Skip to main content

Full text of "Encyclopaedia Biblica : a critical dictionary of the literary, political, and religious history, the archaeology, geography, and natural history of the Bible"

See other formats



* . . . f\ . ^ . \. .\ ,. \ v <- | 





t; t:V 

( ; V ;. " . 

1 1-, fry- .-..; : 

//v * 

" < " ; 




DONATED 1 9 2 e A. D. 

















E to K 



All rights reserved 




Arranged according to the alphabetical order of the first initial, 
possible indicated thus ; A. B. 1-5 ; C. D. 

Joint authorship is where 
3S 6-10. 

A. B. B. BRUCE, the late Rev. A. B. , D.D., 

Professor of Apologetics and New 
Testament Exegesis, I- ree Church 
College, Glasgow. 

A. B. D. DAVIDSON, Rev. A. B. , D.D., Professor 

of Hebrew and Old Testament 
Exegesis, United Free Church New 
College, Edinburgh. 

A. E. S. SHIPLEY, A. E., M.A., F.Z.S., Fellow, 

Tutor, and Lecturer at Christ s College, 


Church History and New Testament 
Exegesis, Marburg. 

M.A. , D.D., Professor of Hebrew and 
Semitic Languages, Edinburgh. 

C. C. CREIGHTON, C., M.D. , 34 Great Ormond 

Street, London. 

C. H. T. TOY, C. H., M.A. , Professor of Hebrew, 
Harvard University. 

C. H. W. J. JOHNS, Rev. C. H. W., M.A., Assistant 
Chaplain, Queens College, Cam 

C. P. T. TIELE, C. P., D.D., Professor of the 

Science of Religion, Leyden. 


E. A. A. ABBOTT, Rev. E. A. , D. D. , Wellside, 
Well Walk, Hampstead, London. 

E. K. KAUTZSCH, E., Professor of Old Testa 

ment Exegesis, Halle. 

E. P. G. GOULD, Rev. E. P. , D. D. , Philadelphia. 

F. B. BROWN, Rev. FRANCIS, D.D., Daven 

port Professor of Hebrew a"nd the 
cognate Languages in the Union 
Theological Seminary, New York. 

G. A. D. DEISSMANN, G. ADOLF, D. D. , Professorof 

New Testament Exegesis, Heidelberg. 


LL.D., Professor of Hebrew and Old 
Testament Exegesis, United Free 
Church College, Glasgow. 

G. B. G. GRAY, Rev. G. BUCHANAN, M.A., 

Professor of Hebrew, Mansfield 
College, Oxford. 

G. F. M. MOORE, Rev. GEORGE F., D.D. , 
President and Professor of Hebrew in 
Andover Theological Seminary, And- 
over, Mass. 

G. H. B. Box, Rev. G. H., M.A. (Oxon.), 


H. G. GUTHE, HERMANN, a.o. Professor of 

Old Testament Exegesis, Leipsic. 


sor of New Testament Exegesis, Berlin. 

H. W. H. HOGG, HOPE W. , M.A., Lecturer in 
Hebrew and Arabic in Owens College, 
Manchester ; 4 Winchester Road, 

I. A. ABRAHAMS, ISRAEL, London, Editor of 

the Jewish Quarterly Review. 


in Old Testament Theology, Berlin. 


Canon of Westminster. 

J. W. WELLHAUSEN, JULIUS, Professor of 

Semitic Philology, Gottingen. 

K. B. BUDDE, KARL, Professor of Old Testa 

ment Exegesis and the Hebrew 
Language, Marburg. 

K. M. MARTI, KARL, Professor of Old Testa 

ment Exegesis and the Hebrew Lan 
guage, Berne. 

Lu. G. GAUTIER, LUCIEN, Professor of Old 

Testament Exegesis and History, 

M. A. C. CANNEY, MAURICE A., M.A. (Oxon.), 
St. Peter s Rectory, Saffron Hill, 
London, E.G. 

M. G. CASTER, Dr. M. , 37 Maida Vale, 

London, W. 

M. J. (Jr.) JASTROW (Jun.), MORRIS, Ph.D., Pro 
fessor of Semitic Languages in the 
University of Pennsylvania. 

, Fellow and Dean of King s College, 


N. M. M LEAN, NOKMAN, M.A. , Lecturer in 

Hebrew, and Fellow of Christ s College, 
Lecturer in Semitic Languages at Caius 
College, Cambridge. 

N. S. SCHMIDT, NATHANAEL, Professor of 

Semitic Languages and Literatures, 
Cornell University, Ithaca, New 

0. C. CONE, Rev. Professor ORELLO, D.D. , 

St. Lawrence University. 

0. C. W. WHITEHOUSE, Rev. OWEN C. , M.A., 
Principal and Professor of Biblical 
Exegesis and Theology in the Countess 
of Huntingdon s College, Cheshunt, 

P. V. VOLZ, Herr Repetant PAUL, Tubingen. 

P. W. S. SCHMIEDEL, PAUL W. , Professor of 

New Testament Exegesis, Zurich. 

R. H. C. CHARLES, Rev. R. H., M.A., D.D., 

Professor of Biblical Greek in Trinity 
College, Dublin ; 17 Bradmore Road, 

S. A. C. COOK, STANLEY A., M.A. , Fellow of 

Caius College, Cambridge ; Ferndale, 
Rathcoole Avenue, Hornsey, London, 


Regius Professor of Hebrew, Canon 
of Christ Church, Oxford. 


formerly of the Egyptian and Assyrian 
Department in the British Museum. 


T. K. C. CHEYNE, Rev. T. R., M.A.. D.D., Oriel | W. H. K. 

Professor of the Interpretation of Holy 
Scripture at Oxford, Canon of Ro- W. J. W. 

T. N. NO LDEKE.THEODOR, Professor of Semitic 

Languages, Strassburg. W. M. M. 

W. E. A. ADDIS, Rev. W. E., M.A. , Lecturer in 
Old Testament Criticism, Manchester 
College, Oxford. W. R. S. 

W. H. B. BENNETT. Rev. W. H., M.A., Professor 

of Biblical Languages and Literature, W. T. T.-D. 
Hackney College, London, and Pro 
fessor of Old Testament Exegesis, New 
College, London. 

ROSTERS, The late W. H., Professor of 
Old Testament Exegesis, Leyden. 

WOODHOUSE, W. J., M.A., F.R.G.S., 
Lecturer in Ancient History and 
Political Philosophy, St. Andrews. 

MOLLER, W. MAX, Professor of Old 
Testament Literature, Reformed Epis 
copal Church Seminary, Philadelphia. 

SMITH, The late W. ROBERTSON, Pro 
fessor of Arabic, Cambridge. 

NER. C.M.G..LL.D., F.R.S., Director 
Royal Gardens, Rew. 


Arranged according to alphabetical order of surnames. 

Box, G. H. 
BROWN, ! . 
COOK, S. A. 

E. A. A. 

W. E. A. 
W. H. B. 
G. H. B. 

F. B. 
A. B. B. 
E. B. 
M. A. C. 
R. H. C. 
T. K. C. 
C. R. C. 
0. C. 

S. A. C. 
C. C. 
A. B. D. 

G. A. D. 

DRIVER, S. k. 
GRAY, G. B. 
HOGG, H. W. 
J ASTRO w (Jun. ), M. 
JOHNS, C. H. W. 





S. R. D. 


W. M. M. 

M. G. 


T. N. 

Lu. G. 


T. G. P. 

E. P. G. 


J. A. R. 

G. B. G. 


N. S. 

H. G. 


P. W. S. 

H. W. H. SHIPLEY, A. E. 

A. E. S. 

M. R. J. i SMITH, G. A. 

G. A. S. 

M. J. (Jr.) SMITH, W. R. 

W. R. S. 

C. H. W. J. 


H. v. S. 

A. J. 


W.T. T.-D. 

E. K. 


C. P. T. 

A. R. S. K. 

TOY, C. H. 

C. H. T. 

W. H. K. 


P. V. 

N. M. 


J. W. 

K. M. 


0. C. W. 

G. F. M. 


W. J. W. 

APK . 
Crit. Bib. . 


V. Spiegel, Die alt-persischen Keilinschriften, 1862, < 2 > 81. 

Cheyne, Critica Diblica (in preparation). 

M. H. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, die Bibel, und Homer, 1893. 

Sitsungsberithte der Koniglicken Akademie der Wissenschaften, Munich. 



Asia Minor . 


Egypt Proper 
Valley of Nile 
Nile and Euphrates 
Geology of Egypt and Sinai 
Egypt and Sinai in Pluvial Period 


The Exodus .... 


(1) in the time of the Judges 

(2) in the loth century B.C. 

(3) in the 8th century B.C. 

(4) in the 5th century B.C. j 
Strabo s Map of the World 


Contours and Walls 
Site of Jerusalem 


Northern : Galilee and Esdraelon 
Central : Mount Ephraim . 
Southern : Judah and Judnea 
Eastern: Gilead and Ammon 

between cols. 1592 and 1593 

,, 1240 and 1241 

,, 1208 and 1209 

,, 1205 and 1206 

col. 14377. 
col. 1759 / 

between cols. 1696 and 1697 
col. i6gif. 

between cols. 2420 and 2421 
col. 2410 

between cols. 1632 and 1633 
1312 and 1313 
2620 and 2621 
1728 and 1729 



EAGLE. The eagle of EV, the GREAT VULTURE 
of RV m - (lyi ; deros), is identified by Tristram with 
Gyps fulvus, the Griffon, not a true Eagle but a 
member of the family Vulturidse. Griffons are still very 
common in Palestine, which is about the centre of their 
area of distribution, whence they spread across Asia, 
around the Mediterranean area and through Northern 
Africa. 1 They are noble birds of large size, and form 
conspicuous objects in the landscape as towards evening 
they perch on the peaks of rocks or cliffs (Job 39 28 29), 
or when soaring. The comparison of invaders to a 
swooping vulture is often employed in the OT (cp Dt. 
2849 Job 826 Hab. 18 Jer. 4840 etc.). They are carrion 
feeders and sight their food from afar. Their head and 
neck are bald, a fact which did not escape the notice of the 
prophet Micah (Mi. 1 16). They nest in colonies, some of 
which contain a hundred pairs of birds. They are said to 
be remarkably long-lived, probably attaining a century or 
more (allusions in Ps. 103s and perhaps [see 65] in Is. 
4631). The Himyarites had an idol nasr which was 
in the form of a Vulture (cp ZDMG 29 600), and the 
same worship among the Arabs is attested by the Syriac 
Doctrine of Addai (Phillips, 24). 2 

The Gr. aeros may be applied to vultures, and the Romans 
seem to have classed the eagle among the family Vulturidce 
(see Pliny, HN 10 3 13 23). Is there any connection between 
atTOS and 13 ]V (see BIRD, i)? Possibly the bird found on the 
Assyrian sculptures (see the illustrations in Vigouroux, s.v. 
aigle ) and on the Persian (Xen. Cyr. vii. 1 4) and Roman (Plin. 
HN 13 23) standards is meant to represent not the true eagle but 
a vulture. In Christian art the Egyptian phoenix appears as 
an eagle and becomes a symbol of the resurrection (see Wiede- 
mann, Rel. qfAnc. Egyptians, 193). In the fifth century A.D. 
the eagle became an emblem of John the evangelist (see Diet, 
of Chr. Antiqq., s.v. Evangelists )- A. E. S. S. A. C. 


EANES (MANHC [BA]), i Esd. 9 21 = Ezra 10 21 
MAASEIAH, ii. , n. 

EARNEST (&PP&BCON). the warrant or security for 
the performance of a promise or for the ratification of 
an engagement, is used thrice in NT (z Cor. 122 5s 
Eph. Ii3/. ), but always in a figurative sense of the 
gifts of the Holy Spirit bestowed upon the apostles and 
Christians generally, as a pledge that they should 
obtain far greater blessings in the future. See PLEDGE. 

EARRING. For Judg. 824 Prov. 25 12 etc. ( D , 
nezem} and Ezek. 16 12 etc. (^jy, dgll) see RING, 2, 
and for Prov. I.e. cp BASKET. For Is.32o etc. (em 1 ?, 
IdhaH) see AMULETS, RING, 2, and MAGIC, 3(3). 

The tip of the ear (Tmn, tenuklf) was specially protected by 
sacred rites (see SBOTon Is. 66 17). 

EARTH AND WORLD. The conception of 
universe is usually expressed in OT by heaven and 

1 For hieroglyphic picture of vulture see EGYPT, 9, n. 12. 

2 Cp the Syriac name anniW C" NSR " gave ), and see We. 
Held. 20 (Heid.W 23), and WRS Kin. 209, Rel. Sem.V) 226, 
n. 3 ; ZDMG 40 186 [ 86]. 

38 1145 

earth (e.g. , Gen. li 2i 14 19), though there is a 
still more complete expression : heaven above, earth 
beneath, and the water under the earth 1 (Ex. 204, cp 
Gen. 4925). So in Assyrian eldti u Saplati things 
above and things below, or (Creation -tablet, i. if.) 
the heaven above, the earth beneath, to which 1. 3 
adds the ocean. There is also (Is. 4424 ; cp 45?) a 
general term ^3, everything (iravra), corresponding 
to Assyr. kullatu, gimru. 

Earth of EV represents three Hebrew words. ( i ) 

jnx ( <?res), properly the earth, including Sheol ; hence 

_. either the visible surface of our earth (Gen. 26, 

, , , , and often) or the nether world (e.g. , Ex. 15 12 

eartn. ls ^^ 2 9 4 ). ( 2 ) HCTN (dddmdh), [i.] the soil 

which is tilled, Gen. 2s 817 etc., [ii.] the ground, Gen. 

125 620 etc. (3) ~\ sy( dphar), properly earth as a material 

(Gen. 27), then the earth (Is. 2 19), then dust (Gen. 

814), then the nether world (Job 17 16 Ps. 30g [10] etc. ). 

@ renders (but not universally) all three words by 777. 

Whilst the AV uses world as a synonym for earth 

both in OT and in NT, it is only in NT (see below, 3) 

_,. that it occurs in the sense of universe. 1 

, . , e , The reason is that Jewish writers had adopted 

a much more convenient term than heaven 

and earth to express an expanded conception of the 


First, however, let us note the Heb. words rendered 

1- Tj$i heled, Ps. 17 14 49 2 [i]. If the text is correct, we 
have here a singularly interesting transition from lifetime to 
the world of living men ; for the primary sense of heled (if 
the word exists at all) is life-time (Ps. 396 [5], 8948 [47], Job 
11 17 and emended text of 10 20).! Unfortunately heled in Ps. 
17 14 is certainly corrupt. From men of the world whose portion 
is in life is an expression both obscure in itself and unsuitable 
to the context. In Is. 38 ii heled is read only by critical con 
jecture ; the text has hedel, which means neither world nor any 
thing else : there is no such word.- The true reading is doubtless 
tcbel world, and so too we should read in Ps. 49 2 [i]. Hymn- 
writers do not generally select the rarest and most doubtful 
words. There is but one pure Hebrew word for world (see 3). 

2- !!!?, hedel, Is. 38 ii, on the assumption that cessation 
(the supposed meaning) is equivalent to fleeting world. Many 
critics, with some MSS, including Cod. Bab., read "Pn, heled. 
See, however, no. i. 

3. 73B, tebel, mother-earth ? a word of primitive mytho 
logical origin (Gunkel, Hommel), hence never occurring with 
the article. Once it is used in antithesis to midbar, desert 
(Is. 14 17) ; but generally it is quite synonymous with /res, 
earth. Thus in i S. 2 8 (RV) 

1 In Job 11 17 it is an improvement to read "]~J:>n T3 , the 
days of thy lifetime (shall be brighter than noontide), and in 
10 20 iVn, Are not the days of my lifetime few ? but we 
should most probably read -tart and Vart, thy fleeting days. 
(Che. Exp. Times, 10381 [ 99]). 

2 Cp Ps. 39 5 [4], where EV has how frail I am, but where 
the Hebrew has, not frail, but ceasing (Dr. Parallel Psalter). 
"rin, hddel, too, is probably not a real word. 



For the pillars of the earth are Yahwe s, 
And he hath set the world upon them ; 
And Prov. 8 26 (RV), 

While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, 
Nor the beginning of the dust of the world. 1 
In Job 37 12 RV we have the strange expression the habitable 
world (AV the world in the earth ); and in Prov. 831 RV 
his habitable earth (AV the habitable part of his earth ). 
The phrases are the same, and are due to corruption of the 
text. ^ <& impartially renders both rn and ^n sometimes by 
yij sometimes by rj oiieou^ie n/. 

4- D^iy. oldm, a difficult word, meaning (i) antiquity, 
(2) indefinite length of time. The etymology is doubt 
ful. Most connect it with c^y, to hide ; but probably 
D- -dm is a noun-ending (so Earth). Compare Ass. 
tillu, remote, in the phrase ultu ulld from of old ; 
ulldnu far-off time, i.e. , past time (Del. Ass. 
HWB f>4/.). For a less probable view, see Lag. 
Uebers. 115. Twice rendered world in AV : Ps. 
73 12, Behold these are the ungodly, who prosper in 
the world, RV (better) and being alway at ease 
(D^iy 1^?n) I Eccles. 3n (so also RV), Also he hath 
set the world in their heart (<5 H , cr6/j.iravTa. rbv aiwva), 
a riddle which admits of more than one solution 
(see Che. Job and Solomon, 210). However, even 
if man is a microcosm we cannot expect to find this 
advanced idea in Ecclesiastes, and the occurrence of 
oldm, world, in Sirach is improbable. Ha oldm 
needs to be emended. 3 We must give up the micro 
cosm and the desiderium seternitatis and take in 
exchange an assurance that the travail of the student of 
God s works is good : I have seen the travail which God 
has given to the sons of men to exercise themselves there 
with. He has made everything beautiful in its time; also 
he has suggested all that travail (pprr^STlK ; attests 
Va) to the sons of men (read Q-JN 33^, not ^30 Da^a). 

By NT times the word oldm must have received the 

new meaning world, for aldiv = n^iy is used in this sense. 

. We can doubtless trace this new develop- 

,. ... e . am ? ment to the rise (under Persian stimulus) 

of olam in f , ,/ 

fjm i- of a belief in new heavens and a new 

times. eartll ^ see EscHATOLOGY, 88, and cp 
Che. Intr. Is. 370 ; OPs. 405), and the intercourse of 
educated Jews with Greek-speaking neighbours would 
confirm the usage. It is true the sense of time is not 
entirely lost ; but a new sense has been grafted on the 
old. This oldm is not merely this age ; but the earth 
which is the theatre of the events of this age, and the 
coming oldm is not merely the great future period in 
itiated by the Divine Advent, but the new earth which 
will be the theatre of the expected great events. Hence 
the author of Hebrews can even say (Heb. 12), By whom 
also he made the worlds (TOVS aiuvas ; Del. and 
Biesenthal niDSiynN), and again (Heb. 11 3), we under 
stand that the worlds (ol auDves) have been framed by 
the word of God. The phrase ol alwves means, not 
the ages of human history (as in Heb. 926, cp i Cor. 
10n), but the material worlds which make up the 
universe 4 (iravra., Heb. 1 2 ; TO @\firofj.fvoi>, 11 36). 

On the Jewish references to the two olilmlin see Dalman, Die 
Worte Jesu (1898, pp. 121 ff.~), where it is pointed out that the 
famous saying ascribed to Simeon the Righteous (circa 280 B.C.), 
respecting the three things on which the world (aViyrt) rests, 
cannot be authentic. Dalman also denies that Enoch 486 
49 idff. 71 15, where the creation of the world is referred to, 
belong to the original Book of the Similitudes. As to 71 15 
there can be no question ; chap. 71 is most certainly a later 
addition (Charles). At any rate, 45 5 refers to the renovation 

1 The text needs emendation (see next note). Read probably, 
Ere he had made the land and the grass (-rxm) 
And had clothed with green (NBH<I) the clods of mother-earth. 
P See Che. JQR, Oct. 1897, pp. i6/ 

3 The latest commentator (Siegfried, 1898) holds that D7Jn 
means the future ; but this is hardly to be proved by 2 t6 3 14 
96 12$. Somewhat more plausible, but still improbable, is 
Dalman s paraphrase, die unabsehbare Weltzeit. 

* Note also that oi/covjueVr) in Heb. 2 5 corresponds to alwv in 
C 5 (Dalman). 



of the heaven and the earth, on which see above. In 72 i 73 3 8 
82 i 5 7, the conception of the created world no doubt occurs, 
and in 4 Ezra saeculum (Syr. NoVj?) occurs frequently. From 
the end of the first century A.D. onwards Q->IJ; is used so often 
in the sense of world that we cannot doubt its universality. 
It has even penetrated into the older Targums. Cp 6 TOU KOO>OU 
/3acriA.evs (2 Mace. 7 9); 6 xvpios TOU KOOOU (2 Mace. 1814); 
oWirdnK irdo-ijs rijs KTiVeus (3 Mace. 2 2). Lord of the world 
occurs in Enoch 81 9 ; Ass. Mos. 1 n ; Jubil. 2023. These and 
similar appellations are never found in NT (Dalman, 142). 
In the NT we find (a) 77 olKovpfrr), (6) 6 /cicr/xos, (c) 


(a) TI OIK. is the habitable globe (Mt. 24 14 Rom. 10 18 etc.) ; 

also the Roman Empire (Acts 17 6) ; also = 

4. Terms for a l^ v (Heb. 2 5), see above ( 3). 

earth and (b) 6 KOO-/XOI is the earth, or its inhabitants 

World 1 in NT. ((* Mt. 48 5i 4 Mk. 16i 5l Jn 129); also 

the universe (TO o\oi> TOUTO, JPlat. Gorg. 408 

A), as in ctTrb <ca.Taj3oAi7 KOO-JU.OV (e.g., Mt. 1835 [not in best 

MSS.], cp 24 21) ; also with OUTOS= this oldm (Jn. 1 12, opp. 

to fwij aiwcios ; so Jn. 18 36 i Cor. 3 19, 5 10 and Eph. 2 2, where 

note the strange compound phrase Kara. TOV a uava. TOU xoV/xov 

TOVTOU). 6 KOO-JUOS without OUTOS in i Jn. 215^ 817; and in 

the derived sense of worldlings (cp the phrase, too probably 

incorrect, "lP CTlp in Ps. 17 14). With OUTOS in Jn. 1231 

14 30 [not Ti.] 16 ii i Cor. 819; without OUTOS in Jn. 771 Cor. 

1 21 and often. Hence the adjective KOO-JOUKOS ; in Heb. 9i, 
TO ayiov Koo>uK6V as opposed to the heavenly antitype of the 
tabernacle ; Tit. 2 12. 

(c) KTi o-ts, the universe (cp Wisd. 617 19 6), Mk. 106 13 19 ; 

2 Pet. 3 4 Col. 1 15 Rev. 3 14. In Heb. 9 n this KTI O-IS, and in 
Gal. 6152 Cor. 5 17, Kaiyri KTC O-IS. The latter phrase, however, is 
applied morally and spiritually (cp Jn. 857 Rom. 64, and the 
phrase /caivb? avSpiairos . . ., Eph. 215 424). In the sense of 
the coming oldm it does not occur in NT (but see Enoch 
72 1 Jubil. 1 29 ; and cp Bar. 32 6 4 Ezra 7 75). We have the new 
heavens and the new earth, however, in 2 Pet. 813 Rev. 21 1 ; and 
if we had to render ev TTJ TroAiyyei eo-i. iji (Mt. 19 28) into Aramaic 
or Hebrew we should have to follow Pesh. which gives in the 
new world (KD*?y)- The Greek phrase quoted is, in Dalman s 
words, the property of the evangelist." On the elements of 
the world (thrice in NT) see ELEMENTS. T. K. C. 


lonians, the Hebrews divided the world (i.e. , earth 

, . and heaven) into four parts. We find 

16 the phrase the four skirts (nisia, 1 

TTT^pvyes) of the earth, Is. 11 12 Ezek. 

7 2, cp JobSTsSSis; and in Rev.7i 208, the four 
corners (yuviai) of the earth. Probably, too, the 
four ends (nisp) of the earth could be said ; cp Jer. 
4936, the four ends of the heaven. The four quarters 
could be described also as the four winds (as in 
Ass.): see Ezek. 37 9 (especially), Dan. 88 11 4 Zech. 
26[io] iCh. 92 4 Mt. 2431. Similarly, to all winds 
means in all directions (Jer. 4932 Ezek. 61012, etc.). 
The east was called the front (en/:) ; the west, the 
back part (ninx) ; the south, the right (pp ; Aq. 
Sym., 5e%idv [Ps. 89 13]); and the north, the left 
(^XDK 1 ). The N. is called also pss, which is perhaps 
to be compared with Ar. saban (from sabawun, east 
wind, E). 2 The S. is also D vn (root uncertain) ; the 
E. usually rnip, the (region of the) sun-rising, and the 
W. either tr, the sea, 3 or mj?p, the (region of the) 
sunset ; sometimes also (^.^. , i Ch. 924), improperly, 
3.3ji strictly the dry S. region of Palestine ; see, 
further, GEOGRAPHY, 2. We now turn to the appli 
cation and associations of the several terms. 

2 North North and south are applied (a) to 
and South c l uarters of tne heavens. So Job 26? 
(crit. emend. ) 

1 Cp the Ass. phrase kippat same irsitim, usually, the ends 
of heaven and earth (Del. Ass. HWB, s.v. rps). The ideogram 
SAG-GUL, however, elsewhere =sikkftni, bar (Del.) or possibly 
hinge (Stucken). Perhaps the Ass. phrase means the bars 
(or hinges) of heaven and earth (Stucken, Astralmythen, 1 38), 
and consequently the parallel Hebrew phrase the bars (or 
hinges) of earth. 

2 So Earth, Etym. Stud. 26 ; Ko. Lehrg. 2 128 ; but cp 
GEOGRAPHY, 2. At any rate fgs is to hide, not to be 
hidden. East in Hebrew may mean NE. The interchange 
of 3 and 3 is, of course, no difficulty. 

3 <B nearly always renders D^, 6d\a<rcra., even where west is 



(Before him) who had stretched the north region (of the 

heavens) upon space, 
Who has suspended the earth upon nothing. 1 

The passage has been well explained (after Del. ) by 
Davidson : 2 The northern region of the heavens, with 
its brilliant constellations, clustering round the pole, 
would naturally attract the eye, and seem to the 
beholder to be stretched out over the " empty place, " 
i.e. , the vast void between earth and heaven. 
See DEAD, 2 (a) for an explanation of the context. 
The N. region of the heavens is the station of Bel. 
Also Job 37g (crit. emend.), 

From the chambers of the south (comes) the storm, 

And from the north-star cold, 

(When) by the breath of God ice is given, 

And the wide waters are straitened.* 

There is no south pole in Babylonian astronomy 
corresponding to the north pole (cp Jensen, Kosmol. 
25) ; but there is a region of Ea, and this is called in 
Job the south, as the region of Bel is called the 
north. The constellations in the region ( path ) of 
Ea are called the chambers of the south. 

EV has in v. gl>, And cold out of the north. North = 
D lID, which Ges. Di. explain (after Kimhi) as the scattering 
a name for the north winds, which dispel clouds and bring 
cold. Not very natural. We evidently require a constellation. 
The Heb. m2zarii may perhaps be the Ass. (kakkab) inisri. 
Read IB D \ he corruption was caused by a reminiscence of 
mazzdroth.* The (kakkab) miSri, which we provisionally 
translate, with Hommel, the north-star, was associated with 
cold, hail (?), and snow by the Babylonians (Jensen, 
Kosmol. 50). Vg. ab Arcturo ; <@ 0.77-6 aicpwnjpiW (read 
apxTwait). On Ezek. 14 Eccles. 16, see WINDS. 

N. and S. are applied (6) to quarters of the earth. 
Ps. 89 12, The north and the south, thou hast created 
them. Here north and south represent all the four 
quarters of the earth. 

The N. was encompassed with awe for the Hebrew. 

(1) From the N. came the invaders of Palestine, and 
the north is a symbolic term for Assyria (Zeph. 213), or 
Babylonia (Jer. 1 14 466102024 Ezek. 267 Judith 164). 

(2) Religious considerations added to the feeling of awe. 
In the mountainous north th people localised the 
mountain of El5him, of which tradition spoke (Ezek. 
14 Is. 14 13; some would add Ps. 48 2 [3]); and since 
God dwelt there, a poet says that manifestations of 
God s glory came from the N. (Job 37 22, crit. emend. : 
ZEPHON, i). According to Ewald (Alterth. 59), this 
was the reason why sacrificial victims were to be slain 
before Yahwe 1 on the north side of the altar (Lev. 
In). Yet, according to the older Israelitish view, 
which lasted into post-exilic times, the sacred mountain 
of Yahwe was not in the N. but in the S. The 
mountain of God was Horeb (Ex. 3i 4 27, etc.); 
Yahwe s progress into Canaan was from Seir (Judg. 
64 cp Dt. 882), or, as a late Psalmist says, from Teman 
(Hab. 83). See WINDS. 

Of E. and W. less has to be said. East and 
west, in Mt. 811, represent all the four quarters of the 

earth> like north and south in Ps - 


west s a 

3. East and 


symbolic expression for an immense dis 

tance (Ps. 103 12). When all mankind unite in festivity, 
thou makest the outgoings of morning and evening to 
ring out their joy (Ps. 658 [9], Driver). The expression 
has been admired ; but it is only the morning sun that 
goes forth. The true reading, could we recover it, 
would probably be finer. 5 The Babylonians believed 
that the celestial vault had two gates, one by which the 
sun went forth in the morning, and another by which 

1 flD ^a is commonly taken to be a compound (Ko. Lehrg. 
2418), but without any adequate grounds. The right reading 
must be D 73n ; the plur., to express intense vanity 1 (cp 
Eccles. 1 2). 

2 Budde and Duhm, perhaps unwisely, follow Dillmann. 

3 Che. JBL 17 io 5 /: [ 98]. 

4 Ibn Ezra (and so Michaelis) identified mezdrim with 
MAZZAROTH and MAZZALOTH (gq.v.). Aq. has u.a.Covp. 

5 See Che. Ps.M, ad loc. 



he came in in the evening. In the E. was the isle 
of the blessed, with Par(?)-napisti, the hero of the 
Deluge-story ; in the E. , too, was the Hebrew paradise 
(Gen. 28). The W. had no such pleasing associations, 
for there was the entrance of the realm of the dead ; * 
there, too, the great Lightgiver disappeared. 

Still, a Psalmist in the full confidence of faith can declare 
(Ps. 1399, crit. emend.), 

If I lifted up the wings of the sun, 2 

And alighted at the utmost part of the west (D lit. sea), 

Even there thy hand would seize me, 3 

Thy right hand would grasp me. 

He does not say (as MT and AV may suggest) would lead 
me to my own peace and happiness. At any rate, it is much 
that he is not cut away from Yahwe s hand. He whom God 
grasps cannot go to destruction. T_ K. C. 


Syria and Palestine abound in volcanic appearances 
(cp PALESTINE). Between the river Jordan and 
Damascus lies a volcanic tract, and the entire country 
about the Dead Sea presents unmistakable tokens of 
volcanic action and of connected earthquake shocks 
vaster and grander than any that are known, or can be 
imagined, to have occurred in the historic period. 
At the same time, the numerous allusions in the Bible to 
phenomena resembling those of earthquakes show that 
the writers were deeply impressed by the recurrence of 
severe seismic shocks. Not improbably some of these 
were recorded in the lost royal annals. 

i. Real or supposed historical earthquakes. (a) 

1 S. 14 15 And there was a terror in the camp, in the 
1. Real or sup- g arrison - and amon S a11 the P^ple, 

posed historical and the raiders also wer< ! terrifi ed- 4 
earthquakes. lhl f was on account of Jonathan s 
exploit. Suddenly the earth quaked, 
whence there arose a supernatural terror. Doubtful. 
(b] Am. 1 1 prophecy of Amos, two years before the 
earthquake. Doubtful. On this and on (c) see AMOS, 4. 
Josephus (Ant. ix. 104) draws on his imagination, (c) 
Zech. 14s Ye shall flee as ye fled before the earth 
quake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. A post-exilic 
notice, (d} Am. 4 1 1 I have wrought an overthrow among 
you, as at the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah. 
Historical, (e) Jos. Ant. xv. 5 2. In the seventh year of 
the reign of Herod, there was an earthquake in j udaea, 
such as had not happened at any other time, and brought 
great destruction upon the cattle in that country. About 
ten thousand men also perished by the fall of houses. 
The calamity encouraged the Arabs to acts of aggression 
(see HEROD). For later catastrophes see Renan, L Ante- 
christ, 336. 

ii. Unhistorical narratives. (a) Gen. 1925 and he 
overthrew those cities. Possibly implying a primitive 

2 Unhistorical tra< ^ t on f an earthquake. See, how- 
narratives ever DiIImann and C P SODOM. (6) The 

giving of the Law(Ex. 19i8). (c) Story 
of Korah (Nu. 1631). (d) Elijah at Horeb (i K. 19n). 
It is the earthquake that the pious imagination constantly 
associates with a theophany. See ELIJAH, 2. (e) The 
crucifixion. The earth quaked ; and the rocks were rent ; 
and the tombs were opened, when Jesus yielded up his 
spirit (Mt. 27 si/. ). Not in the other gospels. Accord 
ing to Mk. , the cry which Jesus uttered when he gave 
up the ghost so impressed the Roman centurion that he 
exclaimed, Truly this was a Son of God (Mk. 1639 
RV m &-). Mt. , however, explains this confession as the 
result of fear at the earthquake and the accompanying 
phenomena. Similar portents are said to have marked 

1 Cp Karppe, Journ. asiat. 9 139 ( 97). 

2 MT has "in^, the dawn ; but of a bird of the dawn we 
know nothing ; and how does the dawn alight in the west ? 
Read surely Din (Job 9 7), and cp Mai. 3 20 [4 2]. 

3 Reading 3n^B (Gra., Duhm). 

4 The text is corrupt. See SLING. 


the death of Julius Caesar, revered as a demigod (Virg. 
Georg. \w\ff.} However, the evangelist may have 
thought not only of the divinity of Christ but also of the 
exceptional wickedness of those who put Christ to death. 
Shall not the land tremble for this, and every one mourn 
that ilwelleth therein? (Am. 8 8). (/) Paul and Silas at 
Philippi (Acts 16 26). The essence of the story is that 
I .ml and Silas were praying with such earnestness that 
all in the prison could hear, and that an extraordinary 
answer to prayer was granted. No stress is laid on the 

The references in prophecy and poetry are imagin 
ative in character and symbolise the dependence of the 
earth on its Creator : Judg. 64 Am. 88 Hos. 4s Is. 296 
Ezek. 38 19/ Joel 2io Nah. Is Hab. 36 Zech. 144 Ps. 
18 7 [8] 296 97 4 H4 4 Rev. 61285 Ili3l6 8. 

Jerome (on Is. 15) writes of an earthquake which, in the time 

of his childhood (circa 315 A.U.), destroyed Rabbath Moab or 

Areopolis (see AR). Mediaeval writers also 

3. Later earth- S p c .ik of earthquakes in Pajestine, stating 

quakes in that they were not only formidable, but also 

Palootino frequent. That of 1202 (or 1204) was among 

the worst. Baalbek, being so near the 

Lebanon and Antilibanus, has always suffered much from 

earthquakes; that of 1759 did great damage to the ruins. In 

1834 an earthquake shook Jerusalem and injured the chapel of 

the Nativity at Bethlehem. The great earthquake of 1837 

(Jan. i) did little harm at Jerusalem, which was not near enough 

to the centre of disturbance. Safed and Tiberias, however, were 

nearly destroyed. Cp Tristram, Land of Israel, 581. 

T. K.C. 

EAST, CHILDREN OF THE (Dlf) M3 ; 01 yioi 
KAe/v\ [BXAQ]) is a general term for the people, 
whether Bedawln or pastoral tribes, of the country E. 
(or NE., Gen. 29 1 AN&TOAcON [ADEL]) of Palestine, 
who were regarded by the Israelites as near relations, 
descended from Abraham by Hagar, Keturah, and other 
concubines (Gen. 256 D"l ]HN ; eic fHN ANATOAooN 
[ADEL]). For textual criticism see REKEM. 

In Ezek. 264 ([5]i)[/x]rvid.) I0 they appear to the E. of 
Ammon and Moab (crj Is. 1114); in Jer. 4928 they are men 
tioned with the Kedarites. In Judg. 8 10 (aXKo$v\<av [B], viol 
ai aroAoii [AL]) the phrase has a wider reference, including all 
the Bedouin (Moore), and in Job 1 3 (riav a<f> TjAi ou avaroMav 
IBNA]), i K. 430 [5io](ira.i TiavapxaCtaviLV0p<aw<av[ B\L])lt seems 
to include the Edomites, for the Edomites of Teman were re 
nowned for their wisdom. Cp MAHOL. T. K. C. 

EAST GATE (rn{n 1WJ>), Neh. 829. See JERU 

EASTEE (TO TTACX&). Actsl2 4 AV. See PASS 
OVER, and cp FEASTS. 

EASTWIND (DHjrn-n), Ex. 10 13. See WINDS, 

EBAL (?T|? ; plausibly connected with Bel by Wi. 
Gf 1 120 n. 2 ; Gray, Acad, aoth June 1896 ; r-AjBHA 

1. One of the sons of Shobal b. Seir the Horite ; Gen. 8623 
i Ch. 1 40 (yao/3i)A. [A], ovjSaA [L]). 

2. A son of Joktan i Ch. 122 (where eleven MSS [Kenn.] and 
Pesh. read "?aiN ; om. B, ye/xtai/ [A], r)/3j)A [L], Jos. Ant. 1.64 
T)/3aAo ; HEBAL). In Gen. 1028 the name appears as OHAL 
(VjiV, Sam. n J?, om. ADE ; euoA [MSS ; see HP], ye/3aA 
[Compl., MSS], yai/3oA [L] ; EBAL). Halevy connects with 
the local name Abil in Yemen (Mtl. 86). Cp Glaser, Skizze, 
2426. The name may be a miswritten form of ^ND^N, which 
follows (Che.). 

EBAL, MOUNT ?yu 1H ; O ROC r<MB&A [BAFL] ; 
Jos. Ant. v. 1 19 HBhAoc [> i fHBHAoc] ; Ant. iv. 844 
Bo YAH ; MO.VS HKBAL}. Possibly Ebal should be 
Ebel ; -bel may be a divine name, ... of Bel. The 
dedication of a mountain to Bel in primitive times would 
not be surprising. Cp Ebal (above), Harbel (Num. 34 n, 
see RIBLAH). There is of course no connection between 
Ebal (i, above) ben Seir and Mount Ebal. 

Ebal is a mountain 3077 ft. above the sea-level, which, 
with Gerizim (on the south), incloses the fertile valley 
in which Shechem lies. Both the mountains and the 
city were doubtless sacred from remote antiquity. There 
is an indication of this, so far as regards Ebal, in the 


direction respecting the solemn curse to be deposited 
there, ready to fall on the disobedient ( Dt. 11 29 cp 2713-26), 
and respecting the placing of the great stones inscribed 
with the (Deuteronomic) Law and the erection of an 
altar to Yahwe on the same mountain (Dt.2?4-8). The 
latter passage is specially important. As Kuenen (Hex. 
128) and Driver (Dt. 295) have pointed out, there was an 
injunction respecting a national sacrifice on Mt. Ebal 1 in 
the older work (JE) upon which the late Deuteronomic 
writer builds. The view that any disparagement to 
Ebal was intended by Dt. 1129 is therefore in itself 
improbable, nor can it be said that the mountain is 
even now sterile to the degree which a popular prejudice 

Maundrell in 1697 observed that neither of the mountains 
has much to boast of as to their (its) pleasantness. Corn grows 
on the southern slopes, and there are traces of a thorough system 
of irrigation in ancient times. 1 Mt. Ebal is 228 ft. higher than 
Mt. Gerizim, and commands a more extensive view, which is 
fully described by G. A. Smith (HG 119-123). Its position was 
thoroughly but not unnaturally misunderstood by Eus. and Jer. 
On this and other points, see GERIZIM. In the Pap. Anast. 
(Travels of an Egyptian in Syria, Palestine, etc.), Chabas 
and Goodwin render (i. 21 6) Where is the mountain of Ikania? 
who can master it ? (RPN 2 1 1 1). This should rather be, Where 
is the mountain of Sakam(a) or Shechem? i.e., either Ebal or 
Gerizim (As. u. Eur. 394). In the fourteenth century B.C. the 
latter names do not seem to have been widely known. 

EBED ("1217, i.e., servant [of God], 50; 

1. Father of Gaal (Judg. 926-41, i<o/3)A [B] v. 31 ajSeA. [A], 
35 o-ajSer [A]) according to MT ; but see GAAL. 

2. b. Jonathan of the B ne ADIN in Ezra s caravan (see EZRA i., 
2 ; ii., 15 [i]<O Ezra 86 (a>/3r)0 [B], laftf, [A], [A/xii/] aa|3 [L]) = 
i Esd. 832 (OBETH, ou/V [B], <o/37)e [A], [A/our] aa/3 [L]). 

EBED-MELECH ( vP^^i servant of the king 
[i.e. God], 41 ; occurs also in Phoen. ; aBAe/weAex 
[BKAQ]). An Ethiopian eunuch at the court of 
Zedekiah, who obtained leave to draw up Jeremiah from 
the cistern into which he had been cast by the princes 
(Jer. 887^). He was rewarded by a prophetic assur 
ance that he would be preserved at the capture of Jeru 
salem (39 is/:). 

Jewish legend reckons Ebed-melech among the nine (or, 
some say, the thirteen) who entered Paradise without passing 
through death (see Gaster in MGIVJ, 1881, p. 413). 

EBEH (H2N), Job 926 AV n e-, RVe- REED(?.I/. 5). 

EBEN-EZER pWrrjnK, the stone of help, 
ezep [BAL]). 

1. The site of the battle in which the Philistines slew 
the sons of Eli and took the ark (i S. 4i 5i, afievve^tp 
[A]; in 5i, -vvrjp [B]). The battle seems to have 
been followed by the destruction of Shiloh (cp Jer. 7 
12 14), and the subjugation of central Canaan by the 
invaders. This Eben-ezer was near Aphek, which lay 
in the northern part of the plain of Sharon. 

2. The stone which Samuel set up between the 
Benjamite Mizpah and Shen in commemoration of his 
victory over the Philistines (i S. 7 12). This is quite 
a different part of the country from that in which (i) 
lay, and the two Eben-ezers cannot be made one without 
inventing a new Aphek. See APHEK, 3 (c\ On the 
other hand there is no reason why more than one sacred 
stone should not have borne so appropriate a name as 
the stone of help ; 3 the story of i S. 7 comes from 
a document of no historical value, and is probably an 
aetiological legend giving an innocent explanation of 
what was really a rude stone idol. w. R. S. 

EBER ("ay, eBep [BADEL]). i. That Eber is not 
an actual personage, but an ethnological abstraction, 
is shown elsewhere (see HEBREW LANGUAGE, i). 
He is in fact the eponym of all the Hebrew peoples 

1 The Samaritan reading on Mt. Gerizim, adopted by 
Kennicott, is obviously a sectarian alteration of the text. 

2 See Early Travels in Pal., ed. Wright, 433 ; Conder, 
Tentwork, 1 67 ; Rob. BR 3o6 ; Grove-Wilson, Smith s DBV\ 

3 Cp Abnll, stone of El, RSV], 210, n. i. 




all the sons of Eber (Gen. 102i ; tfiop [E]). Genea 
logically he is the father of Peleg and Joktan, and the 
grandson of Arpachshad (i.e. , the Hebrew peoples 
came from Chaldaea ; see ARPHAXAD), Gen. 1024/1 
i Ch. 1 iS f. 24 f. ; cp Gen. 11 13-16. _The name is 
properly a geographical term in:n 13J?. Eber han-nahar 
i.e. , the farther (?) bank of the river which appears 
in Ass. in the form ebir nari (first indicated by Wi. GJ 
1223, n. i ; cp Hommel, AHT 196, 255, 326), l and, 
Hommel thinks, was originally applied by the Canaanites 
to the region on the W. bank of the Lower and the Middle 
Euphrates, including Uru (or Ur) and Borsippa. The 
designation Eberites or Hebrews would naturally still 
adhere to those tribes which came westwards into 
Canaan. According to this scholar, the name Eber 
is also used once in the OT (viz., in Nu. 2422-24; 
ej3paiovs [BAFL], efiep [F a m -]) of Palestine and Syria 
with the exception of AshurorS. Judah (see ASSHURIM). 
His arguments are, however, not very solid. It is 
not certain that ebir nari in the inscription really 
denotes Palestine ; Hommel shifts his ground in the 
course of his book (see AHT 196, 326) ; and after 
all it is not a Canaanitish inscription that he gives us. 
It is even more questionable whether Hommel can 
claim i K. 424 [54] as proving an early Israelitish use 
of Eber han-nahar as an expression for Palestine. 
This passage, together with iK. 42i[5i], seems to 
belong to a late idealistic editor, who lived at a time 
when Eber han-ndhdr ( Abarnahrd], or, in old Persian, 
Arbciya, was the constant phrase for the region between 
the Euphrates and Gaza (see CCELESYRIA, i). 

Hommel s restoration of Nu. I.e. may be sought in his book 
(AHT 245/1). He is not wrong in supposing that the text 
needs emendation ; but in deference to an archaeological theory 
he has unfortunately neglected the most important recent 
suggestion viz., that of D. H. Miiller(see BALAAM, 6) which 
makes Nu. 24 23^ an oracle on the kingdom of Sam al (NE. of 
the gulf of Antioch). Starting from this, it will be plain that 
Assyria and Eber must be referred to in the little poem as the 
enemies of the N. Syrian kingdom. 2 

The sense of Eber has to be obtained from the 
context. It may mean either the region beyond the 
Euphrates, or that on this side the river, near Aleppo 
(Ass. Halvan). In defence of the rival theory (that of 
Hommel) it is urged that the phrase Ibr-nahardn 
(pn: -nj?) in a Minasan inscription means the region 
E. and N. of Asur, practically therefore the trans- 
Jordanic country and Syria (Glaser). Winckler, how 
ever (AOF Is37/i ; (7/1 174, n. 2, and 192), thinks that 
the Mincean Eber han-nahar was the land of Musri 
(see MIZRAIM, z b), which received a second name 
from the stream that formed its frontier, whilst 
Marquart (Fund. 75) is of opinion that Ibr-naharan 
can only be the Persian province, Abar nahra (see 

2. b. Elpaal, in a genealogy of BENJAMIN ( 9 ii. j3), one of 
the founders of Ono and Lod and its dependencies, i Ch. 8 12 
(HSrji [BA], a(3p [L]). 

3. A priest, the head of Amok, temp. Joiakim (EZRA ii., 
6 6, n), Neh. 12 2o(aj3eS [N c a mg - inf L], om. BN*A). 

4. AV HEBER (RV EBER), in a genealogy of GAD, i Ch. 5 13 
(u>/M [B], ico/3. [A]). 

5. AV HEURK (RV EBER), b. Shashak, a Benjamite, i Ch. 
8 22 (u/SSij [B], wfrfi [A], a/3ep [L]). T . K . C. 


, Josh. 1920 RV, AV ABEZ. 

EBIASAPH (*)DN), i Ch. 623 [8], etc. See ABI- 

EBONY (Kt. D^aiH ; Kr. D32n ; true vocalisation 
uncertain ; Egypt, heben [Lieblein, AZ,, 1886, p. 13], 

1 Its use eBeNOC ( not in - but in Symm. Ezek. 
27 15), HEBEN VM; a loan-word). The 
word occurs in MT only once (Ezek. 27 15) ; 
but there are traces of it in perhaps four other 
passages (see below, 2). From i K. 1022 we may 
almost certainly learn that Solomon imported ebony 

1 Cp also Wi. Mu$ri, Meluhha, Ma tn, pp. 51^! [ 98]. 

2 See Che. Exp. T. 8 520 (Aug. 97), and 10 309 (June 99). 


as well as ivory, and from i Ch. 29 2 that he was be 
lieved to have used it in the decoration of the temple. 
If our emendation of Is. 2i6 is right (below, 2^), 
ebony was especially used at Jerusalem in the construc 
tion of thrones, for Isaiah appears to threaten destruc 
tion to thrones of ebony. Possibly Solomon s famous 
throne (i K. 10 18) was made of ivory inlaid with ebony. 
The passage that needs no emendation (below, 2 a) 
occurs in Ezekiel s grand description of Tyrian commerce. 
Ebony, as well as ivory, was brought to Tyre by De- 
danite.or possibly Rhodian, merchants (see DOUANIM). 
The uses to which ebony was put by the Egyptians 
are well known. It was employed both for sacred 
and for secular purposes ; shrines, palettes, and many 
objects of furniture were made of it. From the time of 
Ti (tomb at Sakkara) to that of Ptolemy Philadelphus it 
finds frequent mention in the Egyptian records (Naville, 
Deir el-Bahari, 1 24 [ 94]). The Babylonians and 
Assyrians too knew this wood, if Jensen (AT? 837) 
is right in supposing that it is meant by the term usu, 
which is applied to a precious kind of wood, derived by 
the patesi, or priest-king, Gudea, from Meluhha, or NW. 

There seems no reason to doubt, notwithstanding Sir 
Joseph Hooker s hesitation, that the ebony of Ezek. 
is the heartwood of Diospyros Ebenum, a large tree of 
S. India and Ceylon, which has been exported from 
early times. It was no doubt one of the articles of 
Phoenician commerce through the Red Sea, like so 
many other products mentioned in OT. 

We will now examine the biblical passages in which 
reference is perhaps made to ebony. 

(a) Ezek. 27 15 was understood in very different ways by the 
ancients. s bSovra.? eA.e<ai/T<.Vovs indeed supports n p ; but 

TOIS elo-a-yofie i/oi? implies some word beginning 
2. Biblical with *?, and Pesh. reads the whole phrase filJIp 
evidence. njiaSl JOBS horns of oil and frankincense. Still 

the ordinary text and the ordinary rendering are 
probably correct ; Smend, Cornill, and Bertholet are, on this 
point, agreed. 

(b) The present text of i K. 10 22 cannot be correct. BL only 
gives (as its rendering of MT s Q"3ni D E1/?1 D 3njB ) * at Ai Swf 
TopevTwy K<xi TreAotijTO)! (an-cA. [L]) i.e., it read the first word 
D 33K- This is probably older than the reading substituted for it 
in <B A ; but although the Chronicler may have read DW 33N for 
D SniB* [see (c)], MT is probably nearer the true text. Only, 
following Ezek. 27 15, we should restore D }3ni |B i , ivory and 
ebony (see Gesenius and Rodiger, Thes.). It is not very probable, 
however, that Q"3nl D SID s correct, ingenious as the explana 
tions given of these words elsewhere (Ai fi) certainly are. n"DH 
has probably arisen out of a dittographed rj 33,Yl (it is remarkable 
that in Ezek. 27 15 Tg. actually reads Q"3in instead of MT s 
G 33in) D Slp ma y in like manner have arisen out of an early 
scribe s correction of the text ; he probably wrote flWp- If so > 
we should read the whole phrase G 33ni \W DUIpl f]D31 3HI> 
gold and silver, and horns of ivory and ebony. 

(c) In i Ch. 292 Dnfe" 33N, onyx -stones, which does not 
come in very naturally in the list of David s building materials, 
should rather be C 33W J2*. Perhaps 2 Ch. 9 21 originally made 

the ships of Tarshish bring cnty J3N, not Q3,tjtf. See Che. 
Exp. T. 10 240 (Feb. 99). 

(d) In Cant. 3 10, where EV has, absurdly, the midst thereof 
being paved with love, we should certainly read its centre 
inlaid with ebony (o ]3n for rQnx). See LITTER. 

(e) In Is. 2 166 monn nV3B" cannot possibly be right. The 
whole verse should probably be read thus (SBOT, Addenda), 

f tprt nbDnX Sa Sj- l, and on all palaces of ivory, 

D 33n niND3 -l 73 Vyi, and on all thrones of ebony. 

Cp Am. 3 15, and, on thrones of ebony, see above ( i). A similar 

emendation seems to be needed in Ps. 48 7 [8], where rivw 

B> Ehn should almost certainly be D ytJH niaiD. Cp. OPHIR. 

T. K. C. 
EBRON (P?r), Josh. 1928f, RV. See ABDON. 

EBRONAH (nrqr), Nu. 33 34 AV, RV ABRONAH. 

ECANUS, RV ETHANUS (Ethanus), a scribe (4 Esd. 
1424). The name possibly represents ETHAN [4]. 

ECBATANA (CKBATAN A [BNAVL]; Jos. Ant. x. 11 7 
xi. 46) is the Gk. form of the name (i Esd. 622 Judith 




1 1 f. 2 Mace. 9 3 Tob. 3 7 ) which appears in Aramaic 
(Ezra 5 17) as ACHMETHA. Its modern equivalent 
is Hamaddn. See further GEOGRAPHY, 22, and 


Name ($ i). Date ( 11-13). 

General Character (8 2/). Integrity ( 14). 

System of Thought ( 4-8). Canonicity ( 15). 

Character of Author ( <)/.). Literature (8 16). 

Koheleth, EV Ecclesiastes or the Preacher (Heb. 
J"l/np, Kohtleth, eKKAHClACTHc[HNAC], Jerome, Con- 

j, . cionator), is a word of rather uncertain 

. ame, etc. meanm g being the /em. participle (in 
the simple form) of a verb usually employed in the 
causative and signifying to gather together an assem 
bly. It possibly means he who addresses an assembly, 
as English, the Preacher. It was taken in this sense 
by the Greek translator and by Jerome. The name 
is applied to Solomon (lua). The fern, form of the 
word has been variously explained. By some it is 
supposed that Koheleth is -wisdom (which is/em.) per 
sonified ; but, Koheleth is construed as a masc. (7 27 
should be. read dmar hak-Kohtleth, as 128), and wisdom 
would hardly say I applied my heart to search out by 
wisdom (1 13 ; cp 1 17 23). It is easier to suppose that 
ihe/em. is to be understood in a neuter sense, the subject 
which exercises the activity being generalised, that which 
addresses, with no reference to its actual gender (Ezra 
25557), the form having possibly an intensive sense, as 
in Arabic. The book is written in prose, though inter 
spersed all through with poetical fragments, when the 
author s language becomes more condensed and elevated. 
It is only in comparatively modern times that any 
real progress has been made in the interpretation of 

, , ,. Ecclesiastes. The ancients were 

2. Interpretation. too timid to allow the Preacher to 

speak his mind. Modern interpreters recognise a strong 
individuality in the book, and are more ready to accept 
its natural meaning, though a certain desire to tone 
down the thoughts of the Preacher is still discernible in 
some English works. One thing which has greatly con 
tributed to the misunderstanding of the book and the 
character of the Preacher is the introduction of Solomon. 
To consider all those passages where the Preacher refers 
to himself as king in Jerusalem and the like to be in 
terpolations (with Bickell) may be unnecessary ; but it 
is necessary to understand that, as in all later literature, 
Solomon is merely the ideal of wisdom and magnificence. 
It is in this character alone that he is introduced. 
Neither his idolatry nor his supposed licentiousness (the 
term skiddah, 2 8, RV concubines, is of uncertain 
meaning) 1 is alluded to ; nor is his penitence. The con 
ception of a Solomon in his old age, a sated and 
effete voluptuary, looking back in penitence upon a life 
of pleasure, and exclaiming Vanity I is wholly unlike 
the Preacher of the book. There is not a word of 
penitence in the book. The Preacher is anything but 
weary of life. He has the intensest desire for it and en 
joyment of it (11?), and the deepest horror of death and 
the decay of nature (122/1). Far from being outworn 
and exhausted, he complains throughout the book that 
the powers of man have no scope : he is cabined, cribbed, 
confined by a superior power on all sides of him. Neither 
his natural nor his moral being has free play. Indeed, 
in his consciousness of power the Preacher appears to 
demand a freedom for man nothing short of that prom 
ised in the words Ye shall be as God. 

Amid all the peculiarities of the book certain things are 

clear, i. The book has a general idea running through 

3 General il> and is no mere collec tion of fragments 

character. or of occasional thoughts. The connec 

tion of the reflections sometimes seems 

1 (Many analogies suggest that nilEM ,TTE> is only a mis- 

written repetition of niTO) D"W, men- singers and women- 
singers. ] 


loose, the author was not a literary artist, but there 
is in his mind a general idea, which all his musings and 
examples illustrate. 

2. From the name which the author assumes it is 
evident that he desires to play the part of an instructor. 
He has his fellow -men before him, and feels that he 
has a lesson to convey to them. True, there is a large 
personal element in the book it is the author s con 
fessions, and he takes his readers largely into his con 
fidence ; but he is not solitary in his perplexities, and 
he has social and religious considerations which he de 
sires to address to his contemporaries. 

3. Further, the author is everywhere in earnest. He 
is not a mere clever dialectician playing intellectually 
with great problems or human interests, setting up 
opinions only to overturn them, or broaching theories 
only to reduce them ad absurdum. If he sometimes 
appears to speak on both sides of a question it is due to 
this, that the conditions and stations of human life such 
as poverty or riches, servitude or ownership, royalty or 
the place of subjects have two sides, and in his prac 
tical philosophy, which consists in inculcating a spirit 
of equanimity, he sometimes seeks to show the good 
that there is even in things evil, and on the other hand 
the drawbacks incident to those things which men covet 
most. He has also, perhaps, different moods. He is 
so overcome by the thought of the miseries that oppress 
human life that he thinks it better to die than to live, or 
best of all never to have lived ; but at other times his 
mood brightens, and he counsels men to throw them 
selves into whatever activity offers itself to their hand and 
to pursue it with their might, and to seize whatever enjoy 
ment is yielded by the labour or by its reward. The 
ground-tone of his mind is certainly sombre. He is 
oppressed by the intellectual and the practical limita 
tions to which human life is subject. Man cannot under 
stand either the world in which he lives or the work of 
God amid which he is set ; neither can he by his efforts 
accomplish anything which is a permanent gain either 
to himself or to the world, nor break the fixed and in 
exorable order of all things, of which order he himself 
is part. His chain is very short, permitting only the 
narrowest range of work or of enjoyment, and all he 
knows is that this work and enjoyment is the portion 
which God has assigned to him. This is the funda 
mental idea of the book, repeated many times, and the 
author s position appears to remain the same throughout. 
Although his mood varies, his verdict or judgment is 
stable (128). There is no evidence of a struggle in his 
mind between faith and doubt, in which faith achieves 
a victory ; much less are the apparent discrepancies of 
view in the book to be explained on the assumption 
that it contains the utterances of two voices, one 
doubting and the other believing. 

The book consists of what might be called the author s 
two philosophies, his theoretical philosophy and his 

4 Main P ract ca ^ The theoretical principle is : All 
principles s vanitv : what S ain > result > is there to man 
in his labour or life? The practical prin 
ciple is really all that is left possible by the theo 
retical one : Life has no gain ; but God has given life 
to man, and he has to live it. Therefore, there is nothing 
better than that a man eat and drink and let himself 
enjoy good, for this is God s gift to him. Naturally 
there is a third thing. This enjoyment of good is the 
only sphere in which a man has a certain freedom : 
it partly depends upon himself and his own demeanour. 
Some principle to regulate his conduct and mind in life 
is therefore necessary. This regulating principle the 
Preacher calls wisdom. As a mental quality it is prac 
tical sagacity, insight into things and situations, enabling 
a man to act prudently ; as a temper it is equanimity 
and moderation. These three ideas or conclusions had 
already been arrived at before the author sat down to 
write his book ; they are constantly present to his own 
mind, and much of the obscurity of the book arises 



from his insisting upon them not separately but simul 

Without circumlocution the Preacher states his funda 
mental idea : All is vanity : what gain is there to man 
.in all the labour in which he labours 
5 - Theoretical under the sun? , In other words> 

pmiosopny. human life is w i t hout result. In this 
it is like the whole order of things, which goes on in an 
eternal round, accomplishing nothing. All things recur, 
and there is nothing new under the sun (1 i-n). Then, 
in chap. 1 f. , he gives an account of the experiments 
which led to this conclusion. He inquired into all 
that is done under the sun, by which he means not 
merely the whole variety of human activity, but also all 
the events that happen to man in his life, and he found 
that all was without result. He found, too, that the 
knowledge gained during the enquiry was equally result- 
less : In much wisdom is much grief (1 12-18). Then 
he tried pleasure, not as a sensualist, for his wisdom 
remained with him (23-9), but as an experimental 
philosopher, and he found pleasure equally barren of 
result : I said of laughter, It is mad, and of mirth, 
What doeth it? (22). Wisdom, indeed, carries a certain 
advantage with it ; but it is no permanent gain to a man, 
for as the fool dieth, so dieth the wise man. There 
fore, there being no profit or permanent gain in life, 
howsoever it be lived, the practical conclusion is, Let 
yourself enjoy good (224). 

Such is the author s meaning when he says that all 
is vanity. It is not, as we are apt to suppose, that 
the world is unsatisfying and that the human soul craves 
something higher than the world can give. All is 
vanity because man is confined by a fixed determination 
of everything on all sides of him by God. All the 
events of human life are in the hand of God : man has 
no power over them more than he has over the wind 
(88). There is a time to be born, and a time to die ; 
a time to weep, and a time to laugh ; a time to love 
and a time to hate. All is in the hand of God ; whether 
it be love or hatred man knovveth it not all is before 
them (3 1-9 9 1). It is absurd to suppose that this means 
that there is a proper or suitable time for everything ; 
it means that there is a time fixed by God for every 
thing, a time, not when things should be done, but 
when they must be done. Even the injustice in the 
judgment seat and the oppressions against which men 
are helpless are ordinations of God. There may be a 
time for judging them -there is a time for everything ; 
but their object in God s hand is to bring home to 
man a true idea of what he is that he is nothing 
and that God is all. Their object is to prove men and 
teach them to fear God, and that they may learn that 
they are but beasts ; for one event happeneth to them 
and to the beasts : all go to one place, all are of the 
dust, and all turn to dust again (3 16-20) Who knoweth 
the spirit of man whether it goeth upward, and the 
spirit of the beast whether it goeth downward to the 
p . . earth? (821 RV). Obviously nothing 

MI v! is left to man but to take what jy out 

sopny. of life is posses, for that is his portion 
(224 81222 5i8-2o 815 Qy-io llgfi). Even over this 
man has no power : it also is in the determination 
of God (7is/). Power to enjoy life is the gift of 
God (224/ 813 5 19) ; and, though it may generally be 
assumed that he desires men to have this enjoyment 
(9y), there are instances where he denies them the gift 
(226 62-8). The Preacher is, of course, no sensualist. 
The good, enjoyment of which he recommends, consists 
of the simple pleasures of life : eating and drinking, the 
consolations and supports of wedlock, the pleasure to 
be derived from activity in work or in business (9 7-10 11 
1-6910). How could the pleasures recommended be 
those of riot and excess when they are the gift of God, 
the portion he has given to man in the life which he 
spends as a shadow ? It is just in these enjoyments that 
man comes nearest to God : he meets God in them, feels 



his favour, and knows that in them God is responding 
to the joy of his heart l (5 20). This is the old view of 
the Hebrew mind, which looked on prosperity and the 
blessings of life as in a sense sacramental, as the seal 
of God s favour. The Preacher is a God-fearing man 
(56/8 12), a man of righteous life (8 13), thoughtful, and 
dwelling by preference on the serious side of life (7i-6). 
He believes in God, and in a moral rule of God, who 
judges the righteous and the wicked. No doubt this 
rule is incomprehensible and full of what seem moral 
anomalies. It appears arbitrary (226) : under it all 
things happen alike to all, to the godly and to the 
ungodly (9 1-3): the race is not to the swift nor the 
battle to the strong (9n): there be righteous men 
unto whom it happeneth according to the work of the 
wicked, and the contrary (814). Nevertheless, the 
Preacher will not abandon the general idea of such a 
moral rule (8i2/. ), though he laments that the delay 
and uncertainty of God s judgment encourages men 
in their wickedness (811), and increases the evil and 
madness which are in their hearts (9s) ; for, though God 
made man upright, man has sought out many inven 
tions (729). Such anomalies in Providence, however, 
always drive the Preacher back to his practical counsel : 
Wherefore I commend mirth ; for a man hath no 
better thing under the sun than to eat and drink and 
to be merry (815). 

Man is speculatively unable to. comprehend the world 
(3 ii 724 817), and practically helpless to obviate its 
evils ; he is bound within an iron system which is un 
alterable. From a modern point of view it might be 
asked, Does the Preacher acknowledge the possibility of 
a progress of the individual mind within the bounds of 
the system which fetters him, of a culture or discipline 
within the limitations imposed on him by God? He 
does so in a certain sense. The evil of life, man s 
ignorance of what is to befall him, teaches him to fear 
God (814) ; and in his survey of the work that is done 
under the sun he acquires wisdom, or, to.use a common 
phrase, culture. But the vanity, the resultlessness 
of life, lies here : in that a man can neither 
retain these gains nor transmit them, and, 
after all, life is without profit. ( i ) Man cannot retain 

his gains, for death surprises him : the wise man dieth 
even as the fool, and there is no remembrance of either 
of them for ever (2i6 ; cp 217-23) ; in the grave there 
is no work, no knowledge, no wisdom (9io) : the dead 
know not anything, neither have they any more a 
reward (9s). The Preacher strikes here the saddest 
note of his feeling. It is obvious that his complaint 
that life has no profit because man cannot retain its 
gains is a complaint that man cannot retain himself 
What shall it profit a man if he gain the world and 
lose himself? The Preacher s cry is for continuity of 
the individual life, that he may still carry with him the 
gains which his spirit has accumulated. He appears 
to be aware that immortality of the individual spirit is 
believed in by some ; but either the ground-tone of his 
own mind is too sombre for him to accept the idea, or 
the evidence for it seems insufficient (819-21 9i-6). 
His book is unintelligible if this belief formed part of his 
creed. Hence he has been called a sceptic. The word 
is relative. All the OT saints, if they lived now, might 
be called sceptics. The belief in immortality was not 
until very late times an assured doctrine of the OT (cp 
ESCHATOLOGY, 33). We observe it in the process 
of arising, as the necessary issue of two things the 
living fellowship of man with God here, of which it is the 
continuance ; and the anomalies of providence, of which 
it is the reconciliation. The Preacher is unable to reach 
it on either line. 2 (2) Further, life is without result 

1 Probably we should render a difficult phrase thus with 

2 The use of the word spirit in the OT is obscure, (i) It 
means the breath, the visible sign, of life. (2) It is what we 
call the principle of life. Life and the continuance of life 


7. Death. 



because the wise man cannot transmit the fruits of his 
labour or of his wisdom : the man that cometh after him 
may be a fool. The idea of an advance of the race 
through the accumulated gains contributed to it by 
individuals does not occur to the Preacher. The tide 
of personal life flows too strong in his heart to permit 
him to acquiesce in his own absorption into the race, 
even if the race had a great destiny before it. Of this, 
moreover, he sees no evidence. To his mind, in the 
mood in which we find him, mankind has neither a pro 
gress nor a goal. The analogy of nature oppresses him. 
Its monotonous daily round of sunrise and sunset, of 
veering winds and rushing streams, produces no result. 
The history of mankind is the same one generation 
goeth and another generation cometh. The universe has 
no goal; God has no purpose, and mankind no destiny. 
This general scope of the Preacher s logic (howsoever his 
heart recoils from it) defines the sense in which he 
speaks of God s judgment. He hardly has the idea of 
a general judgment, such as that of the day of the Lord 
of the prophets, when God brings in his perfect kingdom 
and bestows eternal blessedness on his people. The 
Preacher s individualism, common to him with all the 
writers of the Wisdom, makes this unlikely. Neither 
could he have spoken of the universe as a continuous 
flux without a point of attainment if he had thought of 
it as moving towards this great goal. The judgment 
is to him merely part of the moral government of God, 
which he maintains, howsoever imperfectly he is able to 
perceive it. 

We have seen already that besides his theoretical 
and his practical philosophy the Preacher had a regula- 
8 Princinle tive P rmc P le f conduct, which he called 
of d ct w s d m - Much of the book is devoted 
to showing the advantage of this prin 
ciple. It teaches a man how to bear himself before 
God. Even in religion a man ought to be calm and 
meditative, and to restrain over -impulsiveness (5 1-7 
7 16/. ). So in regard to rulers : even if despotic and 
evil, a wise man will not act hastily, seeing that power 
is on the side of the ruler ; nor will he rashly enter into 
plots or conspiracies. Discretion is the better part of 
valour. He who digs a pit may fall into it. Skill is 
better than force. If you have trees to fell, grind your 
axe rather than put to more strength (81-9 10i-n). 
And be not surprised if you are oppressed and plun 
dered. Society, or at least government, is an organised 
oppression : those who oppress you are oppressed by 
those above them, and these again by their superiors, 
and so on to the top of the pyramid (58). Wisdom, how 
ever, perceives the vanity of all this : for example, he 
that loveth money will not be satisfied with money, and 
he that increaseth his substance increaseth those who eat 
it (610-69). Wisdom, on the contrary, is as good as an 
inheritance, or better than that ; for it preserves the life 
of him who has it (7 12) ; it supplements the defects of 
righteousness, and avoids the falsehood of extremes 
(7 15-22) ; it is stronger than ten rulers in a city (7 19) ; 
and preserves men both from sentimental dreaming 
over the good old days and from over -anxious fore 
casting how their business ventures will turn out (11 1-6). 
There is much, however, that wisdom is not equal to 
even in human things (7 24), and no wisdom can find 
out the work of God (817). Moreover, the wisdom 
of the poor man is neglected or forgotten (9 13-16), and 
a little folly is stronger than much wisdom, even as a 
dead fly will cause a pot of ointment to stink (10 1). 
are the effect of a divine influence; the cessation of life is the 
withdrawal of this influence. The spirit in this sense is 
nothing but an effect. All questions where this spirit 1 goes 
when taken away by God are irrelevant. It goes nowhlre : 
taking away of it is merely the cessation of the divine 
influence of which it is the effect. (3) It is the immaterial 
subject (not substance) in man, which lives. The boundary 
lines between (2) and (3) are confused. The passage 3 21 seems 
to incline to (3), though without firmness (5 19), whilst 12 7 prob 
ably goes back to (2), being on a line with Ps. 104 20 f Job 34x4 
Cp, further, LSCHATOLOGY, ig/., and SPIRIT. 


Occasionally the author uses the term wisdom in the 
sense of comprehension of the universe or work of God. 
For this man is altogether incompetent (cp Job 28). 

The above analysis shows the Preacher s main ideas. 
The Preacher himself is more difficult to explain. The 

__ difference between him and earlier writers 

of the Wisdom lies in his tone. To catch 
this truly would be to find the key to his book. The 
existence of the book is evidence of dissatisfaction, of a 
sense of want. The Preacher is driven to acknowledge 
that man is like a beast with lower pleasures : he could 
not have added with lower pains. His book all 
through is a cry of pain just that he has no portion 
but lower pleasures. His conclusions are in a way 
positivist; but his whole book is a protest against his 
conclusions not against the truth of them, but against 
the fact that they should be true. Job flung himself 
against the moral iniquities of Providence ; to the 
Preacher the crookedness of things is universal. Job 
raged ; the Preacher only moans and moralises. Job is 
an untamed eagle, dashing himself against the bars of 
his cage ; the Preacher looks out with a lustreless eye 
on the glorious heavens, where, if he were free, he 
might soar. He knows it cannot be, and he ventures 
also to murmur some advice to men : Enjoy good ; do not 
think (620). His admonitions to himself and others are 
quite sincere, not ironical ; they are the human soul s 
efforts to ancesthetise itself dull narcotics numbing 
pain. The Preacher s mood may be a complex thing : 
partly temperament, partly a mode of religion, and 
partly due to the wretched conditions of human life in 
his time. It was an evil time. Judges were corrupt, 
rulers despotic and debauched, the people oppressed ; 

10. A product of 
OT religion. 

and society was disintegrated. It is 
unnecessary to have recourse to Greek 

philosophy to explain the Preacher s 
ideas and feelings (cp HELLENISM, 6, and see below, 
13). The practical wisdom which he recommends 
may have a certain resemblance to the unperturbed- 
ness," the mean, and the nothing too much of the 
philosophers ; but both it and all other things in the 
Preacher are a natural development of the native 
Hebrew Wisdom. There is nothing in Ecclesiastes 
which is not already in Job and the older Wisdom. 
Indeed, one may say that the OT religion was bound to 
produce, at some time and in some cases, a phenomenon 
like the Preacher. The OT religion consists of two 
things : first, ideas about God ; and, secondly, a living 
faith towards him and sense of fellowship with him. 
Without the latter the former brings little comfort to 
the human mind, even though certain fundamental 
beliefs such as the personality of God and the moral 
being of man be still retained. For, first, the 

fundamental principle of Hebrew religion that God is 
in all things that happen, whilst in times of prosperity 
and well-being it gave unspeakable joy to the pious 
mind, with a vivid sense of its fellowship in life with 
God, when the times were evil and articles of a creed 
had taken the place of an emotional piety, gave rise to 
a sense of impotency in the mind. Man felt environed 
on all sides by a fixed order which he could do nothing 
to ameliorate. God became a mere transcendent 
force outside of human life, pressing upon it and 
limiting it on every side. The different feeling which 
the same conception of God produced in the pious 
mind and in the reflective mind, respectively, will appear 
if Ps. 139 be compared with Ecclesiastes. It would be 
false to say that God to the Preacher was nothing 
more than what the world or nature, or that which 
is outside a man, is to many minds now. His faith in 
a personal God is never shaken ; atheism or materialism 
is not conceivable in an ancient Oriental mind. At the 
same time, his faith is no more suffused with the life- 
colours of an emotional confidence, and he could not 
have said with the Psalmist, Nevertheless I am con 
tinually with thee 1 (Ps. 7823), nor with Job, I know 




that my Redeemer liveth, and that I shall see God 
(1925). Secondly, it was from piety, the sense 

of fellowship with God, not from reflection, that all the 
great religious hopes in regard to man s future arose. 
They were projections, corollaries, of an emotional 
personal religion such as the hope of immortality, the 
faith in a reign of righteousness, and the incoming of a 
kingdom of God upon the earth. When piety declined, 
and reflection took its place, these hopes of the future 
could not sustain themselves. They survived in the com 
munity, whose life was perennial ; but the individual 
ism of the Preacher felt them slipping from its grasp. 

The date of Ecclesiastes cannot be determined with 
certainty. It is later than Malachi, for the priest called 
_ , in Malachi messenger of the Lord (Mai. 
. e. 2 7 ^ j s s i m ply named the messenger in 
56. It is probably earlier than Ecclesiasticus (circa 
200), for, though many of the coincidences usually 
cited have little relevancy, Ecclus. 186 seems certainly 
a reminiscence of Eccles. 814, and Ecclus. 4224 of 
Eccles. 7 14. The book may belong to the oppressive 
times of the later Persian rule, or it may be a product of 
the Greek period. Perhaps the language would rather 
suggest the later date (see next ). In the beginning 
of the book the experiments on life are represented as 
being made by Solomon ; but this transparent disguise 
is speedily abandoned. Solomon is mesely the ideal of 
one who has unbounded wisdom and unlimited resources 
with which to experiment on human life a man whose 
verdict of vanity, therefore, is infallible. In the 
Epilogue the Preacher is merely one of the wise (129). 
The state of society amid which the author lived has 
no resemblance to the state of society in the times 
of Solomon. There was corruption in the judgment 
seat (3i6), cruel oppression from which there was no 
redress (4i^), and a hierarchy of official plunderers 
one above another (58), with a system of espionage 
which made the most private speech dangerous (102o). 
The author had witnessed revolutionary changes in 
society and strange reversals of fortune slaves riding 
on horses and princes walking on foot (104-7). 

Such a time might be the late Persian period. It 
could not well be the early Greek period when the Jews 
enjoyed the beneficent rule of the early Ptolemies. It 
might, however, be the more advanced Greek period, 
when Palestine became the stake played for by Antioch 
and Alexandria, a time when the people suffered severe 
hardships, and when the upper classes, especially the 
religious leaders, were deeply demoralised and self-seek 
ing. On the other hand, the book must be earlier than 
the uprising of the national spirit in the time of the 
Maccabees. Gratz indeed places the book in the time 
of Herod (8 B.C.) ; but the date is part of his theory of 
the book, which has no probability. The most probable 
date perhaps is the latter part of the third century B.C. 
(cp, however, Che. Jew. Rel. Life, ch. v. ). 

Both the language and the modes of religious thought 
in Ecclesiastes suggest that it is one of the latest books 

12. Language. 

in the canon. The language has the 

peculiarities of such late books as 
Chronicles- Ezra -Nehemiah, and Esther. Indeed, it 
belongs to a much more degraded stage of Hebrew 
than either of those books exhibits ; and in the forms of 
words, in the new senses in which older words are used, 
and in the many new words employed, it has many 
similarities to the Targums and Syriac, especially to the 
Mishna (circa 200 A. D. ). 

The characteristic forms of Hebrew syntax, such as the van 
conversing have almost disappeared ; constructions of classical 
Hebrew have given place to those of Aramaic ; and in general 
the language has lost its old condensed character, and become 
analytic, with a multitude of new particles. Details may be 
seen in Driver s Introd., and in the commentaries of Delitzsch, 
Nowack, or Wright. 

The ideas and the mode of religious thought in the 

1 1 THn book also bear witness to the lateness of its 

date. In the Preacher the religious spirit of 

Israel is seen to be completely exhausted. It can no 

more, as in Job and Ps. 49 and 73, use the problems of 
life in order to rise to lofty intuitions of its relation to 
God. It sinks back defeated, able only to offer a few 
practical rules for ordinary life. The idea of Tyler, 
who is followed by Plumptre, that the book is a blend of 
the Stoic and Epicurean philosophies, seems extra 
ordinarily superficial, and is supported mainly by what 
appears misinterpretation of its language. 

The passage 3 if., there is a time to be born (etc.), does not 
inculcate the doctrine of living conformably to nature, or teach 
that there is a fit time for doing everything : it teaches that 
there is a necessary time, for the time of everything has been 
determined by God. Even the most astute opportunist would 
have difficulty in securing that he should be born and should die 
at the fitting time. Again, the passages 19815 and many others 
certainly teach that there is nothing new under the sun, no 
progress in nature or history, that things recur ; but they teach 
nothing about recurrent cycles. Determinism is, of course, a 
prevailing idea in the book. That, however, is just the funda 
mental idea of the Wisdom, or indeed of the Hebrew mind that 
God is the causality in all things with the inevitable develop 
ment which time gave it. At first sight the phrase to do good 
in the sense of to see good, to enjoy life (3 12), has a startling 
resemblance to the Gk. e5 irpaTTeiv ; but, after all, the senses 
of the two phrases are somewhat different, and there is no 
reason to suppose the Hebrew expression to be an imitation ; 
though not occurring elsewhere, its opposite, to do badly (i.e., 
be sad), is used in early literature (2 S. 12 18, and perhaps Eccles. 
5 i [4 17 (5 i)]), and possibly the phrase itself may be ancient. 
(H. Zirkel, Unters. iib. den Prediger, 1792, was the first to dis 
cover Graecisms in Ecclesiastes.) 

There have been attempts to identify the old and 
foolish king (4 13^) and the city the siege of which 
was raised by the poor wise man (9 13^), and to 
verify the possible historical reference in the passage 
(104-7) about slaves on horseback and princes walking 
on foot, and in such passages as 810, with a view to 
fixing the date of the book more accurately ; but nothing 
has resulted beyond conjectures more or less plausible. 

The ingenious theory of Bickell that the apparent 
want of connection in many parts of Ecclesiastes is the 
resu ^ f an accident which befell the 

T t \ 
. integr ty. 

at some ear iy time, and threw the 

sheets into confusion, has little probability: 1 the want 
of connection complained of disappears in many cases 
before a more careful study of the author s line of 
thought. In a book such as Ecclesiastes, however, the 
line of thought and (particularly) the tone of which 
diverge so greatly from the other OT writings it was 
to be expected that there would be some interpola 
tions : qualifications which the reader or scribe felt 
constrained to add to the author s somewhat strong 
statements. The probability that 11 9^ is an addition 
rests not so much on the idea expressed as on its 
unnaturalness in the context ; for the view of some that 
the passage means that God will bring into judgment 
any one who neglects to enjoy the natural pleasures of 
life is too absurd. There is less objection to 817 
(perhaps the last word of the verse should be read sdm, 
hath appointed ). 8 10 i2/. also are in some way 
corrupt. So, certainly, 12 1, Remember thy creator. 
The words disturb the connection between 11 10 and the 
rest of 12 1. The reading suggested by Gratz, Re 
member thy fountain ( = thy wife, Prov. 515-19). strikes 
a lower note than is heard anywhere in the book, and is 
to be rejected. 

The Epilogue falls into two parts, 12g-i2 and 12 is/ ; 
and it is questionable whether either part (especially the 
second) is original. 2 On the one hand, the book reaches 
its natural conclusion in 128, where the burden of it is 
restated : All is Vanity ; and, secondly, whilst in the 
rest of the book the author speaks in the first person, 
in w. 9-12 he is spoken about. On the other hand, 
though the verses contain some peculiar expressions, 
their general style agrees with that of the rest of the 
book, and it is quite possible that the author, dropping 

1 The theory of dislocation was first proposed by J. G. van 
der Palm in his Ecclesiastes philologies et critice illustratus, 
Leyden, 1784. The theory and arrangement of Bickell is repro 
duced in Dillon, Sceptics of the OT, 95. 

2 On interpolations in Eccles., see also CANON, 55, col. 671, 
n. 4. 



his literary disguise of Solomon, might have added some 
account of himself in his actual character. The picture 
is certainly not just that which would have suggested 
itself to a mere reader of the book : it implies a fuller 
acquaintance with the author than could be got from 
his work. In w. 13 f. the whole matter is said to be : 
Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the 
whole of man. The last words may mean, This absorbs 
or should absorb man : all his powers should be directed 
toward this ; or they may mean, This exhausts man : his 
powers reach no further e.g. , to understand the work 
of God (Job 28). Verse 14, which says that God will 
bring every work into judgment, attaches itself better 
to the first sense. The judgment also seems a larger 
and more general one than that seen in God s ordinary 
moral rule of the world. Possibly, therefore, w. 13 f. 
come from the same hand as llej^. If the verses be 
an addition, they are still comparatively early, for they 
are referred to in the disputes of the Jewish teachers 

over the canonicity of the book. 

15. Canonicity. Ecdesiastes is not quoted in the NT( 

and even in the second century A. D. its right to a place 
in the collection of sacred books was a subject of 
controversy in the Jewish schools. The exact state of 
the dispute appears to be this : Practically the book had 
long been combined with the other sacred writings ; 
but voices which expressed doubt of the propriety 
of this combination continued to be heard. That this 
is the state of the case appears from the facts (i) that 
Ecclesiastes must be included in the twenty-four books 
of 4 Esdras, and in the twenty-two of Josephus, toward 
the end of the first century A.D. ; and (2) that in the 
time of Herod the Great and of Gamaliel it is quoted 
as scripture (Bab. Bathra, 43, Shabb. 30$), whilst the 
objections to it continued to be heard 100-120 A.D. 
(Yad. 85). The school of Hillel held that it defiled 
the hands (was canonical) ; that of Shammai rejected it. 
The former opinion finally prevailed. See CANON, 55. 

In addition to general works such as Driver s Introd. and 

Kue. s Ond. ( 2 ) iii. may be named the comms. of Ew. Dichter 

des Alt. B unties ; Hitzig, Exeg. Hand., 

16. Literature. 47, ( 2 ), by Now. 83; Ginsburg, Cofie- 

leth, 61 ; Gratz, Koheleth, 1871 ; Del. 
Hohesliedu. Koheleth, 1875 (translated); Plumptre, Ecclesiastes 
or the Preacher (Cambridge Bible), 1881 ; Renan, L EccUsiastc. 
1882; Wright, The Book of Coheleth, 1883; Volck, Kurzgef. 
Kotnm. (Strack u. Zockler), 1889 ; Sam. Cox, in Ex. Bib., 1890. 
Helps of a more general kind : Nold. Die AliLit., 1868 ; Bloch, 
Ursprung, etc., des Buches Koh., 1872 ; Tyler, Ecclesiastes, 
1874 [( 2 ) 99]; Taylor, Dirge of Koheleth, 1874; Engelhard, 
_ Ueber den Epilog des Koh. .S*. A>., 1875; Kleinert, Sind 
in B. Koh. ausserheb. Einfliisse anzuerkennen ? St. Kr., 1883 ; 
Bickell, Der Prediger, 1884 ; Schiffer, Das B. Koh. nach der 
Auffassung der Weisen des Talmud, etc., 1884 ; Bradley, Lect. 
on Eccles., 1885 ; Pfleiderer, Die Philos. des Heraklit, 1886 ; A. 
Palm, DieQohclet Literatur, 1886 ; Che.JobandSolomon, 1887 ; 
Jew. Rel. Life, Lect. vi. 1898 ; S. Euringer, Der Masorahtext 
des Koh., 1890 ; Wildeboer (in KHC 98). On the Gr. text, Di. 
SBA W, 1892 ; E. Klostermann, DeLib. Coh. Vers. Alex. 1892 ; 
Tyler, Koh. 1899. A. B. D. 

Ond.ffl 104, 105 ( 93 ; Germ, transl. Einl., 93): note especially 
the discussion of proposed dates later than 200 B.C. ; Haupt, 
The Book of Ecclesiastes, Oriental Studies (Or. Club of 
Philadelphia, 94), pp. 242-278, holds that the contents have 
been deliberately disarranged, and that many glosses have in 
truded into the text ; he gives a translation of the final section 
as restored by himself. 

Ko. Einl. ( 93), 432 jTt, and Leimdorfer (Das heil. Schrift- 
werk A ohelet, 92) ably plead for a date in the reign of Alex- 
ander Jannaeus. 

Siegfried (in HK. 93) also thinks that Eccles. is full of con 
tradictions, indicating the work of at least five writers. A 
redactor attempted, with little success, to bring order out of 
chaos. He gave the superscription (1 1) and a concluding word 
(128); 129-19 is due to three epilogists. The date of the 
original book is placed soon after 200 B.C. The glossators may 
have gone on till nearly 100 B.C. ; allusions to the Essenes (see 
e.g., 9 2 /*) also point to this period. The kernel of the work 
may have been known to Ben-Sira (after 170 B.C.). 

Che. Jew. Rel. Life ( 98), 183-208, favours Gratz s hypo 
thesis, and while admitting that the date of Ecclesiastes needs 
further examination, he finds no period which so fully illus 



trates the book as that of Herod the Great. He admits great 
disarrangement and interpolations. 

It may be added that the text of Eccles. is in a bad state. 
There are still gleanings to be had in some of the most difficult 
passages, which may considerably affect the criticism of the 
book (see Critica Biblica, and cp KOHELETH). Bickell s 
emendations have hardly been appreciated enough. He has 
further done good service, not only by his suggestive rearrange 
ment, but also by his attention to the poetical passages, e.g., no 
one has made so clear to the eye the most probable meaning of 
11 ioa and 12 la (cp Che. Jew. Rel. Life, 192). 

Wi. s essay on Date and Author of Koheleth (AOFW 143- 
159) gives a general sanction to Siegfried s analysis, and as 
cribes the kernel to ALCIMUS [y.v.]. The old and foolish 
king is Antiochus Epiphanes. The statement on p. 146 that 
the author must have been either one of the kings of the 
Herodian house or else one of the heretical high priests before 
the Hasmonaean dynasty is a valuable recognition of the period 
within which, as more and more critics think, the date of the 
original book must be placed. T. K. c.] 


Title, etc. ( i/) 
Text, etc. ( 3-6). 
Date ( 7-9). 
Fortunes ( 10). 
Structured uf.) 

Sources ( 13-15). 

Form and Contents ( i6_/!) 

Religious teaching ( 18-22). 

Ethical ( 23). 

Greek thought ( 24). 

Literature ( 26). 

Ecclesiasticus (abbrev. Ecclus. ) is the usual Latin 
and English name of one of the deuterocanonical books 
of the OT (see APOCRYPHA, 28). It is not probable 
that the author himself gave his book a title ; later it is 
_,.,. referred to under various names. In the 
Talmud it is cited simply by the name of 
the author, as Ben-Sira (NTD p)> or by the formula 
the sages say (though this last may point not im 
mediately to our book, but to material from which it 
drew). Jerome (Prczf. in Libr. Sal. ) declares that he 
had seen a Hebrew copy entitled Parabolas (o Vrc), 
and this designation, natural and appropriate, is 
employed also by Saadia. 1 

In the LXX the book is called Wisdom of Jesus, 
Son of Sirach (2o0a Irjcrov viov 2[e]tpdx [NAC] ; B 
incorrectly 2. S. ; but in the subscription B agrees with 
NA. The title of the Prologue in C is irpoXoyos St/mx). 

This form (found also in the Syriac Versions and in some MSS 
of the Vet. Lat.) was the one generally used by the Greek writers, 
as is expressly stated by Rufinus (Vers. Or. Horn, in Nu. 
xviii. 3). The title 2o$i a occurs also in other combinations: 
in the honorary name All-virtuous Wisdom (^ Travaperos 2o<|u a) 
given to the book in patristic writings (Jer. Prczf. in Lib. Sal.), 
as also to Proverbs (Clem. Rom. i Cor. 57; Clem. Alex. i. 1085; 
Eus. HE iv. 22) and to Wisd. of Sol. 2 (Epiph. iii. 244) ; and 
in the more general designations Wisdom (Orig. In Matt. 184) 
and Wisdom of Solomon (Cypr. Test. iii. 20). 

With regard to the term HDDH applied in the Talmud 
to the work of Ben-Sira it is uncertain whether it is 
used as a title ; but it appears to have been employed 
as a descriptive term. Possibly it was an old Jewish 
designation, which was adopted by the Greek Christians 
as a title ; in the case of the Book of Proverbs Hege- 
sippus (in Eus. HE 4zz) refers the term to unwritten 
Jewish traditions. 

On the Talmudic use cp Blau (in J?E/35zi), who cites Jer. 
Sota, 2+c : after the death of R. Eliezer the rtD3rlfl D was 
buried (TJJJ). It seems probable that the expression n D 
includes Ben-Sira. 

Whilst the Greeks thus named the work from the 
nature of its material, the Latins preferred a title descrip 
tive of its relation to the Church services. The term 
dKK\ri(naa TiK6s is used by the Greeks of the KO.VUV of 
the Church (Clem. Alex. Sir. 6125), and generally of what 
was in accord with the Church. Adopted by the Latins, 
the term was employed by them in a like general way 
(pacemecclesiasticam, Tert. De Pudicit. 22), and came to 
be used especially of books which, though not canonical, 
were regarded as edifying and proper to be read in 
the churches (Ruf. Comm. in Symb., 38, Vers. Orig. 

1 The Oxford editors of the Hebrew Fragments (see below, 
8 4) refer (Preface, ix, n. 4) to a statement of Saadia (S adyah) 
( 17Jn 130 e d- Harkavy, p. 151, /. \if.~), that Ben-Sira wrote a 
Book of Instruction (IQIO IBD^- This expression, however, 
seems to be rather a description than a title. 

2 Probably given first to Proverbs, and then to all the supposed 
Solomonic wisdom-books. 



in Num. 183 ; Ath. Ep. Fest., sub fine). So high was 
the esteem in which our book was held that it was 
termed Ecclesiasticus, the liber ecclesiasticus par ex 
cellence (Cypr. Test. 2i 3i ; Aug. De Doct. CAr.2i3). 
The name of the author is given variously. 

The Hebrew text has, in 5027, Shim on b. Yeshua b. 

Eliezer b. Sira (so also Saadia, I^Jfl D US 1 ), ar >d in 61.30 the 

same formula, and also Shim on b. Y., called 

2. Author, b. Sira ; B 5027 ITJO-OUS v. veipax (cripa^ [A], 
a-eipa/c [N]), eAeafap [in other MSS -pos or -pou] ; 
S a K subscription : Yeshua b. Shimeon, who is called Bar 
Asira fin some MSS Sirak ], and in the title Barsira ; S w al, 
title : Y. b. Shim on Asira, and also Bar Asira ; Book of the 
Bee (A need. Oxon., Sem. Series i. 279): Shim on b. Sira ; 
Talmud, Ben-Sira. 

In this medley of readings two things seem clear. The 
author s name proper was Yeshua (Jesus) : so he is called 
by the Greek translator in his prologue ; and his familiar 
surname was Ben-Sira, as all ancient authorities attest. 
The significance of the other names is less clear. 

The Hebrew text and Saadia must be changed so as to read 
Yeshua b. Shim on (cp Zunz, GV 106), and the whole name, 
as given by them, may then be accepted (so Harkavy, Stud. u. 
Mittheil. 6200; Blau in REJ^zo, and Kautzsch). In that 
case we may suppose that and S have abridged the genealogy, 
and that the form in the Book of the Bee is defective. This 
seems to be the most natural construction of the data. It is 
less probable that Shim on (Simon) and Eleazar are scribal 
additions, the former made in order to connect the author with 
the famous high priest of that name (50 i), 1 the latter in order 
to connect him with the high priest (the brother and successor 
of Simon I.) to whom, according to the Letter of Aristeas, 
Ptolemy Philadelphus sent his request for the translation of the 
Torah (Fritzsche). This sort of invention of a genealogy would 
be very bold, and would hardly be called for by Ben-Sira s 
position as a sage. Nor is it likely that Eleazar is another 
name of Sira (Krauss, in JQR, Oct. 1898). It is simpler to 
suppose that Simon and Eleazar (the names are common) were 
men otherwise unknown father and grandfather of the author. 2 

We may thus assume that the name of the author 
in the Greek Version, Yeshua Ben-Sira, rests on a good 
tradition. The origin and signification of the Ben- 
Sira are not clear ; the most probable view is that it is 
a family name, though we know nothing of how it arose. 

Blau (in REJ 35 20) refers to the family names Bcnc Hezir 
(Chwolson, Corp. Inscr. Heb. 65) and Bcne Hashnwnai. Of 
Sira nothing is known ; the word (apparently Aram.) may mean 
coat of mail or thorn ; it does not occur elsewhere in this form 
as a proper name. The Asira of Pesh. seems to be a scribal 
error (cp the Barsira of the title in S la g). Krauss, however 
(in JQR, Oct. 1898), holds Sira to be an abbreviation of an 
original Asira = Heb. TDK; bound, which occurs in lists of 
priests (Ex. 6 24 i Ch. 3 17). This is possible (Krauss cites ex 
amples of similar abridgments); but the testimony of the primary 
Vss. is against it ; and the Ar. Vs. (as Edersheim points out), 
which commonly follows Syr., has Jesu b. Sirach. The Gk. 
form, with final x (or K), is best explained as intended to show 
that the foreign word is indeclinable (see Dalm. Gram. 161, n. 
6); cpaKeASa/ouxx = NOT ^pn (ACELDAMA, i). 

The genealogies in 50 27 51 30 have only the authority 
of tradition they are not from the hand of the author. 
He is described in 50 27 in the Greek and Latin Vss. 
as a Jerusalemite, a statement in itself not improbable 
it is in keeping with the detailed description of the 
high-priestly ritual in 50 ; but since it is not found in 
the H. and S. it cannot be regarded as certain. One Gk. 
MS calls him a priest ; but this is merely a scribal error. 

Instead of lepocroAvjuem)? N* has tepeus o <roA. This error seems 
to have given rise to further unwarranted statements (see below). 
Cp the argument of Krauss in JQR, Oct. 1898. 

As to Ben-Sira s life we have only the general conclu 
sions which may be drawn from the nature of his thought 
and from a few references which he makes to his ex 
periences. He seems to have been a Palestinian sage, 
a philosophical observer of life, an ardent Israelite and 
devoted lover of the Torah, but probably neither a priest 3 

1 So Bar-Hebrseus. 

2 On the Eleazar b. Irai (Iri) from whom Saadia ( l^jrj D 
ed. Hark. 178) quotes a saying which is attributed in the Talmud 
to Ben-Sira and is found in our Greek (32if.), see Bacher, 
Agad. d. pal. Amor. 2 n n. 5, C. and N., Eccles. n, and Blau, 
in R JT/3524. It seems likely that Irai is a corruption of 
Sira (see the full name in the Hebrew); the work cited by 
Saadia was possibly a different recension of Ben-Sira (Blau). 
But this Eleazar cannot be the Talmudic doctor Eleazar b. 
Pedat, who frequently cites Ben-Sira (Harkavy, Bacher). 

3 Schiir. (Hist. 5 25), referring to the erroneous statement of 



(Zunz, Noldeke) nor a safer (Fritzsche) (see SCRIBE), 
unless that term be understood in a very wide sense (see 
21 ). He had too wide a circle of interests to be easily 
identified with either of those classes, though he was in 
close relation with them both ; and he may perhaps be 
best described as one who sympathised with that mode 
of thought which after his time developed into Saddu- 
ceeism. He early devoted himself to the pursuit of 
wisdom, travelled much, was often exposed to danger, 
and sometimes near to death (34n/. 51), and his book 
was probably composed in his riper years. 

Until quite recently the work was known to modern 
scholars only in scanty citations and in translations (Gk. , 
^ r and vers ons derived from 

3. Original 

them). According to the Greek trans- 

lator s preface, it was originally written in 
Hebrew, a term which might mean either Hebrew 
proper or Aramaic. On this point the citations of 
Rabbinical writers (Pirke Aboth, Pirke of R. Nathan, 
etc. ) sometimes without acknowledgment, sometimes 
under the name of Ben-Sira, sometimes in Hebrew, 
sometimes in Aramaic or debased form were not de 
cisive, since it was not certain that they came from a 
Hebrew original ; and even the quotations of Saadia 
(loth cent.), which are in classical Hebrew, were 
similarly open to suspicion. After this the traces of a 
Hebrew text of Ecclesiasticus become indistinct, and 
knowledge of such a book did not reach the Christian 
world (see Cowley and Neubauer s Ecclesiasticus}. Still, 
that its language was Hebrew, not Aramaic, had been 
inferred by critics from certain obvious errors in the 
Greek Version for example, 24 27, light for Nile 
(IN>) ; 25 15, head for poison (tn) ; 46 18, Tyrians 
for enemies (nns). It was thought probable, also, 
that, since the Palestinian vernacular of the time was 
Aramaic, and Hebrew was a learned language, the 
author s vocabulary, whilst based on the Hebrew Sacred 
Writings (with which he was familiar), would contain 
late-Hebrew and Aramaic words and expressions. 

Under these circumstances it was natural that the 
discovery of a Hebrew text of part of the book should 

4 Wphrpw M?<? awaken keen interest. One leaf 
rew MSS. (containing 39 I5 _ 40 ^ with a hint of 

v. 8) was brought from the East to Cambridge by 
Mrs. Lewis, 1 and in a box of fragments acquired for 
the Bodleian Library (through Sayce) Cowley and Neu- 
bauer found nine leaves, apparently of the same MS 
(409-49n); eleven 2 leaves (363-7 2 9 <z 1134-5 12a-1626 
of a second MS [A], 30n-31n 32ifc-333 35g-2o 36 1-21 
3727-31 38 1-27 49 12-51 30 of the first MS [B]) were dis 
covered by Schechter in the fragments brought by him 
from the Cairo gZnizah ; and in matter recently acquired 
by the British Museum other fragments (of MS B) were 
found (31 12-31 3622-3726) ; these all together give the 
greater part of chaps. 3-7 12-16 30-32 35-51, about 
one-half of the book. 3 

The texts discovered down to the end of 1899 4 appear 
to belong to at least two different MSS, A and B. 

Syncellus (Chron. ed. Dindorf, 1, 525) that Ben-Sira was high 
priest, remarks that it must have arisen from the fact that in the 
Chronicle of Eus. (ad Ol. 137^), which Syncellus used, Ben-Sira 
is mentioned (though only as the author of Sapientia) just after 
the high priest Simon II. Other untenable opinions are that 
he is the unworthy Jason (=Jesus, high priest 175-172 B.C.), or 
that he was a physician (inferred by Grotius from 38 1-15). See 
Wette, Spez. Einl. in d. dwterokan. Bitcli., Edersheim. 

1 The recognition of this text is due to S. Schechter, Reader 
in Talmudic at the University of Cambridge, now also Professor 
of Hebrew in University College, London. 

2 On the two leaves discovered later, see below, n. 43. 

3 The first Cambridge leaf and the Oxford leaves were pub 
lished by Cowley and Neubauer, with the Gk., Lat. and Syr. 
texts ( 97), the eleven Genizah fragments by Schechter and Taylor 
( 99), and the Brit. Mus. fragments by G. Margoliouth (mJQR, 
Oct. 99). See below, 26 a. 

4 [a. Early in 1900 Schechter found two leaves (<x. 4231$ y>f. 
64-7 9-13 36 iqa ; j3. 25 si 13 17-24 26 i 20) of, apparently, a 
third MS (CSchech. : published mJQR 12456-465 [Ap. 1900]). 

b. About the same time I. Levi discovered fragments of two 
MSS : (i.) apparently a third leaf of the MS just spoken of, 
Schechter s C (Lvi calls it D), containing 6 is-7 25 in a recension 



The one, A (chaps. 3-16), is written without metrical division 
of lines, its marginal notes, corrections of obvious scribal errors, 
are few (only four, beskles the iii>crtion of an omitted ver-M:), and 
its abbreviation of the divine name is triangular (,O I the other, 
B (chaps. 30-51), is written stichometrically (except 4617-20), 
part of it (to 45 8) has numerous glosses (among them four in 
Persian), and its abbreviation of the divine name is horizontal 
(>V). In A there is predominant agreement with the Syriac ; 
in B (except in chaps. 50 /,) the agreements with the Greek 
against the Syriac are more numerous ; in chap. 51, after v. 12 
is inserted a hymn which is not found in the Vss.l 

The MSS (assigned by Cowley and Neubauer, and 
by Schechter, provisionally, to the nth cent. ), with the 
exception of a few passages, are very carelessly written, 
abounding in errors, not all of which are corrected. 

The scribes appear to have been not very well acquainted 
with Hebrew ; they sometimes make several futile attempts at 
the correction of particular words or expressions. In the glossed 
portion the annotator seems to have been a man whose ver 
nacular was Persian ; at 85 20 he notes in Persian the omission 
of a verse ; at 40 22, where the margin gives a saying ascribed 
in the B. Talmud (Sank, icoi) to Ben-Sira, he remarks that 
this was probably not in the original copy [of Ben-Sira] ; and at 
the point where the glosses cease (458) he explains that this 
MS reached thus far. This last remark appears to mean that 
the MS which he was copying ended here ; and in that case it 
is probable that the remainder (through chap. 51) belongs to 
another MS. With the supposition that the copyist or 
annotator lived where Arabic was spoken accords the fact that 
several Arabisms occur in the MS : p^n in the sense of create, 
81 13 (doublet), 31 33 (doublet), 38 i 3925 40 i ; perhaps njn as 
= honour, 38 i ; in 43srf Vtyo U"j*+ presenting one s self, 
is an explanation or correction of the word in the text, tislD 
Hi. of p-\\y as = shine, 43 9 (marg.) ; perhaps in 42 lie a scribe 

understood .0^.0 as Arabic ( lattice ). The MS has evidently 
not only suffered from the ordinary carelessness of copyists, but 
also passed through the hands of an ignorant Arabic-speaking 
man who freely inserted terms of his Arabic vocabulary. 

If we omit Arabisms and other scribal faults, the 
diction of the text is that of a man who, while his 
vernacular is that of an incipient late-Hebrew, similar 
to that of Koheleth (Eccles. ), is familiar with the greater 
part of the Hebrew OT, and freely quotes or imitates 
its language. 2 According to Bacher (JQR, 1897) and 
Schechter (of. fit. 28) the text exhibits post-Talmudical 
mosaic (paitanic) features, that is to say, a number of 
ready-made expressions and phrases borrowed from the 
OT. This, however, seems to be too strong a state 
ment the language of Ben-Sira rarely produces the 
impression of being artificial or lacking in spontaneity. 
Nor can it be said to contain midrashic elements (so 
Schechter, op. cit., 29 /f), if by midrash is meant the 
style of the Talmud. 

As examples of mosaic work Bacher cites 45 n (cp Is. 54 12) 
46 9 (cp Dt. 23 29) 39 27 (cp Job 9 5) 47 20 (cp Gen. 49 4) 44 2 1 (cp 
Ps. 72 8) 48 2 (cp Lev. 26 26), etc. ; Schechter, 4 28 (cp Ex. 14 14) 
14 23 (cp Judg. 5 28) 35 15 (cp Lam. 1 2) 49 16 (cp Is. 44 13), etc. 
These are cases of adoption and adaptation ; but they hardly 
deserve to be called mosaic work. 

political)--!! may be based on Job 42 3 ; puns (6 17^ a 22 i) are 
common in OT : 15 9 (cp Ps. 33 i) and 47 22<r (cp Ps. 145 20) are 
commonplace inferences; in 167 the allusion (Gen. 61-4) is 
not to the sons of the Elohim but to the Nephllim (cp Ezek. 
32 27) ; the lesson derived in 38 5 from Ex. 15 24 is very simple- 
there are many such interpretations in Wisd. of Sol., and so 

different from that in Camb. MS A : the text is abridged by the 
omission of 620-2729-34367: 73 5 6<r-i6 17-1922 ; (ii.) a leaf of 
apparently, a fourth MS (CUv.), containing 36 24-88 i : it is thus 
parallel to most of the second Brit. Mus. fragment (of MS B) and 
the upper part of the following Camb. leaf (of B). It gives in 
its text some of the glosses on the margin of the Camb. B and 
has one verse (37 3) punctuated and accentuated. 

Both Uvi s fragments are published (with facsimile of the new 
MS [n.]) in REJ 40 1-30 [antedated Jan.-Mar. 1900] 

c. Lastly, E. N. Adler discovered the two leaves of MS A 
musing between A 2 v and A 3 r- v iz., 7 2 9 -12 . (82 showing A>. 

Kl^h" T, e K V 7 a .:, t \ emg , s PPMed with vowels and accents) : 
published I (with facsimile) in JQ K 12 466-480 (Ap. TOOO).] 

1 For detailed descriptions of MS B see Cowleyknd Neu- 
bauer Smend L*vi (befow | 26 a i.) ; for description of MSS 
A , and B, Schechter and Taylor (below, 26 a ii ) [For the 
other MSS see preceding note.] 

2 Schechter, in , his Ben Sira, I3 ^, g i ves a l ong list of paral 
lelisms, some of, however, are common expressions 
familiar to every educated Jew. In the prologue Ben-Sira "s 
said to have been a diligent student of the Scriptures. 



of the legend possibly alluded to in the obscure statement in 
44 16 ; the borrowing, in 45 15*:, of the expressions of Ps. 89 30 
is not remarkable ; that Samuel was a Aazirite (46 13*:) is a 
natural inference from i S. 1 u there is no need of the formal 
Rabbinical rule niB* ,TPU and the simile in 47 2 (cp Ps. 89 20 
Lev. 4 8) is equally natural for a man interested in the temple- 
ritual ; text and translation of 47 loc are doubtful (the couplet is 
lacking in S.), and the comparison with the Talmudic legend (of 
Uavid awaking at midnight, Bcr. 3 b) is precarious ; 49 i may 
be based on Cant. 1 3 (so Schechter), or, what is equally probable, 
it may come from the same literary tendency that produced the 
simile in Canticles. The passages above cited may be taken to 
show the beginning of the mode of thought that later produced 
the Talmudic midrash. In this sense only can we adopt 
Schechter s conclusion : if he thought like a Rabbi he wrote 
like a Paitan. 1 

Over and above these characteristics of the Hebrew 

MSS the question has been raised whether the text is 

Relation substantially the original Hebrew or 

to Original nl ^ a trans l at i n and both views are 
strenuously maintained by competent 
critics. Those who regard it as a translation refer it 
either (i. ) to a Persian or (ii. ) to a Syriac source. 

i. The opinion that it is the rendering of a Persian 
version (which itself is held to have been derived from 
the Syriac and the Greek) is based partly on the 
presence of Persian glosses, partly on the supposition 
that certain doubtful or incorrect expressions result from 
the misunderstanding of Persian words ; the hypothesis 
is that the Syriac version used was revised from the 
Greek, and this revised text was rendered from Persian 
into Hebrew by an unintelligent Persian Jew who knew 
neither Syriac nor Greek. This theory is incompatible 
with the known facts : the agreements (often literal) 
and the disagreements of the Hebrew with the primary 
Versions make it practically inconceivable that it could 
have arisen in the way described. The alleged explan 
ations of obscure Hebrew expressions as misunder 
standings of Persian terms must be regarded as 
accidental coincidences, or, possibly, as in some cases 
due to a Persian-speaking scribe. So far as . the theory 
supposes a Syriac-Greek basis for the Persian version it 
falls in with the other view that the Hebrew is a 
translation of the Syriac, on which see below. 

The argument for a Persian origin of the Hebrew is made by 
D. S. Margoliouth in his essay The origin of the original 
Hebrew (>fEcctesiasticus(i%i)i)). His points are not convincing. 
The Persian glosses merely show the hand of a Persian copyist 
or annotator, who was a critic, as appears from his remark on 
the addition at 4022 (see above, 4). The absurd or impossible 
Hebrew words cited by Margoliouth are scribal errors, and may 
be got rid of by emendation (e.g. 40 2fo 16 43 6 17^ 22 42 14 41 12 
47346ii); cp Smend and Kautzsch. Prof. Margoliouth does 
not distinguish between author and copyist ; the latter may 
have used Arabic words (43981/4). The most striking case of 
apparent rendering from Persian is in 43 13, where G has snow 
(Pers. *_ jf) and H 2 lightning (Pers. Ji^) obviously, 
says Margoliouth, H misunderstood the Persian ; but the force 
of this argument is practically destroyed by Margoliouth s 
remark that is corrupt and should read storm, which may 
represent an original Hebrew p-Q. Other such cases cited are 
forced (4326174:22). Margoliouth adds (Exp. T., Nov. 1899) 
that the Cairene text cannot be genuine, since it was known to 
no mediaeval author but Saadia ; 3 in reply Konig, Schechter, 
and Abrahams point out (Exp. T., Dec. 1899) that such 
ignorance of a book is no proof that it did not exist (e.g., Rashi 
seems not to have known the Jer. Talmud), and that Ben-Sira 
was probably used by the Synagogal hymnologists (paitanim). 

ii. The apparent dependence of the Hebrew on the 
Syriac presents a more serious problem. There are 
certain cases in which the reading of H seems inexplic 
able except as a misunderstanding of S. The cases are 
few in chaps. 1-16 (which are written as prose), more 
numerous in 30-51 (written stichometrically). On the 
other hand H sometimes agrees with G against S, 
sometimes differs from both, sometimes appears to 
account for one or both. Further, in a considerable 
number of cases certain Greek MSS (especially j< c - a , 
and No. 248 of Holmes and Parsons) agree with H 
(and often with S and L) against the Vatican Greek 
1 On the pa.ita.ns, the late Jewish hymn-writers, see Zunz 

Even this he now questions (JQR 12 502-531 [Ap. 1900], The 
Seplter Jta-GalSy ). Cp Noldeke in Z/i TW 20 81-94. 



text. Add to this that not a few citations in the 
Talmud and in Saadia agree with H (sometimes against 
and S), and it becomes probable that H represents 
a genuine Hebrew text of Ben-Sira, which, however, 
has been altered in some places so as to agree with the 
Syriac, and bristles, besides, with errors of copyists. 
The result is that many passages present perplexing 
problems, and the details of the history of the text have 
yet to be made out. 

The following are examples of passages in which H 
seems to follow S : 

3 13 aitp= pardon, after S patj> (unless y be late Heb.); 
31 15, H = (B nearly (for rixjB read J\*wy)i and doublet of IS<T = 
S to this last is attached the line = S 160. with marginal 
variant nearly = S 16^ ; of 5 16 there is a doublet very corrupt. 
Margoliouth (Origin, etc., 157^) cites 42 ne, where H a^tt N 
lattice ) may be a misunderstanding of S pat? (in Arab. = 
lattice ), and 43 2, H no as misunderstanding of S KJO (but H 
may be merely a scribal error). Levi (REJ, July 1899) regards 
the acrostic in chap. 51 as translated from S : v . 28 the unintel 
ligible Q ai is a misunderstanding of S JD (? 2 ?)i and is 
transposed so as to obscure the initial jy of i*. 28, and v. 14 = 8 
which is composed of lines belonging to two different couplets ; 
there are doublets in which one verse = G, the other S (30 17 20, 
etc.); and in 30 20 H jDNJ = faithful (a sense here inapposite) 
is a reproduction of S N3DTID eunuch (which the connection 
requires). Bickell (in WZKM, 18251-256 [ 99]) takes the same 
view of the acrostic as Levi, and further instances 12 n, where H 
HNJp jealousy, he holds, is a misunderstanding of S flNJlp has 
made black (from /cuaveos). 

These examples (to which others might be added) 
appear to show, not that H is a translation of S, but 
that it has passed through the hands of a man or of 
men (of some of whom Arabic was the vernacular) 
familiar with S, and in places has been conformed 
thereto in text or margin. 

Where the three (HGS) agree, no conclusion as to priority 
can be drawn. Where only two agree, the third may be 
preferable, as in 6 22 where S fools suits the connection better 
than HG many. The numerous cases, however, in which H 
agrees, wholly or in part, with G against S indicate a Hebrew 
text independent of S: see, for example, 5 $6a 1^ 12ioi8 
14 1017 l>2yC 17 16 6 323 15 39 16. It is possible in such cases 
to suppose a correction of H after G ; but the hypothesis of 
emendations derived from both S and G is a complicated one. 
Moreover, in some passages H seems to be better than G and 
S : cp 4 6 roc 14 26f. 161419 1614. 

On the inferences to be drawn from the still (March, 
1900) unpublished fragments (see above col. 1166, n. 
4), see SIRACH. 

Of the ancient Versions the Greek and the Syriac are 
__ . renderings of Hebrew texts, the Latin is 

6. Versions. a translation from the Greek. 

Critical editions of the Greek and Syriac texts are still 
desiderata, though valuable remarks are made by Fritzsche, 
Edersheim, Levi, Bacher, and others. 

The Hebrew, soon after its composition, was translated 
into Greek by the author s grandson (see his prologue), 
who had gone to live in Egypt, and desired to make 
the work accessible to his Greek-speaking fellow-citizens. 
He was clearly a man of piety and good general culture, 
with a fair command of Hebrew and Greek a consistent 
Jew, yet probably not unaffected by Greek influences. 
His translation is not seldom obscure from its literalness 
and compression ; in the prologue his style is freer and 
more ambitious. His name and history are unknown. 

By Epiphanius (I.e.) he is called Jesus, and in a second pro 
logue or preface, found in the Synop. Script. Sanct. of Pseudo- 
Athanasius (and in Cod. 248 and Comp. Polygl.), Jesus son of 
Sirach. Neither Epiphanius nor the confessedly late second 
prologue (see Fritzsche s Comm.) can be considered authoritative 
on this point. The statement may be true, but is more probably 
a guess, or based on a misunderstanding of Ecclus. 50 27. 

The Greek represents a faithful translation of the 
original ; but its text is not in good condition, and in 
many cases it is hardly possible to do more than give a 
conjectural emendation. A similar remark applies to 
the Syriac, which likewise is based on the Hebrew, but 
may in some places have been influenced by the Greek. l 

1 The book has been translated into Heb. by J. L. Ben-Zeeb 
(Breslau, 1798 ; Vienna, 1828) [by Joshua b. Sam. Hesel from 
German (Warsaw, 1842)], and by S. J. Fraenkel (Leipsic, 30) ; 
chap. 24 by Bishop Lowth (reproduced in Fritzsch s Comm.) and 
by Wessely ; chap. 51 by Bi., and some verses by D. S. Mar 
goliouth (Place of Ecclus. in Sent. Lit., Oxf., 90). 



For an account of the MSS of G see Fritzsche, Edersheim, 
Hatch, Schlatter, Nestle (in PKEP), s.v. Bibeliibersctzungen), 
and Kautzsch (below, g 26). All appear to go back to one 
archetypal text, for the displacement of chapters (see below) is 
found in all except No. 248, and this has probably been cor 
rected, (a) The great uncials, B, K, C, and partly A, though 
comparatively free from glosses, give an inferior text ; (ft) the 
better form is preserved in V (Cod. Venetus=No. 23 of Holmes 
and Parsons), in c a > in part of A, and in certain cursives, of 
which the most remarkable are Nos. 248 (followed in Compl., 
Poly, and Eng. AV) and 253 (which agrees strikingly with 
S H ), though these have many glosses. The history of these 
two subdivisions is obscure ; the first (a) has been called 
Palestinian, the second (|3) Alexandrian ; but this is not certain. 1 
With the second agree largely L and S. These Vss. then appear 
to represent a text earlier than that of the Greek uncials ; and 
our Hebrew fragments, which so often accord with S, may have 
a history like that of the Greek cursives they may represent 
an early text which has been greatly corrupted by glosses, 
though they have suffered more than the Greek from scribal 
miswriting. The Gk. glosses resemble those of in Proverbs ; 
they are expansions of the thought, or Hellenizing interpreta 
tions, or additions from current collections of gnomic sayings. 

The Peshitta Syriac is now considered by scholars, with 
scarcely an exception, to be a translation from the Hebrew ; 
see especially Edersheim. It is a generally faithful and 
intelligent rendering, not without misconceptions, expansions, 
condensations, and glosses, but on the whole simple and intel 
ligible. In some cases (as in 43 2/.) it agrees curiously with 
the Greek ; but it is a question whether in such cases S follows 
G or the two follow the same Hebrew. 

The Vss. derived from are valuable primarily for the establish 
ment of the Gk. text, sometimes also for the Heb. For particular 
discussions (Old Lat., Copt., Eth., Hexapl. Syr., Arm.), and 
for Pesh. Syr. see Edersheim, Nestle, and Kautzsch. 

In the body of the work there is only one mark of 
date : the list of great men (44-50) closes with the name 
of the high priest Simon, son of Onias, 
who, because he stands last and is 
described at great length and with great enthusiasm, 
may be supposed to have lived somewhere near the 
author s time. There were two high priests of this 
name : Simon I. , son of Onias I. (circa B.C. 310-290), and 
Simon II., son of Onias II. (circa 218-198): lack of 
material makes it hard to determine from the name 
which of the two is here meant. 

(a) Of the first, Josephus relates (Ant. xii. 2 5) that, on account 
of his piety and kindliness, he was surnamed the Just ; the 
second (Ant. xii. 4 io_/C) intervened in the quarrel of the sons 
of Tobias and the banished Hyrcanus, though it does not follow 
that he was friendly to the worse side of the party. 2 

(6) Another datum is found in the Mishna-tract Aboth, i 2, in 
which it is said that Simon the Just was one of the last members 
( TB n) of the Great Synagogue ; the Talmud, further, surrounds 
this Simon with a halo of legend. Though the Great Synagogue 
is largely or wholly legendary (cp CANON, 18), the high priest, 
Simon the Just, is doubtless a historical and important personage ; 
but is he to be identified with Simon I. or with Simon II.? Jose 
phus favours the former possibility ; but the authority of Josephus 
on such a point is by no means unimpeachable. In the Talmudic 
tradition Simon seems to represent a turning-point in the national 
fortunes : after him, it is said, the signs of divine favour in the 
temple service began to fail ; but this condition of things may be 
referred, not without probability, either to Simon I. (Edersheim) 
or to Simon II. (Derenbourg). In the list of bearers of the tradi- 
tion in Aboth Simon is followed by Antigonos of Soko, and he by 
the two named Jose, who belonged in the second cent. B.C. ; this 
would point clearly to Simon II. as the Just, if the chronology 
of the tract could be relied on ; this, however, is not the case 

7. Date : Simon. 

the letter of Antiochus the Great (Jos. Ant. xii. 13 3) concerning 
the finishing of the temple, thinks that this identifies Ben-Sira s 
Simon with Simon II. ; Edersheim answers that the city needed 
fortifying in the time of Simon I., but not under Simon II. ; and 
Bois insists that, though the temple may have been finished 
under Simon II., it may none the less have been repaired under 
Simon I. Compare Halevy (Rev. Sent. July, 99) and Kautzsch. 
(d) Halevy (I.e.) argues for Simon I. on the jjround that a 
considerable time between author and translator is required in 

1 In fifty-six quotations by Clem. Alex, from Ben-Sira 
Edersheim found five which corresponded markedly with the 
text of No. 248. 

2 The story of him in 2 Mace. 3 is obviously a legend, but may 
perhaps bear witness to the esteem in which he was held in later 

3 Cp A. Geiger, Nachgelassene Schriften, 4 286. 

4 Simon is not called the Just in the present text of Ecclus., 
perhaps (Bois) because the epithet had not yet been applied to 
him. Gratz, however, discovers the term in 6024, following the 
Syriac ( with Simon instead of with us ), only reading ,TDn 
for rnon (Gesch. tier Juden, 2235 n.). 



order to account for the errors in the Greek text and for the 
fact that the translator had lost the tradition of the meaning of 
the Hebrew. This ground is not decisive. Whether in the 
translator s time the exegetical tradition had been lost cannot 
be determined till we have a correct Hebrew text ; and the 
scribal errors of <8 are due to copyists after the translator s time. 
Further, on Halevy s own ground, an interval of fifty or sixty 
years would account for much. 

(e) Finally, the connection of Ben-Sira s discourse may seem 
to point to the earlier high priest, for Simon (50) really follows on 
Nehemiah (49 13), the intervening verses interrupting the chrono 
logical order, 1 and we should then naturally think of Simon I. ; 
but here, again, the Jewish conception of chronology makes the 
conclusion uncertain : the author may easily have passed on a 
century later. 

Of these data the most that can be said is that 
they slightly favour the second Simon as the hero of 
Ben-Sira s chap. 50. 

A more definite sign of date is found in the preface 

of the Greek translator, who says that he came to Egypt 

_ in the thirty - eighth year iirl rou 

8. fcuergetes. ^ fpy ^ TOV 0acriX<?wj. This, it is true, 

may mean either the thirty-eighth year of the life of the 

writer or the thirty-eighth regnal year of Euergetes ; but 

there seems to be no reason why the translator should 

here give his own age, whilst the mention of the king s 

year (the common OT chronological datum) is natural. 2 

If this interpretation be adopted, the date of the 
translation is approximately given. Of the two Ptolemies 
called Euergetes, the first reigned only twenty-five years 
(247-222) and is thus excluded ; the second, surnamed 
Physcon, reigned fifty -four years in all, partly as co- 
regent (170-145) and partly as sole king (145-116). It 
appears that in his thirty-eighth year, 132 B.C., the 
translator reached Egypt, and the translation was in that 
case made a few years later. The author s date may 
thence be fixed ; for in the prologue the translator calls the 
author his irdirwos, a term which is here most naturally 
taken in its ordinary sense of grandfather. 3 The com 
position of the book would thus fall in the first quarter 
of the second century a date which agrees with that of 
the high priest Simon II. 

This date is further favoured by indications (i) in the 
book itself : by the picture of national oppression given in 

9 Internal 233 33 " 3 36 16-22 (EV 36 1-17) (up to the 
. , end of the third century the Jews enjoyed 

evidence , f , , 

comparative quiet, and for the Maccabean 

period we should expect a more poignant tone of suffer 
ing) ; by the traces of Greek influence on the thought 
as in the personifications of wisdom in chaps. 1 24 and 
by the acquaintance with Greek customs, as the having 
music at feasts, 35 3-6 ; (2) in the translation, by signs of 
acquaintance with the LXX version of the Torah, as in 
17 17 (after the Greek of Dt. 328/), 44i6 4 (<& Gen. 624) ; 5 
and (3) in the translator s preface by the reference to 
three divisions or canons of the Hebrew Scriptures. 6 

1 The section 49 14-16 seems to be an addition by a scribe or by an 
editor (possibly by the translator) for the purpose of introducing 
names (Enoch, Joseph, Shem, Seth, Adam) omitted by the author. 
Chap. 44 16 (Enoch), wanting in the Syr., may be a late addition. 
In the Hebrew a scribe has repeated 173 in i6; in the rest (55 = 
H, except that for riyT (perhaps taken as = thought ) it has 
|ierai/oi a; (perhaps an error for tyyotoc) ; 166 seems to be in part 
copied from 49 14, in part a repetition from 44 14. The expression 
an example of knowledge (or thought) to all generations is 
strange ; we should in any case omit knowledge (with <B 2 53 S H ). 

2 The Greek construction (absence of article before CTTI) has 
been objected to as hard ; but Hag. 1 1 2 i, Zech. 1 7 7 i, i Mace. 
18 42 14 27 prove that it is possible (see note by Ezra Abbot in 
Amer. ed. of Smith s DB). For examples of this use of firl 
in inscriptions see Deissmann, Bibelstudien, 255^ [ 95]. 

3 It sometimes means ancestor ; but in such cases the con 
nection usually indicates the wider sense (Seligmann). 

4 Ecclus. 44 16 is, however, probably an interpolation (see 
above, 7, last n.). 

5 See also 20 29 (Dt. 16 19) 44 17-21 (Gen. 69 17 4 22 18) 45 8/ 
(Ex. 38 35 y: ?) 49 7 (Jer. 1 10) 46 19 (i S. 12 3, cp Gen. 14 23). 

8 This, of course, does not imply that the canons were com 
pleted in his time. The omission of the names of Ezra, Daniel, 
and Mordecai in the list of great men is to be noted. Daniel, if 
he had been known to the author, would certainly have been 
mentioned just before or after Ezekiel (498/1); 49i2./, near 
which we should expect the other two to appear, are not found 
in our Hebrew fragments, but the versions show no sign of a lost 
passage. I f the three had been inadvertently omitted, they would 
probably have been added, as are Enoch, Joseph, Shem, Seth, and 


10. Fortunes of 
the book. 


(4) Another note of date might be drawn from the relation 
of Ecclus. to the books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes ; 
but to exhibit it clearly would require a detailed examina 
tion of those two books. The three appear, by their 
thought (Proverbs in its latest recension), to be the pro 
duct of a well-advanced stage of Grasco-Jewish culture. l 
The book was never admitted into the Jewish and 
Christian canons (CANON, 39, 47). Among other 
reasons it is enough to mention that, un- 
likesome other late books (Cant. , Prov. , 
Dan. , Eccles. ), it was not issued under 
the authority of a great national name : the schools 
accepted from Solomon what they would not accept from 
Joshua ben-Sira. The work, though not canonised, was 
highly esteemed, and is frequently cited in Talmud and 
Midrash, sometimes byname, sometimes anonymously. 2 
There are also many coincidences of thought between 
Ecclus. and the Talmud, which, however, do not neces 
sarily show that the latter borrowed directly from the 
former. Further, not all the citations in the Talmud 
are now to be found in our text and versions of Ecclus. ; 
these latter are perhaps incomplete, or perhaps Ben-Sira 
became a name to which anonymous proverbs were 
attached. Later he is cited by Nathan (gth cent.) and 
Saadia (loth cent.). There is a second collection, en 
titled The Alphabet of Ben-Sira, 3 apparently compiled 
late in the Talmudic period, in which, along with genuine 
material (cited in the Talmud), there are sayings that 
seem not to belong to Ben-Sira. The translation of 
some of his proverbs into Aramaic and the spurious 
additions to his work show the estimation in which he 
was held by his co-religionists. 4 He was not less 
esteemed by the early Christians. It is not clear that 
he is cited in the NT ; 5 but he is frequently appealed to 
in post-biblical Christian writers, under a variety of 
names, or anonymously, and with different introductory 
formulas. Though his book was never formally recog 
nised as canonical (it is found in no canonical list), it 
is quoted as scripture, divine scripture, prophetical, 
and was appealed to in support of church doctrine. 

The first example of its use is found in the Ep. of Barnabas, 
19; cp Ecclus. 431. After this it is quoted by Clem.Alex., 
Orig., Cypr., August., Jer., Greg.Naz., Greg.Nyss., Chrys., 
Cyr.Alex., Joan.Damasc., Theophyl., Leo the Great, Greg. I., 
Alcuin, though not by Justin, Iren., or Eus. Athan. (/*. Fest. 
39) distinguishes it from the books called apocryphal, and 
August. (Civ. Dei 17 20) declares that only the unlearned ascribed 
it to Solomon. Jer. seems to have been the first to draw the line 
sharply between it and the canonical books. Aelfric, Archbishop 
of Canterbury (see Westcott, Bible in the Church, 209), speaks of 
the book as read in the churches. By Luther and other Protestant 
writers of the sixteenth cent, it was treated with great respect.8 
The book naturally divides itself, according to the 
subject-matter, into sections. Chap. 1 is a general 

Adam, in 49 14-16. The natural inference is that our books of 
Daniel, Esther, and Ezra did not exist in Ben-Sira s time. 
Noldeke (ZA TW, 2088 /.) would add to these Chron. 

1 For further discussions of the date of Ecclus. see Fritzsche s 
Comm. (in KGH), Derenbourg (Geogr.), Seligmann (U eisk. d. 
Jes. Sir.), Edersheim (Comm. on Ecclus. in Wace s Apocr.), Bois, 
Orig. de la phil. judeo-alex. ; Kautzsch (Af>okr.\ Halevy (Rev. 
Sem., 99) ; and, for the relation between Ecclus. and Proverbs, O. 
Holtzmann in CK/(Oncken s series), 2 202 ; Che. Job and Sol. 184. 

2 For a list of quotations from Ecclus. in Talm. and Rabb. 
literature see Ecclus., ed. Cowley and Neub., where also are 
given references to Bacher, Gaster, Schechter, and others. Cp, 
further, Dukes, Rabbin. Blumenlese, GdgeT,Al>ot/i (in his Nach- 
gelass. Schrift. iv.). In his Secrets Charles cites passages in that 
work which appear to be taken from or based on Ecclus. ; cp 
Ecclus. 1 2 with Secrets, 47 5 ; 24 with 51 3 ; 7 3 32 with 42 1 1 
51 1 ; 14 19 with 65 n, etc. 

3 See Zunz, Gottcsd. Vortr.; Dukes, ut sup.\ Cowley and 
Neub., Ecclus.; Steinschneider, Alphabet. Sirac. utnimquc. 
The work consists of two alphabetical lists of proverbs, one Aram., 
the other Hebrew, with commentary. Another late collection 
is given by J. Drusius, Proverbia Ben Sira, Franeker, 1507. 

4 The Talmud seems not quite sure of the work, placing it 
sometimes among the external and forbidden books, sometimes 
among the c ^lriD (citing it with the formula TJNJC )- 

5 Among the more promising passages are Ja. 1 2-4(cp Ecclus. 
2 1-5), Lk. 12 \gff. (cp Ecclus. 29 i2/.) and Ja. 1 19 (cp Ecclus. 

6 On the attitude of modern churches towards the OT Apocr. 
see Bissell, Apocr. (Gen. Introd.), and Zockler, Einl. in vol. ix. 
of Strack and Zockler s Kurzgef. Koinm. 



introduction ; 33 (361-17) is a prayer for Israel ; 42 15- 
5626 is a separate discourse (praise of great men) ; 

11 Structure 50 * 7 2 9 is a colophon (probably by an 
editor) ; and 51 is an appended prayer 
and exhortation. In the body of the work new starting- 
points are indicated at 1624 [22] 24 1 and 39 12, and there 
are further paragraphal divisions (marked by the address 
my son ) at 2 1 3 17 4 1 6 18 23 32, etc. , besides the sub 
divisions obvious in the subject matter (see the headings 
in the Greek Version). Beyond this paragraphal 

and sectional arrangement it seems impossible to dis 
cover any plan in the book. 1 It consists, like Proverbs, 
of a mass of observations on life, put together in the 
interests not of logical order but of edification. 

A curious arrangement of material is found in most 

10 TV 1 f Greek MSS (in all hitherto examined 

I1L on this point except No. 248 of Holmes 

and Parsons) : the section 33 16-36 n is placed after 30 24.2 

The right order is given in the Pesh., the Latin, the Armenian, 
and the G MS No. 248 (which is followed by Complut., as this 
last is followed in EV). The cause of the derangement was prob 
ably the displacement of rolls of the G MS from which most 
existing MSS are derived, 3 or possibly of the Heb. MS from 
which the Gk. translation was made. Similar instances of dis 
placement are mentioned by Fritzsche (Comm. 170) and 
Edersheim (Comm. i54>. 4 The Pesh. was made from an inde 
pendent Heb. MS, which had the right order. The Latin may 
have been made from a G MS earlier than that from which our 
present G texts are derived ; it may have been corrected after 
the Heb. ; it may come from a corrected G text like that of 
No. 248. 

As to the author s sources nothing very precise can 
be said. Whilst his own experience and observation 
13 Sources P roDa kly furnished a great part of his 
material, it is possible that he drew also 
from books or from unpublished discourses of sages. 
There are not a few resemblances between him and 
Proverbs ; but the most of these are best explained as 
independent treatment of common material. The same 
thing is true of the points of contact between Ecclesiasticus 
and Ecclesiastes. 5 If our author quotes those two books, 
he apparently treats them as wisdom-books having no 
more authority than he himself claims. There was, 
no doubt, much that might be considered common 
property, which different moralists would use each in 
his own way : the maxim, for example, that the be 
ginning (or root, or completion, or crown) of wisdom is 
the fear of God must have been an axiom in the teach 
ing of the Palestinian sages. A comparison between 
Ecclus. 24 and Prov. 8 shows how differently the two 
books treat the same general conception. 

The traditional account, which represents the book 
as composed by one man, seems on the whole to be 
supported by the character of the contents. There are, 
indeed, differences of tone, as in various paragraphs on 
14 Dnitv women (25 and 26), and on the happiness 
*" and misery of life (39 16-35 and 40 i-n), and 
in general there is a contrast between the geniality of 
some passages and the cynicism of others, and between 
the conceptions of wisdom, on the one hand as a 
universal divine influence, and on the other as common- 
sense shrewdness. The diversities, however, do not go 
beyond the bounds of a single experience, and in the 
book as a whole there is an evident unity of tone the 
attitude toward God, life, wisdom, theTorah, is the same 
throughout. 6 The authenticity of chap. 51 has 

1 For proposed plans see Eichhorn (Einl.), Ew. (Gesch. 4300), 
Fritzsche (Einl. in his Comm.), Deane (^.r^w. 1883), Edersheim 
(Introd. in his Comm.), and cp remarks of Herbst in his Einl. 

2 Or, according to the verse-numbering in Swete s Sept. , the 
two sections 3025-33 IT,O. and 33 13^-86 160. have changed places. 

3 This, Fritzsche s suggestion, is now generally accepted. 
See Deane, Expos. 1883, and Swete, Sept. vol. ii. p. vii. 

1 Tisch. retains the Greek order ; Swete gives the Latin. 

B The comparison between Ecclus. and Proverbs is made most 
fully by Seligmann (Weisheit d. Jes. Sir.), and that between 
Ecclus. and Eccles. by Wright (KoheletK). See also Montefiore, 
in/@/e 2430.^, and Toy, Proverbs (in Internal. Crit. Com.). 
The difference between Ben-Sira and Pirke Aboth in form and 
style indicates an earlier date for the former. 

6 On the enigmatical Eleazar ben-Irai, a possible double of 
Ben-Sira, see above, 2 (n. 2). 



been questioned ; but the case has not been made 

There seems to be nothing out of keeping with the rest of the 
book, and, as to the insertion of a prayer, we may compare the 
one (very different in tone from this) in Wisd. Sol. (9). There 
is, indeed, a striking resemblance between Ecclus. 51 13-30 and 
Wisd. Sol. 7 1-14 ; but if there be imitation here, it is not clear 
that it is on the part of the passage in Ecclesiasticus. 

The psalm (an imitation of Ps. 13C) which is found in the 
Hebrew after v. 12, and does not appear in the Vss. , may be 
doubtful. Schechter suggests that it was omitted in the Greek 
because the mention of the Zadokite priestly line was considered 
to be inappropriate under the Maccabees. This consideration, 
however, would not apply at all to the Syriac Vs., and the 
omission of a single couplet would have sufficed in the Greek. 

How far the author s work has been added to by 
scribes and editors is a more difficult question. It 

IB Intesritv s c ^ ear that tlle Hebrew anc ^ tne versions 
^ *" have suffered in the process of trans 
mission (see above, 4). In various passages one or 
another of the texts shows additions or omissions ; each 
case must be treated by itself. In general, as between 
a Greek conception in one text and a Jewish in another, 
the preference is to be given to the latter ; though it is 
obvious that this rule must be applied carefully, so as 
not to prejudge the question of a Greek influence on the 
author. When the final text obtainable by MS. evidence 
has been reached, there will still remain the question 
whether this gives the author s thought accurately, or 
has itself been coloured by editors. By some the Greek 
translator is supposed to have made additions to his text 
in the interests of Jewish Alexandrian philosophy ; others 
see evidence of Christian interpolation. The evidence 
for those conclusions is not distinct. 

Alexandrian passages need not be additions of the translator, 
and of the cases cited by Edersheim (Comm. 23), 1 T,f. and 24 31 
are not non-Jewish, whilst to call 28 2 ( forgive and thou shall be 
forgiven ) a Christian addition on internal grounds is to prejudge 
the question. The evidence is stronger in the case of 4827 
(^JH Nl.T, TO irav ecrnv OVTOS) and 44 16 (Enoch is called mx 
fljn, i;roSeiyjua jxeTaiWas [evvoias]), both omitted by Pesh. The 
first expression is Hellenising, and may be an addition by the 
author, or by a Hebrew scribe, or it may have been made first 
in <S, and thence transferred to H ; the second, something like 
a parallel to which is found in Philo (De prtzm. et pa?n., 
Mangey, 24io_/;, where Enoch is explained to be true man 
hood, based on hope in God), may be Jewish (see Siegfried, 
Drummond, Bois), or may be a Hellenising expression of the 
author, or an allegorising remark by a scribe. (The expressions 
was found perfect and knowledge appear to be scribal addi 
tions.) After the omission of all probable additions, however, 
there remains enough to fix the author s relation to Greek thought 
(see below, 24). 

The book is arranged in short discourses or para 
graphs, each of which consists in general of distichs or 

16 Literarv tetrast cns I tne une s are mostly ternary 

, ^^ (with three ictus) or quaternary, though 

in this respect there is considerable 

variety. The parallelism is less antithetic and looser, 

and the discourse more flowing than in Proverbs. 

Bickell (Zt.f. kath. Theol. 1882) regards 51 1-20 (in the 

Heb. ) as forming an alphabetic psalm. x The attempt 

to discover metre in the work (Bickell, Margoliouth) 

must be pronounced unsuccessful. 2 

An irregular strophic arrangement results from the 
author s method of dividing his material by subjects (cp 
Prov. 1-9 22-29 ). 3 

Ecclesiasticus belongs to the category of Wisdom - 
literature ( Hokma) , which, in contrast with the prophetic, 
priestly, and legal points of view (for all of which the 

17 p a. i nation Israel is the centre), gives a uni- 
versal moral-religious criticism of life. 
The history of the genesis and development of the Hokma 
demands a separate treatment. (See WISDOM LITERA 
TURE. ) The nationalistic tone of a few passages in 

1 Bickell worked with his translation into Hebrew from the 
Greek ; Taylor (in Schechter and Taylor s Ben Sira) goes over 
the lately discovered Hebrew text, and discusses the initial 
letters of the couplets, in support of Bickell. The acrostic 
form is in itself not improbable (Prov. ends with an alphabetic 
poem), but it is not yet clearly made out. 

2 On metre in OT Heb. see the works of Ley, Bickell, Briggs, 
Gunkel, D. H. Miiller, and the art. of Grimme in ZDMG, 604. 

3 For an attempt to make out a regular division into groups 
of 50 or too couplets see Schlatter (below, 26 a, i.). 



Ecclesiasticus does not affect the general character of the 
book. The material is so varied and so loosely arranged 
that a table of contents would take more space than can 
here be given. It deals with all the ordinary social and 
religious duties (cp Che. Job and Sol. 190-193). The 
style is for the most part bright and vigorous, and not 
without a gleam of humour. The author shows wide 
acquaintance with men and things, and his advice is 
usually full of good sense. Without claiming for him 
self special inspiration, he speaks as an independent 
teacher of religion and morals, citing no external 
authority for what he says, but, like the sages in Pro 
verbs, assuming its truth and obligation, and making 
his appeal to reason and conscience. 

In accordance with the tone of the later Judaism, Ec 
clesiasticus regards God as the lord of the whole world of 

A T? r things and men, the absolute, righteous 
18. f\. KeilgiOUB of 

. . j udgC( the author of all conditions 

" and changes of life (chaps. 16-18 33/ ). 
It has not the full conception of divine fatherhood ; but 
it gives a description of divine forbearance toward men 
(181013) which is identical in spirit with that of Ps. 103. 
Concerning itself with the visible facts of life, Ecclesi 
asticus (like Prov. ) takes little account of subordinate 

... . supernatural beings. Angels are not 
mentioned in the Hebrew (not in 43 26), 
and in the Greek only in citations from the OT. In 
38 140 the intercession that in Job 8826 is ascribed to a 
heavenly being is ascribed to a physician. In 4821 (a 
statement taken from 2 K. 1935), in which the Gk 
(followed by Lat. ) has dyyeXos, the Heb. has nsis> 
plague, and the Syr. JK^> jicuoo, a heavy 
blow. In another passage (17 17), quoted freely from 
Dt. 328/. as in (S, 1 the term ruler (rryovfj-evov) seems 
to be substituted for < angel (Kara ayyt\wv) 
here a divine (angelic ?) head of every nation except 
Israel, whose guardian is Yahwe. Spirits, good or evil, 
are nowhere mentioned. 2 Whether there is mention of 
Satan is doubtful. In 21 27, where (5 has The ungodly, 
when he curses rbv traravav, curses himself, the context 
(see v. 28) and Syr. favour the sense, adversary, or a 
reading, neighbour, for aa.Ta.vav (and for ungodly 
we should probably read fool ). Further, the author, 
if (as Cheyne thinks) he means Satan, seems to identify 
him with the man s own evil impulse, a conception 
foreign to the whole pre-Christian time 3 as well as to 
the NT. In general, Ecclus. may be said to anticipate 
Sadduceeism in holding aloof from angels and demons, 
whose agency in actual life it does not recognise. 

The central moral - religious idea of the book is 
wisdom, in the conception of which Ben-Sira is sub 
stantially at one with Proverbs. He treats sometimes 

20 Wisdom, the human attribute, sometimes the 
divine. As a quality of man it is theo 
retical knowledge of the right and ability to embody it in 
life. Nothing is said of the origin of this capacity (it 
is treated as an ultimate fact); but it is identified with 
the fear of God (1 14, etc.) that is, the wise life is 
directed according to the divine commandments, or, as 
it may perhaps be put, human wisdom comes from the 
communion between the mind of man and the mind of 
God. The unity of the divine and the human attributes 
(implicitly contained in the book) appears to involve the 
conception that the divine wisdom fills and controls all 
things, including man s mind, and thus manifests itself 
in human thought. 

1 MT has VNIC" 33, for which BAL reads c rt^N J3, clearly 
the right reading. 

2 The vvn^ara of 39 28 (Syr. JL*O>, Heb. almost obliter 
ated) are winds | (so Fritzsche) ; iv. 29 f. give, not the definition 
of the term spirits, but a parallel list of natural agencies. 

3 Cheyne (Job and Sol. 189, cp 297) and Edersheim (Comitt.) 
refer to a Talmudic passage (Bafia Bathra, \da) which identifies 
Satan with the jn ns ; cp also Weber, System der altsyn. 
Theol. 228f. The y-\ is appears to be personified (Trocrjpbv 
trMfOgUL) in 37 3 ; but H and S are here very different, and 
the text seems to be corrupt beyond recovery. 



As a quality of God, wisdom is almost always personi 
fied. It is called eternal (li), universal (246), un 
searchable (16), the formative creative power in the 
world (243), yet created (14 24g) and established in 
the midst of Yahwe s people in Jerusalem (24io_/i), 
where alone there was obedience to Yahwe s law. 1 This 
nationalistic conception of wisdom (involved, but not 
explicitly stated, in Proverbs) is noteworthy, but not 
unexpected : the pious Jews of that time could hardly 
fail to find the highest expression of the divine wisdom 
in the guidance of Israel through the Law. Ben-Sira s 
treatment of divine wisdom is personification (as in Prov. 
and Wisd. Sol.), not hypostatisation. In one passage 
(243, I ... covered the earth as a mist ) there 
appears to be an approach to this position 2 : wisdom is 
identified with the creative word, as Wisd. Sol. further 
identifies it with the Stoic Logos. Like Wisd. , Sol. , and 
Philo, however, Ben-Sira lacked a historical figure with 
which to identify his philosophical conception. 

Greater prominence is given to the Law of Moses in 

our book than in Proverbs. It is glorified in the per- 

T , T sons ^ M ses and Aaron (45 1-22) and 

21. ineijaw. gimon (50i-2i). The author was by no 
means indifferent to the ritual of sacrifice and song. 
He dwells with enthusiasm on the details of the high 
priest s costly dress, on the offering and the singers; 
he counsels men to come with full hands to the altar 
(32[35] i-u), though he adds a warning against attempt 
ing to bribe God with unrighteous gifts (v. 12). His philo 
sophical view of life does not prevent his taking joyous 
part in the outward service of God, which he possibly 
regarded as being a symbol as well as a prescribed duty. 
He shows similar friendliness toward the scribes (8824-34 
39i-n), who, in contrast with handicraftsmen, devote 
themselves to the study of the law, the prophets, and 
paroemiac sayings (a reference to parts of our book of 
Proverbs?), listen to the discourses of famous men 
(teachers in the legal schools), travel in foreign lands to 
find out good and evil among men, open their mouths 
in prayer, and ask forgiveness for their sins. This, the 
earliest extant description of the life of a safer, gives a 
picture of wide activity, and shows that the law-students 
of that time did not confine themselves to Palestine. 
With such scribes, not hagglers over words and letters, 
but cultivated and liberal students of the earlier 
literature, our author would naturally find himself in 
hearty sympathy. As to the term law, it appears 
that, when used of the Israelitish code, it may stand for 
all the Jewish sacred books ; but it is sometimes em 
ployed for law in general, as in 35 [32] 24 36 [33] 1-3. 

The preceding citations show Ben-Sira s warm national 
feeling. This is expressed most distinctly in chap. 33 [36], 
in which he bemoans the afflicted state of Israel, and 
prays that, in fulfilment of his promise, God would 

22 A n gather all the tribes of Jacob and make the 
. . ^ people possess its land as in times of old (cp 
4421 47 1 1 48 10). He looks for no special 
deliverer (not even in 44-50), and hopes only, in general 
accordance with the earlier prophets, for national quiet 
and prosperity. 4 He is so much absorbed in this desire 
that he does not think of the conversion of foreign nations 
to the worship of Yahwe. We have no right to take 
him as the representative of the whole nation in this 
regard ; but we may fairly suppose that he expresses a 
current opinion. 6 

1 Wisdom seems not to be exactly identified with the Mosaic 
Law. The Greek text of 24 23 is difficult (raura m-ayra in app. 
with j3t 0Aos), and we should perhaps read, with Pesh., in the 
book." On the other hand, cp Bar. 83641, and see notes of 
Edersheim (on Ecclus. 24 23) and Bois (O rig. zoo/.). 

2 Ecclus. 243-6 is an imitation of Prov. 822^, from which 
L here introduces additional matter. The mist may be taken 
from Gen. 26, or it may be an independent figure. 

3 The sin-offering is not mentioned. 

4 In 51 10 H and S show that the reading of <E>, the father of 
my lord (cp Ps. 110 i), is erroneous. 

5 In the generally peaceful and prosperous life of the third 
century B.C., the Jews seem for the time to have given up the 
expectation of a special interposition of God in their behalf. 



Ben-Sira s scheme of life, like that of Proverbs, or 
Ecclesiastes, of the Law, and of the prophets, is confined 
to the present world. In Vtwf. he repeats the senti 
ment of Is. 38 iSf. He speaks neither of the resurrection 
of the body 1 nor of the immortality of the soul (14 16 
21 10 41 4, etc.). He belonged to the conservative 
priestly party (though probably not himself a priest) 
which adopted the social but not the religious ideas of 
Gentile neighbours. He retained the old Hebrew con 
ception of ShSol (see SHEOL), whilst the progressive 
portion of the nation (represented later by the book of 
Daniel) adopted or developed the idea of resurrection. 

Ben-Sira s ethical scheme is that of the greater part 
of the OT (if we omit, that is, such passages as Jer. 31 33 

23 6 Ethical ^ z ^ 2fi ^ s ^ ^ m s the trans S res 
j . . sion of the divine law ; righteousness is 

Meas conformity thereto. The moral life is 

considered in its external aspect as a 
mass of acts. Nothing is said of the inward life, of 
disposition of mind, of motives, ideals, aspirations, 
struggles. Those were, doubtless, not absent from the 
author s thought ; but he does not regard them as practi 
cally important. What is important is the outcome : men 
are known by their fruits. Sin is accepted as a fact, 
which began historically with the first woman (the same 
view is given in i Tim. 2 14 in contrast with that of Rom. 
5) ; but there is no attempt to explain its psychological 
origin. Conscience, freedom, and responsibility are 
assumed (15 11-17 and pass. ). On the other hand (as 
throughout OT and NT), the absolute control of man by 
God is everywhere taken for granted, and in one place 
(8813) distinctly affirmed. The motive for righteous 
living is the well-being it secures : the good man prospers, 
the bad man suffers, in this life. There is no reference 
to inward peace, consciousness of rectitude, and com 
munion of soul with God. Ben-Sira s point of view 
(sometimes called hedonistic or utilitarian) is that of 
Proverbs and the OT generally. It is determined partly 
by the old Semitic external conception of life, partly by 
the absence of belief in ethical immortality (cp Wisd. Sol. 
2-5). The old nationalism of the prophets it rejects in 
favour of a pronounced individualism : it does not recog 
nise the well-being of humanity as an aim of life. The 
moral code of the book is that of the OT : it inculcates 
honesty, truthfulness, purity, sympathy, kindness 2 all 
the virtues of the civilised society of that time. The limit 
ations are either those of the time (national narrowness, 
24 3 ; treatment of slaves as chattels, 8824-31) or those of 
all time (selfish prudence, 12 1-5). Pride is denounced 
(10? 12 f. ) as in Proverbs, and humility (3 18) and forgive 
ness (282) are enjoined. Almsgiving (as in Tob. 49-11 
Dan. 427 [24] Mt. 61) is identified with righteousness a 
conception that naturally arose when the care of the 
persecuted poor became the most pressing moral-religious 
duty ; 4 but this does not exclude in Ben-Sira the higher 
idea of righteousness. His treatment of social relations 
and duties is fuller than that of Proverbs. He lived in 
the midst of a highly developed civilisation, and is in 
terested in all sides of life. He gives directions for the 
governing of the household, the training of wife, children, 
and servants, dealing with debtors and creditors, deport 
ment in society(daily intercourse, feasts), bearing towards 
rulers and rich men he recognises many distinctions 
and classes of men he is familiar with the temptations 
of city-life, and praises agriculture. He gives special 
warnings against sexual licentiousness, against becoming 
security for other men s debts, against involving one s 
self in other people s affairs ; in general he counsels an 
attitude of caution toward men, on the ground of personal 

1 The raising of the dead by Elijah (48 5) has nothing to do 
with the doctrine of resurrection, and 19 19, which speaks of 
immortality, occurs in a paragraph (p. 18 f.) which is found 
only in No. 248 of <B, and appears to be an interpolation. 

- On its ethical-religious vocabulary see Merguet and Hatch 
(as below, 26). The golden rule does not occur. 

3 50 2$f. (though in H<SS) is probably an interpolation. 

* So the position assigned to almsgiving by Mohammed was 
suggested by the conditions of the Arabian society of his time. 

39 1177 


comfort (3222/. ). On the same ground, he advises the 
observance of the social proprieties, such as a decent 
show of mourning for the dead, failure in which brings 
one into ill repute (38 16/ ). He is friendly to physicians 
seems, indeed, to defend them against doubts and 
objections and approves of music and the temperate 
use of wine. See especially chaps. 7 13 18 31/. 38, and 
Seligmann, Deane, and Cheyne. He is generally acute, 
sometimes a little cynical, never pessimistic. 

A real, though not very well defined, Greek influence 
is to be recognised in the book. The author does not 

24 Relation acce P l the Greek philosophy (his thought 
to Greek s in the main of the P ractical unphilo- 
thoueht sophic Jewish type); but he is affected by 

general Greek culture. In this respect he 
stands between Proverbs and Wisd. Sol. , but much 
nearer to the former than to the latter. Palestine was 
at this time (c. 180 B.C.) not without a Greek atmo 
sphere, and Ben-Sira had travelled in Greek-speaking 
countries (cp Che. ). The traces of Greek influence are 
found in certain general conceptions in his book. He 
does not, it is true, go so far as Wisd. Sol. and Philo ; 
he does not allegorise, as they do, nor make so near an 
approach to hypostatisation. His conception of human 
liberty and divine predetermination and his reference to 
Enoch (44 16), if it be genuine, are probably Jewish. We 
| cannot adduce particular words and phrases in proof of 
j Greek influence, for these may be scribal additions. The 
expression in 4827, for example (bon Kin, TO irdv iffriv 
ai/ros), found in the Heb. and the Gk. , though not in the 
Syriac, might be regarded as of doubtful genuineness, and 
in general the possibility of editorial modification must be 
admitted. After we allow for such a possibility, however, 
there remain broad touches which cannot well be re 
garded as spurious, and which have a Greek tone. The 
most marked is the identification of virtue with knowledge 
(a point for the full treatment of which see WISDOM 
LITERATURE). This conception, though not without 
roots in the older thought, has here been developed 
under the stimulus of Greek philosophy, with, however, 
a marked Jewish colouring. There are, according to 
Ben-Sira, only two classes in society, wise men and 
fools. These are often identified with the righteous and 
the wicked ; but the intellectual basis of men s natures 
and judgments is constantly insisted on. The divine law 
is recognised as the rule of action ; but it is not different 
from the wise man s thought. Hence the importance 
attached to instruction, the one thing necessary for men 
being discipline in the art of right thinking ; and all 
God s dealings with men may be viewed as divine train 
ing in the perception of moral truth. Similarly, the 
stress laid on moderation in action (821-24 31 /! ) reminds 
us of the fj.-r]dev &yat> of Koh^leth and of the Greeks. 
In another direction we have the conception of wisdom 
in chap. 24 (nearly identical with that of Prov. 8), which 
contains the Greek ideas of the cosmos and the logos 
(cp tK6<rfj.i]ffti>, 1627 422i ; in 42zi Heb. has pn). 

A complete critical edition is yet in the distance. 
Only about a half of the Hebrew text being known, we 

25 Critical are ^S^Y dependent on the Vss. , the 
edition texts of which are not in good condition. 

A selection of works on Ecclesiasticus is all that can be given. 

(a) For the text of the Hebrew fragments : (i.) The Oxford 
fragments and first Cambridge leaf: Cowley and Neubauer, The 
original Hebrew of a portion of Ecclesi- 
26. Literature, asticus, etc. [ 97] (also collotype facsimile 
ed. [ 97]), and R. Smend, Das hebr. Frag 
ment d. Weisheit d. JS [ 97] ; Schlatter, Das neugefundene 
Heb. Stiick des Sirack [ 97] ; cp Israel Levi, L Ecclesiastigue, 
tcxte original hebreu [ 98] ; and see the critical remarks on 
the text in REJ, Jan. -Mar. 97 ; the Expositor, May 97 ; 
WZKM\\ [ 97]; cp the literature cited in AJSL, 1642 n. 2 
[ 98]; Kau. Apokr. 1257-9. ( i-) The 1897 eleven Cambridge 
leaves : S. Schechter and C. Taylor, The H isdont of Ben-Sira, 
Portions of the Book of Ecclesiasticus from Heb. MSS in 
the Cairo Genizah [ 99] ; two new leaves, JQR 12 456-465 [Ap. 
1900]. (iii.) The two British Museum leaves : G. Margoliouth, 
JQR 12 1-33 [Oct. 99] (also separately [Williams and Norgate]). 
(iv.) The two Paris leaves : I. Levi, REJ 40 1-30 [1900]. (v.) The 
two Adler leaves : E. N. Adler, JQR 12466-480 [Ap. 1900], 


(b) Among commentaries, those of Frit/sche (Kurzge/. Ex. 
1 1 Much.) and Edersheim (in Wace s Apocrypha) are especially 
to be commended ; Bretschneider (1806) is full of material 
and suggestion. 

(c) For text-criticism, see Horowitz in MGWJ 14; Dyser- 
inck, De Spreuken van J. den Zoon v. Sir. [ 70] ; Hatch, 
Essays in Bibl. Grk. [ 89] ; Bickell in ZKT, 82 ; D. S. Mar- 
goliouth, Place of Ecclesiasticus, etc. [ 90] (criticisms of Mar- 
goliouth s position by Dr. in Oxford Mag., Che. in Acad., Schiir. 
in TLZ, and reply by Margoliouth in Expos., all in 1890); H. 
Hois, Essai sur torig. d. I. j>hil.-jud. alex. [ 90] ; I. Levi, 
L. Ecclesiastique [ 98] and art. in REJ, July 99 ; Margoliouth, 

2081-94 (1900). 

(d) General works : Hody, De Bibl. text. orig. [1705] ; A. T. 
Hartmann, Die enge Verbind. d. AT tnit d. JVeutn [ 31]; 
Zunz, Gottesdienstl. Vortr. d. Juden [ 32], new ed. [ 92] ; Del. 
Gesch. d. hebr. Poesie [ 36] ; Derenbourg, Hist, et Gfog. de la 
Pal. [ 67]. 

^iicenienre aes D.jes. oir. l 74J ; oengmann, ir eisneii a. j es. 
So/in d. Sir. in s. Verhdlt. zu d. Salomon. Sprtichen, etc. [ 83] ; 
Deane in Expositor, 83 ; Che. Job and Sol. [ 87] (sections on 

(/) On Greek, especially Alexandrian, elements in Ben-Sira : 
Gfrorer, Philo [ 31); Dahne, Darstel. d. jifd.-alex. Religions- 
phil. [ 34]; J. F. Bruch, H eisheitslehre d. Heb. [ 51]; Frankel, 
Einfluss d. paliist. Exeg. auf d. alex. Hermeneutik[ s\\\ A. 
Geiger, U rschrift [ 57] ; Nicolas, Doctr. relig. d. JuifsV] [ 66] ; 
Siegfried, Philo i>. Alex, als Ausleger d. AT [ 75] ; Drummond, 
Phiio-jud. [ 88]; Bois, Orig., etc. [ 90]. 

(j?) On other versions : H. Herkenne, De vet. latinct Eccclesi- 
astici capit. i.-xliii. Una cunt notis ex ejusdem libri translatt. 
sEth. Arm., Copt., Lat., alt. Syro-Hexaplari dcpromptis. 
Dr. Norbert Peters, Die Sahidisch-Koptische Uebersetzung 
des Buches Ecclesiasticus, Biblische Studien [ 98]. 

C. H. T. 

ECLIPSE. It is possible that the words of Amos 
(89), To cause the sun to go down at noon, and to 
_ _. . . . darken the earth while it is yet day, 1 
. istoricai re j- er j eclipse of the sun on 

eclipses, Am. 89 
Jer. 15g? 

ASSYRIA, 19). 


If so, the prophet, in reproducing from memory the discourses 
which he had delivered in N. Israel, introduced a reference to 
a subsequent event, which seemed like the beginning of the 
end spoken of in S 2. Amos, who is so fond of references to 
contemporary circumstances, may very well have referred to 
this particular eclipse, which is also specially recorded by the 
Assyrians. Possibly, too, one of the details in Jer. log may be 
suggested by the famous solar eclipse of Thales in 585 B.C. 
(Herod. 1 54 Pliny 24 2 53). I v. 6^-9 may have been written (by 
whom we cannot venture to say 2 ) in the year after the fall of 

No other prophetic passages can safely be taken to 
relate to any particular eclipses. The phenomenon of 

2 Figurative an ecli P se was a P eriodic ally recurring 
, 6 excitement to the unscientific mind, 

language. and Am g jg 2o M;C g g Zeph 1 15 Ezek 

30i8 327/ Is. 13io 242 3 Joel 2io 37 815 Zech. 146 
cannot with any probability be connected with historical 
eclipses. The language is conventional. It pre 
supposes the phenomena of eclipses, but is merely 
symbolic, and such as naturally suggested itself in 
descriptions of judgments. Is. 388 (in a late report of 
a supposed prophecy of Isaiah) has been much mis 
understood by Bosanquet. To his theory that the solar 
eclipse of 689 B.C. is referred to there are strong 
chronological as well as text - critical and exegetical 
objections (see Che. Intr. Isa. 227, and DIAL). 

Almost all modern scholars have found a reference 
to the phenomena of eclipses in Job 858 31 13. Thus 
Davidson paraphrases the blackness of the day (Job 
85 AV; all that maketh black the day, RV) eclipses, 
supernatural obscurations, and the like, and remarks 
on v. 8 and 26 13 that there is an allusion to the popular 
mythology, according to which the darkening or eclipse 
of the sun and moon was caused by the serpent throw 
ing its folds around them, and swallowing them up 
(Job, I9/. ; similarly 185). Unfortunately the two 

1 Reading DV lijO ( C p Jer. 15 9). See Che. Exf. T. 10336 
(April 1899). 

- Giesebrecht, too, doubts Jeremiah s authorship of vu. 6l>-ga. 



most significant words in w. 58 appear to be corrupt, 1 
and the illustrative material derived from Babylonian 
mythology is inconsistent with the view that the Hebrews 
(like the Indians) believed in a cloud-dragon which 
seeks to swallow up the sun and moon. What we 
have before us, as Gunkel was the first to show fully, 
is one of the current applications of the myth of Tiamat. 
The text of Job 3 is a matter for critical discussion. 
See Dillmann and Budde(on the conservative side), and 
see further DRAGON, 5, BEHEMOTH, zf. 

Most of the NT references (Mt. 2429 Acts 220 Rev. 
6128 12) are sufficiently explained as the conventional 
i NT rAfprAnP a phraseology of prophetic writers. 
* Nor would most persons hesitate to 
explain the darkness over the whole earth 2 (or land, 
Mk. 15 33 Mt. 27 45) as an addition to plain historical 
facts involuntarily made by men brought up on the 
prophetic Scriptures, and liable, too, to the innocent 
superstitions of the people. When Yahwe was sore 
displeased with his people, the prophets constantly 
described universal nature as awestruck, and poets like 
David had a similar sense of the sympathy of nature 
when great men died (2 S. l2i). It is Lk. , a non- 
Israelite, who involuntarily rationalises the poetic tra 
dition of a sudden darkness over the earth at the 
Crucifixion. In Lk. 234S/ we read (in RV) according 
to the best form of the Greek text, A darkness came 
over the whole land [or earth] until the ninth hour, the 
sun s light failing (rov i)\iov eVXetTrovros). No doubt 
the evangelist believed that a solar eclipse was the cause 
of this naively supposed phenomenon, though, according 
to his own narrative, Jesus died at the Passover season 
when, there being a full moon, a solar eclipse was im 
possible. Origen indeed ( Comm. in Matth., Opera, 
ed. Delarue, 892/1) rejected the reading now adopted 
by the Revisers on this very ground, regarding it ae a 
falsification of the text. Lauth (TSBA, 4245) frankly 
admits that no ordinary eclipse can be meant, and 
thinks that the darkness was probably caused by the 
extinction of the star of the Magi. T. K. c. 

ED (11?, witness ), the name of an altar of the 
eastern tribes in EV of Josh. 2234 (not in MT or ). 
The text being imperfect, and the choice of a name 
partly open, Dillmann would supply GALEED (q.v. , 2). 

It is at any rate impossible to identify the Witness Altar 
with Karn Sartabeh, (i) because this bold bluff is on the 
western side of the Jordan, and (2) because it is not certain 
whether any part of the story of the altar belongs to either of 
the great narrators J and E. See GALEED, 2. 


EDDIAS deAAiAC [A]), i Esd. 826 AV = Ezra 102 5 

EDDINUS (eAAtejiNoyc [BA]), i Esd. Ii 5 RV, 

EDEN (H#). A Levite, temp. Hezekiah (2 Ch. 29 12, 
tuSav [BA], -ua.8. [L]; 31 15, o8o/x[BA], ia5av [L]). The 
right form is probably JEHOADDAN (q.v. ). T. K. C. 

EDEN (py). For Gen. 28, etc. (Garden of Eden) 
see PARADISK. For Amos 1 5 ( House of Eden EV) see BETH- 
EDEN (so RVmg-)- F r Ezek. 27 23 see CANNEH. 

EDER (TW, flock ; Ap &[BJ, eApAi [A], eBep [L]), 
a city in the S. of Judah, close to Edom (Josh. 15 21) ; 
probably no more than a village with a tower of the 
flock (see below); cp Nu. 1819 2 K. 188 2 Ch. 26 10. 

EDER (AV Edar), THE TOWER OF (-niT^p, 
i.e. , tower of the flock ), a place (perhaps a village) 
to the S. of Ephrath 3 (see BETHLEHEM, 3), beyond 
which Jacob pitched his tent after the death and burial 
of Rachel (Gen. 35 21). It was so called from a watch- 

1 1"1D3 is improbable, because there is no genuine root 173 
to be black ; DV, because the parallelism requires D\ sea, 
ocean (cp Ps. 74 13/1 Is. 27 1. See Che. Expos., 97 a, p. 404^). 

2 The rendering earth is to be preferred ; the crucifixion 
had a significance for more than the little country of Juda;a. 

* See, however, EPHRATH. 


a e. 


tower built for the protection of the flocks against robbers 
(see EDER i. , and cp CATTLE, 6), and according to 
Jerome (OS 101 19) was about i R. m. from Bethlehem. 
The same phrase is rendered in Mic. 4 8 tower of the 
flock, no actually existing tower being referred to. The 
description is symbolical. Either Jerusalem is in siege, 
standing alone in the land, like one of those solitary 
towers with folds round them (GASm. ; cp Is. 18), or, 
on the analogy of Is. 32 14, we have before us a picture 
of the desolation of the already captured Jerusalem, 
which is no longer a city but a hill on whose slopes 
flocks may lie down. The latter view is preferable, 
even if, with G. A. Smith, we assign Mic. 48 to 
Micah as its author (see Che. Micah^ [Camb. Bib.], 
1882, p. 38; cp p. 33/- ) Micah has previously said, 
not Zion shall become like a tower of the flock, 
like a besieged city (cp Is. I.e.), but Zion shall be 
ploughed as a field. 

In (5 there is a similar variety of rendering. In Gen. 35 16 
{the notice is transferred thither from v. 21 ; see Di.) we have 
(e7reK>/a) TOV irvpyov ydSep [BDL], . . . -yajSep [E] ; in Mic. 48 
f H \ 1 

EDER (VU;, eAep [AL]). 

1. Apparently a post-exilic Benjamite sept, mentioned along j 
with Arad and many others; i Ch. Sist (BENJAMIN, 9 ii. /3): | 
AV ADER (T$ ; wSrjS [B], coSep [A], aSap [L]). 

2. A Levitt: iCh. 232 3 ("-^a.9 [B]) 24 30 (rjXa [B]). The 
name may be derived from EDER i. 

EDES, RV EDOS ( H Aoc [B]), i Esd. 9 35 = Ezra 10 43 , 
RV IDDO (ii. ). 

EDNA ( eA N& [BAN] i.e., nrw ; ANNA), the wife 
of Raguel and mother of Sara Tobias s bride (Tob. 
72, etc.). 


Name and origin ( 1-4). History ( 6-10). 

Country ( 5). Civilisation, etc. ( 11-13). 

Edom (am ; eAcoM [BAL], lAoyM&iA [BNAQF], 1 
whence AV IDUMEA in Is. 34s/ Ez. 35 15 36s), and EV 
IDUM^EA in Mk.38 [Ti. WH, lAoyM&iA]). 
from an older form addm, may possibly be 
rightly treated by Baethgen 2 as a variation of dddm 
mankind (origiiftilly adam) ; similar terms have, in 
fact, often been used as national names. As applied to 
the nation, Edom always has a collective sense, the only 
exception being the somewhat late passage (Ps. 137?) in 
which the Edomites are called sons of Edom. The 
resemblance between the national name Edom and the 
name of the god contained in D~IN~QJ; (traditionally read 
OBED-EDOM [y.w.], but of uncertain pronunciation) is 
probably an accident. On early traces of a name equiva 
lent to Edom, see below, 3. 

The Edomites, according to the OT, were descend 
ants of Esau, who is represented as identical with 
Affi + f Edom, the eponym of the nation, just 
2. Affinities oi as j acQb is represented as identical 

au with Israel. The story of the rival 
brothers Esau and Jacob symbolises the history of the 
peoples of Edom and Israel respectively, in their varying 
relations to each other (cp EsAU, 2). In form it is 
purely legendary, and Esau, with whom we are here 
specially concerned, has been identified by Tiele ( Verge- 
lijk. Gesch. 447) and many others with the Phoenician 
mythic hero Usoos (OiVwos ; Philo Bybl. , ap. Eus. 
PrcBp. Ev. i. lO?). The statements of Philo must, no 
doubt, be received with caution. His work, as far as 
we know it, is by no means purely Phoenician in origin, 
though he claims for it the authority of the ancient 
writer Sanchuniathon. It is a medley of Phoenician 
and Hellenic myths, combined with theoretical inter 
pretations and arbitrary fancies of his own. Never 
theless, it appears certain that Usoos was borrowed by 
Philo not from the OT but from Phoenician tradition, 
and several parallelisms in the story of Esau and in 

1 In several places and in more than one MS lovSaia. and 
ISovfiaia are confused in <S. 

2 Beitr. 10 ; cp ZDMG 42 470 [ 88]. 



that of Usoos seem to the present writer to point to a 
common origin of the two legends. 1 In this case the 
original form of wy or Usoos will probably have been 
~\vy, Osau (cp ESAU, i, HOSAH). Another suggestion 
has been made by W. M. Miiller. He connects Esau 
with the desert-goddess Asiti, a Semitic name mentioned 
in two Egyptian inscriptions (As. u. Eur. 316 f.}. It 
is, at all events, probable that Esau was originally a god 
whom the Edomites regarded as their ancestor ; Israelite 
patriarchs, Abraham and Jacob, also seem to have 
been gods at a very early period (cp ABRAHAM, 2, 

According to an Egyptian papyrus, some of the Sasu 
(a term nearly equivalent to Bedouins ) belonging to 

_ . (the land of) Aduma (i.e. , Edom) 2 

/ J C6S received permission, in the twelfth 

of Edom or 

century B. c. , to pasture their cattle in 

a district on the Egyptian frontier (see 
WMM As. u. Eur. 135) precisely what happened in 
the case of the Israelites according to the tradition 
contained in the OT. About 1200 B.C. the Sasu of 
Sa ai ra were defeated (ib. 136). Here Sa ai ra is, of 
course, Seir 3 (Heb. Se ir) ; but whether the Edomites 
or some older inhabitants of those mountains are meant 
is uncertain. In any case, it is not permissible to 
infer (with WMM op. cit. 137) that the Edomites took 
possession of the district in question only a short time 
before the period of the Israelite kings : the list of 
Edomite kings (see 4), with the names of places con 
tained in it, bears witness to the contrary. 

It is true that, according to Gen. 146 8620 Dt. 21222, 
the mountains of Seir were occupied, before the time of 

1 In both stories we have a strife between two brothers. 
Usoos, like Esau, is a hunter ; his brother is <ra;iiT)jU.po{JjU.os 6 <cai 
v^iovpa.vio i, where the former name is obviously CfTO CB*. The 
myth of the stone of Jacob (Gen. 28 12 17) may perhaps here be 
compared. The stone lies at the foot of the heavenly ladder, 
and may thus represent the gate or entrance of heaven. 

2 [Name of Edom. The equation Edom = (the land of) Udumu 
or Udumi (for Assyrian references see KA T(%) 150 = COT 1 136) 
is undisputed. But it is unwise, wherever a name resembling 
Edom occurs in the Assyrian or the Egyptian inscriptions, to 
insist on identifying the two names. In the Amarna tablets 
(iSth cent. B.C.) we find a city in the land of Gar called Udumu 
(Wi. 237 [L 64] 24). It would be bold, however, to speak of this 
city as the city of Edom (so Sayce, Pat. Pal. 153; cpWi. below), 
and to proceed to a further combination of both names with 
Adumu, the capital of mat Aribi, conquered by Sennacherib 
(see DUMAH, i). Yakut, the Arabic geographer, knew of several 
places called Duma, and it is probable that a similar name had 
several references in antiquity. Even in the famous passage, 
Pap. Anast. vi. 4 14, where a high official (temp. Merneptah^II.) 
asks permission for the entrance into Egypt of tribes of Sasu 
(Bedouin) from the land of Aduma (Brugsch, GA 202; WMM 
As. it. Eur. 135), there is still a doubt as to the reference of 
Aduma (Wi. Gl 1 189). More reason is there to question 
the identification proposed by Chabas, Brugsch, and Maspero 
of the land of Adim or Atuma (so read by these scholars in the 
story of Senuhyt ; RP& 2 n ff.) with the land of Edom. As 
E. Meyer (GA 182) and other good judges (including Maspero 
himself) now assure us, the right reading of the name is not 
Adim but Kdm (see KEDEMAH), and Prof. Sayce has, therefore, 
in Pat. Pal. 206, silently retracted what he said in his earlier 
attack on criticism (Crit. ATon. 203). Winckler (I.e.) thinks it 
not impossible that the Edomites may have derived their name 
from the region of the city of Udumu (he calls it here Adumu), 
where they may by degrees have formed settlements. This he 
illustrates by the often-quoted passage in the Harris Papyrus, 
where Rameses III. claims to have destroyed the Saira among 
the tribes of the Sasu (Brugsch, 203; WMM I35./; cp 240). 
Here the name Saira is evidently later than the name (Mount) 
Seir. Winckler does not, however, adhere to his own suggestion, 
and thinks the two names Adumu and Udumu are more probably 
unconnected. It only needs to be added here that in 1879 
Mr. Baker Greene brought the passage in the Anastasi Papyrus 
into connection with the settlement of Hebrew tribes, such 
as the Josephites and, as he thinks, the Kenites, in Egypt 
(Hebrew Migration, 37, 117, IQO, 310); and that W. M. Miiller 
considers that the Saira of the Harris Papyrus are a race distinct 
from the Edomites. According to this scholar, the Saira are 
the same as the Horites the aboriginal inhabitants of the land 
of Seir. This involves bringing down the conquest of Seir by 
the Edomites much later than is consistent with Dt. 3 Nu. 20. 

T. K.C.] 

3 According to" Zimmern (ZA 6251), Seir seems to occur in 
the Amarna tablets in the expression mat scri. 




the Edomites, by the sons of Seir the Horite or the 
Horites. W. M. Miiller (I.e.), however, rightly observes 
that the word Hori i.e. , Troglodyte (cp Job 306) is 
not properly the name of a nation, and serves only to 
express the idea entertained by later generations con 
cerning their predecessors. In like manner, the sons 
of Seir can scarcely be regarded as a national name, 
since Seir denotes nothing more than the mountain 
range in question. We must, however, suppose that 
among the Edomites, as among the Israelites, there 
survived remnants of older peoples ; and the lists 
in Gen. 36 seem clearly to indicate that, after the 
analogy of what happened in Israel, the Horites 
frequently mingled with the Edomites just as, on the 
other hand, we find manifold traces of a mingling of 
Edomites and Horites with the neighbouring Israelite 
tribes (see Nold. Unters. 178 /. and We. De gent. 29, 
38 f. ). It should be noticed, in particular, that 
remnants of the small nation known as Kenaz were to 
be found both among the Edomites and among the 
Israelites (see K.ENA7.). Similarly, a portion of the 
Amalekites was merged in the Edomite people (see 
AMALEK, 4). 

It is shown elsewhere (see ESAU, 2) that the Israel 
ites had a consciousness of their lateness as a people 
__. in comparison with the Edomites. The 

n ^ s> tradition, which was sound, illustrates 

Tribes, Clans. 

the statements in Gen. 8631-39. Even 

if the first four of the kings there enumerated are 
mythical (see Nold. Unters. 87 n. ), the last four 
are certainly historical. There is, however, a doubt 
whether they are arranged in strict chronological 
sequence, and whether all of them ruled over the whole 
nation (see BEL A ii. , i). The other lists in the same 
chapter also are of great historical value, though the 
details are often obscure. 1 That inconsistencies occa 
sionally appear is quite in accordance with what we 
should expect in lists drawn up at various times or 
under the influence of conflicting notions ; for it would 
be a great mistake to suppose that the tribes and 
families were separated, by absolutely rigid limits, one 
from another. So far as we can judge, however, there 
is no reason to believe that the traditions embodied in 
the lists above mentioned are later than the overthrow 
of the kingdom of Judah. Of the localities enumerated 
in Gen. 36, either in the form of tribal names or as 
possessions of the various chieftains (see especially vv. 
40-43), all those which can be identified are situated in 
the ancient territory of Edom, not in the region occupied 
by the Edomites after the fall of Judah. The antiquity 
of the title (IJ^K. alluph, EV DUKE [q.v.]) given to the 
Edomite princes in this chapter appears to the present 
writer to be proved by Ex. 1615. 

In the OT the territory of Edom (properly speaking) 

is Mount SEIR (q.v. , i). It is, of course, to be supposed, 

_ , however, that the Edomite country 

IM t s ) s P read out both to the east and to the 
" west of the mountains, and probably 

varied in dimensions at different periods. The sites of 
a very few Edomite towns can be determined with pre 
cision ; the sites of others (for example, that of Teman 
i.e., south, southern place which is often mentioned, 
and appears also as a grandson of Edom) can be deter 
mined at least approximately. In general, however, 
the country of Edom is still very imperfectly known. 

The name Seir, applied to the mountain-range, signifies 
hairy, a meaning to which the narratives in Gen. allude 
on several occasions (Gen. 25 25 27 1123). If we may 
judge by analogy, hairy must here be equivalent to 
wooded, or at least covered with brush-wood : in 
Arabia there are two distinct localities where we find a 
mountain called by the equivalent name al-As ar, the 
hairy, whilst a neighbouring mountain is known as 
al-Akra or al-Ajrad the bare (cp the mountain called 
Sa rfo in Assyria). 

i [Cp WRS / Phil. 9 V)ff. ; Ndld. ZDMG 40 168^ ( 86).] 

At the present day the region of Seir is, for the most 
part, barren ; but it contains some fruitful valleys, and 
in the country immediately to the E. of it are to be 
found districts covered with luxuriant vegetation, as both 
ancient and modern authorities attest (see Buhl, Edomi- 
ter, i$/. [ 93]). It is, therefore, hardly necessary to take 
the prophetic utterance on Edom in Gen. 27 39 (see ESAU, 
2) as any thing other than a blessing which is the most 
obvious interpretation. Nor is the benediction incon 
sistent with the fact (which agrees with the conditions of 
life to-day in some mountainous districts of Arabia) 
that the Edomites were largely dependent upon the 
chase for their sustenance. 

According to Gen. 324 368, Esau took up his abode 

on Mount Seir. Hence it is that in one passage Jacob, 

, , when on his journey from Gilead to 

Israel : earlier 

Shechem, passes southward over the 
Jabbok, although in reality he had 

nothing to do in that region and would 
gladly have avoided Esau ; the story, however, requires 
that the two brothers should meet. See JABBOK, 2. 

What were the relations between the Israelites and 
the Edomites at the time of the Exodus is a matter 
about which the narratives of the Pentateuch leave us 
in doubt. According to one story, the Israelites 
marched straight through the Edomite territory (cp 
Nu. 3337/! 42/1 ) ; according to a more detailed account, 
they avoided it altogether by performing a circuit to 
the south (cp WANDERINGS, 13). It must be re 
membered, however, (i) that it is quite uncertain 
whether at that time the Edomites were already in 
possession of the country which they afterwards occupied, 
and (2) that the immigration of the Israelite tribes was 
probably not a single united movement, but a series of 
separate undertakings which followed different lines of 
march (see ISRAEL, 7). 

One of the ancient kings of Edom is said to have 
defeated the Midianites on the Moabite table-land (Gen. 
8635 ; see MIDIAN, and cp BELA ii., i). Whether the 
brief mention of Saul s victory over the Edomites in i S. 
1447 is historical we cannot determine: the fact that 
his chief herdman was DOEG the Edomite ( i S. 2 1 7 [8] 
22 [BA, offvpos]; cp Ps. 522) does not, of course, imply 
any dominion of Israel over Edom. David, however, 
subdued the Edomites after a severe contest. 

A short account of this war may be obtained by combining 
2 S. 8 \if. (where the text is in part very corrupt ; cp B) with 
i Ch. 1811-13 a "d Ps. 602 ( omits Edom ), to which we 
should add i K. 11 15^; but much still remains obscure. A 
great battle was fought in the Valley of Salt, by which is prob 
ably meant the northern extremity of the vast barren lowland 
usually called the Ariibah (cp Buhl, Edomiter, 20 ; but for 
another view see SALT, VALLEY OF). Joab, David s general, 
is said to have extirpated all the male Edomites in the course 
of six months. This is unquestionably a gross exaggeration, 
for had such been the case the nation could never have re 
appeared in history. There can be little doubt, however, that 
David s conquest gave rise to the deadly hatred afterwards 
manifested between Edom and Israel or at least between Edom 
and Judah. See DAVID, 8 c. 

A prince of the royal house contrived to escape to 
Egypt (on cnxD, cp HADAD i. , 2), and his son GENU- 
BATH (q.v. ) regained the sovereignty of Edom after 
David s death (i K. 1114-22, to which last verse <@ BL 
rightly appends the second half of v. 25, with the read 
ing Edom fcnx or oi.x] instead of Aram [DIN])- The 
statement that Solomon included Edomite women among 
his wives (i K. 11 1) does not seem irreconcilable with 
the foregoing account ; but the extensive traffic which he 
carried on with Ophir from the port of Elath (at the 
NE. extremity of the Red Sea) certainly implies that he 
was master of the intervening territory. We may 
suppose that the kingdom of Genubath included only a 
part of the Edomite country, or else that the new king 
recognised the king of Judah as his superior. In 
any case, the Edomite state cannot, at this time, have 
been really powerful : a few generations later we find the 
same seaport in the hands of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, 
and it is expressly stated that the Edomites were then 




7. Time of 

without a king (i K. 2247 [48] /. ). It would, 

therefore, seem that the narrative of the 
campaign undertaken by Jehoram and 
uiviucu jehoshaphat against Mesha king of Moab 
arcny. can scarce ]y jj e correct in representing a 
king of Edom as taking part in the expedition (2 K. 3). 
This story, as a whole, doubtless rests on genuine 
tradition ; but it contains much that is fabulous (cp 
JEHORAM, $/.}. The utmost that can be conceded is 
that the king of Edom was a prince subject to Judah. 
Moreover, the statement in i K. 22 47 [48] must be 
taken in connection with another, according to which 
the Edomites rebelled in the time of Jehoshaphat s son 
Jorani and set up a king of their own. The attempt to 
subdue them afresh proved a failure. (The details of 
the narrative in 2 K. 820-22 = 2 Ch. 2l8-io again present 
difficulties of interpretation. ) The Blessing upon 

Esau (Gen. 27 39 f- ), at least in its present form, probably 
dates from this period of independence Esau will serve 
Jacob [cp Gen. 2623] but the following words, presum 
ably added somewhat later, state that if he makes an effort 
he will shake off the yoke. The narratives of Genesis 
assign the pre-eminence to Jacob, nor do they fail to re 
cognise the enmity between the two brothers ; but, at the 
same time, the character of Esau is treated with respect, 
and much stress is laid upon the final reconciliation. 
All this seems to represent the feeling of those who 
desired to see peace permanently established between 
the two peoples ; or, possibly, the sentiments here 
expressed may proceed rather from subjects of the 
Ephraimite kingdom, to whom the dominion of Judah 
over Edom appeared a matter of no great importance. 
On the other hand, the Judahite prophets Joel and 
Amos of whom the first is now usually regarded as 
post-exilic, whilst the second undoubtedly belongs to 
the period which we are at present considering threaten 
the Edomites with a severe chastisement from God 
on account of their crimes against Israel (Joel 3 [4] 19 
Am. ln/i). The view that the latter passage is not 
really by Amos (see AMOS, 9) does not commend 
itself to the present writer ; but, with regard to Am. 
9 11-15, which predicts, among other things, that 
Judah is to dispossess the remnant of Edom (<S 1!A -i 
TU>V dvdpuTruv), it is plain that there is grave cause for 
doubt. This was the period of the war in which 
the hostile Moabites burned the bones of a certain 
king of Edom to lime (Am. 2i). There is reason to 
believe that a great trade in slaves was then carried on 
by the Edomites : we read of whole troops of exiles 
being delivered over to Edom by the inhabitants of 
Gaza and Tyre (see We. on Am. 169). 

Amaziah king of Judah again subdued Edom and 
captured the town of Sela i.e. , Rock" (see AMAZIAH, 
i, JOKTHEEL, 2). Buhl s denial of the equivalence of 
Sela and Petra is hardly justified (see PETRA). Whether 
this conquest was maintained and, if so, by what 
means through all the disturbances which soon after 
wards arose in Judah we cannot say. In the reign 
R Tarpr ^ -^ az Rezm king of Damascus restored 
da s of Elath to the Edomites ( 2 K - 166, where 
monarchv we shou ^ d read Edom [DIN] and Edom- 
" ites [cranx] with): hence we may conclude 
that till then the men of Judah had been in possession not 
only of the town in question but also of the country to 
the N. of it, or at least of some route whereby it could be 
safely reached, a route which perhaps lay partly outside 
of the Edomite territory. The statement in 2 Ch. 28 17 
seems to be a modified form of the tradition relating 
to those events. To the same (or possibly to a much 
earlier) period we may assign the ancient fragment which 
is found in Ps. 608-n [10-13] ( = Ps. 108 8-n [10-13]), em 
bedded among quite late pieces : here occur the scornful 
words, Over Edom will I cast my shoe (see SHOES, 
4 [6]), and Who will lead me to Edom? l Moreover, 

1 In the critical analysis of Ps. 60 the present writer agrees, 
in the main, with Ew., who assigns ZT . 1-5 10 (except wilt not 


several of the discourses uttered by the prophets against 
Edom appear to date from about this time, after the 
nation had recovered its independence e.g. , the piece 
which (as Ew. pointed out) is partially reproduced by the 
post-exilic prophet OBADJAH (q. v. , ii. ), as well as by his 
predecessor Jeremiah (ch. 497-22). The details of the 
prophecy, however, are no longer intelligible. Similar 
utterances are found in Is. 11 14 Jer. 925 25 21 497-22 (cp 
Jer. 27s). On the other hand, the author of Deuteronomy 
emphatically teaches that Israel has no right to the ter 
ritory of Edom, and likewise recommends a friendly 
treatment of the kindred nation (Dt. 2 5-8 23? [8]/. ). 

In the Assyrian inscriptions Kaus-malak king of Edom 
appears, together with his contemporary, Ahaz king of 
Judah, as a tributary of Tiglath-pileser III. (745-727 
B.C.); see KB ii. 21. Similarly, Malik-ram king of 
Edom (ib. 291) paid tribute to Sennacherib (705-681 
B.C. ), and Kaus-gabr king of Edom, as well as Manasseh 
king of Judah, paid tribute to Esarhaddon (681-668 
B.C.) and to Astir-bani-pal (668-626 B. c. ) : ib. 149 and 
239 ; cp Del. Par. 295, Schr. KATW 149 / 

At the approach of Nebuchadrezzar, the nations 

bordering on Judah the Edomites among them 

... sent envoys to Jerusalem to consult 

and ost to ether (J er - 27 3>- After the destruc - 

tion of their royal city, many Jews sought 

me times. refuge jn Edom ( j en 40ll ). but the 

Edomites, as was natural, hailed with delight the over 
throw of the kingdom of Judah (Obad. 11-14 Lam. 4 21 
Ps. 137?). They seized the opportunity to occupy part 
of the territory of Judah (Ezek. 863), though perhaps 
another partial cause for the migration may be suggested 
(see NABAT.*:ANS). At a later period we find them in 
possession of S. Judaea, to which the special name of 
Idumaea was given ; this term occurs as early as 312 
B.C. (Diod. Sic. xix. 98, a passage based upon the 
contemporaneous testimony of Hieronymus of Kardia). 
Hebron, the ancient capital of the tribe of Judah, 
within an ordinary day s march of Jerusalem, became 
an Edomite city (r Mace. 065 Jos. BJ iv. 9 7). 1 We 
can scarcely doubt that from the time of the Babylonian 
Exile the Edomites held this territory, which, though 
for the most part not very fertile, was preferable to 
their original home. 

The exilic and the post-exilic prophets and poets of 
the Israelites, as we might have expected, denounce the 
Edomites in no measured terms (see Ezek. 25 12-14 35 14 
863 Obad. Lam. 4 21 Is. 34 63 1-6 Ps. 137? Mai. 1 2 - S ). 
Similar were the sentiments of Jesus Ben-Sira (who wrote 
about the year 190 B.C.) ; in 5026 the Cairo Hebrew 
fragment (see ECCLESIASTICUS, 4) has TJW acr; 2 
we must suppose the author to have made use of an 
antiquated phrase no longer applicable to the Edomites 
of his own time. The author of the book of Daniel 
(167 or 166 B.C.) 3 appears, on the contrary, to have 
been less unfriendly to Edom, as well as to Moab and 
Ammon, following in this the example of his predecessor, 
the Deuteronomist (see Dan. 11 41). There is, it may 
be remarked, no ground for the assumption that the 
Edomites had, during the intervening period, retired 
from S. Judaea and had afterwards taken possession of 
it a second time (see Buhl, Edomiter, 77). The list of 
places in Neh. 11 25-36 is, at any rate, not contemporary 
with Nehemiah, and if authentic in any sense must be 
borrowed from a pre-exilic source. 4 

thou, O God, which, RV mg.) ii f. (EV s numeration) to a 
psalmist shortly before Nehemiah, and irv. 6-9, and the opening 
of v. 10, to David (warring against the Aramaeans). The Davidic 
origin of those words is, however, highly questionable. (Cp 

1 [On the Edomites in Judah in the early post-exilic period 
see Mey. Entst. 114^.] 

2 It has now been proved therefore that Fritzsche and others 
were fully justified in reading Seir (oTjei p). 

3 [See Mold. A T Lit. 223 ( 68) ; but cp DANIEL ii., 18.] 

4 [Several critics e.g., Torrey, Francis Brown, and E. Meyer 
have lately come to the conclusion that the catalogue in ques 
tion is a fiction of the Chronicler.] 




Judas the Maccabee fought against the Edomites on 
the territory which had formerly belonged to the tribe 
of Judah (i Mace. 6365). They are mentioned as 
enemies in Ps. 887 [6], which was composed about this 
time. Cp Judith 78 18 of the same period. 

At length Judah gained the victory over Edom. John 

Hyrcanus first wrested ADORA (q.v.) and MARESHAH 

_ , (q.v.) out of the hands of the Edomites 

f Ed (J S> Ant - X " i- 9l> BJL 26 ) - Ab Ut the 
01 om. en[ j Q J. t ^ e seconc j cen tury B.C. he compelled 

the whole Edomite nation, it is said, to adopt the practice 
of circumcision, and the Jewish Law (Ant. xiii. 9 1 xv. 7 9). 
Henceforth they were included among the Jews (ib. , 
Strabo, 760). Idumaen is several times mentioned as a 
district belonging to Judaea (e.g. , Jos. BJ iii. 85)- 

The conquest, however, did not prove a blessing to 
the Jews ; for, in consequence of those events, it came 
about that the ill-starred family of Antipas, the dynasty 
of the Herods, whom we should no doubt regard, in 
accordance with the common opinion, as of Edomite 
origin (see Jos. Ant. xiv. lOa, BJ i. 62 ; cp Mishna. 
Sota, vii. 8), made themselves masters of Judrea and of 
all Palestine, and thus were enabled to plunge the Jews 
into great misfortune. The Edomites also had reason 
to regret their union with their former rivals. Consider 
ing themselves Jews in the fullest sense, the fierce and 
turbulent inhabitants of Idumeea (Jos. BJ iv. 4i 5i) 
eagerly joined in the rebellion against the Romans, and 
played a prominent part both in the intestine struggles 
and in the heroic but altogether hopeless resistance to 
the enemy (ib. iv. 4/ 81 9s/ v. 92 vi. 26 82). Thus 
Edom was laid waste with fire and sword, and the 
nation as such ceased to be. Even the fact that the 
Edomites had at length become Jews was soon completely 
forgotten by the exponents of Jewish tradition. The 
frequent denunciations of Edom in the OT caused the 
name to be remembered only as an object of hatred, 
and hence the Jews came at an early date to employ it 
as a term indicating Rome, the most abhorred of all 
their enemies. And yet many of the Jews, it would 
seem, must have had Edomite blood in their veins ; for 
we may reasonably assume not only that the Edomites, 
after they had adopted Judaism, intermarried largely 
with their co-religionists, but also that those Edomites 
who survived the final catastrophe, whether in the con 
dition of slaves or otherwise, were regarded as Jews both 
by themselves and by the outer world (cp CHUZA). 

With respect to the habits and intellectual culture of 

the Edomites we possess scarcely any information. In 

_. ... .. spite of their ferocity, to which the 

ai. oivi isation. QT ^^^5 ^ well ^ the account s 

of the closing struggle bear testimony, the Edomites, 
and especially Teman, appear, strangely enough, to 
have enjoyed a reputation for great wisdom (Obad. 8 = 
Jer. 49?). It is not without reason that in the Book of 
Job the sage who occupies the foremost place among 
Job s friends is called Eliphaz of Teman, after two of 
the most important clans of Edom, Eliphaz being the 
first-born of Esau and Teman the first-born of Eliphaz. 
Perhaps Job himself also is to be regarded as an 
Edomite, since his country, the land of Uz (q.v. ; see 
also JOB [BOOK], 4), is mentioned in connection with 
Edom (Lam. 4 21 [<S omits Uz], cp Gen. 3628). At all 
events, we may conclude that at a tolerably early period 
some portion at least of this people acquired a certain 
civilisation, as was the case with the later occupants of 
the same district, the NABATVEANS (q.v. ). In all 
probability this was largely due to the fact that the 
trade route from Yemen to Palestine and Syria passed 
through the country in question. 

Of the ancient religion of the Edomites nothing 

definite is known. Whatever legends they may have 

_ .. . possessed concerning their ancestors, 

mgion. Abraham Sarah| and Esau> have w holly 

perished. Josephus (Ant. xv. 7 9) mentions A ose as an 
Edomite deity ; the name has been identified with that 


of the Arabian god A ozah sacrificed to in the neighbour 
hood of Mecca, after whom the rainbow was called by 
the Arabs the bow of Kozah (cp WRS, Kin. 296). 
Nothing more has been ascertained respecting him. 
Still less do we know about the god who figures 
in several Edomite proper names under the Assyrian 
form A aul, in Kau$-malak and Kaus-gabr, and the Greek 
form Kos, in Kostobaros (Jos. Ant.xv.7g) and some 
other names, which, however, are not actually stated to 
be Edomite ; the same god appears in the Nabatoean 
inscriptions at al-Hegr as op in jruop. Kocrvdravos (i.e. , 
Kos has given ) whilst in the Sinaitic inscriptions the 
name is spelt nip, in -nyoip (i-t-, Kos has helped ). 
Malik, king, in the proper name Malikram (see above, 
8), is a general title of Semitic deities. The heathen 
feast celebrated at Mamre near Hebron, at length sup- 
preated by Constantine (see the interesting account in 
Sozom. HEI^}, was perhaps mainly of Edomite origin. 
It is even possible that on this soil, hallowed by patri 
archal legend, there may have survived some rites which 
had teen practised long before in ancient Israel, rites 
which might well seem heathenish both to the later 
Jews and to the Christians. 

From the statement that the practice of circumcision 
was imposed upon the Edomites by John Hyrcanus 
(Jos. Ant. xiii. 9i) it might be concluded that there was 
no such custom among them previously. This, however, 
is extremely improbable. The OT assumes that all 
descendants of Abraham were circumcised, and since, in 
later times at least, this practice was universal among 
the Arabs, we can hardly believe that the whole Edomite 
nation had abandoned it in the course of ages. Prob 
ably Josephus was here misled by a statement that the 
Edomites had adopted the religious customs of the 
Jews, and himself added, with his usual inaccuracy, the 
special reference to circumcision, which was considered 
the most important characteristic of Judaism. Or per 
haps we are to understand that the Jewish rite of circum 
cision shortly after birth was substituted for the rite in use 
among the kindred peoples, namely circumcision shortly 
before puberty (cp CIRCUMCISION, 4/. ), the former 
alone being recognised as real circumcision by the Jews. 

How thoroughly the Edomites were at length trans 
formed into Jews is shown, for example, by the fact 
that among the very few names which are mentioned as 
having been borne by Edomites in those times, that of 
Jacob (the brother and rival of Esau !) occurs twice 
(Jos. BJ\\. 96 v. 61 vi. 26 83). We find, moreover, 
the characteristically Jewish names, Simon (ib. v. 61 
vi. 26), John (ib. v. 65), and Phinehas (ib. iv. 42). 

The language of the ancient Edomites probably 
resembled that of Israel at least as closely as did the 
.. language of the Moabites. It is pos- 

13. Language. & ^ Q {hat the Discovery O f some in 
scription may throw further light on the subject ; at 
present our information is derived solely from a few 
proper names of persons and places. In the later 
period of their history the Edomites, like the Jews, 
doubtless spoke the Aramaic language, which was in 
common use throughout all Syria. T. N. 

EDOS (HAOC [B]), i Esd. 9 35 RV, AV EDES. 

EDREI (^ITTtN, deriv. uncertain ; cp Arab, midhra , 
land between desert and cultivated soil ; also Aram, 
jm to sow, as if analogous to ?NJT)T* ; cp Bedawi 
name below ; eAp&eiN [B], -M [A], &Ap<M or eA- [L])- 

(i) A chief city of Bashan, one of the residences 
of Og who dwelt at Ashtaroth and at Edrei (Josh. 
124 181231 ; cp also Dt. 14, in Ashtaroth at Edrei, 
where probably and has fallen out). Along with Salcah, 
which lay far to the E. , it is given as the frontier of Og s 
kingdom (Dt. 3io). According to the deuteronomist, 
Israel reached it on the way to Bashan, and found Og 
and all his people planted there to meet them (Dt. 3i 
Nu. 2133-35 Josh. 1812); Og was defeated and slain. 
The town fell to the half-tribe of Manasseh (Josh. 1831 P), 




but is not mentioned again. It appears to be the Otara a 
of the Egyptian inscriptions (WMM As. u. Eur. 159). 

Edrei was the "Adpa. of Ptolemy, the Adpaa or Adra 
of Eusebius and Jerome, and the Adraha of the Peutinger 
Tables. The position to which it is assigned by all 
these (Ptolemy puts it due E. of Gadara, Eus. 24 or 
25 R. m. from Bosra, and the Tab. Pent. 16 m. from 
Capitolias, the modern Beit-er-Ras) closely agrees with 
that of the modern Edraat (Adri dt, Der dt, Der d, 
Deraa; in the Bedawi dialect Azradt}, about 22 m. 
NW. from Bosra, 6 m. SE. from el-Muzeirlb, and 15 
NE. of Beit-er-Ras. The site is strong, on the S. of 
the deep gorge that forms the S. boundary of the plain 
of Hauran, 6 m. E. from the present Hajj road. This 
agrees with the data given above, that it was a frontier 
town, and on the way into Bashan. The gorge winds, 
and, with a tributary ravine, isolates the present city 
on all sides but the S. The citadel is completely cut 
off, on a hill which projects into the gorge and may 
have held the whole ancient town. The ruins, probably 
from Roman times, cover a circuit of two miles. 

The most prominent are those of a large reservoir, fed by the 
reat aqueduct (Kanat Fir aun, Pharaoh s aqueduct) which runs 
rom a small lake near Yabis in Hauran via Edrei to Gadara, a 
distance as the crow flies of 40 m. ; but the aqueduct winds. There 
is a building, 44 yards by 31, with a double colonnade, evidently 
the Christian cathedral of Bosra, but now a mosque. Some 
Greek inscriptions are given by Le Bas and Waddington : the 
present writer found another of the year 165 A.D. (HG 606, n. 2). 

The most notable remains, however, are the caves 
beneath the citadel. They form a subterranean city, a 
labyrinth of streets with shops and houses, and a 
market place (Wetzstein, Reisebericht, 47 f.: cp Porter, 
Five Years in Damascus). 

Wetzstein says, The present city, which, judging from its 
walls, must have been one of great extent, lies for the most part 
directly over the old subterranean city, and I believe that now, 
in case of a devastating war, the inhabitants would retire to the 
latter for safety. 

The OT makes no mention of so great a marvel, 
which probably dates, in its present elaborate form, from 
Greek times ; but such refuges must have been always 
a feature of a land so swept by Arab raids. 

It is puzzling that Edrei appears neither in the E. campaign 
of Judas the Maccabee(i Mace. 5); nor is it in Pliny s list of the 
original DECAPOLIS (g.v.). However, it was early colonised 
by Greeks, and (on the evidence of a coin) De Saulcy dates its 
independence from as far back as 83 B.C. (Numism. de la Terre 
Sainte, 374^). After Pompey it belonged to the Roman 
province of Syria, and after Trajan to that of Arabia. Its 
inhabitants worshipped Astarte and the Nabatsean god Dusara. 
Eus. and Jer., who describe it as a notable town of Arabia (OS 
1184 21837), place it in Bararaia. Its bishop sat at the Councils 
of Seleucia, Constantinople (381) and Chalcedon (451). The 
Crusaders who besieged it (Will. Tyr. 16 10) called it Adratum. 
Other authorities are : Porter, Five Years in Damascus, whose 
theory (( 1 ),222i/: ; (2), 271^), that Og s city is the modern Ezra 
or Zorawa on the W. limit of the Leja, is unfounded ; Schu 
macher, Across Jordan(\^off.)\ Wright, Palmyra and Zenobia, 
284 ff.; Merrill, East of Jordan, 349^; A. G. Wright, PEFQ, 
95. P- T*ff\ cp. ZDMG 29431435. 

2. An unidentified site, one of the fenced cities of 
Naphtali (Josh. 1837: acnrctpei [B], eSpaet [A], a3. 
[L]). Conder suggests Ya tir (PEF Mem. 1203205). 

G. A. S. 


I. Before Ezra ( 1-4). 
II. Ezra to ben-Shetach 

III. To end of Jewish state 

( 13-23). 

i. Elementary ( 14-20). 
Synagogue ( 6). Teachers, etc. ( 15-17). 

Scribes and the Wise Studies, etc. ( 18-20). 

( lf-\ ii. Scribes College ( 21). 

Prov. and Ecclus. ( g/.). Education of girls ( 22). 

Greek influence ( n). Conclusion ( 23). 

Details 1 ( 12). Bibliography ( 24). 

Systematic education among the Jews may be traced 
to the influence of Hellenism. The foundation of 

i i>.._;..j n Alexandria was an event as important 
1. Periods. ,. . . 

lor education as for the development 

and enrichment of Jewish thought. Consequently 

there are, properly, two periods in the history of Jewish 

education in biblical times, the first lasting to the end 

1 For Hebrew terms sea 3. 


of the Persian rule, the second beginning with the 
Greek and continuing into the Roman. Within the 
first period there are two notable breaks, the one 
caused by the growth of commerce and luxury among 
the pre-exilic Israelites, the other by the rise of Judaism 
as a book-religion ; within the second there is but 
one break, marked by the reported introduction of 
compulsory education by Simon ben-Shetach (noe*)- 
We have so little definite knowledge, however, about 
the early part of the first period that we may con 
veniently group the facts which we can collect under 
three heads, viz. : (I.) down to the time of Ezra; (II.) 
from Ezra to Simon ben-Shetach; and (III.) from 
Simon ben-Shetach to the end of the Jewish State. 

On oral instruction see below, 3, 12, 20. 

I. Before Ezra. In primitive times education was 
purely a domestic and family concern (see FAMILY, 13). 

2 Earliest ^ e ^ ome was tne on ty scn ol and the 

Practice P arents trie only teachers. The parental 
authority and claim to reverence forms 
part of the earliest legislation (Ex. 20 12, cp also 21 1517 
in the Book of the Covenant ) and is reiterated in the 
later literature (Prov. 1926 2620 and often). In the 
purely agricultural stage it must have been a primary 
object with fathers to train up their children to share 
the labours of husbandry, or to carry on the skill in 
useful arts which had become hereditary in certain 
families. We may be sure, however, that even such 
instruction was given in a religious spirit. Among 
the Israelites, as among other early peoples, tradi 
tional methods of work were traced to a divine origin 
(cp AGRICULTURE, 14). For this idea we may 
compare the parable of the ploughman, Is. 28 23 ff, 
(which, whatever be its date, is antique in feeling 1 ), 
and the evidently primitive stories in Genesis about 
the rise of civilisation (see CAINITES, "$ff.). 

The religious sense, however, was no doubt specially 
cultivated in the minds of the children. The boys 
would in due time be initiated (-;:n) in religious rites 
(cp Ex. 138 Dt. 4g, etc. ; see CATECHISE, and cp DEDI 
CATE), and all children would be instructed by the 
mother in the primary moral, as distinguished from the 
ritual and institutional, elements in the old religion 
(e.g., reverence for elders, and the like). At a later 
time the mother is expressly mentioned as the giver of 
moral instruction (see below, 5) ; this is clearly a 
survival of a more ancient custom. The omen (JON ; 
RV nursing father ) or iraidaywy6s (tutor) was also 
no doubt an instructor of the children under his charge 2 
(see NURSE). 

The introduction of commerce with its attendant 
luxury brought about great social changes by the time 
3 Higher ^ t ^ le ear " est prophets whose discourses 
,. are preserved to us. According to Isaiah 
grave social evils had arisen (WRS 
Proph. N, 204; OTJCW, 349_/\); but we may venture 
to assume that the high culture of which this prophet 
is himself an example was not unconnected with the 
inrushing of new ideas and habits caused by an in 
creased knowledge of other peoples (see WRITING). 
A knowledge of books, it is true, is not now, and never 
has been, essential to culture in the East. The ideal 
of instruction is oral teaching, and the worthiest shrine 
of truths that must not die is the memory and heart of 
a faithful disciple, and the term Torah, which ultimately 
came to be applied to the Written Law, was originally 
applied to an oral decision (OTJCW 299^). Cp 

Not much can be said here on the specialised training 

1 That the ancient sentiment lingered late may be seen from 
the fact that several treatises of the Mishna deal with agriculture 
(cp Vogelstein, Die Landiuirtttschaft in Palastina zur Zeit d. 
Misc/tna, i. 94). 

2 Cp the later identification muSayiayos Gi;nB) = ?1DN = wisdom 
= Torah (Buxtf., 1698), which illustrates Gal. 824 (see Taylor, 
Pirke AbothW, 173). 

1 190 


of certain persons, such as craftsmen, prophets, and 
is enough to remark that prophets and priests were in a 
very true sense stays (Is. 3i) of the social structure, 
not only on account of the awe they inspired but also 
because of the teaching which they gave to their disciples 
and hearers. 

It is well known that in Mishnic Hebrew the characteristic 
word for both to learn and to teach is rMB i s&nak, to 
repeat ; whilst njtyOi "ilnah (prop. repetition ) is instruc 
tion (see further below, 20). It is noticeable that in Bib. 
Hebrew .-ijgf does not occur in this special sense. The biblical 
words are -\j^j, lainadh, to learn (Pi. to teach ); nes 
iinnen, to inculcate ; min, horah (v/m )> to instruct (mid 
mdreh, teacher ) ; pan, hebhtn ([ 30, mebhln, teacher ) ; 
S DK ,1, hisktl, also meaning to teach." In this connexion the 
following quotation from the final tablet of the Babylonian epic 
of Creation (Reverse 1. 22./C) is interesting : 

Let them stand forth (?) let the elder enlighten ; 

Let the wise, the learned, meditate together \ 

Let the father rehearse (sdn&, sunnii= njc 1 ), make the son 

apprehend \ 
Open be the ears of Shepherd and Flockmaster (z .^.,the king). 

The publication of the Book of Deuteronomy (621 
B.C. ) had far-reaching consequences for popular educa- 

4 Systematic tio " Th f pu f blic rec g nitio " ^ing 
J . and people of a written code of law 

which was intended to cover the whole 
nstruction. life of a dtizen( both on its re ii g j ous 

and secular side (C. G. Montefiore, Hibb. Lect. 188) 
involved a conception of life which was akin to, and 
prepared the way for, the later Judaism. Under its 
influence, some time in the seventh century, an attempt 
was perhaps made to enforce upon each Israelite the 
necessity of instilling right religion and morality into his 
children and household (Che. Jew. Rel. Life, 130, citing 
Gen. 18 17-19 which probably belongs to this period). 
The exhortations in D to instruct children in the sacred 
history and law (4g 6720 11 19) point in the same 
direction, though the date of these passages may be 
later than 621 B.C., and the ideal which they set forth 
was not fully carried out till after the time of Ezra. 
There were also in the pre-exilic period some anticipa 
tions of the wisdom ideas, first expressed by Isaiah 
(312), which later played so important a part in the 
development of the educational system (see further Che. 
op. cit. 130 f.). 

II. From Ezra to Simon ben-Shetach (75 B.C.). 

The period which extends from the fall of Jerusalem 

to the arrival of Ezra was a period of extraordinary 

_ , activity, both moral and intellectual, 

o. becona m the C h j cest p^ ^ tne j ew j sn 

Pe t ri 75B C Zra P e P le - <The task which now de 
.O. volved on the nation was the inventory 
ing of the spiritual property of Israel (Cornill, Proph. 
Isr. 125). Hence quite naturally there arose a 
literary class, the SCRIBES (q.v.}, who were not only 
students but also teachers of law and sacred literature, 
and may perhaps be connected with the growth of an 
institution closely identified at a later time with the 
educational movement viz., the SYNAGOGUE 2 (q.v. ). 
Henceforth the Jews became emphatically the people 
of the book. The sacred writings became the spell 
ing book, the community a school, religion an 
affair of teaching and learning. Piety and education 
were inseparable ; whoever could not read was no true 
Jew ( Wellhausen). Surely we may say that we are now 
assisting at the birth of a truly popular education, rooted 
and grounded in morality and religion. Even if the ac 
count of Ezra s introduction of the Law in Neh. 8 is not, 
as it stands, historical (see EZRA i. , 8), it may serve as 
a record of the beginnings on Palestinian soil of the 
synagogue, of which Ezra is the traditional founder. 
(Note the description of the reading and exposition of 
the Torah by Ezra and the Levite teachers, especially 

1 Ball, Lis^ht from the East, 17. The opening expression is 
uncertain (Del. Wcltschdff. 160). 
- Cp Montefiore, op. cit. 230. 



the phrase 0*3*30, * caused [the people] to under 
stand. ) 

As to what constituted the new popular education, we 
may safely say that it led up to an accurate knowledge 
of the sacred history and the Law. 

It may be regarded as highly probable also that 
however prominent was the part taken by the father 2 
in the early religious instruction of the child, the mother, 
as in the earlier period (see above, 2), and always, 
exercised an important influence. 

My son (i.e., my disciple), says a wise man, keep the 
commandment of thy father, and forsake not the instruction 
(rnin) f tn V mother (Prov. 20 ; other passages speaking of 
the torah of the mother are 1 8 623 ; cp 31 1-9, which seems to 
be a poetical embodiment of such). A NT writer refers (2 Tim. 
1 5) to the religious influence exercised on Timothy by his mother 
and grandmother. 

Throughout, it is oral instruction that is presupposed 
(see esp. Dt. 67). No doubt reading, and in a less 
degree writing, became increasingly important and more 
widely diffused as time went on (see below, 19). 

The importance of the synagogue, from the edu 
cational point of view, lies in its character as a teaching 
_, institution. Schiirer remarks (GJV 2 357^ 

Svnasoie ET4 /-). that the main object of the 

J < * & " * sabbath day assemblages in the synagogue 
was not public worship in its stricter sense i.e. , not devo 
tion but religious instruction, and this for an Israelite 
was, above all, instruction in the Law. With this agrees 
the evidence both of Philo and of the NT. The former 
calls synagogues houses of instruction in which the 
native philosophy was studied and every kind of virtue 
taught ( I it. A fas. 827) ; whilst in the latter a character 
istic word applied to the activities centred in the syna 
gogue is SiddffKfiv (Mt. 4 23 and often). 

The scribes (D"IBID, sophtrim i.e. , homines literati) 
were, from theMaccabean timesonward, the real teachers 

TVi <! V> of the people, and what complete sway 
>es> they bore over the people s life may be 
seen from the NT. We must remember, indeed, that 
the scribes of the Herodian age were in some respects 
very unlike the earlier scribes ; but the point in which 
the scribes of all ages agreed was their character as 

Teachers and scholars are proverbially opposed in i Ch. 
25 8 b (cp DISCIPLE, i). Teachers of the people (C^ ^ 2C P) 
i.e., probably, scribes are mentioned in Daniel (11 33 35 12 3), 
and a company of scribes (crvi aytoyr) ypa/u.^aTeW) in i Mace. 
7 12. For the references to the scribes in Ecclus. see next 

Were the scribes, then, the only teachers? The 
wise men of Proverbs, who cultivated the art of teach- 
_ ,^jj. , ing with so much enthusiasm and in 
Prov. 5 13 are actually called teachers 
(DHa^p, D"ib), were hardly scribes. They were ear 
nestly religious men, who, feeling that wisdom was 
a practical thing, devoted their energy to instilling it 
into the minds of the young. 

The disciples are to them as their own children (Prov. 1 8 2 i 
3 i 4 1, and often; cp Ps. 34n[i2]); and the teaching which 
they impart is called the words of the wise (n CDn "m> Prov. 
I622i7[cp 2423], Eccles. 9 17 12 n ; cp the Mishnic >iai 
DHS1D, applied to the dicta of scribes of a former age. 

These sages, no less than the scribes, seem to be 
regarded as a special guild (Prov. 16 13i4 22i7 24z3 
Eccles. 12n), though we are left almost entirely in 
the dark as to the formation and constitution of these 
societies, the extent and the methods of their investiga 
tion (Kautzsch, Outline of Hist, of Lit. of OT 151 ; 
cp also BDB Lex. , s.v. DDH). On the other hand, the 
guild of the wise was already organised in pre-exilic 
times (see Che. Job and Solomon, 123, and elsewhere) ; 

1 Neh. 7 7. The same phrase is rendered teachers in Ezra 

2 According to the later enactments, as soon as a child could 
speak (i.e., in his third year) he was to be instructed in the 
Torah by his father (Sitkka, 42 a). In the Talmudic period the 
child did not attend the elementary school before his sixth year 
(Kethutoth, 50 a \ see further below, 18). 




in the later period their attitude to the Law, though 
by no means unsympathetic (see Che. Jew. Rel. Life, 
138 /.), was hardly that which would characterise the 
disciples of Ezra. 1 On the whole it is best, perhaps, 
to suppose that the soph/trim and the wise formed 
two distinct but allied classes in the Persian and the 
early Greek periods, but that by the time of Ben-Sira 
the distinction had largely disappeared (so We. //Gl 1 
154, n. i ; sage and scribe are identified in Ecclus. 
382 4 /.; cp6 3 3/ 9i 4 / 14 2o/). 

Though distinct, however, the earlier sophZrlm cannot 
have bpen uninfluenced by the wise ; they may even 
sometimes have adopted their literary style (see Che. 
OPs. 348), and in any case were saved from the barren 
literalism which begins to characterise the scribes of 
the post-Maccabean age. For the victory of the Law 
which crowned the Maccabean struggle foreshadowed 
the close of the OT literature. Contrast, from a literary 
point of view, the Pharisaic Psalms of Solomon (written 
63 B.C. ?) with the canonical Psalms. 

Whatever be the true view as to the mutual relation be 
tween scribes and wise, the latter played a great part 

p , .in educational matters during the period 

, 1 under review. Some of the results of 

wisdom \ i 

p their psedagogic experience are enshrined 

in the Book of Proverbs. These can 
only be summed up briefly here. 

Ihe idea of life as a discipline (inusar, ^D^O> thirty times in 
Prov.) is fundamental in the book ; God educates men and men 
educate each other (Holtzmann, quoted in Driver, Introd.) 
404). The foundation of all instruction is emphasised in the 
precept The fear of Yahwe is the beginning or the chief part 
(RVm^-) of knowledge (I?) ; the instructors of the child are 
his parents, reverence towards whom is again enforced (184 1-4 
6 20 13 i SOi;). 

The development of the child s character is to be 
studied (20 ii ), and the educational means employed are 
to be adjusted accordingly. 

Among these means the use of the rod is constantly recom 
mended (13 24, he that spareth the rod hateth his son ; cp 
23 IT,/. 291517); but the correction is not to be too strict 
(19 18 RV), and it is recognised that to an intelligent child a 
rebuke is of more avail than a hundred stripes (17 10). The 
sovereign remedy, however, for expelling the innate foolishness 
of children is the rod (22 15). A fool who does not prove 
amenable to this treatment seems to have been considered hope 
less by the Jewish teachers [2V 22, even if thou pound a fool in 
the midst of his fellows thou wilt not remove his foolishness from 
him (crit. emend.); see Che. Jew. Rel. Life, 136]. Cp FOOL. 

The importance of a good education is repeatedly 
emphasised. A well-educated child is a joy to his 
parents (lOi 2824 ; cp 1725). In wealthier families (cp 
Ecclus. 5128) the child, if he aspired to wisdom, 
would pass from the parents to professional teachers 
(013) viz., the sages who would inculcate the higher 
teaching current in the circles of the wise (for an 
account of this see Che. Jew. Rel. Life, iss/. ). 

The other great manual of posdagogic principles is the 
work of Ben-Sira (200-180 B.C.), who in spite of his 

10 Ecclus ^ ate anc * cosmo P o l tan training seems to 
have been comparatively uninfluenced by 
the surrounding Hellenism (for which see below, n). 
As is the case in Proverbs (on which his book is 
modelled) the wisdom of Joshua ben-Sira or Ecclesi- 
asticus is an ethical manual. The same points are 
insisted upon as in the earlier book, sometimes with 
added emphasis. 

Thus, e.g., the fear of the Lord is not only the beginning 
of wisdom (1 14), but also wisdom s fulness (1 16) and crown 


standing, get thee betimes unto him, and let thy foot wear out 
the steps of his doors. Cp 8 &/. 9 15, etc., and Aboih 1 4). 

Though perhaps there are more direct references to 
organised religion (e.g. , 7 29 : Fear the Lord with all 
thy soul ; and reverence his priests, cp 2423) than in 
Proverbs, the religious and ethical tone of Ecclesi- 
asticus is distinctly lower. Of this the unbending 

1 On the priestly character of the earliest sopherlm see We. 
Sketch of Hist, of Isr. and Jud. ( 91), 131. 


severity recommended towards sons and daughters is an 
instance (7 23 f. 30i-i3). Among other points that call 
for mention here are the interesting reference to oral 
instruction ( 4 24^ : instruction by the word of the 
tongue ), and the disparagement of manual labour, as 
being inconsistent with the pursuit of knowledge, which 
cometh by opportunity of leisure (8824; with 8825, 
however, how shall he become wise that holdeth the 
plough ? contrast 7 15). Among the subjects of his dis 
course is the etiquette of dining (31 16-21). The im 
portant references to the scribes have already been 
pointed out ( 8). 

The Greek period, which commenced with Alexander 

the Great s conquest of the Persian empire (332 B.C.) 

_ k mar ^ s ^ e r se f wholly new educational 

. ;. influences. The Palestinian Jews were, how- 

mnuence. eyer> affected by this far less than their 

brethren abroad, especially those who became citizens 
of the new Greek city of Alexandria. Still the reflex 
influence of the Greek- Egyptian capital (not to speak of 
the Greek towns that began to grow up on Palestinian 
soil) must, for nearly a century and a half after 332, 
have been considerable even in Judaea. Slowly but 
surely Hellenic ideas penetrated to the centre of Judaism 
till the crisis that precipitated the Maccabean revolt 
was reached. In the reaction that followed, Hellenism 
was so far overcome that it ceased to be dangerous to 
to the root-ideas of Judaism (see ISRAEL, 68ft). 

There is good reason to suppose that during this 
critical time Greek educational methods found their way 
to Jerusalem. This may be inferred from the fact that 
just before the Maccabean rising there was there a 
gymnasium ephebeum (i Mace. 1 14 /! 2 Mace. 4912). 
Doubtless, too, the education afforded to his children 
by the notorious Joseph, son of Tobias (Jos. Ant. 
xii. 46), was of the Greek type. At a later time Herod 
also probably attended a school of similar character (see 
below, 14). A good instance of the ultimate extent 
and limitations of Greek influence can be seen in the 
author of Ecclesiasticus, who wrote when Hellenising 
influence was at its highest in Judaea. In essentials he 
is untouched by it. Still his emphasizing of leisure as 
the condition of wisdom (8824) is distinctly Greek, no 
less than his comprehensive view of a wise man s culture 

To the questions as to practical details that suggest 
themselves only hesitating answers can be given. The 
scribes, doubtless, gave instruction in the 
s y na gg ues = the Talmud speaks of the 
bells which were rung at the beginning of 
the lessons (Low, Die Lebensalter, 287, 421 [ 75], 
quotes Shabb. 58^). From Prov. l2o/. we might infer 
that the city-gates or the adjacent city-squares or 
broad places on which the streets converged, were 
the places where the wise men awaited their disciples. 
Perhaps, however, it was in private houses that instruc 
tion, both by scribe and by sage, was most often given 
(cp Ecclus. 626 quoted above, 10, and the other re 
ferences there given). Regarding the methods employed 
there is greater uncertainty. Oral instruction ( Ecclus. 
4.246) and, probably, frequent repetition, would be in 
vogue. The use of acrostic (Ps. 119, etc.) and other 
mnemonic devices, such as Athbask 1 (cp Jer. 2626 51 1) 
and the numerical proverbs (Prov. 30 11-31, cpA&otA 5) 
also may be assigned to this period. 2 That reading 
was a widespread accomplishment at the beginning of 
the Maccabean age ( 167 B. c. ) appears from i Mace. 1 57. 

III. Simon ben-Shetach (75 B.C.) to End of Jewish 
State (70 A. D. ). The ideal of education is well ex 
pressed by Josephus. Contrasting 

13. Third period 
75 B.C.-70 A.D. 

the Israelitish system of culture with 

that of the Spartans, on the one 

1 The reader substitutes for each Hebrew letter in a word a 
letter from the other half of the alphabet, the letters inter 
changed being equidistant from the extremes. Thus in English 
A and Z, B and Y would interchange. 

2 So Kennedy, as cited, 24. 




hand, who educated by custom, not by theoretic in 
struction (ZOtaiv (Trai8fi>ov, ov\6yois), and, on the other, 
with that of the Athenians and the rest of the Greeks, 
\\lio contented themselves with theoretic instruction, and 
neglected practice, he says : But our law-giver very care 
fully combined the two. For he neither left the practice 
of morals silent, nor the teaching of law unperformed 
(c. Ap. 2i6 /. quoted by Schiirer). The knowledge 
and practice of the Law thus set forth was to be the 
common possession of the whole nation, and the life- 
work of every Israelite. It began in early youth in the 
family circle, was carried (as we shall see) a stage 
further in the school, and continued in the synagogue, 
to which was also attached (for higher studies) the 
scribes college (Beth ham-midrash ; see 21). 1 

We have already seen that the necessity of (orally) 

instructing the children in the written Law was insisted 

Th upon comparatively early (see the exhorta- 

elementary tionsinD enumerated above, 4). This, 
, ,., J as has been pointed out, would be, as a 
rule, the duty of the parents. From the 
great importance attached to the early education of 
children, however, even in Proverbs (e.g. 226) and 
this would naturally be enhanced with the elaboration 
of scribal traditions it was inevitable that some system 
of popular elementary education should be organised. 
When, then, was this effected? According to the 
Jerusalem Talmud (Ktthubuth, 8n, p. 32 b} it was the 
work of the famous scribe Simon ben-Shetach, the 
brother of Queen Alexandra (reigned 78-69 B.C.). 

Simon s ordinance runs thus : That the children shall attend 
the elementary school (ison JV3 1 ? J sSin mpimn Vn tf)- I 
has been pointed out (e.g., by Kennedy, as cited, 24) that 
the meaning of the regulation is not free from ambiguity. It 
may also be interpreted to mean that attendance on schools 
already existing was henceforth to be compulsory. 

In view of the fact that Simon s enactment is the 
second of three (apparently closely connected) marriage 
regulations added by him to the statute-book (see 
the passage in full in Derenbourg, Hist. 108), it is 
natural to suppose that it refers to attendance at existing 
schools rather than to the institution of such schools for 
the first time. The context certainly suggests that a 
hitherto neglected or half-performed duty was to be 
henceforth rigidly enforced. If, as is possible, for 
the higher (professional) teaching of the scribes, colleges 
(BTIDH Ti3 ; see below, 21) had already come into 
existence, it is hard to suppose that preparatory schools 
for these had not been organised already, especially when 
it is remembered that schools of the Greek type had been 
established in Jerusalem for a long time (see above, 1 1 ). 
It is quite in accordance, also, with the forward movement 
of the Pharisaic party in the reign of Alexandra that 
measures should have been taken for extending the 
scope of these schools, and thus more widely diffusing 
Pharisaic principles among the people (cp ISRAEL, 80^). 
May it not, too, have been designed by means of them 
to check and counteract the more extreme forms of the 
surrounding Greek education ? There seems, therefore, 
no good reason for rejecting the tradition respecting 
Simon s efforts on behalf of popular education, though 
Schiirer dismisses the famous scribe s claims" with un 
usual curtness. This Simon ben Shetach, we are 
told, is quite a meeting-point for all kinds of myths 
(GJV 2353 = ET 449). The same scholar following the 
tradition of the Babylonian Talmud (Bdbd Bathrdzia] 
ascribes the complete organisation of the elementary 
school to Joshua ben-Gamla (Gamaliel), who was high 
priest about 63-65 A.D. 

1 Unfortunately the earliest Hebrew literature dealing with 
these subjects (the Mishna), though it contains earlier material, 
was not as a whole compiled and written down till the second 
century A.D. The quotations from the .Mishnic treatise Pir^e 
Al oth (cited as A both) are numbered in this article according to 
Strack s edition of the Hebrew text. 

2 Heb. icon rt 3 bfthhassipher 1 House of the Book. For 
other names see 17 end. 


The passage nins as follows: Truly may it be remembered 
to this man s credit ! Joshua ben-Gamla is his name. If he 
had not lived, the Law would have been forgotten in Israel. 
For at first, he who had a father was taught the Law by him, he 
who had none did not learn the Law. . . . Afterwards it was 
ordained, that teachers of boys should be appointed in Jeru 
salem. . . . But (even this did not suffice, for) he who had a 
father was sent to school by him, he who had none did not go 
there. Then it was ordained that teachers should be appointed 
in every province, and that boys of the age of sixteen or seventeen 
should be sent to them. But he whose teacher was angry with 
him ran away, till Joshua ben-Gamla came, and enacted that 
teachers should be appointed in every province and in every 
town (-]>jn vy *?331 .i:"IDl fUHD *?33). and children of six or 
seven years old brought to them. 

As the measures of Joshua obviously presuppose that 
there had been boys schools for some time (Schiirer, 
ibid. ) the two traditions are not really inconsistent. 
It is not unreasonable to suppose that Simon s earlier 
efforts, especially as regards the provincial schools, had 
been attended with only partial success, owing to the 
political and religious troubles of the time. Certainly 
if Josephus s statement regarding Herod s attendance 
at school (Ant. xv. 10s) be correct though doubtless 
the school in question conformed to the Greek rather 
than to the Jewish type we may fairly infer that some 
time before 40 B.C. schools had been instituted, at any 
rate in the larger towns. That they existed in the time 
of Jesus, though not as a general and established 
institution, is admitted by Schiirer. It is decidedly 
curious that the word school should not occur before 
the NT, and in the NT only once viz. , of the lecture 
room of a Greek rhetorician at Ephesus (crxoXi?, Acts 
199). J The explanation, probably, is that the school 
(in both its elementary and its higher forms) was so 
intimately associated with the synagogue that in ordinary 
speech the two were not distinguished. The term 
synagogue included its schools. 2 

Thus it is said {Jalfcnt Jes., 257) that the synagogues in 
Jerusalem had each a Beth Sefher and a Beth Taint fid (i.e., the 
lower and the upper divisions of the school). 

The statement that Jerusalem was destroyed because schools 
and school children ceased to be there (Shabbath, 119), is 
obviously only a rhetorical way of emphasising the importance 
attached to the school in the Talmudic period ; as also the 
similar one : Jerusalem was destroyed because the instructors 
were not respected (ibid.). According to the Jalkiit Jes. (I.e.) 
Jerusalem, about the same period, possessed 480 schools ! 

There is no doubt that during the period under 
review either the synagogue proper (which was to be 
found in every Jewish town and village of any import 
ance) or a room within its precincts was used for school 
purposes (the references are BZrdkhoth, ija, with Rashi, 
Ta anith, 23^, Kiddushln, 300). 

The teacher s house also was sometimes requisitioned (hence 
the name N1SD 1V3 teacher s house i.e , school : Hamburger). 
Special buildings also were built as children s schools, but how 
early is quite uncertain. According to the Targum (Jerus. i. 
Gen. 33 17) the patriarch Jacob erected a college (Numo 3) n 
Succoth ! 

The classical passage for determining the gradations 
of the teaching profession is found in the Mishnic 

treatise Sotd 9 15 (ed. Surenh. 3 308 ; 

the passage can be seen also in Buxtorf, 
Lex., ed. Fischer, 3780). 

It runs as follows: R. Eliezer the Great says: Since the 
destruction of the Temple the sages (i>rD3n) have begun to be 
like the scribes (NHSD), and the scribes like the master (of the 
school, Njtn), ar >d the master like the uneducated. It has been 
usual to identify the hazzan (master) of the school with the 
hazzan (minister) of the synagogue (npJSH |}n = vinqpirris 
minister, Lk. 4 20). Thus Buxtorf (I.e.) renders the second 
clause of the above et scribae sicut minister synagogse. It has 
been pointed out, however, by the latest writer on the subject 

1 The schoolmaster (iraiievrrjs, Rom. 2 20) is however men 
tioned, as well as the tutor (Traiiaywyds), and the teacher 

2 Curiously enough in the Latin documents of the Middle 
Ages the synagogue was also termed Scola (school) ; J. Jacobs, 
Javish Year Book, 96, p. 191. So also J. Simon (L ediica- 
tion cliez les Juifs) who, speaking of the synagogue as it existed 
in France in the early Middle Ages, says : La synagogue etait 
une ecole autant qu un lieu de culte. La priere n avait d ef- 
ficacite que si elle 6tait accompagnee de 1 etude. 


15. Teachers, 


(Kennedy) that Jin is a word of general application, meaning 
"overseer," "inspector," or the like ; and its exact significance 
has to be decided by the context. 1 The context of the above 
passage, as also of the other Mishna passage usually cited in 
this connection (Shalilxith 1 3), in the absence of the qualifying 
word riD33n ( synagogue ), requires us to render overseer or 
master (of the school). That the two offices were not identical 
further appears from the fact that, whereas the hazzdn of the 
synagogue occupied a low position in the social scale (he was a 
kind of sexton, and his duties included such menial offices as 
the whipping of criminals {Makkath 3 12]), the hazzdn of the 
school, being a teacher ; would share the social prestige attaching 
to the teaching profession. 

The three grades of teachers, then, are sage and 
scribe (who taught in the scribes college), and the 
elementary school teacher officially designated hazzdn 
(the general term is nipirn nD^D or nn^D alone). From 
the manner in which the three classes are connected in 
the above-cited passage Kennedy infers that \hehazzdn, 
no less than the scribe and the sage, belonged to the 
powerful guild of the scribes, called in the NT doctors 
of the law, vofj.odi5d<TKa\oi. 

This would help to explain the fact that doctors of the law 
or teachers were, according to Lk. (5 17), to be found in every 
village (KU/J.JJ) of Galilee and Juda:a. Whilst every village 
would, with its synagogue, possess an elementary school, it is 
impossible to suppose that there were colleges for higher 
teaching in equally large numbers. 

The extraordinary honour in which the teaching 

16 Their P r f ess on was ne ^ in this period is shown 
status ky tne respectful form of address employed 

by the people. 

The usual formula was Rabbi ( 3i, rabbi, never a title in NT) 
my great one = my master (see further under RABBI). Rab 
gradually acquired the meaning teacher. It is thus used in a 
saying attributed to Jeshua ben-Perachiah (2nd cent. B.C.): 
make unto thyself a Rab (Aboth 1 6). In the Mishna Ral> 
and Talmud are master and scholar (see e.g., the passage cited 

In the interview with Nicodemus, Jesus himself 
recognises the high distinction of the teacher s office 
(Jn. 3io): Art thou the teacher (6 5i5d<rKa\os = a2n, 
the highest grade) in Israel ? 

In later times this was carried to an even greater extent. 
Thus R. Eliezer (and cent. A.D.) says : Let the honour of thy 
disciple (Talmld) be dear unto thee as the honour of thine 
associate and the honour of thine associate as the fear of thy 
master (Kab) ; and the fear of thy master as the fear of Heaven 
(A both 4 12). The honour to be paid to a teacher even exceeded 
that due to parents (Hdrdyoth 13 a). [See further on this 
subject the notes in C. Taylor, AiotMtyji, or Spiers, School 
System of the Talmud, idf. ( 98).] 

17 Oualifica- ^ ie ^ ater ru ^ es re & ardm g tne personal 
t ions . qualifications and competency of the 

teacher are elaborate (see Spiers, op. cit. 

For our purpose little can be quoted. According to a saying 
ascribed to Hillel, piety and learning go together ; and an even 
temper is essential to a teacher (Aboth. 2$). So according to 
i Tim. 822 Tim. 2 24 Tit. 1 7 an en-iV/con-os should be SI&XKTIKOS 
and not opyi Aos (Taylor op. cit. 31). The former of HillePs 
maxims may be illustrated also from Aboth de Rabbi Nathan, ii. : 
Woe to him who is occupied with the Torah and has no fear 
of God. According to a dictum ascribed to R. Eliezer an 
unmarried man was not permitted to teach in the schools (o 
D lfllD ID 1 ? 11 N 1 ? new I 1 ? TNt? Mishna, Kiddushln 413). A woman 
also was ineligible (ibid.). 

According to the rule of the profession all the work 
of the scribes, both educational and judicial, was to be 
gratuitous. 1 Make not them (the words of Torah) a 
crown to glory in ; nor an axe to live by (Aboth 4 56), 
well expresses the principle. In practice its observance 
was difficult perhaps possible only in the case of 
judicial work (cp Mishna, Btkhdroth 46). It is impossible 
to suppose that the elementary school teachers in the 
provinces can have laboured without fee or reward. 

Paul (i Cor. 93-18 etc.) certainly claimed the right of mainten 
ance from those to whom he preached, though he preferred to 
live by practising his trade. Similarly the teachers of the Law 

1 In the inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III. J^azdnu is the 
regular official designation of the governor of a city. Similarly 
in the Amarna letters it is an official title of honour ( = 
governor ). 

2 So the modern teachers at the great Cairo " university " [el- 
Azhar]. (Che. Job ami Sol. 124.) 



especially, perhaps, some of the rich doctors in Jerusalem 
may have sometimes taught gratuitously. This, however, can 
hardly have been the rule, though the rabbis, like Paul, had 
usually learned and practised a trade. The combination of 
study with a handicraft is strongly enforced {Aboth 2 2 : 
Excellent is Torah study together with worldly business, for 
the practice of them both puts iniquity out of remembrance. 
Contrast Ecclus. 38 25 f. : How shall he become wise that 
holdeth the plough, etc.). See HANDICRAFTS. 

In the Aramaic of the period *O2D (=Heb. ns lD scribe ) 
probably already means teacher, since NiSD jv3 (i.e., house of 
the teacher ) is one of the early names of the elementary school. 
Cp also i Ch. 25 8 Targ. Another apparently a general and 
later name for school is 1 ^13DN = < X ^ ?- The supposed mention 
of schools in Sdhi9g (Surenh. 8291) rests upon a mistake. 
The passage states that since the time of Jose (? 140-130 B.C.) the 
niSlDOK ceased; but niSl3DN here can hardly mean schools. 
See Schurer, GJVW 2, 25 n. 135 [ = ET4 357 n. 135], (3) 25, 
iv. n. 16. 

(a) Entrance -age and previous training. As to 
18 Organiza- entrance a S e the available evidence is 
unfortunately of too late a date to be 
of much value for our purpose. 

The passage usually cited here forms an appendix to Aboth 
(621), and belongs to the post-Talmudic period (Schurer). It 
runs as follows : At five years old, Scripture (npo) I at ten, 
Mishna ; at thirteen, the commandments ; at fifteen, Talmud ; 
at eighteen, the bridal, etc. The universal Talmudic rule is 
expressed in the advice of Rab (Abba Areka, begin. 3rd cent. 
A .D.) to the elementary schoolmaster: Do not receive a boy 
into school before his sixth year (Kethuboth 50 a). 

A certain amount of instruction had, however, been 
given in the earlier period by the father, from whom 
the child would learn to repeat the first verse of the 
SMma (Dt. 64), and other short sentences of Scripture 
(Bdbd Bathrd 21 a, Sukkd 42 a). Though the Law was 
not in the strict sense binding upon children they were 
accustomed to its requirements from an early age. 

Thus, according to the Mishna, the elders were to enjoin upon 
children sabbath observance (Shabbdth 16 6); one or two years 
before the legal age fasting preparatory to the requirements of 
the Day of Atonement was to be begun (Ydmd 8 4). Children 
were bound to the usual prayer (an earlier form of the Shcmdneh 
Esreh), and to grace at table (pTBH H313, Berakhoth 3 3). 

The utilisation of certain rites, within the domestic 
circle, for educating the child s religious consciousness 
is already a feature of the pentateuchal precepts (Ex. 
1226 /. 138, passover; cp. Dt. 620, Josh. 46). 1 This 
was also extended to public worship. Boys had to be 
present at the tenderest age in the Temple at the chief 
festivals (Chag. 1 1) 2 ; a boy who no longer needs his 
mother must observe the feast of tabernacles (Sitkkd 
28). At the first signs of puberty (Niddd 6 n) the young 
Israelite was bound to the strict observance of the Law, 
and henceforth was (what in the later period was called) 
a Bar-misvah (nisD 13, i.e., subject to [son of] legal 
requirements [the commands]). 

As knowledge of the Law was the chief thing, and as 
great importance was attached to the public reading 
19 Subiects f k in the s y na gS ue a privilege which 

f <3t H was P en to an y competent Israelite (cp 

y * Lk. 4i6/.) it follows that reading was 

one of the principal subjects of instruction in the 

elementary school (cp Actsl52i). Writing also was 


With this agrees the testimony of Josephus, who says : He 
(Moses) commanded to instruct children in the elements of 
knowledge (ypaju/u.aTa = the elements of knowledge, reading and 
writing), 3 to teach them to walk according to the laws, and to 
know the deeds of their forefathers (c. A/>.li2; for other 
passages see Schurer, op. cit. 2357 [ET447_/]). 

It must be remembered, however, that writing, being 
a much more difficult art than reading, would be less 
widely diffused. 

1 The questioning by the child, only in an expanded form, is 
still a feature of the Passover rite. Cp The Revised Hagada, 
ed. A. A. Green, 27. 

2 It may be inferred from Lk. 242 that those who dwelt at a 
distance from Jerusalem would not take part in the pilgrimages 
till their twelfth year. 

3 In Jn. 7 15 ypapnaTa. means(sacretf) book /frtr? ^-(especially 
as pursued by the scribes; cp ypajuju.aTev s) rather than the 
elements of learning. Cp Acts 2*124. 




The swift writer of the Psalmist (TTO 1S1D> P S - 45 i [2]) no 
doubt belonged to a learned class. In the period of the Mishna 
also, the writers evidently formed a special guild, something 
like that of the scriveners of the Middle Ages (cp Shabbiith 
\2 where the writer ["T 2J^ = libeUarius} with his reed 
[iD!07ip3 = KoAafiO] is mentioned. Such a statement, therefore, 
as that during the Bar-Kokhba revolt the cry of the school 
youth in Hethar was : If the enemy comes against us we will 
go up against them with these writing styli in order to poke out 
their eyes (Git tin 60 a), must he read critically. 

Probably the elements of arithmetic also were taught 
in the elementary school. 

See Ginsburg in Kitto, Bibl. Cyc., art. Education, and note 
that a knowledge of the arithmetical method of exegesis called 
geinatria^ [N"ncD3 = y e lJ M f pt(i] is presupposed on the part of his 
readers by the writer of Rev. 13 17 f. See NUMBERS. 

As the name House of the Book implies, the one 
text-book of the schools was the sacred writings ; and 
this to a Jew meant and means above all else the 
Pentateuch, which has always enjoyed a primacy of 
honour in the Jewish canon. That the rest of the OT 
also was read and studied is shown (to take an in 
stance) by the large use made of the prophetic literature 
and of the Psalms, for popular purposes, in the pages 
of the NT. 

Not improbably instruction in the Law at this period 
(as later) commenced with Leviticus, acquaintance with 
which would t>e important to every Jew when the 
Temple sacrifices were actually offered. When these 
had ceased the reason given for beginning with Leviticus 
was a fanciful one ( Sacrifices are pure, and children 
are pure [from sins] ; let the pure be occupied with that 
which is pure Rabba). 

Great care was evidently taken that the texts used 
at any rate of the Pentateuch should be as accurate 
as possible (cp Mt. 5i8, Pisdchim, 112 a; and note 
that the LXX conforms to the received Hebrew text in 
the Pentateuch more strictly than elsewhere). This care 
would extend, too, to the reading aloud of the Sacred 
Books, accuracy of pronunciation, etc., being insisted 
on ; the books themselves were, of course, read (as in 
the public services) in the original sacred tongue 
(Hebrew), though the language of everyday life in 
Palestine was already Aramaic, which was employed 
(in the synagogues) in interpreting the sections of 
Scripture there read (see TEXT). 

Though it is evident from the statements of Jose- 
phus (Ant. xx. 11 2) that the systematic study of foreign 
languages formed no part of a Palestinian Jew s regular 
education, the fact that, during this period, the popula 
tion of Palestine outside Judrea was without exception 
of a mixed character, consisting of Jews, Syrians, and 
Greeks intermingled, whilst Jerusalem itself was con 
stantly being visited by foreign - speaking Jews and 
proselytes (cp Acts 2 sf. ), who even had their own syna 
gogues in the Holy City (Acts 6 9), makes it practically 
certain that Greek at least cannot have been altogether 
unfamiliar to the (Aramaic -speaking) Judaeans (cp 

For the abounding indications of indirect Greek influence on 
Jewish life of the NT and earlier period see Schiirer, 2 26 f. (ET 
3 29_/). On the question discussed above, his conclusion is, it 
is probable that a slight acquaintance with Greek was pretty 
widely diffused, and that the more educated classes used it 
without difficulty." It should be noted that the inscription on 
the cross was written in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek (Jn. 19 19/1). 
According to tradition (Sank. 170) a knowledge of Greek was 
essential in order to qualify for membership of the sanhedrin. 
Possibly Hebrew with an admixture of Greek words (cp the 
language of the Mishna) was still spoken in learned circles. To 
illustrate the later estimation of Greek two quotations must 
suffice : What need, says Rabbi (i.e., Judah the Holy, Compiler 
of the Mishna, 2nd cent. A.D.), has one in Palestine to learn 
Syriac (i.e., Aramaic, the language of the country)? One 
should learn either Hebrew or Greek (Sotfi 49*1). The Torah 
may be translated only into Greek, because only by Greek can 
it he adequately rendered (Jerus. MtgillaJk 1 8). 

Both the extent and the limits of Greek influence on 

1 The reader substitutes for a word another the sum of the 
numerical values of whose letters is the same. Thus 666 
Casar Nero (pi: -p). 


Palestinian Jewish life can be very well illustrated by 
the Jewish view of games, gymnastics, etc. (see 
HELLENISM, 5). It is well known that the erection 
of a gymnasium in Jerusalem by the Hellenisers in the 
Maccabean period called forth the indignant protest of 
the strict party (see above, n). This continued to 
be the attitude of legal Judaism, even Josephus de 
nouncing the theatre and amphitheatre as un-Jewish 
(Ant. xv. 81). In time, however, even the most pious 
modified this rigid puritanism, and tales are actually 
told of the gymnastic skill of famous Rabbis (e.g. , Simon 
ben-Gamaliel, Sukkd, 58 a). The bath, originally a 
Greek institution, became entirely naturalized, and was 
given a Hebrew name (j rre)- We even find a Talmudic 
precept enjoining every father to teach his son swimming 
(Kiddfishin, 290)* 

The characteristic method both of teaching and of 

M rh ri f ^ e!irn ^ n S wa - scons ^ anfre f >e ^^ on - Hence 
., nyp, prop, to repeat, comes to mean both 

Study, etc. , . / 

J to teach and to learn (see above, 3). 

The following dictum is ascribed to R. Aklba (2nd cent. A.D.) : 
The teacher should strive to make the lesson agreeable to the 
pupils by clear reasons, as well as by frequent repetitions, until 
they thoroughly understand the matter, and are able to recite it 
with great fluency ( F .rnbln 54 b). The pupil was to repeat the 
lesson aloud : Open thy mouth that the subject of thy study 
may abide with thee and live (Erfibin, 54 a). 

Oral instruction is often referred to in NT e.g. , in 
Rom. 2i8; cp Lk. 14 (cp CATECHISE). In Jerome s 
time (4th cent. A.D.) Jewish children in Palestine had 
to learn by heart the alphabet in the regular and the 
reverse order. He reproaches the Pharisees with always 
repeating, never reflecting. 

Jerome notes the remarkable powers of memory thus de 
veloped : In childhood they acquire the complete vocabulary 
of their language, and learn to recite all the generations from 
Adam to Zerubbabel with as much accuracy and facility, as if 
they were simply giving their names (see S. Krauss in JQR 
6231^, where the reff. are given). The endless genealogies 
of i Tim. 1 4 may be a further illustration (but see GENEALOGIES 
i., 4, second note). Repetition with fellow scholars is recom 
mended (Ta iintth 7 a). In teaching, mechanical devices for 
assisting the memory were used (nieinoria technica : cp Mishna, 
Sliekallm v., and elsewhere, and Buxt. Lex. [ed. Fischer, 677 b\ 
s.v. ppnou)- 

The idiosyncrasy of the pupil was to be considered 
(Prov. 226, AbBdA Zdrd 19 a). Instruction was to be 
methodical and givenjwith a high sense of responsibility 
(Pfsdchim 30, and Aboth 3 n). 

Regarding school discipline the later rules are elaborate. 

Perhaps the following may be mentioned. Partiality on 
the part of the teacher was to be avoided (Ta anith 24^). 
Punctuality is insisted upon (Kcthfibdth 1 1 1 b). Punishments 
were mild, the Rabbinical rules in this respect showing a marked 
advance on the ideas of Ben-Sira. Thus reliance in the case of 
older scholars who proved refractory was placed in the chastening 
effect of the public opinion of class-fellows (Bdbd Bathra 21 a). 
In the case of young children, when punishment was necessary 
it was to be administered with a strap (ibid.). 

The pa;dagogic ideal of the period was realised in R. FJiezer- 
a preceptor of R. Aklba who is compared to a plastered 
cistern that loseth not a drop (Aboth 280). 

That the usual position of the scholar was on the 
ground, facing the teacher, appears from Acts 22 3 
(wapa roi>s TroSas Ya/j.a\Lr)\). 

Cp Lk. 246 1039, anc l tne saying ascribed to R. Jose: Let 
thy house be a meeting-place for the wise ; and powder thyself 
in thedust of their feet (Aboth 14). Benches (^ys^ = svbsellia) 
were a later innovation (Bfrnkhoth, 28 a). In some cases it 
would be convenient for teacher or taught to stand (Acts 13 16 
Mt. 182); but this was not the rule. These remarks largely 
apply to the scribal college. 

Besides the elementary school there were also colleges 

for higher training, where those who were to devote 

_ ., , themselves to the study of the Law (both 

. ben B wr ; Uen an( j ora i) attended (emen rva, 

Colleges. B - fh ham . midr a sht -house of study ; 
another name is pan a, Mtgilld 280). These, too, 
were usually attached (at any rate when the system had 
been developed) to the synagogues. No doubt they 
grew out of assemblies in private houses (cp Aboth 1 4 
cited above), which probably still continued to be used 
in some cases for this purpose. In Jerusalem the 
temple (i.e. , the colonnades or some other space of the 


outer court) was often so utilised (Lk. 246 Mt. 2X23 
etc. ). Thus the famous scribes and doctors of the 
law taught, their instruction being chiefly catechetical 
a method which has left its impress upon the style of 
the Mishna. Questions, asked and answered by teacher 
and disciple alike, counter-questions, parables, debates, 
allegories, riddles, stories such were the methods em 
ployed. They throw an interesting light on NT forms 
of teaching. 

Thus (for instance) the Rabbinic parables, like those of the NT, 
are commonly introduced by some such formula as To what is the 
matter like? (Y rtoS)- The fuller consideration of these and 
other points (.e.g., the extent of the studies pursued in the Beth 
Hammidrash) belongs to the article SCRIBES (ff-v.). 

What has been said above applies exclusively to boys. 
For the education of girls no public provision was made. 
ot TM f From birth to marriage they remained 

Of (Ms under the mother s care - With their 
brothers they would learn those simple 

lessons in morality and religion which a mother knows 
so well how to instil. Special care would, of course, be 
given to their training in the domestic arts ; but the 
higher studies (both sacred and secular) were considered 
to be outside a woman s sphere. Reading, however, 
and perhaps writing, were taught to girls, and they 
were made familiar with the written, but not the oral, 
Law. Strangely enough, too, they were apparently 
encouraged to acquire a foreign language, especially 
Greek (/. Pe dh. 26). That great importance was 
attached to girls education from an early period appears 
from Ecclus. 7 247. , 26 io/., 42g/ 

Above all, the ideal of Jewish womanhood was that of 
the virtuous (or capable) wife, actively engaged in the 
management of her household, and in the moral and 
religious training of her children (Prov. 31 10-29). 

It must not be supposed that the system of education 
sketched above was the only one to be found in Palestine 

23. Conclusion. J Uring th f P eriod ; As ^already 

been pointed out, there were doubtless 
Jewish as well as Greek-speaking centres within the 
Holy Land where schools of the Greek type flourished. 
Among the Jewish communities abroad, too, which 
doubtless possessed schools with their synagogues, 
Greek influence would be especially felt. Still, in all 
Jewish centres the dominant note was the same. Educa 
tion was almost exclusively religious. Its foundation 
was the text of Scripture, and its highest aim to train 
up its disciples in the fear of God which is based 
upon a detailed knowledge of the Law. The noble 
precept Train up a child in the way he should go, and 
even when he is old he will not depart from it ( Prov. 
226) is re-echoed, in more prosaic language, in the 
Talmud : If we do not keep our children to religion 
while they are young, we shall certainly not be able to 
do so in later years ( Yomd 82 a). The means by which 
this could be accomplished as the Jewish teachers were 
the first to perceive was a system of definite religious 
training in the schools. 

In thus endowing its children with a possession which 
lived in intellect, conscience, and heart, Judaism en 
trenched itself within an impregnable stronghold. For 
it is undoubtedly the love of sacred study, instilled in 
school and synagogue, that has saved the Jewish race 
, from extinction. The beautiful saying, attributed to 
R. Judah the Holy: The world exists only by the 
breath of school-children, has its justification at any 
rate as regards the Jewish world in the later history of 
the Jewish people. 

On the subject generally the following works may be referred 

to : Oehler, Padagogik d. AT, in Schmid s Encyclof>ddie 

d. gesammten Erziehungs- und Unter- 

24. Bibliography, ricktswtttn. vol. 5 ; Hamburger, REJ, 

96 (reprint), vol. 1, art. Erziehung ; 

2, Lehrer, Lehrhaus, Schule, Schiller, Unterricht, etc. 
(a mine of information, but mainly for the later period) ; 
Schurer, C/K(3), 2 305 ff., Die Schriftgelehrsamkeit (ET, 
Div. ii. vol. 1, 25), 24197?. Schule und Synagoge (ET, 
Div. ii. vol. 2, 27, where the literature is given); Ginsburg 
In Kitto s Bibl. Cyclop.$), art. Education (conservative, but 


is also discussed in Edersheim, Sketches of Jewish. Social 
Life, etc. (chaps. 7 /.), Life and Times of Jesus, etc. \ 225/1, 
and History of tlie Jewish Nation (ed. White), 277^: [ 96], 
(Jewish philosophy, art, and science are also fully discussed in 
this volume); Laurie, Historical Survey of Pre-Christian 
Education, 69-105 [ 95] ; L. Low, Die Lebensalter in d. jiid. 
Literatur, iy>f. [ 75] ; and S. Schechter, Studies in Judaism, 
343/1 The relevant sections in Benzinger and Nowack (HA), 
also, should not be overlooked. 

Of monographs and special treatises the following are the 
most important : J. Lewit, Darstellung d. theorctischen u. 
praktischen Piidagogik in jud. Altertum, 96; E. van Gelder 
Die Volkschulc d. jud. Altertums, 92 ; J. Simon, L Education 
et f instruction des En/ants chez les Anciens Juifs 1 ?}, 81 ; 
Seidel, Ueber die Padagogik d. Pr&ierbien, 75 (with which 
compare Che. Jew. Rel. Life); M. Duschak, Schulgesetzgebung 
und Methodik d. alien Israeliten, 72. 

For the Talmudic period (in English) Spiers, The School 
System of the Talmud 1 ^), 98, may be mentioned. There are 
many books on Jewish education of this later period (see Strack, 
Einl. in den ThalmudP), 128 titles). Other references have been 
given in the body of the present article. G. H. B. 

EGG (fl-PS), Deut - 226 ; see FOWLS, 4, SCORPION. 

EGLAH (rPjy, young cow, 68 ; & r \& [AL] ; in 
?S. Aip-AA [B], - r &c [A] ; in i Ch. A A<\ [B], er . [L] ; 
|~A.AA [J os -])- Mother of David s son ITHREAM (y.v. ), 
28. 85 i Ch. 83. It is doubtful whether wife of 
David in 2 S. 3 5 is correct or not. David might be 
a scribe s error for some other name ; Abigail (v. 3) is 
called wife of Nabal (her first husband). So Well- 
hausen, Driver, Budde. According to a late exegetical 
tradition, however (see Jer. Qucest. Hebr. on 2 S. 3s 
623, and Lag. Proph. Chald. p. xviii. ), Eglah was 
Michal, daughter of Saul, David s first wife. This 
view is also that of Thenius and Klostermann, and is 
plausible. To stop short here, however, would be 
impossible. No early writer would have written 
Eglah meaning Michal. The most probable explana 
tion is suggested by 2 Ch. 11 18. n^y is a corruption of 
V rraNp Abihail, the name given to the mother of 
JERIMOTH (q. v. ), or rather Ithream, ben David, in 
2 Ch. I.e. We now understand B s reading arya\ 
(cu^aX?) in 28. 3s, and can do justice to the late 
Jewish tradition respecting Eglah. For almost certainly 
SaD ( Michal ) also is a corruption of rrrax, Abihail. 

EGLAIM (Dv?N, probably place of a reservoir ? 
or a softened form of DvJJJ? on form of name see 
NAMES, 107 AfAAeiM [B], -AA[e]i/v\ [NAQ], 
GALLIM], a town of Moab (Is. 158), mentioned together 
with BEER-ELIM in such a way as to suggest that it lay 
on the S. frontier. Beer-elim, however, should rather 
be read in Elealeh (close to the N. frontier). Eglaim 
must therefore have been on the S. border, and Eusebius 
and Jerome identify it with a-yaXAet/x ( Agallim), a village 
8 R. m. S. from Areopolis (OS, 228 61 98 io). T. K. c. 


tioned in the RV of the prophecy against Moab, Is. 
15 5 (AAM&AIC . . . TRIGTHC [BXAQF]) Jer. 48 3 4 
UrreAiAN c<\AAceiA [B], om. N*, <\. eic c*Aic<\ 

[N c a ], -AlA [AQ], CAAlCIA [A], CAAACIA [Q])- 
The rendering adopted by Graf and others the 
third Eglath implies that there were three places of 
this name near together. Whether such a title as 
1 the third Eglath is probable in a poem the reader 
may judge. Duhm and Marti take the words to be an 
insertion from Jer. I.e. ; Cheyne, however (see LUHITH), 
supposes .TB ^B rtay to be a corruption of c ^Jj; rtSyc. 
the ascent of EGLAIM [ff.v.~\, cancelling as a dittogram 
the ascent of LUHITH [q.v. ]. According to the 
rendering of AV and of RV m e- ( an heifer of three 
years ) the crying of Moab is compared to a thwarted 
heifer, one which in its third year is on the point of 
being broken in ; others regard heifer as a meta- 


phorical description of Zoar (cp Hos. 10n) ; but one 
expects npVrip rtajj, cp Gen. ISg. 1 

EGLON Cfh^tf, 77 ; cp EGLAH, EGLAIM, erAooM 
[HAL]), the king of Moab, who oppressed Israel for 
eighteen years. He was finally killed by the Ben- 
jamite EHUD \tj.v. , \. (i)], who at the head of his 
tribesmen destroyed all the Moabites W. of Jordan 
(Judg. 3 12-30). That Moab was aided by Ammon and 
Amalek is probably an exaggeration due to D ; cp Bu. 
Ri.Sa. 99. From the fact that Eglon seized Jericho 
(v. 13) it is often assumed (cp e.g., Jos.) that this was 
the scene of his assassination. This, however, does not 
agree with the finale, and since Gilgal lies between 
Jericho and the fords of Moab, we must assume from 
w. i8/". 26 that his residence was E. of Gilgal, most 
probably in Moab. See JUDGES, 6, i6(beg. ); SEIRATH. 

EGLON (|V??1J ; 1!AL commonly oAoAAAM : 5 L in 
Josh. 1036 12 12 1639, epAcoN), a town in the ShCphelah 
of Judah, mentioned with Lachish and Bozkath (Josh. 
1539 lAe<\A<\AeA [BA]). Debir, its king, joined the 
league against Joshua which was headed by ADONIZEDKK 


[g.v.], and perished with the other kings (Josh. 10i-37 
\y. 5 oSoXXox (A) ; v. 36 BAom.] ; cp 12i2 aiXa,u [B], 
ty\uv fF], -/J. [A]). That Adullam takes its place in < 
of Josh. 10 is plainly a mistake, which has led Eusebius 
and Jerome astray (OS 253 45 118 21). The name of 
Eglon survives in that of A A. Ajlan, 1 16 m. NE. 
of Gaza, and 2 m. N. of Tell el-Hesy (LACHISH). 
On this site, however, there is very little extent of 
artificial soil, very little pottery, and what there is shows 
Roman age. On the other hand, there is a tell, 3^ m. 
S. of Tell el-Hesy, the site of which Petrie considers 
only second in importance to that of Tell el-Hesy, and, 
though he has not explored it, he pronounces it to be 
the ancient Eglon. So far as can be seen on the 
surface, Tell Nejileh (so it is called) is of the same age 
as Tell el-Hesy, though it may have been ruined earlier 
(PEFQ, 90, p. 162). Unluckily, however, it is wholly 
covered with an Arab cemetery (Flinders Petrie PEl- Q, 
90, p. 226). Tell Ajlan may represent the ruins of 
a later town, built after the overthrow of the ancient 
city ; this is a suggestion which may or may not be 
confirmed by excavation. T. K. c. 

E G Y P T. 2 

Name (8 i). 

Description ( 2-9). 

People, Language, etc. ( 10-12). 

Religion (88 13-19). 

Literature ( 20-26). 


Institutions (8 27-32). 
Trade, etc. ( 33-35). 
Art ( 3 6/.). 
Miscellaneous (8 38-40). 
History ( 41-44). 


1. Egypt proper (after col. 1240). 

2. Oases (see Nos. i and 4). 

3. Course of Nile (after col. 1208, No. i). 

4. Nile and Euphrates (ib., No. 2). 

Old Empire (88 45-48). 
Middle Empire ( 49-52). 
New Empire (88 53-60). 
Dynasties 20-25 ( 61-66). 
Dynasties 26-34 ( 67-74). 

5. Geological (after col. 1208, No. 3) 

6. Egypt and Sinai, pluvial period (col. 1205). 

The name used by us, after the example of the 
classic nations, 3 for the country on the banks of the 
Nile, seems to have been really the designa- 
t i ono f the capital Memphis Ha(t}-ka-ptah, 
cuneiform Hikubta (Am. Tab. nos. 53, 37), translated 
H0euoT/a = Egypt and more primitively that of its 

1. Name. 

1 See Dietrich in Merx, A rchiv, 1 342^ 

2 Repertories for Egypt in general are Jolowicz, Biblioth. 
Aeg. 1858-61, and Prince Ibrahim Hilmy, The Lit. of Egypt 
ami the Sudan, 1886-88. The current literature is given in the 
Orientalische Bibliographic. For scientific investigations, the 
following journals must be consulted: Zt. f. Acg. Sprache . 
Altertutnskunde (Leipsic), Recueil tie trav. rel. a la philol. et 
arch. Egypt, et Assyr. (here cited as Rec. trav.), and Rev. 
Egypt. (Paris), and Sphinx (Upsala). In England, scattered 
contributions, especially in TSBA and PSBA and Archa-ologia, 
etc. On the monuments of Egypt, the memoirs of the Mission 
Franchise au Caire, of the Egypt Exploration Fund (through 
which also the admirable Archaeological Survey of Egypt has 
been set on foot), and Prof. Flinders Petrie s Egypt Research 
Accounts, as also the Catalogue des Monuments et Inscriptions, 
begun recently by the Egyptian Government (edited by De 
Morgan), are in progress of publication. Of older works, 
Lepsius, Denkiiiiiler aus Aeg. u. Aeth. (1849-58, a large and 
beautiful publication), Rosellini, Monutncnti dell Egitto, etc. 
(1842-44, faithful), Champollion, Monuments, etc. (1855-45, with 
Notices Manuscrits as supplement), also the publications of the 
Museums at London (Select I apyri, etc., ed. by Birch), Leiden 
(by Leemans, 1839, foil.), Berlin, Turin (Papyri by Pleyte and 
Rossi), Bulak (Mariette), are most useful for illustrations and 
inscriptions ; the Descr. tie I Kgypte of Napoleon s expedition is 
in part quite antiquated, and, generally, hardly anything earlier 
than Champollion continues to be of use. Philological studies 
very quickly become antiquated owing to the rapid progress of 
the young science. So far, none of the popular books on Egypt 
in relation to the Bible can be recommended (this is true of 
I .rugsch, Steininschrift utu/ Bibehvort. 1891). Ebers, Aeg. u. 
ifie Biicker flfosis, 1868 (antiquated), was never completed. An 
Egyptological counterpart to KA T is promised. Here only 
a selection from the immense mass of literature can be made, 
preference often being given to the less highly specialised 
works, and those written in English or translated into it. 

3 Aiyvn-Tos (Lat. .Egyptus) occurs first in Homer, where it 
denotes, as a feminine noun, the country, as a masculine, the 
river Nile. 


chief temple (see NOPH). 2 On the Semitic name 3 see 
MIZRAIM, i. Poetical names in the OT are Rahab 
and land of Ham (see RAHAB, HAM, i. ). 

The Egyptians themselves called their country 
Kemet* Coptic KH/v\e or XHM S (Northern Coptic 
KHMl) i-e-, the black country from its black soil 
of Nile mud, in contrast with the surrounding deserts, 
the defret or red country. This etymology is given 
correctly by Plutarch (De hide 33, xw a = fJ-f\<iyytios ; 
see also "Ep/jioxti/juos, Steph. Byz. , by the side of jueXd/u- 
/SwXos). Poetic names were, e.g. , (P}-to-mere, (the) land 
of inundation (Steph. Byz. IlTt/iiyjjj, equal to AAra), 
in later time Beket (perhaps land of the baket 
shrub ). The most common designation was, how 
ever, simply the two countries, tout, 6 referring to the 
division of Egypt into S. and N. country (see below, 


Egypt is situated in the NE. corner of Africa ; but 
the ancients reckoned it more frequently to Asia than 
2 Land to< Libya i.e., Africa. It lies between N. 
lat. 31 35 (the Mediterranean) and 24 
4 23" (the first cataract at Asuan). Longitudinally 
its limits may be given as from Solum, 28 50 E. , to 
Rhinocolura, the modern el- Arish (see EGYPT, RIVER 
OF )> 33 5 E. ; but the limits of cultivable ground 

1 The mod. Ajlan occurs frequently to the E. of Jordan (cp 

2 First proposed by Brugsch, Geog. Inschriften, \ 7383. For 
the manifold senseless etymologies from Greek, Semitic, etc., 
see the classical dictionaries, s.v. Cp also Reinisch, SWAW 
30 397 8647, On the names of Egyrjt. 

3 It occurs in hieroglyphics only in names of foreigners, such 
as Ma-sa-r-Ai.c., Hfesrai (Rec. de Trav. 1462). 

. Rrtigsch s Diet. Gfog. (1877-80) contains the 
g^ names of Egypt, its divisions, cities, etc. (to be 
& used with caution ; his Geographische Inschriften, 
1867, is antiquated). 
s Absolutely unconnected with Noah s son HAM (q.v. i). 




would rather fix the frontier at about 32 32 (the site 
of ancient Pelusium). It is not correct to include in 
Egypt the large deserts of stone and sand lying on both 
sides, or even the N. parts of the Sinaitic peninsula 
regions of more than 1,000,000 sq. m. , which are 
wandered over by only a few foreign nomads. Egypt 
is, strictly, only the country using Nile water, N. of 
Syene (Asuan), as it was correctly defined even by 
Herodotus (2 18). If we reckon only cultivable ground 
(Nile Valley and Delta), Egypt has an area of not much 
more than 13,000 square miles. 1 

The extent of land really under cultivation changes continu 
ally. Under the bad government of the Mamluks in 1797, it 


in the Pluvial Period, 

after Map in 
The Survey of Western Palestine. 

Scale of Miles 


Bay of 
Lower Egypt 

Longitude East 33 of Greenwich 

was estimated at 5469 sq. m. ; recently, over 11,000 were assumed 
as cultivable, of which 9460 were really in cultivation. The 
census of 1887 gave 20,842 sq. kil. (12,943 sq. m.) as arable, of 
which Upper Egypt (some parts of Nubia even being included) 
has the smaller half. In antiquity, the amount was certainly 
not more, probably less. 

The surrounding deserts make access to Egypt 
difficult, and explain its somewhat isolated history. 
The shape of the country may be likened to that of 
a fan with a long handle. The handle, Upper Egypt, 
from Memphis to Syene, is a narrow valley, averaging 
12 m. in width (near Thebes, only 2^-4 m.). 

The view of ancient writers that Egypt north of 
Memphis, the so-called Delta (from its form, like an 
inverted Gr. A), was originally a gulf of the 

3. Geology. 

sea and was filled in by the deposits of the 

1 The total area of Belgium is 11,373 square miles, of the 
Netherlands 12,648, and of Switzerland 15,976. See the 
Statesman s Year Book. 



Nile, is correct (see the accompanying sketch-map : 
fig. i) ; but it is an exaggeration to place this process 
within historic time. 1 As far as our historical know 
ledge goes, the country has always been the same ; the 
yearly deposits have raised the bed of the Nile slightly. 
(On exaggerations of the fact that the river had formerly 
a greater volume of water than now, see below, 7, 
note. ) 

The fact that the level, e.g., of ancient Alexandria is now 
below that of the sea is to be ascribed to a sinking of the sandy 
north coast. The Burlus and Menzaleh Lakes are indeed, in 
part, recent formations, caused by the influx of the sea, although 
the Edku and Maryut (Mareotis) lakes are old, and ancient 
inscriptions speak continually of the swamp-lands, n-aif/tou , 
Na0w (Herod.) Neovr (Ptol.) 
in the N. Strabo knows the 
Balfih lakes. 

The substratum of the 
Northern Nile valley and 
the characteristic stone 
of the tableland of the 
Libyan (Western) 2 desert 
is limestone in different 
formations ; the material 
of the great pyramids is 
tertiary nummulitic lime 
stone. The valley is shut 
in by limestone crags, 
about 300 ft. in height, 
which sometimes come 
very near to the river. 
Above Edfu, the sand 
stone formation that pre 
vails through Nubia be 
gins, forming also the 
first natural frontier of 
Egypt, the mountain-bar 
at Silslleh. This quartzy 
stone furnished the excel 
lent material used for most 
of the ancient temples. 
The first cataract at 
Aswan is the result of the 
river being crossed by a 
bar of red granite, syenite, 
and other rock, from 
which the famous obelisks 
were taken. The 

Eastern (Arabian) desert 
is of varying formation, 
full of mountains which 
rise in part to a height 
of over 6000 ft. (The 
highest point is Jebel 
Gharib. ) See geological 
map (no. 3) facing col. 


These mountains furnished 
the rich material for the finer 
sculpturesof the ancient Egyp 
tians diorite (near Hammfi- 

milt), dark red porphyry (Jebel Dokhan, 6900 ft.), black granite, 
alabaster (near Asyut), and basalt. Emeralds (Jebel Zabara) 
and gold (Wady Allaki) also were found there, but few useful 
metals (there were some iron and insignificant copper mines in 
Nubia). In antiquity, therefore, metals were imported. Other 

1 [Cp Report on Boring Operations in the Nile Delta," Proc. 
Roy. Soc. 97, p. 32. The Royal Society carried out borings in 
the Delta to try to get down to the bed rock. At ZakazTk they 
reached 345 feet or 319 feet below sea-level without striking 
solid rock. At 115 feet there was a noteworthy change. Below 
that depth was a mass of coarse sand and shingle, with one 
band of yellow clay at 151 feet; above 115 feet it was blown 
sand and alluvial mud. Totally different conditions must have 

ds is not yet determined. I he pebbles ot 
which they are composed all belong to the rocks found in situ 
in the Nile Valley. The coast at the mouths of the Nile 
appears to be sinking, the coasts in the Gulf of Suez to be 

2 Cp Zittel, Ceol. der lilysclten Wiistc, 83. 



minerals, such as salt, alum, natron (this from the Natrun 
valley S. of Alexandria), come more from the Libyan desert. 

The Oases (avdfffis, Egyptian wah, modern Arabic 
_ wah, meaning unknown) of the Libyan 

desert are depressions in this barren table 
land where the water can come to the surface and create 
vegetation. See maps after cols. 1240 and 1208. 

Their present names (from N. to S.) are : (i) Slwah (Oasis of 
Amon ; perhaps also called sekhet atnu, date-field ; but this is 
quite doubtful), very far to the west ; (z) Bahriye, the small 
oasi.s ; (3) Farilfra (7 o-e/ie, cowland ); (4) Dakhela (Zeszes) \ 
(5) The (ireat Oasis, now called the exterior oasis, el- 
khar(i)geh (anciently Heb, Hibis, or the Southern Oasis). 

In ancient times these islands in the desert be 
longed politically to Egypt (from Dyn. 18?) ; but their 
inhabitants were Libyans and became Egyptianised only 
later. The population of the remote oasis of Amon, 
however, although it adopted the Egyptian cult of 
Amon, remained purely Libyan, and has retained to 
the present day the Libyan (Berber) language. 

The population of these five oases is, at present, about 58,000. 
The Fa(i)yum also (see below, 50) is really an oasis. On the 
Wady Tiimilat, see GOSHEN i. ; on the Fa(i)yum, below, 50. 

The climate is extremely hot, but has great changes, 
especially during the night. The ancient Egyptians 

_ _,. prayed that after death, as in life, they 

5 Climate. , - . , 

might have the cool north wind, consider 
ing this the greatest comfort. This wind blows in 
summer for six months. On the other hand, at intervals 
during the fifty days preceding the summer solstice, 
there blows a terrible hot wind, now called Hamstn 
(i.e., fifty ), full of sand from the Western desert. 
At most other times, proximity to the deserts renders 
the air very dry and salubrious. The yearly inundation 
has dangers which explain why so frequently, from the 
time of Moses onwards, the plague has found a home in 
Egypt (Am. 4 10). Eye diseases caused by the abundant 
dust were, and are, very common. 

The Nile, the only river of Egypt, seems to have its 
present name (Gk. NetXoj) from the Semitic nahal 
.... (Sm), stream, this designation (*nehel} 1 
being probably due to the Phoenicians. 
The Egyptians called it Ha pi (w0t, of uncertain ety 
mology),- in poetry ueru ( the great one ) ; but in the 
vernacular language it was simply the river yetor 
(later after 2000 B.C. pronounced ye-or, yd or], or 
else the great river" ye(t}er-o, yar-o, Coptic eiepo. 
Of the last two expressions the former became in 
Hebrew -ijr, whilst the second, according to the N. 
Egyptian pronunciation (i&po), is found in the Assyrian 
Yaru u, Nile. On the Heb. name Shihor, and on the 
phrase the river of Egypt, see SHIHOR, and EGYPT, 

This river is the second longest in the world 3 (its 
source now being assumed at 3 S. lat. ; for the whole 
course of the river see map 2, on opposite page), 
although not so majestic and voluminous (1300 ft. 
wide at Thebes, 2600 at Asyut) as some shorter rivers. 
It forms the principal characteristic of Egypt, the gift 
of the Nile (Herod.). The Egyptians believed that 
it sprang from four sources at the twelfth gate of the 
nether-world, at a place described in ch. 146 of the Book 
of the Dead, and that it came to light at the two whirl 
pools of the first cataract, the so-called Kerti (Kp>(f>i and 
fj.u><t>i, Herod. ). Even in the latest times, when they 
knew the course of the river beyond Khartum, 4 their 
theology still held that primitive view. 

The Nile divides N. of Memphis. Of the seven 
branches, however, which once formed the Delta (see 
large map after col. 1240), only two 5 are really 

1 The asterisk indicates a conjectural form. 

2 Later theology combined it with the Apis (Hapi) bull. He 
was allowed to drink only from wells, not from the Nile. 

* Perthes, Taschen-Atlas, statistical tables. 

4 But hardly the source from the mountain of the moon, 
known in Roman times. 

6 Viz., the first and the third, counting from the west con 
tinued, however, in their lower portions, in the channels of the 
second and the fourth respectively. The latter, the Bolbinitic 



left, the rest being more or less dried up. A branch 
(now called Bahr-Yusuf), 1 losing itself in the Libyan 
desert, forms the oasis of the Fa(i)yum in Middle Egypt. 

The annual inundation is produced by the spring 
rains in the Abyssinian highlands and the melting of the 
_ . mountain snow, which cause an immense 
. " increase of the Eastern or Blue Nile (now 
P" el-Bahr el-Azrak, from its turbid water), 
whilst the principal stream, the White Nile (el-Bahr el 
Abyad, from its clearness), has a more steady volume of 
water. In Egypt the increase is felt in June ; July 
brings rapid swelling of the reddening turbid stream ; 
the slow subsidence of the waters begins in October. 
During winter, the stagnant water remaining on the 
fields dries up, and the Nile mud, originally the dust 
washed from the Abyssinian mountains, settles upon 
the soil, acting as a valuable fertilizer. Thus in course 
of innumerable years the sand or stone of the valley has 
been covered with from 30 to over 40 feet of black soil. 
This shows, usually, an astonishing fertility : Egypt 
looks like one great garden (Gen. 13io) ; but a small 
Nile i.e., an insufficient inundation has always 
brought years of dearth. 2 Even a great Nile, 3 

however, cannot cover the whole valley and reach all 
fields. Dykes have to be built, and canals dug, in 
order that the water may be distributed. A good 
government has to give great care to such public con 
structions, the neglect of which will make the desert 
reconquer vast regions. Higher fields always had to be 
watered by (primitive) machinery, such as the con 
trivance called at present shaduf. (On Dt. 11 10 see 
below, col. 1225, n. 10. ) 

After all, Egypt had much more regular harvests than 
Palestine and Syria, where the only irrigation, by rain, 
very often failed. The abundant inundation of Egypt 
was proverbial among the Hebrews: cp Am. 88, and, 
as some think, Is. 59 19 6 (SBOT). We repeatedly 
find Egypt s Asiatic neighbours depending upon its 
abundance of grain. The Egyptians knew quite well 
that their country owed its existence entirely to the good 
god Nile, whom they represented as a fat androgynous 
blue or green figure. 4 Being nearly (but not 

completely) rainless, Egypt depends upon the Nile not 
only for the irrigation of its fields, but also for its drink 
ing-water (which is very palatable, and was kept cool, 
then as now, in porous vessels). The OT prophets know 
no worse way of threatening Egypt with complete ruin 
than using the symbolical expression, The Nile will 
be dried up. The river was also the chief highway 
of the country. 

The flora 8 was poor in species. Ancient Egypt had 

not such a cosmopolitan vegetation as the modern. 

8 p. Forests were quite unknown. Besides fruit- 

" trees viz., the date-, dom- (now only above 

Asyut) and argiin-palm, fig, sycomore, nabak (Zisyphits 

Spina Christi, the so-called Lotus-tree), and pomegran- 

and the Bucolic mouths, are said to have been artificial canals (?). 
The Bucolic of Herodotus (217) is called Phatnitic or rather 
Pathmetic(thns Ptol.and Pomp. Mela) j>.,the Northern (fa-to 
m/iitf) by other writers. 

1 Not from the biblical Joseph. 

2 Such calamities, sometimes in several successive years, are 
mentioned repeatedly. A legend from the Ptolemaic period 
(inscription at the first cataract, found by Wilbour, translated by 
Brugsch, Die Biblischen 7 Jahre der Hungersnot, 1891, and 
by Pleyte) reports seven years of famine before 3000 B.C. The 
strange water-marks on the rocks of Nubia, 25 ft. above the 
modern level, are difficult to explain. They cannot well be 
used as a proof that former inundations were so much higher, 
for that would involve our assuming that all ruins now existing 
were, in antiquity, under water. 

3 Of the so-called Nilometers wells with measures marked 
for use in official estimates of the rise that of Phils remains 
from antiquity. 

(wearing water flowers on the head, and offering 
fresh water and water flowers). 

8 See especially Loret, La Flore PharaoniqucV-} [ 92]; 
Woenig, Die Pflanzcn iin alt. Aeg. [ 86] ; and various essays 
by Schweinfurth. 




Parentheses indicating articles that refer to the place-names are in certain cases added. The alphabetical arrange 
ment ignores prefixes : el ( the ), J. (Jebel, mi. ), L. (lake), tell ( mound ), -wady ( -valley ). 

Abu Hamed, i. 64 
Abu Simbel, i. A3 (EGYPT, 37) 
Abydos, i. A2 (EGYPT, 44) 
Alasia, ii. A.2 (CYPRUS, i) 
L. Albert, ii. A5 
Alexandria, i. Ai 
tell el- Amarna, i. Aa 
Amor, ii. A.2 (CANAAN, 8) 
(Anti), i. B 3 (ETHIOPIA, 4) 
Arko (Island), i. A4 
Aswan, i. A3 

Asyut, i. A2 (EGYPT, 3, 6) 
Atbara (river), i. 64 

Babil, ii. 62 

Bahr el-Ghazal, ii. AS 

Bahren 1. , ii. B3 

jebel Barkal, i. A4 

el-Behneseh, i. A2 

Beni Hasan, i. A2 (EGYPT, 50) 

Berber, i. 84 

Bitter Lakes, i. Ai 

Blue Nile, ii. A4 

Cairo, i. Ai 

i Cataract, i. A3 

2 Cataract, i. A3 

3 Cataract, i. A4 

4 Cataract, i. A4 

5 Cataract, i. B4 

6 Cataract, i. B4 (ETHIOPIA, 4) 

Dakke, i. A3 
Damietta, i. Ai 
L. Demba a, ii. A4 
Dendera, i. A2 
ed-Derr, i. A3 

Kkhmim, i. j\2 

el-Faiyum, i. A2 (EGYPT, 6, 50) 

el-Farafra, ii. A3 

Fashoda, ii. A4 
Gutu, ii. Ba 

wady Haifa, i. A3 
wady Haminamat, i. 62 
el-Hejaz, ii. B3 
Heta, ii. A2 (HITTITES) 
Hierasycaminus, i. A3 

Ibrim, i. A3 

el-Khartum, i. A4 (ETHIOPIA, 4, 5 a) 

Khor, ii. A2 

Kordofan, ii. A4 (ETHIOPIA, 5 a) 

Korosko, i. A3 

Korti, i. AS 

Ko s, ii. A3 (EGYPT, 50) 

Kummeh, i. A3 (EGYPT. 50) 

el-Kurneh (Pyramid), i. A4 

Libyans, ii. A.2, 3 
Lullu, ii. 82 

Mallus, ii. A2 

Mazay, i. B4, ii. A4 (ETHIOPIA) 

Mecca, ii. 83 

el-Medina, ii. 63 

Medum (Pyramid), i. As 

Memphis, i. A2 

Meroe, i. 64 (ETHIOPIA, 5 1>) 

Mittani, ii. B2 

Negroes, ii. A4, 5 
Niiri (Pyramid), i. A4 

Oases (five), ii. A3 (EGYPT, 4) 

Pnubs, i. A3 

Port Said, i. Ai 

Punt, i. B3, ii. A^, 4 (EGYPT, 48) 

Pselchis, i. A3 

Rosetta, i. Ar 
Ruins, i. A4 
Ruins, i. A4 
Ruins, i. A4 
Ruins, i. 64 
Ruins, i. B4 

Semneh, i. A3 (EGYPT, 50; ETHIOPIA, 


Sennar, ii. A4 (ETHIOPIA, 4) 
Shaba, ii. 64 
J. Silsileh, i. A3 
Soleb, i. A3 

Somali, ii. B4 (EGYPT, 48) 
nahr Subat, ii. AS 
Suez, i. A2 

Tankassi (Pyramid), i. A4 
Thebce, i. A2 
Timsah (L. ), i. Ai 
Troglodytae, i. Ba, 3 (ETHIOPIA, 4) 

L. Victoria, ii. AS 

Wawat, i. A3, ii. A3 (EGYPT, 50, 

White Nile, ii. A4 

Edfu, i. A2 

Naharin, ii. Ba (ARAM-NAHARAIM) 

Zahi, ii. A.2 



. ady Haifa 

En s lish Miles 
9 .... 5,0 .19 

Reference to lettering in Maps 

I. and II:- 

Biblical Names -CUSH 

Arabic Asyut 

Egyptian JiVawat 

Classical ABYDOS 

Modern. ....(Cairo) 

A East of38Greenwicl 



Crystalline Rocks 

For index to names see back of map. 


II alter & Cocterell sc. 


ate 1 only a few tamarisks (ose\_i], cp WN), willows, 
and, especially, various kinds of acacias (sonsef uiONT , 
cp nap, Egyptian loan-word ; see SHITTAH) grew. 
Timber had mostly to be imported from Nubia and 
Syria. As principal fuel, dung was used, as now. The 
vine was always cultivated ; but the national beverage 
was a kind of beer. The chief cereals were barley (yot), 
most important of all, wheat (SHO), and the African millet 
or sorghum, now called dura (bodef). Cp Ex. 9si/. flax, 
barley, wheat, spelt (this perhaps for dura ?). The 

principal food-stuffs of the modern inhabitants, legumin 
ous plants viz., lentils (Egyptian arsan), and beans 
(Egyptian////), perhaps also peas (Coptic <\poo). lupines, 
and chick-peas have Semitic names, and were declared 
unclean by the priests even in Roman times ; but 
among the peasants they had already become popular 
as early as the i4th century B.C. Of vegetables, onions, 
leeks, and garlic were as much in demand then as now ; 
there were also radishes, melons, gourds, cucumbers, 
bamia (Hibiscus esculentus ; resembles American okra), 
meluhiya ( Corchorus olitorius ; a mucilaginous vegetable 
[somewhat] resembling spinage ), etc. ( Cp the lamenta 
tion of the Israelites over the lost delicacies of Egypt, 
Nu. lls.) Of ily plants, sesame and olives were not 
very popular, olive oil being mostly imported from Asia. 
Unguents were taken from several balsam -shrubs, especi 
ally the baket ; for cooking and burning, castor oil (see 
GOURD) was most commonly in use, as now among the 
Chinese. The cultivation of flax was very extensive ; 
whether cotton also was grown is quite doubtful. 

Wild vegetation grew only in the many marshes the 
common reed (see REED, FLAG), the papyrus (see 
PAPYRUS), and the beautiful blue or white lotus-flower 
(so[s~\sen, from which Hebrew |BhE> ; see LILY). The 
papyrus and the lotus-flower are now found only in the 
Sudan. 2 All these wild plants were utilised even the 
lotus, the seed of which was eaten. The papyrus, 3 in 
particular, was of the greatest importance for ancient 
Egypt, furnishing the material, not only for writing on, 
but also for making ropes, mats, sandals, baskets, and 
small ships (cp Ex. 2s ; Is. 18z ; Job926). The desert 
vegetation consists mostly of a few thorny shrubs. 

Of domestic animals, the ass, an African animal, was 

used more as a beast of burden than for riding. Horses 

. 4 (sesmet, 5 later htor), introduced by the 

9. /.ooiogy. Hyksos after jgoo BC) for chariot s of 

war and of pleasure, were never very common, pasture 
being scarce ; but their race was good. Cp Dt. 17i6 
i K. 1028/ (but see MIZRAIM, 2 ; HORSE, 3). The 
biblical passages which speak of the camel in Egypt 
(Gen. 12 16 Ex. 9s) seem to need criticism, for this un 
clean animal was, to all appearance, foreign to ancient 
Egypt and became a domestic animal only after the 
Christian era (see CAMEL, 2). Cattle, of a hump 
backed race, were more common than now ; likewise 
goats ; but sheep (es ou, Sem. word, nb, Arab. Xd. ) were 
rare. Swine (rire], the most unclean of animals, offen 
sive to the Sun-god, seem to have been kept, in biblical 
times, only in the nomos of Eileithyia (now el-Kab), 
perhaps because of Nubian elements in the population. 
In the earliest period they seem to have been more 
generally bred. The dog was held in esteem. Strong 
greyhounds for hunting were imported from the southern 

1 That this tree, at least, was an importation from Syria 
in historic times is shown by the name (k)erman i.e., }E>\ The 
persea (faubet ; Coptic, soue\be\, Mimusops Schimperi, after 
Schweinfurth) and other trees may have had a similar history. 

2 Whether the Eragrostis abyssinica, a species of grain, 
called tef in A.byssinia, the poisonous oshar (Calotropis pro- 
cera), and other plants of modern times were known is uncertain, 
but probable, as they are African plants. 

3 Pa-p-yoor, the (plant) of the river. Cp Bondi, in ZA 
3064 [ 92]. 

4 Not much investigated. Hartmann s studies, ZA 1864, 
were not continued. 

5 The word is related to o^p (Assyrian sisii, Aram, susya, etc.) ; 
but the relationship is not (juite clear. 

40 1209 


countries. The cat became a domestic animal first in 
Egypt (but rather late), perhaps by the side of the weasel 
and ichneumon. 1 

Noblemen undertook hunting expeditions into the desert 
where most wild animals of Africa were found. The various 
antelopes of the steppe (especially the gazelle), the oryx,- the 
ibex, 2 etc., were caught and then domesticated, or, at least, 
fattened at home. It is not certain whether the hare was eaten. 

Of wild animals the jackal, the fox, the hyaena, and the 
ichneumon reached Egypt ; in the earliest times also (but 
only occasionally) the lion, the lynx, and the leopard. 
The tusks of the elephant and of the rhinoceros (both 
called Yebu*) were only imported from Nubia Yeb(u), 
Elephantine (i.e. , ivory place ), on the first cataract, 
being the emporium for this important trade. The Nile 
was infested by malicious hippopotamuses 5 and 
crocodiles, both now extinct. That the name Behemoth 
(Job 40 15) is by no means a Hebraised Egyptian word, 
as has frequently been asserted, may be noted in passing 
(so, independently, BEHEMOTH, i). 

The marshes were covered with innumerable birds in winter 
especially wild geese, cranes, fishing birds (such as the pelican, 8 
the ibis, and others), and smaller birds of passage from Europe. 
The pursuit of these was both a favourite sport and a useful 
occupation ; they were fattened at home, but (with the exception 
of the pigeon) not domesticated. The domestic fowl became 
known, it would seem, only in Greek times Diod. (1 74) and 
Pliny (1054) describe hatching-ovens as in common use in their 
day. Of rapacious birds, the bald-headed vulture 8 was most 
common. Bats in immense numbers filled the mountain clefts. 

Many kinds of fish (as also the soft tortoise, trionyx) were 
obtained from the Nile, and were incredibly cheap cp C3n, for 
nothing (Nu. lls; cp Is. 19s); but they are not praised by 
modern travellers. Some e.g., the oxyrhynchus 9 (i.e. , sharp- 
snouted ), and the na r^ (a silurus) were unclean. The later 
theology, at least in ./Ethiopia, tried (though without success) to 
declare all fish unclean. 11 Air-dried fish were much eaten. 

Multitudes of frogs, lice, flies, scorpions, and locusts remind us 
of the ten plagues. Of poisonous serpents, the uraeus ( ar at) 12 
enjoyed special veneration (see SERPENT, 3). 

Owing to the fertility of the country, it has always 
been very thickly peopled : the present population 
amounts to six millions i.e. , it exceeds 

10. People. 

even that of Belgium in density (cp 2). 

The ancient writers who speak of 30,000 towns (!), and 
seven (or even seven and a half : Jos. BJ ii. 16 4) millions 
of people, somewhat exaggerate. 

The race of the ancient Egyptians, who called them 
selves romet, i.e., men is admirably determined in 
the Table of Nations (Gen. 106), where they are 
classified with the Hamites i.e. , the light - coloured 
Africans. They were consequently relations ( i ) of the 
Libyans (see LUBIM, LEHABIM), extending from the 
Senegal to the Oasis of Sfwah, at present interrupted 
by many Arab immigrants ; (2) of the Cushites (in 
linguistic, not in biblical, sense), who now extend from 
the desert of Upper Egypt to the equator, comprising 
(a) the Bisharln and Hadendoa, (b] the Afar (Danakil), 
and Saho on the coast of Abyssinia, (c) the Agaii tribes 
of Abyssinia (Bogos or Bilin, Khamir, Quara), in the 
S. called Siddama (Kafa, Kullo, etc.), and (d) the 
Somali and Galla. 

Anthropologically, the Egyptians seem to have been 
more closely akin to the Cushites who all show a slight 
admixture of Negro blood, received at a very remote 
date than to the purely white Libyans. They were 

1 jinn, later Hebrew for weasel (TSSA, 9i6i, and see 
CAT), Egyptian Hatul, oeoA ichneumon (cpPSBA, 7 194 


4 Compared by some scholars, following erroneous transcrip 
tions, such as abu, with Heb. Q anOeO ivory. Etymological 
connection is not probable. 

5 6 


11 Worshippers were always advised to abstain 
from fish some time before appearing before the 
gods to sacrifice. See below ( 19), on the laws 
of purity. See FISH, 8^ 


tall and lean, with strong bones, small hands, thin 
ankles, reddish -brown skin (coloured, on their own 
paintings, in the case of men, dark red, and in the case 
of women, yellow), with long but slightly curled black 
hair, scanty beard, very slightly prognathous chin, full 
lips, almond-shaped black eyes, and long (?) skulls. 

Linguistically, Egyptian is not the bridge between 
Libyan and Cushitic, as one might expect it to be : it 
forms, rather, an independent branch. The Libyan- 
Cushitic and the Egyptian branches both show affinity 
with Semitic, apart from the strong Semitic influence 
upon both, an influence which dates partly from pre 
historic periods, partly from about 1000 B.C., and partly 
from Islamic times. 1 Which branch separated itself 
first from the Proto-Semites (in Arabia?) remains to be 
shown. (In Egypt, however, no Asiatic immigration 
can be found in historical times : see 43. ) Some 
Egyptian traditions point correctly SE. , not to Nubia 
(erroneous traditions of Greek time), but to the coasts 
of the Red Sea i.e., Punt (see below, 48) and 
indicate affinity with the Hamitic Trog(l)odytes. On 
the other neighbours in the South viz., the Nigritic 
Nubians see ETHIOPIA, -z/. 

The language 2 was, therefore, by no means a 
primitive stammering, or a monosyllabic language 
T like the Chinese, as was asserted by 

11. Lia gu ge. ear jj er sc holars who derived false con 
ceptions from the writing. Egyptian has preserved 
something of the vocalic flexibility of the Libyan and 
Semitic against the agglutinative tendencies of the 
Southern Hamitic languages. It shows the system of 
triliterality more clearly than any other Hamitic branch. 
The assertion that it contains elements from Negro 
languages is unfounded : the Hamito-Semitic roots 
only underwent great changes. The sounds (e.g., Ain, 
h, ft, s) confirm the view of the relation of Egyptian 
here adopted. The vernacular dialect used from 

1400 to 1000 K.C. in letters, etc., is called by modern 
scholars Neo-Egyptian. 3 The inscriptions tried more or 
less to preserve the archaic style of the earliest periods 
not always successfully, after 500 B.C. wretchedly. 
For the rest, even the earliest language is less concise 
and much less obscure than, e.g. , Hebrew. On the 
many loan-words from Semitic, 4 see below 7 , 39 (end). 
Coptic i.e., the language of Christian Egypt (Arabic 
Kibt, Kobt] is the same language as that which used 
to be written in hieroglyphics, but much changed (many 
forms, e.g. , being shortened), as might be expected, 
after a development of 3000 years. 5 

1 Nothing trustworthy has been written on these relations, 
nothing at all on the position within the Hamitic family. It 
is to be wished that the only competent scholar, Prof. 
Reinisch of Vienna, would address himself to this question 
soon. Ethnographers (e.g., Hartmann, Die Nigritier) generally 
exaeeerate the fact that all white Africans pass gradually 

oerman anu n,ngusn;. rsrugscn s iiicrogiypniscn-LJcmoiiscncs 
WSrterbuch, 1867-80, is the leading dictionary, but must be 
used with the greatest possible caution. Those of Birch (in 
Bunsen, vol. 5), Pierret, and S. Levi, cannot be recommended. 
A Thesaurus verborwti sEgyptiacorutn by Erman and other 
scholars is in preparation. The stage reached by Egyptian 
philology is best characterised by the statement (after Erman) 
that the age of deciphering is at an end, we [begin to] read. 
It is, however, a great exaggeration to state, as some have done, 
that we read Egyptian as a Latinist reads his Cicero. See, e.g., 
below (col. 1232, note i), on the difficulties of transliteration. 
A better analogy would be the way in which good Phoenician 
inscriptions are read ; but the greater excellence and abundance 
of his material gives the advantage, to a considerable extent, 
to the Egyptologist. 

8 See Erman, Neuagyptische Gramtnatik ( 80), who has also 
published a treatise on the earlier vernacular style, Die Sprache 
ties Tapyrus I f estcar ( &<)). 

* A small collection by Bondi, Dem hebriiisch-plwnizischcn 
S prachzivcige angclwrige LehnwSrter, etc., 1886. An exhaus 
tive dictionary by the present writer is in preparation. 

6 The standard grammar is Stern, Koptische Grain. (1880). 
(Steindorf s small grammar in the Porta series [ 94] may also 
be used : no older book). The best dictionary is still that of 
Peyron, Lex. Lingua Copticcf, 1835 (reprinted 1896) ; but a new 


Coptic has four principal dialects (Sahidic i.e., $a Jdl or 
Upper Egyptian Middle Egyptian, represented best by the 
papyri of Akhmim, Fa(i)yumic formerly wrongly called Bash- 
niuric and Boheiric or Lower Egyptian), diverging sometimes 
strongly ; already about 1300 B.C. a payrus states that a man from 
the N. frontier cannot well understand an Egyptian from Ele 
phantine. (On Coptic dialects, see further TEXT, 37). 

As the vowels in ancient Egyptian were in general 

not indicated, their determination, though it is sometimes 

_, possible through late Egyptian (Cop- 

ICB- tic), and, in the case of some proper 

names (see below, col. 1232, n. i), through Greek and 

other authors, cannot usually be effected with precision. 

Certain grammatical terminations ( and i), however, were 
sometimes indicated by the signs for the consonants iv and y, and 
later the ideographic sign for the dual assumed a vocalic value 
(i or I). 

Foreign words, however, demanded exceptionally 
complete representation of the vowels. 

In the Middle Empire, accordingly, sprang up the practice of 
using the symbols for w, K, and and the signs for certain 
syllables ending in these consonants, to indicate the vowels 
in the transliteration of foreign words, often in direct imitation of 
the cuneiform vowels. This has been called the syllabic system. 1 

The 24 consonants distinguished in the script were 
originally the following : 

) (N, not always consonantal, never = ain), I (better y, to ex 
press both and [later] K ! the Middle Empire created a special 
y)> i " i btfi/i ft, u, r (distinguished from /only in Demotic), 
//, h, h, h (from very early times not distinguished from K), s (from 
early times not distinguished from s), s, s, >fr, k,g, t, t (an unknown 
sibilant), d (not, as sometimes maintained, originally = e), 2 d 
(better z or /), similar to Semitic s (cp the Ethiopian s later (s). 

The principles of transliteration of Semitic names 
in the New Empire have not been completely explained 
yet (see As. u. Eur. chap. 5); but the following 
are the commonest equivalences that are not obvious. 

N is represented by the /; 3 by f (K) or k; -\ by d; \ by t, s; 
Bbyf(orrf); D by 1 (rarely s) ; tj by / or (never [in early texts] 
initially)/; x by rf (2 or .?) ; iy by j (/) ; and y by s or (before two 
consonants, etc.) s. 

The hieroglyphics which constitute the national system 

of writing (called the scripture of sacred words, and 

_ . . said to have been invented by the god 

12*. Writing. Dhout j w i; r _ a name less correctly 

written Thot) have arisen from a pictographic system 
very much like that of the Mexicans, just as did the 
Babylonian (to which it is very strikingly analogous) 
and the Chinese writing. Our rebus is based upon 
the same principles. 

A man Vy& (route f), a head fi\ (def), or a tree 

(am) can easily be painted entirely. Wood (hct) can be 
represented by a twig **^-r~ , water (inou) by three water lines 
/vww>> and here we pass over more and more to symbolism 
1 night by star-on-heaven ^ * , to go by legs _f\^, to 

bring (inet) by a vessel + going l\ , to give (dy) by 

sacrificial cake (?) in a hand 

to %h ( /: ) by weapons 

in use [_h J> to write (ss) by the writing materi; 
Thus a great many ideas may be symbolised. 

This would lead, however, to top many combinations, besides 
leaving it uncertain how to read signs which admit synonymous 
translations, and providing no means for the expression of any 
inflection. Some further contrivances, therefore, were necessary. 
Hence, just as an English pictograph might perhaps express I 
by an eye J^^. , homophonous words are expressed by one 

sign, heny to row \^, e.g., standing also for henu (to be) 

turbulent. Thus this symbol becomes a syllabic sign, /;. 
Similarly II kap, claw, is used also for kop to hide, 

kope to fumigate, etc. i.e., as a syllabic sign = ty, etc. 

Finally, some of these syllabic signs, consisting of only one 
firm consonant, 3 came to be used for single consonants. In this 
way, e.g., *^c=*^fay (three consonants, but two of them semi 
vowels; in Heb. letters something like ;), slug (originally 

one is a crying need (those of Tattam and Parthey are un 

1 Cp WMM, As. u. Eur. 58-91. 

2 Finally, all sonant consonants were confounded. 

3 The only exception is N s, from sts(~>), bar of a door. 
The popular explanation by an acrophonic principle is incorrect. 



bearer ), became the simple,/; ^d, kay, high ground (repre 
senting a declivity), became the letter k, p ; and so on. By such 
letters (from 24 to 26 ; Plutarch, 25), all inflections, and many 
words, were written. (On the treatment of the vowels see above, 


As an additional safeguard a syllabic sign, such as 

mentioned above, is commonly followed (sometimes preceded) 
by an alphabetic sign (in this case an) for the sake of clearness 

\ >J 

V-< fyn 

(thus XT hn + ). This is the so-called phonetic complement. 


The last element of the system consists of what are called de 
terminatives, the method of employing which will appear from 

the following examples : Thus, e.g., Tjlol means to write. 
Followed by the determinative man, thus rjl i Vwi . it means 
writer i.e., scribe. If we place after it a book, ll, thus 

, it means writz,f i.e. , book (both words from a stem ss, 

r/g^ j ( . 
a > nno, but differently vocalised). Again ^jj-j) ^T^i *-f-, 

an elephant + a piece of skin (where the second sign, the de 
terminative, could also be omitted), means elephant (jrebu); 

but in 

the sign of a city indicates that Yebu, the 
city (Elephantine), is meant. Similarly M marks the end of 
every man s name, _w that of a woman s name ; words for small 
plants receive ^Jv at the end, trees M , and so on. This is a 

great help to the reader, and compensates somewhat for the 
absence of vowels. 

Thus a very perfect system was formed whereby, by 
the employment of several thousand signs (of which, 















FIG. 2. To illustrate the development of Egyptian writing. 
Partly after Erman and Krebs. 

however, only a few hundred were in common use), 
anything whatever might be expressed a complicated 
system, it is true, but not so complicated and ambiguous 
as, e.g. , the later Babylonian cuneiform writing. The 
accomplishments of reading and writing were not rare. 1 
The hieroglyphs, or sculptured writing-signs, were 
admirably suited for monumental and ornamental 
purposes ; but when used for writing books upon 
papyrus, they had to be abridged and adapted to the 
pen, exactly as our written letters differ from the printed 
forms, (i. ) Thus the picture of a lion 

1 Such papyri of non-magic character as are found in the 
tombs are mostly old copy-books used by the deceased in 
their schoolboy days. The mention of women bringing the 
meals for their sons to the school proves that the poor also 
aspired to the advantages of education. 

2 This word may be taken as an illustration of the old con- 


became in cursive writing y , the man Vfp, C^ , and 

so on. This is called Hieratic writing so called as 
being, like the hieroglyphic, a sacred script, though not, 
like it, designed for monumental use. (ii. ) In course 
of time was developed, by the progress of abridgment, 
a regular shorthand, called by the Greeks Demotic 
or popular, because in their time it was the style of 
writing used in daily life. 1 It is also called epis- 
tolographic, or letter-style (Egyptian shay-en-$ay). In 

this script the lion becomes / or / . The illustration 

(fig. 2) gives three letter signs and two word signs : in 
hieroglyphs, in five forms of hieratic, and in demotic. 

All cursive writing runs from right to left (like 
Heb. etc. ), hieroglyphics in both directions (though 
never bustrophedon) ; but originally both ran mostly 
from top to bottom, like the oldest Babylonian and like 
Chinese. The opinion 2 that the Semitic (Phoenician) 
letters were derived from the hieratic script has become 
very popular, but is in every way improbable. The 
latest hieroglyphic inscription is one at Esneh, giving 
the name of the Roman emperor Decius (250 A. D. ) ; the 
latest demotic text is one at Philae, dated 453 A. D. If 
the earliest translations of the Christian Scriptures into 
Coptic i.e. , Egyptian in its latest form were made, as 
is usually assumed, about 200 A. D., 3 there should be 
a continuous tradition. As a living language, Coptic 
died out about 1500 A. D. ; at present only a very few, 
even of the Coptic priests, possess any understanding of 
the Coptic liturgic service. Coptic is written with 
Greek letters and six demotic signs ( CJ f, <gK h, 

O h, *. dj, O gj [a palatal sound of doubtful 
value, later pronounced like //or ^.], ft- ii}.* 

The knowledge of the earlier systems of writing was com 
pletely lost, 5 after the whole country was subjected to 
Christianity. The key to the decipherment of the hiero 
glyphic and demotic was at last recovered by F. Champqllion 6 
in 1822, by the help of the Rosetta stone with its trilingual 
inscription (a decree of Ptolemy V. Epiphanes in Egyptian [in 
hieroglyphic and demotic characters] and in Greek ; found in 1799, 
now in the Brit. Mus.). Thus the decipherment was indirectly a 
consequence of Napoleon s expedition to Egypt in 1798. 

The chief writing material of ancient Egypt was papyrus, 
a kind of paper made from papyrus stalks, which were sliced, 
beaten, and pasted together. Its colour was brown or 
yellowish brown. The chief defect was its brittleness ; never 
theless, the writing was often washed off and the papyrus 
used again. Both sides could be written on. Red ink marked 
divisions and corrections, as in mediaeval MSS. Books were 
in roll form. (Among the Hebrews the same writing material was 
in common use : cp Jer. 8023.) Documents of great importance 
were written on leather, drafts mostly on potsherds (pstraca). 

The religion 7 of Ancient Egypt, always retaining so 

many remnants of barbarous primitive times, stands in 

_ . ... striking contrast to the high civilisation 

13. rrmutive of tha{ country Originally it was not 

gion. ver Different from the low animism or 

nection between Hamitic and Semitic (cp n) ; it is prehistoric 
in Egyptian and may have sounded lawe(). Cp Hamitic lubak 
(Saho and Afar), libdh (Somali), with Semitic lain lion (which 
migrated back to Egypt as A&BOl), Heb. N 27. 

1 The Demotische Gram, of H. Brugsch ( 55) is quite anti 
quated. The scholar who has paid most attention to demotic 
lately is E. Revillout {Chrtstomathit Demotique, etc. ; to be 
used with caution). 

hieroglyphic letters. See WRITING. 

3 See, however, TEXT, 36, 38, where a later date (circa 300) 
is argued for. 

4 Dialects preserve the ancient /; <JJ "^ as ^^ 

5 The few traditions about the hieroglyphics found in Greek 
writers (especially Horapollo, Hieroglyphica)s.rzno\\ recognised 
as being all more or less correct ; but for the decipherment they 
were in various respects insufficient. 

6 The attempts of Th. Young (1819), which came near finding 
the key, but nevertheless missed it, have been well estimated by 
Le Page Renouf, PSBA Ifi88 [ 96]. 

7 Le Page Renouf, Lect. on the Origin and ..Growth of 
Religion [ 82] ; Wiedemann, Die Rel. der alien Agyfter ( 90, 



fetishism of the negro races. Every locality had its 
own spirit haunting it. 

Such a demon appeared here as a jackal, there as a lion, bird, 
frog, or snake, or in a tree or a rock. We can understand why, in 
the lakes of the Fa(i)yiim and in the whirlpool of the first cataract 
at Elephantine, a crocodile was the local deity (Sobk and Hnumu) ; 
why the god Amip(u), leading the dead to Hades, originally (it 
would seem) in the Memphitic (!) necropolis, was the black jackal 
of the desert ; and so on. We cannot easily understand, however, 
why , at Busiris, a wooden fetish of strange form, 1 the Dad, signified 
the highest local god, and why at a later date a he-goat represented 
there the soul(?) of the Dedi (Bi-n-ded[i], MfVfys Dedi 
meaning inhabitant of the Dad"), or why the earliest symbol of 
Osiris was a wine(V)-skin on a pole 2 (which caused the Greeks 
to identify this dead god with their joyful Bacchus), and so on. 

Originally, sun, moon, and stars were considered to 
be divine ; but, with the exception of the sun-god Re , 3 
the local gods had more temples and enjoyed more 
worship and sacrifices. At Memphis, the chief god was 
Ptah,* styled by his own priests the master-artisan, 
and, therefore, the creator, who with his hammer opened 
the chaotic egg-shaped world ; but even the western 
suburb of the city belonged to a different god, Sokari, 
a hawk sitting in a sledge shaped like a ship. 5 Thus 
the gods were almost innumerable in the earliest times. 
Their forms (human, animal, or mixed), colours (Xeith 
is green, Amon blue, and so on), symbols, etc., are of 
perplexing variety. 

Fortunately, the superior splendour of the deities in the 
large cities, with their great temples, led to the worship 
of the tutelary gods of the villages and 
14. unanges. snia u towns being more and more 
abandoned. Am(m)on, 9 .j r . , the god of the later capital 
Thebes (called NO-AMON \_q.v. ~\, Amon s city, in the 
OT), thus became the official god, and so the highest 
in the whole kingdom, circa 1600 B.C. (sacred animal 
the ram). The Egyptians themselves, indeed, seem to 
have been puzzled by their endless pantheon. They tried 
to reduce it by identifying minor divinities with great 
and popular ones, treating them as one being under 
different appearances e.g. , the lion -headed Sohmet 
(wrongly called Sehet or Paht) 7 of Leontopolis and the 
cat of Bubastus were identified, the one being explained 
as the warlike, the other as the benevolent, form. Very 
old is the system of uniting several local gods into a 
family, usually as father, mother, and child (in Thebes, 
e.g. , the solar Amon and Miit, and the lunar Honsit]. 
Subsequently, out of such triads, circles especially of 
nine divinities (enneads) were formed, and whole 
genealogies elaborated. 

Even in prehistoric times, the progress of thought 
showed itself in the tendency to make forces of nature, 
especially solar divinities, out of the old meaningless 
fetishes ; but these attempts did not lead to a reason 
able, complete system. 

To enumerate some of the earliest results : Osiris 8 of Abydos 
becomes, as the setting sun, the god of the lower world, king 
and judge of the dead. In this function he is assisted by the 
Moon-god Thout (Dhouti), an ibis or an ibis-headed god 9 origin- 

ET g6; useful), brief; also Brugsch, Rel. K. Myth. [1884-88] 
(the fullest, but labouring under the great defect of following by 
preference the systems of the latest Egyptian theology) ; Lie- 
blein, Egyptian Rel. [ 84] ; Maspero, La myth. gyptiennc [ 89 ; 
critical]; Petrie, Religion and Conscience in Anc. Egypt 
[ 98]; Lange in Chantepie de la Saussaye, Rel.-gesch.V}, vol. i. 
For pictures the best work of reference is Lanzone, Dizionario di 
MitohgiaEgizia [ 8i](cp alsoChampollion, PantheonEg., 25). 

On vocalisation, see below, 40 n. 

The Tomb of Osiris, discovered near Abydos in i? . . 
is an ancient royal tomb. According to some scholars, 
Osiris is mentioned as "TDK (read * TDK) in Is. 10 4, 
and Apis as *F)n in Jer. 4615. On these readings see notes 
in Heb. edition of SSOT. Cp also AHIRA, PHINEHAS, ASSIR, 



ally god of Hermopolis who becomes a god of wisdom and 
writing. Aim bis ! assists, leading the dead to OsirU, like 
Hermes Psychopompos. Osiris himself (son of the goddess 
Nut) had been sent down to the dark region i.e., murdered by 
his wicked brother Set, 2rj0 (Typhon in Greek), the local god of 
N. Ombos, 2 who is figured as a poorly-sculptured ass(V). s This 
malicious god, who eventually (though only very late) became 
a kind of Satan, was explained as god of thunder and clouds 
(therefore identified with the cloud (?)-serpent Apop), in the latest 
period also as the sea or the desert i.e., all nature hostile to 
man. He is punished by Hor(us)4 (of Edfu), the young son of 
I sis (HCG), 5 the wife of Osiris (worshipped especially at Phila, 
often identified with Sothis, the Dog-star), who reunites the body 
of Osiris (the sun), hewn in pieces (the stars) by Set. The form 
of the myth which makes Isis go to Phoenicia in search of Osiris 
body, carried to Byblus by the Nile and the Ocean, is evidently 
quite late, identifying her with Heltis-Astarte. She educates 
Hor, hiding herself from Set and his seventy-two followers (later 
explained as the seventy-two hottest cays) in the Delta-marshes. 
Her sister Nephthys* (Nel>t-h6t) is the wife of Set and the 
mother of Anubis (by Osiris). 

It was this circle of divinities that gained most 
popularity and became known even outside of Egypt. 
Possibly it is simply by accident (?) that we possess only 
fragments of the myths that grew up, representing those 
connected with the Osirian circle ; the rest of the gods 
might not look quite so lifeless if we knew the mythology 
referring to them. 

We can see under what difficulties Egyptian theology laboured. 
Not only had it to admit that in the morning the sun was called 
Hej>re1 (a beetle rolling its egg across the heavens), later Hor (a 
cleity of whom there are seven forms), at noon AV, 8 both Hor 
and Re being hawks and evidently representing the sun flying 
across the heavens, and in the evening Atuin (at Heliopolis, 
where he was represented in human form sailing in a ship across 
the heavenly ocean) ; but it had also to acknowledge that 
other solar divinities were appearances of the same being. 

Some were cosmical gods 

Nun (Nouv) or Nuu is the abyss from whom all gods and 
things came chaos. The earth is the god Seb (or Ceb !) ; the 
heaven or celestial ocean bows herself over him as a goddess,^ 
Nut; w their child is the sun ( = Osiris). The space between 
them is the god Su (Sow, 2ws), a lion. His companion, Te/nut, 
represents, perhaps, the celestial moisture. 

Other gods assume other special functions 
On Thout (Dhouti, moon) and Ptah as protectors of scribes and 
scholars and of artisans and builders, see above ( i -26, 1 3). Imhotep 
of Memphis was the god of physicians. Ithyphallic Min 11 
became a harvest deity, like the serpent Remute(t), and as god 
of Coptos, the master of the Trog(l)odytes in the Nubian desert, 
just as Neit of Sais 12 ruled over the Libyans. The cow Hat- 
/tar (i.e., abode of the Sun-god) 13 became mistress of love and joy, 
but showed her solar nature in ruling all Eastern countries. 
Warlike gods were Onhur of This, Mantu of Hermonthis, and 
above all, the malicious Set, whose worship was abandoned more 
and more after 1000 B.C. (see above [first small type passage 
in this section]). This distribution of functions, however, 
is so contradictory that nowhere does an intelligent system 

The sacred animals belonged to two categories 
Some, such as the black bull called Apis 14 (IJapi) at Memphis, 
that called Mnevis at Heliopolis, and the crocodile Sobk (Sovxos), 
were considered miraculous incarnations of the local god (pure 
fetishism) ; but at other places every cat was sacred (as at 
Bubastus), 15 or every letos-fish (as at Letopolis), and so forth 
(totemism?). So, while the crocodile was worshipped at some 
places (e.g., Ombos), it was sometimes persecuted from a sense 
of religious duty, even in a neighbouring city (as, e.g., at Edfu). 


2 He must have played a most important 
part in prehistoric times. The sceptre 
which all divinities hold in their hands 
, seems to bear his head. His sacred colour was red, 
and red-haired men were despised as typhonic. 

The heaven is, besides, frequently represented as a cow-, 
because the abyss on which the earth in its chaotic state floated 
was the cow Meht-weret. 

J * (fetish aoo- ). 12 Symbol 

! On a probable OT ref. to Apis see above, col. 1215, n. 8. 
15 Hence the large cat cemetery near the modern Zakiizlk (now 
commercially exploited for manure). 




The great mass of the people never advanced beyond 

the traditional worship of the local idol (the town god ) 

_ , . . or sacred animal. Among the priests, 

15. ran sm. thg most a( j vance( j thinkers came, it 

is true, to the result that all gods are only different forms 
of the same divine energy, a conclusion which, how 
ever, did not lead them to monotheism, as might have 
been expected, but to a kind of pantheism. Such ad 
vanced thought remained, of course, the property of a few 
educated persons, though it was not treated as a mystery. 
Other rationalists followed somewhat euhemeristic lines, 
treating all gods as deified pharaohs of the earliest period. 
On early traces of the deluge- and the paradise-traditions, 
see DELUGE, PARADISE ; of borrowing from Asia there 
is here no question. 

In the sphere of cosmogony no reasoned system was 
ever developed : besides Ptah, the potter Hmtm(u) of 
Elephantine, 1 as well as other gods, claimed to have 
been creator. Nowhere can any uniform dogma be 
found (cp CREATION, 8). 

It is interesting that, after 1600, the Egyptians had 

a strong tendency to increase their already end- 

p . less pantheon by adding foreign divini- 

., ties, especially gods of a warlike char- 

CUltiS - acter. 2 

We find the god Suteh 3 of the Hittites (not of the Hyksos ; 
see 52) so popular as almost to displace Set. The Semitic 
god Raspu ( lightning, f]Bh), the goddesses Anut, Astart 
(rratfj;), Kedesh ( the holy one, Bhp), Beltis of BybJus-Gebal, 
Aslt, Adorn, etc. were recognised. Ba al and Astarte had their 
temples at Thebes and Memphis. Whether the strangely figured 
Bes* was a foreign (Babylonian ? Arabian ?) divinity is doubtful. 
This protector against wild animals and serpents, and patron of 
dancing, music, and the cosmetic art, had at least a much earlier 
cult. 5 

If we find various accounts of the creation of the 
world and of man, various explanations of the daily 
course f ^ e sun . etc., we need not 
wonder that the belief in life after 
death 6 was never reduced to a dogma. 
According to the opinion of later times, the dead went 
down to the dark lower world (Amentet, i.e. , 
the west), passed obstacles of every kind, opened many 
closed gates, and satisfied various guardians of monstrous 
form by the use of magic formulas previously placed in 
the coffins for this purpose. Finally the dead man 
reached the great judgment hall (iveshet) of Osiris, into 
which he was introduced by Anubis. His moral life was 
tested in a cross-examination by the forty-two monstrous 
judges (the answers denying the forty-two cardinal sins 7 
were ready prepared in his magic book), and by the 
weighing of his heart in the balance of Me it, the 
goddess of justice. 8 Those who were declared to be 
wicked were sent to a hell full of flames, and were 
tortured by evil spirits (some seem to have supposed 
that they assumed the form of unclean animals). The 
good were admitted to the fields of Aaru- (or YaaruJ) 
plants, where they sowed and reaped on fields irrigated 
by the Nile of Hades. Small figures of slaves, or rather 
substitutes for the dead, made of porcelain or other 
material, were placed in the coffin to assist the deceased 
in this peasant life. Originally it may have been only 
persons belonging to the highest classes who claimed 
to ascend to heaven upon the ladder of the Sun-god, 
and to become companions of the sun during his daily 
voyage over the heavenly ocean ; but, later, this was 
anticipated for every one who should be found pure. 

2 See Ed. Meyer, ZDMG 31 717 [ 77] ; WMM 
As. u. Eur. 

17 life after 


3 On his representations see Griffith, PSBA 
168 7 [ 94]. 

5 But Hat-hor has nothing to do with Astar ; nor 
has the (Nubian?) deity Anuket f at Elephan 
tine anything to do with Onka, a )| as Semitists 
have sometimes asserted. \\ 

6 Wiedemann, The Ancient Egyptian Doctrine of t!ie Im- 
m -rtality of the Soul ( 95), a popular manual by 

E A. W. Budge, etc. 

7 Murder, adultery, slander, theft, fraud, robbery 
of the dead, sacrilege, etc. 


Every deceased person was even expected to become 
Osiris himself, and is addressed as Osiris So-and-So. 
The dead were allowed to visit the earth occasionally 
not at night but in the day-time assuming the form of 
different animals. 1 At night they returned to their 
tombs, or to the lower world, places which are rarely 
distinguished in a clear way. 

Various conflicting doctrines are intermingled e.g., the belief 
that the souls of the departed are the stars or dwell in the stars 
(which are by others explained as the dispersed members of the 
slain Sun-god Osiris : see above, 14), that all shadows 2 must 
live in darkness and misery in the nether-world, persecuted by 
evil spirits, so that it is best for the dead person to become, by 
witchcraft, one of these evil monsters himself, and that the soul, 
in the form of a half-human bird 3 (bat), lives in or near the 
grave, hungry, and dependent entirely upon the offerings of 
food and drink deposited at the tomb. Sometimes the oases of 
the Western desert are identified with the fields of the dead. 
The Egyptian priests never put themselves to any trouble to 
harmonise these and other contradictory traditions ; they con 
tented themselves rather with providing that magic formulas 
and prayers adapted to each of them were made and collected. 
On these collections, see below, 20. 

The care bestowed upon the worship of the dead is 
very remarkable. The huge pyramids of the most 
ia W V anc ent kings, the detached tombs of 

of thedead P their officials < now called ^ Eg y pt - 
legists mastabas an Arabic word), the 

interior of which was covered with sculptures, and the 
long rock-galleries, especially at Thebes, testify that the 
Egyptians devoted greater zeal than any other nation on 
earth to the abodes and the memory of their dead, and 
to the sustenance of their souls by sacrifices. This 
care is shown also in the practice of embalming ; * cp 

Originally only the nobles were able to pay for mummifica 
tion, with its costly spices (and natron) and its skilful wrapping 
in layers of linen, by which means some mummies have sur 
vived 4000 years without great change. Later, however, 
cheaper methods, such as dipping the body into hot asphalt, 
made the custom almost universal. The forty days of embalm 
ing (Gen. 50 3) after removal of the intestines (which were then 
placed in the four jars, erroneously called canopes, representing 
often four tutelary demons) and the brain, and the seventy days 
of lamenting, are usual. The face was frequently gilt ; the 
wrapped body was put in one or two cases of wood or carton- 
nage, of human form, more or less painted and ornamented ; 
wealthy people enclosed these, again, in large stone sarcophagi. 

All this seems to point to a primitive belief that the 
soul would live only as long as the body existed, though 
this is indeed nowhere expressly stated. Later, the 
reason was given that the soul liked to be near the 
body, and would sometimes even return into it or into 
a statue of the dead. The distinction between the soul 
(bai], the shadow (haibef), and the double (ka] which 
always accompanies a man in life and seems to receive 
the soul after death, was by no means clear even to 
Egyptian dogmatists, and is quite obscure for us. 

The tombs had annexed to them a chapel for offering 
to the statue of the ka, 6 which stood in an adjoining 
small, dark room, the latter connected with the chapel 
by a small window or hole in order to let the smell of 
incense, etc. , penetrate to the soul in the statue. 

Besides real offerings, pictures of food were given ; these 
had the advantage of durability, and were, by the help of 
magic, as efficacious as real bread and meat. Often a basin 
of water before the tomb furnished drink for the soul, and 
trees were planted round it, that the soul might sit under their 
shady branches. The sarcophagus was deposited in a pit, 
which was filled up with stones and sand (except in the case of 
rock tombs, already safe enough). The poor were, of course, 
less luxuriously housed. They were massed in simple pits 
leased by undertakers. All tombs were situated in the desert, 
the arable land being much too scarce and costly. 

Whilst it can hardly be proved that the religious ideas 
of the Egyptians ever influenced the belief of the Hebrews 
(the so-called golden calves [see CALF, 
2] were certainly no imitation of the 
Apis cult, all kinds of animals being sacred at one place 
or another in Egypt), it cannot well be denied that the 

1 This was misunderstood by the Greeks. A migration of 
souls in the Indian sense was unknown to the Egyptians. 

2 Ci 3 6\ 4 See The Mummy, by E. A. Wallis 

iv\ Kudge, 1893. 

&fflfc 50r; ^LJ. 

19. Ritual. 


ritual laws and laws of purity of the Hebrews often 
seem to follow the analogy of the later Egyptian customs. 
The priests had to observe scrupulous cleanliness, to 
shave all hair (hence their bald heads, imitated in the 
Roman tonsure), to wear only linen, and to abstain 
from all unclean food, this being very much the same as 
among the Hebrews. 1 See above ( 9) on the unclean- 
ness (especially) of the swine. 

Some parts of every animal (the head ?) were forbidden. Eggs 
were not to be eaten. Contact with dead bodies defiled, notwith 
standing the cult of the dead. Embalmers, therefore, were 
unclean. Circumcision, for which, as for all ritual purposes, 
only stone knives were to be used (cp Josh. 5 2), was general 
for both sexes from time immemorial (see CIRCUMCISION). The 
method of killing and offering animals, the burning of incense 
(upon bronze censers of ladle form 2 ), the ablutions, and many 
other ritualistic details, were similar to those practised among the 
Israelites. Human sacrifices occurred in the earlier times (see 
ISAAC) ; later, cakes in human form seem to have been sub 

The priests, called the pure, 3 u lb(u), formed a 
well -organised hierarchy in four (later five) classes 
(<j>v\a.l), with many degrees, from the common priest 
to the high-priest ruling over the principal temple of 
the nomos or over the temples of several nomes. 4 The 
priestly career seems to have been open, theoretically, to 
every boy of Egyptian descent who studied the canon of 
sacred books (forty-two, according to Greek tradition) in 
the temple-school ; whether this was the case in practice 
we do not know. The highest dignities at least were 
more or less in the hands of certain families of the 
aristocracy. 5 Women were not admitted to the regular 
priesthood. Priestesses appear later only under the title 
of singers of the divinity. They formed the choirs. 

The religious literature was not so rich as the masses 

of manuscripts from the tombs might lead one to suppose. 

. _ .. . The catalogue of the library of the 

20. USURIOUS , , r* ,r 

... . large temple at Edfu enumerates only 

1 a ure< thirty -six books, mostly ritualistic. 
The earliest texts would be the old books from which 
come the inscriptions (of about 3000 lines) in five 
pyramids belonging to dynasties 5 and 6 (see below, 
46) which were opened in 1881. More than any other 
religious texts, they bear a magical character. After 
2000 B.C. another large collection came into use, the 
1 Book of going out in daytime, now commonly called 
the Book of the dead. 6 This is not a theological 
compendium, the Bible of the Ancient Egyptians, as 
it has been very unsuitably designated. It contains 
mostly magic formulae, often of a very nonsensical 
character, for the protection and guidance of the dead 
in the lower world, and the confusion of doctrines of 
which we spoke above. Thousands of copies some 
over a hundred feet long and with very elaborate pictures, 
and others brief extracts, giving one or two of the 
chapters are among the chief attractions of our 
museums of antiquities. 7 

1 These laws were less scrupulously observed in earlier times. 
See above ( 9 n.) on the restrictions with regard to fish. Those 
offering sacrifices had to abstain also from game, evidently be 
cause it was not properly bled. 


* The Ptolemaic documents and Clem. Alex., Strom. VI., 
would give us the following classification : high priest, prophet, 
stolist (superintending the clothing of the idols and the offerings), 
two classes of sacred scribes (the higher one being that of the 
irrepo<6poi or feather- wearers), the horoscopist (the name has 
been wrongly explained as meaning astronomer ; the correct 
meaning seems to be a priest officiating only occasionally ), the 
singer. This classification is neither exhaustive nor applicable 
to earlier times. 

5 The fact of the king officiating as priest at sacrifices confirms 
the view that there was no priestly caste. 

6 De Rouge incorrectly called it le rituel funeraire. 

7 The text was published after very late and bad copies by 
Lepsius and De Rouge (both reprinted by Davis, 94). Of fac 
similes in colours the Papyrus of Ani in the Brit. Mus. ( 93, 
etc.) is best known (also Deveria, Pap. Sutimes, a copy in 
Leemans, Monuments; Pap. Nebked, etc.). The great edition 
of Naville ( 86) has shown the immense textual corruption of 
all manuscripts, which leaves much work to future scholars. 
Best translation by Le Page Renouf, The Egyptian Book of the 



The Book of respiration (Tay n sonsen), the book May tny 
name flourish, and the Book of passing through eternity \ are 
shorter imitations. The large Book of that ivhich is in the nether 
world (atni-duat, Lanzone [ 79] 2) a very fanciful and mysterious 
book, more of pictures than of texts, which ornaments many sar 
cophagi still awaits a critical edition (abridg. version, Jequier). 

The scientific side of theology is represented by a 
fragment of a commentary (Berlin); other commentaries, 
consisting of symbolical expositions, form part of the 
ttuok of the Dead (ch. 17). Sacred geography was a 
favourite study (Pap. of Tanis and of Lake Moeris). 3 
Rituals such as that for burial (ed. Schiaparelli, 82), 
that for embalming (Maspero), and that for the cult of 
Amon and Mut (Berlin) are found, and many hymns in 
praise of gods or temples. They are of little originality. 4 
On contemplative and speculative religion not one line 
has been preserved, and certainly there was not much of it. 
The priests were too content with the old traditions. 

The didactic literature bears a practical character and 
is entirely secular. The Exhortations of Any (Pap. 

, TV-J A- Bulak 4, transl. by Chabas in / E evpto- 

21. Didactic , . ,, , , , , 

, logie ; also by Amelmeau in La Morale 

literature. gy p t ^ are a really beautiful collection 
of moral rules. Small demotic ethical papyri have been 
published by Pierret and Revillout. 5 

The Praise of Scholastic Studies (Pap. Sallier 2, 
Anast. 7) is full of sarcastic humour, but too prosy for 
modern taste ; the Papyrus Prisse (Chabas, Virey, 
partly Griffith ; see f Vorld s Best Lit. 5327) is of stilted 
obscurity. All these works belong to the classical 
period of the Middle Empire. 

Several later imitations of the Praise of Scholastic Studies 
were frequently used as copying exercises for schoolboys, in 
order to instil love of study. For the rest, the many school- 
books contain .exercises of rhetorical aim. The Story of the 
Eloquent Peasant (Griffith it,), and The Man tired of Life 
(Erman [ 96]) belong to this category. 

We see from inscriptions and other representations 
that the Egyptians had a tolerable knowledge of 

22. Science, astronomy-the high priest of Heliopolis 

was called the chief astronomer. We 
owe to them our modern (Julian) calendar ; but they 
themselves used in common life a year of twelve months 
(of thirty days each) and five epagomena, or additional 
days (without any intercalation). The astronomical 
year, called Sothic because marked by the rising of 
Sothis (Sirius), was known, but not in popular use. 7 

Ptolemy III. found a reform of the calendar to be an urgent 
need. His attempt to effect it, however, in 238 B.C., proved a 
failure. Much superstition in regard to these matters is dis 
cernible ; cp the Calentiar of lucky and unlucky days (transl. 
Chabas, 70). The hours were determined by observing the 
position of the celestial bodies with the instrument figured 
below. 8 No scientific astronomical work has come down 
to us ; but we have a mathematical handbook (London, ed. 
Eisenlohr) which shows that the Egyptians were not so far 
advanced in mathematics as, e.g., the Babylonians. 9 High 
admiration of Egyptian medicine was shown throughout the 
ancient world, and even mediaeval medicine is full of Egyptian 
elements. 111 The medical papyri (Berlin ed. Brugsch ; un- 

Dead, 06 (those by Birch, "67, and Pierret, 82, are antiquated ; 
Budge, 98, is less critical). 

1 These three books have been edited by Brugsch, Lieblein, 
and Von Bergmann respectively. 

2 Also in Bonomi, Sarcophagits of Oitneneptah ( 64), and 
(from the walls of the royal tombs) Mission franc. II. and III. 

3 Petrie and Mariette ; the second discussed by Brugsch and 

4 That on Amon, translated by Grebaut, is considered the 
best. It is, however, anything but an original composition. It 
is reprinted in RP 2 121. (This English work gives translations 
of almost the whole literature of Egypt ; but in the first series 
these are often of very questionable character. The second 
series shows improvement in this respect. Excellent translations 
by Griffith of a large part of the Egyptian literature have just 
appeared in The World s Best Literature [1897], p. 5225^ [the 
hymn in question, p. 5309]. 

8 In Rec. de Trar. 1, and Rn;. Egypt. 1. 

6 Transl. by Maspero in his Etudes sur If genre fpistolaire. 

7 The astronomical and the common year coincided every 
1460 years a so-called Sothic period (see CHRONOLOGY, 19). 

g | j^__- ] * Arithmetical fragments also in Griffith s 

T Kahun papyri. 

lo Shown first by Le Page Renouf, ZA 11 123 

[ 73]. How this came (through the Arabs?) is discussed by G. 
Ebers, ZA 33 i [ 95]. 



published MSS ot Berlin and London ; treatises on female 
diseases and veterinary art in Griffith s Kahun papyri ; above 
all, the great papyrus Ebers at Leipsic, written about 1600 B.C.) 
show, however, little practical knowledge, and a surprising 
ignorance of anatomy, as against an abundance of superstition 
and silly sorcery. 1 

There are a good many books of magic (with many 
religious and some medical elements) partly lawful 
TVT ma g c ( C P> *> Chabas, Le pap. Magique 
Harris, 57), partly forbidden witchcraft 
( Leyden ). The latter was threatened with capital punish 
ment (cp pap. Lee). Thus we see that the country of 
Jannes and Jambres (2 Tim. 3 8) was the true home of all 
kinds of magic (Is. 19s). It would be quite wrong, 
however, to ascribe the miracles performed by the 
pharaoh s magicians (Ex. 7, etc. ) to anything else than 
jugglery (see SERPENT, 30), for there was far less 
knowledge of natural science in Egypt than, e.g. , in 

Even historiography was not highly developed. 
There were chronicles of single reigns a panegyric 
_.. . specimen has been preserved in the great 

* papyrus Harris I. , referring to Ramses III. 
(about the largest papyrus in existence ; 
ed. Birch) ; on the lists of kings see below, 41 ; but 
no larger works of 
scientific character were 
in the hands of ManStho 
when he undertook to 
compose a history of 
Egypt for the Greeks 
(see below, 41 ). The 
poverty of his material 
forced him to use even 
popular novels as 
sources. Nor was 

grammar ever studied 
in a scientific way, or 
textual criticism ap 
plied to the sacred 
writings. All literary 
works were, accord 
ingly, more exposed to 
corruption than they 
were in any other 
country of antiquity. 

If we find all ancient 
nations filled with bound 
less admiration for Egyp- 
tian science, 2 we can ac 
count for this only by the 
mysterious difficulty of all 
Egyptian writing, into the 
secrets of which a foreigner 
could rarely penetrate. 

In fact, the Babylonians as well as the Greeks were far superior 
to the Egyptians in everything that required serious thinking. 

What Egypt produced, however, in the way of litera 
ture designed to amuse and entertain is worthy of our 
OK To loo ST.A highest admiration. The number of 

<iO. J.O.16S cillCl r -r i . -, .. ,, 

etrv fanciful tales, very similar to those of 
the Arabian Nights, and of historical 
novels (with much imagination and little true history) is 
considerable, 3 and some e.g. , that of The Doomed 
Prince (a papyrus in London) are of charming form. 
Moreover, in their popular poetry, especially in their 
love songs, the Egyptians come much nearer to our 
taste than do most oriental peoples. 4 Many hymns 

in praise of kings and their deeds have survived. The 
only attempt at an epic, however, is the song, inscribed 
upon so many temple walls, commemorating the battle 

1 They seem to show that Herodotus s assertion about special 
ists for every part of the body is exaggerated. 

2 Soine_ find evidence of this also in the apparent pride with 
which it is stated that Joseph had married a priest s daughter 
from On. See also i K. 4 30 [5 10] Acts 7 22. 

3 They need not be enumerated here, as they can be consulted 
easily in the collections of Maspero, Contes pop. de FEgypte 
anc. [ 82], and Petrie, Egyptian Tales [ 95]. 

4 Collected by Maspero, Journ. As. [ 83], and by WMM, 
Die Liebespoesie der alien Agypter [ 99]. 

FIG. 3. Asiatics bringing tribute ; a painting (fragment) in the 
British Museum. 

of Kadesh, won by Ramses II. ; for modern taste it 
lacks vigour and is too long. The other eulogies do 
not come up to it. 

A satirical poem on bad minstrels, 1 and a collection of stories 
on animals, embodying ^Esopic fables (which seems to show that 
these fables originated, possibly, in Egypt), are to be found 
only in demotic copies. All poetry followed the parallelism of 
members (like Hebrew poetry) and certain rude rhythms (count 
ing only words with full accent, and disregarding the number of 
syllables) ; it sometimes observed alliteration, but never rhyme. 
Much more may be expected from recent finds. 

Of the music connected with this poetry we cannot say much. 
All oriental instruments were known the simple monochord, 2 
the large harp, s the flute, the tambourine, etc. Clapping of 

26 Music nan cls and shaking of the sistrum (ereio-Tpoi , a 

metal rattle) 4 accompanied the simple tunes. 
The professional musicians were mostly blind men. See Music. 

The government was the most absolute monarchy 
known to antiquity. The despotic power of the king 

27 Go rn was S reatest; m dynasties 4 to 5 and 18 

, to 20 (also 26) the periods of complete 

centralisation. On the decentralising 
tendencies of the counts or nomarchs (hereditary under 
weaker dynasties), and on the changing royal residences 
etc., see below, 41^ The most influential officer of 
the kingdom, the administrator of the whole empire, or 
grand-vizier, was the 
erpati. The (a ti had 
the general adminis 
tration of justice. 

Among the titles of 
courtiers that of Fan- 
bearer at the left of the 
king" carried with it the 
greatest honour. After 
dynasty 18 the cup-bear 
ers (wate, uba) of the 
king, although often only 
foreign slaves, became as 
influential as the Mamluks 
of the Middle Ages, be 
cause they were charged 
with the most confidential 
commissions. The titles 
of the court and of the 
officials of the royal 
palace, harem, stable, 
kitchen, brewery, etc., are 
just as abundant as the 
offices for the administra 
tion of the country and 
its counties (f.g., royal 
scribes, inspectors of the 
granaries, clerks of the 
soldiers, scribe of the 
nomos, etc.). Most of 
these scribes were at the 
same time priests. The 
king generally gave aud 
iences from a balcony of 
the palace. 

Of the laws we do not know much. We have 

sufficient material in the shape of legal documents only 

_ , in demotic papyri from dynasty 26 down- 

wards. 5 These documents are based upon 

the code of laws given or collected by the great legislator 

Bocchoris (about 730 B.C. ; see below, 65). 

Former institutions are less known. 6 We find (only 
after 2000 B.C.) the remarkable institution of the jury, 7 
a committee of officers and priests i.e. , educated men 
appointed by the government for every day to sit in 
judgment. They were paid by the litigants. 

On criminal law 8 we possess acts relating to spoliations of 

1 Ed. Revillout and Brugsch. The satirical vein of the 
Egyptians is often discernible in art (see caricatures in the 
papyri of Turin, partly given in Lepsius, A usiuaht) and literature. 

5 Several works of E. Revillout on these Chrestomathic 
Detnotiqite ( So), Nouvelle direst. Demotique, etc. The de 
cipherment is in part much disputed ; cp 12. For some 
earlier material, see Griffith, Kahun Papyri. 

6 What Diod. writes about Egyptian laws is not all certain. 
On those of the Greek period, see Wessely, SIVA IV, Bd. 124, 
Abh. 9. 

7 Earlier inscriptions speak of thirty judges for the country. 

8 Spiegelberg, Stud. u. Mat. zuin Rechtsivesen ( 92). 



tombs, to conspiracy against the king, and to forbidden sorcery. 
Criminals were examined by means of torture and blows. The 
rod was used as much as the kurbaj is at present. Bastinado (up 
to 100 strokes) upon hands and feet, cutting off the nose and 
the ears, deportation to frontier places (khinocolura, e.g., see 
EGYPT, RIVER OF, g i had its name from the exiles with muti 
lated noses ), to the oases, or to the gold mines in the glowing 
Nubian desert, and impalement ( hanged, KV of Gen. 4022 is 
incorrect), were the punishments. In the case of persons of higher 
rank suicide was allowed to take the place of capital punishment. 

In civil law, we are struck with the fact that woman 
was on a perfect equality with man and occupied a higher 
position than she did in almost any other country of the 
ancient world. For example, a married woman could 
hold property of her own, and might lend from it to her 
husband upon good security, such as his house. 

In marriage, the greatest divergence from later Hebrew 

custom was in sister-marriage, which in Egypt was as 

__ . common as marrying the cousin is among 

29. marriage. the Semites The ma j or ity had their 

sisters as wives : there seem to have been no forbidden 
degrees of relationship. Polygamy was permitted, but 
occurred rarely. Marriage was usually concluded on 
the basis of a financial agreement, such high indemnities 
being fixed for the wife in case of divorce or polygamy 

judge by the many complaints, the great host of officers 
in the service of the king or the temples were even 
more corrupt than the bureaucracy of other oriental 
states. Speaking generally, neither bravery nor honesty 
seems to have been a national virtue. 1 

Even in the cult of the dead strange contradictions are 
visible. Paupers, of whom there were many, broke into most of 
the tombs of the wealthy soon after burial, and no military 
protection could prevent even the royal tombs from being 
ransacked. Even the educated, who expected to be examined 
by Osiris if they ever disturbed the rest of any dead person, 
would often appropriate for their own mummies the property, 
tomb, or equipment of a deceased person who was unprotected. 
Foundations of real estate for the support of the dead i.e., for 
furnishing the sacrifices never lasted long. 

The best part of the population, undoubtedly, was 
to be found, not in the haughty scribes and priests 
(ideas for the most part coinciding), but in the peasants. 
These were just as simple in their habits, just as laborious, 
just as poor, and just as patient under their continual 
oppression, as the modern felldhin. Most of them were 
serfs of the king, or of temples, or of landowners. 
Their worst oppression was the hard taskwork described in 
Ex. 1. Serfs were branded with the owner s name. The 
cities held a large proletariate the free working men. 2 

30. Character. 

FIG. 4. Ramses II. storming the Hittite fortress of Dapur 
See interpretation in Erman, 

that expelling her without the most serious reasons 
should have become impossible. A wife with such 
legal security was called mistress of the house, and 
well distinguished from the concubine (called sister ). 
Nobles maintained secluded harems intheAsiaticmanner; 
but the wife always enjoyed as much liberty inside 
and outside of the house as our women, as is shown by 
the story of Potiphar s wife. 1 Veiling the face was 
unknown. Adultery was followed by capital punish 
ment for both offenders (contrast Gen. 39 20, J). 

It will be seen, especially from our review of the 
literature, that the prevalent views with regard to the 
national character of the Egyptians are 
erroneous. They were quite religious 
(i.e. , superstitious) according to the views of such super 
stitious nations as the Greeks and the Romans. Far 
from being contemplative, however, they were rather 
superficial not only in religion, but also in science, 
literature, etc. and more inclined to the gay side of 
things. We nowhere find deep thinking, everywhere 
full enjoyment of life. Their art is full of humour ; 
even the walls of their eternal abodes or tombs are 
partly covered with drinking and playing scenes and 
with jokes for inscriptions. Their morality was rather 
lax. Drunkenness seems to have been not rare. To 

1 Accordingly, no evidence has been found, thus far, that 
eunuchs were kept. Lepsius, Dcnkm. 2 126, etc., represents 
fat old men, not eunuchs. This fact has not yet been considered 
in its relation to the designation of Potiphar as D lD in Gen. 39 1. 


{Da-pu-ni)\ from a wall picture on his temple at Thebes. 
, 533. After Lepsius. 

It was formerly assumed that there were castes. 
This is, however, a mistake. The sons of the many 
priests would naturally acquire more easily than 
_. others the learning which distinguished 

8> their fathers. The eldest son, too, of a 
soldier inherited, with the field of his father, which was a 
fief from the government, also the duty of serving as 
/j.dxitAost.c. , soldier, or policeman. The tombstones, 
however, frequently represent families of whom one 
member was a soldier, another a priest, another an 
artisan, and so on. If, in the time of Herodotus, 3 the 
shepherds were despised and did not intermarry with the 
rest of the people, the explanation lies in their unclean 
foreign descent ( A me, Asiatic, was synonymous with 
shepherd ; cp Gen. 4832). Swineherds had a still 
lower position. The same may hold good of the 
sailors, merchants, and interpreters of foreign origin ; at 
that time, too, the soldiers were mostly descendants of 
foreigners (Libyans). 

Formerly, when foreign elements in the country were 

few, the distinctions just referred to were less marked ; 

. only the soldiers always had a strong foreign 

^ element. The Egyptians were not warlike, 

1 Cp the characteristic explanation in Steph. Byz. alyvirna^etv 
ra navovp ya. Kal 6Ata KOI vTrovAa Trpdrrfiv. 

2 Interesting accounts of great strikes of the working men 
employed by the government have come down to our time. Cp 
Spiegelberg, Arbeiteru. Arbeiterbczvegung (^f)^). 

3 He gives seven classes ; Plato and Diodorus, five. 



and, even in the earliest times, they employed by prefer 
ence mercenaries. 

The first to be employed were negroes and brown Africans (the 
name of the Mazoy archers from the Red Sea became synonymous 
with police ); after 1500 B.C. Syrians and Europeans; after 
1200 B.C., in increasing numbers, Libyans (MasawaSa, etc.), who 
became the privileged mercenaries, and rebelled continually 
against the competition of Carians and Greeks after 650 B.C. 
(cp the mixed armies of Egypt, Jer. 4(5 9 Ezek. 27 10, etc.). The 
charioteers, 1 however, were mostly Egyptians. 2 Besides small 
fiefs of ground, the native soldiers seem to have received at 
least their maintenance during active service. The mercenaries 
had agricultural holdings also as part of their pay. Horses 
and equipment were lent by the government. The officers passed 
through a training school (zahabu, Semitic ?) as youths. 

The national weapons were bow, throwing - stick 3 
(only before 1600), war -axe, club, 4 scythe - formed 
sword, 5 short spear (rarely javelin), and straight sword. 6 
Apart from the shield, 7 not much armour (coats- 
of-mail of leather, or thick linen, sometimes with 
metal scales) was used, except in the case of the 
charioteers. In sieges, the testudo and the battering-ram 
of the ancients appear, but none of the complicated war- 
machines used by the Assyrians. The soldiers marched 
to the sound of long hand-drums and at trumpet-signals. 
They were divided into regiments, each with its own 
standard, usually a god or divine symbol upon 


Lack of personal courage made the sea-trade of the 
Egyptians also very insignificant. 

The import of olive oil (from Palestine), wine (from Phoenicia), 

beer (Asia Minor), wood, metal, wool, etc., and the export of 

grain (usually monopolised by the govern- 

33. Comm6rC6. ment), linen, papyrus, small works of art in 

glass, porcelain, metal, and ivory, were mostly 

in the hands of the Phoenicians. Naval expeditions on the Red 

Sea for incense were 
rare, owing (partly) to 
the great scarcity of wood 
in Egypt and on the 
desert coast of the Red 
Sea, where the ships had 
to be constructed. 

Not till Persian 
times did the import 
ant commercial posi 
tion of Egypt as 
forming the connect 
ing link between the 
Red and the Mediter 
ranean Seas, and be 
tween Europe, Asia, 
and Africa begin to 
be realised. 

The majority of the 
people always had 
agricultural occupa 
tions. Originally, the 
holdings of the priests 
(and soldiers) were 
exempt fromtheheavy 
taxation of one-fifth 
(Gen. 47 20 ff. ; see 

JOSEPH ii. , 9) ; later this immunity was interfered with 

because it withdrew too much from the income of the 

34 Aeri S overnment - In agriculture, the most primi- 

culture live implements were always used, such 

as wooden hoes, 8 and ploughs 9 drawn by 

oxen or by men. Such simple appliances presupposed 

the softening of the ground by the yearly inundation. 

The irrigation of the higher fields was likewise effected 

2 Riding on horseback was unknown 
as among most nations of ancient Western 

4 f\ This combines 
^- X club and axe. 

3, fig- i- 



with simple machinery. 1 Harvesting (in March with 
some growths two harvests are possible), treading out 
the grain by cattle (rarely threshing with the threshing- 
wain, nic). winnowing, etc., were carried out very much 
in the same way as in Palestine (cp also AGRICULTURE, 
2-10). On the granaries 2 see PITHOM. 

The industries were highly developed. The renowned 
Egyptian linen (the best kinds being called pa, fjfaffos 

, , , , . a Semitic word it would seem and 
35. Industries. . . T-> T \ 

e>&, Egyptian ses ; see LINEN) was manu 
factured especially by the poor bondsmen of the temples, 
shut up at certain times in an athu or workhouse for 
weaving. The temples drew a large portion of their 
income from this linen manufacture. Cp Is. 19g (and 
v. 10, where read .Tntf with , see SHOT, ad loc.), Pr. 
7i6 Ezek. 27?. In pottery only the more common 
ware was made. Glass seems to have been not a 
Phoenician but an Egyptian invention (cp PHOENICIA, 
GLASS, i ). The so-called Egyptian porcelain or glazed 
pottery (faience), mostly green or blue, in imitation of 
the two most precious stones (malachite and lapis lazuli), 
furnished the material for small figures, amulets (especi 
ally in the form of scarabs beetles that were supposed 
to bring good luck), and other ornaments, which found 
their way, through the Phoenicians, westwards even to 
Spain. The products of the goldsmiths, who also em 
ployed enamel very skilfully, are admirable ; the ivory- 
carvings were renowned. In general, the smaller articles 
(utensils, ornaments, etc. ) display the best taste ; all 
minute ornamentation was the delight of the Egyptians. 
The art 3 of Egypt exercised a most powerful influence 
upon all surrounding countries, especially upon Phoenicia, 
Art wnere an imitation of the Egyptian style 
became the national art. Solomon s temple 
was in Egyptian style. The Egyptian ornaments, derived 
from the plants and flowers of the country, especially the 
lotus and papyrus, 
penetrated the whole 
ancient world. The 
paintings 4 ( preserved 
mostly as wall deco 
ration) have a very 
childish appearance, 
from their lack of 
perspective and of 
shading; 5 but they 
possess the merit of 
great faithfulness 
e.g. , in all represent 
ations of animals, 
foreign nations, etc. 
(compare Fig. 3). 
The decorative sculp 
tures (rarely in 
relief, mostly incised 
or in a sunk relief, 
always painted) ex 
hibit the same odd 
principles of per 
spective, in accord 
ance with which, e.g., 
the face was always 
represented in profile, but the eye as though seen from the 
front, the shoulders from the front, the legs in profile, 
and so on. This was not awkwardness, but a principle 
traditionally handed down from the childhood of art ; 

1 Cp 7. Water-wheels cannot be proved to have been 
known. The explanation of Dt. 11 10 as referring to such wheels 
turned with the foot is questionable ; most probably watering 
with the foot means carrying water. 

2 HO 3 Consult Perrot and Chipiez, Hist, of Art 
[\| Ji_y| in Anc. Egypt (ET), 2 vols. 1883; Maspero, 

Egyptian A rchceology (ET), 93 ; Fl. Petrie, 
Egyptian Decorative Art, 95. 

4 The colours are in part made of ground glass (blue and 
green), and are all very durable. 

5 Petrie, Amarna, pis. i, 12, is no exception, but an imitation 
in painting of sunk relief. 


Fir,. 6. Statue of Ramses II. at 
Turin. After Riehm-Lepsius. 


and we can still observe how some sculptors struggled 
against this strait -jacket. In spite of this disad 
vantage, some artists of the earliest times (dyns. 4-6) 
drew scenes full of vivacity and of delicate execution, 
much superior to the similar Assyrio - Babylonian and 
archaic Greek sculptures (which all had, by the way, 
similar perspective). Later, art became more and 
more conventionalised. The superiority of the earliest 
period appears also in the statues. The realism of some 
of the earliest portraits was never again attained. As 
early as 1600 u.c. the portraits began to lose in vigour 
and to betray a suspicious similarity one to another. 
The New Empire, in marked contrast with the Middle 
Empire (dyn. 12), looked more to quantity than to 
quality. After dynasty 26, art sank to a very low 
level. (On the realism of the Reformation period, 1 
and the archaic renaissance in dynasty 26, see below, 
67. ) Of course, the statues (almost invariably painted) 
have only a few conventional positions. The technical 

FIG. 7. Ramses II. s Great Rock Temple at Abu-Simbel. 

perfection, however, was always great (see Fig. 6), and 
it was for a long time a mystery how diorite and basalt 
could have been cut and polished with copper, bronze, 
and flint instruments. It seems that for the hardest 
work diamond or corundum cutters were used (see 
DIAMOND, i ). (On the excellent material available for 
sculptors, see above, 3. ) It may be mentioned here that 
in daily life flint instruments were, for reasons of economy, 
used long after 2000 B. C. The stone and the bronze ages, 
therefore, coincided, and touched upon the iron age (iron 
prevailing after 1000 B. C. , copper preceding the bronze). 1 
The architecture is well known for its massiveness. 
This was relieved by the abundance of ornaments upon 
walls and pillars, and by the polychromy. 

That the ornamentation was originally derived from the forms 

of certain plants is seen especially in the ornamental columns - 

__ *__t.j with capitals. 3 They represent the lotus- 

61 Ar C*"- fl ow er both in full bloom and in bud, bundles 

tecture. of papyrus, and palm-trees (often strongly con- 


ventionalised), and betray that their origin is to be sought in ancient 
wooden constructions. 1 The sloping walls show that originally Nile 
mud was another material in general use for all kinds of buildings. 
The arch was known from the earliest times(dyn.6?), but was rarely 
used for stone structures. The elliptic arch was preferred in the 
caseof buildings ofbrick. The foundations of temples, threatened 
by infiltration of ground water, were laid on thick layers of sand. 

Some characteristic features of temple architecture 
may be mentioned. 

A pair of obelisks 2 stood at the entrance (the surface often 
gilt, the pyramidal top frequently of metal : their religious 
probably solar meaning was forgotten ; but they remind us of 
the iiiassirbas of the Semites ; cp Is. 19 19 Jer. 43 13 3 ) ; galleries 
of sphinxes* the symbol of wisdom and of similar sacred 
beings led to the gate which was crowned by the symbol of the 
winged disk;* broad pylons " resembling fortress-walls pro 
tected the entrance on either side. 

The largest existing temple, that of Karnak, was 
originally only a modest building of dynasty 12. Every 
great king added a new court or a hall, and the entrance 
pylons finally came to stand in the interior of the 
complex. Many temples had a. similar growth. The 
divinity, however, dwelt 
not in these courts or 
halls, but in a small dark 
chapel in the centre, 
where it usually sat in 
a sacred boat. Sacred 
lakes near the temples 
were frequent. 

The principal temple ruins 
are at Karnak, Luxor, 
urna, Medlnet Habu (all 
included in ancient The 
bes), Abydos, Edfu, Esneh, 
Ombos, Philae ; in Nubia 
at DabOd, Kalabsheh, Bet 
el - Wali, Dendur, Gerf 
Husen, Dakkeh, Sebua, 
Amada, Abu-Simbel, Soleb. 
Jebel-Barkal (Napata) and 
Meroe are imitations by 
Ethiopian kings. 

Secular architecture 
was much lighter, the 
only materials used be 
ing wood, and Nile mud 
mixed with stubble (Ex. 
5 n ) made into sun-dried 
bricks. The many royal 
palaces have on this ac 
count all disappeared, 
although some of their 
sumptuous ornamenta 
tions (mosaics and glazed 
tiles) have remained. 

1 Bronze was called hesmen, a word connected with 7CB n 
Brugsch), which may be an Egyptian loan-word (cp METALS). 

2 rt V t7 5 After the manner of the caryatides of 
A M A Greek art, figures of Osiris are frequently 
Li ii ii used ; but these always lean against a pillar. 

Wealthy subjects had the same kind of house (with an 
open court in the centre) that we still find in the modern 
East ; the poor dwelt in mere clay huts, such as those 
occupied by the modem felldhln. 

The tombs had an architecture of their own. Where possible, 
they were long galleries hewn in the rock (especially at Thebes). 
The pyramid was the characteristic form of royal tombs from 
dyn. 3 to dyn. 12, and was frequently imitated by private persons 
on a smaller scale, and in brick instead of stone. 

The question has very often been asked how the 
Egyptians erected edifices of such stupendous size, and 
monolithic monuments 8 that would tax the skill even of 
our age of improved mechanical appliances. It would 
be very wrong to ascribe these achievements to the use 
of complicated machinery. Everything was done in 
the simplest possible way, by an unlimited command of 

1 This can be said also of the famous fluted columns of Beni- 
hasan, which remind one strongly of the Doric column. 

3 So Wi. ; see BETH-SHEMESH, 4 ; and 
tehen. cp MASSEBAH. 


Female sphinxes (re- 
presenting queens) 
are rare. 

The head of Hathor (with cow s ears) 

(perhaps origin 

ally an ox-skull) as a capital for columns is the only other ancient 
instance of the human form being employed in architecture. 

; __ a 

7 A . 8 F r example, an obelisk at Thebes 108 feet 

I \ high, or the colossus of Memnon (height 64 feet, 

r S weight 1175 tons). Fragments of a statue found at 

Tams indicate a figure originally 80-90 feet high. 

Each of these objects was sculptured from one stone. 




human forces ; and we have to admire far more the 
energy than the engineering skill. Pictures show how 
immense monolithic monuments were moved over wooden 
rollers, smaller stones on a sledge (see Fig. 8). 

The influence of Egyptian civilisation upon Syriaappears 
strongly in its metrology. For example, the Egyptian 
38 Measures corn - me asureEphah (otyi, Egyptian 
dpe[t]i.e., measure ) and the liquid 
measure Hin (Egyptian Aain(u), pot ) were adopted by 
the Hebrews. The weight system (i deben i.e. , 90-96 
grammes or Ib. had 10 kidet of 140 grains) was 
decimal, in opposition to the Babylonian sexagesimal 
system. The cubits, however, the large or royal cubit 
of 0.525 metres (about 20^ inches), and the small cubit 
of 0.450 metres (about 17^ inches), which existed side 
by side (subdivisions being the span, palm, finger, etc. ) 
- are said to be borrowed from Babylonia (?). The 
subject is very complicated, and some measures such 
as the largest measure of area, the ffxqivos (said to 
contain 12,000 cubits?) present great difficulties. 

On the other hand, it is certain that in Egypt a form 
of money very similar to our present coin was used 
rings or thick wire in spiral form (deben) l originally of 

The shape of garments constantly varied, according to fashion ; 
but we can observe that in the earliest times men were satisfied 
with simple raiment, a short skirt being sufficient even for noble 
men. Later, these wore several suits, one over another, skilfully 
plaited. The fanciful and archaic dress of the king, with his 
manifold double and triple symbolical crowns, 1 would require a 
chapter for itself. Dignitaries were distinguished by their staffs, 2 
also by the flagellum, 3 the signet-ring, 4 and the necklace. 8 

For men and women alike the commonest adornment 
was the wearing of ornaments of precious metal, or at 
least flowers," round the neck. Such collars of gold 
were the principal decoration given by the king as a 
reward to faithful officers or brave soldiers. Princes 
and some priests had their hair tied in a tress 7 on one 
side of the head. Painting of the eyelids, which in 
Syria was reserved for women (2 K. 930), was practised 
by both sexes. A black stripe, formed by the so-called 
stibium (see PAINT), outlined the eyes above, a green 
stripe below. 8 Unguents for the hair and body played 
a great part. Sandals (especially of papyrus) were 
common ; shoes were rare. At night, the African head 
rest 9 was used (originally in order not to disarrange the 
artificial head-dress), and the face covered. 

The Egyptians were just as ceremonious as other 
Orientals. The common mode of salutation was by 
dropping the arms ; 10 
prostration ( kissing the 
ground ) marked highest 
respect ; in prayer the 
hands were lifted up. 11 

Of their amusements the 
following may be men 
tioned : fowling (with the 
snare, or with the boomerang _ 
or throwing-stick), fishing, 
and various games, such 
as that called mora by the 
modern Italians, and a kind 
of checkers, of which they 
were so fond that they sought 
to secure it by magic for the 
souls of the dead. Dancing 
was left chiefly to women, 
for the delight of spectators. 
Although religion de 
clared all foreigners un 
clean, the Egyptians were 

-T,, , , , ,. ., , not hostile to foreign 
The statue, resting on a sledge, is being dragged by four rows of men supposed to be in parallel . . . 
lines on the ground. Above them are the whole population of the city come out to do homage. The associations and inhu 
man standing on the knee of the statue gives the signal to the men below ; the man on its foot pours ences. In dynasties 18- 
water on the ground in front of the sledge. Above the latter is Her-heb with a vessel of incense (?). 2 o indeed imitation of 
Below the statue are men with water-buckets and wood, also three overseers ; behind the statue the . . 
retinue of the governor. Asiatic manners became 

FIG. 8. Dragging a statue of Dhut-hotep. After Lepsius. 

copper, later also of gold, finally of silver. This metal, 
white gold, 2 not being found in Africa, had originally 
highervalue than gold, but after 1600 B.C. it became more 
frequent, and soon was the common standard of money. 
The manners and customs of Ancient Egypt, 3 which 
the Greeks found to be in as direct opposition as possible 

__ -. to their own, were less different from 

39. Dress, etc. ., r ., .., , ~, 

those of the settled Semites. The 

Egyptians prided themselves on their great cleanliness 
(cp Gen. 41i4). They shaved their faces and clipped 
their hair (the priests shaved it off), wearing artificial 
beards 4 (at least at religious ceremonies) and wigs. 
Indeed, the chief decoration of the upper classes 
consisted of wigs of enormous size. Garments were 
made not, as with the Semites, of wool, but mostly of 
cleanly white linen. 

1 ) 2 This is what the hieroglyphic expression 

_ means. It would seem that electron, gold with 

- an admixture of silver, called ivesein (the initial is 

doubtful, the connection with do->;/xos improbable) 

also had higher value than gold. 

3 On this and most of the preceding subjects see Erman, 
Egyptian Life (ET 1894). The admirable pioneer work of 
Wilkinson, Manners and Custotiis ( 36), is, in its text at least, 
completely antiquated ; as also is the second edition, by Kirch 
( 78). Very concise, and (in part) very readable, is Brugsch, 
Die sEgyptologie ( 81) ; but he is too much averse from Erman s 
critical division of periods. It would be out of place 
here to attempt to trace the various developments of 
Egyptian manners during 3000 years ; the biblical period 
(1600 to 500 B.C.) is what chiefly concerns us. 



such a fashion that the 
educated had to a large extent Semitic names and spoke 
a mixture of Egyptian and Canaanitish. A strong re 
action, however, seems to have set in especially after 
800 B.C. 

The names used by the Ancient Egyptians 12 were less 
poetic than those of the civilised Semites. Simple 
names, such as little (sery) sometimes 
even . dwar f ( WOTi ^] r ^)_.f a j r f ace> .big 
headed (sisoy), cross-eyed (komen), prevail, especially 
in the earlier period. I wished; I saw, he cried, etc. 
refer to circumstances of birth, etc. Maternal uncle (sen- 
mau[et], mother s brother ) is not uncommon (see KIN 
SHIP). Some names are intended for good omens or to 
express parental pride : hou nofer, the good day ; 
nefer- (or was-}hau, good (or prosperous) circum- 

40. names. 


c\ (originally the 
common sign of 

c, boyhood)- 6 

The Asiatic custom of painting the nails red with 
hennah was also known. 

12 The material is collected in Lieblein, Diet, efe noins ( 71 
and 92). The fullest discussion, comparatively speaking, will be 
found in Erman, Egypt. 



stances ; usertesen, their wealth (i.e., of the parents) ; 
mother s ornament (bcs-n-mauet), the land in joy 
(ta-m-refout), gold in Heliopolis, gold on the way, 
coming in peace (or luck, y-m-hotep). Names 

of animals of all sorts are used: not only lion, 
monkey, dog, frog (krur), tadpole (hefe/iu), etc., 
but also names of unclean animals : mouse (pin) and 
pig (riret) are favourite girls names. Comical 

names, such as we should have expected a superstitious 
nation to dread as ill-omened, are met with. Thus, e.g. 
(Liebl. 1784), an unfortunate infant retained for life the 
designation offal-swallower ( m-bwd ). The Egyptians 
evidently attached less importance to the name than 
was usual with other nations. The many senseless 
syllables mere babblings, such as Ay, Ata, Teye 
which can be explained only as pet names (like the 
English Bob, Tom, and Dick) confirm this. 

Names with a religious signification were, of course, 
quite frequent. They praise a god (Ptah is beautiful, 
powerful, etc.) e.g. , Set-naht(e) S. (is?) strong. 
A men-em-he t, Amon in the first place, extols a 
local god over the others. Beloved by or loving 
a god (mer [vulgar, mey-, mi-~\ Amun, 1 me(r)-en(e)- 
Ptah), Amon is satisfied (Amen-hotep), etc., are 
common ; even dog of Horus occurs. Sobk-em-saitf, 
the god S. (stands) behind him, and the like, boast 
of divine protection. The sons and daughters of 
all possible gods are very common ; but of brothers 
of a god only two or three doubtful examples are known. 
Amenv, Setoy, of Amon, of Set, 1 ns(i)-Bi-n-dede, 
belonging to Mendes, and the thankful p-ed-Amun, 
whom Amon gave, belong to the same category. Amon 
in (his) ship, in (his) festival (cp Har-em-Jiebe, of Horus), 
and in (his) rising, may be intended as comparisons. 
In Isis in the marshes and Horus in the lake we 
have examples of mythological allusions Ra-mes-su 
( Pa/xecrcr^s), the sun begot him, Dhut(i)-mose, the 
god Thout born (i.e. , incarnate), say a good deal. 
Very remarkable is the late usage of employing the 
name of the divinity itself e.g. , /sis, Hor (not Osiris, 
which would be too ill-omened), Har-pe-hrad (H. the 
child), Har-si-esc (H. the son of Isis), Hons(u) deities of 
the Osirian circle and the goddess of love Hat-/wr, 
(paraphrased in mistress of Byblos ; cp 14) being, in 
particular, very common. 2 

The more complicated names were introduced, for 
the most part, by the kings (e.g. , Nefer-ke-re , fine 
is the double of the Sun, etc.), who, from dynasty 
5 onwards, always had two names ; these and the 
various regular titles and surnames were imitated or 
exaggerated by loyal subjects. Loyalty is frequently 
expressed by names such as King X. is satisfied, well, 
powerful, which were regarded as specially suitable for 
holders of office. Sometimes these names are as long 
as Babylonian names. Of foreign names, Semitic 
formations were quite popular from dynasty 18 onwards 
(see 39), Libyan names even before dynasty 22 ; later 
we meet with Ethiopic and other names. 

In treating the history 3 of Egypt, we find the 
greatest difficulty 4 in the chronology. The Egyptians 

1 Standing alone, or at the end of a compound name, the 
god s name was probably pronounced Amon, later Amun (Copt. 
AMOyN); elsewhere (cp Heb. construct state), Amen. 

2 In the earliest examples, however, the possessive - ending 
y may be supplied. This could be suppressed in writing, as 

as the case in the earliest Hebrew orthography. 

3 Maspero s huge History of the Ancient Orient (three 

material and the best available work in English. An English 
Meyer, however, i.e., a readable history by the side of the 
English Wiedemann (Petrie), is still a desideratum. 

4 Another great difficulty is the transcription of names. The 
reader must hear in mind that Egyptian was written (like primi 
tive Hebrew, only still more defectively ) without vowels. It 
is full of abbreviations ; letters (especially liquid consonants) are 
often suppressed ; and some confusion of and , r and 1, etc., is 



had no eras, but reckoned by the years of their kings. 

41 Sources For P ractical use lon g lists of kin 8 s 

of Hi torv ^ ac * to ^ kept- ^ e on y l st preserved 

* (at Turin) is very fragmentary, and the 

extracts from Manetho (Mave^uiv; Maveflujs in Euseb. ), 

a priest of Sebennytos, 1 about 270 B.C. , the only Egyptian 

historian in the Greek language, have come down in a 

greatly corrupted state. 2 Besides, even in their original 

state, both sources (especially Manfitho) seem to have 

been far from the attainment of absolute correctness. 

For convenience sake, we retain Manfitho s reckoning of 

thirty-one dynasties (down to the Ptolemies), although his 

dynasties are not always correctly divided, and his 

FIG. 9. Part of Sety I. s tablet of kings at Abydos. The king, 
preceded by his son Ramses II. wearing the princely lock 
of hair over his ear, advances, censer in hand, to present 
offerings to Ptah-sokar-Osiris on behalf of 76 famous 

First line : Mny, Tty, etc. 

Second line : Merenre -Meht-m-saf, Neterkare , etc. 

Third line : Sety I. repeated. 

chronological data cannot be safely used without a 
searching criticism. The attempts to use astrological 
dates e.g. , the fixed or Sothis year (see CHRONOLOGY, 
19) have been, so far, not very successful. 3 

Champollion placed the beginning of dynasty i in 5867 n.c., 
Roeckh in 5702, Mariette in 5004 ; Petrie has placed it in 4777 ; 
Lepsius brought it down to 3892 ; and some have tried to bring 
it down much lower than 3000 B.C. 

An accurate chronology for Egypt is possible, 
accordingly, only after 700 B.C. (CHRONOLOGY, 20). 
Approximate dates can be given thanks to the 
synchronism afforded by the Amarna tablets back 
to about 1600 (ib., 22). Thus far, there is no hope 
that the gaps in the Hyksos period and the preceding 

allowed. The Coptic forms are our greatest help towards re 
covering the pronunciation ; but they frequently differ from the 
ancient language as much as might be expected after a develop 
ment of 3000 years. Hence the greatest confusion reigns in 
Egyptological literature, some names being current in as many 
as a dozen forms. Every change of philological theory brings 
about a change of transliteration, and those who see the 
trouble which this causes are returning, as much as possible, to 
the Greek transliterations, where there are such, of Herodotus, 
Manetho, etc. Where, as often, there are none, this way of 
escaping the difficulties of wild guessing at the pronunciation 
fails. [How a different theory, which has the same object, works 
out, may be seen from Petrie s History already referred to.] The 
present writer has tried to be as conservative of customary forms 
as possible. 

1 Hardly high priest of Heliopolis, as later sources state. 
His dynasties are arbitrary groups of kings disagreeing with 
those, e.g., of the Turin papyrus. 

2 Extracted by Julius Africanus, Eus., and Sync, (also partly 
in Jos.). Handy editions in C. Miiller (Historici Gra-ci 
Minores, ii.) and Bunsen, Egypt s Place in Universal History, 
i. The Turin fragments are best edited by Wilkinson [ 51]. 
Selections of kings names in the tablets of Abydus (2)(Seti I. ; 
see above, fig. 9), Sakkarah (private, temp. Ramses II.) and 
Karnak (Thutmosis III.). Cp De Rouge, Recherches sur Ics 6 
premiers dynasties [ 66]. Also Brugsch and Bouriant, Le livrt 
des Rot s [ 87] (Lepsius, Kffnigsbuch [ 58], antiquated). 

3 Lepsius, Chronologic der Agyptcr ( 49), etc., all antiquated. 
Recent attempts by Mahler, ZA, 897^, are followed by some, 
e.g., by Petrie, but disputed by others ; cp 50, 56. 


42. Periods. 

3 They were 

called ?S*Q \\ _ 
(pronounce approximately ebyati). 
Griffith in Kenihasan 3, 9 (Arch. Survey, v.). 



dynasties (13 and 14) will ever be filled up so as to 
allow similar certainty for the earliest times, although, 
e.g. , dynasty 12 is fairly well known now [but see 
col. 1237, n. 3]. Modern writers have therefore, for the 
most part, given up trying to form complete chrono 
logical systems. The material at command is in 
sufficient. At present the efforts of scholars are directed 
to finding minimum approximate dates. 

Apart from the division into thirty-one dynasties 
(down to Alexander, according to Mangtho), Egyptian 
history is commonly divided into three 
great periods : i. the Ancient Empire 
(Memphitic), dynasties 1-6 ; dynasties 7-10 may already 
be reckoned to ii. the Middle Empire : dynasties 11-13 
(Theban period) ; the New Empire, from dynasty 17-18 
to the end (Theban, Bubastide, Sai tic, etc. periods). 

The earliest history (before King Menes ; see below) is 
filled by Egyptian tradition thus : first with the successive 
reigns on earth of the various gods (on the chronology 
the Egyptians, of course, disagreed very greatly), and 
then for 13,400 years with those of the Semsu-Hor, 
followers of (the Sun-god) Horus an expression 
absolutely equivalent to ancestors (Mangtho renders 
it awkwardly by v^-i/ey or ?}/>wej). Egyptologists are 
agreed that most probably this long period of kings too 
obscure to be enumerated, was the time during which 
Egypt was still divided, and that the first historic king 
was the ruler who united the two kingdoms ; but see 
below on MENES, 44. 

The Egyptian traditions are unanimous that originally 
there were two kingdoms. The first was that of the 

43. Prehistoric. Southem Land *"*( ) ? with 
the twin cities Nehbet (Eileithyia, now 
El-Kab) and Nehen (Hieraconpolis, opposite Eileithyia) 
for capital, and a king styled s(nf)tni, who wore the 
white crown. 1 It had as emblem a kind of rush. 2 The 
second kingdom, whose rulers 3 wore the red crown, 4 
and resided in Buto (anciently Pe), was to-emJivt(i), the 
Northern Land, which had as its emblem the lotus(?) 5 
plant. B Even the Roman emperors were still styled 
king of the Upper and the Lower country, 7 and were 
represented as such with the two crowns combined. 8 It 
is unlikely, however, that any monument yet discovered 
goes back to the period of the separate kingdoms. 

Still older is the division of Egypt into forty -two 
vofjioi or counties (thirty-six to forty-seven in Roman I 
times after many changes), twenty-one of Upper and j 
twenty-one of Lower Egypt. Each nomos had its own 
god (and totem?) and its own capital, and kept its dis 
tinct frontiers, its coat of arms, etc. down to very recent 
times. We may see in these counties, accordingly, 
traces of prehistoric kingdoms or tribes. 

The beginnings of Egyptian civilisation reach back 
to this remote period. On the other hand, some 
barbarous survivals from it may be found in the later 
religion (see above, 13), as also, among other things, 
in the decoration of the king, who always wore a leather 
appendage fastened to his short skirt 9 (the whole re 
minding one of a lion s skin with tail). The recent 

attempts, especially those of Hommel, to prove the proto- 
Babylonian ( Sumerian ) origin of the whole primeval 
culture of Egypt, imply, at least, great exaggerations. 
Some Semitic (not Sumerian) elements of culture seem 
to be noticeable in prehistoric times, and one or another 
trace of indirect Babylonian influence (through the 
Semites) might be admitted ; but all these influences 
are very insignificant in comparison with the elements 
of native origin. Thus the general conception of 


pictographic writing might perhaps be borrowed from 
the Euphrates valley ; but not a single sign taken 
from the Babylonian system can be found. Egyptian 
writing bears a thoroughly African stamp, no less than 
Egyptian art, manners, etc. 

Recent investigations have revealed many traces of 
the earliest population that of about the time of the first 

44 First historical dynasty- 1 The Egyptians 
_. , . were more pastoral then than later ; their 
ynas les. f 00( j > tne j r b ur j a i customs, and so forth 
were still barbarous. 2 Already, however, they possessed 
the art of writing (greatly differing in detail, indeed, from 
the later system), and, at least at the courts of the kings, 
most arts were practised (though not as highly developed 
as in dyn. 3). It is still an open question whether the 
tomb (not the burning-place) of the first historical king 
Meny (Menes of the Greeks) has recently been discovered 
at Nakadeh, 3 near the old city of ftubt (or Nebut, the 
same name as Ombos), the abode of the god Set (cp 
15 ; fig. 9 shows a tablet found at the same place 
bearing in archaic writing the word mn). 4 Tombs of 

FIG. io. So-called Tablet of Menes. 

An ivory plate found by De Morgan at Nakadeh : a, from a 
photograph ; fr, outlined from a photograph (/ after L. 
Borchardt, Sitzungsberichte der Berliniscken Akademie 
tier Wissenschaften, 8810547: [ 97]). It figures and de 
scribes the funereal outfit of the deceased king. 

eight kings (of about dyn. i ) have been excavated near 
Abydos (at Umm el-Ga ab) and the names of several 
other kings found there. 5 We see now why Mangtho 
said that dynasty i proceeded from This (Egyptian 
Tini, modern Girgeh?), near Abydos. That would 
explain the superiority of Upper Egypt over the northern 
country, perhaps also the spread of the Osiris-worship 
of Abydos over all Egypt. As regards the unification 
of Egypt see 42, although it may be that the later 

1 See (with reserve) De Morgan, Recherches sur les origines 
tie F I -gypte ( 96 and 97). He correctly refers Petrie s excavations 
in Nagada and Ballus ( 96) here. 

2 For example, even the hyaena was fattened and eaten. The 
cannibalism that some have alleged, however, seems to be only 
the second burial (i.e., reburial after cleaning the bones of flesh), 
a practice that is still to be found, e.g., in New Guinea, and is 
to be connected with the first attempts at embalming. Cutting 
the dead in pieces in imitation of the fate of Osiris (cp 14) 
was also customary during the first dynasties. That several 
early kings were burned with their whole tomb, although the 
later Egyptians dreaded nothing more than incineration, is a 
theory that has not been confirmed. Most of the cities of Egypt 
go back to this primeval period; within it, Heliopolis (On) was, 
evidently, the most important city ; at least, its religious author 
ity reached far. 

:) De Morgan, Recherches, ii. ( 97), and SB A W, 97, p. 1054. 

4 The word inn seems (so Wiedemann) to designate the tomb, 
not the king. 

5 Amelineau, Fouilles cT Abydos ( 96^); more exhaustively, 
99. Quibell s finds at Hieraconpolis, 1900, Petrie, Royal Toinl<s. 
An accurate arrangement and chronological determination of 
the earliest names of kings is not yet possible ; neither can their 
names be transliterated with certainty. 



Egyptian scholars, in beginning history with Menes, I 
acted arbitrarily or on unknown grounds, omitting those 
of Menes predecessors whom they were unable to 
classify. It is not impossible that some of the ancient 
kings of This precede him. On the tradition that 
Menes built Memphis, and on the great sphinx near that 
city, cp MEMPHIS. 

Of dynasty 2 (six to nine kings) we knew before 
only that the temple and worship of the kings Sendy 
(Sethenes in Manetho) and Per-eb-sen are mentioned 
perhaps a century later. 

From dynasty 3 (nine kings) we have on monuments (hardly 
contemporary) the cult of Neb-ka or Ncbkau-re . King /.oser 
built the remarkable stepped {i.e., unfinished) pyramid at 
Sakkfirah. (The pyramid as a form of royal tomb does not seem 
to have been known in dynasties i and 2.) His name has been 
found engraved upon the mountains of the Sinaitic peninsula. 
We may conclude that the copper-mines of the Sinaitic desert, 
from which the Egyptians drew almost all the copper so neces 
sary for tools in the copper age, were already in the hands even 
of more ancient pharaohs. Later, various stories were carried 
back to the kings of the first three dynasties ; sacred books were 
reported to have been written by them, or found by, or under, 
them ; but all these traditions seem to be apocryphal. 

The lists of kings drawn up in the fourteenth century 
B.C., upon which we have to rely for many names, are 
mere selections (not trustworthy even for the succession 
of the names). The whole period of dynasties i to 3, 
therefore, probably included at least 600 years (779, 
Manetho), possibly double that time. Thus Menes 
might be placed near 4000 B.C. 

Dynasty 4 lies in the full light of history (soon after 

3000 B.C.?). King Snefru(i), who founded it, seems 

,. _. to have been a great ruler. Later 

45. ten BJH. stories report that he had to fight 

with Asiatic tribes attacking Egypt near Memphis, 
where already earlier pharaohs had to build a large 
fortification, the king s wall, against raids through 
Goshen. Some places founded there by Snefru(i) 
confirm the essentially historical character of these 
reports. At Wady Magharah in the Sinaitic peninsula, 
he opened a new mine for copper and greenstone 
(malachite, which the Egyptians held in strange esteem). 
His tomb is the irregular pyramid of Meidum. 

The next kings, the Cheops, Chephren, and Mycerinus 
of Herodotus (Hufu(i), Ha f-rc , and Men-ka(u)-re of 
the monuments), are the builders of the three largest 
pyramids at Gizeh, stupendous works which were never 
surpassed (see MRMPHIS). Evidently the strength of 
Egypt was overtaxed by these gigantic constructions, 
for the pyramids of all subsequent kings (Rd-ded-f, 
epses-ka-f, 1 etc.) show a considerable falling-off. 

Dynasty 5 is called Elephautinic by Mangtho. This 
would indicate that the warlike Nubians, already em 
ployed as mercenaries in that early 

46. 5th Dyn. 

time, acquired sufficient influence to 

establish their leaders as kings. 2 This dynasty (nine to 
eleven kings, reigning about 150 years) marks the zenith 
of Egyptian art (see above, 36). The last king, Unas 
( \Venvs ; Onnos, ManStho), built the earliest of the five 
pyramids at Sakkarah which have preserved in the in-^ 
scriptions on the walls of their burial chambers so valu 
able a collection of religious and magical texts (see 
above, 20), texts dating in part from prehistoric times, 
and already in dynasty 5 not all perfectly intelligible. 3 

Unas has left, in the so-called Mastabat-el-Far aun (Pharaoh s 
bench), near Sakkfirah, the basis of one of those strange colossal 

1 The romantic queen NitOcris of Herodotus is legendary. 
She is a disfigured princess of dynasty 26. 

~ The hypothesis that Egypt was ever conquered by Nubians 
or Trog(l)odytes as a nation cannot be upheld. The soldiery of 
Egypt, however, was derived mostly from the southernmost 
counties, where the people, from the mountain range of Silsileh, 
were of some what mixed character (exactly as now), and therefore 
more warlike. 

3 Maspero, Les Inscriptions ties pyramided de Saqqaralt, 
1894 (reprinted from Recueil, 3 to 14), gives these texts along 
with meritorious attempts at full translations. The grammar 
of the pyramid-texts remains to be written. Their archaic style 
has preserved many inflections lost in later Egyptian. 



monuments of half -pyramidal character 1 which were erected 
by many of the kings of that time. Their purpose is obscure; 
we only know that they were, like the obelisks, for the cult of 
the Sun-god. 

Dynasty 6 (five kings, about 140 years, beginning 
with Tety or Atoty) had powerful rulers, especially Pepy 

47 6th Dvn (read Apopy? > ! " a great builtler 
* the founder of Memphis proper. He 

waged war, not only with the sand-dwelling nomads 
of the Sinaitic desert, but also in Palestine, which he 
seems to have been the first (?) to claim as tributary terri 
tory. a The kingdom, however, was more and more 
decentralised, and at the end of dynasty 6 went to pieces. 
It must be mentioned that under Pepy (Apopy) II. Nefer- 
ka-re (reigning, according to the best traditions, ninety- 
four years, perhaps the longest reign in the world s 
history) we find records of a great commercial expedition, 
a nomarch of Elephantine being sent by the king to the 
Sudan near Khartum to obtain one of the dwarfs from 
the woods of Central Africa for the sacred dances. * 

Most kings of dynasties 3-6 (Manetho calls dynasty 
2 as well as dynasty i Thinitic, dynasties 3, 4, and 6 
Memphitic) had their residences near Memphis, though 
not at the same place ; many kings built their city 
afresh, a work rendered easy by the light material 

The practice was for each king to build his pyramid west of 
his own city, in the desert ; it is this alone, in fact, that enables 
us to guess the site of the city. Gradually Memphis proper 
became the permanent capital. 

Dynasties 7 to 1 1 form an obscure period (only about 
twenty-five kings known, many more lost), full of the 

_ struggles of the Nomarchs, the princes 

48. .Uyns. 7-11. of the small counties 

Dynasties 7 and 8 are called Memphitic, 9 and 10 came from 
Heracleopolis in Middle Egypt (see HANKS). These Heracleo- 
politans had unceasing wars with rival kings in Thebes, whom 
they seem never to have completely subdued. Manetho mentions 
only one great king among the Heracleopolitan kings, Achlhoes 
(Egyptian, Hty ; pronounce Ehtoy), whom he describes as cruel 
i.e., a powerful warrior. 

Finally, the Theban rulers from whom the eleventh 
dynasty descended gained the superiority. 

Almost all these kings, whose number is doubtful (Petrie nine, 
others five or six) had the name Antef or that of Mentuhotep. 
Of the last king^ of this dynasty, S anh-ka-re . we know that he 
sent an expedition through the desert east of Koptos to build a 
ship on the Red Sea and to sail to Punt for incense. Such ex 
peditions to Punt (the Abyssinian and Somali coast of our days) 
occur under several kings of the next (twelfth) dynasty : the 
earliest mentioned is one under Assa (Yssy) of dynasty 5. 

The new line, of seven kings, was founded by A men- 
em-he t I. , who subdued the rebel nomarchs after hard 

./.i-uT-v fighting. One of the classic books, the 
49 12til L)VH. f . * * * / - 

J instructions of Amenemhet (i.e., in 
structions how to rule), 4 professes to have been written 
by him when, tired of reigning, he abdicated after 
escaping a conspiracy against his life. His son Usertesen 
(Wesertesen) /. erected the temple of which the obelisk 
of Heliopolis is the only trace. He was buried in 
the pyramid of Lisht. Usertesen II. , who succeeded 
Amenemhe t II., built the pyramid of Illahun. His 
workers inhabited the city on the spot now called Kahun, 
where Petrie found valuable antiquities. 8 

Usertesen II. seems to have begun to favour the part of 
Egypt now called Fa(i)yum i.e. , the lake, in antiquity 
r rwn to-sei, the lake-country the Arsinoite 
l> nome of the Ptolemies . This is a de 
pression in the Libyan desert into which the branch of 
the Nile now called Bahr-Yusuf flows, forming a lake, 
now called Birket-Karun, and irrigating one of the most 
fruitful parts of Egypt (properly an oasis ; see above, 

1 t\ A similar monument from dynasty 5 has been found 
I ^ near Riga. 

2 See the so-called inscription of Una, RPC& i i-io. For the 
reference to Palestine, see WMM, As. n. Kur. 33. Petrie found 
in Deshfisheh pictures from a similar war, which seem to belong 
to the same time (OLZ 1 248). 

3 Tomb at Aswan ; inscription first published by Schiaparelli. 

4 Best translation, Griffith, ZA, 97, p. 35 ; World s Best Lit. 

8 The collection of the Petrie or Kahun papyri (ed. Griffith, 
97), to which we have so often to refer. 



4). The Nile had been flowing into this depression 
even in prehistoric times ; 1 but some improvements must 
have been made in irrigation by the kings of dynasty 12, 
especially by Amenemhet III. , who succeeded Usertesen 
III. At least he is the king Moeris to whom Herodotus 
erroneously ascribed even the digging (!) of Lake 
Moeris (thirty-five miles long even now, much more in 
antiquity); his two pyramids (i.e., large bases), with 
colossal statues of king Moeris, 1 were discovered by 
Petrie near Biahmu. 2 The pyramid of Amenemhe t III. 
stands at Hawara, where only insignificant remains 
betray the site of the labyrinth built by the same king. 
The classical writers describe it as a gigantic structure 
equal to the pyramids of Gizeh. Amenemhe t JV. and 
a queen Sebk-nofru (or -rtef/vzv) close this dynasty (194 
years, beginning about 2100 B.C.?), 3 which the Egyp 
tians, not without justice, considered as the greatest of all. 
The land was flourishing, art well developed, and 
literature in its golden age, at least according to 
Egyptian taste. Most of the works used as classics in 
the schools were written while this dynasty reigned (see 
above, 21). Many temples and public construc 
tions were erected. Conquests were made in Nubia (not 
in Syria ; 4 only the old copper mines near Sinai were 
used). All kings were active in subduing Wawat (N. of 
Nubia) and Kosh (Cush of the Bible, in the S. ) for the 
sake of the gold mines of that country ; Usertesen III. 
finally fixed his frontier south of the second cataract 
and fortified it by two large fortresses (now called 
Semneh and Kummeh) on the two banks of the Nile. 

For the student of the OT the most interesting monument of 
this period is the famous wall-painting of Beni Hasan (part of 
it given in colours in Riehm, HlVBV i) which was formerly ex- 

Slained as representing the immigration of Abraham or Jacob (cp 
OSEPH ii. , 8). The inscriptions that accompany the painting 
inform us, however, that a caravan of 37 Asiatics from the 
desert-country came, not as immigrants, but as traders 9 with 
metallic eye-paint (inesdcniet ; cp 39), evidently from the 
copper mines near Sinai. The chief, Ab-sa(y) (i.e., ABISHAI?), 
presents two ibexes to his customer, the nomarch. In Middle 
Egypt such direct commercial relations seem to have been less 
frequent than in the north. The illustration of the costumes 
of the age of Hebrew immigration is most valuable (observe the 
weapons, the war-axe, the boomerang an elaborate one, as the 
sign of the chief the travelling shoes, the lyre, etc.). 

Dynasties 13 and 14 again show the consequences of 
decentralisation anarchy, wars of nomarchs competing 
51 13th a d ^ or l ^ e crovvn> some kings ruling only a 

14th Dyns. 

few months, altogether at least 140 princes, 

many evidently contemporaneous. The 
names of many kings, which imitate the names of dynasty 
12, or at least point to the Faiyum and its god Sobk 
(such names as Sebk-sauf, Sebk-hotep], show that they 
claimed descent from dynasty 12. Dynasty 14 is said 
to have come from Xois, in the W. Delta, and perhaps 
shows us Libyan elements penetrating into Egypt. 

At the height of this confusion (about 1800 B.C.?) 
came the foreign invasion of the so-called Hyksos (or 

Hykussos?), who overran Egypt easily. 

62. Hyksos. 

Much has been conjectured as to the 

origin of these mysterious strangers ; but nothing certain 

1 Maspero, Dawn of Civ. 447. 

2 Petrie (Illahfin) thinks, with Major Brown, that the special 
merit of these kings consisted, not in digging basins, but in 
dyking off ground from the lake. The inscriptions furnish no 
evidence one way or the other. At present, the surface of the 
lake is considerably below the level of the sea. Some urge 
that this is due to the hollowing out of the bed, and that, in 
antiquity, it may have been high enough to allow use of the 
lake as a reservoir for the irrigation of the country with the 
help of sluices, as described by classical writers (Strabo, etc.). 
This view, however, is now more and more abandoned. 

3 Recently discovered papyri seem to furnish (by a dated 
rising of Sirius) an exact astronomical date for Usertesen III. 
According to this the beginning of his reign fell between 1876 
and 1873 B.C. This would assign to the i2th dynasty the period 
1996-93 to 1786-83. 

* It is very questionable whether the story of the Egyptian 
nobleman Se-nuhyt (spelt also Sanehat, etc.) who, under User 
tesen I., fled to Palestine, and as adventurer became a prince 
there, contains any considerable historical element. It is trans 
lated in KPV) 2 ii. 

S See WMM, As. u. Eur. 36. 



can be stated. It seems that they were not Semites (the 
etymology Hyk[u]-sos, shepherd -kings, is probably 
not from Mangtho himself), but Mitannians, Hittites, or 
similar intruders from Eastern Asia Minor, who con 
quered Syria and then Egypt. 1 The Hyksos kings 
Heydn, etc. (seven mutilated names in Manetho) ruled 
over all Egypt and northwards as far as N. Meso 
potamia. Later, they permitted Upper Egypt to have 
its own viceroys of Egyptian blood. These viceroys 
of Thebes (dynasty 17, three to five kings) finally threw 
off the yoke of the Hyksos Apopy II. The kings Skenen- 
re (III.?) and Ka-mes (or -mose) died (the former, it 
would seem, in battle) during the long war ; finally 
Amosis I. ( Ah- or Y ah-mose) took the last stronghold 
of the foreigners, their large fortress Avapis ( Ha[t~\wa ret], 
on the eastern frontier S. of Pelusium, somewhat after 
1600 B.C. (Mahler- Petrie, 1583). 

The duration of the Hyksos period is very uncertain ; 
it seems necessary to abandon Manfitho s corrupted 
traditions (500 to 800 years in three dynasties) and to 
estimate it at about 200 years (?). 2 The foreigners are said 
to have worshipped their own (?) war-god ; 3 in all other 
respects they were soon Egyptianised. The immigra 
tion of Israel has been assumed by patristic writers 
and many modern scholars (partly on very feeble grounds) 
to have occurred during their rule (under an"A7rw</>ts). 

Amosis I. (see above), the founder of dynasty 18, 
begins the New Empire, a period in which Egypt shows 

53 18th Dvn ^ er P ower as a conquering nation. 
^ The warlike spirit had been aroused 
by the long war of independence ; an army had been 
created ; and the country was thoroughly centralised (the 
hereditary monarchs having given place to royal officers). 
All energy turned outwards, especially towards Asia. 
Amosis pursued the Hyksos, and conquered Palestine 
and Phoenicia. Amenophis I. (Amenhotep, circa 1570 
B.C. ; Mahler -Petrie, 1562) occupied Nubia again, at 
least to the third cataract. This king and his mother 
Nofret-ari (or -ere] became, later, divine protectors of a 
part of the necropolis of Thebes, and are, therefore, 
frequently painted black as divinities of the nether 
world. Thutmosis I. (Dhut[i]-mose; the transliteration 
Thothmes found in many books is not correct), circa 
1560 B.C., completed the conquest of Nubia and pene 
trated into Syria as far as to the Euphrates. We may, 
however, doubt whether he gained lasting results in the 
North. Even during his lifetime, the princess ffa t- 
sepsut (or sepsewet, but not Hatasu, as was formerly 
read) or Makare came into power, and, after his 
death, she reigned, recognising her co- regents Thut 
mosis II. and III. 4 at best as puppets. 

After her death Thutmosis III., in fierce hatred, tried to blot 
out her memory. Many monuments show her as a male 
king (with beard, etc.), a fact which has been explained perhaps 
too seriously. Formerly Egyptologists concluded that she had 
an unusually strong and active mind ; she may have been only 
an instrument in the hands of a court-party. She built the 
magnificent temple of Amon at ed-Der el-Bahrl, commemorating 
in it, as one of the greatest events, the sending of several ships 
to the divine country, the frankincense coast of Punt (cp 48). 

1 The only inscription referring to their nationality (Stabl- 
Antar, Rec. trav. 6) states that they brought with them many 
ante i.e., Syrians or Palestinians but were themselves 
foreigners i.e., of a different race. All alleged sculptures 
with Hyksos portraits really belong to earlier periods : no 
Hyksos type has yet been found. The Kassite invasion of 
Babylonia hardly reached so far west. See on these questions, 
WMM, Mitt. I orderas. Ges. 98, p. 107^ 

2 If we adopt the recently proposed date for the i2th dynasty 
( 50 n.) we can assign the Hyksos only about 100 years, or 
even less, beginning about 1680 H.C. 

3 We have, however, no evidence that they tried to force this 
cult as a monotheism upon the Egyptians. The later tradition, 
that their god had the Hittite name Sutek, seems erroneous : he 
was nothing but the Egyptian form of Set worshipped in Auaris. 

* The succession and relationship of these three regents have 
recently been much disputed. According to some, they were 
all children of Thutmosis I., and Ha t-sepsut, the legal heiress 
to the crown, was married to Thutmosis III. More probably 
she was the wife of Thutmosis II. and the aunt of his son (by 
a concubine), Thutmosis III. 



Thutmosis III. (who reigned alone from about 1515 

B.C. [Mahler, 1480], his official 23rd year) was, of the 

84 Th th Pharaohs, the greatest warrior. He de- 

. Jiy fcated an alliance of the Syrians at 

rnosis ill. Megiddo and made Syria ^ far ^ the 

Euphrates tri 
butary, taking 
Carchem ish, 
and ravaging 
even north 
western Meso 
potamia (Mil 
an n i ; see 
TAMIA). Hisre- 
ports of fourteen 
campaigns, 1 
and his lists of 
cities, 2 of em 
bassies from 
Asiur, Sangar 
(middle of N. 
Cyprus, etc. , 
are valuable 
sources of in 
formation on 

FIG. ii. Amenhotep IV. Supposed head of ancient West- 
the mask that covered the mummy (?). . ~,, 

(After Petrie.) ern Asia. 1 he 

enormous spoils 

and the tribute he commanded enabled him to be an 

active builder, especially in Karnak. 

Amenofihis II. (about 1485; Petrie, 1449) maintained his 
Syrian dominion, which n-ached to the city of Ni (on the 
Kuphrates or Orontes?), subduing revolts; so did Thutmosis 
Jl r ., who also fought in Nubia. The latter, in consequence of 

FIG. 12. Amenhotep IV. (and his wife) worshipping the solar 
disk ; the rays proceeding from which end in hands. (After 

a dream, dug out from the sand which covered it the great 
sphinx near the pyramids a pious act which was, of course, 

1 Translation* tf/>(l)2i 7 (doubtful); Griffith in Pctrie s 

2 See KP) .125, but with caution. The editors are not 
Egyptologists. Maspcro treated parts in Trans. I ict. lust. 
and /.A, 1881, p. 119. The present writer hopes to publish a 
detailed study. 



Amenophis (Amen-hotep] III. (1450?) is remark 
able for the love shown by him everywhere to his 
fair wife Teye, a (Libyan?) woman not of royal blood. 
The great find of Tell el- Amarna, an archive of 
_ Amarna cune ^ orm taDlet s * containing despatches 
Tablets fr m P rinces of N s y ria Assyria, Baby 
lonia, Cyprus (Alasia), and from Amen 
hotep s vassal-kings in Jerusalem, Megiddo, etc., gives 
us a wonderful insight into his diplomatic relations, and 
into his marriages e.g. , with two princesses of Mitanrii 
(Osroene, capital probably Harran) but also shows a 
growing neglect of his Syrian provinces, which fell to 
pieces under his successor. Amenophis III. built a 
large temple, before which were erected the famous 
colossal statues one of which became the singing 
image of Memnon of the Greeks. 

As we may conclude even from his portraits (figs. 10 

and n), Amenophis IV. (i4is 2 B.C.) was no ordin- 

56 Amen arjr man- Being dissatisfied with the 

hot jy " confused religion of Egypt, he had the 

" amazing boldness to introduce the wor- 
ctrca 141 c. , . ,. . 

ship of the sun-disk as the only god, 3 

persecuting especially the worship of Amon, whose 
name he tried to have erased from all monuments 
where it occurred. He changed his own name, in 
consequence, into Ahu-n-aten (or Yeh(u)-n-aten), 
splendour (or spirit) of the sun -disk. This great 
religious reform was accompanied by a revolt against 
the traditional conventionalism in art, which was 
supplanted by a bold and ugly realism. The change 
in religious literature is not less remarkable. The 
hymns now composed in praise of the Sun-god are the 
best productions of Egyptian religious literature. 
Amenophis even gave up his palaces at Amon s city of 
Thebes, and built a new capital (at the modern el- 
Amarna in Middle Egypt), called horizon of the 
sun-disk. All these changes met with much resistance, 
and hardly had he died (about 1397) when all the results 
of his life-work were lost. His successor, Ay, had to 
return to the old traditions ; the temples of the sun-disk 
and the monuments of the heretical king were razed 
to the foundations, and Egyptian religion became more 
than ever mummified. 

Amenhotep IV. s son-in-law Sinenli- (others read S a-) kn-re , 
the former priest ( divine father, a low rank) Ay, and Tuet- 
anh-iimun did not reign long in this turbulent time ; f far-cut- 
lu bi (1380 B.C.?), formerly general and governor, established 
peace and a firm government. To the delight of the priests, 
he completed the religious reaction. 

With Ramses (Ra messu) I. we begin dynasty 19 
(about 1355 ; Petrie, 1327). Sethos I. (often called 

>Setil gyP tian Set y X 35 B-C-). like 
his father, did not reign very long ; but 
he was active as a builder (Abydos, Thebes) and 
in foreign politics. He drove nomadic tribes (re 
minding one of the Midianites and Amalekites of 
the OT) away from S. Palestine, and tried to 
regain Middle Syria. The Hittites (Heta of the 

1 Best and most complete translations in KB 5 by Wi. ( 96). 
Knudtzon has published the results of a fresh collation of the 
tablets in licitr. zu Ass. 4101-154 I 991- The language of these 
letters is Babylonian (the pharaoh s own foreign despatches were 
written in this language of diplomacy), mixed with Canaanitish 
words or phrases ; often in a very faulty style. Some specimens 
of the non-Semitic languages of Mitanni and Cyprus occur. 

a This approximate date, serving as a basis for our chronology 
of dynasties 18 and 19, is inferred from the Babylonian synchron 
ism (see CHRONOLOGY, g 22). BurnaburiaS II. and Amenhotep 
IV. seem to have come to the throne about the same time. 
Assyriolonists must obtain a better agreement on Burnahurias 
II. and Iris predecessor KadaSman-Bel. From an exclusively 
Kgyptological standpoint, the present writer would determine 
about 1380 (Petrie, 1383) as the minimum date. 1415 may be a 
trifle too high, but not much. Wi. s date for Burnaburias (14^6 
B.C.) seems decidedly too high ; likewise Host s date (Mitt. 
I orderas. Ges. 2228), 1438. 

3 This must not be ascribed to Asiatic influences. Although 
the Syrians were advanced enough to recognise the forces of 
nature in their gods more clearly than the Egyptians, the 
monotheistic idea was entirely a new creation. 


57 Dvn 19 

>>> iL ^ > >. 

l/T-y ST _ a* ~ C ff 6 

~< f 3- ~ s. > 3 P c 

g s>, q < - q r C. 

- = = * . T i ~ 

C ~ ~, r T-. -~ 2. 57 ?i 

<" bo P 3 > T . ET - 

9 a n ? z r 5 r 

< < - ? r r J 

i - 4 ^ M " 

f ! ? 

-* *-. w ^ 

>!? > > 0* ^-^>- 
= = 5- E. -3- =r . :r 

l s M fe P * 

ntheses indi 
prefixes . .-t 
//iii ( prom 

- - .-. 

S ~ 5" 

~ "C - 

C H 

3T ~ L CT C: 

g g- i S . 

on* s - M 

K> N. _ C *- 

? LJ-I 

s ^.S; 

fer^l 1 

I i SI 
,.* t-4 

> > a R. *T y 

= 3 1 ~ 8 ^. 

- ~ - e 

Z ~ > S^ - 

e-names are in 
lr ( well ), el ( 

day, ralley ). 

= i ll* s 

S- r ^ I" -= 

.- 2. x - r - 

s " M rr ? 
? T MS 

- ? 

> a 


^ I 

C o 

2 W 

s o 

^n n; ^ ^ -m ni 

AOtftPP iJ ?3 ^ 

5 3 r. 

f Iff rii lli* ? 
*! 1 i s *|?s 

ifc P i " g (T^ j 1 X S> - 


i 7--- 

- ? 



T" rt ~ 

- > .= -" <; - 

-* ^\ ^. T* 

^l^ga-f = 

K 7> T 

C 5 > * 
<- 2 S * 

~ *; 

N u> 

^ I 

^ u* > 
P. # C 


3_3|= 8M?-g.|.?-&|3frl "s. 

Nahr, riv 


"a ~" rf^V ~ ^rL ^ " *y^t 

Th-f O ? -? 


I ;; ^ 

S r ~ L 

^ -t/: - 

P - 1 J 
p 2- R 

r 2 s < r 

rt ^ L t^ 3 , 

v; P a 

p ft 

(/) -?T" 

3" P g 5 2 

.S -" 3 c 

K c to 

O O 
,2 U 
^ S 

O O 

? 3 

_ cr 

k^ C/l 

C O O rti n 

O K 

~ S 

s- ai sr S 

? 5 = 


U c 

fc-S C 

r r r si 

S g s 4- 
o j? r 

.4- c 
.f % 

.T- t 
X ?S 


m 3 

7; 7^ . 
, 3 a 

"I 8 J 

7^ 7" 
4- c GI 

1 f o 

? r 5 

2. i 5 







- 5 1 -^ ? 

C 5" DH Q 

i r, 

3- Cn 



v| 2. 


"^ ^ g| 
? pi 

>X S> i 


3 H W 







i? 9 




P g 



P c 



i? w i 



c 3 




VJ ^ 




* I 









S 2 


2. 2. 

5^ T" 

P. r ji 

v- - r 



> ^ 

j] a> - g| " 


p p. 

o * > c 

"- K S 

Ui _. 

> ^ - 

? 0^ p , 

= s s; 

3 . w ft 

i: S 


S 1 


2 2* 

~ "x. 



-, 1 1 ! 

o " ^ 

1 1 

- 4* 

S. < - x ~ . 
B n. g 2. 

P r C S . 
_ <* w p *r 

? - g- 
B jl , - 

- ^ P 

f l| 
S _, re 

S C 3" . 

(T W - 


< 3 
fin P 

O < " 

+- "C p" 

i g 

57 ff 
--- "-t 
ri " 

3" i 

o w 






w, 3 

? c 

^ OJ 

b 9 
< c 


P. _H 

> 3 

?; p" 


<*> ^ 

H ^ 

9 t 

r 7 

W N 
X > 

^ T: 

K * 


c - m 

^1 10 

> X 



> $s 




5 tr 






X "^ 











< ~" 









T T 

T "B t! 

^ *^3 

i *e 3> 3 

*^C "^3 *T! 

T3 "0 t 



13 T^ 


L c 

r 1 

K P 


2. 6 S. 
nT -~ : rT 

3 E 
S. 5 - 1 " 

" w 

Si_ | 

B S- jJ 

c x w 

; J ? j 

: a K ? 

hakusa L 
hilee, E8 

"n 2- 
c c" 

P c p 

c 3 c 
3* - ^ 









- S C 

L L 

<| 2. SL 8 

v: c/; ^ ^A "H" C/: a< y- c/; T: ^ -v: -y. -JT y y 

^L :7" v* G ?* n T- <!~r* rtr rr* rr * -t .- 


- a = ^ g" rf" 

^g S | |l 

a ^ 

W oo 

? 9 
9 ^ 

C w. 

c ^ 






to p; 

lit \ 
< r. T ; 

2 M CjJ " 

?f ^ 



Vicus Judaeorum, D 

C -H 5! 
a, S w "" 

3 -1 X rt 

" p o ." 
- o , 

C OS ? 
* ^ w 3 






- : 1 -r 

c 9 3 
B* 8 S. 

" 3- n 

K 2 ; r 

sj " ^t 

n g 

w o. 


Tini, D6 (EGYPT, g 4. 

















H - 
3- 3- 
5- gi 

O - 8 

? ? 

H < 






^ tT 










o| M 

to - 


w a- 

^ 9 

cn* ^ "CJ 

O X 




Egyptians, Hatte of the Assyrians) from E. Asia 
Minor (Cappadocia) had conquered N. Syria, 
beginning in the reign of Amenophis IV. when 
"Egypt was too weak to resist them. Their influence 
reached even to Palestine, and Sethos became en 
tangled with them in a war, waged in the Lebanon 
_ ._ region south of Kadesh. This war 

was taken up more energetically by 
T 34 73- Ytis son Ram(e]ses II. (Sesostris, circa 
1340-12736.0.; see figs. 6, 12, and 4). He reconquered 
Phoenicia as far as Beirut in his 
second year, and in his fifth at 
tacked the most important city 
of central Syria Kadesh in the 
Amorite country (i.e. , near the 
N. end of the Lebanon , on the Or- 
ontes). His victory there over 
the Hittite force of war-chariots 
became (greatly exaggerated) 
the subject of many pictures 
and inscriptions (on the epic, 
see above, 25), because the 
king was (against his will) per 
sonally engaged in the fight. 
The war went on, however, till 
his twenty-first year, and Egypt 
was not always victorious 
otherwise all Palestine would 
not have revolted. Ramses 
had to take the strong mountain- 
cities of Galilee (year 8), to 
punish the territory of Ephraim 
ar *d Dan, and even to storm 
Askaluna (Askelon) and Gezer 
in the S. The treaty of peace 
(engraved upon a silver plate 
and preserved in a copy) was, 
however, favourable, leaving 
Palestine (inscriptions of Ram 
ses have lately been found east 
of the Jordan) 1 and half of 
Phoenicia to Egypt. Ramses 
married a daughter of Hetaser 
the great king of the Hittites. 
The rest of his long reign 
(sixty-seven years altogether) 
was peaceful. The conquests 
from Scythia to India, there 
fore, ascribed to him (Sesos- 
FIU.IS. MummyofRam- tr j s ) b y t h e Greeks, are pure 
g e raph. Afteraphotl> fiction-a mere inference from 

his many buildings. 

As a builder (temples of Luxor, the Ramesseum, 
Abydos, etc. ) Ramses surpassed all other pharaohs, 
although the amazing multitude of monuments bearing 
his name is largely due to his erasure of the names of 
the ancient builders and usurpation of their works. 
Nubia also, which as far as Ben-Naga, S. of Khartum, 
had long before his time become an Egyptian pro 
vince, was favoured with many constructions e.g. , 
the huge rock-temple at Abu-Simbel (see fig. 7). The 
special favour of this great king, however, was directed 
towards the land of Rameses or Goshen (see GOSHEN, 
i. 4). This desert-valley, which was formerly reached 
only very irregularly by the Nile, he rendered fruitful 
by a canal, colonised it (with Syrians, too, and among 
them the Apuri, frequently alleged to have been 
Hebrews), and built several cities in it, including a 
royal residence, the city of Rameses. Thus he would 
seem to be, according to Ex. In, the pharaoh of the 
oppression ; and his son Menephthes (Me\r~\neptah , 
see fig. 13; about 1273 B.C.) has, thus far, been 
generally assumed to be the pharaoh of the Exodus. 

1 The so-called stone of Job, ZDPV, 92, p. 206, ZA, 31 100 
( 93). An Egyptian officer worshipped a Canaanitish goddess 
(called approximately .7-aa(?)-2(or f)apant) on this spot. 

41 12.11 

59. Israel. 

The recent discovery of Meneptah s inscriptions 
mentioning Israel as defeated, and evidently dwelling 
in Palestine, makes this view very 
questionable. It is the opinion of the 
present writer that any chronological system of the 
Exodus must, at least, 
sacrifice Ex. 1 n (Pithom .^-* 

and Raamses), which f - 

might be a gloss, and f \ 

other details. Attempts / IT 

to discover the name / 

of Moses (the alleged 
1 Mesu ) in the time of 
Rameses II. have failed. 
There are indications ^ 

that the Israelitish nation 
or, at least, some tribes FIG. 14. Head of Meneptah, from 
e.g., ASHER (q. v. , a bas-relief at Thebes. After 

i) were resident in Lepsius. 
Palestine at the beginning of dynasty 19, perhaps earlier 
(cp ISRAEL, 2). It must be left to future excavations 
to determine how far the biblical accounts need a critical 
revision, and whether the Exodus can be referred to 
earlier periods. 1 That the Habiri of the Amarna 
tablets (under Amenophis III. and IV., see above, 
SSf ) are identical with the immigrating Hebrews 
does not, however, seem to be satisfactorily proved (cp 
ISRAEL, 3). 

Me(r)neptah had for long to fight hard both with 
Libyans, who plundered the western part of the Delta, 

60 MeneDtah and with P irates who rava S ed th e 

, " coasts of Egypt and Syria. Finally 

these pirates from Asia Minor (Jsakarusa 

and Luku i.e. , Lycians) and Europe (Sardena, Akai- 

wasa and Tur(u)sa i.e. , Sardinians, Achasans, and 

Etruscans,) 2 joined the Libyans and marched against 

Memphis, in sight of which they met with a crushing 

defeat. 3 

The reigns of kings Sethos II., Aiiten-inesse, Meneptah If. 
or Siptah were short and inglorious. One of them is called a 
Syrian usurper, which points to his being a royal officer who 
had originally been a Syrian slave or mercenary. Perhaps the 
reference is to Meneptah II., who became king by marrying 
queen T-usoret. After years of anarchy, dynasty 20 united 
the country again, under King Setnaht(e) and his son 
Ram(e)ses III. 

Ram(e)ses III. (somewhat before 1200 B.C.) cleared 
the Western Delta of the Libyans, who had settled 
there. Several attacks were repelled, the 
Syrian provinces maintained, and the 
territory of the "Amorites and of petty 
Hittite kings N. of Palestine ravaged. 
(The great kingdom of the Hittites had broken up.) 
He fought also against the piratical Pulaste or Philistines 
who had settled in Palestine 4 (in the territory of the 
Avvim, Dt. 223), and ravaged Phoenicia as well as the 
Egyptian coasts. 

Ramses III. sought to imitate also the architectural achieve 
ments of Ramses II. during his reign of thirty-two years; but 
his buildings (especially Medlnet Habu in Western Thebes) 
cannot be compared with those of his predecessor. The kings 
who followed Ram(e)ses IV. -XI I., the so-called Ramessides 
were short-lived and weak rulers (they ruled hardly over eighty 

The Egyptian possessions in Syria were lost. For 
400 or 500 years, with small intermissions, Palestine 
had been tributary to the pharaohs, and Egyptian 
garrisons had occupied several fortified cities (e.g. , 

1 Manetho s Exodus-narrative is a worthless distortion of the 
Hebrew account. 

2 The DTH of Gen. 102 (read D1in> Turs). They are no 
where else mentioned in MT. [Perhaps, however, the name 
originally stood also in Ezek. 38 2 39 i. See ROSH, 1.] 

3 Me(r)neptah s wars with Palestinian revolters do not seem 
to have been important. The Israel inscription speaks of 
Ashkelon, Gezer, and Yenu ama. The last mentioned place 
seems to have been in S. Lebanon (but cp JANOAH, 2). There 
is another new text (A*, trav. 17 159), which speaks of him, 
as forcing down Gezer. This looks as if S. Palestine was 
at the head of a rebellion against the Egyptian dominion. 

4 See now MVG, 1900, i. 


61. Ramses 
III., etc. 

circa 1200. 


Zaratuna ; see ZARETHAN). It must not, however, be 
assumed that this loose relation influenced the in 
habitants of Palestine in any considerable measure. 
The Egyptians did not often interfere in the continual 
feuds of the many petty kings. For evidence of this 
and the unsafe character of the land, see the Amarna 

A fact of importance for the Exodus question is that 
the Apuri, for whom a connection with the Hebrews (nay 
"ny) has so often been claimed, still appear in great 
numbers in Egypt under these kings. Under Ram(e)ses 
III. they inhabited whole towns near Heliopolis i.e. , at 
the western opening of Goshen. The last word on this 
question has, evidently, still to be said, and it is not 
safe to decide either for or against the Hebrew 

In this period, the paupers of Thebes began systematically 
to plunder the royal tombs, as is shown by many documents 
referring to spoliations and the measures taken to repress them. 

The weakness of the later kings 
was largely due to the fact that the 
temples had amassed an unreason 
able amount of property by bequests 
the high priest of Amon possessed 
such a large part of the country, 
owing chiefly to the liberality of 
Ram(e)ses III., that he surpassed 
the pharaoh in wealth. 1 This led 
finally to the deposition of Ram(e)ses 
XII. by the high priest Herihor 
(about 1 100 B. C. or somewhat later), 
who himself assumed the crown. 2 

. Herihor, however, 
62. Dyn. 21. was not able to 

maintain it ; and king Smendes 
(Nes-bi-n-dedi) of Tanis (Zoan, 
Egyptian Sa ne) founded a new 
dynasty, the twenty -first (seven 
kings, some 130 years), about 1090 
n.C. These princes were prudent 
enough to give the important 
jffice of the Theban high priest to 


Solomon s empire he made an expedition against both 
Judah and Israel (perhaps to secure the throne to 
Jeroboam?), an expedition recorded in i K. 14zs and 
on the monuments of Karnak (see the extract given 
in Fig. 14). Cp SHISHAK. 

It is very doubtful whether the other kings of the 

_ Libyan, or twenty-second, dynasty (from 

64. Dyn. 22. ^ubastus? 1 ) retained a hold on Palestine. 

They bear for the most part Libyan names Sosenk (the name 

of four kings altogether), Osorkon (Wasarken, two or three 

kings), Tikel<Xore?)ti (Greek Takelothis: two kings), Pemay(one 

king) and the whole dynasty seems to have reigned (nominally) 

about 200 years. On the Zerah of Chronicles cp ZEKAH, 5. 

They first mark a tolerably quiet period of Egyptian 
history; but about 800 B.C. their dominion began to 
become weak. The generals commanding the large 
garrisons of Libyan soldiers in the great cities assumed 
the role of the ancient nomarchs or counts, and the 
pharaoh had little power over them. 

FIG. 15. One line from Sosenk s list of Palestinian places on a wall of the great temple 
at Karnak. After Lepsius. The names (nos. 14-31) read thus : 

14 Ta an(a)kfi (TAANACH), 15 Shanema (SHUNEM), 16 Biti-sanra, 17 Ruhaba (REHOB), 
18 Hapuruma (HAPHAKAIM), 19 Ad(e)rumam (?), 20 . . ., 21 Shawad(i), 22 Mahan(ai)ma, 

._ r 23 K(e)ba ana (GIBBON), 24 Biti-hwarun (BETHHORON). 25 KadfrtW Kar]t(e)m (KiRiA- 

their own sons. Nevertheless, the AIM), 26 A(i)yulun, 27 Mak(e)do (MF.r.mno), 28 Adir(u), 29 Yud-h(a)maruk (Yad-ham- 

melek?; see SHISHAK). 30. . ., 31 Ha-u-n(e)-m. 
Tanitic dynasty was not strong. 

circa 950. 

By these kings, all that remained of the mummies of the kings 
of dynasties 18-20 were finally hidden in the hole near Der-e!-bahri 
where they were discovered in 1881 so powerless were they to 
protect the royal necropolis. To their prudence we thus owe 
the preservation of the bodies of Ram(e)ses II. and III., Thut- 
inosis III., etc. 3 

After the time of Ramses III. the immigration of 
Libyans began again, and Libyan mercenary troops 
had now become so numerous that the generals of the 
Masawasa (a Libyan tribe) came next to the king in 
power. About 950, one family of Libyan officers had 
become so influential (also by intermarriage with the 
high priests of Memphis) that they could venture to 
i . V T P ut one ^ tnemse ^ ves u P n the throne, 
Sosenk I. This pharaoh, the con 
temporary of Solomon and his son (see 
SHISHAK), who reigned at least twenty-one years, was 
more energetic, and again exercised influence upon 
Syria. He seems to have assisted Israel against the 
Philistines, who evidently still raided the Egyptian 
coasts (see i K.. 9i6 and cp DAVID, 7); possibly 
he was the pharaoh (it was hardly his predecessor 
P-sii-(ia-m-ni or Psusennes II. ) who gave his daughter 
to Solomon as wife (see, however, GEZKR, i). A 
loss friendly attitude is shown in i K. 11 18 (but see 
HADAD i. ,3; TAHPENES) ; and after the division of 

1 For a suppressed rebellion of the high priest against 
Uam(e)ses IX. or his predecessors, see Spiegelberg, Rec. Trav. 

2 The papyrus GolenischefT (WMM As. u. Eur. 395) reports 
the adventures of an embassy sent by Herihor to king Zakarba al 
uf Byblus (to buy Lebanon wood ), which visited also Dor, Tyre, 
and the queen of Cyprus. [See nowAVc. trav. 276, Mi G, 1900.] 

3 On this great find see Maspero, Les Mommies royales, 1889, 
frlfm. Uliss. I- ran(. i. pt. 4. 


This weakness of the kingdom caused the Ethiopians 
to attack Egypt. Ethiopia (q.v. ) had been an Egyp- 
r+vr l an P rov i nce down to the beginning 

65. Ltm pian of dynasty 2I since that timei owing 
Supremacy. tQ the struggle between the secular 
rulers and the high priests of Thebes, it had become 
an independent kingdom. The kings of Napata 
were able to take possession of Thebes. Middle and 
Lower Egypt were, nominally, under the dominion of 
dynasty 23, the successors, or rather the contemporaries, 
of the last members of the twenty-second (Bubastid) 2 
dynasty. Really the country was divided among about 
twenty petty rulers of Libyan descent. About 75o(?) 
B.C. the Ethiopian king P(i) anhy tried to subdue them. 
He met with little resistance from the nominal ruler, 
Osorkon III. of Bubastus ; but the prince Tefnaht(e) of 
Sai s, who had already subjugated central Egypt, was a 
formidable enemy. He submitted nominally to the 
Ethiopian, after the latter had taken Memphis; but the 
Delta remained in his hands, and Tefnaht(e) s son Bok- 
en-renf (Bocchoris of the Greeks) was able to extend his 
power again southwards. Bocchoris left the reputation 
of having been a great legislator (cp above, 28). The 
new Saitic Dynasty 24 (consisting, in Manetho, only of 

1 Naville, Bu/ astis, questions their being from this city. 

2 Manetho seems to be wrong in calling them Tanitic. They 
reigned in Bubastus. His enumeration of four kings must be 
viewed with suspicion. The third (*aixju.ous) and the fourth 
(Xrjr ; read EJJT) seem to be simply the Ethiopians P anhy and 
his son Kseta (or Kesta), contemporaneous with dynasty 24. 
Consequently, only Pedubast (reigning at least nineteen years) 
and Osorkon III. remain, apparently belonging to a branch of 
dynasty 22. Their chronological relation to these kings (Sosenk 
IV.) is not certain. 



Bocchoris), however, was shortlived. The Ethiopian 
, . king Sabako, the son of Kesta, invaded 
l6 ^O^ - the country N. of Thebes, and took 
Hocchoris prisoner (according to one tradition he had 
him burned alive) about 7o6(?). Now, for the first 
time, the Palestinians and Phoenicians, who observed 
the approaching Assyrian colossus with growing anxiety, 
saw in the new dynasty of Egypt (25th) a power 
equal to the Assyrian, to which they could appeal 
fur help. 1 On . the ambassadors sent by Hoshea (to 
the governor of Lower Egypt), and on the governor 
Seve, who appeared in Syria to king Hanno 
( Hanunu) of Gaza, but was defeated at Raphia, S. of 
Gaza (ISRAEL, 34, SARGON), see, however, So.- 
About 696 Sabako :i seems to have been followed by 
Sabatako (the Sebichos of Mantho?), who in 691 was 
66 A Taharko su PP lanted b ? the usurper T(a)harko (see 
TIRHAKAH) in Napata. At first the new- 
king was compelled to be passive as far 
as northern affairs were concerned. This was the time 
of the revolt of the Philistines and of Hezekiah from 
Assyria (702) ; see ISRAEL, 34. Whether the kings 
of Musri who came in 701 to save Ekron from the 
Assyrians and met with a complete defeat at Altaku 
(Eltekeh) were Ethiopian vassals from the Delta (or 
Arabs ?) is again doubtful. On the plague in Sen 
nacherib s army, by which, according to 2 K. 19 35, 
Jerusalem, and consequently also Egypt, were saved, 
and on the distorted Egyptian tradition in Herodotus 
(2i4i), see HEZEKIAH, 2. The tranquillity of Egypt, 
however, was soon to be disturbed. In 671 or 670 
B.C. , after Taharko had instigated the Phoenicians (Baal 
of Tyre) to a new but fruitless revolt, the Assyrian king 
Esarhaddon marched against Egypt ; in his passage 
through the arid desert west of the brook of Egypt, 
which always formed Egypt s best protection, he was 
supplied with water by the Arabs. It seems that an 
earlier attack upon Egypt (in 673) had failed. Now, 
however, the Assyrians had a complete success. Taharko 
was driven into Nubia ; Memphis was stormed ; and 
Egypt was parcelled out among twenty kings, descend 
ants of those Libyan nobles whom we have already met 
( 63^). Among them Necho (Niku) of Sa i s, of the 
family of the princes forming the twenty-fourth dynasty, 
again stood first. Thus ManCtho dates the twenty- 
sixth dynasty even from his grandfather Stephinates 
( =Tefnahte; see 65). Taharko invaded Egypt again 
about 669 or 668 (see TlEHAKAH), and his nephew 
and successor Tan(u)tamon (in cuneiform writing Tan- 
damani, not Urdamani) in 667 ; * but the Assyrians on 
both occasions maintained the Delta, quelled revolts of 
the Egyptians in Sai s, Mendes, and Tanis, and finally 
drove the Cushites back to Nubia. The reason was that 
the Ethiopian kingdom alone, with its scanty population, 
was unable to raise armies equal to those of Assyria, 
as it had always been powerless against united Egypt. 

Necho s son Psa(m)etik (Psammetichus) 5 began his 
reign (663) as a vassal of the Assyrian king Asur-bani- 

67 Psametik pal !t Illay have been about 66 
: "- (but this is uncertain) that he felt strong 
circa 660. . 

enough to renounce his allegiance. As 
syria was, in fact, sinking. The rival kings, the Dodec- 

1 Whether the 1000 soldiers from Musri, who assisted the 
allied Syrian powers at Karkar in 854, were Egyptians (sent by 
Sosenk II.?) is, however, very questionable; later, the small 
kingdoms had no power to meddle in Syria. See MIZKAIM, 
8 2 (a\ 

2 Wi. Ml G, 1891, p. 28, assumes with probability that the 
governor Sili i-So represented an Arab kingdom. The usual 
chronology (Sabako 728, T(a)harko 704) is certainly improbable. 

! The chronology is not clear in every detail. (Cp Wi. 
Unters. 91 jff. and see CHRONOLOGY, at). 

4 Wi. AOf ltfi. 

5 The name is written -]E rDB. with Aramaic letters (CfS 2 no. 
148). It isof Libyan(not Ethiopian) derivation. Onthealleged 
intermarriages between the Sa ites and the Ethiopians see ZA 
35 29 [ 97]. 



archs of Herodotus, had, of course, been previously 
subjugated by him, with the help (it would seem) of 
Carian troops, sent to him, perhaps, by Gyges of Lydia. ] 
He strengthened unmilitary Egypt by introducing a great 
quantity of Greek and Carian mercenaries. The terrible 
Cimmerian invasion was warded off by bribes and 
presents (about 620?). 

The new (26th) dynasty is a period remarkable for 
the revival of art (largely following archaistic tendencies) 
and architecture. In general, this last period of 
Egyptian independence seems to have been flourishing. 
The days of Egypt as a conquering power, were, how 
ever, past. Nekau or Neko II. (the Pharaoh-Necoh of 
fiS N h IT 2 K. 2829), w ho succeeded Psammetik in 
609, tried to profit by the distress of the 
Assyrian empire during the ravages of 
the northern barbarians (see ASSYRIA, 34). It was 
easy for Necho to occupy Syria as far as the Euphrates 
in 608. On his victories over king Josiah 2 (and the 
Assyrian governors), and on the taxation which followed 
the victory, see JOSIAH i, 2/ ; JEHOIAKIM. The 
Egyptian conquest, however, lasted only to 604. 
Defeated at Carchemish by Nebuchadrezzar, the 
Egyptians were driven back for good (2 K. 24?), and 
had no better policy than that of first instigating the 
Syrians to rebel, and then letting them suffer through 
Egypt s remissness. 

The most important construction undertaken by Necho was 
his digging the canal (completed : not, as Herodotus believed, 
abandoned) through Goshen to the Red Sea, partly on the 
track of the canal which Ramses II. had led from the Nile 
only to the Bitter Lakes. In connection with this, he sent 
Phoenician ships to circumnavigate Africa. He was followed 
by his less energetic son Psam(m)etik II. 594-588 B.C. Whether 
the second or the first Psammelik led an expedition against 
the weak Ethiopian kingdom is uncertain (Greek inscriptions at 
Abu Simbel).3 

Apries(Uah-eb-re ), 588-569, took the last active steps 
to check the Babylonians, by aiding the Tyrians and the 
Jews in their resistance to Nebuchadrezzar 

69. Apries. 


(cp BABYLONIA, 66). An interruption 

was thus caused in the siege of Jerusalem 
(Jer. 37s). The revolt against GEDALIAH (q.v. , i) 
also must have been instigated from Egypt, whither so 
many Jews fled. From a fragment of his records it 
would appear that Nebuchadrezzar was still at war with 
the Egyptians in his thirty-seventh year (568-567). 
Whether he attacked Egypt herself is not quite certain ; 4 
at any rate, the expectation of the prophets that he 
would punish faithless and insolent Egypt was not 
fulfilled in the measure expected. Defeated and 
humbled everywhere, Egypt maintained her independ 
ence. One more reign has to be chronicled, and 
then follows the catastrophe. Amasis II. ( Ahmose), 

1 That he besieged Azotus (Ashdod ?) in Philistia for twenty- 
nine years (Herod. -157) is a statement of very suspicious 

- At present the preference is mostly given to the Magdolun 
of Herodotus (2159) over the Megiddo of the Hebrew text 
(Wi. and already Mannert and Rosenmiiller). At any rate, 
Migdal could not be the Egyptian town. Josiah was unable 
to penetrate through Idumaea and the desert and to invade 

1898, p. 163. Josiah fought (it would seem) at Megiddo as 
subject of the Assyrian governor. 

3 The report of the migration of 240,000 (!) warriors to Ethiopia 
under Psammejik I. must be greatly exaggerated (Herod. 2 30). 
Still, desertions on a moderate scale are known to have occurred 
(see ZA, 228693 [ 84]; the garrison of Elephantine, for 


4 The fragment (published by Pinches, TSBA 7 218; better by 
Strassmaier, NabucJwdonossor, 194) has been discussed in 
greatest detail by Wi. (AOF\ 511). It seems to speak only of 
the preparations for war by king (Am)asu. The hypothesis of 
Wiedemann (Gesc/i. Aeg. von Psamntetich /. etc., 169), that 
Nebuchadrezzar conquered Egypt as far as Syene, is now 
generally rejected (cp Maspero, ZA, 2287-90, Brugscb, ib. 
93-97 [ 84])- 


70. Persians. 


who dethroned Apries 1 in 569, was a man of low birth, 
who obtained the crown through a rising of the native 
warriors against the Greek mercenaries. Amasis placed 
restrictions both on the mercenaries and on Greek 
commerce, but very prudently left Naucratis to the 
Greek merchants as a port and settlement. He closed 
a prosperous reign in 526, and was succeeded by his 
son Psammetik III., who did not reign one full year. 

In 525, after the battle of Pelusium, Cambyses con 
quered Egypt. Apart from the (possibly unhistorical) 
cruelties of Cambyses, the treatment of 
the province of Egypt by the Persians 
was at first not unfair. In particular, Darius I. (521- 
486) built temples (the largest in the S. Oasis, which 
he or Cambyses? seems to have conquered); he 
repaired Necho s canal to the Red Sea, in order to 
make Egypt more accessible. Under Xerxes (see 
AHASUERUS, i) the Libyan class of warriors, led by 
Khab(b)ash, rebelled for the first time in 487, and 
drove the Persians from Egypt. They could not, 
however, long hold out against Xerxes ; the country 
was again reduced to submission. A new revolution 
was set on foot (460-450) by Inarus, a Libyan of 
Marea (near Alexandria), who was aided by the 
Athenians. A more successful rebellion was that of 
Amyrtceus in 404, which made Egypt independent down 
to 342. This period was filled not only with hard 
fighting against the Persians (Artaxerxes II. Mnemon 
[405-362] and III. [362-338]), who continually tried to 
win Egypt back, but also with internal discord. Three 
dynasties (28-30 ; from Tanis, Mendes, and Sebennytus), 
and at least nine kings, of whom only Nectanebus I. 
(better -nebis ; Egyptian Neht-har-heb) and Nectanebus 
II. (Nehte-nebf) are remarkable, are mentioned. The 
Greek soldiers constantly made their influence felt, and 
showed their bad faith during these troublous times. 
Because of the incapacity of Nectanebus II. 2 (360-343), 
Artaxerxes III. Ochus (362-338) conquered Egypt 
again, and punished her cruelly. It is not surprising 
_ . that the destroyer of the Persian Empire, 
71. ureeKS. Alexander (336-323), was welcomed in 
Egypt (332 B.C.) as a deliverer. The 
history of Egypt after Ptolemy I. the son of Lagus had 
in 305 become a king instead of a Macedonian governor 
or hsatfapan i.e., satrap (as he is styled in an 
Egyptian inscription of 314 B.C.) belongs to that of 
the Hellenistic world. Under the Macedonian kings 
or Ptolemies, 3 the Egyptians were perhaps less op 
pressed than they were under the later Persians ; but 
as a class they were always treated as inferior in legal 
position to Macedonians and Greeks. They were never, 
therefore, completely Hellenised. They were also 
severely taxed. The great contrast between the native 
people and the foreign rulers who, for the most 
part, did not condescend even to learn the language 
of their subjects, and from Alexandria, their Hellenic 
capital, followed anything but an Egyptian policy 
was but little mitigated during the rule of this last 
dynasty. Hence the various revolts. 

The great re volution of the native soldier-class against Ptolemies 
IV. and V. deserves special mention. It lasted twenty years 
(206-186) and, for the last time, placed nominal kings of Kgyptian 
speech on the throne of the ancient pharaohs. Those who held 
their ground the longest ruled in the Thebaid. This revolution 
was quenched in torrents of blood in 186 B.C. As a punish 
ment for assistance sent by the Ethiopians to the rebels, the 
N. of Nubia was occupied. Previously, the kingdom of Meroe 
(Napata was abandoned as capital some time before) had been 
on good terms with the Ptolemies ; economically weak, it naturally 
fell under Egyptian influence. 

Ptolemy II. caused a marvellous development of the 

1 The theory that the battle at Momemphis only forced Apries 
to accept Amasis as co-regent (Wiedemann, Gesch. A eg. von 
Psam. 120) is successfully attacked by Piehl, ZA 28g [ go]. 

2 Said to have fled to Ethiopia. Cp, however (on his tomb 
near Memphis), Rec. trav. 10 142. 

3 On the succession and chronology of the Ptolemies, see 
below, 73 ; Mahaffy, The Empire of the Ptolemies, 1895 ; 
Petrie, Hist, v.; Strack, Die Dynastic der Ptolemiier^i). 


72. Jews. 


trade on the Red Sea, exploring and colonising the 
African coasts. The growing commercial importance 
of Egypt increased the immigration of Jews 
and s arnar it a ns. They gathered especially 
at Alexandria and on the Eastern frontier, in the ancient 
Goshen. 1 Under Ptolemy VI. they even built at Leon- 
topolis a great Jewish temple (see DISPERSION, 8). 
In Alexandria they became strongly Hellenised : hence 
the Alexandrian version of the Scriptures ; hence too 
the gnostic tendencies in Judaism. See ALEXANDRIA, 
2 ; DISPERSION, 7, 15^ ; HELLENISM, 10 ; 

The Ptolemies possessed Palestine from 320 down 
to 198 B.C., when Ptolemy V. Epiphanes lost it to 
Antiochus III., the Great, of Syria, Already his father 
had defended it against the Syrians with difficulty, and 
had kept it only by winning the battle of Raphia 
(216 B.C.), whilst Ptolemy III. Euergetes had been 
able to conquer the whole Syrian empire for a short 
time in 238. 

The succession is as follows : Ptolemy I. Soter (323-284). 

Ptolemy II. Philadelphus (so called because, after the Egyptian 

custom, he married his own sister Arsinoe), 

73. Ptolemies, to whom the exploration of Eastern Africa 

was due (285-247). Ptolemy III. Euergetes, 
the husband of the famous Berenike (a princess of Cyrene), 
the conqueror among the Ptolemies (247-222). Ptolemy IV. 
Philopator (222-205) waged war with Antiochus the Great. It 
was under this dissolute, cruel, and incompetent ruler that the 
great revolution began. Ptolemy V. Epiphanes came to the 
throne at the age of five, in 205, under the tutorship of the 
dissolute Agathocles. After the murder of his guardian by the 
Alexandrian mob, other generals held the post.* The Asiatic 
provinces were all lost, although Ptolemy retained their revenue 
by marrying Cleopatra, the daughter of Antiochus III., the 
Great, of Syria. After subjugating the rebellious Egyptians, 
Ptolemy became more and more dissolute ; he was poisoned 
while preparing war against the Syrians. Ptolemy VII. 3 
Philometor (181-146) was a nobler personality, but unfortunate. 
Antiochus IV. Epiphanes, of Syria, took him captive at 
Pelusium, and would have conquered Egypt had it not been for 
the brusque intervention of the Romans (171). Ptolemy Philo 
metor had to accept as co-regent his younger brother (Euergetes, 
ironically called Kakergetes or Physcon), by whom he was 
exiled in 163 ; the Romans, however, brought him back. The 
ambitious Euergetes became the ruler of Cyrene. After the 
death of his brother Philometor (killed while intervening in 
the struggles of Syrian princes) and after the short reign of 
Ptolemy VIII. Neos Philopator, the restless Euergetes came back 
to Egypt as king. In 130, however, he was expelled, and his wife 
Cleopatra (widow and sister of Philometor) assumed the supreme 
power. In 127 Euergetes (Ptol. IX.) returned from Cyprus. After 
his death (117) ensued a long period of ceaseless struggle, which 
strengthened the influence of Rome. Ptolemy X. Soter II. ruled 
from 1 17-81, his brother Ptol. XI. Alexander I. (against him) 106-88, 
Ptol. XII. Alexander II. 81-80, Ptol. XIII. Neos Dionysps (or 
Auletes) 80-51. The history of all these rulers is complicated 
and repulsive. The famous Cleopatra ruled first with her brother 
Ptol. XIV. under the guardianship of the Roman senate ; ex 
pelled by Ptolemy in 48, she was brought back by Caesar in 47. 
Her younger brother Ptol. XV., co-regent 47-45, was murdered 
by her, and Ptol. XVI. Ctesarion, her son by Caesar, became 
her nominal co-regent. For ten years (41-31) she captivated the 
Roman triumvir Antony, and thus maintained her kingdom as a 
typical Ptolemaic ruler, not less able than wicked. 

74. Rome. The sea-fight at Actium and Cleopatra s tragic 

death brought Egypt s independence to an end. 
It now became a Roman province under prefects (o-Tparrryoi), and 
its history 4 is devoid of interest, till the Arab conquest in 640 A.D. 
(preceded by a Persian conquest in 619-629). Many, but insig 
nificant, rebellions (one as early as 30-29 B.C.), chiefly directed 
against the excessive taxation, could be enumerated. On the 
popularity of Egyptian religion in Western countries, see 14. 

On the introduction and. progress of Christianity, and 
on the Egyptian or Coptic versions of the Bible, see 
TEXT. In 62 Annianus was bishop of Alexandria 
(Mark was the legendary first bishop). The last 
remnants of heathenism were suppressed by Justinian 
(527-565) on the island of Philae, where the rapacious 
Ethiopian barbarians (the Blemmyans and Nobates) 
had maintained the worship of Isis. \v. M. M. 

1 On Jewish settlers in the Fayum and the Thebaid, see 
Mahaffy, 86 ; on Samaritans, 178 ; on their infrequency in 
Memphis, 358. 

- The alleged guardianship of the Roman senate does not 
seem to be a historical fact. 

3 Here Ptolemy Eupator is inserted as sixth king in official 
documents. He does not seem to have reigned. 

* Compare J. G. Milne in Petrie, Hist. v. ( 98 ; very readable). 



EGYPT, RIVER OF. The Wady (or Torrent ) 
of Mizraim (D nVP ^ ; AV RIVER, or [Is. 27 12] 

1. Identification. OF EcypT . but both versjons of 

TT1J are misleading), or simply the Wady (n?HJ, 
with !T of direction ; AV RIVER ; RV BROOK), Ezek. 
47 19 4828 (see RV, and cp Toy, Ezekiel, SBOT), is 
frequently mentioned as marking the boundary of 
Canaan towards the SW. 

See Josh. 164 [P] <j>apdyyos aiyvirrov [BAL] ; 1047 \eifjidppov 
aiy. [BAL]; Nu. 84s [P] -ppov aiy. [A], -ppovv aiy. [BFL] ; 
i K. 865 e<os TTOTO/UOV aiy. [BA], e. bpiov TTOT. aly. [L] ; 2 K. 247 
airb rov \eifidppov [BAL]; 2 Ch. 78 eals \. aiy. [BAL]; Is. 
27 12 eio? pivoicopovpiav [B b XAQF]. 

The identification suggested by ( a in the last-cited 
passage and adopted by Saadiah in his version of Isaiah 
is manifestly correct. The Wady of Egypt is not the 
Wady Ghazza (the torrens ^Egypti of William of 
Tyre, and perhaps Milton s stream that parts Egypt 
from Syrian ground ) but the Wady el- Arish, which 
with its deep water-course (only filled after heavy rains) 
starts from about the centre of the Sinaitic peninsula 
(near the Jebel et-Tlh), and after running N. and NW. 
finally reaches the sea at the Egyptian fort and town of 
el- Arish. Here, in late classical times, was an emporium 
of Nabataean traffic, to which the name Rhinocorura or 
Rhinocolura was given. Here, too, travellers halted 
on the route from Gaza to Pelusiurn. Titus rested here 
on his way to Jerusalem (Jos. BJ iv. US) and as late as 
the fourteenth century A. n. the place was much visited 
by travellers (Ibn Batuta). Owing to the fact that as 
the boundary of Egypt and Canaan we find in two OT 
passages (Josh. 183 i Ch. 13s ; see SHIHOR OF EGYPT) 
an arm of the Nile (the Pelusiac), and in a third passage 
(Gen. 15 18) the river (in:) of Egypt (which surely 
must mean the Wady el- Arish), some (following Abul- 
feda, Descr. sg., ed. Michaelis, 1776, p. 34, no. 68 ) 2 
have supposed that the Wady el-Arish was taken 
for an intermittent channel of the Nile (cp Jer. on Am. 
6 1 ; Reland, Pal. 285/1 9 6 9^)- Niebuhr the traveller, 
on the other hand, seeks the Torrent of Egypt in the 
largest of three small streams that run into the 
Mediterranean from the large lake (baheire] which, he 
says, extended from Damietta eastwards towards Gaza 
(Descr. de V Arable, 360^). All this speculation is need 
less. If a stream in the neighbourhood of el-Arish is 
referred to, it can only be the wild torrent-stream that in 
December suddenly covers the banks of the Wady el- 
Arlsh with verdure (cp Haynes, Palmer Search-expedi 
tion, 262), which could never have been confounded 
with a channel of the Nile (so also Ebers). As for the 
expression the river of Mizraim ( D nnj) in Gen. 15 18, 
either the original reading was Sro vvady, torrent 
(Lagarde, Ball), which was altered into inj, river (of ), 
by an idealistic editor, who placed the SW. boundary 
of Canaan at the Nile, or else, if Winckler s inference 3 
from a Minasan inscription (Hal. 535) is correct, -in: 
was applied in N. Arabia and its Palestinian neighbour 
hood to the Wady el- Arish, which historically at any 
rate was not undeserving of the name. The latter view 
seems preferable. It seems to derive support from 
Gen. 8637 Nu. 22s when emended (see REHOBOTH, 

We have still to account for the name ( The Wady 
[or Torrent] of Mizraim ). The ordinary explanation 
2 Name ma ^ es l equivalent to the wady which 
parts Canaan from Egypt. At the mouth 
of the wady la) an Egyptian fortress, which might seem 
to neutralise the fact that the wady belongs geographic 
ally to N. Arabia. That this explanation was prevalent 

1 Cp Epiphan. Hter. 2 83, Pti/OKOpoupa yap ep/nrji-eueTai NeeA 


2 See Ritter, Erdkunde, xiv. 8141^ ; Guerin, Judee, 2 240- 

* AOF\ 36 337 ; GI \ 174, n. 2. 



in later Jewish times is certain ; but does it correctly 
represent the original meaning of that phrase? This 
question cannot be answered without considering the 
Assyriological data. That the nahal Musur of inscrip 
tions of Sargon and Esarhaddon 1 means, not the 
Egyptian wady, but the wady which runs through the 
N. Arabian land of Musri, seems to us beyond doubt, 
unless, indeed, it can be shown that the extended use 
of the term Musri or Musur had gone out in that king s 
time. To assert this, however, would be entirely 
contrary to the evidence. Mizraim should rather be 
Mizrim . The land of Musri or Musur in N. Arabia 
was repeatedly referred to by the OT writers ; but the 
references were misunderstood by the later scribes. 
See MIZRAIM, 2 (6). T. K. c. s. A. c. 

EHI ( PIS ; Arx ic [BA], - 6IN [D], AAXeic [L]), in 
the genealogy of Benjamin (Gen. 462if) ; see AHIRAM, i, 
and BENJAMIN, 9, i. i Ch. 86 has T1PIN, EHUD, ii. 

EHUD O-1PIN, AcoA [BAL]), a Benjamite name, 
which, according to We. (GGN, 1893, p. 480; cp Gray, ffPJV, 
26, n. 4) is from NiV3l< Abihud (also Benjamite). Probably 
n-TK should be read ; cp Pesh. ihiir i Ch. 7 to ; abihfir, ib. 86 
and -ny K for iTJ7 3K 

i. b. GERA \q.v. ], a Benjamite, the champion of 
Israel against Moab ( Judg. 3 12-30 ; avu8 [superscr. v] 
B a - b in 830 4i). The story is thoroughly archaic in 
tone, and is a popular tradition (so Moore, Bu. ). It 
tells how Ehud, with a sword concealed under his 
garment, came bearing tribute to Eglon, king of Moab, 
at his residence E. of the Jordan, and sought a private 
audience. Being left-handed he was able to get hold 
of his sword without exciting the king s suspicions. 
In this way he quickly wrought Israel s vengeance, and 
made good his escape. Fleeing by way of Gilgal and 
the pillars there (see QUARRIES) he called the Israelites 
to arms and, by seizing the Jordan fords, cut off the 
retreat of the Moabites on the W. of the river, and 
slew them every one. See EGLON. 

The historicity of the narrative was questioned in 1869 by No. 
(Untersuch. 179), mainly on the ground that both Ehud and 
Gera are clan-names (cp 2, below). More recently, Wi. (Gesch. 
1 158) has drawn attention to the improbability of a Benjamite 
having been tribute-bearer for Ephraim, and points out that 
there is little to support the existence of Benjamin before the 
time of Saul. But the mention of Ehud s origin is due, it 
would seem, to R D (so Moore, SBOT), and may very probably 
be a later trait. That the kernel of the story itself is not 
homogeneous has been shown by Wi. (Alttest. Vnt. 5$ ff.) , 
a satisfactory analysis has yet to be made. Cp BENJAMIN, 4. 

2. b. Bilhan, in a genealogy of BENJAMIN (a.v. 9 ii. a) i Ch. 
7 10 (aoofl [BL], a/ueiS [A], ihfir [Pesh.]). 

EHUD p-irtN, A coA [BL], OJA [A] ; AttAud[Pesh.]), 
in genealogy of Benjamin (i Ch. 86f). Gen. 46a 
has EHI, on which see AHIRAM, and BENJAMIN, 9, i. 
The name is doubtless the same as HHN (see above). 

EKER ("l^I/, the pointing is uncertain ; Pesh. reads o 
in the first syllable ; &KOP [BA], IK&P [L]), ben Ram, 
a Jerahmeelite (i Ch. 227). 

EKREBEL (erpeBH\ [B]), Judith 7 i8f. See AKRA- 
BATTINE (end). 

EKRON (ppr; AKKARGON [BAL]; so Jos. also 
A(K)K&PO>N ; these [cp the Assyr.] suggest the pro 
nunciation pipy, Akkaron). 

The gentilic is Ekronite ( ^IpViJ) : Josh. 13 3 (cue/capo^ e]tn)s 
[BAL]), i Sam. 5io (ao p icaAwi [e]iT))s [BAL] ; see below, 2). 

Ekron, the most northerly of the five cities of the 

Philistines, was first identified by Robinson with the 

.. modern Akir, in 3i5i.s N. lat. , 4^ m. E. 

1. Site. f TQm Yefrnd (JABNEEL, i) and 9 m. from the 

sea ; in a pass which breaks the low hills that form the 

northern boundary of the Philistine plain (PEF map, 

Sh. xvi. ). Its position, inland, and not on the trunk, 

but on a branch, of the great line of traffic northwards, 

is probably the explanation of the fact that its name 

1 See Del. Par. 310; Wi. Musri, Meluhtja, Main [ 98], $f. 



is found in the early Egyptian records of conquest and 
travel only once (Lists of Thotmes III. tfPW, 650) as 
Aqar. Not 25 rn. from Jerusalem as the crow flies, 
it lay nearer Israel than did any of its sister towns ; but, 
though it was assigned to Judah, with its towns and 
villages from Ekron to the sea (Josh. 1545/1 [P]), and 
again to Dan (ib. 1943 [P]). we find (ib. 132 [D, but 
probably from older sources]) all the regions of the 
Philistines as far as the north border of Kkron which is 
counted to the Canaanite specified as part of the much 
land that still remained to be possessed after the 
conquest, and this last representation best accords with 
all the known facts. 

Like her sisters Ekron possessed, along with a market, 
the shrine and oracle of a deity BAAL/.EBUB (q.v.), 

w . . 2 K. la. In i S. 5 10 612 / 16 it is said 

2. History. that from Ekron the ark was returned to 

the Israelites by the level road up the Vale of Sorek 
to Beth-shemesh, not 12 m. distant. <5 BI -, however, 
in this passage reads X<TKO.\UV in each case for Ekron 
(cp 6 17 and see Dr. , H. P.Sm. , ad loc. ). Padi, king of 
Ekron, remained aloof from the general revolt of 
Philistia in 704 B.C. against Sennacherib, whose 
prism-inscription gives the name as Am-kar-ru-na. 
Padi s subjects delivered him to Hezekiah ; but 
Sennacherib in 701 restored him to his throne. 
The next notices of the town are by Esar-haddon 
(KAT(-), 164) and Asur-bani-pal (Del., Par. 289); and 
the next (apart from the general history of Philistia, Jer. 
2520 Zeph. 24) not till i Mace. 10 89 (cp Jos. Ant. xiii. 
44), where it is said to have been given in 147 B.C. by 
King Alexander Balas to Jonathan the Maccabee for 
services against Apollonius the general of Demetrius II. , 
an incident supposed by some, but on insufficient 
grounds, to be referred to in Zech. 95-7 (see, however, 

After the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans Jews settled 
in Ekron. See OS (91 6 218 57) where it is spoken of as a large 
( grandis, fteyion;) village between Azotus and Jamnia, Jerome 
adding that some identified Accaron with Tunis Stratonis 
(Caesarea). In noo A.D. King Baldwin marched from Jerusalem 
to Ascalon by Ashdod inter quam et Jamniam, qua; super mare 
sita est, Accaron dimisimus (Fulch. Carnot, 23, in Gest. Dei 404, 
quoted by Robinson ; cp Brocardus, 10 186 ; Marin. Sanut. 165). 

When visited by the present writer in 1891 Afa rwHS a small but 
thriving village. It lies in a slight hollow by a well ; Petrie 
doubts whether the ancient city can have been of much size 
(PEFQ, go, p. 245). Built of mud, like most of the towns on the 
plain, it contains hardly any ancient remains (Robinson and 
PEFM 2 408). The plain about it is fertile but only partially 
cultivated ; the railway from Jaffa to Jerusalem passes to the 
north. G. A. S. 

The connection between Hezekiah and Ekron has 

long attracted the attention of students. Sennacherib, 

TT V Vi w h se reference to Padi, king of Ekron, 

la has been already mentioned, states in the 

cincl xjKron. , 

same inscription that as a punishment for 

Hezekiah s revolt he cut off parts of his territory and 
gave them to certain Philistine kings, one of whom was 
the king of Ekron. This statement has been taken by 
M Curdy to refer to certain towns and villages originally 
Philistine which Uzziah had taken from the Philistines 
(as the Chronicler probably means to assert in 2 Ch. 
266), which Ahaz had lost (2 Ch. 28 18) and which, as 
we may infer from 2 K. 188 were retaken by Hezekiah. 
The earlier statement respecting the surrender of Padi 
implies, according to the same scholar, that Hezekiah 
was recognised by the people of Ekron as their suzerain 
(Expos., 1891 b, 389/1). So much at least appears to 
be highly probable, that in the early part of the reign 
of Hezekiah the king of Ekron was a vassal of the king 
of Judah, and that he regained his independence only 
through the humiliation inflicted on Hezekiah by Sen 
nacherib. Hezekiah, however, might console himself 
by the reflection that Ekron had been captured by the 
Assyrians and Jerusalem had not. 

In the reigns of Esarhaddon and Asur-bani-pal we 
hear of a king of Ekron called Ikausu (with which 
WMM compares the name Achish), or Ikasamsu, who 



paid tribute to the great king (COT 241 KB 2149 240). 
Soon after this a Hebrew prophet declares that Ekron 
shall be rooted up, suggesting an etymology natural 
from an Israelite point of view, names being taken as 
prophetic of the fortunes of their bearers. The modern 
name Akir suggests the far more probable meaning 
1 sterile (so Guthe ; cp Ar. akara, Heb. atdr). The 
dreary nature of the plain close to Ekron may serve to 
account for the name. G. A. s. , if. ; T. K. C. , 3. 

EL (^X), ELOHIM (D H^N). See NAMES, \\f. 

ELA. i. (N^N) i K. 4i8 RV, AV ELAH. (q.v. 6). 
2. (7)Aa IBA]) i Esd. 927; = Ezra 1026 EI.AM ii., i. 

ELADAH, RV ELEADAH (fini^X 35 ; A&&AA [B], 
\AAA [A], -A [L]). a clan-name in a genealogy of 
El HRAlM (q.v. i., 12) individualised (i Ch. 7 20). On 
the story of an ancient border contest in which Eladah 
fell, see BERIAH, 2. 

Other forms of the name are found : EI.EAD, r>. 21 ("1J//N ; om. 

B, fAeoi [A], AooS [L]) and LADAN -.<. 36 RV (f^ S, for J^N ; 
\aSSav [B], yoAaaia [A], \aSav [L]); cp also ERAN, EzER 
ii., 3. See further, KPHKAIM i., 12. 

ELAH (H7K, and i K. 4i8 fcON, an abbreviation of 
some name beginning with ?N ; 51 ; HA& [BAL], 
HAANOC [Jos.]). 

1. An Edomite duke or perhaps clan (Gen. 3(141 rjAos [ADELJ, 
i Ch. 152 ijAas [BA]); no doubt it is the well-known EI.ATH 
(Aila), cp EL-PARAN (wilderness of Paran, Gen. 14e; see 
PARAN) and ELOTH(I K. 9z6 2 K. 16e; see ELATH). See Di. 
Gen., ad loc., and Tuch, ZDMG 1 170. 

2. Son of Baasha, king of Israel in Tirzah. After little more 
than a year he was killed by Zimri ; his armed men and captains 
were busied at the time in the siege of Gibbethon, a Philistine 
city: i K. 1>6 8 13^ (r)Aaai/ [B v. 6] Jos. Ant. viii. 124). 

3. Father of Hoshea, king of Israel (2 K. 1^30 17 1 18 i 9). 

4. A son of CALEB (f.v.) : i Ch. 415 6is (aAa [A], aSai, ofia 
[B]). See KENAZ. 

5. b. Uzzi in list of Benjamite inhabitants of Jerusalem (see 
EZRA, ii. 5 [<*] 15(1! a), i Ch. 9s (om. B. TjAo [A], r)Aou [L]) ; 
not mentioned in || Neh. 11. 

6. Father of SHIMEI [3] (i K. 4i8 N^N RV ELA). His name 
should be restored in 2 S. 23 n in place of the MT reading NSN 
(see A<;EE), .and possibly also in v. 33 for Shammah. Cp the 
ingenious discussion in Marq. (Fund. 20 f.). 

ELAH, VALLEY OF (PI^P) pOtf, Valley of the 
Terebinth, cp <S AI -), the scene of the combat between 
David and Goliath (i S. 17 2), and of the rout of the 
Philistines (2l9[io]). 

(S s readings are : in i S. 17 2, tv TJJ KoiAaSi auroil [BA], njs 
Spvo<; OVTOI KO.I OVTOI [L], <c. T>] Spuos (Aq. Theod.]; in v. 19 
ec TTJ K. Trft fipuos [AL, om. B] ; in 21 g[io] K. TjAa [BAL]. 

Assuming that in Ephes-dammim and in the 
valley of Elah mean the same thing, we have the 
names Socoh and Azekah (5i) to guide us in de 
termining the locality, also the implied fact that the 
valley ran westward. No doubt the valley meant is the 
\Vady fs-Sanf, one of the landmarks of the country, 
which begins near Hebron, runs northward as far as 
Shuweikeh, and thence westward by Gath and Ashdod, 
to the sea, joining the N. Sukerer. On the positions 
of the opposed armies, see EPHF.SDAMMIM. Accord 
ing to W. Miller, 2 who has made a special study 
of the country, the valley of Elah, or of the terebinth, 
is the gentle ascent with a watercourse which leads 
up from a break in the line of heights to Bet Nettif 
(nearly opposite Shuweikeh, but more eastward). 
In the valley beneath barley is already ripening. 
The torrent is nearly dried up (see EPHESDAMMIM), 
its bed is strewn with smooth white pebbles, and 
the red sides of the bed are in places so steep that 
you might call it a valley "within a valley." It is 
this torrent-bed which the narrator, with perfect know 
ledge of the country, refers to under the name of the 
ravine; "the ravine" (N jn), he says, "was between 
them." The suggestion for the explanation of N<:n 

1 Read OVTOI ? (,lVt<) 

~ The Least of all Lands, iy>ff. \ so Che. Aids. S$/. 
3 Che. Aids, 8s/ 



is due to Conder (PEFQ, 75, 193). Some of his 
other identifications are hardly correct (see EPHES- 
DAMMIM, SHAARAIM, i) ; but he has here thrown great 
light on the narrative. See also GASm. HG 226 ff. 

One advantage in Miller s theory of the valley of Elah (see 
above) is that it offers a simple explanation of the twofold name 
of the valley which was the seat of war. A very fine specimen 
of the butm-tret (terebinth) grows on the slope leading up to 
Bet Nettlf. It is conceivable that the name of the great valley 
as a whole was, even in antiquity, valley of the acacias (sant = 
acacia, or rather mimosa). Wellhausen supposes the Wady es- 
Sant to be meant by the Valley of Shittim in Joel 3[4]i8. It is 
a pity that we can hardly explain Q m n D DT DEN as a corrup 
tion of O BE - See EPHES-DAMMIM. T. K. C. 

ELAM(DW; AiAAM[BKADQL]). Geographically, 
the name describes the great plain E. of the lower 
Tigris and N. of the Persian Gulf, 
together with the mountain districts 
which enclose it on the N. and E. , and to which the 
Hebrew name Elam and the Assyrian Elamtu 1 (note 
fem. ending) refer. It is nearly equivalent to the Susiana 
and Elymais of the Greeks, and the mod. Khuzistan. 
The native kings of this country called themselves lords 
of Ansan (or Anzan) ; so late a king as Cyrus still calls 
himself king of Ansan. This name was originally 
borne by a city, the conquest of which by Gudea, vice 
gerent (patesi) of Lagas, between 3500 and 3000 B.C., 
is recorded in an inscription (KB 3 39); it afterwards 
designated a district in Elam (see CYKUS, i). Leav 
ing the geography of this region, which has been fully 
treated from cuneiform sources by Fried. Delitzsch (Par. 
320-329), we pass to the references to Elam in the OT. 

The earliest of these is that in Is. 226 (e\a,u.[e]iTcu 
[BANQ]), where Elam and Kir are mentioned together 

1. Geography. 

2. Biblical 

as entrusted with the duty of blockading 
Jerusalem. The difficulty in this passage 

is that the Elamites were never loyal 
subjects of the Assyrians, and are never mentioned in 
the inscriptions as serving in an Assyrian army, but 
often as allies of the Babylonians (Del., Par. 237; 
Che. Intr. Is. 133; cp Proph. Is. 1132/1 ). Inter 
polation has been suspected ; but this is not the only 
admissible theory (see Isaiah, SBOT}. The next 
certainly dated passage is Ezek. 8224 (eXa/i. [Q]), where 
Elam and all her multitude are mentioned in a grand 
description of the inhabitants of ShS5l. The fate of 
Elam preoccupied more than one of the prophets ; all 
the kings of Elam are referred to in Jer. 25 25 (om. 
N*A*) immediately before all the kings of Media, 
and a special prophecy against Elam is given in Jer. 
4934-39 ( v - 3 6 eXa/* [X*]) ; but we cannot with any 
certainty ascribe these to Jeremiah (see JEREMIAH, 
BOOK OF). In Is. 21 2 (eXa/^eJcrcu [BANQ], late 
exilic) Elam is named with Media as the destroyer 
of Babylon, and a plausible emendation introduces 
Elam ( go up, O Elam ) into a passage of similar 
purport in Jer. 50 21 (late). In Dan. 82 (tuXa/i [BAQG 
Theod.], f\v/j.a.i5i [87]) Shushan is referred to as in 
Elam, though in Ezra 4 9 (ijXa/xcuoi [BA], aiXa/ztrcu 
[L]) it is seemingly distinguished from it ; and according 
to Is. 11 ii (cuXa/ufeJmoi [BA], eXa/a. [KQ], late), 
Esth. 96i 3 (Shushan) Acts 2p (eXa^emu [Ti. WH]), 
Jewish exiles resided in Elam in the post-exilic period. 

We come lastly to Gen. 1022 [P] (cuXaS [E]), where 
Elam is mentioned immediately before Asshur as a 
son of Shem. How is this to be accounted for? 
Not by the supposition that the Elamites were Semitic 
(as we now use the word) either in language or in 
physical type, or that at least a primitive Semitic popu 
lation was settled in the lower parts of Elam. Not 
by referring to the early conquest of Babylonia by the 
Elamites ; this might account for the description of 
Babylonia as a son of Japheth, but not for the case 
before us : nor yet by the fact that a Kassite dynasty 

1 Jensen connects Elamtu (Elam) with illamu, front, and 
explains east region (ZA, 96, p. 351). 



ruled in Babylonia in 1726-1159 B.C. a reference 
which would only be in point if P were pre-exilic ; but 
rather by the undoubted fact that Elam was repeatedly 
chastised by the Assyrians, and that parts of it were 
annexed by Sargon (A Z?2y3). P was enough of a 
historian to know this ; he may indeed have inferred 
it from Is. 226. The view of De Goeje (Th. T., 
70, p. 251) that Elam in Gen. lOza is the Persian 
Empire is therefore to be rejected. As De Goeje 
himself remarks, it is strange that, if Elam has this 
meaning, Media should be a son of Japheth (v. 2). It 
is true, however, that the prominence of Elam in the 
Persian empire explains the precedence which it has 
among the sons of Shem, and the insertion of Lud (i.e. , 
probably Lydia) after Arphaxad may receive a similar 
explanation (see LUD, i). 

The history of Elam is closely interwoven with that 
of primitive Babylonia, and subsequently with that of 
the Assyrian, the Babylonian, and the Persian empires. 
SHUSHAN. T. K. c. 


[BA], M \. [Lj). 

i. The b ne Elam were a family, 1254 in number, in the great 
post-exilic list (see EZRA ii., 9, 8c), Ezra 2 7 (juaAan. [B], 
atA. [AL])=Neh. 7 12 (eAajj. (K], cuA. [BAL])=i Esd. 612 
(icuAafios [B]). In a passage from the memoirs of Ezra (Ezra 
727-834; see EZRA ii., 5) the number of those in Ezra s 
caravan (see EZRA i., 2 ; ii., 15 [i] d) is given as seventy, 
Ezra 87 (i7Aa [B])=i Esd. 8 33 (aaju. [B], eA. [A]). One of the 
best known members of this clan was SHECANIAH (g.v., 4), 

(see EZRA i., 5, end), Ezral026=i Esd. 927 (ijAa [BA]); and 
the clan was represented among the signatories to the covenant 
(see EZRA i., 7), Neh. 20 14 [15]. 

The name Elam for a Jewish family or temple-guild 
is highly improbable. There is abundant evidence that 
names containing the root-letters ohy were Benjamite. 
One of these is nD^y (Alemeth) which may have been 
written cby. If the mark of abbreviation were over 
looked it would be natural to insert or i after y. 
Alemeth is identical with Almon, the name of a priestly 
city in Benjamin (Josh. 21 18 P). Notice also the 
occurrence of the name in 3 below. 

2. The children of the other Elam (inN D^ j;) n Ezra 231 
= Neh. 734 (Ezra, rjAajutap [BA], Neh. rjAajnaap [BA] ; [vioi] 
aiAafi ere pou [L]) are unmentioned in || i Esd. 5, and seem to 
have arisen from a needless repetition of v. 7 ; the numbers are 
identical (cp Be.-Ry. 18). 

3. b. Shashak, in a genealogy of BENJAMIN (g.v., 9, ii.) : 
i Ch. 8 24 (aiAa^. [B], ar,A. [A], i,A. [L]). 

4. A Korahite doorkeeper ; i Ch. 26 3 (twAa/u.) [BA]). 

5. A priest in the procession at the dedication of the wall 
(see EZRA ii. 13^), Neh. 12 42 (om. BN*A, euAa/u. [Kc.a mg.]). 

T. K. C. 

ELASA (&AACA [A]), i Mace. 9 5 RV. see BEREA.I. 

ELASAH (nt2>lpK, God hath made, 31 ; cp 
Asahel; 6 Ae\CA [ALQ]). 

1. b. PASHUR (q.v., 3) in list of those with foreign wives (see 
EZRA i., 5, end), Ezra 10 2 2(r)Aao-a)= i Esd. 9 22 (TALSAS, RV 
SALOAS ; <raA0as [B], -Aoas [A]). 

2. b. Shaphan, together with GEM ARI AH (i), was sent by Zede- 
kiah to Nebuchadrezzar, king of Babylon and bore also at the 
same time Jeremiah s letter to those in exile there ; Jer. 29 3 
[<& 36 3] (eAeao-ai/ [B*H -ap [B am - ], -(rap [A]). 

3. EV ELEASAH, b. Helez, a Jerahmeelite, i Ch. 239.7: 
(cuas [B]). 

4. EV ELEASAH, a descendant of Saul mentioned in a gene 
alogy of BENJAMIN ( 9, ii. |3) ; i Ch. 837 (eorjA [B])=943 
(rar)A [B], e<n)A [A]). Cp LAISHAH. 

ELATH (J"l, cp nN in the Sinaitic Inscr. [Eut. 
551]; AlAAG [BAL]; Dt. 28 AiAoJN [BAFL] ; 2 K. 
1422-co [B], eAu)9 [A] ; 166 AiAAM [A]), also ELOTH 
(ni^N, i K. 926 2 K. 166 A |AAM [A]; 2 Ch. 817 
262, AlA&M [B]), an important Edomite town, whose 
connection with Elah the phylarch or clan in Gen. 
8641 is fairly obvious. Elath or Eloth (i.e., great 
trees, perhaps date-palms?) is probably but a later 



designation of EL-PARAN (see PARAN) i.e., Elath 
which lies on the desert of Paran. It was situated on 
the NE. arm of the Red Sea, in the J\a.n\l\c Gulf 
(which has derived its name from the place itself), and 
was close to EZION-GEBKR (<j.v. ). 

According to Pliny v. 11 12) it was situated 10 m. E. of Petra 
and 150 m. SE. of Gaza. The region has always been famous 
for its date-palms (cp Strabo, Iti 776) ; and Mukaddasi Ibn 
el-Benna (1000 A.D.) in his geography says that Waila (Elath) 
is the harbour of Palestine and the granary of Higaz rich in 
palms and fishes (cp ZDPV1 171, and Wetzstein in Del. If oh. 
u. Koh. 168). Owing to its commanding situation and central 
position the possession of Elath has in all ages been fiercely 
contested. According to Hommel (AHT 195), the ancient 
town and port Mair mentioned upon old Bab. contract-tablets, 
which gave its name to ships and textile fabrics, is the same as 

Apart from its occurrence under the form EL-PARAN 
(see PARAN) (Gen. 146), it is mentioned as one of the 
last stages of the Israelites (Dt. 28 ; see WANDERINGS, 
4, ii, 13). It is mentioned also in I K. 926 2 Ch. 817, 
in order to mark the position of EZION-GEBER (g.v. ). 
It passed through various vicissitudes. It was repaired 
by Azariah (2 K. 1422; see UZZIAH, i,), but was at a 
later time recovered by Edom (2 K. 166 : with Kloster- 
mann cancel Rezin and read Edom for Aram, 
and Edomites [kr.] for Aramites [kt.] ; but cp 
EDOM, 8). Jerome and Eusebius state that Elath 
(Ailath, cu\a,u) in their time was a place of commercial 
importance, and the seat of a Roman legion (OSW 8425 
21075). It was renowned for its trading with India 
(Theod. Qucest. in Jerem. 10049; Procop. Bell. Pers. 

Ii 9 ). 

Elath was the residence of a Christian bishop and of a Jewish 
colony. After suffering at the hands of Saladin it dwindled 
away. Abulfeda (1300) knows of it only as a place deserted 
save for a castle which was built to protect the pilgrims who 
journeyed along by Elath between Cairo and Mecca on the road 
made by Ahmad ibn-Tulun, who reigned in Egypt in the latter 
half of the ninth century. 1 It is known now as Akaba ( de 
clivity ). Little is left of the former gate of Arabia but 
some heaps of ruins, and the castle, which is still occupied by a 
few soldiers. 2 

EL-BERITH (Jin? ?N), Judg. 9 4 6 RV. See BAAL- 


EL-BETHEL (^X JV3 h$, the god of Bethel 1 ), 
the name given by Jacob to the sacred spot at Luz 
where he had built an altar (Gen. 35?). @ ADEL , Vg. , 
Pesh. read simply Bethel ; but this is against Gen. 
28ig. Perhaps we should read El-berith ( covenant- 
God ), or El-berith-Israel, Israel s covenant-God. 

T. K. c. 

ELCIA(eAKei&[BXA]). Judith 81 AV, RV ELKIAH. 

ELDAAH (H1TJ7I? God calls ? cp the Sab. form 
"jKjrr, ZDMG2764.3 87399), a son of MIDIAN (Gen. 
25 4 ; i Ch. 1 33 ). 

(5 s readings are : in Gen., flepya^ia [A], i.e., Togarmah ; 
(0)epn-afi(a) [B], pnafna [> rescr.], paya [L], ap. [E*], eop. 
[EaL] ; and in Ch. A.Aa5a [B], A.Saa [AL]. 

ELDAD ("n pX, 28 ; eAA&A [ BAFL ] ; see ELIDAD 
and cp DOD, NAMES WITH) and Medad (TVD, Sam. 
Yll, cp MOOAAA [BAFL], whence read "HID, loved 
one ? 56 ; cp ALMODAD) were two Israelites who 
prophesied without being locally in contact with Yahw& 
in the Tent of Meeting (or Revelation) where Yahwe 
was present in the cloud (Nu. 1 1 26-29). Moses rejoiced 
at the favour accorded to them, and longed that, not 
only the guides and directors of Israel, but all Yahwe s 
people might become prophets. The story (which is 
related to Ex. 887-11 Nu. 11 16/. 12 1-15 ; see MIRIAM, 
i) was written by one of the latest members of the 
Elohistic school, whose aspirations are most nearly 
paralleled by Jer. 3l3 4 Ezek. llig/. Joel 228/[3i/] 

1 Cp Rob. BR \ 237 241 ; Niebuhr, Beschreibungen von 
Arabien, 400; Buhl, Eciomiter, 39 f. ; and for an illustration of 
this castle see Ruppel, Reise in ffubien, 248. 

2 According to Jos. (Ant. viii. 64, lAaveus, ix. 12 i, TjAaOovs, 
ed. Niese), Elath in former times was called Berenice. The 
ordinary editions, it will be noticed, refer this remark to Ezion- 
geber, which is less suitable. 



(Kue. Hex. 247/1). The names Eldad and Medad 
(which perhaps do not belong to the original narrative) 
were probably selected from a store of old traditional 
names for the sake of assonance (cp Bera, Birsha ; 
Jabal, Jubal, etc). It is not at all certain that the names 
are almost identical. See APOCRYPHA, 23. 

In its present form the prominent feature of the story is that 
these two men (alone of tne seventy elders) for some unknown 
reason remained behind, and prophesied without going into the 
tent. Moses answer shows clearly that the real point is that 
prophecy is not to be restricted to the few. In v. 26 the words 
nSriMil IKS N^l D^inDn nani are probably a gloss. 1 A late 
scribe took exception to the idea that the power of prophecy 
could be given to anyone outside the seventy elect, and so in 
serted the gloss with the above effect. The inclusion of Eldad 
and Medad among those that were written down does not 
seem, therefore, to belong to the original form of the story. 

ELDERS (D^pT), Ex. 3i6. See GOVERNMENT, 16, 
19 ; LAW AND JUSTICE, 8 ; and (for the Christian 
eldership) PRESBYTER. 

ELEAD OlPN), i Ch. 721. See ELADAH. 


, i Ch. 720 RV, AV ELADAH. 

ELEALEH (iTX, and NN Nu. 32 37, God is 
high ; eAe<\AH [BNAL]), a Moabite town always 
associated with Heshbon (Is. 154 169, eA&AHCeN 
[B ab AQ cp Sw. ad loc.~\ ; Jer. 4834 om. BS, eAe&Ah 
[AQ]), and assigned in Nu. 32s 37 to the Reubenites. 
Eusebius (0S< a > 26833) places it i R. m. N. from 

Probably Elealeh should be restored for the questionable 
D Sx INta! in Is. 15s. To invent a place-name Erelayim 
(Perles, Marti) is imprudent. It is quite true, however, that 
the initial 3 ought to be the preposition. 

Elealeh seems to be the modern el- A I ( the lofty ), an 
isolated hill, with ruins, ^ hr. NNE. of Heshbon. See 
SPli6-ig; Tristr. Moab, 339 /. ; Bad. 3 > 174. 

T. K. C. 

ELEASA, RV Elasa UA&CA [A], eA- [KV] ; ,l 
Elesa [It.], Laisa [Vg.]), an unknown locality in the 
neighbourhood of Jerusalem, where Judas the Maccabee 
encamped before the encounter which resulted in his 
defeat and death (i Mace. 9s). Josephus (Ant. xii. 11 1) 
places Judas s camp in Berzetho (the readings vary : 
frOu, jiLpfaOw, pap. and (3-r)p.); but this may be in 
error for the Syrian camp which (i Mace. 94) was at 
BEREA [i] (Syr. Birath}. A suggested identification is 
Kh. n asd between the Beth-horons (PEFM 3 115). 
Reland, however, suggests ADASA (q.v.). 

ELEASAH (nb^N) i Ch. 2 3 9/ 837 EV. See 
ELASAH, 3, 4. 

ELEAZAR OTtf pX- God has helped 23, 28, 84 ; 
eAe&Z&p [BAFL] ; cp Eliezer, Lazarus, and Phoen. 
"ITJHOE N, iTjDjn, etc. , Sin. "HyDIp, etc. ). BothEleazar 
and Eliezer are very common names, especially in post- 
exilic times and in lists of priests ; with regard to the 
authenticity of the latter see EZRA i. i, 2, 5 end ; ii. 

J 5 (iK *3& 

i. The third son of Aaron and Elisheba (Ex. 623 
[P]) is mentioned often in P, but only twice in JE, 
according to Driver viz., in Dt. 106 and Josh. 24 33. 2 
What we learn of him is to this effect. He discharged 
priestly functions together with Aaron and his brothers 
Nadab, Abihu, and Ithamar (Ex. 28i), and after the 
two elder brothers had died childless Ithamar and he 
were left to carry on the duties alone (Nu. 84), Eleazar 
himself becoming the prince of the princes of the 
Levites and superintending those that had the charge 
of looking after the sanctuary (Nu. 832 ; cp 1637^! 
[17 2 ^] 19 3 /). His special duty with respect to the 

.T applied to persons is a late expression, and the 
words nSriNrt INS N 1 ?! are omitted in H-P 16, 52, 73, 77 and in 
the first hand of 131. 

2 From Dt. 106 Di. and Dr. infer that JE, as well as P, knows 
of Aaron as a priest, and of Eleazar as Aaron s successor. 
Robertson Smith, however, holds (OT/Cf 2 ), 405, n. 2) that Dt 



things necessary for the sanctuary and its service is de 
tailed in Nu. 4 16. Shortly before Aaron s death he 
was invested on Mt. Hor with his father s garments of 
authority (Nu. Wtisff. ; cp Dt. 106 [D]). He now 
appears as Moses coadjutor, taking the place of Aaron ; 
together they took the census of the people (Nu. 2663), 
and divided the spoil of the Midianites (Nu. 31 12^). It 
was to them that the daughters of Zelophehad came 
to sue for an inheritance (Nu. 27 1^), and the b ne 
Reuben and b ne Gad for a pasture-land for their 
flocks (Nu. 32 2 /~.). 1 The charge was given to Joshua 
in the presence of Eleazar, who was to inquire for him 
by the judgment of Urim before Yahwe (Nu. 27 & / ) ; 
just as his son Phinehas is said to have done, previous 
to the assault on Gibeah (Judg. 2028). 2 Henceforth in 
the accounts of the dividing of the land etc. Eleazar 
is mentioned before Joshua (Nu. 8228 34 17 Josh. 14 1 
1?4 19si 21 1). 3 At his death he was buried at Gibeah 
of Phinehas (Josh. 24 33 [E]), which had been given to 
his son in Mt. Ephraim. He married one of the 
daughters of Putiel (Ex. 625), and the priesthood is said 
to have remained in his family till the time of Eli, and 
again from Zadok till the time of the Maccabees state 
ments which need a strictly critical examination. See 
ZADOK, i. s. A. c. 

2. Son of Abinadab, temp. Samuel. According to 
a comparatively late story the ark was deposited for 
twenty years in the house of Abinadab at Kirjath-jearim 
under the guardianship of his son Eleazar (i S. 1 if.}. 
Eleazar in this idealisation of history is intended as 
a contrast to that other son of Abinadab (Uzza) who 
proved wanting in the reverence essential to a minister 
of the ark (2 S. 636). His name is probably meant 
to suggest this contrast. Observe that Eleazar was 
specially sanctified for his functions. See ARK, 5. 

T. K. c. 

3. b. Dodo the Ahohite (i Ch. 11 12), or b. Dodai 
b. Ahohi (2 S. 23g ; but see AHOHITE [2]), one of 
David s three heroes. His great exploit (which was in 
the valley of Rephaim : see PAS-UAMMIM) is recorded 
in 2 S. 23g/. (@ 1! , however, has e\eai>av) and i Ch. 
11 13/1 In both passages the text has to be emended ; 
but there is much difference among critics (cp Klo. , 
Marq. Fund. 16, and H. P. Smith). The name of 
Eleazar does not appear in i Ch. 27 4, though we 
expect to find him, not Dodai, in high command in 
David s army. Compare, however, DODAI, and note 
that an Eliezer b. Dodavahu occurs in 2Ch.2(>37. 
See ELIEZER (3). 

4. A Merarite : i Ch. 232i/ (cXtafap v. 21 [A]) 2428. 

5. i Esd. 8 43 = Ezra 8 16, ELIEZEK [10]. 

6. In Ezra 8 33 an Eleazar, son of Phinehas, is mentioned as 
superintending the weighing out of gold and silver in the 
temple: i Esd. 863 and (om. BN*A, but eAec^ap N c - am ff- L) 
Neh. l-2 4 2. 

7. A priest in the list of those with foreign wives (see EZRA i., 
Send), i Ksd. 9 19 (eAeaxpos [BA]) = Ezra IDiS, ELIEZER (7). 

8. An Israelite (i.e., a layman), son of Parosh : Ezra 1625 
i Esd. 926. 

9. The fourth son of Mattathias (i Mace. 2 5), who bore the 
surname Avaran (cp AuRANUs). 4 According to 2 Mace. 823^." 

(the words after Moserah ) is plainly a late and unauthor 
ised gloss ; he refers to v. 8, where the institution of the Levitical 
priesthood is assigned to a later stage of the wanderings. It is 
of ELIKZER that the older tradition speaks, as a son, however, 
not of Aaron, but (together with Gershom) of Moses. In fact, 
in JE, Moses has the prior claim to the priestly office, and in J 
Aaron originally is not mentioned at all. In the genealogies of 
P even, one main branch of the tribe of Levi is still called 
Gershom, and another important member is called Mushi i.e., 
the Mosai te (see We. Prot.W i&S; ET i^f.). 

1 32 1-17 is of composite origin. How much belongs to P 
(more precisely Po) is disputed ; but the mention of Eleazar the 
priest beyond question comes from this source (see Dr., Intr. 
64; Holzinger, flint., Tabellen, 10). 

2 Judg. 20 in its present form is post-exilic, and vv. 2-jb, z8a 
are no doubt glosses (see Moore, Judges, 434 ; Kue. Einl. 20, 
n. 10). 

3 All in P ; in JE on the contrary Joshua is always represented 
as acting alone ; cp 146 17 14 etc. 

4 [ANV] avapav, Jos. (Ant. xii. C i) avpav, apayand afiapav ; 
Syr. pin- In 643 gives a-avpav which is probably a mistake 



his brother Judas appointed him to read aloud the sacred book, 
and with a variation of his own name as watchword ( the Help 
of God ) he led the first band of the army against Nicanor and 
completely defeated him; in 2 Mace. 1815 this is credited to 
Judas himself. In the fight near Beth-zacharias against An- 
tiochus Eupator(i63 u.c.) Eleazar nobly sacrificed his life (see 

1 Mace. 643). 

10. A learned scribe, who at the age of ninety years suffered 
torture and martyrdom at the hands of Antiochus Epiphanes, 

2 Mace. 618-31 (eAeafopo? [VA]). He was designated by the 
early Christian fathers proto-martyr of the old covenant, 
foundation of martyrdom (Chrys. Horn. 3 in Mace, et al.). 

The narrative in 3 Mace. (5 has apparently borrowed the name 
Eleazar from this scribe. See APOCALYPTIC, 66. 

11. Father of JASON (<?.i>., 3), i Mace. 817. 

12. Sirach Eleazar, father of Jesus (Ecclus. 6027) ; see 


13. b. Eliud, placed three generations above Joseph (Mt. 1 15). 

S. A. C. , I, 3fr ; T. K. C. , 2. 

i Esd. 924 = Ezralfj2i ELIASHIB, 4. 

ELECTRUM (^Wn), Ezek. 1 4 RV m e-, EV AMBER. 

EL-ELOHE-ISRAEL (S?^ <i n t ?N ^S, God, the 
God of Israel ), the name given by Jacob to the altar 
which he had built at Shechem (Gen. 33 20). Perhaps 
we should read God of the tents ( <l ?nN) of Israel ; 

1 -TiT . 

his tent (iVnx) precedes in v. 19. T. K. C. 

EL ELYON (i l^l? *?N), Gen. 14 18. See NAMES, 

ELEMENTS (CTOIXEIA; elementa). "LroLxelov, from 

crroixos,. a row, a line, a rank, means literally what 

_ , belongs to a row or line, a member of a 

8ra . series, a part of an organism. This funda- 

is ory menta i meaning gives the key to the ex- 
ceedingly interesting history of the word from 
its use in Plato down to Modern Greek. All the special 
senses in which it is employed, whether usual or 
occasional 1 some of them very remarkable can be 
carried back to this, though between the meanings one 
of a row and demon is a long way. It conduces to 
clearness if we keep in mind its three special concrete 

(a) It denotes a letter, as one of the series of letters 
constituting a word or even a syllable i.e. , not a 
written sign (ypa-n^a.} but a speech-sound (Plato, Deff. 
414 E : CTOixeToj <f>wvfjs <f>uvji dcriVfleros : similarly 
Arist. Poet. 20). Thus, for example, the letter p is rd 
pcD rb ffTotxe tov (Plat. Crat. 426 D), the alphabet is T& 
<rroixe?a, and alphabetical is /card (TTOIX^OV. 

This concrete meaning explains the metonymy by which the 
plural is so frequently used to denote the beginnings, rudiments, 
or elements of a science or art the ABC as we say ; cp the 
by-name Abecedarians given to a group of Anabaptists at the 
Reformation, and see the Oxford Engl. Diet., s.r. It is enough 
to recall the title of Euclid s work (oroixeta) on the Elements 
of Geometry. Many other examples are to be found in the 

In this sense the word is met with only once in the 
Bible, ye have need again that some one teach you the 
rudiments of the first principles of the oracles of God (ret 
(TToixela. TTJS apxfy r ^ v ^oyiwv rov 0eoC), Heb. 5 12, 
where the words T?}S dpxys intensify the idea, the be 
ginnings of the elements. 2 

(6) Shadow of the sundial (e.g., Aristoph. Eccl. 652 : 
orav 77 deicd-irovv rb ffToi-xelov, when the shadow 
measures ten feet ). The shadow is here doubtless 
thought of as a line which hour by hour grows longer 
or shorter and by degrees marks the progress of the 
day. SiTotxeiov, properly speaking, is a fraction of this 
line, and then by synecdoche becomes the line itself. 
This meaning is not met with in the Bible. 

(c) Groundstuff , element, as constituent part of 
an organism. In this sense it was not used (so ancient 

for eAeafapos avpav , <SN V corrects to avpav. The meaning 
is doubtful. Some connect with -|in be white and refer it to 
Eleazar s white complexion ; others understand it to mean 
beast-sticker ; see Stanley, Jewish Church, 8318. 

1 On this distinction see H. Paul, Prinzipien d. Sprach- 
gesch.V), 1898, p. 68^ ; cp ET of 2nd ed. (Strong, 90, p. 

2 Cremerl 8 ), 909. 



tradition has it) before Plato ; but from his time onward 
it became a current meaning. The early philosophers 
assumed sometimes one, sometimes more than one, 
primary constituent element of the universe. Em- 
pedocles reckoned four fire, water, earth, and air. 
Many citations from non-biblical writers will be found 
in the Lexicons ; and Philo and Josephus also use the 
word in this sense. In the Greek Bible the following 
examples occur : Wisd. 7 17, For he himself gave me 
an unerring knowledge of the things that are ; to know 
the constitution of the world and the operation of the 
elements (avcr-aaiv /crfcr/iou Kal Ivepyeiav aroi xtlwv} , 
19 18, the elements changing their order one with 
another (Si favrCiv yap TCL aroi^la. ne6apfj.o&fj.fva) ; 
4 Mace. 12 13 [the tongues of men] of like passions 
with yourself, and composed of the same elements 
(roi>j opoioTraOe is Kal fK T&V avrCiv yeyovAras aTOi\eluv ; 
cp 2 Mace. 7 22, the first elements [ffroixeiuffiv] of 
each one of you ); and, according to most exegetes, 
2 Pet. 3 10, the day of the Lord will come as a 
thief ; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a 
great noise (0Toix a ^ Kawovneva XvOr/fferai [AKL, 
etc., \vd-qffovTai\), and the earth and the works that 
are therein shall be burned up ; also v. 12, the day 
of God by reason of which the heavens being on fire 
shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with 
fervent heat (5i* T)P oupavol Trvpov/Mevoi \v8r)<rovTat 
Kal ffTOfXfla. Ka.vffovneva. T-f]Kfrai). The rendering 
elements here gives an excellent sense, and it would 
be mere pedantry to ask why the elements are named 
along with the heavens and the earth ; the writer s 
purpose is to depict the last day in the boldest colours, 
and he seeks to heighten the effect of his picture by 
bringing in the ffroLxeia. At the same time the inter 
pretation which takes the word here to refer to demonic 
life-spirits (see below, 2) is entitled to attention. Though 
the sense of rudiments or beginnings, alluded to 
above, is hardly to be traced to this last concrete 
application of the word, the very usual metonymic sense 
of fundamental condition, thesis, principle, rule 
of which there is no example in the Bible is doubt 
less to be taken from this meaning. On the other hand, 
the biblical passages receive much light from another 
part of the history of the word : the concrete sense in 
which in late Greek the word ffTOixfta is specialised to 
mean the planets (as being the elements and so to 
say supports of the heavens) 1 and, more widely, 
the stars. 2 

Now every element has its god ; 3 so also every star. 
In the Orphic Hymns the personified ether is called the 
noblest element, orotxeio^ apiffrov (64), Hephaestus 
is called the perfect element, ffroixelov afie^es (604), 
in the great Paris magic- papyrus v. 1303 the moon- 
goddess is the immortal element, ffToixtiov &<f>6apTov, 
and in the so-called nymph of the world, the K6pr) 
K0(r/j.ov of Hermes Trismegistus (ap. Stob. Eel. i. 
385 12^! ), the aroi.\f.l.o. come as gods before the supreme 
God, and make their complaint of the arrogance of 
men. 4 Conceptions such as these perhaps owe their 
origin to eastern influences ; but at any rate they have 
their analogues in the Jewish idea that all things as, for 
example, fire, wind, clouds, stars -have their proper 
angels or spirits, 5 a thought which is operative in 
primitive Christian literature also ; see Rev. 7 1 (four 
angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding 
the four winds of the earth), 14 18 (another angel . . . 
which hath power over fire), 16s (the angel of the waters ; 

1 Dieterich, 61. The present writer regards as much less 
probable the conjecture (see Pape s WorterbucK) that the planets 
are so called as having a controlling influence upon the affairs 
of men. 

2 It is further applied to the signs of the zodiac, and even to 
the entire heaven with its system of stars ; the metonymic signi 
fication, great stars = great men, also occurs. 

3 Dieterich, 57, 6t. 

* All the above examples are taken from Dieterich, bof. 
5 Spitta, Der zit-eite Brief des Petrus und der Brief ties 
Judas, 1885, p. 265^ ; Everling, 70^! 



cp Jn. 64), 19 17 (an angel standing in the sun). It is 
from these notions probably that we ought to explain 
the peculiar meaning of ffroixeiov, in which it stands, 
by synecdoche, for divine being, spirit, demon, 
genius. At what period this use first arose is obscure ; 
but doubtless it is comparatively old. Our main ex 
amples l are found in the Testamentum Salomonis (see 
APOCRYPHA, 14), which in its present form bears 
evidence of Christian editing, and by K. A. Bornemann 
is attributed to the time of Lactantius. 2 

Seven female spirits (n-i/ru/iara) come to Solomon, and, 
questioned, reply : We are some of the thirty-three genii of the 
ruler of the underworld . . . and our stars are in heaven . . . 
and we are invoked as goddesses (WKI? e<rfiei> fK riav rpiaxov-a 
Tpiiav <rrOL\eiiav rov KOiTfj.oKpdropO ; rov CTKOTOVS . . . <cai ra 
iarpa yfiiav iv ovpai/to et<rix . . . Kal uis Seal KaAovficda ; 
Fleck, 3 I2o_/). Afterwa rds come six and thirty spirits (n-i/ev/naTa) 
to Solomon, and, questioned, make answer : We are the thirty- 
six genii, the rulers of this underworld, . . . since the Lord 
God has given thee power over every spirit, in the air, upon 
the earth and below the earth, therefore we also like the rest 
of the spirits stand before thee (i^ieis fa-fiev ra rpiaKovra iff 
(TTO<.\(ia oi KO<Tfj.oKpaTopfi; rov GKOrovs TOUTOU . . . iirei&r) 
Kvpios o $eby UStaKC <rot TTJV fovo~iav firl iravros irvfVfj.aro ; 
acpiov re Kal iiriyfiov Kal Kara\9oviov, Sia rovro Kal I7fift ivuiniov <rov o ra XotTra irveyfiara). The first 
calls himself the first decan of the zodiac circle (rrpuiTos 
&fKavo<; rov <a5iaKOv KVK\OV , Fleck, I29/.). Plainly stoicheion 
here is absolutely synonymous with god and spirit, and we 
are here dealing, in part, with star-gods. Further, the usage 
of writers of the Byzantine period has to be noticed. Sophocles 
(Greek Lexicon of the Roman .and Byzantine periods, memorial 
edition, 1888, p. 1012) gives under trrot\dov genius, the 
spirit guarding a particular place or person, also talisman, 
Theoph. Cont. 379 14, Leo Gram. 287, Anon. Byz. 1209 C. 
Cp the same Lexicon also, s.w. aroixeioAaTpijs, <rroi.xti.6ia ( to 
perform talismanic operations upon anything ), <rroix.o>p.ariK6<; 
( talismanic ), 0Tocx wo-t? ( the performing of talismanic opera 
tions upon anything ), and o~roi\ei<i)TiK6$ ( talismanic ). Most 
instructive of all, however, is the usage of modern popular 
Greek. The ordinary name by which the local tutelary spirits 
are designated in modern Greece is (rroi^fio (TO) i.e., o-roixfiov, 
element. 4 Skarlatos, AefiKOK . . ., gives the meaning <c<rroi- 
KiSia Saifioi La f/ fyavratrfiara {it.). All sorts of trroixtia occur ; 
the oToixeio of the threshing-floor, the rock, the river, the bridge, 
and so on (ib. 187-9); <rroi\tuaii.evos may mean one under the 
protection of a oroi^eio (it. 196). This employment of the 
word for tutelary spirit is a specialisation of the more general 
meaning of spirit, and speaks for the relative antiquity of the 
latter use ; in the ideas and vocabulary of the common people, 
as Jacob Grimm among others has shown, the conception of a 
remote antiquity will often be found to survive. 

Here then is the historical line of progression from 
the original meaning of the word to that of tutelary 
spirit : member of a series, element, elemental deity, 
deity (demon, spirit), tutelary deity. 

In Gal. 43, where Paul says : ... so we also, when 
we were children, were held in bondage under the ele- 
_ . . ments of the world (uirb ra ffTot\eta rou 9a? K6ff/j.ov), and in v. 9, where he says, But 
now that ye have come to know God, . . . 
how turn ye back again to the weak 
and beggarly elements (tiri TO, dcrOfvij Kal 
a) whereunto ye desire to be in bondage 
roixeia is taken by most interpreters as 
meaning rudiments (so RV) in the sense indicated 
above (i a) ; Paul is supposed to mean the crude first 
beginnings of religion in those who belong to the /c6o>tos. 
Others, however, start from the meaning given in i c 
and take Paul to be speaking of the elements of the 
world, world being here taken in its well-known 
ethical sense ; kosmos is the central idea ; under the 
elements of the world (virb ra. ffroixeia TOV 

l. 282 

(and 2 Pet. 
3 10 12) 

over again, 

1 Dieterich (Atra.ras, 61) holds that in Wisd. 7 17 (see above) 
demon is a possible rendering as well as element ; this, how 
ever, is not probable, the jri/tv/tara (not winds but spirits ) 
being named in v. 20. 

2 Ztschr. fur die hist. Thcol., 1844, Hft. 3, 15. An edition 
and discussion of this hitherto much-neglected writing would 
be very welcome and, in view of recent discoveries in the field of 
oriental Greek magic, most opportune. 

3 F. F. Flecki Anec(iota(l*\p*\c, 1837)= F. F. Fleck, IVissen- 
schaftlichc Reisedurchdas stidl. Deutschland, /(alien, Sicilien, 
Frankreich, 23. 

4 Bernh. Schmidt, Das Volkslebcn der Neugriechcn u. das 
hellenische Alterthum, 1 183 ( 71). For the history of the word 
Schmidt refers to Korais, "ATOKTO, iii. 2 549. 



is merely an amplification for under the world 
rbv icb<r/j.ov). 

This last interpretation is certainly open to the objection that 
in v. g only o-roixeta are mentioned, whereas if Ko<7/iios had been 
the main idea, we should have expected the shortened phrase to 
run VTTO TOV . . . Ko<rfj.ov and not virb TO. . . . oroixeia. The 
first interpretation also, however, is not free from difficulty. In 
v. 3 it is the law, in one sense or another, that is being spoken 
of: this is shown by the context (cp especially v. 5 : vn-o vo/j.ov) ; 
but in : . 9 the topic is the gods of the Gentile Galatians. It is 
not easy to understand how Paul can here be speaking of the 
law as rudiments after he had so shortly before been referring 
to it (3 24) as a tutor (iraiSayiayos) and likening it (4 2) to 
guardians and stewards (en-tYpon-cu and <H<COI>O/OUH) ; nor is it 
easy to see how he can say of rudiments that they are aaSevij 
(cat 7TTa>x<* ; a weak and beggarly ABC is not a very happy 
phrase. Further, the whole context in both places points less 
to conceptions of material objects than to personal beings ; see 
especially v. 9. 

In view of these difficulties, there is much to be said 
for the interpretation which takes the word in the other 
sense (see if, end) of spirit, demon. Paul, in this 
view, is speaking of cosmic spiritual beings, and by them 
he understands, in v. 3 the angels by whom, according 
to 3 19, the law was ordained, and in v. g the heathen 
deities whom the Galatians had formerly served. Jewish 
bondage to the law, as being bondage to angels, and 
Gentile service of strange gods as being bondage to 
demons, are alike slavery to the powers of the world 
(die kosmischen Machte). This interpretation, the 
essence of which consists in taking <rroixoa as meaning 
personal powers (personliche Machte) has been upheld 
with a large variety of modifications by Hilgenfeld, 1 A. 
Ritschl, 2 Holsten, 3 Klopper, 4 Spitta, 5 Everting, 6 A. 
Dieterich," whose allusion to all the modern theological 
commentators seems hardly called for. 

It may fairly be conjectured that the phrase the elements 
of the world (oroide la. TOV KOCT-JU.OU) is a technical expression 
which does not owe its origin to Paul. That it was a current 


In Col. 2820, also, this last interpretation seems 
preferable to the rendering elements of the world 
or rudiments of the world. The context is in both 
places similar to that in Gal. 43. By the (rrotxe?a rov 
K6fffj.ov, which he brings into sharp contrast with Christ, 
Paul intends in one sense or another the law ; but he. 
mentions, instead of the law, the personal cosmic powers 
standing behind the law, the angels ; whom indeed, he 
goes on expressly to name in Col. 2 15 as the princi 
palities and the powers (rds apx&s /cat rds f fowri as). 
We thus obtain a surprising light upon the much- 
disputed passage in Col. 2i8, where mention is made 
of a worship of angels (0pr/ffKfla rCiv dyyt\ui>) : by 
the angel service of the Colossians he means their law 
service (cp Gal. 819) ; all the learned discussions about 
one particular kind of angel worship or another now 
become superfluous. 

That in 2 Pet. 3 10 12 the rendering elements is an 
adequate one has already been shown ( i c). Yet it is 
not impossible that personal powers might be meant 
here also, as Spitta 8 and Ktihl 9 suppose. The main 
objection that the expressions dissolve and melt 
(\v0ri<reraL, Tr/Kerui) could hardly be used of personal 
spirits is well met by Spitta, by a reference to the 
Test. xii. Pair. , Levi, 4 (ed. Sinker, 140), where, in a 
similar way, in the description of the judgment day, it 
is said the whole creation being agitated and the 
invisible spirits melting (xal irda-r/f Kricrews K\ovovf^vi)s 
Kal rCov dopdruv Trvevfjidruv TTIKO^VUV}. 

Literature. Resides the commentaries on Gal. and Col., and 
various occasional contributions on the subject, cp Schnecken- 
burger, Theol. Jahrbb. 7 ( 48), 445-453 ; Kienlen, Beitr. z. d. 

1 DerGalaterbr., 1852, p. 66; ZWTh., 1858, p. 99; 1860, p. 
208 ; 1866, p. 314. 

2 Christl. Lehrc von der RcchtfertigungC*\ 2 252^ ( 89). 

Das Evangel, ties Paulus, i. 1 i68/ ( 80). 

* Der Br. an die Kolosser, 360^ ( 82). 

As above, 265^ 6 p . JOj f. 7 p . 6iy c 

8 As above, 265^. 9 Meyer s Kotitm.^) 12 4507-: (97). 



theol. WisscMschaflcn, ed. Reuss and Cunitz ( 51), 2 133-14-; 
Schaubach, Commentatio qua exponihir i/iii,/ oroiYfia TOW 
KotTiiov inNTsibi vclint, 1862; Blom, 7V;. 7 , 1883, iff. ; Ever- 
ling, Die faulinische Angelologie u. Diitnonologic ( &&), 66 ff~. 
Albrecht Dieterich, Abraxas; Stitdien ziir Rel.-gesch. del 
s/>iiterenAltertn}>is( <)i), bojff.; Cremer, Bibl.-theol. Worterb.W 
[9Sl, 97^- : K- v - Hincks, The meaning of TO. aroixfia TOV 
Koo-fiov in JBL 15 ( 96) i^ff. ; Hermann Diels, Elementuiit 
K/ne Vorarbeit ztim yriec hisclicit und lateinischen Thesaurus, 
99. This work provides abundant material for the history of 
o-ToixeiQK and elcmentum, if it does not contribute anything 
really neV bearing on the biblical passages. The present article 
was written before the appearance of Diel s book ; but, on the 
whole, it represents as far as it comes into touch with this far 
more comprehensive work the same ideas. GAD 

ELEPH (*]?Nn, Ha-eleph, i.e., the thousand, Josh. 
1828) is supposed to be a Benjamite town, and, according 
to Conder and Henderson, is the modern Lifta ; see, 
however, NEPHTOAH. 

<S> reads KO.I oTJAeAa^) [Al, K. creAaeAa^ [L], to which apparently 
corresponds B s (reArjKaf (variants from H-P are oTjSoAeA^ 
erijAaAejii, o-eAaAajc, <rt>a\eO xeAaeAe^) ; Pesh. has NT3J perhaps 
punctuating as *]?K a chieftain ? 

Before identifying, it would have been well to 
examine the text. The two names before Jebus 
in < B are /cat ffe\rjKa.v (cat dapetjXa i.e. nSsnm y^ ; 
KO.V is a duplication of /cat ; <re\ri corresponds to jj^. 
Zela and Taralah therefore answer in " to Zelah and 
Ha-eleph in MT. Ha-eleph (which is an impossible 
name) must be a corruption of Tar alah or rather (see 
TARALAH) of Irpeel (Wv) ; p,S comes straight from 

7NS. T. K. C. 

ELEPHANT (eAe<J)Ac). The word elephant occurs, 

outside the Apocrypha, only in the AV m e- of Job 40 15 

1 Early for BEHKMOTH [</* -. i] and in the 

references AVmp of r K 1022 2 ch - 921 ( <el - 

i C1C1 CULL-Cb. i ) IIV/-T r - 

phant s teeth ) for IVORY [g.v.]. It is 
an elephant of the Indian species that appears on the 
Black Obelisk (see below) ; but the African elephant also 
was no doubt known. 

The two species, Elcfihas indicus (tnaximus ) and E. afri- 
canns, together with such fossil forms as the Mammoth (name 
probably from Behemoth),! the Mastodon, and others, consti 
tute the Mammalian order Proboscidea. The Indian elephant 
is now found, in a state of nature, in India, Burmah, the Malay 
Peninsula, Assam, Cochin China, Ceylon, and Sumatra, frequent 
ing the wooded districts ; its African congener lives throughout 
Africa south of the Sahara desert, but is retreating before the 
approach of civilised man. In Pleistocene times it spread as far 
north as Europe. 

The Indian species has been domesticated since pre 
historic times and is still largely used in the service 
of man. The male alone as a rule has tusks. The 
African elephant is, in the male, larger than the Indian, 
the ear-flaps and the eyes are larger and the forehead 
more convex, there are two finger-like processes on the 
trunk instead of one, and the pattern on the teeth is 
different ; both sexes have tusks. In temper this species 
is usually fiercer and the animal is undoubtedly more 
powerful and active than its Indian relative. 

It is certain that elephants were known to the old 
inhabitants of Egypt and Assyria, by whom they were 
sometimes hunted for the sake of their ivory and their 
hides (KB 1 39 , Tiglath-pileser I. ; As. it. Eur. 263, 
Thotmes III. ; Houghton, TSBA 8 123^ ). There is an 
elephant among theanimals figured on the Black Obelisk 2 
of Shalmaneser II. (858-824). Of course there may 
have been more than one elephant in the tribute from 
the land of Musri ; but one was enough for the purpose 
of representation. 

Elephants in warfare first appear among the Persians. 
Darius at Arbela (331 B.C.) employed 15 of them. 

2 Use in They were often used by the Seleucids, 

warfare frec l uent mention of them being made in 

the Maccabean wars (cp i Mace. 834 630 

86 Ils6 2 Mace. 11 4 1815 etc.). These elephants, 

The b may have become tn through Slavonic influence. 
2 The term used for elephant in Shalm. Obel. Epigr. III. 
is baziati. The word al-af> also occurs, but in the sense of ox 
not elephant (Wi. KB 1 151). Houghton suggests the wild 
buffalo. Cp IVORY. 



some of which carried towers (i Mace. 637/1 ), were 
almost certainly of the Indian species. Special mention is 
made of the Indian driver (6 Ivd&s, i Mace. ib. ). The 
war elephants were placed under the care of a special 
officer (2 Mace. 14i2). In classical times the African 
species was tamed by the Egyptians and took part 
both in the Carthaginian wars and in the Roman shows. 
Since in recent times the natives of Africa have not 
shown sufficient ability to tame this somewhat restive 
animal it has been suggested that the Carthaginians 
imported their animals from the East ; J but there is 
little reason to doubt that the true E. africanus was 
employed in the Punic wars and even accompanied 
Hannibal s army across the Alps. The presence of 
African elephants in modern menageries proves that 
this species is capable of domestication and education 
in the hands of competent trainers. The elephant 
rarely breeds in captivity. A. E. s. S. A. C. 

ELEUTHEROPOLIS (eAeYOeporrpAic, free cit y. 
with play on double meaning of DHH, Horites and 
_. . free men ? cp Ber. rabba, 42), the name 

1. History. Bestowed about A.i>. 200 by the emperor 
Septimius Severus on Betogabra, now Beit Jibrin, an 
important place in Judaea, mentioned already (see BEN- 
HESED, 2). How central it was appears from the fact 
that Eusebius in the Onom. often reckons the distances of 
other towns with reference to it. It was in fact the capital 
of a large province during the fourth and the fifth cen 
turies of our era. It was also an episcopal city of 
Palestitia Prima (Notifies Ecclesiastics, 6). In the 
Talmudic period it had a large Jewish population, and 
produced some eminent Rabbins. 

The Talmudic name is Beth-gubrin (Neub. Geog. 122^). 
The Doctrine of Acldai (yd cent. A.D.) expressly refers to 
Eleutheropolis as called Betgubrin in the Aramaic tongue 
(Nestle, I Efr Q, 79, p. 138 ; see ELKOSHITE, 3). The name 
Betogabra OaiVoya./3pa) is given to it by Ptolemy (v. 16 6). It 
also appears in the Peutinger Tables as Betogubri, and we can 
hardly be wrong in correcting, in Niese s text of Jos. BJ iv. 8 i, 
UijrajSpip into Br)Taya/3pti . Whether the name alludes to pre 
historic giants, is beyond our knowledge. 

For some centuries the Grnjco- Roman name sup 
planted the older designation ; but when, 150 years after 
the Saracenic conquest, the city was destroyed, the latter 
revived (Reland, Pal. 222, 227 ; Gesta Dei per Francos, 

On this site, which they called Gibelin (a corruption of Ar. 
tBeth-]gebrim), the Crusaders in the twelfth century built a 
castle. After the battle of Hattln (1187 A.D.), it fell for a time 
into the hands of Saladin. Retaken by Richard of England, it 
was finally captured by Bibars, and remained in possession of 
the Saracens until its destruction in the sixteenth century ; ruins 
of it still remain (see Porter, Syria and Pal., 256^). 

The site of Eleutheropolis, in spite of the minute 
definitions of early writers, passed so completely out of 
., mind that Robinson had to discover it. All 
the early statements point to Beit Jibrin, 
which is now a large village, N. of Merash, situated in 
a little nook or glen in the side of a long green valley. 
Near it begin the famous caverns, to the excavation of 
which the limestone of the adjoining ridges was very 
favourable. We may not follow the Midrash which 
ascribes their origin to the HORITES [</.v.] ; but the 
antiquity of their use can hardly be doubted. 

Jerome already noticed their wide extent (Comm. in 
Obad. 1), in which indeed they rival the catacombs of 
Rome and Malta. They have been explored by Robin 
son, and more fully by Porter, who compares them to 
subterranean villages. 

Eleutheropolis, or Beth-gubrin, stands in close histori 
cal connection with MARESHAH (q.v. }. G. A. Smith 
has put this in a very forcible way (HG 233). If from 
the first to the sixteenth centuries Beit Jibrin ( = Eleu 
theropolis) has been prominent, and Mareshah forgotten, 
we may infer that the population moved under com 
pulsion from the one site to the other. On the caves 

1 At all events there seems a close resemblance between nagt 
and n&ga, the Ethiopic and Indian words respectively for 
elephant (Meyer, CA 1 226). 



spoken of above, besides Robinson and Porter, compare 
Lucien Gautier (Souvenir de la Terre-Salnte, 63-67). 
He is of opinion that such caves have been in use for 
different purposes at many periods. Elsewhere a refer 
ence to them has been traced in a corrupt name in i K. 
4 10, in the original text of which Mareshah may have 
been designated Beth-Horim (see BEN-HESED, 2). 

T. K. c. 

ELEUTHERUS (eAeyeepoc [ANY]), a river of 
Syria (i Mace. 11?), the mod. Nahr al-Kebir. See 

ELHANAN (($$ El is gracious, 28 ; cp Baal- 
hanan and I alm. jrVfl73, |lTfl7y3 ; eACAN&N 
1 In Sam t BA ] CAAAN&N [L] ; Jos. <pAN [var. 
N6<J)&N]). (i) The slayer of Goliath; 
one of David s warriors (ben-Jair). The MT of 2 S. 
21 19 reads (RV), And there was again war with the 
Philistines at Gob ; and Elhanan the son of Jair the 
Bethlehemite slew Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose 
spear was like a weaver s beam. The document to 
which the passage belongs (2 S. 21 15-22, and 288-39) 
is an extract from an ancient Israelite roll of honour, 
and deserves more credit than the later story which 
ascribes the slaying of Goliath to the youthful David. 

It is scarcely necessary to criticise the theory of Sayce (Mod. 
Rev. 5 169^.), which is a development of Boucher s, that David 
and Elhanan are the same person (cp Solomon Jedidiah). This 
is in fact precritical in its origin. The Targ. on 2 S. 21 19 states 
that Elhanan was David the son of Jesse, who wove the curtains 
(cp Jaare-oregim) of the sanctuary ; cp also the Targ. on i Ch. 

We have next to remark that definite information as 
to the time when Elhanan slew Goliath is wanting ; in 
fact the meagreness of tradition as to the details of the 
Philistine war has excited a very natural surprise (see 
DAVID, 7). All that is certain is that David was no 
longer in the prime of life, for an exploit similar to that 
of Elhanan was performed by the king s nephew Jonathan 
(2 S. 2l2i), and in another episode of the same struggle 
David s warriors vowed that he should no longer en 
counter the risk of a single combat (v. 17). 

The place where Elhanan fought is mentioned ; but 
the reading is uncertain. MT says that it was at GOB 
(q.v.) , but the first of the three combats related (v. 18) 
was possibly, and the third certainly (v. 20), at Gath. 
We may feel sure that Gob in v. 19 is a false reading. 

The name of Elhanan s /ather also is slightly un 
certain. In 2 S. 2824 i Ch. 1126 we read of Elhanan 
ben-Dodo, of Bethlehem. It is true, this Elhanan is 
sometimes (e.g. in BDB ; but not in SS) distinguished 
from the slayer of Goliath ; but the grounds do not 
seem to be conclusive. DODO is certainly a personal, 
JAIR (q.v. , ii. ) may be a clan-name. It is tempting to 
suppose that the circumstance that, according to one 
tradition, Elhanan s father bore the name DODO (i. ), 
facilitated the transference of Elhanan s exploit to the 
youthful David. 

The description of three out of the four single combats 
related in 2 S. 21 15-22 recurs in nearly the same form 
_. in i Ch. 204-8. It is to this version (see 
2. In Cn. v ^ ^ t j iat we are j nc jebted for a correction 
of the impossible name Jaare-oregim in 2 S. 21 19 ; the 
name should undoubtedly be read Jair (i.e. not nj? but 
vjr). The surprising appendage oregim (i.e. weavers ) 
is an accidental repetition of the closing word of the verse. 
The statement of Chronicles that Elhanan slew Lahmi 
the brother of Goliath need give us no trouble. The 
words TIN DfiS (Lahmi the brother of) have been intro 
duced by the Chronicler to harmonise this passage with 
the story of David and Goliath. l At the same time the 
Chronicler omitted the statement that Elhanan was a 
Bethlehemite (betk-hallafimi). Naturally enough ; for 
from the latter part of this designation he obtained the 
name which he affixed to Elhanan s giant. He would 
not however deny that the giant had some connection 
1 This, however, is denied by Klostermann. 



with Goliath and so he (or his authority) made Lahmi 
Goliath s brother. All this is to be regarded not as 
conscious depravation of the text, but as a supposed 
restoration of what must have been the historical fact. 
The only way to avoid this conclusion would be to 
assume that Lahmi was derived from the names of the 
gods Lahamu, Luhmu, mentioned at the beginning of 
the Babylonian epic of creation (Jensen, Kosmologle, 
268, 274 ; cp RPV\ 1133), already brought into con 
nection (not unplausibly) 1 with the name Bethlehem by 
Tomkins (PEFQ, 1885, p. 112). For other discussions 
of this subject see Ewald, Hist. 870 ; Stade, Gesch. 1228; 
Kohler, Bibl. Gesch. ii. 1294; Che. Aids to Criticism, 
10 8 1 125. Compare Driver, TBS, 272 ; Budde and 
Kittel in SBOT. See also GOLIATH. 

2. One of David s thirty heroes ; mentioned second on the 
list (ben Dodo); 2 S. 2824 i Ch. 11 26. Perhaps the same as 
no. i above. It is very improbable that David had two warriors 
of equal rank, both named Elhanan, and both Bethlehemites. 
Compare the case of SIBBECHAI (the slayer of Saph), also given 
in the list of the thirty ; cp Jos. Ant. vii. 122. T. K. C. 

ELI (hi), high, 49; cp Palm. ^, and Nab. 
?Nvy, El is high, and the numerous Sab. names com- 

H tor pounded with vJJ [cp Ges. ( n > ad loc. ]; the 
*" un- Hebraic character of the names Eli, 
Hophni, and Phinehas may be remarked ; nAei [BAL], 
but HAei- i S. Ig [A], 4n [A* vid], and Aeyei. 14s 
[BA]), priest of Yahwe at the temple of Shiloh, the 
sanctuary of the ark, and at the same time judge over 
Israel an unusual combination of offices, which must 
have been won by signal services to the nation in his 
earlier years, though in the account preserved to us he 
appears in the weakness of extreme old age, unable to 
control the petulance and rapacity of his sons, Hophni 
and Phinehas (i S. 1-4 143 i K. 227). While the central 
authority was thus weakened, the Philistines advanced 
against Israel, and gained a complete victory in the great 
battle of EBENEZER \_q.v. , i], where the ark was taken, 
and Hophni and Phinehas slain. On hearing the news 
Eli fell from his seat and died. According to MT he 
was ninety-eight years old, and had judged Israel for 
forty years (i S. 4 1518). gives but twenty years in 
v. 18, and seems not to have read v. 15, which is either 
a gloss or the addition of a redactor (cp SBOT, ad loc. ). 

After these events the sanctuary of Shiloh appears 
to have been destroyed by the Philistines (cp Jer. 7, and 
see SHILOH), and the descendants of Eli with the whole 
of their clan or father s house subsequently appear 
as settled at NOB (i S. 21 1 [2], 22 uff., cp 14s). The 
massacre of the clan by Saul, with the subsequent de 
position of the survivor Abiathar from the priestly office 
( i K. 2 27), is referred to in a prophetic passage of deuter- 
onomistic origin, such as might (the narrator thought) 
have been uttered in the days of Eli ( i S. 227 ff. 3 1 1 ff. ; 
see Bu. SBOT). 

Now Zadok (from whom the later high priests claimed 

descent), who appears in i Ch. 612 [638] as the lineal 

2 The descendant of Aaron through Eleazar and 

.,. Phinehas, was not of the house of Eli 

priesthood. (lK-227 . 35) . and in lCh 24 Ahime . 

lech, son of Abiathar, is reckoned to the sons of Ithamar, 
the younger branch of the house of Aaron. Hence the 
traditional view that in the person of Eli the high-priest 
hood was temporarily diverted from the line of Eleazar 
and Phinehas into that of Ithamar (cp Jos. Ant. v. Us 
viii. 13, and for the fancies of the Rabbins on the cause 
of this diversion, Selden, De Succ. in Pontif., lib. i. 
cap. 2). This view, however, is at direct variance with 
the passage in i S. 2 which represents Eli s father s 
house or clan as the original priestly family, and pre 
dicts the destruction or degradation to an inferior 
position of the whole of this father s house, not merely 
the direct descendants of Eli. Ahimelech, moreover, 
1 The place-names of Palestine must in many cases have an 
origin very different from what the later inhabitants supposed, 
and a primitive divine name, famous in Babylonian mythology, 
is likely to have found a record in Palestine. 

who is the only link to connect Eli with Ithamar, is an 
ambiguous personage, whose name has arisen from a 
textual corruption (see ABIATHAR, end), and it is evident 
that the priestly genealogy in i Ch. 5 f. merely en 
deavours to show that the sons of Zadok derived their 
origin in an unbroken line of descent from Aaron. The 
book of Chronicles wholly ignores the priesthood of Eli. 
[So much at any rate is indisputable that in the 
pre-regal period the family of Eli discharged priestly 
functions at the sanctuary of Shiloh. That it had a 
levitical connection is implied in the name of Phinehas 
borne by one of Eli s sons (HOPHNI is only a variation 
of this), and also in i S. 227-36. Eli s sons, however, 
do not appear to have entered into the original tradition ; 
they are only introduced in the interests of later theory. 
That Eli belonged to the family of Moses is at any rate not 
impossible. The explanation of HOPHNI as an outgrowth 
of PHINEHAS leads to the suggestion that for ^y, Eli, we 
should perhaps read TJlPVjIi Eliezer = iryVx, Eleazar. 
Eleazar and Eliezer are both Levite names, though the 
former is the ordinary name of the father of Phinehas. ] 
See further LEVITES, PRIEST, ZADOK, zff. As HELI 
(i) Eli comes into the genealogy of Ezra (2 Esd. 1 1). 

w. R. s. T. K. c. 

Eloi, Lama Sabachthani. The last words of Jesus 
( = Ps. 22 1 [2]) according to Mt. 27 46, Mk. 1534; 1 
followed by a translation, My God, my God, why hast 
thou forsaken me. Evang. Pet. , however, gives (ch. 5), 
[ And the Lord cried out. saying] My power, my power, 
thou hast forsaken me (i) di/va/jiis /aou, i] d6va/MS, 
/careXeti/ ds /J-f), 2 which is quite different. The number 
of various readings of the text of Mt. and Mk. is sur 
prisingly large. 

As to the word for my God, in both Mt. and Mk. WH give 
eAcoi,; Treg. prefers rjAi, in Mt., eAun in Mk. ; Ti. and Zahn 
prefer rjAei in Mt., eAon in Mk. For the verb all agree in adopt 
ing a-apaxOavfi. (Zahn -vi, an unimportant variation). 

Epiphanius (Haer. 6968) remarks on Mt. 2746 that 
the words 17X1 7/Xi were spoken by Jesus in Hebrew, the 
rest of the passage in Syrian. 

Lagarde, too (GGA, 82, 329), referred to this passage as 
proving the systematic correction to which even our oldest MSS 
had been subjected. Certainly eAwi (or, more completely 
Aramaic, eAai. , or aAai ) is what we should have expected ; but 
in citing a passage like this it was not unnatural to use the well- 
known Hebrew term 7K el. 

Dalman, who holds this word from the cross to be 
historical, thinks that Jesus most probably used the 
Hebrew form ( elt), just because it is a little less obvious. 
The variation a<0ai 3 ; n D Lat. both in Mt. and in Mk. 
is very singular. o-a/Sax&n/ei is good Aramaic = 3Ep3C>. 
a$0a.i/ec, or rather a.a<j>6avei, is a Hebrew substitute for the 
Aramaic verb, due to one who wished to make the whole 
passage a quotation from the Hebrew. The original reading 
aa<j>8a.vfi. was presumably altered into (Ja^Oarei = ^risyi (rendered 
uivei$ia-<i<; fie in cod. D., Mk. 1634) by scribes who only under 
stood Syriac. See Chase, Syro-Lat. Text of the Gospels, 107, 
JTh.S 1 278, and E*p. T 11 3347: T . K. C. 

ELIAB pN^X, God, or my God is father, 1 25 ; 

cp ^N3K ; eA[e]iAB [BANL]). 

1. b. Helon, prince of Zebulun (Nu. lg 2? 72429 
10 16). 

2. b. PALLU (q.v. ), father of Nemuel, Dathan, and 
Abiram (Nu. 16 i 12 268 Dt. 116). 

3. Son of Jesse and brother of David. According to 
i S. 166 i Ch. 2 13 he was the eldest son of Jesse (cp 
171328). In i Ch. 27 18 mention is made of a certain 
ELIHU (q.v. , 2) as one of the brethren of David (this 
name is inserted by Pesh. in i Ch. 2 13 and occupies the 
seventh place, David being eighth). Elihu, however, is 

1 In Mt. See fiov flee uou, iva-ri [Lva. TI, WH] jte eyicaTe Aiire? 
[Ti. WH] ; in Mk. 6 Oeos u.ov 6 Seos MOV, eU TI evcaTe AiTre s u 
[Ti. WH]. 

2 Syriac (Pesh., Sin., Hcl.) in Mt. gives the words of the 
exclamation alone, but in Mk. adds a translation as in the Gk. 

3 The_ transliteration of 3 by <j> before 6 is analogous to that 
of p by \,in <ra.^a.\Qavf(.. See Dalm. Gram. 304. 



undoubtedly a variant for Eliab ; so @ BAL and Jer. 
Quasi., ad loc. His daughter ABIHAIL (q.v. , 4) is 
mentioned in 2 Ch. 11 18 (EXiav [B]), where, however, 
Eliab b. Jesse may be incorrect (see ITHREAM, 

4. b. Nahath, a Kohathite, a descendant of Korah (i Ch.ii 27 
[12] BAL). In v. 34 [19] the name appears as ELIEL (q.v., 5), 
and in i S. 1 i as (q.v., 2). 

5. One of David s warriors; i Ch. 129 (see DAVID, n [] 

6. A Levite porter and singer; i Ch. 15 18 (eAio/3a [BNi 1 )], 

eAi/3a[N*]), 15 20 16 5. 

7. b. Nathaniel, an ancestor of JUDITH, Jud. 81 (ei/o0 


ELIADA (yTvtf, 32, God knows. or whom El 
deposits, see BEELIAIJA ; also a Sabean name [Halevy] ; 
eAeiAA [B], -AiAA. [AL]). 

1. A son of DAVID [q.v. n d (&)}, 2 S. 5 16 (/3oaAei M a9 [BA], 
-AiAafl [L]); i Ch. 38 (eAi8a [A]). In i Ch. 14 7 he is called 
BEELIADA (q.v.) his true name. 

2. A Benjamite captain, temp. Jehoshaphat (2 Ch. 17 17). 

3. AV Eliadah, father of REZON, i K. 1123 (eAiafiae [A], 
om. BL). Winckler (Alt. V at. 74) supposes that the name is a 
Hebrew translation of the Aram, name SxaD. TABEEL (i). 

ELJADAS (eAiAAAC [BA]), i Esd. 9 2 8=Ezra 10=7. 

i Esd. 5 58. See MADIABUN. 

ELIAH (n T jl ?X). i. Ezra 1026 AV, RV ELIJAH, 3. 
2. i Ch. 827 AV, RV ELIJAH, 4. 

ELIAHBA (KjjinvX, God hides or protects, 30 ; 
cp HABAIAH, JEHUBBAH ; but compound names where 
an imperf. follows a divine name are rare and chiefly 
late : * cp Gray, HPA zi-j, who suggests JOIT?^), the 
Shaalbonite(seeSHAALBiM), one of David s thirty (2S. 
1832 GMACOY [B]. eAlAB [A], CAAABA0 [L] ; i Ch. 
1133 CAMABA [B], 6AM. [K]. eAlABA [A], -AlB. [L]). 2 

ELIAKIM (D^K, God establishes, 31, 52; 
eAiAK[eli/v\ [BKAQFL]). 

1. b. Hilkiah, a governor of the palace, and grand vizier 
under Hezekiah (2 K. 18 18 19 2 Is. 36 3 22 37 2). See RAB- 

2. b. Josiah (2 K. 2834 2 Ch. 864). See JEHOIAKIM. 

3. A priest in the procession at the dedication of the wall (see 
EZRA ii. 13 g), Neh. 1241 (eAiaxifx [Nc.amK.], o m. BN*A). 

4. b. Abiud ; Mt. 1 13 (eAtacei> [Ti. WH]), and 

5. b. Melea (Lk. 3 30), in the genealogy of Joseph. See 

ELIALI (eAiAAeic [B], eAiAAei [A], cp Eliel, i Ch. 
820?), i Esd. 934 = Ezra 1038. BINNUI, 5. 

ELIAM (D^ 1 ?^ 4 6 - God is kinsman ; cp AMMIEL 
and Phoen. DJPX [CIS 1 1. no. 147, /. 16] ; eAlAB 

1. b. Ahithophel the Gilonite (see GII.OH); one of Davids 
heroes; 2 S. 2834 (oveAi<x0 [A], o eaAaaju. [L])=i Ch. 1136 
(where Eliam the son of is omitted before Ahijah the Pelonite, 
itself a corrupt reading ; see AHITHOI-HEL, end), and perhaps 
the same as 2 (below). 

2. Father of Bathsheba (2 S. 11 3 ; called in i Ch. 3 5 AMMIEL, 
a/oiit|A [BA], )Aa [L]). See AHITHOPHEI.. 

3. Possibly to be restored for ANIAM (q.v.). 

ELIAONIAS (eAiAOONiAC [A]), i Esd. 8 31 = Ezra 

84, EHEHOENAI, 2. 

ELIAS (HAeiAC), Mt. 11 14 AV, RV ELIJAH (q.v.). 
ELIASAPH (SlD^vN, God increases [i.e., the 

family ], 27, 44 ; eA[e]lCA(J> [BAFL]). 

1. b. DEUEL or REUEL (2) ; chief of Gad ; Nu. 1 14 (-$a.v [L]), 
2 14 (-<|>[a>>] [L]), 74247 1020. 

2. b. LAEL; chief of Gershon (Nu. 824). 

ELIASHIB (3WN, i.e., God brings back, 31, 
62, 82 ; but <5 L except in no. i reads 211^^ N, God 

1 In all the Aramaic inscriptions only two examples of this 
form occur, viz. jnvrta a d jrvnSi?3> both Palmyrene. 

2 For these forms cp Marq. Fund. 20, who shows that the 
initial <r is, in each case, due to the following <raAo/3a> t, and 
that the \L is a corruption from Ao (M=AA); thus e/j.acroi , 
0-afj.a.^a, etc., stand for eAao/3ou ( = inbN)i aAaajSa, etg. 



returns (or turns ); cp Is. 528, and prop, name 
JASHUB, old Aram. dmS K, Assur returns, CIS 2, 
no. 36, and Sab. ?K3in, Hal. 485 ; eAl&COyB [L]. 

1. A descendant of Zerubbabel ; i Ch. 824 (a<m/3 [B], 
lAiacr. [L]). 

2. Eponym of one of the priestly courses : i Ch. 24 12 

3. High priest in list of wall-builders (see NEHEMIAH, \f., 
EZRA, ii. 16 [i], 15 d), Neh. Si (eA(e)to-oi;/3 [BNA]); 3 2 o/ 
(^r)6-eA(e)icrovj3 |I l, -aiAeio-ou and -ouAierou/3 [N], -eAei a.(rerovfi 
and -eAicKTou/J [A] aA- [L]) mentioned in pedigree of Jaddua 
(see EZKA, ii. 6 l>), 12 10 (eAia<ri^ [K]). In Xeh. 10 he is not 
mentioned among the signatories to the covenant. 

4. 5, and 6. A singer, Ezra 1024 (eA(e) t <Ta^ [BKA]>= i Esd. 
924, AV ELEAZURUS, RV Eliasibus (eAcao-t/Sos [B], -i^os [A]); 
one of the b ne Zattu, Ezra 1027 (A(e)io-ou|3 | BA], Arou [N]) 
= iEsd. !)28 ELISIMOS, RV Ellasimus (eA(e)ia<r()iMo [BA]); 
and one of the B ne Bani, Ezra 1036 (eAeicrfi^> [B])=iKsd. 
834, ENASIBUS (i>a(r(e)i/3os [BA], x Atotrou/3 [L]); all in list of 
those with foreign wives (see EZRA i., 5, end). 

ELIASIS (eAl&ceiC [BA]). i Esd. 9 34 = Ezra 10 37, 

ELIATHAH (HnX^N*. in i Ch. 25 27 !"in$N ; 35 : 
cp, however, HKMAN ; HAl6<\ [L]). 

A son of Heman, the name of the twentieth of the classes of 
temple singers, I Ch. 204 (TjAioflofl [B], tAioSa [A]), also v. 27 

(ai t i.ada [B], eiAaS [A]; Pesh. ^- N V/) i-t-, Eliab; Jerome, 
Quo-si., Eliba); but see HEMAN. 

ELIDAD (Tvh$. 28 ; AA&A [BAFL]), a Ben 
jamite prince, Nu. 342i,f P). The name seems 
traditional (cp ELDAU) ; its meaning is disputed. 
Some connect it, like BILDAU and BEDAD, with the 
divine name Dad ( Ramman) ; thus it would mean 
Dad is (the clan s) god : the name Dad-ilu is borne 
by a king of the land of Kaska (Schr. COT 1 244 /. ; 
Del. Par. 298). However, Elidad may also mean God 
has loved ; cp Sab. htrrn. D. H. Miiller, ZDAfG, 1883. 
p. 15 ; and see NAMES, 28. Incidentally this avoids 
the apparent incongruity of giving a heathen name to 
an Israelite ; but heathen names such as Elidad, Hur, 
Ash-hur, Ash-bel (?), may have been borne by men 
who knew nothing of the heathen gods whose names 
entered into their own, or who at any rate did not 
worship them (cp MoRDECAl, i). Gray s explanation 
(HPN, 61) a kinsman (uncle) is God seems less 
probable ; see DOD [NAMES WITH]. T. K. C. 

ELIEHOENAI (so RV ; ^l?in^>N ; also written 
Tl?vbx ; the spelling in MT may be intended to 
emphasise a particular view of the meaning of the 
name ; for the [probably] true name see ELIOENAI). 

1. AV ELIOENAI (eAiwi/ais [B], -u)i<ai [A], -tavaj. [L]). A 
Korahite Levite, one of the doorkeepers of the sanctuary, i Ch. 

2. AV ELIHOENAI (eAiavo [BL], -iaav. [A]), one of the 
b ne Pahath-Moab in Ezra s caravan (see EZRA i., 2 ; ii., 8 5 
[i]if); Ezra 84=1 Esd. 831, ELIAONIAS (eAioAufias [B], -a.iav. 
IAJ, eAia/a [L]). Compare ELIOENAI. 

ELIEL (?KvK, eX[e]iijX [BAL]) ; a man s name 
somewhat frequent in Chronicles, but not found else 
where in the OT. It means My God is El, 38 ; or, 
perhaps, El is God. In i Ch. 634 [19] Eliel is sub 
stituted for Elihu ( = He [Yahwe] is God 1 ). Both 
names are virtually identical with Elijah ( Yahwe is 
God, or, my God ). Compare the royal name 
Iluma-ilu, llu is god, where the second ilu takes 
the place of this king s special deity (KB 884, Hommel, 

1. The Mahavite [q.v.} (C ]nSH ; A[ t ]i^A |BK], ceAirjA [A], 
injA [L]), one of David s warriors (i Ch. 11 46!), and 

2. Another of David s warriors (SaAeujA [B], aAiijA [A]), 
iCh. Il47-t See DAVID, n a, ii. 

3. A Manassite prince (i Ch. 62 and st). 

4. In a genealogy of BENJAMIN (y.T.. 9 ii. 3): b. Shunei, 
i Ch. 8, and (eAt^A[e]i [BA]), p. 20. t b. Shashak (<rAo;A 

[BA]), 22.t 

5. A Kohathite (eAia/3 [L]), i Ch. 634 [19]. Cp ELIAB [4], 
EI.IHU, 2. 

6. A Gadite, one of David s warriors ; perhaps identical with 



(i) or (2); but the name is eA[e]ta|3 in BA though tAiijA in L 
(iCh. 12n).t Cp ELIAB, and see DAVIU, n a, iii. 

8. A son of Hebron, one of David s Levites (enjp, ->/A [L!], 
-nA. at>e\T)n []), I Ch. 15 9 n.t 

9. One of Hezekiah s Levites (ie[e]i7)A [BA]), 2 Ch. 31 i 3 .f 

(TrvN ; otherwisevocalisedasELiOENAi), 
b. Shimei in a genealogy of BENJAMIN (q.v. , 9, ii. /3) ; 

1 Ch. 820 (eAiooAiAA [B], -coeNAi [A], HAICONAI [L.])- 

ELIEZER CVjr^J, God of help, or God (or, 
my God ) is a helper ; see EUCAZAR ; eA[e]iezep 

i. Abraham s chief slave and steward (Gen. ISa). 
The clause in which he is referred to is a piece of 
E s work and perhaps originally followed v. -$0. (Bu. ). 
It states that Abram s most trusted servant, in lieu 
of a son, would inherit his property (cp i Ch. 234^). 
It should be noticed, however, that the other narrator 
(J) does not give the name Eliezer (see 242), and the 
text is evidently in some disorder. The most probable 
way of emending seems to be to read yy> ^,-TN J3!T31 
and my tent-dwelling will be deserted (see Che. Exp. 
T.. 11 47 [Oct. 99]). 

Kalisch thought that the full name of the steward was 
Danunesek Eliezer, and RV implies the same theory. Gram 
matically the rendering is Dammesek Eliezer ((5 OL , euros 
Aafj.a<TK.o<; EAie(Jep) is no doubt inevitable ; but how absurd it is ! 
The text, therefore, must be incorrect. The words pi; ^ *"!, 
he (or it) is Damascus, are taken by some to be an intrusive 
marginal gloss on the word pOB which the glossator misunder 
stood (although it is difficult to see how he would have construed 
Tl 3 pt?Q~l Kin)- So, long ago, Hitzig and Tuch ; unfortunately 
the existence of a word pjs O (or ^B D) possession is extremely 
doubtful. Hall s rendering and he who will possess my house 
is a Damascene Eliezer, is not much more plausible than 
that of Hitzig. See Exp. 7 ., I.e. T. K. C. 

z. Second son of Moses and Zipporah (Ex. 222), so 
called because the God of my father was my help 
(184). The Chronicler assigns him an only son 
Rchabiah (i Ch. 23 I5 17 26 25 /). See ELEAZAK (i), n. 

3. A prophet, b. Dodavah of Mareshah, temp. Jehoshaphat : 

2 Ch. 20 37 (eAeiaSo. [B]). Gray (I/PN 232) suggests that the 
name may have been derived from a good historical record ; 
but the prophets of Chronicles are often of such doubtful 
historicity that the suggestion seems hazardous. Was not the 
name more probably suggested by Eleazar b. Dodai (or Dodo) 
in 28. 23 9 iCh. 11 12? See ELKAZAR (3). 

4. A Reubenite prince (i Ch. 2V 16). 

5. A Benjamite (BENJAMIN, 9, ii. a), i Ch. 7s. 

6. A Levite(iCh. 15 24). 

7. 8, and 9. A priest, Ezra 10 18 = i Esd. 9 19, ELEAZAR [7] 
(eAeafapos [BA]); a Levite, Ezra 1023 (eAiafap [N])=i Esd. 023 

IONAS [2] (iwapa? [BJ, laj^as [A]) ; and an Israelite, b. Harim : 
Ezra 1031 = 1 Esd. 9 32 ELIONAS [2] (eAiuSa; [B], -wrat [A]), in 
list of those with foreign wives (see EZRA i., 5 end). 

10. Head of family, temp. Ezra (see EZRA i., 2; ii., 15 [i] ii), 
Ezra 8i6(eAeaap [BA])=i Esd. 843, ELEAZAR [5] (-pos). 

11. Son of Jorim, in the genealogy of Jesus (Lk. 829 eAicfep 
[Ti. WH]). See GENEALOGIES ii., 3. 

ELIHOENAI Ortfin^N), Ezra 8 4 AV, RV EI.IE- 

HOENAI (2). 

ELIHOREPH (sp ri^K ; eAiAcp [B], eN& P e<J> [A], 
eAl<\B [L] ; true name perhaps Elihaph [cp @ i! ], i.e. , 
God is Haph [Apis, see AIMS], of which Elihoreph 
may be an alteration on religious grounds ; cp Ahi- 
shahar, from Ahi-hur? so Marquart), one of Solomon s 
scribes, son of Shisha (i K. 4s). The text of 
vv. 1-20, however, is in much disorder, and v. 3 needs 
emendation. } r . 2 promises a list of princes. The 
first prince (v. 2) is Azariah, son of the priest Zadok. 
The next should be Elihoreph (Elihaph?) and Ahijah 
sons of Shavsha the secretary ( Klost. ). See SHAVSHA. 

T. K. c. 

ELIHU (N-inVN, 1 God is He [Yahwe]; eAloy 
[AL], in Job - c [BXAC]). 

i. One of the interlocutors of the Book of JOB 
( /., 9)- 

1 The final N is omitted in i Ch. 20? (Kt.), 27 18 (Kt.), and 
once or twice in Jon. 



2. b. Tohu, in the genealogy of Samuel (i S. ]i 
ijXetou [B], etAi [L]). Samuel s pedigree, however, is com 
posite (see JEROHAM [i], TOHU), and Elihu of the clan 
of Tahan (so, forTohu ; cpEi HKAiMi., 12) corresponds 
to ELK AN AH [q.v. , i] of the clan of Jerahmeel (so for 
Jeroham). In i Ch. 627 [12] Elihu is called ELIAB 
(q.v., 4) and in i Ch. 634[i9] Eliel (q.v., 6); whilst 
conversely ELIAB (q.v. , 3), David s eldest brother, 
seems to be called Elihu in i Ch. 27 18, where BAL 
reads Eliab. Perhaps some early divine name has 
been excised (in various ways) by editors ; the name, 
e.g. , may have been Elimelech (cp REGEM-MELECH 
beside RAAMIAII), and it is probable that this, rather 
than Elkanah, was the true name of Samuel s father. 
So Marq. Fund. 12 f. 

3. A Manassite, one of David s warriors; i Ch. 12 20 [21] 
(eAi^ovfl [BN], eAiovS [A]). See DAVID, g n, a, iii. 

4. A porter of the temple, i Ch. 207 (evvov [B]). 

ELIJAH, in Mt. 11 14 AV, ELIAS (lil^N [sixty-three 
times], 38, or, as in 2 K. 1 3 4 8 12 and in Mai. 823 

(4s), HvX ; i.e. , Yahwe is God, 1 cp Joel ; HA[e]lAC 
[BAL, Ti. WH]) was among the greatest and most 
original of the Hebrew prophets ; indeed it is in him that 
Hebrew prophecy first appears as a great spiritual and 
ethical power, deeply affecting the destiny and religious 
character of the nation. He lived and worked under 
Ahab (circa 875-853), contending with heroic courage 
for Yahwe as the sole god of Israel, and refusing to 
make any terms with plans favoured at the royal court 
for uniting the worship of the national god with that of 
the Tyrian Baal. Thus he vindicated the true character 
of the religion of Israel, and is not unworthy of a place 
by the side of Moses. We shall be better able to appre 
ciate his position, however, when we have examined the 
legendary narratives in which his history is enshrined. 

i. In i K. 17-19 we have a varied and singularly 
vivid account of his conflict with the foreign Baal- 
1 Date of worsm P- II i s from tlle hand of one who 
1 K 1" 19 was a sut) J ect of the northern kingdom, 
and must therefore have written before the 
conquest of Samaria in 722 B.C. Otherwise in mention 
ing Beer-sheba (19s) he would scarcely have taken the 
pains to tell his readers that it belonged to Judah, or at 
least would not have expressed himself in that way. 
Again the type of his religious thought is clearly older 
than that of Hosea or even Amos. Not only does he 
speak, or make his hero speak, with reverence of 
Yahwe s altars in N. Israel (19 10), but, in spite of 
abundant occasion, he makes no protest against that 
worship of Yahwe under the accepted symbol of an ox, 
which provoked Hosea s bitter scorn. Accordingly, we 
may acquiesce in Kuenen s suggestion (Ond. i. 225) 
that he may have flourished in the ninth century, within 
a generation or two at furthest from the lifetime of 
Elijah. Only we must allow time for the creative work 
of popular fancy and the rise of partial misconception 
as to the points at issue in the deadly struggle. 

The narrative has been mutilated at the beginning, 
and hence the abruptness with which the prophet 
appears on the scene : otherwise we might have attri 
buted to dramatic art the sudden introduction, adapted 
as it is to the meteor-like character which Elijah s appear 
ances preserve throughout. The story must have begun 
with some account of the quarrel and its origin in 
Ahab s religious innovations ; but the editor of the Book 
of Kings had already given an account of Ahab s de 
fection (1629-34) in his own way and naturally refrained 
from explaining the matter over again in the words of 
the older document which he used. Hence Elijah of 
Tishbeh in Gilead ( BAL 17 1; but cp JABESH [i.]) 
is brought at once before us as if we were already familiar 
with him and with his cause. 1 He confronts the king 

1 [The statement that Elijah was of the inhabitants (rather, 
sojourners ) of Gilead is vague and improbable. Either we 
must read of Tishbeh in Gilead, or else (cp JABESH i., i) the 



with a message from Yahwe before whom he stands in 
constant service. No rain or dew is to fall for these 
years save at the prophet s will or declaration. Straight 
way the scene changes to a lonely wady called Cherith (?) 
(so most ; but see CHERITH). Here, in or near the wild 
and pastoral land of his birth, Elijah is shielded for a 
time from the famine which followed the drought. 
Ravens, forgetting their natural voracity, bring him 
bread and flesh morning and evening. Thus his supply 
of food was constant and beyond the needs of life in the 
East, where flesh is eaten only on festal occasions. In 
time, however, the stream of water fails, and Elijah at 
the bidding of his God passes beyond Yahwe s land to 
Zarephath, a Phosnician city to the S. of Sidon (but 
here again the name and situation of Elijah s place of 
refuge is disputable : see ZAREPHATH). At the gate 
of the city, where markets were held and remnants 
might be strewed about, a widow, who worshipped 
Yahwe 1 (i K. 171224), was gathering sticks. Water 
she gives at the prophet s request, but being asked 
for bread, protests that she has but a handful of meal 
and a little oil, with which she is about to prepare for 
her son and herself the last food they will ever eat. 
Finally, however, she does the prophet s bidding and is 
rewarded by the fulfilment of his promise that neither 
meal nor oil shall fail while the drought lasts. Nay, 
when her son dies, not of famine but of natural sickness, 
the man of God bending over the corpse brings back 
by his prayer the life which had fled. 

Elijah returns to Israel at the divine command and 
meets the prefect of the palace, Obadiah. This courtier, 

2. The contest , who { f^ Yahw f and had saved * e 
with Ahab es a lmndred prophets from the 
fury of Ahab s queen, was engaged like 
his royal master in seeking fodder for Ahab s horses and 
mules. He falls down in reverence before the prophet, 
but refuses to consent to let Ahab know where Elijah is, 
till the prophet has sworn that he will keep his tryst, 
instead of suffering himself, after his work is finished, to 
be carried away by the spirit of Yahwe and thus leave 
Obadiah to bear the brunt of Ahab s disappointment. 
Is it thou, says Ahab, thou troubler of Israel ? I 
have not troubled Israel, is the fearless answer, but 
thou and thy father s house, in that ye have forsaken 
Yahwe and thou hast followed the Baalim. Thereupon 
Elijah, the solitary champion of Yahwe, challenges the 
450 prophets of Baal ( the 400 prophets of the Asherah 
have been added by an interpolator in 1819 and in the 
<S BL text of v. 22) to a memorable contest (see CARMEL, 
3 ; DANCING, 5). One bullock is to be laid on the 
wood for Baal, another for Yahwe, and the god who 
without human aid kindles the fire of his sacrifice is to 
be the God i.e. , the sole recognised God of Israel. 
In vain Baal s prophets invoke him with wild dances 
and cries, and gash themselves with knives to appease 
the burning fury of the sun-god, while Elijah mocks 
their pains. Then they desist and at Elijah s prayer 
the lightning of Yahwe consumes the victim on his 
altar and licks up the water which had been poured 
over and round the altar to enhance the marvel. Baal s 
prophets are slain by the Kishon, and now that the 
heart of the people is turned back, the rain will come. 

Already the prophet listens in spirit to its welcome splash. 
* - yet in spirit only. He crouches down on Carmel with his 

small as a man s hand. Soon the heavens are black, the king 
drives at full speed to Jezreel, fleeing before the terror of the 
storm. Borne by Yahwe s hand, Elijah runs on foot the whole 

whole description must be read thus, Elijah the Jabeshite, of 
Jabesh in Gilead (Klost.). The latter is the more probable view. 
In either case, the second part of the description seems to be a 

1 [It is usual to suppose that the widow was of a strange 
religion ; so e.g. Strachan in Hastings, DB 1 688 b. This, at 
any rate, cannot be proved by her words Yahwe thy God, 
which are merely an acknowledgment of the superior religious 
standing of the prophet (i S. 15 30 2 K. 194).] 



distance of something like 16 m., but, true to his Bedouin in 
stincts, refrains from entering the city. 

The momentary triumph at Carmel does but fan the 
persecuting zeal of Jezebel ; and Elijah sets out for 
Horeb, as if Yahwe had forsaken his land and with 
drawn to his ancient dwelling-plnce. In the wilderness 
beyond Beersheba (see MIZRAIM, 26), weary and 
desperate, he sits down under one of the retem bushes 
(the retem is a species of broom ; see JUNIPER) common 
in that region and prays for death. The angel of Yahwe, 
however, bids him rise and eat. He finds at his head 
a cruse of water and a cake baked on the coals, and in 
the strength of that he travels for forty days and nights 
to Horeb, the mountain of God. (If the text is right 1 
the narrator is remarkably vague here, for the distance 
between the southern boundary of Palestine and the 
Sinaitic peninsula is only about 50 geographical in. , and 
the earlier view of Horeb made it not very far from the 
S. border of Canaan. ) Here on the sacred mount, when 
hurricane, earthquake, and lightning have cooled the air, 
Elijah in the rustling of a gentle breeze discerns Yahwe s 
presence. He had believed that the cause which he had 
held dearer than life was lost, and that he had better cease 
the unavailing struggle and die. Not so. He is to 
anoint new kings and inaugurate new dynasties for 
Damascus and Samaria. He is to anoint Elisha as his 
own successor. Each of these changes is to hasten the 
calamity which hangs over Israel, and only the 7000 who 
have not bowed the knee to Baal are to escape. Here, 
as at the beginning, the narrative fails us a second time. 
We do indeed learn how Elijah calls Elisha to the 
prophetic office ; but in the text of the Book of Kings 
as it has come down to us, Elisha takes no part in the 
deeds of violence which brought Hazael and Jehu to the 
throne. On the early and very striking story of Elijah s 
ascent (2 K. 2) see ELISHA, 3 ; and on the true 
scene of the legendary narrative in i K. 171-78-24 

2. Little need be said concerning the prediction of 
Ahaziah s death when he consulted Baal-zCbub of Ekron 
3. Other in his sickness - and tne nre fr m heaven 
stories which consumed two companies of soldiers 
sent to arrest the prophet. The story 
(2 K. la-i/) with its perverse supernaturalism and 
sanguinary spirit may safely be assigned to a period when 
the true notion of prophecy had grown confused and 
dim. The portrait of Elijah with his robe of goat s or 
camel s hair and his leathern girdle is, perhaps, the 
solitary fragment of genuine tradition which it contains. 
Very different in value and in date is the striking history 
of Naboth s judicial murder in i K. 21 1-18 20 (to be 
compared with and partially corrected by 2 K. 925/1). 
Naboth, probably on religious grounds, refused to sell 
his ancestral vineyard at the king s desire. He was 
condemned, on a false charge of treason against the 
god and the king of Israel, by the elders of his city ; 
for the kingly power in Israel was no Oriental despotism, 
and the authority of the city sheiks, who had replaced 
the sheiks of the tribes, had to be respected (cp 
GOVERNMENT, 24). Death was the penalty, and it 
fell, according to the custom of the time, not only on 
himself but also on his family. There was a judgment, 
however, higher than that of the earthly court. In after- 
days Jehu remembered how he heard the divine sentence 
pronounced against the unrighteous king : I have seen 
yesterday the blood of Naboth and his sons it is the 
oracle of Yahwe and I will requite thee on this plat. 

3. Such in brief outline are the early legends of the 
prophet s life, but we have still to estimate the residuum 
of authentic history and through the mist of tradition 
to see the prophet as he was. We must not charge 

1 [Wi. (67 1 29 n.) plausibly suggests that forty days and 
forty nights are a later insertion. A later glossator, who may 
have had a different view of the general situation of Sinai, can 
more easily be accused of geographical vagueness than the 
original narrator.] 




Ahab with conscious apostasy from Yahwe. He had 
great merits as well as great faults. He was a chival 
rous and patriotic king, and in the very names which he 
gave to his children he professed his allegiance to the 
god of his people. Nor can we believe that even 
Jezebel seriously endeavoured to exterminate Yahwe s 
prophets. Some four hundred of them gathered round 
her husband at the muster for his last and fatal cam 
paign (i K. 226), and the success of Jehu s revolution 
proves that only a very small minority of Israelites could 
have devoted themselves to the foreign worship. Ahab, 
however, did build a temple of Baal in his capital. No 
doubt it seemed to him the natural and fitting acknow 
ledgment and consecration of the alliance between 
Israel and Tyre. Elijah would brook no such 
amalgam of worships radically diverse. He was not 
indeed a monotheist after the fashion of the later 
prophets. To him Yahwe was the sole god of Israel, 
in whose land Yahwe was all or nothing. No wonder 
then that he looked on the drought as a sign of Yahwe s 
anger. Here by the way we are on firm ground. The fact 
of the drought is attested independently by Menander 
of Kphesus (ap. Jos. Ant. viii. 182), according to whom, 
however, it lasted only one year and was stayed by a 
procession of Phoenician priests (cp HISTORICAL LIT. , 


Elijah s devotion to Yahwe was something infinitely 
higher than mere patriotic attachment to hereditary 
religion. To him Yahwe and Baal represented two 
principles viz. , worship of national righteousness and 
the sensual worship of nature. Again, the sons of 
the prophets, like bands of dervishes, stirred the 
enthusiasm of the people, and encouraged them to 
believe that Yahwe must fight for Israel. Elijah, in the 
best and earliest accounts, stands alone or with a single 
disciple. He saw Yahwe s work not so much in national 
victory as in national calamity. He was able to believe 
that Hazael, the scourge of Israel, had been raised to 
power by Yahwe himself. Thus he opened a new era 
in the religion of Israel. Malachi speaks of him, 823 
[4 5], as the minister of judgment and purification within 
Israel, the herald of Yahwe s great and terrible day. 
)esus beheld the spirit of Elijah revived in the stern 
and solitary Baptist, and on the holy mount Moses 
and Elijah, representing the law and the prophets, bore 
conjoint testimony to the transfigured Christ. For the 
closing scene of Elijah s life, see ELISHA, 3. 

A few words, supplementary to the article KINGS 
( 8), may be added on recent criticism of the Elijah- 

rm. m" v. narratives. The late character of the 

4. Tne Elijah- .. T , , 

narratives narraUve m 2 K - l*-i7 generally 

admitted ; but Kautzsch in his essay 

on the Book of Kings in Ersch and Gruber (Allgem. 

Encyk. ) attributes the rest of the biography to one writer. 

On the other hand Wellhausen and Kuenen separate 

1 K. 17-19 21, where the prophet stands alone, from 

2 K. 2i-i8 (which, however, Kuenen observes, can 
hardly be much later than i K. 17-19) where, instead of 
being a wanderer, he has a home with Elisha at Gilgal, 
and where, too, he is associated with the sons of the 
prophets. Further, Kuenen separates i K. 17-19, where 
Elijah contends against Baal-worship, from 21 where the 
contest turns upon a judicial murder without so much 
as a passing allusion to foreign idolatry. The reason 
is far from cogent, and there is a similarity of language 
between 17 17 and 21 1, 18 1 and 21 17 (cp Benzinger, p. 
106). In St. Kr., 1892, Rosch has endeavoured to 
show (cp Stade, GVK^ 1522, n. ) that all the narratives 
are post-exilic, a theory which in the face of the reasons 
given above seems absolutely untenable (cp KINGS, 
8 ; Konig, Einleitung, 266). 

[In Moslem traditions Elijah is identified with the mythical 
personage el-Hadir i.e., the evergreen or youthful prophet (for 
fables see Weiland, Legenden, 177) who has become the 
guardian of the seas, but was at an earlier time spoken of as 
dwelling at the confluence of two seas (rivers?), as the guide 
of the Israelites at the Exodus (equivalent therefore to the 

42 1273 

Eillar of fire and cloud). Originally he was probably the rescued 
ero of the Deluge-story. See L)ELU<;E, 15 (col. 1062), and 
cp Clermont-Ganneau, Key. arch. 32388^] 

The monographs on Elijah are mostly out of date. His life 

and character are given from a critical point of view in the recent 

Histories of Israel by Stade (vol. i.), Kittel 

5. Literature, (vol. ii.), and Wellhausen ; also in Smend s 

AT Relig. (152 ff.^\ 175^). See also 

Cheyne s Hallowing of Criticism ( 88), and Gunkel s article on 

Elijah, Preuss.Jahrb. 98, pp. 18-51. On the apocryphal Apoca 

lypse of Elijah and its interesting connection with i Cor. 2 9 

and Eph. 5 14, see Harnack s Altchristliche Litt. 853^, and 

APOCRYPHA, 20. Fabricius, Cod. Pseudepigrapk. VJ\ 1070^, 

has illustrated the place of Elijah in Jewish folklore. 

2. A priest, temp. Ezra; Ezra 10 21 (eA[e]m [BA], -s [L]). 
Omitted in i Esd. 92i ; (0L ) however, has Aeias. 

3. A layman, temp. Ezra ; Ezra 10 26 (AV ELIAH : ^Ata [AB], 
-S [L]), called in i Esd. 9 27 AEDIAS (aijS[e]ias [BA], rjAias [L]). 

4. A Benjamite (BENJAMIN, 9 ii., /3), i Ch. 827 (AV ELIAH, 
rjAia [BAL]). w. E. A. 

ELIKA (Ni2 > ?N ; probably corrupt). In the first 
of the two lists of David s thirty we find (2 S. 2825 
MT) Elika the Harodite (rather, Aradite). This item 
is absent from (5 BL (but <S A gives evaKa), and from 
the list in i Ch. 11. Hence Driver (note on 2 S. 2839) 
would omit it, thus making the number of David s 
minor heroes exactly thirty, but reducing the total 
of the heroes (including in this the five major ones) 
to thirty-five. The total given in v. 39 may be due 
to a late editor. Marquart (Fund. 19) agrees, regarding 
Elika the Harodite as an (incorrect) gloss on v. 33^. 
Wellhausen and Budde, however, retain Elika the 
Harodite, remarking that the framer of the list likes, 
when he can, to couple two warriors from the same 
district. (Arad and Beth-palet, however, may very 
well be combined. ) Another name, it is true, is still 
wanting to produce a total of thirty-seven. See 
ELIPHELET, 2, and cp DAVID, ii a, i. T. K. c. 

ELIM (D^N; AiAeiM [BAL]; Elim ; Ex. 15 27, 
Nu. 889), the second station of the Israelites after 
crossing the sea, where there were twelve fountains 
and seventy palms (the term Elim covers palm-trees ; 
see ELATH). On the usual theory of the route of the 
Israelites, Elim is now generally identified with the 
beautiful oasis in Wady Gharandel, 63 m. from Suez, 
7 from Ain Hawwara (Ordnance Survey of Sinai , 1 151). 

ELIMELECH (^Ip^X. God (or, my God ) is king, 
24, 36, cp Malchiel; A.Ai/y\eA6K [A], ABeiMeAex 
[B], eAi- [L]), a Bethlehemite, husband of Naomi 
(Ruth 1 2 ). See RUTH. 

ELIOENAI COWK and J, 34, i.e. , towards 
God are mine eyes, or [We.] Elioeni [Eliaueni], God 
brought me forth [from Aram. Ntf* = Ny*], but 
analog} suggests that the word is corrupt. The true 
name may be yotrW (Che. ) <y coming from &, and 
j from D (cp JUSHAB-HESED) ; eAicoHNAi [A], -CGNAI 

1. b. Neariah, i Ch. 323_/C (eAeiOara, -v [B], 7>. 24 f\uavva.i 

2. A prince of SIMEON, i Ch. 436 (eAiwfat [B], -1071 [A]). 

3. b. BECHER in a genealogy of BENJAMIN (g.~ . 9, ii. a), 
i Ch. 7 S ((\ei6aivav [E]). 

4. One of the b ne PASHHUR (q.v. 3) among the priests in the 
list of those with foreign wives (see EZRA i., 5, end), Ezra 
1022 (eAiwi/a [B], -tcuoyai [L])=i Esd. 922, KLIONAS (eAuoi ais 
[B], -as [A]). 

5. One of the b ne ZATTU in list of those with foreign wives 
(EzRA i., 5, end), Ezra 1027 (eAiuii/a [B], e\i<ai>av [x])= 
i Esd. 928, ELIADAS (eAiafia? [BA]). 

6. A priest in the procession at the dedication of the wall 
(see EZRA ii., 13 g), perhaps the same as (4), Neh. 1241 (om. 

7. i Ch. -26 3 AV, RV ELIEHOENAI. 

ELIONAS (eAicoNAC [A]). 

1. i Esd. 9 22 = Ezra 1022, ELIOENAI, 4. 

2. i Esd. 932 = Ezra 1031, ELIEZER, 9. 

ELIPHAL (^S^N), i Ch. 11 35 ; AV m e- ELIPHELET 
(q.v., 2). 




ELIPHALAT. i. i Ksd. 9 33 (eAei(J)<\AAT [BA]) 
= Ezra 1033 ELIPHKLET, 5. 
2. i Esd. 839 RV (e\cuf><i)<.a. [B])=Ezra 813, ELIPHELET, 4. 

ELIPHALET. i. (D^7|J) 2 S. 5i6, RV ELI- 

PI I HI, KT, I. 
2. i Esd. 8 39 AV = Ezra 8 13, ELIPHELET (4). 

ELIPHAZ (TSvN, probably a corruption of an old 
name, but see 38; eA(e)i<}>*.C [AL in Gen., B in 
Ch. ], -A.Z [AL in Ch. , E in Gen.] ; z rarely becomes c)- 

1. Son of Esau, and father of Teman, Omar, Zepho, Gatam, 
Kenaz, and Amalek (Gen. 864 [-<a, L], 10-16 [v. n -<j>a6, E ; 
v. 15 -<t>a, D], i Ch. 1 3$S-)- See AMALEK, 4, EDOM, u. 

2. A Temanite, one of Job s friends (Job 2 n [cA[f]ica(J , 
BNAC], and often). See JOB i. and ii. 

ELIPHELEH, RV Eliphelehu (in^N, 27; 
eAidi&A [L]). A Levite name, i Ch. 15 18 (eAei<t>efsi<\ 
[BN], eAKHAA [A]) ; 21 (eiM<t>AN[AllAC [BN], eAi- 
<J>&A<M<\C [A]). 

ELIPHELET (D?D^N, God is a deliverance, 30 ; 
eA[e]l({>&AeT [ANL]. According to Cheyne a similar 
name, Ahiphelet, was borne by the Gilonite, David s 
treacherous counsellor, /<//, deliverance, being altered 
by tradition into tophel i.e. , lit. , brother of insipidity 
or folly ; cp 2 S. 1531). 

i. A son of David born to him in Jerusalem (z S. 
5 16 i Ch. 38 147). According to 2 S. , David had eleven 
sons born to him in Jerusalem ; but by a textual error 
(which occurs also in (5 BL of S. ) this number is increased 
to thirteen, by the addition of NOGAH and another 
Kliphelet: i Ch. 36 14 5 (oSs^K, ELPALET [AV], 
ELPELET [RV]). The latter is omitted by Bertheau, 
Thenius, and Wellhausen (Gesch.W, 216, ET it. ). 

(5 s readings are 2 S. 5 16 eA[e]i(|>aa0 [BA it s], eA<f>aAaT 
[BA], -Jar, <fAi<f>aAaa [L] ;1 i Ch. 38 eAet^aAa [B], eAt(J)aa6 [L] ; 
i Ch. 14; ju0aAeT[B], ey. [N], eAi^aAar [L] ; I Ch. 3 6 eAet<J>aA)0 
[B], e\i<f>a9 [L] ; i Ch. 14 5 eAei^aAefl [B]. See DAVID, n (d). 

z. One of David s thirty (2 S. 2834 ; in i Ch. 11 35 
the name is given by error without the last letter : MT 
Eliphal, VET^N)- The name of his father is variously 
given as Ahasbai (28. in MT) and as Ur (i Ch. in 
MT) ; see DAVID, n (a) i. / 

Both forms, however, are evidently corrupt ; and to recover 
the original name we must not (with We.) omit * the son of 
before the Maachathite. p and 713, ri3 and ri 3 were easily 
confounded; the words which now follow 3DnN, Ahasbai, 
in MT should probably be read (according to Klo.) n3JPB,Tn 3, 
a man of Beth-maachah. And, if Klo. is right in 
supplying HEPHER (ii., i) before the gentilic noun, we can 
hardly doubt that he is right also in regarding ^onN 73 (EV 
son of Ahasbai ) as a corruption of a gentilic noun formed 
similarly to r)3J?Cn"n % 3- If SC S tne original list ran thus, Eli- 
phelet, a man of Beth - ; Hepher, a man of Beth-maachah. 
The number thirty-seven in 2 S. 23 39 is thus accounted for (Che.). 
The Ur of i Ch. might be a corrupt fragment of the lost 
place-name. For a more tentative view see Driver, Sam., 284, 
and for a bolder but very ingenious view Marquart, Fund. 22. 
The versions are equally obscure (2 S. 2834; aAei^oAefl [B], 
<>4>eAAt [L.I ; i Ch. 11 35, e\<j,ar [BN], eAic^aaA [A], -<J>aeA [L]). 

3. b. Eshek in a genealogy of BENJAMIN (q.v., 9, ii. /3), 
i Ch. 8 3 9(<:Ai<f>aAs[B]). 

4. One of the b ne ADONIKAM (?.<.) in Ezra s caravan (see 
EZRA i., 2 ; ii., 15 [i.] d), Ezra S 13 (aAei</>aT [B], eA^aAa 
fletrjA, for Eliphelet and Jeuel [A], eAi^aAar [L])=i Esd. 839 
ELIPHALET, RV ELIPHALAT (eAet^aAa [B], eAt^aAaros [A]). 

5. One of the b neHASHUM(y.7>.) in the list of those with foreign 
wives (see EZRA i., 5, end); Ezra 1033 (eAei^ai-eS [B], -<aA. 
[BabN], eAia<>aAeT[L])=j Esd. 9 3 3, ELIPHALAT (A<f)aAaT). 

ELISABETH (eAe i CABer [Ti. WH] ; i.e. , ELISHEBA 
[y.f.]), the righteous and blameless wife of Zacharias, 
and mother of John the Baptist (Lk. \sff.). 

ELISHA (UK^N : God is salvation, 28; the name 
JK^N occurs on a seal from Amman, prob. of seventh 

1. Relation to c T mry " rT^^r L 5 ?* - ( 97 ^ 
eAeiCAie [B] -Aicc- [AL] ; in NT 

eAic[c]<MOC). Elijah s successor in 


1 See also DAVID, n (a), col. 1032. The copy upon which 
L based his translation seems to have been corrected to agree 
with Ch. 


his prophetic work, and for about half a century 
the father and guide of the northern kingdom in its 
struggle for national life and independence. We 
have in the books of Kings a considerable collection 
of anecdotes illustrating his history. We cannot be 
surprised that much of this material from which we have 
to construct our view of the manner of man he was, 
bears clear marks of its legendary nature. In this 
respect the traditions about Elisha do not differ from 
those about his master (cp HISTORICAL LITERATURE, 
5). Unfortunately, however, in the case of Elisha it 
is much harder to recover the kernel of literal fact, 
and we miss the clear and bold lines in which the 
portrait of the true Elijah stands out on the canvas. 
The difference springs from the vastly superior origin 
ality of Elijah. The ideas which came straight to the 
master s heart were taught to the disciple by outward 
word and example. He learnt as others might learn. 
Moreover, he sympathised more than Elijah had done 
with the natural thoughts and desires of his countrymen, 
and was much more on a level with them. For these 
reasons there is great difficulty in distinguishing the 
genuine history of Elisha from the overgrowth of 
popular imagination. 

Reference is made elsewhere (see KINGS, BOOKS 

OF, 8) to the disorder and chronological confusion 

_.. , , which characterise the bundle of anec- 

31 dotes on Elisha s life. It may be 
the Anecdotes. well to add a few details 

In 2 K. 5 the story of Naaman s cure implies that the rela 
tions between the Aramaean and the Israelite kingdoms were 
ostensibly peaceable. Then, without any explanation of the 
change, we are introduced in 68-23 to tne very midst of the 
warfare between the nations. In the closing verse of this section 
we are told that the Aramaeans made no further invasion of 
Israelite territory, whereupon in 624 we find the Aramaean king 
besieging Samaria. In 5 26 ./I Gehazi, Elisha s servant, is said 
to have been struck with life -long leprosy, which, however, 
does not offer any obstacle to his familiar intercourse with the 
king in 8 1-6. 

There is no unity therefore in the stories as a whole, 
though some of them are, no doubt, connected with each 
other (so 816 48-37 38-41 42-44. See also KINGS, 8). 
Further, it is uncertain whether the editor made his 
selection on any definite principle, for the assertion that 
he has related twelve and only twelve miracles of 
Elisha cannot be maintained save on an arbitrary 
method of reckoning. In any case he failed to under 
stand Elisha s connection with contemporary events. 
By placing all the anecdotes, with one exception, before 
Jehu s revolt, he has reduced the greater part of Elisha s 
public life to a mere blank. Yet how energetic and 
fruitful in result that life was, we learn with unimpeach 
able evidence from the exclamation of the king who 
stood by the aged prophet s death-bed (2 K. 1814). 

Nevertheless the stories, despite their legendary char 
acter, are early in date. They belong to the literature 
of the Northern Kingdom and to the eighth century 
B.C. Thus, even when they cannot claim to be treated 
as. sober history, they are of great value for the light 
they throw on the manners and beliefs which prevailed 
at the time when they were written ; and sometimes at 
least we are justified in the confidence that we have 
before us fragments of tradition which will bear the 
test of criticism. 

Elisha was the son of Shaphat and belonged to ABEL- 
MEHOLAH (q.v. ) : it was there that Elijah found him. 

.. . , .. The meeting occurred some time after 
3. Elisna s call. Eli j ah . s return from Horeb . for the 

route from Horeb to Damascus (i K. 19 15) would not 
lead through Abel-meholah, and the word thence in 
v. 19 must refer to some place mentioned in a section of 
the narrative which stood between w. 18 and 19, but has 
been omitted by the editor. Elisha had twelve pair of 
oxen ploughing in the field before him, and was himself 
driving the twelfth pair. This implies that he was a 
man of substance, and far (therefore) from the common 
temptation to prophesy for a piece of bread (Am. 


7 12). Still, when Elijah threw his mantle upon him, he 
was ready to leave all and only asked leave to bid his 
parents farewell. The leave was given, but with the 
added warning to remember the sacred service to which 
he was now bound by the fact that Elijah had thrown 
his mantle over him (for this seems to be the meaning 
of the obscure words in i K. 19 20). Returning, Elisha 
slew the oxen, kindled a fire with the wood of the 
plough, and made a sacrificial meal for the people about 
him. From that time forth he was known as Elijah s 
disciple, as one who had poured water on his hands 
(2 K. 3n). His call had come mediately, through 
Elijah, not immediately from Yah we. So also by 
Elijah s instrumentality he was perfected for the graver 
and more independent duties which awaited him when 
his master was gone. 

He is said to have followed his master, when his end was 
near, from Gilgal in the centre of Palestine ! to the sanctuary 
of Bethel and thence to Jericho. Elijah smites the Jordan 
with his mantle and the two comrades cross dry-shod. Ask 
what I shall do for thee, says Elijah, before I am taken from 
thee. The disciple indulges no idle hope of becoming a second 
Elijah ; but he would receive a double portion of his master s 
spirit i.e., the portion of the first-born, comparing himself with 
other sons of the prophets, not with his and their mighty 
father. Even that is a hard thing to ask ; but he is to gain 
this pre-eminence if he is enabled to behold the parting form, 
as it is borne upward in the storm and lightning. He sees the 
wondrous ascent ; he gazes on his father till he vanishes in 
the height, and rends his clothes in grief for his bereavement. 
Then he lifts the mantle which had fallen from the ascending 
prophet s shoulders, smites the river with it and divides the 
waters in the strength of Elijah s God. Other members of the 
prophetic guild seek anxiously for their lost leader in hill and 
dale. Elisha has the calm assurance that Elijah is gone and 
that he is the heir. 

The ascension of Elijah introduces a group of miracles. 
One miracle is stern and cruel ; he curses the youths at 

. __. , Bethel who mock him, and forty- two of 
4. Miracles. , 

them are devoured by two she-bears 

(223-25). Another has at least a penal character ; 
Gehazi is struck with life-long leprosy for his covetous- 
ness (52o_^). The rest are deeds of beneficence. 

Elisha heals with salt the waters of Jericho (2 19-22), makes 
poisonous gourds (see GOURDS [WILD]) wholesome by sprink 
ling meal upon them in time of famine (4 38-41), multiplies bread 
to feed a hundred guests (442-44) and oil to save the poor 
widow of a prophet from the creditor who would have seized her 
sons for debt and made them slaves (4 1-7) ; he brings the bor 
rowed axe up from the river-bed and makes it swim on the 
water (6 1-7). With exquisite tact he enters into the sorrows 
of the Shunamite woman who had given him hospitable enter 
tainment, and restores the life of the son whose very birth had 
been a token of the prophet s power and gratitude (4 8-37). He 
cleanses the leprosy of NAAMAN (?.v.) the Aramaean statesman 
(chap. 5) ; and even after he has been laid in the grave the 
touch of his bones restores a dead man to life (13 20 f.) 

It may be noted that these miracles are in part 
connected with the prophetic colonies, that they are 
modelled to some extent on the wonders ascribed to 
Elijah (cp 2 K. 2 14 with v. 8 ; 2 K. \ ff. with i K. 
Vl^ff. ; 2 K. 432/1 with i K. 17 ^ff. ; 2 K. 810^ with 
14), and that so far as they embody the spirit of active love, 
they contribute a Christ-like element (which is missed, 
however, in Ecclus. 48 12-14) to the ideal of prophecy. 

Though both Elisha and his master were wonder 
workers and champions of Yahwe s exclusive worship, 
5 Polit 1 Elisha s career presents points of marked 
influence con trast to that of Elijah. Instead of 
appearing and disappearing like a meteor 
flash, Elisha could be found readily enough by the people 
who consulted him in the leisure of New Moons and 
Sabbaths (2 K. 423), or by princes who sought him in 
person (2 K. 812 633). The strife with Baal was over 
and Elisha exercised decisive power in court and camp. 
Thus, Elisha accompanied the combined armies of Israel, 
Judah and Edom, then a vassal state under Judah, in an ex 
pedition against Moab, and saved them from perishing of thirst. 

1 2 K. 2 i. We have assumed that the Gilgal here intended 
is Jiljilia SW. of Shiloh. See further, GILGAL, 4. If we 
identify Elisha s Gilgal with the famous sanctuary by the 
Jordan, then we must suppose that there is some confusion in 
the text, and make Elisha start from his home in Samaria. 
Robertson Smith (KINGS, BOOKS OF, in EB) held this to be the 
original intention of the narrator (see v. 25). 



The story is historical in substance (cp JEHORAM, g "$/.) The 
allied army marched round the Dead Sea and crossing the 
Nahal ha- Arabim (see ARABAH ii.) attacked Moab from the 
S. This was just the course which would suggest itself. Moab, 
as we now know from Mesha s altar-stone, had recovered and 
fortified cities on the N., the Arnon presented an obstacle to 
invasion from that quarter, and the Aramaeans farther N. still 
might have cut off all possibility of retreat. Dig trenches on 
trenches in this valley, said the prophet, a rational method of 
reaching the water which filters through the sand to the rock 
beneath, and one which still gives its name to the Wady el- 
Ahsa at the S. end of the Dead Sea (see W. R. Smith, OTJCV) 
147). We may perhaps doubt whether the Moabites really 
mistook the water under the sun for blood shed in the quarrel 
of the allies among themselves, though Stade (GVI 1 536) sees 
no reason to question the truth of even this feature in the 

For his political influence, however, Elisha paid a 
heavy penalty. He felt, and was sometimes worsted by, 
the temptation to use means which his predecessor would 
surely have disdained. We may, indeed, on consider 
ing the relations between Samaria and Damascus, 
question the representation in 87-15 that he was largely 
responsible for the murder of Ben-hadad by Hazael ; 
but he certainly was a prime mover in the revolt by 
which the crafty and murderous Jehu, a man with no 
character for religion (note especially 10 18), seized the 
throne of Israel (see JEHU). He bore a nobler part 
under other kings of Jehu s line. 

If we follow Kuenen s plausible conjecture (Onderzoek, 1 2, 
25, n. 12, but see JEHORAM, 2), it was in the time of 
Jehoahaz that the Aramaeans besieged Samaria, till the famine 
within the walls made women devour their children, and the 
king, despairing of help from Vahwe and attributing the evil to 
Elisha s supernatural power, sought the prophet s life. Elisha, 
we are told, with a confidence like that of Isaiah, predicted 
victory and plenty. His prophecy was fulfilled ; the Aramaeans, 
terrified by a rumour that their own land was invaded (see 
JEHORAM, 2), fled and left their supplies behind. 

There came a turn in the tide. The Aramceans, 
struggling for life against Ramman-nirari III., could 
no longer hope to subjugate Israel ; and Elisha, now 
stricken in years, saw in spirit the dawn of a brighter 

It is said that on his death-bed he bade king Joash stand by 
the open window and shoot an arrow eastward. The prophet 
laid his own aged hands on the hands of the young king, and 
cried, as the arrow sped : An arrow of Yahwe s victory ; yea, 
an arrow of victory over Aram. Moreover he told the king to 
strike the ground with the arrows and when he did so declared 
it was the sign of three battles to be won, chiding him, however, 
because he did not double the strokes and so double his success 
against the foe. 

Well might Joash lament over Elisha : My father, 
my father ! Israel s chariots and horsemen (art thou) ! 
His guiding and animating spirit had been worth 
many a troop to his people. Here lay Elisha s 
strength and here also its limitations. No new idea 
came to the birth through him. He was a faithful 
disciple, a true patriot, a man of loving heart. He 
worked for Israel, scarcely through Israel for the world ; 
and it is not, perhaps, by mere accident that in the 
NT he is mentioned only once (Lk. 427). 

All the modern histories of Israel especially those of Stade, 
Kittel, and Wellhausen treat of Elisha; Smend, AT Relig., 
also may be consulted. w. E. A. 

ELISHAH (ilKN ; eA[e]ic& [BADEL], in L of 
Gen. 104, eAlCC6.). a son f Javan, occurs elsewhere 
only in the combination N *?.N, Ezek. 27?, coast-lands 
of Elishah (ismccoN eA[e]iCAl [BAQ]), whence violet 
and purple stuffs were brought to Tyre. The two most 
plausible identifications are that with S. Italy and 
Sicily, where were Greek colonies (Kiepert, Lag., Di., 
Kau. ; cp TIRAS, end), and that with Carthage or, 
more widely, the N. African coast (Schulthess, Stade, 
E. Meyer \GA, 1282]). Both regions were famous for 
the purple dye (cp PURPLE). The latter is favoured by 
the name ; Elissa, princess of Tyre, was the legendary 
founder of Carthage, which was perhaps originally called 
Elissa. On the other side Dillmann quotes the gloss in 
Syncellus, Elissa, whence the Sicelots ( Atercra ^ oO 
cri/ce\ot ; Eus. Chron. Arnten. 213); but this seems 
to tell against the identification of Elishah and Sicily. 



Dillmann urges that Carthage, being a Phoenician 
colony, would not be represented as descended 
from Japheth ; but this would have as much force 
against Tarshish or Tartessus (cp TIRAS). It may 
be granted, however, that N "K, coast-lands of Elishah, 
would be perhaps more natural of S. Italy and Sicily ; 
Tg. on Ezek. 27? indeed explains this phrase by the 
province of Italy. A decision is difficult ; but perhaps 
Carthage has the more in its favour. F. B. 

ELISHAMA (VDB^N, my God hath heard, 32 ; 
eA[e]iCAMA [BAL]). 

1. b. Ammihud, prince of EPHRAIM (q.v., i.) (Nu. 1 10 2i8 
7 48 53 10 22), i Ch. 7 26 (eA(i^a<rat [B]). Cp TRIBES. 

2. Son of David (28. 5i6 lavaB era/uvs [L] ; i Ch. 38 147, 
<^r [B]), and 

3. Another son of David, mentioned in i Ch. 36 (eAi<ra 
[B]) = aS. 615 i Ch. 14s, EI.ISHUA, which name should be 
restored here, as it is scarcely conceivable that two of David s sons 
should bear the same name. See DAVID, n_(rf). _ 

4. A Judahite, son of Jekamiah, i Ch. 241, identified by some 

5. Grandfather of the royal prince ISHMAEL [2], 2 K. 2625, 
(fAio-a/iai/ [L]) Jer. 41 i (, 48 1; Aa<ra [B], -e<ra [K], <Aea<ra 
{Q]>. Cp Sayce, Crit. Mon. 380^ 

6. Jehoiakim s scribe, in whose chamber Jeremiah s roll was 
laid up, Jer. 30 12 20 21 ( 43, cAtto-a w. 202i[B]). 

7. A Levitical priest introduced, by the Chronicler, into his 
life of Jehoshaphat, aCh. 178. 

ELISHAPHAT (DQ ^N, God [or, my God] hath 
judged, 35 ; cp Jehoshaphat and Ph. BCKvlH ; 
eAeiC<Mj>AN [B], eAlCA({>AT [AL]), b. Zichri, a 
captain in the time of Jehoiada (2 Ch. 23 1). 

ELISHEBA (inK^X, God is an oath, or perhaps 
rather God is health (Che.), see ABISHUA, ELISHUA, 
JEHOSHEBA, 33, 50 ; eA[e]ic&Be9 [BL], -Ber [A], 
-Be [A*F]), wife of Aaron and daughter of Amminadab 
{Ex. 623!?). She is also styled sister of NAHSHON, 
and Nahshon b. Amminadab in P is the well-known 
chief of Judah in the desert march. P hardly derived 
the Aaronids from a Judahite mother. Sister of 
Nahshon is, therefore, most probably a gloss (Rp) 
which has arisen from a confusion of Elisheba s father 
with the Judahite. It was, possibly, to avoid this con 
fusion that the writer of i Ch. 622 [7] mentions a son 
of Kohath (Aaron s grandfather) named Amminadab, 
whose place, however, is elsewhere taken by Izhar (cp 
ib. 28). The tribal connection of Aaron s wife, there 
fore, is as obscure as that of the wife of his famous son 
ELEAZAR [q.v., i]. 

The name Elisheba may well be pre-exilic (see, Gray, HPN, 
206), and with regard to the difficult question of the origin of 
Levitical names it may be pointed out that in this case a name 
of parallel formation is borne by a devout follower of Yahwe, 
the wife of the priest Jehoiada of Judah. See JEHOSHEBA. 

ELISHUA (INE^K, God is a help, 28 ; cp 
Elisha; eAlCOye [L]), a son of David [q.v., n</(/3)] 
(28. 615, eA[e]icoyc [BA] ; i Ch. 14 S , KT<\e [B], 
eAic&y E A ])- In J Ch. 36 for ELISHAMA (q.v., 3) 
Elishua should be restored (so @ B eXacro). 

ELISIMUS, RV ELIASIMUS (eA[e]ic[e]i/v\OC [BA]), 
i Esd. 928 = AV Ezra 102 7 ELIASHIB, 5. 

ELIU (HAeioy [UNA], HAioy [B c ], i.e., N-IH^N, 
ELIHU), a forefather of Judith (Judith 81). 

ELIUD (eAioyA [ Ti - WH ]. **-. T-IH^. God [or 
my God ] is glorious ; cp Ammihud, Abihud), sixth 
from Zerubbabel in the ancestry of Joseph (Mt. IH). 
See GENEALOGIES ii. , 2 (c ). 

ELIZAPHAN (|By?K. i.e., God [or, my God] 
shelters ; cp Elzaphan ; eA[e]lCA(J)AN [BAL]). 

1. A Kohathite prince, according to Nu. 830 P ; but in i Ch. 
158 his name is co-ordinated with that of Kohath (eAi<ra</>aT 
IB]). He is also named in 2Ch. 29 13. See GENEALOGIES i., 
7 (i-). 

2. A prince of ZEBULUN, Nu. 342$ P. See PARNACH. 

ELIZUR p-W^K, God [or my God ] is a rock, 


29; cp ZURIEL, PEDAHZUR; eA[e]icoyp [BAL]), a 
Reubenite prince (Nu. Is 2 10 73035 10 i8f). See 

ELKANAH (HK. God hath created (him) or 
God hath bought him, 36 ; eAKANA [BAL]). 

1. The father of the prophet Samuel (i S. li). He 
was the son of Jerahmeel (see JKKOHAM [i]) according 
to one form of the genealogy of Samuel ; but the name 
of Samuel s father is also traditionally given (it would 
seem) as Elihu or rather (see ELIHU, 2) Elimelech. 

2. Eponym of one of the three divisions of the Kora- 
hite Levites (Ex. 624; see KORAH [3]), the others being 
ASSIR (i) and ABIASAPH. In i Ch. 6 the genealogy 
of the sons of Korah is given in two forms, both differ 
ing from that of Exodus, and Samuel s father is repre 
sented as a descendant of the Korahite Elkanah. This 
may mean either that the descendants of Samuel were 
actually incorporated after the exile in the Korahite 
guild under the name of sons of Elkanah, and that an 
older Elkanah, son of Korah, was inserted to give 
symmetry to the genealogical tree, or simply that the 
Korahite guild of Elkanah was led by its name to 
claim kinship with the prophet Samuel and incorporate 
his ancestors in its genealogy. See GENEALOGIES i. , 

7(i i.)- 

3. A Levite : i Ch. 9 16 (i)Aai>a [B]). 

4. One of David s warriors, i Ch. 126 (qAxava [BAL]). See 
DAVID, ii (a). 

5. A Levitical door-keeper for the ark: i Ch. 1623 (TJA- 

KO.VO. [BNA])., 

6. A Judahite noble : 2 Ch. 287 (eiAitaca [B]). \v. R. S. 
ELKIAH(eAKeiA,[BNA]; AVELCiA i.e., Hilkiah), 

an ancestor of Judith (Judith 81). 

ELKOSHITE, THE (^p^NH, Ginsb., with most 
MSS and editions ; "WppKn, Baer, with the small MS 
Massora; ^p^NH and ^p ^XH also are found in 

V T V T 

MSS.; eAKeCAlOC [BKAQ]), a gentilic noun, derived 
from Elkosb, the name of the town to which the prophet 
Nahum belonged (Nah. li). 

According to Peiser [ZA TW, 7 349 ( 97)], the word contains 
the name of the deity, jyjp [cp KISH], which he finds likewise in 
the name Kushaiah [i Ch. 1617], and in Prov. 8031 [he reads 
Sfrp*?* for DIpSx]). 

Three sites have been proposed. 

a. There is an el-Kus not far from the left bank of the 
Tigris, two days journey N. of the ancient Nineveh, 
where the grave of the prophet Nahum is pointed out. 
According to Friedrich Delitzsch and A. Jeremias, 1 this is 
the place referred to in Nah. 1 1. This theory involves 
the assumption that Nahum belonged to the ten tribes 
and was born in exile, and has been thought to be 
favoured by the prophet s (presumed) accurate know 
ledge of local details respecting Nineveh. On the one 
hand, however, the N. Israelitish exiles were not settled 
in Assyria proper (2 K. 176 18 n), and we find no trace 
in Nahum of any hope of a return home such as an 
exile would certainly have expressed somewhere (cp 
Kue. , Ond.W ii. , 75, n. 4) ; and, on the other, quite 
enough was known of Assyria in Palestine in the time 
of Nahum to enable a prophet of such power to 
sketch the picture that we have in chap. 2. We must 
rather suppose that it was at a later day that the graves 
of the two prophets who prophesied against Nineveh 
were sought in the neighbourhood of that city. Whilst 
a resting-place for Jonah was found in Nineveh itself 
(Nebi Yunus), the village called el-Kus seemed, in view 
of Nah. 1 1, to be appropriate for the grave of Nahum. 
That there was a village there, however, in the seventh 
century B. C. cannot be shown. The earliest reference 
to it, according to Jeremias, is in the eighth century 
A.D. ; nor is the grave mentioned before the sixteenth. 

b. A ruined site in Galilee, Elcese, was shown to 
Jerome as the birthplace of the prophet, and is attested, 

1 See the treatise by Billerbeck and Jeremias cited under 
NAHUM (beg.). 



with slight variations, as E\/ce<re also by the Greek 
fathers. As t\Keffaios is also the form of the name 
in Nah. 1 1 (f\Kaifffov [N*], -KCfffov [K c - b ]) il is 
possible that nrp^N was a collateral form by the side of 
ppW (Kue. ), or, rather, that the name of Nahum s 
birthplace was ntyp^N, not t?pW Indeed, since the 
l of the scriptio plena is in no case binding, e p jKn might 
itself be read B>p^Krt and derived from nerj)h- In this 
case the name would have nothing to do with the deity 
B*?p. If, then, the tradition reported by Jerome be cor 
rect, we must suppose that Nahum, assuming that he 
lived in the seventh century (see NAHUM, 2), was born 
in Galilee amongst the Israelites left there in 722, and 
then, as the book itself refers us to Judaea, removed 
thither at a later date (cp further CAPERNAUM, i, 5). 
c. Against the statement of Jerome, however, is to be 
set that of the Vita Prophetarum of Pseudo-Epiphanius. 
The text of the latter is indeed unfortunately very un 
settled, and in its common form the eX/cecret of Nahum 
is located E. of the Jordan. Nestle, however, has made 
it very probable that lopSdvov eh is due to a corruption 
of the text, and that the genuine text says that Elkese 
lay beyond Betogabra ( = ELEUTHEROPOLIS, the mod. 
Bet Jibrln) in the tribe of Simeon (ZDPV 1 2-22 ff. 
[ 78]; transl. inPEFQ, 1879, PP- 136-138 ; cp Marg. u. 
Mat.226/., 43 /f [ 93]). Beyond question a place in 
Judah would be much more in harmony with the age 
and contents of the book (cp We. A7. Proph. 155 
[( 3 >, 158], who asserts that Nahum was at all events a 
Judaean from Judah ), and it should likewise be con 
sidered that all similar names of places point to the 
S. viz., npnSx, fipffyf, iVwSx to the kingdom of Judah ; 
n.^y pK to the S. part of the trans-Jordanic district. 
Certainty is, however, unattainable. K. B. 

ELLASAR OD|K, eAAACAR [D], ceAA. [A], eA<v 
[L], {m^f, Ponti [gen.]), the land or city and district 
ruled over by ARIOCH (Gen. 14 1). It was natural to 
think, with Mdnant and others, of Asur, the old capital 
of Assyria, and its territory. Ellasar might very well 
be a Hebrew transliteration of the Assyrian alu Asur 
(city of Asur) ; Assyrian (not Babylonian) / (a] is re 
presented in Hebrew by s (D). Most scholars, however, 
have rightly adopted Sir H. Rawlinson s view that Ellasar 
means Larsa or Larsam, the ancient Babylonian city of 
the sun-god, the ruins of which are still to be seen at 
Senkereh, (cp BABYLONIA, 3), because the name 
(Arioch) of the king is identified with Eri-aku, son 
of Kudur-mabuk, and vassal-king of Larsa. This, no 
doubt, requires one to assume either a slip on the part 
of the writer or a corruption of the text ; 1 but, since 
the narrator speaks of allies or vassals of the Elamitic 
over-king Chedorlaomer, it is clear that he must mean, 
not Asur, but Larsa. See Del. Par. 224, and, on the 
historical value of the account, CHEDORLAOMER, 4/. 

, c. P. T. 

ELM, a misleading rendering of rPN in Hos. 413 
AV, for TEREBINTH [g.v.]. Palestine is too warm for 

ELMODAM or better RV Elmadam (eA/v\<\A&M 
[Ti. WH]), six generations above Zerubbabel in the 
genealogy of Joseph (Lk. 828). 

Pesh. (cp Arm.) gives Elmodad ; cp. ALMODAD (Gen. 10 26), a 
poor early conjecture. Read Elmatham i.e., Elnathan(see A 
aK. 248); d and th were confounded, see <S s readings of 

ELNAAM (Dl?3?N, God is graciousness, 38, cp 
Phcen. DWU, C/Slno. 383) in David s army list (i Ch. 

1 Ordinary processes will not account for the change of 
Larsa to Ellasar. If it were a Greek document, we could 
understand such a change better, as the Greeks take great 
liberties in the transcription of Semitic names; but the Hebrews 
are more accurate. [Ball (SBOT) suggests as the original -al 
Larsa*", the city of Larsa. ] 



1U6; eAAAAM [B], -AM [K vid -]. eANAAM [A], GA.M. 
[L]). Cp JOSHAVIAH, and see DAVID, n (a) ii. 

ELNATHAN (jn^N, God has given, 24, 27, 

i. Grandfather (on the maternal side) of Jehoiachin ; 
designated, Elnathan of Jerusalem ; a K. 248 (e\Xa- [B], -/juQafj, [A], -vaOav [L]). Most probably 
the same as Elnathan b. Achbor, Jer. 8612 ([@ 44 12], 
twvaOav [B], v. [AQ*]), who was sent by Jehoiakim 
to fetch Uriah out of Egypt, Jer. 2622-24 ([8822-24], 
om. B), and is mentioned again in connection with the 
burning of Jeremiah s roll (8625 vaOav [A]). 

2. Three men of this name are mentioned in Ezra 8 16. Two 
were chief men (Q<B-JO) and the third, one of the DTIID or 
teachers, RV (a\<avafi, eAi/a0af, eai/. [BA], eAii/., e\v. [L, 
who gives only two]). In i Esd. 844 there are only two names, 
a misprint which is corrected in the RV ENNATAN (twarav). 

ELOHIM (0rfrfl), see NAMES, n 4 / 

ELOI (eAcoi), Mk. 15 34 . See ELI, ELI. 

ELON (fl? 11 ^, i.e., [sacred] oak, 69 ; cp ALLON). 
i. One of the cities assigned to Dan in Josh. 1943, 
where it is mentioned along with Shaalabbin, Aijalon, 
Timnah, and Ekron. (@ has : ai\wv [B], eX. [A], ia\. 
[L], but <@ L e\ui> for Aijalon in v. 42 a case of 
transposition. ) The site has not been identified ; but it 
is obviously to be looked for in or near the Valley of 
Sorek ( W. Sardr). The same Elon is referred to in 
i K. 4 9 (crit. emend.), where it follows Shaalbim and 
Bethshemesh. See ELON -BETH -HAN AN (where 65 s 
readings are given). 

2. See AIJALON, 2 ; and cp below, ELON ii., \f. 

ELON (pb, Gin. Ba. ; A AA60N [BAL]). i. A son, 
that is, family or clan, of ZEBULUN : Gen. 46 14 (a<rpwv 
[B]) = Nu. 2626 (a\uv [L]) ; perhaps the same as 

2. One of the six minor judges, most of whose 
names appear to be those of clans rather than of 
individuals (Moore, Judges, xxviii. ) : Judg. 12 n/. 
(Gin. pS N, Ba. J^N, euXwyu. [BL], -v [A] ; Ahialon}. 
Elon is really the heros eponymos of Aijalon (or rather 
Elon; see AIJALON, 2), in the land of Zebulun. The 
gentilic is Elonite, U^N ; Nu. 26 26 (aXXwv[e]i [BAF], 
aXaw [L]). 

3- (pV Mi Gin. Ba. ; properly a place-name ; see NAMES, 69), 
a Hittite, father of BASHEMATH (i), one of Esau s foreign wives : 
Gen. 26 34 (<UA*>/* [AL], -5w/a [/>]), called father of ADAH, 2: 
Gen. 862 (eAio/u. [ N ], ouSta^ [D], -AO>V [E], -p [L]). See BASHE 

ELON-BETH-HANAN (PJITI II ji^N ; but some 
MSS have J2 for JV2, and others prefix 1 ; eAcoM 660C 
660C BA.I6N&&M [L]). A name, or rather names, at 
the end of the description of Solomon s second prefec 
ture (i K. 4g). @ is probably right in reading . . . 
and Elon as far as B. (cp v. 12, end). Elon is prob 
ably the first ELON (i. , i) mentioned above, though it 
is also possible to read Aijalon. Beth-hanan, if a 
frontier town is meant, can hardly be right ; some 
well-known name is wanted. 

Possibly we should, with Klostermann, read BETH-HORON, an 
important place, marked out by nature for a frontier-town. 
Conder s suggestion of Beit Anan (Socin, Bet Enan, a village 
8J m. from Jerusalem, on the road to Jimzu (PEFM. 3 16), 
Beit Hanfin, 2 h. NE. of Gaza (BR 2371), may be mentioned. 

ELOTH (ni^N), i K. 926 2 Ch. 817. See ELATH. 

ELPAAL fafa, 31 : <\A((>AAA. eA X AAA [B], 
*.A(1>AA. -A., eA<J>. [A], eAei<t>- [L]), a name in a 
genealogy of BENJAMIN (q.v. , 9 ii. /3) ; i Ch. 8 n 
/ 18. See JQR 11 102/1, i. Cp EPHLAL. 

ELPALET (B ( ?S t ?N), i Ch. 14s ; or RV Elpelet 
(i Ch. 14s) see ELIPHELET (i). 

EL-PARAN ( J1NS ^N, i.e. , the tree [ terebinth ; 
better, palm-tree ] of Paran ; 600C THC T6pe/v\lN6OY 


THC d>\P&N [(A) (D)], . T . TepMIN90y T. <J>. [E], 
e. repeBiNGoy T. d> [L] Gen. 146). See PARAN. 
(Onk. , Sam. plain [KIE^D] f Paran ; see MOREH, 

EL-ROI (^Nl SN), Gen. 16 13, RV m e- ; see NAMES, 
116, and cp ISAAC, 2. 

EL-SHADDAI ("W ^N), Gen. 17 1 ; see NAMES, 

ELTEKE or ELTEKEH (NpJjpK or npljfajt, Assyr. 
Al-ta-ku-u, eAGeKOO [A]), a town of the Judaean low 
land, mentioned with Ekron and Timnah, in the book 
of Joshua (1944, &AK&6<\ [B], eAGeKeiN [L]). was 
(21 23 eAKO>e<MM [B], eASeKA [L]) a Levitical city in 
the inheritance of Dan. It was taken and destroyed by 
Sennacherib on his way to Timnah and Ekron after his 
defeat of the Egyptian forces that had come to the help 
of the Ekronites (see his prism inscription, Schrader, 
KATW, 1717. , 289, 292 [ET, iS9/.. 282, 285]). The 
army overthrown by Sennacherib probably consisted of 
Jews as well as Ekronites and Egyptians, and a likely spot 
for them to unite and take their stand would be up the 
Wady Sarar (Vale of Sorek) on the high road between 
Ekron and Jerusalem, at the foot of the hills a position 
which equally suits the data in Joshua. Sennacherib 
might reach it from the coast and the neighbourhood of 
Joppa (where he was previously), by the vale of Aijalon 
and the easy pass from the latter to the Vale of Sorek. 
No trace of the name, however, has been discovered here 
or elsewhere. Khirbet Lezkd, 7 m. SW. of Ekron and 
near the great N. road (PEF map, Sh. xvi. ; see map to 
JUDAEA) suits the data of Sennacherib s inscription, but 
seems incompatible with those of Joshua. Beit Likia 
in Aijalon (Conder) is too far N. (cp Guthe, Zukunfts- 
bild d. Jesaia, 48). See CHRONOLOGY, 21. 

G. A. S. 

ELTEKON (JpJftS : GeKOyM [B], eAOeKGN [AL]), 
a town in the hill-country of Judah (Josh. 1659), 
mentioned in a small group of six along with Halhul 
(Halhul), Beth-zur (Burj Sur) and Gedor (Jedur). The 
site is therefore to be sought, most probably, somewhere 
on or near the route from Hebron to Jerusalem. The 
reading 6eKovp. of B suggests that the element "? in 
this name was sometimes taken to represent the definite 
article (cp ELTOLAD). Some have thought of this 
Eltekon as the site of Sennacherib s victory of Altaku, 
and indeed, in spite of what Schrader says (JCATW, 
ijif.), the spelling of the latter is nearer Eltekon than 
Eltekeh ; but the geographical reasons he gives in 
favour of Eltekeh are well grounded. See ELTEKE. 

ELTOLAD OTirvPN), one of the cities of Judah in 
the Negeb near the border of Edom (Josh. 1630, 
eAGcoA&A [A], -u>A&A [L], eABooNAAA [B]), but in 
Josh. 19 4 (eA9oyA&A [A], -A&A [L], -A& [B]) assigned 
to Simeon. In i Ch. 429 the name is TOLAD (nVm ; 
0wAa3 [A], 0ou\a^ [B], 0oXa0 [L]), the prefixed 
Arabic article ^N being omitted (so at least Kon. 2417, 
but apparently not Ges. -K. 35 m; cp ELTEKON, above). 

ELUL (W?K. eAoyA [B b NA<i] ; in Assyr. Ululu ; 
see Schr. KA T 380, and cp ?1?N in Palm, [de Vogue, 
Syr. Cent. no. 79]) occurs in Neh. 6 15 (eAoyA [B], 
AAoyA [L]) and i Mace. 1427 (eAoyA [VA], om. N) as 
the name of a MONTH (q.v., 5). 

ELUZAI ( TJIl^N, i.e., God is my refuge? 29; 
&ZAI [B], eAioozi [A], eAiezep [L]), one of David s 
warriors, i Ch. 12sf. See DAVID, n (a) iii. 

ELYMAIS (eAMyMAic [B]). i. In, i Mace. 6 1/ 
AV has, king Antiochus, travelling through the high 
countries, heard say that Elymais in the country of 
Persia was a city greatly renowned for riches, silver, 
and gold, and that there was in it a very rich temple, 
etc. (cp NANEA). RV, however, reads, . . . that in 



Elymais in Persia there was a city, etc. AV follows 
TR ; RV represents tv EXvpaiSi 4v rrj Ilfpaidi ; @ B 
reads ev eXi>/utis (eXi /nes [A]) tv rij irtpff. Whether RV 
is justified in adopting this text seems doubtful ; tv 
before eXu/iau may be the correction of a scribe who 
knew that there was no city bearing the name of 
Elymais. Polybius (31 n), it is true, states that the 
temple on which Antiochus had designs was in Elymais ; 
but 2 Mace. 92 places it at Persepolis, which was not in 
Elymais, but in Persia proper. 

G. Hoffmann (Ausziige aus Syr. Akten Pers. Mdrtyrer, 
i-yzf.), quoting a passage TO TTJS AprefjuSof iepbv TO. \fapa, 
assumes that \\<Japa is the city referred to, and identifies Aapa 
with the Ar. Azar, which is in Khusistan, SE. of Susa, one day s 
journey on the road from Ram-hormuz to el-Ahwaz (cp al- 
Mukaddasi, ed. de Goeje ( 419 13). Possibly, however, the real 
name was one which admitted of being mutilated and corrupted 
so as to produce DT# Elam. Gratz (MGWJ, 1883, p. 241 
ff.) seeks a clue in the obscure passage Dan. 1145; but it 
seems hazardous to assume that lyiEK (EV his palace, which 
does not suit >V.TN the tents of) is equivalent to Am^aSapo, the 
name of an Elamite city in Ptolemy, for Gratz himself holds 
that the rest of the clause is deeply corrupt. Compare, how 
ever, Vg. and Aq. in Dan. I.e. ; both take K to be a proper name. 
Elymais recurs in Tob. 2 10, where RV m e- certainly 
adopts the correct reading. For the statement that 
ACHIACHARUS went to Elymais (eh TT\V EX(X)i>/xcu3a 
[BNA] possibly et s yrji> E. ) support has been found in 
the semi-apocryphal romance which bears his name 
(Rendel Harris, Story of Ahikar, Iii.). Dillon, however, 
ingeniously suggests that the name has arisen from the 
underground cell the original narrative had some 
derivative of oSy in which Ahikar hides himself from 
the wrath of Sennacherib and Nadan (Contemp. Review, 
March 1898). It is to be noted that the allusion to 
Achiacharus has little bearing upon Tobit at least in 
its present form (see TOBIT). 

ELYMAS (eAyMAC [Ti. WHJ), Acts 13 8. See 

ELYON (P^r), Gen. 14 18 RV m e- See NAMES, 

ELZABAD H917V God has g ven . 2 7 : cp Palm. 
nSTliiX de Vogiie , Syr. Centr. no. 73. Ili-zabadu, a 
Jewish name of fifth century B.C., has been found on 
a tablet from Nippur [Hilprecht]). 

1. One of David s warriors ; i Ch. 12i2 (eAiafe/s [B], 
probably only a scribe s error, eXefa/iaS [A], tXeapaS 
[L]). See DAVID, 11(0) iii. 

2. b. Shemaiah, a Korahite door-keeper, 1 i Ch. 26? 
(eA7tfa/3a0 [B] ; eXfaa5 [A] ; te f. [L]). 

ELZAPHAN (fSy 1 ?^ El conceals 1 or defends, 
30 ; cp Zephaniah ; eAlC&d>&N [BAL]), b. Uzziel, a 
Kohathite Levite (Ex. 622 Lev. 104). Cp ELIZAPHAN. 

EMADABUN (HMAAABOYN [BA]), i Esd. 5 5 8 RV, 

EMATHEIS (e/v\&6eiC [A]), i Esd. 92 9 RV = Ezra 

1028, ATHLAI. 

EMBALMING. The Egyptian belief in the con 
tinued existence after death of the human Ka (see 
EGYPT, 18) seems to be of very great antiquity. To 
make this existence happy precautions of every kind were 
taken ; food and drink were placed in the grave that 
the Ka might not starve ; his favourite movables in 
like manner were buried with him ; but above all 
the body had to be preserved so that the Ka could 
resume possession at pleasure. Hence the very ancient 
practice of embalming. 

A minute description of the methods employed in his 
own time is given by Herodotus (286^:) ; with this may 
be compared the account of Diodorus Siculus (Igi). 
According to Herodotus embalming was the business 
of a special guild. He distinguishes three methods. 

1 Read and Elzabad and his brothers with and some 
Heb. MSS (Ki.). 



1. In the costliest of the three the brain was with 
drawn through the nose with an iron hook and the 
cavity filled with spices. Then an incision was made 
in the abdomen on the left side with an Ethiopic 
stone (flint knife), the bowels removed and washed 
with palm wine, the cavity filled with myrrh, cassia, 
and other drugs, and the opening sewed up. Next 
the body was kept for seventy days in natron (ac 
cording to modern analysis, sub-carbonate of soda), 
then finally washed and skilfully swathed in long strips 
of byssus smeared with gum. The mummy was usually 
enclosed in a sort of case which showed the outlines of 
the body, and lastly in a wooden coffin of human shape, 
occasionally also in a stone sarcophagus. 

2. The second method was simpler, and correspond 
ingly cheaper. Cedar oil was introduced into the body 
and removed after it had decomposed the viscera ; the 
body was then laid in natron, which, according to Hero 
dotus, wholly consumed the flesh, leaving nothing but 
the skin and bones. 

3. The third and cheapest method substituted for the 
cedar oil of the second some less expensive material. 

Broadly speaking, the statements of Herodotus are 
confirmed by what we learn from Egyptian sources and 
from examination of the mummies themselves. 1 Ex 
tant mummies, however, exhibit more methods of em 
balming than the three just described. In particular 
those of the New Empire show a marked advance in the 
art, as compared with those of the Old. According to 
Erman, however (Egypt, 315), accurate details as to 
this are still wanting. One of the main innovations was 
in the treatment of the viscera. In the New Empire 
these were removed ; the heart was replaced by a stone 
scarabaeus (the scarabaeus, as a peculiarly mysterious 
and holy creature, was supposed likely to be of essential 
use to the dead). The heart, lungs, liver, and other 
remaining viscera were set aside in four vases, usually 
(from an old misunderstanding) called Canopic. Each 
vase was under the protection of a special daemon all 
four daemons being sons of Osiris -and the lid of each 
took the form of the head of that daemon : man, 
jackal, hawk, cynocephalus. The special function of 
the daemon was to ward off hunger. 

This custom of embalming was specifically Egyptian. 
The Hebrews did not practise it. It is only as being 
an Egyptian custom that the narrator speaks of it as 
applied in the cases of Jacob and Joseph (Gen. SQzf. 
[J 2 ], 5026 [E]). With his statement that the embalming 
lasted forty days (50s) may be compared that of Diodorus 
(Igi) which makes it at least thirty days. Ordinarily, 
however, it seems to have taken seventy days. There 
is a statement of Josephus (Ant. xiv. 74), referring to 
a later period a statement which stands by itself that 
the body of Aristobulus was embalmed with honey so as 
to allow of its being afterwards removed to Jerusalem. 

See Wilkinson, Anc. Eg. \\. 1 4,$\ ff. ; Maspero, Mem. sur 
quelqucs papyrus du Louvre, II. : le rituel de reinbauiite- 
incnt ; J. Czermak (as in note); articles in Winer, Riehm, and 
} ; Erman, Egypt, chap. 13. I. B. 


Italian (ricamare) and Spanish (recamar). (P has n-oiKiAcu, 
77 froiiuAia TOU pcujuievrou, ipyov TronaAroO, jroi/a Aos. In Ex. 
28 4 AV has a broidered coat for f3E>Pl njha ; RV a coat of 
chequer work. See TUNIC, and observe that, though in Ps. 
45 15 [14] niOp"]7 (RV in, or upon, broidered work ) is plainly 
corrupt, the reference to brocade-work in i>. 14 [13] is un 
questioned (see Che. Ps.ft)). 

Embroidery was regarded by the Romans as peculiarly 
a Phrygian art 1 (vestis Phrygia ; opus Phrygium]. 

, Pliny (848) even states that embroidery 
2. Home of 3 v 

EMBROIDERY. RV s substitute for the needle 

work of AV in Judg. 5 30 Ps.45 14 [15] ( "10/T! broidered work ), 

and virtually in Ex. 26 3621 16 2839 8637 38 18 

1. Hebrew 39 2 9(Qp i ruj-yo). EV gives broidered work 


in Ezek. 161013 ( l " a i? ?)i their broidered gar 
ments in 26 16 (DnppT H33). The Heb. word (rikmali) is used 
metaphorically in Ezek. 17 3 (feathers of an eagle) and i Ch. 
29 2 (ornamental stones, or mosaic work). The cognates of nopl 
are Eth. rekem, Ar. rakama to embroider, also to write ( to 
make points ), with which the Targ. NnDfT) coloured spots, and 
the Syr. tarktmatha red pimples, may be compared, from which 
it seems to follow that the first step towards embroidery was mak 
ing points, or little strokes ; diversity of hue would be sought for 
in the next stage. In its usual specialised sense of needlework- 
ornamentation of woven fragments, Ar. rakama has passed into 

1 Compare especially the results of Czermak s physiological 
examination of two mummies at Prague, in SWA W, 1852. 



with the needle was invented 


Phrygians. More probably the Phrygians 
derived the art indirectly from Babylonia. According 
to Perrot and Chipiez (Art in Chaldcza and Assyria, 
2 363) the Chaldasans first set the example of wearing 
richly embroidered stuffs, as we know from the most 
ancient cylinders, from the Telloh (Tell Loh ?) monu 
ments, and from the stele of Marduk-nadin-ahi. 
Should this statement be correct, it practically decides 
the question as to the origin of the art of embroidery. 
The Latin expression for an embroidering-needle (acus 
Babylonia] would seem to point in the same direction. 

It is true, the ancient Babylonian cylinder -seals 
hardly supply any confirmation of the statement of 
historians. In the magnificent records of De Sarzec s 
excavations, however, there is (pi. I. bis, fig. la) a 
representation of a standing figure clothed in a garment 
covered with diagonal lines which form lozenges. In 
this we may most probably see an example of exceed 
ingly early embroidery (3000 or 4000 B.C.), which 
would naturally assume a very simple form. Our next 
important example is that of Marduk-nadin-ahi (about 
1120 B.C.), in which the robe of the king is very 
elaborately wrought. The finest specimens of all, 
however, are the designs on the robe of the Assyrian 
king Asur - nasir - apli (885 B.C.), which are most 
interesting and instructive with regard to this subject. 
The sculptures representing him show that his dress 
was embroidered with most varied designs, representing 
men, deities, and animals, as well as the king himself 
performing ceremonies before the sacred tree, etc. 
The borders and ornaments (generally floral, the chief 
subject being the sacred tree) are extremely good (see 
Layard, Monuments of Nineveh, and Perrot and 
Chipiez, Chaldaa, figs. 253-259, and text). 

In the inscriptions we cannot at present say with 
certainty that either needlework or woven embroidery 
is spoken of. Garments and woven stuffs are indeed 
referred to ; we even have lists of garments ; but the 
precise signification of the words employed is often 
obscure. Very possibly, however, the phrases (subatu) 
fa ina asagi barru and (subatu} sa ina kunsilli barru 
refer not to garments torn with thorns, or other 
objects of that kind, but to cloth ornamented or 
embroidered with a thorn (? needle) and with a 
shuttle (?) respectively. 

Egyptian embroidery is known only through late 
specimens ; but from these we can safely infer the 
production of similar fabrics in earlier times. Herodotus 
(847) mentions that Amasis (570 B.C.) sent totheAthena 
(Minerva) of Lindos a linen corslet inwoven with figures 
and embroidered with gold and cotton; and Ezekiel 
(27 7), addressing Tyre, says Of embroidered byssus 
from Egypt was thy sail. Lucan (10 141-143) speaks of 
Egyptian embroidery. The thread is called Sidonian, 
the silk is from the Seres, the needle is Egyptian 

In Greece the invention of the art was ascribed to 
Athena : hence the offerings of foreign work of this kind 
to her temple (see above). Embroidery with the needle 
cannot be shown to be mentioned in the Homeric 
poems. Almost always the terms used are those ap 
plicable to weaving (//. 3 125/1 22 4 4o/ ; Od. 19 225^). 

1 It is said that the toga picta worn by the emperor on festal 
occasions, by the consuls on entering office, by the magistrates 
when giving public games, and by the Roman generals on their 
triumphs, was of Phrygian embroidery. 



To the value set on embroidery in ancient Palestine 

Judg. 530 supplies an eloquent testimony ; it is presum- 

_.,.. . ably Babylonian work that the poet 

3. .DlOilCtll 


refers to. At any rate, Achan s mantle 

was Babylonian (Josh. 7 21 24). In 
the account of Hezekiah s tribute (Taylor cylinder, 
834^), there is no mention of embroidered garments ; 
but, though we may perhaps assume that the veil of the 
temple (see below) was not Jewish work, it is probable 
(especially if P is late) that the art of embroidery was 
practised in Judaea. The account of the process of 
preparing the gold thread for the embroiderer, in Ex. 
393, deserves notice. And they beat out the plates of 
gold, so that he could cut them into wires, to work 
these into the blue, and the purple, and the scarlet, and 
the fine linen, the work of an artist. In this passage 
the word yon, hoseb (EV cunning workman ) takes 
the place of cjn, rokcm (EV embroiderer ) ; another 
similar but perhaps higher class of work may be meant. 
According to the Talmudists nDp1> or embroidery, was when 
the design was attached to the stuff by being sewn on, and 
visible, therefore, on one side only, and the work of the 3^n 
was that in which the design was worked in by the loom, 
appearing on both sides. 1 The correctness of this, however, 
may be doubted, for the statement that the l&n worked golden 
threads and also cherubim into the fabric (Ex. 26 i 31 86835), 
implies that he, too, was a needle-worker (cherubim being 
probably much too difficult for a loom-worker at that period), 
and moreover an artist," not only on account of the more com 
plicated nature of the work he executed, but also because he 
worked from new and much more varied designs than the rjp> 

Josephus (Ant. xii. 5 4 BJ v. 5 4) speaks of the 
wonderful veils both of the first and of the second 
(Herod s) temple. Clermont-Ganneau has suggested 2 
that the veil of the first, which Antiochus Epiphanes 
certainly took away, was the curtain of the sanctuary 
of Olympia, of Assyrian workmanship, dyed with 
Phoenician purple, and given by Antiochus. Josephus s 
description of the highly artistic veil in Herod s temple, 
sets us wondering where it was made. He calls it 
a Babylonian curtain. It is doubtful whether any but 
priests families remained on the site of ancient Babylon ; 
but of course the art of embroidery may have been 
practised in other cities of Babylonia. T. G. p. 

EMEK-KEZIZ, AV The valley of Keziz (pOl? 
rVl? - AM6KACIC [B] -KKA. [A], M. [L])! 
an unidentified city in the territory of Benjamin (Josh. 
18 21), enumerated between BETH-HOGLAH and BETH- 
ARABAH, 2. The name KZsis sounds like the word 
Kesds, another name of the W. Hasdseh, between 
Tekoa and En-gedi (see Ziz) ; but this Wady could 
not belong to Benjamin. If B is right in reading 
Beth-abarah in Josh. /. c. , we may conjecturally identify 
Emek - keziz with the broad and deep Wady en- 
Nawaimeh, NW. of the modern Jericho, which 
Robinson explored on his way from Jericho to Bethel. 
The place intended was possibly near the springs of 
A in ed-Diik (see Docus). T. K. C. 

EMERALD (cM&p&rAoc, sutaragdiu) 3 represents 
in & (see, however, PRECIOUS STONES) the Heb. njTQ, 
bdrtketh (Ex. 28i; 39 10) or n,Ti3, bdt f kath (Ezek. 2813). 

1 Name II s also the renderin of RV m ?- ; EV, 

wrongly, has CARBUNCLE. Targg. and 

Pesh. retain the Heb. word : Nnpna [Jerus. Jon.], jp-Q 

[Onk.], j^jj^ [Pesh.]). The Gk. name, which occurs 

also without the initial letter, seems to be the same as 
the Hebrew ; but the ultimate origin of the word is un 
known. The Semitic root barak, to lighten, readily 
suggests itself ; but cp Sans, marakata, marakta. In 
Arabic two varieties of emerald are distinguished, 
sabarjad and zumurrud. 

1 In Phcen. 3E- n = weaver (Ges. l3).Bu.(2)). Cp WEAVING. 

I KFQ 1878, pp. 79-81. 
3 Whence emerald, through (presumably) smaraldus. 



The emerald is classed mineralogically with the beryl (see 
BERYL), from which, however, it differs in having a fine green 
colour, attributed to the presence in it of 
2. Description, chromium sesquioxide ; it also never presents 
the internal stria; often seen in the beryl. 1 
It occurs in six-sided prismatic crystals of the hexagonal system, 
the edges of which not unfrequently show various modifica 
tions. The emerald is transparent or translucent, and has a 
vitreous, rarely resinous lustre. It was highly valued by the 
ancients (see Pliny, NH iTt 5). Various virtues were ascribed to 
it ; it was said to be good for the eyes, to colour water green, to 
assist women in childbirth, and to drive away evil spirits ; 
in the East it is still credited with talismanic and medicinal 

Besides being mentioned in Ezek. 2813 as one of the 

precious stones with which the king of Tyre was decked, 

_., .. . and in Ex. 28 17 39 10 as among the gems 

3. lilt icai in the high priest > s breastplate, the 
:ences. emerald is allude d to in Tobit 13 16 
Judith 102i Ecclus. 326 Rev. 4s (ffpapdySivos, of the 
rainbow), and Rev. 21 19. 

2. In Ex. 28 18 39 ii Ezek. 27 16 28i3,t EV has 
emerald for -jsj, nophek, but RV m - renders carbuncle. 

The resemblance between the letters of Heb. nophek and 
Egypt. mfk(f\ or, as commonly written, mafkat, may be urged 
in favour of emerald as at any rate a better rendering otnopliek 
than carbuncle. The Egyptian word represents, according 
to WMM, a green stone, not however the emerald, but malachite. 
It is not less plausible to identify nophek and mafkat with the 
htfakku -stones in the Amarna Tablets (202, 16), sent by the 
prince of Ashkelon to the king of Egypt. In S. Philistia, where 
the roads from Sinai terminated, it would be easy to obtain 
jitafkat from the Egyptian mines. If we follow in Ezek. 
27 16 and read Edom (nix) for MT s Aram (DIN), it will 
appear that ndphek&s well as other precious stones came from 
Edom. This too is quite consistent with the equation nophek= 
mafkat (so WMM, OLZ, Feb. 1899, p. 39^".). Maspero, how 
ever, interprets mafkat as turquoise. 

EMERODS, 2 , RV tumours, except in Dt. 2827; 
but see mg. (DvDl?, ffdlim; < BAL H eAp&, Al GAp&l : 

in I S. 56 eiC T&C 6AP&C [A] N&yC [ B ] > t* 010 
renderings combined in L), mentioned with other 
diseases in Dt. 2827 [EV] and in the account of the 
affliction of the Philistines (i S. 66912 6^f. n 17). 
According to the ordinary view, Sfdlim became at length 
a vulgar word, and Kre therefore substitutes the more 
seemly word C ^na, tlhorim, which is also to be found 
in the late insertions i S. 6n3 17-180 (see Budde, Sam. 
SHOT). Since, however, tthdrim is no euphemism at 
all, 3 and analogous Kre readings (see HUSKS) have 
been argued to be corrupt, it has been proposed to 
read for the improbable and unpleasant word nnne, 
D nm ( = D rntf, ulcers). Kre is therefore not a 
euphemism but a gloss (Che. ). 

The reading tehSrim must, it is true, have been an early one, 
for it seems to be implied in the e fipat of <S>, not, however in Ps. 
7866, where a small corruption has obscured the true sense. 4 
Tradition has in fact radically misunderstood the meaning of dpha- 
lii, which (like the gloss rfthahtni) must be a descriptive term 
for the disease, and probably means tumours (so RV ; cp ophel, 
hill ). This suits the (almost certainly correct) reading, 
irnEJ l, of the verb in i S. 5 9^ (for MT s lini^ l). 5 According to 
the emended text the passage runs thus and he smote the 
men of the city, both small and great, and tumours broke out 
upon them. 6 

That hasmorrhoidal swellings in ano are referred to 
is rendered possible by the usage of the Ar. aft (see Ges. 

1 The chemical composition of the emerald may be represented 
by the formula 6SiO^,Alo,Oa,3GfO. It has an uneven and con- 
choidal fracture, a hardness of 7.5-8, and a specific gravity of 
2.67010 2.732. 

2 Emerods is found only in AV. The nearest approach to 
the form is emeraudes, Mid. Eng. in the Promptoriunt 
Parvuloruin of 1440, which is nearly the same as old Fr. 
emeroides i.e., haemorrhoids (or piles). 

3 See BDB and Ges. -Buhl, s.v. nnu- 

4 For Tj l read afc l l, And made his foemen turn back. Re 
treating and ignominy are constantly connected in the Psalms 
(e.g., 610 [n]). 

8 Cp Ex. $gf. , S ar >d B I n an d n were confounded (Che.). 

6 This happens to be H. P. Smith s rendering, but it is put 
forward by him as a mere conjecture. The lexicographers, on the 
other hand, seek to justify the sense of break out (cleave) 
by comparing Ar. Satara ( to have a cracked eyelid ). 
would have been more natural. 



Thes. ), and by the case of the alleged punishment of 
the Athenians for dishonour done to Dionysos (schol. 
ad Aristoph. Acharn. 243). The sense of plague- 
boil (RV s second rend., Dt. 2827 mg. ) is favoured 
not indeed by the (imaginary) symbolism of the mouse 
-but by the statement of the rapid spread of the 
disease among the Philistines. The most decisive 
passage is i S. 612, And the sick (D eyKan, Klo. ) that 
died not were smitten with the tumours, and the cry 
of the city went up to heaven ; i.e. , as soon as the 
ark reached Ekron there came on the whole population 
a plague which killed some at once, while the rest were 
afflicted with painful tumours, so that a cry of mourning 
and of pain resounded through the city. Plague-boils 
in the technical sense of the expression, however, occur 
only in the groins, the armpits, and the sides of the neck ; 
tlhorim therefore cannot be so rendered. Plainly a 
thorough treatment of the text is a necessary preliminary 
to a consistent and natural explanation of the narrative 
in i S. 5. As the text of i S. 64 f. 17 f. now stands, 
golden tumours, as well as golden mice, were sent by 
the Philistines as a votive offering to Yahwe. H. P. 
Smith however thinks that the original narrative men 
tioned only golden tumours, the mice wherever they 
appear being the result of late redactional insertion. This 
view is certainly preferable to that of Hitzig, who thought 
that the only golden objects sent were symbols of the 
pestilence which bad devastated the Philistine cities 
(Ashdod, Gath, and Ekron) in the form of mice, a 
theory which, being so widely accepted, ought to be 
correct, but is unfortunately indefensible. The idea 
of golden tumours is very strange, however. Votive 
offerings, both in ancient and in modern times, re 
present not the disease from which the sick man has 
suffered but the part of the body affected. Indeed it 
could hardly be otherwise ; for most morbid conditions 
do not admit of plastic representation so as to be dis 
tinguishable by untrained eyes." So Dr. C. Creighton, 
who proposes to interpret dfdlim in i S. 6 a,f. and t&horlm 
in v. 17 of the anatomical part of the body affected, and to 
make the disease dysentery ; but it is plain from (> that 
the narrative in i S. 5 f. has been interpolated, and 
it would seem that not only i S. 6 17 i8a but also the 
references to golden tumours in w. $f. must be late 
insertions. 1 na[D]j; and ^sy are not very unlike ; out of 
a false reading a false statement may have developed. 

T. K. c. 

EMIM, THE (D^KH, DNH, as if the terrors ; 
probably corrupted from D^pVI^n, the strong ; cp 
ZuziM ; in Gen. royc COMAIOYC [A], COMM. [E], 
6MM. [L] I in Dt. pi OMM6IN [BFL], OOMM6IN, 
OMMieiN [A]), prehistoric inhabitants of Moab (Gen. 

Schwally(Z^i T1-VI8 135 [ 98]) compares Ar. ayyun, serpent, 
as if serpent-spirits were meant (cp ADAM AND KVE, col. 61, 
n. 3) ; but the text is more probably corrupt. The parallel 
names all admit of simple explanations. *r. K. C. 

EMINENT PLACE (3|), Ezek. 1624. See HIGH 
PLACE, 6. 

EMMANUEL (eMMANoyHA [Ti. WH]), Mt. 1*3 

EMMAUS (eMMAOYC [Ti. WH] ; deriv. uncertain ; 
cp nsn, hot [spring], 1 see HAMMATH ; or itVfon, 
spring, fount, see MOZAH and cp below, no. 2). 

i. A city in the plain, at the base of the mountains 
of Judaea, near which was the scene of the defeat of 
Gorgias at the hands of Judas, 164 B.C. (i Mace. 840, 
a / u j ua[o]u[i ] [ANV]; 57,a/i/u>v/i[A],-j[N], eytiyiuious [V]); 
43, e/j.fJLaov/j. [AK c - ac - b ], [N*], a/JifJ.. [V]). It 
was among the strongholds afterwards fortified by 
Bacchides (ib. 9 50 a/ [N*], a/ [K c - a V], e/u/x. 

1 Possibly the original reading in i S. 617 was 
was displaced by the If ire. 


Vi which 


[A]). Emmaus, mod. Amwds, was situated 22 R. m. 
from Jerusalem on the road to Joppa, and 10 m. SSE. 
from Lydda. In Roman times it was the seat of a 
toparchy, and frequently enters into the history of that 
period (cp Jos. Ant. xiv. 112; BJ i. llz, ii. 5i 204, 
iv. 8 1, v. 16). From the third century it bears the 
name Nicopolis, the origin of which is variously ex 
plained (see Schiirer, GVI l$nff., ET, 2zs3/. ), and 
in Christian times it was an episcopal see. Emmaus 
was renowned for a spring believed to be endowed with 
miraculous powers (cp Mid. KoMleth 7 7), from the exist 
ence of which it may have derived its name. Eusebius 
and Jerome (OS 257 21 121 6), whom early writers followed, 
agreed in identifying Emmaus-Nicopolis with 2. 

2. The Emmaus of Lk. 24 13 (referred to, but un 
named, in Mk. 1612), a village (KW/XIJ), 60 (N and 
some others read 160) stadia from Jerusalem. The 
identification has found supporters in modern times 
(notably Robinson LBR 147 ff.), but is unlikely. 
Emmaus was too important a city to be called KW/XT; ; 
and, not to mention other reasons, the supposition that 
the disciples accomplished so long a journey (for no 
specific purpose) is at variance with the narrative. It is 
very evident that the reading 160 is an intentional 
alteration to harmonise with the tradition shared by 
Eusebius and Jerome. Emmaus is to be sought for in the 
immediate neighbourhood of Jerusalem, and it is agreed 
that it can be no other than the Emmaus of Josephus 
(BJ vii. 66) 30 (so Niese ; others read 60) stadia from 
Jerusalem, which Vespasian colonised by assigning to it 
800 discharged veterans. Now about 34-35 stadia to 
the NW. of Jerusalem lies Kuloniyeh, a little village, 
which derives its name, it would appear, from 
colonia and reminds us of the 800 veterans above. * 
In close proximity is the ruined Bet Mizza, probably the 
Benjamite njran of Josh. 1826, which according to the 
GSmara on Sukk, 4s was also a colonia (see MOZAH). 
The close resemblance between the names nsarr (Bet 
Mizza] and Emmaus is sufficiently striking, and since it 
is almost the required distance from Jerusalem, there 
can be little doubt as to the identity of Kuloniyeh and 
the Emmaus of Josephus. The further identification of 
Kuloniyeh and the Emmaus of Lk. becomes equally 
probable, and is accepted by most moderns ( Hi. , Caspari, 
Buhl, Pal. 186, Schultz, PREW 11 769 771, Wolff in 
Riehm HWB, Wilson in Smith s DB^ ; see also Sepp, 
Jer. u. d. heil. Land, 1 54-73 ). 2 

By those who adopt the less accredited distance of 60 stadia, 
several sites have been proposed for Emmaus. (a) Conder {HB 
326 f., PEFJlf336ff.)finds\t in the name el-Khamasa (according 
to him Emmaus), SW. of Bittlr (see BETHER i.) ; the antiquity 
of the place is vouched for by the existence of rock-hewn tombs. 
El-Khamasa, however, is 72 stadia from Jerusalem direct, and 
the distance is even greater by road. (6) el- Kubebeh about 64 
stadia from Jerusalem, W. of Neby Samwll. Further support 
for this is claimed in the tradition (which, however, is not older 
than the I4th cent.) associating this place with Christ s appear 
ance (cp Baed.( s ) 16, 115, and esp. Zschokke, D. neutest. 
Emmaus [ 65]). (c) Kariet el- Enab (or Abu Gosh), to the S. of 
el-Kubebeh, about 66 stadia from Jerusalem (cp Williams, Diet. 
Gk. and Rom. Geog:, Thomson LBV) 534, 666 / ; and see JPh. 

4262). Cp KlRJATH-JEARIM, 2. S. A. C. 

EMMER (6MMHR [A]), i Esd. 821 = Ezra 1020. 

IMMER ii. 

EMMERUTH (eMMHpoyQ [A], etc.), i Esd. 624 
RV = Ezra 237, IMMER ii. , i. 

EMMOR (e/v\MO>p [Ti. WH]), Acts 7x6 AV, RV 

ENAIM (D^tt i.e. , probably place of a fountain, 
101, 107, cp ENAN ; AINAN [ADEL]), mentioned 
only in Gen. 881421 RV (AV m - Enajim), where AV 
following Pesh. , Vg. , and Targ. (see Spurrell s note) 3 

1 See KULON. A little to the WSW. is Kastal, whose name 
also bears a trace of a former Roman encampment. 

2 It is interesting to recall that, according to Wilson, 
Kuloniyeh was, and still is, a place to which the inhabitants of 
Jerusalem went out for recreation. 

3 The apoc. Book of Jubilees (chap. 41) omits the name. OSC 2 ) 
(93 18 221 18) follows , anim, acetju. 




treat the word as an appellative, an open place. 
Enaim, however, is obviously a place ; it lay between 
Adullam and Timnah, and is the Enarn (cry ; rjvaein 
[AL], fjuuavei [B]) named in Josh. 1534 in the first group 
of towns in the lowland of Judah. The fuller form of the 
name in Gen. and Josh, is probably Tappuah of Enaim 
(or, of Enam) ; see TAPPUAH, i, and NKPHTOAH. The 
Talmud mentions a place called Kefar Enaim (Pesik. 
Rab. 23), and here and elsewhere distinctly states that 
Enaim is a place-name, on the authority of Rab (Sota, 
10 a). Conder s identification with Kh. Wady Alin 
does not suit the reference in Genesis. T. K. C. 

ENAN (P" 1 !?, 101, cp ENAIM, HAZAR-ENAN ; 

i. Father of AHIRA (Nu. l 15 229 [ai^oc A] 778 83 102 7 , P). 
See ANER, i. 

ENASIBUS (eNAc[e]lBoc [BA]), i Esd. 9 3 4 = Ezra 
1036, ELIASHIB, 6. 

ENCAMPMENT (Prvp), Gen. 25 16 Ezek. 254 etc., 
RV; see CAMP, i ; CATTLE, i, n. 2. 



, etc.). 

ENDIRONS (D^DS?), Ezek. 40 43 AV m sr- See 
HOOK (7). 

ENDOR ("in pi? [Josh. iS.], "INI pi? [Ps.], 
ACNAcop [BSARTL ; Euseb.], eNAoopON Jos.), (a) 
Endor appears in Josh. 17 " (MT)among those Manassite 
towns within the territory of Issachar from which the 
Manassites were unable to expel the Canaanite inhabit 
ants ; but it is not mentioned in (f BAL (unless eSwp 
[fja.bmg.] i s a trace of the name) nor in the || Judg. 127, 
and has evidently slipped into MT through the simi 
larity of the name to that of Dor (cp Bennett, SBOT, 
Josh., ad loc.). 

(b) Saul s visit to the witch of Endor before the 
battle of Gilboa is related in i S. 285-25 (aeXdup [B], 
vrjvSup [A]). Although the name Endor was recog 
nised in the fourth century A.D. as attaching to a 
large village 4 R. m. S. of Tabor (OS 259 70 ; 22625), 
and though this fourth-century name still lingers at 
Endur, a miserable village on the N. slope of the 
Nabi Dahi, the question arises whether the narrator of 
i S. 287-25 did not mean a village called En-harod, 
close to the fountain spoken of in Judg. 7 1. The true 
order of events in these narratives probably is : ( i ) the 
Philistines muster their troops at Aphek (in Sharon), and 
Achish promises to take David with him, while Saul 
musters at En Harod (28 iff. 29 1); (2) Israel encamps in 
the plain of Jezreel, and the Philistines send David 
away, etc. (292-n ); (3) the Philistines penetrate as far 
as Shunem (284); (4) Saul seeks an oracle and finds 
it by night at Endor (283-25 ; so Budde). Note that in 
i S. 28s it is said that Saul s heart trembled exceed 
ingly (mm ; cp Harod) ; how naturally after this, if 
our conjecture is right, comes the speech of the servants 
of Saul in v. ^ respecting the wise woman at the Well 
of Trembling (En-Harod) ! Almost certainly En-dor 
in i S. 28? should be emended as proposed. 

(c) In Ps. 83 10 [n], they perished at Endor does not 
accord with the mention of Sisera and Jabin. At Endor 
(-|NT"jn) is obviously corrupt. The context requires 
without survivors, and we should probably read 
Tifc^j Ki : v and N are liable to be confounded (Che. 
Ps.W). Gratz s conjecture at the fountain of Harod 
(-nn j j?a), adopted by Winckler and Wellhausen, only re 
moves a part of the difficulty. It is suggestive, however. 
Formerly Gratz read En-dor for En-harod in Judg. 
7 1, and < BA s Endor in i S. 29 1 may come from 
En-harod (see HAROD, WELL OF, 2). 

The village of Endur (not Endur) is 7 or 8 m. from 
the slopes of Gilboa, partly over difficult ground (Grove- 
Wilson). Nor is it quite beyond question that there 


was a place called Endor in pre-exilic times. There 
may perfectly well have been two spots called En-harod. 
The fourth-century village of Endor may have owed its 
name to a corruption of the text of i Samuel. 

The meaning of im is by no means perspicuous, and the con 
fusion of -INI and -nn was easy. At any rate we need not 
speculate as to whether one of the caves in the calcareous cliff 
on the slope of which Endur stands, was the scene of the visit 
of the unhappy Saul to the wise woman (so J. L. Porter, in 
Kitto s Bib. Cyc. s.v. Endor ). What Harod really means is 
uncertain (cp HARODITE). Perhaps we should read Ador (-ITIN), 
from which -|jn I C P Dor ] would come even more easily than 
from -nn- T. K. C. 

EN-EGLAIM (Dtf pi?, fountain of Eglaim = 
Eglam, i.e., calf - place ? on form of name, see 
NAMKS, 101, 104, 107) ; eNAr^AeiM [BA], 
AiN&r&AeiAA LQ] ENGALLIM], one of the two points 
between which fishing in the former Salt Sea was to 
be carried on when Ezekiel s vision was fulfilled (Ezek. 
47 10). Since the vision relates to the land W. of the 
Jordan, and the other point mentioned is En-gedi, we 
naturally look for En-eglaim near the influx of the 
Jordan into the Dead Sea. At present, the salt water 
and the fresh intermingle some way above the mouth of 
the river, and fish that are carried down are thrown up 
dead on the beach (cp DEAD SEA, 4). It will there 
fore be in the spirit of the vision if, with Tristram 
(Bible Places, p. 93) we identify En-eglaim with Ain 
Hajleh about i hr. from the N. shore of the Dead Sea, 
which is regarded by the Bedouins as the best fountain 
in the Ghor. It is hardly too bold to emend the text 
and read for Eglaim, Hoglah (n*?jn) ; see BETH-HOGLAH. 

T. K. C. 

ENEMESSAR (eNe/v\ecc&p[oc] [BXA], SALMAN- 
ASAR, Tob. 12 13 15/1 ; a corruption of SHALMANESER 
(which the Syr. reads). 

ENENIUS, RV Eneneus (CNHNIOC [BA]) i Esd. 
5s = Neh. 7?, NAHAMANI. 

ENGADDI (Ecclus. 24 14, AY). See EN-GEDI, n. 

EN-GANNIM (D^l pi?, *.<?., fountain of gardens, 

i. A city in the first group of towns in the lowland 
of Judah (Josh. 1534 adiaBaei/j. [A], if we follow the 
Hebrew order ; but this really represents D TVij? oft/. 36; 
rjyovveifj. [L], <5 B apparently t\oi 0w0, unless this form 
represents Tappuah) ; according to Clermont-Ganneau, 
the modern Umm Jina, W. of Beth-shemesh. Jerome 
and Eusebius (0,512126, Engannim ; 25966, Hvyav- 
vifj.} say now a village near Bethel. 

2. A Levitical town of Issachar (Josh. 19 21, ituv 
/ecu ronfJMV [B], -rjvyavvi/j, [A], iayavvei/j. [L] ; 21 29, 
irriyijv [BAL], 1 Trrjyrjv [Aq. Sm. 
Th.]). The parallel passage in i Ch. 673 [58] has 
ANEM (opy, ava/j. [A], aivav [L], B om. v. ) which 
seems to be a mere corruption (Be., Ki. ). There is 
mentioned in Egyptian texts a place called Kina ( WMM 
As. u. Eur. 174), which Budde (differing from Miiller) 
would identify with En-gannim (see HEBER, i). In 
Am. Tab. 164 17 21, we find a district called Gina. 
En-gannim is the Tivdri, Tr)fj.a, or Tivaia of Josephus 
(BJ \\\. 84 and elsewhere), on the frontier of Galilee, 
and, though no ruins of the ancient place are still left, 
we can hardly doubt that it is the modern Jentn* 
This is a large and picturesque village 17 m. N. from 
Shechem, at the entrance of a valley which opens into 
the plain of Esdraelon. The slopes at the foot of which 
it lies are covered with plantations of olive trees and 
fig trees, and the houses of the village are surrounded 
with gardens fenced by hedges of cactus. A few palm 
trees add to the charm of the place. The secret of this 

1 Apparently reading 1BD ] ]!. Compare 71-0X15 yp<my.a.Tiav 

(i.e., nso mp) in Josh. 1649 for KIRJATH-SANNAH. 

2 Stade s spelling Jennin is less accurate, and his doubt as to 
the reading En-gannim seems unnecessary (GK/1 542). 


luxuriance is a spring, or rather torrent, which rises in 
the hills behind the village and sends its waters in 
many rivulets to fertilise the gardens and meadows, and 
at last disappears in the undulating plain of Esdraelon. 
The name of the place was therefore well chosen, and 
the author of the ancient song (Cant. 4 12-15) might 
almost have been thinking of En-gannim when he made 
the newly-married husband liken his fair young wife to 
a garden and a fountain of gardens (o |_a ] yn). 
The historical associations of Jenin are scanty. It is 
hardly probable that the fountain in Jezreel referred 
to in i S. 29 1 is the great fountain of En-gannim, 
Jezreel being intended for the whole district (GASm. 
HG, 402) ; see HAROD, 2 ; but most scholars (not, 
however, Conder) agree in identifying BETH-HAGGAN 
(q.v. ), in the direction of which Ahaziah fled from Jehu, 
with Jenin, and therefore with En-gannim. Josephus 
(Ant. xx. 6 1 BJ ii. 12s) describes a fatal dispute 
between the Galilasan pilgrims to Jerusalem and the 
Samaritans which took place at Ttvdij, a village of the 
Samaritans, and thereby illustrates the unfriendly re 
ception accorded to Jesus in just such a village (Lk. 
952^). T. K. c. 

EN-GEDI (H| fl? [so also outside pause, Ezek. 
47 10 for "HI V], i.e., fountain of the kid, 101, 104 ; 
6NrAAA[e]l [BXAC]), the modern Ain Jidl (overlook 
ing the western shore of the Dead Sea), 680 ft. below 
sea-level, and 612 ft. above that of the lake. The 
beautiful fountain bursts forth at once a fine stream 
upon a narrow terrace or shelf of the mountain. It 
was, and is, a spot of rich vegetation in a severely 
desolate wilderness. Its vineyards and henna flowers 
are referred to in Cant. 1 14, whilst an allusion to its 
palm-trees is preserved in its alternative name, 
HAZAZON-TAMAK (q.v. ) in Gen. 14? 2Ch. 202, and 
also in Ecclus. 24 14 ( I was exalted like a palm tree in 
Engaddi ). 1 Hazazon may be connected with the 
modern Wddy Hasaseh, up which runs one of the main 
roads from Engedi to the interior (cp 2 Ch. 20 16, and 
see Ziz, ASCENT OF). Engedi was one of the scenes 
of the wanderings of David (i S. 23 29 [24 1] ya5Si [L]). 
The cave which plays a part in this narrative is de 
scribed as being not at Engedi, but somewhere in the 
wilderness. In the oasis itself the present writer found 
only insignificant caves ; but Tristram mentions in the 
neighbourhood a fairy grotto of vast size. The 
strongholds which David and his men inhabited 
must have lain about the fountain ; the narrow shelf 
could be easily made impregnable, and it is here that 
most of the ruins are scattered. Solomon appears to 
have fortified Engedi ; for the MT of i K. 9 18 reads 
Tamar [Kt.] (not Tadmor [Kr.]) in the wilderness in 
the land(?) (cp Josh. 156i/ avKadrjs [B], t)i>yaS5i [A], 
ayyaddei [L], in the wilderness . . . En-gedi ). It was 
worthy of fortification, for it commands one of the roads 
from the Dead Sea Valley to the interior of Judah, and 
by it the Edomite invasion of Judah seems to have been 
made in the reign of Jehoshaphat (2 Ch. 20, evyaSfi 
[B], eyyaSdi [L]). It is mentioned once, if not thrice, in 
Ezekiel s vision of the renovated land (Ezek. 47 10, ivya.8- 
eiv [B], evyaSd. [Aj, aivyaSai/jt, [Q] ; see TAMAR, i. ). 
Josephus praises its fertility, especially its palms and 
balsam (Ant. ix. 1 2), and says it was the centre of a top- 
archy under the Romans (BJ iii. 3 5) ; but Pliny omits it in 
his list of the toparchies (HN5 1470). To Pliny it was 
known as Engadda, a place supplied with palm-groves 
and a centre of the Essenes (//7V5i5[i7]). It is 
mentioned by Ptolemy (v. 168). In the fourth century, 
according to Eusebius and Jerome, it was still a very 
large village, whence opobalsamum was obtained 
OS 119 15 2546;) and with vines (Epit. Paulae, xii.). 

1 This particularly apt parallel is spoilt by RV, which follows 
BA in reading tv aiyioAois (as against ev cvyaSSoit N c - a , Pesh. , 
and presupposed by Vg.), and renders I was exalted like a 
palm tree on the sea shore. 



During the Crusades there were vineyards held by a 
convent under Hebron (Rey, Colonies Franques en 
Syrie, 384), and to these times probably belong most 
of the ruins. The site was recovered by Robinson in 
1838 ; it is held and cultivated by the Rushaideh Arabs ; 
but there are now neither palms nor vines. The great 
staircase for no other name adequately expresses the 
steepness of the ascent from the spring to the plateau 
is hard for beasts of burden, and the camel-drivers who 
bring salt from Jebel Usdum prefer to go farther N. 
before turning up to Jerusalem. 

For further description see Robinson, BR l^y^ff. , Lynch, 
Narr., 282; Tristram, Land of Israel, 286; Conder, Tent Work, 
new ed. 265^ ; Bad.* 3 ), 200 ; GASm. HG, 269/1 G. A. S. 

ENGINE (p3B>n, lit. invention, from 3KT1, see 
Eccles. 729), in the expression engines invented by 
cunning men pt^ lil n^BTUp JTOhtpH, MHXANAC 
MOIC [L]), diversi generis machinas), to denote contriv 
ances for hurling stones and arrows, 2 Ch. 26 15 ; see 

For the i^p <nD (AV engines of war, RV battering 
engines ) of Ezek. 26 9 1 and the n^D (EV mount, AVmg. 
engine of shot ) of Jer. 66 8224 Ezek. 268 (28.2015, AV 
bank ), see also SIEGE. 

ENGRAVE (PinS, Ex. 28 n Zech. 3 9 , etc., 
2 Cor. 87); Engraver (J3N tthn, Ex. 28 u, etc.); Engraving 
rnfi3 Ex.28n, etc.); or GRAVE (nnS, iK. 736 2 Ch. 21487, 
EV ; asn, Job 19 24 ; npn, Is. 49 16 ; ppn, Is. 22 16 ; ehn, Jer. 
17 i ; mn, Ex. 32 16 [all EV]); GRAVING (rnns, Ex.396 AV, 
Zech. 3 9 2 Ch. 2 14 EV ; nijj3D [plu.], i K. 7 31 EV) ; GRAVING 
ING, and on GRAVEN IMAGE (70S), see IDOL, i d. 

EN-HADDAH (PHPI }T, 99. 101 ; HNAAAA [A], 
AN. [L], AIMAR6K [B]), in the territory of Issachar 
(Josh. 192if), apparently not far from En-gannim 
(Jenin}. The identifications with the mod. KefrAdhan, 
to the W. of Jenin (Conder), or with Ain Judeide, on the 
E. side of Mt. Gilboa (Kn. ), assume the accuracy of 
MT. For spring of Haddah J we should perhaps read 
Spring of Harod (mn for mn), the most probable 
site of which, Ainjdlfid, is nearly 10 m. NNE. from 
Jenin. See HAROD. s. A. c. 

EN-HAKKORE (tOiprrfW, 101, 104 i.e., 
spring of the partridge, but, in the legend, spring of 
the caller ; nHfH TOY eiriKAAOYMeNOY P*], TT- 
erriKAHTOC [AL]), the name of a fountain in Lehi 
(Judg. ISiSig). Identifications of the site are fanciful 
(see LEHI). 

EN-HAZOR pin |W, 101 ; rmrH ACOR [BA], 
-cop KAI leccop [L])- a fenced city of Naphtali (Josh. 
19 37 ), possibly to be identified with Hazireh to the W. 
of Kedesh (but see Guerin, Galil. 2n8). The name, 
Hazor, however, is not uncommon in Upper Galilee ; 
see HAZOR, i. 

EN-MISHPAT (BBKip |W, 101), Gen. 14 7. See 
KADESH i. , 2. 

ENNATAN (CNNATAN [BA]), i Esd. 8 44 RV = 
Ezra8i6, ELNATHAN, 2. 

ENOCH (ifOn, ^in ; CNOOX [ADEL and Ti. WH], 
HENOCH). The name of the best-known Enoch seems 
to be distinct from the names of 2 and 3. It has 
probably a Babylonian origin (see CAINITES, 6), 
though to a Hebrew ear it suggested the meanings of 
dedication" and instruction. 2 

i. A hero or patriarch mentioned in Gen. 17 f. 
[L cvws in both w.~\ 6181921-24 (i Ch. 13); also in 
Ezekiel (emended text), in the Apocrypha, and in the 

1 Gesenius s interpretation of flin, sharp i.e., rapid 
must be deemed improbable. 

2 See CATECHISE, DEDICATE, -jjn and its derivatives, how 
ever, are found only in late passages. 




NT. It is shown elsewhere (see CAINITES, 6, NOAH) 
that Enoch played a great part in a legend of which 
fragments alone remain. Confirmations of this view 
will be supplied presently. 

The Genesis - passages need no further comment ; 
but the restoration of Enoch in passages of Ezekiel is 
R"M i * nterest n S t t* 6 passed over. In 
refereS }*T of Ezek. 14 ,4-. Noah Daniel, and 
Job appear as proverbial for their 
righteousness, and in Ezek. 283 the prince of Tyre is 
said, poetically, to be wiser, and to have more insight 
into secrets, than Daniel. This strikes one as strange. 
The personage referred to should be a hero of legend, 
and would most naturally be of the same cycle as Noah. 
The name Daniel, however, is not at all suggestive of this. 
The type is not ancient, in spite of the occurrence of 
Daniel in i Ch. 3i as the name of a son of David (the 
reading is corrupt, see DANIEI, i. 4). It is extremely 
probable that the name was introduced into Ezekiel by 
a mistake similar to that which has been conjectured in 
Gen. 222 (see ISAAC, 2 ; MORIAH). The name is spelt 
not *?N>n but Sxri ; this must surely be a misreading of 
]N:n i-t. , Hanak (Enoch). This acute suggestion 
is due to HaleVy (ItEJ\b 20 f. ). It is supported by 
the discovery of the true text of Ecclus. 44 14 (see 
below), and supplies fresh material for the criticism of 
Daniel and Job, and the exegesis of Ezekiel (cp Expositor, 
July 1897, p. 23). 

We pass now to the NT passages. The notice in 
the genealogy in Lk. 837, and the description of Enoch 
as the seventh from Adam in Jude 14, need not 
detain us. Note, however, that the description in Jude 
is borrowed from Enoch 60 8, and is followed by a quota 
tion (v. 14 / ) from Enoch 1 9 64 27 2. Heb. 11s 
mentions Enoch s translation (^Tertdr) ; translatus 
est), and refers to Gen. 5 22 24 in @ ADEL s rendering 
furiptffr-rjffe ry 6e as by implication a testimony to 
Enoch s faith, for without faith it is impossible to 
please [God]. The translation of Enoch is also twice 
mentioned by Sirach (Ecclus. 44 16 np^[ ]l. nerer^d-rj ; 
49 14 dvt\ri/j.(f>d-rj [A fj.eTfTtOr) ] curb rijs 7175 ; cp <S BAL , 
2 K. 2 10\afj.j3av6/j,fvov = rip 1 ?, v. n dveXij/u.^ij = 
Vjn, also Mk. 16 19 etc). Ecclus. 49 14 merely extols the 
unique destiny of Enoch; but 44 16, after stating that 
he was taken, adds the notable phrase njn nix. 
The Syriac version omits the whole verse, the Greek 
instead of an example of knowledge gives inr6Setyfj.a 
HfTavolas an example of repentance," as if nawn ni 
(cp Heb. 4 ii, vwodfiy/na airfideias). Noldeke suggests 
reading tvvola.s for /ueracofas (see also ECCLESIASTICUS, 
7 (^), n. ) ; but the Greek translator may have drawn the 
same uncritical inference from Gen. 622 ( Enoch walked 
with God after he begat Methuselah ) which was drawn by 
some of the later Rabbis 1 (see the sayings quoted in Ber. 
Rabba, 25 ; Wiinsche, nzf. ), and seems to have arisen 
out of hostility to the Book of Enoch, rijn, however, 
seems to mean wisdom (Prov. 1727); the writer 
must surely have heard the tradition of Enoch s wisdom 
alluded to (as has been shown) in Ezek. 283, and largely 
developed by subsequent writers. 

We have thus found that the later belief in Enoch s 
wisdom is traceable in Ecclesiasticus and even in 
Ezekiel. The Secrets of Enoch (a phrase used as the 

1 For parallels see ENOS (i., end), NOAH (end). The Alex 
andrian scholars seem to have interpreted Knoch s supposed moral 
crisis in a good sense (cp Philo, De Abrah., 3); those of 
Palestine (so Frankel) in a bad, as if Enoch were on the point 
of repenting of his former pious life when God in mercy took 
him. In Wisd. 4 10-14, however, nothing is said of Enoch s 
repentance or change of life ; he was caught away (r/pirayrt), 
lest wickedness should change his understanding (irvvetriv), 
where the wickedness is that of Enoch s contemporaries. See 
Edersheim on Ecclus. I.e. \ Frankel, Einflvss der paldstin. 
Exegese ( 51), 44 /. ; Geiger, Urschrift^ 198 ; Drummond, 
Philo Judceus, 2 323 ; and, on the connection of the antipathy 
of certain rabbis to Enoch, Hal. REJ, 14 21. Cp also 
APOCALYPTIC, 10 n. i. 


title of an apocryphal book, see APOCALYPTIC, 33^) 

receive their first record in an exilic prophet, and the 

... prophetic recorder even takes it for granted 

, .. , that Enoch s story is well known in 
Phoenicia. That the later belief is not a 
mere accretion on the older Enoch-story will be plain 
to those who recognise the solar origin of the original 
hero ; a child of the all-seeing sun must be wise as 
well as pious. At the same time speculative inferences 
must be largely responsible for the details of the later 

To this subject we now address ourselves. It was the belief 
of the later Jews, adopted by Christians and Mohammedans 
(Eus. Pra-p. Ev. 917; d Herbelot, Or. Bibl. 1 624/), that Enoch 
invented writing, arithmetic, and astronomy. The Book of 
Jubilees says, He was the first among men who learned writing 
and knowledge and wisdom, and who wrote down the signs of 
heaven according to the order of the months in a book. And 
he was with the angels of God these six jubilees of years, and 
they showed him everything on earth and in the heavens. And 
he was taken from among the children of men, and we conducted 
him into the Garden of Eden in majesty and honour (Chap. 4, 
Charles s transl.). Very similar statements are made in Enoch 
(note the phrase scribe of righteousness, 124); probably the 
writers of both books drew from, and amplified, a still living 
tradition (see CAINITES, j} 2, 6). It will be noticed that Enoch s 
translation, according to Jubilees (cp Enoch VOi 60s; cp 
Charles s note), is to Paradise. This reminds us of the story 
of Par(?)-napistim (DELUGE, g 2). The Palestinian Targum, 
however, says that Enoch ascended to the firmament. This 
agrees with the story of the hero Etana, who was carried to the 
heaven of Anu by an eagle (ETHAN, i). The Targum also 
states that Enoch s name was called Metatron, the great 
writer. Now the Metatron, 1 as the divine secretary, sits in 
God s inner chamber, where, acccording to Enoch 14i4/, not 
even Enoch can presume to enter. Enoch, then, grew in honour 
as time went on. Mohammed, too, declares of Idris (the in 
structed ) that he was a confessor, a prophet, and that God 
raised him to a lofty place (Koran, Sur. 19s?). 

The early Church was not behindhand in its respect 
for the patriarch. It regarded him, for instance, as 
one of the two witnesses 2 of whom such great things are 
said in Rev. 11, who finally went up to heaven in the 
cloud. That some share in the accomplishment of 
God s purposes should be allotted to those who had 
left the earth long ago without tasting death, seemed 
natural. The other witness was Elijah, and in Enoch 
70 1 the translation of Enoch is described in terms 
suggested by 2 K. 2 n. In fact, the same idea underlies 
the traditions of the disappearance of both personages 
(cp Che. OPs. 383). Why Noah, who was equal in 
piety to Enoch, was not also said to have been translated, 
is a problem on which criticism has been able to throw 
some light (see CAINITES, 6 ; NOAH). On the 
composite Book of Enoch, see ApocALYFnc LITERA 
TURE, i8/: 

2. The third son of Midian, Gen. 25 4 (EV Hanoch ), I Ch. 
1 33 (AV Henoch, RV Hanoch ). 

3. The eldest son of Reuben (EV Hanoch ), Gen. 46 9 Ex. 
(i 14 Nu. 26 5 i Ch. 63. Not improbably ofi shoots of the Midian- 
itish clan of Enoch became Israelitish. The name can hardly 
be connected with (i). Kn. compares that of the village called 
Hanakiya by I5urckhardt (Trav. in Arab. 2396), and Hena- 
kiyeh by Doughty (Ar. Des. 2183185), which formerly be 
longed, says the latter, to the great nomad tribe of el- Anezy. 
It is not far to the NE. of Medina. T. K. C. 

ENOS, or rather (so RV)Enosh( 1 JN, man ; 6N60C 
[BADEL]). Son of Seth, and grandson of Adam (Gen. 
4 26 5 7 9- 1 1 i Ch. 1 1 Lk. SsSf). It was he who began to 
call on the name of Yah we ((, Vg. , B. Jub. ; so We., 
reading Srn ni) i.e. , Enos introduced forms of worship. 
He is thus represented as the first and greatest of 
founders, worthy to be the father of a city-builder (see 
CAINITES, 3). This tradition cannot, however, be 
very ancient. Early myths always ascribe forms of 
worship to the teaching of a god ; cp the statement (see 
CAINITES, 3) that Marduk erected the temples, and 
the epithet given to the Moon-god, mukin nindabe, 
appointer of sacrifices (4 R. 9 33 ; see Del. Ass. 
HIVB, s.v. nindabu ). Enos, therefore (a name that is 
merely a synonym of Adam, man ), which Hommel 

1 See Weber, Altsynag. Pal. Theof., iji/. (ed. 2, p. 178^). 

2 See e.g., Jerome, Ep. ad Marcellatit ; Aug. De Gen. ad 
lit. 96. 



traces to the Amelon ( =Bab. ami!, man ) of Berossus, 
must have been substituted for some other name. On 
the original position of Gen. 4 as/, see CAINITES, 12. 
The MT reading, Sm,1 IN, is possibly (DL), if not certainly, 
to be rendered Then was profaned, the object being to avoid 
contradiction of the statement in Ex. 6 3 (P). Such a phrase, 
however, as jnin with IK is unparalleled in the Genesis narratives. 
7(1.1, began, occurs again in 9 20 108, where, it is true, accord 
ing to R. Simon (Ber. robba 23), it has the sense of profanation. 
The alteration of 7rn into ?ron involved a disparagement of 
Enos similar to that inflicted upon ENOCH ( i, end) and NOAH 
([., end) in certain circles. According to an Aggada, in the 
time of this patriarch, and in that of Cain, the sea flooded a 
great tract of land (Ber. rabbet, as above). The same extra 
ordinary view of 7l"fln is implied in Tg. Onk. and Jon. and is 
adopted by Rashi. T. K. C. 

EN-RIMMON (ftt-n pi?, 95, fountain of Rimmon 
i.e. , the god Ramman [see RIMMON i. ] ; pe/WMCON 
[BAL]), mentioned in a list of Judahite villages (EZRA ii. 
5 M. 15 E 1 ] ). Neh - H 2 9 (peMMiON [N c - a < m e->], 
BA omit), but also referred to in Josh. 15 32 (Ain and 
Rimmon; eptOMCoe [B], AIN KAI peMMON [L]), 19? 
(epeMMCON [B], AIN KAI pe/v\MC00 [A]) and i Ch. 432 
(Ain, Rimmon, eNp- [L]), Zech. 14io ( from Geba to 
Rimmon, south of Jerusalem ). En-rimmon is the 
Epe/ot/3wi or Eremmon of Eusebius and Jerome (OS 
25692; 1206), described by them as a very large 
village 16 m. S. from Eleutheropolis. It is usually 
> identified with modern Umm er-rumdmin, 9 m. N. 
of Beersheba. Zech. 14 10, however, suggests that it 
lay farther to the S. Elsewhere (HAZAR-ADAR) it is 
suggested that Azmon, a place on the extreme S. of 
Judah (Nu. 344/. Josh. 154) is a corruption of En- 
rimmon, and that this is represented by the once highly 
cultivated el- Aujeh in the Wady Hanein, called by Arab 
tradition a valley of gardens (E. H. Palmer). 

EN-ROGEL (Vri pl>, 101; TTHI-H pcofHA [BAL], 
H p. [B in i K. 1 9 ], H TTHYH TOY P- C L in 2 S. i K.]), 
a famous land-mark near Jerusalem. It was the hiding- 
place of David s spies, Jonathan and Ahimaaz (2 S. 
17i7), and lay close to the stone ZOHELETH where 
Adonijah held a sacrificial feast when he attempted to 
assert his claims to the throne (i K.I 9). In later 
times it was one of the boundary marks between Judah 
and Benjamin (Josh. 15? 18 16). The obviously sacred 
character of the spring (cp also GIHON [i], i K. 138) 
suggests that it is the same as the Dragon Well of 
Neh. 2 13 (cp DRAGON, ^g; but see ZOHELETH). 
There can be little doubt of its antiquity, and it may 
well have been a sacred place in pre-Israelite times. 
The meaning of the name and its identification are 

The interpretation Fuller s Well does not bear the mark 
of antiquity, and is rightly omitted in G.(13) ; Wl, fuller, 
is nowhere else found in biblical Hebrew (see FULLER, 
ROGELIM). It is probable that, like Zuheleth, the original 
name had some sacred or mythic significance. 

Two identifications of the place have met with considerable 
favour : (i) the Virgin s fountain ( Ain Sitti Maryam), now Ain 
Umm ed-Deraj, the only real spring close to Jerusalem, 
exactly opposite to which lies ez-Zehweleh, perhaps Zoheleth 
(Clermpnt-Gaimeau, PEFQ 1869-70, p. 253) ; and (2) Bir-Eyyub, 
otherwise known as the Well of Nehemiah, at the junction of 
the W. er-Rababi and Kedron (Robinson, BRV) 1 332). Against 
(2) (which has found recent support in H. P. Smith, Sam., and 
15enz., Kings) it is urged that Bir-Eyyub is a well, not a spring, 1 
that it lies too far from ex-Zehweleh, that it is in full view of 
the city, and does not suit the context of 2 S. 17 17, and that 
its antiquity is uncertain. The chief points in favour of (i) 
(which Baed.( 3 ) identifies with GIHON [i]) are : its antiquity (cp 
CONDUITS, 4) and the evidence of Jos. (Ant. vii. 144), who 
places the well in the royal gardens. 2 Other arguments based 
upon the fact that in later times the well was used by fullers 
are necessarily precarious. S. A. C. 

* H. P. Smith, however, observes that water flows into the 
well, sometimes coming over the top, so that it might readily 
be called a spring (Sam. 354). 

2 The identification of En-rogel with epwyrj (Ant. ix. 10 4 ; 
see Grove, Smith s DB(Zf) seems difficult ; the reading is sub 
stantially the same in all MSS (see Niese), and appears to be 
based upon ajroppij-yn/fit which follows. 



ENROLMENT (&norpA<t>H, Lk. 2 2 Acts 5 37, AV 
taxing ); to be enrolled (ATTorPA<J>ec9Al ; Lk. 
2135, AV taxed ; Heb. 1223, AV written ; cp 
3 Mace. 4 15). See QUIRINIUS, TAXATION. 

RV has enrolled also in i Tim. 69 ((caraAe yo/xai, AV taken 
into the number ) and in 2 Tim. 2 4, o-TpaToAo-ye u ( enrolled him 
as a soldier, AV chosen him to be a soldier ). 

EN-SHEMESH (K>DB> pl>, fountain of the sun, J 

9 , 15; josh. 15 7 [TTH]THC H \IOY [BAL]; 1817 

CAMGC [L]), on the border of Benjamin, between EN- 
ROGEL and ADUMMIM. The favourite identification 
with the modern Ain el- Hod or Apostles shrine 2 near 
Bethany is questioned by Baed.l 3 149, who seems to 
prefer the tradition which identifies the Well of the Sun 
and the Dragon s Well with Ain Sitti Maryam (see EN- 
ROGEL). Van Kasteren, however (ZDPVI3u6 ; see 
also Buhl, Pal. 98), would find En-shemesh in Ainer- 
Rawdbi in an offshoot of the Wady of the same name, 
situated on the ancient road to Jericho. 

have to be considered here : ( i ) how are the Hebrew 
terms to be rendered, and (2) what inferences are to be 
drawn from the historical passages containing these 
terms ? 

(<z) DJ, ncs (crrj/j.eioi> , cn i<r<T7)/j.oi> ; also a"rjfj.aia and 

(Tij/xe/wcris [BXAL etc. ]). 

In Is. 626 11 10 (<B ap^ei!/) 12 183 30 17 31 9 (text corrupt ; see 

SBOT) 03 is rendered by EV ensign, but in Jer. 46 ( 

i^euvere) 2 1 (d5 (^cvyopraf ) 50 2 51 if 27 stand- 

1. Renderings, ard ; AV also gives the latter in Is. 49 2 2 

02 10, and RV in Nu. 21 8 f. Banner is 

adopted by AV in Is. 132 (RV ensign ) and by EV in Ps. 604 

[6] (see below), also by EVmg. in Ex. 17 15 (<S KaTaAuyi}). In 

Nu. 21 e/. AV gives pole, RV standard. 

Banner, being still in common use, seems the best 
rendering for D: except in Nu. 21 8/1 , where pole is 
more natural. Banner is required also in Ex. 17 is/. , 
where Moses is said to have named an altar Yahwe- 
Nissi, Yahwe is my banner (see jEHOVAH-Nissi), and 
to have broken into this piece of song : 
Yea, (lifting up) the hand towards Yahwe s banner, 
(I swear that) Yahwe will give battle to Amalek everlastingly. 

Here, too, we must not pass over four disputed passages 
in which AV (and in some cases RV) assumes the 
existence of a denom. verb from DJ, viz., (a) Ps. 664 [6] 
( a banner . . . that it may be displayed ); (/3) Is. 10 18 
(ooi, EV standard-bearer, RV m s- sick man ; (y) Is. 
59 19 ( lift up a standard, so RV m - ; but RV [which] 
. . . driveth, AV m e- put to flight ); (5) Zech. 9i6 
( lifted up as an ensign, but RV lifted up on high, 
RV m s- glittering ). All these four passages must be 
regarded as corrupt, (a) Ps. 60 4 [6] should probably 
be read thus, Thou hast given a cup [of judgment] to 
thy worshippers that they may be frenzied because of 
the bow" (?Wmn^) ; C P J er - 25 16. In compensation 
Ps. 11613 becomes, I will raise the banner (D: for oia) 
of victory. (/}) Is. 10 18 Dp3(< <f>evyuv) should apparently 
be puj;:, a thorn-bush. (y) Is. 59 19, u nDDi should 
probably be u naBU (Klo. , Che. ), when Yahwe s breath 
blows upon it. (5) The text of Zech. 9 is/- needs some 
rearrangement (see Che. JQR 10582). Stones of a 
diadem lifting themselves up over his land is nonsense. 
In mDDlJriD probably D should be s. Glittering stones, 
used as amulets (see PRECIOUS STONES), are meant. 

(6) ^n, dtgel, is rendered by EV banner in Cant. 24, 
(<S5 ra^are), by standard in Nu. 1$2 22, etc. (all P; 
rdy/jia [BAFL]). EV also finds a denom. verb from ^i 
in Ps. 20s [6] Cant. 5106410. Gray thinks (JQR 11 92^) 

1 Schick (ZDPV, 19 157) observes that the name Ain. esh- 
shcms, eye of the sun, is popularly given to holes in prominent 

2 The name dates from the fifteenth century. It is the last well 
on the road from Jerusalem to Jericho before the dry desert is 
reached, and it is therefore assumed that the apostles must have 
drunk from it on their journey. 




that the context of all the passages in Nu. is fully 
satisfied by the .meaning company," whilst in some of 
them the sense standard is plainly unsuitable. The 
sense of company, however, is even more difficult to 
justify than that of banner. 1 "?n in Nu. 1 2 10 is 
probably a corruption of iri3, troop or band ; the 
sense of the word in i Ch. 7 4 aCh. 26 n is strikingly 
parallel. No other course is open, for all the other 
passages adduced for the sense of banner are, with 
the possible exception of those in Numbers, corrupt. 
This applies not only to Cant. 24, but also to the 
passages in which a denom. verb is assumed (<S 
TCTa.yjj.tvat, Cant. 6410). For an examination of these 
passages see Che. JQR 11232-236. 

In Cant. 24 read, Bring me (so <S) into the garden-house 
); I am sick from love. Stay me, etc. As to Ps. 

20 5 [6], it is safe to say that to set up banners in the name 
of Yahwe is an unnatural phrase (read 7*33, we exult ). The 
bridegroom in Canticles (5 10 etc.) is not marked out by a 
banner above ten thousand (RVmtf.) ; he may perhaps be 
called one looked up to, admired ; but more probably he was 
described in the original text as 7 73 perfect (in beauty). 
The bride on her side is not called terrible as bannered [hosts], 
but awe-inspiring as towers ; so at least a scribe, but not the 
poet himself, wrote. The corruption was a very early one. 
The scribe, seeking to make sense of half-effaced letters which 
he misread IS *?, terrible, bethought him of the figure in 8 10, 
and inserted 11171333 as towers. 

(c) nix, oth, is rendered ensign by EV in Nu. 22 
(ffri/j.tia or a-r]fiala [BAF], o-ty/xacrla [L]), Ps. 744 (cm)/j.ftov 
[B a - b m s- " f - KRT]). In the latter passage the ensigns 
have been supposed to be military standards with 
heathen emblems upon them, 2 which reminds us of a 
similar theory respecting the abomination of desola 
tion in Mt. 24 15. The context of the passage in Ps. , 
however, is very corrupt. 3 

Of all the above passages there are only two which 
are at once old and free from corruption viz. , Ex. 

2 Historical 17l5/ " Nu " 218/ The pole in the 

,. latter passage was probably such as 

interpretation. ^ co F mmc f nly ^ for s y ignals to 

collect the Israelites when scattered ; the banner in the 
former was a pole with some kind of (coloured?) cloth 4 
upon it to attract attention. 

Other terms which might be used for banner were 
JTB, toren (Is. SOiy), and nNb O, mas eth (Jer. 61, RV 
signal }. That ^3? also was so used in early times is 
more than can be stated safely, nor can we tell what 
distinction there may have been between oth and nes. s 
Tg. Jerus. (pseudo-Jon. ) tells us that the standards were 
of silk of three colours, and had pictured upon them a 
lion, a stag, a young man, or a cerastes respectively. 
History to the writer of this Targum was not essentially 
different from poetry. T. K. c. 

Banners are frequently found on the Egyptian and 

the Assyrian monuments. Apart from the royal banner, 

p ... each battalion or even each company in 

Egypt had its own particular emblem, 

which took the form of a monarch s name, a sacred 

boat, an animal, or some symbol the meaning of which 

is more or less doubtful. 6 The standard was borne aloft 

npon a spear or staff, and carried by an officer who 

wore as an emblem two lions (to symbolise courage) 

1 It may be mentioned that Friedr. Del. (Heb. Lang. 40 ; Prol. 
59-61) went too far in rendering Assyr. diglu, banner ; it 
simply means, as his own Ass. HWB states, the object of gaze, 
or of attention (on the Arabic and Syriac roots, cp Gray, I.e.). 

2 The Jews certainly regarded the n-porojiiai on the Roman 
standards as idols ; see below, 3. 

3 For an attempted restoration, see Che. Ps.(ty. 

4 In Is. 8823 EV rightly renders D3 sail ; a coloured, 
decorated sail is meant (Ezek. 27 7). 

8 Mr. S. A. Cook suggests that the n inN in Nu. 2 2 may 
refer to clan-marks (cp CUTTINGS, 6). 

6 See Goblet d Alviellas s Migration of Symbols, 220 Jf. In 
some cases the symbols may have been mere totems ; for 
analogies cp Frazer, Totetnisi, 30. 


and two other devices apparently representing flies. 
The standard of the Heta-fortress of Dapuru which 
figures in a representation of a siege consists of a shield 
upon a pole pierced with arrows (see EGYPT, fig. 4, 
col. 1223). Reference is made elsewhere (ISRAKL, 90) 
to the courtesy with which the Roman procurators, 
in deference to Jewish prejudice, removed from the 
ensigns (<rrifj.aia.i) the effigies (wpoTo/jutl) of the 
emperor. It was not the ensigns themselves but the 
presence of the additional Trporo/J.a.1 that was the cause 
of the Jewish sedition against Pilate (cp Jos. Ant. xviii. 
3 1, DJ\\. 92/. ). See further, art. Signa Militaria 
in Smith s Class. Diet. , and art. Flag in EBW. 

T. K. c. s. A. c. 

EN-TAPPUAH (nisrrpr; nHrHN e&<j>eu>e [B*], 

etc.), Josh. 17?. See TAPPUAH, z. 

EP^NETUS (en<MN6TOC [Ti. WH]), my beloved, 
the first-fruits of Asia 2 unto Christ, as he is described 
in the salutation sent to him in Rom. 16s, appears to 
have been Paul s first convert in Ephesus, as Stephanas 
and his household were in Corinth ( i Cor. 16 15). From 
his not being designated kinsman it has been inferred 
that he was a Gentile. The name is of not uncommon 
occurrence in the East ; cp CIG, 2953 (Ephesus), 3903 
(Phrygia). For the bearing which this name has upon 
the criticism of the epistle, see ROMANS, 4, 10. Cp 

In the lists of the seventy disciples by the Pseudo-Dorotheus 
and Pseudo-Hippolytus (see DISCIPLE, 3), Epaenetus figures 
as Bishop of Carthage or Carthagena (Kapflaye i^s, Cartaginis). 
In the Greek Church he is commemorated with Crescens, 
Silas, and Andronicus on 3oth July. 

EPAPHRAS (eTTA(J>pAC [Ti. WH], an abbreviated 
form of EPAPHRODITUS [g.v.]), a faithful minister 
Sid/covos), and bond-servant (SoOXos) of Christ (Col. 
1? 4 12), founder of the church at COLOSSE [g.v. , 
2], and teacher in the neighbouring towns of Laodicea 
and Hierapolis (see 413). Epaphras visited Paul in his 
captivity, and it is probable that the outbreak of false 
teaching in the Colossian church may have led him to 
seek Paul s aid with the result that the epistle to the 
COLOSSIANS (see s,/) was written. Did Epaphras 
share Paul s imprisonment during the writing of the 
epistle, or does fellow-prisoner (6 (rwaiXAiXwTos ; 
Philem. 23) refer to merely a spiritual captivity? Cp 
the term fellow-soldier (art. EPAPHRODITUS) below, 
and see Milligan in Hastings DB. 

charming ), the delegate (d7r6crToXos, see APOSTLE, 
i n. , 3) of the Philippians, visited Paul during his 
imprisonment at Rome and remained with him to 
the detriment of his health (Phil. 225^ 4i8). Paul s 
estimate of him is summed up in the eulogy my brother 
and fellow - worker and fellow - soldier (dde\(f>bi> KO.I 
ffvvepybv Kal ffw<7Tpa.TiwTr]v fj.ov ; 225). On his return 
Epaphroditus no doubt took with him the epistle to 
the PHILIPPIANS, the grave warnings of which (82) 
may have been due to the report he had brought (cp 
EPAPHRAS). It is by no means necessary to identify 
Epaphras and Epaphroditus : indeed, though they have 
several features in common (note, e.g. , fellow-soldier 
and fellow-prisoner ) these are far outweighed by 
the points of difference. Epaphroditus is a common 
name in the Roman period. 3 

i. Perhaps rather ns"5? or rrjrj;, a Midianite clan ; 
Gen. 254 (ye<t>ap [A], yai<p. [DEL]) ; i Ch. 1 33 (yaffp 
[B], yaitpap [A]). With Midian it is mentioned in Is. 

"-its. Amelias ^cp /\v ) is certainly wrong , sec _rv_nrti.n v^ llv v- 

3 Notably the one to whom Josephus dedicated his Antiqui 
ties (.Vita, 76 ; Ant. Pref., 2 ; c. Ap. i. i). 

4 According to Halevy (Jotirn. As. ;th ser. 10394/1), nsy 
occurs as a personal name in the Safa inscriptions. 



606 as being rich in camels, and as bringing gold and 
incense from Sheba. See MIDIAN. 

2. and 3. Calebite names ; i Ch. 2 46 (yai<j>a.i)\ [n-oAXouo)] [B*], 
yai<f>a [T) jr.] [BbA], r) yaufxx [TT.] [L]) ; V. 47. 

EPHAH (HQWN; oi<J>[e]l [Lev. 5n 620 Nu. 5i 5 
28s Judg. 6 19 Ruth 2 17 i S.I 24 17 17 Ezek. 45 13*], 
M6TRON [Dt. 25 M/. Pr. 20 10, Am., Zech., Ezek., 

EPHAI ( BW, Kr. ; Bti?, Kt. ; a><t>e [N], -T [A], 
I60(j>e [B], -6 [Q m g- s "W ut vid.]_ oyw . Syr. Hex."*- 
i*S>a*), according to MT, a man of Netophah, whose 
sons were among the adherents of Gedaliah (Jer. 40 8f). 
In the parallel text, 2 K. 2523, wy 331 is not found. 
Apparently sons of . . . ( Sijna) is a corruption of 
a duplication of the following word Netophathite, 
DSiBJn (Che. ) ; note the warning Pasek which pre 
cedes. The Netophathite meant is SERAIAH (q.v., 3). 

EPHER ("1B17, gazelle, 68, cp EPHRON ; 

i. A Midianite clan, Gen. 254 (a^eip [L]) ; i Ch. 
1 33 (otpep [BA], 70. [L]). Knobel and Delitzsch com 
pare the Banu Gifar of the stem of Kinana in Hijaz ; 
but if HANOCH (q.v. , i) has been rightly identified, 
Epher may very possibly be the modern Ofr, which is 
near Hanakiya, between the Tihama mountain range 
and Aban (so Wetzstein ; see Di. ). Glaser (Skizze, 
2449), however, prefers to connect the name with the 
Apparu of the inscriptions of Asur-bani-pal (.#".52223). 
From its mention in connection with Judah, E. 
Manasseh, and Reuben (see below), it is possible that 
various layers of the tribe of Epher were incorporated 
with the Israelites at a later time (cp Mold, in Schenkel, 
BL 42i8. See MIDIAN). 

2. b. Ezrah, of JUDAH, i Ch. 4 17 (ya</>ep [A], e</>p [L]) ; cp 

El HRON L, 3. 

3. A head of a subdivision of MANASSEH, i Ch. 5 24 (o</>ep 
[BA]) ; cp EPHRON i., 2. S. A. C. 

EPHES-DAMMIM (D EH DDK; ecpep/v\eM [B], 
A(becAo/v\/v\eiN [A], &<bec[A<vlMeiN [L^ ; ^safloi3 
[Pesh.] ; N TT6PATI Ao/V\ei/v\[Aq.], in finibus dommim 
[Vg.]; cp OS 35 ii, 9623, 226 18), or, if epkes be 
taken to mean end [of], Dammim is, according to 
MT, the name of a spot where the Philistines encamped, 
between SOCOH i, and AZEKAH (iS. 17 1). By Van 
de Velde (who is followed in Riehm s HWB] it is 
identified with Damun, on the N. side of the Wady 
es-Sant, E. of the Roman road to Bet Nettlf ; but a 
different name for this ruin was obtained in the 
Ordnance Survey, and the name Damun, if it occurs 
at all, seems to belong to a site nearer the high hills. 
Conder (PEFQ, 1875, p. 193), on the other hand, finds 
an echo of the name in Bet Fased ( a place of bleeding ), 
which is close to Socoh (Shuweikeh} on the SE. This 
will not do for the site of the encampment for the 
reason given in Che. Aids, 85, n. i but Conder s 
view is not that Bet Fased represents the site (Buhl, 
Geogr. 90, n. 92), but that it is an echo of a name of 
the great valley of Elah (see ELAH, VALLEY OF) which 
arose out of the sanguinary conflicts that frequently 
occurred there. This is too fanciful a conjecture. 
We must, it would seem, either regard in Ephes- 
dammim in i S. 17 1 as (on the analogy of PASDAM- 
MIM) a corruption of o K2i pDjn in the valley of 
Rephaim (or Ephraim ; see REPHAIM), or else take 
-dammirn to be a corruption of some proper name, 
ephes being in this case also a corruption of pay, valley. 
The latter view is less probable, but hardly impossible. 

The Philistines appear to have encamped on the southern, 
and the Israelites on the northern side of the valley of Elah (see 
Che. A ids, 85), and, considering how often the same valley has 
more than one name, we may conjecture that the site of the 
Philistine encampment was described as in the valley of X = 
in the valley of Elah (or, terebinth-valley ). In i S. 17 2 
some point in the valley of Elah is mentioned as the site of the 
encampment of the Israelites ; but in the valley of Elah would 



not improbably be inserted by the redactor from v. 19, which 
verse seems to have come from another version of the tradition 
(see Klo.). 

The present writer, who prefers the former of the 
alternatives suggested above, supposes (i) that in the 
valley of Rephaim (or Ephraim) is a discrepant state 
ment of the scene of the fight with Goliath, and (2) 
that it is the correct statement. Others may have an 
insuperable objection to this, and for their benefit 
another suggestion is made. It is not inconceivable 

that Valley of the Terebinth (tjmn] was the name of 
j \ T .. T / 

that part of the valley in which David won his victory, 
whilst a larger section of the valley was called Valley 
of the red-brown [lands] ; cp the ascent of the red- 
brown [hills], Josh. 15?; red-brown in each case is 
D GHN. Large patches of it (the ploughed land in the 
valley of Elah) were of a deep red colour, exceptional, 
and therefore remarkable (Miller, The Least of all 
Lands, 125). From D DIN to o DT is an easy step. 
H. P. Smith is hardly decisive enough in his rejection 
of Lagarde s D<DH 1BD3- 1 The torrent was of course 
dried up, and no longer a landmark. See ELAH, 
VALLEY OF. T. K. c. 


EPHESUS (ecbecoc [Ti. WH] ; gent. 

EPHESIAN) lay on the left bank of the Cayster (mod. 

P . Kuchuk Mendere, Little Mseander), about 6 

, . . ^ m. from the sea, nearly opposite the island 
of Samos. Long before the Ionian im 
migration the port at the mouth of the river had 
attracted settlers, who are called Carians (Paus. vii. 26), 
but were probably the Hittites whose centre of power 
lay at Pteria in Cappadocia ; see HITTITES, n /. To 
the E. of Mt. Koressos, in the plain between the 
isolated height of Prion (or Pion) and the eminence 
at the foot of which the modern village stands, there 
arose a shrine of the many-breasted Nature-goddess 
identified by the Greeks with their own Artemis (see 
DIANA). The population lived, in the primitive 
Anatolian fashion, in village groups (/oD/Mu) round the 
shrine, on land belonging to it wholly or in part, com 
pletely dominated by the priests. With the coming of 
the lonians, who, after long conflict, established them 
selves on the spur of Mt. Koressos now shown as the 
place of Paul s prison (ancient Athenaeum), began an 
obstinate struggle between the Oriental hierarchy and 
Hellenic political ideas, which were based upon the 
conception of the city (?r6Xts). The early struggles of 
the immigrants with the armed priestesses perhaps gave 
rise to the Greek Amazon-legends. Even after actual 
hostilities had ceased, and the two communities had 
agreed to live side by side, this dualism continued to be 
the key to Ephesian history. The power of the priestly 
community remained co-ordinate with, or only partially 
subordinate to, that of the civic authorities ; 

the city and the temple continued to be 

2. Govern 
ment. f orma iiy distinct centres of life and govern 
ment (cp Curtius, Beitr. z. Gesch. u. Top. Kleinas., 14). 
The situation of the shrine, near one of the oldest ports 
of Asia Minor, at the very gateway of the East (Strabo, 
663) brought the worship into contact with allied Semitic 
cults. These and similar influences gave the Ephesian 
worship that cecumenic character which was its greatest 
boast (Acts 1927 ; Paus. iv. 318 ; Hicks, Inscr. Brit. 
Mus. 482, see Ramsay, Class. Rev. 1893, P- 7% /) 
Even apart from the existence of the hieron, the greatness 
of Ephesus was assured ; for, admirably placed as were 
all the Ionic cities (Herod. 1 142), none were so fortunate 
as Ephesus, lying as she did midway between the Hermos 
on the N. (at the mouth of which was Smyrna) and the 
Mceander on the S. (port, Miletus). On the downfall 
of Smyrna, before the Lydians, about 585 B.C., and 

1 See BN-jd, and cp tfbers. 76. For the grounds of this 
reading see Dr. TBS ixxviii., 292, and note Dr. s criticism on 



the ruin of Phokaia and Miletus by the Persians in 494 
B.C. , she inherited the trade of the Hermos and Maeander 
valleys. The port had always suffered from the alluvium 
of the Cayster, and its ultimate destruction from that 
cause had been rendered inevitable by an unfortunate 
engineering scheme of Attalus II. Philadelphus, about 
a century and a half before Strabo wrote ; yet in Strabo s 
time and in that of Paul the city was the greatest em 
porium of Asia (Str. 641, t/j.w6piot> oiVa /jLtyurrov rCiv 
Kara rr)i> A-ffiav TTJV Ivrbs TOV favpov ; reflected in Rev. 
1811-14). Shortly after Paul s visit the proconsul 
Barea Soranus tried to dredge the port (61 A. D. ; 
Tac. Ann. 1623). Its commercial relations are illus 
trated by the fact that even the minium (fjdXros) of 
Cappadocia was shipped from Ephesus, not from Sinope 
(Str. 540), and by the travels of Paul himself (Acts 18 
19-21 19 1 ; cp 1824). Kphesus was the centre of Roman 
administration in Asia. The narrative in Acts reveals 
an intimate acquaintance with the special features of its 
position. As the Province of Asia was senatorial (Str. 
840), the governor is rightly called proconsul. 1 Being 
a -free city, Ephesus had assemblies and magistrates, 
senate (/SouATj), and popular assembly (tKK\r)<rla) of its 
own ; but orderliness in the exercise of civic functions 
was jealously demanded by the imperial system (Acts 
194o; cp Bull. Corr. Hell., 1883, p. 506). The 
theatre, which was probably the usual place of meeting 
for the assembly,- is still visible. Owing to the decay 
of popular government under the empire, the public 
clerk (ypafj.fjia.Tfus TOV STI/J.OV) became the most import 
ant of the three recorders, and the picture in Acts 
of the town-clerk s consciousness of responsibility, and 
his influence with the mob is true to the inscriptions 
(e.g. , CIG 2994, 2966, etc. ). From its devotion to 
Artemis the city appropriated the title Neokoros (Acts 
1935: v(WK6po$, lit. temple -sweeper ), and, as the 
town-clerk said, its right to the title was notorious. 

The word Neokoros was an old religious term adopted and 
developed in the imperial cultus, i.e., under the empire the title 
Neokoros, or Neokoros of the Emperors, was conferred by the 
Senate s decree at Rome, and was coincident with the erection 
of a temple and the establishment of games in honour of an 
Emperor. When a second temple and periodical games were, 
by leave of the Senate, established, in honour of a later Emperor, 
the city became Sis Netoicopos ( twice Neokoros ), and even 
(rpis N.) thrice Neokoros in inscriptions and on coins. 
Hence under the empire not only Ephesus but also Laodiceia 
and other Asiatic cities boasted the title. See Rams. Hist. 
Phryg. 1 58 ; Biichner, <ie Neocoria. 

Naturally Ephesus was the head of a conventus, i.e. , 
it was an assize town (Plin. 627, Ephesum vero, alterum 

3. Importance. ! umen Asia ! remotiores conveniunt ) ; 
hence in Acts 19 38 the courts are 
open (cp Jos. Ant. xiv. 102i, Strabo, 629). From its 
position as the metropolis of Roman Asia Ephesus was 
naturally a meeting-point of the great roads. 

On the one side a road crossing Mt. Tmulos ran north-east 
wards to Sardis, and so into Galatia (cp GALATIA). More 
important was that which ran southwards into the Maeander 
valley. Ephesus was, therefore, the western terminus of the 
back-bone of the Roman road system the great trade route 
to the Euphrates by way of Laodiceia and Colossa; (Rams. 
Hist. Geogr. of A 71/49), anc ^ tne sea en d of the road along 
which most of the criminals sent to Rome from the province of 
Asia would be led (Rams. Ch. in R. Kmp. 318) ; hence Ignatius, 
writing to the church there, says, ye are a high road of them 
that are on their way to die unto God (Eph. 12, irdpoWs dare 
Ttav ets 0ebi/ avaipovfj-fviav ; cp Rev. 17 6). 

It was, in part, by the route just described, that 
Paul on his Third journey reached Ephesus from the 
interior, avoiding, however, the towns of the Lycus 
valley by taking the more northerly horse-path over the 
Duz-bel pass, byway of Seiblia (Acts 19 1, die\d6vra TO. 

1 Acts 19 38, at SvTraroi ; the plural is generic, although others 
take it to allude to P. Celer, imperial procurator, and the freed- 
man Helius, who may have remained in Asia with joint pro 
consular power after murdering the proconsul Junius Silanus at 
the instigation of Agrippina, in 54 A.D. Tac. Ann. 13 i ; Lewin, 
Fasti Sacri. 

2 Cp Jos. A nt. xix. 8 2, Agrippa at Ca;sarea : Tac. Hist. 2 go, 
turn Antiochensium theatrum ingressus, ubi illis consultare mos 
st . . . ; Jos. Bf vii. 3 3 ; Cic. Pro Place 7, 16 ; Philostr. Vit. 
A poll. 4 10 (p. 147), >}-yei/i7Ai<u a jro<raf err! TO Bearpov, of Ephesus. 



iKa /dpi). See Rams. Ch. in R. Emp. 94). 
True to his principle, Paul went to the centre of Roman 
life ; and along the great lines of communication, with 
out his personal intervention, his message spread east 
wards into the Lycus valley (see COLOSSE, HIERAPOLIS, 
LAODICEA). All the seven churches 1 of Rev. 1-3 
were probably founded at this period, for all were great 
trade centres and in communication with Ephesus. The 
labours of subordinates were largely responsible for their 
foundation, perhaps in all cases, though it is only in one 
group that evidence is forthcoming (Col. \-j 412-17). 
The position of Ephesus as the metropolis of Asia is 
clearly reflected in her primacy in the list (Rev. In 2i). 
In this way, all they which dwelt in Asia heard the 
word . . . both Jews and Greeks (Acts 19 10). 

Jews we should expect to find in great numbers at 
Ephesus. As early as 44 B.C., Dolabella in his consul 
ship had granted them toleration for their rites and 
Sabbath observance, and safe conduct in their pilgrimage 
to Jerusalem (Jos. Ant. xiv. 10 12) ; they must then have 
been a rich community to have been able to buy these 
favours. Their privileges were confirmed by the city 
(ibid., 1025), and subsequently by Augustus (id. , xvi. 
627). To them, as usual (cp ACTS, 4), was Paul s 
first message on both visits (Acts 1819 198); but the 
good-will with which he had been welcomed on his 
4. Attitude to firs j aPPearance (Acts 1820) cooled, 
Christianity. <d he was compelled at last to take 
his teaching from the synagogue to the 
philosophical school of one Tyrannus (Acts 199, 
8ia\ey6/j.evos tv TT) <rx^77 Tvpdvvov from the fifth 
to the tenth hour added by D * . e. , after the usual 
teaching hours; cp Bull. Corr. Hell., 1887, p. 400; 
Rams. Expos. March, 1893, p. 223). 

Soon Paul came into collision with the beliefs and 
practices peculiar to the place in a twofold manner. 

Ephesus was a centre of the magical arts of the East. 

It is significant that the earliest Ephesian document extant 
deals with the rules of augury (6th cent. B.C. ; Inscr. Brit. Mus. 
678). The so-called Ephesian letters ( E^eVia were 
mystic symbols engraved upon the statue of the goddess (Eustath. 
Od. 14) ; they were inscribed upon tablets of terra-cotta or other 
material, and used as amulets (Athen. 12548, iv oxvrapi oi? 
pa7TTOt<Ti <f>fp<av E<|>ecrjjia KaAoi). When pronounced 
they were regarded as powerful charms, especially effective in 
cases of possession by evil spirits (cp Plut. Syif>. vii. 5 4 : oi 
fj-dyoi, TOWS SaijU.ovtjJbjUieVous (ceAeiiouai ra E<e (7ia 
KaraAe yeti/ xai bi>Ofj.dcLv). The study of these symbols was an 
elaborate pseudo-science. 

The miracles ascribed to Paul were therefore clearly 
designed to meet the circumstances ; they were 
special (Acts 19n : ov ray Tuxowras) the expulsion 
of diseases and of evil spirits by means of hand 
kerchiefs or aprons (crovddpia % o-ifj.udv6ia,) which 
are, possibly, to be connected with Paul s own daily 
labour for his living (i Cor. 4 12 : KOTriwfj.(v (pya6/j.evoi 
TCUS ISiais \tpalv , i Thess. 2 9). Especially was his 
power brought into comparison with that claimed by 
the Jewish exorcists (see EXORCISTS), as previously in 
Paphos (Acts 136) ; although in the story of the sons 
of Sceva and the burning of the treatises on magic 
there are considerable difficulties the writer is here 
rather a picker-up of current gossip, like Herodotus, 
than a real historian (Rams. Si. Paul, 273). 

In the second place, the new teaching came into 
collision with the popular worship. Even before 
the great outbreak, fierce opposition must have 
been encountered from the populace (i Cor. 1632: 
6r)pi.o/j.a,xr]ffa., I fought with beasts a word which 
contains a mixture of Roman and Greek ideas : the 
Platonic comparison of the mob to a beast, Rep. 493, 
and the death of criminals in the circus ; cp i Cor. 49 : 
6 6e6s r)fjia.s TOVS diro<rT6\ot j (ffxo-Tovs dirfdei^ev, us 
fwidavarlovs, and v. 13). In the conviction that a 
great door and effectual was opened in the province, 
in spite of there being many adversaries ( i Cor. 

1 [ From the seven letters, chap. iyl, we see how carefully 
the author had studied the situation in the Christian com 
munities accessible to him. Julicher, Einl. in das NT, 169.] 



16 8/), the apostle had resolved to remain at Ephesus 
until Pentecost (of 57 A. D. probably). The great festival 
of the goddess occurred in the month Artemision (C1G, 
2954) = Mar. -Apr. ; but whether it must be brought into 
connection with the riot or not is uncertain. The 
opposition did not originate with the priests, but was 
organised by the associated tradesmen engaged in the 
manufacture of shrines (vaol), led by Demetrius who 
was one of the chief employers of labour (Acts 1924 ; 
see DIANA, 2). Such trade-guilds (Zpya, tpyacriaC) 
were common in Asia Minor. 1 It is clear, however, that 
the riot was badly organised (see Acts 1932). 

The watchword, Great is Artemis (M^dXr; ij 
"A/JTfyUis) raised by the workmen, diverted the excite 
ment of the populace, and the demonstration became 
anti- Jewish (v. 34) rather than directly and especially 
anti-Christian. The nationality of Gaius and Aristarchus 
(Macedonians, AV ; Aristarchus alone Macedonian 
according to some few MSS, Gaius in that case being 
the Gaius of Derbe of Acts 204; cp GAIUS, 2 ) would tend 
in the same direction so long as Paul remained invisible 
(if. 30), as, apart from the Romans, the Jews formed the 
only conspicuous foreign element in the city, and one 
notoriously hostile to the popular cult. The solicitude 
of certain Asiarchs (v. 31 ; cp Euseb. HE 4 15 ; see 
ASIARCH) for the apostle is significant, as they were 
the heads of the politico -religious organisation of 
the province in the cult of Rome and the Emperor ; 
whence we must infer that neither the imperial 
policy nor the feeling of the educated classes was 
opposed to the new teaching as yet. The town-clerk s 
speech is virtually an apologia for the Christians. 
It is true that a very different view has been 
suggested (Hicks, Expos. June 1890; cp Rams. 
Expos. July 1890), in which Demetrius the silversmith 
is identified with the Demetrius named as President of 
the Board of Neopoioi ( temple-wardens, Inscr. Brit. 
Mus. 578). Hicks supposes that the priests persuaded 
the Board to organise the riot, and that the honour voted 
in the inscription to Demetrius and his colleagues was 
in recognition of their services in the cause of the god 
dess. Apart from the doubt attaching to the restoration 
^ T [eo7^oloi], and to the date of the decree, the theory 
does not show why the priests acted by intermediaries 
who were civil not religious magistrates ; nor how trade 
interests were affected i.e. , it involves the assumption 
that the author of Acts misconceived the situation, and j 
in recasting his authority altered veowoibs AprejtuSos into ; 
Trotub vaoi)j dpyvpovs Apre/it5oy. Further, in order to j 
explain the difference between the friendly attitude of j 
the Asiarchs and the supposed hostility of the priests, it 
is necessary to assume that the Asiarchs represented a 
different point of view from that of the native hierarchy. 
There is no evidence that they represented the point of 
view of the Roman governors, and probably they had 
themselves previously held priesthoods of local cults 
before becoming Asiarchs : they represented the view 
of the upper classes generally, one which prevailed out 
side Jewish circles wherever Paul preached (for com 
plete discussion, see Rams. Ch. in Rom. Emp. 112 /.). 

The short visit during the voyage from Corinth to 
Csesarea at the close of the Second journey, and the two 
and a half years labour there during the Third journey, 
together with the interview with the Ephesian elders at 
Miletus on the return voyage (Acts 20 17), form the 
only record of Paul s personal contact with Ephesus, 
unless we admit the inferences drawn from the Pastoral 
Epistles. 2 

1 Cp CIG 3208 : oi ft> E$eVu> epya.TO.1, TrpOTnAetrai. See 
especially Thyatira, where we have, among others, x a ^ Ke , 
Xa^icoTUTToi. Possibly classification by trade was pre-Greek 
Herod. 1 93 the tribe being a Greek introduction ; Rams. Hist. 
Pkryg. 1 105. Cp Oxyrhyncris Papyri, vol. i. p. 85 returns of 
stock in trade by Egyptian guilds, KOIVOV T>V xoAjcoKoAATjTwi , 
TU>V tji9oma\u>v, etc. See Menadier, Ephes. 28. 

2 [The Pastoral Epistles, though they may possibly contain 
fragments of genuine letters of Paul (worked up with freedom), 


Philem. 22 ( prepare me also a lodging ; cp Phil. 2 24) 
expresses an expectation of visiting Colossat, which inevitably 
implied a visit to Ephesus. i Tim. 1 3 implies that this in 
tention was realised, and perhaps there are hints also of a fourth 
visit : some reconstruct the fragmentary picture of these years 
so as to give even a fifth or a sixth visit (Conybeare and Howson 
2 547./T) before the final departure for Nicopolis by way of 
Miletus and Corinth (2 Tim. 4 20). 

On the destruction of Jerusalem the surviving apostles 
and leading members of the church found refuge in 
Asia, and tor a time Ephesus became virtu- 

5. Post- 

ally the centre of the Christian world. 



,. ANDREW and PHILIP, with Aristion and 

Unes> JOHN the Elder, had their abode here ; in 
this circle Polycarp passed his youth. 

The modern name of Ephesus (Ayasalule) is a corruption of 
Ayos Theologos ("Aytos fc)eoA6-yos), the town being named in 
Byzantine times from the great Church of St. John the Divine, 
built by Justinian on the site of an earlier edifice : its ruins are 
visible on the height above the modern village (cp Procop. de 
sEJ. 5 i ; Rams. Hist. Geogr. AM, no). This church became 
the centre of a town, Ephesus itself being gradually abandoned. 
The plain has thus reverted to its original condition, the miserable 
remnant of the population now occupying the site of the sanc 
tuary of Artemis founded by the prehistoric settlers, whilst the 
site of the Greek and Roman Ephesus is a desert (Rev. 2 5). 

See Wood, Disccrveries at Ephesus, 1877, for the excavations 
(now resumed in the town by the Vienna Arch. Inst. ; cp 
r>-v T _ _i Athenteum, no. 3677 ; Class. Rti . April, 

6. Bibliography. I90o) F< ; r his 3 t o 7 ry ; Curtius, Beit,-, z. 

Gesch. u. Top. Kleinasiens, 1872; but Guhl s Ephesiaca, 1843, 
is still valuable. The epigraphic results of Wood s labours are 
given in Greek Inscr. of Brit. Mus. 3. Consult also Zimmer- 
mann, Ephesos im ersten christ. Jahrhundert ; Weber, Guide 
du Voyageur a Efhese (Smyrna, 1891), with good maps (plan of 
Ephesus after Weber in Handbook to Asia Minor, Murray, 
1895, p. 96); good article, with good views and maps, by Benn- 
dorf ( Topographische Urkunde aus Ephesos ), in Fcstsc/iriftfiir 
H. Kiepert, 1898. W. J. W. 

EPHLAL (7?DX, meaning ?), a Jerahmeelite name, 
I Ch. 2 37. The MT is virtually supported by ( a.(f>a/nri\ , 
-rj5 [B], o<p\a8 [A] A, M from A ), but the name was per 
haps originally theophorous. Read, therefore, hs^x, an 
abbreviated form of aSs Stf (see ELIPHELET), or, more 
probably, ^3^>N ( C p L eX0aeX). See ELPAAL, and 
cp ( s readings there cited. s. A. c. 

EPHOD (TISK, ibN; in Pent. BAL , enooMic, 
Vg. superhumerale ; in Judg. and i S. ecpOyA, e4>U)A, 
ephod ; in 2 S. 6 14 i Ch. 1627 croAH, but ecfcoyA [L] 
in i Ch. ; Hos. 84 lep&TGlA [BAQ]), a Hebrew word 
(ephod] which the English translators have taken over as 
a technical term. The word is used in the historical 
books in two meanings, the connection between which 
is not clear. 

The boy Samuel ministered before Yahwe, girt with 

a linen ephod (13 -psx Tun, iS. 2i8); in the same 

. garb, David, when he brought the ark up 

to Jerusalem, danced before Yahwe with 

garment. a]1 his mjght ( 2S6l4; j n iCh. 152 7 

the words are a gloss). It was long the accepted 
opinion that the linen ephod was the common vestment 
of the priests; but in i S. 22 18 linen (bad) is a 
gloss (see (5 B , as also @ L in i S. 2i8), and the other 
passages usually alleged in support of the theory speak 
of bearing or carrying the ephod, not of wearing it (see 
below, 2). This ephod was manifestly a scanty gar 
ment, for Michal taunts David with indecently exposing 
himself like any lewd fellow. It was probably not a 
short tunic, as is generally thought, but a loin-cloth 
(Tre/^fw/xo.) about the waist ; Samuel s tunic fyyo) is 
mentioned separately, and the verb rendered gird (-un) 
is used in Hebrew not of belting in an outer garment, 
but only of binding something (girdle, sword-belt, loin 
cloth) about the loins ; additional support is given to 
this view by the shape of the high priest s ephod (see 
below, 3). David s assumption of this meagre garb 
on an occasion of high religious ceremony may perhaps 
have been a return to a primitive costume which anti 
quity had rendered sacred, as the pilgrims to Mecca 

are un-Pauline in language and in theological position, nor can 
they be fitted into a chronology of the life of Paul. See 
Jiilicher (op. cit., 13), and cp PASTORAL EPISTLES. ED.] 



to-day must wear the simple loin-cloth (izdr; see 
GIRDLE, i), which was once the common dress of the 

The ephod was used in divining or consulting Yahwe. 
Of this there is frequent mention in the history of 

o o^nH Saul and David (* S - 14z8 *" [1 : 
2. The ephod- cp v ^ 2 36 9 30 7 ); see also Hos.:3 4 . 
Dracle. From the passages in i S. it appears 
that the ephod was carried bythe priest (14 318 5, 
cp 236) ; to carry the ephod is the distinction of 
the priesthood (22 18 <@). one of its chief prerogatives 
(228). When Saul or David wishes to consult Yahwe, 
the priest brings the ephod to him ; he puts an inter 
rogatory which can be answered categorically (14 37 
23 io- 12 308), or a simple alternative, or a series of 
alternatives narrowing the question by successive exclu 
sion (1436-42, cp 1020-22). The priest manipulated the 
ephod in some way ; Saul breaks off a consultation by 
ordering the priest to take his hand away (14 19). The 
response, as we should surmise from the form of the 
interrogatory, was given by lot ; in 14 t,\f. (, cp 18) the 
lot is cast with two objects, named respectively Urim 
and Thummim (see URIM). That the ephod was part 
of the apparatus of divination may be inferred also 
from its frequent association with the TERAPHIM [q. v.~\ 
(Judg. 17/. Hos. 3 4 ; cp Ezek. 21 2I [26] Zech. 102). 

The passages in Samuel, whilst leaving no doubt 
concerning the use of the ephod, throw little light upon 
its nature. They show, however, that it was not a 
part of the priests apparel ; it was carried, not worn 
(n sfi never means wear a garment ; cp also 236, in 
his hand ), and brought (r art, bring near ) to the 
person who desired to consult the oracle. Other pass 
ages seem to lead to a more positive conclusion. At 
Nob the sword of Goliath, which had been deposited in 
the temple as a trophy, was kept wrapped up in a 
mantle behind the ephod, which must, therefore, be 
imagined as standing free ( i S. 21 9 [io]).- In Judg. 17 f. 
ephod and teraphim in one version of the story are 
parallel to pesel and massekdh (idol) in the other. It is 
natural, though not necessary, to suppose that the ephod 
was something of the same kind, and the association of 
ephod with teraphim elsewhere (Hos. 84) is thought to 
confirm this view. Gideon s ephod (made of 1700 
shekels of gold) set up (rsn, cp i S. 52 28.617 [of the 
a rk] ; cp iSptieiv) at Ophrah, where, according to the 
deuteronomistic editor, it became the object of idolatrous 
worship Judg. 827), was plainly an idol, or, more pre 
cisely, an agalma, of some kind. Many scholars infer 
that the ephod in Judg. 827 \1 f. and i S. 21g was an 
image of Yahwe ; 3 and some think that a similar 
image is meant in all the places cited above where the 
ephod is used in divining. 4 We should then imagine 
a portable idol before which the lots were cast. See 
below, 3 (end), 4. 

In P the ephod is one of the ceremonial vestments of 

the high priest enumerated in Ex. 28 4. The pattern 

TVi v> - Vi f r tne e phd is given in 28 6 ft ; the 

. \, ? ~, fabrication is recorded in 39 2 _ff. (=g 

lests epnod 3 g 9 ^ the investiture of Aaron in 

29s Lev. 87. The description is not 

altogether clear ; nor do the accounts of those who had 

(probably) seen the high priest in his robes afford much 

additional light. 5 

1 MT (so A) substitutes the ark (pin), as in i K. 2 26. See 
ARK, col. 305, n. 

2 It is possible, however, that ephod has here been substituted 
for another word (perhaps dron, ark ), for reasons similar to 
those which led to omit the words altogether (they have been 
introduced in many codd. from Theodotion). 

3 See Moore, Judges, 381. 

4 If the words before me OjsS) in S. 2 28 are original, they 
exclude this hypothesis ; see, however, BAL anc j Pesh. 

6 Ecclus. 45 io Heb. ; Ep. Arist., ed. Schmidt, in Merx, 
Archil , 1 27i_/; ; Philo, De Monarch. 2 $/. (ii. 225^ Mangey), 
Vit. Mosis, Siijf. (ii. 151 ft); Jos. BJ \. 67; Ant. iii. 7 5. 
See also Jerome, Ad Fabiolam, ep. 64 15 ; Ad Marcellam, 
ep. 29. 



Braun (De vcstitit sacerdotuiit, 1698, p. 462^!), whom most 
scholars since his day have followed, held that the ephod con 
sisted of two pieces, one covering the front of the body to a little 
below the waist, the other the back ; two shoulder straps (rtlEro) 
ran up from the front piece on either side of the breastplate, 
and were attached to the back by clasps on the shoulders ; a 
band, woven in one piece with the front of the ephod, passed 
around the body under the arms and secured the whole. 

Others conceive of the ephod as an outer garment covering 
the body from the arm-pits to the hips, firmly bound on by its 
girdle, and supported by straps over the shoulders, something 
like a waistcoat with a square opening in front for the insertion 
of the breastplate. 1 This view is incompatible with the descrip 
tions in Exodus, especially with the directions for the making 
and the use of the band (:>S 8 27 ii!) 5) ; against Braun s theory it 
must be noted that nothing is said in the text about a back piece, 
nor is there anything to suggest that the ephod was made in two 
parts ; 28 8 again seems to exclude such a construction. 

As far as we can now understand the description, 
the high priest s ephod appears to have been a kind 
of apron, tied around the waist by a band or girth 
(arn = con, cingulum) ; from the corners of the apron 
two broad shoulder-straps (nisro) were carried up to 
the shoulders, and there fastened (to the robe, h yz) by 
two brooches set with onyx stones. 2 The oracle- pouch 
(ccrn jerii EV breastplate of judgment ; cp BREAST 
PLATE ii. col. 607) was permanently attached by its 
corners to the shoulder-straps, filling the space between 
them, and on its lower border meeting the upper edge of 
the ephod proper. The high priest s ephod may then be 
regarded as a ceremonial survival of the primitive loin 
cloth (ephod bad ; see above, i) worn by Samuel and 
David, 3 precisely as a Christian bishop at one time wore 
as the Pope does still over his alb a succinctorium 
with its wma, the two ends falling at his left side. 4 

The fact that the apparatus of the high -priestly 
oracle, the ESSTD Jt?n, with the sacred lots, was per 
manently attached to the ephod recalls the use of the 
ephod by the priests of Saul and David in divining (see 
URIM) ; and the most natural explanation is that it 
also is a survival. This is, of course, impossible if the 
ephod in Samuel was an image (see above, 2) ; but 
the latter conjecture is not so certainly established that 
the evidence of P may not be put into the scales against 
it. 5 

Various hypotheses have been proposed to connect 
the different meanings and uses of ephod in the OT. 

Att t rl ^ s P ss bl e t lat t ^ le primitive ephod 

. ,P a corner of which was the earliest 

exp ana ions. p OC j cet was use( j as a receptacle for 

the lots, from which they were drawn, or into which 
they were cast (see Prov. 1633) ; and that when it was 
no longer a common piece of raiment it was perpetuated 
in this sacred use, not worn, but carried by the priest ; 
the ephod and oracle-pouch of the high priest would 
then preserve this ancient association. The ephod of 
Gideon perhaps also the ephod in the temple at Nob 
was, however, an agalma of an entirely different 
character ; what relation there may be between the 
ephod - garment and the ephod-idol, it is not easy to 
imagine. 6 In both cases we must admit the possibility 

1 Dillmann, Ex. u. Lev. (3) 334 ; Nowack, HA 2 u8/ ; 
Driver in Hastings DB, s.v. ; cp Saadia, Abulwalid. The 
figures in Lepsius Denkindler (3 224 a d, 222 h, 274 6), in which 
Ancessi, followed by Dillm. and others, would see an Egyptian 
ephod of this form, represent, not a ceremonial dress, but simply 
body armour of two familiar types. 

2 The interpretation shoulder-cape, Schulterkleid, found 
in some recent works is a mechanical mistranslation (through 
Old Latin and Vg. superhumcrale) of eirio/ou s, which is not 
a garment covering the shoulders, but one open on the shoulders 
and supported by brooches or shoulder-straps (en-co/ui6e<;). 

3 Rashi (on Ex. 284^ 40 end) likens the ephod of the 
high priest to a woman s surceint, two pieces of cloth, in front 
and behind, on a band or belt. 

4 See Marriott, Vestiarimn Christianum, 153, i6s_/C ; that 
the original use of the succinctorium was not forgotten, see 
Innocent III., De sacro altaris tnysterio, lib. i, c. 52. 

6 The alternative is that the union-of the ephod with the Urim 
and Thummim is an artificial combination suggested to the 
author of P by the passages in Samuel themselves. P, it is 
thought, knew nothing about the true nature of the old ephod 
or the Urim and Thummim. 

6 For the etymological explanation by J. D. Michaelis, see 
below ; cp also Smend, A T Rel.gesch. 41 n. 




that ephod has supplanted a more offensive word, 
possibly llohim; cp the substitution of aron, ark, 1 
for ephod in i S. 14 18 i K. 226. See ARK, 6, n. i. 

The etymology of ephod is obscure ; the verb nax 
(Ex. 29s Lev. 87) is generally regarded as denominative. 
Lagarde s derivation from a root 131 is formally un 
impeachable ; but his explanation, garment of ap 
proach to God, is inadmissible (Uebers. 178). J. D. 
Michaelis conjectured that Gideon s ephod-idol was so 
called because it had a coating (msx, cp Ex. 288 392) 
of gold over a wooden core (cp Is. 3022). 1 This theory 
hns been widely accepted, and extended to the whole 
class of supposed oracular ephod-idols ; but the com 
bination is very doubtful. Even in Isaiah it is quite 
possible that an actual garment may be meant. 

See the authors cited above in the notes, and in Moore, 
Judges, 381. Older monographs : B. D. Carpzov, De Ponti- 

ficum Hebra;orum vestitu sacro, in Ugolini, 
5. Literature. Thesaurus, 12785^; Ugolinus, Sacer- 

dotium Hebraicum," Tttts. 18135^ (opinions 
of Jewish scholars in extenso) ; cp Maimonides (Keic hainiq- 
dash 9 9 ff.), ib. 8 1002 ff. ; especially Braun, De Vestitu 
Sacerdotum, ii. 6 ; Spencer, De Leg. lib. iii. diss. 7, c. 3 ; further, 
Ancessi, Annales tie philos. chretienne, 1872 ; Konig, Rel. 
Hist, of Israel, 107 ft. , Sellin, Beitr. zur isr. u. j ied. Rel. ii. 
1 ngyl ; van Hoonacker, Le sacerdoce Lcuitique, y;off. (99). 

G. F. M. 

EPHPHATHA (e4xj>A9,\ [Ti. WH]), an Aramaism 
used by Jesus according to Mk. 7s4t- It is glossed by 
SiavolxOilTi, and is properly the passive (Ethpe el or 
Ethpa al opinions differ) of nns, to open. 

The assimilation of the n before 3 can be paralleled in later 
Aramaic ; but it would perhaps be simpler to suppose that 
the older reading was (correctly) 664>&6&. See Kau. Gram. 
10, Dalm. Gram. 202, 222. 


Name ( i/) 
Land ( 3 /.) 
People ( s/ 

Origin ( 6-8) 
History ( gf.~) 
P s statistics ( 10-12) 

Ephraim (Q^"1DX ; 100 ; on meaning of name see 
below, 2 ; ecJ>p<MM, occasionally Aid>. or -g/v\ ; 2 on 
1. Application gentilic Ephraimite, Ephrathite see 
of names below - * [ end ] 5 i-). the common 
designation in Hosea (originally oftener 
than now) of the northern kingdom of Israel. This usage 
was not confined, however, to northern writers. It occurs 
also in Isaiah and Jeremiah 3 and in post-exilic prophets 
and poets. 4 There is no evidence that the name was used 
by other nations. The Moabites called the northern 
kingdom Israel (.VII, I. 5) ; the Assyrians called it Bit 
Humri (cp OMRI), or Israel (cp Ahabbu Sir ilai). Nor 
does Ephraim in this sense occur in the earlier 
historical books. 5 The explanation probably is that it 
was not a correct, formal style. An orator may speak 
of England ; a diplomatist must say Great Britain. 

The form of the name suggests that it is really geo 
graphical (cp the many place-names ending in aim 
[NAMES, 107], and, for the prefixed N, such names as 
Ahlab, Achshaph ; cp also Achzib). 

Land of Ephraim (c"lBX pN), it is true, occurs only once, 
late (Judg. 1215), and Wood of Ephraim may be corrupt 
(see EPHRAIM [Woop OK]) ; but Mount Ephraim (Q"iSN in) 6 
occurs over thirty times (cp Mt. Gilead), and it is significant 
that we never hear of house of Ephraim (as we do of house 
of Joseph ). 7 

1 See IDOL, 5. 

2 The following forms occur in Josephus : for the eponym 
e^pcup. ; for the tribe e<pai/i;. ; variants e^par;?, -afir), -a.9i], -avti, 
-ajurj, -ai^rj. 

3 Ezekiel is uncertain. 

4 Cp Ecclus. 472i, out of Ephraim a kingdom of violence 

(son nrrap D^SNO ; and ?/. 23). 

Statistics as to the occurrence of the name may now be 
found conveniently collected in W. Staerk, Studien, 1 84-86. 

8 For K -in we have in Obad. 19 K mb 1 - If the text of these 
two words is correct (see NF.GKR), we must give n-\jy the mean 
ing it has in Assyrian (satfii), viz. mountain (for other cases see 
r IELD, i). 

7 The late passage, Judg. 10 9, cannot be considered an 
exception. The phrase is artificial, modelled after others. <SB 


Against the view that Ephraim is the name of a 
district the absence of such a place-name from the 
Egyptian records is of no significance. They mention, 
on the whole, towns rather than districts. Nor need 
we consider seriously the suggestion (Niebuhr, Gesch. 
1251) that there may be in Egypt a trace of Ephraim 
as the name of a people viz. in the (A)pury, repeatedly 
discussed in relation to Israel (the Hebrews ; cp 
HEBREW, i), since Chabas called attention to them, 
in 1 8(32 (Mil. Egypt. 42 _ff~.). 1 The objections to such 
a view initial ain for aleph 2 and certain facts about 
the (A)pury are obvious (so, strongly, WMM). 

The occurrence in a document of Egyptian ain 3 for initial 
Semitic aleph, is not indeed impossible, as is proved by the 
singular case of the similar name Achshaph (see above); but 
that must be regarded simply as a blunder of the scribe who 
wrote the papyrus (WMM As. u. Eur. 173). The name (A)pury 
occurs too often for there to be any uncertainty about its 
spelling and it is always with ain. 5 

Phonetically, therefore, the equation is indefensible. Nor is 
there in favour of it any positive argument. We find (A)pury in 
the time of Ramses II. (cp EGYPT, 58) in the (eastern) borders 
of Egypt where a persistent tradition says that Joseph, which, 
as we shall see, is practically equivalent to Ephraim, was 
settled (cp JOSEPH i.) ; but (A)pury are mentioned as early as 
the thirteenth and as late as the twentieth dynasty," and there 
is nothing to suggest their being connected with a special 
movement towards Canaan. 

It is most probable, therefore, that Ephraim is 
strictly the name of the central highlands of W. 
Palestine. The people took the name of the tract in 
which they dwelt, just as their neighbours towards the 
S. were called men of the south, sons of the south 
(see BENJAMIN, i). Ephraim would thus be simply 
the country of Joseph ; called his son, as Gilead is called 
the son of Machir. It is just possible that Machir, too, 
was at one time used in a wider sense, more nearly 
equal to Joseph; J s story says (Gen. 37 28 / cp454) 
that it was because Joseph was sold (FJOV nN VOD i) that 
he was found living in Egypt (TDD, Machir = sold ). 7 
Whenjoseph was regarded as consisting definitely of three 
collections of clans Machir (Manasseh), Ephraim, and 
Benjamin the main body retained the name Ephraim. 

The gentilic occurs seldom (Judg. 12s i S. 1 1 i K. 1126) in 
MT, and the text is doubtful (see below, 5, i.). Analogy would 
lead us to expect Ephrite (nSN* , cp i-j^D from Q luD j 3"in 
from G Jln) ! but the form used is Ephrathite ( JT1BN), as if from 
a noun Ephrah. Ephraimite (Josh. 16 10 [AV] Judg. 1246 
[AVJ, v. 5 [EV]) is an invention of EV. Ephrathite in Judg. 
12 5 is probably genuine (e^pafletnjs [B], CK TOV e<paijx, [AL]) 
in the sense of belonging to Mount Ephraim. 

i. From the days of Hosea (13 15, uns ) and the Bless 
ings of Jacob (Gen. 49) and of Moses (Dt. 33) men 
.y, . have seen in the name Ephraim a fitting 

of a a designation for the central district of 

Palestine, 8 fair and open, 1 fertile and 

well-watered ; and modern scholars (e.g. , We. , Abriss 

d. Gesch. 5) regard the name as originally a Hebrew 

omits house of. The Chronicler speaks of the sons of 
Ephraim ( ^3), 2 Ch. 28 12. 

l For the literature see reff". in Kittel, Gesch. 1 166 n. 2, Marq. 
Chronologische Untersuch. 57 n. 124. 

* Another phonetic objection, that medial 3 is normally repre 
sented by y not / (so WMM, As. u. Eur. 93), is not decisive. 
P also appears, for example, Ba -tj-tu-pa-ira = T2D jva (pap. 
Anast. i. 22 3). 

3 Brugsch compared theMidianite Epher, -^y(ZA 76, p. 71). 

4 Achshaph occurs in the list of towns in Upper Rtnu of 
Thotmes III. (no. 40) normally as -k-sap\ but in pap. Anast. 
i. 21 4 it appears as -k-sa-pu (initial y). 

6 As the Egyptian pronunciation of ain was less emphatic 
than the Canaanite it might be thought possible that an emphatic 
Semitic aleph should sometimes be represented in Egyptian by 
ain. What is found, however, is the converse effect Egyptian 
aleflh for Semitic ain, and it is hardly possible to believe that 
in the case of people for many centuries in the employment of 
the Egyptians a name which was spelled by the Egyptians 
with initial y invariably, really began with K. 

6 It has even been argued that (A)pury is never a race name 
(Meyer, GA, 297, n. 2; Maspero, Hist. anc. 2443, n. 3; but 
not so Erman, W. M. Miiller). 

7 The place of the incident of the sale in the life of Joseph is 
referred to elsewhere. See JOSEPH ii. 3. 

8 E applies the etymology differently (Gen. 4152: fruitful 
in the land of my affliction ["jy]); and again, Josephus (Ant. 
ii. (i i [ 92]): restoring (O.TTO&I.SOVS), because of the restoration 
(5td TO a.iro$o9rji>a.i) to the freedom of his forefathers. 




appellative meaning fertile tract. 1 Formally this is 
plausible (see above, i), and, as we shall see ( 3/. ), 
such a name is fitting -it would be eminently 
fitting on the lips of Hebrew immigrants from the 
Steppes. The Arabs called the beautiful plain of 
Damascus 2 the gitfa, and this has become a proper 
name (el-Ghiita). Compare the (very different) name 
given to the parched tract S. of Judah (see NEGEB). 
Other possible explanations, however, should not be 

ii. If HBN means earth, 3 Gesenius in connecting Ephraim 
.with HSN may have been wrong only in interpreting the termina 
tion aim as a dual ending, and Ephraim may have meant the 
loamy tract. The Assyrian epru may be iSNj not ^u 4 - 

iii. A slightly different explanation would be reached if we 
followed the hint of the Mishnic Hebrew 1BN (Buxt. 12N) ; cp 
BesaSy: Domestic animals (niW3) are suc ^ as pass the 
night in the city (TJH), pastoral animals (nvq-|D) are such as 
pass the night in the open (13x3) ; also Pesikta S/> : [Exod. 
34 24] teaches that thy cow may pasture in the open (nsxa). 
If this sense for -fix was old, Ephraim might mean the 
country where the earlier settlers in Palestine had not yet 
built (many) cities (cp below, 7 ii.). JODN, mSN " tne Talmud 
means meadow. 

On the other hand, the interpretation of geographical 
names is proverbially precarious (cp CANAAN, 6, 
ARAM, i) ; we must take into consideration the possi 
bility that the name Ephraim as it has reached us may 
owe its precise form in part to popular etymology such 
as, it is thought, has turned (conversely) Chateau vert 
into Shotover (hill). 

Ephraim is generally called Mount Ephraim 4 
( N in) i-e., mountainous -country 6 of Ephraim. 
, This was no mere form of speech. From 
. acoar the ]ain of Megiddo to Beersheba is a 

and extent. , 

great mountainous mass, ninety miles in 

length, called the mountain. Mountain of Ephraim 
will mean that part of this great mountain mass which 
lies within the (fertile) tract called Ephraim viz. the 
northern part. It is impossible not to see that Ephraim 
differs from the less fertile tract that extends down to Beer 
sheba. The change is patent. It is more difficult, how 
ever, to say where it occurs (see, further, end of this ). 
In fact, there is not really a definite physical line of sec 
tion, any more than there was a stable political boundary. 
It has been suggested elsewhere (BENJAMIN, if.) that 
this made easier the formation of an intermediate canton 
called the southern [Ephraim] i.e. , Benjamin. The 
OT nowhere defines the extent of Ephraim. It is likely 
that there was always a certain vagueness about its 
southern limits. There can be little doubt, however, 
that it included Benjamin (see BENJAMIN, i). All 
that follows the word even in Judg. 19 16 is probably 
an interpolation (to magnify the wickedness of the Ben- 
jamites ? ; so Bu. ad loc. ). The northern boundary is 
clearer. When Joseph us tells us (Ant. v. 122 [83]) that 
Ephraim reached (from Bethel) to the great plain (TO 
fj.^ya Trediov) he may mean the plain not of Megiddo 
but of the Makhneh (see below, 4) ; but he is speak 
ing of the seat of the smaller Ephraim tribe. The 
general character of the OT references and the cities 
assigned to Mt. Ephraim (see below, 13) make it 
probable that it reached to the plain of Megiddo. 

The only serious argument against it is the rather obscure 
passage Josh. 17 14-18 (on the text of which see Che. Crit. Bib., 

1 On the view of Gesenius see later ( 2 ii.). G. H. Skipwith 
suggests (JQK 11 247 [ 99!) that Q-|JN is the masculine equivalent 
of (n)rP2N. an appellation of Rachel, signifying her that 
maketh fruitful (see RACHEL). 

2 Cheyne has conjectured that the plain below Jerusalem 
similarly received the name Ephraim, corrupted by transposi 
tion of letters into REPHAIM [y.v.]. Bethlehem (or a place 
near it), only two or three miles distant, seems to have been 
called Ephrath. 

3 So Barth, Etytn. Stud. 2oyC, comparing Ar. gubar, which, 
however, means dust ; also Ges.( 13 )-Bu.( 2 ) 

4 Twice mount Israel, Josh. 11 1621 [D] ; on Ezekiel s 
frequent mountains of Israel ( in), see HIGH PLACE, 2. 

5 Looked at from the sea, indeed, or from across the Jordan, 
it presents the aspect, as G. A. Smith says, of a single moun 
tain massif. 



and cp REPHAIM). The house of Joseph, complaining that Mt. 
Ephraim is too small for them, are told to clear for themselves 
a settlement in the wood in the land of the Rephaim and the 
Perizzites. It has been supposed that this refers to the northern 
part of the western highlands from Shechem to Jenin (so Stade, 
Steuernagel, van Kasteren, MDPVqs, p. 28^); but it is more 
likely that the passage is to be connected with the story of 
Josephite colonies settling E. of the Jordan (cp JAIR, etc.; 
REPHAIM [WOOD]); so Bu. RiSa, 34 ff. 87 ; KfiC ad loc., 
Buhl, Pal. 121 n. 265). See MACHIK, MANASSEH, and, on the 
relation of Ephraim to other tribes, below,, 5. 

The places expressly said to be in Mount Ephraim 
are : in the south, Ramath(aim), perhaps Bet Rlma (see 
RAMATHAIM), Zuph, and Timnath-heres (Josh. 19so 
2430 Judg. 2g), perhaps et-Tibnah (see TIMNATH- 
HEKES) ; in the centre, Shechem (Josh. 20? 21 21 i K. 
1225 i Ch. 6 67 [52]) ; in the N., SHAMIR [q.v. ; Judg. 
10 i) ; also the hills ZEMARAIM, S. of Bethel (2 Ch. 
184), and GAASH, near Timnath-heres (Judg. 2g, etc.). 

The Ephraim highlands differ from those of Judah 
in several respects. 1 In Judah we have a compact and 
fairly regular tableland deeply cut by steep defiles, 
bounded on the E. by the precipices that overlook the 
depths of the Dead Sea, and separated on the W. from 
the maritime plain by the isolated lowland district of 
the Shgphelah (see JUDAH). In Ephraim this gives place 
to a confused complex of heights communicating on 
the E. by great valleys with the Jordan plain, and letting 
itself down by steps on the W. directly on to the plain 
of Sharon, cut across the middle by a great cleft (see 
below, 4, end) and elsewhere by deep valleys, and en 
closing here and there upland plains surrounded by hills. 

The change in the western border occurs about Wady 
Malaka, directly west of Bethel ; the change in the 
character of the surface not till the Bethel plateau ends 
(some 5 or 6 m. farther N. ) at the base of the highest 
peak of Ephraim -on which the ruins of Tell- Asur 
probably mark the site of BAAL-HAZOR whose waters 
running east through the W. Samiya and west through 
the W. en-Nimr and the W. Der Ballut empty them 
selves into the Jordan and the Mediterranean by the 
two Aujas. 

Geographically, as well as historically, the heart and 
centre of the land is Shechem. Embosomed in a 
forest of fruit gardens in a fair vale 

4. Plains, 

sheltered by the heights of Ebal and 

wadys, etc. Gerizimi ; t sends out j ts roa ds, like 
arteries, over the whole land, distributing the impulse 
of its contact with foreign culture. 

1. Northwestwards the W. esh-Sha lr winds past the 
open end of the Samaria plain down to Sharon. 

From the plain of Samaria, whose island city-fortress the 
sagacity of Omri made for centuries the capital, one gets by the 
valley up to near Yasid and then down the W. Abu Kaslun, or 
by a road over the saddle of Beyazid, into the upland plains 
of Fandakumiyeh and Marj el-Garak, and on to Sahl Arrabeh, 
Dothan, and the plain of Megiddo. 

2. The E. end of the vale of Shechem is the plain of 

If one turns to the left, the steep, rugged gorge of W. Bedan 
(with its precipitous cliffs, surmounted by Ebal on the left and 
by Neby Belan on the right) takes one down northwards to the 
great crumpled basin which collects the waters of the W. Fari a, 
the main avenue of access from Gilead 2 by the ford of ed- 
Damieh, less than 20 m. off. 

W. Fari a turns off to the right (SE). Straight on (NE.) 
past Ain Fari a is the road to Reisan in the Jordan plain, 
passing by the large village of Tubas (identified by some with 
THKBEZ, q.v.), which lies (10 m. from Nablus) looking down 
the \V. Buke , by Teyasir (identified by some with ASHER [q.v., 
ii.]) in a secluded and fertile open valley near the head of the \V. 
Malih and by Kb. Ibzik (BEZEK), and through the W. Khashneh, 
with its hills thickly ciothed with wild olives. 

On the left all along the road is the watershed, with the 
heights of Talluza (1940 ft. ; a village on a knoll commanding 
a fine view of W. Fari a), the barren rounded top of Ras el- 
Akra (2230 ft.), and Ras Ibzik (2404 ft.), which rises 1400 ft. 
above Teyasir. 

3. Straight in front of the E. exit from Shechem the plain 

1 When Josephus says loosely that they do not differ at all 
(BJ iii. 84 [(&/.} ; KO.T ovSev Sid^opos) he explains his meaning 
thus : they are made up of hilly country and level country 
( opeii>ai icai irfSidSc;), are moist and fertile, etc. 

2 Note that it is just opposite the W. Zerka, that great cleft 
in the Gilead plateau. 




Parentheses indicating articles that refer to the place-names are in certain cases added to non-biblical names having no biblical 
equivalent. The alphabetical arrangement usually ignores prefixes: abu ( father of), ain ( spring ), beit ( house ), 
beni ( sons ), birket ( pool ), dahret ( summit ), der ( monastery }, el ( the ), ghor ( hollow ), jehir ( hole ), karn 
( horn ), kasr ( castle ), kefr ( village }, khan ( inn ), khirbet ( ruin }, makhddet ( ford }, mejdel ( castle }, merj 
( meadow }, neby ( prophet ), rds ( summit ), sheikh ( saint ), taTat ( ascent ), tell ( mound ), thoghret ( pass }, wddy 
( valley ). 

Abel-Meholah, CD 3 

Chephirah, 64 

ain el-Hod, 4 (ENSHE- 

el-Lubban, B 3 (EPHRAIM, 

W. es-Sant, B 4 

wady el-Abyad, D 3 

Chesalon, 64 


4 [4]) 

Sanur, 82 (BETHULIA) 

Adamah or Adam, D 3 

wady el-Humr, C 3 

Ludd, A 4 

Sar a, A4 

wady el- Adeimeh, D4 

W. abu Dab 4 (ZEBOIM) 

Lydda, A4 

W. es-Sarar, AB 4 (MAK- 

Adummim, C4 

tal at ed-Dam, C4 

wady Ibten Ghazal, D 3 


khan el-Ahmar, 4 (ADUM 

ed-Dfimieh, D 3 

Kh. Ibzlk and ras Ibzik, C2 

Madmenah, 64 

karn Sartabeh, C3 


thoghret ed-Debr, 4 (DE- 

(EPHRAIM, 4 [2]) 

MakhmSs, 4 

Sebustiyeh, 82 

Ai, C4 


W. el-Ifjim, C 3 (EPHRAIM, 

el-Makhna, BC 3 

Seilun, C3 

Aijalon, and valley, B4 

beit Dejan, 3 (DAGON) 


W. Malakeh, B 4 (EPHRAIM) 

ghores-Seiseban, D4(8ETH- 

kal at rSs el- Ain, A 3 

der DlwSn, C4 

Kh. Il asa, B 4 

ain Malih, and W. el-Malih, 


"Ainun, Cs 

Docus, 04 

W. Imeish, B 4 (BETH- 


W. Selhab, BCa (DOTHAN) 

\V. Ajliin, D2 3 (BITH-RON) 

Dothan and tell Duthan, B2 


W. el-Malih, AB 2 

W. Selman, AB 4 (BETH- 

rSs el- AkrS, 2 (EPHRAIM, 

ain ed-Uiik, 04 

el- Isawiyeh, 64 

W. el-Maty ah, C 4 (Ai) 



wildy Ish ar,BC 3 (EPHRAIM, 

Mazra at, C 3 

Sha fat, 84 

Akrabeh, C 3 (EKRKBEL) 

Mt. Ebal, C 3 


W. nahr el-Mefjir, Az 

W. esh-Shn ir (EPHRAIM, 

jehir Akrabeh, 3 (PH- 

Eleasa, B4 

wady Ishkar, A 3 (KANAH) 


4) and ain esh-Sham- 

RAIM, 4) 

Emmaus i, A4 ; 2, 64 

jebel Islamlyeh, C 3 

W. Meidan, D 4 

siyeh, 82 

Alemeth, C4 

Ephraim 2, C4 

Meithalun, 2 (ARRELA) 

Shechem, C3 

tell der Alia, D 3 (GiLEAD, 

Ephron i, C 4 

Jabbok, D 3 

W. el-Mellaha, CD 3 , 4 

ain Shems, A4 


Eriha, 4 

Jabesh Gilead, Da 

Meselieh, Cz 

Sheri at el-Keblreh, Di-4 

Almit, 4 

Kh. Erma, 84 (KiRjATH- 

ras Jadir, Cz 

Michmash, 4 

Shiloh, C 3 

Amateh, D 3 


Janohah, C 3 

Michmethah, BC 3 

wSdy ShubSsh, CD 2 

Amwas, A4 

Esora, C 3 

Jeba , 62 (GEBA, 2) 

Midieh, AB 4 

abu Shusheh, A 4 (GEZER) 

beit AnSn, 64 (ELON- 

Eshtaol, 64 

Jeba 4 (GEBA, i) 

Kh. beit Mizza, 64 

wSdy es-Sidr, D 3 


Eshu , C 4 

Kh. Jedireh, A4 

Mozah, 64 

wady abu Sidreh, D 3 

Ananiah, B4 
AnatS and Anathoth, 4 
Annabeh, A4 
Antipatris, A 3 
Aphek, A 3 
Archi and ain Arik, 64 
Arrabeh, 82 (DOTHAN) 
Artuf, A4 (ETAM, ROCK 

mejdel-beni-Fadel, C 3 and 
Fandakurniyeh, B2 (EpH- 

RAIM, 4) 

ain Kara, Kh. Fara, and 
W. Fara, C4(EupHRATEs) 
ain el-FSri a, C2 (EPHRAIM) 
W. FSri a, 3 (BETH- 

Jericho, Crusaders , C4 
Jericho of OT, C 4 
Jerusalem, B4 
Jeshanah, B4 
tell Jezer, A4 
el-Jib, B 4 
wady el-Jib, 83, 4 
Jibia, 64 

W. Mukelik, C 4 

Naarath, 4 
Nablus, C 3 
W. abu Nar, 82 (APHEK, 3 ) 
W. Nawa imeh, CD4 
beit Nebala, A4 

ain Sinia, B 4 
Sinjil, C 3 (EPHRAIM, 4 ) 
beit Sira, 84 (BETH-HORON) 
Kh. Sirlsia, 83 
ain es-Sultan, C4 
ain Suwemeh, D4 
khirbet Suwemeh, 04 
W. es-Suwemt, 4 (GEBA) 


wadv P^asail C^ 

Jiljilia, B 3 (GiLGAL, 4) 

Neballat, A4 

Arumah, C 3 
Asher, 2 
Asiret (el-Hatab), C 3 
Askar, C 3 (EPHRAIM, 4) 

Fejja, A 3 
Fer ata, B 3 
tell el-Ful, B 4 

Jiljulieh, A 3 (GiLGAL, 6 a) 
birket Jiljuliyeh, C 4 
Jimzu, A4 
Jordan, Di-4 

Nephtoah, B4 
W. en-Nimr, BC 4 (EPH 
RAIM, 4) 
tell Nimrin and W. Nimrin, 

Taanath-Shiloh, C 3 
et-Taiyibeh, C 4 
jebel Tammun, C-2 
Ta na, C 3 

tell Asur, C 4 

Geba, 4 

wady el-Jorfeh, D 4 

D 4 

wady abu TSra, D 4 

Atara, 84 
Ataroth-addar, 64 

eastern Gederoth, A4 
Mt. Gerizim, C 3 

W. el Jozeleh, D 3 
Juleijil, 3 

beit NubS, B4(IsHB!BENOB) 
nebi Nun, C 3 (JANOAH) 

et-TawSnik, C 3 (EPHRAIM, 

Kh. Atuf, C2 
W. el- Aujeh, CD4 
"Awarta, C 3 (GlBEAK, 2) 

wady Ayun Musa, D4 
el- Azariyeh, B4 

Gezer, A4 
merj el-Gharak, C2 (EPH 
RAIM, 4) 

Gibeah, 84 
Gibeah of Phinehas, B4 

esh-sheikh Kamil, C 3 
Kanah, AB 3 
W. Kanah, AB 3 
J. Karantel, 4 (JERICHO) 

nebi Nun, 2 (JOSEPH) 

Ophrah 3 , B 3 ; 2, 4 
Kh. el- Ormeh, C 3 

et-Tell, C 4 
Teyaslr and Thebez, 2 
Kh. kefr Thilth, B 3 (BAAL- 
Tibneh, B 3 

Azmaveth, 64 

el-Ghor, Di, 2, 3 (JORDAN) 

Karawa, CD 3 (JERICHO) 

Parah, C4 

Timnath-heres, 8 3 

wady Ghnweir, D4 

ain Karim, B 4 

\V. et-Tin, AB 2 

Gibeon, 64 

Karyat el- Inab, 84 

et-Tireh, A 3 (ANTIPATRIS) 

Baal-Hazor, 4 
Baal-shalisha. 83 

Gilgal ( 4), B 3 ; ( 2), C 4 ; 
( 5), C 3 

W. abu Kaslan, BC 2 (Epn- 

RAIM, 4) 

Raba, 2 
Rabbith, C 2 

jebel et-TOr, C 3 
Tubas, C2 

W. der Ballut, B 3 (EPH 

Gimzo, A4 

jebel el-Kebir, C 3 

er-RSm, B 4 

RAIM, 4, 7) 

Keflra, 64 

Ramah i, B 4 ; 2, B 3 

. . _ 

ras el-Bedd, C 2 
W. Beidfin, C 3 (EPHRAIM, 
Benin, B4 
esh-sheikh BeiySzid, B2 and 
neby Belan.Cs (EPHRAIM, 

ain el-Habs, B4 (JOHN THE 
Hadid, A4 
Haditheh, A4 
Kh. Haiyan, 4 
tell el -Hajar, 4 

tell el-Kefrein, D 4 
W. el-Kefrein, D 4 (ABEL- 
wady el-Kelt, C4 
W. el-Kerad, C 3 (EPHRAIM, 

Ramallah, 84 
er-Rameh, 82 
tell er-Rameh, 04 
ras er-Rammali, C 2 
ain er-Rawabi and W. er- 
Rawaby, C$ (ENSHEM- 

merj ibn Umer, Ar> 4 
Umm el- AmdSn, Da 
rSs Umm el-Kbarrubeh, C3 
dahret Umm el-Kubeish, Cz 
ras Umm Zoka, D2 
beit Ur el-Foka, B 4 
beit Ur et-Tahta, B 4 


ain Hajla, 64 

Kesla, B4 


Bethany i, B4 
Beth-aven, 4 
Bethel, B 4 

kasr Hajla, 4 
makhadet Hajla, D4 
tell Hammam, L)4 

W. el-Khashneh, 2 (EPH 
RAIM, 4) 
W. el-Khudera, A2 

wady er-Retem, D 3 , 4 
beit Rima, B 3 
er-Rujeb, D 3 

wady Yabis, D2 
Yalo, 15 4 

Beth-haccerem, 84 
Beth hoglah, 4 
the Beth-horons, 64 
Beth-nimra, D 4 

beit Hanina, 64 
W. beit Hanina, B4(IsRAF.L, 
kefr Haris, B 3 (GAASH) 

Kibbiah, 84 (GIBBETHON) 
Kilkilieh, A 3 (Gn.c;Ai.,6a) 
Kirjath-jearim, 64 
el-Kubab, A4 (Gon) 

wady er-Rujeb, D 3 (ARGOB) 
Rujlb, 3 (EPHRAIM, 4 ) 

kefr Saba, A3 (ANTIPATRIS) 

Kh. YSnun, C 3 
YSsid, 2 (EPHRAIM, g 4) 
Yasnf B 3 (JOSEPH) 
Yerzeh, C2 (P>HRAIM, 7) 

Beth-shemesh, A4 

Hazor 2, B4 

el-Kuds, B 4 

tell es-Sa Idryeh, D2 

Bethulia, C2 

Kh. Hazzur, 84 

Kuloniyeh, B 4 

ain es-Sskut, D2 

Zarethan, C 3 

Bezek, C2 

W. Hesban, D 4 (BETH- 

Kuzah, B 3 (CHUSi) 

Sslim, 3 (EPHRAIM, 4 ) 

Valley of Zeboim, C 4 

el-Bireh, B4 (BF.EROTH) 


Samaria, 82 

blr ez-Zeit, 84 (AZOTUS) 

W. el-Buke , CD 3 (ErH- 

wady el-Himar, D2 

T.aishah, 64 

ain Samieh, C 4 

W. Zemir, A8 2 

RAIM, 4) 

el-Hizmeh, C4 

f.ebonah, B 3 

wSdy Samieh,C 4 (EPHRAIM) 

N. ez-ZerkS, D 3 

Burka, BC 4 

el-Hod, D 4 

Lifta, B 4 

nebi Samwil, 84 

Zorah, A 4 

English Miles 
2 "f 




11 a ikt i & Cectt nil i 

For index to 7iaifS ypp lack oftnep. 




of Askar connects with the plain of Salim leading on to Ta na 
(TAANATH-SHILOH) at the head of W. el-Kerad, which leads 
through the steep W. Ifjim down to the Jordan. 

4. On the right the plain of Askar (see SYCHAR) leads S. 
into the plain of Rujib and the plain of Makhneh, the route to 
the S. passing on across ridges and valleys through the deep 
plain of Lubhan, round the heights of Sinjil leaving up on the 
left, shut in between high bare mountains, the ancient temple- 
city of Shiloh (near it the open plain of Merj el- Id) on through 
the W. el-Jib, under the heights of Tell Asur (E. of which is 
the enclosed plain of Merj Sia), up to the plateau of Betin 
(Bethel) and el-Bireh, and so on to Jerusalem and the south. 

5. West of the line just described, leading south from 
the plain of Askar, a maze of valleys gradually simpli 
fies itself into the great arterial wadys that lead down to 
the maritime plain and finally unite in the lower course 
of the Auja.. 

These are the W. Kanah, the W. Deir Ballut, and the W. 
Malakeh : the Deir Ballut, with its two [or three] great con 
verging branches (the straight W. Ish ar beginning in a little 
plain south of the village of Akraba upon the main watershed, 
and the deep W. en-Nimr) ; the W. Malakeh, with its deep 
head valleys beginning below el-Bireh. South of the W. 
Malakeh is the W. Selman, the country drained by which is 
enclosed in the great sweep of the W. Sarar, which, beginning 
just below el-BIreh, describes a semicircle and enters the sea 
as N. Rubin due W. of er-Ramleh. 

6. South of Gerizim the watershed lies east of the 
traveller s route. Just as, north of the W. Fari a, 
we have seen, there runs along the watershed a suc 
cession of valleys or plains, so from the S. foot of 
et-Tawanik (2847) the Jehlr Akrabah runs S. as far 
as Mejdel - beni -Fadel (2146), overlooked by Yanun 
(JANOAH) in the northern part, and by the modern 
village of Akrabeh (2045) about midway. Then, 
however, the system becomes more complex, till at 
Tell Asur we reach the Bethel plateau. 

7. The district of the open valley of Fandakiimiye 
and the enclosed plain Marj el-Garak is, we saw, partly 
separated from the Samaria valley by the Bayazld range. 
Farther north are the plains of Dothan, Arrabeh, and 
the W. Selhab. If the W. Fari a was the route of the 
invasions from the east (Nomads, Aramseans, Assyrians), 
the upland plain of Dothan was the great route across 
from Sharon to the east end of the plain of Megiddo. 
There were other routes (W. Ara, etc.) farther NW. 
By these routes the armies of Egypt and the other great 
states passed and repassed for centuries and centuries. 
The low hill-land beyond the plain of Dothan culmin 
ates in the height of Sheikh Iskander, north of which 
the W. Ara divides it from the still lower hill -land 
called Bilad Ruha which stretches across to W. el- 
Milh, beyond which rises the range of CARMEL [y.z .]. 

Mt. Ephraim is thus divided across the middle (by 
the great valleys that continue the vale of Shechem) 
into a northern and a southern half. The northern of 
these again is divided by the great line of plains and 
valleys that reaches from the Jordan plain near Gilboa 
southwestwards to the Makhneh. The NW. quarter 
is remarkable for its plains ; the NE. for its series 
of parallel valleys (especially the great W. Fari a) 
running down SE. to the Ghor. In the southern half 
the SW. is remarkable for its maze of wadys (note the 
long straight W. Ish ar that runs down thirteen miles 
without a bend SW. from Akrabe) coagulating at the 
base of Tell Asur and below el-Bireh, and its great 
valleys converging into the Auja ; the SE. for its 
heights, plains, and plateaus, and the series of deep 
rugged wadys (note in particular the deep W. el- Aujah 
leading up to Tell Asur and the W. Kelt - Suwenit 
leading up to the Benjamin plateau) that furrow its 
eastern declivity. 

Such is Ephraim ; a land well watered and fertile, a 
land of valleys, plains, and heights, a land open to 
the commerce, the culture, and the armies of the world. 

i. Relation to Manasseh. Not all the Ephraim 
district, however, was regarded as belonging to the 

6 Inhabitants E P hraim tribe I P art was peopled by 
men of Machir- Manasseh (see MANAS 
SEH). Their towns were apparently chiefly in the 


N. A writer of disputed date tried to delimit a 
northern portion to be assigned to Manasseh (see 
below, n) ; but from the fragments of another 
account (id. ) it would seem that there was in reality no 
geographical boundary. The whole highland country 
was Ephraim ; certain towns were specially Manassite. 
The fact that in the whole OT there is scarcely a case 
of a man being called an Ephraimite suggests that 
Ephraim was hardly ever a tribe name in the ordinary 
sense : the leading men were men of Ephraim unless 
they were otherwise described. 

The two cases occurring in the MT are those of (a) Jeroboam 
and (ff) Elkanah the father of Samuel. Both are doubtful. 

(a) Jeroboam is called an Ephrathite (e(/>pa#[]<. [BAL]) in 

1 K. Il26( = MT); but in L 1228 = " 122 4 ^, in the other 
recension of the story (see KINGS, 3), he is only a man of 
Mount Ephraim (ef opou? E^paiju. [BL]).l 

(l>) The genealogy of Samuel (i S. 1 1) is corrupt (see ELIHU, 

2 ; ELKANAH, i). <E> A follows MT (wiou SOUTT E<f>paeaios) ; but 
<B BI - read Ephraim (viou 2<oc e opovs E<pouju. [L] ; tv Nao-eijS 
E$PCUJU. = N rr:33, > N ^IIS p> son of Zuph of Ephraim [B]). 

The mutual relations of the branches of Joseph 
are somewhat perplexing (see MANASSEH, and cp 
JOSEPH i. ). 

J, E, and P appear to agree in representing Ephraim as the 
younger (Gen. 48 1 8 [J], 41 51 [E], Josh. 17 i [P]) ; but whilst J 
and E lay stress on the preeminence attributed by Jacob-Israel 
to the younger (Gen. 48 14 196 [J], v. 2o [E]), P usually speaks 
of Manasseh and Ephraim. 2 

The significance of the distinctions just referred to has 
been explained in various ways. 

It has been supposed that in the seniority of Manasseh lay 
a reference to early attempts at monarchy (GIDEON, JEPHTHAH, 
ABIMELECH) ; whilst in the blessing of Ephraim lay a reference 
to the undisputed preeminence of the monarchy established by 
Jeroboam I. Of this latter reference there can be no doubt. 
The meaning of the seniority of Manasseh is not so certain, 
especially when we bear in mind how in Israelitish legend 
preference of the younger is almost universal. Jacobs has 
acutely argued that this preference is simply a survival of the 
forgotten custom of junior birthright, which the later legend - 
moulders misunderstood. 

There is a rather obscure allusion in Is. 9 21 [20] to 
discord between Ephraim and Manasseh. The reference 
may be to conflict between rival factions in the last years 
of the northern kingdom. Legend told of rivalries also 
in the pre-historic period (see JEPHTHAH, GIDEON). 

The currents that stirred the troubled waters of Samarian 
politics cannot now be fully traced : Shallum and Pekah may 
have been Gileadites (see JABESH, 2 ; ARGOB, 2), Menahem was 
perhaps a Gadite 3 (see GAD, 10). The family of Jehu may 
have belonged to Ephraim (see, however, ISSACHAR, 4). 4 

ii. Relation to Joseph. If there is some difference 
of usage in regard to the order of the tribes Ephraim 
and Manasseh, there is agreement as to their being 
brothers. Still there is at times a tendency to regard 
them as a single tribe (see JOSEPH i. ). The question 
therefore arises whether their distinctness was on the 
increase or on the decrease. Did they unite to form 
Joseph, or did Joseph split up into Ephraim and 
Manasseh (for a similar question see BENJAMIN, if. } ? 

In the Blessing of Jacob as we find it in our 
Genesis, Ephraim and Manasseh do not appear ; 6 they 
are represented by Joseph. There is indeed a play on 
the name Ephraim (v. 22) ; 6 but as there is no reference 
to Manasseh, Ephraim might be not part but the whole 
of Joseph. This may be so. On the other hand the 
Song of Deborah already recognises two tribes ; Ephraim 

1 See, further, Cheyne s theory of Jeroboam s origin on the 
mother s side (JEROBOAM, i). 

- Sometimes, however, P gives the other order. See, es 
pecially, Gen. 48 5. See, more fully, MANASSEH. 

3 Baasha was an Issacharite ; Tibni may have been a 
Naphtalite (see GINATH). It was, according to Cheyne, against 
the Ephraimite city of Tappuah that Menahem took such cruel 
vengeance (see TIPHSAH). It has been conjectured that Omri 
also was of Issachar (Guthe, GVI, 138). Cp ISSACHAR, 4. 

4 It is to be noted that in this family the name Jeroboam recurs. 
& The same is true of the Blessing of Moses (Dt. 33). V. i-jb 

is a gloss. 

6 Cp We. C77(2) 3 22, (3)324. C. J. Ball, however, would 
transfer the word rns to the saying on Naphtali (PSBA 17 173 
[ 95]). For other views see Di. s commentary. Cheyne s sug 
gested restoration of the passage is mentioned in the next note. 



S ttl t 

and Machir seem (already) to be found side by side 
W. of the Jordan. l 

Whether the designation of Benjamin as a brother, 
and of Ephraim and Manasseh as sons of Joseph implies 
a popular belief that when Benjamin definitely separated 
from Joseph, Manasseh was not yet distinguished clearly 
from Ephraim we cannot say ; nor yet whether such a 
belief, if it existed, was based on any real tradition (cp 

The general result is : on the whole, Joseph was in 
early times equated with Ephraim, which included 
Machir -Manasseh and Benjamin (cp above, 3 ; 
JOSEPH i. ). On the other hand, it must not be forgotten 
that Joseph was doubtless originally a group of clans. 

There seems to have been much speculation as to 
how Ephraim came to be settled where he was. The 
great sanctuaries would have their legends. 

At GlLGAL ^^ in the plain f Jerich 
%vhichl thou g h not in the hi g hland s. 
belonged to N. Israel, priests may have 
told how a great Ephraimitish hero, after erecting their 
sacred circle of stones (Josh. 4 20, E) and leading the 
immigrant clans from Gilead against JERICHO and other 
places, had encamped for long by their sanctuary (Josh. 
1015 = 43: (5 om. ; perhaps late), and how there 
Yahwe had instructed the tribes to what part of the 
highlands they were to ascend to find a home (Judg. 
li). Up on the plateau, at the royal sanctuary of 
Bethel, it was told how their fathers had effected 
an entrance into the city (Judg. 125), and how the 
mound that now stood two miles off in the direction 
of Jericho had once been a royal Canaanite city, 
till their fathers, with much difficulty, had stormed 
it and made it the heap it now was (Josh. 828). 
At the great natural centre of the land, home of many 
stocks, conflicting stories were told of quiet settlements, 
of treaties, of treacherous attacks, of a legal purchase 
(cp DINAH, 3), of a great assembly gathered to hear 
the last admonition of the veteran Ephraimite leader 
(Josh. 24), and how he had set up the great stone under 
the terebinth (v. 26). Shiloh, too, must have had its 
settlement stories to tell, especially how the great 
Ephraimitic shrine (see ARK) had been there ; but 
these stories have perished (for a possible trace of a late 
story see MELCHIZEDEK, 3). When its temple was 
lying in ruins there was written (in circles of students 
who had never seen Shiloh) a book which explained 
that after Israel had conquered the whole of Canaan, 
they were assembled there by the successors of Moses 
and Aaron to set up a wonderful sacred tent and to 
distribute by lot the holy land (Josh. 18 i 14 i). 
Timnath-heres boasted that it was the resting-place of 
the great leader of Ephraim (see below). Shechem 
even claimed that near at hand were buried the bones of 
the great eponym of the house of Joseph (Josh. 24 32, E). 
The legendary history was carried back still farther. 
Joseph, though he entered by way of Gilead, came from Egypt, 
where Kphraim and Manasseh were born. 2 In fact they were 
really Egyptian ; but Jacob-Israel had adopted them (Gen. 48 
E). 3 Even before that, Joseph had been at Shechem and 
Dothan (JOSEPH i. 3), Jacob-Israel had founded the royal 
sanctuary at Bethel (Gen. 8614 [J], and 28 18 [E]), and reared 
the sacred pillar at Shechem 4 (Gen. 33 20 [E]), and Abraham had 
built altars at Shechem (Gen. 12 7 [J]), and at Bethel (v. 8 [J]). 

It is pretty clear that Ephraim had forgotten how he 
came there. Some seem to have thought that before 
the Israelites known to history settled in Ephraim there 
were others, who eventually moved southward (see 
SIMEON, LEVI, DINAH, JUDAH). It was remembered 
that there had been more Danites on the western slopes 
of Ephraim than there were in later times (D.\N, "2ff.}. 
It is unlikely that it was believed that there had been a 

1 It has been suggested that in an earlier form of the text the 
Blessing of Jacob also perhaps mentioned not Joseph but 
Ephraim and Manasseh (Che. PSBA 21 243/1 [ 99]). 

2 This, however, may be merely an incident in the story, un 
avoidable since Joseph, the hero, never left Egypt. 

3 Cp Bertholet, Stellung, 50. 

4 On Jacob s well see SYCHAR. 


settlement of Amalekites. l On the other hand, it has 
been suggested that there may be a trace of an ancient 
tribe in the neighbourhood of Shechem (see GIRZITE). 
The evidence for the preponderating Canaanite element 
in Shechem has been referred to already. The ancient 
Canaanite city of Gezcr, once an Egyptian fortress, 
which, we are told, became Israelite in the days of 
Solomon, was hardly in Mt. Ephraim ; but it belonged 
to Ephraim (see GEZER). Issachar may have been re 
presented on Mt. Ephraim s NE. slopes (see ISSACHAK, 
8). There were late Israelitish writers who thought 
that Asher, too, had its claims, and it has recently 
been suggested that there may really be traces of an 
early stay of people of Asher south of Carmel (see 
ASHER, 3). Timnath-heres is said to have been 
settled by Joshua (see JOSHUA i. ). Of a clan of this 
name in historic times we have no evidence, and the 
same is true of RAHAB \<j.v.\ On the extraordinarily 
meagre Ephraimite genealogy in Chronicles and on 
its points of contact with other tribes, see below ( 12). 

The extra-biblical hints are vague in the extreme 
and difficult to turn to account. 

i. The long list of places conquered 

, Jh. . _ a " by Thotmes III. probably contains some 
biblical data, g^ in centn / Ephraim . 

Flinders Petrie (Hist. Egypt 2 323-332) proposes a consider 
able number of identifications, including, e.g., Shechem and 
several places near it ; Yerzeh, Teyasir, and Raha in the NE ; 
and not a few places in the SW, from W. Der Ballut southwards. 

When the land of Haru was added to the Egyptian 
Empire it can hardly have sufficed to seize the towns 
on the margin : Y-ra-da (?), Mi-k-ti-ra (Mejdel Yaba? 
so WMM), Gezer (Ka-d i-ru, 104). Even if we could 
identify with certainty, however, many names of towns, 
we should still know nothing about the people who 
occupied them. Special interest and importance, 
however, attaches to two unidentified sites which, it 
would seem, must be in Ephraim the much-discussed 
1 Jacob-el and Joseph-el. The reading Jacob may 
be treated as fairly sure ; but that of Joseph is 
questionable (see JOSEPH i. i). For the interpreta 
tion of these names we must be content to wait for 
more light (see, for a suggestion, JACOB, i). We may 
hope, however, that they have, something to tell us of 
the origin of Ephraim. 

ii. As the report of the early expedition of Amen 
hotep II. contains nothing that casts light on our 
present problems, 2 our next data belong to the time of 
Amenhotep IV. Unfortunately, though the Amarna 
correspondence tells us a good deal about the fortified 
towns in Palestine 3 and their conflicts, it sheds little 
light on the central highlands. Knudtzon s proposal 
to read m Sa-ak-mi for Winckler s mdt-su la-a(l)-tni in 
letter 185, /. 10, however, brings the Habiri into 
connection with the land of Shechem 4 in a very 
interesting way. 5 Moreover, we must remember that 
the tablets rescued from destruction are only some 
of those that were found at Tell el-Amarna. Those 
that were allowed to perish may have referred to 
other Ephraimite places. If, however, there really 
were few (if any) Egyptian fortresses in that tract, 

1 On Judg. 614 see below, 8; on Judg. 12 15 ( mountain 
of the Amalekite ), see PIRATHON, i. 

2 We have no details of Syrian expeditions of Thotmes IV. 
Amenhotep III. was engaged in other concerns. 

3 Ashkelon, Bif-Ninib (see IR-HERES), Aijalon, Zorah, Gimti 
(see GATH), Gezer, perhaps Beth-shean (see Knudtzon, Beiti: 
z. Assyr. 4iu), Megiddo. 

4 The passage remains obscure. Knudtzon^.cOsaysthat^tablet 
185 is a continuation of 182. In addition to reading Sakii 
for mat-su /-(?)-;/ he reads jna-sar-tii for Winckler s ma-ku-ut 
in /. 7, and provisionally renders lines 6 <$-i i (KB 5 no. 185) thus: 
and the people of Ginti are a garrison in Bitsfmi, and, indeed, 
we have to do (in the same way?) after Labaya and Sakmi have 
contributed (cp no. 180 /. 16) to the Habiri (so Knudtzon kindly 
informs the present writer). 

5 Are we to compare with this the story of Gen. 34? Accord 
ing to Marquart (Philologvs, suppl. bd. 76SoJf.), the Habiri 
immigration is to be brought into connection with the settlement 
of the Leah-tribes : Joseph came later. Cp Steuernagel, Josua, 
151 (in //A )- See JUDAH. 




the Habiri might be already settling there without our 
hearing of them. 1 

iii. The contests of Seti I. were in S. Phoenicia and 
Galilee. When we again get a glimpse of Palestine in 
the time of Ram(e)ses II. it is once more the border 
towns that are named : Heres, Luz, Sa-ma-sa-na. 2 

iv. To Ram(e)ses successor we owe what is perhaps 
the most interesting statement of all. Israel, says 
Merenptah, is devastated; and Israel, it is to be 
noted, is not a place but a people. If we assume that 
the people referred to were settled in Ephraim, nothing 
very definite can be urged against the assumption 
or for it 3 (cp ISRAEL, 7 ; EGYPT, 59). 

The cities mentioned in Ram(e)ses III. s list seem to 
be Amorite, north of Galilee (As. u. Eur. 227). 

Until hieroglyphic or cuneiform (or Hittite) records 
shed some more light on the scene, accordingly, we 
must remain without definite information as to the 
early history of Ephraim. It is clear, however, that 
the girdle of Canaanite cities was of remote antiquity 
and practically certain that there were already towns up 
in the highlands Shechem, perhaps Luz, and others. 
The population was no doubt mixed ; Habiri, although 
we have no certain mention of them, may have immi 
grated there also. 

The earliest incontestable fact that Ephraim remem 
bered was the great fight with Sisera ; 4 but they may 
.. . have known no more about who he was 

Memories than we do (see SlSERA >- What P art 
Ephraim played in the great conflict, the 

condition of the text in Judg. 5 14 does not enable us to 
say with certainty. 5 Perhaps we should read : Out of 
Ephraim they went down into the plain. It is not 
likely that Ephraim supplied the leader (see DEBORAH). 

It was not only along its northern border that Ephraim 
was exposed to attack. The open valleys and easy 
fords, 6 which, when circumstancesfavoured, united it with 
Gilead, exposed it to the inroads 7 of the still nomadic 
peoples of the east. Stories were told at OPHRAH 
[q. v. ] and elsewhere of heroic fights (see GIDEON), 
and of spirited colonies sent out (see MANASSEH). 
PiRATHON 8 and SHAMIR, an unidentified place in 
Mount Ephraim, seem to have boasted that they had 
produced heroes in the time of old (see ABDON, TOLA). 
The Shechemites even told of how they came, for a time, 
to have a. tyrannos, and how they got rid of him again 

Of greatest historical importance was the life-and- 
death struggle with hated non-Semitic rivals (see PHILIS- 

9. Transition. T1N f > . N rth , E P hr f aim claimed 
a share in the glory of the struggle 

of those dark days ; but when the cloud lifts the 

1 C. Niebuhr also suggests that the Habiri were already 
settled in Mt. Ephraim (Der alte Orient\6o). 

2 The pap. Anast. I., however, appears to mention again the 
mountain of Shechem (As. u. Eur. 394, note to pp. 172-175). 

3 It has even been suggested that Yi-si-ra-al maybe not really 
Israel at all (see JEZREEI. i. i). On the other hand Marquart 
(I.e.) inclines to explain the name as referring to the Leah-tribes, 
supposed to be still resident in central Palestine (see JUDAH). 

* S. A. Fries (Sphinx, 1 214 [Upsala, 97]), and Hommel 
(AHT, p. xiii n. 3) find a genuine tradition of a still earlier event 
in the quaint story in i Ch. 721^-25. See, however, below, 12 
(towards end) and cp BERIAH. 

5 J. Marquart (Fund. 6 [96]), following Winckler (AOF 
1 193) reads, 

pojn ray nnsx jo 
pppno ITV -no :p 

Out of Ephraim they descended into the plain 
Out of Machir went down leaders." 
So also Budde, A"//C ad loc. P. Ruben (JQR 10 ssoyC) reads 

n.rpnj;? ;o J3D nn [xns -\iy] D TBM JD . . . 

6 There are said to be, between the Lake of Galilee and the 
Dead Sea, 54 fords : 5 near Jericho, the rest between 
W. ez-Zerkfi and the Lake of Galilee (Guthe, C/> /4 7 ). 

7 We read of attacks by Ammon, Moab, Midian, and Assyria, 
in addition to the Philistines and the Egyptians. Judah often 

8 Even if the view advocated in the article PIRATHON be 
adopted, Abdon may perhaps be claimed for Mt. Ephraim. 
Abdon is Benjamite. 

hegemony is passing to Benjamin. If the monarchy 
thus involved a loss to N. Ephraim, there was also a 
gain ; Gilead and Ephraim were bound together more 
closely (on earlier relations see JEPHTHAH, 3, 5 
[end] ; GAD, 2 ; MACHIR). Indeed when the 
disaster of Gilboa laid Israel once more at the feet of 
the Philistines, the connection with Gilead was found 
to be very valuable (see ISHBAAL, i). How, exactly, 
Ephraim was brought under the sway of the state that 
was rising beyond the belt of Canaanite cities to the S. , 
is not very clear (see DAVID, 6, ISHBAAL, i, ABNER, 
ISRAEL, i6fr). The skill and energy of David 
must have been great. It is difficult to believe, however, 
that he effected in Ephraim all that has been attributed 
to him by Winckler. Still the change must have been 
profound. How far there may have been an influx of 
people from the S. we cannot tell. Others besides 
Absalom (2 S. 1823) may have acquired possessions in 
Mt. Ephraim. Although we must on general grounds 
assume that there were dialectical differences, chiefly in 
pronunciation, between the various Hebrew-speaking, 
as between other, communities peculiarities of the 
Shibboleth type are universal they cannot have had 
any effect on freedom of intercourse. The fixing of 
the capital at Jerusalem was most politic. It was 
perhaps in a belt hitherto unclaimed, scarcely ten miles 
from Bethel. Ephraim might regard it and the other 
Canaanite cities annexed as a gain in territory. The 
fairs at the great Ephraimite sanctuaries would now be 
open to people from Mt. Judah and the Negeb in a 
way that would hardly have been possible before. 
Ephraimite legend became enriched. Abraham, e.g. , it 
came to be said, had built an altar at Shechem (Gen. 
12 7 [J]) and at Bethel (v. 8 [J]). 

Many interesting questions arise. 

When did the general interweaving of legends take place? 
How was it possible to deposit the great Ephraimite shrine 
in Jerusalem? (see ARK). How did Ephraim act in the 
Absalom rebellion and in that of Sheba? How was Solomon s 
overseer of the whole house of Joseph related to his prefect 
of Ephraim? The former, of course, had his official residence 
at the natural centre of the land, Shechem. The latter, whether 
or not he was a son of Zadok and of Beth-horon (see BEN-HUR), 
may have resided nearer Jerusalem (see also below, 12). 

The final schism cannot have taken anyone by 
surprise (JEROBOAM, i ; SOLOMON, 2 ; ISRAEL, 
10. Monarchy. 28 > The old royal city of Shechem 
.* was naturally the scene of the negotia 
tions and the first seat of the monarchy of Ephraim. 1 
The links between Gilead and Ephraim, geographical 
and historical, were too close to be severed now. The 
kingdom of Ephraim included Gilead. That is to 
say, Gilead, if it befriended David (against Judah? see 
MAHANAIM), would not go out of its way to help 
his sons. For two eventful centuries Ephraim main 
tained a real or nominal independence. How it sub 
ordinated Judah, contended with Aram, allied itself 
with Phoenicia, was distracted by constant dynastic 
changes and yet reached a high level of civilization 
and produced a wonderful literature, is told elsewhere. 

Shechem, indeed, centre of the land though it was, 
was not able to maintain itself as the capital. It may 
not have been quite suitable from a military point of 
view. It had to yield to Tirzah (an important but 
somewhat tantalising place-name, see TIRZAH) and then 
to Samaria, which was well able to stand even a regular 
siege. In historical times the great sanctuaries were 
Bethel and Gilgal. See also GIBEON, SHILOH. That 
any attempt was made to centralise religious festivals at 
one sanctuary in Ephraim there is no evidence. 

A. DufF, however, has propounded 2 the interesting theory 
that such a project had been conceived, that indeed the kernel 
of the book of Deuteronomy originated in Ephraim, and that the 
(now) unnamed sanctuary meant in it was originally that of 
Shechem (see now Theol. ofOT, 225 39 n., 50 n., sgf.). 

* On the Egyptian incursion see SHISHAK. 
2 In a paper read before the Society of Historical Theology, 
Oxford ( 96). 




However that may be, there must have been other 
great thinkers besides Hosea. Ephraim produced a 
DECALOGUE and a longer code (see EXODUS ii. 
3), and must have had otherwise a share in 
the development of that mass of ritualistic prescrip 
tion which was ultimately codified in Judah (see 
LAW LITERATURE). If it had its Elis, 1 Samuels, 
and Elishas, whom legend loved to glorify, we must 
not forget the men of name unknown whose only 
memorial is their work : the work of its story-tellers, 
annalists, poets, and other representatives of social or 
religious movements, whose achievements are dealt 
with elsewhere. We probably under-estimate rather 
than over-estimate the debt of Judah to Ephraim. 2 


The accessibility to the outer world, however, to 
which Ephraim owed its rapid advance, occasioned also 
its fall. In the struggle with Aram, it lost much ; and 
when Aram was swamped in the advancing tide of 
Assyrian conquest another great turning-point in 
Ephraim s history was at hand. How, precisely, it was 
affected by the Assyrian conquest, how it fared when the 
Semitic Empire passed to Persia, what befel it during 
the long struggles between Ptolemy and Seleucid, 
Seleucid and Maccabee, Palestinian and Roman, will be 
discussed elsewhere (see SAMARIA, and cp ISRAEL). 

On the late notion of a Messiah called Ephraim, 3 or son of 
Ephraim, * or son of Joseph, etc., alongside of the son of 
David" (TH 73 n B D) see Hamburger, RE, artt. Messias- 
leiden and Messias Sohn Joseph ; cp MESSIAH; JOSEPH 
[husband of Mary]. 

Great difficulty in the way of a true knowledge of the 

history of Ephraim is occasioned by its rivalry with 

p, . , Judah. This has distorted the 

. if 8 iun ary. p ers p ect ; vei broken the outlines, and 
tinged the colour, of the picture that has reached us. 
A. Bernstein tried to show how Ephraimite patriotism 
might account for many points in the patriarch stories. 
It is certain that Ephraim has suffered at the hands of 
the writers of Judah. The account of the occupation 
of the Ephraim highlands in Joshua is surprisingly 
meagre. All that lies N. of Bethel is passed over in 
silence (cp JOSHUA ii. 9). The indications of the 
boundary of Ephraim as they appear in the post-exilic 
book are very incomplete and only partly intelligible. 
The critical analysis is still disputed. Great confusion 
prevails, and the text is bad. Apparently the southern 
border is represented as reaching from the Jordan 
at Jericho up to Bethel (Be tin), to Ataroth Addar 
( Afdrd?; see ARCHITES, ATAROTH, 2), down west 
wards to the territory of the Japhletite ( PALTI ) and of 
the BETH-H6RONS (Bef Or), and on to GEZER (Tell 
(jezer) and the sea. The northern boundary is given 
eastwards and westwards from [the plain of] MICH- 
METHATH (el-Makhnal). Eastward it reaches to 
Ydnun), Ataroth (unidentified), NAARATH ( Ain 
Sdmieh ?), Jericho and the Jordan ; westwards it pro 
ceeds from Asher of the Michmethath (see ASHER ii. ) 
east of Shechem southwards to EN-TAPPUAH, and the 
course of the KANAH ( W. Kanah ?), and on to the 
sea (ITy-g). One of the writers who have contributed 
to the account just sketched, however, is aware that this 
representation is somewhat arbitrary (cp above, 5, i. ), 
and so he proposes (Josh. 16 9) to give a list of 
Ephraimite cities beyond the Manassite border. Some 
editor has unfortunately removed the list. The list of 
Ephraimite cities, too, that E must have given has been 

P s genealogy of Ephraim is not only very meagre 

1 Are we to add Moses? Guthe says yes (Gl fzz). 

2 A. Duff throws out the suggestion that Nahum may have 
been of northern descent (op. cit. 2 36 46). 

DIX rt 5 D DHSX- See the statements in Pesikta. Rabbathi 
(ed. Friedmann, 161 6). 
4 Targ. Jon. on Ex. 40 n. 


T T t 

(cp above, ii) but also somewhat obscure. We have 

12. Genealogies. k in two f orm . s I* in . Nu ^ 2635 ^ and> 
as reproduced by the Chronicler, in 

i Ch. 720-25. 

A study of the variants in and Pesh. and of the re 
petitions (noticed by A. C. Herveyp in MT, leads to 
the following hypothetical results (reached independently 
of Hervey ; see further JQK vol. 13, Oct. [1900]). 

Bered (? . 20) should be deleted as a corruption of BKCHER 
[//.?>. J, which has strayed hither from the genealogy of Benjamin. 
Zabad is simply a duplicate of Bered, and Ezer of Elead. J he- 
middle letter (s/i) of Resheph (zi. 25) belongs really to the next 
name, Telah. What is left Reph is a duplicate of Rephah 
(see below). Thus emended the list stands 

i. (v. 20) Shuthelah, Tahath, Eleaclah. 

2. 3 to, 21) Tahath, Shuthelah, Elead (or Ezer). 

3. (z>. 25) Shuthelah, Tahan, Ladan. 

We have thus simply a triplet written thrice. The third name 
may be really Eleadah or (so Pesh. in v. 21) Eleazer : Azariah, 
Klostermann has suggested, may have been the name of 
Solomon s prefect over Ephraim, perhaps of Beth-horon (cp 
BEN-HUR) ; see below, and above, 9 (end). 

The middle name appears here and elsewhere (in the gene 
alogy of Samuel ; and in that of Reuel the Midianite) in many 
forms : Tahath, Tohu, Tahan, Nahath. The last may be what 
the Chronicler wrote : note the story of the Ephraimites who 
descended against Gath (nnj = < descend ). 

The triplet is followed by an appendix the prince of 
Ephraim and its great hero. 

The Ephraimite clans mentioned in the historical books are 
few : Nahath or Tahath, Zuph (in one genealogy of Samuel ; 
the first also a son of Reuel, Gen. 3(5 13 17), Nebat (cp JERO 
BOAM i.). On the story in w. at / -a-; see BF.RIAH, vf. 

Between the recurring triplets and the genealogical appendix 
there is a list of towns : the Beth-horons (see above, ii) and 
. . . and Hepher (?), founded perhaps by Eleazar. 4 In the blank, 
MT has Uzzen-sheerah. Perhaps we should read Ir-serah (cp 
(B 1 -) or Ir-heres. The degree of probability of the suggestions in 
12 varies. Several seem almost certain. 

To the genealogical list are appended two geogra 
phical lists : v. 28, a pentad of Ephraimite border towns 
11 *^ in Joshua, with the addition 
of Ai ; and v. 29, a pentad of towns 
which Manasseh was unable to occupy (=Josh. 17 n = 
Judg. l2 7 ). 

Of other towns that must have been in Ephraim we 
find mention of MICRON (Alakrun), GiBEAH of Phinehas 


Ramah (er-Ram) was fortified by Baasha against Judah. 
It has been suggested that Jericho was fortified by Jehu 
against the Aramaeans (JEHU, 3). 

Many of the most famous Ephraimite sanctuaries 
were in the part of Ephraim that was called BENJAMIN 
(q.-v. , 6) ; but the holy mountains EBAL, GERIZIM, 
and CARMEL must always have had a high place in 
the regard of Israel. Ramah (Beit-Klmd), Shiloh, 
Shechem, Ophrah, Timnath-heres, and Samaria must all 
have had important sanctuaries. We perhaps learn 
incidentally of the destruction of some unnamed 
Ephraimite sanctuary in the story of the founding of 
Dan. H. W. H. 

EPHRAIM (Dn?N, 100, 107; edjp&iM [BA], 
|~o4>p. [L])i a city near Baal-Hazor (see HAZOR, 2), 
mentioned in the story of Absalom (2 S. 1823 ; see 
Dr. TBS, ad loc.). Possibly the name should be 
Ephraim, with ain for aleph (Q IEJ? ; 6 cp (S5 L ), and the 
place identified with Ephron in 2 Ch. 13 19 (see EPHRON, 
i. i). So, cautiously, Buhl (p. 177), who also thinks 
the same city may be meant (i) in i Mace. 1134 (where 
the governments of APHEREMA [q.v. ], Lydda, and 
Ramathem are said to have been added to Judaea from 
Samaria) ; (2) in Jn. 1154 (where Jesus is said to have 
withdrawn to the country near the wilderness, to a 
city called Ephraim [typaifi, all editors, but NL, Vet. 
Lat. , Vg. , Memph. e<pe/t]) ; and (3) in Jos. BJ\v. 9g 

1 The omission of it in Gen. 46 [MT] may be due to P s 
mentioning only grandsons of Jacob (cp MANASSEH). 

2 The Genealogies of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, 
361-364 [ 53]. 

3 L gives the names in line 2 in the same order as in i and 3. 

4 For rr\WO 1ml : ID S read perhaps Kin itf N : W3 or rather 

rn NI,I : irra- 

8 On the proverb about bringing straw to Ephraim 
), see JANNES. 



(Bethel and E<j>paifM, two small cities taken by 

A village called Kfrem is defined by Jerome (OS 94 7) as 
being 5 R. m. K. of Bethel ; Eus. (222 40) writes the name 
a</>pr)A.(?). We also hear (11830) of an Efrjea, 20 R. m. N. of 
Olia. This position agrees well with that of the modern ef- 
Taiyibeh, which occupies a splendid (and no doubt ancient) 
site crowning a conical hill on a high ridge 4m. NE. of Bethel 
(BR 2 121 427). See OI-HKAH. 

These identifications, however, are by no means all 
certain. The site of Baal-hazor, and therefore also of 
Ephraim in 2 S. /. c. , cannot be said to be fixed. 
Indeed, the reading may perhaps be questioned (for 
analogies see MAHANAIM) ; Gratz would read in the 
valley (pcya) of Rephaim. The city in Jn. 11 54 also 
is very doubtful (for different views see Keim, Jesu 
von Nazara, 3 7, n. 2). It is even possible that the 
Greek text is corrupt, and that etppai/j. arose out of an 
indistinctly written tepetx^- 1 By this hypothesis we 
can reconnect Jn. with the Synoptic tradition. Keim s 
remarks (Jesus von Nazara, 87) may be compared with 
those of Ewald in Gesch. Christus, 416. The round 
about journey of which Ewald speaks may be 
avoided by the view here proposed. There is nothing 
in the context of Jn. 11 54 to favour the view that the 
evangelist is at all influenced by Lk. s statement 
(952/. ) that Jesus took the route by Samaria to Jeru 
salem. Cp JERICHO. T. K. c. 

EPHRAIM, GATE OF (Dn?N 11?^), 2 K. 14i 3 
Neh. 8 16. See JERUSALEM. 

(DHDX TIT). The scene of the battle between the 
people of Israel and the servants of David (28. 
186f). For Ephraim (typai/j. [BA]) <S L has paaivav 
Mahanaim, which Klostermann adopts. Certainly it 
is not very probable that Ephraim should have given its 
name to a wood or jungle on the eastern side (GASm. 
HG 335) ; the reference to Judg. 124 implies a doubtful 
view of that passage (see Moore, ad loc. ). Maha 
naim, however, has the appearance of an attempt at 
correction. More probably the original reading was 
D NBi, Rephaim. Where should we more naturally 
expect to find this name ? The converse error has been 
pointed out in Is. 17s (SBOT, Isaiah, Heb. 195). 
Jungle (so H. P. Smith) seems hardly the best word 
(cp Tristram s and Oliphant s descriptions of the forest of 
"Ajlun). The site cannot be determined without a study 
of the whole narrative. See MAHANAIM. T. K. c. 

EPHRAIN (p_?y). 2 Ch.l3i9 AV RV"*, RV 
EPHRON i. i. 


Gen. 48 ?t) or Ephrathah 
rnQK, AV Ephratah; e(J>p<\e<\ [ BNAL ]). 

1. The place near which Rachel died and was buried 
is called in MT Ephrath (Gen. 35 16 19 48 7) ; but we 
should probably read Beeroth (nixn). See RACHEL, 
2 ; JOSEPH i. 3. 

2. Another name of BETHLEHEM [g.v. , 3], or per 
haps rather a name of the district of Bethlehem, Ps. 1326 
(ev<ppaOa [A] -TO. [R vid -]), Mic. 5i Ru. 4n Josh. 1659 
(only <. etypaQa. [BAL]) ; ethnic Ephrathite ( rnsN, 
efipaOaios [BAL]), Ru. 12 i S. 17 12 (e<j>pa.0a.i- ov [A]). 
In Ps. I.e. and Mic. I.e. the reading is uncertain. On 
i S. li i K. 11 2 6 Judg. 12s, see EPHRAIM i. 5, i. 

3. Wife of Caleb, i Ch. 2 19 (e<ppa0 [BL], <ppa0 
[A]) 24 (see CALEB-EPHRATHAH) 50 44. The passages 
reflect the post -exilic age, when the Calebites had 
migrated from the Negeb of Judah to the districts sur 
rounding Jerusalem. Was Ephrath a clan-name ? See 
CALEB, 3. 

1 The phrase the Jews in Jn. 11 54, as usually in the Fourth 
Gospel (so Plummer, St. John, 72), means the opponents of 
Jesus among the Jews (cp JEW). The people of Jericho seem 
to have been to a large extent friendly to Jesus, and were there 
fore in so far Israelites indeed, rather than Jews. Strabo, 
too (162), speaks of the mixed population of Jericho, like that of 
Galilee and Samaria. 



EPHRON (fn?i;, Kt.; pSy, Kr.; e<J>P60N [BAL]). 

1. One of the places won by Abijah, king of Judah, 
from Jeroboam, king of Israel (2 Ch. 13 19 RV, AV 
EPHRAIN). Since the ending -aim or -ain sometimes 
interchanges with -on, and since Ephron or Ephrain 
(RV m s-) was near Bethel, some critics identify it with 
the city of Ephraim (although Ephraim in MT begins 
with not y ; see EPHRAIM ii. ). 

2. Ephron (e<ppuv [ANV] ; cp the Manassite EPHER, 
3), a city on the E. of Jordan, between Carnaim and 
Scythopolis, attacked and destroyed by Judas the Mac- 
cabee in his expedition to Gilead (i Mace. 646-53 2 Mace. 
122T f. ; cp Jos. Ant. xii. 85) is probably the -yt<ppovs 
or ye<ppo^ii (cp ye<pvpovv, 2 Mace. 12 13) of Polybius 
(v. 70 12). We are told that it lay in a narrow pass 
which it dominated in such a manner that the Jews 
must needs pass through the midst of it. This 
description will not suit Kal at er-Rabad with which 
Seetzen identified it, but agrees perfectly with the watch- 
tower called Kasr Wady el-Ghafr, which completely 
commands the road at a certain point of the deep 
Wady el-Ghafr (W. of Irbid, towards the Wady el- 
Arab), on which see Schumacher, Northern Ajlfin, 
pp. 179, 181. So first Buhl, Geog. p. 256 ; Topogr. 
d. NO Jordan landes, 17 /. See CAMON, GEPHYRON. 

3. MOUNT EPHRON (jViEj; in ; eippuv [BAL]), a dis 
trict on the northern frontier of Judah (Josh. 15g) 
between Nephtoah and Kirjath-jearim (cp the Judahite 
name EPHER, 2). If the latter places are Lifta and 
Karyat el- Enab respectively, Mt. Ephron should be 
the range of hills on the W. side of the Wady Bet- 
Hanlna, opposite Lifta, which is on the E. side (see, 
however, NEPHTOAH). Conder, however, thinks (in 
accordance with his identifications of Nephtoah and 
Kirjath-jearim) of the ridge W. of Bethlehem, and (in 
Hastings DB) does not even mention any rival view. 

According to MT the district in question had cities. HJJ is 
supported by (5 L [em. /coi/ias opovs e<j>p.] and apparently by <S A 
[opovs e<p-]) ! but ny may be a dittogram of T,T (Che.) ; <5 B 
does not express cities. Two other (probable) mentions of 
mount Ephron should be noticed. One is in Josh. 15 10 (see 
JEARIM, MOUNT); the other is Judg. 1 2 15 (see PIRATHON). 

EPHRON (fn?y, young gazelle ? see EPHER ; 
68, 77 ; ecbpOON [BADEFL]), b. Zohar, a Hittite, the 
seller of the cave of Machpelah, Gen. 238^ 2694929 f. 
[P]. As to the question in what sense, or with how 
much justice, he is called a Hittite, see HITTITES, if. 

EPICUREANS (01 eTTiKoypioi [Ti. WH]), Acts 
17i8. What opinions the Epicureans really held do 
not now concern us, but only what faithful Jews or 
Jewish Christians believed them to hold. This is how 
Josephus describes the Epicureans, who cast provid 
ence out of life, and deny that God takes care of human 
affairs, and hold that the universe is not directed with a 
view to the continuance of the whole by the blessed and 
incorruptible Being, but that it is carried along auto 
matically and heedlessly (Ant. x.lly). Some, both in 
ancient and in modern times, have thought that the 
system, thus ungently characterized, is referred to in 
ECCLESIASTES \_q. v. , 13]. Jerome remarks (on Eccles. 
97-9), Et hasc, inquit aliquis, loquatur Epicurus, et 
Aristippus et Cyrenaici et casteras pecudes Philoso- 
phorum. Ego autem, mecum diligenter retractans, 
invenio, J etc. According to Jerome, then, the author 
of Ecclesiastes only mentions the ideas of these 
brutish philosophers in order to refute them. In 
later times certainly the leaders of Judaism could find 
no more reproachful designation for an apostate than 
DiTip SK Epikuros. The author of Ecclesiastes, how 
ever, is not a sufficiently fervent Jew to justify us in 
assuming that he would altogether reject Epicurean 
ideas, if they came before him. A fervent Christian, 
like Paul, doubtless did reject them, if he ever came into 
contact with them. Did he, then, encounter these ideas ? 

1 Opera, ii. (1699), Contm. in Eccles. 


From Acts 17 18 (if the narrative is historical) we only 
learn that certain Epicurean and Stoic philosophers met 
with him (avv^a\\oi> avrip) 1 observe in passing the 
precedence given to the Epicureans. There is nothing 
in the sequel to suggest that he held any conferences 
with them ; the speech beginning Men of Athens 
("Avdpes AO-rjifaioi) is plainly not intended for them. 
It looks as if the reference to the philosophers were 
merely a touch suggested by the writer s imagination, 
which he did not permit to exercise any influence on 
the following narrative. That Paul had examined and 
rejected Epicureanism elsewhere, is probable enough. 
See ATHENS, 2, HELLENISM, 9. T. K. c. 

EPILEPTIC (ceAHNiAzo/v\eNOc), Mt. 4 24 I7is 


Mace. lio. See 


Letters and Epistles ( 1-3). Letters ( 6/.). 
Extra-biblical ( 4). Epistles ( 8/)/ 

OT terms ( 5). Literature ( 10). 

For the understanding of any document a knowledge 
of its true character and object is essential. Thus, 
1 Thenroblem for exam P le if Egyptian exploration 
brings to light a papyrus fragment 
containing a negotiation between a Roman emperor 
and an Alexandrian gymnasiarch, 2 we cannot under 
stand or appreciate it accurately until we know the 
general character of the writing to which it presumably 
belonged. If it is a fragment from the record of an 
actual negotiation in which a Roman emperor took 
part, it becomes a historical document of first import 
ance ; if it is merely a scrap from a work by a writer of 
fiction, it falls into a wholly different category. 

The NT contains a large number of writings which 
are usually referred to as Epistles. The designation 
seems so plain and self-evident that to many scholars 
it has suggested no problem at all. A problem, 
nevertheless, there is, of great literary and historical 
interest, underlying this seemingly simple word. We 
cannot go far in the study of the history of literature 
before we become aware that alongside of the real 
letter, which in its essential nature is non-literary, 
there is a product of art, the literary letter, which may 
for convenience be called the epistle. The problem is 
in each case to determine the category to which such 
writings belong : are they all letters ? or are they all 
epistles ? or are both classes represented? First, let 
us realise the distinction more clearly. 

The function of the letter is to maintain intercourse, in 

writing, between persons who are separated by distance. 

lvr . Essentially intimate, individual, and per- 

. , sonal, the letter is intended exclusively 
,. ,, , for the eyes of the person (or persons) 
to whom it is addressed, not for publica 
tion. It is non-literary, as a lease, a will, a day-book 
are non-literary. It differs in no essential particular from 
a spoken conversation : it might be called an anticipation 
of telephonic communication. It concerns no one but 
the writer and the correspondent to whom it is addressed. 
So far as others are concerned, it is supposed to be 
secret and sacred. As with life itself, its contents 

are infinitely varied. The form also exhibits endless 
variety, although many forms have specialised them 
selves in the course of the ages and are not unfrequently 
met with in civilisations widely separated and seemingly 
quite independent of each other. Neither contents nor 
form, however, are the determining factors in deciding 

1 EV s rendering encountered him is to be preferred to 
Ramsay s engaged in discussions with him. Cp Acts 20 14; 
Jos. Ant. i. 123. Would not discussed with htm be trvvi- 
/SaAAoc Trpb? UVTOV (see Acts 4 15)? 

2 Cp Grenfell and Hunt, Tlie Oxyrhynchus Papyri, pt. i., 
p. 62 ff., no. xxxiii. verso [ 98], with Deissmann s observations 
in TLZ 23 602^ ( 98). 



whether a given writing is to be considered a letter or 
not. Equally immaterial is it whether the document 
be written on clay or on stone, on papyrus or on parch 
ment, on wax or on palm-leaves, on scented note-paper 
or on an international post-card ; whether it be couched 
in the conventional forms of the period ; whether it be 
written by a prophet or by a beggar ; all such con 
siderations leave its special character unaffected. 1 The 
one essential matter is the purpose it is intended to 
serve frank intercourse between distant persons. 
Every letter, however short and poor, will from its 
very nature be a fragment of the vie intime of mankind. 
The non-literary, personal, intimate character of the 
letter must constantly be borne in mind. 

There is a sharp distinction between the letter as thus 

understood and the literary letter which we find it 

3. Meaning ^nient to designate by the more 

f , 6 technical word epistle. The epistle ;s 

, . ,. , a literary form, an expression of the 
P artistic faculty, just as are the drama, 

the dialogue, the oration. All that it has in common 
with the letter is its form ; in other respects they differ 
so widely that we might almost resort to paradox and 
say that the epistle is the exact opposite of the letter. 
The matter of the epistle is destined for publicity. If 
the letter is always more or less private and confidential 
the epistle is meant for the market-place : every one 
may and ought to read it ; the larger the number 
of the readers, the more completely has it fulfilled its 
purpose. All that in the letter address and so forth 
is of primary importance, becomes in the epistle 
ornamental detail, merely added to maintain the illusion 
of this particular literary form. A real letter is seldom 
wholly intelligible to us until we know to whom it is 
addressed and the special circumstances for which it 
was written. To the understanding of most epistles 
this is by no means essential. The epistle differs from 
the letter as the historical play differs from a chapter 
of actual history, as the carefully composed funeral 
oration in honour of a king differs from the stammering 
words of comfort a father speaks to his motherless child, 
as the Platonic dialogue differs from the unrestrained 
confidential talk of friend with friend in a word, as 
art differs from nature. The one is a product of 
literary art, the other is a bit of life. 

Of course intermediate forms will occur ; such as the professed 
letter, in which the writer is no longer unrestrained, free from 
self-consciousness in which with some latent feeling that he is 
a great man, he has the public eye in view and coquettes with 
the publicity which his words may perhaps attain. Such 
letters are no letters, and with their artificiality and insin 
cerity exemplify exactly what real letters should never be. 

A great variety alike of letters and of epistles has 

come down to us from antiquity. The survival of a 

... letter is, strictly speaking, non-normal 

. C. en anc i exce ptional. The true letter is from 

letters and 

. ,, its very nature ephemeral ephemeral 

epis es. as t j je nanc j w hi c h wrote it or the eye 

for which it was meant. It is to piety or to chance 
that we owe the preservation of such letters. The 
practice of collecting the written remains of great men 
after their death is indeed an old one. 

In Greek literature, the earliest instance of publication of 
such a collection is held to be that of the letters of Aristotle 
(ob. 322 B.C.), which was made soon after his death. Whether 
the still extant Letters of A rist otle 2 contain any fragments of 
the genuine collection is indeed a question. On the other hand 
the letters of Isocrates (ph. 338 B.C.) which have come down 3 to 
us are probably genuine in part ; and we have also genuine 
letters of Epicurus (pt>. 270 B.C.), among them the fragment of a 
perfectly charming little note to his child, 4 worthy to be compared 
with Luther s letter to his little boy Hanschen. 8 Among 

the Romans it will be enough to refer to the multitude of letters 

1 See Deissmann, Bibelstudien, 190. 

2 Published by Hercher (Epistohgraphi Gra-ci, 172-174 [ 73]). 

3 See Hercher, o/>. cit. 319-336. 

4 See Usener, Epicurea, 154 ( 87); also Deissmann, Bibel- 
stui/ten, 219 f. 

6 See Luther- Brief e in A usivahl und Vebcrsetzting, herausg. 
von C. A. Hase, 224/1 ( 67). 



of Cicero (ob. 43 B.C.) of which four collections, brought together 
and published after his death, have come down to us. 

As compared with such letters of famous men a value 
in some respects still greater attaches to the numerous 
letters of obscure men and women, dating from the 
third century B.C. to the eighth A.D. , which have 
become known to us through recent papyrus finds in 
Egypt. 1 They have, to begin with, the inestimable 
advantage that the originals themselves have reached 
us. Nor is this all. The writers had absolutely no 
thought of publication, so we may take it that their 
self-portraiture is wholly unconscious and sincere. The 
light they throw upon the essence and the form of the 
letter in ancient times 2 is important, and is of value in 
the investigation of the letters found in the OT or the 

That ancient epistles have survived in large numbers 
is not surprising. The literary epistle is not intended 
to be ephemeral. From the outset it is published in 
several copies and so has less chance of disappearing 
than the private letter. The epistle, moreover, is a 
comparatively easy form of literary effort. It is subject 
to no severe laws of style or strict rules of prosody ; all 
that the essay needs is to be fitted with the requisite 
formulae of the letter and to be provided with an 
address. Any dabbler could write an epistle, and 
thus the epistle became one of the favourite forms of 
literature, and remains so even at the present day. 

Among ancient Epistolographers we have, for example, 
Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Plutarch in Greek, and L. 
Annaeus Seneca and the younger Pliny in Roman, literature, 
not to speak of the poetical epistles of a Lucilius, a Horace, or 
an Ovid. 

Specially common was the epistle in the literature of 
magic and religion. 

Another fact of literary history requires notice here : 
the rise of pseudonymous epistolography. In the early 
period of the empire, especially, epistles under names 
other than those of the real authors were written in 
great numbers, not by impostors, but by unknown 
literati who for various honest reasons did not care to 
give their own names. 3 They wrote Epistles of Plato 
and Demosthenes, Aristotle and Alexander, Cicero and 
Brutus ; it would be perverse to brand ofthand as frauds 
such products of a certainly not very original literary 
activity. Absolute forgeries undoubtedly there were ; 
but it is equally certain that the majority of the pseud 
onymous epistles of antiquity are products of a. widely 
spread, and in itself inoffensive, literary custom. 4 

We now come to the question whether the biblical 
epistles admit of being separated into the two distinct 
classes just mentioned. 

The immense masses of cuneiform writing which have 
recently been brought to light abundantly show that 
/IT t epistolary correspondence was exten 

sively practised by the people using 
that script from very early times. It is not surprising, 
therefore, to find frequent mention of letters in the OT. 

The Hebrew terms so rendered are (i) : "ISP, sepher, 2 S. 11 14 
2K. 65 Jer. 29 1 ; in Is. 37 14 39 1, where MT gives D ISD, the 
text is corrupt (see SBOT, Isaiah, Heb.); letters = D"1SD> 
s phdrim, i K. 21 8 Esth. 1 22, etc. 

(2) Djns, pithgam, Esth. 1 2 o(see Meyer, Entst. 23); in Bibl. 
Aram. Ezra 4 17 5 7 Dan. 4 14 [17], etc. 

(3) P^y ^ nisii ivan, Ezra 47 7 n (see Meyer, op. cit. 22); 
in Bibl. Aram. Ezra4i8, etc. 

(4) n !5^> igSfreth, Neh. 2 7 Esth. 9 26, etc. (see Meyer, op. cit. 
22); in Bibl. Aram. N1JX, Ezra 4 8 n 56. 

1 A selection of such papyrus-letters will be found in Deiss- 
mann, Bib.-stuii., 209-216. 

2 There is thus a promise of good results in the theme pro 
posed for its prize essay by the Heidelberg Faculty of Philosophy 
in 1898-99 : On the basis of a chronological survey of the Greek 
private letters which have been brought to light in recent 
panyrus finds, to characterise and set forth historically the forms 
of the Greek epistolary style. 

3 Cp Deissmann, Bid. -stud. i<y)jff. 

* A well-known modern instance is that of the famous 
Letters of Junius. 


7. NT letters. 

The Ass. terms for letter are duppu (tablet ; cp Syr. dappa), 
whence dupsarru (Heb. IDSD), scribe, and egirtu (cp no. 4 
above). In Ant. Tab. 50 rev. 30 message or missive 
is virtually duppu letter (rev. 17). This suggests that sepher 
(see i) may be a loan-word; cp SCRIBE. In , besides eirt- 
a-ToAr;, we find /3i/3Ai oK (28.1114), /3i /3Ao? (Jer. 2< i), pijtrij 
(Ezra!>7), 6iaTayfia(Ezra7 n), <^opoAoyos(Ezra4 18), and ypajjijia; 
cp Acts 28 2 1 (pi.). 

Special interest attaches to the cases in which the 
actual text of the letters is professedly given, as in 

nT , ., 28. 11 15 (David s letter to Joab about 

* Uriah), iK.2l9/. (Jezebel to the 

elders about Naboth), 2 K. 5s/. (king of Aram to king 

of Israel), 2 K. K>2/. 6 (Jehu to the authorities of 


On the letter of Jeremiah in Jer. 29, see JEREMIAH ii.; on 
that of Elijah in 2 Chr. 21 12-15, see JEHORAM, 2; on the 
official letters in Ezra49^f". 17 ff. 67 ff., see EZRA, ii., 6; and 
on the letter of Nebuchadrezzar in Dan. 4, see DANIEL ii. 

Many instances occur also in the apocryphal and 
pseudepigraphic books of the OT, especially in Macca 
bees. In the last-named books in particular, we find, 
exactly as in Greek and Roman literature, 1 letters, 
mostly official, embodied word for word in the historical 
narrative. It would be wrong to cast doubt on the 
genuineness of such insertions on this ground alone. 
In many cases, it is true, they are in all likelihood 
spurious (cp MACCABEES, FIRST, 10) ; but in some 
instances we are constrained to accept them. The de 
cision must rest in each case on internal evidence alone. 

Turning now to the NT, we find in Acts two 
letters which, like those in Maccabees, are introduced 
into a professedly historical narrative : 
the letter of the apostles and elders to 
the Gentile Christian brethren in Antioch, Syria, and 
Cilicia (1523-29), and that of Claudius Lysias to Felix 
(2826-30). The question of their genuineness must be 
decided by the same rules of criticism as apply to the 
cases mentioned in the preceding section (see, for 
example, COMMUNITY OF GOODS, i6/). In both 
cases the documents, at any rate, claim to be true letters. 

Turning next to the other writings which frankly bear 
the designation epistolce in the N.T, we must again 
bear in mind the distinction already established between 
letters and epistles. It is accordingly not enough 
if we are able merely to establish the existence of a 
group of episiolce ; the question as to their definite 
character remains. The answer must be supplied in 
each case by the writing itself. In some cases not 
much reading between the lines is necessary for this ; 
and even in those cases where the answer is not quite 
obvious, it is, for the most part, possible to arrive at 
something more than a mere non liquet. 

(a) To begin with, the Epistle to PHILEMON stands 
out unmistakably as a letter, and it is as a self-revelation 
of the great apostle that it possesses a unique value for 
all time. If (as seems very probable) Rom. 16 is to be 
taken as being in reality a separate letter, addressed by 
Paul to Ephesus, it also is an unmistakable example of 
that class of writing. (V) PHILIPPIANS also is a true 
letter ; it becomes intelligible only when referred to a 
perfectly definite and unique epistolary situation. The 
same remark applies to THESSALONIANS, GALATIANS, 
COLOSSI ANS (and EPHESIANS). They are indeed more 
didactic and general than those previously mentioned ; 
but they too are missives occasioned by perfectly definite 
needs of the Pauline churches, not fugitive pieces com 
posed for Christendom at large, or even for publicity in 
a still larger sense of the word. To the same class in 
like manner belong the first and the second extant epistles 
to the CORINTHIANS. What is it in fact that makes 
2 Corinthians everywhere so difficult? It is that it is 
throughout a true letter, full of allusions to which we, 
for the most part, have not the key. Paul wrote it 
with all his personality ; in deep emotion and thankful 
ness, and yet full of reforming passion, of irony, and of 

1 Cp Deissmann, op. cit. 220. 


stinging frankness, i Corinthians is quieter in tone ; 
but it too is a real letter, being in part, at least, an 
answer to one from the Church of Corinth. 1 

(c ) In the case of ROMANS, one might perhaps at first 
hesitate to pronounce. Its character as a letter is un 
deniably much less conspicuously marked, much less 
palpable, than in the case of 2 Corinthians. Still, 
neither is it an epistle written for the public, nor for 
Christendom at large, designed to set forth in com 
pendious form the apostle s dogmatic and ethical system. 
In it Paul has a definite object to prepare the way for 
his visit to the church in Rome ; such is his aim in 
writing, and it is that of an individual letter-writer. 
He does not yet know the church to which he writes, 
and he himself is known to it only by hearsay. The 
letter, therefore, from the nature of the case, cannot be 
so full of personal detail as those he wrote to com 
munities with which he had long been familiar, such 
as Corinth and Philippi. Our first impression of 
Romans, perhaps, may be that it is an epistle ; but this 
judgment will not stand scrutiny. 

We need not hesitate longer then, to lay down the 
broad thesis that all the Pauline epistles hitherto 
enumerated (the genuineness of none of them is doubted 
by the present writer) are real letters. 2 Paul is a true 
letter-writer, not an epistolographer. Nor yet is he a 
rn an of letters. His letters became literary products 
only after the piety of the churches had made a collection 
of them and had multiplied copies indefinitely till they 
had become accessible to all Christendom. At a later 
date still they became Holy Scripture when they were 
received into the New Testament, then in process of 
formation. As an integral part of the New Testa 
ment they have exercised a literary influence that 
is incalculable. All these later vicissitudes, however, 
cannot alter their original and essential character. 
Paul, who with ardent longings expected the coming 
of the Lord, and with it the final judgment and the life 
of the coming age Paul, who reckoned the future of 
this present world, not by millennia or centuries, but 
by a few short years, had not the faintest surmise of the 
part his letters were destined to play in the providential 
ordering of the world. It is precisely in this untram 
melled freedom that the chief value of his letters consists ; 
their absolute trustworthiness and supremely authorita 
tive character as historical records, are guaranteed there 
by. The letters of Paul are the (alas, only too frag 
mentary) remains of what would have been the immediate 
records of his mission. Each one of them is a piece of 
his biography ; in many passages we feel that the writer 
has dipped his pen in his own heart s blood. 

(d] Two other real letters in the NT remain to be 
mentioned the SECOND and the THIRD EPISTLE OF 
JOHN. 3 Of 3 John we may say with Wilamowitz- 
Moellendorff, It was a quite private note, and 
must have been preserved from the papers of Gains 
as a relic of the great presbyter. 2 John does not 
present so many of the features of a letter in detail ; 
but it also has a particular object in view just as a 
letter has, even if we do not find ourselves able to say 
with complete confidence who the lady addressed 
may have been whether a church or some distinguished 
individual Christian. That the letter was addressed to 
the Church at large seems hardly admissible. Both 
writings are in point of form interesting, as in many 
respects clearly exhibiting the ancient epistolary style of 
their period. 

No instance of an epistle is met with in the canonical 
books of the OT ; but we have several in the Apocrypha 
and the Pseudepigrapha. i. The most instructive ex- 

1 Cp. Job. Weiss, Der Eingang des ersten Korintherbriefs, 
St. Kr. 1900, pp. 125-130. 

2 The Pastoral Epistles, also, may perhaps contain fragments 
from genuine letters of Paul. 

3 Cp U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Lesefriichte in 
Hermes, 33 529 ff. ( 98), (specially instructive on the question 
of form). 


ample is undoubtedly the (Greek) Epistle of Jeremiah, 
8 ADOcrvnhal a PP ended to Lamentations (so in ), 

EpistS r . l Baruch (in Vg> as Baruch 6 > 
This short composition, which certainly 

was originally written in Greek, contains a warning 
against idolatry, which is held up to scorn and refuted 
by every kind of argument. A comparison of this 
epistle with the genuine letter of Jeremiah (Jer. 29) to 
the Jews in Babylon furnishes an excellent illustration 
of the difference between a letter and an epistle. 

In the Greek epistle we observe that the address is adven 
titious, and that Jeremiah has been chosen as a covering 
name merely at the pleasure of the undoubtedly Alexandrian 
author. This by no means constitutes a forgery ; the author 
is simply availing himself of a generally current literary artifice. 
His intention is to put his co-religionists on their gunrd against 
idolatry and he therefore makes Jeremiah the speaker. Five 
hundred years after the lifetime of Jeremiah 3 it could not occur 
to any one to suppose that the writer was seeking to represent 
himself as editor of a newly discovered writing of the ancient 

ii. Another epistle in the category now under con 
sideration is the (Greek) Epistle of Aristeas, which 
contains the well-known legend as to the origin of the 
LXX version ; it also was the work of an Alexandrian of 
the time of the Ptolemies. 4 iii. The Epistle of Baruch 
to the nine and a half tribes in exile (appended to the 
Apocalypse of Baruch) also ought to be mentioned here 
unless indeed we are to regard it (which is quite 
possible) as a Christian writing. 6 iv. Finally, that epis- 
tolography was a favourite form of literary activity with 
Grecian Jews is shown perhaps by the 28th Epistle of 
Diogenes, 6 and by some of the epistles that pass current 
under the name of Heraclitus. 7 

We can define certain writings in the NT as epistles 
with just as great security as we have been able to call 

9 NT Epistles the writin S s of Paul real letters. Most 
clearly of all do the so-called catholic 
epistles of JAMES, PETER, and JUDE belong to this 

That they cannot be real letters is evident from the outset 
by their addresses ; a letter to the twelve tribes scattered 
abroad could not be forwarded as a letter. The author of the 
epistle of James writes after the manner of the Epistle of Baruch 
(see above, 8, iii.) addressed to the nine and a half tribes, 
which were across the Euphrates. In both cases it is an 
ideal catholic circle of readers that the authors have in view ; 
each dispatched his en-icrToAij not, as we may presume Paul to 
have dispatched the letter to the Philippians, in a single copy, 
but in many. 

The Epistle of James is essentially a piece of literature, 
an occasional writing intended for all Christendom an 
epistle. In accord with this are its entire contents : 
nothing of that detail of unique situations which meets 
us in the letters of Paul ; nothing but purely general 
questions such as, for the most part, might be still con 
ceivable in the ecclesiastical problems of the present 
day. So with the Epistles of Peter and Jude. They 
too bear purely ideal addresses ; all that they have of 
the nature of a letter is the form. 

At this point we find ourselves standing at the very 
beginning of Christian literature in the strict sense of 
that word. The problem of the genuineness of these 
epistles becomes from this point of view much less 
important than it would undoubtedly be on the assump 
tion of their being letters. In them the personality of 
the writer falls entirely into the background. It is a 
great cause that addresses itself to us, not a clearly 
distinguishable personality as in the letters of Paul. 

1 Swete, 3379-384. 

2 Schiirer, GV1V) 3 344 (98). 

3 The epistle most probably belongs to the second or to the 
last century B.C. 

4 Latest edition by M. Schmidt in Merx s Archiv, 1 ( 69). A 
new edition, founded on material collected by L. Mendelssohn, 
is in prepaiation by P. Wendland, for the Bibliotheca Teubneri- 
ana. A German translation of this has already appeared in 
Kau. Apokr. u. Pseudcpigr. 2 1-31. 

6 Greek text in Fritzsche, Libri VT pseudepigraphi selecti 
( 71), i22_/f! ; for Syriac text, with ET, see Charles, Apocalypse 
of Baruch, i-^ff. ( 96). 

6 Cp J. Bernays, Lucian u. die Kyuiker, <)(>ff. ( 79). 

7 J. Bernays, Die heraklitischen Briefe, diff. ( 69). 




Whether we know with certainty the name of the author 
of each of these epistles is of no decisive importance for 
our understanding of them. In this connection it 
deserves to be noticed that the longest of all the NT 
epistles, that to the Hebrews, has come down to us 
without any name at all, and even its address has dis 
appeared. Indeed, were it not for the word tirtffTfi\a 
( I have written a letter ) in 13 22 and a few slight 
touches of epistolary detail in 13 23^, it would never 
occur to us to call the writing an epistle at all. It 
might equally well be a discourse or an essay ; its own 
designation of itself is \6yos rrjs Tra/xx/cXTjcrews ( a. word 
of exhortation, 1822) ; all that seems epistolary in its 
character is manifestly only ornament, and the essential 
nature of the whole is not changed though part of the 
ornament may have fallen away. 

The so-called First Epistle of JOHN has none of the 
specific character of an epistle, and still less is it a letter. 
Though classified among the epistles it would be more 
appropriately described as a religious tract in which a 
series of religious meditations designed for publicity are 
somewhat loosely strung together. 

The so-called pastoral epistles to TIMOTHY and TITUS 
are in their present form certainly epistles. It is probable, 
however, as already indicated (above, col. 1327, n. 2), 
that some portions of them are derived from genuine 
letters of Paul. As we now have them they are mani 
festly designed to lay down principles of law for the 
Church in process of consolidation, and thus they mark 
the beginnings of a literature of ecclesiastical law. 

To speak strictly, the APOCALYPSE of John also is an 
epistle ; the address and salutation are obvious in 1 4, 
and 222i constitutes a fitting close for an epistle. This 
epistle in turn contains at the beginning seven smaller 
missives addressed to seven churches of Asia -Ephesus, 
Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, 
Laodicea. These also are no real letters such as we 
might suppose to have been actually sent to each of 
the churches named and to have been afterwards brought 
together into a single collection. On the contrary, 
they are all of them constructed with great art on a 
uniform plan, and are intended to be read and laid to 
heart by all the churches, not only by that named in 
the address of each. They seem to the present writer 
to represent a somewhat different kind of epistle from 
any we have been considering. Their writer has 
definite ends in view as regards each of the individual 
churches ; but he wishes at the same time to produce an 
effect in the Christian world as a whole, or at any rate 
on that of Asia, In spite of the intimate character they 
formally possess, they serve a public literary purpose, 
and therefore ought to be classed among the epistles, 
rather than among the letters, of ancient Christianity. 

In judging the numerous epistolo: which have been handed down 

in the Christian church outside of, or later in date than, the NT 

canon, it is equally necessary to settle in each case the question 

whether the writing ought to be classed as an epistle or a letter ; 

but this investigation lies beyond the limits of the present work. 

G. A. Deissmann, Bibelstudien : Beitrage, zumeist aus den 

Papyri u. Inschriften, zur Geschichte tier Spracke, des Schrift- 

tums u. der Religion des hellenistischen 

10. Literature. Judentums . des Urchristenttims ( 95); 

Abh. 5 : Prolegomena zu den biblischen 

Brie/en, u. Episteln ; K. Dziatzko, art. Brief in Pauly s Rcal- 

encyklopdfiie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, ed. Wis- 

sowa ; F. Zimmer in ZKIVL, 7 ( 86), 443^!; J. Rendel Harris, 

A Study in Letter- Writing, Ex/>. 98^, i6i_^?l ; see also Christ. 

Johnston, The Epistolary Lit. oftkcAss. and Bab. ( 98). 

G. A. D. 

ER C\l}. H p[BADEFL]). i. A Judahite subdivision 
of Canaanite (i.e. , non-Tsraelite) origin, which at a 
later time became merged in the more important 
brother-clan SHELAH [i] (the genealogical details in 
Gen. 883-7 [J]. Gen. 46 12 Nu. 26 19 [P], i Ch. 2 3 [in the 
second occurrence ai>rjp (A)] 42i) ; see JUDAH. 

2. Anamein the genealogy of Joseph (Lk. 828; rjp [Ti. \VH]); 
see GENEALOGIES ii. 3. 

ERAN (|Ty, 77), the Eranites (7T1?PI). an Eph- 
raimite clan, in the one case individualised, in the other 

regarded as a tribal group, Nu. 2636. The name re 
minds us of the Judahite ER (see above) ; but in the 
parallel Ephraimite list, iCh. 720-27, it is ELADAH(mj;Si, 
v. 20), of which another form is LADAN (pj^>, v. 26). 
Probably the list in Nu. 26 originally had neither Eran 
nor El adah, but La dan, and we should read ny 1 ? and 
iil^n- See further, EPHRAIM, 12. 

The initial V in pj, ^> may have been mistaken for a preposition, 
just as in i Ch. 23 7-9, B has tSav for py 1 ? throughout. The i 
is vouched for by Sam. Pesh. py, and also by (0 (eSey, 6 Se>/[e]c 
[BAFL]), cp Gen. 46 20 (eSe/ut [AD], -a./* [L] ; om. MT). 

Ladan is doubtless shortened from Elad(d)an (p^N ; 

Cp pJjri.T). S. A. C. 

ERASTUS (ep&CTOC [Ti. WH]), the treasurer 
(oiKONOMOc) of the city [of Corinth] 1 (Rom. 1623; 
cp 2 Tim. 4 20), is probably mentioned as one of those 
that ministered to Paul (Acts 1922) and as having 
been sent by him with Timothy from Ephesus on some 
errand into Macedonia. This combination of passages, 
however, is plausible only if Rom. 16 was originally a 
letter to the church of Ephesus. 

ERECH C^IN, opex [ADEL], ARACH, classical 
Opxori, Ass. Arku, Uruk) is named in Gen. 10 10 as 
one of the four cities originally founded by Nimrod in 
Babylonia. The explorations of Loftus (Travels in 
Chaldea and Susiana, 162 ft) established its site at the 
mod. Warka, halfway between Hilla and Korna. The 
enormous mounds and ruins scattered over an area six 
miles in circuit testified to a large population in ancient 
times ; but the discoveries did little to restore the history 
of the city. The earliest inscriptions recovered were 
those of Dungi, Ur-Bau, and Gudea, kings of Ur (which 
lay 30 m. SW. ). The next in date were those of Sin- 
gasid and another, kings of Erech as an independent 
state. Erech was then capital of the kingdom of 
Amnanu. The later kings of Babylon (Merodach- 
baladan) also left traces of their buildings and restora 
tions. Many commercial documents of all periods 
down to 200 B.C. attest the continuous prosperity of the 
city. As if to make up for the lack of historical docu 
ments furnished by the site itself, we have perpetual 
reference to the place in the Assyrian and Babylonian 
literature. No place had a greater hold on the affection 
and imagination of the literati. The author of the 
Creation Tablets (non- Semitic version) ascribes its 
foundation to the god Marduk. It is the theatre of the 
Gilgames or Nimrod epic (see DELUGE, 2). Its poetical 
names (3 R. 41 15 ff.} show how often it was the theme 
of story and legend. Some of them e.g. , the en 
closure (suburu], the seven districts seem justified 
by its ruins. Surrounded completely by a wall, inter 
sected by many canals, flanked by two large streams, and 
probably then, as now, almost inaccessible for most of 
the year, it was a secure refuge. Later in its history 
perhaps in Assyrian times, certainly in the Parthian 
period it became a sort of national necropolis. 

The city deity was the goddess Nana, whose statue 
had such strange vicissitudes (see NANEA). _ During 
her absence a goddess, Istar, whose temple was E-ulmas, 
seems to have taken her place. Continual reference is 
made to Uruk even by Assyrian kings (KB i. and ii. , 
passim}. Their correspondence (Harper, ADI. passim), 
when fully published, will throw much light on the city 
life of Uruk during the Sargonid period. At present it 
would be premature to attempt to write its municipal 
history. c. H. w. j. 

ERI Cny, surely not watcher, &AA(e)l [BAFL, cp 
Samar. Pent.]), a subdivision of GAD ( 13), Gen. 46i6 
(AHA(e)ic ADL]), Nu. 26i6 [ 25]) ; ethnic Erites 
( Tim, Nu. I.e.; OAAA(e)l [BAFL]). 

ESAIAS (HCAI AC. ISAIAS), 4Esd.2i8 EV; Mt.33, 
etc., AV, RV ISAIAH (q.v., i.). 

1 Notice that Cenchreae is mentioned in v. 2. 


[L] ; A.C&P&XOAA&C, Jos.; CAXepAONOC, Ptol. ; 
1 Earlv AC&piAlNOC; Ass. Asur-ah-iddina, i.e., 
i. iany -_\g ur j ms given a brother ), son and 
History. successor o f Sennacherib on the throne of 
Assyria (2K.1937; Is. 3738, &xopA&N [O], N<\X. 
[N*Q "-] ACOp. L^ c b Q*J)- His brother Asur-nadin- 
sum, who had been made king of Babylon by Sennacherib, 
was carried away captive alter a reign of six years by 
Hallusu king of Elain 694 B. c. ( A7?2 278). Ardi-Belit was 
then regarded as crown-prince (mdrsarri) in Nineveh, as 
appears from a contract tablet dated Sept. -Oct. 694 B. C. 
For another son, Asur-munik, Sennacherib built a palace 
in the suburbs of Nineveh (see ADRAMMELECH, 2). The 
so-called Will of Sennacherib l (3 R. 16, No. 3) records 
some rich gifts to Esarhaddon and the wish that his 
name should be changed to Asur-edil-ukln-apla (Asur- 
the-hero has established the son). In the Hebrew 
notice of Sennacherib s murder, two sons of Sennacherib, 
named ADKAMMELECH ( 2, q. v. ) and SHAREZER (i,q.v.), 
are referred to, occasioning a historical difficulty, which 
is dealt with elsewhere. The expressions of the Baby 
lonian Chronicle have led some to think that Esarhaddon 
himself was the parricide 2 (Edwards, The Witness of 
Assyria, 149). It is certainly singular that in no in 
scription set up in Assyria (yet published) does Esar 
haddon refer to the event. On the stele found at Sam- 
alla, however, he distinctly calls himself the avenger of 
the father who begat him (mutlr gimilli abi alidiSu}.* 
Sennacherib died on the aoth of Tebetu, B.C. 682, 
and Esarhaddon was crowned on the 28th of Adar, 
B.C. 682-1. 

The chief sources for the history of Esarhaddon s reign 
are his cylinders (KB li^of.}. The opening paragraph 
of the broken prism (KB 2 141 /. ) has usually been taken 
to refer to his struggle with his brother for the throne. 
It is a very fragmentary account, as remarkable for its 
gaps and omissions as for its information. From it we 
learn that, presumably early in his reign, Esarhaddon, 
who was evidently away from Nineveh, was called to 
face a formidable foe. He could not take all his troops 
with him. The march was made hastily and under 
difficulty in the winter-month of Sabatu. His enemy 
met him at Hanirabbat and was signally defeated. 
That it was a right for the throne is clear from the fact 
that the enemy said of their leader, This is our king. 

On a more or less plausible combination of this account with 
the biblical data it has been asserted that Esarhaddon was in 
command of an expedition to Armenia. The time of year is 
against this supposition. Hanirabbat was near Malatya, and 
therefore a great distance from both Nineveh and Armenia (see 
map in KB 2 and in vol. i. of this work between cols. 352 and 
353). If Esarhaddon had left the bulk of his forces behind 
on the confines of Armenia it is not easy to see how the rebels 
could have escaped thither. Winckler (GKA 259) argues better 
that Esarhaddon was in Babylon at the time of his father s 
death. 4 The Babylonian Chronicle states that on the 2nd of 
Adar the revolt in Nineveh was at an end. This gives six 
weeks for Ksarhaddon s receipt of the news and march to 
Nineveh. On his arrival the regicides and their party must 
have retreated and, doubtless with reinforcements, he pursued 
them at once. They made their stand at Hanirabbat, and on 
their defeat escaped to Armenia. Esarhaddon seems then to 
have returned to Nineveh and ascended the throne on the 28th 
of Adar (682-1 B.C.), about eight months after the murder of his 

Esarhaddon s residence in Babylon before his accession 
may account for his friendly treatment of the fallen 
capital. He made good the damage 

caused by SENNACHERIB [q.v.~\, brought 

2. Adn .8- 

tration. back the gods> and repe0 pi ed the city . 
During the reign of Merodach-baladan Chaldean sup 
porters of that king had dispossessed the native Baby 
lonians ; after Babylon had been rendered helpless, the 
Chaldeans continued to encroach. Esarhaddon expelled 

1 This document is not dated, but has been used to support 
the contention that Esarhaddon was the favourite son. 

2 Cp the Hebrew version of Tobit (PSBA 18260), which 
ascribes the murder to Esarhaddon and Sharezer. 

;! Ansgrabiingen in Sendschirli, 36. 

* He was appointed regent there by his father in 681 B.C. 



the Chaldeans from the neighbourhood of Babylon and 
Borsippa, and crippled their power. 

This policy of restoration extended to Erech. At Nineveh 
too, the king built a great palace (cp Layard, Nin, and Bab. 
634); also palaces at Kalah and Tarbisi, l he last for his son 
Asur-bani-pal (i R. 48, Nos. 4 and 5; AW ^150; cp Lay. op. 
fit. 19). Throughout Assyria and Mesopotamia he rebuilt some 
thirty temples. 

It was perhaps due to this antiquarian taste, so 
strongly developed in his son Asur-bani-pal, that Esar 
haddon, first of the Sargonids, lays claim to ancient 
royal lineage. He calls himself the descendant of 
Bel-bani, son of Adasi, king of Assyria, and offspring 
of Asur (KB 2 120, n. i). 

As a fighting king Esarhaddon was not behind 
any of his race. At the very beginning of his reign he 
was threatened by the Gimirrai (see GOMER, i). His oft- 
sent requests to the sun-god Samas (Knudtzon, Gebett, 
72-264) mention his fears of Kastarit of Karkassi, 
Mamiti-arsu the Mede, the Mannai (see MINNI), and 
other branches or forerunners of the great Manda 
horde. The peril culminated in an actual invasion of 
Assyria by the Gimirrai, who were, however, defeated 
before the fourth year of this reign (KB 2282). The 
next year was a busy one. An expedition penetrated 
the Arabian desert, conquering eight rulers in the 
districts of Bazu and Hazu (cp Buz, i ; HAZO). Sidon 
having revolted was taken and destroyed, a new city 
Kar- Esarhaddon being built to overshadow it. The 
king of Sidon, Abdi-Milkuti, and Sanduarri a Cilician 
prince who had sided with him, were captured and 

Following up this success, the Assyrian king 
received the submission of all Syria and Palestine. 
Of the vassal kings who then paid him homage Esar 
haddon has left us a very important list (AT? 2 148). 
Among them are Baal king of Tyre, and MANASSEH 
[?.f.], king of the city of Judah. The terms of the 
agreement between Esarhaddon and Baal king of Tyre 
are recorded on the tablet K. 3500 from which Hommel 
gives some extracts (AHT 196 ; the full text is now given 
by Winckler, AOF2 10). These events occurred in 
677-6 B. c. The Chronicler also tells us of a colonisa 
tion of Samaria by Esarhaddon, Ezra 42 (acrapeaduv 
[B], -paSdwv [A], va%op8a.v [L]) ; but the accuracy 
of this statement has been questioned (see SAMARIA, 
SAMARITANS). Being now in full possession of the 
route to Egypt, Esarhaddon made a reconnaissance of 
it in 675 B. c. He returned next year to the attack. In 
672 B.C. he lost his queen and seems to have remained 
a year or more at home. In 670 B.C., leaving the 
government in the hands of his mother, 1 he departed 
for a supreme struggle with Egypt, in which he was 
completely victorious (see EGYPT, 66). As a hard 
lord he ruled over the Egyptians, 2 garrisoning some 
cities with Assyrian troops, and in others installing 
native dependent rulers. He returned home by way of 
Samalla, where he set up the stele mentioned above. 

Esarhaddon was not allowed to rest long. A 
revolt broke out in Egypt, and he set out to repress 
it. However, he never saw Egypt again. On the way 
he fell ill and died; it was on Arahsamna (November ; 
see MONTH, 35) the loth, 669 B.C. (not, as usually 
stated, 668). He divided his kingdom, giving Asur- 
bani-pal Assyria and the Empire, but making Samas- 
sum-ukin king of Babylon under him. A third son, 
Asur-mukin-palia, was raised to the high-priesthood ; 
the youngest, Asur-edil-same-u-ersitim, was made 
priest of Sin at Harran. Another son, Sin-iddin-aplu, 
seems to have died before his father. We find the 
names of a daughter, Serua-etirat, and a sister, Matti. 

The name of Esarhaddon s mother is best read Nakia. 

1 To this lady Nakia are addressed many letters from the 
provincial governors (Harper, ABL). During her regency 
occurred the Elamite invasion of 675 B.C., which threatened 
Sippara. The gods of Agade were carried off by the Elamites. 

2 See Is. 192, according to one interpretation (see Che. Intr. 
Is. ii 4 /). 



which is rendered in Assyrian by Zakutu, and seems to 
be Hebrew, the pure one. She survived her son, 
and on his death issued a proclamation to the Empire, 
demanding its allegiance to the princes Asur-bani-pal 
and Samas-sum-ukin. 1 C. H. W. j. 

ESAU 2>P ; HCAY[ BAL 1)- 

i. A popular etymology, which may, however, be 
correct, is suggested in Gen. 2625 (J) : And the first 
-^ came out tawny, all over like a hairy mantle ; 

and his name was called Esau. 

As Budde (Urgesch. 217, n. 2, incorrectly reported by Di.) 
has pointed out, tawny ( 3B~IN, admOni)^ cannot have been 
the original word, Budde s own conjecture, however (that it 
displaced some rare word meaning hairy ) is not probable. 
It may have arisen out of Q DlNn. twins, which intruded from 
the margin where it stood as a correction of Q Dlfl (? 24). 
Miswritten as Q DinN, it would be easily changed into jiDIN 
(Q and <;j are frequently confounded) ; cp v. 30. 

We must assume a root nby, to have thick hair, 3 
and regard -\wy the shaggy, as the equivalent of Seir 
the hairy. (fiJ}y = Ty}y, Gen. 27 n), which appears to 
have been regarded by J as a synonym for hunter (Gen. 
2625, cp v. 27). In this, as in the former case, J really 
appears to have hit upon a sound interpretation. 
It seems impossible to show that the mountain district 
of Seir (whether E. or even W. of the Arabah) was 
hairy in the sense of wooded, nor would the sense 
wooded accord with the gloomy oracle of Isaac. 
The probability is that Esau and Seir are names of a 
hunter - god ; 4 and though the hero Usoos in Philo 
of Byblus (Eus. Praep. Ev. i. 107) ma y conceivably be 
simply the personification of Usu (Palaetyrus), 5 it seems 
more probable, since his brother Samemrumos is a 
divine hero of culture, that Usoos represents a hunter- 
god, 6 after whom the city of Usu was named. Certainly 
Philo of Byblus describes Usoos as entering into con 
flict with wild beasts, though also as the first who 
ventured on the sea (as if a personification of Old Tyre). 
However this may be, Esau never displaced Edom as 
the Hebrew name for the people of Mount Seir. The 
phrase sons of Esau is found only in late writers 
(Dt. 24 Obad. 18) ; Esau the father of Edom 1 (Gen. 
86943) also is late (see Holzinger s analysis). 

The early traditions on Esau are given in Gen. 
2621-34 27 1-45 314-22 381-17; these belong to JE. 
The editor has done his best to cull 
> the finest parts from both J and E. 
At the beginning he depends solely on J, unless we may 
assume with Dillmann and Bacon (Genesis, 152) that 
the admonl ( tawny ) of Gen. 2625 (see above) was 
taken by the editor from E, who, however, surely knew 
and had to account for the name Esau. The fore 
shadowing which JE gives of the differences of national 
fortunes (cp Mai. l2/) and national character in the 
story of the two tribal ancestors is most effective. That 

1 See Johns, Assyr. Deeds and Documents, vol. 2. 

2 This verse gives J s explanation of the name Edom. Let 
me quickly eat some of that edoin, for I am faint ; therefore his 
name was called Edom. For D1NH n ~IMn read O lNri ; CD Ar. 

T T T T V : T 

iddm, a by-dish, as vegetables, etc. So T. D. Anderson, 
with the assent of Dillmann. 

3 It is difficult not to compare Ar. athiya, to have thick or 
matted hair, a tka, having thick hair (Lane), though 
Fleischer (in Levy, NHIVB 3 732) points out that this com 
parison violates the ordinary laws of phonetic changes. 

4 Prasek assents to this view (forscli. z. Gcsch. d. Alt. [ 98] 
2 33>- 

6 See HOSAH, and. cp note in ZATW, 1897, p. 189. The 
present article, including the above view, is of older date than 
that note. The writer has since found that the identification of 
Usu belongs to Prasek, and that Halevy has already connected 
Usoos and Usu, though in conjunction with the improbable 
theory that Usu = the KS^IK of the Talmud, which he identifies 
with Umm el Awamld (see HAMMON, i). Enough remains to 
justify the writer s claim to have advanced the investigation by 
a new suggestion. 

6 Whether the Syrian desert goddess Aslt, whose name is 
connected by W. M. Miiller with that of Esau (cp EDOM, 2) is 
a female form of this hunter god, we can hardly venture to say. 
Nor can we make any use of the divine name Esu, apparently 
of foreign origin, found in a cuneiform text (Pinches, PSBA 




the two brothers strove in the womb is a purely etymo 
logical myth (see JACOB, i) ; Edom is an independent 
people when tradition first brings it into contact with 
Israel. That the older people was gradually eclipsed 
by the younger, however, and that nevertheless the 
older people at length achieved its liberation, are facts 
which agree exactly with the legend. How naturally, 
too, and with what regard to primitive sentiment, that 
legend (cp ISAAC, 5) is told ! Of conscious purpose 
on the narrator s part there is not a trace. It seems as 
if by a kind of fate the course of future history were 
prescribed by the forefathers, who in their blessings 
and cursings discharged divine functions. 1 

That writers like J and E, who have infused so much of the 
pure prophetic religion into the traditional material, should not 
be without traces of primitive superstition, will startle only those 
who are fettered by an abstract supernaturalism. J and E un 
hesitatingly believe that by his blessing or his curse a father 
may determine the fate of his children ; at any rate the fore 
fathers of Israel could do this. These writers certainly mean us 
to regard the oracles in Gen. 27 287^ and 39/1 (which are im 
aginative reproductions of what Isaac would be likely to have 
said) as creating history. The latter oracle has often been mis 
understood. It should run thus, Surely, far from fruitful 
ground shall be thy dwelling, and untouched by the dew of the 
heaven above ; by thy sword shall thou live, and thou shall 
serve thy brother ; but when thou shall revolt, a ihou shall shake 
off his yoke from thy neck. For another view of the blessing 
(shared by Vg. and AV) see EDOM, 5. 

Most readers sympathise more with Esau than with 
Jacob. This may perhaps be to some extent in accord 
ance with the wishes of the narrators. Surely J and E 
must have condemned the fraud practised by Jacob at 
his mother s bidding upon his aged father. Whether they 
would have condemned Jacob s shiftiness (apart from 
the special circumstances) as immoral, may, however, be 
doubted. The later prophets, it is true, denounce 
shiftiness in no measured terms ; 3 but the contemporaries 
of J and E were not so far from the old nomadic period, 
and not so open to new moral ideas, as to do the same 
(see Che. Aids, 35). To them the quiet, cautious, 
calculating character of Jacob seemed to be more praise 
worthy than the careless, unaspiring, good-natured, 
passionate character of Esau ; Jacob, they said, was a 
blameless 4 man (en), dwelling in tents (Gen. 2627 [J]). 
What P thought of these stories does not appear ; he 
confines his attention to Esau s marriages (Gen. 26 34/. 
[cp 2746 (R)], 286-9), and to geographical and statistical 
information respecting the Edomites (chap. 36 ; but how 
much is P s, is uncertain). 

The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews presents Esau as 
the type of a profane person, on the ground that he sacrificed 
his birthright for one mess of food (Heb. 12 16). He addresses 
Hebrews who were tempted to barter their privileges in the 
church for the external satisfaclions of ihe lemple services. As 
a matter of facl, however, it is only J who makes Esau willingly 
resign his birthright ; E apparently knows only the second 
of the two accounts of the loss of the irpojTOToiaa. It is 
obvious that J despises Esau for his conduct (see 2634 in the 
Hebrew). To him Esau represents Edom. To the later Jews 
Esau becomes the symbol of the heathen world (see a striking 
Haggada in Weber, Jiid. Tlteol. 401). 

2. i Esd. 529 (r)<rau [BA]). See ZiHA, i. T. K. C. 

1 See BLESSINGS AND CURSINGS. Robertson Smith points 
out that Jacob, when seeking the paternal benediction, wears 
the skins of sacrificial animals. His father is a quasi-divine 
being. So the priests in Egypt wore the skins of sacred 
animals (cp LEOPARD), and several examples of this can be indi 
cated within the Semitic field (Ret. Se/ 437 ; cp 467). The 
antique flavour of the narrative in Genesis now becomes much 
more perceptible. (Sayce has already connected the dress of 
Jacob with the robe of goat s skin, the sacred dress of the 
Babylonian priests, Hibb. Led. 87, p. 285). See DRKSS, 8. 

2 For the impossible -pin read -ncn, of which another cor 
ruption is TiNn C Book of Jubilees, JQR 0734). It may be 
added that TJ in Hos. 12 i, 1JT] in Jer. 231, and TnN in Ps. 
55 3 are also demonstrably due to corruption. 

3 Hosea does not indeed mention this action, but he accuses 
the Israelites of a deceitfulness which he traces back to Jacob s 
overreaching of his brother in the womb (Hos. 12 [3] 4; cp 
JACOB, 2). 

4 Or, harmless (innocent of acts of violence). It was said of 
Esau, By thy sword shall thou live. CJJ may have begun to 
acquire a specialized sense in popular use. In Job 9 22 CJJ and 
psih are opposed. 



(Short Subject Index at End of Article.) 


Antique elements ( 1-21). 

Practices relating to the dead ( 3-6). 

Beliefs about the dead ( 7-9). 

Sheol ( 10). 

Soul and Body ( 12-18). 

Spirit ( i 9 /). 

Resume ( 2 1). 

Rise of individualism (Jer., Ezek. 
etc., Eccles., Job ; 22-27). 

Gleams of future life ( 28). 
The Psalms ( 29-32). 
Result as to individual immortality 
( 33). 

II. THE NATION ( 34-38). 
Day of Yah we ( 34). 

i. Popular idea (also Nah.. Hab. ; 

2. Earlier prophetic (also Is., 

Zeph.; 37-39). 

3. Exilic (Je.r-, Ezek. ; 40-42). 

4. Universalistic (Exilic and post- 

exilic ; 43/-)- 

5. Nationalistic (post-exilic ; J 


III. SYNTHESIS (8 49./T). 

Doctrine of resurrection ( 49_/.). 


Review (51). 

Comparative eschatology ( 52). 
Method of sketch ( 53). 
Ecclus. and Tobit ( ^ff.) 
Hasidim ( 56). 

I. SECOND CENTURY B.C. ( 57-63). 

(a) General development ( 58). 

(b) Writers : Dan., Eth.-Enoch 83-90, 

Test. xii. Patr., Judith ( 59-62). 
(f) Special conceptions ( 63). 

II. LAST CENTURY B.C. ( 64-70). 

(a) General development ( 64). 

(b) Writers : 

Ethiopic Enoch 91-104 ( 65). 
Eth.-Knoch 37-70 and i Mace. 

( 65). 

Psalms of Solomon ( 67). 
Sibylline Oracles ( 68). 
2 Mace. ( 69). 

(c) Special conceptions ( 70). 

III. FIRST CENTURY A.D. ( 71-81). 

(a) General development ( 71). 

(b) Writers : Jubilees ( 72), Ass. 

Mos. ( 73), Philo 
(74), Slav. -Enoch 
( 75), Wisd. (S 76), 4 
Mace. ( 77), Baruch 
and Apoc.-Bar. (78), 
4 Esd. ( 79), Josephus 
( 80). 

(c) Special conceptions ( Ei). 

Introduction ( 82). 


Synoptic Gospels ( 83-87). 

Apocalypse ( 88). 

2 Pet., Jude, James ( 89-91). 

Hebrews ( 92). 

Bibliography ( 104-106). 


Johannine ( 93). 
Petrine ( 94-96). 

spirits in prison, etc. ( 96). 
Pauline ( 97-101). 

i and 2 Thess. ( 98). 

i Cor. 

2 Cor., Rom. ( 100). 
Phil., Col., Eph. ( 101). 


Soul and Spirit ( 102). 
Places of abode ( 103). 

In studying a great religion the inquirer naturally 

seeks to trace an organic connection between its central 

_ . ... conceptions and the most remote portions 

E S2Sl f tS s > stem - He ex P ects to find a 
gy. certa j n degree of logical coherence be 
tween all its parts. In dealing with such religions as 
Christianity, Mohammedanism, or Buddhism, his ex 
pectations are not disappointed. In these religions the 
eschatology or teaching on the final condition of man 
and of the world follows in the main from the funda 
mental doctrines. The early religion of Israel, however, 
must not be approached with such an expectation. 
There is an organic connection between its theology 
and that portion of its eschatology which deals with the 
nation as a whole ; but this connection does not extend 
to the eschatology concerning the individual. 

I. THE INDIVIDUAL. The ideas about the future 
life which prevailed in the earliest times and were current 
indeed in some degree down to the second century 
B.C., were in many respects common to Israel and to 
some other Semitic nations. They were not the out 
come of any revelation. They were survivals. With 
these antique elements advancing thought was at strife 
centuries before it succeeded in completely expelling 
them and in furnishing in their stead a doctrine of the 
future life in harmony with its own character. Such a 
doctrine, though foreshadowed in the earlier literature, 
was not definitely taught till the fourth century B.C. 

The antique elements belong in all probability to the 

system of belief and practice known as ancestor worship. 

. .At first this phase of religion dominated 

2. Ancestor tQ a ^^ degree the life of the i sra elite. 

>mp> The religion of Yahwe, however, as it 
developed, engaged with it in irreconcilable strife. 
Still, for several centuries, many of those primitive 
tenets and usages were left unaffected. Early Yahwism 
had no distinctive eschatology regarding the problem 
of the individual ; it concerned itself only with the nation. 
The individual, accordingly, was left to his hereditary 


beliefs, which, as we have said, were connected with 
ancestor worship. 1 

In this system the departed were not regarded as in a 
full sense dead. They shared in all the vicissitudes of 
their posterity, and possessed superhuman powers to 
benefit or injure. With a view to propitiating these 
powers the living offered sacrifices. The vitality of the 
dead was thus preserved, and their honour in the next 
world upheld. A man made sacrifice naturally only 
to his own ancestors ; these with their living descendants 
formed one family. 

That such beliefs prevailed in Israel is shown by 

_ , . customs observed with regard to the 

^ dead. 2 The mourning usages have a 

1 religious, not merely a psychological 

significance. They indicate reverence for 

the dead and a confession of dependence upon them. 

1. The mourner girt himself with sackcloth (2 S. 831 i K. 2031 
Is. 824 163 22 12 Jer. 626), or laid it on his loins ((ien. 8734 
Jer. 4837). This practice expresses submission to a superior; 
it is thus that the servants of Benhadad go forth from Aphek to 
Ahab(iK. 20 3 i/). 

2. The mourner put off his shoes (28. 1630 Ezek. 2417). 
This is explained by the removal of the shoes required in 
approaching holy places (Ex. 35_/ Josh. 615). 

3. Mourners cut off the hair (Is. 22i2 Jer. 729 Am. 8 10 
MIC. 1 16 Ezek. "182731), or the beard (Jer. 41 5), or both (Is. 152 
Jer. 4837) ; and made baldnesses between the eyes (Dt. Hi/I). 
The hair was designed as an offering to the dead (see CUTTINGS 
OF THE FLESH, 3, and SACRIFICE). These rites are con 
demned as idolatrous in Dt. 14 1./ ; but they are mentioned by 
the prophets of the eighth century without any consciousness of 
their impropriety (cp Am. 810 Mic. 1 16 Is. 152 22 12). They 
appear still to have been the universal custom (Jer. 41 5). 

4. Mourners made cuttings in their flesh for the dead. Such 
incisions were regarded as making an enduring covenant with 
the dead (WRS Rel. Sem.ft) 322/). They were made by the 
priests of Baal (i K. 1828). They were forbidden by the 
Hebrew law (Dt. 14 i Lev. 19 28) on the same grounds as in the 
case of 3. 

1 Cp Schwally, Das Leben nach tiem Tpde, chap. 1, Der 
alte Glaube ; Stade, GVI \^lff.; Marti, Gtsch. d. israel. 
Rel.$\ 22-26, 30,40-43, 48, 103. The conclusions of thesescholars 
are attacked by Frey, Tod, Seelenglaube und Seelencttlt im 
alten Israel, 1898, but on the whole without success. 

2 See Stade, GVI 1387^ ; Schwally, op. cit. 9-16. 




5. The covering of the head by the mourners (28. 1830 Esth. 
612 Jer. 143) is probably to be regarded as a substitute for 
cutting off the hair ; similarly the covering of the beard re 
presents its removal (Ezek. 24 17). This practice expresses 
reverence for the dead. The same custom was observed by the 
worshipper in approaching God (cp the case of Elijah at Horeb), 
and is universal in the synagogue and the mosque at the present 

6. The mourner offered sacrifices to the dead (Ezek. 241722 
aCh. 1614 2119). They are probably implied in Is. 819 193; 
for when a man wished to consult the dead, he would naturally 
present an offering. Their object is clear from Dt. 2(314 J er - 
167 (?); it was to give sustenance to the dead and to win their 
favour. In later times they came to be regarded as mere 
funeral feasts. This had not come about in the second century 
B.C., however ; for sacrifices to the dead appear to be commended 
in Ecclus. 733 ( For a dead man withhold not a gift [eirl 
vexpia fir) aTrofcioAuoT)? ^apti/]) and in Tob. 4 17 ( Pour out thy 
bread on the burial of the just ), though they are derided in 
Ecclus. SOisy: Ep. Jer. 3 i/ Wisd. His 193 Or. Sibyl. 8382.^ 
In Jubilees 2217 they are referred to as prevailing among the 

The teraphim mentioned in Gen. 35 were household 
gods. 1 They are called strange gods, and their 

4 Bv the worsn P s regarded as incompatible with 
worshirj of tllat Yahwe. Their sacred character 
TfiraDhim a PP ears ^ rom l ^ e r being buried .under a 

sacred tree, the terebinth. An earlier 
mention is in Gen. 31 19 30-35, where Rachel steals the 
teraphim of her father. In Ex. 21 2-6 we have another 
passage attesting their worship. According to this 
section there was in private houses a god close to the 
door, to which the slave who desired enrolment in his 
master s family had to be brought. Originally this 
meant admission to the family cult with all its obliga 
tions and privileges (see statement of Eliezer s position 
below, 5). Later the teraphim, which were of human 
form (iS. 19 13), were regarded as images of Yahwe 
(cp Judg. 17s, and ISi?.^ ; see also i S. 19i3-i6) ; for 
it is difficult to believe that David, the champion of the 
religion of Yahwe, would have worshipped the tSraphim 
in their original character as household gods. In 
Hos. 84 and Zech. 102, however, they seem to retain 
their original character as images of ancestors (cp 

In Dt. 15i2-i8 the rite of initiation mentioned in 
Ex. 21 is, by the omission of the term god, robbed 
of all its primitive religious significance, and given a 
wholly secular character. 

It is ancestor worship that explains the importance 
of male offspring. The honour and wellbeing of the 

5 Bv imrjort dead depended on the worship rendered 

P. and the sacrifices offered by their male 

dllOc OI IIld.16 i i T-, . , _ 

offs descendants. Even in the after life, 

therefore, men could be punished by 
Yahwe by the destruction of their posterity (Ex. 20s 
34? Nu. 14 18 Dt. 5g) ; for the sacrifices then ceased to 
be made. 2 If a man failed to have male offspring, the 
difficulty could be surmounted by adoption. The 
adopted man passed from his own clan to that of his 
adopted father, and thereby took upon himself all the 
obligations attaching to the latter. Even a slave could 
be so adopted (see FAMILY, 2). Eliezer is regarded as 
Abraham s heir in default of male issue (Gen. 15a/. ). 
It is to be presumed that he had already been adopted 
into the family cult. The right of inheritance is thus 
derived in principle from ancestor worship ; only the 
son and heir could fulfil its rites (see LAW AND 
JUSTICE, 18). Illegitimate sons, therefore, could not 
inherit (Stade, GF/l^i); their mother had not been 
admitted by marriage into the cult (cp Judg. 11 2). 

In Nu. 3G the law has already undergone a change. A 
daughter is allowed to inherit if she has married a man be 
longing to her father s family or tribe. In Athens, on the other 
hand, the property descended to the next male heir ; but he 
was obliged to marry the daughter of the deceased (Stade, id.). 

1 On Stade sand Schwally s identification of the teraphim with 
an ancestor image (accepted by Budde on Judg. 17s, Holzinger 
on Gen. 31 19, Nowack on Hos. 84, etc.), see TERAPHIM. 

2 On the same principle a man destroyed his enemy and all 
his sons with the object of depriving him of respect and worship 
in the lower world. 


It is thus clear that the living and the dead formed 
one family, and the departed participated in all the 
vicissitudes of their living descendants. Rachel in her 
grave shared in the troubles of her children in northern 
Israel (Jer. 31 15). 

The necessity of a son who should perform the 
family ancestor worship gave birth to the levirate 

6 By levirate law A man must mari T the childless 
law and widow of ms deceased brother. Where 
nature of clan ! h ,? deceased had no brother - the duty 
fell on the nearest male relation. The 
firstborn son of such a marriage was registered as the 
son of the deceased, who was thus secured the respect 
and the sacrifices which could be rendered only by a son 
legitimately begotten or adopted. This law appears 
to be assumed as in force in Gen. 8826 ; but its 
significance is forgotten in Dt. 25 5-10. According to 
old Israelitish views, Tamar fulfilled a duty of piety 
towards her dead husband (Stade 1394) ; similarly 
Ruth. Even the daughters of Lot may have had the 
same end in view. 

The fact that, even in David s time, the clan consti 
tuted a sacramentally united corporation (18.2029) 
points back to an earlier worship of ancestors. 

The customs just considered ( 3-6) regulate the 
conduct of the living. We have now to consider more 
7. Beliefs about directl y the beliefs regarding the dead 
the dead themselves, their place of abode and 
the nature of their existence there. 
These beliefs are no less essentially connected with 
ancestor worship ; but they had a much more extended 
lease of life. Long after the practices we have described 
had become unintelligible or sunk into complete abey 
ance, the beliefs flourished in the high places of Judaism ; 
they claimed the adherence of no small portion of the 
priesthood down to the destruction of the temple by 

As in the religions of Greece and Rome, burial was 

8. Importance 

held to be indispensable to the com- 



of burial f rt f the de P arted - II was hardly 
ever withheld. 

Criminals who were hanged (Dt. 21 2^) or stoned (Josh. 
7 24-26), and suicides (Jos. Bell. Jud. iii. 8 5), were accorded 
burial ; as were even the most hostile of foes (Ezek. 39 12). 

Of the calamities that could befall a man the lack of 
burial was one of the most grievous. 

Such was the sentence of punishment pronounced on Jezebel 
(2 K. 9 10). It was the fate that awaited the enemies of Yahwe 
(Jer. 2633). Even the materialistic writer of Ecclesiastes (63), 
if the text is correct, regards such a misfortune as outweighing 
a whole lifetime of material blessings. 1 

This horror at the thought of being unburied cannot 
be explained in the same way as in the religions of 
Greece and Rome, where it involved exclusion from 
Hades : according to Hebrew viesvs all without excep 
tion descended to Shfiol. It may be explained on two 
grounds. (i) In earlier times unless the dead had 
received burial no sacrifice could be offered to them. 
The grave, in ancestor worship, was in some measure 
the temple. (2) In later times, when such conceptions 
were forgotten, to be deprived of burial entailed a 
lasting dishonour and subjected the dead in Shfiol to 
unending reproach (Ezek. 28 10 32 21). 

Not simply burial, however, but also burial in the 
family grave, was the desire of every Israelite. Hence 

9 In the tne fr ec l uent statement that a man was 
family crave & athered to his fathers (Gen. 15 15 Judg. 
61 2io) or to his people (Gen. 4929-33 Nu. 
27 13). The departed must be introduced into the 
society of his ancestors. In the earliest times the 
abode of this society was conceived to be the family 
grave or its immediate neighbourhood. Everyone 
wished to be buried with his father and mother 

1 [The context is against this reference to the loss of burial. 
We must perhaps either strike out the entire phrase and more 
over he have no burial (with Ilitzig), or else the negative (with 



(28. 1723 1937 [38]). Jacob and Joseph are said to have 
directed that their bodies should be carried back to 
Canaan to be buried in the family grave (Gen. 47 30 
5025 Ex. 1819). This was originally in the house. It 
was there, e.g. , that Samuel was buried (iS. 25i); 
similarly Joab (i K. 34). As no family stood in 
isolation, however, but was closely united with others, 
and as these together made up the clan or tribe, 
and these tribes in due time were consolidated into the 
nation, a new conception arose ; all the graves of the 
tribe or nation were regarded as united in one. It was 
this new conception that received the designation of 

In all probability, therefore, the Hebrew Shgol was 

originally conceived as a combination of the graves of 

ft _ . . the clan or nation, and thus as its final 

.; ev-x-i abode. In due course this conception was 
naturally extended till it embraced the de 
parted of all nations, and became the final abode of all 
mankind. It has already reached this stage in Ezek. 32 
Is. 14 Job 30 23. Strictly regarded, the conceptions of 
an abode of the dead in the grave and of one in Shgol 
are mutually exclusive. Being popular notions, however, 
they do not admit of scientific definition, and their 
characteristics are treated at times as interchangeable. 
The family grave, with its associations of ancestor wor 
ship, is of course the older conception. As burial in 
the family grave enabled a man to join the circle of his 
ancestors, so burial with honour was a condition of his 
attaining an honourable place in Sh6ol i.e. , joining 
his people there. Otherwise he is thrust into the 
lowest and outermost parts of the pit (Ezek. 8223). 
When, however, Shgol is said to have distinct divisions 
(Prov. 727), the statement may be merely poetical. 

Regarding the condition of the dead in Shgol (on 
which see below, 15-18) it will here be sufficient to 
point out two main characteristics. 

(a) In early times (and down to the fourth century 

11 Two char B C- there was little chan S el ) Sh661 
. r". was quite independent of Yahwe and 

IC8> outside the sphere of his rule. 

Yahwe was originally the god of the tribe or nation, and his 
sway for long after the settlement in Canaan was conceived to 
extend, not to the whole upper world, much less to the lower 
(Sheol), but only to his own people and land. The persistence 
of this conception of Sheol for several centuries side by side 
with the monotheistic conception of Yahwe as creator and 
ruler of the world is, for the Western mind, hard to understand, 
the conceptions being mutually exclusive. It is clear, however, 
that Israel believed that when a man died he was removed from 
the jurisdiction of Yahwe (Ps. 885 [6] 31 22 [23]), and relations 
between them ceased (Is. 38 18). 

(6) As independent of Yahwe, Shg5l knew nothing 
of the moral distinctions that prevailed on earth. 

According to the OT death means an end of the 

earthly life, not the cessation of all existence : the 

, _ . , person still subsists. As the nature of this 

, 1 , , , continued existence depends on the OT 
theory of man s composite personality, it 
will be necessary at this point to make a study of that 
theory. In its most primitive form it regards man as 
consisting of two elements, soul (nephesh] and body 
(itifdr). What was thought of the body does not con 
cern us here (see, however, 18). 

Regarding the soul we may note four points. 

i. The soul is identified with the blood. 

As the shedding of blood caused death, the soul was con 
ceived to be in the blood (Lev. 17 n a), or it was actually iden 
tified with it (Dt. 1223 Gen. 84^). Hence men avoided eating 
blood ; they offered it to God. Hence, too, blood unjustly 
spilt on the earth the soul cried to heaven for vengeance 
(Gen. 4 10). 

Again, since the soul was the blood and the 
central seat of the blood was the heart/ the heart was 
regarded as the organ of thought. A man without 

1 Though God s power is conceived from the eighth century 
onward (cp Am. 9 2 Job 26 6 Prov. 15 n Ps. 139 j/.) to extend to 
Sheol, yet SheOl maintains its primitive character. In the 
earlier centuries the powers that bore sway in SheOl were the 
ancestors of the living. 


, , 


intelligence was a heartless man (Hos. 7"); when 
a man thought, he was said to speak in his heart. 
Thought is not ascribed directly to the soul, however, 
though a certain limited intelligence is. 

2. To the soul are attributed not only purely 
animal functions such as hunger (Prov. 10 3), thirst 

13 Feeling ( Prov - 2625), sexual desire (Jer. 224), but 
also psychical affections such as love (Is. 
42i), joy ( Ps. 864). fear (Is. 15 4 ), trust (Ps. 57 1 [2]), 
hate (Is. 114), contempt (Ezek. 36s). 1 To it are 
ascribed also wish and desire (Gen. 23 8 2 K. 9 15 i Ch. 
289), and likewise, but very rarely, memory (Lam. 
820 Dt. 49) and knowledge (Ps. 139 14). As the seat 
of feeling and desire (and, in a limited degree, of in 
telligence) it becomes an expression for the individual 
conscious life. Thus my soul (-ITS:) means I," thy 
soul means thou, etc. (Hos. 94 Ps. 3 2 [3] 7 2 [3] 11 1). 
So many souls means so many persons (Gen. 46 18 
Ex. 1 5). This designation of the personality by soul 
(nephesh] shows how meagre a conception of personality 
prevailed in Israel, nn ( rny spirit ) was never so 
used in the OT. 

3. The soul leaves the body in death (Gen. 35 18 
i K. 172i 28. lg Jn. 43), not necessarily immediately, 

_ . but (apparently) at least on the appearance 
of corruption. In certain cases, after out 
ward death the soul was regarded as still in 
some sense either in or near the body ; a dead person 
was called a nephesh (Lev. 1928 21 1 224 Nu. 96710 
Hag. 2 13) or a dead nephesh (na B>S: ; Nu. 66 Lev. 21 n). 

4. The soul therefore also dies. Its death, how 
ever, is not absolute. Moreover, we must note the 

, T , .... prevalence in Israel of two incon- 

15. Its condition sjstem views _ a fact (not hitherto 

leatm. fu]ly brought to ij gn t)2 that has 
forced its recognition on the present writer in the 
course of the present study (a) an older view, which 
attributes to the departed a certain degree of knowledge 
and power in reference to the living and their affairs ; 
(&) a later view, which denies this. 3 

(a) According to the older view the departed possessed 
a certain degree of self-consciousness and the power of 
speech and movement (Is. 14) ; a large 
measure of knowledge hence their 
name, Q jijn , the knowing ones (Lev. 
19si 20 6 Is. 193 ; cp DIVINATION, 4, 
iii. ) ; acquaintance with the affairs of their living 
descendants and a keen interest in their fortunes thus 
Rachel mourns from her grave for her captive children 
(Jer. 31 15) ; ability to forecast the future (whence they 
were consulted about it by the living ; i S. 28 13-20 
[where observe that the dead person invoked is called 
Elohlm] Is. 819 294) ; whence the practice of incuba 
tion 4 (Is. 604). As we have already seen that the 
departed were believed to have the power of helping or 
injuring their descendants (see 2), we need only ob 
serve here that it follows from Is. 63 16 that Abraham 
and Israel were conceived as protectors (see Cheyne 
and Duhm, etc., in loc.). 

The relations and customs of earth were reproduced 
in Shgdl. 

The prophet was distinguished by his mantle (i S. 28 14), 
kings by their crowns and thrones (Is. 14), the uncircumcised by 
his foreskin (Ezek. 32). Each nation preserved its individuality 
and no doubt its national garb and customs (Ezek. 32). Those 
slain with the sword bore for ever the tokens of a violent death 
(Ezek. 32 25), as likewise those who died from grief (Gen. 42 38). 
Indeed the departed were regarded as possessing exactly the 
same features as marked them at the moment of death. We 
can appreciate, accordingly, the terrible significance of David s 

1 These are so essentially affections of the soul that they 
are hardly ever attributed to the spirit (nil) , yet see 19. 

- Only Stade appears to have apprehended the fact, and that 
but partially as far as we may judge from his published works. 

3 It follows logically from the doctrine of man s nature, 
unknown in pre-prophetic times, which is set forth in Gen. 2/1; 
see below, 16. 

4 i.e., the practice of sleeping in a temple in the hope of re 
ceiving a communication or a visit from the god. 


_ .. 
6. ar ler 

17. Later view 
of death. 


departing counsel to Solomon touching Joab ; Let not his hoar 
head go down to Sheol in peace (i K. 26). 

In many respects the view just sketched is identical 
with that which underlies ancestor worship. This 
worship had withdrawn entirely into the background 
before the prophetic period ; but, as we have said 
( 7), many of its presuppositions maintained themselves 
in the popular belief till late in the post-exilic period. 
The most significant fact to observe is the comparatively 
large measure of life, movement, knowledge, and power 
attributed to the departed in Shfiol. How important 
this is becomes obvious when the earlier view is con 
trasted with the later and antagonistic view. 

(6) The later view follows logically from the account 
in Gen. 24^-3, according to which it was when animated 
by the spirit that the material form 
became a living soul : the life of the 
soul is due to the presence of the j 
spirit, death ensues on its removal. 1 Death, however, I 
even here does not imply annihilation, though it logic 
ally should imply it : the soul still subsists in some 
sense. The subsistence, however, is purely shadowy 
and negative : all the faculties are suspended. 

Sheol, the abode of the shades, is thus almost a synonym for 
abaddon or destruction (Job2ti6 Prov. 15 n). In opposition to 
the older view that in Sheol there is a certain degree of life, 
movement, and remembrance, the later view teaches that it is 
the land of forgetfulness (Ps. 88 12), of silence (Ps. 94 17 115 17), 
of destruction (Job 26 6 2822); in opposition to the belief that 
the dead return to counsel the living, the later teaches that the 
dead cannot return (Job 7 9 14 12); in opposition to the belief 
that they are acquainted with the affairs of their living de 
scendants, the later teaches that they no longer know what 
befalls on earth (Job 14 2 1) ; in opposition to the belief in their 
superhuman knowledge of the future as the knowing ones 
the later teaches that all knowledge has forsaken them (Eccles. 
9 5), that they have neither device nor knowledge nor wisdom 
(Eccles. 9 10). Whereas the older view permitted their being 
invoked as Elohlm, the later view regards them as dead 
ones ( D no) (Is. 26 14 Ps. 88 10 [n]). 2 See DEAD, 2. 

Finally the relations of the upper world appear to be 
reproduced, if at all, more faintly ; the inhabitants of 
ShgSl, king and slave, oppressor and oppressed, good 
and bad, are all buried in a profound sleep (Job3 14-19). 
All existence seems to be at an end. 

Thus we read in Ps. 39 13, O spare me, that I may recover 
strength, before I go hence, and be no more ; and in Job 14 7 to, 
There is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout 
again but man giveth up the ghost, and where is he? 3 

5. Though in death the soul leaves the body and 
departs, the departed in ShSol are never designated 
18 Shadowv s m P 1 > r sov ^ s - 4 The early Israelites were 
, , ^ metaphysically unable to conceive the 
body without psychical functions, or the 
soul without a certain corporeity. The departed were 
conceived, accordingly, as possessing not only a soul 
but also a shadowy body. This appears in the use of 
the term shades (rifphdim), which was current in all 
ages (see REPHAIM i. ). Elohlm, the title by which in 
earlier times the shades were addressed, passed out of 
use. In later times, when such a doctrine of man s 
being as that underlying Gen. 2 4<J-3, became current, 

1 This view strikes at the root of the worship of ancestors. 
The deceased can have no vitality or power ; for the spirit is . 
the spring of life, and the departed are only souls that are 
dead i.e., souls in which every faculty is dormant. Gen. I 
243-8, which did not originate till the prophetic period, is the 
outcome of monotheism, whether we regard it as being of 
Hebrew or of foreign origin. It is needless to add that, when 
monotheism emerged, for various reasons ancestor worship 
became impossible. 

2 The term shades Q-N31 (used also in the Phoenician 
religion) was applied to the departed in both systems ; but 
possibly with a difference (contrast Is. Ug f. 261419 with 
Ps. 88 10 [n] Prov. 2 18 9 18 etc., where it is synonymous with 
the dead). 

3 It will be observed that the currency of the later view is 
attested by the second Isaiah, by Ezekiel, Job, and Ecclesiastes. 
In these books the teaching in Gen. 2 4^-8 has reached its logical 
consequence. That teaching is implied in Is. 4ii 5 Ezek. 37 aff. 
Job 27 3 334 Eccles. 127 the spirit shall return to God who 
gave it (yet it is doubtful if this verse belongs to the text ; 
cp3 2 i). 

* We seem to find in Job 14 22 Ps. 16 10 such a use, or at all 
events the preparation for it. 



the epithet dead ones was employed. To designate 
the dead simply souls without any qualification 
would hardly have been possible ; according to the 
later view, souls in Sheol were bereft of all their natural 
psychical functions. 

The Hebrew writers speak, however, of a spirit as 
well as of a soul, and we must consider briefly the 

_ ~ . .. . relation of the terms to each other. 
.. " . Originally they were synonyms meaning 

.. . 
ear ler view . 

. breatn or w j nc j The primitive con- 
.... ception was arrived at by observation. 

my When the breath i.e., the nlphesh or 
ruah left the body, the body died. The nfyhesh or 
ruah was, therefore, regarded as the principle of life. 
As Stade has remarked (GVICQ 1419), rtia/t probably 
designated specially the stronger and stormier emotions : 
the custom of personifying the psychical affections 
generally as ntphesh, once introduced, led to the practice 
of naming the stronger expressions of this personification 
ruah. Thus anger is an affection of the ruah (Judg. 83, 
see below). So long as a man was wholly master of 
his powers, he possessed his ruah ; but when he became 
lost in amazement (i K. 10s) or despair (Josh. 2n), or 
when he fainted (i S. 30 12 Judg. 15 19), his ruah left 
him. On his reviving it returned (Gen. 4627). 

In keeping with this view of the spirit (ruah) it is said to 
be the subject of trouble (Gen. 41 s), anguish (Job 7 n), grief 
(Gen. 26 35 Is. 546), contrition (Ps. 51 17 [19] Is. t>6 2), heaviness 
(Is. 61 3). It is the seat of energetic volition and action the 
haughty spirit (Prov. 16 18), the lowly spirit (2923), the 
impatient spirit (Prov. 1429), etc. 

As its departure entails a paralysis of voluntary power (see 
above) the ruah expresses the impulse of the will (Ex. 35 21). 
The purposes of man are "... of the ruah nn niSj?D(Ezek.ll 5); 
the false prophets follow their own spirit rather than that of 
Yahwe (Ezek. 183); God tries men s spirits (Prov. 162). 
Rfiah seems also to express character, the result of will in 
Nu. 14 24, Caleb . . . had another " spirit " with him. By this 
development in the application of the term ruah it has become 
the seat of man s highest spiritual functions. 

To sum up : soul and spirit are at this early stage 
identical in essence and origin ; the distinction is one of 

(b] This primitive view was in part superseded by a 
later doctrine (later from the point of view of the 
genesis of ideas), taught in Gen. 24^-3. * 

The most complete story of the creation of man 2 represents 

that Yahwe Elohim formed man of earth from the ground, and 

. . , blew into his nostrils breath (iitshama) of 

oplITD . j;f e ( c ,, n j-|Ojj) so that man became a living 

later view : soul (*#**), Gen- 2 7. The neshama of 

man a 27 is called ruah (o"n nil) in 6 17 7 15. 

trichotomy ^ nere are therefore in man three elements : 

* soul (nephesh), body (bdldr), and spirit or 

ruah (nl"l)i which last, in the later theory, is simply that which 

gives life to the soul. 3 This spirit of life (n"n nn) s n 

the lower creation as well (Gen. 6 17 7 15 22 Ps. 104 30), and by 

virtue of it they too become living souls." 

According to the story worked up by a late priestly 
writer (Gen. 1 24) the brute creation is only indirectly 
the product of divine creation ; whereas man is so 
directly. Angels, however, are never, either in the 
canonical or in the apocryphal books, said to have 
souls, though occasionally the term is used in regard 
to God : he swears by his soul (Am. 6 8 ; cp Is. 42 1 
Lev. 261130 cp below, 63). In the account of the 
relation of soul to body and spirit, in Gen. 2/. 
the spirit has become quite distinct from the soul 
in essence and origin. It is the divine element in man. 
According to the older view the difference was one of 

1 [Into the historical relation of this doctrine to the Hebrew 
conceptions of CREATION [q.v.] we cannot here enter at 
length. It cannot be denied that the statement in Gen. 2 7 is of 
early origin. That remains a fact, even if the narrative in Gen. 
2 4^-3 has passed through more than one literary phase. Critics 
are of opinion, however, that the myth of creation utilized for 
didactic purposes in that narrative was not very widely spread 
among the Israelites, and that the religious ideas attached to 
the myth but slowly became operative in the popular mind.] 

2 [On the references to creation, whether in narratives or in 
other forms, see CREATION ; on the question as to the early 
or late date of the ideas in Gen. 278 see preceding note.] 

3 Cp below, 81 (i). 




function, hardly of essence, certainly not of origin. Now 
1 spirit is the life-giving power in the body. When it 
enters the material form the man becomes a living soul. 
Without ruah there is no life (Hab. 2 19). In death the 
soul, robbed of every vital function, descends into Shcol 
and practically ceases to exist. The spirit (ruti/i) never 
dies ; it merely leaves the body and returns to God 
who gave it (Ps. 1464 Eccles. 1*27). J Of this view the 
logical result is the scepticism of Ecclesiastes and of the 

We have found that the Israelite derived from the 

circle of ideas underlying ancestor worship his views as 

_, , to the nature of soul" and spirit, and 

. K si me. Qf y ngol and tne conc jition of the departed 
there. On these questions no light was thrown for 
many centuries by anything distinctive of the religion of 
Yahwe, which had originally no eschatology of its own 
relating to the individual. Looking back, however, on 
the far-off days of the origins of the religion of Yahwe, 
we can see that the beliefs connected with ancestor 
worship were doomed to extinction by their inconsistency 
with that religion, though centuries had to elapse 
before the doom was fully accomplished. 

The preparation for a higher doctrine of the future 
life was made essentially when a new value came to be 
set on the individual. The early 
Israelite was not alarmed by the 

22. No 

.... prosperity of the wicked man or the 
itriDution. calamities of the righteous: Yahwe 

was supposed to concern himself only with the well- 
being of the people as a whole, not with that of its 
individual members. It seemed natural and reasonable 
that he should visit the virtues and vices of the fathers 
on the children (Ex. 20s Lev. 20s Josh. 724 i 8.813), 
of an individual on his community or tribe (Gen. 12 17 
20 18 Ex. 1229). Indeed, in postponing the punishment 
of the sinner till after death and allowing it to fall on 
his son, 2 Yahwe showed his mercy (i K. 11 12 21 29). 

Towards the close of the kingdom of Judah, the 
popular sentiment expressed itself in the proverb, The 
fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children s teeth 
are set on edge (Jer. Slag). Explicitly this denied the 
responsibility of the people for the overthrow of the 
nation a view that naturally paralysed all personal 
effort after righteousness and made men the victims of 
despair. Implicitly it expressed, not a humble sub 
mission to the divine judgments, but rather an 
arraignment of the divine method of government. 

In opposition to this popular statement Jeremiah 
answered as follows : In those days they shall no 

23. Jeremiah s 

more say, The fathers have eaten sour 

?-"""""" grapes, and the children s teeth are 
individualism. ^ Qn gdge . bm eyery Qne ^ die 

for his own iniquity (Jer. 31 29 f. ). At an earlier date 
the same prophet had delivered a divine oracle of 
a very different import, I will cause them to be tossed 
to and fro among all the kingdoms of the earth, because 
of Manasseh the son of Hezekiah (Jer. 154). The new 
departure in his teaching recorded in the later passage 
is to be explained by the new covenant described in 
Jer. 31 31-34 (see COVENANT, 6 (v. )). Jeremiah foresaw 
ii new relation between Yahwe and his worshippers a 
relation determined by two great facts : man s incapacity 
to reform himself, and God s repugnance to any but a 
spiritual worship (see JEREMIAH i. , 4). 

Jeremiah s idea was further developed by Ezekiel. 

Every soul is God s and is in direct and immediate 

94. iwiivirinai relation to him (Ezek. 18 4). If the 

11 individual is faithful in this relation, 

Ezeidel and : he is unaffected b X his own P ast 
1 (1821-28), or by the sins or the 

righteousness of his fathers (1820 

1 Cp below, 102 (i) b note. 

2 Rewards and punishments were necessarily conceived as 
limited to the earthly life ; for Sheol was regarded as outside 
Yahwe s jurisdiction. 


25. Criticism. 

14 12-20). Righteousness raises him above the sweep 
of the dooms that befall the sinful individual or the 
sinful nation. 1 Since the achievement of this righteous 
ness is possible for him, he possesses moral freedom, 
and his destiny is the shaping of his own will (1830^). 
There is, therefore, a strictly individual retribution, and 
the outward lot of the individual is exactly proportioned 
to his moral deserts. 

This doctrine rooted itself firmly in the national 
consciousness. It is taught and applied in detail in 
those great popular handbooks, the Psalter and the 
Book of Proverbs. Though the righteous may have 
many afflictions, Yahwe delivers him out of them all ; 
all his bones are kept, not one of them is broken ; but 
evil slays the wicked ( Ps. 34 18 [19]^ , see also 37 28 etc. ). 
The righteous and the wicked are to be recompensed 
on earth ( Prov. 1 1 31). Life is the outcome of righteous 
ness; death, of wickedness (Prov. 221 /. 10211 19 1524/. 

Such a doctrine was, naturally, a continual stumbling- 
block to the righteous when trouble came. Doubts as 
to its truth were freely expressed, 
notably in the Psalms. Nor was it to 
the sufferer alone that this difficult view was an impedi 
ment. The doctrine of an adequate retribution in this 
life blocked the way that led to a true solution of the 
problem of prosperity and adversity. Indeed it denied 
the existence of any problem to solve ; the righteous as 
such could not suffer. As long as this was regarded as 
the orthodox doctrine, the doctrine of a future life could 
not emerge, and progress was impossible. 

It was only some of the elements in Ezekiel s teaching 
that were sanctioned by subsequent religious thought ; 
others were opposed. It is his undying merit that he 
asserted the independent worth of the individual ; but 
he fell into two errors. He taught (a) that the individual 
suffers not for the sins of his fathers, but for his own, 
and (b] that the individual s experiences are in perfect 
keeping with his deserts. In other words, sin and 
suffering, righteousness and wellbeing are, according to 
Ezekiel, always connected ; the outward lot of the 
individual is God s judgment in concrete form. 2 

Now as regards a, the experience of the nation 
must have run counter to this statement. It was 
evident that the elements in a man s lot which lie out 
side the sphere of his volition are shaped for better or for 
worse in accordance with the merits or demerits of his 
father and people. The older view accordingly continues 
to be attested in Jewish literature (see Ps. 109 13 Ecclus. 
2825 40 15 416, and especially Dan. Q?/., Judith7z8. 
Tob. 83, Ass. Mos. 85, Baruch 1 18-21 226 38, Apoc. 
Bar. 7734io): it is freely acknowledged that men are 
punished for the sins of their fathers and brethren. 

Ezekiel s second error (6), that the individual s 
experience agrees with his deserts, is the corollary of 
a. It gave birth to a long controversy, of which two 
notable memorials have come down to us in Job and 
Ecclesiastes. Eccles. is much the later ; but we w ill for 
convenience sake deal with it first. 

Against the statement () that the experience of the 
individual is in perfect keeping with his 
deserts, the writer of Ecclesiastes enters a 
decided negative. He declares, in fact, 
that there is no retribution at all. 3 

He asserts that sometimes evil prolongs a man s days, and 
righteousness curtails them (7 15) ; that the destinies of the wise 
man and of the fool (2 14), of the righteous and the wicked (9 2) 
are identical ; that the wicked attain to the honour of burial, 
whilst this is often denied to the righteous (Sio). If any one 

1 That there is an inconsistency between Ezek. 83-6 and 
21 $/. cannot, however, be denied. 

2 Both a and b seemed to Kzekiel to follow logically from 
God s righteousness, and rightly, if there was no retribution 
beyond the grave. 

3 The passages where judgment is threatened (3 17 11 g/> 12 14) 
are, according to an increasing number of critics, intrusions in 
the text, being at variance with the entire thought of the writer. 
812 is no longer in its original form. 


26. Protest 
of Eccles. 

27. Of Job. 


complains of the shallowness of Ecclesiastes, 1 is not Ezekiel on 
the opposite side equally shallow? 

In the book of Job the principal elements of Ezekiel s 
teaching reappear. The doctrines of man s individual 
worth and of a strictly individual retribu 
tion, however, are shown to be really irre 
concilable (see JOB, BOOK OF, 5-8). Conscious in 
the highest degree of his own worth and rectitude, Job 
claims that God should deal with him in accordance 
with his deserts. Like his contemporaries his belief is 
(for Job and the author of the dialogues may be 
identified) that every event that befalls a man reflects 
God s disposition towards him ; misfortune betokens 
God s anger, prosperity his favour. This belief, how 
ever, is not confirmed by the fortunes of other men 
(21 1-15), and, with the added insight derived from a 
sad personal experience, Job concludes that, as the 
world is governed, righteousness may even be awarded 
the meed of wickedness. Faith, in order to be sure of 
its own reality, claims its attestation by the outward 
judgments of God, and Job s faith receives no such 
attestation. Still it does not entirely give way ; from 
the God of circumstance, of outer providence, Job 
appeals to the God of faith (by Job, as we have said, 
we mean the author). 

The fact that Job does not seek to solve the problem 
by taking into his argument the idea of a future life, 

na , - shows that this idea or belief had not 

28. Gleams of , i- 

- , .., yet won acceptance among the religious 
mture me. thinkers of Israel _ The main views 

and conclusions of Job, however, point in that direction. 
The emphasis laid on man s individual worth, with his 
consequent claims upon a righteous God claims which 
are during life entirely unsatisfied should lead to the 
conclusion that at some future time all these wrongs 
will be righted by the God of faith. Such a conclusion, 
however, is never explicitly drawn. 

The poem of Job cannot be said to teach the doctrine 
of a future life. Still, the idea seems for a moment to 
have gleamed on Job s mind, and the fancy expressed in 
14 13 f. became the accepted doctrine of later times. If 
the Hebrew text of 1925-29 is sound, perhaps there also 
ShSol is conceived as only an intermediate place. At 
any rate Job declares in this great passage that God 
will appear for his vindication, and that at some time 
after his death he will enjoy the divine vision face to 
face. It is not indeed stated that this vision will endure 
beyond the moment of Job s justification by God. Never 
theless the importance of the spiritual advance here made 
cannot be exaggerated. The soul is no longer regarded as 
cut off from God and shorn of all its powers by death, 
but as still capable of the highest spiritual activities 
though without the body. A belief in the continuance 
of this higher life is certainly in the line of many of 
Job s reasonings. On the other hand, if Job had not 
merely -wished but also been convinced that this idea 
was sound, would it have been possible for him to 
ignore such an all-important conviction throughout the 
rest of the book ? There are likewise textual difficulties, 
which recent critics have considered to justify a very 
radical treatment of the text. 

The words rendered in RV And after my skin hath been thus 
destroyed, yet from my flesh shall I see God, 2 are specially 
doubted. RVmg. gives two alternative marginal renderings for 
the first part of this passage, and for from my flesh suggests 
the widely different rendering without my flesh, which is that 

generally adopted by those scholars who adhere to MT. Cp 
illmann ad loc., and, on the other side, JOB, 6. 
[Siegfried (Job, SBOT, Heb.) looks upon v. 25^ as a later 
gloss, in which the resurrection of the just is regarded as a 
possibility, contrary to the opinion put forth in the Book of Job 
with regard to Sheol (ib. 3 etc.). The result, however, is not 
satisfactory. Siegfried appeals to & ; but we have a right to 
suspect theological glosses in the Alexandrian Jewish version. 


2 nxnEpj -iiy nnxi 



Something different must have stood where our present v. 25 f. 
stands, and it is the work of the textual critic to trace its relics. 
See also Budde, ad loc., and Che. s criticism, Expos., 1897*1, 
p. 410.2?:] 

In spite of this criticism it is true to say that this 
great poem suggests the doctrine of a future life. Later 
students may or may not have found it in 1413-15 
1925-29 ; but in any case the rest of the book presents 
the antinomies of the present so forcibly that thinkers 
who assimilated its contents could not avoid taking up 
a definite attitude towards the higher theology. Some 
made a venture of faith, and postulated the doctrine of 
a future life ; others, like the writer of Ecclesiastes, 
made the great refusal and fell back on unbelief and 
materialism. We have arrived at the parting of the 
ways. x 

It remains to consider whether there is evidence of a 
belief in the immortality of the individual in the Psalter. 
29 I the ^ s un f rtunate tnat the text of this book 

_ . should be so far from accurate as (from textual 

Hga.ltng- ... . . 

criticism) it appears to be. The psalms 

that chiefly have to be considered are 16, 17, 49, and 
73. Here we find one of the most recent critics receding 
from his original conclusion (in favour of the existence 
of the hope of immortality), on the ground that a 
searching textual revision is adverse to it. As regards 
the first two, at any rate, of the psalms just referred to, 
the evidence, even if we assume the trustworthiness of 
all that the unemended text contains, is inadequate to 
prove the point. 

In Ps. 16 there is nothing that necessarily relates to an indi 
vidual future life. The psalm appears to express the fears and 
T, hopes, not of the individual, but of the community. 
30. In PSS. In Ps. 17 likewise the Psalmist speaks not as an 
16-17. individual (cp the plurals, w. 711), but as the 
mouthpiece of the Jewish people, whoare to Yahwe 
as the apple of the eye (? . 8) ; in fear of a foreign invader (vv. 
9 13) the Psalmist prays for help. This being so, however, in 
stead of I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with thy likeness, 
we should expect some reference to God s help. In any case the 
context does not admit of a reference to a future life. a 

In Ps. 49 the present text admits of two interpretations. In 
v. i4[i5]yC the speaker announces speedy destruction for the 
wicked but complete redemption from death 
31. In Ps. 49. for himself; but who is the speaker? Does 
the I here denote the Psalmist as a repre 
sentative pious Israelite, or the righteous community? In 
favour of the collective meaning it is argued that those for 
whom the Psalmist speaks are the righteous poor who are 
oppressed by the wicked rich; that r . 10 [n] states that all 
die, alike the wise man (i.e., the righteous) and the fool ; and 
that when the individual is undoubtedly intended (?/. 16 [17]) he 
is addressed as thou. The escape from death is therefore, on 
this interpretation, that of the righteous community. 3 On the 
other hand, it seems to be in favour of a reference to immortality 
that, as Cheyne has pointed out, Sheol appears in v. 14 [15] as 
a place of punishment for the wicked rich. 4 As such it could 
never become the abode of the righteous. It ii reasonable 
therefore to expect that the speaker should somewhere state 
his own consciousness (as a representative pious Israelite) of 
exemption from this fate. This seems to give us the key to the 
words, Surely my soul God will set free ; for from the hand 
of Sheol will he take me. 6 

We must, therefore, lay stress on the naturalness 

1 On the belief in retribution in early Judaism, see especially 
Che. OPs. 381-452 ; Jew. Rel. Life, 229-247. For translations 
from the psalms, cp Wellh. s and Driver s recent works. A 
complete translation from a critical text of Job is still a 

2 So Smend, ZA TWSg 5 [ 88] ; Che. few. Rel. Life, 2 4 o/ 

3 So Smend, Schwally, and now Cheyne. 

4 This is one of the results reached in OPs. by Cheyne ; who 
(going much beyond previous writers) regards Ps. 49 as incident 
ally a protest against the old Hebrew notion of Sheol, with its 
disregard of moral distinctions, and confirms this view by the 
parallelisms between Ps. 49 and chap. 102 f. of Enoch (written 
probably between 134 and 94 B.C.). The rich man holds that neither 
in life nor in death has he to fear a judgment ; but all the details 
of this pleasant dream the psalmist contradicts. The moral 
significance of the descent of the rich into Sheol is still more 
visible in Cheyne s attractively emended text (few. Rel. Life, 
238). This conception of the penal character of Sheol is all the 
more credible from the reference mnde in the OT to two other 
places of punishment for special offenders the so-called pit 
(Is. 242i_/C), and a place strikingly resembling Gehenna for 
Jewish apostates (Is. 6624). 

5 The present writer is of opinion that to the authors of Pss. 
49 and 73 Sheol is the future abode of the wicked alone, heaven 
that of the righteous. 



of our own interpretation, that there is in Ps. 49 a 
reference to immortality, an interpretation which is in 
fact that maintained, with fulness of argument, by 
Cheyne himself in his Origin of the Psalter. 

In Ps. 73, as in Ps. 49, the wicked enjoy prosperity ; 
but they are speedily to meet with unexpected retribution 

32 In Ps 73 ( l8 - 20 ) A* for the g hteous . their 
highest good and blessedness consist 
in communion with God. In comparison with God the 
whole world is to them as nothing (22-25). He is their 
portion. Despite deadly perils they can safely trust in 
him (25), and all the more assuredly that he destroys 
the wicked (27). A new thought, however, emerges in 
v. 24. God, we are told, will guide the righteous 
with his counsel, and afterwards take him to (or, with) 
glory. 1 In the latter phrase, if we may acquiesce in 
the received text, there must be a reference to the story 
of Enoch (Gen. 624), which was very popular in post- 
exilic times (see ENOCH, i), and the whole passage 
is an assertion of individual immortality (so Delitzsch, 
Davidson, Baethgen, and originally Cheyne), for the 
text would be unfairly treated if we restricted the 
reference to this present life. On grounds which he 
has not yet fully stated, but which, from the note of 
Wellhausen on the passage, 2 we may assume to be 
partly grammatical, Cheyne now regards v. 24 b as 
corrupt, and reads, And wilt make known to me the 
path of glory. 3 Assuming, however, with Konig 4 
that the grammatical difficulties can be overcome, can 
we show that the new thought of which we have spoken 
is thoroughly consistent with what follows? 6 To the 
present writer no incongruity is visible. He would 
venture to rest his case on the impassioned words of 
v. 2512, which prove that the speaker felt assured of the 
continuance of his union with God not only on earth 
but also in heaven. For themselves the righteous make 
no claim to material prosperity either here or hereafter ; 
they look for and indeed possess something far higher. 
As a corollary of the truth of the justice of God, how 
ever, they do expect retribution for the wicked, both 
here (vv. 18-21 27) and (apparently) hereafter (v. 19 f. ). 

We have now done with the question of individual 

immortality so far as it is dealt with in the OT. In 

Job it emerges merely as an aspiration. 

oo Tfoaiilr ao - " 

di. iiesuiL as Only in pss 49 and 73 ^ if Qur interpre . 
in ivi ua tat j on j s yalid) joes it rise to the stage 
^ of conviction. The evidence, there 
fore, in favour of an origin not later than 400 B.C. is far 
from strong. Even were it wholly wanting, however, we 
should be obliged, by the logical necessities of thought, 
to postulate the doctrine. The doctrine of an individual 
immortality of the righteous, and the doctrine of the 
Messianic kingdom are presupposed as the chief factors 
of the complex doctrine of the Resurrection which was 
developed towards the close of the fourth century or at 
latest early in the third century. With the evolution of 
this resurrection hope, however, the entire doctrine of 
individual immortality falls absolutely into the back 
ground, and is not again attested, till the growing 
dualism of the times leads to the disintegration of the 
resurrection hope into its original elements about 100 
B.C. (see 64). Indeed, never in Palestinian Judaism 
down to the Christian era did the doctrine of a merely 
individual immortality appeal to any but a few isolated 
thinkers. The faithful looked forward to a blessed 
future only as members of a holy people, as citizens of a 
righteous kingdom that should embrace their brethren. 

II. THE NATION. When we turn to the eschato- 

1 H. Schultz (A T Theol. 760) rejects these translations. 
With glory is that adopted by Driver (Par. Ps. 211) and 
formerly by Che. (Psalttts). * Psalms, SOT(Heb.) 88. 

8 i.e., the glory of God and of Israel and its members in the 
Messianic age (Jew. Rel. Life, 240). 

4 Syntax, 319 (pointed out to the writer by Prof. Cheyne). 

5 Schwally (Das Leben, etc., 128 f.) denies this. For a much 
fuller statement of the present writer s view see his Doctrine of 
a Future Life, 73-77. 



logical ideas that concern the nation as a whole we can 

A t-^v*^i hardly venture to go beyond the 

34. Eschatology , , 

retrardine the f:icts and hopes contamed m the P r - 
nation phecies. In the main these cluster 

at the outset round the familiar con 
ception of the day of Yahwe. The day of Yahwe in 
itself, however, constitutes not the blessed future, but 
only the divine act of judgment which inaugurates it. 
Hence the eschatology of the nation centres in the future 
national blessedness introduced by the day of Yahwe. 

This future was variously conceived. According to 
the popular conception down to the eighth century, it 
was merely a period of material and unbroken pros 
perity which the nation should enjoy through Yahwe s 
overthrow of Israel s national foes. This conception 
gave place, however, in the eighth century, to the pro 
phetic doctrine of the coming kingdom, for the realisa 
tion of which two factors, and only two, were indis 
pensable. This kingdom was to be a community of 
Israelites first and chiefly, and in the next place a 
community in which God s -will should be fulfilled. 
Whether this kingdom was constituted under monarchi 
cal, hierarchical, or purely theocratic forms was in itself 
a matter of indifference. Since the Messiah formed no 
organic part of the conception, he was sometimes con 
ceived as present at its head, sometimes as absent. 
How far the eighth century prophets foretold this 
kingdom is still an unsettled question. As regards the 
day of Yahwe there is no such critical difficulty. Our 
study of the eschatology of the nation will begin with 
this unquestioned element in Israel s expectations. It is 
with a development of some complexity that we shall 
have to deal a complexity most marked in exilic and 
post-exilic times, where, as we have seen, the individual 
no less than the nation began to maintain his claims to 
righteous treatment. Ezekiel s attempt to satisfy these 
claims will demand our attention afterwards. Some 
centuries later what he had essayed to do was achieved 
in a true synthesis of the eschatologies relating to the 
nation and to the individual respectively (see 49). 

The day of Yahwe concerns the people as a whole, 
not the individual. It is essentially the day on which 

_. f Yahwe manifests himself in victor} over 
38. iJay ot , c A . ,!, uu 


. . , 
popular idea. 

f es - Amongst the Hebrews, as 
sometimes among the Arabs, day had 

Definite signification of day of 
battle (e.g. , Is. 9 3 [4] the day of Midian ; see WRS 
Prophets^, 397). The belief in this day was older 
than any written prophecy. In the time of Amos it 
was a popular expectation. Unethical and nationalistic, 
it was adopted by the prophets and transformed into a 
conception of thoroughly ethical and universal signifi 
cance. It assumed the following forms. 

(i. ) Popular conception ; a judgment on Israel s 
enemies. This conception orfginated, no doubt, in the 
old limited view of Yahwe as merely the national god 
of Israel. We can distinguish two stages. 

(a) In its earlier form it was held by the contem 
poraries of Amos (8th century B.C.). The relation of 
Yahwe to Israel in their minds was not ethical ; to a 
large extent it was national (Am. 82). Israel s duty 
was to worship Yahwe and Yahwe s was to protect 
Israel. As the Israelites were punctual in the perform 
ance of ceremonial duties (4s 5521/1), they not only 
confidently looked forward to, but also earnestly prayed 
for, the day of Yahwe as the time of his vindication 
of them against their enemies. 1 Not so, says the 
prophet. It is a day in which, not the claims of Israel, 
but the righteousness of Yahwe, will be vindicated 
against wrong-doing whether in Israel or in its enemies. 

(b) The primitive conception of the day of Yahwe 
_ . . was revived by Nahum and Habak- 

_:r T W 1 : kuk : there was to be a judgment of 
fe y Nah - Hab - Israel s enemies i. e. . the Gentiles 

1 This belief that Yahwe must save his people survived, 
despite the prophets, till the captivity of Judah in 586 B.C. 



(650-600 B. C. ). It was the bitterness and resentment en 
gendered by the sufferings of the Israelites at the hands 
of their oppressors that led to this revival. The grounds, 
however, on which the expectation of the intervention 
of Yahwe was based were somewhat different. Accord 
ing to the primitive view Yahwe was bound to intervene 
on behalf of his people because of the natural affinities 
between them. According to Nahum and Habakkuk, 1 
the affinities are ethical. In fact, such was the self- 
righteousness generated by Josiah s reforms that neither 
Nahum nor Habakkuk makes any mention of Israel s 
sin. In this they represent their people, who felt them 
selves, in contrast with the wickedness of the Gentiles, 
relatively righteous (see Hab. 1413). Hence the im 
pending judgment will strike not righteous Israel, but 
the godless Gentiles. Here we have the beginnings of 
the thought that Israel is right, regarded as over against 
the world the beginning, for in Nahum and Habakkuk 
this view is applied only to a singJe nation, not, as in 
later times, to all Gentiles. The later usage of designat 
ing the Gentiles absolutely as the godless (o yy-i) and 
Judah as the righteous (opns) is only the legitimate fruit 
of Habakkuk s example. Cp Is. 26 10 Pss. 9 5 [6] 16 [i 7 ]/. 
102-4 58io[n] 68 2 [ 3 ]/ 125s. In most subsequent 
representations of the future the destruction of the 
Gentiles stands as a central thought. 

(ii. ) Prophetic pre-exilic conception. The prophetic 
conception also passed through several stages. 

(a) A day of judgment directed mainly against Israel. 

For Amos, as we have seen, the day of Yahwe 2 is the 

_ . day in which Yahwe intervenes to vindicate 

, ,f himself and his righteous purposes. It 

" P appears in this prophet only in its darker 

ideas. side ( cp 5l8 }_ other nations will feel it in 
proportion to their unrighteousness ; but unrighteous 
Israel, being specially related to Yahwe, wfll experience 
the severest judgments (82). Hosea is of one mind 
with Amos. 3 He does not use the phrase the day of 
Yahwe ; but he describes in awful terms the irreversible- 
ness of the judgment (Hos. 1812-14 [11-13]). (AMOS, 
i8/., HOSEA, 7 /.). 

(3) Mainly against Judah. In Isaiah 4 and Micah 
the day of Yahwe receives a new application ; it is 
_ , _ directed against Judah. Not that warnings 
T , of judgment against Israel are neglected 
1 (26-2! 8 1-4 98 \_i\ff. 176-n 28 1-4). The 
prophet takes all the chief surrounding nations within 
his range ; but he does so only in relation to the judg 
ment on his own people. Although he declares that 
Yahwe s purpose of breaking Assyria concerns all 
the nations (1425/1 ), there is no evidence to show that 
he arrived at the conception of a universal or world 
judgment. In 3 13, where there appears to be a reference 
to it, the text is corrupt. 5 The idea of its universality 
seems to be given in 2 11-21 ; but the language is 

Isaiah had now and then gleams of hope, and at all 
times believed in a remnant, however minute. In 
124-26 he even anticipates a second and happier Jewish 
state. Micah, on the other hand, as far as the evidence 
goes, was persistently hopeless. Jerusalem was to 
become a ruin, and the temple -hill like a height 

1 On the interpolations in these prophets, see NAHUM, 

2 This day of Yahwe, in its double character as a day of 
punishment and a day of blessing, is also spoken of as that 
day (Is. 17? 302 3 285 29 18 Hos. 2i8 Mic. 24 46 Siofo] Zech. 
9i6 14469), that time (Jer. 31 1 8815 50 4 Zeph. Siof. Joel 
3 [4] i), the day (Ezek. 7io Mic. 3e), the time (Ezek. 7 12). 

3 On the interpolated passages, see AMOS, ?,_ff~., HOSEA, 4. 

4 The present article builds on the critical results of the 
article ISAIAH [the book] ; see also ISAIAH [the prophet]. 
Hence the following passages which deal with the Messianic age 
and the Messiah are rejected as interpolations (they are assigned 
to the exilic or post -exilic period by Cheyne ; generally also by 
Duhm, Hackmann, Marti, and Vnlz) ; Is. 2 2-4 4a-6 7 14-16 9 1-7 
[823-96] 11 16s ^ 18-25 256-9 28i629 17-24 35 i-io. On the age 
of the conception of world -judgment, cp Che. Intr. Is., 53 246. 

6 For croy read, with , ioy (see SBOT, Heb., ad loc.*). 



crowned with brushwood (Mic. 3 12 ; see Nowack). Cp 
ISAIAH i. , MICAH ii. 

(c\ Against the whole world resulting in a survival 
of a righteous remnant of Israel, the Messianic kingdom. 

39. Later; 

_ In the prophets with whom we have dealt 

(except Nah. and Hab. ) the judgment of the 

Gentiles is never conceived independently of 
the judgment on Israel or Judah. In Zephaniah for the 
first time it appears to be universal. It deals with the 
whole earth, including the brute creation (l2/. ) : with 
Jerusalem (18-13); with Philistia, Ethiopia, and Assyria 
(2i-6) j 1 with all nations (38) ; with all the inhabitants 
of the earth (Ii8). There is, however, a certain incon 
sistency in the picture. The instruments of judgment 
are a mysterious people, called the guests of Yahwe 
(1 7 , probably the Scythians), who do not themselves 
come within the scope of the judgment. 

The conception is thus wanting in definiteness and 
clearness. Zephaniah moves in the footsteps of Isaiah 
in the account of the impending judgment ; but whereas, 
in Isaiah, judgment on Israel and the nations stands in 
inner connection with the prophet s conception of the 
divine character and purposes, in Zephaniah it is with 
out definite aim ; 2 its various constituents appear to 
represent eschatological expectations already current, 
while its wide sweep shows the operation of the prevail 
ing monotheism. One point in the description is that, 
in order that Yahwe s anger may destroy them, the 
nations are to be assembled (3 2). We meet with this 
idea here for the first time. 

Later prophets make it very prominent (Ezek. 38 f. Is. 45 20 
636 6616 34 1-3 Zech. 123^C 14 zf.) ; earlier prophets are wont to 
mention definite and present foes (e.g., the Assyrians in Is. 
17i2yC). In later prophets, the scene of this judgment on the 
Gentiles is Jerusalem (Zech. 14 2 12-18 ; Joel3[4]2 Is. 6615). 
A small righteous remnant will be left in Israel (3 11-14). 

(iii. ) Exilic conception; judgment of Israel, man by 
man, and of the Gentiles collectively ; restoration 

40 At th 
_ .. 

m tne Messianic kingdom 
and destruction of Gentiles. 3 The indi 

vidualising of religion in Jeremiah and 
Ezekiel (see above, 23 f.) was the precondition of the 
restoration of Israel after the fall of Jerusalem. 
According to Ezekiel, in God s visitations only the 
wicked in Israel should be destroyed. When a new 
Israel was thus created, Yahwe would further intervene 
to vindicate his honour and his sole sovereignty over 
the world, Israel should be restored to its own land, 
and the Gentiles be destroyed. 

A synthesis of the eschatologies of the nation and the 
individual was in this way attempted wholly within the 
sphere of this life. We are thus entering on a new 
period in the development of eschatological thought. 
Israel is already in exile or on the eve of exile ; but 
Yahwe s thoughts are thoughts of peace, not of evil 
(Jer. 29 n) : the exile will be temporary. The day of 
Yahwe assumes a favourable aspect almost unrecognised 
in pre-exilic prophecy. Israel shall be converted and 
brought back to its own land and an everlasting Mes 
sianic kingdom established. This kingdom will be 
ruled over by Yahwe or by his servant the Messiah, 
who is apparently mentioned here for the first time. 

1 This idea of the destruction of the nations hostile to Judah 
thus appears first in the prophets of the Chaldean age ; cp Jer. 
2515-24. In the earlier prophets it is the destruction of definite 
present or past foes that is announced. In the later it is that of 
the nations generally : cp the Jewish reviser s addition in Jer. 
25 32./: Ezek.38yr, fifth-century passages in Is. 34 63 1-6 Zech. 
12 1-3, and the much later writings Is. 6616 18-24 Zech. 14 1-3 

2 Interpolations must be carefully separated (see ZEPHANIAH, 

3 This is true only of Ezekiel. There is nothing in the 
genuine Jeremiah about the destruction of the Gentiles as a 
whole, and there is rjrobably in 16 19 (but not in 3 17) a genuine 
prophecy of the ultimate conversion of the nations. See also 
42 12 15. Only the impenitent Gentiles will be destroyed (12 17). 
Jeremiah and Ezekiel are here fundamentally at issue. It is 
their agreement on other points that led to their joint treatment 




Although the judgment of Israel is not strictly 
individualistic in Jeremiah as it is in Ezekiel, we shall 
give the eschatological views of the two together ; they 
can hardly be considered apart ; Ezekiel s are built on 
Jeremiah s. In Jeremiah l the day of Yahwe is directed 

T _ first and chiefly against Judah the 
. . enemy will come upon it from the north 

aian - (1 11-16); the city and temple shall be 
destroyed (376-io) although account is taken also 
of other nations (2515-24 ; cp 1 18). There is, however, 
a hopeful outlook ; Israel shall be restored (23 7 f. 
24 5 /. ). The restoration is to be preceded by 
repentance (813 19-25), and accompanied by a change 
of heart (3133/1). Restored to its own land, Israel 
shall receive from Yahwe a king, a righteous Branch of 
the house of David, who shall deal wisely and execute 
judgment and justice (23s/! ). 2 

The individualism appearing in Jeremiah is developed 
in Ezekiel to an extreme degree. Judgment on Israel 

42 In Ezekiel sha11 P roceed individually (only on 
!1 the Gentiles is it to be collective). 
Yahwe will give Israel a new heart (1117-21 8625-32) 
and restore Israel and Judah to their own land, where, 
in the Messianic kingdom (1722-24), they shall be ruled 
by the Messiah (2127), by one king, namely David 3 
(3423-31 3721-28). As for the Gentiles, referred to as 
Gog, they shall be stirred up to march against Jerusalem 
and shall there be destroyed (38). On the surviving 
Gentiles no gleam of divine compassion shall ever light. 4 
Monotheism has become a barren dogma. Particular 
ism and Jewish hatred of the Gentiles are allowed free 

(iv. ) Universalistic Conception of the Kingdom (550- 
275 B.C.) ; redemption and earthly Messianic blessed- 

, _ , ness for Israel and thus for the Gentiles. 5 
43. oeconu -.,r . . 

_ . , We are now to consider (a) the second 

B la Isaiah and (&) later writers. 
(a) According to the second Isaiah (Is. 40-48) and 
his expander (Is. 49-55) there is in store for Israel not 
punishment but mercy. 

Already she has received double for all her sins (402). Cyrus 
shall overthrow Babylon (4125 43 14 45-47 48nf.), and the 
exiles shall return (463-5432-74820-22 49s). Jerusalem shall 
be gloriously rebuilt (54 n f.), and its inhabitants become (like 
the prophetic writer, 604) disciples of the divine teacher (54 13). 
Never more shall it be assailed (4924-26 548-io 14-17). 

Further, the salvation of Israel does not end in itself. 
The author of the Songs of the Servant 6 reaches the 
great conception of Israel as the Servant of Yahwe 
(423/1 49 1-6 504-952i3-53i2), through whom all nations 
shall come to know the true religion. In these writers 
the legitimate consequences of monotheism in relation 
to the Gentiles are accepted. 

(6) A somewhat similar representation of the future 
appears in the post-exilic passage Mic. 4 1-3 ( = Is. 22-4) 

44 Other later and the later additions in J en 3l 7/> 
.. according to which all nations, laying 

aside wars and enmities, are to be con 
verted and to form under Yahwe one great spiritual 
empire with Jerusalem as its centre. 7 

1 See JEREMIAH [Book of], and JEREMIAH [th prophet]. 
Interpolations must be separated, before Jeremiah can be 
properly understood. 

2 On this passage, as well as on other late Messianic prophecies, 
see Che. few. Kel. Life, Lect. iii. Cp also MESSIAH. 

3 The Messiah is not conceived here as an individual but as 
a series of successive kings ; cp 458 46 16. 

* Some scholars find in 17 23 a promise that the Gentiles will 
seek refuge under the rule of the Messiah ; but 1724 shows that 
this interpretation is unsound. The Gentiles are symbolized, 
not by the birds of various wings in 17 23, but by the trees of 
the field (17 24). As the cedar (17 23) represents the kingdom 
of Israel, so the trees of the field represent the Gentile 
kingdoms. The only object with which the latter seem to be 
spared is that they may recognise the omnipotence of Yahwe. 

8 See Che. Jew. ReL Life, lect. iii. and vi. 

6 A like conception is probably at the base of the post-exilic 
Is. ll9 = Hab. 2 14 (both editorial additions?), which declare that 
the earth shall be filled with the true religion. 

7 See ISAIAH ii., 5, and cp Che. Jew. Rel. Life, lect. iii. 


The same thought 1 is set forth in the Psalms. 

See 2227-31 [28-32] 867 and note the fine expressions thou 
confidence of all the ends of the earth 2 (65 5 [6]), and to thee 
doth all flesh come as to one who hears prayer (05 2 [3]). In 
Ps. 87 we have a noble conception which sums up in itself all the 
noblest thought of the past in this ilirection. Jerusalem is to be 
the mother city of all nations, the metropolis of an ideally 
Catholic Church (Che.). Whole nations shall enter the Jewish 
Church (874). So shall also individuals (? . 5). 

Only two more passages, Is. 19 16-25 and Mai. In 
call for attention ; but these are beyond measure re 
markable. In Is. 19 16-25 (275 B.C.; Che.) the hopes of 
Ps. 87 reappear but are far surpassed in universality. 
Jerusalem, though the source of spiritual blessedness to 
Egypt and Assyria (Syria), is neither nationally nor 
spiritually paramount ; rather do these nations form a 
spiritual and national confederacy in which Israel holds 
not the first but the third place. 

The widest universalism of all, however, is found in 
Mai. In, where in regard to the surrounding nations 
the prophet declares From the rising of the sun even 
unto the going down of the same my name is great 
among the Gentiles ; and in every place incense is 
offered unto my name, and a pure offering. Here, as 
most critics recognise, we have a testimony to the work 
ing of the one divine spirit in non-Jewish religions (cp 
MALACHI, 3). Similar universalism had already, it 
appears, been expressed by Zoroastrianism. 4 

( v. ) Narrmv Nationalistic Conception of the Kingdom 
(about 520 to 300 B.C.); deliverance and Messianic 
4B N t" 1 Blessedness for Israel: 5 (a) ministry or 
* + p 1 bondage, or (6) destruction (partial or 

tion 106 " com P lete ) for the Gentiles. 6 Concur 
rently with the large-hearted universalism 
(of the post-exilic writers) just described, there were 
narrow one-sided views, which held more or less closely to 
the particularism that originated with Ezekiel. Such were 
the views most widely current in Judaism. According to 
these the future world, the Messianic age, belonged to 
Israel to Judah and Israel reunited (Hos. 3 5 Mic. 53[2j^ 
post-exilic) under the Messianic descendant of David 
(Is. 9i-6 [823-95] 11 1-8 Mic. 52-4 [1-3]; all exilic or 
later) ; the Gentiles had either no share at all, or only 
a subordinate share as dependents or servants of Israel. 
Their destiny was subjection or destruction- generally 
the latter, always so in the case of those that had been 
hostile to Israel. 

(a) The Gentiles are to escort the- returning Israelites to 
Jerusalem and become their servants and handmaids, Is. 14 1-3" 
(cp 66 12-20). They shall build up the city walls (60 ip), bow and 
be subject to Israel, 60 14 (or perish, (>0i2), becoming Israel s 
herdsmen and ploughmen and vinedressers (61 5)." 

(b) Still more frequently what is predicted for the Gentiles is 
destruction. In 34_/J (450-430 B.C. ; Che.) there is described a 
universal judgment in which all of them are thus involved 
(34i-3). 9 In the fifth-century fragment 59 15^-20 those hostile 
to Yahwe and Israel 1(l are singled out, whilst those that fear the 
name of Yahwe are spared 59i8yT 6616 19 f. (666-16 18^-22 
belong to the age of Nehemiah and Ezra); I 1 but in another 

1 Cp also the addition in Zeph. 3 9 / 

2 Cp also 256 in the small apocalypse in Is.24 256-8 26 zof. 
27 i 12 f. This Che. assigns to the fourth century, Duhm to 
the second. The later date would help to explain the very 
advanced eschatology appearing in 2421-23, which speaks of a 
preliminary judgment and then after a long interval of the final 
judgment. On the latter judgment follows the theocratic 
kingdom (24 23). 

3 On the expectation of proselytes see also Is. 14 i 256 6636 

* Che. OPs. 292, 305 f. 

5 There are many passages in the post-exilic additions to Is. 
which speak of Israel only in relation to the Messianic age ; cp 
4 2-6 29 16-24 35 i-io. 

6 The only exception is Malachi. 

7 Cheyne regards these verses as alien to 132-1421. 

8 These passages are post-exilic ; 60 and 61 about 432 B.C. 

9 We have a world-judgment described in 186-13, though the 
judgment is there directed primarily against Babylon (cp 
185 n), just as in 34 it is specially directed against Edom. 

1" In the post-exilic (?) passage 9 1-7 it is the Messiah who 
destroys the oppressors of Israel (e r . 4). This active role of the 
Messiah is rare in the OT. 

11 Cp the world-judgment in the fourth-century apocalypse in 
Is. 24 256-8, where, after the judgment (2418-23), tne surviving 



fragment of the same date (G3i-6), which closely resembles the 
preceding passage in subject and phraseology, only destruction 
is announced for all. 

In Haggai and Zechariah," where the establishment of 
the Messianic kingdom is expected on the completion 
of the temple 1 (Zech. 8 15), to be rebuilt by the Messiah, 2 
a pre-condition is the destruction of the Gentile powers. 
We have, thus, a further development of that opposition 
between the kingdom of God and the world-kingdoms 
which appears in Ezekiel and is presented in its sharpest 
features in Daniel. See, e.g. , Zech. 1 19-21 [22-4] 61-8, 
Hag. 2 21 /. 

In Joel (4th Cent. ; cp JOEL, 4) the enemies of 

Judah who are not present foes but the nations generally, 

are to be gathered together in order to 

46. In Joel, etc. te annihilated ( 3 [ 4 ] ^ Even the 

place of judgment is mentioned the valley of Jehosha- 
phat, the choice being obviously determined by the 
etymological meaning of the name. Yahwe will sit in 
judgment (3 [4] 12) and all the Gentiles shall be destroyed. 
This is a nearer approximation to the idea of a final 
world-judgment than there is elsewhere in the OT save 
in Dan. ?9/. Still the judgment is one-sided. The 
day of Yahwe does not, as in the pre-exilic and 
some exilic prophets and the exceptional post-exilic 
Mai. 82-5 4 1-3 5 [3 19-21 23], morally sift Israel ; it serves 
to justify Israel (225-27 3i6/. ) against the world (cp 
the interpolation in the Second Isaiah, i.e., 4625). See 
JOEL, 6. 

With Joel and his successors prophecy is beginning 
to change into apocalypse. The forecasts do not, as 
a rule, stand in a living relation with the present ; 
frequently they are the results of literary reflection on 
earlier prophecies. This lack of organic relation with 
the present, such as we find in the earlier prophets, is 
specially clear in Joel s day of Yahwe. 

According to the late post-exilic fragment Zech. 12 1- 
13 6, 3 all the Gentiles while making an attack on 
Jerusalem shall be destroyed before it (12s/ 9), whereas 
in the still later fragment, chap. 14, it is only the hostile 
nations that are to be annihilated (Zech. 14 12 f. ), the 
remnant being converted to Judaism and led to attend 
the yearly feast of Tabernacles (Zech. 14? 16-21). This 
fragment is peculiar also in postponing divine intervention 
till Jerusalem is in the hands of the Gentiles (14/1 ). 

In the apocalypse of Daniel there is a great advance 
on the eschatological ideas of its predecessors. When 
the need of the saints is greatest (7 2i/. 
12 T in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes) 

the Ancient of Days will intervene ; his tribunal shall be 
set up (7 9) ; the powers of this world shall be over 
thrown (7n/-), and everlasting dominion given to his 
holy ones (7 14 22 27). These will destroy all rival powers 
(244), and become lords of all the surviving nations 
(7 14). To the contrasted fates of the faithful and the 
unfaithful in Israel who have deceased (12 1-3) we 
shall return ( 59). 

In defiance of historical sequence we have reserved 

to the last the consideration of the composite chapters 

T C^ f Is ^ f- Tne Y cal l f r special treat - 

oo/. ment because they seem to present a 

new development as regards the scene of the Messianic 

kingdom there are to be new heavens and a new earth. 4 


Gentiles shall be admitted to the worship of Yahwe 25 6. It is 
very remarkable that in 242iyC we read of an intermediate 
place of punishment. The judgment, therefore, appears to be 
conceived as consisting of two distinct acts. The clause 25 8a 
declaring the annihilation of death appears to be an interpola 
tion. It is against the general drift of the content, and wholly 
alien to the thought-development of the period. 

1 For Yahwe the temple is indispensable as his dwelling-place. 
This thought is apocalyptic. It is not through moral reforma 
tion but through divine intervention that the kingdom is to be 

2 After the example of Jer. 23s 33 15 Zechariah names him 
1 the Branch (6 12 38 /). He identifies him with Zerubbabel (cp 
Hag. 26-9 23). 

3 See ZECHARIAH ii., T,ff. 
* Cp Che. OPs. 404 jf. 



We must not be misled by appearances, however. 
When, in chap. 65, Jerusalem is to be especially blessed 
it is to be transformed into a blessing (65 18) the 
reference is apparently not to a New Jerusalem. It 
is the same material Jerusalem as before, but super - 
naturally blessed ; men still build houses and plant 
vineyards (652i/~. ), sinners are still found (6620), * and 
death still prevails. 6617, therefore, where the creation 
of new heavens and a new earth is proclaimed, seems 
out of place. In the Messianic times here foreshadowed 
men live to a patriarchal age, and the animal world, as 
in an earlier prophecy (11 6-9), loses its ferocity and 
shares in the prevailing peace and blessedness (6525). 
In 666-16 I &b f. we have a fragmentary apocalypse (see 
Che. Intr. Is. 374-385) which describes the judgment 
of the hostile nations (6616 

Those of the Gentiles who escape are to go to the more 
distant peoples and declare the divine glory (Ofi 19). Thereupon 
the latter are to go up to Jerusalem, escorting the returning 

This apocalypse concludes with a remarkable reference to the 
new heavens and the new earth, which is all but unintelligible. 
Does the new creation take place at the beginning of the 
Messianic kingdom? or at its close? By neither supposition can 
we overcome the inherent difficulties of the text. If the new 
creation is to be taken literally, it can only be supposed to be 
carried out at the close of the Messianic kingdom ; but this 
kingdom has apparently no close. Either, then, the expression 
is used loosely and vaguely, or and the present writer inclines 
to this view 6622 is a later intrusion. 2 

III. SYNTHESIS. Concurrently with the establishment 
if the Messianic hope in the national consciousness (see 

8 34) the claims of the individual had, 
49 Synthesis. 

J as we have seen, pressed themselves 

irresistibly on the notice of religious thinkers so irre 
sistibly in fact that no representation of the future 
which failed to render them adequate satisfaction could 
hope for ultimate acceptance. The two questions 
naturally came to be regarded as essentially related. 
The righteous individual and the righteous nation must 
be blessed together or rather the righteous man must 
ultimately be recompensed, not with a solitary im 
mortality in heaven or elsewhere but with a blessed 
resurrection life with his brethren in the coming 
Messianic kingdom. If, as we have seen, the doctrine 
of an individual immortality failed to establish itself in 
the OT, the grounds of such a failure were not far to 
seek, and the very objections against the belief in a 
blessed immortality of the righteous man apart from 
the righteous community are actual arguments in favour 
of the resurrection of the righteous to a share in the 
Messianic kingdom. 

The doctrine of a resurrection is clearly enunciated in 

two passages of great interest, (a) as a spiritual concep 

tion in Is. 261-19, and (6) as a mechanical conception in 

p Dan. 12. (a) Is. 26 1-19 forms an inde- 

50. Kesurrec- p enc j ent writing composed, according to 

tionmis./b Cheyne about 334 BC The writer> 

Dan. 1-. who S p ea k s ; n the name of the people, 

looks forward to the setting up of the kingdom, with a 

strong city, whose walls and bulwarks are salvation, and 

whose gates will be entered by the righteous nation 

(26 1/.) ; and since the nation is but few, the righteous 

dead shall rise and share the blessedness of the regenerate 

nation (26 19). This notable verse should, with Duhm 

nnd Cheyne, be read as follows: Thy dead men 

(Israel) shall arise : the inhabitants of the dust shall 

1 Unless 652o is a gloss, as Haupt thinks (SBOT, Heb. 
ad loc.). 

2 Is. 51 16 and 60 19 can hardly be quoted in support of 6617 
1)622, for in the last two passages the language is obviously meant 
to be literal, whereas in the former it is metaphorical. 

A synthesis of these two eschatologies, of the individual and 
of the nation, was attempted by Ezekiel wholly within the sphere 
of this life. The reconciliation, however, was achieved only 
through a misconception and misrepresentation of the facts of 
the problem. Still this doctrine of retribution gave such general 
satisfaction that the need of a theory that would do justice to 
the facts of the problem was not experienced save by isolated 
thinkers till the close of the fourth century K.c. 



awake l and shout for joy ; 2 for a dew of lights is 
thy dew, and the earth shall bring to life the shades. 3 

This positive belief in the resurrection of the right 
eous did not win its way into acceptance, however, 
till over a century later. Still, that it gained some 
currency and underwent some development in the 
interval is obvious from the next and only remaining 
passage which attests it in the OT. 

(l>) In Dan. 122(168 B.C.), which seems to be based on 
Is. 26i9, 4 there is an extension of the statement. The 
resurrection here is not only of the righteous but also 
of the wicked, 5 who are to rise in order to receive their 
due reward shame and everlasting contempt. 6 The 
resurrection moreover ushers in the Messianic kingdom 
(12 1). This spiritual form of the resurrection doctrine 
is the genuine product of Jewish inspiration ; for all its 
factors are indigenous to Jewish thought. 

Between the rise of the doctrine enunciated in Is. 26 
and Dan. 12 a considerable period must have elapsed, 
sufficiently long to account for the loss of the original 
significance of the resurrection as a restoration, in the 
next world, of the life of communion with God which 
had been broken off by death. During this interval the 
spiritual doctrine passed into a lifeless dogma. In Is. 26 
it was the sole prerogative of the righteous Israelite, 
now,, it is extended to the pre-eminently good and the 
pre-eminently bad in Israel. Without any consciousness 
of impropriety the writer of Daniel can speak of the 
resurrection of the wicked. Thus severed from the 
spiritual root from which it grew the resurrection is trans 
formed into a sort of eschatological property, a device 
by means of which the members of the nation are pre 
sented before God to receive their final award. The 
doctrine must therefore have been familiar to the Jews 
for several generations before Daniel. 


Before entering on the further development of Jewish 
eschatology, it will be helpful to sum up shortly the 
_ . results arrived at by the writers whom we 
01. Keview. have already cons idered. We find in 
them an eschatology that to a large extent takes its 
character from the conception of Yahwe. As long as 
his jurisdiction was conceived as limited to this life, 
there could be no such eschatology with reference to 
the individual. When at last, however, Israel reached 
real monotheism, the way was prepared for the moral - 
isation of the future no less than of the present. The 
exile contributed to this development by making possible 
a truer conception of the individual. The individual, 
not the nation, became the religious unit. Step by step 
through the slow processes of the religious life, the 

1 The designation of death as a sleep did not arise from the 
resurrection hope. It is found in books that are unacquainted 
with that hope. Death is described as sleep in Gen. 47 30 
Dt. 31 16 Job 7 21 14 1 2, as the eternal sleep in Jer. 6139 57. In 
the later period, therefore, in which the belief in the resurrection 
was finally established, when the state of the departed is 
described as a sleep, the word must in no case be taken in its 
literal meaning. 

- vn ar >d 71^33 are omitted by these scholars as interpolations, 
and instead of Urn J3J they read Wrn pni. 

3 See Che. Intr. Is. 158, and cp OPs. 403 f. 

* Cp the inhabitants of the dust shall awake and many that 
sleep in the land of dust shall awake. 

5 This resurrection to punishment, or a belief perfectly akin, 
is found in contemporary work; 24 256-8 262oyC 27 1 12 f., a 
fragmentary apocalypse of 3^4 B.C. (Che.). Thus in 242I./I, the 
host of heaven i.e., angelic rulers of the nation and the kings 
of the earth are to be imprisoned in the pit and, after many 
days, to be visited with punishment. Cp Eth. En. 549025. 
According to later views God does not punish a nation until he 
has first humiliated its angelic patron (Shir-rabba 276). More 
over the future judgment of the Gentile nations will be preceded 
by the judgment of their angelic chiefs (Beshallach 13 [see Weber, 
L. d. Talmud, 165]). 

6 The many who are condemned here are Jewish apostates. 
The place into which they are cast is evidently Gehenna, though 
the term does not appear in OT with this special penal sense. 
The place is referred to also in Is. 6624 and probably in 50 n. 



religious thinkers of Israel were led to a moral concep 
tion of the future life and to the certainty of their share 
therein. These beliefs were reached, not through 
deductions of reason, as in Greece, but through spiritual 
crises deep as the human personality and wide as 
human life. 

[At this point a caution must be offered to the student. 

The study of the religious content of eschatological 

52 Com ideas is to some extent distinct from 

tive Eschat ttlat ^ ts * rm< nor can e i tner religious 
. " or literary criticism (to the latter of 

which special attention is given here) 
enable us to dispense with the help of the comparative 
historical study of the religious ideas of those peoples 
which came most into contact with the Jewish. Some 
excellent introductions to Biblical Theology are based, 
consciously or unconsciously, on the principle that the 
movement of religious thought in Israel was completely 
independent of external stimulus. There can be no 
greater mistake. Students of Jewish religion can no 
longer avoid acquainting themselves with Babylonio- 
Assyrian, Egyptian, Zoroastrian, and Greek religion, 
and using any further collateral information that they 
can get. 1 The abundance of fresh literary material for 
the study of eschatology as it took form in Jewish minds 
is our excuse for not, in this article, bringing Jewish 
eschatology into relation to other eschatologies, more 
especially Babylonian and Persian. The article would 
have become disproportionately long if we had adopted 
the course which is theoretically the only right one. It 
must also be remembered that the spiritual crises 
referred to above were conditioned by crises in the 
history of the nation. We are far from denying that 
the spirit as well as the wind, breatheth where it 
listeth. Even the spirit of revelation, however, cannot 
work on unprepared minds. Jewish eschatology there 
fore can be fully sketched only on a canvas larger than 
is here at our disposal, and this article must be supple 
mented by reference to a group of other articles, includ 
ing especially ANTICHRIST and PERSIA (the part dealing 
with religion). On the narrative in Gen. 24*5-3 which 
influenced directly or indirectly so many later writers, 
reference should be made, for the mythic form of the 
ideas, to CREATION, 20 (c). ED.] 

In the writings (Apocryphal, Apocalyptic, etc.) that 

we are now to consider, the eschatological ideas of the 

_ ... later prophets are reproduced and further 

f Mth d devel P ed - We sha11 find il convenient 
to deal with this literature in three chrono 
logical periods ; I. 200-100 ( 51-63), II. 100-1 B.C. 
( 64-70), III. i-ioo A.D. ( 71-81). In treating 
each of these periods, after (a) a general account of its 
thought and (/>) an account of the various works it pro 
duced, we shall show in detail (c) the development of 
certain special conceptions viz. (i) Soul and spirit, (2) 
Judgment, (3) Places of abode for the departed, (4) 
Resurrection, (5) Messianic kingdom, Messiah, Gentiles. 
Unlike the rest of the apocalyptic and apocryphal 
books, Ecclus. and Tobit, instead of reproducing and 
_ . p . developing the ideas we have just summar- 
d T h t sed> re P resent tne older and more conser- 
vative views. As lying off the main path 
of religious development and witnessing to still surviving 
primitive elements in Judaism, we shall consider them 
together at the o*utset. 

In Ecclus. the problem of retribution takes a peculiar 

form. On the one hand it is purely conservative. All 

_ . retribution without exception is confined 

. CC US. to t j^ s j-f e . tnere j s . no inquisition of life 

1 See Charles, Doctrine of a Future Life, pp. 24-25 n., 33 n., 
34 n., 57 n., on the relation of the religion of Babylonia to that 
of ancient Israel ; pp. 116 n., 134-136, on the relation of Zoroas- 
trianism to Judaism ; pp. 24 n. , 26-27 n -> 34 n. , 40 n., 57 n. , on 
the analogies between the primitive religion of Israel and that 
of Greece; and pp. 79 n., 137-151, on the development of the 
doctrine of immortality in Greece as contrasted with that in 




in ShC6l (414). On the other hand it supplements 
Ezekiel s theory of exact individual retribution with the 
older view which he attacked, and seeks to cover its 
obvious defects with the doctrine of the solidarity of the 

A man s conduct must receive its recompense in this life 
(see especially 2ioyC and cp 23-9 9i2 Ylzf. also 1126). Obvi 
ously, however, all men do not meet with their deserts. Hence 
a man s sins are visited through the evil remembrance of his 
name and in the misfortunes of his children after him (1128 
2824-26 40 1 5 415-8). Similarly the posterity of the righteous is 
blessed (447-15). Sheol is the abode of the shades and the region 
of death 1 (9 12 14 12 16 41 4 48 5), where is no delight (14 16), no 
praise of God (1717-28): man is plunged in an eternal sleep 
(4619 22n 30i7 8823).- As regards the future of the nation, 
the writer looks forward to the Messianic kingdom of which 
Elijah is to be the forerunner (48 10), when Israel shall be 
delivered from evil (5023_/T), the scattered tribes restored (8813 = 
AV 3lin), the heathen nations duly punished (32 22-24 = AV 
35isy;). This kingdom of Israel will last for ever (3725 
[so Gk. and Eth. but wanting in Syr.]) 44 13 [so Gk. and Eth. ; 
Heb. and Syr. read memorial instead of seed ]). 

The eschatology of Tobit is very slight. Like the 

earlier books, it entertains high hopes for the Jewish 

_. , ... people. Jerusalem and the temple shall be 

rebuilt with gold and precious stones, the 

scattered tribes shall be restored, and the heathen, for 

saking their idols, shall worship the God of Israel 

(13io-i8 144-6). Sh.651 is taken in the traditional sense 

eternal place, 1 6 aiuvios rtiiros, 3 6. As in Job and in 

Ecclesiastes, Hades (cp 3io 182) is a place where exist 

ence is practically at an end. 

Sarah, the daughter of Raguel, prays : Command my spirit 
to be taken from me, that I may . . . become earth . . . and 
go to the everlasting place (36). This description is accounted 
for by the writer s acceptance of the later doctrine of the spirit 
( 17)- 

We now pass to the writings of the Hasids or Assi- 
deans, a small but important body of zealous Jews, first 
referred to as a religious organisation 
1 in Eth. En. 906 (see note in Charles s 
ed. ). Its rise may be placed at about 200 B.C. 3 The 
Hasids first appear as the champions of the law against 
the Hellenizing Sadducees ; but they were still more the 
representatives of advanced forms of doctrine about the 
Messianic kingdom and the resurrection. The arrange 
ment we shall adopt has been explained already ( 53). 

58. Second I. SECOND CENTURY B.C. 
Cent. B.C. Authorities. 

Ethiopic Enoch 1-36 (ApocA- Sibylline Oracles Prooem- 


LYPTIC, 27). 
Daniel ( 59). 
Ethiopic Enoch 83-90 ( 60). 

mium and 3 97-818. 4 
Test. xii. Patriarchs Some of 

its apocalyptic sections( 61). 
Judith (?) ( 62). 

(a) General esckato logical development. It was under 
the pressure of one of the most merciless persecutions re- 

1 In 21 10 thoughts of the penal character of SheOl do not 
seem to be quite absent. 

2 The reference to Gehenna in 7 17 (e/cSiKTj(ris acre/Sous irvp 
Kal o-KioAjjf) is probably corrupt (om. Syr. Eth. [best MSS]). 
The Hebrew has nDI t?13N JYIpn 3- 

3 On the earlier association of pious Jews called Q"jj; (the 
humbled or humiliated), QIJJ; (the humble), QTDn (the pious, 
covenant-keepers) cp PSALMS ; and on the AcriScuoi of Mace, cp 

4 This, the oldest, portion of the Sibylline oracles dates from 
the latter half of the second century B.C. Since, however, it 
belongs to Hellenistic Judaism, its evidence is not of primary 
interest in the story of Palestinian eschatology, and may ad 
vantageously be relegated to a note. Broadly speaking, we may 
say that it combines^ though not always consistently, various 
earlier descriptions of the future. It shows no trace of original 
thought. Its eschatological forecasts are confined to this world. 
Though so limited, it gives a vivid account of the Messianic 
kingdom. Very soon the people of the Mighty God will grow 
strong (3 194-198), and God will send from the east the Messiah, 
who will put an end to evil war, slaying some and fulfilling the 

Cromises in behalf of others, and he will be guided in all things 
y God. The temple shall be resplendent with glory, and the 
earth teem with fruitfulness (8652-660) [cp Che. OPs. 23]. 
Then the nations shall muster their forces and attack Palestine 
(8660-668); but God will destroy them, and their judgment 
shall be accompanied by fearful portents (8669-697). Israel, how 
ever, shall dwell safely under the divine protection (3 702-709) ; 
and the rest of the cities and the islands shall be converted, and 
unite with Israel in praising God (8710-731). The blessings of 
the Messianic age are recounted (8744-754; cp also 8367-380, 


corded in history that much of the eschatological thought 
of this century was built up. In order to encourage the 
faithful, various religious thinkers consolidated and devel 
oped into more or less consistent theodicies the scattered 
statements and intimations of an eschatological nature 
in the OT. In these theodicies there is no vagueness or 
doubt as to the ultimate destinies of the righteous and 
the wicked. Faith rests in the reasonable axiom that the 
essential distinctions between these classes must one 
day be realised outwardly. The certainty of judgment 
on the advent of the Messianic kingdom, accordingly, is 
preached in the most emphatic tones, and the doctrine 
is taught that at death men enter immediately in Sheol 
on a state of bliss or woe which is but the prelude of 
their final destiny. The righteous, both living and 
dead, shall be recompensed to the full in the eternal 
Messianic kingdom established on earth with its centre 
at Jerusalem. Within the sphere of Judaism it is in 
this second century B.C. that the eschatologies of the 
individual and of the nation attain their most complete 
synthesis (cp below, 82). The firm lines in which 
these eschatological hopes are delineated mark the great 
advance achieved in this period by religious thought. 

(b) The theodicies of the several writers. Eth. En. 
1-36 has been described in detail elsewhere (see APOCA- 
59 Eth En LYPTICi 2 ?)- with re g ard to Daniel, 

1-36; Daniel. 

as the right point of view for studying it 

has been given elsewhere (DANIEL ii. ), 
and we have already noticed its main eschatological 
conceptions (above, 47), we need only observe that 
in it, as in Eth. En. 1-36, the Messianic kingdom is 
eternal, its scene is the earth, and all the Gentiles are 
subject (7i4). There is no Messiah. Those Jews who 
are found written in the book J [of life] shall be 
delivered during the period of the Messianic woes. 
At the resurrection only those Jews who are pre-eminently 
righteous and wicked shall rise from the land of dust " 2 
(i.e., Sh661) to receive their deserts: the righteous to 
inherit aeonian life, the wicked to be cast into Gehenna 3 
(12 2). For the pre-eminently righteous in Israel, there 
fore, Sh25l has become an intermediate abode, though 
for the Gentiles it continues to be final. The risen body 
seems to possess its natural appetites (as in Eth. En. 
1-36). The Messianic kingdom of which the righteous 
are members is one that bears sway over peoples. 

The writer of Daniel makes a very special use of the belief in 
angelic patrons of nations, of which another application will be 
found in the almost contemporaneous work to which we turn 
next viz., Eth. En. 83-90. 

The author of Ethiopic Enoch 83-90, which was 
written a few years later than Eth. En. 1-36 (on which 
see APOCALYPTIC, 27), was a Hasld 

. c . , , . 

and a supporter of the Maccabean 
(B C 166 161) movement - His eschatology is de- 
" " veloped at greater length than that of 
the Daniel apocalypse, to which in many respects it is 
so closely allied. The belief in angelic patrons of 
nations is common, as we have seen, to both writings ; 
but our author applies it in a peculiar way. 




691-723). The kings of the earth shall be at peace with one 
another (3 755-759)- 

In the later section of this book the forecast is somewhat 
different. Though in the earlier part, as we have seen above, 
it was the Messiah that conducted the war against the hostile 
nations, in this it is the prophets of God. Thus God will 
establish a universal kingdom over all mankind, with Jerusalem 
as centre (3 767-771), and the prophets of God shall lay down the 
sword and become judges and kings of the earth (3-?&if.), and 
men shall bring offerings to the temple from all parts of the 
earth (3 jyz/.). 

1 On this eschatological term see Charles, Enoch 131-133. In 
the earlier passages in which it occurs it stands in connection 
with temporal blessings only. 

2 We assume that the reading 1BJ7 riD"IN is correct. For this 
description of Sheol cp Job 17 16, Ps. 22 15, with Cheyne s note 
referring to a similar Assyrian phrase. If this interpretation is 
correct, Sheol, though it has become a temporary abode for the 
righteous, still retains its traditional character. 

3 Cp Che. OPs. 406. 


xii. Patr. 


The undue severities that have befallen Israel are not from 
Clod s hand ; they are the doing of the seventy shepherds (.i.e., 
angels) into whose care God had committed Israel (8959) for 
the destruction of its faithless members. These angels have not 
wronged Israel with impunity, however; for judgment is at hand. 
When their oppression is at its worst there shall be formed a 
righteous league (i.e., the Hasldim ; 906), out of one of the 
families of which shall come forth Judas the Maccabee(!X)7-i6), 
who shall war victoriously against all the enemies of Israel. 

While the struggle is still raging, God will intervene 
in person. 

The earth shall swallow the adversaries of the righteous 
(90 18). The wicked shepherds and the fallen watchers shall 
then be cast into an abyss of fire (i.e., Tartarus; 9020-25), ant 
the blinded sheep i.e., theapostate(Jews) into Gehenna (90 2<>). 
Whether the apostate Jews already dead are to be transferred 
from Sheol does not appear. 

Then God himself will set up the new Jerusalem 
(9028/. ). The surviving Gentiles shall be converted and 
serve Israel (90 30), the dispersion be brought back, 
and the righteous Israelites be raised to take part in 
the kingdom (9033). When all is accomplished, the 
Messiah, whose role is a passive one, shall appear 
(9037), and all shall be transformed into his likeness. 

Until a critical edition of the XII. Patriarchs is 
published, that composite work cannot be quoted as an 
_ , authority. It belongs to very different 
periods. It contains apocalyptic sections 
that appear to belong to the second century 
B.C. ; but the body of the work seems to have been 
written about the beginning of the Christian era. 
There are, moreover, numerous (Christian) interpola 
tions. Many of the apocalyptic sections appear to have 
constituted originally a defence of the warlike Macca- 
bean high priests of the latter half of the second century 
B.C., whilst others 1 seem to attack the later chiefs of 
that family, in the last century B.C. 

It is hardly possible to interpret otherwise such a statement 
regarding Levi as that in Reub. (i ail fin. . He shall die for us 
in wars visible and invisible ; cp Sim. 5. 

Whilst one or more of these sections may be of an 
earlier date, many of them may belong to the last 
century B.C. Since, however, their eschatological 
thought in some respects belongs to the second century 
B. C. , we shall for the sake of convenience deal with it 
here, though in no case shall we build upon it as a 
foundation. 2 

Levi has been chosen by God to rule all the Gentiles with 
supreme sovereignty (Reub. 6). The Messiah of the tribe of 
Levi, who will appear at the close of th^ seventh jubilee, will 
possess an eternal priesthood 3 (Levi 18 ; apoc. sections of Levi = 
J-5 8 10 14-18). This will endure till God comes and restores 
Jerusalem and dwells in Israel (Levi 5). This Messiah will 
judge as a king ; he will bind Beliar, open the gates of Paradise 
and give his saints to eat of the tree of life (Levi 18 cp Eth. En. 
264-6). To the Messianic kingdom on earth, all the righteous 
patriarchs shall rise (Sim. 64 Zeb. 10 Jud. 25). Then the spirits 
of deceit shall be trodden under foot (Sim. Zeb. 9) and Beliar 
destroyed (Levi 18 Jud. 25). There shall be only one people 
and one tongue (Jud. 25). The surviving Gentiles are in all cases 
to be converted, save in Sim. 6 where they are doomed to anni 
hilation. According to Benj. 10 there is to be a resurrection, 
first <if the OT heroes and patriarchs, and next of the righteous 
and of the wicked. Thereupon is to follow judgment, first of 
Israel and then of the Gentiles. It is doubtful whether we are 
to regard this resurrection as embracing Israel only or all man 

The designation of Michael in Dan. 6 (cp Lev. 5 
Judith 25) as a mediator between God and man is 

It may be permitted in conclusion to refer to the 
book of Judith. The words in which the Gentile 
B2 T H th enermes f Israel are threatened (1617) 
1 obviously refer to Gehenna, and remind us 
of the very late appendix to Is. 66 (v. 23 /.), which 
however refers to unfaithful Jews. The view of 
Gehenna as the final abode of the Gentiles is not again 
attested till the first century of the Christian era (in Ass. 

1 Cp Levi 14 16 (beg.). These passages resemble the Psalms 
of Solomon that assail the Sadducean priesthood. 

- In the references here made we shall use the better readings 
of the A rmenian Version. 

3 Sometimes a Messiah of the tribe of Judah is spoken of. 
There is nothing against the Jewish origin of such passages ; 
but others which combine the two ideas are Christian. 



Mos. 10 10 4 Ezra 7 36). In so far, the date (circa 63 
B.C.) given elsewhere for this book (see JuniTH, 5) 
seems preferable to the earlier one advocated by Schurer. 
(c) Development of special conceptions in second century 
K. c. i. Svtiland Spirit. The later view of the spirit 
63 Snecia.1 ( see 2O ) ^ the divine breath of life 

conceptions, jf*^ H un <J erlle t Ecdus ^ Bar - 2 7 
( the dead also who are in Hades, whose 

spirit is taken from their bodies ); see also Tob. 36 l 
Judith 10 13. Elsewhere in the second century we 
can trace only the older Semitic view (above, 19), 
according to which soul and spirit are practically 
identical. The apocalyptic use, however, diverges 
from the more primitive ; what is predicated of soul 
can be predicated also of spirit. In Daniel indeed we 
always find, not soul but spirit, even where soul 
could have been used with perfect propriety. 2 

In Enoch 1-36 the inhabitants of Sh661 are spoken of 
as souls in 22s (cp 9s), but generally as spirits 
(22 5-7 9 11-13). We even find the strange expression 
spirits of the souls of the dead 3 (9io). Here also, 
therefore, soul and spirit are practically identical. 
Fallen angels and demons are always spoken of as 
spirits (the former in 136 154 6/., the latter in 
169 ii 16i). Indeed soul is never in Jewish litera 
ture used of angels, fallen or otherwise (cp above, 20). 

2. Judgment. The judgment, which is preliminary 
and final, involves all men living and dead, the faithless 
angelic rulers, and the impure angels. It will be on the 
advent of the Messianic kingdom. These points mark the 
development of the second century B. c. upon the past. 
There is the further development that the judgment is 
sometimes (?) conceived as setting in, immediately after 
death, in an intermediate abode of the soul. In Eth. En. 
1-36 there is a preliminary judgment on the angels who 
married the daughters of men, and likewise on all men 
who were alive at the deluge (10 1-12). The final judg 
ment before the advent of the Messiah s kingdom will 
involve the impure angels (10 12/), the demons who 
have hitherto gone unpunished (16 i), and all Israel with 
the exception of a certain class of sinners. In Daniel 
there is a preliminary judgment of the sword executed 
by the saints (244 722), as well as the final world-judg 
ment (7g a /. ), which will introduce the Messianic kingr 
dom by God himself. There is no mention of judgment 
of angels ; but judgment of the angelic patrons of Persia 
and Greece may be assumed. In Eth. En. 83-90 there 
is the first world-judgment of the deluge (89), the judg 
ment of the sword executed under Judas the Maccabee 
(90 19 16), and the final judgment on the impure angels 
and on the faithless angelic patrons (9020-25). The last 
serves to introduce the Messianic kingdom on the present 

3. Places of abode for the departed. i. Sh&ol. Sheol 
undergoes complete transformation in the second 
century B.C. and becomes an intermediate place of 
moral retribution for the righteous and the wicked. 
(The traditional sense probably survives in Dan. 122, 
but not in Eth. En. 22. ) All the dead who die before 
the final judgment have to go to Shgol. It has four 
divisions ; two for the righteous and two for the wicked. 
From three of them there is a resurrection to final judg 
ment ; but from the fourth, where are the wicked who 
met with violent death, there is no rising. Sheol has in 
this last case become hell. 

ii. Paradise. In the second century only two men, 
Enoch and Elijah, were conceived as having been 

1 How thoroughly life was identified with the presence of the 
spirit appears from this verse ; Command my spirit to be taken 
from me, that I may be released, and become earth. 

3 In Dan. 7 15 it has generally been thought that the spirit is 
spoken of as enclosed in the sheath (njnj) of the body ; but we 
should no doubt, with Buhl and Marti, read rip [ 33 because 
of this. (587 which gives (v TOVTOIS, and Vg., imply rt]"l 133. 

3 In these references the Gizeh Greek text has been followed. 
In the Ethiopia text the term soul is used instead of spirit in 
223 9 n^, but corruptly. 




admitted to Paradise on leaving this world (Eth. En. 
87s/ 8952). 1 The cause is manifest. See ENOCH, i. 

iii. Gehenna. Gehenna is definitely conceived in 
Dan. 122 Eth. En. 27 1/. and 9026 /. (?) as the final, 
not the immediate, abode of apostates in the next 

iv. The abyss of fire. 2 This is the final place of 
punishment for the faithless angelic rulers and for the 
impure angels (Eth. En. 18n-19 21 90 21-25). In Eth. 
En. 18n-i6 21 1-6 the fiery abyss for the impure angels 
is distinguished from another fiery abyss mentioned in 
2l7-io. This latter may be for the faithless angelic 

4. Resurrection. -In Eth. En. 83-90 (see 90 33) there 
is a resurrection only of the righteous ; in Dan. 122 f., 
of those who are righteous and wicked in a pre-eminent 
degree ; and in Eth. En. 22 of the righteous and of 
such of the wicked as had not met with retribution in 
life. Thus in Eth. En. 83-90 the older and spiritual 
form of the doctrine is preserved. In all cases the 
righteous rise to participate in the Messianic kingdom. 

5. Messianic kingdom. In Dan. and Eth. En. 1-36 
the scene of the Messianic kingdom is the earth. In 
Eth. En. 83-90 its centre is to be, not the earthly 
Jerusalem, but the new Jerusalem brought down from 
heaven. This is the first trace in the second century 
B. c. of a sense of the unfitness of the present world for 
Messianic glory. The kingdom is to be eternal. Its 
members are to enjoy a life of patriarchal length (Eth. 
En. 5 9 256), or to live for ever (9033). In Dan. 122/. 
the point is left doubtful. Besides the Messiah in Sibyll. 
Or. 3 652-654 there is no mention of the Messiah in the 
second century B.C. except in Eth. En. 83-90 (see 9037), 
where, however, his introduction seems due merely to 
literary reminiscence. 

6. Gentiles. According to Eth. En. 10 21, all the 
Gentiles are to become righteous and worship God. 
Only the hostile Gentiles are to be destroyed (Dan. 2244 
7 n/ Eth. En. 909-i6 18). The rest will be converted (?) 
and serve Israel (Dan. 7 14 Eth. En. 9030). 

64. Last H- LAST CENTURY B.C. 
Cent. B.C. Authorities for 104-1 B.C. 

Ethiopia Enoch 91-104 ( 65). Psalms of Solomon ( 67). 
Ethiopia Enoch 37-70 ( 66). Sibylline Oracles 3 1-62 " 
i -Maccabees ( 66, end). 2 Maccabees ( 69). 

(a) General eschatological development. A great 
gulf divides the eschatology of the last century B.C. as 
a whole from that of its predecessor. The hope of an 
eternal Messianic kingdom on the present earth is all 
but universally abandoned. 3 The earth as it is, is mani 
festly regarded as wholly unfit for the manifestation of 
the kingdom. The dualism which had begun to assert 
itself in the preceding century is therefore now the 
preponderating dogma. This new attitude compels 
writers to advance to new conceptions concerning the 

(i. ) Some boldly declare (Eth. En. 91-104), or else 
imply (Pss. Sol. 1-16 2 Mace. [?]), that the Messianic 
kingdom is only temporary, and that the goal of the 
risen righteous is not this transitory kingdom but heaven 
itself. In the thoughts of these writers the belief in a 
personal immortality has disassociated itself from the 
doctrine of the Afessianic kingdom, and the synthesis of 
the two eschatologies achieved in the preceding century 
(see 58) is anciv resolved into its elements.^ This is a 
natural consequence, as we have said, of the growing 
dualism of the times. 

i Cp Che. OPs. 414. 

" Cp PERSIA (the part dealing with religion). 

3 Only in Pss. Sol. 17 f. of this century does the Messianic 
kingdom seem to be of eternal duration on the present earth 
(cp 17 4). Since the Messiah himself, however, is only a man, 
his kingdom is probably of only temporary duration (see below, 
67 [i.], and APOCALYPTIC, 85). 

4 On the synthesis effected in the NT, see 82; on the 
exceptional anticipation of this in Eth. En. 27-70, see 66. 


(ii. ) Quite another line of thought, however, was 
possible. The present earth could not, it is true, be 
regarded as the scene of an eternal Messianic kingdom ; 
but a renewed and transformed earth could. The 
scene of the eternal Messianic kingdom would be such 
a new earth, and a new heaven, and to share in this 
eternal kingdom the righteous should rise (Eth. En. 
37-70). Here the idea of a new heaven and a new 
earth, which appeared illogically in Is. 65 f. ( 48), is 
applied with reasonable consistency. 

It is further to be observed that writers of the former 
class (i. ) anticipated a resurrection only of the righteous, 
a resurrection of the spirit not of the body (Eth. En. 
91-104 Pss. Sol. ) ; but writers of the latter class (ii. ) 
looked forward to a resurrection of all Israel (Eth. En. 
37-70) at the close of the temporary, and the beginning 
of the eternal, Messianic kingdom. In 2 Mace., which 
diverges in some respects from both classes, a bodily 
resurrection of the righteous, and possibly of all Israel, 
is expected. 

Again, in contradistinction to the preceding century 
there is now developed a vigorous, indeed a unique, 
doctrine of the Messiah, the doctrine of the supernatural 
Son of Man (Eth. En. 37-70). 

Finally, the present sufferings of Israel at the hands 
of the Gentiles are explained as disciplinary (2 Mace. 
(5 12-17 cp Jud. 827 Wisd. 1222). 

Israel is chastened for its sins lest they should come to a 
head ; but the Gentiles are allowed to fill up the cup of their 
iniquity (cp Gen. 15 16 Dan. 8 23 9 26). 

(b) Eschatologies of the several writers. We have said 
that the eschatology of the last century B. C. introduces 

= Tui. T- us into a world of new conceptions (S 70). 
65. Etn. En. TTTu-i t ... f \" i- 

91 104 Whilst in the writings of the preceding 

century the resurrection and the final judg 
ment were the prelude to an everlasting Messianic king 
dom, in Ethiopic Enoch 91-104 they are adjourned 
to the close. The Messianic kingdom is thus, for the 
first time, conceived as temporary. It is therefore no 
longer the goal of the hopes of the righteous. Their 
soul finds its satisfaction only in a blessed immortality 
in heaven. The author acknowledges that the wicked 
seem to sin with impunity ; but he believes that this is 
not so in truth ; their evil deeds are recorded every day 
(1047), and they will suffer endless retribution in ShSol 
(99n), a place of darkness and flame (for ShCol is here 
conceived as hell), from which there is no escape (98310 
103 7 /)- 

In the eighth week, the Messianic kingdom (but without a 
Messiah) shall be established, and the righteous shall slay the 
wicked with the sword (91 12 967961 98 12 9946). To this 
kingdom the righteous who have departed this life shall not 
rise. At its close, in the tenth week, snail be held the final 
judgment ; the former heaven and earth shall be destroyed, 
and a new heaven created (91 14-16). The righteous dead, who 
have hitherto been guarded by angels (100 5), in a department 
of Sheol (? cp 4 Ezra 441), shall be raised, 91 10 923 ( not . 
however, in the body, but as spirits ; 103 }/.), and the portals 
of heaven shall be opened to them (1042); they shall joy as 
the angels (1044), becoming companions of the heavenly host 
104e), and shining as the stars for ever (1042). 

The interest of the author of Eth. En. 37-70 is in the 

sphere of the moral and spiritual. This is manifest 

FtVi V even m h s usua l name for God, the 

, Lord of Spirits, and in the peculiar turn 

07 "7n o nn 

1 M that he gives t0 the trisa S ion in 39 12 

1 liacc. . j_T o iy ( holy, holy is the Lord of spirits : 

he filleth the earth with spirits. His views are strongly 
apocalyptic and follow closely in the wake of Daniel. 
Unlike the writer of chaps. 91-104 ( 65), however, he 
clings fast to a future kingdom of (righteous) Israel, 
destined to endure for ever, to which the righteous shall 
rise. The righteous individual will thus find his con 
summation in the righteous community. 

In addition to the eschatological details given elsewhere 
(APOCALYPTIC, 30) we should observe the following points: 
The Son of Man is to judge all angels, unfallen and fallen (61 8 
564), and men righteous and sinners (62 2/i), kings and mighty 
(623-11 681-411). The Messiah is for the first time represented 
as a supernatural being, Judge of men and angels. The fallen 



angels are to be cast into a. fiery furnace (546), the kings and 
the mighty to be tortured in Gehenna by the angel of punish 
ment (53 3-5 54 i_/), and the remaining sinners and godless to be 
driven from the face of the earth (38 3 41 2 45 6) ; the Son of 
Man shall slay them by the word of his mouth (022). Heaven 
and earth shall be transformed (45 $/.), the righteous shall have 
their mansions therein (39 6 41 2), and live in the light of eternal 
life (083). The elect one shall dwell amongst them (444), and 
they shall eat and lie down and rise up with him for ever (t>2 14). 
They shall be clad in garments of life (6, and become 
angels in heaven (51 4) ; and they shall seek after light and find 
righteousness (58 if.), and grow in knowledge and righteousness 
(58 5). 

i Mace, is quite without eschatological teaching, if 
we except the writer s expectation of a prophet in 446 
144I. 1 

In considering the Psalms of Solomon the eschato 
logical system of the last two psalms (17 /.}, which 
differs in many important respects from that of Pss. 
1-16, may be taken first. 

i. The eschatology of Ps. Sol. 17/. is marked by a 
singular want of originality. 

There is hardly a statement relative to the hopes of Israel 

that could not be explained as a literary reminiscence. Where 

_ . these psalms are at all original their influence 

67. irsalms ; s distinctly hurtful ; the proof that the popular 

Of Solomon, aspirations with which they connect the Messiah 

BC 70-40. were injurious to the best interests of the nation 
was written in fire and blood (see MESSIAH). 

The following is the account of the Messiah (who is 
specifically so called in I7s6 186 8). 

He is to be descended from David (17 23), a righteous king 
(1^35), pure from sin (1741). He will gather the dispersed 
tribes together and make Jerusalem holy as in the days of old. 
No Gentile shall be suffered to sojourn there, nor any one that 
knows wickedness. The ungodly nations he shall destroy with 
the word of his mouth (1727 cp 173941). The remaining 
Gentiles shall become subject to him (IT ^if.); he will have 
mercy on all the nations that come before him in fear (17 38). 
They shall come from the ends of the world to see his glory, 
and bring their sons as gifts to Zion (17 34). 

The Messianic kingdom is apparently of temporary 
duration. There is no hint of the rising of the righteous 
who have died ; only the surviving righteous are to 
share in it (cp 17 50). We might infer the transitory 
nature of the Messianic kingdom from the fact that the 
Messiah is a single person, not a series of kings. The 
duration of his kingdom is to be regarded as conter 
minous with that of its ruler. 

ii. In Pss. Sol. 1-16 there is hardly a single reference to 
the future kingdom and none to the Messiah. Since, 
however, they paint in glowing colours the restoration of 
the tribes (834 11 3-8), they look for a Messianic kingdom 
at all events a period of prosperity, when God s help 
should be enjoyed (7 9). Beyond prophesying vengeance 
on the hostile nations and on sinners, however, the 
psalmists do not dwell on this coming time. For them 
the real recompense of the righteous is not bound up 
with an earthly kingdom. The righteous rise, not to 
any kingdom of temporal prosperity, but to eternal life 
(3i6 13g) ; they inherit life in gladness (146), and live 
in the righteousness of their God (15 15). There seems 
to be no resurrection of the body. As for the wicked, 
their inheritance is Hades (here = hell), and darkness 
and destruction (146 cp 15 n), whither they go 
immediately on dying (162). The eschatology of Pss. 
1-16 thus agrees in nearly every point with that of 
Eth. En. 91-104 ( 6s). 2 

In Sibylline Oracles 81-62, written before 31 B.C. 
(see APOCALYPTIC, 85), God s kingdom is expected 
and the advent of a holy king who 
shall sway the sceptre of every land a 
(849). This Messianic king is to reign 
for all the ages (850). These words 
must not be pressed, however ; for, a few lines later, a 
universal judgment on all men is foretold (853-56 dof.). 
For a similar limitation cp Apoc. Bar. 40s 73 1. 

1 Cp Che. OPs. 40 n. 

" Cp APOCALYPTIC, 8 85. The sketch there given is merely 
to justify dividing Pss. 1-lti from 17./C 

* 7jei 6" ayi/bs afa Traorjs yrjs (TKTJTTTpa KpaTjjcrcov. 




There is in 2 Mace, only one direct reference to a 
Messianic kingdom : the youngest of the seven brethren 

__ prays that God may speedily be gracious 
9. 2 mace. to the nation . ^ 37 j The hope of it is 

implied, however, in the expectation of the restoration 
of the tribes (2i8). The righteous rise in the body to 
share in the kingdom where they will renew the common 
life with their brethren (729). The kingdom is to be 
eternal ; for God has established his people for ever 
(14 15). There is certainly no hint of a Messiah. Thus 
the eschatology is really that of the second century B. C. 


Since the Messianic kingdom here implied is to be of a 
material character and therefore presumably on earth for the 
righteous rise to an eternal life (7 9 36), in a body constituted as 
the present earthly body (7n 22^ 1446) we may reasonably 
infer that the eternal kingdom thus expected was to be upon the 
present earth, as in Eth. En. 83-00 ( 60). Thus the eschatology 
of this book belongs really to the second century B.C. as the 
epitomizer claims. 

On the other hand the doctrine of retribution, present 
and future, plays a significant role. Present retribution 
follows sin, for Israel and for the Gentiles. In the case 
of Israel its purpose is corrective ; but in that of the 
Gentiles it is vindictive (6 13 ff. ). To enforce his doctrine 
the writer reconstructs history, and corrects the im 
perfect assignment of destiny to the heathen oppressors, 
Epiphanes (7i7 95-12) and Nicanor (1632-35), and to the 
Hellenising Jews, Jason (67-10) and Menelaus (138). 

Even the martyrs confess their sufferings to be due to sin 
(7 18 33 37), and pray that their sufferings may stay the wrath 
of the Almighty (738). Immediate retribution is a token of 
God s goodness (G 13). Our present concern, however, is mainly 
with retribution beyond the grave. The righteous and the 
wicked in Israel enter after death the intermediate state (Hades) 
(15 23), where they have a foretaste of their final doom (6 26), 
which takes effect after the resurrection. There is to be a 
resurrection of the righteous ("911 14 23 29 36), perhaps even of 
all Jews (1243_/), but not of the Gentiles. These remain in 
Sheol. Possibly its torments are referred to in 7 17. When the 
heathen die they enter at once on their eternal doom (7 14). 

(c) Development of special conceptions in the last century 
K.C. i. Soul and Spirit. As in the preceding century, 
so also in this, the doctrine of soul 

and spirit follows a i most w j t hout ex- 

. . 
70. hpeciai 

concept S. ce p t j orlj the older Semitic view (above, 
19). The exceptions are in 2 Mace. lizf. 

In v. 22 the mother of the seven martyred brethren declares : 
I did not give you spirit and life (TO Tri-eC/ua ai -n\v /^(ar^y). 
Here, as in Gen. 2 4/>-3 (above, 20), the nvev^a is the life-giving 
principle of which the o>rj is the product. The same phrase 
recurs in v. 23 and in 14 46. The withdrawal of this spirit, how 
ever, does not lead to unconsciousness in Shepl ; the departed 
are still conscious (6 26). The writer is, thus, inconsistent ;^for 
the ordinary dichotomy of soul and body is found in 630 7 37 
14 38 15 30. 

In all the remaining literature of this century there is 
only a dichotomy either spirit 1 and body, or soul and 
body. Some writers use one of these pairs, some use 
both ; in none is the spirit conceived as in Gen. 24^-3. 

In the oldest writing of the century the departed in Sheol are 
spoken of as spirits (Eth. En. 98 10 103 3 4 8) or as souls 
(102s ii 1087). On the other hand, in the Similitudes and the 
Pss. Sol. (nearly contemporaneous works), the term spirit is 
not used of man at all. only soul ; see Eth. En. 453 63 10, 
Pss. Sol. passim, but particularly 9 7 and 9 9 where the highest 
spiritual functions are ascribed to the soul. Finally in the 

of the wicked (108 3 6) and of the righteous (r>v. 79 n). 

2. Judgment. The judgment is final and involves 
all rational beings, human and angelic. It will be 
either at the advent of the Messianic kingdom, or (and 
this is the common view) at its close. 

It is only in Eth. En. 37-70 that it is regarded as introducing 
the Messianic kingdom, and here it differs from the conception 
which prevailed in the second century, in that it ushers in the 
Messianic kingdom, not on the present earth, but in a new 
heaven and a new earth. 

The main difference, however, between the judgment in the 
eschatologies of the last century and in those of the second is 
that all (?) other writers of the last century, except Eth. En. 

1 In Eth. En. 154 the antithesis between the spiritual and the 
fleshly is strongly emphasized ; but the contrast is not between 
two parts of man but between the nature of angels and of men. 



37-70, conceived it as forming the close of the temporary Mes 
sianic kingdom (so clearly in Eth. En. 91-104 and Pss. Sol. 1-16, 
probably also in Ps. Sol. 17 f. and 2 Mace. ; see above, 65 
67). There is, however, in Eth. En. 91 12 95 7 96 i 98 12, etc., a 
preliminary judgment of the sword which (as in Dan. 244) is 
executed by the saints. In Ps. Sol. 17_/? this Messianic judg. 
ment is executed forensically by the Messiah. 

3. Places of abode of the departed. i. Paradise. 
Paradise, which in the preceding century had been 
regarded as the abode of only two men ( 63 [3] ii. ), 
has come to be regarded as the intermediate abode of 
all the righteous and elect; Eth. En. 61 12 702 ff. 
(Noachic Fragment, 608). In the Similitudes the 
righteous pass from Paradise to the Messianic kingdom. 

ii. Heaven. For the first time in apocalyptic litera 
ture heaven becomes, after the final judgment, the 
abode of the righteous as spirits (Eth. En. 10424 
103 3 /). 

iii. Shgol. There is a considerable variety in the 
views entertained about Sheol ; but most of them have 
been met with earlier. 

(a) It is the intermediate abode of the departed 
whence all Israel (?) rises to judgment (Eth. En. 51 1). 1 

In 2 Mace, this is the only sense (6 23). It is noteworthy that 
the writer regards a moral change as possible in Sheol (see 
12 42-45). According to Eth. En. 100 5 the souls of the righteous 
are preserved in a special part of Sheol (? cp 4 Ezra 4 41). 

(6) Sheol is Hell. 

Eth. En. 63 10 56 8 99 n 1037 and always in Pss. Sol. [14 6 
15 ii 16 2]. Note how in Pss. Sol. Sheol is associated with fire 
and darkness ; it has drawn to itself attributes of Gehenna. In 
the Similitudes Sheol is an intermediate abode for all that die 
before the advent of the Messianic kingdom (51 i). The wicked 
that are living on its advent shall be cast into Sheol ; but 
Sheol then becomes a final abode of fire (63 10). 

(c) ShCSl is Gehenna in the interpolated passage, 
Eth. En. 568. 

iv. Gehenna. Two new developments of this idea 
appear in the last century B. c. 

(a) The first is referred to in Eth. En. 48 9 SiiyC 62i2yi 
According to the prevailing view of the second century B.C., 
Gehenna was to be the final abode of Jewish apostates whose 
sufferings were to form an ever present spectacle to the righteous ; 
but in the Similitudes (37-70) Gehenna is specially designed for 
kings and the mighty, and it is forthwith to vanish for ever with 
its victims from the sight of the righteous. This latter idea is 
due to the fact that in the Similitudes there were to be, after the 
judgment, new heavens and a new earth. 

(b) The second development is attested in Eth. En. 91-104, 
where Gehenna is a place only of spiritual punishment, whereas 
hitherto it had been a place of spiritual and also of corporal 
punishment ; in 98 3 we read of spirits being cast into the 
furnace of fire (cp also 103 8). In this writer Sheol and Gehenna 
have become equivalent terms (see 99 n 1087, also 100 9). The 
same conception is found in the Essene writing Eth. En. 108 6. 

v. Burning furnace. In Eth. En. 546 (cp 18n-i6 
21 1-6) the final abode of the fallen angels is a burning 

4. Resurrection. The views of the last century B.C. 
on the resurrection show a great development on those 
of the preceding century. In Eth. En. 91-104 ( 65) and 
the Pss. Sol. (67) the resurrection is still only spiritual ; 
but 2 Mace, puts forward a very definite resurrection of 
the body (7n 1446), as does also Eth. En. 37-70. Only, 
the body is a garment of light (62 is/ ), and those who 
possess it are angelic (51 4). Similarly Eth. En. 91-104 
and Pss. Sol. agree in representing the resurrection as 
involving only the righteous, and Eth. En. 37-70 and 
2 Mace. (?) in extending it to all Israel. 

5. (a) Messianic Kingdom. See 64. 

(b} Messiah. In the preceding century the Messianic 
hope was practically non-existent. Under Judas and 
Simon the need of a Messiah was hardly felt. In the 

1 Eth. En. 51 i is difficult. Both Sheol and hell (i.e., Jiaguel 
-destruction) are said to give up their inhabitants for judgment. 
Are we therefore to regard Sheol and hell as mere parallels here, 
or is Sheol the temporary abode of the righteous and hell that 
[ t] 16 wicked ? The fact that Paradise is the intermediate 
abode of the righteous in the Similitudes (see above, i.) would 
favour the former alternative. Sheol would then in all cases be 
a place of punishment intermediate or final in the Similitudes. 
The connotation of Sheol, however, in this section may not be 
fixed. The second alternative, therefore, seems the true one ; 
for She5l and hell appear to hold both good and evil souls. 



first half of the last century B.C. it was very different. 
Subject to ruthless oppressions, the righteous were in 
sore need of help. As their princes were the leaders in 
this oppression, the pious were forced to look for aid to 
God. The bold and original thinker to whom we owe 
the Similitudes conceived the Messiah as the super 
natural Son of Man, who should enjoy universal 
dominion and execute judgment on men and angels 
(cp MESSIAH, SON OF MAN). Other religious 
thinkers, returning afresh to the study of the earlier 
literature, revived (as in Pss. Sol.) the expectation of 
the prophetic Messiah, sprung from the house and 
lineage of David (17 23). See above ( 67); also 
APOCALYPTIC, 32. These very divergent concep 
tions took such a firm hold of the national consciousness 
that henceforth the Messiah becomes generally, but not 
universally, the chief figure in the Messianic kingdom. 

6. Gentiles. The favourable view of the second 
century B.C., as to the future of the Gentiles, has all 
but disappeared. In Eth. En. 37-70 annihilation ap 
pears to await them. In Ps. Sol. 17 32 they are to be 
spared to serve Israel in the temporary Messianic king 
dom. This may have been the view of the other 
writers of this century who looked forward to a merely 
temporary Messianic kingdom. 

Cent. A.D. Authorities. 

Book of Jubilees ( 72). Apocalypse of Baruch ( 78). 

Assumption of Moses ( 73). Book of Baruch 1 (see APOC- 

Philo ( 74). RYl HA, 6). 

Slavonic Enoch ( 75). 4 Esdras ( 79). 

Book of Wisdom ( 76). Josephus ( 80). 

4 Maccabees ( 77). 

(a) General eschatological development. The growth 
of dualism which was so vigorous in the last century B. c. 
now attains its final development. The Messianic 
kingdom is not to be everlasting ; in one work it is to 
last 1000 years (see below, 75) ; in some writings it 
is even wholly despaired of ( Apoc. Bar. 1824, Salathiel 
Apoc. [ 79, e], 4 Mace. ). According to another work 
some of the saints will rise to share in it ( the first 
resurrection ). The breach between the eschatologies 
of the individual and of the nation which had begun to 
appear in the last century B.C. ( 64) has been widened, 
and the differences of the two eschatologies have been 
developed to their utmost limits. The nation has no 
blessed future at all, or, at best, one of only temporary 
duration. This, however, is a matter with which the 
individual has no essential concern. His interest centres 
round his own soul and his own lot in the after-life. 
The great thought of the divine kingdom has been 
surrendered in despair. 

The transcendent view of the risen righteous which 
was sometimes entertained in the preceding century 
( 65) becomes more generally prevalent. The resur 
rection involves the spirit alone (Jubilees, Ass. Mos. , 
Philo, Wisd. , 4 Mace. ) ; or, the righteous are to rise 
vestured with the glory of God (Slav. En.), or with 
their former body, which is forthwith to be trans 
formed and made like that of the angels (Apoc. Bar. , 
4 Esdras ; see also the Pharisaic doctrine in Jos. BJ 

Several writers reveal a new development in regard 
to the resurrection of the spirit. Instead of being 
preceded by a stay in Sheol till after the final 
judgment, the entrance of the righteous spirit on a 
blessed immortality is to follow on death immediately. 
This view, however, is held only by Alexandrian writers 
(Philo, Wisdom 3 1-4 42710, etc., 4 Mace. ) or by the 
Essenes (see Jos. 5/28 n, cp ESSENES, 7). The 
only exception is Jubilees (see chap. 23). The older 
view survives in the first century A.D. in Ass. Moses 
lOg, in Slav. En. and (partly) in Eth. En. 108. 

Finally, the scope of the resurrection, which in the past 

1 The earlier part of this work may be as old as the second 
century B.C. 


72. Jubilees. 

73. Assumption 
of Moses 


was limited to Israel, is extended in some books to all 
mankind (Apoc. Bar. 31z 4Ezra73237>. For the Gen 
tiles, however, this is but a sorry boon. They are 
raised only to be condemned for ever with a condemna 
tion severer than that which they had endured before. 1 
(&) Eschatologies of the several writers. In the Book 
of Jubilees there is not much eschato- 
logical thought. Levi is given a special 
blessing ; from him are to proceed princes and judges 
and chiefs (31 15). From Judah there seems to be 
expected a Messiah. 

Isaac blesses Judah thus : Be thou a prince thou and one 
of thy sons over the sons of Jacob ... in thee shall there be 
the help of Jacob, etc. (31 J8_/C). There is a detailed description 
of the Messianic woes (23 13 19 22). These will be followed by 
an invasion of Palestine by the Gentiles (23 23./). Then Israel 
will begin to study the laws, and repent (2326). As the nation 
becomes faithful, human life will gradually be lengthened till 
it approaches one thousand years (23 27 ; cp 23 28). This period 
is the great day of peace (25 10). Whether the blessings 
granted to the Gentiles through Israel (18 16 20 10 27 23), how 
ever, are to be referred to the Messianic age, is doubtful. 
Finally, when the righteous die, their spirits will enter into a 
blessed immortality (2831). And their bones shall rest in the 
earth and their spirits shall have much joy, and they shall know 
that it is the Lord who executes judgment, etc. 

The day of the great judgment (23 n) seems to 
follow on the close of the Messianic kingdom. 

Mastema and the demons subject to him shall be judged 
(10s). On the restriction of the resurrection to the spirit (2831), 
see above ( 71, a). The question arises, Where do the spirits of 
the righteous who die before the final judgment go? It cannot 
be to Sheol, for Sheol is ordinarily conceived in this book as 
the place of condemnation into which are cast eaters of blood 
and idolaters (7292222). It must be either, as in the Simili 
tudes, to an intermediate abode of the righteous, such as Para 
dise, or else to heaven. All Palestinian Jewish tradition 
favours an intermediate abode. 

The Assumption of Moses (7-29 A.D. ) is closely allied 
to Jubilees in many respects. Where 
as Jubilees, however, is a manifesto 
in favour of the priesthood, the As 
sumption, proceeding from a Pharisaic 
quietist, contains a bitter attack on them (7). 

The preparation for the advent of the theocratic or Messianic 
kingdom will be a period of repentance (1 18). 1750 years after 
the death of Moses (10 12) God will intervene in behalf of Israel 
(107) and the ten tribes shall return. There is no Messiah ; the 
eternal God alone . . . will punish the Gentiles (107). In this 
respect the Assumption differs from Jubilees. The idealisation 
of Moses leaves no room for a Messiah. During the temporary 
Messianic kingdom Israel shall destroy its national enemies 
(10s), and finally be exalted to heaven (10 9), whence it shall see 
its enemies in Gehenna (10 10). 

It is noteworthy that the conception of Gehenna, 
which was originally the specific place of punishment 
for apostate Jews, is here extended, so that it becomes 
the final abode of the wicked generally. Finally, there 
seems to be no resurrection of the body, only of the 

Philo. W r e shall only touch on the main points of 
the eschatology of Philo. He looked 
forward to the return of the tribes from 
captivity, to the establishment of a Messi 
anic kingdom of temporal prosperity, and even to a 

The loci classic! on this subject are De Execrat. 8f. (ed. 
Mang. 2435 f.) and De Proem, et Poen. 15-20 (ed. Mang. 
2421-428). The former passage foretells the restoration of a 
converted Israel to the Holy Land. The latter describes the 
Messianic kingdom. The Messiah is a man of war efeAevcreTai 
yap avOpwiros, $T\<J\V 6 xprjajios (Nu. 24 17), Ka.Taa Tpa.Tap\iav xat 

The inclusion of the Messiah and the Messianic king 
dom, though really foreign to his system, in Philo s 
eschatology, is strong evidence as to the prevalence of 
these expectations even in Hellenistic Judaism. Appar 
ently Philo did not look forward to a general and final 
judgment. All enter after death into their final abode. 
The punishment of the wicked is everlasting (De 
Cherub, i) ; even the wicked Jews are committed to 
Tartarus (De Execrat. 6). As matter is incurably evil, 
there can be no resurrection of the body. Our present 

1 So Eth. En. 22 19 Apoc. Bar. 30 4/ 36 n 4 Esd. 7 87. 


life in the body is death, for the body is the sepulchre 
of the soul (Quod Deus immut. 32) ; our aCip-a. is our 
<rij/*a (Leg. Alleg. 1 33 ). 

According to the Slavonic Enoch 1 (1-50 A.D. ), as 

the earth was created in six days, its history will be 

75 Slavonic accom P lisne d in 6000 years ; and as the 

Enoch s x ^ avs ^ crea tion were followed by one 

1 50 A D ^ rest> S0 tne 6oo vears f tne world s 
history will be followed by a rest of 1000 
years the Millennium or Messianic kingdom. Here for 
the first time the Messianic kingdom is limited to 1000 
years (whence the later Christian view of the Millennium ), 
at the expiration of which time will pass into eternity 
(322-332), and then will be the final judgment. 

That event is variously called the day of judgment (39 i 
513), the great day of the Lord (186), the great judgment 
(52 15 685 667), the day of the great judgment (004), the 
eternal judgment (7 i), the great judgment for ever C>04), 
the terrible judgment (48s), the immeasurable judgment 
(40 12). 

Before the final judgment the souls of the departed 
are in intermediate places. 

The rebellious angels awaiting judgment in torment are con 
fined to the second heaven (7 1-3). The fallen lustful angels are 
kept in durance under the earth (18 7). Satan, hurled down 
from heaven, has as his habitation the air (29 t,f.). For the souls 
of men, which were created before the creation of the world 
(23 5), future places of abode have been separately prepared (49 2 
58 5). The context of 58 5 appears to imply that they are the 
intermediate place for human souls. In 32 i Adam is sent to 
this receptacle of souls on his death, and is transferred from it 
to paradise in the third heaven after the great judgment (42 5). 
Even the souls of beasts are preserved till the final judgment in 
order to testify against the ill-usage of men (.08 5 6). 

The righteous shall escape the final judgment and 
enter paradise as their eternal inheritance (8 9 42a 5 6X3 
65 10). The wicked are cast into hell in the third heaven 
where their torment will be for everlasting (10 40 12 41 2 
42 if. 613). There is apparently no resurrection of the 
body the righteous are clothed with the garments of 
God s glory (22 8; cp Eth. En. 62 16 108 12). Theseventh 
heaven is the final abode of Enoch (55 2 67 2) ; but this 
is an exception. 

In the Alexandrian Wisdom of Solomon there is no 
Messiah ; but there is to be a theocratic kingdom, in 
__. , which the surviving righteous shall judge 
)m> the nations (3 7 8), forensically (cp i Cor. 
62), not by the sword. Here is a mark of progress. 
The body does not rise again ; it is a mere burden taken 
up for a time by the pre-existent soul (cp Slav. En. ). 
It is the soul that is immortal (81-4 etc.). The wicked 
shall be destroyed (419), though not annihilated (4 19 
5i). The true judgment of the individual sets in at 
death (41014). For further details see WISDOM OF 

4 Maccabees is a philosophical treatise on the supre 
macy of reason. 2 The writer adopts, as far as possible, 

77 4 M l ^ e tenets f stoicism. He teaches the 

eternal existence of all souls, good and 
bad, but no resurrection of the body. The good shall 
enjoy eternal blessedness in heaven 3 (98 152 17s); 
but the wicked shall be tormented in fire for ever (9 9 
10 15 12 12). 

On the composite Book of Baruch see BARUCH ii. , 
and cp APOCRYPHA, 6, i. Here we only note that 

78 Ba h m 2 7 Hades still possesses its OT con- 
rucn notation. The Apocalypse of Baruch also 

,. g ^ . (50-80 A.D. ) is a composite work (APOCA- 
LYPT1C, 10 f.\ for a summary of 
contents see ib. 8), 4 the six or more independent 
constituents of which may, when treated from the stand 
point of their eschatology, be ranged in three classes. 

i. The Messiah Apocalypses A,, A 2 , A 3 (27-30 1, 36- 
40, 53-74). This part differs from the rest of the book 
in being written before 70 A.D. and in teaching the 

1 For further details see Morfill and Charles s editio prince fs 
of this book ; also APOCALYPTIC, ? 33-41- 

2 See MACCABEES (FOURTH), 2, 7, and cp Che. OPs. 29. 
Cp Che. OPs. 414, 443. 

4 For a fuller treatment see Charles, Apocalypse of Baruch. 



doctrine of a personal Messiah. In A p however, his 
rdle is a passive one, whereas in A 2 and A 3 he is a 
warrior who slays the enemies of Israel with his own 
hand. In all three apocalypses the Messiah-kingdom 
is of temporary duration. 

In AS the Messiah s principate will stand "for ever" until 
the world of corruption is at an end (40 3); in Ag his reign is 
described as the consummation of that which is corruptible and 
the beginning of that which is incorruptible (74 2). During it 
there will be no sorrow nor anguish nor untimely death (73 2f.). 
The animal world will change its nature and minister unto man 
(736). In A.^ and A;J the kingdom is inaugurated with the judg 
ment of the sword (39 7-40 2, 72 2-6). The Gentiles that have 
ruled or oppressed Israel shall be destroyed ; but those that have 
not done so shall be spared in order to be subject to Israel 
(72 2-6). 

The final judgment and the resurrection follow on the 
close of these kingdoms. 

ii. In Bj (1-9 1 43-44 7 45-466 77-82 86/.) the 
writer (who is optimistic) looks forward (69) to Jeru 
salem s being rebuilt (after it has been destroyed by 
angels) lest the enemy should boast (7i), to the restora 
tion of the exiles (776 78;), and to a Messianic kingdom 
(Is 466 77 12); but he does not expect a Messiah. 
Little consideration is shown for the Gentiles (822-7). 

iii. In B 2 (13-25 30 2 -3541/. 448-i 5 47-52 75/ 83), 
written after 70 A.D. , the writer has relinquished all 
expectation of national restoration and all hope for the 
present corruptible world. He is mainly concerned with 
theological problems and the question of the incorruptible 
world that is to be. 

The world shall be renewed (32 6) ; from being transitory 
(48 50 85 10) it shall become undying (51 3) and everlasting 
(48 50) ; from being a world of corruption (21 19815; cp 40 3 74 2) 
it shall become incorruptible and invisible (51 8 44 12). Full of 
world -despair, the writer looks for no Messiah or Messianic 
kingdom, but only for the last day when he will testify against 
the Gentile oppressors of Israel (13 3). 

In the meantime, as men die they enter in some degree 
on their reward in Sheol, the intermediate abode of the 
departed (23s 48 16 522; cp 566), in which there are 
already certain degrees of happiness or torment. 

For the wicked Sheol is an abode of pain (30 5 36 1 1), still not to 
be compared with their torments after the final judgment. The 
righteous are preserved in certain chambers or treasuries in 
Sheol (4 Ezra 4 41), where they enjoy rest and peace, guarded 
by angels (Eth. En. 100 5 ; 4 Ezra 7 15). 

At the final judgment the righteous issue forth to 
receive their everlasting reward (302). 

As regards the resurrection B 2 teaches as follows : 

In answer to the question, Wilt thpu perchance change these 
things [i.e., man s material body] which have been in the world, 
as also the world ? [49 3], he shows in chap. 50 that the dead shall 
be raised with bodies absolutely unchanged, with a view to their 
recognition by those who knew them. This completed, the 
bodies of the righteous shall be transformed, with a view to an 
unending spiritual existence (51 1 3 7-9). They shall be made 
like the angels and equal to the stars, and changed from beauty 
into loveliness, and from light into the splendour of glory (51 10) ; 
they shall even surpass the angels (51 12). 

The Pauline teaching in i Cor. 1535-50 is thus in 
some respects a developed and more spiritual expression 
of ideas already current in Judaism. 

In B 3 (chap. 85) there is the same despair of a national 
restoration as in B 2 , and only spiritual blessedness is 
looked for in the world of incorruption (85 4/). 

In dealing with 4 Esd. we shall adopt provisionally 
some of the critical results attained by Kabisch (cp 
79. 4 Esdras. EsDRAS [FOURTH]). Of the five inde 
pendent writings which he discovers in it, 
two were written before 70 A. D. and three after. 

i. The two former he designates respectively an Ezra 
Apocalypse and a Son of Man Vision. 

a. The Ezra Apocalypse consists of 4 52-5 13*1 613-25 
726-44 8 63-9 12 and is largely eschatological. 

The signs of the last times are recounted at great length (5 1-12 
62i/: 9 1-3 6), the destruction of Rome (63), and the advent of 
the Messiah the Son of God (5 6 726). Certain saints shall 
accompany the Messiah (728)1 here we seem to nave the idea 
ot a first resurrection of the saints to the temporary Messianic 
kingdom, the general resurrection taking place at its close 
3 1 ./) and all the faithful who have survived the troubles 
that preceded the kingdom shall rejoice together with the 

1 The same idea is probably to be found in 13 52. 
45 1369 


Messiah 400 years. 1 Then the Messiah and all men shall die 
(7 29), and in the course of seven days the world shall return to 
its primeval silence, even as in the course of seven days it was 
created (7 30). Then the next world shall awake, the corruptible 
perish (731), all mankind be raised from the dead (7 32) and 
appear at the last judgment (7 33), and Paradise (the final abode 
of the righteous) and Gehenna be revealed (7 36). The judgment 
shall last seven years (7 43). 

b. The Son of Man Vision (chap. 13) was composed 
probably before 70 A. D. 

Many signs are to precede the advent of the Messiah (1832), 
who will appear in the clouds of heaven (13 3 32). The nations, 
a multitude without number, shall assemble from the four 
winds of heaven to attack him (13 5 34) ; but the Messiah will 
destroy them not with spear or weapon of war (18928), but 
bya flood of fire out of his mouth and a flaming breath out of his 
lips (181027), ar >d by the law which is like fire (183849). 
The new Jerusalem shall be set up (1836). The Messiah 
shall restore the ten tribes (184047) and preserve the residue of 
God s people that are in Palestine (1848). 

ii. The other three constituents of 4 Esd. were com 
posed between 70 and 100 A.D. 

c. The Eagle Vision (10 60-1235). Here is predicted (1233) 
the destruction of Rome through the agency of the Davidic 
Messiah (1232 ; so Vv. except Lat.), who will save the remnant 
of God s people in Palestine, and fill them with joy to the end, 
the day of judgment (12 34). 

d. An Ezra Fragment (14 i-ija 18-27 36-47)- Ezra is to be 
translated and to live with the Messiah till the twelve times are 
ended (Hg). Ten and a half haveelapsed already (14 ii). Great 
woes have befallen ; but the worst are yet to come (14 i6/.). 
Does 14 9 imply that when the times are ended there will be a 
Messianic kingdom like that in the Ezra Apocalypse discussed 
above (a)? This is not improbable if we compare 14 9 with 7 28. 
The parts of chap. 14 under consideration, therefore, may belong 
to that apocalypse. 

e. The Apocalypse of Salathiel (3 1-31 4 1-51 5 13^-6 10 630- 
7 25 7 45-8 62 9 13-10 57 1 2 40-48 1 4 28-35). The world is nearly at 
an end (4 44-50). As it was created, so it is to be judged, by God 
alone (5 56 6 6). Very few shall be saved (7 47-61 8 zf.\ Judg 
ment and all things relating to it were prepared before the 
creation (7 70). It will come when the number of the righteous 
is completed (4 36) ; the sins of earth will not retard it (4 39-42). 
In the meantime, retribution sets in immediately after death 
(7 69 75 80 86 95 14 35). The souls of the righteous, who are 
allowed seven days to see what will befall them (7 ioo/ .), are 
guarded by angels in chambers (775 85 95 121) till the final 
judgment, when glory and transfiguration await them (795 97). 
The souls of the wicked in torment roam to and fro in seven 
ways (viat) which answer to the seven ways of joy for the 
righteous (7 80-87 93)- After the judgment their torments become 
still more grievous (7 84), and intercession, permissible now 
(7 106-111), can no longer be allowed (7 102-105), a l things being 
then finally determined (7 113-115). This world now ends, 

shine as the sun, and be immortal (7 97). Paradise shall be their 
final abode (7 123). 

The teaching of this book is closely allied to that of 
Apoc. Bar. B 2 . 

Josephus, a Pharisee, gives a fairly trustworthy 
Pharisaic eschatology in Ant. xviii. 1 3 (cp SCRIBES). 2 

80. Josephus T he account in j5/iii - 8 S s in a high 

37-101 A.D de & ree misleading. In reality, Josephus 

believed in an intermediate state for the 

righteous, and (see Ant. iv. 65) in a future Messianic 

age. 3 

(c) Development of special conceptions in first century 
81 Snecial A 1- ^oul and Spirit. There is 

conceptions. Jf^ * 7"* f what w f e ^ ave calle ^ 
( 20) the later doctrine of the soul and 

the spirit in the Jewish literature of the first century A. D. 4 

1 This number has originated as follows: According to Gen. 
15 13 Israel was to be oppressed 400 years in Egypt. Ps. 90 15 
contains the prayer, Give us joy ... for as many years of 
misfortune as we have lived through (We. SBOT). From a 
combination of these passages it was inferred that the Messianic 
kingdom would last 400 years. Compare this view with that of 
the looo years broached in Slav. En. ; see 75. 

2 A treatment of this passage of Josephus, with regard to its 
eschatological contents will be found also in Cheyne s OPs. 

3 It is Josephus the courtier who speaks in BJ vi. 64. 

4 In Baruch 1-38, which belongs in eschatological character 
to the OT, this teaching appears, and the term spirit is used 
in its later sense in 217, The dead that are in Hades whose 
spirit is taken from their bodies. Still in 3 i spirit and soul 
are treated as synonymous according to the popular and older 
view. This part of Baruch may belong to the second or the 
last century B.C. 



In Jubilees 23 31 the departed are spoken of as spirits. So 
likewise in Ass. Mos. (see Origen, In Jos. homil. 2 i). On the 
other hand Slav. En. speaks only of souls ; see 235685. 
Again, whereas Apoc. Bar. uses in reference to the departed 
only the term soul cp 30 3 4 (51 15) the sister work 4 Esd. 
uses both soul (7 75 93 99^) and spirit (7 78 80). 

The author of Wisdom was clearly influenced by Gen. 
24<J-3 ; but his psychology is independent, and more 
nearly agrees with the popular dichotomy (14 8igf. 
915). In the next life the soul constitutes the entire 
personality (3i) ; spirit is clearly a synonym (cp 158 
and 1 5 16 ; also 1614). There is, therefore, no trichotomy 
in 15 ii. The difference between an active soul (tyvxty 
fvepyovffav) and a vital spirit (irveu/jLa fum/cov) lies 
not in the substantives but in the epithets. 1 The soul 
here is not the result of the inbreathing of the divine 
breath into the body but an independent entity, synony 
mous with the spirit derived directly from God. 

2. Judgment. This century witnesses but little change 
in the current beliefs on this head. There is to be a 
preliminary judgment in all cases where a Messianic 
kingdom is expected (in Jub. , Ass. Mos., Wisdom, and 
all the different constituents of Apoc. Bar. and 4 Esdras 
save BS and B 3 of the former and the Apoc. Salathiel of 
the latter). The final judgment is to be executed on 
men and angels (Jub. , Slav. En. and Apoc. Bar. ) at the 
close of the Messianic kingdom, or, where no such 
kingdom is expected, at the close of the age (Apoc. 
Bar., B 2 B 3 ), or when the number of the righteous is 
completed (4 Esdras, Apoc. Sal.). In 2 Mace, and 
Philo, however, no final judgment is spoken of. Each 
soul apparently enters at death on its final destiny. In 
this last respect alone is there a definite divergence from 
the beliefs of the last century B.C. 

3. Places of abode of the departed. There are many ; 
but they have, for the most part, their roots in the past. 

i. Heaven (or Paradise). The final abode of the righteous 
(Jub. 2831, Ass. Mos. lOg, Apoc. Bar. 51). 

ii. Paradise, (a) The final abode of the righteous (Slav. En. 
%>f. 423 5 etc.; 4 Ezra 7 36 123). (b) The intermediate abode of 
the righteous (Jub. ?). 

iii. SheOl or Hades, (a) The abode of all departed souls till 
the final judgment (Apoc. Bar. 23s 48 16 52 2 ; 4 Ezra 441; 
Josephus [see above]). Sheol thus conceived, however, had 
two divisions a place of pain for the wicked (Apoc. Bar. 30 5 
36 1 1), and a place of rest and blessedness for the righteous (cp 
4 Ezra 44i).2 This was called the treasuries (cp Apoc. Bar. 
30 2 ; 4 Ezra 7 75 85 95). (6) Hell (Jub. 72 9 22 22 ; 4 Ezra 853). 

iv. Gehenna. This is now generally conceived as the final 
place of punishment for all the wicked, not for apostate Jews as 
heretofore (Ass. Mos. 10 10 ; 4 Ezra 7 36). It seems to be referred 
to in Wisdom (cp 4 19). In Slav. En. it is in the third heaven 
(cp!040 1 2 41 2). 3 

4. Resurrection. (a) Resurrection of the saints to 
the Messianic kingdom. This is apparently the teaching 
of 4 Esdras 728. (6) General resurrection. According 
to all the authorities of this century as enumerated above 
(except Apoc. Bar. and 4 Esdras), there is to be a 
resurrection of the righteous alone. In B 2 of Apoc. 
Bar. (30a-5 so/) and in the Ezra Apoc. in 4 Esd. 
(732-37) the resurrection involves all men. A resurrec 
tion or an immortality only of the soul is found in 
Jubilees, Ass. Mos. , Philo, Wisdom and 4 Mace. 

5. (a) Messianic kingdom. See above ( 71). 

(b} Messiah. We remarked above (705) that from 
about 50 B.C. the Messianic hope rooted itself so firmly 
that henceforth the Messiah became, on the whole, the 
central figure in the theocratic kingdom. It may startle 
some to find that only five of the books we. have 
dealt with express this hope (cp MESSIAH). The ex 
planation, however, is not far to seek. Against the 
secularisation of the hope of the Messiah, favoured (see 
APOCALYPTIC, 85) by the Psalms of Solomon, an 

1 Thus the resemblance to Gen. 2 7 is merely verbal. 

2 The statement that "the treasuries" are a department of 
Sheol is based on the Latin version of 4 Esdras 4 41. The 
present writer, however, is now inclined to regard this statement 
as false on various grounds, one reason being the fact that the 
Syr. and Eth. versions of the passage agree against the Latin. 

3 In the fragmentary Christian apocalypse in the Ascension 
of Isaiah (813-432) Gehenna is regarded as the final abode of 
Beliar. See 414 and cp ANTICHRIST, 13. 



emphatic protest was raised by a strong body of Phari 
sees, Quietists like the ancient Hasids (above, 57), who 
felt it to be their sole duty to observe the law, leaving it 
to God to intervene and defend them. This standpoint 
is represented by Ass. Mos. , and later by the Salathiel 
Apoc. in 4 Esdras. Among the Jews of the dispersion, 
too, this view naturally gained large acceptance. Hence 
we find no hint of the ideas it protested against in the 
Slav. En., the Book of Wisdom, and 4 Mace. This 
opposition to the hope of the Messiah from the severely 
legal wing of Pharisaism at length gave way, however, 
and in Apoc. Bar. 53-74 (i.e., A 3 ) we have literary 
evidence of the fusion of early Rabbinism and the 
popular Messianic expectation. How widespread was 
the hope of the Messiah in the first century of the 
Christian era may be seen not only from Jubilees (?), 
Philo, Josephus and the various independent writings 
in the Apoc. Bar. and 4 Esdras, but also from the NT 
and the notice taken of this expectation in Tacitus 
(Hist. 513) and Suetonius ( Vesp. 4). 

Since in all cases only a transitory Messianic kingdom 
is expected in this century, the Messiah s reign is natur 
ally conceived as likewise transitory. 

The Messiah is to be of the tribe of Judah (Jub. 31 18 /., 
4 Esd. 12 32). According to Apoc. Bar. 27-30 i and 4 Esd. 7 28 
(i.e., Ezra Apoc., see above 79, a) he is to play a passive part. 
In the former passage he is to appear at the close of the Messianic 
woes ; in the latter, at the time of the first resurrection. He is not 
usually passive, however ; in Apoc. Bar. 36-40 53-70 and 4 Esd. 
10 6o-12 35 he is a warrior who slays his enemies with the sword. 
Other writers, more loftily, substitute for a sword the invisible 
word of his mouth (4 Esd. 13 10 ; cp Ps. Sol. 17). 

6. Gentiles. In most works written before the fall of 
Jerusalem only the hostile nations are destroyed (see 
e.g. , Apoc. Bar. 40 1 /. 72 4-6) ; but in later works (see 
4 Esd. 13) this fate is suffered by all Gentiles. In no 
case have they any hope of a future life. They descend 
for ever either into Sheol or into Gehenna. If, any 
where, they are represented as having part in the resur 
rection, it is only that they may be committed to severer 
and never-ending torment (4 Esd. 7 36-38). 


In entering the field of the NT we find at once a dis 
tinguishing peculiarity. The ideas inherited from the 
past are not in a state of constant flux 
in which each idea in turn appeals for 
acceptance, and enjoys through the system which it 
generates a brief career. The ideas are subordinated 
to the central force of the Christian movement. 

In the next place we have to note that the teaching of 
Christ and of Christianity at last furnished a synthesis 
of the eschatologies of the race and the individual. 

The true Messianic kingdom begun on earth is to be consum 
mated in heaven ; it is not temporary but eternal ; it is _not 
limited to one people but embraces the righteous of all nations 
and of all times. It forms a divine society 1 in which the 
position and significance of each member is determined by his 
endowments and his blessedness conditioned by the blessedness 
of the whole. Religious individualism becomes an impossibility. 
The individual can have no part in the kingdom except through a 
living relation toils head ; but this relation cannot be maintained 
and developed save through life in and for the brethren, and so 
closely is the individual life bound to that of the brethren that 
no soul can reach its consummation apart. 

Of the large body of Jewish ideas retained in the 
system of Christian thought many undergo a partial or 
complete transformation, and it is important at the out 
set to place this relation in a clear light. We cannot 
expect Christianity to be free from inherited conceptions 
of a mechanical and highly unethical character, 2 when 
we remember that in the Hebrew religion there were 
for centuries large survivals of primitive Semitic religion. 

1 The joyous nature of the fellowship of this kingdom is set 
forth in the gospels in the figurative terms of a feast ; but all 
idea of the satisfaction of sensuous needs in the consummated 
kingdom of God is excluded by the only account of the risen life 
of the righteous which comes from the triple tradition. 

2 Among those in Christianity which historical criticism com 
pels us to assign to this class are the generally accepted doctrine 
of Hades, and the doctrine of eternal damnation. 


82. NT writers. 



Nor can we be surprised to find ideas which belong to 
different stages of development, not only in the NT as a 
whole, but also in the mind of the same NT writer. The 
fundamental teaching of Jesus, assimilated (it may be) 
more by one writer than by another, could not all at 
once transform the body of inherited eschatological 
ideas. The development of Paul will, if our results are 
correct, supply an instructive commentary on this 
axiomatic truth. 

In what follows we shall deal first ( 83-101) with 
the books and groups of books in the order that will 
best bring to light the eschatological development. We 
shall then ( 102 /.), as before, deal with the develop 
ment of special conceptions. 


chatology of the Synoptic Gospels deals with the consum- 

Th mat i n of the kingdom of God. This 

_, , . kingdom is represented under two aspects, 

jj *j now as present, now as future ; now as in 
ward and spiritual, now as external and 

Thus in Mt. 633 7 13 11 12 12 28 2131 Lk. 17 21 it is already 
present, whereas in Mt. 6 10 8n 2629 Mk. 9i Lk. 927 V&z&f. 
14 15 it is expressly conceived as still to be realised. 

The two views are organically related, and are com 
bined in a well-known saying of Jesus (Mk. 10 15), 
which declares that entrance into the kingdom as it 
shall be is dependent on a man s right attitude to the 
kingdom as it now is. 

We shall deal next with the three great events which 
are to bring about the consummation of the kingdom : 
(a) the parusia ( 84/), (6) the final judgment ( 86), 
and (c) the resurrection ( 87). 

a. The parusia l or second advent introduces the con 
summation of the divine kingdom founded by the Messiah . 
_, It is certainly to take place at the close of 
. the age (<rvvT^\ft.a TOU aluvos), Mt. 13 y)f. 49 

it. j 24s 2820. When we seek a more precise 
at hand. , .r . . , . , 

definition of time, however, we find in the 

Gospels two apparently conflicting accounts. 

(i. ) The parusia is within the current generation and 
preceded by certain signs. This was very natural, 
because in the OT the foundation and the consummation 
of the kingdom are closely connected. Hence Jesus 
declared that this generation (r\ yevea avrij) should 
not pass away till the prophetic description had been 
realised (Mt. 2434). The description referred to (see 
Mt. 24 and Mk. 13 ; Lk. 21 5-35) is no doubt full ; but 
these chapters appear to be derived in part from Jesus 
and in part from a Judaistic source. They identify two 
distinct occurrences, the destruction of Jerusalem and 
the end of the world. 2 

This is sometimes explained by the well-known theory of 
prophetic perspective (see PROPHECY) ; but the explanation 
is unsatisfactory. Illusions of the bodily eye are gradually 
corrected by experience until at last they cease to mislead ; but 
it is not so with prophecy as regards either the prophet or those 
who accept his prophecy : both are deceived. That Jesus did 
expect to return during the existing generation (Mt. 10 23 
162777 Mk. 9 i Lk. 926_/C) is proved beyond question by the 
universal hopes of the apostolic age. To speak of error in this 
regard, however, is to misconceive the essence of prophecy. So 

1 The idea of the parusia could not but arise in the mind of 
Jesus when he saw clearly the approaching violent end of his 
ministry. As a fact, it is first expressed in connection with 
Christ s first prophecy of this great event (Mk. 8 38 Mt. 1(3 27 
Lk. 826). 

2 Among attempts to analyse the chapters that of Wendt 
{Die Lehrejesu, 10-21) deserves attention. He traces Mt. 24 1-5 
23-259-1332^ 36-42 (i.e., Mk. 13 1-621-239-13 28X32-37) to Jesus, 
and the rest of this chapter to a Jewish Christian apocalypse 
written before 70 A.D. Cp also ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION. 
The present writer is of opinion that the solution of the difficulty 
must be found in some such theory as that of Wendt, which is 
a modification of that of Colani (Jesus Christ et les Croyances 
Messianiques de son Temps, p. 201 ff. [ 64]). According to the 
Jewish apocalypse just referred to, the parusia was to be 
heralded by unmistakeable signs, but this view is irreconcilable 
with another which teaches that the parusia will take the world 
by surprise (Mk. 13 33-36 Mt. 24 42-44 Lk. 12 35-40). This latter 
doctrine goes back undoubtedly to Jesus ; the former is derived 
from traditional Judaism. 


far as relates to fulfilment, it is always conditioned by the course 
of human development. OT prophecy and Jesus own inner 
consciousness as God s Messiah pointed to the immediate con 
summation of the kingdom ; but there was still possibility that 
it might be long delayed (Mt. 2448 Lk. 12 45, also Mk. 1835 Lk. 
1238 Mt. 265), and he expressly declared that the day and the 
hour of his return was known only to God (Mk. 1832). This 
determination God had withheld from him because it was 
dependent not on the divine will alone but also on the course of 
human development. He could indicate, however, the signs 
of his coming, such as the appearance of many false Messiahs 
(Mt. 24 5 Mk. 13 22), deceived by whom the nation would 
finally arise in arms against Rome, complete the national guilt, 
and entail on themselves destruction (see also ABOMINATION OF 
DESOLATION) (Mt. 2836). These things would be as cer 
tainly prophetic as the growing greenness of the fig-tree (Mt. 
24 32). The return of the Son of Man to judgment would be 
imminent (24 29-31). It should be noted, however, that docu 
ments from two very different sources appear to be combined 
here. See note 2 below. 

The same expectation is attested in Mt. 1023, where 
Jesus declares to his disciples that they will not have 
gone through the cities of Israel before the coming of 
the Son of Man, and likewise in Mt. 1627^ Mk. 838 
9 1 Lk. 926/. , where it is said that some shall not taste 
of death before that time. It must be abundantly clear 
from the evidence that the expectation of the nearness 
of the end formed a real factor in Jesus views of the 
future. There are, on the other hand, many passages 
which just as clearly present us with a different forecast of 
the future, and this view demands as careful attention. 

(ii. ) The parusia will not take place till the process 
of human development has run its course, and the 
Gospel has been preached to Jew and Gentile. 

The kingdom must spread extensively and intensively : exten 
sively, till its final expansion is out of all proportion to its 
original smallness (cp the parable of the 

85. At the end. mustard seed) ; intensively, till it transforms 
and regenerates the life of the nation, or 
rather of the world (cp the parable of the leaven, Mt. 1831-33). 
This process has its parallel in the gradual growth of a grain of 
corn; the ripe fruit is the sign for harvest (Mk. ^26^.). The 
preaching of the Gospel too must extend to the non-Israelites 
(Mt. 228yC). To the Jews, who were on their last trial, it would 
appeal in vain (Lk. 13 T,ff.\ In the coming days the kingdom 
of God should be taken from them and given to others who 
would bear appropriate fruits (Mk.l2g Mt. 21 41 43 Lk. 20 16); 
their city should be destroyed (Mt. 227), the times of the 
nations should come in (Lk. 21 24 only), and the glad tidings of 
the kingdom should be carried to all nations before the end 
should come (Mk. 13 TO and Mt. 24 14! [cp 24 9] Mt. 28 19). 

This representation of the future obviously presupposes 
a long period of development. No less than that 
of the near parusia, it goes back to Jesus. The con 
tingency that the more sanguine view, which is derived 
from OT prophecy, might not be realised, is acknow 
ledged in Mt. 2448 Lk. 1245, 2 also in Mk. 1835 where 
the possibility of an indefinitely long night of history 
preceding the final advent is clearly contemplated. It 
is hardly possible to avoid the conclusion that discourses 
relating to different events and from absolutely different 
sources are confused together in Mk. 13 = Mt. 24 = Lk. 
21 (see 84, n. ). 

1 It is possible, as Weiss (Marcus-ev., 417) thinks, that the 
original form of this statement is to be found in Mt. 10 18 and 
that its prese