^
2 A chronological error is not without analogies in l.k. The
case of Thoudas (.\cts > ^6/) is well known, and the colleclioii
for the poor in -Acts 1 1 28/ is perhaps confused with that of
Acts 21, whilst the combination of the various famines in the
time of Claudius into one world-wide famine (Acts 11 28) is ver>-
closely analogous to the case of the census.
CHRONOLOGY
these suppositions are ndinissihie, the kernel of truth in
the narrative would \x that Jesus was l»rn not far from
the end of the Hcrodian peri(xl. and that the Roman
rule was set up in his earliest thildhcxKl. In lx)th thcM-
political occurrences an inner connection with the events
which brought in the Kingdom of God was doubtless
obs»Tved in very early times, and the interest in making
the closeness of this connection as clear as possible may
have led to the enrichment of the narrative.
(d) I'rom Mt. we have as chronological evidence the
star and the slaughter of the innocents. Rationalis-
«1 Th« Star '"*»' ""*''"P«'*. however, to subject this
oww. j,j,^|. j^ astronomical laws do violence to
the idea of the narrator. The star moves in its own free
paths, ajjix-iirs and disappears, travels and stands .still.
Kven if the evangelist is wrong, and a conjunction or a
coniet lies at the basis of the story, it is imi>ossible to
determine from what phenomena astrologers of ' the East '
sup|X)sed themselves able to draw such inferences. The
star shines only in the legend, and derives its origin from
Nu. 2I17 and the aixxalyiJlical imagery (cp Rev. 12 i).
It has l>een matched by similar legendary stars at the
birth and at tlie death of many of the great men of the
heathen world.
.\s to the murder of the innocents, if it were a
liistorii.il fact. Jesus nmst l)e supfx)sed, since the male
. children were killed ' from two years old and
^ . under.' to have beeti not less than a vear
Innocents. ^,^j ^^.^^^ -^ j^^. „,urder was just lx.-fore
Hcrfxls death ; and in that case, since Herod died
shortly Ixfore the Passover of 4 B.C., Jesus nmst have
lieen born at the latest in 5 B.C. Josephus. however,
although he narrates with the most scrupulous exactness
all the horrors of Herod's last years, has no knowledge
of the nnirder of the children. On the other hand, he
gives almost exactly the same storj' as relating to Moses
[Jn/.\\.9 2).
All the other suspicious circumstances in the narrative
in Mt. 2 cannot l)c set forth here. In view of the
natural tendency of legends to connect im[X)rtant events
with one another and to mirror their nmtual relations,
we cannot infer from .Mt. more than that Jesus was
probably l)orn shortly liefore or after the death of
Herod — the s;ime result that we reached from Lk.
The only results which have a very high degree of
probability are the date 30 AW for the death of Jesus,
and the |x;riod of al)out one year for the
length of his public ministry. Hesides this,
it is also probable that Jesus was Ijorn in
the :ii,'it.it>(l times when death was snatching the sceptre
from tin- hand of Herod the (ireat. and when with his
sucoi-sM>rs the Roman rule in Jud;ea was coming again
in sight.
TABLE VH.— Life of Jescs. pkob.-\blk Dates,
circa 4 B.C. ? — Birth of Jesus.
circa Qil^q A.I). — beginning of public work.
30 A.D. — Death of Jesus.
II. Chronology of the Like ok 1'.\ll. — The
starting - point for Pauline chronology must be the
p ., journey to Rome, for here we can make
connection with the dates supplied by
? -D Roman history. The events innnediately
o ome. preceding — namely, the arrival of Festus in
Palestine, the beginning of the proceedings against
Paul (.\cts 2r>i-6). the hearing and the appeal (2.')6-ii),
and (27 1) the shipment of the prisoner — probably
followed one another rapidly ; but the actual date of
the arrival of Festus is matter of dispute
(see the literature in Schiirer. C/l', 1
484/. n. 38, to which must now Ije added O. Holtzniann,
XT Zeif^^'cscA.. 1805. p. 125/: 248; Blass, Acta Ap.
1895, p. 21/. ; Harnack. Die C/iron. <ier ultchristl. Lit.
1 [97])- I" or the most part the preference is given
to the year 60 or 59 A.D. , since it was at the latest in
the summer of 62 (more probably in that of 6 1 ) that
63. Con-
clusions.
66. Festus.
CHRONOLOGY
Albinus succeeded Festus. and for the events related
of Festus" s term of office one year will suffice. 'ITie
objection to an earlier date is that it might not leave
room Un the events of the life of I'aul, an<l that, ac-
cording to Acts24io. at the imprisonment of I'aul,
Felix had alre-ady lieen in (jftice ' many years ' Hk
iro\\Q)V iriiiv). (That the courtly Josephus casually
mentions Po|)p.Ta as Nero's wife, which she did not
become till si-veral years later, caimot Ije adduced as a
serious argument in the same direction. )
Hy the sitle of this conmionly received date, however,
a much earlier one h;is been advocated recently.'
Thus Kellner pro|)oses Nov. 54 A.D. ; W'elxrr and
O. Holtzmaim. the summer of 55 ; Hlass and Harnack,
56 (Harnack. 55?). Whilst C). Holtzniann takes his
start from Tacitus. Harnack starts from the chronology
of Eusebius. the claims of which to our confidence his
lalxjurs have materially enhanced. I le shows that there
is no ground for the common suspicion of the dates
given by Eusebius for the procuratorships preceding and
following that of Festus.
Kusel)iuss d.itc for the year preceding the .-xccession of Felix
dilTers from that of Tacitus bv only one year. Nor is the difference
.my greater in the date of his removal. According to Tacitus,
Pallas fell into disfavour a few days Ixrfore the fourteenth birth-
day of Hritannicus, which fell in the middle of Feb. J5 A.IJ.
According to Josc-jihus, Pallas obtained of Nero an acijuittal for
his brother Felix from an accusation made by the Jews after hi>
recall. Now, as Nero ascended the throne on the 13th Oct.
54 A.I>., the time left under him by these two dates is clearly too
.short for the events narrated by Josephus. 'Iwo solutions are
possible. Tacitus may be wrong by a year in the age of
Britannicus ; it may have been his fifteenth birthday, so that it
was not till 56 that Pallas fell into disfavour; or else even after
his fall Pallas may still have had access to the Km|)eror. Now,
Kusebius in his Chronicle supports the year 56 as that of the
accession of F'estus, since he assigns it to the second year of
Nero (Oct. 55 to Oct. 56; on the textual certainty of this date
see Harnack, 236, n. 2). If Felix entered on his office, as
according to Fusebius he did, between Jan. 51 and Jan. 52
(according to Tacitus between Jan. 52 and Jan. 53), he could in
the summer of 56 be described in ca.se of need, if we compare
the avenige length of procuratorships, as having been in office
(K iroAAuf cruif.
Any objection, in fact, to this nunilx.T 56 for the
accession of Festus, sup|K)rted by Tacitus and 1 u.sebius,
could come only from the recjuirements of the life of
Paul. We shall, therefore, leave the question open for
the present.
From the date thus obtained for the relegation of the
prisoner to the tribunal at Rome, let us in the first
place make our way backwards.
If, as we shall see to lie probable, Paul carried out
the plan mentioned in -Acts 20 16. his arrest must have
66. Felix.
been at Pentecost under the procurator
Felix, who (24 27) prolonged the proceedings
for two years until his retirement from office. This
mention of Felix and the two-years impri.sonntent in
Caesarea are. indeed, regarded as unhistorical by
Straatman {J'aulus, 1874). van Manen {/'aulus, 1, De
handelingen dfr Apostelen, 1890), and esi^ecially by
Weizsacker (.//. Zei taller, 1886, pp. 433-461); but
the improbability of certain details, on which they rely,
is not conclusive, and, on the other hand, the rise of
this circumstantial narrative cannot be explained on
the ground that it is a doublet to Acts 2;')/. That
Felix should hold over the pri.soner for the chance of a
change of sentiment in Jerusalem, and, this change not
having come about, should finally leave him in pris<in
in the hope of leaving one |X)pular deed to \yc remem-
bered by, agrees with his character and the habit of
procurators. That Acts tells nothing about these two
years is much less surprising than its silence about the
year and a half in (T'orinth and the thrt^ years in
Ephesus. That a provisional imprisonment of two
years could lie imposed even on a Roman citizen is
1 By Kellner (the article ' Felix ' in HergenrOthcr's Kirchfn-
Ux.m (Roman Catholic). 1887 ; Z./. kutk Thfol. 1888), Weber
(Kritische Gach. tier Kxegtst des q. Kaf>. des Kditicrhriffit
1889, p. ijjJF-), O. Holtzmann ( .c), Blass (Ac), Harnack (I.e.)
following such older scholars as Bcngel, Suskind, and Kettig.
810
67. Philippi
to Jerusalem. "
CHRONOLOGY
shown by the two-years imprisonment in Rome. It
is likewise obvious that Paul would not have had his
case transferred to Rome except in dire necessity.
The dry notice in Acts 24 27 is, therefore, without
doubt trustw\)rthy, and the arrest of Paul is to be put
two years earlier than the arrival of Festus — that is, at
Pentecost 54 or 58.
I'or the events liefore the arrest in Jerusalem we
give the dates in two numbers : one on the as.sumption
that this hapix-'ncd at I'entecost 54 ; the
)ther, that it was in 58. The journey to
Jerusalem from Philippi (Acts 204-21 16),
which is related, with the exception of the episode at
Miletus (2O16-3S), from the 'we-source,' was Ijegun
after ' the days of unleavened bread,' and there is no
reason for supposing that Paul did not carry out his
j)lan (20 16) of arriving at Jerusalem by Pentecost. The
itinerary from the beginning of the Passover is given
us as follows; — At Philippi (P;\ssovcr) seven days; to
Troas five days ; at Tro.as seven days ; to Patara eight
days,— in all twenty-seven days. This leaves twenty-
two days before Pentecost, which was ample for the
journey to Jerusalem except in case of a very exception-
ally unfavourable passage from Patara to the co.ast of
Syria. Of these twenty-two days twelve were occupied
as follows : — At Tyre seven days, to Ptolemais one, to
Ca;sarea one, to Jerusalem two to three ; so that ten
days remain for the voyage from Patara to Tyre (which
in ordinary weather required four to five days) and
for the stay at Ctesarea, the duration of neither of
wliich is stated. From the stops, which in view of
the brisk coasting -trade were surely not necessary,
we may infer that satisfactory progress was made by
the travellers. The departure from Philippi, which was
the conclusion of Paul's missionary career, is, therefore,
to be put just after the Passover of the year of the arrest.
For the dates earlier than this point, the chronologist
would be wholly at sea without Acts ; and no good
reason appears for not trusting the
68. Ephestis information which it gives. On the
to rnilippi. gp^..^{ journey which ended at Jerusalem,
Paul had started from F.phesus (i Cor. 168/.; Acts
19), and journeyed by way of Troas, where he carried
on his work for a short time (.\cts20i does not
mention Troas at all), to Macedonia (2Cor. 2i2 /. Ts)-
That he st.ayed there long is not likely ; for, if he had
done so, the length of his stay would probably have
bien given as in the case (Acts 20 3) of Greece (Corinth).
Moreover, the plans made in Ephesus (iCor. I65;
2 Cor. 1 15/) had in view only a short stay in Mace-
donia, for (i Cor. 168 cp c'. 6) Paul expected to leave
Ephesus after Pentecost (which fell somewhere between
15th .May and 15th June) and to be in Corinth so early
that, even if he should not decide to pass the winter
there, his visit should, nevertheless, not be too short.
This would allow at most three months on the way.
Now, he may have waited rather longer in Macedonia,
in order to learn the impression made by Titus (the
bearer of 2 Cor. ) ; but, even so, we cannot reckon more
than from four to five months for the whole journey.
In Corinth itself he stayed (Acts203) three months,
and then returned to Macedonia, where he surely did
not stay long, since he had been there just three
months earlier. Moreover, he had, no doubt, formed
in Corinth his plan of being in Jerusalem by Pentecost,
and the additional time which the unexpectedly long
journey (occasioned by Jewish plots. Acts 20 3, which
m.ade the direct route impossible) nmst have cost him
would of itself have forbidden an unnecessarily long stay.
He probably, therefore, reached Philippi but little before
the Passover ; and we have for the whole journey from
Ephesus through Troas, Macedonia, Greece, and back
to Macedonia perhaps eight to ten months— namely,
about the space of time from Pentecost 53/57 to Pass-
over 54/58. In the summer 1 of 53/57 in Macedonia
1 Or autumn ; see Corinthians, | 3.
69. Ephesus.
CHRONOLOGY
Paul wrote 2 Cor.; at the end of this year or the
beginning of the next in Corinth, Romans, and the
letter of introduction for Phoebe to the Christians at
Ephesus (Rom. 16 1-20). About this time may belong,
too, the undoubtedly authentic note Tit. 812-14; in
which case the Macedonian Nicomedia is meant, and
the plan for the winter was not carrietl out.
The st.ay in Ephesus had lasted, according to Acts 19
81022, over two years and a quarter (Acts 20 31 speaks
of three years), so that Paul must have
come to liphesus at Pentecost or in the
summer of 50/54. From there, after he had already
sent one letter to Corinth (iCor. ."jg), he wrote in the
beginning of 53/57 our i Cor. , and later had occasion
to write to Corinth for yet a third time (2 Cor. 73 : the
letter is perhaps preserved in 2 Cor. 10-13).'
From this long st.ay in llphesus, which doubtless
formed the .second great epoch in Paul's missionary
70 r ■ th ^'^''^''^^' '" '^^ Greek world, we go back to
. onn . j^j^g first— namely, the first vi^it to Corinth
(.•\ctsl8i-i8 ; cp I and 2 Cor. ). This ap[)ears to have
la.sted about two years, since to the one year and a half
of 18 n must be added, in case 18 11 refers only to the
time spent in the house of Tilius Justus, the previous
time, in which Paul was trying to work from the syna-
gogue as a Ixase, as well as the later 'iKaval rnxipan of
18 18. How much time lay, however, lx;tween the
departure from Corinth and the arrival at iiphesus in
50/54 vve cannot tell, although the very sketchiness of
our only authority (.\ctsl8 i8-19i) makes it easier to
believe that the author is drawing here (except for the
words, V. 19, €l<7e\dJ)i>-v. 21, ^Aojtos) from a written
source than that he relies on oral tradition or his own
imagination. Oral tradition would either have omitted
the journey altogether, or have narrated what happened at
Jerusalem in some detail. All suspicion of ' tendency ' is
excluded by the brevity and obscurity of the passage.
For the journey thus barely mentioned in .Acts one year
would be ample time. In that case Paul would have left
Corinth in the summer of 49/53, having arrived there in
the summer of 47/51. In the beginning of this jjeriod
of two years i I'hess. was written. (The genuineness
of 2 Thess. nmst be left undetermined. )
Before the long stay in Corinth falls the Macedonian
mission, with the necessary journeys, which, however,
occupied but one day each (.Actsien-lS i). For the
whole journey from Troas to Corinth a few months would
suffice. It is, therefore, possible th:it Paul set out after
the opening of navigation in March of the same year
in the summer of which he arrived for his long stay in
Corinth.
Up to this point the probability of the chronology is
very considerable. The results may be
summarised as follows : —
71. Results.
T.ABLE VIll— Life of P.^ul : Entk.\nce into
Europe to I.mi'kisg.nme.nt at Rome.
Spring 47/51. — Departure from Troas, followed by mission
in Macedonia.
Summer 47/51-Summer 49/53. — Corinth and .\chaia. i Thess.
Summer 49/53-Summer 50/54. — V'i.sit to Jerusalem and .\n-
tioch ; journey through .\sia Minor to Ephesus.
Summer 50/54-Pentecost 53/57. — Ephesus.
Pentecost 53/s7-Passover 54/58. — Journey by way of Troas
and Macedonia to .\cliaia and return to Philippi.
Passover- Pentecost 5»/58. — Journey, with the contribution,
from Philippi to Jerusalem.
54/58-56/60. — Imprisonment in Oesarea.
Autumn 56/60- spring 57/61. —Journey to Rome.
57/61-59/63. — Imprisonment in Rome.
Passing now to the period Ixifore 47/51 A.D. , we find
that -Acts supplies us with far less trustworthy accounts
_ .. and is wholly without elites ; nor have we
72. EarUer ^^^ Pauline epistles written in these years.
period. Highly probable, nevertheless (just because
of the peculiar way in which it is given), although not
1 See, however, Corinthians, § 18.
8l3
CHRONOLOGY
without editorial additions, is the representation preserved
in Actsir)4o-lG8, that Iroas was the goal of a zigzag
journey from Antioch in Syria through the interior of
Asia Minor. The seeming rt-stlessness (Acts 166-8) —
at any rate in the laiter jxirt of tlie inland journey — may
injply that the time occupied was comparatively short.
In that case, the start from Antioch might fall in the
ye;u- 46/50 ; but even that is very problematical. W'c
are, therefore, thrown Iwck for the chronology wholly
TK n } 1 f °" *''^^' ^ f' ^^*^''^' however, it is not
[jcrfcctly jjlain whether the fourteen years
in 2 1 include or follow the three years in 1 18. Kor the
former view ntay he adduced the change of prepositions
/terd ( ■ after ' ) and 5id ( ' in the course of,' RV™*.') ; but
this can be explained lx;tter thus. .\n firtira ('then')
having Ixx-n introduced in 1 21 Ixnwccri the two tireira
of 1 18 and 2 I, btd was used, instead (jf /ufrd, in order
not to exclude the space of time lietwecn the two firfira.
of IT. i3 and 21 — namely, the fifteen ilays in Jerusalem.
(Perhajjs, also, in 2i the three years had completely
elapsed before the first visit, whereas the second visit
may have been made in the course of the fourteenth
ye;ir. ) On this view seventeen yexrs would have elapsed
from theconversion of I'aul to the conference in Jerusalem,
out of which time he h.id sf)ent three years in Arabia and
fourteen in Syria and Cilicia (1 17 21 ). The latter period
was certainly, the former (at least for Damascus) proliably,
occupied in the work of an ajxistle (CJal. I23 2?/.).
After the conference in Jerusalem followed a stay in
Antioch (2 11-21). Since 3i/. is introduced without any
sign of transition, the simplest supposition is that this
irpoypa.((>(tv (;ii; RV ' ojxjn setting forth") and its
results (that is. the mission in Galatia) come chrono-
logically after, but not too long after, the events
narrated previously. This would agree, also, with the
most natural interpretation of Gal. 2s.
If we Ux)k now at the parallel narrative in Acts, there
is, in the first place, no doubt that in If) 1-35 we have
. . the same events described as in (jal. 2. In
. AC 8. ^^^^ ,^_. j^ {Jalatians, Paul and Barnabas
come with others in their company to Jerusalem, and
return to Antioch after arriving at an understanding with
the church in Jerusiilem. To .\ntioch come also, in Ixnh
cases (although in Acts no mention is made of a visit of
Peter), members of the Jerusalem church, who niii;ht in
Acts also, just as in Galatians, have been saiti to come
from James. In Acts 11 27-30 1224/. however, we find,
besides, mention of another earlier journey of Paul and
Barnabas from .Xniioch to Jerusalem and back again,
after the journey from Damascus to Jerusalem (Acts
926-3o = Gal. I18). Since Clal. l2o-2i makes this im-
possible as a separate visit to Jerusalem, the two visits
from .Vntioch (.'\cts 11/ and .Acts 1.')) must have been
really one , and this would explain the further ix)ints of
resemblance that on both occasions (in one case after,
in the other iK'fore, the journey of the ai)ostles) prophets
come from Jerusalem to Antioch 11 27 I532), and that
both times, although in different ways, a contribution of
money plays a part ( .Vets 1 1 28/ Gal. 2 10). C'p also ' to
the elders' (.Actsllio 102). Now, although this visit
is in general more accurately described by Actsl.'), there
are many reasons for thinking that it is chronologically
placed more correctly by .Acts 1127^
The insertion by mistake at the end of ch.ap. 14 is easy to under-
.stand : for whilst large parts of chap. 13/1 and the whole of chap.
15 are certainly the work of the final author of Acts( .otice that
the style is the same as in Acts 1-V.'), at the s.-inie time the 'we
source ' can be detected (as is now more and more widely held)
as far back as 13 i, and we can ascribe to it the return to .\ntioch
!14 26<j) as well as the later departure for the journey of lli6_/fl
without the intervening narrative), although we can no longer
restore the original connection. Accordingly, since the author
had not been able beiore .Acts IS/T to give a coni rete account of
any Gentile mission, an undated account (perhaps not perfectly
accurate) of a conference in Jerusalem (to which the missionaries
came from Antio h) which treated the subject of Gentile
missions could be inserted after 13/. better than e.-irlier. The
author m.iy have had some reason to suppose that the contri-
bution of money (the fact but not the date of which he had
learned : it was not mentioned in his source as the occasion
813
CHRONOLOGY
of the la« viitit of Paul to Jerusalem: Act* 21) mu«t have
l>ecn brought on the occ.ikion of the earlier slay in Antioch. If
so, we c;in see how, in cunscijueiicc of the two period* of
roidcnre in Anti<x:h, he w.n.s led to sujjpose that there had been
two visits to Jerusiilcm, and so to create a contradiction to (iai.
I/. All this ticcumcs still more proliabie if the districts visited
in Acts isy. could be called (jalatia by I'aul : a possibility which
can now lie regarded as proved, as is the im(>us»,bility that Paul
should have t.illed them Cilicia (Gal. 1 21) (see Galatia).
On the other hand, it can l>e seen in Acts l.'> 1 /] yoff. that at the
conference the great question was about the .Syrian Christians,
not about those whose conversion is related in Acts Vi/.
If these hypotheses are correct, between the con
ference in Jerus;ilem (Gal. 2i^. ) and the journey from
Troas to Macedonia (.\ctsl68-ii) lie the missionary
journey (Acts 18/. ) lx.-gun and ended at Antioch, and
the zig-zag tour through Asia .Minor (Aclsl536-168),
the lx.'ginning of the original account of which has Ix-en,
doubtless, somewhat confused by the insertion of .Acts ir>.
One year, however, is not enough for these journeys.
The hindrance hinted at in Acts 166 /. may jjerhaps
have lxx;n connected with the winter season, if the date
(.March 47/51) which we have ventured to give above
for the passage from Tro.as to .Macedonia is correct. In
that case the missionaries would perhaps have passed
the preceding winter in .Antioch (.Acts 14 26); the
missionary journey of .Actsl3y'. would then fall in the
open se;ison before this winter ; and thus the departure
from .Antioch related in Acts 13i ^i \\ould have been
two years before the passage from Troas to Kuro|)e
(that is, in the spring of 45 49), and the conference
in Jerusalem immediately b«-fore — perhaps (if we may
infer from analogies) at the time of the Passover.
The conversion of Paul would fall ((jal. 1 18 2i)
fourteen or seventeen years earlier— that is, in the year
31/35 or 28/32. When Gal. was written is for the
general chronology a matter of indifference.'
__ T> li. lo the table given alxjve should there-
fore be prefixed : —
TABLK IX.— LiiK OK P.\UL : C onvkksio.n to
KNTKA.NCK INTO ICUKOPK.
31/35 or 28/32. — Conversion of Paul.
Three-years stay in .Arabia and I)amascus.
34/38 or 31/35. — First visit to Jerusalem.
Eleven- or fourtetn-years work in .Syria and
Cilicia.
45/49- — Conference in Jerusalem, mission in Galatia.
One-year journey through .Asia Mino' to Troas.
Three further passages can perhaps serve as proof of
the results reached above. '-^ The first (.ActsllzS), con-
_ . taining the mention of the famine under
Claudius, loses, iiuleed, its significance,
if the visit there mentioned had .as its object the agree-
ment aljcut the mission-fieUls, not the bringing of a
contribution ; but it perhaps explains the mistaken
combination (.Actsl 1 30 12 i) of this journey (of 45/49
A. n. ) with the death of James the son of Zebedee, which
hapixined (.Acts 12 19-23) iK-tween 42 and 44. Josephus
tells {Ant. XX. 62 and 26 iii- ir>3) of a famine in Jud:ea,
which can well be put in one of these years, .and so
could have hcen foreseen in the preceding year (cp
Schiircr, 1 474, n. 8). By a singular coincidence there
was in 49 also, one of the alternative years for the
journey of Paul and Barnalxis to Jerusalem, a much
more widely extended famine (see, for authorities,
Schurer, ib.). It is possible, then, that the author
knew that the conference was in a famine )ear, but
connected it by mistake with the famine of 44 instead
of that of 49, and that this assisted the confusion
which resulted in the creation of an extra visit to
1 For the different possibilities see the Introductions to the
NT ; for the latest hypotheses, Clemen, Chrotiol. d. /auiin.
Brifft, 18 .3.
2 VVe can make nothing of the statement in .Acts 21 38.
Even were its .-luthenticity beyond dispute, we have no means
whatever of determining the year of the sedition referret to,
and Wieseler's choice of 56 or 57 A.i>. (Chron. 79) is devoid of
any solid foundation. Nor is it pos.sible to infer any date from
the account in Acts 'Ihf. of .Agrippa and Berenice's presence in
Ca«arca at the time when Paul's case was decided.
814
78. Aretas :
Paul's con-
version.
CHRONOLOGY
Jerusalem. Tlie confusion of the two famine years is
the more pardonable Ixxause l)oth fell under Claudius ;
the transformation of the two local famines into one
which affected the whole empire is easily explicable.
All tiiis, hcjwever. is simply a possibility. If the year
of the conference was 45 A.I)., the two journeys dis-
tinguished by Lk. would fall so close together that we
can easily understand their being regarded as distinct,
on the supposition that Lk. knew nothing of the raising
of a collection and its delivery on the occasion of Paul's
last journey to Jerusalem, but did know of a famine
alwul the time of the conference and of succour given
to the primitive church through Paul.
Tile second notice is that of the expulsion of the Jews
from konu; under Claudius, which was (ActslSiy. ),
_„ „ , . before Paul's arrival at Corinth. The
77. Expulsion y^^^ however, of this edict, which
0 Jews. Suetonius {Claud. 25) also mentions,
is not certain. "Wieseler ( Chronol. 1 20- 128) conjectures,
without conclusive arguments, that it was issued in the
year of the expulsion of the mathematici ( Tac. Ann. xii.
,')2; l)io(^assius606) — that is, in 52 A. D. — whilst Orosius
(76, 15 ed. /^ngemeister, 1882) gives as the date, on
the authority of Josepiius (in the existing text of whose
writings we find no mention of the matter), the ninth
year of Claudius = 49 .\.D. — a date not fa\ourablc to
the earlier alternative reached above for the year of Paul's
arrival in Corinth, the summer of 47/51. Orosius's
statement, however, cannot be verified.
Finally, from Acts 9 24 ff. and 2 Cor. 11 32 f., it
appears that Pauls first visit to Jerusalem was
occasioned b\' a persecution at a
time when a viceroy of Aretas, king
of the Xabatteans, resided at Damascus.
The latest Damascene coins with the
head of Tiberius (which form one of the proofs brought
together by Schtirer, 1 615 /. n. 14, to prove, against
Marc]uardt and Mommscn, that Damascus was not all
the time under Arabian rule) belong to the year 33-34,
and it is in itself not probable, though it is ])0ssible,
that Damascus was given to Aretas by Tiberius, who
died in March 37 A.D. , while under Caligula such
favours are well known. If Caligula's reign had
already begun, the flight of Paul would have fallen at
least two years later than all but one of the dates assigned
for it alx)ve. However, the argument is uncertain.
Nothing known to us makes the possession of Damascus
by Aretas in the last years of Tiberius actually impos-
sible. If that should be excluded by discoveries of
coins or other new evidence, we should then (the
often assailed genuineness of 2 Cor. 1132/. being pre-
supposed) have to combine the numbers in Gal. 1 18
2 1 (so that there would be only fourteen years between
Paul's conversion and the conference in Jerusalem),
or to shorten the time estimated for the mission in
Asia Minor and Europe, or else to omit from the
life of Paul the two-year imprisonment in Ciesarea
under the procurator Felix.
At the same time, the coins of Tiberius for the year
33-34 exclude the j'ear 28 as that of Paul's conversion.
If we assign the imprisonment to 54, the data of (jal. 1 /".
must Ix.' explained as referring to the total of fourteen
years, so that Pauls conversion would fall in 31. In
favour of this is its nearness to the death of Jesus.
For 1 Cor. l'»3^ does not well permit an interval of
any length lx;tween Jesus' death and Paul's arrival at
Damascus. Conver.sely, the same consideration de-
mands that, if we regard 58 as the date of the imprison-
ment, we should calculate from the statements in (Jal. \ f.
a perio<i of seventeen years, so that 32 would Ije the
year of Paul's conversion. Neither series, accordingly,
conflicts with what we know of those times ; but it may
readily Ije asked : Are we warranted in casting discredit
on the statements of Eusebius ?
How now stands the case with reference to the
close of Paul's life? The travellers set out for
81S
CHRONOLOGY
Rome in the autumn of 56 or 60, and arrived in the
70 rinBititr SP""K °f *h^ subsequent year (Acts
" ■ was kept in easy imprisonment, and to
I this i)eriod belong Colossians and Philemon, though
some assign them to the Cpesarean imprisonment.
After the lapse of the two years began the trial,
j about which we have some information from a note
I to Timothy now incorporated in 2 Tim., and from
Philippians. Of its duration and i.ssue we know
I nothing. The prediction that I'aul would die without
i meeting his friends again (Acts 20 25-38), the sudden
breaking off of Acts, and the utter absence of all trace
of any later activity on the part of the apostle, will
always incline one to believe that Paul's presentiment
was fulfilled, and that his trial ended in a sentence of
death. If so, the great ajxjstlc died in the course of
the year 59 or 63. In either case his martyrdom
was before the persecution of Nero, and hatl no
connection with it. Nor does any of the older
narratives conflict with this. When Eusebius in his
Chronicle assigns the death of Peter and Paul to the
fourteenth or thirteenth year of Nero (the numl)er
varies in different texts) — i.e., 68 or 67 .\.D. — he is in
conflict with himself, for he elsewhere sets this event in
the beginning of the persecution of Nero, which beyond
all question was in the summer of 64 ; and more-
over, as Harnack insists {I.e. 2^1 f. ), his date lies under
the suspicion of being occasioned by the legendary
twenty-five years stay of Peter at Rome, in combination
with the story that the ajx^stles left Jerusalem twelve
years after the death of Jesus; 30 -i- 12 + 25 'u^ke
67. But neither is the tradition of the con-
temporaneous death of the two apostolic leaders by
any means so well grounded as Harnack assumes
{I.e.). In Eusebius, the contemporaneousness lies
under the same suspicion as the date. Clem. Rom.
chap. 5 gives no hint of it, and the summary introduction
of other sufferers in chap. 6 gives us no right, in face of
the enumeration of the sufferings enduretl by Peter and
Paul during the whole of their apostolic activity, to
apply all that is said in chap. 6, and therefore the death
of these apostles, to the persecution of Nero. 'The
testimony of Dionysius (Eus. //A' ii. 2r>8). &ix<f>u) (h tt]u
'IraXiav o/xoae SiSd^avTes iiJ.apT6frr)aav Kara top avrov
Kaipov (' AhcT both teaching togetiier as far as to Italy,
they suffered martyrdom at the same time") is to lie
taken e»m grano salts. If the two great apostles
died a violent death for their faith in Rome under Nero,
it is easy to see how tradition might lose sight of the
interval of one year or five years, and bring the two
martyrdoms together. The rapidity with which in the
popular memory Paul receded behind Peter, a pheno-
menon already noticeable in Clem. Rom. and Ignat.
{ad Rom. 4), admits of a peculiarly simple explanation
if Paul was withdrawn from the scene so much sooner.
Whatever testimony can be found in the literature
down to Eusebius for the liberation of Paul from his
Oft TXT !> 1 ^^""^^ imprisonment at Rome has been
liberated ?
collected anew by Spitta ( Zur Gesch.
Lit. des Urchrist. 1). In truth, all
that can be taken account of before Eusebius is the
apostle's intention intimated in Rom. 1524and mentioned
in the Muratorian fragment (except that the a|X)stle's
plans were so often upset by events), the Pauline
fragments of the Pastoral Epistles (if they ought not
also to be brought within the period of missionary
activity known to us, since otherwise they would present
the post-captivity labours as a strange repetition of
\\hat preceded the captivity), and the expression Wp^a
r^j Si'trewj ' boundary of the west ' in Clem. Rom. It
is only the last that we can take seriously. Since,
however, Ignatius sjaeaks of Rome as hvai.% {' west,' ad
Koin.1-2), and Clement himself has immediately before
opposed 5i''<r« to ii»o.ro\i] ('east'), meaning therefore
at least Rome among other places, it is not at all
816
\
CHRONOLOGY
(liflicult, fspecially k<fping in view the Pauline metaphor
of the dviiv (conriict), to sup[K)se that it is this SOffn,
[i.e.. Koine) that is indicatetl as T«p>xa. If, in spile of
this, the hyix)thesis of the liberation of Paul should Ix*
accepted, we should have to add to our chronological
table: 59/63. — Liberation of Paul; July-Auj;. 64.--
Martyrdom. The a[xjstle's eventful life would thus
end with a period completely obscured in the [xjpular
memory, a period the events of which have not left a
trace behind.
TABLE X.— Life of Paul: Last Pkkiod.
56/60 (autumn).— Paul set out for Rome.
57/61 (spring).- Arrival in Koine.
57/61/ — Kasy imprisonment ; Col. Philem.
59/63. — Death of Paul.
jotherwise]
[59/63.— I. i Ik: rat ion of Paul.l
[64 July-AuH.— Martyrdom.]
III. Chronology of the Chi:rche!; in Pales-
iim:. — I. If the dates so far accepted are correct, the
81 Earliest ^'^^^^'^ Palestinian development descrilx.-d
events ''-'' ''^^' •'^*"'^°'' °^ ''^'■"^^ (almost our only
authority for this i)crio<l) Ix-tween the
death of Jesus and the conversion of ''aul, finally
culminating in the death of Stephen and the (lis[)ersion
of the church in Jerusalem, must be crowded into the
limits of two years, or [)ossibly even of a single year.
The traditions are, however, very scanty. According
to I Cor. 15 1-7 there haiajx-ned in this space of time the
appearance of Jesus to Peter and the twelve (as to the
time and place of which it is not {xjssibk; to reach a
certain conclusion, hut with which the return to Jeru.salem
is most clearly connected), his apix-arance to the 500
brethren ([jcrhaps to be identified with the occurrence
narrated in Acts 2, which in that case was in Jerusalem,
and, if Acts 2 is correct, fifty days after the death of
Jesus), the conversion of him who afterwards b.-came
head of the church of Jerusalem, James the Lord's
brother (since this lx>yond doubt happened at the time
of the ap[)earance to him mentioned in i Cor. l.'>7), and
the conversion (by the same means) of many who after-
wards Ix'came missionaries. The necessitv of a repre-
sentation of the Hellenists (.-\cts ti 1-6) suggests that from
the return of the twelve until that time a considerable
[x-riod hadelat'sed, which is, however, very insufficiently
filled out by the narratives in chaps. 3-5.
2. As to the later events, in the narratives in Acts
84-4 . !ti-3o 9 ji-11 18 11 19-24 illustrating the geographical
extension of Christianity, the author
plainly does not nu-an to assert that the
events descrilx.'d followed one another in
mutually exclusive periods of time. If the accounts are
historical, the missionary ojx'rations of Philip and Peter
were undertaken while Paul was working in Damascus
and Antioch (including Syria) in 31/35 or 32/36^ A.D.
The anonymous beginnings of Christianity in Damascus
and .Antioch belong, of course, to the time before Paul
took hold in those places. If the recollections lying at the
basis of Acts 1 1 22-26 are approximately correct, Harnabas
nmst have left Jerus;ilem finally for Antioch not very
long after Pauls first visit to Jerusalem in 34/38 or
35/39 A.I)., and Philip may by that time have already
removed to Ca;sarea (.\cts840).
3. After these events we hear nothing until the death
of James the son of Zebedee betwetin 41, the year in
which Mero<l .\grippa I. began to rule over Judrea, and
44, the year of his death (Actsl2i/' ). If the account in
Acts is correct, alxjut this same time Peter left Jerusalem
permanently (.\ctsrj 17 i, and James the Lords brother
must have already Ix-i-ome the leader of the church
(Actsl'2i7). With this agrees excellently the abun-
dantly attested old Christian tradition that the twelve
left Jerusalem twelve years after Jesus' death (see relT.
in Hamack, Chronologic, 243). It may be in error
simply in transferring to the twelve what applied only
to their head. Peter. At all events. Acts tells us nothing
82. Later
events.
CHRONOLOGY
I of the ten left after the death of James. The twelfth
year would Ix.- 42 A.D. In that case Herod must have
sought, imme<liately after his accession, by his proceed-
ings against the Christians to secure the confidence of
I the Jews.
i 4- 'f the results reached alxjve with reference to what
we read in Acts 15 11 27.^ and L'}/ a""*-* "ght, our next
i information relates to the year 45 or 49, when Peter,
j Paul, and liarnabas gather again at the conference
round James, at whose side (Gal. 29) ap[x-ars John, the
son of Zelxxlee. Paul and Harnabas return to Antioch ;
Peter Ic-aves Jerusiilem again very soon, and lives for a
while among the Christians at Antioch ((Jal. 'In ff.).
5. In 54/58, when Paul comes to Jerusalem with the
contribution, James is master of the situation (Acts
21 18). This is the hist information from the N 1' about
the church in Palestine.
6. According to the received text of Josephus (,-/«/. xx.
9i), James .suftered martyrdom in 62— that is. under the
high priest Ananos (son of the high priest of the same
name known to us from the tJospels) — but Ixfore the
arrival in Judiea of Albinus, the successor of the pro-
curator I'estus. (.After I'estuss early tleath Annas had
Ixicn a|ji)ointed high priest by Agrippa II.) The passage
is not free, however, from the suspicion of Christian inter-
polation. Hegesippus ( Kus. Hli ii. 23 11-18) seems to
have put the death of James somewhat nearer to the
destruction of Jerusalem.'
Shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem (A.n. 70)
the Christians removed to Pel la in Peraa. The year is
not certain, but was probably 67, when, after the down-
fall of Cestius, Jewish fanaticism overreached itself.
IV. Otjiek Dates i.\ the History ok Pkimi-
83 Other ^'^'"' ^"^''^''■'•^N''"^'— Here can be men-
dates t'on^'fl o"'y those few points on which a
stray ray of light happens to fall. In the
nature of the case, detailed discussions can be given only
in tiie s[x;cial articles.
1. Piter. — That Peter, the last trace of whom we
found in A.D. 45/49, or foniewhat I.Uer, at Antioch,
was later a travelling missionary after the manner of
Paul, is to be inferred from the allusions to him in
I Cor. 1 12 822 95. I Pet. 5 12/., even if the epistle was
not written by Peter, implies his intimate association
with Paul's former companions ,Silvaiuis and Mark, and
I Pet. li/. his missionary activity in the jjrovinces of
.\sia Minor. For this latter there was rixjm at any rate
after the imprisonment of Paul in 54/58, and for most of
the provinces even before that time : namely, from the
moment when Paul transferred his chief activity to
Macedonia, Achaia. and Asia. In regard to Peter's stay
in Rome, for which 1 Pet. 5 13 is an argument (it is
certainly to Ixi put later than the en<l of Paul's trial),
and in regard to the question whether it was in the
persecution a.^ter the fire in Rome (July 64) that he
suffered martyrdom (cp Clem. Rom. 5), see Peter.
The as.sum[)tion of a contemporaneous martyrdom
of Paul and Peter finds no support in the earliest
documents : see above, § 79.
2. John. — As to John's residence in I".phesus and his
end, see John.
3. Whilst the persecution under Nero was doubtless
in the main limite<l to Rome, the last years of Domitian.
especially in Asia Minor, in consecjuence of the insistence
on the worship of the Emperor, may have been a jx;riotl
of many contlicts with Christianity."
To this time ( s;\y 93-96 ) niany scholars assign Hebrews
and I Peter (while others carry them down to the reign
_- nrr of Trajan), as well as the Apocalypse of
writings.
John (see the special articles). Not nuich
later, perhaps about the end of the first
1 For further discussion, with references to sources and biblio-
graphy, -see Schiirer, 1 486/
* Cp especially Neumann, Der rdmiscke Staat u. die tUlgt-
meine Kirche, :8r,o, \Tjff'.; Ramsay, The Church in the
Koman EtHpirf, 1893, p. i^iff.
to Antioch.
., son of Zebedee ; Peter
CHRYSOLITE
century, were written Ephesians, the Third Gospel, and
Acts. Otir Gospel of Mark must, apart possibly from
some later additions, have been written before this ;
there is no need to suppose a nuich later date than 70.
The Fourth tiospel, after which, probably, came the
Johannine epistles, can well, by reason of its near rela-
tion to Lk. and for other reasons, have been written at
the same time as, or not long after, the Third Gospel.
The first third of the second century best suits the latest
books of the NT — Matthew, the Pastoral Epistles, and
James, all of them doubtless products of the Roman
church. Jude may have been written somewhat earlier,
2 Peter somewhat later. See the Introductions to the
NT and Harnack, Chronologie, 246-50, 245/., 451-64.
475-91,651-81.
TABLE XL— So.ME Other Dates
(.Al'PKO.XlMATIONS).
31/35 or 32/36^— Work of Philip and Peter in Palestine.
34/38 or 35/39^-Barnabas removr- - *-:-"»-
Between 41 and 44. — Death of Jan
leaves Jerusalem ; James leader.
45/4g._Conference(Gal. 29).— Peter soon resides at .Vntioch
(Gal. 2 Hi/:).
5^/53._Paul brings contribution to Jerusalem (Acts 21 18).
Later. — Peter becomes a travelling missionary.
62 or later?— Death of James.
67 V Christians remove from Jerusalem to Pella.
70. Destruction of Jerusalem.
Not much after 70.— Our Gospel of Mark written.
g3-(;6 (?)— Heb. and i Pet. (ace. to many) ; Apoc.
About end of century.— Kph., Lk., Acts, Jn., Epp. of Jn.
First third of 2nd century.— Jude, Mt., Past. Epp., Ja., 2 Pet.
H. v.S.
Rini.ioGRAPHY. A. Old Tesiameni. —lde\er, Handb. Her
math. u. tech. Chron. 2 vols. 1825-26, and Lchrb. dff Chrou.
^^ -D-ui-- -u^ 1831; H. Brandes, Ahluuidlungcn zur
85. Bibliography, q^^^,^ ^^^ Q^^.„f, i,„ Aiterthu,,,, 1874;
Schrader, Kcilinschri/tcn u. Geschichtsforschuiig, 1878 ; B.
Netfler, Ziisanuiicnhaiig dcr A Tlk/ten /.eitrcchnung iiiit der
Pro/a)ii;rsi/i. .Miinster, 1879, P'- ■'• '885, pt. iii. 1886; Hommel,
Ahrissdi-rbal'.-as.. ti. israelii. Gesch. in Tahellcnfonn, Leipsic,
1880; Floigl, Gesch. des semit. Alterthums, Leipsic, 1882;
Schrader, KAT^), 1S83 (CO/', 1885-88); Mahler, Bibiische
Chron. u. Zeitrechnungder Hebr. 1887 ; Lederer, l^ie Bibiische
Zeitrechnung-, 1888 ; Winckler, .4 T Untersuch. 1892 ; Kautzsch,
HS, 1894, BeilaKen,pp. 1 10-135 (a tabular chrorological =iiimmary
from Moses to the end of the second century B.C.; ET by J.
Taylor) ; ' Zeitrechnung ' by Riehm in his H li B, 1884, pp. 1800-
1825; andbyGust. Rosch, /"/v" A'(2) 17 444-484; Carl Niebuhr,Z>/V
Chronol. der Gesch. Israels, Aeg. Bab. u. Ass. von 2000-700 v.
Chr. untersuclit, 18,6.
Oh particular points also the follo'Ming : — For the time of the
Judges : Noldeke, Unterstich. zur Kritik des A T, 173-198. For
the Monarchy (besides the histories of Israel): Wellhausen, _' Die
Zeitrechnung des Buchsder Runige sell der I heilungdes Reichs '
in the /DT, 1875, pp. 607-640; Rrey, 'Zur Ziitiecbnung des B.
der Konige in ZIl'J', i»77, pp. 404-408 ; W. R. Smith, Proph.
1882, pp. 145-151, 401-404 (2nd ed. 403-406), 413-419 (2nd ed. 415-
421); Kamph. I'ie Chron. iter hebr. t\ anise, 1883, cp ZA TIV,
8193-202 ['85]; Klostermann, Sam. u. h'on. ['87], pp. 493-498;
Riihl, 'Die Tyri>che Konigsliste des Menander von Ephesus'
in the Rhcin. Mus./iir Pliil. n.s. [ 95], pp. 565-578, and 'Chron.
der Konige von Lrael u. Juda,' in Deutsche Zt.f. Gescltichts-
luiss. 1244-76, 171 [95]; Benzinger, ' Kon.,' 1899 (A'//C).
For the Chronology of the Persian times. — Kuencn, ' De
chron. van het Perz. tijdvak der Joodsche geschied." in Proc.
Amsterdam Royal Academy, Literature Section, 1890, trans-
late! into German in Bu.'s edition of Kue.'s Biblical essays,
Gesammelte Abhandlungen, etc. ['94], 212-251 : A. van Hoo-
nacker, Zorobabel et le second temple, etude sur la chron. des
six premiers chapitres du livre cfpsdras, 1S92, and Nehemie
en Ian 2 1 ct A rtaxerxes I. ; l.sdras en tan 7 cC A rtaxerxi-s II.
(reply to Kue.), 1892 ; Kosters, Hei herstel van Israel in het
Perz. tijdvak, i*'94 ; Ed. Meyer, Die F.ntstehung des Juden-
tums, 1896; Charles C. Torrey, I'/ie Compos tion and Hist.
Value 0/ Ezra-Neh., 1896.
B. New Testament. — See the literature cited in the course of
the article, especially § 40 (note) and §§ 51-56 (notes). Cp also
C. H. Turner in Hastings' DB.
K.M. (§§1-38, 85); H.v.S. (§§39-84). _
CHRYSOLITE (xpycoAiGoc). one of the found-
ations of the wall of the New Jerusalem in the Apocalypse
(Rev. 21 10). It is not improbable that in ancient times
the term was applied to a particular shade of Keryl
{q.v.). See Precious Stones. In modern usage
Chrysolite is the name generally given to the yellow or
yellowish -green varieties of olivine, the transparent
varieties being known as peridote (cp Topaz).
819
CHURCH
XpvtrdAtOos in ® is used to translate tarsii'm Ex. 28208931
Ezek '28 13 (cp Ezek. 1 16 Aq [BAQ transliterate], Dan. 106
Theod. [see Sw.]). In Ezek. 28 13 AVi'g. has 'chrysolite,' but
elsewhere EV 'beryl,' which more proliably represents loham ;
see Bi-.KYi., § 3, TakshisH, -SroNiiOK.
CHRYSOPRASE, CHRYSOPRASUS (xpyconpA-
COC). one of the foundations of the wall of the New
Jerusalem in the Apocalypse (Rev. 21 lof). In ancient
times the term was perhaps applied to a shade of Beryl ;
cp Pkeciol's Stones.
The word does not occur in (S ;' but AVnig. has ' chrysoprase '
for 1313, kadhkodh, in Ezek. 27 16 where AV has 'agate' and
RV 'ruby' (see Chalcedony); and has ' chrj-soprase ' also for
-3:, ndphekh, in Ezek. 28 13, where EV has ' emerald ' and RV»>g.
' carbuncle * (see Carbuncle, Emerald). In mod. mineralogy
the chrysoprase is an agate coloured apple-green by the presence
of oxide of nickel.
CHUB, RVCUB(2'13 ; Aq., Sym., Theod. xoyBaA).
if correct, is the name of a people (Ezek. 30 st) I but
©"AQ has AiByec. ^^^ Cornill is doubtless right in
regarding 3^3, Cub, as a corruption of 3-,'?, Lub, which
occurs repeatedly in the plural form LUBIM (q.v. ). See
also Mingled People.
CHUN, RV CuN (113, I Ch. 188). an Aramaean city
identified by Ges.-Buhl (following ZZ>/^r 8 34) with the
modern Kuna (Rom. Cunnce) between Laodicea and
Hicrapolis. The reading Chun is, however, certainly
corrupt (cp Ki. in SJ30T). See Berothai, and, for a
suggested emendation, Merom.
CHURCH (ckkAhcIA)- I- Art/«<? and Idea.— The
word Ecclesia has an important history behind it when
„. , it first appears in Christian literature. It
1. History ^^^ jj^g regular designation of the as-
Ot word. ggjj^yy Qf the whole body of citizens in a
free Greek state, 'called out' or summoned to the
transaction of public business. It had then been
employed by the Greek translators of the OT as a
natural rendering of the Hebrew "jnp (see .Assembly),
the whole ' congregation ' of Israel, regarded in its
entirety as the people of God. A less technical Greek
usage, current in the apostolic age, is illustrated by the
disorderly assemblage in the theatre at Ephesus (Acts
1 y 32 41 ) , where we find also by way of contrast a reference
to ' the lawful assembly' {v. 39, iv t% ivvop-i^ eKKXtjcria).
The Jewish usage is found in Stephen's speech when
he speaks of Moses as having been ' in the church in
the wilderness' (738). Thus the traditions of the word
enabled it to appeal alike to Jews and Gentiles as a
fitting designation of the new people of God, the
Christian society regarded as a corporate whole.
In this full sense we find it in Jesus' declaration to
Peter, ' I will build my church ' (olKooofiria-u} fxov t^jv
2 TfTusara « ^'^^rycria,' : ML 16 18). Here it is re-
z. sii usage g^^^g^ ^^ the divine house that is to
m Gospels. ^ builded, ' the keys ' of which are to
be placed in the apostle's hands: see Binding and
Loosing. It is thus ec]uated with ' the kingdom of
heaven ' which Christ has come to establish, each of
the designations being derived from the past histor>' of
the sacred commonwealth. The force of the phrase,
as well as the emphasis given by the position of the
pronoun in the original, comes out if for a moment we
venture to substitute the word ' Israel ' for the word
' church' (Hort) ; and the thought thus finds a parallel
in the quotation of Amos 9 11/ in Acts 15 16/., ' I will
build again the tabernacle of David which is fallen
down. '
The only other passage where the word occurs in the
Gospels is Ml 18 17, where 'the church' is contrasted
with the ' one or two more ' whom the erring brother
has refused to hear. We are here again reminded of
the whole congregation of Israel from which offenders
were cut off : the delinquent becomes henceforth as one
who belongs to the ' nations ' outside, and as a traitor
' Though 6 Ai'floc 6 irpo<rti'Of represents C^V (Beryl) in Gen.
CHURCH
to the chosen people {ufftrtp 6 iOviKbi Kal 6 rtXihvifi).
It is possible indeed that the primary reference in this
[)lace may Ix; to the Jewish ecclrsia ; but if so, the
principle remains unchanged for the Christian ecclesia ;
and in either case, while some local embodiment of the
Chijrch is thought of as the means by wliich action is
taken, the meaning is that the whole weight of the
divine society is to be brought to bx?ar upon the offender.
While the Christian society is still contined within the
walls of Jerusalem, ' the church ' is the designation of
- . . the whole Ixxly of the believers, !is con-
. n C 8. jraslcd with the other residents in the
city (Acts 5 II cp 8 i 3) ; but it is possible that the
appellation is here due to the historian himself, recount-
ing the events many years later. When, as the result
of Stephen's testimony and death, believers are to be
found in all parts of Palestine, they are still summed up
in the same single word : ' the church (RV ; not ' the
churches,' AV) throughout the whole of Judaea and
Galilee and Samaria had peace, txjiiig builded ' (Acts 9 31 ;
cp Mt. IG18 as above). The same full sense of the
^ _ . word is found in Paul s epistles at a time
when Christian communities were estab-
lished in various cities of Asia Minor and of Gre<x.e :
apostles, prophets, and teachers are set ' in the church '
by (jod (1 Cor. I'izS) ; 'the cluirch of God' is con-
trastetl with Jews and Greeks (IO32).
The Church is thus the new chosen people : it is
'the Israel of Ciod ' (cp Gal. 616). Jews and Gentiles
who enter it are mergetl into unity ; the two are n.ade
one (l~ph. 2 14 16). It is 'the botiy of t'hrist,' and as
such in.separable from him. Christ and the Church
are not two, but one — as it was written of earthly
marriage, ' they twain shall be one flesh ' (liph. 531/! ).
The main practiail an.xiety of Paul's life ap^jears to
have been the preservation of the scattered communities
of Christians, which had sprung up under his preaching,
in a living unity with the earlier comnmnitics of Palestine,
so as to form with them a single whole, the undivided
and indivisible representative of Christ in the world.
It is noteworthy that Peter never uses the word
ecclesia. Yet, in spite of the absence both of this
_ - Peter ^^^"^^ •'^"'^ °^ ^^^^ Pauline metaphor of
'the Ixxly,' no writer displays such a
wealth of imagery in describing the holy society. Once
he speaks of it as 'a holy nation' (i Pet. 29), twice as
a 'people' (29 10), twice as a 'house' (2$ 417), twice
as a ' Hock ' (5 2 3), twice as a ' priesthood ' (25 9), and
twice again, in a word wholly his own, as a ' brother-
hood'(' Love the brotherhood,' 217: ■ your brotherhood
which is in the workl,' 59).
Side by side with the full sense of the word ecclesia
we find another and a wholly natural use of it, which
^, . . seems at first sight to contlict with the con-
■, , ce[)tion of unity which is dominant in the
p.-i.ssages we have hitherto examined. The
new ' Israel of God,' like its predeces.sor, was scattered
over a wide area. Wherever Christians were gathered
as such, there was the Church of God. Hence we find
such an e.xpression as ' at Antioch, in the church, there
were prophets and teachers ' (Acard Tr]v ol>aa.v (KKXtjffiav,
the participle throwing emphasis upon the noun, ' in
what was the church,' Actsl3i); and again, 'the
church of God which is in Corinth'; and even, 'the
church that is in their house' (Rom. 16s). In '"^H these
cases the sense of unity may be felt : it is the one
Church, thought of as existing in various localities.
From this, however, it is an easy passage to speak of ' the
church of the Thessalonians ' ( i Thess. 1 1 2 Thess. 1 i ) ;
and even to use the word in the jjlural, ' the churches
of Galatia' or ' of Asia' (i Cor. Itii 19), ' the churches
of God" (2 Thess. 1 4). The transition is naturally
found on Greek ground, where the use of ecclesia in
the |)lural would be helped by its common emplopnent
for the ecclesiis of Greek cities ; whereas in Palestine,
where the Jewish connotation of the word was more
821
CHURCH
sensibly felt, it was more natural to speak of the local
representative of the ecclesia under the designation of
jy«,/4',;^'<!' (cp Jas. 2a).
The churches, then, are the local embodiments of
the Church : the distribution of the one into many is
7 Outsida P"""^"')' geographical. The unity remains
Canon.
unaftected : there is no other Church than
the church of Gcxl. ' When we pass
outside the canon we find the same conception of the
Church l»oth as a living unity and as the divinely pre-
ordainetl successor to the ancient Israel. Thus in the
ShcJ'herd the Church ajipears to Hcrmas as an aged
woman, even as Sion had appeared to Hsdras as a
barren woman (4 I'Lsd. 938 10 44). She is aged, ' because
she was create<l first of all things, and for her sake the
world was made' (Herni. I'is.'i^). .\gain, in the
ancient homily formerly ascriljed to Clement of Rome
(chap. 14), we read of the pre-existent, spiritual Church,
'created Ix'fore sun and moon," and manifested at
length in the flesh. In the X'alentinian system, more-
over, Ecclesia ap{)ears as one of the icons. Cp,
too, Clem..\lex. Protrept. 8, Strom, iv. 8. The earliest
use of the term ' the Catholic Church ' (Ignat. Smyrn.
8: circa 117, Lightf ) empha-sises the unity and
universality of the whole in contrast with the individual
congregations ; not, as in the later technical .sense, its
orthodoxy in contrast w ith heretical systems : ' \\ herever
Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic church ' (e\€t ij
KatioXlKT} iKK\r]iTia).
II. Organisation. — The primitive conception of the
Church thus regards it (a) as essentially one, admitting
_ . ... of no plurality except such as is due to
. local distribution, and (/') as succeeding
concep ion. ^^ ^j^^ peculiar position of privilege
hitherto occupied by the sacred Jewish Commonwealth,
so that even Paul in writing to Gentiles thinks of it as
'the Israel of God.' In correspondence with the two
parts of this conception it is natural to expect in the
development of its organisation (a) a general unity in
spite of local and temporary variety, and (/') a tendency,
both at the outset and from time to time afterwards, to
look back to the more prominent features of Jewish
religious institutions. W'eekl)' gatherings for liturgical
worship, the recognition of holy seasons and holy books,
are examples of elements of religious life which passed
over naturally and at once from the Jewish to the
Christian Church ; and these were elements which the
experience of the scattered Judaism of the Uisijersion
had proved atui warranted as amongst the strongest
bonds of practical unity.
Had the apostles separated immediately after Pente-
cost for the evangelisation of the world, it might easily
9. Earliest
period.
have hapfiened that, while the general
needs of the societies founded by their
labours were, to a large extent, the same
in various districts, the institutions (levelo]wd to meet
those needs might have f)resented a most astonish-
ing variety. .As a matter of fact such a mexle of pro-
cedure on their part was impossible. The direct
command of Christ had indicated Jerusalem as the
first scene of their work ; but, even apart from this,
the very clearness with which from the first they
recognised the new society to be the divinely appointed
issue and climax of the old, nmst have hindered them
frono perceiving at once all that was involved in the
complementary triuh of its universality. .As a matter
of fact they clung to the sacred centre of the old
national life until the development of events gradually
forced them into a wider sphere. Hence a jieriod of
years was passetl within Jerusalem itself, and m the
most intimate relation with the religious institutions of
the Jewish people, of whom, at that time, all the
believers formed an integral part. Accordingly the
new society had time to grow into a consciousness of its
own corporate life within a limited area ; the pressure
of practical difficulties led to the experiment of institu-
CHURCH
tions specially designed to meet them ; and, when the
earlier limitations began gradually to disappear in
consequence of Stephen's wider conceptions and the
crisis which they brought u[X)n his fellow-believers, and
the society was now scattered like seed over the
countries, this corporate life had already given signs of an
organised growth, and the home church at Jerusalem
had become in some sense a pattern which could not
fail to inthience all subsecjuent foundations. These first
years in Jerusalem, then, demand careful study, if the
development of Christian institutions is to be securely
traced.
The brotherhood which was formed by the baptism
of the earliest converts was, at the outset, practically a
guild of Judaism, faithful to the ancient
10. A Jewish
guild.
creed and worshij}, and with no thought
of a sever.ance from the religious life of
the nation. Its distinctive mark was not the neglect of
Jewish ordinances, but the adherence to new duties and
privileges of its own. ' They were continuing stead-
fastly in the teaching of the apostles and the fellowship,
the breaking of bread and the prayers' (Acts 2 42).
The temple worship was not forsaken (3i) ; but it was
supplemented (246) by the ' breaking of bread at home."
The first note of this brotherhood was its unity : ' they
had one heart and soul' (432); they claimed nothing
that they possessed as their private right, but held all as
a trust for the good of the whole ; they would even on
occasion sell their property and bring the proceeds to
the apostles for distribution to the needy (432-35). As
the numbers increased, these simple and extemporaneous
methods were found to Iw inadeeiuate. Thus the
common tables, at which the poorer dependents re-
ceived their daily provision, proved an occasion of
friction between the two elements of Hebrew and Greek-
speaking Jews, of which the brotherhood, from the
Th outset, was composed. Organisation was
, ■ , necessitated, if the unity of the body was
seven. . . . . ^ ^
to remain unmipairetl ; and seven men were
accordingly appointed to ' serve tables ' (6 1-6). [On the
criticism of these narratives cp Community of Goods.]
Thus was made the first essay in providing for the
discharge of the functions of the whole body through
representative members. No distinctive title is given
by the historian to these seven men. Their office was
to serve [hiaKOveiv) ; in respect of it, therefore, they
could be^ termed servants (SmKovot) ; but it is probable
that the word ' deacon ' remamed for some time a mere
description of function, rather than a title such as it
afterwards became. The naturalness of this institution
— the response to a new need which was certain in some
form or other to recur, wherever the society was planted
— is a most important feature of it. There is no reason
to suppose that it was suggested by any Jewish institu-
tion. The number of the persons chosen was a natural
number in a community consisting of Jews ; but the
institution itself was a purely spontaneous development,
designed to meet a necessity which was wholly new.
Thus far we find but two kinds of distinction which
in any way mark off individual members of the society
from the general mass. The apostles are
12. The
apostles.
the natural leaders : to them all look, both
for religious teaching and for practical
guidance ; through them discipline on one memorable
occasion is enforced ; it is they who suggest a remedy
for the first difficulty which was occasioned by increas-
ing numbers ; and their hands are laid on the seven
men whom, at their bidding, the whole brotherhood
has selected to serve on its behalf. The seven, on the
other hand, are ordained to humble duties ; their
function is not to rule, but to serve ; through them the
society fulfils its common responsibility of providing for
the needs of its poorer memliers.
The dispersion after Stephens death distracts our
t On the fact that they are nowhere styled hiaxovoi, see also
Community ok Goods, § 5.
823
CHURCH
attention from the Church in Jerusalem for a while.
13 The '^<>"'<-' years later, when the apostles had
' eiders ' '^"8"" '° evangelise other parts of Palestine,
we get another glimpse of it at a time of
threatened famine. Contributions are sent from the
disciples at Antioch to aid the poorer brethren in
Judrea ; it is not to the apostles, however, that tlie gifts
are brought, but to 'the elders' (.Acts 11 30), a class of
which we now hear for the first time in the Christian
Church. Thus it would seem that the necessity of
leaving the apostles free for wider work had issued in a
further development of organisation in Jerusalem ; but
it is only incidentally that we learn that a new step has
been taken. We have no indication in Acts of the
relation of ' the seven ' to these ' elders. '
Peter's imprisonment, which immediately follows, is
the occasion of a further notice Ijearing on the practical
14 Jajnea go^'^rnment of the church in Jerusalem.
' Tell these things to James and to the
brethren,' says the apostle after his release (I217).
The position of prominence thus indicated for ' the
brother of the I.ord ' prepares us for the leading part
which he subsecjuently takes in the conference of the
apostles and elders, when a question of vital imjxjrt-
ance has been referred from Antioch to Jerusalem
(1013). Many years later, when Paul arrives on an
important errand, his first act is thus described by an
eye-witness : ' On the morrow Paul entered in with us
unto James, and all the elders came together' (21 18).
It is clear, then, that James had come to occupy a
unique position in the church at Jerusjilem — a position
gained, it may be, by no formal accession to power,
resulting rather from his relationship to Jesus and
his well-known sanctity of life ; yet a position clearly
recognised by the apostles, and foreshadowing the
climai of a series of developments in the universally
established rule of the monarchical episcopate.
We have thus, in the early history of the church in
Jerusalem, notices, for the most part merely incidental,
of the gradual development of organi-
sation in response to the growing
necessities of a corporate life. The humblest offices of
the daily service (7/ Ka6rj/j.epLVTi SiaKovia) by which the
bodily needs of the poorer members were supplied, are
discharged by the church through seven representatives.
The guidance of the whole body is found to have
devolved upon men whose title of ' elders ' reminds us
of the elders of the Jewish people ; and in this case
there is no reason for doubting that the new institution
was directly suggested by the old. These elders are
the medium by which the church in Jerusalem holds
formal intercourse with the church elsewhere. Lastly,
at the head of all, but acting in close concert with the
elders, we see James holding an undefined but unmis-
takable position of authority.
\V'e must be careful to avoid a confusion between
this development of administrative organs of the body
,« m 1. ^'id that other form of service, rendered
16. Teachers,
15. Summary.
etc.
to it by those who discharged the various
functions of evangelisation, exhortation,
and instruction (r; BiaKOvia roO \6yov. Acts 64). The
two kinds of service might often meet in the same
persons : thus, at the outset, the apostles themselves
were, necessarily, at once the instructors and the
administrators of the society — at their feet, for example,
gifts for the community were laid, as at a later time
they were brought to the elders — and, on the other
hand, we read of ' Philip the evangelist, who was one
of the seven' ("218). Quite apart from these, however,
we have a mention of ' prophets," of whom Agabus is
one, as coming from Jerusalem (11 27).
The incidental nature of the references to those who
discharged these functions of administration and instruc-
tion prevents us from knowing to what extent the
church in Antioch resembled in its organisation the
church in Jerusalem. We only learn that it contained
824
CHURCH
• prophets and teachers' (l;5i) : we hear nothing of its
eliicrs or other ofticers. When, however, Paul and
,. Harnabjis, going forth from the church in
17. Pauls
churches.
\nlioch, founded conununities in variou.s
•itics of .Asia .\lin(5r, tlu-y app<jinted, wc are
<-xl)rcs.sly told, elders to administer them (Haa). In
this they probably reprotlucid an institution already
known at .•\nti(Kh, with which lK)th of them had together
l)een brought into contact in Jerusaleni (11. 50).
.As Paul travelled farther west, and Christian societies
sprang up in a more jjurely Greek soil, the (Jhurch's
iiideix.-iuk-nce of Judaism became continually clearer ;
and we might reasonably e.xpect to tind elements of
(Jreek scKial life exerting an inHuence ujjon the develop-
ment of Christian organisation. .At the same time
we must Ijear in mind that Paul himself was a Jew, that
to the Jews in every place he made his lirst appeal,
that his epistles indicate that there was a considerable
Jewish element among those to whom he wrote, and
that we have clear evidence that, at first, at any rate,
his organisation of administration was basefl upon a
Jewish precedent. In his earliest letters to a lAiro|x:an
church Paul urges the recognition and esteem of • those
who labour among you and jiresiile over you in the
Lord, and admonish you,' thus inijjiymg a local
ailministration, though not further defining it (i Thess.
r)i2); but at the same time he demands absolute
otx.'tlience to the injimctions which he sends them in
the joint names of himself and -Silvanus and Timotheus
2 Thess. 3 14).
If we try to draw from the study of Pauls epistles a
jjicture of a Christian society in a (jreek city, we may start
l)y observing that the nienilters of it are distinguished
one from another mainly by their spiritual 'gifts'
( Xapiff^caTa). Of these the highest is prophecy, which
is freely antl sometimes distractingly exercised, by any
who possess it, in the ordinary meetings of the society.
Otiier gifts too, such as those of healing, give a certain
natural pre-eminence to their possessors. Over all we
recognise the (nidelined but overshadowing authority of
the apostolic founder. Such is the most elementary
stage, and we cannot sharply distinguish it from that
which innnediately follows. Leading men fall into
classes, with obvious divisions (not in any sense
stereotyjx'd orders) .sejmrating them from the general
ma.ss : ai><)stles, prophets, teachers — clear grades of
spiritual prestige, though by no means marked off as a
hierarchy. The teachers are mainly local in the exercise
of their fimctions ; the prophets are local to some
extent, but moving from church to church, and recog-
nised everywhere in virtue of their gift ; the apostles
are not local, but essentially itinerant, telonging to the
whole Church.
This ministry expresses the more distinctly spiritual
sule of the Church's activities. Hut the comnmnity
needs, Ixisides, to be governed ; and discipline nmst be
exercised in the case of miworthy meml)ers. It must
have representatives who can formally act on its tx.'half,
either in dealing with individuals or in carrying on com-
munications with sister communities.
.Again, there are other functions of the Church's life
w liich call for executive officers. The care of the sick
and the poor was a primary duty ; so, too, was the exer-
cise of the Church's hospitality to travelling brethren.
These duties involved ati administration of the conunon
funds collected for such j)iirjx)ses, and generally of
corporate property. S>ervants of the Church were thus
called for to perform these humble but necessary
functions, and responsible suix;rintendents to see that
they were duly performed. This class of executive
ministers we lind in the ' bishojis and deacons ' (iirl-
ffKovoi Kai SioiKoyoi) whom Paul greets in the opening
words of his epistle to the Philippians ; and the qualifi-
cations tiemanded of them in the Pastoral P^pistles
afford valuable indications of the nature of their service.
All these elements of moral or formal authority would
82s
18. The
Didache.'
CHURCH
he more or le.ss distinctly present in ever)' community,
expressing the activity and life of the community itself
in various forms. In different localities development
would proceed at different rates of progress ; but in all,
the same general needs would have to lie met, and inter-
conunimication would help towards a comparatively
uniform result. The earlier and the more rajiitlly
developing societies would sene as a natural model
to the rest.
In six-aking thus we do not lose sight of the control-
ling inspiration of the divine .Spirit promised by Jesus
to l)e the Church's guide. We rather recogni.se the
presence of a continuous inspiration, developing from
within the growth of a living organism, not promulgating
a code of rules to Ix; imposed from without upon each
conununity at its foundation.
The scanty and .scattered notices of church organisa-
tion in the NT need, for their interpretation, all the
light that can Ix; thrown u[Kjn them by the
practice of Christian conununities, .so far as
it can Ix; a.scertained from the remains of
their earliest literature. Here again, however, the
evidence is still sjxirse and incidental, though of late
years it has been increased, esp<cially by the recovery
(1883 1 of the Ti-aihnii; of the Apo'.f'hs.' The date of
this book is (juite uncertain. It is of a com[X)site nature
and preserves very early documents in a motlitied form.
There is no agreement among .scholars as to the locality
to which it telongs. It may re[)re.scnt a community
lying outside the general stream of develojiment and
))re.serving, even to the middle of the .second century, a
I)rimitive condition which had elsewhere, for the most
part, passed away. This view does not materially lessen
its value as an illustration of an early stage of Christian
life ; but we nmst be careful not to generalise hastily
front its statements when they lack confirmation from
other quarters.
In the reaching (chaps. 7^), then, we have instruc-
tions relating to Hai'IIS.M ((/.7'. , §3), fasting, and the
Ll( H.\RIST [q.v. ). The following chapters imrwluce us
to ajxistles and projjhets ; they provide tests for their
genuineness, and instructions as to the honour to l)e
jjaid to them. l he apostles travel from place to place,
making but the briefest stay ; the prophets appear to Ix;
the most prominent persons in the conununity in w hich
they reside (see pRurHKT). In comparison with them,
bishojjs and ileacons seem to hoUl but a secondary
place. The connnunity is charged to appoint fit persons
to these offices, and not to des|)ise them ; ' for they too
minister the ministry of the prophets and teachers.'
There is no mention whatever of presbyters. In all this
we seem to I le on the verge of a transition. The ministry
of extraordinary gifts is still dominant ; but the abuses
to which it is liable are keenly felt : the humbler local
ministry, though despised by coni[)arison, has the future
before it.'
Other illustrations from the early literature will be
found under Hisiiup (§ 14/ )■ It must suffice here to
.« n J r •''^iv in conclusion that, before the close of
19. End of
2ud cent.
the .second century, the long ])riKess of
development had issued in a threefold
ministr}'— a bishop, presbyters, and deacons — l)eing at
length generally recognised in all Christian churches.
In jx)int of time, ;xs well as of method, we have an
exact parallel to this develoi)ment lK)ih in the settlement
of the canon and in the fornuilaiion of the .A])ostolic
Creed. The more abundant literature of the end of the
second century shows us a generally accepted standard
of ministry, of canon, and of creed. In each case the
need of definiteness and of general uniformity had
gradually made itself felt, and the Christian con-
, sciousness, guided and expressed by eminent leaders,
had slowly solved the problems presented to it. In
each case we have e\ idence of that growth which is the
' Cp Harnack on 3 Jn., St. Kr. 1.'..
CHURNING
prerogative and proof of life in the social as in the
individual organism. J. A. K.
CHUENINQ (V^). Prov. :]0 33 ; see Milk.
CHUSHAN RISHATHAIM (Q'nr"Jn j^'-IS), Judg.
38 ; KV CUSHAN-RISHATIIAIM.
CHUSI (XOYC [BS], -cei [A], akO-S), a locality men-
tioned in Judith 7 18 to define the position of Ekrcbel
(see Akrabattink). It may possibly be the mod.
K'lisah, 5 m. W. of 'Akrabeh.
CHUZA (xoyzA [Ti. WH] ; Amer. RV prefers
Ciic/.As), the house-steward of Herod (Lk. 83),
husband of [oanna. The name is probably identical
with the Na"bat;ean mn- 'l"he steward may well have
been of foreign origin as were the Herods themselves.
See Burkitt, Expos. Feb. 1899. 1 18-122.
CIELING. See Ceiling.
CILICIA (kiXikia [Ti. WH]). From southern
Cappadocia the range of Taurus descends in a S\V.
p, . . direction to the sea, reaching it in a com-
1. rnysical. ^^j^^ ^^ mountains constituting that pro-
jection of coast which divides the bay of Issus
(Skanderun) from that of Pamphylia. The Cilicians
extended partly over the Taurus itself, and partly be-
tween it and the sea (Strabo, 668), thus bordering upon
Pamphylia in the W., and Lycaonia and Cappadocia
in the -N. ; in the E. the lofty range of Amanus separated
them from Syria. The country within these boundaries
falls into two strongly marked sections.
'Of Cilicia beyond Taurus a part [W.J is called Tracheia
(rugged), and the rest [E.] I'edias (plain). The former has a
narrow seaboard, and little or no level country : that part of it
which lies under Taurus is equally mountainous, and is thinly
inhabited as far as the northern flanks of the range— as far, that
is, as Isaura and Pisidia. This district bears the name Trachci- [
Otis. Cilicia Pedias extends from Soli and Tarsus as far as
Issus, and as far N. as the Cappadocians on the N. flank of
Taurus. This section consists for the most part of plains and
fertile land ' {I.e.). i
Four considerable streams — Pyramus, Sarus, Cydnus,
and Calycadnus— descend from Taurus to the bay of
Issus. For a long time the rude \V. district remained
practically outside the pale of civilisation : we are here ]
concerned only with the eastern part, Cilicia Pedias or
Campestris. Difficult passes, of which there are only
a few, lead through the mountains into the neighbouring j
districts. The famous Pylce Cilicins, some 30 miles N. ,
of Tarsus, gave access to Cappadocia and W. Asia ;
Minor ; in the other direction the Syrian Gates and the |
pass of Beilam communicated with Syria ; through ;
these two passes ran the M trade route from Ephesus. :
The military importance of the Cilician plain thus in- j
eluded within the angle of the Taurus and Amanus '
ranges is finely expressed by Herodian (84).
Owing to the barriers of Mount Taurus, the geographi-
cal affinity of Cilicia is with Syria rather than with Asia j
_.„ Minor. It would be only natural, therefore, !
2. In OT. jj^^j jj^g|.g gj^Qui^i bg references to it in OT
(cp also aSuk-bam-pal, § 4, end). Nor are these
wanting. Archreological criticism indicates three OT
names ' as more or less certainly meaning Cilicia.'-^ The
first is Caphtor {q.v., § 4), which, however, probably
had a more extended application, and referred to
coast-regions of Asia Minor besides Cilicia. Caphtor
was the first home of the Philistines ; it probably repre-
sents the Egyptian Kefto. The second is Kue or Kuah
(j,ip)_/.^., i-l Cilicia' — from which Solomon imported
horses, as we learn from the emended text of i K. IO28
(see HoRSK, § 3, n. ). The third is Helak, the Hilakku
1 Josephus identified with Cilicia the Tarshlsh of Cen. IO4,
Jon. l3(.-J«/. i. 61).
2 The land of Musri also, which adjomed Is-ue (Wi. Gesch.
Bab. u. Ass. 175), must have included a part of Cilicia (cp
MiZRAIM, §20). . . , „ .
3 According to Maspero {Recueil, 10 210), Cilicia is the Keti
(cp K»JTi5) which is often mentioned with N.-iharin in the
Egyptian inscriptions. Is this name connected with Kue?
827
CINNAMON
of the Assyrians, which has been restored by Hal^vy
(MiHanges, '74, p. 69), Geiger (7ud. Z/. 11 242), and
Lagarde (MUtheil. \-2\i) in Ezek. -2711 (MT has the
impossible tj'^ti ' thine army ' ; read ' the sons of Arvad
and of Helak). The same name probably occurs in
Egyptian inscriptions under the form Ka-ra-ki-sa,
originally Kilakk(u).* It follows from Hal^vy's res-
toration that there was. according to Ezekiel, a Cilician
as well as a Phu_-nician and a Syrian element in the
garrison of Tyre in 586 B. C.
The close physical relation of Cilicia and Syria
explains their political connection during the early
_ . Roman Empire. Cilicia was usually under
■ * ^^' the legatus of Syria (Dio Cass. 53 12 where
Coele-Syria, Phoenicia, Cilicia, Cyprus are iv rrj toO
Kalffapoi fiepidi ; cp Tac. Ann. 278). Cilicia is found
under a separate governor, however, in 57 A.i). (Tac.
Ann. T533), perhaps as a temporary measure after the
disturbances of 52 A. O. {Ann. I255). Vespasian is
credited with its reconstruction as a distinct province,
in 74 A. D. ; but his action was apparently confined to
the reduction of part of ( ilicia Tracheia to the form of
a province, which was united with that of eastern
CMIicia (Suet. resj>. 8). In 117-138 A.n. Cilicia, in-
cluding Tracheia, was certainly an imperial province,
under a prcetorian legal us Augusti : but in what year
this state of things began is not known. No infer-
ence can be drawn from the use of the word pro-
vince" ( eVapxf 'a ) in the question of Felix (Acts 2334).
The connection between Cilicia and Syria is illustrated
in the NT by such passages as Actsl5234i (jal. I21,
where ' Syria and Cilicia ' are almost a single term ;
and conversely the omission of Cilicia from the super-
scription of I Pet. 1 1, where the enumeration of provinces
sums up all Asia Minor N. of the Taurus, is based
upon the close connection between the churches in
Cilicia and the church of Antioch in Syria.
The presence of Jews in Cilicia must date principally
from the time when it became part of the Syrian king-
dom (cp Jos. Ant. xii. 34). It must have been the hill-
men of Cilicia Tracheia that served in the guard of
Alexander Jannasus (Jos. Ant. xiii. 135. ^'V i. 43). In
apostolic times the Jewish settlers were many and
influential (Acts 69).
Paul visited his native province soon after his con-
version (.Acts 930 Gal. I21), and possibly founded then
the churches of which we hear in Acts 102341. It is
probable that in his ' second missionary journey ' he
followed the usual commercial route across the Taurus
to Derbe (.Acts 1.^)41 ; cp .Str. 537).
One article of Cilician export is interesting to the
student of the NT. The goats' -hair cloth called
Ciliciiim was exported to l)e jused in tent-making (c]i
Varro, R.R. 2ii). Paul was taught this trade, and
supported himself by means of it in the house of Aquila
at Corinth (Acts 18 3 and elsewhere; cp Acts 20 34).
(See Sterrett, ' Routes in Cilicia,' in Arch. Ins!. Amer.
36.) \v. J. w.
CINNAM0N(pD3p ; kinn&moomon[-oc][BNAFL:
Ti. WH] ; E.x. 3O23 Pr. 7 .7 Cant. 4 .4 Rev. 18 i3t) bears
the same name in Hebrew as in Greek and English, and
this is almost certainly a word borrowed from the farther
East.'- Lagarde (Uebers. 199) maintains that Hebrew
borrowed the name from Greek ; but against this there
is the statement of Herodotus (3iii) that the Greeks
learned the word from the Phoenicians.
Kmndindn is the fragrant inner bark of Cinnamomum zeylani-
cum Nees that is now called cinnamon. As is correctly stated
by Fliick. and Hanb. (520), however, 'none of the cinnamon of
the ancients was obtained from Ceylon.' 3 and ' the early notices
of cinnamon as a product of Ceylon are not prior to the
thirteenth century" (;A 468). Accordingly, it is probable that,
as these writers suggest, the cinnamon of the ancients was
Tw. M.'Muller, As. u. Eur. 352.
2 The derivation from "JiJ is most unlikely.
3 Cp I'ennent, Ceylon 1 575.
CINNEROTH
Castia lignta, which was olrtaiiicrf, as it it still, from S. Chin*.l
The Mjurce of this is Cinnamomuni Cmsia, HI., a» has \xcn
shown by Sir W. Thiseltoii-Dyer in Journ. Linn. Soc. 20 i )ff.
The name cinnamom i/era rfgio, given to the itistcict W. of
Cape (.iiiardafui, must be taken in a lootie senxe as referring to
the comnicr. c of the Krythrean Sea. Like lign-aloes cinnamon
Wis thus brought along the regular trade-route from K. Asia.
See Ai-oKS, | 3.
From whatever source cinnamon was obtained, it
appears thrice in the O T anions aromatic spices, and
in Rev. 18 13 amonR the merchandise of the a[xx:alyptic
Babylon. Thus the Jews must have been tolerably
familiar with it. See Cassia, Incensk, § 6.
N. M. — W. T. T.-D.
CINNEROTH (ni-133), i K. ISao. RVChinnkroth.
CIRAMA (KipAA\A [A]), lEsd. 520 AV = Ii:zra226
R.\MA1I.
CIRCLE OF JORDAN ({lyn 133), Gen. 13 10.
Sec 1M..\1N (4).
CIRCUIT (133n), Neh. 822, RV-nK See Pi.Ai.v (4).
CIRCUMCISION (n^D. nepiTOMH). the cutting
away i)f ih.- foreskin (ri';^^. AKpoByCTiA)- '"'or surgical
1 Adminis- '^"^ other details of the o;x;ration as
tration of P'^^^tised in later Judaism, reference may
^^^ *" be made to the Mishna (Shabb. 192
Yore lie ah, § 264) and to the literature
cited at the end of this article. It was performed not
only on the (male) children of the Israelites, but also
upon all slaves (as being memljers of the household and
sharers in its worship), whether born within the house
or brought in from abroad (Gen \1 -21 ff.) — a usage which
plainly points to a great antiquity. In P it is enjoined
that all aliens (d~ij) who desire to join in the Pas.sover
shall be circumcised (Ex. I248) ; in the Grreco- Roman
period it was also the condition for the admission of
proselytes.
The age for receiving the rite is fi.xed by the Law for
the eighth day after birth (I^v. I23, cp Gen. 21 4 [P],
etc. ) ; even on the sabUith the s;icred ordinance had to
be observed (Jn. 7 22 Sluihb. V^^ff.), although in case
of sickness of the child a short delay was permitted
(cp ZDMC 20 529 [66]). For the performance of the
office all adult male Israelites were fully qualified ; but
customarily the duty fell to the head of the house (Gen.
17 23/^ )• 'yhM in the earlier times it could be performed
(of course only in exceptional cases) by women appears
from Ex. 4 25 ; but this was not allowed by later custom.
According to Joscphus (Ant. x.x. 24) it was not unusujil
to employ the physician ; at the present day it is the
business of a specially-appointed otVicial, the ntohi'l.
At the close of the first century n.c. the naming of
the child accompanied his circumcision (cp Lk. 1 59 221) ;
but there is no indication of any such usage in the OT ;
indeed, in the older times, the two things were wholly
dissociated, the child receiving its name as soon as it
was Ijorn (cp, for example, Gen. 21 j 'l^^if. 306^ 35
18 38 28//^, etc.).
The origin of the rite among the Hebrews is obscure.
One of the views represented in the OT is that it was
2. Hebrew '""'"'^''.'^^'-*'^ ^'>' J^^l^i'^^ (Josh. 52/:), who. at
icKends ^'^^' ^^'" ''^^ ^^^ Foreskins,"'* by ilivine com-
mand circumcised the people with knives of
flint, and thereby rolled away ' the reproach of I-:gypt.'
' wherefore the name of that place was called Gilgar(/".<r.
' ' rolling " ) unto this day. ' \'erses 4-7 are an interpolation
designed to bring the narrative into conformity with the
view of P that circumcision had merely lieen in abeyance
during the years of wandering ; cp Hollenberg in St.
A>.. -74, 493^, St. in ZATIV Qii2 f. ('86), and
see Joshua, § 7. The ' reproach of Egj-pt,' unless we
1 Hence in Persian and Arabic it is called Darsini (Chinese
wood).
2 So EV, EVne. Gibeath ha-arahth ; Povv'o^ toii' o«po/3u<7-Ti«i-
(BAK). According to ®ual in Josh. •J4ioa the knives of
flmt referred to were buried with Joshua in limnath-semh.
829
CIRCUMCISION
are to do violence to the narrative, can only \x: inter-
preted as meaning that in that country the children of
Israel had been uncircumcised, and thtTefore objects of
contempt and scorn. It is impossible, however, to
regard the narrative in Joshua as strictly historical ; it
belongs rather to the category of etymologizing legend,
being designed to explain the name and origin of the
sanctuary of Gilgal. Possibly Stade is right in his con-
jecture (see alx)ve) that the legend arose from the circum-
stance that in ancient times the young men of Benjamin
or of certain Benjamite families were circumcised on the
Hill of the Foreskins at Gilgal. See GiLGAl..
Another view of the origin of the rite is given in the
account of the circumcision of the S(jn of Moses (Ex. 4
'5^- U])' fw here aLso the intention manifestly is to
describe its first introduction among the Israelites ; there
is no suggestion of any idea that it had been a long-
standing 1 lebrew custom. The general meaning of the
story is that .Moses had incurred the anger of Yahwd.
and made himself liable to the |x;nalty of death, becau.se
he w;is not 'a bridegroom of blood" — i.e., because he
had not, l)efore his marriage, submitted him.self to this
rite. /AppoTdh accordingly takes a Hint, circumci.ses the
son instead of her husband, and thereby symbolically
makes the latter a ' briiiegroom of blotxl," whereby the
wrath of Vahwe is appeased (see We. /^ru/.(*i 345).
B<jth narratives notwithstanding, it is ncces.sary to
carry back the origin of this rite among the Hebrews to
3 Earlv ^ "^U'^h earlier date. True, it is no sufficient
origin P'^°°'^ °^ *^'^ "^^' '' *^""- ^ ^ * carries it back
to .-\braham, and that everywhere in the Unw
the custom is assumetl to be of extreme antiquity. More
to the point are the facts that Gen. 34 also represents it
as pre-Mosaic, while the use of knives of Hint (which was
long kept up ; see Ex. 425 Josh. 52/:) also indicates a
high antiquity. What most of all comix^ls us to this
conclusion, however, is the well -ascertained fact that
circumcision was in no way a practice peculiar to the
Israelites. It was common to a numlxr of .Semitic peoples
in antiquity: Edom, .Ammon, Moiiball were circumcised
(Jer. 925 [26]) ; of the nations of Palestine the Philistines
alone were not (cp, for example, Herod. 236 /". 104) ;
the Arabs also practised this rite, w hich, in the Koran,
is taken for granted as a firmly-established custom. Nor
is it less widely diffusetl among non-.^emitic races.' Of
special interest for us here is its existence among the
Egyptians ; for from a very early jx-rifxl we meet w ith
the view that, withm the lands of the ancient civilisations,
circumcision had its native home in I'^gypt, from which
it had spread not only to the other pei'iples of Africa,
but also to the Semites of .\sia (so HercKl. 236204 Diod.
Sic. 331 Strabo 17824). It certainly was known in
Egypt from the earliest times (Ebers. /■j:^v/'t u. d. lib.
A/os. I283), and we have the express testimony of
Herodotus (236) and Philo (22io, etl. Mangey) that
all Egyptians were circumcised (cp Josh. r>2^, where the
same thing is presupjxjseil ; Erman, lig}'pt, 32/, 539 ;
El>ers, op. cit. 278,/), although, it is 'true, their testi-
mony has not been allowed to pass wholly uncjuestioned.
One piece of evidence for the Egyptian origin of the rite
would be the fact that to the Semites of the I'.uphrates,
who had no direct contact with Egypt, circumcision was
unknown. In any case, however, it would Ix; illegitimate
to suppose that it w.is borrowed from Egypt directly by
the Hebrews — say, for example, at the time of the sojourn
in Egypt ; for the nomads of the Sinailic jieninsula
appear to have practised it from a very remote periwl.
As to the original meaning of the rite efiually divergent
views have been heUl. The explanations ofierwl fall in
4 Views of ''^'' '"•''" '"^" ''"' fi""""?^ — ( ' > '1 he
" iry : Herodotus asserts that the
meaning.
Egyptians had adopted it simply for the
sake of cleanliness, whilst other ancient writers regard it
1 The facts of its present diffusion have been collected most
fully by Ploss, Das Kind ih Branch u. Sittt der I'SlMerO, \
34a/ [32].
830
CIRCUMCISION
as a prophylactic against certain forms of disease (Phil.
lie Circumcis. 2210, ed. Mangey ; Jos. c. Ap. 'Iit,).
A similar theory is still put forward here and there by
various nations (cp Ploss, op. cit. ), and it was in great
favour with the rationalists of last century (see, e.g.,
Michaelis, Mos. Kecht, 4 186 ; also Saalschiitz, Mos.
Kecht, 1 246). Recent anthropologists, such as Ploss,
give greater prominence to the fact that with many
peoples (if not with most) circumcision sUmds, or origin-
ally stood, closely connected with marriage, and regard
it as an operation preparatory to the e.\ercise of the
marital functions, suggested by the belief that fruitfulness
is thereby promoted (so already Philo, he. cit. ; cp
Cl-TTIN(;s of tiik Fi.ksii, ^ 4). (2) The religious : It
is impossible to decide the ([uestion by mere reference
to the present conditions, or to the explanation which
ancient or modern peoples themselves give. On the
one hand, it is not to i)e expected that the original mean-
ing of the act should be permanently remembered ; on the
other hand, evidence can be adduced in support of either
theory. There are broad general considerations, how-
ever, which lead inevitably to the conclusion that, in the
last resort, the explanation is to be sought in the sphere
of religion. All the world over, in every uncivilised
people, whether of ancient or of modern times, practices
such as this are called into existence, not by medical
knowledge, but by religious ideas. It is to the belief
about the gods and to the worship of the gods that all
primitive ethics must be traced. In this there is nothing
to prevent practices, grown unintelligible through the
religious motives having gradually faded into the back-
ground, being supplied with other reasons, in this case,
sanitary. On the other hand, inasmuch as, to judge by
its wide diffusion, circumcision must have arisen spon-
taneously and independently in more places than one,
there is nothing to exclude the possibility of diverse
origins.
The primarily religious nature of circumcision being
granted, we must nevertheless be careful not to carry
back to the earlier times the interpretation put upon it
by later Judaism. According to P the rite is a sym-
l)olical act of purification (in the ritual sense) ; the
foreskin represents the unclean. This conception of
circumcision is presupposed in the symbolical applica-
tions of the expression to be met with in the discourses
of the prophets (see lx;low, ^ 7). For the earlier period,
however, we have no evidence of the presence of
any such idea, nor is there any analogous conception
to make its existence probable. The notion so fre-
tjuently brought forward in explanation of the idea, —
that the sexual life, as such, was regarded as sinful, — is
in trutli nowhere to be met with in the OT. The
ancient conceptions of clean and unclean are all of them
of a wholly different nature ; see Clk.vn AND Un-
ci. K.\N.
In general, circumcision is to be regarded as a ritual
tribal mark. This view is favoured by several con-
siderations. Not only among the Jews,
6. A tribal
badge.
l)Ut also among the Egyptians and most
other peoples by whom circumcision is
practised, the uncircumcised are regarded as unclean-
i.e., as aliens from the trite and its worship — and as
such are looked upon by the circumcised with contempt.
Among peoples who do not practi.se circumcision we
find analogous tribal marks ; filing or removal of teeth,
special tattooings, in some cases still more drastic muti-
lations of the sexual organs (semi-castration and the
like). Finally, with most peoples, circumcision used
to l)e performed at the age of puterty. By its means
the grown-up youth was formally admitted among the
men, received all the rights due to this position, and,
in particular, the permission to marry (hence the fre-
<|uent connection already alluded to between circum-
cision and marriage). The full-grown man becomes
for the first time the fully-invested member of the trite,
and, in particular, capable of taking part in its religious
831
CIRCUMCISION
functions. It is fitting then that he should wear the
badge of his trite.
Such a badge has always a religious significance,
since memte-rship of a clan carries with it the right to
participate in the tribal worship (see Govkknmknt,
§ 8), and, for early times, to te outside the trite and
outside its worship meant the siime thing. Thus the
act of circumcision had, in the earliest times, a sacral
meaning. Like all other initiation ceremonies of the
kind in the Senutic religions, circumcision had attributed
to it also the effect of accomi)lishing a .sacramental
conmmnion, bringing alxjut a union with the godhead.
To this extent the explanation of circumcision as of the
nature of a sacrifice (F'.wald) is just ; originally circum-
cision and sacrifice served the same end.
For the old Israelite, in particular, the view just stated
is confirmed by the identification of the two conceptions
- In parlv un'^ircumcised ' and ' unclean ' ; see
■ T„_gi ^ especially, in this connection, Fzek. 31 18
3".i 19-32, where in the under-world the
uncircumcised have assigned to them a place by them-
selves, away from the memters of the circumcised people.
The receiving of the tribal mark is a condition of con-
nubium (Gen. S4). -Among the Israelites also it was
the marriageable young men who were circumcised
(Josh. ^2 ff., see above, § 2). In like manner, as
already noticed, in Ex. 425 circumcision, as a token of
marriageability, is brought into connection with marriage
itself ; cp the expression ' bridegroom of blood. ' The
same narrative also explains the circumcision of young
boys as a surrogate for that of men (cp We. Prol.^*'
345/ ). This custom — of circumcising boys when quite
young — may have arisen very early, as soon as the
political aspects of the rite fell into the background.
' When the rite loses political significance, and tecomes
purely religious, it is not necessary that it should te
deferred to the age of full manhood ; indeed the natural
tendency of pious parents will te to dedicate their child as
early as possible to the god who is to be his protector
through life' (WRS Rel. Sem.C-) 328). This last
general statement is particularly apposite in the case of
circumcision.
No mention of circumcision is made either in the
decalogue or in any other of the old laws. This silence
. . cannot te explained on the ground merely
■ that as a firmly established custom the rite
did not require to te specially enjoined ; rather does it
prove that, for the religion of Yahwe in the pre-exilic
period, circumcision had ceased to possess the great im-
portance which we are comjjelled to assume for it in the
old Semitic religion ; nor was the same weight assigned to
it which it subsequently acquired in Judaism. In par-
ticular the prophets took up towards it the same
attitude as they held towards sacrifice, that is to say,
they looked upon it as of no consequence so far as the
worship of Yahwe was concerned. Such a prophet as
Jeremiah, for example, sets himself in the niost marked
manner against the high appreciation of circumcision
still prevalent among the masses in his day, when he
places the circumcision of the Israelites exactly on the
same level with that of the Egyptians, Edomites,
Ammonites, and Moabites, and threatens all alike with
the divine judgment as teing ' circumcised in uncircum-
cision ' or as ' uncircumcised ' — that is, as not having
the circumcision of the heart (Jer. 925 [24]/^, cp 44 610
Lev. 2641). By this very fact — that they contrast with
the circumcision of the flesh that of the heart, the ears,
the lips — the prophets gave the first impulse to the
later symbolical interpretation of the rite as an act of
purification.
This last, as already stated, is dominant in Judaism.
In the post-exilic period the rite acquired a quite differ-
_ _ , . ent position from that which it had
8. in Juaaism. previously held. As substitutes for
the sacrificial worship, no longer possible, the sab-
bath and circumcision became the cardinal com-
832
CIS
mnnds of Judaism, and the chief symbols of the religion
of Vahwi anil of membership of the reliKious conmion-
wcalth. For this re;ison neither Greek nor Roman
culture was able to suppress this relic of barbarism.
Antiochus ICpiphaiies indeed prohibited circumcision,
but with no jjreat effect (i Mace. 1 48 60 246). On the
other hand, however, the spread of (Jrecian culture so
wrought among those Jesvs who had yielded to its
influence, that they became ashamed of their circum-
cision, as in the exercises and games of the arena it
ex[K>sed them to pagan ridicule ; they accordingly took
steps by means of a special o|K'ration to obliterate the
signs of it (iro(«(«' fai'TOii i-Kpojivcrlav, 1 Mace. 1 15.
iviairaadak, i Cor. 7 18). In order to reniove the
ptissibility of this in future the Talmudists and Har
Cochba ordered that after the ordinary cut had been
made the Hesh should also Ix; torn with the thumb nail.
Michaolis, Atos. Kciht, fi 184-186; Saalschiitz, Mas. Kecht,
1 240 ; the commentaries on Gen. 1" ; the handbooks of biblical
archajoloKy ; Hamburger's Kncy. s.v. ' He-
9. Literature, schneldung ■ ; Schultz, AT Theol., 174^.;
Smend, A T Rel.-Cesch., rj /•', Marti, Cesch.
d. Isr. Rel. 43, ii>i/-y etc. ; (ll.-issberg, Die Beschntidung,
Berlin, 1896. On the later customs connected with the rite,
see Huxtorf, Syn. Jud. and Otho, Lex. Rahb. For the practice
of Judaism, .Schiirer, GJ r'2$(nff. 3(Sli22^,etc. On the present
diffusion of tlie rite, Ploss, Vas KituH^), 360 _^; on circumcision
among the Arabs, We. Ar. Heid.i}), 154. j. b.
CIS (KGic [Ti. WH]). Acts 1321, RV KisH {q.i:).
CISAI iK[eliCAiOY [BXALo^]). Esth. 11 2, RV
KisKT.-,. .Sec Kisii.
CISTERN (1X3, lia), Jcr. 213 etc. See Conduits,
§1 (I)-
CITHERN (Kie&pA [ASV]), 1 Mace. 454- -See
MiMc, § 7/A
CITIMS (KlTiecON [iS*]). i Mace. 85, AV. See
Ki rriM.
CITRON. SeeApi'i.K, §2(3).
CITY ("l*r ; n^lp, almost confined to poetry and
place-names ; TTp, frequent in Phoinician, V>ut only
- „ five times in O T ; cp also Kakt.mi,
1. Names. ^^,^^. ^^^,^^
A synonym of I'V ?r=Ass. uru dlu 'settlement, city'; cp
Cain, 81; for Heb. kiryah and kereth, cp Aram, ktfitha, \r.
karyuu'i.
The influence of the old Babylonian culture is manifest.
We note, too, that'/>, in virtue of its origin, is an elastic
term including the settlements of those who were once
nomads (see Hazor, Vii.i.agk), and thus we can
account for the 'cities (read ny with ©"'•, Klo. ) of
Amalek ' in iS. 15$, and the description in 2 K. I79.
' in all their cities, from the tower of the watchmen
(see Towkr) to the fortified city.' Uillmann, too, thus
explains the phrase 'the wilderness and its cities' in
Is. 4'2ii,' and some have supposed that the ' city' built
by Cain was but a settlement such as we have just
referred to — -a most uncritical supjxisition ! * We may
safely assume that the Israelites acquired the word 'ir
in Canaan. There they encountered highly civilisctl
peoples and strongly fortified cities. The Deuteronoinist
remarks (Josh. 11 13; cp Jer. 30i8) that places which
stood u[x)n //////;/' — i.e., on artificially heightened
mounds or hills — the Israelitish immigrants did not
burn down, with the single exception of Hazor. Of
course, mountain cities were still more difficult to take
(see I'oKruKss).
' The text, however, is corrupt. For riyi 'and its cities' we
should read ,^a-|^'1 'and the desert' (see SHOT ad Inc.).
^ It was not a dweller in the land of Nod (' wandering ') who
huilt (or whose son built) a city, and obtained the first place in
the Hebrew legend of culture. Cain w.is originally a divine
beiig, or semi-divine hero. See Cainiths, § 3.
' Read oVn (/>.); cp De Dicu, Critica Sacra (1693), 49.
The '?B (see BOB s.v.) or /<•/ (//•//) on which Lachish {q.v.)
was built is a good specimen of these hills. Tell al>ounds in the
Arabic geographical nomenclature of Syria and the Euphrates
Valley.
27
833
CITY
(a) Citadels. — In Gen. 11 4 the builders of Rahylon
say, ' Let us make a city and a tovser' ; the mi^^ddl
n Ytiionm ^^ tower here rej)resents the citadel.
'. . ., Klsewhcre it is the '/> {•\'ji) that is the
aeLailS. citadel— <'.^. , the ' city of I )avid. ' ' city of
MilcoMj ' ' (see Rabhath Am.Mo.v) ; but observe that in
Jer. 4841 nvip appears to be used of the lower cities as
opposed to the rrnsD or citadels.
(d) Gates. — .\t the gates' of the town (see FoRTRKSS)
there were ' broad places,' 'expressly distinguished from
the 'street' in Prov. 7", devoted in turn to judicial
business, traffic, popular assemblies, and gossip. See
2 K. 7i 2Ch. 3'26 Neh. 81 16 Job 29? ; also I's. 55 n,
where we might render, ' Extortion and deceit depart
not from its market-place.'
(c) Streets. — Except in GrfEco - Roman cities like
Ca.'sarea and Sebast^ — cities the importance of which
is shown by the continuance of their names in an
alniost unnnxiified form — the streets* were presumably
as narrow as those in a modern Oriental city. That
the houses before the (Jreek jjeriod were for the most
part poor and perishable is remarked elsewhere (see
HoLSK, §1). Still, the increase of wealth nuist have
had some effect on the architecture (cp Jer. 22 14) — at
any rate, in the merchants' (|uarters, the existence of
which may Ij<3 inferred from Zeph. In Xeh.331/. Jer.
3721 (the 'bakers' street'). Whether the Aramaean
merchants in .Samaria had whole streets (M T of i K.
2O34) or simply caravanserais (ninsn. Klo., for nisin)
may be left undecided. On the question whether the
streets were paved it may l)e said that the soil was so
often rocky that, paving would fre(|uently be uncalled
for. We have no evidence of paving in Jerusalem
l)efore the Roman period (Jos. ,-/«/'. xx. 97). Herod
the (jreat is said to have laid an ojien road in
.Antioch with polished stone (Jos. yint. xv\. [>i). On
the 'street called Straight," see Damascus.
(d) Watchmen. — Watchmen, apart from the keepers
of the gates, are mentioned only in two almost identical
passages of Canticles (33 57), a work ])o.ssil)ly of the
(Jreek period ; it is, of course, the capital that is
referred to.
{e) Water-supply. — The excellent water-supply of
ancient Jerusalem is treated elsewhere (see CoNDL'irs) ;
smaller places had to be content with the fountains
which were the origin.al cause of the settlements.
The student will now be able to judge how far the
Hebrew and the Greek conception of a city diflered.
Pausanias (2nd cent. A.D. ) thus presents the (ireek
conception (Paus. x. 4i, Fra/.er. 1 503): 'It is twenty
furlongs from Chaeronoa to Panopeus, a city of Phocis,
if city it can be called that has no government-offices,
no gymnasium, no theatre, no market-place, no water
conducted to a fountain, and where the people live in
hovels, just like highland shanties, perched on the edge
of a ravine. Yet its territory is marked off by Ixsun-
daries from that of its neighlx)urs, and it even sends
meinljers to the Phocian parliament.' Jerusalem, at
any rate, had its conduits and a substitute for a market-
place, nor were large and high houses (niC"!N) altogether
unknown (see HoL'SK, §1). The gymnasium spoken of
1 'City of the house of Ha-il' (2K.1025) is not a correct
phrase. For 'ciiy ' {'ir) read 'sanctuary' (delrir). See JtHU.
« In EV I K.837 a Ch. 6 28 Ruth 3 11 "1^? '* actually
rendered 'city' (and in this sense is characteristic of I)), but
pr;icticallv is equivalent to 'jurisdi tion.' Cp 'The .Sublime
Pone ' and the Japanese ' Mikado,' literally ' exalted gate.' So
in (B TToAit and irvAr; are often confused. See Gate.
» So RV for mairi in Prov. I.e. ; in Cant. 82 EV has 'broad
ways': cp "I'i'.n -\^'V 2rn, 2Ch.S2 6; see Neh. .Si. ff5 always
irAarcia, except Is. l.')3 (pvfil) because of irAorfia preceding.
* nr\- ® has irAarcta five times, 64o« five or six times, itoJo«
once or twice, !(oSo^ nmre than twelve times, but most fre-
quently renders, with reference to the etymology, simply i^uiOtv,
efiuT«pot, or i(u. pxp, Prov. 7 8 Keel. 1'24 5 Cant. 82!; •
ayopa. In NT the words are irAarcca and pviii) (in Lk. 14 21,
' fane ') ; cp Tobit 13 18 Ecclus. 9 7.
834
CITY OF MOAB
in I Mace. 1 14 2 Mace. 4912 was only a temporary in-
novation.
(/) Store-cities. — This phrase ' means cities in which
grain (aCh. 3228) or other royal provisions, valuable
for war or for peace, were stored ( r K. 9 19 etc. ). It is
implied that such cities were fortified. In K.\. 1 n ©
gives ir6\fts dx^pd^ ; cp Pithom, Raamses.
On citizenship, cp Govkknment, § 4; Law and Justice,
I 14 : and iJisiM- KsioN, § 15.
For the cities of the Plain (nasn ny) see Aumah,
etc. ; on the cities of refuge (a'^ps"! ny), see Asylum,
§3-
CITY OF MOAB (3XiO l^r), Nu. 2236. See Ar
OF Mci.M!.
CITY OF SALT. See Salt, City ok.
CLASPS (D^pip), Ex. 266 RV ; AV 'taches.' See
Tabeknaclk.
CLAUDA, RV Cauda (kAayAa [Ti- with N* 13,
etc.], KAY^A [^^'^ ^^'^'^ ^^^^J' <^''^""''i.^Acts 27 16), is
described as a small island (vy)ffiov) under the lee of
which Paul's ship ran for shelter {viroSpa/jiovTes) when
blown off the Cretan shore. She was driving Ijefore an
ENE. wind {z'. 14), which caught her between Cape
Lithinos (called also Cape Matala) and Lutro harbour
(see Piia-:.\ix, 2). Hence Clauda must be the small
island now called Gavdhonisi [VavSovrjcn) or Gozzo,
lying about 20 m. due S. of Lutro. Ptolemy (iii. 17")
has KXoCoos vrjcro^ ev y iroXit, and remains of a small
town are found on the island. There is some variety
in the ancient appellation (KXavSLa, Stad.m.m., § 328 ;
Gaudos. Pomp. Mela, 2 114; Pliny, iV.V iv. 12 6i). It
became the seat of a bishop (cp Hier. Syn. p. 14,
N^aos KXaOSoj, and Notit. Epis. 8 240, etc. ).
\v. J. w.
CLAUDIA (kAay^ia [T'- WH]) unites with Paul at
Rome in sending greeting to Timothy at Ephesus (2 Tim.
421). Nothing further is known concerning her.
For the ingenious but unconvincing argument by which it has
been sought to identify her with the Claudia who marries Fudens
in Martial's epigram (4 13), and to prove her the daughter of the
British king Tiberius Claudius Cogidubnus, see Alford, NT,
vol. iii., Prol. to 2 Tim.
CLAUDIUS, the fourth emperor of Rome (41-54),
was the son of Nero Claudius Drusus and the successor of
Caius Caligula. His advancement to this position came
chiefly through the energies of Herod Agr"ippa I., whom
he rewarded with consular honours and the enlargement
of his territories by the addition of JudiKa, Samaria, and
certain districts in Lebanon. For the history of the
Jews during his reign, see ISRAEL. Claudius is twice
mentioned in the NT. In Acts 11 28 the famine fore-
told by Ag.vbus is said to have been in the time of
Claudius Civsar {iirl KXauSiou [Ti. WH] ; AV after
TR, L KX. KaiVapos ; but see C.ksar), and in I81/.
reference is made to the expulsion of the Jews from
Rome which he was induced to order (as Suet. Claud.
25 tells us) on account of their tumults : ' Jud;vos
impuhore Chrcsto- assidu^ tumultuantes Roma e.vpulit."
The precise dates of both famine and expulsion have
been disputed ; see Chronology, § 76/.
CLAUDIUS LYSIAS (kXay^ioc Xyciac [Ti.WH],
Acts 2:526), ' chief captain ' (military tribune, or chiliarch)
in command of the Roman garrison of Jerusalem in the
governorship of Felix (Acts 21 31 ff. ).
CLAY is derived mostly from the decomposition of
felspathic rocks (especially granite and gneiss) and of
1 The Heb. phrase is nijSDO "lijf ; cp F,x. 1 1 1 (.\V ' treasure
cities'), zCh. 846 (L adds rmv (^opiov), 17 12 (EV 'cities of
store ■). nv is omitted in 2 Ch. 32 28 (EV ' storehouses,' ttoAcij
[BAL]). In I K.O19 (D5n '-iV) ©* renders iroAec? tui' <TKr]vu>-
liiTuv, apparently ni;2-i.a I?L (Tide 10 23) omit. miDDD in
a Ch. I64 is corrupt ; see || i K. l.'izo, and cp Chinnkketh.
. 2 For the question of the identity of Chrestus, see Christian,
Name of, S 6, iii.
83s
CLEAN AND UNCLEAN
the crystalline ; but the materials are so varying that
there is clay of several kinds suitable for several uses.
The term ' clay ' is often applied loosely to ' loam ' ; of
such, for example, is the clay of Egypt and of Palestine,
although a bituminous shale, easily convertible into clay,
is said to occur at the source of the Jordan and near the
Dead Sea ; see Bitumen.
In Palestine, and indeed throughout the E. , clay is
used chiefly ( i ) in building, either retained in its
natural state (for ceilings and floors) or manufac-
tured into bricks (see Habvlonl\, § 15, Hkick, Cham-
ber, House); (a) in the manufacture of utensils (see
Pottery); (3) in providing a material for documents
public and private and a means of safely preserving
them. Very many deeds and other records have been
found in the form of inscriljed clay tablets in Assyria
and Babylonia. ' The deed or record was first written
on a small tablet, or brick, of clay, with the names of
the principals, witnesses, etc. , appended. This tablet
was then enclosed in an enveloi^e of clay, on which was
written, apparently from memory, the contents of the
document, the names of the witnesses,' etc. (Peters).
In Palestine, where, so far as we know, clay tablets were
not customary in the historic Isiaelitish period, clay,
instead of wax, was used for sealing. See, besides. Job
38 14 14 17*, where AV's ' sewest up' should rather be
' smearest (clay) over' — parallel to ' sealed up' in v. tja.
In Egypt jars, mummy-pits, etc., were frequently sealed
with clay.
The Heb. and Gr. words which are rendered 'clay' are (i)
"Oh hdmcr, Gen. 11 3, etc.; (2) 13'D ///, used of the mire of
streets, also of brick (Nab. 3 14) and potter's clay (Is. 41 25) ; (3)
the biblical Aram, representative ^iCri /;rtja//«(Dan.2 33); and (4)
iTTjAos, Rom. 9 21: see further Pottekv. t:^^ /«<•/<•/, Jer. 489
AV (RV ' mortar ') is uncertain {ev npoOvpoi^ [B.\Q]A iv tw Kpv4>im
[Qi"H]). A possible meaning is ' earth ' (Gieseljr.) ; l>ut it may
be a corruption for a^3 'secretly' ; see Ges. Lex.{^^}.
CLEAN and UNCLEAN, HOLY and PROFANE.
Of the Heb. terms which convey the idea of cleanliness
. or holiness the most prominent is (i)
ofthTTeSil '^■-P ^'^•"e- ''•^^- •^''=->' '^« °^'^"'^^
meaning of which is not clear. Smend
in AT Rel.-gesch.^'^'^ 334 (cp, however, 2nd ed. 150,
223, 325), expresses the common uncertainty of the
moment. The older view of Ges. ( Thes. ), defended
now only in a much modified form, is that the root
means 'clear,' 'brilliant.' Baudissin,* writing in 1878.
finds the fundamental idea in ' separation,' a view which
is still widely held.
[Baudi.ssin says, ' .\ comparison with cnn makes it natural
to conjecture that thp meant from the first " to be separated " —
" to be pure "—i.e., that V\-\^ was from the beginning synonymous
with 'Tl''12; cp "Q, "pure," from 113, "tocut" or "cut out.'" It
is certain, too, that Vahwe's holiness and his glor>' are correlative
ideas (as, in the ATCsta, Ahura Mazda's). In Is. O3 this is
very clearly indicated, and in t. 5 the thought of Vahwfc's
holiness suggests to Isaiah that of his own (moral) uncleanness
(cp Ps. l.'iiy; ii-i/.). May there not have been a time when
np suggested the idea of purity without any moral reference ?
Zimmern, followed by Whitehouse ( rA/«-fr?r, July 1892, p. 52),
connects C'n^ with Ass. kuddtiiu {Busspsalmen, 37, n. 2;
Bcitr. zur Assyr.\ 105; Vater, Sohn, Furs/>recher, 11, n. 3),
which means 'bright,' 'pure,' or, more precisely ( = e/liisu),
' bright,' ' pure ' (very frequently), ' illustrious,' ' holy ' (so Sayce,
in a private letter). According to Aliel (in Baudissin, 38), words
which originally denoted ' purity ' are used in Coptic to denote
the divine or the consecrated. This is quite in accordance with
the spirit of the old Egyptian religions and with that of the old
Semitic religions. If, however, this tempting comparison l)e
accepted, we must frankly admit that the original meaning had
become forgotten, or was but obscurely felt, by the OT writers.
Only once is 'the Holy One' distinctly p.ir.-illel to 'light' (Is.
10 1 7); but the ideas are, at .-iny rate, implicitly .synonymous J
in Is. 31 9^ 33 14/ In usage, as Davidson (Kzek. xxxix.), i
remarks, the term ' holy ' expresses, not any particular attribute
1 Possibly, however, iv wpoBvpoit represents pSoa. and oSca
is omitted by ©baq.
2 Studien zur semit. Rei.-^eich. 2 20 (in his important dis-
sertation, 'Der Begriffder Heiligkeit im Alten TesUment').
836
CLEAN AND UNCLEAN, HOLY AND PROFANE
Kcncral _
thinit;li slill early sense, it is applied to that 'which bcloiiR)
to the sphere of dcily, which lies near Cod's presence or has
come into it (Kx. 3s Nu. '837/ (17a/]), or which beionfjs to
him, whetlicr as part of himself or as his property.' Davidson
also remarks that the root 'prolubly expressed some phvsical
idea, thuii);h the idea is not now reasonnlile.' See also WRS
ProtkS^ 414, who points out (after Nnldekc) that the Arabic
evidence for the supposed root-idea of purity will not hold.
In A'iy.*), 150, the same scholar finds 'some probability' that
the origni.-tl meaning was 'se(»ration' or 'withdrawal.'
Other less prominent terms are b,ir (13), la/ck ("[j), and tdhflr
(lineX nil of which are rcnderetl indifferenlly by 'clean' and
'pure.' (a) Of these the most definitely religious in its applica-
tion is tahOr. No doubt jjo'*! »»•>>■ ^ tdhflr, i.e., refined
(Ex. li.*)!! Job 28 10); so also a tur>>an (Zech.aj), vessels (Kx.
'J4 f>), etc. ; but the levitical sense is s|>cci.illy promment (Lev. 7 19
Nu.i>i3, etc.) The eyes of (;<xl also can I* tdhflr {\\a.h. 1 i ,) ;
therefore he cannot tolerate wickedness. Similarly innocence in
man; lob 17 9 Ps. 61ia [lo). God's promises are tdJtflr — i.e.,
perfectly veracious (I's. 12 7 UJ).
(3) TjJ zaJc, also means refined (as oil, Ex. 27ao); incense
(Ex. 3O34X morally pure, 'upright ' (Job 8 6 [II "KT), Prov. SOn
21 %\ It is used of a prayer (Job IC 17), of the heart (it has to
be m.ide or kept ' pure ' or 'clean,' Ps. 73 13 Prov. 2O9 [|1 vtBl),
or the conduct (Ps. IH'q).
(4) 13, har, 'separated' — i.e., 'pure' (cp [i] above). Some
Rabbins interpret 13 in Ps. 2 12, 'selected ' = Trial !>"' 't would
be c.isier (though not the best solution) to re.id Mrn^- In a
physical sense ^ar= spotlessly Ixrautiiiil (Cant. <i<)/-'i. Spolk-ss
purity belongs to (Jod's commandments (Ps. Itfg). It is used
of moral puriiy (Jobll 4 Ps. 244 73 i).
The NT terms which have to be noticed are (5) oycd? ' pure '
(, = tdhflr), in a physical sense of modesty or chastity (1 Cor.
11 2 Tit. 2 5 I Pet. 3 a); sacred, for ceremonial use (2 .Mace. 13 8) ;
pure — ethically— of men (a Cor. 7 11 Phil. 48 i Tim. 632), of
God (i_ Jn. 3 3), and of his wisdom (Ja. 3 17).
(6) ayicK, worthy of veneration, whether of things connected
with ( '.oil (I.k. 1 4 Heb.9i24Xorofpersons(«-.^.,Johnthe Baptist,
Mk. t> 21 ; Christian disciples, Acts9 13, etc.). Thus the church
—like Israel (Tit. 2 14, see Peculiar Picoile)— is called eSiot
ayiov (cp Ex. l'J6, cmp »ij). oiyiot stands in the same relation
liajCLOi as 13^ (see Lovingkinii.s'ess and cp Assideans) to pIS
(see Thayer, Lex. NT, s.v. ayio's).
(7) oaio« corresponds chiefly with TDPI : see (6) above : (so
also in ®). It is used of men (Tit. l» Heb. 726), of the
Messiah (Acts2 27 1835), of .Messianic blessings (Acts 13 34
toL 6<Tia :^aviS), and of God (Rev. 164 16 5 cp Dt. 324 Heb.
y:x
(8) i«pos, consecrated to the deity, belonging to God, used of
the 'sacred' writings (2 Tim. 815 KV, AV 'holy'). In i Cor.
9 13 tA Ifpi means all the sacred objects pertaining to the
worship of God in the temple. P'or the negatives of these
qualities, see Co.mmon, Pkokane.)
Baudissin's view (above [i]) suits many passages : the
holiness of the k'^disim and the A't'deSotk'^ (see
iDOi-ATKy, § 6), who were certainly found in Israel
very early, can have consisted only in their separation:
either they were dedicated to foreign gods, or pcrha[)S
they were set apart at puberty from the households in
which they grew up. according to a custom which ranges
from the (iold Coast to Tahiti (see Frazer's Golden Hough,
2225^), and never returned to them or entered others.
The hire of the ' harlot ' Tyre (Is. '23 18) is to In; ' holiness
unto Yahwe,' not Ixxause the reviving trade of Tyre is to
be conducted in a Ix^tter spirit than before, but liecause it
is to be taxed at the new Jerusalem (which is presumably
to Ije a staple town of the wool and spice trade) in a
way to absorb all its profits. Again (Zech. I420/. ),
everything in the new Jerusalem after its last great trial
is to be so holy, so perfectly the property of God, that
the very horse-liells will bear the same motto as the
High Priest's mitre ; the pots in which the sacrificial
flesh is Ix)iled for priests are to be as holy as the Ixjwls
which hold the sacrificial blood reserved for God ; the
common cooking pots of Jerusalem are to be holy
enough for pilgrims to boil their sacrifices in. Jerusalem
(Joel 3 [4] 17) is to be 'holy'; no stranger is to pass
1 [See Dr. Di. 264/ ; St. GVl 1 479/ : Movers, Die Phdn.
1 ^Tiff- Henzinger (//.4, { 61) rem.-irks, 'It may !>.-ifely be
affirmed that this form of consecration to the deity, and es-
pecially the violation of nature combined with it, was unknown
to the Israelitish nomads; but also, that with so many other
details of Itaal-worship, it penetrated into the service of Yahwe,
and there spread to a considerable extent.')
837
through. There Ls to l)e through the wilderness of Judah
a ' \\u\y ' way (Is. 3.'>8) in which no uncl<:in .shall walk.
S<j far it seems as if holiness might l>c explained as a
relation rather than a quality. The flesh and blorxl of
the sacrifice are holy Ijcc-ausc they Ijelong to (io«l ; the
pots and bowls have to lie holy that they may hold the
flesh and blood. So. too, the vessels (the Ixxlies ? or
the wallets?) of David's followers (i .S. 'J 1 5 [6]) have
to be holy that they may receive the shewbread, which
is holy because it is set l>efore Gfxl. David (whom all
the writers who speiik of him regard, from their several
pcjints of view, .xs a model of wisdom and jiiety) vouches
for the negative holiness of his men, and any accidental
defilement which he does not know will have had time
to wear off : he appears to think that the shewbread will
sanctify their 'vessels,'' and implies that if they had
been specially sanctified, as for a holy war or a
pilgrimage, they might have eaten the shewbread
though they were not priests.
The ' sanctification ' of persons and things falls under
the s;ime notion. ' Holiness," as Rol)ertsfjn Smith
2. Contagion "'?'•''■'■"• (^'•'>"''-\45o^). is contagious:
of holiness, ^^'^^^/--^'^-^f 'holy thing or a -holy- person
touches becomes holy. VN hen Klijah
casts his mantle over Elisha, the latter has to follow
till Mlijali releases him ; the worshiiijjcrs of liaal,
whose ordinary dress might ' profane ' the house, are
provided with special vestments from the stores of the
house of H.-ial ; otherw ise. when they came outside, their
ordinary dress would make w hatever it touched ' holy to
Rial, ' and unavailable to the former owners. The prii'st
on the great Day of Atonement (the rule is older than the
day) is to take off the holy linen garments and leave
them in the holy place, and to wash his flesh in water
lest any of the contagion of holiness should cling lo
him. In a te.\t which, though l>elonging to the mam
stock of P, seems to represent a later state of the law,
the consecration of .Aaron and his successors seems to
consist in their investiture with the (hereditar)- ?) st.ite
dress of Ex. "28 ; cp Nu. 20 25-28. According to another
view, which is older than Zech. 4 14, the consecration
consists in the anointing (cp Anointi.vg, § 3, r).
The doctrine of the contagion of holiness is at its height
in Ezek. (4624), who provides Sjjecial kitchens where
the priests are to cook the most holy things, and special
chamljers in which they are to eat them, without
bringing them forth into the outer court to sanctify the
people (who are eating their own sacrifices). Other-
wise, they might become the pro|x:rty of the sanctuary,
or at least would be subject to the same obligations as
the priests. For the s.ime reason, it is expressly stated,
they are to leave the holy garments in the holy place,
though all the top of the mountain is most holy. So,
too, a little later, the profane sacrificers'^ of Is. 6.') 5 either
threaten to sanctify the poor who approach them, or
claim to be too holy to l)e approachetl. In Hag. '2 12/
we find a distinct change. The contagion of uncleanness
is stronger than the contagion of holiness. A garment
in which holy flesh is carried does not sanctify ; a
garment which h.is touched the dead pollutes (cp
Egypt, § 19, and see Drk.ss, § 8>. The stricter view is
still presupi)o.sed, at least for the ' most holy ' things ; any
garment sprinkled with blood has to be washed in the
holy place (Lev. 6 27[2o]) ;■' otherwise it would sanctify.
For the same reason the earthen pots used in cooking
are to be broken; brass pots (too valuable to break)
may be usetl, but only after having been rinsed and
scoured — obviously to remove the last vestige of the
1 Everybody dedicated a new house (Dt. 20 5) : was it ever a
custom to dedicate vessels?
* They wish to fors.-ike God's holy mountain and set up a
temple of their own ; they ate rebuked in a «ay to imply tnat
no temple exists or is needed (cp Is. DO xff. and see Isaiah, ii.,
I ").
* Is this the reason why the holy garments are of linen T
Woollen garments would naturally be sent to the fuller at long
intervals.
838
CLEAN AND UNCLEAN, HOLY AND PROFANE
holy food. The rank of the priests is determined
by their right to eat of both the holy and the most
TT .. holy, which are often cited as if they were
of priests.
known, and never descritjed: though we
are told that the ' sin ' and the ' trespass '
offering are most holy and must be eaten in the holy place,
and hence could not be eaten by the households of the
priests. Why these special offerings are specially holy
is discussed elsewhere (see Sackifick). The scribes,
to whom we owe this law, are the fathers of those who
decided that a book was or was not canonical according
as it did or did not ' defile the hands. ' After touching
a really holy book, a man had to wash before touching
common food lest his hands should sanctify it (cp Canon,
§ 4). In the oldest practice, it would seem, it is the
contact with the holy Mesh that is the essence of the con-
secration of priests : the sacrificer who wishes to institute
a priest ' fills his hand. ' ' As sacrifice and slaughter are
nearly synonymous (as late as Is. 346; Isaiah, ii. , § 14),
we seem to find in one of the stories of the golden calf
that the share of the Levites in the slaughter of the
worshipp<Ms is virtually their consecration. ' They
have filled ) our hand forYahw^' (i.e., 'Ye have been
to-day appointed priests'), 'for every man was against
his son and his brother ' (Ex. 3229). '•^ In i K. 1833
Jeroboam fills the hand for the priests of the high
places: in 2Ch. 189 each candidate brings a bullock
and seven rams to fill his hand.^ This seems an echo
of old tradition ; for in Kx. 29 (P), Moses takes only
two rams and a bullock when he fills the hand of Aaron
and his sons : the blood of the ram of the ' fill offering '
is put on the right ear, the right thumb, the right great
toe, of each priest ; the pieces, which as a rule are burnt,
and one of those which in ordinary sacrifices fell to the
priest as his fee, are both laid with cake on the hand of
each priest and waved before God (to assert the priest's
right to the ' wave-breast ' and the ' heave shoulder ' )
and then burnt. There seems to be an afterthought
{v. 26) in which Moses as the officiating priest takes the
wave breast to himself; the priests eat the rest of the
sacrifice (which in ordinary cases the worshipper would
eat) in the holy place. The idea seems to be that jvist
as the worshijjper in the old profession (Dt. 2613)
declares ' I have put away the holy out of my house,'
so the sacrificer passes on the dangerous holy food to a
priest who will take the risk and the privilege of sharing
the table of God, and bear the inicjuity of the people in
their holy things. Possibly the Levites in Ex. 3226^
may point to a time when the priest was not chosen by
the sacrificer, but handselled his office by laying hands
on the holy flesh.
The cjuestion whether ' holiness ' to begin with is
nothing more than ' separateness ' bears very directly
.• ne r> J on the ' holiness ' of God. If holiness is
4. UI vcOu. • ■ 1. , 1-
originally a relation rather than a quality,
if things and persons are holy to God as persons and
acts are righteous before him, then God himself is holy
simply as the centre of the circle of sanctity : if all that
belongs to the sanctuary is holy, how much more he
who dwelleth Ijetween the cherubim, who inhabiteth
the praises of Israel (Ps. 223[4])? He is the object of
worship whom his worshippers ' sanctify. ' He is the
' Holy One ' : ' I am God and not man, the Holy One
1 If Micah (Judg. 17 5) had begun with the Levite we might
suppose that the filling of his hand consisted in his salary. He
is not likely to have given his son a salary ; yet he 'filled his
hands.'
2 [So Racon (Triple Tradition 0/ the Exodus, 137), who re-
marks, ' In the story before us the consecration of the bene Levi
to the priesthood is explained atiologically by their having filled
their hand with the blood of their brethren.' It is doubtful
whether 'they have filled your hand' is the meaning of the Heb.
Theexpression, ' Fill your hands' (if this l)e the meaning), is
admitted, however, by Baudissin (Gesc/i. des AT Prie.<iterih. 60)
to be ' very suspicious." It is always another who fills the new
priest's hand.s. Perhaps in an interpolation (see Kue. Hex. 247)
the phrase may be conceivable.]
* Can we suppose that if anybody was allowed to qualify
Jeroboam found the qualification for all comers?
839
of Israel in the midst of thee' (Hos. 119 cited Is. 126 :
' Rejoice and shout, O inhabitant of Zion, for gre.at is
the Holy One of Israel in the midst of thee'). Yahw6
is the God, the Holy One of the prophet (Hab. I12).
So Jacob (Gen.3l53, cp v. 42 [!•;]) swears by the fear
of his father Isaac — i.e., the God whom his father
feared.
There are other texts, however, in which holiness seems
to be absolute. The men of Ueth-shemesh (i Sam. 620)
ask, 'Who can stand before Yahwe, this holy god?'^
In Am. 42 Yahwe swears by his holiness. Does that
mean his character ? or the reverence due to him ?
The answer will govern the sense in which his name
is holy in 27. In Is. 5 16 (authoritative enough by
whomsoever written) God's being exalted through
judgment and sanctified through righteousness are
closely parallel. The song ascribed to the mother of
Samuel (i S. 2) is an unambiguous echo of the song of
the seraphim (Is. 63) — 'Holy, holy, holy is Yahwe
Sftbaoth, the whole earth is full of his glorj',' — where
holiness and glory are clearly parallel. So, too, in
Jer. 17 12, ' a high throne is the place of our sanctuary,'
and in Ex. 15ii, 'Who is like thee, glorious in holi-
ness, fearful in praises, doing wonders ? '— the holiness,
the praises, the wondgrs, seem to belong to God's ex-
ternal majesty. Throughout the OT God's worshippers
rehearse his acts much oftener than his attributes.
We find his 'righteous acts' as early as the song of
Deborah (Judg. .')ii) ; but not till Jer. 12 1 do we read,
' righteous art thou, Yahwe, when I plead with thee ' ;
where the sense is still half forensic, <as in Ex.927 (JE)
Ps. 51 4 [6]. In Ps. 11 7 we have ' The righteous Yahwe
loveth righteousness.' The parallel between holiness
and glory is reinforced by the contrast between holy
and profane, for profane certainly seems to mean what
is cast down to be trodden under foot (E/.ek. 28 16, ' Cast
thee as profane out of the holy mount'; Ps. 8939 [40],
' Thou hast profaned his crown to the ground ' ; cp 44).
Israel, again (Dt. 2619), is made high above all people,
that it may be a holy people.
The demand that Israel shall be holy is common to
every stage and aspect of the Law. In Ex. 22 31 [30]
5 Of Israel '^^' '^""^^ Dt. I421, it is the ground on
■ which Israel is to abstain from all meat
not killed by men for human food ; in Dt. 14i/. Israel
as a holy people is forbidden to make to the dead
blood- or hair-offerings, intended, doubtless, to keep up
a physical comnmnion with them (cp Escii.\TOLOGV).
The spiritual tie between God and his peculiar people
who are his children is not to be impaired by a rite the
sense of which was still clear when the book which
Hilkiah found was written, though in Jer. 166 the rite
seems harmless and unmeaning, .\gain, the tithe of
the third year is profane if any of it has been ' eaten in
mourning ' or ' given for the dead ' (Dt. 2614). Are we
to think of the mere unluckiness of .any thing connected
with the dead (Hos. 94)? or of some form of worship,
as in Is. 819? Consecration for one mode of worship
would be a defilement for another. In I^v. I927 (cp
21 5) we have the law against cuttings for the dead pre-
ceded by a law against an Arab tonsure, which probably
marked consecration to an Arab god. This might go
back to Hezekiah, who, according to Sennacherib [KB
294), entertained Arab mercenaries. Gratian adopted
the dress of his Alan guard. If we suspect with
Robertson Smith * an invasion of Arab totemism in the
t Holiness in the sarne sense is a.scribed to other gods ; Esh-
munazar of Zidon on his sarcophagus (circa 400 B.C.) speaks of
the holy gods in the same way as do Nebuchadrezzar and the
queen-mother in the Book of Daniel,
2 [' Here, therefore, we have a clear ca.se of the re-emergence
into the light of day of a cult of the most primitive tjtcm type
which had been banished for centuries from public religion, but
must have been kept alive in obscure circles of private or jocal
superstition, and sprang up again on the rising of the national
faith, like some noxious weed in the courts of a deserted temple'
^'. 357)' See the context, and cp Che. /ntr. Is. 368^]
taitn, I
(/f5(2),
840
CLEAN AND UNCLEAN, HOLY AND PROFANE
time of Kzek. (87-n), I^v. IQaS will forbid the tattooing
of totem marks.
In the lUM)k of the Covenant and in Oeuterononiy
the holiiu'ss of the covenant people is demanded, so to
6. In the Codes. '^''
•ak,
dentally, and without ex-
press reference to the holiness of the
covenant (jod. If one were to try to find a keynote for
the older lK)<)k it would be 'Justice'; for Deuteronomy
perhaps ' I.oving-kindness. 'hcsed,' the dutiful love of
the worshipjxT to his (iod, which includes kindness
for Gotl's sake to men (see also Li)VIN(;kinijnkss).
' Holiness ' is certainly the keynote of the oldest stratum
of the l^vitical law (see Lkvitk i:s).
Deuteronomy is clearly a development, as compared
with the H<K)k of the Covenant ; a deeper insight into
the vocation of the chosen people has \xxn gained. Is
the Law of Holiness a development in the same sense,
compareil with Deuteronomy? The interval between
Kzekiel and Jeremiah is shorter than that Ixjtween
Deuteronomy and the Book of the Covenant ; yet
F.zekiel is almost as full of the ideas of H {i.e., the
\j\\\ of Holiness) as Jeremiah of those of D. Has he
inherited a relatively old tradition ? Short as H is,
it is full of variations and repetitions. Would not
an elder or a younger contemjxjrary of Ez.ekiel, giving
expression to a ncsv religious movement that had grown
out of Josiah's covenant, have imparted more unity to
his work ? Again, in more than one way H seems to
be older. No reader of Frazer (see especially Golden
Boui^h, 1279 n. 2) would think the law which forbids
the reaping of corners later than the law against gleaning
(Lev. \9<)f.). Nor is the holiness required of priests
yet extended to the whole j)eople ; thus if a layman eats
.I'^aa he is defiled for the clay and must wash his clothes ;
but for priests the prohibition is absolute. There seems,
too, to be a recognition of other gods (Dt. 24 15/ ) : if a
man curses his own god he shall bear his iniquity (i.e.,
he must not come to the priest of the God of Israel to
make atonement for him). Certainly in D the demand
for ' holiness ' is based on the more characteristic de-
mand for monolatrj', whilst in H, though the demand
for monolatry is not superfluous — Israel, we are told,
went after the Shedim (see Dkmons, § 4) in the wilder-
ness (Lev. 17 7) — it is not fundamental. The giving of
the seed to Moloch is treated as analogous to the moral
abominations of the nations, for which the land spewed
them out, rather than to turning away to idols or
making molten gods. It was a profanation of God's
holy name just Ixicause those under his wrath (Ezek.
20 25/) regarded it as part of his service. Upon
the whole, the demand for holiness in H seems to
be an intensification of the demand that worshippers
shall sanctify themselves, which we may suppose the
better priests to have insisted upon as long as there
were feasts in Isr.iel. In many ways the holiness is
still external : 'ye shall be holy, for I Yahwe am holy,"
appears (Lev. 20 26) as a sanction for the law against
abominable food (cp 1144/}; in 19 2 218 the con-
text takes off nothing from the text. These passages
mark the culmination, not the starting |X)int, of a line
of teaching. Generally the sanction of the precept is,
' I am Yahw6,' ' I am Yahw^ your god,' ' I am Yahw6
your god who brought you out of I'gypt,' ' I am Yahw6
who sanctify you.' Logically and theologically God's
holiness is the source of all others : he is holy in himself
and therefore what he takes for his must be holy too ;
but possibly, as Koliertson Smith held, holiness may in
the beginning have been regarded as a mysterious
virtue inherent in things external to the worshipper — in
trees, in waters, in stones, in the mysterious animal
life of well-wooded and well- watered sjwts, — each of
which may have served to suggest a higher power
beyond the phenomena in which it was first recognised.
Historically, however, the evidence that holiness is an
attribute of the object of worship is neither so early nor
so copious as the evidence that holiness is a relation
84X
bringing the worshipper and his holy things into a new
sphere with something worship|x;d at its centre.
Obviously ' holy and profane,' ' clean and unclean,' is
a cross division ; holy things and |x.'rsons are, or may
7 Cleana.ndun **' ^ unavailable for common life as
Clean animals '^ ^^""^ ^"''^ unclean, though, on the
other hand, holiness necessarily pre-
sujiposcs and includes cleanness. Again, uncleanness
often seems, like holiness, to have something super-
natural atxjut it : unclean animals often seem to Ijc
' alxjnjinablc,' like ' idols ' ; the uncleanness of the dead,
and of women at certain times, is as likely to savour
of awe as of disgust.
In historical times clean and unclean beasts are those
which are lit or unfit for food rather than for sacri-
8. Quadrupeds. l"'^\<^'-'^,^7*-'^'--'' ^•'""■' § "):. ^f
* *^ the law of clean and unclean anmials
is puzzling.* The law which limited the eatable
quadru]x.'ds to the old order of ruminants (with the
exception of the camel) was valuable incidentally from
the hygienic point of view. If this was the origin of
the law, it must have rested rather on instinct than
on observation ; at most, shepherds and herdsmen
may have noticed what Ixsasts they found feeding in the
pastures of the wilderness, and decided that these were
as fit for food as their own flocks and herds. All the
patriarchs have camels, and Rachel ((ien. 31 34 [L]) hides
the teraphim in the camel's furniture : in later, perhaps
more historical, times camels seem to Ix-long to aliens
(cj) C.AMKL, § 2_f.). In the oldest stratum of the story
of CJideon (Judg. 825) we find the gold rings round the
necks of the camels of the Midianites ; in the oldest
stratum of the story of David (i S. 30 17) 400 of the
Amalekites escaj^e on camels. As far as we know, camel-
riders have always killed, eaten, and sacrificed their
camels, though the meat is inferior to beef and mutton.
Possiblythe camel was unclean because it was the domestic
animal of alien nomads. If so, the rule ' whatever
divideth the hoof and cheweth the cud shall be clean '
may have been settled before the question of eating camels
l)ccame practical. This question was decided by the ob-
-servation that the camel does not strictly divide the hoof,
or at least rests part of its weight on an undivided pad.
The express prohibition of eating hares, rock-badgers,
and swine, as food, is curious. No reason except a
possible connection with totemism has yet been suggested
why the rock-badger was forbidden ; and for the prohi-
bition of the hare we have only guesses — perhaps it is
worth while to mention the idea that hares' flesh is
unhealthy. The uncleanness of switie is at its height
when they are kept in sties and left dirty ; but in O T and
NT times they seem to have fed in herds out of doors.
Compared with sheep and goats, they are fond of mud
— but so are buffaloes in mcKlern Palestine, which are
not regarded with the same horror as swine. On the
other hand, tribes of herdsmen and shepherds have much
more in common with each other than with s\\ ineherds,
and if we are to look for a natural explanation of the
abhorrence of swine we niay look for it here : the droves
of swine of the alien were abominable to the flocks and
herds of the I lebrew. As for the actu.al feeling, whatever
its cause, it is significant that in Harran, traditionally
the last station of Abraham on his way to Canaan and the
land to which Jacob returned, the land where he won his
wives and his wealth, swine were sacrificed once a year
and eaten only then. A sacrifice which is, for whatever
1 With regard to sacrifices it is men that are clean or unclean.
When men sacrifice of the flock and the herd, only the clean
may eat (when Saul misses David at table the first thought that
occuni to him is ' he is unclean ') : that wa.s the_ common law till
slaughter without .sacrifice was allowed in D in the interest of
the one sanctuary. Of game, on the other hand, of the roebuck
and the hart the clean and the unclean may eat alike — though
possibly there is a trace of a blood-oflTering by hunters in the
rule in H (I^v. 17 13) that the blood is to be not simply poured
out but covered with earth— a prescription which might be either
a survival or a development.
« [Cp Dr. Dt. 164 WRS OT/C<^) 366 ; Now. HA 1 116/:]
84a
CLEAN AND UNCLEAN, HOLY AND PROPANE
reason, rare, is also mysterious, awful, and potent.
Dogs too were sacre<l in Harran ; and both swine and
dogs seem to tigure in the profane sacrifices of Is. 65
and 66.1 See Dou, § 4.
Whatever the reason for the express prohibition of
camels, hares, rock-badgers, and swine, the prohibition
is as old as any part of the law which we can trace ;
but the list of prohibited animals in Lev. 11 29^ (P) has
integral relation to the rest of the law ; the weasel, the
mouse, and different kinds of lizards are ' the uncleanest
with you of swarming things' ; except dry sowing seed,
everything that comes into contact with their carcase
is unclean.
The rule is meant to work: one of these abominations does
not defile a whole cistern or fountain ; every earthenware vessel
which they touch is to be broken ; other vessels are to be washed
in water and lo be unclean until even ; the water which washes
the vessels pollutes all meat on which it falls ; any drink in the
polluted vessels is of course unclean.
Two questions arise : Why should people wish to eat
weasels, mice, and different kinds of lizards? and why
are these charged with special uncleanness? The
traditional answer to the second is that they are in a
sense domestic vermin which haunt houses and are
always getting into whatever is stored there, and so are
worse than vermin out of doors ; but, as most com-
mentators think that one of the lizards enumerated is
an iguana or a land crocodile 3 or 4 ft. long (see Liz.vkd
[i]), the explanation has to bear a heavy strain. If
Robertson Smith's theory of totemism is established,
much will become clear. ^ The elders of Israel who wor-
shipped ' creeping things ' in ' chambers of imagery '
(Ezek. 810^) made it necessary to cultivate a special
religious horror of their low-class totems : they were at
the same stage as the Harranians, who are said to have
worshipped field-mice. Indications of high-class totems,
however, are not wanting ; see Leop.akd, Wolf.
There is neither a category nor a list of clean birds :
of the unclean, as enumerated, most are uneatable —
either birds of prey or feeders on carrion.
The lapwing is especially forbidden : the only
possible reason yet discovered is that it haunts marshy
places and that its flesh has sometimes a bad smell.
Nothing is said one way or other of doves or pis^eons, —
which is remarkable, as they do not ap[)ear at Solomon's
table, and, though they are the only birds which, as far
as we know, were sacrificed, they were used for sacrifices
of which the worshipper at least did not eat. In Syria,
at any rate, they were always associated with the worship
of Astarte, and, wherever that worship spread to the
West, they went with it, and according to Lucian [Dca
Syra, 14, 54) none of the worshippers at Hierapolis
ventured to eat or touch them — they were too holy, — and
whoever touched them was ivayq^ or ' unclean ' for a
day, and it was a question whether swine were ' holy '
or 'abominable.' Probably the question of clean or
unclean birds was only of secondary importance : it was
not easy to keep ducks or geese ; there were no cocks
(see Cock) or hens; the 'fowls of heaven' generally
appear as feeding on sacrifices or corpses ; the ' fowler '
(who appears as early as Hos. 98) probably caught small
birds for the rich.*
The prohibition of ' flying swarming things that go on
all fours ' looks as if at first it included locusts, the only
9. Birds.
10. Insects.
insects which anybody could wish to eat ;
if so, subsequent scribes discovered that,
as they leap on their hind legs and do not strictly go on
1 [See WR.S Rcl. Setn.Ci^ igojf. Were these sacrificiaLrites
practised by the early Samaritans? Cp Che. /n/r. Is. 367.]
2 [Cp Stade, Th. LZC, i8g6, n. i, col. 10, who remarks
against Nowack that ' W. R. Smith's hypothesis has the special
merit of explaining why certain .^nimals are sacred, and why
certain kinds of flesh may not be eaten. The theory that these
animals were regarded as the property of the (iodhead only
throws the question back. P'or how came people to embrace
such a remarkable theory?' For Nowack's view see his HA
1 118.I
3 See Fowl, 81. In i S. 2'»2o, if the text is right, partridge-
hunting seeii» to be beneath the dignity of a king. See
Partridok*.
843
all fours, they might lie eaten in all stages of their
growth.
The law of aquatic food is clear : ' whatever hath fins
and scales ' is clean ; this limits the dietary to true fishes,
11 Fish ^"''' ^''i^"? these, excludes eels and shads, —
' popular and common articles of food in Egyi>t,
Greece, and Italy. According to Pliny (//yVxxxii. lOi),
Numa thought fish without scales unfit for funeral
banquets ; Piankhi Meri-.Amen thought well of a king of
Lower Egypt who ate no fish ; according to Lucian {Dea
Syra, 54), fish in general is forbidden food. The Law
knows nothing of sacrificial fish. Perhaps the prohibition
of fish was general, and the permission of what had fins
and scales an exception ; see Fish, § 8 _^ There is
certainly a tendency to identify what is clean and what is
fit for sacrifice. Thus Hosea (9 3) regards food eaten
p. . out of the land of Israel as unclean, because
it cannot be purified by acceptable sacrifice
to the God of Israel ; in Amos 7 17 a foreign land is
polluted for the same reason ; and in H the fruit of all
trees is to be uncircumcised the first three years (i.e.,
the fruit is to be picked off as fast as it forms while the
trees are establishing themselves ?) ; for the fourth year
the whole crop is to l)e holy to praise Yahwe withal [i.e. ,
to be used for sacrificial feasts). There is no distinction
anywhere between clean and unclean herbs ; the first
fruits of all are to be offered, though only corn and wine
and oil figure in sacrifice. In P (Gen. 1 29) every herb
. _.~ . and tree that yieldeth seed is given for
. ^^^^^ meat from the first ; so after the flood is
P ■ all animal food ; ^ as sacrifice was instituted
(according to P) for the first time at Sinai, the distinction
lx.'tween clean and unclean animals was still in abeyance.
The distinction between clean and sacrificial animals
which is presupposed throughout D is perhaps to be
ex[)lained by the transition from the nomadic state. If
Levi the sacred tribe be a metronymic formed from
Leah the wild cow, wild animals must have been sacred
once (sec Lk.mi).
The law of clean and unclean meats obtained special
prominence in the Greek period : the first proof of the
religious fidelity of Daniel and his companions is their
resolution not to defile themselves with the king's meat ;
when Antiochus Epiphanes resolved to alxjlish ' Jewish
particularism ' eating swine's flesh was the test of con-
formity. If we go back fifty or seventy years, Joseph,
the enterprising revenue farmer, whom his namesake
idealised (Jos. Ant. xii. 4 10) as Machiavelli did Ca-sar
Borgia, had clearly no scruple of the kind ; ^ yet even
he, though his kindred in the next generation [ib. 5i)
were prominent on the heathen side and he himself
fell in love with a pagan [ih. 8), was heartily thankful
when his own niece was substituted for her in order to
save him from polluting his seed among the heathen. A
psalmist (see Ps. 141), who still instinctively draws his
imagery from a time before the institution or revival of
tlie evening burnt sacrifice, may be an older witness for
the view (hardly to be traced in Ezra or Xehemiah) that
the law of clean and unclean meats is given to separate
Israel from the heathen : he appears to be thinking
simply of fellowship at the table, not, like the author of
Is. 6.'), of sacrificial communion. If so, a Maccabean
editor may have revived a psalm which suited the times.
Probably older psalms from 18 onwards lay the stress
rather on cleanness of hands and innocency ; in Is. 6 5
the unclean lips of prophets and people are generally
explained as relating to sins of speech, after the analogy
of Zeph. 89 13. After the destruction of the temple,
and still more after Palestine ce;\sed to be the centre
of Jewish life, the law of clean and unclean was less
zealously observed, though portions of it prove still
1 Observe that in P's account of the deluge there is no dis-
tinction between clean and unclean beasts ^Dhi.uge, 8 12 ^).
2 His son Hyrcanus (Jos. Ant. xii. 49) is the first person we
know of whom they tell tlie story of the wise man wliose place
at the king's board is piled with bones by enviou.s detractors.
CLEAN AND UNCLEAN, HOLY AND PROFANE
14. Human
uncleanness.
to be of considerable sanitary value. See Food,
Human uncleanness' is of two kinds. It may arise
from external contact, or fron» something in the man or
woman who is unclean. The unclean-
ness of (li-ath falls under both ; the dead
is unclean and makes others unclean.
Disciises like leprosy or issue, natural processes like
menstruation and prob;ibly copulation, cause unclean-
ness too. If, as W'ellhauscn holds (T// 151 ; but cp
//(/■ 108), Ix'v. 12a implies Lev. J.'iig, the law of un-
cleanness after childlx^iring might lie an extension by
analog)' of the older law of the uncleanness of menstrua-
tion.' If so, as the Vendidad h.-\s much to say respect-
ing the uncleanness of childbetl, we might sus|)ect
Persian intluence — the rather that there is no hint of it
in the older Hebrew literature, w hile the ' menstruous
cloth' apiK-'ars (Is. 3O22) in a passage still generally
assigned to the .Assyrian period. Cp I'AMII.Y, § n.
Perhaps a common element in all cases of unclean-
ness not caused by external cont.nct is that the unclean
in .some way is disgusting or alarming. The law of
leprosy is not to be e.\plained from the risk of contagion :
ordinary sickness, even pestilence, does not occasion
uncleanness ; the lejxT is ' unclean ' because he is
smitten of God, just as the madman in Moslem coun-
tries is ' holy," and epilepsy was the It pit viffoi in
Greece. In general, [x-rsons who are in a state to
make ordinary people shrink from them, because their
ncighlKJurhood is uncomfortable or terrifying, are un-
clean.
Casual uncleanness, according to P in its final state,
does not require an offering for its removal. It is
IB Pi 'fi enough to observe the prescribed term
y ' of seclusion, generally 'until the even,'
and the prescrilK-d washing ; if either
Ix; neglected and the unclean negligently or ignorantly
intrude among the clean, a 'sin-offering' is necessary.
This is Uillmaim's inference from Lev. 02. According
to Nu. 5 2, the unclean is excluded not only from * the
congregation,' but also from 'the camp,' — i.e., not only
from the temple, but also from, at any rate, walled
towns. No offering is prescribed for the menstruous
woman ; but after childbed and after issues a ' sin offer-
18 f a of '"^ '^ prescribetl, whilst the leper has also
'. to bring a ' trespass ' offering before he
P ' can come into ' the congregation,' though
he is admitted to ' the camp ' after the performance of
an (older?) rite with two birds, running water, cedar,
hyssop, and scarlet. After he comes into the camp he
must still wait several days before he comes to his
' tent. ' Here it is hard to doubt that the law has a
sanitary purpose : it imposes a short quarantine to
make sure that the cure is complete, and not improbably
to guard against the hereditary transmission of the dis-
ease. The ' trespass ' offering of the le[x.'r looks like a
' development ' ; it is necessary to assert expressly that
it belongs to the priest ( l^v. 1 4 33) ; the leper is anointed
with the bl(jod and oil of the trespass offering, exactly
as .\aron and his sons (Lev. 822) are anointed with the
blood of the ram of consecration, whose flesh is boiled
for Aaron and his sons to eat, while the ' wave breast '
falls to Moses as the sacrificer's fee. Possibly the re-
consecration of the le[x.'r .is one of the holy people by
sacrificial blood is older than the theory that he w.as not
to eat of the sacrifice. The sin and the burnt-offering
prescribed after all the graver kinds of uncleanness are
to 'make an atonement,' which may imply that the
uncleanness was a [x-nal infliction, though this is
nowhere state«l. The (older?) rite, which reatlmits the
leper to the camp, is the only one prescribed for the
cleansing of a house from the plague of leprosy, whilst
1 [Cp WRS Kfi. Sem.d) 428, 447/I
2 .-Vccoriling to surviving folklore, many things will not 'keep'
if made or handled by a person in a state of Levitical ' uoclean-
845
leprosy in a garment, if it ceases to spread, is sufficiently
I purgcHl by two washings.' Much of the rite is still
transjjarent. One of the birds is to Ije hcltl over an
I earthen vessel full of living water into w hich the blood
I of the dead bird falls ; the living bird, the cedar, the
I scarlet, and the hyssop are to Ije dipjietl in the water and
blood ; the leper who is to \>c cleansetl is to Ije s[)rinkled
with lx)th ; and then the living bird is to fly away with
the plague of leprosy, as the women with the wind in
their wings (Zech. 59) fly away with the wickedness of
the land of Israel, or as the goat for .Azazel (see Azazel)
carries away the sin of the congregation into the wilder-
ness. Probably the living bird is dijjix-d in the blood
and water to establish a kind of bkxxl brotherh'xxl
between it and the leper. If the blotnl and water were
on the leper alone, the relc-:ise of the living bird might
symbolise that he who was hitherto shut up in Israel
was now free as the fowls of the air. Living water is,
of course, a natural element of all purifications ; Hyssop
iq.v.), certainly a popular means of purification (Ps.
51 7 [9]). ixccording to Pliny (/AVxvi. 7(1) is good for
the complexion, and according to others is a sajx)-
naceous herb. What are the cedar and the scarlet
for ? Cedar wood is aromatic ; the bright c(jlour of
scarlet may betoken strength and splendour. In the
ancient domestic rites of India {SHE bO 281) children are
made to touch gold and j^hi-e, that when they gr<nv up
they may have riches and fo<xl. Remote as the analogy
is, we may ask. Is the leper, in virtue of the rite, to
dwell in cedar and be clothed with scarlet ? Sie Ci;u.\R.
The cedar, hyssop, and scarlet appear again in the
mysterious rite of the Red Heifer whose ashes are used
17. Red Heifer, '"'"■ '^'^ ''"'''''' °^ separation. It had
etc.
a whole tre;itise to it.self in the
Mishna, where its qualifications were
elaborated to such a point that at last R. Nisin said
that no one since the days of Moses had l)een able to
find one fit to Ix; slain. 'I'here is an analogous rite in
D (Dt. 21 if. ) When the land is defiled with blood the
ordinary way of putting away bloodguiltiness is to shed
the bkxKl of the slayer. If he cannot be found the
land is made clean again with the blood of an unyoked
heifer killed, either by beheading or by breaking the
neck (the meaning of the verb 'draph is not clear), in a
barren valley with a running stream in it, where the
elders of the city nearest the place where the dead man
is found wash their hands of bloodguiltiness over the
heifer. A barren valley is chosen, according to Dill-
mann, Kwald, and Keil. in order that the purifying
blood may not be uncovered and lose its virtue ; according
to Robertson Smith (AV/. iV;//.<-' 371 ), to avoid all risk
of contact with sacrosanct flesh. We might ask, Would
running water in a fertile valley used for such a rite
pollute the fields of offerings? The goat for AzAzel is
sent into the wilderness. If the heifer is Ix-headed. her
blood is almost certainly intended to 'cover' the blood
of the slain. If not, are we to think of Sauls first
muster (i S. 1432^)? Do the elders by implication
invoke on themselves the doom of the heifer if their pro-
testation is false ? What is the meaning of the obviously
popular rite (see Covkn.wt, § 5) of dividing victims
when a covenant is made (Gen. 1.5 10 Jer. 34 18/. ) ? The
rite of the Red Heifer is more general in its intention.
Its principal use is not to do away blcxxlguilliness, but
to cleanse those who are detiled by cont.act w ith the dead.
Incidentally we learn that it w.as requireil for the purifi-
cation of the vessels of all spoil which will not abide the
fire (N'u. 3I33) ; and the Levites on their consecration
are to \y& purified by what is probably the same, ' the
w.ater of sin ' (it. 87). [.\aron and his sons (Kx. 'J94 and
parallels) are washed at their consecration with common
1 Xeitherof these l.iwsl)clongs to the main stnck of P, though,
if they were later developments, we should expect that the
cleansmg of a house, at any rate, would have required an ofTcriiig.
In I) the dedication of a house has all th*- look of a survivu,
and was probably accomplished at one time by sacrifice.
846
CLEAN AND UNCLEAN
water.] Both texts are late, and represent the views
of antiquaries rather than the claims of legists with
practical interests to satisfy. The tendency to ascribe
the whole law to Moses naturally brought with it an
increasing zeal for the oldest rites that could be recol-
lected ; it does not follow that the water of separation
was invented in or after the Exile, because the occasions
for its application were prescribed then. Possibly, as
the Persians removed the uncleanness of the dead by
elaborate ceremonies with ,i,^Si/i'-s, the priests thought
that in similar cases water hallowed with the ashes of
a cow would be specially efficacious. The law of a
purification on the third and the seventh day (Xu.
19ii-i3 or 14-16?) looks older than the original law of
the Red Heifer, which seems to end at v. 10 ; in v. \t ff.
we have the rule for its application.
The rite itself is as obscure as its history. . For one
thing, at every stage its ministers must be clean, and
they become uncle.in by their ministry ; the priest who
su])erintcncls the burning is unclean till the even ; so is
he who burns ; he who collects the ashes (though they
must be laid up in a clean place) is unclean ; so is he
who sprinkles or even touches the water, which is the
one means which can make those defiled by contact with
the dead clean. Naturally, we suppose that those who
were ' unclean ' at the stage of the law implied in our
records were ' sanctified ' at an earlier stage. Twice
the heifer [vv. 9 17) is called a sin-offering. The ritual
has interesting analogies with, and differences from, that
of other sin-offerings. Like the sin-offering for the
priest's own sin, and that for the sin of the congregation,
it is to be burnt outside the camp — hide, dung, and all.
Unlike them it is to be killed, not in the place of the
burnt offering, but without the camp. There is another
contrast. The blood and fat of all sin-offerings, includ-
ing the sin-offerings for priest and congregation and the
bullock offered at the consecration of Aaron, is presented
in the sanctuary ; the blood seems specially used there,
as in the ritual of the Day of Atonement, to rehallow the
altar profaned by sin. The heifer's blood is not brought
into the sanctuary ; it is sprinkled towards it seven times.
But for this we might suppose that the uncleanness of
death was driven away from the camp or the city and
burnt with the heifer ; but her blood is hallowing — else
why is it sprinkled toward the holy place ? Are all
these rites compromises between the old custom of wor-
shipping outside the city, which maintained itself as
late as David (2 Sam. 1032), and the new custom of
hallowing the city by a sanctuary ? As late as the As-
syrian period (Is. 3:5 14, if this be Isaiah's), the close
neighbourhood of an ever-burning altar made many
uncomfortable.^ For this reason, among others, the
rarer and more solemn sacrifices were still performed
outside. Then perhaps the old rite in the old place
took on a new meaning. Kings were, as a rule, buried
in the city, and it was customary (Jer. 345) to make a
burning for them.'^ In 2 Ch. 16 14 we read of a very
great burning for Asa : the Chronicler, who may be
quoting a relatively old authority, thinks of perfumes,
at which Jeremiah does not hint. Were valuables Ijurnt
in honour of kings? Have the cedar, the hyssop, and
the scarlet burnt with the heifer any analogy to such burn-
ings? Is the putting away of the heifer with something
of a royal funeral an almost unconscious reminiscence
of a well-nigh forgotten cultus of sacred animals? Is
the red heifer the last trace of a cow goddess (see Calf,
Goi.dk.n)? There are, of course, many instances .of
mortal representations of the Godhead, honoured for a
time, and then ceremoniously put away. In any case,
the efficacy of the heifer's ashes seems to lie in the fact
that they reconsecrate rather than purge the unclean.
All Israel were originally hallowed (Ex. 248 JE) by the
1 Have we a trace of the same feeling in Is. 32 19? Is not a
fenced city on God's Holy Hill at once superfluous when God
delivers his people, and also in some sense profane ?
2 Cp Abodah Zarah, 1 3 and the Gemara.
847
CLEOPATRA
blood of the covenant ; so the priests are hallowed by the
blood of the ' fill offering ' ; so the blood of the atone-
ment rehallows the holy place and the altar that has
been profaned ; so the leper is rehallowed after his
uncleanness with blood, and the ashes of a peculiar sin-
offering serve the same end. On the other hand, water
and fire (except in Is. &$f.) seem simply to remove ex-
ternal pollutions, not to renew communion with aholy life.
Robertson Smith {Kinshi/> ['85I, Kcl. Sf»t.Ci) ['94]), and
Weilhau.sen (,/iesU Arai. Hi-idSi) [97]) are the Ix-st authorities
for the Semitic world. The subject is best
18. Literature, studied from a comparative point of view, for
which Fr.-izer's Golden Bouk:h ('00) is indis-
pensable. The critical treatment of the subject is of recent
growth and is capable of further development. CpJ.C. Matthes,
'De begrippen rein en onrein in het OT," /"A. 7. 33 293-318 r99].
The only earlier work of importance is Spencer's he Lcgihus
Hebrirorum Rituatihus (Cambridge 1727) — see Robertson
Smith's estimate in liel. SeiiiA'^) p. vi. g. A. Si.
CLEMENT (kAhmhc [Ti.WH]), a Philippian Chris-
tian who had taken an active part in building up the
church at Philippi, in which he had the co-operation of
Euodia and Syntyche (Phil. 43). In the allusion to him
there is nothing to imply that he was a companion of
Paul in his journeyings, or to justify his traditional
identification (in the Western Church) with the Roman
Clement.
In the list of the 'seventy disciples" compiled by tlie Pseudo-
Dorotheus he is spoken of as having been the first of the Gentiles
and ( Ireeks to believe in Christ, and as having afterwards become
bishop of Sardica. The Pseudo-Hippolytus has Sardinia, for
which, however, we should probably read Sardica.
CLEOPAS (KAeonAC [Ti. WH], abbrev. from
KAeonATROc). according to Lk. 24 18 the name of one
of the two disciples who accompanied the risen Jesus to
Emmaus. The narrative in question, however, is one
of the latest of those which attached themselves to the
accounts of the resurrection of Jesus. Paul, who had
spent fifteen days in the society of Peter (Gal. 1 18) and
was strongly interested in establishing the fact of the
resurrection, knows nothing of it. Byeira . . . fireira
. . . iirura . . . eira . . . ^(txo-tov^ oi i Cor. 15 5-8 he
unquestionably intends to enumerate exhaustively all the
appearances of the risen Lord which were known to
him ; and he had the most urgent occasion to do so,
for the resurrection of Jesus had been brought in
question at Corinth. The narrative of the third evan-
gelist conveys in a highly concrete form the thought
that it is from Jesus himself we receive the knowledge
that his Passion and Resurrection had been foretold by
Moses and all the prophets (2425-27). In reality,
however, this conviction must have been gradually
reached as the result of a prolonged and evcr-deeijening
study of the OT by the whole church. That it is in
the Eucharist that his presence is made known to his
church is, in like manner, an experience still repeated
in every renewal of the act. Here too, accordingly,
the thought, that in the nearness of Christ as experi-
enced in the sacrament which commemorates his death
we have our most convincing assurance that he truly
lives, finds concrete expression.
After what has been said, it becomes a question
whether Cleopas is a historical person at all, though
there is nothing in the mere name to suggest that he
is not. There is no sufficient ground, philological or
other, for regarding him as a veiled representation of
the apostle Paul.
Several MSS of the Itala and Vg. , as also the Coptic
and the Armenian versions, read K\e6iraj or KXfojTa?
in Jn. 1925 also ; but if this were the original reading,
the substitution of the more difficult form KXwTras
would be incomprehensible. For the evidence that
different [persons are intended in Jn. and in Lk., and
that the confusion of the two is due to later writers,
see Clui'As, § 5/ P. W. s.
CLEOPATRA (kAcottatpa [ANV]), i. , sister and
wife of Ptolemy Philometor, Est. 1 1 1.
1 RV 'then . . . then . . . then . . . then . . . last of all," and
AV ' then . . . after that . . . after that . . . then . . . last of all.'
848
I
CLEOPHAS
2. Daughter of no. i (i Mace. lOs?) : see Ptolemies.
CLEOPHAS (kAcohac [Ti.WH]). Jn. 19 25 AVf.
AV'"k.' and KV C j.oi'.vs (</.v.).
CLOAK (ci.oKK).
For '^'VP, »»/<•'//, ill Is. 59 17 see Tunic. In this passage the
fMt'l/ was a milit.-iry over-garment, and cloak well expresses
this.
Kor ifiartor (see cs|>ecially Mt. 840; in ^n. 19 a 5, AV 'robe,'
KV 'garment'), the outside mantle {fiailtuni, as dislin|;uishcd
from the \itviv or tunica), representing the Hebrew kuttdntth,
see Mantlk.
Other garments rendered cloak are the Macedonian \ka.^.\)^,
or military cluak of 2 M.ncc. 12^5 RV ('coat' AV), and the
^(Aotiff , or travelling cloak of 3 'I im. 4 13. See Man ILE.
CLOPAS (KAtonAC [Ti.WH]). This name cannot
be (Ictived from the same Hebrew (Aramaic) word as
&A<t)Ai()C-
In the first place, the vocalisation is not the same : Clopas
would recjuire some such form as 'S7n, while Alphxus pre-
1. Name supposes 'oSn or 'Byn (see ALl'HiKUs). In the
perhaps second place, as regards pji •'•'l that is certainly
p 1^ known is that it licciimes k at the end and in the
UreeK. „,iii,|ic of certain words (2 Ch. 30i Nch. 36 [</>a<r.icl,
C.en. 2J24 \tafitK\, Josh, li) 6 [laiuKa]). True, it l.ts lK.-eii con-
jectured that the same holds good at the beginning of words
(H. I,ewy, Die Sent. Ftt-nuiivorter im Griech., 1895, pp. 17 27
51 1 10 119 137; add, conversely, K-nosSn as tr.-xnsliteration of
icA<i//vipa). Ihis hardly conies into consideration, however, in
the present case, for a Hebrew (or Aramaic) derivation is never
probable in the case of a word beginning with two consonants.
In Greek transliteration of Hebrew names, initial sli^nvd is
always represented by a full vowel (e.g., /KIDtj', Sofiou^A) : tlie
opposite instances given by Lewy(iiyr, 34, 45> 54. 59. 69, 98, 105,
118, 122 /., 129, 206, 211, 2467;) are more or less doubtful,
and relate to words which were susceptible of such a
modification in the transference as was hardly possible
in the cisc of biblical proper
versions of the N'l" betray no consciousness that both names
are derived from a ci miiion Semitic source : with tlitin
the initial letter of 'oA^atot is always n(or «), of (cAwn-os invari-
ably p.
It is not likely that »cXwiray is derived by metathesis
from Ks'^p ( ' club ' ) ; nor is there the least certainty
that /(Xwiras is a contraction from K\ibira.%.
On purely Creek soil, .-it any rate, icAeo- when contracted would
become either kA«w- (e.g., KXfVKpdrq^, esi«;cially in l)oric) or
kAov- (as BtoSmfmi becomes 0ovSu>poi ; see Meisterhans,
Granim. d. atlisclun Inschrr. § 19, and cp Theudas). At
the same time, the contraction of (cAtdn-a? into icAojjras must be
admitted to be at least possible, inasmuch as we know of no
Greek word from which the syllable icAa>- can come. In this
case the original form of the name will be KAcoTrarpov. Fur this
reason, the .nccentualion (cAuiiros is preferable to KAuiirat,
especially as the accent is allowed to retain its original place in
icAcbirat. '
In Jn. 1925, the only place where the name occurs i.i
NT, Clopas is mentioned as somehow related to a
« u r «i certain Mary. Hegesippus ( Kus. HE
2- Mary Of Clo- ^^ jj 3.,,.^ .^. ^.^^^ {;|;^J,3 ^^ ^^^^
^"f^'^^oW t:iopas w.is the brother of Joseph the
father of Jesus. Whether this is the
Clopas referred to in Jn. 19 25 depends,
in the first instance, on the answer to the question, who
is intended by the ' Mary of Clopas ' there. As there
is no ' and ' before her name, she would seem to be
not -=-- Jesua'
mother's sister.
1 [The name is possibly the ;
the form mcEdlSp-l
as tht
CLOPAS
identical with the sister of the mother of Jesus who has
Ixx-n referred to immetliately Ix-forc ; but it is quite
improljable that two sisters alive at the Siinte time
shouUl have borne the same name, at least in a
plebeian family.
With a royal house the case U somewhat different. Of the
sons of Herod the (.;reat, two who never attained royal dignity
lx>re the name of their father : one by his m.irriage with the
second .Mariamme, and one by his marriage with Cleopatra of
Icrus;dem (Jos. Ant. xvii. I3 A/ '284, \ 562). There uas,
besidcn, his secoixl son by Mafthakc, who, however, as far as we
know, took the name only as a reigning prince (see Lk.Si and
frequently), whilst Ijcfore his acccssiuii he is in Joscphus invari-
ably designated by his other n.inic, Aiitip;is. His first son by
Malihakc, too, whom Josephus always names Archclaus, is
adled Herod on coins and in Cassius l»io (.>.'< 27 ; cpSchiir. GJV
1 375, KT i. 2 39). Thus the name Herod seems already, to some
extent, to have acquired the character of a family name.
If (^lAin-n-ou be the correct rcjidiiig in Mk.«i7 (so also in Mt.
H 3, though not .!■ cording to the western group), the son of
Mariamme just mentioned, who, in ponit of fact, was the first
husband of Herodias, must have borne the name Philip also, in
addition to that of Herod, while at the same time this name,
Pliilip, was borne by his biother, who is known to us from
Lk. 3i as the tctrarch of NK. Palestine. As we are without
evidence that the former Herod was called Philip, doubtless
we must here conclude that .Mk. and Mt. have fallen into an
error, which, however, has l>eeii avoided by Lk. (819).
.■\gain, according to Jos. (Ant.iin.bi xv.3i xix.02), not only
OniiLs III (high priest till 174 H.c, died 171 li.c.) and Jesus
(Jason) his successor (high priest 174-171 B.C.), but also Onias
(usually known as Menelaus) who came after Jason, were sons
of the high priest .Simon 11.2 2 Mace. (84423), however,
which is here very detailed, expressly speaks of .Menelaus as
brother of a Benjamite named Simon, whilst the high priest
Simon 11. was of the tribe of Levi.
If, accordingly, one is determined to hold by the
identity of .Mary of Clopas with the sister of the mother
of Jesus, this must lie on the assumption not only
that she and the mother of Jesus were not children of
the same marriage, but also that they had neitlicr father
nor mother in common — that, in fact, each s()ou;e had
brought into the new household a daughter by a fi inner
marriage, named Mary. It is no argument for the
identity of the two to allege that we are not at lilierty
to tiiul more women mentioned in Jn. IO25 than in
Mt. 2756 Mk. lf)4o (Itii) and I,k. '2410;* for John
mentions the mother of Jesus, though she does not
appear in any of the synoptists. In other words, he
did not hold himself bound by what they said, though,
according to all scholars, their narratives lay before him.
The only point on which he is distinctly in agreement
with them is as to the presence of Mary Magdalene.
If we will have it that he enumerates also the Salom6
of Mark (whose identity with the mother of James and
John the sons of Zelxxlee cannot setiously l)e doubted),
we can find her only in the sister of the mother of
Jesus. Mary of Clopas nmst in that case bo distinct
from the latter, and may possibly l>e identified with the
Mary who in Mt. is called the mother of James and
Joses (or Joseph), in Mk. the mother of James the Less
and Joses, or, more briefly, Mary [the mother] of Jo.ses
(so 1547) or Mary of James (so 16 1 and Lk. 24io). In
this case, however, not only is it remarkable that the
relationship of the apostles, James the (ireater and John,
with Jesus — as children of sisters — is nowhere mentioneil
Palm. KElSp (Chabot, no. 12). In MH the name 'Cleopatra' usually appears under
2 For a somewhat different account of these relations, see O.nias.
Further, the .Syi
MT.2756.
Mk.L'mo.
Mk. It5i.
Lk.23 49.
Lk. 24 .0.
jN.Ut2:.
(At the cross.)
(At the cross.)
(At the sepulchre.)
(At the cross.)
(At the sepulchre.)
(At the cross.)
Mary Magdalene.
Mary Magdalene.
Mary Magdalene.
irai^cf oi yvtaimX
Mary Magdalene.
Marj- the mother
of Jesu-s.
Mary the mother
of James and
Joses(or Joseph).
Mary, the mother
ofjames the Less
and of Joses.
MaryofJame.s.
. . . airb T^
roAiAatas.
Joanna.
The sister of the -.
mother of Jesus. »
Mary of Clopas. ^
The mother of the
sonsof Zebedee.
Salome.
Salome.
Mary of James.
Mao' Magdalene.
849
850
OLOPAS
or in any way alluded to ; but also it is almost unthink-
able that the fourth evangelist presupposes the presence
of the mother of John when in 1926 he proceeds :
' when Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple
standing by, whom he loved, he saith, etc.' As far as
the fourth evangelist is concerned, this scene furnishes
a clear motive for thinking not only of the mother of
Jesus as present, but also of the mother of John as
absent. Lk. 24 lo (at the sepulchre) puis in the place of
the mother of John a certain Joanna. If, as he often
does, the fourth evangelist is here taking Lk. rather
than Mt. or Mk for his guide, it would be impossible
to identify Mary of Clopas with the sister of the mother
of Jesus, whose name on this assum[nion must be taken
to be Joanna. It is certain, however, that in Lk. this
Joanna is identical with the Joanna who is mentioned
in 83 as the wife of a certain Chuza and not stated to
have been related to the mother of Jesus. Thus we
may take it that it was not she, any more than any of
the others, that was intended by the fourth evangelist,
and that most protmbly his reason for mentioning the
sister of the mother of Jesus is that, according to Lk.
2849, 'all his acquaintance' (yvucrroi) are standing by
the cross. There is no evidence of any allegorising
intention that he could have had in the enimieration of
these four (or three) women. Apart from the mother
of Jesus and her sister, therefore, the names of the
women seem simply to have been taken over from the
Synoptists.
Who was the mother of James and Joses, with whom,
according to this view, Mary of Clopas would have to be
identilied ? The James in question is often
suj^posed to be the second James in the list
of the apostles. With this it seems to agree
that Mk. calls him James the Less. Now, this James was
a son of .A-lphiieus. Thus .Mphajus would appear to be
the husband of the Mary mentioned by the Synoptists
as present at the cross. From this it is not unusual to
proceed to the further combination that in Jn. Clopas
is named as the husband of Mary and that he is
identical with .\lph;tus. Phiiologically the names are
distinct (see above, § i) ; but the identification is possible
if, according to a not uncommon Jewish custom (Acts
I23 1225 13i9 Col. 4ii), Clopas had two names. A
further step is to bring in at this point the statement of
Hegesippus that Clopas was a brother of Joseph the
father of Jesus. Over and above this, many proceed
to the assumption — shown above (§ 2) to be untenable
— that his wife Mary was identical with the sister of the
mother of Jesus.
In this case two brothers would have married two sisters, and
the second James in the list of apostles would be a cousin of
Jesus, and that both on the father's and on the mother's side.
Even, however, if we regard Mary of Clopas as a different
person from the sister of the mother of Jesus, her son, the
second James, as long as he is regarded as the son of Clopas
the uncle of Jesus, remains a cousin of Jesus, whilst, according
to the identification of the sister of the mother of Jesus with the
wife of Zebedee (spoken of above, § 2), this honour would belong
rather to the first James and John the sons of Zebedee as being
sons of the aunt of Jesus.
The next question that arises is. Who was Joses,
the second son of Mary, according to the Synoptists ?
In Mk. 63 a Joses is named, along with
3. Clopas =
Alphaeus '
4. The sons
of Mary
James, Judas, and Simon, amongst the
__ ., brethren of Jesus. This has given
~ occasion for crowning the series of com-
■ binations which has been already ex-
plained, and completing it with a hypothesis whereby
it becomes possible to deny the existence of literal
brethren of Jesus, and to affirm the perpetual virginity
of his mother. Once it is admitted that James and
Joses were sons of Clopas ( = Alphneus) and of Mary his
wife, the same seems to hold good of all the ' brethren
of Jesus. ' In that case they would be ' brethren of
Jesus' only in the sense in which 'brethren' (d5eX<^oi)
is used instead of 6,v{\piol (children of two brothers or
two sisters) in 2 S. 2O9 (cp 11 2$).
851
OLOPAS
Finally, to this is added, not as a necessary but as
a welcome completion of the hypothesis, the suggestion
that of the ' brethren of Jesus ' not only James but
also Simon and Judas were among the apostles.
Both names, in point of fact, occur, at lea.st in Lk. 0 \$/, Acts
1 13 (Simon alone \n iMk. 3 18 Mt. 10 'i/.). With regard to Joses,
the fourth of the ' brethren of Jesus,' some have conjectured (carry-
ing out the same hypothesi.s) that it was he who, according to Acts
1 23-26, was nominated (though not chosen) as successor to the
vacant place of Judas Iscariot. It is true that all the belter
authorities here read Joseph, not Joses (see Baksabas) ; but, on
the other hand, this reading being accepted, it can be pointed
out that according to the better MS.S (at least in Mt. 13 55)
Joseph, not as in Mk. 63 Joses, is the name of the fourth
brother' of Jesus.
This whole identification of the ' brethren of Jesus '
with apostles or aspirants to the apostleship, however,
is quite untenable. According to Mk. 32i 31 Mt. I246/
Lk. 819 Jn. 75, the brethren of Jesus disbelieved his
Messiahship while he was alive, and in Actsl 14 i Cor.
95 they are distinctly separated from the apostles.
Even if we give up the identification with apostles,
^Lary cannot be the mother of the cousins of Jesus.
Had she been so related to Jesus, Mt. and Mk., in seeking
to indicate her with precision, would have named not two
sons but four ; or rather they would have mentioned no names
at all, but simply said 'the mother of the cousins of Jesus.'
Moreover, it isonly of Symeon, the second ' bishop ' of Jerusalem,
that Hegesippus says he was son of Clopas and cousin of Jesus.
If Hegesippus had regarded the four ' brethren of Jesus ' as his
cousins, he would surely have designated Symeon's predecessor
also (James the ' brother ' of Jesus) as son of Clnpas, and Symeon
himself, by whom in this case tbe Simon of ilk. O3 Mt. I355
would be meant, he would have designated as brother of James.
This, however, is what he does not do : he calls James simply
'the Just' (6 SiKaios), and says (Eus. JfE iii. 3'2 6) that men 'of
the race of the Lord ' (airh yeVous tov Kvpiov) had presided over the
church (in Palestine) in peace until Symeon the son of Clopas, the
uncle of Jesus, was arraigned and crucified ; cp iii. 206.1
Lastly, it is idle to deny the existence of actual
' brethren of Jesus ' : that is distinctly vouched for by the
wpuToToKov of Lk. 27 — an expression all the weightier
because it has been already suppressed in Mt. 1 25.
If James and Joses, the sons of Mary according to
the synoptists, are thus no cousins of Jesus, we could all
5. Conclusion, ^^e more readily believe that they were
really apostles or at least constant com-
panions (.\ctsl 21) of Jesus. Such an assumption, how-
ever, is not borne out by a single hint, and at the stage
of the discussion we have now reached it has no more
interest than the other which makes Clopas identical
with Alphaeus and regards him as the husband of .Mary.
The Mary in question, we are forced to conclude, was
simply a woman not known otherwise than as the mother
of a James and a Joses. Why is it, then, that the fourth
evangelist designates her, not by reference to these sons
of hers, but by calling her ' of Clopas ' ? That he here
intends the Cleopas of Lk. 24 18 is quite improbable (see
Cleopas) ; but neither is it likely that he can have
meant a man named Clopas who was wholly unknown
to his readers. His allusion must rather have been to
the Clopas whom we know from Hegesippus as the
brother of Joseph. There is no trace of any allegorising
intention in this : we may take it that the evangehst is
following tradition. It is possible, therefore, that
Clopas was the husband of Mary, in which case James
and Joses are cousins of Jesus, but not to be identified
with his brothers of the same name, nor yet with the
apostle James and the Joseph (or Joses) Barsabas of
Acts 1 23. It is more probable, however, if the prevailing
1 In Eus. ///Tiii. 20 i Hegesippus speaks of oi anh -ytVou? roi)
Kvpiov VLUvoi 'Iov6a, toO Kara (xapxa Ae-yo/xeVov avTOv a6cA<^oO ;
and in iv. '22 4 he says that 6 tic 6fCov ai/Tov [Jesu] 2vjoteo)i' 6 row
KAcojra was ifei/zibs toO Kvpiov fieurepos. Inasmuch as he does
not regard James as aveijjio^ npuiro^, as has been .shown, the
words Seurepos and Aeyo/ieVou can mean only that he regards
Symeon as ' cousin ' and Jude as ' brother ' of Jesus in a modified
sense. He ai)pears, then, to favour the assumption of the irapOtvCa
of .Mary at Jesus' birth. .-Vll the more remarkable is it that he
does not yet seem to have drawn the further consequence of
denying other sons to her. His statement that Clopas was the
uncle of Jesus, therefore, does not proceed upon any such theory
as that in favour of which it has (as we have seen) been applied,
and therefore in respect of trustworthiness is open to no suspicion.
852
CLOTH, CLOTHING
ust4s loi]uendi is to Ix; taken as a j^uiilir, that Clopas is
designated as the father of Mary. In this case it is
Mary herself who is the cousin of Jesus. In either case
it is remarkable that in the synoptists she should be
characterised not by her relationship to Jesus, but simply
by mention of her sons ; and this on the assumption
that it is the uncle of Jesus who is intended, suggests a
doubt as to whether the mention of Clopas in this con-
nection is correct.
The apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, following the combina-
tion mentioned above (8 4), for the most part identify .Symeon,
son of ClopJis, the second bishop of Jeru>alcni
6. Lator s|joken of by Hcgesippiis, with the apostle
traditions. Simon the Canana:an (AV ' the Zealot ') ; some
give him in addition the name of Judas, and
some make the name of his father his own proper name also, but
in the form Cleopas or Cleophas, so that he is identified also with
the disciple mentioned in I,k. 24 18. He is at the same time
enumerated among ' the Seventy ' of Lk. 10 i (Lipsius, Apokr.
Ap.-gesch. ii. 2 142/^). According to the 'l'ieasure-cave(Schatz-
hehU, ed. Hezold, 1888, p. 267, 5; see Tlies. Syr. ^A. Payne-
.Smith, col. 3629), a Syriac collection of legends dating from the
sixth century, he was brother not only of NicodemusCa statement
made of the apostle Judas also in a Latin list of apostles given
in Lipsius, 1 195), but also of loseph of Arimatha:a. p. w. S.
CLOTH, CLOTHING. On these and similar words
.see, generally, Dkkss, § i.
The words are used with considerable looseness and fre-
quently interchange with others of similar meaning. ' Cloth '
(and 'clothes') occasionally render 1J3 (Drkss, § l[i]), and
nVpc' (Mantle), also once 1330, 2 K.'sis, AV (Bed, § 3);
for aivhuiv, Mt. 2759, see Linkn. ' Cloth ' to denote material
or fabric is found only in Esth. 1 6, KVmg. For 'cloths
of service' (Ex. 31 30, etc., AV ; Tlij-n '133) see Dkess,
§ 3 n. For 'striped cloths' (Pr. 7i6 KV, niacn) see Linen.
RV prefers 'cloths' in Kzek. 27 20 (1:13),^ Lk. 24 12 {oQoviov),
where AV has 'clothes,' and 'clothes' otherwise recurs in Gen.
49 IS AV (niD, RV 'vesture'), i S. 4 12, EV (^a), Ezek. 2724,
AV (diVji RV 'wrappings': see Dkess, g i [2]). 'Clothing'
is used to render the general terms t^U'? (Job 24/), nj3 (ib.
22 16), noap (Is. 23 18), nc'3^ri (ib. 59 17), as well as the specific
nSpif', Ls. 36 (Mantle).
CLOUD. PILLAR OF (|3rn niGr), Exod. 13 2i;
see Pii.i.AK OK Clouu.
CLUB (nn'in, tothdh ; c(t)YPA Jol^ 4I29 [21] RV, AV
' dart '). Read tarlah 'javelin,' and see WEAPONS.
CNIDUS (kniAoc [AXV : Ti. WH]), a city on Cape
Crio (anc. Trioiiium) in the extreme SW. of Asia Minor,
between Cos and Rhodes. It was originally built upon
the rocky island (v^(tos v\f/rj\T] dearponSr)^, Strabo, 656)
forming the cape, united to the mainland by a causeway,
— thus making two harbours, one on the N. and the
other on the S. of the isthmus (cp Mitylene and
Myndus).
The inhabitants soon spread eastwards over the neighbouring
part of the peninsula. 1 he moles of the large southern port are
still in existence, as well as much of the ancient city. The
situation of Cnidus was eminently favourable to its development
as a commercial and naval power ; but, curiously like Cos in this
respect, it played no part as a naval state— probably owing to
the repressive influence of Rhodes.
The commercial importance of the city was inevitable.
It lies upon the maritime highway (cp Thuc. 835, irepl
Tpidirioi' TOLS air' Alyvirrov 6X^'d5a5 Trpoa/SaXXoiyeras
^vWafi^dvfiv). Very early it had trade with Egypt
and shared in the Hellenion at Naucr.atis (Herod. 2178).
At least as early as the second century B. c. Cnidus had
attracted Jewish settlers, for in i Mace. 1523 it appears
in the list of places to which the circular letter of the
Roman senate in favour of the Jews (circa 139-8 B.C.)
is said to have been addressed. Paul must have passed
the city on his way to Caesarea (Acts 21 1/); but its
name occurs only in Acts 277 (lipa5vTr\oovvTei Kai /itoXis
yevdfievoi Kara ttjc KvLSov) after Myra had been
1 For CSn n:33 Gra. reads j'Sn 33 ; but we should more
probably emend to cn'no '333 'with young suhirs ' (cp
Horse, Mizraim, § 2 a end); '33 became 33, and from the
transposition and confusion of letters B'Em easily arose (Che.).
853
COAL
passed, on the voyage to Rome. The continuotis NW.
(Etesian) winds had made the voyage over the 130 m.
between Myra and Cnidus tedious ; and rendered the
direct course from Cnidus, by the X. side of Crete,
impossible (fxrj irpo<rtu>vTO% ij/xas rou dv^fiov).
The wines of Cnidus, es|)ccially the kind called Protropos,
excelled any produced in Asia (Str. 637). '1 he best claim of the
city to renown lies in the intellcctuar activity of its inhabitants
and their encouragement of art. 'I'hey possessed, at the I/Csche
at Delphi, two pictures by I'olygnOtus (middle of fifth century ;
I'aus. X. 2.') lyC). They lx)ught the Aphrcxiite of Praxiteles (his
masterpiece, quatii ut vidirent multi navigaverunt Cnidutii ;
Plin. //A'xxxvi. ,'14 : the Cnidians especially worshipped Aphro-
dite, Pans. i. 1 3). In addition, they had works by Bryaxis and
•Scopas. Eudoxus the astronomer, Ctesias the physician and
historian, Agatharchides, and Sostratus the architect who built
the I'haros of Alexandria, all belonged to Cnidus (cp Str. 119,
656).
For plan and views of the remains see Newton's Hist. 0/
Discoferiis at Halicarnassus, etc., 1861-63; J ravels and
Visco7>crics in the Ln'ant, 2 1677: VV. J. VV.
COACH (nV), Is. 6620 AV-ne- See Littkk.
COAL. The coal of OT and NT is undoubtedly char-
coal. A piece of black charcoal was termed ens ( pehhdtn ;
. fp__„_ cp perh. Ass. phttu [or pi'mlu*'\ ' fire ' ;
i. lerms. j,^^^, 26 2, [ecrxdpa]. Is. 44 12, 54 i6t
[dvdpa^ ; carbo\) ; pieces in jjrocess of combustion,
'live coals,' rhni, Q'hni [gahhilHth, gehlidllm ; cp Ar.
jahima to glow, and perh. Ass. guhlu, a shining precious
stone ; dvOpa^ ; pruna), and often, more precisely,
E'K -hn} (coals of fire), Lev. 16 12, etc. In this distinction,
which is not uniformly observed (cp Is. 44 12 54 16),
lies the point of the vivid comparison Prov. 2621 (RV
' as coals are to hot embers,' etc. ).
Of the other words rendered by 'coal' in theOT it is sufficient to
say that nSS"l,l rispcih (Is. 66) is rather a ' hot stone ' (so RV"'*,'- ;
avOpa^', the D'E^T [nzy], r^sap/iim, of i K. U»6 (fUKpvtfiCai
oAiip[j]tn)s) being, in like manner, the hot stones on which Elijah's
cake was baked (see Bkkad, § 2[a]) ; that ffcn, reseph, identified
by the Rabbins with l^'l, rctjeph, and twice rendered 'coals'
(Ct.86 AV, Hab.35 AV,' RVihk-; AV'"K. 'burning diseases'),
is rather 'flame' or fire-bolt (cp RV);2 and that lin;;', fehgr
(Lam. 4 8; (l<r/3oAr) ; carbones ; EV, ' their visage is blacker than
a coal'), is properly ' blackness' {so the margins; others 'soot'
[fuligo]).
The Hebrews doubtless used for fuel as great a
variety of woods as the modern Syrians now use (see
2 PiiPl ^'"^' '" PEFQ. '91. PP- 118^). Several
z. ruei. ^^^ named in Is. 44 14-16. Ps. I2O4 (RV'K)
mentions 'coals of broom (cni),' a desert shrub which,
when reduced to charcoal, throws out an intense heat
(on the text see JUNIPKR). The references to thorns as
fuel (c'TD, D'^ip) are many ; particular mention is made
of the buckthorn or perhaps bramble (icN, Ps. 589 [10]),
of chaff — chopped straw (tibn), the refuse of the
threshing-floor (Mt. 812), — and of withered herbage
(Mt. 630 Lk. 1228). At the present time the favourite
fuel of the Bedouin is the dung of camels, cows (cp
Ezek. 415), asses, etc., which is carefully collected, and,
after being mixed with tibn or chopped straw, is made
into flat cakes, which are dried and stored for the
winter's use. We may assume that this sort of fuel
was not so much rcxjuiretl before the comparative
denudation of the country, though Ezek. 4 12-15 certainly
suggests that it was not altogether unknown.
The charcoal was burned in a brasier (nK, Jer. 36 22^ ;
AV 'hearth,' RV 'brasier') or chafing-dish (rn "iVa,
q TViB. ViooT^k Zech. 126, RV 'pan of fire'), — at least
6. xne neanin. j^ j,^^ ^^^^^^ ^^ j,^^ wealthy. The
'fire of coals' (avOpaKid) at which Peter warmed
himself in the high priest's palace was no doubt a fire
of charcoal (so RV™ff) in a brasier =* (Jn. 18 18 21 9).
* l^n. .IBSI. ' coal ' ( = Ar. mf/i">) is to be kept distinct from
nssi, ' pavement ■ (cp verb in Cant. 3 10), which corresponds to
Ar. rasa/a, 'to arrange side by side' : see Dr. Tensesi^}, 231.
'• See Dr.'s elaborate note on Dt.3224.
3 For the arrangement of a modern S>Tian ' hearth,' sec
Landberg's Prm'erbes et Dictons, 73/, 155 (with illustration).
854
COASTLAND
In the houses of the humbler classes, the hearth (mpiD,
only of altar-hearih Lev. 62 [9]; mod. Ar. mawkiJa)
was probably a mere depression in the floor, the smoke
escaping, as best it could, through the door or the
latticed window (^3^K, Hos. 183, EV 'chimney'). See
Lattice. Chimneys there were none ; the AV render-
ing, ' ere ever the chimneys in Zion were hot ' in 4 Ksd.
64, is based on a corruption of the Latin te.xt (RV ' or
ever the footstool of Zion was established ').
Coal and coals supply a variety of metaphors. Thus
■ to quench one's coal ' (n'^na 2S. 14? ; cp the classical
4. Metaphors, ^'^'^''^"''■/"d see Dr. ad loc.) is a
*^ pathetic figure for depnvmg a jjerson
of the privilege of posterity, otherwise expressed as a
putting out of one's candle (rather, 'lamp') — Prov.
139 etc. To heap ' coals of fire,' or glowing charcoal,
on an enemy's head must, it would seem, be to adopt
a mode of revenge calculated to awaken the pains of
remorse in his breast (Prov. 25 22^ (MT). Rom. I220).
Again, ' kindle not the coals of a sinner' — that is, do
not stir up his evil passions — is the sage advice of the
son of Sirach (Kcclus. 810) ; cp Kcclus. 11 32, 'from a
spark of fire a heap of many coals {ivOpaKid) is
kindled,' which finds an echo in Ja. 85. A. K. s. K.
COASTLAND (Is. 20 6t RV; Is. 11 n 2826 24 15
5O18 Jer.2522 Ezek.3!'6 D.in. 11 18 Zeph.2ii; KV"ig-, in Jer.
474 ' sea coast ') ; a rendering of 'N (itjctos ; KV usually ' isle ' or
'island,' AVn't,'- occasionally 'country' or 'region '). See Islk.
COAT, an inexact rendering :
(i) Of n:n3 (see Tu.sic) in Gen. 373 EV (RV'msr. 'long
garment '), Ex. 284, etc. ; (2) of V'VD in i S. 2 19 .W (RV ' robe ' ;
see I'UNIC); (3) of ^37)0 in Dan. 821 AV (AV"itr- 'mantle', RV
' hosen ' ; see Breeches); (4) of \i.tuiv in Mt. 540 EV (see
Tunic) ; (5) of vAa^iis in 2 Mace. 1235 AV(see Mantle). For
' broidered coat see Emuroidekv, § i.
COAT OF MAIL occurs as a rendering of tonn, tahrd
(E.X. 2832 3923 RV; AV 'habergeon'), jnc', i/>jvJ« (Is. 59 17
RVnig., EV 'breastplate'), and C'iS'pi;',^ p-lC*, iS. I75 EV ;
see Breastplate.
COCK.(AAeKTa)p). Mt. 26 34 74 Mk. 1835 143° 72
Lk. 223460 Jn. I838 I827. On the ' cock -crowing '
{a.\fKTopo(p(i}vla) spoken of in Mk. 1835 information is
given elsewhere (see DAY, § 4). Mt. , Lk., and Jn.
speak of only this cock-crowing. The tradition preserved
in Mark, on the other hand (though the te.xt in the MSS
differs), refers to a second. Thus the cock had
completed its journey to Palestine. Its home was in
India ; thence it came to Babylonia '-^ and Persia.
Homer indeed gives AXe/crwp as the name of a man ;
but Aristophanes (Av. 438) considers the cock the
' Persian bird.' To the Jews, too, as well as (presum-
ably) to the Egyptians, it was a Persian bird, even
though the Targumic and Talmudic word for cock
(Sunn) may have a Babylonian origin.^
Not improbably we have in Prov. 30 31 a reference to
the impression which it produced not so long after its
introduction into Palestine. The evidence of the
versions ■* in favour of the rendering ' cock ' cannot be
regarded lightly, and there is no proof whatever of the
sense of 'well girt up' for tiii, or for the application
of the term to the greyhound. The Talmudic -i-Tit also
certainly means some bird (a kind of raven).' The
1 For another view of this passage, involving an emendation
of the text, see Che. Jew. Rel. Life. 142, who follows Bickell.
2 There is said to be a representation of a cock on a cylinder
seal of the reign of Nabu-na'id.
8 So, at least, Hommel, Hastings' DB \ 214.
4 ®BKAC (2466) oAeKTup ivTrtpi-na-Tutv OrjAeCai^ tvij/vxoi; simi-
larly Aq., Theod., Quinta, Pesh. ^>^-s^ ; gallus succinctus
lumbos (Vg.). Wildeboer ('97) speaks inconsistently, but favours
the rendering ' cock,' if Q'jnD "n^V he altered. For ' greyhound '
he has nothing to say.
* See the Diets, of Levy and Jastrow: Rashi here renders
' starling ' (cp Syr. ) ^ > J* Ar. zurzur).
8SS
CCELESYRIA
key to the difference of usage is supplied by Ar. sarsara,
'to make a shrill noise"; hence sarsar"" is used in
Arabic for both the cricket and the cock. The kin-
dred Hebrew word also might Ije widely used : ( 1 ) for
the cock, (2) for the starling. The second element in
the phrase o^Jno I'lii is seemingly a difficulty. The
word is no doubt corrupt. Dyserinck and Gratz would
read kb-jjio ; cp (S (virepiiraTwv. To keep nearer to
the Hebrew and to find a more striking phrase, it is
better to read cpjnp and render ' the cock who loves to
take up a quarrel. ' EV rather uncritically gives Grey-
HOUNU {i/.v. ) : cp Fowl, § 2.
There is a word in Job 8836 ('i2r) which 'Vg. , the
two Targs. , and Delitzsch render ' cock ' (AV ' heart,'
RV 'mind,' mg. 'meteor'). As, however, it is evident
that some sky-phenomenon is meant, we should almost
certainly read for 'idb-, nrp, ' the bow star,' to cor-
respond to nmn (so read for nino), "the lance star.'
The bow star is Sirius, the lance star Antares. See
Che. /BL, 1898. T. K. c.
COCKATRICE is an archaic English word, derived
or corrupted from the mediaeval Lat. aiL atrix [see the
New Eng. Diet., s.v.\ but often confounded with
' crocodile ' ; the form of the word suggested the fable
that the animal was hatched by a cock from the egg of
a viper. For Pr. 2832 AV (EV'nB- Adder; RV'"*.'-
'basilisk') and Is. 118 595 Jer. 8i7t AV(RV 'basilisk,'
EV"'K- ' or adder ' ; 'j^b^, siph'oni) see Serpent, §
1(7). For Is. 14 29t (j'Es, sepka, EV as before, \'g.
regulus) see Serpent. § r (6). © has ^a<n\icrKos in
Is. 59s (EV Viper, Heb. 'e/>/u'/i) and in Ps. 90[<»1] 13
(EV Adder, Heb. pethen). Horapoilon (1 1) identifies
the basilisk with the Egyptian urajus, a golden image of
which is the usual ornament of the divine or royal
head-dress. Probably this was the kind of serjjent
meant by © ; the urieus, being divine, had of course
extraordinary powers (see Serpent, § i, nos. 6 and 7).
According to Furetiere, the cocatrix (cock.itrice) is a kind of
basilisk which haunts caverns and pits. The name cakatrix,
however, properly means the ichneumon. Under the form
Chalcadri, we tind it in the Slavonic Secrits of Enock{V2.i 15 i),
where, however, the writer may be thinking of the crocodile.
See Ck()Ci>uile. T. K. c.
COCKLE, EV">tr, better 'noisome weeds' (inC'N3,
bd'sdh; Batoc [BXAC]), JobSUof. The cognate vei^b
means in Hebrew ' to stink ' ; but the primary sense
of the root, according to N'oldeke (/.D.\/G-iO 727 ['86]).
is the more general one of badness or worthlessness.
A kindred substantive is D'VVta, ' wild grapes ' (Is. 62 4).
As nvKZ occurs only once in Hebrew and is unknown
to the cognate languages, there is no evidence to
justify the identification with a particular plant, such as
the ' cockle' of EV ; still, as etyiuology seems to point
to some 'stinking weed,' there is something to be said
for the suggestion of Sir Joseph Hooker, that i^erhaps
the reference is to the stinking arums.
Several of the arums are plentiful in Syria — e.g-.. Arum Dios-
coridis, Sibth., .Arum Paltestinum, Boi.ss., and species of Helico-
phyllum (cp 'Tristram, NH/i ^39). The ancient versions, in
supposing that a thorny plant is intended,' were no doubt guided
by the parallelism of the verse. The older English Versions use
' cockle as the rendering of <I'i^d»'ia in Mt. 13. See Tarrs.
N. M. — W. T. T.-D.
C(ELESYRIA (koiAh cypiA [BAL])— «.<•.. 'hollow
Syria,' first mentioned in i lisdras, where (koiKti)-
"Zvpia K. ^oiviKrj represents Hinj 131?, the
1. Name, j^^^^^ equivalent of the Heb. "insn lar (cp
Ezra 836 Xeh. 87).
The name occurs in lEsd. 21724/! 27 = Ezra 4 10 16/; 20;
I Esd.t>37i7 29=E;zra536t)68; i Esd. 7 i 867 = EzratJi3 S36.
(P's vrsioii of the canonical Ezra regularly renders by iripav
(but irifM Ezra<i6 7 2i25 (B.\]) toO jroTdfiou : once, however,
1 So ®bXaq renders C'CKS by aicai^at in Is. 624. Pesh.,
however, 'carobs'(see HusK.s).
!2 K. is a few times omitted — e.g., i Esd. 225 63, etc.
856
COPPER
ianipa t. wot., in Kzra4 3o[DA]. With ihit we may compare
the "•pav Eu^parov, which, wi(h ra icarw rqt '\triax u'pq
(Asia Minor, N\V. of Tauruk) appears in the famouii Gaifatas
ins.rii.tion of I larius \. (Hull. Corr. Hell. 13 5j,> (89), 14 6.8;
cp iNleyer, Entst. 19/.). I he name Aramaic designation is
found upon a coin of the Persian period ' M-i/dai . . . who is
over Kinj nay' (cp Hal. .»/«•/. Epig. 6^/.), and seems to be the
origin of the name of the I'ersian province Ar/iiijia (fur another
weTi-supiMirted \iew, >ee Ahaiiia, f 3). ^ifiici) and 'Apafiia
occur together as one archonship in the epilogue to the .-ina/'asii
(see Marq. Eutul. yiff.)-^ That the Minican p.nj n;y is to be
connected with 121". arhilya. though affirmed by Hartmann
(/..^ 11 Hi), Meyer (;/-. 327), and Marq. (.</. lit. 74/, cp KliKK,
i), is strenuously denied by (ilascr (cp .l//'<»", 1897, 3 3 yf. ; see
Hommcl, A HI ynff.), who is, however, perhaps too strongly
prejudiced in fa>our of an exceedingly remote date for the
inscriptions in question.
CoL-li'syrin is. strictly, the designation applied since
the time of the Sfleucid.-v to the depression between the
o Vt\t,y\\ '^*° Ix-'lxinons, otherwise known as the
i. txteni. ^^.^..^ ^^ Lebanon (cp Josh. 11 17 I27), the
mod. lieka ; cp Lkh.vnon.''' In the (Jrecian period
the term includes all E. I'alestine. Thus, according to
Josephus {.Int. i. 11 5), the seats of the Ammonites and
Moabites were in it, and among its towns he mentions
Scythojwlis and (iadara [ih. xiii. \\\tf.). In its widest
sense it included Kaphia (so I'olyb. 58o), and stretched
' as far as the river Euphrates and Kgypt ' {.Ant. xiv. 4 s).
In I Esd. and Maccal)ees (see below) these are its
limits ; and, rou'^hly ust-d, rather in a political than in a
geographical sense, it and Phoenicia constitute the more
southerly part of the kingdom of the Seleucidiu. At
this periwl the districts referred to appear as one fiscal
domain, under tlie suzerainty of one governor (viz.,
A|)ollonius [2.\Iacc. 35] Ptolemy [88] Lysias [10 u]).
Under the Romans the term was again restricted, and
Coelesyria ( with Damascus as its capital ; cp .Ant. xiii. 152
DJK.M) was officially separated from Phoenicia and
Iud;va(.-7«/. xii. 4 i and 4 ; Pliny, 5 7). When, therefore,
in 47 and 43 B.C., Herod was in command of Ca-le-
syria, he seems to have possessed no authority over the
southern jirovince. s. A. C.
COFFER (TnN). iS.Gs.nst.
(P h.is : in v. 8 (v OffiaTi peotx^av [B*], -p(T(x- [H-it' vid.], (,, 0.
apyoi I A I, (f e. Paipyai [ L] ; in rr: 1115, to fl.><a fpyafi [ U], to fl.
apyo^[.\], tv Sf/naTi /Safpya^ and to 6. ^aepyaCi | L). Aq. Xdpi'af
(or tx^of) ; Sym. XapvoKiov ; Jos. yAuxTcrbKOfioi'. Vg. always
ea/'sella.
The foreign-looking but really corrupt word argiiz
illustrates the need of a more correct Hebrew text (see
Tk.xt, § 44/ )■
We cannot accept the far-fetched etymologies of Lag,
(Uhtrs. 85) and Klo. (.SViw., nilloc). The i probably sprang
out of a 'final nun" (j), which was attached as a correction to
an ordinary nun— thus pnx (cp -av [B]). In this case the
' coiier ' was really not distinguished in name from the ark
(piXX Or tv Be^ari (ip, cp Lev. '246)— ;.f., ri3>'C3 —'in a
pile,' may represent the true text ; but more probably 6tiia =
0ritia = 9riKr} 'box.' .See Che. E.t/>. 7". 10 521 (Aug. '09), and on
the narrative which contain- the word, see Budde (.SHOf), who
carefully separate- the interpolations. T. K. C.
COFFIN (jhS, copoc). Gen. 5O26 ; also Lk. 7i4
AV""-'- .See De.\U, § i.
COHORT (cneip&). -VtslOi. See Akmv, § 10;
COKNKI.ILS, § I.
COLA, RV Cnoi..\ (xcoAa [H], k(o. [-A]. KeeiAA
[N*^-^], — om. Vg. Syr.), — mentioiud with Betomks-
THAM, Hkb.M, and Chobai (see Choba),^ as places to
which orders were sent to follow up the pursuit of the
1 It i.s mentioned in the Behistun Inscription of Darius
Hystaspis t)etween Babylonia and Assyria. In another in-
scription of the class, however, this position is occupied by
Arbaya (cp /.>ttr. Koy. .-is. Soc. 10 28" ['47 J.
- On the supposed reference to this valley (rich in heathen
remains) in .\m. 1 5 (' valley of Aven ' — /'.<•., of Sin), see .'Xvk.s, 3.
"I'his district is also called Maacrvat (.Strabo, 2 16 17, ed. Meineke
1'661), or y\af»rua.^ (Polyb. 5 45), a name which may l>e derived
from a hypothetical rnyS, 'depression' ; cp \/ nid nnr, 'tosink.'
' Considerable confusion appears in the treatment of this and
the preceding names in the Greek Versions,
COLOSSB
enemy after the death of Hoiofernes (Judith 164).
Possibly the Hoi.ON of Josh. 15 51 may be intended
(Zockhr). ©N'-' identifies the place with Kkii.AM ;
cp Josh. l.'')44.
COLHOZEH (TV(rrh2, §23, as if he sceth all),
a Jerusalemite of Nehemiah's time (.\eh. 815; otn. li{<A,
XoAozei [\']\ lis. XAAeA (HN]. -Aaza [A], xo. [L])-
As misleading a name as Pahath-moab or as Hallohesh.
A clan of ' seers ' at this |)eriod would of course lie
interesting; but the name is miswritten for rn Sn (I'-V
' Hallohesh '). [jrobably under the influence of the name
Hazaiah, which follows in Neh. 11 5. pmSn itself is
miswritten. See Hai.lumesii. t. k. c.
COLIUS (kcoAioc [A]), 1 P:sd. 923 = Kzral023,
Kki.aiaii {</.;•. ).
COLLAR. I. 'Collars' in AV Judg. 826 become in
RV ' pendants ' (mS'U:). See RiNt;, § 2.
2. ' Collar ' is also applied, inappropriately, to the
round hole (.ns) for the head and neck in a garment.
So in Job 30 18, 'It bindeth me alK)ut as the collar of
my coat' (K\'), and in Ps. 1332 (R\"'«), 'that Hows
down to the collar of his robes' (Kay). 'Collar ' here
should be 'opening.'
In I's. t.c , however, it is thoiight that the border of the
opening, rather than the opening itself, mu-l lie interrded. ©
Sym. have iitX tiji/ way — i.e., the lambskin trimming or edging
on the neck-opening (cp Tg., H'CH 'fringe'). I-.V, however,
ventures on 'skirts (skirt) of his garments'; the revisers felt
that, even if .W gave an iniprol)al)le rendering, they had
nothing letter to set in its place. The text can |>erhaps be
corrected (see Che. /'j.i2i); it is certainly not right as it stands.
In Job Ac, Budde and Duhm prefer to render 'even as my tunic' ;
but this does not make the passage clear. There is reason
to think (Che. A>/». Tinus, IO382J [May '9,]) that we .should
read t'Sn\ in v. iSa (© tireAo^eTo) and 'B3 and '3inK' in 1: 186,
and render
By (his) gre.-it power he takes hold of my garment,
By the opening of my tunic he grasps me.
The word rendered in these two passages 'collar' becomes
'hole' in KV of Kx. -'S 32 ; the context suggested this. The
'hole for the head ' (RV) in the priestly >«f'/7 (rolw) was to
have a ' binding (lit. lip) round about ' ; the material cut out
was to be folded over, and so to make what might fairly l>e
called a collar. In later Heb. we find the terms nnEO (opening)
or iKlsn n'3 (receptacle of the neck).
3. RX'""*-'- gives ' collar ' for a certain instrument of
punishment (pVs, si'noi, Jer. 2926, AV 'stocks,' RV
'shackles'). The root (like pa) in Aramaic and
Talmudic means to bind, to confine. Kimhi takes it
to be a manacle for hands, not a collar. Orelli, on the
other hand, compares .-\rab. zi'mii (necklace). 0«»«ao
its rbv KarapaKTr/v represents nijs and can scarcely be
correct.
COLLEGE, RV Skcond Qiartkr (nJl'TD ; Vg.
Secumiii ). as if the ' new town ' of Jerusalem (2 K. 2'2 14 =
2 Ch. 34 22 ; Zeph. 1 10). i he reiidering ' college ' is due
toTg. Jon. 2 K.'22i4 WB^IN n''3a. 'in the house of
instruction.' .See JKKLSAI.EM.
The text is, however, plainly corrupt. In Zeph. 1 10 the
natural parallel to the ' lish gate' is the 'gate of the old'
(see Neh. lL'39, where these gates are mentioned together).
For njCTJ.T-p, therefore, read .IJC* .T lys-p 'from the gate of the
old city.' Similarly in 2 K. and 2 Ch. I.e. (see Hui.dah). See
also Hassem AH. In 2 K. •-'"J 14, fiavtva (B.\], -two. [\.\,
AVin«. 'second part,' RV'nK- ' Heb. .Mishneh.' In 2 Ch. 84 22,
y.aia.aava.1 [B|, \i.t<java.i. \\\. fiavtrti'va | I-l, .AV">»r. ' in the .school,"
or ' in the second part,' RVintf. ' Heb. Mishneh." In Zeph. 1 10,
TTJt itvTepa'! [\'k\Q] ; -W 'the second."
COLONNADE (D^'N), Ezek. 40 16. RV"'e- See
P()K( 11, TiMHi.t:.
COLONY UoAcoNiA [Ti. WH]), Actsl6i2.t See
Pmi.n'i'i.
COLOSSE. iKtter Colosaa (koAoccai [Ti. WH.
and coins and inscrip.]; koAacc&I. later MSS, Byz.
858
COLOSSB
writers, and some mod. edd. : the latter form was
1. Description. 1'°''"''^' '^^^f''^ pronunciation i).
(Churuk Su), a tributary of the Ma.'ander, in that part
of the Roman province of Asia which the Greeks
called Phrygia. In the neighbourhood of Colossai were
Hierapolis and Laodicea (cp Col. 2i 41315/.). As
tho.se two cities rose in importance, Colossce seems
to have continuously declined (cp Rev. 1 n 814, where
the church in Laodicea ranks among tiie seven great
churches of Asia). Herodotus (730; cp Xen. Anab.
i. 2 6) speaks of Colossa; as 'a city of great size':
but in Strabo's time Laodicea is numbered among
the greatest of the Phrygian cities, '•hilst Colossas,
although it had some trade, is only a woXia/xa (Strabo,
576, 578). In Paul's time I 'liny (//A' .5 41) enumerates
it among the ccleherrima oppida of tlie district ; but that
is merely historical retrospect. Its geographical position,
on the great route leading from Kphesus to the Kuphrates
(it was passed, e.g., by Xerxes in his march through
Asia Minor, Herod. I.e.), was important. Hence arises
the question as to whether the place was ever visited by
Paul.
On his third journey Paul ' went over all the country of
Galatia and Phrygia in order' (Actsl823), and, 'having
p ., passed through the upper coasts [to. cIj'w-
conne^Jtion^r'^ ^^^'^\ '^™'' '° Kphesus' (Acts 19.).
... . 1 he natural route would certamly be that
followed by commerce, which would i)ass
through Colossa;, though travellers might, as Ramsay
suggests [Ch. in R. Em p. 94), take a road to the north-
ward, avoiding the Lycus valley entirely. It is, how-
ever, open to us to admit that the apostle may have
passed through the town without making any stay. It
seems distinctly to follow from Col.2i ('as many as
have not seen my face in the flesh ' ) that at the date
of writing Paul was not personally acquainted with the
Colossian church ; but it would be unsafe to argue that
he had not seen the town itself If he did no missionary
work there on his third journey through Asia Minor, it is
impo.ssible to assign his assumed activity at Colossae
to the second journey on the strenijth of the expression
' gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia '
(.\cts 166) : on that occasion he diverged northwards
from the eastern trade route leading by way of Colossas
to Ephesus, and ultimately reached Troas {v. 7/).
Further, although ethnologically Colossae ranked as a
Phrygian town, politically it belonged to Asia, a province
which was altogether barred to missionary effort on the
occasion of the second journey (Acts 166; see Asi.-\,
Phrygi.-\).
It would still be possible to argue that Paul established
the Colossian church on an unrecorded visit made from
Ephesus during his three years' stay there (cp .Acts 19 10,
' so that all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word ').
Nevertheless, Col. I4 ('since we heard of your faith')
1 8 2 1 are opposed to tlie idea of personal effort on his
part, especially when contrasted with such passages as
Gal. 16 I Cor. 3i-io, where we have positive claim to
the foundation of the churches addressed. Nor is it
allowable to insist that Epaphras and Philemon, who
were certainly Colossians (Col. 412), must necessarily
have been converted by Paul at Colossa; itself. The
r'olossian church was an indirect product of the apostle's
activity at Kphesus. To whom, then, must the actual
foundation be ascribed ? Probably to Epaphras, who
is called ' a faithful minister of Christ ' for the Colossians
[virkp vfiCbv, so AV : better virkp i)fi2v, ' on our behalf,'
RV), and their teacher (Col. 1 7, cp 4 12 13), although the
honour has been claimed for Timotheus, on the ground
that his name is joined with that of Paul in the Salutation
(Col. li).
1 The name is probably connected with Koloe (lake near
Sardis. Str. 626), the form being grecized to suggest a connection
with icoAo<7(ros. The more educated ethnic was KoAoo-otji/os,
the illiterate form KoAaorcraeus being perhaps nearer the native
word. See Rams. Cilies and Bishoprics 0/ Phrygia, 1 212.
859
COLOSSIANS AND EPHESIANS
It is clear from Philem. 22 that Paul looked forward
to visiting Colossiv after his first imprisonment at Rome :
3 The ^'^'^'her he effected his purpose is not known
Colossian ^^"' ^^ ^ T\m. 420). Among the members
Church °'^ ^^'^ Colossian church, Ijesides l-"paphras,
F^hilemon with his wife .-Xi'i'iii.v and slave
Onesimus (Philem. 2 10'), we hear of Archippus, perhaps
son of Epaphras (Philem. 2 Col. 417). With regard to
the conifxjsition of the church, we may say that it con-
sisted chiefly of (ientiles, in this case the descendants of
Greek settlers and native Phrygians, deeply imbued with
that tendency to mystical fanaticism which was charac-
teristic of the Phrygian race. Very soon, therefore, they
fell away to angel-worship and a misdirected asceticism
(Col. 2 16-18 21-23). The former heresy is illustrated by
the famous vaib% dpxayjfXiKos or vab^ rod' Apxt<rTpaTrjyov
(church dedicated to Michael), mentioned by Nicetas
Choniates as standing at the chasm of the Lycus.
The tradition is that the archangel opened the chasm
and so saved the Christians of Chonas from destruction
by an inundation. In the fourth century a Council at
Laodicea condemned this angel-worship. Theodoret
also speaks of the existence of the heresy in this region.
Cp .\.\GEL, § 9.
The construction of a strong castle at Chonai (mod. Chflnas),
3 m. S. of Colossa;, wa.s perhaps the work of Justinian. During
the seventh or eighth century A.D., under the pressure of Arab
incursions, the town in the plain was gradually deserted and
forgotten. Hence Nicet.is says that Chonai (his own birthplace)
and Colo.ssa; were one and the .same place (ed. Bonn, 403). The
idea even arose that the Colossians of the epistle were the
Rhodians (cp Rams. Cit. nfui Bish. 1 214). The Colossians of
Cedr. 1 758 are the Paulicians of the Church of Argaous in
Armenia.
[Authorities : besides Lightfoot, Colossians, see Rams. Cit.
and Bish. vol. i. with map ; id. Church in the Roman Empire,
chap. 19 with map of the Lycus valley.] \v. J. \V.
COLOSSIANS 2 and EPHESIANS.'' Epistles to the.
These two epistles are related so closely that they
cannot without disadvantage be considered separately.
Colossians consists of two distinct p>ortions : the one
didactic and polemical, the other practical and hor-
tatory, the whole being rounded off by
the superscription ( 1 1 /. ) at the begin-
ning, and by commendations of the
bearer, greetings and other messages, and the writer's
autograph greeting at the close (47-18).
In the introduction, 1 3^, Paul, a.s his custom is, gives thanks
for the conversion of those whom he is addressing, and expresses
the wish that they may continue to grow in all wisdom.
At V. 13, by a gentle transition, he pas.ses over into a Christo-
logical discourse setting forth the transcendent glory of the Son,
and how he is head of the universe and of the Church, in whom all
hea\en and the whole earth are reconciled to God {v^'. 14-20) ;
in 7'.-'. 21-23 the re.-iders' personal interest in Christ's work of
reconciliation is affirmed, and in tzk 24-25 Paul goes on to say
that he has had it committed to his special charge to proclaim
the great secret of the universality of salvation, whence it is that
he labours and cares .so specially for the interests of hi;; readers.
In 2 1-23 the main bu.siness of the epistle is entered upon — an
earnest warning against false teachers, who, holding out hopyes
of an illu.sory perfection, wi.sh to substitute all sorts of Gentile
and Jewish religious observances in the place of ' Christ alone.'
With the exhortation (3 1-4) to live their lives in the heavenly
manner, and conformably to the new life, the apostle passes to
the practical portion of the epistle. Here in the first instance
(3 5-17) the sins of the old man that are to be laid a.side and the
virtues of the new man that are to be put on are indicated
somewhat generally ; then (3 i8-4 i) the duties of wives and
husbands, children and p.arents, servants and masters are
specially described, with (4 2-6) an urgent call to continual
prayer (including prayer for the success of his own mission) and
to wise and discreet employment of speech in their dealings
with the unconverted.
The contents of Ephesians are, on the whole, similar to
those of Colossians ; but the polemical part and epistolary
_ « i 1. accessories are given much more briefly
2. Contents , , , -- . ^
f P y~ (only a superscription 1 i /. , and in 621-24,
01 Ijpn. ^ sentence devoted to the bearer of the
epistle, with parting good wishes), w^hilst all the rest is
1 Cp 'Am^ioit . . . yivti. M.o\aaa-<\v%, CIG 84380 k ; and Wolfe
Exped. 482, '0»Tj«ri>iO« '.\<^i<} yuvatici.
2 Trpos KoAao-<raeis [WH]. irpo? KoAo(Tcro«s [Ti.].
3 irpos E<^«<rtov« [Ti. WH].
1. Contents
of Col.
COLOSSIANS AND EPHESIANS
treated with greater amplitude. The doctrinal jxirtion
exiends from 1 3 to 3 21. Here it cannot Ik; said that any
one h:xs as yet quite succeeded in jwinting out any very
clear and consecutive pr<Kess of thought, or methodical
elaboration of definite themes. To lind, for example,
in I3-14 'the operations of divine grace,' and, more
explicitly, in vv. 7,ff. ' \vhat God the Father," in in<. j ff.
' what God the Son,' and in in: 13^ 'what (jod the
Spirit has done," is to force the te.vt into moulds of
thought that are foreign to it. Strictly, this part
of the epistle is sim[)ly a parallel, carried out with
unwonted fulness, to the thanksgivings with which Paul
is accustomed to introduce all his letters : — an act of
praise to God who has wrought for all mankind deliver-
ance from sin and misery through Christ and his
gosjjel, and who has made the Church, of which Christ
is the head, to be the centre of a new and glorious
world.
In 1 3-14 Paul begins, then, with praise to God who from all
eternity has graciousl]^ chosen his people to salvation ; in 1 15-^3
he expresses his special joy that his readers are among those
who have thus been chosen. 2i-io brings into a strong and
viviti light the absoluteness of the contrast between their former
and their present state, and the fact that the happy change is
due to divine grace alone ; further, it is taught that the distinc-
tion between the uncircumcised and the circunic' .cd people of
the promise has been obliterated by the blood of C hrist (2 i j i j),
and that, in the new spiritual building, where Christ is the chief
corner stone, those who were afar off are incorporated as well
as those who were nigh (214-22); there are no more strangers
and foreigners. To prix;laim the full and unimpaired interest
of the Gentiles in the gospel has been the noble function divinely
assigned to Paul (3 1-12) ; his readers must not allow his present
tribulations to shake their confidence in any vay (813). His
prayer (3 n^.\ closing with a dcxology (20/), is that they
may ever go on growing in faith, in love, and in knowledge,
until at last nothing more is wanting in them of all the fulness
of CJod.
4 1-16, at the beginning of the practical section, urges the
readers to give practical effect to the union that has thus been
brought about, to walk worthily of the Christian vocation, and
each to take his part in the common task according to the measure
3. Chiirch
of Colossae.
of his power, so that the whole may ever grow up more fully into
Christ. What yet remains of the old man and heathen life
must be sedulously put away (4 17-24) ; truthfulness, uprightness,
and kindliness of speech and act must be cultivated as rhe true
bases of social life (4 25-32) ; of these we have the best examples
in the love of God and Christ (5 i/?). In 5 3-21 personal holiness
and the walk of believers as wise and pure children of light are
further descriljed. In 5 22-t;g the duties of members of house-
holds in their several places and relations are treated in the
same order as in Col. 3i3^; and the very elaborate figure of
the Christian panoply in t> 10-20 with the exhortation to carry
on the warfare against the powers of evil with counige and
boldness — a warfare in which he too would be so glad to join
them as a free man— forms a fine close.
CoLOSSK {q. -i'. ) lay not far from the larger cities of
Laodicea and Hierajjolis, with the churches of which
the Colossian (christians, it is clear, had
kept up intimate relations from the first
(Col. 2 1 4 13 15^ ). These churches were
not among those which had been directly founded by
Paul; according to 2i (123) they had not yet seen
him personally; their founder, according to 4 12/. I7,
had been a certain h'.paphras. The fact that at the
time when the epistle is Ixjing written Epaphras is with
Paul of itself goes far to prove that he stood to him in
the relation of a disciple ; in any case Paul recognises
the gosixil proclaimed by him as the true one and not
requiring correction. When these churches were founded
is not said ; but they do not seem to have had a long
history ; we may venture to fi.\ the date somewhere
between the years 55 and 60 A.D. As, according to
4 11/., their founder was a Gentife Christian, we may
take it that the great majority of the meml)ers also
were (Jentile Christians, an inference that is enforced by
1 21 27/ 'J 13. Thus Paul had a double right to regard
them as belonging to his missionary field.
Epiiksus (q.7\) is the city in which, according to
Actsl98io (cp '2O31), Paul for more than two years —
4 Of Pnh«aii« ■iPPr«x>">''itely between 55 and 58 A.D.
*• "^ ^P'»«»^B- (see Chronology, §68/.) -in the teeth
of great hindrances (see i Cor.1532), had lalxmred with
unwonted success in the cause of the gospel, which.
until his arrival, h.ad been practically unheard of there.
At last the riot stirred up by Demetrius the silversmith,
descriljed in Acts 1923^,exi)osed his life to such serious
danger (2 Cor. \Z//.) that he was comf»elled to abandon
the city for gtxKl, and l>etake himself elsewhere — to
Macedonia, in the first instance (.Acts20t). The events
of that period did not prove fatal to the church at
Ephesus : in Rev. 2 1-7 it stands at the head of the
churches in Asia, and it is highly probable that Rom. 16
is a fragment of a letter addressed to it by Paul (.\quila
and Pri.sca, x: 3/, as well as Epaenetus. 'who is the
first-fruits of Asia unto Christ,' v. 5, are among the
saluted). In any case the apostle kept up a lively
interest in this church, and maintained intimate rela-
tions with it. The writer of the ' we-source," however, in
Acts 20 17-30, descriljc-s a most affecting leave-taking
between Paul and the elders of Ephesus, whom the
former had asketl to meet him at Miletus as he was on
his way to Jerusalem, and plainly he regards it as having
bt>en final. Of what elements the Ephesian church was
composed we have no means of judging, apart from
Rom. 16 ; the probability Is that the majority were
converted pagans ; but it is nevertheless certain that the
Jews in Ephesus were numerous, atid we can well
suppose that others of their number V)esides Aquila and
Prisca had joined themselves to the company of believers
in Jesus as the risen .Messiah. In fact, when Paul, in
Acts2029^, In looking forward to the time after his
departure, speaks of the apjjcarance of fal.se teachers
and ravening wolves in Ephesus, Judaisers may very
Weil have been meant. Unfortunately the references
to Ephesus in the Pastoral Epistles ( i Tim. 1 3 2 Tim.
lis 18 4 12) throw no light on the subsetjuent history of
Christianity there. All we can be sure of is that the
apostle, after so long a residence, must have become
acquainted in a very special manner with the peculiarities
of the situation.
Even without any special occasion, perhaps, Paul
might very well have written an epistle to the church
5 Occasion °'^ ^"lossie at the time he did. Its
of Col founder had informed him of the orderly
walk and steadfastness in the faith of its
members, and doubtless also of their sympathy with
himself. It was natural etiough, therefore, that he
should at least assure them of his gladness over the
good beginnings they had made, all the more as a
suitable opportunity had offered itself for communicating
with them. Onesimus (49) was lx.'ing sent back to
his master, Philemon, with a short letter ; Tychicus, a
member of the Pauline circle, was accompanying him,
and it was almost a matter of course that he should be
entrusted with letters of introduction to the churches
whose hospitality he expected to enjo}'. The epistle to
the Colossians, however, is more than a mt-re occasional
writing. The probability is that Paul's determination
) write it was formed immediately on receiving the
conmmnication from Epaphras as to the condition
of Christianity in the Eycus valley ; false teachers had
made their appearance in Coloss;t, and Epaphras
himself felt unable, single-handed, to cojx' with their
sophistries. To deal with these is the writer's main
object; even where he is not expressly polemical, as in
chaps. 1 and 3, his aim is to establish a correct under-
standing of the gospel as against their wisdom, falsely
so called.
If the picture of the Colossian false teachers does not
present such well-marked features as that of the CJalatian
6 False ^'^'^^ apostles, there is no occasion for sur-
teachers P*^'^^- ^""^ \^av\ knew the latter personally,
the others only by hearsay. That the
Colossian agitators must have belonged to the same class
as others that we read of in other places is too much to
assume. Many of the observations of Paul would apply
well to Judaisers — as for example the marked emphasis
with which it is said (2 11/.) that the Colossians are
circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands,
862
COLOSSIANS AND EPHESIANS
and (214) that the handwriting against us has lieen nailed
to the cross and so cancelled. In particular the exhorta-
tion of 2 16, ' I^t no man judge you in meat or in drink,
or in respect of a feast day or a new moon or a sabbath
day,' seems decisive as to the Jewish character of the
new teachers ; in this connection the cjuestion of 220 (cp
28) cannot fail to suggest Gal. 43-9, and one is strongly
inclined to presume the condition of matters in Colossas
to have been similar to that in Galatia. Only, it is
commands and precepts of men that are being imposed
with a 'touch not, taste not, handle not' (2822), it is
an ' arbitrary religion,' {ideXodpijaKia) that is Ixiing thrust
upon the Colossians (223) — in such terms I'aul could
hardly have described a return to compliance with the
injunctions of the O T law. As the ascetic interest
(223, 'severity towards the body' ; 21823, 'humility')
has a foremost place with the false teachers, many take
them to have been Christian Essenes or ascetics of an
Esscne character (cp Es.sknes, § 3/). But it has to
l)e rememlxired that ascetic tendencies were very
widely spread at that time, and that they first came
into Judaism from without. According to 28
the agitators gave themselves out to tx; philosophers.
Paul indeed regards their wisdom as ' vain deceit '
— according to 2 18 they 'are vainly puffed up by their
fleshly mind,' and with deceiving speeches seek to
lead their hearers astray — and when he so strikingly
emphasises that in Christ Christians already possess the
'truth' ('all wisdom and spiritual understanding,' "all
the treasures of wisdom and knowledge,' 1691026^
23), and so zealously points out what is the right way to
perfection (I28 814 4 12), all that we can infer from this
is, that the innovators in Colossns came forward with a
claim to be able to lead their followers from faith to
knowledge, true wisdom, and a perfect Christianity.
In doing so they appealed to visions they had seen (2 18) ;
their knowledge of the celestial world entitled them, they
contended, formally to set up a worship of angels, by
which, however, Christ was thrust out from his central
position as the only redeemer (219). Paul supplies no
details of their speculations as to the powers and functions
of these celestial spirits ; but any such theosophy as this
cannot be called Jewish in any specific sense. How far
a religiously objectionable dualistic view of the universe
lay at the bottom of the peculiar doctrines and precepts
of these men will probably never be known ; Isut that
Paul should raise his voice so earnestly against them
while taking up an attitude so different towards the
'Essenising' weak brethren in Rome (Rom. 14/) —
although they do not appear to have attacked him
p)ersonally at all — shows that he, for his part, discerned
in them a spirit that was foreign to Christianity and
hostile to it. As their philosophical tendencies and their
worship of angels do not fit in with the theory that they
were Jews (here Ale.xandrianism helps us no better than
Essenism), it will doubtless be lx,st to regard these
Colossian false teachers as baptised ' mysteriosophists,"
who sought to bring their ascetic tendencies with them
into the new religion, and had found means to satisfy
their polytheistic instincts by the forms of a newly-
invented worship of angels. In doing so they prided
themselves on their compliance with all the demands of
the OT, though in detail they of course interpreted
these in an absolutely arbitrary way. It was this method
of an affected interpretation of the OT, claimed by
them to be a guarantee of wisdom, that gave them
something of a Judaising appearance ; but in so far as
their ideas had any individuality (as, for example, the
notion that between man and the extra-mundane God
there is a series of intermediate beings, and that the thing
of essential importance is to secure the fav6ur of these
mediators or to know how to avoid their evil influences)
they were of heathen not Jewish origin.
The Pauline authorship of Colossians has been denied
in various quarters since Mayerhoff (1838), and, in
particular, by the Tubingen School en masse. The
863
external testimony to its genuineness is the best possible
7. Genuine-
ness : vocabu-
lary, etc.
— ^ever since a collection of Pauline
letters existed at all, Colossians seems
to have Ixjen invariably included. In
form, nevertheless, the epistle presents
many striking peculiarities. It contains a large numljer
of words which Paul nowhere else uses— amongst them,
especially, long composites such as iridavoXoyia (24),
ifijiaTei'eiv (2 18) ; and on the other hand many of the
apostle's most current expressions, such as fri, did, Apa,
are absent, and in the structure of the sentences there are
fewer anacoloutha than elsewhere in Paul, as well as a
greater number of long periods built up of participial
and relative clau.ses. These difficulties, however,
apply only to the first half of the epistle, and even here
the genuine Pauline element is still more in evidence
than the peculiarities just indicated ; the difticulty and
obscurity of the style, so far as old age or passing ill-
health may not be regarded as sufficient explanation,
can be accounted for on the ground that Paul had not
so lively and vivid a realisation of the exact opponents
with whom he had to do, as in the case of those of
Galatia or Corinth. But in substance also the
8 Ideas ^'^P'^"^'*^ 'i''^^ been held to be un-Pauline. It
has lx;en held to represent the transition
stage between the Pauline and the Johannine theology
— a further development of the Pauline conception of
the dignity of Christ (lisjT-), in the direction of the
Alexandrian Logos-doctrine, according to which he is
regarded as the centre of the cosmos, the first-born of
all creation (I15), no longer as the first-born among
many brethren only (Rom. 829). Eormula; like that in
29, ' in him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily,"
it is urged, have a somewhat gnostic ring ; the repre-
sentation of the Church as being the body of Christ ( 1 24
219), further, is said to be post-Pauline, whilst Paul him-
self never gave ethical precepts in such detail as we find
in 3i3f.
In answer to all this, it can hardly be denied that
Colossians exhibits a new development of Pauline
9. Genuineness f^-^^^'f^^y: hut why should not Paul
... J hmiself have carried it on to this de-
not disproved. , . . ^ ...
^ velopment in view of new errors, which
demanded new statements of truth? The fact is, that
in some cases, probabl}', he has simply appropriated
and applied to Christ formulre (as, say, in 29) which
the false teachers had employed with reference to their
mediating beings ; and his theology as a whole never
became fully rounded and complete in such a sense as
to exclude fresh points of view or new expressions.
Unmistakable traces of an undoubtedly later agecannot
be shown in the epistle, while whole sections, such as
chap. 4, can hardly l)e understood tis the work even of
the most gifted imitator. None of the gnostic systems
of the second century known to us can be shown to
be present in Colossians, whilst the false teachers with
whom the epistle makes us acquainted could have made
their appearance within the Christian Church in the
year 60 a.d. just as easily as in 120.
There seems no cogent reason even for the invention
of a mediating hypothesis — whether that of Ewald, which
makes Timothy, joint-writer of Colossians, responsible
for certain un-Pauline expressions, or that of Holtz«-
mann, according to which an epistle of Paul was gone
over in the second century by the author of Ephesians.
With the one hypothesis it is impossible to figure clearly
to oneself how the work of writing the letter was gone
about ; and the other it is impossible to accept unless
we choose to admit irreconcilable traits in the picture
of the false teachers — as, perhaps, that Paul himself
wrote only against ' Essenising ' ascetics, whilst the
theosophic angelology was due entirely to the inter-
polator, who had other opponents in his mind. ICven
in its most difficult parts, however, the connection in
the epistle is not so loose as ever to force upon one
the impression that there must have been interpolation ;
864
COLOSSIANS AND EPHESIANS
»
and, as regards certain of the difficulties raised by
criticism, it is to be remarked that caution is always
necessary in dealing with literary productions of a jx-'riod
so obscure. Colossians may be Pauline quite as well
as Pliilippians or i Thessalonians. The number of those
who doubt its genuineness does not grow.
Colossians was written in captivity (431018), at the
same time as Thilemon, probably from Rome (not from
_ . Cifsarea), alxiul 63 A.D. The apostle is
surrounded by friends — Epaphras, Mark,
Aristarchus, Uenias, Luke, Jesus Justus. Whether
Philippians was written before Colossians and Philemon,
or whether Philippians should be regarded as the apostles
last writing is diflicult to decide, quite apart from the
question of a second captivity. The Chrbtological
portion of Philippians ('24 J^.) has much in common
with Colossi.ins.
If Ephesians also is really the work of Paul (see below,
§15/), it must have been written almost contem-
T? 1 ♦■ poraneouslv \\ith Colossians. It is true,
t E h '"'^'-''-■'^' ^^'""^ '" * "'• ^'' '"^ '" ''^''- ••'•
° P ■ Timothy is named as Joint-writer, while
he is not mentioned in Ephesians. P'rom this, however,
it cannot lie argued tliat the situations were materially
ditt'erent, any more than it could be argued that Colos-
sians and Philemon must l)e of different date because in
the list of those who send greetings in I'hilcm. 23/. we do
not find the Jesus Justus named in Col. 4ii, or Ixjcause,
in Philem. 23/., Epaphras is called a fellow-prisoner and
Aristarchus a fellow-worker, whilst in Col. 4 10^ Aristar-
chus, as a fellow-prisoner, heads the list of those who send
greetings, and ICpaphras .seems to be regarded as one of
the fellow -workers. In Eph. 3i 13 6 20 also Paul is a
prisoner, yet as much burdened with work as in Col. 1
24-29 43/ Tychicus is introduced in Eph. 621/. as
bearer of the letter, and as one who will Ije able to give
further particulars as to the apostle's state, in almost the
same words as in Col. 4?/.; and although there is no
mention of Onesimus in Ephesians, we must hold that
both epistles refer to the same mission.
The frecjuent verbal coincidences between Colossians
and I'lphesians even in points in which the phraseology
is a matter of indifference (cp, for example, Eph. 1 15/.
and Col. 1 3/ 9; Eph. 21 and (Jol. 1 21 213; I'.ph. 620
and Col. 434), unless we have here a case of deliberate
imitation by a later writer, are intelligible only if we
assume the one letter to have Ixien written when Paul's
mind was still full of the thoughts and expressions of
the other. Of Colossians the only portions not finding
a parallel in Ephesians are : the jx)leinical section,
2 1-34 (although indeed 2 10-14 is again an exception),
and the greetings in 4 lo-iSa ; of Ephesians, on the
other hand, the only portions not finding a parallel in
Colossians are : the introduction ( 1 3-14), the liturgically-
phrased section (813-21), the exhortation to jx-aceful co-
operation (4 1-16), and the figure of the spiritual armour,
although in this case also some reminiscences are not
wholly wanting in Colossians.
That the one letter is a pedantic reproduction of the
other cannot be said. If we possessed only one of them
it could not be called a mere compilation or paraphrase.
The parallel passages to Col. 1 , for example, lie scattered
up and down Eph. 1-4 (or 5) in a wholly different order,
and there is no trace of any definite method according
to which the one writing has l)cen used for the other.
There is no sort of agreement among critics on the ques-
tion as to which of the two is the original form ; but the
present writer inclines to consider Ephesians the later,
partly Ixjcause in Colossians the various details and
peculiarities are Ijetter accounted for by the needs of a
church not yet far advanced ethically, and ex|x>sed to
danger from false teaching, and it would h:;ve Ijct-n rather
contrary to what might have been expected if Paul had
first sought to meet these very special needs by means
of a letter of a more general character.
Of all Paul's epistles addressed to churches, Ephesians
is certainly the least epistolary in character. One
_. . vainly examines the circumstances of
f E h '^"^ *° ^'''"'" '^ '* addressed to find
^ ' occasion for its comp<Jsition. The
epistle, which has a |jersonal tinge in only a few
places, could have been written etjually well to almost
any other church ; it is more of a sermon than of a
letter — a sermon on the greatness of that (jospel which
is able to bridge over all the old contradictions in
humanity, and on the grandeur of that one Church of
Christ by which salvation is made sure, and on the
precepts by which the memljers of this Church ought to
regulate their lives. One conmientator imleed g(X"s so
far as to say that in Ephesians ' we have the most
mature and sustained of all the statements of ( hristian
doctrine which have come down to us from tlie hand
of the great ajxistle.' Other students may jx-rhaps
think Galatians and Corinthians more vivid and jx)wer-
ful, Romans richer, Philii)pians more sympathetic, but
certainly so far as the thing can be done at all within
the compass of one short letter, Paul has laid down in
Ephesians something like an exhaustive outline of his
Gospel. Viewed on its anti-Jewish or supra-Jewish
side, however, it is much too slightly wrought out.
With regard to the cjuestion, to whom Ephesians was
addressed, the only thing quite certain is, that if the
„ , epistle was written by Paul it cannot
■ ° ^ 5*°^ have Ix-en addressed to Ephesus. I'.ven
aaoreBsea. ^^^^^ ,^„ ^^^ ^^^^ ^^-^ ^^ ^j^^ apologists
it remains incredible that he should have written to a
church to which he had devoted three years of his life
and to which, even after his final parting, his heart still
yearned so tenderly, in so cold a tone as here, — without
a word of greeting to anybody, without reference to any
of their common memories, in short without a single
individualising note of any kind. Even apart from 1 15
and 82-4 no one could suspect that the ajxistle is here
speaking to a church with which his accjuaintance was
so intimate as it was with the Ephesians. If his ac-
quaintance with the Colossians was formed only by
report, every reader of the present epistle must hold the
same to be true of this. If the words ' in Ephesus' in
1 I are to \x held to t)e original, we have here no com-
position of Paul the prisoner, writing in 63 A.D., but
the work of a later hand who has artificially adapted
himself to the part of the apostle but who wholly failed
to reali.se how grossly improbable were the relations
between Paul and the Ephesians as indicated by him.
But these decisive words — iv 'E<p4(T(f) — are critically
open to the gravest suspicion. It is true that from the
date of the Muratorian Canon (about 180) onwards
they are attested by witnesses innumerable ; but an
older authority — Marcion — about 140, cannot have
read them where they now stand, since he took the
epistle to Ix; addressed to the Laodiceans ; they are
absent also from both of the oldest extant MSS. (N and
B) ; and learned Church fathers, such as Origen in the
third century and Basil in the fourth, agree in their
omission. Not till the fifth century do we find the
words regularly established in the recognised texts.
But it is highly improbable that an original reading tu
'E<pdcrcf} should ever have come to be deleted (let us
suppose) on critical grounds ; for the exercise of criticism
in this sense was unknown in the second century, and,
if it had lx.'en, its exercise here would not have lx*en
content with a mere negative, but would have gone on
to substitute the reading that was considered to l)e more
appropriate. It is absolutely impossible that the oldest
text should not have contained the name of some place ;
a name is rendered quite indispensable by the context
' to the saints which are ..."
The onlv remaining alternative is that we should
A ip fv V . supixjse the original name to have
14. A UatnoUC accidentally disappeared and that ^v
" ■ 'E^'(T(f> was conjecturally insertetl in
its place, the determining consideration being that
866
COLOSSIANS AND BPHBSIANS
Paul must surely, once at least in his life, have written a
letter to his beloved Ephesians. If Marcion read iu
AaodiK(i(/. instead c." iv 'Kcpeffip, it was only because he
thought this a preferable conjecture ; what he had in
his mind was Col. 4 16, where an epistle to the I^iodi-
ceans is spoken of, w hich the Colossians also are bidden
obtain a reading of. 'I'he letter alluded to must
have been nearly contemporaneous with that to the
Colossians ; we may venture to conjecture that the then
conditions in Laodicea were very similar to those in
Coloss.e, so that on the present assumption the corre-
spondences between tlie two letters become easily
explicable. Tychicus then also will become the bearer
of both letters. Only, on the other side again, it is not
easy to understand in this case how it is that Paul treats
the Colossians with so much greater intimacy and
cordiality than he treats their neighbours the Laodiceans ;
how, further, he should invite comparisons b)' bidding
the churches exchange letters with each other ; and,
lastly, how in spite of the laljour expended in behalf of
the Laodiceans by F.paphras (Col. 4 13), Paul should not
think it necessary to enclose a greeting from him.
The attitude of Ephesians, with its absence of explicit
and detailed reference to the circumstances and stage of
growth of its readers, is, on the assumption of its being
a Pauline letter, intelligible only if its destination excluded
such individual reference ; in other words, if it was really
not addressed to any one church, but was a circular
intended for a number of Gentile Christian churches (in
the jjresent case in Asia Minor, or, more precisely, in
I'hrygia)^ — which Tychicus on the occasion of his
journey to Colossoe was to visit, conveying to them at
the same time also a direct message from the great
apostle of the Gentiles. It is not, after all, beyond
possibility, however, that Ephesians may Ix; the epistle
referred to in Col. 4i6; for there it is called, not the
epistle fo Laodicea, but the epistle y>v)w Laodicea, by
which expression may have been intended nothing more
than a copy of ICphesians to be obtained at Laodicea.
In the original superscri|)tion, if this be so, %ve may sup-
pose Paul to have named the province or provinces to
the churches of which he wished to address himself (cp
1 Pet. 1 1 ) ; the epistle would then have an almost
' catholic ' character, and, in point of fact, next to
Colossians, i Peter, of all the other NT epistles, is the
one that comes nearest Ephesians in substance.
The whole preceding discussion (§ 13/) falls to the
ground if, as was done by the Tiibingen school and still
15 O-pnuin '^ done by many recent writers, the
Pauline authorship is denied. The ex-
ternal testimony is the best possible :
from NLircion's time onwards the epistle is included in
all lists of Paul's writings, and from the second century
onwards the citations from it are exceptionally fre(|uent.
On the other hand, in form and style it is removed still
further than Colossians from the manner of the earlier
epistles of Paul ; the nimiber of dna^ \ey6fj.eva is
astonishingly great ; whilst in Paul the devil is called
Satan, here (Eph. 427 611) he is called 5id/3o\os or
(22) ' prince of the kingdom of the air ' -.^ the structure
of the sentences is strikingly lumViering ; substantives
closely allied in meaning are constantly linked together
by prepositions — especially ^v — or b)- the use of the
genitive, an expedient that conduces neither to freedom
nor to clearness of style. At the same time the epistle
has a numl)er of characteristically I'auline expressions,
including some that do not occur in Colossians, and at
every step genuinely Pauline turns of thought - are
recalled.
The absence of concrete details in Ephesians has al-
ready been noted ; but, if it lie true that we have here
a circular letter, the standards which we might apply
to Corinthians or Philippians cease to be applicable.
2 In Paul he is called also, however, ^fAi'ap (2Cor. 6 15) and
' the god of this world ' (I'i. 4 4). See Belial.
Peculiarities in statement of individual doctrines or
in theological outlook generally, indifference of attitude
upon controverted points of the Pauline period, and
a preference for the ideas of the old Catholicism that
w;is beginning to take shape cannot be denied ; but here
again, as with Colossians, the case is met if we
postulate a growth in the apostle himself, under the
influence of new conditions. We fail to find in the
epistle any direct evidence that the writer is a man
of the second Christian generation, addressing men
who have fx;en born Christians ; on the contrary, the
readers are addressed as persons who had formerly been
heathens.
The main obstacle to the traditional view of the
authorship of the epistle is found in 4 1 1 2 20 3 5. In
ifi TT-««-+„i^ 4 II, in the enumeration of church
16. Uncertain. „- ., ,. . . , .,
officers, the peculiar spiritual gifts to
which so great prominence is given in i Cor. 12 /.
are almost entirely passed over ; in 220 it is the glory of
the Church that she is ' built on the foundation of
apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief
corner stone,' and in 85, as if there had never been any
such thing as a dispute in Jerusalem or in Antioch, the
present time is spoken of as that in which the (ientiles"
equality in privilege has been ' spiritually revealed to
his holy apostles and prophets." In the mouth of the
apostle who has devoted the unremitting efforts of a
lifetime to the establishment of this equality of privilege,
this lixst expression has a peculiar sound. In a disciple
of the apostle, on the other hand,— one who has in view
the accomplished fact, the one and indivisible Church
for which all the apostles and prophets are equally
sacred authorities — the phrases quoted are natural
enough ; and on the whole the hypothesis that a Pauline
Christian, intimately familiar with the Pauline epistles,
especially with Colossians, writing about 90 A. D. , has
in Ephesians sought to put in a plea for the true Catholi-
cism in the meaning of Paul, and in his name, is free
from any serious difficulty. It is very hard to decide ;
perhaps the question ought to be left open as not yet
ripe for settlement, and Ephesians in the meantime used
only with caution when the Pauline system is being
construed.
Like the Pauline epistles in general, Colossians and
Ephesians are among the test preserved parts of the N'T.
They have hardly at all been subjected
17. Text of
Col. and Eph.
to ' smoothing ' revision ; the majority
of the variants (which, it must be said,
are very numerous) are clearly mere cojiyists' errors.
At the same time the readings vacillate at several
important points — e.g., (Eph. 89) between Koivuvia
and oLKovofxia, (Col. 2 18) between & fiT} eopaKev and A
iopaKev, (Col. 3 13) between xp«rr6s and Kvpios. Influence
of the text of Ephesians upon Colossians can be some-
times traced — e.j^. , Col. 36, has Ix.>en supplied from I'.ph.
56. The obscurity of many of the sentences may have
helped to protect them from gratuitous change ; in any
case the exegete of cither epistle has a much harder
task than the text-critic.
H. J. Holtzmann, Kritik tier Epheser u. Kolosserhriefe,
{'T2), a most careful comparison of the two letters with each
other and with those Pauline epistles of
18. Literature, which the genuineness may be regarded as
certain. Holtzmann's hypothesis Ls that in
Colossians we have a genuine epistle of Paul to CoIossje, which
has been expanded by later interpolations ; the interpolator is
the author of theepistle to the Kphesians, — a Gentile Christian,
of Pauline training, who belonged to the post-apastolic age.
Alb. Klopper, Der Brie/ an <iie Colosser Q%-2\ and Der Brie/
an die Kpheser(^(j\), a very thorougli if somewhat stilT exposi-
tion : Colo.ssians is held to be genuine, Ephesians not. H. v.
Soden in //'r, 1885, pp. 320^, 497 i?:, 672^ and 1887, 103^,
^yzff. substanti,illy accepted Holtzmann's hypothesis, and in the
ilC ('91) has given a luminous commentary. H. Oltramare,
Coiiim. sur les £pitres tie S. f^aul aux Colcssiens, aux Kph. et
Phil.., 3 vols., 1891-92, maintains the genuineness of both
epistles. In the ca.se of Colossians this had already been
argued most brilliantly by J. B. Lightfoot (St. Paul's Epistles to
the Colossians and to Philtnicm, 1875, 8th ed. 1886). J. Mac-
pherson in Commentary on St. Paufs Ep. to the Ephtsian.^.
('92), has sought with a painstaking care, worthy of Lightfoot
867
COLOURS
himxelf, to vindicate tradition and solve the difficulties of the
epUile. Kr. Haupt (tiie Ct/aHgfHuha/lshrit/t, 1899, an entirely
new recast of the Krit.-Kxfgtl. Komm. of H. A. W. Meyer)
takes, as regards the genuineness, a (HMiiiun similar to that of
the present article, but decides agninsi the Komun oriein and
in favour of Cxsarea. Some new points of view arc offered in
Zahn's Einl. i. d. N.T., 1897, 310-398, \wk\\ on the question of
introducliun and on details uf exegesis. The once justly
pouular commentaries of Kllicott ('55) and Harless (and eel.
58) on Kphesians are now somewhat out of date. .See also
tne (posthumous) FrolenomtHa to the Ef>f>. to the Romans a>ui
Kfhetians ('95) by Prof. J. A. Hort ; and T. K. Ablxjtt, Coiitni.
OH F/>hesiaMs and Coiossians ('97). ' A. J.
COLOURS. If in certain branches of art ihc ancient
Hcliiiws tell far l)chin(l their contemporaries, they were
Arti tic "^' without artistic feeling ; if they had
■- J. no drama, they were not devoid of dra-
*■ maticinstinct(CANTlCl,K.s.§7; Poktk AL
LiTKKAiURK, § 5) ; .Hid if, through no inherent fault
of their own, they were unable to attain any degree of
competency in the hif^hest form of art, yet they had, as
their ix>etry shows, a very real appreciation of -the
sublime and lieautiful. The neglect to cultivate this
taste was a necessary consequence of the effort to fulfil
the ancient conuiiand in V.x.'lO^, — a command which
would of course apply as much to painting .is to sculp-
ture— and of the monotheism to which they subse-
quently attained. (See Rushin, Tivo Paths, 7 f. ;
Perrot and ("hipiez. History of Art in Sardinia,
Judica, etc., 1 III /. ; and cp Atiikns, § i.)'
A simple style of decoration and the use of some of
the dyes and dyed stuffs they may indeed have learned
at an early date."'^ When, however,
the post-e.xilic writers wish to descrilie
ecorations of an ideal sanctuary, they are obliged
2. Decoration.
the ^
to borrow their ideas of ornament from Egjpt, Baby
Ionia, Persia, or (jreece. (See Wornum, Analysis of
Ornamoit, 51 /. , and cp Israkl, §67.) Character-
istic of this style of decoration was a love of costly
display combined with brilliancy of colour (Analysis of
Ornament, 5, and Habvi.oma, § 18, Assyria, § 10,
ICr.vi'T, § 36). From these countries, then, in which
art was the ally, if not the offspring, of idolatry, came
the jiractice of dcct)rating sculpture in the round with
1)01(1 colours and costly raiment,*' a practice condenmed
by Kzekiel (2.'} 14) as Ix-ing an insult to Vahwe. That
such cases, however, were exceptional among the
Hebrews appears probable from the fact that their
language contains no words for 'paint,' 'painting,'
and 'painter' (see Paint). Nor (k)es this striking
phenomenon stand alone. It is also noteworthy that in
the original texts no term is found to express that
projierty of light known to us as lolour.
When a Hebre\v writer wishes to compare one object
with another in resjx-'ct to its colour he finds it necessary
to use the word 'ayin (j-y ' eye ') in the
sense of nppforaiia: So in Lev. 13 55
the pl.inue is spoken of as changing 'its
appe;irance ' (KV, here and in the following examples, ' colour '),
and in Nu. II 7 the ap|)earance of manna is descril)ed as lieing
like the appearance (so here RV) of Ixlellium. The same word
is used of the appearance of wine (Prov.'.'.S 31), of amber (Kz.
1 4 27 8 2), of burnished brass (K/. 1 7 Dan. lOe), of a beryl (Kz.
1 16 106), and of crystal (Ez. 1 22). Ccitainly the term
colour occurs frequently in the I'.V ; but in such cases
the translation is seldom warranted by the original text.
In the .\()ocrypha, on the other hand, a word does once
occur ixpuJAia, Wisd. 1.54) with reference to a painted
1 On the natural stages in the ' expression of the imagination,'
sec Shelley's Dt/rnce 0/ Poetrj; part i. />eg.
* Already the poet who sang of the glorious victory over
Sisera knew of dyed stuffs (Cy?^ '?';)C), and seems to a.ssume
that Israel could be expected to provide its enemies with booty
of this kind (Judg. .'iio). Of what colours, however, thLs stuff
was composed is not stated ; nor is it .said with what colours the
needlework (TOJin, cp i Ch. 20 2 Kz. 17 3) mentioned in the same
passage was embroidered. See Kmbrcmukrv.
3 For specimens of early tlr. coloured tieures see Ohnefalsch-
Richter, Kyfros, die Bibel und Homer, T.ifel-Band, Ixviii. and
cp the notes in Text-Band, 317, 418.
3. Colour
vocabulary.
COLOURS
image ; but in this instance the term denotes rather the
fMiinl or pigment used.
Just as the want of a word to express the idea of
' painting ' tends to prove that the art was very little
cultivated, so also the want of a word for ivlour (found
in .Syriac gawna, Arabic lawn"", Kgyptian ' ;w»)
naturally suggests that colours were not much talked
alxnit by the Hebrews. This inference could indeed
t)e shown to l>e unwarrantable if we found many names
. «_, for different colours, anti could prove
4. uolour 8611B6. 1 . . ,, , ,
archieologically that many colours
were in use. When, however, we come to examine the
Hebrew colour-terms — and this aj)plies also to those in
use among the Greeks and the Romans^ — at any rate in
biblical times, we find that very few of them are real
colour-terms at all, such terms Ix^ing used as denote
rather a contrast l)etween light and darkness, brightness
and dimness, than what we commonly understand by
colour. Still, if colours are not sharjily distinguished
in the languages of the ancient worltl it does not follow
that the Hebrews and otlier primitive races were unable
to distinguish shades of colour for which their language
possessed no distinct terms, or that they were, at least
with respect to certain colours, colour-blind.'
It is not so much a question of deficiency of colour-sense (as
was contended some vears ago) as of an undeveloiK-d colour-
vocabulary. (See Del., Iris, 20, and P.enzinger, Arh. under
'Farben ; also (;r.-int .Mien, C,>/iJ//r .SV«j<-, chaps. 1 1 l.S.) If
colour-blind people are in common life able to use correctly the
names of colours that they do not .see, so conversely a people
may be able to discriminate colours for which their language
has not .set apart names.-* Besides, it now seems clear that
even the lower animals are sensitive to colour (see drant Allen,
221 ; CloHd, Tke Story 0/ Crration, 87/. : and cp Drunmioinl,
Ascfnt 0/ Stan, if>sjf^-, Mont.iiKiie, /assays ICotton], 1 vn [-jj]).
IVom the use of the terms which the Hebrews did
possess, we are led to conclude that one and the same
B Scarcitv ^^'^'"'^ ^^•''^ \\i<(id to denote several shades
-f „«i »_i»r._ of one colour ; the context or object to
of real colour . , ■ , , ■ <^. ,■
1 „ „ whu h the colour was applied aflording
I names. ..1 . 1 ' ■ •_ ■ •
the clue as to the particular shatle in-
• tended. Sometimes, however, in order to distinguish
I the shade of colour quite unmistakably, the thing
I dcscrilx'd is comp;\red with anothi-r object of which the
[ colour in question is peculiarly characteristic (cp Eng.
salmon-pink, emerald-green, etc.).
It is indeed remarkable how few real colour-terms
occur in the OT. Only three of the natural colours are
distinguished by names, while for blue and yellow dis-
tinct terms arc entirely wanting. The deficiency, how-
ever, is made up for by the ti.se of the terms expressing
degrees of light or dark ; and in aildition to these are
found artificial colours with the name of the object from
which they were derived like our crimson, cochineal,
indigo, etc. Substances, t(K), of which a particular
colour was characteristic, may have Ix^n used to repre-
sent the colour itself (like I'.iig. oraiit;e, etc.).
It will Ix; convenient to gr(iu|) and examine the words
employed under the follow ing headings ; terms ex-
6 Classifi P"""^'"!? (^) ''^'^t a"'' degrees of light,
cation *^* darkness and degrees of dark, (3)
natural colours, (4) variegated surfaces,
(5) pigments, (6) objects. Finally, it will Ix; necessary
to point out instances in which the E\' expresses tr
implies a reference to colour where no such reference
1 Cp /««/, which means originally ' skin,' 'complexion.'
2 Cp De Quincey, Autchiogrupky, note to chap, tn Laxtcn :
' The truth is, colours were as loosely .-ind latitudinarially
distinguished by the Greeks and Romans as degrees of affinity
and consanguinity are everywhere.' See further Smith's Diet.
ofClass. Antiqq., s.v. ' colorcs, ' and Robertson Smith vnNat^re,
L)ec. fcili, 1877.
3 Hroiidly speaking we may say that all people see alike.
Where, however, as in the c.i-^e of artists, the colour-sense has
been .specially trained, colours are seen diflerentlv. Colour-
blindness can only be regarded as a disea-e. [Cp Ruskin,
A/odem Painters, new ed. in small form (< 7), 1 7?, $ 6.)
♦ Kven the nuxlern Knglishman does not i s: more il:.nn about
half a dozen colour-names (red, yellow, preen, blue, pink, gray,
brown, white, and black), though he is quite able to distinguish
many other shades of colour for which the Kr^lish dicticr.ary
has names, as well as probably others for which it has n..r.e.
870
COLOURS
necessarily exists. Except in the case of (5) and (6) it
is impossible to arrive at very definite conclusions, the
interpretation being based mainly on philological con-
siderations.
( 1 ) Light and de,;rees of light. — The word ns. sah,
(from nn^, Syr. .c//;, 'to shine), used in Cant. 0 10 to
7 Den-ees of '''-""'^*^''^<^g'o^^o'^''i healthy complexion
j.°y . and translated ' white' in the EV, means
^ ■ primarily ^/</7t//«^ or glistening (cp its
use in Jer. 4ii, if the text is correct, of a wind [.\V
• dry.' RV ' hot ']. in Is. 18 4 of heat [EV ' clear ']. and
in 324 as an adverb [nini- EV 'plainly']). ® repre-
sents it in Cant, by \eu»c6s, a word which originally con-
tained a similar idea, as is shown by its use in Mt. 17 2
Mk. 93 and Lk. 929.
Similarly nhs, sdhor, seems to mean literally ' dazzling,"
though in Judg. .'no it is applied to asses of a light
colour, perhaps reddish-while (cp Ass, col. 344, n. 2).
What particular shade of colour the word denotes in
this passiige is doubtful ; but Moore may tje right when,
following .A. Muller (Das Lied der Deborah), he supixsses
it to Ix; ' gray or tawny inclining to red. ' ©"'s rendering,
fjie(rr]fj.fipias, is a mere guess, intended to connect the word
with D"ins (cp Jer. 20 16 ©). A derivative (ins) from the |
same root is traditionally found in Ez. 27i8 ("ini'ncs,
EV' 'white wool' ; but see J.vv.\n), and probably also j
the name ZOhar (Gen. 46 lo irrs \ see N.\mks, § 66) |
is to l>e derived from the same root. !
The term 2ns, .f.'AJM (from an-i. Ar. sahiba). 'glitter-
ing like gold,' starts with the same idea. It is used of '
leprous hair in Lev. 18303236, where the EV represents !
it by 'yellow,' and in Ezr. 827 the Hophal participle of
the same root is applied to ' brass' (.\V 'fine copper,' j
RV • bright brass'). In Lev. 13 3032 © translates it by |
^avOi^i^v, and in 1836 by ^av^js, whereas in Ezra 827 j
( = I Esd. 857) it would seem to rentier by ariX^uiv I
[B.\L].' To express 'brilliant,' as contrasted with j
'white,' the NT employs Xa/j-irpoi in Lk. 23ii (EV I
'gorgeous'), Actsl03o (EV 'bright'), Ja. 22 (AV I
'goodly,' RV 'fine'). Rev. 156 (AV 'white,' RV |
'bright'), and Rev. 198 (AV 'white,' RV 'bright'). \
In .\ctsl03o Ja. 22 Rev. 156 the Vulgate translates the
word by Candidas.
(2) Darkness and degrees of dark. — To express the
idea of darkness the term inr, sahor (from nnc*, Syr.
8. Degrees Of ^'•^''''^' to l.eWk') is employed. It
dark "^ " ^^"' '" ^ leprous
rising (Lev. 1831 37), of a sunburnt
skin or comple.vion (JobSOso, (aKorwrai [BX], /xf/ie\d-
vurai [.\] ; Cant. 1 5), and of dark horses (Zech. 62);
and a diminutive form nrnnc*, s'harhor, is applied in
Cant. 1 6 (© fifUfXavwfjuivy)) to dark ringlets. When it is
desired to express a particularly dark colour another
substantive is sometimes added, as 'oven-black,' Lam.
5io (of skin ; © ojs KXL^avos eweXiuidT)), 'raven-black,'
Cant. 5 II (of hair), and in the NT 'sackcloth-black'
(Rev. 612). In the EV .uihor is represented by 'black,'
and in © and NT by ^Aos. From the same root are
derived nine*, ^hor (Lam. 48; seeCo.vi,, §1), and prob-
ably lirrr, iihor (Josh. 183), another name for the Nile
(see Shiiior).
Another word c?n, hum (from nn = ccn), applied to
sheep whose wool has been scorched by the sun,
though really meaning simply 'dark,' may be trans-
lated 'brown,' as is done by AV in Gen. 8032/ 3540.
In © it is rendered by ipaidi and once {v. 40) by
jrotAciXoj. - To express the idea of gloom and sorrow
1 The Hcb. has anjs rnisn d;5P nzia ansa nc'n: 'Spv
For this i Esd. ha.s icat <ricrvT) x"^*'' ""■<> X"^*"'' XP')""''*'" O'tCK-
^vTa (TKfvri SfKa [B] and «. a: x- ""O X- XPI"^"'' o'Ti'A/Soi'TOt
XpviTottSovf itKa Svo [L].
2 There is also a form TTCa. Icatnrlr (Job 3 5 plur. constr.
I® om.J) which occurs in job (AV blackness), and has often
been connected with an Aram, root . ^»^. ' to be black." BDB,
871
COLOURS
we meet with the root mp, kddhar, which has the
primary meaning ' to be dirty." Thus it can be applied
to the turbid water of a brook (Jobt)i6), to a sorrowful
countenance (Jer. 821), to mourning garments (142),
and even to gates of a mourning city (Jer. Ha) and to
the heavens (Jer. 4 28 i K. 1845)- In Is. 5O3 a derivative
(nn-1,7) from the same root is used of the mourning garb
of the heavens (EV 'blackness'). To the same root
also probably belong the names Kedar (nip Gen. 25 13)
and Kidron (jimp 2.S. I523; see Namk.s, § 102).
Further, rtyg, hdsak, 'to lie dark," a word generally
used of the darkness of approaching night (cp Job
186 Is. 630), is used in Lam. 5 17 of the eyes Ixicoming
dim, in Ps. 6^24 of their becoming blind ; and in Lam.
4 8 the same term is applied to a dark complexion.
This root gives us the common word for ' darkness "
{~vr\). Both mp and T^xin are represented in © by OKora-
^(iv, OKOTovv, ffWiTKord^di' : and r-;,-, also by a Kori^eiv.
Finally, to this class tx?long also app.arently '^•'yzn
hakhlUi (Gen. 49 12, 6"'^'- ^apoTotot) and niS'V-jn,
hakhliluth (Prov. 2829 ©"na correctly ireXioi) : both of
them seem to refer to the dull ( E V ' red ' ) appearance of
the eyes after excessive drinking (cp the name Hachilah
[.T^'sn I S. 2819], and see N.wiE.s, § 102).
(3) Natural colours. — Under this heading are included
those Hebrew words which more closely resemble our
9 Natural "'^'"''^^ colour-terms. There are three
colours- '^'-'^^S'-'S : («) ^^hite, (^3) red, (7) green.
white '' "' '^'""'^tless true that primarily white
denoted simply purity, green paleness, and
red depth of light ; but the use to which the words are
applied shows that the Hebrews attached to them fairly
definite ideas of colour.
(a) White is commonly represented by jaV, labhdn.
Thus it is used of the colour of goats (Gen. 8O3537), of
teeth(49 12), of manna (Ex. 16 31), of leprous hair (Lev. 183
1020/.), of the leprous spot (Lev. I82438/), of garments
(Eccl. 98), and of horses (Zech. 1 8 63 6). Here also, as
with the sh.ades of dark, different shades of colour seem
to be clearly distinguished, as ' milk-white' (Gen. 49 12),
'coriander-seed white' (E.\. I631), 'snow-white' (Nu.
12 10 2 K. 527 Ps. 68 14 Is. 1 18), and in the NT ' wool-
white' (Rev. I14), 'bright-white' (Mt. 172 Lk. 929),
and 'harvest- white" (Jn. 435)- We even find in Lev.
13 39 a compound expression (niiaS nin?) used to describe
a shade of white (AV ' darkish w'hite," RV ' dull white ').
From the same Hebrew root seem to be derived the names
L.ib.->n (pS Gen. 24 29), Libni (-j^S E.x.(5i7), Libn.ih (.nj-''
Josh. 10 20; hut see Lih.nah), Lebanah (n:3S Ez. 245), and
Lebanon (jijn'i i K. 5 2o[6]), .so-called either on account of its
snow-capped pe.ak or from the colour of its stone, as well as the
substantives .-j^S I'bhdiuih 'moon' (Ca. (i 10), nj^S, tibhneh,
' white -popl.-ir" (Gen. 30 37), and, possibly, mz^, I'l'liindh,
' brick ' (Ex. 1 14 ; see, however, Brick, § i, n.). See Names,
§§ 66, 102.
The corresponding root in Aramaic is Tn, hiir, which
in Is. 2922 is used (as a verb) of the face becoming pale
with shame, and in Dan. 79 of a snow-white garment.'
Both these words are usually represented in © by Xe hkos
(cp, however. Gen. 30 37 where x^'»'P<Js = pS). and. more-
over, there occurs in the .Apocrypha a word Xei'KUfia
which is used of a disease of the eyes ( Tob. 2io3i768ll
813, but in Ecclus. 43 18 XevKdrrii, Heb. jz*?)-
To the same class, perhaps, belongs also nil. Gen.
40 16. In the R V it is translated ' white bread ' ; but from
what follows in the context the word would seem to refer,
not to the contents of the baskets, but to the baskets
themselves (AV 'white baskets"). Finally, to express
the idea of the hair becoming graj'ish-white through old
age, there is the root z't: sibh (iS. 122 Job 15 10),
however, appends a query, and Che. denies the existence of
a root Tcj in OT (Expositor, June 1897, p. 406 ; JQR, July
'897. p. 575)- Cp Eclipse, Chemarim.
I Robes of state seem to have been of white as well as of
purple (see below, g 15). Cp lo.s. Ant. xvii. 8 3, viii. ~ 3, xix. 8 2 ;
BJ li. 1 I ; see Keim, Gesch.Jesu von Nazara, 3 380 \ET 6 104].
87a
COLOURS
whence the derivative nyt. sibhdh, ' gray hair ' (Gen.
4238 44»93i Deut. 3225 Hos. 79 Prov. 2O39) or 'old
age' (Is. 464). In 0 it is usually represented correctly
by iroXid or t6 "y^pas.
(jS) Perhaps the most clearly distinguished of the
iwtural colours, as being the colour of blood, was red, to
10 R«d '-'''P''*^^^ which the Hebrews commonly used
the root dik, adham. That it denoted a
brilliant hue is evident from the fact that Isaiah uses
the verb c'lKi in the sense of lx;coming like scarlet
(ySin. see below, § 14), and the Priestly Code speaks of
skins dyed red (CJ^C). The adjective C"iK, 'ddhom, is
applied to blood in 2 K. 822, to blood-stained apjjarel
in Is. ()32; and verbal forms, to a blood-besmeared
shield (c^Ks) in Nah. 24 [3], and to wine (cnNrr) in Prov.
2331. That the root, however, was also employed to
describe other colours of a reddish hue is apparent
from its use as applied to a heifer (Nu. 192) or a horse
(Zech. 18), to a reddish-brown (>:c^K, Gen. 2525 i S.
16 12 ; ' cp Lam. 47, Cant. 5 10, anclseeGOLi.\TH, § 2, n. )
skin, as well as to reddish or brownish-yellow lentils
(Gen. 2530).' The Priestly Code uses also a diminutive
form (ctcik) to express merely 'reddish,' applying it to
the colour of the leprous spot (Lev. 181924) or sore
(Lev. 1342/.).
From the same root are derived the names Edom (CIN Gen.
25 30), Admah (,l,'^^K Gen. 10 19), and Adummim (cpnn Josh.
167 18 17; see Names, § 102) as well as the precious stone
called D^K (see Ruuv and Precious Stones). To DIK
■<»<///<■';«, corresponds irvopos (lit. ' having the colour of fire ') in
& .^nd NT; and in Mt. 1023
used of the sky.
we find the verb iruppaffi
Other roots, however, besides this are occasionally employed to
designate this colour. Thus the root j"Cn,^7«/a^^ which usually
conveys the idea of ' acidity, fermentation,' seems to be used in Is.
Gli I to denote a colour ; and the context rec|uires a blood- or
wine-like appearance (cp Eng. sorrel, (i) tron sur = sour ax\A.
(2) from saur- reddish-brown). C'iOK i" Zech. t) 7 is also, from
the context, possibly to be read C'spn (Che.); cp Ges.-Buhl,
•f.r'- rON- The root -v^n,'^ hamar 'to be red,' is traced by some
in Ps.759, and, with more justice, in Job 16 16 (Poal'al form).
To this class we may also probably assign p"li;', sarok, ' reddish-
brown '(cp At. as!karu, 'a sorrel -horse,' and Heb. P'y^) — a term
used in Zuch. 1 8 of a horse.
(7) The third natural colour term describes those
uncertain hues ^colours which it has, in all ages,
p been found difficult to distinguish — that
I waver between blue, yellow, and green.
In Hebrew the adjective employed (from
pT, 'to Ix; pale,' cp Assyr. ardku, 'to grow pale'
[of the face], arku, 'yellow,' and Aram. j3^, 'to
be pale') can be applied to the colour of vegeta-
tion (Job 398 2 K. 1926 Is. 3727); and a substan-
tive p-v, yerck, derived from the same root denotes
vegetable produce in general. As, moreover, the root
idea of the word was originally, like that of x^wp6j
its Greek equivalent, merely paleness or faintness of
colour, a derivative [\ypr\') can l)e used to describe a
panic-stricken countenance (Jer. 306) or the fading colour
of decaying vegetation (Deut. 2S 22 Amos 4 9 Hag. 217).
Further, to express simply ' palish," a diminutive form
(pnpi") can be used of plague spots (Lev. 1849 14
37) or of the appearance of gold (Ps. 68i3).'* On the
word pin, hdrui ( ;^/pn ' to be yellow?" ; cp Names,
§66) which is applied to gold (Ps. 6814. etc.) and seems
to denote a shade of yellow, see Gold.
(4) I'ariegated surfaces. — A few words occur which,
though their precise meaning is uncertain, undoubtedly
1 Che., DS^ -iDlK; cp Lam. 47 (^j-/. T., Aug. 1899). If,
however, 1 S. Ifi 12 refers, not to David's complexion, but to the
colour of his hair, the word will then mean '^reddish.'
2 Unless we point D\*<'7 (see Esau, § i).
3 From this root some derive TCn, liitndr, ' asphalt, ' "Ch, hSmer,
' cXsiy,' ixani, yahmiir, 'roebuck.'
* Cp Me-jarkon (a doubtful place-name in Josh. 19 46).
873
13. Pigments.
COLOURS
denote a parti -coloured appearance of some kind;
\1 'Va.rinev.tad '''^'"^ employment being for the most
12. vanegacea ^,^^^ restricted to the description of
animals. Of these the term rendered in
AV by ' ringstraked ■ and applied to goats (-{^v.'dkodh.
Gen. 30 35 39 /. 31 8 10 12), proliably has reference to
white stripes on an otherwise dark skin ; that translated
'speckled' (ijsj, ndkodh. Gen. 3032/ 3539 31 8 10 12) to
light spots on a dark skin ; and that represented by
' grisled ' (ina. bdrodh) and used of both goats ((jen. 31
10 12) and horses (Zech. 636) to light patches on a dark
skin. The last word would, therefore, probably corre-
spond to our piebald.
In Jer. 129(RV) we meet with the phrase 'a speckled (iT;s)bird
of prey.' The commentators have sought to justify and explain
it; but it remains improbable.' A combination of different
colours is expressed in Gen. 30 32 ff. by Kl'^D, tdlu, probably
' besprinkled,' ' flecked ' (cp sparsus). The same term is used in
Ezek. 16 16 of* the dyed stuffs of manv colours with which other
peoples were wont to decorate their shrines.
(S) Pigments. — The Hebrews knew and made use of
several pigments, three of which were derived from
animals. These three dyes were all
manufacturetl by the Pha.'nicians : the
one ' scarlet ' or ' crimson ' (whence its Gr. name <poivi-
Kovv and Lat. phxnicium), from an insect (coccus)
which gave its name to a species of oak on which it
was found [lle.x cocci f era) ; the other two from a slimy
secretion found in a sjjecial gland of a species of shell-
fish called Mitre.v trunculiis and Mure.x brandaris.
By infusing the insect (coccus) in boiling water a
beautiful red dye was produced, superior in effect and
durability to cochineal ; the other dyes when applied
to articles became at first of a whitish colour, but
under the infiuence of sunlight changed to yellowish
greenish and finally to purple, the purple being red or
blue according to the species of shell -fish employed.
These three colours were held in high estimation by the
ancients on account of both their brilliancy and their
costliness. The purple-blue is translated ' blue ' in the
EV, but must have corresponded rather to our violet, by
which it is once rendered in the W ( Esth. 1 6 and in the
margin 815). The Hebrews knew no blue colour with which
to compare it, and hence it is said in Ucrachoth 1 2 that ' purple-
blue is like the sea, and the sea is like the plants, and the pl.ants
are like the firmament of heaven ' (see also Mtnach. 4, and cp
Del. in y'AVilS) iv. 488. /ris,i&/., and the articles Purfle,
Scarlet, Klle, Crimson).
(a) To designate the first of the dyes mentioned
above, the Hebrews sometimes used simply ^-Vin, told',
„ . 'worm,' just as we speak of crimson
14. scarlet, ^j-j. ^^^^ iirmis = Sansk. krimi) and
cochineal (really a term denoting the insect Coccus cacti
found in Mexico). Thus it is used in Is. 1 18 as the
most natural example of a glaring and indelible dye,
and in Lam. 45 (where ©'"-' gives the simple term
KOKKos, 'berry' [A, koXtto;!'], the insect being regarded in
early times as a species of berry) of princely raiment.
It even occurs as a verbal derivative (D'y^na. Nah. 23
[4] ; © ifivoi'i^ovra.^) with the meaning • to be clothed
in scarlet' (see, however, Dkkss, § 3, n. ). More
often, however, the form ny^'w, tola'ath, is found
with the addition, either before or after it, of the
word <:e', Sdnl — a word which has been derived
from the root niv. landA (cp Ass}t. iinitu, pos-
sibly fr. sanli), supposed to mean ' to glitter,' and
is thought to refer to the brilliant colour derived from
the yViri. In this form it is mentioned as a costly pos-
session (E.x. 3523), and as being, therefore, suitable
for an offering (Ex. 254 356 Lev. 144 ["n *:c'] 649515a
["nri •:c] Nu. 196 ["n '3S']i. for the hangings (E.x. '2636
1 © inrfiKaiov vaivrn (BkQ; but AjjoTiif [.\)). J'iZS seems to
be an old word for hya;na (see Zeboim). wmjA. = rnvc> which
may have been miswritten nyTS. <>"' of which we may lieduce
a false reading DBTB (see Siegf.-Sta., s.r. D'i').
874
COLOURS
2716 30 37 38 18), for the ephod (Ex. 2856 3928), for the
priests' girdle (Ex. 288 39529), for the breastplate (Ex.
2815 398), and for the embroidered pomegranates (Ex.
2833 3924), etc. In Ecclus. 45 11, also, it is used of
some kind of embroidered work (Gr. K(K\uffnivri K6KKtf} ;
vet. Lat. torlococco). A thread of this colour — expressed
by !dnt alone — was commonly used in the times of the
Jahvist as a mark (Gen. 382830; Josh. '221, JE), and
the single term is employed in two p>oetical passages
(2S. I24, where the maidens of Israel are called upon
to lament Saul, who used to clothe them in scarlet ;
and C'a. 43) as ec|uivalent to the longer expression. In
the acrostic on the ' Capable Woman ' the same word
is used in the plural (c-rj?, Mnlm^) to describe the warm
clothing provided against the cold of winter (Prov.
31 21), and in Is. 1 18 to denote probably sciu-lct-stuff as
distinguished from the dye itself (y'^in). As a substitute
for these expressions we lind the Chronicler using a
word S'cn.?. karmil (2 Ch. 2714 814, cp Ex. 8635),
derived from the Persian {kirm, 'aworm,' see Crimson,
and cp alwve). In © kSkkivo^ is chosen to represent
all these expressions, and there can Ijc no doubt that
where the same word occurs in the NT it denotes this
dye (Mt. 2728 Heb. 9 19 Rev. I734 I81216).
Later OT writers knew of another pigment of a
like shade of colour, called -\vv. sd'ser (EV ' vermilion ')
— perhaps oxide of lead (cp © luKra and see Riehm,
// n 7i ' Mennig ' ). It was used for painting ceilings
(Jer. 22 14, © iJLi\TO%) and images ( Ezek. jji 14. (5 ypa(pis).
(^) The Purple-blue (nl^DB, U'kheleth, Assyr. ta-kil-tu)
and Purple-red (panN, 'argdmdn. Bib. Aram. p:-iN_
p^ . Ass\T. rtr^awa«««) dyed stuffs also figure
IB. iTirpies. largely in the decoration of the Taber-
nacle and the priestly robes ; but they can hardly have
been known as early as the scarlet (cp C.ANTICLKS, § 15),
their employment being characteristic of P and later
writers. They also can be used for an offering (Ex.
204 3r)6), as being a valuable possession (Ex.3523),
as well as for the curtains (Ex. 26i 368), for the veil
(Ex. 2G31 3635), for the hangings (Ex.2636 27 16 8637
38 18), for the priest's ephod (Ex.286 392), for the
girdle (E.\. 288 89529), and for the breastplate (Ex.
2815 398), etc. A late prophet knows both colours
as part of the splendour of heathen worship (Jer. IO9).
It seems natural also to another late writer to assume
that the Midianitish chiefs would wear robes of purple-
red (Judg. 826); and Ezekiel tells how the robes of
purple-blue worn by the Assyrians had struck the im-
agination of the women of Israel (236), whilst he also
knows (27?) of purple-blue and purple-red from
Elishah (q.v.). In Ecclus., too, both dyes are men-
tioned (45 10) as occupying a prominent place in the
raiment of Moses, and in 630 ribbons of purple -blue
are said to form part of the adornment of Wisdom.
On the defeat of Gorgias dyed stuffs of both colours
were taken by Judas Maccabaius among the spoil
(i Mace. 423). Of the two purples red seems to
have been preferred. Solomon's ' seat of purple ' (Cant.
3 10) is [jerhaps due to error (see Pukpi.e) ; but purple
robes of oftice were common. Judas was struck by the
fact that the Romans, notwithstanding their power and
riches, were not clothed in purple ( i Mace. 8 14). When,
however, Alexander appoints Jonathan high priest, he
sends him a purple-red robe (10 206264 [N\']) ; so like-
wise ,-\ntiochus when he confirms him in the office (11 58).
On the other hand, when the treachery of Andronicus
is discovered, he is at once deprived of the purple rotx:
(2 Mace. 438). Similarly in the NT in Mt. 2728 (xXa/ui>s
KOKKivri) Mk. 15i7 (irop^upa) and Jn. 192 (ifiirkov
irop<pvpovv), the red -purple robe is used as a mock
image of majesty; while in Lk. I619 (irofKlivpa) it is
one of the characteristics of a rich man. In Rev. 174
1 9 Ua<rdK(v. 22) however suggests D'?;? 'double.' So Vg.
Schleusner, Gra., Che.
875
COLOURS
{irop<f>vpov» Kul k6kkivov) it is part of the attire of the
great harlot, and in 18 12 {irofHfxjpai) is referred to as
valuable merchandise (cp also v. 16 irop<f)vpovv). It is
also worthy of note that one of Paul's converts made
her living by selling this dye {■7rop<t>vp6ir(i}\ii, Acts 16 14).
In Cant. 76 the hair of the bride seems to be compared
with purple (jcnx), and Greek parallels for this are
quoted. The comparison, however, can hardly be
trusted, for -;Sd |D:-ikd ICKT 11^11 is a dittogram of ~^rtr\
Voids "I'Sy which precedes. Each form of the clause
seems to be more correct in one half than the other.
Read, perhaps, with Cheyne ' The locks of thy head are
like Carmel (Vm;:); they are pleasant (.icy:) as an
orchard of pomegranates' (see (JALLERY, 2). |cj in
JOJIXD is plainly some word which should follow ^0133 ;
probably ncy: (written 'cyj, and corrupted jo: ; cp
H.\IR, §1). In the Gr. n'^DP is commonly represented
by vcLKivdos and vaKlvdivos,^ and jcaiK by irop<f>vp6i in
both or and NT (see Rev. 9 17 21 20).
(6) Objects. — The words included under this heading
denote objects of which a particular shade of colour
Oh' rt ^^^^ characteristic. Thus j-u. biis ( 2 Ch.
■ _^ 5 12, © 8v(T(Tivoi) was the fine cotton or
linen manufactured by the r.gyptians,
and called elsewhere (Ex. 2Gi Gen. 41 42, etc.) trtr. iel
(see Erman, Li/e in Ancient Egypt, 448, and the
articles Egypt, § 35, Cotton, and Linkn). -iin, Ifur, in
listh. 16 probably means 'white-stuff' (whence "nn in
Is. 199), and Dsn? (Pers. kdrpas) ' white cotton.' Three
more rare words occur in the same verse which have
been thought to denote ditferent species of valuable stone
or plaster: z'V, ses, (also in Ca. 615) which has been
supposed to be identical with c''C', layis (i Ch. 292),
and to mean ' white marble ' or ' alabaster ' ; c.-ia
iaAaf (©»« crfiapaySiTri^. ©'^ ufjidpaySoi) denoting per-
haps 'porphyry' (so BDIi ; EV 'red marble,' R\''ne-
'porphyry'); t^, tiar, meaning possibly ' jxjarl ' or
' pearl-like stone ' ; © wivvivos \i6os) ; and nnrio {sohereth
YX ' black mnrble, ' R V"'8- ' stone of blue colour ' ), which
has been derived from -|^a = ^^tr, and taken to mean
' black marble ' (see, however, Marbi.k).
Lastly it remains to notice a few passages in which
the EV unnecessarily implies a reference to colour.
,,. A I.- -x- Thus the colour ' green ' is sometimes
'^ Ev" "^'^'^ '" '^"^ ^^ "■" '■'^P'-^ent words
denoting not colour but a healthy
and flourishing condition. Of such words jjp, rdaiidn,
which means rather 'luxuriant,' is correctly translated
in © by various words expressive of luxuriance (Scwi'j
Dt. 122 Is. .')7 5 ; (JxxjKi.o'i 3 K. 1423 Ca. 1 16 Ez. 613 ;
d\o-u)5T;s4 K. 164l7io 2 Ch. 28 4 Jer. 8613 178 Ez. 276).
Very similar is the use of nS, lah, ' fresh, moist '(x^wpij
Gen. 30 37 Ez. 17 24 20 47 [21 3] : vyp^i Judg. I67 8) and
3cn. rd/obh ' juicy ' {vyp5s Job 8 16). .^gain 2'lH, 'dbhibk,
denotes 'fresh, juicy ears of corn' (Lev. 214), and 3K.
cbh, can be used of ' fresh young plants' (Job 8 12 Cant.
611); whilst C'3S, paggim, seems to denote tender young
fruits (Ca. 2i3, see Del. ad loc). and Sdis, karmel,
(Lev. 2814) applies to 'garden fruit' in general.
To this category belong also such compound expressions as
NE''n nix: 'grassy pastures '(Ps. 23 2) and nil- 'TCS ' .sprouw of
the field' (Ecclus. 40 22). In all these cases the term 'green,'
used in AV, might indeed serve as a paraphrase ; but it is other-
wise with the following examples: — In Job 66 the word TT
translated ' white ' (of an egg) is thought by many to mean ' the
juice of purslain ' (so RVnig. ® pq/xa<r(i' ittvoit but see Fowl);
but whichever interpretation be adopted it will be admitted
that the Hebrew word contains no idea of colour. Similarly
ion. the reading adopted by EV in Is. 272 (.W ' red wine,' RV
' wine ') instead of "Cn (RV™K- ' a pleasant vineyard ' ; see
SBOT), means really ' foaming wine ' (Driver on Dt. 32 14) ; and
1 © also gives vojciviivo^ for E'nB (Ex. 25 5 26 14 35 7 i-;, etc.),
t.-iking it as the equivalent of fi/pP.
876
COMFORTER
mo in *he expression mo"D'(Kx- 'Oiq, etc, Wisd. 10 18 9aXair<ray
ipvOpav), meaning 'reed,' contains no reference to colour.
Moreover, in the expressions ^S'^ \)sf'H(^^ 'black night,' KV
'blackness of night") in Pr. "9 and "I'iKfl (AV 'blackness") in
loci 26 Nah. 2 10 the Knclish renderings are purely paraphrastic.
In the same way the long robe (perhaps white with a blue
border) worn by Joseph (Clen.S/ 3) and by Tamar (2 S. 13 ic) is
transformed in the £V into 'a coat of m.tny colours.' In
Pr. 20 30 (nnan AV 'hlueness") and Ecclus. 23io OxciAwi^ AV
'blue mark") the words mean literally ' bruise."
Literature. — Riehm, HiVIi ' Farben," 1 436 ; Benzinger,
A rch. 269/; ' Karben-iiamen " ; Nowack, //A 263 / ' Malerei ' ;
Del., Iris, and 'Farben" in/'A'A'W; Perrot and Chipiez (W.
Armstrong), Hist. 0/ Art in Sardinia, Judtea, Syria, and
Asia Minor, 1 109-370; and, since the above was written, an
article by G. W. Thatcher in Hastings' DB. m. A. C.
COMFORTER (n&p&KAHTOC [Ti. WH]). Jn. H16.
See I'vkaci.kh;.
COMMENTARY CJniP). aCh. 1822 RV. AV'?-
Sw CiiKoNici.Ks, § 6 [2] ; Historical LrrERATURE,
§ ■■»•
COMMERCE. See Tradk and Commerce.
COMMON. The negatives of the qualities 'clean,'
•holy' (see Clean, § i) are —
1. 'Gammon,' a synonym for 'unclean' (see Clean), con-
st.nntly in RV for ^n, h5l (properly, ' that which is open,'
Kaudissin, Studien, 2 23). AVj however, only twice renders AOi
thus (i S. 21 4/); elsewhere it has 'unholy" (Lev. 10 io)'or
'profane" (Kzek. 22 26 42 20 44 23 48 15). In NT, the RV is
less strict with icoti-os, which is almost indifferently rendered
'common," 'unclean,' 'unholy,' 'deliled," 'polluted.' So in
I Mace. 1 47 62, RV (with AV) gives ' unclean ' for Koivoi. No
injury is done to the sense; cp .\cts 10 15, 'what God hath
cleansed ( = pronounced clean), that call not thou common ' ; v.
I I ' cominon and unclean." That which is ' common " is free, or at
any rate is tre.ited as if free, from ceremonial restrictions ; it can
be used in the common life -the life of the jnNn DV, the unin-
telligent ' people of the land ' (6 o;^Aos oCtos o jutj yivMiTKtau t'ov
i^/noi', Jn. "49). And those who use what is only treated as if
' common ' or open, when it has no right to be so treated, l>ecome
'common'— />., unclean— themselves. 'Common," therefore,
becomes a wide term, dangerously wide from a truly religious
point of view. What an irony in the ev.ingelist's expression
with common (EV defiled), that is, unwashed hands' !
2. ' Unclean,' the strict rendering of aKdOixpTOi in NT, of
•*??. Ai/«t", in OT (& aKdOapTOi). Both ' common " and ' un-
clean' can be used (i) of forbidden foods or of animals which
may not be eaten (Acts 10 14 1 1 8 Rev. LS 2). (2) Of persons who
are not Jews, or who do not belong to the Christian community
(Acts 10 28 I Cor. 7 14 2 Cor. 1517; cp Koivout, Mk. 7 15 and
parallels, Heb. 9 13 Rev. 21 27 (RT and RV]).
3. 'Unholy,' given in AV of Lev. 10 10 (Ad/) becomes
common' in RV. In Ezek. 2226 422o 4423 (same formula),
AV renders //<>/, ' profane.' The influence of 0 and Vg. may be
suspected ; these versions respectively give/Se'^TjAoj', f>ro/a>ium,
so also in Ezek. 48 15, AV profane, \'%. pro/ana. 'Profane' is
best reserved, however, for other Heb. words (see Prokank).
RV of NT retains ' unholy ' in i Tim. I9 2 Tim. 82 (di/daios),
Heb. 10 29(<totfov).
4. On the peculiar technical term 'JJn, ' to be polluted,' see
Hvi'OCKISY.
COMMUNITY OF GOODS, in the widest sense of
that expression, is usually consiciered (on the authority
of Acts'242-47 432-5ii 61-6) to have been one of the
established institutions of the earliest Christian society
at Jerusalem. This opinion recjuires strict limitation ;
but that limitation is not to be based, as it has been,
either on the intrinsic improbability of the institution
itself, or on a vague conjecture that the writer of Acts
has idealised the facts. It arises from an investigation
of the sources of his narrative (cp Acts, § 1 1 ) — a method
which has to record one of its most assured results in
connection with the subject of the present article.
We have in Acts not one account of the institution
but three. [a) One account comprehensively records
1 Three ^^^ ^^'''' °*^ ^'^ lands and houses (^wp/wi' ^
accounts *''*''"^'' ' -^'^'5434/); according to 245 the
in Acts. ^■'^'*'' ^^'"^^ °'' ^'^ possessions and goods what-
soever (rd Kri)fi.a.ro. Kal raj i"'7rdpfett), a
common fund being thus formed, out of which all were
supplied according as any man had need, (i) Accord-
ing to another account, the sale of property {KTfjfjia. 5i ;
Xupiav, 63) cannot have been universally prescribed, or
877
COMMUNITY OP GOODS
even generally customary ; for Peter (.'>4) expressly de-
clares that Ananias was free to retain in his private
possession either his proixirty or the money for which it
was sold. Moreover, although there is no hint of there
being anything to mark out the act of liarnalxis (4 36/ )
from the universal practice assumed in (</)— such as that
the estate was his only one, or was particularly valuable
— it is thought worthy of special honourable mention.
In 436/, therefore, it is not assuined, as it is in 434/,
that the sale of property was expected of all. (c) In 4 32,
however, where we find ' said " {tXcytv) and not some
word implying ' retained as private profx;rty,' there is
no idea of any sale of projxTty at all. The idea simply
is that the owners placed their property in a general way
at the disposal of the community at large. There is no
assumption of a common fund.
(d) A fourth account may possibly Ix; distinguished
in Acts 2 44.
The statement in 244*— that they had all things common—
by itself alone agrees well enough with the last-meniioned and
_ . simplestaccount of the institution (that there
2. Possibly a was no actual sale), and 244 a, which declares
fourth account, 'hat all that believed were together in one
place,' might by itself be taken, like 1 15
2 I I C^or. 11 20 14 23, to refer merely to the exigencies of social
worship;* but the connection of the clause with the statement
that follows (that they had all things in common) appears to
imply that the entire community lived in common, dwelling in
the same house and having common meals.
This inference, however, may safely be set aside, as
it may well be doubted whether the collocation in Acts
244 has not arisen from the authors having inadvertently
combined two heterogeneous ideas without perceiving
the possible misleading effect.
A social institution of the nature indicated would scarcely
have been practicable in a community of 120 persons (Acts 1 15)
— much less in one of 3000 (241) or more (247). The other
statements in Acts do not preclude the supposition that the
meals, even love-feasts and the observance of the Lord's Supper
associated with them, were held in difli'erent houses at the same
time. Kar' oikoi' (AV 'from house to house." AV'"K- and RV
'at home ') in 246 (cp 542) need not be intended to-convey that
the whole comnmnity assembled on one occasion in one house
and on another occasion in another ; it may have a distributive
ineaning like Kara mkiv ('in every city') in 15 2t (and Kar
ot/cous, that is ' in every house,' in 20 20). In Rom. 16 5 n/. we
find several household churches in the same city ; cp also i Cor.
Ii>i9 Col. 415. The complaint al>out the neglect of certain
widows in the daily ministration (Acts 61), which the word
Ka9j\tifpi.irrj proves to have referred to their sustenance, could
not have arisen if there had been common meals (.ilthouuh
indeed the expression ' tables ' [Tpan-e'^aisI might seem to jKjint
to these). It could have arisen only if the widows' share of
provisions was brought to their houses.
A misrepresentation of the original idea, similar to
that which, as has just teen shown, may be present in
3 Acts') ^*'*' '^ unquestionably to be found in 02/.
The writer of this verse held Ananias to have
sinned in keeping back part of the money obtained by
selling his estate. The duplicity with which Peter charges
him docs not consist in his having, when (|uestioned,
passed off as the whole a part of the money thus obtained.
It is only Sapphira (.'(8) who does this. Ananias, accord-
ing to 52/., has already committed the crime of keeping
back some of the money before he could be questioned
by Peter. This cannot possibly be reconciled with
Peter's declaration in 64, that .Ananias had a jH-rfect
right to retain the whole. Notwithstanding that i)lain
declaration, the author must have had before his mind,
in writing b-i f., the stricter view that it was an absolute
duty to sell all the property and to hand over the whole
of the money.
The hypothesis that the narratives are based on
4 Acts 4 various sources receives material support
f' . ^^' from the impossibility of discovering any
/ . real coherence within the passages them-
° ■ selves.
Acts 4 33 treats of a subject quite diflferent from the matters
J This will also be the sense if we accept the reading of WH,
which omits fi<rav and the following cat ; they are retained in
their marginal reading.
' tni TO ain6 in the NT always refers to place ; AV ' into one
place."
878
COMMUNITY OF GOODS
dealt with in the preceding and the following verses. Nor can
434 be connected with 4 32. It could be connected with it only
if the absence of poor persons were the reason (yap) why all
property was common (r'. 32) instead of being the result of the
community of goods. Further, according to 4 34/, the absence
of poor is due not to community of goods, but to the sale of all
property in land and houses and the establishment of a common
fimd, whereas, in 4 36-6 ii again, tliesale of any property appears
as a voluntary .net of certain individuals. In like manner 242
is so definitely repeated in "246 that the narrative can hardly be
an independent composition. It must l)c a compilation. Kven
more marked is the repetition of the first clause 01' 24^, eyiVero
Si TTOCTT) il)v\ji <^6^o<,iii the third, (j>6fio^ re 7iv fiiyaf iwi ndyra^.
But even if this last clause l)e omitted, with W H (though it is
difficult to explain how it could have arisen as a variant to the
first clause), -'^4, with the reading icai ndvTff St, cannot be con-
nected with what precedes. The opening, ' but also all that
believed («-eri) toijcther,' implies that others were together as
well. The omission of the Kai sanctioned by WH is clearly an
attempt to remove the difficulty.
All attempt to prove that all these passages have been
compiled by an editor from various sources, could be
based only on an examination of the whole book. Such
proof is not needful to our present purpose. It will be
sufficient to have shown that the book presents three
different views on the subject of community of goods.
If it l)e asked which of the three is the most likely to
he ihc true view, it will lie safe to answer that, if any
■nn,- V. +Ti °'"^ '^ '" ^ l^referred, it is that which is
'^■^^V^"^^® simplest (§ ir). An account of any
most trust- institution of the kind, clothed with the
^°^ ^' glamour of the ideal, is sure to have been
exaggerated by writers with iticoniplete information.
It is certain, however, that the general idea of com-
munity of goods was not strange to the primitive
Christian society. ^
It is indicated in such sayings of Jesus as those recorded in
Mt. tiigy: IO9 lit2i-24, and in such information about his own
life as we find in Lk. 8 3. Besides, we know there was a dis-
tinctly Kbionite tendency which applied a literal interpretation
to the blessings pronounced on the poor and hungry (Lk. (iio/I
24 f.), and saw the path of salvation in giving away all property
in alms (Lk. 634^; 11 41 1221 33 ll>9). It is not certain indeed
that this Kbionite tendency was dominant in the period im-
mediately following the death of Jesus. (The passages cited
were taken up by the Third ICvangelist from a document which
itself rests upon an older written collection of sayings of Jesus.
This is proved by the remodelled words in Lk. (i 20-26, which,
not having any reference to the disposition of the persons
addressed, certainly did not come in their present form from the
lips of Jesus. Besides, what is here recommended is not so
much community of goods as almsgiving.) The epistles of Paul,
which are our most trustworthy authority, only show that in his
time (20-30 years after the death of Jesus), the community at
Jerusalem was poor, or, at least, contained a good many poor
members, and stood in need of assistance from the Gentile-
Cliri-tian churches (ei? tows ayt'ous, iCor. Ifii 2 Cor. 84 9i;
but Toil- WTio^iot' alone. Gal. 2 10 ; eis rout tttioxoiii tCiv iiyiiov,
Kom. 1526).
The Gosjiels prove that many poor people had already
attached themselves to Jesus in his lifetime. An active
care for these, and consequently a more or less organised
ttaKOvia, must be assumed in the original church at
Jerusalem. We may well suppose that, in as far as
this ministration took the form of a community of goods,
it led, according to the usual le.sson taught by other
attempts of the kind, to the increase of jOTverty. It
may, moreover, lie conjectured that in the earliest
Christian times the institution of community of goods
increased the tendency to forego the pursuit of wealth,
which, even without that institution, was occasioned,
according to i Thess. 4ii-i8 2 Thess. 2i/. 86-13, ^'X 'he
belief that the end of the world was near at hand and
by the unrest to which this belief gave rise. W'e may
suppose that wealthy meml)ers of the community in
Jerusalem allowed their projxjrty to become available
for the use of poor brethren ; and this does not preclude
the; belief that of their own free will certain persons, such
as Barnabas and Ananias, went further and sold their
belongings for the benefit of the community.
.Still, it is certainly not true that communism was
prescril>ed as obligatory.
The uncertainty 01 the subject is shown also by .\cts 61-6. It
1 We can here only mention the possible iiiduence of Es-
senism. See Kssenes, | 3.
879
CONDUITS AND RESERVOIRS
would I>e very remarkable if there were no necessitous persons
whose support could be neglected but widows. The phrase
seems to be due to a usage of the author's own (comparatively
late) period, in which, according to i Tim. 5 3-16, the ' widows '
had an official po.sition in the community. It is strange also
that, although the mention of the names of the seven men
appointed to ' serve tables' (Jiaxofetc Tpan-<Y<"«) points to a
genuine tradition, their (unction — they are nowhere styled
SidKovoi — is never referred to afterwards (they are not to be
identitied with the irpfapvTtpoi of 11 30), and that only the
Helleni.sts had to complain of the neglect of their widows. Just
as in Acts 1636-39 a less .serious dispute is narrated in place of
one that had more important issues(see CouNCil. t)K Jkkusalkm,
8 3), so here, at the Iwttom of the narrative before us, there really
lies, we may conjecture, some di.ssension occasioned by different
conceptions of Christianity entertained by the natives of Pales-
tine and by the Christian Jews who had come in from abroad.
In any case, the community of goods did not last
long, though the view that it came to an end when the
society was dispersed by the persecution (Acts 8 1-4) is
no more than a conjecture.
The subsequent influence of the idealised picture in
Acts is very noteworthy. In the exhortation to works
„ . .of charity in the lipistle of Harnabas
6. bUDsequent ^^^g^ ^^^ similarly in the Teaching of
"the^Sea** ^''^ Twelve Apostles (4 8), the statement
of Acts4 32 is repeated as a command :
' Say not, " It is private property " '(ow ipih tSia elvai).
Lucian, De morte Peregrini, 13, states that the Christians
supi)orted those in need from a common fund {airb rod
Koiuov), and ridicules the credulity with which they
allowed themselves to be cheated by imp>ostors in so
doing. The influence of the same ideal'on the monastic
life is obvious. p. w. s.
COMPASS. For n>"inp, m'hiigah {vepiywyia [Q
mg. ?] Hw"<.\(,)r oni. ), RV CoMP..\ssKS, Is. 44i3,t cp
H.-\NDicKAi-T.s, § 2. For 33-13, karkobh, Ex.275 38 4t.
AV • ledge,' see Alt.-\R, § 9 [a).
CONANIAH (-in^jyia, Kt., •in;;!:^, Kr., but accord-
mg to Baer in 2 Ch. 31 13 ■'iri'333 ; cp Cuknamah,
•in^j33 ; § 31 ; 'God hathst.iblished,' XCONCNIAC [BL]).
I. Chief of the temple overseers, temp. Hezekiah, in
conjunction with his brother Shimei, according to tlie
Chronicler, 2 Ch. 31 12 / (AV Cononiah) (Xwxf'''S
[A], -ufiev. [B V. 12]).
2. A ' chief of the Levites ' (Ch.) or ' captain over thousands'
(i Ksd.), temp. Josiah ; 2 Ch. 809 (jfiovenas [.A*], -aixev. [A'])=
I Esd. I9 (ifxaviai [B.V], ^avaias [L] ; EV Jeconia.s).
CONCUBINE (u"3^''3, Gen. 2224; BibL Aram.
njn?, Dan. 02). See Marriage, § 5, Family, § 5 «,
and Slavkrv.
CONDUITS AND RESERVOIRS. In a country
where the rain -supply is small and irregular, which
possesses scarcely more than one perennial stream (^n:
[n'K; cp Am. 524), and is not rich in springs, the preserva-
tion of water in cisterns and reservoirs, and the employ-
ment of trenches or conduits to convey it to the place
where it was most needed, must have been of paramount
importance. Hence the indispensability of rain and
the trust placed in the continuance of its supply
form the basis of some of the best-known and most
beautiful metaphors in OT.
Leaving to the article Springs [^.».] what needs to
be said upon the natural supply of water, we propose
here to notice the artificial means by which it was
stored and conveyed.
The ordinary method of preserving water was to dig
(ma. l£3n) or hew (3'in) out of the living rock a reservoir,
. _. . varying in size from a small pit to an
extensive subterranean vault lined with
masonry. Such cisterns go back to pre-Israelite times
(Dl 611 Neh. 925). To dig them was the work of a
benefactor and deserving of special mention [e.g. , 2 Ch.
2*3 lo), and the o[x,'ning ceremony, on one occasion at
least, becomes the subject of a song (see Bker).
The ordinary Heb. term is
I. n'l3, bir (for variant forms cp BDB s.v. ; Aavxot (B.\L]),
880
CONDUITS AND RESERVOIRS
properly an artificial excavation, and thus distinct from IKS
Mv, a natural well (see Springs). When dry the bdr is a pit
(cp Gen. 3" 20) which can be used as a prison (J er. 386 Gen. 40 15,
etc.; cp 113,1 n'3 Kx. 12 29). In poetical language ^^r is applied
to the pit of the grave (Hr.'.'Si?) or to ShOOl (I's. ;i03(4l). In
only two cases does bdr occur as part of a place-name ; see BoK-
ASIIAN, SiRAH.
Other terms .ire : —
2- •*??! i'''^'''" (cp \r. jilbiyai"" 'watering trough'), Is. 30 14
(AV 'pit*; in K2ck.47iit EV ' marish ' [niorass]), and
3. C'3:. Jer. 143 2K. 3i6 (AV 'ditch,' KV 'trench'), perhaps
used for purposes of irrigation (cp 2 K. 'J5 12 ^ Jer. 5'.' i«, 39 10
after Klo.); see Agkiculturk, g 5.
4- "^IP^t bfrikhah (kpjji'j), icoAu^^TJepa) is used of an artificial
pool, Eccl. 26 (with ncj'), hut elsewhere appears to refer to
natural springs. Several pools were found in and around
Jerusalem (cp below, and see Jerusalkm), also in Gibeon
(2 .S. 213), Hebron (/A 4 12), and Samaria (i K. 2238) ; for Cant.
74(5], see Haih-kahbi.m.
5. n;,'5p, miktuith. Is. 22 II, AV 'ditch,' RV 'reservoir.'
It was of the utmost importance that citadels should
be well supi)lied with tanks for collecting the rain-water
(so at Masada and Macha-rns, Jos. ^liit. xiv. 14 6, BJ
vii. 62, ^vSoxetof). A cistern in the teni|jle is mentioned
in Ecclus. ;j03 [aiirobo\iiov) : cp below, and sec SEA,
Brazen. In the towns it seems to have been customary
for every house to possess a cistern ^ (cp 2 K. 18 31 Prov.
5 15). The best e.xample of this is found in Mesha's stele
(//. 24/.); -there was no cistern (13) in the midst of
the city in nmp. and I said to all the people, "Make
ye every man a cistern in the midst of his house."'
The same king records that he made pla'? mlrxn 'nSd,
' the locks or dams of the reservoirs ^ for water ' ; but
whether nm3,':n (the cutting[s] /. 25) which Mesha made
with the help of his Israelite prisoners was a conduit
which fed these reservoirs is uncertain. The view is
not improbable, however, since the art of forming
channels to convey water was common to all the Semitic
races and was not due to foreign influence.
Remains of conduits (,i^p, v^po.-^(jiyo% [B.\QL],
aquccductus'^), connected as a rule with pools, are to
2 Conduits ^ f"""'! '" many places in Palestine ;
■ they are usually mere trenches running
along the surface of the ground, subterranean channels
being somewhat rarer. Certain of the rock-cut
channels and cisterns in Jerusalem (as well as the
Siloam conduit) may be pre-exilic ; in many cases,
however, they have Ijeen enlarged or repaired to such
an extent as to make it extremely difficult to tell to
what period they bx;long.
Jerusalem was well supplied with water. Perhaps
the most important of its supplies was that which came
3 Pools of '^™'" '^'^ so-called Pools of Solomon beyond
Solomon '^'-'''''''^'^em (13^ m. distant). These pools
• (situated close by the Kal'at el-liurak)
are near '.Atan and .Xrtas, and must have been devised
for a more important work than that of merely irrigating
gardens ■« (Eccles. '26 Ecclus. 24 30/ , sec Bath-r.\bkim).
There are three of them, partly hewn and partly enclosed
by masonry. The lowest seems to have been used at
one time as an amphitheatre for naval tlisplays.
The pools are fed by two large conduits. The one,
after cutting through the valley of '.Atan (Etnm) by a
tunnel, runs through the W'ady Der el-Henat, along the
W'ady el-Hiar (Valley of Springs), and ultimately enters
1 .\s Robin.son rem.irks(^A' 1 ^'ioff.), ' the main dependence of
Jerusalem at the present d.iy is on its cisterns, and this has
probably always Iwen the c.-\se.'
'•J The meaning is not certain : perhaps it is ' two reservoirs."
3 The Heb. n^J'B, ifdln/i, is used of ditches for irrigating
trees (F.zok. 31 4 trviTTtuLa or criiorrifia [H.\Q]), of a trench round
an altar (i K. 18 32 3s 38 ; in these pass-i^es OaaAa [L] »dAa<T<Ta.
[H.VD, and of conduits or aqueducts in the ordinary .sense of the
word (Job3825, pv<rtt [BKA] Is.73[om. (0uNA<jr] 2 K. I817 Is.
362 2 K.2O20).
4 The name 'Solomon's Pools' is based solely upon Eccles.
26, and, notwithstanding the statement of Josephus, we have no
evidence that the gardens of Solomon were situated in the fiP".
Artiis{ = horius, garden?); Baed.(3; 129^:
881
the Bir el-Derej (Spring of Steps). The other is much
longer and full of windings. Starting fn^m a large
reser\oir, the Birket el-'Arrub (now converted into a
garden), it leaves the Wady of the same name, and
after crossing the plateau of Teku' Hows into the
middle pool. Conduits connect also the .Sealed Spring
(mcKl. 'Ain Sdlih), identified by a nuxlern tradition
with the Viyj [3 in Cant. 4 12, and the 'Ain Atan ^ with
this water-system.
From the Pools of Solomon the water is led into the
city by two conduits. The higher g(x.'s along the N.
slope of the valley of Burak, descending near Rachel's
tomb and rising again. (A syphon was used and
remnants of the piix;s may still be seen.) It then
proceeds towards the hill of 'lantur and the W. er-
Rababi (see HinN(JM, Vai.i.ky ok). It is partly rock-
hewn and partly made of mas<jnry. The lower conduit
(still complete) goes with many windings from tne
lowest pool, E. along the ^Xoyxi of the valley, and then
W. above Artas. One arm of the conduit was con-
nected (probably under Herod's government) with the
spring of Artas and ran to the Frank mountain. The
main arm passes Bethlehem and Rachel's tomb on the
S. , proceeding sometimes alxjve ground in a channel
about I ft. square, and sometimes underground in
earthen jjipes. It then crosses the Hinnom valley by i
bridge of nine low arches and meets the oth^ r conduit
hard by the Birket es-Sultan. It finally runs Si:. and
E. along the valley over the causeway, under the Bab
es-Silseleh (Chain-gate), and supplies the ' Elkas ' and
the king's cistern in the Haram.'-^ These conduits were
repaired by the Sultan Mohammad ibn Kalaun of
Egypt about 1300 A. u. Their date is unknown. The
upper conduit is more artificial, and probably the older.
Some refer them to the golden age of Judah, and
tradition (oral and Rabbinical) ascriljes them to Solomon.
It has also been pointed out that they exactly resemble
the conduits which were made by the Arabs in Spain.-*
The well-known Siloam conduit runs from the Virgin's
Spring {'Ain Siiti Maryam) to the Pool of Siloam
4 The ^^^^ Jerusale.m). It runs underground in a
Siloam ^'■''^"''°'^s course and is 586 yds. in length ♦
Conduit ^'^*'" '^""^^'^ distance Ijctween the two pools is
368 yds.). At its lower end it has a height
of 16 ft. ; but this gradually decreases to 3^ ft. , and then
to 2^ ft. This low part, however, is near the surface,
and perhaps was originally an open channel. It is a
dangerous conduit to explore, as the water is apt to enter
unexpectedly and fill the passage. In various places
false-cuttings and set-backs are found, indicating subse-
quent changes in the direction taken by the workmen.
About 19 ft. from the Siloam end, on the right-hand side
as one enters, is an artificial niche which contained a
B Siloam ^^^^^^ bearing on its lower face an inscrip-
Inacrintion. *'°"' '^^'^ ^^'"^^ '^''^^ observed in 1880, and
^ was brought under the notice of Schick.
The tablet was alx)ut 27 inches scjuare, and its top only
one yard above the bottom of the channel. The inscrip-
tion, known as the Siloam inscription, is the oldest
1 In the Jer. Talmud it is stated, moreover, that a conduit
led from 'Atdn (Etam) to the temple (Jer. Voitta, iii. fol. 41 ; cp
Lightfoot, bescriptio Teiii/ili. chap. 23).
2 Many subterranean passages and structures have been
found under the Haram. Cp Jos. HJ vi 73 84 94, and Tacitus :
' Templum in modum arcis . . . fons perennis aqu.t, cavati sub
terra montes, et piscinae cistema;que servandis imbribus ' {Hist.
5 12). Many of these were for removinij the water and blood of
the sacrifices, or for flushing the blood -channels (cp Vonia, 56,
Pesachim, 22, Me'ila, 33, Middoth, 82).
5 Jos., indeed, speaks of a conduit which Pilate began to build,
taking funds for the purpose from the temple treasurj- and
thereby causing grave disturlances (Jos. Ant. xviii. 3 2, BJ ii.
94), and in one place gives the length as 400 stadia— a measure
which would suit the conduit which leads from the Wady Arrub.
It is more probable, however, that Pilate simply repiiired the
existing conduits ; his reign w.-is so often disturbed by Jewish
seditions that he could hardly have had time to carrj- out such
an immense undertaking. See Schur. GVl I410, and cp Eus.
HE \x. 66.7.
* More precisely, 1757 ft. (Gender); but Warren gives 1708.
CONEY
Hebrew inscription extant (cp Dr. TBS xv. /. [facsimile
opposite]. Writing, § 4).
ItrunsasfoUows:— '(i)lHeholdl the piercing through (nnpjn).
Now thus was the manner of the piercing through. Whilst yet
[the miners were lifting up] (2) the piclc (jp.j) each towards
his fellow, and whilst there were yet three cubits to be struck
through, there was hc.ird the voice of each man (3) calling to
his fe.low, for there was a fissure 1 in the rock on the right
hand. . . . And on the day of the (4) piercing through, the
hewers (D3snn) smote each so as to meet his fellow, pick against
pick; and there flowed (5) the water from the channel (ksIS)''^
to the pool (.i3na) 1200 cubits; and a hundred (6)S cubits was
the height of the rock over the the head of the hewers."
The difference of level in the bed of the channel is so slight
that one i^ led to sup|>ose that the excavators had some kind of
test. .Shafts were made here and there, probably in order that
the men might find out their whereabouts. Tlie first shaft is
470 ft. from tile Siloain end. After that the pass;(gc is straighter.
The conduit is the work of a people whose knowledge
of engineering was in its infancy. Its date is uncertain.
It may be the one referred to in 2K. "iOzo { = 2 Ch.
3230);'* but the allusion in Is. 86 to the 'waters of
Shiloah that How gently ' suggests that it may have lx;en
in existence in the days of Ahaz.'
More or less parallel with this, but straighter, is a
channel, evidently connected with the Birket el-Hamra
(Red-pool), which lay to the E. of the
6. Other
Conduits.
Siloain pool. It is older than the .Siloain
conduit (see Schick, FEl-'Q, Jan. 1891).
The conduit of the upper pool in the highway of the
fullers field (2 K.. 18 17) is identified by Wilson with
the acjueduct which seems to have run over the Cotton
Grotto to the convent of the .Sisters of Zion." Among
other conduits may l)e noticed the one which connects
the Citadel or Castle of David (el-Kala'a) with the
Birket Mamilla. It is possibly referred to in Jos.
BJ \. 73, where mention is made of the 'gate where
water was brought in to the tower of liippicus '
(the latter is usually identified with the NW. tower of
the citadel).
For others, less important, .see the memoirs of the PEF.
Many remains of conduits, more or less well preserved, have
been found in other parts of Palestine. It will be sulTicient to
mention the aqueduct at Jericho across the Wady el-Relt (see
{OS. Ant. xvii. 13 i, Schiir. Gl \ ' 1 276) ; another on the road from
)amascus to Palmyra, not far from jerfid ; the kaiifit Fir'aiin,
which crosses the Wady Zeda near Do' at (Edrci); and the
aqueduct conveying water from 'Ain et-Tabigha (Perrot-Chip.
Art in J ud. I330; BaedS^) ■2()i).
(See 'Die Wasserversorgung der Stadt Jerusalem,' ZDP\'
1 132-176 (1878); Henzinger, Ileb. Arch. ^1 jff'. ■230 /. ; Warren
and Condcr, Joitsalem ; Perrot and Chipiez, Art in Judiea;
B.ied. passim, and the many notes and articles in the PEF
publications). S. A. C.
CONEY (iDL'*, see Shaphan ; xoiporPY^^ioc
[BAIL] [Th. and many MSS of LXX have AArcooc
in Ps. 104i8], Lev. lis [in ©"ai-_ unless the order of
the verses is accidentally reversed, jac* is translated
3tt<n'7roi's] Dt. 14? Ps. 104i8 Pr. a026t) should rather
be 'rock badger' (RV"'e), the animal having been
identified with certainty as Ilyrax syriacus — called in
Syriac b'l^asa and in Arabic wabr'' (Rob. LBR 3 387,
Tristram, /''/•■/'I/.).
' m'i, wholly unknown, is translated by .S.iyce {RPi-) I175)
'excess,' referring to a .set-back. For the illegible part in the
middle of/. 3 he suggests 'and on the left.'
2 kxt;, like Ass. turifu, seems to mean 'channel,' 'water-
course ' ; cp CO riyiiff.
3 So most, reading nCK nlxla \ but the surface of the rock is
here only about 10 ft. above the top of the tunnel whilst towards
the N. It is 170 ft. This reailiiig may represent the average
thickness of the rock. Since, however, at the place of juncture
(812-18 ft. from the b.-ick of the Virgin's fountain) there is a
difference of height of just 13 inches, another reading nOK rhlSi
' a portion ' [of a cubit], has been proposed (cp Sayce, ioc. cit.).
* It is otherwise identified with the one whose remains running
W. and E. were discovered during the digging of the founda-
tions for the English church.
* So Stade, Cyi 1 594.
6 Jos. (BJ v. 4 2) places the Royal Caverns (Cotton Grotto)
near the Fuller's .NIonument. .See Athenirum, 6th Feb. 1875.
1 The name thu/un, which is almost the same word as I^;^, is
stated by Fresnel C/iV/l^", 1838, p. 514) to have been found by
him in use among the southern Arabs for thejerdoa, an animal
somewhat resembling the hyrax.
CONFESS, CONFESSION
The origin of the Hebrew word is quite uncertain : it has
been derived by Rodiger and others from a root meaning 'to
bide,' akin to jsj. The rendering ' coney ' (the probable mean-
ing of the Targumic KiBc) is due to Jewish tradition ; but the
habits of the rabbit do not suit the references in Ps. 104 18 I'r.
30 26. .Still less is to be said for 0's rendering \oifo^f,vKXu><i —
i.e., hedgehog.'
The shdphdn of OT is known to naturalists under the
name of Frocavia (Hyrax) syriaca (Schrb. ). It is a
memtxir of the Hyracoidea, one of the most remarkable
orders of the Mammalia.
The Syrian hyrax is about the size of a small rabbit, and has
a superficial resemblance to that rodent. It is of a dull orange-
brown or fawn colour, and has prominent incisor teeth, one pair
in ilie upper jaw and two in the lower; the former, as in the
rodents, grow throughout life, but instead of being chisel-shaped
at their tip are pointed, and the teeth are triangular in section.
As in the rodents, there is a wide gap between the incisor and
the molar teeth. The zoological position of the order Ls obscure.
Cuvier pointed out certain anatomiciil features which they share
with the rhinoceros ; but this rclation>hip has not been universally
accepted, and at present it is better to regard lliem as an isolated
order. Palajontology has so far thrown no light on the subject.
About fourteen species of hyrax are known, all of them from
Africa, Arabia, and Syria. 'I'he /'. (Hyrax) syriaca, like most
of its congeners, lives in holes in rocky ground ; usually many
animals are found together, and they are ver>' shy and easily
frightened. When alarmed they utter a shrill cry and hastily
retreat to their holes. According to Nassonow,2 they are easily
tamed. They eat green leaves, fruit, h.iy, etc. They are said
to make a nest of grass and fur, and to bring forth from two or
three to six — three .seems the usual iiumljer— young at a time.
'J'he .Vrabs esteem them as food, though Canon Tristram found
them 'rather dry and insipid.' n. M. — K. E. S.
CONFECTION. CONFECTIONARIES (Ex. .30 25 35.
A\' ; i.S. 613, I'A'), old words meaning a comjxisition
(co/tfectio), or mixture of drugs or dainties, and those
who prepare such mixtures — i.e., 'apothecaries' —
respectively. RV correctly translates : ' a perfume
(npT) after the art of the perfumer (ngn).' In i S. I.e.
female perfumers are meant (ninpi, fj.vp€\f/ol, unguen-
tarice). It is the masc. pl. of the same word (cnpi)
that is rendered 'apothecaries' in EV (R\'"'>.'- 'per-
fumers ') in Xeh. 38 (twaK-et/* [BN], puKeti/x [.\], fivpexpoi
[L], pigmeiitarii').
CONFESS. CONFESSION. The verb .it in Hiph.
and Hiihp. means either to acknowledge aloud in ritual
1 Th t worship God's great and glorious attri-
e term. Yt,^^^^ ^ _ ^^ praise him ) or to make a
solemn confession of sin.
The former meaning is far the commoner in Hiph., the latter
in Hithp. (a) For rn\r\ ' to confess,' see Ps. 32 5 Prov. 28 13 t ;
(/') for n^^n"? ' to praise,' 2 Ch. 30 22! (RV ' making confession ').
For the more usual senses, see (<z) Ps. 7 17 [18] 42 6 iCh. KI834
and elsewhere, (i) Lev. 65 1(5 21 20 40 Nu. 67 Ezra 10 i Neh.
16 9 2/. Dan. 9 4 20. Note also that the noun 'TJW, generally
' thanksgiving,' has in Josh. TigF^zralOii the sense of ' confes-
sion (of sin).' 0 renders the verb usually by (^o/jiokoytiv,
tfo(ioAoyT)<ris, once by o/JioKoytlv ; it never renders the noun by
bfioKoyCa.
No doubt there is primitive Semitic symbolism in the
choice of ,it to express the religious act of confession ;
but here, as elsewhere, we painfully feel the uncertainty
of the subject (cp Lag. Or. 222). The root-meaning
of the verb is ' to throw,' or perhaps (cp Ar. wadd and
m.i, Is. 118) 'to extend." Some peculiar gesture used
in confession seems to be indicated (cp BDB, s.v. .it).
In rK. 838 'spreading forth the hands' is specified;
but this was simply the ordinary gesture in prayer.
Individual confession of sin must be assumed to have
been common, though references to it are scanty.
2 Individual J°s'^- ''9 is a passage by itself: Achan
COnfeBsion '^ ^"^"""^ ^° confess, to 'give glory'
thereby to the all-seeing God ; but he
is not forgiven. Prov. 2813 (but not Ps. 32s, where
pious Israel speaks) extols the Ixsnefit of it. i K. 838
virtually refers to it. WTien God touches the heart or
J That this and nox. jerboa (as supposed by ROdiger) is the
meaning of the Greek word is made certain by the testimony of
Suidas and Hesychius : see also Ducange, s.v.
2 Zffol. Anz. no. 490, 1895.
884
CONFISCATION OF GOODS
conscience of the sinner ("133S pj, 6 A^V* KopSlat
avTov, but EV ' the plague of his own heart ' ), the
sinner spreads forth his hands (see § i) towards 'this
house' and obtains forgiveness. It has Ix'i^n suggested
that the liturgical formula T^in*? ' to bring to remem-
brance'(?) in the hciulings of Pss. 38 and 70/ (viewed
ns a single psjilin) means that those i)salms were to be
used by a man confessing his sin at the offering of a
special sacrifice ; ■•' but the view is not very proliable.
After the destruction of the temi)le, the confession of
sin by the high priest for the whole ixx)ple having
ceased, the duty had to be discharged by axch Israelite
for himself in the synagogue. Various formuhe came
into use, for which see the interesting conspectus in
the article ' SUndenbekenntniss ' in Hamburger's A'/i/,
Abth. 2.
(a) Of liturgical confession of sin there are three great
examples: Nell. U Is. G37-()4 11 [12] Uan. 9 (psalms like
;'>1 may also be compared). F.arly
3. Liturgical
confessions.
formuliB use<J by the high priest on the
great fast have bem preserved (see
A roNKMKN 1", I>AY OF, §7). Sc"e also the short general
formula quoted by Weber (///</. Theol. 321), from Talm.
ler. Yoma, end. Such comixjsitions belong to the
class called <?-m, -viddui.
(^) There were liturgical confessions of another kind
— Thanksgiving confessions. A sacrifice of min (con-
fession = thanksgiving) is one which is accompanied by
a loud (because earnest) acknowledgment of God's
gracious guidance (Ps. IO722; cp Jer. 33ii, post-
e.xilic). The so-called //cW/c-psalms (I(.i5-107) also may
be mentioned here. On the phrase '»'? ^i^■^^h, descriiHive
of a special service of the Invites, cp Choirs, § 2.
The point of contact between confession of sin and
eucharistic confession is given in iK. 833. When
Israel is defeated because of its sins, ' if they turn again
to thee, and confess thy name, and pray . . ., then
hear thou in heaven, and forgive'; and it is in harmony
with this that two out of the three liturgical prayers
mentioned above liegin with a glowing acknowledgment
of Yahwe's gootlness. (The prayer in Dan. 9 merely
recognises the duty of thanksijiving in a few words
relative to God s fidelity to his covenant. )
In the New Testament we find both senses of
i^ofxoKoyfiv (10 thank, and to confess); e.g., Mt. II2S
y—, 36. In Rom. 14 11 the verb represents j-arn ;
see Is. 4023. 'O/uoXcryeti' and 6/io\o7ia usually
signify ' profess,' ' profession ' ; so, e.g., i Tim. 612, AV
Heb.3i, AV, etc.
Confession and repentance are necessarily connected —
the Baptist's hearers are baptised, confessing (e^ofxoXo-
yovftevoL) their sins (Mk. I5 Mt. 36) — and therefore so
also are confession and forgiveness. See ijn. I9 and
especially Ja. 5 16, where the ' healing ' spoken of has
reference to the sins confessed-* (moral and physical
troubles connected ; cp Is. ftSs 1 Pet. 224). The dWijXot
( ' one another ' ) are Christian disciples.
The ' confession ' of i Tim. 612 may be that made at
Timothys ordination ; but that of Heb. 3 1 seems to lie
the confession of the divine sonship of Jesus, such as
was made at baptism (see H.m-tism, § 3). T. K. c.
CONFISCATION OF GOODS (Pp23 L"3y), Ezra 726
(ZHMIA TOY BlOY ['^-^J' ZHMIUJCAI TA, YnAPX^NTA
[1.]):= I l-.sd. 824 (appypico [-rikhJ ZHMIA [HA]).
Cp Law anij Jlstick, § 12. i Esd. 632 has to.
vTrdpxovTa aiTov ett'ot [ei's] ^acriXiKci ' all his goods to
be seized for the king,' for I'.zra 611, ' let his house be
made a dunghill' (© otherwise).
For the 'forfeiture' threatened in Ezra 108 (iffiavSa Ciri^,
axa9€f(aTt(r#7)<r(Tac n-aera rj vnap(ii avroO ; i Ksd. 94, avitpu-
9ri<rovTCLL TO. KTJJnj [-d^fferai ra virpaxovTa, L] ainitv "seized to
the use of the temple ') see Ban, § 3.
1 Cp I S. 10 26. For y:3 in 7'. 37 (B has trvvatrnnia.
a B. Jacob, ZA Tiy 17 63/ ['97).
3 Read rds afiaprCat (WH), not ra irapairrufxara (TR).
885
CONSECRATE
CONGREGATION. For HTJ? 'eddA. and (less cor-
rectly) '?•^5 kdhal, aiid IVVD md'fd, .see Assk.mblv.
' Thy congreEation,' Pi>. AS 10(11), kV'ine- 'thy troop' (cp
aS. •J3iii3, EV ; but see Lkhi), represents a corrupt Heb.
word, "jn'ri shoidd probably be --n''- Canaan was a land of
corn; cp Is. 'MS 17. I'ully correiteii, the line becomes, ' with thy
bread they were satisfied therein ' (Clie. /'j.P)).
<rava-fwrfi\ (Acts 13 43) is in RV .Svnagocuk (q.v.).
For A<ls7 38 RVi'Hf- as in Tyndalc, etc. (c'(CKAr)<ria), see
CilUKtil (so in Y.\).
CONGREGATION, MOUNT OF (tnO "iri; iv 6p(i
v\l/i]\(^ [HNA(^r]; in manic tcslanieuti ; jcasi )*^i'.
kV's modification of the unfortunate ' mount of the
congregation ' of AV, which suggests an impossible
identification with Zion (Is. Hist). The phrase occurs
in the boast of the king of Habylon, and descrilx-s a
mountain whose summit was above the ' stars of God '
(the brightest constellations), and its base in ' the recesses
of the north.' The best rendering is 'Mountain of
(the divine) assembly.'
No one would b.ive thought of Mount Zion, but for llie
accidental parallelism of Hipo SnK (.\V 'tabernacle of tlie
congregation,' RV 'tent of meeting '), and the supposed nfur-
ence to a passage in I's. -18213], rendered in EV Alount Zion
(on] ihe sides of the north, the city of the great king.'
lyia IS a perfectly vague expression, and Ps. 48 2 [3] is
under too great a suspicion of corruptness to serve as a
commentary. 1 It is, in fact, no mountain known in
terrestrial geograjihy that is meant, but the ' holy
mountain of Elohim ' (Kzek. '2813/. ), where there were
the 'flashing' stones (see Chkkub, g 2, n. ), and the
cherub, and (so the prophet thought) the king of Tyre
(see Cheruh, § 2). It is not stated that this holy
mountain was in the north ; but we may presume from
Ezek. 1 4 that it was regarded as l)eing there. This is
confirmed by Job 3722 (emended te.\t).
Out of the north cometh (supernal nral) brightness ;2
On Eloah there is awe-inspiring splendour.
That the Babylonians Ijelieved in a similar northern
mountain can hardly be doubtful, in spite of Jensen's
learned argument [Kosniol. 203-209) against comjxiring
the -lyio -in with the £-hars.ig-kurkiua ('Mountain-
house of the lands ') of the Prism Inscription of Tiglath-
pileser I. (Del. Par. 118). It appears that the later
OT writers supposed the north to be alx)ve, and conse-
quently the south below the earth (see Job 26 7, and cp
Earth, Folk (,)uakteks ok). The expressions • I
will scale the heavens,' and ' in the recesses of the
north," are therefore strictly accurate.'
CONIAH (in^JS ), Jer. 2224. See Jehoiachin.
CONONIAH (-in^;??). 2Ch.31i2/ AV, RV Con-
amah.
CONSECRATE. For pij? kiddei, ' to separate ' (E.\.
283), see Ci.i-AN, § z/. For T h'tO viilli' ydd, 'to fill the
hand ' (i Ch. '-'O5), whence C'n'^0 millu'liii, EV CoNShCRAn loN
(Ex. -JO 22), see Clean, § 3. For C'"}nn heherim, ' to devote
(Mic. 413), see Ba.v, | i. For Tt.l 'to dedicate (oneself)'
(Nu. 0 12), whence "ly nezer, AV Consecration, RV 'separa-
tion' (Nu. C7), see Nazikite.
TerfXtiufievo^ in Heb. 7 28 is better rendered 'perfected'
by RV (cp AV 2 10 69). For ivtKaivi.<nv (Heb. 10 20), RV
'dedicated,' see Deuicatk.
1 Some (Olsh., Che. PsJl), We.) omit pSS 'nsn' as a glos.s.
Che. Z'j.P) begins a new stanza with the words ^'riS^-? I^*^ "'-
WSS ' Mount Zion — in its recesses is his jewel. ' J'BS 'jewel ' =
the holy city, .is in Ezek. 7 22 (see Smend, ad loc.). Those who
accept neither solution of the problem n-.ust adopt the view
described in OPs. 317, which, however, Baethg. rightly pro-
nounces not quite satisfactory.
2 Read 1'?i" with Che. (Expos. July 1897) and Duhm.
' Hommel (Hastings' DBX 216) adopts this view, and com-
pares lyiD ^^ with a Bab. title of the sacred mountain,
E-iarra, 'house of assembly." Karppe (■/<»»/>■«. As. 9 ['97], 104)
thinks that the sacred mountain w.is originally the earth itself.
CONSTELLATIONS
CONSTELLATIONS (D^b'D?). Is. 13io EV. See
Staks. §3(/').
CONSUL. A letter of ' Lucius, consul of the
Romans ' {viraroi 'Pu)/xalwv [ANV]) to King Ptolemy of
F.gypt is given, in i Mace. 1") 16-21. See LucifS, i, and
M.'^CCABKKS, !■ iK.sr. sj 9.
CONSULTER WITH FAMILIAR SPIRITS (^Xb*
a'lN), l)t. iSii. See Divi.NATIoN, § 4(ii.).
CONVOCATION, HOLY {'SI? N-1|5p). E.x.12.6.
See .Vssi-.MHi.v, 3.
CONVOY (iTjnr), 2S. 19 18 [19], RV^e-, KV Fkrry
Boat (-/.t-.).
COOKING AND COOKING UTENSILS. The
task of preparing; the daily footl naturally fi'll to the
- T7--i 1- women of the household, even women of
1, ii.iLCiiGns. , , ■ .
the highest rank attendmg, on occasion,
to this part of the household duties (2 S. 1.38/. ; cp
below). An apartment or apartments specially devoted
to the prejjaration of food — in other words, a kitchen —
can have been founil only in the houses of the wealthy.
We can realise without dilViculty the kitchen of the
Hebrew kings and nobles from the life-like picture of
that of Rameses 111. as figured on his tomb at Thebes
(reproduced in Wilk. .}//<■. Kgyl^t. 23234). In such
establishments there were cooks, niale(o'n3a: i S- 823/)
and female (nin2D: i s. 8 13). In connection with the
great sanctuaries, too, such as Shiloh (iS. I49) and
Bethel, there must have lx:en something of the nature
of a public kitchen, where the worshippers had facilities
for preparing the sacrificial meals. In his sketch of the
restored temple at Jerusalem, l'",zekiel makes provision
for such kitchens (both for the priests [4tii9/". ] and for
the people [21-24]), which are here called 'boiling-places'
(ni'?r23, Mttveipe'tt [BAQ] : v. 23) and 'boiling houses'
(RV V. 24 Q-SKinSTi'a, oiKOt tC}v fj.ayeipwi'). See
Cl.KAN, § 2.
In an ordinary Hebrew household, whose food,
except in\ great occasions, was exclusively vegetarian,
_ the culinary arrangements were of the
2. Culinary si,npiest kind. Two large jars (ir. -^w-Z/t,
arrangeuLents. => j > .
the vSpia of Jn. 428 '16 jf.) of sun-dried
clay had a place in the meanest house, one for fetching
the daily supply of water from the spring — carried then
as now upon the head or on the shoulder 1 by the women
of the household ((ien. 24 15/. ; cp i K. 18 33 [34]: EV
'barrel') — the other for holding the store of wheat or
barley for the d.iily bread ( i K. 1 7 12 14 16 : EV ' barrel ' ).
In both the passages last cited the American revisers
rightly prefer the rendering ' jars. ' To these we must
add some instrument for crushing or grinding the grains
of the various cereals used as food, in particular wheat
and barley (see Food, § i, Bkkad, § i). The most
primitive method was simply to crush the grains between
two stones or rather to rub them upon a fiat stone by
means of another. Such primitive corn-grinders or
' grain-rubbers ' (as they were called in Scotland) were
found by Mr. Bliss at all stages of his excavations in
Tell el-Hesy — the probable site of Lachish — ' long slabs
flat on one side and convex on the other, w ith rounded
ends' (Bliss, A Mound of Many Cities, 83, illustr. p.
85). They are found also tjoth in ancient and in
modern Egypt (see illustr. in Erman's Egypt, 190, for
the former; for the latter, Benz. //./ 85, Nowack,
//.-/ liio). The pestle and mortar (see Moktak) re-
present a later stage in the art of preparing food.
The still more effective hand-mill or quern (n'nn) with its
upper and nether millstones — hence the dual form — is
the last to appear (Erman, op. cit. 189 ; see also MiLi,).^
J The practice varies in different part.s of S>Tia. In some
parts the jar when empty is carried on the head ; when filled,
on the shoulder (/.DMC 11 516).
2 Cp DouKhiy, Wr. />«. 2179: 'After the water-skins a
pair of millstones is the most necessary husbandry in an Arabian
household.'
887
COOKING
Milk (y.w.) was kept in skins (Judg. 419), but more
usually in bowls, wine in skin bottles (see Botti.E, 1),
oil and honey in earthenware Jars (see Cku.>^k, 2).
Olives, grapes, figs, and the other fruits of the soil were
no doubt kept partly in similar jars, partly in baskets,
of which several varieties are named in OT and NT (see
Basket). Such were the sal (Sp. Gen. 40 17 etc.;
K0.VOVV [.ADEL]), a basket of wicker-work ; the thie
(nj;:, Ut. 2ti2; KctpraWos [BAFL]; canistrutn, cp \'erg.
A^.ii. 8180) for carrying wheat from the threshing-floor,
to judge from the passage Dt. 28$ 17 (' blessed shall be
thy basket and thy kneading-trough ' RV ; © aX dirod?]-
Kai ffov) ; ^ and the dud (in), a basket in which figs were
gathered (Jer. 242 Ps. 81 6 [7] RV). The preparation of
bread, always the staple article of diet, recjuired the
kneading-trough (niNC'D) of wood, earthenware, or bronze
according to circumstances, and the oven (tjb) — men-
tioned together Ex. 83(728) — for which see Brkad, §2^.
Coming now to cooking, in the ordinary sense — that
is, the preparation of food by the agency of fire. —
^ Prpnaration ^""^ ^"'' ^^'^^ ^^*^ various methods of
,? , cooking to which reference is made
Of lOOCl. , , , , ,
may be grouped under two heads.
The food w.as cooked either ( 1 ) by bringing it into
immediate contact with the source of heat, whether as
in the case of the ash-cakes {s///fiinericius pa?iis, i K.
196, described under Bkkad, § 2 «) or in the rough
and ready method of roasting on the live embers (see
below) or in the more civilised method of roasting by
means of spit or gridiron ; or (2) by using a suitable
liquid as the medium for transmitting the heat required
— such as water, milk, oil, or fat (in frying). It would'
seem that the Hebrews originally included these various
processes under the general term '?c'3.
The original signification of this verb.il root was evidently ' to
be or to i)ecome ripe,' 'to ripen' applied to grain (Joel 3(41 13)
and fruit ((ien. 40 10), from which the transition to the idea of
' making (food) eatable ' — i.e., cooking — was easy (cp post-biblical
TC'^, something cooked, a ' dish ). Hence we find C'K3 7£r3
'cooked with fire' (2Ch. 35i3) and D"23 7B\20 'cooked with
(or in) water' (Ex.129), when it is important that 'ro.-jsted'
and ' boiled shall l>e precisely distinguished. In ordinary
langu-ige, however, ?C'3 was used only in the sense of 'boil,'
while for the various forms of ' roasting ' indicated under (i)
above (i S. 215 Is. 44 16 19) use was made of the word nh'i-
That which was roasted, a roast, was '?S (Is. 44 16 ; cp "Sj7
roasted or parched corn ; see Food, § i). In the Talmud a
third verb is frequently found alongside of n7S and 7S'3— viz.,
PPf", which is applied not only to the cooking of flesh but also to
the boiling down of fruit to make preserves (.Ma'as. 4i, AV/.
88). These three verbs are generally taken to represent the
Latin assare, coqiiere, and elixare respectively, in which case
yhv would signify ' to boil thoroughly ' (cp Cn.l in Ezek. '24 10,
R V ' to boil well,' and nm. "^- 7'. 5) : it is probably equiva-
lent to our 'stew,' since in the absence of knives and forks (see
Meai..s) the Oriental has to stew his meat till it can be readily
pulled in pieces by the hand.
WTien the meat was boiled in a larger quantity of
water than was necessary for stewing, the rich licjuor
which resulted was known as pio. mdrdk (Judg. 6 19/.
Is. 604 kr. [Kt. pnE] EV ' broth '), also perhaps as •""Ji^'O
(Ezek. 24 10, RV 'make thick the broth'). The meat
and the broth might be served together or separately
(the latter by Gideon, Judg. loc. cit.). When the meat,
on the other hand, is set on with a smaller quantity of
water, to which onions or other pungent vegetables or
spices have been added, the result is the favourite
Arab stew yahni {^.), perhaps the p^Vr [Ned.1)
and nip^c* (^Ab. Z.ar. '2s) of the Mishna. The ' savoury
meat ' (ceyBOi Gen. 274 : cp Prov. 283) which Rebekah
prepared from ' two kids of the goats ' was doubtless a
spicy stew of this kind.
A reference to another modem dish, kibbeh, which has been
1 The Mishnic Heb. 'po is a large metal basket ; cp BDB,
and, for this and other vessels, J. Krengcl, Das Hausgerat in
dtr Mishnah, 1 Theil, 1899 (see index).
COOKING AND COOKING UTENSILS
called the national dish of S^ria, has been fuund by various
scholars in Prov. 'JTaa kV : '1 hough thou shoulde'st bray a fool
in a mortar with a pestle anions bruised corn, yet will not his
foolishness depart from him.' This exactly describes the opera-
tion of inakiniJ kihhth : the mutton is first (K>uiidcd to shreds in
a wooden or stone mortar ; it is then mixed with hurghul (see
Kdoo, ( i). and the whole boiled and served. I [Hut on the text
SCO Exp. T. viii. I '97], 432; where niB'in 'bruised corn' (?) is
emended to Vian, 'his fellows.'J
When an animal of the herd (npa) or of the flock
(|^is■ see, further, Food, § 11, and Sacrifice) was
to l>e prepared for food it was first slaughtered accord-
ing to the prescrilxxl method and the carcase thoroughly
drained of its blood. For skinning. Hint knives (cp rhzva
Judg. 1929) were used in early times (cp Josh, iiiff., RV
* knives of Hint ') — such as those recovered from Tell-el-
Hesy (Bliss, op. cit. 194, illustr. 106). Sacrificial
knives were later known as D's'^no (F-zralg; cp post-
biblical fii57n) ; a knife for ordinary domestic purposes
was |'2r (I'rov. 2^2) — in later Hebrew always pso. The
animal was then cut up, the technical term for which was
nn: (Lev. 16 12, and often) — a single p'ece nnj" — the
priests received the portions that were their due and the
remainder was consigned to the pot. The latter, if of
copper, had in later times to be scrupulously scoured
(p-c) and rinsed (rcc-, Zebah. \\i,ff.; cp Mk. 74)
when the cooking was over.
The primitive hearth was formed of a couple of
stones by which the \>o\. was supported, room being left
4 Firinc- ^"-'"'^•'^''^ '^^'' ''^^' f"^' — wood or dung (see
°' Coals, § 2). Large pots might be placed
on the top of the tatiniir or baking oven, as at the
present day ; such an arrangement was found to have
been in use in the ancient Lachish (see Bliss, op. cit.
97). The sinaller pots were boiled on a chafing dish
or pan containing charcoal (c'n its, Zech. 126 AV
'hearth of fire,' RV 'pan of fire'), as in Rameses'
kitchen. In Lev. 11 35 there is mention, alongside of
the tannur or oven, of the kiraim (d'TD, Kvdpbirohi%
[BF], xi'-rpoTToSes [AL] ; EV ' range[s] for pots,' RV"'S-
' stew-pan '). According to the Talmud, it was a port-
able cooking-stove, capable of holding two pots (hence
the dual) as distinguished from the kuppdh (,1313, better
nsz), a stove which had room for only one pot (Jastrow,
Diet., S.V.). Like the tannur, it was of baked clay,
and, therefore, easily broken (cp Di. in lac. and Now.
HA 2280, n. ). The kirHh (in the sing. ) and the kiippdh
are frecjuently mentioned together in the Mishna (see
esp. Kflim). For carrying the necessary charcoal a
ladle or firepan (nnns) was used (E.\. 273883 ; in Num.
166^ 'censer' ; Kel. 237) ; for stirring and adjusting
it, a pair of tongs (D;ni;'?p Is. 66) ; 07; shovels {pala or
rutrum), for removing the ashes, are mentioned, but
only in connection with the great altar (see Ai,t.\r, § 9).
The bellows (nsp ; <pv<TriT-fip [BNAg]) of Jer. 629 was
probably used only by the metal smelters — for a descrip-
tion and illu-stration, see Wilkinson, op. cit. 2312.
The ordinary housewife was content to fan the charcoal
with a fan (nsjs, AV/. I67) of feathers, as pictured in
the representation of Rameses' kitchen referred to above.
The names of various utensils in which food was
actually cooked are differently rendered in EV without
5 CookiniT ^'^- ''*'''-"'"P' ^^ consistency : pan, kettle,
utensils ^"^''''■""' P"' ('" this order is the list given
in I .S. 2 14). The data at our command
do not permit of these being accurately distinguished
one from another. In the houses of the poor they were
1 For other modern dishes see Lane (.^/ol/. Egypt. 5) and esp.
the elaborate menu of a native dinner in Klunzinger (.Upper
Kgypt, 59/).; see also, for Syria, Landberg {Fr<jver6es et
Dictons, passim).
a The j;ood piece ' (.W) or ' portion ' (RV) of flesh which
David distributed among the people at the inbrinying of the
ark (2 S. 6 19 I Ch. 16 3) is only one of several traditional render-
bgs of the doubtful Heb. word ff «, the real signification of
which has been lost. See Dr. TBS in loc. [Since the word
doubtless of glazed or even unglazed earthenware ('Va
fcnn, Lev. 628[2i]; see roTTKKY) ; in those of the
wealthier classes, of bronze [^f^\ "^3, loc. cit., Ezek.
24 11). The difference of rank (so to say) Ijctween the
two materials gives point to Ben Sira's illustration.
• What fellowship shall the earthen jxjt have with the
[brazen] kettle?' (x"T/)a irp6j X^/iT/ra : Ecclus. 182/ ).
In connection with the temple we read not only of pots
and caldrons made of bronze (i K.745 2 K. 2i)i4 Jer.
52 18) but also of such vessels of silver and gold
(Jer. 52 .9).
i. For boiling meat various vessels were employed
(cp I S. 214). (a) The most fre(|uently mentioned is
the TD. sir, pot or caldron. It was used for cooking
the ordinary family meal (2 K. 438/ Mic. 83 Ex. I63
[flesh pots of l':gypij), and for boiling the sacrificial flesh
(Zech. 1420). It served also for a ' wash pot ' (Ps. 608
[10]). It must have Ijeen one of the largest of the cook-
ing vessels, to judge from the incident rc-corded in 2 K.
438^ ('the great pot' for the whole comjjany of the
prophets). (/>) 'Y\\<i kiyydr (^y-^) must have been a wide,
shallow pot of considerable size, since the same name
is given to the ' laver of brass ' (E.\. 80 18) at which the
priests were to wash their hands and feet. It served as
a chafing-dish (Zech. 126). Wherein the kiyyor differed
from (<r) iha pdrur (nns) in which the manna was boiled
(Nu. 118 RV), and {tf} the i//,ct (n^r,, Job 41 2o[i2]), and
{e) the kalldhath (nn'";;, Mic. 83), we do not know.
In Job 41 20 [12] caldron (AV) is a mistranslation of pcJK (see
Rush, 2). In 2 ti 1^9 MT has nnc'S, not found elsewhere (EV
pan); but the true re.-iding is probably '[and she called the]
servant ' (mro : so Klo. followed by Ki. and liu.).
These various pots, pans, etc., were probably used without a
lid (in late Heb. '?E2), although the obscure TCS of Nu. 19 15
is taken by some to have this signification.
ii. A fork (jSip, jSia) of two or three (iS. 213)
prongs was used to lift the meat from the pot, and also
to stir the contents of the latter (see illustration, Wilkin-
son, op. cit. 32).
iii. The spoons (niss) mentioned among the furniture
of the table of shewbread (Ex. 2529) and elsewhere were
more probably shallow bowls. We find, however, in
the Mishna, real spoons (inn) made of bone {Shabb.
8 6, AV/. 17 2) and of glass (AW. 30 2). There
is also mention of a wooden cooking ladle (ry ttb
Besdh, 1 7), which was probably used for removing the
scum (,nxVn, Ezek. 246 n, so AV ; but this word is more
probably ' rust ' as RV) from the contents of the pdrHr
or pot (otherwise explained by Levy, s.v. -ins).
While boiling, to judge from the comparative
frequency of the OT references, was the favourite
6 Roastinc "^°*^''^ °^ cooking flesh-meat, there need
^' be no hesitation in saying that roasting
also was practised from the earliest times. In its most
primitive form, roasting, as we have seen, consists in
laying the meat directly on the ashes or other source of
heat, either kindled on the ground or in a pit specially
dug (Burckhardt, A'otes, etc. 1 240, Rob. jyA' ['41], 1 118
304). The fish of which the disciples partook by the
lake of Galilee was cooked by being laid on the charcoal
(6\pa.piov iTrLKfifjiivov, Jn. 2I9).
The spit, the 6(i(\6s of the Homeric poems, is not
mentioned, as it happens, in the OT ; but of its use
there need be no doubt. In Egypt, Erman tells us,
' the favourite national dish, the goose, was generally
roasted over live embers ; the spit is very primitive, a
stick stuck through the b<'ak and neck of the bird.
They roasted fish in the same way, sticking the spit
through the tail' (E^pt, 189, illustr. ib., and Wilk.
23s). The wooden spit was favoured by the Romans
(cp Verg. Georg. 2396, ' Pinguiaque in verubus torre-
appcars to be corrupt, the emendation "IKJr Dp, 'a piece of
flesh," has been suggested by Cheyne. This easy alteratioti
suits the context.]
8qo
COOKING
bimus exta colurnis).' Later Hebrew legislation— in
iliis, no doubt, perpetuating an ancient practice — ref|uired
that the Passover lamb should be roastetl on a spit of
pomegranate (jisy'jr nSsp [Levy, nttr] ^". 7i). The
ordinary spit, being of iron, — so much we may infer
from llie demand that a spit purchased from an id(jlater
must be cleansed in the fire (Ai. Zara. 612) — was not
allowed for the above-mentioned purpose ; neither was
the gridiron (n^roK. Pes. 7 2). The spit, we may sup-
pose, rested on andirons ^ (/Sdo-ets, vara), on which it
could be turned by the hand.
The passage of the treatise Pesdhim above referred
to speaks further of roasting, or more exactly of
broiling, on a gridiron placed apparently ovir the
mouth of a tanniir or baking oven. The gridiron was
perhaps used to prepare the piece of broiled fish [ix^vo^
diTToO fji^poi) of Lk. 2442. Not only flesh and fish but
also eggs, onions, etc., were roasted by the Jews
(SAadi. 1 10).
The favourite mode of roasting meat for ordinary household
purposes at the present day in Syria is by means of skewers.
The meat is cut into small pieces, which are stuck upon the
skewers and roasted over a brazier. Meat thus prepared is
termed kfbiib.
With regard to the food-products of the vegetable
kingdom (see P'ood), many vegetables were of course
„ _ ... eaten raw (wm6j. in Hebrew 'n. literally
7. Vegetable ,. . , ^ ... ",
fw)d 'livmg, a word applied not only to raw
animal flesh [i S. liis Lev. 13io_/], but
also to fish [AV(/ar. 64]. to vegetables \ib.\ and even
to unmixed wine). They were also cooked by being
boiled, alone or mixed with various ingredients— such
as oil and spices. The Hebrew housewives, we may
be sure, were not behind their modern kinsfolk of the
desert, of whom Doughty testifies that ' the Arab house-
wives make savoury messes of any grain, seething it
and putting thereto only a little salt and samn' [Ar.
Des.2130). Thus, of the cereals, the obscure 'drisdh j
(,iDny. Nu. 1520/".) was probably a porridge of barley 1
groats (see, further. Food, § 1), whilst Jacob sod for !
himself a dish (rij. EV 'pottage') of lentils (Gen. j
252934) ; the same name is given to the vegetarian dish
prepared for the sons of the prophets (2 K. 438/:;
cp H.igg. 212). In NT times, at least, it was known
that tlie pulses or pod-plants were improved by being
soaked (MH .mc-) before being boiled. \'arious kinds,
such as beans and lentils, miglu l>e b(jilod together
(Orlah. I7): they might also, like our French beans, j
be boiled in the pods (niS-Sp). In the OT we find men- 1
tion of the mahabath (nano, TTp/a.vov, W 'pan,' RV
'baking-pan,' mg. 'flat pkate,' Lev. 2s 621 [14], etc.) |
and the marhisheth (nrn-C, LV 'frying pan,' Lev. 2? j
79). The mahabath certainly (see Ezek. 43), and the |
marht'shcth probably, was of iron ; and, although both
are u.sed with reference only to the s;icrificial cakes (see
B.\Ki:MiiAr.s, Bkkad), we may legitimately infer from
the fact that the martyrs of 2 Mace. 7 were roasted alive
on the r-r)'ya.vov [vv. 35; cp late Heb. word jj-a) that
both may have been used also in the preparation of
meat.
To judge from the prepositions employed ('7^, 'on', and 3, ' in"),
the mahabath was deeper than the marMsheth. This inference is
confirmed by the tradition, which we find in the Mishna, that the
difference between the marliishtth and the tnaJtdbath consisted
in the former having a lid ("Dr) while the latter had none ; to
which another authority adds that the former is deep and its
contents fluid, the latter flat and its contents firm (Menali. 58).
The mahabath, in sliort, was a stewpan, the marhtslitth similar
to a Scotch ' girdle,' a flat iron plate on which oatcakes are baked.
A striking illustration of Kzek.43 is furnished by Doughty
(Ar. Des. 1 593), who describes an iron -plated door in the
castle of Hayil : ' the plates (in the indigence of their arts) are
the shield-like iron pans (tannur) upon which the town house-
wives bake their girdle-bread.'
Other utensils named or implied are {a) the sieve,
1 Some would give this or a simitar sense to rthjDtt- See
Jastrow, Diet, j.j:
891
COOS
ndphdh (,iBj, Is. 3O28; SAaM. 82, AiotA, bis), for
sifting the flour, and (6) the strainer, m/Iamm^re/A,
n-nvD (Shabb. 20 1, Ab. ;»i5 [especially for wine] ; cp Is.
256, Mt. 23 44). An ordinary bowl, however, might be
perforated so as to serve as a strainer, as we see from
the pottery of Tell-el-Hesy (Bliss, op. cit. 85). To
these may be added (f) one of the commonest of the
post-biblical terms for a jxjt, ,TTip ; hence .ttij? .irj'3
came to signify 'cooked food' (Nedar. 61). For the
vessels used for serving food, see MicALS, § 8.
The importance of oil in the Hebrew kitchen will \x:
noticed under OIL (q.v.). In early times the custom,
„ _ ,. . so popular among th<; modern .\rabs,
8. Condiments. ^^^ ^^-^^ ^^^^^ j,^ ^^j,^ ^^.^„^^ ,^ ^^^.^
prevailed among the Hebrews. The oldest legislation
— confirnjed by the Deuteronomic — limited this practice
so far TKS to forbid (for reasons that are still obscure : cp
Foon, § 13, and see Magic, Sackifick) the seething of
a kid in its mother's milk (Ex. 23 19 3426 Dt. 14 21).
In NT times this prohibition had been extended far
beyond its original intention.
Thus we read in the Mishna : ' It is forbidden to seethe (Sv!Z)
any sort of flesh in milk, except the flesh of fish and locusts ; it
is also forbidden to set flesh upon the table along with cheese '
(with the same exceptions, Khullin, 8 i). It was still delated
whether the prohibition applied to fowls and game or only to
cattle, sheep, and goats (ih, 4). In the course of time, however,
it became part of the Jewish dietary law, that two distinct sets
of cooking utensils — one for meat alone, and another for dishes
into the preparation of which milk or butter enters — are required
in every orthodox Jewish kitchen (see on this law of ::'7na '\Z'1
esp. Wiener, Die jiid. Speisegesetzt, 41-120 ['95]). Extreme
purists have gone the length of using three (Jb. 115/O and even
four such sets. A. K. S. K.
COOS, or rather, as in RV and i Mace. I523 EV,
Cos (kcoC I »ow Stanchio — i.e., es Ty)v koj), the least
and most southerly of the four principal islands off the
coast of Asia Minor. It lies at the entrance to a deep
bay, on the two projecting promontories of which were
Cnldus and Halicarnassus. It owed its fertility to its
volcanic origin, and its commercial importance to its
position. It lies on the high road of all maritime traffic
between the Dardanelles and Cyprus : vessels coasting
in either direction must pass within half a mile of the
capital (also called Cos), which was on the E. extremity
of the island, and had a good anchorage and a port
sheltered from all winds except those from the SE.
Lucan {Phar. 8243) thus sketches the usual route of
ships: —
Ephesonque relinquens
Radit saxa Saiiii ; spirat de litorc Coo
Aura Jiuens : CnidoH inde/u^it, claramque relinquit
Sole Rhodon.
In precise agreement with this is the account of Paul's
voyage from Macedonia to Palestine (Acts 21 1). His
ship ran before the wind (ei^^uSpo/u^ffavTes) from Miletus,
about 40 ni. to the N., down to Cos {i.e., either the
island or the capital : probably the latter is meant ) ;
next day it reached Rhodes.
In spite of its geographical advantages, Cos remained historic-
ally unimportant. Its inhabitants, apparently of deliberate
choice, eschewed foreign relationships, and devoted themselves
to the development of internal resources. No colonies were
sent out ; for long the capital was in the west of the island ;
the strategic and commercial importance of its present site was
ignored until 366 B.C. When at last the Coans were compelled
to emerge from their seclusion, it was only to echo the voice of
Rhodes in all matters of foreign policy. The success of this
concentration of energy is indicated by the fact that Cos ranked
with Rhodes, Chios, Samos, and I^sbos as one of the fioxcipuf
iWjtroi (Diod. Sic. 581 82), and by the existence of the saj-ing
'He who cannot thrive in Cos will do no better in Egypt.' 1
Allied with this material prosperity was the development of
liberal arts. Under the Ptolemies Cos became an important
literary centre. With it are connected the names of Theocritus
the poet, BerOssus the historian, Apelles the painter, and, at an
earlier date (5th cent. B.C.), Hippocrates the physician. Cos
was one of the great centres of the worship of Aesculapius, and
of the caste or medical school of Asclepiadae. Claudius in 53
A.D. gave the island the privilege of immunity, mainly for its
medical fame (Tac. Ann. 126i).
1 &i> ov Opiifiti Kwt ixtivov ovSi Alyvirrot.
892
COPPER
Among the commercial proclucts of the island were unguents,
two kinds of wine, poUery (amphora- Cotr, Pliny, //.V .15 i6i),
and silk for Konian ladies (C'lxr pur^unr, Hor. Oii. iv. 13 13
vtites tenues, Tibull. ii. 3 55). Cos Is still an active port.
.Strabo (657) notes the fair aspect of the city to one entering the
roads.
Interesting is the connection of Cos with the Jews.
As Mithridates seized 800 talents deposited in the island
by the Jews of Asia (Jos. Ant. xiv. 7 a), there must then
have been a Jewish settlement there engaged in banking.
In I Mace. 1623 Cos is mentioned in the list of places
to which the circular letter of the Roman senate in
favour of the Jews [circa 139-8 B.C. ) is said to have been
addressed. In 86 n. c. (Jaius Fannius wrote to the
Coan authorities enclosing a setia/us cofisiiltum to secure
safe convoy for Jewish pilgrims to Jerusalem. The
island was connected also with Herod the Great (Jos.
B/ i. 21 11), and with his son Antipas (Boeckh, 2502).
Best authority, Inscriptions 0/ Cos, hy I'aton and Hicks,
1891 ; an attempt at direct combination of cpigrai)hy and i
history. W. J. VV. 1
COPPER (n'^'m ; x&Akoc ; cp Bk.\ss). The com- '
pound of copix,T and zinc that we ca'.i brass appnxirs :
.. „ to have been little known to the ancients ;
bTP ■ l,^,t we have abundant evidence that
copper was early known, and that it was hardened by I
means of alloys into bronze. .Seneferu, a conquering
pharaoh of the fourth dyn;isty, worked the Sinaitic j
copper mines, and M. de Morgan has found some
articles of cop[x;r in the tomb of .Menes (traditionally
regarded as the first king of I'"gypt), explored by him in j
1897. M. Amclineau appears to have proved that j
copper was known at an even earlier date, and from
his researches and those of Mr. Quiljell at Kuni el-
.Mimar we may probably conclude that the Pharaonic ]
l-",gyptians were from the first not ignorant of the use j
of gold and copper [hint). Theinines in the Sinaitic I
pLMiinsula continued to be the chief source from which 1
the Kgyptians drew their copjjer (see Masjjero, Dawn of 1
Civ. 355, and cp .Si.SAi) ; but in the fifteenth century I
they obtained it also from Al.a.sia — i.e., CvHKUs' (see
Am. Tab., 25 and 27), where Cesnola has found
both copper and bronze celts in Thoenician remains.
The oklest Habyloninn sjiecimens of copper are those
found by M. de Sarzec at Tello (lx;fore 2500 B.C.); at
„ T T> I. 1 ■ fell es-.Sifr, in the same neighlxjur-
2. In Babylonia. ^^,,j ^,^ j^^^^^,^ ,^^^^ found even a
large cop[)er factory (1500 B.C.). In Babylonian
graves, and also in what Dr. J. P. Peters calls a
jeweller's shop (at Nippur), objects made of copj^er
(belonging to circa 1300 n. c. ) have been found.
Honimel thinks, on philological grounds, that the
Semitic Babyloni.ans as metallurgists were pupils of
the .Sumerians, and dates their acquaintance with
copjjer and iron very early.- The inscriptions make
frecjuent mention of copper [.yiparu] and bronze ^ [crU,
also ku, and urudu ; cp Lat. rc.udus = <es infect urn).
The ancient hymn (in Sumerian and .Assyrian) to Gibil,
the tire-god, e.vtols him for his services in the mixing of
cop;>;r and tin (cp Tulxil-c.ain, and see C.\initks,
§ 10). The .\ssyrians used bronze a.\es as late as the
ninth century. They derived their copper and bronze
largely from the so-called Nairi countries ; ultimately,
therefore, from Armenia ; the copper in the tribute paid
to Kanunan-nirari III. by Damascus is mentioned
elsewhere (Iron).*
The C.inaanites, naturally enough, were well ac-
quainted with copper. According to Ritter ( Erdk.\'i 1063
„ , „ cited bv Knolxil), there are still traces of
3. In Canaan. . .... «
ancient copper-mmes m the Lebanon ;'
1 Flinders Petrie also accepts Winckler's identification of
Alalia in .Am. Tab. with Cyprus (wliere copper was worked).
See his argument, Syria ami Kgypt, 44 ('98).
a Diesftnif. /'^y/Xrr, I410.
3 Cp Lenornuint, TSHA 6334^
* On iron and bronze among the Babylonians and Assyrians,
cp Winckler, AOt\ ii^fT.
* Cp the important descriptive phra.se quoted in Del. Par.
333, &id Ba'ali-sapOna sadu rabO siparri the mountain Baal-
893
COPPER
this is confirmed by what seems to be an assertion of
the fact in Dt. 89 and Zech. 61 (see below, g 5).
On the E. of the Lclxmon range copper nmst have
been abundant in the 'land of Nuhassi ' [Am. Tab.),
which Halt'vy ingeniously identifies with ZoBAH ; and in
later times there were cop[jer mines in Edoni at Phainon,
or Phenon (cp Pino.n). 1 he Phoenicians early employed
bronze for works of art,' and the great mound of lell
el-lle.sy, believed to l)c Lachish, proves that the Amoritcs
who dsvelt there had usetl their opportunities. ' In
the remains of the Amorite city (iH;rhaps 1500 B.C.)
there are large rough weapons of war, in.ade of copjK'r
without admixture of tin ; alxjve this, dating perhaps
from 1250 to 800, appear bronze tools, but the bron/e
gradually becomes scarcer, its place being tiiken by
.... , iron"-* (see Ikon). Whatever, therefore.
4. in Israel. ^ j,^^ ^^^^ ^j. ^ j^ jjr^ .^^ ^ document.
we may feel (|uite certain ihat the I'hilistine warriors had
.irmour of bronze ; indeed, their ancestors in Asia Minor
doubtless had bronze weapons long Ix;fore Davids
time."* Goliath, however, uses weapons of attack made
of iron (the kidon [?] of bronze can hardly be a javelin ;
see Goliath).
The statement in Josh. 624 (copper or bronze vessels
found in Jericho) will be in the main correct ; al.so that
in 2 S. 8 8, in as far as it relates to the abundance of
bronze in Syria. Whether the serpent of bron/e called
Nkhlshian \q.v.'\ was earlier than the temple of
Solomon may, perhaps, be doubled. At any rate, the
notice in Xu. 'i-lg (JK) is as much of an anachroni.sm as
that in Ex. 382-8 (P). The Israelites in the wilderness
had no workers in bronze. Nor could David find a
competent bronze-worker in all Israel ; the statements
resjiecting Hiram the artificer in i K.7i3# are no
doubt historical.'* In the later regal period it was, of
course, quite otherwise (cp Jer. 628/! Ezek. 22 18 20).
From 2 K. 25 13/'. Jer. 52 17 / we learn that the
Babylonians broke the sacred vessels of bronze and
carried away the metal to Babylon ; no doubt
Rehoboam's shields of 'brass' (i K. I427 2 Ch. 12io)
went there too ; but the chief losses were probably
repaired. The cymbals in the second temple were
certainly of copper or bronze, as we may infer from
I Ch. 15 19 Jos. Ant. vii. I23 (cp i Cor. 13 1). Gates of
' brass' are mentioned in Ps. 107 16 Is. -102 (cp Herod.
I179, and see Mr. Pinches' account of the bronze gates
of Balawat) i' mining implements of ' brass ' in Ecclus.
48 17 (Heb. Text).
That ' brass ' (bronze) should be used to symlxilise
hardness and strength is natural. In time of drought,
it seemed as if the heavens were bronze.
6. OT usage.
so that no rain could pass through them
(Dt. 2823), or as if the earth were bronze, so that it could
never be softened again (Lev. 2619). A sufferer asks if
his ' flesh ' [i.e. , body) is of brass (Job6 12), as the Ixmes
of Behemoth (Job 40 i8)and the brow of disobedient Israel
(Is. 484) are, by other writers, said to be. To \x com-
pared with brass is not, however, the highest distinc-
tion. It was the third empire in Nebuchadrezzar's
vision that was of ' brass' (Dan. 239 cp f.32). On the
other hand, ' brass ' in the obscure phrase ' mountains
of brass " (Zech. 61) has no symbolic meaning : ' brass '
[i.e. , copper) is merely mentioned to enable the reader to
identify the mountains (cp Nuhassi, the ' copperland ' ;
see § 3).
DilTicult as the passage is, we need not despair of e.xplaining
it. 'I'he ' mountains of brass ' are parallel to the ' mountains
sapun, great moimtain of copper ' ; also Sargon, .Ann. 23. where
ba'il-japuna, ' llie great mountain,' is spoken of as containing
mines (copper?).
1 Perrot and Chipicz, A rt in Phimicia and Cyprus.
2 Dr. J. H. Gladstone, 'The Metals of .Vntiquity, ' .Va/«rr,
April 21, 1898. p. 596.
3 Schliemann's discovery of weapons of copper and bronze on
the site of Troy is well known.
* On the right reading of 1 K. 746, see Adam, i.
* The bronze ornaments of the palace gates from Balaw^i
(parts i.-iv.) published by Soc. o/Bibl. Archteol.
894
COR
(iS n>v opiiov) in the river-land ' (^^^S3 ; cp nSiS Is. 44 27)— />.,
those visible from Babylonia — in Zech. 1 8, and must have been
ai well known as these to Zechariah's hearers or readers. They
were no tloubt the ' hills out of which thou inayest dig copper '
(Ut. Hg)— /.<•., Lebanon and Hermon (see above, § 3), which
formed the northern boundary of the Holy Land. It is the
' land of the north' (the seat of the empire of the Selcucidie?)
that chiefly occupied the thoughts of the speaker' (lis). See
ZiiCHARiAH, Book of. On 2J'?>p nrn: Ezra 8 27, cp Colours,
S 7- . - - T. K. C.
COR (13, perh. Ass. idr/t [v. Muss-Arnolt, s.7:], or
from ^/ -113 ; see No. ZDMG 40 734 ['86]), a measure of
ca]3acity = an homer (10 ephahs or baths); of wheat
and barley (i K. 422 [52]; EV 'measure,' mg. 'cor';
2 Ch. 2 10 [9] 27 5 ; RV"'K- ' cors ' ). As a liquid measure
[■^zek. 4514. 2 K. 625 (emended te.xt) speaks of ^ cor of
carobs (see HusKs).
In I K. 5ii [25] 'measures of oil' is wrong; read JCC' PS
' baths of oil," after 0 and II 2 C"h. i 9. Kopos [BAL] a loan-word,
which in <S represents both 13 and TOh, occurs once in NT (Lk.
107 RVing. 'cors'; .VVi"H- says ' about 14 bushels and a pottle ').
See Weights and Mkasukes.
n Job 28 18 Ezek. 27i6 of
irigin, which occurs also
,here EV treats it as a
2. P6nliilin
perhaps coral.
CORD
would seem to imply that a fishery was in the case,^ and,
if two of our best critics may be followed, the nobles of
Jerusalem are described in Lam. 4? as ' purer than snow,
whiter than milk, more ruddy than branches oi pitiinim '
{i.e., obviously, of coral ).'^ Another reference to
plniniin, of considerable interest, occurs in Ps. 45 14 [13],
where we should no doubt read cV'JSt for no'JS ; the
whole line should perhaps run, ' on her neck is a wreath
oi pUninim ' (see Che. Pi.C-' <2ii loc. ).
In the somewhat obscure c|uestion as to identification
of the substance or substances intended by rdmoth and
pininlm, it ought not to be overlooked
_CORAL is EV's rendering
niDSI, a word of uiiknowi
l.Ram6th '" ''•■-^•-'7.
unidentified, j^j^^g^ commentators, however (Hitz.,
Siegfr. -Sta. , etc. ), suppose that there is a reference to a
precious object called ra moth — as if the wise man meant,
• Wisdom is as much out of the fool's reach as coral.'
Neither explanation is satisfactory.'^
The word occurs only twice, and, since the Vss. shed
an uncertain light on the meaning, we must be content
to make the most of internal evidence.
Ezek. has Aa/iia>8 [MQ), pa;oifi«d [.\], serkuin ; Job has nereupa
[r.N.VC Theod.], v>prj\a. tSym.], excelsa- Prov. has ao<\>ia. xai
ivvoio. aya^T iv ■nvKa.i'i [B^A] for -\]:ci niC3n '?'•«'? ITSNT [Vg.,
The context in Job {rdmoth, gdbis, pUniiiim) shows
that some precious and ornamental substance is intended,
and Dillmann infers from the language that rantdth
Wiis regarded as less valuable iUan phii/iim (see below).
According to MT of Ezek. 27 16, rdmoth, with ndphek,
argdmdn, rikmah, bfis, and kadhkodh, was brought into
the Tyrian market by merchants of Syria ; but probably
(see CoriiiU, ad loc. ) we should read for Aram (cnx)
Edom (nnx);'* as Cornill remarks, Edoni was an im-
portant stage in the transport of merchandise westward
from S. Arabia and India. This last indication of the
provenance of rdmoth makes against the usual rabbinic
rendering, ' coral ' ; for the red coral of commerce — the
hard calcareous skeleton of the colonial Actinozoon,
Corallium /lof-ile. Pal. {riihrum. Da Costa), which is
widely distributed in the Mediterranean and the Atlantic
as far as the Cape \'erd Islands, and is a considerable
source of weaUh in the Mediterranean basin — occurs in
its natural state much less frequently S. and E. of Suez.
2. In R\'"''>'- 'corals' (Lam. 47), 'red coral,' and
'fsearls' (Job28i8 Prov. ;?i5 811 2O15 31 10) are suggested
as renderings alternative to ' rubies '
(see RUBV, i) for c'r:3 pUninim.
Certainly ' rubies ' is not a good render-
ing. The words, ' the catching' (7iir,p ; EV, improbably,
' price ■) of wisdom is above that of rubies,' in Job 28 18,
1 This interpretation is due to GratzC/''^'- Zt. 1885, pp. 549/) ;
it has been overlooked by even the most recent commentators.
For other views, on the whole very improbable ones, see Wright,
Zcchariali, 124 /. ; Now. and G.VSm. decline to offer any
opinion.
» Bickell : ' If thou hold thy peace (niS'i]) before a fool, thou
art wise."
3 Targ. Job 28 16 has, for niONn. n3Si:D = o-«i'*iP'»'"7 of
Theophr., etc., viz., native realgar, or ruby .sulphur (disulphide
of arsenic). It is used to a limited extent as a pigment, but can-
not be intended here (indication, however, of colour).
4 With Aq., Pesh., some Heb. MSS, and virtually © (ai^p<i-
!rous = cnK)' Sym. and Theod. support MT.
895
Coral-lik3
stones.
that certain stones valued by the ancients
seem to have been named from their
resemblance to coral. Pliny, Ijefore passing from the
onyx and alabaster group, speaks of a valuable ' corallite
stone' found in Asia, of a white hue, somewhat approach-
ing that of ivory, and in some degree resembling it {HN
3613); also of corallis, a native of India and Syene,
resembling minium in appearance ; and of coralloachates
or coral-agate, commonly found in Crete, and there
called the ' sacred ' agate, similar to coral, and spotted.
all over, like the sapphire, with drops of gold (3754 56).
Cp M.VKHLE.
COR-ASHAN (;C'r~li3), I S. 30 30. See Borashan.
CORBAN (korB&n [Ti.], korBan [WH], Mk. 7iit.
transliteration of Heb. |3"1f3, an oflering ; ^ explained
by h^cpov, 'gift' (cp Mt. los; similarly Jos. ^i«/. iv.
44: Kop^av), a kind of votive offering; an object
devoted to the deity, and therefore taliooed.* Josephus
{I.e.) uses the word in speaking of the Nazirites who were
dedicated to God as a corban, and of the temple treasure,
which was inviolable (/i/ii. 94 ; . . . rbv lepbv d-quavpov,
KaXeiTM 5i KopjSwvds ; cp Mt. 276 Kopfiavas). Theo-
phrastus, among foreign oaths, especially quotes the
corban as one belonging to the Jews, which was forbidden
to the Tyrians (cp Jos. c. Ap. 1 22, § 167). It is easy
to see that by interdicting himself by a vow a man was
able to refrain from using or giving away any particular
object, and might thus evade any troublesome obligation.
Several abuses crept in (cp Ned. 56), and, in the passage
cited (Mk. 7ii cp Mt. ISs), Jesus denounces a system
which allowed a son, by pronouncing the word ' corban '
(and thus vowing a thing to God), to relieve himself of
the duty of helping a parent. Cp comm. on Mt. los
Mk. 7ii, and especially L. Cappellus on Mt. ISs; also
CORBE (xopBe [B.\]), iEsd.5i2 AV = Ezra29.
Zaccai.
CORD. There is no scarcity of Hebrew terms to
denote cord of one kind or another.
Among the commonest words are San Itcbcl (\/to bind), and
in;, yctker {^10 stretch), both used of cords or ropes for drawing,
hauling (cp 2 S. 17 13 EV ' rope '),8 of tent-ropes (Is. 33 20 Job
4 2i),6 and of ship's tackle ; see Ship, Tent, § 3. Vether (®
in Judg. vfvpa.), which seems to denote rather 'gut,' and its
derivative TTI'D, are used also specially of bowstrings (Ps. II2
21 12 [13]). Less frequent terms are : tjin hftt (v^to sew),
1 The text may, however, be corrupt ; -jk'O is a singular term.
We might emend to ,inrm% '(wi.sdom) is esteemed ' (Che.).
2 The common rendering is ' . . . more ruddy in body than
ptninim' (cp EV). But 'in body' (csj;) appears superfluous
here ; whereas if we transpose the preposition, and read "lij-o
instead of 'd csVi we get a good sense (see above). © does not
represent either '^y or Qsy. See Bu. and Bickell, ad loc.
^ In P of the Hexateuch it is the comprehensive term for all
offerings ' presented ' to God, bloody or bloodless ; see also Ezek.
'20 28 40 43.
4 See Levy, Chald. WSrterb., s.v. JSTip, NHWB, s.v. D:'ip,
C:iip [mutilations of the formula, which are equally binding,
NedariDi, 1 2, as will be explained under Vow, § 4), and also
Ban, § I, Sackikice, Vow.
8 For I K. 20 31 see Turban.
6 Job 4 21 RV 'tent-cord,' RVmg- AV 'excellency.' ®, how-
ever, expresses ib'3'1 Cn3 Hr: N*?,!) 'Surely when he blows
upon them, they wither." This is preferable (so Beer).
896
CORE
'thread' (Gen. 14 2? Jiidg. Itiia Cant. 43; AV 'fillet,' RV
'line' in Jer. 6J21); .TE,73 nikf>nh (v/to encircle, go round),
Is. 824 RV 'rope' (AV rent); Diy Wblidth {c'p \ss. ahuttu,
•fetter'XJudg. 15i3, etc.; ^'TlB /.dthll, Nu. I538, etc., Judg.
IC.9 (.\V thread, RV string), (for Gen. 38 18 25 see Ring, § i) ;
;iiid 1(7, '1,^7^: see Line.
The nialerials available were strips of skin or hide (cp
the kgciid of the Carthaginian Jiyrsa), or the intestines
of animals, especially the goat or camel (cp in' above),
flax (I'.zek. 4O3), and rushes. It is ropes of rushes that
are meant by ffxoiWoi' and airapriov, (5's e<iuivalents for
San and t;in resi)ectively. ilx""'""' o^-'^-'U^s twice in NT —
In. 2 15 (a scourge of cords), Acts '.i? 32 (ropes of a ship).
The weaving together of two or more ropes for
greater strength was customary : cp ICccles. 4 12, ' the
threefold cord (r'^r^n Cinn) is not (|uickly broken.'
C'n> cnn' 'green withes' (1".\'), "which had not been
dried,' were employed in binding Samson (Judg. KiS).
Greater llcxibiiity, for the purpose of tying, was thus
ensured, and the knots were less liable to slip and the
cord to split.
From the idea of Mine, cord,' etc., is rcaiiily ulilaintd the
meaning of ' measuring-line ' (cp ^2n 2 S. 8 2 Am. 7 17, t:in i K..
7 15, ip I K. 723, "rons Kzck.403);l hence, further, diat of the
part 'measured olT,' the 'lot' or 'inheritance' (cp '>2T\ Josh,
lilg, pi. inl's. Ui6l5J).
On the 'cords' (<rxoi>'ia) worn by the unchaste women of
r.ahylon (l'.ar. 0 43), see I'ritzsclic ad loc.
CORE (Kope [l^^^A Ti. \VH). Kcclus. 45iS Jude i.
.\V, RV KokAii [q.v.).
CORIANDER (1^; korion [BAFL];^ i:x. I631
Nu. llyt) is a plant indigenous to the Mediterranean
area, Coriandrum sativum, L. , as all agree. The
Hebrew name, which Lagarde (f/'.-i 57) believes to be
of lndo-l".uropean origin, seems identical with the 7ot5-'
which the sclioliast on Uioscorides (864) aflirms to be
the Punic equivalent of Kopiov ; and the identity of the
plant is thus assured. The mamia which is likened to
its seed is also said to be ' small, Haky,* small as hoar-
frost upon the ground,' and is elsewhere said to resemble
bdellium. These characters suit the so-called seed
(really fruit) of the coriander, which is about the size of
a pcpijcrcorn. N. M. — w. T. T.-i).
CORINTH (kopinGOc)- The secret of Corinthian
histDry lies in the close relation of the city to the com-
merce of the .Mediterranean. Even before the develop-
ment of trade by sea the wealth of Corinth w as inevitable
owing to its position on the Isthnuis, the 'bridge of the
sea' (Pind. hth. iii. 38, 'door of the Peloponnese,' Xen.
Aoes. 2): For navigation and far-reaching commercial
enterprises no city was more favourably placed. Its
territory was unsuited fcjr agriculture (.Strabo 382) ; the
more distinct, therefore, was the vocation of its inhabit-
ants for a seafaring life. The Plxmicians were early
attracted by the advantages of the site. There are many
traces of their presence at Corinth. At the foot of the
Acrocorinthus, Mclkarth, the god of Tyre (see Plicy.-
.NICI.V), was adored by the Corinthians as the protector
of navigation under the name Melicertes (Pans. ii. 1 3).
The armed Aphrodite (Astarte), had a temple on the
siunmit of the hill (.Str. 379, va'Siov : Pans. ii. 46/.,
sharing it with the sun-god ; id. ii. ."u) ; to her in later
times a thousand female votaries ]);\id service with their
bodies, adopting a custom well known in Syrian worship-
(Strabo, 378).
' The juxtaposition of the two Corinthian harbours
(Lech;eum on the Corinthian Gulf, and Cenchr&t?, with
Schtjenus, on the Saronic) made it easy to tranship
cargoes ; and, as the voyage round Cape Malea was
1 Similarly a-xotviov and (riraprioi'.
'-' The Greek name, according to Fluck. and Hanb. (293), is
due to ' the offensive odour it e.xhales when handled, and which
reminds one of hugs — in Greek, (copiv.'
» The I'unic yoi5 appears .igain in \^t. git or gitk, which is
black cummin, Xigelia sati7'a, L. See FncH, i.
4 This, rather than ' round,' seems to be the meaning of CSCnp
(Di. on Exod. IC 14).
29 897
CORINTH
difficult, the mariners of Asia and Italy found it desirable
to land their goods at Corinth, so that the possessors of
the Isthmus received dues from these as well as from
whatever was brought from the Peloponnese by land '
(.Str. 378 ; cp Uio Chrys. Or. viii. 5, ^ iroXtj uairtp iv
Tpi.u5(fi (KfiTo). In consequence of her rapid commercial
expansion, the arts also awakened in Corinth to a new
life, especially those of metal-work and pottery, heirlooms
of Ph(x-nician influence (cp Paus. ii. 83 ; PI. //A'. ?>4 3).
Trade became wholesale. The establishment of the
Isthmian games in the sanctuary of Poseidon, near
the bay of Scha-nus, in ' the wooded gorge of the
isthmus' (Pind.; Str. 380), elevated Corinth into a
distinct centre of Hellenic life (.Str. 378). So from the
earliest times the epithet ' wealthy ' was especially re-
served for Corinth {u(py<L6s, Iloni. //. 2 570 1 oXjila,
Pind. Ot. 13 4 ; Thuc. 1 13), and although the rise of
Athens finally destroyed her dreams of naval empire
she remained the first mercantile city of (jreece.
This ])rosperity found a rude ending in 146 B.C. when
the i)lace was jjillaged by the Kcjinan consul, Lucius
Mimnnius, and levelled with the ground ; but the re-
establishment of the city was inevitable. In 44 B.C.
Julius C:esar founded on the old site the Colonia Laus
Jniia Corinthus. The nucleus of its population consisted
of freedmen (Paus. ii. ] 2, Str. 381). Most of the
names of Corinthian Christians indicate cither a Roman
or a servile origin {e.g., (jaius, Crispus, i Cor. 1 14 ;
lortunatus, Achaicus, i Cor. 16 17; Tertius, Rom.
It) -■2; CJuartus, Rom. I623 ; Justus, Acts IS 7). The
New Corinth, by the mere force of geographical causes,
became as of old the most prosix;rous city of (Jreece,
and the chosen abode of luxury and 'abysmal ];rotiigacy '
(.Str. 378 382 ; Athen. 13 573 ; c[) the saving, 01'' TravTOJ
L-uopos is KbpivOov i(jd' 6 TrXoi's). It was also the
capital of the province, and the seat of the go\ernor
of Achaia (.\cts 18 12).
For description, see Paus. ii. i/l ; cp Frazer, Paus. 820-38.
Pausanias distinguishes the Roman from the (ireek remains;
few vestiges are now found of either city, though the American
aicha;ologists have recently made important di>coveries (see
J I IS 18 333 ['98] : among other inscriptions, one ' of uncertain
('ate, hut as late as the imperial times, reading ond'a-ywyrj
■i:/3paca,..').
Corinth, like .\thens and .\rgos, naturally attracted a
k.rge Jewish po])ulation (I'hilo, Leg. ad Cai. 36; cp
Justin, Dial. 1). The edict of Claudius, banishing the
lews from Rome, must have augmented the numl)er of
Hebrew families in Corinth (.\tts 18 2 ; cp Suet. Claud.
251; see A<,)lil,.\. As in other cities {e.g., Iconium,
Acts 14 1, Thessalonica, Acts I74), a considerable
numter of gentiles had lieen attracted to the Jewish
synagogue, and their conversion would be the first-fruits
of Paul's work. His decisive breach with the Jews,
and his adoption of the house of the Roman or Latin
Titius Justus as his place of instruction (cp Acts I99),
enabled Paul to reach the otherwise inaccessible gentile
i;o()ulation (mostly of Italian origin: Acts 188, iroXXoi
tZv KopLvOiwv dKovovTd iiriaTivov). Aquila, on the
ether hand, seems to have enjoyed his greatest success
among the Jews (.Acts I828), though the Corinthian
church remained predominantly gentile in character.
In conformity w ith his principle of seeking the centres
of commercial activity, Paul visited Corinth on his de-
parture from .\thens (.\ctsl8i). For the importance of
this step as regards the development of Paul's mission-
ary designs, see PAUL. Converts were made chiefly
among the gentiles, of the poorer class (.\cts 188 i Cor.
126611 122), although some Jews believed (seeCKisPfS) ;
and some persons of importance (see ER-Astls, Gaius,
perhaps also Chi.ok). The accession of Crispus and
of Gaius was so important that Paul forsook his rule
and baptized them with his own hand (iCor. 114-16).
He lays sj>ecial stress upon his claim to be regarded as
sole founder of the Corinthian church (iCor. 36 4 15).
This claim is not contradicted by 2 Cor. 1 19 ( ' who was
I reached . . . by me and Silvanus and Timothy '), for
898
CORINTHIANS, EPISTLES TO THE
2 Cor. is addressed to the Christians of Achai.i generally
as well as to the Corinthians, wliile I Cor. is written
more especially to the church of Corinth.
The apostle sjjent eighteen months in Corinth on this
occasion (.\ctsl8ii). On his ne.xt recorded visit he
stayed three months (.\cts 20 3). On a supposed inter-
mediate visit to Ct)rinth and on the correspondence that
took place, see CoRiNriii.\NS, ij§ 9/., 13. On the
character of Paul's teaching see below, and cp Paul,
Apollos.
As to the effect of Paul's letters and presence the NT
gives no information ; but the letter of Clement, written,
perhaps, about 97 .\. i). , shows that the moral tone of
the Corinthian church improved, though the friction
between parties continued, as indeed we should exjiect
from the social cDuditioiis obtaining in such a city.
Hegesippus visited the church about 139 A.D. , and was
favourably impressed by the oberlience aiul lilx.Tality of
its members, and the activity of its bishop Diony:iius
(Eus. HE iv. 22).
The two epistles written to the Corinthians are re-
markable for the variety of their local colouring. The
illustrations are drawn chiefly from gentile life : — the
wild-beast fight (i Cor. 1532) ; the stadium and boxing
match (i Cor. 924-27) ; the theatre (i Cor. 49 7 31) ; the
garland of Isthmian pine, the prize in the games ( i Cor.
925) ; the idol festivals ( t Cor. 8 10 IO20 /". ) ; the syssitia,
so common a feature of Cjreek social life (i Cor. 10 27).
W. J. W.
CORINTHIANS, Epistles to the.^ It will be un-
necessary to repeat here the familiar story of the founding
of the church at Corinth, which is else-
where .set in its place in the life of the
apostle (see P.\UI,). According to the
scheme of chronology adopted in this article it would
fall in the years 50-52 A.D. (48-50 Harnack, 52-54
Lightfoot, otherwise von Soden ; see Chronoi.ouv, §
71). In the spring of the latter year Paul left Corinth.
Acjuila and Priscilla accompanied him as far as ICphesus,
where they stayed behind while he went on to Jerusalem.
This journey and the visit to the (ialatian churches
(Acts 18 23) would take up the whole of the later spring
or summer of .v. I). 52, and it would not Ixi until the
autumn of that year that the apostle returned to
Ephesus.
In the meantime events had moved at Corinth. The
Alexandrian Jew Apollos, by this time an instructed
Christian, had gone thither and his preaching had a
great effect. Other teachers were at work there in a
spirit less friendly to Paul. Factions were formed, and,
when Paul wrote his first extant letter to the Corinthians
some two years later, had begun to make serious
mischief. The apostle was now settled at T'.phesus,
1. Relations
with Corinth.
2. Earlier cor-
respondence.
which, on an average voyage, would not
be more than a sail of a week or ten
davs from Corinth.- News would thus
pass easily to and fro : and Paul was evidently kept
well informed of what passed at Corinth. At least
one earlier letter of his has been lost to us (i Cor. 59),
unless, as some have thought, a fragment of it remains
embedded in 2 Cor. 6i4-7i (on this view, which should
probably on the whole be rejected, see below, § 18).
The purport of the letter, which the Corinthian Christians
somewhat misunderstood, was to warn them against
intercourse with immoral heathen. Wlien we remember
the laxity of Corinthian morals we cannot be surprised
that other and graver aberrations of this kind had taken
place among them. The state of things disclosed by
some of the apostle's visitors at Ephesus,
_ . , notablv by memters of Wvifamilia of a lady
Epistles. ^^j,^.^j -Q-^^^ ( I (jor. In), gave him so much
t npb? Kopii^tous [Ti.WH].
2 It took ArisiiJes four clay.s to get from Corinth to Miletus
(Friedlunder, Sittcngesch. 2 15); but Cicero and his brother
Quintu.s were both about a fortnight on shipboard {ad Attic.
39, 6 8, 9: quoted by Heinrici (after Hug), Das z-.veite
Sendschreiben, etc., 48).
899
3. Extant
anxiety that he took pen in hand to write our First
Epistle. At the s.ame time he rejjlied to a series of
questions put to him in a letter which he had received
(perhaps through Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus :
I Cor. 10 17) from the church at Corinth. These two
things — the tidings which he had heard of disorders in
the church, and certain definite in(]uiries put to him —
account satisfactorily for the contents of the First
Epistle (see below, §§ 14-16). So far all is clear, except
perhaps as to the exact date at which the epistle was
sent, though it may Ix; placed provisionally about
Easter of A.D. 55. There is also no d<iubt as to the
general nature of the circumstances under which our
Second Epistle was sent. The interval which separated
it from the First Epistle cannot have been very long.
It may Ix: assigned to the late autumn (about November)
of the same year.^ From some cause or other, it is
clear, the anxiety of the ajiostle had increased, and had
indeed reached a pitch of great and painful tension.
The return of Titus, whom he had sent to Corinth,
relieved him of this, and he warmly expresses his
satisfaction. Then he turns to the practical ([uestion
of the collection which he was organising for the poor
Christians at Jerusalem. Before the letter is concluded,
however, he comes back (in the text as we have it) to
his opjjoncnts and writes again with no little emotion
about them. This letter was written on the way to
Corinth, probably from Macedonia, and the apostle is
about to pay to the church a visit which he repeatedly
calls his third (2 Cor. Vli^ 13.).
This brief outline, however, evaiU-s a numVjer of
difficulties.
Considered quite bro.idly and generally, the course of events
is clear enough ; but, when we attempt to i^ive them precision in
detail, dilTicuUies spring up at every step, /ihe
4. Difficulties questions which arise are also exceedinrly intri-
in detail, cate, .so that to .state them satisf.ictorily is no
e.-isy matter. They have nearly a^l been brought
out by tlie research of the last five-and-twenty years ; and we
sh.ill ijerliajis sucxeed best in threading our way through them
by taking the several steps— logical if not exactly chronological
— by which they may be supposed to have arisen.
The data which we take over from the First Epistle
are: (i) the existence of an active opposition to P.aul
on the part not only of unbelieving Jews but also of
certain sections of Judaising Christians at Corinth ; and
(2) the occurrence in the church there of a gross ca.se of
what we should describe as incest (i Cor. 5i). The
main question which meets us is, how far does the
Second Epistle deal with these same data, and how far
have the circumstances altered ? Before we can formu-
late an answer to this question, however, it is necessary
first to decide whether or not we are to interpose a lost
epistle between the twd which have come down to us.
The Second Epistle is full of allusions to a previous
letter, and the older commentators with one consent
assuiued that this was the First Epistle.
6. Intermediate
Such an assumption was obvious and
letuCr. natural ; but, when the language of the
Second i:pistle came to be closely examined, doubts
began to arise as to whether that language could really
be satisfied by the First Epistle as it has come down
to us.
In particular it w.as asked whether the strong emotion under
which it seemed that this previous letter had been written could
apply to the First Epistle : ' out of much affliction and anguish
of heart I wrote unto you with many tears" (zCor. 'J4); arid
aicain, the severe heart-searchings described in 2 Cor. V7-11 did
not seem to agree with the calm practical discussions of the
First Epistle.
Since Klopper ( 1874) an increasing numter of scholars
have replied to this decidedly in the negative. Perhaps
somewhat too decidedly. Although it is perfectly true
that a great part of the First Epistle is taken up with
calm practical discussions, the whole epistle is not in
this strain.
1 On this reckoning k-no jre>vo-t (2 Cor. 9 2) will mean not 'a
year ago' but 'last year." The Macedonian year, like the Jewish,
began with October. See Year.
900
CORINTHIANS, EPISTLES TO THE
8. Other ex-
planations of
different explanation of the state of
Z UOr •' -ii" ''^'"K^ implietl in the Second Epistle.
They, as a rule, take the offence on
whicli the situation turns in this epistle to be some
personal affront or insult put upon Paul (so Hilgenfeld,
Mangold, Wei/siicker, PHeiderer, Schniiedel, Jiilicher ;
Beyschlag gives the alternative that the insult may have
been offerefl to Timothy), not in connection with the
case of the incestuous man, but rather growing out of
the revolt against his authority as an apostle. In keep-
ing with this, most of them would explain tou dSiK-q-
diuTos as an indirect reference to Paul himself.
This, however, again seems strained and unnatural, and indeed
inconsistent with theexegesisof the verse where Paul is mentioned
("'•-'- 'your earnest care for us'; rrfv Knrovi'rfv Vfimv tt)I' virep
»)ji.u)r) in such a way as almost certainly to distinguish him
from the injured person. Krenkel, it .seems to us rightly, urges
this and would take the passage as referring to some private
quarrel between two members of the Corinthian church {/ieitr.
304-307). We know from i Cor. C that such quarrels were rife
Many pa.^sages, especially in the earlier chapters, must have
cost the writer no slight emotion. Such would l>e (e.g.) the
scathing irony of i Cor. 48-13 (die Corinthians already enjoying
the rich abundance of the Messianic reign while the poor apostles
are maltreated like gladiators in the arenri); the whole of the
next section, i Cor. 414-21, which ends with a threat th.nt the
apostle will come to them with a roil ; and then the section on
the incestuous man, in which he projects himself in spirit into
the president's chair in their assembly and solemnly hands over
the offender to .Satan.
It is by no means incredible that passages like these would
stand out in Paul's memory after he had despatched his letter,
and that he should work himself up into a state of great and
even feverish .anxiety as to the way in which they would be
received. The fact that a considerable fraction of the church
should have m.ide themselves, as it .seems, in some sort nccomplices
with the offending person, might well make the aposile feel that
the moment was extremely critical and tliat the result might be
nothing less than the bre;ik-up of the cluir..h.
This leads us to the further question with which that
just stated is bound up. Along with the allusions to a
e o-t *.- l)rcvious letter there are in the Second
6. Situation !■■.,, ,, • . , . • 1 .1
in 2 Cor P'stle also allusiotis to what was evidently
a great crisis in the liistory of the church.
Was this crisis the same as that which is contemplated
in the First I",j)istle. or was it wholly disiinct ?
The .scholars who first maintained the view that there was a
lost letter between the two extant epistles were content to
aciiuiesce in the older view that the descriptions of 2 Cor25-ii
75-16 h.-id reference to a st.itc of thi;i : ; i:rowing directly out of
the situation ]ire-<ntcd i:i i '' ' ' ' .• too there is a single
olTender, who ai';>i :iis h. ' ii the church, and the
apostle is .luiirc lliat thi- ; nl;uiger: the machina-
tions of .'^auui are ii.it hi!. ; I I. i
It must l)o confessed tliat the situation of I Cor. 5 j
fits oil extremely well t(} that of 2 Cor. 25-11, except in |
7 Partial ''"^ particular. That is, as the more .
oo^^^-rno^f /^f recent writers on the epistles (Wiiz- '
agreement Of ..^.^^.^ PHeiderer, Krenkel VBeiM^r].
1 Cor 5 '^^'^'"''^*^^^' -'^'''''-'''*^'") '^^"' ''"^ "lost P"'"'
urge, that the treatment described in
2 Cor. 26, which is accepted as adecpiate to the occasion
by Paul, seems inadequate to the very gross offence of
I Cor.;')!. There is also considerable difficulty in
assii^ning the part of the injured person in 2 Cor. 7 12 :
' .So although I wrote unto you, [I wrote] not for his cause
that did the wrong, nor for his cause that suffered the
wrong, but that your earnest care for us might be made
manifest,' etc.
If the offending person of i Cor. 5 was really let off with a
comparatively slight punishment there must have been extenuat-
ing circumstances of which we are not told. Such circumstances
might be that the 'father's wife' w.-is not in the strict sense a
wife hut a concubine (tlie father being probably a lieathen) ; and
we inii^ht h.ive supposed that the father w.as dead. In such a
case Paul with his strong sympathy for human infirmity, and
liis readiness to m.ike allowance for a convert brought up in the
laxity of heathenism, ml.i^ht conceivably have accepted an
expiation short of that which the circumstances would seem at
first siiiht to demand. The supjjosition that the father was de.id
would fall through, however, if ' liis cause that suflered the wrong '
(toO a&i.icrf8ivT0<:) referred to him ; and it does not seem satis-
factory that a sin of this kintl should be regarded only in the
light of personal injury to another.
Accordingly the tendency among those recent German
writers who have gone into the question more fully than
any others, has been to offer a wholly
at Corinth, and the interpretation thus suggested suits the choice
of w'ords (aJiK^crat ami a£tK>)6c(0 better than any other. The
ol)jection would be that ue have to draw lar;ely U]X)n the
imagination to expl.ain how a matter like this, which we should
have thou^^ht mi-ht Ijc settled calmly enough, became the
cause of such acute tension between the
section of the church.
\V(
apostle and a large
have then three hypotheses, each with some
advant.ages and some counterbalancing drawbacks : (i)
that the reference is to the incestuous man — which
would greatly simplify the situation so far as the two
epistles are concerned, but could Ix; held only on the
assumption of peculiar qualifying circumstances in the
case which it is not e.asy for us to imagine ; (2) that
the reference is to some direct [x;rsonal insult to Paul —
a hypothesis which, by introducing an intermediate letter,
enables us to construct one whicli will suit the allusions
somewhat Ix^tter than the extant First I-".pistle, but in
our opinion forces 6 ddiK-qdeii and makes the situation
in the Second Epistle a tantalising duplicate of that
in the First, tesides (it might seem) inconveniently
crowding events between the two epistles ; (3) that the
reference is neither to Paul nor to the incestuous man,
hut to a c|uarrel between two unknown jx-rsmis— which
satisfies 6 dui.KT]Ofii, but is open to some of the same
objections as the last, and is not so helpful.
We shall see Ijclow that, in sjjite of its apparent
attractiveness, the first of tliese hypotheses must be
given up. There is a break lietween the two e])istles :
there must have been at least one intervening communi-
cation— and if one, probal ly two conimr.nications —
between Paul and the church at Corinth ; and the
aspect of things h.as cluiiiged not simply once, but
probably twice. The fact of the new situation, and the
fact of the intermediate letter, thus seem to be assured ;
but in regard to particulars we have hardly data enough
to enable us to judge. We cannot easily bring ourselves
to think that the person directly injuretl is Paul : at the
same time he appears to be someone closely coimected
with him. Timothy would meet the conditions belter
than any one we can think of ; but neither the injured
person nor the aggressor can be identified more precisely.
Along with the question as to an intermediate letter
goes the further question as to an unrecorded visit paid
by Paul to Corinth.
Unlike the letter, this visit is not purely hypothetical. In 2
Cor. 1214 and 13i the apostle speaks e.\r)ressly of his approachinjj
visit as the third. Ibis implies th.it ue imist
9. UnreCOraed insertanother, not mentioned by thelii-toriaii,
visit. somewhere between -Acts ISiSand ".'O-j — or
rather, we may .say, somewhere in the three
years spent by Paul at Kpliesus. We have seen that his com-
munications with the church at Corinth were freijuent ; we have
seen also that the voy.age was easy. The silence of Acts (which
dismisses two years in a verse: 10 10), therefore, is no real
obst.acle.
Is the visit to he placed beioie or after the First
Epistle ?
It is most tempting to go with the majority of recent critics
and place it after. The conspicuous fact about this visit is that
it was a painful one {iv Avtttj : 2 Cor. 2 i). If so, what could
be more natural than to connect it with the letter which was
written ' with many tears ? ' Roth alike, it mi^Tht seem, should be
placed on the line of strained relations which led up to the
Second Kpistle. The unrecorded visit would, in that case, pre-
cede the lost letter. We might ima;.;ine, in \ iew of 2 (or. 10 10,
that Paul had been summoned over to Corinth hastily, that
there his malady had come on, that he luid broken down
physically and been obliged to return, leaving matters to all
appearance worse than he found them ; that he then wrote a
letter to undo the effect of this disaster; that this letter was
strongly worded, and, after it had been sent, caused him great
anxiety; and that it was his relief from this anxiety on the
coming of Titus that was the immediate occasion of the
Second Epistle.
Such combinations are tempting; but they lead us on to the
discussion of the next point which has a direct and perhaps a
crucial bearing upon them.
In I Cor. 165 the apostle announces his intention of
coming to Corinth by the longer land route through
10 Paul's •^'•''^'^'l'*''^- This, as a matter of fact, is the
Diana '^""'*^ ''^^' ^'^ ^^^^ actually taking at the time
P ■ when he wrote the Second Kpistle. In the
interval, however, he must have changed his mind, not
903
CORINTHIANS. EPISTLES TO THE
once but twice ; or, rather, he must have changed it
and afterwards reverted to his original plan. From 2
Cor. 1 15/ we learn expressly that he had at one moment
decided to go straight from Ephesus to Corinth, thence
to Macedonia, and then to return again to Corinth.
When he formed this decision he seems to have been well
pleased with the Corinthians and they with him ; his motive is
that, twice over, both on Koinjjand returning, they may have
the benefit of this presence {2 Cor. 1 15). He did not carry out
this plan because, after it h.ad been formed, his relations to the
Corinthians underwent a change. He tells us that he would
not KO to them because, if he h:id gone, it must have been ' in
grief (2 Cor. 2i). None the less his change of plan was made
one of the accusations against him, and was set down to fickle-
ness of purpose (2 Cor. 1 1 7).
This being so, however, are we not precluded from
interposing any visit between the conceiving of the in-
tention descriljed in 2 Cor. 1 15 (the short voyage and
the double visit) and the writing of the .Second I".j)istle?
It is not only, .is Schmieilel argues (//f 5^), that the feelings
of the apostle when he ni.-ide his plan and" when he paid the
supposed visit were difTereiit— in the one case satisfaction with
the Corinthians, in the other c.xse pain — but that a visit of any
kind is inconsistent with tlie langu.ige used. If Paul had paid
.such a visit he would have kept to his intention (not broken
it), and the charge of fickleness must at least have assumed
another form.
We must therefore, with some reluctance, abandon the
idea of bringing the painful visit and the painful letter
into juxtaposition. The only other jjlace for the former
seems to be in the part of Paul's stay at I-".phesus
anterior to the First Kpistle, and towards the middle or
later part of it (/.<•., not far from, and i>robabIy lx.-fore,
the lost letter; i Cor. .'.9; cp .Schniiedel, o/>. cit. 54).
The supi)osition that the second visit was only contem-
plated, not paid, apyx-ars to tie excluded by 2 Cor. 132.
We observe also, in passing, that the history of these
changes of jilan goes far to dispose of the arguments in
favour of the supposition that there is no lost letter
Vx'tween the two epistles.
The only way to make tlie First Epistle referred to directly in
the -Second is to re,i;ard certain passages in it as haunting the
apostle and causing him trouMe as to its reception. .\t the time
when he conceived tlie plan set down in 2 Cor. 1 15, however,
his mind w.is free from trouble : the Corinthians and he were on
the best of terms. This aIo:ie would sever the links which h.ive
seemed to bind the two letters together. They must be con-
nected clos'.ly or not at all.
\\ hen Paul wrote i Corinthians Timothy was not with him.
We should infer from .\ctslii22 that before that date he had
been already sent into M.icedonia. This
11. Movements agrees perfectly with the turn of phrase in i
of Timothy. Cor. IC. 10 : ' If Timothy come, see that he be
with you without fear.' P.efore the despatch
of the Second Kpistle he had rejoined Paul, as he is associated
with him in the opening salutation (2 Cor. 1 i). If the suggestion
abos'e holds, it w.is probably he who brought news of the events
which led up to the second crisis. In any case the dealing with
that crisis at its height w.as committed not to Timothy but to
the stronger hands of Titus.
.\ssuming that there was an intermediate letter
between i and 2 Cor. it is probable that Titus was the
12. Of Titus ''*'■■""''■'' '^^ '' '^ *^'"'' ■''■^'°*' •^■'' ^^'^ '"'"^
also the bearer of our Second Epistle
(2 Cor. 816-24).
.\ small group of scholars, including Hausrath and Schmiedel,
would assign to Titus yet another earlier visit, on the business
of the collection, .soon after the writing of the First Kpistle;
but the hypothesis is invented to suit tlie theory that 2 Cor.l2
is not an integr.al part of our Second Kpistle, and necessitates
the invention of a number of other purely hypothetical occur-
rences (among them a fifth, or third lost letter), nearly all of
them duplicates of others that are better attested. It may be
rejected without hesitation.
The sequence of events, as far as we can ascertain it,
seems to have Ijeen this ; — '
(i.) While Paul is absent at Jerusalem
13. Sequence .\pollos arrives at Corinth, where he preaches
of e'VentS. with succe.ss (Acts 18 27).
(ii.) Paul takes up his abode at Ephe.sus
in the summer of a.d. 52, remaining there until the summer of
•^■'?:.55-,
(iii.) Karly in this period .\pollos quits Corinth and certain
Judaising teachers arrive there. The beginnings .are laid of
oifferences which soon harden into parties.
(iv.) .-Vbout, or somewhat after, the middle of the period Paul
pays the church a brief disciplinary visit, iv Auinj (2 Cor. 2 i ;
1 With the dates given here cp those in Chronology, g 71.
903
see above, ( 10). He also, after his return, writes the lost letter
of I Cor. 5 9.
(v.) The household of Chloe bring news of an ominous develop-
ment of the^ spirit of faction (i Cor. lit), and a little later
Stephan.as, Fiirtunatus, and .\chaicus arrive at Ephesus (i Cor
li5i;), perhajK as bearers of a letter to the apostle from the
church at Corinth seeking his advice on various matters.
(vi.) Partly in consequence of wh.at he had heard, and partly
in answer to that letter, Paul writes First Corinthians in the
spring of a.d. 55, taking occxsion to correct a wrong impression
drawn from the lost letter (i Cor. !K)ff.).
(vii.) The epistle thus written has the desired effect, and for
the moment all goes well (2C"or. 1 12-16). The .apostle lets the
Corinthians know his programme of 2Cor. lisyC Timothy
arrives at Corinth and now, or at the time of chap. 8, returns
to Ephesus.
(viii.) Another sharp controversy arises, beginning perhaps in
some well-meant but feeble action on the part of Timothy, and
soon involving the whole question of the apostle's position and
authority.
(i.\.) On hearing of this from Timothy Paul writes a secomi
lost letter, the tone of which is severe and uncompromi.sing. It
is sent by Titus, who at the same time has instructions in regard
to the collection.
(\.) .\fter Titus has gone, Paul becomes more and more anxious
as to the effect his la.st letter is likely to have on the Corinthians.
He leaves Ephe.sus, having about this time been in imminent
peril there. He stops at Troas. Still no news.
(.\i.) Titus at last returns to him in Macedonia and di-s]>els his
fe.ars. The Second Ef>istle is written and is sent by Titus and
two others (2 Cor. 8 1822). Its main tenor is thankfulness ; but
the collection is pressed, and the growth of one party (probably
the Christ-party) leads to some emphatic strictures.
(.\ii.) Towards the end of December A.u. 55 Paul reaches
Corinth. He stays there three months (.•\cts203), during which
he writes the Kpistle to the Romans.
FiK.ST 1':pisti.k. — We have seen that the occasion of
the First ]".pistle was two-fold : ( i ) certain tidings which
14. Occasion of
had reached I'aul as to various dis-
iCor.
orders existing in the church at
Corinth ; (2) certain questions put to
him in an official letter from the church. The dis-
orders were : (i. ) a numlier of factions which raised the
flag of party spirit and used the names of prominent
leaders to give colour to their own self-assertiveness.
On these more will lx> said lx;low (§ 16). The subject
covers 1 io--l2i. (ii. ) .\ bad ca.se of immoral living
which too much reflected a general laxity in the church
(. 'J 612-20). (iii.) Litigiousness, which did not scruple
to have recourse to he.athen law-courts (61-11). (iv. )
.\n indecorous freedom in worshijj, exemplified by the
disuse of the female headdress (11 2-16). (v.) Still
worse disorders at the ngapt or love-feast, which was
followed by the eucharist (1117-34). .\nd we may
perhaps include under this head (vi. ) the tlenial by some
of the resurrection, dealt with in chap. \{>.
The last three points may have been raised by the
official letter. This certainly contained questions about
marriage (answered in ch. 7); probably also about re-
lations to heathen practices, such as the eating of meats
offered to idols (ch. 8 continued in 9 i-ll i) ; and possibly
some inquir}' as to the relative value of spiritual gifts.
Chap. 1 1-9 is introductory, and ch. 16 an epilogue of
j)ersonal matter containing instructions as to the collec-
tion, and details as to Paul him.self and his companions.
The only points th.at need perhaps to be more
particularly drawn out are the connection of chaps.
1 10-4 21 and 81-11 1.
The first tracks out the spirit of faction to its origin in the
conceit of .a worldly-minded wisdom, which is contrasted with
the simplicity of the Gospel— a simplicity, how-
18. 1 Cor, ever, which does not exclude the higher wisdom
lio-l2iand that comes from God (I 17-2 16). Then, in
gj-j^i J 3i-t5, the true position of human teachers is
stated. They are but stewards, whose duty is
not to put forward anything of their own, but only to administer
what is committed to them by God. The Christian has but one
foundation and one judge, namely Christ. 4 6-21 applies these
general truths to the circumstances of the case with biting irony,
which, however, soon ch.anges to affectionate entreaty, and that
again to sharp admonition.
The sequence of the argument in 8 i-ll i should not be lost
sight of. _ In ch. 8 is laid down the principle which should guide
conduct in such matters as the eating of meat that might
have come from heathen sacrifices. This principle is the sub-
ordination of personal impulse to the good of others. In ch. 9
Paul points out the working of the principle in his own ca.se ;
it is in deference to it that he waives his right to claim support
from the Church, in deference to it that he exercises severe .self-
904
CORINTHIANS, EPISTLES TO THE
control, like that of runners in a race. The history of Israel
xhowcil what an utter mistake it was for even the most hij;hly-
privilcuctl to stimjose themselves exempt from the necessity of
such self-coiiirol (10 1-13). The very nature of the Christian
Kui hari^t prcMjrilwtl care in relation to heathen feasts (10 14-aa).
This Ic.uls to some practical suKKeslions and advice (lOaj-ll i).
Of the subject nuitter of the epistle the j)oints which
p . most invite discussion are the nature of
16. fartles. j,^^. parties, and the spiritual gifts. The
lattt-r arc dealt with elsewhere (see CilKTS, Si'lRlTfAl.).
As to the parties, we may remark ( i ) that the names
'Paul.' '.\ix)llos.' 'Cephas.' and 'Christ' reijn-scnt
real titles which the parties at Corinth gave themselves.
When Paul says in 46 'These things, brethren, have I trans-
ferred by a fiction ' (to adopt Dr. F leld's elegant translation,
Otiitni S'orfic. ad loc.) 'to myself and Apollos for your sakes,'
the fiction consisted, not in usinji names which the Corinthians
did not use. but in speakiii;; as if he and .\|k>IIi>s had lM;h;ivctl
like |)arty-leaders. wlu-n tliL-y had not so Iwhavcd. 'I'lic whole
movcmeiil came not from them but from thcjse w ho invoked their
names against their will and without their consent.
(2) The nature of the Paul and the .\ix)llos parties
is dear : they were no doubt lilteral in ttMulency. giving a
free welcome to (jentile converts, and apt to deal too
tenderly with the vices which these brought over with
them. I'rom this side would come such premature
emancipation as that d<-scrilied in 1 1 2-16. The follow(.TS
of .\pollos probably also prided tlieniselves on a kind of
Alexandrian (ino. h, which is by inference condemned in
chajjs. 1 i3-l2i6. The Petrine and the 'Christ' parties
were, on the other hand. Judaistic, claiming the authority
of the apostles at Jeriisalem. Both disparaged and
attacked Paul. The Christ party, however, seems to
have gone to the greater lengths.
The Christ party were Jews in the strictest sense, probably
Jews of Palestine (2 Cor. 1 1 22). They came with commendatory
lettersfroni Jerusalem (2 Cor. 'i i). They ibeniselvcs bore the title
of 'apostle, ill the wiiler aicentatioii (2Cor. 11 13 \- 11). They
claimed to li.ive Clirivt for llicir .Master in a sen-e in which
others had not (.>C'or. IO7). .\ncl in particular they insisted
th.it Paul h.ad not (be full qu;dila.ni<)iis of an aposlle, a.s these
are laid down in .Vets 1 -21/. : he was not an eye-witness of the
acts of Jesus, aiul did not l>clon^; to the .select conii>any which
he had Kathereti around bim (iC'or. !•!). Their teaching laid
such stress on Jesus' Jewish Messiabship (conceived a.s the Jews
conceived it) as to amount to preacbinj; 'anotbcr Jesus' (2Cor.
11 4). Paul takes firm ijroiind in bis opposition to them. He
will not bate one jot of his ( '.ospel (/V/V/.) ; he will not allow that
he is behind the most ajxistolic of the ajiostles (aC'or. 11 5) ; be
had 'seen the Lord' as truly as they had (i.t., on the road to
Damascus, ;ind in ecstatic vision, i C"(ir. 0 i l.')8 2 Cor. I'i i^) ; be
had better prcxjf of his ajwsilcsbip— in his miracles (2 Cor. 1 "J 12),
in his iiisi>;ht into Christian triuh (2 Cor. 11 <), in his labours
(2 Cor. 1 1 237/".), and especiallv in the success of his ministry
among the Corinthians themselves (i Cor. !• \ /. 2 Cor. 82/).
There can be little doubt that Paul's masterly Apologia
carried the day ; the curtain drops for us with the close
of the .Second I'.pistle ; but the subsetjuent history of the
controversy shows that the worst part of the crisis was
past, and the power of the Judaisers broken.
Skcono lu'isTi.K. — The Second Kpistle is even more
a direct product of the historical situation than the
_ • '■ ''■^*- ^*^ "i-'^y "^'^P *'"' ^^^ main bodj-
■ . . ■ ■ of the epistle thus : ( i ) an outpouring of
thanks for recent deliverance (1 3-11) ; (2)
explanations in reference to the apostle's change of
plan and the treatment of the offending [jerson by the
Corinthian church (1 12-217); (3) a deeper Apologia
for his apostolic position and the distinctive character
of his Gospel (S-.*)) ; (4) more personal explanations
(6-7); (5) the collection (8/) ; (6) a warmer defence
against Judaistic attacks (10-13 10).
The principal literary question affecting the epistle is
as to its integrity.
Putting aside mere wanton and extravagant theories, sub-
stantial arguments have been urged for maintaining that the
short jxiragraph of six verses, t> 14-7 i, and
18. Integrity, the longer section lO-lS or 10i-13io, though
the work of Paul, were not originally part of
this epistle, but belonged to other epistles now lost: tlt4-7i
to the missing letter alluded to in i Cor. .')9, and the I'ierkapitel-
hrit/(as the (iermans call it) to the intermediate letter which we
have seen reason to assume between the two extant epistles.
We may admit at once that there is a real break in
the Second Epistle at both the places noted.
The subject changes, and changes abruptly, both at 6 14 and
90s
at 10 I. The epistle would read continuously if we were to
skip from 013 to 7 2, and the few con. luiiing word* I3ii-i4
would come as well at the end of ch.ip. » as of chap. 13.
We may admit further that the subjci t matter of the first
passage resembles, (hough it is not identical with, that of the
missing letter referred lo in the First Kpistle ('not to keep com-
pany with fornicators ' was the keynote of the one, ' not to Iw
unei|nally yoked with unljelievcrs ' of the other); and the
vehenKiit iMjIemic of the last four chapters would l»c not unlike
what »e should expri t to find in the letter which we are led lo
postulate by the Second.
In spite of these favouring considerations, however,
and in spite of the a.ssent which it has met with from
certain critics! Ptliiderer. Hausrath, Krenkel. .S<hmie(lel),
this latter hyixnhesis of the letter of four chapters must,
we believe. Inr dismissed.
There was but one painful letter (2 Cor. 7 R. eJ Koi «'Av>nj<7a
ilia? kv Tjj •iricTToAfi, cp'J4); which is referred lo in thi-e
chapters (10 10/.), and therefore is not to lie identified wilh
them ; if it were, then we should have to ptjstulate a previous
painful letter further Imck. When the aixr.tle wrote his painful
letter, he wrote in order loaNoid the necessity of making a \ isit
in person (1 23); but when he wrote these chapters he was on
the point of p.aying a visit (1- 14 13 i). .Again, there are many
coincidences of expression which connei;t the four chapters with
the preceding:: 7 6 lOi (Tairfiidt, of Paul himself) ; 5/, 8 7i'' =
10 I f. (dapptii', not elsewhere in Kpp. Paul.); 1 15 84 872= IO2
(jreiroiOjjcri?, only twice besides); Kara (rapKo. three times = thrte
times, always in reference lo himself; O7-IO4 (oirAo) ; forj/ia
three limes = twice, only once besides ;_ 7 15 - IO5 yC (tin-axoi) ) ;
95- 106 16 («VoiMO«, only once besides in Knp. Paul). These
are samples from the first six verses alone. \Ve cannot use the
comijarison of 12 18 with 8 ij/. 22 quite as it is used by Jiilicher
(Kin/. 65), liecause the two passages really refer to different
occasions; 824 is proof that the aorists which precede are
epistolary and describe the circumstances connected with the
sending of the present epistle, where.is in l'_' 18 the aorists are
strict aorists and point back to a former visit of Titiis and his
companion. The parallelism of expression, however, is so t'reat
as to suii.nest strongly that both passages lielong lo the s;ime
letter. There is a p.-irallelisin ec]ually marked l)etween the use
of irAeofdCTfii' in I217 /and in 72(cp'2ii); the word occurs
only once besides in N'f (i 1 bess. 4o).
If the one hyi)othctical intrusion breaks down, the
other slKJuld in all probability go with it.
Not one of the analoyous c.iscs to w hicli Schmiedel appeals
really holds goxl ; for the balance of argument is also a;;aiii>t
detaching Rom. It) from the epistle lo the Romans (see the
commentary on that epistle by the present writer and .Mr. .\. C.
Headlam). The attestation of the NT text is so varied and so
early that a displacement of this magnitude could hardly fail to
leave traces of itself. .At least, before it can \k assumed, the
major premise that such a displacement is pos>ible needs lo lie
more fully established.
In the cases which might V)e quoted from the OT the
conditions are really ditVerent. It would, however, be
well if the whole question of the editing and trans-
ntission of ancient Jewish and Christian books coulil be
more systematically investigated. [For a discussion of
6i4-7i see C.'iiss. A'n:. 1890, pp. 12. 150/. 317. 359 ;
and the authorities mentioned in the last place.]
If the epistle has come down to iis in its integrity,
no doubt we must recognise the abruijtness of Pauls
manner of writing or dictation. In that, however, there
is nothing very paradoxical. Resides the ra[)id fluctua-
tions of feeling, which are so characteristic of this
epistle, we must rememl)er that a letter of this length
could not all be written at a single sitting. It was
prolxibly written in the midst of interruptions ( ' the care
of all the churches.' 11 28). Moreover, its author was
one whose mind responded with singular c|uickness to
every gust of passing emotion.
Ai'OCRYi'H.M. Lkttkrs. — III the .\rntenian version
after 2 Corinthians there stand two short letters, from
. . , the Corinthians to Paul and from Paul
19. Apocrypnai ^^ ,j^^ Corinthians (cp Ai-ockyi-h.a. §
leiwrs. 294), the substance of which is briefly
as follows : — The Corinthians inform I'aul that a certain
Simon and Cleobius have come to Corinth teaching that
the prophets are not to l>e Ix-lieved. that the world, in-
cluding man. is the work not of God but of angels, that
there is no resurrection of the Ixxly, that Christ has not
come in the flesh, and that he was not born of Mary.
Paul replies asserting the orthodo.x doctrine on each of
these heads.
.Attention was first called to these apocr>-pha by Archbishop
Ussher in 1644. A complete text u as published in the Armenian
oc6
CORMORANT
Bible of Zohrab in 1805 (incomplete translations earlier); also,
with a mouosjraph by Ritick, in 1823. Just as interest in the
sul)ject was being revived by TlieoJ. Zahn {Gesc/t. <i. h'anons,
1386^ 2592-611) and Dr. P. V'etter, professor in the Roman
Catholic P'aculty at Tubingen, a Latin version was discovered by
M. Samuel Herger in a tenth-century MS. at ^Iilan, and pub-
lished by him in conjunction with Prof. A. Carricre (La Corre-
spontiance Afrocryfrhe de Saint Paul et des Corinth'fns, Paris,
i8gi). \ second MS. (13th cent.), containing a dilVercnt but
frobably not alto.;ether independent version, w.is found at
,-ion, and publislied by Prof, liratke in TLZ, 1892, col. 586/
There is also extant, in Armenian, a commentary on the epistle
by Kphrem Syriis. The texts are most conveniently collected
by Dr. P. Vetter in a Tiibingen programme (Dcr apocryplu
dritU Korintlierhrief; Vienna, 1894).
The facts at present ascertained in regard to the
apocryphal letters are these :—
(1) They were from the lirst (i.e. from the 5th cent.) admitted
into the Armenian version as part of the canon. (2) They also
existed in Syriac and were accepted as canonicil in the fourth
century by .\phr.aates, Ephrem Syrus, and the .Syriac Didascalia.
[The quotation in Aphr.iates is recognised by both Harnack and
Zahn, thoui;h questioned (as we think wrongly) by Carricre and
Vetter.) (3) The letters were also known and had some small
circulation i.i the West.
The problems whicli still await solution have reference
to the (juestion of origin.
(i) Zahn, and now also Vetter, think that the greater part of
the letters was in the first instance incorporaleii in llie apocryphal
Acts of Paul. [Since this was written Zalins hypothesis h.as
been verified through the discovery, by Dr. C. Schmidt, of con-
siderable portions of the Acts of Paul in Coptic ; cp Neue I/eidci-
berger JaJtrb.'icher, 1897, pp. 117-124, and Harnack in TL/.,
1897, col. 627.] In any case it seems probable that they gained
their place in the Syri.ac version in connection with the controversy
against Bardesanes early in the third century. Their composition
can hardly be much later thin 200 a.d. (2) It is coming to be
generally agreed that the ni.dn body of the epistles existed first
in Greek. Vetter and Zahn now think that the concludini;
portion was added in Syriac, and /.dm goes so far as to make
the Latin versions translated not fro:n the Greek but from the
Syriac. In this he certainly has not proved his case ; but the age
of th^se versions needs further investigating.
Besides th .• general commentaries (uliich still deserve mention)
of Bengel, Wetstein, and Meyer (recent editions by Heinrici),
we have, in English, in The Speaker s Colit-
is. Literature, mt-ntary, that on i Cor. by T. S. Evans
(primarily exegetical and marked by fine
schoIar^Uii)), and that on 2 C ^r. by Dr. Josei)h Waite (general),
aN ;•.;, Ill -irleson i Cor. by Dr. T. C. Edwards (exegetical
an i : ^ 1. and by Bishop Ellicott (grammatical and exe-
g ;; ' 1 Manley on both epistles is picturesque and
iiit. : ■•,i 14 t) 1:10 goneral reader, but has inevitably fallen behind
thi present position of inciuiry, and w.as never exact in .scholar-
ship. In this element the later English editions are strongest :
they are moU deficient in historical criticism. The fullest recent
commentary in German on the two epistles is by Heinrici (Berlin,
ijSj, 13S7): well meant, and with new illustrations from later
Greek, but inclined to press Greek analogies too far. Perhaps
the best on the whole is Schmiedel's in the IIC (91), which is
searching an J ex.act but inclined, as we think, to multiply entities
beyond what is necessary. In this respect J iilicher's £■/«/. (94)
seems to us to be the most judicious. Godet published a com-
mentary on I Cor. in 1B80 ; and mention should be made of a
monograph and commentary on 2 Cor. by Klopper ('69, '74),
and of the discussions of special points in Krenkel's Beitrcige
('90), and of the missing epistle and its identification with parts
of 2 Cor. in the l-:.xf>ositor (iZ()i h 231^ 285^, 1898 a 1 13 jf!).
On the apocryphal letters, besides the literature quoted above,
a sumtnary will be found in Harnack's Gesch. d. altchr. Lift.
1 37-39, .-md Zahn's last words on the .subject in Theol. Liieratiir-
bhitt, 1894, col. i23i?i The important discussion in Zahn's
Einleitung, 1 1S3-249, was too late for notice. \v. S.
CORMORANT, i. The cormorant of i:V is the
Mldkh, r^'yz' (Lev. 11 17 Dt. 14 i7t),^ a word connected
with the common Hebrew verb for 'to throw down'
(-•Vr.i), and therefore denoting some bird that sw^oops
or dives after its prey. ©"a^- in Lev. 11 17 rightly
renders KaLTa[p]odKTi]i, as this denotes a fish-eating Bird
which dives and remains under water for some time
(Arist. //.4 913). In Dt. 14 17 the order of (5 is different
from that of the MT. Vg. has Mcri^ulus, the little Auk,
and Targ. and Pesh. \\a\g shdle niini' — i.e., ' extrahens
pisces.' Many writers, following Bochart, believe ^'^c'
to be Sula bassana, the ' gannet ' or ' solan goose ' ; but,
although this bird is sometimes alleged to have been seen
in the reed-marshes of Lower Egypt (Di. on Lev. 11 19),
1 n'^r is restored by Herz in Job288<i: -^^ vVv T^WTvh
'no cormorant darteth upon it.' Cp Lion, Ossikrace.]
907
CORNELIUS
there is some reason for doubting whether it has so wide
an E. range. A more likely bird, in view of its common
occurrence on the coast of Palestine (Tristram, NUB
252), is the ' cormorant, ' which likewise plunges after
its prey.
"Two species of cormorant are described from Palestine :
the Phalacrocorax carbo, which fretjuents both the sea-
shore and inland waters, and the pygmy cormorant, P.
fvi^mivus, which is found in lakes and rivers. Canon
Tristram states that the P. carbo is always to be seen
near the mouth of the Jordan, watching for the fish,
which seem on entering the Dead Sea to be stupefied by
the saltness of its waters. Cormorants are fish -eaters
and extremely voracious. Like the bittern and the
pelican they are looked upon as inhabitants of solitary
jjlaces.
2. For nKJJ (soBii. : Gi. nx,-', ka ath; Is. 34 11 Zeph. 214,
AV text), see Pelican (so AVint;., .\V elsewhere, RV every-
where). N. M. — A. E. S.
CORN. On the cultivation of corn and its use as
food, see Agkicultlkk, Bread, Food, § i, and the
various cereals (on which see P.\I,ESTINE, § 14). On
other points, see the articles cited in the references
given in the following list of expressions : —
1. 3'^N, dbh'ibh, the fresh young ears of corn. Lev. 2 14 (' green
ears of corn,' RV 'corn in the ear'); .see also Month.
2. '?-^3, A'///, Job 24 6 AV (mg. 'mingled corn or dredge'),
properly 'fodder'; see Cattle, g 5.
3. 12, /.ar. Gen. 41 35 49, etc. (E), Am. 5ii S6 perhaps 'purified
[cleansctl] grain ' ; cp .\r. burr>»', 'wheat, grain of wheat,' and
see Fo(jo, § I.
4- n^' Soren ('3"1j"|3, Is. 21 10, EV 'corn of my floor'; cp
Dt. 10 13 AV); properly ' threshing-fioor'; .see .\gricultukk,§8.
5. C'T", gen's, Lev. 2 14 ' corn beaten out,' RV ' bruised corn ' ;
cp 7'. 16.
6. ]y^, dagnn, ( len. 27 28 37, etc., grain (of cereals), used widely,
along with c'n'n ' must ' (see Wink), of the jiroducts of Canaan
(Dt.sy 2L); see Food, § i. Its connection with the god Dago.v
[^.w.] is uncertain.
7. Sp73, karfuel, 2 K. 442, I'.V 'ears of corn' (cp Lev. 2;J 14
'ears'), preferably 'fruit' or ' garden -growth ' ; cp Car.mel.
See Food, § i.
8. "I'-y, 'abliur, Josh, 'ni/., EV 'old corn,' RVmg. 'produce,
corn.'
9. nD"iy, 'areindli, Ruth 87, EV 'heap of corn'; see Agri-
cultuki:, § 9/
ii^. : /^, ¥iil>, I S. 17 17, etc., ' parched corn ' ; see Food, § i.
11. TOj^, ^dmali, Judg. liJ 5, etc., ' standing corn ' ; see Agri-
culture, § 7.
12. nia"!, riphoth, 2S. 17ig Prov. 27 22, ' bruised corn ' ; cp
Cooking, § 2.
13. '^'yi',\eber, Gen. 42 i, etc., perhaps 'broken (corn),' but
uncertain. As a denom. T^c-.i, 'to sell corn '(Gen. 42 6 Am.
857:, etc.).
14. KOKKOs, Jn. 1224, 'a corn (RV grain).'
15. criTOs, Mk. 428 etc., a general term like |3^ (above, 6).
16. ra cTTTopi/ixa, cornfields, Mt. 12 i Mk. 223.
17. <Tt6.i(v%, Mt. 12 I Mk. 2 23, 'ear of corn'; cp Heb. n^ac", Job
24 24.
CORNELIUS (kornhAioc [Ti. WH]), one of the
centurions of the so-called Italian cohort (ActslOi).
In the regular army composed of Roman citizens dis-
tinctive names of this sort were not given to the separate
_, cohorts ; only the legions were so designated
•ItaJial- (I^^"'s^y' ^^- ^''«^'""' <^hap. 14, § i. p. 314)-
_ In .Vets 10, accordingly, what we have to
■ do with is a cohort of the auxiliary troops
which were raised in the provinces and not formed into
legions.^ As for the meaning of such names : ' cohors
Gallorum Macedonica,' for example, would denote
1 Legions were stationed only in the great provinces that
were governed by the emperor through a le^atus Augustipro
prcetore ; the smaller provinces — those administered by an ofnctr
of lower rank (J>rocurator), such as Eg\ pt, or Judsea from 6-41
A.D., and again from 44 a.d. onwards— had only auxiliary troops.
The old provinces, where war no longer threatened and tie
administration was in the hands of the senate, had no standing
army properly so called.
908
CORNELIUS
that the cohort mentioned consisted of Gauls but had
distinguished itself in Macedonia. If this interpretation
were applicable, an Italian cohort would mean one
which had fought in Italy. In Arrian, h<jwcver (Acics
(antra Alarms, § 3, p. 99), the cohort which in § 13, p.
102, is callctl 17 ffwflpa i) 'IraXuTj, the Italian cohort,
figures simply as ol'lraXoi, the Italians, and with this
agree all the other mentions (entirely in inscriptions) of
a cohors Italica.
These are (i) CfA(ors) I Italica civium Romanorum volun-
tiinoriim; (2) C(>h{ors) /«//viaria) — i.e., having 1000 instead of
as usual 500 men) Jtalicia) fo/««/(arioruin) qtue est in ^yrin. ;
U)'0/t. II. Italica; (4) the epitaph of a sulxiniinate ofTicer
found at Carnuntum in Pannonia and first published in the
Arclurol.-efiigr. Mirtheilunren aus Oestcttrich-Utignm (1895,
p. 2i&)-p/>tio <ro//(ortis) // Itaic(ii:) t^ivium) A'(omanoruiu
centuria) /'^aus)/;«/ ex i'*jr»/(lariis) sagit{l2iT\is) exer(c\\.w^)
Syriaci.
Thus the fftrtlpa 'IraXt^crJ of ActslOi really consisted
of Italians, probably of Italian volunteers.
N )W, Schiirer^ has pointed out that according to
Josephus (Ant. xx. 87, § 176) the garrison of C.esarea
about 60 A. D. consisted mostly of Caesareans and
SebastCni (Sebaste having, from 27 B.C., been the
name of Samaria). As early, however, as 41-44 A. n.
(at latest), when Caisarea was not under a Roman
procurator but under a grandson of Herod "the Great,
King Herod Agrippa I. (whose death is recorded in
Acts 1220-23, and during whose reign, or shortly before
it, the story of Cornelius will have to be placed), the
garrison at Cajsarea nmst, according to Schiirer, have
been similarly comiwsed. For in 44 .V.D. , the emperor
Claudius desired to transfer the garrison — which, at that
time, and according to Josejihus (Z//iii. 42, § 66) also
twenty-three years later, in 67 A.D. , consisted of an a/a
(=t\j; — i.e., cavalry detachment of 500 men) of the
t.i-sareans and Sebasteni and five cohorts — to the
province of Pontus, because, after the death of his
friend King Agrippa I., they had publicly insulted the
statues of his daughters ; but there was no change of
garrison until the time of Ves[)asian (Jos. Ant. xix. 9 i/. ,
§^ 35'J-3<^<j)- This led Schiirer to conjecture that a
cohort of Italians may have come to Ca-sarea (there
was in Syria, as shown above, one such at least) under
Vespasian, and that the author of Acts, or of the source
from which he drew, may have transferred the circum-
stances of his own lime to the time of Peter.
Ramsay, on the other side, adduces the fourth of the inscrip-
tions given above. liiis inscriptijn, however, docs not .say
more than that in 69 A.D. there was a.<;}/iars Italica in Syria;
and, aUliough there may have bein such a coliort there as early
as about 40-45 a.I)., it is not said that tlicre was one in Caesarca.
It is especially improbable that that ciiy w.is so garrisoned in
the reign of Asrippa I. (41-44 A.n.), for he was a relatively
independent .sovereign, not likely to have h.ad Italians in his
service; but even for the period preceding 41 a.d. Schiirer
argues for a probability that the garrison of C^sarea was the
same as it was afterw.ards, and that it was simply taken over by
Agrippa at his accession. For the rest, Ramsay can only
appeal to a possibility that Cornelius may have been temporarily
at C.csarea on some 'detached service.'
Oscar Holtzmann (NTlic/ie Zfifs^csch. § 11, 2, p.
108) thinks that perhaps the enrolment at some time or
other of a considerable number of Italian volunteers
may have sudicetl to secure for such a cohort in
perpetuity the honorary epithet of 'Italica.' All this,
however, is mere conjecture.
Mommsen (Sitztdtiji^sbcr. d. Akad. zii Berlin, 1895,
PP- 501-3) seeks to deprive of its force the statement of
Josephus on which Schurer relies. Starting from the
view that the trooi)s of Agrippa must certainly have been
drawn from the whole of his kingdom, — that is, from
all Palestine — he maintains that Caesarea and Sebaste
are singled out for special mention by Josephus merely
as being the two chief towns in Agrippa's dominions.
He lays emphasis on the fact that in BJ \\\. 4=, § 66
1 ZIVT, 187s, pp. 4I3-4J5; C/Kl 382-6 (ET i. 24S-54 : where,
on p. 54, accorduig to Kxp. 1896, ii. 470n. for 'in reference to a
later period ' should be read ' iii refcr«nce to a preceding
period"). In Kxp. 1896, 2469-472, Schiirer replies to Ramsay
ib. i94>2oi; Ramsay replies, 1897, 1 69-72.
909
CORNELIUS
(see above) and Ant. xx. 6i, § 122, it is said only of
tlie ala — not of the cohors — that it was composed of
Caesareans and Sebastenes. At the same time he does
not use this fact to establish the probability of a cohors
Italica in Ciesarea. On the contrary, his conclusion is
that ' We arc unable to identify with any certainty
either the cohors Augusta of Acts 27 1 or the ffiretpa
'IraXiK-ii of Acts 10 1.'
The special importance of Cornelius in Acts lies in
the representation that his conversion by Peter brought
2 Narrative ^^' original Christian community of
irreconcilable J--usalem in spite of violent recalci-
with Council of "■^"^'^'^/i' fi'-s' (11-/)' to th« <:«"V'c-
Jerusalem.
tion that the Gentiles aLso, without
circumcision and without coming under
any obligation to observe the law of Moses, were to Ix;
received into the Christian Church if they had faith in
Christ (1117/.). The hi.storical truth of this representa-
tion has to be considered in connection with what we are
told elsewhere concerning the Council of Jerusalem (rco
CoLNCii,, ii. § 4 ; Acts, § 4 ). That council could never
have been necessary, and the Judaising Christians in it
could never have stood out for the circumcision of the
Gentiles or their obligation to observe the whole Mosaic
law (.\ctsl5i5). if they had already come to see and
acknowledge in the case of Cornelius that such demands
were contrary to the divine will. In his controversy
with Peter at Antioch also (Gal. 2 11-21), Paul could
have used no more effective weajion than a simple
reference to this event ; but he betrays no knowletlge of
it. No one, it is to be jiresumed, will attemjjt to save
the credibility of the narrative by the exijcdicnt of
transferring it to some date subse(|uent to the Council
of Jerusalem. As at that council (we are told) Peter
himself e.\pres.sly agreed that the Gentiles should have
unimpeded entrance into the Christian Church, that
circumcision and observance of the law should not Ix;
demanded of them, he did not, at a later date, refjuire
to be instructed on the matter by a di\ine revelation.
Had the Cornelius incident been later than the Council
the novelty woulil have lain simjily in Peter's preaching
the gospel and administering l)aptism to Cornelius and
his household in prol^ria pt-rsinia. This, however, is
precisely what would have been contrary to the principle
ado[)ted at the Council as laid down in Gal. "Jg, which
settled that he should confine his missionary activity to
born Jews. (On the importance of this principle, see
Couxcir., § 9.)
As the story of Cornelius must thus be retained, if
anywhere, in its present place, before the Council of
Jerusalem, its credibiKty can be allowed
3. Credibility
of narralive
only on condition that it is ackiiow-
as an incident. ["'^-^'^"^ "°' *" 1^°'^"^^^ ''!*^ important
bearmg on questions of prmciple which
is claimed for it in Acts. 11 1-18.
(<7) To meet this requirement, it is usually thought
sufiicient to say that the occurrence was an ' exceptional
case' (so, for example, Ramsay also, .S7. Paul*\ chap.
3, p. 44). This may be true in the sense that Peter con-
verted and baptized no more Gentiles ; but, unless at the
same time it is denied that in the case of Cornelius Peter's
action proceeded on a divine revelation and command, the
reference to the exceptional character of the case has no
force. The conditions of missionary activity which God
had revealed to Peter in the case of Cornelius must
surely, when Paul also began to n\^p\y them, have been
acknowledged by the original Church ; and thus the
controversy resulting in the Council of Jerusalem could
never have arisen. On this ground alone, then, to
begin with, Peter's vision at Joppa is unhistoric^il ; and
aversion from miracles has nothing to do with its
rejection. The whole account seems to Ix; intluenced
by reminiscences of the story of the sunmioning of
Balaam by Rilak (Nu. 225-39); see Krenkel, Josephus
u. Lucas. 193-9 [■94]-
{/') It is further urged (so again Ramsay, St. Pau^*>,
910
CORNELIUS
ch. 3 § I and 16 § 3, pp. 42/. and 375, and Exp. , 1896.
2200/) that Cornelius according to Actsl02 22 35 was a
semi-proselyte — i.e. , gave a general adhesion to Judaism,
without being circumcised or yielding definite obedience
to the details of the Mosaic Law ; ' — but neither does this
contention avail. The fact is. as stated in Acts 10 28 11 3,
that Cornelius and his house, according to Jewish and
Jewish-Christian ideas, were unclean ; and if, notwith-
stantiing this, (iod had commanded his admission within
the pale of the Christian Church, the command had
essentially no less significance than it would have had if
he had ])reviously been tiuite unattached to Judaism.
Ramsay (43) says, it is true, that Peter ' laid it down as
a condition of reception into the Church that the non-
Jew must approach by way of the synagogue (10 35)
and become "one that fears God."' But Peter does
not say this until after he has been taught by God in a
vision. Without this instruction it would have been
incumbent on him to exact, as conditions precedent,
acceptance of circumcision and submission to the entire
law (10 14). As soon as the divine command is re-
cognised as a historical fact the dispute at the Council of
Jerusalem becomes, as already stated, an impossibility.
(c) On one assumption alone, then, will it be possible
to recognise a kernel of historical truth in the story of
Cornelius : the assumption, namely, that he was a full
proselyte, — circumcised, that is tc say, and pledged to
observance of the entire Law. Such a supposition,
however, is in direct contradiction of the te.xt (10 28 11 3).
It would be strange indeed if, in order to make the
narrative credible, one liad first to change it in so
important a point. It would be necessary to depart
still further from the text if it were desired to put faith
in what is said in the pseudo- Clementine Homilies
(20 13), according to which Peter did not convert Cor-
nelius at Cajsarea to Christianity at all, but merely
freed him from a demon's possession. It is not in-
trinsically imjjossible that here we have a fragment of
good tradition ])reserved from some ancient source (see
Simon M.\gl"s) ; but, on account of its combination
with manifest fancies (see below, § 6), to trust it would
be unsafe.
.Ml the more urgent becomes the ciuestion whether
the narrative in Acts is derived from a written source.
Of the scholars enumerated under Acts
Sources, (g „) i]^^ majority assume that it is, and
point out verses in ch. 10, the proper connections of
which (they say) have been obliterated by the final
redactor of the book.^ They further emphasise the
point that in the narrative by Peter (11 5-17) certain
details are not given precisely as in ch. 10. Still, even
the most serious of these differences — namely, that in
1 That this is the meaning of the phrase crePofievot [or
^o^oufiero?) Tor 9f6v is shown in Schiirer G/i', ET 4 3,ii_^.\ also
SBAH\ 1897, Heft 13, 'Die Juden im bosporanischen Reich,'
especially i<)/. = -ziZ/. of the volume : see also Proselyte.
2 10367;, however, ought not to he reckoned among these:
no redactor would have introduced such violent abnormalities
into his text. The words from apfafiei'os (' beginning ') down to
roAiAaiosC Galilee'), or, it may be, to 'IwaviTj^ (end of t. 37),
are absolutely foreign to the construction, and certainly ought
to come between 6s ('who') and &i.rjK6fv (EV 'went a'oout ")
in V. 38, whether it be that they originally belonged to this
place, or that they originally stood on the margin as a
reminiscence by a very early reader from Lk. 23 5 or Acts 1 22.
In 10 36 the reading of \VH ('[He] sent the word unto . . .
Lord of all. Ye know the word which " : cp RVn's) is un-
questionably a copyist's attempt to remove the ditTiculties of
the construction ; but their marginal reading (toi/ Aoyoi' ok
a.iti<nei.Ktv, etc.; 'The word which' as in EV) it is as difficult
to make dependent on the oiSore (ye know) of 7'. 37 as it is to
construe in apposition to the whole sentence in v. 35. If we
refuse to suppose that before v. 36 some such words as ' you
also hath he thought worthy to hear' h.-ive fallen out before
Toi' Aoyoi' 'ov aiTf<TTfi\fv, etc. (the word which [he] sent), it will
be necessary to take tov Aoyoi- of ('the word which ') down to
Sia 'Iijo-oO XpicTToO (' by Jesus Christ '_), as a marginal explanation
of TO ytvofitvov p-qtia Ka6' oAtjj tijs 'lovSaCa<: (' the word which
was throughout all Judaea'), whereoTJjxa (RV ' saying ') is wrongly
understood in the sense of ' word ' inste.-id of the Hebraismg
sense of 'event, occurrence' as in Lk. 215; and ofrot imv
itavTuv niptot (' he is lord of all ') will be a further addition.
911
CORNELIUS
ch. 11 the Holy Spirit fell upon Cornelius and his
household at the very beginning of Peter's discourse
(v. 15) — admits of explanation: IO34-43 may have
been supj)Osed to represent only a comparatively small
part of what Peter meant to say. Were it necessary
to make a choice between ch. 10 and ch. 11, it would
be the worst possible course to try to see in the latter
the source from which the fuller narrative of ch. 10 was
originally derived by amplification (so Wendt, ZTK,
189 1, pp. 230-254, esp. 250-4). That principle-deter-
mining character which, as we have seen, can in no
case have attached to the assumed event, is imparted
precisely by the justification which in ch. 11 the event
receives before the church of Jerusalem ; and against
this it is of no avail that Wendt chooses to attribute
some of the strongest passages, such as lli and 11 18,
to the latest redactor of Acts.
More important than any of the indications hitherto
dealt with is the clue supplied in 10 44-47 11 15, 17. The
' speaking with tongues ' of Cornelius and his house-
hold is here placed on a level with that of the apostles
at the first Pentecost after the resurrection, but is not
yet (as it is in the other passage) described as a speaking
in the languages of foreign nations : it is undoubtedly
meant, as in i Cor. I'i 14, to be taken sinijjly as a
speaking in ecstatic tones (see Gifts). Certainly this
representation of the matter does not seem as if it had
been clue to the latest redactor of the book as a whole.
In favour of the credibility of the narrative, however,
nothing is gained by all this search for a written source.
It is a great error, widely diffused, to suppose that one
may ipso facto take as historical everything that can
be shown to have stood in one of the written sources
of the NT authors. As far as the source was in
substance identical with what we now have in the
canonical Acts, it is equally exposed to the criticisms
already offered. There is one assumption which would
escape the force of that criticism — the assumjjtion,
namely, that Cornelius was a full proselyte (§ 3c) ; —
but it cannot possibly by any analysis of sources be
made out to have been the original tradition.
All the more remarkable is the clearness with which
the tendency of the narrative may be seen. The
initiative in missions to the Gentiles,
5. Tendency.
which historically belongs to Paul, is
here set down to the credit of Peter (see Acts, § 3 /. ).
According to the representation given in Acts, it was
preceded by the conversion of the Samaritans (85-25),
who, however, were akin to the Jews, and consequently
not Gentiles (Schurer, GJV^s-7, £TZs-i). H had Ijeen
preceded also by the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch
(826-39) ; but he had not thereby been made a member
of any Christian church. The really difficult problem
was this : In what manner ought Jewish Christians to
live together in one and the same church with Gentile
Christians, who did not hold by the Mosaic Law ? This
question is brought by Peter, in the case of Cornelius,
on the basis of a divine revelation, exactly to the
solution w hich in reality it was left to Paul to achieve
after hard battle at a much later date (see Council,
§§ 4, 7). With a certain reserve, which bears witness
to right feeling for essential historical truth in spite of
all unhistoricity in the narrative, the author attributes
no more conversions of Gentiles to Peter ; and even the
conversion of Cornelius himself is in some measure toned
down by the previous Jewish sympathies with which he
is credited. There is thus a further step left. It is
not till later, in Antioch, that the gospel is preached
to Gentiles who had not previously stood in any close
connection with Judaism, and the new step is taken
(as in the case of the Samaritans) in the first instance
by subordinate persons, and not sanctioned by the
authorities at Jerusalem till after the event (11 19-24).
None the less are mission to the Gentiles and the
abolition of the distinction between Jewish Christiins
and Gentile Christians so essentially vindicated in the
912
CORNER
cise of Cornelius thai I'eter hr\s necessarily to \x con-
sidered their real initiator as far as Acts is concerned.
The narrative, accordingly, is incomplete contrast to Cjal.
2ii-ai. In Galatians the historical Peter, on account
of Jewish Christian prejudice not yet fully overcome,
withdraws from table -fellowship which he had begun
with Cjentilc Christians, and thereby exijoses himself
to the sharp censure of Paul (see CouNcil., § 3) ; in
Acts he has completely overcome those prejudices long
before Paul begins his Christian activity. It is not
necessary on this account to sujjpose that the author
of .Vets freely invented the whole story, including oven
the name of Cornelius ; but, considering how mark<.>dly
he Ijrings it into the service of his theory, we have little
prosjiect of ultimately l)eing able to retain more than
a very small kernel as historical.
.According to the pseudo-Clementine Homilies (20 13;
sec above, § 3 c) and Recognitions (IO55) Cornelius took
6. Later
traditions.
the side of Peter as against Paul. When
-Simon the Sorcerer {i.e. , Paul ; see SiMoN
M.\GUS) had stirred up all Vntioch .against
Peter, Cornelius comes upon a mission from the lim-
jx-ror and arrives at an understanding with the friends
of Peter, at their request, to set abroad the rumour
that his imperial commission has reference to the arrest
of Simon. Thereupon Simon makes his escape to
Jud;ta. Thus Cornelius here plays the \xnl which in
Acts 21 33 2823-33 is assigned to Claudius l.ysias.
Ai'cordiiic; to llie ' uird/Li»o7fia oil the Holy Apostles I'eter and
P.-iul,' .-iitribiited to Symcon .Met.nphr.aste^, Cori'.elius is coiise-
tr.iled by I'eter bishop of Iliiiin ; according to the Greek
Mimra (13th Sept.), he is sent by Peter to Skepsis on tlie
Hellesfxjnt (Lipsms, A/>okry/>h. A^.-(it'sih.\\.l ^t, and 9/).
According to the pseiido-Cleinentine Homilies (3 63-72) and ke-
coijnitions (:!6sy^), Zacclia;us was consecrated first bishop of
Cxsarea l>y Peter ; in .-//. Const, vii. 40 i Zucchaius is sviciecded
by Cornelius. !>. \v. S.
CORNER (HNS). Lev. I9927 21 5: (i) of a field : cp
Ci.KAN, § 6 ; (2) of the beard : see CrTTiNGS oi- TiiK
I-'i.i:.sii, § 5, Mourning Customs ; (3) of a garment
('■p, KRAcne^ON), N'u. ir.38 KV'"*.'- : see Fkingf.s.
CORNER, ASCENT OF THE (n32n nhl'), Xeh.
3 u R\'. Sec ll.KlSAI.KM.
CORNER GATE (D'3Si^ TI'L"), Zech. 14.o. See
JKUrsAI.K.M.
CORNER-STONE (in Job HSS ^nX ; AiGoc
rcoNiAioc; in ^^- njS, K. AKporcoNiAioc. ^nd so in
NT; in Ps. Jl'IT KeKAAAconiCAAeN&i ; Arj. eni-
rooNIA, Sym. rcoNiAl?). (-') Job386; {b) Is. 28i6
I Pet. 2 6 i:i)h. 220 (without AlBoc) ; (<:) Ps. 144 12.
In (rt) tlie phrase ' fiinna/t-stone,' KV's 'corner-stone,' is
parallel to ^'J"]-' ' ''* foundations' (or bases), just as in Jer.
61 26 'a stone for a //«//«/« ' (nssS |aN) is parallel 10 'a stone
for foundations ' (nnnic? J3K). In (/») we find the same con-
nection between ri3S, pinnah, and the foundation-stone.
Clearly, therefore, the traditional rendering 'corner-stone' for
n3£3 pK is unsuitable. Indeed, the word '133 elsewhere only in
some cases means 'corner' (see Ex. 2" 2 4 Kzek. 43 20 4.'» 19
Job 1 19 Prov. 7 k). Besides this, the architectural term c'KT
njS in Ps. 1 IS 22 (A. aicpoYbii'tatot in i Pet. 2 6 cp Eph. 2 20 ; but
not in Mt.'Jl42 and parallel passages,. .\cts 4 1 1 i Pet. 27) evi-
dently means, not ' corner-stone," but ' top-stone of the battle-
ment,'and 'battlement' is RV's rendering of n|S in 2Ch.26i5
Zeph. 1:6 36.
In spite of tradition, therefore, it would seem that
n39 I3K means, not a comer-stone, but a principal stone
(cp c*:B, Ass. pdnu, 'front'), one selected for its
solidity and beauty to fill an important place in a build-
ing, whether in the foundation or in the battlement.
Hence the metaphorical sense of nis. ' principal men,"
Is. 19 13 (so point), I .S. 1438 Judg. 20 2. [c) The third
EV passage (Ps. 144 12) with the word 'corner' is ex-
tremely obscure in MT. That Jewish maidens could
be likened either to 'corner-stones' (FA', Del.) or to
'corner-pillars' (Baethg., We. in SDOT, comparing the
913
COSAM
Caryatides) puts a severe strain on the imagination.
The student may con.sult the three critics named.
Zech. 9 15 ('corners of the altar') by no niciins justifies
either of the above interpretations of n'M. The parallel
jKissage, Ps. 1283, indicates the sort of figure retjuircd ;
the text necils emendation. .See further Che. /'j.*'-'
In Is. 28 16 the stone described as a finnah-sUme
syml)olises, not the theocracy or the Davidic dynasiy,
nor yet the (Jewish) Messi.ah, but the revealed relation or
Yahwe to Israel, which Yahwe was establishing e\er
more and more by the words of his prophets and the
solemn acts of his regal sway. That it should l)e
applied to their divine Messiah by Christians is intelli-
gible ; and, since they read the Psalter as a Iwxjk with a
living power of self-adaptation to their own changing
needs, it was natural that Christian disciples should find
the words of Ps. II.H22, which originally referred to the
Jewish people, verified in their Master. In Kph. 22j
there is no absolute need to interpret oLKpoyuviaiov other-
wisc than ,-3S jan ; but in I Pet. 2 6 we seem to reijuire
the traditional sense 'corner-stone' (see i'. 7).
CORNET. For Dan. Ssf. i]':Pj and i Ch. I528, etc.
(lEir) see Music, § 5^. For 2 S. Ost (CyJi':-:), see .Music,
§3(3).
CORONATION. Anointing (,/.:■. , § 3] was by itself
an efficient mode of investiture with royal functions ( i .S.
10 I I K. 1341.' It is only in the case of Joash that
coronation is mentioned as accompanying — intleed, it is
mentioned as preceding— the anointing (2 K.II12).
Perha|)s 2 .S. 1 10 refers to an older custom of trans-
ferring to the successor the personal adornments of the
de.ad king ; see CuovvN'. Perhaps too the anointing
occurred near or on a particular via<sPbah or u|)right
stone, as in the case of Abimelech, for we can hardly
doubt that IC\"srenderiiig the ' pillar that was in .Shechem '
(Jutlg. 96) is correct, though the final letter of ,-2X2 has
been lost or removed (see Moore, ad loc. ). Joash too is
said to have stood ' by the pillar as the manner was '(2 K.
11 14) ; but here the word for ' pillar' is difllerent (ni^i't,
and we should perhaps follow RV"'c- and Klostermann
in rendering 'platform' (cp 2 K. 283 RV'"*.')."'^
After the anointing the people greeted the new king
with a nourish of trumi>ets ( i K. 1 34 39 2 K. 9 13 ler^ i'pn,
2 K. 11 14 nni'-inn). In the case of Jehu and .Absalom
(2 S. If) 10) the trumpet soimds were the signal of
accession, though they may have lxx;n simply an element
in the popular expressions of joy (i S. 11 15 i K. I40),
which included hand-clapping (pj j,'j:n. nsn 2 K. 11 12 Ps.
47 I [2]) and the exclatnation ' Live the king ' {-'^t\ 'n' ;
I S. IO24 2 S. 16 16 I K. 1 3439 2 K. 11 12). Sometimes
there was a procession with music ; the new king rode
on the royal mule (i K.. 1 33 38) and finally took his
seat on the throne.
It is possible that 'to-day' in Ps. 27 refers not to the birth
but to the coronation of the kmg. See Baethg., Che. a<//.'c'« The
latter illustrates from the sculptures representing the coronation
of the Egyptian queen Hat-shepsut,* Naville, ToiifU 0/ Dcirt-t-
Balinri, III., 1899, pp. i-o). See W'einel's essay on nc^ i"
/..ATU- IS 1-92 ['98] and Diehl, Erkl. von /V.xlvii., Giessen,
j894. I. A.
CORRUPTION, MOUNT OF (n'ri'if^rrnri), 2 k.
23 13, R\'"'*-'- 'mount of destruction.' See Dkstruc-
TiON, Mount of.
COS (kcoc [-^SV]), I Mace. If. 23. See Coos.
COSAM (kcocam [Ti. WH]^, fifth from Zerubbabel
in the genealogy of Joseph (Lk. 828). See Genea-
LOGIKS, ii., § 3.
1 .According to R.-ibbinic views, not all kings were anointed ;
but the term rn.T n'trO seems the generic designation of a king.
On the association of crowning with anointing sec Is. 61 3 (cp
SHOT ad loc).
2 L. Oliphant {Haifa, 147) conjectures that the (artifici.il)
footprints in the rocks in difrei;ent parts of Palestine (e.g., at
Hebron and at the Neby Shaib near Hat!'") indicate ver>'
ancient cornnation-stones.
S Ha't-Sepsut, formerly wrongly written Hatasu (see Egypt,
153)-
914
COSTUS
COSTUS (n-li^; ipic [BAFL]: casta), Ex. 30 24
RV'"^'- [in Kzek. 'J7 19 Vg. stacte. EV cassia 0 kai
TpoxiAC ' 'Tid drugs? ']. See Cassia, Incknse, § 6.
COTTAGE. I. For Is. 1 8(n3D)and 2420 (nrSa)see Hut.
2. In Zeph. 26 (EV 'cottages' RVni);. 'caves') the an. Aey.
n"i3 is probably a (littograph of Tt^i ' dwellings '(Bohme, ^-4 '/'/K
7 212 ['87]: Rothstein in Kau. /A? ; and Schw.-illy, ZATIV
10 186 ['90]), under the influence of C"n"13 inf. 5; or, transposing
the two words, we may adopt with We. the reading of <B ea-rai
Kp))n) co/nij, with the meaning ' Philistia shall become dwellings
for,' etc.
COTTON! or Fine Cloth (RV'e), or Grkkn
(hnn,-;ings), EV (DS")?, karpas ; KApnACINA
[H.^ALaS]: Esth. 16)). The Heb. word, which
ajipears also in Arab. , Arm. , Gr. , and Lat. , is derived
from Pers. /t/>/<z.f and ultimately from Sans, karpdsa, 'the
cotton plant.' * As a derived word it means, in the
various languages, primarily 'muslin,' the fine cotton
cloth which came from India, and also such stuffs as are
nained 'calico.' The nature and home of the cotton
plant were known to the Greeks as early as Herodotus
(3 106) ; but it was the expedition of Alexander that first
nude them familiar with the use of cotton faV)rics.
Tiie earliest known occurrence of Ka.pTr<x.<sos = carbasus
in Greek or Latin is in a line of C,';ucilius (219-
166? B.C.) — ' carbasina, molochina, ampelina '^which
appears to be a transliteration of a line in a Greek
l^l.Tv. Strabo (l,')i, § 71) and the author of the Peri pi.
Maris F.iy/hr. (cliap. 11), Lucan (8239), and Quintus
Curtins (89, § 21) used the word in special connection
with India ; but other references in classical writers
show that the word obtained a wider sense, jiarticularly
in the poets. Thus it is used of fine Spanish 1 nen or
cambric (Pliny 19 i, § 2), of the .awnings of theatres*
(Lucr. 6 109), often of sails (^«. 8357 4417, etc. ) and of
robes of fine material {ib. 834 11 776, etc. : see these
and other passages discussed in Yates, Tcx/ri/iiiin
Antiquoriim, 1 338^). We cannot, therefore, be certain
as to the material called karpas in the particular case of
Esth. 16, since according to the later usage any light
material might be so called ; but in view of the un-
doubted meaning of tiie original word in Sans., the
presumption is in favour of cotton -muslin. Karpas
certainly denotes a material, not a colour (the latter
is a Jewish idea, found in Vg. ).
Asiatic cotton in ancient times (like most modern cotton) was
derived from the cotton plant, Gossypiutn heiltacenm, L. —
perennial in the tropics, but elsewhere annual — which had its
first home in India, but by the time of Alexander had spread to
Bactriana (De CandoUe, Origine, y^Zjlf-)- ^ ''C cotton shrub
(Gossyfiium arhoreuvt, L.), on the other hand, which, though
little known to the ancients, is described in one place by Pliny,''
had its first home, according to modern investisjation, in ' Upper
Guinea, .Vbyssinia, Sennfir, and Higher Egypt' (/(5. 325^).
This, brought down from the Soudan, was probably the earliest
cotton cultivated in Lower Egypt. Prosper Alpinus saw it in
Egypt in the sixteenth century {Jb., 327). It was afterw.ards
displaced by the Indian G. hcrbaceum.
For Gen. 41 42 Ex.254, RVmg. (pV^Te's; EV Fine Linex,
AVmsj. Sii.K [cp Pr. 31 2?, AV]), see Linkn (7); for Is. lOgt
RVnig. (.-T,n, horai), see Linen (8). N. M. — \V. T. T.-U.
COUCH (H'Jjp), Amos. 3 12. See Bkd, § 2.
COULTER (riN; cKeyoc [BAL]), iS. 1820/,
elsewhere rendered 'plowshare' (^pOTpON [B.\Q]),
Is. '24 Joel 3 10 [4 10] Mic. 43. See Agricultukic, § 3.
COUNCIL.
I. CTOj-I, ri^ndthdm, Ps. 68 27 [28] (EVmg. ' their com-
1 According to Klostermann's conjectural emendation of
1 S. 2 19 (njnj or jnD for jap), the word ' cotton ' is itself a
Hebrew word, though it has come to us through the Arabic
Kutn, cp Tunic), and apparently it meant ' linen ' not ' cotton ' ;
XeCo/xe'iT) [njnsl.M**' KaAfiTat, AiVeof ie tovto a-fiftaCffi. ^iSov
yap TO AtVoi' 17^*'? icaAoCjxei', Jos. Ant. iii. 7 2. Cp I.INEN.
- The adjectival form karpdsa means 'cotton stuff.'
3 These may possibly have been of calico.
* xix. 1 2 ; superior pars iEgypti in Arabiam vergens gignit
fruticem quem aliqui gossyjpion vocant, plures xylon et ideo
Una inde facta xylina.' Cp Oliver, Fl. Trap. Africa, 1 211.
91S
conversion, and for the second
fourteen years after his first
COUNCIL OP JERUSALEM
pany': prop, 'heap of stones'; ©I5Nc-aR ^yt^l.6ve<i avrCiv) is
surely corrupt. Che., .^.-f 7'/K19 i 6 ['99] reads D'D'DnlnL ' the
blameless ones.' See also Hupf., Haethg.
2. nyce'p, miimaath, 28.2823 (okoij [B.\], <?.vA<«q [L])=
1 Ch. 11 25 (irarpta [BKAL] EVmg., EV ' guard '), the body-
gu.ard of David, at the head of which was J5enaiah (i); cp
1 S. 22 14 (RV 'council,' AV ' liidding,' dp^wv . . . irapayye'A-
ftoTOS [H.\L])and .see Dr. oii loc.'^
3. lia, i(>(/ (doubtless to be connected with .Syr. sttuddd ' talk,*
estaunvad ' to speak ' ; cj) Hommel, ZDMG 4(5 529, who similarly
explains the Sab. -iiqo ^s 'speaker, or place of oracle ') is used,
not only of a council or meeting (cp Jer. •> 11 15 17 Ezek. 13 g,
etc. ; see Assembly [4]), but also of its deliberations and their
result (' secret,' 'counsel'; Am. 3 7 Pr. 11 13 Ps. 833(4], etc.;
cpesp. Ps..';5i4[i5]).
4. ooi/u^ouAtoi' in Acts 25 12 is the jury or board of assessors
who aided the procurators and governors of a province ; cp Jos.
5. crui'e'Spio;', the supreme council, Mt. 5 22 Jn. 11 47 Acts 621
etc. avvihpia. in pi. (.Mt. 10i7 = Mk. 13 9) are the smaller local
tribunals; cp (cpio-c? (LV 'judgement') Mt.52iy;, and see
GoVKNNME.NT, § 31 end ; cp .'^YNEDKIUM.
COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM. This council, if not
the most important occurrence of the apostolic age, is
the one that bears the most official ciiaracter. The
more contradictory the accounts of it which we seem to
possess in Gal. 2 and Actsl5, the more necessary is it
to adopt a careful method for its investigation. The
first question that arises is whether both accounts really
relate to the same occurrence. In order to answer this,
it is needful to determine ,the times of Paul's journeys
to Jerusalem after his conversion.
In Gal. 1 i8 '2 I he protests, very solemnly (1 20), that he
visited Jerusalem for the first tiine three years after his
1. Paul's Journeys .•
. T 1 • time
to Jerusalem in ^^^^^ ^^ ,^^3 probably, after his
Gal. and Acts. ■ ^ , . , " , .
conversion). L nless we deny the
genuineness of the epistle to the Galatians we cannot
but give unqualified acceptance to this statement.
Paul was endeavouring to show how little he was dependent
in his apostleship upon the original apostles. He was, therefore,
bound in the interests of truth to mention all the occasions on
which he had come into contact with them. Moreover, to p;iss
over any such occasion would have been highly imprudent ; for
his opponents naturally were aware of all of them, and would
have promptly exposed the falsehood to the Galatians.
Now, the journey mentioned in Acts 926 must un-
hesitatingly be identified with that in (Jal. 1 18, even
though the narrative of Acts contains not the smallest
hint that it was not made until three years after Paul's
conversion, and had been preceded by a sojourn in
Arabia and a second sojourn in Damascus.
a. It would seem, then, that the second journey re-
corded in Galatians (2i) must coincide with the one
in Actsllso, which, according to Actsl22s, did extend
to Jemsalem.
The famine during the reign of Claudius (by which the journey
was occasioned) occurred in Palestine - before 48, at the earliest in
44 — i.e., as the i-.arrative of Acts appears to imply (12 23), at the
time of the death of Herod .^grippa I. — and, if the conversion of
Paul occurred .shortly after the death of Jesus, and this Last
not much more than a year after the appearance of the Baptist
in the fifteenth year of Tiberius (i.e., 28-29 a.d. ; Lk. 3 i), there
remains the interval of seventeen (or, at least, fourteen) years
(lem.-mded by Gal. 1 i8-2 i between Paul's conversion and the
famine, cp Chuonoi.ogv, § 74^ Thus the account of the
journey in Acts requires correction only in one point : the alms
were sent not before but after the beginning of the famine.
Still, since it mentions no object for the journey
l)esides the sending of alms, the narrative of Acts may
be charged with having passed over in complete silence
the conference mentioned in Gal. 2i-io.
This is no trifling matter. It is remarkable that a confereiice
upon the same subject should follow in Acts 15, for a repetition
of the discussion within the next few years is not conceivable ;
observe, too, that no reference is rnade in Acts 15 to an earlier
decision. The journey mentioned in ActsUyT — at all events,
as far as Paul is concerned — may, on other grounds, be con-
sidered open to the suspicion of having been detached from
the circumstances recorded in Acts 20 3 21 17 (cp i Cor. 10 4
1 The word is used in a concrete sense ('obedient ones')
in Is. 11 14 : cp MI 28, nV2C"0 pn Sd, 'all Daibon was obedient.'
2 That it extended over the whole world (oiicouficVT)) is an
error of Acts.
916
COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM
Rom. 16 25yC), and of having been transferred, whether by
mistake or purposely, to a far too early position in the narrative
(see Simon Magus).
b. In order to avoid recognising the contradiction
between (lal. 2 and Acts 15, a whole class of writers
have assigned the Council of Jerusalem to the journey
recorded in ActslSaa. They ignore the objection that
on this view Paul in Galatians suppresses important
facts so far as to pass over two journeys to Jerusalem
without mention.
c. On the other hand, it is a mistake to suppose
that Acts 18 22 does not imply a visit to Jerusalem
at all.
.\lthough avafia.<; might signify the journey up from the shore
to tlie town of Ca;sarea, a ni.in could not possihiy be said to go
down (icaTf'/3>)) from a seaport town to an inland city like Antioch.
Thus we art- bound to supply 'to Jerusalem ' in 7i, 7.1a — as is dune
by many interpreters even when denying the historical actuality
of the journey. On this last point, however, we cannot in fair-
ness appeal to the negative evidence of Galatians. True, it i.s
silent as to this journey ; but its historical review never reaches
the point at winch mention of it would have come in ; instead
of continuing such a review, after describing the occurrence at
.\ntioch (2 11-21) the writer passes on to dormatic and thence
to practical questions, entirely losing sight of his original
purpose, which was to enumerate all his personal encounters
with the original apostles. It may, indeed, be thought remark-
able that Jerusalem, if intended, is not mentioned in Acts 18 22 ;
but this does not warrant the assumption now to be mentioned.
(/. Some critics have assumed that the Council of Jeru-
salem was really held on this occasion (Acts I822), and
not earlier — the author, having purposely transposed it
to an earlier date, would express himself as briefly and
obscurely as ])ossit)le when he came to the point at
which it really occurred.
This assumption h.-is the advantage of bringing not only the
first (.Xctsi^yT) but also the second (l(Ji-18 22) missionary
journey within the first seventeen years after Paul's conversion,
thus providing materi.-il to fill up a period otherwise inexplicably
barren of events. It cannot, however, be urged in its favour
that Barnabas was personally know n to the (ialatians and the
Corinthians, and that he cannot have been separated from Paul
(Acts 15 35-40) until after the second missionary journey, during
which the communities in Calatia — i.e.. Old Galatia (see
Oai.atia) — and in Corinth were established; for the passages
(jal. 'J I 9 13 I Cor. 06 are perfectly intelligible on the assumption
that liarnabas was known to the readers by report alone.
The assumption of such a transposition is entirely
wanting in probability.
The motive prompting the writer to transpose the Council of
Jerusalem to an earlier date is supposed to have been the desire
to bring the whole of Paul's missionary work from its beginning
within the scope of the decree of the apostles (Acts 15 28 /T) ;
but, had this really been the writer's intention, he would have
introduced the council not before Acts 10, but before Acts 13.
What should have hindered him from so doing, if it be assumed
that he allowed himself to make free with his materials in this
way at all, is not apparent.
e. Others actually transpose the journey described in
Acts 13/ so as to make it come between the Council of
Jerusalem and the separation of Barnabas from Paul,
and therefore after Acts 1 5 34.
Their strongest reason is the fact that Paul mentions only Syria
and Cilicia as his places of residence up to the Council of Jeru-
salem (Gal. 1 21). This is hardly conclusive, for, although Paul
was pledged to enumerate all his meetings with the original
apostles, he was not bound to mention all the provinces in which
he had resided without meeting them. In any case, even if the
transposition of Acts 13 yC and Acts 15 1-34 be accepted, thi;,
gives no support to the assumption mentioned under a, .since for
that assumption the writer of Acts has put the two sections
exactly in the wrong order : his supposed purpose, as well as
the motive of historical accuracy, would have led him to put
16 1-34 before 13 i-14 28.
f. It is only by very bold treatment of the different
sources of Acts, by which the accounts of Paul's journeys
in Acts 11 y! 15 18 become inerely the result of an
erroneous combination of the writer's authorities, that
Clement [Chronol. d. Paulin. fir. 1893) contrives to
identify Gal. 2 with Acts 21 . and Joh. Weiss (St. u. Kr. ,
1893, pp. 480-540 ; 1895, pp. 252-269), on the contrary,
withActsP and (at the same time) with Actsl5i-4i2.
It is, in fact, quite impossible to deny the identity of the
events related in Gal. 2 and in Acts 15. See Chrono-
logy, § 74.
In view, however, of the doubts cast upon Acts, it is
917
an error of method to make that book the basis for an
2 Oal 2 investigation of the jjresent (juestion. It
the primarv "''^^' ^'"^^ *^'" ^''" '° ^^'" ^^ '""^'"^
na.aaa.s'e aside Acts altogether and ascertaining
" ° * the facts from (Jalatians alone. That
method, however, would prevent certain questions from
receiving adequate consideration, and no harm need Ije
apprehended in treating both accounts, circumspectly,
together. It is, however, of unciualified importance to
take Gal. 2ii-2i as the starting-point, Ixjcause that
passage alone throws any really clear light upon the
circumstances.
Peter was no uncompromising Judaiser. Before the
dispute at Antioch recorded in Gal.2ii-2i he had
3 The dianute *^'''^" ^''^ (Jentile Christians. If he
at A t h abandoned this practice after the arrival
of the followers of James, he could not,
accustomed as he was to adopt the attitude of a Iwader,
have been influenced in the least by the fear of the repre-
sentatives of circumcision — his alleged motive^ — had he
not himself recognised their position as the right one.
He must in his inmost heart have still been continuing
to attach some importance to the Mosaic laws relating
to food. Thus, he could not yet have attained to that
liberty in principle which belonged to Paul. This free-
dom Paul conceivably assumed to be present in I'eter, as
it was in himself; in which case he could attribute Peter's
antagonism only to hypocrisy. Critics have softened
the charge of hypocrisy into a charge of inconsistency,
such as is very frequently to be observed at times of
transition in natures that have no very firm grasp of
principles.
Different from Peter's position was that of James.
Whether the 'certain' (rives) were expressly sent by
him in order to recall Peter to the Law, or whether tlicy
attempted to do this on their own account without his
commission (' from James,' a.Trb 'laKwfSov, in NT Cjreek
does not go necessarily with 'came,' eXOt'iv, and it may
equally well betaken with ' certain,' rivds), is inmiaterial.
Peter, the leader of the apostles, would certainly never
have submitted to their commands if they had not had
behind them the authority of James. Now, the position
of James as distinct from that of Peter can only have
been that a man born a Jew was still under religious
obligation even as a Christian to observe the whole of
the Mosaic Law. It cannot be supposed that he upheld
this obligation only as convenient for the time, or even
merely as a beautiful custom ; a motive of the most
serious kind must have been actually held out to Peter,
if he was to submit to be driven to so absolute a renunci-
ation of brotherly intercourse with the Gentile Christians.
As we are not informed of any answer from Peter to
Paul's reprimand in Gal. 214-21, it is commonly (though
very rashly) assumed that Peter admitted his error.
That Paul should record an exculpatory answer from
Peter, however, was hardly to be expected, if only for the
reason that he must have thought it inconclusive. Still,
even if Peter was thought to have yielded, the others who
shared his opinion did not yield. Otherwise, v.hy is the
scene at Antioch followed so quickly by the entrance of
the Judaising party into the churches founded by Paul
in (Jalatia and Corinth, in complete contravention of
the agreement in Gal. 29, and by the nearly successful
attempt to induce the Galatians to adopt circumcision
(Gal. 52/ 612/. 4 10) and to alienate the Corinthians
from Paul altogether (2 Cor. 11 4 12 16 43-5 5 13/ 75-16)?
How could so important and persistent a movement —
it had already been encountered by Paul on two separate
occasions, both in Galatia and in Corinth (Gal. 1963
1 Cor. 9 1 2Cor. II4) — have been carried on if it had
been opposed by the first apostles? Whence came the
letters of recommendation which, according to 2 Cor. 3 i,
these emissaries brought with them? As they formed
the ground upon which the suspicion against Paul as
one who had never known Jesus (i Cor. 9i) proceeded,
what weightier credentials could they have contained
918
COUNCIL OP JERUSALEM
than the statement that their bearers represented im-
mediate disciples of Jesus? Would the sceptical
Coriiuliians have been satisfied if the authentication had
conic (let us say) from Ephcsus, or from some other
town outside Talestine?
How comes it, again, that even at the end of the
second century the pseudo-Clementine homilies (ITio)
represent Peter as reproaching Simon — under whose name
Paul is there attacked (see Simon Magus)— for having
called him a KaTeyvosafxivo^ (Gal. 2ii ; RV ' stood con-
demned ' ) ? This shows how deep a wound was inflicted
on Judaising Christianity by Paul's bold attack on Peter.
For this reason, not a word is said in Acts about the
scene ; though it is quite inconceivable that the author
had no knowledge of it (see Acts, § 6). F"urther, in
the place in .Acts where this scene ought to have been
mentioned there is recorded a similar dispute {irapo^vcr-
fi6s ; Acts 15 39) between Paul and Barnabas (see Bar-
NABAS), who, according to Gal. 213, had gone over to
the side of Peter. This disi^ute, however, does not turn
on any question of principle. It was merely a personal
matter (Acts 1036-40). The conjecture is a tempting one
that this scene, if not an invention, is at least an inter-
polation, based on some written source, introduced for
the purpose of effacing the memory of the more im-
portant quarrels.
We are now in a position to investigate the Council
of Jerusalem itself. It was occasioned, on the part of
4. Occasion of
Judaistic Christianity, by the appear-
the council.
ance of the 'false brethren,' who had
made their way unauthorised into the
Pauline and other churches, seeking to spy out and to
suppress the freedom from the Mosaic Law that had
there been attained ((ial. 24). As this cannot have been
in Jerusalem, we may accept the statement of Acts (15 i,
cp 1426) that it was to Antioch they came. Up to that
time no such intrusion had occurred, althoutjh the
circumstances at .\ntioch cannot have long remained un-
known to the leaders at Jerusalem. It is, therefore, not
improbable that the new and sudden aggressive move-
ment proceeded from recently converted Pharisees, even
though the statement to this effect in Acts 15s is made
without reference to 15 1, and therefore appears to come
from another source. Paul was prompted to go to
the council of the apostles by a revelation (Gal. 22).
Probably it came to him not as a bolt from the blue, but
only after the c|uestion to be decided by the council had
already stirred his soul to its depths. No less than his
entire life-work — that of bringing the heathen to Christi-
anity without binding them by the Mosaic Law — was
at stake. According to Acts (152), he and Barnabas
were deputed to go to Jerusalem by the church at
Antioch in consequence of a fruitless discussion there.
This motive for the journey is not, of course, absolutely
incompatible with the revelation mentioned by Paul ; but
it is in any case significant that Paul speaks only of the
revelation and Acts only of the delegation. What-
ever the motive, what is it that Paul can have gone to
Jerusalem in search of? A tribunal to whose verdict he
would voluntarily submit, whatever its tenor? By no
means. He had from a higher authority his gospel of
freedom from the Law, and cared very little for the
original apostles (Gal. 1 1 6-9 15-17 25/). Or did he
e.xpect to find among them assistance against the ' false
brethren ' ? We think that he did not ; if he did, his
expectation was not justified by the event (see below,
§§ 7, 8). The purpose with which he went to Jerusalem
was to discover the source from which the ' false brethren '
drew their support. He intended to take that support
away from under them, and, in order to do so, it was
necessary that he should appear in person. * Lest by
any means I should be running or had run in vain '
(Gal. 22; fxriirijjs eis Kevbv Tp^x^ ^ iSpafxov) is not an
interrogative ; Paul would never have made the justifi-
cation of his work dependent on the judgment of the
original apostles.
S19
Were the conferences at Jerusalem public, or were
B Public or ^^^^ private? No clear picture of them
. ,. is presented in Acts — perhaps because
" . „' the account is compiled from various
cussions? ^^^^^^^
A general as.sembly is set before us in Acts 15 4. We may
suppose the private assembly mentioned in 15 6 to have been
on another day (though the author says nothing as to this).
Suddenly, however, in 15 12, 'all the multitude' (nav to irAijeos)
is present ; and it reappears in 15 22 as responsible for the final
decision, although in 15 23 this is attributed to the apostles and
elders only. Paul, on the other hand, in the words (car' l&iav,
' privately ' (Gal. i 2), passes from a public to a private conference,
as also probably in 2 6— for the discussion about the circumcision
of Titus (2 3-5) can most easily be supposed to have occurred in
a public assembly, in which expression was also given to the
position which the original apostles did not themselves finally
adopt.
So far there is no inconsistency between Galatians
and Acts : both know of meetings of both kinds. The
crucial question, however, is, Was any final decision
arrived at in a public assembly ?
If the decision was not in Paul's favour, the claims of truth
and of prudence alike must have led him to mention it. Much,
however, of what is recorded in Acts— ^.^., the speech of Peter
(15 7-1 1) — points very clearly to a decision in P.aul's favour ; and
to pass this over in silence would have been folly.
The picture presented in Acts, therefore, of a decisive
public assembly is entirely incorrect.
The case is similar with what is said, or implied, as
to Paul's attitude towards the original apostles. Accord-
ing to Acts, he holds quite a subordinate
6. Paul's
attitude to
the original
position. He is allowed to state his
case, but not to take part in the debate :
he has simply to submit to the decision.
apost es. According to Galatians, he debates as
with his ecjuals. Indeed, he e\en refers to the original
apostles ironically as 'of repute,' 'reputed to be
pillars,' 'to be somewhat' [01 SoKOVvres [crruXoi elvai or
elvai Tt] ; 22 96).
Even if it be granted that the title, 'pillars' (oi o-tOAoi) may
have been originally applied to them by their adherents as a
term of honour, the phrase ' reputed ' (oi SoKovvm) cannot have
been so used. It is e.xplicitiy derogatory. The most that can
be done to soften the force of Pauls irony is to conjecture that
he did not invent the expression until the incident at Antioch
had diminished his respect for them.
Paul took Titus as his companion of set purpose.
The uncircumcised assistant of his missionary labours
.would serve as an 'object-lesson' in
7. yuestion 0 syppQ[.( q{ j^jg fundamental principle.
"^ rrt^^^^^ An attempt was made to procure his
0 1 us. circumcision; but, owing to the opposi-
tion of Paul and Barnabas, it had to be abandoned.
This is clearly the meaning of Gal. 2 3-5, and only the most
violent feats of critical ingenuity can find any other explanation
of the passage. One interpretation is that no atternpt whatever
was made (ovk -qvayKda-Bri) to procure the circumcision of Titus.
If so, why the opposition of Paul and Barnabas? Again, the
attempt was made, yet not on grounds of principle, but in the
interest of Paul, to save him from daily defilement. How did
he avoid defilement from other Gentile converts, with many of
whom he associated daily ? Perhaps, on account of the ' false
brethren,' Paul did, after all, of his own accord, allow Titus to
be circumcised. Did he hope thereby to maintain the truth of
the gospel (Gal. 2 5) that no man need be circumcised? It has
even been proposed to follow the Greek text and the Latin
version of D with Irenasus, TertuUian, and other Western fathers,
in omitting the negative (oiifie) in Gal. 25 (whether ' to whom,'
ots, also be omitted is of less importance), as if Paul could have
been so blind as to consider compliance at the most critical
moment to be harmless, because only temporary (n-pbs topav).
It is, on the contrary, probable that after 2 5, to complete the
sentence beginning with 2 4, we ouijht to supply not ' we did not
give place' (ovk eifa/u.ei'), as if, had the false brethren not
appeared, Paul would have been prepared to comply, but '(on
account of the false brethren) it was all the more necessary to
offer a strenuous opposition.' For at the outset they had de-
manded the circumcision of all Gentile converts even. As this
is expressly stated in Acts 15 i 5, it is the more cert.iin that it is
necessarily presupposed by the negative (ovSt) of Gal. 2 3 ; no-
thing worse occurred, and not even Titus was compelled to be
circumcised. The worst thing that might have occurred would,
according to 2 2, have been that Paul should have run in vain
(eU Ktv'ov eSpafnevf—i.e., that a decree should have been p.issed
prohibiting the admission of Gentiles into Christianity without
circumcision.
Thus the demand for the circumcision of Titus appears
COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM
ns a compromise proposed for the first time when the
original proposal for the circumcision of all Gentile con-
verts met with insuperable opposition from I'aul and
Barnabas. The very circumstantiality of a conference
that passed through so many asjx'cts is enough to show
that these projjosals could not possibly have been made
without at least the moral support of the original apostles.
Had the latter Ix-en on I'aul's side from the first (it has
been held that they are to be included in the subject of
'gave place,' {[^afifv), any attempt of the kind must
have been instantly frustrated by their authority.
It is, therefore, useless to construe Cial. 24 as a reason subse-
quently introduced to explain "J 3, as though the circumcision of
Titus was refused by all parties alike, for the reason that it was
demanded by the 'false brethren' alone. Considerations of
language also render inadmissiljle the other interpretation, which
supplements so as to read 'and indeed on behalf of the "false
brethren "... it was said that he ought to be compelled to be
circumcised (iji/ayicdcrSr) without ovk).' The importance attached
to the memory of the case of Titus is best shown in Acts ; his
name is never mentioned at all, those who accompanied Paul
to the conference being ' liariiabas and certain others' (rii/es
oAAoi, Acts 15 2; see Acts, g 9). It is not going too far,
therefore, to say that the original apostles were at the outset
undecided in their attitude ; indeed, if we may judge by what
occurred soon afterwards at .\ntioch, this understates the case.
In harmony with this attitude was that which they
adopted towards the subsequent mission to the Cientiles.
8. The apostles '^•'^"''^ l^™'^''^^, °^ admitting GtMUiles
and the mission ^' '"^''"•^'^'"' ""^ ''^° Chr.stian Church
to the Gentiles.
without circumcision cannot have ol
tained the sanction of the other
apostles at the outset. .Assent was wrung from them
with lUniculty. Indeed, they did not give way on any
ground of principle ; otherwise their behaviour in the
dispute at -Antioch would have been impossible. They
ga\ e way only because of the divine verdict as shown
by the event (t'Scures . . . 'Yv6vTes rijv X'^^pi-" ^V" Soddadv
fioL, (ial. 279; cp Actsl;")4i2), to which they submitted
perforce, though without recognising its underlying
justilication. Peter and James, therefore, cannot have
expressed themselves, even api)ro.ximately, as in Acts
1 07-21 they are said to have spoken. Had what Peter
(157/ ) enjoins in regard to Cornelius really occurred,
there would have been no Council of Jerusalem at all
(Acts, § 4).
Peter is further said (15 9) to have declared that God had re-
moved the difference between Jews and (jentiles by purifying the
hearts of the Gentiles — as though in the eyes ofa Jew the impurity
of the Gentiles were impurity of the heart alone. He is, moreover,
represented as saying (15 11) that his hope ofs.ilvation was through
the grace of tiod alone, whereas at Antioch he maintained that
the observance of the Law was necessary to salvation. Finally
(15 10), he calls the Law a yoke intolerable even to the Jews ; yet
at Antioch he again submitted himself to it. He calls it a
tempting of God to put the yoke on the Gentiles also ; yet at
Antioch he broke with the Gentiles because they did not take
it on themselves, thus putting moral pressure upon them to
Judaise ' (iouSaifeic : Gal. '2 14). In short, the speech of Peter
is so eminently Pauline that Weizsacker found it possible to
believe that the author of Acts took the speech of Paul against
Peter in tJal. '2 14-21 as the foundation for its composition.
There is evidence on the other side that the author did to some
extent correctly estimate the positions of the speakers— in the
fact that the speech of James is considerably more reserved. The
reference to Cornelius in 15 14, however, is just as unhistoricalas
that in Ibj/. James cannot possibly have employed the quota-
tion from Amos unless it be maintained that the discussion was
carried on in the language of the hated foreigners; for in the
original it is not said that the residue of men and all nations to
whom God's name had been made known should seek the Lord
— it is only said that the Israelites should again attain to political
dominion over Kdom and the other nations that had at any time
been under the dominion of God {i.e., of Israel).! And James
pays his tribute to Paulinism if he implies that the impo.sition of
the whole Mosaic Law upon the Gentiles is a burden to them
from which, as being such, they ought to be relieved (15 19).
Furthermore, he did not make the positive proposal of 15 20.
See below, g 10.
The result of the conference, according to Galatians,
was a 'fellowship' (Koivuvla) (29). What the precise
' It was the LXX that first read ic'^T instead of i55n"i pointing
Q-m instead of DIN, and making DIK nnxt:', etc., subject
instead of object ; and only a few MSS of the LXX have gone
so far as to supply the now lacking object, without any support
from the original, by interpolating toi' xvpioi'.
extent of this Koiviavia was can be learned only by
9 Result of '"^'^'■^'"ce from the incidental facts.
Council accord- ^ '^'''"'T of ntissionary districts was
ingtoGaL '"''^'^^f- The reason why the
° original apostles desired to carry
on their work only among the Jews can be gathered
with absolute certainty from the situation of affairs
which had Ik-cii brought about. The separation
of the missionary districts had Ix-en the result of
the conference concerning the circumcision of the
Gentile converts. Had the circumcision of these
converts lx.'en decided on, the original apostles need
have felt as little cause to shrink from missions to the
Gentiles as a Jew had to shrink from the work of
winning proselytes. As the sequel at Antioch shows,
what they found intolerable was the idea of that intimate
daily association with uncircumcised brethren which
would have become unavoidable if missionary work had
been engaged in by them without circumcision of the
Gentiles. That was the reason why they abandoned
this part of the work to Paul and Barnabas. To look
for the reason of the .separation of missionary districts
in differences of aptitude for winning either Gentiles or
natural Jews is to misapprehend the causes that were
really at work. Such considerationc as those mentioned
may have had some concurrent influence ; but how
could the scene at Antioch have been possible if difl'er-
ence of aptitudes had been the sole or even the chief
cause of the separation ? Not a word is there said about
Peter's missionary work : the only question is w hether
he is prepared to eat at the same table with Gentile
converts.
It is eciually certain that the separation of districts
was intended in an ethnographical, not in a geographical,
sense. Had the original apostles undertaken to labour
for the conversion of the Gentiles as well as for that
of the Jews in Palestine without insisting upon cir-
cumcision, they would immediately there have found
themselves face to face with all the difficulties which
had caused them to avoid the Gentile countries and
confine their efforts to the land of their fathers.
The separation had no purpose unless missions to
natural Jews were to be assigned to them as their
province. Conversely, Paul and Barnabas were, of
course, to go only to men of Gentile birth : Jews seek-
ing salvation whom they met in Gentile countries they
were bound to turn away, referring them for guidance
to itinerant Jewish-Christian missionaries. This
might have led to the further conseciuence that in one
and the same town there would have ari.sen two
Christian conmmnitics, one of Jews and one of tjentiles.
Association at meals, as well as at the Lord's Supper,
would have been impossible between them. 'Ihis
intolerable state of affairs, however, was exactly what
the Pauline churches had long ago contrived to avert ;
and this success was regarded by Paul as the highest
triumph of the view of Christianity which he advocated.
It is very reasonable to ask how he could have had any
share in an arrangement by which, in the churches he
had founded, the wall of separation between Jewish
and Gentile Christians, which it had cost so much
labour to destroy, was again raised up. To fall back
on the view that the separation was intended to be
geographical would, liowever, be wrong. A separation
on such a basis the apostles, as has already been
shown, could not possibly have accepted. It would be
necessary to draw the conclusion that the statement of
Galatians must be pronounced unhistorical, and the
epistle itself non- Pauline, were there really no other
way out of the difficulty. Before taking this step,
howevei , we shall do well to remember that men have
often enough agreed upon a compromise without hav-
ing formed any adequately clear conception of its
consequences. The Christian church would speedily
have fallen asunder into two separate communities, the
one of Jewish and the other of Gentile Christians, had
922
COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM
no agreement been reached. Neither of the parties
was able to abandon its view : each felt itself under
a strict religious obligation to maintain its own principles.
There must, therefore, have been the greatest eagerness
to grasp at any fcjrmula that presented itself as a
solution. ' We to the Jews, you to the Gentiles,'
appeared to be a fornuila of the kind, and joy in the
renewed sense of brotherhood may have blinded men's
eyes to the impracticability of the proposal. This
would happen all the more readily if the formula was
so loose that each party could understand it in a
different sense. In the absence of more precise de-
finition, the geographical interpretation must have
seemed to Paul as obviously the correct one as the
ethnographical interpretation appeared to the other
apostles — to Paul, who became not merely to the Gentiles
a Gentile, but also to the Jews a Jew, that he might by
all means win some, and, in order to save those belong-
ing to his own race, would willingly have been accursed
from Christ (i Cor. 9 20/ Rom. 93 ; cp B.^VN, § 1). In
the scene at .\ntioch the misunderstanding revealed itself
only too clearly ; l)ut this does not prove that there was
no misunderstanding at Jerusalem. Even in the aspect
under which the matter had to be presented -A the con-
ference at Jerusalem, the unity sought for was limited.
The ' right hand of fellowship' (de^ia Koivuvia?) which
they held out to each other was at the same time a
parting handshake. According to their fundamental
principles, the Jewish Christians neither would nor could
have any very intimate communion, any really brotherly
intercourse, with the Gentile Christians. It is worthy of
notice that the support of the poor is represented in Gal.
2 10 less as being the only demand made upon the
Pauline churches than as being the only bond by which
the two halves of Christendom were to be kept together.
There is, however, no necessity for assuming that these
alms from the Gentile Christians were like temple dues,
or intended to express a position of inferiority as com-
pared with that of Jewish Christians. In view of the
notorious poverty of the church at Jerusalem (see CoM-
Mi'NiTY OF Goods, § 5), it would have been unreason-
able to require reciprocity, and doubtless Paul was glad
to evince his goodwill on such neutral ground. For
the rest, it was quite impossible that the Gentiles should
be treated by the Jews as having equal rights and full
citizenship in the kingdom of God. The OT promises
applied only to the chosen race and to those who had
been received into it by circumcision. The Jewish
Christians had made the concession — from their point
of view a concession of real magnitude — of sanction-
ing the mission to the Gentiles without circumcision ;
but it was not to be supposed that this could be
granted except on the basis that this class of
converts was to hold somewhat the same position as
that of the semi-proselytes [ffe^bixevoi rbv debv) among
the Jews ; they figured only as a ' younger branch in
the kingdom of God. ' In no case could the original
apostles have set the same value on the conversion of
these Christians of the second class through the agency
of Paul as on their own missionary activity. It is
remarkable that Gal. 2&b does not run, on the analogy
of 2 8rt, 'unto the apostleship of the Gentiles' (f^y
airoaTo\r)v t2v idvuv). Freedom of construction is, of
course, a characteristic of Paul's style, and thus ' unto
the Gentiles' (etj tA idvi)) also may be explained ks
a case of brachylogy. Still, it is noteworthy that — ^.;»-. ,
in I Cor. 9 1 — he does not base any appeal on the fact
that apostleship (dTrotrroXij) had been conceded to him
by the original apostles. How effective — if op)en to him
— this appeal would have been against the Judaizers at
Corinth who called his apostleship in question, and set
up those very apostles as the supreme authority I The
truth is that he does not appear to have received any
such recognition. Thus he would seem to have been
recognised only as a fellow-worker, in the Christian field,
not as a iully accredited apostle.
923
According to Acts, the result of the Council was the
decree in 15 23-29. Nevertheless, as long as the words
10. The decree ' !^P^""'^ "°^^ing to me ' {i,.oi. . .
in Acta ovoif irpoaaviOevTo), m Gal. 2 6, are
allowed to stand, we shall be pre-
cluded from accepting this finding as a formal decree.
"Whether the words mean ' The SoKovvrtt imparted
nothing further to me ' (so according to 1 16), or that
' They made no further rejoinder to my communication '
(so according to 22), is immaterial. Their meaning is
made clear by ' contrariwise ' (Tovvavriov) in 2 7 : ' Not
only did they say nothing unfavourable to me, but also
they pledged themselves to fellowship with me.' We
cannot better convince ourselves of the certainty of this
conclusion than by examining the attempts that have
been made to avoid it.
Theologians have done their utmost to maintain that Paul
was justified in using the words iiioX ovSev npo<ravt8evro, instead
of mentioning the decree of the apostles, because the decree was
known to the (lalatians already, or because he did not want to
put a weapon into the hand of his opponents, or because the
decree was only temporary — perhaps, not binding at all, but
merely having reference to a custom, the object of which has
been even discovered to be the protection of the (lentiles against
trichinosis. In the last of these methods of evading the
interpretation stated above, all idea of a formal decree having
been promulgated is ^iven up ; but even if the agreement on the
substance of the decision had been only verbal, Paul could not
have said, e/xol ovSev irpocraveBd'TO.
Apart from this, the dispute at Antioch conclusively
disproves the historicity of the decision, whether in the
form of a regular decree or not. It is clear that any such
arrangement, had it been come to, would have had the
effect of rendering it possible for Jewish and Gentile
Christians to associate with one another at meals. If
(as is stated in Actslt^) Paul and Silas continued to
enforce the decree during their next journey, we are
bound all the more to suppose that it came into force
at Antioch innncdiately after its pronuilgation there.
In that case, James and his followers had no reason for
taking offence at Peter's eating with Cientile converts.
If, then, we are forced to admit that no arrangement
of this nature was made at the Council at all, there are
many who would like to retain the opinion that Paul
was substantially in favour of such an arrangement.
This, however is a mistake. The four prohibitions are
taken, either from the seven ' Noachic
precepts ' (as they are called in the
Talmud), by means of which a modus
Vivendi is said to have been arrived at between the Jews
and the ' sons of Noah ' (the Gentiles), or directly from
the original ordinances on which those are based (Lev.
1710-1830), which likewise were promulgated, not for
the Israelites alone, but also for the foreigners in their
midst. The latter source is the more probable, for
the Talmud prohibits actual unchastity ; but it cannot
be doubted that, had such a prohibition appeared to l)e
at all necessar)' in Acts 15, the prohibition of murder and
of theft would also have been adopted from the Talmud.
In its association with ordinances so far from being
common to all mankind, so peculiarly Jewish, as the
prohibition of blood, of the flesh of animals that had
died or been strangled, and of the flesh of animals
sacrificed to idols, it is much more likely that the
interdict upon what is here called iropvela refers to
marriages within the degrees of affinity forbidden in Lev.
I86-18 (cp Bastard). Moreover, as the passage in
Leviticus lies at the foundation of Acts 15, in a general
way only, it is possible that marriages with Gentiles also
may have been included ; these were prohibited by Ex.
34 16 Dt. 73 Ezra 9 2, and would have made it quite im-
po.ssible for a Jewish Christian to enter the house of a
Gentile who had contracted such a marriage.
Now, as to Paul's view in regard to eating things sacri-
ficed to idols, we have full and exact information. As a
general rule (i Cor. 8 IO23-33 Rom. 14 14) he allows it :
it is to be avoided only in cases where it might cause
offence to a weak Christian who mistakenly thinks that
the Levitical prohibition of it is of perpetual obligation.
924
11. Its prohibi
tions.
COUNCIL OP JERUSALEM
Paul does recognise, it is true, one exception, which he
mentions in i Cor. 10 14-22, though, curiously, not in
the exactly similar case in 810 (cp Dkmons, § 8) ; but
even this passage contains no prohibition of the practice
excepting at a religious ceremony of this kind. In the
decree of Acts, on the contrary, the eating of things
offered to idols is, it need hardly be said, forbidden in
all circumstances, just as to partake of blood, or of the
flesh of animals that have died or been strangled, is
forbidden. Here the prohibition turns on the nature
of the thing itself (cp dXlayrifia, Acts 1.') 20) : the soul
was thought to reside in the blood (Ixv. 17 u m). -ind
to eat the soul would have been an abomination. Now,
as Paul docs not concur in the decree of the apostles
on the question of eating animals sacrificed to idols, it
would not l)e wise to assume his agreement in regard
to the prohibition of blood and of the fiesh of animals
that had died or been strangled, about which we have
no expression of opinion by him. As to the question
of marriage, he carried on an uncompromising warfare
against unchastity of every kind (i Cor. 5 612-20) ; but
unchastity does not appear to have been what was
intended in the decree of the apostles. Marriages with
unbelievers, on the contrary, he did, it is true, advise
against (i Cor. 739), but in no case on grounds of
principle. Otherwise he could not have enjoined that
a Christian married to an unbelieving spou.sc should
continue the relation if the other consented ; nor could
he have declared that the unlxjlieving spouse was
sanclilied by marriage with a Christian, and that even
the children of a mixed marriage were holy (iCor.
712-14). The children were not bapti.sed ; if they had
been, their sanctity would have been a consequence of
their baptism, and not deducible from their connection
with their parents simply. Accordingly, if Paul dis-
courages marriages with unbelievers for the future (739),
his reason cannot have lieen that they were in themselves
wrong, but only that they were incompatible with the
deeper spiritual sympathy of true spouses. On these
grounds we are obviously still less entitled to assume
that Paul would have pronounced to be wrong all
marriages within the degrees of affinity, down to that
with a sister-in-law, forbidden in Lev. I86-18, except in
those cases which are manifestly contrary to nature, as,
e._^., that given in i Cor. 5 1-8. On no single point,
therefore, does Paul even express substantial agreement
with the restrictions imposed by the decree of the
apostles. ^
The last attempt to rescue some renmants of credi-
bility for Acts connects itself with 21 25. Here I'aul
is acquainted with the decree of the apostles as if it
were something new. It is absolutely impossible to
reconcile this with the representation of Acts 15 ; but
it is suggested that, if the latter has to be abandoned
on account of Galatians, it may be possible to retain at
least what is said in Acts 21. On this view the apostles
issued the decree simply on their own responsibility,
without consulting Paul ; and this version of the matter
was derived by the author from one of his sources.
Unfortunately, the source of this passage (at least,
according to all attempts hitherto made to distinguish
the sources of Acts) is made out to be the same as
that of Acts 1 020, or of I528/. , or of tolh. those
p?5sages. To avoid this conspicuous failure in the
ar;Tunient, J. Weiss deletes from the account in
1 Some scholars have upheld the modified view that these
restrictions were at all events customarily observed at the time
among the (ientile Christians, many of whom had previously
been semi-proselytes to Judaism and would therefore have
naturally continued to obey these ordinances as Christians ;
and these would have been followed by the other Gentile con-
verts. The only church, however, concerning which we have
any information in this conneciion proves the contrary. In
Corinth Paul had to contend with the very worst modes of
unchastity, and with practices in regard to things offered to
idols that went too far even for him ; and mixed marriages were
quite usual. It is hardly possible to believe that things could
nave been so completely different elsewhere, even if Corinth was
exceptionally bad in these respects.
925
155-1113-33 (for 15 1-4 13, see above, § i div. /.)
all references to Paul and Barnabas (15 2225) as
editorial additions, and assumes that in the original
source I55-11 13-33 related only to the conference of the
original apostles among themselves, which is then
called to mind in 21 25. Apart from the extreme bold-
ness of this assumption, it is to l>e remarked that
this particular source is considered by W'ei.ss himself,
as well as by all other critics of the sources of Acts, to
be untrustworthy. In particular, the verse in question
(21 25) has been actually taken to be an interpolation,
and in fact is so little necessary to the context that if it
were wanting its absence would not be noticed. Read
with the context, it causes no difficulty ; but the
context itself is not historical (see Acts, § 7). In
any conceivable view, therefore, suspicion is thrown
on the verse by a critical examination of the sources.
In the absence of any confirmation, it certainly does
not possess enough of internal probability to justify its
acceptance.
In fine, it appears that the Tubingen school is not
without justification n maintaining that the decree of
the apostles is a fiction invented by the author for the
purpose of promoting a union of Jewish and Gentile
Christians. Only, in the second century it would have
been little calculated to secure this object. The as-
sumption is that these regulations were new at the time
of writing. Now, they contain very stringent restric-
tions upon the freedom of the Gentile Christians in the
interests of the Jewish ; but the Gentiles were at that
time so largely in the majority and so full of the
consciousness of their title to membership in the Church,
that they would hardly have ac(|uiesced in such re-
strictions then. Besides, the regulations contained in
the decree of the apostles must, in their essence, have
l)een actually in force at the time of the composition of
Acts (see Acts, § 16), however little they may have
been so in the first century.
The Epistle of Barnabas (36 4 6) betrays traces of this in
the complaint that Christians believed themselves bound to
observe the Mosaic Law, and from the middle of the second
century there is evidence of this on all hands (/?/</. f> 3 ; Justin,
Dill/. 35 ; Luc. r/t* »ii>r/. Pc'Cgr. 16 ; Epistle frovi Liigdunumo/
the year 177; in Kus. //A"v. I26; Irensus, artV'. Hirr.x.di
[ch. I,§i2]); Tertullian, .4/^/. chaps. 7 9 ; Min. Felix, Octav.y>\
Chut. Hoiii."! T,/. 8, and i^rrfijf. 4 36 ; Clem. Alex. }\rii. iii. 25
(ii. 8/, Strom, iqt), ed. Svlburg, 62, 98, ziq/.); Origen, c.
Cels. 8(24)30; Orac. Si7'y//.2g6).
Possibly the first traces of such a custom or of an
attempt to introduce it are to be found in Rev. 2 14 20-25.
where the writer speaks only of meat ofifered to idols and
of vopveicL.
The solution of the question would thus seem to be
that the author of Acts, finding this custom in his own
day, assumed in simple faith that it must date back to
the time of the apostles, and (by a bold process of
combination) represented its establishment as being the
settlement of the dispute which he knew to have raged
in those early times. His reverence for the apostles
and the assumption (to him a matter of course) that
complete harmony had prevailed among them supplied
colours for the picture which differs so widely from the
truth. In any case, the gradual rise of the custom
itself finds its explanation in the effort to establish a
modus Vivendi between Jewish and Gentile Christians.
Only, it was due not to the demands of the strict Jewish
Christians of the Council of Jerusalem — men who could
not have been satisfied by the observance of so small a
portion of the Law— but rather to the demands of the
Jewish Christians of the Dispersion, who had on their
own side long ago emancipated themselves from strict
obedience to the Law, yet could not overcome their
repugnance to certain extreme deviations from it.
In conclusion, we learn from our investigation of the
subject that the Council of Jerusalem did not possess
. the importance which its comparatively
12. Conclusion, ^^^j^, ^.^amcter appears to claim for
it. It had far less influence upon the history of primitive
926
COUNSELLOR
Christianity than the dispute at Antioch, which speedily
undid everything that the Council of Jerusalenj had
achieved. The discussion of the question has led to
elucidations of the h'ghest value for a knowledge of the
position of ]iartics among the early Christians. These
were not, as the Tiibingcn Scliool assumed, only two.
They were at least four^the parties (or, as they should
rather be termed, the 'schools') of Paul, of I'eter, of
James, and of the 'false brethren.' Thus, even from
the earliest period, there were the intermediate positions
between extreme parties, which, according to the
Tubingen School, onlv arose from compromises in the
second century. Prnnitive Christianity presents a
picture far more rich in detail and in colour than that
view supposes. Its critics must be prepared to take
into account the finest distinctions of shade.
The critical discussion of the subject was initiated by the
Tubingen school: Haur {/'aiiliis, 1S45); Schwegler (Xadi.
a/>osfc<lfsr/,f Znta/Ur, 1846) ; Zeller(.J/.vA7'-
13. Literature, i^wc/;. 1854). The laterphosesof the critical
position are represented by Lipsius (Sclicn-
kel's Bib. Lex. s.7'. ' Apostelconvent,' and Handcoiiiiii. 2 2) ;
Weizsiicker (//>/", 1873, pp. 191-246, .and A/: /.citalt.');
Pfleiderer(.//'7'. i383, pp. 7S-104, 241-262, and y'a»//«'VwM) ;
Hohzmann (/.U'l'. 10S2, pp. 436-464, and 1883, pp. 159-165);
Hilgenfeld(Z/;'/', in v.irious articles, the latest in 1899, pp. 138-
149, with a new edition of the text). Of an apologetical
character are the contributions of I. Ch. K. v. Hofniann, Die
heil. .SV/ir. NT 1 12J-140, 2nd ed. 126-145): Carl Schmidt (^Dc
apostolorum tiixirti sententia, 1874, and in ri\Ey^\ s.7'.
'Apostelkonvent'); Zimmer (^Vj/a/tv/.;-. ;^. .•)/,-,? VA,vv</r. 1882);
Fr.-vnke (.S7. A';-. 1800, pi>. 659-687). Of the ' mediating ' school ;
Keimirn/iri.f. i. 1,4.89 \'7^\): (Irimm (,S7. A>. 1880, pp. 405-
432). C"p M. \V. Jacobus (i'r,-s/'j'/. txmi R,/. Kfriew, 1897, pp.
509-528. P. W. S.
COUNSELLOR, EV twice Cf)rNCii,i,ou (4, below).
I'retjucnt in l'.\' in a general sense, without any official
meaning, or, mure si^ecifically, of the king's personal
adviser or advisers, for which the technical term is
T'STD (FA' Rkcokdhk) ; .see (iovF.KNMKNT, § 21.
The following terms come into consideration : —
I. rj-V, yoi's, as a title, applied to .Vhithophel (2S. I.'ii2
I Ch. il 33), and Jonathan (i Ch. 27 32 |i nSIDI ]-2:2 r'N). Why
Zechariah [57.7'., <\ is styled ' wise counsellor ' (?pb' j'J,'V) in 1 Ch.
•2()i4 is hard to say; the te.vt is prob.ably faulty, j'i^i" may
mean 'giver of oracles' (see context); similarly in Is. 41 28
(cp ■l-t26) 2 Ch. •J.'iiO. It is otherwise used generally; cp Is.
l!>ii Pr. 11 14 Job 3 14, etc. <P"Na renders by /SovAevTjj? in
Job;^i4 I-17: but more conununly <ru/ix^ouAos. In 2S. Sis
(Bi:ai, incorrectly .applies the term crvn^ouAos to J'i;\.\iAii (i),
apparently reading j-yv for yTin' ; i" <PBi.'s addition to i K. 2
46 h) on the other hand, 6 crv^^ouAos referring to Kaxoup(HP 93,
^a[<tl)(Oup) uib? Naeai/ inay rest upon old tradition. He can be
no other than Zabud «axoup [LI. HI' 93 ia.K\ovp)h. Nathan who
is mentioned in i K. 45 as the 'king's friend' (so ,MT ; see
Zabld, i). The Aram, equivalent "'yi'L:!*; (pi. with suff.) in
Ezra 7 14^; is used in reference to the seven counsellors of the
Persian king ; cp the seven princes of Media and Persia in
Esth. 1 13.
2. K^'^?"'^, ii'-tliah<rayyn,x>\. Dan. 3 2 3, the Pers. data-bara,
law-giver, hence a judicial authority.
3- '*^"!'?5!!', hadddbfrayya, pi. D.an. 82427 436133] f) 7 [s], an
unknown .\ram. official title. No doubt a compound of the
Pers. bara (cp above) ; the first part of the name is perhaps
corrupt. The context plainly shows that the personal attendants
of the king are intended. For 2 .and 3, see Comm. ad loc, and
cp E. Meyer, F.ntst. 23.
4. /SouAeuTT)?,! Mk. i.5 43 Lk. 23 50, RV 'councillor,' applied
to Joseph of .Vrimathaea (Joseph, 15), see GoveknmivNT, § 31.
5. <riin3ouAos, used genenally, Rom. 11 34 (quoting Is. 40 13).
crufijSouAos occurs also in the Apoc, cp Ecclus. 66 37 7y., and
42 21 (where Hcb. j'32).
COURT (iVn, ay^h). 'an open enclosure,' used
commonly in EV with reference to the Tkmi'LE [^.f.]
(Ex.279 Ezek. 816 and often) also of the court of a
house (2.S 17 18), or p.alace (i K. 78) ; see Hou.se, § 2.
For the 'court of the guard" (RV, AV ' . . . of the
prison'), n-^sD "i^n, Jer. 322, etc., see Jerusai.km.
' Court ' in Is. 34 13 EV, 35 7 EVniK-, is used indefinitely of an
abode. The MT h.as the corrupt form "l>'n (a.v\i\ in 34 13
[BN-^QD). In 2 K 2O4 the AVm?. RV 'city' follows the Kt.
1 In Palm. KBlS'3.
927
1. Terms.
COVENANT
TJ'> for which the I- r. correctly presents Isn ' court ' (of the
citadel: see AV, RV"is.). Finally, 'court' in Am. 7 13 AV
is used in a different sense, with reference to the royal ' palace '
(cp RV).
A later designation of the temple court is ,tiij?, 'dzdrdh
(2Ch. 49, along with -isn, and 613! ; avXi)), a word Oi
uncertain origin common in MH, not to be confused
with the ecjually obscure .i-iij;, EV 'settle,' RV"'K-.
better, ' ledge," viz. of the altar (Ezek. 4.314-20 45i9t).
In NT ai'Xj? is applied to the sheepfold (Jn. IO116),
and the temple enclosure (Rev. 11 2). Elsewhere (in
the Gospels) RV regularly reads ' court ' for AV
•palace' (<-.,^., Mt. 26369 Mk. I45466) or ' h.all" (Mk.
]."»i6 Lk. 2255), and nowhere recognises (with Meyer,
etc. ) the classical usage of ai'Xij, to denote a house or
building.
The 'fore-court' (Mk. 14 68 RV"'e-, irpoavXiov) is
the first of the two (or more) courts which the larger
buildings contained : see HofSK.
COUSIN (ANeyiOC; Col. 4 10 RV, .\V 'sister's
son'), in classical Cireek a 'first cousin" or 'cousin'
generally; also 'nephew," 'niece.' In Xu. 3«3ii it
renders -i'n p. Tobit is called the autxpio^ of Raguel
( Tob. 7 2 ; also 96 [S]).
In I-k. 1 36 58 the word (ovyyenJ!, (Tvyyei'i<;) is quite gener.al ;
RV in NT rightly aKvavs 'kinsman,' 'kinswoman,' pi. 'kins-
folk.' In ii:sd.:i7 442 1 M.acc.1131 (RV 'kinsman') it is a
title given by a king to one whom he desired to honour.
COUTHA, RVCuTHA (KOYeA[A\ om. BL), a family
of Netliinim in the gre.at post -exilic list (see Ezra, ii. § 8) i Esd.
,^.32|.\1 unmeniioncd in i:zra2 52 Neh. 7 54— whose name may
possibly be connected with CuTMAU (2 K. 17.24).
COVENANT. The word JT'IS (bi'rWi) probably
occurred about 285 times in the original OT. Its
constant rendering in © is diadrjKrj (cn>vdi)KT]
Dan. 116; ivroXai [Pj] or irpocTTd-yfjiaTa
[.\], I K. 11 11). AiadrjKT] is used in a few instances
for a kindred term. Vet it is safe to assume that in
the original Hebrew texts of Ecclesiasticus, i Maccal>ees,
Psalter of Solomon, Assumption of Moses, Jubilees,
Judith, the .Apocalypse of Ezra, and Testaments of the
Twelve Patriarchs, n"ia was used at least seventy
times where our versions give biadr}K-r], ffvvdi)K-q, or an
equivalent.
.■V<iuila and Symm.achus usually, Theodotion frequently,
rendered the word OMvOriKr). Hoth words are found in Wisdom o<
Solomon and 2 Maccabees. The NT writers, fijllowing the Alex-
andrian version, used exclusively 6iae>JKT), and this determined the
usage in early Christian literature. The Targums translated
invariably c«<p ; the Pesh. of the OT gives ),.>a.»f>, but in
M.al. 24 Zech.Oii transliterates hiaey^Kr], the method adopted
also by the Edessene versions of the NT. In Enoch t>06,
Ethiopic viafjala probably represents Siafl^KT), originally p-p.
It is significant that the .Assyrio-Habylonian is the
only cognate language in which the word has lx;en found.
, ////-/7« means : (i) fetter; (2) alliance,
2. Larly covenant ; (3) firmness, solidity. Fetters
, were placed upon the culprit, the
vanquished enemy, the representative
of a conquered city or country, to hold him and to
signify power over him ; in chains he received his own
sentence or the decree touching his home and people
(Sennacherib, ii. 71 ; 5 R. 2, 109 etc.). .\ fettered
rival might be put under obligations and made an ally,
and such an enforced sulwrdination might, by a simple
metaphor, be designated 'enchainment.' This term
was then extended to every alliance, even where the
parties were in a position to decide upon a mutually
binding decree, as in the ca.se of Kara-inda.s and
.■\sur-l)el-nisisu, 2 R 65 (K. 4406). .\s etjuals did not
actually lay shackles upon each other, this is evidently
a figurative use of the word ; and as the thought of
mutual obligation cannot have lx:«n immediately
suggested by the iinposition of fetters, it is as clearly
secondary. The royal word of judgment or assurance,
particularly when strengthened by an oath, was the
fetter that could not Ije broken. A ' fettered ' house
history of
word 'berlth.
COVENANT
was one firmly built, a ' fcttorcil ' place one surrounded
\>y solid walls, 2 R 38, 15-17 (ip birtu ; fortress,
fortified town, from the same root, Shalni. ob. 34, and
see Del. Ass. llWIi, 185).
From the Amarna correspondence we know that some
time U'fore the Hebrew invasion a Habylonian dialect
was written, and uniloulUedly also to
3. Primary
some extent spoken, in Palestine. The
™*H*'h^ ^^ Israelites may therefore have tx^come
acquainted with this term through the
Amorites. 'In the nomadic state, the priestly oracle by
the casting of lots, the ,iTn, probably sulficcxl. Agri-
cultural and city life called for increased civil authority.
It is possible that n""a in the sense of 'binding
ordinance," 'sentence,' was adopted to supply the need
of a corresponding word to designate the judicial
decision of a ruler.
In the Klohistic narratives the denominative ,113 occurs with
ihe signiricance ' to appoint ' (i S. 17k). The noun was still used
l)y the author of Kcclcsiasticus to denote the sentence pro-
nounced by ."x judge (3833). The fact that the dominant idea
attached to the word at all times was that of u binding decree is
better accounted for by this Babylonian derivation than by
recourse to the Arabic banl 'to sever.' It also yields a satis-
factory explanation of the early appearance of nna in the sense
of 'alliance,' and its occurrence wiil> the signification of 'com-
munity,' 'nation.' On the other hand, the sometimes-observed
ceremony of passing between the severed pieces of an animal in
making a solemn pledge may have been an inheritance from the
nomadic period. In the phrase ri"i3 n"lD> possibly testifying to
tl\is lite, the verb throws no more light upon the noun than in
the Greek bpitta i4ii.vfi.v \ whilst the secondary meaning of rnr.
'to ilecree' (cp the gloss to Hag. 'J 5), bears witness to the
jnimary and persistent significance of nns-
Tile classical distinction between diaOrjKT] {dialheki,
will) and avvOrjKr] {syntheke, agreement) was not entirely
lost in Hellenistic Greek.
av\'Sr\KTi\ is exclusively used of a political alliance in r and
2 Mace. A<iuila's preference for avvQr)KT\ cannot be explained
l)y prejudice ; its use by Symmachus was evidently dictated by
considerations of style ; even Tbeodotion's conservatism did not
l)revcTit him from abandoning at times the uniform rendering of
ilic- iilclcNi (ireek version. In view of this, the deliberate choice
of huiOt'iKi} by the .Mexandrian translators can scarcely have
lieen due to anything else than a consciousness of the funda-
mental meaning of ri'l^- This likewise applies to the indepen-
dent rendering of the word by c>p in the Targums.
(i. ) 0'7'//. — In civil life the Hebrews seem to have
employed the word to denote sentence, decree, ordin-
ance, statute, law, pledge, testament,
alliance, covenant, community, nation.
.\ successful leader against the enemy
4. Specialised
significations.
was in early Israel designated a judge (csic), because
the foe was regarded as a transgressor, the victory as
a judgment, and the valorous chief as the natural arbiter
in internal feuds (cpGovKKNMKNT, § 17). Even the king
was a judge as well as a warrior, i K. 3 xtff. fj], i S.820
[E]. \\'hen this unity of the judicial and administrative
functions ceased, the old term designating the decision
of a ruler remained in legal phraseology. A collection
of judicial decisions (c'aECu!) was called a bfirith-book,
Ex.247 ['*-]• *'i6 Sentence was termed a bfirith (Ecclus.
3833). Hut it also continued to denote the victor's
decree affecting the condition of a city that capitulates
(e.g., Jalx'sh, 1 S. 11 1 [J]), a territory that is ceded [e.g.,
Ishbaal's, represented by Abner, 2.S. 812/. 21 [J]), a
rival kingdom that is forced to come to terms (e.g. ,
Benhadad's, i K. 2O34 [E]), or a kingdom reduced to a
state of dependence (e.g., Zedekiah's, Kz. 17 13-19) ; and
it was applied to the ordinance, statute, law, or con-
stitution imposed by a king upon his own people, as
David's (2S. .53 pj), Josiah's (2K.233), Zedekiah's
(Jer. 34 8j^), Anliochus's (Dan. 927: 'he shall imix)se
severe regulations on the many during one week").
Such a royal declaration was considered inviolable ; a
king would not go beyond his word in severity, nor fail
to fulfil his promise. The Jalieshites regarded their
lives as safe, if Nahash would solemnly declare his
willingness to rule over them as his servants. Antiochus
lutpator is severely censured (Is. 338) for himself
violating the constitutional rights he had granted (i
30 qao
COVENANT
Mace. 659^; 2 Mace. 13 22_^). Thus the word assumed
the meaning of ' pledge.' The captains jjlcdgcd them-
selves to ol)ey Jehoiada (2K.II4), the nobles of
Jerusalem to set their slaves free (Jcr. 34 8^), Zcchatiah
and other citizens to drive away their wives (Ezral03).
(ii. ) Domestic. — Applied to domestic relations the
bfrith was at first simply 'the law of the husband*
(Koni. 72). Since a wife was captured, bought, f)r given
in marriage, her absolute subjection to a mans authority
w;is i)roix-'rly characterised as 'enchainment.' Social
development, however, without intrtKlucing the idea of
eq Utility, tended to emphasise the obligations that go w ith
power. The husbantl's bC-rith became a solemn pledge
given before witnesses ( Ez. 1G8 Mai. 214). In this sense
the word could be used ahso of the wife. In I'rov. 2 17
.t.-iVn ma seems to mean ' the promise by her God ' ;
the same pledge of faithfulness is alluded to in Ez. ](J6i
(' not for the sake of thy promise"), and pcjssibly also in
4 Esdr. 25. A father's decision was binding \\\y<n\
his children. Especially the last paternal decree, the
testament, was irrevocable. Whether it was a dis-
jxrsition of profx^rty or a dispensation of blessings and
curses, deemed effectual in antiquity, it was termed a
I)erith (Gal. 3 15 Heb. 'J16/; Test. xii. fair, passim),
and had the nature of a promise.
(iii. ) International. — Between nations equal in jx>wer
a favour conferred or promised calls for <a gift in return.
To perpetuate mutually .advantageous relations, pledges
are exchanged. In this way political alliances may
arise with mutual obligations. The l)est example of
such a covenant is that lietween Solomon and Hiram
(provided the Deuteronomistic note, i K. 526 •r2], can be
relied upon). Of this nature were probably .il.so the
agreements l>etween Hezion and Abijah, Benh.idad and
Asa, and Benhadad and Baasha, referred to in i K. ir>i9
[I]. The Ijerith with Assyri.i, Hos. 122 [1], was originally
intended as an alliance of this kintl, though Hosca had
reason to complain that out of such alliances there
grew only new rights, i.e., demands (IO4). Simon's
league with Rome was of the same character (i Mace.
14242640; Jos. Ant.\\\\.1 t).^
(iv. ) fictions. — .Since the relations of nations were
thus frequently regulated by a beritli, it is not strange
that such a basis should sometimes have Ijeen assunied
without sufficient foundation. When the once peaceful
Arabic neighbours began to push the luiomites out of
Mount Seir, Obadiah lookt-d upon this as a breach of
covenant on the part of allies (v. 7). The simultaneous
attack of several p>eopIes on the Jewish commonwealth
described in i Mace. l\\ ff. , seemed to the author of Ps.
836 to l)e the result of an alliance against Yahwe — i.e.,
Israel. If Amos 1 9^ is in its right jjlace (.see Amos,
§ 9 a). Tyre is charged with forgetting the ' covenant of
brothiTs' with some other city or people, probably
PhoL-nician ; kinship is the basis of the assumption.
Zech. 11 10/ probably descrilx-s a change in the policy
of the reigning pontiff as regards the Gentiles, rather
than actual alliances with neighlxjuring states, as the
corise(|uent internal feud suggests. It is also natural
that recourse should be hacl to the same fiction to
justify or to condenm present conditions and demands.
In the Negeb, tril>es of Israelitish and Iduma'an extrac-
tion assured themselves of their rights, against the
Philistines, to certain wells and oases, by virtue of a
solemn pledge given by Abimelech of Gerar to their
hcros eponymus, Isaac (Gen. 2628 fJ] 21 27 /T [E]>.
Similarly, the torder lines Ix-'tween Arama;an and
Israelitish territory in Gilead were regarded as fixed by
an agreement between Eaban and Jacob, securing also
the rights of certain Aram.tan enclaves on Israelitish
soil (Gen. 1844 fJ]). Certain remarkable facts in the
history of the Gilxjonites (see Gibkon), gave rise to the
story told in Josh. 96/ 15/ fJ] 9ii [E] — a story which
shows how unobjectionable such alliances with the
natives were considered in earlier tintes. When pro-
1 I Mace. 8 17 a Mace. 4 11 are scarcely historical.
930
COVENANT
phetic teaching had led to a recognition of the baneful
influences upon the life of Israel of Canaanitish modes
of thought and worship, the warning took the form of
a prohibition of alliances projected into the period pre-
vious to the invasion (Dt. 72 Jud. 22 [Dt. ] Ex.2332
[E] Ex. 34 12 15 [J]). Gen. 14 13, though found in a late
Midrash, may retiect the memory of a long dominant
Canaanitish majority in Hebron, since, with all the
glorification of Abram, the three chiefs Mamre, Eshcol,
and Aner are designated as nna.T 'SvD. ' holders of the
pledge." To legitiniatise the Davidic dynasty, Jonathan
was represented as having abdicated the throne in favour
of David, while Saul was still alive, on condition of
remaining next to the king in rank (iS. 23i7/. [E]).
Such an action on his part was then accounted for by
the story of a still earlier Yahwe-bCrith of friend-
ship (i S. I83 [EJ). referred to again in i S. 208 16
[RJ. The friendship itself is sufficient to explain David's
kindness to Jonathan's family ; but the passage testifies
to the custom of pledging friendship by an oath and a
solemn ceremony.
(v.) Birith^' nation.' — In Dan. 11 22 nna TJ3 is the
title given to Onias III. This probably means prince
or ruler of the nation. The cnp m3. Dan. 11 28 30, is
the holy nation against which Antiochus Epiphanes
directed his attention and his fury ; and rip nna '3iy
are the apostates who abandoned the holy nation and
lived like the Gentiles (cp i Mace. 1 15, also Judith 9 13
I Mace. 1 63). These renegades are called nna "vxna.
Dan. 11 32; ' those that bring condemnation upon the
nation," are responsible for its misfortunes. This
significance should probably also be given to the word
in Ps. 7420 (Hitz. , Che.). The n""i3 -]N'?a. Mai. 3i,
may be the angelic representative of the nation. At a
somewhat earlier period in some inserted passages in
II. Is. (see IsAi.XH, ii. § 16, Che. SBOT) nna seems
already to occur in this sense. The context indicates that
cy m:3. Is. 426 49 8, is meant to designate Israel as an
independent organised community (lit. 'a commonwealth
of a people').^ Until Israel had regained its status of
indepencience it could not rebuild the ruined cities, or
restore the land to its former glory. This meaning
may possibly be traced still further back; B.'\AI.-BEKITH
{'/■v.), as the I'^lohist designates the god of Shechem,
may mean 'god of the comnumity.' The word used
of the city-kingdom of Shechem in the seventh century
(cp .\ss. bir/u, i^Ituz, fortified town) may well have been
applied to the ardently desired kingdom of Zion at the
end of the sixth.
(vi. ) Metaphorical. — Metaphorically nna is used in
Job 31 1 of the law that Job has imposed upon his eyes
that they shall not look upon a virgin ; in 4O28 [41 4] of
the pledge which Leviathan is not likely to give, that he
will allow himself to be captured and become a slave ;
and in 523 of Job's agreement with the stones of the field
that they shall not prevent the cultivation of his land.
No important transaction was done in anticjuity
without religious sanction. The oath and the curse
„ .. . were extensively used in judicial proceed-
.9^ ings, legislative enactments, and political
treaties. Before passing sentence, the
judge pronounced a curse or adjuration to arouse the
conscience and elicit a confession (i K.831 [D] Nu.52i
[I'] Lev. 5 1 [P] Prov. 2924 Mt. 2663). A pledge or
promise was made more binding by a curse (,!*?«, Ez. 1.7 16
Deut. 29ii [12] 20 [21]). To set forth symbolically this
curse, animals were cut into pieces, and the person giving
the pledge passed Ijetween the severed parts, signifying
his readiness to be thus destroyed Tiimself, if he should
fail to keep his promise. It is to be observed that in the
only passages where this ceremony is referred to (Gen.
/lid
Gen.
1 Cp CHH K19 'a wild ass of a man,'
10 12. So in the main Duhm, though his conception of ri'ia is
different. I)i., Kraetzsch::iar (/?/> Iiunden<orstellung, 169), and
Kosters explain 'a covenant with the people' — /.?., one in or
through whom my covenant with the people is realised.
931
COVENANT
15 and Jer. 34 18/. ), there is no question of an alliance,
and only one party passed between the pieces (cp Dictys
Cretensis, Ephenuris belli Trojani, i. 15). Whether
this custom was observed also in the conclusion of
treaties, as was the case in Babylonia, if Ephrem was
correctly informed {Comment, to Gen. 15), is uncertain,
and there seems to be no justification for connecting
this rite in particular with an agreement between two
parties, or for supposing nna to have been the name of
a ceremony of which it was an essential part. In most
instances no doubt the oath sufficed. Sometimes the
right hand was given in addition (Ez. 17 18, 2 Mace. 1822),
or a handshake took the place of the oath ( Ezra 1 0 19
Prov. 61 17 18 2226). It is possible that during the oath
salt was sometimes thrown into the fire to intensify by
the crackling sound the terror -inspiring character of
the act, originally to render more audible the voice of
the deity in the fire, hence the salt-bOrith (Lev. 213 [P]
Nu. 18i9[P] aCh. 135). As vows were taken and
agreements made at some shrine, the numen dwelling
in the sacred stone or structure was the chief witness
(Gen. 31 48 [J] 52 [E] Josh. 242? [E]" 2 K. 1 1 4 283), and
a sacrificial meal preceded or followed the act (Gen.
26 30 [J] 31 46 [J] Ex. 24 1 1 [J] 2 S. 32o[J]). The sprink-
ling of sacrificial blood upon the worshipper, a survival
of the custom of sharing it with the deity, appears to
have disappeared early from the cult. But it may have
continued longest in the case of persons taking a solemn
pledge, as is suggested by its use in the installation of
priests (Ex. 29 20 [P] Lev. 823 [P]). This would account
for the term benth-t)lood (Ex.248 [E]). Where an
alliance was desired presents were offered by the party
taking the initiative ((Jen. 21 27 [E] : probably the sacri-
ficial animals ; Hos. 122 [i]^).
Since a decree, pledge, or compact was thus, as a
_. . rule, ratified by some sacred rite at a
'hSrTth ' ^'"^"ctuary, the word nna readily assumed
a religious significance, and was applied to
a solemn declaration of the deity.
(i. ) In /, E, and early Prophets. — In the earliest
Judasan narrative Yahwe gives to Abram a promise
that his descendants shall possess Palestine and symboli-
cally invokes upon himself a curse, if he shall fail to
keep it (Gen. 15 18 [J] ; cp Gen. 24? [J]). When Moses
is reluctant to leave the mountain-home of his god and
pleads for an assurance that Yahwe shall go with him, a
solemn promise is given him (Ex. 34 10 a [J] ; add, with
<5'"'''> 1^)- The original context can scarcely have been
anything else than a declaration that Yahwe will ac-
company his servant, probably in 'the messenger," the
ni.T "[xSd- This promise was no doubt also referred to
by the Elohist, though the importance of the ark in his
narrative (cp Nu. 10 33/ [E]) renders it probable that
Yahwe's presence was here connected with this palladium.
After the subjugation of the Canaanites by the first kings
of Israel the question arose as to the justice of this deed.
Israel's right to the land was then established by the
fiction of a promise given to the mythical ancestor. A
religious problem of grave importance was how Yahwfe,
whose home was on Sinai, or Horeb, could manifest
himself at the Palestinian sanctuaries. The solution
was that he had pledged himself to go with Mo.ses in
' the messenger. ' The story of Elijah's visit to Horeb
was probably written early in the eighth century ; in it
nn3 occurs in the sense of commandment (i K. 19 14)-
This is also the meaning of the term in Dt. 33 9^ (the
Blessing of Moses), as the parallel -n"CJ< shows, and in
Josh. 7 II [E]. Hosea uses the word to denote an
injunction of Yahwe upon the beasts of the field not to
harm Israel (22o[i8]), and a commandment of Yahwe in
general (81; possibly also 67). It is noticeable that
this prophet, who through a sad domestic experience
learned to apply the figure of a marriage to Yahwe's
relation to Israel, never employs bfirith in the sense of
a covenant. The p-K.i nna was probably still simply
the law of the husband, and the idea of a covenant with
932
COVENANT
Yahwi had not yet been formed. The covenant with
death, the con»[xict with Shi^ul (Is. 28isi8^ appears to
\)c an alliance with the powers of the netlier world,
implying mutual stipulations. Men who preached the
destruction of Israel and Yahwr's intk'|x:ndence of the
people, would not be likely to characterize the existing
relation by a term current in necromancy.
(ii. ) Deitleronomiit. — I'.ven the transformation of the
Yahwistic and l.lohistic narratives of the Horeb-l)<^rith,
in the reign of .Manasseh, by which the promise given
to Moses l>ecame a solemnly imposed law (the IX-calogue
of J, ICx. 31 15-26, and tliat of K, Ex. 'iOi-i?), and the
judicial decisions of the Writh lxx)k, Ex. 20 23-2.3 33, Ix.--
came divine injunctions, does not contemplate an alliance.
In the law promulgated by Josiah in 621 (not likely to
be found outside of Dt. 12-26 ; but see Dkutkko.nomy,
§5/.) tlie word does not occur. Hut this law was
design.ated at the outset as a bCrith-lKX)k (2 K. 28221).
It seems to have tx:en intended to take the place of Ex.
20 23 ff. The promise to Abraham is strongly emphasised
by the Deuteronomistic writers and enlarged to one given
to Isaac and Jacob as well (Dt. 431 7 12 8 18 2 K. 13 23
[Dt.]; cp also Dt. I835 6101823 78 81 etc.). At a
time when Judah was in inuninent danger of losing its
heritage, faith took refuge in this divine assurance,
manifesting Yalnve's love, and justified by the otx-'dience
of the patriarchs (Dt. 431 IO15 (k-n.'264 ^ [Dt.]).
One writer of this school declares that Yahwi!; announced
on Iloreb his bOrith consisting of the ten words (Dt.
4 13 b-iff.). and that this b<;rith Wiis written on tablets
of stone (99) and placed in the ark (see Akk, § i/. ,
3, 9). Anotlicr author made the Josianic code the
basis of a covenant concluded in the fields of Moab
(Dt. 29 9 12 14 21 [811 etc.] 2617-19; cp the later gloss
29 1 [2869]). Here the idea of a compact between
Yahw6 and Israel involving nmtual rights and obliga-
tions is fully developed. Yahwe pledges himself to
make Israel his own people, distinct from, honoured
above all others ; Israel declares that it will make
Yahw6 its god and ol)ey his conmuuidmcnts. This
conception was subsecjuently transferred also to the
Horeb-bCrith ; cp Judg. 2i^ [Dt.].
(iii. ) Jeremiah and lisekiel. — Jeremiah does not seem
to have participated in this development. He used
b€rith only to designate Josiah's law, which he regarded
as having been given through Moses at the time when
Yahw^ brought Israel out of Egypt (11 2/ 6810 34 13).
It is evident from the context that nnn Tsn ( 1 1 10)
indicates not the disannulment of a covenant, but the
breaking of a law by disolx-'dience, the law still remain-
ing in force. Ezekiel, on the other hand, not only
employs nn^ in the sense of ' law ' (2O37 : ' the fetter of
the law,' 447), but also applies it for the first time to
the conjugal relation of Yahwe and Israel (168 59 60).
Marriage is here Ixisedon mutual pledges: it is a covenant.
According to Ezekiel's view of history, Yahwe had
entered into such an alliance with Israel in Egypt, but
the people had by a long career of unfaithfulness forced
its dissolution (1659). Yet he hopes that in the future
Yahwi will renew his intimate relations with Israel.
There will lie no covenant, however (for Israel's pledge
cannot be trusted ; I661), but a gracious dispensation of
Yahw6 (IG62), everlasting (3726), and full of prosperity
(3425), ushered in by the restoration of the Davidic
rule and the temple-service (372526).
(iv. ) I'.xilic times. — How ardently the next generation
expected that the fallen tent of David would be raised
up again, may be seen in the appendix to Amos (9ii^)
and in the more pregnant form given to the promise
2 S. 7i6 [Ej] in 2 .S. 235 (nSiy nn:)- Such hopes may
have l)een awakened by the honour shown to Jehoiachin
by Amil Marduk in 561, and may have attached them-
selves to his son Shkshbazzak {q.v.). They were
naturally encouraged by the sympathetic tone of Eteutero-
Isaiah's message (Is. 40-48), even though this writer
himself knows no other Messiah than Cyrus. With the
933
COVENANT
freer intercourse tietween the holy city and the Jews of
the di.spersion, jjossible after the Persian conquest (cp
Zech. 610), and the ap|xjimment of .Slieshlxizzar. and
after him of Zerublxilx-1, as governor, the .Second Isaiah's
evangel w;is brought to I'alestine and changed the
comfortless lamentations of the native population (Lam.
3) into songs of redemptive suffering (Is. 42i-4 49i-6
5O4-9 ."<2ij-53i2), or of future restoration (the Zion
songs in Is. 49-55). It was felt that by the accession
of a king of the old dynasty, a living witness would
appear of Yahwd's faithfulness to David (Is. 554 a), a
restorer of the territory once jx)ssessed (Is. 554 ^ Mic.
4 8 13 5 1), a surety of the promised disiK-nsation of ever-
lasting peace (Is. 54 10 553), and that Zion would thus
become again an organised community (oy n'i3), able
to build up what had fallen into ruins, to attract
the exiles to their sj)iritual home, and to teach the
nations the manner in which Yahwe should be worshipjx^
(Is. 426 498).
(v.) I/aggai, '/.cchariah, etc. — The prophecies of
Haggai and Zechariah Ix-ar witness to the strength of
the royalist sentiment at Jerusalem. The hopes of the
Jews proved illusory ; but in the midst of disiippoint-
ment the belief in Yahwe's promises lived on. ' .Malachi '
felt assured that Yahwe would riturn, and accounted for
his delay by the sins of the degenerate priestly descend-
ants of the faithful and reverent Levi, to whom Yahwe's
promise (n"i:) of life and prosperity w:is given (2i-g),
and of those who, fascinated by foreign women, had
forgotten the pledge (n't;) given to the wives of their
youth (214). The author or authors of Is. 56-66 also
deplored the marriages with aliens and the survival of
forbidden forms of worship, but saw the remedy in the
law : the keeping of Yahwe's conunandments (nna)
would render the very euimch fit for memlxTship in
Israel (064) ; the distinction of Israel lay in that gracious
arrangement (nTi) by which Yahwe's law, proclaimed
by men of the spirit and repeated by a mindful people,
would be its peri^etual possession (59 ii), a divine dis-
pensation involving prosperity as a rew.ard of olx;dience
(618). ITie author of Jer. 30/, however, rises to a far
greater height. He looks forward to a new regime
based solely on Yahw6's love, which will take the place
of the old and less fxjrmanent relation (Jer. 31 31 _^).
This work may perhaps Ije assigned to the time of the
Graeco-Persian war, when the writer confidently lcK)kcd
for extraordinary proofs of Yahwe's pardoning grace
(see Jerkmi.\h, ii. §§ 7 [iii.] 8 [ii.]).
(vi. ) P. — The conception of the bCrith as a gracious
act on the part of God, by wliich he binds himself to a
certain course of action in reference to Israel and the
world, implying the l)estowal of blessings and the revela-
tion of his will, becomes dominant in the Priestly Code.
The bf^rith or engagement is here carried back to
Abraham and Noah. Beside the Noah-Writh (Gen.
91-17) there is no room for an Adam-bi^rith ; beside
the Abrahamic (Gen. 17 ; cp Ex. 224 64), no need of a
Sinaitic. The Noah-bCrith secures the stability of earth's
conditions and of man's life, and the accompanying law
of blood is but a lieneficcnt provision for the preservation
of the race ; the Abrahamic guarantees to Israel the
land of Palestine and a large population, and the
command of circumcision implies only a distinction
conferretl upon this jKHiple from which all further favours
flow. The sign in the sky and the sign in the body are
constant reminders to the deity of these merciful engage-
ments. Hy the use of '3 p: and '3 C'pn ('establish,'
occasionally 'maint.ain') instead of '3 ni3 the nature of
the Writh as a gift, a divine institution, is emphasised.
Though the word has thus Ix;come a religious terminus
technicus in this code, it still occurs with the sense
simply of commanilment, Ex. 31 16 (the law of the
sabbath), I^v. 248 (the ordinance of the shew-liread).
Lev. 2 13 (the injunction ojncerning salt), or of promise,
Nu. 25 12/. (the assurance to Fhinehas of an everlasting
priesthood in his line).
934
COVENANT
(vii. ) Later writers. — The author of Jer. 50/ (see
Jkkkmiau, ii. §§ 7, 8 [iii.]) refers to the Abrahamic dis-
[wnsation in the spirit of the Priestly Writer (see that
vividly expressed passage on tiie return of the men of
Israel and Judah, Jer. 5O5) ; ' and Jer. 14 21 reflects the
same concoption. Ps. 8929 lOuSio IO645 111 5 also
show the influence of this idea.
On the other hand, in Ps. 25 10 14 132 12, nna is only
a synonym of nny, and in 44 18 50 16 78 10 of mm- In
Ps. 50 5, nai Vy 'nna "ma, ' those who pledge their troth
to me by sacrifice,' are graciously told that Yahwe will
not demand excessive offerings,^ and in 78 10 the men of
the Mosaic period are charged with not being faithful to
the pledge given to Yahwe. Besides the Abrahamic
dispensation (i Ch. I615 2 Ch. 614 Neh. I5 9832), the
("hronicler particularly emphasises the engagement made
with David (2 Ch. 13$ 21 7), but also uses bOrith of a
pledge in general (2 Ch. 29 10 3432 Neh. 13 29). The
Prayer of Jeremiah (Jer. 3216-44) is quite after the
fashion of the Chronicler ; in 32 40 the author has in
mind 31 33, but interprets the bCrith vaguely as a promise
that Yahwe will not cease to show mercy to Israel.
The author of Kcclesiasticus [circa 200) introduces for
the first time an .Vdam-biJrith as an everlasting dispensa-
tion (17i2), is led by his biographical interest to mention
severally the divine promises to Noah (44 iB), Abraham
(7'. 19/), Isaac (7 '. 22), Jacob ( 7/. 23), Aaron (4')7 15),
Phinehas (v. 23/), and David [v. 25 47 n), and employs
the term in the sense of law (2423 455), and of covenant
(14 12, based on Is. 28 15, but Si^runderstood figuratively ;
cp \Yisd. 1 t6). The thought of Ecclus. 45 15 [iv rj/x^pais
ovpavov, c'Cti' "Cd) 25, is further developed in Jer. 3314-26
(wanting in (S"**'^, but translated by Theodot. ; see
Jekkmi.\H, § ii); the divine arrangements as respects
the house of Le\ i and the house of David are as inviol-
able as the divine arrangements in nature, the laws of
day and night, of heaven and earth. Deutero-Zechariah
(Zech. 9-14 — after 198 B.C.; see Zkch.\ki.\h, ii. § 5)
promises deliverance to the Jews of the dispersion on
the ground of the faithful observance of the sacrificial
cult at the sanctuary by which Israel continually pledges
its troth to Yahwe ("nna ci2. ' because of thy pledge-
blood ' ; 9 II : cp Ps. 5O5). Dan. 94 ( 164 B.C. ) refers to
God's merciful promise to bless his people. The nna
cSiy, Is. 245 (c. 128 B.C.-') is most naturally understood in
the light of Ecclus. 17 12, where the Adam-bdrith also
involves the revelation of God's laws and judgments.
In I Mace. 250 c2'nuK nna may be a designation of
the holy nation, the theocracy, whilst 4 10 probably
refers to the promise to the patriarchs, as 254 does
to that to Phineh;is. In Ps. Sol. IO5, the law
apjjears as a testimony of the eternal dispensation
established with the Fathers (919). The author of
Jubilees quotes (616) from Gen. 9 12/ and (15 19) from
Gen. 177, but in his inde[)endent use of the term shows
no trace of the conception prevailing in the Priestly
Code. He introduces the Noah-borith as a pledge
given by the patriarch (the original seems to have read
"' '3B'? cSij; n'"i2 niD). 610, which is renewed by the
jjeople every year through observance of the feast of
weeks (617), and the Sinai-ljCrith as a pledge which
Moses takes from the people (611); he employs the
word as a synonym of 'law,' 'statute' (liol53424ii
30 21), and possibly uses it also in the sense of ' theocraoy '
(^35). where the feasts of the Jewish community are con-
trasted with those of the (jentiles. ' Arbiter testament!
illius ' (r^s diaOriKTji avrou /xeirirri^). Assumption of Moses
[Charles] 1 14, seems to be a translation of 'inna n'3ic (tp
Job 933), and represents Moses, not as a third party
effecting an agreement between God and his people, but
1 Read with Co., ,ni^l and insert '3 before nns, 'Come let
us join ourselves (anew) to Yahwe, for a lasting biritk cannot
be forgotten.'
2 Cheyne, however, takes Ps. .50 to have been written as
an expression of non-sacrificial religion.
3 Following Duhm. But cp Isaiah, ii., { 13.
935
COVENANT
as the preacher proclaiming his law (cp Amos 5 10 Prov.
2 J 12 etc. ). This is to Ix; inferred already from the suffix
— it is God's liC-rith — and it is distinctly stated in 3ii ;
' the commandments in respect of which he was to us a
mediator ' — i.e. , which he was the means of revealing to
us (cp 27). The Abraham-l)erith is mentioned in I2
3 10 4 12/. Enoch 606 is a fragment of a lost Apocalypse
of Noah ; it presents the Noah-b€rith as the all-
SufTicient blessing of the elect.
(i. ) Ciospels. — Lk. I72, which refers to Cod's promise
to Abraham, would seem to have belonged originally to
U-Ti ^ Jewish Apocalypse of Zechariah current
among the Baptist's disciples. Jesus him-
self does not seem to have used the term in any
sense. The thought of a new dispensation, so attrac-
tive to his disciples, may not have been foreign to his
own mind. If it is not foimd even where it might
most naturally be expected, as in Mt. 2I43, the reason
may be that his favourite expression, the kingdom of
God, was intended to convey a similar idea. His
words at the paschal table have evidently undergone
successive modifications and expansions ; and it is
difficult not to trace Pauline influences. At any rate
the declaration, ' This is the new BiadrjKrj in my blood'
(i Cor. 11 25 Lk. 2220), seen\s to lie an expansion of the
earlier, 'This is my blood of the SiadrjKri' (Mt. 2628
Mk. 1424). It is not inconceivable that Jesus actually
said -cp DT \'-\n, meaning thereby ' This is the blood in
which I pledge my loyalty ' (cp Ps. 50 5 Zech. 9 11). But
the CJreek translation suggests an Aram. KZ-p >ci y-\n,
in which the last word is likely to be an explanatory
addition by a later hand, the original utterance lx.-ing
simply 'This (is) my blood.'
(ii. ) Paul. — In Gal. 3i5_^ Paul compares God's
assurance to Abraham with a man's testament (Sia^^K?;),
which cannot lose its validity by any arrangement sub-
sequent to his d(;ath, and in addition seeks a proof of
the inferiority of the law in the fact that it was given not
directly by God himself, but through angels and a
human agent {/jieffiTrjs, used as in Assump. Mos. 1 14 3 12).
In 424 he contrasts the present Jewish common-
wealth (t) vvv 'JfpovffaXrjfj.), deriving its existence as a
theocracy {SLadrjKi]) from the legislation on Sinai with
the heavenly society {ij (ivw 'JfpovffaXruj.) from which by
spirit-birth the new theocracy derives its life (cp Heb.
1222). The new form of government {SiadrjKr]), accord-
ing to Paul, was possible only through the death of
Jesus abolishing the authority of the Law (hence the
change to ^v T<p e/i(j3 ai/xari, ' through my blood,"
I Cor. 11 25), and, as opposed to the maintenance of
social order by enforced obedience to external statutes,
consisted in a free, love-prompted surrender of life to
the divine spirit's guidance (2 Cor. 36). The idea of a
special arrangement (SiaOriKrj), still in the future, by
which all Israel is to be saved (Rom. II26/. ), does not
introduce a foreign element into Paul's conception of
the spiritual theocracy (for it implies only deliverance
from sin), but is a concession to particularism, out of
harmony with his general attitude, and due to his
patriotic feelings (Rom. 9^). Paul also uses the word
as a designation of the OT (2 Cor. 3 14).
(iii.) Ot/ter writers. — In the epistle to the Hebrews,
the Abrahamic disjiensation yields to that of Melchizedek.
Abraham is introduced only as an example of patient
reliance upon God's promises (615), and as a repre-
sentative of a priestly order inferior to that of Mel-
chizedek (74^); Jer. 31 31 _f. is recognised as a descrip>-
tion of the often promised new constitution (SiaBr)KTi
S&J". 10 16) ; but it is argued that, as a man's testament
(diaOrjKTi) is not valid until after his death (9i6/. ),
and as consequently the Mosaic constitution possessed
no validity until a death had taken .place (that of the
sacrificial animal), so the better Christian disjxinsa-
tion could not be ushered in e.xcept by the death of
Jesus (9isi8^); this departure of Jesus is, besides,
regarded as necessary in order that he might be a
036
COVERLET
priest — as he could not be on earth (7 13/) — in the
celestial tcniplc (620 9 11), and as such bear the
responsibility for the new arrangement {(yyvoi lii),
and on God's behalf make it oix-rative (neairtj^ 86 9 15
1224) by sprinkling the blood on men's consciences,
thus pledging and devoting them to the new priestly
service (10 19, cp Kx. 292o [P] Lev. 823 [P]). The ' ark
of the law' (oiaOriKj)) is mentioned in Heb. 94 (cp
Kev. 11 19). In llph. "J 12 the one great promise is con-
sidered as renewed by a scries of solemn assurances
(al diaOiJKai ttJj iirayytXia^). Peter's contemporaries
are represented in Acts325 as 'sons' — i.e., heirs, who
might enter into possession of the promise (StaOrjKrj)
to Abraham, whilst in 7 8 the word hiaOi)Ki) is used to
designate the ordinance of circumcision.'
Tlie most recent inquiry into the historical meaning of blrith
is Kraelzxhinur's Die /{um/i'ST'ttrstf/Zun^'- im Aiten Testament
('96). See also Vaieton, /^.-l TU'Vi 1-22 224-26013245-279
l'92yri; Bertholet, Die Stellunf; d. Israeliten u. Juden zu d.
Frnmien, 46, 87/ 176, 214 ['96I ; WRS Kel. .SVw/.(2), 269^
■^12 ff. 479//^, A7». A,(iJF.; \V. M. Ramsay, 'Covenant' in the
'K.x'posit.o, Nov. '98, pp. 321-336. N. S.
COVERLET ("1330), 2 K. 8 .st RV. See Bkd, § 3
COVERS (niL"i7), E.\-.37.6, etc. ; see Cup, 6.
COW (H-IS), Is. 11 7. See C.XTTI.k, § 2.
COZ, RV strangely Hakkoz (]*ip ; Kcoe [B'^A],
etKcoe lee superscr.] [B-'->'''], kooc [I^:) of Judah
(ic'li.4 8). The name is probably not connected with
I^akkoz. As it occurs nowhere else, perhaps we should
road TiCKOA (i'ipp, QfKWi \ cp ©"'^). See Hakkoz,
Tkkoa.
COZBI ('3T2, 'deceitful.' ;» 79; cp .\s.s. kuzhu,
' lasciviousiH'ss,' Haupt, SHOT on Gen. 885), daughter
of Zur (\u. 251518), a Midianite, who was slain by
Phiiiohas at Shittim (Xu.256-i8, P ; XAcBiell [BAFL],
X()cBia[Jos. Ant. iv. 610 12]).
COZEBA, AV CiiozKBA (n2T3), i Ch. 4 22t. See
A( II/.IH, I.
CRACKNELS (D^i?:), i K. 143. See Bakemeats,
§ 2-
CRAFTSMEN, VALLEY OF (D-L'^nn >l), Neh.
11 35 1-',V See CllAKASHl.M.
CRANE (■|-i:y; crpoyeiA [BNAQ]), Is.3S.4 Jer.
87+ \<\' , AV by an error [.see below] 'swallow.' In
Is. 3814 there is no ' or ' between the first two names in
MT, and (p'^N^Qr omits 'agur altogether, rendering the
other word (a?n) correctly xf^'^ci" (see Swallow, 2) ;
in the second passage where in MT the same two
words occur (Jer. 87) the connective particle is again
omitted, this time by ©. Hence it has l>een suggested
that in neither place should both words occur ( Kloster-
mann, Duhm, etc., omit nijj; in Is.) ; this receives some
countenance from the fact that the M T order of the
words is reversed in Targ. and Pesh. in Jer. 87. The
transposition tuisled most Jewish authorities as to the
real meaning of the two words respectively, and our
translators followed them. That oiD (or rather d'D : see
SwAi.i.ow, 2) means 'swallow' or 'swift' there can be
no doubt, and so the words 'crane' and 'swallow'
should at least change places (as in RV).
What 'iigur means is somewhat uncertain : * probably
Griis communis or cinerca, which is the crane of
Palestine. Once it bred in England. The passage in
Isaiah refers to its ' chattering ' ; * and its powers of
1 On the meaning of tt.aAr\ia\, see Hatch, Essays on Biblical
Gretk, p. 47.
2 I^garde suggested that it means ' bird of passage '
^ j^ =■ J^ ' 'o turn back, return,' C'ebers. 59).
3 ' The Heb. CjIfES) properly signifies a shrill penetrating
sound, and is therefore more applicable to the stridulous cr>' of
the swift th.in to the deep, trumpet-like blast of the crane.' .See
the rest of Che. 's note in I'roph. Is., ad loc.
937
CREATION
giving utterance to loud and trumpet-like sounds both
when in Hight and when at rest are well known.
Cranes arc migratory birds, spending the summer in N.
latitudes and the winter as a rule in Central Africa and S. Asia ;
but some pass the cold season in the plains of S. Juda.-a. While
travelling they fly in great flocks, and at limes come to rest on
the borders of some stream or lake. They appear to have fixed
rixjsting-pl.ices, to which they return at night in large numbers.
Jeremiah notices the regularity <>f their seasonal migrations.
N. M. — A. E. S. !
CRATES (kpathc i A ', -hcac [V]), the name of a
former viceroy 'in Cyprus' (iwl tQv Kvirpiuv), who
was left in charge of the citadel (of Jerusalem) by
SosTKATUS in the reign of Antiochus Kpiphanes :
2 Mace. 4 29.
CREATION. I. yicrounts^ 0/ Creation. —]t mnyhe
regardi-d as an a.xiom of modern study that the descrip-
tions of creation contained in the biblical
1. Critical
standpoint.
records, and especially in Gen. li-24fl,^
I * are permanently valuable only in so far
as they express certain religious truths which are still
recogni.sed as such (see lx,'low, § 25). To seek for even
a kernel of historical fact in such cosmogonies is incon-
sistent with a scientific point of view. We can no
longer state the critical problem thus : How can the
biblical cosmogony lie reconciled with the results of
natural science ? The question to lie answered is rather
this : From what source have the cosmogonic ideas ex-
pressed in the OT l^een derived ? Are they ideas which
Ixloiiged to the Hebrews from the first, or were they
borrowed by the Hebrew s from another peoj^le ?
This question has passed into a new phase since the
most complete form of the Creation-story of the Baby-
lonians has become known to us in its
2. Babylonian
epic.
cuneiform original. True, the story
given in the tablets lies before us in a
very fragmentary condition. The e.xact ntmiber of tablets
is uncertain. Considerable lacuna, however, have been
recently filled up by the discoveryof missing passages, and
there is good hoi>e that further excavations will one day
enable us to complete the entire record. At any rate
we are now able to arrange all the extant fragments in
their right order — which was not the case a few years
ago — and so to recover at least the main features of the
connection of the cuneiform narrative. Only a brief
sketch of the contents can be given here.-*
The 'Creation-epic' begins by telling us that in the
beginning, before heaven and earth were made, there
was only the prima;val ocean-flood. This is personified
as a male and a female being (.Apsu and Tiamat).
Long since, when alx)ve | the heaven had not been named,
when the earth l>eneath | (still) bore no name,
when Apsu the primaival, — the generator of them,
the originator (?)Tianiat,'' | who brought them both forth
their waters in one | together mingled,
when fields were (still) unformed, ] reeds (still) nowhere
seen —
1 On conceptions of creation, see below, §g 25-29 ; on words,
see 8 30.
2 It may be observed here that Gen. 24a was, originally, the
superscription, not the subscription. Schr., in his reproduction
of the two narratives of the primitive story, rightly restores
it as the he.iding (Stud ten zur Kritik der Urgesih., 1863, p.
172). In that c.ise the priestly narrator axn hardly have
continued with Gen.li. Restore therefore with Vh.iCenesis,
'7. 39). 'This is the birth-story of heaven and earth when
Elohim created them ' (cTl'^K CNi:r)- Then continue, ' Now
the earth,' etc. (v. 2). ' Then God .said, Let light be ; and light
was.' See Kautzsch's translation (Kau. IIS).
3 Cp Del. Das Bah. WeltschSp/ungsepos ('97); Jensen,
Kosntol. 268-300; Zimmern, in Gunkel, SchSp/. ^01-41^; and
Hall, Light from the East, i-2t ('99). The metrical divisions
are well marked. The epic is mainly composed in four -line
stanzas, and in each line there is a ca;sura.
* [.Ass. .Mutntnu Tiamat. In line 17 of this first tablet we
meet (most probably) with a god called Mummu. The name
corresponds to the Muvfxit of Damascius (see Iwlow, % 15, endX
and is rendered by Krd. Del. in /. 4, 'the roaring.' "This is by
no means certainly right ; for the grounds see Del. 1 19. Pinches
renders. Lady Tiamat (Exp. Times, 3 166). But Jensen warns
us that there is another mummu. .-Vt any rate, the supposed
connection with oi.l must be abandoned.]
938
CREATION
long since, when of the gods | not one had arisen,
when no name had been named, | no lot [been determined],
then were made I the gods, [ . . . ].
Thus the world of gods came into being. Its harmony,
however, was not long maintained. Tiamat, the mother
of the gods, was discontented with things as they were,
and from hatred (it would seem) to the newly pro-
duced Light, relxilled against the supreme gixls, and
drew some of the gods to her side. She also for her
own l)ehoof produced monstrous beings to help her in
her fight. This falling away of Tiamat called for divine
vengeance. To reply to the call, however, required a
courage which none of the upper gods possessed, till at
last ^Iarduk (Merodach) offered himself, on condition
that, after he had conquered Tiamat, the regal sway
over heaven and earth should be his. In a solemn
divine assembly this was assured to him. He then
equipped himself for the fight, and rode on the war-
chariot to meet Tiamat atid her crew. The victory fell
to Marduk, who slew Tiamat, and threw her abettors
into chains.
This is followed by the account of the creation of the
world by Marduk. The process is imagined thus.
Marduk cuts in two the carcase of Tiamat ' (the per-
sonified ocean-flood), and out of the one part produces
heaven, out of the other earth. ^
He smote her as a ... | into two parts ;
one half he took, | he made it heaven's arch,
pushed bars l)efore it, | stationed watchmen,
not to let out its waters | he gave them as a charge.
Thus the upper waters of Tiamat, held back by bars,
form heaven, just as in Gen. 1 the first step to the
creation of heaven and earth consists in the separation
of the upper from the lower waters by the firmament.
Then follows a detailed description of the making of the
heavenly bodies ( ' stations for the great gods ' ).
After this most unfortunately comes a great lacuna.
We can venture, however, to state so much as this— that
the missing passage must have related the creation of
the dry land, of plants, of animals, and of men. In
support of this we can appeal (i) to separate small
fragments, (2) to the account of Berossus, (3) to the
recapitulation of the separate creative acts of Marduk
in a hymn to that god at the close of the epic, and (4)
to the description of the creative activity of Marduk in
a second cuneiform recension of the Creation - story
lately discovered (on the various Babylonian Creation-
stories, see also below, § 13^).
What then is the relation between this Babylonian
and the chief biblical cosmogony? We have no right
to assume without investigation that
3. Relation to
Gen. 1 1-24
the Hebrew myth of Creation appears
in its original form in Gen. li-24a. The
present writer is entirely at one with Hermann Gunkel,
whose work entitled ^chopfung u. Chaos in Urzeit uvd
Endzeit'^ (95) contains the fullest collection of the
relevant evidence, that this myth has passed through a
long development within the domain of Hebraism prior
to the composition of Gen. li-24«. Only with a clear
perception of this does critical method allow us to com-
pare the latter document directly with the Babylonian
Creation-epic. Then, however, our surprise is all the
greater that in spite of the preceding development there is
still in the main points, a far-reaching coincidence between
the myths. For instance, both stories place water and
darkness alone at the lx,'ginning of things, and persomfy
the prinueval flood by the same name (Tiamat = TChom).
Ill both the appearance of light forms the lieginning of
the new order. Whether the production of light in
1 Jensen denies that Tiamat is anywhere in the Creation-epic
represented as a dragon ; she Ls always, lie thinks, a woman.
It is, however, not probable that the popular view of Tiamat as
a serpent had no effect on the poet of the Creation-epic. .See
Dra<;on, § ^ff.
2 (pL«sibly the head of Tiamat is referred to at a later point of
the story by BCrossus. See below, 815.]
3 The sub-title of this work, which will be referred to again,
b ' Kine relisionsefichichtliche Untersuchung iiher Gen. i. und
Ap.Joh, xii. Mit Ueitragen von Heinrich Zimmern.'
CREATION
the Babyloni.an account was specified as a separate
creative act or not (a point on which complete cer-
tainty cannot as yet l)e obtained), Marduk is at any rate
the god of light /car' ii,oxh^, and, consequently, his
battle with Tiamat is essentially a battle between light
and darkness. In both accounts the creation of heaven
is effected through the divine creator's division of the
waters of the primaeval flood, so that the upper waters
form the heaven. In the Bat)y Ionian epic this division
of the waters of the flood is in the closest relation to the
battle with Tiamat ; nor can we doubt that a paralle
description once existed in the Hebrew myth of crea-
tion, though it is but faintly echoed in Gen. 16/ The
list of the several creative acts runs thus in the two
accounts : —
Babylonian.
1. Heaven.
2. Heavenly bodies.
3. E^arth.
4. Plants.
5. Animals,
6. M^-n.
Gen. 1, IN Present Order.^
1. Heaven.
2. Karlh.
3. Pbnts.
4. Heavenly bodies.
5. Animals.
6. Men.
There is much, however, to be said for the view that the
present position of the heavenly bodies after the plants
is secondary,'^ and that originally the creation of the
heavenly bodies was related directly after that of heaven ;
the order will then be the same in both accounts.
Further coincidences can be traced in points of detail :
e.g., the stress laid, in both accounts of the creation of
the heavenly bodies, on their being destined to serve
for the division of time (see also below, § 6). Can we
doubt that, between accounts which have so many coin-
cidences, there is a real historical connection?
We must now inquire how this connection is to
be represented. There are two ways which are his-
torically conceivable. Either the
Babylonian
background.
are independent developments of a
primitive Semitic myth, or the Hebrew-
is borrowed directly or indirectly from the Babylonian.
Dillmann proposes the former view in connection with a
remark that the Hebrew story cannot have been simply
borrowed from the Babylonians on account of the patent
differences between the two narratives. ' There is no
doubt a common basis ; but this basis comes from very
early times, and its data have lx.'en developed and
turned to account in different ways by the Israelites and
the Babylonians.'' In reply we may concede to Dill-
mann that the cosmogony in Gen. 1 cannot have been
simply taken over from the Babylonians, and that there
are strong a priori reasons for admitting the e.\istence
of a common stock of primitive Semitic myths. Still,
that the Hebrew myth, which is still visible in Gen. 1,
was borrowed at a later lime from the Babylonians, i.s
the only theory which accounts for the phenomena
before us. There are features of the utmost importance
to the story which cannot Ix; .satisfactorily explained
except from the Babylonian point of view.
At the very outset, for instance, why, from a specifically
Hebrew point of view, should the waters of the tchotn be placed
at the Ijeginning of all things? Or we may put our objection to
Di.'s theory thus, the question to be answered by a cosmogony
is this, ' How did the visible heaven and earth first come into
existence?' The answer given in Gen. 1 is unintelligible in the
mouth of an early Israelite, for it implies a mental picture which
is characteristically Babylonian. .As the world still arises anew
every year and every day, so, thought the Babylonian, must it
origmally have been produced. During the long winter the
Babylonian plain looks like the sea (which in Babylonian is
tidmiu, tiamat), owing to the heavy rains. Then comes the
spring, when the god of the vernal sun (Marduk) brings forth
tne land anew, and by his potent rays divides the waters of
1 Most critics, however, reckon eight or seven creative acts.
Cp Wellh. Cff x'&Tjpr. ; Bu. V,^rscii. 4?8jf. : I)i. dn. 16, 37.
■•2 See Gunkel, Schff>/. 14; 'this unnatural arrangement may
be explained by supposing that when the framework of the seven
days was introduocd, the plants, for which no special day re-
mained, were combined with the earth, and so came to stand
before the stars.'
3 Di. Gen. ('02), p. 11 ; cp his Ueher die Herkunft der
urgeschichtl. Sngen (Berlin Acad. 1882), p. 427^, and Ryle,
Early Narratives o/Gen., 12/.
940
8. Mythical
basis of Gen.
li-
CRBATION
Tiamat which previously, as it were, formed a whole, and wnds
thetn [larlly upward as clouds, partly downward to the rivers
and canals. So must it have lieen in the first spring, at the first
New Year, when, after a fight between Marduk and Ti.'tmat,
the organised world came into being.' Or (for Marduk is also
the gcS of the early morning sun), just as the sun crosses and
conquers the cosmic sea (Tiamat) every morning, and out of the
chaos of night causes to appear first the heaven and then the
earth, so must heaven and earth have arisen for the first time on
the first morning of creation. To imagine a similar origin of the
myth from a Hebrew point of view, would lie hopeless. The
picture rcijuircs as its scene an alluvial land, which Habyloni.i
IS, and Palestine or the Syro-Arabi.in desert is not, and it requires
further a sjieciiil god of the spring sun, or of the early morning
sun, such as Marduk is and Vahwfe is iiot.^
In short, rightly to understand the Babylonian .iccount
as, in its origin, a mythic description of one of the most
fiimiliar natural phenomena of Haliylonia gives the key
to the probienj before us. The Israelitish cosmogony
must have Ijeen borrowed directly or indirectly from the
Babylonian (cp also §§ 5 and 1 1 ). H. I.
The precetling sections contain (i) an account of the
gre;it Hnbylonian creation epic (§ 2), (2) a comparison
of this with the chief Hebrew cosmogony,
and a criticism of Dillmann's theory (§
3), and (3) an explanation of the Baby-
lonian myth antl of its pale Jewish copy
(§ 4). Of these § 3 and § 4 relate to subjects on which
it is not unbecoming for the present writer to si)eak.-'
That there is more than one Hebrew cosmogony, will be
shown presently ; we will l)egin with that in Gen. 1 x-l^a.
It is a very unfortunate statement of Wellhausen ■* that
the only detail in this section derived from mythology is
that of chaos in v. 2, the rest being, he thinks, due to
retlection and systematic construction. Reflection, no
doubt, is not absent — e.i;. , the framework of days is
certainly late — but the basis of the story is mythical.
Nor can we content ourselves with comparing the data
of (ien. 1 with any single mj'thology, such as the Baby-
lonian. Circumstanced as the Israelites were, we must
allow for the possibility of Phajnician, Egyptian, and
Persian, as well as Babylonian influences, and we must
not refuse to take a passing glance at cosmogonies of
less civilised {x-oples. For some elements in the Jewish
Creation-story are so primitive that we can best under-
stand them from the wide f>oint of view of an anthro-
pologist.
The Babylonian parallelisms may \yc summed tip
briefly (cp above, § 3). The points of contact are^( i )
6. Parallelisms: '''*' P^n^aival flood (mnn- Tiamat).
Babylonian. (^^ ^^*^ primreval light (Marduk was a
god of light V>efore the luminaries were
created), (3) the production of heaven by the division of
the primiKval flood, (4) the appointment of the heavenly
bodies to regulate times and seasons, (5) the order of
the creative acts (the parallelism, however, in the present
form of Gen. 1 is imperfect), (6) the divine admonitiims
addressed to men after their creation.* To these may
be added (7) creation by a word (see below, § 27), an
idea which was doubtless prominent in the full Baby-
1 [The Babylonian New Year's festival called Z.ikmuk, which
has clearly influenced the corresponding Jewish festival, stands
in close relation to the ccsmogoiiic myth. For the ' tablets of
destiny," on which the fates of all living were inscribed on New
Year's Day, were taken by Marduk from Kingu, the captive
consort of TiAmat (Tab. iv. 1 121). In its popular conception,
Zakmuk was probably at once the anniversary of creation and
the day of judgment. .So Karppe.j
'■^ Cp Jensen, h'osmol. 307-309 ; (hinkel, Schdf/. 24-26.
3 The germ of what follows is to Ijc found in the Eli, art.
'Cosmogony,' 1877. The view of the history of mythological
ideas among the Israelites is that which the writer has advocated
in a series of works (some of them are referred to later), and
which, with a much fuller array of facts, but with some question-
able critical statements, has l)een put forward lately by Gunkel
(■ps). On the general subject of cosmogonies, cp Fr. Lukas,
Crundhfgriffe su den Kosiiiogoniten dfr a/ten yelker ('93),
pp. i-M, on the Babylonian myths and Genesis.
•• rrol. KT 2<j8.
S See the fragment in Del. Weltsch5p/ungsff>os, $i/. iti. The
admonitions relate to purity of heart, early morning prayer, and
sacrifice. The passage on the creation ©("^man has not yet been
found ; but there is an allusion to thU creative aa in the con-
cluding tablet.
94«
CREATION
Ionian epic, and (8) the creation of man in the divine
image, and the participation of inferior divine I>eings in
the work. '
Phdiiician mythology is an embarrassing combination
of B;il)ylonian and Egyptian ([xjssibly we should add
7 Phoenician. J'-"^^''*^ ■*) elements, and is, moreover,
known to us only from fragments of
older works cited by I'hilo of Byblus and Damascius.'
Still, distorted and disc»)lourcd as the myths presented
to us may Ix;, the main features of them have a very
primitive api)earaiice. The source of all things is
descrilR'd in tlie first of Philo's cosmogonies * as a chaos
turbid and black as Krebus, which was acted ujxjii by a
wind (the nn of Gen. I2 [cp below, col. 944, n. 2])
which Ixcame enamoured' of its own elements (apxai).
These d/>xa/ are the two sides or asjx^cts of the duine
being referred to" — the male and female principle, the
latter of which in another of the Byblian cosmogcjiiies
(Miiller, up. cit. iii. 500/) is called Baoi'. We may
perhaps compare this Haai^ with BOhu^ in the Hebrew
phrase tohu xvd-bohu (wasteness and wideness = chaos) in
Gen. 1 2. Some would also connect it with the Baby-
lonian Ba'u, the 'great mother.' True, this goddess
was held to Ix: the consort of Xinib, the god of the rising
sun, where.is Baai> is the spouse of d«'e/ios KoXfl-iai and
her name is said to mean ' night ' ( = chaos ?). The con-
nection of Ba'u with Xinib, however, may perhaps Ijc of
later origin. The result of the union of the two divine
dpxa-i was the birth of Mujt — i.e. , according to Halevy,'
t6 Ma;T = m':nn (cp Prov. 824, nicnn-j'N2). Mwt, we are
told, was egg-shaped. Here one may detect Egyptian
influence, for Egyptian mythology knows of a world-egg,
which emerged out of the watery mass (the god Xuii).
This is confirmed by a reference in the cosmogotiy of
Mochus (in Dama.scius, 385) to Xovcup 'the opener,"
whom it is tempting to connect with I'tah, the di\iiie
demiurge of Memphis ; the name of I'tah ni.ay have Ixen
explained in Phu'uician as the ' opener (nrs).' vi/.. of the
cosmic egg. To the same cosmogony (Philo gives a
different account) we owe the statement that this Xovcwp
split the egg in two,* upon which one of the pieces Ijecame
1 .See the Rerossian story referred to below (5 15). In the
epic the cre.-ition of man was ascriljed to Marduk (but cp Jensen,
Koitn. 2()2/.)\ but it ispo.ssible(see Del. of.cit. no) that .Marduk
committed some part of the creation of^ the world to the other
greater divinities. May we thus account for the evolutionary
language of some parts of (^>en. In?' Let the earth bring forth '
would then mean ' Let the earth-god (a divine energy inherent
in the earth) cause the earth to bring forth.'
2 Considering the late date of the reporter, we cannot exclude
this possibility.
3 Cp Baudi.ssin, Studd. zur sent. Rel.-gesch. L (Essay I.);
Gruppe, Die giUxh. Ctilte u. Mythen, 1 351^
•» Aliiller, J-ragm. Hist. Gra-c. 8565.
8 The two later Targums explain C'riVx nn '" Gen. 1 2 by
[CnTl Nnn 'the spirit of love' (cp Wisd. 11 24). The love
expressed here, however. Is that called forth by the need of help.
* De Vogiii, Milanges, bo/.
1 Holzinger (note on Gen. 1 2) objects to the combination of
Boav and IJohu, that Boav appears as the mother of the two
first men, which will not suit Ik'hu ; but the Byblian mytholo^Lst
isinerror,asWR.S(Burnett Lectures[.1/.S"]) has pointed out. .Viwk
is not properly a 'mortal man,' and itputjayovo'i is a late inven-
tion based upon a wrong theory ; here as el.sewhere the dualism
is artificial. S.\iav Ls identical with the OOAiu^ot of Mochus, the
Xporof of Eudemus — i.e., D^ij; 'the world ' (see Eccl. 3 1 1). The
connection with Bab. Bdu is more doubtful. Cp Jensen, Kostiiol,
245 ; Hommel, Diesem. I'dlkcr, i. 370^, .4/1'/', 66, C/i.l, 255 ;
Haupt, /Ititr. zur .-Issyr. i. 181 ; and see K/i,'iain. Whether
Trihu (?np) also was from the first a mythic word, is uncertain.
The combination of tuhQ and tx hQ may be artificial ; cp Jabal,
Jubal, Tuba! (Gen. 4 20-22), .nwrCI nKip Oob 30 3), .lEPCI TOD^
(E7ek.(ii4).
•* .'/«'/. 387 ; WRS in Burnett Lectures agrees.
*• Elsew-here Xov<7<o/>andhisbrothcraresaid to havediscovered
the use of iron, like the Hebrew Tubal-Cain, himself probably a
divine demiurge (see Cainites, | 10). \VKS(Burnett Lectures)
suggests that he may have invented iron to cut open the cosmic
eggj (cp the arming of Marduk in the Creation-epic, Tab. iv.X
This is clearly correct. K/M>»ot in I'hilo's theogony makes apin|
and I6(n> to fight against Ovpavo^. Originally, however, the
weapon of the demiurge was the lightning ; see Jensen, A'otttui,
CREATION
heaven, and the other earth. Here we have a point of I
contact with the Babylonian and also with the Hebrew
cosmogony, for the body of Tianiat is, in fact, as
Robertson Smith in his Burnett Lectures ^ remarks, ' the
matrix or envelope of the dark seething waters of
prini;t;val chaos,' and the separation of the lower from
the upper waters in (jcn. 1 7 is only a less picturesque
form of the same mythic statement. These are ' poor
and beggarly elements,' no doubt; but then l'h(jcnicia
lacked what Babylonia possessed, a poet who could
select, and to some extent moralise, such parts of the
tradition as were best worth preserving. We shall see
later (55 28) that Juda;a had a writer who in some im-
portant respects excelled even the author of the epic.
Egyptian mythology, which had perhaps an original
kinship to the Babylonian ^ cannot be passed over, when
,e consider the close relations which long
xisted Ixjtween Hgypt and Canaan. The
common l-'gyptian belief was that for many ages the
latent germs of things had slept in the bosom of the
dark flood (personified as -N'ut or Nuit and Nun). How
these germs were drawn forth and developed was a story
told differently in the different nomes or districts.
.>\t Eleph.^nti^c, for instance, the demiurge was called Hnumu ;
he was the ])otter who moulded his creatures out of the mud of
the Nile (which was the earthly image of Nun); or, it was also
said, who modelled tlie world-egg. His counterpart at Memphis,
the .artizan god Ptah, gave to the light-god, and to his body,
the artistically perfect form. At Hermopolis it was Thoth who
made the world, speaking it into existence. 'That which flows
fiom his mouth,' it is said, ' happens, and what he speaks, comes
into being.' In the east of the Delta, a more complicated account
was given. Earth and sky were originally two lovers lost in the
piim;Eval waters, the god lying under the goddess. ' On the day
a new god, Shu, slipped between the two, and seizing
8. Egyptian.
Niiit with both hands, lifted her above his head with outstretched
aims.' Thus, among other less striking parallelisms, we have
in Egypt, as well as in Babylonia and in Palestine, the primeval
flood, the forcible separation of heaven and earth, and creation
by a word, as elements in the conceptions of creation.-*
The subject of Iranian parallelisms has been treated
at great length by Lagarde,'* who argues for the depend-
- . ence of the Priestly Writer as regards the
. ranian. ^^^^^^. ^f ^^^e works and days, on a Persian
system, against which, however, in the very act of
borrowing from it, this writer protests. It is not
probable, however, that the indebtedness of the Jews
to Persia began so early ; it is not before the latter part
of the Persian rule that the direct influence of Persian
beliefs (themselves largely influenced by Babylonian)
begins to be clearly traceable in Judaism. If we could
venture to identify the .Vkta.xerxks (</.?'.) of Ezra with
Artaxerxes II. , it would be easier to adopt Lagarde's view.
In the present stage of critical inquiry, however, this course
does not appear to be advisable. Nor is it at all certain
that the Iranian belief in the creation of the world in
six periods goes back so far as to the time of Artaxer.xes
II. It is referred to only in the late book called
Bundehish, and in one or two passages of the Yasna
(19248) and the Vispered (74), which, on philological
grounds, are regarded as comparatively late. Caland,
indeed, has endeavoured to show^ that in the Yasht of
the Fravashis (or protective spirits) a poetical reference
is made to the creative works of Ahura Mazda, in the
order in which these are given in the Bundehish.^ But
what object can we have in tracing the Hebrew account
to the Iranian, when we have, close at hand, the
liabylonian story, from which the Iraniati is plaiilly
derived? The reference, or at least allusion, to chaos
1 Second series (.l/.T).
2 Cp Hommel, Der bob. UrsprUng tier d^ypt. KuHur, 1892
(inter alia, the Egyptian Nun is connected with Bab. Anum,
the god of the heavenly ocean).
3 See Btugsch. A't-/. u. My lit. der alten Aegypter, 22 107 161
and elsewhere ; Maspero, Dawn o/Civ. 128 146 ; Meyer, GA 74.
•• l^uriiii, ein Beitr. zur Ccsch. der Rel. ('87).
« ThT-n 179-185 ('89].
6 The order is— heaven, the waters, earth, plants, animals,
mankind. Light, the light in which God dwells, is itself un-
created— an inconsistency due to Babylonian influence (see col.
950 n. i). In JobS87 there maybe a tendency to this belief
(see § 21 [<rD.
9', 3
CREATION
in Gen. 1 2 is at any rate not Iranian ; why should the
other features in the narrative V)e? It would no doubt
be possible to give the epithet ' Iranian ' to the ascription
of ideal perfection to the newly created world in the
Hebrew cosmogony. But it is by no means necessary
to do so. Such idealisation would tie naturally suggested
by the thought that the evil now so prominent in the
world cannot have lain within the purpose of the divine
creator.* Besides, Jewish thinkers would inevitably be
repelled by Zoroastrian dualism. The existence of the
two primtfval antagonistic spirits is not indeed alluded
to in the rock-cut inscriptions of Darius and Xerxes ;
but the best scholars agree that it formed part of the
old Zoroastrian creed; it is indeed expressly recognised
in the Gathas (Yasna xxx. ). Ahura Mazda, the ' much-
knowing Lord,' assisted by the six Amshaspands, is the
creator of all the good things in the world. He is opposed,
however, by Angra Mainyu, to whom the material and
moral possession of the world is ascrilied. All that we
can venture to suppose, is a possible indirect influence of
the high Zoroastrian conception of .Ahura Mazda on the
conce])tion of Yahwe formed by the Babylonian Jews.
The tlctails of the Jewish Creation-story arose inde-
pendently of Persia.
Points of contact with more primitive mythologies
also are numerous. Abundant material will be found in
10 Mn ^''^ George Grey's Polynesian Mytho-
'. ... ^'^Sy< ^"'^ ^'ol- ^''- of Waitz and (jer-
■'■^., , . land's Atithropolos^ie der Naturi'olker.
mytnoiogies. ,j.j^^^ ^^^, ^^^^^^ ^^\^ animate life, but not
matter, had a beginning, and that, before the present
order of things, water held all things in solution, are
opinions common among primitive races, and one of the
most widely spread mythic symbols is the egg. The
expression in Gen. 1 2, ' and the breath of Klohim was
brooding'- (nsms) over the surface of the waters," has its
best illustration (in the absence of the m3'thic original
which probably represented the deity as a bird) in the
common Polynesian representation of Tangaloa, the god
of heaven, and of the atmosphere, as a bird which hovered
over the ocean-waters, till, as it is sometimes said, he
laid an egg-* (the world-egg). This egg is the world-
egg, and we may suppose that ' in the earliest form of
the [Hebrew] narrative it may have been said " the bird
of ElGhim " ; " wind " appears to be an interpretation.''*
The forcible separation of heaven and earth (Gen. 1 7 10)
is illustrated, not only by the interesting Egyptian myth
mentioned above (§ 8), but also by the delightful .Maori
story told by Sir George Grey, and illustrated by Lang
in a not less delightful essay (Cus/otn and Myth, ^^ ff. ).
The anecdotal character of myths like these adds to
their charm. It is only in the last stage of a religion
that cosmogonies are systematised, —
Greek endings, each the little passing-bell
That signifies some faith 's about to die,
though the death-struggle may be prolonged, and may
issue in a higher life.
We have thus seen that the Creation-story in Gen. 1 1-
1 Gunkel less naturally thinks that in the formula, ' .\nd God
saw that it was good,' there is an implied contrast to the evil
state called idhu-hohii (chaos).
2 The word Pjm (Piel) occurs only twice, and both times (as in
Syriac) of a bird's brooding. See Dt. 32ii, and Driver's note
{^Deiit. 358, foot), also We. ProlA*) 395 (^EriTjer. 289, should
be '^i^^ [Gratz]). Hence the Talmudists compared the divine
spirit '\o a dove (cp Mt.3i6 Mk. 1 10 Lk. 822). The Phoe-
nician myth, in the very late form known to us, h.is lost all
trace of the bird-symbol ; it speaks only of a wind (nn).
3 Waitz-Gerland, --l«M>rJ/^>/. 0241. In Egypt, too, the first
creative act begins with the formation of an egg ; but it is the
egg of the sun, and nothing is said of a bird which laid the egg
(see Brugsch, Rel. n. Myth, der alten Aegypter, laijf.).
* KB art. 'Cosmogony,' 1877. In i8v5 the same idea
occurred to Gunkel (SchUpf. 8). It is of course not a storm-
bird that is meant; storm-birds are not uncommon : see, ?.^.,
the Babylonian myth of Adapa, in which the south wind is
represented as having wings, and cp Ps. 18 10 [ii]). See
repri
944
CREATION
2417 is not, as Wellhauscn represents (alwve, § 5), merely
the pro<luct of reflection. It has a
11. Fuller
account of
Gen. 1 1 -J 4''.
considerably niytiiic substratum. That
substratum is mainly liabylonian ; but
'*"*"■ Egyptian and even Persian influence is not
e.xcludcd. Indeed, for that singular passage Gen. 1 2,
Egyptian influence, either direct or more probably
(through Phoenician or Canaanitish mythology) indirect,
seems to be suggested. We are thus brought face to
face with a new problem. How is it that the Priestly
Writer, with his purified theology, and his comparatively
slight interest in popular tradition, should have adopted
so nmch mythology as the basis of his statement that
' God created the heaven, the earth, and all that is in
the e;irth, and hallowed the seventh day ' ?
If the Yahwist had given a creation -story, corre-
sponding to his I-'lood-story, the phenomena of Gen. 1
12. Lost J._, ^^Y^■^^^,^ might thus Ixi taken to have acted
consistently by giving an improved version
13. Develop-
ment of the
Epic.
would not l)e so surprising. The Priestly
original.
of both traditional stories. • But we have no Yahwislic
creation-story, except indeeil in a fragmentary form,
and though the lost portion of the cosmogonic preface
to J's Paradise-story (based probably on a Canaanitish
story) must have differed greatly from the cosmogony
in Gen. 1, yet it is most improbable that P would
spontaneously have thought of competing with J by
producing a new semi-Babylonian cosmogony. In the
next place it should be noticed that the Flood-story
whicii J has borrowed, directly or indirectly, from
Babylon, stands in Babylonian mythology in close
connection with the creation-story ; the two events are
in fact only separated by the ten antediluvian Chaldasan
kings and an uncertain interval between creation and
the foundation of a dynasty. The list of the ten kings
is certainly represented, however imperfectly, by J's
Cainite genealogy (see C.MMtks § 3/!) ; it is probable
therefore that J (as represented by the stratum called ].,)
originally had a creation-story with strong Babylonian
affinities, and that P used this story as the basis of his
own cosmogony.
Accepting this hypothesis, we are no longer surprised
at the echoes of mythology in Gen. 1 i-'24<t. Underneath
P we recognise the dc^bris of the cosmogony of Jo. The
Priestly Writer did not go out of his way to collect
Babylonian mythic data ; he simply adopted and
adapted the work of a much earlier writer.
The hypothesis is due to the sagacity of Hudile,^ and the more
clearly we discern the mythic elements in P's cosmogony, the
more probable and indeed inevitable does the hypothesis become.
That the old cosmogony has been lost, is much to be deplored ;
but we can easily believe that it would have been too trying to
devout members of the 'congregation' to have had before them
in the same book the early and almost half-heathenish recension
of a Can.aanitish- Babylonian cosmogony produced hyj.t and the
much more sober but in all essentials thoroughly orthodo.f recast
of this recension due to the Priestly Writer. Whether the latter
found any reference to the sabbath in the older story which
might seem to justify his insertion of the divine appointment of
the sabbath, we do not know. Jensen finds a reference to the
17th and 14th days of the month in the fifth tablet of the epic
(//. 17 yl), and Zimmern even inserts conjecturally 'on the
sabbath ' (line 18) ; but whether any part of ihis obscure passage
lay in any form before J._>, must remain uncert.ain.
The e.xplanation given by Zimmern (above, §4) does
justice, as no other e.vplanalion can do, to the circum-
stances and the ideas of the ancient
Babylonians at a comparatively remote
period. If it somewhat closely re-
sembles the explanation of the Baby-
Ionian flood-story, this is no olijection. The post-
diluvian earth may in a qualified sense lie called a new
earth, and some mythologies expressly recognise that
the present creation is rather a re-creation.' Still, it
1 P has in fact given his own Flood-story in which the tradi-
tion of J is harmonised with P's theory of the history of cultus.
See Deli GE, § 4/
2 Urf:esch. 470-492; ZATW^yj ff. ['86]. Cp Bacon, Gtn.
335u^ r92]-
3 See, e.g., the legend of the (non- Aryan) Santals of Bengal in
YinrAcr'i Rural Bengal, lyj/.
945
CREATION
would be rash to suppose that even this explanation
entirely accounts for the Babylonian myth. It may
very possibly have Ijeen the theory of the most thought-
ful of the Babylonian priests — <jf those who did most
for the systematising of the mythic details. The details,
however, are themselves so [jeculiar that they invite a close
examination and a fuller application of the com|)arative
method. When this has iK-cn given we see that a long
mythic development must have preceded the story of the
creation epic, which is not like an isolated rock rising
out of a vast plain, but like a tree which derives its
sustenance from a rich vegetable mould, itself of very
gradual formation. It is out of the mould of prinuL-val
folklore that the great creation-myth lias drawn its life ;
later ages recombined the old material, and gave the
result a new meaning. Man invents but little ; the
Babylonians, we may be sure, borrowed their dragon-
myth, and much Ijesides, from earlier races, whose modes
of thought lie outside of our |)resent field of study.
The comparative lateness of the 'epic' (the title is
not inap])ropriate) which A.sur-bani-pal added to his royal
library, is too obvious to reejuire argument ; liut it is
plain also that it is based upon archaic materials. In
particular the myth of Apsu and Tiamat can be traced
as far back as to 1500 H. C. through inscriptions which
refer to the ' abysses ' or ' seas ' of Babylonian temples
(see Nkiicsiitan § 2); these 'seas' were in fact
trophies of the victory of the j'oung .Sun-god over the
primaeval, cosmic sea, with which Tiamat is to be
identified. In 1500 B.C. this myth was doubtless
already of immemorial antiquity.
Other less elaborate creation-stories are known to
us — specimens of the very varied traditions which had
. . T. 11 1 at least a local circulation. Some are
14. Parallel , ■ r r r^- -
, preserved m fragments of Berossus anil
Uamascius, others have only lately been
revealed to us by T. G. Pinches and his predecessor the
lamented G. .Smith, whom Asur-bani-pal would certainly
have recognised as worthy to have Ijcen one of the
diipsiirri, or scribes, of his library, for it was he who
was the discoverer and the first translator of Asur-bani-
pal's great ' Creation-epic'
The CJreek-reading world owed its chief acquaintance
with Babylonian mythology to a Greek-writing priest
„ of Bel named Berossus (about 280 B.C.).
. " It is unfortunate that we know his book
Sian, etc. XaXSaiVd only from very imperfect extracts ; ^
but, considering his comijetence ami his unique oppor-
tunities of consulting ancient documents, we cannot
afford to neglect these extracts. One of the most
important of them is a fragment of a cosmogony. Its
resemblances to statements in both the creation-stories
of Genesis, especially the first, are obvious. Among
them we may mention ( i ) the description of the
primaeval darkness and water, (2) the name Oa/ire - (cp.
Ci.in), translated ddXoiCTtTa, which is given to the woman
who ruled over the monsters of chaos,' and (3) the
origin ascrilied to heaven and earth, which arose out
of the two halves of the body of Gaure, cut asunder by
Bel, while the creation of man by one of the gods (at
Bel's connnand), who nii.xed with clay the blood which
flowed from the severed head, not of Bel, but of the
dragon Tiamat,* may be compared, or contrasted, with
Gen. 27.
1 See Miiller, Frag. Hist. Griec. 2497; Budde, L'rgesck.
474-4S5 ; and cp Tieic, /i.AO n ; .Schr. COTlii/.
2 .\ccording to Kol)ertson Smith's happy restoration, ZA
O33Q. The text h.as eoAarfl.
•> Cp those monsters with the ' helpers of Rahab ' in Job
9 13 kV, and with the 'four beasts which came up from
the ' great .sea ' (Dan. 7 2-4). The latter pas.sage is e.schatologicaI.
The powers of evil will again be let loose and rule upon earth,
but will at last be overcome (cp Antichrist, g 4).
* The correction of iavrov (twice) in the text of BcrOs.sus (in
Syncellus, 52 y^) is due to Dindorf; but its importance was
noticed first by Stucken {.■istralmythcn 1 55). The text is
translated by Lenormant, Lesorigittfs, 1 507, and Ciunkel, Schef>/.
19. Just before mention has been made of the formation of earth
946
CREATION
The theogony of Damascius' (6th cent. a.d. ) is at
first sight of less importance. It shows, however, more
clearly than the Iterossian fragment that the essential
features of the story of the epic were well known, for
the two cliicf mythic names mentioned by I )ama.scius —
viz., Tavdf and ATraiTWJ' — are plainly derived from
'Piamat and Apsu, whilst the only begotten son of this
couple is Mosvfiis. which corresponds to the obscure name
Mummu in the epic (Tab. i, //. 4, 13 ; see above, § 2,
second note).
We now turn to the cuneiform records, among which
the so-calK-d Cutha-an cosmogony ( A'A'*-* 1 149^)- is
Ifi Th ft "°' '° ''^ included, {a} The chief of these
■ ., is the great Creation-epic, of which the
cuneiform , r , . ^ > , , ,■
. reader has already heard. Its place of
origin was, of course, Babylon, as appears
from the fact that its hero is the god Marduk, who
was the patron of Babylon. Obviously this is only
one of several kical ver.sions of llie primitive myth.
In the original story Bel of NipiKir was, no doubt,
the great god who overcame Tiamat, and prepared
the way for creation. The jjriests of the other sacred
cities, however, hud to protect the interests of their
patron deities, and local Creation-myths were the result.
{fi) In another version of the myth,'' the fight Ixjtween
the divine champion and Tiamat occurs after the
creation, and is waged for the deliverance of gods and
men alike. ' Who will set forth (to slay) the dragon,
to rescue the wide earth and .seize the royal power ?
Set forth, O (jod SUH, slay the dragon, rescue the
wide earth, and sci/e the royal power.' An extravagant
account is given (in the manner of the Jewish Talmud)
of the dragon's size, and it is said that when the dragon
was slain its blood fiowcd night and day for three
)-ear:s and three (si.\?) niontlis. Tliis may suggest the
ultimate mythic origin of 'a linio, times, and a half in
Dan. 127 Rev. 12 14.
((-) A much fuller and, if we assume its antiquity, more
important narrative is the ' non-Semitic ' one translated
by Pinches in 1890 from a bilingual text discovered by
G. Smith.'* It is a mixture of creation- and culture-
myth, and as a culture -myth we have already had
occasion to refer to it (see Cainitks, § 3). The
creation-story is given only in allusions. It is stated that
once upon a time ther-- was no vegetation, and ' all the
lands' (of Babylonia ?) were sea. Then there arose a
movement in the sea, and the most ancient cities and
temples of Babylonia were created. Xe.xt the sub-
ordinate divine beings called Anunnaki were created,
after which Marduk set a reed on the water, ' formed
dust, and poured it out beside the reed. Then, ' to
cause the gods to dwell in a delightful place,' he
made mankind (cp Gen. 1 26 /'. ) w ith the co-operation of
and lieaven uut (.f the two parts of 0/uop(w)(caT (with whom the
reporter of HerOssus identities Tiamat). It stands to reason
that the .severed head spoken of in connection with the creation
of man must be Tiamat's, not that of the Creator, though
Eusebius already had before liim the reading eawroO (see Hudde,
Urgesch. 479). The passage is therefore not a statement of
the kinship of God and man (WKS Kel. .9^w.(2) 43), though
it is of course to be assumed that the god spoken of m.ide man
in his own physical likeness (cp Maspero, Dawn of Cw. no).
Strange to say, the name < Vop(")*« .seems to liave come into
the text of BerOssus by mistake. For most likely it is a cor-
ruption of Marduk (Jastrow, AV'. 0/ Bab. and Ass. 5; cp
J. H. Wright, /(AlOjijf.). The story, however, is only
intelligible on the theory adopted in this note.
1 .See.Schr. COTl 12; Jen.sen, A'osnio/. 270^
* See Zimmern, ZA, 1897, 317^ The .story relates to the
mythological history of a king of the primitive age, and is not
cosmogonic.
i* See Zimmern's transl. in Gunkel, Schdfif. 417-419. The
colophon a.ssigns this tablet also to the library of A5ur-bani-pal.
* Pinches, !^/'(2; 0 109^ ; c^\\ov[\mfi\, Deutsche Rutidschau,
('91), pp. 105-114. A. Jeremia.s represents this and similar
myths as artificial products, composed in a Babylonian interest
(Beitr. zur Assyr. iii. 1 108) ; but the priests certainly did not
invent altogether.
5 C"p the name ' land of reeds and canals," given to .S. Baby-
lonia on the vases of Ksaganna, king of Erech, before 4';oo B.C. ;
and see the illustration of gigantic Chaldican reeds, Maspero,
Dawn o/Civ, 552.
947
CREATION
the goddess Aruru (whom we shall have to refer to
again, col. 949, n. 4). We are allowed to infer that
this waste of water had been converted into a fruitful
plain by the industry of the newly created men. acting
under the flirection of the gods ; and to these gods is
ascril)ed the greatest of all human works, the erection
of the sacred cities of Babylonia with their temples.
Thus the most characteristic part of the Babylonian
myth— viz. , the fight of the sun-god with Tiamat— is
conspicuous by its absence. The reader should notice
this, its it illustrates one of the two chief Hebrew
cosmogonies (see lx;low, § 20 [c]).
The statement that the myth which underlies Gen. 1
is of Babylonian origin may now lie supplemented thus.
1. The epic of .Asur-bani-pal's library stands at the
height of a great mythic development. We cannot
17 Proviainnnl therefore presume that we have re-
result '^°^'^''"' the exact form of the Babylonian
myth on which the narrative in Gen. 1
(or the earlier narrative out of which that in Gen. 1
has grown) is based.
2. Since there were several creation-stories in Baby-
lonia, it is a priori probable that other stories tesides
that referred to may, either as wholes or in parts, have
inrtiienced tlic creation-stories in Palestine.
These reasonable inferencessuggest two fresh inquiries.
We have to ask, i. What is the earliest date at which
the adoption of Babylonian myths by
19. Date of
natural-
isation.
the Israelites is historically conceivable?
and 2. What evidence have we of the
existence of other Hebrew creation-myths
than that in Gen. 1 1-24(7, some of which may even
enable us to fill up incomplete parts of that narrative?
In reply to the first question it is enough to refer to
recent studies on the Amarna tablets. The letters in
Babylonian cuneiform sent by kings and governors of
Western .\sia to Amen-hotep III. and Amen-botep I\'.
prove that, even before the Egyptian conquests and the
rise of the Assyrian kingdom, Babylonian culture had
spread to the shores of the Mediterranean. ' Religious
myths must have formed part of this culture."' It is
therefore in the highest degree probable that Babylonian
creation- and deluge -myths penetrated into Canaan
before the fifteenth century B.C., and as soon as the
Israelites Ixjcame settled in Palestine they would have
opportunities enough of absorbing these myths.
.At the same time it should hn noticed that there are
also several other periods in Israelitish history when
either an introduction of new or a revival of old myths
is historically conceivable." The yfrj/ is the time of
David and Solomon. The former appears to have had
a Babylonian secretary (see SnAVSH.-\) ; the latter
admitted into his temple a brazen ' sea ' (representing,
as shown already, the primaeval tl'hom or tiamat) and a
br.ozen serjjent (representing the dragon ; see N'khush-
T.V.n). The second is the eighth and seventh centuries
B.C., when Aramaean, Assyrian, and neo-Babylonian
influences became exceedingly strong, and were felt
even in the sphere of religion. The third and fourth
are the exilic and post-exilic jjeriods, when (see e.g..
Job and Is. 40-55) there was a revival of mythology
which the religious organisation of Judaism could
neutralise but not put down.
In replying to the second question (as to the evidence
for other cosmogonic stories in the OT), we must of
OT ff course be satisfied with very incomplete
. ■ . , ■ ■ references. Such we can find both in
to other cos- ■■■ . ■ •,.
pre -exilic and in post - exilic writings.
° ... ■ Pre-exilic references occur in («) Gen.
pre-exilic. ^j,^^^ j^^ ^^^ j^^,g jj^ ^^^ especially in
(c) the introduction to the Eden-storj- ; post-e.\ilic in
1 Che. Nineteenth Century, Dec. 1891, p. 964.
2 This has been repeatedly shown by Cheyne (see e.g., fob
and Solomon, 76-78 : Ot's. 202, 268-270, 279, 391); cp Gunkel,
Schd/>/., which, in spite of some critical deficiencies (sec notice in
Crit. Rev., July 1895), is too ingenious and instructive not to be
recommended to ads'anced students.
948
CREATION
{d) Job 167/ (<•) 3S4-11 (/) Prov. 822-31 (besides the
passages on the L)ka(;on).
{a) The phrase in the Blessing of Joseph, ' the Hood
{tihom) couching' lx:nealh ' (cp tien. 7"). is certainly
the echo of a Tiatnat-myth, and {h) the 'stars from
their roads' (a Babyjonian phrase'^) in Judg. 620 of a
myth like that in the fifth tablet of the epic.
(c) Gen. i^l>-y needs more special, even if brief, treat-
ment. It runs thus, the original intrcxluction of the
Eden-story having been abridged by the editor of J Ml'.
'. . . when Vahwe [Klohinil made earth ami heaven. Now
there were no hushes as yel u|.wn the earth, ami no hert)ai;i; as
yet sprouted forth, for Yahwc IKIr.hini] had not oiuscd it to
rain ii[)on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground,
but a flixxi^ used to come up from the earth and drench the
whole face of the ground ; then V'ahwfe [KiOhim] formed man of
dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils breath of
life, and man became a living being.'
l':vidently this lieloiigs to the second .section of a
mythological creation -story, and its details arc all of
Babylonian origin. Like Pinches' non-Semitic creation-
story (alxave, § 16 [(/J), it descriljcs, though with
mythic exaggeration, the phenomena witnessed by the
first colonists of Babylonia. The extremely small rain-
fall in Lower Mesopotamia was rem;irked upon by
Henxlotus (1 193) : conscc|uently, without the careful
direction and control of the yearly inundation of the
I-Aiphrales and the Tigris the land would l)e either
marsh or desert. Water-plants there must have been
for a season even in the most desolate tracts ; but the
myth-writers imagine a time when even reeds had not
yet appeared, and when "all the lands were sea' (myth,
/. to), since 'a flood used to come up (it seemed)
from the earth' (Gen. 26). Ne.xt, the Hebrew writer
tells us that Yahwe formed man out of dust (2?), just
as, in the myth (//. 20/.), Marduk, with the help of
the potter-goddess Aruru,-* makes man (no doubt) of clay,
and somewhat as, in the story of Bcrossus (see alxjve,
§ 1 5), one of the gods forms men out of earth moistened
with Tiamat's (not Bel's) blood. The sequel in the
Hebrew story has obviously l)een abridged. There
must have been some reference to the peaceful subjuga-
tion of the yearly flood, otherwise how could Yahwe
have * planted a garden (or park) in Eden ' (v. 8) ? So
in the old myth we hear next that Marduk made the
Tigris and the Euphrates ' in their places," the reeds and
the woods, and the green of the fields (//. 23-26).
liesides this aflinity of its contents to the non-Semitic
Creation -myth the Yahwistic passage has a striking
resemblance in form to the first tablet of the Creation-
epic, which, as it now stands, is of course a Semitic
work.
On (</) JobL^.7/, ('•) 384-11, (/) Prov. 822-31 we
must l)e brief
In ((/) we have apparently a reference to a more
heroic irpuirbyovoi than the Adam of tlie \'.iiiwist (like
21. Post-exilic.
the YiiTia of the Avesta and the Maui
of New Zealand mythology, and some-
what like the Adapa of a Babylonian myth),' who shared
the privileges of the divine or semi-divine members of
the council of I21ofth. This first man was an embodi-
ment of absolute Wisdom, and it is noteworthy that the
t The name suggests a wild bea.st (Gen. 499). The same
epithet {rdbis) is given to Nerjjal, the god of the nether world
in the Gilgame$-epic (Tab. xii., in Jeremia.s, I'orsUUungen,
69).
••* ni'»0.'2=Bab. alkdte, plur. of alaktu {^^ = ^^. Cp }a
kakkahiini samdtiie al-katsunu ' the way of the stars of heaven '
(Del. Ass. //ir/,' 63/.).
» =Ass. r/u ((du), 'flood, waves, high tide' (so Frd. Del.,
Lyon, Hommel). The cylinder inscription of Sargon states
that he planned gre.it irrigation works for desert lands, opening
the dams, and causing the waters to flow everywhere ki gitis
edi, ' like the exuberance of a flood.'
* Aruru probably means ' potter ' (Jensen). In the Oilgame.?-
epic (8 34) this goddess kneads Kabani out of clay (titu). The
Yahwi.st puts 'dust' (tpy) for 'clay' (-en): but we find the
latter word in Job 336, "Bsnp "OhO (the same root mji is used
in the epic).
5 Cp Maspcro, Dawn o/Civ. 659^
949
CREATION
same word S^^ 'to be brought forth,' is ased of this
wondrous personage and of the Wisdom w ho is descriljed
in Prov. 8, and that, equally with the Wisdom of Proverbs,
the first man spoken of by Eliphaz came into existence
l)efore the hills. This myth h;is a very Babylonian
appearance, and m.^y conceivably Ijelong to the same
cycle as the myth of i;noch ( - .Noah, the ' first man *
of the second age of the world), who was said to have
derived his wisd<jm fronj his intercourse with angels.
In [e) Job:i84-ii we find the singular notion {v.^)
that the stars are older than the earth. In the
creation-epic the creation of the stars as ' stations for
the great gods' (see Sr.\KS, § 3 </|, follows on the sub-
jugation of the dragon of chaos and the creation of
heaven and earth (out of the carcase of Tiamat). The
Hebrew poet, however, does not jxirhaps consider this
story, or even its purified offshoot in (ien. 1 , to Ix- a
worthy representation. Heaven and its stars must
always have existefl for Yahwe and the ' holy ones ' to
dwell in (cp Is. 2619 'dew of lights' and the •endless
lights' where .-Vhura dwells, Hn the Avesta). He admits,
indeed, that the ocean once on a lime resisted Yahwe,
and was forced into oljedience (cp Ps. IOI6-9). Of a
separation of upper and lower waters, however, he has
nothing to say.
In (/) Prov. 822-31 we find the same careful restriction
of the mythological element. The mysteri<jus caprices
of the ocean still suggest a prima-'val relx-llion on its
part against Yahwe ; but this is descril)ed in the simplest
maimer. Of a tiiue when chaos reigned supreme we
hear nothing. Yahwe and Wi.sdom were together Ix^-fore
the earth was.- In fact the new qu;isi-mythic representa-
tion of Wisdom was incompatible with the antique
Babylonian cosmogony.
These passages seem to show that there was a great
variety of view in the post-exilic period respecting the
22. Prophetical ^^^' ^"^^ °^ i"''^gi"in.':>reation. Some
and historical "^''''l^^^^^^^ '^ have refused the dragon-
writers myth (except m the palest form) ; others
seem to have found it symbolically
useful. To this we shall return presently (§ 23). There
is a remarkable phenomenon respecting the pre-exilic
time which has a prior claim on our attention. Though
both Ji and Jo have a cosmogony (g 12), there is an almost
complete silence respecting such myths in the pre-exilic
prophetic literature. There is, in fact, only one jjassage
(.Am. 93) that remotely suggests the existence of a
creation-myth. This obscure p;issage has loeen considered
elsewhere (.see Skri'ENT, § 3/ ), and it may suffice here
to point out that mythology did not come naturally to
the early Israelites, and that one great aim of the
prophets w.as to recall their countrymen to old Israelitish
ways : Solomon \n ho affcx-ted foreign fashions was no
true Israelite. We need not l)e surprised, therefore, at
the scanty references in the greater prophets to such
figures of tlie Babylonian and Can.aaiiitish myths as the
Dragon, the Cherubim, the Seraphim. It is to a
historical writer that we are indebted for the information
that there was a brazen serpent, symtx)lising proliably
the Dragon (see Nkhusht.vn, § 2), in Solomon's temple.
At a later period (post-exilic) references to the Chaos-
dragon, to the subjugation of the prim;eval sea by
Yahw^, and to some other features of mythic tradition,
alx)und. Nor was the spring of mythic imagery dried
up even in still later times, as the apocalyptic writings
show. .See Dk.vgon, R.\hab, Skkcknt, Antichrist,
Akominatio.n' ok Desolatio.n, Abyss, Armageddon,
Apocalypse.
If the above presentation of facts be correct, it is a
1 So, in Babylonian mythology, the sky-god Anu dwells in
the highest region of the universe, in the north towards the pole,
where no storm can dim the perpetual brilliance (see Jensen,
Kosiiiol. 651). It is the ' heaven of Anu," in which the inferior
gods take refuge at the Deluge (Deluge-story, /. 108).
2 The text of this fine passage is not free from corruption.
See Che. Jewish Rel. Life, Lect. iv., and cp Gunkel, Schdjif.
93/
950
23. General
result.
CREATION
mistak<3 to assert that the Israehtes had, from their
entrance into Canaan onwards, a fairly
complete creation-myth, in which Yainve
tooit the place of Marduk, and tflioin,
liwyathan, tannin, rahab, etc., that of the dragon
Tiamat. This theory has indeed l)een vigorously defended
by CJunkel ; but it is liable to grave critical objections.
It is a significant fact that .\nios (see last §) has little if
any comprehension of the mythical serpent (dm), and
that the Israelites who worshipixxl in Solomon's temple
completely misunderstood the true meaning of ' Nehush-
tan,' while from the time of the Babylonian ' e.xile ' un-
mistakable references to the dragon-myth abound.
This implies, not of course that there was not previously
a Hebrew dragon-myth, but that a revival of mythology
had brought tlie old mytli into fresh prominence. It is
probable that lx.'fore the 'exile' the cosmogonic myths of
the Israelites at large were in a very fragmentary state,
and that if the myth on which the creation-story of
Gen. 1 is based then existed (as it most probably did),
it was uncomprehended by the people, and had no
influence ui)()n their thoughts. It appears, however,
that, from the last pre-exilic century onwards, increased
contact with Syria and (especially) Babylonia brought
about a reawakening of the mythological interest, and
that the mytlis which at a very early date had been
derived by the Israelites from the Canaanites, were
revived by religious writers (not prophets, at any rate
in the proper sense of the woril) and adapted to general
use. This was done, sometimes with a rougher,
sometimes with a gentler hand, but always without any
dangerous concession to anticiuated, naturalistic religion
— a grand result, which the Babylonian priests, noble
as their own higher religion was, never accomplished.
To inquire into the cause of this success Ijelongs to the
history of Jewish religion.
The question has been raised whether Gen. \i-i4,ii
is, or is not, a poem. The theory was first propounded
_, „ , ^^ by d'Eichthal, Tcxte primifif dii
'^'^■^^'^■^'-^-'" premier n'cit de la CrMion ('75).
a poem ^^-^^ found a true poem, composed of
perfectly regular strophes, which had Ixjen distorted by
the editor {2,2 f.). Briggs (Old Test. Student, April
'84) added to this the discovery of a metre (five tones
in each line with ca;sura). The possibility of this is
established by the undoubted existence of metre in the
Babylonian creation-epic (see Del. W'eltschopf.) \ but
unless we had before us Jj's form of the creation-story,
how could we expect to restore without arbitrariness the
true Hebrew metre?
II. Conceptions of Creation. — It has l)een shown above
that there circulated in Judah in the regal period at
r TV i. • r iL-ast two nivthic stories of creation
.25. Doctrine Of (^,pg ^^^^ ^^^\^ ^f ,vhich were directly
creation late. ^^ indirectly of Babylonian origin. It
is still with the former that we are specially concerned
for the present. That there is no clear reference to
this myth in the fragmentary remains (cp below,
§ 29) of the pre-exilic prophets, is, no doubt, a fact
which has to Ix; accounted for ; but when we consider
the Canaanitish- Babylonian origin of the myth we
cease to be surprised at it. Certainly Isaiah and
the other great prophets believed in the creatorship
of Yahwe ; but they could not have given their sanction
to even a simplified edition of any of the grotesque
and heathenish myths of the Canaanites and the
Babylonians. Why, then, it may be asked, did they
not, like the Second Isaiah (Is. 40-48), preach the
creatorship of Yahw6 without any mythic ornamenta-
tion ? The answer is, that their object was not to teach
an improved theology, but to dispel those illusions
which threatened, they believed, to involve good and
bad Israelites alike in one common ruin. The pre-exilic
prophets were preachers of judgment : the truth the\-
had to announce was that Yahwe was not merely the
god of Israel, but also the moral governor of the world,
951
CREATION
who would pimish all guilty nations, and more especially
the most favoured nation, the Israelites. It was for the
late exilic and the post-exilic prophets and other religious
writers, whose function was, not so much threatening,
as edification and consolation, to tlraw out the manifold
applications of that other great truth that Yahwe is the
creator of the world.
On the pre-exilic conception of creation, therefore,
not much can be said. There were, no doubt, hymns to
->- T» •!• Yahwe as the creator ; but the divine
26. Pre-exihc
traces.
creatorship was not a central truth in
that early age, and could not have l)een
expressed in a form congenial to the later worshippers.
We have, however, a fragment of a song in the Book
of Jashar (i K. 8:2/), which the narrator who quotes
it ascribes to Solomon. With the help of the LXX we
may restore it thus : —
The sun did Yahwe settle in heaven.
But he said he would (himselQ dwell in dark clouds.
I have buih a lofty house for thee,
A settled place for thy perpetual habitation.!
Here Yahwe is descrited as the creator of the sun.
He is therefore greater than the solar deity Marduk,
the creator in the Babylonian cosmogony. None of the
heavenly bodies serves Yahwe as a mansion ; dark clouds
are round about him (cp Ps. 972 18 ii, Vsi;; again). It
is of his condescension that he dwells in Solomon s
temple, which will therefore be as enduring as the sun in
the firmament (cp Ps. 7869). Considering that Solomon
(it would seem) put up in the temple a trophy of
Yahwe's victory over the Dragon of chaos (see Nkhlsii-
tan), it is conceivable, though scarcely probable, that
a hymn to the creator which contained these four lines
was actually written for use at the dedication of the first
temple. At any rate, even if not of the Solomonic age,
the fragment is presumably pre-exilic, and confirms the
idea that the creation of the world ( /. e. , the world know n
to the Israelites) was early spoken of as a proof of
Yahwe's greatness. Nor can we be surprised that some
scanty reference to Yahwe as the Maker kot' i^ox^v is
traceable in pre-exilic proper names (see N.XMK.s, § 30,
and cp the Bab. and Ass. names Sin-bani. Bel-bani,
Bel-ibni).
It was the Second Isaiah, however, so far as we know,
who made the creatorship of Yahwe a fundamental
TT T • Vi T<2^^''sh lielief. Is. 40 gives the key to
27. 11 isaian. -,^^ j^^^j. doctrine of creation. Living
after the collapse of the ancient state, and amidst new-
scenery and other men, gifted moreover with a tenderly
devout spirit and a rich poetic imagination, the Second
Isaiah felt what was needed to regenerate Jewish
religion — a wider view of the divine nature. To
him Yahwe was far too high for the common sacrificial
cultus, far too great to be merely a local deity ;
both nature and mankind owed their existence to
Yahwe. He had indeed chosen Israel for a special
possession ; but it was for purely moral ends. There-
fore Israels fall could not be for ever ; Israel's and the
world's creator would certainly, for liis own great ends,
restore his people. Let Israel then look up to him as
the creator of all things, and therefore also as the
Redeemer ('?i<i) of Israel. However the Second Isaiah
does not stop here. He rectifies some of the notions
which were presumably current among the Israelites — old
notions, now awaking to a fresh life under Babylonian
influence. Israel was, no doubt, one of the youngest of
the nations ; but Yahwe was not, like Marduk, according
to the old myth, one of the youngest of the gcxls ;
' before me (Yahw6) no god was made' (Is. 43 10). Nor
1 The passage is given in a fuller form in ©bal after v. 53
(than in MT), with an introductory and a closing formula. The
former runs, ' Then spike Solomon concerning the house when
he had finished building it"; the latter, 'Surely it is written firl
^i/3Aio« Tijt i(i5^9.' In line i read e(rn)<r«»'= j'2.n, with ®l-,
rather than iywopiatv which Klo. prefers, and in line 2 iv yi^w
t.\L] rather than « yvi^v. Cp Jasher, Book of, § 3.
95a
CREATION
could it Ih? right either to make an image of Yahw6 (as
if he were no better thaii the sun-god Marduk), or to
say that other KlOhim hel[>ed Yahwe (as they were said
to have heljxid Marduk) in the work of creation (Is. 40
i8, etc. 4424). Whether there was really a chaos at
the beginning of all things, he docs not expressly say.
He does tell us, however, that there is nothing chaotic
(tuhu) in the earth as it came from Yahwe ; the inference
from which is, that lK)th in history and in prophecy
Gods dealings are clear and comprehensible, and de-
signed for the gofwl of man ( Is. A'> 18/. ). I Ic ])oinledly
declares that Yahwi not only formed light but also
made darkness (Is. 457), whereas the old cosmogony
of J2 (see § 12) ascrilxjd only light, not darkness,
to the creative activity o( IClohim.
The Second Isaiah does not assert that the creator-
ship of Yahwe is a new truth. .Ml that he professes to
do is to \mfold the meaning of one of the great truths
of priin;Kval tradition (Is. 40 21 ; see SHOT). His view
of creative activity is a large one. (rcatorship consists,
he thinks, not only in bringing into cxister.ce tliat which
before was not, but also in the direction of the course of
history (41 20 458 487). He affirms that both men and
things are "called' into existence by Yahwe (41 4; cp
4O26 4426 4813) ; but he dfx;s not refuse to speak also
of Yahwe's hand (4813 cp 4022, etc.), or of his breath
(443 cp 40 24), as the agent of production, l^ase and
irresistibteness are two leading characteristics of Yahwe's
action, and hence it is that the Second Isaiah prefers
(though less distinctly than the I'riestly Writer) the
conception of creation by the voice to that t)f creation
by the hand. Creation by the voice is also a specially
characteristic idea of Zoroastrianism ; ^ but the Jews prob-
ably derived the idea, directly or indirectly, not from
Persia but from Babylonia. No more striking expression
of it could be wished for than that contained in the
following lines from the Creation-epic (Tab. iv. ) : —
Then in their midst they laid a Rarment,
To Marduk their tirst-born thus they spoke :
I-et th}- rule, O Lord, surpass that of the gods,
Perishinj; and becoming — sneak and let it be !
At the ojiening of thy mouth let the garment perish ;
Again command it, then let the garment reapi)ear !
He spoke with his mouth, and the g.irment perished ;
.\gain he conmianded it, and the garment reappeared.2
Did the Priestly Writer really Ixilieve in a pre-existent
chaos, out of which the world was made? Or is the
p retciuion of chaos in his cosmogony simply due
to educational considerations? Considering the
line taken by the Second I.saiah, and still more by the
later wise men, we may venture to class the reference
to chaos in Gen. 1 2 with those other concessions to i
popular superstition which make Ezra's law-book an
ecclesiastical compromise rather than an ideal standard."*
.•\ similar remark applies to the other mythic features
in the cosmogony ; all that the Priestly Writer really
cares for are the religious truths at the base of the
story, such as the creatorship of Yahwe, the divine
image (surely not, according to P, physical) in man,
and the fundamental cosmic importance of the sabbath.
The later writings show that the teaching of the
Second Isaiah and the Priestly Writer \vas not thrown
29 Later ^"^^y- ^'''"'^ '^^ *'^*-' "^°^' Ixiautiful psalms
writings.
(8 104) are suggested by the priestly cos-
mogony, and in Ps. 339 1485 creation by
the word of Go<l, without any mention of chaos, is
affirmed with emphatic conciseness. The fragments of
the older prophetic writings were deficient in references
to creation ; the post-exilic adapters and supplementers
of prophecy have remedied this defect (see r "■. , Am. 4 13
Jer. 423-26 .')22^ 10 12 31 35-37), whilst the Hook of Job is
pervaded by the belief in the Creator. The Praise of
Wisdom, too (Prov. 822-31), gives a grand picture of the
1 The Avesta, however, connects creation with the recital of
a certain potent formula called Ahuna-vairya (Honover). Gen. 1
knows nothing of sp>ells.
2 Del. M'eltschSf/., 104 ; Zimmern, in Ounkcl's SchSp/., 410/
> But cp Smend, A T Rel.-gcsch.'^) 457.
953
CRESCENS
activity of the CJreator, who re<)uires no sabbath-rest,
for he cannot lie fatigued.' Nothing is s;»id here, or
in the Hook of Job,'- of chaos or pre-existent matter.
The first of the late didactic writers who distinctly
asserts the creation of the world out of matter is the
author of the Hook of Wisdom ' ( 1 1 1 7 Kriaaaa. ibv Kba\u>v
i^ d/i6p<pov D\r}t). He may no doubt be said to I'lato-
nize ; but Philo Ix-'fore him, not indee<i without some
hesitation, held the Ijelief of the eternity of matter,* and
he appears to have been influenced \>y contemjxjrary
Jewish interpretations of Gen. 1 2. In 2 Mace. , however
(a Pharisa.'an record), we find the statement that the
world and its contents were made oiiK (^ 6vtwv (72E).
a guarded phrase,* which reminds one of Hcb. 11 3, and
is at any rate incompatible with a belief in i/xop<pos i\r] ;
and, in two fine passages in A/>oc. Bur. (Charles), Go<l
is addressed thus, ' O I hou . . . that h:u>t called from
the begimiing that which did not yet exist, and they
obey thee' (lil4). and 'with a word thou quickenest that
which was not' (488). Parallel passages in NT are
Rom. 4 17 Heb. II3 (where, however, fii] tie (paivofUywy
is not to Ix" confused with (k fxi] <f>aii>ofi(vwi>).^ We
nmst not, however, overlook the fact that in one of
the latest books a distinct reference to chaos occurs.
In 2 Pet. 85 the earth is described as ' conjpacted out
of water ... by the word of God. ' Here " water '
obviously means that portion of the chaotic waters
which was under the firmament ; out of this, accortling
to ( Jen. 1 6, the dry land emerged at the fiat of Yahw^.
The importance given to the Logos in Jn. 1 3, and to
the Son of God in Heb. I2, as the organ of the divine
creative activity, is best treated in another connection
(see Logos). On the doctrine of the re-creation of
heaven and earth, see Delugk, § 19.
K"13 ("jf which .'Xss. banu, 'to make, create,' is a phonetic
modilicalioii)^ is a characteristic word of P (tJen. 1 often, 2 ^/.
__ , -'i/.; <P TTOielv [.\K1,1, but in 2 4 ot« tyeVero
30. words [AEI,]);« also cp Is.40.0ii (twenty times; tp
for 'create.' various renderings). Di. (</»•«. 17) wishes to
claim K13 for J H ; but Kx. 34 10 Nu. 1(5 30 have
been maniiJulated by R. In l'.cn.C7 'riJ<"l3 (f^"" 'n"C"i") '* ^'''*'B'»-"'l
to K by 1 )i. himself. Is. 4 5 and Am. 4 13 are intcriK>lations (see
Amos, 8 12, Is.mah, ii., § 5). Jer. 31 22 occurs in a section written
or rewritten late. 1)1.4 32 (where }<^3 staniis of the creation of
man) is hardly pre-e.\ilic (cp Dkctekcj.no.mv, $ 19). In spue of
these facts, it would be unwise to say that the narrative in J
(see above, g 1 2) cannot have contained the word K-13, correspond-
ing to Ass. hani'i.
."!jp 'to f;ibricate, make, create,' Gen. 14 19 22 ('creator of
heaven and earth ' ; ix; e<cTi<T«i' |.M >I.l), Dt. 32 6 (' thy father that
made thee"; but €(C7TJ<TaTo [li.M' LJ); Prov. S 22 (Vahwes creation
of Wisdom, fKTKTfv (Hn.\]): Ps. 13i» 13 ('thou didst create my
reins'; but «itTTi<rai [Hk.XRT]). All these passag-.s are late;
but yp is probably a divine title (see Cain, § 5), and Eve, in
Gen. 4 I, says (probably) ' I have produced, created (but «<cn}<ra-
/it).- [ADEL]), a man like (the Creator) Yahwe' (nin* nS^S?).
npy, ' to make,' Gen. '24 18 (I), Is. 437. i^' 'to form,' Gen. 2 7 19
0) l.s. 43i7 Jer. 10 16 Am. 4 13 Zcch. 12 i.
II. /.. , §g 1-4 ; T. K. C. , §§ 5-30.
CREDITOR (HL"]), 2 K. 4 i. See Law and
JUSTK K, 5; 16.
CRESCENS (kphckhc [Ti. WH^}, a companion of
Paul who had gone to Galatia (2Tim. 4iot). In the
Ap. Coitstl. (746) he is named, as ' liishop of the
churches of Galatia,' among those bishops who had
been ordained in the lifetime of the ajx>stles. There is
some authority (X C, etc. Ti. ) for reading raWi'av
1 Cp Jn. 5 17, and contrast Gen. 2 2.
2 Except in the faint allusion (Job 38 8). The same wTiter
would almost seem to have believed in pre-existent light (v. 7).
See above, 8 21 (»•)•
' See Drummond, Philo Judtrus, 1 188, who also refers to
4i«TV7roOTo (l'J6) as implying the same doctrine.
■• Drummond, o/. cit. 1 ■2tyijf.
8 Vg. boldly renders here ouic «f ovntv by ex nikilo. So in
Pastor Jitrmtr, 2i, the old translator gives ex nikilo for ck
ToO fit) a\rt<n.
• Vg. boldly, ex intnsibilibus (cp (jen. 1 2, ©).
7 Barth, ZD.MG, 18S7, p. 640.
8 Cp Frankel, PaldstiH. Exegete, 36 ; Geiger, Urschrt/l,
343^
954
CRESCENTS
instead of FaXaTia^ in 2 Tim. 4 10. Gallia is a natural
emendation, possibly a right intor|iretation, of Galatia —
' in accordance with the later usage as regards Gaul, both
Galatia and Gaul having in St. I'aul's time usually, if
not always, alike been called TaXaria by the Greeks '
(WH). Cp GAI.ATIA.
In the list of the seventy apostles compiled by the Pseudo-
Di>rotheiis (see Chron. Pasc/i., Bonn Kd., 2 121) Crescens is
enumerated as ' bishop of Chalcedon in (laul ' {\aX.Kr)66vo<; rrj^ iv
TaAAio); in that drawn up by Pseudo- Hippdlytus he appears
as "Crisces bishop of Carchedon in Gaul.' According to the
Pseudo-Sophronius, who enumerates Timothy, Titns, Crescens,
and the Ethiopian einiuch immediately after the twelve .■lpo^tk•s,
he was founder of the church of Vienne in (laul. The Latin
church commemorates him on June 27 ; the (jreek on July 30
(along with Silas, Andronicus, and Epaenetus). See LIpsius,
A/'ol.-r. . l/'.-Crsr/i.
CRESCENTS (D^pnb), Judg. 82. 26 RV (AV ■ orna-
ments'), Is. ;^ia RV (AV 'round tires like the moon').
See Xkcki.Ac K.
CRETE (kphth : mod. Camiia), the largest island
in the /Kgcan sea, of which it is also the S. limit.
Crete extends 140 m. from W. to E., consisting of an irregular
ridge of mountains which fall into three distinct groups, the
central and loftiest (mod. I'si/criti) being the Mount Ida of the
ancients. The N. coast is broken into a series of large bays
and promontories ; on the S. there are few harbours, and oiily
one lonsiderable l)ay— that of Messara, under .Mt. Ida. The
physical character ol' Crete is succinctly tiescribed by Strabo
(475, opeu'j) (cai iduela t) I'ljaos, ex^' ^'auAuii'as ei/KapTTOus).
Lying at almost e(|ual distance from Kurope, Asia,
and Africa, Crete was one of the earliest stages in the
l)assage of Oriental civilisation to the W. In historical
times it was of little importance — chieHy as a recruiting
ground for mercenary troops (Pol. 31 26, Jos. Ant. xiii.
43; cp I Mace. 1131).^ (.Jiiintus Metellus reduced the
island in 67 B.C., and it was combined with the
Cyrenaica to form one province — senatorial under the
eiTi]5erors.
The jews were early connected with Crete (cp the
story told in Tac. J /is/. r>2 tliat the Jews were originally
fugitives from Crete). In ©'■'-'* of Ezek. •2i> 16 and Zeph.
25 [BX.AQ] Kprjres is read for the ' Cherethites ' or
• Cherethims' (n'nis) of EV, and KprjT-q [BX.\Q] in
Zeph. 26 for mD, which, however, is certainly not Crete,
but denotes 'land of the Cherethites' — i.e., Philistia.
KprJTCs also occurs in © of Ezek. 3O5 npparently for
CIS. See CHKUKrHrrK.s ; and, on the hypothesis con-
necting the Philistines with Crete, Cafiitok, Piiil.i.s-
TINKS. Gortyna (near modern //. Deka in the Messara,
the only consideral)le plain in the island) is mentioned
as containing many Jews ( i Mace. I523 cp IO67), and
Philo {Le^. ad Cai. 36) says that Crete, like all the
Mediterranean islands, was full of thetn (cp Acts2ii
Tit. 1 10 14, Jos. Ant. xvii. Vli, J'ita, §76).
The account of Paul's voyage to Rome furnishes
several geographical details. From Cnldus his ship
ran under the lee of Crete (.\cts277 virewXeva-afiei' tt}i>
KpTjTTji' Kara ZaX/JLuiPrju), and soine time appears to
have l)cen spent in the shelter of the I'"air Havens.
Whether the apostle was able to accomplish there any
missionary work cannot even be guessed; and. we are
thus left without any information as to the process of
the evangelisation of the island. When we ne.xt hear
of it the gosi^l has apparently been widely established
(see Pastorai, Episti.ks).
The character of the Cretans as gathered from the
epistle to Titus, is entirely in accord with what is
known from other sources. The epistle (Tit. 1 12) quotes
'a projjhet of their own' (i.e., Epimenides, called
6{?os dvTip by Plato, Laws, 1 642 ; 6eo<f>i\ri% Plut. Sol.
12), who stigmatised them as liars and beasts. It
was a popular saying that it was impossible to out-
cretan a Cretan (Pol. 821, cp Pol. 646/ 818 33 16).
Polybius (646) writes that 'greed and avarice are so
native to the soil in Crete, that they are the only people
1 They were mostly archers : Paus. i. 284, 'EWrjiTiv on firi
KpTja'if oiiK inix'opi.oi' ov Tofev«i'. Their internal di— "-•"""
kept the Cretans in miliury training : cp Pol. 48 24 4.
955
CROCODILE
among whom no stigma attaches to any sort of gain
whatever' (cp Tit. 1 11, 'teaching things which they
ought not for an ignominious' §ain ' — a similar phrase
occurs in Tit. I7). The repetition of the thought of
Tit. 1 7 fXT] irdpoivov, 22 vri<t>a.\iovi, 23 (iy)dk oivi^i iroWt^
deSovXuj/jL^vas is equally ominous (Cretan wine was
famous in antiquity; cp Juv. Sat. 14 270). Tit. 3i
bears obvious reference to the turbulence of the Cretans,
a characteristic which runs through their history.
I'or Crete as the 'stepping stone of Continents,' see
A. J. P2vans on 'Primitive I'ictographs from Crete ' in
y. //<//<■//. .S'/W. 14 ('94). ^ w. J. vv.
CRIB (D-UN). I.s. 1 3, etc. See Catti,i-, § 5.
CRICKET (^nn). Lev. 11 22, RV. AV Bketi.e
('/•■■•)•
CRIME (HtilT), JobSlii; see Law and Justice,
Sio/. •■
CRIMSON, ypin, to/ci', a word common in the fem.
form nryin, toleah, or nrpin, tola'ath, is used in Ex.
It) 20 in the general sense of 'worm' [EV], in Is. 1 i3
( E V ' crimson ' ), Lam. 4 5 ( E V ' scarlet ' ) for the crimson
dye prepared from the body of the female Coccus ilicis,
a Homopterous insect belonging to the family Coccida;.
The female, wliich grows to the size of a grain of corn, is in
the adult or imago stage attached by its inserted proboscis into
the leaves and twigs of the Syrian Holm-oak, whose juices it
lives on. The male is winged and flies about. The bodies
of the females are collected and dried, and from them are
prepared the colouring matters known as Cochineal, Lake, and
Crimson. Since the discovery of America a Mexican species
of Coccus, C. cacti, which lives on the India fig, has largely
supplanted the first-named species as the source of the pigment,
and at the present day both have lost their commercial value
owing to the invention of aniline dyes. In old literature the
name Kermes (see below) is frequently used for Coccus.
Other names for this colour are 'pa, sdni (Jer. 430,
RV ' scarlet ' ; elsewhere EV ' scarlet ' ; see Colour.s,
§ 14) and the late equivalent h-rp2, karmW^ (2Ch. 2714
[6 13] 3 nt -)■ The origin of the termination -il in S'pis
is obscure ; it can scarcely be explained (as in Ges.''-"*')
by the Pers. affix -in ; for there is no word kirmin in
Pers. , nor would it signify the colour if there were.
For Is. 63 1 (j-i,':n, RV'-'K. -crimsoned,' EV 'dyed'),
see CoLOL'RS, § 13/. n. m. — .\. e. s.
CRISPING PINS (Unn), Is. 322. See B.\g (2).
CRISPUS (Kpicnoc [Ti. WH] ; a Roman name),
ruler of the .synagogue at Corinth, and one of Pauls
converts there (Acts 188 i Cor. 1 14).
In Ap. Const t. 7 46 he is said to have been ordained bishop of
jEgina. In Mart. Rom. Vet. he is commemorated on Oct. 4.
CROCODILE. ' Beasts of the reeds ' is an alternative
rendering (in AV"'B ) of nj]? n?n, Ps. 6830 [31] (©
Bhria toy K^^<^/V\OY). -^^ 'company of spearmen,'
RV^ rightly 'wild beast of the reeds.' This means the
crocodile (hardly B(>hemoth — i.e., the hippopotamus),
used to symbolise the Egyptian power. Cp Hupfeld
and Del. tid loc.
According to (5 the 3s of Lev. 11 29 (.AV 'tortoise')
was a 'land-crocodile'; see Lizard, i. For 'land-
crocodile,' RV's rendering of n3, a kind of lizard (Lev.
11 30), see Chameleon, i. For Jer. 146 RV^t- (c'3n ;
.■\V 'dragons,' RV 'jackals'), see Dragon, § 4. For
Job 41 1 i': RV'K- [40 25] (EV 'Leviathan.' AV"'ir-
' whale,' ' whirl[xx)l ' ), see Behemoth and Leviathan.
The animal descriljed poetically in Job has generally
been identified with the crocodile (seeesi:)ecially Bochart
^lyiff-)- Until recent times, when the propriety of
1 Probably from Pers. ^/rj;/, 'a worm,' and perhaps akin to
our 'crimson' and 'carmine' (see Skeat, s.71. crimson'). Cp
Sans, kritni, which is probably identical with our word ' worm '
(/A s.v. ' worm '). On the other hand, Del. (ZL 7' 39 593 ['781)
may be right in connecting Ar. and Pers. kirmut, from which
carniesitius and crimson are most n.-ituraljy derived, with an
independent Turkish root beginning with p instead of 3.
2 The word l^'oia seems to have been read for ^^-^2 ^V ® '"
Cant. 7 5 [6). See Haik.
956
CROCODILE, LAND
making any zoological identification has tjeen questioned,
the chief dissentient has lx;en Schultciis. This great
eighteeiiih-century scholar tliinks that the arguments for
the crocodile anil the whale are atK)ut etjual ; tiie poet
does not seem to him to have lx*en consistent in liis de-
scription. Tristram, however (.Vy7// 258), is of opinion
as a naturalist that the crocodile is descrilxjd under the
name Leviathan, and if Huildes translation and ex-
position be adopted, the characteristics of the crocodile
— the difficulty of capturing or taniing it, its vast size,
its formidable row of teeth, its impervious scales, its
gleaming eyes, its violent snorting, and its immense
strength. — all come out with niarvellous exactness.
Riehm {Hllli, s.v. 'Leviathan') leaves it an open
question whether the poet may not even have seen
crocodiles in Palestine. Certainly the Nahr ez.-Zerk{i
near C'a;sarea is believed to have had crocodiles quite
ateiy.' and, as the climate of this marsh region re-
sembles that of the Delta, there is in this nothing sur-
prising. Still, tliough Pliny ( I/X i> 19) speaks of this river
as the Crocodile river, and mentions a tow a called ( "ro-
codilon. we have no evidence that there were crocodiles
there in biblical times. A thirteenth-century tract gi\es
a strange story of fierce beasts called ' cocatrices ' having
lx?cn brought there (see Cockatkk.k). Sir John
Maundeville designates them corcodrils. See further
Budde's elaborate conmientary on Job 40/ ; and for
another view (connecting the description in Job with
mythology) see Behkmoth .xnd Lkviatha.v, § 3.
CriKotiilus nilotkus, formerly common throughout the Nile,
h.-is been ahuosl exterminated in the lower part of the river,
though it still flourishes above the second cataract. It is found
fron the Nile and the Senegal to the Cape of ( lood Hope, ami
in .Madagascar and Syria. Large specimens attain a leni;t!i of
15 feet. It was worshipped hy the ancient Egyptians at Omhos
and in the Kayfim (by Lake Moeris) under the name of Sobku
(tr;ui>crilitd in Cik. as iou^o?) ; for a possible explanation of
this, sec .NLispero, Da-i.n of Civ. ioj_/: n. M. — A. E. S.
CROCODILE. LAND (n2). Lev. 11 30, RV ; AV
CiiAMKi.i'ON ('/-T'. ). See also above.
CROCUS (nS->*nn), cam. 2i, RV"'e-; t:V RosK
{q..:\.
CROSS. We shall not attempt to introduce the
reader to the arch;vological study of the .symlxjiism
of the cross. Interesting as the task would be, it is
really superfluous. If there was a time when it could
l)e supposed that lietween Christianity and the non-
Christian religions there was, in respect of the symbol
of the cross, an affinity that was divinely apix)inted,
that time is passed. We are no longer tempted to
imagine that iK-lween the sign of the cro.ss in baptism,
and the heathen custom of Ixiaring a mark indicat-
ing the sixjcial religious communion of the individual,
there is a kind of pre-ordained relation. On the
other hand, the fact that heathen notions did affect
popular Christian tieliefs in very early times, cannot
l)e denied : the magic virtue ascribed to the cross
has doubtless a non-Christian origin. For these matters
it is enough to refer to Zockler {Das A'reus Christ i),
who fully recognises the original purity and simplicity
of the earliest Christian view of the cross. His sobriety
contrasts with the fantastic subjectivity of E. von Bunsen
(Das Symbol des Kreiizes, 1876).
First as to the meaning of the Greek word ffravpds,
which has a wider range than the word ' cross ' by
^ which it is rendered in English. We find
■ , it fretiuently used for the most primitive
and use. ■ r 1 • l 1
mstrument of execution, the upright stake
{(■rux simp/ex) to which the delinquent was bound
when no tree was at hand (cp itifelix arbor and infclix
lignum; Liv. 1 26 Cic. Pro Rabir. 4), or on which
he was impaled (cp HANGING), as well as for the
fabricated cross (crux cowposita) of various shapes.
1 Schumacher says that he has .seen a crocodile there, but
that there are very few crocodiles left (PK/-Q, Jan. 1887, p. 1).
For a sifting of the evidence down to 1857 see Tobler, Drift*
IVanderung nach Paldstina ("59), 375 ff. Cp Rob. Phy.
Geog. Ce;), 1757: ; Baed. /"a/.P) 272.
957
3. NT cross.
CROSS
The origin of crucifixion is traced back to the
Phoenicians. The cross was also u.sed at quite an early
date in some form or other by I'.gyptians ( Thuc.
liio), Persians (Herod. 9i2o), Carthaginians (Valerius
Maximus ; Polyb. lii, etc.), Indians (Diod. '2i8),
Scythians (Justin, 25), and others, besides the Greeks
((J. Curtius, 44) and the Romans.' Among the last-
named, however, this cruel form of punishment (cp
Cic. / 'err. It 64 ' crudelissimuni teterrimunujue sup-
piiciunt"; Jos. lij v. 11 i) was originally reserye<l for
slaves (seri'ile suppliiium ; compare the application of
the \iixw\ furcifer to slaves) and criminals of the worst
kind.-' It was at tirst considered too shameful a punish-
ment to l)e inrticted upon Roman citizens (Cic. I'err.
I5 56i etc.).
Of the cross proi>er there were three shapes — the crux
immissti or four-armed cross, the crux cummissa or
_, three-armed cross, and the crux decussata
" ■ wiiich is more commonly known as St.
•Andrew's cross. Following the old tradition of the
Clmrch (Iren. }laer.\\. 'J 1 4 ; Justin. Tryph. 91 ; Tert. adv.
JuJ. 10, etc. ) which finds some support in the assertion
of the Gospels that above the head of Jesus was placed a
title(Mk. 1 ;') 26 f7r(7/)a</>7; T77S atrial ; Lk. 23 ^8 e7ri7/)a0')) ;
Mt. '^737 aiTia ; Jn. 19 19 rtrXos), the cro.ss of the NT
has conunonly lx;en taken to be the crux iininisssn.'^
The accounts of the manner of the crucifixion being
so meagre, any degree of certainty on this point is
impossiljle ;■• but the evidence seems to preponderate in
favour of the traditional view.
The four-armed cross in use at the time of the cruci-
fixion of Jesus was most probably of the following
description. It consisted of two pieces —
an upright stake [stipes, staticutum), which
was firmly fixed in the ground with pegs or fastened to the
stump of a tree, and a cross-lx;ani {artleuna, patibulum),
which was carried by the condennied to the place of
exi'cution. High up in tlie upright stake ,an indentation
was probably made in which to fasten with cord And
perhaps also to nail the cross-beam (cp Lucian's ^v\a
TiKTaivtiv ; also Hor. Carm. 1 35 ; ( ic. ]'err. f>2i). At
a suitable height from the groinid was fixed a [jeg
{TTTjyfMa, sedilc ; see Iren. J/acr. ii. 24 4) on which to set
the body astride (cp Justin, Dial. 91 ; Iren. I.e. ; Tert.
cant. Marc. 3 18) so that the whole weight might not rest
upon the hands and arms.'' This, together with the
fastenings, made a rest for the feet [viroiriidiov ,
suppedaneu7n lii^nuiii; cp (ireg. of Tours, De Glor.
Martyr., chap. t5) uimecessary.
It is probable that on such a cross as this Jesus
was crucifie<l,'' and that the execution was carried out
. _ ._ . in the regular manner. Soon after the
*• C"^°^^°°- sentence (Val. Max. 1 ,6 ; Dion. Hal.
948), or on the way to execiuion (Liv. 3336; cp Cic.
V^err. 5 54) the condemned was scourged." He was
led, bearing his own cross, or rather part of it (Plut.
De sera numinis vindicta, chap. 9 ; Artemid. 256
1 In some of these cases (e.g., Persian.s), no doubt, only the
crux simplex is intended. The cros.s' in the strict sense of the
word was not u.sed by the early Jews. In Esth. "9 S13 ^ re-
presents ,-i''n ' to hang ' (cp the application of the term vSn '"
Jesus by the later Jews), by (navaovv. See, however, Hang-
ing. It was iiuroduced into Palestine by the Romans (.see
Law and Ji'.stice, g 12 ; and cp Jos. Ant. xii. 14 2 xx. 62, BJ
ii. 126). Pesh. in the Go-spels uses zekapit, which seems to
mean primarily ' to elevate.' Qur'an (4 156) uses salaba.
^ Cp Lk. 2332, Sen. Ep. 7, Cic. Patron. 71, Dion. J 52, Jos.
Ant. 13 22, .■\pul. Asin. 3.
5 This too is the shape of the cross in the old (3rd ceiit.)
caricature of the crucifixion which was found on the Palatine
hill at Rome.
•• Some scholars (Keim, etc.) have contended for the crux
commissa (cp Seneca, Consol. ad Mar., 20, Jos. H/ v. Hi).
* Jeremy Taylor (ZZ/i- ij/" C//r»j.7) supposes the body to have
'rested upon nothing but four great wounds.'
6 The offence alleged (Lk. 23 2) was a political one. Stoning
was the Jewish punishment for blasphemy. See Law and
JU.STICE, i 12.
7 The scourging of Lk. 23 22 Jn. 19 i was probably a i>ri -
liminary and therefore an irregular one.
958
CROSS
and cp the symbolical phrase in Mt. 10 38 16 24) to
which he was bound, along the public roads to an
eminence (see (ioLGOTiiA) outside the city gates (Cic.
l^err. i>b6\ I'laut. A/il. glor. ii. 4 6). In front of
him went a herald l)earing a tablet [titulus ; Suet., Cal.
32) of condemnation, or he himself carried the alria.
(cp (j(xvl%, Socr. HE 1 17 ; irlva.^, Euseb. HE v. I44;
Xfi'KWfia, Soz. HE I17) suspended by a cord from his
neck (Suet. Calig. 32 ; Dotnit. 10 ; Dio Cass. 54 3 ;
Euseb. HE v. I44). On arrival at the place of execu-
tion the cruiiarius was stripped of his clothing and
laid on the ground upon his back. The cross-beam
was then thrust under his head, and his arms were
stretched out across it to the right and left and perhaps
bound to the wood (cp Lucan, Phars. 6543/'. I'lin.
y/.V xxviii. 4ii), the hand being fastened by means
of a long nail (cp cruet Jigcrc, affigere). .Already, before
or after the arrival of the coinlemned (see Cic. Verr.
V. 66, and cp Polyb. i. 86 6; Uiod. .\xv. f) 2 ; Jos. BJ
vii. 64), the upright stake had been firmly fastened in the
ground. The cross-beam was then, with the lielp of
ropes (cp perhaps Plin. HN .xxix. 4 57) and perhaps
of st)me other simple contrivance, raised to its place on
the stake. Here it was hung provisionally, by a rope
attached to its ends, on a firm nail or notch, ^ whilst
the body was placed astride tlie lower peg in the stake,
and the legs bound. The beams were then probably
bound and nailed together at the point of intersection.
Nails like those already used for the hands would be
employed to fix the feet (Lk. 24 39 ; cp Plautus, Mostel.
ii. 1 13 ; Just. Dial. chap. 97; Tert. Adv. Marc. 3 19,
etc.), which were only slightly elevated above the
ground. The nails were driven through each foot
either in front, through the instep and sole, or at the
side, through the tendo Achillis.'^ The body remained
on the cross until it decayed (Hor. Ep.\. 16 48 Lucan,
Pilars. 6543), or (from the time of Augustus) until it
was given up to the friends of the condemned for burial
((^uinlil. Decl. 69; cp Jos. BJ iv. 62). Soldiers were
set to watch the crucified (Cic. Pro Kabir. 4ii ; Petron.
5,//. 3; Quint. Decl. 69; Mt. 2766 Jn. 1923). Death
resulted from hunger (Euseb. H E %"&) or pain (Seneca,
Ep. loi). To alleviate the latter the Jews offered the
victim a stupefying draught (Mk. 15 23 Mt. 2734 Bab.
Sanh. /. 43i). Breaking of the legs {(TKeXoKowia ; see
§ 6) was a distinct form of punishment among the
Romans (Seneca, De Ira 832 ; Suet. Aug. 67 ; cp,
however, Origen on Mt. 2754)- ^'- •\- C.
Modern realism takes an interest in these painfiil
details which was unknown to primitive Christianity
„ y . ,and to the evangelists. From an
■ . ° . archaeological point of view this may
point 01 view, j^^ justified ; but it is necessary to point
out that the evangelists are entirely indifferent to the
archivology of the circumstances of the Passion. All
indeed that they seem to care for is ( i ) the opportunity
which the Cross gave for Christ to make fresh disclosures
(in speech) of his wonderful character, and (2) the
proofs which the Passion gave, as it appeared to them,
of a ' pre-established harmony ' between prophecy and
the life of Jesus. When the ecr/JLUpvicrfxevoi oluos (wine
mingled with myrrh) or 6^05 (vinegar) is mentioned, it
is chiefly, we may presume, to suggest a connection
with Ps. 6921.^ So the 'casting lots' doubtless fixed
1 Jeremy Taylor (Li/e 0/ Christ) and Farrar (Li/c 0/ Christ),
assume that the body was nailed to a prostrate cross which was
afterwards raised and fixed in its socket. Cp however, the
expressions crucem ascendere, in crucem excurrere, ava^aivfiv
iiri Toi' or., etc.
2 See Urandt, Z>ie Rvangelische Geschichte, from which this
part of the description is borrowed. For the two nails cp
Plautus, .Mostetl. ii. 1 13 and see .Meyer. Others (Keim, Farrar,
etc.) think tliat only one nail was used.
3 This seems to be plain from the expression in Mt. 2734
(WH and RV) ' wine mingled with gall.' The allusion is to
Ps. O'.tai (xoA^, 'gall,' would never have come in otherwise),
and one remembers that Ps. 22 (from which the ' Eli, eli,' etc.,
of .\It. 27 46 is taken) is a fellow psalm to Ps. 69. See also Lk.
959
CROSS
itself in tradition because of the parallelism of Ps. 22i8.''
The only NT passages in which a clear trace of sympathy
with the physical pains of Jesus is discernible are Lk.
2244 and Heb. 67, especially the former. Here also
great reserve is noticeable. Though W'etstein (.V7',
1 751) quotes several ancient writers who state that
sweat, in some circumstances, is really tinged with
blood,'- yet the early writer of Lk. 224;,/^ contents
himself with saying that the sweat of Jesus in his
agony w'as 'as it were clots of blood' (wLcret 0p6ixfioL
_ . . - aifiaroi). 'I'here is no evidence that any
6. ue&tn or j^..^, ^,^.^^^ ^^^^ formed the idea that Jesus
died of a broken heart, as W. Stroud,
M.D. , supposed (Treatise on the Physical Cause of the
Death of Christ, 1847) — certainly an idea for which
many modern readers of the Gosijel would be glad to
find sufficient evidence. The hypothesis is based on
Jn. 1934, where we read that ' one of the soldiers with a
spear pierced (^vi'^e) his side, and forthwith there came
out blood and water.' From a critical point of view,
we can hardly say that the fact that Jesus received
this wound after he had breathed his last is well
established ; theorising upon it therefore, with a view
to determine the cause of Jesus' death, is excluded.
We have reason to believe (see Orig. on Mt. 2754) that
a lance wound was sometimes given to those who were
crucified to accelerate death. The probability is (if the
kernel of Jn. 1931-37 be accepted as historical) that the
two malefactors first had their legs broken [crucifragium)
and then received their coup de grace by being pierced
with a lance. This is not opposed to the literal
interpretation of v. 34, for all that the evangelist denies
is that the legs of Jesus were broken. That the state-
ment of the 'eye-witness' (6 iwpaKilis) has come down
to us in its original form, cannot, however, safely be
asserted, because of the impossibility of explaining the
issuing of ' blood and water ' from an internal source
pliysiologically. Perhaps one may suppose that the
writerof Jn. 19 31-37 in its present form has accommodated
the facts of tradition (the tradition attested by the ' eye-
witness ' ) to his theological needs. There is a theological
commentary on the ' blood and water' in i Jn. bjZf,
where the ' water ' and the ' blood ' have Ixicome, as it
were, technical expressions for permanent suix-rnatural
channels of divine grace, though the commentary may
to us (not to its first readers) be as obscure as the text.
' With regard to the hypothesis of Dr. Stroud (viz., that death
was sud<ien from rupture of the heart, and that the blood and
w.-iter were the separated clot and serum of the escaped blood in
the pericardial sac, which the spear had pierced), it is sufficient
to mention the invariable fact, of which this physician appears
to have been ignorant, that the blood escaping into a serum
cavity from rupture of a great organ, such as the heart
(aneurysmal aorta) or parturient uterus, does not show the
smallest tendency to separate into clot and serum ("blood " and
" water," as he takes it), but remains thick, dark-red liquid
blood. The notion that the wound was on the left side is com-
paratively late. It is embodied in some of the newer crucifixes,
where the wound is placed horizontally about the fifth costal
interspace ; but in most modern crucifixes, and probably in all
the more ancient, the wound is placed soniewhat low on the
right side. That it was deep and wide, is inferred from the
language of Jn. 2O27, where Thomas is bidden to " re.-ich hither
thy hand and thrust it into my side" — namely the side of the
spiritual body.'
[The ordinary view of the motive of the soldier (In. 19 34) —
viz., that he wished to make sure of the death of Jesus— is of
course a mere conjecture. If, therefore, the expression i^tKev-
T7)<rai/ ( = npi, 'they thrust through,' in Zech. 12 jo) will permit it,
some may prefer to accept a new hypothesis that the wound
inflicted hy the lance was only a slight one. The author of this
liypothesis thus explains it. — El>.] 'May it not have been a
thoughtless, rather than a brutal .ict, the point of the lance being
directed at .something on the surface of the bo<ly. perhaps .t dis-
2.^1 3-5 and especially Jn. 10 7^/., wliich allude to the same passage
(the iin//a) of Jn. corresponds to the eis rJ|i' iii^av fiov of the
Ijsalm). ofo9 is most naturally rendered Vinegak [q.v.]; cp
iiuotations in Wetstein. This too suits Ps. Oi».
1 This is not inconsistent with the fact that the second part of
Mt. 27 35 is wanting in the best MSS, and omitted by recent
editors. See Jn. I924.
2 ' Numerous more or less unauthentic modern instances have
also been needlessly brought together.' — c.C
3 .\n early addition to the original text (WH).
060
CROW
coloured wheal, bleb, or exudation, such as the scourging (Mt.
27 26) might have left, or the prcs-ure of the (assumed) ligature
supporting the weight of the body mi;;ht have produced?
Water not unmixed with blood from some such sujierficial
source is conceivable ; but blood and water from an uuernal
source are a mystery." — c. C.
Apart from the references to the cross in the evangeli-
cal nairatives, there are a few passages in which the
. _.. .. . cross is mentioned, or has been thought
7. BiDllcai j^ j^, mentioned, in a manner which has
Beterencea. ^^^ ^^^^ ^^ originality.
I. If .Scllin [Serubbal'fl, 106) were right in reading
iiB c'l'ri^rKi in is. 539 we should get a striking though
unconscious anticipation of the cross of Jesus in
prophec)-. It is this writer's rather strange theory that
Zkkl'HH.\hkl [i'-i'.], whom he idealises in the light of
Is. 53 and kintlred passages, suffered impalement as the
Jewish Messianic king. Unfortunately the sense of 'cross'
(o-Tai/p5s) for in is justified neither by its etymology (see
Ges.-Buhl) nor by usage. Taw means properly a
tribal or religious sign, and is used in l-.zek. 946 for a
mark of religious import on the forehead (cp CUTTlNG.s,
§ 6) and in Job 31 35 (if the text is right) for a signature. 1
Xo Jew would have used w for arax'pjs, though, the
crux coinmissa lx;ing in the shape of a T, the cross is
often referred to by early Christian writers as the
mystical Tau.
'2. .\lt. IO3S 'He that taketh not (oi' \aixjiavfL) his
cross, and followelh after me, is not worthy of me ' ; cp
Lk. 1427 'doth not l)ear {ov ^xcrdi^ei) his cross' ; Mt.
IO24 'let him take up (dpclrw) his cross' (so Mk. S34
Lk. 9i23). Two views are held: (i) Ihat to take, or
take >ip, or bear a cross was a proverbial jihrase for
undergoing a great disgrace, suggested by the si.-ht of
the Roman punishment of crucifixion ; and (2) that
though the substance of the saying may l)e due to Jesus
himself, the form, as perhaps in many other cases, is due
to tlie recasting of the saying by a later generation,
possibly under the influence of the highly original
phraseology of Paul.
3. (lal. 220 XP'<''^V (Ti'veffTavpcofxat ; ' I have been
crucified with Christ' (cp tji4). It would Ixi difficult to
assert that this strong expression was suggested by any
saying of Jesus ; it has obviously arisen out of the
previous statement, ' through the law I died to the law.'
The crucifixion of Jesus is of slight interest to Paul as
a mere historical event ; it becomes all-important
through the apostle's mystical connexion with Christ.
The crucifixion has an ideal as well as a real character,
and the former gives a value to the latter (cp Ad.\m .\nu
EvK, § 2). On Cal. 3 13 see H.VNGing. T. k. c.
See further Jesus, § 29/ ,and Oosi'KI.s, §§ 12 14; also
Brandt, Die E range Use he Gesehieh/e ('g^), I7Q# ; Keiin,
/esu von Nasara, 3409/: ; Meyer, Das Matlhdus-Eraii-
gelium (7th ed., 1898), 488/ ; Godet's Commentary on
Luke ; and, in particular O. Ziickler's Das K'reiiz Chrisli
(1875 ; ET 1878). §§ 1-4 .M. A. c, §§ 5-7 T. K. C.
CROW ( KOptONH). Bar. (1 54- -See R.WKN.
CROWN. In considering the crown of the Hebrews
the primary signification of the Knglish word, and the
„ . . origin of the crown itself, nmst not
1. Varieties. ^^ j^^^ ^j^j^^ ^^ Originally crown,
garland, fillet, chaplet, and diadem were hardly to be
distinguished from one another.
.\s to the form of the Israelite crown we have no
certain information. The ancient Egyptian forms of
the upper and lower country crowns, the one with high
receding slojje, the other l)ottle-sha(ied (see hieroglyphs
in luJVi'T, § 43 n.), are less to l)e thought of than the
.Assyrian truncated cone with its snuill pointed elevation
rising in the centre. The latter was worn by the highest
classes, and may well have been the head-dress of
1 So RV, with most critics ; but the text of i'. 34/; is certainly
in disorder (see Deer, ad loc.\ 'IB ' my sign ' ( = ' my signature ")
is a most improbable expression. Tg. and Vg. presuppose 'r^^^n
'my desire.'
31 961
CROWN
Hebrew royalty. .\nother important variety was
the Ui.MiK.M \_q-v.\ which was worn as a fillet (see
TuK».\N, i), or encircled the high imperial hat of
Persian sovereigns. From this has probably Ijecn
derived the high priests MriKK [(/.?'., 2]. The Persian
hat is perhaps referred to in the late Heb. kether (nri^
Ksth.lii 2i7 68 and perhaps Ps. 459 ['o] [f^^ra. Che.],
in I'^sth. 5td57;/ta),' and in the Kidapii of i Esd. 3 6 (EV
'headtire'). The Hebrews must have been familiar
with the ancient custom of distinguishing rulers by
special forms of headgear ; but in the fretjuent allusions
to the ceremonies of a royal accession
2. Royal crown.
■a/ion is nientioned only once —
in the case of Joash (2 K. II12). See CoKoNATioN.
Besides the bracelets (ni-iJ'Vn ; so We. 's emendation :
see Bracelet), we see that the distinctive ornament
worn by King Joash was the nizer -113. It means simply
' mark of separation or consecration, "■'and, originally, was
perhaps nothing more than a fillet (WHS A'e/. iV/«.<2)
483 /. ). In post-exilic literature it forms part of the
high priest's headdress (see MiTKE. 34). Of its earliest
use we are ignorant. It is true that according to 2 S.
1 10 Saul's nezer was transferred to his rival David ; but
we cannot Ije sure that the statement is historical. The
representation that kings went into battle wearing their
insignia need not l)e disputed ;=* but there is good ground
for suspecting that the writer (who is an l".])hrainiite) is
imaginative. See Sa.mlel, i. § 4 (2). Now.nck {//A
I307) holds that Solomon was the first to introduce
a royal crown. Certainly David did not have his son
crowned (anxious though he was to have Solomon's
right popularly recognised : i K. 1 33), and neither
Absalom nor Adonijah went through the rite of corona-
tion when claiming the throne ; but it is remarkable
that, when so nmch is said of Solomon's throne (i K.
10 18), nothing is hinted about a crown. That the
'atdrdk (.-n-^v) was, at least for a limited period, the
usual ornament of Jewish kings may be taken as certain.
It is possible that this also was originally a diadem or
fillet, although in Job 31 36 we reail that it could be
' bound ' upon the head (i:i'). which suggests that it
was a turban. In Cant. 3 11 it represents the bride-
groom's (Hellenic?) garland.-* Not only does the
\'ifdrdh, by a common metaphor, typify dignity and
honour, but also in late passages its possession implies
sovereignty and its loss is synonymous with the king's
degradation. A case of the former is Ps. 21 3 [4], ' Thou
settest a crown (ni::j') of fine gold on his head ' {aTi<pavov
tK \ldov TL/jLLOv) ; of the latter, I'.zek. 21 26 [31], ' Remove
the mitre (ns:^i:> KtSapis). and lake off the crown (n-cy
aT^(pat'o^).' Here we may follow Smend and Bertholet
in explaining tx)th mitre and crown of the m'l;/ insignia:
Zedekiah is to be stripped of all his dignity. For the
1 It is in Esther, too, that the decoration of the horse with the
king's crown is most clearly associattd with the royal dignity
(tontmst Esth. Or with i K. 1 33). See also Ciiaii.kt. In later
Hebrew nns became the ordinary word for crown. It is used
in the phrase, ' the crown of the law,' a precious crown-shaped
ornament of the scrolls of the Pentateuch, also of the crowns
on cert;iin Hebrew letters and in the famous Mishnic .sentence
(.\both 4 19), ' There are three crowns : the crown of Torah
(Law), the crown of priesthood, and the crown of royalty; but
the crown of a good name excels them." Lagarde (Cesam.
Al'handt. 207 13-15) regards in^ as a Persian loan-word: but
the root is common in Hebrew. As in most other words for
crown, the root-meaning must l)e 'to encircle."
2 © uses different words for it:- In 2 S. 1 10 it has poaiAeior
[RA], «.a«r„ia (LI, in Kx.-.'06 -nizaXov, whilst in 2 K.ll 12 the
word is left untranslated (if^ep [HI, «<fp[Al; but iy.'ao-^a (L)).
In the last-mentioned place the Targum and Pesh. have
3 Thenius refers to Layard, Kinn<ek, fig. 18. Rameses put
on a distinguishing ornament when he went agauist the Khita
(Brugsch, Gesch. .-F.g. 499).
•» The mCV which David captured (2 S. 12 30) belonged to the
idol o(\.\\c Ammonites (see Ammon, 8). For the Talmudic view
on this and other p.-vssages connected with r^ yal and priestly
crowns, see Leopold Liiw s excellent essay ' Kranz und Krone '
in his Ces. Schr. 3 407^:
962
CRUCIFIXION
priestly may (cp Ecclus. 45i2), see MiTRE ; and for
other Heb. words to designate distinguished head-gear,
see Diadem, Tukhan.
Crowns or garlands were worn by brides (Ezek. IG12
niKsn nT:j;) and by bridegrooms (Is. 61 10 nxs, KV
_ . , garland).^ The 'oil of joy" (»(>., t'. 3) recalls
^ , ' the royal anointing (see Cokonatujn), and
*^ it may l>e that the bridegroom wore a chaplet
crown. ^^ ^jijg ^^f ^^^. festival. Delitzsch thinks that
the bridegroom's //rr w.is a turban. Solomon (Cant.
3ii) is represented as wearing a diadem or 'd/Jrdk on
the day of his espousals (cp Cantici.es, § 9). In
the time of Vespasian the bridegroom's chajjlet was
abandoned (Mish. Sotah 9 14). In the Middle Ages
the Jews resumed the use of wreaths for brides.
Josephus asserts that after the return from the exile
Aristobfilus, eldest .son of Hyrcanus I. , was the first to put
' a diadem on his head ' {Bi.a.5r}fia, Aiit.
4. Post-exilic
and NT usages.
xiii. 11 1). From Zech. 6 9-15, however,
it would appear that Zechariah was
directed to select from the exiles' gifts enough gold and
silver to make crowns (nii^y) or a crown (jrpj, Wc. ,
Now. ) for Zeruljbalxil.- Josephus was perhaps thinking
solely of the Ha.smoii:i;an kings ; those priest-kin^s wore
' buckles of gold ' on their shoulders, not crowns on
their heads (i Mace. 10 89 I444, Tropir-t)v xp^'^^d" '< see
Buckle, 3). The Talmud thinks that Hyrcanus, the
'second David,' wore two separate crowns, one royal
and one priestly (h'iiLi. 66 u) ; and Josephus re]jo:ts
a present to this kiii;.^ of a golden crown from Alliens
{(TTifpavos, .4/itxW.Si).
The Gr. (rrecpavoi, which properly denotes the badge
of merit as distinct from 5id5j?,ua the badge of royally
(see Di.\ni;M), is fre;iuently used by O to represent
.nT.:jf ; but tiie distinction between 5Ld5r]/j.a and <TT(<pavoi
was not consistently obser\'ed in Hellenistic Greek.
In the NT ffTi<f)avos is used of the garlands given to
the victors in games ( i Cor. 9 25 ; cp 2 Tim. 2s), of the
ornaments worn by the ' elders,' etc. in the visions of the
.Apocalypse (Rev. 44 10 62 O7 14i4[hcre, Ihe.Sonof Man]),
and of Jesus' crown of thorns. The last perhaps affects
the Roman rather than the Jewish idea as to the symbolism
of the crown ; but Jud;t^an ideas on such matters must by
that dale have Ixien assimilated to the Roman.
InRViM.icc. 1029ll35l337 39 2Macc.l44((rW(/)aj'or)
' crown ' ( AV' 'crown tax ' ) refers to a ' fi.xed money j^ay-
ment like the Roman atiruin coronarium (Cic. in Pis.vi.
ch. 37), in vom\ of the wreath or crov.'n of gold which
at one time it was customary, and even obligatory, for
subject peoj)les to present as a gift of honour (cp 2
Mace. 144 and S 2 above) to the reigning king on
certain occasions' (Camb. Bib. ad 1 Mace. IO29); see
Taxation.
On ther.V of the altar (Ex. 30 3/. 3726/. EV 'crown,'
RV'e- 'rim' or 'moulding'), see Ai.tak, §11; on
that of the ark [ih. 25ii 372), see Akk, § 13 ; and on
that of the table of shewbread ' ^ib. 2^t-2^f. 37ii /!), see
Al.TAR, § 10. (5 renders by KPfidriov arpiirTJv and
See CiiAPi.ET, MiTKE, TfRRAN ; and cp Goi.n.
I. A. — S. A. C.
CRUCIFIXION. See Cross.
CRUSE. I. The cruse of water (HnSV- sappdhatjt)
which stood by Saul's he id when he was surprised by
David (i -S. 26111216: cp i K. 196) was probably a
small water-jar of porous cl.ay like the 'ibrik (vulg.ar
pronunciation, hrik) of the modern Syrians and
Egyptians. The porosity of the clay enables the
water to be kept cool if the brik is placed in a draught.
1 The re.iding i< difficult. Many follow Hitzig and read yy
for jnr (.Isa., SHOT no): 'like a bridegroom who orders
his coronal.' Crowns, it may he added, are still used in the
marriage rites of the Greek Church.
2 The MX assicrns Zechariah's crown to Joshua the high priest ;
but this can hardly be maintained (see Zkkuiiuaiiki., and cp Ki-nhi
adloc.-).
963
CUCKOW
The same vessel was used by the poor to hold oil (cp
I K. 17 12 14 16, where it is distinguished from the
larger 13 or water-jar [lA' ' pitcher '] in which the
household supjilv was fetched from the well [Gen.
24.4^ 6 tV*])-
In I K. 17 //.<•., in 106 and in Judith IO5, © uses the word
tca/zaicT)?. also WTitten (cafii//airr)9, which, if from xo/itiru), would
sug^^est the shape of the Roman ampulla.
2. The cruse of honey which Jeroboam's wife took as
part of her present to Ahijah (i K. I43) was the bakbiik
or earthenware bottle (see Bottle). The Greek trans-
lators ((D'^'- Aq.) render by crrafwos, a wine-jar, which,
it is interesting to note, is also used by <J5"'^'''- for the
sinsencth (EV ' pot of manna') laid up in the sanctuary
(Ex. 16 33). This cruse or jar of manna was of earthen-
ware according to the Targum, but of gold according
to (5 {loc. cil.).
3. The cruse (n*n^s, vSpUrKrj) of 2 K. 22ot, used by
Elisha to hold salt, was proljahly a flat dish or plate
rather than a bottle or jar (cp rtnSs, 2Ch. 3Ji3 [G Kal
evodii)0ri] ; rn^s; in 2 K. 21 13 6 aXd^aarpos [B], rb
dXd^ffTpOV [.\], TO TTV^lJV [L], P.\n).
4. On the cruse (17 dXdjSaffTpoi ; AV Box, 2) of Mt.
267, etc., strictly a jar or pliial of alabaster, usually
pcar-shajxid or pyramidal (Pliny, J/.V 9 56), see
Al.AHAMKR. A. R. S. K.
CRYSTAL. There can be little doubt that rock
cryst.al is intended by the KpvaraWos of Rev. 21 11 : glass
is represented by va\oi (see Gl.\SS). Thcophrastus
(54) reckons crystal among the pellucid stones used for
engraved seals. In modern speech we apply the term
crystal (as the ancients apparently did) to a glass-like
transparent stone (commonly of a hexagonal form) of
the flint family, the most refined kind of quartz.
In (5 KpvdToXKo'i represents —
a. nn^. ' frost ' or ' ice,' perhaps even in Ezek. 122.^
b. n^ipx ["3J<] (Is. 54i2, EVf 'carbuncles'), — that is,
'stones of fire' (cp Ass. aban isdti, 'stone of fire'=:
hipindu), on an assumed derivation from mp, 'to kindle'
(lit. by rubbing): hence the rendering of Aq. \IQ. rpiira-
VLafxov, Sym. Theod. [XiO. ] yXv<prji, Vg. lapidcs sculptos
\_scalptos\. LXX and Pesh. have KpvoTdXXov (mp?).
c. rh-a, EV 'bdellium' Nu. II7 (cp Field, Hexap.).
d. n'm-p, I'-V 'vapour' (Ps. 1488).
For Job2Si7t .-\V (n"p?Di), RV ' glass' ; see Gi,AS.s.
C''3-, gdbls []o\>1%i^; RV 'crystal,' AV 'pearls'),
is of obscure origin ; cp perhaps Ass. gabdhi, ' be thick,
massive. '
The RV 'crj-star finds support in the Heb. P'DJ^K, 'hail*
(on the relation of meanings see BDI!, s.t'. p''2i), and possibly
intheTarg. pSn3(Lag. a.Uo y^-\-^2 = ^^fipviov, ob > isu»i [Dan. 10 5
2Ch. 35 Vg. ; cp Oi'Hik]), which, like Ar. Pers. itila^fr (the
word is sli^jihtly transpos -l), means 'cryst.al or even 'gla.ss,' as
well as ' beryl." Blau understands 'glass pearls.'
pBXAC transliterates yo.Sfn and so Theod. ya/Sts ; the Pesh.
is too paraphrastic to be of any use ; and vireprjp/oitra [.Sym.]
Jl^^-VJO [Syr. He.\., mg. juXSD CuX] are appellatives
derived from MH jy^j, 'to heap up,' C"r"w 23, 'heap,' 'hill.'
CUB (212), Ezek.305 RV ; AV Chub (^.r.).
CUBIT. See Weights and Measures.
The common term is HSK, 'aiiiitiaJi (prop, length of fore-arm?
see r.DB; Ass, ainmatu, ,nax in the Siloam inscription [jyT]),
Gen.Ois; cp r'KTI^N, 'an ordinary cubit' (Dt.Sii) rirx
nsbi nSNS one handbreadth longer than the usual cubit ("Ezek.
40 5), etc."
ICi, gbined, Judg. 3 i6t seems to be a short cubit ; so Jewish
tradition ; see Moore, ./AV, \- 104 ['q3).
The NT term is wi\xv%, Mt. t> 27 Lk. 12 23.
CUCKOW, RV ' seamew ' (e)n*4* ; Xci^oy [BAFL] ;
1 Hitz. and Co. delete 'terrible,' K^ijn (so «5ha, but not 0Q
Vg. Pesh.). It is of course possible that we should read rnp \
cp b.
964
CUCUMBERS
Lev. 11 16 Dt. 14 ist), is mentioned among unclean birds.
It cannot be identified with certainty. 1 lie Hch. root
probably signifies le;inness ; thus the kindred word
nBrtc*. iahhi'pluth (cp Ar. suhdf), denotes consumption
or phthisis. There is no settled Jewish tradition ; but
© and \'g. are very likely right in understanding some
kind of atjuatic bird, jx-'rhaps the tern [S/i-rna fliiviatilis,
FFP, 135). The AV ' cuckow ' comes from the Geneva
Bible.
Two species of cuckoo spend the summer in Palestine: Cuculus
canorus, the widely-spread common cuckoo, which returns frum
its winter quarters towards the end of March ; and the great
spotted cuckoo, Cociystcs glantlarius, which arrives rather
c-u-lier. Canoi Tristram enumcr.ites nine s|>ecies of tern hclong-
ing to two genera found in I'lilestine, some of which are plentiful
along the sea coasts and around the'inland waters, especially
in wmter. The shearwater, Puffinus, is another identification
suggested for the Sahafh. P. yelkouanus, an inhabitant of
the Mediterranean and other seas, lias acquired the name of
'Sme damnie' from the French-spe:iking inhabitants of the
Hosphorus, its restless habits having given rise among the
Moh.immedaii population to the notion that it is the corporeal
habitation of lo-<t souls. N. M. — A. K. S.
CUCUMBERS (D-Nu'p. X/Xv/'/w ; ciKyAi [-YOI
B^i'L], Nu. 11 si ) and Garden of Cucumbers (H'^'pO,
viikhih; ciKyHp&TON. Is. 18 Bar. 67o[69't). Forms
analogous to the word rendered 'cucumber' occur in
Arabic, Aramaic, ICthiopic, A.ssyrian, and Carthaginian;
and probably Gr. aiKvi] ' is the same word with tlie first
two consonants transposed.^ It is thus known that what
is meant is some kind of gourd, cucumber, or melon,
perhaps primarily Cucumis Chute, L. (Low, 330), which
is now regarded as a variety of the melon [Cucumis
Melo ; see Hassekjuist, I/cr Palcrst. 491).
The cucumber itself, Ciiciiiiiis sativus, originated in NW.
India, and certainly the .S.-inscrit name soul-as.t looks strikingly
like o-iiciios. It seems clear that the cuciimb<r reached the
Mediterranean region pretty early. De Candolle {(If. PI.
Cult. 212) says that there is no e\ iilence th.it it was known in
ancient Kgypt ; this, however, applies equally to the melon (208).
^z'^0 (for riKC'pc) is simply • place of cucumbers ' ;
Ar. and Syr. have similar words with the same
meaning. Cp Food, § 5. N. M. — vv. T. T. -i).
CUMMIN (1^3; kyminoN. cytninum. Is. 282527
Mt. •2.323!) is the seed of an umbelliferous herbaceous
plant {Cuminum ivmiuum, L. ) which is used as a condi-
ment with different kinds of food. A native of the
Mediterranean region,^ it was from an early period
largely spread over W. Asia.* The Heb. name, which
is of unknown origin, is found also in Arab., Syr.,
Eth. , and Carthaginian, and has passed into Greek,
Latin, and many modern languages, including ICnglish.
Cummin is often referred to by ancient writers. Thus two
early Greek comedians include it in lists of condiments (.Meiiieke,
378437); Dioscorides (36i/) and Pliny ('JO 14(57]) descri e its
medicinal properties, the latter noticing especi.illy its effect in
producing p.-ileness — referred toby Horace (A/, i. !!• 18, 'exsangue
cuminum ') and by Persius (v. 55, ' pallentis grana cumini ').
The mention of the seed in Mt. 2823 as a trifling
object on which tithe was rigidly imposed by the
Pharisees reminds us of the Greek use of Ki'/uvoirpiarrji
(' cuinmin-sawer ') for a niggard or skinflint (.Arist.
Etk. N. iv. 1 39). In Is. 2827, where Yahwe's varied
discipline of Israel is illustrated by the care and dis-
crimination with which the husbandman performs his
appointed task, it is noticed that finer grains, cummin
and nsp (see Fitchks), are threshed with staff and rod,
the heavier treatment by the threshing wain Ijeing re-
served for coarser seeds. N. .M.
CUN (1-12), I Ch. 188 RV ; AV CiiUN.
CUNNING WORK, CUNNING WORKMAN. The
'cunning workman,' 2un, is distinguished from the
'craftsman' — cfin — in Ex.3535 3823, and the recur-
rence of the phrase arin ntrya in connection with certain
1 Theophrastus has <rtirvof and <rt«tw>) ; according to Fraas the
former was the cucumber, the latter the melon.
a So Ces. r/i,s. s.v. ; L.ig. Arm. S/., 1975, J)fittfi.2 3s(>-
8 Kentham and Hooker, Cm. PI. 1 526.
' Dioscorides knows it chiefly in Asia Minor.
CURSE
textile fabrics (Ex.26131 286 15 86835 3938 [P]) sug-
gests some S|}ecialised meaning (see liMHKolUKKV). '
© u.sually has v^Kn;« or in^f rot ; Vg. \xs,\ia\\y polymitariut
or opus polyiiiitariuni, the work of the dama.sk weaver (see
Wkavin<;). AVniK. (Kx. '2(5i), perhaps less accurately, ha.*
'embroiderer' (sec KMiiKoiuiikv). On the other hand, the
' cunning work ' (n3B'TC) of Kx. :il 4 S-'j 32 33 35 a Ch. 2 14 [13] is
mainly that of the metal worker and jeweller; in zCh. 2615 it
i:. that of the military engineer.
CUP. The seven Hebrew and (jreek words rendered
' cu])' in EV can Ije but imperfectly distiiigui.shed ; see,
however, Fl,.\GON. (ioBi.KT, Mf.M.s, Pottkky ; also,
on Joseph's divining cup, DiviSATiON, § 3 [3],
JosF.i'ii ; and on the 'cup of blessing' (i Cor. 10 16),
Elciiaki-st, Passover.
The figure of a wine -cup occurs fretjuently to
e.xpress the effect, whether cheering (Ps. 285) or the
„ . . reverse,- of providential apjiointments.
antihrattona '^'^^ P'"op''^-ls '^''"B primarily messengers
appiications. ^j- ^^.^ j,^^. ^^^^^^ ^^ j^^,^ applications
predominates. In the N'T the figure descril>es the suffer-
ings willingly accepted by Christ and his followers (Mt.
20 22/. 2C39, etc. ), and is u.sed in the older Jewish sense
in Revelation [e.g. , 1-4 10 16 19). Nowhere does the term
' cup ' stand by itself in the .sense of ' destiny ' ; the use
dcscrilx;d above never pioduied what ni.ay be called
a technical sense of 013, 'cup.' In Ps. 116 16s it is
a second oia. meaning 'appointment, destiny,' from
\/0D3 = ruc, 'to number, to ileterininc,' that is used.
'The portion of my (or their) cup' should be 'my (or
their) destined portion.' No one can drink ' fire and
brimstone,' nor can 'cup' and 'lot' stand as parallel
expressions. From the list of passages we designedly
omit Ps. 1 1 6 13 ; 'lift up the cup of salvation ' should be
' lift up the ensign of victory ' (reading o: ; see Ensig.n).
Yox'aggiln, px. Is. 2224 EV, .see Hason, i. For Jer. 36 5,
J?*?^> ^'''''''i Joseph's silver divining cup. Gen. 44 2 12 \(>/., see
above. For the bowls upon the golden candlestick (Kx. 'lh-i,iff.
S"i7 7^t)see Ca.ndlestick, g 2. For ci2> kos, the common
term (Gen. 40 11, etc.), see Mkals, $ 12. For Jer. 52 19, JTpjS,
vi'nalikltk (AV 'cup'), and Jer. 52 19, '"D, i*»/// (RV 'cup'),
see I'.ASON, 4. For Nu. 4 7 RV, i Ch. 2S 17 KV, nil",-;, k'sdu-oth,
see Fr.AGON. The NT term is 7roT^pioi'(in (B for kos), Mt. 23 25
20 27, etc.
CUPBEARER (n|?^*p, lit. ' one who gives to drink ' ;
01 NOyooc)- I" Eastern courts, wherethe fear of intrigues
and plots was never absent, cup1)e.arers were naturally
men whose loyalty was above suspicion ; they frec|uently
enjoyed the sovereign's confidence, and their post was
one of high imjiortance and honour (so, e.g., at the
court of Cambyses, Her. 834; cp Marquart, J'hiUilogus,
f).')229). The only reference to cujibearers in Israel is
in the uni(iue chapter describing Solomon's court, i K.
IO5 (euvoi'-xoi'S [L]) = 2Ch.94. Elsewhere cupl>earers
are spoken of in connection with Egypt (Gen. 40 1-23
41 9), Shushan (N'ch. 1 n tvvoZ'xo^ [HN"^^]). and Nineveh
(Tob. I22). It is perhaps hardly necessary to add that
the Assyrian Rabshakj:h ['/.f. ] has nothing to do with
* cupbearer. '
In Gen. I.e., EV 'butler' C',7r2.T-3n, 'chief butler' (40a
o.f)(yoi.vo\6a% [A PL]). In -'. 13 © aptly uses ap;(ioti'0\oia where
the Hebrew has JS, 'position, oflice.' With reference to Neh.
Ill, it is worth noticing that Nehemiah was only one of the
cupbearers to .Xrta.xerxes (not the cupbearer; cp l!e. -Kys.).
0 finds a reference to male and female cupbearers in Lccles.
28 (niic'l •TJC', oi.vDxoov [-OVV K'^-^A] koI 0(W>x<>aO ; but see
Ecci.FSiASTES, \ 2. The chance allusion in Jos. Ant. xvi. 8 i
shows that at the court of Herod (as was iilso the case in
Assyria) the cupbearers were eunuchs ((P's tiivoiiyoK al)Ove may,
of course, be nothing more than an error). See, generally,
Meai_s, § II end.
CURDS (nxpri), is. 7 is RV"*- See Milk.
CURSE. See Blkssings and Cursings, Blas-
1 Cp Fr. gfnir, applied in a sjieciali.sed sense to civil and
militarv engineerins: (ingeniuii:), and the Eng. eni:iHe.
2 P.s.'t>0 3 [5I V5 R [9] Is. 51 T7 Jer. 25 15-17 49 13 Lam. 4 31 Ezelc
23 33-34 ; cp also Jer. 51 7 Zech. 12 3.
966
CURTAIN
PHEMY, Ban, Covr.NANT ; and cp Urim and
Thimmim.
On C'jri, Iterem (Mai. 4 6 [824), etc.), see especially 1?AV.
On n^*?3;y, Ubha'ilh, Is. (55 15 (RV"it. prefers Oath \q.v.\);
hSk in Nu. 5 21 (RVrng.' adjuration); nSxPl (H^KFI Lam. 865],
n")Xp, Dt. 2820 (RV 'cursing'): n^Sp, Karaflt/ota, Rev. 223
(RVrntr. 'anytliinf; accursed'), an J icaripa, Gal. 3 1013, see Bless-
AND CU)
CURTAIN. For Ex. 26 i ff., etc. (nj/n;
and
Nu. 3 26 [31], etc. ("2.1 ; more usually 'h.inging' in AV, gener-
ally 'screen' in RV), see Taiiernacle. p'^ (xofioipa : Is.
40 22t), RV'"'K 'gauze,' is properly infin. of ppi, 'to be fine or
thin." Thi; lieawns are likened to a fine gauzy expanse. The
rendering 'curtain' is loose, and is due, no doubt, to the use of
ny'T in the parallel Ps. 104 2.
CUSH. I. A (non-.Semitic) people called Kasse is
mentioned in the cuneiform inscriptions as ihvelling in
, _ , , . the border country between X. Elam
1. Babylonian. ^_^,, ^j^.^;^ Sennacherib (Tayl. Cyl.
164^; A'Z?187) describes this region as difficult to
traverse, and as not subjugated by any of his pre-
decessors. In fact, it was a conquering race that
dwelt there. To it belonged the dynasty which ruled
over Habylonia for nearly six centuries^a lengthened
rule, the conse(|uence of which was the infusion of
a large Kassite element into the population of liaby-
lonia, especially S. Babylonia, which might fitly be
called the land of Kas. It is this Kas or Kos (whence
MT's KQs)! thit is intended in Gen. 108, where
NiMKOi) ['/.f. ] is called the son of Cush. That the
Babylonian Kas is meant in (jen. 2 13 as the passage
now stands, is nnuh less easy to make out (see Paka-
DISk), while to h:)ld with Wincklcr [AT Utitcrsuch.
■i.J,bff.) that Isaiah refers to the S. I',al)ylonian Kas in
the difficult prophecy. Is. IS, can be rendered possible
only by somewhat improbable textual criticism and
exegesis.
Wi.'s result (1892) is that the embassy mentioned by Isaiah
is that of .Merodach-bal.-idan to Hczckiah in 720 H.c, and his
stron:.;est argum.-nt is that ' the streams of Cush ' in 18 i is not
applicable to the kiiij;do:n of Ethiopia, which had but one
stream, the Nile. The answer is that the geographical know-
ledge of the writer was naturally but small, and that the island
of Meroe, to w'lijh the residence of the Ethiopian kings was
removed after laharka's time, is formed by the union of the
Nile, the Atbara, and the Klue Nile. On grounds independent
of Wi.'s hypothesis, the words ciD'nn^S lajfD "ICX •ire correctly
held to be a late interpolation. (See further Che. and Haupt
in Isaiah, ilch. SJSOT.)
2. The question of the existence of an Arabian Cush
has passed into a new phase since the discovery by
Winckler ( \/i/sn, 2 ['98]) of a X.
Arabian land of Kus contiguous to the
X. .-\rabian Musr or Musri, and together with it forming
the region called Meluhha (see NJiZKAiM, § 2/'). The
land being known as Kus ( =f-3) to the Assyrians, we
cannot avoid a re-examination of the more difficult OT
passages in which a'"3 (Cush) or 'C'i3 (Cushi) occurs.
Referring first to the Pentateuch and reserving the
complicated question arising out of Gen. 2 13 for sub-
sequent consideration, we see at once (u) how probable
it is that in the list of names in (Jen. 106 Cush is an
Arabian and not an African country ; for none of the
eleven names in Gen. 10 6 7 can be supposed to be
African except Cush, Mizraim, Put, and .Seba, and of
these Mizraim (read rather Mizrim) has been claimed
elsewhere for Arabia, while Pur [</.v.] is at any rate
not Libya, and Seba (n3d), which resists all attempts
to localise it in Africa, may well be susjiected to be
only another form of Sheba (khc-) — i-e., the well-known
Arabian Sabasans. It is true Sheba appears in v. 7 as
a son of Raamah ; but no objection can lie based
upon that. The same name probably fixed itself in
slightly diflferent forms in different localities, and in Ps.
72 lo we even find k3d (which has intruded into the
1 Unless we suppose the vocalisation KQ.5 (e'53) to be produced
by the confusion of the Babylonian and the African py
967
2. Arabian.
CUSHAN-RISHATHAIM
text) as a variant to kic (Possibly Shclxi, k3B' should
everywhere rather be.Scba, KStr. ) This conclusion greatly
reduces the error committed by the redactor of Gen. 10
in inserting w. 8 10-15 18/^-19 (which behjng to J) between
vv. 6/. and v. 20 (which belong to P) ; for the popu-
lation of the Babylonian lanil of Kas, to which Ximrod
belonged, was largely formed by the immigration of
' Chald;ean ' tribes (c'lB's) whose home was probably
in E. Arabia. If Kas Ix; taken, not ethnically but
geographically, as a designation of the Arabian home
of the ancestors of a large part of the people of S.
Babylonia, it was not incorrect to regard Ximrod as
related to the Cush mentioned in v. 6/. (For J's view
see XiMRDi), MiZKAi.M. )
{fi) In .\u. 11 I (E) we hear of ' the Cushite woman'
whom Moses had niarried. In Ex. 21621 (J) his wife
Zijjporah is represented as a Midianite. A northern
locality for Midianites is probable even without the very
doubtful passage 1 K. 11 18 (cp H.\UAI), 3). There
is no necessity to follow W'ellhausen in his excision of
the whole of Xu. 12 1/> ; at any rate ' the Cushite
woman ' comes from an early source. See Moses.
if) On 2 S. I821 see Ci;siii, 3.
(</, e, /) Is. 2O3 4.33 45i4, see Mizkai.m.
{^^r) Am. 97. \\'ho are the □-rp ':2? Hardly the
'children of the Ethiopians' (EVJ. What evidence
have we that the IClhiopians were regarded with con-
temiJt in .\inos's time? Probably the prophet looked
nearer honn;, and saw the misery inflicted on the Arabian
Cusii by some great mischance in war (cp \Vi. , op,
cit. 8).
(//) Hab. 37, 'the tents of Cushan.' ysxz should
perhaps become ^'3, Cush ; at any rate, X. Arabian
peoples are meant in both parts of the verse. See Ci;sn.\N.
(/■) Job 1 17. It is cjuite possible to read c"n3 or
C'TD, Cushi(yi)m (Che. JQR 4575) for c"ir3 (EV
' Chaldeans' [(/-t'.]), which is not without difficulty, and
I to explain this of the .\. Arabian Cushites, who must
at any rate be referred to.
(y) In 2 Ch. 21 16 we hear of 'Cushites' lx;side the
Arabians (cp Akahi.\), a rennniscence of whcjse pre-
datory raids probably underlies the distorted tradition
of ' Zer.ah the Cushite' (see Zekam) in 2 Ch. W^ff-
I [k) Ps. 887 [S]. nii- -ru^'-cy, 'with the inhabitants 01
Tyre,' should be r?3} nisc, 'Musri and Cush'; a
similar emendation is required in Ps. 874. The com-
bination of Philistines and Tyrians, Tyrians and Ethi-
opians, presented in MI", is extremely improbable.
(Besides W'i. Musri 2 \^MDV'G, 1898], cp Glaser,
Skizze, 2326/:)
3. Egyptian. See Ethiopia. T. K. C.
CUSH (r-IS, xoYc[eli [BXAR], chusi [Vg.], t'^p
[Tg.]) a Benjamite (Ps. 7, heading). The text, how-
ever, is corrupt.
Cushi (® al.^ is a very poor conjecture (see Ci'SHi, 3). No
doubt ' Cush ' should be ' Kish ' (see Tg.), and the text .should
run "3»a'-j3 B'"p'i3 • • • '■13T'?y. The missing name was
either Mordecai (Esth. 2 5 ; cp Che. OPs 229/) or, perhaps more
probably, Shimei (q.v., ic), a member of the clan of Kish (so
Kay, Che. Ps.'>"'i). In the former c.xse, David w.as supposed to
be speaking'in the name of Mordecai • 1 in the latter, the curses
of Shimei are the supposed occasion of the psalm.
CUSHAN (|V""I3; AiGionec [BS<:-<^>'.\Q]. ee.
[X*]), H.ab. 37!. The name should mean '(a clan)
belonging to Cush.' on the analogy of Ithran, Kenan,
Lotan (but see CrsH, i. § 2h). It is at any rate
parallel to Midian. This agrees with OT passages
which appear to place the Midianites in X. Arabia,
where, according to the evidence produced by Winckler,
there was a region known to the Assyrians as Kiis
or Cush. See Cfsii, i. 2 ; Midian.
CUSHAN -RISHATHAIM RV ; \V Chushan-
rishathaim (D'nrL'h |l,"-12, i.e., 'Cushan of double
wickedness ' ).
1 Ps. 7 was a Purim psalm.
968
CUSHAN-RISHATHAIM
The versions have : Xov<rap<Ta8atn |ltAI, •aipurnniuB (I.) (not
original!; N'et. l-at., C/imiirsa/tm ; Naples SynupMs, Xui/o-ap-
a'U/utf[sit.] ; Jos. \ov<Tap<ra0ov iKen.) ; ^ g. Chtisaii J\asiitliiiii4 :
(sec \lcr, Dit liibtl liesjiis. ii ; l^t;unle, itfptuag. StiuiUn,
i4=»/2 74).
The name of a king of Aram (MT Akam-naiiaraim
[./.v.]: a very rare expression), who is said to have
o|)pressi'(l the Israelites after their con-
CUTH
1. The story.
((uest of Canaan for eiglit years, till
CHliniel l)en Kenaz overthrew him (Judg. .'57-11 ). 'I'll
story of this oppression and deliverance is introduced a
a typical illustration of the edifyinjj theory of Isr.nelitish
history put forward in Judg. 211-19, an 1 was wanting in
the pre-Ueuteronomic book of heroic stories which forms
the iiasis of our Ji;ih;ks [q.v. , S§ 3 5). Hence we are not
surprised that it presents none of the characteristics of
narratives founded ujjon genuine popular traditions,
and that only two assertions emerge out of the phrases
of which it mainly consisis— vi/. , that the land of Israel
was coiKjuered by an early .\ramaan king, and that
the Israelites were deliveretl by the Judahite (Kenizzite)
hero Othniel. These assertions, howeviT, are contra-
dictory. I'.ven in the early time of David the clans
of Judah had but a slight connection with Israel, and
in the time of Deljorah's insurrection, it appears, they
stood entirely aloof from the Israelites (see Judg. 5).
It is hi.storically impossible that the Judahite clan of
Othniel couUl have playoil the glorious iiart ascribed
to it in the story. Hudde (A'/. Sa. 95), therefore,
w hile admitting that the oppression of Cuslian-rishathaim
may conceivably rest on a trailitional basis, rejects
Cithniel's championship. The editor of Judges, he re-
marks, belonged no doubt to the tribe of Judah, and
took a pleasure in giving it a representative among the
'judges.' .Similarly W'ellhausen and Stade.
It is more probable, however, that the whole trouble
is caused by an error in the text.
There is some reason to think thai the true re.iding of© in
Ju(.l>^. 3 8 10 is . . . Xoi/craptraf^aijLi ^aatAcwf OaaiAta) ^vpt'ac
—^ , (note the position of trorafxux' in 7'. 8, and see
2. Probable Fields Hex. on v. 10 .1 Kvcii apart from this,
origin of it is not too bold to emend cix, '.\rain,' into
the name. DIK. Kdom (as in 2 K. Itlb), aid to omit c'■l,^J
.as a gloss (with Griitz, Klost.). '1 hat Othniel
the Keniz/ite should he the deliverer of judah from the
Kdomite tyranny is only natural. Observe that the next
oppressors are the Moabites. Whether we may go on to
correct Rishaihaim into Rosh-hat-titiuin'i, 'the chief of the
Temanites,' with Klo-.i. (fiiscli. 122), and to work into this para-
graph the isolated passage 1 36 by prefixing "'], 'and he smote,"
IS problematical. It seems to the present writer enough to read,
for □'nyc'n. ':C'nn n»tS, ' from the land of the Temanites,'
which is the description attached to the n:ime of the Kdomite
kin,i Hu>ham in Cien. 3l5 34. The letters became partly defaced,
and an editor wittily read D'nj'cn. It is very possible, too, that
the name \V^Z (Cushan) is a corruption of Dwin (Crn) Husham
(cp Klost. 119). . The writer was at a loss for a name, and took
one from the list of Kdomite kings. Husham's son Had.id was
a great warrior (?'. 35); it was natural to make the father equal
to him in this respect. Whether we may suppose that the editor
to whom we are indebted for ' Cushan-rishathaim, king of .\ram-
naharaim,' had in his mind Kassite (Cushitc) incursions such
as some scholars connect with NiMKon and Zkkaii (qq.v\
which might be loosely statetl to have proceeded from ' Aram-
naharaim,' may 1)C doubted. For a different view of the origin
of the story as given in MT see Moore ( ludges, 88 /.), w ho
thinks that we have here a distortion of the tradition of a raid
of Midianiti.sh 'Cushites' into Judah.
Those who prefer to take the book of Judges as it
Oth stands, without applying critical metho<ls,
■ ^ have two recent hyix)thrses respecting
■ Cushan-rishathaim to choose from.
Prof. M 'Curdy (///.vC. Prof-h. Men. 1 230; cp 221) thinks that
the ' whole land ' (of Canaan) may have been suMued by the
Aram<-Eans, who, during the enfeeblement of Assyria, h.-»d re-
occupied the land of Mit.ini, the Kgyptian Naharina, which
includes W. Mesopotamia (see A'/'l^l 850), some time before
the accession of Tiglath-pilescr I. (1120 B.C.). In the ease with
which the asserted conquest of the strong cities of Oinaan was
effected by the Aramaeans, in the name ("«f/i/»«-rishathaim, a^d
in the championship of a Kenizzite or Judahite hero, he finds no
difficulty. Prof. Sayce, too, in his ingenious defence of a
1 (8b has in r. 8 XovtraptraOaiiiL PatriKiu^ iroTaftuic 'S.vpiai, and
in z: 10 X. p. SvptVt n-orauti"'.
969
non-critical view of the nariative ((>//. i>/<'«. 7<)t-2'^j), make*
no remark on die n.iine of Isr.iel's oppressor, and holds Othniel
to have Ijceii the deliverer of ' S. Palesiinc ' from the tyranny of
th: army of the king of Mil.'ini at the time of the invasion of
Kgypt by the N. (icoplcs somewhere about 1210 B.C. (leign of
Kanicscs III.). The imaginativeness of I'tof. .Sayce's statements
respecting ihe king of Mituni's niuvcmcnts has tacen pointed
out by Driver {Ci>HU»it. Rci'. W 420/: 1'94J). In fact, the itate-
inrnt that tlie king of Miluni ' (larticipated in the M^ulhward
movement of the peoples of the .N.,' but 'lingered on the way,'
Mild presumably sought to secure that dominion in Canaan
uhich had liclonged to some of liis predecessors,' has no monu-
mental evidence in its favour. If tradition had preserved the
! memory of any incident in the great migration of the N.
I |M:oples, would it not have been the desolation of the land of
I .Amur (N. Palestine) caused by the N. peoples themselves? It
should^ l)e added that Stade (OVkA. 1 6<y) i>osiii\ely denies that
there is any basis of tradition in the story, and lx)th Hudde
and G. F. Moore (whose treatment of Judg. 37-11 is thoroughly
I good) are half inclined to agree with him. .^lade, however, goes
I too far when he says that the form of the name Cushan-ri-haihaim
! is enough to prove it unhistorical (Cestli. 1 6q ; cp Kucnen.
Ein/fitiinc, 1, j 19, n. i). Nor is this assumption at all essential
I to his theory. (Since the above was written, Klost. 's view has
been adopted by J. .Marquart (l-unU. 11).] T. K. ('.
CUSHI ("t'-IS, 'Cushite'; cp Jehidi and the Moalj-
ite name Musuri (man of Mu.sur) in the lists of I-.sar-
haddon and Asur-baiii-pal, A'^ 7"'-' 356, no. 4; voYCei
\\V\\.\chusi{\^.\).
1. All ancestor of Jkhidi Xq.v.^ der. Sil 14).
2. Father 01 ZtifllA.MAll 1 {q.v.\ ("/eph. 1 1).
3. 'c-'sn, R\' ' the Cushite,' the messenger whom Joab
desfiatched, in i)reference to Ahimaaz, to inform David
of the death of Absalom. Ahimaaz, we are told, follow-
ing later ran by the way of the plain '-^ and reached
David first (2 .S. 18 19-32). Two tjueslions .arise. Who
was ' the Cushite ' ? and why did Joab prefer him to
.Ahimaaz as the messenger? The account, which has
been taken from a fuller narrative, does not say. Evi-
dently ■ the Cushite ' was a foreigner, and this was the
reason why, like the Amalekite in 2 .S. ] , he could
without oftnce be the bearer of evil tidings. 1 hat
David had foreign soldiers (c.^. , the Hittite Uri.ah) is
well known. ' '1 he Cu.shile ' was not (as H. 1'. Sm.
supposes) a negro. \\'e can hardly doubt that he
beloii". (1 to the N. .\rabian Cush =« (see Clsii, § 2).
CUSHIONS ( C"=|.}1-1!?. I'rov. 7 16 31 22 RV
Ke(^<^^<M()N Mk. 438 R\'|. See
cp kiMii
npoc-
Bed, § 3/, and
CUSTOr, ( I ) i'?? i:zra 4 13 20 7 24 R\' {W ' tribute' ),
(2) -^bn Ezra //.f. ■• .-\V (RV 'toll). (3) reAooNiON
Mt. 99 etc. AV ' receipt of custom,' RV ' place of toll."
See Ta.xatio.n.
CUTH (ni2; xoye \\^\ A omits], xooGa [I-]:
Chut,ui : \(^ and Cuthah (nn-IS ; xoynGa [H'.
XOYA l-'^]. Xw8a [L]; Cutha), a place in Habylonia
from which colonists were brought to N. Israel (2 K.
1724), identified with Tell-Jbraliim, NE. of Babylon,
where remains of Nergals temple have been found.
It is the Kuta or Kiitfi of the cuneiform inscriptions.
Bt^fore the rise of Babylon, Kuta and Sijijiar, it appears,
were the chief cities of N. Babylonia. As late as the
tinte of Asur-bani-pal it was obligator)' on the kings
of Assyria to sacrifice to Sam.as and N'krgal [vf-i'. ] at
SiiJjwr and Kuta resi^ectively, a custom apparently
due to the primitive imjxirtance of these cities in the
' kingdom of the Four Quarters of the 'World ;
(Winckler. (/A./ 33281).
^ We have a record of the building of the temple of Ncrgal in
Kuta by Dungi, King of Ur (A'A'3aSi); and Nebuchadrezzar
J This is apparently the Cusi who fipires .is the father of Ezra
in a SiKuiish MS of 4 Ksd. ; sec Uensly, Fourth Ezra, xliv.y;
Ixxx.
a "1337 (.MT), but perhaps rather jiinan, 'the gorge '(Klo.).
See KlHRAIM. W<«.D OF.
3 The alternati\e would be to suppose kak-kiisi (21^ Kttli)
to l>e an old corruption of Huskai (see the readings). This
reminds us too much of 1 heodore of Mopsuestia's confusion of
the Gush \q.v.\ in the title of Ps. 7 with the Archite Hushai.
■* The third term in these passages, PrKVlZ, is rendered 'toll
(AV)or * tribute '(RV).
970
CUTTING OFF
mentions among his pious nets that he restored the temples of I
the great gods at Kutfi {A'Jl'^si). It was from the temple of
Nergal that one of the creation-stories brouRht from As;ir-b5nt-
pal's library is stated to have come (A'/'(2| I 1^7-153) ; see
Crkation, § 16. The name 'Culhaians' lies hidden under
Archkvitks (i/.v.) in Ezra 4 9. In the pnra-ieology of the later
Jews ' Cutha;ans ' is equivalent to ' Samaritans ' (so in Jos. and
the T:ilmiul). With this name is probably to be connected the
CoUTHA of I Esd. 532 (not in the lists of Ezra and Nehemiah).
T. K. C.
CUTTING OFF. This penalty ( ' I [Vahwe] will cut
him off from among his people," 'he shall be cut off
from his pi'0]ile,' 'from Israel, ' 'from the assembly,'
and the like ; i,'2j; mpo inx 'man) is first met with in H 1
(see Leviticus), where it is attached to a variety of
offences, many of them of a cer^-monial or technical
character (Lev. 17 49, failure to bring slain ox, lamb, or
goat to the tabernacle; 17 10 14, eating blood; 18 29,
various 'abominations'; 20 3 5/., Moloch- worship ; 20
17/., incest, etc. ; 223, unclean approach to holy things).
It occurs frequently in P (Cien. 17 14, neglect of circum-
cision ; Ex. 12 15, eating leaven in paschal season ; Ex.
'^03338, imitating or putting to secular use the holy oil
or incense ; Ex. :U 14, sabbath profanation ; Lev. 720/. ,
unclean sacrificial eating ; 7 25 27, eating of fat or blood ;
198, eating sacrifice on third day ; 2829, non-observance
of day of atonement; Nu. 9i3, failure to ktx-p the
passover though clean and not on a journey; I530/. ,
high-hanfled sin, insult to Yahwe ; 19 13, contact with
dead ; 19 20, failure to remove uncleanness from contact
with dead by sprinkling).
The view of the older interpreters was that the ex-
pression meant the death penally. It is worth noticing,
however, thit in Ex. ;U 14/. sejiarate emphasis is laid on
'he shall be put to death' (nnv mr) as distinguished
from ' that soul shall be cut off' (nmh r3:n nm^j) ; cp
Lev. 20 27 (death penalty on witchcraft), the Deutero-
nomic expression ynn lya. ' put away the evil,' Dt. IBs
[6] (in connection with the death penalty on the false
prophet or dreamer of dreams), and perhaps also Lev.
2329/. , nma: followed by Ti-inxa, gradation of penalties.
If account be taken of the actual circumstances amid
which H and P arose, it seems more probable that the
writers had in their mind either some such idea as that
which was carried into practice under Ezra and Nehemiah
(Ezra 108, 'separated from the congregation of the
captivity,' ]| i Esd. 94, 'cast out from the multitude of
them that were of the captivity'), and ultimately de-
velope 1 into the minor and major excommunications of
the synagogue (see SYNAGOGi;r.), or that they thought
onlv of death through divine agency, not of punishment
inflicted at the hands of the community (Driver on Lev.
720/.). See, further, B.\N.
CUTTINGS OF THE FLESH (Ceremcnial Mutila-
tions). The former heading is derived from the EV
of Lev. 19 2S 21 5. It is, however, too narrow in its
range. Circumcision cannot altogether be left out in
dealing with the ' cuttings ' referred to in these passages ;
nor can we forget how intimately the laceration of the
flesh in mourning is associated with the practice of
shaving the head or cutting off part of the hair. The
origin and significance of Circumcision [>/.v.] is treated
elsewhere. The present article will deal with (i) in-
cisions (§ i/). (2) the cutting off of the hair (§§ 3-5).
and (3) tattooing (§ 6 /), regarded as ceremonial
mutilations (see further S.\CRIFICE).
The technical Hebrew terms for ceremonial incisions
are tj-iir, ddic' (verb Dir) ; 2 the verb Tiina also is used.
In Lev. 21 5 [H] we read (with refer-
Thev
1. References ^^^^^ ^^ mourning for the deadl
to cuttings, gj^^jj jjQj j^^j^g ... any cuttings in
their flesh ' (point nbib, as plur. of tJiB- ?). The practice
t It may be noted that the ' I ' is peculiar to H, as also the
phrase ' I will set my iare ' (Lev. 1" 10 20 3 6 26 17) or ' put my
face ' (20 5) against the offender.
3 Aram. V^^iiflO, Ass. tardiu, Ar. iarafa, strictly 'to cut
into,' ' nick,' or ' notch.'
971
CUTTINGS OF THE FLESH
was forbidden especially to the priests, who would
thereby ' profane ' themselves. The substantive cnc'
occurs in Lev. 1928 : 'Ye shall not make any cutting in
your flesh for a (departed) soul.' (On the only other
passage [Zech. 123] in which bie' occurs no stress can
be laid).i There is no exact parallel for this Hebrew
usage in Assyrian ; but we do find Hardfit used of
rending a garment in token of grief (a passage in
Sargon's Annah, 294, gives a striking parallel to 2 S.
I2), and pro<)ably enough this rending was an attenu-
ation of the more savage^custom of rending the flesh.'
Asur-bani-pal (.Smith, 127 81) too speaks of his warriors
as those who ' at the lx;hest of the gods let themselves
be hacked to p-eces in the fray' [ittanasi-atu). On this
it may be remarked that the case of mourners who
shed their blood to feed the manes of departed friends
is analogous to that of soldiers who do this on the
battlefield in obedience to the gods. A supposed second
term for ceremonial incisions (riTij) is simply due to
misunderstanding. In Jer. 4S37 we should read with
guA Q..,, t,^ ('all hands are cut into'); the prefi.xed
Sy in MT is an error ; nnj is, in fact, participial.
The reflexive form -\-\it\t\ occurs in Dt. 14i (parallel to
the already cited passage of I^v. ), and at least six
times elsewhere. The primary meaning of the simple
stem is obviously ' to cut off ' ; cp Ar. jadda, jadda,
T]3. j^^. The ceremonial cutting referred to was an
ordinary custom of mourners in the time of Jeremiah,
to disjjense with which would have been something very
strange and unusual (Jer. 166 41 5 47 5) ; evidently the
contemporaries of the prophet did not recognise the
law in Dt. 14i. The incisions referred to in Mic. 5
[4 14], ' Now hack thyself [so Nowack], O daughter
of attack,' must also be signs of mourning; and this
may well be the case too in Jer. 67, where mijn". ' they
would cut themselves,' implies that the apostate Jews
who resorted to the Whore's House (i.e., the idol
temple) wished to bring over the Deity to their side by
self-mutilation. This description of the prophet may
be illustrated by i K. 18 28, where the ' cutting ' practised
by the priests of Baal is said to have been after this
custom or ritual, and to have followed the ritual dance
by or round the altar (see D.anck, § 5). Hosea, too
(714), speaks of Israelites who 'because of corn and
new wine cut themselves,' to propitiate their god (read-
ing mun- with &'^'^, We. , Che. , RV^e-).
The practice of shedding the blood in one way or
another as an honour due to the dead is world-wide.
_. ._ It is found not only among the Hebrews
2. Significance, ^^^j ^^^ ^^j^^ ^^,^ ^^ -^ ,,, ^qi). but
also among the ancient Greeks and the modern
African and Polynesian peoples. ' The blood is the
life ' ; and it is probable that when in primitive times
the mourning kin ' cut themselves for the dead,' they
did it in the belief that the departed drank in new
life with the blood thus poured out by the willing self-
sacrifice of sorrowing friends, and at the same time
renewed their bond of union with the living (cp
ESCHATOLOGY § 3. 4)-
Such acts doubtless had a sacrificial or .sacramental asjject ;
and in view of the fact that the disembodied spirit was conceived
as possessing a quasi-divine or daemonic character, with un-
defined potencies for good and evil, it may be assumed that the
blood-offering was, or became, as much a conciliatory present
to the manes of the dead as that of slain victims was intended
to be to the higher gods. It may even have been thought that, as
the dece.ised man had pa.ssed into another world on leaving the
circle of his kin, he had in some sense become a stranger to them,
and that therefore it was neces.sary to make a blood-covenant
with him, and so .secure his good-will for the tribe or family.
The radical change of death might suggest that as the corporate
unity of the departed with his clan had been broken, it must be
1 If the text is correct the meaning must be ' to strain oneself
to pieces,' 'to break down under a lo.-id.' Nowack, however,
holds that a gloss has been taken into the text.
2 There was no longer any consciousness of this when the
post -exilic prophet Joel wrote, 'Rend vour heart, and not your
garments' (Foel2i3). Else he would have said, 'Rend your
heart, and not your flesh ' (cp Jer. 4 4).
972
CUTTINGS OF THE FLESH
restored by giving the dead to drink of the blood of the living
kindred.
Hearing in mind that ritual practices acquire a new
synil)olisin as time goes on, and that affection for
the dead has often evinced itself, even at a high stage
of culture, by suicide over the corjjse, and by such
customs as the Hindu Sat!, we may Ije inciinetl to see
in the ' incisions for the deail," as practise*! in the |)eriod
of tiie great prophets, a symbolical expression for the
willingness of the mourner to depart and be with the
lovwl and lost one.
The passages which niention incisions of the flesh
also niciition cutting off the hair as a sign of mourning.
3 Cuttina- '^"''"^ Lev- 21 s [H] : ' They (the priests)
■ _ . . * shall not make a kire bald patch on their
head, and the corner of their beard they
shall not shave off' (cp Lev. 1S>27 Dt. 14i, ' An<l ye
siiall not set baldness between your eyes' — i.e., on the
forehead — * for one that is dead ') ; Kzekiel, too (44 20),
forbids artificial baldness to the priests. The preval-
ence of the custom of cutting off the hair in token of
deep grief is, however, presupposed by the earlier
prophets, who take no e.xception to it. Micah says,
addressing a city community, ' Make thee bald and
shear thee for tliy darling children ; make broad thy
Ixildness like the vulture's ; for they are carried away
captive from thee' (Mic. I14). See also Am. 810 Is. 22
12 (cp 824) Jcr. 729 166 Kzek. 7i8 ; such passages show
that the prohibition of the custom referred to belongs
to a later age of religious legalism. In Dt. 14i these
practices are forbidden to Israelites generally, on account
of their relation to Yahw6, on the principle on which
Aaronites with any physical defect are e.xcluded from
the service of the altar (Lev. 21 16-23).
Cutting off the hair was also the most characteristic
expression of an Arab woman's mourning. When
Halid b. al-Walid died, all the women of his family
offered their hair at his grave (Agh. 15i2 ; W'e. Hcid.C^)
182). It was a sacrifice to the dead, and the under-
lying idea of the offering is suggested by the story of
Samson. ' If I be shaven," said that hero, 'my strength
will go from me' (Judg. I617). In other words, the
hair, the growth of which was continually renewed,
appeared to the ancients a centre of vitality, like the
blood ;i and thus to offer it, whether to deity (Nu. 618)
or to the spirits of the dead, had essentially the same
ini[)ort atid purpose as to offer one's blood, the aim
being to originate or to renew a bond of vital union
Ix-tween the worshipper and the unseen power. Re-
4 I 'tiato V f^''"'''*-'^ ^^ sacrificial acts, Ixjth blood-
. .^ letting and offering the hair were • private
ceremonials. . ", i • • r j w .u ■
acts of worship, jx-rformed by the m-
dividual for his own good as distinct from that of
the community ; and both are common elements in
ceremonies of initiation by which youths are admitted
to the rights of manhood, especially to marriage and
particip.uion in the tribal worship. Thus Cikclm-
cisiON [q.v., § 4] was originally a rite preliminary to
marriage (Ex. 424-26); and Lucian (Dca Syr. 60)
informs us that the long locks of young p)eople were
shorn and dedicated at the old Syrian sanctuaries on
the same occasion. In the course of time the barbarous
character of the blood-offering caused it to lapse from
general use, except among certain priesthoods and
votaries ; whilst the hair-offering, which in origin and
principle was identical, survived to the close of Pagan-
ism, and may be recognised in the tonsure of early
Christian Monachism.
The passage Lev. I927 (H ; about 570 B.C.) has
already Ix-en referred to. It is a prohibition of a
_ Qijj.j. practice, in vogue among certain Arabian
BDeciaiised "''*'^' °^ shaving off the hair all round
", the head, a circular patch lx;ing left on
the crown (Herod. 38) — a practice indi-
1 See WRS A"./. 5<-«/.0 324, and note the Chinese phrase,
mao hsiich. ' h.iir and blocnl,' and the saying, ' Am I not of the
same hair (scil. as my father)?'
973
cate<I, it seems, by the nickname ' Shom-patcs ' ('xixp
hkd) applieil by Jeremiah to some Arabian [X-'oplcs (RV,
al.so AV mg. , ' all that have the corners [of tjfjeir hair]
jjolled' ; Jer. 926 [25] 25 23 4932). There can be little
doubt that this, like most other ancient trilal Ixidgcs and
customs, had religious asstx,iations and a religious
significance ; in fact, Hero<U»tus (38) expressly says
that the .Arabs pretended to imitate their national god
Orotal-I)iony.sos by their peculiar tonsure. Hence, no
doubt, the practice was forbidden to the Jews by the
older Levitical code (Lev. 192;), the object being to
isolate the people of Yahwe from the neighbouring
nations and their worships. On the other hand,
there were some important religious customs which,
though of ethnic origin, were not abolished by the
law. Hence it was that the Nazirite continued to make
an offering to Yahwe of his shorn hair (.see N.v/.iKrri.)
— a practice which survived, in a shape modified by
circumstances, in the days of Paul (Acts 21 23-26 ; cp
18 18). See H.\IK, § 2/
What we call ' tatiofjing ' also is prohibite<l (Lev. 19
28). The expression y-j-p n3.''3 does not occur again
Tattooing, '" "^^ ^^^ = '•^"' '" ^'•""^ Hebrew j.pfP
. *• ^ZTXi means the same as the Greek
etc. "^ "^ ,1. , , ■
ariyixtni^uv, to set a mark on a thing
by pricking, puncturing, or branding (see Buxtorf ; it
is also used of fowls scratching the grtjund).
The object of graving or branding marks on the
flesh would appear to be dedication of the person to
his god. Herodotus (2 113) mentions a tcniijle of
llerakles at Taricheia, by the Canopic mouth of the
Nile, where a runaway slave might find asylum if he
' gave himself to the god ' by h.iving certain ' sacred
stigmata' made on him.' In Is. 44$ wc have a good
instance of graving a divine name on the hand, in token
of self-dedication : " One will say, I am Yahwe's ; and
another will name himself by the n;imc of Jacob ; and
aiunher will mark on his hand Wilmji: s, and receive the
surname Israel ' (5//C> 7" ; cp critical notes). .\s far as
they indicated the ownership or pro[x.Tty of the god,
such marks are analogous to the j»7/f/./« or cattle-marks
of the Hodawi trili«s, and may have had their origin in
that necessary practice of primitive pastoral life (cj)
col. 711, n. 1). In Kzek. 946 we read of marking a
Tau or cross, the symbol of life (cp the Eg}'ptian ^,
'nh, life, with ▼J-, the Phoenician form of the letter
Tau) on the foreheads of the faithful in Jerusalem, who
are to be spared from slaughter ; which recalls the
sealing of the 144,000 servants of God on their fore-
heads ( Rev. 73/. ), and further, the mark of the Beast
(xapa7Ma. something graven. Acts 17 29) on the right
hand or the forehead of his worshi[)pers (Rev. 13i6y.
20 4). The strongly metaphorical words of Paul, too,
/ bear in my body the marks (or brands) of Jesus, ra
ariyfiaTa toO 'IrjcroO (Gal. 617) clearly presuppose a
custom of tattooing or branding the flesh with sacred
names and symlxjls, which would be familiar as a
heathen practice to Paul's Asiatic converts.''
In Ex. 139 Dt. 68 II18 and elsewhere we have what
may be regarded as a substitute for the painful processes
7 Substitutea. of tattooing and branding. The Israel-
ite is to bind the precepts of the Law
on his hand for a si^n / they are also to serve* as
Ekontlkts [^.».] (ni:t:ia. phylacteries) be/ween his eyes,
— i.e., on his forehead (cp Dt. 68 Rev. 73). The sign
on the hand recalls the sign which Yahw6 set on Cain
(Gen. 415: see C.MN, §4), whilst those strips of inscrilx^d
vellum, the phylacteries ( = ' frontlets," EV of OT) of
Mt. 235, were looked upon as having magical qualities,
1 Thus Ptolemy Philopator branded the Alexandrian Jews
with the sign of the ivy to identify them with the cult of
Dionysus; see Hacchls. Cp Frazer, Totcmism, 36 Jf. For
the hr.-inding of .serfs see KoYCT, ( ^o.
2 Cp Deissmann, BibeUtuditn (95), 262-276 (a new and in-
genious theory).
974
CYAMON
not less than the old tattooings and brandincjs ; they
were a protection against harm,^ and probably also
secured health and good fortune (cp Targ. Cant. S3).
For the literature of the subjects here treated of, see
the works referred to under Cikcimcision, Molkning
Customs, Fkonti.kts, Sackii-ick, etc. See also
WRS Rel. iVw.l-' ch. 9, and the authorities there
cited ; !•:. H. Tylor, Prim. Cult. 2 18. c. J. B.
CYAMON (kyamoon [BX.A] ; c/w/mon [Vg.] ;
^^.^iO^ii.** [•'^y]). 'which is over against Esdraelon '
(hulith 73). looks like a corruption of Joknkam or
(Movers) Jokmkam. Robinson, however, noting that
Kva/jLibv means ' beaiifield,' identifies it with the modern
£1 l-'iilch, 'the lx!an,' on the plain itself but 'over
against' the city 'of Jezreel.' Cp Hu. /'(//. 210. The
name Cyanion sh)ulii |>robably be resloied in Judith 44
for \\iiiva. [!'.]. .See KoNAlC.
CYLINDER l^"^:). Cant. 5 14 RV'"*.'- See Ring.
CYMBALS. For i Ch. 138, etc. (DT.^V??), 2 S. 65
Ps. I6O5 {Z'\-i--i\ and for i Cor. 13 i (Ku/i^aAoc) see Misic,
§ 3 (2).
CYPRESS, RV Holm Tki:i-; (HnPl, Is.44i4h, a
tree which in the siiij;le pass;it;;e where it occurs is
coupled with the oak. 'I'lie Hebrew tirzdh docs not
appear in any cojjnate language, but may be connected
with .\r. tarnza, ' to be hard. ' - LXX ancl I'csh. omit llie
word ; Aq. and Th. render dypioSaXavos { ' wild acorn ').
\'g. has ilex, which is defended by Celsius (2269^),
and has been wisely adopted by our revisers. It is
difficult, however, to be certain ; for the evergreen oak
(Quercus ilex, L. ) is at the present ilay rare in I'alestine
{FFF 412). The heavy, hard nature of its wood
would harmonise well with the probable etymology of
tirzdh. ' Cyi^ress' (perhaps a mere guess) comes from
the Genevan Hible. David Kimlii and others thousrht
that what was meant was the fir tree ; Luther prefern d
the beech. Cheyne (Is. SBOT. Heb. ) thinks rtnn
corrupt, and with Gr., reads n,nn (see Pink).
For Cant. 1 14 4 13 .A.V"iff., see Cami'HIRF. [so AV] ; and for
Is. 41 19 KVmtr., see V.ox Tree Lso EV]. .n. m.
CYPRUS (kyttpoc [Ti. WH]), the third largest
island of the Mediterranean, placed in the angle l)et\veen
the coast of .Syria and that of .Asia Minor (Strabo, 681 ),
called Alalia in the Amarna letters, where its copper
is specially referred to (so E. Meyer, Petrie, etc.), 'Asi by
the Egyptians, Yavnan by the Assyrians, and KrniM
{</.''■: ) by the Hebrews. Its physical structure is simple.
1 DescriDtion. ^' consists of a central plain running
^ across the island from E. to W. ,
bounded by a long mountain ridge to the X. , and by
a broader mountain district to the S.
The central plain was likened in antiquity to the valley of
the Nile, being flooded annually by the Pedi;eus, wlii.h left rich
deposits of mud. Strabo sketches the productiveness of Cyprus
(684 : evotvoi « trrt (cai eue'Aaios, (Ti'toi re avrapKei xpiirai). Copper
(named after the island) was found in the mountains, and timber
for shipbuilding.
In situation, climate, and productions, Cyprus belongs
to all the three surrounding continents, and historic-
ally it has constantly shared in their vicissitudes. It
is most accessible from the E. and the S. , and, lying
right over against .Syria, was early visited by the Pha.'ni-
cians, who founded Amathus, Paphos, and Citium, the
t The Tg. on 2 S. 1 10 takes Saul's bracelet for a totat>hah —
i.e., an amulet. The He.\ap. on Ezek. 13 18 gives <<)uAaitr>jpia as
a ' Hebrew' or 'Jewish' interpretation of rinOD (EV 'pillows,'
see Dress, $ 8), which is connected with Ass. kasu, ' to bind.' The
Rabbis (Talm. .Slmlih. ^t h) also explain totn^hoth as amulets.
The word cannot lie explained from the Semitic languages, and,
since the Jewish ideas of magic came ultimately from the
Sumerians of primitive Babylonia, may reasonably be explained
by the Sumerian dibdih (from liahiiah), 'to bind ' = Ass. kastt
(see above), kainti. For an analoj^y, cp ncB3. ,'*r. 51 27 Nah.
817 from Ass. ituf'sar, 'tablet-writer,' which fs of Sumerian
origii (Jjih 'tablet,' i/ir ' write'). See COT-lwZ/.
2 We should perhaps associate with this Syr. t'ras, ' to be
Straight.'
975
CYPRUS
last, the Phoenician capital, giving its name to the whole
island. 1
Tiie Phoenicians were not, however, the earliest
inhabitants of Cyprus. They found in possession a
2 Historv P*^"P'^ closely connected, as their art and
^' alphal)et show, with the primitive races
of Asia Minor (for W'MM's theory see Kittim, and cp
.'Is. «. /.«/-. 337). The Greek colonists arrived before
the eighth century B.C. The discoveries in the island
indic.ue clearly its partition l>etween the Phoenician
element in the S. and the Hellenic in the central de-
pression stretching from Soli in the \V. to Salamis in
the J".., at which latter site we find an art that is largely
(ireck. The Cypriote character was wanting in energj',
and the island was almost wholly under the influence
alternately of Asia and of Egypt.
(i) In 709 B.C. Sargon II., king of Assyria, was recognised as
over-lord by seven Cypriote princes ; their tribute was continued
to his grandson Esarhaddon, Schr. K.lTi-) 368355. (2) In the
sixth century .'\masis, king of Egypt, comjuered the island
(Herod. 2 182. Perhaps it had been comiuered even before his
time, by Thotmes III. In any case the Trpwros atSpuinmv of
Herod, is an error). (3) After the conquest of Egypt by
Cambyscs, Cyprus fell to Persia, being included in the fifth
satrapy (Herod. 3 19 91).
The connection with Greece and with Hellenic ideals
was brilliant but purely episodical (Evagoras, king of
.Salamis: 410 B.(.). The island fell into the hands of
Alexander the tjreat, and finally remained with the
Ptolemies as one of their most cherished po.ssessions
until its conquest by the Romans (cp 2 Mace. 10 13:
Mahaffy, /;/;//. of the Ptolemies, pass.).
The Jews probably settled in Cyprus before the time
of Alexander the Cjreat (i Mace. I523). Many would
„ T . , be attracted later by the fact that its
3. Jewish / .• r 1
. . coi)per mmes were at one tune farmed to
connection, u , ., , ■ . ; r , . ■ ,
Herod the Great (Jos. Ant. xvi. 45: a
Cyprian inscr. , Boeckh 2628, refers to one of the family).
After the rising of the Jews in 116 .\.n. in Cyrene, in
I'^gypt, and in Cyprus had been suppressed, it was decreed
that no Jew might set foot upon the island, under
penalty of death, even for shipwrecked Israelites (Dio
Cass. G832. See Salamis). In the history of the
spread of Christianity Cyprus holds an honourable place
(.\cts 436, Joseph surnamed Barnabas). Its Jewish
population heard the Gospel after Stephen's death
from those whom the persecution had driven from
Judasa (.Acts 11 19). Some of these were men of Cyprus
and Cyrene, who fled to Antioch and addressed the
(Greeks of the city {v. 20). Cyprus was in turn the first
scene of the labours of Paul with Barnabas and Mark
(.Acts 134-12), afterwards of Barnabas and Mark alone
(.Acts 1.^)39). One of the first Christian missionaries
may have been that ' old disciple ' Mnason with whom
Paul lodged at Jerusalem (.Acts 21 16). Returning to
Palestine at the close of his third journey, Paul and his
companions sighted Cyprus (.Acts 21 3, ava<}>a.vavTi% ttjv
K. ; AV 'discovered'), leaving it on the left hand as
they ran from Patftra to Tyre. In the voyage to Rome
from Cassarea the ship ' sailed under Cyprus ' (Acts '274,
i'7re7rXei^<Ta/ue»') — i.e., northwards 'over the sea of
Cilicia and Pamphylia' {v. 5: cp .Str. 681) — taking
advantage of the northerly and westerly set of the
current, in order to reach Nlyra.
After its seizure by the Romans in 58 B.C. Cyprus
had been united for administrative purposes with Cilicia ;
. . , . . but in the first partition of the Roman
traf o*^**" ^■°''''^ ^^^^^ Actium it was made an im-
perial province (Dio Cass. 53 12) — i.e., its
governor, if it had one of its own, and were not rather
united with Cilicia to form a single province, bore the
title legatus Aiit^usti propnrtore {Trpeffjiei'Tris ^fj:iaffTov
duTiffTpdrrryoi, cp Dio Cass. 53 13 ; in NT always
rjytf^uv, cp Lk. 22, Str. 840 rfytfibvai Kal SioiKrjras
Kaiffap irifjiireL). Why then does the writer of Acts 187
1 Josephiis (Ant. i. 6 i) says Xe9i;xa . . . KuTrpo? avrri vvv
KoAetrai. Epiphanius, a Cyprian bishop, writes, KiVior r) Kvirpiiov
vrjiroi KoAeirai ' Kmot yap Kvirpioi, Ilirr. 50 25 (see Kitti.m).
976
i
CYRENE
call Sergius Paulus ' proconsul ' (dvOi'nraroi, the proper
title of governors of senatorial provinces, AV ' dcpuiy ' ;
cp Acts 18 12 1938)? Some have argued that he used
the word loosely, and appeal to Stralxj (685. fyivtro
ivapx^o- V "WOi KaOitrtp Kai vvv (an ffrpaTrfyiKT]}' to
prove that the island was governed \>y a proprietor
appointed by the eni[x.'ror ; but the writer of Acts is
quite correct. I-roni Uio Cassius (53 12) we learn that,
in 22 B.C., Augustus restored Cyprus to the Senate in
exchange for S. (iaul (cp Dio Cass. 544). In Paul's
time, therefore, its governor was j)roperly called ' pro-
consul.' The passage <|uoted from Strabo is misunder-
stood, as is clear from id. 840 [d% 5i rds S-q/xoaias 6
SrjfWi arparqyov% i) vw6.tov% irifXTro. — i.e., governors of
senatorial provinces were either of consular or of
pra-torian rank, in either case the oflicial title lx,'ing
proconsul). In the case of Cyprus, authors, inscriptions,
and coins have preserved the names of some twenty of
her propraitorian governors with the ' brevet ' rank of
proconsul. Lucius Sergius I'aulus (governor at the
time of Paul's visit, about 47 .\.i). ) is knov. n to us from
an inscription from the site of Soli (see Hogarth, Devia
Cypria, 114/! and Appendi.x).
_ See P. Gardner, Xeiv cha/>s. in Gr. Hist. 153 / For cvcava-
tions in the island J/l.S pass. Pcrrot and Chipiez, Ari in
I'ltun. and Cyprus. For the archii-'ology Max Ohnefalsch-
Richter, Kypros, die Hil<i-l u. Hoiin-r is esjiecially valuable.
For Christian times the most recent work is Hackett's Ilistoiy
of the CIturch in Cyprus, 1899. W. j. w.
CYRENE (kyPHNH [Ti. WW]), a city on the X.
coast of Africa. It was the capital of that part of LiiiV.V
1 Position ['7''] l^^tween the Egyptian and Cartha-
_ ■ J . . . ginian territories, which bore the name of
ana nistory. ,. u . i- .■ 1
' Cyrenaica or Pentapolis ; the phrase in
Acts 2 10, 'the parts of Libya about Cyrene, 'rd /ifpi;
r7]% Ai/ii'Tjs TTjy /v-ard Y^vp-i]vr)v , is e<iuivalont to the \i'^i"r)
ij irepi K. of Dio Cass. (,')3i2) and r; Trpos Kvprjvri Aifi.
of Jos. .'hit. xvi. 61. The city was thoroughly Greek in
character, and won a high reputation as the mother of
physicians (Herod. 8131; temple of Asklepios, Paus. ii.
2G9 ; Tac. A/in. 14 18), philosophers, and poets. Calli-
machus, Carneades, Eratosthenes, Aristippus (Strabo,
837), and Synesius, bishop of Ptolemais, are only a few
of the many famous men who were sprung from the Cyre-
naica. After the death of Alexander the Great, Cyrene
with its territory was absorbed by Egypt. Though so
thoroughly Hellenic, it had, since the time of Ptolemy son
of Lagos (Jos. c. Ap. 2 4, end of 4th centurj' B. c. ), a large
Jewish poi)ulation. Stralx), quoted by Jos. Ant. xiv. 72,
says that the Jews formed one of the four classes of the
inhabitants. The privileges granted to the Jews by
Ptolemy were continued and augmented by the Romans
(Jos. Ant. xvi. 65), who received the Cyrenaica, under
the will of the childless Ptolemy Apion, in 96 B.C.,
though for twenty years they shirked the responsibility
of the legacy. In 74 B.C. the territory was made a
province, which was combined with Crete when that
island was subjugated in 67 B.C. (see Cki.tk). In 27
B.C. the Cyrenaica and Crete were definitely united to
form a single province, under the title Cri-tti Cyrenu-, or
Creta et Cyrente (but either name might lie used to
denote the dual province: cp Tac. Ann. 83870). The
province was senatorial — i.e., governed by proconsuls
of prajtorian rank, and so remained to the time of
Diocletian. The subsec]uent history of Cyrene is con-
nected with its Jewish inhabitants, the chief event being
their terrible massacre of the Greek and Roman citizens
in the reign of Trajan (Dio Cass. 68 32).
The modern province of v^rtrra, on the E. of the gulf of .V/Vrm
represents the ancient Cyrenaica, and in this province Grennah
marks the exact site of C>Tene, which was placed on the edce
of a plateau 1800 feet above the sea-level, overlooking the
Mediterranean at a distance of ten miles (Str. 837 ; iroAeus
^ryoAr)? (r Tfta-nt^ntitti -nftiitii (tfififiTft, a)« fic toO jrfAa-you?
tcopw^fi' ai')T>;i). The port w.is called ApoIIonia. The sur-
rounding district was, and is, of remarkable fertility (Str. I.e.,
'i.inroTp6<t>o^ dpt'o-Tij, KoAAtKopTrot ; Herod. 4 is8_/;). The pros-
perity of Cyrene wa.s based upon its export of the drug silphium,
derived from an umbelliferous plant, not yet certainly identified,
977
CYRUS
growing in the S. desert (see Mon. d. Inst., PI. 47 : a va!«e repre-
senting King ArcesilaussuiJcrintending the weighing of f/////;Kw/;
cp the coins ; Aristoph. I'tut. 925, to Barrov ait^^i.ov).
That the Jews of Cyrene were largely Hellenised. is
beyond question. Jason of Cyrene is mentioned as an
2 Jewiah ""*'!"'' '" 2 Mace. 224 (see Macc.\bkks,
conntstion. ^-^'-^^ "•§=)■ I" »'- NT we hear of
Sunon of Cyrene who bore the cross of
Jesus (.\lk. 1521 Lk. 2826, ' S. a Cyrenian ' AV ; cp
Matt. 2732. 'a man of C ; RV, 'of Cyrene' in all
three passages : the adj. K vprjvaios is used in each
case). Jews from the Cyrenaica were in the Pentecostal
audience of Peter (.Vets 2 10 ; see atxne on the phrase
used). Cyrena-ans Joined with the Alexandrian and
Asiatic Jews to attack .Stephen (.Acts 69), and Cyrenaan
converts hel[x-(l to found the first (iontiie church at
.\ntioch (eXdXoi'V Kai irphs Toi's'EWrji'ai (-ncrrds W'Hj ;
Acts 1 1 20). One of their first missionaries may have
been the ' Lucius of Cyrene' of Acts 13 1, one of the
' prophets and teachers ' who ' ministered to tiie Lord '
in .Antioch. He is said to have been the first bishop
of Cyrene. Other traditions connect Mark with the
foundation of the Cyrenaic church.
Plan and Description of the site in .\nnual 0/ the I^rit. Sell,
at .ithens, 1' 1 \ if. ; cp Studiiiczka, Kyrene. \\. j. \\\
CYRENIUS (kyPHN'OC [Ti. WH]), Lk.22AV; RV
QUIKINILS.
CYRUS (L*ni3 ; kyroc [BAL]), the founder of the
old-Persian emijire, belonged to the ancient princely
1 Oriein. '^^'^'^ ^^^ ^'"^ .\cha;menid.x', so called after
° their ancestor Achai-nienes (Hakhamanish).
He w.as the second ^ of his name, his grandfather
having been called Cyrus [Kiirush, in the Habylonian
inscriptions Kii-ra-as, Kur-rns, K u-ur-ra-hi\." Cyrus
was thus, without a doubt, an Aryan and Persian by de-
scent— not an 1 '.lamite, as has recently l)een conjectured.
I'"or Darius Hysta.s])is speaks of Cambyses the son of
Cyrus as being one ' of our race ' [ainakhani taiivniyd
[Bekist. i. 11]), and calls himself a Persian, son of a
Persian, an Aryan of Aryan descent (N'aks-i- Rustam,
a. § 2 ; Suez c. § 3). At first Cyrus w.as king only of
Persia and of Ansan, or Anzan, an Elamite province —
probably with Susa (Shushan) for capital — which, after
the fall of the Elamite kingdom, and certainly as early
as the time of his ancestor Teispes (( i.'pis), had come
under tlie dominion of the Achanienid.-i'.^ In Baby-
lonia Cyrus calls himself by preference king of Ansan ;
but once, in the annals of Nabu-nil'id (Naboimedus), col.
2, 15, he is spoken of as ' king of Persia.' Neither state,
however, was then of much importance in comparison
with the great Median andChaldean enjpires ; both states,
too, were tributary to Media. Nabu-na'id mentions
Cyrus as the ' petty vassal ' of Astyages, w ho had only
a very small army at his disposal (5 R 64, i. 28^).
The career of this vas.sal-king, who rose till he brought
under his sw.ay the whole of Western Asia, so struck
the popular imagination that a legend of world-wide
diffusion resix-cting the foundling prince who was
brought up among poor jx?o|)Ie and afterwards became
a famous monarch was applied to him as it had already
been applied to others ; and this Persian tradition is
the source from which Herodotus (1107^), and the
authority u[X)n whom Justinus depends (i. 48-13), may
be supposed to have drawn. From Cjtus's own in-
scriptions, however, it appears that at least three of his
ancestors had the same kingdom before him. It is
possible, but not certain, that Cyrus in his youth may
t In Herod. 5 11 — from which Noldeke {Au/sdtze zur pers.
Gesch. 15) seeks to show that Cyrus w.is the third of the name
— Herodotus simply places the genealogies of Cambyses and
of Xerxes one above the other.
2 According to Herod. 1 113^^, Gyrus had previously borne
another name, and Strabo (l.*) 729) sa>-s that he was originally
called .Agradates, and that he did not assume the name of Cvrus
till his accession to the throne. On this point cp R. Schubert,
Herodot's Darstellung der Cyrussaee, (mJF. (Rrcslau, 'o").
8 See C. P. Tiele, ' Het Land Anshan-Anzan ' in Feestbundel
voor P. J. I'eth, 195^ (Leyden, '94).
CYRUS
have attended the Median court, and that cither he
himself or liis father was son-in-law of Astyages.'
Astyai;(.vs {/shfuvegu on the inscriptions of Nabu-nil'id)
is called at one time king of Media, at another king of
2. Career.
the U mmdn-manda,- by which, it has been
conjectured, are meant the Scythians. On
this assumption, Astyages might with some reason be re-
garded as a Scythian usur|jer. In the third year of
Nabu-na'id (553 B.C. ) there seems to have arisen within
the Median kingdom a revolt against the foreign domina-
tion. At least, at that date the Umman-manda who
were in occupation of Harran were recalled (5 Kawl.
64, i. 28^) Some time had still to elapse, however,
before Cyrus contrived, by treachery in the Median
camp, to liecome master of Astyages and at the same
time of the throne of Media. This happened probably
in the si.xth, or at all events before the seventh, year of
Nabu-na'id (before 550 H.C. ), Ann. col. 1 I. \ ff. The
two te.vts cited can hardly otherwise be brought into
agreement with each other. In the following years
Cyrus extended his dominion over the whole Median
empire, and after subjugating Lydia he directed his
energies against Babylon. By the fall of Croesus the
alliance between that monarch, Nabu-na'id, and .-\masis
of Egypt (Herod. \ ^^ ff.) was broken up, and each
one had to look out for himself. In 538 the end came.
I-"or several years the king of Babylon had withdrawn
himself from Babylon, and alienated priests and people
alike by neglect of the sacretl feasts and of the worship
of Marduk, as well as by other arbitrary proceedings.
When, in his seventeeiiih year, he returned to his capital,
it was already too late. Cyrus with his victorious
bands had been steadily advancing upon the northern
frontier of .\ccad, which the king's son, probably the
BC-l-sar-usur who (in i R 69, col. 2, 26 ; 59 and 68,
n. I, col. 2, 24/) is called his first-born, was guard-
ing with the army. The brave prince did what he
could ; but after his army had l)een defeated — first near
the city of Opis (Upc), and again as often as he rallied
it — and after 'the Accadians or North Babylonians had
revolted against the Chaldajan king, Sippar opened
its gates to the enemy, and Babylon also fell into his
hands without further resistance. After Gobryas ( Ug-
baru or Gubaru), governor of Gutium, had taken
possession with the vanguard, Cyrus himself made his
entry into the city with the main body of his troops on
the third day of the eighth month, 539-38, being received
(so at least his inscriptions tell us) by all classes, and
especially by the priesthood and nobles, as a lilierator,
with every manifestation of joy. Some days afterwards
Gobryas seems to h.ave pursued BC4-sar-u.sur and put
him to death; but the place where decipherers think
this ought to be read [Ann. col. 3, 22/) is very much
injured. Nabu-na'id had already been captured.
Cyrus reigned about nine years from this time. In his
last ye.ir he handed over the sovereignity of Babylon
to his son Cambyses (see Strassmaier, In.'^chriften von
Camhvses, Leipsic, 1890, Pref. ). Cp B.\liVi,o.\i.\, §69.
Under the name of Kores (see above, § 1 ), this Cyrus
is repeatedly referred to in the OT, usually as ' king of
« T„^-v.'» the Persians' (2 Ch.3622/. Kzral 1/887
hopes.
43 Dan. 10 I ), once as 'the Persian' (Uan.
629), once as ' king of Babylon ' (Ezra,*"! 13).
Great expectations were cherished of him by the Jews.
When, after his defeat of Croesus, he advanced to the
concjuest of the whole of Asia Minor, there arose one
of the exiles in Babylon, who pointed him out as the
king rai.sed up by Yahw6 to be Israel's redeemer.
From his pen comes Is. 40-48 (so much wnll be admitted
by all critics), where Cyrus is represented as e-xpressly
called to accomplish the divine judgment upon Babylon,
1 See Schubert, I.e. ti ff., and the works of Evers and Bauer
there referred to.
2 Del. Ass. HIVB, writes : ' Ummdn mandu, horde of peoples,
a eeneral designation of the northern peoples, hostile to Assyria,
subject at anyone time to Media — e.g., the Cimirrai, the Mannai,
the Scythians.' Cp Sayce, PSBA, Oct. 1896.
979
CYRUS
to set the captives free, and to restore Jerusalem and
the temple (4814/ 44 28 45 13). It was for this end,
we are told, that Yahw6 had given Cyrus victory upon
victory, and would still lead him on to fresh trium|)hs
(41 25 45 1-8). Whether he received recompense for
his services or not is left uncertain (cp 483/ with 45 13) ;
but at any rate he was no mere p.-issive tool in Yahwes
hand. He did not, indeed, know Yahw6 Ixifore he was
called (453/) ; but, once called, he fulfilled his mission
invoking Yahwe's name (41 25) and received the honour-
able titles of ' Yahwe's friend ' and ' Yahwe's anointed '
(4428 45i).
Bitter must have been the disappointment of the
Jews ; for, whatever else Cyrus may have done for
_ them, he did not realise the high-pitched
formation ^^•''I^ctations of the Exile jjrophet. Hence
a yoimger prophet, living in Palestine (see
IsAiAU, ii. § 21), announces that, for the deliverance of
Israel, Yahw6 alone will judge the nations, without any
allies from among ' the peoples ' (Is. 63 1-6, cp 51)16^),
thus reversing the old expectation respecting Cyrus.
The later Jews, however, fountl it difficult to believe
that the deliverance which Yahw^ was to have wrought
through the instrumentality of the great Persian king
had never been accomplished. The prophecy must
somehow or other have come to pass. Cjtus was not
regarded, it is true, as the man who had finally delivered
Israel^the deliverance was still one of the hopes of the
future — but the Jews desired to recognise in him, at
least, the initiator of the restoration of Israel. Such is
the reflection inevitably suggested by a strictly critical
reading of the work of the Chronicler (see EzRA, ii.
§7). '
The restoration of Israel might be considered to have
begun with the rebuilding of the temple, and the
y. .... , problem now arose, how to bring this
Tom«U. .^thT-oo '^^*^"' '"'° connection with Cyrus, .-l
ismpie . xnree jj^^^jjy instantly presented itself.
{a) According to the evidence of
Haggai, of Zech. 1-8 and of Ezra5i-io, the building
was first Vjegun under Darius, in whose reign it w.as also
completed. This made it necessary to give another
account of the origin and course of the building, if the
work was to be attributed to Cyrus. More than one
way of effecting this was found, [b] .According to the
author of Ezra5 13-17 63-5, Cyrus committed the task of
rebuilding the temple to his governor Sheshbazzar, and
the work thus begun by him was carried on without
interruption till the reign of Darius, (c) The Chronicler,
however, from whose hand we have Ezra 1 81-4524, gives
another version. He too has it that Cjtus ordered the
restoration. The work was not taken in hand by the
king himself; but permission was given by him to the
exiles to return to Jerusalem for the piu-pose. Immedi-
ately on their arrival in the holy city they set up the
altar and laid the foundations of the temple ; but while
C'yrus was still on the throne they were compelled to
stop the work by order of the king himself, who had
been stirred up by the adversaries of the Jews. Not
till the second year of Darius could the building be
resumed.
However widely these accounts may differ from one
another in detail, they agree in stating that the restora-
tion of the temple was originated by Cyrus, and in
representing him as a worshipper of Yahw^, whom he
recognised as the one true God. Yahw6 is the God of
heaven, who has bestowed universal empire upon Cyrus
in order that he may restore the true worship in
Jerusalem ; the temple there is for Cjtus no mere
ordinary temple, of which there were so many, but the
veritable House of God.
.At the same time, the discrepancies which we find in
the narratives b and c are by no means unimportant.
According to the older [b), the building of the temple
was entirely the work of Cjtus, which he caused to be
t-arried on uninterruptedly, defraying the entire cost out
980
i
CYRUS
of the royal trcasur}'. According to the other {c), it
was carried out at the instance of ("yriis; not by himself,
liowever, but only by returned exiles, who, along with
their comrades left behind in Babylon, contributed the
cx[jenses of the undertaking (146 268/! 87). So far,
inileed, is the restoration of the temple from being,
according to this account, the work of C yrus, that it is
actually represented as broken off during his reign at
his command. Probably the Jews in the long run found
the idea unbearable, that the sanctuary should have
been built by a foreigner, even though the foreigner
was Cyrus, and therefore his share in the Wf)rk was
reduced by the Chronicler to more modest dimensions.
The importance of Cyrus for Israel lies less in
anything he actually did for them than in the great
exjiectations that he exciteti, exixxtations which in
their turn exercised a great influence on the ideas
ultimately formed by the Jews as to the earlier stages
of their restoration after the misfortunes of the 'exile.'
Cp lSK.\KI., § 50 ; UlSI'KKSION, § 5.
In the OT Cyrus is mentioned also in Dan. 628 [29]
10 1 ; in the first -cited passage as the successor of
Darius, that is, of ' Darius the Mede ' (Dan. 631 [(JiJ).
See D.VKii.s, i.
The preceding sketch of the result of a critical
examination of the passages of the OT relating to
6 Policv of ^y*'^ '^ "°' contradicted by anything
the victorious «'"tained in the inscriptions of C)tus
Cvnia himself discovered some years ago.
^ ■ It is certainly worthy of note how
closely, even down to details, the representation of the
Persian con(|ueror in these inscriptions agrees with that
which is found in Is. 44 28 and4r>i. Evidently the
second Isaiah had a correct idea of w hat a Persian king,
as opposed to a Babylonian, would be likely to do.
In the cylinder inscription (5 R 35; cp Hagen, ' C)tus-
texte' in /id/r. z. Assyriol. 2 205 _^, and A'li Zb
120 ff. ) C_\TUS is the deliverer of oppressed peoples,
chosen by Marduk himself, and hailed by all Sunier
and Accad as a saviour, exactly as with the Israelite
prophet he is the called, the anointed, of Yahwe. A
difference there is between the joyous hope which the
Jewish exiles cherished and the official statements which
Babylonian scribes at royal command had to chronicle
on their cylinders ; but the coincidences referred to are
too close to tx; entirely accidental. Moreover, priests
and people alike had reason enough to tx; dissatisfied
with the arbitrariness and misgovernment of their former
sovereign, and Cyrus, with fine political tact, knew
how to utilise this temper and win hearts by deference
towards the national religion, restraint of robbery and
violence, and rctiress of grievances. No wonder that
the Jewish exiles also hoped for enlargement at his
hands. That he fulfilled this expectation does not
appear at least from his inscriptions.
The cKissage in which some scholars have thought that this may
be re.id demands another interpretation. In Cyl. /. 1 1 the words
irt,ih' taaira kullat luatdta were taken together and tran.slated,
'he (Mjirduk) decreed return from all lands'; but it is certain
that, with Hagen and Del., we must connect the words irtaii |
taaira with those which precede, and kullat matdta with those '
CYRUS
which follow, so that the meaning is : ' [after that Mnrduk, in
his wrath, had brought all sorttt of miseries upon the land) he
changed [his disuosition Ij and had coin|iassion. Round all
lands he looked ; lie sought [and so found as the right prince,
the fulfiller of his gracious decrees, Cyrus, etc. j' In this passage
nothing is said of any restoration of exiles to their native land.
More interest attaches to the pa.ssage /. 30^, where,
however, the names on which the <|uestion chiefly turns
are, unfortunately, obliterated. Here Cyrus says that
he returned to their places the gods of a great
many towns, brought together the inhabitants, and
restored Ixjth temples and dwelling-houses. The towns
referred to were all named, and it was added that
they lay on the banks of the Tigris,'- and that their
territory extended from [lacuna in the text] to Assur
and ."^usan (according to the correct interpretation of
Delit/.sch and Hagen), by which exjires-sions are in-
tended not the cities of the name but the countries of
Assyria and West IClam (the city of Asur lay on the
right bank of the river). The obliterated names (or
name) can have denoted only the western and southern
boundaries of the district referred to — probably Suiner
and Accad, which are separately mentioned immediately
afterwards. Accordingly, there can be no doubt that
reference is here made to Cyrus's care for the restoration
of neglected worships and for the return of the in-
habitants of certain cities to their former habitations ;
this, however, only in the immediate neight)ourhood of
Babylon. At the same time, although in these inscrip-
tions, which doubtless belong to the earlier period of
Cyrus's rule over Babylon, no mention is made of any
general measure extending also to exiles from the West,
there remains the possibility that the Persian confjueror
may have taken up this work of restoration at a later
time.^ At all events the conciliatory policy of which
he had already given positive evidence can very well
have aroused among the Jews the hojje and expectation
that they also would one day benefit by it.
The tomb of Cyrus 'the king, the Achrrmenid,' at
Afuri^hab (Pasargada; ?) is now assigned by Weissbach
(ZDMG 48653/) to the younger Cyrias. At any
rate the EgA-ptian head-dress of the king on the
monument shows that it can have been erected only
after the conquest of Egypt by Cambjses.
C. V. T.— VV. H. K.
1 Probably the words iisahhir ka . . . should be completed
so as to read either ka[/>ittaiu] or ka\ah-/>a-as-su]. (So 1 lele.)
2 The words sa I's/u apnama ruulii luhatsun are not clear.
Schr. translates : ' whose place from of okl lay in ruins '; Hagen,
Del., 'founded in the most ancient time.' But does nadu ever
mean this? In our present inquiry the question is of sub-
ordinate import.ince.
3 [Cp the very interesting inscription in the last section of
Brugsch's Hist. 0/ Ef:ypt (' the Persians in Eg>pt "), which
describes the religious patriotism of an Egvptian Nchemiah.
The deceased is represented on his statue (now in the Vatican)
as telling the events of the Persian period of his life. Being in
high favour as a physician with C'ambyses, he was able to induce
that monarch to give orders for the restoration of the temple of
Neith at .'^ais, and of the religious services. He was physician
also to Darius, who, when he \v.as in Elam, sent him to Eg\-pt
to restore the arrangements for the .scribes of the temples.
This last mission appears to synchronise with the erection of
the (second) temple at Jerusalem. Cp. Meyer, EntU. 71 ;
Che. Jew. ReL Lt/e. T K C ]
981
98a
DABAREH
DAGON
D
DABAREH (nin^), Josh. 21 28 AV; RV Dabkrath.
DABBASHETH, RV Dabbesheth (n'C'2'^. § 99;
BaiBapaSa [15]. AABAceAi [A], -ee [L] ; 'a hum]),'
i.e., 'a liiU ' ; cp Jos. B/ iv. li), a place on the W.
border of Zebuluii (Josh. 19ii). Conder identities it
with A'/i. Dabsheh, on the left bank of the W. el Karn
{i.e., according to hin' the Valley of Jiphtah-ki.,
mentioned in v. 14) ; bui inis spot is too high up in the
hills, and is scarcely on the boundary line, in addition
to which the name is not a probable one.
€5* reads 'ncm I ®" .nanj;n'3- AH the readings may be
reconciled by reading I^n'nT'a- The initial 3 was lost, owing
to the preposition 3 which precedes ; 71' ("n) was transferred to
the end of the name, thus producing 'riCOT \ ' was lost, and so
MT's reading was produced : ,^31J• (tS'O 's simply a conjecture
for z'1-\- T. K. c:.
DABERATH [T\~\y\ or n-!n"^^ ; AaBraO [AL] ;
Josh. 19 12, dalieipud [B], l^i [Pesh.]; Josh. 21 28,
5e/3,3a [B], de^pad [A], fc^i [Pesh.], AV Dabareii;
I Ch. 672 [57], SelSepei and Sajiwp [B — a doublet],
yaSep [A], Sa^rjpwd [L], loiS? [Pesh.]), a Levitical
city (Josh. 21 2S) on the border of Zebulun (Josh. 19i2),
but belonging to Issachar (Josh. 21 28 i Ch. 672[57]), is
the SajiapLTTO. of Jos. [Vil. 62), the Dai im (oa/ieipa)
of Eus. and Jer. (OS 115 20 250 54), the modern
Dabunyeh, a small and unimportant village, ' lying on
the side of a ledge of rocks at the W. ba.se of Mount
Tabor' (Rob. BR 8210). It occupies a strategic
position above the great plain at the mouth of the pass
leading northwards between Tabor and the Nazareth
hills. Apparently it was here that the Israelite forces
mustered under Barak (GASni. HG 394) ; and it is
possible to trace a connection between the name of the
village and that of Deborah, without rushing to the
extreme represented by C. Niebuhr [Reconstellation
dcs Debjrdliedes, 11 /. ). May not the home of the
prophetess have been at Daberath ? (so Moore, Judges,
113/). We learn from Jos. BJ \\. 21 3 that there was
a Jewish garrison here in the Roman war, ' to keep
watch on the Great Plain. '
DABRIA (n.iBKr.t), 4 Esd. 14 24, ascribe: cp perhaps
the name Dibri [q.v.).
DACOBI. RV Dacubi (AAKoyBi [A]), i Esd. 528t =
Ezra242, .Vkkub (i/.r. , 2).
DADDEUS, RV Loddk us (\oAaioc [B]), i Esd.
8 46 = Ezra 8 17, Inix) (i.).
DAGGER occurs as a rendering of :
1. 3^ri, hcrebh, Judg. 816217: (/Liaxaipa ; Vg. hzsgladium in
IT'. 16 22, but sicam in v. 21). RV 'sword.' See Weatons.
2. eyxetpi'Sioi/, l?ar. 0 i5[i4l. This word represents a^ri four
times in ©, but in Jer. .0042 it represents pi'S. Bel's 'dagger'
wa~, on mythological grounds, a javelin. See Weatons, and
cp Javelin.
DAGON (pj"! ; Aapcon [BAL]), a god of the
Philistines, who had temples at Gaza (Judg. 1621^)
, ™v„ and Ashdod ( i S. 5 i Mace. IO82-85
1. Tne name, n \ i i. <• ..
11 4).' It appears from the passages
cited, especially from the story of Samson, that the
worship of Dagon was general among the Philistines
(Jerome on Is. 46i),^ though it would perhaps be a
mistake to regard him as a national god. Places bearing
1 The temple of Dagon in iCh. lOio is an error for Beth-
shan, I S.31 10, and in Is. 46 i (©NAQ) Dagon is a mistake for
Nebo. AayiuK in Ezek. '.'046 (21 2) [B.\] is cornipt.
2 Jerome s knowledge is doubtless derived solely from the
OX.
983
the name Bkth-d.\gon {■].-•.) are found in the Judncan
Lowlands and on the boundary of .Asher ; in Christian
times there was a Caferdago between Diospolis and
Jamnia (Jerome).^ All these places lie within a region
which had been for a time in the possession of the Philis-
tines, and it is conceivable that they received the name
from them. This can hardly \x. the case, however, with
Beit Dojan, SE. of Nabulus, which also seems to re-
present an ancient Beth-dagon ; and it is at least equally
possible that the worship of Dagon to which these
names bear witness preceded the Philistine invasion — in
other words, that Dagon was a god of the older Canaanite
inhabitants. Philo Byblius gives Dagon a place in his
Phoenician theogony, making him a son of Ouranos
and Ge, and brother of Elos (El) or Kronos, Baitulos.
and Atlas ;"^ but we should hesitate to conclude, on this
testimony alone, that Dagon was worshipped among the
Ph(finicians. A cylindrical seal now in the Ashmolean
Museum at Oxford, attributed by Sayce to the seventh
century B.C., is inscribed with the words ' Baal Dagon '
in Phoenician characters (Sayce, Higher Criticism, 32J).
Of the character of the god we know nothing
definite. Philo Byblius, deriving the name from ddgdii,
corn, interprets (t'ltwv, and makes Dagon a god of
husbandry, Zei'/s dporpios. Others derived the name
Dagon from dag, fish (cp Shimshon [S.\.\iso.\], from
shemcsh, sun).^ It w.as natural, therefore, to imagine
that the god was represented in the form of a fish (so
Rashi). From 1 S. 54 we learn, however, that the
idol of Dagon at .Ashdod had a head, and hands which
projected from the botly ; by its fall these were broken
off, leaving only the trunk of the image. The Hebrew
text, by some corruption, reads, ' only Dagon was left
on him,' which David Kimhi (ob. circa 1235 A.D. )
ingeniously interprets, only the form of a fish was left,
adding, ' It is said that I)agon, from his navel down,
had the form of a fish (whence his name, Dagon), and
from his navel up, the form of a man, as it is said, his
two hands were cut off.'* It is not impossible that
this theory, for which there does not seem to he any
older Jewish authority,* merely transfers to Dagon, by
the help of etymology, the description given by Lucian
and others of the goddess DercOto, who was worshipped
on the same coast.* Not a few more modern scholars
have identified her with Dagon. The prevailing opinion
that Dagon was
sea monster, upward man
j And downward fish,
j has no other foundation than these verj' doubtful
etymological and mythological combinations.
What relation there is between Dagon and Marnas,
the principal god of Gaza in the early centuries of our
era,' whom the writers of the time identify with Zfi'j
1 OS 235 14 (Ktirap aSayiav) 104 15. In the inscription of
Eshmunazar, king of Sidon, in connection with Dor and Joppi,
occur the word.' pt ns-ix> which Schlottmann interpreted, ' land
of Dagon,' others, 'cornlands.' Aayuii/ near Jericho (Jos. Anf.
xiii. Si = B/ i.2 2 1 = Swk, i Mace. 10 15I) has nothing to do with
the name of the god (>ee Docus).
2 Miiller, /"'r. Hist. Gr. %^b-j /. ; cp Etyin. Afagn.s.7'. BTjToycoi'
6 Kpdfot iiTTO ^oiviKiov.
3 Jer., piscis tristitia (px, cp Sidon, venatio iristitier). Other
interpretations : fl^o% tx^uos x) Avrnj. Ae'ytToi &i KaX Bwpov i<rTiv
ayia r) 6 Zcii? o dpovpaios ((\? ]!<!• 14).
■* Thenius would put this explanation into the text, emending
vSy nxcj )1JT i-\ pi ; similarly We. (iKr: Ml pi). WRS ; cp Dr.
* It is unknown to the Targum, Josephus, and the Talmud.
Other Jewish commentators represent Dagon with the head of
a fish ; see a I>yra, Abarb.
" See Atargatis.
7 First attested on coins of Hadrian. See Jer. E/. 10" 2,
yit. S. Hilar.U'iQ; esp. Marc. Diac, /':"/. i". Porphyrii,
passim.
984
DAISAN
Kpr)Tayet>Tlit, is not certain. Marnas is the Aramaic
mantii, our Lord, and it is not im|K)ssible that the god
worshipiH-'d under this appellation was, by his proper
name, the old Dagon.
In the fragments of Rcrossus, one of the mythical
monsters, jiarl fish, part man, who at long intervals
o B 1 ♦• ♦ came up from the Persian (julf to reix-at
f^®^ -t^ »" »'!'-' Chaldaans the original reveia-
otner aeiwes. _^^^^^ ^^ Oannes, is named Odacon
{ilbcLKuiv) ; ' and as, since Kimhi, a like form was
generally attributed to Dagon, it was natural to com-
bine the two names (Selden and many others). Layard
published a figure of a merman from Khorsabad, and
in a note suggested that it might represent Odacon-
Dagon (Xim-eh, 1840, 2466/.). Some Inter Assyri-
ologists reproduce Layard's cut with the legend ' the
fish-god Dagon. ' "^
There was a Haby Ionian god Dagan, whose name
appears in conjunction with Anu and often with ' Xinib ' :
he was, therelore, probably a god of heaven (Sayce,
Jensen).* As Sir Henry Kawlinson perceived, there is
no connection whatever between this god and ROrossus"
sea-monster, Odacon. Whether the Philistine Dagon is
originally the same as the Babylonian Dagan caimot,
with our present knowledge, Ixi determined. The long
and profound influence of Babylonia in Palestine in early
times, which is attested by the Amarna tablets, makes
it (|uite possible that Dagon, like Anath, came thence.*
Dagon, however, does not seem to have occupied a
I^lace of much importance in the Babylonian religion,
and is much less often mentioned than the other great
gods. The Assyrians did not recognise the name of
the god Dagan in the town Beth-dagon, Bit-daganna
(Semiacherib, Prism Inscr. 265), and possibly the
similarity of the names may be accidental.
Of the worship of Dagon we know nothing, .\ccord-
iiig to I S. 55 the priests and others entering his temple
_^ , . at Aslidod were careful not to set foot
i. worsnip ^^^ j^g ^jj, {;/.i:\>\\. I9) ; cp Marc. Diac. 76.
0 agon, -^^-j^^j ^^^. 1^..^^,^ j-,.Q,^j jj^g last-named author
about the worship of Marnas at Gaza — for example,
that the god was invoked to send rain ; that he gave
oracles ; that there were certain iiiannora in the temple
which were peculiarly sacred, and guarded from the
apjjroach (especially) of women ; that there were wells
in the temple precincts — is not distinctive. \\'hether
human sacrifices were offered there in the writer's day
may be dOubted ; the indictment in 66 6S may refer to
an earlier time.
See Selden, De dis Syrls, 73 with Reyer's Adiiitaiiicnta ;
Th. Roser, Dc J)agone fhilistuvruiit iif,ilo, m Ugulini,
Tliesaurus, 23955-961 : .Stark, Gaza u. die fhilistiiische Ki'iste
(■52), 248-250, cp 576-580 ; Scholz, Getzcndienst ('77), 238-244 ;
Baudissin, art. 'Dagon 'in P l\ hK''* ; .Menani, ' Le mythe de
D.igon,' Kn>. de niisf. d,s K,-l. 11 {'85) 295 ^ ; Jensen, Vie
Kosiiiologie der /><ji*j/i)«/ir ('90), pp. 449-456. (;. i'. M.
DAISAN (Aaican [R])
RlV.IN, 2.
DALAIAHin-'?-^
Esd.
Ezra 248,
Ch. 824 A\' ; kV l)i;i..\i.\u, 3.
DALAN (AaAan [A]), i Esd. .'.37 kV=Ezra26o,
Di:i..\i.\ii, 4.
DALMANUTHA (t& mcrh AaAmanoyGa [Ti.
WHJ) takes the place in Mk. 810 of the Mac.vd.xn
(q.v.) of li Mt. l.")39. It was 'into the parts of Dal-
manutha,' we are told (Mk. 810), that Jesus came in
' the boat ' with his disciples after he had ' sent away
about four thousand ' whom he had fed. Since in v. 13
1 M Oiler, Fr. Hist. Gr. 2500.
2 Schrader in Richm, HUB^'^S (cp A'W rW 182); Fr. Del. in
Caliiier Iiil>. lex^% .See esp. .Menant, ' I.e Mythe de D.-igon,'
Ri-t'. de t Hist, des Rel. ('8;) 11 295^, where a great variety of
Assyrian fish-men may be found.
•• According to the Heb. version of Tobit, Sennacherib was
killed in the temple of his god Dagon (ed. Ncubauer, p. 2U,
1. 4) ; but this is a mere blun<ler.
* Cp the name D.tgantakala in the Am. Tab., and see Ash-
DOD (col. 326, n. 2).
DALMATIA
he 'departed to the other side' (tit ri itipav), it has
seemed natural to look for Dahnanutha on the W. co.x«;t
of the lake. No such place, however, is knf)wn. The
name does not appear in Eus. or Jer. ; nor is there
any tr.ace of an analogy to it in any of the ancient
itineraries or mediaeval travels.
I-ightfootC DecasChorocr.' in Of-era, 1^\-^/. \ cpOf-ft. Posth.
71) suggested that it miuht be an Aramaic form of Salmrin,
J1d'?S. several times mentioned in Talniudic writings (.Slishna,
Veliamoth, 1B6; Kelaini. 49; Orlah, \i\ Talm. Ral<a liathr.
821*.) as if in the neighlxjurhood of 'lilierias; and similarly
Kwald ('list., KT, <l34H, n. 4) interprets it .-is the (jalilean
pronunciation of Salmon. Keim (Jrsus, ET, 4238) lakes it
for Salmfinfit— /.I-.,' ' Sh.idy Place.' .Schwarz (Das lleil. Land,
189) suggests th.it Talnianutha, as another name fur Magdal.1.
may l)c derived from the cave of "Teliman j»{D''?B ( I'alm. Jcrus.
Deiiiai. 1i\ for which he proposes the caves on the cliff behind
Mejdel. Neubaucr, however (i'.coi:. Titliii. 268), says that this
c ive should be in the neighbourhood of Herod s Ca.-sare.T.
Recently two other derivations fr^m Aramaic have been pr.j-
piised. W<tx/.(E.vp. 7.8 563 [Sept. '97]) suggests tbat Dalmanuth
is a translileralion of nn";C*'n. 'he emphatic form of ,n:"cS, 'he
Talmudic name for harbour — i.e., the bay or harlxiur in which
Magdala stood— a designation 'one might expect of the evan-
gelist whose gospel is founded on the preacbiiig of Peter the
fisherman.' Then Nestle (//'. 'J45 [Oct. '97J), a:'ler pronouncing
Herz's xn'jC''?'! ;>" impossible form for the emphatic of nycS
suggests Nni;cS(7) = *is Ttt /i.e'p»/, ' into the parts'— /.?., of Mag-
dala. Herz replies (///. O95 (Nov. '57]) that Kn':C'Vl 's possible
in the ba.xity of 1 .dinudic transliteration and points out that in
Nestle's suggestion the -\ remains unaccounted for, as well
as the intrusion of a needles^ Syri.ic e<]uivalent of the Greek.
'I'hose who place M.igiiala on the SK. shore of the lake
have sought there for traces of the name, and Thomson (LB
393) suggests a ruined site half a mile up the Yarmfik from
the Jordan, called Dalhamia or Dalmamia (Rob. BR 8264
Delhemiyeh) ; but this is some distance from the I-ike. None
of these derivations and identifications seems perfectly satis-
factory. G. A. S.
DALMATIA (AaXmatia [Ti. WH], Tac. , Dio Cass. .
Di'hnalia: Inscr. Dclnuitia m\(.\ IMlmatia. The name
docs not occur in early (ireek writers). The Dalmatians
were an Illyrian tribe, or ])erhaps rather a confederation
of tribes, round the town Delmion or Delminium, from
which their name was derived (Straljo, 315). They had
fifty settlements {Ka.TOi.Kio.% dftoXoYois ; but cp Cic. ad
Fain, f) lofl), of which some ranked as cities— <'.,^'. ,
Salome or Salona (mod. Saloiia near Spalato). These
tribes had in earlier times been loosely de[)endent upon
the rulers of .Scodra (mod. Skutari), and had therefore
suffered from the Roman expeditions directed against
Queen Teuta (229 B.C.) and Demetrios of Pharos (219
B.C. ). On the accession of (Jenthius they revolted, and
thus escaped the fate of southern lUyricum, which, on
the subjugation of Macedonia, became permanently
dependent upon Rome (see Il.l.VKlciM). Brigandage
and piracy were the only native trades (.Str. 317). In
155 B.C. Publius Scipio Nasica took the capital, and
the Dalmatians prof<-ssed subjection. A series of
almost endless wars had to be waged before this central
p.art of lUyricum was finally reduced by Octavian (33
B.C.). In the partition of provinces in 27 B.C. so
peaceful was lUyricum (t6 XaXuaTtKov, Dio Cass. 53 12)
that it was made senatorial ; but sixteen ye.ars later the
Emperor was compelled to take charge of its two main
sections, Dalm.atia and P.annonia [id. 5434). A final
struggle for freedom (6-9 A.I). ; cp Suet. lib. 16, who
compares the crisis with that of the Punic Wars) was
crushed by Tiberius. The co.astland from Lissus to
the .-Vrsia was thereafter organised as an independent
province (for its imjx)rtance, see Tac. Ami. 4s). The
title of the province was ' Superior Provincia Illyricum'
(C/^ 3, 1741), or ' maritima pars Illyrici ' (Veil. ii.
125 5). .After .Augustus ' Dalmatia ' is apparently the more
usual title (cp Jos. i^/ii. I64). Its northern Ixiund.ary
towards Pannonia is not clearly marked ; in the S.
it extended to the province of Macedonia. The mention
of Dalmatia in the NT is confined to a single instance
('Titus is gone to Dalmatia,' perhaps from Nicopolis :
2 Tim. 4 10).
The connection may be illustrated from Tac. .4««. 253:
konorem (consulatus) Germanicus iniit apud urbttn Achaia
986
DALPHON
Nicopolim, quo venerat per Illyricam oram, visofratre Druso
in Dalmaiia agente.
It is unnecessary to suppose that the term ' Dalmatia '
is used by Paul in a ' vague and general sense' (Cony-
beare and Howson, 2 155).
See ("oils, L.i Prcn'ince Kotii. de Dalmatic: Evans, Anti-
quarian Kiscarc/us in Illyricum. w. J. \V.
DALPHON (psj'^. ; AeA(t)coN [BALfl]. ton \. [S^-''].
(\Ae\4)a>N [N*], ton &^eA(|)ON AyToy [L"*]). a son
of Hanian, Ksth. 97. Cp EsTHKK, § 3.
DAMARIS (Aamaric [Ti. WH], a woman, appar-
ently of some importance, named in Acts 1734 fis one
of those who were converted by Pauls ]5reaching at
Athens. Chrysostom {de Saa-rd. 4?) makes her the
wife of DioNYSius the Areopagite ; so Lat. of cod.
E [cum iixore sua), whilst its Greek has only •^vvt].
Wetzstein (XT Gr. 2573) quotes a gloss, Aa/tap, yvvf),
ya/jLtr^. X^ytrai Kal Aafxapis.
DAMASCUS. The English Damascus is the Greek
A&MACKOC- The Heb. is usually pw'tS'^, Dammesek ;
but twice (i Ch. 18 5 2 Ch. 28 s ; cp 2 K.
1. Name. ^^^^ pbD-H) pi^D-ll, Darmesek. The
origin and meaning of the name arc unknown.
Environs of
DAMASCUS.
1 iv-Hsli .Miles
Both forms occur in the Targums. The Aramaic form is
Darmesek, later Syri.ac Darmcsuk ; Talmud, Durmaskln. Both
forms occur in the Egyptian lists : Ti-mas-ku in the sixteenth
century B.C., and Sa-ra-maski for Ti-ra-mas-ki inthe thirteenth
(W.MM, As. u. .Eur.). In Assyrian the town is Dimaski or
pimaska; the kingdom (in Heb., Aram of Damascus) Mat Sa
imerisu, a phrase of uncertain meaning. The Arabic is Dimask,
or Dimisk e5 Sam — i.e., Damascus of Syria — usually contracted
to e5-S;1m. The instances of the form with rm in OT are later
than those with double ;«; but, if the Egyptian transliieration
be correct, r>« is as old as the thirteenth century B.C. Whether
mm arose by assimil.ation (see below, § 6) from rjii, or rm by
dissimilation from mm, is not clear.
Damascus has occupied its preeent site certainly since
Greek times, probably from the remotest antiquity.
_ -, , The city lies in the NW. corner of the
2. Geography, ^s.^^ ^ ^^^^jj^ p,^;^ ^^ ^^^ p, ^^
Hermon. To the E. of the city this is known as el-
Merj, the .Ager Daniascenus.
The (*.uta is some 30 m. by 8 or 10, and 2300 ft. above sea-
level. It is bounded on the W. by Hermon, on the N. by a long
barren offshoot of Antilibanus, on the E. by a long line of
volcanic hills, the Tellfll, which shut out the great desert, and
on the S. by the Jebcl '.\swad, beyond which lies Hauran. It
is traversed on the N. by the seven streams of the Baradd and
on the S. by the Barl>ar and A'luaj {%ec Abana, Phakpak).
The fertility is very great. There are many fields of corn and
987
DAMASCUS
maize ; but groves of poplar and walnut, orchards of apricot,
pomegranate, pistachio, and almond, with hedges and underwood,
so abound (.see below, § 10), that the distant view of the Gfija
is as of an almost unbroken sea of verdure. From this the
white, smokeless city rises like an island, near the barren lime-
stone bills on the north of it.
The bulk of the city is set along the main stream of
the Baratlfi, 2 m. from where the latter breaks upon
_. _.. the plain. It sjireads about a mile from
3. ine oity. y ^^ ^^ ^^^, ,^^jj. ^ ^^jj^ ^^^^^ ^ ^^ ^ .
but from the southern gate a suburb, the Meidan,
consisting almost wholly of one street, stretches for
another mile. The city is thus mallet-shapxjd, the head
lying N. totheBarada, the shaft .S. along the Meccanroad.
Between the Baradil and the hills there is another suburb,
Salihiyeh ; but it is scattered and half hidden in trees.
The position is almost absolutely level, and commanded by the
hills. There is no real citadel ; a castle surrounded by a moat
lies a little to the .south of the river. The wall, ]>ierced by seven
gates, runs straight along the river and then round the bulk of
the city, the mallet head. The upper part of it is Arab or
Turkish work ; but much of the lower half may date from NT
times (.\cts 1'25; cp 2 Cor. 11 32^;). Through the .southern
part of the city and parallel to the river ran (as through every
other Creek town in Cocle.syria) a long colonnaded street,
generally identified with that 'called Straight ' (.\cts 9 11). The
ba.ses of some columns are still standing. E. of the castle, the
Great Mosque (partly burned in 1894) occupies the site and
contains some of the struc-
ture of the CathetlTal of St.
John, built by Arc.idius in
the beginning of the fifth
century on the ruins of a
(ireek temple, which again
was probably the successor
of the house of Rimmon (2
K. 618; cp 10 10-16). The
rest of Damascus is occupied
by bazaars, mosques, a few
open places, and streets of
private houses. On its ap-
proach to the walls, the
J.iradn. has much of its
water drawn off through
channels, by which it is con-
veyed to every corner of the
city. The chief gardens lie
along the N. bank of the
river ; but others, inter-
spersed with cemeteries,
stretch all round the wall.
Despite various drawbacks,
her rich .stre.ams, bursting,
as they do, on the very edge
of the desert, and creating
a delicious verdure, have
won for Dam.^scns the name
of the earthly Paradise of the
Arab world.
That a site so defence-
less and so shut off by
fty mountains from the
iiaifcerd-BoutaUic. most of Syria should yet
have held in perennial vigour one of the most ancient of
_ . , cities, the real capital of Syria, and enabled
it to survive wars and changes of empire
V V !• which have overthrown or reduced to
poverty every other great city of that part of the world,
is due to the combination of so rich a fertility with a posi-
tion so forward on the desert and so central to Western
Asia. Damascus is an indispensable harbour of
refuge on the desert ; the market of the nomads ; the
outpost of the Mediterranean world towards farther Asia ;
central to Eg}'pt, the Levant, Arabia. Me.sopotamia, and
Khurdistan. Her great roads lead to N. S)Tia, the upper
Euphrates by Palmyra to Baghdad and the Persian Gulf ;
by the Gulf of "Akaba to Mecca ; through Sjria to Cairo ;
and by the upper Jordan and Galilee to Acre, which is
her natural ijort on the Mediterranean— though at times
political exigencies have connected her more closely with
Tyre, Sidon, or Tripoli, and to-day the great French road
and railway across the Lebanons carry her western
trade to Berfit. She thus lay on the commercial lines
of traffic between Western Europe and India by the
Persian Gulf : between the valleys of the Euphrates and
the Nile ; between Arabia and Asia Minor. So
DAMASCUS
inevitable an emporium. Damascus was only less
favourable a seat of empire. She has always been the
natural capiUil of Lebanon and I-Lastcrn Palestine. As
onR as an Mistern jKJWcr ruled, she remained the
capital also of Syria ; but during the Greek and Roman
dominion (330 n.c— 634 A.u.) she yielded her supre-
macy to .Antioch.
The Arabs first made for Dsunasciis, and then used h« as the
ba.se of their Syrian conquests. Under the Oma> yad Khalifi
she was the capital of the Moslem empire from Spam to India.
With so many comniunicntions Damascus has always
bc«-n tht; home of a motley crowd— Syrians. Arabs.
. (^.reeks. and Kurds, with Turks and Jews.
B. Arts. Y^.j jj j^^g preserved, apparently through all
ages, a very distinctive character for skill in handicrafts.
Damascus, though it has never been a great schwjl of
letters, has always been a school of arts ; even more a
manufactory than a market or a garden. The Knglish
terms. Damask (originally any figured or patterned
te.\tile)> and Damascene blade ; the German Damast
and 1 )amascieren and Damascener ; the French Damas-
quinerie and Damasquinure (emlxjssing on steel) are
proofs of the inventiveness and technical skill of the
peoi)le. %\ hich seem to reach back to a very remote tiiue.
In the middle ages Damascus was famous for its
patterned and brocaded cloths, esijccially silks and
wools (' an inimitable i)erfection of work" according to
Idrisi). its glass, sword-blades, and embossed and
enamelled metal-work. In the beginning of the
Christian era, to ' carry wool to Damascus' was, accord-
ing to the Talmud, a proverb, eciuivalent to our ' carry-
ing coals to Newcastle.' Ezekiel (ii" 18) sjieaks of the
city's exportation of wine and wool for the manufactures
of I'hcenicia (cp Toy, SHOT, but see Cornill, ad lor.) ;
2 K. 89 mentions the 'goods of Damascus.' Ahaz
made a copy of its richly decor.tted altar (2 K. \&ioff.).
The extreme anticiuity of Dama.scus (Jos. Ant.
i. 6472) was a not unnatural inference from its perennial
vigour throughout historical times. Down
6. Early ^^ ^^^^ eleventh century B.C., however, the
History, i-gfgrcnces to it are few and uncertain. A
local tradition (found also in Nicolaus Dam. /•>. 30, a;>.
Jos. Ant. i. 72) connects Damascus with Abraham ; and
there is twice mention of it in the JE narrative of the
patriarch'slife(Gen. His 15 2; seeHoB.XH, Eliezkk, i ).
In the sixteenth century Ti-mas-ku occurs as the thir-
teenth in the list of the Syrian conquests of Thotnies 111.
( AV'-T) 44) ; Timas-gi. Dimas-ka are read in the .Amarna
tablets (15th cent.) (1:^63 142 21). These tablets
describe the invasion of N. Syria by the Hittites,
before whom the I'.gyptian outposts had to give way,
and for the next iliree centuries Damascus lay upon
the vacillating frontier lielween the two powers. In the
fourteenth century, Rameses 11. extended his conquests
to IJeiriit and probably included Damascus. At the
close of the thirteenth century, in lists of the con(|uests
of Rameses III., Sa-ra-maski for Ti-ra-m.is-ki (WMM
As. u. Eur. 227) is mentioned. The addition of r to
the name is taken {ib. 234) as proof that the regions
of Damascus had meanwhile come under Aranuvan
influence (but see Ak.\m). and so when at last they
appear in the OT historical books, in the campaigns
of David toward the end of the eleventh century, we
find them possessed by a nunilx;r of Arama-an states,
for the rise of which room had been made by the over-
throw of the Hittites nearly a hundred years previously
by Tiglath-pileser 1. {circa 1106). The chief of these
Aramjean states was Sobah (see David, § 8 ^) under
king Hadadc/er, to whose help against David came
Aram of Danmiesek (2 S. 8s ; cp 1 Ch.lSs). David.
1 It is not at all probable that Damascus had acquired a
reputation for the manufacture of dam.xsk as early as the
time of Amos, thouRh RV of Am. 8 121* assumes this ; ' Damask '
and ' Damascus 'may have noconnection. In Ar. the forms are
different— rt'///f(»>frj for the stuff, and DiuiaiHor the city. Proliably
(as Frankel. FrctmhvSrtcr, 40, referred to by Driver, ad loc., is
of opinion) Himaks comes by metathesis from midaks. On Am.
I.C., see Amos, | '5 n. ; Bed, S S-
989
DAMASCUS
after his victory, is said to have planted garrisons in the
territory of Damascus ; but that these had no per-
manence is plain from what we hear of keson l>en
Kliadii the freelxx)ter, who 'came to Damascus, and
dwelt there, and reigned in Damascus, and was a foo
to Israel all the days of Solomon ' (i K. 11 23-25)-
We have now reached the point at which DamaKus
becomes chief of the Aranuvan confederacy, and enters
, iqxjn her first great period of political
7. Ben-hadad. supremacy (nna 1000-733 n.f\ ). Her
history is articulate, and we have a pretty full, though
not complete, list of her kings. Who ResOn b. Eliada
(i K. 11 23) was is disputed; probably (see. however,
HicziON) he was tl.e same as Hezion. father of Tab-
rimmon. father of the Ben-hadad (I'.ir-idri. known as
Ben-hadad I.) who about 925 ):.c:. helix-d Asa {,/.i:)
against IJaasha (i K. If. 18/:). It was perhaps the
same 15en-hadad who. some twenty years later, defeated
Omri and won the right of ' establishing quarters' (see
Tkadk and Com.mkkc k) in Samaria (i K. 2O34; Nic
Dam. /•>. 31). The son of Hen-hadad I. (or Ben-hadad
himself? See Bkn-iiadad, § 2), whom also the OT
calls Ben-hadad, but a contemporary inscription of
Shalmancser II. of Assyria (854 n.c. ) calls Hadadezer
(see, however, Ben-hadad. § 2), besieged Ahab
(q.v.) in Samaria, but was repulsed there and again
at Aphek. on wliich .Ahab received the right to 'establish
quarters for himself in Damascus. In 854 the com-
bined forces of N. Israel. Damascus, and other states
were defeated at Karkar (see AliAB) by Shalmaneser
II.. who again, in 850 and in 847. overthrew Ben-
hadad. The .Assyrian empire was thus steadily advancing
on Damascus ; but the latter was still the terror
of Israel (2 K. f);. the story of Naaman). tuade
regular raids over Jordan, and even besieged Samaria
(2 K. 6 7 ; see Jkiioka.m, i) till Ben-hadad was drawn
off by rumours of northern war. Disgraced by defeats
so numerous, he was slain by Hazael
8. Hazael. ^^ ^.^ ^^ ^^^^^ jf ^^^ ^^^^ ^f ^y^ 3 is is
correct. Hazael then became king, and warred with
Jehoram {ib. 28/), also with Shalmaneser II., by whom
he was defeated in 843 and in 840, the second time
with the loss of four cities and much spoil out of
Damascus. Still, he succeeded in depriving Jehu of
all Israel's territory E. of Jordan, and in extending the
dominion of Damascus southwards to the Anion (2 K.
IO32; cp Am. I3). He al.so took Gath. and was
bought off from an invasion of Judah only by large
tribute from Jehoash {Vlij [18]/). Hazael and his
son Ben-hadad III. (or II.) were able to oppress Israel
through the reigns of Jehu's successors Jehoahaz and
Joash (2 K. 13325), for under Samii-ramman the
Assyrian armies did not cross the Euphrates (.\ssvRiA,
§ 32), and Damascus was free for the time from the
Northern terror. By 805 Assyria was again pressing
_- ., towards Palestine, and in 803 King Mari*
9. Man. (i^n.hadad H. ?) of Damascus (see Ben-
UAD.^D, § 3) was successfully besieged by Ramman-
nirari III. This disaster to Damascus permitted
Jeroboam II. (i/.v.) to recover the territory that Hazael
had taken from Israel, and for a time Israel held
part of the territory of Damascus (2 K. 14 28;
not necessarily the city). In 773 Damascus again
suffered from the Assyrians, who invade*! the country
also in 772, 767, 755, and 754 (A.ssvria. § 32).
_ . It was the beginning of the end. In 743-
10. Kezin. „^^ Tiglath-pileser III. made his first
Syrian campaign, and his annals (A'//23o) contain the
name Ra-sun-nu {mat) Gar-imeri-su {i.e., of Damascus)
as paying tribute. This Ra-sun-nu is the Rezin of the
Syro-Israelitish war (see AiiAZ. Tabeei.). whose in-
vasion of Judah brought about an .Assyrian interven-
tion (2 K. 167^). Perhaps the danger which now
threatened Damascus was the occasion of the allusions
to the city in Is. 17 1. In 733 Tiglath-pileser— whether
before or after his subjection of N. Israel and th«
DAMASCUS
Philistine cities is not quite clear — defeated Rczin, shut
him up in Damascus, cut down the plantations (see
above, § 2) round the city (he numbers the trees at
13,520), took the city, executed Rezin, and carried the
people into captivity (Schr. COTl 252^; cp 2 K. I69).
It was after this, in 732. that Ahaz visited Damascus,
and obtained the pattern of the altar which he saw
there (id. 10).
Up to this time Damascus had possessed great
political influence : her confidence in herself, her puwer
11 Decline °^ recuperation, and her military skill
are anijjly proved by her restless energy
in Syrian jwlitics, even while she was bleeding from
the reiterated attacks of Assyria. The blow which
Tiglath-pileser inflicted, however, absolutely destroyed
her political power. She seems to have been reduced
to the same position as Samaria.
Sh.nlmaneser IV., S.irgon, and .Sennacherib mention no king
of Damascus in all their Syrian lists ; and the only notice of
the town for a century is in the Khorsabad inscription of .Sargon,
where (about the year 713) Damascus is said to have joined
Arpad, Simirra (sjc ZK.MANrrK), and Samaria in a league formed
by Hamath against .Assyria. The allied forces were crushed by
Assyria at Karkar (A'/V 2 57). Next century Damascus is omitted
from '!ie list of twenty-two kingdoms given by Esarhaddon.
She is not mentioned by the prophets, except in
a doubtful passage of the Book of Jeremiah (4923-27)
\vhei-e she is given over to fear and flight, and by
Ezekiel who names her, only in passing, as a customer
of Tyre (27 iS), and a point of measurement for the
Holy Land (17i6J^). If then important, she would be
certainly occupied by Pharaoh Xecho in 610 and
Nebuchadrezzar in 604^
Under the Persians Damascus was a scat of authority,
and very prosperous (Strabo xvi. 220).
Cambyses died there (Jos. A>tt xi. 2 2), and there Darius
deposited his family and treasures before the battle of Issus,
after which they were .surrendered to Alexander's general I'ar-
menio (Quint. Curt. 3 13). .After an unsuccessful revolt the
Greek supremacy was established (//'. 4 i), and there are extant
coins of Alexander issued from the city.
At the death of Alexander, Syria with Phoenicia fell
to LaomedOn, the capital being Damascus (Id. 10 10).
12. Supplanted T'""- '''''''"'" '^'""f"' ^'''"''''"^'' ,'° '^'^"'"
. A i- u Svna was now subject, required a centre
by Antioch. ■ , , .A
ujf .ixiiuiwv.li. j^^^.^j. jj^^ ],o\ant, and Damascus be-
came second in Syria to Antioch, tlie upstart cajMtal of
the Seleuci(l.-B.
The diminished impoitance of Damascus is well illustrated
by the small part it plays, as contrasted with Antioch, in those
books of the Antiquities of Josephus (xii. yC) which deal with
the third and second centuries n.c. Its more natural connection
with N. Syria than with S. kept Damascus in the hands of the
Seleucida:, even when Palestine and Phoenicia were held by
the Ptolemies; but several times it fell to the latter: e.g.., in
320 under Ptolemy I. (regained by Antigonus in 314); in 2S0
when Ptolemy II. probably occupied it (regained by Anti-
ochus I. 280-262); in 246 when, however, it was only be^ieued
by Ptolemy III. and relieved by Seleucus II. in 242 (cp Schurer,
Hist. 3 95).
In the Books of the Maccabees Damascus is men-
tioned only as being twice visited by Jonathan (cina
144 B.C.: I Mace. 11 62 I232 ; Jos. Ani. xiii. 0510).
The kingdom of the Seleucidie was divided in iii B.C., and
Damascus must have fallen with the .southern part to .\ntiochus
IX. or Kyzikenus (cp Eus. C/iron. ed. Schoene. in .Schiir. o/>.
cit. 97, and Jos. Ant. xiii. 184). It was retained by Antiochus'
son, and then fell to Demetrius Euk<erus, and after his over-
throw {circa 86 n.c.) to .Antiochus XII. or Diony.sus, from
whom it was transferred (though only for a short time) by
Milesius, the governor of the citadel, and the populace, to
his brother Philip (Jos. ib. 15 1).
Antiochus XII. was defeated by Arktas {(J.v.), the
Nabatitan, and with Ctrlesyria Damascus continued
.•o T> _ in Arabian hands (though pressed hard
times ' Alex. Jannasus [in. 103], and Ptolemy
Menneus, against whom Queen Alexandra
of Jud;ta [78-69 B.C.] sent her son Aristobulus [ib.
16 3 ; B/ i. 53]) till the occupation in 65 by the Roman
legions under LoUius and Metellus (.4«A xiv. 2$ ; BJ
i. 62), who were followed in 64 by Pompey.
After this the exact political position of Damascus is
difficult to define.
991
DAN
Though Josephus does not know Damascus as a member of
the Decapolis (he calls Scythopolis the greatest town of the
latter), the name is in Pliny's list (HNb 16). Under Ca.ssius
(44-43 B.C.) there w.is a Roman commandant, Fabius, in
D.-ima.scus (Jos. Ant. xiv. 11 7 12 i ; lij i. 12 i f.\ and the
Nabatajans appear to have been driven to the E. and to the
S. of Hauran. Somewhere alxjut 38 n.c. Mark Antony gave
Cleopatra 'Ccelesyria' and parts of the Iuda;an and Ar.abian
territories (Jos. Ant. xv. 3 8 4 i/.; lij i. 8 5) ; she visited Damas-
cus, and we have coins of 37, 36, and 32 that were struck in
her honour, though other coins of about the same d.ite do not
bear any mark of her (De Saulcy, Numisin. de la Terre itainte.
In 31 B.C. occurred the battle of Actium, and the
Damascene coins bear till 33 .\.D. the names of Augustus
and Tiberius, under the latter of whom the Damascenes
had a dispute with the .Sidonians about their boundaries
(Jos. Ant. xviii. 63), <a fact which shows how extensive
their territory must have been (.Schiirer, 98). There
are, however, no coins of Caligula nor of Claudius, nor
any of Nero till his ninth year in 63. It was during
this time that the apostle Paul tells us (.see Arktas)
that not the Romans but ' an ethnarch under Aretas the
king held the city of the Dama.scenes ' (a form of exjires-
sion which betrays the fact that it was usual to think
of Damascus as an independent city); see Ethn.-vrch.
We do not know to what degree power in Damascus passed
from the Romans to the Nabataian king. Nor, indeed,
whether Rome actually held it then (cp Schiir. /// 2 356^ 3 98 ;
M'difTert, A/>ost. .-\ge. 164 n. 2). .At any rate, the city again
came under Rome in Nero's reign (53-68 a.d.); but the
N.-ibata;ans continued to hold the neighbourhood to_ the E.
till 106, when Trajan brought their whole kingdom into the
Empire. Under H.idrian and his successors Damascus bore
the title fterpon-oAcs (De Saulcy, 37^), under Alexander Severus,
colonia {ih. 43).
Under both Romans and Byzantines the city continued to
flourish ; yet so long as these Westerns ruled .Syria she- was
only second to Antioch ; and it was not till
14. Under the' Moslem invasion— they took Damascus in
Islam. 654, -Antioch in 635— that the city in the desert
resumed the first rank, and the city on the
Levant began to decline. For a century, 650-750, Dama.scus
had the Klialifate under the Omayyads ; she was never taken
by the Crusaders, whose pivot was Antioch ; she was the capital
of SaLadin, and being bound to Mecca by the Hajj, which
starts from her gates, she has kept her place in the regard of
Islam, while her fertility and her unique position have enal led
her to survive the depopidations to which she has been sub-
jected by conquerors like Timur, and the awful pestilences witli
which she has again and again been infected by her annual
connection with ^lecca.
Besides the works mentioned above and general treatises
on the history and geography of Syria, see Noris, Annus et
K/>i>chie Syroi;iiict\/<>nu>it,cXc., Leipsic, 1696;
16. Literature. MciunAxaXX'^Journcy to Damascus; .Arnold's
art. in P/<:/A^\ and Noldeke's art. in
Schenkel's j5/; ; Rob. /,/>■./?, 3442-468 ; Porter, Ccgr. Jourttal,
'2C,2, ' Five Years in D.imascus' ; Kingl.ake'siiy ///<■«; Thomson,
Land ami Book; GASm. //C, chap. 30. G. A. S.
DAN (|"=1 see below, § i ; Aan [B.\L] ; gentilic
Danite, ''3'in ; Aangi [H], Aan [B.\L], AanLgIitai
1. Name.
[BX.\ I Ch. 1235]), eponymous head of the
tribe of the same name. The name, like
many other tribal names, is obscure. It appears, how-
ever, to bear the same relation to the personal names
Daniel and Abidan as the clan name Ram does to
Jehoram and Abiram, or on the other hand Jacob and
Joseph to two ancient town names ending in -el (see
Jacob, Joskph, § i). It is therefore no doubt a divine
title, 'judge' [i.e., 'deliverer'?). Cp the Assyrian
repeate<ily recurring royal name .\sur-dan — 'Asur is
judge' (cp Xabudan) — and the name of Shalmaneser
Il.'s general Dayan-.Asur, as also the epithet ddnit
(daicinu) applied to the sun-god (cp Samson, § i) and
the moon-god.
Dan is apparently etymologically related to the name
of another Israelitish tril« of whose history still less
is known (see Dinah) ; but it would be less safe to
assume any etymological connection with Midian. That
the meaning of the name was not quite forgotten appears,
e.g., from the popular derivation in Gen. 30 6 (E) and
the paronomasia in Gen. 49 16 (J), although the latter
passage applies the epithet to the tribe itself, not to
its god.
99a
DAN
The verb ilUn is used quite freely, not only in the earlier
literature (JE, lien. 1& 14 ; Is. 3 13) hut also (especially) from the
'exile' onwards (Jcr. Pss.etc); so also the derivatives ; but, as in
the case of other old trilic names, the root does not seem to have
been used in the forniatioii <if proper names in later limes (see
Aui-tJAN, Emk H, y i), its place Iwing apparently taken by the
synonymous shaf>luit (see iKHosHArHAj), which on the whole
prevailed in Hebrew and Phoenician, while less used in Assyrian
and not certainly used at all in the southern Semitic dialects
where ddn continued to prevail,
Uan evidently belonged to the N. (Joseph) group of
Israelitish clans. Not. however, in the same sense as
_ , . . Benjantin. Uan was a liilhah clan and
2. Relations to |^^.^y ^^^ impossibly, have been older
otner tnoea. j,^^^^ Joseph, as the jxitriarch stories
represent (see Bll.HAil). If so, the onward pressure of
Joseph, though probably not hostile, may have co-
operated with the other influences that prevented it
from settling permanently in central Palestine — though
the apparent southwarii movement of the Danites from
Zorah-Kshtaol to Kirjath-jearim (Judg. 1812) could
not well \yG (|UOted in support of such a possibility
(see Mahankii-Ua.n). Whilst Dinah, if it was a pre-
historic clan of the same or a kindred stock (it is called
indeed daughter of Leah ; but Dan took as its priest
a Levite of Judah), suffered the fate of absorption (see
Dinah), Dan, though it may have allied itself with
Joseph for a time, was eventually compelled by its own
energy and the force of circumstances to emigrate, just
as [x*rhaps the older Leah tribes emigrated in the
opposite direction. If Dan was not older than Joseph,
it must Ije regarded as an unsuccessful precursor of
Bknja.min {q.v., § i/. ; so Stade).
The earliest mention of the tribe is in the ' Song
of Deborah." The poet upbraids Dan for seeking
3. Contempo- P'-^^ection of (or living heedlessly by)
^ the ships, instead of coming forward
rary reterencea „,,^„fy„y uj-e the brother Hilhah tribe
to Dan. j^ ^^^ . ^^ j|^^ heights of the open
field' (see X.M'HTAl.l). This reference to ships is
obscure. It has l)een interpreted of the southern seat
of the tribe ; ' but its proximity and resemblance to the
phrase alxnit .Asher seems to suggest that the tribe is
thought of as in its northern seat (so Moore and Bu. ,
ad loc. ).
The expression used of Dan is quite unique. One shrinks
from drawing any definite conclusion from the passage. If the
text is sound,'- it may mean that Dan was, like Asher, though
no doubt to a less extent (IS 7c), under the sway of Ph(ji;-
iiician influence. It is much more likely, however, to have
been involved with the Arama;ans than with the Phoenicians ;
for although Tell el-Kadi is fully 40 m. distant from Damascus
and not 3c from Tyre, the latter w:ls not in historic times .so
energetic in extending its influence in the Palestine hinterland
as Damascus was (cp Damascus, § 4). Although we do not
know when the Arama;ans l>egan to press southwards, there is no
rea.son to suppose that the ."Vramajan element represented by such
places as Heth-M;iacah appeared only after the times of the
Song of Delxjrah. However that may be, in time at lea.st
the Aramajans made their influence felt very decidedly. We
are still far from understanding fully the history of their
relations with Israel ; but it may well \xt doubted whether
there ever was a stable or even a definite line between their
respective domains. The population of the border region seems
to have been largely Arania;an. Hcnhadad I. had no difficulty in
seizing Dan and other places in its neighlxjurhood, and it does
not appear whether Israel was ever able politically to assert
a serious, or at least a lasting, claim to them. The fact that the
operations of Tiglath-pileser II I. (180 years later), in suppression
of the plot of Rezon and his accomplice Pekah, were confined to
this same di.strict, would Ije accounted for if it were more
unequivocally connected with Damascus than the rest of Israel
was (so Winckler).
t NOldeke suggests (in a private communication) that it is not
inconceivable that members of the tribe may have taken to
fishing.
^ nt'J.K niight easily ari.se by transposition from vmw (the
suggestion was made also by Bu. Ki. Sa. 16, n. 2, followed by
Marq. Fund. 7; cp Ki. Gesch. i. 265, n. 1. Hu. has since
abandoned it : KlfC, ad ioc.). riK:i however, occurs oftenest
in the phrase l^np.T piKJ, and Nuldeke argues that neither of
the districts in which Dan was settird contained .such pasture-
land. Perhaps jninj need not lie quite so definite in meaning ;
but if we accept VnK3> 'his would presuppose the Song's having
been committed to writing some time before the Hles.sing of
Jacob was brought into its present form (cp Gen. 49 13).
32
993
DAN
When J wrote, Dan was still indeed honoured (a S.
20 18 (5), but possibly somewhat as a survival of a
time gone by ; it was not felt to l>e a living force in
Israel — Bilhah was but a concubine ((Jen. 3622). It
ntust not, however, Ije inferretl, from the fact that the
'Blessing of Jacob' says Dan judges its pet^ple like
an Israelitish tribe (v. 16), that, when the lilessing took
shape, Dan was felt to be hardly in reality a part of
genuine Israel at all. It is cle;ir, from the early
authority referreti to alxjve (2 S. '20 18 (5), that the city
of Dan was proverbial as a well-known home of genuine
old Israelitish ideas and practices, which is the more
credible that we are told that its priests traced their
origin to Moses' himself (Judg. 18 30). We need not
wonder, then, if the importance of this sanctuary was
formally acknowledged in some way or other (see (JAI.F,
(Joi.UKN, § I) by Jeroboanj I. ['/.i-J- The N. settle-
ment of Dan, however, perhaps did not amount to
much more than the town of that name. Nor in_-ed the
repeated mention of the town in the standing phrase
'from Dan to Beersheba,"'' which not unnaturally sug-
gests that it had some importance, have really had any
political significance. Both places may have owed their
celebrity to their ancient sanctuaries.
This may perhaps help us to understand the preservation of
such an unrivalled collection of popular legend as we find in the
latter part of Judges, unless indeed the stories of the .Samson
cycle are quite as much connected with the geographical
ilistrict about Zorah, etc. (cp the mention of a place called
.Sa-ma-5:i-na in that neighbourh<X)d at least as early as Kameses
II.; Lepsius, Denkiii. 1441.; cp Hkth-she.mesh, i; Samson)
as with any particular Israelitish trilw ; they involve Hebron, if
in^n ill Judg. 10 3 is correct, and may be thought to have some
relation to the stories of .Sha.m.mah and Sha.mgar (qq.v.').
In Amos's time the northern Dan still ranked with
Bethel (? so We. ad loc. ) and Beersheba as a represent-
ative sanctuary (Am. 8 14 ; on the reading cp A.MOS,
§ 20) ; but, whatever it was then, the troublous time
which ended with the AiU of the N. kingdom (2 K.
1 5 29) and the changed conditions which resulted must
have profoundly modified the position even of an ancient
sanctuary town. This would perhaps account for the
absence of all mention of it from P's geographical
scheme. Still, even in the days of Jeremiah, although
the phrase 'Dan to Beersheba' had given place to
'Geba to Beersheba' (2 K. '23 8), an invasion was felt
to be begun when the enemy passed Dan (Jer. 4 15
816).
If any legends ever gathered round the name of the
eponymous head of Dan, they have entirely perished.
.AH the more noteworthy is the abun-
lance of traditions alwut the tribe.
These are of two kinds. First there are the stories which,
after circulating orally for many generations, were eventu-
ally committed to writing, and afterwards given so large a
place in the latter portion of our present Book of Judges
\q.v., § 16). These are among the liest-known of the
traditions of Israel. Then there are the most valuable
fragmentary notices in Josh, lit 47-'' Judg. 1 34 /. — mere
scraJps rescued from what the pre-exilic histories had to
tell of the fortunes of this tribe (on the * Blessings ' see
below, § 8). All these traditions, however, — both those
that may fairly be treated as historical in their nature, and
those that are mainly legendary — deal with two closely
related [xjints, the struggles which the tribe had with its
non- Israelite neighbours, and its migration northwards.
Dan, it would seem, made the attempt to push its
way down from the highlands of Ephraim (see above,
§ 2) into the territory still completely dominated by the
1 On the true reading, see Masasseh.
2 This phrase really occurs only seven times (all between
Judg. 'JO and i K. 4 25 \b 5]), and in certain of these p.issages it
may be suspected of being late. The Chronicler (jjerhaps
naturally) prefers the reverse order (Beersheba to Dan: 1 Cn.
'JI2 [ = 2S.-242 'Dan to Beersheba), 2Ch. SOst). See Ex-
positor, Dec. '98, pp. 4II-42' ('.'*="! 'o Beersheba: the literarj'
history of the phrase and the historical problems it raises').
3 ®n has lovha. for hav in v. 47 (/.<•., 47 ba. of -MT), lou having
been dittographed from the preceding viou.
994
4. Traditions.
DAN
Canaanites. Whether it at first succeeded (Josh. 1 9 47a .
6. Attempts ;( '"^ ^^--^^ J' ' '^P ® ;"^f,^'^• f '^^'^
to settle ''^''" ^'■''^ '^'■"'^" ^'•^'^^ <-'"'^S' 1 34 by
w) seiue. j^^ Philistines (cp Bu. J^i. Sa. 18. n. i)
or — since it is dirticult to see how ' Philistines ' could
be changed, editorially or by a gloss, to Amoritcs
— by the Canaanites (Judg. 1 34/ ), or whether it never
really established itself at all satisfactorily to the SW. of
Ephraim, l>eing forced back before it had really settled,
we can hardly say. On some grounds it would perhaps
seem probable either that it separated quite late from
Ephraim or that it settled for some considerable time.
Otherwise we should perhaps hardly have such clear
traditions of the incidents of the subsequent migration
(contrast the legendary character of the Samson stories) ;
although it is not at all clear what the history of these
traditions is (see above, § 4). In any case, it seems
pretty clear that the main strength of the clan (,^58*0)
migrated northwards ; but did not some remain ? Prob-
ably.
Not so much because the MT represents the 600 fighting men
as being soi/ie 0/ the clan (Judg. ISii ; © 'clans,' hi^Luiv) of
Dan (for the partitive preposition D, which here has the same
letter not only after it but also before it, might very well be due
to dittography), nor perhaps because the existence of a remnant is
needed to explain the copious traditions of the early fortunes of
the tribe already referred to (see also below), but because it is
difficult otherwise to account for the priestly writer assigning
it solely to the southern territory.
Those who remained, however, seem hardly to have
been able to make good a separate tribal e.xistence ; for
it was, according to J, not Dan, but the house of Joseph,
that finally gained the upper hand over the Canaanites
(Judg. 1 35) — whatever that may refer to (see Bu. Ri. Sa.
18, n. 2).
According to Josh. 19 47 (emended text), the border
of the children of Dan was too narrow for them, and so
6. Migration. '"^^ ^^'^"f "P '-^"^ ^f^g^t agamst
° Leshem (Lesham?) and took it, and
smote it with the edge of the sword, and jxjssessed it,
and dwelt therein, and called it Dan. It is possibly
the same writer who explains in Judg. 1 34 that the over-
crowding of Dan was because ' the Amorite ' forced
them into the hill country. This Dan (see next article)
became, as we have seen, if it was not already, a
famous sanctuary, and it is not surprising that the
story of its incorporation into Israel was a favourite
with those who put into literary form the traditions
of Israel's early days.
Many as are the obscurities of the narrative as we now have
it in judg. 17 y;, one thing is clear: several hands have
worked at it (see Judges, §§ 3 12). A deputation of Danites,
after consulting a priest in Mount Ephraim, find a roomy
district, easy of attack, in the far north, and return to Zorah
to conduct their tribesmen thither. On the route they manage
in one way or another to get the priest they had con-
sulted to accompany them with the image he tended, which,
having settled in their new home, they constitute their national
palladium.
The main points in this story must be facts. How
long the sanctuary maintained itself we do not know
7 Cvcle of ^•"'^'-"''y (^^^ ^^ *^^'° independent repre-
le^nds. sentations in Judg. 18 30/, and cp
^ Shilou, Jonathan, i). Of a very
different character are the stories that have gathered
round the name of Samson ; but they are more naturally
treated elsewhere, the more so that we cannot be quite
sure how far they are really to be regarded as Israelite
in any ordinary sense, not to say Danite. See Samson.
Whether the metaphors of the serpent (Gen. 4917)
and the lion's whelp (Dt. 8822) in the several ' Bless-
8 Later '"^^ ^^'^ simply later echoes perpetuating
•writinea ^^^ memory of the famous raid on Leshein,
°^' or whether they point to a repetition of such
raids by this lion-city itself (Stade, Gr/li68), we do
not know ; the latter is not perhaps unlikely.^
1 The metaphor of the serpent on the way, biting the horse's
heels and throwing the rider backwards, has been .supposed to
refer to embarrassment of the Aramaans in their wars with
Israel.
DAN
At a later date, indeed, these references came to be interpreted
of the southern Dan ( Targ. Onk.) and of .Samson in particular
( I'arg. Jon. and Jerus.). 'J'he fact, however, that P has nothing
whatever to tell us of the territory of the N. Danites perhaps
shows how this might come about. 1 On the other hand, the
eulogistic sense in which the words are explained is remark-
able in view of the ill odour that attached to the name of Dan
in later times (see below, § 9).
What the outlines of the district assigned by P to
Dan were, P nowhere states ; perhaps he was himself
unable to formulate any (cj) the case of Simeon, Josh.
19 1-9). That he meant them to be inferred from his
account of the adjacent tribes (Benjamin, Judah.
Ephraim) is possible ; but he is not usually afraid of
repetition. Of the sixteen (in MT seventeen) places
which P assigns to Dan, eight may be regarded as
identified beyond reasonable doubt (see ZoKAii,
EsHTAOL, Ik-Shemesh, Aijalon, Timnah, Ekkon,
Jeiiuu, BENE-BiiKAK), while Me-Jarkon [q.v., and
see Rakkon, Makaz) must probably be sought in the
neighbourhood of Rds el- Ain. In Josh. 15 the same
writer assigns not only Timnah [v. 57) and Ekron
{v. 45), which are historically best known as Philistine
cities, but also Zorah and Eshtaol, where if anywhere
the Danites were settled, to Judah.'^
Still less to be trusted is the account of Josephus
{Ant. V. I22, end), which, likewise ignoring altogether
the N. Dan, actually makes S. Dan extend as far X.
as Dor and as far .S. as Ashdod. Although P re-
presents Dan as, next to Judah, the largest tribe
at the end of the nomadic period (Nu. 2643), both
P and the Chronicler^ tend otherwise to give the
tribe the scantiest possible consideration. In Joshua it
is the last to have its lot assigned it (1940^). The
Dan fragment is the last of those collected in Judg. 1
{''■'■ 34/ )• The tribe stands last in the list in i Ch.
27 16-22. In Rev. (chap. 7) it is omitted altogether
(see below, § 9), and the same fate seems to have
befallen it in the genealogical lists in i Ch. 1j/.^ In
the form of the list now appearing in Gen. 46 23 = Nu.
2t5 42/.5 (both P), indeed, Dan is credited with one
family ; but one cannot be quite sure that the statement
may not be a very late addition founded on the notion
(propounded in modern times by Bertheau, ad loc. ) that
Aher (=' another') in ' HusHiM, the sons of Aher '
(i Ch. 7 i2i5), was a circumlocution for Dan rather than
a corruption of Ahihor or some other name (see Ben-
jamin, § 9, ii. a). At all events, the omission of a D.an
list from his lists by the Chronicler would be no
1 It might indeed be argued from four of P's lists of tribes—
the twocensus lists(Nu. 1 20^ 2(i), and the two camp lists(2 1 /'C
10)--that Dan is regarded as a northern tribe, being grouped in
a triplet with Asher and Naphtali. But (i) it is immediately
preceded by Benjamin, and (2) in the list of tribal retjresenta-
tives who took part in the census Gad is not, as in the census
and camp lists, oddly classed with Reuben and Simeon, but
with the triplet in question : that is to .say, the four concubine
tribes are taken together.
^ On the other h.and, the Chronicler probably did not really
mean to make Gath-rimmon Ephraimite (i Ch. (5 69 [54]) : see
next note but one.
3 A peculiar fact is that P makes the associate of Bezaleel
of Judah in the construction of the tabernacle a Danite (Ex.
31 6), whilst the Chronicler makes Huram-abi, who had the same
position in the work of Solomon's temple, a man of Tyre whose
mother was of Dan (but see 1 K. 7 14, with Klo.'s note, and cp
HtJKAM-ABi). P makes the mother of the man who ' blasphemed
the Name ' son of a woman of Dan by an Egyptian (Lev. 24 loy;).
4 In the Chronicler's list of tribes in which Levitical cities
were appointed (i Ch.C54 1391./!'^) Dan appears to be omitted;
but 7'. 61 [46] is obviously corrupt. A comparison with its
source in Josh. 21 20-26 [P] shows that the name of Dan has
dropped out, whilst the fact that Ephraim also, though preserved
by ©L in i Ch. tiet (46], is dropped in MT shows that the omis-
sion IS not intentional. It has accordingly been restored by Kau.
in ns and Ki. in SBOT. In the enumeration of the towns by
n.ime farther down (w. 67 [52]-8i [66]) Dan is again omitted (this
time without the company of Ephraim) ; but the probable ex-
planation of this omission of Dan is that either the Chronic'cr
or .some cop);ist has accidentallY omitted Josh. 21 23; for the
con.sequence is th.it 7'. 24 is copied as if it belonged to r-. 22,
Aijalon and (jath-riminon being assigned to Ephraim, and the
Kohathite cities becoming eight, instead often, as suted above
in I Ch.Gei [4s].
5 Hushim(HSM) = Shuham(§HM).
996
DAN
stranger than his omission of Zebulun, which has three
families assigned it by 1' in (jcri. •16 14= Nu. '2») 36.
It is .1 fact, however, that in later times Dan was in disrepute.
In the I argums, indeed, as we have seen, the tribe is held in
. . high esteem ; but in Talmudic times this is
9. Apoca- changed. Thus Afi,ir. Ra6. on Numb, declares
lyptic that when Jeroboam went from tribe to trilw none
notions, joined him so readily as Dan. In the Talmud
\Shabhath 66), accordingly, Dan represents
idol.itry. Further, out of the very same passages so favourably
interpreted in the Targunis, there was evolved, in connection
with Icr. S16, the remarkable notion (appearing in Test. xii.
fair/) th.-it Hcliar is in some peculiar way connected with the
trilie, which, it is declared, will transgress against Levi and
ludah, 'for in the Book of Enoch it is said that their ruler is
Satan ; but the salvation of the Lord will arise out of Judah and
Levi, and he will fight against Beliar." With this is connected
the tradition that the Antichrist is to come of the tritje of Dan.
Already in Ircii. (v. 3O2) we find the fancy — it may be more than
a fancy tli.it this is the explanation of the omission of Dan from
the list uf those that are sealed (Kev. "5-8). n. w. H.
DAN (|1 ; A&n)- I- A city 'in the valley which
lx;luii>,'s to Beth-kkhob [q.v.y Judg. I828 ; conquered
1 References ^^ ^^^ Uanites. It was the most
nortliern city of Israel : note the phrase
' from Dan as far as Hcersheba ' (see above, 994, n. 2).
Its original name was L.-\l.sn [ij-v.] ; in Judg. ISzg the
change of name is accounted for. Historical references
to it occur, not only in Judg. 18, but also in 2 .S. '246
(where jaun is appended to Dan by a singular error of
the text ; see Da.n-ja.'VN) ; also in i K. I229 (golden
calf), and i K. 152o, and 2 Ch. I64 (Benhadad's in-
vasion). The reference to the name Dan in Gen. 14 14
need not, in the present writer's opinion, be counted ;
it is true, the city afterwards called Dan is meant, but
the anachronistic ' Dan ' is simply a scribe's error for
■ Laish ' ; the true text probably is, ' . . . and pressed
after them, he and his servants, as far as Laish, and
smote them.' '
One of the supposed arguments for the late date of
(jen. 14 must therefore be abandoned ; but this by no
means involves regarding that strange narrative as
historical. The anachronism in Dt. 34 i remains.
The site of Dan has recently been tixed by G. A.
Smith (JJC. 473, 480/.) at Banias, on the ground
o tA^^na^^i-i t'l'i' 'he situation of Banias is so
2. Identification. ^^^,^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^ .,.^.„ ^,
Kadi (cp C'.KSARF..\, § 7). The fact is undeniable, yet
not decisive. From Judg. 18 we do not gather that
Laish was a place of exceptional natural strength ; its
inhabitants were a jxjaceful folk, \\ho trusted not in
their fortress but in their remoteness from troublesome
people like the Danites.
Theodoret no doubt favours our eminent geographer's view.
'The present Paneas," he says, 'was called i)an, 2 and even
Jerome (on Ezck. 48 18 and on .Xm. 8 14) speaks of Dan as being
where Paneas now is. The Jerus. Targ., too (on Gen. 14 14),
calls Cajsarea Philippi ' Dan of Cajsarea." These vague state-
ments, however, do not carry much weight. On the other
hand, Josephus {Ant. i. 10 i v. 3 i viii. ,84 ; It/ iv. 1 i) expressly
says that Dan stood at the ' lesser ' fountain of the Jordan, in
the plain of Sidon, a day's journey from that city, and that the
plain around it was extremely fertile. Eus. and Jer. {OS^^)
114 26 24932) sprak still more definitely. 'A village y<>«r miles
distant from Paneas, on the road to Tyre ; it was the boundary
of Judaea (optoM ttjs 'loofiai'a?), and at it the Jordan takes its
rise.' Jerome adds: ' De quo et Jordanis flumen erumpens a
loco sortitus est nomen. lor quippe oelBpoi' (id est fluvium sive
rivum) Hebrxi vocant ' (cp Jmkdan). A glance at any hand-
book of geography will show what spot is here meant.
Four miles west of Banias, in a well-watered district,
is one of the two great fountains of tlie Jordan. It
rises at the W. base of an extensive cup-shaped mound,
called Tf// el-Kadi. Now Kadi in Arabic and Dan in
Hebrew both mean ' judge, ' and tlie fountain bears a
1 There is a corrupt duplication. Read [On'Sj,*] pS"!*^.
nr'Sny o.^Sy pari jyiy. p3Ti for pSn'] is due to Ball ; but
it is also the original of P|TI*1. C. Niebuhr has already suspected
a place-name in ,-rS<S. In fact, the Pa.sek after o.T*?!' warns us
that the text is doubtful. Ewald (CVI I73) supposed that JT
was substituted late for E*'^ — an arbitrary and inadequate
2"0n Jer. 4.5 (Opera (.770), 2433).
997
DANCE
name (LetldSii) which also may perhaps be an echo of
the name of the old city. The very fact that Tell el-
Kadi is now said to Ijc unhealthy suggests one rea&on
more for identifying it with Dan, for Josephus (lij iv.
1 1 ) expressly says that the marshes of Lake .Semachonitis
(Hiileh) extend northwards as far as Daphne (Dan),
where are the sources of the Little Jordan (I^dddn).
Probably, however, in antiquity, when irrigation was
better cared for, the place now called Tell el- Kadi was
perfectly healthy. On the whole, the grounds of the
jiroposed identification seem to the present writer to \yn
strong. Robinson, Gu^rin, Porter, I uhl, and Moore
have given their support to the same tl eory.
Tell el- Kadi rises out of a dense jungle of thorn-
bushes and rank weeds. ' Its circumference is al)out
half a mile, and its greatest elevation above the plain
eighty feet. There are some traces of old foundations,
and heaps of large stones on the top and sides of the S.
part of the rim, where perhaps the citadel or a temple
may have stood. There are also ruins in the plain a
short distance N. of the tell. There are doubtless
other remains, but they are now covered with grass and
jungle' (Porter).
See Rob. BR : Gu^rin, GaliUe, 2338^; G. A. Smith, HG,
I.e.; PEF Mem. 1139^; Buhl, (.'leog. iy]/.\ Moore, Judges,
390-
2. For Dan in Ezek. 27 19 AV, see Javan, § \ g.
T. K. C.
DANCE. ' There is a time to raise the death-wail
antl a time to dance,' says the Preacher (F.ccl. 84).
1. Among the ^e 'lave not now to discuss the origin
ancients: in of the practice of dancmg. nor its con-
p . . nection with funeral, as well as with
°'^ ' ■ festival, observances. We may assume
that from a very early period it h;is been an expression
of joy, and has been accompanied by music and song.
The musical instrument employed may be no tietter
than a wooilen drum ; ^ but without some music there
can be none of that rhythmic movement which we call
dancing. The principal occasions of dancing are, in
an ancient community, religious. If these assumptions
are. as far as our evidence goes, true for Polynesia,
still more obviously are they true for early I'gypt and
Babylonia. The happy -tempered Egyptians loved
their various dances, and cultivated the art both in
public and in private festivities, both in war and in
peace ; but the primary impulse was religious.- In
Babylonia and .Assjria, too, the art of dancing flourished.
'To dance' {rakddu) is a synonym for 'to rejoice";
and so great was the demand for singers (music and
singing naturally go together with dancing) that
HcEckiah king of Judah was made to send singers as
well as other women of the palace to Nineveh (Prism
Inscr. .339).*
Neither Egypt nor early Babylonia, however, can be
presumed to have influenced the primitive Israelitish
2. Amone the ^^^to"'^.' except indeed, through the
Bedauin Canaanites. Of much greater import-
.ince .are our scanty notices of Arabian
dancing. What the Bedouin dancing is to-day can te
seen as near to civilisation as Jericho. Wild as it is, it is
not without rhythm and measure. •• There are also still
some relics of the primitive religious dance. Besides
the dancing at the merry Circumcision Feast (mutayyin).
combined with sacrifice, there is the well-known custom
of ' circumambulating " the Ka'ba or Holy House at
Mecca seven times. This procession is a true substitute
for a very old heathen rite.' The prince- poet Imra-
al-Kais likens a herd of wild kine (ox antelopes) to
a group of girls, gown-clad, going swiftly round the
1 Gill, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia, 252.
* See Erman, Eervpt, 216.
3 Correcting KB-ii^j by Del. Ass. HWB 257^.
* Cp Doughty, .-}r. Des. 1 31.
» See We. Ar. Heid.(^) 106, 165; and cp Hesiod, Theog. 259
(the Muses dancing round the altar on Helicon); Thucyd. 4
30; Liv. 2t>9; Verg. ^«. 8 285 ; Plut. Thes. ai, ixoptwt irtpi
TOf KtfMniva ^u/iidf.
998
DANCE
Dawar or sacred stone. Mohammed himself could
not abolish this custom. The procession round the
Kaaba is really the HajJ : this term is now applied to
the Mecca pilgrimage ; but its root-meaning plainly is
to go in a circle (cp Ps. 107 27 uin;).
Pre- Islamic .\rabia explains much that is characteristic
in Israelitish life. This is specially true of religious rites.
3 Hebrew hair "^''^ "^'^"^ original Hebrew term for a
o. iio . 6- religious dance was doubtless :n, ha^.
The rendering ' feast ' or ' festival ' will indeed suffice in
most cases, but only liecause religious festivals necessarily
included the sacred dance, at least as long as the sacred
stones remained in the sanctuaries. In Ps. II827
Cheyne [Psalins^^^) renders ' Hind the procession with
branches,' with reference to the swiftly moving proces-
sion which took the place of the older dance ; Baer,
more boldly, 'Bind the dance' {i.e. the dancers).
Unfortunately, the te.\t of this j)assage is not free from
corruption ; ' but it is, at any rate, permissible to
recognise the sacred dance in E.\. 10 9, ' Let my people
go that they may keep a feast with dancing to me in the
desert' — not that all would take part in the dance:
the dancers would represent the people, all of whom
would ' rejoice before Vahwe,' as the phrase was.
Perhaps we may compare i S. 80 16, if c"j:n (applied
to the Amalekites who had plundered Ziklag) means
' circling in the sacred dance ' (see BUH). At any rate,
in Ps. 424 [5] the best sense is obtained by reading, not
Jjin Jion, 'a muhitude that kept holyday ' (AV), but
C'j^iin [121, ' the music of those who kept festival ' "^
(pc.-!, 'music,' Am. .023 Ezek. 2613). That dancing is
here referred to, however, is not evident.
Words for dancing in general, (i) pnii, si/tck, or priw, sikek
(Arab, (fahika 'to laugh,' whence vtadliak'tn 'mimus'; Syr.
g'/takk; (P Trai^'eLv) meaning 'to .sport,
4. OT Vocabulary, or' jest.' Though commonly used to
denote any kind of sport (Gen. 21 9,
RVnig. 'playing'; 268 RV 'sportuig'), it may denote simply
' dancing • (see 2 S. 65 = 1 Ch. 13 8 Judg. I625 Jer. 31 4).
2. In late writings we meet with ipn, nikadh, prop, 'to leap."
I Ch. 1529; Ass. rakadu [see above]; Syr. nkcuih, Pa. 'to
dance,' Aph. ' to lament ' (plangcre) ; Tg. tSB ; © 6px«'''^<^'>
(TKipTai' ; cp Ar. rakada, ' to move the feet, to hop.'
3. The root S^n, /'«/, 'to writhe, whirl,' Judg. 21 21 (whence
SinO, niahol, nVinp, m'hOlah, 'dance,' xop6<:) suggests a more
intricate movement.
4. Lastly, we have in 2S. 616 the two an-. Aey. HS,
pizzcz, and "1313, kirkcr (the latter also in v. 14) (Ar. karra, ' to
advance and retreat,' karkara, id.; 2S. 014 HSISD, Targ.,
n2tya, Pesh. m'hihbah, Vg. sultahat'). Most probably, how-
ever, "13^30? I'EO should rather be read Hi'S'TOI riDSD (Che.);
the former of these participles is justified by the facts brought
together by Toy, JUL 10 \^'& f. ['97]), which show that nOS
{/>dsah), the root of flDS, means virtually ' to dance,' and the
latter by the authority of i Ch. 15 29.
Dancing, then, was of the essence of a primitive
religious festival. It was not the choral dances (n'Siip)
that provoked the wrath of Moses (Exod.
5. A part of ,^
3219) : Miriam's ' dances ' were evidently
congenial to all (E.xod. If) 20/. ; cp Judg.
primitive
religion. ^^^^ iS.18 6 21 i. [12]). It was the
worship of the steer-god that angered the great leader.
The Hebrews never ceased to be religious dancers,
though the form of the ceremony may have changed.
Some idea of the early rite may be gained from the
account in 2S. 614 of Davids dancing 'before
Yahwe' (i.e., before the ark ; cp. v. 5). Michal indeed
took her husband's act amiss. She was too un-
imaginative to .see the meaning of a practice which was
beginning to be antitjuated. She thought that by
leading the dance in such attire, and mixing with the
common people, her husband was playing a part which
1 Che. reads —
Make melody with dancing (Sinoa) and with timbrels,
Make melodv to our king, make melody.
a Che. Psaliiii^-i'.
DANCE
was within the province of a woman only, and unworthy
of his character and office. Davids answer well expresses
his own devoutness, though he cannot have guessed
what issues of world-wide importance hung upon the
transference of the ark to Jerusalem. 1
Again, at the great religious crisis in the reign of
Ahab it is not the 'dancing' that Elijah disapproves,
but its connection with a bad, foreign religion. The
prophets of Baal, we are told, 'leaped' — i.e., danced
after a special rite — around their altar, not eucharistic-
ally, but as suppliants (iK. 18 26). Elijah, though
too confident of his God's favour to attempt to work
upon him by ritual, does not hesitate to use the word
nos (' to leap') in his taunting address to the Israelites
(v. 21).'* Indeed, Toy seems to have shown that the
spring-festival called Pesah (EV Passover) derived its
name from the dances (nOB, see above, § 4 4) connected
with it. A conservative prophet like Elijah could never
have opposed religious dances.
Indeed, one may fairly say that prophecy itself — at
any rate, that represented by Elisha — was under some
obligations to dancing. The inspiration of those who
belonged to the guilds of prophets (see Prophi-XV)
was prepared for by music and rhythmic movements of
the body (cp iS. lOioii I920-24). It was the wild
proceedings of prophets when in this preparatory state
that degraded the whole order in the eyes of many
Israelites (cp 2 K. 9ii). It is difficult, when looking at
dervishes performing their exercises, not to think of the
so-called 'sons of the prophets' (again see Pkophkcv).
' Ulemas and dervishes with the chief muftis at their
head were leaping, lx)unding, swaying their arms, and
whirling in time to the din of drums, trumpets, and
cymbals which followed them ' (Tristram).
Eor the stated religious ritual of the pre-exilic age
we are ill-provided with authorities. Still, we know that
the three great festivals (especially
that of Tabernacles) were celebrated
with an exuberant joy which expressed itself in dancing.
The Psalter proves that even in the post-exilic age
dancing as well as music formed part of divine service
(see Pss. 1493 L5O4). Eucharistic procession (no doubt
at a quick pace) round the altar was customary (266,
and according to MT [see above], II827). Processions
of God also, which, from the mention of maidens with
timbrels, may be presumed to have been a dance-
festival, are spoken of (Ps. 6824[25]. SDOT). Ps. 876,
however, is too obscure to be quoted.
There was dancing at tribal and family festivals
(cp the place-name Abel-Meholah [q.v.], 'dancing
meadow ' ; i K. 19 16). It was at a yearly tribal festival
that the daughters of Shiloh came forth for choral
dances (Judg. 21 21 ni^iiEa h-^rh), and there is a singular
story, which almost seems like an attempt to account
for marriage by capture (see M'Lennan, Primilive
Marriage), respecting the Benjamites who chose wives
from among the dancers (niSSnsrrip). \\'e must
apparently take this in connection with the curious
custom referred to elsewhere (C.^NTici.e.s, § 9 ; Ato.n'K-
MKNT, Day of), which was evidently greatly toned
down in post-exilic times. The young men and
maidens of Jerusalem danced in the vineyards, not
without results, on the evening of the 15th of Ab (this
was the festival of Wood-carrying'') and of the Day of
Atonement, and sang edifying songs on marriage
(Mishna, Tdanith, iv. 8). A dance performed by the
chief men of the city was a special incident in the
festivities of the Feast of Tabernacles. At the close of
1 Che. Aids to Criticism, 55/.
2 On this passage see Klo., and. for a fuller development of
the meaning, /QK, July 1898 (p. 56S); cp Jastrow, /BL, 1S98,
1 1087?; It is useless to compare the Phoenician divine title
^oA/napicios— /.<■., ip-o Sya, 'Baal of dancing' (Haethg. Bei/r.
25261)— and other similar forms. They have " *"
lelkart, the name of the Baal of Tyre (Texier).
3 See "
Iris, 96.
6. At festivals.
261)— and other similar forms. They have all grown out of
Melkart, the name of the Baal of Tyre (Texier).
3 See Jos. jSyii. 17 6, and cp Neh. 10 35 [36] 13 31, Del.
1000
J
DANIEL
the first day men of piety anti repute, singing hymns,
danced with torches in their hands. No one who has
not seen this joy, s;iid a proverb, has seen true joy
(Succa, 5 1-4). Thus the severity of the Law could not
extinguish the impulse in the Jewish people towards
rhythmic movement.
There was, however, one kind of dancing against
which wise men protested. It is no doubt of Greek
dancing-girls that Ben Sira is thinking when he warns
his readers not to ' use the company of a woman
that is a singer' (licclus. 94). Hellenism, indeed, was
even more dangerous morally than religiously. It is
just possible, ttxj, that when on Herod's birthday the
daughter of Herodias came forward to amuse the guests
((V Ti^ fi^ffif), Mt. 116; cp Mk. 622 Lk. 152$) her style of
dancing was derived from the pantomimic solo-dance of
the hiretl female dancers of (jrc-cce. '
The few occasions in the Mible in which dancing is
referred to may be said to have an interpretative value.
7 Bhlioal '' ^^'^^ "°' always necessary to niention
■ ^ ' that a happy event was celebrated by
dancing, because early readers would
supply this detail mentally for themselves. We are
thankful, however, that the writers did sometimes
mention the dancing, and that so they interpreted for
us many other passages. Dancing was continually in
request in Israelitish and in Jewish society (Jer. 3I413
Mt. 11 17 Lk. 732 1525). Thus (as in Assyrian)
■ dancing ' and ' rejoicing ' were synonymous terms
(Lam. 5 15 Eccles. 84 Vs. 30 11 [12]). It is an imijrobable
idea of Leyrer {PA'/i^->) that there is a reference to a kind
of square dance in Cant. 7 1 [613] (c':nsri nSnpa ; see
M.\ii.\.n.\IM). Much more safely may we suppose a
reference to a sword-dance, such as Wetzstein found as a
part of the wedding ceremonies in Syria (cp CANTICLK.S,
§ 9). Dancing has, of course, alw-iys been popular at
weddings ; and the virgins in the parable who go out to
meet the bridegroom no doubt looked forward to a
merry choral dance. Modern Arabs still sing and
dance with lighted torches on the day of a wedding.
Lucian, De .Saltat. ; Speiicor, De Saltat. Tet. Hehr. ;
'Saltatio' in Diet. 0/ CIc. and Rom. Antigq.; ' Tanz ' in
/'A'£Ci\V,2o6: kiehm, ///r'A"(* 1636/; Wetz-
Literature. stein, Zeitsch. /Ur Etitnol. 1873, p. 285/ ;
Kranz Delitzsch, Iris (KT), 189-206 ; 'Iristram,
I'astvrn Customs, 207-210; Grove (Lilly), Dancing (^()^)\ R.
\'ijss, Pi-r J'anz u. seine Gesch. ('69).
DANIEL (^X3"n, Kt.; Kr. '?S.»3-n [Ba. and Ginsb.],
Kzek. 14 1420 283 ; Sk^O^ — it- , God is my judge, or, the
defender of my right ; A&NIhA [BX.KQF]. The name
SwT occurs in a Falmyrene inscription (De \'ogU(5, La
Syrie centrale, no. 93). On the name Daniel in Ezek. ,
see the suggestion in Enoch, § i.
1. A man of extraordinary wisdom and righteousness
(Ezek. ; see above). This Daniel api)ears to have
become proverbial, as did Noah and Job ; but when
and where he was thought to have lived we are not told.
2. A Jewish captive, said to have Xxxn carried to
Babylon ' in the third year of Jelioiakim ' when Jeru-
salem was taken (Dan. I126), and to have become,
through his supernatural wisdom, chief of the sages of
Babylon and the minister of successive dynasties. The
latest date mentioned in his life is the third year of
Cyrus (Dan. ]0i ; cp, however, I21). Outside the
book which bears his name, and the apocryphal additions
to it, the only biblical passages which mention this
Daniel are i Mace. 26o and Mt. 24 15 ( = Mk. ISm).
The former contains only a didactic reference to the
story of the lions' den. The latter apparently makes
Jesus speak of ' Daniel the prophet ' ; but, as the form
of the citation shows, it is rather the evangelist who
speaks (cp B. Weiss, Das Matthdnsevang. 508). See
Daniel, Book of.
1 Or, if Oriental analogies be preferred, we may consult
Thomson, LB, 555-6; Tristram, Eastern Customs, 208; Lane,
MoiL Kg. 1 240 294/; ; cp also Erman, Arte. Eg. 349-350).
divisions.
DANIEL, BOOK OF
3. A priest of the line of Ithamar in Kzra's caravan (see Ezra,
i. i 2 ; li. i 15 (i) </), Ezra « 2 - I EmI. S 29 yyOfLttKo^ |H), ycuxaifA
(A|, a corruplixn <if Ja><t>)A|of |, nut -( •uinalicl, as van Hoo-
nacker) ; ami si(;natory to the i;t>venant (see KzKA, i. | 7), Neh.
lOft (7). Aniont; his ciintenip<iiarics we hnil a .MisihacI (Neh.
« 4), an Azariah (Neh. 10 2 I3I), anJ a Hananiah (Neh. 10 23 (24]).
Cp. Dan. 1 7.
4. One of the six sons Iwrn to David in Ffehron ; his mother
was Abigail (1 Ch. 3 i ; .sec Davih, | ii, iii. it). Accordiii(j to
He. the name is miswrittcn for Dclaiah (cp ©) ; but, as Klo.
more plausibly thinks, it is rather a corruption of D<xliel
(Sk'I^) ; ©Al. reads AoAouia— /.<•., Aoioi/ta Dodiah (nn^), an-
other form of the same name. Cp the names Do<lai, Dixlo,
Dodavahu. «D", however, has Aafii>ii)A ; Jos. (.Int. vii. 1 4)
Aai-i'ijAot- The li 2 .S. 3 3 has Chileab (3»(^2) in Ml', but ©HAi.
has AaAovia ; the other versions (Cod. 243, in Field, 1 5^0) A/3<o.
Chileab, though adopted by Ki. (Chrot\. .Sl>'l> /"), is surely
wrong • (cp Berachot/i, ^a). This was David's second son, and
after the death of Amnon would be the heir to the throne. His
brothers .Absalom and Adi>nijah played so important a p.i t
that it is surprising that nothing is told of their elder brother.
Perhaps he died early or was removed.
DANIEL, BOOK OF. If we adopt the mediajval
division of the Iwxjk into twelve chapters,''^ the first six
■I aii>^ '^'"^"' '^ n.arrative half, which can be dis-
tinguished naturally enough from the second,
in which Daniel recortis his visions. .More
important, however, than any such division into twice
si.x chapters is a recognition of the fact that the aim of
the Ixjok is not historical but parenetic : it aimed at
exhortation and encouragement. It falls, accordingly,
into several more or less detached and (so to Sf)eak)
independent pieces or pictures, designed to lift the minds
and hearts of its original readers, the contemporaries of
the tyrant .Antiochus I\'. Epiphanes, al)ove the oppressive
present to the heights of a glowing piety and a strong
spiritual faith. These detached pieces, of which there
are ten, K\\ald groups so as to divide the Ixiok into (a)
an introductory part (chap. 1/. ) ; (b) a second part (chap.
3-6), containing four narratives prefiguring events ; and
[c) a third part (chap. 7-12), containing four prophetic
pieces. This threefold division is favouretl by the con-
sideration that the twice four pieces contained in parts
(b) and (t) then serve as further amplifications of part
[a) — for [a) also contains a narrative prefiguring e\ents
(chaj). 1), and a Messianic prophecy (chap. 2) in which
four kingdoms (corresponding to the four beasts of
chap. 7) are followed by the everlasting Messianic king-
dom which brings the history of the world to its close.
TheyJ'/-i;' of the ten pieces thus indicated (chap. 1) tells how
Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, after a siege and capture of
Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim king of
2. Contents. Judah (605 n.c.), took Daniel and three other
youths of noble descent from Judah to Habylon,
where he had them brought up for the service of the royal coiirt.
Casual mention is m.ide of some of the sacred vessels having
been conveyed to Habylon — as the author intends afterwards
(chap, f)) to speak of their desecration— and we are told with some
minuteness of the scrupulosity with which Daniel, Hanani.ih,
Mishael, and Azariah guarded themselves again>t certain pollu-
tions, and how marvellously God rewarded them for this : when
they came to stand Ijefore the king, he found them ten times
better than all the m.tgicians and enchanters in his realm.
The second piece (chap. "2) relates an astonishing proof of the
supernatural wisdom of Daniel, by means of which he was able
to save his own life and the lives of the other magicians. 1 he
king insists on having the dream which h.-is disturbed him not
only interpreted but also, first of all, recovered for him, and
Daniel meets the unreasonable demand. The great image seen
by the king is interpreted as signifying bv its he.id of gold the
present kingdom of Nebuchadrezzar, whilst the remaining parts
of the body, of silver, brass, and iron, are referred to three king-
doms which are destined to follow the Babylonian. The fourth
kingdom, to which, as a divided kingdom, the legs (of iron) and
the feet (partly of iron and partly of clav) correspond, is followed
by the everlasting kingdom set up by the God of heaven. Just
as the stone cut out without hands breaks in pieces the whole
image, and itself becomes a great mountain that tills the whole
1 anV in 3kSd is 'he beginning of S*3'2lt'^ I 3 is a miswritten
fragment (for 3) of the true name of David's son (cp Names,
f 4). Kerber's derivation of the name from ' Caleb is surely
too precarious (Hehr. Eigennam. ^d).
2 The division into chapters has been unskilfully made at three
points : chap. 11 ought not to begin till 11 2^ ; and in MT chaps,
3 and 5 ougnt to end, as in EV, with 3 30 and 631 [61] respec-
tively.
DANIEL, BOOK OP
earth, so every earthly dominion must give way before the
imperishable kingdom of God.
In the third piece () 1-30) we are told how, as a punishment
for their refusal to worship the great golden image which
Nebuchadrezzar h;<d set up, the three friends of Daniel (himself
silently passed over) were cast into the burning fiery furnace,
and how at last, when the fire had not been able to hurt the men
of Judah who had been thus steadfast to their faith, the great
kiim was compelled to do homage to their god.
TVi fourtk piece (4 i [3 3i)-4 37 [34)) tells, in the form of a
proclamation by Nebuchadrezzar to all the peo[)les of the whole
world — a form which is not carried out with uniform consistency
—how an evil dream (which the king himself in this instance
relates) had thrown him into dismay, anil how Uaniel alone was
able rightly to interpret the vision, prophesying to the king that
as a punishment for his pride he should for a long time be bereft
of reason. \ebuchadrezz;ir is thus for a third time constrained
to give the glory to the Ruler of hea\en.
Next, in the./f/?/« piece (51-631 [tii]), we have Belshazzar's
feast and overthrow : we are told how in a wild orgy this king,
unwarned by the fate of his father Nebuchadrezzar, desecrated
the sacred vessels of the temple, and thereupon was horror-
stricken by the miraculous handwriting on the wall.* The
explanation of this, which Daniel alone was able to give, was
soon shown to have been correct, for that very night the king
was slain, and his crown passed to Darius the Mede.
The sixth piece (ti 1-28 [2-29]), that of Daniel in the lions' den,
has reference exclusively to Daniel — just as a corresponding
section, that of the burning fiery furnace, relates only to his
three friends. We here read how King Darius suffered himself
to be induced by his nobles, who were envious of Daniel, to
promulgate the foolish decree that any one who for the space
of a month should offer any petition to god or man should be
thrown to the lions. Naturally Daniel transgressed this com-
mand ; but the king, who had been compelled against his will
to consign his faithful servant to punishment, soon became
convinced of his error by the protection which Daniel's god
vouchsafed to his worshipper, and, condemning the accusers to
the fate which they had prepared for Daniel, commanded all his
subjects to serve Daniel's god.
The snrn/h piece (7), the first in the prophetic section,
is a picture in companionship to chap. "2, and dates from
the first year of Helshazzar, not from the time of Nebu-
chadrezzar, to which the first group of four pieces
belong. If, moreover, as we read in 10 1, the last
great vision which Daniel saw immediately before his
death is to l>e assigned to the third year of Cyrus,
e.vactly seventy years after Daniel's deportation from
Judah, it seems fitting that the eighth piece also should
be assigned to the Babylonian period, and that only
the last two prophetic sections should be given to that
of the Medes and Persians. .Most of tiie years — they
amounted to an ordinary lifetime — that Daniel spent in
the Vas<\. must have fallen under the reigns of the Baby-
lonian kings ; for, whilst Darius the Mede was already
in his si.xty-second year when he ascended the throne
of Babylon (ii^i [61]), Daniel saw only the beginning
of the reign of his successor C'yrus the Persian.
In chap. 7 we have Daniel's account of his vision of the four
be.asts, from each of which successively the supremacy is taken
away to be at last and for ever bestowed upon the Messiah, one
' like a son of man ' who comes from heaven, and so at the same
time the kingdom is possessed by the .saints of the Most High.
If, in 7 25, tha angel's interpretation of one of the horns of
the fourth beast has already unmistakably pointed to a king who
persecuted the Jews on account of their religion, it is made still
more apparent in the ^/^/tM piece (in the interpretation which
Gabriel gives of Daniel's vision in the third year of Helshazzar)
that by the fourth kingdom, which arises after the reigns of the
Medes and Persians, we are to understand the Grecian empire
of Alexander the Great and his successors. By the rexider
acquainted with Jewish history the description of the horn which
at first was small, or of the bold overbearing king who deprives
the Most High of his continual burnt-ofl^'ering and gives up his
sanctuary to wanton desecration, and at the same time rages
furiously against the holy people, cannot fail to l>e understood
as referring to the Syrian king Antiochus IV. Epiphanes (175-
164 B.C.) who, by his religious edict (i Mace. 1 ^i/.), designed
to bring about the establi.shment of the Greek cultus throughout
his whole dominions, and, by setting up an altar to the Olym-
pian Zeus upon the altar of burnt-offering in Jerusalem (Dec.
16S), provoked the revolt of the Maccaljees (167). The eighth
piece contains the comforting promise that after 2300 evenings
and mornings the temple of God will be again restored to its
rightful position, and the shameless king overthrown, but not
by human hand.
The ninth piece (chap. 9), after a prayer of Daniel
which, notwithstanding its borrowings from Ezra9 and
1 Clermont Ganneau's theory (/.4, 1 880. accepted by Nold.
{ZA 1 414 j^)and Bevan, that the mysterious inscription consists
really of names of weights, is rejected by Behrmann. See Menil.
1003
Neh. 9, is still pathetic, gives Gabriel's interpretation
of the seventy years, predicted by Jeremiah, as mean-
ing seventy weeks of years, after the lapse of which the
day of salvation is to dawn.
■Whilst this vision comes to Daniel in the first year of
the reign of Darius the Mede over the kingdom of
Babylon, the last or tenth piece (chaps. 10-12) is dated
from the third year of Cyrus his successor. In corre-
spondence with the great importance of this last vision
is the long introduction, after which, by a sketch (chap.
11) mainly devoted to the complicateti relations I)e-
tween the Seleucids and the Ptolemies, and a picture
of the downfall of the SjTian tyrant, the final destiny
of the people of God is brought more preci-sely into
connection with universal history. Chap. 12, however,
does not give any one alwolutely precise indication of
the exact time when the troublous days, such as have
never before liecn known, are to come to an end :
it vacillates Ixitween 1290 and 1335 as the number of
days that are to elapse between the setting up of the
idolatrous worship in the temple and the coming of the
glorious time of the end.
The view taken over by the church from the syna-
gogue, which makes Daniel not only the principal hero
3. Authorship. ^'""^ ^^^ *^^ ^?'^°'' °f, ^^^ ^'°°*'' ^•'^^
*^ not unreasonably passed current among
theologians down to the present century. To the un-
prejudiced reader the book appears to claim to have
been written by Daniel. The narratives in the first si.\
chapters do not e.xpressly make this claim ; but in 7 2
we find Daniel himself presented as the narrator by
the use of the first person singular. The use of the
third person in chaps. 1-6 and in the lieginnings of
chaps. 7 and 1 0 is not against the authorship of Daniel
(cp Am. 7 12^), who, at the beginning of chap. 8 and
of chap. 9, speaks in the first person in giving the
date. The close connection of chaps. 1-6 with the
visions which follow may fairly be held to carry over the
claim for Daniel's authorship to the teginiiing of the
book also. No attentive reader will allow himself to be
misled as to the oneness of the authorship
of the took by the fragmentary or detachetl
character of the ten pieces of which it is composed, if he
attentively observes how the earlier portions allude to
the later, and conversely how the later portions attach
themselves to the earlier, and how the same general
manner of presentation, thought, and language pervades
the whole.
The organic unity of the Book of Daniel, denied by Reuss and
Lagarde, has been once more defended by Frhr. von Gall in a
monograph (see below, g 23). The grounds, however, which he
offers (123^) for regarding 9 4-20 as a late insertion are no more
than plausible. The contents of this section are of a higher type
than those of the hymns in the apocryphal additions to Daniel.
A certain solemn fulness is characteristic of the liturgical style,
and is not wanting in passages which may have served the author
as his models — e.g., Ezra 9 and Neh. 9. 'Von Gall's changes in
9 2^. are arbitrary; the change in the names of Gotl, which is
quite appropriate, proves nothing. It is a pure fancy that the
author of Daniel, who was acquainted with the Book of Jeremiah,
does not regard misfortune as penal ; see 434 622 3o,"etc. Be-
.sides, if we expunge 9 4-20, how much remains for chap. 9? Only
ten verses. "This is surely not enough for the ninth of the pieces
which form the book.
\\ha.t has been said as to the true unity of the \yodk
_ T_* 1 's onlv apparently contradicted by the
5. Interchange ^,^^ ^^-^,^, .^^^ ^^ j,^^ ^.,^^, ^^ ^^^^^- - ^^
0 anguage. ^^^ Aramaic language in a book other-
wise written in Hebrew.
This interchange of language has given rise to many hj-pothcses.
Spinoza thought the first seven chapterx might be an extract
made in the time of Judas the Maccabee from old writings of the
Chalda:.ans (cp Berlholdt. Eint. 1508^?). Huetius, on the other
hand, suggested that the whole Book of Daniel had been ori^;in-
ally written in Aramaic, and shortly afterwards translated into
Hebrew, and that, the original work having been partly destroyed
in the dark days of the .Seleucida;, the text was restored by
borrowing the Heb. sections that we now have from the Heb.
version (cp Berth. Einl. 1544, 1549)- It is hardly an improve-
ment on this view when J. D. Prince, adopting the theorj' of
Lenormant and Bevan, says : ' The work was probably written
at first all in Hebrew ; but for the convenience of the general
1004
4. Unity.
DANIEL, BOOK OP
reader, whose language wan Aramaic, a translation, possibly
fruin the suiiic pen as il)c uriginal, w.ih made into the Aranuiic
vernacular. It inust be suj)ik»ciI then that, certain parts of the
Hib. manuscript bring lo>l, the missing ]>laces were supplied from
the current Aramaic translation ' (lifok oj Danitl ['a()\, p. 13).
The hypothesis that 'the Heb. edition was partly destroyed
in the troubled Scleucidan ■perioil, and the missing portions
supplied from the Aramaic version," leaves unexplained why
the change of language should occur precisely at 2 4, wliurc
the Aramaic language happens to be mentioned. This name
cannot be regarded as a gloss, although ' the author of Daniel
evidently fell into the error of regarding "Chaldscan" as ihe
language of Babylonia.' If, to l>cgin with, the loss <A fxirt of a
M.S of no great length is in itself very improbable, still less
satisfactory is the assertion that in the second century before
Christ such Palestinian lews as were able to read books at all
could hardly understand any Hebrew. Reusch is right when
he says {liinl. in das Al\*), 1870, p. 118): 'The c-liange of
language occurs in the middle of a section that cannot be
divided (24), which shows that the author w.is so familiar with
both languages that he could glide from one into the other
without noticing it, and could assume for a great proportion of
his contemporaries a knowledge of them both.' No one asserts,
as Prince expresses it, that both languages 'were used quite
indifferently': the author of Daniel ami his readers were
certainly more at home in the Aramaic vernacular. When
Prince asks why chap. 7, ' which is indivisible troin the succeed-
ing prophetic Hebrew p'lrtions,' was written not in Heb. but
in .\ram., we may answer that chap. 7 was written in the
same .■\ramaic idiom as chap. 2 simply in order to make every
observant reader feel that the book was one, and that the four
visions were inseparable from the six narratives.^
The change of dialect is made C|uite naturally thus :
In chap. 2 the author h;is introtluced the ' Chaldaans ' as
spe;iking the language which he lx.-lieved to lie customary
with them ; afterwards he continues to use the same
language on account of its greater convenience both for
himself and for his original readers, both in the narrative
portions and in the following (seventh) cliapter, the
piece in companionship to chap. 2 ; for the last three
visions (8-12) a return to Hebrew was sut;gested by the
consideration that this had from of old been the usual
sacrtKl language for prophetic subjects. Whether the
Aramaic of Daniel, which is closely allied to that in
Ezra, can really be taken as historically the language
spoken in the Babylonian court in the sixth century B.C. .
or for the native language of the Chaldaeans, cannot be
discussed until we have faced the whole question of the
historical validity or invalidity of the lK)ok (see § 10).
It is enough in the meantime to say that the Aramaic
or 'Chaldee' portion of Daniel cannot possibly have
formed an independent work ; on the contrary, the
change of language serves to bind the different parts of
the work into a firmer uni .
The position of the Book of Daniel with reference to
historical fact, a question most intimately bound up
6 Ranire ^^'^^ '^'^' ^^ '^^ date, can be discussed to
nfiHainn »<^l^'in''^ge only after we have, in a purely
01 viBion. exj.g^.,i^.^i ^^.jjy ( Bleek in JD T, 1 860, p. 53^ ).
firmly established the fact that makc-s for the unity of
authorship in all five prophetic pieces(chaps. 2and 7-12) :
the fact, namely, that the range of vision in each case
reaches down to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, in
whom afHicted Israel discerned the culmination of all
that had been hostile to God in all history, and that,
with Epiphanes' destruction, which is regarded as immi-
nent, the daw n of the Messianic time is e.vpected. This
done, we shall have no difticulty in finding other weighty
reasons for fi.xing the composition of the Ixxjk of Daniel
at a date shortly before the death of Antiochus IV.
The extraordinary precision with which the exilic
Daniel seems to prophesy about things that are to
happen several centiu-ies afterwards is particularly con-
spicuous in chap. 11, where, for example, reference is
made in -.: 18 to the victory which the C onsul Lucius
Scipio gained over Antiochus III. at Magnesia, in Lydia,
in 190 B.C.. or in i: 30 to Popilius L.Tnas, who in the
name of the Roman Senate forced .Xntiochiis Epiphanes
in 1 68 B. C. to quit Egypt with great precipitancy, upon
1 Considerations of space prevent us from considering the hint
thrown out by v. Oall (123) that it is not yet critically estab-
lished that the LXX was based on the text in the two l.-inguages,
or the complicated hypotheses of KOnig {Einl. 384) and Kyssei
(TLZ, 1895, col. i6o/).
1005
which the king, as we learn from 1 Mace, \yoff.,
wreaked his wrath upon his Jewish subjects. Alth jugh
predictions of this sort are nowiiere fotind in the writ ngs
of the prophets of the O'V (cp I'koi'UKCv), orthtnloxy
was long accustotned to take special delight in con-
templating predictions which had lx;en so wonderfully
fulfilled (cp the case of the name of Cyrus in Is.
44 28). In the present century, however, as the historical
sense became cjuickened, difficulties began to jjrescnt
themselves against assumptions which were contrary to
the analogy of the prophetic writings and found their
support merely in the dogma of a magical inspiration.
7 A1wfl.v '" spite of I'usey's energetic warn-
AntiochuB IV '"^ against ' half- measures,' nuxlern
apologists, pressed by the constantly
increasing historical dilliculties caused by cuneiform
decipherments, have Ixen driven more and more to
seek refuge in the 'half-measures' thus deprecated, so
that, as Bevan {Don. 8) humorously says, ' the defLiukrs
of Daniel have, during the last few years, been em-
ployed chicHy in cutting Daniel to pieces. '
It may suffice if reference is made here to but one of the
equally arbitrary and nugatory attempts which have been made
to save the authenticity of the book as a whole by surrendering
its oneriess (if authorsliip. Zockler in his exposition of the 1 <x>fe
of Daniel Cyu) declared U 5-39 to be a later interuylation ; he
had come to see quite clearly that such a piece of fiisiory could
never have been penned by an exilic prophet. The attempt,
however, was just as vain as the attempt made elsewhere to
change the name of Cyrus (Is. 45 i)into an appellative, for it left
altogether out of account Dan. 'J43 and the relation of that verse
to 1 1 6 17. These two verses treat of two unlucky intermarriages
between .Scleucids and t!ie Ptolemies: namely, t. 6, of the
marriage of IJerenice, daughter of Ptolemy II. Philaiielphus,
with Antiochus II. Theos, aid v. i;, of that of Cleopatra
(daughter of the Seleucid Antiochus HI., the Great, and
thus sister of Antiochus IV. Kpiphanes), from whom all the
K-syptian Cleopatras have taken their name, with Ptolemy V.
Kpiphanes. But these inarriaLes are quite plainly alluded to
in 243, where we read as follows regarding the kingdom
represented in the vision by the legs of iron and the feet partly
of iron and partly of clay : 'And whereas thou saw est the iron
mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the
seed of men, but they shall not cleave one to another, even .is
iron doth not mingle with clay.' From this it follows at once
that by the fourth kingdom in chap. 2 is meant that of Alexander
the Great, which became divided into that of the Seleucids and
that of the Ptolemies (the other kingdoms of the successors of
.Mexander have here no interest for the author, and are, there-
fore, passed over). But if in chap. 2 the first of the four kingdoms
has been made tut to he the Babylonian, and the Greek to be
the fourth, it follows, from what we are told of ihc <i\i,.i^M,s
under which Daniel him.self lived, that the sec' ' 1
kingdoms, touched upon so lightly in Daniels 1 1
2 .9, must be the Median and the Persian, .'s;
than in chap. 2 does the author's special irtere^i in hm- p' m 1,1 ,jf
the fourth kingdom disclose itself in the \isions ot I).inici ; the
relations of the people of God to Antiochus Kpiphanes possess
such great importance, because, immediately upon the fall of
this tyrant — which is to be brought about without human inter-
vention (cp234 45 with 825) — the Messianic kingdcmi is forth-
with to l>e set up. It is universally admitted that the reference
to .\ntiochus l^piphanes is as plainly manife^< in the second
vision (89-14 23-i5) as it is in the last vision (1121-4:), which
occupies Itself wholly with the reign of this king. Chap. 12 1 7
iiy; also relates to his persecution of the .saints and its longed-
for cessation. To the unprejudiced interpreter there cui be
no possibility of doubt that in the three other pieces also the
rang.; of vision is limited to the time of Antiochus Kpiphanes.
What is true of 24; is true also of 7 8^ ^o/F., where the little
horn (cp. 89), to whose power the saints are delivered up for
three times and a h.ilf (cp 7 25 with 12 7), must again be the
same persecutor who had m.ide him.self so hateful to the Jews.
The .same holds good, finally, of chap. 9. Here the sixty-two
year-weeks which follow the first seven present, it is true, a
historical difficulty which will have to l)e discussed (see g 20);
but thus much at least is certain, that the 'anointed one' in
9a6 is the high-priest Oni.is III., who was put to death in 171
B.c.,1 so that the last ye.ir-wcek comes down to 164 B.C., and
the suspcn.sion of .sacrifice and offering which is predicted in
9 27 (of, 'he .second half of this week enables us plainly to see
that it is the action of Antiochus Kpiphanes that is referred to.
Now, on the assumption of the authenticity of the
book, it is verj' hard inde<>d to understand how, out of
8. Authenticity. '^'-* *''" P'*''""*'! "^ ''^''^^ .'^ '^ composed.
' so many as five, in which the coming
of the Messianic kingdom is predicted, should stop
short at the reign of a Seleucid sovereign whose king-
1 Cp., however, Israel, | 69.
1006
DANIEL, BOOK OF
flom — not to speak of the Greek kingdom out of which
it and the other Seleucid kingdoms had arisen— had no
existence in the days of the exilic Daniel.
Even the early father Hippolytus did not fail to notice
the allusions to the history of the Seleucidae and the
Ptolemies which occur in the book of Daniel ; but it
was the Neo-platonist PorphjTy {ofi. 304 A.D. ) who
first drew the right inference from the acknowledged
facts, and took Daniel's professed authorship to be a
mere literary form, ascribing the book to a Jew who
wrote during the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes. As,
however, this denial of the authenticity of the book
came from an opponent of Christianity, it produced no
effect. It was necessary that, within the Church itself,
a truly scientific and historical method of dealing with
the OT should arise. ^ This has at last come to pass.
As the result of the labours of several generations, we
can safely hold it to have teen established, as one of the
ascertained results of science, that in chap. 7 we are to
understand by the fourth beast the Grecian Empire, by
the eleventh horn Antiochus Epiphanes, and by what is
related regarding this horn the religious persecution under
that king ; as also that the author of the book wrote in
his reign. A fundamental rule of all sound exegesis
was violated when the utterances of chap. 7 were not
interpreted in the light of the other four parallel texts,
but were torn from their connection in the book in
order to give them a meaning divergent from the sense
of the rest of the book, as if the fourth beast signified
not the Grecian but the Roman Empire. To interpret
the four kingdoms as denoting those of Babylonia,
Medo- Persia, Greece, and Rome, seems, indeed, by
grouping the Medes and Persians under one empire,
to offer a series which, from a historical point of view,
can 1)6 more easily accepted than that of Babylonia,
Media, Persia, and Greece ; but this last series alone
gives the true sense of the book, wliich represents the
Median kingdom of Darius as Ixjing the second of the
four world-monarchies, and places this as an indepen-
dent intermediate link tetween the Chaldnsan and the
Persian monarchies (cp 61 [031] 832091), distinguishing
it quite plainly from the Persian, which it makes out to
be the third. With our perfectly certain knowledge,
derived from the cuneiform inscriptions, that there
never was any such Median empire between those
of Babylonia and Persia (cp Pkrsi.\), the authenticity
of the Book of Daniel falls to the ground. Quite
apart, however, from the lumierous contradictions of
history to be afterwards spoken of (§ 10, etc. ), — contra-
dictions which absolutely exclude the supposition that
the author was an eye-witness living during the period
of the 'exile,' — the fact that the horizon of the book is
throughout tounded by the time of Antiochus Epiphanes,
the fierce persecutor of the Jews and their religion, with
whose fall the Messianic salvation is represented as
being ushered in, makes it abundantly plain that the
figure of the exilic Daniel is employed only as a literary
form. The Messianic hope could not possibly have
taken this special form so early as during the ' exile, ' but
only under the oppression of the Syrian tyrant who
1 Gunkel, Schol>/. 325. [Doubts as to the authenticity of
the Hook of Daniel were uttered again in the seventeenth century
by Hobbes (^Leviatlian, 33) and Spinoza (Tract, theol. polit.
10) ; but Anthony Collin.s, the ' free-thinker,' was the first who
treated the subject with something like modern thoroughne».s.
As Lechler has shown, the eleven grounds which Collins adduces
(Scheme of Literal Priiphecy, 1726, p. 149^) are mostly those
on which recent criticism relies for proving the Maccabjean date
of Daniel. It would, however, be a mistake to suppose that
critical doubts were confined to sceptical theologians. Richard
Bentley, scholar and apologist, had reached by 17-)! a con-
viction of the late origin of I )aniel. Jebb in his monograph
isn f.) makes too light of Bentley 's doubts. _ In spite of
VVhiston's somewhat disparaging language, it is clear that
Bentley found serious difficulties both in the narratives and in
the predictions of Daniel, in consequence of which he ' supposed
the ix)ok to have been written after the time pf Onias the high
priest, and that this Onias was Daniel's Messiah ' (see Whiston's
Memoirs by himself, Lond. 1749, p. ic8 /:) Whiston was a
Boyle Lecturer.]
1007
sought to extirpate the religion of Israel, and to
compel the Jews to adopt the idolatrous worship of
Greece.
The book of Daniel being, as Wellhausen well describes
it (//O'"^', 240/), 'a hortatory and consolatory writ-
9 Aim '"^ ^^^ *^^ persecuted, designed to strengthen
and cheer them by the knowledge that within
a very short time the overbent bow will break,' its
atithor was able to allow himself great freedom in the
use of his materials. His aim was not the communica-
tion of historical information. Using as a vehicle the
materials, historical or unhistorical, that tradition had
placed at his disposal, he availed himself of the literary
artifice of employing the name of the exilic Daniel to
gain weight for the ethical and religious truths which
he desired to set forth. ^ As in the cases of Job and
Jonah, so also in that of the book of Daniel, a great
injustice is done if the standard of strict historicity is
applied, — a standard by which the book is not in the
least intended to l)e tried. We find in it (cp Kamph.
Daniel, 16/, 28^, 45) not only
10. "CTnconcem
about history.
many historical errors but also, fre-
quently, a magnificent unconcern alx)ut
historical possibilities, of which the author, in spite
of his great literary art, certainly was not always
conscious. If it is permissible to find in 68, no less
than in the demand mentioned in 2 11, a scornful refer-
ence to that religious edict of Antiochus Epiphanes
which the pious Jew could regard only as a piece of
insanity, these passages without doubt contain other
conscious allusions to historical fact. In many cases,
we can quite confidently conjecture their presence,
though we do not always quite understand them. If it
is only with diflficulty that we are able to form any visual
image of the fiery furnace (3), or of the lion's den (tj),
still less are we able to comprehend how Daniel, who
had constantly remained steadfast to the God of Israel,
could have come to be the chief of the heathen Magi
(243) ; and in like manner we fail to make clear to
ourselves how Daniel (cp 826 I24) could have managed
to secure that what he had seen should remain a secret
for centuries. The matter becomes at once natural and
intelligible if we suppose that the exilic Daniel was
simply employed as a literary device by a writer of
much later date, who regarded the fury of Antiochus
Epiphanes as the last visitation of the people of God
Ixifore the blessed time of the end should come.
Anachronisms and historical difficulties of every sort
occur throughout the whole of the book, not only in its
preliminary narratives.
Orthodoxy shows a natural reluctance to recognise
the unhistorical character of the book. As even its
latest expounder,^ although dating it in the Maccabean
period, greatly exaggerates its historical value, and
justifies himself in his refusal to recognise its true
character by urging that in substance the book is not
pure invention, but rests upon tradition, it seems fitting
to call attention to one outstanding instance in which
tradition is no guarantee of historical truth, before we
proceed to enumerate some samples of the unhistoricity
of the book. — Among the apocryphal additions to
Daniel contained in <&, that of the ' Dragon at Babel"
(cp Schr. in Riehm's HWB) is certainly not pure inven-
tion. This legend, which in its present literary form
is very late, had already been brought into relation
with the old Babylonian mythology by Schrader and
Ball (Wace, Apocr. ii. 348 ff.)\ but quite recently
Gunkel («/ sup. 320/:) has conclusively shown that
what lies at the root of it is the primeval Babylonian
myth of the conquest of the Chaos-monster or the great
I'll is possible, no doubt, that he derived some part of
these narratives from Jewish or Babylonian popular stories.
But even if we accept this conjecture, the historical setting, the
moral purpose, and the skill m presentation are all his own'
(Che. AM91, art. ' Daniel ').
2 Georg Behrmann, Hand<ommcntar, 1894.
1008
DANIEL, BOOK OF
dragon Tiamat by the god Marduk.* Instead of merely
pronouncing this apocryphal narrative, as Zockler
(Apocr. ['91], 215 231 ) somewhat imprudently does,
foolish and silly, we ought rather to learn from it that
dependence on ancient tradition is not incompatible
with complete unhistoricity.
As a contemporary, the author of Daniel llai-39 was
in circumstances which enabled him to depict with the
utmost accuracy the reign of Anticx;hus i:piphanes and
his two Egyptian campaigns ; but for the concluding
portion of ch. 11 he can no longer be taken as a historical
source, inasnmch as ii: 40-45 go beyond the author's
present ; the actual course of events in which Antiochus
Epiphanes perished on an eastern raid in the Persian
city of TalxK in 164 h. c. is glaringly inconsistent with
the author's anticipation that the king, after a successful
ex[x.'dition against Egypt, was to meet his end suddenly
in Palestine.
\N'e are thus led to the conclusion that the book was
written during the life -time of Antiochus Epiphanes.
_ The conclusion that it Ijelongs to a
. Language. ^.^^^ j^^^ ^^^^ -^^ ^^^ post-e.xilic period
is forced upon us also by its language.
The many Persian words in the book are, in the
mouth of Daniel, anachronisms which clearly testify
against the authenticity of the book ; as also testifies
the use of the word Kasdiin (EV ' Chalda:ans ' [</. j'. ]) for
the Habylonian priests, soothsayers, or magicians.
True, our book sometimes, in agreement with those
prophets who lived under the new IJabylonian kingdom,
understands by the Kasdim the people who had the
predominance in liabylon (cp Dan. 38 5301*1 with Is.
4314); but it stands alone, opposed not only to the
Assyrio-Babylonian usus loquendi but also to that of all
the rest of the O l", in the manner in which it everywhere
else (cp 224, etc.) makes Kasdim synonymous with
' Magi,' a practice which is found, long after the down-
fall of the IJabylonian empire, in Greek and Roman
authors. As the number of words borrowed from
Persian certainly exceeds a dozen, the few Greek ex-
pressions do not come so much into account ; but
attention is worth calling to psanterin in Dan. 3s,
because this form, alongside of the Greek psaltirion,
proves the influence of the Macedonian dialect (which
substituted n for /), and because it is in the case of this
word that the Semitic derivation of the foreign words in
Daniel, so much insisted on in the apologetic interest,
is strikingly seen to be untenable.
The noil- Hebrew language of Dan. 24^ is introduced
as being the speech of the • Chaldajans,' and is kept up
. . by the author down to the end of chap.
■ 7, because in his time (though not so
in 2 K. 18 26) both languages were readily understood ;
it is thus possible for us to form definite conclusions as to
its character. .Although it is called Aramaic correctly,
it is at the same time intended to tje taken as the language
of the ' Chaldajans," and this on any assumption involves
a historical error. The biblical Aramaic (see Akamaic
Languagk, § 3 / ) is now known to belong to the
■West Aramaic group and to be closely related to the
language of the Targums and of the Palmyrene and
other inscriptions. We know also that this language,
of which the remains preservetl to us come for the most
part from Palestine, did not, as the language of current
intercourse, supersede the old Hebrew (which had now
begun to assert its claim to be regarded as a sacred
languagy) until the end of the third century B.C. The
actual language of the ' Chald;eans ' also we know from
the cuneiform inscriptions to have been Semitic, but
very different from the West .Aramaic, so that Luther's
free translation of 24 — 'Then spake the Chaldees to
the king in Chaldee" — is indeed exegetically correct but
historically false. If, on the other hand, in order to
avoid supposing that Aramaic was confoundetl with
1 .Simil.irly Mardiik reappears later in the Christian knight
St. Georiie.
' Chalda-'an,' it is maintained that the court language at
Babylon was Aramaic, we may point to the linguistic
peculiarities of the old Aramaic inscriptions,* which
abundantly show that the Aramaic of the B<xjk of Daniel
could not have lieen spoken in Ikibylon in the sixth
century.
How little the H<x>k of Daniel can be depended on in
matters of history apjxsirs from its very first verse. Not
n MiatalTAa ""'y ''" '^*= ^'^^ contemporaries (cp Jer.
. ""STiaKes jg^ l.:z.267)ofthefamousChald;eanking
in names. ^,^|j ^^^^ Nebuchadrezzar ; but also Stralio,
in transliterating the name, comes ne;ir the cuneiform
form. In Dan. 1 1, on the other hand, the name is given
in a later corrupt form (with n instead of r) in connection
with the unhistorical statement (cp Jer. 25 1 3(5 1 9 29) that
Nebuchadrezzar conqueretl Jerusalem in the third year
of Jehoiakim. Whatever be the case with the rest of
the OT, Daniel betrays no trace of acquaintance with
cuneiform ; the error made in 4 8 [5] is an urgent warn-
ing against any attempt to interpret the writing on
the wall in 5 25 by reference to the real sjjeech of the
' Chald;eans.' In 4 8 [5J Daniel's name Belteshazzar,
which is already taken in the LXX to Ix: the same as
Belshazzar (5i), the name of the alleged last Babylonian
king, is wrongly supposed to be a compound of the divine
name liel (Is. 46i), although Bel-sar-usur (that is, ' Ikl
])rcserve the king ') and Belatsu-u.sur (that is, ' may his life
i)e preserved ') are philologically distinct.- It would take
us too far afield were we to show how even Nebuchad-
rezzar's insanity and the equally unhistorical conception
of Belshazzar or even of the legendary Darius the .\ledc
(whom Xenophon's romance, the Cyrofxcdia, cannot
make a historical person ) carry us back to traditions which,
widely different as they seem, in part at least, to have
been, were in any case greatly distorted. How strainetl
are the author's relations with history can Ix; seen by a
glance at chap. 11 2/ As only two Babylonian kings are
known to him, so he knows of only three Persian .sovereigns
besides Cyrus (lOi), their names being tho.se of the four
that occur elsewhere in the OT (cp !■ zra4 5-7) ; as Xerxes
is clearly intended by the fourth, this sovereign is made
to be the successor of Artaxer.xes (whom he really pre
ceded), and the contemporary of Alexander the (jreat.
In these circumstances Drivers correct statement
[Introd.1^^ 510). that ' the lx)ok rests upon a traditional
^ . . basis,' ought not to have lKi;n followed
th ^ *jy the statement that ' Daniel, it cannot
® ®'^°' Ije doubted, was a historical person, one
of the Jew ish exiles in Babylon. ' A Ixjok w hich does not
admit of being used as a historical source, save for the
author's own time, cannot possibly be a guarantee for
the existence of an exilic Daniel. Wlien we cast
about us for information concerning Daniel independ-
ent of our present Ixwk, we find that the name Daniel
is of rare occurrence in the OT, Ixiing met with (see
Daniki. i. 1) only once on perfectly historical ground;
and, moreover, what is very remarkable, we find also
in Ezra's time (see Daniel i. 3) a Mishael, an .Azariah,
and a Hananiah (cp Dan. 16)— a coincidence of rare
names w hich le<l Bleek to conjecture that our author had
thrown back the contemporaries of Ezra by more than
a century in order that he might represent them as living
t Cp Dr. Introd.'^) 503 / (the language of D.iniel, [c ] end).
We possess monuments of the official use of .Aranuiic for the times
of the Assyrian, the Babylonian, and the Persian supremacies,
which indicate that there was in the case of the smaller parts of
speech, such as the relative and demonstrative pronouns which
have special value for the determination of the age of a language,
a notaole difference of form between the older and the younger
Aramaic. Whilst the old Aramaic of the inscriptions from the
eighth to the fifth centuries B.C. h.xs <ii K1 and r\l\, in biblical
Aramaic these much used particles have the forms n, kt
and nj^. The Book of Daniel is thus, in its ase of t for the
older 1, quite in agreement with what we know of the usage
Eevailing in Aramaic in.scriptiorLs and books dating from the
st centuries n.c. and the first centuries a.d.
3 On the name and asserted kingship of Bclsh.azzar, and on
Darius the Mede, see Belshazzar, Dakius, i.
DANIEL, BOOK OF
in the time of the ' exile ' at a heathen court, and showing
an example to his countrymen under the oppression of the
heathen. This hypothesis and that of Cheyne ( OPs. 107)
are, at any rate, preferable to the view of Ewald, who
places the original Daniel among the North Israelitish
exiles at the court of Nineveh {/'rophe/s, 5iii).
In confirmation of the date (during the lifetime of
Antiochus Epiphanes) already made out, we have many
additional facts which point to the early
15. Other signs
of late date.
Maccabean periotl even if they do not
enable us to fix the time with absolute
precision. Among these are the argumenta e silentio
supplied by the fact that Daniel is not named by the
son of Sirach who wrote atxjut 190 H.c. (Ecclus. 48
f.), and — a still weightier argument — by the complete
absence of any influence of Daniel upon post -exilic
prophetic literature. Conversely this book, to which the
angelic names Gabriel and Michael, the resurrection (122 ;
cp Escii.XToi.OGv), and a collection of sacred books
that included the prophecies of Jeremiah (92) are
known, plainly reveals its dependence not only^on Jeremiah
and 12zekiel but also on the post-exilic Book of Zechariah.
If the absence of Daniel from Ecclus. 496-io is itself a
proof of late origin, a still stronger proof lies in the fact
that it has found its place in the Hebrew canon, not in the
second division, the collection of prophetic books, but
in the third or hvst division, between Esther and Ezra
(cp Canun', § 49). Not until the time of the LXX
(which, moreover, has treated the text of Daniel in a
very arbitrary fashion) does it find a place, after Ezekiel,
as the fourth of the ' great ' prophets, and thus it comes
to pass that once in the NT ^ Daniel is designated as a
prophet.
The very arbitrary treatment of the \IT of Daniel in
the LXX, particularly in chaps. 3-6, and the false inter-
p , pretation of 925 ^ (.((f/5;^//'/w, 'weeks'
. ■ 1 ^^^ confounded with sibh'im, 'seventy')
translations. j^^Q^g^j j^ ^^^^^ d^^t ]o„g ^gfo^e
Jerome's time, Thcodotion's translation of Daniel (already
employed by Irenttus)'- superseded the LXX in ecclesi-
astical use. Though Theodotion did not remove the
apocryphal additions not found in M T, yet, by making
use of A(|uila's version, he brought the text of the LXX
.into closer relation with MT. From a MS (Cod. Chisi-
anus) of the LXX in the library of Cardinal Chigi, not
very old, but supplied with Origen's obeli and asterisks,
an edition of the LXX Daniel was published at Rome in
1772, and another and better one by Cozza in 1 877. The
Syriac Hexaplar version of Paul of Telia, edited by Bugati
in 1788 and photographically reproduced by Ceriani in
1874, is justly held to be purer than the te.xt of the Cod.
Chisianus (Swete's 87), which is, indeed, full of errors.
The text-critical importance of (5 is, for the Book of
Daniel, fortunately very small ; so far as the integrity
of the consonants of the original text is concerned, the
book is one of the best preserved in the whole O T.
As distinguished from the older prophets the Book of
Daniel is often spoken of as the first apocalypse (cp
Dan. 2191. It makes a revelation of the coming end of
the world, although in a veiled manner, so as to avoid
the dangers of open speech. Upon the basis of his study
of earlier writers (92),* and conscious of his own divine
1 In Mt. 24 15, but not in the i| Mk. 13 m-
- Porphyry, too, made use of Thcodotion's translation, aud
even (according to Jerome's express testimony) regarded it as
the original (cp Bevan, op. cit. 3).
•* Following out a suggestion of Noldeke (.^ ///«/. Litt. 224),
Prof. Bevaii has offered this interpretation of 9 2, 'I understood
the number of years by the Pentateuch,' the special reference
being to Lev. '2') 18 21 2428, where it is declared that the Israelites
are to be punished seren times for their sins. ' The 70 weeks
become intelligible if we suppose that the author of Daniel com-
bined Jer. '25 1 1 29 10 with Lev. 2(5 18^.' 'The 70 years of
Jeremiah were to be repeated 7 times, and at the end of the 490th
year the long - promised deliverance might be confidently ex-
pected.' But the expression ' seven times ' has here, as in Prov.
*24 16, simply the sense of ' often.' The text in 9 2 cannot ascribe
to Daniel a comprehension of ' the number of the years by the
(holy) books,' because such a comprehension is, as a fact, only
enlightenment, the author wrote his work of admonition
and comfort in the name of the ancient Daniel ; it is only
17 Pseudo 'i"°''*"'^^ (cp ^^^ excellent remarks of Ball
in Wace's y4/(j<rr. 2307) or misapprehen-
njrmity.
sion that can lay to his charge as a fault
his employment of a literary form which was common
throughout antit|uity. We must not, of course, unduly
exaggerate the feeling, no doubt prevalent in the Mac-
cabean jxjriod, that prophecy had Ijecome extinct — a
feeling which may have contributed, along with other
causes, to the choice of this literary form. Our author
pursues the same lofty moral and religious aims which
were sought by the older prophets, and it is by no
means his intention to gratify a merely idle curiosity.
In presenting, as still future, past occurrences in which,
as one world-empire perished after another, he saw the
hand of his God only as preparing the way for that
which was still really in the future, the downfall of the
last and most direful enemy of the good, and the coming
of Messiah's salvation, there was a double advantage.
The people who were in the secret were able to recog-
nise in what he wrote the circumstances of their own
time, although only darkly alluded to ; and what had
happened already supplied a guarantee for the certainty
of that which was still to happen. The author lives in
the firm faith that everything has been fully foreordained
in the counsels of God (cp 7 12) : the Almighty is steering
the whole course of history towards the salvation of his
people (cp Smend's lecture on 'Jewish Apocalyptic' in
ZATIV, 1885, p. 222/:). Cp ESCH.'\T0L0GV.
If we turn now to the question how our author set
about fixing by computation the date of the accomplish-
18 Ch o o '^*^"' '^^ ^^^ Messianic hojxjs of the Jews,
logical data ^^'^ ^^^ ^^'^^ ^° ^''"^^ ^* ^ "^°'"*^ precise
° ■ determination of the date of his writing.
It must have teen either soon before, or soon after, the
purification of the temple. This we learn from the
number given in 814. As already said, the years of
weeks (cp 2 Ch. 8621) present some historical difficulty,
inasmuch as, after the first seven weeks of years (which
suit the Babylonian ' exile '), instead of the 62 x 7 = 434
years of the interval which we should expect to find
between Cyrus and the death of Onias III. (538-171
K.c. ), we are, according to the actual chronology (which
gives 367 years), 67 years short. As the Jewish Hellenist
Demetrius, however, who wrote about 210 B.C., has
fallen into a mistake precisely similar to our author's —
a mistake which could easily be made in the absence of
a fixed era — we need not be surprised at such an error
in a book historically so inaccurate as that of Daniel.
The last week of years, which begins in 171 B.C. , extends
(precisely reckoned) to 164 K.c, and it has certainly
contributed greatly to the esteem in which the book ha.s
been held, that Antiochus Epiphanes actually did die in
the year 164. For our author the division of the
seventieth week of years into two equal parts was sug-
gested by the history of his time, inasmuch as towards
the end of 168 B.C. the Alxjmination of Desolation was
set up, and idolatrous worship in the temple began.
The ihree-years-and-a-half which remain after deduction
of the historical three- years-and- a- half stand for the
still incomplete period of the last and greatest tribula-
tion in the course of which our book was written. For
the correctness of this second number (3^) faith had to be
the guarantee ; and that it was known to Ije a round
numlier or a number of faith is shown not only by the
vague periphrasis in 725 and 12 7, where the plural ' times'
takes the place of the linguistically imp)Ossible dual, but
also by the three numbers, 1150 (cp the 2300 evenings
and mornings in 814), 1290, and 1335 days, used in an
approximate way to express three years and a half —
apparently with precision but in reality only in round
obtained through the angel in Tr. 24-27. Besides, it is unnatural
to explain the phrase ' the books ' as referring to the Penta-
teuch when the context speaks only of Jeremiah. Behrmann's
rendering of 'pj'-j ('I took notice of) is preferable to that of
Be\-an and of EV ( I understood').
DANIEL, BOOK OP
numbers. Behrmann, with Cornill. continues to fix the
date of the boolt as in the beginning of the year 164,
because the number in 814, which does not seem to be
symbolical, is held to pxjint to the purification of the
temple as having alrcjidy bi-en accomplished ; but
Cornill.' reckoning backwards 1150 days from 25th
Decemljer 165 «.c. , sought to make out 27th October
168 as the probable tlatc of the religious edict of
Antiochus lipiphanes. The difference of 45 days Ix:-
tween the numlx;r iu 12 11 and that in 12 la, which it is
merely arbitrary to attempt to explain as a gloss, points to
months of 30 days. In that case the 1290 days (v. 11),
or 43 months, would fit in if we were to add an inter-
calary month to the 42 months of the three years and a
half. However we may reckon (cp H. Oort in TA. T 28,
450 ['94]), the end of chap. 9 forbids the dissociation
of the restoration of the temple service from the final
close so tlecidedly that the present writer now unites
with Kuenen and Wellhausen in preferring the usual
view, according to which 814 still lies in the author's
future, and holds the date of the lx)ok to oe 165 H.c.
When the book, which rapidly became popular, first
l)egaii, ix-rhaijs as e;irly as 150 B.C. (cp i Mace. 1 54
■J 59/.). to Ik; translated by l-.gyptian
19. Apocryphal
additions.
Jews into Greek, the legends of Susanna,
and of Bel and the Dragon (cp I5evan,
45), which may very well have had an independent
circulation,''^ had certainly not as yet Ix.-en taken up
into it. In fact, iis late as the fifth century A.n. we have
it on the authority of Folychronius that the Song of the
Three Children was still absent alike from the Syriac
version and from the original text. We cannot tell at
what date it was that these apocryphal additions (which
are contained in all the MS.S that have reached us)
were taken up into the Greek and the Syriac Daniel. In
view of the great popularity of their contents, shown by
the variety of the forms in which they are presented, we
can only conjecture that they nmst have been adopted
comparatively early (the Ixxjk from the first was freely
rendered rather than faithfully translated in the LXX),
although the growth of the four different SjTiac texts of
Susjuuia (cp Wace, 2 330/-) niay have lieen later. 'Ihe
so-called genuine LXX text, which we possess in the
Cod. Chisianus (Sw. 87) and (in Syriac) in a valuable
Milan MS (cp Swete, Septuagint, vol. 3, p. \\f. ) contains,
of course, the additions just as fully as do the many MS.S
which give us Daniel in the text of Theodotion, already
described above (§ i6) as a revision of the LXX. Swete
(as above) has conveniently printed together the text of
Theodotion, which obtained ecclesiastical sanction, and
that of the LXX, which had lain in oblivion for almost
fifteen centuries. Even if we su])pose, with Schiirer
(PRE<^> I640), that the LXX text nnist have been in
existence before the Daniel legend received new develop-
ments in Greek, we may safely assume that the additions
to the Greek Daniel had been made before the beginning
of the Christian era. The balance of probability is that
they were not translated from any Semitic source, but
were originally written in Greek (cp Pusey, Daniel, 378/. ).
They are distinguished — as indeed is the LXX version
of Daniel — from the Jewish Greek that prevails in the
rest of the LXX by their purer and more elegant diction ;
another indication in the same direction is the well-
known play upon Greek words in Susanna (it. 54 f.
58/., cp HoLMTREE). which even Julius .Africanus urged
as proof of the spuriousness of the piece in his letter to
Origen, who wished the narrative to be retained in the
canon. As I'rotestants are in no wav bound bv the
20. Susanna. '^^'"^ "JJ"^ ,^i""f ^ ^'T, («=?
\Vace, Apocr. I368/. ), which declares
the apocryphal additions to \yc true history, and as we
hardly rcfjuire a full enumeration of reasons such as is
given, e.g., by Reuss \Das AT iibcrsetxt. 1894, 7411/ )
in proof of the unhistorical character of the Susanna
' See his Die Siebzig Jahrwochtn Daniels, 1889.
' Cp above, | 10.
legend, we are able to approach without any prejudice
the question as to the language in which it was originally
written. It may be frankly conceded that in view of
the small extent of the additions — plainly the work of a
Hellenistic Jew (or Jews) — and in view of the fact that
even in the ca.sc of a comparatively poor language it is
always possible by free translation to imitate any play
up>on words whatever, we have not the means that would
enable us to prove conclusively that the original
language was Greek.
'I"o estimate the additions correctly, we must consider
their substance rather than their present Greek form.
Without prejudice to the literary freedom which is mani-
festly presupposed by their present forn* and by the fact
that the Susanna legend appears in several shapes (cp
Salmon in Wace, p. xlvi), it is clear that they contain
more or less of traditional matter, and, like the canonical
book itself, cannot Ix; regarded as pure invention. So
long ago as 1832 Zunz (Gottesdienstl. Vortr. 122/)
called attention to the fact that traces are preserved in
the Haggada of wonderful doings of a Daniel famous
for his wisdom — e.g., the fight w'Wh the dragon, already
mentioned, in Midrash Ber. h'ab. par. 68 (in Wiinsche's
transl. , lA;ipsic, 1881, p. 334). As for the jx>silion of
the legend of the beautiful Susanna, whom Daniel
(represented in v. 45 as a very youthful Ixiy) saves
from the false accusation of the two elders by his wise
judgment, Theodotion, for the sake of the presumed
chronological order, has placed it lx;fore Dan. 1 (though
after chap. 1 would be more appropriate), while the LXX
and \'g. , on the other hand, place it as a thirteenth chapter
after the twelve canonical chapters ; liel and the Dragon
being a fourteenth. Daniel's wise judgment recalls i K.
3 16^ ; but the lascivious old men recall still more .-^hab
and Zedekiah, the two adulterous false prophets living
in Ikibylon and threatened by Jeremiah (cp Jer. 2920-23
with Sus. V. 57), alxjut whom the Talmud and Midrash
have so much to say. Briill even thought that he had
discovered the explanation of the flower-name Susanna
in the Midrash U'ayyikra Piabda, par. 19 (p. 129 in
Wiinsche's transl.), antl Ifell (Wace, 2330) would fain
have it that the piece is an anti-Sadducean ' tendency '
writing. More likely is the connection suggested by
Ewald (fj /'/'•'• 4636) of the Susanna story with a Baby-
lonian legend, an allusion to which occurs in the Koran
{Sur. 296). of the seduction of two old men by the
goddess of love.
While in Susanna Daniel, as his name implies,
appears as a judge, he conies Ixjfore us in the other
21. Bel and
the Dragon.
two related piece
of Babylon (see
-Bel and the Drjgon
: 24 28) — which im-
mediately follow in all .\ISS and editions,
as the successful o|)ponent of heathenism, distin-
guished for \sis(lom and piety. In the first of the two,
Daniel convinces the king (called Cyrus only in Theod. )
of the fraud practised by the priests of Bol, who
pretended that their god was an actual living deity,
while it wiis they themselves with their wives and
families who consumed the Uiod and drink offered to
Bel. -After the e.vecution of the priests and tho destruc-
tion of the helpless Bel and his temple {v. 22) we read
(?T. 23-42) of further exploits of Daniel in liabylon.
He subdued the invulnerable dragon (Job 41 18 [26]^)
which they worshippetl with divine honours, by throw-
ing indigestible substances into its jaws, whereupon
the king at the instigation of his enraged people caused
the destroyer of their gtxis to be cast into the lions' den
(cp Dan. 6) ; here he was divinely protectetl, and sup-
ported by food miraculously brought to him from the
land of Judrpa by the prophet Habakkuk (cp Kzek. S3).
In 0 87 (see .Sw. ) the superscription of the twofold narra-
tive of IVl and the Dragon runs : ' From the prophesy of
Habakkuk, the son of Jesu, of the tribe of I A^vi. ' Here.
doubtless, there is a reference to some Jewish prophetic
legend, although only The<xlotion calls this Habak-
kuk a prophet (see Hab.\kkuk). The only addition
1014
DAN-JAAN
which, strictly speaking, supplements the canonical book
of Daniel is the double hymn introduced after 823,
consisting of 67 verses nuniljered in Greek and Vg. as
„ , vv. 24-90. The EV treats this entire
Q r«^"?^ section as one, headed ' The Song of the
3 Children. .^.^^^^ children ' ; Luther, following the
Vatican superscription, divides it into two, under the
titles ' The Prayer of Azariah ' and ' The Song of the
Three Men in the I'iery Furnace.' The prayer named
after Azariah (cp Dan. I7) is spoken in the name of the
three friends ; but its language is as general as if the
entire Jewish people, oppressed and penitent, were
speaking. After a brief connecting narrative relating
their miraculous preservation from the devouring fire —
a preservation regarded as an answer to Azariah's
prayer — we have in zt'. 52-90 the song of praise sung
at the same time by all three together. This speaks of
the deliverance from the fire only in the verse where
they call upon themselves by name [v. 88), whilst the
rest takes the form of a prolonged litany, reminiscent of
Ps. 10320/: and still more of Pss. 136 148 and Ecclus.
43, where in quite general terms all created things are
summoned to praise the Lord.
To the bibliography in Hevan's Short Comm. on Daniel
(Cambr. '94), p. 9, and in Strack's Einl. ('98), p. inf., add
Kamph. 'Daniel' in SBOT; Dr. IntrotiA')
23. Literature. 488-515; Sayce, Crit. Man. 524-537", Che.
OFs. 94, 105 107, Founders, 363-371 ; Behr-
mann, Das />'. Daniel, Giittingen, 1894 (his exegesis is con-
scientious and sober ; his etymologies are weak, but he criticises
Kautzsch's Gramm. in several points successfully) ; Breasted,
Hehraica, July ('91), p. ■2a,\ff. (on the proof of the recent origin
of Daniel derived from synta.\) ; Lohr, ' Text-krit. Vorarb.
zu einer Erklarung des B. Daniel,' ZATIV, 1895-96; Dillm.
A Tlichc Theol., Leipsic ('95), p. 5227^, 538 ; Baer, Libri Dan.
Ezr. et Nek. Text Mas. etc., 1882 (with pref. by Franz Del.,
and ' Babylonian glosses ' by Friedr. Del.) ; J. D. Prince, A
Critical Comvicntary on the Book of Daniel ('99) ; Nestle,
Marg. u. Mai., 1893 (see pp. 35-42) ; ^Larti, A'urzi,'. drain, des
Bibl.-Aravi. Sprache, 1896 (note especially the Texts and
Glossary). The commentary of Hippolytus on Daniel has
recently been edited by Bonwetsch {Hippolytus' IVerke, i. ;
Leipsic, '97) ; see also Bonwetsch, 'Studien zu den Komm.
Hippolytus' in Archiv f d. dlteren christl. Schriftsteller, i.
('97); Bludau, Die Alexatulrin. Uebersetzung des B. Dan. u.
ihr. Verhdltniss z. Mass. Text ('97), an instructive exposition of
the problems presented by the LXX : chaps. 1-3 7-12 in the LXX
are a real translation of text-critical value ; the deutero-canonical
parts are most probably based on a Semitic original. G. A. Bar-
ton,'The Comp. of the Book of Daniel, '/A'/-, 17 ('98)62-86 (against
unity of authorship); F. Buhl, /'7? £"(3) ('98), 4445-457. a. K.
DAN-JAAN {\V\ r\r^\ eic Aan eiAa^N k<m oyAan
[B]. eic Aan iapan k\\ ioyAan [A], eooc h.ts.u [L] ;
IX n.tx siiJiiSTRiA [Vg.]), a place mentioned (2 S. 246)
in a description of the limits of David's kingdom, after
the ' land of Tahtim-hodshi ' [q.v. ). Conder {Hdbk.
408), following Schultz, identifies it with Ddnidn, a
ruined place between Tyre and Akka, 4 m. N. of Achzib.
That, however, is too far west. ' Dan ' must be the
historic Dan, and -j'aan (for which Ges.'s j^'ar ' forest' is a
poor conjecture ; but see © "^ Vg. ) is plainly corrupt. To
emend the text so as to read ' (they went) to Dan, and
from Dan they went round (laao JTOi) to Zidon ' (We.,
Dr. , Ki. , Bu. ) is possible. It is better, however, especi-
ally if Klostermann is right in his emendation of Tahtim-
hodshi, to change -jaan into w^-iyyon, 'and (to) Ijon';
Ijon, like Kedesh, belonged to the territory of Naphtali.
We should then continue, ' and they went round (53b'\
©BAL ^jjj iK{<K\(j}<ja.v) to Zidon.' Observe that Kloster-
mann's emendation (pyi) is easier, and probably gives a
better sense than that of Wellhausen and Driver. It is
also proposed by Griitz. T. K. C.
DANNAH (n31 ; pcNNA [BAL]), a city of the hill
country of Judah (Josh. 15 49), mentioned between Socoh
(.Shuweikeh) and Debir. Suitable to this position is
the modern Idhna, the leSva of the OS, 6 m. .SE. of
Beit-Jibrin ; the variation in the form of the name is a
not unusual one (cp Ibzik and Bezek).
DAPHNE (Aa(J)NH [AV]), 2 Mace. 433- SeeANTiOCH,
2. § I-
1015
DARIUS
DABDA (y^ll). one of three wise men, sons of
Mahoi, (the Chronicler differs ; see Zerah), compared
with Solomon (i K.431 [5ii]; ©427: AaraAa [B].
TON Aaraa [A], AarAac [L]). In I Ch. '26 the
name appears as Dara (5apa fB.A], dapaSe [L]) ; but,
as it seems intended to be analogous in form to Chalcol
(Chalcal?), a second d is indispensable. The largest
group of MSS of © read in 1 K. and i Ch. tov Sap5a ;
three cursives in i K. have tov SapSav (so Arm. ). Pesh.
Targ. and some MSS ( Kenn. ) support MT in both
passages.
DARIC (D^yS-inN, D*yi»?lT), RV iCh.297 etc.,
AV Dkam [q.v.].'
DARIUS (t^'VI^; Old Pers. Darayavaus, DarayavaS ;
Bab. Dari'amuS (v7d); Sus. viTariyamaui (vaui)\
Aar[6]ioc [BXAQL 87]).
1. Darius the Mede, son of Ahasuerus, Dan. 61 [2]
28 [29] 9. and 11 1 (/f.-poi- SJAh.(^—i.e. , Theod. ; 87
— i.e., the LXX], Aapetoi; [.Aq. Sym.]). The name is
here applied in error to the conqueror of the new Baby-
lonian empire. In Dan. 9i Ahasuerus is the father of
Darius the Mede, who, we are informed (cp 11 1), ' was
made king over the realm of the Chaldeans ' after the
death of Helshazzar. We are told of Darius that
he was then (638 B.C.) sixty-two years old, from
which it follows that Ahasuerus his father must have
been a contemporary of Nebuchadrezzar. With this
agrees Tob. 14 15, where it is said (but not by N*) that
the population of Nineveh was deported by Nebuchad-
rezzar and Ahasuerus. -All this proceeds upon a
mistake. Nineveh was conquered by Cyaxares (Old
Pers. Uvakhshatara), the predecessor of Astyages, with
the assistance of Nabopolassar (Nabu-pal-usur) the
father of Nebuchadrezzar. In the list of Median kings
one searches in vain for a name that can by any
possibility be taken for that of Ahasuerus or Darius.
Even if it be argued that Darius was indeed a Mede,
though nowhere called king of Media, we have to reckon
not only with the notices given by the Greek historians
but also with the Nabu-na' id -Cyrus cylinder, from which
it appears that Cyrus himself, immediately after the
fall of the capital, ascended the throne of Babylon, and
appointed to the governorship of the province of Babylon
Gobryas (Old Pers. Gaubaruva, Bab. Ugbaru or
Gubaru), governor of Gutium, who, it would appear,
was superseded, as king, by Cambyses the Persian.
This Gobryas may very well have been the person who,
seventeen years afterwards, joined forces with Darius
Hystaspis against the pseudo-Smerdis. As governor of
Gutium, which lay on the Median frontier, he may well
have been called a Mede, and, as the ally of Darius,
have been confounded with him. The name, however, of
the father of Gobryas was Mardonius (Marduniya), not
Xerxes, and it is not to be supposed that C\tus made
such a political blunder as to entrust the control of so
important a province as Gutium to a Mede. See
D.VNiEL, Book of, § 13.
2. Darius I. Hystaspis, king of Persia (521-485
B.C.), who allowed the Jews to rebuild their temple, is
referred to in Ezra 4 524 65 61 Hag. 1 1 2ioZech. I17,
and probably in Neh. 12 22.1 His liberality towards the
Jews is in complete accord with what we know otherwise
of his general policy in religious matters towards the
subject nations. He took the great Cyrus for his
model, and contrasts strongly with Cambyses.
If Caml)yses dealt the sacred Apis-bull of Memphis a mortal
wound, Darius presented the city with a new -Apis, and restored
the temple of Amun-Ra at the oasis of El-Khargeh with great
splendour. In Asia Minor and the islands of the /Egean,
temples were indeed sometime.s destroyed by his generals,
especially where, as at Naxos and at Eretria (Herod. 696 loi),
1 It is stated in Neh. 12 ■21 f. that the priests were registered
under ' Darius the Persian ' ; the I.evites (if we emend the text)
not till the period from Eliashb to J.addua. The text of
V. 22 f. has passed through changes, probably through the
redaction of the Chronicler. So Rosters, Hcrstel, tog. [For
other views see Meyer, Entst. 103, and Nhhemiah, ft i.]
1016
1. The story ;
in Numbers.
DARKON
revenge was to be gratified ; but he himself gave special orders
to spare Delos, and also caused three hundred talents of incense
to be burnt on the altars of Apollo and Artemis. If he discerned
some affinity between Apollo and his own god Mithra, he may
well have seen resemblance enoui^h between Yahwe and Ahura-
mazda to lead him to do homage to the god of Israel.
('. I*. T.
3. Darius III. Codomannus, the last king of Persia (i .Mace.
1 1). Cp Danikl, Hook ok, 8 13 ; Pkksia.
4. : NIacc. I'-* 7 AV ; KV Akius. See Si'akta.
DARKON (jipl"!! : BL)B compares Ar. daraka,
• h:\su-i\.' t/umiui"", 'shield' ; Aarkoon [B], Aep.[AL]).
The line U.irkon, a group of children of ' Solomons servants '
(see Nk THlNiM) in the great post-exilic list (see Kzka, ii. § 9) ;
Ezra2 56=Neh. "58(AopK<;oi/[l5»<Al)=i Esd. 633, LozoN follow-
ing IP"* .Vofioi' (StpKiay [L]).
DART. Uii the various Heb. and (Jk. words see
Wk.M'ons.
DATES (w'31), 2 Ch. ;51 s .W'"^- ; K\' Ho.nky (y.v.).
DATHAN AND ABIRAM (jni. AaBan, meaning
obscure; and O'l'IlX, see .Ahika.m), Reubenites who led
a revolt against Moses in the interval between the return
of the spies and the final march towards Canaan.
In Nu. 15-17 the revolt of Dathan and Abiram is
ntinglcd and confused with another revolt, that of Korah.
Consequently, it is difticult, indeed
imi)ossible, to interpret the narrative
as it stands. There are sections of the
narrative from which Korah disappears altogether. We
have three causes for the revolt : impatience with the
civil authority of Moses, discontent with the exclusive
right of the Levitical tribe (as against Israel in general)
to exercise priestly functions, and a desire on the part
of the Levites who were not descended front Aaron to
vindicate their equal right to the priesthood. These
various motives are not combined, but appear in various
parts of the narrative independently. The confusion
reaches its highest point when we are told that the
company of rebels who had already been swallowed up
by the open earth were devoured by fire from Yahwe (cp
1633 with 35).
If, however, we turn to Dt. 116, we find the means of
escaping from this confusion ready to our hand. There
n f -n 1. Moses begs the Israelites to remember
2. in ueuter- ^^.^^^ y^h^y^ their God ' did to Dathan
^' and .Abiram the sons of Eliab, the sons of
Reuben ; how the earth opened her mouth and swallowed
them up and their households and their tents and every
living thing that followed them, in the midst of all
Israel." From this passage, with which cp Ps. IO617,
we might naturally conclude that the Deuteronomist
had a text of early Israelite history Ijefore him, in which
the revolt of Dathan and Abiram was mentioned with-
out any reference to Korah, and the reljels, instead of
being devoured by fire, were swallowed up alive by the
earth.
We ask, therefore, if any such independent narrative
of the revolt led by Dathan and .Abiram can be extracted
from the composite text of Nu. 16. The
answer nmst be given, and is in fact
given by all recent scholars, in the affirma-
tive. We have but to read 16 i/' za 12-15 25 26 27/'-32a
33 34 I'y themselves, in order to obtain an account which
is nearly complete and is also consistent and intelligible.
This is the history from which the Deuteronomist has
borrowed his summary — from which he has taken not
only his f;icts but also his words and phrases. That,
however, is not all. The verses just mentioned form a
literary unity. Their style is partly that of the Vahwist,
partly that of the Klohist, whose allied works here, as
elsewhere, have lieen combined by an editor into a
whole. ITie rest of the n.arrative in ch. 1 6/. is in the style
of the priestly writer (P), a style so clearly marked and
uniform that it cannot be mistaken. The Deuteronomist
makes no allusion to the priestly narrative — for the simple
reason that in his time it did not exist. One difficulty
remains. In f. i On is mentioned as one of the rebels ;
1017
3. Original
narrative.
DATHEMA
but not a word is said of him in the sequel. Here in
all probability the text is corrupt, and most scholars
accept the eniendation proposed by Graf (Gesch. BUiher,
89) : ' Dathan and Abiram, sons of Kliab, son of I'allu,
son of Reuben. ' The emendation is abundantly justified
by a compari.son of Gen. 469 Kx. 6 14 Nu. 265 8 i Ch. 63.
When disentangled from the later priestly story of
the relx-'Uion of Korah, with which it was mingled
4. The old
tradition.
by the c(jmpiler of the Ilexateuch, the
old tradition is in substance as follows.
Dathan and Abiram l>elonged to Reuljen,
the oldest tribe, which had, however, forfeited its
claim to the hegemony or princedom among the sons
of Jacob (see the so-called Blessing of Jacob ; Gen. 49
3/). As Reubenites, Dathan and Abiram resent the
supremacy of Moses. When M(jses bids them come
up to judgment, they insolently refuse. They reproach
him with his unfitness for rule. Instead of leading them
into a land flowing wjth milk and honey, he has led
them away from Egypt, which deserved to be so de-
scribed, and has exposed them to the deadly perils of
the wilderness. It is only by blinding the people that
he can maintain his position. Moses, in answer, protests
that he h.as neither done them any hurt nor robbed
them of so much as an ass, and he begs Yahw6 to pay
no respect to their offering. These last words refer,
apparently, to the sacrifice which every Israelite might
otfer for his household, and may Ixi compared with
(jen. \i,f., where the Vahwist tells us that Yahwe looked
favourably on the offering of Abel but not on that of
Cain. The writer is not thinking of any special priest-
hood, but simply takes for granted that Yahwe, whose
favour was always sought by sacrifice, will not accept
the offering of rebels against just authority. Thereupon
Moses, accompanied by the elders of Israel, goes down
to the tents of his opponents. He predicts the divine
chastisement which will fall upon them, and his threat
is fulfilled. The earth opens her mouth and Dathan
and Abiram go down into .Shft")l, the receptacle of the
shades : only, they, unlike other men, go down into it
alive. Their wives and little ones perish with them.
We have made no attempt to distinguish lietween
the work of the Vahwist and that of the Elohist. There
are marks of style and expressions
proper to the one and to the other,
and again and again the same thing is mentioned tw ice.
Kuenen ((>;/(/.'-'>:; 8, n. 14) and Kittel (///V. 1 212 n. ) attri-
bute the narrative (of course after exclusion of 1') as a
whole to the Elohist; Cornill (/;/«/.<■" 20), with lx.'tter
right, to the Yahwist. The frec|uent doublets show that
two hands have Ixsen at work. We believe that Yahwist
and Elohist told much the same story, and that the
editor who combined their histories into one here made
the Yahwist his basis, adopting at the same time some
expressions from the Elohist. We cannot see any solid
ground for Dillmann's lx,>lief that the Yahwist repre-
sented Dathan and .Abiram as claiming the priesihootl.
He urges the words in v. 15, ' resix.>ct not thou their offer-
ing ■ ; but such a curse, while all Israelites were allowed
to sacrifice, might be naturally invoked against any
enemy. The Yahwist makes little or no mention of a
s[jecial priesthood, and though, no doubt, he was familiar
with the institution, assuredly did not impugn the right
of lay Israelites to offer sacrifice. The whole narrative
now l)efore us depicts a relx;llion directed against Moses
as a civil ruler. Had Dathan and Abiram claimed to
exercise priestly functions we should have heard more
about it. .Sec KoRAii. W. K. A.
DATHEMA (AAee/wA [A], -Gaima [X], -MeBA [V].
Syr. il^9 in i Mace. 59; AiaOhma TO <})pOYPiON,
Jos. Ant.\\\. 81), one of the strong places in (jilead to
which the Jews had I)etaken themselves when threatened
by Timotheus and his host. It was relieved, with great
slaughter of the enemy, by Judas the Maccal)ce (i Mace.
69/: 24/: 29/:).
6. Redaction.
DAUGHTER
Dathema has not been identified ; from the description it must
have lain between Bosora and Maspha (Mizpeh). The Syr. read-
ing may be only a mistake for Danitha (Ew. Hist. 5 314) ; but
within the distance from Bosra of a night's march (cp Jos. Ant.
xii. 8 3) lies the modern Kemtluh, a considerable village and
station on the Hajj road (Doughty, Ar. Ves, 1 7).
DAUGHTER. The word 'daughter ' (DS, eyr^THp)
in EV often has Hebraistic senses, the chief of which
are here mentioned.
1. Native Cana.-inite or Philistine women are ' daughters ' of
Canaan (den. 30 2) or of Philistia (2 S. 1 20).
2. ' Daughter ' is a synonyTO for ' girl ' or ' woman ' (Gen. 30 13
Judg. 129 [30 'daughters'] Cant. 22 69); in addressing a person
(Ruth 28 Ps. 4.5 1 1 Mt. 922).
3. The population of a place, or the place and its population,
may be called collectively a 'daughter.' A typical phrase is
J'vs; na (Is. 1 8 10 32, etc.): lit. 'daughter of Zion,' but, since the
genitive is appositional, more correctly rendered ' people of Zion '
(so sometimes in SHOT)- So, too, 'daughter of Babylon ' (Ps.
1378), 'daughter of Egypt ' (Jer. 46 11 1924); also ' daughter of
my people' — i.e., my country-people Js. 224 Jer. 4ii). A
phrase which is generally synonymous is 'sons' {i.e., inhabitants)
of Zion, Babylon, etc. See /CDMC, 40 i6g; Kdmg, Sjmiax,
§ 255 e.
4. Dependent towns may be called 'daughters.' Thus the
'daughters of Judah' in Ps. 4811(12] are the cities of Judah
(cp Genkai.ogies, i. § i). Cp the use of 'mother' for a
provincial capital in 2 S. 20 19. .See Town, Village.
5. 'Daughter,' like 'son,' in combination with a noun, may
also express some speciality of character or capacity. Examples
of this are few in number. A 'daughter of Belial' is certainly
a 'grossly wicked person' (i S. 1 16). 'Daughter of troops'
(inrna ; Mic. 5 1 [4 14]) is explained ' those who subject to
attack ' ; but the text is doubtful. ' Daughters of music ' (ri1J3
TB'n, 'daughters of song') in Eccles. 12 4 might be singing
women ; but others think that the sounds of music are thus
figuratively described.
DAVID (-in^, nni ; A&y[6]iA [BAL]1). The name
may be explained ( i ) as meaning 'beloved, a friend,
Na.mes, §§ 5, 56 ; or (2) as meaning ' paternal uncle,' if
we pronounce HTH (i.e. , Dod), for which Gray (//PN 83)
offers Semitic analogies, though the explanation is cer-
tainly ' at tirst sight unlikely' ; or (3), best of all, as an
abbreviation of Dodicl, which was perhaps the name of
one of David's sons {see Daniel i. 4), or of Dodijah
= DoDAi [t/.v.). See also Dodo.
The chronology of the life of David is most un-
certain. We have elsewhere (see CHRONOLOGY, §§
29, 37) assumed 930 B.C. as the first year of the reign
of Rehoboam. To accept the round number of forty
years assigned to the reign of Solomon in i K. 11 42
and to that of David in 2 S. 64 and in i K. 2 11 as
strictly historical, would be uncritical. The chrono-
logical statements referred to are, at most, editorial
guesses which may, as good critics think, be not very
far from the mark.^ The early history also of David
is in many respects uncertain. It intertwines to a
great e.xtent with the still obscurer record of his pre-
decessor (see S.VUl) ; and keen criticism is necessary to
arrive at the kernel of fact which there undoubtedly is
in the legends that have come down to us. Winckler
indeed denies that there is such a kernel of facts in tlie
romantic story of David's early vicissitudes. Such ex-
aggerated distrust, however, ajspears to arise from a pre-
conceived theory respecting David, and most critics hold
strongly to the view that the imaginative element in the
story of David is but the vesture which half conceals,
half discloses, certain facts treasured in popular tradition.
If it should appear that this imaginative element contains
some details which we have allowed a warm place in our
regard and it would pain us to miss from the history of
Israel, we must comfort ourselves with the thought (i)
that what remains unshaken becomes more precious than
ever, and (2) that even pure legends are of great his-
torical value for the characterisation of the age which
produced them.
(a) First appearance. — The only ancestor of David
1 The MSS generally have idj. Lag. gives AafiiS in a few
places.
2 See Kamphausen, Die Chronol. der hebr. Kdnigre, \(>/. ; cp
(for David) St. GVI 1 264 297. Wi. (C7/ 1 174) questions this.
1019
DAVID
known to early traditions was his father Jesse,* who was
_. . , believed to have been a citizen of
^- ir°"!^°„ Bethlehem. •■^ David was the youngest
earner aays. ^^ ^^^ ^^^^.3 ^^^^ ^^^ ^^ 171314 [B
omits] ; cp 16 5-9), and was sent to keep his father's sheep
in the steppes of Judah. Such at least is the statement
of one of our traditions, which, at any rate, has the merit
of accounting for the agility, endurance, and courage, so
constantly ascribed to David (cp 1 S. 17 34 242 2S. 17 9).
There, too, David is supposed to have acquired that skill
in music (cp Gen. 420/. ) which led to his first introduction
to Saul, after which he became the king's armour-bearer
and slew Goliath. This, however, is not in accordance
with the older and more trustworthy account, which
simply tells us that David was a valiant Israelitish
warrior who happened to be also clever with his tongue
and with his lyre, and who was sent for from Bethlehem
(a feature borrowed, perhaps, from the other tradition)
to charm away Saul's melancholy. Nor is the statement
that the shepherd-lad slew Goliath the Philistine con-
sistent with the plain and thoroughly credible, because
unlegendary, tradition given elsewhere, that the slayer
of Goliath was Elhanan, and the period of his exploit
not in Saul's but in David's reign'* (see Elhanan,
Goliath). We must, therefore, if the superior antic|uity
and probability of a narrative are to count as recom-
mendations, give up the more romantic of the two sets
of statements respecting David's introduction to Saul
and his early prowess. That he became Saul's armour-
bearer and musician need not be disputed.
[b) Break with Saul. — .-Vnother point in which the
ordinary view of the life of David needs rectification is
the occasion which gave birth to Saul's jealousy of
David. The MT of i S. 186 states that 'when David
returned from the slaughter of the Philistines,' the women
came out of the cities of Israel, singing, ' Saul hath slain
1 This is intelligible enough in the light of David's words in
I S. 18 18 (not in ©b). That a later age claimed descent for the
most popular of the kings from the ancient princes of Judah
(Ruth 4 18^) is also intelligible (see Ruth, Book of); David
was not to be of less distinguished origin than .Saul (i S. 9i).
Cp the case of Sargon. It was only in the time of PLsar-haddon
that a genealogy was produced giving the Sargonic dynasty
(which had simply usurped the throne) the necessary line of
ancestors. See the inscriptions quoted by Wi. (Hebraica, 4
52/)-
2 The connection with Bethlehem has been rendered doubtful
by Marq. {Fund. 23^^), who thinks that the belief in it arose
from a false reading in i S 20 28, where, for ' asked leave of me
unto Bethlehem' (cp (B»al) he reads (with Klo.) 'asked leave
of me until the meal-time ' {'eth lelteiii for heth leheni) — a sound
emendation. From the fact that David's sister Abigail (i) {q.y.)
married a man of Jezreel (near Carmel in Judah, the nativ«
place of David's favourite wife Abigail), and that David himself
took his first wife from that place (see .■\hino.'\.m), Marquart
suspects that the hero's real home was farther south than
Bethlehem, perhaps at Arad. This view he .supports by a
plausible but unprovable conjecture, viz., that Shammah the
Aradite (so he reads in 28.2825; see Harodite) — i.e., the
man of Arad — is Shammah, David's brother, and that Ahi.nm b.
Shobab the Aradite (2 S. 23 33 ; .see Hararite) was also a
relation of David. Both these persons were enrolled among
David's 'thirty.' The name of the home of David may con-
ceivably have been forgotten, and (quite apart from i S. 2628) a
tradition such as that in 2 S. 23 14-17 may have suggested to
narrators the choice of Bethlehem for his birthplace. This is
probable. Cp Winckler, Gesch. 1 24.
3 A later tradition incre.ased the number to .seven (i Ch. 2 13
15) or rather eight (i S. 16 loyC 17 12 [B om.]). The names of
three out of the .seven in i Ch. I.e. (viz., Nethanel, 2 ; Ozem,
I ; and R.^DDAI) appear to be fictitious; cp Gray, HPN 233,
Marq. Fund. 25.
•» The duplicate narratives of Saul's first meeting with David
and of the slaj'ing of Goliath respectively are : —
(a) I S. 16 14-23 17 1-I84 (p.irt), and
{b) I S. 17 i-lS 4 (part), 2 S. 21 19.
On these passages what is most necessary has been stated by
Dr. Introd. 169 ; cp also the writers referred to in Goliath.
WRS {OT/Ci'f) 433) finds .some of the arguments for the existence
of two opposite traditions as to David's introduction to .S.iul
inconclusive. But there seems no strong objection to regarding
the words Jt»s3 ICK ' *ho is with the sheep ' in i S. 16 19 as a
harmonistic interpolation (see St. CK/ 1 224 n. 2 ; Bu. Ri. Sa.
2n), and it seems unnatural to take the words of Saul's servant in
I S. 16 18 proleptically. The_ true continuation of i S. 16 23 is
not 17 I, but a lost description of David's early exploits (see
above), which was followed by 18 6 (in a shorter form)— 8(i.
DAVID
his thousands and David his ten thousands,' from which
(see vM) Saul inferred tliat the ambition of his spoiled
favourite would not rest satisfied without the crown
itself. It is certain, however, that MT does not give the
original form of this passage. Whether the Hebrew text
underlying the LXX contained the words 'when David
returned,' etc. , and the clause at the end of v. 8, is a point
on which critics difter. Kven if, ;is Bmide supposes, the
LXX translator, to produce a simpler narrative, omitted
these clauses, it is not denied by that critic that the former
clause is an editorial insertion ; * it was not, therefore,
the shiughter of Goliath by the shepherd lad that
(accoriling to the tradition) made Saul suspect that
David nourished hopes of Ijecoming king.
This, however, is merely a negative statement. What
was it, we may a.sk. that, according to the lx.'st analysis of
chap. 17, aroused the jealousy of Saul ? To the present
writer, as well as to Stade and Wellhausen, i S. 186
(with the omission of the reference to Goliath) seems to
presuppose some account of Davids early exploits as a
warrior which stoo<l in no connection with the story of
Goliath, and indeed was removed by the editor to make
room for it. It was these early exploits of a trained
warrior that excited the jealousy of Saul, but (since v.
8*-ii, which 0" omits, are derived, like i-v. 17-19, which
also 0" omits, from another source) did not suggest the
thought of David's wish for the crown. This is no
doubt psychologically intelligible. Saul could not bear
the sight of his too popular armour-bearer, and so he
transferred him to a post which would remove him
from his own immediate presence. The tradition adds
that this served to promote David's interests. Kven
Michal, Saul's daughter (see MiciiAL, Ec;l.\h, Ith-
KK.am), fell under his fascination, and her jealous father
resolved to put the young captain on a perilous enter-
prise, promising him his daughter's hand in return for
the customary proofs of victory, but secretly hoping that
he would never return. David went forth, slew a
hundred Philistines, and won his wife;'^ but the anxiety
of Saul went on increasing after such a manifest proof
of the divine protection of David.
This is certainly an improvement upon the ordinary
view which treats chap. 18 as a homogeneous narrative ;
but who can assert that this view of the facts produces
the impression of being perfectly historical? It will be
noticed that we have laid no stress on the song of the
women (IS 7). The fragment is indeed clearly ancient ;
but it seems best understood as coming from a time when
David was already king. This, however, is not the most
important |X)int. We need a narrative of still greater
simplicity and verisimilitude. It is, as Stade remarks, ■*
more credible that Saul gave his daughter in mar-
riage to David of his own accord, in order to bind
the young hero to the family of his benefactor, and
that Saul's jealousy broke out after, not before the
marriage. Besides, it would be inconsistent in Saul,
first, to send David away as a captain of a thousand
(18 13), and then to bring him back to the court as the
king's son-in-law. I-"or this po. ition had attached to it
the captaincy of the body-guard (see 1 S. 22i4, (S"-^'-),
which gave its holder a rank next to Abner the general
(i 8.20 25), so that Saul would Ix; continually liable to
fresh irritation from the sight of David. We cannot,
however, positively assert that Stade's correction of the
tradition brings us face to face with facts, and nmst be
content to believe that the early story of David's life is
not altogether a popular fiction, without insisting too
1 See Budde's interesting analysis, as embodied in SBOT,
Heb. edition. This critic seems to hold that the Coliath-story
wa.s originally closed by a description of the festal rejoicing
which greeted the returning warriors and especially David, and
that the same document then went on to relate the terror with
which David's .success inspired Saul, the king's removal of David
to a high military post, and the episode of Merab. For Stade's
view, sec Sam lei., ii.
3 On the coarse but not in itself incredible requirement of Saul
(i S. IS 25 27 2 S. 3 14), see Makkiace, and cp St. Gesch. 1 232.
a (;/-/ 1 233; cpWe. C^25i.
DAVID
much on the most romantic and interesting, and therefore
least certain, parts of it. One of these least certain parts
is the account of David's early relations with MiCHAL
^q.v.).
(c) Various late narratives. — On the epi.sode of Saul'.s broken
promise of Merab as a wife for David (i .S. 18 17-19) it is un-
neccs-sary todwell. The story, as all agree, interrupts the origiruki
context of chap. 18. to which the insertion has been clumsily
fitted by an interpolation in v. i\b. We have here, therefore, a
notice drawn from a distinct source. The language of tt'. 17
and 19 seems to nresuppose the story of David and (ioliath (17
25 speaks of the king's promise of his daughter, and the whole
narrative imolic-s that David is as yet a mere lad, too young in
fact to marry). It mi^ht of course be historical in spite of its close
connection with that highly imaginative story. Smce, however,
Michal, not Merab (iB' , however, has M<po0), appears in 2 S.
'Jl 8 as the mother of Adriel's children, it is more tlian probable
that the whole episode of Merajj rests on a confusion of names.'
In short, we has'e two variants of the same tradition, and the
form given in IS 20^ is the more likely to be historical.
Nor need we pause long on some other late narratives, (i.)
The account of Samuel's solemn consecration of David as king in
1 S. 10 1-13 has evidently not a historical but a religious motive.
To devout readers the ' man according to God's mind ' would
liave .seemed to be disparaged if he had not, equally with his
£redeces,sor, been anointed by Samuel, (ii.) The episode of
>avid's visit to the prophetic community at Kamah (11» 18-24) 's
an attempt, in the style of the midrash, to explain the proverb,
' Is Saul also among the prophets?' On this, as well as on (i.), see
Sami'KL, ii. 8 5. (lii.) The pretended madness of I )avid at Galh
(21 H-16; seeAcHisn). To these we should, not inconceivably,
add (iv.) a part of the story of David and Bathsheba (see BArii-
sheua).
Let us now resume the thread of the narrative.
David was at first known to the servants of Saul as a
2 At the court ^'^^^'^ warrior and a skilled musician,
, ~ , and also as clever of speech and comely
ni person. W hatever he did seemed
to prosper, for he had not only unusual abilities, but also
a power of fascination which seemed a special sign of
the divine favour (cp Ps. 452). His prowess in the war
against the Philistines marked him out as one worthy to
be the king's friend. He was, in fact, rewarded, first
of all w ith the position of a royal armour-ljearer, and
then with the hand of Saul's daughter, Michal. Lor a
time all went well. In the intervals of military service
he played on his harp, and by his skill in music chased
away the ' evil spirit ' of melancholy, which already
threatened to mar the king's career. Saul's gratitude,
however, was not proof against the severe trial to which
it was ex[X)sed by David's growing popularity, and,
it would seem, by his close intimacy with Jonathan.
The heir to the throne had, like Michal, passed under
the spell of David, and become his devoted friend,
probably his sworn brother,'- and the disturbed mind of
the king conceived the idea that Jonathan had stirred
up David to Ix; his father's enemy, in the expectation
(we must supjjose) of succeeding him as king (228).
Saul brofxled over this idea, and even reasoned with his
son on the folly of supposing that his crown, if he came
by these unholy means to wear it before the time, would
be secure from such a powerful and ambitious subject as
David (2O31). Hence, tradition reports, Saul "spoke
to Jonathan his son, and to all his servants, that they
should slay David' (19i), and even sought, in a fit of
frenzy, to pierce David with his javelin (18 10/ [<5" omits]
199). Whether it was due to Jonathan's influence that
the final breach between Saul and David was averted,
we cannot tell ; the story in 19 1-7 seems really another
version of that in chap. 20. It is ec|ually uncertain
whether the story in 19 11-17 has any claim to represent
the closing scene in David's life at Gibeah. There are
difficulties in regarding it as the true sequel to 198-io.
It may possibly come from another source,^ and refer
1 This is the view expres.sed in /:/.'(!>>, art. 'David.' WRS
there emphasises the fact that the episode of Merab (including
V. -ill'), like the .section of chap. 17 to which it specially refers, is
wanting in iP", the te.\t represented by whicn he regards a.s
suuerior to that of .MT in chaps. \~ /. (cp OTJC^) 431 /.).
* See WRS Kel. Sem.<-\ 335 ; Covenant, f 4 ; and cp also,
with caution, Trumbull, Blood-cmienant ('85).
s Verse 10 should end at 'escaped,' and f . 11 .should begin,
'And it came to pass that night that Saul sent' (so ®ua, but
not L).
DAVID
to a slightly later period in David's life. The daring
spirit of that hero might prompt him to visit his wife,
even after his first flight,' or at least the first reciters of
the tale may have meant it to \x so understood. There
remains the story in chap. 20, which (putting aside the
opening words as a misleading editorial insertion, and
ft'. 4-17 as an expansion, due to an early editor "•^ who
loved the theme of Jonathan's friendship for David)
evidently gives a traditional account of the rupture
Ixitween Saul and David. Whether it is historical,
however, is quite uncertain. There were, of course,
gaps in the tradition, especially as regards the earlier
period of Davids life. Two great facts were certain,
viz., the transformation of Saul's original kindness
towards David into its ojiposite, and the firm friendship
between David and Jonathan. Out of these facts the
reciters of legends, aided by a traditional accjuaintance
with the general circumstances of the time, had to
produce the liest detailed account of David's flight from
Saul that the)' could.
As was natural, David turned his steps southward.
In the hill-country of Judah he would fuul hiding-places
TV ht '^"o^gh. and if the arm of Saul threatened
° ■ to reach him even there, he could easily
seek the hospitality of some one of the neightxjuring
peoples. This, it is true, would be most displeasing to
a worshipper of Yahwe (see 2619) ; but it must have
already occurred to David as a possibility, for he soon
afterwards placed his father and mother under the
protection of the king of Moab (223 / I see Moab).
At present, his first impulse was to fly with his men
to the sanctuary at Nob, or perhaps rather (Jibeon
(see Nob), where he had already, it would seem, had
occasion to consult the priestly oracle (22 15). On his
arrival, so the tradition declares, he obtained bread, by
a plausible but fictitious story, from the consecrated
table, and, as a pledge of victory in the king's ' business,"
the mighty sword of Goliath (see Goliath, § 3). We
can hardly venture to accept this account as correct ; •*
it is most probably a later writer's attempt to fill up a
gap in the old tradition. Whatever took place, it is
certain that David very soon hastened on to the forti-
fied hill-town of AduUam. Here he was still in his native
land, though probably not among Israelites (see Aull-
LA.m) ; he could worship his own god, and might hope
to be safe from his pursuers. In the fort (not the cave)
of AduUam he was joined by his family, and by a small
band of fellow-outlaws (about 400 in number). Mean-
time Doeg, the Edomite, who had seen David conversing
with the priest Ahimelech at Nob (or Gibeon), had re-
ported the circumstance with details, which may or may
not have lieen his own invention,'* to Saul, and the king in-
ferred from the report that .Vhimelech had used the sacred
oracle in support of treasonable designs of David. It is
only ills rooted belief in David's treason that e.\c uses the
fierceness with which Saul destroyed, not only the eighty-
five priests,'' but also the entire population of the city
of Nob or rather Gibeon (22 18/ ) ; see Gibkon. Doeg,
Ariathar, Ban. He also indicated the expulsion of
David from the royal family by giving Michal, David's
wife, to a new husband (see MiCHAL).
David now became a captain of freebooters, levying
1 The danger of such an enterprise was dimini.shed by the
reluctance 10 violate the apartment.s of women and to attack a
sleeping foe, which appears also in Judg. 1()2, and among the
Arabs. Wellhausen cites a closely parallel case from Sprenger's
Leben Aluhammad, 2 543.
2 See the text as exhibited by Budde in SHOT.
3 It is incredible that David should have passed by the sanctu-
ary without 'inquiring; of Yahwe,' nor does the reference to the
' sword of Goliath ' incline us much to accept the rest of the
story. That the words assigned to Saul in 2'2 8 rightly express
the kind's belief is, however, more than probable.
* It is certainly not impossible that David did take the
opportunity of consulting tlie sacred oracle. The reference to
the sword of (loliath in '11 icJ> is interpolated (see Budde).
8 So MT Pesli. and Vg.; ®ha^ by a manifest error, 305.
Jos., combining the two readings, 385 {Ant.\\.\'lt). ®>- has
350.
1023
DAVID
blackmail on those who could pay it, in return for pro-
4 An outlaw ^*-''^^'"" against Amalekites, Philistines,
or other enemies. We have an attrac-
tive and sympathetic sketch of his conduct, and of the
generous spirit which softened the harsher details, in chap.
25. Hesides the means of subsistence, David looked,
of course, for timely warning of the approach of his
bitter enemies. In this way he held his ground man-
fully (with the support of the priest Abiathar) against
almost overwhelming odds, trusting that he was being
preserved for high ends. He must have felt that none
but he could provide Israel with the leader that it
needed, though to work directly towards the attain-
ment of the crown would have been contrary to his
loyal nature. One point in his favour there was, the
value of which can hardly be overrated — viz. , the peculiar
conformation of the hill-country of Judah. It is necessary
for the untravelled student to form by books and photo-
graphs some idea of those ' tossed and broken hills
where the valleys are all alike, and large bodies of men
may camp near each other without knowing it. ' Major
Conder goes even further, and claims that through
recent identifications the narrative a.ssumes a consistency
which traditional sites have destroyed. ' From Gibeah
j (Jeba near Mukhmas) David flies southward to Nob,
I thence down the great valley to Gath (Tell es-.Safieh),
1 from Gath he^returns into the land of Judah, then
[ bounded by the .Shephelah, most of which seems to
have been in the hands of the Philistines ; and on the
I edge of the country between Achish and Saul, I'hilistia
I and Juflah, he collects his band into the strongest site
to Ix! found in the neighbourhood of the rich cornlands
' of Judah. At the advice of the seer he retires to the
' hills, and if my identification of Hareth be correct, it is
but a march of 4 m. distance. Here, as at Adullam,
he was also within easy reach of his family at Bethlehem.
At Haras he hears that the Philistines, whose advance
he probably barred when holding Adullam, had invaded
Kfi'ilah immediately beneath him, and it is this propin-
quity alone which accounts for his attack upon the
marauders. ' ' There can be no doubt that exact
identifications of the sites referred to would give the
narrative of Davids outlaw-period a greater approxima-
tion to consistency. But this able explorer's identifica-
tions are too often (like that of Gath above) unproven,
and he has, on principle, omitted to take account of the
composite character of the biblical narrative. "-
We left David at Adullam ; we ne.xt find him Ijefore
another fortified town ( i S. 281-13), called Keii,.\h (i/.t'.),
of which .Ahithophel was perhaps a native (see GiLOll).
His hope was to secure the gratitude of the inhabitants
by chastising the Philistines who were besieging it.
Supported by an oracle, he attacked and defeated those
most dangerous of foes. He was disturbed, however, by
another oracle, warning him that the men of KC'ilah
would surrender their benefactor to Saul. The king
was, in fact, on his way with his whole fighting force,
and David would sooner trust himself to the intricacies
of the wilderness than to the ' bolts and bars ' of
Ke'ilah. Whether David really went from the ' forest
of Hareth ' to Ke'ilah, is highly uncertain. The
anecdote in 23i-i3 is not necessarily the sequel of
the connected narrative in 21 1-9 22. Nor can we
assume (with Conder) that the generous action related
in chap. 24 took place immediately before the events
described in chap. 25 ; for, as critics agree, the narrative
is but a duplicate of the traditional story given in a
better form in chap. 26.^ If we ask how much of the
1 PEFQ^, '75, p. 149.
2 See Conder, ' The
PKFQ, '75, pp. 41-48
That the story i
Scenery of David's Outlaw Life,'
chap. 2rt is more original than that in
The conversation which it gives is full of
chap. 24 is obv
antique and characteristic ideas, wanting in chap. 24. That
David is recognised by his voice is meaningjcss in 24 16 (cp.
-'. 8), but appropriate in 26 17. See Bu. I\i. Sa. 2277^ ; and cp
Che. Aids, 58-62.
1024
DAVID
details of these hairbreadth escapes is historical, the
reply must be equally disappointing to literalists. The
central facts of the stories are all that we can safely
rely upon. Such a detail, for instance, as the njccting
of l)avid and Jonathan in the wilderness of Ziph ('23i6-i8)
is obviously an inntK-ent piece of romance ; in fact it is
but another version of tlie favourite story of the ' covenant '
lx>tween the friends. Nor can we venture to assume
that, if David once, in accordance with a chivalrous
rule still common in Arabia, spared the life of his sleeping
foe, either he or Saul displayed that delicacy of senti-
ment which a later age attributed to them.
Strangely enough, the two accounts of David's
generosity towards Saul are the setting of a perhaps
more completely historical story — that of David and
Nalxil (chap. 25). The portrait of David here given is
less idealistic, but seems nuich more truthful than that
in chaps. 24 and 26. Not less interesting is the sketch
of Abigail. To her it was that David owed his avoid-
ance of blood-guiltiness. To her, too, he was indebted
for the improvement which took place in his social
status. As the husband of Abigail, he was no longer
a mere freelx>oter, but the wealthy head of a powerful
Calebite family, and so took one step forward towards
his ultimate enlhronenjent at Hebron as king of Judah. *
How long David remaineci in the Calebite district of
Carmel, we do not know. He is next introduced as
despairing of l)eing able to hold out any
6. With the
Philistines.
longer against his foe ; ' there is nothing
better for me,' he said, 'than speedily to
escape into the land of the Philistines' (27 i). So he
placed himself and his 6oo at the dispos.al of Achish,
king of Gath. Ill at ease, however, among the Philis-
tine chieftains, he induced his new suzerain to give him
as a residence the outlying town of Ziklag. Here he
still maintained amicable relations with his friends in
Judah, and though he craftily professed to be engaged in
raids against the Negeb of Judah, he was in reality more
honour.ably employed (see AcHiSH, Am.\lek, § 3).
At length, in the second year, a change in his relation
to Achish became inmiinent. The Philistine lords, who
had probably long been suspicious of his intentions,
refused to let David join them in their campaign
against Saul. David on his side professed eixgerness
to fight for Achish ; but we are not bound to take his
words too literally. Historians, it is true, differ in their
view of David's conduct. It seems psychologically prob-
able, however, that David was only too glad to be sent
back by Achish to Ziklag, with a charge not to cherish
revengeful thoughts against his friendly suzerain (i S.
29 10, 0). A picture, Homeric in its vividness, is given
of the effect produced on David and his men by the
sight that met them at Ziklag, which the cruel Amalek-
ites had plundered (30 3-6). An oracle encouraged
David to pursue his foes. He came up with them, and
chastised them severely. The account closes with a list
of the towns in Judah, to which David sent politic gifts.
His ambitious plans were no doubt maturing.
Meantime Saul had fallen on Gillxia and Israel was
in a state of chaos. The Philistines were masters of the
fi At Hebron '^''*''^ lowlands of Jczreel and the
Jordan, but disdained to interfere with
the poorer country of Judah. There were some even
in northern Isr.ael who thought that David and David
alone could help them, and among these were probably
the men of Jal)esh-gilead, to whom he sent graciously
expressed thanks for their chivalrous rescue of the
bodies of Saul and his sons (2 S. 25-7 cp 817). David,
1 Wi. (GT, 1 25) sees underlying the Nab.il-story a tradition
that David was ' prince of Caleb ' (a tril>e or district), and,
following C. Niebiihr, he even finds this tiile in 28.88, where,
according to EV, Abner says, ' .\m I a dog's head?" but where
Wi. renders, '.\m 1 the prince of Caleb?" (3S|). Marquart's
theory (see above, § i, note 2), that DaWd was really a man of
S. Judah, might be used to corroborate Wi.'s opinion. In any
case, the facts on which Marquart's theory is based illustrate
this period. See Dog, i 3 (5).
33 loas
DAVID
however, was content to let Abner have his way, and
attempt to consolidate the weakened regal authority in
the North, nominally for Sauls incompetent son, Ish-
baal. For the present, David transferretl his residence,
in oljedience to an oracle, to Hebron, placing his men
in the neighlxmring towns or villages. The ciders of
Judah took the hint, and solemnly acknowledged him
as their king.
It was not a grand position. As king of Judah, David
w.as no less a vassal of the Philistines than when he was
only lord of Ziklag ; ' indeed, he still retained Ziklag.
This only shows his caution, however, not his want of
patriotism. ICven Abner could not venture to let the
puppet king Ishlxial revolt front the Philistines ; '■* rest
was the first need both of Israel and of Judah. We
cannot, however, suppose that David and his band were
idle. It is, on the whole, probable that the conquest of
the Jebusite fortress of Zion t^longs to the period of
David's tribal kingship,* and not (as is generally sup-
posed) to the commencement of his enlarged sovereignty.
When the Philistines made that bold attempt to seize
David which is related in 2S. 5i7, David, we hear,
took refuge in 'the stronghold." It is diflicult to sup-
pose that a different ' stronghold ' is meant from that
mentioned in w.t^ (which there is reason to assign to
the same document). The Philistines themselves are
uncertain where they will find David ; clearly then
David had more than one place of residence. We are
also told that they ' came up' to seek D.avid. and spread
themselves out in the valley of Rephaim near Jerusalem.
It is true that where the narrative 2 S. 56-9 is placed, it
seems to have reference to the beginning of David's
kingship over Israel. Probably, however, something
has fallen out lx;fore v. 6. The lost p:issage presumably
referred to David's removal of his residence to Jeru-
salem ; the narrative which has been preserved explains
how the king and ' his men ' possessed themselves of
the all but impregnable fortress.
By this important conquest David secured his position
from all possible enemies, whether Philistine or Israelite.
He also doubtless hoped to make Zion what it ulti-
mately Ijecame — the capital of united Israel. We may
assume that this caused uneasiness to Abner, who
doubtless had dreams of a reunited Israel under the
sceptre of a descendant or kinsman of Saul. These
dreams must have been rudely interrupted by the news
of David's success. Abner well understood what the
conquest of Zion portended, .and it was natural that he
should seek to counteract David's ambition. He had
no occasion to form an elatorate plan of operations ;
he had but to allow the unsleeping jealousy of Israel
and Judah to display itself. There would l)e constant
border hostilities, and Judah, as the weaker of the two,
would (he must have hoped) lie reduced to vassalage to
Israel, and in tinte perhaps incorporated into the king-
dom. A ' very sore battle ' is reported between the
men of Ishbaal and those of David by the pool of
Gibeon. It liegan with a mere sham fight ; but such a
contest could not be expected to end without bloodshed,
and Abner must have foreseen this when he and the
men of Ishbaal set out from Mahanaim (2 S. 212-17).
The result was disastrous for the cause of Ishbaal, and
year after year the war was renewed with constant loss
of prestige to the house of Saul. Fierce private passions,
too, added to the horrors of the time (see Abnkr ; ISH-
BAAI., i; JoAB, i). At length, Ishliaal lx:ing removed,
David stood alone, sad but confident, for who else
could be thought of in this hour of need ? Had he not
in the olden time been Isr.ael's leader against the
Philistines, and was he not by marriage a member of
1 This view is accepted by St., E. Mey., We., Kiunph.,
Khtel.
a See Kamph ZATW i^■^■^^ ("861; Ki. Hist. ii. The
older view (see .St.) was that Abner upheld the banner of Israel
against the Philistines ; but Kamph. shows at great length that
the evidence will not justify this.
3 See Klo. Sam. u. Kin. \^tff. \ Gesch. 159.
1096
DAVID
Saul's house (2 S. 62 813-16)? So the elders of Israel
accepted the inevitable, and anointed the son of Jesse
king over Israel.
David was now, according to a not very early tradi-
tion,* in his thirty-eighth year ; seven and a half years
^. had elapsed since he first became king
7. Bang over ^^ Hebron. His training had been
Israel
the Philistines.
long and varied, and he might now
fairly hope to finish the work which
Saul had begun, and remove for ever the danger of
Philistine invasions. The Philistines knew what they
had to expect from the new king of ' all Israel and
Judah,' and lost not a moment in ' seeking him.' They
felt towards him as the Syrian king felt towards Ahab :
if he were only slain or captured, the fate of Israel was
settled. They knew, too, the rapidity of his move-
ments, and sought to capture him before he could
retire into his newly-won stronghold of Zion. They
were too late for this, and challenged him to battle in
the valley of Rephaim westward from Jerusalem (2S.
518-25; cp Baai.-i'EKAZIm). Two great victories are
said to have been won on this occasion by David. We
have also a record of individual exploits and of personal
dangers run by David in 2 S. 21 15-22 238-i7 (see IsHBi-
BKNOB, etc.), which must, it would seem, have stood
originally close to 56-i2 17-25. It is singular that this
should be almost all that is told us respecting what, if
entirely David's work, would be the greatest of all his
achievements. One more notice indeed has come down
to us (2S. 81) ; but it is tantalisingly short. It states
that • David smote the Philistines and subdued them,
and took ' something of importance ' out of the hand of
the Philistines.' The Chronicler thinks that what David
'took' was ' Gath and its towns' (i Ch. 18 1), and this
is certainly plausible, for deeds of high renown were
performed near Gath (see Elhanan, 1), and afterwards
we find 600 men of Gath in David's service (2 S. 15 18 ;
see l>elow, § 11). It is more probable, however, that
Ashdod was the city spoken of in the true text (see
Mktheg-Ammah). Still it is doubtful whether such a
total defeat of the Philistines as the passage just quoted
ascribes to David, is historical. That the Israelites
were delivered from the dread of these foes is indisput-
able ; but that David broke the power of the Philistines
is not probable. It is a reasonable conjecture that the
deliverance of the Israelites was helped either by an
Egyptian, or by a Musrite (N. Arabian) intervention. '-
Moreover, the friendly terms on which David appears
to have stood with the Philistines at a later time suggest
that he had made a treaty of peace with this people on
conditions equally honourable to both sides, one of
which, as we have elsewhere seen reason to think, was
the restoration of the ark (see Ark, § 5).
However this may be, David was certainly not de-
ficient in the qualities of a general. This is plain from
_ _., his wise measures on the retellion of
8. Uiner wars, ^i^g^j^^^ ^f ^.^jch we have very full
particulars. His other wars, with neighbours only less
dangerous than the Philistines, may be conveniently
referred to here. We have a summary of them in the
same section that refers to the suVxluing of the Philis-
tines ( 2 S. 81-14, cp I S. 1447, and see Saul, i § 3),
and further information respecting the Ammonite war
in 2 S. 10 11 1 1226-31. It is important, however, to
study these notices critically, both from a purely literary,
and from a historical, point of view. The two points of
view, it is true, cannot be kept very long apart. A pre-
liminary literary analysis, however, will quickly show us
that in 2. S. 81-14 we are dealing, not with an original
1 See 2 S. 64 (the work of a Deuteronomistic editor).
2 If an Efiyptian intervention be suppo.sed we must place it
during the twenty-first Egyptian d>;nasty. See WMM {/ts. u.
Eur. 389), who thinks that the notice in i K. 9 i6 presupposes
the Egyptian occupation of Philistia. Observe that Capntorim
is called a ' son ' of Mizraim (see Caphtor, 8 4). 'i he alterna-
tive theory, however, seems much more probable {^cc/QR 11
1'99] 559i ^"d cp Mizraim, g 2 b).
vxrj
DAVID
narrative, but with a panegyric made up from various
sources, containing strong traces of editorial work. As
to 2S. 10 the case is not at first sight so clear ; but a
further investigation reveals here, too, the hand of the
editor. The contents also must be criticised, and this
will greatly clear up the problems of literary analysis.
The historical results of the whole process are not unim-
portant. *
{a) Moab. — Little enough is told us of David's war
with the Moabites (cp Moab); but that little is suggestive.
With cold-blooded precision the conqueror destroyed
two-thirds (such is the meaning of 2 S. 82) of the entire
fighting force of Moab. The description seems to imply
that it was an act of national retaliation, and the offence
which caused this may be plausibly conjectured. The
kingdom of Ishbaal, as Kamphauscn has shown, was
by no means so powerful as the early writers supposed.
The defeat on Gilboa had brought the Israelites to the
verge of ruin, and Saul's feeble successor had to make
terms, not only with the Philistines, but also with the
Moabites and the Ammonites, to whom his capital,
Mahanaim, was only too accessible. It is probable that
both Moab and Ammon granted him peace only under
insulting conditions, and we can form some idea of the
insults that were possible in such circumstances from
I .S. 11 2 2S. 10 4. David of course had to give these
insolent neighbours a lesson.
{h) Ammon. — Passing on to the Ammonites, we
notice that, if there is a doubt as to the degree of the
severity of their punishment (2 S. I231),'- there is none as
to the gravity of their offence (2 S. 10 1-5). The account
of the details of the war requires very careful criticism.
The conduct of the host of Israel was entrusted to Joab,
and it was owing to the politic self-restraint of this
general that David in person stormed the Ammonitish
capital, and carried away the crown of the idol-god
Milcom (see .Vmmon, § 8). The difiiculty of the narra-
tive is caused by the statements which it contains re-
specting the Aramrean allies of the Ammonites and the
successes which David gained over them.^ Was the
Zobah mentioned in 2S. 106 (undoubtedly an ancient
passage) as joining with Beth-rehob to send help to the
Ammonites, a powerful kingdom N. of Damascus, to
which all Aram W. of the Euphrates was sutjject (as
stated in 2. S. 10 16), or was it a small state near the
land of Ammon, which on various grounds agrees best
with our expectations ? If the latter view be adopted,
we must regard 2.S. lOis-ig^ as a late editorial in-
sertion, akin to the much edited passage 83-8, and all
that we know respecting David's relations to the
Aramaeans is that Joab routed the forces sent by them
to help the Ammonites, so that they ' feared to help the
Ammonites any more' (2 vS. 10 13 19*). The statement
of 86, in itself so improbable, that David annexed
Damascus, is due to a misreading of a passage which
appears over again in v. 14. The editor, by mistake,
read 'Aram' instead of ' Edom," and then interpreted
' Aram ' as ' Aram-Damascus.' *
(t) Edom. — Lastly we come to the war with Edom,
which, as we are told in 2S. 814, was incorporated by
David into his kingdom. We are left entirely ignorant
as to the cause of the war,* and know next to nothing
of the details, though the conquest of such a difficult
region would have been well worth describing. A great
1 On the criticism, see Samuel, ii. SS 4, 6, and cp Bu. Ri.
Sa. 245/, 249./f. ; KIo. Sam. u. K'Sn. ; Wi. Gl 1 138^?:, 194^
For another estimate of the evidence, see Israku, § lo.
2 RV'i't,'. gives the more favourable view (on which .see Dr.
TBS 228) that David put the Ammonitish captives to forced
labour at public works.
3 .SeeWi. an I -,8-144.
•* KIo., on the other hand, wishes to correct 'Edom' in v. 14
into 'Aram.' The traditional view of 2 8.85/: has been thought
to be confirmed by i K. 1 1 24 ; but there the words ' when David
slew them 'are a gloss, not found in ®"i-, as KIo. himself candidly
points out.
8 Wi. regards the war as the resumption of hostilities between
David as ' prince of Caleb ' and his Edomite neighbours at an
earlier period (GI\ 194).
1028
DAVID
victory is ascribed to David in the Valley of Salt
(^.v. ), to the S. of the Dead Sea (aS. 813, where read
' Etlom ' for ' Aram ' with 6"*'- ; I's. 60, title). There
is also an incidental reference to the war in i K. 11 15/,
which tells us that the E<lomites contested every inch of
ground, but received no quarter from their conqueror.
This is the extent of our information.
To sum up. If it is one of David's titles to fame that
he for a time united ' all the tribes of Israel froni Dan
9 Lfttar thaorv ^° Heershclw ' (aS. 24a), it is another
■ . _ -jj ihixl. he secured the united kingdom
0 a avi 0 ^^^^ foreign atuick. From Assyria
" ■ and Egypt indeed there was then
nothing to fear ; * but the small neighbouring peoples
needed the lesson which he gave them. That his suze-
rainty or sphere of influence e.vlended to the Euphrates
is not, however, supported, in the opinion of the present
writer, by a thorough criticism of the documents. The
editor of 2S. 8, who perhaps wrote also IOis-iq^, con-
founded the two Zobahs^and made other mistakes, and
on the basis of this mis-reading of the e\ idence he and
his school erected the airy fabric of a Davidic empire
large enough to Ix; named respectfully among the
* world-powers." This theory (for such we must call it)
fell in with the later tendency to glorify David, and
with the idea of a great Messianic kingdom of which the
Davidic was a type (.\m. 9ii/, post-exilic ; see Amos,
§ 10, Chronic I. Ks, § 9). It cannot be resigned without
regret, and should archrKological discoveries disclose
some grains of fact which may have assisted the growth
of historical error, it will be a satisfaction to find that
the ancient editors were not entirely arbitrary in their
procedure. That David's power was respected as far
north as Hamath (even if the report in 28. 810 be not
altogether accurate) need not lie denied. The question
is. Can it Ixj proved that friendship had given place, on
David's side, to suzerainty ?
David's next aim was to provide a worthy centre for
the united people of Israel. In this he showed a truly
10 The new '"''*'*^'^'''y statesmanship. The kingship
capital.
of Saul was not altogether different from
the authority exercised by the greater
'judges.' It never entirely divested itself of a tribal
character, as is clear from the striking narrative, i S.
226-8. At the risk of alienating the men of Judah,
who, in fact, appear as the chief malcontents in subse-
quent civil disturbances, David transferred his royal
residence from the remote southern city, Hebron, to
Jerusalem. The new capital had not indeed all the
natural advantages which could l)e wished (see Jeku-
sai.km) ; but it had two great recommendations : (i) it
was neither Israelite nor Judahite, having lieen recently
won by David and his men, and (2) whilst easily access-
ible from the north, it lay close to David's own trilx; of
Judah. The king not only strengthened its fortifications,
but also consecrated it by solemnly transferring to it the
newly recovered national sanctuary (see Ark, § 6) from
its temporary home at Baal (see Kikjath-JKARIM) in
Judah. This must not be disparaged as merely a proof
of political wisdom. It was this, no doubt ; but it also
sprang from deep religious feeling, as the old tradition
clearly states (2S. 621; see &^^^). David felt that
the true principle of national unity and strength lay in
fidelity to Yahw6, and it is to him therefore that the
world is ultimately indebted for the streams of spiritual
life which have issued from Jerusalem. That he built a
palace for himself, but no temple for the ark, seemed a
1 It is quite needless to suppose that David made a nominal
recognition of the suzerainty of KRvpt (Wi. 6V 1 137). This is
no doubt a necessarj- corollary to W. M. Muller's theory of the
Egyptian conauest of Philistui ; but that theory is not here
accepted (see above, | 7, end).
2 The cuneiform evidence for two Zobahs will Ije found in
Del. Par. 280, .Schr. A'CF 12a. The historical fist of places
given in ASurbAninal's Annals, 7 108-114 (A"5 2 2 16/:) proves the
existence of a Subiti to the S. of Dam-iscus and near Ammon,
and .apparently distinct from that in the geogra6hical lists (on
which cp Tomkins, PEFQ, Apr. 1885, p. 113). See Zobah.
XO29
DAVID
strange inconsistency to a later age. 'Whether the
course that he took was prcscrilx:d by an oracle, it is
now impossible to siiy ; the narrative in 2 S. 7, with the
acconjpanying prophecy, is one of the late Dcuterono-
mistic insertions and cannot Ix; siifely followed.'
(a) Army. — Hoth in military and in civil affairs
David was careful to combine the necessary innovations
11 Adminia *''^ * *^'"' '"^8"'''^ ^"'' ''^'^ ^''^ habits
tration, etc.
and feelings of the people, which he
thoroughly understood. The tendency
to disintegration inherent in the old clan-organisation
(see Governmknt, § 18) he sought to counteract by
the institution of a l)odyguard. which was a natural
development out of his old Ixind of freelKJOlers. This
well-disciplined and absolutely trustworthy ' standing
army ' was sufficient to exhibit a high standard to the
old national militia, but not so large as to excite popular
suspicion. .Specially honoured were the thirty-seven
heroes of whom a list is given in 2 .S. 23 (see below, i. ).
It is uncertain whether they were called 'the thirty' or
' the knights ' ; ^ but most are in favour of the former
view. They were conspicuous for their fearless courage,
of which some anecdotes are preservc"d. Foreigners
were by no means excluded from the ranks of the
Cjibtx)rim (AV 'mighty men'). Shortly Ijefore the
rebellion of Absalom, Ittai the Gittite had entered
David's service with 600 other I'hilistines' (2 .S. 15 18),
and Uriah the Hittite was one of the trusted ' thirty.*
How well those I'hilistine mercenaries repaid David's
confidence, is proved by 2 S. 15 18 2O7 i K. 1 38. (See
Chkrethitk.s, and on later OT references to the king's
foreign guards \_e.g., Zeph. 18 Ezek. 446^]. WRS
or J a-) 262 n.)
[(i.) The list of heroes in 2 -S. 23 enumerates 'the Three'
kot' «fovi)i»: — IsHBAAL (2), Ki.KAZAR (3), and Sha.mmah (3);
then follow Abishai and Hen.-ii;rh, who occupy an intermedi.-uA'
position ; and finally, the heroes themselves, thirty-sev
in all
(see Elika, Eliphf.lkt, 2), and the numerous textual corrup-
tions preclude complete certainty as to their names and origin
(besides the special articles cp Marq. Fund. 15^.).
The heroes .seem to have been originally arranged in pairs
according to their homes; thus Maharai and Heleb from
Netophan (aSi^, 29), two from Jattir (38), one each from the
neighbouring pl.-iccs of Pirathon and (laash (30), etc. It is
noticeable that they are almost wholly of Benjamite and lud^an
origin, and this supports the conjecture that the list in the main
refers to the early part of David's life (cp, e.g., 1 S. 22 1/.),
before his supremacy was spread over the rest of Israel. Note
the mention of Asahel and Uriah, and that Benaiah is merely
the he.id of David's guard, and h.-vs not apparently reached the
position he holds in 2S. S18 (see below \c\ 2). The omission of
Joab as the holder of any official position is remarkable, and
suggests that he had not yet become 'captain of the host,'
although the references in rt'. 18 (.■\bishai, the brother of Joab ;
cp V. 24), 37 .seem to show that he was not unknown. It is
highly proD.-ible that the whole chapter owes its present form to
a comparatively l.-\te editor (cp Kue. F.inl. i. 2, $ 22, n. 13).
(ii.) In I Ch. 11 the s.-ime list is substantially repeated — in a
few cases with better readings, — and a few names recur in i Ch.
2"i-i4 (see below, \c\ i.). Verses 41/^-47 .idd sixteen other
heroes, who, to judge from the gentilicia (often doubtful, see
Mahavite, Mesobaite, Mith.s'ITe) were partly of east-
Jord.inic origin. The authenticity of these names is a difficult
question. They may have proceeded from a source common to
both compilers (see Kue. Eint. 1 2, § 30, n. 11); but the
mention of Reubenites, and the preponderating proportion of
theophorous names as well as the relative lateness of such names
as Jaasiel, Jeiel, Joshaviah in this chapter, render their genuin««
ness open to question.
(iii.) Further lists of warriors are found in i Ch. 12, which
enumerates those who came to David (a) at Ziklag (1-22), and
(/3) at Hebron (23 /?;). O) The latter is purely fabulous. It
represents the warriors as assembling from all the tribes (not ex-
1 The modifications introduced into thLs narrative both by the
author of the gloss in v. 13 and by the Chronicler (1 Ch. 17) are
interesting evidence of the constant recasting of old material
carried on by the editors. See Samuel, ii. § 5, and cp We,
FroL, ET, 177).
a Wvhv and CpSb* were sometimes confounded (see i Ch.
11 II 15, 124 18, Var. Bib.). Klo. prefers B'pW (cp DL on Ex-
14 7). At any rate such a term .as ' the thirty ' would soon become
conventional (see 2 S. 2839). Cp Chahiot, { 10.
S Read 'and all the men of Ittai the Gittite, 600 men," with
Klo., Ki., Bu. It seems doubtful whether David had really had
any prolonged or bitter strife with the Philistines.
DAVID
eluding the two halves of Manasseh !), and gives a theocratic air
to the whole by the inclusion of Aaroiiiles. (a) In the first
half (1-22) we have probably a/cw traces of old material, and very
possibly a confused recollection of events in David's early life.
The lists comprise men of Saul's brethren and of lienjamin (3^),
Korahites(6) and men of ("ledor (7). In the case of the Korahites
it is possible that the Chronicler is thinking of the later priestly
class. His inclusion of such warriors among David's band is as
intelligible as his ascription to David of the division of priestly
courses and other works dealing with the priests and Levites.
On the other hand, with He., we may more probably think of the
Juda;an Korah (i Ch. 243). It was under David that the S.
Judajan populations attained power, and it is perfectly natural
to suppose that individuals from among them jomed him. This,
of course, does not mean that the names are necessarily old or
genuine. Finally, are enumerated (i) certain Gadites, ' captains
ol the host ' (xns.l "c;xn), who put to flight David's enemies on
either side of the Jordan (8-15) ; (2) Amasai ( = Am asa, g.v.\ who,
at the head of men of Benjamin and Judah, came to David in
the ' hold ■ (16-18) ; and (3) certain chiliarchs of Manasseh (lo).
Underlying the account of .Amasai, we may possibly find the
tmces of a confused and mutilated recollection of the revolt of
Absalom, wherein Amasa plays so prominent a part in bringing
Judah and the king together (2 S. 19 14). S. A. C. ]
(b) Jus/ice. — To the chief civil duty of a king — the
administration of justice — David paid the utmost atten-
tion (2 S. 815, cpl44^), for Absalom's complaint
that the king was inaccessible (2 S. 15 3) is merely
factious. He does not appear to have made any change
in the old local administration of justice ; but he intro-
duced— simply by acting as supreme judge — an element
which profoundly modified the traditional system (see
GOVEK.N.MK.NT, § I9).
(c) Officers. — In this and other departments David
was aided by his great officers of state (2 S. 816-18) ;
see Benaiah, Husiiai, Jkhoshaphat 2, Joab, and
below. It is important to notice that in all probability
he had a Babylonian scribe or secretary (see Shavsha)
— a late trace of the early preponderance of Babylonian
civihsation in Palestine.
[It will be convenient here to note briefly the lists of David's
officers, treasurers, etc.
i. I Ch. 27, a p.-issage of obviously complex character, after
reproducing (in'. 1-15) the first part of the list of David's warriors
(see above a i.) in the form of a list of twelve captains of
divisions (njJ'^nD"':'!? 1-15), enumerates twelve /r/«c^.f (C")r) of
the tribes of Israel (16-24), including Levites, Aaronites, the
twofold division of Manasseh and the post-e.\ilic priestly names
Hoshe.i, Iddo, Jeroham ('/), Zichri ; Jaasiel (7'. 21) is probably
borrowed from i Ch. 11 47. This is followed in 25-31 by a third
list of twelve — David's cn>ersci>-s or treasurers ; the names seem
to be old (Gray, IIPN 230^), and so far as this goes, the list
might be trustworthy (but cp Kue. Kinl. 1 2, §31, n. 11. Besides
Gray, HPN 229 /fl, see Chronicles, § 0, and cp We. Prol.i*)
i7i#-)-
ii. David's supreme officers of state are variously enumerated
in 2 S. 816-18 (cp2023-26 [where they are obviously out of
place], I Ch. 18 14-17) and i Ch. 2732-34 (cp Solomon's officers
I K. 4, and the list given by ©i^L at the end of i K. 2). In the
case of the list in 2 S. the genuineness of the passage has been
questioned by Bonk {ZATll-' 12143) and probably rightly.
Joab b. Zeruiah is said to be 'over the host' (x3i'n), but with
the exception of 8 10 (David's wars) he appears, on the other
hand, to be over the Cherethites and Pelethites (2S. 20 7); and
Benaiah, who in the list is credited with this office (i'. 18),
was 'head of the nyDtJ'O.' 2 S. 2823* (see Council, i. 2) and
perhaps also ' chief of the brick-kiln ' (t K. 246A ©bl ; cp [iSsn
aS. 1231). Jehoshaphat (f.7'.) b. Ahilud was recorder (cp
GovKKNMENT, $ 2i) and Shisha (see Shavsha) the secretary.
The priests were David's sons (but see Minister, Chief); but
at the head stood Zadok b. Ahitub and Abiathar b. Ahimelech.
Abiathar is a descendant of the famous Eli, Zadok is of un-
known origin, and although mentioned first (cp similarly 2 S. 15
24 ^ 36) did not obtain pre-eminence until the time of Solomon.
The Chronicler's list (2732-34) mentions a Jonathan,
the -m of David, as a counsellor, and Jehiel [g.v.], who was
' with the king's sons.' Ahithophel, ancf Hushai the ' friend ' of
David (see Hushai), are well-known characters in the revolt of
Absalom ; according to the Chronicler their places were filled
by Benaiah and Abiathar. S. A. C. ]
(d) In another respect too David followed the example
of Oriental kings : with the aid of his ally, Hiram, king
of Tyre, he built himself a palace of stone and cedar
wood which rose proudly <at)ove the low dwellings of
Jerusalem. There he combined a regal generosity with
a not less regal luxury. Mephibosheth (MERinu.VAi,)
and Chimham were among his court-pensioners (2 S.
1031
DAVID
97^ 1928 33 38) ; singing men and singing women en-
livened his repasts (2 S. 19 35)-
Another piece of genuine Oriental magnificence was
the harem (2 S. 5 13, etc.), which, though it does not
seem to have shocked the nation (2 S. I621), was
fraught with moral danger to the king, and was the
source of much of the unhappiness of his later years.
It is clear from passages like 2 S. 132i I424 15 1 14 19
6 12 14 that the moral weakness of his last days had
begun many years before, under the influences of his
harem.
[Lists of David's sons are found in (a) 2 S. S 1-5 (= i Ch. 3 1-3)
and O) 2S. 5i3-i6(^iCh. 3c-8=iCh. I43-7). It is probable
that originally these stood together, and Budde (SB07) accord-
ingly places them before 815. (a) The former list gives the
names of the six sons born at Hebron and reflects David's policy
of strengthening his power by alliances with neighbouring clans
or trilies. Besides the two wives from Jezreel (in Judah) <-ind
and Carmel (Caleb), we have one from the S. Palestinian
Geshur ly.v., 2] and, possibly, one from Gath (see Hagcith).
The two remaining names, Shephatiah (more common in later
literature) and Ithrea.m, are unknown. The death of Ammon
left Chileab (if the name be correct — see Chileab) heir to the
throne, and it is therefore the more remarkable that nothing what-
ever is told us of his fate : for an ingenious conjecture, cp Marq.
Fund. 25 /. O) The second list contains eleven names —
sons born at Jerusalem. Of these the first two, Shammua (or
Shimeah)and Shobab, may probably recur (see above § i, n. 2).
These and the two following (Nathan and Solomon) are, accord-
ing to I Ch. 35, all sons of Bathsheba. The statement in Ch.
has probably arisen from the desire to render Solomon's birth as
stainless as possible (Solomon is mentioned last), since from 2 S.
lly? it appears that Solomon was really the second son. These
names are increased to thirteen in i Ch. 3 = 14 by the addition of
Nogah and a second Eliphelet. Perhaps Nogah is original and
should be inserted in 2 S. ( Th. Be.), thus raising the number to
twelve ; but it is possible that it has arisen from the following
Nepheg and should (with Eliphelet) t)e omitted. It is note-
worthy that in 2 S. 613-16, ©« (but not ©a) has a double list
the second of which (based upon Ch.) agrees with ©'- in includ-
ing the two doubtful names. s. A. C. ]
That the government of this great king was perfectly
successful cannot, of course, be maintained. His people
was far from homogeneous, and it is not surprising that
the jealousies of Judah and Israel reappeared. Great
discontent was also produced by his attempt to number
the people, which was no doubt regarded by his subjects
as introductory to an attempt upon their liberties, and
was checked only by the rebukes of his seer Gad and
the breaking out of a pestilence^ (2 S. 24).
According to the early narrative, the conscience of
the king accepted the rebuke ; but most probably David
still felt as a statesman that the position of Israel was
precarious without that improved military organisation
which he had contemplated. On the other hand, he
continued to tolerate some ancient usages inconsistent
with the interests of internal harmony. The practice of
blood-revenge was not put down,* and, by allowing the
Giteonites to enforce it against the house of Saul (see
GiiiKON, Rizpah), the king involved himself in a feud with
the Benjamites (cp 2 S. 21 with 168, which refers to a later
date). Yet he might have braved all these dangers but
for the disorders of his own family. Need we tell over
again the story of his great moral disaster? Nowhere
is the impossibility of upholding the saintliness of this
king more apparent than here. And yet a laudable
desire to believe the Ijest of David has perhaps blunted
the edge of the scalpel of the critic (see Bathsheba).
It is certain that the narrative in 2 S. 11 1-I225 is not without
later insertions, and it is very prob.-ible th.^it the most fascinating
part of the story was imagined by an editor in the interests of
reverence and edification, — in fact, that the process of converting
David into a saint had already begun. "That later ages were
profoundly shocked at David's action is a proof of the pro\-i-
dential education of Israel to be the greatest of moral teachers.
The Chronicler shows his own feeling very clearly by omitting
the narrative altogether, though, h.-id he accepted the view
adopted in the late heading of Ps. 51, he would have shown
1 The event must have been subsequent to David's foreign
war : the king has no longer any enemy to fear. On the state-
ment of the boundaries of the kingdom in 2 S. 24 5-7 see
Tahtim-hodshi, Dan-jaan, and on the literary criticism of
chap. 24. see Samuel, ii. f 6.
2 It IS clear, however, from 2 S. 828/:, 14 i-io, that his
sympathies were against this barbarous usage.
1032
DAVID
David to he more nearly a saint than he appears to us in almost
any part of the Chronicler's biography.
The effects of David's sin lasted to the close of his
life, for the undue influence of Ikilhsheba is conspicuous
in the sad story of the competition for David's crown.
Kvcn apart from this, however, the royal princes could
not but display the faults due to their birth and education.
The narrative is impartially exact. We shudder at the
brutal passion of Amnon, and the shameless counsel of
the wily Jonatlab. If a brilliant suggestion of Ewald
may t)e accepted, we see the ' inauspicious expression,'
or in plain Hnglish the black scowl that for two long
years rested on the face of Absalom,' and the panic
of the court when the blow was struck, and Amnon
was assassinated in the midst of his brethren. Not less
valuable psychologically is the graphic description of
Absalom's unfilial revolt (see Abs.\i.((M, 1).
On the tragic death of the popular favourite, better
thoughts came to David's people, who bethought
themselves of the many occasions on which he had
saved them from their enemies. The men of Judah,
however, took the opportunity of putting forward that
claim to precedence (2 S. 1941-43) which the king's
policy had steadily ignored, and a rupture ensued
between north and south, which, but for Joab's energy,
might have led to a second and more dangerous reljellion
(see, however, SiiKH.\,ii. i). After this nothing seems to
have occurred to trouble the peace of the kingdom.
David had not nuiny more years to live, for Absalom's
rebellion must have occurred near the last decade
of his father's life (Kittel, ///.f/. 2 175). The closing
scene in the biography (i K. li-'2ii) represents David
as decrepit and tedridden, and an easy prey to the
partizans of Solomon. The unedifying account of the
palace-intrigue (see Adonijaii, 1), which placed Bath-
sheba's son upon the throne, and was followed by the
execution of Adonijah and Joab, shocked the Chronicler's
sense of reverence. He therefore (as also perhaps the
author of a lost Midrash on which he bases his work)
sul)stitutes for it a great religious function, in which
David plays the leading part, and Solomon appears as
the meek recipient of much highly spiritual advice and
of minute instructions as to the building of the temple
(i Ch. 2J-29).
We have now to estimate the character of David. ^
Wo may safely assert that, if the narratives can in the
12 n A' "^^'" '^ trusted, no ancient Israelite
,' . exercised such a jiersonal charm as
David, and that he owed this not merely
to his physical but also to his moral qualities. In him
the better elements of the Israelitish character start at
once into a new life. There are some points in him
that reix;l us ; in these he is the child of the past.
There is more in him that attracts us ; in this he is a
herald of the future. One of the later writers who have
contributed to the story of Saul and David descrilxjs the
latter as 'a man according to Gcxl's mind' (i S. 1-3 14),
which means, as the context interprets it, one in whom
Yahwe God of Israel has found the c|ualities of a leader
of his people (cp Jer. 315). Ihat David was an
1 On 3 S. 1332 see F-w. ///s/. 8172. The suRgestion is
given in fuller form by Dr. '/'US 234, whose ' only doubt Ls
whether a word (Jm'W") meaning in itself simply " unluckiness"
could be used absolutely to signify a "token of unluckiness"
for others." WRS (David, £/U9>) accepted the view ; We. and
Ku. are also attracted by it. The present writer prefers Ew.'s
alternative suggestion, viz., to read nCtpC" instead of rtO'V (Kt.)
or TO?C'(Kr.); but "S'^V remains unexplained. Almost certainly
Oratz is right. Read, with him, .TOei.~D . . . a'T'^V '?» 'for
hostility was in .•\bsaIom's heart '; cp €Si-.
'- The most helpful characterisation of David from a moderate
traditional point of view is that of K6h. Lehrb. <ier bihl. Crsch.
ii. 1 184-188 373 ('84). Owing to the progress of criticism,
however, all trie earlier sketches of David's character need a
thorough revision. A bridge between the old and the new is
offered in Cheyne's Auls, 16-73, where the results of recent
criticism of the liooks of .Samuel and of the Psalter are pre-
supposed, and all that is .still tenable in the earlier estimates of
David is restated. See also Iskael, |g 17-33.
1033
DAVID
honest and vigorous ruler both in peace and in war,
the evidence given alxjve sulliciently shows. In after-
times his name lx.'came the syntlxjl of a righteous rule
(Jer. 285), and further criticism of the records has only
confirmed the eulogy given to David by Koljertson Smith
in 1877 — 'hat his adnunistration of justice 'was never
stained by selfish considerations or motives of personal
rancour. ' ' Nor does he deserve to lie blamed for his
cruelty to Israel's foreign enemies, when we consider
the imperfect development of the idci t)f ntorality in his
time, and the fate that would have lx."en in store for
himself and his people, had the conquerors and the
contiuered changed places. He doubtless thought it
absolutely neces.sary to cripple Israel's cruel and
malicious neighbours ; to the Canaanites at his own
door he was gentle.* Compare him with .Sargon or
Asur-bani-pal, in whom cruelty was joined to the lust of
conquest, and how great is his moral superiority ! Nor
can we easily admit a doubt as to the genuineness of
his religion. He lived in the fear of God, according to
the standard of his times.
The generous elevation of David's character is seen
most clearly in those parts of his life where an inferior
nature would have been most at fault — in his conduct
towards Saul (with which the story of Rizi'.VH is in no
way inconsistent), in the blameless reputation of himself
and his band of outlaws in the wilderness of Judah, in
his repentance (which we so greatly desire to believe)
under the rebuke of Nathan, and in his noble and truly
religious tearing on the revolt of Absalom, the accuracy
of the account of which is guaranteed by the antique
elements which it contains. His unfailing insight into
character, and his power of winning men's hearts and
touching their lielter impulses, api)ear in inmimerable
traits of the history [e.g., 2 S. 14:8-2o 331-39 2815-17).
His knowledge of men w.is the divination of a poet
rather than the acquired genius of a statesman, and his
capacity for rule stood in harmonious unity with his
„ Wa he b''''cal genius. But was David reallv a
a poet 7
poet? Did he, like the Arabian prince
Imra' al-Kais, fascinate his half-primitive
people by song? The old tradition knows him as a
musician (i S. 16 14-32) ; late editors of the psalms, but
not Amos (as most have suiJjxjsed ^), as a poet. Several
poems, too, are ascribed to his authorship in the Books
of Samuel, and those who inserted them had a very
definite belief on the subject (see Samui-.I., ii. § 7). One
1 It would be a strange exception to this rule if out of pure
vindictiveness David urged his .son Solomon to put certain
persons who h.id injured him to death (1 K. 21-9). Three
answers may be given to this charge, (i) If I >avid spoke in sub-
stance these words, it was because he feared to leave Joab's
bloodshedding unexpiated and Shimei's solemn curse unneutral-
ised b>- the death of the offenders : continued clemency would,
according to the prevalent belief, have been dangerous. (2) The
words ascribed to David imply a vigour of mind and a regard
for the interests of the kingdom which the narrative docs not
permit us to assume in the dying king. After neglecting to
communicate with the elders of Israel and Jud.-»h respecting the
.successor to the throne, it is not likely that David's mental
powers suddenly rallied, so as to enable him to make this forcible
and even eloquent .speech. (3) This is precisely one of the
occasions on which a narrator was likely to invent. Solomon
needed to be excused to unfriendly readers for having put Joab
and Shimei to death. The excuse (which in the narrator's view
W.1S perfectly valid) could best be given by introducing it into
a last speech of David.
2 The allusion is to Araunah, or rather Adonijah, as the name
should probably be read. See Araunah.
3 Even the AIT of v. $6 only says, ' Like David, they devise
for themseU-es instruments of (i.e. to accompany) song." This
does not suit the context, which says, ' who chant (read C'TClcn >
cp 5 2j : t fell out) to the sound of the harp," and then speaks of
the wine-bibbing and the rich unguents. Some detail of the
banquet must be referred to in t. ^fi. .\\\ but the last word tc
-seems to be the conjecture of an ancient editor (before ® was
ni.-ide), who found the letters of his text almost illegible. On ®
see Vollers, Z.-ITIW 326-7 ('8.:]. Probably the verse should
read thus, Tr SipS incd 733^ IffSy D~1CTCn 'who play on the
timbrel and harp, and rejoice at the sound of song." "i-na ' like
David ' is a gloss, as I. P. Peters and Winckler have independ-
ently pointed out. Cp Is. 612, and especially Job 21 13 ; als«
T^aj msi Am. 5 33.
1034
DAVID, CITY OP
of them — the deeply-felt elegy on Saul and Jonathan —
was taken from the so-called Hook of J ashar {q.v. , § 2),
and another — the short elegy on Abner — may have
been copied from the same book. These occur in
2 S. 1 19-27 and 833/ respectively. They have an
antique air and are worthy of David. Whether any
religious elements formerly present have been removed,
we cannot say ; but there is no special reason to think
so. That the song of triumph in 2 S. 22 ( = Ps. 18)
and the 'last words of David' in 23 1-7 (both highly
religious compositions) are Davidic, is not, on grounds
of criticism, tenable. Nor can any of the psalms in the
Psalter Ije ascribed with any probability to David.
The eager search for possible Davidic psalms seems to
be a proof that the seekers have taken up the study of
the Psalter at the wrong end. That David composed
religious songs is of course probable enough. When
he and his companions ' played before Yahw6 with all
their might, and with songs and with (divers musical
instruments),' * it is reasonable to conjecture that ' some
of these songs had been made for the purpose by the
poet-king. ' '^ But how much resemblance would these
psalms have had to the psalms of the second temple?
and how could the David known to us from history
have entered into the ideas of Psalms 32 and 51, which
are assigned by Delitzsch and Orelli to the sad period
of David's great sin ? Would not that have been one
cf the greatest of miracles ? See PsALMS.
[In the above sketch sentences have been here and
there borrowed from the late Robertson Smith's art.
' David ' in the EH, especially where David's character
and his originality as a ruler are referred to. The
advance of criticism since 1877 required a fresh survey
of the subject. On Renan's view of David in his Hist,
dlsrael, see WRS Eng. Hist. Rev., 1888, p. 134/
Duncker {Hist, of Ant. vol. ii. ) is hardly less un-
sympathetic than Renan, and his narrative needs
adjustment to the results of critical analysis. St. 'sG I'l
1 223-298, and We.'s ProL, ET, 261-272, and UG(^)
56-64, are of the highest importance. Wi.'s GI 1 is
fresh and original, but often rash. Cheyne's Aids
{'92), part I, relates to the David - narratives ; Ki.'s
analysis in Kau. HS, the results of which are tabulated
in chap. 1, is provisionally adopted. See also Dr.
TBS ('90); Kamph., Philister und Hehrder zur
Zeit Davids, ZATW ['86] 43-97; Marquart's Funda-
meiite ('97) ; and the articles in this Dictionary on
Samuel and Chronicles (with the books there referred
to). Prof W. R. Smith's article in EBC^^ should be
taken with the corresponding portion of Ewald's History.
Chandler's Life of David (ist ed. 1766) gives answers
to the very real difficulties suggested by Pierre Bayle
which are now superseded. Stiihelin's Lehen Davids
('66) is recommended by Rolx;rtson Smith for the
numerous parallels adduced from Oriental history. The
late H. A. White's art. in Hastings' DB has great
merit. For an account of David as a tactician, see
Dieulafoy's monograph. ] T. K. C.
DAVID, CITY OF (IH l^i;), 2 Sam. 57 i K.2io,
.See JKRUSALE.M.
DAY. Among the ancients the day was reckoned in
a great variety of ways. ' The Babylonians reckoned
from sunrise to sunrise, the Athenians from
1. Ancient
reckoning.
.sunset to sunset, the Umbrians from noon
to noon, the common people everywhere
from dawn to dark, the Roman priests and those by
whom the civil day has been defined, as also the
Egyptians and Hipparchus, from midnight to midnight '
(Plin. //.V 279, § 188). ' From dawn to dark' {a^ luce
ad tenebras) was the ancient and ordinary meaning of
a day (ci") among the Israelites ; night, as being the
time 'when no man can work' (Jn. 94), might, it was
considered, be left out of account altogether, or, at all
1 a S.fl5. We emend, with Klost., after i Ch. 138.
2 Che. OPs. 192.
I03S
DAY
events, as being the evident complement of the ' day
and involved in it, did not rccjuire explicit mention.
Thus the word ' day ' came to have a twofold meaning :
at one time signifying the period from sunrise to sunset ;
at another including day's inseparable accompaniment,
the night, and embracing the whole period from one
sunrise to the ne.\t. Only in ca.ses where the contrast
had to be brought out, or there was risk of ambiguity,
was it necessary to name the night (.n'^'S) expressly,
as, for example, in Gen. 7412 31 39. Apart from dv
and the combination of or and Th\ the Hebrews pos-
sessed no expression for the civil day as including day
and night ; for the designation n^^ anj;, ' evening
morning,' which makes its first appearance in the
second century B.C. (Dan. 814), equivalent to the Greek
vvxOr)fxepoi> (2 Cor. 11 25), is but a combination precisely
similar to the older ov and r\h'^.
The Israelites regarded the morning as the beginning
of the day ; in the evening the day ' declined ' or ' went
down,' and until the new day (ina, 'morning') broke
it was necessary to ' tarry all night ' (cp Judg. 196-9 and
the series in Nu. II32, 'all that day and all the night
and all the next day '). Not till post-exilic times do we
find traces of a new mode of reckoning which makes
day begin at sunset and continue till the sunset follow-
ing. In P, it is true, the expression 'day and night'
{e.g. , Lev. 835 Nu. 9 21) is unhesitatingly used, not ' night
and day,' and the evening following the fourteenth
day of the first month is regarded as the evening of that
day (Ex. 12 i8) ; but Lev. 2332 certainly reckons the day
as extending from evening to evening, and the same
mode of reckoning seems to have been in the mind of the
writer (P) when, after describing the work of each day,
he invariably adds, ' So there was evening and there was
morning, a first [second, third, etc.] day' (Gen. I58 13,
etc., ^v'^V, ':». nnx c'v "li^a-.Ti a'lJT'n-i). The later mode
of reckoning is shown also in the above-mentioned
expression in Dan. 814 (ipia y^rp), in the order of the
words ' evening, morning, noon' in Ps. 55 17 [18], and in
the ' night and day,' ' night or day,' of the late passages
Is. 273 34 10 Esth. 4i6.^ In connection with this later
Jewish custom one has to remember the importance
which the new moon (visible only in the evening) had
for the Israelites in the determination of their feasts,
and it nmst not be forgotten that other ancient peoples
who observed lunar divisions of time (Athenians, Gauls,
Germans) also began their day with evening. All
the same, it is undeniably a somewhat unnatural mode
of reckoning, and as far as Israel is concerned can have
come into use only when it was desired to fix times with
legal and uniform precision for the nation at large.
The ancient Israelites had no precise subdivision
of the day for accurate measurement of time. They
2. Its sub-
division
designated the various periods of the
day by the natural changes which
"^**""" marked its successive stages, or by the
a.m.OIig ullB c,,rrp«<;ivf» nmin.ntions in ordinarv dailv
Israelites.
successive occupations in ordinary daily
routine. Thus it was in the nature of
things that morning (ij^i), midday (cnns), and evening
(a-iy) should be distinguished, and equally so that
morning should be spoken of as the rising of the morning,
the breaking of the day (Gen. 19 15 3224 [25]), or the
rising of the sun (Gen. 19 23 3231 [32]) ; midday, the heat
of the day (Gen. 18 1 i S. 11 n) or the height of the day
[EV the perfect day] (Prov. 4 18) ; afternoon, the time of
the day's decline (Judg. 198) ; and evening, the time of
the goin;:^ down of the sun (Gen. 15 12 17) or of ' the wind of
the day ' or evening breeze (Gen. 38 Cant. 2 17 [when the
day is cool] 46). Specially noticeable is the expression
D'aij;,"! pa, ' between the two evenings, ' met with only in
1 In Dt. 2866 Jer. 14 17 the original text had 'day and night '
(see (S) ; a late transcriber substituted ' night .-ind day ' in accord-
ance with the mode of expression current in his own time.
1036
DAY
P(Ex.l26 16ia 293941 308 I.ev.235 Nu.935" 2848),
which can mean only 'towards evening,' 'about the
evoninR time," since it is used to indicate the same period
tha( is called in Dt. 166 the time of the going down of
the sun (cp Kx. 1'26 Nu. 93511). Whether the form
ought to l)c taken as a dual, and ' the two evenings '
understood as meaning ' the evening of the sun and the
evening of its still visible light,' may be left an open
ciuestion ; but it is important to note that the evening
sacrifice prescribed by the law to be made D'SiyJl J"3 — «•'• >
towards evening (Ex.293941 Nu. 2848) — was offered in
the first century of our era in the afternoon between
half-past two and half-past three (cp Jos. An/, xiv. 43
and .Mishna, Pcujhimbi ; also Acts 3 1 10 3 30, where the
prayer associated with the evening sacrifice also is made
at the ninth hour), and that only the Samaritans and
Karaites maintain the old correct interpretation. The
change possibly may not have taken place till after the
Maccabean [)eri(xi ; for in Daniel (9 21) the daily offering
is still spoken of as siy nms. 'the evening oblation,'
and no place in the OT gives any hint of a change (cp
on the other hand, the reminiscences of psalmody by
night in the temple : i Ch. 933 2830 Ps. 9223 [34] 134 i;
cp 119 62). Ry reference to functions of daily recurrence,
morning is called 'the time of incense ' (Lk. 1 10) ; the
middle of the afternoon, the time of the offering of the
Minha (i K. I82936) ; and the evening, ' the time that
women go out to draw water' (Gen. 24ii), or ' the time of
the evening oblation ' (Dan. 921 ; cp Kzra94/. ). Cpalso
' cock-crowing ' as denoting early morning (Mk. 14 30 72).
The or affords no evidence that the Israelites divided
their day into twelve hours as the Babylonians did.
3 The term '^^'^ sundial (?) of .Ahaz (2 K.2O9-11 Is.
'hour • ^^^>' ^^•^•'^^'^^'^'' '^ ^•''^ (see Di.\i.), did not
lead to a more accurate measurement of
time on the part of the people, and even at so late a date
as that of Daniel (4 16 65) the Aramaic word nyr ( 'hour')
does not mean any e.xact portion of time. Reckoning by
hours is met with first in the NT, where the day consists
of twelve hours (Jn. 11 9) or twelfths simply designated as
first [second, etc.] of the day, reckoned as beginning at
sunrise (cp.\cts2 IS Mt. 2O3 56 2745 46 etc. ). The hour
was ilius with the Jews a variable quantity, as it was
also with the Babylonians, the twelfth part of the day
ranging fiom forty-nine to seventy-one minutes according
to the season of the year. The division of the day into
twelve parts and the further development of the sexa-
gesimal system as a whole had commended itself to the
ftibylonians from their observation that, at the vernal
equinox, the time between the api>earance of the first
direct ray of the sun and that of visibility of the entire
disk above the horizon amounted to a 360th of the
whole time during which the sun was visible in the
heavens, or the 720th part of a full day reckoned from
one sunrise to another.
Kqual divisions of the night were of older date than
equal divisions of the day. Three night-watches were
recognised : the first (ni"C»K B*kn ; Lam.
watches' 2 '9)' ^^^ "^'^"^^^ (r^:\ym'n■pv^:^^, Judg.
719; within which, of course, midnight fell,
Ex. 11 4) and the last (-ij^in rrpvK ; Kx. 14 24 i S. 11 n).
From the NT we learn that, in the first century of
our era at le.ist, the Roman division into four watches
had in common use superseded the old division into
three (Mk. 1835 6\f/i, fuaovvKTiov, dXfKTopo^w»'/o[i]
and irpwi ; Mt. I425 Mk. 648 Lk. I238, cp Actsl24).
From the division of the day into twelve hours the
step to a similar division of the night was easy (so,
certainly, in Acts 28 23 ; cp also Acts 16 33 Lk. 12 39 and,
for the last-cited passage, see the parallel in Mt. 2443
which speaks of ' watch," not ' hour").
' Day ' is sometimes used in a half-metaphorical sense. Thus
in Hos. 2157511 means ' high day ' ; in lob 3 t ' birth-day ' ; in
Jer. 5O27 Job 18 20 15 23 Ps. 37 13, etc., 'day of doom ' ; in Is.
» 3 [4I ' day of battle.' On the expression ' day of Yahwe ' (Joel
1037
DEACON AND DEACONESS
1 ij F.zck. 135 Is. 212) and 'day of Judgment' (2 Pel. 87
rfiiifxi. itpt<re<i*t) see KsciiA loi.fx.v, i. Paul u*c« the exprcksion
ai^pwiricij i9fi«'pa (i Cor. 4 1) in coiurait to mi^pa tou jcv/mou (Lk,
17 24 I Cor. 1 H (see Var. llib. J ; it) nvpitunt ruitpa, Rev. 1 10 ; see
I.okd's Day) to mean an ordinary 'day of trial' ((irimm(>)
compares Landtag, Keichtlag;). See an. ' Tag ' in Winer's
Miyii, as also in /'RK, and Richm's HlVlf; Itrn/inKcr, HA
aoa/; Nowack, //-'M214/; Hcrzfcld, 67 7 ('57) 2 184/ and
SchOrer, Gy/'i-2T,i 3rd cd. 2290. k. y^
DAY'S JOURNEY (DV -SQ^ NU.II3, ; hm€PAC
oAoc. Lk. 244)- See Weights and Mkasukes.
For ' sabbath day's journey,' see Sabbath, § 4, n.
DAYSMAN (n^SID), Job 933 EV ; EV""!:- Umpire
(see Murray under ' daysman ' ; Davidson quotes
Spenser, FtrrieQuten, ii. 8 28). (S"**"* renders by fuairijt
Kol iX^yx^y- See Law anu Justice, § 10.
DAY STAR. I. ("p!?*?! ; €coC(t)Opoc). Is. 14 la RV ;
2. ((})60Cct)Opoc). 2 I'et. 1 19. See Lucil-EK.
DEACON and DEACONESS (Aiakonoc)-
1. yV;.' Won/. We may consider first the use of
the word and of its cognates.
In the (lospels the word iiaxovot is used (i) literally, of a
servant who prepares or serves a meal, Mt. 2213 Jn. 259;
. (2) metaphorically (Mk. 935 10 43 |1 Mt. 23 11
1. Usage in 2026, Jn. 1226). it is never used by Lk. who,
Gospels. in wiiat seems a parallel to sayings in Mk.,
prefers the participle 6 £i<uco><ui' (22 2ty.) ; in
one place (10 40), however, he uses Siaxofia of the preparation
of a meal. The verb {SiaKoveiy) is likewise used (i) literally, of
preparing or supplying food (Mk. 4 13 II Mt. 4 1 1 of the angels) ;
1 31 (ij Mt. Lk.), Lk. 10 40 1237 17 8 Jn. 12 2 Mt. •2.-44 (rather
more widely); and auain somewhat more widely (Mk. IS 41 \, Mt.
2755 Lk. 83) of the women who ministered to Jesus in his
journeyings in Galilee; (2) metaphorically (Lk. '2236/.; Jn.
12 26).
The ordinary word for a servant in the Clospels is Sov\oi, a
bond -servant or slave; but a 5oOAo? may be calKd upaii to
SiaKovtlf (l.k. 177/.), and in discliarj;c of this function may
be termed Siclkovoi; (Mt. 22 8 10 12). AoOAof emphasises relation
to a master ; itoKOfOV, performance of service. The latter word
is free from the .Lssoci.uiDns of slavery which belong to the
firmer. It wxs thus titled for adoption as the description of
any form of Christian service rendered to Christ or to his
Church.
Accordingly in Acts we find &tajeovia frequently in this sense :
Acts 1 17 25, the SioKot'Ca of ajx>stleship ; ti i, the daily jtaxofia
by which the needs of the poorer brelliren weie
2. In Acts, supplied ; and, in contrast to this, the Siajtovia
of the word (t^). In 11 29 and 12 25 itaxoi-ta
is used of the help in the famine rendered by .Antioch to the
brethren in J udaia (a sense which recurs in Paul's epistles). In
'20 24 Paul sjjeaks more generally of fulliilinj; the Siaxofia. which
he liiLs received of the Lord Jesus; and in 21 19 he decl.ires
what (lod has wrousht among the (lentiles through his jiojcoi'ta.
The word 5taxoi'o« does not occur at all in .\cts (as it d<.«s not
in Lk.) ; but Sieucofetf is used in a literal sense in 0 2 of serving
the tables ; and met.iphorically of Timothy and Erastus, who
' ministered ' to Paul (li' 22).
In the first of the four chronological groups of the Pauline
epistles, the only instance of the word or its cugnates is 1 Thess.
3 2, where Timothy is called 'the Siokovo^
3. In Epistles, (or ervyfpyo^, AV^* arm.] of God in the gos|)ei
of Christ.' In the second gri<iip the words
are freely used. Paul and .\pollos are ' diaxovoi ilirough whom
ye believed ' (i Cor. 3 5). ' Differences of JiaxoWat ' are spoken
of in 12 5 ; and of the household of tStephanas the remarkable
phrase is used, ' they appointed (or set ') themselves unto
iioKovia to the saints ' (10 15). This passage alone wouM show
that the words were not yet limited to an official use. In 2 Cor.
the most noteworthy passages are 84 19 20 9 i 12 13, where the
words are applied to the collection in the Greek cliurches for
the poor saints in Jerusalem, a service on which Paul laid the
greatest stress as being a means of cementing the union between
the Jewish and the Gentile portions of the Church. The Epistle
to the Romans (162531) shows us his anxiety on this matter,
and his fixed resolve to carry out his project in person at any
risk to liberty or life. Here again, then, Siojcovtlv and Siaxovia
are used of the mini.stration to temporal needs. In the same
epistle (11 13) occur the notable words ' I glorify my {toxofia*
(as apostle of the Gentiles) ; and the wide range with which he
uses the term is seen when he speaks of the temporal ruler as
'the Sidxovoi of God' (13 4). 1 he application of the word to
PIiicIh; of Cenchreae (16 i) will be considered presently (i 4).
In the third group I'aul himself is twice styled a ' iidjcovot
of the gospel ' (Eph. 87 Col. 1 23), and once 'a JiaxofOf of t('e
church (Col. 1 24 yi). Tychicus is twice described as 'the
beloved brother and faithful Jioxoiw in the Lord ' (Eph. 6 21
CoL 47; in the latter place the description ' fellow-servant '
1038
DEACON AND DEACONESS
also is inserted); similarly, 'Epaphras, who isa faitliful SiaKovoi,
on our behalf, of Christ' (Col. 1 7). "Ihe work of 6ta«oWa is
referred to in the widest sense in Eph. 4 12 ; and in Col. 417
Archippus receives the message : ' Look to the SiaxovCa which
thou hast received in the Lord, that thou mayest fullil it.' In
Philemon Paul says of Onesimus the runaway slave, ' that on
thy behalf he may minister to me ' (Sianoirf, v. 13). In Philip,
pians the only instance is of special importance ; for the epistle
15 addressed ' to all the saints ... in Philippi, together with
CTTiVieoTrot and hiaKOVoi * (1 i).
I'he fourth group consists of the Pastoral Epistles ; and here
the general sense of the words is still the most frequent. The
apostle thanks (Jod (i Tim. 1 12) for having appointed him unto
tioKovia.. Timothy is to be a good t».6.Kovo<i of Christ Jesus
(4 6), and is charged to fulfil his fiiaitoi'ia (2 Tim. 4 5). Of
Onesiphorus the apostle recalls how he ' ministered ' in Kphesus
(1 is); and of ALirk he s.iys, 'he is useful to me for hiaKovia.'
(4 ii). On the other hand, the passage of most importance for
our purpose is the code of regulations laid down in i Tim. 38-13
for a class of persons who are definitely designated iioKOfoi.
Before considering these regulations we may return to Rom.
16 I, ' I commend to you Ph(jcbe our sister, who is [also] fiaxofot
_ f "'^ . church which is in Cenchrea;.' It is
4. Oase 01 possible to interpret the word here either in the
Phcebe. general sense in which Paul uses it so often,
or in the official sense which we find in the
later epistles to the Philippians and to Timothy. It is no
objection to the official sense that the person so designated is
a woman ; for we shall presently see that at Ephesus the Order
included deacons of either sex.
On the other hand, since there is not in the two earlier groups
of Paul's epistles any other indication that inaKOvia. is a special
office in the Church, this, which occurs in the second group,
would be a solitary and somewhat puzzling exception. More-
over, as Cenchreae was the E. port of Corinth, this case practi-
cally belongs to the Ciirinthian church. In that church special
mention is made of the fiiaicoi'ia of .Stephanas and his household,
the word hiaKovia. being used in its broadest sense. There also
Chloe and her household were of note. It may be, therefore,
that Phcebe was another woman of influence who held a corre-
sponding pre-eminence of service in the neighbouring port, a
pre-eminence that earned for her at the apostle's hands the
honourable title of StotKoeof of the church ; for she had been
a helper (perhaps we should render it 'a patroness,' ■np6<nam^)
of many and of the apostle himself. If we could assume that
the diaconate was formally established in the Corinthian church
at this time, we should certainly conclude that Phoebe was one
of the wonien who served it ; but this assumption is in sharp
contrast with the silence of Paul's epistles as to any kind of
definite ecclesiastical organisation at Corinth.
Of Phcebe, then, we may say with security that she is a
witness to the important services rendered by women in the
primitive Church ; but in tracing the history- of the diaconate
It will not be wise to assume that the word &i6.Kovo<i is used of
her in the strictly official sense. As a matter of historical
evidence this passage miist be left out of the count as being, at
any rate, uncertain testimony. For a technical diaconate in
Paul's writings we are thus reduced to two passages, Phil. 1 i
and I Tim. 88-13.
n. Origin arid functions of the Diaconate. — The first
recognition of any need of organisation in the Christian
6 Oriein of '^°'^'""n''y occurs in connection with the
Diaconate. ^'^''>; "'^=},^ '" Jerusalem (see Church.
§11). 1 he word deacon is not applied
in .Acts to the seven men who were on this occasion
appointed to the service of the poor ; ^ we have already
noted that Siolkovo^ does nor occur in Lk. or Acts.
Nevertheless, by the later Church tradition, they were
constantly regarded as the earliest deacons ; and so
strong was this feeling that the number of deacons in
some churches was limited to seven. Names apart,
they truly represented the essential feature of the
diaconate, as the Church's organ for service to her
poorer members. In other communities, especially in
the Greek world, this service was destined to take a
different form ; but the deacons of the Pauline epistles
at Philippi and Ephesus had a similar function, though
the circumstances in which they discharged it were very
dissimilar. The definite title is met with first in the •
Greek churches, and here the order from its commence-
ment is found to include the services of men and women
alike. The admission of women to the diaconate
could scarcely have arisen in the Jewish communities ;
but it was probably felt to be natural in places where
women were in general accorded a larger liberty.
WTiilst then we recognise the germ of the institution
in the appointment of the Seven in Jerusalem, we must
I Cp Hatch, Early Christian Churches, 49.
1039
DEAD, THE
look to the Greek churches for the development of the
definite and permanent order.
As the personal ministry of Paul drew to a close, and
as it became evident that the ' return ' of Christ was
indefinitely postponed, it was natural that ecclesiastical
organisation should assume a new and increasing im-
portance. It is in harmony with this that we find the
apostle in a later epistle recognising expressly ' the
bishops and deacons ' at F'hilippi, very much as he
had recognised the ' episcopate ' of the presbyters of
liphesus. when he thought that he should see them
again no more (Acts 2O28). 'Those who ruled,' and
' those who served ' under them, were coming to form
definite classes, to which the natural designations of
overseers (^ir/<TK07roi) and servants (SidAcocot) were be-
ginning to be formally appropriated. Accordingly, in
6 Functions ^^'^ ^^^^ epistle to Timothy the apostle
lays down regulations for the two
classes under these titles. The differences in the
regulations help to show us the nature of the functions
to be discharged in the two cases (i Tim. 81-13). The
rules which should govern the choice of deacons must
be cited in full : —
' De.-icons in like manner must be grave, not double-tongued,
not given to much wine, not eager for petty gains, holding
the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. And they too
are first to be tested, and then to minister, if they be irreproach-
able. Women in like manner must be grave, not slanderers,
sober, faithful in all things. Deacons are to be husbands of
one wife, ruling well their children and their own houses ; for
they that have ministered well acquire a good standing for
themselves and much boldness in the faith which is in Christ
Jesus.'
The essence of these regulations is that deacons,
whether men or women, must be persons of character,
who can rule their tongues and are temperate in the
use of wine. Trustworthiness is demanded of the
woman, as strict honesty is of the man : this doubtless
points to the fact that Church moneys would pass
through their hands. Deacons are to know what they
believe, and to live in accordance with it ; but no
aptitude for teaching is demanded of them, nor any
qualifications for exercising discipline. The service
of the deacons is the house to house service, which
deals primarily with temporal wants.
In the AV the women spoken of here are represented
as the wives of the deacons. This interpretation puts
a serious strain on the original Greek, and it is now
generally abandoned. It finds no parallel in any
demand for special qualifications in the w ives of bishops.
It belongs to a period when the diaconate of women
had been wholly lost sight of ; and it cannot be main-
tained in face of the fact that women were undoubtedly
admitted to this office in the early ages of the Church's
history.
For the later confusion between deaconesses and widows
see Widow ; and for a full historical account of the female dia-
conate see The Ministry 0/ Deaconesses by Deaconess Cecilia
Kobinson (98). j. a. R.
DEAD, THE, and DEATH. The preliminaries may
first be briefly considered. To kiss the dead (Gen.
1 nisnoRal of ^^') ^"'^ ^° '^'°^'^ ^'^•^''' ^^'^^ <^^"-
the dead. ^^''^ ''"'^ """"^^ (Mishna, Shab.lZ^)
immediately after death was looked
upon as a deed of natural piety. In NT times the body
was washed (Acts 937), anointed with sweet -smelling
ointments (Mk. I61 Lk. 24i Jn. I27), and wrapped in
linen cloth (Mt. 27s9 Mk. 1646 Lk. 2853), or the hands
and feet were bound with grave-clothes and the head
covered with a napkin (Jn. II44). The age of these
customs must remain uncertain, as they are not alluded
to in OT ; but the old belief that in SheOl the dead
would lie known by their dress, the king by his diadem,
the soldier by his sword, the prophet by his mantle ( i S.
2814 Kzek. 3227), leads to the inference that the dead
were buried dressed as in life. In later times, delicate
foods, ornaments, gold and silver, and all kinds of
valuables were placed with the body in the graves of
DEAD, THE
princes and nobles ' (Jos. Ant. xv. 84). If what we read
(Jos. Ant. xiii. 84 xvi. 7 1) as to the plundering of Davids
grave by Hyrcanus and Herod is to be accepted, this
custom also is very old. Kmbalming [</.i'. ] was not in
use. On sacrifices to the dead, cp KscjiATouxiV, § 3.
The usual method of dis|X)sing of the dead was by
burial (Gen. 23 19 259 358 Judg. -29 831 etc. ). In i S.
31 8-13, wiiere we n-ad of the burning of the Ixxly of
Saul, the text is corrupt (see Klost. ad loc.), as is also
the case with Am. 610.^ Burning was looked upt)n as
something abominable, as an injury to the dead (Am.
2i) ; it was used, by priestly law and old custom, only
in a few cases, to render the death sentence more severe
(Josh. 725 l-ev. 2O14 219) ; cp Law and Ju.stick, § 12.
The aversion to the burning of the lx)dy was con-
nected with the belief that the soul even after death was
bound to the body. Not to Ix; buried was a terrible
disgrace which one could hardly wish even to one's
greatest enemy (Am. 2i i K. I322 14 n I64 21 24 2 K.
9io ls.33i2 Jer.732 82 922 [21] 14i6 I64 E/.ek.295).
The spirits of the unburied dead wander restlessly about,
and in ShCol are condemned to lie in the corners (lizek.
3223 Is. 14 15 etc.). Burial alone so bound the spirit
to the body that it had rest and could harm no one. It
was therefore the sacred duty of every one who found a
corpse in the open field to give it burial (i K. 14ii I64
21 24 Jer. 7 33 2 S. 21 10, and especially Tob. 1 18 28). In
c;irsfs of death by stoning the pile of stones took the
place of a regular grave (Josh. 726). Cp the Greek idea
as given, for example, in the Antigone of Sophocles.
Rapid interment wa.s necessary on account of the hot
climate, and even without express biblical authority we
may assume that then, as now, in the East, it usually
took place on the day of death (cp Dt. 21 23). The body
was carried to the grave on a bier (2 S. 831 [nao] ; Lk.
7 14 [aopos]). Coffins were not used by the Israelites
(2 K. 1321); Joseph's bones were placed in a cortin
(p-ix; (jop6%) in conformity with the custom of the
Egyptians (Gen. 5O26).* The stone coffin (sarcophagus)''
was adopted by the Jews (as also by the Phoenicians) from
the p:gyptians long after the e.xile, but only by the wealthy.
The procession of friends, who would of course often be
mourners,^ was accompanied by hired mourners singing
lamentations (2 S. 331 ; cp Mourni.ng Customs).** The
place of burial was determined by the txjlief that the unity
of the family and trilx; continued after death. The Ixsdies
of those who wished to be reunited with their parents and
family in ShCol had to be buried in the family sepulchre
(see To.MBS, Esciiatoi.(k;v).
See BenzinRer, Arch. ('94), § 23; Nowack, If A ('94), g 32;
and Bender in JQK, 18947; 1. B.
'Death' (010. G&NATOc) can mean, not only the
process or state of death, but also the realm of the dead,
2 Biblical 'I^e'-ith-land.' See Is. 28.5 Hos. I3.4
referenceB P^-^sM 9i3[.4] 22 ,5 [.6] 6820 [21] 89
reierences. ^g ^^^^ jQ-_g ^^^^ 2.8 727 Job 28 22 38 .7
Rev. I18 (58 20 13/ In Rev. 68 RV prints Death, to
correspond to Hades. Both are personifications ; cp
the later Jewish representations of Ab.vudon ['/.f. ]
and Maivcth ( ' Death ' ) as two of God's chief angels
(cp Dkstkovkr). 'The dead' in AV corresponds
not only to cnti.i (often) but also to c"kbi.t (Hs. 8810
' On Jobs 15, where some pl.-iusibly find an allusion to the
treasures in royal tombs, see Tomhs.
2 See, however, the ingenious suggestions of WRS Rel.
Sem.-> 372. Wellh. is fully conscious of the difficulty of Am.
610 (Die AV. Pn)ph.(i) 87); also Schwally, Dm Ltben nach
dem Tode, 48.
5 In Job"Jl32 tropof (bier, coffin) is used in 0a to render
Cfnji 'tomb' or 'sepulchral mound"; but vioputv [BC] or <rupu
[K] is the better reading. See To.mbs.
* Cp Bed, 8 3.
3 Cp Lk.7i2. Whether we may compare Job2l33^ is un-
certain. Di. denies, Duhm affirms this. The whole passage is
obscure and not very coherent.
6 On the mourning-women in primitive Babylonia see Maspero,
DaivH of Civ. 684. They also washed, prepared, and arranged
the dead body.
XO4X
DEAD SEA, THE
[11] Prov. 2i8 9i8 21 16 Is. 149 261419; inconsistently
Job 26 5, ' dead things ' ). R V sometimes has ' they that
are deceased' (e.g.. Job 265); in mg. always 'the
shades; Heb. Rephaim.'
We will examine the alxjve passages, beginning with :
(a) Job'JOs, of which Schultens remarks, ' Subita nox diem
solemquc adiniit.' KV, and virtually Davidson, render thus —
They that are dccea.sed tremble
Beneath the waters and the inhabitants thereof.
Davidson comments, ' This atxxle of deceased persons lies deep
down under the waters of the sea and all the inhabitants uf these
waters, for the sea belongs to the upper world. Yet the power
of Ood is felt even at this immeasurable distance from his abode
on high.' To us this may appear natur.-il ; but to those who l>c-
lievcd that the ' shades ' were ' forgotten by God ' (Ps. 88 5 (6]), it
would .scarcely appear so. The Hebrew of '.'ti 5 is also not worthy
of the context. Probably we should read (/i>/. Timet, 10 383
tMay '99]) :
He makes the sea and its billows to start (in alarm).
He terrifies the waters and tlic flo<xls thereof*
(i^) In Ps. 88 10 [11] the shades are represented as incapable of
'arising and praisin)^ (lod.' In 'arise' Kirkpatrick sees a refer-
ence to the re^urrecttoIl, an idea which the psalmist finds incon-
ceivable, (c) Prov. '2 m/., no return from the shades, {d) Prov.
9 18. Those who frequent the house of .Madam Folly (v. I3)are,
as it were, shades already (anticipating Dante). (<■) Prov. "Jl 16.
Folly leads surely to the shades. (_/")Is. I49. When the over-
thrown king of Babylon appears in .SheOl, the shades themselves,
especially the royal shades, are in excitement. Some tidings of
his greatness have reached them, and they marvel to sec one
who had claimed to sit with the gods reduced to their own
miserable state. The poet takes some liberty with the popular
belief, or else revives an earlier form of it. In the legend of
15tar, /. 19, we read, ' I will raise up the dead to cat the living. '2
{g) Is. 'Hy 1419. ' The shades will not rise ... to life sh.ill the
earth bring the shades' {SBOT). The resurrection hope. See
EsCHATOLtKJY, § 28^
Bottcher (De inferis, § wi ff.) derives the word
.^^//!i:'/'/«(Q'KB-i) from ^Jritr^, projicere. The giants are
3 Origin ' ^"'"''-''^ ' '° ShCol, and then, as the chief
", . ° inhabitants of ShCol. give their name to
Renhi'Im '^e whole population. Duhm (on Is. 149
" ■ and Job2(>5) holds the same view as to
the transference of the title Kiphd'im from the giants to
all other inhabitants of Deathland. This theory mis-
takes the meaning of the Repha'lm of Gene-sis, Numbers,
Deuteronomy, and gives a doubtful meaning to y^'.-rc")-
It also assumes as correct a passage (Job 265) which is
certainly corrupt. It is an old view revived (see Schultens
on Job, 1737, p. 705). Most critics, however, hold that
Rcphd'im—'\^c flaccid, weak,' a natural development
of y^nST (cp Jer. 624 etc.). ' .\rt thou also become
weak [r\'Sn) as we?' ask the shades (Is. 14 10, RV). But
this is far too easy, and the Hebrews would hardly have
spoken of the spirits of the dead as 'the weak ones.'
' I see a god coming up out of the earth,' says the wise
woman to -Saul (iS. 2813 R\'). The word ought to
mean 'the terrible,' or 'the wise,' or the like. In the
later OT books the condition of those in .ShCol is por-
trayed in very gloomy colours ; but these books do not
express the primitive jxjpular belief. No doubt Re-
phii'im is a mutilated or modified form of some primitive
religious term. A sister-form is most probably Ter.\-
PHI.M [q.v.]. Cp Sayce, Hibbert l^cts. 450, n. 5.
§ I I. B., § 2/ T. K. C.
DEAD SEA, THE, the usual designation of the lake
in which the course of the Jordan terminates, occurs
1 Names "°^^ '^'^'''-' '" ^^ °^ ^ * though it was not un-
■ connnon in antiquity (0(iXa<r<ra»'6«fpd ; Paus.
v. 73; Galen 420; Justin xxxvi. 36; Eus. C>.S' 261 32),
and is found in Vg. of Josh. 3 i6t [mare solitudinis quod
nunc vacatur mortuum).
In the OT this lake is occa-sionally called simply 'the sea'
(0^, four times, and in the e.vpression 'from sea to sea'): also
' the Salt sea ' (17^1 C^, nine times ; ^ SaAacro-a tmi- aAut> [oAof ,
17 oAi/nj], mare satis, m. salsissimuni) \ 'the sea of the plain,'
RV 'sea of the Arahah' ('"^^T^ri C^ five times; \i\\ 0dXauT<ra.
[r^] 'Xpafia; mare satitudinis, m. deserti ; in the three places
1 on'Sapi c;o nnnp vVji d;,t pan.
> Jastrow, Rel. o/Bab^andAss. 569.
DEAD SEA, THE
where both designations are employed 'Salt sea' is used to
explain the expression 'sea of the Arabah ') ; and, in three
places, ' the eastern least, former] sea ' ('P"l|3ri D'H : 17 $dXa<T<Ta
ri irpbs afaroAo? ♦oivKcivo?, rj 6. r] irpu>TH ', mare ortentaU).^ In
Diod. Sic. (•-'4'i 1998) and in Josephus (often; see especially
BJ'w.^Ai) it is "ACTi^Tiri? Ai>cr) ; so also in I'liny {lacus As-
phaltitfs; /I.Vv. IS 15). josephus also has 17 SoSo/uLiTts KifLin)
(Ant. V. 1 22); cp the Sodfonntish sea' (///arjr Sodoiniticuni) of
Esd. 5 7. This name occurs also in Edrisi (3 5, transl. Jaubert,
1 338), who calls it the sea of Sodom and Gomorrah and the sea
of Za'rah (Zoar). lis name in Arabic (at least since the eleventh
century) is Bukriar Buheirat) Lut ; but this does not prove
the name of Lot to h.ive remained attached to the sea in local
tradition for four thousand years. It arises simply from the fact
that Lot and the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah are men-
tioned in the Koran.
From the biblical point of view the Dead Sea is not
very important. The references to it in the OT occur
generally in topographical connections, especially in
deliniiions of the eastern frontier of the land of Israel.
There are two notable exceptions : (a) where it conies
into the story of the Cities of the Plain, and [b) where it
is referred to in the prophetic descriptions of Kzek. 47
and Zech. 148. The NT does not refer to it at all.
From the geographical point of view it is other-
wise : the interest of this lake is quite extraordinary.
_ , . The Jordan valley, running from N. to
2. GeograpHi- ^ _ j^^^j^^ ^^ ^j^^ ^^l^^^. sea-level as far
cal interest. ^, ^ ^ , j^^,^ ^^^^^^ Lake H fileh ; the Lake
of Galilee is some 680 feet lower, and thence the 'Arabah
or Ghor continues to fall till the surface of the Dead Sea
is reached at a distance below the sea of some i30o'-*
feet. At the opposite extremity of this lake ends
another valley, coming from the S. , formerly called the
Ak.\1!.\ii [/.r'.]. Thus the lake constitutes the deepest
portion of what is the most strongly marked depres-
sion (unconnected with the sea) on the surface of the
globe.' It has no effluent. Should the question be
asked, whether in former times the Jordan, after passing
through the Dead Sea, may not have flowed on south-
ward falling at last into the Red Sea (Klanite Gulf or
Gulf of 'Akabah), it may suffice to point out how much
below sea-level the Dead Sea is, and further, that the
valley to the S. of the Dead Sea is really two valleys, j
One runs X. , the other S. , and the intersection or water-
shed is at a height of 650 feet above the level of the
Red Sea and of the Mediterranean (according to the
PEF survey).-* Thus the two basins are hydrographic-
ally distinct, which is confirmed by a stratigraphical
study of the sedimentary deposits on the valley floor
(Lartet).
The geological investigation of Palestine and of the
Dead Sea, carried on mainly by PVaiis, Lartet, Hull,
and Blanckenhorn, has proved, con-
3. Geological ^^^^^ ^^ previous ideas, that the Dead
investigation, g^.^ ^.^^^o^ possibly date from the
historical epoch, and that it must have presented, at
any rate from the beginning of the quaternary epoch,
practically the same asfxict and configuration as at
present. Traces can still be seen, however, of a past
time when the water stood as much as 11 80 feet above
its present level, as well as of another phase in which
the difference was only 348 feet ; in short, the waters
have gradually subsided to their present position.
The actual level is that at which the evaporation exactly
counterbalances the daily influx of water from the Jordan and
the other affluents. Of these List, the chief, includint; cert.im
1 Notwithstanding the continued advocacy of the wrong view
in PEFQ, 1898, 112-13, ■' is certain that jiinN.T D'H in Dt. 34 2
(AV 'the utmost sea'; RV 'the hinder .sea,' mg. 'the western
sea') is not the Dead Sea but the Mcditerr.inean ; cp Dt. 11 24.
2 The (not very wide) variations from this figure can for the
most part be explained by differences between one se.-ison and
another, which can cause the level of the lake to rise or fall some
10 or 15' feet. It is at its highest in April and May.
3 The discovery of the great depth of the suriace of the Dead
Sea below sea-level belongs to modern times ; it was made in-
dependently and almost simultaneously by Schubert on the one
hand, and Moore and Heek on the other, in 1837 ; and afterwards
confirmed by Russegger and by Symonds. , „ ^ „ . ,
* Ihe distance from the watershed to the Red Sea is about
46 ra., and to the Dead Sea over 73 m.
1043
winter torrents, are : (a) on the eastern side, reckoning from N.
to S., the Wady Ghuweir, the Wadys Zerka-Ma'in (Callirrhoe)-
MOjib (Arnon), Heni-Hamad, ed-Deraa (Kerak), Numfireh, el-
Ahsa (or es-§afiyeh) ; '(b) on the S., the Wadys Tufileh, el-Jeib,
el-Fikreh (these three traverse a marshy plain, the Sebkhah,
whicli stretches immediately southwards from the Dead Sea and
is bordered by gigantic thickets of reed.s) ; (c) on the western side,
going from S. to N., the Wady el-.\luhauivat, the Wady Seyal
(to the S. of which lies .Sebbeh, the ancient fortress of Ma.sada),
the spring of "Ain-Jedy (Engedi), the Wady cn-Nar (Kedron),
and the -spring of 'Ain el-Feshkhah (cp Beth-Akabah), to the S.
of which is the headland known as Ras el-Feshkhah.
Tlie amount of daily evaporation ^ has been estimated
at i3i millimetres, and the daily contribution of the
Jordan alone at 6,000,000 tons (the volume of the
Rhone at its infiux into the Lake of Geneva is 22,000,000
tons). Another feature of it is its great density, which
arises from its salinity (the mean is 1. 166). At a depth
of 1000 feet the solid matters contained in the water
represent 27 per cent of the total weight. These sub-
stances are mainly chlorides of sodium, magnesium, and
calcium, also certain derivatives of bromium. The
chloride of magnesium gives the water a very dis-
agreeable taste ; the chloride of calcium gives it its
slightly oily consistency. The eyes, and some assert
also the skin, are powerfully affected by contact with it.
Garments receive from the evaporating water a saline
deposit, with indelible spots of an oily appearance.
The salt encrusts also the many trees and pieces of wood
which lie stranded on the shore ; so much so that they
form a characteristic feature of the landscape, and recall
the striking antithesis in Jer. 175-8.
A bath in the Dead Sea at once proves its difference
in density from other seas or from fresh -water lakes.
Eggs float on it. The human body
4. Character-
being lighter than the water, swimmmg
istic features. ^^^^0,^^ difficult, the head alone of the
swimmer tending to sink. The boiling point of the water
is 221" F. It is remarkably limpid, and has a beautiful
colour, now blue, now green. To think of this lake as
sombre and sad is quite an illusion ; its intense colouring,
its varied effects of light, its scarped overhanging slojx-'s
broken by deep gorges, produce a picture of wild and
sublime beauty. ' The scenery round the sea is very
fine,' says Conder ; ' it is compared, by those who have
seen both, to that of the Lake of Geneva ' The present
writer, whose home is in Geneva, agrees with this com-
parison, it being understood that it is between the
northern portion of the Dead Sea and the eastern end
of the Lake of Geneva towards the embouchure of the
Rhone. Another common error about the De.id Sea is
that its waters have no motion ; on the contrary, it is
constantly agitated by the winds, and storms sometimes
drive huge billows to the shore. It does not owe its
name to this imagined immobility, but rather to the fact
that no sort of living creature — fish, crustacean, mollusc,
etc. — can subsist in its waters, the only exceptions being
certain inferior organisms and microties, as shown by
the investigations of P^hrenbcrg and of the zoologist
Lortet (not to be confused with the geologist Lartet).
This fact — which is conclusively proved by the death
not only of the fish carried down into it by the Jordan
(their bodies serve as food for numerous birds which
frequent the neighbourhood), but also of salt-water
fishes — has given rise to various incorrect ideas. Thus
it has been said that birds attempting to fly over it drop
down dead ; this is a mere imagination — a fable which,
like a host of earlier witnesses, the present writer is able
to contradict from ocular testimony — or perhaps it may
be the result of a confusion with some other lake (see
Reland, 244/:). It is equally false to say that the
shores of the Dead Sea derive their barrenness from the
pernicious action of its waters. What hinders the
growth of plants in its vicinity is not the presence of the
lake itself, but the absence of fresh water whether from
affluents or by precipitation. Wherever there is fresh
1 The evaporation produces whitish or bluish clouds which
float above the water. Hence ' a smoking waste ' (Wisd. 10 7).
Cp NlBS«AN.
DEAD SEA, THE
running water, as at Engcdi, where there is a thermal
spring (79'' K. ), vegetation nourishes (cp Cant. 1 14) and,
as elsewhere throughout the Ghor, exhibits a com-
bination of tropieal plants with others belonging to the
Mediterranean region. Finally, the scant [wpulation
of its shores is to be accounted for more by llie torrid
temperature (above icx>^ V. in the shade) than by any
infertility or positive insalubrity.
Ill fact, the lake )ia.s not always l>ccn so deserted : witness, for
example, tlic town of Tamak at the SW. extremity. Even the
shores of the Sea uf tialilec have gradually conic to be wholly
abandoned except in three or four localities. The shores of the
Dead Sea too had once a very different aspect. Hoth in
antiquity (we learn this from Tac. Hist. 56 and also from the
Madeba mosaic) and so recently as the time of the Crusades
when Kerak and other fortresses had such an important position,
the waters of the Dead Sea were enlivened with passing vessels.
Nor were the curative qualities of the water of the Dead Sea
unknown in the Koman period. Julius Africanus speaks of
these baths as wholesome (Reland, 253 /."), as also does Galen
(iV'. 34iy.), who(wrongly) adds that an artificial substitute could
be obtained by the simple expedient of saturating ordinary sea
water with added salt. Mention is often made of the mcphitic
odour exhaled by the Dead Soa (see Nibshan); but it has not
been shown that the lake itself is the cause of this. It may be
occasioned either by the marshy lagoons by which the lake is
liorilcred, or by the mineral springs of the neighbourhood. The
sulphurous odour, which reminds one of that of rotten eggs, is
particularly noticeable near 'Ain cl-h'cshkhah.
The lake, as we have seen, lies N. and S. , with a
ma.xinmm length of 47^ m. , a maximum breadth of 10
, _,. . m. (Josephus gives 66 and 17 m.
B. DunensioiiB. ,1 , ^ , c
rtsjx-ctively) and a superficial area of
360 sq. m. (the Lake of Geneva being 224 sq. m. ).
It is divided into two uiie(|ual jxjrtions by a peninsula,
11-12 m. in length and about 40-80 ft. above the level
of the lake, flat for the most part, but with a range of
hills rising 300 ft. This peninsula, formed of white
calcareous marl, with deposits of salt and gypsum,
projects from the E. shore ; it is separated from the W.
shore by a channel about 3 m. in breadth. The name
of the fieninsula is el-Mczra'ah or el-Lisan ; the last
designation, meaning 'the tongue," has been brought
into connection with the mention of the prV (EV 'the
bay [mg. : ' Heb. tongue'] that looketh southward ') in
Josh. 1.^(25; but whilst the modern Arabic term is
applied to the land in the middle of the lake, the two
biblical pass;iges refer to the water at the two ends of
the lake (cp Is. 11 15 ; ' the tongue of the ICgyptian sea ').
The N. promontory of the Lisan has been named Cape
Costigan and the .S. Cape Molyneux in honour of two bold
explorers who navigated the Dead Sea in 1835 and 1847 respec-
tively. We ought also to mention the expeditions of Moore and
Ueek in 1837 and of Symonds in 1841, and especially that of
Lieut. Lynch of the U.S. navy in 1848 and that of the Due de
Luynes in 1864, both of which were of great importance.!
The portion of the Dead Sea to the N. of the Eisan
is much the larger, and reaches a great depth ( 1278 ft. ).
The S. smaller pt^rtion is quite shallow (10-18 ft.), and
in parts even fordable. Possibly this portion is of less
ancient date than the rest of the lake, and may have
arisen within historic times in consetjuence of some sub-
sidence of the land. The shores immediately bordering
on this section are the most saline of the whole country.
There are salt marshes in the neighbourhood, and it is
there that, running parallel with the W. shore, the
curious ridge of rock salt, a veritable hors d'auvre as
l^rtet (p. 87) picturesc)ucly calls it, occurs. It is
called Jebel Usduni or I.iajar- Usdum or Khasm-
Usdum, — thus echoing the name of Sodom, — and rises
to a height of 600 ft., with a length of 3 J m. and a
breadth of over half a mile. In its immediate vicinity
can lie seen, occasionally at least, detiiched pillars of salt,
suggesting some resemblance to a rudimentary colossal
statue.
Another peculiarity is the presence of asphalt in the
Dead Sea basin (see Bitltmen), whence the Greek name
of Asphaltitis (cp Tac. Hist. 56 ; Sir.
6. Its asphalt.
I62 42 ; Dioscor. I99 ; Died. Sic. 19a8).
1 Since 1893 rowine boats, sailing boats, and, more recently,
even steam launches have occasionally been at the service of
travellers.
Near the lake are found beds of a whitish chalky marl,
and also of bituminous marl. It is not, however, from
these deposits on its shores that the water of the Dead
Sea derives its bituminous constituents, but rather, no
doubt, from deep subatjueous beds ; there 1 a been
observed a marked coincidence between the appea ance
of considerable bituminous masses floating on the surface
and the occurrence of the earth<iuakes which at intervals
desolate the whole of that region. When these take
place quantities of bitumen are broken loose and con»e
to the surface ; the natives are diligent in collecting
them, but hitherto no methodical exploitation of these
mineral resources on a commercial basis has Xtccn
atlempted. The existence of bituminous constituents
in small (juantity in the water can always lie shown.
Notwithstanding the presence of this bitumen, of
sulphur springs, and of m;ujses of sulphur which are
met with here and there, as also of certain igneous
formations, the region of the Dead Sea must not Ije
included in the category of volcanic territories properly
so called. On the contrary, in opposition to the asser-
tions of certain travellers too richly endowed with
imagination [e.g., Russegger and van de Velde), the
very competent geologists already named agree in
doubting whether any large part in the formation of
this region ought to be attributed to igneous forces.'
The cretaceous beds rise in regular stages on the W. bank
from the margin of the lake. On the other shore the arr.inge-
ment is no less regular ; but under the cretaceous beds there arc
carboniferous strata and beneath there are other formations still
more ancient. At the must it may Ije admitted that certain
volcanic agitations have made themselves felt in the depths of
the lake. Klanckcnhurn (/.DI'V, i8(,A, p. 59) recalls and
attaches importance to an observation made by >Iolyneux and
quoted by Hitter (706 yl) relating to a whitish belt of foam
stretching from the NW. of the lake towards the Lisan and
following on the whole the mcdi.in line of the lake, above which
a whitish vapour lingered in the air. From this phenomenon,
supported by certain other indications, he concludes the existence
of a fault in the fl or of the lake which is prolonged in the
ch.-innel skirting the Lisan and terminates in the S. portion of
the lake near the embouchure of the W. Muliauwat. On lotli-
I2th .^L-lrch of this year (1899) the author of this article witnessed
the same phenomenon as that seen by Molyneux in 1B47.
In a general way we might descrilie the geological
formation of the Jortlan valley and De.id Sea liasin by
tiie technical expression effondretnent.
7. The story
in Gen. 19.
'I he phenomenon occurred at tlie time of
the transition from the tcrtiiiry to the
quaternary epoch. It is not pxsssible, therefore, to estab-
lish any relation between the formation of the De-ad Sea
as a whole and the catastrophe described in Gen. 19.
At most that naixative might possibly atlinit of being
connected with certain exeiits of a more local character
and of secondary iniport.ince, which might have occurred
within historic times (see Lot, SIUDIM, Souom).
As we have not to deal with the historical side of the question,
but with the geographical only, it will suffice to say (a) that the
text of Genesis s|}eaks of a rain of fire and brimstone and a
pillar of smoke rising to heaven, but neither of an earthquake,
nor of an igneous eruption, nor of an inundation ; (h) that there
is nothing to show that the cities of the Pcntapolis were in the
plain of Siddim ; (<:) th;a the remark in Gtn. I43 'the plain of
Siddim which is the Salt Sea' may be a conjecture of the
narrator or even the gloss of a copyist or late re.ider ; (</) that
account must be taken of the mention of ihe kikkar of Jordan
(Gen. 13 10-12 19 17 25 28 29) ; (<■) that jxis-ibly a distmction must
be made between the actual position of the Pentapniis and the
position assigned to it by later writers, inasmuch as these
entert.iined perhaps divergent opinions as to this point; (/")
that the position of Zoar is as problematical as that of the other
four cities ; finally {^g) that scholars are divided into two camps
— those who place I lie Pentapolis in the N. of the Dead Sea,
and those who place it in the S.
In complete contrast with its sombre narratives
regarding these doomed cities, the OT, in two propheti-
cal passages of Ezekiel and Zechariah already cited,
describes the transformation of the waste and barren
regions of the Dead Sea by a life-giving stream issuing
from the temple, fertilising all that it touches so that
fish and fruit-bearing trees abound.
Hoffmann has adopted this
1 The well-known geologist '
view.
104s
1046
DEAL
Reland, Paltrstina, 238-258 ; Seetzen, Reisen, 1 405-430
2217-274 293-385 37-16 4352-365 367-389401-403; V. Schubert,
Keise in das Morgcnlafui, 884-94 ! Kobin-
8. Literature, son, Bihl. Res. 201-253 463-501 601-608 ;
Phys. Geogr. oj the Holy Land, 187-216 {'65) ;
Ritter, I'ergl. Erdkunde der Sinai- Halbinsel, von Paliestina,
etc. ii. 1553-780; Der Jordan und die lieschiffung des Todten
Afeeres ($0); Tobler, Topographie van Jerusalem, 2906-952;
de Saulcy, Voyage autour de la Mer Morte (^^-i); Rey, Voyage
dans te Haouran et aux bords de la Mer Morte, 215-306;
Fraas, Aus dem Orient : Geologisclu Betrachtungen ('67), 62-67
73-78 ; Das Todte Meer ('67) ; Tuch, Ueber den Ursprung des
Todten Meeres nach dem A T ('63) ; Lynch, Narrative 0/ the
US Expedition to . . . the Dead Sea ('49) ; Official Report 0/
the US Expedition, eic. ('52) ; Due de Luynes, Voyage d' Ex-
ploration a la Mer Morte ('75, seq.), see especially vol. iii.,
Geologic, par M. Loui-i Lartet ; A. Stoppani, // Mare Morto
('75) ; E. Falcucci, // Mar Morto e la Pentapoli del Giordano
('81); Hull, Mount Seir ('89), chap. IS/; Memoir on the
Geology and Geography of A rabia Petrcea, Palestine, etc. ('89) ;
Gu6rin, Description de la Palestine ('74): Samarie, 1 60-96;
Lortet, La Syrie d'aujourd'hui ('84), 389-442 ; Tristram, The
Land 0/ Israel (^Zz), 255-360; G. A. Sm., Hist. Geog. 0/ the
Holy Land (^in), 497-516; Blanckenhorn, ' Entsteh. u. Gesch.
d. Todten Meeres,' ZDPV, li) 1-59 ('96); ' Noch einmal Sodom
u. Gomorrha," ib. 21 65-83 (98) ; ' Das Tote Meer u. der Unter-
gang von Sodom u. Gomorrha' ('98); Diener, 'Die Katastrophe
von Sodom u. Gomorrha im Lichte geologischer Forschung,'
Mitth. derK.-K. Geogr. Ges. in IVein, 1897, pp. 1-22). LU. G.
DEAL, TENTH (pt/T), Lev. 14 10. See Weights
AND Mi;asukes.
DEATH (Ganatoc), see Dead, The.
DEBIR (-l^n^ ; AABeiN [B*], -p [AL], AABeiN [B^]),
king of Eglon, defeated and slain by Joshua (Josh. IO3
cp 23)-
DEBIR (T2^ ; AaBgip [B.\L]). (i) A place in the
S. of Judah (Josh. IO38/. etc.) ; see Kirjath-sepher.
2. In Josh. 107, mnT is by AV taken as a place-name
on the N. boundary of Judah ; it has been identified by
some with the present Thoghret ed Debr near Tal'at
ed-Dam (Adummim) on the way from Jerusalem to
Jericho.
The text, however, is uncertain and the word may not be a place-
name. <B renders : ' to the fourth part (n'^m) of the vale of
Achor.' Di. suggests the translation 'backwards' — i.e., 'west-
wards'— |'3i meaning 'behind' ; but there is no other instance
of its geographical application.!
3. Josh. 1326; RVnig. LiUEBlR. G. A. S.
DEBORA, RV Deborah (AeBBcopA [BN], Ae/wBcopA
[A], the grandmother of Tobit (Tob. 1 8).
DEBORAH (nnU"!, 'a bee,' §68; cp WRS in
Journ. Phil. 14 ['85] 120/; AeBBcORA [BAL]). i. A
-. . heroine who, with the aid of Barak, de-
1. uccaaion ijyg^gjj ^^^^. Israelites from their Canaanite
, ■, . . oppressors. The victory is celebrated in
leadership, the triumphal ode, Judg. 5. The Israelites,
particularly the tribes which had settled about the plain
of Jezreel, had been reduced to great straits by the
Canaanites, who, holding the fortified cities along the
plain (Judg. 1 27), blockaded the main roads and cut
off communication, while from their strongholds they
harried the country so that the unwalled villages were
deserted (56/.). Incited by Deborah, the Israelites at
last took up arms against their oppressors. Under
Barak as their leader, Ephraim, Benjamin, and Manasseh
united with Issachar, Zebulun, and Naphtali, and gave
battle to Sisera and the confederate Canaanite kings
in the plain not far from Taanach and Megiddo.
The Canaanites, notwithstanding their formidable iron
chariots, were put to rout ; the waters of the Kishoii
completed their ruin. Sisera, seeking refuge in flight
at a nomad's tent, was killed by a woman, Jael.
The history of the struggle is related somewhat
differently in chap. 4,'-' according to which Barak, at the
summons of Deborah, raised ten thousand men of the
tribes of Zebulun and Naphtali, occupied Mt. Tabor,
and from that position attacked Sisera as the latter was
advancmg against him. A more serious difference is that
1 Read m31D, 'to the wilderness' — i.e., of Judah. Beth-
arabah (cp 156) was one of its cities (156i^).
2 On the relation of chaps. 4 and 5 in general, see Judges, § 7.
1047
DEBT
in chap. 4 the oppressor of Israel, from whom it is delivered
by Deborah, is Jabinkingof Hazor, acityin UpperGalilee;
whilst Sisera is only Jabin's general. In the action, how-
ever, Jabin plays no part ; and we can only surmise that
the story of Sisera has, by mistake, been connected
with a tradition of a conflict between some of the
northern tribes and the king of Hazor (cp also Josh. II).
From chap. 4 we learn that Deborah was a prophetess
— an inspired woman ; that her husband's name was
Lappidoth ; and that her home was between Bethel and
Ramah, whither the Israelites resorted to her for judg-
ment. Chap. 5 15, however, seems to prove that she
was of the tribe of Issachar ; and other considerations
would incline us to think that she lived in or near the
plain of Jezreel. (For a conjecture on this subject see
Daberath. ) That her home was in Mt. Ephraim may
have been inferred by the author of 45 (an editorial
addition to the narrative) from the existence of a tomb
of Deborah under a tree below Bethel, where, according
to the patriarchal legend (see below, no. 2), the nurse of
Rebekah was buried (Gen. 358).
Barak, who shares with Deborah the glory of the
victory, was from Kedesh in Naphtali (46). This city
„ t ^^ somewhat remote, and in the account of
■ Sisera's flight seems impossible. It has
been conjectured by Wellhausen (CH 221) that the name
of the more famous Kedesh in Galilee has here sup-
planted an obscure Kedesh {q.v., 2) in Issachar (i Ch.
672 [57] — mentioned with Daberath not far from Mt.
Tabor) ; a suggestion which is the more plausible that
5 15, if the text be sound, connects Barak also with
Issachar (cp Bezaanannim, Kishio.v). It is possible
that Kedesh in Naphtali, in the immediate vicinity of
Hazor, comes in some way from the story of Jabin.
The Song of Deborah bears in itself the evidence that
it is the work of one who had lived through the great
„, „ struggle which it celebrates, and is for
.° that reason of inestimable value as an
■ historical monument. It is also not only
one of the oldest Hebrew poems which have come down
to us, but one of the greatest. On its date cp Sisera
and Poetical Literature, § 4 (iv. ). See also His-
torical Literature, § 2.
Few odes in the world's literature, indeed, can be
compared with this triumphal Te Deum. Unfortunately,
the text, especially in z.'z^. 8-15, has suffered grievously
from the injuries of time.
Until very recent times, Deborah has been universally
believed to be the author. It is ascribed to her in the
title ; and this testimony was thought to be conclusively
confirmed by v. 7, ' Until I, Deborah, arose.' The form
of the Hebrew verbs in this verse, however, is ambiguous,
and the clause might equally well be interpreted, ' Until
thou didst arise, Deborah ' (cp v. 12) ; whilst © and Vg.
render in the third person (cp v. 15). On the other
hand, the natural inference from v. 15, and especially
from V. 12, is that the heroine is not the poet.
On the subjects of this article see, further, Moore,
Judges ('95), and cp Jael. On the Song of Deborah,
cp Hadrach, Kadesh (2), Kishon, Meroz, and see
A. Miiller, Das Lied der Deborah ('87) ; G. A. Cooke,
The History and Song of Deborah ('92) ; additional
literature in Moore, op. cii., 127, 136.
More recent studies, chiefly in the text, are : Grimme, ZDMG,
'96, sj^ffi; Marquart, Fundamentc isr. u. jUd. Gesch. ('96) ;
Budde, Actes d. X"" Congrcs d. Orientalistes, 2 noff. ('96) ;
Ruben, /O/^, '98, Si,^ff-: Rie.ss, Preuss. Jahrb. 91295^;
D. H. Mailer, Actes d. f Xlme Congres d. Orientalistes, 4 261^?:
('98). G. F. M.
2. Rebekah's nurse who, according to J, died and was buried
below Bethel under the oak known as Allon-bacuth (Gen. 35 8,
pfPfiiopa [E], Sefioppa [L]). She is alluded to, but unnamed, in
24 59, where she accompanies Rebekah on her departure from
Bethuel [J]. To connect these two traditions would make her
about 150 years old at the time of her death. [For a radical
emendation of the text which removes this difficulty, see Dinah.]
See, further, Dehokah (t).
DEBT (*L"3, 2 K. 47 ; Aanion. Mt. I827). DEBTOR
1048
DECALOGUE
(3in ? Kzck. 18 7 : xpeo<t>i\eTHC. l>k. 741). See Law
ANu Justice, § 16, and Trade anu Commerce.
DECALOGUE (h AeKAAoroc, sc. BiBAoc ; deca-
/,>!;its, sc. lih-r), a term adopted from Patristic (ireek and
I.atii). and meaning what we conunonly call the ten com-
mandments. Ultimately, the name comes from the LXX
which in this case adheres closely to the orifiinal Hebrew
1 MeaniniF '""' speaks, not of ten commandments.
Of the term ''"* °^ ^'^" "'^'"''^ <*^*'* ^'^'" "■■ P'JMa^o,
■ Kx. .3428 Ut. 4i3 10 4). The decalogue,
according to the biblical narrative, was uttered by God
from lloreb and written by him on two tables of stone
which he had prepared. Afterwards, when Moses had
broken the tables in indignation at the idolatry of the
people, he was bidden to hew other tables on which God
again wrote the ten words. They were the foutidation
of a covenant {hi'ri/h) lx;tween Vahwe and his people
(Dt. 413) and were placed in the ark as the ' testimony'
('i\iuth) or revelation of Yahwe's will (E.\. 25i6); see
a)VK.\A.NT, § 6 (ii. ).
The two i)arallel texts of the decalogue, one in E.x. 20
the other in Dt. 5, present striking points of difference.
2. The two ^" l'>:odus the sabbath is to Ik; kept, Ix;-
texts '^■^"^^ Vahwe made all things in six days
and rested the seventh ; in Deuteronomy,
Ix-'cause the slave as well as his master needs rest. Here,
too, as in the command to honour parents, there are
amplifications of language peculiar to the recension in
Deuteronomy. In Exodus the Israelite is forbidden to
covet his neighbour's house, and then wife, slave, and
cattle are specified as possessions included within the
Hebrew idea of house or household. In Deuteronomy
the commandment is adapted to a later and more humane
view. First, the Israelite is not to 'covet' his neigh-
bour's wife. Next, he is not to ' desire ' his neighbour's
house, land, slaves, etc. The separation of the wife from
mere property is very significant (see Family, § 6).
How comes it that the parallel texts vary so seriously ?
The answer now generally given is that' originally the
decalogue was composed of concise precepts, which were
expanded in different ways by later editors. The deca-
logue was incorporated in his work by the Elohist ; it
was repeated by the Deuterononnst and lastly by the
Priestly Writer. Xo wonder then that, in the final
redaction of the Pentateuch, each text of the decalogue
offers clear marks of the Deuteronomical style, whilst in
Ex. 208-11 the Deuteronomic motive of humanity has
Jjeen supplanted by the example of God's rest after the
week of creation— evidence of a super- redaction in the
spirit of P (cp Ex. 31 17/, Gen. 22/-). Commandments 6-9
preserve their primitive form. We mav therefore on that
analogy restore the decalogue to its original form thus :—
Decalogue of Exodus 20
I. "Thou shalt have no other gods Ije.side me.
2 Thou shalt not make unto thee any (graven) image.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of Vahwe thy God for a vain
end.i
4. Remember the sabbath day to hallow it.
5. Honour thy father and thy mother.
6. Thou shalt do no murder.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8. Thou shalt not steal.
9. Thou shalt not hear false witness against thy neighbour.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours house.
(a) In their arrangement the commandments fall into
two pentads, or sets of five each, corresponding to the
3. Arrange- '^^° tables. The first table sets forth
ment. *^*'' '^^^ ^^ P'^'^ '" ^^^ ?"■■*= worship of
Yahw6 and in reverence to parents, the
second table exhibits the law of probity or duty to fellow
Israelites, conceived, however, in an exclusively negative
form. This is the scheme known to Philo (De Decalogo,
12) and Josephus (v4«/. iii. 55). adopted by the Greek
and Anglican churches, as also by the Scottish and
other churches of the Calvinistic type, and approved,
among recent scholars, by Dillmann.
1 Perhaps for purposes of sorcery.
1049
DECALOGUE
Another arrangement (adopted by Knobel and, in
1869, by Kuencn) is to count the opening statement, * 1
am Yahw6 thy God,' etc.. iis the first 'word,' and bind
the commandments against foreign gods and image wor-
ship into one. This is the Talmudic division, which is
still in force among the Jews, and is also of greater
antitjuity in the (ireek church than some have suppose*!.*
Augustine, too (and he is followed by Roman Catholics
and Lutherans), treats the prohibition of serving other
gods and worshipping images as one commandment.
He makes this the first, however, not, like the modern
Jews, the second ' word. ' Hence he has to divide the pro-
hibition of coveting into two commandments, viz. : one
against covetinga neighbours wife, theother against covet-
ing his goods. The objection to the Talmudic scheme is
the awkwardness of a law which makes up the number ten
from one statement of fact and nine precepts. The.Augus-
tinian scheme cannot Ije fitted to the text in Exodus and
can scarcely have lx;en intended even by the Deuteronomist.
The order given by the Vatican text of the L.XX
in Exodus is ' Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou
shalt not steal. Thou shalt not murder,' and in Deutero-
nomy ' Th(iu shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not
murder. Thou shalt not steal.' Probably the variation
arose from the feeling that the prohibition of adultery,
as the destruction of family life, should be immediately
connected with the injunction to honour parents.
We come next to the question of date. The Elohist
document (perhaps a later edition of it) is our earliest
4. Date '-''"'^''"•'*' witness, and that does not carry us
■ back beyond the middle of the eighth century
B.C. Nor does internal evidence point to a much earlier
time. The character of the decalogue, which is not
ritual but almost purely moral ; the prohibition of images,
apparently unknown to Elijah and Elisha ; the refine-
ment which forbids thoughts of covetousness (the Hebrew
cannot fairly be taken otherwise); all lend support to the
view that the decalogue is grounded on the teaching of
the great prophets of whose discourses we have written
records. It has been compared with the loftier teaching
in Micah66-8, and may belong to the same age, i.e., at
earliest that of Manasseh (see, further, MosEs).
The reasons against a date very much earlier are
clinched by the modern discovery that there was another
6. Second •^'^^^'oS^e older in character. True, \se
and older '^*'^""°' ^'^y ^^'^ certain how each particular
Decalogue. P''*^'^'-'P' °^ ^^is older decalogue ran. We
do know, however, that reference is made
to it by the Yahwist in Ex. 34 28, and further, that the
decalogue itself is imbedded in 10-26, and there is, there-
fore, no doubt about its general character. Wellhausen's
reconstruction is as follows:''^ —
Decalogue of Exodus 34
1. "Thou shalt worship no other god.
2. Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.
3. The fe.ist of unleavened bread .shalt thou keep.
4. Every tirstling is mine.
5. Thou shalt observe the feast of week.s.
6. And the feast of ingathering at the year's end.
^' .Tl°" ^''^'' "°' °^^^ '^^ blooti of my sacrifice with leaven.
8. The fat of my feast shall not be left over till the niorning.3
9. The best of the firstfruits of thy land shall thou bring to the
house of Yahwe thy God.
10. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk.*
The Yahwistic legend which encloses this decalogue
is simpler and more natural, for here it is Moses, not
1 GefTken (EinthtiluHg (Ui Pekalogs, 1838) found it to occur
firstmSyncellus(<r/>ra79oA.u.)and Cedrenus (1130) ; but Nestle
has shown that it is to be met with in the Codex Vaticanus and
the Ambrosianus. See Nestle, /.>/. '//>««, S 426/: (J"'y '^7)1
and cp Redpath, 'Codex Zittaviensis,' Exp. Times, 8383
(May 97).
2 C//331/; cp Stade, CF/lsio; Staerk, Deuteronomium,
3°/
» Accordmg to the more original text in Ex. 23 18.
* The number ten is gained by omitting the command of the
seventh-day rest (which is out of place in the cycle of annual
fe.ists), and the command that all males should appear before
V ahwe thrice in the year (which is merely a recapitulation of the
three preceding laws).
1050
DECAPOLIS
Yahw6, who hews the tables and writes the words. The |
decalogue represents that ritual of outward worship
which was essential to the early stages of national
religion, but was subordinated to ethical monotheism
by Amos and his successors. Yet even this decalogue
must be put long after the time of Moses. The feasts
mentioned imply an agricultural life, and nmst have been
adopted by the Israelites after their settlement.
See ( )ehler, O/d lestament Theology, 1 267^ (gi 85, 86) ; and,
for the later criticism, Kuenen, iJex. 244 ; Smend, A TRel.
6. Literature.
273/^. 2787^ ; Rothstein, Das Bundcshuch,
('8'8) ; Hudde in ZA ty ('qI), pp. 99/,
Bantsch, Das Buniiesbuch ('92) ; Meissner,
Der Dekalog ('93) ; Montetiore, JQR 3 286^ ; Addis, The
Docuiiunts o/the Hexatcuch, 1 136^ Robertson Smith (A^C)
art. ' I )ec.-ilogue ') in 1876 held that the decalogue, as a system
of ' ten words, was as old as Moses, though the original fourth
commandment must have had a much simpler form. He also re-
jected the hypothesis of a second decalogue. How largely he had
modified his views in later years on both pnjnts may he gathered
from OrjC(-) 22>^ff- See also Exouus, li. g 4. \v. E. K.
DECAPOLIS (AeKAnoAic [Ti. WH]) is the name
given in the gospels (.Ml. 4 25 .Mk. 5 20) to a territory in
„ V -f Bashan and Gilead covered, or affected,
o«^ !««r<.H«Jl!^ ^^y t'le Po^^t-T of ^ league of ten or more
and contedera- ^,,.^^.^ ^^^^^^ ^^,^„^j ^^ ^j^ -^^ ^^ ^^^^
*^°"^- AfKaTroXews. by Pliny HN v. 15.
Decapolitana rei^o). Josephus calls the league itself
both AcKciTroXts [BJ\\\.^^) and at iv rg ^vpi<f 5^Ka
TToXeij ( KiVrt, 65 74). Other early instances of the
name are Ptolemy v. 1522, and C/(J, no. 450, of
the time of Hadrian. Eusebius describes the Deca-
polis of the Gospels as a region (see below, § 2).
The first Greek cities in Syria were founded by the
veterans of Alexander, and from his time their numbers
were rapidly increased by the immigration of Greeks
under the patronage of the Seleucids and Ptolemies.
On the west the Greeks settled in ultimately Hellenised
Phoenician and Philistine towns ; but beyond Jordan
many of their settlements were upon fresh sites. Among
the oldest were Pella, Dion, Philadelphia (on the
site of Rabbath-Ammon), Gadara, and Abila — all strong
fortresses by 218 B.C. (Polyb. 571; 10 39; ]os. Ant.
.\ii. 'i 3 ; Stark, Gaza, 381). Bosra had become largely
Greek in the time of the Maccabees (i Mace. 024^).
Gerasa and Hippus are not mentioned till the first
century B.C. (Jos. Ant. xiii. 15 3.4 ; BJ \. 4. 8).
As the Hellenic world came under Roman sway,
various confederacies of Cireek cities were formed, both
for purposes of trade, like the Hanseatic League, and
for defence against alien races (Mommsen, Prm>. of the
Rom. E;np., Eng. ed. 1 264/.). Such confederation
was nowhere more necessary than in .Syria, where, after
the success of the Maccabees, and especially under the
Jewish king Alexander Jannasus (104-78 B.C.), the
Greek cities must needs have combined against the
common danger of overthrow and absorption by their
Semitic neighbours. Such combinations, however, if
they were formed, proved a failure till the Roman legions
led by Pompey reached Syria in 65. Then the Greek
cities took a new lease of life. Several called themselves
after Pomp)ey, and several dated their eras from the
year of his Sjrian campaign, 64-63 B.C. Among these
were Gadara, Hippos, Pella, Dion, Abila, Kanata,
Kanatha, and Philadelphia. Pompey gave them, or
after this time they gradually received, municipal free-
dom, the rights of coinage, asylum, property in the
surrounding districts, and association with one anotlier.
They were, however, put under the Roman Province of
Syria (Ant. xiv. 4 4 BJ i. 7 7). and taxed for imperial pur-
poses ; their coins bore ' the image of Caesar ' ; and
they were liable to military service (B/ ii. 18 19). Some
of them, certainly with the reservation of their rights,
were afterwards transferred from the Governor of Syria
to the direct authority of Herod.
From Pompey's time to Hadrian's (106 A.D. ), Rome's
grasp of Eastern Palestine was neither constant nor
effective. It was during this time, and in this region of
1051
DECAPOLIS
unsettlement, that the League of the Decapolis arose.
The precise year we are unable to fix ; it may not have
been till after Herod's death in 4 B.C., but probably
2 The Deca ^""^^ ^""" ^'^'*^'' ''""^P'-'y's campaign,
politan leajrue. ''^' '^''^V ""^ '^'^ "'''"''' '"'P"*"^' ^^'^ ^^*-'^Kue
*^ ° comprised ten cities. Only one lay W.
of Jordan — Scythopolis, the ancient Bethshean. Com-
manding the approach to the others, by Esdraelon, from
the Greek cities of the coast and the Levant, Scythopolis
remained the capital of the league. All the other nine lay
either ujxjn the three great roads which, crossing Jordan,
traversed E. Palestine, or on the trunk road which these
ultimately joined : Pella, Gadara, and Hippos on the
E. edge of the Jordan valley, and the Lake of Galilee;
Dion, Gerasa (modern Jerash), and Philadelphia on or
near the S. road ; Raphana, somewhere near the central
road ; Kanatha (now Kanawat, see Kenath). where
the central road joins the great trunk road from N. to
S. at the foot of the Jebel Hauran ; and Damascus, at
the junction of this road with the northernmost of the
three roads. All the sites are certain except those of
Raphana and of Dion. These form the earliest list that
we have — Pliny's in //A'5i6[i8]. Other cities were
added. Ptolemy gives eighteen, omitting Raphana, and
adding other nine, mostly towards Damascus, — Abila, on
a branch of the Yarmuk 12 m. E. of Gadara ; Kanata,
either the modern Kerak or el-Kuneiyeh in en-Nukra ;
Kapitolias, probably the modern Beit er-Ras, near
Irbid ; and some of the Semitic towns incorfxjrated in
the extension of the Empire in 106, such as Edrei and
Bosra. Each of these cities held sway over the territory
in its neighbourhood. Round Hippos was Hippene
(B/ iii. 3 1 ) ; round Gadara the country of the Gadarenes
(Mk. 5 1 according to one reading), which, if we can
judge from the trireme on some Gadarene coins, extended
to the Lake of Galilee. In the fourth century Jerome
calls all Gilead the ' region of Gerasa.' These suburban
properties or spheres of influence nmst have touched
one another, and the remains of the long aqueduct from
the centre of Hauran by Edrei to (jadana is one proof
of how far they extended. The ' Decapolitan region '
(coasts of Decapolis) was, therefore, a wide and solid,
if loosely defined, territory lying on the E. of the Lake
of Galilee and stretching across a large part of Gilead.
Eusebius (OS) defines the Decapolis of the Gospels
as lying in Pera;a round Hippos, Pella, and Gadara.
Pliny, however, describes it as interpenetrated by the
Jewish Tetrarchies (/7A'5i6); and in particular the
territories of Herod .Antipas in Galilee and Pera;a were
probably so joined across Jordan as to cut off, from the
E. Decapolis, the suburban territory of Scythopolis.
■Within this region of Decapolis Hellenism was pre-
dominant in the time of the ministry of Jesus, and thence
3. Civilization. '' ^°Z'''^°''' "P°" ^^'"^- '^^''/'
proved by a trace or two in the
Gospels themselves (e.jf. , the presence of a large herd
of swine in Gadara), by the ample ruins, still extant, of
Greek architecture (the most glorious period of which,
however, was not till the time of the Antonines), and
especially by the constant communication between the
Decapolis and the Mediterranean ports and Greece,
and by the flourishing state of Greek literatiu-e in the
Ten Cities. The Decapolis had, in each city, temples
to purely Hellenic deities, theatres, amphitheatres, and
various athletic institutions. Yearly were the vayKpAria
celebrated — games in which every form of physical
strength was exhibited. There was a vigorous
municipal life of democratic constitution. Gadara w.as
the birthplace or home of Philodemus the Epicurean (a
contemporary of Cicero), Meleager the epigrammatist,
Mdnippus the satirist, Theodorus the rhetorician (the
tutor of Tiberius), and others. The Greek writers of
Damascus are still better known. Gerftsa had a school
famous for its teachers. Besides, the League, being
largely a commercial union, pushed the Greek methods
of trade across W. Palestine ; the result is seen in the
DECK
many commercial and travellers' terms and names for
objects of trade and human consumption which, in the
centuries immediately before and after Christ, passed
from Greek into Hebrew. See Th ai>k and Commkrck.
Hc>iclcs the oiicicnt aulhuritics already cited, see Kpiphaniti!i,
Utrrii. .1)7; Dt Mens, ft I'otui. 15; .Stcphaiius Kyzaiit. De
Vrbihus (HaNil., 1568, ed. Diiidorf, Leps 1825)
Literature, especially the art. Vt(m.aa. \ Kcland, raltrstina
108, 303, 506 ; E. dc Saulcy, Nmiiisniatique lU la
Terrr Sainte, Paris, 1874; SchOr. //m/. 894/1^. ; CJASm. HG
chap.JH ; andvariousworksof Iravclin E. Palestine. g. A. S.
DECK (EH,-?). Ezck.276 RV'k- ; EV Bknciies.
See Ship.
DEDAN (H'!'. oftenest AaiAan [BNADEQ]). a son of
Raamah (see Ge(x;raphv, § 23). son of (t.'SH. Gen.
IO7 (F), or of Jokshan, son of Keturah, Gen. 263 (J).
I Ch. 1 3".
taU» [ADF.QL], «». [KL], U^tap. [B/JQl, Upiav [L i Ch.
I33], jatja. [D], lav 11], xat hav K>-'], M^^'o^ |EJ, iovha.ha.v [HJ.
As the name of a peopli; it also occurs in Is. 21 13
('caravans of Dkd.vm ri;s ' [so KV ; AV DkdanimJ, in
connection with the ' land of 1 cina' ; 5at6a»' [HNAC^)]. but
in Aq. and Syin. iwSan/i ; and in 'Iheod. ..nd Orig. ha.i.h.
[Q™k]), Jer. 2523 (with Tenia and Buz). 498 (where it
is thought of as adjoining Hdoni). Ezek. 2;')i3 (where
©BAO reads huaKoiuvoi ; cp ©"a'l for mi in Eev. 2617 ;
Pesh. yf>), Ezek. 27 20 (with Arabia, Kedar, Sheba,
and Raamah, as trading with Tyre), .3813 (with Sheba),
but not 27 15 (see Rodanim). These passages (to
which add Gen. 2f)3 i Ch. 1 32) all point to Arabia, but
some to the southern, some to the northern region.
OT occurs in Min. and .Sab. inscriptions (see es[)ecially
laser, Skisze'ly)^). Probably Dedan was a tribe with
jx^rmancnt seats in S. or central Arabia (Glaser, I.e.,
locates N. of Medina) and trading settlements in the
NW. F. B.
DEDICATE, DEDICATION. For t'-^p, kiJdes (lit.
' to separate,' more usually rendered ' to consecrate,'
■hallow,' or 'sanctify') sec Ci.kan and Unclean,
§ 1/. For Din, hdram, see Ban.
^jn, hdnak, efKAiNizeiN, nieans prop. ' to initiate';
see Catechise, and cp HDH, s.v. Various dedication
ceremonials are described, mostly in late documents.
There is the dedication of the temple in i K. 8 1-63 (see v. 63 :
ivtKa.iv\.<Ttv) II 2 Ch. 52-7 5 (75 : kv(Ka.i.vi.ijfv), .1 'dedication ' of
the altar l)ein>; separately referred to in 2 Ch.79 {ivKaivia^ov) \
thatof the altar of the tabernacle is descril)ed in Nu. 7 \off.
(P.j «yicaii/i<r/noi); that of the walls of Jerusalem as rebuilt by
Nehemiah in Neh. VliTff. (iv iyKiuv\.oi% ni\o\)%). No special
rite is prcscrilxd for the dedication of a new house referred to in
Dt. 20 5 (ivtKa.ivi<T<iy).— On the dedication of temple and altar in
the Maccabean period, see the following article.— The dedication
or ratification of a covenant with blood, and the dedication or
inauguration of a new and vital wav of access to God are
alluded to in Heb. ;• 18 (see Covknant) and Heb. 10 20.
DEDICATION, FEAST OF THE. On the 15th of
Chislev of the year 145 of the Seleucid era ( = Dec.
168 B.C.), during the religious persecution under
Antiochus Epiphanes, a pagan altar was set up on the
altar of burnt offering at Jerusalem, and on the 25th
of the same month sacrirtce was for the first time
offered upon it (i Mace. 1 41-64 2Macc. 61-11; Jos.
Ant. xii. 54). Three years afterwards (165 B.C.),
Judas the Maccabee had recovered Jerusalem and the
temple. The temple was then cleansed, the altar of
burnt offering displaced by one entirely new, new-
sacred vessels made, and the temple reconsecrated with
great festivities. These histcd for eight d.iys, beginning
on 2Sth Chislev 148 of the Seleucid era (Dec. 165 B.C.),
— that is, on the very day on which, three years Ixjfore,
the alur had been desecrated (i Mace. 4 36-39).
In commemoration of these events, the feast of the
iledication (n3:n [Megilla, iii. 46; Bikkurim, 16; Rosh
hashana, I3, etc.]; tA ^Kolfia, Jn. IO22 ; al r}n4pai
iyKfuvKTixov Tov OvffiaffTifplov, I Mace. 4 59 : KaOapiafibs
ToO Upov 2 Mace. 1 18), lasting eight days from the asth
of Chislev, was celebrated ' with mirth and joy ' (fier
einppoavvTjt Kal xa/>a») annually. According to 2 Mace.
IOS3
DEGREE
106 it was observed after the manner of the feast of
Tabernacles, and in another passage it is even called
the feast of tabernacles of the month Chislev {ijfi^pai rijt
aKrjDoiniyiai tov xafffXei-, 2 Mace. 1 9). The special and
distinguishing jieculiarity in its celebration was the
illunnnation of synagogues and hou.ses.
.\t the do'ir of each house one light, at least- in the ca«e of
those who could afford the expense, as many lights ax there were
persons in the house— had to l>e displayed ; on the second diiy the
number of lights must lje doubled, on theihiid trebled, and soon.
Jewish tradition explains the eight-days' duration of the feast,
and the custom of displaying lights, by the a.sscrtion that ludas
found only one small cruse of consecrated oil, but that it Luted
for eight days instead of only tor one.
The proljability is that the illumination, like the dura-
tion and other features of the feast, was taken over from
the feast of tabernacles and referred to the relighting of the
golden candlestick (i Mace. 450). See C'ANDi.tsricK.
No mention of this custom of illumination is made in the
books of M.iccaliees or by Josephiis ; the tiescription of the feast
by Josephus a.s 'the feast of lights ' ((^Ta), however, doubtless
h.-is reference to them (Ant. xii. 7 7), ,-uid his explanation of the
name as coming from the unexjwctedness of the restoration of
religious freedom 10 the nation (f« toO Trap' c'AntJof olfiat touttji'
rfixlv ^vi]va.L frtv i^ovaiav [sc. ttv 9pi)(ricttav]) also may l)e safely
taken as h.iving the same reference. In both of the letters pre-
fixed to 2 Mace, the observance of this least is urgently pressed
on the Jews in Kgypt (2 -Mace. 1 9 i8 2 16); it is natural to pre-
sume that when, in the second of these (on the text of " hich see
Hall in I ar. AfHKryfha), the story of Nehemiah 's miraculous
discovery of the sacred fire is referred to, the writer saw a parallel
to it in the relighting of the altar-fire by Judas, and desired to
associate the commemoration of both events with one feast.
From the time of year and the employment of lights and green
branches in the celebration, NS'ellhausen (//C210 [ jrd e<l. 256I)
conjectures that the feast originally had relerence to the winter
.solstice, and onjy afterwards came to be associated with the
events recorded in Maccabees.
The projjer psalm for the Feast of the Dedication is
Ps. 30 ; hence its inscription, r'2n rzivrrv, rl^aXfibi
i^drjs TOV (yKaivia/j.oO too oIkov, ' Dedication-song of
the house (temple).'
See the commentaries on i Mace. 459 and Jn. 10 22; also
A. (1. Wahner, t/e n3Ijn •f"'^ /fs/i' Kncaenioy^m judaico,
origine nativitatis Chnsti, 1715 ; Oehler, in /'K Hf^) A $^1,/.
{3rd ed. 7i5J; Che. OJ's. 17/, 32/, 247; Nowack, J/ A (94)
■-'jooyT ; Schiirer, CJ I' 1 162 n., with its references to literature
on the post-talmudic fe.ists. Cp also articles by Krauss and
Levi in A'/.'/ 31 24-43, 204-219, 220-231 ('94). I. B.
DEEP, THE (Dinn, rhom; always without art. except
in Is. tiljijl's. IO69 ; .Ass. tiainlu, iamtu, tdrnJu, 'the
sea'; afivaaos. in Jo1j383o corruptly dcffioOs [gen.];
in Prov. 8 27 iir' aviixojv [?] ; Prov. 8 28 t^j i^ir' ovpavdv.
Ecclus. 4;J23 ,n3T [a^vaaov ; in b Heb. gives cmna. ©
avTifv ; but the clause is corrupt]).
Originally t'hom w.ts feminine : note the phrase HS'I CiriB,
Gen. 7 II ; Is. 51 10 Am. 74 Ps. 3t>7 and the plur. ending fth.
See al.so Gen. 4925 (yrj? <;(ou<n)s itavra) Dt. 33 13 Ezek. 31 4 15.
But, at first apparently with the plur. form, the original view
came to be disregarded, and fhont treated as a sym)nym of D'
(plur. : Ex. I.')5(>rdi/To«18[itufio] Ps. 77 17 10726. Sing. ; Ezek.
8I4 Jn. 26 H.ib. 3 10 Ps. 428 [not 1046, but cp Ba.j, Job 'i«i4.
On Dt. 87 see Kon. Syn. 467).
See ABY.SS. Dragon, end.
DEEE, FALLOW CWOn:), Dt. 14s 1K.423 [513]
AV ; see Roi:, 4.
DEFILE, DEFILEMENT (XOa). Lev. I824/. See
Co.MMoN. and cp Ci.i.an, § 14.
DEGREE occurs in a passage of some interest with
reference to early church offices. What is the ' good
degree' (AV) or rather, ' good standing ' (RV) which is
assured to those who have ' served well as deacons ' ?
/3otf/xdj KaKb% is the phrase. According to Hort ( Chr. Eccl.
202) it means the vantage-ground of influence and moral
authority won by theexcellent dischargeofdiaconal duties.
Theodoret, de W'ette, etc., however, find a reference
to a divine reward at the great judgment ; whilst Jerome
anil other Fathers. Baur. Holtzmann, and von Soden
think it is promotion to the episcopate that is intended.
Observe that the qualities required of an HrlaKorot in
rt'. a-7 are analogous to those required of a deacon.
On '.songs of degrees' (a purely conventional rendering) see
PsALMS ; on the ' degrees ' of 2 K. 2O9 ( = Is. 3S 8), see Diai_
1054
DEHAVITES
DEHAVITES, RV Dehaites (NIHl, Kt., but N^ni,
l>r. ; Aay*^i<'I I^'^^' "^lOl [I^]. l^ut A omits ' Elamites'),
generally regarded as one of the peoples represented in
Samaria among the colonists of Asnappek (Ezra 49).
They stand apparently between the Susanchites (Susi-
anians) and the Klamites. No plausible identification
has yet been offered (see Schr. A. I T'C-' 376, 616).
The reason is plain, as soon as it is mentioned. If we point,
with G. Hoffmann (Z^ 2 54), Nirrn, and take this with the follow-
ing word tt'D^y, we shall get the phrase ' that is, Elamites ' (®B
already has o'i elaiv r)\atJialoi) : which is an explanatory gloss on
the preceding word ' Susanchites.' So Marti, Gram, der bib.
.-irain. S/>r. 40*.
DEKAR (1i5"n.), I K. 49 AV ; RV Ben-deker, AV">e-
Ben-dkkar ('/.J'.).
DELAIAH (-in^^-n, x^'hx perhaps 'God hath drawn
out,' § 30; AaAaia [NA], -AC [liQL]. some compare
Ae\MACTApTOC in Jos. c. Ap. 1 18, which is more
correctly given by Niese as AeACTARTOc)-
1. Son of Shemaiah, a prince of Jehoiakims court; Jer. 36
(© 43) 12, ioAias [N], -Aeas [A]); 25 (-Aat<ra [Ncc mg. sup.]_
•yo6oAias [HA?]).
2. Head of one of the priestly courses; iCh. '24i8 (SoAaia
[L], afiaAAai V. 17 [H]).
3. (AV Dalaiah), a descendant of Zerubbabel (-Aaaia [B],
-AfalLJ), I Ch. 324.
4. The 15'ne Delaiah were a post-exilic family who were un-
able to prove their pedigree; Ezra 2 60 (\a.\ia. [I?], SaAaia [L])
= Neh. 7 62(-Afa[H])=DALAN, i Esd. 637 {a.<ra.v [H], ioAai/ [A]).
5. Father of 'shemaiah (-Aea [B], -AAaias [L]), Neh. (5 10.
DELILAH {jhh\ 'delicate?' § 67; AA\[e]iAA
[BAL] ; IL-!^?, £>./A/i.^.'/), Judg. I64-20. Whether the
name has, like S.VMSON \_q.v.\ any mythological connec-
tion we cannot at present say. Delilah dwelt in the vale
of SOKEK [q.v. ), and we may presume that the tradition
regarded her as a Philistine. Her temporary relation
to the Philistine princes hardly warrants us in calling
her a 'political agent' (Smith's Z)Z?C-' s.v.). See
Samson.
DELIVERER, THE (o pyoMeNOC [Ti. WH])
Rom. 11 26 Ills. 5920 ('?Xi5); see Goel.
DELUGE. Postponing the various interesting ques-
tions, as well of comparative folk-lore (§§ 18-20) as of
biblical theology (§§ 10 ff. 17), which are connected
with the title of this article, let us confine ourselves at
1 TJ >, 1 ■ present to the relation betiueen the
P, y ^°^^*^ Hebrew Flood-story and that of Baby-
Irlooa-story. ^^^.^^ Of all the parallel traditions of
a deluge the Babylonian is undeniably the most import-
ant, because the points of contact between it and the
Hebrew story are so striking that the view of the de-
pendence of one of the two on the other is directly
suggested even to the most cautious of students. The
account in the Berossian excerpts will be referred to below
(see § 16) ; but we may state here that the genuine
Babylonian character of the Berossian story has, since
1872, been raised above all doubt by George Smith's
discovery, in the remains of the library of Asur-bani-pal,
of a copy of a very ancient cuneiform Deluge -story
derived, it would seem, from the city of Surippak
in Babylonia, and by a more recent discovery by Scheil
_ . . (see § 6). The former story fills the first
p'.. P , four columns of the eleventh tablet of the
* ■ epic of Gilgames,^ a cycle of legends to
which, in studying the early narratives of Genesis, we
have so freciuently to refer (see, e.g., Cainites, § 6).
A paraphrase of its contents is all that we can give
here : translations of recent date and critical in character
will be found in KA T<-^ 55^ (by Paul Haupt) ; Jensen's
Kosm. 367 ff. ; A. Jeremias's Izdubar-Nimrod, 32 ff. ;
Muss-Arnolt's essay in Bibl. World, Zxogff. ('94);
1 [The exploits of this hero are celebrated in the twelve chants
or lays of the epic. The text of the Deluge-story was published
in 4 R (ist ed. ^o/., 2nd ed. 43^^) and most recently by Haupt,
Das Bab. Nitnrodepos, 95-150 ('91)].
105s
DELUGE
and Gunkel's Schopf. 423^ (by H. Zimmern).! The
gods, more especially Bel, wroth at the sins of men,
determine to bring upon them a judgment consisting in
a great all-destroying flood. One of the gods, however,
namely Ea, selects a favoured man, named Par(?)-
napisti,'- of the city of Surippak, for deliverance. This
is the Xisuthrus of Berossus, and be it observed that the
name Xisuthrus is found, in all probability, by transpos-
ing the two component parts of Atra-hasis — i.e., 'the
very wise,' or, still better perhaps (so Haupt), ' the very
pious' — one designation of the hero of the cuneiform
account. Par(?)-napisti is in a dream acquainted by Ea
with the purpose of the gods, and commanded to build
a ship {elippu, cp Aram, ns'jn), the form of which is
prescribed, as a means of saving his life, and to take
with him into it 'seeds of life of all kinds' (/. 25).
Accordingly, the ship is built ; its dimensions ^ are
given with great precision by the poet, who mentions
that it was coated within and without with bitumen
(kiipru), and that cells were made in it. Into this vessel
Par(?)-napisti brings gold and silver and ' seeds of life of
all kinds,' besides his family and servants, beasts of the
field, and wild beasts of the field (//. 84/.). Shortly
before the Flood, the beginning of which is made known
to him by a special sign, Par(?)-napisti himself enters the
ship and bars the door, while his steersman, named
Puzur-Bel, takes over the direction of the vessel (/. 94).
Upon this the deluge begins : it is thought of as an
unloosing of all the elemental powers, torrents of rain,
storm and tempest, together with thick darkness. The
waters rise higher and higher, till the whole land be-
comes a sea ; all men and animals, except those in the
ship, perish. Six days and nights the flood rages ; on
the seventh day a calm sets in. Then Par(?)-napisti opens
the air-hole (/. 136; nappasu = nanpasu, cp c'E3)i and
sees the widespread ruin. At the same time land
emerges, and the ship grounds on the mountain of
Nisir (/. 141).'* After seven days more Par(?)-napisti
sends out successively a dove, a swallow, and a raven.
The dove and the swallow, finding no place of rest,
return to the ship ; but the raven is seen no more.
Upon this Par(?)-napisti clears the ship and offers a
sacrifice on the summit of the mountain. ' The gods
smelt the savour, the gods smelt the sweet savour. The
gods gathered like flies about the sacrificer ' (//. 160-
162). As for Bel, however, he is at first displeased at
the deliverance of Par(?)-napisti and his household ; but
on the representations of Ea,^ who points out the rash-
ness of his act in causing a universal deluge, and
recommends the sending of wild animals, famine, and
pestilence, as a more fitting mode of punishing human
sins, Bel becomes reconciled to the escape of Par(?)-
napisti, and even gives him and his wife a share of the
divine nature, and causes them to dwell ' afar off, at the
mouth of the rivers ' •• (//. 199-205).
Before attempting to explain this Deluge-story, and
comparing it with the corresponding Hebrew account,
we must consider the position which it occupies in Baby-
lonian literature. It stands at present, as we have seen,
in close connection with other traditional stories, and
particularly with the cycle of Gilgames-legends. The
hero, Gilgames, who, after his various adventures, is
visited with a sore disease, sets out on the way to his
1 The references here ^iven to lines of the Deluge-story accord
with Zimmern's numeration.
2 [Cp § 15 (/. The reading of the first part of the name
is uncertain ; Par-napisti (' sprout, or offspring, of life '), Sit-
napiSti (' the escaped one '), SamaS-napisti (' sun of life '), Cm-
napiSti ('day of life'), and Nuh-napisti (see Noah) have found
their respective supporters.]
3 [See Haupt, Amer. Joum. of Phil.^ i,\^ff.\
4 On the land and mountains of Nisir, cp Annals of Aiur-
ndsir-pal, 2 33-39 ( A" /"(^l 2 150/). They were situated between
the Tigris and the Lower Zab, between 35° and 36° N. lat. (Del.
Par. 105).
6 [Jastrow sees here traces of a collision between the cultus of
Bel and that of Ea.]
6 [See below § 15 (end), and, for a legendary parallel § 14.
1056
DELUGE
ancestor Par(?)-napisti, whose dwelling is remote from
that of all other men, beyond the river of death (cp
Caimtks, § 6, Enoch, § 2). From this fortunate
possessor of eternal life, Gilgames hopes to learn how to
obtain, not only the cure of his disease, but also the same
supreme felicity. Par(?)-napisii answers by a detailed
description of the Deluge, in which he was himself so
prominent a figure, and at the end of which he was
admitted to the life of the gods. Obviously, the present
connection of the Deluge-story with the Gilgames-tradi-
tion is secondary in character, and it becomes all the
more reasonable to maintain that the Hebrew Deluge-
story too has only an artificial connection with the frame-
work in which it now stands. Noah may originally
have had no more connection with Nimrod than Par(?)-
napisti with Gilgames (see NiMKon, Noah).
The secondary character of the present connection of
the Babylonian Deluge- story being granted, can we
.. TT- X f venture to indicate a more original connec-
3. Hint from ^
Berdssus.
tion? According to BCrossus.i Xisuthrus
(the hero of tiie Deluge) was the last of
the ten primitive Bal)yloiiian kings, whose innnensely
long lives so forcibly remind us of those ascribed to the
antediluvian patriarchs in Genesis, and, as has l)een
repeatedly pointed out,- are closely related to the theory
of an artificially-calculated cosmic year. The Berossian
cosmic year had the enormous duration of 518,400
ordinary years, and each of its twelve months consisted
of 12 sari — i.e., (12x3600), 43,200 ordinary years.
-According to this system, ten cosmic months are equiva-
lent to 432,000 years, and this is exactly the number of
the years assigned by Berossus to the ten antediluvian
Babylonian kings (cp Chro.\oi,(k:y, § 4, end). The
theory of the Babylonians appears to have been that
these ten primitive kings reigned during the first ten
cosmic months of the great cosmic year (each king for
a cosmic month), and that the Deluge fell at the end of
the tenth month. Now, the eleventh month was for
the Babylonians (who began the year with the vernal
ecjuinox) the time from the middle of January to the
middle of February — in other words, the middle of the
rainy or winter season.
It is also to the winter season that the position of
the Deluge- narrative in the Giigame.s-epic points —
4. Confirmed more particularly to the eleventh month
r' . Sehat (Jan.-I'eb. ). For, as Sir Henry
Dy epic. Raxvlinion saw, the twelve tablets of
the adventures of Gilgames stand in relation to the
passage of the sun-god through the twelve months of
the year, and the principal event on every tablet has its
analogue in the corresponding one of the twelve signs
of the zodiac, which, as is now certainly known, had
their origin in Babylonia. Now, it is the eleventh tablet
that contains the Deluge - story, and the eleventh
zodiacal sign is Aquarius. The conclusion is obvious.
Lastly, it is also probable that the Assyrian name of the
eleventh month, Sabalu (probably 'destruction'), and
its ideographic designation as ' (month of the) curse of
rain,' both have reference to the Deluge. Clearly the
connection of the Deluge-story with the story of the ten
primitive kings is much more close and original than its
present connection w'ith the Gilgames -legends. The
fixing of the great catastrophe in the eleventh month is
a fact of importance with reference to the question,
which will shortly (§ 8) claim to be answered : Has the
Deluge- story a historical kernel, or is it simply and
entirely a nature-myth ?
The elaborate account in the Gilgames -epic is not
the only cuneiform record of the B;ibylonian Deluge-
_ „ J « , story. Peiser has published [ZA \T,(x)f.
document' ^^"^^^ ^ mythological text, with a map,
p . V giving a primitive picture of Baby-
^ '■ Ionia at the time of the Deluge under
1 For the Berossian story, see below, $ 16.
2 See especially Marcus v. Niebuhr, Gesch. Assurs und
Baheh ('57), 237^
DELUGE
I^iir(?)-napisti. The text is very fragmentary ; but
as far as it can, with the help of the map, be under-
stood, this is the notion of the Flood which it suggests.
— The Persian Cjulf was conceived of as encompassing
Babylonia, and round alxjut this ocean lay seven islands.
The mountain of the Deluge was due north of Babylon,
but still within the tract enclosed by the ocean. It is
noteworthy that the time of the Deluge is apparently
designated in this text — 'the year of the great serpent.'
[Further, among the tablets in the Constantinople
museum Scheil has recently discovered a mutilated frag-
B *? h 'I'b '"*•'"' ^^ ^ "'^^ Deluge-story, containing
fragment.
part of colunms if. jf. In the twelfth line
occurs the word ^ibil ('effaced'), which,
according to Scheil, suggests that our tablet is but a
copy of a much older original which had l^en injured.
The date of the tablet itself, however, is sufficiently
ancient: 'month of .Sebat, day 28, the year in which
Ammi-zaduga built the fortress of Ammi-zaduga at the
mouth of the Euphrates' — not much later than 2140
B.C. By whom the story is told, is not evident. The
complaints of mankind are spoken of first : the god
Ramman appears to \)c angry with them. Thereupon
a god pronounces sentence upon mankind ; reference
is made to a destroying rain-storm. In the seventh
column the god Ea speaks. He expostulates with the
other god for wishing to destroy men. Some men at
least, Ea will save ; 'let them come into [the vessel . . .],
. . the oar (?)... let him come . . . let him bring
. . . let him . . . .' That the great Deluge is re-
ferred to is now clear : the occurrence of the word
ahubu must dispel all doubt. In the eighth colunm
only two lines are complete ; but these contain a refer-
ence to Atra-hasis (Xisuthrus), who is introduced
speaking ' to his lord ' — i.e. , to the god who has proved
himself a friend to the human race. The name of the
scribe suggests to Scheil that this version of the Deluge-
story is that which was current in the city of Sippar ^
(see §16).]
We have also a list of royal names which bears the in-
scription, ' These are the postdiluvian kings of Babylon,"
thus implicitly confirming the Berossian
7. Other
references.
34
IOS7
distinction between kings before and
kings after the Deluge (cp COT I61).
The word here used for Deluge is abubu (cp lx.-low, § 13),
which elsewhere is of fre<iuent occurrence,- the Deluge
being referred to as an event of hoary antiquity — e.g.,
when it is said of old inscriptions that they go back to
the time before the Deluge {abiibu). See 'I'kl-.VKIB.
We have now to take up the question. What was
probably the true origin of this IBabylonian Deluge-
_ . . , story, looking at it by itself, without
'. ° comparing the Hebrew records? The
Ueluge-story. ^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^j^^^ strikes us is the harmony
between the narrative and the local conditions of Baby-
lonia, which justifies us in regarding that country as the
native place of the story. It is more diflScult to deter-
mine whether any real historical event lies at the founda-
tion of the narrative, or w hether we have to do with a
mere myth. In itself it would, of course, not be incon-
ceivable that in days of yore an unusually extensive
flood from the Persian (julf, combined with continuous
rain, burst upon the Babylonian lowlands, and destroyed
countless human lives ; that a dim tradition of this event
was preserved ; and that the Babylonian Deluge-story
was a last deposit produced by this genuine occurrence.
Judging, however, from what is known of the growth of
myths and legends, especially among the Babylonians,
1 The reason is that one element in the name of the scribe is
Aya (.-Va). ' Now it was chiefly at Sippar that the goddess Aya
was honoured in conjunction with Sama^ (the sun-god); her name
was borne by the inhabitants.' Scheil, 'Notes d'ipigraphie et
d'arche'ologie assyriennes. Tirage a part du Rccueil de travaux,'
etc., vol. XX. ('97).
2 [Abiilm, ' Storm,' is also used as a title for the god Marduk's
weapon in the Creation-story, Tab. iv. 49, and King Hammu-rabi
calls h\mx\( abiU) tukumatiiu, ' tempest of battles," KB 3a 115.]
1058
DELUGE
we think that this is far from probable. The entire
character of the narrative, and the connection with other
myths indicated above, are much more favourable to
the view that we have to do, not with a legend b;ised
upon facts, but with a myth which has assumed the form
of a history (cp below, col. 1063, note 3). The colouring
may have been partly supplied by the cyclones which,
in an alluvial country like Babylonia, frequently make
their appearance from the sea ; but the origin of this
myth will have to be sought in cjuite another direction.
We noticed above that the great catastrophe is placed
by the Babylonians in the middle of the winter season,
in the eleventh month' (Sebat = Jan. -Feb. ), which was
regarded as sp)ecially the time of storms, and had for its
patron the rain-god and storm-god Ramman. To the
present writer it seems most probable that the Deluge-
story was originally a nature-myth, representing the
phenomena of winter, which in Babylonia especially is
a time of rain. The hero rescued in the ship must
originally have Vjeen the sun-god. '-^ Thus, the Deluge
and the deliverance of lMr(?)-napisti are ultimately but a
variant to the Babylonian Creation-myth (see Creation,
§ 2 y; ). Now we can understand the very peculiar
designation of the Deluge-period mentioned already.
The ' great serpent ' is no other than the personified
ocean, which on the old Babylonian map (see above, §
5) encircles Babylonia, just as ' leviathan the wreathed
serjjent' (Is. 27 1) is the world-encircling ocean personified
as a serpent : ^ it is the same monster that is a central
figure in the Creation-story.
The question as to the relation of the Babylonian to
the Hebrew Deluge-story can now be satisfactorily
answered. If, as we believe, the
9. Of Hebrew
story.
10. P depend-
ent on Jo.
former had its origin in Babylonia,
and is fundamentally a myth of winter
and the sun-god, the Hebrew story must have been
borrowed from the Babylonian. In this case, Dillmann's
theory of a common Semitic tradition, which developed
among the Hebrews in one way, and among the
Babylonians in another, is once more put out of court
(see Cre.\tion, § 4). h. z.
The Israelitish story of the submergence of the earth
(i.e., of the part known to the narrators) by a Deluge is
found in the Book of Genesis (65-919)
in two forms, belonging respectively
to J,, and to P, which have been welded
together (see Genesis, § 8). There are also allusions
to the story (all late) in Ezek. 14 14 20 Is. 549 Ps. 29 10
Is. 245 18 Job 22 is/. (?). It remains to be seen, how-
ever, whether the two forms of the tradition in Genesis are
really independent ; it may be that, as in the case of the
Creation - story (see Creatio.v, § 12), P has only given a
somewhat different setting to data which he has derived
from Jj. It is no objection to this view that P's account is
longer and in some respects less fragmentary than that of
J2. The editor (or editors) naturally preferred the former,
because P's work was systematically adopted as the
framework of the combined historical narrative. The
three principal points in which P is fuller than Jg are
(i) the announcement of the coming deluge to Noah,
and the command to build an ark (or chest), the
measurements of which are prescribed ; (2) the notice
of the place where the ark grounded ; and (3) the
appointment of the rainbow as the sign of the covenant
between God and man. On all these points, we may
t The fragments of Berossus mention Daisiu.s (May-June)
as the month of the Deluge. This notice is suspicious on
several grounds. The writer who e.xcerpteU BcrOssus probably
identified the eighth Babylonian month Arah-samna = Marhes wan
( = Oct.-Nov.) with the eighth Syro-Maced'onian month Daisius.
The biblical recension alsomakes the Deluge begin in Marheswan.
On this view, both Berossus and the OT placed the beginning
of the Deluge early in the winter, instead of in the middle of
that season — an easily intelligible \'ariant.
2 [The .same view is given in Che.'s art. 'Deluge,' £BW.
See below.]
3 Gunkel, Schef-f. 46. See Behemoth and Leviathan, S
3 OCX Serpent, §3 (/).
1QS9
DELUGE
safely presume, information was given in the original
Jy To suppose that the latter began with the words,
' And Yahwc said to Noah, Go thou with all thy house
into the ark," would Ije absurd, and Budde seems to be
right in supposing that the measurements of the ark
in Gen. 7 15 come from Jj, who on his side may have
derived them from some form of the Babylonian myth
(cp GoPHEK-woou). Budde has also made it probable
that J,^ gave a statement as to the resting-place of the
ark, which he placed among the mountains E. of Ur-
Kasdim. P knew that there were higher mountains
than these in the N. , and transferred the locality to
Ararat {q.v., § 3) ; though it is probable that he had
the support of the later Babylonian tradition (cp
Berossus).
Nor need we doubt that the episode of the rainbow
also was told by Jj, to whose delicate imagination it
11 Rainbow ^^°"''^ ^^ '" ^ ^'8^ degree congenial. It
is true, there is nothing like it in the
Deluge-story given in the Gilgames-epic ;
but we do not know all the variants of the Babylonian
myth. Most probably, however, J., may claim the
honour of having invented this e.xquisite sign of the
covenant. The covenant is distinctly Israelitish, and
the sign should be Israelitish too. A probable point of
contact for the rainbow episode is suggested by these
words of the Babylonian poet (//. 92-102, Jensen) :
' A dark cloud came up from the foundation of heaven ;
Ramman (the storm-god) thundered therein. . . . The
noise of Ramman penetrated to heaven ; it turned all
brightness into obscurity.' The flashes of lightning are
the storm -god's arrows (Ps. 763 [4] 7848 Hab. 3 11),
and when the storm ceases, the god lays aside his bow
(this is said, e.g., of the god Indra, after his battle with
the demons). If the Hebrew story in its original form
referred to the thundering of Yahwc, we can well
believe that when J, appended the account of the
covenant he said to him.self that the bow which Yahwe
had laid aside could be no other than the rainbow.
There is, at any rate, no exact mythic parallel elsewhere
to the use made of the rainbow in Gen. 912-17.
There are also other points of difference between Jj
and P. (a) The latter is without the vivid details of
„ p, the sending out of the birds (Gen. 86-12,
Hpvifltinn« J2) : ^"^'^ ^ prosaic writer would probably
aeviaiiions. ^j^j^j^ j,^^^^ superfluous. (b) A more
important point is P's non-recognition of the distinction
between clean and unclean animals (Gen. 728 Jg), and
his not mentioning the sacrifice which, according to Jj
(Gen. 820), Noah offered after leaving the ark. The
cause of these deviations of P is obvious. His historical
theory of the origin of the cultus imposed on him the
necessity of harmonising the tradition with it.
(c) Not less remarkable is the difference between Jj
and P as to the duration of the Deluge. According to
Jo, seven days elapsed after the command to Noah to
enter the ark ; then the rain-storm ^ came, and it lasted
forty days and forty nights ; then in three times seven
days the waters disappeared. The computation of P
gives more occasion to debate.
It is stated in MT (7 11) that the deluge began on the seven-
teenth of the second month, and that on the twenty-seventh of
the second month in the following year the earth was drj" (8 14).
If this is correct, the flood lasted i year 11 days; i.e., if the
lunar year forms the basis of the computation, 354 -f- 11 daj-s
which make a solar year. This looks very much like an editorial
correction ; the flood really lasted a lunar year. ®, however,
reads in 7 11 ' twenty-seventh '(©adel) instead of 'seventeenth.'
In this case the solar year would be mcant,2 and the duration of
the deluge (365 days) would be the same as that of the life of
Enoch (365 years). We also learn that ' the waters prevailed
on the earth 1 50 days ' (7 24 cp 8 3). This ought to be equal to
1 Cp Ps. 29 10. P (7 11) ascribes the deluge partly to rain,
partly to the breaking up of the ' fountains of the great deep '
{i.e., of the waters under the earth, cp Gen. 41)25). This
approaches more nearly to the Babylonian account, which
speaks of the sea as being driven on the land by a hurricane.
Possibly Ja, in its original form, made some reference to the sea
or to the subterranean waters.
2 On P's year cp also 'Vear.
1060
DELUGE
Ave months (7 ii 84X But 150 day* are more than five lunar
months ; it Is clear that solar months must be meant (see,
however, I)i. Cen. \i<)y.. and his dLssertation on the Calendar,
'; Bacon, 'Chron-
Utbraica, 8 (92)
Monatihtr. <Ur Hetl. Akati., 1881, pp. 930 /I ; Bacon, 'Chron-
oloRy of the Account of the KIockI in P,"
79-88; Nowack, HA 2220).
We are thus enabled to some extent to reconstruct
the Deluge-story of J,. No doubt some archaic incidents
13. J,'b
narrative.
have lxx;n lost, but 1' has preserved three
of the most important details which were
found in the earlier narrative, though he
has moved the Mountain of the Ark northwards. He
has also retained S^ao (/ifaTa»cXi/<r/x6s), J.^'s term for the
Deluge:^ outside of Jj and P in the Deluge-story, the
term occurs only in I's. 29 10 (post-exilic), and in (ien.
6 17 7 6 an editor has glossed it by the word c;a ' waters' ;
also •"'3n, 'chest '2 (/ct/3arr6j, Vg. area), usetl elsewhere
only of Moses' ark of Nile-reeds (l'",x. 235. ^[e|t/!i«s
[B.\F] 0-t\i^y\ [I-]). <ii"l we may presume that the words
-lEJ (see GoiMiKR-woou) and ibs' 'bitumen,' both
occurring in 6 14 and nowhere else, were retained from
the lost narrative of ]^.
13ut what of Jj? Did his narrative of the origin of
man contain any Deluge-story ? No — at any rate, if
14. Jj had no
Deluge-story.
the theory ably propounded by Budde
be accepted. J,'s narrative contained
Gen. '24^-3 412^16^-24 61/4 920-27
(but on V. 27 sec J.vpukth ) 1 1 1-8 : it included no Deluge-
story. In this record Noah appears as the first agri-
culturist, and the inventor of wine. A corruption of
the text, and fx;rhaps editori.al convenience, led to his
identification with the hero of the Deluge, who (it is
held) had originally the name of Enoch, but had now to
take that of Noah in exchange (see Noah). \\'e need
not, however, suppose that the Deluge-myth was un-
known to the Israelites before J2 wrote. It is in reality
a pendant to the Creation-story : we should naturally
have expected both stories to reach the Israelites at the
same time. We have, indeed, no direct evidence of
this ; but the expression Sis^n has a very archaic appear-
ance. At one time ^20 must have had a meaning in
Hebrew, and that time must have been long anterior
to Jo. But the Deluge-myth, like the companion-story
which underlies Gen. I, did not, it seems, take a firm
hold on the Israelitish people : when J,, or (more prob-
ably) the earlier writer from whom he draws, shaped
his story, the Deluge-myth had passed out of mind, and
needwl to te revived by the hclj) of some one acquainted
with cuneiform documents (cp Crkation, § 11/.). [a)
16. Other
Semitic Del.-
stories lost.
Of the earliest Israelitish Deluge-myth
and of its Canaanitish original we know
nothing, [b) Lucinn (160 A. D. ), laugh-
ing in his sleeve, gives the Syrian Flood-
story of his day ; * but it h;is been partly Helleni.sed, and
prolxibly Judaised (a 'great box or chest,' \6.pva%, is
spoken of), and we can lay no stress upon it. Its origin
was no doubt Babylonian. ' Most people,' says Lucian,
' relate that the founder of the temple (of Hierapolis)
was Deucalion-Sisythes. ' (f) The Phojnician version of
the myth, if there ever was one, has perished.'' (</) The
1 Siac, 'destruction' : hence 'deluge' from Uab.-ass. nabdlu.
' to destroy ' ; cp C'^'BJ. C'SeJi a softened form of C'Saj. Cien. ft 4
Nu.i;{33. "The word was chosen probably as a synonym for
Kab.-ass. al'iibu (deluge), on account of the as.sonance, when the
Bab. Oelune-nivth first became naturalised in Canaan. On the
etym. cp Frd. Del Par. 156; Haupt, in KATd^) 66; Chcyne,
/'sa/msi'^i, 380, He/>mica, 8175; Jensen, Ex/>. Times, 9 (98)
284 (derives from S13, 'to r.iin' (.icainst which see Del. Genesis
\'iy] 172, and cp K5nig, Lehrgkiti-i). On the form of the
Syri.ic loan-word mduiiil, cp KOnig, 1 495. Such a notable
mythological word as ahuhu was certain to be naturalised in
Canaan m some form (cp Belial).
2 ,nan may be of Egj-ptian, but can scarcely be of Bab.
origin, as Jensrn {ZA 4 273^^) represents. The word iehitim
in the phrase ina eli^i tebititm us most naturally connected
with \/j?3D.
3 Cp kvpri in the parallel passage in the GilgameS-epic.
* De Dea Syra, chap. 12/; ; cp Jos. Ant. i. 3 6.
0 Gruppe's opposite view {/.ATirV 135 JT. [T " "
factor^-.
16. BeroBsian
variant.
is unsatis-
DELUQE
Arabs, like the Egyptians,* certainly never had any,
though the legendary el-Hidr (see col. 1064, n. 1), who
in the AlexandiT-legend conducts the hero to the waters
of life, and in the Koran, .acc<jrding to the commentators
(Sur. 18 59), is found by Moses 'at the conHucnce of
two seas (rivers ?),' may be a reflection of PSr-napiiti, or
rather Hasis-atra (from a shortened form of which el-
Hidr may be derived).
Outside of Babylonia, therefore, the only extant
Semitic tradition is that of Jj and P. This is obviously
based on the B;\bylonian niyth, for the suljstitution of a
' chest ' for a ' ship ' is due either to reflection or to a
confusion between two Babylonian words, and in any
case not to independent tradition. Jj's account is the
typical one ; P's statements as to the length of Enoch's
life and the duration of the Deluge seem to rest on
Jewish Aggada.
The typical Babylonian myth is that in the Gilgames-
epic (see above), which appears to be the local tradition
of the city of Surippak (see Frd. Del.
Far. 224 ; Jensen, A'osmo/. 387) ; but
the v.iriant discovered by Peiser''' (§ 5),
and the much fuller one transmitted by lierOssus,"* also
are valuable. The Babylonian king, Xisuthrus, is the
hero of the Berossian Deluge-story ; in this way Berossus
disguised the name of .Atra-hasis, transposing the two
parts of the name or title.'* Xisuthrus, he says, was
accompanied on board the ship {ffKdipos, irXotov. pavi) by
wife, children, friends, and steersman, and took with
him quadrupeds and birds. He w.as ordered to turn
the course of his vessel ' towards the gods." How long
the flood lasted we are not told. When it went down,
he sent out birds three times ; the third time the birds
did not return. Then he discovered that the ship
had grounded 'on a certain mountain.' With wife,
daughter, and steersman, he disembarked, erected an
altar, sacrificed, and then passed out of sight with his
companions. Those who remained heard a voice which
announced that Xisuthrus had been t.iken to be with
the gods as a reward for his piety ; also that the land
in which they were w:is Armenia (cp Gen. 84 P). They
were, further, commanded to dig up the s.acred books
which Xisuthrus, before embarking, had buried at Sis-
para to transmit them to mankind. This form of the
story was, therefore, the local tradition of the ancient city
of Sippar, on the left bank of the Euphrates (the Aiu
Hahba of to-day). We may plausibly assume that the
fragment discovered by Scheil (see § 6) also belonged to
the story current at Sippar. Here, however, we find,
only Atra- basis as the name of the hero of the
Deluge. This name, however, is perhaps to be regarded
rather as a title than as a jjersonal name.
The epic narrative fills up the lacuna in the Berossian
story. It presupposes a division of the period of the
_, „ . Deluge into an (at present) uncertain
ine tpic, f,yp,L^r Qf weeks. The same predilec-
J2, ana ^^^^^ ^^^ ^j^^ number seven is visible in
Gen. 023. ^^^ account (see Gen. 724 8 [6] 1012).
Similarly the epic agrees more definitely than Berossus
with J2 in its notice respecting the birds. Seven days
after the calming of the waters, Par-napisti sends out
first a dove, then a swallow, then a r.aven. Jj less
naturally puts the raven before the dove : probably he
did not draw directly from a Babylonian source (see
above, §11. end; § 14, end). The other details of
the Deluge hiive been simplified by J^ (or his prede-
1 There is no Eg>TJtian Flood-myth. It is hardly allowable
to quote the myth of the Destruction of Man (see Maspcro,
Daum 0/ Civ. 164-168) as a ' dry deluge-m>th,' for the storj' has
a ritual purpose.
2 Cp Jeremias, Is/ivhar-NitMrod, yb/.
3 See'Miiller, Frafpu. Histor. Grirc. 2 501 (Eu.s. Ckron., ed.
Schone, 1 19/), and cp Eus. Pnr^. Er>. 9 12 (.\bydenu.s^
where the hero's name is Sisithrus. Lucian (see above, § 15 (^))
had he.-ird the name Sisythes.
* Probably, according to Haupt, the adverbial accusative atra
was affixed m the later period of the language (Proc. of Amtr.
Or. Soc., March 1894).
1062
DELUGE
cesser). The rather grotesque polytheistic setting has
disappeared : P, who retained the plural form (' Let us
make man') in Gen. 1 26, found nothing corresponding
to this in the old Deluge-story. In Gen. 821 ('.And
Yahwe snielled the sweet savour ') we find a reminiscence
of the mythic description in the epic (see above, § 2) ;
but the most startling part of the description has
vanished. The cause assigned to the Deluge is nobler
in J2 (P) than in the epic. In the latter (//. 168-175)
Ea reproaches Bel with having punished the innocent
with the guilty : the offence consisted, it appears, in the
neglect of the accustomed sacrifices to the gods.^ In
J2 (P), on the other hand, no special stress is laid on
sacrifices, and no limitation is made to the sweeping de-
claration that ' the earth is filled with violence ' (Gen.
613), whilst the injunction laid upon the survivors after the
Deluge is not that they should be ' reverent ' in a ritual
sense, but that they should not deface the image of God
by shedding man's blood (Gen. 96). The close of the epic
narrative, however, redeems the character of the poet,
and irresistibly suggests the theory, supported elsewhere,
that ' Noah ' should rather l^e ' Enoch.' It was for the
children of the Hebrew Xisuthrus to re-found a human
race of finer quality than that which had perished.
Xisuthrus himself was too great and good a man to
encounter once more the ordinary trials of humanity.
Atra-hasis was transported to the earthly Paradise, ' afar
off at the mouth of the rivers'-^ (the Euphrates and the
Tigris).' The Hebrew Xisuthrus, like his model in the
Berossian account, 'was not ( = disappeared), for God
had taken him ' (Gen. 524).
Both Berossus and the priestly writer represent a period
later than Asur-bani-pal's epic. The earthly Paradise
„ _ . ... was no doubt the original home of the
18. Pnmitive *'
ether-myth.
translated Xisuthrus, though we cannot
suppose that it was always placed ' at
the mouth of the rivers ' : mythic geography is notori-
ously fluctuating. The earliest location of Paradise was
on the slopes of the mysterious mythic mountain which
reached upward to the sky (cp Chkrub, i. § 7). When
the idea of an earthly Paradise had worn out, men
thought of Xisuthrus as in heaven, and this is really
more in accord with the earliest form of the myth.
For, though the theory offered above by Zimmern (§ 8)
probably does embody the interpretation of the most
cultured Babylonian priests, we can hardly regard it
as a complete explanation. It is more like the after-
thought of a semi-philosophic age than like the sponta-
neous imagination of primitive men. There would be
more plausibility in the notion that some definite his-
torical catastrophe lies at the root of the story, if we
could only believe that tradition could preserve so
remote an occurrence. The truth is that a definite
occurrence does lie at the root of the story : only, it
is an im.aginary, not a historical occurrence.
The Deluge-myth in Babylonia and elsewhere seems
to have grown out of an archaic ether-myth, akin to
that prev.alent in Egypt. Originally the sun was im-
agined as a man voyaging on a boat in the heavenly
ocean. When this story had been told and retold a
long time, rationalism suggested that the sea was not
in heaven but on earth, and observation of the damage
wrought in winter by incessant rains and the inundations
of great rivers suggested the introduction of correspond-
ing details into the new earthly Deluge-myth. This
theory is supported by the Polynesian Deluge-myths
collected by Gerland,' the origin of which is still plainly
visible. In these, the sun and the moon were imagined
sometimes as peaks emerging out of a flood, sometimes
1 Throughout the epic -story the .sacrificial interest is pro-
minent. Berossus, too, relates that a voice from heaven bade
the friends whom Xisuthrus left behind be reverent towards the
gods (9(0(Tffiei<;) — i.e., punctual in sacrifices.
- Probably an island in the Persian Gulf is meant (Jensen,
/Cosmo/. 213).
3 Waitz-Gerland, Anthropolo^ie der NaturvSlker, 6 296-373.
See also Schirren, Wanderungen der Neuseeldnder ('56), p.
J93-
1063
DELUGE
as canoes, sometimes as a man and his wife ; the stars,
sometimes as ships, sometimes as human beings — the
children of the sun and moon ; the clouds too were
descril)ed as ships — the 'ships of Tangaloa' (the
heaven- and air-god). The flood itself was called
sometimes 'flood of the moon' (so at Hawaii), some-
times ' flood of day's eye,' — i.e., the sun (so at Tahiti).
This accounts for the strongly mythological characters of
Par-napisti in Babylonia and of Maui in New Zealand,
who are, in fact, solar personages. Enoch too must be
classed in this category ; his perfect righteousness and
superhuman wisdom ^ now first become intelligible. More-
over, we now comprehend how the goddess Sabitu (the
guardian of the entrance to the sea) can say to GilgameS
(himself a solar personage) ' Samas the niighty {i.e.,
the sun-god) crossed the sea ; Ijesides (?) Sam;is, who
can cross it ? ' '^ For, though the ' sea ' in the epic is
no doubt the earth -circling ocean, it was hardly this
in the myth from which the words were taken.
The transference of the Deluge from heaven to earth
had two effects. First, it produced a virtual duplication
- _. of the Creation -myth.* This points
. - ■ , . the way to a probable explanation of
tratLsformatioii. , r > ■
uxaiioiuxiiiauiuu. ^j^^ appearance of the raven, the
swallow, and the dove in the B.abylonian account, and
of the dove and the raven in the Hebrew account. An
authentic and striking Polynesian parallel to the descrip-
tion in Gen. I2 ('. . . brooding over the face of the
waters') has been given already (see CREATION, § 10).
N. American tribes, too, frequently connect the emergence
of the earth from the primordial ocean with the descent
of a raven, and their flood-myths, according to Brinton,
connect the rebuilding of the earth with the agency of
birds.* In the Algonkin account, however, the musk-
rat succeeds, when the raven fails, in finding a portion
of the submerged earth. ^ In the primitive Babylonian
myths of Creation and Deluge a bird (whether r.aven or
dove), or birds, probably had a share in the process of
creation and re-creation.
The second effect of the transference spoken of was a
new speculative theory. It occurred to the early men
that the idea of a second construction of the world
lightened the problem of the origin of things. How the
primeval world arose might be difficult to explain satis-
factorily : various mythic stories were current ; but it
was not so hard to conceive of a world once destroyed
being reconstructed. Thus, in course of time, sys-
tematisers devised schemes bearing some resemblance to
the cycles of the Stoics. It seemed to them as if the
Creator were constantly being baffled in his experiments
by physical or moral perversity in the materials. Thus
the priests of the Aztecs spoke of four antecedent ages,
separated by universal cataclysms, the present being the
fifth and last,*" and a similar belief, in rudimentary forms,
1 Enoch, like Pfir-napisti, might be called Atra.Jiasls, ' the very
wise.' Omniscience is an attribute of the sun-god. The same
title appears to be given to the young eagle in the myth of Etana
(see Ethan) — a supernatural bird (Beitr. zur. Ass. 2^4,).
Notice, too, that the old eagle in the Etana-myth and Par-
napiSti are both mentioned in connection with magical plants.
The legendary el-Hidr of the Moslems, whom Guyard and
Lenormant (Les on^i'nes, 2 12/.) identify with Hasls-atra, was
also the wisest of beings. Cp above, § 15. On this interesting
parallel, cp Lidzb.irski, ZAtio^jf., H263 J^., and DjtoA;
ZA 7 310^ ; .also Clermont Ganneau, Jtev. Arckeol. 32 388^
See also Elijah, g 5.
2 See M.-ispero, J)a7vn 0/ Cri'. 584; Jercm'tasi, /zd.-JVi'nrrod,
31. Sabitu, It has been remarked, has some slight affinity to
Circe.
3 Was the Akitu- festival at Babylon a commemoration of the
Deluge? It is referred to in the epic narrative, /. 71. From
an inscription of Nebuchadrezzar we learn that it was ' in
Zakmuk ' (Jensen, Kosmol. 85). Now Zakmuk, the New Year's
festival, commemorated Creation. See col. 941, n. i.
* Brinton, Myths 0/ the New World, 204 ; cp Macdonell,
JRA.S, 1895, p. 189.
6 Brinton {o/>. cit. loqff.') gives the 'authentic form' on the
authority of Father Le Jeune (1634). It appears that the
Algonkins supposed all mankind to have perished in the Deluge.
This is against deriving this Deluge-myth from a previous ether-
myth. The Algonkin view, however, is not largely represented.
6 Riville, Religions 0/ Mexico and Pcni, 114.
1064
DELUGE
is still prevalent throughout the American-Indian tribes.
The Zoroastrians believed in six ages of the world, with
a final catastrophe issuing in a renovation. The six
ages are of late origin (see Crkation, § 9) ; but the
renovation, as Darniestetcr admits, goes back to the
Ach^nienian period. Not without stimulus from Zoro-
astrianism, the Jews in later times advanced to the same
belief.' They were assured that the present world
would be destroyed and that a new heaven and earth
would take its place (Is. 24 ^18-20, 516- 6517 662a
Mt. 1928 2 Pet. 312/ Enoch 45^/. Apoc. Bar. 326) ;
in harmony with Gen. 9 15 fire was to be the destroying
agency (2 Pet. I.e.). These beliefs were naturally
fostered by the moral idealism of the best men, as we
see, not only from the biblical writings {f.g., Gen. 6 5 11
2 Pet. 25 Kofffxos d<r€fiCi)i>, 87), and from the Babylonian
story, but also from an .American (Quiche?) story, which
says, • They did not think or s[K;ak of the Creator who
had created them,- and who had caused their birth. '^
The intense moral fervour of the ancient Zoroastrian
hope of world-renovation is well known (see PiCKSi.v).
If it were possible to believe in a primitive tradition
respecting early human history, and to accept all
20 Other "'y''^''-" narratives as indejiendent tradi-
Ttaiii<ra mTrfh tioHS, we should have a weary waste of
uemge-myxns. p^.j^ge. stories still to plod through.
There are, however, only three more such accounts
which have any sjiecial interest from our present point
of view. (ii) The Indian Deluge-story is the first.*
This can hardly be a genuine Aryan myth, for there is
no clear reference to it in the Rig Veda.
The Satal>atlia Hrahniana, where it first occurs, was written
(\Vel)er) not long before the Christian era. Another version, in
which the lacunx of the earlier one are filled up, is given in the
MahiU'liArata ; but this poem, though it existed in part before
the Chri-lian era, did not assume its present form till long
afterwards. A third version, still more decidedly Indian in
character, but with some suspicious resemblances to the Semitic
accounts, is given in the Bhagavnta. Purana ; but the earliest
possilile date of this work is the twelfth century a.d., which
deprives its account of the deluge of all claim to originality.
rhe principal characteristic of the older Flood-story is
the part assigned to the fish which warns Manu of the
Deluge, and ultimately saves him by drawing his ship to
a northern mountain. This is surely out of character
with .Aryan mythology. The horned fish, in which
Brahma ajipears, reminds us strongly of the Babylonian
fish-god \•J^.. It was Ea who gave notice of the
coming Deluge to Par-napisti. Zimmer [AUindisches
Lt'ben, loi), Jensen [Koimol. 497) and Oldenberg
(AV/. des I'eda, 276) consider the Babylonian origin
of the Indian Flood-story to be certain ; but on the
other hand cp Usener, Untersttch. 8240-244.
{b) The second account is a Zoroiistrian myth in the
Avesta ( r<!'«i//(/rt(/, 1 ^d ff.). In its present form (even
after the prosaic additions have been removed ; see
Geldner, in Usener, 8209/:) it seems to have been
influenced by the Hebrew Deluge-story.
The Var, a square enclosure constructed by Yima ( = Yama,
the Vedic god of the dead), had a door and perhaps a window,'
like Noah's Ark, and it w.as designed to preserve men, women,
and animals. Apart from this, it reminds us of the biblical
Kden, and the calamity which was to be averted was, not a
flood, but a terrible winter's frost, connected, however, with
the end of the world. 8 The myth seems to be a recast of
elements from more than one source.
[c) The third is a Phrygian myth. Possibly there
was a primitive native Deluge-story ; but, if so, it was
vitalised from a Jewish source, some time during the
third or the second century, B.C., when (as Ramsay has
1 Che. OPi. \o4,ff.
2 Is. 51 16 is a late mosaic of phrases, and irrelevant (see Du.
ad loc.\
3 Brinton, op. cit. 207 y: This is of course a later addition,
as in one of the forms of the Tahitian myth (Waitz-Gerland,
6 271).
•• .See Muir, Sanskrit Texts, 1 196-201 ; Burnouf, Bhagivata
PurAna, 2 191 ; Welwr, Indisclte StuJUn, 1 161-232.
* The Zend word rendered 'window,' however, is said to be as
obscure as the Hebrew ("ni". Gen. 6 16 ; see Lattice).
8 Cp. Kohut, JQK, 1890, pp. 225.227.
1065
DELUS
pointed out) many thousands of Jews from Babylonia
were settled as colonists in the cities which the .Seleucid
kings had built. This was the pcrifxl of the inter-
mingling of religions, when Judaism too madecotK)uests,
esfjecially in .Asia Minor. Even those who were not
otherwise Judaized were influenced by Jewish legends
(cp SoDo.M A.\i) GoMtJRRAii). Important cities ex-
hibited on their coins biblical .symbols, and harmonised
their old traditions with biblical narratives.*
Thus Apamea (formerly Kclainai) adopted the Noab-lecend ;
Iconium, that of Enoch, whose name was connected with the
Phrygian name of Savvaico^ or Kwaxo^. This king (for such
tradition made him) was s;iid to have lived more than 300 years,
to have announced the coming Deluge, and to have prayed for
his people. The mountain hard by Apamea w.-is siiid to be
that on which Noah's ark grounded ; the city therefore assumed
the title xi^uitos (Ark).
The references already given are almost suflficient
(they may be supplemented from Dillniann's Genesis) ;
21 AntiendiT '^' \cnsi a brief mention is due to
«r. T oi!^.^»^t Lenormant's study in Les origines
onLenormant. ,/..•, ■, „ ir t-u i •
de Ihtstoire, 1382^ The conclusion
arrived at is that of Franz Delitzsch and Dillmann,
that the Deluge is no 'myth,' but a historical fact.
Lenormant, at any rate, holds that the three great
civilised races of the ancient world preserved a dim
recollection of it. This implies a self-propagating
power in tradition which the researches of exjx-rts in
popular traditions do not justify. Lenormant died, a
martyr of patriotism, in 1884. Would he have changed
his mind had he lived? At any rate, he would have
respected the honesty of those who regard the Deluge-
story as a precious record of the myth-forming imagina-
tion which has Ixjen made subservient to a high moral
idealism. .See An.VM AM) Evk.
Lastly, the writer would call attention to Jastrow's
two articles on Scheil's Deluge-story (§ 6) in the Xcw
22 And on ^'"'"'^ ^«"'</'""'''"'. lotl^ ^"^ 'Jth Feb.
JasW°^ '^98 (cp his AV/. of Bah. and Ass. 502
., 506). It is here maintained that a local
^' tradition of a rain-storm which submerged
a single city has been combined in the Gilgames-epic
with a myth of the destruction of mankind ba.sed upon
the annual phenomenon of the overflow of the Euphrates.
Pir-napisti or Par-napisti (as Haupt in KA Tl-'' and
Jastrow prefer to read the name) is the hero of the
local tradition, while Hasis-adra ( = c"Cn p"^s. Gen. 69,
according to Jastrow) is the hero of the larger nature-
myth. The present writer admits that the version in
the epic is of composite origin, and that the names
Pir-napisti and Hasis-adra may perhaps come from
different sources ; but he holds that all the Babylonian
deluge-stories, whether simple or composite, have a
mythic basis. Moreover, he does not recognise that the
simplicity of the oldest Hebrew version of the Deluge-
story heightens the probability that the Hebrews carried
that story with them when they left their Euphratean
settlements. The account given above of the origin
and development of the Hebrew story has surely not
lost any of its probability in consequence of Scheil's
discovery.
[See, in addition to works already cited, Noldeke,
' Der Mythus von der Siindfluth," Im neuen Reich
['72], pp. 247-259 ; R. Andree, Die Flutsagen ; ethno-
graphisch betrachtel ('91) ; H. Usener, Rel.-gesck.
Untersuchungen, pt. 3 ('99), especially § 7, ' Ergebnisse" ;
M. Jastrow, ' Adrahasis and Parnapistum," /.A 1899,
pp. 288-301. On the chief questions arising out of
the Babylonian Deluge-story, cp Jastrow, Kel. of Bab.
and Ass. ('98), pp. 493-508, which, as also Usener's
work, appeared after this article had been written. ]
H. Z. §§ 1-5, 7-9 ; T. K. C. §§ 6, 10-22.
DELUS, RV Delos (AhAoc [ANV], Delus), the
1 See Babelon, ' La Trad, phrjg. du Diluge,' Rev. de tkitt.
des rel. (91), pp. 174^.; Usener, ot. cit., 48-50; and, on
Apamea-Kelainaj, Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics 0/ Pkrygiat
chaps. 11, 12.
1066
DEMAS
smallest of the Cyclades, regarded by the ancients
as the centre of the group — a confusion of the geo-
graphical and religious points of view (cp Str. 485).
Uelos was both a shrine and a commercial centre, and
' her whole destiny is explained by her religious traditions
and her geographical situation.* Though nominally
free, the island was really subject to the dominant
power for the time being in the Aegean. It was a free
port as early as 168 B.C., and attracted a great part of
the Rhotlian trade (Folyb. 31 7). After 146 B.C. it
entered upon the heritage of Corinth (Str. 486). The
acquisition of the province of Asia by the Romans in
133 B.C. added greatly to the wealth and importance of
Dclos. Now began the most brilliant epoch of its
history : the inscriptions show that its commercial
relations were with the Levant, chiefly Syria and Egypt.
So Pausanias calls the island t6 KOLvbv '¥XKr}vwv
i/xTTopiov (viii. SSz). For long it was the chief emporium
of merchandise from the E. to the W. , so that the fine
bronze or copper wares of Greece were called indiffer-
ently Corinthian, or Delian, from the place of export
(PI. i¥A^ xxxiv. 29 ; Cic. />rr. ii. 2S3). The island
became especially a great slave mart, where the Asiatic
slave dealers disposed of their human cargoes to Italian
Sfjeculators ; as many as ten thousand were landed and
sold in a day (Str. 668). Naturally such a spot attracted
large numbers of Jews (Jos. Ant xiv. 108 ; Philo, I.ej^.
ad Cai. 36 ; cp i Mace. 1023). According to a Greek
inscription, a company of Tyrian merchants was settled
there as early as the second century B.C. {C/G 2271).
At the altar of Uelos Antiochus Epiphanes set up statues
(Polyb. 26 1), and an inscription to Herod Antipas has
been discovered in the island (cp Schur. f;7Vl358). In
88 B.C. 20,000 men, mostly Italians, were massacred in
the island by Archelaos, admiral of the Pontic fleet of
Mithridates, a blow from which it partially recovered,
only to lie finally ruined about twenty years later by the
systematic and wholesale destruction wrought by the
pirate Athenodorus. The resurrection of the island
was rendered impossible by the rapid growth of Puteoli
and the revival of Corinth (for its decay, cp Pans. viii.
332 ix. 346).
See the articles by M. Homolle in the Bull, de Corr. Hell.,
especially /.ci-A^iJWrt/Mi- a I >i-los, op. cit. 875/; A good account
in Diehl's E.xcursions in Greece, KT, \iZf. w. J. W.
DEMAS (Ahmac [Ti. WH]) is enumerated by the
apostle Paul as among his ' fellow-workers ' at the time
of his (first) Roman captivity (Philem. 24 ; see also
Col. 414). In 2 Tim. 4 10 he is thus alluded to:
' Demas forsook me, having loved this present world,
and went to Thessalonica.' Nothing is known of him
beyond what may be inferred or conjectured from these
allusions.
He is enumerated in the 'list of the seventy disciples of our
Lord' compiled by the Pseudo-Dorotheus of Tyre(C/:r. Pasch.,
Bonn ed., 2 121) and is stated to have become a priest of idols in
Thessalonica. Along with Herraogenes, he figures prominently
in the apocryphal Acts 0/ Paul ami T/iecla as a hypocritical
companion of the former, and to Hermogenes and Demas is
assigned the particular heresy about the resurrection which in
2 Tim. 2 17 is attributed to Hymena^us and Philetus.
DEMETRIUS (Ahmhtrioc [.\NV]— z.^., of, or
belonging to, Demeter, a proper name of very common
occurrence among the Greeks).
I. Demetrius I., surnamed Soter.^ king of Syria,
son of Seleucus IV. Philopator, was sent in his
early youth to Rome as a hostage, the throne mean-
while being occupied by his uncle Antiochus Epi-
phanes (see Antiochus, 2). After some time he
effected his escape to Tripolis (chiefly through the aid
of the historian Polybius), and thence proceeded to
Antioch where he proclaimed himself king, securing
his position by putting to death his cousin Antiochus
Eupator (.Antiochus, 3), and Lysias (i Mace. 7 ; 162
B.C.). He lost no time in pleasing the Hellenizing
party by sending Bacchides to instal Alcimus as high-
t He received this honorary designation on account of his
delivering the Babylonians from the satrap Heraclides.
1067
DEMETRIUS
priest (see Bacchides, Alcimus). The disturbances
caused by the latter need not here be descriljed ; the
Syrian general NiCANOR [jj.v.'\ was defeated at
Capharsalama (726/:), and at Adasa (739^). A
warning was sent from Rome to Demetrius not to
interfere with the Jews ; but it was too late. Less
than two months after the fall of Nicanor a fresh
invasion under Bacchides took place ; the Judaean
power was seriously crippled (chap. 9, 160 B.C. ; see
further Bacchides). Seven years later Demetrius,
disputing the sovereignty with Alexander Balas,
endeavoured, though in vain, to secure the support of
the Maccal)ean party (chap. 10), and after some
hostilities died fighting his rival ^ (w. 49/. ; 150 B.C.).
See Maccahkes, § 5.
2. Demetrius II., Nicator, son of the above, who
had been living in exile in Crete, came over to
Cilicia to avenge his father's ill success in 147 B.C.,
and secured a powerful follower in the jjerson of
Apoei.onius [q.v., 2). An engagement took place at
Ashdod, and Apollonius was decisively beaten (i Mace.
1067^). Shortly afterwards, however, his hands were
unexpectedly strengthened by the secession of Ptolemy
VI. Philomctor (see Ptolemy, i), who transferred to
him his daughter Cleopatra, the wife of Alexander
Balas (see Alexander, 2). Alexander was put to
flight and Demetrius became king in 145 B.C. (11 19).
A treaty by which Jonathan obtained favourable
concessions was concluded (Maccabees, § 5), and
Demetrius, believing his position secure, took the un-
wise step of discharging his regular troops, who at
once went over to Tryphon, the guardian of the young
son of Alexander Balas (1138^; see Tryphon).
Profiting by the approach of a disturbance, Jonathan
obtained fresh concessions from Demetrius on the
undersianding that Tryphon's rebellion in Antioch
should be put down. This was successfully accom-
plished ; but when Jonathan saw that Demetrius showed
no signs of carrying out his promises he was easily
persuaded to transfer his allegiance to Tryphon.
Demetrius' princes entered Judaea and after a temporary
success were routed in the neighbourhood of Hazor
(1163^). Another invasion was meditated in B.C.
144, but was successfully warded off by Jonathan's
skilful generalship {Vl^^ff.). The scene suddenly
changed when Tryphon usurped the throne of Syria,
and endeavoured, with some success, to reduce Judoea.
Jonathan was dead and Simon busied himself in
strengthening the defences. An embassy was sent to
Demetrius II., who, to obtain Simon's support, readily
granted all the Jewish demands including even a
complete immunity from taxation ^ (133r_^). Trusting
Simon to continue the struggle against Tryphon,
Demetrius marched to Persia, partly for conquest,
partly to acquire auxiliaries ; but he was captured
by Mithridates I. (see Persi.\) and imprisoned, his
place in Syria being taken by his younger brother
Antiochus Sidetes ( I Mace. 14 1^ ; see Antiochus, 5).
From non-biblical sources we know that, at the expira-
tion of ten years, he resumed the throne (128 B.C.),
quarrelled with Ptolemy Physkon and his proUgi
Alexander Zabinas, and was finally conquered at
Damascus, after fleeing from which place he was
murdered at Tyre in 125 B.C. (cp Jos. Ant. xiii.93).
3. A silversmith of Ephesus, who was the chief instigator of
the tumult in the interests of his craft which brought Paul's
mission in that city to a close (.\cts X^^^ff.). See Diana, § 2,
Ephesus. The conjecture that he figures again in 3jn. 12
as a convert to Christianity, precarious at Ijest, becomes
singularly so when the commonness of the name is considered.
4. A Christian mentioned with commendation in 3 Jn. (r/. 12).
That he was the bearer of the epistle is sometimes inferred ; but
1 If we follow RV (after AN, etc.) and read 'the army of
Alexander fled,' it would seem that v. 49 and v. 50 must belong
to two different accounts. See more fully Jos. Ant. xiii. 24 and
cp Cainbr. Bible, ad loc.
2 This independence gained by the Jews was marked by the
introduction of a new era; cp Chronologv, § i.
1068
DEMONS
the inference has no more strinuency than that mcnli(?n«i in
no, 3. S. A. C.
DEMONS. Demons are a survival from an earlier
faith ; continued belief in them is due to the conserva-
live instincts of the ordin:u-y rolij^ious
1. General ^^-^^^ ^^^ j^. jj^^^ particularly character-
survey, jgjj^ Qj- ji^g popular religion. For this
reason references to denions scarcely occur in the earlier
OT literature, which is so largely prophetic. Such refer-
ences increase in fretjuency, however, in the later Jewish
writings, and are numerous in NT; this is due p.artly to
the foreign influences (Babyloniiin, Persian, and Greek)
under which the Jews can»e in exilic and post-exilic times,
and partly to the fact that the earlier beliefs, after being
transformed, lent themselves as explanations of some of
the religious problems that were arising.
For the Gk. (Hellenistic) term Saifidviov or Salfiuv
(sec below, § 6), whence the linglish term 'demon'
_ is derived, Hebrew possesses no clear
4 rw^* equivalent. Aat/i6;'toi' occurs in the LXX
"^"*- only in Dt. 32.7 I's. 906 905 IO637 Is.
1321 34 14 66311 [BA] and in Tobit ; yet it re-
presents no fewer than five Hebrev, words, viz.,
' nil, gad, Jd'lr, siyyi. and K-d (Dt. 32i7 Ps. IO637, cp
916, where © reads nv] for -pv^). Of these the first is
a general term for false gods ; details as to the second
and the third will be found in the articles Fortune and
S.\TYK, and as to the fourth in Wild Beasts; only the
last is translated ' demon ' in RV.
Similar objects of popular superstition are LiLiTH,
AZAZEL, AsMODEL'S (in Tobit), and probably the
'horse-leech' of Prov. 30 15 (see Hokse-i.eech). For
details of these also reference must be made to the
separate articles. Closely connected with the present
subject is the practice of consulting the dcad,^ to which
we have reference in the earliest narrative literature
(i S. 28). See DiViN.\TiON, § 4.
Jewish demonology, then, is the result of the survival
of primitive Hebrew (Semitic) beliefs, which, having
been neither suppressed by, nor wholly
3. Primitive
survivals.
assimilated to, the prophetic religion,
were quickened by contact with Baby-
lonia, Pi^Tsia, and Greece (cp ©'s use of dai/xdviov, as
above, § 2). The chief primitive survivals in the Jewish
belief are the quasi-divine character of these beings as
shown by the sacrifices offered to them (Dt. 32 17, cp Bar.
47 iCor. IO20 Ps. IO637 Lev. 177; cp further, in ©,
Is. 653 II, and the sacrifice to Azazel [^.i'.] described
in Lev. 16), their undefined yet local character shown by
their association with waste places ( Is. 13 21 34 14, cp Rev.
I82 Bar. 43s, and [\'g.] Tob. 83), and their connection
with animals, indicated by their sharing the waste places
with wild beasts (foregoing references, and Mk. 1 13),
and the meaning of such a term as Si''inm (hairy ones,
goats); on the similar character of the Arabian yV««,
see Robertson Smith's AV/. S<m.<r) 120^.
The term that is most generic in character is certainly
ledim. Unfortunately the etymology of the word is
i , doubtful, for the view that it signifies
4. Semm. .Jq|.j, (>,,uhiau and Volck's Gesenius)
cannot be said to be well supported. The cognate
word in Assyrian (sidu) denotes the gods or genii
who, in the form of huge winged bulls, guard the
entrances of the temples {COT 1 40). In both passages
(exilic or post-exilic) where iidlm occurs in OT it is used
quite generally of illegitimate objects of worship (Dt.
32 17 Ps. 106 37), and in the Pesh. Sldd is the equivalent
of baiixbviov. In the later Jewish writings the K-diin
are frequently referred to as noxious spirits (see Buxtorf,
Lex., s.v.) ; this they have not definitely become in the
1 [In the age of the Gosjjels and of Josephus the spirits of the
(wicked) dead were certainly described as Soufio^et or &axii.6vi.a
= lfdlm. While the worship of dead ancestors was at its height,
however, the wicked dead were disregarded, and the spirits of the
good were honoured as eMiim (1 .S. 2S 13 ; cp. Is. 10 3 (S). It
IS best therefore to treat necromancy separately ; see Divina-
tion, i 4.1
1069
DEMONS
OT (on the Kdim sec further Dr. and Di. on Dt. 32 17 ;
Hi., Now. on Hos. 12i2 (read D~!rS for cTttr) ; Che.
Psitlms, 258 ; O/'s. 334 ; G. Hoffmann, Ueber einige
phonikische Inschriften, 55, n. 1). See StlADDAI, § 2,
and cp SiDDiM, Vai.E ok.
When angels came to be difTerentiated as helpful and
harmful, and, Later, .as g<xKl and bad (see Ancels, § 5),
8. Demons '^'^ ^^7"/"' ""' ^t '''."^"■'' '^'T'^ '*"
J J sembled demons ; the difference between
^ ■ the two became, in consequence, less and
less. SjK'culations on the difference may be found in
Enoch ; the same uncertainty prevails in Mohammedan
theology, where, e.g. , it is disputed whether Iblis was an
angel or a demon. G. B. G.
The classical inferiority of Salfiuv (and dai/jUtifioy) to
OeSi finds its lowest depth in the Old and the New
Testaments, most plainly so in the New.
Even as early as Homer the general equivalence of the two
words (Od. J.I ig$ 201) was varied by the frequent distinction
between 0t6^ as the pfrsonality (deus), and
6. NT USa^e. haiy.u>v as the more abstract, less nanieable
injluence (nuiiten), and by the sense of tuck-
lessness in the adjective 6aifidi/to« (t></. 18 406), as well as by
such epithets for &a.i.t/.m> as KitK6<; and (TTvyf/xiv. In post-
Homeric (jreek the inferiority grew in distinctness and degree,
and gathered round itself more and more a sense of evil ; and,
while iai'/xuf (fla-)tioit) never altogether ceased in profane Greek
to be a vox media, the tendency to degradation overwhelmingly
prevailed. Thus the word that stood to Hcsiod (('//. 121) for
the benignant souls of heroes of the golden age, served Plato
(^Lys. 223) for an evil apparition, .ind the lrat;c(lians(/Ksch. Ag.
1569, Soph. O r 1 194) and the Attic orators (Lys. 1 7H) for gloomy
genii of misfortune, often att.^ched to families or to individuals ;
and finally I'lutarch (probably under the influence of K.xstern
and Alexandrian dualism) included in its category the £at/xot^c
(^.lOAot, to whom he attributed all that wxs barbarous and cruel
{De di'/tctu orac. 14).
The sense of rAl spirit for 5aLfj.(jviov is in the NT
quite unmistakable.
AatV.u"' does not occur in the LXX, except once in k> and,
according to the best authorities, appears but twice in the NT,
viz. in Mt. and Mk.'s accounts of the C.erasene demoni.ic (Mt.
8 31 Ml<. '> ij ; 1. 't ill Ti. WH in the second passage). Perhaps
Sai/oLOtioi- IK lu. il ,ulj. 5ai^o>'io9 (cp to 6(lov) — supplanted
&aiit.uiv as r. |)i •:-.. niin- even more frtly the abstract and unnanie-
able. Cp iia.i|l6^■^a. Ko-ivd, Plat. Af-ot. 26 B and feVa Sat^bfia,
Acts 17 18.
The word Sai/xouiov (used in the NT about sixty
times), best reproduced as 'dasmon.' is almost entirely
confined to genii in the worst form, evil spirits possess-
ing human beings, though it is used occasionally of evil
spirits in general (Ja. 219), and once (as above, Acts
17 iS) of heathen gods of an inferior order, as well as
three times in one passage (i Cor. 10 20/ ) of evil spirits
working in the background of idolatry. (See TAe
Thiiiktr, May 1895.I)
The identity of dtfiiion and n'il spirit is obvious froin such
passages as Lk. 8 2 and i Tim. 4 i, ami from the comparison of
such passages as ilk. 1 26 and Lk. 4 35, Mk. 3 30 and Jn. 10 20,
Rev. It>i3 and 14.
The accounts of evil spirits as possessing are confined
to the Synoptists and .\cts, though the idea crops up
also in Jn., only however in 720 848/". 52, .and 1020/".
(daifiovli^o/iai and ^x^"* Saifidviov, said of Jesus himself),
and never as actually posited by the writer.
The period immediately embracing the Christian era
saw a vast development of the idea of daemons or genii,
_ _ which may be traced to the survival of
7. Con- , . -^ . . i_ ■ L
early aninustic conceptions m a higher
bS°T^ stage of culture (see Tylor, Prim. Cult..
chap. 14/. ). For our present purpose it
is most important to refer to the Persian, the Hellenistic-
Jewish, and the Talmudic beliefs. We shall, however,
here limit ourselves to the second of these classes of
evidence, which appeals most to ordinary educated
readers (see also below, § 11, and cp Pkksi.\).
On the philosophic basis of the Platonic Idfiti or Forms, and
the Stoic Logoi or Reasons, combined with the Hebrew con-
ception of angels, Philo had bridged over his dualistic gulf
between God and the world with intermediate beings, some
' bles.sed ' and others ' profane ' ; the incorporeal souls being pure
1 An article by the present
Greek Gods.'
St. Pauls view of (
DEMONS
and hovering in the air, which was full of them, some of them,
however, descending into bodies and so becoming impure.
These 'souls' are identilied by him with the 'anRels' of Moses
and the 'diemons' of' other philosophers' 'yde Con/. Lint;. 35 ;
deCigant. 2-4). A kindred lilief in da:mons as gooti and evil
media of divine action pervaded the cosmology of the Pytha-
goreans and Neo-Platoiiists towards the close of the first
century a.d. (Hatch, Utbh. Lect. 2:6 /f: ; Zeller, Die Pliil. der
Grieck. iii. 1(^)291); and Epictetus, alxjut the same date, held
that 'all things were full of pods and daemons' {/.ellcr,
iii. IO745). Josephus also (sceknig, like Philo, to conciliate
Jewish and heathen views) testifies to the prevalence of a similar
belief among his countrymen, but in his description makes the
demons exclusively Ttovi\aiiv avOpuimov irvtvuara^ {Ant. viii. 2 5 ;
B/vn.iij). On the Talmudic evidence for the contemporary
Jewish acceptance (doubtless developed under Parsee influence)
of a countless number of spirits, good and bad, and legions of
daemons lying in wait for men, see Kdersheim, Li/e 0/ Jesus,
Ap. xiii., and cp Weber, Altsyn. Thcol. -2^2 ff.
The number, prominence, and activity, therefore, of
evil spirits in tiie NT is in general harmony with the
views of the times.
Germinal ideas of possession are to be found even in
Homer (O^/. 6396, where a 8alfj.wtf ffTxr/epbs causes a
wasting sickness). The verb Saifiovav
represents insanity in A'.i,c\\y\\is(Choepk.
566), Euripides (Fhan. 888), Aristophanes (Thesin.
1054) and Plutarch ( I'il. Marcell. 20) ; whilst Herodotus
{479), Euripides [Bacch. 298^), and other writers attri-
bute to divine possession the frenzy of the Bacchantes
and Corybantes. To a sense of the same mysterious
power may be traced Herodotus's name tprj vo\)co%
for epilepsy (Hippocrates, 400 B.C., attributed the
disease to natural causes), and the phrase of the
Greek physician .-Xretteus (ist century, .v.u. ), Saifiovos
ei's t6v dvOpwrrov etaoSos. That the nations with whom
the Jews in later times were brought into contact held
similar views in systematised forms has often been
shown (see below, § 11), and we cannot doubt that,
though not originating in any one of these forms, the
popular belief of the Jews was largely influenced by the
beliefs of their neighbours. That belief, as reflected in
the NT, regards the d.emons (which are spirits entirely
evil) as a definite class of beings, injuriously affecting,
mostly internally and by possession, the human, and
(in the case of the (ierasene swine) the animal person-
ality, the subjects being usually described as daifxovi-
^6/j.fvoi, ' ditmonised ' (all the Gospels, though only
once each in Lk. and Jn. ) — the less classical form of
dai/jLovdj/ievoi, and the equivalent of Josephus's ol virb
tCov dai/jiot>lwi> Xafx^avofievoi, by which phrase is justified
the rendering 'possessed.' The moral conne.vion of
dremons in the NT is subordinate. Without doubt
they are regarded as diametrically (though by no means
with dualistic equality) opposed to the work of Christ,
and their subjugation is looked upon (especially by
Lk. ) as his primary healing function and as the sign
above all others that the kingdom of God had come
(Lk. 1832 11 20). Their moral and spiritual influence
is recognised in Jesus" parable of the unclean spirit
(Mt. 1243 Lk. 11 24) ; in what Paul says of the ' table of
daemons ' ( i Cor. 1 0 20/ ) ; in the ' doctrines of dasmons '
of I Tim. 4 1, and in Rev. 920, where the worshipping of
dcemons (cp Dt. 32i7 65) is another expression for
idolatry. This moral and spiritual evil in the daemonic
world is also certainly kept in view whenever the NT
writers speak of the opposition of God and the devil
(Ja.47); of the subjugation thenceforth by Christ of
the kingdom of evil (Lk.lOiS/. ijn.38 Rom. 16 20) ;
and of the final destruction (Mk. I24 Mt. 829) of the-
devil and his angels in the lake of fire ([•iev. 20 10), after
a period of relative independence which finds its counter-
part in the moral and spiritual freedom of man.
The effects of daemonic possession which are constantly
^ [On this second theory relative to the demons, viz., that they
are the spirits of the (wicked) dead, see Schwally, Das Leben
nach dem Tode, \^\/., where, on the ground of their residence
in the tombs and of the passage from Josephus referred to above,
it is maintained that the twodemoniacs in Mt. 8 28 were (thought
themselves) possessed by spirits of the dead.]
IO71
DEMONS
prominent in the Synoptisls, however, appearingoccasion-
9. Common ^">' '" >• ^"'l J" Acts (87 16.6 19.6).
effects ^'''^ physical and psychical, and must be
distinguished from Satanic influence such
as that upon David in i Ch. 21 1, or upon Judas in Jn. 13
227. It is not a mere influence : it is a besetting internal
malady. This form of possession, which presupposes
a large development of the belief in dcemons, is dis-
tinctive of late Jewish times, as we see not only from the
Gospels, but also from the references of Josephus (especi-
ally Ant. viii. 25), and from the quasi-professional status
of Jewish ^ (as previously of Egyptian and Persian)
e.vorcists (Actsl9i3 [7re/)tfpx<'M^''w] ^"*- 93^ Mt. 1227 ;
Justin. Apol. 26 Tryplw, 311 ; Pliny, //A^302). as well
as from the many methods of expulsion recorded in the
Talnmdic writings (Edersheim, Life of Jesus, Ap. xvi. ;
cp Jos. Ant. viii. 2s BJ vii. 63 ; Solomon's ring and the
root baaras)."^
One point to be carefully noted is that, whilst at times
disease is attributed to dasmons, possession is not a
comprehensive word for disease in general. The practice
of the Synoptists in this respect is not quite uniform.
They all, in their stimiiiary records of healings, agree in
distinguishing the dsmonised from the sick (.Mt. 108 Alk. 1 32
Lk. 6 ij y.), while Mt. (424) expressly distinguishes them
also from the lunatic (o-eAiji/iafd^iei'ot). _ They all likewise, in the
mention of individual cases, agree in speaking of maladies
without making any reference to possession (.Sit. 927-3. Ll^-
17.1-19 Mk." 32-37). Out of twelve individual cases which
Mk. records, eight are so presented ; and, in the six of these
recorded by Mt. and Lk., as well as in cases peculiar to them,
reference to possession is also absent. Mk., in the four remain-
ing cases, confines possession to psychical maladies, such as
insanity and epilepsy ; Mt. and Lk. add cases in which posses-
sion takes the form of purely bodily disease — dumbness, Lk.
11 14 Mt. 9 32_/^ ; dumbness and blindness, Mt. 1:^22; curvature
of the spine, Lk. 13 .0-17. The comparison of these agreements
and diflerences suggests that the tendency to account for purely
bodily disease by possession was a tendency, not of Mt. and Lk.
themselves, but of a source or sources used by them but unknown
to .Mk. (see Schur. //>/", vol. xviii., .892).
The drift of the evidence seems to carry us to the
conclusion that the idea of possession was associated, in
the main, with psychical disease (cp also Mk. 5.5 Lk.
733 Jn. 720), and this is confirmed by the hints thrown
out here and there that this affliction was of all afflictions
the direst and most impracticable. The peculiar em-
phasis laid by Jesus upon the power given to the
missionary disciples to expel demons (Mt. 10. and
parallels) ; the special exultation of the Seventy upon
their return, ' Even the dasmons are subject unto us '
(Lk. IO17); the intense amazement at the ease with
which Jesus cast out the spirits (e.g., Lk. 436), dispens-
ing with the more elaborate incantations and manipula-
tions of the professional exorcist ; ^ the helplessness of
will in the possessed ; their identification of themselves
with the djemon, their aversion to deliverance (Lk. 939),
and the wrench with which the deliverance was some-
times effected (Mk. I24); the fact that Jesus never in
these cases called for faith, but seems to have felt that
only some external force, acting in spite of the subjects
of the disease, could free them from it ; all these con-
siderations point to psychical, nervous disorder, which
could, of course, manifest itself in various forms.
There is no sign on the part of Jesus any more than
on the part of the evangelists, of mere accommodation
.•A m-t-'i. J r to the current belief. It is true that
10. Attitude 01 , c- . 1 . u ■ n • .1.
- ' Satan is used metaphorically in the
jesus. rebuke of Peter (.Mt. I623) and that
'unclean spirit' {nvevna aKadaprov) is figurative in
Mt. 1243. Accommodation is just admissible in the
1 Gebhardt and Hamack, Texte, viii., last part, 107.
2 The plant which gave rise to the fable of Baaras was prob-
ably a strange-looking crucifer described by Tristram, Land 0/
Moab, who found it near Callirrhoe.
3 In one instance, that of the Gerasene demoniac, Jesus
appears to have found it advisable to follow the precedent of
Jewish exorcists (Jos. -4»/. viii. 25) and give the demoniac a
visible proof of his deliverance,^ though in a way not suggested
by them. It may be observed, in passing, that the word exor-
cism is never applied to Jesus' method of expulsion, though the
Jews in Acts 19 13 are called exorcists.
1072
DEMONS
commission to the disciples (Mt. 108). in jcsus' exulta-
tion at their success (Lk. IO17/), and his reproof of
their failure (Mt. 17jo); or the phraseology may pos-
sibly have been coloured by the belief of the writers (as
also in Mk. 1 n, where the knowle<lge of the tl.i-mons is
dcscrilx-tl as suix-'rlninian). Acccjitance of the current
belief is clearly at the basis of Jesus' argument with the
Pharisees in I.k. 11 16^, however, and this is quoted by
Keiin as irrefragable evidence. On the other hand, the
indefinite nuilliplication of spirits, and the grotescjue
functions ascrilx-d to them in contemjxjrary and later
Jewish literature, and the wholesale belief in possession
in the second century A.I)., find no favour with Jesus or
his biographers or in NT literature generally. While
the existence of Satan's ministers is recognised, the
tendency is rather to concentrate the inlluences for evil
in .Satan himself. P'inally, that Jesus believed in the
power of others besides himself and his disciples to
e-x-jx-l d.xMuons in some sense, at any rate, seems clear
in the presence of such passages as Mt. 12 27 Lk. 11 19.
where he attributes the |x>wer to the disciples of tlie
Pharisees ; he recognises also the fact tht.i similar suc-
cess was attained by some who used his name without
actually following him (Mk. 938). or without being more
than profcssctl disciples (Mt. 722). J. M.
The ciiief foreign influence on Jewish demonology
was no doubt Babylonian. It was partly direct, partly
_., indirect. For though Iranian suiH-rstition
■ . . had an internal principle of devclopint-iU.
na ions. ^^ ^^.^^ ^.^^j^, fertilised from Babylonia. For
instance, the seven devas or arch-demons of Zoroastrian-
isiii .are a reflection of the seven evil or destructive
S|)irits who play such a part in Babylonian mythoUsgy
(see Maspero. Dawn of Civ. 634. 776), and who in a
famous incantation are called ' the Seven ' (see Zimmern's
translation of the te.xt. Witer, Sohn 11. l-'iirsprec/icr, j f.
['96]), and the supjxjsed capacity of the formula of the
.\luma-vairya to drive away the devas is but a sub-
limated form of the Babylonian belief in the recitation
of the hymns to the gods. Hence, even when a Jewish
belief, such as the grouping of seven demons, char-
acteristic of Jewish popular superstition (Ml. 1245 I-k.
11 26 Mk. I69 Lk. 82). appears to Ix; shai^cd by Persian
influences (for names of demons of Persian origin
besides A.smodkls [q.v.'\ see Hamburger. A*/:' ii. 1
281). it is very jjossible that Rabylonia gave the first
impulse to Persia. The doctrine of ' disease-jKjssession '
among the Jews may very well have been taught in pre-
exilic times ; ^ but it is probable that it was when the
Jews were conscious of the displeasure of their God, and
when they Ixjcame more and more e.\[X)sed to foreign
influences, tint this doctrine attained its full dimensions,
as we see it in the NT. It is not so much from Persia
as from F.gvjit and Babylon that the stimulus for its
development was derived. The Egyptian view descrilx;d
in Orig. c. Cels.9,si (Schurer). that the human body
was divided into thirty-six members, and that with each
of these was connected a separate demon, by rebuking
whom a member could Ije curetl of disease, is but a
more specialised form of the doctrine of the Book of the
Dead."^ The doctrine of disease among the ancient
Babylonians was that the swarming demons could enter
a man's Ixxly and cause sickness. On a fragment of
a tablet Budge has found six evil spirits mentioned by
name. The first attacked the head ; the second, the
lips ; the third, the forehead ; the fourth, the breast ;
the fifth, the viscera ; the sixth, the hand.^ It was the
duty of the exorcist to expel these demons by incanta-
tions, and the Zoroastrians believed that Zarathustra,
1 [The sacrifices to the ie'lrfin [2K. 238, as emended by
G. HofTmann, ZAT]^'2i-!$ ('82); Lev. 17 7] may h.ive Vwen in
part desicned to avert diseases (cp the .Arabi.in Iwlief in //«>»
described by We. Ar. HfU. 138, 2nd ed. 154 ; WR.S Rel. Sem.9)
120). Cp also the rite of Azazki..]
2 For the ancient Egyptian belief, cp Maspero, Daivn o/Civ.
"i-
3 TSBA 0 422 ['78] ; cp Maspero, Daum o/Crv. £83, 780.
1073
DEPOSIT
by reciting the formula calle<l the Ahuna-vairya, ' caused
all the dev.as to vanish in the ground who aforetime
flew alx)ut the earth in human shajx.'. ' * The Zoroastrian
religion, therefore, gave its adherents some rest from this
baleful Ix-'lief. Fidelity to its law could avert the danger
which arose from the existence of the devas created by
Angra-mainyu. That was also a part of the mission
of the I^aw as consolidated by Kzra. and alxjvo all of a
greater than either Moses or ICzra. The ' authority
and [X)wi;r ' with which Jesus Christ ' conmianded the
unclean spirits ' ( Lk. 4 36) astonished his contemporaries,
and contrasts even with the comparative facility ascriljcd
to Zarathustra. It is hardly necess;iry to add that
similar phenomena to those descrilx;d in the Gospels
are still to be met with, not only in savage districts, but
also in countries of an ancient civilisation such as India
and China.
On this subject see J. L. Nevins, Demon Possfssion and
allieii I'htiiics ; being an intiucth'e Stuiiy 0/ I'lunonicna 0/ our
07vn 'J'lincs (Chicago, New York, and 'I'orjnto, itc,5). Of
Babylonian demonology we still lack an a(ic<iuatc presentation.
Among the older b<X)ks Lenormaiit's /,« mat; it' diez Ifs Cluttdi'dts
(ist ed., 1874) Ixrars most directly on llie subject. For evidence
of the long-continued influence of I'.ibyh.nian on Jewi>h super-
stition, see .Stiibe, Jii lisch ■Itahytonisihe /.atthettixte ('95).
On Zoroastrian beliefs, see the translation of the Zendavesta in
SHE. The reduction of the heathen gixis to mere hdifiavia,
which we find accomplished in the Liter biblical writings, finds
its parallel in the conver>ii)n of the ' bright ' Ixjings of the old
Aryan mythology into the evil demotis of the Persian (see
1'kksia); see further the articles 'ficister,' ' Magie,' ' Zau-
berei,' ' .M>erglaubc ' in Hamburger's Kl-'.. also F. C. Cony-
beare, ' The Demonology of the NT' in/^'A", 1894-1897; W. K.
Newbold, ' Demiiii I'ossession and .-Mlied Iheme;.,' .^Vra/ U\rlJ,
Sept. 1897, pp. 4997?:
G. «. G. g§ 1-5 ; J. M. §§ 6-10 ; T. K. C. § II.
DEMOPHON (AHMO(t)a)N rA\l), one of the com-
mandants (aTi-'aTrjyoi) of a district in Palestine in the
time (if Jutias the Maccabee (2 .\Iacc. Ui2).
DEPOSIT. The OT law of deposit is laid down in
E (I-2x. 227-13 [6-12]; cp the paraphrase in los. ArU.
iv. 8 33).
With the exception of v. 9 [8] the law is clear. Two
kinds of deposit are specified : (a) money (r-;i, or goods
(c'Sl n^xScj.Ki^) ass. ox, sheep, or any beast. {^) To take
the second group of cases first : if the deposit be stolen
the depositary must make restitution (12 [11]). Should
it be torn by wild beasts the production of a piece is
sufficient witness, and a man cannot be called upon to
make good that which was torn ( 13 [12]. cp C.\tti.k, g 9).
Where culpability cannot be made out the dejxasitary
swears that he is innocent and the depositor is bound
to accept his word (10/ [9/]). (c) In cases of the
first description, should the deposit be stolen, the thief,
if found, must restore twofold 7 [6], cp v. 4 [3]) ; if the
culprit be not found the depositary nmst come before
the IClOhim and swear that he has not put his hand to his
neighlx)ur's property (8 [7]}. The result must have
been as alwve in v. iib that the depositor was bound to
accept his word. Verse 9 [8] alone remains and is not
easily reconciled with the foregoing ; it may be a later
law added to cover general cases (both a and b) involv-
ing alleged gross carelessness, false accusations, and
libel. '-^
The later law of Lev. O2-7 (.'iai-261 applies the law of thft
'guilt offering ' to sin and trespass in 'a matter of deposit' (so
RV ; jilf^S ; >rapaO»j<t>), iie/>ositum). The only case here con-
templated, however, is that in which volimtary confession is
made ; the penitent depositary is to make restitution in full, add
the fifth part more thereto, and ofTer a ram to Vahwi. Cp Law
AND JUSTICK, 8 17.
The use of the words Tropa^m), iropartSffai, iroiiaxaTatftjici),
and jrapaitaTOTiSfVoi in 0 (Lev. (5 2 4 Tot). 10 13 [12] ['I commit my
daughter unto thee in special trust ') 2 Mace. 3 10 15 825 Jer. 40/
41 to) sufficiently expl.iins the expressions in i Tim. 6 20 2 Tim.
1 12 14 (RViuk. ' deposit ' in all three cases). At Jerus.ilem (as
at Rome, 01>-mpia, Delphi, and elsewhere) a large amount of
1 VasnaO 15, in Mills' translation {Zemiav. 3 235).
2 c'nSj«n in ''''• 89(7 8], as in F,x. 21 6 i S. 2 25, means the
divinity as represented by the priestly exponents of the law at
the sanctuary.
1074
DEPUTY
wealth (' which did not pertain to the account of the sacrifices,'
but was in fact private propc-rty) was consigned to the safe
custody of the temple (st;e the story of Heliodorus in 2 Mace. 8,
where in t. 15 express reference is made to the ' law concerning
deposits'). See Kaknest, Pledge, Cp Diana, § 3
DEPUTY. I- 130. sd^dn. Ass. laknu,^ lit. 'one
appointed," 'set over' (CKacl HreMCON. etc.), the
official title (a) of a certain officer of hi<^h grade under
the Babylonian empire ( Jer. 51 23 28 57 ICzek. 23 6 12 23 ;
see also Is. 41 25!; AV usu:illy 'rult-r' or [Dan. 82 etc.
r::3, n'JJs] 'governor,' KV or RV'"*.'- 'deputy'; (5^7
virarovi), frequently mentioned in conjunction with
'governors' (pa/iJth). (b) Of certain administrative
officers in Jud;i;a in the time of lizra and Nehemiah
{Ezra92 N'eh. 'J 16 4i4 19 [8 13]. 5? 17 75 I240 13ii);
menti(}ned sometimes in conjunction with ' princes
(idrim). See tJoviCRNMENT, § 26.
2. nrS, /«•/(«/« (Esth. 89 93 AV). See GovERNOK, I.
3. :S3, nisfab, i K. 2247 [48] [li>2"c (pm] (eo-njAiojiei/ov [A]
vaolflcVini'l). See Koom, § 7.
4. orJiin-aro?, Acts lU 7 etc. RV PuocONSUL [j.v.]. Cp
CVI'KUS, § 4.
DERBE (AepBH [Ti. WII ; Str.], AepB&i [Hier.
Synec. 675]). Paul visited Dcrbe at least twice (Acts
1420 I61). and probably once again, in his third
journey (Acts IS 23 ' went over all the country of
Galatia and Phrygia in order'). From the fact that
the name docs not occur in the list of places in which
he had suffered persecution (2 'lim. 3ii), it may perhaps
be inferred that the work of evangelisation encountered
no obstacle there. That success attended the apostles
at Derbe we learn from Acts 14 21. (iaius, one of
Pauls companions from Corinth to Asia, was a native
of the town (Acts'204).
I'^rom Steph. Byz. we learn that the town was called
also Ae\/3eia, ' which in the Lycaonian tongue signi-
_., fies a juniper-bush.' The site was appro.xi-
■ mately discovered by Sterrett, who put it
between Bossola and Zosta (or Losta), villages two
miles apart ( IVol/e Expcd. 23). Ramsay, however,
says that the ruins at Bossola are merely those of a
Seljuk khan, whilst those at Zosta have all been trans-
ported thither from some other site. The great site of
the district is the mound of Gudelissin in the plain
about 3 m. NW. of Zosta, and 45 m. S. of Konia,
(Iconium) at the foot of the Masallah Dagh. The
mound is of the class called by Strabo (537) ' mounds
of Scmiramis,' which are largely artificial, and of
Oriental origin. It contains numerous traces of
Roman occupation. The earliest city of Derbe must be
sought in the mountains to the south.
This situation agrees with the notices in Strabo. After
describing the ten Strategiai of Cappadocia, he adds that in the
first century n.c. there was an eleventh Strategia, consisting
of part of Lycaonia, Cilicia, and Cappadocia (53s, ij irepl
Kaora/SaAa re ical Ku^io-rpa (Oie'^pt n^s 'Avriirarpou ToO At/o-toO
Aep/Sr)?). He refers to the same district (537) as the additional
(«7ri<Ti)Tos) Strategia. Derbe is furtlier described as lying on
the frontier of lEauria (Str. 569, -n^sS' lo-auptictj? ecmi'ei' irAeupai?
Ti\ Sep^r)) ; the words which immediately follow (jLtoAio-Ta Tfl
Kairn-aJoKi'ij e7ri7re<^uKb? toO 'Ai'TiTrarpou Tvpavuelou) refer to the
fact that it was also on the frontier of the eleventh Strategia,
an external addition to Cappadocia as above described. It is
clear that Strabo's eleventh Strategia is identical with Ptolemy's
' Strategia Antiochiane,' in which he enumerates Derbe
(Ptol. 5 6).
Derive was the stronghold of the brigand chief
Antipater (Cic. /^/>. ad Fam. 13 73; Str. 535, 569, 6
„ Tj. . Aep^rjT-qs). When, however, KingAmyntas
■ ^ ^^' slew Antipater, he added the town to his"
own Lycaonian and Galatian dominions (29-27 B.C.).
On the de.ath of Amyntas himself in 25 n.c. the larger part of
his kingdom was made by the Romans into the province Galatia ;
but apparently Derbe, along with Cilicia Tracheia (i.e., the
eleventh Strategia), was given to Archelaos, king of Cappa-
docia {circa 20 B.C.). When Archelaos died in 17 A.n. the
Cappadocian part of his kingdom was t.aken over by the Komans ;
but the Lycaonian part was left to his son Archelaos II., who
1 Whence Or. fu»yan|s (Ges. Lex.O^)). On its relation to
)3b see Treasurer, 2.
i07S
DESERT
was still reigning in 36 a.d. (cpTac. Ann. 242 641). Two years
later the region described by Strabo as the eleventh Strategia,
and by Ptolemy as the Strategia Antiochiane, was assigned by
Caligtda to Antiochus IV. and lotape Philadelphos. Soon
afterwards Antiochus lost favour, and was deprived of his
kingdom. In 41 a.d. Claudius restored the territory to
Antiochus and lotape, who ruled until 72 a.d. It appears,
however, that on this restoration the Lycaonian section of the
realm of Antiochus was detached and permanently assigned to
Galatia. Derlje therefore became part of that province. The
transference was due to the importance of the town as a frontier
post in the SK. of the Roman province. Claudius remixielled
Its constitution and honoured the place with the title Claudio-
Derlw (see Rains. JlUt. Geog. 0/ AM, 336, y]i/., and Church
in Kom. JCinfi. 54).
Thus we can understand how at the time of Paul's
visit (46 or 48 A.D. ) Derbe could t)e correctly described
as a city of Lycaonia (Acts 146), for so it was from the
point of view of geography or ethnography. Politically,
however, Derl>c lx:longed to the province of Galatia,
and it is argued by Ramsay that in the language of
polite address its inhabitants must have been dvdpa
VaXdrai (Gal. 3i), not AvKaove^, which latter term
signified the population of the non- Roman part of
Lycaonia (see, however, Galatia). w. j. w.
DESERT. The English word ' desert ' ordinarily
means a sterile sandy plain without vegetation ami water
— a 'sea of sand,' such as, e._if., parts of
1. General
the Sahara. This is not the meaning of
meaning. ^^^ Hebrew words. No desert of this
kind was known to Israel either before or after the oc-
cupation of Canaan. The districts to which the term
'desert' is ajjplied in EV are, at the present day,
frequently covered with vegetation, and were i)robably
even more pros]x;rous in the past (see more fully the
articles on the place-names enumerated in § 3).
' Wilderness,' by which the Hebrew terms are some-
times translated, is a somewhat Ijetter rendering ; but
it is not always adequate. It will be convenient here
to record the Hebrew words, and to indicate other terms
of analogous meaning.
(1) ■12ir;, horbdh (from 3-)n ' to lay waste," epijfio? ; also ipyt/jiia,
I>ck.3.'>4,ep^H(oo-is, Jer. 734 [R.\Q1 225; oiKOTrefof Ps. 1026(7],
'desert,' RV 'waste places'; .so KV 'waste,'
2. Hebrew Lev. 20 31 Is. (il 4 ; or ' desolation,' Jer. 44 2 ; cp
terms. Kzek. 38 12 AV only), used of cities and regions
formerly inhabited but now lying waste or in
ruins from war or neglect ; cp Jer. 44 2, ' the cities are a desola-
tion and no man dwelleth therein' ; hence in threats {e.g., Lev.
/.c), or in promises (with ri^S, CCip) — once with reference to
the wilderness of wanderings (Is. 48 21).
(2) p3"'f'?, y'hmdn (\^cr". '^^ desolate'; for cognates see
below, 7), [yij] avu&po^, used of a district riverless and un-
inhabited (Is. 43 19, EV 'desert,' || laic), of the wilderness of
wanderings (Dt. 32 10, EV 'wilderness'; Ps.7840, EV 'de.sert,'
II 13ia) ; otherwise, a geographical designation ; cp § 3, 2, 3, and
see Be I H-jESHi.MOTH, Jeshimon.
(3) "lino, viiJbdr (Iprj/ios, etc.; once [Is. 41 19] awipoi y^ ;
AV ' desert,' RV ' wilderness'; but in Gen. 14 6, etc., EV 'wilder-
ness'; once, Ps. 75 6 (7], EV 'south' [RViuK- 'wilderness of
the mountains '1]). The idea of 'desert' is totally foreign to
this word (on its derivation see Cattle, § 5). Midbar is a
district pos.sessing pastures (Joel 222, Ps. 65 12 [13]) and cities
(Is. 42 11), but occupied by nomads, not by settled tillers of the
soil (cp esp. Nu. 1433). It is commonly employed to denote
the wilderness of wanderings, which itself is a mountainous
region, not without pasture grounds, and so devoid of sand
that the one tract which forms an exception has the ch.aracter-
istic name Debbct er-Ra»ikh, ' plain of sand ' ; see below, § 3, i.
(4) n^nj?, 'ilrilbiih (apa^a [i) Trpbs Sva-iiali, Josh. 11 16, etc.]),
in poetical literature often occurs in parallelism with midbdr
(Is. S.'ii [eprj/iio?] 40 3 41 19, EV 'desert'). In Jer. 50 12 it
approximates more closely to the modern idea of ' desert ' (cp
Is. 35 I Jer. 61 4 3 ; |1 n^) ;. but in historical w ritings (early and
late) it is a geographical term (see § 3, 2, Ijelow).
(5) n;^'. fhyi^ ('dry land' [so Ps. 63 i (2), EV], Job 30 3,
AV RVnig. ' wilderness,' RV ' dry ground ' ; cp J'VS, ' dry place,'
Is. 255 322), used of the wilderness of wanderings, Ps. 7S 17
(.\V 'wilderness,' RV 'desert,' RVnig. 'dry land '). For C"S,
dwellers of the 'desert' (Is. 13 21 34 14, EV ; also 23 13, AV ;
referring to wild beasts) or ' wilderness ' (Ps. 72 9 "4 '4. EV ;
referring to human beings), see Cat, Wild Beasts.
1 The pa.ssage is obscure(see Ba. , Del.), and, according to Che ,
deeply corrupt.
1076
DESIRE
A still more forcible term is —
(6) \r,h, taha (I's. 10740 Job 12 84; EV 'wilderness*), used
of tlie wilderness of wandering, Dt. 32 10 (with pOC'| 77|, ' howl-
inR waste '). The word (cp et-T}k) sucRests the idea of waste-
nc"*s and confusion (Jcr. 4 at Job 2ll 7 Is. 24 10; cp l-.ccliis. 41 10
(Heb.)), such as existed before the creation ((Icn. 1 i, see
C'kkation, I 7). For the sake of completeness mention may
be made also of : —
(7) ncc*, Ummdh (Is. 59 Jer. 42 18), TOCC'ds. 1 7 0 11), rCCB'
(Krck. 357), all of which involve the idea of a devastation, not
a natural state (v^cCt? : cp no. 3).
(8) a'lr', hirdb. Is. 357 (n aw«po«), RV 'glowing sand,'
RViiiL'- MlKAGE (?.!'.). AV 'parched ground' is preferable;
cp Aram, 'i^raf', 'to be burnt or dried up,' and .see Che. Intr.
Is. 269. The NT terms to !« mentioned arc :—
(9) tprttLM (e.g.. Heb. 11 38, KV 'desert,' Mt. 1^33, 'wilder-
ness,' RV 'desert place') and ipyfino^ U-S-t ^'t- l^^'Ji ^-V
' desert ').
The chief districts and regions to which the above
terms are applietl may Ix; here enunifratcd.
1. The most prominent is that which was the scene of
tlie wanderings of Israel. It is commonly called ham-
_ „ .. , tm't/fi.i r (l)t. li.etc. ); but other ireo-
3. Geographical „i,^i ,erms(.Shur. Sinai, etc. ; sc-e
applications. ^,.,,';,.„ ,,.,„., g .) ,,,^ ^,Mcd to indicate
more |>articularly the region intended. On the char-
acter of tiiis tract, which stretches from the S. border
of Palestine to lUath and forms the W. bouiuLiry of
Ildom, see SiNAl. The only part which can fairly be
dfscril>ed as a desert is the bare and parched district
of ct-Tih, and it is here that U and (more elaborately)
1' place the forty years' wanderings (see Wandkki.ngs,
§§ 10/". n>), and with this agrees the circumstance that
it is only in the later writings that the horror and lone-
someness of the 'wilderness' is referred to (I'-i;., Dt.
8.5).
2. The great crack or depression which includes the
Jordan valley, and extends N. to Antioch and S. to
the gulf of Akiibah, is the second great 'desert.' To
the N. lay the viidbar A'iblah (Ezek. 614), midbar
Damiiscus{\ K. I95); cj) i)erhaps the ^pTj/ii'a of Mt. 1533.
The well-known geographical term 'Anlbah (see above,
§ '2, 4) is confined chiefiy to the lower half (cp iniJbor
Moab, Dt. "JS Nu. '21ii; viidbar Kedcmoth, Dt. 226;
midbar Beser, Dt. 443), sc-e Ak.\B.\II.i To the NE.
of the Dead Sea is applied also the term 'JCshimon'
(see Jk.shimon). Allusions to the .Arabnh on the W. side
of the Jordan are found in 2 S. 102328 17 16, and in it we
should jx-'rhaps include the midbar lU-th-Aven (Josh.
18 12), midbar Gibeon (2 S. 224 ; but .see CiiniiDN), mid-
bar Jericho (Jos. 16 1), and the references in Judg.
2042^^ I S. 13i8. Here, too, was probably the ^/mj/uos
of the niurative of the Temptation ( Mt. 4 i ). See further
Dk.\u Si: .\, § 2.
3. The third tract is the midbar Judah (Josh, l.'iai,
Judg. 1 1 6), the E. part of which, along the IX-ad Sea,
is called Jt5shiini3n (18.281924 2613); special limita-
tions are the midbar Maon ('in the Aralxih ' i S. 23
24/), midbar Ziph (ib. 23 14), aiul midbar En-i^edi
(1 S. 24 2[i]). To the N. it approached the .Arab.ih.
Here are found the midbar Tfkoa (2 Ch. 202o; cp
viidbar Jc-ruel, ib. 16), and probably the midbar of
1K.234 (Ikthlehem? cp 2.S. 232, and see Atroth-
kkth-jo.ak). To the S. lay Tamar 'in the midbar'
(t K.9i8, jnN2 is a gloss), probably forming part of
the great midbar in no. i alxjve. On the ' desert '
(fpTjfio^) of .Acts 826, see Gaza. See, further. Dead
Ska, Juuah, Palestink, § 11.
4. For the desert -like tracts to the E. of Jordan
(stretching to the Euphrates, 1 Ch. 69) see Bash.\n,
Pai.kstink, § 12. s. A. c.
DESIRE (n:i»nN), EccI. 125 AV, RV"«-; RV
Caper-Hkrky (y.i'.j.
DESSAU, RV Lkssau (Aeec&oy [V vid.], AeccAoy
[.\]), a village (in Judasa) where NiCANOR {^.v. ) appears
to have fought with Judas (2 Mace. 14 16). Possibly
1 On Am. 6 14 see Arabah, Brook op.
1077
DESTRUCTION, MOUNT OF
Adasa is meant (Ew. //is/. 4 331) ; but the Greek text
is here not free from corruption.
DESTINY (*:»), Is. 65 n RV. See Fortune and
Dksti.nv.
DESTROYER, THE (H^nU^n. Ex.1223, ton oAeO-
peyoNTA. cp Heb. 11 28; o oAoGrcyoon. Wisd. ISas ;
O oAoGpeYTHC. I Cor. 10 10).
In his account of the last plague, J implies that the
death of the first-born was the work of the Destroyer.
In the light of 2 S. 24 16, where the angel of Vahwe is
descrilx;d as ' the angel that destroyc-d the people '
(ci'3 nrtr-cn), and of 2 K. 193s= Is. 37.16, where the de-
struction of the As.syrian army is attributed to the ' angel
of Yahw^, ' we should be ready to infer that the ' Destroyer*
of the firstborn is not a lx.ing distinct from Yaliw6,
but rather ' the angel of Vahwe' himself; i.e., the term
denotes a self- manifestation of Vahw6 in destructive
activity (cp Tiik(JI'IIANV, § 4). This conclusion is
confirmed by the fact that the narrative speaks of ' The
Destroyer' or Vahwe (v. zg) indifferently, just as other
narratives use the terms ' angel of Vahwe ' and ' Y.Uiwe '
interchangeably. Cp also E.x. I227 (Rd). The 'de-
stroyer ' is clearly identified with Vahwe by the author
of the Wisdom of Solomon, who attributes the death
of the firstborn to the word of God (W'isd. 18 14-16).
The meaning attributed to the term by the author of
the epistle to the Hebrews (11 28) is less clear.
The death of the Israelites in the plague recorded in
Nu. I641-50 [I76-15] is attributed directly to CJod. In
Wisd. 1825 it is said that these [icople jKrished by the
'Destroyer' ; but here, again, the IXstroycr seems to
be identified by the writer with God (cp (jrimm on the
passage. zi: 20-25) ; and the same identification is
possibly intended by Paul (i Cor. lOio). On the other
hand, in 4 Mace. 7 11 the executor of death a[)fx;ars as a
distinct angel ; and generally ^ in later Jewish literature
the angel of death (xniCT KrKSc) has a well-marked and
distinct individuality (cp \\'elx.'r, Altsyn. 77/a»/.<-)
247^) and is identified with Satan or the Devil (cp
in N'T Heb. 214/ i Pet. 58). All this is quite foreign
to the belief underlying I".x. 12 23.
It is f|uite in accordance with the general character
of the Priestly Code, which avoids reference to angels
or to the theophanic 'angel of Valiwe' (cp .Angkl,
§ 6), that n'ntrc, which is used in the [K-rsonal sense
of 'destroyer' by J .(Ex.1223), is used as an abstract
term — destruction — by P (12 13 [R\'"'C- ' a destroyer'] ;
cp Ezek. 5 16 2l36[3i] 25 15). A plurality of tx-ings
who accomplish the death of men is referred to in
Job 3322 by the temi cntD ('slayers'), which is
rendereti in RV 'destroyers.' According to some
commentators, such angelic ministers of death form
the unnamed subject of the plural verb in Lk. 12 20.
(.. B. G.
DESTRUCTION (aBaAAcon). Rev. On ; RV Abad-
don ('/.f. ).
DESTRUCTION, CITY OF (Dnnn Tl'), Is.l9i8;
see Hi:ki.s, Cirv ok.
DESTRUCTION, MOUNT OF (n'n;**?2n-nn ; TOY
opoyc TOY ArncoAO [!'>]■ x. o. t. mocoG r-^*'"'-]' t.
O. AAACCCOiO [I-]. 2 ^s- -3ij, R\'"'».' ), a name so read by
the later Jews on account of the idolatrous ' high places '
spoken of. Tradition identified the mountain with the
Mount of Olives (so Tg. . followed by AV™e). and the
name has been supposed to have a double meaning —
' mount of oil ' (cp -\ram. ntrc) and ' mount of destruc-
tion ' (so Rashi, Buxtorf ). A much better explanation
can be given.
Hoffmann (Z.-f 7"/?' 2 175) and Perles {AnaUkUn, 31) prefer
to read "nc'^rtnii, 'mount of oil," with some MSS; D'ncs will
then l>e a deliberate alteration of the text. Considering, how-
ever, that we have no evidence for a Heb. word ,-ircD 'oil,' it b
1 In Targ. Jon. to Hab. 3 5, however, where |«ni2 ^K^; »s parallel
to .TTO'O ('•'•. " *T KTD*c) the distinction is not so manifest
1078
DEUEL
better to suppose that the 'mount which is on the east of Jeru-
salem' (i K. 11 7) was anciently called, not only 'the ascent of
the olives' (2 S. I&30), and in a late prophecy 'the mount of
olives ' (Zech. 14 4), but D'inne'3n~in (' mount of those who
worship'), of which flTiC'pn'ln would be a purely accidental
corruption. Cp 2 S. 15 32, 'And when David had come to the
summit, where men are wont to worship the deity' (mmc" '\CK
C'^'I^N'? CC')- which comes near proving that this view is correct.
Observe, too, that the Mt. of Olives appears to be once referred
to as the ' hill of God ' (Is. 10 32 emended text). See Nou.
Brocardus (1283 A.D. ) gives the name A/ofis Off'cn-
sionis (cp Vg. ) to the most southern eminence of the
Mt. of Olives, because Solomon set up there the image
of Moloch ; on the northern summit, afterwards called
Mons Scandali, he placed the idol of Chemosh. Quares-
mius, however (^ciixa 1630 A. D. ), calls the southern ridge
Alons Offcn ionis et Scandali. Grittz, after a full dis-
cussion, pronounces in favour of the northern summit,
i.e., the ' Viri (ialihei ' {MGWJ, '73, p. 97 J^.) ; so
also Stanley {SP 188, n. 2). No doubt this view is
correct ; Solomon would certainly prefer an eminence
already consecrated by tradition.
The phrase 'mount of destruction' is found also in Jer. .'il 25
as a symbolic term for Babylon (EV 'destroj'ing mountain').
, T. K. C.
DEUEL (PS-iyi), Xu. 1 14 ; see Rklkl (3).
DEUTERONOMY. The name conies ultimately
from the Greek translation of Dt. 17i3, in which the
1 Mo^» o„^ ^^'""^is nx-TH minn nrj'o. • the
1. Name and , ,. , . - ■• ■ ^ ; .• ,•
contents. 'luphcate {i.e. , a copy) of this law, are
rendered t6 SevTepovj/jLiof tovto. ' As a
title of the book, SfVTepovo/niov (without the article)
occurs first in Philo.- I'hilo takes the word to mean
'second or supplementary legislation,' and more than
once cites the bookas 'Eirivofjiis.^ Others, withTheodoret,
explaiit the name, ' repetition, recapitulation of the law.'
Criticism has shown that Deuteronomy is neither a
supplement to the legislation in E.xodus, Leviticus, and
Numbers, nor a n'suiiit! of it ; but to modern critics
also it is the Second Legislation, an expansion and
revision of older collections of laws such as are preserved
in Ex. 21-23 34.
Deuteronomy contains the last injunctions and
admonitions of Moses, delivered to Israel in the land
of Moab, as they were about to cross the Jordan to the
conquest of Canaan ; and, with the exception of chaps. 27
31 34, and a few verses elsewhere, is all in the form of
address. It is not, however, one continuous discourse,
but consists of at least three distinct speeches (1-4 40,
5-26, 28, 29/.), together with two poems recited by
Moses in the hearing of the people (32/.). The
narrative chapters record doings and sayings of Moses
in the last days of his life, and are more or less closely
connected with the speeches. Besides this unity of situa-
tion and subject there is a certain unity of texture ; the
sources from which the other books of the Hexateuch
are chiefly compiled (JE, P) are in Deuteronomy recog-
nisable only in the narrative chapters, and in a few
scattered fragments in the speeches ; a strong and
distinctive individuality of thought, diction, and style
pervades the entire book.
It was observed by more than one of the fathers that
Deuteronomy is the book the finding of which in the
2. Book found
in Temple.^
temple gave the impulse to the reforms
of the eighteenth year of Josiah (622-
621 B.C.).' In conformity with the
prescriptions of the newly discovered book, the king
not only extirpated the various foreign religions which
had been introduced in ancient or recent times, together
with the rites and symbols of a heathenish worship of
1 Cp also Josh. 8 32.
^ Ltx- Alleg. 3, g 61; Quod Deus imtnut. % 10. See Ryle,
Philo and Holy Scripture, xxili/ The corresponding Hebrew
title, ,Tiin rwi'a "IBp. is found occasionally in the Talmud and
Midr.ish as well as m the Massora.
3 Quis reruvt div. heres, % 33. See Ryle, as above.
♦ Cp Hbxatflch, Law LrrERATURE, Israel, g 37/
6 Athanas., Chrysost., Jerome.
1079
DEUTERONOMY
Yahwe, but also destroyed the high places of Yahwi,
desecrating every altar in the land except that in the
temple in Jerusalem (2 K. 22/ ). In Deuteronomy, and
there alone, all the laws thus enforced are found ; the
inference is inevitable that Deuteronomy furnished the
reformers with their new model. This is confirmed by
the references to the book found in the temple as ' the
law-book ' (2 K. 228 II ; cp 2324/ ) and ' the covenant
book' (232/ 21),
The former of these names is found in the Pentateuch only in
the secondary parts of Dt. (28 6i 2Si 20 30 10 31 24 26), and, like
the phrase this law' (48 2738 '29 29), signilies \)l. or the
deuteronomic legisl.ation exclusively; 'coven;int book' is an
appropriate designation for a book in which the covenant of
\ahwe with Israel (see Cove.nant, § 6) is an often recurring
theme (5 2/. 17 2 2'J i 4 13 23 21*9 12 14 21 25, etc.).'
That the book read by Shaphan before Josiah was
Deuteronomy has been inferred also from the king's con-
sternation (2 K. 22ii _^), which seems to show that the
law was accompanied by such denunciations of the con-
sequences of disobedience as are found especially in Dt. 28.
The opinion, once very generally entertained, that the
book found by Hilkiah w,as the whole Pentateuch, is no
longer tenaVjle. In addition to arguments of more or less
weight drawn from the narrative in Kings, — that the
whole Pentateuch would hardly be described as a law-
book ; that a book as long as the Pentateuch could not
be read through twice in a single day (2 K. 228 10);
that, with the entire legislation before him, the king
would not have based his reforms on deuteronomic
laws exclusively, — recent investigation has proved that
the priestly legislation in the Pentateuch was not united
with Deuteronomy till long after the time of Josiah. 2
Modern critics are, therefore, almost unanimous in the
opinion that the law-book, the discovery and the intro-
duction of which are related in 2 K. 22/ (see next g),
is to be sought in Deuteronomy ; and they are very gener-
ally agreed, further, that the book was written either in
the earlier years of Josiah, or at least under one of his
next predecessors, Manasseh or Hezekiah (see § 16).
The soundness of these conclusions has recently been im-
pugned by several French and German scholars (Seinecke, Havet,
d'Kichthal, Vernes, Horst),^ on the ground,
3. Account in partly of sweeping doubts concernuig the
2 K. 22 /". trustworthiness of 2 K. 22/, partly of peculiar
theories of the composition of Dt. These
theories cannot be discussed here ; but the great importance
of 2 K. 22 /., in the modern construction of the history of
Hebrew literature and religion, makes it necessary to examine
briefly the historical character of those chapters. _ It is generally
agreed that the account of Josiah 's reforms, as it lies before us,
is the work of an author of the deuteronomic school, who wrote
after the destruction of Jerus.alem. If this author h.-xd drawn
solely upon oral tradition, he might well have derived his informa-
tion from eye-witnesses of the events of 621 ; but it seems to be
demonstrable that in 223-2824 he made use of an older written
source, a contemporary account of Josiah's reign, which was
probably included in the pre-exilic history of the kings. This
narrative was wrought over and enlarged by the exilic writer ; in
particular, the origmal response of Huldah, which was not con-
firmed by the event, w.xs superseded, after the destruction
of Jerusalem in 586 B.C., by a wholly diff"erent one, in which
the judgment is represented as inevitable (22 15-20 ; cp 23 26/) ;
23 15-20, also, is generally recognised as a legendarj- addition ;
but, notwithstanding these changes, the outlines of the origin.al
account can be reconstructed with reasonable confidence, and it
appears to be in all respects deserving of credence.4 See Kings.
The historical evidence proves only that the law-book
which was put into force by Josiah contained certain
4 T • h* nt deuteronomic laws concerning religion,
4. JOSians m. ^^^ ^.^^^ j^ comprised the whole of the
_ chaps. &-_b •_» p^ggg,^j 3oo,^ ^f Deuteronomy. A super-
ficial examination of the book shows that the latter can-
not have been the case.
Chaps. 31-34 are composite. Besides the two poems, 821-43
and 33, they contain the links which connect not only Dt.
1 Ex. 21-23, often called by modern scholars 'The Covenant
Book '(see 24 7), cannot be meant; for, so far from putting the
high pl.ices under the ban, these laws assume the existence and
legitimacy of many local sanctuaries (see 21 6 23 14 ^ ; cp
26 24).
2 See Canon, § 23/, and the articles on the several books of
the Pentateuch ; also Hkxateuch, Law Literatcre.
8 For the titles, see below, § 33 (2).
* See St. GVI 1 649^ ; Kue. Ond.!^) 1 417/, cp 407.
icBo
DEUTERONOMY
but aUo the narralives of J K and P in Nil. with Josh. Chap. 27.
also in narrative form, may, Iwth on external and on internal
erounds, with equal conlidcnce be set aside.' Wh.it remains
(l-Ji! is-aO) is all in the form of address; but even this is not
n unit, a-s is shown by the fresh superscriptions in & i 1*2 i 20 a,
and the formal closes in 20i6-ip and 21»i I2869); in particular,
1 1-4 and 444-49 ^re completely parallel introductions, which
strictly exclude each other. Ckips. &-'J0 contain no allusion to
a former discourse such as 1-4 40 ; nor do the latter chapters form
a natural introduction to f>--'»l or TJ-l'li. Chaps. 1-4 are dls-
tinBuishcil also by sliyht, but not insiKnific.-int, jKCuliarities of
style, and more decisive dilTerences of historical representation.
The short prophetic discourse, '^^/., l>ears all the marks of a
later addition to the Inxik ; 21» i [2S69) is a formal subscription ;
the following chapters have their own brief superscription ; the
tone of 'ifif. Is noticeably different from that of the exhortations
and warnings in the body of the lK>ok.
Most recent critics conclude that the original Deuter-
ononiy contained only the one long speech of Moses,
5-2G "JS, to which 445-49 is the introduction and ii9i
[2869] the conclusion.
Others, urging that the Ixxik put into the hands of
Josiah is uniformly ik-scnl>cd as a law-book, infer that
. „ . . , it is to Ix.' soui'lil in L)t. 12-26 alone ;
8. Not simply ,^ as wdf as 1-4. is an intro-
chaps. 12-J(). , . , ., .- 1 . .1.
' duction sul)se(|iiontly preh.\ed to the
original Dculerotuimy by another hand. This conclusion
is confirmed by tlie way in which the author of 5-11
dilates on the motives for keeping the laws, as though
the laws themselves were already known to his readers.'-^
Against this view, which would limit the primitive
Dt. to 12-26, it is argued that the law-book itself pre-
supposes some siicli introduction as is found in 5-11.
In I'.'-'-'ii thi-re is nothing; to show when or by whom the law
was i)romul>;.itcd ; '.> 1 supplies precisely the information which
l-'i presumes; Ui-t-i recites the covenant at Uorel>, with the
Decalogue, its fundamental law; biT,ff. explains tin- relation of
the laws now alxiiit to lie delivered to that li inner law and
covenant. To this answers 29 i [28 69], which is tli'- siilisLription,
not to 28 alone, but to the whole law-book : ' TIrsc are the
words of the covenant which Yahwc commanded Moses to make
with the Israelites in tlie land of Moab, besides the covenant
which he made witli them at Horeb.'
The situation supposed in 12-26 is throughout the
same as that dcscrilx.-d in 5-11. The language and
style of the two portions present just that degree of
resemblance and of difference which, rcmemlx^ring the
difference of subject matter, we should exjject to find ill
the writing of one author ; nothing indicates diversity
of origin.*
In regard to chap. 28 also, critics are divided. Well-
hausen finds in 285861 — where, as in 30 10, the law is
already a book — evidence that 28, as well as 29 f. , is
secondary ; these three chapters formed the conclusion
of an enlarged edition of the law-lxjok, to which 5-11 was
the introduction.* On indeix;ndcnt grounds, however,
2847-68 is to be recognised as a later addition to the
chapter, and with these verses the only reason for con-
necting 28 with the two following chapters disappears.
Not only are tiiey separated by 29 1 /. (2869 and 29 1], but
also the whole attitude and outlook of 29/. are different
from those of 281-46. On the other hand, it would be
natural for the atithor of 12-26 to conclude his book by
urging as strongly as he could the motives to obedience,
and solemnly warning his readers of the consequences of
disotedience. Similar exhortations and warnings are
foimd at the end of the so-called Covenant Book (F,x.
2820^), and at the end of the Law of Holiness (I^v.
26). the latter passage being strikingly parallel to Dt. 28;
and such a peroration was the more appropriate in Dt. ,
because its laws are all in the form of address. The
profound impression made upon the king by the reading
of the l)ook is most naturally explainecl if it expressly
and emphatically denounced the wrath of God against
the nation which had so long ignored his law.
The Deuteronomy of 62 \ B. c. has not come into our
1 See below, f 21.
« See Wellh. CH 191-195 ; Valeton, Stud. 6 157^ ; St. GVI
1 61/
See Kue. Hex. | 7, n. 5-1 1 ; Di. Comm. 263 yC; Dr. Dt.
'^fc
DEUTERONOMY
hands unchangc<l. Not only have the exhortations and
_ . w.u-ningslxxin amplified aiul heightened,
6. Later pieces j^^^^ ^^^ j^ j^,j prolxibility. many ad-
in chaps. lJ-2t}. ,,i,j„„s have Ixx-n made to the bws.
At the very lx?ginning of the ctxle in 12, and in con-
nection with the most distinctive of the Deuteronomic
ordinances — the restriction of sacrifice to Jerusalem —
there are unmistakable doublets; cp 12 5-7 with 11/.,
and esjKicially 15-19 with 20-28. In the following
chapters a g<x)d many laws are suspected, because of their
contents, or the unsuitable place in which they stand.
Thus, the detailed prescriptions of 143-ao are foreign to the
usual manner of Dt. (cp 24 */.), and appear to be closely related
to Lev. n ; the law of the kingdom, IT 14-20, represents the law
as written (thus anticipating 31 9 -.-6), is in conflict with the legiti-
mate prerogatives of the monarch, and is clearly dej>endent on
I S. 84^^. IO25; the rules for the conduct of war in 20 are not
reconcilable with the necessities of national defence, and can
hardly have been dreamed of before the 'exile.' 'I'o others, how-
ever, the Utopian character of these laws seems not a sufficient
reason for excluding them from the primitive Deuteronomy.'
While many of the instances alleged by critics are in
themselves suscejjtible of a different explanation, there
scents to l)e sufficient evidence that the Deuteronomic
code received many additions l)efore the book reached its
present form. Certain supplementary provisions may
have been introduced soon after the law was subjected
to the test of practice ; others in the l-;xilc ; while still
others probably date from the period of the restoration ;
cp Hist. Lit. §6/.
In 5-11 also, it is evident that the original contents
.^ of the chapters have lx;en amplified, and
r n''vfi '^'^•'^ order and connection disturlx'd by
"^-^^ ^^- later hands.
The story of the sin at Horeb in ^/. is a long and confused
digression. Chap. V 1625 y. repeats 1-5; 1-5 is separated from
12-15 by 6-11, which h.xs no obvious appositeness in this place ;
17-24 intrudes in the s;inie way between 16 and 25./ ."similar
pnenomena may be observed in the following chapters.2 Nor
nas 28 come down to us unaltered. Verses 457; plainly mark
what was, at one stage of its historj-, the end of the chapter of
comminations. The two pieces which follow, 47-57 and 58-68,
are shown by internal evidence to be additions, presupposing the
destniction of leritsalem and the dispersion of the miserable
remnant '"■' ' •' sequence of neglecting ' the words
of this ' I in this book' (58; cp also 61).
Verses 1 the deportation of the king and
people i 1 Jeremiali (with 35, which repeats
27^, are pr^-bably glusses.-i
In the Hebrew legislation three strata are to be re-
cognised : the collections of laws incorporated in JE
„^.^, , (Ex. 21-23, often called the Book of the
8. Ds laws : ^
relation to
P and JE.
CI! 192 195. Chaps. 1-4 and 27 were the introduction and
conclusion, respectively, of another edition.
1081
Covenant ; Ex. 34) ; the Law of Holiness,
contained (in a priestly recension) in Lev.
17-26 and cognate pa.ssages (H); and
the rest of the laws in I-'.xodus. Leviticus, and Numbers,
predominantly liturgical, ceremonial, and s.acerdotaI,
which, though not all of the same age or origin, may
hi re lie treated as forming a single Ixxly of priestly
law (P). The result of modern criticism has iR'en to
establish more and more conclusively that V , as a whole,
is later than Deuteronomy. ■• On the other hand, it is
1 For a list of passages in 12-26 which have been challenged
bv critics, see Holz. /;/«/. 263 ^ ; cp also Horst, Krt: de
['nut. dfs Kfl. '27 i35#. ('93]. Analyses of the legislation have
recently been attempted by Staerk, Dns Dcut., 1894, and
Steuernagel, Die Kntstih. d. dfut. (.'.tselzis, 1P96. For a sketch
of these theories see Addis, Documents oj the Ilexateuch, 2 1 5-19
[98]. The sul)stantial unity of the laws is maintained by Kue.
Ilex. § 14, nn. 1-7. Against Horst, see especially Tiepenbring,
Re7: de CI list, des Rel. '2'.» libff. \\a\.
2 Valeton (Stud. C 1:7-174) and llorst (Re7'. de tllist. des
Rel. It) 39 ff. 18 3?o^., cp 27 174) have gone farthest in
the attempt to eliminate the secondarj- elements in .5-11. .See
Kue. Ilex. § 7, n. 6; Piepenbring, Rer: de rilist. des Rel.
2i' 165^ A formal analysis has recently been attempted by
Staerk (see the last note), and Steuernagel, Der Rahmen des
Diiit., 1894.
* For attempts to restore the primitive brief form of the bless-
ings and curses, see Valeton, .Stud. 7 ^^/. (cp Kue. Hex. ( 7,
n. 21(2]); Horst, Re!>. de rilist. des Rel. IS 327 i?"., cp
1(159^^ ; Staerk, 71 f. ; Steucrn.'igel, Rahmen, 4044- ^ee also
Steinthal, Zeit./. I'Slkerpsych. 11 \\/. The substantial unity
of the chapter is maintained by Kue. and Dr.
■• Cp._ Hexajeuch. It is not hereby denied that many
of the institutions and customs embodied in P are of great
DEUTERONOMY
agreed by all that the little collections of laws in JE are
older than Deuteronomy. The most convincing proof
of this is given, of course, by the LXniteronomie laws
restricting the worship of Yahw6 to the one temple at
Jerusalem. It may confidently l>e infcrre<l also from the
prominence given throughout Deuteronomy to motives
of humanity, and the way in which old religious customs,
like the triennial tithe, are transformed into sacred
charities, as well as from the constant appeal to the
memory of God's goodness as a motive for goodness to
fellow-men. Where the provisions of Deuteronomy
differ from those of the Book of the Covenant, they
sometimes appear to be adapted to a tnore advanced
stage of society ; as when the old agricultural fallow-
year is replaced by an experiment in the septennial
remission of debts. The many laws dealing with con-
tracts of one kind or another also are to be noted.
Most recent critics are of the opinion, further, that
the author of the Deuteronomic law-book was not only
o T F ^^ 91 acquainted with Ex. 21-23, but also
" " ' ■ made this code the basis of his own
work ; Deuteronomy, it is said, is a revised and enlarged
Covenant Book, adapted to some extent to new con-
ditions, but with only one change of far-reaching effect,
the centralisation of worship in Jerusalem. It may be
questioned, however, whether the evidence will sustain
so strong a statement of the dependence of Deuteronomy
on the Book of the Covenant.
Verbally identical clauses are very few, and in some instances,
at least, have probably arisen from sul)seqiient conformation,
There is no trace of the influence of the Covenant Book either
in the gencr.il arrangement of Dt. ]2-2i) or in the sequence of
particular laws. To fully one half of the Covenant IJook (after
the subtraction of the religious precepts), viz., the title .Assaults
and Injuries, Ex. '21 iS-2--' 17, there is no parallel in I)t. ; while
the subject of Authorities in Dt. U)i8-18 has no counterpart in
Ex. 21-23 ; of thirty -five laws in Dt. 21 io-2.0 16 only seven
have parallels in the older code. Finally, in the corresponding
laws 1 the coincidences are hardly more frequent or moie nearly
exact than we should expect in two collections originating at no
great distance in place or time, and based upon the same religious
customs and consuetudinary law ; the evidence of literary de-
pendence is much less abundant and convincing than it must be
if Dt. were merely a revised and enl.-irged Book of the Covenant.'-^
Certain laws in Deuteronomy have parallels also in
H ; but, whilst the provisions of these laws are often
closely similar, the formulation and phrase-
ology are throughout entirely different.* In
some points H seems to be a stage beyond Dt. ; but
the differences are not of a kind to imply a considerable
interval of time so much as a diversity of dominant
interest, such as distinguishes Ezekiel from Jeremiah.
Dt. 14 3-21, compared with I^v. 11, h.is been thought to prove
that Dt. IS dependent upon H ; but the truth .seems rather to be
that both are based on a common original, a piece of priestly
Torah, which each reproduces and modifies in its own way.-*
References to the history of Israel are much fewer in
Dt. 12-26 than in 1-34; they are of a more incidental
Ti' h' t ^^^^ allusive character, and the author
, Jl, •' exercises some freedom in the use of
his material ; but, as far as they can
be certainly traced, they appear to be all derived from
JE, or from the cycle of tradition represented by that
work. That the author did not have before him JE
united with P is proved by his reference to the fate of
Dathan and Abiram (116) ; if he had read Nu. 16 in its
present form, in which the story of Dathan and Abiram
(JE) is almost inextricably entangled with that of Korah
(P), he could hardly have failed to name the latter, who
is the central figure of the composite narrative (cp, Nu.
269/ 2/3 Jude II, and see KoRAii and DATHAN and
antiquity ; nor that in particular instances they may be more
primitive than the corresponding titles of Dt. ; nor that .some of
them may have attained a comparatively fixed form, oral or
written, before the ' exile.'
1 They may be conveniently compared in the synoptical table
in Dr. Dfu/. p. iv^, or in Staerk, Veui. t,^ff., where they are
printed side by side.
2 See also Steuern.igel, Enistchung, %i ff.
3 Dr. Deut. p. iv_^ ; Baentsch, Dat lleiligkeitsgcsetz, 76 _^
103. See also Leviticus.
* Kue. Hex. § 14, n. 5 ; Paton, JBL 14 48^ ['95].
1083
10. To H.
DEUTERONOMY
Akir.\m). But even if he had possessed P separately,
it would be almost inexplicable that he so uniformly
follows the representation of ]V. where it differs from
P or conflicts with it. The instances which have been
adduced to prove that he was acquainted with P are too
few and uncertain to sustain the conclusion ; moreover,
they are all found in the long digression, 99-IO11, which
probably was no part of the primitive Deuteronomy.'
The traditional opinion among Jews and Christians,
that Deuteronomy was written by Moses shortly before
_ . .his death, though resting on the testi-
T)re-mSnlrchic "^""^ "^ ''^'^ lx,ok itself (3l9# 24/:),
pre monarcmc. j^ ^.^mradicted by both the internal and
the external evidence ; the contents of the book and the
entire religious history of Israel prove that Deuteronomy
is the product of a much later time. The legislation qf
Jli (in the main, doubtless, merely the b<Joking of an
ancient consuetudinary law) is without exception the
law of a settled people, engaged in husbandry. Deuter-
onomy retlects a still more advanced stage of culture,
and must be ascribed to a time when Israel had long
been established in Palestine. The fundainental law
for the Hebrew monarchy, Dt. 17 14-20, presumes not
only the existence of the kingdom, but also considerable
experience of its evils. Solomon appears to have sat
for the portrait of the king as he ought not to lie.'^ In
the prohibition of the multiplication of horses and
treasure we may recognise the influence of the prophets,
to whom the political and military ambition of the kings
seemed apostasy (see, e.g., Is. 2;). The constitution of
the high court in Jerusalem (Dt. 1 7 8-13, cp 19 17) is thought
to be modelled after the tribunal which Jehoshaphat
(middle of 9th century B.C.) established (2 Ch. 198-ii)."^
More convincing than the arguments derived from
these special laws are the ruling ideas and motives of
.J. , the whole book. The thing upon which
Deuteronomy insists with urgent and
^' unwearied iteration is that Yahwe shall
be worshipped only at one place, which he himself w ill
choose, where alone sacrifices may be offered and the
annual festivals celebrated. Although no place is named,
there can be no doubt, as there was none in the minds
of Josiah and his counsellors, that Jerusalem is meant.
Jerusalem was not one of the ancient holy places of Israel. It
owed its religious importance to the fact that in it was the royal
temple of the Juda;an kings; but this was far from putting it
upon an equality with the venerable sanctuaries of Bethel and
Shechem, Gilgal and Beersheba. The actual pre-eminence of
Jcrus;dein, without which the attempt to assert for it an ex-
clusive sanctity is inconceivable, was the result of the historical
events of the eighth century.
The fall of the kingdom of Israel (721 B.C. ) left Judah
the only ' people of Yahwe.' The holy places of Israel
were profaned by the conc|uerors — proof that Yahw6
repudiated the worship offered to him there, as the
prophets had declared. A quarter of a century later
Sennacherib invaded Judah, ravaged the land, destroyed
its cities, and carried off their inhabitants ; the capital
itself was at the last extremity (see Hkzekiah, i ;
I.SR.XKI., § 33/. ). The deliverance of the city from this
peril seemed to be a direct interposition of Yahwe, and
Jerusalem and its temple must have gained greatly in
prestige through this token of (iod's signal favour.
This of itself, however, would not give rise to the idea
that Yahwe was to be worshipped in Jerusalem alone.
The genesis of this idea must be sought in the mono-
theism of the prophets. At a tiine when monotheism had
not yet become conscious of its own universalism, men
could hardly fail to reason that if there was but one true
(?od, he was to be worshipjied in but one place. And
that place, in the light of history and prophecy, could only
be Jerusalem. The way in which Dt. attempts to carry
1 See Dt. 10 3 6 22; and, on these passages, Kue. Th.T.
^S^if- ['75]; IJr- £>eut. p. xvi. On 99-IO11 cp also below,
§ i8 (small type),
a CpDt. lVi6y:withTK.4 26l02«28/ 11 1-8 928 10 Mi?:
3 A critical examination of the history of the reign of Jehosha-
phat in aCh. 17^?: does not, however, inspire us with much
confidence in the account of bis judicial reforms.
1084
DEUTERONOMY
out this principle, by simply transferring to Jerusalem
the cultus of the local sanctuaries with their priesthoods,
W.1S only practicablo within narrow territorial limits, such
as those of the kingdom of Judah in the seventh century.
Wc have the explicit testimony of the IV)oks of Kings
that there was no attempt to suppress the old Ux;al s;inctu-
aries in Judah until the reign of Hezekiah ; the most
godly kings left the high-places unmolested (i K. 15i4
2243 2 K. 124 143 15435). The deuteronomist author
of Kings, to whom the temple in Jerusalem was, from
the mom<'iit when Vahwt tof>k up his abode in it ( I K.
810/), the only legitimate place of sacrifice, condemns
this remissness as a great sin ; but there is no evidcncx;
that the religious Ic-aders of Israel down to the end of
the eighth century so regarded it. IClijah is in despair
over the sacTilegc which threw down the altars of Yahw6 ;
when he goes to mt^et Go<l face to faci;, it is not to
Jerusalem, but to Iloreb, the old holy motnitain in the
distant S., that he turns his steps. Amos and Hosea
inveigh against the worship at the holy places of the
Northern Kingdom lK'cau.se it is morally corrupt and
religiously Hilse, not Ixicause its seats a-e illegitimate ;
nor is their repudiation of the worship on the high-places
more unqualified than Isaiahs rejection of the cultus in
Jerusalem (Is. lio^). The older law-books, far from
forbidding sacrifice at altars other than that in Jerusalem,
formally sanction the erection of such altars, and promi.se
that at every recognised place of worship Yahw6 will
visit his worshippers and bless them (i:x.2024).
According to 2 K. I84 22 21 3, Hezeki.ih removed the high-
places, demolished the standing stones, hewed down tlie sacred
posts.l The false tenses prove, however, that 18 4 has been in-
terpol.ited by a very late hand ; the original text said only that
Hezekiah removed the bronze serpent which was worshipped in
the temple (see Nkhushta.n); nor can much greater reliance
l)e put upon the reference in the sjKech of the Rabshakeh(18 22).
It may well be that Hezekiah, after the retreat of .Sennacherib,
took vigorous measures to suppress the idolatry against which
Isai.ah thundered in both his earlier and his later prophecies
(•_' 8 18 20 30 22 31 7), perha])s including the s.icred trees and
other survivals of rucle natural religion (Is. 1 2g).^ In any case,
the reaction of the following reign swept away all traces of his
work. Cp Hkzekiah, i ; Isaiah, i., g 15.
Another very distinct indication of the age in which
Dt. was written is found in the foreign religions which
14 Forpitm it combats. The worship of ' the whole
cults et?^ '"''' ."'" ^'''''''"'' <^^'-^"3 '■'P 4«9). an
' ■ Assyrian cult freciuently condemned by
the i)ri)phets of the seventh century (Jer. 82 19 13 .'5229
Zeph. 1 5),^ but not mentioned by any earlier writer,
was probably intro<luced by Manas.seh, during whose
reign Assyrian influence was at its height in Jutlah.
The sacrifice of children, 'sending them through the
fire' to the King-God (I)t. I810 I231), also l)elongs to
the seventh century (see Mni.Kcn) ; neither Isaiah nor
any of the other prophets of the eighth century alludes
to these rites.
A relatively late date has been inferred also from the
laws against the erection of steles and sacred poles {mas-
slholh and Ashirim) by the altars of Yalnv6 (Dt. 16 21/.).
The ohier laws only enjoin the destruction of the Canaanite
holy-places with all their appurtenances (Kx. 34 13 23 24 ; cp
Dt. 12 3). The prophets of the eighth century, especially Hosea
and Isaiah, assail the idols of Yahwi, but not'the more primitive
standing stones and posts ; the polemic against the latter begins
with Jeremiah.
The age of Dt. may be determined also by its relation
to other works of known date. Krom the time of
15 D and Jeremiah, the influence of Dt. is un-
Other write™. "f\=^'^''»*''>'/" l)e recognised in the
whole prophetic and historical literature,
whilst we look in vain for any trace of this influence in
1 Cp the much more extended account of these reforms in
a Ch. 29-31.
2 If it were established th.-it Hezekiah put down the high-
places, it would not follow that Dt. is older than Hezeki.ah ; the
more probable hypothesis, in view of all the testimony of tbc
prophets and the historical books, would be that the I )eutero-
nomic law wa.s in the line of the measures .adopted by the king.
3 Cp also the worship of the Queen of Heaven, Jer. 7 1 44 1 7.
See Queen of Heaven.
1085
DEUTERONOMY
the prophets of the eighth century ; neither tiie impressive
ideas nor the haunting phr.ases of Dt. h;tve left their
mark there.' The inference that Dt. was unknown to
the religious leaders of Israel before the seventh century
is hardly to l)e avoided.
On the other hand, in all its ruling ideas, Dt. is
dependent upon the prophecy of the eighth century.
We have alre.ady seen that the deliverance of Jerusalem
from Sennacherib pre|Kired the way for the lx;lief that
the temple on Mt. Zion was the only sanctuary at which
Yahw6 should Ix: worshii)[x;d, and that the mf)notheism
of the pro[)hets was the theological basis of the same
belief. The lofty theism of Dt. , which exalts Yahwe,
not only in might and inajestT. but also in righteousness,
goodness, and truth — the moral transformation of the
old conception of 'holiness' (see Ci.KAN, § i) — is of
the same origin, whiLst the central idea of the book,
that the essence and end of true religion is the mutual
love of (jod and his jK-oijle, is derived from Hosea.
In general, the theology of Dt. is an advance ujjon
tliat of the prophets of the eighth century, whose
teaching it fuses and assimilates, and approximates to
that of Jeremiah and Isaiah 40-;'»').
To the same result we are led by the literary character
of Dt. Its style is more cofdous and flowing than that
of earlier writers ; but it lacks their terse vigour, and is
not free from the faults of looseness, prolixity, and
rcix'tition, into which a facile pen so easily glides. In
these resixicts it exhibits the tendencies which mark the
literature of the seventh century and the I^xile. The
diction, also, is distinctly that of the same period,
closely resembling that of Jeremiah. ^
Evidence of every kind thus concurs to prove that the
primitive Dt. was a product of the seventh century.
16. Result as
to date of D.
The fact that it combats foreign cults
which were introduced by Manasseh
militates against the opinion entertained
by some scholars, that it had its origin in the last
years of Hezekiah, jx^rhaps in connection with the
reforms of that king. A hypothesis which commends
itself to many critics is that I)t. was composed in the
reign of Mana.s.seh as a protest against the evils of the
time and as a programme of reform. Its authors died
without Ixiing able to accomplish their object, and the
book was lost, until, many years after, it was accident-
ally discovered in the temijle by Hilkiah. To others it
seems more probable that Dt. was written under Josiah,
shortly lx.'forc it was brought to light, by men who
thought the tiiue rii>e for an attempt to introduce the
reforms by which alone, they Ijelieved, Judah could be
saved, and hatl intelligently planned the way in which
this should l)e effected. ^
I'.verything points to Jeru.salem as the place where
Dt. was written : a work whose aim was to exalt the
17 Place ''^"'P''-" to the position of the sole sanctuary
of Yahwib can hardly have originated any-
where else. The Torah of the priests is throughout so
intimately united with the religious teachings of the
prophets that we are constrained to believe that both
priests and prophets were associated in its prcxluction,
or at least that its priestly authors were thoroughly
imbued with the spirit of the prophets. Who these
authors were cannot be more definitely determined.*
That the authors of the primitive Dt. freely used
older collections of laws h.as Ix-cn generally recognised.
17a. Sources f'^'^''^ Kx-.^l-'2:5 (on which see alK,ve.
of D ^ ^'' remains of another collection are
found in Dt. 22-2;"). Staerk and Steuer-
nagel have recently undertaken to show by minute
1 This is equally true of the older historians ; but their works
have been preserved only in deuteronomistic rccension.s.
- On the diction of Dt., see the commentaries of Kn. and Di.;
Kleinert, Dcitt. 214^; Kue. Ilex, f 7, n. 4: Holz. Finl.
iH-iff.; Dr. /v. p. Ixxviii ^ On the .style, Di. 611; Holz.
^95 J^- '' l'""- P- Ixxxvi^
8 .So Dc Wette, Reuss, Graf, Kue., We., St., Che., and others.
* The suggestion that Jeremi.ih w.-is the author of Dt. (von
Bohlen, Colenso) is for various reasons untenable.
1086
DEUTERONOMY
analysis that both the hortatory and the legislative
parts of Dt. are in a stricter sense composite.
According to Steiiernagel, the book discovered in the temple
in the eighteenth year of Josiah (Dt. 5 26 28) wa-s the work of a
redactor, who combined with considerable skill —but meclianic-
ally, and without substantial additions — two oliler works of
like character, each consisting of a hortatory introduction and a
body of laws. One of them (.Sg.) is marked by the direct
address to Israel in the second person singular ; the other (PI.)
tises the plural. The older of these works (Sg.) is assigned to
the early years of Manasseh's reign (shortly after 700 n.c), the
other (PI.) was composed about 670. The union of the two by
the redactor (Dr) falls in the middle of the century, twenty-five
vears or more before the discovery of the book in the temple.
\ioth .Sg. and PI. made use of older .collections of laws, and
these sources can still in part be recogni->ed. One of the chief
sources of Sg. (the ' Grundsammlung ') was put out in support
of Hezekiah's reforms, probably not long after 722 B.C.
Chaps. 1-3, in the form of an address of Moses to
Israel, contain a review of the principal events of the
A^/i-+- migration, from the departure of the
\h77s 1°T * ^^'■'^'^''''^s '"'■o'" ^^"'■'-"'^ '° ^'^*^ moment at
V^'h t V ^^'^''^'^ ^^ '^ speaking to them.^ This
reiatea to . ^gtrospect throughout follows the history
of JE, from which its material is drawn and many
phrases and whole clauses are borrowed. ^ Upon closer
examination it appears that the chief source of the
chapters is E, which the author had before him
separately ; whether he made use of J is doubtful ; of
dependence on P there is no trace.
The retrospect begins .^bruptly with the command to remove
from Horeb (1 6-s), and it has been conjectured that 99-IO11
(or at least i> 25-IO 11), which recites the transgression at Horeb,
and brings the narrative to the precise point where it is taken
up in 1, once stood before 1 7. More probably, however,
99-IO11 is not a misplaced fragment of the retrospect, but the
product of successive editorial amplifications. S The review ends
as abruptly as it begins ; the words, ' And we abode in the
valley in front of Heth-peor' (829), must originally have been
followed by an account of the sin at Baal-peor (Nu. 2j 1-5 ; cp
Dt.43/).
The chapters (1-3) are not by the author of 5-"26.
The resemblance in language and style is un(|uestionably
very close, though there are some noticeable differences ;
but the diversity of historical representation is decisive ; ■
cp 229 with 23 3-6 7/., I35/; 2 14-16 with 11 2/: 02/
The opinion of some critics, that 1-4 was prefixed to
the primitive Dt. to connect it with the history in Ex.
and Xu. , is improbable ; for such a purpose a recapitu-
lation of the history was more than su{>erriuous. Others,
with better reason, suppose that the historical risumi
was intended as the introduction to a separate edition
of Dt. The way in which it t)egins and ends (see above,
small type) suggests that it was not composed for the
purpose, but was extracted and adapted by the editor
from some older source. Conclusive marks of the age
of the chapters, further than their dependence upon E
and the general affinity to the deuteronomistic school,
are hardly to be discovered.
Chap. 41-40 has generally been taken with 1-.3, as a
ion a 'hortatory close to the historical introduction.
19. Chap. 4 'pj^^.^g jg iiouever, neither a formal nor
X-40 exilic. ^ material connection between them.
The historical allusions in the exhortation are to events
related, not in 1-3, but in l>ff.\ 4 loyT 32-35 differ from the
retrospect (1 39/ etc.) and agree with l>if. W-iff. '-'^^ff., in
making the speaker's audience witnesses of the scenes at Horeb ;
the greater part of 4 is only a homiletical enlargement on 5 i^ff.
In Other points 4 goes beyond 5-11 ; its monotheism
takes a loftier tone, like that of Is. 40-55 (see 43539
15-19). In 425-31 deportation and dispersion are inevit-
able ; the prediction that in the far country Israel will
return to Yahwe and find forgiveness takes the central
place which it has in the exilic prophets.
The language resembles 5-11 more closely than 1-3,
but has peculiarities of its own : 417/ are full of words
and phrases which remind us of Ezekiel, H, and P (cp
1 Chap. 1 1-5, which now forms the introduction to the speech,
is not homogeneous, and glosses have been pointed out in the
discourse itself.
2 .See particularly Dr. Dt. on these chapters, where the rela-
tion is well exhibited.
3 Cp above, § 11.
1087
DEUTERONOMY
also 32) ; 28 seems to be directly dependent upon
Jeremiah (I613 ; cp ©). Chap. 4 thus appears to be a
secondary addition to Dt. , composed in the Exile, and
closely akin to 29, if not by the same hand.'
Chap. 441-43, the designation by Moses of three
asylum cities east of the Jordan, has no connection
„, either with what precedes or with what
' "■ follows. In phraseology the vers<
441-43 44-49-
ology the verses agree
closely with Dt. \^\ff., after which they
are probably modelled. They may originally have
stood after 3 17 or 20, or perhaps after 29.
Chap. 444-49, the title and superscription to 5^., like
the corresponding superscription li-s. appears to be
the product of successive additions and redactions by
scribes or editors ; the oldest form of the title may have
been simply, ' This is the law which Moses laid Ixjfore
the Israelites on the other side of Jordan, in the land
of Moab' (cp 1 5).
Chap. 27, in narrative form, stands entirely dis-
connected in the midst of the speeches of Moses,
„, „_ separating 28 from 26. Graf, accordingly,
21. i.ip. regarded it as an interpolation, introduced
lour pieces. ^^^^^^ ^^ ^^.^^ vim\.>i6. with the older
historical book (JE), whilst Wellhausen sees in it the
conclusion of a separate edition of the Deutcronomic
law-book (I-440 12-20 27). The chapter (27)
consists of four distinct parts: viz., 1-89/ 11-13 14-26.
Vv. 9 f. may, as many critics think, have originally
connected 26 with 28. In 1-8, where there is much
repetition, 5-7(2 has long been recognised as a fragment
of the ancient source to which Ex. 20 24 -26 [21-23]
belongs. Vv. 12/ seem to Ije the sequel of 11 29/,
the whole being a liturgical embodiment of 11 26-28,
and plainly secondary. Vv. 14-26 cannot be by the
author of 11-13 '■ the things on which Dt. lays the
greatest stress are lacking in this decalogue, which is a
cento gathered from all strata of the legislation, especially
from Lev. lS-20.
Chap. 29/ contain a new address of exhortation and
warning, introduced, like 5 ^, by the words, 'And
,,, t,n , Moses convoked all Israel.' The stand-
22. L-hap. -y/. p^j^^ ^^ ^^g writer is similar to that of
41-40, and differs in the same way from that of 5-26 28
1-46 ; cp in particular 30i-io with 425-31. The author
had before him the deuteronomic law, with its blessings
and curses, in a book (29 20/ 27 30 10, cp also 29 9
2858 61). The diction differs considerably front that of
5-26, and approximates more closely to that of Jeremiah,
upon whom the author is evidently dependent. Chaps.
29/ are, therefore, like 4, an exilic addition to Dt. The
movement of thought in these chapters is far from Iseing
orderly or coherent: 29 16-28 [15-27] docs not naturally
follow 10-15 [9-14]. and the latter verses have no obvious
connection with 2-9 [1-8] ; 30i-io cannot originally have
stood between 29 and 30 11-20. The position of
these chapters is difficult to explain. Chap. 281-46
is the proper conclusion of the long speech of Moses,
5-26 ; 29 1 [28 69] is a formal subscription, marking the
end of the book. The only natural place for fresh
admonitions to observe the law would be after the law
had been committed to writing (31 9-13 ; cp 24-27) ; and it
has been conjectured, not without probability, that this
was the original position of the parting charge.-
Chap. 31, which takes up the narrative again, is
composite, and presents to criticism, most difficult
problems.
Verses 1-8 are not the sequel of 20/ or of 28 ; they take up
the story at the point which the historical introduction reaches
in 823 /?! ; they are deuteronomistic in colour.
23. Chap. 31. and Dillmann surmises that once they followed
828 immediately. A parallel to 1-8 is found in
\^/. 23, in which Yahwe himself gives the ch.arge to Joshua at the
sacred tent ; these verses are probably derived from K. The
intervening verses, 16-22, are an introduction to the ' Song of
Moses," 321-43, to which 32 44 is the corresponding close. This
1 On this point see further below, f 23.
2 See next section (23), on 31 24-29.
DEUTERONOMY
introiiuctinn is not deutcronomic, as the lannunKc proves ; it is
equally clear that it is not by the author of 14/. a^. 1 he
ciuestion of the source of the verses will recur in connection with
the age of the [Kiem itself (next t, second par.)- 'f. 9-11,
relating how the law was comniitleil to writinK and preserved,
form an appropriate conclusion to the account of the KivmR of
the law, and are by many critics coiniccted with &-'J»! 'JS. 1 he
preservation of ihe law is the subject of 24-27, which the
repetition and the different motive prove to be by another hand;
aS A seems to l<e a preparation for the recitation of the ' Song '
( <o), and is as much out of place after 19-22 as 24-27 after 9-13 ;
the whole passage, 24-29(30), is, therefore, ascribed toa rtdacior.
iJillmann conjectures that 28/ (in substance) oriKinally consti-
tuted the introiluction, not to the Soiij: of Moses, but 10 a speech
the close of which is to be found in 3'J45-47. This speech,
containing the last exhortations and admonitions of Moses, was
removed from its place after :U 9-1 3 to make r<x)in for the Song,
and is preserved, though worked over and extensively inter-
polated, in 4 '.'it/ For re;usons which have already been indicated,
we should not, however, with Dillmaiin, attribute this s|>cech to
the author of &-'.itJ -8, but to a later dcuteronomistic writer.
Chiip. 32 1-43 ; T/ie Son_^ of .l/<;j«.'— The theme of
the Ode is the goodness of Vahwe. the sin of Israel in
rejecting him, and the ruin which this
24. Song of
Moses.
apostasy entails. The |)oem contains no
definite allusions to historical events by
which its age may l>e exactly determined. The coiujuest
of Canaan evidently lies for the writer in a remote past
(7/:); and he has h.id ample e.\ix?rience of the pro-
jx;nsity of Israel to adopt foreign religions, and of the
national calamities in which the prophets saw the
judgments of Vahwe upon this defection. The language
has Ix-'eii thought to indicate that the author was a
native of the North ; and many scholars Ijclieve that
the situation rertected in the poem is that of the kingdom
of Israel in the reign of Jehoash (797-783 H.C.) or the
early years of Jerolxiam 11. (782-743), when, after the
long and disastrous Syrian wars, Israel was beginning
to recover its former power and pr()s|)crity.- Others,
understanding by the 'no people' (cy N*'). the 'foolish
nation' ('':: 'ij 21), the Assyrians, to whom such terms
would Ix; applied more naturally than they could be to
the Syrians (cp Is. 3:J 19,^ 5 26 j^ ), ascriln; the jxiem to the
latter half of the eighth century. The words may. how-
ever, with even greater probability, Ik; interpreted of the
Habylonians (cp Jer. l>\iff. 622/, esixjcially Hab. \tff.,
l)t. 2849 7f). In the vocabulary of the Song there are
several words which are not found in writers of the eighth
century, but are common in the literature of the seventh
and sixth ; the Aramaisms in word and form which
have lieen looked upon as evidence of Kpliraimite origin
may equally well lie marks of a later age. The poem
contains many reminiscences of the older projjhets,
especially of Hosea and Isaiah ; but in its whole spirit
and tone, as well as in particular expressions, it is much
more closely akin to Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Is. ■lO-fi.'i.
It has a strong resemblance, also, to the exilic additions
to Dt. (429/ ) ; its theology is that of these chapters
and of Is. 40 [ff. Its affinities to the Psalms and the
])roducts of Jewish Wisdom are to Ix; noted.'' It is,
in fact, a didactic p(x.-m, emlxxlying in lofty verse the
prophetic interpretation of Israel's history from lx;ginning
to end. Kucnen and others ascrilx; the Song to the
end of the seventh century (say 630-600 H.C.) ; but the
considerations last adduced, and others which might be
mentioned, point rather to an exilic or post-exilic date.
It has commonly bt^en assumed that the introduction
to the .Song (.3116-22) is pre-deuteronomic (J or K) ;'^
not so much, however, upon internal evidence as in
consecjuence of general theories aVxDut the age of the
poem and the composition of the last chapters of Dt.
It is intrinsically at least equally probable that the
1 On the Song of Moses see Ew. JEW 8 41-65 ("57];
Kamph. Das Liiul Moses, 1861 ; Klo. 'Das I.ied Mose's u.
das t)eut.; St. Kr. 44 249^ ['71], 45 230 if. 450 ^f. ['72];
reprinted in Der Pent. 223-367 ('93] ; St. /.A TW 5 297-300
[■8i;l. For the older literature see Di. Comm. 395; Reuss,
GA T, S 226.
2 .See 2 K. 1823-25 1425-27.
3 This verse is, however, probably not from the Assyrian
period.
4 See 1/ 3/ 6 28^:, etc. 8 Kue. attributes it to Rje.
3.1 1089
26. Its date.
DEUTERONOMY
intr(»iuclion is ix>st-deuloron<imic ; and tins ij\ p'^tn' ii.->
is strongly conmiended by tlie fact that the Song itself
has apparently lK.-en put in the place of the List discourse
of Moses (29/ ). which is itself a product of the 'exile'
Chap. .'5244 is the closing note to the |KH:m, cor-
resixJiuling to 31 30 at its lieginning. \'erses 45-47
are the close of the six-ech, answering to 31 28/;*
they contain no allusion to the Song ; their literary
affinities are to 31 28/, not to 31 16-^2 or 3244- (-hap.
3248-52 Ix-longs to the |)riestly stratum ; the same
command is given somewhat more briefly in Nu.
27.2-14 (P).
Chap. 33 : ' The Rlessing w herewith Mo.ses the man
of God blessed the Israelites Ixfore he died.' ' Ueyond
_ . this su]x:rscription, no attempt is made to
28. Blessing. ^.„„„j.j.j the p,^.„, ^^i,h the history of
Moses' last tlays ; from which it may Ix- inferred that it
was not iiitroiluced by a dcuteronomistic editor. The
oix-'ning verses (1-5), which are very obscure, in part
through corruption of the text, descrilie the coming of
Yahwe from Sinai, the giving of the I, aw, the acquisition
of the territory t)f Jacob (?), and the rise of the kingdom
in Israel.'-* Thereujxjn come, without any transitifin,
lilessings on eleven trilies. following a geograi)hicaI
order from south to north, and differing greatly' in
length and in character.
The Blessing of Moses is a comiwsition of the same
kind as the so-called lilessing of Jacob (Oen. 49 1-27),
though not a mere imitation of it. The
historical situation rertected in thelllessings
of the sexcral tribes in Dt. is that of a time considerably
later than that in (Jen. ; cp particularly Levi (Cjen.
495-7 Dt. 338-ii) and Judah ((Jen. 498-i2 Dt. S^?). On
the other hand, the situation is entirely different from that
re])resented in the Song of Moses, Dt. 32. While in
the latter, apostasy has drawn ujwn Israel the consuming
anger of Yahwe, and the very existence of the [Xiople is
threatened, the Hlessing breathes from end to end a
national spirit exalted by jx)\\er and prosperity and
unbroken by disaster. The author was a memix;r of
one of the northern trilx?s. or a I.evite at one of the
northern sanctuaries. The blessing of Joseph (13-17)
was written at a time when the kingdom of Israel, in
the pride of its power, and jx;rhaps tlushed w ith victory,
was thinking of foreign concpiests (17K Recent critics
have generally followed Graf in ascribing the poem to
the time of Jerolxwm II. (782-743 RC. ), when for a
brief space Israel seemed to have regained all its ancient
power and glory ; 20 is then referred to the recovery
of the territories of which (jad had Ix-^in strip|x'd by
the Syrians of Damascus in the disastrous pericxl which
preceded.
The prayer in 7, ' Hear, O Yahwe, the vo!ce of Judah, and
l)ring him to his people,' h.is been understood as the wish of the
Kphraimite poet that Judah mi^ht be reunited to Israel, and is
thought by many to point to a time soon after the division of the
kingdom, when the desire for the restoration of the national unity-
was still strong. This obscure verse, however, cannot Iw allowed
to outweigh the clearer testimony of other p.irts of the chapter.
The Hlessing of Levi (8-ii) describes the privileges and omces
of the priesthood, and the fidelity of Levi to its sacred trust.
There is nothing to indicate th.it the author was a priest of the
temple in Jerusalem 3 — the priests of other temples also were
Levites, — nor any cogent reason for thinking that 9 it are
Jewish interpolations. Verse 11, however, is hardly a blessing
for the priestnood, and would unquestionably be more appropri-
ate to one of the other tribes ; but that it was the original sequel
of ^f<, as has l)een conjectured, is not evident.
On the whole, the age of Jeroboam II. seems best to
satisfy the implications of the Blessings. Verses 2-5,
1 See above, $ 23.
- On the I^lessing see HoflTm. in Keil and Tzschirner's Ana-
UK-ten (1822), iv. i j.92 continued in a series of Jena Pro-
grams, 1S23-1841; Graf, Der .Set;en Mose's, 1857; Volck, Der
Seren Afose's, 1873; A van der Flier, Deut. S3, 1895: Ball,
•The Hlessing of Moses,' P.'iliA 18 118-137 ('96]. See also
St. GVI 1 \'~/o ff. The older literature in Di. Cotittn. 416,
Reuss, f;.-/7-,» 216.
3 The meaning of these versos is much disputed.
4 In 12 it is not certain that Jerusalem is meant (cp Ben-
JAMl.N, $ 8).
1090
DEUTERONOMY
36-29, have no connection with the Blessings, and it is
not improbable that they are fragments of another poem.
Whether the Hlessing of Moses was contained in J or K
is a question which we have no means of answering :
neither the short introduction, nor the titles of the
several Hlessings (which alone can be attributed to an
editorial liand), offer anything distinctive; nor do the
reminiscences of the earlier history.
Chap. 31. The story of the death of Moses is highly
composite, elements from JE and P, as well as the
hand of more than one etlitor, being recognisable in it.
Deuteronomy is the prophetic law-book, an attempt
to embody the ideal of the prophets in institutions and
laws by which the whole religious.
27. Religious
character
of Dt.
social, and civil life of the people should
be governed. We recognise this aim
in the treatment of the older right and
custom of Israel, and more clearly in those provisions
which are peculiar to Deuteronomy, alxjve all in the
fundamental law, chap. 5^ It seeks, not to regulate con-
duct by outward rule, but to form morality from
within by the power of a supreme principle.
The dominant idea of Deuteronomy is monotheism.
The first sentence of the older Decalogue, ^ repeated
56/., expresses, indeed, only a rela-
28. Mono-
theism.
tive monotheism ; but the fundamental
deuteronomic law, ' Yahwe our God is
one Yahw6 ' (64 /. ), declares, not only that there are not
tnany Yahwes, as there are many Baals, but also that
there is no other who shares with him the attributes of
supreme godhead which are connoted by his name.
He is ' the God of gods and the Lord of lords, the
great, mighty, and awful God' (10i7), to whom belong
' the heavens aTid the heavens of heavens, the earth and
all that therein is' (10 14), 'the [only] God in the
heavens above or in the earth beneath ; there is no
other' (439, cp 35).- The unapproachable majesty of
Yahwe (5i# 22^ 'igjf-). his constancy to his purpose,
and his faithfulness to his word are often recurring
themes (78-ioi2^ 95, etc.). He is a God who re-
quites his enemies to the full (7 10) ; yet a compassionate
and forgiving God to those who under his judgments
turn to him again (429-31, cp 30 1^).
Idolatry is strictly forbidden. The images and
emblems of the Canaanite gods are to be totally de-
stro3-c(l (122/ 75 25)- The Decalogue
prohibits the making of images of
29. Objects of
worship.
Yahwe in the likeness of any object in
30. Exclusive-
heaven, or on the earth, or in the sea; and in 4 15^
where this prohibition is emphatically repeated, Israel
is reminded that at Horeb, when Yahwe spoke to them
out of the midst of the fire, they saw no form — a lesson
to them not to image him in any form. The more
primitive standing stones and sacred poles are included
in the prohibition (I621/ I23/.). All kinds of
divination, sorcery, and necromancy are condcnuied as
heathenish (I89-14) ; Yahwe's will and purpose are made
known, not by such signs as are interpreted by the mantic
art, but by the mouth of his prophet (ISisi^).
Yahwe is to be worshipped, not at many sanctuaries,
but at one only, in the place which he chooses to fix
his name there {12 />ass., 14 23 LI 20 16
/>ass. , etc. ). The unity of the sanctu-
uoBB. ^j.y jg ^ consecjuence of the unity of
God. The suppression of the high-places, which is so
strenuously insisted on in Dt. , was primarily dictated, not
by practical considerations, but V)y the instinctive feel-
ing that their existence was incompatible with mono-
theism : as long as there were many altars there were as
many local Yahwes. It is doubtless true that, for the
religious consciousness of the great mass of worshippers,
the Yahw6 of Dan was not just the same as the Yahw6
1 On the various forms of this code see Decalot.uk.
2 See also 3 24 4 7/. 32 Jf. It has been observed above that
the theology of 4 1-40 approximates more nearly to that of
Is. 40#.
IO91
DEUTERONOMY
of Bethel or of Beersheba. But the great doctrine of
Dt. is, 'Yahw6 thy God is o«<r Yahw6. ' The exclusive
principle, 'Thou shalt have no other gods beside me,'
is strongly reaffirmed (612-15 IO20-22 11 16/. 28, etc.) ;
the worship of other gods is punished by death (17 2-7,
see also 13), the aposta.sy of the nation by national ruin
(614/ 74 819/ 425-28 '3O17/, etc.) ; for Yahw^ is a
jealous Go<l (615 424). Not only in Israel, which is
Yahwe's people, but also in Canaan, which is his land,
there shall be no other god or cult. Lvery trace of the old
religi(}ns of Palestine is to be obliterated. The Canaan-
itcs themselves must Ijc exterminated, lest, in intercourse
with them, Israel be infected with their religion (7i^
16 93, cp 1229/ '20i6^).i Alliance and intermarriage
with the heathen are stringently prohibited (73/ . etc. ) ;
and many sjiecial laws are directed against heathen
customs and rites : see, e.j^. , 225 23 17/ No less urgent
warnings are given against the religions of remoter
peoples (136/).
The essence of the religious relation between
Yahwe and his people is love. He has loved Israel
from the beginning (10 15 77/ 23 5),
31. Principle
of love.
and if they keep his commandments
he will love and bless them in all the
future (7 13, cp 437/ ). They are the children of Yahwe
their God (14i) ; his discipline and his care are parental
(85131). All good things are from him; but the
signal proofs of his love to Israel are the deliverance
from Egypt (fussim, e.g., 814^), and the law which he
has given them (45-832^). The love of Yahwe to his
people demands, as it should inspire, their love : ' Thou
shalt love Yahwe thy God with all thine he.art, and with
all thy soul, and with all thy might' (65) is the first
commandment of the law, the first principle of religion
(10x2/ 111 1322 134 199 306 16 20). Love to God con-
strains to do his will ; to love God and to keep his
commandments are inseparable. His commandments
are not remote or incomprehensible : they are in men's
hearts and on their lips (30 11-14. cp Jer. 31 31-34) ; nor
are they difficult and burdensome (10 12/, cp Mic. 68) :
to keep them is for man's own good (C24 10 13). It is a
religion of the heart, not of outward observances or
of formal legality. Observances are not rejected ; a
religion without worship and distinctive ceremonial is
not contemplated ; but festivals and sacrifices are only
the expression of religious feeling — atxjve all, of loving
and joyful gratitude for God's love and goodness.
The relation of Yahwe to Israel is not a natural and
indissoluble relation, such as subsists between a tribal
. god and his people ; it is a moral rela-
32. Moral jj^j^ which has its origin in his choice of
oasis. xsrael to be his people. He chose it, not
for any good in it (7 7 94/- ). but because he loved its
forefathers (10 15) ; and love and faithfulness bind him
to their descendants (78 95). The election by which
Israel alone of all the nations of the earth is made the
people of Yahwi is Israel's glorious distinction ; but it
imposes the greatest obligation. Sin, in this light, is
more heinous, judgment more necessary and more
severe ; but in God's constancy to his purpose and his
promise faith finds the assurance that the severest
judgment will not be utter destruction.
The bond between Yahwe and Israel is the covenant
which he made with them at Horeb {b^ff.) and renewed
on the plains of Moab (29 1 [2869]). The deuteronomic
law sets forth the obligations imposed by Yahwe and
accepted by Israel (I72) ; strict observance of the law is
the condition of the fulfilment of the promises of Y.^hwi.
the obligations which he voluntarily took upon himself
in the pact (79-13 1122^, etc.).
Israel is to be a holy people (76 14 221 2619)— that is,
one set apart to Yahwe in all its life. The stringency
of the laws which are to preserve the purity of the
1 At the time when Dt. was written this sanguinary proscrip-
tion of the native population can hardly have had much practical
significance.
1093
DEUTERONOMY
people nnd the land from false religion and immorality
is thus explained and justilietl : ' 'rtiiiu shalt exterminate
the evil from the community' (l^s and pais.; see 22
13-30 'Jl i8-ai ly i6-ai etc. ).
Notwithstanding the sanguinary thoroughness with
which it demands the extirpjition of heathenism, and the
severity of many of the special laws, the distinctive note
of the deuteronomic legislation is humanity, philanthropy,
charity. Regard not only for the rigiits, but also for
the needs of the widow, the orphan, the landless Ixvitc,
the foreign denizen, is urged at every turn.' The in-
terests of debtors (232o 24 10-13 15i-ii)' slaves (.114
15ii-i8), and hired labourers (2I4/. ) are carefully
guarded. Various provisions protect the rights of the
wife or the female slave (24 1-4 2213-19 21 10-1415-17).
Nor arc the animals forgotten (2r)4 226/ ). The spirit
of the legislation is seen not least clearly in the laws
which appear to us altogether Utopian, such as 20 (cp
24 5 17 14-20 l.'ii-6).
In conformity with its prophetic character, Dt. pre-
sents itself not merely as a law-lxjok, but al.so as a book
of religious instruction. Its lessons are to be diligently
rememtx;red, and not forgotten in times of prosi>erity
(66-12 8ti-i8 etc. ). Its fundamental precepts are to
be repealed daily, to Ix; worn as amulets, to be inscribed
in public places (67-9 11 iS-ai). They are to be taught
to children, that each succeeding generation may be
brought up in the knowledge of Yahwe's will (6720-25
11 19 49) ; and every seven years the whole law is to tx;
publicly read in the hearing of the assembled people
(3l9-'3).
Taken all in all, Dt. will ever stand as one of the
noblest monuments of the religion of Israel, and as one
of the most noteworthy attempts in history to regulate
the whole life of a people by its highest religious
principles.
1. C V/z/wrw/rtr/cj.— Of the older works, Drusius (1617), Ger-
hard (1657), and Clericus (1696) may often be consulted with
profit. The principal motlern commentaries
33. Literature, are Vater, Pent, in., 1805 ; M. Baumgarten,
1843, 1844; K. W. Schultz, 1859 ; Kn., 1861 ;
Schroeder, 1866 (Lange's liihekocrk), KT with additions by
Gosman, 1879; Kcil, 1862,2nd ed. 1870, ET 1807; Lspin, 1871
(Sf>eaktrsUom»t.). Di., i8i6 ; Montet, Le Diut., 1891 ; Oettli,
1893 ; Dr., 1895 ; Steuernagcl in Nowack's //A', 1898.
2. Criticism.— \'MCT,Commeni. ul-fr din Pent, iiiit. Ilinl.Z,
'Abhandhing iiber Moses und die Vcrfasser des Pentateuchs,'
391^; De Wette, Dissert, crtt. ■ exeget. (1805); Beitr. z.
Einl. in d. .4 T 1 (1805), i63 ff. 265 ff., 2 (1807), 385 ff. ;
J. F. L. George, Die alt. jUd. Juste C^^); W. \ alke, Die Kel.
d. AT 504 /jr (35); Einl. 384>^(>^); E. Kichm, Die
Gesetzgeb. .^fos., etc. ("54) ; St. A r. 165-200 ('73) (review of
Kleinert); Colenso, Pent, and Josh., Pt. 3(03), cp pt. 7 App.
85-110; Graf. Die gesch. BiUh. d. AT i^tt); Kosters, Die
historiebesclwmuingvan den Deuteronomist Ctb); Klo., ' D.xs
Lied .Moses 11. d. Deut.' .S7. A>. ('71, '72): ' Beit rage zur
Entstehungsgesch. des Pent.' Ante kirchl. kt., 1890-92, re-
printed in Der Pent. ('93); Kleinert, Das Deut. u. d.
Deuteronomiker ('72) ; Reinke, ' Ueber das unter dem KOnige
Josia aufgefundene Gcsetzbuch,' Beitr. zur Erkl. d. A T
8 ('72). 131-180; Kayser, Das vorexil. Buck der Vrgtsch.
Isr. u. seine Krtveiterungen ('74); J. Hollenberg, 'Die deut.
Bestandtheile d. Huches Josua,' St. A'r., 1874, pp. 462-506;
We. C//, y/^T, 1876, 1877; reprinted separately, under the
same title, 1885, and with Nachtriige, Pie Comf>. des Hex. u.
d. hist, liadur des A T ('8.,) ; Gl ('78), 2nd td. called Prol.
z. Gl ('83), 4th ed. 1895, liT, Prolegomena to the Hist. 0/
IsraelCZi); S. J. Curtiss, The Lrriti^al Priests Cjj); WRS,
Additional .Anyn>er to the Libel (^'fi), Ans7oer to the Amended
Libel {-yi)): OTJCi^Ai; 2nd ed. '02); E. Reuss, L'hist.
sainte et la. loi, I 154^ ('79); Die lieil. Geseh. y. d. Geselz,
106 jf. Cgj), {Das AT, Bd. 8); Steintbal, ' Da.s fiinfte Buch
'i\o-x,' Xt./ur \'6tkerpsych. u. S/>rochuiissens, 1879, pp. 1-28;
'Die erzahlenden .Stucke im fiinften Biiche Mose,' ib. 1880, pp.
253-289, also separately (Berlin, '80) ; Valeton, Theo. Stud. 5
(■79), pp. 165-206,291-113: 6('Eo),pp. 133-174,30^.720; 7('8i), pp.
39-56, 205-228; F. Del. ' Pentateuch-kritische Studien,'^A"//X
1 ('80), 445^ 503^ SS^j^- ■ Castelli, La legge del f^polo Lbreo
ntl sua sTolgimeptto storico, 207-320 ('84) ; Chcyne, Jeremiah,
his life and times ('88), chaps. 5-7 ; Baudissin, Gesch. des
A r Priesterihums ("89) ; .\. Westphal, Lts sources du Pent.
2 32 ff. ("92); Staerk, Das Deut. sein Inhalt u. seine
literarische Form (94) ; Steuernagel, Per Rahmen des Deut.
('94); Entsteh.desdeut.Geselzesi:^); Havct, LeChristianisme
1 See 10 18/ 18 i8-ao IT 8-13 2417/ 2719 121218/ 1427-29
16 11 14 24 19-23 26 11^
1093
DEW
*/ tti tripnet, 8 3a ff. ("78) ; d'Eichthal, MfL dt cril. hii.
('86), and Atude sur le Deut. 81-350 ; Verne*, Vne twuv. hyfoth,
tur la comft. et Corigint du Deut. ('87), reprinted in Etsais
bibliques ('91); L. Horkl, 'Etudes sur le Dcul.' Krtme d«
niist. des Kelig. 16 28-65 C^l\ 17 1-22 (88), 18 320-334 ('86),
23 1J4-200 Coi), 27 119-176 (''Ji); cp Kucnen, ' Dc jungttte
pliascn drr Critiek van den Hex.' //i. /, 35^. ("Efe); C.
Piepenbring, A'rt'. dt CHist. des Reiig. 24 ab ff 37 ff. ('90,
' La rdformc et Le code de Jo»i • ■ -■ - - - • ••
Documents 0/ tite Hex. 2 ('98).
ib. -0 123-
^"^JU- 37
«8o('94);
Addis,
.See also Introductions to the OT : — Eichhorn, 4th ed. ('23);
De Wette (17, 7th ed. "52, 8th ed. by E. Sehradcr, '69); Itleeic
i'6o), subst.intially unaltered in later edd., E'l' by Venables
'6,>); S. Davidson ('62); Kuencn, Hist. krit. t^nd.{'fii; 2nd
ed. entirely rewritten, '85); ET by Wicksteed, The Hexatcuch,
('86); Reuss, (.Vir/j. des W7' ("81 ; 2nd ed. '90) ; C'ornill ('91 ;
anded. '92); l^river, httrod. ('91 ; 6lh ed. '9-), cp ' Deuteronomy '
in Smiths /)//(-') (y j) ; Kdnig ('93) ; WildelxK:r, De Lettetkunde
desOuden I'erboiids (a-,); Holzinger, Einl. in den Hex.('^p.
On the relation of Dt. to Jeremiah, see Kueper, Jeretniat
lihrorum sacrotum i>iter/>res et vindex, 4-45 ('38); Kdnig,
'Das Deut. und der Prophet Jeremiah," W 7' Studien. 2('^v);
Zunz, ZDMG 28 669-676 (73) ; Colenso, pt. 7, App. pp. 85-110,
cp ;: 563.^ 572 A . ,, .
In defence of the Mosaic authorship: Hengstenberg,
Authentie des Pent. 2 159^. ('19), ET Genuineness 0/ the
Pentateuch, 2 130^ (47); Hiivcrnic'K, Einl. in das AT
1 601 ff. (^f), ET Jntrod. to the J'cntateiuh, 410/ ('50);
Keil, Einl. in das AT, 1853, 3rd ed. 1873, ET by C. C. M.
Dougl.ns, Introd., etc. 1869; Bis<.cll, 'The Pentateuch, its
Origin and Structure ('85); G. V'os, The Mosaic Origin 0/
tlu I'entateuchal Codes ('66); Martin, Introd. ,i la crit. gin.
de TAnc. lest. 1 295^ (■87); A. Zahn, Das Deut. ('go)-
G. V. .M.
DEVIL. For Dt. 32i7elc. (cnr). Lk.433 etc. (5at-
/idi/tof), Mt. 8 31 etc. (&aCnuiv), see Demons, 8 4 ; for Lev. 17 7 etc.
("I'i"^"), see Satyr ; and for Mt. 4 i etc. (6 fia/3«Ao?), see Sata^ ,
DEVOTED, AV sometimes, RV usually, for Din,
henni (Lev. 272i KV, i K. 2O42 RV, etc.). See R.AN.
§2.
DEW ("Pp ; Apococ)- 'Dew' is a theme which
kindles the enthusiasm of the OT writers; but what
does 'dew' mean in the OT? and are the common
explanations of the biblical references altogether correct ?
During the spring and autumn the phenomenon which
we call dew is, at least in the intervals of fine weather,
1 Meanine ^^ familiar in Palestine as in western
of the term '^o"""''*^^ • '^*-' moisture hekl in suspen-
■ sion in the atmosphere during the day is
deposited, in cloudless nights, owing to the cooling of
the surface of the ground, in the form of ' dew.' It is
not, however, simply this phenomenon of spring and
aiitimin that excites the enthusiasm of the Hebrew
writers ; for it is not the dew but the former and the
latter rains that are in these seasons of vital importance
to the agriculturist (see R.\IN). During the summer
season, however, from the beginning of May to the
latter part of OctoIx:r, there is an almost unbroken
succession of cloudless days, when vegetation becomes
parched, and would altogether perish but for another
phenomenon which has a prior claim to the descriptive
Hebrew name /<;/ ('sprinkled moisture') uniformly re-
presented in the EV by the word 'dew.' During the
summer, but more especially (when the need is greatest)
in the latter part of August and during Septemlx.'r and
Octot)er, westerly winds bring a large amount of mois-
ture from the Mediterranean (see Winds). This moisture
becomes condensed by the cool night air on the land
into something not unlike a Scotch mist, which, though
specially thick on the mountains, is yet abundant
enough everywhere to sustain with its moisture the
summer crops, and to keep some life in the pastures of
the wilderness.^
Coming only in the night, and being so much finer than
ordinary rain, this beneficent piovision of nature received a
special name, tal, to which the .Arabic tall"n, 'fine rain," corre-
sponds. _ The Greek poetical terms jpoirot iroiTio and BaXavaia,
tpovtpai fci^f'Aai, seem more adequate than the simple ipotro^,
1 The true meaning of tO is most clearly set forth by Neil,
Palestine Explortd (,'83), pp. 129-151, to whom this article owe*
its central idea.
DEW
and, but for the shock to our a'ssociations, 'night mist'l would
be a prefera!)le rendering to 'dew.'
This explanation clears up certain otherwise obscure
passages. It also enables us to identify with consider-
able probability the season to which any important
passage nietitioning fal refers. The miracle of Gideon's
fleece, e.g. , w;xs presumably placed by the writer in the
summer. At the same time, when perfectly general
language is used respecting /<:/(' dew'), it may be oix-n
to us to suppose that a confusion exists in the writer's
mind between the genuine ' dew ' of winter (spring and
uutumn) and the ' night mist' of summer, which is not,
in our sense of the word, dew at all, since the vapour be-
comes contlonsed in the air before it reaches the ground.
In illustration, see Lane's Arahic Lexicon, s.v. tafia. One
example given is, ' The sky rained-small-rain (taltaf) upon the
earth.' Tall"" is defined as ' light or weak {i.e., drizzling) rain,
or the lightest and weakest of rain ; or dew that descends from
the sky in cloudless weather.' Cp also Koran, Sur. 2267, 'And
if no heavy shower (jvdbilu") falls on it, the mist {tall"") does.'
{a) ]Vliere ike ' deiv' comes from. — Job 38 28 is, prob-
ably enough, a scribe's insertion (Bi. , Duhm) ; but, if
so, the scribe gives an invaluable early
2. Biblical
and other
references.
summary of what precedes. He states
tliat what is said of the rain in vv. 25-27
refers not only to the wuiter rains or to the
occasional tliunilcrstorms but also to the ' night mist.'
Has the rain a father?
Or who has begotten the streams 2 (not 'drops') of 'dew'?
To this question a wise man replies (Prov. 820),
By his (God's) knowledge the depths were opened {i.e., at
creation).
And the sky drops down 'dew.'
So Gen. 2728 Dt. 332$ Hag. 1 10 Zech. 812; cp also
Judg. 54 ((5" and Theod. ).■* A more complete answer
is given in ]-'noch, where the 'treasuries' of snow and
hail (Job 38 22) and also of dew and rain are described.
If Job did not ' come to those treasuries ' Enoch did,
according to the current legend. The statements are
important : ' The spirit of the dew has its dwelling at the
ends of the heaven, and is connected with the chambers
of the rain, and its course is in winter and summer ;
and its clouds, and the clouds of the mist are connected,
and the one passes over into the other' (6O20, Charles).
In chap. 70 the twelve portals of the winds are described. From
eight of them dew and rain are said to proceed ; the winds are
not, however, always beneficial. The author is by no means a
good observer, and his statement is of value only as confirming
the statement of t)0 2o that 'dew' and 'rain' are connected.
{b) Preciousness of ' dezu.' — The land of Israel is called
■ a land of corn and wine ; yea, his heavens drop down
dew' (Dt. 33 28). The blessing of Jacob says: 'God
give thee of the dew of heaven, and of the fatness of
the land' (Gen. 2728; contrast 7'. 39, RV'»2). Yahw6
himself resembles ' dew ' ; 'I will be as the dew for
Israel ' (parched up, desolate Israel), IIos. I45 [6]. The
preciousness of the ' dew ' is shown by its effects, which
are next descril^ed.
Perha|)s, however, fal here includes rain. Dew is an
emlilem of resurrection ;' ' A dew of liglits is tliy dew, and to life
shall the earth liring the shades' (Is. 2{i ig, S/IO I"). From the
world of i)erfect light where Vahwe dwells a supernatural 'dew'
will descend on the dead Israelites. 'The dew of resurrection'
(rrnn Sc '72) 's a Talmudic phrase based on this prophecy. In
the Koran, also {e.er-, Sur. 41 39), rain is referred lo as a sign of
the resurrection. Probably, too, Micah 5 7 [6] also should he
mentioned here. The traditional text, as it stands, is unin-
telligible. The 'remnant of Jacob ' among the nations cannot
be at the same time like showers of night mist on the earth and
like a lion. The upright line (Pasek) placed after 'And shall
i>e ' (iTH'') warns us (as so often) that there is something doiibtfitl
in the text. Possibly /V, ' upon ' has dropped out. The passage
1 This is the first rendering of 7t? in P.DB. It had been
adopted by Che. in his Prof-hecies 0/ Isaiah and Book of
J'salinsih, who followed Xeil, o/>. cit.. 14O.
2 MT reads '^J*«, generally rendered 'drops' (© /3<iAovs).
•Reservoirs' would be more defensible; but this does not suit
'begotten.' The obvious emendation is '^.'?2. Rain is called
D'n^K jVb '" Ps- C5 10. The scribe is thinking of the 'channel '
tl^yn) in T. 25.
3 Heb. text has only ' dropped.
109s
DIAL AND SUN-DIAL
then reads thus, ' And there shall be on the remnant of Jacob
. . . as it were "dew" from Yahwfe . . . which tarries not for
man,' etc. — i.e., which is independent of human effort. Reluctant
as one may be to deviate from an unquestioned tradition, it
becomes necessary to do so, when even the acute Wellhausen
admits that the jwint of the comparison in the present text is
unintelligible to him.
(c) Other illustraiive passages. — The dew (night mist),
like the rain, comes by the word of a prophet (i K. 17 i).
It falls suddenly (2 S. 17 12), and gently, like jjersuasive
eloc|uence (Ut. 322); it lies all night (Job '2919), but
early disappears like superficial goodness (Hos. 64).
Such a night mist is to be exjxicted in the early summer,
in the settled hot weather of harvest (Is. 18 4 ; but, on
text, see Vim:, § i). It has a healing effect on vege-
tation (I'-cclus. 18 16 4322) ; but for a man to Ix; exposed
to it is a trying experience (Cant. 62). It is all-pervading;
hence Gideon asks, as a sign of his divine mission, first,
that the fleece which he has put on the threshing-floor
may be wet with a night mist [tal) when the floor it.self
is dry, and next, that the fleece may be dry when the
floor is wet. So abundant is the moisture of the night
mist that in the morning after the first exi^erience
Gideon is able to wring out of the fleece a whole bowlful
of water (Judg. 636-40).
{if) Tivo doubtful passages.— \n Ps. 110 3, if the scribes have
correctly transmitted the text, there is a condensed comparison
of a king's youthful army to the countless drops of dew : a
highly poetic figure, adopted by Milton in speaking of the angel-
hosts. The words, however, ' thou hast the dew of thy youth '
('dew' is not attested by the LXX, though the other Greek
translators all have ipotros), are probably corrupt (see Che.
Psal)ns(->). The other passage (I's. 133 3) appears to state
that it is the dew of Hermon that comes down on the moun-
tains of Zion. Some (so Del.) have thought that a plentiful
dew in Jerus.alem might be the result of the abundance of
vapours on Hermon ; others (so Baethi;.), that 'dew of Hermon '
is a proverbial expression for a plentiful dew. Robertson Smith
{O'/yO-) 2i2)suggests that the expressions may be hyperbolical ;
the gathering of pious pilgrims from all parts at the great feasts
at Jerusalem w.as ' as if the fertilising dews of great Hermon
were all concentrated on the little hill of Zion ' ; but the p.assage,
as it stands, is incapable of a natural interpretation. The text
came into the editor's hand in an imperfect condition. Hermon
and Zion can by no possibility be brought into connection either
here or in the equally corrupt passage, Ps. 42 6 [7]. T. K. C.
DIADEM. Strictly SidSr]/iia (SiaS^w, to bind round)
is no more than a rich fillet or liead-band. It was
worn around the Persian royal hat (see Mitre, 2),
and, as distinguished from ffTi(f>avoi (see Crovv.n"), is the
badge of royalty; cp i Mace. I9 615 814 etc.. Rev.
123 13i 19i2 (RV, AV 'crown,' and so YJV in i Esd.
4 30). It is probable that fillets of a more or less ornate
character are referred to in the Heb. -itj, rri^^' (see
Crown) and ]"s (see Mitre).
1. AiaSrjfitt is used by © to render nri3, kether, Esth. 1 11,
and "113, ni-zcr, 2 S. 1 10 [ L, Sym. Theod.] (see Ckown, § 2), ~'^:J?,
takrik, Esth. 8 15 (see Mantle), and «]>:s, santph. Is. 623 (cp
Ecclus. 47 6): see 4 below.
Diadem, in EV. represents the following words : —
2. ii.irpa, 15.ar. 62 (EV, in Judith 10 3 10 8, EV 'tire,' AVmg.
' mitre ').
3. nsjsn, viiinepheih, Ezek. 21 26 [31] .W ; see Mitke, i.
4. ^^'Vi, santph, Is. G23 EV, Zech. 85 RVniff. (EV 'mitre').
Job 29 14 EV (RV'ig. ' turban ') ; .see Turban, 2.
5. nT£li, siphirah (properly ' a plait ' ; \/to weave), Is. 28 5
(II niay. « TrAexeis or jrAo/tcis, etc. [P.K.\Qr], irA«'y/ma (Aq.
Theod.J, iciVp'«lSym.l). InEzek. T 7 10 (RV 'doom'), according
to Co., 5,y»//;/vf/! means 'crown' (cp RVmt.'- ' crowning time ') ;
text perhaps faulty, see Co., BertholeU
DIAL and SUN-DIAL (ni"?l?p, literally 'steps,'
ANABaBmoi ; Tg. NTB' pN*. 'hour-stone' ; Sym. in
Is. 388 copoAoriON ; horologiinn). 2 K. 20ii Is. 388.
The term occurs in the account of Hezekiah's illness.
In point of fact, however, the narrator says nothing of a ' dial '
and of ' degrees ' but only of ' steps ' ; where AV says, ' 1 he sun
returned ten degrees,' RV more correctly .says, ' The sun returned
ten steps.' though immediately afterwards it uses the incorrect
term 'dial' (with a marginal note, 'Heb. steps'). Hence both
in AV and in RV the accoimt is more obscure than it need have
been. It is true, the parallel accounts in 2 K. 20 and Is. 38 differ,
which produces some difficulty.
1096
DIAMOND
On the whole, Is. 887/ is probably nearer to the
ori>;iiial text than 2 K. '208-ii. It is not, hnwcvcr, free
from awkwardness. Explanatory words have evidently
btx-n introtluceti, after removing which we get something
like this : ' lichold, I will cause the shadow to go back
as many steps as the sun has gone down on tlie steps
of Ahaz. So the sun went back as many degrees as it
had gone down." ' The dale of this part of the narrative
is long after the age of Isaiah, who was ordinarily no
worker of miracles (see Isaiah, ii. § 15, and c|j i for.
I32) ; and, if Duhm is correct, the phrase ' on the steps
of Ahaz ■ is the awkward insertion of an editor. The
reference is, therefore, of very small archa;alogical value.
Still, we may fairly ask what the late writer meant, and
the most usual answer is that the steps were those which
led u]) to the base of an olx.-lisk, the shadow of which
fell on the upjxir steps at noon, and on the lower in the
morning and the evening. We may suppose the
monument to have Ix-en near ent)ugh to the palace for
Hczckiah to see it from his chamber. This, however,
is ciuite uncertain, and, nothing being said of such
heathenish objects elsewhere,'- it is sca:cely probable.
© (see Is. 388, and cp Jos. .////. x. 2i) thinks that the
stei)S were those of the palace. This has been too
hastily rejected. It is perfectly possible that n'3. ' house
(of),' fell out of the text before inK, 'Ahaz.' We must
at any rate abandon the view that a dial with concentric
circles and a central gnomon is meant. Ahaz might no
<l(Hibt have borrowe<l this invention from Assyria (cp
Herotl. 2109). There is no evidence, however, that ni^'iO
can mean 'degrees,' and it must be rei)cated that the
narrative appears to Ix; a glorification of Isaiah (cp
Ecclus. 4823), b,ased on no ascertainable tradition of
fact,-' either as regards the wonder or the 'ste|)s. '
' Steps ' was the siniplest word to use in such a context,
in six;aking of a comparatively remote age. T. K. c.
DIAMOND ("1'pr, D^n^ ; see IxjIow, § 2). The
name diamond is merely a modification of adamant,
. TT„i *» though, unlike the latter word, it has a
1. Unknown to . , ,- , ,
the Hebrews, n"' '^ /''^"■"t'-" meaning, designating the
well-known gem composed of crystal-
lised carlxjii, with traces of silica anti earths. It is
usually colourless, but is often tinged white, gray, or
brown ; more rarely yellow, pink, etc.
The diamond does not apjxMr to have become known
to the (jreeks till the time of Alexander's successors,
when the (jreek kings had much intercourse with India,
the only place in the ancient world where diamonds are
known to have been obtained. Delitzsch has, indeed,
ascrit)ed to the Assyrians an acc|uaintance with the
diamond (comparing eliiit-su with Ar. 'a///tiis) ; but this
is precarious. Xor is it any more likely that the
diamond was known to the Egyptians ; the cutting
point used by them in working hard stones was more
probably corundum (Pctrie, Pmiif/ii/s and Tcmpks of
Gizeh, 173). We need have little hesitation, therefore,
in deciding that it was not one of the stones known to
the Hebrews of the sixth century B.C. (l-"zck. 2813 EV).
Much less could it have been an inscrilied gem in the
high-priestly ' breastplate ' of P (Ex. '28i8 = 39 11 EV) ;
for neither Greeks nor Romans could engrave the
diamond.
It was not until the sixteenth centiirj- a.d. th.it the wonderful
skill of the cinque-cento engravers succeeded in producing
intagli upon the diamond. No doubt, even many of the works
celebrated under this name may have lieen in reality cut in the
white topaz or the colourless sapphire ; but C'hisuis, a most
competent iudge, declares not only that Clement Hir.iKO h.-id
engraved on a diamond the portrait of Don Carlos as a betrothal
present to Anna, daughter of the enii)eror Maximilian I!., but
also that he had himself seen it during his stay in Spain in
1564. Uirago h.-id enjjraved thearms of .^pain as a seal. Paolo
1 Cp Duhm, Cheyne.
2 Olx-lisks were characteristic of Eg>'ptian sun-worship (cp
Jer. 43:3).
3 Hos.-inquet (T".?^,-! 3 37) explained the allesed phenomenon
as the disturbance of the shadow during the solar eclipse of 1 1 th
Jan.eSgB.c. It is needless to discuss this. Cp Chronology, §17.
1097
1. The
and her
worship.
DIANA
Morigi.i, too, says that Torezzo discovered the method and
engraved the arms of Charles V. on a diamond, whilst Jacobus
Thrunus is said to have engraved on a dutmond the arms of
England, for (jueen Mary of England, Philip's consort.
Diamond occurs four times in EV — once (Jer. 17 1)
to translate the Heb. tcc {sJi,imir), which was almost
2 The Hebrew ^^■'■'•'^'"'y corundum (see Adamant,
. § 3). the only substance use<l by the
(jreeks to engrave gems down to the
end of the fourth century B.C., an<l thrice (Ex. 28 13
39 1 1 Ezek. 2813) to translate the Heb. c%l(yahiUCm).
See Prkcious Stones. w. r.
DIANA (&pT€/wic [Ti. WH], Acts \9^^f.). The
characteristic feature of the early religion of Asia Minor
, , was the worship of a mother-goddess
J , in whom was adored the mystery of
Nature, |>eriM->tually dying and jierpetu-
ally self-reprotlucing. She ' had her
chosen home in the mountains, amitl the undisturbed
life of Nature, among the wild animals who continue
free from the artificial and unnatural rules constructed
by men' (Ramsay, I/ist. Phryir. I89); the lakes with
their luxuriant shores also were her favoured abode ;
and, generally, in all the world of plants and animals
her power was manifest. It was easy to identify such
a goddess with the Greek Artemis, for the latter also
was originally the queen of nature and the nurse of all
life ; but from first to last the Ephesian goddess was an
oriental divinity.
Under diflferent names, but with essential identity of
character, the great goddess was worshipped throughout Asia
Minor, and the various modifications of the fundamental con-
ception often came into contact with, and influenced, one
another, as though they were originally distinct. In northern
and eastern Phrygia the great Nature-gixldess was worshipped
as Cybele. In Lydia Katakekaumcne she was invoked as
.\rtcmis, and also by the Persian name Anaiiis, introduced
perbaps by Asiatic colonists planted in the Hermos valley by
Cyrus (Rams. Hist. Ccogr. 0/ As. Min. 131). She was known
there also as Leto, which is her title at Hierapolis and
Dionysopolis. As Leto she is traceable through Lycia and
western Pisidia to the Pamphylian Perga, where again sbe is
also called Artemis (Str. 667). The name Leto is the Semitic
."M-lat (pSKi cp '.\AiAaT, Herod. 1 131), and points to Semitic
influence, radiating perhaps from Cyprus (Rams. Hist. Phryg.
I90).
The world-renowned scat of this worship was Ephesus
(Acts 1927 ^v 6\r] rj 'Atrta Kal i] o'lKovnivi) a4,i(Tai : the
festival in her honour was called OiKovfifviKO.). The fame
of the ICphesian shrine was primarily due to the fact
that ' the Asian mead by the streamsof the Cayster' ( I lom.
//. 2461) was the natural meeting-point of the religious
ideas brought westwards by the expansion of the pre-
Aryan kingdom of -Asia .Minor (Sayce, Anr. Emp. 430K
and of the foreign, Semitic, intiuences which iK'netratcd
the peninsula at various points on the coast where
intercourse with the I'hojnicians was active. Thus
nuist we explain the peculiar composite features of the
hierarchy which early grew up round the temple on the
bank of the Cayster. It consisted of certain vestals
[irapdivoi)^ under the presidency of a eunuch-priest,
Ix-'aring the titular name Mcgabyzos (Str. 641). Some
have understood the passage in .Stralx) to assert the
existence of a College of Megabyzoi ; but probably
merely a succession is meant (one only in Xen. Anah.
S3> § 6/. and .App. liCh^). Persia was probably
the source of supply. There were three grades among
the vestals, who seem to have had, besides, a female
superintendent (Plut. An sent. 795 34 Reiske). There
is no evidence (Hicks, Inscr. Brit. Mus. 82, p. 85)
that they were called fdXiaaai, though the statement is
usually made (after Guhl, F.phesiaca, 108) ; certain
priestesses of the Great Mother were so called, however,
according to Lactantius {Inst. \i2), and the bee was
the regular tyjie on the coins (Head, Coins of Fph. ).
There was also a college of priests ('Eaff^vej). The
popular derivation of the name was from iayJ)%=.
1 For the meaning of this word in connection with the
Anatolian system, see Ramsay, Hist. Phryg. 1 96.
1098
DIANA
• swarm ' (so Curtius, Ephesos, 36) ; but it is perhaps wrong
to follow Lightfoot [Coloss. Intro, p. 94) in denying all
connection with the name of the Jewish sect of the
ICssenes. These priests were the connecting link between
the hierarchy and civic life — e.g. , they cast the lot wiiich
determined the Thousand and Tribe of a newly created
citizen (Hicks, i.e., no. 447, etc.). Neither their numlier
nor the mode of their appointment is known, but they
held office only for a year and superintended the feasts at
the Artemisium following the sacrifices at the Artemisia,
or annual Festival (Pans. viii. 13 1). Tor minor sacred
oflicials see Hicks, I.e. 85/
The analogous establishments of the goddess Ma in the remote
K. of Asia Minor, at the two Komanas (Cappadocia, Str. 5^5 ;
Poitus, /</. 557), show us the system in a more thorou^h-goiiig
form ; Straho's words (wvl &i ra fiiv tfivKdrreTai xiav vofj.inuiv to.
6' ^rroc) imply that the grosser features of the cult had been got
rid of at Kphesus. In the eastern shrines we have a presiding
priest allied in blood to the reigning family, and second only
to him in honour, ruling the temple and the attendant Up6Sov\oi
(6joo in number), and enjoying the vast revenues of the sacred
Thecultus-statue was thoroughly oriental in form, Ijeing
a cone surmounted by a bust covered with breasts (Jer.
Prit-/. Eph.). Like the most ancient
2. The image.
image of Athena at Athens (I'a
i. 2G6) and the statue of Artemis at Tauris (ICur. Iph. T.
<)Tj), and that of the allied Cyl>ele of I'essinus, it 'fell
down from Jupiter' (so .W and RV in Acts 19 35 : toO
SioTreroiis, ' that fell from heaven '). Such was her form
wherever she was worshipped as ICphesian .Artemis ; but
on the coins we find mostly the purely Hellenic type.
The ' silver shrines ' (Acts 19 24 vaoi) were offered by the
rich in the temple : poorer worshippers would dedicate
shrines of marble or terra-cotta.
Numerous e.xamples in marble, and some in terra-cotta, are
extant (.•!//«(•«. Mittk. 249, Arch. Zcit., i83o) ; the series .shows
continuous development from the earliest known representation
oitlie Mother-godde.ss (the so-called ' Niobe' at Magnesia near
Mt. Sipylus) to such as that figured in Harrison, Myth, and
Mon. 0/ Athens, 48 (cp Rams. in///.S", 1882, p. 45). Such .shrines
w-re perhaps also kept in private houses (Paus. iv. 31 8 di'Spes
i5i<f Bemv liaXifrTa. ayovariv ey Tt/nij). Similar shrines were carried
in the sacred processions which constituted an important part of
ancient ritual (Ignat. ai Eph. q avvo&oi Trai'Te?, 6(oi>6pOL xal
vaofpopoL ', Metaphr. I 'it. Tintoth. 1 769 : ctfiajAa 6ta ;(cipbs
i\ovri<i in the festival called Karayioyiof ; Inscr. Brit. Mus. i
n >. 481, referring to the thirty gold and silver awfiicowV^aTa
presented by C Vibius Salutaris in 104 a.d).
In the manufactiu'e of these shrines many hands and
much capital were employed (.\cts 1924 Trapeixfo foh
Texvirais ouk dXiyrju ipyaaiav).
The characteristic formula of invocation was ixeya.\-q
"Apre/jLis (whence we must accept the reading of D as
aijainst the fieydXr) r; 'AprefJ-is of the other MSS). The
epithet is applied in inscriptions {C/(t 2963 C, ttjs
yu -yiXT/s Seas 'Apr^/utSoj ; ifi. 6797, 'Ei^ejoi/ "Avacrcra).
Its use in invocation has been detected at other centres
of the allied cults.
This was the case, for example, at the shrine of .\rtemis-Leto
and .\pollo-Lairbenos at Dionysopolis (Rams. ///>.'. Fhryg.
1 151, n. 49, fieya? ' KtroKKia Aepni^fos, see /. Hell. Stud., 1889,
p. 2i6y| ; cp Hist. Phryg. 153, n. 53, fv^a-piarui Mijrpt AjjtoJ
on «f a.h\)va.ru>v h\>va.-ta. Troiei). In an inscription from the
I.imnai (mod. I'.girdir Geiil and Hoiran G.), where Artemis of
the lakes was revered, we have the formula MeyiXij 'Aprtfjii^
(kams. i/ist. Geoerr. 0/ AM, 410). The Artemis of Therma in
Lesbos is invoked by the phrase 'Great Artemis of Therma'
which appears on a stone .still standing by the road between
Therma an i Mitylene {B 'II de Corr. Hell.. 1880, p. 430). The
Artemis of Perga also affords a parallel (Rams. Church in K.
Emp. 138 ; cp also id. His!. Geog. 0/ AM, 292).
All these e.xamples show that \}nG power ol the goddess
was a prominent idea in the cult, and give point to the'
reiteration of the formula by the mob (Acts I934). Cp
Xen. Eph. In, b^vixj rk ffoi riiv virpiov rifiiv 6e6v,
Tr)y fieyiXrjv 'Ecpecriwv 'Apre/uv.
One of the secrets of the popularity of the temple was
its right of asylum. Whatever the fate of the town, the
3. The temple, '^'"^'f, ^"'^ ■''." T^'^l '\^, P'"*^'"';' TT
*^ safe (Fans. vn. 28 rots 5^ irepl rb lepbv
oiKou<n belfia. Jji/ ov54v. Cp also Herod. 1 26 ; Cic. Verr.
ii. 1 33 ; Strabo, 641). The peribolos-area was several
times enlarged — by Alexander the Great who extended
1099
DIBRI
it to a radius of a stade from the temple, and again by
Mithridates. Antony doubled it, taking in fiipoi ri rrjs
ir<iXews — i.e. , part of the suburbs. This extension worked
in favour of the criminal classes (Stralx), /.c, Tac. Ann.
36o), so that .Augustus in 6 B.C. narrowed the sanctuary
area, and surrounded it with a wall (Hicks, /.r. no.
522 /. ). There was a further revision by Tiberius in
22 A. I). (Tac. Ann. 36i). Connected with this security
was the use of the place as a national and private bank
of deposit ( Dio Chrys. J^/wd. Or. 595 ; see also Ca;s.
Be//. Civ. '633 105; Strabo, 640). I'Yom the deposits,
loans were issued to individuals or communities ( Hicks,
Alanua/ Gr. Hist. Inscr. no. 205).
It is noteworthy that the opposition to Paul did not
originate among the priests (see Ephesus). The
energies of the priests of the great shrines must have
been largely directed to the absori)tion of kindred
elements in the new cults with which they came in con-
tact, or at any rate to the harmonising of the various
rival worships. In this they were assisted by the
tendency of the Greeks to see in foreign deities the
figures of their own pantheon. That very definite steps
were taken in Ephesus to avoid conflict with the cult of
Apollo is proved by the localisation there of the birth-
place of Apollo and Artemis (.Str. 639, Tac. Ann. 36i ;
cp Pauly's Realenc. 1373). The teaching of Paul would
seem but another importation from the E. , likely to
effect a revival redounding to the advantage of the
temple. This blindness of the priesthood to the real
tendencies of the new teaching is well illustrated at
Lystra, where the priest of Zeus Pr.opoleos is foremost
in doing honour to Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14 13).
Not until a later period was this attitude exchanged for
one of hostility ; the earliest pagan opposition was based
on lower grounds than those of religion (Rams. Church
in R. Emp. 131, 200). [See especially Zimmermann,
Ep/icsos im crstcn christl. Jahrhundert, 1874.]
, VV. J. w.
DIBLAH (nri75'=]; AeBAaGa [HAQ]), Ezek. 6.4
RV. See Rim,.\H.
DIBLAIM (Q'^^T), Hos. I3 : see Gomf.r (2).
DIBLATH (nn^ni in Ml"; the statement that the
true Palestinian reading is '2"1 is weakly attested [Ha.] ;
AcBAaGa [B.\Q]), Ezek. 614 AV (RV Diblah), where
the ' toward ' of EV demands an emended te.xt. See
RlBLAH.
DIBLATHAIM (HO^n^aT), Nu. 3346; see Betii-
DIBLArilAlM.
DIBON (fn-l ; so thrice [Bii. ad Is. I52] ; else-
where in OT and on Moahite stone p"'T. and so
AaiBcon [B.\FL] — whence the true pronunciation is
probably Daibon, Meyer, ZAW 1 128, n. 2— but in
Josh. 13i7 AAiBcop [A], AeBcoN [L]).
1. A citv of Moab (Is. 1.^)2, \r^^u>v [BS<:<'"P'],
Aai^-nduif [N*], Af,^. [nV], Jer. 481822 St^wv [X],
[a]5at/ia)v [Q]), the modern Diban, about 3 m. N.
from .Aroer and 4 from the Arnon. -A fragment of an
ancient song preserved by JE in Nu. 21 commemorates
the conquests of the Amoritc king Sihon over Moab
'from Heshbon to Dibon ' [v. 30). According to Nu.
3234 [E] it was ' built ' by the Gadites, and it is alluded
to as Dibon-Gad in Nu. 3345/ [P]- Josh. 13. 7 [P]
gives it to the Reubenites. In Is. lag the name is
written Di.mon \qv.\ It was at Diban that the
famous stone of King Mesha was discovered in 1868.
2. In list of Judahite villages (Ezra, ii. § 5 L*^] § ^5
[i] a). Neh. 11 25 (Ai/Swv [S<=» ■»£]. om. BA) ; perhaps
the UiMONAH ['/.'••] of Josh. 1022.
DIBRI (n^T ; AABp[e]i [BAF], zamBri [L] ;
DABKi], father of Shki.omith [q.v., no. i] ; Lev. 24ii.t
P's story of the son of Shelomith who blasphemes ' the
Name ' ^ bears a close family likeness to the incident in
1 So MT. The original text no doubt had ' Vahwe.
DIDYMUS
Nu. 25 14/^ There the marriaKC of Zimri (a name
not unlike Uibri)' with a Miilianiless is the cause of sin,
and here the offentlcr is the son of a mixed union.
Zimri l>elongs to the tril>e of Sinieon whicli, according
to Gen. 46 10, had Canaanitc relations, and in the i)crson
of Diliri the trilw of Dan is pilloried (see Dan, § 8).
In iKjth stories the prevailing principle is the necessity
of cutting off Israel from all strangers ; cp Neh 9 a 1830,
and see liertholot. Slellutig J. Isntel. 147.
DIDYMUS (AiAymoC [Ti. WH]), Jn. 11.6 etc ;
see Thomas.
DIKLAH (n7|5"n; AckXa [AEL], in Ch. AckXam
[A]; om. R; decla), son of Joktan ((icn. IO27 i Ch.
I21). The name is obscure; it has l»een supposed by
Rochart and others to designate ' a palm-l>earing
district ' (cp Ar. dukal"", a sort of palm tree, and see
BDH). Hommel connects it with the name of the
Paradise river Hid-dckcl (sec I'akadisk).
DILEAN, KV Dilan (iv'?^ : AaAaA [I^] : -A&A [A] :
-AAan [I'l. !''•'''>• ^=»'^?). an unidentifi<xi city in the
ShephClnli of Juilah (Josh. 1.138). It occurs with
Mizjxih (Tell cs-.Sfifiyeh) in a group apparently N. of
the group comprising Lachish and Eglon.
DILL (to anhBon). Mt. 2823 KV">n- ; KV Anise
(,;.:•. I.
DIMNAH (HJPT ; Aamna [ALT ; C€A\A [B]K one
of the cities of Zebulun theoretically assigned to the
Levites (Josh. 21 35! I'). It is mentioned together with
Naiiai.AI, (r/.f. ). The form, however, .seems incorrect ;
we should rather read Rimmonah, with Di. , IJerth. ,
Ik-nnett. Cp Rimmono (i Ch. 662 [77]). and see
RiMMON, ii. 3. T. K. C.
DIMON (P!3*'l ; AeiMCON [B twice] ; peMMCON
I^X'^ ■'• "^ '' twice, .\r once, Q* once] ; ACMMCON [once m i°
sup ras N»' ; AepMCON N* fort] ; AlMOON [once (J'"b] ;
NeMMOJ [once N*]), a town of Moah mentioned only
in Is. 159 (twice). According to Che. jic'i is a corniji-
tion of c'"CJ NiMKi.Nf ['/.*'.]; it is no olycction to this
view that Nimrim has already been meiuioned in t-. 6 ;
Mad.mkn' in Jer. 482 is still more plainly a corruption
of Nimrim. Those who adhere to the traditional text
suppose that Diiuon = Dibon, the former with ;// lieing
cho.sen on account of the assonance with </<////, ' bUxxl,"
or else that some unknown place is referred to (accord-
ing to Duhm, on the border of Iklom ; cp l(5i and see
2 k. 822). The former view is the more prevalent one.
If Alxxna = Amana, may not Dimon be equivalent to
Dibon ? Jerome in his conuncntary says, ' Usque
hodie indifferenter et Dimon et Dibon hoc oppidulum
dicitur," and in the O T it.self we find Dimonah [-/.f.]
and Dibon (2) used for the same place. If Dilx)n lje
meant in Is. 15, ' the waters of Dimon' may, according
to Hitzig and Dillmann, be a reservoir such as many
cities probably possessed (cp Cant. 74(5]. hut see
HESmi(J.N). The Arnon flowed too far off from the
town to \y& meant. Still the text may Ix; admitted to
be doubtful. II. \v. H.
DIMONAH (n3iD*"1 ; pepMA [B], Aimcona [AL]).
a Jiid.iliite city on the Ixsrder of Edoni (Josh. l.')22).
I'eriiaps the DiKON (2) of Nch. 11 25 (cpDilxm and
Dimon in .\Ioab). Knotxjl and others suggest the modern
Kh. edh-Dheib or et-Teiyibeh, 2 J m. Ni:. of Tell'Arad ;
but this is quite uncertain. Pesh. |LfOJ0i« presupposes
a form rz-ST \ cp the variation given under Dannah.
DINAH (nj-^ ; A[e]iNA [AL]), 'daughter' of Leah
and 'sister' of Simeon .tiuI Levi.
Whilst Ben-oni left Iwhind it some memorials (see
Ben-ONi), the disap]>earance of Dinah, to judge from
the absence of all later traces, seems to
have been absolute. In J's story, how-
1 Note L'.s rc-iding .ilxjve. _ Zimri in okl Ar. (Sab.) com-
rjunJs is liimri (see Zi.mki, i., n.); and for interchange of
and m cp Zabdi, n.
IIOX
2. Motive.
1. Gen. 34.
DINAH
ever, when Simeon and I-cvi fell upon the people of
Shechcm, as the Danites fell upon Laish, their attempt
to carry Dinah away w.as successful. '1 wo explanations
are possible. Dinah may have disappeared as a trilie
later along with its rescuers ' — there is, howe\er, a
difference: the brother tril^es left traces (see Levi,
Simko.n) — or the success of the raid m.ay be an element
of exaggeration in the story: Dinah may ha\e been
absorl)ed into Shechem. Indeetl the question suggests
itself, as it does in the case of the other ' wives' in the
patriarch stories (see Zii.pah, HimiAM, Raciiei.,
Leah), Have we here ri-ally a di.stinct trilx:? or does
Dinah simply mean Israelitish families (of whatever
clan) that settled in .Shechem?
Unfortunately J's story is incomplete : we are not
told what the dowry demanded of Shechem was, or
why the city was attacked. A later age forgot that in
Canaan only the Philistines were uncircumcised (see
ClKCfMf isioN, § 3), and thought that Israel could
never h:!ve consented to settle in Shechem unless that
town adopted the circumcision rite. J cannot have
meant this.
Unlike the raid on Laish, that on Shct hem seems to
have l>een condemned by public sentiment. 'Cursed
Ix; their anger,' says the * Blessing of Jacob,'
'for it was fierce, and their wrath, for it
was cruel ' ; but according to J the chief reason of this
disfavour was that the safety of Israel had Iicen im-
ixnilled. The judgment that overtook the perp<-tration
of the raid is clearly indicated in the Blessing : they
should tx; divided and .scattered. One instinctively
asks. How does this 'judgment' stand related to the
name dinahl Does one explain the other? and, if so,
which ?
The Dinah story may Ix; regarded as an explanation
of the 'judgment' either on .Shei hem or on Siineon-
Levi. It is al.so, however, fitted to serve as a popular
explanation of the name Jacob, which it assigns to the
immigrant people : Jacob was a wily people ; and he
])ai(l back an injury done him. Stories are easily
worked up so as to explain several distinct jwints.
It was a common Ix^lief in the days of the mon.archy
that the Leah trilx's had Ixen in the highlands of
„ „ . ICphraim lH.-fore they settled in the south
3. Meaning. ^^^ j^^^^,.., g ^ j ,,^.,_ ^lmkon, Dan,
§ 2). The point that concerns us here is whether some
of them settled in Shechem. Unfortunately the earliest
traditions that have come down to us Ixloiig to an age
w hen there was no distinct memory of the real course of
events. Every one knew that there was a time when
Isr.aelites had planted themselves in the hill-country
but had not yet incorporated .Sliechem — the belief of
a later age, that it was the resting-place of the remains
of Joseph, had not arisen— but as to how it Ix-came
Israelite there were already various theories. One story
told of deeds of sword and bow ((Jcn.4S22 Judg. 945) ;
another made more of a treaty or coiuract of some kind
(connubium? circumcision? a sale of pro])erty? an
alliance [nn:] ? ; 831934). It might jx-rhaps be sug-
gested that the f7<//'>t(/-alliance with the Shechenutes
(Judg. 831) points to a third story, a story of an Abiez-
1 Prof. Cheyne thinks that the disappearance of the tribe is
actuallv reortlec! in .15 8: that what K wrote w.-is not 'and
there died Deborah,' but 'and there died Din.ih.' Tliere are
certainly, as he urges, difTiculties in the text .is it stands : the
connecting of a famous tree with a nurse ; the pre.scr>'ation of
the name (contrast Ccn. 2459, where moreover ® read ."tjro
for .irpjD '• T* v-aa^xovra. auTi7« : cp 31 18); the presence of the
nurse in the train of Jacob; the whole Jacob-clan making a
solemn mourning over her ; the geographical discrepancy
between Gen. 35 8 and Judg. 43. jle tlicrcfore proposes to
emend r\^z-\ ppj'D m3T into nn'ra.i a-j.': na nan and to
read : ' And Din.ih, Iacol)'s eldest daughter, died, and was buried
at the foot of (the hill of] Bethel, and was buried under the Tree ;
so its name is called Ailon-fjakuth ' (see Ai.i.on-baccth). The
de.struction of a tribe would certainly fully account for the
mourning (hikuth). Both J (Gen. S73O and P (Gen. 467) re-
present Jacob as having more than one daughter.
DINAITES
rite settlement in Shechem. The idea of the covenant,
however, may be simply a popular attempt to explain
tlie name Baal-hkritii ('/-v.), like the story coimectcd
with the name Jerubbaal (see Gideon). The warlike
story, though early, may have to be classed with others
of the same type. The jxiaceable settlement theory is
historically the most probable ; but it is hardly necessary
to question the occurrence of a Dinah raid, less success-
ful than the Danite. See, further, Lkvi, .Simko'n,
JUUAH. H. \v. !!.
DINAITES (N^J*!), mentioned with the Aphak-
SATiicHiTK.s, Taki'ELITES ['/./.t'.], and others, in the
Aramaic letter from Rehum to Artaxerxes (Kzra 49).
It is improbal)le that the word is an ethnic name (so
<S"'^, dlejivaioL, dinaei [Vg. ]), and we should rather
point N":n ' judges ' (so ©■- ol Kpirai). It is the Aramaic
translation of the Persian title ddtahhar. Cp Hoffmann,
Z.4, 1887, p. 55; Schrader, J/U'B'-^; Andreas in
Marti, Bifi/. Aram. Gram. 59*.
DINHABAH (nnn^; AeNN^B<\ [ADEL]), the
city of the lulomite king I^ei.a ((/.2'.), Oen. 8632.
Almost beyond a doubt nznzi is a corruption of pz^nf
(cp V. 37). See lii.LA, and cp Che. OLZ, May '99.
It is a mere accident that several names can be
quoted somewhat resembling Dinhabah. Thus in the
Amarna tablets Tunip or Dunip is mentioned as in the
land of Martu. Tunipa also occurs in the list of the
N. Syrian places conquered by Thotmes III. (Tomkins,
/^/'('■^) 529). There was a Danaba in Palmyrene Syria
(Ptol. V. 1524; Assemani, Bid/. Or. 82, p. 595 /i 606,
quoted by Kn. ), and a Danabe in Babylonia (Zosim.
//is/. 827). 'I'here was also a Dannaba in N. Moab
(05 11431). A Toneib(/'i5"/^ map) or Thenib (Tristram)
is to be found NK. of Hesban ; the F/iF map calls it
Hodbat el Toneib, but the Beni Sakhr ' knew not Hod-
bat ' (Gray Hill, /'/-/'Q. 1896, p. 46). With this place
Dinhabah is identified by v. Riess, Bibel-Atlas, and
Tomkins, PEFQ, 1891, p. 322/ T. K. c.
DINNER (apicton), Mt. 224 etc. See Meals,
§ 2, n.
DIONYSIA (AiONYCiA [VA]), 2 Mace. 67 RV"'S- ;
ICV P.acciius.
DIONYSIUS THE AREOPAGITE (AiONycioc [o]
ApeonArlellTHC ['H- ^VIIj), one of Paul's Athenian
con\crts (.Acts 1734)- See Dam.VKIS.
I'.usL-bius (///•; 34 423) tells us on the authority of Dionysius,
bishop of Corinth, who flourished about 171 A.D., that Dionysius
the Arenpagite became first bishop of Athens. In ecclesiastical
tradition he is sometimes confounded with St. Denis, the first
apostle of France, a confusion which was greatly fostered by
Abbot Hilduin of St. Denis (834 A.n.) in his Arcopai^itica,
which made large use of spurious documents. The important
writings of the Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita, first mentioned in
the sixth century, do not fall within the scope of a Dictionary
of the liible.
DIONYSUS (AiONYCOC [VA]), 2 Mace. 67 RV>"g-;
EV Bac( iirs.
DIOSCORINTHIUS (Aioc korinGioy FA],
*»;ji»lwkiJk,/. [IV-sh.]; 2 Mace. Il2it); see Month, §4.
DIOSCURI (AioCKOYPOl [Ti. WH]), Acts 28ii
R\'"'^'- ; AV Casiok and Poli.ux.
DIOTREPHES (AiOTpecl)HC [Ti. WH]) is the .subject
of unfavourable comment in 3jn. <)f. Beyond what is
there stated, nothing is known concerning him.
DIPHATH (nS^'l), iCh. I6t AV^e- and RV; Av'
and R\''"*>'- Rii'iiATH.
DISCIPLE. One who learns (cp Gk. maBhthc
from manGano)). fis opposed to one who teaches
(AiAackaAoc); see Rabki, Te.\ciier.
AV and RV both give 'disciples' in Is. % 16 {d{sci/>uli[V%.y),
and RVmj;. in 5O4 and 54 13 (7ra<«[€]ta, iiSaxTO? [BNAQ]). In
each case this represents C"1157, ' those who
taught or trained.' A synonj-mous word
from the same root is "I*?; ?, common in late Jewish writings
1 103
1. OT usage.
DISEASES
■(cp esp. D'C^n 'I'cSn, ' disciples of the wise '), and found once
in I Ch. 258, where the contrast between 6 jaa^T>)S and 6
fit5a(TicaAo5 (for which cp also Mt. 10 25) is expressed by |'22
TC^n'CJ? 'as well . . . the teacher as the scholar' (reAeicoi'
Kai tiavda.v6vTij>v [BAL], [<rvi'iu»' (xera /iiai-fldi'Oi'Tos, b], doctus
pariter et indoctus [Vg.]). The apparent parallel in 'master
and scholar ' Mai. 2 12 AV (MT iuyi IJ? niagistruni et discipu-
lum) is untrustworthy ; the passage is rendered in many different
ways, and is certainly corrupt. 1 In the LXX/maftjT^s occurs only
in A, for C'SlVx 'friends' (as if from •j'TN 'to teach'), viz., in
Jer. 1321, and in Jer. 20 11 4t>9 where B (and in 4i>9 Al^', see
Hatch-Redpath, Concordance) correctly reads fxaxi7T^s. On the
subject generally see EnuCATioN.
In the NT ixad-qTrjs (fem. fiadyjTpia, Acts 936),
though limited to the Gospels and Acts, is of frequent
occurrence. Here it sometimes agrees
2. NT usage.
with the usage in Attic (cp especially
Plato) and designates merely the pupil, one who is
taught by another (Mt. 1024 = Lk. 640). It is then
applied to the followers of a particular teacher, or sect :
as, for example, of Moses as opposed to Jesus (Jn.
928), of the Baptist (Mt. 9 14 Mk. 2 18), of the" Pharisees
(Mt. 22 16 Mk. 2 18); it is also used of Jesus and
his teaching (Jn. 666 and often). As referring to the
followers of Jesus we find that fiaO-rjT-^i is applied {a),
widely, to all his adherents and followers (Alt. 10 42,
and esp. in Acts 627 etc. , only once followed by rou
Kvpiov, 9i), including, even, those who had been
baptized only 'into John's baptism' (Acts I91-3) ; and
(6), in a more restricted manner, to denote the nucleus
out of which the Twelve were chosen, who, themselves,
are also called fiaOajTai in addition to the more familiar
name of airlxrToKoL (Lk. 613 compared with Mt. 10 1,
cp also Mk. 827 IO24 etc.) ; see Aposti.e.^
Finally, in ecclesiastical language, the term ' disciple '
is applied (jn the jjlur. ) more particularly to the Seventy
„ f , who were sent out by Jesus to preach the
ChrM; Kingdom of Heaven (Lk. IO1-17). The
number varies between seventy (so Text.
usage, j^g^, _ pg^,^ NACL) and seventy-two (Vg.
(iir. B, D etc. ; see more fully I'arionim Bible and
( "omm. ). Lists of the names are extant in various
forms and are ascribed to Dorotheos, Epiphanius,
Hippolytus,^ and Sophronius. They comprise the
names in the Acts and Pauline Epistles ; but variations
are to be found in each list. See Lipsius, Die Apokry-
phen Apostelgescli. ti. Apostellegend. 1 193-206.
DISCUS (AlCKOC [VA]), the Greek game played at
the palKStra introduced by Jason among the Hellenistic
Jews of Jerusalem (2 Mace. 4 14) ; see Hellenism. § 4 ;
also Cap. It is mentioned alone, either as the chief, or
perhaps only as an example, of the games played.
On the discus (a circular plate of stone or metal [cp 'dish']);
see Class. Diet. s.v. 'Discus,' 'Pentathlon.' 'The indignation
which the writer displays towards this Hellenizing innovation
is paralleled in later limes by the abhorrence the Jews felt at
the introduction of the f Grecian game of 'dice' (N'3ip, icu/Seta) ;
see Shahb. 232 and cp Schiir. Gl'l 233, n. 154.
DISEASES. OT terms for diseases afe, as might
be expected, vague (it is still a widespread practice in
the East to refer euphemistically to any illness of a
severe nature rather than to give it a name), and the
nosological explanations ■* which will presently be given
are but plausible or probable conjectures. Not to
spend time on general terms such as >Vn, ^X^y^> vbao^
(rendered 'sickness, disease'), or on terms implying a
theological theory of disease, such as j'lj, ^jJ3, ncjo, .irp
(words which are often rendered ' plague,' but properly
mean ' stroke,' cp Is. 684), we pass to special terms for
pestilence.
Such are (a) niO, (3) na^i, (f) 3£:i5 and 3ep, (</) icn. (a)
niD inaweth (cp Ass. mtitanu), e6.va.T0<! (properly 'death'), is
1 Torrey's correction is plausible— to read i^jyi enc ' root and
branch ' (cp 819 [4 1 ]).
2 For the same usage cp Tertullian, ad7'. Marc. 4 24.
3 Cp Ante-Nicene Library, i.\. Hippolytiis, 2132^
•1 For these we have to acknowledge obligations to Dr. C.
Creighton.
DISEASES
useJ for a fatal sickness, such as the plague, in Jcr. l.'>2 I821
43ii Jol)27i5. Cp theuscoftfai/oTotin Rev. 68 188. (*) 13^
dM'ker (perhaps originally a hoil [Socin)), O6.varo^, is the mos'
distinctive term (see, e.g., Ex. i»3 Dt. 2S21). Possibly, too, in
the phrase ^ySa •^3^, rendered 'an evil disease' (I's. 41 8), we
should point naT (with Lag. Che.), {c) 3Bp, ketebk and Jjfflfebh,
'cutting off' (Dt. 3'.>24 Ps. 9l6 Hos. 13 14), and (</) 'j^y'i, n/f/A
(properly 'flame,' cp Reshei-h ; Dt. 8224 Hab. 3 5lp3;i) are
poetic.-il words. See Pestilenck.
The follovk'ing terms, which are of a more specific
character, occur chiefly in the threalenings of Lev. 22
26 Ut. 28 : —
:. ^^n^, harhUr (ipeeiafio^), Dt. 28 22t, 'extreme burning,*
RV ' fiery heat,' m.iy refer to some special fever, such as typhus
or relapsing fever.
2. njjVn, dalUketh (fiiyo<;), Dt. 28 22t ; probably inflammation.
3. Dnn, /teres (<c»t}<^i)), Dt. 2827!, the itch, probably some
eruptive disease, such as the lichen tropicus.
4. nS^l, yalle/>/iet/i ('accretion'? kfixnv). Lev. 21 20 222-?t,
EV ' scab(l>ed),' is, according to Jewish tradition, nnsD n'nn
the Egyptian herpes.
5. rh^l, yai>/>eleth (ji.vpii.-i\Ki.u>VTa), 'one suffeiing fromw.irts'
(so Jew. trad.), Lev. 22 22!; AV 'having a wen'; RVmtr-
'having sores' (ulcers); from n/S^', 'to flow,' hence 'a sup-
puration ' ; see translation of Lev. in SBO'f.
6. rn'^i^, Ifadiiahatli (jruperds), Lev. 20 16 Dt. 28 22t, fever
(AV in Lev. ' burning ague ').
Under the kist of these [kaddahath) may t)e included
malarial or intermittent fevers, which are met with in
the Jordan valley, but are not specially a disease of
Syria and l^alestine, owing to the etiuable climate and
the moderate variation of temperature. It was at
Cajjernaum (a place liable probably to malaria) that
Simon's wife's mother was ' taken with a great fever '
(Lk. 438) — an expression which is thought to indicate
medical knowledge.^ Certainly C3alen and Hippocrates
use the phrase, as Wetstein has pointed out. There
are parallel cases in Acts 1228 288 (see 9 10). Accord-
ing to kamsay (.S7. Paul the Traveller ; cp Expositor,
July 1899, pp. 20-23) the 'thorn (stake) in the flesh'
spoken of in 2 Cor. 12; means the severe headache
("like a hot bar') which follows an attack of the
malarial fever of Asia Minor.
7. riBnc', Iahe/>heth, Lev. 20 16 Dt. 2822t, 'consumption,'
perhaps to be understood as the wasting of marasmus, which
may attend various sicknesses. Pulmonary consumption is not,
however, frequent in Syria (Pniner, 283).
8. 3T:,^,m?M,2 Lev. 21 20 22 22 Dt. 2827, 'scurvy' (but AV
in Dt. ' scab '). The reference seems to be to some chronic skin
disease such as eczema ; a sense in which ' scurvy ' and ' scor-
butic ' were once used.
9. hv(Tevr4pi.ov (so the best MSS), Acts 288; RV 'dysentery.'
The last of these terms, 'dysentery,' occurs in Acts
2828t, where the combination of relapsing malarial
fever (irvpeToh) with dysentery is carefully noted.
According to Josephus (Ant. vi. li) the disease of the
Philistines in i S. 5 was dysentery, a view which, if the
traditional Hebrew readings of the text may be accepted,
has some plausibility. The more usual biblical ex-
pression for dysentery is the falling out of the Ixiwels,
implying either painful straining as if the bowels would
fall out, or some shedding of the mucous membrane, or
a degree of prolapse, such as occurs normally in the
horse, mule, etc.
There is a singular combination of the idea of bursting
asunder with that of falling out in Acts 1 18 ; but the second
part of this pass.^ge will not bear the stress of critical treatment :
It is the conventional fate of traitors in .ipocryphal legends that
is assigned to Judas. The statement must, if this view is
correct, be classed with the less historical portions of Acts. Cp
ACELUAMA.
10. <7K03\r)K6pp(t}Toi ('eaten of worms') gives us the
only detail as to the disease by which Herod Agrippa L
was carried off (Acts 12 28). It reminds us, however,
of the disease of which, ace. to Josephus (Ant. xvii.
1 Wetstein (1752) remarks, ' Lucxs medicus morbos accuratius
describere solet.' Cp Hobart, 'J'/te Medical Language 0/ St.
Luke, Dublin, 1852.
2 Cp Kx.jarab, a contagious eruption consisting of pustules.
"OS
DISPERSION
65), Herod the Great died, one feature of which was
fl-^^ts <!KtJ)\y)Ka.% ifi-Koiovca, and of that which 2 Mace,
(ix. 59) asserts to have caused the death of Antiochus
Epiphancs. One is almost led to think that, in the
deficiency of evidence, narrators imagined such a fate
as this for wicked kings. Sir R. liennett conjectures,
partly on the ground of Josephus' statement (Ant. xix.
82), that the cause of Herod Agrippa's death was
perforation of the bowels by intestinal worms (Diseases
of the liible, 103).
On aflections of the sight, see Eve ; on other diseases see
Bon,, Leikosv, Li natic, Pestilence, Thokn in the Flesh,
etc. ; cp Medicine.
DISH. See Bowl (sephel). Charger (k'\irdh),
Crusk (sallahath), and Meals, § 9.
DISHAN (\&'^; p[e]icu)N [AUEL], see Dishon).
I. A Horite clan, reckoned as the seventh and youngest
son of Seir. The name occurs in Gen. 3t;2i (om. B,
AlCAN [L]) and I Ch. I38. Gen. 8628 (pHCCON [li]).
iCh. I42 (MT pe^T; A&ICCON [IL\]), Gen. 8630.
The name is practically identical with DiSHON, and
should perhaps be emended after ©'- to pi:'n.
2. Gen. 30 26, RV">K-, EV Dishon (g.v.).
DISHON (\\&\ [i Ch. I41]; |b""n [i Ch. I3B];
wrongly pointed j^""! [Gen. 8626] ; jit'T [Gen. 8621];
ibn [z'7'. 2530]; §68; ^HCCON [HADEL]). Twice
reckoned as the fifth son of .Seir (Gen. 3<i2i i Ch. I38),
but once (Gen. 8625 [Aaitrtoj' (E)]) as the son of Anah
the son of Seir. His sons are enumerated in Gen. 8626
(RV'i-'- Dish AN, following present .MT), i Ch. I41
(\ai(jwv [BAL]). Cp Dlkk, i.
In spite of his genealogical phraseology, the writer is fully
conscious that he is dealing not with indiviihials but with clans.
Dish.m, likti l.otan and the other names, belongs to a Horite
chill, lis 111' .ining seems to be some sort of mountain-goat (see
Pv(iA !.<,). A^ Di. and WRS agree, the Horite genealogy is full
of animal iianiLS.
DISPERSION. A I AC no PA. so rendered by RV of
2 Mace. I27 Jn. 735 Ja. 1 i i Pet. 1 i, is used partly to
denote the process itself, the gradual distribution of
Israelites among foreign lands, and partly as a collective
term for the persons so dispersed or for their surround-
ings. In the present article it is proposed to treat
briefly of the origin of the Jewish Dispersion (§§ 1-14). its
legal standing (§ 15), and its inner and outer life (§§
16-22).
Siao-iropa occurs in <B of Dt. 2S25 Jcr. .34 [41] 17 for Heb.
niyi, ' tossing to and fro ' (?). In Jer. 13 14 6. [X*] is apparently
a corruption for Siaij>8opa. [so B.\, etc. ]. It renders JTIJ (a collec-
tive) in Dt.304 and Neh.lg, and C"n^: in Ps.l472 ('outcasts'
— 'dispersed ones'), .and in Is. 496 Siainropa tou 'l<Tpari\ — "llsj
(Ktb. 'Ti'j) '^.Xnr', 'the preserved of Israel." It also occurs in
Jer. 157 Dan. (cod. 87) 12 2.
I. Permanent settlements of Israelites in regions out-
side Canaan had their origin in one or other of two
_. . . causes— the exigencies of commerce and the
°^' chances of war. The regular commercial
relations into which Solomon and his successors entered
with Egypt, Phajnicia, and the countries of Middle and
Northern S}Tia (i K. 1028/) must of necessity have
led to the formation of small Israelite colonies outside
of Palestine. These enjoyed the protection of the
foreign prince under whom they lived, and had in the
city of their choice a sei)arate quarter of their own,
where they could follow their distinctive customs with-
out disturbance or offence (cp i K. 20 34. and see
Damascus, §7; Israel, § 23^). Prisoners of war, on
the other hand, either remained under the power of their
captors or were sold as slaves all over the world (.\ni.
16). Obviously it was only in the first of these cases
that the prisoners could by any possibility have formed
the nucleus of a permanent Israelite community living
abroad ; but we know of no actual instance in v.hich
this happened.
The forced migrations arising out of the conquests of
1106
DISPERSION
the Assyrian and the Babylonian kinjjs were of a quite
2. Tiglath
different character. The first was brought
^ileafr and =''^"' '" 734 by Tiglath-pileser III. (2 K.
pueaerana ^,.^^, . ^^ ^ ,,^,^,^ j_^,p Sargon deported
Nebuchad
rezzar,
)29) ; at a later date Sargon deported
27,280 inhabitants of Samaria to Meso-
potamia and Media (2 K. 176). These
large colonies seem to have become completely absorbed ;
history furnishes no clear trace of their continued separ-
ate existence. Still, there is'no improbability in the
supposition that many of the banished Israelites sub-
sequently became united with the later exiles from Judah.
These later exiles were transported by Nebuchadrezzar
II. to Babylon in 597, 586, and 582, — according to
Jer. 5228-30 to the number of 4600 souls. They
did not reaelily accommodate themselves to the ar-
rangrinciits made by the king in their behalf, having
„ .. Ixicn led by their prophets to ex[)ect a
. ee ings ..p^g^jy return to Jerusalem (Jer. 2i) Ezck.
01 israeutes. ^^^ .^^-^^ ^.■^^^. ^^ ^^^ j.^^^^^ ^^ ^^^
sharetl by Jeremiah and Ezekiel ; and hence it is that
the first-named prophet has left us a clear utterance
with regard to that (for Israel) perplexing event — the
'exile.' For him the Babylonian Exile is a prolonged
punishment from God. It must be submitted to with
resignation and patience, and relief will come only
to those in whom the chastisement has fulfilled its pur-
pose. Hence he admonishes the exiles to settle quietly
down in Babylonia, to think of the welfare of their
families, and to seek their own good in that of the
foreigners among whom their lot is cast (Jer. 294-7).
On the other hand, in his view the intention of those
men of Judah who were proposing of their own proper
motion to forsake the land of Yahw6 and remove to
Egypt was against the will of God : it was the road to
ruin (Jer. -12/). This view of the prophet did not,
however, turn them from their purpose (see Jere-
miah). Nor did the distinction made by the prophet
between involuntary and voluntary exile, however ob-
vious in itself, affect the theorists of a later age, whom
we find expecting the return of the Israelites indis-
criminately from all the lands of the dispersion (Is.
1112 435/.)-
Let us now seek to trace the subsequent history of
the diaspora in the various lands of its abode. The
.p.. . Judahites deported to Babylonia con-
■R ^^^f ^'^^ ^°^ stituted, alike in numbers and in worth,
uaoyioma. ^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^j. ^^^^-^ ^^^^^ ^^ j^
24 12-16 25 II Jer. 52x5). They carried with them,
accordingly, as we learn from the Book of Ezekiel, into
their new home all the political and religious tendencies
of the later period. In particular, there was in Baby-
lonia no want of persons who cherished and developed
the ideas of the prophets of the eighth and the seventh
centuries. For i)roof we have only to look at the great
zeal which was shown in preserving and adapting the
older historical and legal literature, or to call to
mind the many prophetical utterances belonging to
this p>eriod. Those who cherished these ideals did not
constitute any ' close ' community ; they mingled freely
with those who were opposed to them, and the pro-
phetic conception always had much to contend with.
Still, there were certain centres for Israelitic piety at
which fidelity to the Law and hope in the return of the
exiles were sedulously and specially cherished. Tel-
ABIB (Ezek. 815), the river Chebar (Ezek. I3), Ahava
(Ezra 8 15), and Casiphia (Ezra 817) are the only,
names of such places that have come down to us ;
but doubtless there were others. When we find Ezra
fetching Levites from Casiphia we have evidence
enough to mark the place as a centre of deutero-
nomislic legalism. The Babylonian Diaspora was by
_ no means entirely deprived of these
, ■ , , devoted religious workers in the sixth
returned to ,,-.-■• r„.
T , , and fifth centuries. The return under
Judan. ,. , , ,
Cyrus must not be construed exactly
as we find it represented in Ezra 1-3 (see Israel,
DISPERSION
§50^1?:; Ezra, ii.; Cyrus). The command of C}tus to
rebuild the temple of Yahw6 in Jerusalem and the
mission of .Shcshbazzar in 538 led to the return of but
few families to the ancestral home ; the tidings that
the restoration of the temple had been accomplished
(5'9-5'5) le^ only to the sending of deputations and
of gifts to Jerusalem (Zech. 6g^); it was not more
than some 5000 or 6000 fiersons that Ezra led back
to Judaia alx)ut 430 «. c. All this abundantly proves
that the inclination to return was not very strongly
felt by the exiles.
For this there were various causes. Many of the
exiles were indifferent in religious matters ; some had
in the interval adapted themselves too closely to the
new conditions in which they found themselves ; others
held the return to lie premature, deeming that the
times of fulfilment had not yet come. In accordance
with prophecy, the last-mentioned were expecting some
special divine interposition to put an end to the ' exile '
and to give the signal for the beginning of the glori-
fication of Israel (Jer. 3236/: Ezek. 34 n/: Is. 403^
9^ Mic. 52). Just as, in Jerusalem, men hesitated as
to whether they should proceed with the building of
the temple and not rather wait for Yahwes manifesta-
tion of himself in glory (Hag. 12^), so in Babylonia
they hesitated as to whether they ought to return forth-
with and not rather await some special divine inter-
position. It is possible that a few additional families
may have migrated to Jerusalem after the post-exilic
community there had been reconstituted under Nehemiah
and Ezra (430 B.C.) ; but in any case it is certain that
a very considerable body of Jews who still adhered to
the law remained behind in Babylonia, and thus that
the same tendencies which had led to the great changes
in Jerusalem brought about through the help of the
Persian kings continued to be influential in Bab3'lonia
also. The Babylonian Diaspora received an accession
under the reign of Artaxerxes III. Ochus (358-338) when
he transported Jews to Hyrcania and Babylonia (Georg.
Syncell. ed. Dindorf, I486).
The Persian overlordship may be assumed to have
helped to open the way for the Jews of Babylonia
_ , . . towards the E. and the N. (The case of
d t°^* Nehemiah [.\eh. 1#] is a clear example
happened ; compare also Tobit I9-22.
Wherever a Jew had established himself in some
advantageous position there were never wanting others
to press forward and follow this up for themselves.)
From Babylonia (and Hyrcania) the Jews advanced to
Elam (Is. 11 11), Persia, Media, Armenia, Cappadocia,
and the Black Sea. The relations which Herod the Great
had established with the princes of the Upper Euphrates
were utilised, we may be sure, by the Jewish Diaspora.
Their centre of radiation for the whole of these Eastern
countries, however, continued always to be in Bnbylonia,
where the Euphrates and the Tigris begin to merge.
Here was situated Nehardea (xynnj, NaapSa), where
the temple tax levied in these parts was annually
collected (see below, § 16). In the same neighbour-
hood two Jews named Asinasus and Anilasus, in the
time of Caligula, founded a sort of robber state which
held its own for sixteen years (Jos. yini. xviii. 9i).
Another important focus of Judaism was the city of
Nisibis (pa's:), in the upper basin of the Chaboras.
The Jewish community in Babylonia could boast of the
conversion of King Izates of Adiabene (3"nn), on the
upper Tigris, along with his mother and the rest of his
kindred, in the reign of Claudius (Jos. An/, xx. 2-4).
The develoijment of the Diaspora in Egypt followed
a quite different course from that which has just Ijeen
_. sketched. Whilst the Judaism of Baby-
'. pi Ionia maintained its Oriental character
°^" ■ with considerable strictness, in Egypt, or
(to speak more precisely) in Alexandria, it entered upon
that remarkable alliance with Hellenism which was
DISPERSION
destined to have such iniiKjrlant effects on the history of j
religion. WheUu-r I'samclik I. (663-609 B.C.) actually |
had Jewish mercenaries in his service (letter of Aristeas)
may be left an open question! We know, however,
that in 609 Necho 11. condemned King Jehoahaz to exile
in I'-gypt, and that in 586 a bo<ly of Jews, including
Jeremiah the prophet, under the leadership of Johanan
b. Kareah, migrated to Taiii-anhks ( 7V// /-»</<://«<•,• cp
Jer. ,4'2/). According to Jer. 44 1^ (an insertion
dating from alxjut the fifth century) Jews settled also in
MIGIK)!.. NoPU (Mcntphis), and I'ATHKus (Upper
Kgypt). Their settlement in Alexandria is a.ssigned by
the Pseudo-Hecata-us, by Aristeas, and by Josephus to
the period of Alexander the Great or Ptolemy I. It has
been shown by M. VN'illrich,' however, that the state-
ments of these writers must be taken w ith great caution.
In his own view there was no considerable Jewish
clement in Alexandria until the second century B.C.
Against this theory two objections can be urged. First,
the statement of Apion that the Jews settled to the K.
of the harlxjur of Alexandria (Jos. c. Af>. 24) can be
understood only with reference to the time of the rise of
the city. Secondly, the statement of Josephus (ib. ; cp
/y/ ii. 18 7) that the Jews in Alexandria received the
honorific name of Macedoni.in can hardly be doubted.
Josephus indeed exaggerates ; the Jews in Alexandria
were in the first instance under the protection of the
' phyle ' of the Macetloninns, and the Jewish quarter
formed a part of this ' phyle' ; in the limited sen.se only
can>e they to Xtc called Macedonians. As the later
I'tolemies, esixxially. from the time of Ptolemy \I.
Philometor onwards, favoured the Egyptian more than
the (jrecian element in Alexandria, it is not to lie sup-
posed that the Jews reached this privileged |x)silion so
late as the second cei'tury.'^ This being so, they can
have obtained it only under the first Ptolemies, and in
that case it is very far indeed from improbable that
Jews were inc'uded among the earliest inhabitants of
Alexandria and thus acquired special privileges there.
They had a separate c]uarter of their own, known as
the A (Delta) quarter (Jos. UJ ii. 183). The repeated
struggles between Ptolemies and Seleucids, and the
preference of the Jews for the former dynasty, may Ije
presumed to have led in succeeding generations to
further Jewish migrations into Kgypt, especially to
Alexandria, partly even as prisoners of war (cp Jer. in
Dan. 11 4).
We are told of Ptolemy II. Philadelphus (Jos. Ant. xii. 2 i)
that, as a fitting prelude to the Greek translation of the
Hebrew Scriptures, he redeemed some 120,000 Jewish prisoners
of war. The story is doubtless a fiction ; but it throws light on
some of the circumstances which had to do with tlie increase of
the Jewish population in Egypt. Ptolemy VI. Philometor
(181-145) also is mentioned in history as a friend to the Jews;
Ptolemy VII. (see Ki'ERGEtes), as a relentless enemy. For the
former see Jos. AnI. xiii. 3 i/. ; for the latter Jos. c. A^. 2 s. We
may take it that Euergetes for some years regarded the Jews as
his political opponents, siding as they did with his rival Ptolemy
Philometor ; but we have evidence of papyri and inscriptions
that he also showed them various marks of favour (Willrich, <>/.
cit. U2^.).
In I'hilo's time (40 A. D. ) the Jews in Alexandria were
so many as to occupy two entire quarters, besides
furnishing a sprinkling over the rest of the city {in
Flaccum, 8, ed. Mangey, 2525).
An exceptional position was taken by the Onias
colony in the nome of Heliopolis. The high priest
_ . Onias {q.v.), son of Simon the Just, had
tonolia *^''^" refuge from his adversaries, the
™ ■ children of Tobias, and from Antiochus IV.
Epiphanes, in 173 or 170, by Hight into I'gypt. He
was accompanied by a body of his adherents — among
them DosiTHEis (4), who is named in the subscription
to the Greek version of the liook of Esther. From
Ptolemy VI. Philometor he and his people received
1 Juden u. Griechtn vor d. makkaiiischeH Erhtbung, 1-43,
1267^. I'QSI.
* Cp Lumbroso, L'Egitto dei Greet € del Romani ['95I ;
Mahaffy, Th* Empire of the Ptolemies, 359^. 383^ ['95).
DISPERSION
permission to settle on the eastern Ijordcr of the Nile
delta in the nome of Heliopolis. Here Onias built a
fortress, and within this a sanctuary (on the pattern of
the temple of Jerusalem), in which he eslablishc-d a legal
worship of Yahwi-. Philometor endowed the temple
with land (cp Jos. /// i. 1 i ; vii. 102^; Ant. xii. f>i ;
97 ; xiii.3i^ ; also the recent discu.ssions of the date
of this exodus and the jxirsons engaged in it in Willrich.
op. cit. 64^ 136 f.; Wellh. GGA. 1895, p. 9A7 f. ;
also IsKAKi.. § 7).
The temple of Onias. however, did not receive
universal recognition even in Egypt (not to speak of
Palestine). It had, indeed, the legitimate high priest,
of the family of Aaron ; but it did not occupy the
legitimate site. Thus the Diaspora in I'gypt was brought
to a state of schism, which is alluded to in a veiled
manner in Ant. xiii. 84 and elsewhere, as Willrich (op.
cit. \2() ff.) has conjectured, no doubt correctly. At
the same time, the antagonism ljetwc<-n Ix-ontopolis (as
the city of the Oni.as-temple was called) and Jerusalem
does not seem to have been ver)' intense : otherwise the
allusion to the temple of Onias in Is. 19 18/. (but cp
Hekk-S, ( itv of) would hardly have lieen allowed to
pass. Moreover, national feeling appears on repeated
occasions to have overridden religious or ecclesiastical
differences (Jos. Ant. xii. 1^2; xiv. 81; lij \. 94).
Peculiarly noteworthy is the readiness for war and the
ability for self-defence to which Josephus frecjuently calls
attention in the followers of Oni.as [c. Ap. 25 ; Ant. xiii.
IO4 ; 1:5 1/ ; liJ i. 94 ; Ant. xiv. 81). The temple at
Leontopolis was destroyed in 73 A. D. by Lupus and
Paulinas by order of Vespasian (Jos. lij vii. 102^ ).
Jews penetrated also into Upper Eg}pt and Cush
(Is. 11 11), as we learn from lately published pap}Ti.
_ They were strongly representtd in Cyre-
9. upper ^^^^^ j^i^^ [c. Ap.1^\ Jer. on Dan.
hgypt, etc. jj^^^ j^j^^j^ ^^|j j^g .,„/ xiv. 72).
writing of 85 B.C., divides the inhabitants of the city of
CjTene into four classes — citizens, peasants, settlers
(metceci), and Jews. In the city of IJerenice the inscrip-
tions show a special iroXfTfi'/xa of the Jews dating from
13 B.C. (cp CIG iii. no. 5361).
The Diaspora in Egypt did not owe its origin entirely
— as, in the first instance, did that of Babylonia — to
external compulsion. It owed its growth
and its reputable standing mainly to the
great changes producwl throughout the
i:ast generally by the conquests of
Alexander. The greatly enlarge<l channels of com-
merce, especially by sea-routes, attracted many from
the interior to the coasts. The newly-foundetl (Jrecian
cities, rendere<l attractive by all the achievements of
Greek art and civilisation, Ijecame fiivourite resorts.
Henceforth trade relations, the desire to see the world,
soon also political considerations and (we may well
suppose) a certain conscious or unconscious craving for
culture, became operative in promoting the dispersion
of the Jews over the civilised world.
Such things seenj to have been specially influential
in bringing alxsut the settlement of Jews in Syria. It
is quite possible, indeed, that the old
■' ^**P Israelite colony in Damascus (see above,
"^ y^^ ■ §1) may have maintaine<l an uninter-
rupted existence and gradually developed into the Jewish
community to the largeness of which Josephus bears
witness (Z// ii. 2O2 ; vii. 87). In some of the Phoenician
cities also, as, for example, in Tyre (cp Ezek. 27) and
Sidon, Israelites may have settled from a very early
period ; as at the main points on the great trade route
between Jerusalem and Mesopotamia, such as Hamath
(Is. 1 1 11). The Syria of the Seleucid;e, however, seems
first to have become thoroughly accessible to Jews only
after the reign of Antiochus IV. Epiphanes. It was his
successors, for example, who first conceded to them the
right of free settlement in Antioch (Jos. Ant. vii. 83).
The later Seleucidae had abtindant occasion for showing
10. Attrac-
tions of
civilisatioiL
DISPERSION
consideration to the resident Jews : in the frequent
struggles for the crown, the support of the Maccat)ees
became important (Jos. Arif. xiii. 53). The opposite
statement of Josephus that it was Seleucus I. (306-280
H. c. ) who granted to the Jews the rights of citizenship
in Antioch (r. A/>. 24), or even equal rights with Greeks
in all the cities founded by him in Asia and Lower
Syria {An/, xii. 3i), is probably to be understood only as
meaning that tiie Jews ultimately received the rights of
citizenship in all the places named. It is easy to under-
stand how the astonishing increase in numbers, power,
and influence, which the Jewish conmionwealth gained
under the rule of the Maccabees, should first have made
itself felt in the neighbouring kingdom of the Seleucidng.
The Maccabees had subjugated and converted the Idu-
maeans in the south as well as the Iturneans in the north ;
Galilee and Pertva also became Judaised during their
supremacy. What was the little connnunity founded
by Ezra and Nehcmiah, either in extent or in numbers,
in comparison with this ? Jerusalem had become so
strong that — reversing the prophetical prediction — it
could lend to the Dispersion from the abundance of its
own forces. From this time forward it was, we may
plausibly conjecture, that the Diaspora in Syria became
so strong as to exhibit the largest admixture of the
Jewish element known anywhere (Jos. B/ vii. 3 3).
Precise details regarding the individual localities are,
however, lacking.
The immigration of Jews to Asia Minor and its
islands was partly overland by way of Syria and Meso-
19 T A ■ potamia, and partly by sea from Egypt
Minor and
the West.
and Phoenicia, but for the most part not
before the Grecian period. It is possible,
however, that Jews may have been sold
as slaves into these regions at an earlier date (cp Ezek.
27 13 Joel 3 [4] 7). It is interesting that Clearchus of
Soli {circa 320 B. C. ) speaks of a meeting between his
master Aristotle and an already Hellenised Jew (Jos.
c. Ap. i. 22). In the passage in question the Jews are
represented as descendants of the Indian philosophers ;
which shows that at that time and place the Jew was
looked upon with wonder as a new phenomenon — the
educated Jew, at least. Josephus {Ant. xii. 84) will
have it that a colony of 2000 Jewish families was trans-
ported by Antiochus III. the Great (224-1S7) from
Mesopotamia and Babylonia into Lydia and Phrygia.
The form and the substance of the statement alike
arouse suspicion (Willrich, 2)9 ff-)- Here again we are
in ignorance as to the details of the migration. In any
case, it was to the advantage of the Jewish Diaspora
when Greece and Asia Minor in 146 and 130 B.C.
became Roman provinces and the kings of Eastern Asia
Minor accepted the supremacy of Rome. From the
days of Simon, the Maccabees had been in friendly
alliance with Rome, and the Jews very soon began to
realise that under the Roman rule they enjoyed greater
freedom in the exercise of their religious customs than
they had found in the Grecian kingdoms (cp Jos. Ant.
xvi. 24, and below). Accordingly, as early as the first
century B.C., we find them making use of their good
relations with the Romans to secure any doubtful or
disputed rights in the cities of Asia Minor and Syria by
decisions of the supreme authority (cp decrees and the
names therein mentioned as given in Jos. Ant. xiv. 10,
xiv. 123^, xvi. 23_^, 'o-iff. ; for Cyprus, Ant. xiii. IO4,
Acts 134^ ; for Crete, DJ ii. 7 1 ; also Acts 13-21
passini).
Jews arrived in Greece and Italy in the second century
B.C. if not earlier. Between 170 and 156 we find an
_ _ emancipated Jewish slave named in a
13. in lireece jj^jp^j inscrip-ion (Willrich. 123/),
and Italy.
and Valerius Miximus (1 32) mentions
that in 139 B.C. certain proselytising Jews were ex-
pelled from Rome. The fabulous assertion of kinship
Ijctween the Jews and the Spartans (i Mace. 12 21) pre-
supposes for the time of its origin (see SPART.\) a mutual
DISPERSION
acquaintance. Jewish inscriptions, moreover, occur in
Greece, and the apostle Paul found firmly organised
communities there (Acts 17/.). In 63 B.C., Jewish
captives were brought to Rome by Pompey and sold as
slaves. Soon emancipated, they acquired the Roman
citizenship and founded the Jewish colony upon the
right bank of the Titer (Philo, ed. Mangey, 2568).
Caesar conferred upon the Jews many favours : compare
the decree of the senate in Jos. Ant. xiv. 85, and the
immediately preceding narrative. Herod the Great,
who always interested himself in the welfare of the Jewish
Diaspora {Ant. xvi. 22-s, 61-8), cultivated relations
with Rome assiduously, and greatly promoted the Jewish
settlements there. Thus in the course of the first
Christian century the Jews had already been able to
establish themselves on the left bank of the Tiber beside
the Porta Capena (Juv. Sat. 3 12-16), and at a some-
what later date on the Campus Martius and even in the
Subura. In connection with events in the year 4 B.C.
Josephus {BJ ii. t)i) speaks of a Jewish embassy to
Rome as having been supported by more than 8000
Jews there. Under the same year he incidentally
mentions {BJ ii. 7 i) the existence of Jews in Dicasarchia
(Puteoli). The friendship of the two Agrippas with the
imperial house, the relations of Josephus with the Flavii,
the love of Titus for Berenice, all testify to the progress
which Judaism had made in the highest Roman circles ;
and no one will imagine the Jews of that day to have
been so self-forgetful as not to utilise such favouring
circumstances, as far as they possibly could, for their
own advantage.
To comjjlete the present survey, Arabia also ought to
be mentioned as one of the fields of the Jewish Diaspora.
From Acts 2 n and Gal. 1 17 the inference that in the first
century there were Jewish connnunities there is certain ;
but as to their origin we are left entirely to conjecture.
Philo {in Flacc. 6, ed. Mangey, 2523) estimates the
number of Jews living in Egypt alone in the time of
Caligula at a million. If to this figure
we add the total of the other groups
mentioned above, we shall not be far
wrong in putting the figure at three or four millions.
The violent breaking-up of the Jewish population in
F'alestine in consequence of the war of 66-70 A. D. (cp
Jos. BJ vi. 82, 93) raised this number still further ; and
thus the expression of Dio Cassius (693) in speaking of
the Jewish insurrection under Hadrian — thatall theworld,
so to say {y\ olKovfievrj), was stirred — is intelligible enough.
II. The legal standing of the communities of the Dia-
spora at first varied in the various lands. The colonies
.J. -in the AssjtIo - Babylonian empire were
■ ,P crown possessions, under royal protec-
scanmng. ^.^^ ^^^^^ ^ ^^y .^^^ ^^^^^^ ^j^^^ ^-^^^^ ^^,^^^
grants from the king, on which they were free to live in
accordance with their own laws and customs (cp the
counterpart in Israel 2 K. 1724^). If the colonists
flourished they gradually established their independence ;
if otherwise, they ultimately lapsed into a state of serf-
dom (cp Gen. 47i3#)- In this respect it is not to be
supposed that any considerable change came about
under Persian or Greek supremacy as long as the aliens
continued to be members of the colony. In Egj'pt the
same course was followed by the rulers or pharaohs, as
Gen. il -iff. shows : to shepherds a pastoral region was
assigned, and the pharaoh was their master {v. (>b ; Ex.
III). It must be borne in mind, however, that in this
case Israelites came into Egypt not only as prisoners,
but also as refugees.
Brighter prospects opened up before Israelites in
foreign parts as Alexander and his successors founded
new cities in the east. In Alexandria they received
important privileges ; they came into a fellowship of
protection with the Macedonians — the 'phyle' which
probably was considered the foremost of all and was
therefore named after Dionysus (see above, § 7). What
use the Jews made of this privilege is shown by Josephus,
14. Approxi-
mate numbers.
DISPERSION
who asserts that they had equal rights {Ifforifda, Icrovo/xla,
iffoiro\iT(ia) with the Macedonians and even the light
to txiar this honorific nanje (f. ,-//. 24 ; Ji/ ii. 18 7). As
Alexandria never attained the characteristic constitu-
tion of a Greek city with a /SouXr). but continued to be
governed directly by royal oflicials, it is probable that
the s(jecial administration and special jurisdiction in civil
matters which the Jews enjoyed within the bounds of
their own quarter of the city were of ancient standing.
At a later ijeriod, as the Ptolemies came to take more
account of the I*2gyptian population, it is possible that
many of the Jewish privileges may have been curtailed
(cp Mahaffy, T/u- Empire of the Ptolemies, 76, ZS9ff<
381 J/".; Lumbroso, L'Egitto dei Greci e dei Romani,
1895, 140^). In Stralx)'s time, however, they still
had an administration of their own under the special
jurisdiction of an ethnarch (Jos. Ant. .\iv. 7 2). In any
case, they again received full rights of citizenship in
Alexandria from Caisar (Jos. Ant. xiv. 10 i ; c. A p. 'la,).
In Cyrenaica also they enjoyed special privileges (Jos.
Ant. .xiv. 7 2), The Onias colony doubtless enjoyed the
special protection of the sovereign (see above, § 8).
In the (ireck cities properly so called the Jews were
not so favourably situated. In these a group of
foreigners could kfep up the observance of its ancestral
customs, especially its religious customs, only as a
private society or club {B[a.ao%, t(ta.vos ; cj) E. Ziebarth,
Das i^riechische Vereinswesen, 1896). The Jews in this
respect followed the lead of the Phcrnicians in Athens
and Delos. We do not possess definite evidence of the
fact, though it is interesting to note that in the Roman
decree preserved in Jos. Ant. xiv. 10 8 the Jewish com-
munities without prejudice to their privileges are placed
upon a level with dia<xoi. In particular cities, such as
Ephesus and Sardis, they no doubt sooner or later
acquired the rights of citizenship (Jos. c. A/>. 24 ; Ant.
xiv. 10 24) ; but whether they already had it un<ler the
Seleucidce, as Josephus asserts, or whether they first
received it from the Romans, is not (juite clear (see
above, § 11). It frecjuently happened that their citizen-
ship became in turn a source of embarrassment. In
the Greek cities, by ancient custom, community of place
was held to imply community of worship ; in many
places the fact of citizenship found its expression in some
special cult, svkIi as that of Dionysus. Ilence a demand
that the Jews slioiild worship the local god — a demand
which they were compelled by their creed to resist (Jos.
t". Ap. '26). Even in Ctesarea Palajstina their laoiroXiTeia
did not secure them full protection (Jos. Ant. xx. 879
Z;/ii. 13? 14 4-5 18 i).
It was not till the time of Julius Coesar and Augustus
that the Jews of the Diaspora received a general recogni-
tion of their legal standing throughout the Roman Emjiire.
Josephus (Ant. xiv. 85 10 12 3-6 xvi. 62-7) quotes a
series of enactments from 47 B.C. -10 B.C. by which
the Jews had secured to them the enjoyment of religious
freedom, exemption from military service, special rights
in the administration of property, and special juris-
diction (in civil matters). Nicolaus Damascenus, in his
apology for the Jews before M. Vipsanius Agrippa in
Lesbos, in 14 B.C., says: "The happiness which all
mankind do now enjoy by your means we estimate by
this very thing, that on all hands we are allowed each
one of us to live according to his conviction and to
practi.se his religion" (Jos. Ant. xvi. 24). In Roman
law the Jewish communities came under the category
of collegia licita (Tertullian, religio licita). After 70
A.i). this held only for the Jewish religion, not for the
Jewish nation. From cases covered by these general
regulations we must distinguish those in which individual
Jews had obtainefl for themselves the Roman citizenship
(.\cts 22 25-29 ; Jos. Ant. xiv. 10 16 17/ ). See Govern-
ment, § 30/.
III. The great difficulty of Jewish social life in the
Diaspora lay in the fact that community of place and
community of worship no longer coincided. The case
DISPERSION
had lx:en quite othcrwi.se in Palestine, and the Jewish
laws in their original framing had contemplated Pales-
tinian conditions alone. Communities
16. Inner and
outer life.
of some sort, however, had to be formed
abroad, if Judaism was to maintain
itself there at all. Thus the attempt to secure local
separateness was abandoned. Attention w;is concen-
tratetl on the effort to maintain the Ixjnd of union by
means of a separate, if restricted, jurisdiction, and ad-
ministration of property ; the sacrificial worship was
given up ; and the means for a new spiritual worship
were sought in regularly recurring meetings for prayer,
reading of the scriptures, and prejiching (see Svna-
gogi'k). l"or the central sacrificial worship there re-
mained the high honour of being the expression of the
connection still subsisting between Jerusalem and the
outside communities ; every Jew of twenty years old or
more had yearly to pay a half-shekel or didrachma to
the temple for the maintenance of the sacrificial system
still carried on there. This tax was collected yearly in
the various districts, and transmitted to Jerusalem by
the hands of jjersons of repute (Philo, de Mon. 23)
under carefully fjfamed regulations (Jos. Ant. xyiii. 9i).
Further, the pilgrimages to the three princi[)al feasts,
particularly that of Tabernacles, annually brought vast
crowds of Jews of the Diaspora to the religious capital.
Jose[)hus \BJ vi. 9 3) gives the number of persons —
natives and strangers together — present at the Passover,
according to a census taken in the time of Cestius Gallus
(63-66 A.D. ), as having been 2,700,000. After the
sacrificial system had been brought to an end in 70 A. D. ,
it was by the forms of religious fellowship which had
been developed in the Diaspora that the continued
existence of Judaism was rendered possible.
The individual community was called n3:3 (lit. 'con-
gregation' ; (}vva.yijy^ri). In towns with a large Jewish
_ population (.Alexandria, Antioch. Rome)
^ ' there were many synagogues. The heads
° °^ ■ of the communities are usually spoken of as
dpXO''''«s- In Alexandria an e6fdpxv^ ^^'^s at the head
of the entire Jewish community (Jos. .^«/. xiv. 72): it
may be added that he had nothing to do with the
ofTice of the Alabarch or Arabarch (cp Ai-E.\anukia,
§ 2). Under Augustus the direction of affairs was
handed over to a yepovffia. with Apxcvrts at its head.
In Rome each of the many synagogues had its own
yepoiKTia with dpxovres and a yepoi'aidpxv^ over all.
The building in which the meetings were held — on
sabbaths and feast days especially — was called [n'3]
n???:"", in Gr. ffwayuyr] or Trpoaevxr), less fre(|uently
crvvaytlryiov, irpocyfVKTrjpiov, aafi'^aTfiov. See, further,
Synagogue.
The contact brought about by the Diaspora com
munities between Judaism and the Gnvco- Roman culture
was of great consequence to the history
18. Contact
with Hellenic
world.
)f civilisation. Here again it is the
Western Diaspora that principally
claims our attention ; the Eastern, in
Mesopotamia and Babylonia, had little share in this move-
ment, and indeed hardly comes under observation at
all. It was not until comparatively late in the day, it
would seem, that the Greeks began to take any but the
most superficial interest in Judaism and the Jews.
Willrich (43-63) has collected all that Greek writers
had to say about them dow n to the time of .\ntiochus
Epiphanes, and remarks (170): 'In the period l^efore
Antiochus Epiphanes the Greek regardetl the Jew with
feelings of mingled curiosity and wonder, astonishment
and instinctive antipathy.' In these circumstances it is
not surprising that, down to the date in question, the
intellectual importance of the Diaspora was slight.
Traders, freedmen, and prisoners of war constituted the
majority of the Diaspora of these days ; that such jieople
should excite the interest and attention of educated
Greeks was not to be expected. An educated Jew
DISPERSION
acquainted with Greek is spoken of as a rarity by
Clearchus of Soli (c. Ap. 1 22).
The question of the rapidity or tardiness of the
chantje in this respect that ultimately came depends on
whether we date the production of the
19. The
Septuagint.
Greek translation of the Pentateuch
from the reign of Philadelphus (285-
246 n. c), or, as has recently lx;en done by Willrich
(«/ sup. 154 ff.), from that of I'hilometor (181-145
B.C. ). Whatever its date, this attempt to make the Law
speak in Greek conclusively shows that when it was
made the Jews of Alexandria had already assimilated
so nuich of what was Greek that they could no longer
get on with Hebrew alone, either in their synagogues or
in their courts. Their sojourn abroad made it impera-
tive on Jews everywhere to complete their rapproche-
ment with Hellenism. In the process many may well
have become lost to Judaism altogether. The Greek
version of the Pentateuch, however, evinces the fi.xed
determination of the majority not to allow themselves to
be robbed of the old faith by the new culture. As the
influence of the Jews, on trade and public life gener-
ally, advanced — in Egypt and S)Tia in die first instance
— it became increasingly necessary for the Greeks to
decide definitely what their own attitude towards them was
to be. This led to struggle, but also to friendly dealings.
Antipathy to Judaism manifested itself both in coarse
and in refined ways. The uneducated masses scoffed
at the Jews for their outlandish customs,
20. Foreign
antipathy.
plundered them at all hands, and occasion-
ally gave expression to their hatred in
massacres. Civic authorities tried to infringe Jewish
privileges or to hinder the transmission of the temple
money to Jerusalem (see the decree in Jos. Ant.
.xiv. 10). Roman emperors even more than once
sanctioned measures that pressed hardly on the Jews.
Tiberius in 19 A. D. e.xpelled them from Rome, and
forced 4000 of them upon military service to Sardinia
(Jos. Ant. .xviii. 85; similarly Tac. Ann. 285 Suet.
Tib. 36). They seem soon afterwards to have been re-
stored to the enjoyment of their rights. Caligula gave
free course to a bloody persecution of the Jews in
Alexandria in 38 A.D. I'etitions and embassies (Philo,
Apion) to the emperor proved of no avail. It was
not until Claudius had come to the throne that the old
privileges were again restored to the victims of persecu-
tion (Philo, in Flacc. and I^g. ad Caium ; Jos. Ant.
xviii. 8 I xix. 52). Later, Claudius intervened in Rome
in a hostile sense (Acts 18 2 Suet. Claud. 25 Dio Cassius
Ix. 6). The Jews defended themselves as best they
could, not so much by force as by money or writings,
and by cultivating friendly relations with those in high
places.
The controversy carried on with the pen is worthy of
remark. Gentile writers made it a reproach that the
... Jews as a people had done nothing for
■ , ^^ civilisation and had produced no men
con roversy. ^^ distinction (so Posidonius, Polybius,
Strabo, Apion). These and similar charges the Jews
answered in innumerable apologies — some of them (such
as those of Nicolaus Damascenusand Philo) with atlignity
and earnestness worthy of the cause, though others (such
as that of Josephus in many cases) showed a disposition
to confound the convenient with the true, and others
did not hesitate to resort to misrepresentation and
positive falsoJiood ( Pseudo - Hecataeus, Eup)olemus, -
Artapanus, Aristobulus, Aristeas, etc. ). The most
incredible fables were gravely set forth.
Abraham was the founder of astronomy ; Joseph the founder
of geometry and the inventor of agriculture ; Moses the author of
the division of Egypt into nomes, ahd even of the Egyptian animal
worship. Jews and Spartans exchanged salutations as descend-
ants of Abraham (1 Mace. 12 2oy; ; cp Ant. xiv. 10 22).
Such things could be written only by Jews who had
become familiar with the activities and intellectual life
of Hellenistic circles, by men for whom the Groeco-
Roman culture had become an indispensable element of
DISPERSION
everyday life. They were only unconsciously proving
the respect which they themselves cherishetl for foreign
culture when they tried- to trace the origin of culture to
their own forefathers. Such literary phenomena could
not be produced in Jerusalem, the home of Judaism ;
they prove that Judaism abroad, although still wearing
the garment of the Law, carried a very different nature
under that old-fashioned vestment. It had now found
a large range of activities which it shared with con-
temporary humanity at large.
This struggle — itself an evidence of the pwwer to
which the Judaism of the Diaspora had attained — does
22 Friendlv ""' exhaust the histor}-. There were
contact "^'^"y points of friendly contact between
Judaism and the outer world. For the
more educated circles of the Gentile world the Judaism
of the Diaspora had, in fact, a great attraction. In it
men felt themselves face to face with a power which had
developed new forces — unHinching self-sacrificing fidelity
in the maintenance of religious customs which seemed
to the outsider meaningless — sabbath observance, cir-
cumcision, laws of purity. Through Judaism they
became acqtiainted with a conception of God which,
strange in its severity, enlightened by its simplicity,
and attracted religious natures by its purity and its
sincerity. The popular polytheism of Greece and Rome
had been shattered by philosophy ; in the Oriental
religions, which at that time were advancing in triumph
westward, the idea of a supreme God found many
supporters ; Judaism in its monotheism presented the
explicit conception for which so many were looking.
Inseparably connected with it was the thought of a
divine creation of the world, of the original oneness of
the world and the human race, as well as that of the
providential ordering of the world — thoughts which
promised to provide fi.xed formula; for the cosmopolitan
tendencies of the time, and were welcome on that
account. No one has set forth the contents of Judaism
from this point of view more nobly than Philo, the
contemporary of Jesus in Alexandria. The confidence
with which he handles these conceptions makes it
probable not only that he had literary predecessors in
this style but also that an appeal to practical experience
gave a powerful support to his teaching (cp Strabo ap.
Jos. Ant. xiv. 72 ; also Jos. c. Ap. I22 2363941 BJ iv.
52 Koa-fjuKY) OprjaKela ; also Proselyte, § 3). The
Diaspora of the Mediterranean, and especially in Alex-
andria, thus not only led the way to the breaking of the
narrow bonds of the Jewish Law, but also was the first
to make the heathen world acquainted with a spiritual
conception of God and a spiritual worship presented in
a positive religion, and thus paved the way for the
coming of Christianity.
Schiirer, GV/ '1 493-548 ; O. Holtzmann, Etuie des jiid.
Staat^.vcsens u. Entsicli. d. C/tr!stinthums('SZ)= B. Stade, CI '[
2 2-70jff'.\ O. Holtzmann, NTliche Zeitgesch.
Literature. (95): \\.\4\\\r\c\\,Judenu.Griechenvorder
makkabdischen Erhebung, 1895 (.see also We.
in GGA 1895, p. 947^ and Schurer in TLZ, 1896, no. 2); Th.
Mommsen, Riim Gesch, 5 4S9_^ ['85]; Th. Reinach, Texies
dauteurs grecs et roinains relatt/s au Judaisme, reunis,
traduits, ct annates, 1895 ; Cless, lie Coloniis Juda-orum in
Mg. deductis, i. ('32); Schiirer, 'Die Alabarchen in Agj'pten '
in ZWT, 1875, p. 13 ff. (cp Alarquardt. Rdm Staatsveni'iil-
tungi^), 1 446 y:) ; Pauly-Wissowa, Real Encycl.^ d. class.
Alterthums'.viss. (s.t. ' Arabarch ') ; Lumbroso, L'Egitio del
Greet e dei Romanil.-), 1895, ' Ricerche Alessandrine' in Mem.
d. Accadem-a d. Scienza di Torino, ser. ii. t. 27 ['73], sc. mor.
e filol. 237-24S : J. P. Mahaffy, Ttu Empire 0/ tke Ptolemies,
1895 ; r'/u Flinders Petrie Papyri, ed. by /. P. Mahaffy, i.
and ii., 1891, 1893; Ulr. Wilcken, ' Alexandrinische Gesandt-
schaften vor Kaiser Claudius' in Hermes^ 30481^ [95]; Th.
Reinach, ' L'Empereur Claude et les anti-semites Alexandrins
dapres un nouveau Papyrus' in REJ 31 i6x^ ['05]; B.P.
Grenfell, An Alexandrian Erotic Fragment and other Greek
papyri chiejiy Ptolemaic, 1896; Revenue Laws 0/ Pto.emy
Philadelphus, ed. B. P. Grenfell, introd. J. P. Mafiaffy, 1896:
Schurer, Die Gemeindet<erfassung der Jud n in Rom in der
Kaiseri.eit mich den Inschri/ten dargestellt, 1879; A. Berliner,
Gesch. {ierjuden in Rom von de*- tiltesten Zeit bis zur Gegen-
wart ("95): Erich Ziebarth, Das griechische V'ereins^uesen
('96); Alf. Bertholet, Die Stellung der hraeliten u. derjuden
zu den Fremden, 1896 : E. Schurer, ' Die Judcn ira bospora-
in6
DISTAFF
nischen Reiili u. Uic Ci<:iiu^si:i>sclutrtcii dcr o-c/So^icoc 8*6v
v4ii<TTof tlK.nii;i!iclb»l ' in SJiA U' 1897, p. tooff. H. G.
DISTAFF. See Flax.
DISTBICT I. nV?!* nepiXtopOC; vicus [once
pa_i;us 315J; Neh. 39iai4-i8t RV), the name given
to certain administrative divisions of Juda-a in
Nehemiali's time, each of which was under a ' ruler '
or 'chief (ifc'). These 'districts' comprise Jerusalem
and Keilah (each with tw(j rulers), Bcth-haccerem,
Beth-zur, and Mizpah (BN.\ om. [L /x^/m ; for V'g.
see above]). It is not impossible th.it the list was
originally much fuller. From the character of the
names of the ' rulers ' Meyer ( Entst. ibd ff.) has con-
cluded that they were Calcbites (see Calicb, § 4).
The organisjtiion of the Calebites in the genealogies
I Ch. '2 4 suggests further that the pelek was a tribal
subdivision,- the head of which would correspond to
the iOvdpxv^ ('» <Jr. inscr. from the Hauran) of the
later Nabata;an kingdom (cp 2 Cor. 11 32, and see
Ethnarcu).
2. ' District' in Acts 16 12 RV also translates fitpli,
which here represents, apparently, the Latin reifio.
See Mac IDOMA. I'hii.ihi'I. s. a. C.
DITCHES {Ll*2i). 2 K. 3 16. etc. See Co.NDurrs, §
I (3, 5), and I'lT.
DIVINATION. Men instinctively wish to know the
future, aiul among all [xjoples there have been those
1. Divination.
who have, from certain omens, claimed
to be able to predict it. Such know-
ledge could only come from supernatural Ixjings.
When beasts or birds, by their movements, or other-
wise, gave men intelligible signs, it was because they
were ' indwelt ' by beings that were supernatural, or
because they were supernatural themselves. ' Omens
are not blind tokens ; the animals know what they
tell to men ' (WRS /^e/. SemS^) 443).
Necromancy is a kind of divination, not a thing
distinct in itself (see below, § 3). It is difficult, if not
impossible, to indicate the boundary line between
divination and prophecy. In both the same general
principle obtains — intercourse of man with the spiritual
world in order to obtain special knowledge. In divi-
nation, this knowledge is usually got by observing
certain omens or signs ; but this is by no means always
the case, since sometimes the beings consulted [xissessed
the soothsayer. Divination, as practised in this last
method, does not differ from prophecy of the lowest
kind — that of the ecstatic state — as distinguished from
that higher species of prophecy which in Riehm's happy
phrase is ' psychologically mediated. "^ See PkoI'HECV.
The ancient Greeks, Romans, Arabs, etc., had
modes of divining that apparently were unknown to the
2 Methods ^*-'^'^'^^^'^ of the OT — e.g., by observa-
tion of the flights and cries of birds,
ins[x?ction of the entrails of animals, etc. (see Freytag,
Einl. 159/:); but there are mentioned in the OT
many signs or omens that resemble or are identical
with those in use among other nations.
i. Rhabdomancy (divination by rods) appears to be
referred to in Hos. 4 12, ' My jjeojile ask counsel at
their " wood, " and their "staff" declares unto them' (cp
Herod. 46;). The higher prophets of course forbade
this ; but we may perhaps assume that it was uncon-
demned in earlier times.
ii. Belomuncy (divination by arrows), a development
of rhabdomancy, is mentioned in Ezek. 'l\*iff. [19^].
where the Babylonian king is said to have stood ' at the
1 The word is no doubt the Ass. pulug{g)u, fiilku, pulukku,
'border,' 'district'; cp probably Phocn. ■px'? jSSi 'district of
Laodicea,' CIS 1, no. 7. On the Heb. '3, see also Dr. on
aS. S39.
* Cp n'lJ^S, Judg. 5 15-5 (if correct,
uSsO, a Ch. 86512.
' JHetsianic Prophecy, 45 tt peusim.
III7
Moore), r\\ir^
DIVINATION
parting of the way,' and to have ' shaken the arrows to
and fro.' The doubtful point was whether he was to
march from Babylon to l^gypt by Jerus;ilem or by
RabUtth-Amnujn. .As I'ocock (quoted by RoscnmUllcr)
long ago jxjinted out, Ijelomancy was much in use
among the Arabs (see also \N'e. //<■/</. '•'l 132). For
the Babylonian practice, see I^normant. l.a Dninalion,
chap. 2 ; as this able though sometimes uncritical writer
truly j)oinls out, belomancy had Ijut a secondary im-
portance. Nebuchadrezzar had certainly consulteil the
stars and the regular omens in order to ascertain
whether the right time had come for the campaign
against ICgypt. Arab tradition tells how Imra-al-Kais
practisetl Ijelomancy liefore setting out against Asad.
He did .so ' by shutlling Ixjfore the image of the god a
set of arrows. These were here three in numlxrr, called
respectively, " the Commanding," "the Forbidding,"
and " the Waiting." He drew the second, and there-
upon broke the arrows, and flung them in the face of
the idol. ' Mohammed forbade the use of arrows, as ' an
abomination of Satan's work' (Koran, .Sur. 692). The
arrows were sfiecial, pointless .arrows (originally rods).
iii. The Babylonian king, however, did more than
shake the sacred arrows ; the passage continues, ' he
looked in the liver' {' hepa/oscopy'). (We omit the refer-
ence to the toraphim Ijecause no new point is indicated
by it ; the king consulted the teraphim [sin^^iar], by
shaking the arrows bejore it, as was always done also by
the heathen .Arabs. ) The liver, which was regarded as
the chief seat of !ife(I'rov. 723), was supposed to give
warning of the future by its convulsive motions, when
taken from the sacrificed victim (see Livkr). That an
application for oracles was accompanied by sacrifices
we know from the story of Balaam. Lenormant (op.
cit. 58/. ) refers to two Babylonian fragments relative
to the inspection of the entrails, giving some of the
features which had to Ije watched for. The Greeks,
too, practised yyno.ro(jKovia.
iv. The objects used for lots in Arabia were, as
we have seen, jxjintless arrows. Among the Israelites,
however, the principal objects employed were probably
stones of different colours, one of which gave the
affirmative, the other the negative answer to the question
put (so Wellh. , Bu. , H. P. Smith, in connection with the
classical passage, i S. 1-1 41). Other passages in the
historical books in which the phrase 3 ^xr (' to intjuire
of) occurs should probably be explained on the analogy
of this passage. Cp Ephod, Uki.m a.nd Thummim,
Tekaphim.
v. Passing over such omens as Gideon's in Judg. 636
and Jonathan's in i S. 14 8^, and reserving astrology
for subsecjuent consideration (see Staks), we pause
next at the most imjxjrtant of all the modes of divina-
tion that linked the Hebrews with other peoples —
(vi. ) The methoti oi dreams (oneiromancy). Jacob may
have sufficient reason for making good his escape from
Laban ; but he will not take the decisive step without a
direct revelation ((ien. 31 10-13). In other cases the divine
communication is such as exceeds the power of human
reason to discover ; instances are the dreams of Abime-
lech (Gen. 2O3 tf. ), and especially those of Joseph (Gen.
375 cp 408 41 1/). Other noteworthy instances of
divinely sent dreams are (jen. 2812^ 31 24 Judg. 7 13
I K. 35/ Mt. l2o 2 12^ 2719. Notice E's fondness
for relating dreams. The author of the speeches of
Elihu also attaches great importance to dreams as a
channel of divine communications (Job 33 14- 16). It
would almost seem as if the belief in the symbolic
character of dreams should be reckoned among other
revivals of primitive beliefs in the jieriod of early
Judaism (cp the dream-visions in Enoch chaps. 83-90, and
the dreams in the Book of Daniel ; also Jos. lij ii. 74
iii. 83). Men were oppressed by constiint anxiety as to
the future, and there \sas no prophet in the great old
style to assuage this. They looked about, therefore, for
artificial means of satisfying their curiosity. Prophets
DIVINATION
like Isaiah, however, never refer to their dreams, and
it is even a question how far the visions of which they
speak are to be taken literally (see Prophkcy).
vii. On a possible divination by means of sacred
garments, see Dkess, § 8.
We must now consider briefly the various terms
applied to divination and diviners, and endeavour to
define their application.
1. CD?, kcseiit, a general term for divination of all kinds
(cp the Ar. kdhin, and see Priests), on the derivation of
which see jSIagic, § 3 (i). Thus EV renders
3. Terms, j,-,^,^ < jjvination ' (once ' witchcraft,' i S. 15 23 EV),
Cr'p, 'diviner' (iS. 0 2Zech. 10 2), also 'soothsayer' (Josh.
VA 22 EV) and ' prudent ' (Is. 3 2 AV) ; and © gives the more
general terms /xacTis, /iaj'Tevo/uai, (xafreia, ixavTflov. Ezek.
•-'1 z6 [21], however, shows plainly enough that the word had
the distinct sense of obtaining an oracle by casting lots by
means of arrows (see above, §2(2]).' The one selected by
chance was supposed to represent the divine decision ; on the
other liand, in i S. "288, Saul is made to ask the witch to
divine for him by means of the 'ob (qin) ; see below, § 4 (ii.) ;
and cp iMa(.;ic.
2. I^.U'P O"''''""'")- The etymology of this word is much
disputed (cp Del. on Is. 2 6). Two interpretations deserve
mention : (a) M^'onl'n is one who divines by observing the
clouds (denom. from jJ]^), a mode of divination well known
among the ancients ; or perhaps, one who brings clouds, or causes
storms (tafowinancy). In the passages in which the word occurs,
however, there is nothing to suggest that the vif'oncn has an>;-
thing to do « ith the sky. (b) One who smites with the ' evil
eye ' (denom. from ['!') ; but, apart from other considerations, the
Targ. rendering JJi' appears to be decidedly against this view.
In the absence of further evidence it is best to follow Ewald
{Bib. Theol. 1 234) and WRS (,loc. cit. ; cp also Dr.), who com-
pare the Arabic g-anna, 'to emit a hoarse, nasal sound.' The
fact that so many of the words connected with magic and
divination denote low subdued mournful speaking, favours this
last surmise, though there must ever remani much doubt about
the ex.act origin and meaning. © rejiders by a word which
means primarily to take an omen from the flight of birds,
examples of which practice may be found in Arabia (cp We.
Niic/A'^) 202/.). The word is usually rendered by 'observers
(once Judg. i> 37 AV»>g- ' regarders ') of times' (AV), or
'augurs' (RV) (Dt. 18 10 14 Lev. 19 26 2 K. 21 6), in Is. 2 6
Mi. 7) 12 [1 1] EV ' soothsayers ' (so also Jer. 27 9 RV, where AV
'enchanter'); once (fern.) 'sorceress' (Is. 573). An oak near
Shechem, famous in divination, bears the name 'Oak of Meo.v-
enim' (Judg. t' 37). For other examples of sacred trees cp
luoLATKV, § 2, and see Natiike-wokshii'.
3. V~i (m'/iCf), 'to use enchantment' (2 K. 21 6 = 2 Ch. 336
Lev. li» 26 ; cp cm, ' enchantment ' Nu. 23 23 24 i), or ' to
divine' (Gen. 445 15 EV ; and Gen. 30 27 RV, whereAV 'to
learn by experience ' ; cp i K. 20 3 j ' diligently observe,' RVnitj-
' take as an omen '), is probably used to include any kind of
divination (WRS). In Gen. 445 15 the same word is used for
divination by a cup'-^ — i.e., probably by hydromancy , where a
vessel is filled with water and the rings formed by the liquid
are observed. Was [••nj originally used in a special sense, and
connected with C*™, 'a serpent'? So at least Bochart, Lenor-
mant, and I?audissin {Siudicn zur sent. Kel.-scsch. 1 2S7) ; see
Serpent, § 1, 3, Magic, § 3, 3.
4. I '113., gaz'rln, is found only in Daniel (227 4 4 [7] T) 7 11,
EV 'soothsayers'), and may be rendered ' prognosticators,'
properly ' those who determine [what is doubtful]' ; cp Bev. eui
lac. The root means ' to cut ' ; but whether the ' cutting of the
heavens ' by Babylonian astrologers is meant, is uncertain (see
Stars, § 5). Perhaps (cp Ar. jazara, 'to slaughter') the
gaz'r'in originally offered a sacrifice in connection with the art
(cp \'g. hanisfiicis). See § 2, iii.
5. f-fi-H {'assii/>/t) and fjC'K ('dsa//i) occur in the Heb. (1 20 2 2)
and the .\ram. (2 1047 [4], etc.) parts of Daniel respectively, and
are rendered '.astrologer,' RV 'enchanter.' The word is of
Assyrian origin (Stars, § 5). It is difficult to say whether ^TJ,
TX ^"d th^ other terms found were meant to represent a
separate class, or whether the writer employed these terms'
indiscriminately (Bev. Dan. 63).
6. D'N^i:'? {kasdd'im) in Dan. 1 4 2 10 (5 7 1 1) means the caste
of wise men. This usage (well known from classical writers)
arose after the fall of the Babylonian empire, when the only
Chaldjeans known were astrologers and soothsayers.
1 Possibly the Teraphim were similarly employed ; see
Teraphim.
2 The so-called (cvAiicofiavTet'o. Cp Toseph's divining-cup
with the famous goblet of Jemshld, and see Lenormant, La
Divination, 78-80. For a parallel French superstition, see
B. Thiers, TraiU des superstition^), Paris, 1697, 1 187^
DIVINATION
7. For 13 (Gad) and '3D (M'nf) in Is. CSiif, see FORTUNE
AND Destiny. See also other terms under Magic.
Necromancy, to which we turn next, is, as the etymo-
4 Necromancv '"*>'>' °^ ^'^'^ ''"'"'^ implies, divination by
•X. X101.1UUUUXVJ. rj-sort to the spirits of deceased persons.
Three terms or expressions fall to be noticed, all of
them met with in Dt. 18 11.
i. We shall begin with that which occurs last in the
verse, viz. c'nan-VN v-f\ (one who resorts with an inquiry
to the dead), rendered by EV 'necromancer.' It is
clear from Is. 819 that this is a general description
embracing the kinds of necromancy indicated by the
two words next to be considered and other kinds (see
Dr. on Dt. 18 11): the conjunction with which it is
introduced is simply the explanatory ' 7uaw,' answering
to the Gk. epexegetic (cat.
ii. 3iN VKb (sho'il 'ob), one who consults an 'od. The
word 'ob is generally found w'Whyidd^'oni (see below, iii. ),
like which, from meaning the spirit of a departed one,
it came to stand for the person who possessed such a
spirit and divined by its aid. The full phrase nSj,;3
3iK (the possessor of an '6b) is found in i .S. 287, where
it is applied to the ' witch of Endor. '
(S explains the expression by eyyaffTpLfivOos, 'ventrilo-
quist' (i.e., in the O'V passages, one who, ' by throwing
his voice into the ground, where the spirit was supposed
to be, made people believe that a ghost spoke through
him'), and Lenormant {Dtv. \b\ ff.), Kenan {Hist.
ET, I347), and others so explain the phenomenon ; but
the writer of Samuel, and other biblical writers who
sjjcak of this species of divination, evidently regard it
as being really what it claimed to be. Lev. 20 27 is the
only possible exception.
The etymology of the word is very uncertain. Other sug-
gestions may be passed by, for the field seems to be held by
two principal views, H. P. Smith's viewl (Sam. 239 yT) being
not very probable, (a) Ob has been connected with Arab, aba
= amaba, and explained 'a soul which returns (from ,She5l)';
cp French rcvenant. So Hitz. and Kij. (on Is. 819), St. (GVI
1 504), and Schwally (Das Leben nach dem Tode, 69). Schwally
also suggests a connection with 3N 'father' (note plu. of both
in otii). Van Hoonacker (Exp. T. 9 157^^) objects that in Dt.
18 II the 'ob is distinguished from the dead (viethtui); but if
the latter clause of the verse is simply a generalisation of the
two foregoing clauses, this objection falls.
(b) The other view (Ges., Del., Di.) connects the word with 'ob,
'a bottle,' literally 'something hollow.' A similar word in
Arabic (wdba) means ' a hole in a rock,' a large and deep pit —
i.e., something hollow.-
On the assumption that the fundamental idea of the word
is hollowness, many explanations have been suggested (see
Van Hoonacker, as above). Of these, two may be noted as
probably approximating most nearly to the truth.
1. Bottcher(Z'<- in/eris, loi), Kau. (Riehm, MIVB^-), 'Todten-
beschworer '), and Di. (on Lev. 19 31) hold that the spirit is called
'ob, on account of the hollow tone of the voice — such a tone as
might be expected to issue from any empty place. Other terrns
for practising magic and divination lend some support to this
view.
2. The idea of hollowness has been held to apply in the first
place to the cave or opening in the ground out of which the
spirit speaks. Among the Greeks and the Romans, oracles de-
pending on necromancy were situated among large deep caverns
which were .supposed to communicate with the spirit -world.
If the Hebrew 'ob is parallel to the Greek chthonic deities and
to the Arabian ah! al-ard or 'earth-folk,' with whom wizards
h.ave intercourse, it is conceivable that, by a metonymy — con-
tained for container, and vice versa— \\ie. hollow cavern may
have come to be used for the spirit that spoke out of it. See
WRS Rd. Satt.^'^) i9'5-
iii- 'Jl'y (yidde'O/ii). The English word 'wizard,'
by which this Hebrew term is rendered, means 'a very
wise one,' and agrees with <S yvuXTTiji (in Dt. 18 n
TfparoffKdiros), Syriac yaddud, Arabic 'arrdf, and with
Ewald's rendering ' viel-wisserisch."
Like 'ob, yidd^'Cmi is used, in the first instance, for the
spirit of a deceased person ; then it came to mean him
1 Namely, that the 'db was originally a skull prepared by
superstitious rites for magical purposes ; H. A. Redpath, on
the other hand, suggests that the 'ob was one who spoke out of
a hollow mask or domino.
■- In Job 3219 niax seems to mean 'bellows' (<8 ia<nTtp
^uoTjrijp [-T^'s >**] x"^««w5)-
DIVORCE
or her thai divines by such a spirit. Roljcrtson Smith
(/. Fhil. 14 127). followed by Driver (on Dl. 18 11).
distinguishes the two terms thus : —
Yiiid''dHi is a familiar spirit, one known to him that consults
it. The '6b is any ghost that is called up from the grave to
answer questions put to it (cp i S. 28). The yidd''flni speaks
through a personal medium ; that is, through the person whom
it possesses. The 'flb speaks directly, as for example out of
the grave (cp i S. •.*«). Kashi (on Dt. 18 11) says that yiddt'fni
differs from aiK ^ya (Mai 'db) in that he held in his mouth a
l)one which uttered the oracle. It is hard to establish these
distinctions, the data lor forming a judgment being su slight.
Is it quite certain, however, that the words arc to be
held as standing for distinct things? Why may we
not have in them dift'erent as[x;cts of the same spirit ?
So regarded, 'ob would convey the notion that the spirit
has returned from the other world, while yidd''dni would
suggest that the spirit so returned is knowing, and
therefore able to answer the (juestions of the inquirer.
The fact that in all the eleven instances of its occurrence
yidd''dni is invariably preceded by 'vb is in favour of
its being a mere interpretation of it. 'Oh, on the other
hand, is often found by itself (i S. 2878 i Ch. 10 13
etc. ). It is probable, therefore, that these two characters
are at bottom one, tiie 'and' in Dt. 18 11 joining 'ob
and yidW'dni in the way of a hendiadys : ' he who
seeks a departed spirit that is knowing," just as the
remaining part of the verse is, as we have seen already
(§ 3, i. ), simply a repetition in different words of the
same thought. This is in complete harmony with the
usages of Hebrew parallelism. The whole compound
expression might be rendered as follows : — ' He who
inquires of the departed spirit that is knowing, even
he who seeks unto the dead. '
iv. To the expressions considered already may be
added c"t3K. iUim, Is. 19 3!, EV 'charmers.' R'\'"'k.'-
prefers ' whisperers ' ; cp Ar. attd, ' to emit a moaning
or creaking sound ' ; or perhaps rather Ass. eti'i, ' tlark-
ness." (S apparently renders by to. dydX/xaTa avrdv.
Though condemned in the OT (i S. 1%i ff.; Is. 819 ;
cp Lev. 1931 20 6 27 Dt. 18 n), necromancy among
the Israelites held its own till a late period. The
leaders of religious thought were opposed to both witch-
craft and necromancy ; but the influence of habit and
of intercourse with people around was too strong to be
wholly overcome. See Schultz, OT Theology, 'l-^-i-2 (ET).
Winer!-*' ( A' U li s. v. ' Todtenbeschworer ' ; see refer-
ences) shows that in the ancient world divination by
calling back the spirits of the dead w;is very widespread
among the Greeks, the Romans, and the other ancient
nations. Cp B.MiVi.uMA, § 31^, and see M.\gic.
For the literature see .Ma(;ic. X. W. U.
DIVORCE, DIVORCEMENT (ninn? ; ^no-
CTACION [HNAQ]), Jer. 38 Is. 50 1. See Makki.VGE, §6.
DIZAHAB (nnr^, kataxPYCCA BAFL), ubi auH.
est pluiHmum — i.e., QHT *^ [Vg.]), in the topographical
description Dt. 1 1. ' If it be the name of a place in
the "stepixis of Moab " the situation is unknown'
(Dr. in Hastings' DB, s.v.)\ on the identifications, cp
Dillmann. The explanation ' place of gold ' is difficult
to justify (see Dr. Dcut, ad loc.). The name corre-
sponds to 'Me-zahab' in Gen. 8639 (as Sayce, Acad.
(3ct. 22, 1892, and Marcj. Fund. 10, have observed), and
like ME-/.AU.\B[r/.i'. J is no doubt a corruption of onso ( n
came from c) — i.e., the N. .Arabian land of Musri
or Musur, which adjoined Edom (see Mi/.k.MM, § ■zb,
and cp Che. Or. LZ, May 15, 1899). It was i)erhaps
premature to identify ' Di-zahab,' before the correctness
of the reading had been investigated. T. K. C.
DOCUS, RV Dok (AcoK [ANY]), called by Josephus
Dagon tA<\rt*>N ; Ant. xiii. 81 ; /'/ i. 23), a small for-
tress near Jericho, in which Simon the .\Iaccabee was
treacherously murdered by Ptolemy his son-in-law
(i Mace. 16 15). The name, doubtless, still survives in
the mod. ' Ain ed-Duk, 2.^ m. N. of Jericho, where there
are traces of ancient substructions and remains of a
36 nai
DODANIM
fine ac|ue(luct (Koh. UK '2i'^', I'T.F Mem. 3:73190;
Haed.'" 152 ; v. Kastcren, Ncv. liibl. 1897, p. 93^).
DOD, NAMES WITH. This group of compound
names comprises with certainty only Dodavah and
Dodiel (sc>e Daniel, i), and virtu;illy David, Dod.ai,
Dotlo. To these Gray {HFX 60-63) would add -n^K
(Eldad), TlVa (Bild.-id). In all these names he in-
terprets Ti as meaning ' uncle on the fathers side,'
which is no doubt a perfectly legitimate setise of ■ni or
n'n (see 2 K. 24 17). (</) First, as to Eldad and Hildad.
The objection to admitting that these names are com-
pounded with the divine name Dad is obviously pro-
visional. The god Ramman was so well-known in
Canaan that we may expect to find at any rate isolated
names compounded with Dad, which was one of the
names of this deity (Wi. AT Untersuch. 69, n. i).
In the Amarna letters, it is true, the form we find in
comixjund proper names is Addu ; but the etiuivalence
of Addu and Daddu is admitted. [b] Next, as
to the other names. That Dod is not the nanie of
some one special deity, is admitted ; but whether it is,
or is not, a term designating some degree of kinship,
is disputed. It is undeniable that in ( = Ass. dadu)
means ' beloved,' and also, by a natural transition,
'divine patron' (cp ni'i, used of God, Job I621). The
present writer contends that it is more natural to give
this second sense to Dod in the few Hebrew names
compounded with it than to adopt the theory (Gray,
HFN 60) that -n as well as cj? i" proper names has
the sense of ' uncle ' or ' kinsman. '
This is not affected by the discovery that there are some
S. Arabian names compounded with Atiimi, and some others
with Khali, both meannig ' uncle.' Nor need we enter into the
question whether the S. .-Xrabian name Dadi-kariba (so Homniel
gives the name) really means ' My cousin hath blessed '
(Honuuel, Aim^). See Douo, Dodavah. t. K. C.
DODAI ("in, nM, § 52 ; but Ginsb. in 2 S. 289
points Kt. "H/T), another form of Douo [i'.f. ], pre-
sumably shortened from a form n'l'n : see under
Dodavah ; ' Yahw^ is patron' (Marquart, Fund. 16),
2 S. 289 (RV following Kt. ; but .W Dodo ; coycei
[B*]. COOC. [A], AoyAei [B''^'"- L]) and i Ch. 274 (AV
and RV; AcoAeiA [B*]. -XeiA [B'']. -AiA [A], -Aa!
[L]), where the words ' Eleazar, son of,' found in i Ch.
11 12 are wanting, but are supplied by Kittel (5.507")
from I Ch. 11 12 ; see Dodo (2), Eleazar.
DODANIM ID'J"!'^). or Rodani.m (n'jni"').
Sn, Gen. U)4, \^.^ DOn.tXJ.M (cp Pesh.), so EV, AV"ik'-
Roilanim' after po6ioi [»pA"iii-], and Sam.; St!, i Ch. I7
AViiig. RV 'Rodanim' after poSioi l(pi'Al, but many MSS
Tin, cp i<u5ai'«in IL], /'0P.7.\/.1/[V>;.], whence AV * Dodanim."
In Is. 21 13 .Vq. Sym. fujactfi for D'H"!.
A son of Javan [q.v.], son of Japheth, Gen. 104 =
I Ch. I7. The same name — i.e., either Dodan (|nq) or
Rodan (jii) — should possibly be restored for ' Dedan '
{yn) in Ezek. 27 15 (poSujv [\M> ; adnot. podioi opa<rii
Kpiaeiiii Q"''-''], apadidjv [.\] ; so Pesh. but .At]. Sj'm.
Theod. 5a5av). The merchants there referred to
brought to Tyre the ivory and ebony which they had
themselves procured from Africa or India. Two views
are held.
{a) Stade, Cornill, Bertholet are strongly for ' Rodan,"
and naturally hold a similar opinion as to the reading
in Gen. IO4. It is, however, by no means certain that
MT is not right in reading p-i '32, 'sons of Dedan," in
Ezek. , I.e. ; Edom (so all [e.xcept Aq.] read for
'Aram') follows in v. 16. As to Gen. IO4, the most
prevalent opinion certainly is that Rodanim is the better
reading, and that this term designates not only the
Rhodians properly so-called (on whom cp. Horn.
//. 2654//^), but also ('many islands' being also
mentioned) the people of other .'Egean islands. (So
Di., Hal., K.tu., Holzinger, Ball, GASm. HG 135.)
This view is geographically plausible, but the short o
in 'P65oj must not be overlooked.
DODAVAH
{6) Another view, so far as the name goes, is more
satisfactory. The Rothinim of the text of Clironicles
(if we follow most MSS and 0) may be as inaccurate
as the ' Diphath ' which it gives for ■ Kiphath '
(i Ch. 16), and Dodanim itself may be incorrectly
given for Dardanim (Tg. Jon., Luzz;itlo, Ges. , Knob.,
Franz Del.). The name Dardan, as inscriptions of
Rameses II. show, comes down from early times; it
designates properly a people of jVsia Minor, not far
from the Lycians (see W.MM, As. u. Eur. 354/.).
It is not impossible that for D'3^n (Ch. reads i) the
original source of P's information read D'jm (t-'P
Tog.\rmah), and it would be natural for writers and
scholars of the Greek period (® and perhaps Ch. )
to convert Dardanim into Rodanim, and to understand
the Rhodians. It has been proposed elsewhere to j
identify another son of Javan (Tarshish, or rather ]
Turus) with another pixjple mentioned in the Egyptian
inscriptions (see Tiras). The author of the list used
by P may have known Dardan as well as Turus. If
pT is the correct reading in Ezek. we should jjerhaps
pronounce it Redan, not Rodan. Recent critics may,
however, have been too hasty in rejecting MT's reading
Dedan. The ' islands ' are not necessarily those in
which the merchants spoken of resided ; they may very
well be the coast-lands with which Dedan had com-
mercial dealings. Cp Deda.n, and, on Ezek. 27 15.
see Ebony. ' t. k. c.
DODAVAH, as AV, or rather Dodavahu as
RV (inn'n, perhaps for -"inn'n, ■ Yahw6 is friend or
patron.' § 47 — whence come the abbreviated forms
Dodo, Dddai [y^/.r.']— coA[e]iA [l^A], AoyAiOY [L] ;
Dodoa : Pesh. implies the reading 'Dodo'), the father
of a prophet called Eliezer (2 Ch. 20 37)- T. K. C.
DODO ('n'n, § 52, with which cp HH, Dodai, and
*7n, David). The fuller form is probably -innn
[cp Dddavah], which means ' Yahwe is friend or
patron' [so Marq. Fund. 16]. HT, genius loci, is
rightly restored by Wi. in Am. 8 14, and there appears
to be an allusion to the ' divine friend ' in Is. 5i (where
note that nn and <in' are parallel). The Dodah (nin)
of .-Vtaroth is mentioned in the Mesha inscription /. 12.
May we also compare Dudu, the name of a high
Egyptian official in the Amarna tablets {Am. Tab.
4445 52i5. cp Wi. AF 194)? T. K. C.
1. .\ Bethlehemite, father of the renowned hero Ki.hanan
(y.7'); 2 S. 2324 («ouS[«]i [BL], Aou. [A]), iCh.1126 (6(o6u)<:
[BN], -ai [Al, -5€t [I,]).
2. (.\V following Kre ; but see Dodai.) An Ahohitr (?.?'. ),
father of David's warrior Kleazar, 2 S. 23 9 (vibs ■na.tpa.MX^ov
avToO [BA], see Ahohitk, iouSet [L]) ; i Ch. 11 xi (ScoSai [BAL],
-S« [**] ■> patntus ejus).
3. An ancestor of Tola of Issachar, one of the Judges,
Judg. 10 I, if we should not rather follow eight cursive MSS of
€> and read, for ' son of Dodo,' ' son of his (Abimelech's) uncle
K.-ireah.' See Hollenberg, Z.4 T/f-', 1881, p. 104/ ®ual has
vib9 na.Tfta.hiKi\>ov aiiTOv (so Pesh. Vg.). See Tola.
DOE (H^;;:), Pr. 5i9t. RV. See Goat.
D0EG(3X1, I S. 21 7 [8] 229, but m, i S. 221822
[Kt.], :xn, Ps. 522 ; AcoHK [BSARTL], but AcoHf.
i.S. 22 9[.\]; Jos. An/.\i. 12 i, AcoHrOc)- An Edomite
(for the reading 's-in, 'Syrian,' presupposed [except in
Ps. 522] by <S^^ [but not L] and Jos., is certainly
wrong) who filled some minor post among the servants
of Saul ; most probably he was ' keeper of the saddle
asses" (cp Judg. IO4 i S. 93 a S. I62 i Ch. 273o), i S.
21 7 [8] 22 9. He had been detained (so one tradition
tells us) ' before Yahw6 ' — i.e. , in the sacred precincts at
Nob (or Gibeon ; see Nob) — by some obscure religious
prescription (see y?5W 456). and had cunningly watched
David in his intercourse with the priest Ahimelech (see
David, § 3). Soon after, he denounced the latter to
the suspicious Saul, and when the king commanded his
' runners ' to put Ahimelech and the other priests to
1 See also under Daniel, 4.
1 123
DOG
death, and they refused, it was this foreigner who lifted
up his hand against them (i S. 229-18).
The two passages in which Doeg's office is referred to are no
longer in their original form in MI . In 21 8 [AV 7] he is called
' the mightiest of the shepherds ' (D'jh TSK), a strange descrip-
tion of a shepherd, and still stranger when we observe that
T3N occurs nowhere else in Hebrew narratives. The conjecture
'the mightiest of the runners' (C'sn, Gratz, Dr., Ki., Bu.) gives
an e.xsier but still not a natural phrase, and disregards the
renderinjj of ®hai. in -Jl 7 |8), ffiiaiv ra^ r)ni6i>ovi iaouA. There
can be lutle doubt that Lagarde {iVlittheil. 3 350) is right in
reading Cn^V ':"3iK, which he renders 'driver of the mules,' —
a less natural rendering than that given above, but still possible.
Words like n;y and V'aiK are flexible. For the former see
Lagarde {I.e.) ; for the latter, see Abki„ Almost as certainly
we should also re.id "TV for ^-\2y in 229 (see (S). We.'s ob-
jection to following (S here (TBS 125) falls to the ground
as soon as it is recognised that 21 7 [8] is a later insertion in the
narrative.
The reference to Doeg in the title of Ps. 52 is due
to the thirst of later Jewish readers for biblical justifica-
tion of their idealising view of David. The Psalm was
written for use in the temple (see v. 8). T. K. c.
DOG (3?3, a name, of unknown origin, common to
all Semitic dialects; KycoN. canis [but Mt. 1526/.=
1 References ^^- ''"^^ kynarion, fa/<?//H)- No
■ dogs of any noble type are mentioned
in the Bible. The Israelitish kings were not, like
the Assyrian,' great hunters, and even the Hebrew
legend of Nimrod the hunter (but is ' hunter ' meant
literally? see Nimrod) in Gen. IO9 says nothing of his
dogs.'-^ According to EV the greyhound is referred to
in Prov. 30 31 as one of the four things which are
' stately in going' ; but this is doubtful (see Cock, Grey-
hound). The shepherd's dog is mentioned in Job 30 1,
and dogs which guard the house may be intended in
Is. 56 10; but neither passage vouchsafes the dog any
friendly words. The OT references are in fact almost
entirely to the pariah dog, such as may be seen in any
of the ' Bible lands ' to-day. They seem to have gone
careering in packs round the city at night (Ps. 596
14/.) ; it was dangerous to stop one of them (Prov.
26 17). Doubtless, however, they were useful as
scavengers. They were ready to devour even human
bodies (i K. 14ii I64 21 23/ 2 K. 9 10 36 and similarly
Jer. 153 cp I K.. 21 19 2238 Ps. 6823[24]), and to them
flesh that men might not eat was thrown (Ex. 2231 ;
contrast Mt. 76). Prom Mk. 728 (.Mt. I527) some
have inferred a sympathy between men and dogs in the
time of Christ ; but this is hazardous. Paul has no
such sympathy (Phil. 82), and a certain Rabbi dissuades
from keejiing fierce dogs in the house, apparently
because they would frighten away the poor (Shabb.
63 a). Most dogs, then, were fierce. Yet Tobit,
according to the Greek text, makes a companion of his
dog on his journeys (Tob. 5i6 II4) ; see Tobit.
The pariah dog referred to above is a variety of the
cosmopolitan dog (Canis familiaris), though the breed
p - ■u J has probably been intermixed by cross-
g. j^g ^jjj^ jackals or wolves. The dogs
live in companies, each dog having its own lair (some-
times two), to which it returns for rest during the day.
Those that frecjuent the towns act as scavengers, living
on offal ; but in the country they are trained by the
shepherds and fiirmers to act as sheep-dogs (cp Job 30 1 1.
Not much good, however, can be said of the latter :
they are 'a mean, sinister, ill-conditioned generation,'
whose use consists in barking at intruders and warning
the shepherds of any possible danger. ■• In appearance
they resemble the Scotch collie, and are said to be
1 On the breeds of hunting dogs known in Assj-ria, see
Houghton, rSB.A 652-62 ['77].
'•2 On the four 'dogs' of Marduk (Mero<lach) see below. So
in some legends the Tyri.-in Heracles (or Melkart) is accompanied
by a dog {R'l- Sem.fi) 292).
3 Thomson, Z,^ (ed. '94), 202; cp Doughty, Ar. Des. 1 309
337/ 526-
II24
DOG
intelligent, and sagacious when trainctl. Rabies is
almost, or entirely, unknown ani<jng them. I
The strcs-s laiil in Judg. 7 5-7 on the way in which
(iidcons thrix- hundred drank, lapping with ihe.r '
3 ExAntic&l '•^"K"*-'*' •'•^'-' ''"gs- pr^l^ibly indicates |
rf ♦ "1 ^^ *^'*' *'^^'y ^**^''*-' ''<-'''ce uncivilised men i
aeiaiiS. (Moore, ///(/^rj, aoa). The mention of
'dogs' in company with 'lions' in I's. 2'2 as typical of
the licrce enemies of pious Israel, is surprising. I here
is no OT parallel for the use of the p;iriah tiogs of
Eastern cities as symlwlic of die enemies of Israel. In
later tinies the Gentiles were callc-d "dogs' (XiMaA,
77 ti; liiibii Kama, 49</, etc.) ; but the Talnnidic use
has no biblical authority; Mk. 7 27 surely does not
express what may be called biblical doctrine. More-
over in I's. 'J'iai only lions and wild oxin are re-
ferre<l to. Aq.. Theotl., and Jer. evidently read C'2^5
'hunters' ; this is a clever attempt to get over a re.il
diflicully. In v. 17 (lA' 16) we should certainly re.id
0^*33 D'l<3\ and D-ON-1 nij;. The sense then becomes,
tlrecdy lions in their strength surround me,
A troop of wild oxen encircles me.
Similarly in v. 21 (1--V 20) we should read 'n^n K'3^,
and render (reading td:3 for aire).
Snatch my soul from the young lion,
My life from the clutch of the greedy lion.
We now {xiss on to a group of five p.assages which
have been much misuiKlerst(xxl.
1. 2 K. 81J ' Wlut is thy servant, the dog (0 has 'the dead
dog'l, that he should do this great thing?' RV, par:i phrasing,
' which is but a dog.' .W incorrectly, ' Is thy servant a dog,'
etc.
2. a S. Iflg 'Why should this de.id dog [C- 'this cursed
dog '] curse mv lord the king?'
■^. 2 S. '.>8 ' What is thy servant that thou shouldest look uix)n
a dead dog like me ? '
4. I S. ".'4 14 [15] ' After whom dost thou pursue ? after a dead
dog?'
5. 3 S. 38 'Am I a dog's head that belongeth to Judah?'
(EV).
As to (i) AV is quite wrong. Hazael does not revolt in horror
from the description of Elisha, but only affects to think it too j;rLat
an achievement for him. 'Dog' is here an expression of servile
humility towards Klisha, as in Assyrian ('we are the king's
dogs,' /.^. his humble servants).! In (i) 'dead dog ' (TO 373)
cannot be right, as ©l- indicates by the substituted epithet (>ej
above). The text must be incorrect. We want some word
which will be eijually suitable in (2) (3) and (4) ; and if possible
some word which will make letter sense than 'dead ' (,-c) even
in (j) and (4), where it has hitherto been plausibly tak.ii as an
Oriental exaggeration. The word which we seek is KCO
'unclean'; 'dead dog should be 'unclean, despised, pariah
dog." To explain his see Doughty's striking description of the
treatment of their hcKuids by the Bedouin, who ' with blows
cast out these profane creatures from the beyt.'2 As to (5) the
text is evidently not quite correct (see Klo.) ; there seems to
be a play on the name of Caleb the dog-tribe (s<-e 1025, n. i ;
Nabal). To read 'Am 1 a dog's head' (omitting the next
words), with Prof H. P. Smith, can hardly be called s;itisfactor)'.
This idiom may ca.st light upon Dt. '23 18(19] where 'dog'
appears to be applied to the class of persons elsewhere called
kfdHlm. It was natural to cxplam the word as a term of com-
tempt (see Idolatrv, g 6). If, however, ' unclean do^ ' or some
similar phrase was a common circumlocution indicative of
humble deference used in addressing superiors, as kalbu is in
Assyrian (especially in the Ainarna letters), kelrb need not, as
applied to these temple servants, h.ive been a term of contempt :
it may have been their ordiriary name (so RS^A 292). The word
appears in fact in Phoenician, applied to a class of servants
(03'73) attached to a temple of Ashtureth in Cyprus (CIS 1 no. 86
B, 1. 10).
There are not wanting indic.itions that the dog was
held in religious veneration. .\ river running into the
__ , sea a few miles N. of BeirQt is called the
4. xne aog j^^^ ^.^^.^^ (Xahr-fl-Kelb. l.ycus numen),
m re igion. ^^^^j al-\adim informs us that the dog
was sacred among the Harranians. ' They offeretl
sacrificial gifts to it, and in certain mysteries dogs were
solemnly declared to be the brothers of the niysta;. ''
This seems to be connected with primitive H;ibylonian
mytholog)' ; * my lord with the dogs ' (a divine title at
1 The explanation of RV, therefore, is not quite correct.
« /Jr. Dts. I337.
• RS^ 291, referring to Fthrist, 326, and other passages.
lias
DOR
Harran) ix)ints »o Martluk .mil his four dogs. It is
jxjssible th.it the dog may have Ix-en among the animals
worshipjHxl by the earliest Semites as a totem ' (as, e.g.,
among some .\. American Indians and in Java).
Robertson ."^mith refers to Jusiin (I8110). who stites
that Darius forlxide the Carth-aginians to sacrifice human
victims antl to eat the tlesh of dogs (in a religious meal,
it is implied). There sc-ems also to Ijc an allusion to
sometl.ing of this kind in post-exilic Palestine — to a
custom, chielly prevalent perhaps among the mixed
Samaritan pt)pulation,* of sacrificing the dog' on certain
occasions (Is. ii'Si). T. K. c. § 3.
DOLEFTJL CREATURES (D*nK), Is. 13 21; see
Jackal.
DOMINIONS (KYPiOTHTec). or rather 'lordships,*
Col. 1 16 ; cp i;ph. 1 21 jude 8 2 I'et. 2io. See Angel, § i.
DOOR (n'P'n, eyPA.* eYPt*JM&. etc. [BAFLJ. per-
haps from ,^"^1, ' to swing,' or cp .Ass. eclilu, ' to
bolt, bar').
The Hebrew deleth is used of the doors of a chamlwr (Judg.
323_^), or of a gate (1 S. 21 13 {14]), and even of the gate it.self
(Dt. 35, KV 'gates'). The difference between pttliah, which
may lie any ojieiiing or entrance (e.g., of the ark. Gen. 6 16 :
Lattick, g 2 I7]), and deUth, is clearly ilhistratetl by (.en. l'.>6,
where Lot stands in \\\t pctliah to keep back the men of .Sodom
from approaching the deUth (cp also i K. C31). For 'I'C'
(' door ' Ex. 33 17 Job 3S 17 AV) see Gatk.
However neces.sarj- for ventilation ili.orways were in
the East (see LArriCK, § i), the doors themselves were
not employed so much as in less trojjical regions.
' The lock was doubtless like those now in use in
the East, so constructed that the l>olt pij-jc Cant. 65
Neh. 83 etc. . RV ; 'lock,' AV) was shot by the hand
or by a thong; the key (np&O. 'opener') was only
used for unlocking the door' (Moore, SBO /' [Eng.],
Judges, 60). For descriptions of keys and locks, see
Wilk. .-/«^.\t;^. I3S3; Moore, ytt<4'. 99 ; Che. Is.SBOT,
ET, 159/
The Hebrew terms for the component parts of the doorw.-iy
are (i) «"j3, saf'h, the thrchoKl (n-poOupoi', irvAuir, etc., aiiAi)
[BN'Al, Jer. 3.J4, ot,6% ,b.H^-^'(i, oTatfMiK Aq. Sym. Thcod.), also
jPSO 18.547;; *** Thresholi), and cp Tkmplr. (2) •^Tn^,
tti'zuzdh, door post, Dt. C9 11 20; on deriv.ition cp Schwally,
ZD.MGhi\T,t/. ; see Frontlets. (3) ^^^crt, maikopli, lintel,
Ex. 127, 22^(<^Ai<i[RAL]); cp MH r^-,xi. (4) Ts, j/r, hinge,
Prov. 'lis 14 <TTp6<t>'yi ; cp also pi. nins 1 K. " 50 (if correct, Ovput-
nara lli.\L]). See Ga IE.
DOPHKAH (Hi^a-l; pa<1)&ka [BAFL], -an [A
after eU in ; . 12]), one of the stages in the wandering in
the wilderness (N'u. 33i2/. ). Sec Wanderi.ngs, § 12.
DOR (in, Acop [BAL]; Josh. 1223, eAAcoM [B],
aSSutp l.\] ; Judg. 1 27 and 1 Ch. 7 29 Swpa [I,] ; also written njn,
cp Ph. -iKi below, Josh. 17 11, &<up [B-ilJ nik'-JX
1. Name, more fully Maphath-dor (i K. 4 n RVrng. ; n^j
1K1 ; yt<f>a6S<op [A], represented by ai-a ^xtdet atojp
[U], and PaOavarj o ktuk^ti ai-rfp f I.l ; Josh. 12 23 RVrnj; -,,-, 'j
Tov if)ei'y(&6iup [I?, for variants sec Sw.J t. ►xu^tSiwp [.\], t.
lv]a,^u,p [L]), and Naphoth Dor (Josh. 11 2 RVmtf., -in nir:,
if>tvci,6So,p [BJ, va4,t&„,p [A*], -66. (AiFL]), the modem
Taniurah,^ lay on the Mediterranean coast about mid-
1 There is still, however, some obscurity. Compare also such
proper names as K^Sr. cSk3'?3 (Phoen.), U'Ss. n3"'?3. K3'?3»
13^3 (Nab. and Sin. inscr.), j-«->'^ t» (Cur. Akc. .'^yr. Doc.
156), A'a/i., plur. A'i/iib Aklul>, arnl dim. Kulaib among Ar.
tribal names, and the Heb. 373 (cp Kin. 200, Joum. Phil.
989 ; though N'Old. ZDMG, 1886, 164, n. i, throws doubt on the
identification of Caleb and 3^3 ; see Names, { 88).
a See Che. Intr. Is. 367, and cp RS(^ 357, and (on breaking
the neck) Kin. yx)/.
3 Note that both the Sam. text and the Sam. Targum of Ex.
2231 omit the contemptuous reference to the dog, and speak.
simply of casting away.
* #upa is the usual word in NT ; cp A«s 5 1923 etc.
• On the origin of die name cp Ges. I kts. 331.
II36
DOR
way between the promontory of Carmel and CsEsarea,
at a distance of alxjut eight miles from the latter.
The fuller form of the name is explained by Sym.
as the irapaXia of Uor, or as Awp ij irapaXla (cp O.S'*"^*
11522 2r»056, (/or nafeth, 5ihp tov va<paO, 14'2i3 2883,
nefeddor, i>a<t>e05u)p} ; it probably includes the undulating
plain of Sharon lying inland. The exact meaning of
n?:. n'lBO (KV 'height,' AV 'region, coast, border,
country') as well as that of 'Dor' is very uncertain.^
Outside the OF the shorter form of the name is usual.
It is frequently mentioned by (ireek writers and appears
as Si^poi, SQpa (Sujpd in i Mace. 15 11 13 25 .W , Dora),
also 5ovpa (I'olyb. ), Durum (I'liny), and 'J'Aora {'l\\\).
Pent. ). In .\ss. Iht-ru (by the side of Megidilo) occurs
only once, in a geographical list (2 R. 53, no. 4, /. 57).
The nicaning of the name is obscure (see E.\-uuR, and
for H.\M.M.\TH-ni)K see H.\m.m.\tii).
Dor is tirst mentioned in tlie Pap. Golenischeff (temp.
Hri-hor, circa 1050 B.C.), where D-ira belongs to the
2 OT and other ■^'^^'^^"' ^ '^^^^ which entered Palestine
references, etc. f /^"g ^^''h the P. rus<U land occupied
the sea-coast (cp \VMM.-/j. u. hur.
383, and see C.Vi'HTOK, §§ 2, 4 ; Philistinks).^ Their
prince bears the name Ba-d-ira, which appears to repre-
sent a theophorous name (.-\bd-il, 'servant of El' or
Bod-el). That Dor continued to remain in the hands
of a non-Israelite people seems highly probable.
Later writers, with Deuteronomic sympathies, supposed that
Dor joined the northern coalition against Joshua (Josh. 11 2),
and they include its king among those who fell (//>. 12 23). In
the same spirit Dor is assigned to Manasseh (Josh. 17 11 ; cp
1 Ch. 729).'* A more historical view is presented in Judg.
1 27, where Beth-shean, Ibleam, Megiddo, and Dor (in MT the
order is disturbed) form a belt of Caiia;inite towns stretching
from E. to W., whicH must have separated Ephraim from the
more northerly trii)es. In the time of Solomon, it is true, the
' heights of Dor ' was under one of his commissaries ; but it is
hardly probable that the town of Dor was itself included (i K.
4 II ; see Uk.n-abinwdau).
For the next few centuries Dor drops out of Jewish
history. It was well known, however, to the (ireeks,
the earliest authority in which the name
3. Later
history.
occurs being Hecatteus of Miletus [cii
500 B.C.). It is not improbable that it
ought to be identified with the AcDpos which, in the fifth
century, was tributary to the Athenians (Steph. Byz.
s.v. Aui/)os), and this agrees with the view that the
Takara (the earliest known occupants of Dor) were
from Asia Minor, and, therefore, might have been in
close touch with Greece. At the beginning of the fourth
century Esmunazar relates that Dor (hnt) and Joppa
('2"), rich corn-lands (jn riinx) in the field of Sharon
(pc ira). were handed over to Sidon by the king of
Persia (Artaxerxes Mnemon ?), probably (as Schlottmann
conjectured) in return for their help in the battles of
Cnidus (394) and Citium (386). ■* Hence perhaps
arose the belief of later Greek geographers that Dor
was originally a Phoenician colony. It successfully
resisted two sieges, one by Antiochus the Great (Anti-
ocuus, i) during his war with Ptolemy Philopator in
219 B.C. (Polyb. 566), and the second by Antiochus
Sidetes (.Xntiochu.s, 5) in 139-8 k.c. , when the siege
was raised in consec|uence of the flight of Trypho
(i Mace. 15 11^.). It was afterwards held along with
Strato's tower (C/Ksarka, § i) by a tyrant named
Zoilus, on whose subjugation by Ptolemy Lathyrus it
became part of the Hasmonaean dominions (Jos. Ant.
1 Wholly obscure is nB3n nxhv Josh. 17 11 which ® (to
Tpirov T17S fiau^eTo. [B], . . . vcufteOa [A], . . . vcxfxO [L]) treats
as a place-name (note that ®i gives only t/tree names). Sym.
here again has at rpeis n-opoAiai. Slav. Ostrogothic adds the
gloss Tpia kXitt).
2 On the identification of the Takara town Dor with the Ass.
Zaklcalu (4 R 34 no. 2, /. 45); see Hommel, PSBA 17 203 ('95);
A II r 236.
3 The passage in Josh, is hardly sound ; Addis corrects after
Jude. 1 27. See also Asher, § 3.
♦ For Elimunazar's inscription, cp Schlottmann, Die Inschrift
Esehmunazars ('68), and see CIS 1, no. 3. Skylax assigns Dor
to ^don and Ashkelun to Tyre during the Persian period.
1 127
DOTHAN
xiii. 1224). Front Pompey's time it w.as directly under
Roman rule. Gabinius restored the town and harlxjur
(56 B.C.), and it enjoyed autonomy under the emperors
\ih. xiv. 44 XV. 53). It possessed a synagogue in 42 A. D.
{Ant. xix. 63). At a comparatively early date after
this its prosperity declined, and in the time of Jerome
((^5<'-l 11522 14214) it was alre;idy deserted, and soon
scarcely anything was left but its ruins — which were
still an object of admiration — and the memory of its
former greatness (cp Plin. 517: memoria urbii). Down
to at least the seventh century it continued to give its
name to an episcopal see.' Its prosperity was largely
due to the abundance of the purple-yielding murex on
its rocky coast, and to its favourable jxjsition (I)ut see
Ant. XV. 96). The modern village consists merely of
a few hovels.
The ancient remains which lie to the N. of the
modern village are inconsiderable {/i<ied.<^> 271 /,
F/!/'' Mem. 2(> ff.), the most conspicuous object, to
former travellers, being the ruins of a tower (of the
time of the Crusaders) which crowns a rocky eminence.
The tower (el- Burj ; cp Pirgul [ = irvp^os] in Foulcher
de Chartres) has since collapsed (/"£/•'(>, 1895, P- "S)-'*
S. A. C.
DORCAS (AopKAC [Ti. WH], i.e., 'gazelle,' §68),
the Greek name of the Christian disciple (yiio^Tjrpia) at
Joppa, whom Peter, by prayer, raised from the dead
(.Acts 936-42). She was manifestly a Jewess, her Greek
name being simply a translation of that by which she
was known in Aramaic, 'labilha (xri'Dp, i.e., 'gazelle,'
= Heb. -aii ; see Gazellk). A handmaid of R.
(jamaliel was called Tabitha ( IVayyikra R. 19).
In the so-called Acts 0/ I'rochorus, dating from about the
middle of the fifth centtiry, Tabitha figures as the hostess of
John and Prochorus during their three days' stay at Joppa on
their way to Egypt.
DORYMENES (AopYMeNHC [ANV] ; in 2 Mace.
AcopOYAAeNOC L^']). father of Ptolemy Macron [see
I'Toi.K.Mv] ; I Mace. 838 2 Mace. 445.
DOSITHEUS (AaiCieeoc[B*.AV], Aoc. [B»bL^V]).
1. A caiJtain under Judas the Maccabee ; he and his fellow-
officer Sosipater had 'limotheus in their power after the action
before Camion, but allowed themselves to be persuaded to let
him off (2 Mace. 12 1924).
2. A mounted soldier who distinguished himself in battle by a
brave though unsuccessful attempt to take Gorgias prisoner
(2 .Mace. 12 35).
3. .\ lenegade Jewin the camp of Ptolemy Philopator (3 Mace.
13)-.
4. ' Said to be a priest and Levite,' who, with his son Ptolemy,
carried to Egypt the (translated) letter of Mordecai respecting
the feast of Purim (Esth. 11 i, ® ; Aoo-tdeof [A], Suxrti. [N]).
DOTEA (AC0T6A [A]), Judith 89 AV-e- ; AV Judea,
RV DoTyKA. See Dotha.n.
DOTHAN (jnM, Gen. 37 17 2 K. 6.3, and pn*1. Gen.
37 17 [Names, § 107]; Di. (/« loc.) thinks the latter a vocalic
modification of the former. This is doubtful (cp Ba. NB, § 194
f .) ; but in any case the termination ['- is very ancient, occurring
in the Palestine lists of Thotmes III., sixteenth century B.C.,
tu-ti-y-na (WMM As. u. Kiir. 88). It is possible, therefore,
that jnil i^ merely a defective form of J'n [Audaetfx [BNADEL],
in Judith 89, Aturata [BN] ; Awrea [A] ; Eusebius has Atudaci/i,
Jerome Dothai>ii\).
Eusebius placed it 12 R. m. N. of Sehast6 (Samaria).
The site was identified by Van de Velde' (1364^) with
Tell Dothdn 10 m. N. of Sebastiyeh. It is a green
mound lying on the .S. of a plain, sometimes called after it
(Judith 4 5 [6], Tb nt5iov rb ir\t)alov Scodaeifi, Dothaun),
and sometimes called Sahl '.Arrabeh, which lies some
500 feet above sea-level, and drains to the Mediterranean
by the W'ady Selhab, afterwards W'ndy '.\bu Nar, and is
connected with Esdraelon by the wide descending valley
of Bel'ameh, the ancient Ible.\m [(/.v.]. Thus it carries
1 Bapuyiof Aupuf ^n-i<r»toJro« is mentioned in the Acts of the
Council ot Constantinople (381 A.D.).
2 See, further, for coinage, etc., Schiir. G/l^', § 2j, i. lo.
S Also, independently, a few days later, by Robinson [/.BR
1 22]. Rabbi Parohi had noted it in the fourteenth century ;
see Asher s Benj. c/Ttuie/a, 2 434).
DOUGH
the great caravan mail from Damascus and Gilead to
Egypt, which is still in use, as it was when the story of
Joseph and the com[)any of Ishniaelite traders passing
Dothan with spices from Gilead for Kgypt was written
(GASni. //(/' 151/ 356). Van de Velde found the re-
mainsof a Jewish road crossing from Ksdraelon to Sharon.
At the S. foot of the Tell is a fountain called Kl-Haf ireh ;
there is a sc*cond fountain and two large cisterns (cp the
cistern into which Joseph's brethren are said to have
lowered him). There is very fine piisturage on the sur-
rounding plain, which the present writer found covered
with flocks, some of them belonging to a camp of nomad
Arabs. From its site on so ancient a road through the
country, and near the mouth of the main pass from the
N. into the hills of Samaria, the Tell nmst always have
been a military position of importance ; note the de-
scription in 2 K. &\iff., and the frec|ucnt mention of it
in the IJook of Judith (advance of Holofernes). Cp
FEFMein. 2169 215; Thomson, LB., ed. 1877, p.
466/.; Huhl, Fal. 24/.. 102, 107. G. A. S.
DOUGH. For Nu. 152o/. Xeh. IO37 [38] (np'TT;
RVnitf. 'co;irse meal'), see Food, § 1, aiA for 2 S. is'a RV
(Pm cp liKHAO, § ..
DOVE. The word dove is somewhat loosely applied
to cfi tain members of the suborder Columbte or pigeons ;
and, as no sharp distinction can be drawn,
it is pro[x>sed to treat the do\ es and pigeons
together in this article.
Three Heb. words come under consideration : (i) njV,^5«rt//,
probably derived from its mournful note (n-fpKrrepa [iS]) ; (2)
"lirii TB, tor (prol>ably onomalopcwtic, cp Lat. turiur ; -rpvyuav
[®1), EV ' turtle-dove ' ; and (3) Vjij,^(JcJ/, EV ' young pigeon '
(Gen. 159, II Tin. ntpKTTtpa. [.AOL]), properly any young
bird ; cp Dt. 32 iif (with reference to the IPJ).
Apart from its occurrence in P and Gen. 159 (see
below), -nn is found only in Cant. 2 12 (where allusion is
1. Hebrew
terms.
OT
made to its ' voice '), in Jer. 87 (a migratory
EV in both
character.
references ^'"""^ '• "-^ § "^ ^'-^ '^"'"'^
reierences. .turtle), and in Ps. 74 19 (not©). In
the last-quoted piissage mn, as the harmless, timid dove
(cp Hos. 7" 11 II .\It. IO16), is usually thought to
be symbolical of Israel. The te.xt-reading. however, is
doubtful. 1 l^lsewhere it is to the n:r ( ' dove ' ) that Israel
is compared (see JON".\H, ii. § 3). This is the most
common term, which appears notably in the Deluge-
story, Gen. 88-12 (Dki.ugk, § 17). Allusion is made in
I's. 5r)6 (7] to its plumage, in Is. 3814 59 11 to its
mournful note.- Its gentle nature makes the dove a
favourite simile or term of endearment in love poems
(Cant. 1 15 4 1 52 12 69). That doves were domesticated
among the Hebrews may be inferred from Is. 608 (see
Fowls, § 5), and it is of interest to recall that carrier-
pigeons were well known in F.gypt, and that at the
coronation ceremotiy four were let fly to carry the
tidings of the newly-made king to the four corners of
the earth (Wilk. Anc. l-'.g. 8320).
.\rc there reasons for supposing that among the
Hebrews the dove ever enjoyed a reputation for sanctity ?
, „ J Conclusive evidence in supjjort of this view
i. oacrea • „, . . , ... •. • i._i.i„ .i,_. .1
is absent ; but it is remarkable that the
dove, although a ' clean " bird, is never
mentioned in the OT as an article of diet. It was a
favourite food of the I'.gyptians, and is commonly eaten
in Palestine at the present day. Moreover, we have to
note that the -lin and Siii are mentioned in an old cove-
nant ceremony by E (Gen. I59), and that in P's legis-
lation 'turtle-doves' (omn) and 'young pigeons' (»j2
nav) are frequent sacrificial victims in ceremonies which.
1 'Deliver not the soul of thy turtle-dove" is a strange ex-
pression. Sym. Tg. Jer. find an allusion to the Law (Tg. ' the
souls of the teachers of thy Law') ; but © Pesh. read I'jif ; so
Gunkel, Che. : ' Deliver not the soul which praises thee,' be-
comes the sense.
s Cp also Nah. 2 7 [8] ; on the text of Ezek. 7 16 see Co.
1129
DOVE'S DUNQ
however, do not involve a sacrificial meal (Ixv. 5; 128
etc. ; in NT Lk. 224).' This exceptional treatment of
the dove suggests that originally the Hebrews were wont
to ascribe to the bird a sacrosanct character, snnilar to
that which it has obtained among other branches of the
Semites. In Palestine ' the dove was sacreti with the
Phoenicians and Philistines, and on this superstition
is based the conmion Jewish accusations against the
Samaritans that they were worshippers of the dove.'
There were holy doves at Mecca (the custom is hardly
indigenous), and according to Lucian \^Dea Syria, 54,
cp 14) doves were taboo to the Syrians, he who
touched them remaining unclean a whole day.''* On
the symlxjlism of the dove in .NT (Mt. 3 16 etc.) and in
early Christian times, sec Smith's Diet. Christ. Ant.,
s.v.
The following species occur in Palestine : —
(i.) Cotuntba fialumhus, the ring-dove or wood-pigeon, common
in England and throughout most of Europe. I^rge flocks
of these assemble in the winter months and do
4. Species, much damage by feeding on the young leaves of
cultivated plants ; some migrate in the autumn,
but many iiass the winter in I'alestine. (ii.) C. arnas, the stock-
dove, smaller and darker than the alx)ve and rarer in Palestine ;
unlike C". paluiiihtis it docs not build on branches of trees, but
lays its eggs in holes or in burrows, (iii.) t". Inua, the rock-
dove, is abundant on the coast and uplands ; it is the parent
stock from which the domesticatetl varieties have lieen derived,
(iv.) C. schinipcri, closely allied to the preceding, which it takes
the place of, m the interior and along the Jordan valley. It is
elsewhere found in Egypt and in .Vbyssinia. It nests in crevices
and fissures of the rock (cp Jer. 48 2K). (v.) Turtur communis or
auritus, the turtle-dove, which prol>ably represents ~fj^ (see | 2),
is a migratory species whose return is very cunstant (Jer. 87,
Cant. 2 12) alxjut the beginning of .Vpril, when they become very
plentiful and are to be found in everj* tree and shrub. This
species is the most abundant of all the Cotumhir in Palestine,
(vi.) /'. risorius, the Harbar>- or collared dove, which extends
from Constantinople to India. Around the Dead Sea this species
is a permanent resident, being found as a rule in small flocks of
eight or ten. (vii.) /'. senegitUnsis, the palm turtle-dove, has
been regarded by Tristram as the turtle-dove of the Hiblc. h
lives amongst the courtyards of houses in Jerusalem and seems
to be half tame ; it especially frequents palm groves.
A. i:. S.— b. A. C.
DOVE'S DUNG(D'3Vnn or D'JV nn, Kt. [Ginsb.].
D^yrn'n.^' Kr. ; Konpoc nepicrepooN [HAL]). In
a graphic account of the siege of Samaria, side by side
with ' an ass's head ' appears ' the fourth part of a kab
of dove's dimg ' {/fare yon im) as a food only to Xm
bought at a very high price (2 K. 625). Much has Xnxn
written to account for this strange -sounding detail ;
Josephus {Ant. ix. 44) even suggested that the dung was
a substitute for salt ! The reference to it, however, is
doubtless due to an error of an ancient scrilx;, which
is precisely analogous to one in I's. 1'234 (MT).
In that passage a questionable word (rendered in EV ' llie
proud ') is represented \n the mg. as Ix-ing really two words, one
of which is c':v. It is more than prolwble that ' an ass's head '*
(lICrrCK-l) should be C'c'ny "C.^, 'a homer of lentils," and 'doves'
dung ' (C':i' "in) should be C'3'~n, ' jkxIs of the carob tree ' (see
Husks). That the ancients agreed with MT and that the correct-
ness of the reading can be defended (see Post in Hastings' />'/>,
s.v.) by observation of the habits of pigeons is no reason why
we .should acquiesce in it ; similarly we might defend the painful
figure of the 'snail' in Ps. 588(9] (*«« .Snail, 2). For the
attempts of modern writers to mitigate the unpleasantness of
the expression ' dove's dung ' by finding some plant which might
have been so called, see articles in Smiths and Hastings'
dictionaries. Two illustrative pa.s.sages(2 K. 18 27 Is. 1 20) have,
we may believe, been recovered by similar corrections of the
text, one certain, the other highly probable. See HcsKS.
T. K. C.
1 In NT times doves for such purposes were sold in the temple
itself (Mt. 21 12 Mk. 11 15 Jn. 2 14 16).
' On the whole subject see Bochart, Hiero-. ii. 1 1 and WHS
Kin. iqd/. ; RSfl) 2 19 n. 2, 294, etc. Cp also, for ' dove " oracles,
Frazer, Paus. 4 ng/. The white dove was especially venerated ;
Tibullus, 1 7 : 'alba Palastino sancta columba Syro.'
' I'his is a euphemistic substitute. Some authorities recognise
C>3V> 'doves,' as an element in the phrase (so KOn. Lektycb.
I 2 102) ; others take ji to be simply a termination (Ginsb. Introd.
j 346, ' decayed leaves '),
4 Such ' unclean ' food was not likely to be exposed for sale
' even during a siege. And why specially the head ?
DOWRY
DOWRY. For Gen. 34 12 Ex. 22 17 [16] i S. 1825t
("no, mdhar; (f>fpin^ ; dos [in S. sfionsalia]), see Marriage, § i.
For Gen. 30 sot C^J. zcl>c<i), see Zkiiulun.
DRACHM, RV Drachma (Araxmh), Tob. Sm
2 Mace. 4 19 10 20 1243. See Money.
DRAG (nnrODp), Hab. 1 15/ See Fisu, § 3.
DRAGON (pan; Arakcon)-
For Dt. 3233 KV P<. 01 13 (RV 'serpent') see Seri-ent, S i
II ; and for Ps. US 7 (RV'iui.'. ' se.-i-monsters ' or 'waterspouts').
Serpent, § 3 (/) n. For the ' dragons ' (D'jn, |'3ri, nijn [sing.
|n] : in Lam. 43 AV ' sea-monsters,' AVmg. ' sea-calves ')of Mai.
1 3 etc. see Jackals (so RV).
In addition to the passages in which the term tannin
is used of a natural species of animals (such as Gen. 1 21
1. Mythological ^^ ' sea -monsters,' AV Whale
allusions in
[y.i'.]; Ex. 79/. EV Sekpent
OT and NT t'/-^']) there are various longer or
shorter passages in which a mytho-
logical or semi-mythological e.xplanation of the term
may be reasonably sup|X)sed. Some of these have
been, with more or less fulness, treated elsewhere, and
may therefore be here considered more briefly.
The passages are as follows (for discussion, see § 3yC) — (a)
Is. 27 I (see Behemoth ano Leviatman, § 3 [yT]) ; ip) Is. 61 9
(see RAHAfi); (c) ler. 51 34 (see Jonah, ii. § 4); {if) Ezek.
29 3-6, ' I will attack thee, Pharaoh king of Kgypt, thou great
dragon,! which liest in the midst of thy streams, which hast
said, Mine are the streanis,2 1 have made them. I will put
hooks in thy jaws, and cause the fish of thy streams to stick to
thy scales. I will bring thee up out of thy streams ... I will
hurl thee into the desert, thee and all the fish of thy streams ;
upon the open country shall thou fall ; thou shalt not be taken
up nor gathered. . . .' (e) Ezek. 32 2-8, '. . . as for thee, thou
wast like the dragon 3 in the sea, thou didst break forth with
thy streams, didst trouble the water with thy feet, and didst
foul its streams. Thus saith Vahwe, I will spread my net
over thee, and bring thee up into my snare. I will lay thy flesh
upon the mountains, and fill the vallejf with thy corruption.'* . . .
I will cover the heavens at thy setting, and clothe its stars in
mourning. . . .' (/") Job 7 12, ' Am I the sea or the dragon, 3
that thou settest watchers against me?' (^) Neh. 2 13, ' before
the dragon-well.' These are probably all the passages in the
Hebrew OT ; for Ps. 4419(20], ref^-Tred to by Gunkel in this
connection, is certaiily corrupt; but (/i) Esth. 10 7 [4] lie [5],
(J) Bel and the Dragon, and (jc) Ps. Sol. 2 28-34 have to be
grouped with them (see § 3).
The N r references are all in Revelation, viz., in (w) 12 3-17,
(«) 13 2 4 1 1, (<;) 10 13, (/) 20 2 ; cp 12 9.
These last require to be treated separately, but with
due cognisance of that old Babylonian dragon-myth,
j__ uncomprehended fragments of which
T-afoVarK^os c'^culated in the eschatological tradition
reierences. ^^ antichrist {q.v.). The dragon
which souglit to devour the child of the woman is the
very same development of Babylonian mythology which
lies at the base of Jer. 51 34. From a Jewish point of
view the woman (cp Mic. 4 10) is either the earthly or
the heavenly Zion, and the dragon (originally Tiamat)
with its seven heads* is Armilos, or Kyc'l (' the wicked
one ' ; cp 2 Thess. 23 8), i.e., Rome, the new Babylon,
which is identified with ' the ancient serpent," en:
"Onp'T (cp Rev. I29, and see Weber, Jiid. Theol. 218).
The storming of heaven by the dragon is also Baby-
lonian ; it is the primeval rebellion of Tiamat (see
Cke.\tion, § 2) transferred to the latter days^ (cp
Eph. 612, the spiritual hosts of wickedness iv roh
iirovpavloii). The additions of the apocalyptic writer
do not concern us here.^ On the affinities of Rev. 12 4
to a Greek myth see Hellenis.m, § 8.
1 Reading p3? for C'^n of MT.
2 Reading Cnk; (0 Gunkel).
« pan (.W 'whale,' RV 'sea-monster').
♦ Reading "H^'l (Symm., Pesh., Rodiger, Gunkel).
* Cp the ' great serpent of seven heads ' in a primitive Sumerian
poem (Sayce, Hibb. Led. 282).
6 Cp Charles, .Secrets 0/ Enoch, 9 (note on chap, i) ; Brandt,
ManddUche Schr'/ten, 137^ (the latter cited by Bousset).
7 Cp Bousset, Der Antichrist, T 173, and the same writer's
conmientary on the Apocalypse ; see also Ai-OCALVI'SE, § 41.
DRAGON
We pass on to (A) Esth. 10 7 [4] 1 1 6. Two dragons come forth
to fight against tiie 'righteous i)eoj)lc,' i.e.. the Jews (cp Jer.
T (W ^^ ^*^' ^ '"^''^ '"''^ interpreted in the story as
3. in OT Mardocheus and Aman, and the justification
Apocryph. of this is that tliey fight together as Mordecai
contended with Hamaii. Tliis is evidently
a late modification of an uncomprehended traditional story.
The connection of the dragons with water is eviUefitly .in echo
of the Tiamat myth. The writer, however, did not uiKierstand
it, and explained the 'much water' of Esther, {i) Bel and the
Dragon sirikes us at once by its Babylonian colouring. That
it is D.aniel, not a god, who kills the Dragon, is an alteration
natural to Haggadic stories, to which, as Ball has shown, tliis
story belongs. No trace remains of the old myth beyond what
is found in Jer. 51 34. {k) Ps. Sol. 228-34 is a picture of the
fate of Pompey, the profaner of the temple, which would be
liy|>:rbolical if it were not obviously coloured by a semi-mythical
tradition.
Resuming the consitleration of {a) — i.e.. Is. 27 1 — we
notice that the two Leviathans and the Dragon in the
4. OT allusions ■'^'^ '^^ distinctly mythical forms (the
I
considered.
two former, differentiations of Tiamat;
the latter, Kingu, Tiamat's husband) ;
they are identified by the apocalyptist (see Intr. Is. 155)
with the three great jxiwers hostile to the Jews, —
Babylonia, Persia, and I-gypt. The reference to the
sea confirms the mythological origin of the e.xpression,
for Tiamat is the personification of the primeval ocean. ^
On Yahwe's sword see Gen. 824, and cp Marduk's
weapon, called in Creation tablet iv. /. 49, abiibtc,
' storm ' (cp //. 30 39). As to {b), note again the two
conquered monsters (Rahab and the Dragon), and the
connection with the sea in v. 10. The old myth is ap-
plied to the passage of the Israelites through the Red
Sea ; but the api>lication would have been impossible had
not the destruction of Rahab and the Dragon been
equivalent to the subjugation of the sea. The poet
does not say, but obviously supposes, that Rahab and
Pharaoh are in some sense identical, just as in Rev.
12 the impious power of Rome is identified with the
Dragon. The ' shattering ' of Rahab is repeated from
the Babylonian myth.
Of (t) nothing more need now be said (see Jonah) ;
but ((/) and (c) require to be clearly interpreted. It is
not to an ordinary crocodile that Pharaoh is compared.
The 'hyperbolical' language would, in this ca.se, be
intolerable. It is the despotic and blasphemous dragon
Tiamat. The blasphemy is at once explained when we
remember that Tiamat was originally a divine beings
older in fact than the gods. The denial of burial to
Pharaoh is of course explicable out of mere vindictive-
ness ; but it is a worthier sujiposition that we have here
a somewhat pale reflection of the outrages infiicted on
the Ixjdy of Tiamat by the young sun-god Marduk. T he
' hook' reminds us of Job 41 1 [4025] (Leviathan) ; the
net, of a striking detail in Creation- tablet iv. , ii. 95,
112.- The 'setting' of the dragon implies that there was
a constellation identified with the dragon (cp Lockyer,
Dazvn of Astronomy, 137, 146). In (/) the combina-
tion of 'sea' and 'dragon,' and the occurrence of
references elsewhere in Job to Rahab and Leviathan,
sufficiently prove the mythological affinities of the
passage. The Dragon was, according to one current
version of the old myth, not destroyed, but placed in
confinement (cp Job 38 41). Cp the stress laid in Job
388-11 Ps. 10j59 336 [7] 657/ on the long-past subju-
gation of the sea by Yahwe.
One passage only remains {s;). The term ' dragon-
well ' suggests a different class of myths — those in
•which the sui-)ernatural serpent is a friendly being.
Primitive sanctuaries were often at wells (En-ROGEI.),
and serpents love moist places.-* Serpents, too, are the
1 Rashi, on Is. 27 1, remarks that the ' coiled ' Leviathan
encompa.sses the earth (c'?lj'n '^3 TIN fi'po). Cp Griinbaum,
ZD.MGZ\ 275. The 'coils' of the Egyptian Leviathan (ApOpi)
were in heaven (Book of Hade.s, RP 12 13). ApOpi seems ulti-
mately identical with Tiamat ; but the details of the myth are
i:gyptian.
2 Cp Lyon,/5/. 14 132.
3 Schick and Baldensperger (PEFQ ['98], p. 23 ; ['99), p. 57)
state that long worms and serpents abound in and n.ar the
DRAGON
emblems of healing (cp Nu. 21 5-9). and sacred wells |
are often also healing wells. The intermittent character
of St. Mary's Wdl (connectccl with the lower Pool of
Siloah) is accounted for in folklore by the story that a
great drajjon who lies there makes the water gush forth
in his sleep. Cp also the dragon-myth connected with
the Oronles. the serix.-nt's pool, Jos. lij v. 82, and the
serpent myths of the ancient Arabs (WRS Rel. Sem<^\
131. 171). and see Zohkleth.
Thus we have two views of the dragon represented, —
as a friendly and as a hostile Ixjing. Into the wider
_ _ . , . subject suggested by this result we
e.Babyloman .-amiot enter now (cp Skkpknt). It
origin of myth, j^ ^^^^^ important to consider the
question. How came these" only half-understood myths,
represented by liehemoth, I^evialhati, kahab, and the
inclusive appKjllation Dragon, to Ix; so prominent ? We
have already seen that they are not of native Palestinian
growth, but (apart from the myth of the Dragon's Well)
of Babylonian origin. Not that every important
Dragon-myth in Asiatic couiitries must necessarily be
derived ultimately from Babylon — this would be an
unscientific theory — but that for the myths now under
consideration the evidence points unmistakably to a
Babylonian origin. If we ask how these myths
came to be so prominent, the answer is that a great
revival of mythology took place among the Jews, under
Rabylonian influences, in e.xilic and post-exilic times.
Jewish folklore became more assimilated to that of the
other nations, and the leaders of religion permitted what
they could not prevent, with the object of impressing
an orthodox stamp on {X)pular beliefs. This has long
since been notice<i, especially by the present writer in a
series of works (see also Ckkation, § 23), where it is
pwinted out that the Dragon-myth comes from pre-
Semitic (Babylonian) times, and where several explana-
tions are indicated as perhaps equally historical. ^ Like
other interpreters who used the mythological clue, how-
ever, he was not clear enough as to the nature of the
conflict between the God of light and the serpent, referred
to in Job9i3 Is. 51 9 ctc.'^ Continued study of the
new cuneiform material has done much to clear up his
difficulties, one of which may be expressed thus. The
Babylonian epic spoke of Tiamat as having been de-
stroyed by the God of light, whereas certain biblical
passages appeared to descrilx; the dragon as still existing
' in the sea,' as capable of being ' aroused' by magicians,
and as destined to be slain by Yahw^'s sword. Hence
it seemed as if there was a Hebrew myth (of non-
Hebraic origin) which re[)resented the war between the
God of light and the serpent of darkness as still going
on, and Kgyptian parallels seemed to teach us how to
conceive of this.^ The defeat and destruction of the
gigantic serpent Apopi and his heli^ers, when chaos
gave way to order and darkness to lit;ht, was not
absolute and final. They still seemed to the Egyptians
to menace the order of nature, and in his daily voyage
the sun is threatened by the serpent, and has a time of
anguish. When they see this, human folk seek to
frighten the monster by a loud clamour, and so to
help the sun. The sun's boatmen, too, have recourse
to prayers and spear-thrusts. At last, paralysed and
wounded, Apopi sinks back into the abyss. Gunkel,
however, has shown "• for the first time that Babylonian
Birket es-Sultiin ; the latter writer suggests that this may have
helped to fix the n.ime to ihe locality.
1 For a Phoenician dragon-myth, see Daniasc. De print, princ.
133, and !■ us. Pnup. Kv.\\o (ap. Lcnormant, Les Origines,
151.V535. 55>)-
2 Proph. Is. 1 159 231 ; Jofi and Solomon, 76-78: cp Crit.
Rr:\, July 1S95, p. 262.
3 Jo/> ami SoL'ition, 76 : cp Maspero, op. cit. 90 /. 159.
Book 0/ the Dead, 15 39 ; Book 0/ Hades, transl. by Lefibure,
RP, 12 13.
* Sclu'ip/ung u. Chaos, 41-69. This is not the place to discuss
the points in which the present writer differs from (junkel (see
Crit. Rev., 189s, p. 256^), whose general view of the earlier
period of Israelitish belief is perhaps too much in advance of the
evidence.
"33
DRAM
mythology will account for all the details of the biblical
descriptions which an accurate exegesis will admit. We
need not suppose a reference to the niyth of the daily
struggle between the Light-god and the serpent. The
Tiamat story, iis known to the Jews, was briefly this.
At the commencement of cTeation, Tiimat was, accord-
ing to some, destroyed, according to others, completely
sulxlued and confined in the ocean which encompasses
the earth. Without God's permission he can henceforth
do nothing. Only Ihe angelic jxjwers, commissioned
by (jod to keep watch over Leviathan, can 'arouse'
him and even they 'shudder' as they do so (see Be-
HK.MOTii A.M) Lkviatiia.v). This form of the story
- T_*^ became popular in later biblical times,
6. Later , T . .i. r
biblical '^''^^"^^ " "i"^' *"^ requirements of apoca-
. . lyptic writing. It was a necessity of biblical
idealism to anticip.Ue a return of the ' first
things,' of Paradise and its felicity. Evil seemed to
have been intensified ; the reign of Tiamat was renewed,
as it were, upon the e;irth. A deliverance as great as
that wrought by Yahw6 (a greater Marduk) of old must
therefore be anticipated, and the struggle which would
precede it would be as severe as that which took place
at the creation. Then would ' the old things pass
away, and all things Ijecome new.' It is not
improbable, as Budge long ago pointed out (PSIiA,
['83], 6), that Tiamat in course of time acquired a
symbolic meaning ; certainly the serpent of Kg)'ptian,
and not less of Jewish, belief acquired one. The
moralisation of the old dragon-myth is recorded in the
mysterious but fascinating story of Antichrist [q.v.^
On the twofold representation of Tiamat (dragon and
serpent), see SiCRrKNT, § 3/.
Into the dragon-myth.< of non-Semitic peoples frequently
adduced to illustrate Job 38, it is not necessary to enter. The
Semitic material has been growing to such a considerable mass
that it is wise to restrict ourselves at present to this. Otherwise
we might discuss a striking passage in T/u' Times, Jan. 24, i898,
on the cry for alms in Hindu quarters for the recovery of the
sun from the jaws of the dragon Rahu. Jan. 22, 1898, was the
day of a solar eclipse. Cp Kci.ihsk, S 2-
'ihe fullest Knglish investigation of the different forms taken
by the mythic dragon is to be found in \V. H. Ward's article
'Bel and the Dragon" {Am. Journal 0/
7. Literature. ^</«. Lang, and Lit., Jan. 1898, p. 94^).
In early Babylonian art the dragon does not
represent Tiamat the chaos-dragon, but a destructive demon of
pestilence or torn^ido. '1 he sex ol the dragon is not as a rule
indicated in the primitive representations, even when the dragon
is given together with a god (or godtless) ; an exception however
is figured by Ward, in which the dragon appears to be male.
In the Assyrian period, to which the representations of the
conflict between Alarduk and the Dragon belong, the dragon is
of the male .sex, which reminds us that the evil serpent .■\hriman
in Persian mythology is male. It is very possible that in the
oldest Babylonian representations the dragon was female (cp
Dkki', Till-;). With regard to the view (implied in parts of the
OT) th;it the chaos-dragon was not slain, but only sulxlued by
the Light -god, we may compare some Babyloni.in cylinders,
older than Hammurabi, which represent the dragon as h.irnessed
in a chariot and driven by Bel while a goddess stands on his
back and wields the thunderbolt ; or else the god stands on the
back of the dragon. The Assyrian representations do not, it is
true, show that the dragon was slain ; but the natural supposition
is that the conflict ended in his destruction.
See also Gunkel, Schdp/. u. Chaos; Toy, Judaism and
Christianity, 162, 195, 200 (n.), 375 ; Maspero, Struggle 0/ th*
Nations; Brugsch, Religion u. Mvthologie der alten Agypter ;
Wiedemann, Kgyptian Religion ; housset, Der Antichrist {'^),
pp. 04, 97 ; and, for a popular summary of facts on the Dragon-
myth, A. Smylhe Palmer, Babylonian Jnjiuence on ike Bihlt
('■J7)- T. K. C.
DRAGON WELL {\'l7\r\ pr ; nnrH TtON cykojn
[BX.\1. n. TOY ArAKONTOC [L] ; fons draconis;
^A^^k >r *>- ) N'eh. 2 lit- For topography see
GiHoN, Jkrusalem, and for folklore see Dkagon,
§ 4 (.^)-
DRAM,RVDaric. The rendering of two late Hebrew
words: {a) D*33"llS, iCh. 29 7 Kzra 827t— /.f. , ap-
parently AarcIKOC (^yr- )jaJJ*>?. MH paOTl, pi.
niyiS'l'il [Dalman]), or cp Ass. dariku (pi. darikanu)
• piece of money ' Muss-Amolt ; and (i) D^JlilD^'l^,
"34
DREAMS
dark'monim, Ezra 269Neh. 77q^,tapparentlyApAXAAH-^
Possibly a loan-word (Asiatic) in both Heb. and Gr. ,
see Ew. GGA, 1855, 1392/:; 1856, 798; and cp
BDB, S.V.
The Vss. give SpaxinaC [L], d'riktlria [Pesh. except iCh.],
soliiius [Vg., ill Neh. drachma]. But in i Ch. xpv(iov'i[\i\\,
SpaxfiaC [HP '93), jmT, Targ. (see Lag. //a^. 23), Pesh.
apparently connected 'K with TJON 'lead.' In Ezra 827 ei? rriv
oSbi/ xaM""'«'M ['^1 • • • SpaxH^di [AL] agree in presupposing
D'3D3 + 3TlS i-e-yi; II i Esd. 857 [56] BAL cm. Ezra 269 ixvii
[BA] il I Esd. 545 [44] /Ltrat [BAL]. Neh. "70-72 BNA cm., but
vop.iap.a.TO'; [Sixt.] v. 71, and vop.ia'ti.atj-i.v [N '_ ] v. 72.
According to the commonly accepted view a and b are
identical and mean 'darics.' Against this two objections may
be urged : (i) the ^in b is left unexplained, and (2) the form a,
which alone supports this meaning, is untrustworthy. In i Ch.
it is doubtful (i3T D'^DIINI ^^V '^^ ^ g'oss : the amount of gold
has been already mentioned), and in Ezra 827 the better
reading is Q-jlODin (see above). The form pSDIl {^po-XM) '^
preferable, not for this reason alone, but also on account of its
identity with the Pha:n. cja^-n (pl.),^ which, as the analogy
from Gk. inscriptions shows, must represent Bpaxt^a^i- . The
occurrence of this Gk. (or Asiatic?) word in Ezra- Neh. is due
perhaps to repeated glosses: cp Ezra 827 with i Esd. 857 and
observe that in some of the passages (above) BA omit. See
further Money, Weights and Measures. 3 s. A. C.
DREAMS (niO^H), Zech. IO2, etc. ; see Divina-
tion, § 2 (vi. ).
DRESS. A complete discussion of the subject of
ancient Israelitish dress (including toilet and ornaments)
is impossible with our present limited knowledge. It
is true, the Assyrian and Egyptian artists had keen eyes
for costume ; but trustworthy representations of Israelites
are unfortunately few. It might be tempting to fill up
this lacuna by noting the usages of dress in the
modern East. This, however, would be an uncritical
procedure. We might presume on obtaining more
than analogies from the customs of the present ; but
common sense shows that to look for a Hebrew equiva-
lent to every modern garment would be unnatural.
Consequently, in spite of the scantiness of detail in the
OT, we must base our conceptions upon O T evidence
(viewed in the light of criticism) treated by the com-
parative method.
There are several general terms in Hebrew for
'dress,' 'garments,' 'attire.' It is needful to give
details, as there are distinctions of some
importance which could not be brought
out otherwise.
1. nj2, begi'd (cp perh. Ar. bijad ; we cannot assume
a root meaning ' to cover ' ; the verb n:n known to us
means ' to deal treacherously ' ; it is perhaps a verb
denom. ),* may be used for a garment of any kind
' from the filthy clothing of the leper to the holy robes
of the priest,' for ' the simplest covering of the poor as
well as the costly raiment of the rich and noble'
[/>'/>/?]; for women's dress (Dt. 24 17; cp Gen. 8814),
for royal robes (i K. 2^30), and apparently once for
the outer robe or Mantlk (2 K. 913); also for the
coverlet of a bed (i S. 19 13 i K. li), and for the
covering of the tabernacle furniture (Nu. 46-13 P. ).
2. uh^, g'lo7n, Ezek. 2724, AV 'clothes,' RV 'wrap-
pings,' mg. ' bales.' Prof Cheyne writes : ' The exist-
ence of an old Hebrew root d^i ' ' to roll together " is not
proved by 2 K. -JS Ps. 139 16; both passages are very
doubtful, and can be emended with much advantage.
1 Cp, e.,^., Torrey, Comp. Ezr. Neh. 18: 'the one obviously
corresponding to iapeiKos, the other to hpa.x^")•
2 A Phoenician inscription of the first century B.C. from the
Piraeus : see Lidzbarski, Handh. d. Nordsevi. Epi^r. 160.
3 See also Meyer, Entst. 196/, Prince, Daniel, 26s ('99).
From Ezra 269 (Neh. 770-72 [see ®i-]) compared with i Esd.
545 it would seem that 6i D'3DD"n=' '*"" ('^P '^^ """y^'
maneh of 60 shekels). In ©, however, the Heb. 'ipe* is repre-
sented by SiSpaxfiOu, and Spaxinrj represents the ypa or half-
shekel ; cp Gen. 24 22 Ex. 8826.
■1 So Gerber, //e6r. Verb. Denom. 2/. The verb 133 is found
only in E, and later. See, e.g., Ex. 2I7 Judg. 923 ; i S. 1433 is
probably no exception.
"35
1. General
terms.
DRESS
DiSa plainly = p'?3 in Is. 823, which Peiser identifies with
Bab. gulinu, a kind of garment ' ( ZA T IV [' gy], 17 348).
Cp Chest.
3. '^3, k'ii, a word of the widest signification, is (like
the German 2^ug) used of garments in Dt. 22s ("15J d)
Lev. 1849 ("liy'^).
4. niD3, k'sfith, 'covering,' Ex. 21 10 2226 etc.,
restored by Gratz, Ball, and Cheyne in Gen. 49 n ^ (MT
n?D II B'U'7, irepi^oXr], pallium), and by Cheyne in Ps. I'Ad
Prov. 7 10 (MT n-TSr EV 'garment,' 'attire'). C])
.^D^p Is. 23 18 (EV ' clothing ') ; see Awning.
5. v^zh, I'bt'J (the root ca"? ' to wear, put on ' is
found in all the Semitic languages), a general term (not
so frequent as i . ) ; used of the dress of women
(2 S. I24 Prov. 31 22), etc. Cognates are c^oSa, 2 K.
IO22 (EV 'vestment') etc., and T\^lhn Is. 59 i7t
' clothing.'
We turn now to the Hebrew terms denoting particular
articles of dress. It is one of the defects of the EV
„ . . that the same English word is often used
* P to represent several distinct Hebrew terms,
and that, vice versa, the same Hebrew term
is rendered by different English words (promiscuously).
This is due partly to the difficulty of finding an e.xact
equivalent for many of the Hebrew terms, partly to our
ignorance of their precise meaning, and the uncertainty
of tradition as represented by the versions. Rabbinical
exegesis,-* etc.
Of the numerous Hebrew terms denoting articles of
dress, those referring to the feet are discussed under
Shoe. For the various head-dresses {-\nz, <"j'JS. etc. ) see
Turban. One of the special terms for garments worn
about the body is niix, 'ezor, ' kilt ' or ' loin-cloth ' (see
Girdle).'* Out of this an evolutionary process has
brought breeches (cp Ar. mi'zdr), which, however,
among the Hebrews appear first as a late priestly
garment (viz. o'DJ^a) ; see Breeches. For the ordinary
under-garment worn next the skin (njhs), see Tunic.
The over-garment (corresponding roughly to the Gr.
Ifxariov and Roman toga) varied in size, in shape, and
in richness, and had several distinct names [simlah,
etc. ), for which see Mantle.
Certain classes and certain occasions required special
dresses. The clothing of ambassadors is called cna
. . {meddwi7n?), 2 .S. IO4 = i Ch. 19 4, EV
3. bpeciai . gjjrnients. ' A kindred word ' mad' (fem.
garments. „„-,/^^^;,_ jf the text of Ps. 1332 is correct) ^
is used of the priestly garb in Lev. 610 [3], Ps. I.e.
(^vSvfxa) ; of the outer garment of the warrior (plur.
only)" in Judg. 3 16 (EV 'raiment'), i S. 4 12 (EV
'clothes'), 1738 (AV 'armour,' RV 'apparel'), 184
(AV 'garments,' RV 'apparel'), and 2 S. 208 (AV
'garment,' RV 'apparel of war')''; ©"-^l in all
passages fiavdvas, except i S. 4 12, where ifidrLa. The
mud of the warrior was perhaps some stiff garment
which was a (poor) substitute for a coat of mail. In
Ps. 109 18 mad is used of the dress of the wicked tyrant
1 Others cp Ph. n^lD and Heb. n\00 (Ex. 34 33 where Che.
reads HD^s).
2 Others vocalise n;^ {ZDMG 37 535 ; properly ' that which
is set ' upon one).
* So for the obscure Aram. z'^S (Dan. 3 21 Isre) we find such
remarkable variant renderings as 'hosen'(AV), ' tunics ' (RV),
and 'turbans' (RVmg.).
* We may compare the sak of camel's or goat's hair which,
like other primitive garments, long continued to form a garb of
mourning. The sak was perhaps identical with the kilt of the
ancient Egyptians, for which see Wilk. Anc. Eg.i"^) 2322.
5 Che. (^^.(2)) reads "laisn 'JS^'??/, 'on the surface of the
desert.'
« On 2 S. 208 see next note.
7 In2S.208^lJ^should probably be cancelled ; note the Pasek,
so often placed in doubtful passages. Read I'lO &,y7. See
Lohr and cp We. ad he. For other views see Klo., H. P. Sm.
I136
DRESS
who is cursed (but the whole passage is in disorder ;
see Che. Ps.'-^). In the Tahn. kid is a robe distinctive
of the JVdsl' or prince. On the priestly head-dress,
see MlTKE ; the priests in later tinies indulged in
sumptuous apparel.' In Talinudic times Rabbis wore
a special dress, and were crowned until the death of
Eliezer b. Azarya {'Fosifta, Sotah, 15). In Habylonia
a golden ordination robe was used at the conferring
of the Rabbinical dignity. A festive garb was worn
at the creation of an lilder {zdken)\ the Nasi' had a
speci.-il mantle, the Exilarch a girdle.'-* For the king's
regalia see CoRON.vnoN, Ckown, § 2. On the
warrior's dress we can add very little. R\'"'»f- finds
the military boot (['ikd) in Is. 94 [3] ; and a reference to
the distinctive outer garment [maddim) of the warrior,
and to his shoes, has been conjectured in Nah. 24a
[3rt].' See also Hki.MKT. For bridal attire (cp Is.
49i8 61 10, (v5v/M ydfiov Mt. 22ii)see M.\rriaue, §3,
and for the garb of mourning C^aK .icjro Is. 61 3, 'j< nJ3
2 S. 142), see Mourning Cistoms.
With the exce|)ti<)n of the swaddling-clothes of the new-
born b.dje (/iiif/i//l/uk, Job 889 ; cp verb in Ezek. 16 4 ;
awdpyavof , W'isd. 7 4 \ cp Lk. 27 12), children seem to
have hail no distinctive dress. The boy Samuel wore a
a small ;«<''/7 (see Mantlk), and if the lad Joseph
possessed a special kuttoneth (see TiNic), it was
regarded by the narrator in Genesis as exceiJtional. In
Talmudic times boys wore a peculiar shirt (Kpi:'T p-hn
Shabb. i34<0--'
In ancient times, dress depended to a large e.xtent
on climatic considerations. The simplest and most
primitive covering was the loin-cloth (see
4. History.
Girdi.k), a valuable safeguard in tropical
climates, adopted perhaps for this reason rather than
from the feeling of shame to which its origin was after-
wards traced ((jen. 87). The use of sandals in early
times was not looked upon as an absolute necessity (see
Shoks), and although the Tukb.XN in some form or
other may be old, the custom of wearing the hair long
was for very many a sufficient protection for the head.
It is iiiij)ossible to say how early the ordinary Israelite
assumed the two garments (tunic and mantle) which
became the common attire of both sexes. The
garments of the women probably differed in length and
in colour from those of the men — Dt. 22 s leaves no
doubt as to the fact that there was some distinction.
Several terms are conmion to the dress of both sexes
{beged, kuttCmeth, simUih, etc. ) ; for some distinctive
terms see Vail, and cp Tunic, Mantle. The Jewish
prisoners pictured on the marble-reliefs of Sennacherib
are bareheaded and wear short-sleeved tunics reaching
to the ankles. This costume differs so markedly from
the Assyrian, that the artist seems to have been drawing
from life. Jehu's tribute-bearers on Shalmaneser's
obelisk wear Assyrian dress and headgear, due probably
to the conventionality of the artist. The Syrian envoy
in a wall painting in the tomb of Hui at el-Kab wears
a dress so unlike the Egyptian that we seem once
more in presence of an autlientic record. The over-
garment of this envoy, which is long and narrow, and
is folded close to the body, is of blue and dark-red
material richly ornamented ; he has yellow underclothes
with narrow sleeves and wears tight breeches. In the
OT, however, there is no indication that such a costume
1 The exact meaning of "niJ'n na3 Ex. 31 10 35 19 39 4it
(AV 'cloths of service," RV 'finely wrought garments') is
very uncertain ; see I)i.-Ky. ad loc, Ges.(13). It is pussilile that
the words are a gloss to enpn nj2 (//•''.), for which cp Ex.
2S2-4 Xmv. 11)32, aiitl the enumeration in Lev. 1(54.
2 Cp Brull, Trachten der Juden(V:\nW\X.wi\^.
S Che. JBL 17 106 ('98), where D"nO or VJD is detected
in the obscure dhnO. and D'Vj':nOi 'put on their shoes,' in
* Possibly the Israelite boys shaved their h.iir and only left
curls hanging over the ear. This was done in ancient Egj-pt,
and the custom prevails at the present time among the Jewish
boys of Yemen.
"37
DRESS
was ever prevalent among the Israelites. For simplicity
of attire it would not l>e easy to surpass the dress of the
Sinaitic IJedawin (see W.M.M As. u. liur. 140), and
this simplicity once doubtless marked the garb of the
Hebrew.' Later, life in cities and contact with foreign
influences paved the way to luxury. The more elabor-
ate dress of the Canajinite would soon be imitated.
Sevend signs of increasing sumptuousncss in dress are
met with in the later writings. The dress at the court
of Solomon is aptly rejjresented as an object of ad-
miration to an Arabian queen (pizSo 1 K. lOs). One
notes that it is in the later writings that several of the
names for articles of dross apjx^ar for the first time.
ICxtra garments and ornaments were added and finer
materials used. The traditional materials of garments
were wool and flax woven by the women ; but now
trade brought purple from Phoenicia, byssus from
I'gypt, and figured embroideries from Babylon (see
E.mhroiuery). That silk was known in the time of
Ezekiel (Ezek. 16 10 13) is doubtful (see Cotton,
LiNKN, Sii.K, Wo(Ji,). New luxurious costumes (cp
V1V30 'tra'?, Ezek. 23 12 884! ; C'SSpo. ib. '11 2^ f.) are a
frequent subject of denunciation in the later pro[)hets,
partly Ixicause of the oppression of the poor involved
in the effort to extort the means of providing them, and
partly Ijecause of the introduction of alien rites and
customs encouraged by contact with foreign merchants.
In later times intercourse with other peoples led to the
introduction of fresh articles of apparel and new terms.
Such for example is the essentially Grecian veraffos (if
correct) of 2 Mace. 4 12 (see C.-\p). Three obscure
words denoting articles of dress, most probably of foreign
origin, are mentioned in the description of the three
who were cast into the fiery furnace (Dan. 821).''^ For
Talnmdic times Schiirer ((f/r23g/.) notes the mention
of CUD {sagian) worn by lalxiurers and soldiers, n'V::!;K
[stola), ]miD {aov5apiov ; see Napkin), p-Sji (inXiov),
N'SsON {ipLirlXia). Among under-garments are the
P'P'cd'jt [dalmattca), according to Epi])hanius {hirr. 15)
worn by scribes ; and the -flyya (paraguudion), of which
the equivalent paregot is used in the .\rmen. \'ers. for
X^Tijiv. To these may be added picpo {mactorcn) an
outer garment, \-:hy'p (ko\6^iov), n'Sn a fringed garment
of fine linen (see Frincjks). Gloves are mentioned
(fp .Top Chelin, 16 16, etc.); but they were worn by
workmen to protect their hands (cp also pn"u Targ. on
Ruth 47).=*
Increased luxury of dress among the Israelites was
accompanied by an excess of ornaments. Ornaments
6. Ornaments, °^ "'i^''^' ^'"'i' ''^''''' ''''''' ^>' ^""^ ''^f
.... ' — prnnanly for protective purposes (as
A.MUi.ETs), at a later time (when their
original purpose was forgotten) to beautify and adorn
the person. The elaborate enumeration of the fine
lady's attire in Is. 8, though not from the hand of
Isaiah (see Isaiah, ii. § 5), is archa-ologically im-
portant. Here the Hebrew women (of the post-exilic
period?), following foreign customs, wear arm-chains,
nose-rings, step-chains, etc., in great profusion. P'or
these cp Ornamknts, and see the separate articles.
On the manner of treating the hair, see Beard,
Cuttings ok the Fi.ksh, § 3 ; Hair, Mourning
Customs. Women cris|>ed their hair, bound it with
veils (see Vail) and Garlands {</.■;■. ), etc. Later, the
Roman habit of curling was introduced (Jos. B/ iv. 9 10).
Washing the body with water was usual on festal
occasions, at bridals (Ezek. I69), at meals (Gen. 25a
19 10 Lk. "44), before formal visits (Ru. 83), before
1 In the Roman period simplicity of attire (.ilmost amounting
to nakedness ; Talm. Sank. ^^/') w.is enforced in the case of
criminals, whilst persons on trial were expected to dress very
soljerly (Jos. Anl. xiv. 94).
a For a discussion of the terms see Cook, /. Phil. 2f, y^ff. Cpp).
8 On these points see BrQll, of>. ci\, and l-evy, SHH 7>, under
the various term.s. For later Jewish dress see .Xbrahams,
Je^visk L'/e in the Middle Ages, chap, xv.y!, and einries in
Index, 440.
I138
DRESS
officiating in the temple, in ritual purifications, and so
forth. Rubbing the body with sand or sherds was also
practised. Unguents prepared by female slaves (i S.
813) or by male professionals (npn) were used after
washing ( Ru. 3 3 Amos 66 etc.) i; see Anointing, § 2,
CoNFECTioNARiES. After the Hellenistic period such
festal customs became more and more elaborate.
The eye-lids of women were painted to make the eyes
larger, kohl being used for the purpose (see Paint).
It is doubtful whether henna dye was placed on nails
and toes.
The references in the EV to dress are so frequent and
the symbolical usages so familiar that a passing glance
^m at them may suffice. Food and clothing
allii i ii<? '^'^ naturally regixrded as the two great
necessaries of life (e.g.. Gen. 2820 i Tim.
68). An outfit is called m:3 -nj; (Judg. 17 10). In
Talmudic times it consisted of eighteen pieces (Jer.
Shabb. 15). Clothes were made by the women (Prov.
31 22 Acts 939), but references to sewing are few (nsn,
Gen. 37 Job 16 15 Eccles. 3? Ezek. 13 18, iirippaTrru
Mk. 221).
Clothes were presented in token of friendship (i S.
I84 ; see WRS A**-/. Sem.^-^ 335). as a proof of affection
(Gen. 4,') 22), and as a gift of honour (i K. IO25 ; cp
Am. Tab. 270). Garments were rent (pip, ms) as a
sign of grief, of despair, of indignation, etc. (see
Mourning Cusro.vis). Shaking the clothes was a sign
of renunciation and abhorrence (Acts 186 ; cp Neh.
513). Promotion was often accompanied by the
assumption of robes of dignity (cp Is. 22 21). So
Eleazar takes the robes of Aaron (Nu. 20 28), and
Elisha the mantle of Elijah (2 K. 2); see also Corona-
tion. Conversely, disrobing might be equivalent to
dismissal (2 Mace. 438). Rich people doubtless had
large wardrobes ; the royal wardrobe (or was it the
wardrobe of the temple?) had a special ' keeper ' (i K.
2214). The danger to such collections from moths (see
Moth) and from the so-called ' plague of leprosy' (see
Leprosy) was no doubt an urgent one. The simile of
a worn-out garment [rhz, cp Dt. 84) is often employed
(cp Is. 5O9 516 Ps. 10226 [27]). Rags are called
D'jnp (Prov. 2321 EV) ; cp also cnSp ""''^3' n'nnpri ".i'?3
'old cast clouts and old rotten rags ' (Jer. 38ii/ RV),
all apparently containing the idea of something rent
(cp poLKos Mt. 9 16 Mk. 22t).
To cast a garment over a woman was in Arabia
equivalent to claiming her.^ Robertson Smith [Kin. 87)
cites a case from Tabari where the heir by
7. Legal
throwing his dress over the widow claimed
° ■ the right to marry her under the dowry paid
by her husband, or to give her in marriage and take the
dowry. This explains Ruth's words (Ruth 89) and the
use of ' garment ' to designate a woman or wife in
Mai. 2 16 (Kin. 87, 269). A benevolent law, found
already in the Book of the Covenant, enacts that every
garment retained by a creditor in pledge shall be
returned before sunset (Ex. 2226) ; the necessity of this
law appears from Am. 28 Ezek. 18 7 16 ; see Pledge.
D's injunction ' a man shall not put on the sitnlah
of a woman,' 'a woman shall not wear the appurte-
nances ('S3) of a man' (Dt. 225) may have been
designed as a safeguard against impropriety ; but more
probably it was directed against the simulated changes
of sex which were so prevalent and demoralising in
Syrian heathenism.' Quite obscure, on the other hand,
is the law prohibiting the layman from wearing garments
made of a mixture of linen and wool (vjo^a, Dt. 22 11
t Amos (66, see Dr. ad loc.) speaks of ' the chief ointments '
(EV), or rather 'the best of oils.'
2 Hence some explain n3 11033 >n Ex. 21 8 to mean that the
master could not sell his female slave ' seeing that (he had
placed) his garment (Jiegtd) over her.' See Slavery.
' See Dr. ad loc., Frazer, Paus. 8197, Ashtoreth, § 2. It
may be doubted whether in ancient times dressing boys as girls
was due, as among later Orientals, to a desire to avert the evil
eye.
"39
DRESS
Lev. 1919; see Linen, 7. n. i). Such garments were
worn by the priests ; ' and the law, which may, like
the term itself, be of foreign origin, is at all events
later than Ezek. 4-1 18. Another law, which ordered
laymen to wear tassels or twisted threads upon the
skirt of their sitnlah, seems to go back to a former
sacred custom (see Fringes). See, further, Shoe, § 4.
G;irments had to be changed or purified U[xjn the
occasion of a religious observance (cp Gen. 802 Ex.
19 10) or before a feast (cp nii3''?n,
Relieion. 'changes,' nisVnn, 'festal robes,' and
see Mantle). Primarily, however,
all festive occasions are sacred occasions, and there
is therefore no real difference between best clothes and
holy clothes. When a garment comes in contact with
anything partaking of a sacred nature it becomes ' holy,'
and, once ' holy,' it must never be worn save on ' holy'
occasions.''^ This is why in early Arabia certain rites
were performed naked or in garments borrowed from
the sanctuary (We. Heid.^^^ 56, no). The same prin-
ciple illustrates the command of Jehu to ' bring forth
vestments for all the worshippers of Baal ' ; the vestments
were in the custody of the keeper of the meltdhdh (2 K.
10 22; text perhaps corrupt : see Vestry). That certain
rites among the Hebrews were performed in a semi-
naked condition seems not improbable. The Ephod
itself was once perhaps nothing more than a loin-cloth
(cp 2 S. 614 16 20, and see EPHOD, § i).^
Elijah's kilt {^ezor) of skin and the prophet's customary
' hairy mantle ' (see Mantle) — in later times often
falsely assumed (Zech. 184) — remind us of the priests
of the Palmetum who were dressed in skins (Strabo xvi.
4 18 ; for other analogies see RS'(^^ 437 f- ) '< * but there is
always a tendency in cults to return to ancient custom
in the performance of sacred rites, and, as Robertson
Smith has shown, later priestly ritual is only a develop-
ment of what was originally observed by all worshippers
when every man was his own priest. The dressing of
worshippers in skins of the sacred kind (cp Esau)
implies that they have come to worship as kinsmen of
the victim and of the god, and in this connection it is
suggestive to rememl>er that the eponyms of the Levites
and Joseph tril^es are the 'wild-cow' (Leah) and the
'ewe' (Rachel) respectively. See Leah, Rachel.
Again, we note that clothing may be looked upon as
forming so far part of a man as to ser\-e as a vehicle of
personal connection. The clothes thus tend to become
identified with the owner, as in the custom alluded to in
Ruth 39 above. The Arab seizes hold of the garments
of the man whose protection he seeks, and ' pluck away
my garments from thine ' in the older literature means
' put an end to our attachment. ' So a man will
deposit with a god a garment or merely a shred of it,
and even to the present day rag-offerings are to be
seen upon the sacred trees of Syria and on the tombs of
Mohammedan saints. They are not gifts in the ordinary
sense, but pledges of the connection between worshipper
and object or person worshipped (^"5(2) 335/). Thus
garments are offered to sacred objects, to wells (ib.
177), but more particularly to trees and idols (see
Nature Worship).' So 2 K. 287 speaks of the women
who wove tunics (so Klo. ) for the asherah. The custom
is not confined to the Semitic world, and instances of
' This is distinctly asserted by Jos. Ant. iv. 8 u- . 'To pray
for a blessing on the flax and sheep,' says Maimonides. This
prohibition in the case of laymen was re-enacted under the
Prankish emperors (Caf>itularium, 646). It is just possible that
the law aimed at marking more distinctly the priest from the
layman.
2 Cp Lev. 627 Hag. 2 12, and, on the contagion of hohness,
cp Ezek. 44 19 and see Clean, § 2. On Is. (55 5 (where point
thePi-el)see/?5(2)45i, n. 1.
3 Verse 14^, however, may be an addition. For Ex. 20 26 cp
Breeches, 3.
4 In Zeph. 1 8 the wearing of ' strange garments ' (nDJ »137P)
IS associated with foreign worship (cp v. 0).
* Cp Bertholet, Israel. Vorstcllungen v. Zustaml nock d.
Tode ('99).
DRINK OFFERING
draped images in Circece arc collected by Frazer {Pa us.
2574/). ■ 'l"he (ireek images,' he observes, 'which
atv hihiorically known to have worn real clothes seem
generally to have been remarkable for their great
antiquity. ' The custom does not seem to be indigenous ;
it was probably Ixjrrowed from the East. ' The counter-
part of the custom of offering a garment to the sanctified
object is the wearing of something which has been in
contact with it. At the present day in Palestine the
man who hangs a rag upon a sacred tree takes away,
as a preservative against evil, one of the rags that have
iKJcn sanctified by hanging there for some time (see
FEFQ, 1893, p. 204). The custom of wearing sacred
relics as charms is clearly parallel. Now, just as the
priests had their special garments, so particular vestments
were used for purposes of divination. Thus a magician
wears the clothes of Kr-ti — i.e. , Eridu, a town mentioned
often in Babylonian incantations ( Del. Ass. //WO 371^).
Another instance of the wearing of special dress is cited by
Kriedrich Uelitzsch in Haer's Fsei'. p. xiii. An important
parallel to this custom ap[jcars in Ezekiel's denunciation
of the false projjhctesses '^ and the divination to which
they resorted (i-^zek. 13 17-23). Two sp«'cial articles are
mentioned: (a) mnC3. ICsathoth, 'bands' or fetters'^
worn upon the arms (cp the use of Fronti.kt.s [17. ^'.]),
and {h) ninsos. ' long mantles ' (evi(i6\aia [BA(^J,
irfpt)3. [At-. 21], Pesh. taksitha, mand, EV incorrectly
Ki:rchii:is), which were placed over the head of the
diviner.* It becomes very tempting to conjecture that
these garments were not merely special garments, but
the garments actually worn by the deity or sacred
object itself, since it is plausible to infer that they would
be held to be permeated with the sanctity of the deified
object and that supernatural power might be thus im-
parted to the wearer.* It is true, the link is still
missing to connect the diviner's garb with that of the
clothed image ; but such a conjecture as this would seem
to explain how the use of ' Ephod,' as an article of
divination, in its twofold sense of image and garment
(in which it has been clothed), might have arisen (cp
Bertholet on Ezek. 13 18) ; see Ephod.
See Weiss, Ki'stumkunde, i. ch. 5 ; Nowack, HA, § 20 ; Ben-
zinger, H.\, § 16; and the special articles referred to in the
course of this summary I. a. — S. A. <, .
DRINK OFFERING ("^D:), Gen. 35 14; see Sacri-
fice ; cp RniAL, § I.
DROMEDARY. The word nn3"l3. kirkdroth, is
rendered 'dromedaries' in Is. 6620, RV°«- (so Boch. ,
Ges.,Che.,Di. ,Duhm. ; ci)"13"l3 • to whirl about' and EV
' swift beasts ' ). The rendering ' panniers ' (cp /ierd oki-
aSiuv [BXAQ]; Sym. ^1/ (popeioi^) has little in its favour.
For Jer. 223 (nnqS) and Is. 606 (/>/. plur.)— EV 'dromedary,'
RVmg. correctly 'young camel'— see Camel, | i, n. For
1 K. 4 28 (f.R] (r21) and Esth. 8io(D'3S>T '32) see HoRSK, § i [4].
DRUSILLA (ApoyciAAa [Ti. WH]). Acts 2424-
See IIi:kouian F.amily, 10.
DUKE had not yet become a title when the AV was
made, but was still employed in its literal sense of any
dux or chief: cp //c«. /'. iii. 223 : 'Be merciful, great
du/ee (viz., Fluellen), to men of mould." With but two
J The brazen statue in Elis bears the title of Satrap and seems
to be of E.istern origin (Frazer, "J 575).
2 The importance of women in divination will_ not be over-
looked. One notes how frequently the Grecian images, above
referred to, represent goddesses.
' Sec Cuttings, § 7, n. ; but '3 might also mean garments,
cp Ass. kusUu.
* It is surely wrong to suppose that the mantles were worn
by the enquirer. We have to read the fern, suffix in 'nSOO
(r. i\a ; cp the fern, suffix in 'ninCD ^' 'o^) I there is a similar
error in 03315; v. 19^. ,nD1p"'?3 (J'- 18) should probably be
emended to ncpp"73, 'every diviner.'
• Cp A'.VPl 438 and see Sacrifice. This may have given
rise to the ficurc ' robe of righteousness' and other well-known
u.sages, cp also Job 29 14, ' I put on truth and it clothed me
('iraS'l) '—'■'•. became, as it were, incarnate in me.
II41
DURA
exceptions (.see i, below) this now misleading term has
given place in RV to a more mo<lern equivalent.
I. I'?!*' (^(woi' [UAL]), a title applied to the Kdomite
•chiefs '(so RVniif. only) in Clen. 8615^. 1 Ch. 151^. (cp Ex.
15 15 EV, and see Euo.M, | j); but also (rarely-) to the 'chief-
tains' (so RV) of Judah (Zcch. 97 12s6,a O xiA^yxo*. AV
'governors'). The tribal subdivision of which the allUfh is
the head is called I^K 'eleph.
a. 1'03, in pi., of the 'dukes (RV 'princes') of Sihon (Josh.
1821). Elsewhere the word is always tr.tnslatcd 'princes' or
'priiiciiKil men' (Fs. S3 11 [12J Ezek. 3230 Mic 64 [5]).
DULCIMER (n':B01D), Dan. 851015; see Music.
§4(4
DUMAH(n»-n). I. In Gen. 2.''. i4(t3oi/Ma[»'][ADE].
5ot'/ia [L]) and 1 Ch. 1 30 (tSof/xa [B.\L]) Dumah
appears as a son of Ishmael. The form t3oi//xa =
rrinK suggests comparison with Adumu, the ' fortress of
the land of Aribi ' [KD1\},i), which, as Esar-haddon
tells us, Sennacherib had conquered.
2. If the Dumah of Gen. is the same as Adumu, it may
be tempting to suppose with Winckler {A T L'nt. 37)
that the heading ' oracle of Dumah ' (Is. 21 11) also refers
to this ' fortress. ' 'I"he prophecy itself, however, seems
to forbid this ; it begins ' One calleth to me out of Seir.'
More probably not Adumu but Udumu,^ i.e. Edom,
is meant (Che. Proph. Is. 1 130) ; in other words,
'Dumah' is a corruption of 'Edom' (t^s 'ISoi'/tatoj
[BX.AQ ; see Sw. ]), facilitated perhaps by the neighlxiur-
hood of Massa [massa, v. 11, being misunderstood) and
Tema(f. 14); see Gen. 2014/ It is a less probable view
that ' Dumah ' (' silence ' — i.e., desolation) is a mystical
name for Edom (© t^j 'ISoi^/xatds). See also ISHMAEL,
§ 4 (4), Edo.v^ (footnote on name of Edom).
3. There is another (apparently) enigmatical heading
in Is. 21 1 ( ' Oracle of the wilderness of the sea '), which
should probably be emended into ' Oracle of Clialda;a'
(o'nra Ni;D ; see SHOT). Both headings are un-
doubtedly late.
4. In Josh. 1552t the reading followed by EV is
found in some MSS and edd. (see Ginsb. ), and
being supported by the OS (Soi'/ui ; see below) is very
probably more correct than the Rumah of MT (nDn
fBii. p. 86,Gi.]; so Pesh. and ©, peM''a I'*] /><"'Ma [-^J-])-
In favour of this is the fact that the name is assigned to
a town in the hill country of Judah, mentioned in the
same group w ith Hebron and Beth-tappuah. For there
is still a place called ed-Domch, 2190 ft. above the sea-
level, 10 m. SW. from Hebron and 12 SE. from Beit-
Jibrln, a position which coincides nearly with the
definition of Jer. and Eus. [OS II64 25068), 'a very
large village now in the-Daroma,' 17 m. southward
from F.lcuthcropolis. T. K. C.
DUNGEON ("lian), Gen. 40 15 41 14 ; Dungeon House
C^ian n'3), Jer. 37i6 ; see Prison.
DUNG-GATE (niSL"Nn nyj' [Ba. Gi.]; Neh. 813
niSV'n [Bii.]). N'eh. 2 13 813/ 12 31. See Jerusale.m.
DURA (N'l-n, TOY nepiBoAoY \.^^\ nepiBoAoN
[Syr. mg.], AeeiRA [Theod.] = N■^^), the name of a
plain ' in the province of Babylon ' where Nebuchad-
rezzar's golden image was set up (Dan. 81). If the
word is Aram., it should mean 'dwelling-place' or
'village'; but 65's rendering, even if a guess, may
suggest that the name had come down from old Baby-
lonian times and means 'wall.' In fact, three localities
are mentioned in the tablets as bearing the name Duru,
1 In all the pas-sages quoted there may have been a confusion
between ']'''« and ']^K.
2 In Zech. written defectively »)Vk. The St. Petersburg MS,
however, points l^**-
3 Udumu, as Wi. now reads (but cp CI 1 189), was the name
of a city in the land of G.ir, which may be identical with the
Adumu of Esar-h.-iddon, and from this city the land of Udumu
may have derived its name. Still the remark in the text
appears to be sound.
1 142
DUST
•wall" or 'walled town' (Del. Par. 216), and several
Babylonian cities had names compounded with Uur.^
That the writer of the narrative knew any of these
places, api)ears improbable. Possibly the old name
Duru had attached itself in his time to the plain
adjacent to the remains of the walls of Babylon. At
any rate, the scene of the dedication of the image must
in the writer's mind have been close to Babylon.
DUST (1BV)' ^*^"- 2? 18 27 etc. See Ashes.
DWARF, mentioned among those who were for-
bidden access to the temple (Lev. 21 20), is the EV
1 Oppert finds an echo of Dura in the Nahr Dur and the
Tfilrd Dfirai^Expid. en Mcsop. ['62] I238).
DYSENTERY
for p^, which has been variously rendered 'freckled'
(e<t)HAoc L©"'^'"''-], lippus, 'blear-eyed' [\'g.]), 'short-
sighted, ' ' weak-eyed, ' ' affected with a cataract ' ( Rabb. ,
cp Targ. Jen). The literal meaning of t.ie word, viz.
'shrunk,' 'withered' (Ges. , Kn., Ke. ), seems most
natural.
DYED ATTIRE (D^'?np), Ezek. 23.5EV; RV»g-
'dyed turbans' ; see Tukh.\n.
DYED GARMENTS. For Judg. 5 30 R Vn'e- (D^rny)
see Colours, col. 86q, n. 2; and for Is. 63i AV (^^-IDn) see
//'., § ID.
DYES. See Ojlouks, § 13^
DYSENTERY (AyceNTepiON), Acts 288 RV ; AV
' bloody tiux.' See Diska.si:s, 9, and cp Emerods.
1 144
\
END OF VOL. I
. \
p|ti,i
:•,'".;
I'
f^^;?^lX/<fV^!
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11