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











KwSw&^ ^rV^t 




DONATED 1926 A. D. 








THE REV. T. K. CHEYNE, D.Lrrr., D.D. 






Q to Z 






First edition. May. 1903. 

J. 8. Cuihing & Co. Berwick ft Smith 
Norwood MH U.S.A. 






THE idea of preparing a new Dictionary of the Bible on critical lines for the 
benefit of all serious students, both professional and lay, was prominent in the 

. mind of the many-sided scholar to whose beloved memory the 

Genesis oi the . . ., , 

Encyclopaedia. P resent volume is inscribed. It is more than twelve years since 
Prof. Robertson Smith began to take steps towards realising this 
idea. As an academical teacher he had from the first been fully aware of the 
importance of what is known as Biblical Encyclopaedia, and his own earliest 
contributions to the subject in the Encyclopaedia Britannica carry us as far back 
as to the year 1875. If for a very brief period certain untoward events arrested 
his activity in this direction, the loss of time was speedily made up, for seldom 
perhaps has there been a greater display of intellectual energy than is given in 
the series of biblical articles signed W. R. S. which appeared in the Encyclopedia 
Britannica between 1875 and 1888. The reader who is interested in Bible 
study should not fail to examine the list, which includes among the longer articles 
and among the shorter, ANGEL, ARK, BAAL, DECALOGUE, ELI, EVE, HAGGAI, 

Nor should the students of our day overlook the service which this far- 
seeing scholar and editor rendered to the nascent conception of an international 
biblical criticism by inviting the co-operation of foreign as well as English con 
tributors. That names like those of Noldeke, Tiele, Wellhausen, Harnack, Schiirer, 
Gutschmid, Geldner, appeared side by side with those of well-known and honoured 
British scholars in the list of contributors to the Encyclopedia was a guarantee of 
freedom from dangerous eccentricity, of comprehensiveness of view, of thorough 
ness and accuracy of investigation. 

Such a large amount of material illustrative of the Bible, marked by unity 
of aim and consistency of purpose, was thus brought together that the Encyclope 
dia Britannica became, inclusively, something not unlike an Encyclopedia Biblica. 
The idea then occurred to the editor and his publishers to republish, for the 
guidance of students, all that might be found to have stood the test of time, the 
lacunse being filled up, and the whole brought up, as far as possible, to the high 
level of the most recent scholarship. It was not unnatural to wish for this ; but 
there were three main opposing considerations. In the first place, there were 
other important duties which made pressing demands on the time and energy of 


the editor. Next, the growing maturity of his biblical scholarship made him less 
and less disposed to acquiesce in provisional conclusions. And lastly, such con 
stant progress was being made by students in the power of assimilating critical 
results that it seemed prudent to wait till biblical articles, thoroughly revised and 
recast, should have a good chance of still more deeply influencing the student world. 

The waiting-time was filled up, so far as other occupations allowed, by 
pioneering researches in biblical archaeology, some of the results of which are 
admirably summed up in that fruitful volume entitled The Religion of the Semites 
(1889). More and more, Robertson Smith, like other contemporary scholars, 
saw the necessity of revising old work on the basis of a more critical, and, in a 
certain sense, more philosophical treatment of details. First of all, archaeological 
details had their share and it was bound to be a large share of this scholar s 
attention. Then came biblical geography a subject which had been brought 
prominently into notice by the zeal of English explorers, but seemed to need the 
collaboration of English critics. A long visit to Palestine was planned for the 
direct investigation of details of biblical geography, and though this could not be 
carried out, not a little time was devoted to the examination of a few of the more 
perplexing geographical problems and of the solutions already proposed (see e.g., 
APHEK, below, col. IQI/.). This care for accuracy of detail as a necessary pre 
liminary to a revision of theories is also the cause of our friend s persistent refusal 
to sanction the republication of the masterly but inevitably provisional article 
BIBLE in the Encyclopedia Britannica, to which we shall return later. The reader 
will still better understand the motive of that refusal if he will compare what 
is said on the Psalter in that article (1875) with the statements in the first edition 
of 77/i? Old Testament in tlie Jcii isJi 7/;//r//(i88o), in the Encyclopedia Britannica, 
article PSALMS (1885), and in the second edition of The Old Testament in the 
Jewish Church ( 1892). 

It is only just, however, to the true begetter of this work to emphasise the 
fact that, though he felt the adequate realisation of his idea to be some way off, 
he lost no time in pondering and working out a variety of practical details a 
task in which he was seconded by his assistant editor and intimate friend, Mr. 
J. S. Black. Many hours were given, as occasion offered, to the distribution of 
subjects and the preparation of minor articles. Some hundreds of these were 
drafted, and many were the discussions that arose as to various difficult practi 
cal points, which have not been without fruit for the present work. 

In September 1892, however, it became only too clear to Prof. Smith that 
he was suffering from a malady which might terminate fatally after no very dis 
tant term. The last hope of active participation in his long-cherished scheme of 
a Bible Dictionary had well-nigh disappeared, when one of the present editors, 
who had no definite knowledge of Prof. Smith s plan, communicated to this friend 
of many years standing his ideas of what a critical Bible Dictionary ought to be, 
and inquired whether he thought that such a project could be realised. Prof. 
Smith was still intellectually able to consider and pronounce upon these ideas, 
and gladly recognised their close affinity to his own. Unwilling that all the 
labour already bestowed by him on planning and drafting articles should be lost, 
he requested Prof. Cheyne to take up the work which he himself was compelled 
to drop, in conjunction with the older and more intimate friend already mentioned. 
Hence the combination of names on the title-page. The work is undertaken by the 
editors as a charge from one whose parting message had the force of a command. 


Such is the history of the genesis of the Encyclopedia Btblica, which is the 
result primarily of a fusion of two distinct but similar plans a fusion desired by 
p ,. . , , ,, Prof. Robertson Smith himself, as the only remaining means of 
Encyclopedia reansm g adequately his own fundamental ideas. With regard to 
details, he left the editors entirely free, not from decline of physical 
strength, but from a well-grounded confidence that religion and the Bible were 
not less dear to them than to himself, and that they fully shared his own uncom 
promisingly progressive spirit. The Bible Dictionary which he contemplated was 
no mere collection of useful miscellanea, but a survey of the contents of the Bible, 
as illuminated by criticism a criticism which identifies the cause of religion 
with that of historical truth, and, without neglecting the historical and archaeo 
logical setting of religion, loves best to trace the growth of high conceptions, 
the flashing forth of new intuitions, and the development of noble personalities, 
under local and temporal conditions that may often be, to human eyes, most 
adverse. The importance of the newer view of the Bible to the Christian com 
munity, and the fundamental principles of the newer biblical criticism, have been 
so ably and so persuasively set forth by Prof. Robertson Smith in his Lectures 
that his fellow-workers may be dispensed from repeating here what he has said so 
well already. There remaineth yet very much land to be possessed. Let us 
assume, then, that the readers of this Encyclopaedia, whatever be their grade of 
knowledge or sphere of work, are willing to make an effort to take this widely 
extended land in possession. 

Every year, in fact, expands the narrow horizons which not so long ago 
limited the aspirations of the biblical scholar. It is time, as Prof. Robertson 
Smith thought, to help students to realise this, and to bring the standard books on 
which they rely more up to date. It may seem hopeless to attempt this with an 
alphabetically arranged encyclopaedia, which necessarily involves the treatment 
of subjects in an isolated way. By an elaborate system of cross references, 
however, and by interspersing a considerable number of comprehensive articles 
been sought to avoid the danger of treating minute details without regard to 
their wider bearings. Many of the minor articles, too, have been so constructed 
as to suggest the relation of the details to the larger wholes. Altogether the 
minor articles have, one ventures to hope, brought many direct gains to biblical 
study. Often the received view of the subject of a minor article proved to be 
extremely doubtful, and a better view suggested itself. Every endeavour has 
been used to put this view forward in a brief and yet convincing manner, without 
occupying too much space and becoming too academic in style. The more com 
prehensive articles may here and there be found to clash with the shorter articles. 
Efforts, however, have been made to mitigate this by editorial notes in both 
classes of articles. 

It will also doubtless be found that on large questions different writers have 
sometimes proposed different theories and hypotheses. The sympathies of the 
editors are, upon the whole, with what is commonly known as advanced criticism, 
not simply because it is advanced, but because such criticism, in the hands of a 
resourceful scholar, takes account of facts, both literary and archaeological, which 
the criticism of a former generation overlooked or treated superficially. They 
have no desire, however, to boycott moderate criticism, when applied by a critic 
who, either in the form or in the substance of his criticism, has something original 


to say. An advanced critic cannot possibly feel any arrogance towards his 
more moderate colleague, for probably he himself held not very long ago 
views resembling those which the moderate critic holds now, and the latter 
may find his precautionary tests end in his adopting, as nearer approximations 
to truth, views that now seem to him difficult. Prof. Robertson Smith s views of 
ten years ago, or more, may, at the present day, appear to be moderate criti 
cism ; but when he formulated them he was in the vanguard of critics, and 
there is no reason to think that, if he had lived, and devoted much of his time 
to biblical criticism, his ardour would have waned, and his precedence passed to 

There are, no doubt, some critical theories which could not consistently have 
been represented in the present work ; and that, it may be remarked, suggests 
one of the reasons why Prof. Robertson Smith s early Encyclopedia Britannica 
article, BIBLE, could not have been republished, even by himself. When he wrote 
it he was still not absolutely sure about the chronological place of P (Priestly 
Code). He was also still under the influence of the traditional view as to the 
barrenness and unoriginality of the whole post-exilic period. Nor had he faced 
the question of the post-exilic redaction of the prophetic writings. The funda 
mental principles of biblical criticism, however, are assumed throughout that fine 
article, though for a statement of these we must turn to a more mature production 
of his pen. See, for example, The Old Testament in the Jewish Church, pp. 16 
ff. (cp ist ed. pp. 24 ff.}, and notice especially the following paragraph on p. 17 : 

Ancient books coming down to us from a period many centuries before the invention of 
printing have necessarily undergone many vicissitudes. Some of them are presented only in 
imperfect copies made by an ignorant scribe of the dark ages. Others have been disfigured by 
editors, who mixed up foreign matter with the original text. Very often an important book 
fell altogether out of sight for a long time, and when it came to light again all knowledge of its 
origin was gone ; for old books did not generally have title-pages and prefaces. And, when 
such a nameless roll was again brought into notice, some half-informed reader or transcriber 
was not unlikely to give it a new title of his own devising, which was handed down thereafter 
as if it had been original. Or again, the true meaning and purpose of a book often became 
obscure in the lapse of centuries, and led to false interpretations. Once more, antiquity has 
handed down to us many writings which are sheer forgeries, like some of the Apocryphal books, 
or the Sibylline oracles, or those famous Epistles of Phalaris, which formed the subject of 
Bentlefs great critical essay. In all such cases the historical critic must destroy the received 
view, in order to establish the truth. He must review doubtful titles, purge out interpolations, 
expose forgeries ; but he does so only to manifest the truth, and exhibit the genuine remains of 
antiquity in their real character. A book that is really old and really valuable has nothing to 
fear from the critic, whose labours can only put its worth in a clearer light, and establish its 
authority on a surer basis. 

The freedom which Prof. Robertson Smith generously left to his successors 
has, with much reluctance, yet without hesitation, on the part of the editors, been 
exercised in dealing with the articles which he wrote for the Encyclopaedia 
Britannica. The editors are well assured that he would have approved their 
conduct in this respect. Few scholars, indeed, would refrain from rewriting, to a 
large extent, the critical articles which they had produced some years previously ; 
and this, indeed, is what has been done by several contributors who wrote biblical 
articles for the former Encyclopaedia. The procedure of those who have revised 
our friend s articles has in fact been as gentle and considerate as possible. Where 
these articles seemed to have been destined by himself for some degree of per- 



manence, they have been retained, and carefully revised and brought up to date. 
Some condensation has sometimes been found necessary. The original articles 
were written for a public very imperfectly imbued with critical principles, whereas 
now, thanks to his own works and to those of other progressive scholars, Bible 
students are much more prepared than formerly to benefit by advanced teaching. 
There is also a certain amount of new material from Prof. Smith s pen (in two or 
three cases consisting of quotations from the MS of the second and third courses 
of Burnett Lectures), but much less, unfortunately, than had been expected. 

Freedom has also been used in taking some fresh departures, especially in 
two directions viz., in that of textual criticism of the Old Testament, and in that 
of biblical archaeology. The object of the editors has been, with the assistance 
of their contributors, not only to bring the work up to the level of the best 
published writings, but, wherever possible, to carry the subjects a little beyond 
the point hitherto reached in print. Without the constant necessity of investi 
gating the details of the text of the Old Testament, it would be hard for any one 
to realise the precarious character of many details of the current biblical archae 
ology, geography, and natural history, and even of some not unimportant points 
in the current Old Testament theology. Entirely new methods have not indeed 
been applied ; but the methods already known have perhaps been applied with 
somewhat more consistency than before. With regard to archaeology, such a 
claim can be advanced only to a slight extent. More progress perhaps has been 
made of late years in the field of critical archaeology than in that of textual criti 
cism. All, therefore, that was generally necessary was to make a strong effort 
to keep abreast of recent archaeological research both in Old Testament and in 
New Testament study. 

The fulness of detail with which the data of the Versions have been given 
may provoke some comment. Experience has been the guide of the editors, and 
they believe that, though in the future it will be possible to give these data in a 
more correct, more critical, and more condensed form, the student is best served 
at present by being supplied as fully as possible with the available material. It 
may also be doubted by some whether there is not too much philology. Here, 
again, experience has directed the course to be pursued. In the present transi 
tional stage of lexicography, it would have been undesirable to rest content with 
simply referring to the valuable new lexicons which are now appearing, or have 
already appeared. 

With regard to biblical theology, the editors are not without hope that they 
have helped to pave the way for a more satisfactory treatment of that important 
subject which is rapidly becoming the history of the movement of religious life and 
thought within the Jewish and the Christian church (the phrase may be inaccurate, 
but is convenient). Systems of Prophetic, Pauline, Petrine, Johannine theology 
have had their day ; it is perhaps time that the Bible should cease to be regarded 
as a storehouse of more or less competing systems of abstract thought. Unfor 
tunately the literary and historical criticism of the New Testament is by no means 
as far advanced as that of the Old Testament. At no very distant date a real 
history of the movement of religious life and thought in the earlier period may 
be possible. For such a history for the later period we shall have to wait longer, 
if we may infer anything from the doubtless inevitable defects of the best existing 
handbook of New Testament theology, that of the able veteran critic, H. J. Holtz- 
mann. The editors of the present work are keenly interested in the subject at 


present called Biblical Theology ; but, instead of attempting what is at present 
impossible, they have thought it better _to leave some deficiencies which future 
editors will probably find it not difficult to supply. They cannot, however, con 
clude this section without a hearty attestation of the ever-increasing love for the 
Scriptures which critical and historical study, when pursued in a sufficiently com 
prehensive sense, appears to them to produce. The minutest details of biblical 
research assume a brightness not their own when viewed in the light of the great 
truths in which the movement of biblical religion culminates. May the reader find 
cause to agree with them ! This would certainly have been the prayerful aspira 
tion of the beloved and lamented scholar who originated this Encyclopaedia. 

To the contributors of signed articles, and to those who have revised and 
brought up to date the articles of Prof. Robertson Smith and other deceased 
scholars, it may seem almost superfluous to render thanks for the 
C me^ 6 ^" k^P they have so generously given. It constitutes a fresh bond 
between scholars of different countries and religious communions 
which is surely of happiest augury. But the special services of the various mem 
bers of the editorial staff require specific acknowledgment, which the editors have 
much pleasure in making. Mr. Hope W. Hogg became a contributor to the 
Encyclopaedia Biblica in 1894, and in 1895 became a regular member of the edito 
rial staff. To his zeal, energy, and scholarship the work has been greatly indebted 
in every direction. Mr. Stanley A. Cook joined the staff in 1896, and not only 
has contributed various signed articles, which to the editors appear to give promise 
of fine work in the future, but also has had a large share in many of those that are 
of composite authorship and unsigned. Mr. Maurice A. Canney joined the staff 
in 1898; he also has contributed signed articles, and has been eminently helpful 
in every way, especially in the reading of the proofs. Finally, the editors desire 
to acknowledge their very special obligations to the Rev. Henry A. Redpath, M.A., 
editor of the Concordance to the Septiiagint, who placed his unrivalled experience 
at their disposal by controlling all the proofs at a certain stage with special 
reference to the LXX readings. 



2o//i September 1899. 


IF in what was written more than three years ago by way of preface to the 
Encyclopedia Biblica any modification were to be thought desirable, it would 
chiefly perhaps be in the sentences devoted to the immediate prospects of 
Biblical Theology. It is becoming more and more obvious that the yearly 
advancing study of the apocryphal and apocalyptic Jewish literature is destined 
to have considerable effect within the near future on the treatment of the 
religious ideas of both parts of our Bible. Nor can we doubt that the progress 
now being made in the investigation of the early Christian literature will also 
turn to the advantage of the Biblical Theology of the New Testament. It is on 
this ground that the editors have ventured to include in Vols. III. and IV. 
a number of introductory and descriptive articles connected with this new 
subject. To meet a possible objection, it may perhaps be added that the 

researches into the original text of the Old Testament with which the name of 
one of the editors is specially connected are by no means necessarily unfavour 
able to the study of Old Testament Theology. For even if the religious contents 
of parts of the Old Testament in their original form should turn out to be 
somewhat less rich and varied than is agreeable to traditional ideas, yet the text 
in its present form, even if not the original, has an independent right of existence, 
and the interpretation put upon this text by Jewish and early Christian students 
deserves the most respectful attention. The Old Testament was surely not a 
dead book to the Jews of the great post-exilic age, but was full of light, and 
susceptible of the most varied and edifying adaptations. At the same time, the 
historical student may justly cherish the hope that by the researches into the 
underlying text of precious passages in psalms and prophecies (not to add, 
narratives) which have just now been referred to, the course of historical develop 
ment may become more comprehensible than it has hitherto been, while those 
who have the best of all enthusiasms the enthusiasm for religion will be 
stirred up to more and more admiration of the wonderful dealings of God in the 
religious training- of that Israel within Israel to which the Christian church is 

o c> 

under perpetual obligations. The Editors would also take this opportunity 

of expressing a natural regret that the discovery of the oldest code of laws in 
the world, that promulgated by Hammurabi king of Babylon (2285-2242 B.C.), 
and disinterred in Dec. igoi-Jan. 1902 by M. J. de Morgan on the site of 
the ancient Susa, was not made a year or two earlier. This code is the most 
valuable single contribution of recent years to that study of ancient Semitic laws 
and usages with which the name of Robertson Smith is specially connected, 
and will not only throw fresh light on the legal codes of the Israelites, but 
also give a fresh impetus to the critical study of the Hebrew origines. On all 


accounts they are sorry not to have been able to make this new find helpful to 
the readers of the Encyclopedia. 

To attempt any discussion of the criticisms, whether favourable or adverse, 
which have been made upon the methods employed or results set forth in the 
Encyclopedia would manifestly be out of place here. Other opportunities will 
occur ; and time, too, will doubtless exercise its mellowing and reconciling 
influence. It may even be hoped that the confusing practice of denominating 
some critics super-naturalistic, others naturalistic, some critics sober and safe, 
others extravagant and unsafe, may soon pass away in the light of a fuller com 
prehension of the meaning of critical results, the complexity of critical problems, 
and the variety of legitimate and necessary critical methods. There are 

some other things of a more general nature which the editors would fain say in 
all simplicity and earnestness, but they prefer to ask leave to quote a passage 
from Dr. Hort s Introduction to the now famous edition of the New Testament 
by himself and Bishop Westcott, with the spirit of which they are in deepest 
sympathy, and the expressions of which, especially in the closing sentences, they 
can heartily adopt as their own. 

// only remains to express an earnest hope that whatever labour we have been allowed to 
contribute towards the ascertainment of the truth of the letter may also be alloived, in ways 
which must for the most part be invisible to ourselves, to contribute towards strengthening, 
correcting, and extending human apprehension of the larger truth of the spirit. Others 
assuredly in due time will prosecute the task with better resources of knowledge and skill, and 
amend the faults and defects of our processes and results. To be faithful to such light as could 
be enjoyed in our oivn day was the utmost that we could desire. How far we have fallen short 
of t/iis standard, we are well aware : yet we are bold to say that none of the shortcomings are 
due to lack of anxious and watchful sincerity. An implicit confidence in all truth, a keen sense 
of its variety, and a deliberate dread of shutting out truth as yet unknmvn are no security 
against some of the wandering lights that are apt to beguile a critic ; but, in so far as they are 
obeyed, they at least quench every inclination to guide criticism into delivering such testimonv as 
may be to the supposed advantage of truth already inherited or acquired. Critics of the Bible, 
if they have been taught by the Bible, are unable to forget that the duty of guileless workman 
ship is never superseded by any other. 1 

In conclusion, the Editors desire anew to express their gratitude for the in 
valuable services of the members of the editorial staff Messrs. Hogg, Cook, and 
Canney which have been continued with unabated zeal to the termination of 
the work ; as also, their great indebtedness to Dr. Redpath for having read the 
proofs with a special reference to the readings of the LXX. In connection with 
the maps their thanks are due not only to the authors of various articles to which 
these relate, but also to Prof. Max Miiller, particularly for help in the preparation 
of the map of Syria according to the Egyptian monuments, to Col. Billerbeck for 
two maps of Syria according to cuneiform documents, and in a very special 
degree to Mr. (now Prof.) Hogg, who has throughout superintended the whole 
map-work in the Encyclopedia, including the indexing. 

T. K. C. 
J. S. B. 
2 7/7; March, 1903. 


THE labour that has been bestowed on even minor matters in the preparation of this Encyclopedia 
seemed to be warranted by the hope that it might be found useful as a students handbook. Its 
convenient use will be facilitated by attention to the principles that have been adopted in regard to 
the following matters. 

1. Classes of Articles. The following notes will give a general idea what the reader may 
expect to find and where to look for it : 

1. Proper Names. Every proper name in the Old and the New Testament canons and the 
OT Apocrypha (Authorised Version or Revised Version, text or margin) is represented by an 
article-heading in Clarendon type, the substantive article being usually given under the name as 
found in the AV text. The printing of Adoraiin, on the same line as ADOKA (col. 71), and 
Adullamite, three lines below ADULLAM (col. 73), in bold black type, are examples of a means of 
saving space. 

ii. Books. Every book in the OT and the NT canons and the OT Apocrypha is discussed 
in a special article e.g.j Acts, Chronicles, Deuteronomy. The Song of Solomon 1 is dealt with 
under the title CANTICLES, and the last book in the NT under APOCALYPSE. 

iii. General Articles. With the view, amongst other things, of securing the greatest pos 
sible brevity, many matters have been treated in general articles, the minor headings being dealt 
with concisely by the help of cross-references. Such general articles are: ABI (NAMES WITH), 

iv. Other Subjects. The following are examples of other important headings : ADAM AND 

v. Things. The Encyclopedia Biblica is professedly a dictionary of things, not words, and 
a great effort has been made to adhere rigidly to this principle. Even where at first sight the rule 
seems to have been neglected, it will generally be found that this is not really the case. The 
only way to tell the English reader what has to be told about (e.g.) CHAINS is to distinguish the 
various things that are called, or should have been called, chain in the English Version, and 
refer him to the articles where they are dealt with. 

vi. Mere Cross-references (see above, 1, i. ; and below, 2)- 

2. Method of Cross-References. A very great deal of care has been bestowed on the 
cross-references, because only by their systematic use could the necessary matter be adequately 
dealt with within the limits of one volume. These references have made possible a conciseness 
that is not attained at the expense of incompleteness, repetition of the same matter under different 
headings being reduced to a minimum. For this reason the articles have been prepared, not in 
alphabetical order, but simultaneously in all parts of the alphabet, being thereafter worked up 
together constantly and kept up to date. The student may be assured, therefore, that the cross- 
references have not been inserted at random ; they have always been verified. If any should be 
found to be unwarranted (no such is known), it must be because it has been found necessary, after 
the reference was made, to remove something from the article named to another article, 
removed matter will no doubt be represented by a cross-reference. 

The method of reference employed is as follows : 

i. Identification of Article, (a) Long Names. To save space long headings have been 
curtailed in citations ^., APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE is cited as APOCALYPTIC. 


(b) Synonymous Articles. Persons or places of the same name are ranged as I, 2, 3, etc. 
(Arabic numerals), under a common heading and cited accordingly. In other cases (and even in 
the former case when, as in ADNAH in col. 67, one English spelling represents different Hebrew 
spellings), the articles usually have separate headings, in which case they are cited as i., ii., iii., etc. 
(Roman numerals), although they are not so marked. Usually geographical articles precede bio 
graphical, and persons precede books. Thus SAMUEL i., 2 is the second person called Samuel ; 
SAMUEL ii. is the article SAMUEL, BOOKS OF. If a wrong number should be found the explanation 
will be not that it was not verified, but that the article referred to is one of a very small number in 
which the original order of synonymous articles had to be changed : the precautions always taken in 
such circumstances must have failed in this case. Thus the BERED referred to in the article ALUSH 
is now BERED i., i, not, as is stated in the earlier impressions, BERED ii., i. 

ii. Indication of Place in Article Cited. Articles of any length are divided into numbered 
sections ( I, 2, etc.) indicated by insets containing a descriptive word or phrase. As con 
venience of reference is the great aim, the descriptive phrases are limited to, at most, three or 
four words, and the sections are numbered consecutively. Logical subordination of sections, 
therefore, cannot appear. Divisions larger than sections are sometimes indicated in the text by 
I.. II., etc.. and subdivisions of sections by letters and numbers (a, b, c\ a, (3, y; i., ii., iii.). 
References like (BENJAMIN, 9, ii. ft) are freely used. Most of the large articles (e.g., APOCALYPTIC 
LITERATURE, CHRONOLOGY) have prefixed to them a table of contents. 

iii. Manner of Citation. The commonest method is (see DAVID, ii, \c\ ii.). EZRA (q.v., 
ii. 9) means the article EZRA-NEHEMIAH, BOOK OF, 9. Sometimes, however, the capitals or 
the q.v. may be dispensed with. CHAINS printed in small capitals in the middle of an article 
would mean that there is an article on that term, but that it hardly merits q.v. from the present 
point of view. In articles (generally on RV names) that are mere cross-references q.v. is generally 
omitted; so, e.g., in ABADIAS in col. 3. 

3. Typographical Devices, i- Size of Type. (a) Letters. Two sizes of type are used, 
and considerable care has been devoted to the distribution of the small-type passages. Usually 
the general meaning of an article can be caught by reading simply the large-type parts. The 
small-type passages generally contain such things as proofs of statements, objections, more techni 
cal details. In these passages, and in footnotes and parentheses, abbreviations (see below, p. 
xviii^".), which are avoided as much as possible elsewhere, are purposely used, (b) Numbers. 
Two sizes of Arabic numerals are used. (Note that the smallest 6 and 8 are a different shape from 
the next larger and 8.) In making references, when only the volume is given, it is usually cited 
by a Roman number. Pages are cited by Arabic numbers except where (as is often the case) 
pages of a preface are marked with Roman numbers. When numbers of two ranks are required, 
two sizes of Arabic numbers (5 5 ) are used whether the reference be to book and chapter, volume 
and page, or section and line. If three ranks are needed, Roman numbers are prefixed (v. o 5 ). 

ii. Italics. Italic type is much used in citing foreign words. In geographical articles, as a 
rule, the printing of a modern place-name in italics indicates that the writer of the article identifies 
it with the place under discussion. For the significance of the different kinds of type in the map 
of Assyria see the explanations at the foot of the map. On the two kinds of Greek type see 
below, 4 ii- (&) On the Greek MS D as distinguished from D, see below, 4 ii- d. 

iii. Small Capitals. Small Roman capitals are used in two ways: (i) in giving the equiva 
lent in RV for the name in AV, or vice versa, and (2) in giving a cross-reference (see above, 2 iii-)- 
On the use of small italic capitals see below, 4 ii. b. 

iv. Symbols. (a) Index Figures. In almost always 6 clear. the 6 indicates footnote 6. 
In Introd.( 6) the 6 means sixth edition. On the 2 in ; D., etc. see below, p. xviii.^". 

(b) Asterisk. B* means the original scribe of codex B. If the Egyptian dobet were printed 
*dobet the * would mark the word as hypothetical in form (e.g., uncertain vocalisation), v. 5 * means 
7>. 5 (partly). 

(c) Dagger. A dagger f is used to indicate that all the passages where a word occurs are 
cited. The context must decide whether the English word or the original is meant. 

(d) Sign of Equality. AALAR. i Esd. 5 3 e AV = Ezra 2 59 IMMER, i., means that the two 
/erses quoted are recensions of the same original, and that what is called Aalar in the one is 
called Immer in the other, as will be explained in the first of the articles entitled IMMER. 

(f) Sign of Parallelism. || is the adjective corresponding to the verb = . Thus : Aalar of 
i Esd. 5 3 6 A V appears as Immer in || Ezra 2 59 . || also denotes Hebrew parallelism. See, e.g., 
CLEAN and UNCLEAN, i (3). 

(/ ) Other devices. 99 means 1899. i Ch. 6 81 [66] means that verse 8r in the English 
version represents that numbered 66 in Hebrew texts. -^ is used to indicate the root of a 



v. Punctuation. As a rule commas are not used between citations, thus : 2 K. 21 25 Is. 21 7 . 
Commas are omitted and semicolons or colons inserted whenever ambiguity seems thus to be 
avoided e.g., the father Achbor [i] is called Father of Baal-hanan [i] king of Edom, and the 
son Baal-hanan [i] is called ben Achbor [i] ; one of the kings of Edom. 1 

4. Text-Critical Apparatus. As all sound investigation must be based, not on the ancient 
texts as they lie before the student, but on what he believes to be the nearest approach he can make 
to their original reading, the soundness of every text is weighed, and if need be, discussed, before 
it is used in the Encyclopedia Biblica. 

i. Traditional Original Text. In quoting the traditional Hebrew text the editions of Baer 
and of Ginsburg have been relied on as a rule ; similarly in the case of the New Testament, the 
texts of Tischendorf and of Westcott and Hort. 

ii. Evidence of Versions. The Vulgate (ed. Heyse-Tischendorf ), the Syriac (ed. Lee, and 
London Polyglott ; for the Apocrypha, Lagarde and the minor Greek versions (Field, Hexapla ; 
Hatch-Redpath, Concordance) have been quoted quite freely ; the testimony of the Septuagint has 
been attended to on every point. 

In exceptional cases Holmes and Parsons has been consulted ; ordinarily Swete s manual 
edition (including the variants) and Lagarde s Pars Prior have been considered sufficient. In 
general (for the main exception see next paragraph) only variations of some positive interest or im 
portance have been referred to. Almost invariably a quotation from the LXX is followed by sym 
bols indicating the authorities cited (thus moi [BAL]). This does not necessarily imply that in 
some other MS or MSS a different reading is found; it is simply a guarantee that Swete s digest of 
readings and Lagarde have both been consulted. The formula [BAL], or ( UAL > standing alone 
means that the editors found no variant in Swete or Lagarde to report. In the parts, therefore, 
where Swete cites X or other MSS as well as BA, BAL includes them unless the context indicates 
otherwise. When BAL stands alone the meaning is everywhere the same ; it is a summary report 
of agreement in Swete and Lagarde. 

Proper names have been felt to demand special treatment ; the aim has been to give under 
each name the readings of Lagarde and all the variants of BJ<A as cited in Swete. The com 
monest, or a common, form for each witness is given at the head of the article, and this is followed 
at once or in the course of the article by such variants as there are. Where all the passages con 
taining a given name are cited in the article, the apparatus of Greek readings (as in Swete and 
Lagarde) may be considered absolutely complete. In other cases, completeness, though aimed at, 
has not been found possible. 

The distinction between declinable and indeclinable forms has generally been observed ; but 
different cases of the same declinable form have not as a rule (never in the case of common nouns) 
been taken note of. Where part of one name has been joined in the LXX to the preceding or suc 
ceeding name, the intruding letters have usually been given in square brackets, though in some very 
obvious cases they may have been ignored. 

When MSS differ only in some giving i and others giving et this is indicated concisely thus : 
( a(3ci.a [B], a/2ia [AL], 1 becomes a/3[e]ta [BAL]. 1 Similarly, -r., -TT. becomes -[T]T. 

Much care has been bestowed on the readings, and every effort has been made to secure the 
highest attainable accuracy. Naturally the Hatch-Redpath Concordance to tJie Septuagint has 
been freely used. As has been already stated, however (p. xii), the Encyclopcedia Biblica has also 
had the benefit of Dr. Redpath s personal help. Unfortunately, misprints and other inaccuracies 
inaccuracies sometimes appearing for the first time after the last proofreading are especially liable 
to occur in a work of this kind. Corrections of errors, however minute, addressed to the publishers, 
will always be gratefully received. 

Some typographical details require to be explained : 

(a) In giving proper names, initial capitals, breathings, and accents are dispensed with; they 
were unknown in the oldest MSS (cp Swete, vol. I p. xiii 2). 

(fr) The Greek readings at the head of an article are given in uncials, and the Vulgate read 
ings in small italic capitals ; elsewhere ordinary type is used. 

(c) The first Greek reading is given in full ; all others are abbreviated as much as possible. 
Letters suppressed at the beginning of a word are represented by a dash, letters at the end by a 
period. In every case the abbreviated form is to be completed by reference to the Greek form 
immediately preceding, whether that is given in full or not. Thus, e.g., afte^aarru/j., (3. . . . TTI/X, 
-TTtw, /3eAcra x means a/JeAouTTtt/x,, /3f.X.cra.TTi/j., /JcAoraTTeiv, /ifcAcra. That is to say, the 
abbreviated form repeats a letter (or if necessary more) of the form preceding. Two exceptions 
are sometimes made. The dash sometimes represents the whole of the preceding form e.g., in. 

1 Bf\<ra. with a period, as it stood in early impressions of the art. ABEL-SHITTIM, would mean 0f \<ra.TTfiv. 



cases like a/?ta, -s and one letter has sometimes been simply substituted for another: e.g., v for 
H in ei/u.. -v. These exceptions can hardly lead to ambiguity. 

{(i) The following are the symbols most frequently quoted from Swete s digest with their 
meaning : 

D testimony of the Grabe-Owen collation of D 
before D was partly destroyed (see Swete, 
vol. i p. xxiv). 

Z* 8 1 = readings inferred from the collation e silentio. 

^c.a = a corrector of X belonging to the yth cent. (Sw., 
vol. 2 p. viii ; cp vol. i p. xxi). 

* = original scribe. 

1 = his own corrections. 

a, b, c = other correctors. 

> = first corrector confirmed by second. 

a? b? = a or b. 

a? b = b, perhaps also a, 

a(vid) = prob. a. 

a rid = a> jf it be a bonafide correction at all. 

= corrector of X c - n or X * ; see Sw., vol. 2 p. viii. 
= corrector of X c - a or X*; see Sw., vol. i p. xxi. 
= B as in Vercellone and Cozza s facsimile ed. 

(e) The following are the MSS most commonly cited: 

X Sinaiticus (cp Swete, vol. i p. xx). 

A Alexandrinus (Swete, vol. i p. xxii). 

B Vaticanus (Swete, vol. i p. xvii). 

C Cod. Ephraemi Syri rescriptus Parisiensis 

(Swete, vol. 2 p. xiii). 
D Cod. Cottonianus Geneseos (Swete, vol. i p. 

E Cod. Bodleianus Geneseos (Sw., vol. i p. xxvi). 

F Cod. Ambrosianus (Swete, vol. i p. xxvi). 

87 Cod. Chisianus (Swete, vol. 3 p. xii;. 

Syr. Cod. Syro-Hexaplaris Ambrosianus (Swete, vol. 3 

p. xiii). 

V Cod. Venetus (= 23, Parsons ; Swete, vol. 3 p. xiv). 
Q Cod. Marchalianus (Swete, vol. 3 p. vii). 
T Cod. rescriptus Cryptoferratensis (Swete, vol. 3 


5. Proper Name Articles. Proper name articles usually begin thus. The name is followed 
by a parenthesis giving (i) the original; (2) when necessary, the number of the section in the 
general article NAMES where the name in question is discussed or cited ; (3) a note on the ety 
mology or meaning of the (personal) name with citation of similar names ; (4) the readings of 
the versions (see above, 4 ii-)- See for an example AARON. The Hebrew ben 1 ( b."), son 
of, b ne, 1 sons of is often used, partly for brevity and to avoid certain ambiguities (see 
above, 3 v -) and partly because of its indefinite meaning. 

6. Geographical Articles. The interpretation of place-names is discussed in the article 
NAMES. The maps that are issued with Volume I. are the district of Damascus, the environs of 
Babylon, knd Syria, Assyria, and Babylonia 1 (between cols. 352 and 353). The last-mentioned 
is mainly designed to illustrate the non-Palestinian geography of the Old Testament. It is made 
use of to show the position of places outside of Palestine mentioned in Volume I. which happen to 
fall within its bounds. 

In all maps biblical names are assigned to sites only when the article discussing the question 
regards the identification as extremely probable (the degree of probability must be learned from the 

The following geographical terms are used in the senses indicated : 

Der, deir, monastery. 
Haj(j), pilgrimage to Mecca. 
Jebel (].), mountain. 
Kefr, Kafr, village. 
Khan, caravanserai. 

Khirbet-(Kh.}, ruins of . 

Nahr (N.), river. 

Tell, mound (often containing ruins). 

Wadl (W.), valley, torrent-course. 

Wel i, vjely, Mohammedan saint, saint s tomb. 

7. Transliteration, etc. Whilst the Encyclopaedia Biblica is meant for the student, other 
readers have constantly been kept in view. Hence the frequent translation of Hebrew and other 
words, and the transliteration of words in Semitic languages. In certain cases transliteration also 
saves space. No effort has been made at uniformity for its own sake. Intelligibility has been 
thought sufficient. When pronunciation is indicated e.g., Behemoth, Leviathan what is meant 
is that the resulting form is the nearest that we can come to the original as represented by the 
traditional Hebrew, so long as we adhere to the English spelling. 

In the case of proper names that have become in some degree naturalised in an incorrect form, 
that form has been preserved : e.g., Shalmaneser, Tiglath-pileser. Where there is an alternative, 
naturally the closer to the original is selected: therefore Nebuchadrezzar (with r as in Ezek., etc.), 
Nazirite. Where there is no naturalised form names are given in exact transliteration e.g.. 
Asur-res-isi. In the case of Assyrian names, hyphens are used to separate the component parts, 
which begin with a capital when they are divine names e.g., Puzur-Asur; but Asur-dan. 

In the case of modern (Arabic) place-names the spelling of the author whose description has 
been most used has generally been retained, except when it would have been misleading to the 
student. The diacritical marks have been checked or added after verification in some Arabic 
source or list. 



On the Assyrian alphabet see BABYLONIA, 6, and on the Egyptian, EGYPT, 12. One 
point remains to be explained, after which it will suffice to set forth the schemes of transliteration 
in tabular form. The Hebrew h (n) represents philologically the Arabic h and h, which are 
absolutely distinct sounds. The Hebrew spoken language very likely marked the distinction. 
As the written language, however, ignores it. n is always transliterated h. The Assyrian guttural 
transliterated with an h, on the other hand, oftenest represents the Arabic h, and is therefore 
always transliterated h (in Muss.-Arn. Did., .r, for x), never h. There is no h in transliterated 
Assyrian ; for the written language did not distinguish the Arabic h from the A rabic h, , g, or , 
representing them all indifferently by , which accordingly does not, in transliterated Assyrian, 
mean simply X but indifferently S or n or h or tt or g. Hence, e.g., Nabu-nahid is simply one 
interpretation of Nabu-na id. Egyptian, lastly, requires not only h, h, and h, like Arabic, but also a 
fourth symbol h (see EGYPT, 12, note). 

























bh (b) 


































sh, s 


sh, s 



dh (d) 
















w, v 


w, u 

kh k) 



Extra Arabic Consonants: ti 

, th, t_ ; .>, dh, d ; \jO, d ; Jc, z. 


Heb. a e I o u 

a e i o u 

very short 
a e 8 or a e 

almost a glide 
8 or e or 

Ar. a I u a (e) i (e) u (o) 

Ar. diphthongs : ai, ay, ei, ey, e ; a\v, au, o. 

8. Signatures. Parts of articles as well as whole articles bear the signature of the author or 
authors, the exact share contributed by each writer being indicated, where possible, at the end thus : 
A. B. 1-5 ; c. D. 6-io. When the signature would be too complex, and in a majority of the 
minor articles even otherwise, no attempt has been made to assign a definite authorship and 
the articles rest on the editorial responsibility. When in such an article there occurs a suggestion 
that seems to need a signature, its author s initials are appended to the whole article. A key to the 
signatures will be found on p. xxvii. 

H. W. H. 



The following pages explain the abbreviations that are used in the more technical parts (see 
above, p. xiv 3 i. []) of the Encyclopedia, The list does not claim to be exhaustive, and, for the 
most part, it takes no account of well-established abbreviations, or such as have seemed to be fairly 
obvious. The bibliographical notes will, it is hoped, be welcome to the student. 

The Canonical and Apocryphal books of the Bible are usually referred to as Gen., Ex., Lev., 
Nu., Dt., Josh., Judg., Ruth, S(a.), K(i.), Ch[r.], Ezra, Neh., Esth., Job, Ps., Pr., Eccles., 
C(an)t., Is., Jer., Lam., Ezek., Dan., Hos., Joel, Am., Ob., Jon., Mi., Nah., Hab., Zeph., Hag., 
Zech., Mai. ; i Esd., 4 Esd. (i.e., 2 Esd. of EV), Tob., Judith, VVisd., Ecclus., Baruch, Epistle of 
Jeremy (i.e., Bar. ch. 6), Song of the Three Children (Dan. 3 23 ), Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, 
Prayer of Manasses, 1-4 Mace. ; Mt., Mk., Lk., Jn., Acts, Rom., Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil., Col., Thess., 
Tim., Tit., Philem., Heb., Ja[s.], Pet., 1-3 Jn., Jude, Rev. [or Apoc.]. 

An explanation of some of the symbols (A, K, B, etc.), now generally used to denote certain 
Greek MSS of the Old or New Testaments, will be found above, at p. xvi. It may be added that 
the bracketed index numerals denote the edition of the work to which they are attached : thus 
OTJC^ = The Old Testament in the Jewish Church, 2nd edition (exceptions RPV^AOF^; see 
below). The unbracketed numerals above the line refer to footnotes; for those under the line see 
below under D 2 , E-j, Jo, P 2 . 

When a foreign book is cited by an English name the reference is to the English translation. 

It is suggested that this work be referred to as the Encyclopaedia Biblica, and that the 
name may be abbreviated thus : Ency, Bib. or EBi. It will be observed that all the larger 
articles can be referred to by the numbered sections () ; or any passage can readily be cited 
by column and paragraph or line. The columns will be numbered continuously to the end 
of the work. 

AbuUv. . . Abulwalid, the Jewish grammarian 
(b. circa 990), author of Book of 
Roots, etc. 

Afad. . . The Academy : A Weekly Review 
of Literature, Science, and Art. 

AF . . . See A OF. 

AIIT . . Ancient Hebrew Tradition. See 

Alt\tesf\. Unt. . See Winckler. 

Amer. Journ. of American Journal of Philologv, 
Phil. So/. 

A[mer. \f[ourn.~\ American Journal of Semitic Lan- 
S\em,~\ /,[;/-.] guages and Literatures (continu 
ing Hebraica [ S4- 95]) ( 95 jf. 

Am. Tab. . . TheTell-el-Amarna Letters^ = A /> 5) 

Ant. . . . Josephus, Antiquities. 

AOF . , Allorientalische Forschungen. See 

Apocr. Anted. . Apocrypha Anecdota, 1st and 2nd 
series, published under the 
general title Texts and Studies 
at the Cambridge University 

Aq. . . . Aquila, Jewish proselyte (temp, 
revolt against Hadrian), author 
of a Greek translation of the Old 
Testament. See TEXT. 

Ar. . . . Arabic. 

Aram. . . Aramaic. See ARAMAIC. 

Arch. . . Arc/neology or Archaologie. See 
Benzinger, Nowack. 

Ar. Des. . . Doughty, Arabia Deserta, 88. 

.-/;-. Ileid., or Reste arabischen Heidentums. See 

Ileid. Wellhausen. 

Arm. . . Armenian. 

Ass. . . . Assyrian. 

Ass. HWB . Assyrisches Handworterbuch. See 

As. u. Eur. . W. M. Muller, Asien u. Europa 
nach altdgyptischen Denkmalern, 

A T, A Tliche . Das Alte Testament, Alttestament- 
liche. Old Testament. 

A T Unters. . Alttestamentliche Untersuckungen. 
See Winckler. 

AV . . . Authorised Version. 

ben, Wiie (son, sons, Hebrew). 
. Baer and Delitzsch s critical edition 
of the Massoretic Text, Leipsic, 
69, and following years. 

Bab. . . . Babylonian. 

Baed., or Baedeker, Palestine (ed. Socin), 

Baed. Pal. ( 2 ), 94; ( 3 >, 98 (Benzinger) based 

on 4th German ed. 

Baethg., or Baethgen, Beitrage zur semitischen 

Baethg./?t //r. Religions-gesc/iichte, 88. 

BA G . . C. P. Tiele, Babylonische-assyrische 
Geschichte, pt. i., 86; pt. ii., 88. 

Ba.AT?. . . Earth, Die Nominalbildung in den 
semitischen Sprachen, i., 89; ii., 
91; (2) 94. 

Baraitha . . See LAW LITERATURE. 

BDB Lex. . [Brown, Driver, Briggs, Lexicon } 
A Hebrew and English Lexicon 
of the Old Testament, based on 
the Lexicon of Gesenius, by F. 
Brown, with the co-operation of 
S. R. Driver and C. A. Briggs, 
Oxford, 92, and following years. 

Be. . . . E. Bertheau (1812-88). InA Gff; 
Richter u. Ruth, 45 ; < 2 > 83; 
Chronik, 54; < 2 ), 73; Esra, 
Nehemia u. Ester, 62; < 2 , by 
Ryssel, 87. 

Beitr. . . Beitrage, especially Baethgen (as 

Beitr. z. Ass. . Beitrage zur Assvriologie -u. semi 
tischen Sprachu issenscJmft ; ed. 
Fried. Delitzsch and PaulHaupt, 
i., 90; ii., 94; Hi., 98; iv. i, Q9. 

Benz. HA . I. Benzinger, Hebr dische Archa 

ologie, 94. 


Kon. - A onige in KIIC, 99. 

Bertholet, Std- A. Bertholet, Die Stellung do- lu 
lling raelitcn u. der Juden zu 

Fremden, 96. 
Bi. . . . Gustav Bickell : 

Grundriss der Jiebr dischen 
Grammatik, 6<)/.; ET, 77. 
Carmina VT metrice etc., 82. 
Dichtungen der I 1 dirtier, &2f. 
Kritische Bearbeitnng de, 
Prov., 90. 

Biblioth. Sac. . Bibliotheca Sacra, 43 ff. 
BJ . . De Bello Judaico. See Josephus. 
BL . . . Schenkel, Bibel- Lexicon ; Real 
worterbuch zum Handgebrauch 
fiir Geistliche u. Gemeinde- 
glieder, 5 vols., 69~ 75. 
Boch. . . S. Bochart (1599-1667) : 

Geographia Sacra, 1646 ; 
Hierozoicon, sive de Animali- 
Ints Scriptures Sacra, 1663. 
Boeckh . . Aug. Boeckh, Corpus Inscr. Grac., 

4 vols., 28- 77. 
BOR . . Babvlonian and Oriental Record, 

8 y.f 

Bottch. . . Friedrich Bottcher, Ausfuhrlich 
Lehr bitch der liebr disclien Spra- 
che, 66- 68. 
Bottg. Lex. . Bottger, Lexicon z. d. Schriften des 

Ft. Josephus, 79. 

BR . . . Biblical Researches. See Robinson. 
Bu. . . . Karl Buckle : 

Urgesch. . Die biblische Urgeschichte (Gen. 

1-124), 83. 

Ri.Sa. . Die Bi icher Richter und Samuel, 
Hire Quellen undihr Aufbaujqo. 
Sam. . . Samuel in SBOT (Heb.), 94. 
Das Buck Hiob in //A , 96. 
Klagelieder and Hohdied in KHC, 98. 
Buhl . . See Pal. 

Buxt. Syn.Jud. Johann Buxtorf (1564-1629), 

Synagoga Judaica, 1603, etc. 

Buxt. Lex. . Johann Buxtorf, son (1599-1644), 

Lexicon Chaldaicum, Talmudi- 
ciim et Rabbinicum, 1639, folio. 
Reprint with additions by 
Fischer. 2 vols., 69 and 74. 

c., dr. . . circa. 

Calwer Bib. . Cahver Kirchelexikon, Theologi- 

Lex. sches Handivorterbuch, ed. P. 

Zeller, 89- 93- 

c. Ap. . . contra Apionem. See Josephus. 
CH . . . Composition des Hexateuchs. See 


Chald. Gen. . The Chaldean Account of Genesis, 
by George Smith. A new edi 
tion, thoroughly revised and cor 
rected by A. H. Sayce, 80. 
Che. . . T. K. Cheyne : 

Proph. Is. . 7 he Prophecies of Isaiah, 2 vols. 

( 8o- 8l; revised, ("", 89). 
Job and Sol. Job and Solomon, or The Wisdom 

of the Old Testament ( 87). 

Ps. . . The Book of Psalms, transl. 
with comm. ( 88); < 2 > 
written (forthcoming). 

OPs. . . The Origin and Religious Con 
tents of the Psalter ( Bampton 
Lectures, 89), 91. 
Aids . . Aids to the Devout Study of 

Criticism, 92. 
Founders . Founders of Old Testament 

Criticism, 94. 

Intr, Is. . Introduction to the Book of 
Isaiah ( 95). 

Is. SBOT. 

Jeremiah, hi 



P p 

Jew. Rel. Lij 






Class. Rev. 
Cl.-Gan. . 
Rec. . 
Co. . 







Crit. Man. 


Cr. Rev. . 


D . 

D 2 . 


Dalm. Gram. . 


Worte Jesu 
Aram. Lex. 



Job . 




DB . 



de C. Orig. 




-> / 

De Gent. . 



Par. . 
Heb. Lang. 

haiah in SBOT [Eng.], 

( 97); [Heb.], ( 99). 
: Life and Times in Men of the 

Bible ( 88). 
* Jewish Religious Life after the 

Exile, 98. 

Corpus Inscriplionum Grcfcantm 
(eel. Dittenberger), 82^". See 
also Boeckh. 

Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, 
Berlin, 63, and following years, 
14 vols., with supplements. 
Corpus Inscriptionum Senntica- 
rum, Paris, &iff. Pt. i., Phoeni 
cian and Punic inscriptions; pt. 
ii., Aramaic inscriptions; pt. iv., 
S. Arabian inscriptions. 
The Classical Revieiv, 87 ff. 
Clermont-Ganneau : 

A ecueil d^Archeologie, 85 ff. 
Cornill : 

L>as Buch des Propheten 

Ezechiel, 86. 
Einleitung in das Alte Testa 

ment, 91 ; < ;!) , 96. 
History of the People of Israel 
from tlie earliest times, 98. 
TheCuneiform Inscriptions and the 
Old Testament. See Schrader. 
A. H. Sayce, The Higher Criticism 
and the Verdict of the Monu 
ments, 94. 

Critical Review of Theological and 
Philosophical Literature [ed. 
Salmond], " 

Author of Deuteronomy ; also used 

of Deuteronomistic j^assages. 
Later Deuteronomistic editors. See 

Dalman, Grammatik dcs jiidisch- 
pal dstinischen Aram disch, 94. 
Die Worte Jesu, i., 98. 
Aramaisch - Neuhebraisches 
W orlerbuch zu Targum, 
Talmud, und Midrascli, 
Teil i., 97. 
A. B. Davidson : 

Book of Job in Camb. Bible, 84. 
Book of Ezekiel in Cambridge 

Bible, 92. 

W. Smith, A Dictionary of the 
Bible, comprising its Antiquities, 
Biography, Geography, and Xat- 
ural History, 3 vols., 63; DB^, 
2nd ed. of vol. i., in two parts, 

or, J. Hastings, . / Dictionary of 

the Bible, dealing with its Lan 

guage, Literature, and Contents, 

including the Biblical Theology, 

vol. i., 98; vol. ii., 99. 
or, F. Vigouroux, Dictionnaire de 

la Bible, <)$/. 
Alph. de Candolle, Origine des 

Plantes Cultivees, 82; < 4 >, 96. 

ET in the International Scien 

tific Series. 

De Gentibus. See Wellhausen. 
Delitzsch, Franz (1813-90), author 

of many commentaries on books 

of the OT, etc. 
or, Delitzsch, Friedrich, son of pre 

ceding, author of: 

Wo lag das Parodies? ( 8l). 
The Hebrew Language viewed 


in the light of Assyrian Re 
search, 83. 

fro/. . Prolegomena eines neuen hebr.- 

arain. \V6rterbuchszum A T, 
Ass. II WB Assyrisckes Handworterbuch, 

DHM Ep. Denk. D. II. Muller, Epigraphische Denk- 

m dler aus Arabien, 89. 

Die Propheten in i/tren ursprunglichen Form. 
Die Grundgesetze der ursemi- 
tischen Poesie, 2 Bde., 96. 

Di. . . . Dillmann, August (1823-94), 
in A Gff: Genesis, 3rd ed. of 
Knobel, 75; >, 82; V92 (ET 
by Stevenson, 97) ; Exodus und 
Leviticus, 2nd ed. of Knobel, 
80; 3rd ed. by Ryssel, 97; 
Numb., Deut., Josh., 2nd ed. of 
Knobel, 86 -Jsaiah, (J >, 90; (edd. 
1-3 by Knobel; 4th ed. by Die- 
stel; 6th ed. by Kittel, 98). 

Did. . . Didache. See APOCRYPHA, 31, i. 
Dozy, Suppl. . Supplement aux Dictionnaires 

.-I rapes, 79 ff. 
Dr. . . . Driver, S. R. : 

HT. . A Treatise on the Use of the 

Tenses in Hebrew, 74; < 2) , 
Si; < :i >, 92. 
TBS . Notes on the Hebrew Text of 

the Books of Samuel, 90. 

Introd. . An Introduction to the Litera 

ture of the Old Testament, 

(D ) 9! ; () > 97. 

Par. Ps. . Para/lei Psalter, 98. 

Deut. . Deuteronomv in The Inter 

national Critical Commen 
tary, 95. 

Joel and Amos in the Cambridge Bible, 97. 

Lev. SBOT SBOT (Eng.), Leviticus, as 

sisted by II. A. White, 98. 

* Hebrew Authority in Authority and Archaeology, 
Sacred and Profane, ed. 
David G. Hogarth, London, 

Is. . . Isaiah, His Life and Times, in 

Men of the Bible, < 2 >, 93. 
Drus. . . Drusius (1550-1616) in Critici 

Du. . . . Bernhard Duhm : 

Proph. . Die Theologie der Propheten 

als Grundlage fur die inner e 
Entwicklungsgeschichte der 
israelitischen Religion, 75. 

fs. . . Das Buch Jesaia in IIK, 92. 

Ps. . . Die Psalmen erkl drt, in KHC, 


. Old Hebrew historical document. 
Eo . . . Later additions to E. See HIS 
EB^ . . Encyclopedia Britannica, gth ed., 

Ebers, Aeg. BM Georg Ebers ( 37- 9S), Aegypten u. 

die B ucher A/ose s, i., 68. 
Einl. . . Einleitung (Introduction). See 

Cornill, etc. 
Eng. Hist. Rev. The English Historical Review, 

Ent[st~\. . . Die Entstehung des Judenthums. 

See Ed. Meyer. 

ET . . . English translation. 
Eth. . . Ethiopic. 

Eus. . . Eusebius of Ccesarea (2nd half of 

3rd to 1st half of 4th cent. A.D.) : 

Onom. or OS Onomasticon ; On the Names 

of Places in Holy Scripture. 

HE . 
EV . 





. T[imes] 
/and/". . 

Field, Hex. 

F[r.-\HG . 

Fl. and Hanb. 

Floigl, GA 

Founders . 

Frankenb. . 

Frazer . . 

Fund. . 

GA . . 

GA . . 
GBA . 

GASm. . 
GA T . 

Gei. Urschr. 

Ges. . 


Lex. . 

Ges.-Bu. . 

Hi star in Ecclesiastica. 
Prcfparatio Evangelica. 
English version (where authorised 

and revised agree). 
Heinrich Ewald (1803-75) : 

Lehrbuch der hebr dischen 

Sprache, 44; W, 70. 
Geschichte des Volkes Israel ; 
W i.-vii., 64- 68 ; ET <- > 5 
vols. (pre-Christian period), 
69- 8o. 
Die Dichter des Alten Bundes 

< 3 >, 66 / 
Die Propheten, 40/5 < 2 >, 67 

/; ET 7 6/ 
Expositor, 5th ser., 95^". 
Expository Times, Sg- 
following (verse, or verses, etc.). 
Fauna and Flora of Palestine. 

See Tristram. 

F. Field, Origenis Hexaplorum qua 

super suntsive Veterum Inter pre- 

tum Gracorum in totum I etus 

Testamentum Fragmtnta ( 75). 

Fragmenta Historicorum Grceco- 

ruw, ed. Muller, 5 vols., 4i- 72. 

F. A. Fliickiger and D. Hanbury, 

Ph a rmacograph ia . 
Floigl, Geschichte des semitischen 

Altertums in Tabellen, 82. 
Founders of Old Testament Criti 

cism. See Cheyne. 
O. F. Fritzsche (1812-96), com 
mentaries on books of the Apo 
crypha in KHG. 

Sigismund Frankel, Die aram di- 
schen Frcmdworter im Arabi- 
schen, 86. 
W. Frankenberg, Die Spritche in 

KH, 98. 
J. G. Frazer : 

Tot em ism ( 87). 
Golden Hough ( 90); ( 2 > in prep. 
Pausanias s Description of 
Greece (translation and 
notes, 6 vols., 98). 
J. Marquart, Fundamente israeliti- 
scher u. jiidischer Geschichte, 96. 
Greek Version, see above, p. xv.y." 

Geschichte d. Alterthums (see 

Meyer, Floigl). 

Geschichte Agyptens (see Meyer). 
Gesch. Babyloniens u. Assyriens 

(see Winckler, Hommel). 
George Adam Smith. See Smith. 
Reuss, Geschichte des Alten Testa 

ments, 8 1 ; <- , 90. 
A. Geiger, Urschrift und Ueber- 
setzungen der Bibel in ihrer Al>- 
hangigkeit von der inneren Ent- 
wicklung des Judenthums, 57. 
F. H. W. Gesenius (1786-1842): 
Thesaurus Philologicus Criti- 
cus Ling. Hebr. et Chald. 
Veteris Testamenti, 35- 42. 
Hebraische Grammatik, 13 ; 
(*), by E. Kautzsch, 96; 
ET 98. 

Hebriiisches u. chaldaisches 
Handworterbuch, 12 ; < u > 
(Muhlauu.Volck), 90; ^ 
(Buhl, with Socin and Zim- 
mern), 95; (13) (Buhl), 99. 
Gesenius-Buhl. See above, Ges. 


Gesch. . 

GGA . 

GGN . 

GI . . 

Gi[nsb], . 

GJV . 

Glaser . 


Gr. . . 

Gra. . . 

Ps. . 

Gr. Ven. . 

G VI . 


HA or Hebr. 

Hal. . 

Mel. . 


Harper, ABL 

HC . 

Heb. . 

Hebraica . 

Heid. . 

Herst. . 

Herzog, RE 
Het Herstel 
Hex. . 

Hexap. . 

HG . . 

Hierob. . 
Hilgf. . 

Hist. . 

Hist. Proph. 


HK . 

Geschichte (History). 
Gottingische Gelehrte Anzeigen, 

Gottingische Gelehrte Nachrichten, 

45 / 

Geschichte Israels. See Winckler. 
Ginsburg, Massoretico-critical Edi 

tion of the Hebrew Bible, 94, In 

troduction, 97. 
Geschichte des judischen Volkes. 

See Schiirer. 
Eduard Glaser : 

Skizze der Gesch. u. Geogr. 

Arabiens, 90. 
K. Grimm (1807-91). Maccabees 

( 53) and Wisdom(?te>) mKGH. 
Heinrich Gratz : 

Geschichte der Juden, i.-x., 74 

ff.; ETi.-v., 9i- 92. 
Kritischer Commentar zu den 

Psalmen, 82 f. 
Versio Veneta. See TEXT. 
Gesch. des Volkes Israel. See 

Ewald, Stade, etc. 

The Law of Holiness (Lev. 17- 

26). See LEVITICUS. 
Hebr dische Archaologie. See Ben- 

zinger, Nowack. 
Joseph Halevy. The inscriptions 

in Rapport sur tine Mission Ar- 

chi ologique dans le Yemen ( 72) 

are cited: Hal. 535, etc. 

Melanges d Epigraphie et 

d A rcheologie Sem itiques, 74. 

Hamburger, Realencyclopadie fiir 

Bibel und Talmud, i. 70, W 92 ; 

ii. 83, suppl. 86, 91 /, 97. 
R. F. Harper, Assyrian and Baby 

lonian Letters belonging to the 

/sf[Kuyunjik] collection of the 

British Museum, 93^ 
Hand- Commentar zum Neuen 

Testament, bearbeitet von H. J. 

Holtzmann, R. A. Lipsius, P. W. 

Schmiedel, H. v. Soden, Sg- gi. 

Continued as AJSL (a.v.). 
Reste arabischen Heidentums. See 

Kosters, Het Herstcl van Israel in 

het Perzische Tijdvak, 93; Germ. 

transl. Die \Viederlierstellung 

Israels, 95. 
See PA E. 
See Herst. 
Hexateuch (see Kuenen, Holzinger, 


See Field. 
Historical Geography of the Holy 

Land. See Smith, G. A. 
See Bochart. 
A. Hilgenfeld, NT scholar (Einl, 

etc.) , and ed. since 58 of Z WT. 
See Schiirer, Ewald, Kittel, etc. 
J. F. M Curdy, History, Prophecy, 

and the Monuments: \. To the 

Downfall of Samaria ( 94) ; ii. 

To the Fall of Nineveh ( 96). 

diger ( 47), Hohelied ( 55), Die 
kleinen Propheten ( 38; < 3 \ 63), 
JeremiasC 1 4,1 ; (- , 66). MsoDie 
Psalmen ( 35~ 36; ( 3) , 63- 65). 
Handkommentar zum Alien Testa 
ment, ed. Nowack, 92 ff. 

Holz. Einl. 

Hommel . 


Hor. Hebr. 
HP . . 

HPN . 

HPSm. . 

Samuel in 

HS . . 
HWB . 

IJG . . 

Intr[od]. . 
Intr. Is. . 

It. . . 
It. Anton. 

J . . . 


J\_ourn.~\ A\_m.~\ 
0[rJ\ S[oc.~] 
Jastrow, Diet. 

J\_ourn^\ As. 
JBL . 

JB W . 
JDT . 
JE . . 
Jensen, Kosm. 

Jer. . 

Jon. . 

Jos. . 

J\_ourn.~\ Phil. 
JPT . 

JQR . 



. H. Holzinger, Einleitung in den 

Hexateuch ( 93), Genesis in the 

KHC ( 98). 
. Fritz Hommel : 

. DiealtisraelitischeUeberliefer- 

ung ; ET, Ancient Hebrew 
Tradition, 97. 
. Geschichte Babyloniens u. As 

sy riens, "85^". 

. Lightfoot, Horce Hebraicic, 1684. 
. Holmes and Parsons, Vetus Testa- 

mentum Grtecum cum variis 

lectionibus, 1798-1827. 
. G. B. Gray, Studies in Hebrew 

Proper Names, 96. 
. Henry Preserved Smith. 
International Critical Commentary. 
. Die Ileilige Schrift. See Kautzsch. 
. Rich m s Handworterbuch des bibli- 

schen Alterthums, 2 vols., 84; 

( 2 >, 93~ 94. See also Delitzsch 


. Israelitische u.jiidische Geschichte. 

See Wellhausen. 
. Introduction. 
. Introduction to Isaiah. See 


. Itinerarium Antonini, Fortia 

d Urban, 45. 

. Old Hebrew historical document. 
Later additions to f. 
Journal of the American Oriental 

Society, ^\ff. 
M. Jastrow, Dictionary of the Tar- 

gumiin, the Talmud Babli, etc., 

and Midrashim, 86 ff. 
Journal Asiatique, 53 ff.; 7th 

ser., 73; 8thser., 83; gth ser., 93. 
Journal of Biblical Literature and 

Exegesis, 90 ff.; formerly ( 82- 

88) called Journal of the Society 

of Biblical Lit. and Exeg. 
Jahrbiuher der bibl. Wissenschaft 

( 49- 6s). 
Jahrbucher fiir deutsche Theologie, 

5 6- 7 S. 
The Prophetical narrative of the 

Hexateuch, composed of J and E. 
P. Jensen, Die Kosmologie der 

Babylonier, 90. 
Jerome, or Jeremiah. 
Jonathan. See Targum. 
Flaviusjosephus (b. 37 A. D.), Anti- 

quitates Judaicie, De Bella 

Judaico, Vita, contra Apionem 

(ed. Niese, 3 vols., 87- 94). 
Journal of Philology, i. (Nos. I and 

2, 68), ii. (Nos. 3 and 4, 69), etc. 
Jahrbucher fur protestantische lheo- 

lg ie > 75-92- 

Jewish Quarterly Review, SS- Sg/I 

Journal of Royal Asiatic Society 

(vols. 1-20, 34 ff.; new series, 

vols. 1-24, 65~ 92; current series, 


HS . 


Die Keilinschriften u.d. Alte Testa 

ment. See Schrader. 
E. Kautzsch : 

Grammatik des BibliscJien- 

Aramiiischen, 84. 
Die heilige Schrift des Alten 
Testaments, 94. 


Apokr. . Die Apokryphen u. Pseudepi- 

graphen des a It en Testa 
ments, 98 / 

. Keilinschrifiliche Bibliothek, 

Sammlungvon ass. u. bab. Texten 
in Umschrift u. Uebersetzung, 5 
vols. (i, 2, 3 a, 6, 4, 5), 89- 96. 
Edited by Schrader, in collabora 
tion with L. Abel, C. Bezold, 
P. Jensen, F. E. Peiser, and 
H. Winckler. 

Ke. . . . K. F. Keil (d. 88). 
Kenn. . . B. Kennicott (1718-83), Veins 
Teslamentum Hebraicum cum 
variis lectionilms, 2 vols., 1776- 

KG . . . Kirchengeschichte. 
KGF . . Keilinschriften n. Geschichtsforsch- 

ung. See Schrader. 

KGH . . K urzgefasstes exegetisches Hand- 
buch. See Di., Hitz., Knob., Ol. 

KGK . . K urzgefasster Kommentar zu den 
heiligen Schriften Alten u. Neuen 
Testaments sowie zu den Apo- 
krvphen, ed. H. Strack and 
O. Zockler, &]/. 

KIIC . . Kttrzer Hand-commentar znm 
Alten Testament, ed. Marti, 97_^i 
Ki. . . . Rudolf Kittel : 

Gesch, . Geschickle der Hebraer, 2 vols., 

88, 92; Eng. transl., His 
tory of the Hebrews, 95- 

Ch. SBOT TheBookofChronicles,Cn\.\ca\ 

Edition of the Hebrew text, 
95 (translated by Bacon). 

Kim. . . R. David Kimhi, circa 1200 A.D., 

the famous Jewish scholar and 

lexicographer, by whose exegesis 

the AV is mainly guided. 

Kin[s\, . . Kinship and Marriage in Early 

Arabia. See W. R. Smith. 
Kl. Proph. . Kleine Proplietcn (Minor Prophets). 

See Wellhausen, Nowack, etc. 

Klo[st]. . . Aug. Klostermann, J)ie Bucher 
Sa m uelis und der Konige ( 87) in 

GVI . . Geschichte des Volkes Israel bis 

zur Kcstanration unter Esra 
und A r ehemia, 96. 

Kn[ob]. . . Aug. Knobel (1807-63) in KGH: 
Exodus und Leviticus,, ( -) by Dill- 
mann, So; Der Prophet jesaia, 
43, < 3 >, 61. See Dillmann. 

Ko. . . . F. E. Konig, Historisch-Kritisches 
Lehrgeb dude der Hebraischen 
Sprache, 3 vols., Sl- 97. 
Koh. . . Aug. Kohler. 

Kr. . . . Kre (lit. to be read ), a marginal 

reading which the Massoretes 

intended to supplant that in the 

text (KethTb); see below. 

Kt. . . . KethTb (lit. written ), a reading 

in the MT; see above. 
Kue.. . . Abr. Kuenen (1828-91) : 

Ond. i . Historisch-critisch Onderzoek 

naar het onlstaan en de 
verzameling Tan de Boeken 
des Ouden Ver bonds, 3 vols., 
6i- 65; <V8s- 89; Germ, 
transl. , Historisch-kritische 
Einltitung in die Bucher 
des Alten Testaments, 87- 
92; vol. i., The Hexateuch, 
translated by Philip Wick- 
steed, 86. 

Godsd. . De Godsdienst van Israel, 6g- jo; 

Eng. transl., 3 vols., 73~ 75. 
De Profeten en der Profetie onder Israel, 75 ; 

ET, 77. 
Ges. Abh. . Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur 

bibl. IVissenschaft, German 

by Budde, 94. 

L . . de Lagarde, Librorum Veteris 

Testamenti Canonicorum, Pars 
Prior Greece, 83. 
Lag. . . Paul de Lagarde ( 27- 9i) : 

Hag. . Hagiographa Chaldaice, 73. 

Syr. . . Libri Veteris Testamenti Apo- 

cryphi Syriace, 61. 

Ges. Abh. . GesammelteAbhandlungen?(&. 

Mitt. . Mitleilungen, i.-iv., 84- 89. 

Sym. . Symmicta, ii., 80. 

Prov. . Proverbien, 63. 

Ubers. Uebersicht fiber die im Ara- 

or BN mdischen, Arabischen, und 

Hebrdischen iibliche Bildung 
dtr Nomina, 89. 
Beitr. . Bcitrdge z. baktrischen Lexiko- 

graphie, 68. 

Proph. . Prophetic Chaldaice, 72. 

Sent. . Semi tic a, "]$f. 

Arm. St. . Armenische Stttdien. 

Or. . . Orientalia, i., 79 ; ii., 80. 

Lane . . E. W. Lane, An Arabic- English 

Lexicon, 63^". 
L [and} B . W. M. Thomson, The Land and 

the Book, 59; new ed. 94. 
LBR . . Later Biblical Researches. See 

Levy, NHIVB J. Levy, Neuhebrdisches u. chal- 

ddisches Worterbuch, -j6- Sg. 
Chald. Lex. Chalddisches IVorterbuch uber 

die Targumim, 67 ff. 
Lehrgeb. . . See Konig. 
Leps. Denkm. . R. Lepsius, Denkmdler aus Aegyp- 

ten u. Aethiopien, 49- 6o. 
Lightf. . . John Lightfoot (1602-75), Hora 

He bra ica ( 1 684 ) . 
Joseph B. Lightfoot ( 28- 89) ; 
commentaries on Galatians 
(W, 74); Philippians (< 3 >, 
73) > Colossians and Phile 
mon ( 75). 

Lips. if. . . Lipsius, Die Apokryphen Aposlel- 
geschichten u. Apostellegenden, 

Low . . J. Low, Aramdische Pftanzenna- 

mcn, 8 1. 

Luc. . . See L. 

LXX or @ . Septuagint. See above, p. xv f. t 


Maimonides . Moses Maimonides (1131-1204). 
Exegete, author of Mishneh 
Torah, More Nebokhim, etc. 

Mand. . . Manda-an. See ARAMAIC, 10. 
Marq. Fund. . J. Marquart, Fundamente israeliti- 
scher u. judischer Geschichte, 96. 
Marti . . K. Marti : 

Gram. . Kurzgefasste Grammatik d. 

biblisch-Ara m di s ch e n 
Sprache, 96. 

Geschichte der Israelitischen Religion^, 97 (a 
revision of A. Kayser, Die 
Theol. des AT*). 

Jes. . . Das Buchjesaia, in KHC, 99. 

Masp. . . G. Maspero: 

Dawn of Civilisation, Egypt 

and Chaldea (< 2 , 96). 
Les premieres Meli-es des 
Peuples; ET by McClure 

Mey. . 

GA~ . 


MH . 

MI . 



the end of the seventh 
century A.D. See TEXT. 

New English Dictionary on 

.-,. Historical Principles, ed. J. A. 

MBBA . . Monatsbericht der Berliner Aka- II . Murray, 88 ff.; also H. 

Bradley, 97 ff. 

MDPV . . MitthejluntrenundNachrichtendes Muss-Arn. . W. Nuss-Arnoit, A Concise Diction 
ary of the Assyrian Language, 
94-99 (A-MAG). 

Merx . . A. Merx, Archrv f. wissenschaft- MVG . . Mitlhcilungen der Vorderasiat- 

ischen Gesellschaft, 97 ff. 

in. See ARAMAIC, 4. 
Nominalbildung, Barth; see Ba. 

israelitischen Eigen namen 
nach ihrer religionsgeschicht- 
lichen Bedeutung, 76. 
Marginalien u. Alalerialien, 93. 
A. Neubauer, Geographic du Tal 
mud, 68. 

Natural History of the Bible. See 

)-. u. chaldaisches Worter- 
buch. See Levy. 

Th. Noldeke : 

Untersuchungen z. Krilik d. 

Alien Testaments, 69. 
Altteslamentliche Litteratur, 68. 
W. Nowack : 

Lehrbuch d. Hebr dischen 

Archaologie, 94. 
Die Kleinen Propheten (in 

HKC), 97. 
New Testament, Neues Testament. 

Justus Olshausen : 

Die Psalmen, 53. 

Lehrbuch der hebr. Sprache, 

61 [incomplete], 
Orientalistische Litteratur- Zei- 

tung, ed. Peiser, 98 f. 
Historisch-critisch Onderzoek. See 


Onkelos, Onqelos. See Targ. 
See OS. 

Origin of the Psalter. See Cheyne. 
Onomastica Sacra, containing the 
name-lists of Eusebius and 
Jerome (Lagarde, (- ), 87; the 
pagination of I 1 printed on the 
margin of W is followed). 
Old Testament. 

Testament in the Jewish 
Church. See W. R. Smith. 

Priestly Writer. See HIST. LIT. 

Secondary Priestly Writers. 

F. Buhl, Geographie des alien Pal- 
astina, 96. See also Baedeker 
and Reland. 

Palmyrene. See ARAMAIC, 4. 

Palestinian Syriac or Christian 
Palestinian. See ARAMAIC, 4. 

Proceedings of American Oriental 
Society, 51^". (printed annually 
at end of JAOS). 

lag das Parodies ? See 

Sayce, Patriarchal Palestine, 95. 

Pra:paratio Evangelica. See Euse 

MT . . . Massoretic text, the Hebrew text of PEFM[em.~] . Palestine Exploration^ Fund Me 
moirs, 3 vols., 8i- S3. 

e Exploration Fund 
[founded 65] Quarterly State 
ment, (Xjff- 

The Struggle of the Nations 


Egypt,Syria,and Assyria. 


Histoire Ancienne des Peuples 

Murray . . A 

de f Orient ( 99 ff.}. 


Monatsbericht der Berliner Aka- 




Mittheilungen und Nachrichten des 

Muss-Arn. . \V. 

Deutschen Paldstina- Vereins, 




A. Merx, ArcJnv f. wissenschaft- 

MVG . . Mi 

liche Erforschung d. A T ( 69). 

Ed. Meyer : 

n. not 

Gescliichte des Alterthums ; 

Nab. . . Na 

i., Gesch. d. Orients bis ztir 

NB . . .No 

Beeri mdung des Perserreichs 
( 84) ; ii., Gesch. des Abend- 

Nestle, Eig. . Di 

Ian des bis auf die Per- 


serkriege ( 93). 

Marg. . A/i 

Die Entstehung des Jtiden- 

Neub. Geoer. A. 

thums, 96. 



H. A. W. Meyer (1800-73), 

NHB . . Na 

founder of the series Kritisch- 

exegetischer Kommentar iiber das 

NHWB . . Ne 

Neue Testament. 


Monatsschrift fiir Gesch. ^t. IViss. 

no. . . . nui 

des Judenthums, 51^. 
Mishnic Hebrew, the language of 

N6[ld]. . . Th 
Unters. . ( 

the Mishna, Tosephta, Mid- 

rashim, and considerable parts of 


the Talmud. 

Now. . . W. 

Mesha Inscription, commonly 
known as the Moabite Stone. 

//Or.] A{rch^ 


Kl. Proph. 

Midrash. See CHRONICLES, 6(2). 

Mishna, the standard collection 

NT . . . Ne 

(completed, according to tradi 
tion, by R. Judah the Holy, about 

Ol[sh]. . . Jus 


200 A.D.) of sixty-three treatises 

Is. . 

(representing the Jewish tradi 


tional or unwritten law as devel 

oped by the second century 

OLZ (or Or. LZ} Oi 

A.D.), arranged in six groups or 


/") / 7/ 

Seders thus : i. Zeralm ( 1 1 

Una. . . Jn 

. tractates), ii. Mo ed (12), iii. 
Ndshim (7), iv. N~ezikin ( 10) , v. 

Onk., Onq. . On 

K odd shim ( 1 1 ) , vi. Tohoroth (12). 

Onom. . . Set 
OPs. . . Or 

VAboda zara, iv. 8 Mikwa oth, vi. 6 

/~1 O /^ 

Aboth, iv. 9 Mo ed Katan, ii. ii 

C/o . . . On 

Arakhin, v. 5 Nazir, iii. 4 

Baba Bathra, iv. 3 Nedarim, iii. 3 

Baba Kamma. iv. i Nega im, vi. 3 

Baba Mesi a, iv. 2 Nidda, vi. 7 


Bekhoroth, v. 4 Ohaloth, vi. 2 


Berakhoth, i. i Orla, i. 10 

OT . . Ok 

Besa, ii. 7 Para, vi. 4 
Bikkiirim, i. ii Pe a, i. 2 

OTJC . . Oh 

Chagiga, ii. 12 Pesachim, ii. 3 


Challa, i. 9 Rosh Ha(sh)shana, 


Chullin, v. 3 ii. 8 

. . . i ri 

Demai, i. 3 Sanhedrin, iv. 4 

P 2 . Sec 

F.duyoth, iv. 7 Shabbath, ii. i 

Pal. . . F. 

Erubin, ii. 2 Shebil oth, iv. 6. 

Gittin, iii. 6 Shebi ith, i. 5 


Horayoth, iv. 10 Shekalim, ii. 4 


Kelim, vi. i Sola, iii. 5. 

Palm. . . Pal 

Kerithoth, v. 7 Sukka, ii. 6 
KethQboth, iii. 2 Ta anith, ii. 9 

Pal. Syr. . . Pal 

Kiddiishin, iii. 7 Tamid, v. 9 


Kil ayim, i. 4 Tebiil Yom, vi. 10 

PA OS . . Pro 

Kinnim, v. ii Teiniira, v. 6 

Ma aser Sheni, i. 8 Terumoth, i. 6 

Ma aseroth, i. 7 Tohoroth, vi. 5 


Makhshirin, vi. 8 I ksin, vi. 12 

Par. . . We 

Makkoth, iv. 5 Yadayim, vi._ ii 


Megilla, ii. 10 Yebamoth, iii. I 

Pat. Pal. , . Saj 

Me ila, v. 8 Yoma, ii. 5 

MenachSth, v. 2 Zabim, vi. 9 

PE . . . Pr 

Middoth, v. 10 Zebachim, v. I 


Massoretic text, the Hebrew text of 

PEFM^em. } . Pa 

the OT substantially as it was in 


the early part of the second 

PEFQ[u.St.~\ . Pat 

century A.D. (temp. Mishna). 


It remained unvocalised until 





Ph., Phcen. 

PKE . 

Preuss. Jahrbb. 
Prim. Cult. 

Proph. Is. 

Prol. . 
Prot. A Z . 


PS 7 hes. 


RJE . 
RD . 
RP . 
1-5 R 


Rec. Trav. 

REJ . 
Rel. Pal. . 

Rev. . 

Rev. Sem. 
Ri. Sa. . 



LBR or BR iv. 
or BR^ iii. 

Perrot and Chipiez : 

Histoire de I 1 Art dans l\inti- 
quite. Egypt: Assyrie 
Perse Asie Mineuere 
Grece Etrurie Koine; 
Si f. 

ET: Ancient Eg v pt, 83; 
Chald&a and Assyria, 84; 
Phoenicia and Cyprus, 85; 
Sardinia, Judaa, etc., 90; 
Primitive Greece, 94. 
Peshltta, the Syriac vulgate (2nd- 

3rd cent.). Vetus 1 estamentum 

Syriace, ed. S. Lee, 23, OT and 

NT, 24. 
W. E. Barnes, An Apparatus Cri- 

ticus to Chronicles in the Peshitta 

Version, 97. 
Real-Encyklopddie fur protestan- 

tische J he o logic u. Kirche, ed. 
. J. J. Ilerzog, 22 vols., 54- 68; 

- , ed. J. J. Herzog, G. L. 

Plitt, Alb. Hauck, 18 vols., 77- 

88; < 3 >, ed. Alb. Hauck, vol. 

i.-vii. [A-IIau], g6- 99. 
Preussische Jahrbucher, 72^". 
E. B. Tylor, Primitive Culture, 

71 ; (3, 91. 

The PropJiecies of Isaiah. See 

Prolegomena. See Wellhausen. 

Protestantische Kirchenzeitung fiir 
das Evangelisclie Deutschland 
(vols.i.-xliii., 54- 96); continued 
as Prot. Monatshefte ( 97^".). 

Proceedings of the Society ofBMi- 

Payne Smith, 1 hesaurus Syriacus. 

Redactor or Editor. 

Redactor (s) of JE. 

Deuteronomistic Editor(s). 

Priestly Redactor(s). 

H. C. Rawlinson, The Cuneiform 

Inscriptions of Western Asia, 

i.-v. ( 6l- 84; iv. i 2 >, 91). 
i.e. Rabbenu Shelomoh Yishaki 

(1040-1105), the celebrated 

Jewish commentator. 
Recucil de travaux relatifs a la 

philol. ct a r Archeol. egypi. et 

assyr. >-]O ff. 
Revue des Etudes juives, i., 80; ii. 

and iii., 81 ; and so on. 
Reland, Palicstina ex JMonumentis 

veteribus illustrata, 2 vols., 1714. 

Revue simitique, 93 ff. 
Die Bitcher Richter u. Samuel. 

See Budde. 
Edward Robinson : 

Biblical Researches in Pales 
tine, Alt. Sinai, and Arabia 
Petrtta, a journal of travels 
in the year 1838 (i.-iii., 41 
= BR^-\ i.-ii., 56). 
Later Biblical Researches in Pales- 

tine and the adjacent Regions, a 

journal of travels in the year 

1852 ( 56). 
Physical Geography of the Holy 

Land, 65. 

Roscher . 

RP . . 

RS or Rel. Sem. 
RV . . . 
RIVB . . 

Rys. . . 

Saad. . . 

Sab. . . 

Sab. Denkm. . 

Sam. . . 

SB A IV . . 

SBE . . 
SBOT (Eng.) 

SBOT (Heb.) 

Sch opf. . 

Schr. . 


Schiir. . 

Ausfilhrliches Lexikon d. Griech- 
ischen it. Romischen Mythologie 

( 84/0- 

Records of the Past, being English 
translations of the A ncient Man u- 
ments of Egypt and Western 
Asia, ed. S. Birch, vols. i.-xii. 
( 73- 8i). New series [A /^Jed. 
A. H. Sayce, vols. i.-vi., 88- 92. 
See ASSYRIA, 35. 

Religion of the Semites. See \V. 
R. Smith. 

Revised Version (NT, 80; OT, 
84; Apocrypha, 95). 

G. B. Winer (1789- 1858), Biblisches 
Realworterbuch, 20; < 3 >, 2 vols., 

47 / 
Ryssel; cp. Dillmann, Bertheau. 

R. Sa adya (Se adya; Ar. Sa id), 
the tenth century Jewish gram 
marian and lexicographer (b. 
892) ; Explanationsofthe//tf/tf.v- 
legomena in the O T, etc. 

Sabrcan, less fittingly called 
Himyaritic; the name given to 
a class of S. Arabian inscrip 

Sabaische Denkmaler, edd. Miiller 
and Mordtmann. 


Sitzungsberichte der Berlinischen 
Akadeinie der IVissenschaften. 

The Sacred Books of the East, 
translated by various scholars 
and edited by the Rt. Hon. F. 
Max Miiller, 50 vols. 1879^". 

[Otherwise known as the Poly 
chrome Bible} The Sacred Books 
of the Old Testament, a new Eng. 
transl., with Explanatory A otes 
and Pictorial Illustrations ; pre 
pared by eminent biblical scholars 
of Europe and of America, and 
edited, ivit/i i/ie assistance of 
Horace Howard Fur ness, by Paul 
Haupt, 97 ff. 

Haupt, The Sacred Books of the Old 
Testament ; a critical edition of 
the Hebrew text, printed in 
colours, with notes, prepared by 
eminent biblical scholars oj Europe 
and America, under the editorial 
direction of Paul Haupt, 93^. 

Gunkel, Sch dpfung und Chaos in 
Urzeit u. Endzeit, 95. 

E. Schrader ; editor of KB 

Keihnschriften u. Geschichts- 

forschung, 78. 
Die Keilinschriften u. d. Alte 

Testament, 72; < 2 >, 83. 
Eng. transl. of KAT& by 
O. C. Whitehouse, The 
Cuneiform Inscriptions and 
the Old Testament, 2 vols., 
85, 88 (the pagination of 
the German is retained in 
the margin of the Eng. ed.). 
E. Schiirer : 

Geschichte des jitdiscJien Volkes 
im Zeitalter Jesu Chnsti : 
i. Einleitung u. Politische Ge 
schichte, 90; ii. Die Inneren 
Zustande Palastinas u. des 
jiidischen Volkes im Zeitalter 






Smend, Listen 





Kin. . 


SP . 

SS . 

St., Sta. . 
GVI . 

Abh. . 

St. Kr. . 
Stad. m. m. 

Stud. Bibl. 
Sw. . 

Jesu Christi, 86; new ed. vol. 

ii. Die Inneren Zustande, 98, 

vol. iii. Das Judenthum in der 

Zerstreuung u. die jiidische Lite- 

ratur, 98. 
ET of above ( go/".). Vols. i/ 

(i.e., Div. i. vols. I f.) = vol. I 

of German; vols. 3-5 (i.e., Div. 

ii. vols. 1-3) = vol. 2 of German 

[=vols. ii., iii. of W]. 
J. Selden, de Jure naturali et 

gentium juxta disciplinam Ebrtn- 

orum, 7 bks., 1665. 

de Diis Syr is, 1617. 

Sinaitic; see ARAMAIC, 4. 
Smend, Die Listen der Bucher 

Esra u. Nehemiah, 81. 

George Adam Smith : 

The Historical Geography of 
the Holy Land, especially in 
relation to the History of 
Israel and of the Early 
Church, 94 (additions to <*>, 

William Robertson Smith ( 46- 94): 

77/6 Old Testament in the Jewish 

Ch tirc/i, 8 1 ; W, revised and much 

enlarged, 92; (Germ, transl. by 

Rothstein, 94). 

The Prophets of Israel and their 
place in History, to the close of 
the eighth century B.C., 82; <->, 
with introduction and addi 
tional notes by T. K. Cheyne, 

Kinship and Marriage in Early 

Arabia, 85. 

,] Lectures on the Religion of the 
Semites: 1st ser., The Funda 
mental Institutions, 89; new 
and revised edition (fiSW), 94; 
Germ, transl. by Stube, 99. 
[The MS notes of the later Burnett 
Lectures on Priesthood, Divina 
tion and Prophecy, and Semitic 
Polytheism and Cosmogony 
remain unpublished, but are 
occasionally cited by the editors 
in the Encyclopedia Biblica as 
Burnett Lects. MS.] 

A. P. Stanley, Sinai and Palestine 
in connection with their history, 
56, last ed. 96. 

De Legibus Hebraorum Ritualibus 

(2 vols. 1727). 
Siegfried and Stade, Hebraisches 

Worterbuch zum Alien Testa- 

mente, 93. 

B. Stade : 

Gesch. d. Volkes Israel, 8l- 



Atisgeiv dhlte Akademische Re- 
den u. Abhandlungen, 99. 
Studien und Kritiken, 28ff. 
Stadiasmus magni marts (Mar- 


Studia Biblica, Essays in Biblical 
Arc/neology and Criticism and 
kindred subjects, 4 vols., 85- 9i. 
H. B. Swete, The Old Testament 
in Greek according to the Septua- 
gint; (J), 87- 94; < 2 >, 95~ 99- 
Sitzungsberichte d. Wiener Aka- 
demie d. Wissenschaften. 

Sym[m], . . 

Syr. . . . 
Tab. Petit. . 

Talm. Bab. Jer. 

T[ar]g. . 
Jer. . 

Onk. . 

TBS . 

temp. . 
T[extus] R[e- 

Th[e]. . 

Theocl. . 

Theol. Studien 


Th.T . . 
Ti. or Tisch. . 

TLZ . . 

Tosephta . . 
Treg. . . 

Tristram . . 

FFP . 

NHB . 

TSBA . . 
Tub. Z. f. Theol. 

Untersuch. . 

Urgesch. . . 


Var. Apoc. . 

Var. Bib. . 

Symmachus, author of a Greek 
version of the Old Testament 
{circa 200 A.D.). See TEXT. 

Syriac. See ARAMAIC, 1 1 / 

Tabula Peutingeriana, Desjardins, 

Talmud, Babylonian or Jerusalem, 
consisting of the text of the 
Mishna broken up into small 
sections, each followed by the dis 
cursive comment called Gemara. 

Targum. See TEXT. 

The (fragmentary) Targum Jeru- 

Targum Jonathan, the name borne 
by the Babylonian Targum to 
the Prophets. 

Targum Onkelos, the Babylonian 
Targum to the Pentateuch 
(towards end of second century 


The Targ. to the Pentateuch, 
known by the name of Jonathan. 

Der Text der Bucher Samuel is : 
see Wellhausen; or Notes on the 
Hebrew Text of the Books of 
Samuel : see Driver. 

tempore (in the time [of]). 

The received text of the NT. 
See TEXT. 

Thenius, die Bucher Samuelis in 
A 6Y/, 42; (- , 64; (3), Lohr, 98. 

Theodotion (end of second cen 
tury), author of a Greek version 
of the Old Testament ( rather a 
revision of the LXX than a new 
translation ). See TEXT. 

Studien, published in connection 
with Th. T (see DEUTERONOMY, 

See Gesenius. 

R. Payne Smith, Thesaurus Syria- 
cits, 68 ff. 

Theologisch Tijdschrift, ^1 ff. 

Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum 
Gr<Ece, editio octava critica 
maior, 6g- j2. 

Theologische Literaturzeitting, 

76 /. 

S. P. Tregelles, The Greek New 
Testament ; edited from ancient 
authorities, $ j- j2. 
H. B. Tristram : 
The Fauna and Flora of Palestine^ 

The Natural History of the Bible, 

< 8 >, 89. 
Transactions of Soc. Bib. Archaol., 

vols. i.-ix., 72^ 

Tubingen Zeitschrift f. Theologie, 
->& ff 


Untersuchungen. See Noldeke, 

Die biblische Urgochichte. See 



The Apocrypha (AV) edited with 

various renderings, etc., by C. J. 

The OldandNew Testaments(\V) 

edited with various rendering!:, 

etc., by T. K. Cheyne, S. R. 


Driver (OT), and R. L. Clarke, 
A. Goodwin, \V. Sanday (NT) 
[otherwise known as the Queen s 
printers Bible}. 

Vet. Lat. . . Versio Vetus Latina; the old-Latin 
version (made from the Greek) ; 
later superseded by the Vulgate. 

Vg. . . . Vulgate, Jerome s Latin Bible : 
OT from Heb., NT a revision 
of Vet. Lat. (end of 4th and be 
ginning of 5th cent.). See TEXT. 

We., Wellh. . Julius Wellhausen. 

De Gent. De Gentibuset Familiisjudms 

qua: in I Clir. 2 4 nume- 
rantur Dissertatio ( 70). 
TBS . Der Text der BiicherSamuelis 

( 70- 

Phar. u. Die Pharisaeru.d.Sadduc dcr; 

Sadd. eine Untersuchung zur in- 

neren jiidischen Gcschicht 

( 74). 

Gesch. . Gcsclnchte Israels, vol. i. ( 78). 

Prol. . 2nd ed. of Gesch., entitled 

Prolegomena zur Gesch. Is 
raels, 83; ET 85; 4th 
Germ. ed. 95. 

IJG . . Israelitische u. judische Ge- 

schichte, 94; < 3 >, 97; an 
amplification of Abriss der 
Gesch. Israels u. Juda s in 
Skizzen u. Vorarbeiten, 
84. The Abriss was sub 
stantially a reproduction of 
Israel in EB^ ( Si; re- 
published in ET of Prol. 
[ 85] and separately as 
Sketch of Hist, of Israel and 
Judah, < 3 >, 91). 

[Ar.~]Heid. fieste Arabischen Heidentums 

(in Skizzen u. Vorarbeiten ) 

( 87: <-V97)- 

Kl. Proph. Die Kleinen Propheten ilber- 

setzt, viit Noten ( 92; ( 3 >, 

CH . . Die Composition des Hexa- 

teuchs und der historischen 
Biicher des Alten Testaments 
( 85; Zweiter Druck, mit 
Nachtragen, 89; originally 
published in /ZJ7 1 21 392^"., 
[76], "22 47 [ 77], and in 
Bleek, Einl. < 4) , 78). 

Weber . . System der Altsynagogalen Palasti- 
nischen Theologie; or Die Lehren 
des Talmud, 80 (edited by Franz 
Delitzsch and Georg Schneder- 
mann); < 2 >, Jiidische Theologie 
auf Grund des Talmud und 
verwandter Schriften, 97 (ed. 

Wetstein . . J. J. Wetstein, A ovum Testamen- 
tum Gracum, etc., 2 vols. folio ; 

Wetz. . . Wetzstein, Ausgewahlte griechische 
und lateinische Inschriftcn, ge- 
s am melt auf Keisen in den 
Trachonen und urn das Hau- 
rangebirgejbi, ; Reisebericht fiber 
Hauran und Trachonen, 60. 

WF . . . Wellhausen-Furness, The book of 
Psalms ( 98) in SBO T (Eng.}. 

\VH [W & H] . Westcott and Hort, The New Tes 
tament in the Original Greek, 

Wi. Hugo Winckler : 

Unters. . Untersuchungen z. Altoriental- 

ischen Geschichte, 89. 
Alt[tesf\. Alttestamentliche Untersuch- 

Unt. ungen, 92. 

GBA . Geschichte Babyloniens u. As- 

syriens, 92. 

AOForAF Altorientalische Forschungen, 

1st ser. i.-vi., 93~ 97; 2nd 
ser. (AF^} i., gg/ 
GI . . Geschichte Israels in einzel- 

darstellungen, i. 95. 
Sarg. . Die Keilschrifttexte Sargons, 

KB$ . . Die Thontafeln von Tell-el- 

Amarna (ET Metcalf ). 

Wilk. . . J. G. Wilkinson, Manners and 
Customs of the Ancient Egyptians, 
37- 4i ; i-> by Birch, 3 vols., 78. 
Winer . . G.B.Winer: 

RWB . Bibl. Realworterbuth; see 


Gram. . Grammatik des neutestament- 

lichen Sprachidioms^, neu 
bearbeitet von Paul Wilh. 
Schmiedel, 94^; ET of 
6th ed., W. F. Moulton, 70. 
WMM . . See As. u. Eur. 
Wr. . . . W. Wright : 

Comp. Lectures on the Comparative 

Gram. Grammar of the Semitic 

Languages, 90. 

Ar. Gram. A Grammar of the Arabic 

Language, translated from 
the German of Caspan and 
edited, with numerous addi 
tions and corrections by W. 
Wright; < 2) 2 vols., 74~ 7^; 
( s > revised by W. Robertson 
Smith and M. J. de Goeje, 
vol. i. 96, vol. ii. 98. 
WRS . . William Robertson Smith. See 

WZKM . . Wiener Zeitschrift fiir d. Kunde 

des iMorgenlandes, 87 ff. 

Yakut . . The well-known Arabian geo 
graphical writer (1179-1229). 
Kitab Mo jam el-Buldan edited 
by F. Wustenfeld (Jacufs Geo- 
graphisches Worterbuch, 66- 7o). 

Z . . . Zeitschrift (Journal). 

ZA . . . Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie u. ver- 

ivandte Gebiete, 86^". 
ZA . . . Zeitschrift fur Agyptische Sprache 

u. Alterthumskunde, 63^". 
ZATW . . Zeitschrift fiir die Alt/eslamentliche 

Wissenschaft, 8 1 ff. 
ZDMG . . Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgen- 

landischen Gesellschaft, 46 ff. 
ZDPV . . Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palastina- 

vereins, 78 ff. 
ZKF . . Zeitschrift fur Keilschriflforschung 

und verwandte Gebiete, 84 _/., 

continued as ZA. 
ZKM . . See WZKM. 

ZKW . . Zeitschrift fur kirchliche Wissen 
schaft u. kirchliches Leben (cd. 

Luthardt), i.-ix., 8o- 8ojf. 
ZLT . . Zeitschrift fiir diegesammtc Inther- 

ische Theologie und Kirche, 40- 

ZTK . . Zeitschrift fur Theologie und 

Kirche, 91 ff. 

ZWT . . Zeitschrift fur -wissenschaftliche 
Theologie (ed. Hilgenfeld), 5 


ACL . 

APK . 
Crit. Bib. 

GA . 
OCL . 

S(yr. ) c(ur. ) 


Altchristliche Litteratur ; e.g. 

Adolf Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur bis EH sebius, 

of which there appeared in 1893 Pt. I. Die Ueberlieferung und der 

Bestand, and in 1897, Pt. II. Die Chronologic, vol. I. down to 

Irenaeus (cited also as Chronol. , i ). 
Gustav Kriiger, Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur in den 

ersten drei Jahrhunderten, 1895 (in Grundriss der Theologischen 


F. Spiegel, Die alt-persischen Keilinschriftcn, 1862, < 2 1881. 
Cheyne, Critica Biblica, 1903. 
Geschichte Aegyptens. 
W. C. van Manen, Handleiding voor de Oudchristelijke Letterkunde, 


M. H. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, die Bibel, und Homer, 1893. 
Sitsungsberichteder Koniglichen Akademieder Wissenschaften, Munich. 
Curetonian Syriac version of NT (see TEXT, 25). 
Sinaitic Syriac version of NT (see TEXT, 25). 

Arranged according to the alphabetical order of the first initial. Joint authorship is where 
possible indicated tints ; A. B. ijjj 1-5 ; C. D. 6-10. 


nioner s Professor of Arabic, Cam 

A. C. M. McGiFFERT, A. C., D.D., Professor of 

Church History in Union Theological G. A. C. 
Seminary, New York. 

A. E. C. COWLEY, A. E. , M.A. , Sub-librarian, G. A. S. 

Bodleian Library, and Fellow of Mag 
dalen College, Oxford. 

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

Tutor, and Lecturer, Christ s Cgllege, G. B. G. 


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

B. S. STADE, BERNHAKD, D.D., Professor of 

Old Testament Exegesis, Giessen. G. H. B. 

C. F. B. BURNEY, Rev. C. F., M.A., Lecturer in H. W. 

Hebrew, and Fellow of St. John s 

College, Oxford. H. W. H. 

C. H. T. TOY, C. H. , D.D. , Professor of Hebrew, 

Harvard University. 

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

C. P. T. TIELE, The late C. P. , D. D. , Professor of 

the Science of Religion, Leyden. 


Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford. 

E. M. MEYER, EDUARD, Professor of Ancient 

History, Berlin. J. A. R. 

E. N. NESTLE, C. EB., D.D. , Professor in the 

Evangelical - Theological Seminary, J. D. P. 
Maulbronn, Wiirtemberg. 

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

F. C. B. BURKITT, F. C., M.A., Cambridge. J. J. 

BROWN, Rev. FRANCIS, D.D. , Daven 
port Professor of Hebrew and the 
cognate Languages in the Union 
Theological Seminary, New York. 

COOKE, Rev. G. A., M.A. , formerly 
Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford. 

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

D. D. , Professor of Hebrew in Mans 
field College, Oxford. 

HILL, G. F. , M.A. , British Museum. 

MOORE, Rev. GEORGE F. , I). IX, Pro 
fessor of Theology, Harvard University. 

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

\VINCKLER, H. , Ph.D., Privat-docent in 
Semitic Philology, Berlin. 

HOGG, HOPE "\V. , M.A. , Professor of 
Semitic Languages, Yictoria Univer 
sity, Manchester. 

ABRAHAMS, ISRAEL, Reader in Rabbinic, 

Privat-docent in Old Testament 
Theology, Berlin. 

PERITX, Rev. ISMAK JOHN, Professor of 
Semitic Languages, Syracuse Uni 
versity, New York. 

ROHINSON, The Very Rev. J. ARMI- 
TAGE, D. D. , Dean of Westminster. 

PRINCE, J. D., Ph.D., Professor of 
Semitic Languages and Comparative 
Philology, New York University. 




J. L. M. MYKES, J. L., M.A., F.S.A., Student 

and Tutor of Christ Church, Oxford. 
J. M. MASSIE, JOHN, M.A. , Yates Professor of 

New Testament Exegesis in Mansfield 

College, Oxfoid. 
J. Mo. MOFFATT, Rev. JAMES, D. D. , Dundonald, 

J. W. WELLHAUSEN, JULIUS, D.D., Professor 

of Semitic Philology, Gottingen. 
K. G. GELDNER, K. , Ph.D., Professor of 

Sanscrit, Berlin. 
K. M. MARTI, KARL, D.D., Professor of Old 

Testament Exegesis and the Hebrew 

Language, Berne. 
M. A. C. CANNEY. MAURICE A., M.A. (Oxon.), 

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

Hebrew, and Fellow of Christ s College, 

N. S. SCHMIDT, NATHANAEL, Professor of 

Semitic Languages and Literatures, 

Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. 
0. C. W. WHITEHOUSE, Rev. OWEN C., M.A., 

D. D. , Principal and Professor of 

Biblical Exegesis and Theology in 

the Countess of Huntingdon s College, 

Cheshunt, Herts. 
P. G. GARDNER, P., Liu. D., F.S. A., Professor 

of Classical Archaeology, Oxford. 
P. W. S. SCHMIEDEL, PAUL W., D.D., Professor 

of New Testament Exegesis, Ziirich. 
S. A. C. COOK, STANLEY A., M.A. , Fellow of 

Caius College, Cambridge. 

Regius Professor of Hebrew, Canon 

of Christ Church, Oxford. 


formerly of the Egyptian and As 
syrian Department in the British 

T. K. C. CHEYNE, Rev. T. K., D. Liu., D.D. , 

Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of 
Holy Scripture at Oxford, Canon of 

W. C. A. ALLEN, Rev. W. C., M.A., Chaplain, 
Fellow, and Lecturer in Theology and 
Hebrew, Exeter College, Oxford. 

W. C. v. M. MANEN, W., C. VAN, D. D. , Professor of 
Old-Christian Literature and New Tes 
tament Exegesis, Leyden. 

W. D. R. Ross, W. D., M.A., Fellow of Merton 
College, Oxford. 

W. E. ERBT, W., Ph.D., Leipsic. 

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

W. H. B. BENNETT, Rev. W. H., Litt.D., D.D. , 
Professor of Biblical Languages and 
Literature, Hackney College, London, 
and Professor of Old Testament 
Exegesis, New College, London. 

W. J. W. WOODHOUSE, W. J., M.A., Professor of 
Greek, University of Sydney. 

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

W. R. S. SMITH, The late W. ROBERTSON, D. D., 
Adams Professor of Arabic, Cam 

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


Arranged according to alphabetical order of surnames. 

ADDIS, \V. E. 
ALLEN, \V. C. 
Box, G. H. 


COOK, S. A. 

I. A. 
W. E. A. 
W. C. A. 
W. H. B. 
I. B. 
A. A. B. 
G. H. B. 
F. B. 

F. C. B. 
C. F. B. 
M. A. C. 
T. K. C. 
S. A. C. 

G. A. C. 
A. E. C. 
S. R. D. 
W. E. 
P. G. 

K. G. 

GRAY, G. B. 
HILL, G. F. 
HOGG, H. W. 
JOHNS, C. H. \V. 


MANEN, W. C. v. 



E. P, G. 
G. B. G. 
G. F. H. 

D. G. H. 
H. W. H. 
J. J. 

C. H. W. J. 
A. R. S. K. 
A. C. M. 
N. M. 
W. C. V. M. 
K. M. 
J. M. 

E. M. 
J. Mo. 
G. F. M. 
W. M. M. 
J. L. M. 
E. N. 

Ross, W. D. 

TOY, C. H. 

I. J. P. 
T. G. P. 
J. D. P. 
J. A. R. 
W. D. R. 
N. S. 
P. W. S. 

A. E. S. 
G. A. S. 
W. R. S. 

B. S. 

.T. W.T.T.-D. 

C. P. T. 
C. H. T. 
J. W. 

C. W. 
H. W. 
W. J. W. 


ASIA, WESTERN (illustrating TRADE AND COMMERCE) . . . between cols. 5160 and 5161 

PALESTINE and PHOENICIA (Trade Routes) . . . . ,, 5164 ,, 5167 

SYRIA, MESOPOTAMIA, etc. (Assyriological) . ,, 4844 ,, 4845 


(1) After Egyptian Monuments . . ... ,, 4852 ,, 4853 

(2) After Amarna Letters . . . ,, 4852 ,, 4853 

TRACHONITIS, BASHAN. HAURAN, GOLAN, etc. ... 5142 ,, 5143 




ABRAHAMS, I., M.A., Cambridge 
ADDIS, Rev. Prof. W. E. , M.A., 

Manchester College, Oxford 
ALLEN, Rev. W. C. , M.A. , Exeter 

College, Oxford 

BENNETT, Rev. Prof. W. H., 
Litt.D., D.D., London 

BENZINGER, Immanuel, Ph.D. . 

BEVAN, Prof. A. A., Cambridge. 

Box, Rev. G. H. , M.A. . 

BROWN, Rev. Prof. F. , D.D. , 
New York 

BURKITT, F. C. , M.A. , Cambridge 

BUK.NEY, Rev. C. F., M.A. , St. 
John s College, Oxford. 

CANNEY, Maurice A., M.A. , 

CHEYNE, Rev. Prof. T. K. , 
D.Litt., D.D., Oxford 

COOK, S. A., M.A. , Caius Col 
lege, Cambridge 

COOKE, Rev. G. A., M.A. 

COWLEY, A. E. , M.A. , Magdalen 
College, Oxford. 

DRIVER, Rev. Prof. S. R. , D.D. , 

ERBT, W., Ph.D. 

GARDNER, Prof. Percy, D.Litt., 

GEI.DNEK, Prof. Karl, Ph.D., 

GOULD, Rev. E. P. , D. D. , Phila 

GRAY, Rev. Prof. G. B. , M.A. , 
D.D., Mansfield College, 

HILL, G. F., M.A., British 

HOGARTH, D. G. , M.A., Mag 
dalen College, Oxford. 

HOGG, Prof. H. W., M.A. , Vic 
toria University, Manchester 

JEREMIAS, Johannes, Ph.D. 

JOHNS, Rev. C. H. W., M.A., 
Queens College, Cambridge 

KENNEDY, Rev. Prof. A. R. S., 
D.D., Edinburgh 

M GiFFERT, Rev. Prof. A. C., 

D. D. , New York. 
M-LEAN, N., M.A., Christ s 

College, Cambridge 

Tunic, etc. MAXEX, Rev. Prof. W. C. van, 
Righteousness, etc. D. D. , Levden. 

Romans (Epistle to), etc. 

MARTI, Prof. K., D.D., Bern . 

Year, etc. 


MASSIE, Prof. John, D. D., Mans 


field College, Oxford 

Stranger, etc. 

MEYER, Prof. Ed., Ph.D., Berlin 
MOKKATT, Rev. James, D.D. 

Sermon on Mount, etc. 

Temple, etc. 

MOOKE, Rev. Prof. G. F. , D. D. , 

Sacrifice, etc. 


H arvard U n i vers i ty 

Temple, etc. 

MLLLEK, Prof. W. M., Ph.D., 

Red Sea, etc. 

Sheba, etc. 


MYKES, J. L. , M.A., Christ 

Precious Stones. 

Text and Versions. 

Church, Oxford 


NESTLE, Prof. Eb., D.D., Ph.D. 


Maulbnjim, \Viirtemberg 

Ship, etc. 

PERITZ, Rev. Prof. I. J., M.A., 


Ph.D. Svracuse University, 

Saul, etc. 


PINCHES, T. G. , LL. D. , formerly 


Tent, etc. 

of British Museum 

PRINCE, Prof. J. D., Ph.D., 

Scribes and Pharisees. 


New York 

Samaritans, etc. 

Rom. \ SON, The Very Rev. J. 

Teacher, etc. 

Armitage, D.D. , Dean of 



Ross, W. D. , M.A., Merton 


College, Oxford 


SCHMIDT, Prof. N., Ph.D., 

Son of God, etc. 


Cornell University, N.Y. 

SCHMIEDEL, Prof. P. \Y. , D. D. , 




SHIPLEY, A. E., M.A., Christ s 

Serpent, etc. 


College, Cambridge 

SMITH, Rev. Prof. G. A., D.D., 

Trade and Commerce. 

Theophany, etc. 

LL. D. , Glasgow 

SMITH, the late Prof. W. Robert 

Sabbath, etc. 

son, D. D. , LL. D. 

Weights and Measures, etc. 

STADE, Prof. B., D.D., Ph.D., 

Samuel (Books of). 



Vine, etc. 

K.C.M.G., LL.D., F.R.S., 

Reuben, etc. 

Director, Royal Gardens. Kew 

TIELE, the late Prof. C. P., D. D. , 




TOY, Prof. C. H. , D.D. , Harvard 

Wisdom Literature, etc. 

Sennacherib, etc. 


WELLHAUSEN, Prof. Julius, D. D. , 


Weaving, etc. 

Ph.D., Gottingen 

WHITEHOUSE, Rev. Principal 

War, etc. 

Thessalonians (Epistle to) 

O. C, D.D. 

WiNCKLER, H. , Ph.D., Berlin . 

Sinai, etc. 

Serpent, etc. 

WOODHOUSE, Prof. W. J., M.A. , 

Sardis, etc. 





RAIN . . . . 


RHODES . . . . 




SALAMIS . . . . 






SARDIS . . . . 

SARGON (with Illustration) 


SATYRS . . . . 









SHEEP . . . . 
SHEKEL (with Illustrations; 
SHILOH . . . . 
SHIP (with Illustrations) 

Si DON . . . . 

SIEGE (with Illustrations) . 


SIMEON . . . . 




SlRACH . . . . 








STARS . . . . 

STATER (with Illustration) . 



Prof. G. F. Moore. 
Prof. P. Gardner. 
Prof. T. K. Cheyne. 
Prof. W. M. Muller. 
N. M Lean. 
Prof. T. K. Cheyne. 
Prof. P. W. Schmiedel. 

Hope W. Hogg. 

Prof. W. J. Woodhouse. 

Prof. W. E. Addis. 

Johannes Jeremias. 

Prof. W. C. van Manen. 

Prof. W. C. van Manen. 

Prof. T. K. Cheyne and the late 

Prof. W. Robertson Smith. 
Prof. Marti, Prof. Cheyne and 

the late Prof. W. R. Smith. 
Prof. G. F. Moore 
A. E. Cow ley. 
Prof. W. J. Woodhouse. 
Prof. Kennedy and the late Prof. 

\V. R. Smith. 
Prof. T. K. Cheyne. 
A. E. Cowley. 
Prof. W. J. Woodhouse. 
Prof. B. Stade. 
Prof. W. J. Woodhouse. 
Rev. C. H. W. Johns. 
Prof. G. B. Gray and Prof. 

J. Massie. 
Prof. G. B. Gray. 
Prof. T. K. Cheyne. 
Prof. J. D. Prince. 
Prof. N. Schmidt. 
Prof. W. J. Woodhouse. 
Rev. C. H. W. Johns. 
Rev. J. Moffatt. 
Norman M Lean, A. E. Shipley, 

and Prof. T. K. Cheyne. 
Prof. T. K. Cheyne. 
Prof. T. K. Cheyne. 
Prof. F. Brown. 
A. E. Shipley and S. A. Cook. 
G. F. Hill. 

Prof. W. C. van Manen. 
Prof. T. K. Cheyne. 
M. A. Canney. 
Prof. W. M. Mtiller. 
I. Abrahams, S. A. Cook, and 

Prof. T. K. Cheyne. 
Prof. Ed. Meyer. 
Prof. O. C. Whitehouse. 
Prof. P. W. Schmiedel. 
Hope W. Hogg. 
Prof. P. W. Schmiedel. 
Prof. P. W. Schmiedel. 
Prof. W. M. Muller. 
H. Winckler. 
Prof. C. H. Toy. 
Dr. I. Benzinger. 
Prof. W. T. Woodhouse and 

Prof. W. M. Muller. 
Prof. T. K. Cheyne. 
Prof. T. K. Cheyne. 
Prof. N. Schmidt. 
Prof. N. Schmidt. 
Prof. Addis and Rev. E. P.Gould. 
Prof. P. W. Schmiedel. 
Rev. C. V. Burney. 
G. F. Hill. 
Rev. J. Moffatt. 
W. D. Ross. 

STONES (Precious) 
SYENE .... 

SYRIA (with Maps) . 



TABOR .... 




TEMPLE (with Illustrations) 
TENT (with Illustrations) . 






THOMAS (the Apostle) 





TITHES .... 
TITUS .... 
TOBIT .... 
TOMBS (with Illustrations) . 
TRACHONITIS (with Maps) 

(with Maps) 

TURBAN .... 


VINE .... 



WAR .... 


WEAVING (with Illustra 

WEEK .... 


WIDOW .... 



(with Illustrations) 

WOOL .... 

YEAR .... 
ZADOK .... 


ZILPAH .... 


J. L. Myres. 

Prof. W. H. Bennett. 

Prof. W. M. Muller. 

Prof. I. J. Peritz. 

M. A. Canney and the late Prof. 

W. R. Smith. 
D. G. Hogarth, A. E. Shipley, 

and H. Winckler. 
Dr. I. Benzinger. 
Dr. I. Benzinger. 
Rev. G. A. Cooke. 
Prof. W. M. Muller. 
Dr. I. Benzinger. 
The Very Rev. J. Armitage 

Robinson, D.D. 
Dr. I. Benzinger. 
Rev. J. Moffatt and Prof. Cheyne. 
S. A. Cook. 

F. C. Burkitt. 
Rev. W. C. Allen. 
Prof. G. B. Gray. 
Prof. A. C. M Giffert. 
Prof. W. J. Woodhouse. 
Prof. P. W. Schmiedel. 
Prof. Eb. Nestle. 

T. G. Pinches. 
Rev. J. Moffatt. 
Rev. J. Moffatt. 

Prof. W. M. Muller. 
Prof. G. F. Moore. 
Rev. J. Moffatt. 
Dr. W. Erbt. 
Dr. I. Benzinger. 
Prof. S. R. Driver. 
Prof. G. A. Smith. 

I. Abrahams and S. A. Cook. 

Prof. W. J. Woodhouse. 

Prof. F. Brown and Prof. T. K. 


Prof. G. F. Moore. 
Norman M Lean and Sir W. T. 

Prof. G. F. Moore. 
Prof. G. B. Gray. 

Prof. O. C. Whitehouse. 

M. A. Canney. 

Prof. A. R. S. Kennedy. 

Prof. K. Marti. 

G. F. Hill. 

The Very Rev. J. A. Robinson, 


Prof. T. K. Cheyne. 
Prof. A. R. S. Kennedy. 

Prof. C. H. Toy. 

Prof. C. H. Toy. 

M. A. Canney. 

A. E. Shipley. 

Prof. A. A. Sevan. 

Prof. K. Marti. 

Prof. W. E. Addis. 

Hope W. Hogg. 

Prof. J. Wellhausen. 

Prof. Driver and the late Prof. 

W. R. Smith. 
Prof. T. K. Cheyne. 
Hope W. Hogg. 
Prof. Geldner and Prof. T. K. 





QUAIL (l, Maw, Kr. v, stlayw ; 
MHTP&; 1 coturnix}. Mentioned in EV in Ex. 1613 
Nu. 11 si/ Ps. 10540 Wisd. 162 19i2f ; cp rp 3 rpy, Ps. 
7827. That the quail, not the sand-grouse (?) or 
the locust (Hasselquist s alternatives, Travels, 443) or 
the crane (Dean Stanley and H. S. Palmer, see 
2, note 2) is meant, is generally recognised. 

The Ar. word for quail, saliva, which is a loan-word, was 

found by C. Niebuhr (1774) to be still in use in Egypt. Another 

word for it is suidml, given to it because 

1. Identification, of its fatness, and Lagarde (Uebers. 81) 

has proposed to connect the name with 

Eshmun-Iolaos, the god who restored Heracles to life by giving 
him a quail to smell at. The quail was annually sacrificed 
among the Phoenicians in the month Feb. -Mar. to commemorate 
the reviving of Heracles (Athen. 947, referred to by WRS, 
Re!. Sem.f-) 469). There is no trace, however, of the sacred 
character of this bird among the Arabians or the Hebrews. 

The Coturnix communis or C. dactylisonans of orni 
thologists is well-known in the Sinaitic peninsula, where 
it passes, migrating northward in spring, in immense 
flights. Tristram found them in the Jordan valley 
(Land of Israel, 460). They arrive in Palestine in 
March and April though a few remain there during 
the winter on the way to their breeding-places in the 
plains and cornfields of the upper country. Even these 
flocks are said to be surpassed in numbers by the 
autumn flight when they return S. to their winter- 
quarters. The quail flies very low, which Dillmann 
supposed to explain the important clause at the end 
of Nu. llsi (but see 2). It is soon fatigued, and 
hence falls an easy prey to man. 160,000 have been 
captured in a season at Capri, where their plump flesh 
is esteemed a delicacy, as indeed it is all along the 
shores of the Mediterranean. They were salted and 
stored as food by the ancient Egyptians (Herod. 277). 

A. E. s. s. A. c. 

There are two references to a supply of quails for the 

food of the Israelites viz., in Ex. 16 12/ (scene, the 

., wilderness of Sin, on the way to Sinai), 

2. The quails and jn Nu T1 18-2331-34 (scene, Kibroth- 

hattaavah , after the departure from Sinai). 
wanderings. The former be i ongs to P . He has just 

made Moses and Aaron tell the Israelites that in the 
evening they shall know that Yahwe has brought them 
out of Egypt, and that in the morning they shall see 
Yahwe s glory (vv. 6/. ). The evening event is the 
arrival of the quails ; the morning event is the lighting 
down of the manna. The redactor has omitted P s 
account of the fall of the manna, the passage from the 
dew lay round to has given you to eat being J s (see 

(Di.). The right Gk. word for quail, oprvf, is given by Jos. 
and Gr. Ven. On Rabbinical notices see Jomd, 75 b. Cp also 
FOWL, i, col. 1159, and n. i. 



Baentsch). The narrative in Nu. 11 [J] is much more 
detailed. The announcement of the quails specifies a 
month as the period during which quails should be eaten ; 
after this the flesh was to become loathsome to the eaters. 
The coming of the quails is thus described (vv. 31-34), 
And a wind from Yahwe [a SE. wind, Ps. 7826] took 
up quails from the sea [read D i rB KVI " nxp mil], 1 and 
made them to fall by the camp, about a day s journey 
on this side, and a day s journey on the other side, 
round about the camp, like heaps of wheat 2 (ovrijTisa) 
on the face of the ground. The appropriateness of 
the figure is clear from what follows. And the people 
rose up all that day, and all the night, and all the 
next day, and gathered the quails ; he that gathered 
least gathered ten homers, and they spread them all 
about for themselves [to dry them] round about the 
camp. But the result was a fatal malady. While 
the flesh was yet between their teeth, ere it was chewed, 
the anger of Yahwe was kindled against the people, etc. 
The story (with which cp Ps. 7826-31) is told to account 
for the name Kibroth-hattaavah (graves of lust) ; it 
belongs to the large class of astiological legends. The 
more correct name, however, is probably Taberah. 

The peculiarity of the incident needs some better 
explanation than a reference to the statement of Aristotle 
(d. Plant. 1 5 ; cp Bochart, ii. 1 15) that 
quails eat poisonous things e.g. , helle 
bore which are harmful to men. It may be more 
instructive, therefore, to give a parallel case from 
the Elizabethan voyages. The ship Desire be 
longing to Cavendish s last and ill-fated expedition 
to the east by way of the Pacific, put back for home 
from the Straits of Magellan in 1592. They came to 
anchor at a harbour in Patagonia, named after the 
vessel Port Desire, and found on an island near it such 
numbers of penguins that the men could hardly go 
without treacling on them. A party of twenty-two 
men was landed on the island to kill the birds and dry 
them on the rocks. From 3oth Oct. to 22nd Dec. 

1 [The traditional text contains two improbabilities J DJ, 
applied to a wind (Pasek should put us on our guard), and 
U l ((P, efeWpacrei ), from "3, which occurs again only in Ps. 
90 10, where (see Che. Ps.W) it is corrupt. Both words spring 
out of the reading Ntj 3, which alone suits the sense. The 
corruption, however, must be very old because of Ps. 78 26. 

T. K. C.] 

* [The text has about two cubits (DTISN2), which the com 
mentators suppose to refer to the very low flight of the quails. 
Dean Stanley, however, (SP, 82) thought that large cranes 
(storks?) three feet high might be meant. Only our sub 
servience to MT has prevented us from seeing that the true text 
must be C aTjnDS, a figure which occurs again in Ex.158 
(ic-iyr-iriss). T. K. c.] 


3. The malady. 


they killed and dried 20,000 ; the captain (John Davis), 
the master, and John Lane, the narrator, were able to 
make a small quantity of salt by evaporating sea-water 
in holes of the rocks, wherewith they salted a certain 
number of birds. Thus God did feed us even as it 
were with manna from heaven. Only 14,000 dried 
penguins could be got on board. The crew were put 
on rations of which the principal part was five penguins 
every day among four men. It was not until some 
time after that disease broke out, the dried birds 
having begun to breed a large worm in appalling 
numbers in the warmer latitudes. 

Various symptoms of the malady here described are 
sufficiently characteristic of the acute dropsical form of 
the disease called beri-beri (some derive the name from 
the Arabic) ; there are, however, dropsical conditions 
caused by parasitic worms apart from the special dietetic 
errors to which beri-beri is commonly ascribed. But, 
however this may be, the parallelism between the two 
narratives is obvious. There is the same generic cause, 
and the quail is a fat bird, like the penguin, which would 
corrupt the more easily if it were dried with its fat. In 
St. Kilda, where the diet used to be of air-dried gannets 
and fulmars, it was customary to remove the fat before 
curing. C. C. 

A. E. s. s. A. c., i ; T. K. c., 2 ; C. C. , 3. 

QUARRIES (RV e- graven images ; Dv pQ ; 
TOON (-AYTTTCON ^ota, Judg. 3i926f). The plsilim 
near Gilgnl are a well-known landmark. Heb. usage of 
pisel favours the sense sculptured sacred stones (so 
Moore, Budde). Many scholars find an allusion to the 
stones mentioned in Josh. 4820. If so, ptsllim is used 
in its original sense of hewn stones. Cp Ass. pasallu, 
a pillar ; Tg. Pesh. give quarries, a guess. 

The view of the Ehud-story advocated elsewhere (see JEKICHO, 
2), which detects an underlying form in which the place- 
names, now corrupted, were of the Negeb, throws doubt on 
both the above theories. Among the possible corruptions of 
SxyCB" (Ishmael) is ^53 or 7 QO! cp SHELEPH. In order to 
escape to Seirah (for the reading adopted by the present writer 
see SEIRAH), Ehud had to pass an outpost of Ishmaelites 
( = Jerahmeelites); for Eglon, the Misrite king, was a Jerah- 
meelite (see v. 13, where Ammon and Amalek both = 
Jerahmeel ). For C <S DE> read therefore probably C ^NVH^"- 

2. Josh. 75 RVmjf., see SHEBAKIM. T. K. C. 

QUARTERMASTER (nnWQ-|b ), Jer. 51 59 RV"e- 
See SERAIAH, 4. 

QUARTUS (KOYARTOC [Ti. WH]) adds his saluta 
tion to that of Tertius, addressed to the Christians in 
Rome, at the close of Rom. 16 (22^ ). It has been con 
jectured that he may have been one of those Jews who 
were expelled from Rome by Claudius. See, further, 
SIMON (the Cyrenian). 

In the lists of the seventy disciples by the Pseudo-Dorotheus 
and Pseudo - Hippolytus he appears as bishop of Berytus. 
In the apocryphal Ac. s of refer and Paul he is a member of 
the praetorian guard, one of the soldiers who have charge of 
Paul in Rome. 

QUATERNION (TeTp<\AlON : Acts 12 4 ), a guard 
of four soldiers. 

QUEEN OF HEAVEN (DV?L ; n n3^p ; 6 H BACI- 
Aicc<\ TOY OYP&NOY- except Jer.7i8 H CTR&TIA TOY 
1 Cult YP^NOY 1 [ Ac l- s ) m - Theod. B&ciAicCH] ; 
Vg. regina caell ; Pesh. pulhdn semavva, 
except Jer. 44 19 malkat semayyd ^ Tg. N EJJ 712212), 
an object of worship to which offerings were made by 
inhabitants of Jerusalem and other cities of Judah in 
the seventh century and by Jewish refugees in Egypt 
after the fall of the kingdom ; see Jer. 7 16-20 4415-30. 

The peculiarity of this worship appears, from 
Jeremiah s description, to have been the offering of a 
special kind of cakes which were made by the Jewish 
women with the assistance of their families ( the boys 

1 Probably reading K3X, as in 82 19 13. 

8 Contamination from (5, which is otherwise demonstrable in 
this verse. 



gather firewood and the fathers kindle the fire and the 
women knead dough to make cakes, etc., Jer. 7 18 ; cp 
44 19). The cakes were offered to the deity by fire 
(441517^ 2125; kilter, nap, erroneously translated in 
EV, burn incense ), and the burning was accompanied 
by libations (44 17 /) These rites were performed in 
the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem 
(7 17 44i7) ; the worship jeems to have been domestic, 
and perhaps specifically a woman s cult (see 44i$ 19 25); l 
that the men assist in the preparations (7 18) and assume 
their share of the responsibility (44is_^!) is not in 
consistent with the latter view, nor are the expressions 
in which the prevalence of the worship is affirmed 
(44i 7 ). 

The cakes (kawwanlm, c Ji|, Jer. 7i8 44i9t; 3 (5 

^ai tD^es, and in the latter passage xouavej [Q*], 
Xai /Sajves [N*] ; Vg. placenta; Pesh. zauthdre, a species 
of sacrificial cakes ; 4 Tg. jani3 or poma, perhaps 
XovSpIrai, 5 Gen. 40 16) were rightly compared by 
Chrysostom and other early commentators to the iroirava. 
or of the Greeks, of which there were many 
varieties. 6 Some of these were made in the likeness of 
a victim ; others imaged or symbolised the deity to 
%vhom they were offered. 7 

It has been thought by many that the kaiuwanim of the 
queen of heaven represented the moon, 8 or upon a different 
view of her nature the planet Venus (see below, g 3). Jer. 
44 19 has been understood to testify to the iconic character of 
these cakes, the verb rnsi H 1 ? being connected with C 2S>5, (Ii>i-, 
i/ ), 9 and translated to image Tier ; but both the text and 
the interpretation are extremely doubtful. 

The translation Queen of Heaven (EV) represents 
malkat hassamdyim ; and this interpretation the only 
_,... one which would naturally suggest itself to 
one who read the words c Deri n^So in an un 
pointed text is supported by the oldest exegetical 
tradition (<5). The vowelled text, however, gives roSrj 
(rntUkct), treating ro^D as a defective spelling of roK ro 
from ttatt^D. 1 work, and this view of the derivation of 
the word is represented by Pesh. pulhan semayyd 
(religious work, cultus). The Jewish scholars with 
whom this interpretation originated doubtless thought 
that the worship of the o Crn roSa in Jer. 7 44 was the 
same as the worship of the host of heaven (c CC n K2!), 
Jer. 82 19 13 Zeph. 1 5 Dt. 4 19 17 3, etc. 

This identification, suggested perhaps by a general comparison 
of the references to these cults, would seem to be confirmed by 
the passages in which the worship of the C CCTl rC*?2 appears 
to be equivalent to burning offerings or making libations to 
other gods (see 7 18 44 15; cp 17-19), as though the cult were 
addressed to a collective object such as the heavenly bodies. A 
warrant for taking the word n^xVo in tn s sense was found in 
Gen. 2 where nDN^C (God s work which he wrought ) in v. 2/r 
is obviously parallel to j<3^ in v. i. 11 This opinion was known 
to Jerome, who writes (Coniiit. on Jer. 7 18) : reginae ca;li . . . 
quam lunam debemus accipere, vel certe militiae creli, ut 
omnes Stellas intelligamus, and is given a place in the margin 
of AV, frame, or workmanship of heaven. 

Modern scholars, however, almost without exception, 
have adopted the older and more natural interpretation, 

1 queen of heaven. This prevailing opinion was 
vigorously assailed by Stade in 1886 ; he maintained 

1 Peritz, JBL 17 121 (1898), without apparent reason, connects 

2 K. 23 jl> with this cult. 

2 See, for the opposite opinion, Stade, ZA Tit 6 ivj j(f. 

3 See BAKEMEATS, 2. 

4 [See Lagarde, Ges. Abh. 42, 108.] 

5 Jastrow, Dictionary, s.v. [otherwise Levy, Targ. ffll B, 

See Lobeck, Aglaofkamus, 1060 ff. 

7 See Stengel, Griech. Kultusaltcrtiiincrtpi, oo ; for similar 
customs among other peoples see Liebrecht, Zur Volkskundc, 

8 Comparing the a*i</>t(J)a>vTe? of Artemis at the Munychia, 
Athen. H645 A i Preller-Robert, Griech. Mythologie, 1312. 

9 So Sym., Tg., Rashi, and others. 

1 Omission of silent K- Examples of tbis spelling occur in 
Phoenician inscriptions e^., CIS 1 no. 86 A //. 6 q. On the 
other hand, many Hebrew MSS in our passage have intro 
duced K into the text. 

11 Abarbanel on Jer. 44 15, as the opinion of older interpreters. 
Similarly Stade, ZA TW 6 339. See also Dfbarim ratoa, 10 



that c DBTt nata (? malkut] was a collective, the rule, 
that is, the ruling powers, of heaven," a more compre 
hensive term than host of heaven ; at a later stage of 
the controversy he was inclined to conjecture that m^D 
(ro^Sc. work ; cp Gen. 2 if. ) had been substituted for 
N3S by a scribe or editor to whom the word nax was 
offensive. Stade did not, however, establish his main 
contention that the rendering queen of heaven must 
be rejected ; the result of the discussion upon this point 
was rather to confirm the conviction that that is the 
only satisfactory interpretation of the words. 1 

It is not probable that a deity invoked as queen of 
heaven, to whose displeasure at the neglect of her 

o TJ *-c A- worship the contemporaries of Jere- 
3. Identification. miah cou , d attribute the calan ; ities 

that had befallen them and their country, was a minor 
figure in the Semitic pantheon ; the presumption is that 
the rites described by the prophet belonged to a specific 
cult of the great goddess Astarte. The title seems 
also to indicate that the worship was addressed to one 
of the heavenly bodies, and was one of the particular 
cults embraced in the general prophetic condemnation 
of the worship of the sun and moon and the whole 
host of heaven. From an early time it has been 
disputed whether the queen of heaven in the sky was 
the moon 2 or the planet Venus. 3 The former opinion 
was probably in its origin only an application of the 
general theory which in the last centuries of the ancient 
world identified all manner of goddesses with the moon ; 
in modern times it has appeared to follow from the 
current though ill-founded belief that the Astarte of the 
western Semites was a moon goddess. (See ASHTORETH, 
4. ) In the Babylonian system, which was at the 
height of its influence in the W. in the seventh century, 
the star of Istar was the planet Venus, whilst the moon 
was a great god, Sin. The traces in Syria and Arabia 
of cults similar to that described by Jeremiah connect 
themselves with the worship of Venus. Thus the name 
Collyridians was given to a heretical Arab sect because 
their women offered cakes to the Virgin Mary, to whom 
they paid divine honours. 4 See also Isaac of Antioch, 
ed. Bickell, Imff. 

More than one of the questions discussed above 
would be put beyond controversy if it were established 
that malkatu, or malkatu sa same, the literal equivalent 
of the Heb. malkat hassdmdyim, occurs in cuneiform 
texts as a title of Istar ; 5 but that the ideogram A A 
should be read malkatu is at best a plausible conjecture, 
on which no conclusions can properly be based. Istar 
is called, however, belit fame and sarrat same? the 
latter exactly corresponding in meaning to the Hebrew 
malkat hassamayim, queen of heaven. In a catalogue 
of the names of Venus in various regions and languages 
preserved by Syrian lexicographers we are told that 
Venus was called malkat scmayyd by the Arzanians, 7 
that is the inhabitants of Arzon, a diocese in the 
province of Nisibis (ZDMG 43 394n. ). The list shows in 
other particulars accurate information, and may be taken 
as evidence that a cult of Venus with the epiklesis queen 
of heaven survived in that locality into Christian times. 

Herodotus (lios) sets it down that the temple of 
Aphrodite Urania in Askalon was the oldest seat of her 
worship ; thence it passed to Cyprus and Cythera. 8 

1 See especially Kuenen, Gesammelte Abhandlungen, 186- 
211. [Cp, however, Crit. Bib. T. K.C.] 

2 Jerome, Olympiodorus, and very many down to our own 

3 Tg., Isaac of Antioch, and others. 

4 Epiph. Hirr. 78 c. 23 79 c. i 18. Epiphanius recognises^the 
identity with the worship of the queen of heaven in Jer. 7 44. 
It is in fact one of those direct transfers of a Venus cult to Mary 
of which there are many examples. See Rosch, Astarte- 
Maria, St. Kr. 1888, pp. 265^ 

5 Schrader ; for titles see below, 4. 

6 Eerdmans, Melekdienst, 86. 

7 Bar Bahlul, col. 244; some codd. have Darnftye. See 
Lagarde, Gesammelte Abhandlungen, 16. 

8 See also Herodot. 1 131. 



According to Pausanias (1.867) the religion was of 
Assyrian (Syrian) origin, 1 taken up by the people of 
Paphos in Cyprus and of Ascalon in Phoenicia ; the 
Cytherans learned it from the Phoenicians (cp iii. 23 i) ; 
it was introduced into Athens by ^geus. We may 
take these passages as evidence of the belief of the 
Greeks that the worship of the heavenly goddess 
( A<j>po5ir7) Ovpavla, more often simply i) Otipavia) 2 was 
of oriental origin. It is highly probable that in this 
they were right, 3 and that the epiklesis is it> some way 
connected with the title Queen of Heaven in the 
Semitic religions. 4 

The goddess of Carthage, in the inscriptions T-n-t 
(pronunciation unknown), must have had a similar 
title, since by Latin writers and in Latin inscriptions 
she is called Ccelestis. 5 

Alilkat in Phoenician and Punic proper names, on 
the other hand, is more probably the divine sovereign 
of the city or community (cp Milk] than of the heavens. 

G. F. Meinhard, Dissertatio de selenolatria, in Ugolini 
Thesaurus, 238n jff. (in Thesaurus theolvgico-philologicus, 

I8o8_^ this dissertation appears under the 
4. Literature, name of Calovius ; the older literature very 

fully given and discussed) ; Frischmuth, 
Dissertatio de Melechet caeli, in Tlicsaur-us theologico- 
philologicus, 1 866 jf. ; J. H. Ursinus, Quastiones tioticte, 
221-25; J- G. Carpzov, Apparatus antiquitatum, 510 f. ; B. 
Stade, Die vermeintliche Konigin des Himmels, ZATW, 
6123-132 (1886); Das vermeintliche aramaisch-assyrisches 
Aequivalent der n CK H fl^D. J eT - 7 44, ZA TW 6 289-339 
(1886); E. Schrader, Die Q CE n mSn und ihr Aramaisch- 
assyrisches Aequivalent, SBBA, 1886, 1477-491; Die Gottin 
Istar als tiialkatu, ZA 8353-364; A. Kuenen, De Melechet 
des Kernels, I erslagen en mededeelingen der Koninklijke 
Akadoiiie van Wetenschapen, Afd. Letterkunde, 1888, pp. 
157-189 (Germ, trans. [1894], Kuenen, Gesaininclie Abhand- 
lungen, 186-211 ; Eerdmans, Melekdienst, 53^. , Scholz, GStzen- 
dicnst und Zaubcnvescn, yx>/., cp ZTiff. , Griinbaum, Der 
Stern Venus, ZDMG, 1888, pp. 45-51. G. F. M. 

QUICKSANDS (CYPTIC : Acts 27 17), RV Syrtis, q.v. 
QUILT P^l), i S. 19i3i6, RV n >e- See BED, 
3, 4 (6). 

QUINCE. See APPLE, 2 (4), col. 269. 
QUINTUS MEMMIUS (2 Mace. 11 34 ). See MEM- 

1. Life. 

QUIRINIUS (KYPHNioc[Ti. WH], Lk.2 2 ). The 
name of this official is given in an inscription as P. 
Sulpicius Quirinius. The main facts of his 
life are given by Tacitus, Ann. 848. A native 
of Lanuvium, of an undistinguished family, he was 
elected consul in 12 B.C. ; some years later he was sent 
on an expedition against the Homonadenses in Cilicia, 
who had vanquished Amyntas, king of Galatia. For his 
successes against these mountaineers he received the 
honour of a triumph. When Gaius Caesar was sent 
out to the East in 2 A.n. , Quirinius accompanied him as 
his tutor. In 6 A.D. Quirinius was appointed as legatus 
of the Emperor Governor of Syria, and in that capacity 
took over Judtea on the deposition of Archelaus, and 
made a census of the newly annexed district (Jos. Ant. 
17 13 18 1). At this post he remained four or five years. 
At a later time (Tac. Ann. 822) he caused some scandal 
in Rome by accusing his divorced wife, Lepida, of having 
long before tried to poison him. Unpopular at Rome, 
he retained the favour of Tiberius, who in 21 A.D. 
procured him a public funeral. 

To these facts one of importance is added by the celebrated 
Lapis Tihurtinus (CIL 143613), which inscription, though much 
mutilated, appears to prove that Quirinius proconsulate of 
Syria in 6 A.D. had been preceded by an earlier tenure of the 

1 Cp CIA, 2168627 1588. 

2 Cp also Herod. 3 8 (Arabs). Heavenly was originally 
meant in a physical sense ; the ethical significance Plato gives 
it (Sympos. 180 u) is arbitrary, and in conflict with what we 
know of the attributes and cult of Urania. 

3 Farnell, Cults of the Greek States, Iteof. 629/1 746^ 

4 See Theodoret on Jer. 44 17. 

5 Oupan a Herodian, Ab exc. div. Marc. 56; cp Philastrms, 
Harr. i;. See Ruscher, 2614^". ; Cumont, in Pauly-Wissowa, 
3 1247^ ; cp PHCENICIA, n (col. 374S/)- 



same office. The view of Mommsen is that this previous tenure 
was in 3-1 B.C., and that the crushing of the Homonadenses, 
who dwelt in Cilicia, at that time attached to the province of 
Syria, was an event of this first proconsulate. It cannot well 
be dated earlier, because Sentius Saturninus governed Syria 
9-7 B.C., and Quinctilius Varus from 7 B.C. to after the death of 
Herod (Tac., since he put down a sedition which 
arose when Herod died. 

Amid these facts, the statements of Lk. as to the 
date and circumstances of the birth of Jesus (2i-s) raise 

2 The cerfbus mtr cate questions. The miraculous 

events preceding the birth cannot be 
discussed from the historical point of view ; but the 
asserted census in Judaea and the journey of Joseph and 
Mary to Bethlehem come within the field of historical 

Lk. s statements are as follows : 

1 i ) Crcsar Augustus decreed a general census of the 
Roman world. Of such a general census nothing is 
known from other sources, though Augustus made a 
census of Roman citizens only. However, we need 
not delay over this statement, which is unimportant 
for our purpose, and may be merely an exaggeration. 

(2) This census was first carried out in Palestine in 
the days of Herod, when Quirinius was governor of 
Syria. Here several difficulties arise. From the above- 
cited testimony of Tacitus, it appears that Quirinius 
was not proconsul of Syria until after the death of 
Herod. Palestine being not strictly a part of the 
Roman Empire, but a dependent or protected kingdom 
under Herod, a Roman census would not be carried 
out in that district. On the other hand, we know that 
when in 6 A.D. Archelaus the son of Herod was deposed 
from his tetrarchy of Judaea, and the district was 
annexed to the province of Syria, Quirinius, who was 
then for the second time proconsul of Syria, carried out 
a census in Judrea, which caused, as we learn from 
Josephus (Ant. xviii. 1 1), much disaffection in that 
country. It is not unnatural to suspect that Lk. may 
have misdated his census. 

(3) For the purposes of the census every man went to 
the abode of his family or clan ; thus Joseph went to 
Bethlehem the town of David, 1 and with him his 
affianced wife, Mary. It is, however, pointed out that 
in a Roman census every man reported at his place of 
residence. No instance is known to us in antiquity in 
which the citizens of a country migrated to the ancestral 
home of their family, in order to be enrolled. In any 
case, no ancient census would require the presence of 
any but the head of a household. \Yomen would 
certainly not have to appear in person. 

These considerations have led many historians, such 
as Mommsen, Gardthausen, Keim, Weizsacker, and 

3 Ramsav s ^cntirer, to the view that Lk. s statements 
Theory about the census of Quirinius are altogether 

y mistaken. On the other hand, some 
writers, such as Huschke and \Vieseler and many 
English theologians, have adopted an apologetic atti 
tude in regard to Lk. s statements. 2 The most recent 
apologetic work on the subject is that of Prof. W. M. 
Ramsay, Was Christ born at Bethlehem? in which 
work it is pointed out in regard to Quirinius that Lk. 
does not say that it was he who conducted the census, 
but only that it was made when he was in some position 
of authority in Syria (yyffjubv, not dvBi nraTos, pro 
consul). He may have been in command of troops of 
the Syrian province against the Homonadenses at the 
time. It is further maintained that a census conducted 
by Herod in his own dominions might decidedly differ 

1 [On the birthplace of David, see DAVID, i ; DEBIR 
JCDAH, 4.] 

- A summary, and refutation of their views will be found in 
Schtirer s GWft) 510-543 (ET i. 2 105-143). 


from a Roman census, especially in the point that the 
people might be numbered not by domicile, but by clan 
or family. 

A new element has been introduced into the discus 
sion by the discovery from papyri published by Messrs. 
Grenfell, Kenyon, and others, that an enrolment 
occurred in Egypt at intervals of fourteen years from the 
year 20 A. D. onwards, and probably from the time of 
the regulation of Egypt by Augustus, that is, also in the 
years 6 A.D. and 8 B.C., and further that this enrol 
ment was a census by families, not a mere valuation 
of property. One or two definite, though not conclusive, 
pieces of evidence, seem to indicate that this periodical 
census was not confined to Egypt, but was, in some 
cases at all events, extended to Syria. 

Arguing on the basis of this new discovery , Prof. 
Ramsay maintains that a census may probably have 
been held in Syria in 9-8 B.C., and gives certain reasons 
why, if Herod at the same time proposed a census in 
Judaea, he should have postponed it to the year 6 B. c. , 
and then carried it out on a different plan from that 
usual in a Roman census. The date 6 B.C. Ramsay 
accepts as probably that of the birth of Jesus. 

To set forth Prof. Ramsay s arguments at length is impossible, 
and they are so minute as not to bear compression. But if we 
grant their validity they leave unexplained several difficulties. 
Why should a census in Judaea be dated by Lk. by the 
irrelevant fact of a campaign being at the time fought by 
Quirinius in Cilicia? Even if an enrolment by tribes was 
carried out by Herod, would this be likely to involve a journey 
of all Jews to the native town of their family? How could 
the presence of Mary be required at Bethlehem, when it was a 
settled principle in all ancient law to treat the male head of a 
family as responsible for all its members? In Palestine especially 
it is difficult to imagine such a proceeding as the summoning of 
women to appear before an officer for enrolment. On all these 
questions the new discoveries shed no light. 

The last difficulty is further increased by the use by Lk. of 
the word ejucJicrreuju.e i T) (unless, indeed, it be an early emenda 
tion of the text by some scribe). For this word implies that 
Mary at the time was not the wife of Joseph, but only betrothed to 
him. In such circumstances her travelling with him to 
Bethlehem is even more inexplicable. She would not go as an 
heiress, or in her own right, as we have no reason to suppose 
that she was descended from David, and indeed from the 
context it is clear that she was not. 

Josephus tells us that the census of Quirinius was a 
great innovation, causing alarm and revolt ; it is therefore 
not easy to think that a similar census can have been 
held twelve or fourteen years earlier, and passed off 
with so little friction that Josephus does not mention it. 
It is true that Prof. Ramsay discriminates in character 
the earlier census which he supposes from the Roman 
census of Quirinius of 6 A. D. ; but it is doubtful how far 
this view is maintainable, especially as Lk. uses the 
same word (d.Troypa.(f>ri) to designate the known census 
of Quirinius and the supposed earlier census (Acts 
637). Thus there can be no doubt that the supposition 
of errors of fact in Lk. would, from the purely historical 
point of view, remove very great difficulties. The 
question which remains is whether our opinion of Lk. 
as a historian is so high that we prefer to retain these 
difficulties rather than to suppose serious errors in his 
narrative of the birth of Jesus. See, further, CHRONO 
LOGY, 57^ ; GOSPELS, 22 (col. 1780, n. 2), and 

QUIVEE. i. nB" N, aspdk, cp Ass. ispatu ; 
<t>apfTpa ; pharctra; literally in Job 39 23 ( om.) Is. 226; 
figuratively in Is. 492 Ps. 127s ((P en-iflu/niW) Lam. 813 Jer. 
5 16 (<B om.)t. In Lam. 813 arrows are called sons of the 

2. 7PI, t li, fyaptTpa, pharetra; Gen. 273. t The sense, how 
ever, is uncertain. <B, Vg., Tg., Ps.-Jon., Ibn Ezra, render 
quiver, but Onk., Pesh., Rashi, sword. v .tSl means to 
hang, suspend. Possibly -j ^rt is a corrupt repetition (ditto- 
gram) of the preceding "J ^D, which word (EV thy weapons ) 
would quite well refer to the quiver and arrrows. Cp WEAPONS. 





RAAMAH (flpin; pefMA [BAD^EL] 
[A]), one of the sons of CUSH [g.v.] Gen. 10? (but 
NDin ; i Ch. 1 9 RV Raama). Raamah is also grouped 
with Sheba in Ezekiel s list of trade centres (27 22 
ncjn ; papa [B], pay/j.a [AQ]). A Sabaean inscription 
(Glaser, 1 155) refers to the hosts of Saba and Havilan 
as attacking certain people on the caravan - route 
between Ma an ( = Ma in, ? Bab. Magan) and Ragmat 
(Hommel, AHT-z^o ; cp ZDMGSQ). Here we have 
at any rate one Raamah. Glaser, however, places 
Raamah near Ras el-Khaima, on the Persian Gulf 
(Skizse, 2252). Against identification with Regma, on 
the Arabian side of the same gulf, see Dillmann. Cp 
GEOGRAPHY, 23, and Crit. Bib. on Gen. 10 7 Ezek. 
27 22 where Raamah is bjought nearer to Palestine. 
See CUSH, 2 ; SAKTA. 

RAAMIAH (PTOin, Yahwe thunders? cp 3 R, 67, 
46 c d, where Ramman, the storm -god, is called the 
god so. rimi, i.e., of thunder [Del. Ass. HWB, 605] ; 
the Phoen. proper name NJTOin is no support, the 
true reading being KJTOin), one of the twelve leaders 
of the Jews, Neh. 7?t (5ae/uta [N], peeX/wi [A], datfuas 
[L], va.afj.ta [B], j/ae/uia [B ab ] ; the last two readings are 
due to the proximity of NAHAMANI [y.v.]). Cp 

In Ezra 1 2 the name is miswritten as REELAIAH, and in Zech. 
72 (probably) as REGEM.MELECH (g.r.). All these forms seem 
to come from Jerahmeel . The race-element counts for much 
in the later history of Israel [Che.]. 

RAAMSES (DDJplH), Ex. lu. See RAMESES and 

cp PlTHOM. 

RAB. The use of Tl, rub, chief, head, leader in 
compound titles descriptive of rank or office (corre 
sponding to the Gr. &PXI-) is sufficiently well exemplified 
in Assyrian, Phoenician , and Aramaic. 

Typical examples are :rab dup-sar-ri head scribe (see 
SCRIBE), and rab nikasi treasurer (cp Heb. C D3J), see Del. 
Ass. ffll- Bftogb, Phcen. tJ in 31, head workman (CfS 1 64), 
DIED 31, head of the scribes (ib. 86 14), C:ri3 3-,, head of the 
priests (z />. 119), Palm. xS rt 3% general, NnTB 31, leader 
of the caravan (in Gk. bilinguals <TTpan)Aar>)s, (rvvoSidp^rj^ ), 
pits 31i chief of the market "-(cp N1JN 31, head of the ayopd ) ; 
and Nab. Njvig o 3"li chief of the camp(s). 

This usage of 31 seems to be wanting in the S. 
Semitic stock, and in Hebrew is not frequent. Here 
the more common term employed is sar (ib-, peculiar 
to Heb. ) which is frequently found in pre-exilic writings 
(cp PRINCE), and its occurrence in the later literature 
should be looked upon in some cases, perhaps, as a 
survival of a once popular idiom, and in others as an 
intentional archaism. 

In the sense of great the Heb. rab is not common 3 
in the early writings ; the best instances being the 
poetical fragment Gen. 2623 ( elder opposed to Tys), 
Nu. lisa (J or E), i K. 197, Am. 62. In agreement 
with this is the usage of the Heb. compounds of 31 
which express a rank or office. Of foreign origin, on 
the other hand, are the compounds Rab-saris, Rab- 
shakeh, and Rab-mag, which appear to be titles borrowed 
from the Assyrian. The rest occur in later literature 
only, and are mere descriptions of office. 

It is very probable that they have been formed simply upon 
Assyrian or Babylonian analogy; (a) C n2n 31, 2 K. 25s (in an 
exilic or post-exilic narrative, see KINGS, 2 n. 2) ; cp 

1 2ucoiapx)5, apparently, only in inscriptions. Liddell and 
Scott cite Bockh, 4489. 

2 De Vogue, La. Syrie centrale, nos. 6, 7, 15, 28, etc. 

3 The exact opposite is the case, however, with 31, much, 
many (as opposed to BJ?P). 


Dan. 2 14! ; ! E V captain of the guard, AVmg. chief marshal 
(apxWyf tpo 187 BAQL]),2 see EXECUTIONER, i. Contrast with 
this D nasn IE-, Gen. 3736 39 i 41 i z ; (b) rra 31, Esth. 1st, 

officer of the household (otKOi/ojuo? [BKAL/3]) ; and (c) VD 10 31, 
Dan. 1 3t (see RAB-SARIS), but O D lD.l IE-, Dan. 1 j-iiitl (if- 
XievfoOxos [8 7 BAQI 1 ]). IJf must probably be looked upon here 
as an intentional archaism. The writer has modelled the narrative 
of Daniel to some extent upon that of Joseph (Bevan, Dan. 31), 
and remembers the D EIK,! IE , D pSPBrr ib, and DTOB.l 1B>, 
which recur in Gen. 39-41. SAC 

RABBAH. RABBATH of the Ammonites (Hin, Din 
pStf "0?, pa/30a, Josh. 13 25 [A], Am. 1 14 6 2 i Ch. 20 i [B bis, 

once pappav as accusative]; pa.pBa.0. 28. 11 i 122720 
1. Name. Jer. 492 [A], i Ch.20i (Ms A]; pa/3/3a uiw 

a^ntov, 2 S. 12 26 [B], 17217 [A], Ezek.21 20 ; 
ptftftaS Jer. 49 3 [ K J ; paj3/3u>0 Jer. 49 3 [Q*vid.J ; pa /3o9 Jer. 49 2 
[K] ; pa/Sad vlitv_\ftn<ov, jz S. 12 26 [A], 17 27 [B]. In Dt. 3 n 
<ES translates ev rfj aupa riav viiav Anfiiav and in E?ek. 25s, TTJC 
iroAii TOV A/ufiioi . In josh. 13 25, B reads ApaS. The Vulgate 
has Rabbet or Rebbath according to the Hebrew construction, 
except in Jer. 49 3 Ezek. 25 5 where we have Ral batk for 
rial. In Polyb. Hist. v. 7 4, it appears as paS/Sara^cn-a). 

Rabbah is mentioned in Dt. 3n as the location of 
Og s bed or sarcophagus (see BED, 3); also in 

2. History. 

Josh. 1825, in connection with the borders 

of Gad. In 2 S. 11 / i Ch. 20 we have 
an account of the siege and capture of Rabbah by Joab 
and David. In the oracles against Ammon by Amos, 
Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, Rabbah represents Ammon, as 
being its one important city. Jer. 494 refers to the 
treasures and the well-watered valleys of Rabbah, and 
Ezek. 25s Amos 1 14 to its palaces. These oracles 
announce the ruin of Rabbah as part of the punishment 
of Ammon. In Ezek. 21 20 Nebuchadrezzar hesitates 
whether to march against Jerusalem or Rabbah, but 
decides for Jerusalem by casting lots. Thus Kabbah 
was the capital of Ammon during the whole period of 
the history of the Ammonites, and shared their fortunes 
throughout (see AMMON). It has been suggested that 
Rabbah may be the Ham (see HAM, 2) of Gen. 14s- 

Rabbah continued an important city in post-exilic 
times. It is not mentioned in OT in connection 
with the Jewish history of the period ; but the Ammon 
ites are referred to in Nehemiah, i Maccabees, and 
Judith, and doubtless Rabbath remained their capital. 
Ptolemy Philadelphus, 285-247 B.C., gave it the name 
of Philadelphia, and probably by erecting buildings and 
introducing settlers gave it the character of a Greek 
city ; it became one of the most important cities of 
the Decapolis, Eus. Onom. Pa/xa5 and 

In 218 B.C. it was taken from Ptolemy Philopator by Antiochus 
Epiphanes, Polyb. 5 17. In the time of Hyrcanus (135-107 B.C.) 
we readofaZenoCotyles, tyrant of Philadelphia, Jos. Ant. xiii. 81 
15 3. According to a conjecture of Clermont-Ganneau, Rabbath 
should be read for Nadabath in i Mace. 937 ; see NADABATH. 
In 63 B.C. it was held by the Arabs (Jos. BJ\. 63), who were 
defeated there by Herod, 30 B.C. (i. 19s an d 6 )- The extensive 
Roman remains show that it participated in the prospeiity of 
Eastern Palestine in the second and third centuries A.D. Later, 
it was the seat of a Christian bishopric. The city is said by 
Abulfeda (Ritter, Syr. 1158) to have been in ruins when the 
Moslems conquered Syria. 

Rabbah (the mod. Amman} was situated on one of 

the head-waters of the Jabbok, about 22 m. E. of 

_.. the Jordan. 2 S. 1226-28 apparently distin- 

guished between the royal city or the city 

of waters, and the city. The waters referred to in 

the second of these names may be the Xahr Amman, a 

stream rich in fish, which takes its rise at the site of 

Rabbah (so Buhl, Pal. 260 [ 132]). In that case 

1 In Dan. also | J3D 31, 248 (see DEPUTY), and N T "Eain 31> 
46 5 ii (see MAGIC, 20). 

2 Compounds of 31 and *\iy are alike rendered in (5 by ap\t-. 




the first two names belonged to a lower quarter of the town 
in the valley (cp 4). The city may be a designation 
of the citadel, which was situated on a hill N. of the 
valley. One would naturally like to find some Ammon- 
itish ruins. There are old rock-hewn tombs, and the 
remains of the outer walls of the citadel seem very ancient, 
being formed of great blocks of stone without any cement. 
What is left of the city walls may belong to the time of 
the Ptolemies. Conder even thinks that the remains of 
a reservoir and aqueduct may belong to the subterranean 
passage which enabled Antiochus to capture the citadel. 
If so, they may carry us back to Ammonite times, and 
show how the ancient citadel was supplied with water. 
The great bulk of the ruins baths, colonnades, temples, 
theatres, and tombs are Roman. There is a small 
building, which Conder regards as Sasanian or early 
Arab; and ruins of a Christian cathedral (sth or 6th 
cent. ?) and two chapels. Rude stone monuments 
(dolmens, etc. ) have also been found. 

Conder, Hetli and ftloab, 157-167, Palestine, 175-7, and in 
PEF Survey of Eastern Palestine, 1 19-64 (a very full and 

exact account of a thorough survey of 
4. Literature. Amman, with many fine illustrations) ; 

PEFQ, 1882, pp. 99-116 ; G. A. Smith, HG, 

595-608; L. Gautier, Au delii du J onrdainft] , 93 ff. (1896). 
[Cheyne (Exp.T, Nov. 1897 ; Feb. 1899) discusses the titles of 
Rabbah in 2 S. 12 26^, and emends both naiSon TV and Q On 
into C3^D TV ; Wellhausen, however, emends rt31?Drt into 
D Ort- See TAHTIM-HODSHI, 2, and cp Crit. Bit.} 

W. H. B. 

RABBAH (Hinn, as if the Rabbah ; cooOHBA 
[B], ApeBBA. I/^L,], Arebba], mentioned with Kirjath- 
jearim in Josh. 15 60. Read most probably Kirjath- 
Jerahmeel the great (Che. ). See SOLOMON, 3. 

RABBI (pABBei [Ti. WH], many MSS pA BBl ; 
Heb. S 3"1), a title of honour and respect given by the 
Jews to their learned doctors, more especially to their 
ordained teachers andspiritualheads(cpHAN*us [LAYING 
ON OF]). >3T (lit. my great one, - with the suff. as in 
Heb. JIN, Syr. -i^O ; cp Fr. monsieur, etc.) is 

T -: J 

from an (see RAB) which at a later period among the 
Jews was frequently used in the narrower sense not only 
of a master as opposed to a servant, but of a teacher 
as opposed to a pupil (cp Aboth, 16 and Ber. 636 
where an and ToSn are used of Yahwe and Moses 
respectively) ; see DISCIPLE, i. Rab (an older 
pronunciation is Rib) was especially used as the title 
of the Babylonian teachers, and designates par excellence 
Abba Areka, a noted exegete of the beginning of the 
third century A. D. Rabbi, on the other hand, was the 
title given to Palestinian teachers, 1 and, used alone, 
applies to Jehudah Hannasi, the chief editor of the 

In the NT, Rabbi occurs only in Mt. , Mk., and Jn. 
It is once applied by his followers to John the Baptist 
(Jn. 826), but everywhere else is used in addressing 
Jesus (Mt. 262549 Mk.9 5 Il2i 14 4 5 Jn. 1 38 82 4 3 i 
625 92 11 8). 2 Lk. and Mk. both favour the use of 
8i8a.<TKa.\e (see DISCIPLE, TEACHER), which in Jn. 1 38 
is the Gr. translation of pa/3/3ei, but ew-to-rdra occurs 
only in Lk. (e.g. , 5s 845, etc.). Almost synonymous 
with pa3j3ei are the terms Trarr/p and KaOrjyrjT^ (Mt. 
28910) which are probably equivalent to the Aramaic 
N3N and (so Wtinsche) rn io. 3 

T - 

From its use in the NT it is evident that Rabbi had 
not yet come to be employed as a title, but was merely 

1 The Targ. on 2 K. 2 12 makes Elisha call Elijah Rabbi ; cp 
Tan;, on Ps. 55 14. 

2 The AV frequently has MASTER ; cp Mt. 262549 Mk. I.e., 
Jn. 431 82 11 8. The Pesh. renders by ) and in Jn. 
1 38 3 26 4 31 6 25 9 2 11 8 by +^9. 

3 Against this see Dalman, Die Worte Jesu, 276, 278.77 N^N 
as a term of address seems to be unknown to the TargumisTs. 
It is rather a title of respect. (caftrjyijTr)*, according to this 
scholar is a Gr. variant to fiifiacrieaAos v. 10 being another 
recension of v. 8. 


a form of address (cp Dalman, Der Gottesname Adonaj, 
21), whence Mt. 2 67/. appears to be an anachronism 
(cp Gratz, Gesch. 4 500). Ewald s argument (Gesch. Is. 
625 n. 2), from the words of AbtaliOn in the Pirke 
Aboth, 1 16 (nuayriK tub), that an and jan must have 
been in use for a long time, rests on an erroneous inter 
pretation of rn:2T (lit. lordship ; cp Strack herrschaft ). 
A fuller form is Rabboni (Mk. 10 51 Jn. 20 16, pafi- 
/3ovi>(i [B], papfiovl [minusc. ], paftpuvei [A in Mk. and D 
in Jn.]), cp the Aram, ribbon (pan) another form of 
rabbdn (jai), but with the retention of the d sound in 
the first syllable. 1 pan in Aram, is used by a slave of 
his master, or a worshipper of his God, and is, like 
Rabbi, explained as meaning 8i8dffKa\e (Jn. I.e.). 
According to Aruch (s. "ax), a jan was more honourable 
than a an, and a an than a an, but greatest of all was 
one whose name alone was mentioned (icjy pin ^vu). 
The title jan was first held by Gamaliel I. (see 

For the Jewish use of these various titles, see EB( 9 \ s.v. 
Rab, Rabbi, and for NT usage, "Dalman, Die H ortejesu, 272^! 

S. A. C. 

RABBITH (rvann ; AABeipcoN [B], pABBooe [AL]), 
a city in Issachar, properly ha-Rabbith, Josh. 192o.f 
Identified with Raba, N. of Ibzik (Buhl, 204). C. 
Niebuhr (Gesch. 1367 ; cp B ) reads rna-n, DABERATH 
[q. v.] ; cp Josh. 2128. But perhaps the true reading is 
ni2fn. and P s original authority related to the Negeb 
(cp SHUNEM). T. K. c. 


RAB-MAG P0~in ; rab-mag), a title applied to 
NERGAL-SHAREZER [y.v.] (Jer. 39s ; p^BAMAG [B], 
i ~AK L^J "&F L cj P& M&T L^ J B<\M&T 
[N c - a? ] ; v. 13 ppBOMOf [Theod. in Q" i? ] 
om. (5) ; see RAB. Older critics explain chief Magian ; 
but the Magians (MAfOl) are a Median tribe according 
to Herodotus (lioi), and have no place in Babylonia. 
Rab-mugi is said to be the title of a physician referred 
to in an Assyrian letter (tablet K 519) respecting a sick 
man (Pinches in RP<W 2 182 ; cp Wi. OLZ, Feb. 1898, 
col. 40). Schrader (KAT(-> 417 /) and Hommel 
(Hastings, DD 1229 a), however, derive mag horn emku, 
emgu, wise, and Frd. Delitzsch (Heb. Lang. 13 /. ) 
from mahhu prophet, soothsayer (=esSepu, ^N). 
From a text-critical point of view these suggestions 
have no probability. There is strong reason to believe 
that iD an is corrupt. See NERGAL-SHAREZER. 

T. K. c. 

The Assyrian term referred to is generally rab mugi, 
also rab mugu. There is nothing in K. 519 to connect 
2 Assyrian l ^ s offlcer even r em tely with a physician : 
eauivalent see Har P cr s -4ss.-Bab. Letters, 97, for 
text, and Chr. Johnston s Epistolary 
Literature of the Assyrians and Babylonians, 163, for 
transliteration and translation. The writer, Ardi-Nana, 
is the Court Physician (as Johnston shows). The rab 
mugi only reports, or brings the report of, the sick man s 
condition. He is likely to have been an express mes 
senger. There was a rab mugi of the bithalli and 
another rab mugi of the narkabdti (on Rm. 619, no. 
1036, see Johns Assyrian Deeds and Documents, 2, no. 
1036). Hence the Rab-mag may have had to do 
primarily with chariots and horses, and been the master 
of the horse in the Assyrian Court. 

T. K. C. , I ; C. H. W. J. , 2. 

RABSACES (Ecclus. 48 18), RV RABSHAKEH. 
RAB-SARIS (Dnp JI), the title (so RV m *., and see 
RAB) of (a) an officer sent by the king of Assyria to 

1 Pressel in PRF. s.v. Rabbinismus, explains the a to be a 
Galilean provincialism; cp Kautzsch, Grant. Bibl. Aram. 10. 
The change of d and / is similar to that in Syr. pcska and 



Hezekiah (aKISi?; pAcpeic [B], pABcApeic [A], 
pA4>eic [L] ; rabsaris], and (b) an officer present at the 
capture of Jerusalem (Jer. 39s, NABoyCApeiC [B], 
-CAPIC [N Q]. -ceeic [N*] and pABcApic [Q mg - it. 
and Theod. in v. 13 where BNA om. ; rabsares). In both 
passages, however, we should possibly read either aij; 
IIS N, Arabia of Asshur (cp TARSHISH) or D zny IB>, 
the prince of the Arabians (see XERGAL-SHAREZER) ; 
indeed in the case of Jer. (I.e. ) the probability is very 
strong. As to 2 K. (I.e. ) a doubt is permissible (cp 
SENNACHERIB, 5), and we therefore offer the views 
of Rab-saris which are possible on the assumption that 
an Assyrian invasion was really referred to in the 
original narrative. The title has often been interpreted 
chief eunuch, and Schrader (A A T^i 319) thinks that 
it may be the translation of a corresponding Assyrian 
phrase (so Uillm. -Kittel, Jesaia, 312). This, at any 
rate, is not very probable. 

Winckler conjectured (Untcrs. 138) that it was a reproduction 
of an artificial Ass. phrase rab-sa-ris a learned scribe s inter 
pretation of rat-sag- (RAU-SHAKEH), which is half Sumerian ; 
while, according to Pinches (letter in Acad., June 25, 1892), 
rab-sa-resi, chief of the heads was the title of the special 
officer who had charge of the royal princes (cp Dan. 1 3). 
Finally, Del. (Ass. HIVB 694^) registers sa-ris as the title of a 
court-official of uncertain meaning. We may plausibly hold that 
the second element in rab-saris is both Hebrew and Assyrian, 
but primarily Assyrian (see EUNUCH), and that rab-saris (= Heb. 
rab-salis) means chief captain. If so, it hardly differs from RAB* 

SHAKEH (y.7 .). 

How vo"iD 31 in Dan. 1 3 (cp v. 7) is to be understood, 
is not quite clear. The context suggests that the writer 
misunderstood the phrase which he found already cor 
rupted in 2 K. 1817 ; for eunuchs, having the charge of 
royal harems, were frequently employed in superintend 
ing the education of princes. See EUNUCH. Even if 
the story of Daniel has been recast, this explanation may, 
at any rate, serve provisionally. T. K. c. 

ra&saces), the title (so RV m s- ; see RAB) of the officer 
sent by the Assyrian king to Hezekiah (2 K. 18 17-! 9 ; 
Is. 36 /, and in the Heb. original of Ecclus. 48 18, AV 
RABSACES ; pABcAKNC, Is. 862 [B] 41* as 37 4 [BQw] 
36 13 [Q m -] 37 8 [B Q" 1 *-]). In its Heb. form it has been 
taken to mean chief cup-bearer ; but a cup-bearer would 
not have been intrusted with important political business. 
The word is the exact reproduction of the Assyr. rab- 
fake chief of the high ones (i.e. , officers) for so the 
Pab SAG or Rab SAG/ - of the inscriptions should be 
read (Del. Ass. H\VB, 685,?). This was the title of a 
military officer, inferior to the Tartan, but of very high 
rank. A rab-sake was despatched to Tyre by Tiglath- 
pileser III. to arrange about tribute (KB 223, cp Del. 
I.e. ). Just so the Rab-shakeh goes (with the Tartan, 
according to 2 K. ) to Jerusalem. He is acquainted both 
with Hebrew ( the Jews language, 1 2 K. 1826) and with 
Aramaic ; such a leading diplomatist needed no drago 
man. Since the time of Tiglath-pileser III. there was 
a large Aramrean population in Assyria. Cp Schr. 
KAT 320 ; ARAMAIC, 2. If, however, the original 
narrative referred to a N. Arabian rather than an 
Assyrian incursion, the name underlying Rab-shakeh 
may very possibly be Arab-kfis, Arabia of Cush. Cp 
RAB-SARIS. T. K. c. 

RACA ( P AXA [Ti.], PAKA [Treg. WH] ; probably 
an abbreviated form of the Rabb. xp T ; cp Kau. Cram. 
I ibl. Aram. 10 ; Dalm. Aram. Grain. 138, n. 2 ; for 
interchange of K and % cp Dalm. ib. 304, n. 2, and see 
ACELDAMA, i),a term of abuse in the time of Christ, 
Mt. 5 22 f. Whether it conveys a more or a less offensive 
meaning than (j.upt (EV, Thou fool ) is disputed; 
indeed, the whole passage, as it stands, is obscure. 
According to Holtzmann, there is a double climax in 
the clauses introduced by But I say to you ; (i) from 
wrath in the heart to its expression in a word, and (2) 
from the denial of the intellectual capacity of a brother 
to that of his moral and religious character, while the 



punishments referred to range from that awarded by a 
mere local court ( Beth-din ) to that by the Sanhedrin, 
and finally to that of the fiery Gehenna. Holmnann, 
however, understates the offensiveness of Raca and 
exaggerates that of pupt Raca (cp Jn. 9 4 ) involves 
moral more than intellectual depreciation, and /xwpoy 
nowhere in the NT bears the sense of impious (the 
OT Saj ; see FOOL). Nor is it at all probable that 
Jesus would have recognised the provisional institution 
of the Sanhedrin side by side with the Messianic punish 
ment of Gehenna, and assigned the punishment of one 
abusive expression to the former, and of another to the 
latter. The text must have suffered a slight disarrange 
ment ; the clause about Raca should be parallel to the 
clause about murder. Read probably thus, Ye have 
heard that it was said to the ancients, Thou shall not 
murder, and whosoever murders is liable to the judg 
ment, and whosoever says Raca to his brother, is 
liable to the Sanhedrin. But I say nnto you, Every one 
who is angry with his brother is liable to the (divine) 
judgment, and whoever says, Thou fool, is liable to the 
fiery Gehenna. The Law as expounded by the Rabbis 
treated libellous expressions J as next door to murder. 
But such gross offences as murder and calling another 
1 Raca could never occur if on the one hand anger were 
nipped in the bud, and on the other even such seemingly 
harmless expressions as thou simpleton (/txwp^) were 
scrupulously avoided. So first j. P. Peters (JBL 
10i3i/. [1891]; 16103 [1896]), except that he prefers 
to repeat It was said, etc., and But I say, avoiding 
rearrangement. See FOOL. T. K. c. 


ISM, 5 (with references), WRESTLING. 

Race is an apt rendering of (rrdSiov in i Cor. 9 24 (RVmff. 
race-course ) and of aywv (lit. contest) in Heb. \ 2 i. In Ps. 
195 RV preferably renders orah (mf;)by course. In Eccles. 
9 ii, ;/ frfs (j"nc) is properly an abstracts running (EV s ren 
dering of n^nD> 2 S. 18 27). 


RACHAL, RV, RACAL. For in Radial (V:n2) in 
I S. 3029 we ought, probably, following BL (EN 
KApMHAco, but eisi pAXHA [A]), to read in Carmel 
(7D132); so all critics A necessary emendation (Bu. , 
snOT). See CARMEL, 2, col. 706" 

RACHEL (?rn, ewe, see WRS Kin. 219, 2 pA\HA 
[BXADEQL]), the mother of the tribes of Israel 
settled in the highlands of West Palestine, 

between the Canaanite strips of territory 

la. No mere 

at Esdraelon and Aijalon. Rachel died 
when Benjamin or Benoni was born (Gen. 35 16^). 
Was there, we may ask, at some remote period, a distinct 
clan with the ewe Rahel as its totem, and the mas- 
sebah of Rachel s grave (see RACHEL S SEPULCHRE) 
as its chief sacred spot ? The members of such a clan 
would be b ne Rahel. They all lived in Kphraim ; but 
in time some came to be banded together, as Jeminites 
(BENJAMIN, i). Then, perhaps, the others began 
to drop the name b ne Rahel in favour of something 
else(cp JOSEPH i. , 2 ; EPHRAIM, 5 ii. ; MANASSEH, 
2). Rachel, certainly, as far as we can see, was 
no mere name, as in historical times was Leah. In 
Jer. 31 15 (cp Mt. 2i8) we hear of Rachel weeping for 

1 On the importance attached to words like Raca, cp Koran, 
1724, And say not to them, Fie, and Ghazali s description of 
the weighing of a man s actions ; Hut the angel bringeth yet a 
K-af which he casteth into the scale of the evil actions. On this 
leaf is written the word " Fie ! " Then the evil actions outweigh 
the good. . . . The order is given to cast this man into hell. 
(La fierleprecieuse de GAazdtf [Gautier], 1878, p. 80.) 

2 Griineisen {Ahnenculius, 257) proposes to read Aharhel for 
the J-udalnte name AHARHEL, comparing HAL a6eA</>ou P)\a0 
(also the Benjamite AHRAH, mnx, <B ia^a)A). [According to 
Cheyne Rachel may be a fragment of SxDnT, Jerahmeel ; see 
IACOB, 3, SHAPHAN, and for a similiarly doubtful name, sea 



her children (although there is no explicit indication 
who these are understood to be) ; and at a later 
date, in the story of Ruth, Rachel and Leah are 
the builders of the house of Israel (Ruth 4n). Ac 
cording to the legend as we know it (both J and E) 
Rachel was the beloved wife, a feature that it is natural 
to connect with the acknowledged superior splendour 
and power of northern Israel. There is a remarkable 
passage in J, however, where Jacob seems to speak as if 
he had had only two sons (Gen. 42 38). The question 
therefore arises whether there may not have been an 
older form of the story where Rachel was the only wife, 
just as Rachel s double, Rebecca, was the only wife of 
Isaac. This question Steuernagel answers in the affirma 
tive (Einwanderung, 39). He also makes the interesting 
suggestion that there may be a monument of the 
importance of Rachel in the name Israel. As the men 
of the Gad tribe were called Ish Gad (see GAD, i), 
so, Steurnagel suggests, the men of the Rachel (or 
Jacob, or Joseph) tribe were perhaps called Is-Ra -el 
(on s see SHIBBOI.KTH, and on the change of h to in 
words containing a liquid, see REUBEN, col. 4092, 
n. 9. 

We must now consider Rachel s relation to Bilhah. 
Rebecca has no such attendant (DEBORAH \<j.v. , 2] 

, _, L is not represented as a concubine of 

lb .Relation to Isaac) Sarahj however> has Hagar . 

otner wives. and in Sarah . s as in Rache r s case, the 
son of the wife is not born till after the son of the con 
cubine. This is obscure (cp MANASSEH, 3). In 
Rachel s case the most natural conjecture would be that 
Joseph was not born till after the sons of Bilhah were 
settled in Canaan. So Guthe (Gl-7 41). Steuernagel 
thinks that Rachel (or rather Jacob- Rahel) entered 
Palestine from the E. just in the rear of Bilhah (Ein 
wanderung, 98 ; cp Guthe, GVl 42), and that it was 
because the Bilhah tribes (Dan and Naphtali) came to 
be treated as brothers of Joseph that their mother 
Bilhah came to be called a concubine of Jacob. Why 
only Rachel was a full wife is often explained by the 
importance of the Rachel tribes in historical times. 
There may, however, have been religious grounds (so, 
for example, Steuernagel, Einwanderung, 45). Of 
what race her maid came we are not told (on the state 
ments in later writings, see ZILPAH, i); but Rachel 
herself was a daughter of Laban, which appears to point 
t( / a belief in the presence of Aramaean elements in N. 
Israel (differently, LABAN, REBEKAH). If Rachel was 
the chosen wife of Jacob, she was not the only one. The 
surreptitious introduction of Leah seems an important 
feature of the story. Quite as difficult of clan-historical 
interpretation is the representation of Rachel as Leah s 
sister. 1 Are we to infer that there were once actually 
two tribes, a Ewe tribe and a Wild-cow tribe, living in 
association? If so, where and when? Or is it that 
when the northern Ephraim tribes came to be associated 
with the southern tribes they came all to be regarded as 
brothers, and therefore as having a common father 
though different mothers? The theory is attractive. 
It explains, however, why Rachel and Leah are fellow- 
wives, hardly why they are sisters. 2 

The points that remain are the stealing of the teraphim, 
the initial barrenness, and the story of the duda im. 

ic Other ^ e steann & f l ^ e teraphim by a woman 

. , as a feature in this quaint story tells us 

something of the light in which the teraphim 

came to be viewed (Gunkel compares the case of Michal, 

cp HPSm. Sam. p. xxxiv. ). It is through the initial 

barrenness that Dan and Naphtali come to be older than 

Joseph (see NAPHTALI, 2). The real origin of the 

1 In Test. xil. Pair., Naph. i, etc., Bilhah and Zilpah also 
arc sisters. See ZILPAH, i. 

- Perhaps they were sisters simply because of the frequency 
of such a marriage of sisters in the society in which the story 
was told (see MARRIAGE, 2, (i)). [For a different view, see 



story of the duda im is not clear (see ISSACHAR, 2, 
REUBEN, 3, NAPHTALI, 2). E does not mention 
them ; but in the original J they no doubt cured Rachel s 
barrenness. This is now obscured, as the birth of 
Zebulun precedes that of Joseph. According to the 
dates assigned to the births in the present text of 
Jubilees, 28z3/., however, Joseph conies immediately 
after Issachar, before Zebulun, although it is Joseph 
and Zebulun, not (as it ought to be) Joseph and Issachar 
that are born in the same year. On the general 
question of the order in which the tribes are enumerated, 
see TRIBES. H. \v. H. 

The death of Rachel is related in Gen. 35 16-20 (JE) ; 

the narrative throws much light on the earlier phase of 

_ , ., the tribal traditions, but needs perhaps to 


be studied in connection with a compre 
hensive textual criticism. 

As pointed out in JACOB, 3, the phraseology of Gen. 29 1 
suggests that, according to a very early form of the tradition, the 
home of Laban was among the Jerahmeelites of the S. Evidence 
which was not in the writer s hands when that article was 
written, or at least was not fully appreciated by him, is now 
before him in abundance, showing that this was indeed the case 
i.e., that Laban was indeed originally regarded as an Aramaean 
or Jerahmeelite (Q-IN = ^KCnT) of the S. Laban s Haran was, 
however, not Hebron but a district of the Negeb which also 
supplied to Sanballat (?) the designation <j-)n (MT Horoni), 
Haranite (see SANBALLAT). It was there that Rachel and 
Leah a distinction without a difference, if jm and rm^ are both 
corrupt fragments of Jerahmeel dwelt, according to the early 
tradition and the Bethel, where the divinity appeared to Jacob 
was, if not, strictly speaking, in the land of the bne Jerahme el 
(29 i), at any rate, at no very great distance from it, for, like 
Haran, it was in the Negeb. In the Negeb, too, was the Gilead 
of the famous story of the compact between Jacob and Laban, 
and of not a few other much misunderstood O T passages, and in 
the Negeb was Shechem i.e., Cusham (see SHECHEM, 2). It 
therefore became superfluous to emend the Ephrath of 
Gen. 301619 into Beeroth, a change which on a more con 
servative view of the tribal traditions (see EPHRATH, i ; 
JOSEPH i., 3) was helpful, and indeed necessary. The 
Ephrath of the story of Rachel s death is the Ephrath of the 
Negeb (in Gen. 2 14 Jer. \?>i,ff. it appears to be called Perath ; 
cp PARADISE, 5; SHIHOR); its other name, according to the 
gloss in v. 19, was cn^ rVSj a popular distortion of "?ncrw n 3> 
Beth-jerahmeel. See RACHEL S SEPULCHRE. Thus Rachel 
(the vocalisation is of course relatively late, and not authoritative 
for the early tradition) i.e., Jerahmeel was fitly enough buried 
at one of the leading centres of the Jerahmeelite race in the 
Negeb. Before her death she gave birth to a son variously 

in fact, enough to warrant the surmise that Benjamin s original 
home was in the Negeb). The early tradition also made a 
statement respecting the distance between the place where 
Rachel died and Ephrath or Beth-jerahmeel. 

There was but kibrath ha-ares (["ixnrraj) to come to 
Ephrath when Rachel travailed. None of the ex 
planations of kibrath in Ges. Thes., or elsewhere is 
satisfactory, 1 and in the Psalter px and rn have a 
tendency to get confounded. Probably we should read 
kim at hd-orah, rnxn cyps, a trifle (left) of the way. 

H. vv. H. , i a-c ; T. K. c. , 2. 

RACHEL S SEPULCHRE. The biblical references 
are (a) Gen. 35 19* (JE), (t) 48 7 (R). (c) i S. 10z/. 
(d} Jer. 31 15, (e) Mt. 2i6-i8. It is generally supposed 
(see Buhl, Pal. 159, and Dillm. on Gen. 8019) that 
either (i. ) there was a double tradition with reference 
to the site of Rachel s grave, one (a, b, e} placing it 
near Bethlehem in Judah, another (c, d) in the border 
of Benjamin towards Ramah (so Nold. . Del. <*>, Dillm. ) ; 
or (ii. ) the gloss that is Bethlehem in (a) and (f>), which 
(e) appears to follow, is based upon a geographical con 
fusion and is to be disregarded (so Holzinger, Gunkel, 
and Ox/. Hex. ). The weak point in i. is thought to be 

1 IVOD is conventionally regarded as a measure (& imroSpofios ; 
Pesh. a parasang). Of course, the Ass. kibrati, a quarter of 
the world, can hardly, by any ingenuity, be made illustrative. 
It is clear that the text is corrupt. So also in 2 K. 5 19 pj ni33 
(no article before JHK) is shown by the context to be corrupt (sec 



that Rachel has nothing to do with the S. kingdom, and 
the weak point in ii. certainly is that a N. Ephrath is 
undiscoverable. Before proceeding further we must 
criticise the text (see Crit. Bib. ). 

(a) and (6) cnSvi 3 | s a popular corruption of ^NCnV JV3- 
Ephrath and Beth-jerahmeel are both place-names of the 
Negeb. We have no reason to doubt that the gloss in Gen. 35 196 
and 48 7<* is correct, and that Beth-jerahmeel either had Ephrath 
as its second name, or was in the district called Ephrath. We 
must remember that Ephrath was traditionally the wife of Caleb 
(iCh. 2j 9 ). 

(c) The geographical description has suffered serious corrup 
tion. The text should run, When thou departest from me 
to-day, thou shall find two men by Beth-jerahmeel in Shalishah. 

(rf)Jer. 31 being most probably of late origin, we could not be 
surprised if it contained a statement based on a misunderstanding 
of the Rachel tradition. It is quite possible, however, that the 
Ramah spoken of is the same that is meant in the underlying 
original of Jer. Wijf., which probably referred to a Ramah 
( = Jerahmeel) in the Negeb, which was the starting-point of the 
captives who went to a N. Arabian exile. If so, the writer may 
also conceivably have known of Rachel as having died and been 
buried in the Negeb. Taking, as was supposed, a profound 
interest in the fortunes of her descendants, Rachel had never 
ceased to grieve over the tribe of Joseph, which had gone into 
exile with other N. Israelites in N. Arabia (see Crit. Bib. on 
2 K. 17 6 1 ). When, however, the Jerahmeelite setting of the 
early Israelite legends, and the N. Arabian exile of the two 
sections of the Israelite race, had passed into oblivion (partly 
through corruption of the texts), it was natural that the sepulchre 
of Rachel should be transferred to the N., in spite of the fact 
that no Ephrath was in existence to impart to this transference 
a superficial plausibility. 

According to JE, the site of Rachel s tomb was marked 
by a sacred pillar (see MASSEBAH), which existed in the 
writer s time (Gen. 35 20). The tomb known in our own 
day as Rachel s has plainly been restored, though the 
tradition has attached to the same spot throughout the 
Christian period. It is a short distance from Bethlehem, 
on the road to Jerusalem. According to Clermont- 
Ganneau, 2 it may perhaps be the tomb (cenotaph) of the 
Jewish king Archelaus (cp HEROD, 8) referred to by 
Jerome (OS 101 12). T. K. c. 

RADDAI ( Tl), son of Jesse, and brother of DAVID 
\q.v. i, n.] (i Ch.2i 4 t; ZA.AAAI [B], Z A.BA. [B ab ], 
p&AA&l [A], peA&l [L])- Ewald identifies with him the 
corrupt jn (Rei) of i K. 18, see SHIMEI 2. The name 
is more probably a corruption of nai (see Marq. Fund. 
25 cp B ah ) ; see ZABDI. 

RAFTS (n n;n), i K. 4 23 [5 9 ]. See SHIP, i. 


2. (payav [Ti.WH]), Lk. 3 35, RV REU. See GENEALOGIES, 
ii. 3. 

uncertain ; in Tob. 4 20 N Appoic]. rages [Vg. ], rdgd 
[Syr.]), an important city in NE. Media, situated in the 
province of Rhagiana, near the celebrated Caspian Gates, 
and hence a place of great strategical importance. It is 
frequently mentioned in the above form in the Book of 
Tobit (1 14 4 1 20 5s 613 92). In Judith (1515) the name 
appears as Ragau (payav, ragau [Vg. ], plain of Dura, 3 
and rfgii [Syr.]), which is apparently identical with 
REU [q.v.~\. 

This city, which is frequently mentioned by classical 
writers, occurs as Rhaga in the Avesta (Vend. ch. 1), 
and also in the Behistun Inscription of Darius Hystaspis 
2 13). After suffering various changes, it fell into decay ; 
but the name may perhaps survive in the huge ruins 
of Rhey, situated some 5 m. SE. of Teheran. See 
Rawlinson, Monarchies, 2 272 / ; Curzon, Persia, 
1345-352; Smith s Diet, of Gr. and Rom. Geog. , s.v. 

RAGUEL (Wuiri). (i) RV REUEL. See JETHRO, 
REUEL. (2) a man of the tribe of Naphtali (Tob. 6 12 ; 
cp 1 1 74), related to Tobias ; husband of Edna, whose 

1 It is there shown that there has been a confusion between 
two captivities of N. Israel, an Assyrian and a N. Arabian. 

2 R ecueil d archeol. orientate, 2 134 jf. 

3 Cp jnn nyp3 Dan. 3 i, and see DURA. Duru was not an 
uncommon Babylonian name. 



only daughter Sara became the wife of Tobias 
RAfOYHA. 3717; -HAoc)- 

In Enoch 204 Raguel is the name of one of the archangels. 
Perhaps this was suggested by Tob. 3 17, where the name 
Raguel occurs in connection with Raphael (both names may 
have a similar origin ; see REUEL, RAPHAEL). That the 
name has any reference to this angel s role as a chastiser 
(Charles on Enoch 20 4) is hardly probable. T. K. C. 

RAHAB (2rn), a synonymous term for the DRAGON 
(q.v. ) in post-exilic writings, sometimes also applied to 
Egypt (or, as may plausibly be held, to Misrim, the N. 
Arabian foe of Israel; see MIZRAIM, zb), Job9i3 
(K-rfrri TO. VTT ovpav6i>), 26 12 (r6 K^TOS), Ps. 89io[n] 
(vTrfprjipavov), Is. 51 9 (LXX om. ), 30? (dirt fj-arala -f] 
Trapa.K\r)cri.s vfj.Cov airrr;), Ps. 8?4t (paa/H). 1 

From Job 9 13 26 12 we perhaps learn that Rahab was 
another name for Tiamat, the dragon of darkness and 

1 References chaos God says J ob in his de ~ 
spondency, will not turn back his fur) ; 

[even] the helpers of Rahab bowed beneath him. On 
the helpers of Tiamat, see DRAGON, 5. Later, Job 
again refers to the fate of Rahab (or is it Bildad, 
following out Job s suggestions in his unoriginal, way?). 

By his power he threatened ("U s) the sea, 
And by his skill he shattered Rahab. 

Here sea and Rahab are coupled, as sea and 
Leviathan, probably, in Job 38 (see LEVIATHAN), and 
in v. 13 the dragon is referred to. In Ps. 89 9 /^ t 10 ./-] 
the same parallelism is observable, and since v. n proves 
that the psalmist has the creation in his mind, the view 
that Rahab is a synonym for Leviathan or the dragon 
again becomes plausible. The passage runs, 

Thou (alone) didst crush Rahab as a dishonoured corpse ; 
With thy strong arm thou didst break down thine enemies. 

The invocation to the arm of Yahwe in Is. 51 9 also 
refers to Rahab. Here, however, though the allusion 
to the Dragon-myth is obvious, there is also a special 
reference to nnaa (see DRAGON), or perhaps to the 
people called Misrim in N. Arabia. How this was 
possible we seem to learn from Is. 30? (on the text see 
SBOT, ad loc. ). It has been held (cp Duhm, ad loc. ) 
that the latter half of the verse is a later addition. 
Living in an age when the mythological interest had 
revived, a reader was struck by the resemblance between 
the characteristics of the dragon of chaos and those of 
D iso- Both were pre-eminent in strength ; both in 
the olden time had rebelled against Yahwe ; for D lsc. 
therefore, as well as for the dragon, the fate of abject 
humiliation (cp Is. 19) was reserved. In Ps. 874 Rahab, 
according to the exegetical tradition, is simply a synonym 
for Egypt (as the Targum already explains it), though 
even here this is not beyond critical questioning. 

Rahab in Hebrew would mean raging, insolence. 
This would be not unsuitable as a title of the chaos- 
. dragon, a reference to which is plainly 
* intended in all the above passages except 
the last. It would not be strange, however, if Rahab 
were a Hebraised form of some Babylonian mythic 
name. In the third of the creation-stories mentioned 
elsewhere (see CREATION) that which begins cities 
sighed, men [groaned] the dragon is repeatedly called 
by a name which Zimmern and Gunkel would like to 
read rebbu (for *r-uhbu), and to consider the Ass. equiva 
lent of Rahab. The name, if it means violence, 
would be specially appropriate in the story of the 
tyranny exercised by Tiamat. Unfortunately the read 
ing is uncertain. The polyphonous character of the 
Assyrian script allows us equally to read kalbu, dog, 
and labbu, lion (Gunkel, Schopf. 29 418). For another 
theory of the origin and precise significance of the title 
Rahab we may be allowed to refer to Crit. Bib. 

T. K. C. 

1 In Job 9 13 26 12 Is. 51 9 , Symm. has aAa^oi/euj, aAa<Jbi>eia > , 
in Is. 51 o SO? Aq. op/UTj^a, Theod. irAaros, in Is. 30, Symm. has 
Topa^oi or -XT;, in Ps. 87 4 Aq. has op/urjfxaTOt, Symm. vircprfyaviav. 



RAHAB (Urn; PAA B), Josh. 2i 3 617 23 25. The 
story of Rahab must not be taken literally. She is 
clearly the eponym of a tribe, and the circumstances of 
the tribe are reflected in her fortunes. The statements 
in Josh. 623 25 apply to no tribe known to us so well as 
to the Kenites, who were admitted among the Israelites 
on relatively unfavourable terms as sojourners ; hence 
the term zdndk. The name urn is best accounted for as 
the equivalent of -^n, Heber, the second name of the 
tribe of the Kenites. l See JKRICHO, 4 ; RECHABITES. 

In Heb. II ji Rahab is praised as an example of faith. 
This is suggested by the edifying speech of Rahab in 
Josh. 29-11, of which, however, only v. ga is recognised 
by critical analysis as belonging to the earlier narrative 
(see Oxf. Hex. 2391). It is no doubt startling that 
Rahab should be a worshipper of Yahwe if Rahab is 
to be viewed as a Canaanite. If, however, Rahab is a 
symbolic term for the Kenites, all becomes plain, for the 
Kenites were worshippers of Yahwe (cp KENITES). 
The attempts of (later) Jewish and Christian interpreters 
to explain away the term zCwah, harlot, as hostess, 
innkeeper, also now prove to be doubly unnecessary 
{see above). On Rahab s good works (James 225), cp 
the Jewish view in Weber, Jiid. Theol. 332. The 
mention of her in the genealogy of Jesus (Mt. Is) rests 
on the assumption that she became the wife of SALMON 
[</.i .]. No less a man than Jeremiah is stated in 
Ategillah 14* to have been a descendant of Rahab on 
his mother s side. This passed for an edifying belief. 

T. K. C. 

RAHAM (DIT1), son of SHEMA b. HEBRON, b. 
MARKSHAH, and father of JORKEAM (qq.v. ); i Ch. 
244 (p&Mee [B], P&GM [A], -&M [L]). See REKEM. 

RAHEL (Jer. 31 15), RV RACHEL. 

RAIN. That at the present day rain is considered 
in Palestine as one of God s best gifts, is undeniable. 
1. Conception Moslems > Christians, and Jews can 
of rain linite "i imploring heaven for the 
showers that water the earth (Ps. 
726). But it is a question whether the fertilising opera 
tion of the Baalim was associated in early times with 
the rain of heaven, or only with springs, streams, and 
underground flow (cp BAAL, i). Robertson Smith, 
wh-> discusses the subject fully in Rel. Sem. lect. 3, 
comes to the conclusion that originally the Baalim were 
gods of the streams and fountains, but that, as 
husbandry spread, the gods of the springs extended 
their domain over the lands watered by the sky, and 
gradually added to their old attributes the new character 
of lords of rain (p. 106). Yahwe in the OT is 
certainly the rain-giver; Jer. 1422, Can any of the 
vanities of the heathen cause rain? In Ps. Q5g[io], 
according to the traditional text, the early rain is 
called the river of God. The word used (jSs) is re 
markable. Generally it occurs in the plural for the 
artificial streams used in irrigation (Is. 8025 322 Ps. 1 3 
119i 3 6 Prov. 5i6 21 1 Lam. 848). Here, if MT is right, 
there is a similar conception. The rain is imagined 
as water which has been drawn from the great heavenly 
reservoirs (Gen. 7 it) and sent down on earth through 
the solid dome of the sky. This is illustrated by 
Job 8825, Who has cleft a channel for the waterflood 
{so RY ; L teph, rgy, torrential lain ). With this cp 
T. 28, where the rain (matar, nan) and the parted 
streams of dew (read SB ^rj, for So Sjn ; see DEW) 
are parallel expressions. 

Naturally, rain and rain-mist (fal, SB) are prominent 
in poetic benedictions. In Dt. 8813 the precious things 
of heaven above (reading Spo for Sec) 2 are the rain, 
the rain-mist, and the dew. In Gen. 27 28 the fine rain, 
or rain-mist, of heaven stands first among the blessings 

1 For a less probable view see C. Niebuhr, Gesch. 1 353^ 

2 Tg., Onk. and Pesh. combine the readings Sya and Sea- 
The former therefore is no modern conjecture. 



called down upon Jacob s land by Isaac. In Dt. 28 12 
Moses promises to obedient Israel that Yahwe will 
open his good treasury, the heaven, to give the rain in 
its season ; to this treasury the Book of Enoch refers 
(60zo/. 6923) ; cp DEW. The self-springing plants of 
Yahwe in Is. 4 a (SBOT) are those which depend on 
the moisture which God sends from this heavenly store- 
chamber. Notice, too, that in Ps. 104 13 God is said to 
water the mountains from his upper chambers. It is 
a slightly different mythic symbol which a poet in Job 
uses Who (but Yahwe) can tilt the bottles of heaven? 
(Job 8837). To be able to bring rain through prayer 
was one of the greatest proofs of eminent piety. Elijah 
prayed fervently that it might not rain, and it rained 
not, etc. (Jas. 617); and Josephus (Ant. xiv. 2i) 
relates that, in the time of King Aristobulus, there was 
a man named Onias, righteous and beloved of God," 
who by his prayers could bring rain to the parched 
earth. Cp PRAYER. 

Palestine is well described in Deut. Hit (in contra 
distinction to Egypt) as a land of hills and valleys, 

2. Former and 

which drinks water, when rain falls 

latter rain. J r heaven. Shortly afterwards 
(v. 14) a fuller description is given. 
See also Hos. 63 Joel 223 Zech. 10 1/ (see Nowack), 
Job 2923, and Ja. 5j (wpHC^ov Ka.1 Siij/ifjLOv ; BX insert 
\if.rbv, giving the sense rightly). The distribution of 
rain is very unequal. On one occasion Thomson found 
the ground in the Jordan valley like a desert, while at 
Tiberias the whole country was a paradise of herbs 
and flowers. Just so it was in ancient times. I 
caused it to rain upon one city, and caused it not to 
rain upon another city : one piece was rained upon, and 
the piece whereupon it rained not withered (Am. 4?). 
The prophet continues, So two or three cities wandered 
unto one city to drink water, but they were not satis 
fied, on which Thomson remarks that this is a fact 
often repeated in Palestine. 1 The variableness of the 
climate helps to account for the frequent failure of the 
crops, both in ancient and in modern times, and gives 
point to the promises of regularity in the seasons on 
condition of obedience to the divine commands. 2 The 
former or autumnal rains (mr, mio) usually begin about 
the end of October. In Lebanon they may begin a 
month earlier ; but no dependence can be placed upon 
this, and according to Thomson (LB 90) the winter 
rains are sometimes delayed till January. They are 
usually accompanied by thunder and lightning (Jer. 
10 13). The next four months may be called the rainy 
season. In April rain (the latter rain, E-ipSp \/*"P^ to 
be late ) falls at intervals; in May the showers are 
less frequent and lighter, and at the close of that month 
they cease altogether. 

It appears from Glaisher s observations (PEFQ, 1899, p. 71) 
that the heaviest monthly rainfall in 1897 was 11.21 in., in 
January ; the next, 6.74 in. in December, and that the total fall 
for the year was 27.72 in. This refers to Tiberias. At Jerusalem 
the total fall was 41.62 in. At Tiberias no rain fell from May 
25 to Oct. 29, making a period of 156 consecutive days without 
rain. At Jerusalem, none fell from May z6th to Oct. 20, making 
a period of 146 consecutive days without rain. 

i. C&3, gi setn, a violent downpour, i K. 1841 Ezek. 13 n; 

continuous, Ezra 10g 13 ; such as the early or latter rain, Lev. 

2<>4 Jer. 5 24 Joel 2 23 ; accompanied with wind, 

3. Hebrew 2 K. 3 17 Prov. 25 14. 

terms. 2 - " ??, tnHtiir, a more general term, e.g., 

the rain ( c) of heaven, Dt. HII. A tor 
rential rain is a sweeping rain (Prov. 28 3) ; or the two words 
C&1 and ^j;O may be combined, Zech. 10 i Job 37 6. 

3. D lJ, zfrem, a rain-storm, Is. 25 4 28 2 32 2 Hab. 3 10 Job 
24s; sometimes accompanied by hail, Is. 2828030. The sup 
posed occurrences of a verb denom. (Ps. 77 18 90 5, MT) are 
probably due to corruption. 

4. and 5. ,TVr, yarch, and rniD, mdreh, the former rain, nnd 
B*ip7D, nialkds, the latter rain, see $ 2. 

6. D-T3-I, rlblblm, EV showers, 1 Jer. 3 3 14 22 V 
Dt. 322 Psi65n[io]726t. 

1 The Land and the Book, 395. 

2 Ibid. 90. 


7 D P DI, restslm (from -y/DDl, sparsit, stillavit ), sprinkled 
moisture. In Cant. 62! (EV drops of the night ) of the night- 
mist (see DEW), but probably applicable to rain in general (sec 
C 3 3l)- In Dt. 322 Lagarde and Gratz correct D T^t? into 
D O DI. In Ps. 104 13 also Vp pia should perhaps be read for 
Tj<fc>j;p nsp. T. K. c. 

RAINBOW. i. nc*^, k&eth (r6$ov). Gen. 9 13 /. 

Ezek. 1 28 Ecclus. 43 n. On Gen. 9 i-$ff. see DELUGE, n. 
2. Ipis, Rev. 43 10 i. 

RAISINS, i. trpiSi-, simmukim, see FRUIT, 4. 

2. CT C K, Hsisim, Hos. 3 i, RV. See FRUIT, 5. 

RAKEM (D|TJ), i Ch. 7 16 EV, pausal form for 
REKEM, 4. 

RAKKATH (n|5"l, bank, an Aramaic word? 
&AK69 [B], peKK&e [A], p&. [L]), a fenced city 
of Naphtali, mentioned between Hammath (S. of 
Tiberias) and Chinnereth (on the upper part of 
the E. side of the Sea of Galilee), Josh. 1935. Two 
identifications of Rakkath are offered in the Babylonian 
Talmud in the same context (Meg. 5^, 6u). According 
to R. Johanan, Rakkath was the important city of 
Sepphoris. But the etymological midrash attached to 
this identification is such as entirely to discredit it. 
Raba, on the other hand, refers to a generally received 
opinion that Rakkath is Tiberias, and according to 
Neubauer (Gtog. du Talm. 209) the use of the name 
Rakkath for Tiberias lasted into the fourth century A. D. 
Certainly the position of Rakkath in the list of cities 
at least permits this view. Only, ( i ) we must not 
suppose that Tiberias stood exactly on the site of 
the ancient Rakkath. For, as Josephus informs us 
(Ant. xviii. 2s), the land upon which it was built had 
been occupied by tombs, which implies that the ancient 
town (however it was named) had lain at a short distance 
from the site of the new city. And (2) it is possible 
enough that npn is a fragment of rrnp (city of), and 
should be prefixed to JVUD (Chinnereth). T. K. c. 

RAKKON (f ljjn, not in BA . ^L H peKKO)N), 
Josh. 1946 (probably a vox nihili}. See ME-JARKON. 

RAM (DT; p&M [BAL]). i. The name of a 
Judahite family, whose eponym is variously described 
as the second son of Hezron the grandson of Judah 
(i Ch. 2p : pa/j. and apa/j. [BA], apa/j. [L] ; v. 10, appav 
[B, cp pi< 7 . 25], apafj. [AL]), and as the firstborn son 
of Jerahmeel the firstborn son of Hezron (v. 25, pav 
[B] ; v. 27, apa/j: [B]). The same supposed person is 
also named in the (late) genealogy of David, as the son 
of Hezron, Ruth4i9 (appav [BA], apafj. [L]), and con 
sequently in Mt. 1 3 4 (ARAM [AV] ; Ram [RV] ; Apafj. 
[BX etc.] : see also AKNI, Lk. 833). Doubtless Ram is 
a shortened form of some well-known name, hardly 
Jehoram (NSld. ) or Abiram (Klost. Gcsch. 112), but 
rather the name from which both these names probably 
sprang Jerahmeel (Che. ). 

2. Name of the supposed family of the Elihu of Job (32 2 ; 
PO.JJ. [T?N] ; pa/iia [A] ; apa/u. [C]), certainly not a shortened form 
of the ethnic name Aram, unless there was a southern Aram. 

RAM (??$), Gen. 15 7 , etc. See SHEEP. 

RAM, BATTERING (13). Ezek. 4a21a 7 [2a]. See 
SIEGE, 2 /. 

RAMA (p&MA, [Ti.WH]), Mt. 2i8, RV RAM AH. 

RAMAH (nrpn, Jer. 31 15 Neh. 11 33, elsewhere 
the height ; usually p&/v\A [BAL]; gentilic, 
Ramathite ; see SHIMEI, 9). i. A city of the 
tribe of Benjamin, Josh. 1825 Neh. 1133 (BN*Aom.), 
incidentally referred to in Juclg. 19is (om. <5 A ) Is. 1029 
Hos. 58 (<T7rt T&V v^yXuv [BAQ]), Ezra226 (apa/j, [B], 
r?7S paua [AL]), and stated in i K. 15 17 (paaua [B], 
pa/ [A],, [L]) to have been fortified by Baasha 
king of Israel in order to isolate Jerusalem (cp ASA). 
Near it lay the grave of Rachel, according to Jer. 31 15 
{rrj v\f/r)\rj [N*A]), where the tribal ancestor is poetically 



represented as appearing on her grave, and uttering a 
lamentation for the exile of her children. 1 Near it was 
also, a later writer believed, the palm tree of the 
prophetess Deborah (Judg. 4s, TTJJ /Sa/m [B], ta/ia [A]). 
This Ramah is no doubt the mod. er-Kdm, a village 
with ancient remains, 2600 ft. above the sea-level, 
5 m. N. from Jerusalem. Its rediscovery is due to 
Robinson (BR 1576). 

2. The home pf Samuel and his father Elkanah ( i S. 
1 19211 717841534 1613 19i8/: 25i 283), also called, 
or rather miscalled, in EV of iS. li, RAMATHAIM- 
ZOPHIM [g.v.]. It was in the hill-country of Ephraim 
and more particularly in the land of Zurn [q.v. ]. 
According to Eus. and Jer. who tall it appaQcfj. fffitpa 
Armathem Sophim (OS 225 12; 9617) it was near 
Diospolis, and Jer. adds that it was in regione 
Thamnitica. This addition agrees with what is said 
in i Mace. 11 34 of RAMATHEM [q.v.~\ as having 
originally been reckoned to Samaria, and suggests 
identifying Ramah with Beit-rim a, a place mentioned 
in the Talmud (Neub. Gtlogr. 82), situated a little 
to the N. of Tibnah (Thamna). This is the view 
of Buhl, Pal. 170; Kittel, Hist. 2107. It accords 
with the route of Saul described in i S. 9 1 ff. ; cp 
Wellh.TTtfjo. See also PEFMem. 812 149^ (On 
<5 s readings, see RAMATHAIM-X.OPHIM. ) 

3. 2 K.829: pe/ujLi<o0 [B], pa/jLiuO [A], po.ju.a0 yaAaaS [L]. See 


4. RAMAH [AV RA.MATH] OF THE SOUTH; Josh. 198 (/3a^efl 
KO.TO. Ai/3a [B], pa^ue [A?], la/ietf Kara Ai/3a [A?L]). See 

5. A fenced city of Naphtali (Josh. 1936 ; aparjA [P,], pa/ua 
[AL]), the modern Rameii. 1295 ft. above sea-level, W. of Sa/eei, 
on the southern slope of the ridge (here rising to a htight of 
3480 ft.) which forms the boundary between Upper and Lower 
Galilee. Cp Guerin, Gal. 1 453^ 

6. A place mentioned in the delimitation of the 
territory of Asher, Josh. 1929. According to Robinson 
beyond all doubt to be identified with the village of 
Rameh, (PEF Survey : Ramia], in the latitude of A tis 
en-Ndkfira, situated upon an isolated hill, in the midst 
of a basin with green fields, surrounded by higher hills 
(BR 463). Buhl (Pal. 231) accepts this identifica 
tion, whilst admitting that the frequent occurrence of 
the name prevents a final decision.* Apart from the 
name, indeed, one might prefer to locate Ramah a 
little way to the W. , at or near the ruins of Belat, on a 
hill which commands a grand prospect. The language 
of Josh. 1928/. , however, does not seem to favour _ 
either view. The border of Asher is traced in v. 28 
from Hammon (Hamul] to Kanah (A diiti) and thence 
to Sidon ; then in v. 29 \ve are told to turn back south 
ward to Ramah, and draw a line thence to Tyre 
and to Hosah (near Rds el- Ain] ; somewhere on the 
coast to the S. of Hosah (at the mouth of the river 
SHIHOR-LIBNATH) the border ends. Can the meaning 
be that the territory within the first of these lines belongs 
to Tyre and Sidon together, and that within both lines 
taken together (the second modifying the first) to Tyre, 
both territories being theoretically possessed by Asher ? 
If so, Ramah would seem to be not very far from Tyre ; 
indeed, this is the natural inference from the Hebrew of 
v. zga. Its true site may perhaps be lost. 

(Since this was written, an abundance of similarly perplexing 
phenomena have been noticed by the present writer, which can 
only be explained on the hypothesis that the original document 
referred to districts in the Negeb. Cp SHIHOR-LIBNATH; 
TVRE ; ZEMARAIM, last par.) T. K. C. 

RAMATHITE ("Tltt"}), i Ch.2/2 7 . See SHIMEI, 9. 
RAMATH-LEHI (TV? DKH), Judg. 15 14. See LEHI. 
RAMATH-MIZPEn(nsyn TOT; Ap<\Ba> 

THN MACCH4>*.[B]. pAMto6 K. T. MAC(J)A [A], 
K.T.M. [L]), a place on the northern border of the 
Gadites, Josh. 1326f. Probably the same as MlZPEH 
(4), MIZPAH (2). 

1 On the discrepant traditions respecting the site of Rachel s 
grave, and on Mt. 2 18, see EPHRATH, RACHEL. 



see RAMAH, 4), and (in i S. ) RAMOTH OF THE SOUTH 
(333 niDl ; P&MA [BL]-e [A] NOTOY- RAMA rrpoc 
MBCHMBplAN [- s ym-]). apparently the most remote of 
the Simeonite towns (Josh. 1K8) ; mentioned also among 
the towns in the Negeb to which David sent presents 
from ZIKLAG (Halusah), i S. 3027. The full name was 
Baalath-beer-rama(o)th-negeb, i.e. , Baalah of the well 
of Ramath (Ramoth) of the Negeb, or Baalah of the 
well, Ramath of the Negeb (see BAALATH-BEER). The 
name, however, needs correction by the help of v. 6/. 
and Josh. 1632. The lists of the Simeonite and Judahite 
towns are disfigured by errata, nor do they agree as 
they should. The opinion of the present writer is that 
the most remote of these towns was most probably 
called Baalath-beer-ramah (also Baalath-en-rimmon), 
i.e., Baalah of the well (also, fountain) of Raman or 
Rimmon, and that both Ramah and RIMMON (q.v. ) are 
popular corruptions of Jerahmeel. Consequently in 
i S. 30 27 the second of the names in the list should be 
not Ramoth-negeb, but Jerahmeel-negeb. See EN- 

In Josh. 1632 Lebaoth (pixa 1 ?) and in 196 Beth-lebaoth 
C nva) are miswritten for n^l 3- In i Ch. 4 33 Baalath-beer 
becomes shortened into Baal. T. K. C. 

6&IM c(e)l(bA [BL] ; &p. cu>4>i/v\ [A]), the name of 
the city of Elkanah in the hill-country of Ephraim, i S. 
1 1. The text, however, has Ha-ramathaim-sophim, the 
article being prefixed to ramathaim. The difficulties of 
this supposed compound form, and indeed of MT s 
reading, however viewed, are well set forth by Driver 
( TBS ad loc. ), who, with \Yellhausen and \V. R. Smith, 
following s ff(()i(pa, reads BIS a Zuphite, which is 
explained by a reference to i Ch. 62o[3s], Kr. as= a 
member of the clan called ZUPH [q.v. ]. Haramathaim 
is also plausibly explained by Wellhausen (TBS 34 f.) 
as the later form of the name Ha-ramah(see RAMATHEM), 
which was introduced into i S. 1 1 from a tendency to 
modernisation, and stands (ap/madaifj.), in , not only 
here, but also wherever na~n has the n of motion 
attached to it. With the form ap/jLaGai/ut, we may rightly 
compare the apa/j.a0a or ap/ma0a or panada of Josephus 
and the apLfj.affa.ia of the NT. 

The name Ha-ramah in the Hebrew text almost always 
occurs in the augmented form nncirt. The exceptions are i S. 
19 18-20 i 25 1 283. Here we constantly find ^E^S except in 
19 18 22, where "ins^r occurs. A accordingly represents the 
former word by tv pajua, the latter by ei? apfj.aOa.ifi a new 
distinction suggested perhaps by the occurrence of n in nnoin, 
The same correction has penetrated once into (B^ for in 19 22, 
where nriDin and !TO"n occur at different points, HL gives first 
eis ap/j-aOaifj. and then tv po^ia (cp v. 18 in 2). 

The objections to the above plausible explanation of 
Ramathaim-zophim are (i) that Ha-ramathaim occurs nowhere 
else in the MT, (2) that the Chronicler is an insufficient authority 
for the existence of a clan called Zuph, (3) that land of Zuph 
occurs in a passage (i 8.95) which has all the appearance of 
corruptness (see Zui H), and (4) that i S. 1 i itself is obviously no 
longer in its original form. 1 The probability is that -inN E"N 
(EV, a certain man ) should be t SxclnT K"K, a Jerahmeelite, 
and that D lBN ino O BIS DTOin f D should be JHsm tnl naOrt JD 
BN "ina nSsSD so that the whole sentence becomes (omitting 
the superfluous variant ^KcnT at the beginning and certain 
variants at the end), And there was a Jerahmeelite of the 
family of the Matrites, whose name was Elkanah. nB2(Matri), 
however, like Tamar and Ramath, is only a corruption of 
Sxsnv, Jerahmeelite, and mount Ephraim is in southern 
not in central Palestine (so Judg. 17 i 19 i, etc.). See Crit. Bib. 

The ARIMATH^A of the NT is identified by Eus. 
(OS 225, 12) with the city of Elkanah, and said to be 
situated near Diospolis (Lydda). This situation is 
beyond question suitable for the Ramathaim of i Mace. 
1134, and perhaps too for the Arimathaea of the NT. 
See JOSEPH, col. 2595^ ; RAMATHAIM (on meaning 
of form); NICODEMUS, 3. T. K. c. 

1 See Marq. Fund, nf., and cp other corrupt passages in 
i S. having proper names (Crit. Bio.). 


the seat of one of the governments formerly belonging 
to Samaria which were transferred to Judasa under 
Jonathan by king Demetrius, i Mace. 1134. On the 
name, see NAMES, 107, and RAMATHAIM-ZOPHIM. 

RAMESES (DpniTI; P A. M ecCH [BAFL], P A/v\eCH 
[L], Gen. 47 ii ; or Raamses, DDipjn, Ex. In, pa^e<n) [FL], 
1237 Nu. 883, pafitaauv [BaA], 5 pa/uier<77)s [Bab] ; a l so Judith 
Ip [RAMESSE, AV] ; see also Redpath ; R.lKf ESSES). For 
kings Rameses I. and II. see also EGYPT, ^-jf. 

In Ex. 1 ii Raamses is one of the cities built by the 
Israelites as Egyptian serfs ; in 1237 they march from 
Raamses (eastwards) to Succoth (cp also Nu. 8835). 
In Gen. 47 ii the family of Jacob receive from Joseph 
a possession in the land of Egypt, in the best of the 
land, in the land of Rameses, as Pharaoh had com 
manded. The land of Rameses is, according to vv. 46 
etc. , a part of Goshen, or, more probably, is synony 
mous with Goshen. 

In 4628 <B has indeed for the Goshen of Heb. to Heroopolis 
(i.e., adding PITHOM, or ETHAM ty.z>.]), into the land of 
Ramesse (ita.9 Hpiatav no\tv I fffv Pafifcrcnri). [For various 
views of this passage, with discussion, see JOSEPH (in OT), col. 

2587, n. 4.] 

It is usually assumed that the land has its name from 
the town, the administrative centre of that province. 

1 The land rhe P resent wr ter would, however, 

prefer to understand Rameses here as 
tinci Liie . . . . . 

town having preserved the original sense, 

namely, that of a royal name. Goshen, 
or at least its eastern part, still recalled by its name 
that the great Pharaoh Rameses II. had been its opener 
and coloniser (see GOSHEN). In the name of the 
town, on the other hand, the original sense, which 
must once have been house, place, city (or similarly) 
of Rameses, seems to have been forgotten, owing to 
the popular abbreviation which omitted the first part. 
It is not necessary to derive the combination land of 
Rameses, which looks very archaic, from that secondary 

The royal name which the Hebrew has preserved here was 
Ra -t(e?)s-su, 1 or, following more the later pronunciation, Ra 
(this can, of course, be written in many ways)-w-(. )j-Xf ),- the 
sun-god Re has borne him. The classic transliterations are 
Pa/u.i/;7)5, Pa/Aeo-ar/s (in varying the Manethonian fragments, 
etc.), Ramses. From these Greek forms the Massoretic scholars 
seem to have taken their vocalisation ; whether the Hebrew 
consonants are intended to render the name as Ka -ines-(e)s, or 
in a seemingly more archaic form, J\a. -u st"-s (the verbal root 
was originally tttasy, tcrtia Jodli), can, therefore, not be decided 
from the biblical punctuation. In the rendering of the con 
sonants, the preservation of the Ain deserves mention as a sign 
of antiquity. 

The Pharaoh meant is the famous Rameses II., 
called also Osymandyas (this is the official name ; 

2 Pharaoh User - ma ( t Y ri } or Sesostris 3 by the 
P Greeks, also Ram(p)ses (etc. ), Meiamun 

( loving Amon ); see EGYPT, 58. 
His reign of nearly sixty-seven years is less remarkable 
for his military achievements in Asia (which were very 
modest) than for his paramount activity as a builder. 
For his great work of irrigating and colonising the 
\Vady Tumilat, see GOSHEN, 4. This enterprise seems 
to have been completed before the twenty-first year of 
his reign. Gen. 47 might anticipate a later name 
for the region E. of Goshen proper. The building of 
the city of Rameses (as well as of Pithom), however 
points unmistakably to that earlier part of the reign 
of Rameses II. i.e. , to the end of the fourteenth 
century B.C. 


3 On the reason of the confusion of this name with a king of 
dyn. 12 in Manetho, different opinions prevail. A popular (but 
already contemporaneous) abbreviation of the name Rameses 
seems to be at the root of the Greek form. 




It must be accidental that the expression land of 

Rameses has not yet been read on the Egyptian monu- 

_. .. ments, although we find allusions to the 

3- inecity merits of Rameses II. as a coloniser 

Kaamses. ( w hj c h characteristically are wanting with 
other kings). A city, or rather cities, bearing the name 
of this king are, however, mentioned repeatedly. 

In the twenty-first year (see above) of his reign, 
Rameses received ambassadors of the Hittite king 
bringing the treaty of peace and alliance in the city : 
house of Ka -mes-su, Mey (or old Mer)-amiin, doing 
the commands of his father Amon, of Harmachis and 
Atum, the lord of Heliopolis, the Amon of Ra -mes-su 
Mey-amun, the Ptah of Ra -mes-su Mey-amun, and 
Set. This list gives to us the names of the official 
gods of the new city, confirming its position in eastern 
Goshen, where Atum of Heliopolis was the chief god. 
LD 3 194 says : thou hast made for thyself a splendid 
residence to fortify the frontier of the country, The 
House of Ra messu Meyamun ; . . . a royal palace is in 
it. Pap. Anastasi 2i 46 gives a poetical description of 
a residence, 1 the castle: "Great of Victory (or 
Strength) " is its name, between Phoenicia (!) and Egypt. 
The local gods are Amon, associated with Set, then 
Astarte and Buto. These gods and the name do not 
agree with our house of Rameses mentioned above ; 
indeed, the city great of victori(es) (mentioned also in 
the great text of Abydus, in Pap. Leyden, 1348, and in 
the expedition of Sety I. against the Bedouins (?) does not 
seem to be identical (as is usually supposed), but must be 
a later foundation of Rameses, X. of Goshen. Anast. 
iii. 1 12 f. the house of Ra messu Meyamun appears as 
identical with the place Great of victori(es) (82 etc. ). 
Its description seems to point to the country W. of Tanis, 
not very far from the sea. Thus a monument which 
has led Brugsch considerably astray becomes intelligible. 
In Tanis was found a statue of a priest who had among 
other titles that of a prophet of Amon of Rameses of 
(the city?) House of Rameses (and?) Amon (of the one) 
great of strength."- Brugsch (Diet. Geogr. 418, etc.) 
concluded from it that Rameses and Tanis-Zoan were one 
and the same city, sought consequently for Goshen far 
in the X. , and came thus to his strange Exodus-theory, 
considering the Sirbonian bog as the sea through which 
the Israelites passed. The statue furnishes rather the 
confirmation that we have two different Rameses-cities. 
Consequently, we have to be very careful in distinguish 
ing them ; LD 3 194 refers possibly to the later founda 
tion, 3 as it dates from the year 34 of Rameses. 

The biblical Rameses can, of course, be only a city 
in or near Goshen. That mentioned in the treaty with 

the Hittites seems to be identical, if we 
4. Situation. may j udge by the , ocal gods alluded 

to. Compare the granite group found at Tel(l) el- 
Maskhuta which represented Rameses II. between Atum 
and Harmachis, the principal gods of that district. 
From this group Lepsius concluded that Tel(l) el- 
Maskhuta was the biblical Rameses (see PITHOM), but 
on insufficient grounds. The excavations of Naville 
have shown that the names Pithom and Succoth are to 
be associated with that locality, but not Rameses. The 
latter city remains to be determined. In accordance 
with Ex.1237 Nu. 33ss it should be sought for in the 
western part of Goshen, E. of Pithom-Etham. There 
are not many points bearing traces of ancient cities in 
that region ; Lepsius described the place (Tell) Abu- 
Soleiman (or Isleman), as showing extensive ruins, and 
thought of Pithom. Naville (Pithom, ( 3 > 36) disputes 
the existence of town-ruins at that spot. He marks 

1 See Erman, Egypt, chap. 9, for a translation. 

2 This ( a-zr) seems to be synonymous with great of strength 
(or victory) or victories, a-nht or a-nhtw. If not, it might 
point to a temple (not a city) of Rameses II. Has a (loving) 
Amon been mutilated ? 

3 There may be more Rameses-cities. It seems that a Nubian 
colony near Abusimbel was one. Cp (with considerable caution) 
the essay of Lepsius, AZ, 1883, p. 4 (on Pithom and Rameses). 


Shugafieh (in which he believes he finds the Roman 
garrison place Thohu or Thou) and Tell Rotab as the 
only ruins, W. of Pithom-Tel(l) el-Maskhuta. Both 
localities exhibit extensive ruins of the Roman age, and 
seem to have been Roman military stations ; it is not 
improbable that they were settled before that period. 
If so, we may expect the settlements to go back to the 
time of Rameses colonisation ; but nothing certain can 
be said until a thorough exploration of those ruins has 
been made. 

For the various attempted identifications of Rameses, see 
Ebers, art. Ramses, ///K/?( 2 >, 12540;, and cp Diirch Gosen zntn 
Sinai,ft) 512^; Naville, Land of Goshen (1887), 18, 20; 
Brugsch, Steinschrift und Bibehuort, 1891, p. 154. [The ques 
tion of identification assumes a fresh aspect if we hold that 
primitive tradition represented the early home of the Israelites 
as, not in Mizraim, but in Mizrim. In this case we must sup 
pose that here as elsewhere the geographical setting of the story 
has been transformed on the basis, probably, of corrupt texts. 
Possible corrections or restorations are indicated in col. 3211, 
n. 2.] W. M. M. 

BAMIAH (i"l*P"l, Yahwe is high ? or rather a 
transformed ethnic, RamI = Jerahme eli? [Che.]), a lay 
man who joined in the league against foreign marriages ; 
Ezral02 5 t (RAMIA [BNA], -ei&c [L])=i Esd.9 2 6 

HlERMAS (iep/v\A [B], lepMAC [A], p&MIAC [L])- 

RAMOTH (JTlDn). i. i K. 4i 3 . See RAMOTH- 

2. Ezra 10 29, Kn. See JERIMOTH, 12. 

P&MC00 [L]; i Ch.073 [58]), or REMETII (T\KT\; 
peMMAC [B], P&MA6 [AL]; Josh. 19 2 i), also called 
JARMUTH (D-1OT) in Josh. 2l2 9 (lepMCoS [AL], where 
however B has peMM&G). a Levitical city within the 
territory of Issachar. 

RAMOTH-GILEAD pi? 1 ?;! nb"1, i.e., heights of 
Gilead 1 ), otherwise RAMOTH IN GILEAU (Iwlia DbfcO, 

i OTRpfM-PnoPs H P<* M ^ e eN ( or I~H) r*A-. 

1. OT References. Dt ^ [pAMMOoe A]t Josh . 2 08 

[&PHMCOT6 B] 2138 I Ch. 665 [80] [pAMMU)N B, 

p<\/v\<\0 L]). RAMOTH (i K. 413 [epe/v\d>e B, -ep/v\&6 
L]), but more correctly RAMAH (2 K. 829 [pe/v\M000 
B, pAMA6 L]) or Ramath-Gilead (cp AHAB), a fortress 
on the E. of Jordan, the administrative centre of one 
of Solomon s prefectures (i K. 4 13), hotly disputed by 
the Israelites and the Aramaeans in the reigns of Ahab, 
Ahaziah, and Joram (i K. 22 $/. [pe/v\M&6 BA, pA/v\A9 
L], 2 K. 828 9i4 [peMMO)0 B, p<\/v\&6 L], 2 Ch. 
183^- [p&/v\MU>e A, p&M&e L]- 22s/ [p&MA B, 
pe/v\M6oe A, p&MAG L]) ; also one of the so-called 
cities of refuge (Dt. 443 Josh. 208 2138, where it is 
assigned to Gad). Largely on account of the striking 
narrative in i K. 22, the name of Ramoth- Gilead is 
extremely familiar to readers of OT, and yet, after all the 
researches of scholars, no one is able to tell exactly where 
the place was. It is the object of this article (i) to 
record the chief opinions which have been held as to 
the site of Ramoth-Gilead, and (2) to offer what, in the 
opinion of the present writer, looks like the true solution 
of the problem. 

Let us begin with the Talmud, according to which 

Ramoth-Gilead lay over against Shechem (Xeub. Giog. 

55, 251), while, as Eusebius and Jerome 

2. Sites (a)-(fl). tdl us (528791 145 3 i), it was known 
to them as a village, 15 R.m. W. of Philadelphia 
(Rabbath-Ammon). These views are irreconcilable. 
Most scholars till lately preferred the authority of 
Eusebius, and identified Ramoth-Gilead with the modern 
es-Salt, 1 10 m. S. of the Jabbok, and n E. of the 
Jordan. Cp GILEAU, 7. 

The town acquired some importance during the Crusades, 

1 The name is a corruption of Salton Hieraticon, which occurs 
in the Notitt. Vet. Eccles. as the name of a trans- Jordamc 
episcopal city (Reland, Pal. 315); the epithet hieraticon may 
be explained by the TrdAu <f>v\^ ya.8 Zepemioi of tus. in th 



when Saladin fortified it with other towns on the E. of the 
Jordan ; it is now the capital of the Belkd, but cannot claim to 
represent Ramoth-Gilead. The place could not be approached 
by chariots (see i K. 22 34.^). It hangs on the steep sides of a 
narrow gorge, entirely shut in on the N. , and opening out on a 
narrow flat of garden-land at the other end ; and even this open 
extremity of the ravine is blocked by a high ridge at right angles 
to the town, closing up the only outlet. 1 It is also far too 
southerly ; a place easily accessible from Jezreel and not far from 
the Aramaean border is imperatively required. 

Ewald (Gesch. 8500 note) and Conder (Heth and 
Moab, 175; Smith s D(-> IIIQI) do more justice to 
the biblical narratives by fixing the site of Ramoth- 
Gilead at Reimiin, a lofty and ancient site a few miles 
W. of J crash (Gerasa), in the Jebel Ajlun. The place 
was quite open to Aramrean incursions, and could be 
reached by chariots up the valley of the Jabbok. Sir 
G. Grove (Smith s Dtt^ 2 1003) and Merrill (East of 
the Jordan, zZ^ff.) urge the claims of Jerash itself; 
Oliphant too (Land of Gilead, 213) thinks Ramoth- 
Gilead must have been either at or near Jerash. a This 
view is supported by the Arabic Joshua (208 21 38 
Ramat al-Jaras). G. A. Smith, however (HG 588) is 
not satisfied with any of these identilications, and thinks 
Ramoth-Gilead, being so hotly disputed by Aram and 
Israel, must have been farther N. , near the N. limit of 
Gilead the YarmCik (so G. A. Cooke, I.e. ). Irbid and 
Ramtheh [er-Remthe], he remarks, are both of them 
fairly strong sites. Er-Remthe has been very recently 
favoured by Smend (7.ATW, 1902, p. 153), who finds 
in the name er-Remthe an echo of an Aramaic form 
Kro 1 ]*. Buhl combines Ramoth-Gilead with the mod. 
Jal ud, N. of es-Salt (see GILEAD, 2), and whilst Smend 
identifies Ramoth-Gilead with Mizpeh- Gilead, Buhl 
inclines to distinguish between them. 

To get beyond Prof. G. A. Smith s acute but vague 
conjecture, we must look at the Hebrew of iK. 413. 

_.. , , Removing the accretions on the original 
text we find it stated that one of Solomon s 
prefects called Ben-geber (nothing depends on the 
correctness of this reading) was over the region of 
Argob, and resided in Ramoth-Gilead. Is the latter 
circumstance probable ? Surely his residence must have 
been in Bashan, unless indeed we prefer to omit the 
statement about Argob and Bashan, and make Ben- 
geber the prefect of the so-called Havvoth-Jair, which 
Nu. 323941 places in Gilead. Possibly for ij;Sj nD"i, 
Ramath-Gilead, we ought to read in 1 ?* npi, the 
Ramah of Salhad. Salhad is probably the true name 
of the fortified city on the extreme SE. of Bashan, which 
protected that fertile land from the invasions of the 
nomads ; it is called in MT SALECAH [y.f.]. The 
objections raised to the other sites certainly do not apply 
to Salhad. For other supposed traces of the name see 

Salhad is situated on an eminence forming one of the southern 
most heights of the Jebel Hauran (see Driver, Dt. 53). That 
the district to the N. of Edrei (Der at) and Salhad fell into the 
region of Argob, will hardly be doubted (cp Driver, in Hastings 
DR I 147). It was also probably Salhad (Ramath-Salliad) that 
Benhadad kept back, contrary to the agreement in i k. 2034, 
and the Israelitish kings therefore sought to recover (i K. 223, 
etc.). Holding it, the Aramaean kings had the fertile district of 
Argob at their mercy. The harmonising process of an editor 
corrected inSs n!D"l> Ramath- Salhad, wherever it occurred, 
into ly 1 ?! noii Ramoth-Gilead. 

It is probable that no better explanation can be found 

4 Site (ft n the assum P t on tnat tne current view 
" respecting the Aramaeans with whom the 
kings of Israel were so often at war, and respecting the 
region of the legendary Og, king of Bashan, is correct. 

The assumption in question is at first sight a reasonably safe 
one, and it receives support from the legend of the meeting of 
Jacob and Lahan, in the earlier form disclosed to us by textual 
criticism of Gen. 31 17-54. We may even go farther, and 
pronounce it not improbable that Salhad really was the place 
which the editor of the Book of Kings in its present form thought 

1 G. A. Cooke, in Driver, Dt.ft), p. xx. ; cp L. Gautier, Au 
dela <iu JourdainW (1896), 30. 

2 Schumacher (Mitth. DPV, 1897, 66) places Ramoth-Gilead 
at el-Maniira, \V. of Jerash. 




to be referred to in the account of the Aramzan wars. But it 
was not the place which was meant in the original narratives 
(see PKOPHET, 7). It was at Cusham, not at Damascus (as 
the traditional text represents) that Ben-hadad, or Bir-dadda, 
dwelt (i K. 13 18; see TAB-RIM.MON), and it was the great 
achievement of Jeroboam II. that he recovered Cusham and 
Maachath-jerahmeel for Israel. It must have been a fortress on 
the border of the Negeb, towards Arabia, that the Aramzans 
( = Jerahmeelites) and the Israelites so hotly contested. Ahab 
fell when endeavouring to regain it. Joram won it back for a 
lime from the N. Arabian king Haza ilu (Hazael), and Jehu 
(himself of Jerahmeelite extraction ) was serving in the garrison 
when Klisha (a prophet of the Negeb ; see PROPHET, 7) sent 
to anoint him king. Both Ramah and Gilead are, when S. 
Palestine and the Negeb are concerned, corruptions of Jerah- 
meel, but while Ramah or Ramath is a mere popular dis 
tortion, Gilead seems to be a transcriptional corruption of that 
ethnic name. The place intended is probably the Tamar 
("lOn = nm) fortified by Solomon, according to i K. 9 18, cp 2 Ch. 
84. Cp TAMAK, TADMOR. T. K. c. 



RAMPART, in AV sometimes, and in RV generally 
the rendering of ?T1, See FORTRESS, 5, col. 1557. 

n pj3, Josh. 65), TRUMPETS OF 
, Josh. 6 4 6 8 13). See 

Ex. 25 5, etc. See 

Music, 5. 


RANGE (Lev. 11 3S ), RV m ff- Stewpan, see COOK 

RANSOM (from Lat. redemftionem). 

SN^I g<fal. Cp GOEL. 

2. 1B3. kipper. Cp ATONEMENT (Ex. 21 30 RV, AV sum of 
money ; Lev. 27 27 AV redeem, RV ransom ; Nu. 8531/1 
AV satisfaction ; i S. 12s, AV and RVmg. bribe ; RV and 
AVmg. ransom ; Ps. C9 i&5 Job 36 is). 

3- mS. p<idiih, Ex. 34 20, etc. 

RAPHA (NEH). i. See RAPHAH, 2. 

2. In genealogy of Benjamin (<?.v. 9 ii. a), i Ch. 8 2 (pa<yj 
[BA1, paifia [L]); but the name may be corrupted, e.g., from 
Gera (see JQK 11 109, 8). Or (if correct) cp REPHAIAH [4] 
and the clan-name BETH-RAPHA. 

3. See REPHAIAH, 4. 

RAPHAEL (^N D"I, God heals ; the name, how 
ever, has possibly grown out of something very differ 
ent ; see REPHAEL [Che. ] ; PANAMA), one of the most 
sympathetic figures in Jewish narrative literature, is 
introduced to us in the Book of Tobit, where under the 
name of AZARIAS ( Yahwe is a help ) he accompanies 
Tobias in his adventurous journey and conquers the 
demon AsMOD^EUS [</.v.] (Tob. 817 82 9 1 1127). He 
is, however, a disguised visitor from heaven, being 
really one of the seven 2 angels [archangels] who 
present the prayers of the saints and enter into the 
presence of the glory of the Holy One (12 15). In the 
Book of Enoch (100 20) Rufael ( = Rafael) is called the 
angel of the spirits of men ; it is his function to heal 
the earth which the angels have defiled, as a preliminary 
! to which he has to place AZAZEL (q.v. ) in confinement. 
! This view of the essential connection between a name 
I and the person bearing it is thoroughly antique ; it has 
I strongly coloured the story of TOBIT (q. v. ), and is 
endorsed in the Midrash (Bemidbar rabb., par. 2), 
according to which Raphael is to heal the iniquity of 
Ephraim (i.e., the ten tribes). The later Midrash also 
represents him as the angel commissioned to put down 
the evil spirits that vexed the sons of Noah with plagues 
and sicknesses after the flood, and as the instructor of 
men in the use of simples ; he it was who was the 
promoter of the Book of Noah, the earliest treatise 
on materia medica (Ronsch, Buck der Jubilden, 385 
sq. ). See ANGELS, 4, note. 

RAPHAH (nan), i. AV RAPHA (i Ch.8: 7 ). See 

1 Jehoshaphat is probably a modification of Sephathi 
(Zephathite) and Nimshi of Yis me"eli (Ishmaelite). 

a But Syr. and Heb. 2 omit seven. The number of the chief 
angels varied. See ANGEL, 4, n. i ; GABRIEL ; MICHAEL, n. 



a. Four giants are described in 2 S. 21 16 18 20 22 (cp i Ch. 
20 4 6 8) as descendants of the Raphah (E V the giant ; RVnij, . 
RAPHAH ; AVme- RAI>HA ; nsnrt, in Ch. NB-n). See ISBI- 
BENOB, SAPH. ( s readings in S. Pa<j>a [BA], L in zi>. 16 18 
. . . yiyjitmtv, v. _ 20 . . . Tn-ai os, T>. 22 adds the words 
... TO) OIKOI Pa</>a, in Ch. yiyavres [BAL ; but in v. 8 also patjia 
BA, pa.<t>au L]). Is nBl.T correct? The sing, form occurs only 
here. See RBPHAIM. 

RAPHAIM (p<\cf)<MN [A], BNom. ), one of the ances 
tors of Judith ; Judith 81. 

RAPHON (pA<t>ooN [AN], p*(J>e\ [V r ] : i Mace. 
637 Jos. Ant. xii. 84), an unknown city mentioned in 
i Mace. 037 as beyond the brook ; it was besieged 
by Timotheus and relieved by Judas the Maccabee. 
From the context it obviously lay not very far from 
Carnaim (Ashteroth-Karnnim). It is no doubt the 
Raphana mentioned by Pliny (HN v. 1874) as one of 
the cities of the Decapolis, and may possibly be identical 
with the Capitolias of Ptol. (v. 1622), 16 m. from Edrei 
(Der at). See Schurer, GJl lg^,. 

RAPHU (X-ISn, as if healed ; pa^oy [ BAF 1 
pAcj>AY [L]), father of PALTI (2) (Nu. 13 gt). On 
origin of name see PALTI, 2 ; REPHAEL. 

CeiC [N] ; tharsis [Vg.]; thiras et rasis [Vet. Lat., 
cod. Sangerm.] ; .^.^xr> >v i . . . ox.^i [Syr.]), 
a people mentioned along with Put, Lud, and the children 
of Ishmael (Judith 223). That pui(cr)<ros, a mountain 
range and town S. from Aniaims on the gulf of Issus, 
is intended is improbable ; others prefer TARSUS [</. z\ ]. 
The mention of a town ill accords with the enumera 
tion of such peoples as PUT and LUD, and the name is 
possibly a corruption of TIKAS. See ROSH. 

[BL], P A.0 Y oc? [A a ]), 
i Esd.2i6/: = Ezra48/., REHUM, 5. 

RAVEN p-fy, from air, to sink [of the sun], be 
black ; KOP&5 ; corvus). It is noteworthy that the 

1. OT References. lilies and the ravens P ossess the 
same representative character in a 

famous saying of Jesus, at least according to the 
version in Lk. 122 4 (but in Mt. 626 TO. wereivd) ; in the 
OT too they are referred to in evidence of God s provi 
dential care (Job 38 4 i Ps. 1479). In Cant. 5n their 
glossy black plumage (cp deriv. above) is referred to. 
In Prov. 30 17 Is. 34 n Zeph. 2i4 x (crit. emend, with 
<gBN c - a AQr), other habits of the raven are mentioned, 
and in Gen. 8 7 the raven is stated to have been the 
first bird let out of Noah s ark. 2 

[The feeding of Elijah by the ravens (i K. 17 4 6) has been 
regarded as a supernatural feature appropriate to the circum 
stances of the prophet, but if, as Cheyne suggests, Elijah s 
hiding-place was at Rehoboth in the extreme S. of Palestine, a 
reference to Arabians would gain considerably in plausibility, 
nor can it be a loss to edification that human instruments should 
take the place of unclean birds like the ravens (see MIZRAIM, 
2 [&]). An analogy for the emendation referred to is offered by 
Jer. 82 in (5 Pesh., which give like a crow (3TJ. , Kopwn;, 
naba) for like an Arabian Cr^V)- T ^ s s an error > but in 
Bar. 6 54 the crow is no doubt mentioned. The gods of the- 
Babylonians are there likened to the crows (opwi<eu) that fly 
between heaven and earth.] 

It is probable that the Heb. orebh included all the 

members of the family CorvidT i.e. , the crows, choughs, 

2 Srecie- roo ^ Si J avs > an< ^ jackdaws, as well as the 

true raven. Tristram enumerates eight 

species of Corvida; at present found in Palestine ; 

among which the C. umbrinus or brown-necked raven 

may be specially mentioned, as it is almost ubiquitous. 

They feed to some extent on carrion, but will also 

attack animals of some size, though usually only when 

these are weakly or injured. 

1 A comparison of Zeph. I.e. with Is. 34 n shows that 3nn in 
the famous passage should be 2~y. 

2 In the cuneiform account the raven is the last ; see DELUGE, 
J5 2, 17, and cp Jastrow, ReL Bab. and Ats. 503. 



The raven has always been regarded as a bird of 
omen, and excited superstitious awe which is not even 
3. Character > et entirel y extinct. To the ancients 
it was one of that class of living 
creatures which were at once venerated and shunned. 1 
It is not surprising, therefore, to find the raven in the 
list of (so-called) unclean birds (Dt. 14 14 ; cp CLEAN, 
9). Besides the Midianite chieftain s name OKEB! 
the Ar. clan-name Gordb indicates that the bird did not 
always possess an ill-omened character ; and it is a 
significant fact that Gorab was one of the names of 
heathenism which Mohammad made its bearer change. a 

A. E. s. s. A. c. 

RAZIS (pAzfehc [AV*i-] raafas [Vg.]), an elder 
of Jerusalem, called Father of the Jews for his good 
will toward them. His story is told in 2 Mace. 14 37^ 
The name is possibly from an original *p=nn, to 
be lean." The Syr., however, gives his name nsr-f-tJk, 

RAZOR (TWjl, etc.), Nu. 65, etc. See BEARD. 

REAIAH (i"PN"l. Yahwe has seen ; but cp JORAH). 

1. A Calebite, son of SHOBAL ; i Ch. 42 (pa&x [B], peia [A], 
peaa [L]). Reaiah ought also, perhaps, to be read for HAROEH 
(q.v.) in i Ch. 252, but both forms may be corruptions. 

2. A Reubenite; i Ch. 5 5 (AV REAIA ; pjj^a [BA], paia 

3. The family name of a company of (post-exilic) Nethinim : 
Ezra2 47 (pojA [B], paia [A], ap. [L]) ; Neh. 7 50 (pa*a fBK], 
paaia[AL]) = i Ksd. 5 31 (laetpos [B], laipoj [A], paia[LJ ; AlKUS 
[AV], JAIRUS [RV]). 

REBA (in~l, probably by transposition from 21T, 
Arabia, cp R EKEM [Che.] ; poBOK, -Be [B], poBOK, 
peBeK [A], poBeK, -e [L]), one of the five chiefs of 
Midian, slain after the matter of Peor ; Nu. 31 8 Josh 


REBEKAH or [NT] REBECCA (i1j5:n ; peBeKKA 
[KADEL] ; Rebecca; on the name, see below, 2), sister 

1. Traditions f Laban > and therefore daughter of 
Nahor, according to J (see Ui. on 
Gen. 24 15), but daughter of Bethuel, according to P 
(see Gen. 2020). For the idyllic story of her betrothal 
and marriage, which is not only beautiful in itself, but 
a valuable record of Israelitish sentiment in the time of 
the writer or writers, it is enough to send the reader to 
the original narrative. Gtinkel, it may be observed, 
thinks he can trace a double thread (Ja and J/ ) in this 
narrative. It is certainly possible that more than one 
hand has been concerned in the story ; at the same 
time the narrative would hardly gain by being reduced 
to the limits of the assumed ]a. Another critic (Steuer- 
nagel, Einwanderung, 39) draws a weighty critical 
inference from the parallelism between Gen. 24 and 29. 
Independently, a larger inference of the same kind is 
drawn in 2 of the present article. 

It has been thought that there is a discrepancy 
between J and P as regards the original home of 
Rebekah. J brings her from Aram-naharaim, from 
the city of Nahor (24 10) ; P from Paddan-aram (2520/. ; 
cp 282/i). The discrepancy, however, did not always 
exist, i. It is possible to hold that both in J and in P 
Rebekah had a traditional connection with the northern 
Jerahmeelites of Hauran (for CIN most probably has been 
worn down from ^KcnT, and iin: may have come from 

1 Having been originally worshipped, they were honoured, 
and their presence was considered lucky ; but their specific 
holy character made them taboo, and as such they were to 
be avoided. For this paradoxical conception, see CLEAN, 7. 

" See WRS, Kin. 200, 301, We. Hcid.W 203. The raven 
was intimately associated with Apollo and /Esculapius ; see 
Frazer, Pans. 3j2f. Coronis is said to have be"ti transformed 
into a raven. In Rome, a flight of ravens on the left hand was 
considered lucky, on the right hand unlucky. In northern 
Europe one is reminded of the ravens of Odin, and those of 
Fjokki, by whose aid he discovered Iceland. Similarly the 
Vikings are said to have carried ravens in their ships to be able 
to find the bearing of the nearest land (cp CASTOK, and for the 
painting or carving of a totem on a boat, Frazer, Totemism. 



mn, while JIB may be miswritten for pn i.e. , pin). See 
LABAX, NAHOR, PADDAN-ARAM. 2. It is also plau 
sible to hold the view set forth in JACOB, 3, where it 
is shown that there was possibly a still earlier tradition 
which put Laban s home at Hebron. At any rate, both 
narrators have distinguished themselves in the delinea 
tion of Rebekah s character, which has some strong 
points of affinity to that of her son Jacob. She was 
accompanied, according to MT, to Isaac s home at 
Beer-lahai-roi (i.e., Beer-jerahmeel) by her nurse (24 59), 
who, from the corrupt text of 358, is supposed to have 
been named Deborah (see DINAH, col. 1102, n. i). 
Probably, however, the nurse is not referred to, but 
the precious possessions (njijp, cp v. 53) of the newly 
won bride. In the view of the present writer Laban 
was originally a southern Jerahmeelite, originally, it 
may be, placed in the Negeb, so that he may also 
have been called TUBAL (q.u. ) a name which seems to 
underlie bxira (Bethuel !). See, further, RACHEL, 2. 
Possibly, Rebekah is a personification alternately of 
the southern and of the northern Jerahmeelites. She 
has been, one may almost say, created as a true woman, 
with beating heart and planning brain, by J and E. 

The explanation r!3n, cord ( 71) is linguistically attractive ; 

cp P?"] 1 ?, and the iroijieVio? 0vyan;p of one of the Onomastica 

f. . (OS 204 29). But we cannot get to the bottom of 

2. Ungin such names without considering the tribal relations 

Of name. f. the patriarchs ; wives and husbands alike are 

tribal personifications. It isprobable that Abraham, 

Rebekah, and Leah-Rachel represent a tribal name. Abraham 

(from Ab-raham) means probably father of Jerahmeel ; Leah and 

Rachel (doubles), come from worn-down forms of Jerahmeel. 

Rebekah, or rather Ribkah, probably also comes from the latter 

name; crn= 3pn = p31, cp, perhaps, the clan-names or tribe- 

names Becher, Heber, and the local name Hebron.l Observe 

that Rebekah s father Bethuel (perhaps = TUBAL [g.v.]) is the 

son of Nahor i.e., the southern Haran, by Milcah [Jerahmeel]. 

The same ethnographic traditions are repeated over and over 

again genealogically. T K C 

RECAH (rni), iCh.4i2 RV, AV RECHAH. 

RECEIVER (S"5b : ), Is. 33 18, RV he that weighed 
[the tribute]. Cp SCRIBE and TAXATION. 

RECHAB (23~|, charioteer, perhaps short for Ben- 
rechab[-el] i.e. , son of Rekabf el] ; - but more probably 
an ethnic of the Xegeb [Che. ], pH\AB ; but in i Ch. 2 55, 
PHXA, [B], and in Jer. 35 14 pHXoB [N*]. On pT, X ap in 
Judg. 1 19, see Moore s note). 

i. One of the murderers of Ishbosheth (2 S. 4 2 Jf. : ptKva [B 
in T.i>. 5 f. 9]). His father was RIMMON (q.v.). 

z. The eponym of the RF.CHABITES (2 K. 10 15 Jer. 35 67?!). 
A son of Rechab is a Rechabite ; so even in Neh. 3 14 (see 

OIKOC Apx&BeiN [BN], A.A X A.BeiN or x^p&BeiN [A], 
pd>X<*B[e]iN [Q], pHX&BiT<M [Sym.]). The Rechabites 
have usually been considered to be a sort of religious 
order, analogous to the NAZIRITES [?.v.], tracing its 
origin to the Jehonadab or JONADAB, son of Rechab, 
who lent his countenance to Jehu in the violent abolition 
of Baal-worship. In Jer. 35 we meet with the Rechabites 
as continuing to observe the rule of life ordained by 
Jonadab their father, abstaining from wine and 
dwelling in tents in the land of Judah till the Babylonian 
invasion forced them to take refuge in Jerusalem 
(JEREMIAH ii., 17). According to Ewald (GI73 543), 
Schrader (5 46), and Smend (Rel.-gesch.M 93/1) 
they were an Israelitish sect which represented the 
reaction against Canaanitish civilisation, and took the 
Kenites the old allies of Israel as a model. In 

1 A connection between the names Hebron and Ribkah has 
been already suspected by G. H. Bateson Wright (H as Israel 
Ever in Egypt ?, 180). 

2 So, in the main, Hommel, Das g)-apkische ,-j, p. 23. 
Kar-rekab[el] was a royal name at Sama l in N. Syria; 
Rekabel (or Rekub el) was probably a charioteer-god, the 
TrapeSpy of the sun (cp chariots of the sun, 2 K. 23 11). See 
G. Hoffmann (who reads Rakkab. el), ZA, 1896, p. 252 ; Sachau, 

Aram. Inschriften, inSBAU , 1896, 41. 



iCh. 2ss, however, the house of Rechab is represented 
as belonging to the Kenites, and in i Ch. 4 12 ( BL ) the 
&vdpts prjxctp (MT ravtw.x, <5 A A. pr)<j>a, RV the men 
of Recah ) including TEHINNAH (perhaps Kinah = 
Kenite) appear among the descendants of Chelub 1 
(= Caleb). We have no right to set this statement 
aside on the ground of the late date of the Chronicler. 
It is perfectly credible that the Kenites who dwelt in 
tents among the Israelites long continued to feel them 
selves the special guardians of the pure religion of 
Yahwe, and were honoured as such by Jeremiah. Budde 
assumes that in the time of Jehu a Rechabite named 
Jonadab formally reimposed the old obligations on his 
fellow-clansmen, at the same time perhaps offering the 
privileges of fellowship to those from outside who 
accepted the Rechabite rule of life, and thus converting 
it to some extent into a religious order. 2 This is a 
plausible hypothesis, and rests upon the assumption 
that the Jonadab spoken of in Jer. 356-ioi4 16 18 is the 
Jonadab who had a connection with Jehu. It is possible, 
however, that the true name of the reputed father of the 
Kenites was not Hobab but Jonadab (see HOBAB). 
This hypothesis is, at any rate, simpler than the other 
for the Rechabite laws are those characteristic of nomad 
races e.g., the Nabatasans (Diod. Sic. 1994) and we 
cannot help expecting the legislator of the Kenites to 
stand, like Moses, at the head of the history of his 

The notice in i Ch. 2 55^ is therefore most probably 
to be accepted, except in so far as the corrupt name 
Hammath 3 there given to the father of the 
Rechabites is concerned. Rechabites and Kenites are 
synonymous terms. No doubt this second name 
Rechabites is puzzling ; nor is it easy to believe 
that Yahwe, the God of the Kenites, had Recab-el 
(charioteer-god) as a title. It is a question, therefore, 
whether the readings D nn Rechabites, and ari rra 
house of Rechab, ought not to be emended in 
accordance with many analogies elsewhere, unless 
indeed we assume that the popular speech, which 
uses transposition freely, fluctuated. In Judg. 
4 ii we meet with Heber the Kenite, and in v. 17 
with the house of Heber the Kenite. It is highly 
probable that 331, D 3:n should be either nan, or arn. 
B 3rn. In the former case, Jonadab comes before us 
anew as a son of Heber, and the Rechabites become 
Heberites. In the latter Rechab gives place to 
Rehob ( = REHOBOTH) and Rechabites to Reho- 
bites ( = Rehobothites). Perhaps the former view is 
preferable. We can now see the full force of Judg. 
4 ii, Now Heber the Kenite (the eponym of the 
" Heberites," miscalled" Rechabites ") had severed him 
self from Kain, even from the b ne Hobab (Jonadab?). 
The Heberites (Rechabites) of Israel are a branch of 
the Heberites (Rechabites) of N. Arabia, equally with 
whom they honoured Jonadab as their ancestor and 

Possibly aa n 133 in Judg. 4n (cp Nu. 1029) should rather be 
I?" .??** tne Heberites. Whether Heber (cp C }rtD -) 3n , 
Hos. 6 9) had originally a religious sense, and marked out the 
Kenites as a priestly tribe (cp Jer. 35 19, and see MOSES, 17), 
or whether it is connected with the mysterious Habiri of the 
Amarna Tablets (see HEBREW LANGUAGE, and cp "HEBER) is of 
course uncertain. Another form which the second name of the 
Kenites has assumed by corruption is almost certainly the 
RAHAB [f.- .] of legend. Very possibly, too, the Danite place- 
name BENE-BERAK should be Bene-rechab i.e., Bene-heber ; 
indeed the famous Barak (Judg. 45) was perhaps really a 
Heberite (= Heber the Kenite). See KENITES. 

Later Jewish tradition said that the Rechabites intermarried 
with the Levites and so entered the temple service. Hege- 
sippus, in his account of the death of James the Just, even 
speaks of Rechabite priests, and makes one of them protest 

1 See Meyer, Entst. 147. 

2 See Budde, The Nomadic Ideal in the NT, New World, 
Dec. 1895, p._729, not overlooking the interesting note on the 
possible Kenite origin of Yahwism ; also Religion of Israel to 
t/ie Exile, 20, 44, 120 (1899). 

3 Read perhaps ncn ( = southern Maacath). Cp HEMATH. 


against the crime (Eus. HE 1 23). Recent writers have tried to 
find the descendants of the Rechabites in this or that modern 
tribe. Such attempts could not but be illusory. Cp L. Gautier, 
A proposdes Recabites, La liberte chretienne, June 15, 1901. 

T. K. C. 

RECHAH, RY Recah (H31), i Ch. 4 12 ( PH (}><\ [A], 

1. kipper, 123, efiAao-KOficu, Lev. 630 815 1620 Ezek. 
45151720 where RV always has atone make atonement 
(cp ATONE); efi Acuris Nu. 29nt, efiAaoyia, i S. 12 3 Ps. 
49; (4S8)t, eiAao>i6 Wisd.lS2i Ecclus.Ss IGii 1:29 18 13 30 
(B N C ; Heb. n^D twice). 

2. hithrassah, nSPJin, 6i<xAAd<r<rojAai i 8.294. In 2 S. 2423 
accept, in Gen. 33 n (eiiAoyeti/) Mai. 18 (7rpo<r6e xe<r0ai) be 
pleased with ; StaAAayrJ (Ecclus. 2222 27 21). 

3. Inttc, NEn, e^iAao-KO/uai, 2 Ch. 2924, AV make reconcilia 
tion, RV make a sin offering. See SACRIFICE, 28*1, 44^ 

The NT words are : 

4. 5taAAa<7<re<r#ai Mt. 624 (cp 2, and 2 Mace. 8 29 [V]). 

5. (caraAAacro-eii Rom. 5 io(cp 2 Mace. 1 5 733 8 29 [A]), KO.ra.K- 
AayTj Rom. 5 n His 2 Cor. 5 1819 (cp 2 Mace. 620). 

6. aTroKdTaAAao-treii Eph. 2 16 Col. 1 2o_/Cf 

7. iAao-xeireai Lk.l8i 3 Heb.2i 7 , RV propitiation (Ps. 663 
[4], etc.), cp iAacrjU.0? i Jn.22 4io EV propitiation ; cp Ecclus. 
1820 [A] 35 3 [ x * ; e t A. BNc.aA] 2 Mace. 3 33 ; see also MERCY 
SEAT. Deissmann (Neue Bibelstud. 52) brings forward a parallel 
to the construction iAdo-Keo-flcu a^aprias (Heb. 217) in an in 
scription relative to a sanctuary in Asia Minor, fii> (ajxapTiW) 
oil /J.T; SVITJTCU efeiAao-ao-Ocu ( s f)- It is noteworthy, as regards 
the use of the idiom, that iAdo-icea-flat is employed alternately 
with icaflapicr/ TroieicrOai. in (0 to represent the conception 
of atonement. The latter phrase regards the act with reference 
to its effect upon men, the former with reference to its signifi 
cance in relation to God. 

RECORD On ), RV he that voucheth for me, 
Job 16 igt. See WITNESS. 

RECORDS (Esth. 61 Ex. 17 14); see HISTORICAL 

RECORDER (l^fti.e. , one who brings to mind, 
remembrancer ; ANAMIMNHCKOON [four times and 
Is. 863 Q m ], YTTOMNHMATOrPACjJOC [four times], 1 

KOON [2 S. 2024 [L] i K. 4s (BL)] ; a. commentariis),* 
the title of a high officer (Jehoshaphat, Joah are named) 
in the court of the kings of Judah ( 2 S. 8 16 202 4 i K. 4s 
2 K. 18i8 37 i Ch. 18i 5 2 Ch. 348 Is. 36 3 22t). RV m s- 
always has chronicler ; AV m -, often, remembrancer 
or writer of chronicles. The sense in which the word 
was taken by (5 and Vg. is obvious. The Hebrew title 
might suggest that of the magister memorise at the 
Roman Imperial court (Smith, Diet. Gr. and Rom. Ant., 
s.v. Magister ), or that of the king s remembrancer, 
whose duty formerly was to remind the judges of the 
Exchequer Court of such things as are to be called 
and attended to for the benefit of the crown (Bouvier, 
Law Diet., s.v.]. But the office of the mazkir was 
almost certainly much more responsible than either of 
these. It might perhaps more aptly be compared to 
that of one of the chief advisers of the crown or of the 
keeper of the king s conscience. See GOVERNMENT, 

On the story -writer, RVmg. recorder (CJ/C 7jn, 6 TO. 
irpocrTriitrovTa, cp V. 21 (o) ypd^ior TO. irp.), of i Esd. 2 17, see 
REHL-.M, 5, where governor (lit. man of command ) is 
suggested as a more likely equivalent. 

RED (W3n) ; see COLOURS, 8 (DIN, MICHX, 
fEn, lOH), and for Reddish (Q-IOTX), see ib., 10. 

RED CORAL (D^J?), Job28i8. RV m &- ; see 

1 According to Strabo (797) the virOjinTjuaroypa^os was one 
of the Tour native officers recognised in the Roman province 
of Egypt the others being the f^TyjTj;?, the apxi<$Kcao"n;s, and 
the j uicTepU bs crTpanjyds. 

2 The senator whose duty it was to compile the acta diurna 
of the Roman Senate received the title ab actis [or a coin- 
nit ntariis} sc natus. Under the empire the office was usually 
held as an annual one, after the qua;storship, but before the 
praetorship or axlileship (Smith, Diet, Gr. and Rom, Ant., s.v. 
! Acta ). 

129 4021 



RED HEIFER (HKn^ IT1S), Nu. \$i jf. [P 2 ]. 
On the symbolism of the red hue see CLEAN AND 
UNCLEAN, 16, end. 

RED SEA. At Ras Mohammad the Red Sea, one 
of the most remarkable oceanic gulfs on the globe, is 
divided by the peninsula of Sinai into two gulfs, the 
western or Gulf of Suez, now about 130 geographical 
m. in length, with an average width of about 18, and 
the eastern or Gulf of Akabah, about 90 m. long, and 
of proportionate narrowness. On the question as to 
the extent of the Red Sea in early historic times, see 
EXODUS i. , 15. 

Whether by the statement in Ex. 10 19 that the W. wind 
took up the locusts and drove them into the "Red Sea" 
( pD Hir, eis TV tpvOpav 8a.\a<T<rav), the whole of what is known 
to geography as the Red Sea is meant, or only the Heroopolitan 
gulf (Gulf of Suez), cannot be decided from this passage alone. 
It is evident that the western gulf is meant in 13 18 (the way of 
the wilderness of the Red Sea which the Israelites followed 
leaving Egypt). In 164, Pharaoh s captains are drowned in 
the Red Sea (parallel: sea, the expression generally used in 
the chapters on the passage through the sea ) , in v. 22 the 
Israelites leave the Red Sea. Similarly Nu. 14 25 33 iof. Dt. 
1 i (after , correctly EV) 40 11 4 Josh. 2 10 4 23 246 Judg. 11 16, 
etc., mean the Arabian gulf of the ancients, the modern Gulf of 
Suez. The eastern gulf, the sinus sElaniticus or Gulf of 
Akabah, seems to be meant in Ex. 2831 (?) (frontier of Israel) 
Nu. 21 4 (S. of the territory of Edom) Dt. 2 i (to the S. of Mt. 
Seir) i K. 9 26 (ships built at Ezion-geber, on the Red Sea) 
Jer. 492i (adjoining the Edomites). Consequently, the name 
seems to apply to the Red Sea in general. 

The rendering of the English version goes back 
through the Vulgate to the "EpvOpa. #dXa<nra of <@AL 

1 pv0pa ( where only Judg. 11 16 has 6d\a<r(ra 2t<). 
0<iXa a Ihe ex P ression s common to classical 

(^Eschylus, Pindar, Herodotus) and biblical 
Greek (i Mace. 49 Wisd. 10 18 19? Acts 7 36 Heb. 11 29). 
The original meaning of the name was a subject of 
discussion with the Greeks. They thought of a source 
with reddish water, or of the alleged reddish colour of 
the sea itself, or of that of the mountains surrounding 
it; or they invented a king Erythras. 1 Egyptologists 
have compared the name dosret, red land, given by 
the ancient Egyptians to the desert in contrast to the 
kemet, black land i.e. , cultivable ground or Egypt 
proper (see EGYPT, i ) ; also the Edomites as alleged 
red men, or the apury around Goshen ( 6i). a Un 
fortunately, none of these names is ever found connected 
with the Red Sea; on the Egyptian name water (or 
sea) of the circle (or circuit?) and the hypothetical 
explanation of this expression, cp WMM As. 11. Eur. 
254. Thus the origin of the Greek name is certainly to 
be sought for not in Egypt, but among the Semites. 
Some misunderstanding of a Palestinian or Syriac ex 
pression by the Greeks is quite likely. It must be 
recalled, in passing, that the Greeks used the name in 
a much wider sense than we do, extending it over the 
whole sea between Africa and India (cp Herod. 2 n, 
etc.). 8 

The Hebrew name yam suph, f]iD - D i-f-> sea of the 
water-plant sftph is also mysterious. The suph (see 

2 Yam ^ LAG> J ) belongs specially to Egypt (cp 


Ex.235 Is. 196) and the Nile; only in 

Jon. 26 is it used of seaweeds, probably by 
poetic license. The word seems to be identical with 
the Coptic Aooy^ 1 P a py rus > which is not found in 
the earlier language but appears as tu-f i in texts of the 

1 See Wiedemann s Commentary on Herod. 2 n (who quotes 
Strabo, 16779, Mela, 38, Nearchus, 30, Eust. Dion. Perieg. 36) 
The statement that the expression is found in an Egyptian 
inscription is incorrect. 

- Wiedemann, I.e. 

3 The Persian gulf also thus belonged to it. The tradition 
that the Phoenicians came originally from the Red Sea i.e., 
Lower Babylonia has been strangely misunderstood by scholars. 




nineteenth dynasty. 1 Whether it be a foreign or a 
vernacular word cannot be determined ; consequently 
it must remain an open question whether it was borrowed 
from Egyptian by the Palestinians or vice versa. It is 
remarkable that the Coptic version, which otherwise 
strictly follows (5, in Kxodus renders Sea of fart which 
seems to be sari, ffa.pi according to Theophrastus, 
Pliny, and Hesychius, the name of an Egyptian water- 
plant (see Peyron, Lex. Copt. 304, who, however, 
prefers an impossible etymology). 2 It would therefore 
seem that the Coptic translator here consulted the 
Hebrew, rendering sea of papyrus-plants (Luther 
renders Schilfmeer). These aquatic plants, of course, 
never grew in the salt water of the Red Sea ; modern 
travellers have found, not without difficulty, some 
clumps of reeds on spots not far from Suez where fresh 
water mixes with the Red Sea (see Knobel-Dillmann, 
on Ex. 13 18); but the derivation of the name from 
these would be more than improbable. Others have 
thought (after Jon. 2i6) of seaweeds which are said to 
be plentiful in some parts of the Reel Sea ; but the 
common, early use of the word si iph is against this. 
We can understand how Brugsch ( / Exode, 1 1 , etc. ) 
was led by these freshwater plants to assume the 
swamps of NE. Egypt as the locality of the Exodus ; 
he quite forgot, however, that the name yam suph 
applies also to the yElanitic gulf. 3 The freshwater 
Timsah-lake %vith its large marshes full of reeds, ex 
actly at the entrance of Goshen, would fulfil all con 
ditions for the Exodus and for the Hebrew name (see 
Exouus i. , 16). The word sea is used of lakes in 
most oriental languages, especially in Hebrew (cp Nu. 
31 ii, Sea of Chinnereth, etc.). Still, it would be 
very strange if the Crocodile Lake, or other swamps on 
the frontier of NE. Egypt, should have furnished a 
name to the whole Red Sea, including the yElanitic 
gulf which was nearer to most Palestinians than the 
Egyptian lakes. On the connection between the present 
bitter lakes and the Gulf of Suez, which most scholars 
assume for biblical times, see EXODUS i. , 15. In the 
opinion of the present writer this theory must be re 
jected, and thus the Hebrew name remains obscure. 

\v. M. M. 

With wonted precision and discriminating use of authorities 

BDB s Lexicon(s.i , P.^Q) gives the following, on which it is not 

superfluous to comment, because it is one of the 

3. Is the objects of the present work to intermix the old and 

Solution tne new > am by a junction of the forces of all 

Vin plps<5 9 critical students, to make definite advances where- 

ever this is possible. fjID Q probably = sea of 

rushes or reeds (less probably sea #/"[city] Supli), which Greek 

includes in wider name 0oA. epv9pd, Red Sea (cp Di. Ex. 13 18 

and especially \VM.M As. it. Kn>: 42_/C, who explains as name 

originally given to upper end of Gulf of Suez, extending into 

Hitter Lakes, shallow and marshy, whence reeds [probably 

also reddish colour)); name applied only to arms of Red Sea, 

most often to Gulf of Suez, sometimes to Gulf of Akaba. It is 

noted also that *]lD"C_*p should possibly be read for o VlO in 

Dt. 1 i. BDB also points out (s.v. CT) that in Ex.142 (bis) 9 

Is. 51 10 (I is) 63 n, etc. C H, and in Is. 11 15 probably C T 2"C 

= the Red Sea. In the latter statement, however, probably 

seems to be an exaggeration. The tongue (bay ?) of the sea of 

Egypt is a strange circumlocution for j D C ; indeed, to render 

D lSOi Egypt in w. n 13 is only plausible if -ivj X may be 
rendered Syria (cp Stade, ZA 7"/f"220i). That there are error 
in the text of 11 11-16, is certain ; that pc 7 is sometimes a cor 
ruption of ^NJ,VDC" ( C P Ps.W on Ps. 1203), may also be assumed ; 
that T);?N sometimes stands for tine N (Ashhur), a synonym of 
SxSnV (Jerahmeel), is also difficult to gainsay. Methodica 
criticism, therefore justifies us in reading, D Sxype* C lnn 
[Q TipJ, And Yahwe shall place a ban upon the Ishmaelites 
(cp r . 14); n lSO is an archaising gloss. Even alone, this 

1 See WMM As. u. Eur. 101. Sebe(f), reed, which wa 
formerly compared with P.ID, is different. 

2 Ebers, Dttrck Gosen, 519, makes it probable that this word 
is s r in hieroglyphics. This, however, could not well be 
identical with the above Coptic word. 

3 The Sirbonian bog would, however, justify the name 
little as the Gulf of Suez. 


would suggest the view that r | D"C may be an early textual 
corruption, nor could it be said that Sea of Suph was improb 
able, except on the ground that the correctness of the supposed 
place-name Suph in Dt. 1 i was open to question. Hut when 
we have recognised that rnsn, ^ en - " 57i s a corruption of 
nfl"is / .*., Zarephath in the Negeb (see SOPHERETH) it at 
once becomes a plausible view that -fin or P,Q in the MT are 
sometimes corrupt abbreviations of the same place-name Zare 
phath (Sarephath^). Just as the Dead Sea was called rp&n C > 
popular corruption (as many text-critical considerations suggest) 
f ^N3rn D i so r ilD"D i as a name for the Gulf of Akabah, maybe 
a corrupt abbreviation of nfi"ii~G^, where X is to be taken as a 
race-name = the Zarephathites (see ZAREPHATH). A similar 
explanation may be given of Sui K and SuriiAH. Prof. Sayce 
(frit. Man. 255^) is of opinion that Yam Suph, wherever the 
phrase occurs, means the Gulf of Akabah. This, however, 
involves the further statement that the identification of the sea 
crossed by the Israelites with the Yam Suph (Ex. 154 22) is in 
correct. This is surely too bold. In Ex. 15 4 22, as elsewhere, 
the best course is to read riSTi D (cp MOSES, 12), unless, 
indeed, we prefer to read rin^ p>. All difficulties are obviated, 
if we adopt the view of the primitive tradition respecting Israel 
advocated in col. 3208^, and suppose that the place of sojourn 
of the primitive Israelites was in the land of IMizrim, adjoining 
the land of Jerahmeel, on the border of the Negeb (see NEGEH). 
It is possible that the legend spoke of a great deliverance of the 
Israelites in nBtX JD . where jo (sometimes corrupted into 
p , Javan ) represents SiXCriT (Jerahmeel). Quite early, the 
mark of abbreviation in o may have been lost, and \ have 
become corrupted into 1210 and n-0. Then, floating mythic 
stories may have led to an alteration of the old legend. One 
such possible story is referred to elsewhere (MosES, 10). 
Another may now be added. We know that c "ljE3 (Mizrim ? or 
Mizraim?) was regarded as the antitype of the primitive J JR 
or dragon (see DRAGON, 4). There was also, in the Creation- 
story, a statement of the production of the dry land by the with 
drawal of the water from a part of the ocean s bed (Gen. 1 9). 
This may very well have been regarded as a type of the deliver 
ance of the Israelites, the story of which (so soon as textual 
corruption made this possible) was adjusted so as to fit this in 
tuition. On Jon. 26 ( sftfiJt, was bound about my head ), see 
Crit. Bib. On the whole, the closing sentence of 8 2 seems to 
the present writer to be perfectly correct ; but a special biblical 
scholar ought hardly to rest without trying some fresh avenue 
to the truth. \y. M. M. ,!/.; T. K. C. , 3. 

REED. i. n:j?, kaneh, i K. 14 15 K&\A.MOC (2 K. 
1821 Is. 366, etc., Mt. 11? 1220, etc.), is a word which 
is common to Heb. , Syr. , Arab., and Ass., and 
has passed into Gr. and Lat. as K&NN& fauna, 
and into Eng. as cane. The name is probably of 
Semitic origin ( Lag. Uebers. 50 ; Barth, Nominalb. 9 c) ; 
but the nature of its connection with the root mp is 
obscure. 1 Besides the general meaning stalk (Gen. 
41522) or shaft (Ex. 37 17, etc.), 2 nag is used more 
specifically of (a) reedgrass, (/>) sweet or aromatic cane(?). 

(a) Reedgrass is frequently mentioned, though there 
is little to help in determining the particular species 
intended. It was distinct from suph. (see FLAG) and 
gCnne (see RUSH), but like these grew by the banks 
of rivers (e.g. , the Nile, Is. 196) and pools (Is. 35?). 
It appears to have been somewhat tall (Job 40 21) and 
thick (to justify the metaphor in Job 3122; EV 
bone, AV In *> - chanel-bone ) ; and the jointed nature 
of the stalk appears to be indicated in the repeated 
references to the broken or bruised reed (2 K. 1821, 
etc.). 3 Perhaps the most probable identification 
is with the tall Arundo Donax, L. , which grows 
abundantly in S. Europe : though other species may 
have been included under the name. 4 In Ps. 68[3o]3i 
n:p rt n certainly cannot be rendered the company of 
spearmen (as AV) ; such a phrase can only be rendered 
the wild beast of the reeds (cp AV m ?-, the blasts of 
the reeds ). The animal intended may be the crocodile 

1 The pp (lance) of 2 S. 21 16, may be a kindred word, though 
the correctness of the text is very questionable. 

2 So of the beam of a balance (Is. 466), and of a measuring 
reed or rod (Ezek. 403, etc -)> on which last see WEIGHTS AND 

3 With these references cp the Talmudic phrase push with a 
reed of a feeble arguer (Low, 344). 

4 The evidence of the Syriac lexicographers is somewhat in 
favour of Arundo Phraginitfs, L. (Low. 341). 



(cp Ps. 74 14, etc.), or the hippopotamus (cp Job402i). 
A symbol of Egyptian power seems to be required, and 
this the hippopotamus nowhere is. See CROCODILE. 

[It is not surprising, considering the obscurity of the context 
that opinion should not be quite unanimous. Duhm thinks 
that the swine is meant (cp 80 13 [14]), as the symbol of a Syrian 
population. Cheyne (/V.(2)) reads [B ! n \nj3 nn, the wild 
beasts of pointed horns. 

(t>) By the kaneh of Cant. 4 14 Is. 43 24 Ezek. 27 19, the 
aiuri W of Jer. 620, and the era njf> of Ex. 30 23 is 
meant some aromatic product. It formed an ingredient 
in the holy anointing oil, the others being myrrh, 
cinnamon, cassia, and olive oil. It came to the Jews 
1 from a far country (Jer. 620, cp Ezek. 27 19), and was 
costly (Is. 4324). The more general use of kaneh in 
other passages suggests that this fragrant cane was an 
aromatic reed or flag, such as Axorus Calamus, L. : 
others, however, prefer to identify the substance as 
cassia bark, which is yielded by various species of cin- 
namomum occurring in the warm countries of Asia from 
India eastward (Fliick. and Hanb.f 2 ) 527). 

2. rvny, a roth (dxi ; Is. 19 7 t), which is in AV 
rendered paper reeds, means properly bare places, 
and (if not corrupt, see Che. SHOT, and Marti, ad Inc. } 
refers to the uncultivated and treeless meadows along 
the banks of the Nile. 

3- Q BJN, agammhn, which generally means pools or 
marshes, is in Jer. 51 32 (but (5 has crwr^ara [BXA] 
or avffTrifj.a.Ta [H a?b Q] though Aq. , Sym. translate AT;) 
applied to the clumps or beds of reeds (such as grow- 
on marshy spots), which are said to be burned with 
fire (Gratz, however, would read c :biK, castles ). 
Cp POOL, i. 

4. inx, ti/ni, is twice in RV text (Gen. 41 218) and 
once in RV m Sf- (JobSn) rendered reed - grass : on 
this see FLAG. 

5- H2N, i fieh, in Job 9 z6f (t x"* 65oC?) is rightly 
rendered reed in RV "-. Cp Ass. abu or apu. The 
allusion is to the light canoes or skiffs of reed anciently, 
and still, in use on the Nile; cp Is. 182 ( vessels of 
papyrus ) and SBO T ad loc. 

[It is not strange that this rendering should be a distinctly 
modern one. The explanation of ?beh as reed only goes back 
to Killer (ffieropkyticon, 1725) and Schultens (1737). Vg. 
(following Tg.) gives poma portantes (cp 3N) ; Symm. aiteu- 
Sov<Tai (AViiig- ships of desire ) ; Pesh. and over 40 MSS read 
rn\V, (ships of) hostility ; and lastly Olshausen reads H13N, 
(ships of) wings. See OSPREY, ad fin., for a new emendation.] 

N. M. 

REEDS, WILD BEAST OF THE. See above i(a). 

REELAIAH or rather, Reeliah (n^>in ; peeAeiA 
[B], peeAlAC [AL]), Ezra22 = Neh. "7, RAAMIAH = 
i Esd. 58 where it is corruptly REESAIAS [AV], RKSAIAS 
[RV], (pyaaiov [BA], oe/xton [L = rrcyi = rrajn]) ; the 
form REF.LIAS [<?.v.], however, appears elsewhere in 
the same verse. Like Raamiah it may represent 
Jerahmeel ; the existence of N. Arabian elements 
within the Jewish community can hardly be denied 

REELIUS, RV Reelias (BopoAeioy [B], peeAioy 
[A]), a duplicate of the name of the fourth in the post- 
exilic list of leaders in i Esd. 58, which has by a scribe s 
error been substituted for BAfOl ( see v - J 4 [A]) or 
BA[-oy<M [ L L ** Bigvai (see Ezra 22 Neh. 7 7). 

REESAIAS (PHCAIOY [BA]), i Esd. 58 = Ezra 2 2, 

REFINER (fjiyp), Mai. 82 /.f See FURNACE, 


REFUGE, CITIES OF (t^Bil ntf), Josh. 20 2 . 
See ASYLUM, 5, and cp 6, 8 ; LEVITES. 

REGEM (DTI; PAr eM [B], pe . [A], perM A [L]), 
a Calebite name, one of the sons of Jahdai ; i Ch. 247. 


REGEM-MELECH cferDft ; & P Beceep , 

-ce P [N c - n ], : cecep[A], - C ee [Q], o B<\ciAeyc; see 
below). A citizen of Jerusalem concerned in a deputa 
tion sent to the prophet Zechariah, Zech. 7 2 (see 
SIIAREZER, 2). Most probably (as Marquart suggests) 
he is to be identified with RAAMIAH, one of the twelve (?) 
leaders of the Jews (Ezra 2 2 and parallel passages). 1 
The present writer suspects, however, that both 
Raamiah and Regem-melech are simply corruptions 
of Jerahmeel. The Jew spoken of would be (like so 
many others) partly of Jerahmeelite extraction. It 
would thus become unnecessary to explain Regem in 
Regem-melech by the Aram, cn, jaculari. 

Marti now (1897) reads, for Regem-melech and his men, 
fourteen men, C mN -\K y njp-W, a trace of which he finds in 
s apftea-eep o /SacriAev;. This accounts rather ingeniously for 
apecrp. But we have no right to eliminate -^Q CJ"I- op/3f creep 
may represent -ISNinj, (cp Istnr) i.e., -\VR y\y ( = Asshurite 
Arabia). Cp SHARF.ZER, 2; RAB-SHAKEH. T. K. c. 

REHABIAH (mrParr), Yah is a wide place, cp 
the use of UPTl in Ps. 4 2 1837 [36] or quite as possibly 
an ethnic = ^IT}, Rehobite (Che.); PA &Bic\), b. 
Eliezer b. Moses (i Ch. 23 17 24 2 i : A.BIA [L] ; 2625: 
RABiAC [B], pA< v [A], A.BI& [L]). Cp MOSES, RECHA- 

REHOB prri, broad place ; RO coB [BAL]). 

1. The northern limit of the spies, apparently 
Aramasan, and in the direction of Hamath (Nu. 13 2 i 
paa/3 [B], powO [F] 2 S. 108 poa/3 [A], paiOpaafi [L]) ; 
see BETH-RKHOB. In the context of both passages, 
however (see NEGKB, MAMRE, ZOBAH), there are 
phenomena which suggest that both Rehob and the 
Beth-rehob of 2 S. 106 are incorrectly or imperfectly 
written for Rehoboth, and that this Rehoboth is 
the place of that name in the Negeb (see REHOBOTH). 

Hamath maybe miswritten for Maacath or MAACAH 
(q.v. ), not improbably the southern Maacah. It may 
be added that, from this point of view, Aram in the 
original narrative which underlies 2 S. 10 meant Jer 
ahmeel, a still shorter form of which is RAM (q.v. ) ; also 
that ben Rehob, the designation of Hadad-ezer in 
2 S. 8312, probably means native of Rehoboth (see 
ZOBAH). T. K. c. 

2. and 3. The name of two unidentified Asherite 
cities, the one mentioned between Ebron and Hammon 
(Josh. 1928, pcta/3 [B]), the other with Accho and Aphek 
(ib. 30, paav [B, see UMMAH], paw/3 [A] -o/J [Conipl.], 
apw/3 [L]). There may well have been several Rehobs ; 
but the mention of two in the Asherite list seems 
due to an error. It is only the second one which 
we know to have existed. It is enumerated (with 
Aphek and Accho) in Judg. Iji (epew [B]) among the 
cities of Asher in which the Canaanites remained ; and 
again in Josh. 21 31 (P, paa/3 [B]), i Ch. 675 [60] (om. 
L) in a post-exilic list of Levitical cities assigned to 
the b ne Gershon. 2 A possible connection with rahn[bu f\ 
in an Eg. list, may be mentioned (cp WMM As. u. Eur. 
394). Of more importance, however, is the occurrence 
of the name rahubu (pap. Anast. ) between Kiyna, (see 
HEHER, i), and Bayti-&a -a-ru (perhaps Beth-shean ?), 3 
which is doubtless the same as the Koob, pooj/3 of the 
Onom. , situated near Beth-shean (O-S< 2 1452i 286 82/.). 
Now this Rehob in OT times must have been included 
within the borders of Issachar. It seems not improbable 
that the name in Josh. 19 28 (see above) has been 
accidentally transplanted from the list of cities of 
Issachar once given by E in w. 17-23. 4 See BETH- 
REHOB. s. A. c. 

1 Cp Ahijah (i S. 14 3 ) = Ahimelech (i 8.229-12). 

2 The criticism of Josh. 19 is difficult. See JOSHUA, 
6, Addis, Doc. He x. 1 230 f. 2 467 f., and cp Oxf. Hex. 
ad loc. 

3 WMM As. u. Eur. 153 ; cp ruhaba (Sosenk list) together 
with Hapurama (see HAI-HARAIM). 

4 Of the older document only v. 170. has survived. The rest 


REHOB phi). i. 2 8.8312; see REHOB i. i; 

2. A Levite signatory to the covenant (see EZRA i., 7); 
Neh. 10 ii [12] (B om., po<u/3 [AL], poo/3 [Nc.a mg.]). 

EEHOBOAM (Diprn, as if the clan is enlarged. 1 

But rram. REHABIAH, favours the view that either cj; is the 
divine name Amm [cp AMMI, NAMES IN], or [Che.] the name 
is, or represents, one of the current modifications of Jerahmeel. 
Possibly the true form was Rehab el, just as the true form of 
JEROBOAM [q.v.] may have been Jerubba al ; the origin of both 
names, however, may be suspected to have been Jerahmeel. 
Cp, however, Gray ///W, 59 ; poftoa^ [BAL]). 

Son of Solomon, and first King of Judah (about 930 
B.C. ?). According to 2 Ch. 12 13 the queen-mother was 
Naamnh, an Ammonitess. This supposed half- 
Ammonitish origin of Rehoboam would be important, 
were it probable (cp the -am in the name). But we 
have no reason to think that Solomon s chief wife was 
an Ammonitess. Much more probably he married the 
companion of David s old age, by an error (it seems) 
of and MT called Abishag. If so, micy may be a 
corruption of rrsw, Sunammith, and Rehoboam s 
mother was probably Naamah the Shunamite (cp Cant. 
612 [13]). The queen-mother, however, need not have 
been an Issacharite ; the Shunem from which she came 
was most probably in the Negeb (see SHUNAMMITE). 
Had it been otherwise, Rehoboam might have counted 
on the support of the tribesmen of Issachar. But 
Issacharites were certainly not among the young men 
that had grown up with him and stood before him, of 
whom we are told in i K. 128. 

The traditional story of the events which led to the disruption 
is considered elsewhere (see JEROBOAM, i). It is necessary, 
however, to refer to it again in connection with the article 
SOLOMON. It would seem that in spite of the compulsory (?) 
cession of twenty cities to the king of Missur, Solomon succeeded 
in retaining a large part of the Negeb. It also appears that as 
late as the time of Amos (see PKOI-HET, 35) Israelites from the 
N. frequented the venerable sanctuaries of the Negeb a region 
which the second Jeroboam had recovered for Israel. It is 
further probable that the place-name which appears in Genesis 
(MT) as Shechem should rather be Cusham, and that a place 
in the Negeb, on the border of the N. Arabian Cush is intended. 
See SHECHEM. Very possibly it was there that the great 
assembly was held, which issued in the rejection of Rehoboam 
by the larger part of Israel. That the story given in i K. 12 is 
correct, is intrinsically improbable. We dp not know what it 
was that actually kindled the spark of disaffection, nor is it 
necessary that we should. The differences of N. and S. were 
reasons enough for a separation ; in race and perhaps even in 
matters of cultus there was by no means complete unity among 
the federated clans of Israel. Was Rehoboam really forty- 

one years old at his accession? We may doubt it, even without 
laying stress on i K. 1 2 8 ; cp 2 Ch. 13 7. So far as we can see, 
he displayed no vigour, even in the feud between himself and 
Jeroboam ; the historians ascribe this partly to the intervention 
of a prophet named SHEMAIAH. And in spite of the cities in 
the S. which Solomon (and, as the Chronicler states, Rehoboam 
himself) had fortified, he could not hinder the successful in 
cursion of Shishak, king of Egypt, or rather Cushi, king of 
Misrim (see SHISHAK), which resulted in the loss of the 
treasures which Solomon had collected for the temple. This is 
the one great event recorded of his reign. See ISRAEL, 28, 
and on Rehoboam s wives (2 Ch. 11 1820), MAACAH, MAHALATH. 

T. K. C. 

REHOBOTH (JYQrn; eyPYX^P A [ADL]), the 
name of one of the wells dug by Isaac (Gen. 2622). 

1. Identifier ^ ee GKRAR - R6l ?6both was really, 
fa however, an important place, to which 

great kings and diviners appear to have 
traced their origin, and where great prophets took 
refuge, and received messages from their God (see 
below). It may perhaps be the city of Rubuta men 
tioned in the Am. Tab. (182i3 183io), and once 
called apparently Hubuti (28947). In 1838-io we read 
that the warriors of Gazri, Gimti, and Kilti have taken 
the region of Rubuti. Gimti is Gimti-Kirmil, i.e., 
Gath of JERAHMEEL (q.v. , 4 [/]), Kilti is Keilah- 
The localities, except Gezer, lie pretty near together. 
Presumably the site is that of the mod. Ruhaibeh, 8 

has been rejected in favour of P s account of the tribal limits ; 
see Addis (loc. cit.). 
1 Cp the play on the name in Ecclus. 47 23 (Heb. text). 



hours SW. of Beersheba, at the point from which the 
roads across the desert, after having been all united, 
again diverge towards Gaza and Hebron. Robinson, 
who visited the place, hesitated to make this identifica 
tion, because this appears to have been nothing but a 
well (#^1291). Rowlands 1 and Palmer saw more 
clearly. In the Wady itself there is only one well ; but 
on the sloping sides of the side-valley, in which the 
ruins are situated, are many wells, reservoirs, and 
cisterns. A little beyond this the Wady opens out, 
and receives the name of Bahr beta mi ( the waterless 
sea [lake] ), and on the left comes in a small valley 
called Sutnet er-Ruhaibeh, in which names are preserved 
both the Sitnah and Rehoboth of the Bible ( Palmer, 
Desert of the Exodus, 385). Probably Ruhaibeh also 
represents the Rehoboth by the River of Gen. 8637 
(irun n uirn ; poupwff TTJS wapa irora.iJ.6v, or rov TTOTO.IJLOV 
[AL], om. B ; de fluvio Rohobotk, or de R. quce juxta 
amnem sita est [Vg.]). See SAUL (2), PETHOR. The 
appended description distinguished this Rehoboth from 
other places of the same name. The River is the 
River of Misrim (see MIZRAIM, 2 b ; EGYPT, RIVER 
OF). For passages in the accounts of Bela, Balaam, 
and Elijah, in which Rehoboth appears under disguises 
due to corruption in the text, see BELA, CHERITH, 

This, however, does not exhaust the list of probable 
references to Rehoboth. It may have been displaced 

2. Further OT J y , I;I / ebron I l in Gen 23z f 27 . ^ 
references ll0 (see KlR J ATH - ARB A); in this 
case, it was at Rehoboth, not at Hebron, 
that the famous cave of the MACHPELAH (? Jerahmeel, 
Gen. 2817-20} was situated. The error may have been 
a very early one (perhaps in the original P). No doubt, 
too, B ne Heth in Gen. 283^ is miswritten for B ne 
Rehoboth (nn for n[a]n[i]) ; so also Hittite (wi) in 
Gen. 2634 and 862 should be Rehobothite (narn), and 
daughters of Heth (nn man) in Gen. 27 46 should be 
daughters of Rehoboth (napnwja) ; see JACOB, 2. 

The Book of Ezekiel, too, yields one remarkable 
reference to Rehoboth, if in Ezek. 16345, thy mother 
was a Hittite, we should read Rehobothite (|| Amorite, 
or rather Arammite = Jerahmeelite ). On the prob 
ability that the early population of Jerusalem consisted 
of Jerahmeelites or Rehobothites, see ZION, and cp 
Crit. Bib. 

Most probably, too, URIAH the Hittite should be 
Uriah the Rehobothite, and Haggith (the name of 
Adonijah s mother) in 28.84 should be Rehobith 
(n nrn). Cherethite (TTQ), too, can at last be rightly 
read; it should be Rehobothite (Torn). This, in 
fact, is a necessary inference from the corruption of 
m^rri into n-u in i K. 1X35 (see CHERITH, and cp 
PELETHITES, ZAREPHATH). Thus David s faithful 
guards were not Philistines, but men of S. Palestine. 
That the Rehobothites and Sarephathites, however, 
were always friendly to David is more than can be 
safely stated. Both tribes or peoples are apparently 
referred to as hostile to David in 28. 21 15-22. Philis 
tines should be Sarephathites, and Gath (n:) and 
Gob (^j) are probably corrupt fragments of Reho 
both (mm). It will be remembered that the Misrites 
were famous for their tall stature (iCh. 1123; cp Is. 
45 14?), and that the Anakim are connected with 
Kirjath-arba. Now Kirjath-arba (y2"\n n"ip), or per 
haps - arab ( 3-iy p) is at any rate not Hebron, but may 
be Rehoboth (cp SODOM). These conjectures favour the 
view that Goliath, David s antagonist in the legend, 
was of Rehoboth, not of Gath. 

In short, it would appear that older and very different stories 
underlie the narratives in MT and of i S. 17 and (especially) 
2 S. 21 15-22 288-23 I either there has been a confusion between 

1 In Williams, Holy City, 1 465. 

2 Canaanites here should be Kenizzites (as in some other 
parts of Judg. 1 and elsewhere). 



two wars of David one with the Philistines and one with the 
Sarephathites and Rehobothites, or there has throughout the 
life of David been a great error of the scribes DTIB-Stj written 
for c HSIS and OTTO for QTOrn- If so, it becomes at once 
probable that Sarephath and Rehoboth are also referred to in 
28 517-25 and 6^i-ii (see ZAREPHATH, ZIKLAG). OHED- 
KDO.M [y.v.] the Gittite should be Arab-edom the Rchobo- 
thite. Only on this critical conjecture can we explain the 
action ascribed to David in 2 S. 6 10 (cp ARK, 5). This may 
be taken together with a less certain but not unimportant con 
jecture relative to Baal-perasim and Peres-uzza (see PERAZIM, 
ZAREPHATH). The royal city of Achish (i S. 27 5) was not 
Gath but Rehoboth. This would throw a light on the 
story of Shimei s journey in i K. 2 39^ (see SHIMEI). Else 
where (SisERA)it is suggested that both Achish and Nahash 
probably come from Ashhur (= Asshur, also= Geshur ) so 
tluit Sisera ( = Asshur) may represent the Nahash, king of 
Ammon (rather Jerahmeel), of i S. 11 i 2 S. 10 2. 

Other disguised references to Rehoboth may perhaps 
be found in 18.1447 (where < L presupposes urn rrs, 
probably a corruption of rcrri) and in 28. 83 12 106 S. 
In i S. 14 the conquest of Rehoboth is ascribed to 
Saul; in 28., more correctly to David. In 2 S. 
Hi 1226-30 this important event is described; the 
phrases the royal city and the city of waters are 
both the result of textual corruption (read the city of 
Jerahmeel, or of the Jerahmeelites ). See further Crit. 
Bib., and cp SAUL, 3 ; URIAH. See also MIZRAIM, 
where it is argued that Gen. 10 14 probably refers to 
Rehoboth (not Caphtorim) as the starting-point of the 
Pelistim (cp 2 S. 21 \%ff. ). T. K. c. 

REHOBOTH-IR ("W nhrn ; pocoBwc rroAiN 
[AD] ; poooBoe TT. [> a ] ; pocoBcoe TT. [EL]) or the 
1 Assvrioloffi ity Rchoboth one of the four cities 

cal inquiry mentione d in Gen. lOnf. The name 
4 y cannot be identified with any of the 
cities in the neighbourhood of Nineveh and Calah, with 
which it is associated. In the inscriptions of Sargon 
and Esarhaddon mention is made of the rebit Nina, as 
a place in which was situated the old city Maganuba, 
on the site of which Sargon founded his city of Dur- 
Sargon, the modern Khorsabad. Rehoboth-Ir might 
represent Rebit-ali, and this might be equivalent to 
Rebit-Nina, and be a popular name for Dur-Sargon 
(cp Del. Par. i6of. Calwer Bib.-Lex. 723^). The 
word rebitu (from rabatul] denotes primarily the out 
skirts of a city, in some cases the fields and plantations 
which were part of the city but lay outside its walls, 
though possibly within the exterior circumvallation. 
Thus it was in the rebit of Dur-ili that Sargon fought 
with Humba-nigas king of Elam, at the commencement 
of his reign : and it was in the rebit of Nineveh that 
Esarhaddon made his triumphal entry after his capture 
of Sidon, AT? 2 126. There is evidence that rebit is the 
name of the farm or estate in the open country and was 
usually followed by the name of its owner ; thus Rebit 
Rimani-ilu denotes the estate of Rimani-ilu (see Assyrian 
Doomsday Book, 62). This would suggest that, if a 
town-name, Rehoboth Ir implies a founder Ir. No 
such town name, however, has come down to us. 1 

The failure of attempts to explain Rehoboth-Ir and 
Resen (not to add Accad and Calneh) from Assyriology 

2. Text-critical com P els ^ iblical c ; itic u s to . lo k at the 
solution problem from a fresh point of view, 
suggested by experience of the con 
fusions and misunderstandings of biblical names which 
abound in the traditional text. The problem thus viewed 
is part of a much larger one which affects the whole of 
the Nimrod passage, and indeed the context in which 
that passage occurs. It is far from unlikely that 
Nimrod was really a N. Arabian not a Babylonian hero, 
and Rehoboth-Ir and Calah should most probably 
give place to Rehoboth and Jerahmeel. See NIMROD, 
REHOBOTH. c. H. w. j. , i ; T. K. c. , 2. 

REHUM (D-irn as if beloved, an Aramaic word 

1 There was a district known as Rabiite, near Nineveh (see 
Assyrian Deeds and Documents, Nos. 278, 416) ; but this was 
probably the rabit of the magnates, rabftte, of Nineveh. 



[ 56], but very possibly one of the popular transforma 
tions of Jerahmeel ; cp Harim, Rekem, Raamiah 
and see SHIMSHAI [Che.]). 

1. A leader (see EZRA ii. , 8e) in the great post-exilic 
list (EzRAii., Jo) E Z ra22( lp eo Y M [A], peiOYM [L], 
B om.) ; probably the same as (4) below. That the 
form NEHUM (mm ; vaovf* [BNAL]) in Neh. 7 7 is in 
correct is shown by i Esd. 58 (poeipov [B]. po^tov 
[A a ], vaovn [L], EV ROIMUS). 

2. b. Bani, a Levite, in list of wall-builders (see 
NEHEMIAH, i/, EzRAii., 16 [i] 15^) Neh. 3i 7 
(Pavovd [B], paovfj. [XA], ptov/j. [L]). 

3. Signatory to the covenant (EZRA i., 7 ) Neh 
102 5 [26] (paovfj. [BNA], pe. [L]). 

4. A priest in Zerubbabel s band (EZRA ii. , 66), 
Neh. 123, miswritten for HAIUM of v. 15 (so Guthe in 
SBOT ; BNA om. ; peovp. [X c - a m e- SU P-L]). 

5. The name of a high official (CJ;D <?j;a) who joined 
with Shimshai the scribe and others in making repre 
sentations against the Jews to Artaxerxes (Ezra48 9 17 23 ). 
EV, following the early Hebrew commentators, who 
explain ^recorder, calls him the chancellor ; the 
governor would perhaps more exactly convey the force 
of cyy tya ( man of commands ), which is either the 
translation of an old Persian title (Pahlavi/nzwa/W> so 
Andreas in Marti, Aram. Cram.) or may even represent 
a Greek title (e.g. , ewapxos). The latter alternative 
assumes that the writer transported the political relations 
of the Greek period into the Persian period to which 
documents used by him belonged (so Marquart, 
Fund. 60). It is desirable, however, that Ezra and 
Nehemiah should be re-examined in the light of the 
theory that the underlying original narrative related to 
the N. Arabian, not to the Persian, rule. This may 
affect our conclusions in many minor points. 

T. K. c. 

The versions of Ezra leave the title untranslated (paouA 
ftaSaranfv, paouju. |3aaA, paou/i j3aAya^i, paovfi [B], peou/x jSaaATa/oi 
pfovfj. [A], peoi/fi ^eAree/x [L], beclteem [Vg.]). In i Esd. 2 iGj/f., 
HATHUMUS (pa0v/u.os) called the news-writer (v. 17, o 


ruption of /3eeAT,uo5, ~: 16 p. K ai (3eeA T eO F os [D], paOvo? (cat 
/3aeA T <:fy.os [Aa], pa<?v/xos xa\ /3feATe,oios [L], J. 25 [21] . . . oa0v M <o 
> ypa.<t>oi Ti Ta irpoo-n-in-TOi Ta Kal /JeeATefyia, . . [B] . . " 0eeA- 
Te^wfl [A], p. yp . T. wp. K. jSeeArep-y [L, r-. iS], r. doublet). 

REI ( IT) ; pncei [BA], also a Palm, name [Vogue, 
Syr. Cent,: nos. 16, 22], but L [ K <M] oi GTAlpOl 
AYTOY" w i tn reference to Shimei ; cp Jos. Ant. vii. 14 4 : 
Shimei David s friend and see Th. ), coupled with 
SHIMEI (q.v. n. ), among those who did not favour 
Adonijah ( i K 1 8). Winckler (Gesch. 2 241) identifies him 
with Ira, the Jairite, who was a priest to David (28. 
2026) ; he argues ingeniously to show that this Ira (or Jair) 
was a priest of Bethlehem. But for |.-Q we should 
possibly read jab a high officer (cp SHEBNA). Ewald 
reads >-p for jn and identifies (not plausibly) with 
David s brother RADDAI [</.z .]. 

REINS, i. (nV^S), kflayoth; N e<J)pOI [and Rev. 
223f] ; renes], properly the kidneys (of animals offered 
in sacrifice, except in Job 1613 Ps. 139i 3 Lam. 813, 
where the human kidneys are referred to). A not 
less important seat of life [than the blood], according to 
Semitic ideas, lay in the viscera, especially in the 
kidneys and liver, which in the Semitic dialects are 
continually named as the seats of emotion, or more 
broadly in the fat of the omentum and the organs that 
lie in and near it (Rel. Sem.M 379). Consequently P 
represents these parts as Yahwe s appointed share of the 
sacrifices (cp LIVER). We even find a peculiar sym 
bolism connected with kidney-fat (see FOOD, i a, but 
note that the text of the passages is doubted ; see MILK, 
i). It is much more natural to find the reins (as 
EV calls the kidneys, when used metaphorically) 
employed as a term for the organ, not only of the 




emotions (see Ps. 73 21 Job 1613 1927 [not but Theod. ]) 
but of the moral sentiments (see Jer. 11 20 17 10 20 12 
1 s. 7 10 It)? (?) 262). Trier of the reins and the heart 
;s the characteristic and title of Yahwe, not only in 
the OT, but also in the Hebraistic Book of Revelation 
(Rev. 223). In Ps. 167, however, yea, my reins instruct 
me in the night seasons can hardly be right. It is 
Yahwe, not the heart or the reins, who trains and 
disciplines men (see Che. /V.(-) ad loc.). 

2. D aSn, haliisiliiH, is in Is. US rendered reins by EV 
simply for want of a synonym for loins. 

3. The AV tf. of Lev. 1 i 2 22 4 for 311, z!>l>, is not literal, and 
is based on a long-exploded pathology (cp MEDICINE, 5). 

REKEM (Dp!)- I - Apparently a Benjamite place- 
name, Josh. 1827 (N&K&N [B?]. peeM [A], pe6N 
[L]), but most probably a corruption of SNCHT, Jerah- 
meel, and equivalent to D ina, BAHURIM (another of the 
developments of JERAHMEEL). 1 

2. A king of Midian, Nu. 318 (poKOfj, [BAFL]). Cp 


3. One of the sons of Hebron mentioned with 
TAPPUAH and SHEMA [</</. v.] in i Ch. 243 ; in 244 
[MT] he is father of Shammai father of A fa OH, but in 
& (peKo/J. [15], poKOfj. [A], puKTjfj, [L]) it is Shema who is 
ancestor of Shammai, the intermediate links being 
RAHAM and JORKKAM [<jc/. v. ]; Rekem, Raham, Jor- 
keam, and Carmel are all probably corruptions of 

4. In pause RAKEM (so EV), a Manassite ; i Ch. 7i6 
(BA om., [L]). Seemingly there was a strong 
Jerahmeelite element in the population of the Manassite 

These explanations suggest the true explanation of the phrase 
Clp 33 ! see EAST, CHILDREN OF, where the reader is referred 
to the present article for textual criticism of the phrase. One 
plausible view of the original form of the story of GIDEON 
(?.7 ., i) requires us, in Judg. 3 33 7 12 to read cpl 33 ( see 
Pesh.), i.e., ^>xi2rlT 33! note the gloss Amalekites. This 
should be taken in connection with the Targumic use of cpl for 
Kadesh ; here too cpl must come from SxcnT the full name of 
Kadesh was Kadesh-jerahmeel, barnea and rekem having 
the same origin. See SELA. In fact, wherever we meet with 
phrases like the sons or the land or the mountains of 
Keiicin we may safely regard Keiiei as a corruption of Rcketn, 
i.i:., Jcrahtnecl, with the doubtful exception of Gen. 1030 (i.e., 
if m2D [EV toward Sephar ] does not come from riSlS, cp 
SEPHAKAD). Cp OPHIR. See Gen. 2. r i629i Nu. 23 7 i K.og 
[430] Is. 11 14 Jer. 4928 Ezek. 264 10 Jobl 3. Similarly in Gen. 
15 19 KADMONITES must be a corruption of Jerahmeelites. 

T. K. C. 


REMALIAH (W^pl, 39 ; po/v\eAiA[c]). father 
of PEKAH (q.v.}, 2 K. 1525 etc., Is. 7 4 / 86. Prob 
ably a corruption of Snsni , Jerahmeel. Pekah s Gilead- 
ites may really have come from the Xegeb (on the 
southern ijfa, see Crit. Bib. on Jer. 822 226 Am. 13). 
Similarly, Jehuw as not improbably an Ishmaelite (see 
NIMSHI), and Joaba Misrite (see ZERUIAH). It is easy 
to understand that the boldest adventurers might be of 
N. Arabian extraction. T. K. c. 

REMEMBRANCE (t rDT)- Is - 5 ? 8 - See MEMORIAL. 

REMEMBRANCER (2 S. 20z 4 etc., AV m e-), EV 
recorder, RV n s- chronicler. See RECORDER. 

REMETH (n-1), Josh. 192i. See RAMOTH, i. 
REMMON (pB"l), Josh. 19 7 AV; RV RIMMON (ii.,i). 

REMMON-METHOAR (IN hrpn pan), Josh. 19 13. 
See RIMMON ii. , 3. 

REMPHAN (pe/wcbAN, Stephens with i, 31 etc.; 
cp peM(t>AM [D, Vg. Iren.] ; po/v\4>AN [N*] ; po/v\(J>A 
[B], pe/v\4>A [61, Arm.]), or (M being intrusive, as in 
NOAABA beside NOB&. iS. 21i),as RV, REPHAN (pechAN 

1 3 dropped out, and n became a (for the reverse process see 
H. P. Smith on i S. 8 16). 


j [CE, Syrr. , Memph. Theb. yEth. ] ; cp PAKJJAN, [AN C ] ; 
p&(bAN, Just. Dial. 22, ex Amos), occurs, with the prefix 
the star of the god (so RV with BD, Pesh. , etc. and 
<5 A0 -*), or the star of your god (so AV, with ANCE, 
Vg. , Hard. , etc. ), in Acts 7 43. in a quotation from Amos 
626, (where BA pAl4>AN. Q p(J)AN, Complut. pe/v\- 
cj)&). The same Jablonski who ventured on a Coptic 
explanation of BEHKMOTH (q.v. ) explained Rempha or 
Rompha from the Coptic, as king of heaven, nullo 
plane apice immutato ( Remphah, ^Egyptiorum Deus, 
in Opitscula, ed. Te Water, 2 [1806], pp. 1-72). But 
1 king of heaven in Egyptian would be su/en em pet. * 
Gloag (Comm. on Acts\ 249), Lumby (Acts, in Cambridge 
Bible, ad loc.}, and Merx (Schenkel s Rib. -Lex. 1517) 
suppose Rephan to be the Egyptian name for Saturn. 
So (besides Spencer and Kircher) Lepsius the Egypto 
logist, who says that Seb or Saturn is called repa-n- 
neteru, the youngest of the gods, and suggests a 
possible connection with Rephan (Die Chron. der .-Eg. 
93). On phonetic and other grounds this view is not 
more acceptable than Jablonski s, and the simple ex 
planation is that pe<pa.v should rather be pa.Ltf>a.v i.e., 
JS I, where n is perhaps a corruption of 3, and s (soft) a 
phonetic substitute for % See CHIUN. T. K. c. 

REPHAEL (^KQp, as if God heals ; cp Aram. 

^XB-1, foBT, NAMES, 30; PANAMA [BAL]), a 
Korahite, b. Shemaiah ; i Ch. 26 7 1- 

Probably God heals is a late popular etymology, devised 
after the original name had become corrupted ; that it took hold 
of the imagination we see from the RAPHAEL of Tobit and 
Enoch. The present writer suspects that Rephael, Irpeel, Raphu 
[Beth-]rapha, and perhaps even REPHAIAH (f.v.), all come 
ultimately from an ethnic. See PEDAH-ZUR ; REPHAIM. Hommel 
(Exp. T 8 [1897] p. 563) compares the name of an Arab, temp. 
Sargon, in a text transcribed by Winckler, Ya-ra-pa, also the S. 
Arabian name Hi-rapa a. T. K. C. 

REPHAH(nDT; p^H [BA], pA(t>&[L]), mentioned 
in the list of the B ne Ephraim i Ch. 725. Both Rephah 
and RESHEPH (q. v. ) occur nowhere else and are probably 
corrupt. Cp EPHRAIM, 12. 

REPHAIAH (ITS ), 30, 62, as if Yahwe heals ; 
pAcbAlA [BAL]). On the ultimate origin of the name 
see REPHAEL, and note in confirmation that in Neh. 89 
Rephaiah (5) is a son of Hur i.e. , most probably, 
of Jerahmeel. In i Ch. 2 19 Hur is the son of Caleb 
and Ephrath. Who the Calibbites are, we know [see 
CALEB] ; Ephrath is probably a distorted fragment of 
Zarephath. Cp PARADISE, col. 3573, n. 5. See below, 
no. 5. T. K. c. 

1. b. Hananiah, mentioned in the genealogy in i Ch. 
821 (pa.<f>aX [B]), where, for 33 sons of, (& and Pesh. 
four times read 133 his son. So Kittel ; Bertheau 
follows MT. 

2. A Simeonite chieftain who attacked the Amalekites 
of Mt. Seir (apparently in Hezekiah s time), i Ch. 4 42/1 
(pa.<f>aLas [L]). See ISHI, SiMEOX. 

3. b. TOLA (q.v.): i Ch. 72 (paipapa [B]) ; cp 

4. b. BINEA, i Ch. 943 (patpouoLV [N], apaxa [L]) = 
i Ch. 837 (,isi, RAPHAH ; pa<pa.i [B], apaxa [L]). Cp 
BENJAMIN, 9 ii. p. 

5. b. HUR (4), the ruler of half the district of Jeru 
salem, and one of the repairers of the wall (Neh. 89 ; 
pa^atas [L]). 

[He was of Jerahmeelite origin (see above). According to 
Meyer (Entst. 119) the Calibbites and Jerahmeelites did not 
become universally recognised as real Jews before the time of P. 
The study of proper names pursued in a series of articles in the 
present work confirms this, but with limitations. In Neh.3 
Hur, Malchijah, Paseah, Rephaiah. Urijah ; in Ezra 8 Elam, 
Michael, Jeliel, Ariel ; in Neh. 11 Mahalaleel, Jeroham, Mal- 
chiah, Micha are transparent Jerahmeelite names. The Jer 
ahmeelites became so prominent that the genealogists had to do 
them fuller justice. But the same study of names suggests that 
Jerahmeelite clans were recognised both in Judah and elsewhere 
before the exile. T. K. c.] 

1 From a private letter of Dr. Budge. 


REPHAIM (D\XEf); pAd>&[e]iN [or - M ], and [Gen. 
14 Josh. 12 13, and i Ch.], pr^NTec [BAEL] ; Josh. 
1 OT ^ " A om ) a race f reputed giants, 
references ^ ount ^ ^y tne Israelites in occupation of 
territory on both sides of the Jordan. 
Before attempting any linguistic or historical explana 
tion, we must look into the several passages where the 
traditional text recognises the name, viz., Gen. 14s 1620 
Dt. 2ii2o(/xi</>apaeij [Fonce])3iii3 Josh. 124 13 12 17 15, 
to which we may add 2 S. 21 16 18 20 22, cp i Ch. 
20 4 6 8 (children of Harapha). The geographical 
phrase valley of Kephaim will be treated only 
incidentally here (see next article). 

1. Gen. 14s. Chedorlaomer and his allies smote 
the Rephaim in Ashteroth-karnaim. 

No stress can be laid on this passage. In its present form 
Gen. 14 is probably later even than the archaeological notices in 
1 )t. 1 iof., and the names at present found in Gen. 14 5 probably 
come from a very late editor who arbitrarily corrected a very 
corrupt text (see SODOM). 

2. Gen. 15 20. The list of Canaanite peoples in 
Gen. 15 19-21 comes apparently from a late redactor, but 
has merely suffered from ordinary transcriptional cor 
ruption ; the redactor had no historical theory to serve, 
and reproduced, though inaccurately, names derived 
from earlier sources. 

The order of the names is, Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites 
(from Jerahmeelites ?), Hittites (from Rehobothites !), Periz- 
zites(Zarephathites?), Rephaim. Amorites, Canaanites, Girgash- 
ites(from Girshites or Geshurites ?), Jebusites (Ishmaelites?). 
We may infer that, according to tradition, a people called 
Kephaim was to be found in the far S. of Palestine. 

3. Dt. 2 ii 20 3 ii 13. A remnant of the Rephaim, 
under their king Og, survived in Bashan, which was 
therefore called the land of the Rephaim. But we are 
also told that the Emim of Moab and the Anakim (of 
Hebron ? or of Rehoboth?) were reckoned among the 
Rephaim. The passage comes from a late editor (D 2 ), 
and Bashan should certainly be Cushan (see OG). 1 

If DJ (Gath) in 2 S. 21 20 is miswritten for rnim (REHOBOTH), 
this statement is confirmed, for the warriors spoken of in that 
passage were Rephaites. It is true, in Nu. 13 33 the b ne Anak 
are said to belong to the Nephilnn ; but we shall see presently 
that the Rephaim and the Nephilim must have been closely 
connected i.e., Rephaim and Nephilim may have been 

4. Josh. 124 13 12 depend on Dt. 2n, etc.; but 17 M/ 
has its own peculiarities. When purified from corrupt 
repetitions I/M/ states that the tribe of Joseph (b ne 
Joseph) complained to Joshua that it was too large to 
have but one lot and portion. Joshua s reply was, If 
thou art a great people, go up to the forest-land, and 
clear away (space) for thyself in the land of the Perizzites 
and the Rephaim. The Josephites objected that access 
to this region would be impeded by the Canaanites with 
their chariots of iron, and Joshua rejoined that the forest- 
land is not unattainable, and that their strength is equal to 
the task of driving out the Canaanites. 2 Here it would 
appear that the forest-land spoken of means the hill- 
country N. of Shechem ; the view that trans-Jordanic 
territory is intended is not plausible. 3 But room must 
be left for the possibility that Shechem should be 
Cusham, and Canaanites Kenizzites. There were 
probably b ne Ephraim in the Xegeb (see C.rit. Bib.}. 

5. In 2 S. 21 22 (cp 20) four champions of the 
Philistines are said to have been born (H*? ) to the 
Rapha (ranrrV) in Gath (y. 22 ; cp v. 20), while of two of 
them it is said that they were of the descendants of 
the Rapha (HPSm., <T^V: ; cp i Ch. 204), or perhaps 
rather (cp <5 in v. 22) of the Rephaim. 4 

1 There is no occasion to reject the second C pjj;^ as an 
erroneous repetition from the preceding clause. 

" In v. 16 read nyri Ki S^K 1 ?, and in v. 18 JjV rVrT IV n 3- 

3 See Steuernagel, ad lac. 

* It is usual to take rain as an eponym ; but the art. is 
unfavourable to this view. ,-] surely conies from XB1, which 
originally had after it the stroke of abbreviation ( / KSln = D % KBin)- 
In 2 S. 21 2 2 read D KBnj JvaS 11^, were born to the (or, a) 



There is, however, great difficulty in the text as it now stands, 
Surely the Philistines were quite formidable enough without 
having to accept the assistance of the remnant of the Rephaim 
Are we to suppose that the references to the Rephaites in a S. 
21 1622 are a later appendage to the tradition, suggested by a 
reminiscence of the tradition respecting Og? Or is there not 
some explanation arising out of a somewhat more definite view 
ot the older populations of Canaan made possible by textual 

It would be tedious to sum up here all the evidence 
directly or indirectly affecting the subject in hand 
2 Origin P rovided b y our textual criticism. Two 
of name. P assa g es however, are specially important. 
In Josh. 17 15 it is evident that ntn and 
C KB-n are two competing readings, and that the former 
is more probably correct. And in 2 S. 5 18-20 it is plain 
that the spot called D infl-Sjra is in the valley of Rephaim. 
that the tribe whose centre on the S. Palestinian border 
was at Zarephath ( =ZEPHATH) was prominent in early 
Israelitish legend, and that its name underwent strange 
mutilations and corruptions. Among these transforma 
tions may probably be included Zelophehad, Salhad, 
names connected with the N. ; and Pelistim 1 and 
Letusim, names connected with the S. That Perizzi 
and Pelisti are connected is not a violent supposition. 
Both are most probably corruptions of Sarephathi (Zare- 
phathite), and it is hardly less plausible to conjecture 
that Repha im is a corruption of Perasim, though an 
alternative derivation from Jerahme elim is equally 
possible. Thus to return to the story in 2 S. 5 18-20 
instead of Baal-perazim in the valley of Rephaim, 
the original tradition probably spoke of Baal-sare- 
phathim in the valley of Jerahme elim (or SarCphathim). 
That such long names were early corrupted, and 
that the corruption took different forms in different 
parts of Palestine, can easily be understood. 

The result to which we are tending, and which it 
would lead us into too many digressions to justify fully, 
is that the Sarephathim or Jerahme elim migrated into 
many parts both of eastern and of western Palestine. 
They started from the S. ; it is not a random statement 
of Gen. 106 that PUT (BIS from runs) was the brother 
of (the N. Arabian) dish and Mizraim and the son of 
Ham (Jerahmeel?), and of Gen. 25 3 that LK H SHIM 
was the brother of Leummim (Jerahmeelim ?) and the 
son of Declan (i.e., S. Kdom). The SarCphathim were 
in fact probably a branch of the Jerahmeelites, who, as 
our textual criticism tends to show, spread over many 
parts both of Western, and even of Eastern, Palestine 
(note the Phoenician Zarephath, and cp JEKAHMEEL ; 
EAST, CHILDREN OF). The Jerahmeelites or Sare- 
phathites, according to the genealogies, became largely 
fused with the Israelites, and" how much truth there 
may be in the statement that OG the Rephaite (Sare- 
phathite ? or Jerahmeelite ?) and his people were smitten, 
till there were no survivors (Nu. 2135), it is impossible 
to say. 

It is hardly worth while to discuss the question 
whether the representation of the Rephaim ? .<-., 
possibly the Jerahmeelites of Sarephath as giants (cp 
Am. 2g, where the Amorite is thus described) is purely 
mythical. Whether the Edomitish race (to which the 
Jerahmeelites belonged) was taller than the later 
Israelitish race or not, it is certain that the instinctive 
tendency of legend (both in Europe and in Asia) to 
picture aboriginal races as of gigantic stature would 
have led to such a representation. According to 
Robertson Smith," the giant-legends arose in part 

house of the Rephaim (cp L s TO> oiu>). [In a S. 21, <B 1A has 
pa</>a and also yryayrf? with pa</>a in r<. 22 : tpl- yi yarrts in 77 . 
16, 18, Tiravos v. 20, yiyavret and pafya. v. 22, whilst in i Ch. 20 
<S has yi yoiTts in vv. 4, 6, CHA poi^o, L pa.<j>aiv and also <B 

l The Philistines of 28.2115-22 were really the Zare- 
phathites; Gath should be Rehoboth. See PELETHITES, 

a Note communicated to Prof. Driver, Devi. 40. 


1 Prevalent 


from the comtemplation of ancient ruins of great works 
and supposed gigantic tombs. This may very well 
have been the case, in view of the legends attaching 
to huge sarcophagi, like that assigned to Og in Dt. , at 
the present day. See OG. 

A brief reference to other theories of the origin of the name 
Rephaim must suffice. The view that it is connected with Ar. 
rafa a to lift up, and means giants, is not at all plausible; 
no cognate of raja a can be pointed to in Hebrew, Aramaic, or 
Assyrian. Stade (Gl Jl 116120) was the first to connect the 
name with the Rephaim or shades (see DEAD and DEATH). 
This has been taken up by Schwally (Das Leben nach don 
Tode, 64, n. i [1892]; ZA TH 18 132 [1898]). From the sense of 
spirits of the dead" arose, it is supposed, that of primeval 
population. Schwally confirms this by a legend of the Hovas 
in Madagascar (ZA TIT, I.e.). This is surely most improbable. 
The transition is difficult, even if we do not hold, with Stade, 
that Q NSl, the word for the shades, means the weak. It is 
most reasonable, therefore, to hold that, like a large proportion 
of ethnic names, Rephaim has been worn down from a longer 
form, and this form we may venture to trace either in Jcrah- 
me elim or in Sarephathim. 

See also REPHAIM, VALLEY OF, and on Job 26 3 see DEAD. 

T. K. C. 

GIANTS (C NBVpDj; ; Josh. 158 18 16 2 S. 5 is 22 23 13 i Ch. 11 15 
14g Is. 17s: T Js. iv cfxipayyi orepeo 1 [BAQr] ; Josh. 15, -MJS 
pa^aeija [AL], -v [B], Josh. IS e^eKpa^aeu [HL], -p. [A], 2 S. 5, 
Tf\v KOtAaSa rail T[f]iTO.v<av [BAL], 2 S. 23 rfj KOiA. pa^act/n [B], 
v [A], nravtav [L] ; i Ch. TQ KOiAaSi riav yiyavrtav [BNAL]; 
valtis Raphaim i\n& gigantuai). 

According to the prevalent theory, which supposes 
the same locality to be referred to in all the passages, 
^ a " e y ^ Rephaim was an upland 
P la n near Jerusalem and Bethlehem (cp 
2S - 2 3 3/) where not only corn and 
olive trees flourished (Is. 17s/), but the 
so-called Baca trees (see MULBERRY) grew. At its N. 
end was a hill over which ran the boundary of Judah 
and Benjamin (Josh. 158 18 16). The plain was famous 
as the scene of fights between David and the Philistines, 
(28.51822 23is; cp i Ch. 14g 11 15). Elsewhere, 
however, has been offered the theory that the enemies 
referred to in 2 S. 5 18 22 and the related passages were 
not the Philistines but the Zarephathites (see ZARE- 
PHATH), and that the place referred to in 28. 23 14 
was not Bethlehem but Beth-jerahmeel (thus the whole 
scene becomes historically and geographically more 
plausible). Elsewhere, too (see REPHAIM) we have 
urged that Rephaim, the name of an early population 
of Canaan, is probably a much worn-down form either 
of SarSphathTm (Zarephathites), or perhaps more prob 
ably of Jerahme ellm. 

It would seem, then, that in 28.51822, etc., the 
valley (upland plain) of Rephaim (Jerahme ellm) 
2 David s cannot t> e a plain near Jerusalem, and 

vallev of that like the gwe * hd -* ldh of * s - 17 2 (see 
o-_,.i_. ELAH, VALLEY OF), it was one of the 
xvouUctim. ,11 i 

valleys or spaces between the low sloping 

hills (Palmer) in the neighbourhood of Ruheibeh 
(Rehoboth), possibly indeed the Wady Ruheibeh itself, 
though the broad Wady el-Milh may also come into 
consideration (see NEGEB). 

In the case of Is. 17s, when we consider the manifest 
play on the name Ephraim in the next verse, it is possible 

to suppose (a) that D NEi (Rephaim) 
3. Two other ,11 u u /i-T \ v 

valleys of should rather be .15S (Ephraim), and 
Rephaim ? to identify this tmek with a part of the 

Great Plain of Es draelon. (b] There 
are, however, also good critical arguments for identifying 
this fmek with that in the story of David. The ques 
tion is subordinate to the large inquiry, Does Is. l"i-n 
predict the ruin of Syria and Ephraim, or of the kingdom 
of Jerahmeel ? .See Crit. Bib. But there is no objec 
tion to the view (c) that the emek rtphatm of Josh. 158 
18i6 really did derive its name from the Jerahme elim ; 
in fact, the early population of Jerusalem was probably 
a combination of Amorites and Jerahmeelites (see 

1 Cp (P, I S. 4 8 Ttav Seuiv riav (rrepeiav rovriav (*B L sing.). 


REHOBOTH). The upland plain referred to seems to 
be the Beka a, which stretches from the 8\V. side of 
Jerusalem southwards as far as Mar Elyas (3 hr. from 
Jerusalem), which may indeed be the mountain re 
ferred to in Joshua. 

Eus. and Jer. (OS 288 22 1476) place the Valley of Rephaim 
on the N. of Jerusalem, and Kittel (Gi sch. der Hebr. 2131) 
follows them on grounds derived from the (surely corrupt) text 
of 2 Sj522_^ Tobler s main objection 1 to the ordinary view is 
that emek means a valley, not a plain. But fmek is con 
stantly used of plains shut in by hills, and this is just what the 
Beka a is, shut in on all sides by rocky hill-tops and ridges 
(Porter). T . K . c . 

REPHAN (pecpAisi), Acts 7 43 RV, AV REMI-HAN. 
REPHIDIM (DH En, plain -country, strata ? ?,- 
p<Mj>lAeiN [BAFL], Ex. 17 18 19 2 Nu. 33i 4 /t), a 
place where the Amalekites attacked the Israelites and 
were defeated by Joshua with the aid of the wonder 
working staff of Moses. As we see from his arrange 
ment of the passages of diverse origin which he has 
brought together, R considers this event to have oc 
curred when, according to P, the Israelites encamped 
at Rephldim immediately before entering the wilderness 
of Sinai. He also thinks that the spot (spots?) called 
Massah and Meribah was (were?) in the district of 
Rephidim, which, in this case, must have extended to, 
or perhaps even have been equivalent to, Horeb (see 
Ex.176, the rock in Horeb ). On the analysis of 
sources, see EXODUS (BOOK), 3. 

The existence of a popular tradition of a war waged 
with varying fortunes by the early Israelites against the 
1 Form and Ama e ^ tes ma y be assumed without 
contents of fission (see AM ALEK 2 ; MOSES 
legend I2 )- But we have stl11 to ask - Did 
tradition connect this war, or an 
episode of this war, with Rephidim ? Some scholars 
(Ox/. Hex. 107) have doubted this ; according to 
them, the connection of the battle described in Ex. 
178-i6 with Rephidim is purely editorial. Textual 
criticism may contribute something to the decision of 
this point. Among the names of the stations of the 
Israelites there are only two which end in -im, viz., 
Elim and Rephidim. It is difficult not to conjecture 
that both these names are corruptions of ethnics. That 
Elim probably comes from Jerahmeel or Jerahmeelim has 
been suggested already (MOSES, 12). We have also 
conjectured that Marah (the reported name of the pre 
ceding station) has arisen out of another fragment of 
Jerahmeel, viz., Marah (from Rehem ; cp REKEM, 
SELA). It may now be added that Rephidim is prob 
ably a corrupt fragment of Jerahmeelim. 

Rephidim (G TSI), we ma > suppose, comes from Rephilim 
(Dv !n)i which, through the intermediate stage of Rephaelim 
(D SxSn), comes from Remaelim (c <( ?NC"l)> i.e., Jerahmeelim 
(O 7X0 nv) ! the corruption is easier and not less certain than that 
which we meet with sometimes, of Jerahmeel into Ephraim. 

Bacon (Ex. 88, note *) has acutely conjectured that 
Ex.1526 (a passage usually assigned to R D ) may be 
based on an earlier document which derived the name 
Rephidim from rapha (NSI), to heal. The name pre 
supposed in the early tradition may have been not 
Rephidim but Rephaelim ; SNEH naturally suggests the 
explanation, for I am Yahwe that heals thee. 2 In 
short, the closing words of v. 26 may originally have 
stood in a context relative to the name Rephaelim. 

From this point of view we cannot question the fact 
that early tradition connected the battle in Ex. 178-i6 
with Rephidim, the name of which place (like Meribah) 
appears to be a distortion of the ethnic lerahmeelim. 
The truth is that there were traditional stories in circu 
lation respecting two fertile spots in the Jerahmeelite 
country occupied by the migrating Israelites. One 
appears in a double form in Ex. 1523-25^, and in T. 27; 
another has also a double representation in Ex. 

1 Drittc Wanderung, 202. 

2 See RAPHAEL, and cp Eth. Enock, 107, where Raphael is 
commanded to proclaim that God will heal the earth. 



17 T-b 2 4-7 (part) and, in a very fragmentary form, n 
vv. 3 7 (part). The second certainly refers to the oasis 
of Ain Gadis (the fountain of the Jerahmeelite Kadesh) 
And it is not unreasonable to hold that the Anmlekite 
attack spoken of in Ex.178 was connected in the 
original tradition with this fountain, the possession o 
which was naturally grudged by the Jerahmeelites 
(now become unfriendly? see MOSES) to the intrud 
ing Israelites. (In this case, the hill spoken of in 
w, 9/. may be one of the earth-covered limestone hills 
at the north - eastern sweep of the oasis ; cp Truni- 
bull, Kadesh-barnea, 273. ) This, at any rate, is the 
view suggested by the text of Ex. 17 in its present 
form ; but even if we reject it, there is strong prob 
ability in the opinion that the Amalekites attacked Israel 
in Rcphidim i.e. , Jerahmeelim because we have ex 
press evidence (Nu. 1829, cp Gen. 147) that the Negeb, 
including Kadesh, was the region specially occupied by 
the Jerahmeelite clans. 

That the story of the Amalekite attack, not less than 
that of the smitten rock (v. 6, the rock in Horeb }, is 
placed too early by R, seems beyond doubt. The 
Moses who stood apart from the fight, holding the rod 
of Elohim, but who after a time was in danger of 
letting his hand sink, and who committed the military 
leadership to Joshua, is clearly an old man ; we are 
placed by this story at the beginning of the various 
wars which tradition referred to the close of the life of 

In the above statement we have been compelled to 
assume that Horeb or Sinai was not in the so-called 

2 Earlier sinaitic Peninsula, but in close prox- 
eeoeranhical imity to Kadesh - z -^- n the Jebel 

theories Ma rah on the SW - frontier of the 
Negeb (see MOSES, 5, 14). If, how 
ever, we suppose that Sinai is either Jebel Serbal or 
Jebel Musa (see SINAI, 18), we may, with several 
modern geographers (Lepsius, Kbers, Ritter, A. P. 
Stanley, C. W. Wilson, E. H. Palmer), be tempted to 
attach ourselves to the tradition, recorded especially by 
Kosmas Indicopleustes (535 A.D. ) and Antoninus 
Martyr (circa 600 A.D. ), which identifies Rgphkllm 
with Feiran, the ancient Pharan, the ruins of which 
stand at the junction of the Wady Aleyat with the 
Wady Feiran, about 4 m. N. of Serbal. Antoninus 
Martyr speaks of an oratorium, whose altar is set on 
the stones which were put under Moses while he was 
praying. Evidently he refers to the Jebel et-Tahuneh, 
on the right bank of the W T ady Feiran, which is about 
720 ft. high, and is covered with remains of Christian 
tombs, cells, and chapels. This view was adopted as a 
whole by the members of the Sinai Expedition, except 
ing F. W. Holland (see Ordnance Survey of Penins. of 
Sinai, 153.^). More plausible, if the connection of 
the story of the rock and that of the battle be main 
tained, is the view of Ebers (Durch Gosen zum Sinai, 
212; cp Lepsius, Briefe, 349/1) that the biblical 
Rgphidim is to be placed in the dry, north-western 
part of the Wady Feiran, where the Amalekites might 
be supposed to have gathered to prevent the Israelites 
from entering the oasis. Robinson s theory (BK 1 179), 
adopted by F. W. Holland (Recovery of Jerusalem, 
534/K that Rgphldlm is in the narrow gorge of el- 
Watiyeh in the great Wady es-Sheikh the Wady by 
which, according to this traveller, the Israelites ap 
proached Horeb is less defensible, for reasons well 
summed up by E. H. Palmer (Sinai, 202); cp also 
Ritter (Palestine and the Sinaitic Peninsula, 1323). 
All these theories depend, as we have seen, on the 
correctness of the traditional theory as to the general 


position of Horeb or Sinai, which is open to much 
question, and indeed appears to some scholars hardly 
defensible. , .. ,. 

1 i\ \-. 

RESAIAS (PHCAIOY [BA]), i Esd. 58 RV = Ezra2 2 

RESEN (|D-| ; A*ceM [AZ)L] ; - N [E] ; Resen} is 
named in Gen. 10 12, as a city lying between Nineveh 

1. Assyrio- and Kalah - Menant therefore considered 
logical U to te re P re sented by the ruin-heaps of 

inquiry Se a miye. Bochart and recently Noldeke 
have connected it with the Larissa of 
Xenophon (Anab. iii. 4 7), the site of which, however, is 
uncertain, though Frd. Del. (Calwer Bib. -Lex. 731) 
suggests identifying it with Nimrud (cp CALAH). In 
the inscriptions, so far published, no city of any im- 
Portance bears a name like Resen. A city of the name 
Rg-es-e-ni (Res-e ni) appears as not far from Nineveh, 
in the Bavian description of Sennacherib (A7/2u6/. , 
cp Del. Par. 188261) ; but there is nothing to show that 
it was an ancient foundation. There is little hope of 
its identification till the district has been properly 
explored. c . w . H ; 

From an exegetical point of view the matter is further 
complicated by the words which follow Resen the 

2. Text- Same is the great city Does this refer to 
critical Resen? No one would have doubted this, 

solution. but for the . silence of antiquity as to any 
important city near Nineveh with a name 
resembling Resen. Res-eni i.e. , fountain-head, place 
of fountains, is not a probable name at all. To suppose 
a tetrapolis with two such doubtful names as Rehoboth- 
Ir and Resen is a desperate expedient. If, however, 
Nimrod was a N. Arabian, not a Babylonian, hero, a 
probable identification of Resen may be made, rta 
(misread Calah) is in the view of the present writer one 
of the many corruptions of VNCHT (Jerahmeel) ; myj 
(which was read Nineveh) not improbably comes from 
fvun (Hebron); and n rmrr vyn mn is certainly a 
corruption of ^ttDITV Kin (that is, Jerahmeel), a gloss 
on n^o- Between Hebron and Jerahmeel appears 
to be a suitable description of Beersheba, the name of 
which is sometimes corrupted into \wy -113 and jrp. 
See NIMROD. i, c. w. H. j. 2, T. K. c" 

RESERVOIR (Hipp, Is. 22 n, RV). See CONDUITS 
i [5]- 

RESHEPH (t|Bn ; C A P A(}> [B], pAC e<|> [A], P&C HcJ> 
[L]), a son of Ephraim, i Ch. 725 (see EPHRAIM, 
12). The other names include SHEERAH (i.e. , 
Ashhur?), Ammihud (i.e. Jerahmeel?) Elishama (i.e., 
Ishmael?). Resheph therefore should perhaps be tp s 
(cp I! ), and mean Zarephathite ; cp 2-ixn p, Neh. 
831 i.e. , a Zarephathite. Clermont-Ganneau, how 
ever, suggests that Arsiif ( = the Apollonia of Jos.), 
about 7 m. N. of Jaffa, may correspond to an ancient 
town Resheph. Resheph (identified with Apollo) was 
the Phoenician and N. Syrian fire-god and war-god (cp 
CIS 1 n. 10, and Hadad-inscr. from Zenjirli, //. 3, u), 
whose cultus was introduced into Egypt during the 
eighteenth and nineteenth dynasties (see list of gods 
on altar in Turin Museum, TSBAS^g, I. 67, and 
plate; and cp E. Meyer, ZDMG 81719 73 8 / ). J Close 
to Arsiif is an extraordinary holy place a Haram, 
vhich, under Moslem forms, possibly continues a primi- 
ive cultus (Cl.-Ganneau, Honts et saint Georges, 17; 
cp Baed.W 239). See, further, PHOENICIA, 12, end. 

T. K. c. 

1 For further references see Maspero, Struggle of Nations, 
156, n. i. 





Narratives examined ( 2-16). 
Canonical Gospels (J 27^). 
Gospel of the Hebrews ( 4). 
Gospel of Peter ( 5). 
Coptic account ( 6). 
Extra-canonical details ( 7). 
Conclusion of Mk. ( 8/1). 
i Cor. 15 i-n (8 10-15). 
Accounts of ascension ( 16). 



II. Determination of outward facts 

( 17-29)- 

Nature of the appearances ( 17). 
No words of the risen Jesus ( 18). 
Galilee the place ( 19). 
The sepulchre ( 20 /.). 
The third day ( 22). 
Number of appearances ( 23). 
Unhistorical elements due to ten 
dency ( 24-29). 

III. Explanation of facts ( 30-38). 

Nature of resurrection body of 

Jesus (8 30). 
Resurrection only of the Spirit of 

Jesus (8 31). 
Objective visions ( 32). 
Apparent death, and false rumours 

of the resurrection of Jesus ( 33). 
Subjective visions ( 34-38). 
Literature ( 39). 

The resurrection of Jesus is held to be the central 
fact upon which the Christian church rests. Even at a 
. _ . date so early as that of i Cor. Paul 

treats it as such in an elaborate discussion 
(i Cor. 15 1-26). In particular he rests upon it three 
fundamental thoughts of the Christian faith : ( i ) the belief 
that the death of Jesus was not what in accordance 
with Dt. 2l2j (Gal. 813) it must have seemed to be 
the death of a malefactor, but a divine appointment for 
the forgiveness of sins and for the salvation of men 
( i Cor. 15 17 Rom. 425 64-7, etc. ) ; (2) a vindication of the 
supremacy of the exalted Christ over the Church ( i Cor. 
1525/1 Rom. 142 Cor. 184, etc.) ; and (3) a pledge of 
the certainty of an ultimate resurrection of all believers 
to a life of everlasting blessedness (i Cor. 15 18-20 614 
Rom. 68 8 1 1, etc.). 

Whilst the second and the third of these points were so held 
at all times, that was not quite the case with the first. At a 
date as early as that of the speeches of Peter in Acts (see ACTS, 
14) the resurrection of Jesus was not the divine confirmation 
of the truth that the death of Jesus laid the foundations of the 
salvation of mankind ; the death is there represented rather as a 
calamity (3 13-15 5 30) even if it was (according to 2 23 4 28) fore 
ordained of Clod. Hut the significance of the resurrect ion of Jesus 
does not become on that account the less ; on the contrary it 
figures as being itself the act with which the forgiveness of sins 
is connected (5 31, cp 3 25). Most modern schools of theology in 
like manner refrain from regarding the resurrection as an event 
without which the theologian wbuld not be able to regard Jesus 
death as a divine arrangement for the salvation of men. 

Such theologians also, however, do not on that 
account attach to it any the less importance ; rather do 
they see in it the divine guarantee for the truth that the 
person of Jesus and the cause which he represented 
could not remain under the power of death, but must of 
necessity at last gain the victory over all enemies in 
spite of every apparent momentary triumph. 

It seems accordingly in logic inevitable that if at any 
time it should come to be recognised that the resurrection 
of Jesus never happened, the Christian faith with respect 
to all the points just mentioned would necessarily come 
to an end. 

The shock to which the Christian religion and the Christian 
church would be exposed by any such discovery would appear 
to be all the heavier when it is reflected that only two other 
propositions can be named which would place it in equal or 
greater danger ; the one, that the death of Jesus did not procure 
the. salvation of mankind, the other that Jesus never existed at 
all. The first of these two theses would leave many schools of 
thought within the limits of Christianity comparatively un 
affected, for they find the redeeming work of Jesus in his life, 
not, as Paul and orthodox theologians generally, in his death ; 
on the other hand their faith would be most seriously affected 
if they found themselves constrained to recognise that Jesus 
remained under the power of death. 

The reason for dreading all these dangers is that 
upon the assumption of the resurrection of Jesus (as 
also upon that of his atoning death and upon that of 
his existence at all) are based propositions which are 
fundamental to the Christian faith, propositions con 
cerning God and his relation to men, upon the truth 
of which no less an issue depends than the salvation of 
mankind. The question concerns things of priceless 
value, and the judgments upon which all interest con 
centrates are (to use the language of modern German 


theologians) Werthurtheile i.e., judgments which 
declare that to be able to believe such and such is for 
the religious man a thing of absolute value ; unless such 
things can be accepted he can only despair. Thus the 
believing man can cherish no more urgent desire than 
that the basis upon which these beliefs, which are for 
him so priceless, rest should be raised securely above the 
reach of doubt. 

Yet what is this basis ? It consists in an affirmation 
regarding a fact in history which is known to us only 
through tradition and accordingly is open to historical 
criticism just as any other fact is. Indeed, whilst the 
very existence of Jesus and the fact of his death on the 
cross have been questioned by only a very few, 1 and on 
the other hand the meaning of his death, as soon as the 
fact has been admitted, is left an open question to every 
one, we find that the resurrection of Jesus as is not 
surprising in view of its supernatural character is in 
very many quarters and with growing distinctness 
characterised as unhistorical, and that not merely when 
it is conceived of as having been a revivification of the 
dead body of Jesus, but also when it is defended in 
some spiritualistic form. 

The present examination of the subject will not start 
from the proposition that miracles are impossible. 

Such a proposition rests upon a theory of the universe (Welt 
anschauung), not upon exhaustive examination of all the events 
which may be spoken of as miracles. Even should we by any 
chance find ourselves in a position to say that every alleged 
miraculous occurrence from the beginning of time down to the 
present hour had been duly examined and found non-miraculous, 
we should not thereby be secured against the possibility of 
something occurring to-morrow which we should be compelled 
to recognise as a miracle. Empirically, only so much as this 
stands fast and no more that as regards present -day occur 
rences the persons who reckon with the possibility of a miracle 
(by miracle we here throughout understand an occurrence that 
unquestionably is against natural law) are very few, and that 
present-day occurrences which are represented as miraculous 
are on closer examination invariably found to possess no such 

The normal procedure of the historian accordingly 
in dealing with the events of the past will be in the first 
instance to try whether a non-miraculous explanation 
will serve, and to come to the other conclusion only on 
the strength of quite unexceptionable testimony. 
Needless to say, in doing so, he must be free from all 
prepossession. He must accordingly, where biblical 
authors are concerned, in the first instance, look at 
their statements in the light of their own presuppositions, 
even though in the end he may find himself shut up to 
the conclusion that not only the statements but also the 
presuppositions are erroneous. 

For our most authentic information on the subject of 

1 Loman, who in 1881 altogether denied the existence of 
Jesus, affirmed it in 1884 and still more distinctly in 1887. 
Amongst those who have most recently maintained the negative 
may be named Edwin Tohnson, the author of Antigua Mater 
(anonymous; 1887) and" The Rise of Christendom (1890), and 
John M. Robertson, Christianity and Mythology (ioon) and 
A Short History of Christianity (1902). 



the resurrection of Jesus we naturally look to the 

_ Gospels ; these, however, exhibit con- 

- tradictions of the most glaring kind. 

narratives ot ReimaruS| vv hose work was published 

resurrection by Lessing as [ Vo if enb utteler Frag- 

compared. mente> enumerated ten contradictions ; 

but in reality their number is much greater. (Mk. 

169-20 is not taken account of in this place ; see below, 


(a) Of the watch and seal set upon the sepulchre, and 
of the bribing of the soldiers of the watch, we read only 
in Mt. (2762-6628411-15). In Mk. and Lk. these 
features are not only not mentioned ; they are excluded 
by the representation of the women as intending to 
anoint the body and (in Mk. at least) as foreseeing 
difficulty only in the weight of the stone, not in the 
presence of a military guard. In Mt. the women s 
object is simply to see the sepulchre (28 i) ; they have 
therefore heard of its being guarded, as in fact they 
very easily could. 

(b) According to Lk. (23 54 56) the women got ready 
the spices before sunset on Friday ; according to Mk. 
(16 i) they did not buy them till after sunset on Satur 
day. In Jn. the incident does not occur at all, for 
according to 19 38-40 Joseph of Arimathaea and 
Nicodemus have already embalmed the body before 
laying it in the grave, whilst according to Mk. 1546 = 
Mt. 27 59 f.=L,k. 23 53 Joseph alone (without Nico 
demus) simply wrapped it in a fine linen cloth. 

(c) The persons who come to the sepulchre on the 
morning of the resurrection are : according to Mk. 
(16 1), Mary Magdalene, Mary of James (cp MARY, 
26 23), and Salome; according to Mt. (28 1) only 
the two Marys (the designation the other Mary 
is explained by 27 56) ; according to Lk. (24 10), in 
addition to the two Marys, Joanna (cp 83) and the 
other women with them ; according to Jn. (20 1) only 
Mary Magdalene, 1 to whom, however, are added Peter 
and the beloved disciple. In agreement with this last 
we have only the notice in Lk. (24 24) that after the 
women some of those with us (TLVS TUIV ffvv ijfuv) had 
gone to the sepulchre and had found the report of the 
women to be true ; also the notice in 24 12 (a verse not 
found in the western MSS) according to which Peter 
ran, after the visit of the women, to the sepulchre, and 
stooping down beheld the linen clothes alone, and 
wondering departed. This verse, though we can hardly 
suppose it to have come from Jn. 263-8, is still open 
to the suspicion of being a later interpolation, all 
the more because the mention of Peter alone does 
not harmonise with the some (nvts) of v. 24, and 
them (CLVTUV) of v. 13 connects with v. n, not with 
v. 12. 

(d) The time of the visit of the women to the 
sepulchre is : in Mk. (li}2\ when the sun was risen, in 
Lk. (24 1, at early dawn ) and Jn. (20i, early, when 
it was yet dark ) before sunrise, but in Mt. (28 i) about 
half a day earlier. 

Late on the Sabbath (oi^e <ra/3j3aToj ) means unquestionably, 
according to the Jewish division of the day, the time about sunset, 
and the words immediately following TTJ eTuiicucrKOucrrj is fj.iav 
<raf}fidT<av, as the light shone forth towards the first day of the 
week (see WEEK, 7>- T are elucidated by Lk. 23 54, where the 
transition from the Jewish Friday to Saturday (Sabbath) in 
other words the time of sunset is indicated by the expression 
<ra/3j3o.TOi> J7re <iocr<cei>, the Sabbath shone forth. This_e.\pression 
is usually explained by reference to the custom of kindling the 
lights somewhat before the beginning of the Sabbath because on 
the Sabbath it was unlawful to do so. Keim, however (Gesch. 
Jcsn von Nazara, 3 552/.; ET 6303), produces evidence of the 
same usus loqucndi for the other days of the week ; and this will 

1 It must not be inferred from the plural, we do not know 
(OVK oi&afj.t v : 20 2), that Jn. thought of other women as also 
present. The inference is excluded by the sing. comes 
(epxrai) of v. i. The pi. we know (oi&aijicv) therefore can only 
be intended to express Mary Magdalene s thought that other 
Christians in whom perhaps some knowledge of the facts might 
be presumed did not actually possess it any more than herself 
if it is not an unconscious reminiscence of the women of the 
Synoptics. In 20 13 we find correctly the singular : Iknownot. 


cover the case of its employment in Mt. The word by night, 
VVKTOS, in 28 13 also goes to show that Mt. pictured to himself the 
journey of the women to the sepulchre and the opening of the 
sepulchre of the earthquake (or the angel) as having happened by 
night. Furthermore it is conceivable that Mt. should have been 
brought to this divergence to the extent of half a day from the 
account by the other evangelists precisely if he had followed 
Mk. with strict precision. For in point of fact Mk. indicates, 
first (1(5 i), sunset by the phrase when the Sabbath was past 
(Siayevonevov TOV tTafipdrov) and, next (16 2) mentions sunrise ; 
his reference to sunset is in connection with the purchase of 
the spices, a circumstance which Mt. had no occasion to notice. 
Thus Mt. might come to look upon the second time-determination 
as synonymous with the first, inasmuch as the actual words 
very early on the first day of the week (AiW npia i T/J fiio TUV 
<raj3/3dT<oi ), if the Jewish division of the day is assumed, does 
not absolutely exclude such a view. Cp, further, 26 a. 

(e) According to Mk. (164), Lk. (242), and Jn. (20i) 
those who came to the sepulchre found that the stone 
at the door had already been rolled away ; according to 
Mt. (282) it was rolled back in the presence of the 
women by an angel who in a great earthquake came 
down from heaven. 

(/) In Mk. (165-7), as in Mt. (282-7), there is only 
one angel; in Lk. (244-7) ^ nrf J n - (20ia/.) there are 
two (in Lk. called men, &v5pes, but in dazzling 
apparel, ev IffOrfTi a.<rrpa.Trrovffri, somewhat as in 
Mt. 28 3 Mk. 16 5). 

(g) According to Mk. this one angel, according to 
Jn. the two, sat in the sepulchre ; according to Mt. 
the one angel sits without the sepulchre upon the stone ; 
according to Lk. the two come up to the women, to all 
appearance not until these have already left the 

(h) As for what was seen in the sepulchre, according 
to Mk. (16s) it was only the angel, and according to 
Lk. (24s), at least when the women entered, there was 
nothing. According to Mt. (282-5) the women do not 
inform themselves as to the condition of the grave. 
Similarly Mary Magdalene, according to Jn. 20 1, at her 
first visit. Thereafter the beloved disciple is the first to 
look in, when he sees the linen clothes (20s) ; next 
Peter enters and sees besides the linen clothes the 
napkin wrapped up in a place by itself (206/. ). Finally, 
Mary looks in and sees the two angels. 

(/) The explanations given by the angels to the 
women contain the one point in the whole narrative in 
which there is, at least in the synoptics, complete 
agreement (v. 6) : he rose, he is not here (r/yepBt), of K 
taTiv wSe). To this in Mk. and Mt. there is the pre 
face : fear ye not ; the same two also have the words 
ye seek the crucified one (similarly in Lk. ). In Jn. 
the angels say merely (20 13) : Woman, why weepest 
thou ? 

(i ) The discrepancies in the instructions given to the 
women are among the most violent in the w hole account : 
in Mk. and Mt. there is the injunction to say to his 
disciples (Mk. adds: and to Peter 1 ) that Jesus goes 
before them to Galilee and that there they will see him 
as he had said to them (in Mt. 287 also perhaps ^we 
ought to read, behold, he said to you, i8ov flirtv}; 
in Lk. on the other hand what we read is remember 
how he spake before of his death and resurrection while 
he was yet in Galilee. Here, that is to say, still the 
word Galilee, but the sense quite opposite. In Lk. 
strictly there is no injunction at all (cp under ;) and in 
Jn. we find no words which could even seem to answer 
to the command in Mk. and Mt. 

(/) No less marked are the differences as to the 
announcements made by the women to the disciples. 
According to Lk. (24 9) they report their discovery ; 
according to Mt. (288) they intend to do so, and v. 16 
leaves it to be inferred that they carried out their 
intention ; according to Jn. (20a 18) Mary Magdalene 
reports, in the first instance to the two disciples, and in 
the second to the disciples at large, what she has seen. 
On the other hand, according to Mk. 168 the women 
out of fear say nothing to any one. 

(m) As regards results of" the message, in the last 
case of course, that in Mk., where the women say 


nothing, there can be no immediate consequence. 
According to Mt. (28 16) the message issues in 
immediate compliance with the command to go to 
Galilee ; according to Jn. (203-io) Mary s first com 
munication leads to the running of the two disciples to 
the sepulchre, whilst her second ( 20 18) is not said to 
have produced any effect. In Lk. (24 n) the women s 
statement produces merely the unbelief of the disciples, 
unless we are to regard as genuine v. 12, according 
to which Peter alone of the whole number hastens to 
the grave (see above, c). 

(n) An appearance of the risen Jesus at the sepulchre 
itself is reported only in Jn. (2014-17), where it is made 
to Mary Magdalene ; an appearance on the way back 
from the sepulchre to the city only in Mt. (28g/,), 
where it is made to the two Marys. Whilst in this 
last case, however, the women embrace Jesus feet, in 
Jn. he does not permit Mary Magdalene to touch him. 

(a) The injunction received from Jesus himself is 
according to Sit. the same as that given by the angels. 
The women are to direct the disciples, here called 
brethren (ddf\(f>oi) by Jesus, to go to Galilee; 
according to Jn. Mary Magdalene is simply bidden tell 
his brethren (ddf\(f>oi) that he is ascending to heaven 
(cp above, k). 

(/) An appearance of Jesus on the day of the resur 
rection on the road to Emmaus is known only to Lk. 
(24i 3 -35). 

(q] An appearance to Simon Peter before the evening 
of the same day is known only to Lk. (2434). 

The view of Origen (for the passages see in Resch, TU v. 4 
423 and x. 3 770-782), that the third evangelist says, and rightly, 
that Simon was the companion of Cleopas on the walk to 
Emmaus, is quite inadmissible. As in Origen the name is con 
stantly used without any addition, it is evident that only Peter 
can be intended. It has to be observed on the other hand, 
however, that the announcement of an appearance of the risen 
Jesus to Simon is made, and made by the eleven (and their 
companions), to the two disciples on their return from Emmaus. 
For this reason, therefore, Resch prefers to read saying in the 
nominative (Aeyorrts for Aeycwras) with cod. D, according to 
which it is the Emmaus disciples who make the announcement. 
To this it has to be remarked that neither Lk. nor Origen, in 
view of 24^1 35, can have intended to say that Jesus had 
appeared in Emmaus to Peter only and not to Cleopas also. 
If, again, by the Simon in Origen s MSS of Lk. we ought to 
understand some disciple other than Peter, such a conjecture 
would be quite as baseless as that other guess of Church fathers 
and Scholiasts (see Tisch. on 24 18) that the companion of 
Cleopas was Nathanael, or the evangelist Luke, or a certain 
Am(m)aon, whose name perhaps comes from the place-name 
Emmaus. 1 

(r) An appearance on the same evening to the eleven 
and their companions (roi/s evdfKO. Kal TOI)J crvv avTols), 
at which Jesus asks the disciples to touch his hands and 
feet, and eats a piece of a broiled fish, is recorded by 
Lk. (2433 36-5! ) The disciples are at this interview 
enjoined by Jesus to remain in Jerusalem till Pentecost 
(cp above, A). Jn. also (2019-24) assigns an appearance 
before the disciples to the same evening, and we 
must presume, therefore, that here the same interview 
is intended as that related by Lk. The circumstances, 
however, are very different. In Jn. Thomas is ex 
pressly stated not to have been with the eleven ; and 
that the number of the disciples included others than 
the ten apostles as we read in Lk. (oi avi/ cu rots) is not 
to be supposed, since Jesus solemnly sends them forth 
(TTf/jLTTu upas) and imparts to them not only the gift of 
the Holy Spirit (which in Lk.f. 49 he holds forth as a 
promise for Pentecost) but also the authority to bestow 
or withhold forgiveness of sins (cp MINISTRY, 4, 34 <-). 
Lk. makes no reference to the circumstance that the 
doors were shut when Jesus entered, any more than he 
does to the conferring of the authority just mentioned ; 
Jn. on the other hand knows nothing of Jesus having 

1 The Itala codd. b, e, ff 2 , Ambrosiaster, Ambrosius (on both 
see Souter, Exp.T, 1901-1902, p. 4297^) in v. 13 looking forward 
to v. 18, add Cleopas to Ammaus [ = P^mmaus] presumably 
because, reading ovo/ian (so D, it., vg.) for jj ovofia., they saw 
in Emmaus the name not of the village but of one of the two 
disciples (so Nestle, Einfuhrung in das griech. N7 ( 2 ) 96, ET 



eaten. Besides his hands, Jesus shows not his feet but 
his side the piercing of which, indeed, is mentioned 
only in Jn. 19 34 ; but he does not suffer himself to be 
touched, yet without expressly forbidding this as he had 
done in the case of Mary Magdalene. 

(s) Jesus first suffers his hands and his side to be 
touched eight days afterwards, by Thomas in presence 
of his disciples ; but this is mentioned only in Jn. (20 
26-29) and after he has again entered the same house 
(TrdXtv fyaa.v &ru>) through closed doors. 

(t) After these things (nerd TO.VTO.), but only 
according to Jn. 21, Jesus appears once more by the 
lake of Galilee to Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, the sons 
of Zebedee, and two other disciples who are not named. 

(u) Galilee also, but certainly at an earlier date, was 
the scene of the appearance, recorded only in Mt. 
(28 16-20), to the eleven on the mountain to which 
Jesus had directed them to go (when and where he 
made the appointment is nowhere stated, but seems to 
have been recorded in a source that was used at this 
point). Jesus here enjoins upon them the mission to 
the Gentiles and baptism in the name of the Trinity. 
The missionary precept is in substantial agreement with 
Lk. 2449 and also with Jn. 20 21 (see above, r). 1 

That one and the same event should be to some 
extent differently described even by eye-witnesses is 

3 Extent of intell S ble enough, as also that some 
discrepancies. Particular incident connected with it 
should in later reminiscence be errone 
ously dissociated from it and attached to some other 
similar event. 

(a) Thus no serious importance ought, for example, 
to be given to the circumstance that the words in which 
the disciples are bidden by the angel to betake them 
selves to Galilee, do not exactly agree in the different 
accounts, and that one narrator assigns the missionary 
precept to one appearance, another to another. To 
this, however, there are limits. 

Whether the sepulchre was guarded or not guarded, how 
many women went to the sepulchre, whether or not the disciples 
were bidden go to Galilee, whether or not when Jesus appeared 
Mary Magdalene was alone, whether or not Thomas was 
present, whether or not Jesus asked for food and then actually 
partook of it, whether or not he allowed himself to be touched ; 
above all, whether the appearances occurred in Jerusalem or in 
Galilee, and whether the women reported what they had seen 
at the sepulchre or were silent about it these and many other 
points are matters with regard to which the eye-witnesses or 
those who had their information directly from eye-witnesses, 
could not possibly have been in the least uncertainty. Vet, 
what differences ! Differences, too, of which it is impossible to 
say that they are partly explicable by the fact that one narrator 
gives one occurrence and another another without wishing 
thereby to exclude all the rest. Lk. enumerates a consecutive 
series of appearances and brings it to a close (2451) with the 

1 The harmonistic attempt to dispose of this appearance in 
Galilee by maintaining that Galilee here means one of the summits 
of the Mount of Olives near Jerusalem whether the summit on 
the N. or that called in 2 K. 23 13 the mount of corruption 
by which supposition Mt. 28 16 is brought into agreement with 
Lk. 24 50 Acts 1 12, has its basis only on assertions of mediaeval 
pilgrims. The matter is not improved by the purely conjectural 
assumption of Resch (TU x. 2 381-389 x. 8765^) that in Mt. 
28 16 and already in 2632 28 7 10 = Mk. 14 28 16;, Galilee 
(roAiAaia) is a wrong rendering of the gelila (il? ?;!) in the 
original Hebrew gospel postulated by him, the neighbourhood 
of Jerusalem (n-ept x>pos Mt. 85 Mk. 1 28, etc.) being what was 
really intended. In Tertullian s (Apol. 21) cum discipulis 
quibusdam apud Galiteam Judaeae regionem ad quadraginta dies 
egit Resch even finds Galilaea used as the name of this district 
(see, against this, Schiirer, TLZ, 1897, p. 187 f.). That, further, 
the Mount of Olives belonged to this district Resch accepts 
from the mediaeval pilgrims ; and that it constituted the central 
point of the district, so that the disciples could at once under 
stand by the district to which (according to Mk. l&7 = Mt. 
287 10) they were directed the Mount of Olives, as being the 
mountain where Jesus had appointed them (TO opos o{ eraf aro 
avrois 6 I7)<rovs : 28 16), he derives from his own authority. The 
Acta Pilati and the Gesta Piiati, finally, which place the 
ascension of Jesus at once in Galilee and on the Mount of Olives, 
embody no true geographical recollection but only a quite crude 
harmonistic attempt (cp the passages in Zahn, (iesch. d. Kanons, 
2 937 ; also Thilo, Cod. Apocr. NT 1 617-622). See also 



express statement that Jesus parted from them ; and all these 
occurrences are represented as having happened on one and the 
same day. In Jn., on the other hand, the events of the twentieth 
chapter alone require eight days. Mt. and Mk. know of 
appearances to disciples only in Galilee, Lk. and Jn. 20 only of 
appearances in Jerusalem and its neighbourhood (Emmaus), 
neither of the last-named evangelists taking any account what 
ever of any appearances in Galilee not till Jn.21 do we come 
upon one of this description ; but this chapter is by another hand 
(see JOHN, SON OF ZEUEDEE, 40). 

(t>) Refuge is often sought in the reflection that some 
times an event may, after all, have actually happened, 
even if the accounts of it are quite discrepant. A 
famous illustration often quoted in this connection is 
the case of Hannibal, who quite certainly did cross the 
Alps, although Livy s account of the route taken by him 
is entirely different from that of Polybius. Most as 
suredly. The fact, however, that, whatever be the 
contradictions of chroniclers, he actually did cross the 
Alps is a certainty for us, only because we know for 
certain that at one date he was to be found on the 
Gallic side, and at a subsequent date on the Italian. 
If it were just as clearly made out that Jesus, after his 
death, came back again to this life, we could, indeed, 
in that case, with an easy mind, leave the differences 
between the narratives to settle themselves. Here, 
however, the position of matters is that the actuality of 
the resurrection of Jesus depends for its establishment 
upon these very narratives ; and in such a case unim 
peachable witnesses are naturally demanded. 

Livy and Polybius lived centuries after the occurrence which 
they relate, and they were dependent for their facts upon 
written sources which perhaps were wanting in accuracy, and, 
moreover, were themselves in turn derived from inadequate 
sources. If any deficiency, even of only an approximately 
similar character, has to be admitted in the acquaintance of the 
writers of the gospels with the circumstances of the resurrection 
of Jesus, there is little prospect of anyone being induced to 
accept it as a fact, on the strength of such testimony, unless he 
has from the beginning been predisposed to do so without any 
testimony. And as a matter of fact we cannot avoid the con 
clusion from the contradictions between the gospels that the 
writers of them were far removed from the event they describe. 
If we possessed only one gospel, we might perhaps be inclined 
to accept it ; but how far astray should we be according to the 
view of Lk. if we relied, let us say, on Mt. alone, or, according 
to the view of Jn., if we pinned our faith to Lk. In point of fact, 
not only do the evangelists each follow different narratives ; they 
also each have distinct theories of their own as to Galilee or 
Jerusalem being the scene of the appearances, as to whether 
Jesus ate and was touched, and so forth (cp 19 a, 27 c, d). 

Shall we then betake ourselves to extra-canonical 
sources ? Of these, several are often regarded as 
superior to the canonical in antiquity ; so, 
for example, the Gospel of the Hebrews. 
_, . This view, however, so far as the extant 

fragments at least are concerned, is dis 
tinctly not warranted (see GOSPELS, 155). 

(a) For our present discussion the following citation 
by Jerome ( Vir. ill. 2) from this gospel comes into 
consideration : 

The Lord after he had given the cloth to the slave of the 
priest, went to James and appeared to him ; for James had sworn 
that he would not eat bread from that hour in which he had 
drunk the cup of the Lord until he should see him rising again 
from them that sleep ; and again after a little: Bring, says 
the Lord, food and bread, and immediately there is added : he 
brought bread and blessed and break and gave to James the 
Just and said to him : My brother, eat thy bread, because the 
son of man has risen again from them that sleep. ( Dominus 
autem cum dedisset sindonem servo sacerdotis, ivit ad Jacobum 
et apparuit ei ; juraverat enim Jacobus se non comesurum panem 
ab ilia hora qua biberat calicem domini donee videret eum 
resurgentemadormientibus ; rursusquepost paululum : afferte, 
ait dominus, mensam et panem, statimque additur : tulit 
panem et benedixit ac fregit et dedit Jacobo Justp et dixit ei : 
frater mi, comede panem tuum, quia resurrexit filius hominis a 

This story is, to begin with, untrustworthy, because, 
according to the canonical gospels, James was not 
present at all at the last supper of Jesus. 1 

Lightfoot s conjecture (Gal.(*l ^66 = Dissert, on Apost. Age, 
p. 26) that dominus ought to be read for domini seems, indeed, 
to be supported by some ecclesiastical writers (see in Handmann, 

1 On the simple statement, he appeared to James, i Cor. 
167, see tic. 


4. Gospel 
of the 

TU\. 3 79-62) who reproduce the passage in this sense ; but it is 
by no means certain. The Lord had drunk the cup (biberat 
calicem dominus) would then have reference to the death of 
Jesus ; such a figurative expression, however, is little in keeping 
with the simple narrative style of the fragment. Moreover, the 
bread which Jesus blesses and breaks clearly answers to the 
bread of the eucharist, and this is to the point if James had 
eaten nothing since being present at the last supper. Karlier 
students may have perceived the contradiction between the read 
ing of the Lord (domini) and the canonical narratives just as 
easily as Lightfoot, and on this account have substituted the 
Lord (dominus : in the nom.). 

(b} Nor is the Gospel of the Hebrews wanting at other 
points in equally bold contradictions to the canonical 
gospels. Jesus is represented as having given his linen 
garment to the servant of the high priest. This (apart 
from what we read in the Gospel of Peter ; see below, 
5 b] is the only appearance, anywhere recorded, of 
Jesus to a non-believer. What enormous importance 
would it not possess, were it only historical ! How 
could the evangelists, and Paul, possibly have suffered 
it to escape them ? It is, however, only too easily con 
ceivable that they knew nothing at all about it. 

In order to reach James it was first necessary for Jesus, ac 
cording to our fragment, to walk ; but it was not so in the case 
of the servant of the high priest, who must, accordingly, be 
thought of as having been in the immediate neighbourhood of 
the sepulchre. What was he doing there? The most likely 
conjecture will be that he was taking part in the watching of 
the sepulchre. This, however, means yet another step beyond 
the already unhistorical canonical account (below, g 20), in so far 
as according to Mt. 27 62 66 the chief priests and Pharisees took 
part only in the sealing of the stone at the door of the sepulchre, 
and has its parallel in the part taken by the presbyters in the 
watching of the sepulchre according to the Gospel of Peter (38), 
which, as regards this part of the narrative, goes still another 
step farther than the canonical account (see below, 5 a). It has 
further to be remarked that the linen cloth was the only clothing 
the body had when it was laid in the tomb ( 2 / ) ; Jn. 1940 205-7, 
which speaks of several cloths, is plainly not taken into account 
in the gospel of the Hebrews. This being so it would have been 
too great an offence against decorum that Jesus should have given 
this garment to the servant of the high priest. It will therefore 
be necessary to suppose that he had already assumed another 
form. In that case also, however, the handing over of the 
garment to the servant makes an advance upon the canonical 
account. The synoptists, in reporting the resurrection, make no 
mention of the cloth at all, and in Jn. the clothes are all found 
lying in the sepulchre, which at all events better accords with 
the reserve with which the mystery of the resurrection is treated 
than would be the case if we were asked to believe that Jesus 
had brought the cloth with him from the sepulchre as a trophy 
and deposited it as an ultimate proof of his resurrection. Lastly, 
it has to be remembered how violently the gospel of the Hebrews, 
although in agreement with Paul (i Cor. 167) as regards an 
appearance to James, also conflicts with that apostle in so far 
as it makes out this appearance to have been the first ; also 
how natural it was that precisely in a gospel for Hebrews James, 
the head of the church at Jerusalem, should be glorified by means 
of some such narrative as this. 

(c) In Ignatius (ad Smyrn.^,-2] we meet with the 
following passage : and when he came to those about 
Peter he said to them, Take, handle me and see that I 
am not a demon without a body. And straightway 
they touched him and believed (KCU $re Trpos rovs irepl 
Herpov ?f\6ev, <pTj O.VTOIS \dj3erf i^T/Xa^ijtraT^ /ue /ecu 
tdere Sri OVK flf^l dat/j.6vtov dtrw/uaroy. /cat tvffvs avrov 
rf^avTo Kal ^TriffTfVffav). Eusebius (HE iii. 36 u) 
confesses that he does not know where Ignatius can 
have taken this from. Jerome (Vir. ill. 16), on the 
other hand, informs us that it comes from the Gospel 
of the Hebrews (only he wrongly names the Epistle of 
Ignatius to Polycarp, not that to the Smyrnceans). 

Brandt (390-395 ; see below, 39) plausibly conjectures that the 
quotation belongs to the passage, quoted above under a, marked 
by Jerome by the words again after a little ( rursus post paul 
ulum ) : Jesus appeared to James, then went with him to Peter 
and his companions, permitted himself to be touched there, and 
ordered food to be brought, and so forth. We hear of the invita 
tion to touch him in Lk. 24 39, and that passage, not Jn. 20 27, 
must be the one in view since nothing is said about Thomas, and on 
the other hand bodiless daemon (Saifioviov a<r<apa.TOi ) agrees with 
the spirit (trvevna) of Lk. or with the appearance (^ai/rao-jita, 
v. 37) which is the reading of D and of Marcion, of Marcion 
because in point of fact he really regarded the risen Jesus as a 
spirit (irvev^a). This second fragment, accordingly, conveys 
nothing new. Lk. may unhesitatingly be regarded as its source. 
See, further, below, ga. 

In the fragment of the Gospel of Peter discovered in 


1892 various scholars, and particularly Harnack, have 

_ discerned a maximum of really ancient 

VP? matter ( a first-class source ). 1 It is to 

01 f eter. be observed> however, that, () as regards 

the watch set on the sepulchre, the Peter fragment 

goes still further beyond the canonical account than the 

Gospel to the Hebrews does (see 4 b}. 

Not only do the elders of the Jews keep watch along with the 
Roman soldiers ; the writer also is able to give the name of the 
officer in command of the guard (Petronius) and to inform his 
readers that the stone at the door of the sepulchre was sealed 
with seven seals, and that a booth was erected for the use of the 
guard. What is still more surprising, the soldiers report the 
occurrence of the resurrection not to the chief priests but to 
Pilate, precisely the person from whom, according to Mt. 28 14, 
all knowledge of the fact ought if possible to have been with 
held, and it is Pilate who, at the request of the Jews, enjoins 
silence on the soldiers (28-49). 

(b} The actual resurrection of Jesus, which in the 
canonical accounts is, with noticeable reserve, always only 
indicated as having occurred already, never described, 
is here represented as having occurred before the very 
eyes of the Roman and Jewish watchers, and, indeed, 
in a way which can only be described as grotesque 


During the night the heavens open, two men (youths) come 
down in dazzling splendour, the stone rolls away of its own ac 
cord, the two youths enter the sepulchre, three men re-emerge, 
two of them supporting the third, the heads of the two reach to 
the sky, that of the third goes beyond it (cp Wisd. 18 16) ; a 
cross follows them, and to the question heard from heaven 
Hast thou preached to the dead? it answers Yea ; the 
heavens open once more, a man comes down and enters the 
sepulchre (this is the angel whom the women see there next 
morning). This, however, is not all ; in v. 19 after the cry of 
Jesus My Strength, my Strength, thou hast abandoned me* 
(17 Sih ajiis jiou, T/ 6iW|u.i s jiiov, KaTe Aeii//as ^e thus, in all prob 
ability, by way of toning down the expression of God-forsaken 
ness) we find the words and when he had spoken he was taken 
up (icai fl-Truiis ai/eAij^Srj), which can hardly be understood other 
wise than as meaning a taking up into heaven. 2 This last, 
therefore, is twice related in our fragment ; for that Jesus goes 
into heaven along with the two angels is made clear by the word 
of the angel to the women (v. 56) : he is risen and has gone 
thither whence he was sent (oWon} icai aTnijAOei/ i*el o9ev 

(c) The account of what Mary Magdalene and her 
friends found at the sepulchre (50-57) is essentially in 
agreement with what we read in Mk. So, also, the 
statement that they flee filled with fear, without our 
being told that they related to any one what had oc 
curred. On the closing day of the paschal festival 
the twelve disciples are still weeping and mourning 
in Jerusalem (58/1). 

(d) On this closing day the disciples betake themselves 
each to his home, that is to say, to Galilee. For in v. 60 
the narrative proceeds : but I, Simon Peter, and 
Andrew . . . went (to fish) to the sea, and with us 
were Levi the son of Alphreus whom the Lord ..." 
(here the fragment breaks off). Plainly the continua 
tion related an appearance of Jesus by the sea of Galilee, 
such as we meet with in Jn. 21. Yet in Jn. it is precisely 
Andrew and Levi who are not mentioned. 3 

1 Bruchstiicke dcs Evans. der Apokalypse des FeirusP), 
1893; ACL\\. ( = C~Vzr00/.)l624. 

2 Cp Acts In Mk. 1(5 19. Ss also, which in Mk. 15 37 Lk. 
2^46 rightly says (Jesus) expired (or, ended), has in Mt. 27 50 
his spirit went up ; and Origen (Contni. in. ATt. scries [Lat.], 
ed. de la Rue, 8928^, 140) statim ut clamavit ad patrem 
receptus est. 

3 As regards Levi, Resch ( T U -x. 8829-832 x. 4 196) tries to 
controvert this, maintaining Levi s identity with Matthew (Mk. 
2 14 || Mt. 9g), whom in turn, on account of the like meaning of 
the two names, he identifies with Nathanael who appears in Jn. 
21 2. Of these two identifications, however, even that of Levi 
with Matthew is questioned, and complete identity in the mean 
ings of two names can never be held to prove the identity of the 
bearers. Cp PHILIP, col. 3701, n. i ; NATHANAEL. The 
attempt may be made, without such identifications of different 
names, to maintain the identity of the fact recorded in the 
Gospel of Peter with that recorded in Jn.; this may be done by 
pointing to the possibility that Andrew and Levi may be in 
tended by the two unnamed disciples in Jn. 21 2. It is an 
attempt which would to a certain extent be plausible but only if 
a fact might really be assumed which both writers wish to 
describe. But Jn. 21 1-14 is open to the suspicion of being, not 
a description of a fact, but rather the clothing of an idea ; and 
we may suspect, in particular, that the two unnamed disciples 


(e) The element here that admits of being regarded 
as especially old is that the first appearance of Jesus 
occurs in Galilee and to Peter. Hardly, however, to 
Peter alone as is stated by Paul (i Cor. 15s) and Lk. 
(2434). Furthermore, it might seem to be original here 
that the first appearance does not occur until more than 
eight days after the denth of Jesus. Such, however, 
cannot be regarded with certainty as the meaning of the 

Unquestionably the writer is in error if he thinks that on the 
last day of the paschal festival many pilgrims, and also the 
apostles, set out for their homes ; for this day fell in that year 
on a Sabbath, and even if that had not been so, it had the 
validity of a Sabbath and thus precluded the possibility of 
travelling. Another evidence of ignorance or carelessness in 
matters of chronology is seen in v. 27, where, after describ 
ing the burial of Jesus, Peter goes on to say : we fasted and sat 
mourning and weeping day and night (fuicrbs <cai iffjitpa^) until 
tha Sabbath, although the writer, according to v. 30, rightly 
dates the death of Jesus on the evening of triday. If this be 
so, it is not impossible that he may have regarded the paschal 
festival as one not of eight days duration, but of only two. 
The Sabbath is rightly regarded by him as the first day of the 
feast ; in v. 50 he mentions the Sunday (xupiaioj) as the day on 
which the women visited the sepulchre ; and immediately after 
the words the women fled full of fear, he proceeds in v. 58 to 
add : and it was the last of the days of unleavened bread (ty 
o TeAeuTcu a ri/j.fpa riav av(i.u>v). Although the possibility is not 
excluded that these words transplant us to a later date, it still 
remains the most natural interpretation of the form of expression 
to suppose the meaning to be : but at that time (when the 
women fled) it ivas the last of the days, etc. Thus it is impos 
sible at least to be quite certain that an interval of more than 
eight days between the resurrection and the first appearance of 
Jesus is intended. Besides, as we shall afterwards discover (see 
below, 22 tf), it has not the smallest inherent probability. 

(/) On the whole, then, what we have to say with 
regard to the gospel of Peter must be that, inasmuch as 
the greater part of its contents is of a legendary char 
acter, we cannot rely upon anything we find in it merely 
because it is found in the gospel of Peter. If the reader 
by any chance finds any statements contained in it to 
be credible, he does so on grounds of inherent prob 
ability alone, and must ask, almost in astonishment, 
how by any possibility a statement of such a kind could 
have found its way hither. Moreover, the data which 
come most nearly under this category are already known 
to us from canonical sources : such as that the resurrec 
tion and the ascension were but one and the same act 
( i6e), that the disciples received from the women no 
word as to the state of the sepulchre, and that the first 
appearance of the risen Jesus was in Galilee (Mk. 16 7 f. 
Mt. 287 i6/). The sole statement worthy of credence 
met with in the gospel of Peter and nowhere else is that 
found in v. 27 that the disciples fasted (cp 360). 
In Peter, however, we can have no certainty that the 
author is drawing upon authentic tradition ; he may 
very easily have drawn upon his own imagination for 
this realistic touch. 

There remains yet one other extant account of the 

resurrection by a writer who in like manner did not feel 

r ,. himself bound to follow the canonical 

! accounts ; it occurs in a Coptic book of 

* . 10n anti-Gnostic tendency, found at Akhmim 

narrative. jn Egypt| and described by Carl Schmidt 
(SBA W, 1895, pp. 705-711) ; the conversation of the 
risen Jesus with his disciples contained in it has been 
reproduced and discussed by Harnack ( Theol. Studien 
fur B. Weiss, 1897, pp. 1-8), who dates it somewhere 
between 150 and 180 A. D. 

The contents are as follows : Mary, Martha, and Mary Mag 
dalene wish to anoint the body of Jesus, but find the sepulchre 
empty. Jesus appears to them and says : I am he whom ye 
seek, and bids that one of them go to their brethren and say 
Come, the Master is risen. Martha does so, but meets with 
no credence, and Mary, whom Jesus sends after Martha has 
reported her failure, has no better success. Finally Jesus him 
self goes along with the women, calls the disciples out, and, as 

were added only in order to gain the complete number seven 
(below, $ 29 c; SIMON PETER, 22 c). Therefore, to identify 
with the account in the Gospel of Peter (to which Gospel the 
idea intended in Jn. was presumably quite foreign), the identi 
fication being based on so slender a foundation, would be very 



they still continue to be in doubt, bids Peter, Thomas, and 
Andrew touch his hands, his side, and his feet respectively, 
citing also Wisd. 18 17. Then they confess their sins, especially 
their unbelief. 

This narrative contains much that is new, but nothing 
that could claim greater credibility than the canonical 
gospels. An appearance of Jesus occurs at the sepulchre, 
not, however, to one woman or two, as in Jn. and Mt. 
respectively, but to three ; so also the unbelief of the 
disciples dwelt on in Lk. 241137(41) reappears in intensi 
fied form, and in addition to Thomas two other disciples 
are bidden touch the wounds of Jesus. 

Other isolated details also, differing from those com 
monly current, have come down to us from a time, pre- 
_ , . , sumably, in which older traditions still 

extra canonical C0ntinued tO P roduce after-effects. 
,anom (a) Cod. Bobbiensis (k) has this inter- 
11S> polation before Mk. 16 4 (see Old Latin 

Biblical Texts, 2 22) : Suddenly, however, at the third 
hour, darkness came on by day throughout the whole 
world and angels came down from heaven and will rise 
(read : and rising) in the brightness of the living God 
went up with him, and forthwith it was light ( subito 
autem ad horam tertiam tenebrse diei factae sunt per totum 
orbem terras et descenderunt de ccelis angeli et surgent 
(read: surgentes) in claritate vivi dei simul ascenderunt 
cum eo et continuo lux facta est ). This about the angels 
agrees with the Gospel of Peter (see above, 5 b], except 
that there the event occurs during the night, whilst in 
cod. k we are bidden think of it as preceded by an eclipse 
and therefore as happening by day at the third hour, in 
other words at q A. M. 

It is, however, hard to believe that the interpolator actually 
supposed that the women took some three hours (from sunrise) 
to consider who should roll away the stone (10 2). Perhaps the 
time datum is the result of a confusion. This would be all the 
easier because a darkness is elsewhere reported as having oc 
curred at the crucifixion although, to be sure, in the afternoon 
from twelve till three (so also in Gospel of Peter, 15, 22). 

If we leave the darkness out of account and understand the 
third hour according to Roman and modern reckoning as 
three o clock in the morning, then the final clause continuo lux 
facta est agrees with both texts of the Anaphora. Pilati (A, 9 
= B, 8, in Tischendorfs Evang. Apocr.C^) 440, 447), according 
to which at this hour the sun rose, manifestly to mark the time 
of the resurrection. 1 So also agrees Lagarde s reconstruction 
of the Didaskalia, 5 14, which Resch (TUx.3 756) quotes from 
Bunsen s An<ilecta Anteniccena, 2 313 : that Jesus slept through 
out the Sabbath and for three hours over and above. One has 
only to reckon the day in Roman fashion from midnight to 

(/>) In the Didaskalia (extant in Syriac), which came 
into existence in the third century, based upon older 
sources, we read (ed. Lagarde, 88 f. , according to 
Resch, TY/x. 8761) that during the night before the 
dawn of the first day of the week Jesus appeared to 
Mary Magdalene and Mary the daughter of James, and 
in the morning of the first day of the week he entered the 
house of Levi, and then he appeared also to us; more 
over he said to us while he was instructing us : Where 
fore do ye fast on my account in these days ? and so 
on. Mention is made of Levi in the Gospel of Peter 
also (above, 5 </), but in a wholly different connection. 
The fasting is also mentioned there ( 5 [/]). The 
second Mary is called the daughter (not the mother) of 
James in Ss also. 

(c) According to K, Syr. cur Syr. hieros , Vg. etc., in 
Lk. 24.43 Jesus gives what is left from what he ate (i.e. , 
according to TR and AV, fish and an honeycomb) to 
the disciples. 

(d) In Tatian s Diatessaron Capernaum is named in 
Mt. 28i6 instead of the mountain in Galilee. In the 
scene by the open sepulchre which Tatian gives after 
Jn. Mary is named without any addition, and Ephrem 
in his commentary understands this of Mary the mother 
of Jesus. This is indicated also by the fact that previ 
ously she has been entrusted by the crucified Jesus in 
the words of Jn. 1926/. to the beloved disciple. Never 
theless there may be a confusion here, as the Diatessaron 

1 Apart from this reference we leave the Anaph. Pit. out of 
consideration as being a late and highly legendary work. 


elsewhere undouCtedly makes use of the canonical 

(e) A Christian section of the Ascensio Jesaice (813- 
4 18 ; see SIMON PETER, 27) presents a variation on 
the Gospel of Peter. Upon [the watch of] those who 
watched the sepulchre follows the descent of the angel 
of the church which is in heaven (815 : T\ Kardpacris 
TOV ayytXov TT?S eKK\r/crias TT?S ev otpavtf), and the 
angel of the Holy Spirit [Gabriel?], and Michael the 
chief of the holy angels on the third day will open the 
sepulchre and the Beloved sitting on their shoulders will 
come forth (3i6/ : 6 &yye\os TOV Trv(i i/j.a.TOS TOV ayiov 
Kal Mixa?jX dpxwv TUV dyyeXuv T&V ayiu>i> TTJ Tpiry 
i]/j.^pq. avTov dvoi^ovcnv TO nvrnj.oveiov Kal 6 dyawijTos 
Katfiffas lirl roi)s &fj.ovs O.VT.I> e^eAeiWrat). 

(f) From a still later date we have a recent notice of 
an apocryphal work, in a Georgian translation, belonging 
according to Harnack to the fifth or the sixth century ; 
it relates to Joseph of Arimatha;a, and we are told that 
its hero is expressly spoken of as the first to whom Jesus 
appeared. He had been thrown into prison by the 
Jews for having begged the body of Jesus (SB A W, 1901, 
pp. 920-931, and, more fully, von Dobschiitz in Z. f. 
Kirchengesch. 23 1-27 [1902]). 

In any event all these notices serve to show how 
busily and in how reckless a manner the accounts of the 
resurrection of Jesus continued to be handed on. 

The shorter conclusion of Mk. (that headed "AXAws 
by WH) contents itself with simply saying the opposite 

8. Mk. 169-20. 

of the statement (that the women said 

nothing to anyone of what they had 
seen and heard at the grave) in 168; but the longer 
conclusion gives a variety of details. 

(a) A brief summary of its most important points has 
been given already (see GOSPELS, 138^) ; but it will 
be necessary to examine more closely some of the current 
views respecting it. 

Rohrbach (see below, 39), in his hypothesis based upon 
certain indications of Harnack, gives his adhesion to the opinion 
of Conybeare {Expos. 1893^, pp. 241-254), that Mk. 169-20 is the 
work of the presbyter Aristion. We shall discuss this thesis in 
the form in which it has been adopted by Harnack {ACL ii. 
[ = Ch)-on.]\ 695-700). In order to displace the genuine con 
clusion of Mk. (see below, 9) in favour of another which should 
be more in agreement with the other three gospels, and at the 
same time be the work of an authoritative person, the presbyters 
of the Johannine circle in Asia Minor who brought together the 
four gospels into a unity took a memorandum by the presbyter 
Aristion who, according to Papias, had beer, a personal disciple 
of Jesus (JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE, 4). 

(b) Harnack and Rohrbach, in order to maintain the 
literary independence of Aristion, find it necessary to 
den} that Mk. 1 69-20 is a mere excerpt from the canonical 
gospels and other writings. In this, however, they 
cannot but fail. The borrowing, indeed, is not made 
word for word ; in point of fact, however, even the 
smallest departure from the sources admits of explana 
tion on grounds that are obvious. Verse 9 is compounded 
from Jn.20i 11-17 and Lk. 82 ; vv. 10 f. from Jn.20i8 
and Lk. 24 10 / . ; v. 12 reproduces Lk. 2413-32 and v. i^a 
Lk. 243335. That the eleven did not believe the disciples 
from Emmaus (v. 136) directly contradicts Lk. 2434 it is 
true ; but this is easily explicable from the view of the 
author that unbelief was the invariable effect of the 
accounts as to appearances of the risen Jesus a view 
which (v. 14) he expressly puts into the mouth of Jesus 
himself. Thus it is by no means necessary to postulate 
an independent source ; all that is needed is unity in 
the fundamental conception of the matter. 

(c) Zahn (Einl. 52 = 2227-240) derives vv. 14-18 from 
Aristion, but declines to do so alike in the case of vv. 
9-13 and in that of 19 f. In 14-18 he finds not mere 
compilation but actual narrative, and that without 
dependence on the canonical gospels. In reality, how 
ever, v. 14 simply carries further what is found in Lk. 
242538 Jn.2(>27; v. 15 is an adaptation of -Mt. 2819 to 
Pauline and Catholic phraseology ( world [/cocrjuos], 
preach the gospel [KTjpva-ffeiv TO evayye\i.ov], creature 
[/cTiVts]), and if baptism in the name of the Trinity is 








xvi. 9-20 







(and servant 

soldiers and 


of priest ?) 

Jesus comes 

in the 
night ; with 


2 angels ; 

stone re 

moves itself 

Time when 
women come 

after sun 

evening be 

before sun 

before sun 

(in the 

in the 

night be 

Stone when 
women come 

already re 

is removed 
by angel : 

already re 

already re 

already re 

(already re 


Angels when 






women come 



3 : Mary" 
Magd.; M. 
(the less 

2 : Mary 
mother of 
James and 

M. Magd.; 
Joanna; M. 
of James; 
and others 


M. Magd. 
and her 

M. Magd. 


and J oses); 




she tells 



the watchers ! (Peter ?) 

Peter and 

the watchers 


the beloved 



In sepulchre 

the angel 


a the cloths 

the angel 


b the angels 

See Jesus at 

the 2 women ; 
touch Jesus 

M. Magd.; 
does not 

the watchers 

the 3 women 


touch J. 

See Jesus (at 

M. Magd. 

the servant ; 


sepulchre !) 

Jesus gar 




of James 

Angel s charge 

to send dis 

to send dis 

ciples to 

ciples to 



Jesus charge 


to announce 



not made 

(not made) 

to whom 

(the dis 

the ii and a see above 

the disciples 

the disciples 


others /; the (ii) 




journey to 







Peter? .. Peter 

James ; 


bread for 


2atEmmaus; .. 2 (at Em- 


supper maus) 

the twelve 

the (ii) dis 

the ii dis 
ciples ; 

the ii, with the(io)dis- 
others ; ciples ; 

the ii ; 

Peter with 
others ; 

Peter, An 
drew, Levi 

the (ii) dis 
ciples ; 


(& others?) 


doors ; 


some doubt; they doubt ; 

Jesus J. shows his 




touched ; wounds ; 



eats [var. : 


with discc.]; 


missionary (missionary 


command ;i command ; command); 


I am with Holy Spirit Holy Spirit 


youalway promised given 

over 500 


(James, see 



all the 

the ii dis 




doors : 

J. touched 

7 disciples ; 

bread and 

fish for them 





a Jerusalem; 

(Jerusalem?) (Jerusalem?) 

Sea of Gal. 






(at the 

first evening first morn- at a mea 

a at death 


ACTS . , ing (on the ist 
after 40 days 

b at the re 


not mentioned that becomes very intelligible after Cony- 
beare s demonstration (ZNTW, 1901, pp. 275-288 ; cp 
Hibb. Journ. i , p. <)(>ff. ) that even Eusebius down to 325 
A.D. read nothing as to this in Mt. (cp MINISTRY, 5^). 
Verse 16 is the most elaborated dogmatic of the apostolic 
and post-apostolic time (Acts 1631 ; MINISTRY, 26). 
The casting-out of devils in v. 17 rests on Mk. 6713 Mt. 
10 1 Lk. 9 1 10 17, the speaking with new tongues (i.e., 
languages of foreign peoples) on Acts 2 1-13 (cp SPIRITUAL 
GIFTS, 10) ; they shall take up serpents (v. 18) is 
borrowed partly from Acts 28 3-6 and partly from the 
express promise of Jesus in Lk. 10 19 ; the gift of healing 
of diseases by laying-on of hands from Acts 28 8. With 
out limitation to the method by imposition of hands such 
a gift is already bestowed upon the apostles in Mt. 10 1 
Lk. 9 1, and is exercised by them in Mk. 613 Lk. 96. 

The drinking of deadly poison with impunity is the only thing 
for which we have to look outside of the NT canon ; but here 
it is not Aristion that we encounter but the daughters of Philip, 
from whom Papias claims to have heard of such a thing in the 

It is very easily explained as being a glos 

(d) The conclusion of Mk. betrays no acquaintance 
with Jn. 21 or the Gospel of Peter ; on the other hand 
we cannot say with confidence that the author had 
occasion to use them even had he known them. In the 
Gospel of Peter (27) the disciples are spoken of as in 
Mk. 16 10 as mourning and weeping (Trevdovvres /ecu 
K\a.iovTfs). But this collocation of words is quite 
current (Lk. 625 Jas. 4g Rev. 18 n 15 19), and the idea 
conveyed was an obvious one both from the situation 
itself and also as fulfilment of the prophecy in Jn. 1620, 
and thus is no proof of literary dependence. 

(<?) There is thus no particular reason why we 
should assign to a personal disciple of Jesus such as 
Aristion the authorship of so meagre an excerpt as 
Mk. 169-20 from which absolutely nothing new is to be 

A marginal gloss comparatively late it may be in an Oxford 
MS. of Rufinus speaks of the story about Justus Barsabas in 
Eus. HE iii. 39 9 (see above, c) as a communication from Aristion 
(Expos. 1893, b, p. 246). Should this happen to rest upon older 
tradition, it conceivably may have been what furnished the 
occasion for attributing to Aristion first the allusion to the same 
thing in Mk. 10 18 and afterwards erroneously the whole passage 
ini. 9-20. 

(_/") Neither is there much greater probability in the conjecture 
of Resch (TU-a. 2450-456) that in Conybeare s Armenian Manu 
script by the presbyter Ariston is meant the Jewish Christian 
Ariston of Pella in Peraja, to whom the Dialogue between Jason 
and Papiscus is attributed. There is absolutely nothing specific 
ally Jewish-Christian in the conclusion of Mk. (see above, b, c). 
The other part of Resch s hypothesis that it was this Ariston 
who at the same time gathered together the four gospels into 
one _whole is quite inadmissible. Resch is able to make out a 
Jewish-Christian character for this grouping only insomuch as 
Mt. is assigned the first place. 

Even apart, however, from the question about Ariston and 
Aristion the attempt to bring into close connection the composi 
tion of Mk. 16 9-20 and the grouping of the four gospels as sole 
canonical sources for the life of Jesus must be given up. 

If, however, there be even merely an element of truth 

1 Jer. contr. Pelag. 2 15 ; ed. Vallarsi, Z 75 8_f. Zahn (Gesch. 
d. NTlicken Kanons, 2935-938; EM. 52, n. 7) defends the 
reading sub Satana . . . qui given above ; the usual reading 
is substantia . . . qua;. 

- Van Kasteren (Rev. bibl. internal., 1902, pp. 240-255) seeks 
to defend the authenticity of this appendix. He maintains, be- 
sides,_that the whole passage (16 9-20) has been used in Hermas, 
Sim. ix. 252, and even in Heb. 1 1-4 23-5. These arguments 
are missing in Burgon, Last Twelve Verses of Mk. (1871), and 
rightly. They rest only on vague resemblances which would be 
quite as capable of supporting the posteriority as the priority of 
Mk. 169-20, if they necessarily implied literary acquaintance. 



in the theory that the genuine conclusion of Mk. was 
9 Lost remove d on account of its inconsistency 

conclusion with the other S 05 ? 615 - we are led to the 
of Mk conjecture that what it stated must have 
been all the more original in proportion 
as the others are recent. 

(a) Harnack and Rohrbach suppose that the lost 
conclusion was what lay at the foundation of the Gospel 
of Peter and Jn. 21. 

What is said, they think, was to the effect that as the women 
said nothing about what had occurred at the sepulchre (16s) the 
disciples went to Galilee not at the command of Jesus but (as 
in the Gospel of Peter) of their own motion and in deep depres 
sion. Here Jesus appeared to a group of them by the lake as 
they were fishing (so far the Gospel of Peter) and rehabilitated 
Peter who had been overwhelmed with a sense of his guilt in 
denying Jesus (cp Jn. 21 15-17). The saying of Jesus, on the 
other hand, about the beloved disciple (20-24) > s an addition of 
the author of Jn. 21. Apart from that saying Jn. 21 describes 
the first appearance of the risen Jesus, which is given as the 
third appearance (21 14) only in order to bring Lk. and Jn. into 
agreement. Rohrbach seeks to discover in the genuine con 
clusion of Mk. also an appearance of Jesus to the eleven, and 
brings into connection with this the fragment in Ignatius spoken 
of above ( ^c) which Rohrbach would fain detach from the 
Gospel of the Hebrews and claim for the genuine conclusion of 

(b} Of such hypotheses we may admit everything that 
can be based upon Mk. 167. Even if the women, as 
we read in v. 8, kept silence as to the injunction of the 
angel, it still remains the fact that, according to the view 
of the author, it was the divine will that the disciples 
and Peter should go to Galilee and there see the risen 
Jesus. That the disciples should have fulfilled this in 
junction without being acquainted with it is explained 
in the Gospel of Peter by the fact that the festival 
had come to an end ; according to GOSPELS, 138 a, 
there is a quite different explanation. In any case it 
is clear that it cannot have been Mk. s intention to 
close his gospel at 168 ; he must have treated also the 
Galilaean events for which he had prepared his readers. 
From the remarkable order his disciples and Peter 
we must not conclude that an appearance to the disciples 
was first related and then one to Peter ; for it is not 
said that his disciples and Peter will see him, but Tell 
his disciples and Peter. All we can conjecture with 
any confidence is that Peter in some way or other played 
a special part in the lost narrative. 

(c] What we find in Harnack and Rohrbach going 
beyond this is quite untenable. That the Gospel of 
Peter and Jn. 21 have no common source, results at the 
outset from the fact that the names of the apostles on 
the shore of the lake are not the same (cp 5^, n. ) 
That Jn. 21 originally was a description of the first 
appearance of the risen Jesus, is in itself not impossible ; 
but there is nothing that directly indicates it. 

The reserve of the disciples, in particular (21 12), in virtue of 
which none of them durst ask the Lord who he was, would be 
appropriate, not only at the first, but at any appearance. In 
the consummately delicate manner in which it is referred to in 
w. 15-17, Peter s denial could have been alluded to at any other 
appearance besides the first, if the situation presented occasion 
for it ; and a rehabilitation of Peter which one cannot help 
expecting at the first appearance, need not have carried with it, 
in the first instance, more than his restoration to grace, not his 
investiture with the office of leader of the church (cp 371:). 
This installation of Peter, however, is explained much more 
readily by reference to a later ecclesiastical situation. The 
Fourth Gospel at its first publication had met with opposition, 
and in the circles in which it had arisen it was perceived that it 
would fail to meet with ecclesiastical recognition if the great 
prominence given to the beloved disciple and the comparative 
depreciation of Peter, which run through the entire book (see 
SIMON PETER, 22), were to be continued. It was determined, 
therefore, to recognise in an appendix the authority of Peter to 
some extent (MINISTRY, 36 a). If this be so, however, the 
words about the abiding importance of the beloved disciple 
(21 20-24), as a l so about the death of Peter (21 i8_/!). which would 
certainly be inappropriate at a first appearance, will be integral 
parts, not merely inorganically attached additions. Vet once 
more, the thought that Jesus instituted a substitute for the 
Last Supper (in 21 13 the reminiscence of this is quite manifest) 
is not appropriate to a first appearance of Jesus, but must be 
regarded as the result of after reflection (see 29 c). 

(d} Harnack and Rohrbach become very specially 
involved in obscurities when they maintain that the 



genuine conclusion of Mk. with its first appearance of 
Jesus was at the same time in agreement with the 
account in i Cor. 15s, and with that in Lk. 2434, 
according to which Jesus appeared to Peter. The 
expression of Paul, and in like manner that of Lk. , 
unquestionably mean : to Peter alone. That, however, 
is exactly what Jn. 21 does not say, nor yet in all 
probability did the Gospel of Peter. 

In Jn. 21 7 not only is Peter not the only one to recognise 
Tesus ; he is not even the first ; the first is the beloved disciple. 
Kohrbach has recourse to the conjecture that, in the genuine 
conclusion of Mk., at the decisive scene, the recognition of Jesus 

nising Jesus, or were not present at all, and that this scene was 
followed by another separate appearance to the eleven (above, 
a). Harnack, to judge by his silence, does not accept this, but 
in doing so leaves it all the more unclear how far the appear 
ance to several disciples is to be held the same as an appearance 
to Peter (alone). 

(e) If such an appearance cannot be assumed to have 
been contained in the lost conclusion of Mk. with cer 
tainty, the attempt must also be abandoned to invest 
the passage with the nimbus which would attach to it if 
it had really contained the full narrative of what Paul 
and Lk. (2434) dismiss with a single word as the earliest 
of the occurrences after the resurrection of Jesus. The 
lost conclusion in question may have been relatively 
more original than the canonical and extra-canonical 
accounts which have come down to us ; but we cannot 
safely venture to regard it as having been absolutely the 

If now it has been made out that the extra-canonical 
accounts contain nothing of any consequence which 

, _ , n i- goes beyond the canonical except 
10. 1 Cor. loi-n f , . -; , 

in itself (ultimately) the existence of an interval 

, of more than eight days between the 
considered. , , 

resurrection of Jesus and his first 

appearance ( 5?) and that the canonical gospels 
are at irreconcilable variance with each other, we have 
finally to turn to the narrative of Paul. It has fared 
badly. Reimarus and Lessing completely ignored it. 
The entire bod) of conservative theology denies it any 
decisive importance, and the most advanced critical 
theology in rejecting all the Pauline epistles of course 
rejects this also. It is very striking to observe, how 
ever, how slight are the objections that can be brought 
against it. Let us take, in the first place, those which 
are urged against the account in itself considered. 

(a) Steck (Galater-br., i8S8, pp. 180-191) finds at the very 
outset that the word make known" (yrwpuju : i Cor. 15 1) 
shows the writer to have been aware that he was making a 
statement which, at the time of his making it (according to 
Steck, in the 2nd cent.), was new. The answer is simple; a 
writer can surely quite easily say of a thing already known 
I make known unto you, if he wishes to call attention to it as 
something very weighty, or desires gently to reproach or rebuke 
his readers for not having kept it in mind. The remark holds 
good here as well as in \"i 3 ( lal. In. 

(b) According to 15 n what precedes is given out alike by 
Paul and by the original apostles. Steck holds it to be 
artificially composed to suit such a purpose ; the twelve would 
represent the narrower circle of disciples destined for the 
mission to the Jews ; the 500 that wider circle, hinted at in 
Lk. 10 i, for the mission to the Gentiles. In this case, however, 
we are constrained to ask why the author, who according to 
Steck had full scope for his fancy, should have chosen the 
number 500, not 70? And why does he cite James (surely a 
Jewish Christian !) after, not before, the alleged representatives 
of the Gentile mission, and afterwards, over and above, all the 
apostles, whom no one can assert to have belonged distinctly 
to the Jewish-Christian or to the Gentile-Christian circle? 

(c) Whether the original apostles included in their preaching 
also this, that Jesus had appeared to Paul, may be regarded as 
questionable in view of their strained relations with Paul. At 
an earlier date, however, when the churches of Judaea glorified 
God in Paul (Gal. 1 23^) they certainly proclaimed it, since the 
conversion of this most zealous opponent of Christianity cannot 
but have seemed to them to be the greatest triumph of the new 
religion. Accordingly, Paul might very well assume that they 
were still doing so. Yet it must not by any means be positively 
affirmed that he says so; for from i Cor. 156 onwards the 
verbs no longer depend, as in w. 3-5, on how that (on) ; the 
sentences are all independent propositions. Otherwise we 
should be compelled to go so far as to say that Paul describes 
the contents of v. 8 also that is, the appearance of Jesus to 


himself as something which according to v. 3 he has received 
(jrapeAa/Soi/). Steck does not shrink from drawing this infer 
ence. In doing so, however, he does the writer an injustice. 
For when the writer wrote t . 3, his intention was to set forth 
what he had received ; but he was surely not thereby precluded 
from adding something of the same kind with regard to himself, 
of which the readers would be able to see for themselves that he 
had not received it. In like manner also he must not be 
debarred from saying in v. 1 1 , by way of resvmt, that he and 
the original apostles preach in the manner stated in the pre 
ceding context, although certainly TJ. <jf., perhaps also v. 8, 
do not form part of the preaching of the original apostles. 

(if) Van >lanen (J aulus, 8, 1896, pp. 67-71) finds 15i-n out 
of agreement with vt>. 12-58 ; for in the former passage the hope 
of a future resurrection of the Ixidy is made to depend upon the 
fact of the resurrection of Jesus, whilst in the latter it is held 
upon quite different grounds into which this fact does not enter. 
It must be noted, however, that if a thing rests upon more 
grounds than one, it u quite fitting that these should be set 
forth separately. Besides, in point of fact, the resurrection of 
Jesus is returned to in v. 20 as having a bearing upon the 

(if) Another point made by Van Manen is that was seen 
(i^)6hr)) is repeated inv. 6, but not in v. $/>. That, however, really 
proves nothing against either the genuineness or the unity of 
the section. The addition in v. 6 of whom the greater part 
remain until now, but some are fallen asleep is found by Van 
Manen too copious in style after the curt expressions in ZT. 3-5 ; 
and, moreover, he considers it to be brought in too late, since, if 
such an observation were to be made with reference to the 500, 
it ought also to have been mentioned with regard to the 12, 
whether they were still alive or not. But here again it may be 
replied that the Corinthians either knew or could have informed 
themselves as to the twelve, whilst the case was different with 
the 500. As for all the apostles (TOIJ an-ocrroAois Tracru ) in 
! . 7, to which Van Manen takes particular exception on the 
ground that they are identical with the Peter and the twelve" 
in 7>. 5, our reply must simply be that this is not the case ; see 

(/) Paul s designation of himself (15 9) as the least of the 
apostles, is regarded by Van Manen as not in agreement with 
his claim to apostolic rank and authority (1 i 4 i69 if. 11 16). Vet 
a solution of the apparent contradiction can be found in 15 10 : 
not I, but the grace of God. Besides, the slight against Paul 
would be unintelligible on the part of an admirer of his in the 
second century ; it is intelligible only in the mouth of Paul 
himself, who elsewhere also shows himself as ready to humble 
himself in the sight of God as he is disinclined to do so before 

(g) A further argument of Van Manen (p. 126) is that in 
158-10 the life of the apostle is looked back upon as already 
completed. Vet Paul might also look back upon his life so far 
as completed and say quite fairly, as he does say : I laboured 
more abundantly than they all. 

(k] In particular, no difficulty ought to be caused by 
the words : last of all he appeared to me also. Paul 
could quite well have been aware that since the appear 
ance of Jesus made to himself, no other had been 
reported. But of those which he himself, according 
to 2 Cor. 12 1-4 46, afterwards lived to experience, none 
approached to that of Damascus in fundamental import 
ance ; thus he had all the more occasion to close his 
series with it, because his first vision of the risen Jesus 
may itself have occurred a considerable time after the 
other appearances ( 36 [/"]), and importance attached 
to the number of distinct persons who had seen visions, 
rather than to the number of visions such persons 
had had. 

For the rest, Brandt (414^?) gives up as un-Pauline only one 
expression : as unto the one born out of due season (w<r;rpti 
TU> eicrpuijicaTi), which he considers to have been borrowed by a 
glossator from the Valentinian gnosis (cp Straatman, Krit. Stud, 
overt Cor.,\o\. 2, Groningen, 1865, pp. 196-204). Yet no stringent 
necessity for this is apparent. It is true that the expression 
(fKTp(afj.a) does not literally fit Paul, for it denotes an early birth, 
whereas he could more appropriately have been called a late 
birth. There is some difficulty, therefore, in supposing that 
Paul himself can have actually chosen this expression. To 
meet this difficulty we may perhaps suppose that Paul is taking 
up a phrase which had been used against him by way of 
repronch, because after all it has some applicability to his case. 
This theory would also best explain the definite article (before 
eKTpu>na.Tt), which is reproduced neither in AV nor in RV ( one 
born ). 

That i Cor. 15i-ii is dependent on the Gospels has 
been pronounced impossible even by Steck, since it 
11 iCor 15i-n conta ns appearances of Jesus which 

older than " are not ^ oun< ^ there. It is only the 

the Gospels earlier date of I Con that StK * dis 

(a) Steck regards it as certainly historical that the 


first news of the resurrection of Jesus was brought by 
the women. In the omission of this point from i Cor. 
he finds an artificial touch ; the more naive representa 
tion is that of the Gospels. 

Even if it be granted for the moment that the narrative about 
the women at the sepulchre is historical, the attitude of con 
servative theology itself shows that the priority of the gospels 
by no means follows, for that theology attributes to the 
historical Paul, who wrote his epistles before the gospels were 
composed, a deliberate silence about the women. If, however, 
the genuineness of the Pauline epistles cannot be effectively 
disputed from this point of view, the question whether Paul did 
not wish to say anything about the women, or whether he did 
not know about them, remains quite open (cp 15). 

(t>) Steck conjectures further that matters in which 
i Cor. partially agrees with the Gospels, had been 
drawn by both from a common source. Thus the 
appearance to the 500 is perhaps a modification of the 
original account of what happened at Pentecost. The 
two accounts are, however, totally different. Steck 
resorts to his conjecture, only because he finds the 
application of the vision -hypothesis to the case of 
500 men at once too difficult. As to this see, however, 
36 e. 

(c) The appearance to James in i Cor. is considered 
by Steck to be derived from the source of the Gospel 
to the Hebrews, or from that Gospel itself. Here, 
however, the question arises : Which is the more 
original? The bare statement he appeared to James, 
or the incredible fable discussed above ( 417, 6)? In 
fact the question conies up in a still more general form : 
Which is the more original the bare narrative of Paul 
as a whole, or that of the Gospels ? In itself considered, 
a narrative so brief as that given in i Cor. 15 could, 
doubtless, be regarded as a later excerpt, as we have 
shown to be the case with Mk. 169-20 ( 86, c}. But 
the distinction in the Mk. appendix is just this, that the 
excerpt is characterised, not by its bareness, but by its 
embodying the most legendary features. Its freedom 
from such features will always speak in favour of the 
priority of i Cor. 15, so long as the spuriousness of the 
entire epistle remains unproven. As to this last cp 
GALATIANS, 1-9. Indeed, were one compelled to 
give up the genuineness of the epistle as a whole, it 
would still be necessary to affirm with Brandt (415) 
that the high antiquity of 15i-n (before the Gospels 
had arisen) stands fast quite apart from the question of 
its belonging to i Cor. Nor is the question why the 
Gospels, if they are later, have passed over so much 
that is given in i Cor. 15 unanswerable (see 23^). 

If we may venture to assume the priority of the 

Pauline account to that of the Gospels, the main 

_, . . question will be whether or no Paul 

.Complete ( omitted any accounts of the resurrec- 
of 1 Oor.l5i-n. tion of j esus which %vere knowu to 

him. Did we not possess the Gospels, the idea that he 
has done so would never have occurred to any one. 
For Paul nothing less than the truth of Christianity 
rested upon the actuality of the resurrection of Jesus 
(i Cor. 15 14/1 17-19). Paul himself had once found it 
impossible to believe ; he knew, therefore, how strong 
was the inclination to disbelief. All the more carefully, 
therefore, must he have sought to inform himself of 
everything that could be said in its support. During 
his fifteen clays visit to Peter and James (Gal. Ii8/i), 
he had the best opportunity to perfect his knowledge on 
the subject in the most authentic manner. In Corinth 
the future resurrection and, along with it, as a logical 
consequence according to the argument of Paul ( i Cor. 
15i2i6), also the resurrection of Jesus was disputed, and 
the entire basis of the Christian church called in 
question. In 15 12-58 Paul presents every possible 
argument wherewith to confute the deniers of the resur 
rection ; is it in these circumstances conceivable that he 
could have passed over any proofs of the resurrection of 
Jesus, whilst yet holding that resurrection to be the 
first and most important fact wherewith to silence his 
opponents ? But indeed his very manner of expressing 


himself excludes this in the most decisive manner. By 
his careful enumeration with then . . . next . . . 
next . . . then . . . lastly (etra . . . ^Treira . . . 
^Tretra . . . elra . . . laxarov ; 15s-8) he guarantees 
not only chronological order but also completeness. 

The only point which one can venture along with 

Brandt (415) to leave open, is whether Paul here is only 

P IB- re P eatm S a fixed number of appearances 

. - which- according to 15 n he was in the 

habit of bringing forward everywhere, in 

appearances. a g reement w j t h tne original apostles, in 

his preaching of the resurrection of Jesus. 

Now it is not inconceivable that from such an enumeration 
this or that appearance to inconspicuous persons, which seemed 
not to be attested with absolute certainty, or not to be of 
sufficient importance, may have been excluded, just as we find 
that of those received by Paul himself, only the first is related 
( io//). This concession, however, in no way alters the signific 
ance for Gospel criticism of the Pauline account ; for to this 
category of accounts which Paul might conceivably in certain 
circumstances very well have omitted, that to the two disciples 
at Emmaus a singularly characteristic narrative assuredly 
does not belong ; and still less do the other gospel narratives 
which all of them speak of appearances of Jesus to the most 
prominent persons known to ancient Christianity, and in circum 
stances of the most significant kind. 

It is not to be denied that Paul only enumerates the 

appearances of Jesus ; he does not describe them. It 

_ will therefore be illegitimate to argue 

. from his silence that he rejects or knows 

, . . nothing of any special circumstances 

Vi r\ 9 which may have been connected with 
toucned . this or that appeararice Stilli it cloes 

not by any means follow that we are at liberty to regard 
such important facts as that Jesus ate, or permitted 
himself to be touched, as matters which Paul knew but 
passed over. They are of such fundamental import 
ance, and go so far beyond the mere fact of his having 
been seen, that Paul, had he known them, could not 
but have mentioned them, unless he deliljerately chose 
to let slip the most important proofs for his contention. 

It is a great mistake to reply that Paul knew that Jesus had 
eaten and been touched, but passed over both as being incon 
sistent with his doctrine that flesh and blood cannot inherit the 
kingdom of God (i Cor. 15 50). When this is said, it is rightly 
presupposed indeed that Paul regarded the risen Christ as 
being already exalted to heaven (cp i6e). This doctrine, 
however, is one which Paul first elaborated for himself as a 
Christian ; as a Jew he knew no other conception of the resur 
rection than that which thought of all forms of life in the future 
world as exactly reproducing those of the present (cp 17 c). 
If, accordingly, he had heard from eyewitnesses that Jesus had 
eaten and been touched, this would have fitted in most ex 
cellently with the idea of the resurrection which he entertained 
at the time of his conversion, and he would have had no 
occasion to construct another in an opposite sense, i Cor. 15 50 
accordingly does not prove that Paul knew that Jesus had 
eaten and been touched, but was silent because he did not like 
to think this true : it shows, on the contrar}-, that he had never 
heard anything of the kind. 

That Paul knew of the empty sepulchre, also, can be 

maintained only in conjunction with the assumption 

that for particular reasons he kept 

JM 1? silence regarding it. i 
and tne empty ^ Most perverse of all would it be 

sepulcnre. to seek for such reasons j n t <j or- j4 34 . 
Even on the assumption that in: 33^-35 are genuine 
(which, in view of the inconsistency with lls 13 and the 
introduction of 14 34 / after 14 40 in DEFG, etc. , is very 
questionable) the words are directed only against the 
intervention of women in the meeting of the congre 
gation and merely on grounds of decorum ; by no 
means against the testimony of women as to a matter 

1 It is quite illegitimate to find a testimony to the empty 
sepulchre in Paul s that he hath been raised (OTL e-jyyepTot : 
i Cor. 15 4) on the special ground that he connects the that he 
was seen (on ia^&rf) by means of and (<cai) and thereby seems 
to indicate that he knows of an independent evidence of the 
resurrection of Jesus apart from the fact of his having been seen. 
If he really knew of any such evidence it was his interest to 
mention it. If, however, the only evidence he had was the fact 
that Jesus had been seen he still was under necessity, from his 
own point of view, to regard the being raised up as a separate 
fact. He would have said less than he believed himself entitled 
to say had he omitted this. 



of fact, least of all a fact of such importance and one 
with regard to which they alone were in a position to 
give evidence. 

(l>) Not less wide of the mark is the other explanation 
of Paul s silence upon the empty sepulchre, that the 
idea of a reanimation of the dead body did not fit in 
with his theology. If it were indeed the fact that his 
theology was opposed to this, it is nevertheless true 
that this theology of his came into being only after his 
conversion to Christianity. When he first came to 
know of Jesus as risen he was still a Jew and therefore 
conceived of resurrection at all in no other way than 
as reanimation of the body ( 17 e). Since, as soon as 
he had become a believer, he certainly held what had 
been imparted to him about Jesus to be a divine 
arrangement, he had no occasion whatever to alter his 
conception. Thus nothing then prevented him from 
believing that the grave was found empty on the sup 
position that this was reported to him. And even in 
the wording of i Cor. there was no hindrance to his so 

That Jesus was buried and that he has been raised" (i Cor. 
104) cannot be affirmed by any one who has not the reanimation 
of the body in mind. It is correct to say that Paul has aban 
doned the Jewish conception in so far as he figures to himself the 
body of Jesus as being like the dead at the Last Day, who shall 
be raised incorruptible, and like the bodies of those who shall 
then be alive and who shall be changed (i Cor. 15 42-52). The 
risen Jesus therefore was incapable of eating or of being touched 
(see 14, 17*-) ; on the other hand, if he was to rise from the 
dead his body must needs come forth from the grave, otherwise 
the idea of resurrection would be abandoned. This is the case 
in 2 Cor. 5 1-8, according to which every individual immediately 
on his death passes into a state of glory with Christ ; but it is 
not yet so in i Cor. 

(c) Relatively the most reasonable suggestion is that 
Paul is silent regarding the empty sepulchre (though 
acquainted with the fact) because he fears that an 
appeal to the testimony of women will produce an 
unfavourable impression. This, however, is to mis 
judge Paul. If he knew and believed what was reported 
about the empty grave he must of course have regarded 
the participation of the women as a divine appointment ; 
and just as he refused to be ashamed of the gospel 
although aware that in so many quarters it was regarded 
as mere foolishness (Rom. 1 16 i Cor. 123) so also he 
would have refused to be ashamed of an appointment 
of God whereby women were made the chief witnesses 
to the truth of the resurrection. 

Before proceeding to draw our final conclusions, 
however, from i Cor. 15, it will be convenient that we 

, _ A . should examine the accounts of the 

16. Ascension. 


(a) The view which is found in all books of doctrine 
and which underlies the observance of the ecclesiastical 
feast of the ascension, that Jesus was taken up into 
heaven forty days after his resurrection, rests solely 
upon Acts 139 (1831 is not so exact), and thus on a 
datum which did not become known to the compiler of 
Acts till late in life. 

We conjecture it to have been first made plain to the writer 
of Acts by the consideration that the disciples seemed still to be 
in need of much instruction at the hands of Jesus. The sug 
gestion that the number forty is not to be taken literally 
becomes all the more natural in proportion to the lateness of 
its appearing. Moses passes forty days on Mount Sinai with 
God when receiving the law (Ex. 34 28) ; according to 4 Esd. 
14233642-49 Ezra spends forty days in dictating afresh the OT 
(which had been lost in the destruction of Jerusalem in 586) and 
seventy books of prophecy, and is thereafter taken up into 
heaven. 1 

(d) In his gospel the author of Acts has assigned the 
ascension to a time late in the evening of the day of the 
resurrection (Lk. 24 132933 36 so/). 

Brandt (375-377) thinks Lk. cannot really have intended to 
represent Jesus as having ascended at night and therefore 
supposes the scene with the disciples at Emmaus not to have 
been introduced by the author until after 24 36-53 (appearance 
to the disciples, and ascension) had been written. If Brandt 

1 According to the Valentinians and Ophites (/. Iren. i. 1 5 
[3 2] 2S^ [3014]) Jesus remained on earth for eighteen months 
after his resurrection ; so also Asc. Isa. 9 16 in the Ethiopia 
text (545 days) ; according to Pistis Sophia, \, eleven years. 


is right we may suppose Lk. thought of the ascension as having 
occurred some hours earlier. The words and was carried up 
into heaven (icai aveiftepeTO eii TOV avpavov . i>. 51) are wanting, 
it is true, in x*D and some Old Latin MSS. But even if the 
shorter form should be the more original, the words he parted 
from them (Siea-rri air avriuv), which all authorities have 
(D ajreVrr)), would convey the same sense. Without some definite 

Jesus. It is highly probable that the words and was carried 
up into heaven (<eai avf<f>epfTO eis TOV ovpavov) were struck out 
at a very early period by a reader who wished to remove the 
discrepancy with Acts 1 3-9.! 

(c) In any case the dating of the ascension as having 
happened late on the day of the resurrection is con 
firmed by Barn. 15g : We keep holy the eighth day 
(i.e., Sunday) ... in which also Jesus rose from the 
dead and, after appearing, went up to heaven (&yojj.fv 
TT]v rifj^pav TT]v dydoijv . . . 4v 7; nai 6 Itjaovs avtcrTij 
IK vcKputv Kal <j>avfp<jjt)fi$ dv^/St) els ovpavovs), as also by 
Mk. 169-20, where the order of the events in Lk. clearly 
lies at the foundation ; in all probability also by Jn. 
20 1722, according to which on the morning of the resur 
rection Jesus is not yet ascended and in the evening 
already imparts the Holy Spirit to the disciples. 

According to 7 39 the Holy Spirit first comes into being after 
Jesus has been glorified, in other words after his exaltation to 
heaven where he is encompassed by glory (Sofa). That Jesus 
does not suffer himself to be touched in 2017 is not formally 
contradicted by what is said of the evening of the same day 
(in 20 20 he only shows the disciples his wounds) ; the con 
tradiction does not emerge till eight days afterwards (2027). 
On the other hand it perfectly fits in with the theory of 7 39 
that the Holy Spirit is called (EV) another comforter (aAAos 
7rapa<cA>)Tos : 14 16) who cannot come until after Jesus has gone 
away (Jesus must thus be thought of as the first jrapoicArjTOS and 
in point of fact is called TrapaxAijTOs in i Jn. 2 i, although there 
he is thought of as exalted) and that Jesus will send him forth 
from the father, that is, from heaven (1526); cp further 167. 

(</) The Fourth Gospel is distinguished from Lk., 
Barn. , and Mk. 169-20 by this, that it represents Jesus as 
still continuing to appear on earth after he has ascended. 

When Jesus foretells his coming again in Jn. 14 18 it is clear 
from the connection with trv. i6_/ that he means the coming of 
the Holy Spirit, with whom, in fact, according to 7 39, 2 Cor. 
3 17 he is identical. On the other hand, the manner in which 
the same thought is expressed in It) 16 19 ( a little while . . . and 
ye shall see me ) speaks strongly for the view that the appear 
ances of the risen Jesus are intended ; so also perhaps in 14 19 21, 
whilst 1428 Iti 22 admit both interpretations and perhaps ought 
to receive both. 

(^) The original conception of the ascension has been 
preserved in this, that the appearances of the risen 
Jesus occur after he has been received up into heaven ; 
resurrection and ascension are a single act, Jesus is 
taken up directly from the grave, or from the under 
world, into heaven. 2 Any direct proof for this, it is true, 
can hardl} be adduced apart from the Gospel of Peter 
(above, 5 b) ; the proof lies in the silence of the NT 
writers as to a special act of ascension. In particular, 
it ought (if known) to have been definitely mentioned 
in i Cor. 164-8, since, in point of fact, according to 
Lk. , the appearances to Peter and the apostles, etc. 
were made before the ascension, whilst those to Paul on 
the other hand undoubtedly occurred after that event ; 
and yet Paul uses with reference to them all the same 
word was seen (&<t>6r], on which see below, 17 a). 

1 On the apologetic side there is often an inclination to make 
use of the well-known fact that the ancients were in the habit 
of employing for their literary work ready-made papyrus rolls 
of a fixed length, within the limits of which they were wont to 
confine themselves. It is suggested that Lk., through failure 
of his space, may have found himself compelled to report the 
ascension so very briefly and inexactly, that it was possible for 
the impression to arise that he meant to assign it to the 
resurrection day, whereas in reality he meant to place it forty 
days later, and already had the intention of setting this forth 
more precisely in his later work. It may suffice, in answer to 
this, to say that Lk. must have perceived that the paper was 
coming to an end long before the last moment, and cannot have 
been forced, by any such discovery, into giving an account of 
the events which was not in accordance with his knowledge. 

- The descent into the underworld is originally merely 
another expression for his death and burial. Whether a preach 
ing of Jesus in the underworld is connected with this (so 
MINISTRY, 26) is for our present purpose indifferent. 



So, also, Rom. 8 34, Eph. 1 20 (and with reference to the 
followers of Jesus Eph. 2 $/.) place the sitting at the right hand 
of God immediately after the resurrection, Heb. 1 3 10 12 122 
immediately after the death of Jesus ; Eph. 4 9 f. places over 
against the descent (icaTa^rji at) into Hades only the ascent 
(ava^r\vai) that raises Jesus above all heavens. So also the 
who brought up (ava.ya.yiav) of Heb. 13 20 means direct 
translation from Hades to Heaven if at least by ev ai/aem we 
are to understand with blood, which according to 4 14 620 82 
9 12 Jesus must offer in the heavenly sanctuary, i Pet. 81922 
too, and indeed also Acts 2 32-35 Rev. 1 18, admit this sense 
without violence, and equally little is the reader compelled by 
the expression goes before you into Galilee (irpodya vfias ei? 
ri\v TaAiAaiW), Mk. 167 = Mt. 28 7, to assume that Jesus made 
the journey from the sepulchre to Galilee by way of earth ; the 
purpose of the expression is simply to convey that Jesus expects 
his disciples in Galilee in order that he may appear to them 
there, and this he can very well have done from heaven. For 
Mt. this interpretation is directly indicated by the writer s 
closing his book without any ascension ; he must have thought 
of it as inseparably connected with the resurrection. Another 
consideration pointing in the same direction rests on the fact 
that in 28 18 Jesus is already able to say that all authority has 
been given him in heaven and on earth. As regards Mk. we can 
say nothing positive with reference to this point ; there is, how 
ever, not the least probability that his lost conclusion differed 
from Mt. in this respect. In Clem. Rom., Hermas, Polycarp, 
Ignatius we still find no mention of an ascension, nor yet is it 
spoken of in the Didache (this last, it ought to be added, indeed, 
does not even mention the resurrection). Justin, Irenaeus, and 
Tertullian continue to regard both events as two parts of one 
act (see Von Schubert, Camp, tics pseudopetrin. Evangelien- 
Jragments, 1893, 136-138); the Apology of Aristides (Syriac in 
Robinson, Texts and Studies, i. 1 4 /. jf. ; Greek, ibid. 1 10 /. 20 f. 
[chap. 15], German in Raabe, TU ix. 1 3, 2, end) says similarly 
that after three days he rose again and was taken up into 
heaven. 1 


The original conception of the ascension as set forth 

in the preceding section will supply us directly with 

_ 1 some guidance when we proceed to 

x e ^u the task of disentangling the real 

nature 01 the , . , ,- . 

historical facts regarding the resurrec- 

appearances. {ion f rom t j ie mu i t it u de of the accounts 
which have come down to us. 

(a) As we do so we must in the first instance take 
Paul s account as our guide. That account is fitted to 
throw light upon the nature of the appearances made 
not only to Paul himself but also to others, for he would 
not have employed the same word was seen (&(pdr]) if 
anything had been known to him by which the appear 
ance made to himself was distinguished from those 
which others had received. 

(l>) Appearances of the risen Jesus did actually occur ; 
that is to say, the followers of Jesus really had the im 
pression of having seen him. The historian who will 
have it that the alleged appearances are due merely to 
legend or to invention must deny not only the genuine 
ness of the Pauline Epistles but also the historicity of 
Jesus altogether. The great difference between the 
attestation of the nativity narratives and that of those 
of the resurrection lies in the fact that the earliest accounts 
of the resurrection arose simultaneously with the occur 
rences to which they relate. 

(c) The idea held regarding the occurrences was that 
Jesus made his appearances from heaven ( 16, e). He 
thus had the nature of a heavenly being. Broadly 
speaking, the angels were the most familiar type of this 
order of being the angels who can show themselves 
anywhere and again disappear. 

(d) It was thought, as matter of course, that after 
each appearance Jesus returned into heaven. So 
regarded, each appearance ended with an ascension. 

1 The order in i Tim. 3 16 where was received up in glory 
(ayeArj^Or) ei> Sofrj) comes after was preached to the nations, 
was believed on in the world (eicripvxOr) tv Sfvtmv, eiriarevOi] fv 
Kotr/no)), accords with no known or conceivable position of the 
ascension. May we hazard the conjecture that the author 
perhaps placed it at the close of his enumeration simply in 
order to close with a concrete fact rather than a somewhat 
vague and indeterminate proposition, and so make a better 
ending for his poetical piece, and that in doing so he followed 
perhaps some such train of ideas as that in Mk. 16 i^f- 19, only 
giving it a somewhat different turn : the command of Jesus that 
his disciples should preach him and believe in him was fulfilled 
and he was raised up to heaven? 


Precisely for this reason, however, it is not permissible 
to suppose that any single ascension once and for all 
was ever observed ; on such a supposition Jesus would 
still have remained a denizen of earth after the appear 
ances preceding the final one. 

(e) That the risen Jesus ate or was touched was never 
observed. Not only does Paul say nothing of any 
such occurrence ; the thing would also be contrary to 
the nature of a being appearing from heaven. Flesh 
and bones, which are attributed to Jesus in Lk. 24 39, 
assuredly he had not ; he really made his appearances, 
although it is expressly denied in the verse just cited, 
as spirit (irveO/xa) in the sense in which the angels are 
spirits (irveviMTa. : Heb. 1 14). On this point the Jewish 
Christians most certainly agreed with Paul ( 15^)50 
far as the person of Jesus was concerned. 

It is indeed the case that in Jewish-Christian circles there was 
current a conception of a resurrection with a new earthly body, 
in accordance with which Jesus was taken to be the risen Baptist, 
or Elijah (Mk. 14-16). This, however, was not the only con 
ception by which Christians were influenced. On the contrary, 
from Jesus himself they had received the idea that in the resurrec 
tion men shall be as the angels of God (Mk. 1225 and j(). And if 
there was any case in which more than in another they had 
occasion to apply this exalted conception, it would be in that of 
the body of their risen Lord. They knew indeed his prediction 
that one day he would come again on the clouds of heaven 

$3ospELS, 145 [f]). For them also, as for Paul (i Cor. 15 20), 
esus was the first-fruits of them that sleep ; with his resurrection, 
accordingly, a new era began. Not only so ; it is extremely 
probable that the similitudes of the Book of Enoch (chaps. 
37-71 ; cp APOCALYPTIC, 30) are pre-Christian : and there an 
existence in heaven is attributed to the Messiah and Dan. 7 13 
explained as referring to him. 1 The original apostles may very 
well have had knowledge of this, even without having ever read 
the book. There is, therefore, not the slightest difficulty in 
attributing to them the conception of the resurrection body of 
Jesus which Paul himself had and imputed to them. It is only 
with regard to the future resurrection of all mankind that Paul 
parts company with them, in so far as he thinks of the resurrec 
tion body of believers as being as heavenly and free from flesh 
and blood as was the resurrection body of Jesus (i Cor. 1644-53), 
a consequence drawn neither by the Jewish Christians nor yet 
by the later Gentile Christians who taught the resurrection of 
the flesh (syinbohtin Romanutn, see MINISTRY, 27, n., and, 
later, symbolum apostolicunt ; Hermas, Sim. v. 7 2 ; Justin, Dial. 
80, end ; 2 Clem. Rom. 9 i 14s, etc., and already i Clem. 26 3). 
That the Pharisaic, and accordingly also the primitive Christian, 
expectation looked for a rennimation of the bod} appears in such 
passages as 2 Mace. 7 lof. 1446 Mt. 27 52 Acts 231 Rev. 20 13. 
Josephus also states this correctly in Ant. xviii. 1 3, 14, BJ iii. 
S> 374 ! i s on ly n BJ ii. 8 14, 163, that by the expression 
remove into another body (/uera/SaiVei! ei erepov <ru)|U.a) he has 
Hellenised the conception and thereby misled his readers. 

(f) On the other hand, it is fully to be believed that 
men had the impression that they saw in full reality 
(below, 34 b, c, d] the wounds which Jesus had received 
on the cross, or perhaps even perceived that he showed 
them. The form which men beheld must of course show 
the most complete resemblance to that which Jesus bore 
upon earth, and to this, after the crucifixion, the wounds 
(not, however, the wound in the side, the spear-thrust 
being unhistorical, see JOHN, SON OK ZEBEDEE, 23 d} 
necessarily belonged. As the form of the risen Jesus 
at the same time appeared in heavenly splendour and 
created the certainty that Jesus had vanquished death 
and laid aside everything that was earthly, there remains 
a possibility that in the case of many to whom he appeared 
attention was not fixed upon his wounds. It is particu 
larly easy to suppose this in the case of Paul. 

(g) From the nature of the appearances as described, 
it is further quite possible that they occurred even when 
the witnesses found themselves, as in Jn. 20 19 26, shut 
in with closed doors, or that, as we read in Mk. 1614 19, 
Jesus was taken up into heaven direct from the apart 
ment. Even if one entertains doubts as to whether the 
authors cited had enough certain information to enable 
them to say that this actually was so in the cases which 
they give, it still has to be acknowledged that the state 
ment is not inconsistent with the nature of the appear 

On the other hand, there is to be drawn from the 

1 Muirhead, Times of Christ (1898), pp. 140-150; Schmiedel, 
Prot. Monatshefte, 1898, pp. 255-257 ; 1901, p. 339./C 



various accounts one deduction which goes very deep : 
no words were heard from the risen 

Jesus, (a) At first sight the hearing of 

18. No words 

Heard. vnrds might appear not to l><- <-\i -liidt-d 

by the simple was seen (w</>#7?) of Paul. It is to be 
noted, however, that where Paul speaks of having 
received messages from heaven, he expressly specifies 
revelations (droxoXtty etf) as well as visions (dirraffiai : 
2 Cor. 12i-4), and where the distinction is employed it 
is clear that spoken words come under the former not 
the latter category. 

(/>) As against this, appeal will doubtless be made to 
the reports in Acts as to the appearances of Jesus to 
Paul on the journey to Damascus. Not successfully, 
however ; they contradict one another so violently 
(see ACTS, 2) that it is difficult to imagine how it 
could ever have been possible for an author to take them 
up into his book in their present forms, not to speak of 
the impossibility of accepting them in points where they 
are unsupported by the epistles of Paul. In these 
epistles, there is not the slightest countenance for the 
belief that Paul heard words, although he had the 
strongest motives for referring to them had he been 
in a position to do so. It is on the appearance on the 
journey to Damascus that he bases his claim to have 
been called to the apostolate by Jesus himself. The 
claim was hotly denied by his opponents : it was to his 
interest, therefore, to bring forward everything that could 
validly be adduced in its support. In pressing it (i Cor. 
9 1, Am I not an apostle? ) he assuredly would not 
have stopped short at the question, Have I not seen 
Jesus our Lord ? had he been in a position to go on 
and ask, Has he not himself named me his apostle? 
with such words engraven on his memory as those we 
read in Acts 96 22 10 or (above all) 2<5i6-i8. The 
analogy of the angelic appearances cited above ( 17 c) 
thus no longer holds good. Words are heard from 
angels ; no words were heard from Jesus. 

(c) What holds good of the appearance to Paul is true 
also (see 17 a) of the others of which we read. If, too, 
we apply a searching examination to the words which 
have been reported, it is precisely the most characteristic 
of them that we shall find ourselves most irresistibly con 
strained to abandon. The request for food and the 
invitation to touch the wounds of the crucified Jesus 
(Lk. 213941 Jn. 2027) are, as we have seen in 17 f, 
inadmissible. So also, as has been seen in i6e, the 
saying, I am not yet ascended unto the Father (20 17). 
The power to forgive sins or to declare them unforgiven 
(2023) belongs to God alone, and cannot be handed 
over by Jesus to his disciples (see MINISTRY, 4). The 
doctrine that the passion of Jesus was necessary in virtue 
of a divine appointment is invariably brought forward 
by Paul as the gospel that had been made manifest to 
himself alone and must be laboriously maintained in the 
face of its gainsayers ; how triumphantly would he not 
have been able to meet them had he only heard the least 
suggestion that the men of the primitive church had 
heard the same doctrine from the mouth of Jesus himself 
in the manner recorded in Lk. 2425-27 44-46! Once 
more, how could the original apostles have been able to 
call themselves disciples of Jesus if, after having been 
sent out by him as missionaries to the Gentiles (Lk. 
2247/ Mk. 16 16 and the canonical text of Mt. 2819), 
they actually made it a stipulation at the council of 
Jerusalem (Gal. 2g) that their activity was to be confined 
within the limits of Israel ? As for the text of Mt. 28 19 
on baptism and the trinitarian formula, see MINISTRY, 
5*, cp Hibb. Journ., Oct. 1902, pp. 102-108 ; and 
on Jn. 21 15-22 see above, 9 c. 

_ . An equally important point is that 

, . the first appearances happened in 

tV| SC Galilee. The most convincing reasons 

for this conclusion have already been 

appearances. summarised under GOSPKI.S ( 138 a). 

(a) In addition to what is said there special emphasis 


may be laid on the fact that there is no gospel in which 
appearances to men (not women) are reported as having 
been made both in Galilee and in Jerusalem ; for Jn. 21 
is an appendix by another hand. 

It is only Mt. that, besides the appearance to the disciples in 
Galilee, knows of that made to the women on the return from 
the sepulchre (28 <)f.) , this, however, will be regarded by very 
many as unhistorical, being absent from Mk. (which neverthe 
less is in this section so closely followed by Mt.) and containing 
nothing more than a repetition of the injunction already given 
by the angel to the women, to bid the disciples repair to Galilee. 
Jn any case the appearance comes from a separate source. If 
we leave Mt. 28 <)f. out of account it becomes perfectly clear that 
no one gospel from the first reported appearances of the risen 
Je*us in Galilee as well as in Jerusalem. The gospels in fact 
fall exactly into two classes : Mk., Mt. and the Gospel of Peter 
are for Galilee ; Lk., Jn., and Mk. lOq-zo for Jerusalem, and 
the Gospel of the Hebrews also does not indicate in any way 
that it looks for James and Peter and Peter s companions else 
where than in the place where it finds the servant of the high 
priest (see above, $ 4 a, 6), viz., in Jerusalem. It is only after 
wards that the writer of Jn. 21 sees fit to change this either, or 1 
into a both, and ; so also Mt., but without admitting an appear 
ance to any male disciples in Jerusalem. 

If, however, Galilee and Jerusalem were at first 
mutually exclusive, both cannot rest upon equally valid 
tradition ; there must have been some reason why the 
one locality was changed for the other. 

(t>) Such a reason for transferring the appearances 
from Galilee to Jerusalem has been indicated in GOSPELS 
( 138(1). Its force becomes all the greater when it is 
realised how small has been the success of even the most 
distinguished critics in attempting to make out the 

All that Loofs (see below, 39) has to say is (p. 25), Those 
narrators who represent the whole life of Jesus, with the ex 
ception of the last eight days, as having been passed in Galilee, 
may have transferred to Galilee also the appearances of the risen 
Jesus, with regard to which they were very defectively informed ; 
they may have done so all the more easily because the first 
persons of whom they had occasion to speak in connection with 
the resurrection were women from Galilee. The question at 
once presents itself: What has the circumstance that they be 
longed to Galilee to do with the present matter? They were in 
point of fact in Jerusalem. What is the relevancy of the observa 
tion that the activity of Jesus, apart from the last eight days, 
had been wholly in Galilee? His grave at any rate was in 
Jerusalem, and his disciples were also there, according to the 
testimony of Mk., Mt., and the Gospel of Peter, at least. That 
the present writer holds the statement as to the presence of the 
disciples at Jerusalem to be unhistorical does not affect the argu 
ment ; for the point is that Loofs regards precisely that state 
ment as historical. It is all the more necessary to ask: How 
does Loofs know that Mk. and Mt. were very defectively informed 
with regard to the appearances of the risen Jesus? 

If this was indeed so, if Mk. and Mt. had to fall back 
on their own powers of conjecture, where else were they 
to look for appearances if not in Jerusalem where the 
grave, the women, and the disciples were? Thus the 
tradition which induced them to place the appearances 
in Galilee must have been one of very great stability. 

B. Weiss (to pass over other names), in the interests of the 
Jerusalem tradition, doubts the historicity of the statement that 
the women received from the angel the injunction to bid the 
disciples proceed to Galilee, especially as this injunction is 
merely a reminiscence of Jesus words in Gethsemane, that after 
he rose from the dead he would go before the disciples to Galilee 
(Mk. 14 28). So Lcl cn JesuM 2 590 (ET 3 393}. On p. 596 (ET 
399/T), however, Weiss says that that command of the angel to the 
women (to direct the disciples to go to Galilee) is only a reminis 
cence of the command of the same character which the risen 
Jesus himself lays upon Mary Magdalene, according to Mt. 29_/C 
(where, according to Weiss, only the second Mary is errone 
ously conjoined with Mary Magdalene rightly mentioned by the 
eye-witness John [20 if. 11-18]). Thus what Weiss holds to be 
an error (the command to bid the disciples go to Galilee) must 
be held (if the Jerusalem tradition is to be maintained) to have 
got itself clothed in a very remarkable form : not only as an 
angelic word (Mt. 287 Mk. 167) but also as a word of the risen 
Lord himself (Mt. 28 10), in the account of an appearance that 
is guaranteed by an eye-witness, 

(c ) In reality the error lies in quite another direction : 
in making Jesus appear at the sepulchre to the women, 
or Mary Magdalene, as the case may be. On the 
account in Mt. see above (a). That of Jn., however, 
is open to just as serious objections, for its chief saying, 
I am not yet ascended unto the Father, rests on a 
theory of the nature of the Holy Ghost that is peculiar 
to the Fourth Gospel ( 16, c). If, however, Jn. s 



account can lay no claim to authenticity we may be all 
the surer that it is a transformation of the account of 
Mt. Of its being so there are, moreover, several 
indications. In Jn. , as in Mt. , one of Jesus sayings is 
only a repetition of a word of the angels: Woman, 
why weepest thou ? A reminiscence of the fact that 
when the women met Jesus they had in Mt. already 
retired from the sepulchre may perhaps be recognised in 
she turned herself back (f<TTpd<f>i) eis ra diricru) in Jn. 
20 14. Only one woman appearing at the grave in Jn. 
is perhaps to be explained by the observation that the 
recognition-scene becomes more dramatic when Jesus 
has no need to utter more than a single word : Mary. 
Cp, further, 25, c. 

(</) In i Cor. 15 Paul mentions no place. The 
enumeration he gives would not preclude the reader from 
supposing that the various appearances had occurred 
in quite different places for example, most of them in 
Galilee, even if that to James were to be thought of as 
having been made in Jerusalem. It is, however, quite 
improbable that James was in Jerusalem again so soon 
(see MINISTRY, aid), or that he should have ex 
perienced the appearance of the risen Jesus at so late 
a time that it might nevertheless be supposed that 
James had already removed to Jerusalem (see l>elow, 
36 [/])- 

The sealing and watching of the sepulchre (Mt. 27 62-66 
284 11-15) is now very generally given up even by those 
20 Watch at scno ars wno st ^ hold by the resurrec- 
sepulchre tio11 narratives as a whole. (a) As 
unhistorical. ^dy Pointed out above ( a ) in 
Mk. it is not only, as in Lk. and Jn. , 
absent ; it is absolutely excluded by the women s 
question : they have no apprehensions about the 
watch, only about the stone. (b) Again, it is ex 
ceedingly improbable that the Jews remembered any 
prophecy of Jesus that he was to rise again in three 
days (Mt. 2763). According to the Gospels Jesus made 
prophecies of the kind only to the innermost circle of 
his disciples (Mk. 82731 930 /. 1032-34 and ||). Indeed 
in Mk. and Lk. not even the women remember the 
prophecy, otherwise they would not have set out to 
anoint the body, (c) Again, the explanation which the 
high priests and elders suggest, according to Mt. 2813, 
is untenable ; for if the soldiers were asleep at the time 
they could not testify that the disciples stole the body. 
(d) Not less unlikely is the supposition that the Jewish 
authorities actually believed the account of the soldiers 
regarding the fact of the resurrection of Jesus. Surely 
the consequence must have been, as with Paul at a later 
date, their conversion to the faith of Jesus. If, on the 
other hand, they remained unmoved, they must also 
have believed that, however perplexing it might at first 
sight appear, the affair was capable of explanation other 
wise than by the resurrection of Jesus, and must have 
moved Pilate to institute a strict inquiry into the conduct 
of the soldiers, rather than have sought to bribe the 
soldiers, (e) Above all, the soldiers could not have 
accepted a bribe, least of all if they had nothing better to 
say by way of ostensible defence than that they had fallen 
asleep. For this the penalty was death. According to 
Acts 12 19 we actually find Agrippa I. putting to death the 
soldiers who had allowed Peter to escape from prison, 
and this is conclusive as to the nature of military respon 
sibilities, even if in point of fact the liberation of Peter was 
brought about through no fault of his keepers (cp SIMON 
I KTKR, 3, e). Roman soldiers knew only too well the 
strictness with which discipline was administered, and 
the promise of the Jewish authorities to obtain immunity 
for them from Pilate, if needful (Mt. 2814), would have 
made no impression on them. (/") The best criticism 
on this whole feature of the narrative is the simple fact 
that the Gospel of Peter, which unquestionably is later 
thnn Mt. , avoids it altogether and concludes quite differ 
ently (above, 5(7). 

That Jesus was buried in a usual way, not as is con- 


jectured by Volkmar (Religion Jesti, 77 f. 257-259 [i8s7], 

21 Empty Die El an S eli(l1 [1870] = Marcus u. 

sepulchre dic s y"P se t l8 76], 603) on the basis 

. , of Is. 089 22i6-i8 Rev. 118/. left un- 

unhistoncal. , , 

buried, or at most cast into a hole and 

covered with some earth, is established by i Cor. 164 (cp 
Keim, Gesck. Jesu von Natara, 8525-527, ET 6271-274). 
liut the accounts of the empty sepulchre are none of 
them admissible. As to this the leading points have 
already been summarised in GOSPELS ( 138 e f ). Some 
further considerations may be added. 

(a) The three points from which we have to start are 
the silence of Paul (as of the entire NT apart from 
the Gospels; see, especially, Acts 229-32) a silence 
which would be wholly inexplicable were the story true 
( 15) ; next, the statement in Mk. 168 that the women 
said nothing of their experiences at the sepulchre a 
statement which has to be understood in the sense that 
Mk. was the first to be in a position to publish the facts ; 
in other words, that the whole story is a very late pro 
duction ; lastly, if (as we have seen) the first appearances 
of Jesus were in Galilee, the tidings of them must have 
arrived at Jerusalem much too late to allow of examina 
tion of the sepulchre with any satisfactory results. 1 f a 
body had been found it would have been too far advanced 
in decay to allow of identification ; if there were none, 
this could be accounted for very easily without postulat 
ing a resurrection. 

(b} The attempt to explain the evangelical reports 
without assuming a resurrection is, however, the line 
taken by very many theologians also who hold by what 
is said as to the empty sepulchre and yet assume no 
miracle. In the first place they postulate a removal of 
the body by persons whose action had no connection 
with the question of a resurrection. 

On account of the approach of the Sabbath (they hold) the 
body had in any case to be laid in some grave or other, even 
perhaps without leave asked of the owner. It was, therefore, 
necessary that it should be removed afterwards to a more suit 
able place ; or the owner himself may have removed it. A 
reminiscence of this is even discovered in Jn. 20 15. Or, if the 
sepulchre belonged to Joseph of Arimatha;a, even he may not 
have desired to have the body of a stranger permanently occupy 
ing a place in the sepulchre of his family. On all these assump 
tions what strikes one is the promptitude with which the 
transference must have been made. To do so on the Sabbath 
before sundown was unlawful ; yet very early next morning the 
transference had already been effected (according to Mt. even 
immediately after the sundown which marked the close of the 
Sabbath ; see, however, zd). 

(c} Others suggest that the enemies of the Christians 
had removed the body of Jesus in order that it might 
not receive the veneration of his followers. The sur 
prising thing in this would be, not so much that such a 
policy would have given the greatest possible, though 
unintentional, impetus to such veneration, as rather this, 
that such action would presuppose a disposition to 
worship the dead body for which it would be difficult to 
find a precedent among the Jews, for whom any contact 
with a corpse meant defilement. 

(d] For a long time the favourite view was that the 
disciples themselves actually had clone what, according 
to Alt. 2764, the Jewish authorities were apprehensive 
they might do, and, according to 281315, imputed to 
them falsely, namely, that they had stolen the body in 
order that they might afterwards proclaim that Jesus 
had risen. 

Renan (Affitrcs, 4zf-< ET 6gyC), without expressly stating 
this purpose of the disciples, is inclined to attribute a share in the 
removal of the body to Mary Magdalene (whose predisposition 
to mental malady [Lk. 8 2] he accentuates), because only a 
woman s hand would have left the clothes in such order as is 
described in Jn. 207. That a theft of this kind would have had 
the effect of convincing gainsayers of the resurrection of Jesus 
is not very easy to believe. On the other hand, it could in 
certain circumstances have made some impression on followers 
of Jesus. 

The question forces itself, however : \Yho was there 
to set the plan on foot ? The disciples were utterly 
cast down ; to all probable seeming, in fact, they were 
not even in Jerusalem at all (GOSPELS, 138 a). The 



theory thus breaks down at the outset, and it seems 
superfluous to ask whether the disciples would have 
ventured to act in a sense contrary to the ordinance of 
God who had suffered their master to die. 

(e) We mention, lastly, yet another theory, which is 
most clearly a mere refuge of despair the theory, 
namely, that the earthquake (mentioned only in Mt. 
28z) opened a chasm immediately under the sepulchre, 
into which the body of Jesus disappeared. 

Not only this, however, but also all the other hypo 
theses mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs, become 
superfluous on the adoption of the view that the state 
ments about the empty sepulchre are unhistorical. 

As soon as his approaching death came to be foreseen 
by Jesus, he must have looked forward also to its annul- 
ment, unless, indeed, he at the same 
had abandoned the belief that he 

_, ... , 
22. ine tmra 

was the Messiah ordained by God to 

establish the divine kingdom upon earth. (a) As is 
said elsewhere (GOSPELS, 145 [/]), it is not probable 
that Jesus foretold simply his resurrection ; that took 
him into heaven, whereas the work of the Messiah lay 
upon earth. The most important prediction accord 
ingly was that of his coming again from heaven. The 
time fixed by him is variously stated in the Gospels as 
being at the end of the then living generation (Mt. 
IGzj f. ), after a probably shorter interval (1023), and 
in the immediate future (air dprt, Mt. 2664). The 
most certain conclusion that can be deduced from this 
variation clearly is that Jesus never gave any precise 
date, and this for the reason that he himself (see Mk. 
1332 = Mt. 2436) did not know it; yet it is also very 
possible that he used the expression in or after 
three days as a conventional designation for a very 
short interval (Lk. 1832 Mk. 14s8 152g and parallels, on 
which cp MINISTRY, 2 a). 

(fi) As soon as the question came to be one not of his 
coming again from heaven, but of his rising again from 
the dead, the expression after three days, in itself a 
very indefinite one, came to have a more exact meaning. 
The Jewish belief was that the soul lingered for three 
days only, near the body it had left, in the hope of 
returning to it ; after that the body became so changed 
that a reanimation was no longer possible (see JOHN, 
SON OF ZEBEDEE, 20 a; and Edersheim, Life and 
Times of Jesus, 2324/1). It was only natural that in 
thinking of the resurrection of Jesus this limit should be 
kept in mind (Mk. 831 9 3 i If/34 and !| ; Lk. 24 7 2i 4 6). 
If it is somewhat difficult to believe that Jesus uttered 
these prophecies so early (especially in connection with 
Peter s confession at Csesarea Philippi ; see GOSPELS, 
145 e), and with such exactitude of detail, it must 
nevertheless be recognised that he may very well, at 
one time or another, have expressed himself in some 
such sense. 

(f ) The OT texts that have special relevance in this 
connection are 2 K. 20s and Hos. 62 (in both of which 
the interval of three days is brought into connection 
with a revivification, if not after death, at least after a 
sickness or time of weakness) ; and Jonah 2i [1 17] also 
the three days sojourn of the prophet in the belly of 
the whale is in Mt. 12 40, albeit in a very inappropriate 
and interrupting way (see GOSPELS, 140*2), inter 
preted with reference to the period during which Jesus 
was to remain in the grave. Paul expressly refers to 
the Scriptures in i Cor. 104. A forsaking for a small 
moment is spoken of also in Is. 54 7. 

(d) In this way it became possible for the resurrection 
of Jesus, if expected at all, to be expected exactly after 
three days. The expectation, however, would hardly 
have had any result if those who had expected had not 
also had the consciousness of having seen him. In 
itself considered it was not absolutely imperative that 
the first appearances should coincide with the precise 
time of the expected resurrection. But if they had 
occurred much later the belief that the resurrection 


actually had happened precisely three days after death 
could hardly have been held very firmly. As, however, 
we find it in point of fact held with equal firmness by 
Paul (i Cor. 164) and by the evangelists, the balance of 
probabilities favours the view that the first appearances 
happened on the same day or only a little later. 

With this it fits in very well if we suppose that the 
disciples shortly after the arrest of Jesus, and Peter 
shortly after his denial, had already set out for Galilee, 
so that they might arrive there on the third day (cp Jos. 
Vit. 52, 269). This is, moreover, the reason why the 
Gospel of Peter, in spite of all appearance, has no prob 
ability in its favour if it really means to convey that the 
disciples did not set out on their return journey to 
Galilee until the eighth or rather the ninth day after the 
death of Jesus, and that thus at least eleven days 
elapsed before the first appearance of the risen Jesus 
was experienced (see above, 5 e). 

(e) According to the Gospels Jesus remained under 
the power of death not for about seventy-two hours but 
only for somewhere between twenty-six and thirty-six 
hours. These, however, in fact, according to Jewish 
reckoning, are distributed between Friday, Saturday, 
and Sunday. In two of the OT passages referred to 
above 2 K. 20s and Hos 62 we read not after three 
days, but on the third day. Thus the Gospel tradi 
tion literally satisfies the expression. 

It must have appeared fitting that the rising of Jesus should 
occur at as early a moment as possible after the third day had 
begun. From the same sense of fitness the visit of the women, 
once it was accepted as a fact, was naturally assigned to the 
early morning hours. Where Mk. has after three days Giera 
rpets T)jiepa? ; 831 931 1034), the parallel passages consistently 
have on the third day (777 Tpirr) Tj/xe pa : Mt. 1621 17 23 20 19 
Lk. 922 1833 as also 24746, cp also 24 21 Acts 1040). The latter 
expression in Mt. and Lk. may possibly be dependent on the 
account of the course of events as given by themselves, and thus 
Mk. s phrase might seem to have been the original one. Vet we 
must not imagine that the two phrases were for the evangelists 
really incompatible. Matthew himself says in one place (2763_/^) 
that Jesus foretold his resurrection after three days (/otera 
rpeis ^e pas) and represents the Jews as basing upon this their 
petition to Pilate that the sepulchre may be guarded till the 
third day (s<o? rijs rpuT)s i^/aepas). Were this to be taken 
literally it would have no sense, for in that case no watch would 
have been asked for precisely the fourth day, which was the 
critical one. From this it follows also that we are not compelled 
to regard Mt. 1240 (see above, c) as genuine for the reason that, 
according to the report in the Gospels, the time of the fulfilment 
was shorter than that appointed in Jesus prophecy. Jn. 2 19-21 
Says : iv rpiaiv rjjue pais. 

As for the number of the appearances, Paul knows of 
more than we find in any one Gospel viz. , five, over 
and above that made to himself. 

(a) It is not possible, however, to identify each of 
even the few Gospel accounts with one of Paul s. 

Let one example suffice in illustration of the kind of violence 
in dealing with texts required in order to effect identifications. 

Resch (TU\. 4421-426, x. 2381-389, x. 3 768- 
23. Number Of 782 790-814 824-827) identifies the appearance 
appearances. to Peter with that to the unnamed disciple 

at Emmaus (see above, 217), that to the 
Twelve with Lk. 24 36-49 and Jn. 20 19-24 (above, 2 r), that to 
the Five Hundred with Lk. 245o_/C, where, nevertheless, them 
(avrovs) denotes precisely the same persons as we find in 2433 36. 
That to James he identities with that to Thomas and the other 
disciples in Jn. 20 26-29. This James he holds to be identical with 
James the son of Alphaeus, who may (Resch says) have been 
named Thomas i.e., twin because his brother Judas of James 
is called Twin in Syriac tradition (Lips. Apokr. Ap.-Gesch. 
i. 20 227, ii. 2 154 173^). Finally, the appearance to all the 
apostles is, according to Resch, that mentioned in Mt. 28 16-20 
and Actsl 4-12. 

(b] If one addresses oneself to the problems with 
out harmonistic prepossessions, the safest criteria for 
identifying an event of which there are two accounts 
will be the presence of characteristic details and (next 
in importance) exact time- data. Unfortunately Paul 
supplies us with no details, and dates are gained only 
indirectly, so far as they can be deduced from the order 
in which he mentions the events. The number of persons 
said to have been involved in a historical event is a 
secure criterion of its identity only if the number is 
small. As soon as it becomes considerable, an error 
within moderate limits is not wholly inconceivable. 



(c) On these principles the only identification that 
admits of being made without question is that of the 
appearance to Peter in i Cor. 15s with the appearance 
mentioned in Lk. 2434. Next in Paul s account comes 
an appearance to the Twelve. A similar appearance is 
recorded by Mt. as the only one he knows. In Lk. the 
only appearance to the Eleven (with others) is in 24 33 
36-51; Jn. 2019-24 contains the first appearance to ten 
apostles ; but we must identify the two on account of 
their exactly similar date ( 2 r). Cp also the almost 
identical words in Lk. 2436, stood in the midst of 
them (fffTt) iv fJL^ffq) O.VT&V} and Jn. 20 19, stood in the 
midst (for?; et j TO ^aov}. The diversity of the special 
features mentioned by Lk. and Jn. may be ignored all 
the more readily if we find ourselves able to regard them 
merely as unhistorical embellishments. Both date 
(evening of the resurrection day), however, and place 
(Jerusalem) are quite irreconcilable with those in Mt. 
Nevertheless it will remain open to us to recognise as 
kernel common to all three accounts that after the 
appearance to Peter there was another to the Eleven. 
Here also belongs the second fragment of the Gospel 
of the Hebrews (above, 4^). This, however, is the 
only one of Resch s identifications that can stand 
scrutiny, and even so Mt. must be left out. 

(d) The appearance to the 500 has no parallels (the 
proposed parallel referred to in 1 1 b cannot be 
accepted), that to James only in the Gospel of the 
Hebrews (above, 4 a, b}. As parallel to that to all 
the apostles on the other hand we must not adduce 
Acts 14-12. The event related there is, in the intention 
of the author, not the sequel to the only appearance in 
the Third Gospel (24 33 36-51) to about the same number 
of persons ; it aims at correcting that part (2444-51) of 
the earlier narrative which ends with the Ascension. 
Jn. 2026-29 admits of being cited in this connection 
merely as being the only repetition to be met with in 
any gospel, of an appearance to a company of disciples 
approximating this number. Since, however, this com 
pany is in Jn. supplemented only by Thomas and in 
Paul by quite different persons, we have no assurance 
that even so much as a reminiscence of one and the 
same occurrence underlies the two accounts. On the 
other hand, in Paul the appearance of the risen Jesus 
at the sepulchre to the two Marys (Mt. ), or to Mary 
Magdalene alone (Jn. ), is unmentioned, as also that to 
the two disciples at Emmaus and that reported in Jn. 21 , 
which has some resemblance to what we find in the 
Gospel of Peter (above, 5 d\ 

(e) It has already been shown at some length ( 
15, i8f) that Paul would certainly not have omitted 
to mention at least the appearances at the sepulchre 
and at Emmaus had he been aware of them. To meet 
this difficulty, and establish the priority of the Gospel 
narratives to Paul, the counter question has been asked : 
How could the evangelists possibly have allowed so 
much that is found in Paul to escape them, if they had 
been acquainted with his narrative or even with the 
tradition which underlies it? This question, however, 
is easily answered. For a writer who could report an 
instance in which Jesus had partaken of food (Lk. ), or 
in which his wounds had been touched (Lk. , Jn. ), or 
who could speak of the empty sepulchre as all four 
evangelists do, or of appearances of the risen Jesus close 
to the sepulchre (Mt. , Jn. ) for such a writer and for 
his readers an accumulation of instances in which Jesus 
had merely been seen no longer possessed any very 
great interest ; and a case even in which he had 
appeared to five hundred brethren at once would, at 
the time when the Gospels were written, hardly have 
been considered so important as an appearance to the 
apostles, whose place in the reverence of the faithful 
had already come to be very exalted (see MINISTRY, 
34). Even the instance in which Jesus had been 
merely seen (though) by Peter is only touched on by 
Lk. (2434), not described, plainly because the narrative 

130 a 4069 

alongside of the others would be too devoid of 

To this want of interest in mere visual appearances 
of the risen Jesus we can add, however, in the case of the 
evangelists a positive interest, that of 

24. Influence 

of tendency 
on Gospels. 

serving definite purposes by their narra 

tives, (a) It makes for confirmation 
of what has been laid down in preceding 
sections ( 17-22) as to the elements in the accounts of 
the resurrection which alone can be recognised as histori 
cal, if we are in a position to show that everything in the 
accounts which goes beyond such indubitably historical 
elements is a product of tendencies \\hich by an inherent 
necessity could not fail to lead to a shaping of the 
accounts in the form in which they now lie before us, 
even where there is no substratum of actual fact. In so 
far as these tendencies give us the right to pronounce 
unhistorical everything that can be explained by 
their means, in the absence of sufficient testimony to 
historical fact, they may be appropriately considered 
now in the course of the investigation as to objective 
facts in the resurrection-narratives on which we are at 
present engaged. It will appear that at all points the 
reference to tendencies supplies an adequate explanation 
of all the statements which we have been unable to 
accept as historical. 

(b) As regards the nature of these tendencies : some 
are directly apologetical, having for their object to 
preclude the possibility of certain definite objections 
against the actuality of the resurrection. Others are 
apologetical indirectly, their aim being to round off the 
picture by supplying gaps so that no questions may 
remain open. Lastly, some have in view the needs of 
the church itself, tracing back, as they do, to the risen 
Jesus certain instructions which were not found in the 
reports of the period of his earthly ministry ( 28), or 
seeking to compensate for the want of that direct assur 
ance of the continued life of Jesus which later genera 
tions were no longer able to command ( 29). 

(c) That the evangelical narratives as a whole are in 
many ways influenced by tendency has been shown in 
17, 20 c, 23, 35 h, and elsewhere. How close at hand 
apologetic interests were where the story of the resurrec 
tion was concerned is seen even in the fact that the 
entire statement of Paul is made with an apologetic 
view only, in his case there is no justification for the 
conjecture that the contents of his statement were 
altered by this consideration ( io/. ). In the Gospels, 
on the other hand, we have at least one point in which 
this is particularly clear, and recognised even by very 
conservative theologians. 

In Mt. 2815 it is expressly said that the report of the theft of 
the body by the disciples was current among the Jews in the 
writer s time. The writer traces it back to the false testimony 
of the guard at the sepulchre procured by bribery on the part of 
the Jewish authorities. If we find ourselves unable to regard 
this bribery, or indeed any part of the story as to the watch set 
over the sepulchre, as historical, we are shut up to supposing 
that the allegations arose from the desire (or tendency) to make 
the story of the theft of the body by the disciples seem untenable. 

(d) It must at the same time be expressly emphasised 
that we are by no means compelled to think of this 
tendency as operative in such a manner that an author 
would produce from his own brain a quite new narrative 
in the apologetic direction. Precisely the same result 
namely, the complete unhistoricity and the tendency 
character of a narrative emerges if we assume that the 
narrative has grown up only bit by bit, by the co 
operation of several, and has reached its present form 
under the influence of naive and artless presuppositions 
and pardonable misunderstandings, in some such manner 
as we have sought to render probable elsewhere for 
a series of narratives found in the Fourth Gospel (see 

JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE, 35, a-f). A special reason 
for making the same attempt in the case of the resurrec 
tion is found in the character of the accounts themselves. 
If they were pure inventions it would be very difficult to 



understand why, for example, of the disciples at 
Kmmaus one is nameless, and of those in Jn. 21 two 
are unnamed, or why the ap|)earances to Peter as being 
the first, or that to the 500 as being the most imposing, 
should not have received detailed adornment. Cp, 
further, igc, 2$c. 

(e) To help us to realise how such a narrative could 
come into existence by successive steps, let us take the 
example referred to above that of the watch set on 
the sepulchre. 

A Christian who found himself confronted for the first time 
with the assertion that the disciples had stolen the body of 
Jesus naturally opposed it to the utmost. As, however, at the 
same time (as we must suppose, if we believe the narrative of 
Mt. to be unhistorical) he found himself unable to adduce any 
counter-evidence, he would be constrained to have recourse to 
conjectures, and to say something like this : The Jews, we may 
be quite certain, saw to the watching of the sepulchre ; they 
could very well have known that Jesus had predicted his rising 
again for the third day. A somewhat cnreless Christian by 
stander received the impression that in these suggestions what 
he was listening to was not mere conjecture but statement of 
fact, and circulated it among his friends as such ; that it was 
unhesitatingly believed by Christians is not astonishing. Next, 
let us suppose, another propounded the question : Did then the 
men of the guard actually see what happened at the resurrection 
of Jesus? Again the answer could only be a conjecture; but 
just as certainly it must have run as follows : Unquestionably ; 
for they were continuously at the sepulchre, and Roman soldiers 
never sleep on guard. As, further, at the time we are at 
present supposing, the statement that the women had found the 
stone rolled away had long been current, conjecture as to what 
the guards had observed before the arrival of the women could 
hardly have been other than to the effect that there had been an 
earthquake and that an angel had come down from heaven and 
rolled away the stone. That this conjecture also should have 
been taken up as a statement of fact is easy to suppose. 
Lastly, a listener perhaps would ask : Why then did not the 
soldiers tell what had happened, and why have we been left in 
ignorance of this until now ? Once more the answer a conjec 
ture merely, yet ready to be accepted as a fact was at hand : 
The Jewish authorities will doubtless have bribed them to 
suppress the truth and to spread instead of it the rumour that 
the disciples had stolen the body. 

Without pursuing this line of explanation further in 

details, let us now endeavour to see what were the 

__ . - conscious or unconscious apologetic 

, , i \ tendencies at work which could have 

ttC ^ 1 r given rise to the unhistorical elements 
on accounts of ., , / \ T<- T 

, , in the gospel narratives. \a) If Jesus 

sepulchre. . , 

was risen, his grave must have been 

empty. If this was disputed, the Christians asserted 
it as a fact, and that with the very best intention of 
affirming what was true. Therefore, no hesitation was 
felt iu further declaring that (according to all reasonable 
conjectured the women who had witnessed Jesus death 
had wished to anoint his body and thus had come to 
know of the emptiness of the grave. In the fact that 
according to Mk. and Mt. this was not alleged regard 
ing the male disciples we can see still a true recollection 
that those disciples were by that time no longer in 
Jerusalem (see GOSPELS, 138 a) ; this feature was 
not first added by our canonical evangelists Mk. and 
Mt. , for they already presuppose the presence of the 
disciples in Jerusalem. 

(6) Why then should not these disciples themselves 
have gone to the sepulchre ? In an earlier phase of the 
narratives it was, no doubt, borne in mind that these 
disciples, if in Jerusalem at all, had to remain in con 
cealment, and even a writing so late as the Gospel of 
Peter (26) knew that very well. Lk. , however (2424), 
ignores it. His statement that certain (TLI>S) disciples 
went to the sepulchre is still very vague. But Jn. 
forthwith lays hold of it and definitely names Peter and 
the beloved disciple, and reports upon their rivalry in a 
manner that betrays a conscious tendency much more 
strongly than most of the other narratives (cp SIMON 
PKTER, 22 <M. 

(c) The most obvious conjecture must necessarily 
have been that Jesus was seen immediately at the 
sepulchre itself. Here also may be distinguished two 
stages. The earlier is the account of Mt. ; Jn. recasts 
it ( 19 c). If Jn. had been a free inventor it would 


p, ... 
a L ee or 


be hard to say why he does not assign the appearance of 
Jesus at the sepulchre to Peter and the beloved disciple, 
both of whom nevertheless he represents as examining 
the sepulchre. Since he names only a woman as re 
ceiving the appearance he shows himself bound by the 
representation which we now find in Mt. , in spite of all 
the comparative freedom with which he departs from it. 
So also the Coptic account, and the Didaskalia (above, 
6, 7 b}. 

(d) In all the reports hitherto mentioned, however, 
Jesus was seen only after, not during, his resurrection. 
The possibility of filling up this blank was offered by 
the story of the guard at the sepulchre, which on its 
own merits has already been discussed (above, 24 e ). 
It could in point of fact fill the blank in an (apologeti 
cally) extremely effective way, inasmuch as it was by 
unbelievers that the actual fact of the resurrection was 

The timidity which restrained the other writers from touching 
upon this incident continued to be still operative with Mt. in so 
far that he does not say that the person of Jesus was actually 
seen, and adds that the watchers became as dead men (284). 
The Gospel of Peter has completely overcome this timidity ; the 
watchers observe accurately each of the successive phases of the 
resurrection and see Jesus himself as he emerges from the tomb. 
The codex Bobbiensis (above, 7 a) relates this simply as a fact 
without mention of the witnesses. The statement of the Gospel 
of the Hebrews that Jesus gave the linen shroud to the servant 
of the high-prieststands upon the same plane. 

As long as there was still current knowledge that the 

first appearances of the risen Jesus were in Galilee, the 

,,, _ fact could be reconciled with the presence 

,. . of the disciples in Jerusalem on the 

p, ... morning of the resurrection only (a) on 
{he assum p t j on t j, at t h e y were tnen 

directed to go to Galilee. The natural 
media for conveying such a communication must have 
seemed to be the angels at the sepulchre in the first 
instance, and after them the women. So Mk. and 
Mt. So far as Mt. is concerned this direction to be 
given to the disciples was perhaps the reason, or a 
reason in addition to that suggested in 2 d, why the 
women should be made to go to the grave so early as 
on the evening ending the Sabbath, so that the disciples 
might still in the course of the night have time to set 
out and if possible obtain a. sight of Jesus within three 
days after his crucifixion. 

(i) Yet such a combination as this was altogether 
too strange. Why should Jesus not have appeared 
forthwith in Jerusalem to the disciples ? Accordingly 
I>k. and Jn. simply suppressed the direction to go to 
Galilee, finding themselves unable to accept it, and 
transferred the appearances to Jerusalem. Or, it was 
not our canonical evangelists who did both things at 
one and the same time, but there had sprung up, 
irrespective of Mk. and Mt. , the feeling that Jesus 
must in any case have already appeared to the disciples 
in Jerusalem ; it presented itself to Lk. and Jn. with a 
certain degree of authority, and these writers had not 
now any occasion to invent but simply to choose what 
seemed to them the more probable representation, and 
then, when in the preparation of their respective books 
they reached the order to go to Galilee, merely to pass 
over it or get round it ( 2 k], as no longer compatible 
with the new view. 

As against all assurances that the risen Jesus had 
been seen, it was always possible to raise the objec- 

27 tr\ O t on l ^ at wnat was seen ^ at ^ been merely 

sensible 11 a vision (<t> dvTaff V- a )- One g od wa > 
... , of meeting this objection was (<?) the 

J assurance that the eye-witnesses had 

pp ranees. assurec j themselves of the contrary with 
all the more care and circumspection because they them 
selves had at first shared this doubt. It is thus that 
we are to explain the care with which the disbelief of 
the disciples is accentuated. 

So in Mt. 28 17 ( but some doubted. oi 8 t6i <TTa<rar)l Lk. 

1 Should Brandt (355-357) be right in his conjecture that these 
three words are a gloss, because, in the words immediately 



24 ii 37 41 in irv. 37 41 we have a doubt that is hardly intelli 
gible in the present connection, since all those present have 
already in v. 34 confessed their faith in the resurrection of Jesus 
(an unevenness that would be removed by the hypothesis of 
Brandt spoken of in 16 b) also with special emphasis in Jn. 
2025 Mk. 16 ii I3./C and in the Coptic account. The counter 
part, a specially strong faith, is shown by James, in the Gospel 
of the Hebrews, in his oath that he would fast until Jesus had 
risen again. 

(l>) If then it was held important to be able to over 
come doubts, it was always possible to produce some im 
pression if assurance could be given that Jesus had been 
not only seen but also heard. As to the substance of 
what he said something will be found in the next section 
( 28) ; for the present, all that comes into consideration 
is the simple fact of speech. For narrators who had 
never themselves witnessed an appearance of Jesus it 
was an exceedingly natural thing to assume that Jesus 
had been not only seen but also heard, and it was 
equally easy for their hearers to take their conjecture 
for fact. At the same time, since it was not impossible 
also to hear words, as Paul reports himself to have done 
(2 Cor. 124), without the experience being more than an 
ecstasy, some yet stronger proof of objectivity still re 
mained necessary. 

(e) In 17 [/] stress has already been laid on the 
fact that in the bodily figure of Jesus which was seen the 
marks of the wounds were also included ; nay more, 
that spectators even perhaps believed themselves to see 
that he was showing them. Still, a real guarantee of 
the actuality of his return to this earth had not been 
received until the wounds had been touched. 

Whilst, however, there is between such an actual seeing and 
actual touching a distinction so great that it can hardly be exag 
gerated, it is one which is capable of being almost entirely over 
looked by people who neither themselves_ had witnessed an 
appearance of Jesus nor were familiar with the principles of 
psychology; and thus it would not be impossible for them, 
without any consciousness of inaccuracy, still less of deliberate 
perversion of the truth, to change the statement which eye 
witnesses had actually made as to having seen the wounds into 
the different statement that Jesus had invited the disciples to 
touch them. So Lk. 2439 Jn. 2027 ; also the Coptic account and 
the second fragment of the Gospel of the Hebrews ( 4 c), in the 
last-cited case with the express addition that the disciples availed 
themselves of the invitation. In a naive way a touching of 
Jesus by the women is mentioned in Mt. 28 9. 

(d) Lk. goes yet another step further in his statement 
(2442^ ) that Jesus asked for food, and partook of it in 
the presence of the disciples. This is in v. 41 expressly 
characterised as a still stronger proof of the reality of 
his resurrection than the fact that he had been touched. 
Here, accordingly, the popular conceptions as to the 
nature of the resurrection body underlying Mk. 614-16, 
which in the earliest period were not applied to Jesus 
( 17 e), gain influence. Jn. does not follow Lk. in 
this ; he declines to represent the risen Jesus in so 
strongly and frankly sensuous a manner. 1 Yet even 
Lk. s representation is surpassed by the extra-canonical 
addition to Lk. 2143 ( 7 c] that Jesus gave to his 
disciples the remainder of the food of which he had been 
partaking. An eating in their presence here becomes an 
eating with them, which according to Acts 10 41 was, in 
fact, continually happening. 2 

(e) It becomes now quite easy to understand how, 
once narrators had ceased to shrink from such repre 
sentations, the reporter passed over that particular touch 
in the accounts actually proceeding from eye-witnesses 
according to which Jesus had vanished after each 
appearance, and how instead of this it was unsuspectingly 

following, Jesus passes over the doubt of these disciples without 
remark, the insertion would still show that a reader of the 
oldest period found it fitting to presuppose doubts on the part of 
some of the disciples. 

1 The question in Jn. 21 5, quite on a level with Lk. 2441 
( aught to eat? ), has a quite different significance; in Jn. 
Jesus does not intend to eat, but to give them to eat. Neither 
also does Lk. 243oyT(the scene at Emmaus) imply a represen 
tation of Jesus as eating. See 29, /. 

- The rendering of wvc&ifAfWQl in EV .?. of Acts 1 4 eat 
ing with them is, however, very doubtful (E V being assembled 
together with them ). 


taken for granted that Jesus had still remained upon 
earth and had dealings with his disciples in every respect 
as a man. In the earliest stage of this way of represent 
ing matters, such a condition of things was held to have 
lasted for only one day ; but afterwards the time was 
extended to forty days ( 16 a, 6). 

That this second view was not met with in tradition from the 
beginning, but owes its existence to a transformation of the 
earlier view, is absolutely certain unless we assign Acts to 
another than the author of the Third Gospel. The cause of the 
transformation is very apparent ; the disciples were, during all 
the lifetime of Jesus, very weakly, and at the end still needed 
much instruction concerning the kingdom of God (irept TTJS 
/SacriAei as roO 0eoO : Acts 1 3). 

(f) The idea of a continuous presence of Jesus upon 
earth, if only for a single day, necessarily carried with 
it the consequence that this condition terminated in an 

No one needed to invent the idea ; every account of eye 
witnesses had closed with the more or less definite statement 
that Jesus had again disappeared, and disappeared into heaven 
( i7</). At the same time the tendency to adorn a plain story 
shows itself at work with sufficient clearness if we compare the 
simple he parted from them and was carried up into heaven 
(Sie oTT) air O.VTWV Koi ai SiftepfTO eis T OI> ovpavov) of Lk. 24 51, or 
even Mk. 1<5 19, with the circumstantial account given in Acts 
IQ-II. The original limitation of the period during which 
appearances of (esus occurred to a single day will have co 
operated along with the other causes mentioned in 23 e to bring 
about the exclusion by Lk. of the appearance to the 500, that to 
James, and that to all the apostles. 

The belief once created that Jesus in his various 

appearances had also spoken, the door lay wide open 

, ... _. for all kinds of conjecture as to what 

j J? j he had said, (a) In this region the 

wor srepo e . most ODV i ous conjecture was that Jesus 

uttered words leading up to, or explaining, the alleged 

facts which we have already considered. 

Thus it fits the situation equally that in Mt. 2S 10 Jesus re 
peats to the women the injunction of the angels to bid the 
disciples repair to Galilee, and that in Lk. 24 49 and Acts 1 4, 
on the other hand, he bids them remain in Jerusalem, whilst in 
Jn. 20 17 he merely sends them word that he is ascending to 
heaven, and for this reason does not suffer Mary Magdalene to 
touch him. It is still in accordance with the same principle 
that he is represented as at a later date making the request that 
his disciples should touch him, and asking the disciples whether 
they have anything to eat (J5 27 c, <f). 

(b) Other words of Jesus apply to situations which we 
have not yet discussed. Thus, in Lk. 24 38 and in the 
Didaskalia ( 7/ ), as well as in the speech to James 
in the Gospel of the Hebrews, the purpose is to prepare 
the way for a joyful frame of heart and mind. The 
words in Jn. 20 19 26, Peace be unto you, as also those 
to Saul, Saul, Saul, why persecutes! thou me? (Acts 
94, etc.), are singularly well chosen. 

(c) What must have presented itself as the main 
object must have been that of instructing the disciples, 
before the final departure of Jesus, in everything which 
was still necessary for their future tasks. 

To this category of instruction belongs the repeated insistence 
upon the uncertainty of the time of the end of the world (Acts 
1 7 ; cp Mk. 1832), but very specially, as new matter, the proof 
that the passion of Jesus had been appointed by God and fore 
told by the prophets (Lk. 24 25-27 44-46). If Jesus in this 
manner established a correct understanding of events that were 
past, it was natural, indeed inevitable, to think that, over and 
above this, he had given all the new directions for the future 
which were in point of fact followed in the church and therefore 
could not but have proceeded from its founder. Thus (it was 
held) it must necessarily have been Jesus who told the disciples 
that all authority had been given unto him in heaven and on 
earth, and that he was with them alway, even unto the end of 
the world (Mt. 28 18 20); he it was who must have instituted 
the mission to the Gentiles (Mt. 28 \f)f. Lk. 24 47 Mk. 10 15), as 
also baptism (Mk. 1C 16, and the canonical text of Mt. 28 19 ; 
but cp 8 c), and he too it must have been who promised the 
power of performing miracles (Mk. 16 I7./C), yet also demanded 
a faith that believed without having seen (Jn. 2629), this in 
view of the fact that he knew of, and was able to foretell, the 
outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (Lk. 2449 Acts 
1 4.A 8), if he did not himself impart the Spirit as in Jn. 2022. 

(d } This leads us to the significance which the words 
of the risen Jesus have, especially for the apostles ; for 
it is only to them that in Jn. the Spirit is imparted, as 
also the power to forgive or to retain sins (2023) or, 
indeed, a formal mission of any kind (20 21). We find, 



further, that in the missionary precept the disciples 
come first into account, just as in Acts (especially 
26i6-i8) it is Paul who does so. Jn. 2115-23 has to do 
entirely with fixing the relative rank in the regard of the 
church between Peter on the one hand and the beloved 
disciple on the other ( 9 c) ; similarly 203-10 (cp SIMON 
PKTKR, zzb). The gospel tradition has therefore made 
use of its accounts of the resurrection of Jesus in a very 
decided manner for the purpose of carrying back to 
Jesus the high esteem in which the apostles were held 
at a later time. 

With other reasons (88 23 e 27 [/]) the purpose just referred 
to may have co-operated to bring it about that the evangelists 
recorded almost exclusively only appearances to apostles and 
pass over in silence those to the 500 and to James, indeed, that 
Ml. contents himself with recording no more than one appear 
ance altogether, an appearance in which B. Weiss even discerns 
a free fusion of all that Mt. knew by tradition regarding the 
appearances of Jesus. 

At last, however, the emphasis that had been laid on 

the literal historical fact of the resurrection of Jesus 

i \ n Rave place to something different, (u) 

* a However firmly established the resurrec 

tion might seem to be historically, however 
little open to any shadow of doubt in the 

for vision of 
risen Jesus. minds of the faitnful _ ils value for them 

was nevertheless small : it was nothing more than 
an event of past time. What faith demands is some 
thing present, something now and always capable 
of being experienced afresh. The demand for a faith 
that could believe without having seen ( 111.202729 
i Pet. 1 8) was hard to satisfy. Thus there came to be 
felt a need for such a turn being given to the resurrection- 
narrative as should make the continued life of Jesus 
capable of being experienced anew at all times ( Mt. 28 20 : 
I am with you alway ), and thus the historical state 
ments as to his long-past appearances accounts which 
had been elaborated with such care in great measure 
lost their importance. 

(6) Towards this result Paul had already contributed. 
The risen Christ is for him identical with the Holy 
Spirit (2 Cor. 817 Rom. 89-11, and often). The fourth 
evangelist followed him in this ( 16 c ; JOHN, SON OF 
ZEBEDEE, 26 c). Therefore in the Fourth Gospel the 
risen Jesus having ascended to heaven bestows the Holy 
Spirit already on the very day of the resurrection. 
Only to the disciples, indeed, in 2022, but according to 
7 38/1 expressly to all believers ; and therefore it is not 
open to doubt that 16? 13-15 14i8 28 1526, etc., are also 
to be interpreted in the latter sense. As Holy Spirit 
Jesus is always present. 

(f) A somewhat more sensible substitute for vision of 
the risen Jesus is the observance of the ordinance of the 
Supper. This is the true meaning of the deeply signifi 
cant narrative of the disciples at Emmaus (cp CLEOPAS). 

The wish of Christianity abide with us did not admit of 
being fulfilled in a literal sense ; hut in every act of communion 
he went in to abide with them (Lk. 24 29). Not with flesh and 
bones as in the case of the primitive disciples (24 39), but in 
another form (ev erepct fj-optftfi : Mk. 16 12) ; and whilst the result 
of all that could be told about the empty grave was him they 
saw not, he is now presently recognised in the breaking of the 
bread (Lk. 24 24 30 f. 34). It is plain that the knowledge 
ascribed to the two disciples, so skilfully embodied in this nar 
rative, could not have been drawn by them from the events de 
scribed by Lk. even if they had literally happened to them on the 
resurrection day ; it is naturally the product of a long growth, 
and that too in Gentile-Christian circles in which the corporeal 
element in Jesus was neither so familiar nor so important as in 
the primitive-apostolical. It is clearly a reminiscence of a 
celebration of the Lord s Supper that we have also in Jn. 21 13 
and in the giving of the bread to James in the Gospel of the 
Hebrews ; only, in Jn. it has its prototype in the feeding of the 
five thousand with loaves and fishes (Og ti = 21 9), which, how 
ever, in turn bears the most express marks of being but a clothing 
of the Supper (see JOHN, SON OF ZF.BEDEE, 20 c, 23 i). 
The number seven as applied to the disciples corresponds to 
the number of baskets which in the second feeding in the 
Synoptists (Mk. 88= Mt. 15 37) were filled with the fragments 
that remained over; whilst in Jn. 613, in agreement with the 
tirst feeding in the Synoptists (Mk. 643 = Mt. 142o = Lk. 9 17), 
twelve baskets are filled, corresponding to the number twelve 
as applied to the disciples. The mysterious character of the 
presence of the risen Jesus at the Supper appears at Emmaus 


30. Nature of 
Jesus resur 

in his disappearance when the two disciples recognised him 
(Lk. 2431), at the Sea of Galilee in no one s asking him who he 
was (Jn. 21 12). 


The last problem still demanding solution, is how to 
explain the only fact that has emerged in the course of 
our examination the fact that Jesus 
was seen, as we read in i Cor. 15s-8. 
Any attempted explanation presupposes 
an insight into subjective experience 
that perhaps can never be completely attained. It 
demands, therefore, the greatest caution. It cannot, 
however, be left unattempted. 

(a) The investigator who holds himself bound to 
accept and make intelligible as literal fact everything 
recorded in the resurrection narratives, even of the 
canonical gospels merely, cannot fulfil his task on any 
other condition than that he assumes a revivification of 
the buried body of Jesus to a new period of earthly life, 
hardly less earthly than when Jesus was taken for Elijah 
or the Baptist risen from the dead (Mk. 6 14-16 828 and ||, 
cp9n-i3 Mt. 1114). It only remains to be stipulated 
that he who does so shall fully realise that what he is 
assuming is a miracle in the fullest sense of the word. 
Many theologians are strangely wanting in clearness as 
to this. Even, however, after one has clearly under 
stood what he is accepting, it is impossible to stop here ; 
for such a view does justice only to one side the 
physical and sensuous of the resurrection-narratives ; 
not to the other, according to which Jesus was neverthe 
less exalted to heaven, a thing impossible for flesh and 
blood (i Cor. 15 50). 

(fi) In order to do justice to this second side also, 
recourse is often had to the theory of a gradual sublima 
tion or spiritualisation of the resurrection-body of Jesus 
at first wholly material whereby it was gradually 
made fit for its ascension. Again, what has to be 
insisted on is that the miracle is not hereby diminished ; 
on the contrary, to the original miracle of the revivifi 
cation of the material body is added a second that of 
the spiritualisation of the material body. The thing, 
however, is also quite inconceivable ; how is one to 
represent to oneself the stages of the transition ? 

A body which is already capable of making its way through 
closed doors must surely have ceased to be tangible (Jn. 20 26yi). 
Moreover, such a view is in direct contradiction to what we find 
in NT, not only in i Cor. 15 50-53 but also in the gospels ; for 
the touching there referred to and (in Lk. 24 39-43) the eating 
happen precisely at the last appearance of Jesus which is 
immediately followed by the ascension ; and the precept not to 
touch is placed in Jn. (20 17) at an earlier point. So, also, we 
read that Jesus is immediately recognised in his later appear 
ances, but precisely in the earlier ones not (Lk. 24 16 Jn. 20 14). 

(c) If we decide to confine ourselves to the task of 
explaining what we take to be the simple fact according 
to i Cor. 15, we must not suffer ourselves to forget that 
Paul thinks of the future resurrection-body of man 
which he regards as heavenly and pneumatic as con 
formed to the pattern of the resurrection-body of Jesus 
(so i Cor. 15 45-49). l Jesus body also, then, in his view 
must have been heavenly and pneumatic ; and as Paul 
in i Cor. has not yet given up the revivification of 
the buried body ( 15^), he must have thought of the 
pneumatic attributes possessed by it as having arisen 
through metamorphosis, such as, according to i Cor. 
15 51-53. is to happen also to the bodies of those men 
and women who shall still be alive at the last day. 
According to what we have seen in 17 e the original 
apostles also agree in this. Thus the explanation of the 
facts which proceeds on the belief of the apostles that a 
body of Jesus was really seen must think of that body as 
heavenly and pneumatic ; not, however, in such a sense 
that it was given to Jesus at his resurrection as a new 

1 In r. 49 the future we shall bear (ifropeVofiev) is to be 
read. An exhortation, let us bear (<f>ope o-co/ufi / ; so Ti. ^\ H), 
is meaningless, for the resurrection-body is obtained without 
our co-operation. The confusion of o and o> with copyists is 
very common ; see Gal. 6 10 12 i Jn. 5 20 Rom. 5 i 14 9, etc. 



body whilst the old body remained in the grave, but in 
the sense that it came into existence through a change 
wrought on the buried body. On this explanation the 
resurrection has as much an entirely miraculous char 
acter as it has on either of the other two theories already 

In order to escape so far as may be from miracle 

of the character described in the preceding section, 

_ and, generally, to be rid of the question 

31 . Resu rrec- of the corporeity of the risen Jesus, 

tion of the recourse is often had to tne view that 

Spirit only. it was on]y . the spirit of j esus that rose 

and appeared to his followers. Here opinion is divided 
as to whether such a thing is possible without a miracle 
or not. Any one who holds appearances of the spirits of 
the departed to be possible in the natural order will be 
able to dispense with assuming a miracle here. The 
majority, however, maintain the negative. Moreover, 
such persons declare that the appearances of Jesus to 
his disciples differ considerably from the manner in 
which the spiritualism of the present day holds appear 
ances of spirits to occur. They find themselves com 
pelled accordingly, if it was merely the spirit of Jesus 
that was alive and manifested itself, to postulate a 
miracle whereby it was made visible. 

It is to be observed, moreover, that this view that 
only the spirit lives on is in no respect different from 
the doctrine of the immortality of the soul except in this, 
that in the particular case in question the continuance 
of the life of the spirit begins only on the third day 
after death. This, however, is a collocation of quite 
heterogeneous ideas. The essence of the doctrine of 
immortality lies in this, that the life of the soul is never 
interrupted, and thus there can be no thought at all of 
revivification after remaining for a time in a state of 
death. Revivification can occur only in the case of a 
subject that is capable of dying in other words, in a 
body. This is a Jewish idea, that of immortality is 
Greek. The latter is adopted in the Book of Wisdom, 
and Paul comes near it in 2 Cor. 5 1-8 ( 15 b) ; for the 
original apostles it is from the outset excluded ( 171?). 

It is discovered to be necessary, accordingly, to go a 
step farther. The belief that the risen Jesus actually 

12 Obiective did appear is frankl y S iven U P" 

32. ypject ^ The discipleS| we are to i d| saw 

Visions. nothing real : neither the body of Jesus, 
clothed with earthly or heavenly attributes, nor the spirit 
of Jesus whether in true spirit form or in some kind of 
acquired visibility. What they believed they saw was 
in reality only a visionary image, without any real 
appearance of Jesus ; but this visionary image was 
produced in their souls immediately by God in order 
that they might be assured that Jesus was risen. For 
this reason the vision is called objective. 

(b) The belief is entertained that by this method of 
regarding the matter the assumption of a miracle is 
made superfluous ; all that is postulated is merely a 
Divine act of revelation. Keim has invented for this 
view, which he also supports, the phrase : telegram 
from heaven. This act of revelation itself, however, is 
nothing less than a miracle. Were it not miraculous 
the visionary image of the risen Jesus in the minds of 
the disciples could only have its origin in their own 
subjective condition. This is exactly what is denied 
and must be denied ; otherwise the disciples must be 
taken to have had their faith in the resurrection within 
themselves and needed no divine revelation of it. The 
subjective condition of the disciples must on this view 
be represented as one of the greatest prostration, which 
could be changed into its opposite only by a revelation 
really coming from God. 

(c) It has to be remarked, further, that according to 
this view Jesus continued existence must be regarded 
as miraculous in the full sense. If the presupposition 
were that his soul was immortal like the soul of any 
other man, his continued life would be a matter of 


course and did not require to be made known by a 
special revelation. But what is aimed at in putting 
forward this view is much rather to establish the 
complete difference between Jesus and all other men 
which has been from the first claimed for him by the 
assertion of his resurrection, but yet to be able to 
dispense with miracle. This can never succeed. 

If a really non-miraculous explanation is desired, then 
apart from subjective visions (of which more hereafter) 

two possibilities present themselves. 

miraculous ^ The h yP othesis that J esus was onl - v 
explanations a PP arentl y dead found man 7 supporters 

(excludin the days f rationalisra - and h has 

* . . r* also been espoused by a writer so modern 
visions). ,, //t i. 7 o ^ o \ 
as Hase (desert. Jesn, 1876, 112). 

That cruciffed persons taken down from the cross while still 
in life have been able to recover is testified by Herodotus (7 194) 
and Josephus (\ it. 75 end, 4207^). In a case of seeming 
death indeed it is hardly credible, and to call to one s aid the 
wonderful power of healing which Jesus exercised on behalf of 
other persons is in this connection quite fantastic. More than 
this : had Jesus presented himself merely as one who had all 
but died on the cross his appearance would have produced the 
impression of weakness and helplessness, not that of a conqueror 
of death and the grave, which nevertheless was the character he 
required to present if he was to inspire his followers to a world- 
conquering faith. Finally, what could they say, if he neverthe 
less in the end died after all? To escape the force of this 
question the assumption was that he had withdrawn himself 
into solitude, perhaps into some cave in order that his death 
might not become known. It is obvious that the theory of a 
seeming death is not enough ; it is necessary to assume also 
various machinations, whether on the part of Jesus himself or on 
the part of his disciples, whether at the time of his leaving the 
sepulchre or with a view to covering the worst signs of weak 
ness before he presented himself to larger circles of his followers. 
In this aspect the present hypothesis approximates 

(b) The hypothesis that, althongh Jesus did not 
recover, the disciples spread abroad, and found credence 
for, the rumour that he was alive. Apart from all 
other difficulties, such a hypothesis is from the outset 
untenable for two reasons : not only would the disciples 
immediately after the death have been unable to 
summon courage for so gigantic a task as the theory 
implies, but also at a later date they would not have 
had courage in persecution to surrender their lives for 
such a faith. 

Thus subjective visions are all that remain now to 

^ , be dealt with. Let us endeavour first of 

- , . all to determine their nature in general bo 

,. . . far as this is practicable, without a too 

minute discussion of the conditions implied 

in the NT narratives and statements. 

(a) In contradistinction from the so-called objective 
vision (see 32 a), the image that is seen in the sub 
jective vision is a product of the mental condition of 
the seer. The presupposition is, accordingly, that he 
is not only in a high degree of psychical excitement 
which is capable of producing in him the belief that he 
is seeing something which in point of fact has no 
objective existence, but also that all the elements which 
are requisite for the formation of a visionary image, 
whether it be views or ideas, are previously present in 
his mind and have engaged its activities. That in these 
circumstances the seer should behold an image for 
which there is no corresponding reality, can be spoken 
of as something abnormal only in so far as the occurrence 
is on the whole a rare one ; as soon as a high degree of 
mental excitement is given, the existence of visions is by 
the laws of psychology just as intelligible and natural 
as, in a lower degree of mental excitement, is the 
occurrence of minor disturbances of sense perceptions, 
such as the hearing of noises and the like. 

(6) The view that a subjective vision could never 
have led the disciples to the belief that Jesus was alive 
because they were able to distinguish a vision from a 
real experience is quite a mistake. 1 It is not in the 
least necessary that we should raise the question whether 
they were always able to do so ; let it be at once 

1 On this point Beyschlag (Le&en Jesu 1 422-440) is par 
ticularly instructive. 



assumed that they could. The distinction is not un 
known in the NT; see, for example, Acts I2g ; indeed 
we may lay it down that was seen (&tf>6r)) with the 
single exception of Acts 7 26 always stands for another 
kind of seeing than that of ordinary sense-perception 
(e.g., Lk. In 9 3 i 22 4 3 Acts2 3 72 3 o 35 817 13 3 i 16 9 
26 16 [i Tim. 3i6?] Rev. 11 19 12 1 3). Nay, this is our 
warrant for calling in visions to our aid in explaining 
the appearances of Jesus. All that we have gained by 
this concession, however, is merely that the seers dis 
tinguished once and again the condition in which they 
were : whether ecstatic or normal ; it by no means 
follows as matter of course that they held the thing seen 
in vision to be unreal, and only what they saw when 
in their ordinary condition to be real. How otherwise 
could the very conception of such a thing as an objec 
tive vision be possible ? 

(c) On the contrary, it pertains precisely to the 
subjective vision that the seer, if he is not a person 
thoroughly instructed in psychology and the natural 
sciences, is compelled to hold what he sees in his vision 
for real as long as it does not bring before him some 
thing which to his conception is impossible. Wherein 
otherwise would consist the delusion, which nevertheless 
every one knows to be connected with subjective vision, 
if not in this, that the visionary seeks for the cause of 
what he has seen in the external world, not in his own 
mental condition? And indeed the visionaries of the 
Bible had more extended powers than modern visionaries 
have for taking a visionary image as an objective 
reality ; for, if they were unable to attribute to the 
image they saw any ordinary mundane reality because 
it was contrary to their ideas of mundane things, they 
could always attribute to it a heavenly reality, and it 
was only if it was contrary to their conception of things 
heavenly that they came to recognise it as a product of 
their own fantasy. 

(d) We have therefore to distinguish between three 
experiences which were regarded as possible by the 
disciples and their contemporaries : (i) the seeing of an 
earthly person by the use of the ordinary organs of 
sight : (2) the seeing of a person in a. real yet heavenly 
corporeity, not by the bodily eyes but in a vision 
(oirraffia : Lk. 1 22 24 23 Acts 26 19 2 Cor. 12 1; or 
Spattis : Acts 2 17 Rev. 917; or 8pafj.o. : Acts 9 1012 
10 3 17 19 lls 169/1 189), in a state of ecstasy (?Ktrra<m: 
Acts 10 10 11$ 22i?), or, it may be, outside of the seer s 
own body (2 Cor. 12*/. ) ; (3) the production of a false 
image on the mind without any corresponding outward 
reality. The first of these possibilities (ordinary seeing) 
is contemplated only by those evangelists who speak 
of Jesus as eating and as being touched, and who never 
themselves had been present at appearances of the 
risen Jesus. The second possibility (visionary seeing of 
a heavenly corporeity) is what the witnesses of such 
appearances intended and what Paul indicates by the 
word was seen (ux^djf). With the third possibility 
(false image) it has this in common that in both the 
condition of the participants is visionary ; with the first 
(ordinary seeing), that the participants hold what they 
see to be absolutely real and to have an existence 
external to themselves (but not with a mundane reality). 

(e) It was the mistake of many critics to assume that 
by the use of was seen ((ZfiOrj) the purely subjective 
origin of what had been seen was conceded by Paul 
himself. The same error, however, is almost entirely 
shared also by apologists such as Beyschlag when they 
suppose that the participants, if they had held their 
condition to be that of visionaries, would at the same 
time have perceived the unreality of what they saw. This 
hypothetically enunciated statement of the apologists 
is distinguished from the categorical assertion of the 
critics in only one point : the apologists will have it 
that the participant need not necessarily attribute the 
origin of what he sees to the state of his own mind, but 
can attribute it to God yet without the result that, in 


the latter case, in his view the thing seen becomes 
invested with reality. 

Thus Beyschlag (as above, 432-435) is of opinion that Acts 
169 does not make Paul believe that in. reality a man of 
Macedonia stood before him, nor 10io-i6 make Peter think that 
in reality a sheet containing real animals was let down from 
heaven not only not in mundane actuality but also not even in 
heavenly actuality ; on the contrary, in each case neither had 
taken in more than this, that God was seeking to give them to 
understand something by means of sensible images. This way 
of looking at matters is utterly inconsistent with the beliefs of 
that time. If it is God who sends the Macedonian or the sheet 
containing the beasts, as a matter of course it is believed that 
these things are sent really (possessing of course not mundane 
but heavenly actuality) ; for where it is presupposed that God 
can if he chooses send them really, it would be quite unaccount 
able to believe that he has nevertheless not done so. That the 
sending is not done for its own sake merely, but has for its 
purpose to incite Paul or Peter to a particular course of action, 
is indeed true ; but this does not by any means divest the thing 
which God has sent of its reality. Beyschlag makes it seem as 
if this were so merely by a reference to Acts 129: he knew not 
that it was true which was done by the angel, but thought he 
saw a vision. It is correct to say that the same word (opafj.a) 
is employed here as is used in 16 9/1 10 17 19 11 5, and that Peter 
regards this vision (opa/uo) as something unreal. Here however 
the distinction drawn in a preceding paragraph (above, c) falls 
to be applied : that a Macedonian or a sheet containing beasts 
endowed with a heavenly corporeality could be sent by God 
was regarded by Paul and by Peter respectively as thoroughly 
possible; on the other hand, in 12 9 it is presupposed that the 
liberation of Peter when it was not true but a vision would 
have been regarded by him as impossible. In like manner, if 
vision (opacrts) in Tobit 12 19 means something opposed to 
reality, a mere appearance (<j>a.vTa.<rfi.a), that meaning is secured 
only by the antithesis in the sentence. The angel Raphael, 
who has accompanied Tobias, says here by way of after- 
explanation of what his real nature was : I have neither eaten 
nor drunken, but ye saw only an appearance. The identity 
of the word (opo/ma or opacris) thus by no means proves identity 
of judgment upon the matter here in question, namely the reality 
or unreality of what has been seen. 

(/) Equally mistaken would it be to maintain that 
visions are throughout the whole OT and NT regarded as 
an inferior form of divine revelation. Beyschlag deduces 
this from a single text (Nu. 126-8): to a prophet I 
reveal myself by visions or dreams, but with Moses I 
speak face to face. Not Only is the dream placed upon 
a level with the vision, an equality of which there can 
be no thought in connection with the appearances of 
the risen Jesus, but also in antithesis to both is placed 
God s direct speaking, which undoubtedly makes known 
the will of God more plainly than a visual image 
can, the interpretation of which rests with the seer. In 
the case of the resurrection of Jesus, however, the 
situation is exactly reversed. If God had announced to 
the disciples by spoken words that Jesus was alive, even 
if they fully believed these words to have been received 
immediately from God, the announcement would not 
have been for them so clear and impressive as when 
they were themselves permitted to look upon the form 
of Jesus as of one who was alive. 

(g] After what has been said in three preceding 
paragraphs (c, d, e) the decisive question comes to be : 
what sort of appearances of a person risen from the dead 
were regarded by the disciples as possible ? 

To this the answer must at once be : Not incorporeal appear 
ances ; for the idea of the immortality of the soul alone was 
utterly strange to them ( lyt). Next, we must say: they 
looked for a general resurrection of the terrestrial body to a 
terrestrial life on the last day ; but in exceptional cases they 
regarded it as happening even in the present (Mk. 6 14-16 ; cp 
17 f). And as they would have felt no difficulty in regarding 
Jesus as an exceptional instance of this last description, they 
would have regarded an appearance of Jesus in this form (with 
a terrestrial body) as a real one. This case, however, does not 
come into consideration ; for such an appearance of Jesus does 
not come within the range of what is historically authenticated. 

What is alone authenticated is the appearance of 
Jesus in heavenly corporeality ; but of that it has been 
shown in 1 7 e that it corresponded with the conceptions 
of Paul and likewise with those of the original apostles. 

(h] The resultant conclusion then must be that when 
the disciples experienced an appearance of Jesus in 
heavenly corporeality they were under compulsion to 
regard it as objectively real, and therefore to believe 
that Jesus was risen because they had actually seen him. 



Consequently, this belief of theirs does not prove that 
what they saw was objectively real : it can equally well 
have been merely an image begotten of their own 
mental condition. 

Having now, we believe, shown in a general way the 
possibility that the things related concerning the risen 

es-+ + Jesus may rest upon subjective visions, 
35. olutlclulOU , f 

f p . what next remains for us to inquire is 

whether such visions have any prob 
ability in view of the known situation of the disciples. 
This question admits of an affirmative answer, very 
particularly in the case of Paul. 

It will ever remain the lasting merit of Holsten that he has 
carried out this research on all sides with the most penetrating 
analysis. The view he arrived at holds its ground alike in 
presence of conservative theology and in presence of the deniers 
of the genuineness of all the Pauline epistles, who find the 
change from Pharisee to apostle of Jesus freed from the law too 
sudden. An energetic nature could only pass from the one 
extreme to the other, and could not possibly hold a mediating 
position. 1 

(a) Paul persecuted the Christians as blasphemers, 
because they proclaimed as the Messiah one who by the 
judgment of God (Dt. 2123, cp Gal. 813) had been 
plainly marked as a criminal, (b] If, in defending 
their position, they quoted passages of the OT which in 
their view treated of the Messiah, Paul could not gainsay 
this application in a general way ; all that he denied 
was the applicability of the passages to one who had been 
crucified, (c] From their appeals to the appearances of 
Jesus, Paul certainly had come to know quite well the 
form in which they would have it that they had seen 
him. (d) Apart from this blasphemy of theirs Paul 
cannot but have recognised their honesty, seriousness, 
and blamelessness of moral character. What if they 
should be in the right ? We may be certain that, when 
he entered their houses and haled them before the 
judgment-seat, there were not wanting heart-rending 
scenes, which in the case of a man not wholly hardened 
could not fail to raise ever anew the recurring question 
whether it was really at the behest of God that he had 
to show all this cruelty. He repressed his scruples ; 
yet the goad had entered his soul. 

(e) In his own inner life he had no satisfaction. What 
ever may have been the zeal with which he followed the 
precepts of the fathers (Gal. 1 14), unlike the great mass 
of morally laxer Pharisees his contemporaries, he per 
ceived the impossibility of fulfilling the whole of the law s 
requirements. And, not being able to fulfil them, he 
was accursed (Gal. 3io), and all men were in the same 
condemnation with himself. In Rom. 77-25 he has 
impressively described this condition. (f) And yet 
God in the OT had promised a time of salvation, and 
it was inconceivable that he should not hold to his 
word. But how could he, if the universal fulfilment of 
the law which was so clearly impossible were held to 
be the indispensable condition? 

(g) Here of necessity must have come about in the 
mind of Paul a combination of these two lines of 
thought which had hitherto remained apart. What if 
the Christians were right in their assertion that the 
Crucified One really was the Messiah, through whom it 
was God s will to bring salvation to the world without 
insisting on the fulfilment of the entire law? In that 
case the persecution of the Christians was indeed a 
crime ; but Paul, and with him all mankind, was 
nevertheless delivered from the anguish of soul caused 
by daily transgression of the law ; mercy, no longer 
wrath, was what he might expect from God. (h] And 
indeed, this being so, it could only have been through 
the death of Jesus that God had willed to procure 

1 Holsten, ZH T, 1861, pp. 223-284 ; Zutn dts Paulus 
. dcs I ctrus, 1-237 (1868); Pfleiderer, Paulinisntus, 1873, (2) 
i8qo, Einl. On the other side: Beyschlag, St. A>., 1864, pp. 
197-264; 1870, pp. 7-50, 189-26^. Specially interesting is Scholz 
(Deutsch-Evangtl. Blatter, 1881, pp. 816-841), who recognises 
the whole psychological preparation for the conversion, and 
then brings in the supernatural fact of the risen Jesus, which 
ms previous representation has enabled him to dispense with. 


salvation for men. For Saul, the Pharisee, could never 
get away from the thought that some kind of propitia 
tion had to be made for the sins of men, trefore God 
could bring in his grace. Perhaps the Christians had 
even already begun to quote in support of their view 
Is. 53, which Paul in all probability has in his mind 
when, in i Cor. 15s, he says that he has received by 
tradition the doctrine that Christ, according to the 
Scriptures, had been delivered as a propitiation for 
our sins. 

(i) Whether, however, all this, which in one- respect 
promised blessedness, but in another threatened him 
with divine punishment as a persecutor of the Christians, 
was really true or not, turned for Paul upon the answer 
to the question, whether in actuality Jesus was risen. 
For, in addition to the doctrine of propitiation, Saul the 
Pharisee was indissolubly wedded to the thought that 
every one that hangeth on a tree is accursed, unless 
God himself has unmistakably pronounced otherwise 
viz. that this proposition has no application to Jesus, 
who did not die the death of a criminal, but the death 
of a divine offering for sin. Such a divine declaration 
was involved, according to the Christians, in the resur 
rection of Jesus. 

(k] It will not be necessary to dwell upon the deeply 
agitating effect which such doubts must have produced 
in Paul s inmost soul ; the vividness with which 
the living figure so often described to him by Chris 
tians must, time and again, have stood before him, 
only to be banished as often by the opposition of his 
intellect ; until finally, only too easily, there came a 
time when the image of fancy refused any longer to 
yield to the effort of thought. All that need be pointed 
out further is that on his own testimony, as well as on 
that of Acts, Paul was very prone to visions and other 
ecstatic conditions (2 Cor. 12 1-4 i Cor. 14 18 Acts 9 12 
169 189 22i7 2723). That he does not place what he 
had experienced at Damascus on a level with those 
visions of his, but speaks of it as the last appearance of 
the risen Jesus (i Cor. 158), is intelligible enough if he 
was not aware of any further appearances having been 
made to other persons (see 10^); but it in no way 
shows that in the journey to Damascus what befell was 
not a vision, but an actual meeting with the risen Jesus. 
The possibility, indeed the probability, of a vision here 
has been pointed out ; it is for each reader to choose 
between this and a miracle. 

(/) Let it be clearly understood, however, that we do not here 
employ the word was seen (<o$0j) as evidence that Paul 
himself concedes the subjective origin of the image which he 
saw. (To the contrary, see 34^, c.) Neither do we make use 
of the expression in Gal. 1 16, where Paul speaks of God as 
having revealed his son in me (ei> e/u.oi), to prove that Paul 
regarded the occurrence at Damascus as one that had taken 
place solely within himself. The words I have seen (eopaKo.) 
and was seen (u><j>0n) in i Cor. 9 i 15s are decisive against this, 
for by them the apostle means to say that he has really seen 
(although not in earthly but in heavenly corporeality) the risen 
Jesus as appearing to him ab c.vtra. Yet so far as Gal. 1 15 f. 
is concerned, neither is it probable that to reveal (a7ro:aAvi//ai) 
denotes a subsequent inward illumination of Paul, since but 
when (ore fie) and straightway (eiifle ws) mark the time 
which followed immediately upon that of the Jews religion 
( Iovai<r]uid?) (1 13 f.). In me (iv e/not), in spite of the refer 
ence of to reveal (a7ro/caAt5i//ai) to the event on the road to 
Damascus, may mean within me, in so far as the appearance 
produced effects upon the spiritual life of the apostle ; but it can 
easily mean also upon me i.e., by changing the persecutor 
into a believer (not, however, through the success of my mis 
sionary labours, which did not occur till later). 

The situation of the earliest disciples very readily 
suggests the same explanation of the facts, (a) The 
nlenta l struggle between despair and 
hope the disaster involved in the 
death of Jesus, and the hope they still 
somehow clung to, that the kingdom of God might still 
be established by Jesus can hardly have been less 
than had been the struggle in the mind of Paul. 
Perhaps there was in their case the additional circum 
stance that they were fasting, a condition highly favour 
able to the seeing of visions. Yet such a conjecture 



is by no means indispensable, and we need not lay 
stress on the indication as to this given in the Gospel of 
Peter and in the Didaskalia (above, 5 [/], 7*). All 
these psychological elements, however, will be more fully 
considered later ( 37). 

(b) On the other hand, we are unable to attach 
weight to the view that the disciples were gradually led 
by a study of the OT to a conviction that Jesus was 
alive, and that thus in the end they came to have 
visions in which they beheld his form. 

Visions do not arise by processes so gradual or so placid. It 
is certainly correct to suppose that certain passages of the OT 
must have had an influence on the thoughts of the disciples in 
those critical days ; but not that they were then discovered for 
the first time as a result of study. Rather must they have been 
long familiar, when suddenly, under the impression made by the 
death of Jesus, they acquire a new and decisive significance as 
convincing the bereaved ones that the continued life of Jesus 
was made assured by the word of God. 

(f) From our list of such passages must be excluded many 
which are frequently quoted as belonging to it ; for example, 
Is. 258 Ps. 133 i 3 Ezek. 185-9, Ps. 27 (although it appears to 
be cited in Acts 13 33 in this sense), and, in particular, Ps. 16 10, 
although this is cited in Acts 2 27 31 13 35. What is said in the 
Hebrew text is that God will not suffer his pious worshipper to 
die(cpz>. 9). When (S by a false etymology (nnt9 = l to destroy, 
instead of n B f = to sink ) renders sahath, which, as the 
parallelism conclusively shows, means grave, 1 by destruction 1 
(Sia.<j>9opii), the mistranslation is innocuous as long as this word 
is taken to mean death, as the translators certainly took it ; it 
becomes misleading only on the Christian interpretation which 
understands the bodily corruption that follows death. Passages 
of the OT from which the disciples could really have drawn 
their conviction as to the resurrection of Jesus are Ex. 36 (see 
its employment by Jesus himself in Mk. 12a6./0 Is. 53oyC 
Hos. 62 2 K. 20s, perhaps also Ps. 11817 Job 10 25-27, but 
very specially Ps. 8613 110 1 (cp Brandt, 498-504). It must 
always be borne in mind, it is hardly necessary to say, that 
they did not interpret such passages in a critical manner and 
with reference to the context, but simply as they seemed to 
present to them a consoling thought. 

(it) Xo weight can be given to the objection that the image of 
the risen Jesus which presented itself to the disciples cannot 
have been subjective because at first they did not recognise 
it. That they failed to do so is stated only in passages 
which must be regarded as (Lk. 24 16 Jn. 2014); 
in Lk. 24 37 41 it is not even said that he was not recognised. 

(e) Another objection, that though perhaps the sub 
jective explanation might be admissible in the case of a 
single individual, it wholly fails in the case of appear 
ances to several, not to speak of the case of 500 at 
once, appears at first sight to have great weight. As 
against this it is worth mentioning that one of the most 
recent upholders of an objective resurrection of Jesus, 
Steude (St. A r. 1887, pp. 273-275), quite gives up this 
argument. In point of fact there is ample evidence to 
prove that visions have been seen by many, in the 
cases of Thomas of Canterbury, Savonarola, the 
Spanish general Pacchi, several crusaders days and 
even months after their death and similar occurrences 
also in the cases of 800 French soldiers, the Camisards 
in 1686-1707, the followers of the Roman Catholic 
priest Poschl in Upper Austria in 1812-1818, the 
1 Preaching-sickness and Reading-sickness in Sweden 
in 1841-1854, and so forth. 1 That in circumstances 
of general excitement and highly strung expectation 
visions are contagious, and that others easily perceive 
that which at first had been seen by only one, is, in 

1 E. A. Abbott, St. Thomas of Canterbury, 1898 ; Hase, 
Gesc. t.Jesu, 1876, pp. 595^, and Neue Propheten, 333 = ( 2 ) 2 ggf. ; 
Renter, Alexander der Dritte, 8110-112, 772-774 (1864); 
Scholten, Evang. nach Joh. (Germ.), 329^ (1867); Kenan, 
Apdtres, i6f. 22 (ET 517^ 55); Keim, Gesch. Jesu von Nazara, 
8539-592 (1872), ET 6, 348^); Perty, Mystische Erschti- 
nungenC2\ 1 130- 133 (1872); E. Stein, Psychische Contagion, 
21 f. (Erlangen, 1877); Hohnbaum, Psychischt Gesundtieit, 
38-41 (1845); Leubuscher, \\~ahnsinn in. den 4 letzten Jakrkun- 
dertcn, 222-249(1848); Ideler, Tkeorie des religiosen U ahn- 
sinns (1848-1850); Emminghaus, Allgem, Psychopathologie, 
S 33/- Ylf- 96, 113, 186 (1878), with the literature there referred 
to; Allgent. Ztschr.fftr Psychiatric, 1849, pp. 253-261; 1854, 
pp. 115-125; 1856, pp. 546-604; 1860, pp. 565-719; Wiedemann, 
Die relig. Beiuegung in Oberoesterreich u. Salzburg beim 
Reginn des 19 Jakrh. (1890); Die Secte der PSschlianer in 
OberSstreich in demjahre 1817 (no place on title-page, 1819); 
Misson, Theatre Sacre des Cevennes, London, 1707 ; Blanc, 
Inspiration ties Cainisards, Paris, 1859. 


view of the accumulated evidence, a fact not to be 

(/) The attempt has been made to argue from this, 
on the contrary, that subjective visions cannot be 
thought of as explaining the recorded facts of the 
resurrection, inasmuch as in that case we should be 
entitled to expect very many more recorded visions 
than are enumerated by Paul. That, however, would 
depend on the amount of predisposition to visions. It 
is very easily conceivable that this may very rapidly 
have diminished when, by means of a moderate number 
of reported appearances, the conviction had become 
established that Jesus had risen. On this account it is 
also best to presume that the first five appearances 
followed one another very quickly. All the more 
confidently in that case could Paul speak of that which 
he had himself received as being the last of all ( 10 h}. 

The consideration which above all others causes the 
most serious misgivings, is the state of deep depression 

37. Situation 
of Peter. 

in which the disciples were left by the 
death of Jesus. Is it conceivable that 

in such circumstances subjective visions 
should have come to them ? 

() This question, however, is essentially simplified 
by what has been pointed out above ( 36 e), if we 
suppose in addition that it was Peter alone who re 
ceived the first vision. Could he but once find himself 
able to say that he had seen Jesus, the others no 
longer needed to be able to raise themselves out of 
their state of prostration by their own strength ; what 
had happened to Peter supplied what was wanting in 
this respect. The question thus narrows itself to this : 
Is the possibility of a subjective vision excluded in the 
case even of Peter ? 

(b} Undoubtedly an unusually strong faith was 
needed, if in Peter the thought that Jesus, notwith 
standing his death, was still alive, was to become so 
powerful that at last it could take the form of a vision. 
All the requisite conditions, however, were present. 
We do not at all lay weight upon the consideration, 
that with the return to Galilee the reminiscences of 
Jesus associated with those localities would again take 
the upper hand over the impression which his death 
had made ; for indeed this impression was indelible. 
But alongside of this impression there would also be 
recollections of the predictions of Jesus. We do not 
refer here primarily to the predictions of his resurrection 
(see 22 a) ; those referring to his coming again from 
heaven to set up the kingdom of God upon earth 
predictions which are certainly quite historical (see 
GOSPELS, 145 [/]) are much more important. 
They also, it is true, might seem to have been decisively 
falsified by the death of Jesus ; for with Peter also it 
was an infallible word of God, that every one that 
hangs on a tree is cursed (Dt. 2X23; cp Gal. 813). 
Precisely here, however, there is a difference between 
the cases of the two apostles : Paul could apply this 
thesis to Jesus in cold blood, because he had never 
personally known him ( 2 Cor. 5 16, when rightly inter 
preted) ; Peter could not he owed too much to him. 
To speak more exactly, the reason why Peter, even after 
the crucifixion, did not cease wholly to have faith in the 
prediction of Jesus, lay partly in the deep impression of 
his utter trustworthiness which he had left upon his 
disciple, and partly also in the religious inheritance which 
Peter felt he owed him, in the ineradicable conviction of 
the truth of his cause. From this conviction of the 
truth of Jesus cause the conviction of his continued 
personal life was inseparable in the thought of that 
age. In this sense Renan s saying (Apdtres, 44, ET 
70) is true : ce qui a resuscit J6sus, c est 1" amour. 

(c) There is yet another point, which for the most 
part is utterly overlooked in this connection. We do 
not mean the lively temperament of Peter ; for whether 
that made him specially susceptible to visions cannot be 
said. We refer to the fact that Peter had denied his 



Lord. Even if the circumstance, mentioned only in 
Lk. (226i), that after his denial his eye met that of his 
master, be hardly historical (cp SIMON PETER, 19^), 
there still remains a delicate suggestion of what must 
most infallibly have happened ; the form of him whom 
Peter had denied must have come up before him with 
ever renewed vividness, however he may have struggled 
to escape it. Though at first he may have said to him 
self that this was a mere creation of his fancy, it is 
certainly not too bold a conjecture that a moment came 
when he believed he saw his Lord bodily present before 
him, whether it was that the eye was turned upon him 
with reproach and rebuke, or whether it was that it 
already assured him of that forgiveness, for which 
beyond all doubt he had been praying with all the 
energy of his soul. 

(d) If this be sound, we shall find in the denial of 
Peter an occasion for the occurrence of a vision as direct 
as we have found the persecution of the Christians by 
Paul to have been. If we will, we shall be able to 
discern in these acts of hostility against Jesus or his 
followers an arrangement in the providence of God, 
whereby chosen vessels were prepared for the further 
ance of Christianity. In any case this deed of Peter, 
that he held fast his faith in the imperishability of the 
cause of Jesus and therefore also of the person of Jesus, 
will remain the greatest of his life, greater still than his 
confession at Ccesarea Philippi (Mk. 829 and ||), and 
would make to be true those two words even though in 
the mouth of Jesus they be not historical : thou art 
Peter (i.e. , a rock) and upon this rock will I build my 
church (Mt. 16 18, cp MINISTRY, 4/. ), and Do thou, 
when once thou hast turned again, stablish thy brethren 
(Lk. 2232, cp SIMON PETER, 15^). 

For all that has been said in the foregoing paragraphs 
the most that can be claimed is that it proves the 

. Conclusion Pssibility-the probability if you will 
of the explanation from subjective 


, ,, 

. - -,-. 

visions, trom the very nature of the 

case it would not be possible to prove 

more, for the visionary character of the appearances 
could not be established for us by the visionaries them 
selves on the contrary, everything constrained them 
to regard what they had seen as objective and real nor 
yet by the reporters, who simply repeated what the 
visionaries had related to them. Only scientifically 
trained reporters could have assured us on the point, 
and such reporters did not then exist. Let it be 
expressly observed, however, that in the vision-hypo 
thesis it is only the judgment of the visionaries as to the 
objective reality of what they had seen that is set aside ; 
every other biblical statement of fact, unless we have 
been compelled to set it aside as inconsistent with some 
other biblical statement, remains unaffected. The 
hypothesis, furthermore, attributes no want of upright 
ness either to the visionary or to the reporter. The 
error which it points out affects merely the husk - 
namely that the risen Jesus was seen in objective 
reality, but not the kernel of the matter, that Jesus 
lives in the spiritual sense ; thus it is an error, only in 
the same relative sense as is the dogma that the Bible is 
inspired in every letter (a dogma without the temporary 
ascendancy of which the church of to-day would hardly 
have existed), or in the same sense in which the anthro 
pomorphic view of God s being and his relation to 
nature which possesses ever} child is an error an error 
but for which the number of grown-up persons of 
unshaken religious conviction would indeed be small. 

Reverting now once more to i and the ideas on 
account of which it is held that the belief in a literal 
resurrection cannot be given up, we remark that the 
doctrine of the government of the church by Christ is 
one that can give place without any religious loss to 
that of the leading of the church by the spirit of Christ, 
or, if it is desired to put it in a more personal form, 
that of the government of the church by God. That 

131 4085 

the cause of Jesus did not die with him on the cross we 
are assured by history, even if his resurrection did not 
occur as a literal fact. It is undeniable that the church 
was founded, not directly upon the fact of the resurrec 
tion of Jesus, but upon the belief in his resurrection ; 
and this faith worked with equal power whether the 
resurrection was an actual fact or not. The view of 
Paul that, apart from the literal truth of the resurrection 
of Jesus, there is no forgiveness of sins, has as its 
necessary presupposition the dogma, not of Paul the 
Christian but of Paul the Pharisee, that every crucified 
person without exception is accursed of God ; as soon 
as the possibility of a miscarriage of justice either in the 
synedrium or at Pilate s judgment seat is conceded, this 
view eo ipso falls to the ground. Finally, the view 
that unless Jesus actually rose again the hope of the 
final resurrection of the dead is vain would be a sound 
one if this hope had consisted in the expectation that all 
men were to rise three days after their respective deaths. 
In its actual form, as hope of the resurrection at the last 
day, it would come to be denied, in so far as an 
event happening in the case of Jesus is concerned, only 
if Jesus himself were to continue in the state of death at 
the last day. In so far, however, as the idea of the 
immortality of the soul takes the place of the hope of a 
final resurrection as in modern times is very extensively 
the case it ceases to be a matter of fundamental 
importance whether Jesus rose again on the third day, 
or not ; for immortality consists only in a continued 
existence of the soul, and that from the moment of the 
death of the body onwards, and is just as incapable of 
being confirmed or made known by a resurrection of the 
body as of being called in question by the absence of a 
resurrection. If immortality could thus be confirmed or 
made known, that must have been possible on the first 
and the second day after death, for immortality was then 
present. For that time, however, resurrection is ex 
cluded by presupposition. 

Prins, De realiteit van s Heercn upstanding, 1861, and 

(against Prins) Straatman, De rcaliteit Tan s Heeren opstanding 

. . . en hare verdcdigcrs, 1862 ; Paul, Zll T, 

39. Literature. 1863, 182-209, 279-311; 1864, 82-95, 396-408 

and (against Paul) Strauss, ibid. 1863, 386- 
400 ; Gebhardt, Die Aufersteliung Christi und Hire iietiesten 
Gtgner, 1864; Steude, Die Auferstehung Jesu, 1888, and with 
more scientific thoroughness in St. Kr., 1887, 203-295 (see above, 
36 e) ; Rohrbach, Der Schluss des Marcusevangeliums, 1894, 
and Die Berichte liter die Auferstehung Jesu, 1898; Eck, 
Bedeutung der Auferstehung Jesu fiir die Urgemeinde u. fur 
uns in Hcfte ziir Christlichen ll elt, No. 32, 1898; Loofs, 
Die Auferstehungsberichte u. ihr \Verth, ibid. No. 33, 1898; 
Bruckner, Die Berichte tiber die Auferstehung Jesu in Prot. 
Monatshefte, 1899, 41-47, 96-110, 153-160. Amongst the writings 
on the life of Jesus see Strauss, Keim, Weiss, Beyschlag (vol. i.) 
and, quite specially, Brandt, Evang. Gesch., 1893, 305-446, 

[The bulk of English work upon this subject (of which the 
more useful or significant portions are indicated in the sub 
joined paragraphs by an asterisk) falls into one or other of two 
classes : (a) one dealing primarily with historical and theo 
logical appreciations of the fact or truth in question ; (/>) the 
other sensitive, in the first instance, to the features of the record 
and the historical evidence. Owing to the backwardness and 
inefficiency of English criticism upon the synoptic question, 
and the consequent paucity of scientific work upon Mt. and Lk. 
especially (upon Lk. 24 note the strangely parallel story in 
Plutarch : I it. Ron. 28), the latter class of writings is as yet in 
adequately represented, being conspicuous for open-mindedness 
(in its better representatives) rather than for thoroughness, and 
more successful in criticising the weak points of opposing 
theories than in constructing a satisfactory and tenable hypo 
thesis which might do justice to the complex of facts under 
review. Cp Fronde s Short Studies, 1 229^ 

(a) The conservative side is represented by a long series of 
writings, whose weakness consists mainly in the preponderance 
of the dogmatic over the historical element or in literalism. Of 
these the following are the more salient : F. D. Maurice s 
Theol. Essays (8); Westcott s Introd. to Study of Gospels 
((8) 1881), 333-341; The Gosp. of the Resurr., The Historic 
Faith (chap. 6), and The Revelation of the Risen Lord; 
*Milligan s exhaustive and theological The Resurr. of our 
Lord ((*) 1894), and The Ascension and Heavenly Priesthood 
of our Lord, 1892; *M Cheyne Edgar s vigorous Gosp. of the 
Risen Saviour, 1892, pp. 21-135 > C. A. Row s The Jesus of 
the Evangelists, 1868, pp. 262 f. (critique of mythical theories); 
J. Kennedy s survey in The Resurr. of our Lord an historical 
fact, "with examination of naturalistic hypotheses, 1881 ; 



Latham s curious volume The Risen Master, 1900 ; and Orr s 
Christian \ iew of God and the World, 1893, Lect. 0, n. C. 
Similarly, but with special bearing upon the narratives as part 
of the biography of Jesus : * ! airbairn s Studies in the Life of 
Christ, 1881, chap. IS ; G. H. Gilbert s Students Life of Jesut, 
1898, pp. 38^-405 ; besides the Lives of Christ by Farrar, Eder- 
sheim, and b. J. Andrews (ed. 1892, pp. 589^). The subject is 
competently handled also, though from a more strictly philo 
sophical and doctrinal standpoint, by *Newman Smyth (Old 
Faiths in New Light, chap. 8); *D. W. Forrest (The Christ 
of Hist, and Experience, 1897, Lect. 4 critique of vision- 
hypothesis); R. H. Mutton (Theol. Essays,^ 1888, pp. 
131 /); K. Griffith-Jones (The Ascent through Chrilt,W 
1900, pp. 337-359); H. G. Weston (ttiblioth. Sacra, 1900, 
pp. 356-362) and L. S. Potwin (ibid. 1890, pp. 177-190) ; also 
by *Denney (The Death of Christ, 1902, pp. 66 f. 76 f. 121- 

At the opposite pole of radical criticism, the most noteworthy 
works along this line are *R. W. Macau s The Resurrection of 
Jesus Christ, the contributions of Dr. E. A. Abbott (cp J hilo- 
thristus, Oneshnus, and Through Nature to Christ. 1877, 
chap. 21), and Martineau s Scat of Authority in Religion 
(( *>, 1890), 363_/C, 48i_/, byif. besides the writings to be cited 

(/ ) Examinations of early Christian evidence, and particularly 
of the gospel narratives (with that of the ascension, Acts 1 i-n), 
from a f.iirly free but reverent standpoint may be found in 
A. B. liruce s Expos. Gk. Test. vol. i. ((-), 1901), 330 f., d^f. , 
G. L. Cary s scholarly Synoptic Gasp. (Intermit. Handbks. to 
NT, vol. i., 1900), 198-202; J. Estlin Carpenter s First 
Three Gasp. ((81, 1890), 3i9/, 268./C ; A. C. Mc< iiffert s Apost. 
Age, 1897, pp. 36-44, 55./, and J. V. Harriet s Apost. Age, 
1900, pp. i-io; see, further, Blair s Apost. Gosp. (372-385) on 
the conclusion of Mk., with the editions by S \vete and Allan 
Menzies, Mofifatt s Hist. New Testament (("-), 1901), pp. 550-553 
(on Mk. 16 0-20), 647-649(00 Mt. and Lk.), 694-696 (on Jn. 20-21), 
and A. Reville s article in New \l~orld, 1894, pp. 498-527. The 
distinctive aim of such contributions is to investigate not simply 
the verbal contents of the narratives in question, but also their 
mental and religious presuppositions; to get behind the stories 
into the world of their first hearers, with their beliefs and hopes. 
Extreme forms of this critical hypothesis are variously repre 
sented in such works as *W. Mackintosh s Nat. Hist, of the 
Christian Religion, 1894, pp. 257-328 (mythical theory), *Super- 
natural Religion, 3, 1877, p. 398/1 (in which, as in the follow 
ing book, the problem is handled drastically, but uncritically 
isolated), The Four Gosp. as Historical Records, 1895, pp. 451, 
and O. Cone, The Gosp. ami its Earliest Interpretations, 1893, 
pp. 12 \f., 2oo_/C, none of which, however, can be pronounced 
entirely satisfactory, either in method or in results. See 
further S. Davidson s NT tntrod.C^ (1894)2 367 f. The opposite 
side is pleasantly but ineffectively advocated by writers like 
Purves (Christianity in Apostolic Afe, 1900, 9-15) and Sanday 
(Hastings 7)5-638-643), while it is defended with a really 
critical grasp of the problem and its bearings by *Swete 
(Apostles Creed, 1394, p. 64_/7), *A. B. Bruce (Apologetics, 
18^2, pp. 383-397), SchafT( //*.$/. of Church, 1 172-186). *Denney 
(art. Ascension in Hastings DB 1 161-162), and *Prof. S. 
McComb (Expos. ^ 4350-363, a critique of ET of Harnack s 
ly^esen); see also *Knowlmg : The Witness of the Epistles, 
1892, pp. 365-396, 397-4 14 (ascension) ; A. Hovey (Auto: Journ. 
Theol., 1900, pp. 536-554, a critique of Stapfer) ; \V. F. Adeney 
(Expos.(^} 8137-146, a critique of Weizsacker) ; N. J. D. White 
( Appearances of Risen Lord to Individuals, Expos.(^ 1066-74), 
and E. R. Bernard ( The Value of the Ascension, Exp. T, 
1900-1901, pp. 152-155, and in Hastings Z>.Z> 4 234). Despite 
exaggerated statements upon both sides, recent English discus 
sions display a growing sense that there is a serious problem 
to be faced in the condition of the historical records, and that 
exegesis has a vivid if subsidiary part to play in its solution. 
This is a sign of health, if only that the demands of the public 
are becoming more exigent ; but no advance can be looked for 
until English students are furnished with a scientific equipment 
in the shape of thoroughly critical editions of the gospels, as 
well as with monographs combining historical judgment and 
sound scholarship with some philosophic and religious appreci 
ation of the subject. J. Mo.J p. VV. S. 

REU (-lin ; p&r-&Y) D Pe eg, a name occurring in 
the genealogical table connecting Shem and Abraham 
(Gen. 11x8-2! [P], i Ch. 1 25 ; cp Lk. 835, AV Ragau). 
An Aramrean tribe bearing the name Ru ua appear in 
S. Babylonia in the time of Tiglath-pileser III. (Schr. 
KGF-iosf.; KATW 117; Del. Par. 238^); but 
their identification with Reu is denied by Schr. (loc. cit. ). 
The name, in common with the others in the same list, 
is probably Mesopotamian, and we may possibly find 
a trace of it in C^in-^, one of the kings of Edessa, 
which is doubtless for man of Re u, a formation 
parallel to the Heb. Vhfiaa (cp Duval, Hist, d ltdesse, 
Journ. Asiat., 1891, 18126). Re u may have been an 
old Mesopotamian god (Mez, Gesch. der Stadt Harnln, 
23). Cp REUBEN, 9 iii., 10. F. B. 




Mention ( i). 
A lost tribe ( 2). 
First-born ($ 3). 
Bilhah, Bohan (8 4). 
Altar story ( 5). 

Other stories ( 6). 
Name ( 7-9). 
Meaning of stories (S 10). 
Genealogies (j! 11-13). 
Lists of cities ( 14). 

Reuben J is repeatedly mentioned in the Hexateuch 
as a branch of Israel. It is often associated with Gad, 
__ and is known to each of the documents 

1. mention. underlying the Hexateuch. The reader 
naturally infers that the writers of those documents had 
knowledge of such a community. He may indeed think 
it prudent to test the legitimacy of that inference, when 
he misses references elsewhere in the Hebrew writings. 
Still, the argument um e silentio must be used with great 
care. 2 The facts seem to be these. Outside of the fixed 
tribal lists (in Chron. , Ezek. , and, in the NT, in Rev.) 
and the Chronicler s genealogies, 3 Reuben is known, 
apart from an at best anachronistic gloss in 2 K. 1033 
(descriptive of the district harassed by Hazael), through 
the mention in the enumeration in Judg. 5 (v. 15 f.). 
That chapter contains very old material and few will 
question its authority even when it stands alone. Only, 
however, if we are sure that the passage says what the 
poet meant it to say. That, however, does not 
appear to have been questioned, so far as the mention 
of Reuben is concerned.* Discussion has been con 
fined to the question, where the mention appearing 
after 15^ and again, in a slightly variant form, 
after i6<z really belongs. Still, is not the simplest ex 
planation of the double occurrence, that the clause is 
really a gloss ? Other difficulties would thus be removed. 
It always seemed strange that so remote a community 
as the traditional Reuben should be mentioned by name. 8 
To speak of Gilead in general, on the other hand, 
without naming tribes, would be natural. Later, 
Gilead 8 would be taken to mean Gad, whilst Machir 
was perhaps referred to half-Manasseh, and so a 
reference of some kind or other would be made on the 
margin to Reuben. If it be thought that probability is 
in favour of the reference in Judg. 5 being contemporary 
evidence, 7 the problem before us is to determine where 
Reuben lived and to explain the fact that in historical 
times Reuben had no significance. If the other view is 
taken, the problem is to account for the references in 
the Hexateuch. 

A survey of the references (in the Hexateuch) to 
Reuben suggests that the solid element in them all is 
the belief that there once was an important 
community called Reuben and that for some 
reason it had lost its place ; it was a sort of 
Ad or Thainud. It is usually supposed that tradition 
preserved the memory of a more or less definite geo 
graphical district occupied by Reubenites. It may have 
done so. The evidences of such a tradition, however, 
are far from copious. Most of what we are told about 
a territory of Reuben is in D (Dt. 812 16 443 Josh. 13 
S- I2 ) and P (much of Nu. 32 Josh. 1815-23 208 21 3 6/) 
and cannot safely be used for the present purpose (see 
14). There seems to be only one passage (Nu. 32 

1 On the name see below : on the form, 8 ; on OT explana 
tions, 7 ; on real meaning, 8 o- 

2 Special caution is needed in regard to questions bearing on 
the tribes. 

3 On the statements in i Ch. 5 see 13. On i Ch. 1142 see 
13 (end). 

4 Winckler has suggested that Asher * is not a tribe name 
but a pronoun ("t^N), and that Dan was not mentioned 
originally ((7/2 134, no. 26./T). 

6 Of course Reuben may have been settled in West Palestine 
at the time referred to (see next note) ; but the pastoral character 
assigned to the tribe in the clause probably shows that its author 
thought of the East (cp GAP, n, first small type par.). 

6 Steuernagel suggests (Einwanderung, 20) that the mention 
of Gilead, not Reuben, in v. ija may be because Reuben was 
still seated in W. Palestine (see below, 10). 

7 It would not decide the question where Reuben lived (see 
preceding two notes). 


2. A lost 


37/. ) which can perhaps be attributed to J (see, how 
ever, Oxf. Hex. ). All it has to say is that certain six 
(Moabite) towns were, in the Mosaic age(?) built by 
the sons of Reuben (see below, 14). The absence of 
any reference to a people called Reuben in the Mesha 
inscription although it mentions three of the six towns 
and refers to the men of Gad as having dwelt in the 
land of Ataroth from of old (nVyo) seems to require us 
to suppose that the statement of J, if not unhistorical, 
rests on a memory of days long gone. That there was 
a firm belief in an ancient Reuben is, indeed, clear. 
The point is that it need not imply a knowledge of 
where it had been settled. In Gen. 35 21 f. J seems to 
connect Reuben with West Palestine (see 4), and even 
in P there seems to be a trace of a belief of the same 
kind (Josh. 156 18 if. 4), which may be represented 
in the strange story of the altar (5), and in the idea 
that Reuben crossed into West Palestine to help the 
other tribes to effect a settlement (cp GAD, col. 1585). 

Whatever was thought of the place where Reuben 
had lived, a great deal of interest was felt in his fate 

3 First born C P I0 ^ Reuaen s everywhere the 
first-born (see end of ). In E indeed 
there was perhaps an interval of considerable length 
between him and Leah s other sons : Naphtali seems 
to be for E Jacob s third son (cp NAPHTALI, 2). 
Whether this was so in the original J we cannot say : 
it would account for Reuben s being the finder of the 
diidaim (ib. ), 1 which E does not mention. In J as we 
have it, however, Reuben has three own brothers when 
he finds the dudaim which lead to the birth of Joseph 2 
(cp ZKBULUN). The only tale E has to tell about 
Reuben is of how he tried to deliver Joseph 3 (Gen. 
3722 29), and reminded his brothers of the fact (4222 ; 
see below, 10, end), and how he offered his own two 
sons (cp 1 1 ) as a pledge of the safe return of Benjamin. 
The most significant point in all this is that Reuben was 
the first-born. On that point there seems to be com 
plete agreement. The problem is discussed in i Ch. 
5 1 f. The view of the writer of that passage is that 
Reuben forfeited his right (as first-born) to the special 
blessing, which fell to Joseph, who thus became two 
tribes, although his rival Judah 4 ultimately outdid him. 5 

The rest of the points may belong to the decking out 
of the story (see, however, below, 10, end). 

Not so in the case of what J has to tell us in Gen. 
3522. No doubt the story was once told with more 

4. Bilhah, Bohan. etail6 v i Test : Reub 3> f?*? /i(H/ees - 
8 33, show how it could be done). 7 

This story seems to be J s explanation of how Reuben 
lost his rank. What Jacob did when he heard 8 of 

1 According to Stucken ( Ruben im Jakobssegen in RIl G 
for 1902, 446-72, which appeared after this article was in type) 
the finding of the dudatin was ascribed to Reuben as a patri 
archal eponym on a level with Jacob. Later syncretism made 
him Jacob s son. 

2 Steuernagel suggests (Einivanderung, 17) that in the 
original story what Reuben did was not to make over the dudazm 
to Leah but to use them to win the favour of Rachel, or rather 
Bilhah, whence Bohan (cp NAPHTALI, i/i). This is very 
ingenious, but does not explain the obvious relation of the 
dudaiin to Issachar and Joseph. According to Stucken (see 
preceding note) Reuben s incest was with Leah herself, who 
may at one time have been called Kilhah. 

:i It is probable that in Gen. 37 21 (J) Reuben is redactional 
fur Judah. See next note. 

4 In the Joseph story the leader is Judah in J, Reuben in E 
(cp preceding footnote) ; cp Steuernagel, Eimvandcrung; 34. 

8 According to Guthe, GVI 42, Reuben s hegemony belonged 
to the time preceding the settlement of the Rachel tribes (cp 
RACHEL, i /)- Those tril$es which acknowledged his leader 
ship were called Leah ; the later (Rachel) tribes acknowledged 
the hegemony of Joseph. 

6 Against the suggestion of Dillmann and Stade (C/-Y1 151) 
that the story implies more primitive morals in the half-nomad 
Reubenites, see Holzinger, ad loc. 

7 Later writers refused to believe the story (cp the case of 
SIMEON [got, end; see also 4 1). InTargum(Ps.-Jon. ad loc. \ 
Midrash (Gen. rabba 98 f.\ Talmud (Stiabb. 55 />), and Bk. of 
Jashar, Reuben only disturbed a couch (cp Charles, Jubilees, 
33, n. 2 and 33 i />). 

* Through angels, according to Test. Reub. 



Reuben s deed has been suppressed by R. 1 It can be 
inferred, however, from the Blessing of Jacob : 2 

Reuben ! thou wast my first-born 

My might and the first-fruits of my manhood ; 
Exceeding in impetuosity, 3 exceeding in passion 1 

Foaming like water . . . * 
For thou didst ascend thy father s couch. 

Then did I curse the bed 5 he ascended. 8 

Even without Gunkel s emendation of the last line it is 
plain that the sequel to Gen. 3522 was a father s curse, 7 
which brought doom on the tribe (cp BLESSINGS AND 
CURSINGS). The effect becomes still more clear in the 
1 Blessing of Moses : 

Let Reuben live (on), let him not die (out) ! 

Still, let him 8 become a (mere) handful of men !9 

The story of Bohan the son of Reuben may have 
been connected with the same legend (cp NAPHTALI, 
col. 3330 foot). We ought perhaps, however, to trans 
late the word bohan. The landmark would then be 
the thumb-stone 10 of the son (or sons [<5 liL in Josh. 18 17]) 
of Reuben. The suggestion made elsewhere (col. 535 
n. 4), however, is perhaps better : the suggestion, namely, 
that there is a slight corruption of the text, and that we 
ought to read : stone of the sons of Reuben ( 33 pN 
pitn : reading 33 for p pa, as jna might be a trans 
posed nj3 = ja)- 

The reading of (@ BL in Josh. 1817 would support this 
view. In its favour is the ease with which it could be 

K T~,,V, on brought into connection with a story 

O. JOSH. & ! l_ il 1 rr^i 

alt wnicri ls otherwise perplexing. The stone 
(or was it really a group of stones?) in 
question was near Geliloth (Josh. 1817 : see GILGAL, 
6^). Now it was at the Geliloth of the Jordan 
that, we are told, there was erected a sacred object to 
which was given a name that has been lost (see ED, 
GALEED, 2). The present text of Josh. 22 leaves it 
uncertain on which side of Jordan the sacred erection 
stood, and it ascribes the building to Reuben and Gad 
(and half Manasseh !). Perhaps Gad is an addition 11 
connected with the view that the stone was east of the 
Jordan. No doubt the object was not an altar, but a 
massebah or a circle of stones (see GILGAL, i), and 
the story 12 may be connected in some way with an 
attempt to account for the loss of Reuben s status. 13 

The suggestion just made gains, perhaps, in plausi 
bility from the fact that in E, and probably J, there is 
another story that may have served the same purpose 
(next ). 

In the older parts of Nu. 16 the leaders of Reuben 

(see below, 10) dare to challenge the authority of 

fi .-.,, Moses and thus bring divine judgment on 

, . themselves. It is even possible that there 

was still another story of the same kind (see 

below, 10 [i]). These stories, as they attribute to 

1 According to Stucken (above, col. 4089, n. i) various 
analogies suggest that Israel castrated Reuben for his crime 
( eye for eye, etc. ), 53. 

2 On this passage see n. 5. 

3 Read perhaps HNp with Gunkel. 

4 MT "IJVn S\ , obscure; see Stucken, Ml r G, 1902, p. 171. 

5 Read perhaps JHS^ fp TD with Gunkel. For some interest 
ing suggestions as to the original purport of the passage see 
Stucken (as in col. 4089, n. i), 46-52. 

** According to Jubilees. 8879, and Test. Reub., Kilhah 
became taboo to Jacob henceforth. 

? Gunkel compares Iliad, 9 447^ (Amyntor s curse [455^] 
on his son Phoinix for a deed similar to Reuben s). 

8 On the reference of this to Simeon in AL se e SIMEON, 3. 

9 Cp Ball, PSBA IS 122 (1896) : -is DD TO . 

ln In Assyrian there is no conscious metaphor in the use of 
abdnu in this way. 

11 Cp OS 2Wf>if. reAeiAoSS. TOJTOS napa. TOV lopSdvrii , evOa, 
Bvaiaarrfpiov eoTrjcrai oi vioi Pou/SiV. 

12 On the geographical import of this and the preceding story 
see 10. 

13 Does the story in Josh. 22 contain a reference to the name 
Reuben : see v. 28 HliT rl2TO rrparrriN ?N1 (reu . . . [ta]bn[ith]) 

and v. 10 rmiD 1 ? ^TTJ H31D 1J3 1 ([wayyi]bnu . . . 
[l<Mna]r e)? 




Reuben an importance which there is nothing in history 
to suggest, may be due to a tradition of conflict between 
some representative Israelitish clan and a Reubenite 
community. On the other hand, they may be simply 
popular or other stories designed to explain the sup 
posed collapse of a Reuben people. 

The real cause of Reuben s disappearance may have 
been the inroad of Moab, which was perhaps not so 
early as to prevent a vague memory of what had pre 
ceded from surviving (see GAD, n, col. 1585, mid. and 
cp MOAB, 14, col. 3174, foot). On the other hand, 
there is the possibility that Reuben s abode was not 
really in the east. We have found several hints of a 
belief that Reuben had been west of the Jordan (see 
further, below, 10), to which we shall return ( 10) in 
the light of the considerations suggested by a study of 
Reuben s name. 

The meaning of the name Reuben is not apparent. 
There seem to be traces of more than one explanation. 

1 OTPxnlana l J ( Gen -293^) takes it to mean 
lna " Yahwe looks at my affliction and 

tions of name. finds in k a reference to what Leah 

had had to bear as the hated wife (nKir ; v. 33 : see 
Gunkel ad loc. ). ii. E (Gen. 2932*), on the other hand, 
sees a reference to some point in the conduct of Jacob : 
my husband will . . . me." 

MT read* will love me ; but it is difficult to believe that 
this is sound. The versions, indeed, agree (ayamjcret, ainabit ; [Pesh.]) with MT ; but so slight a change would make 
the word chime with Reuben ( jnnN : |31Nl) that it is natural to 
suppose that it must have done so.* Gunkel suggests as the 
original a word cognate with the Aramaic aim, to praise. 
The Reubenites are in the traditions so hard to distinguish from 
the Gadites that E may well have connected with the name 
Reuben a wish like that expressed in Dt. 33 20 (ij 3rno) with 
regard to Gad : he will make me spread forth ; or, since the 
subject is husband not Yahwe, might we give the word its 
Arabic meaning and render welcome me ? 2 

iii. Josephus explains Roubel, Poi /rfajAoj (Ant. i. 19?), 
his form of the name (see 8), by saying that Leah felt 
she had experienced the mercy of God (5i6rt KO.T Z\(ov 
avrfj TOV 6fov ytvoiro}.* 

It is not certain what the last consonant of the name 

Q Vft^YM 

of name ThetraditionalformsareJSIXV, pou/3i)v[BADEFL], 
-peiv [Gen. 42 22 37 E], -/Sin [L in 2 K. 10 33 Ch. ; E 
in Gen. 30 14], povfrv i Ch. 5 i 3 [L], Joseph. -/3i)Aoj, 4 7 3, 166 
var. ; Syr. ri ibtl ; Vg. Ruben ; gentilic Reutoenite 
33 tn, in not usually distinguished from the personal form, 
but i Ch. 11 42 poi>/3)i/i [L], 26 32 pov/37]i<[e]i. [BA], Josh. 22 i pov- 
/Si/i irai [A] ; Josephus, oi povflr)viTa.i, 17 pou/37)Ais ^>uArj. 

The explanations adduced already ( 7) imply that 
the final consonant was early pronounced as n ; but 
Hos. 4 15 58 10s make it probable that in the case of 
Bethel the n which has established itself in the modern 
local pronunciation (Beitin] took the place of /early. 4 

The real origin of the name is unknown, i. On the 

view that the final letter was n, Baethgen (Beitr. 59, 

__ . 1888) connects with the Arabic Ru ba = 

mg Rubat-is (CIL 8 2415), comparing the end 

ing en in Yarden (EV Jordan ), and so, before him, 

Land (De Gids, Oct. 1871, p. 21) who is reminded of 

Arab, ra ab. The inscription, Glaser 302, from 

Hadakan, speaks of a tribe pNT 5 33 (CIS 4 no. 37, 

/. 5), sons of R bn , 6 vowels unknown. The comparison 

1 On the other hand, we must remember that the old etymo 
logists were easily content (cp Gunkel). 

2 The most obvious derivation Behold ! a son is passed over : 
names with imperatives (Olshaus. Lehrb. 613), common in 
Assyrian, were probably not in use among the Hebrews (cp 
Gray, HPN 65^). Gesen. thought of ?a in the sense of 
provided. The Glossie Colbcrtinte gives PovjSrji-, opo^ ulo? 
(Lag. OS&). 

3 Did he think of ^>3 INI (3 of agent : cp Targ. Jon. 
Ji3^y "~Cnj3. ^?), or possibly ^K Dirn? 

* Cp BartV, F.ivm. Stud., 19. 
8 Cp D3N-I. ZDMG 26425 TSBA 6199. 

6 A name occurring several times in the Turin papyrus as 
borne by kings of the thirteenth Egyptian dynasty, a resemblance 


of the en in Yarden is not necessary. Reuben might be 
a name on the analogy of SIMEON ( 8 i. ), GIDEON, etc. 
Reuben would then be a case of the kind referred to 
by Barth, NB, p. xxix, n. i, in which the termination 
instead of preserving its old vowel a (as in Sulhdn ; not 
sulhon, to avoid concurrence of rounded vowels) 
changed it to e l (cp x 1 ?^ instead of ri^, for earlier 


ii. Some also of the explanations assuming the last 
consonant to be 1 take the name to be simple. Ball 
derives it from the root r b a which in Arabic means to 
repair, 3 comparing the noun ra ub which is applied 
metaphorically (Zamahsarl, Asds ace. to Lane, but not 
in Cairo ed. ) to describe one as a rectifier of affairs. * 

Lagarde suggested (OSW 367 /.) that Reuben, or 
rather Re oben, is to be identified with Radbil shortened 
from Radbil, plural of Ri bal, a lion (or wolf). 5 Ac 
cording to the Taj el-Arus the raydbil of the Arabs 
were those who used to go on hostile expeditions upon 
their feet [and alone]. 

According to Ibn Sida the Andalusian (\fohkam*) 
some say that ri bal means also one who is the only 
offspring of his mother 7 [i.e. opp. of twin : el-Bustani]. 8 
Another suggested origin is Jerahmeel (JUDAH, 3) ; 
cp REU [see Crit. Bib.}. 

iii. Others hold the name to be compound, (a] The 
first element is taken by older writers to be rS u in the 
sense of face (Kohler, Der Segen Jacobs, 27 [1867]; 
Kue. Th. 7^5291 [1871]), or rfu in the sense of flock 
(Redslob, Die ATlichen Namen, etc., 86 [1846]) ; by 
later writers to be r6 u 9 in the sense of friend ( Kerber, 
Die Rel.-gesch. Bedeutung der Heb.-Eigennamen des 
AT, 70) or rather as a divine name 10 (see below, 
10). (b] The second half was identified by Nestle 
(Israel. Eigennamen, 1876) with Bin ( = Bir, Bur), by 
others (Redslob, 1846; Kohler, 1867; Kue., 1871; 
Houtsma, 1876 ; Wi. , GI 1 120 n. 2) with Bel. 

The theory that Reubel contains the names Reu and 
Bel seems to merit consideration. A parallel forma- 
. tion 11 is the name Reu-el. 1 2 When one 
10. caning remem bers t h e peculiar mystification that 
has occurred in connection with the names 
Hobal || Jethro [| Reuel one is led to ask, May not there 
be some connection between Reu-el and Reu-bel? 1:t 
There is, in fact, notwithstanding the difference in the 
tone of the narratives, a strange parallelism between the 
critical attitude adopted towards Moses by Reu-bel in 
the earlier story in Nu. 16 and that adopted by Moses 

to which has been noticed (e.g., by C. Niebuhr, Ebr. Zeitgesch. 
250 [1894], and, without approval, by Ball, SBOT [1896]). cannot 
plausibly be connected with Reuben : it is of course a personal 
name, and is doubtless to be read Wbn-re ( rising of Re"), not 

1 After this article was finished the writer noticed that Barth 
himself makes this very suggestion {NB 320, end of long note) 
with the same examples. 

2 Cp the personal name *?X3NT in the inscription from Sud, 
Hal. 353, /. i. 

3 The advent of Reuben was to reconcile Jacob to Leah. 

4 It is to ra b, not, as Ball seems to imply, to ra ub, that the 
metaphorical meaning of big, bulky, portly, or corpulent chief 
is assigned in the Kdtnfts and the Taj el- A rns. 

8 He compares Aroer, plural of Ar ar (cp above, col. 317, n. i). 
6 Quoted by Lane, adz oc. 

I man taliduhu umnnihu uiahdahu. 

8 Reuben was the first-born of Leah. Rebecca had twins. 

9 On the softening of gutturals when r or / occurs in the same 
word see Wi. AOfl 287, Gf\ 210 n. 4, 120, n. 2. 

1" Cp Duval, Rev. As. 8th Ser. 18 126 [1891] ; A. Mez, Gesch. 
d. Stadt HarrAn 23 [1892]. Cp the male proper name Ra- -u 
in one of the tablets containing deeds of sale, barter, and lease 
with Phoenician dockets in 3 R. 46 14 d (no. 8, /. n). Ru- -a is 
the name of an Aramaic tribe mentioned in the clay tablet 
inscription of Tiglath-pileser III. 2 R. 67 7, Ru- -u-a a tribe 
mentioned twice in Sennacherib s clay prism i R. 37 44 4136. 

II Reu-bel and Reu-el were cited as similar tribe-names by 
Houtsma, Israel en Qain, Tk. T \Q^f. (1876). Cp Skipwith, 
JO R 11 247, 251 [1899]. 

12 Cp Jehi-el in i Ch. 2*32 = 2 S. 23 8 Ish [read yes?: Mar- 
quart, JQR 14 344 n. i] -baal. 

13 The root in (Jethro) occurs thrice in the blessing of 
Reuben in Gen. 49 $/. 



hothen (jnn ; see JETHRO, second paragraph) in Ex. 18 : 

I What is this thing that thou doest to the people ? Why 
sittest thou thyself alone, and all the people stand about 
thee from morning unto evening ? . . . The thing that 
thou doest is not good (Ex. 1814 17). 

Whatever be thought of the particular parallelism 
just referred to and its bearing on the question of the 
name Reuben, it is surely suggestive in regard to the 
general Reuben-problem that \ve should have a com 
munity of no historical importance, but held to be the 
first-born of Israel, into connection with which it is 
possible to bring a whole series of stories l differing 
altogether in details, but coinciding in the fundamental 
point of setting Reuben in some form in opposition to 
the recognised representatives of Israel : 

1. the criticism of Reuel (Ex. 18) 

2. the discontent of the sons of Reubel (Nu. 16) 

3. the stone[s] erected by Reubel (Josh. 22) : cp stone of 


4. the ambition 2 of Reubel (Gen. 35 22) 

5. the sacrilegious greed of Achar (Achan), if he was really a 

Reubenite (see below, 12) 

6. the disagreement between Reuben and the other sons of 

Israel (at Dothan?), 3 Gen. 42 22 [E] [ ye would not 
listen ). 4 

We may even find a seventh story when we proceed 
to consider the Reubenite genealogy ( 1 1 ). 

These stories seem to imply a widespread conviction 
of the occurrence at some time of a grave event or series 
of events. 5 Such convictions are often due to actual 
reminiscence of fact. It is possible even to go further 
and reconstruct a history thus : 

The Nu. 16 story (on the details see DATHAN) implies, for 
example, that Reuben disagreed with its associates at Kadesh 
and led its party northwards into Palestine. The attribution of 
Hezronand Carmi clans both to Reuben and to Judah(see 12) 
means that Reuben settled W. of Jericho in contact with Judah. 
The Bilhah story (p 5) means that the Jacob-Rachel tribe spread 
southwards and had friendly relations with Reuben, but as 
Benjamin branched off, absorbing such elements as Bilhah had 
lefv (see NAFHTALI, i) when it migrated northwards, the 
relations of Reuben towards Bilhah became less friendly, which 
brought on Reuben a curse. The altar story (Josh. 22) means 
that the Josephites of Shechem took umbrage at the southern 
Josephites (half Manasseh) for having a common sanctuary with 
the Reubenites, and this anger was afterwards supposed to have 
been against Reuben. The Dathan nnd Abiram story means that 
the Reubenites on their part rebelled against certain pretensions 
of the south-Josephite priests. Finally, Reuben crossed Jordan 
and penetrated as a wedge into Gadite territory." i Ch. 2 21-23 
means that the Reubenite clan Hezron subsequently united with 
Gileadite clans to produce Segub the father of Jair (cp 
MANASSEH, 1 9, last small type). 

The arguments for this reconstruction are set forth 
with skill by Steuernagel (Ein-wanderung). The result 
is a priori plausible. Is there adequate warrant, how 
ever, for so high an estimate of the historical character 
of the legends (cp B. Luther, ZATW 19i/! [1901] ; 
Wi. OLZ2n 7 #, KAT^ 213, etc.)? The questions 
involved are far-reaching and intricate, and are better 
treated comprehensively than in relation to one particular 
tribe (see TRIBKS, and cp NAPHTALI, i, begin.). 
Here we may be content with the general conclusion that 
a Reuben of some importance was believed to have 

1 The fate of Ad and Thamfid seems to have appealed to the 
imagination of Mohammed. They are referred to in the Koran, 
together or apart, some twenty-one times. Cp the NT references 
to Sodom. 

2 Cp the cases of Abner, Absalom, and Adonijah. 

3 Steuernagel supposes that some actual conflict between 
Joseph and the Leah tribes occurred in the neighbourhood of 
Dothan {Einiuandcrung, 97). If so, possibly Reuben sided with 

4 It seems to be only a further illustration of the extra 
ordinary confusion in the stories about Reuben that in the 
earlier reference, which appears also to be in E, the brothers did 
listen (Gen. 37 22 f.). 

5 Stucken (above, col. 4089, n. i) finds a mythological refer 
ence in the Reuben saying in Gen. 49 3. Reuben ( II Adam 

II Behemoth) was a being who once had world power but lost it. 
He compares the description of Behemoth in Job 40 16 (p. 51), 
and connects him with the sign Aquarius (p. 69). Otherwise 
Wi. (7/259. 

8 On the question when this might have occurred see the 
suggestion of Steuernagel (Eimvandcrung, 20) that it may be 
connected with i Ch. 5 10 (the Hagrites, temp. Saul). 



flourished some time, and the judgment that the belief 
was probably justified. 1 

It must be remembered that if Reuben really lived 
east of the Jordan there may have been many traditions 
which failed to find a place in the literature of Western 
Palestine (cp GAD, n). On the other hand, it will 
not be surprising if additional reasons should be found 
for connecting Reuben with the southern tribes (cp 
SIMEON, 8 iii. ). 

Reuben was believed to have had two sons. In the 
Joseph story indeed he had only two ( my two sons 
11. Genealogies. Gen.42 37 [E]) ; and even there it is 
the death of the two sons that is 
thought of. In Nu. 16 two sons of Reuben are buried 
alive (1631 33<z, J ; 320 33^, E). They are called 
Dathan 2 and Abiram 3 (cp Ps. 106 17 Dt. 116). Dathan 
is a strange name 4 (reminding one of Dothan, the scene 
of Reuben s argument : see above, 10, 6) ; but Abiram 
we know as a first-born son who was said to have been 
buried (alive?) in the foundation of a city. He is said 
to have been a son of HIEL \_q. v. ] yun 3, whereas in 
Nu. 16 Abiram is a son of Eliab a^jt ; but these (^Nn a 
and aN ^N 2) are not impossible variants. Abiram s 
brother is called Segub in MT of i K. 1634 ; but in i Ch. 
22i f. the clan called Segub ben Hezron in MT is in 
B called Serug, which is in Gen. 11 20 a son of Reu (see 
below, 12, end). The mention of Hezron brings us 
to the stock genealogy of Reuben : Gen. 46 9 = Nu. 266 
T _ = Ex. 614= i Ch. 53. In it there is, at least 
at first sight, no trace of the famous two sons. 
In their stead we find four names : Hanoch, Pallu, 
Hezron, and Carmi. The first appears as a Midianite 
clan in Gen. 25 4 (cp GAD, n, last small type para 
graph), the second ((/>aXXoi S generally ; Jos. </>aX[a]oi>s) 
appears in Nu. 16 1 as Peleth (</>ctXe0 [BAF]), which 
: suggests the Negeb (see PELETH) ; but <S L gives 0aXe 
! i.e. , Peleg. 5 The third and fourth (Hezron and Carmi) 
1 appear also, as has been mentioned ( 10), in a gene 
alogy of Judah. In the case of Hezron that seems 
certain ; although whether the inferences that have been 
drawn from it are warranted is at least doubtful (cp 
MANASSEH, 9, last small type, and above, 10, end). 
The case of Carmi is less secure. In i Ch. 4 i Carmi 
maybe a mistake for Caleb (We. Benz. ad loc.), and 
26 f. , or at least 27, is surely an interpolation. 2 7 might 
just as well stand after 03. On the other hand, in josh. 7, 
although v. i may not be original, it is difficult to 
account for Carmi in v. 18 unless there was known to be 
a Carmi in Judah, or the story was originally told of 
Reuben, not Judah, as Steuernagel suggests (Eiii-man- 
derung, p. 19 [e]). 

As we have seen, Dt. lls mentions a son of Reuben 
of the name of Eliab, who in Nu. 26 8 6 is introduced 
into the genealogy as a son of Pallu. 

1 On the possibility of a connection between the Leah tribes 
and the Habiri see NAPHTALI, 3 (sec. par.), SIMEON, 6 ii. 

Shalmaneser s Black obelisk (/. 161) mentions receiving tribute 
from a certain Da-ta-na, of Hubuskia (towards Urmia). 

8 The passage in Judg. 5 referred to above ( 1) accentuates a 
strange parallelism between the Reubenites of the genealogies 
and the Semites of Gen. 11 10 : 

Gen. 11 
Eber (-QJ;) 
Peleg O^s) 
Reu (ijn) 



Judg. 5 


Serug b. Hezron 

(above, n) 
Abiram (above, 1 1) 

6 NEMUEL (q.y.), who appears in Nu. 26gt as a third son 
(the eldest) of Eliab, may come by mistake from ? . 12, where he 

is the eldest son of Simeon. 



Nu. 26 5-9 




Dathan Abiram Nemuel 1 Dathan Abiram 

This (with omission of Nemuel 1 ) seems to be the 
scheme followed in Nu. 16 1, as we have it. 2 It appears 
indeed to be complicated by Eliab and Peleth (for Pallu) 
being treated as unconnected, and Peleth being given a 
son ON [ /.? .] ; and this has been supposed to represent 
the version of J (e.g., Oxf. Hex.}. 

Nu. 16 i [as in MX] 





Josephus, however, says nothing of On, which may 
in Nu. 16 1 be due to a marginal variant 3 : the variant 
represented by which reads as usual Abiron for 
Abir<7/# (see, however, ON). 

The Chronicler has attached to the Reubenite 

genealogy two appendices, one tracing the pedigree of a 

9 T i nu certain BKERAH to an otherwise un- 

13. In 1 Chron. known Joel4 (l Ch . 54 . 6) , the other 

perhaps a variant form of the same list (v. j f. ) : thus 

v. 4 Joel 

Go L ._ 

z>. 5 Micah 
Baal (>yn) 

v. 6 Beerah 

j . 8 Joel 
I . 8 Shema 
z - 8 Azaz (n 

v. 8 Rela 

v. 7 [Ze]chariah 

v. 7 Jeiel 

There is nothing to show what led the Chronicler to 
connect these lists with Reuben (cp Gray, HPN 257/1 ), 
unless it be the reference to Tiglath-pileser (cp 2 K. 
1629) and the geographical references in v. 9 f. 

With Shemaiah, Shimei. Shema, and Zechariah may be com 
pared Shammua ben Zaccur, the name given to the Reubenite 
spy (Nu. 184), and Eliezer ben Zichri, David s ruler (tiagld) 
over the Reubenites (i Ch. 27 16). On the natural omission of 
a representative of Reuben from the list of dividers of western 
Palestine, cp GAD, 1 13 (last sentence). On the list containing 
Adina 3 ben Shiza t (i Ch. 1142) see Gray, HPN zit)/., and cp 
DAVID, it (a) ii. 

Whether or not there was also a theory of a tribe 
Reuben which entered Palestine by way of the Negeb, 
14. Geographical!; 6 Prevailing theory of the present 
, P ., Hexateuch and related passages was 

that Reuben arrived in E. Palestine 
from abroad, in close connection with Gad (</. . , n). 
The questions bearing on the real character, 7 origin, and 
history of the population of E. Palestine are best con 
sidered elsewhere (GAD, 1-4). All that is necessary 
here is to supplement what is said there (GAD, 12) 
with regard to the geographical details given, in 
indifference to each other, by the various Hexateuch 

Of the nine towns asked for by Gad and Reuben in 
Nu. 3 J3 we are told in 32 yj f. that the men of Reuben 
[re]built the last five : HF.SHKON, ELEALEH, SIBMAH 
(called Sebam in v. 3), NKBO, and BEON, with the 

1 See n. 6 on previous column. 

2 Cp Graf, Die Geschichtlicken Biichfr,^ n. 

3 and -on that is to say, otherwise \\nrott. Read: 
Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab [and -on\, the son of 
Faleth Pallu, the son[s] of Reuben. 

Kittel (SHOT [Heb.], 1895) follows Syr. and Arab, in 
reading Carmi ; but that may be an emendation (so Benzinger, 
KHC, ad loc.\ 

8 Perhaps late, cp ADIN ; but cp also Jehoaddan. 

6 Probably corrupt (A o-e^a). See SHIZA. 

Compare col. 4089 n. 6. 



addition of KIRIATHAIM. l As noticed above ( 2), all 
these six towns are Moabite in Is. 15, Jer. 48. 

This list is, however, ignored by P in his enumeration (Josh. 
208; cp Dt. 443, given by Moses) of the cities of refuge and 
(Josh. 21 36/: = i Ch. 078/ [63/]) the levitical [Merari] cities 
of the tribe of Reuben ( -\ nDCD) : BEZER (city of refuge ; 
Bozrah in Jer. 4824), JAHAZ (Jahzah in Jer. 48 21), K.EDEMOTH2 
(perhaps for Kiriathaim frPBTp f r Cmpl mentioned in Jer. 
4823), and MEPHAATH (Jer. 42i); but he confines himself to 
cities assigned to Moab in Jer. 4S. 

In Josh. 1815-23 P endeavours to define the territory 
of Reuben. 

He gives him, besides the levitical cities just mentioned 
(Jahaz, Mephaath, Kedemoth = Kiriathaim?), two cities said in 
Nu. 3^34-36 to have been built by Gad (Aroer, Dibon), one 
assigned to Gad in Josh. 2139, i Ch. 681 [66] (Heshbon), four 
assigned elsewhere to Moab (MEDEBA, BAMOTH-BAAL, BETH- 
BAAL-MEON, BETH - JESHI.MOTH), and the following three: 
ZERETH-SHAHAR (only here), ASHDOTH-PISGAH (also Dt.), and 
BETH-PEOR (the burial-place of Moses, and scene of the Dt. 
discourses), but only one of the cities said in Nu. 3- 37 f. to 
have been built by Reuben (Sibmah). 

The contradictions make it impossible to construct a 
map. In general terms, however, what is claimed for 
Reuben lies within what is claimed for GAD (q.v. 3). 
See the map in Stade, GVl 1, facing p. 149. Cp 
Steuernagel, Bin-wander ung, 19 (/. ). H. w. H. 


; p^royHA [BADEL]). i. The per 

sonification of a clan in Edomite and Arabian territory, 
which, according to Winckler (GI 1210), derived its 
name from a divine name Re u ( = <KT in <NT SK, Gen. 
1613 and INT in VaiJO. Reubel 3 [true form of piKi, 
Reuben?]). This explanation, however, is incomplete; 
both <NT Vx and VDINI are, judging from numerous 
analogies in badly transmitted names, corruptions of 
Sworn (Jerahme el), and the same origin naturally 
suggests itself for "jNijn (Re u el). See, however, 
NAMES, 47, and cp REUBEN, 9. In the genea 
logical system Reuel is both a son of Esau by 
Basemath (Gen. 864 10 13 17 i Ch. 135 37) and the 
father of Moses father-in-law Hobab, Nu. 1029 [J], 
where Midianite should perhaps be Kenite 4 (Judg. 
1x6 4n). In Ex. 2i8 (<5 AL LoGop), Reuel their father 
is puzzling. On the principles of literary analysis of 
documents we assume that Reuel is a harmonistic inser 
tion, Reuel being here represented by the redactor (R) 
as father of Zipporah, in order that HOBAB [?.v.] and 
JETHRO \_q.v.~\ may both be brothers-in-law. For 
consistency s sake the insertion ought also to have 
been made in v. 16, where originally Hobab (J s name 
for the father-in-law of Moses) must have stood. 8 

2. Father of ELIASAPH, a Gadite chief (Nu. 2 14 [P]). In 
Nu. 1 14 also, @ has />a-yoi>i)A where MX has ^WJTj (DEUEL) ; 
so too in 7424710 20. 

3. A Benjamite (i Ch. 9 8). T. K. C. 

REUMAH (nplN-l; peH pA [A], -MA [Z>L]). the 
concubine of NAHOR (q.v. } ; Gen. 2224. 


REZEPH (S]>*n ; in Ki. pA( heiC [BL], p^ec [B ab ], 
-ee [A], in Is. p A r4)ee [BQ" r-]. -eic [A], -ec [NQ*]), 
mentioned by Assyrian envoys (temp. Hezekiah) among 
other places destroyed by Sennacherib s predecessors, 
(2 K. 19 12 Is. 37 12). It is usually identified with the 
(mat] Rasappa repeatedly mentioned in the cuneiform 
inscriptions (cp Del. Par. 297, Schr. A~AT& 327), 
and the name has been found in the Amarna Tablets 
(B 10), in a letter from Tarhundaraus Arsapi to Anien- 
hotep III. of Egypt. With this place we may identify 

1 Perhaps the lists did not originally agree. Kiriathaim 
having in v. 37 the place occupied in ? . 3 by Sebam, Sibma is 
in v. 38 simply added at the end of the list. 

2 Elsewhere only in Dt. 2 26, where it may be a corruption of 
Kadesh : see K.EDEMOTH. 

3 Houtsma (Theol. Tijdschr. 1092) also compares Reubel. 
Hommel, however, reports a S. Arabian personal name S x 1 in- 

* So Bit., comm. on Judg. 1 16^., who assumes the harmonising 
of an editor. 

8 In Gen. 25 3 <S A E one of the sons of Dedan is called ReueL 
has pacrou[i)A]. 



the pi)ffa.<t>a, of Ptol. (615), and the mod. Rusafa, 3^ m. 
SW. of Sura on the Euphrates, on the road leading 
to Palmyra. We have no independent notice of the 
destruction of Reseph, and this, together with certain 
other suspicious phenomena, has led the present writer 
to the supposition that, as most probably in many 
other passages, the editor has been busy in reconstruct 
ing the geographical and historical background; i.e. , 
that Gozan has been put for Cushan (the N. Arabian 
Cush), Reseph for Sarephath, Telassar for Tel- 
a^shur or Tel-ashhur (cp ASHHUK), Arpad for 
Kphrath. Of the other names, Haran (cp i Ch. 
46), Eden, Hamath (probably a popular distortion 
of Maacath ) need not be corrupt; they are good 
X. Arabian border- names, familiar by tradition to 
Judahite writers. SEPHARVAIM [q.v.~\ is made up of 
Sephar ( = Zarephath) and a fragment of and Jerah- 
meel ; Hena and Ivvah also probably represent 
the place-name Jerahmeel, unless Ivvah has been mis- 
written for rvN] ; cp (S 1 -, 2 K. 1834, KO.I. TTOV (.TNI) daiv 

01 Oeol TTJS %ibpas 2a/xa/>et as ; /JLT] e^fiXavro rr\v Zayu. 
fK xet/3os /jLov ; see SEPHARVAIM, and cp Crit. Bib. 

The ironical remarks of Winckler (A T Unt. 49) and Benzinger 
(A"() . 182) on the archaeological learning of the late author of 

2 K. 19 i2_/^, which was, however, thrown away on the hearers 
of the supposed speech of the Assyrian envoys to Hezekiah, are 
natural enough, if the accuracy of MT may be assumed. It is 
probable, however, that even at a late date the people of Judah 
would be able to appreciate historical references bearing on 
places much nearer to them than Gozan, and Rezeph, and a 
Alesopotamian Tel-asshur. T. K. C. 

REZIA, RV Rizia (&Oyi, 28 ; Yahwe is gracious 
for !"PX"1, or from some ethnic ; pA,c[e]l& [BAL]), in 
a genealogy of ASHER (q. v. , 4, ii. ), i Ch. 7 39. 

REZIN (J V"?; P&ACC60N, paceiN [B in Is. 7], 
P&CCCON [B in Is. 8], PACIN [Aq., Sym. , Th. in Q m e- in 
Is. 8] ; Ass. Ka-sitn -nu}. If we take the MT as it 
stands, it is evident that Rezin, king of Aram-damascus, 
in alliance with Pekah of Israel, endeavoured to over 
throw Ahaz, king of Judah, and to enthrone ben-Tab el, 
a creature of their own, in his stead. To escape from 
this danger, they applied for help to the Assyrian king 
Tiglath-pileser (a K. 16s 7 ff. Is. 7 1). 

To the present writer, however, it appears that there has 
been another of those confusions which have made it so difficult 
to retrace the true course of the history of Israel (see TABEAL). 
The Aram of which Rezin was king was possibly not the 
northern but a southern country of that name (see Crit. Bib.). 
Critics have duly noticed that Is. 7 i is really no part of the 
biography of Isaiah, but borrowed from 2 K. 165, and have 
conjectured that the original opening of chap. T had become 
illegible (see Intr. Is. 31). It is possible, however, that it was 
omitted because it contained some definite historical statements 
respecting the invaders which the redactor, from his imperfect 
historical knowledge, could not understand. It is not even 
certain that the king who is mentioned in the second place was 
really Pekah, king of Israel. The present writer sees some 
reason to think that l>oth kings were N. Arabians, and that the 
second king was confounded with Pekah, partly from a partial 
resemblance of the names and partly because the traditional 
father of each of them was called Remaliah, which is a corrupt 
form of Jerahmeel (Che.). It was, however, certainly to 
Tiglath-pileser (not to be confounded with PUL \q.i>.\) that 
Rezin applied for help. In Is. 84 we should probably read, 
The riches of Cushamand the spoil of Shimron shall be carried 
away before the king of Assyria. In 2 K. Ki6 there is no 
sufficient cause for emending Aram into Eclom. It was a 
matter of great importance to the southern Arammites to 
obtain command of a harbour. Hiram, king of Misrim (see 
SOLOMON, 3^), was content to leave Ezion-geber nominally in 
the hands of Solomon ; but Rezin was not inclined to put any 
trust in the Judahites. 

See DAMASCUS, 10, ISRAEL, 32, and cp REZON. 

T. K. c. 

% REZIN (PV1 : P&CCON [BA], -A.A.CC- [L]), the name 
of a post-exilic family of N ethinim, and therefore (see 
NETHINIM), according to Cheyne s theory, N. Arabian 
(cp such names as Shamlai [Ishmael], Giddel [the 
southern Gilead], Reaiah [Jerahmeel]) ; Ezra 248 = Neh. 

7 5 (p*.eC6GN [X], PAA.C6GN [L]) = I Ksd. 031 (A&IC&N 

[B], AecAN [A], PACOON [L], DAISAN, EV). 

REZON (PH, prince? cp Sab. fin, JT1 and jfl, 


ruler [PRINCE, 13]; We. Heid.W 59, n. i, would 
connect the name with the Ar. deity Kndd in such 
Palmyrene compound names as IVIDTI [servant of K.] ; 
but may it not be miswritten for ^W), the founder of 
a dynasty at Damascus, and a contemporary of Solomon 
(i K. 1123, ecpCOM [B], om. A, cp HEX.ION ; razon 
[Vg-])- Who Rezon was, is by no means clear from 
our text (cp DAMASCUS, 7). Most regard him as a 
northern Aramaean. 

Rezon is called, however, son of Eliada, which is a Hebrew 
name, and Winckler s way of accounting for this (see EI.IAUA, 3) 
is improbable. Treating the subject in connection with ZOIIAH, 
q.v.\, we may venture to conjecture that he was probably a 
N. Arabian, and that his father s name, like Jedi a el is a 
modification of Jerahme el. It was from the king not of 
Zobah but of Missur (Musri) that Rezon fled, and the capital of 
the realm which he founded was not Damascus, but Cusham 
(cp PROPHET, 37). We may presume that he was an ally of 
Hadad, who was also an adversary to Solomon, and appears 
to have been king, not of Edom, but of Aram i.e., Jerahmeel. 
The geographical boundaries of these neighbouring kingdoms 
we cannot determine ; but they were close to the Negeb, which 
Solomon (see SOLOMON, 7) appears to have succeeded in 
retaining. Probably they were both vassals of the natural 
overlord of that region the king of Missur, whose daughter 
became Solomon s wife. Cp, however, Winckler, (, / y 272, 
A A 7"( 3 ) 240. T. K. C. 

RHEGIUM (pHflON, Acts28i3). A town on the 
Italian coast, at the southern entrance of the straits of 
Afessina (mod. Keggio}. 

The name (= breach ) was generally supposed to bear refer 
ence to the idea that earthquakes or the long-continued action 
of the sea had broken asunder or breached the land-bridge 
between Italy and Sicily (Strabo, 258; Diod. Sic. 485). The 
Latin form of the name, Regium, gave rise to an absurd alterna 
tive derivation (Strabo, I.e.). 

The town was an offshoot of the Chalcidians settled 
on the other side of the strait, in Messana (for a sketch 
of its early history, see Strabo, 257/1 ). Its position on 
the strait made it very important, for the direct distance 
to Messana is only about six geographical miles, and 
under Anaxilas (about 494 B.C.) the two cities were 
united under one sceptre. Although the Syracusan 
tyrant Dionysius I. totally destroyed the town, so 
important a site could not long lie desolate, and it was 
repeopled by his son and successor. During the 
Hannibalic war Rhegium remained loyal to Rome and 
materially contributed to Hannibal s ultimate defeat In- 
cutting off his communications with Africa. After the 
Social war it became a Roman municipium like the 
other Greek cities of southern Italy. During the war 
between Octavian and Sextus Pompeius (38-36 B.C.), 
Rhegium was often the headquarters of Octavian s forces 
(Dio Cass. 4814) ; and, by way of reward, its population 
was increased by the addition of a body of time-expired 
marines (Strabo, 259), and it assumed the name Rhegium 
Julium (Orell. Inscr. 3838). About Paul s time it was 
a populous and prosperous place, still preserving many 
traces of its Hellenic origin (Strabo, 253). It continued 
to exist as a considerable city throughout the period of 
the empire (Plin. 36). It was the terminus of the road 
which ran from Capua to the straits (the Via Popilia, 
made in 134 B.C. ). 

The ship in which Paul sailed had some difficulty 
in reaching Rhegium from Syracuse (Acts 28 13, 7re/j:- 
e\66vTfs, 1 by tacking ; AV we fetched a compass, 
RV, made a circuit ), as the wind did not lie favour 
ably. At Rhegium she remained one day waiting for a 
wind for the narrow passage through which for want of 
sea-room a large ship could not easily work by tacking. 2 
I The run with the S. wind northwards to Puteoli (about 
j 1 80 m. distant) would take about twenty-six hours (cp 
v. 13, Sevrepaioi fjX&o/j.ev). 

With the stages of Paul s journey as given here we may 
compare that of Titus, afterwards Emperor, in 70 A. D. (Suet. 

1 So to be read in preference to irtpif\6i Tes WH, casting 

2 For the difficulties of the straits, see Thuc. 4 24, poiu&rjs 
oucra eiKOTUis \a\ejrrf evonicrOr) ; Pans. v. 20 2, ecrri yap 6r) 17 Kara 
TOi TOf CaAacrtra TOV OaAatrcrr)? Xn(UplMTf/rn Jrart), 
where also he gives the explanation of this characteristic. 



Tit. 5, Quare festinans in Italiam, cum Regium, dein Puteolos 
oneraria nave appulisset, Roman inde contendit ). 

W: J. VV. 

RHESA (pHCA. Ti.WH), a name in the genealogy | 
of Jesus ; Lk. 827. See GENEALOGIES ii. , 3. 

RHINOCEROT (Is. 34 7 , AV" K ). See UNICORN. 

RHODA (poAH. Ti.WH), the name 1 of the maid 
(TTAI^ICKH) who answered the door when Peter knocked, 
Acts 12 ist. In one of the lists of the seventy it is 
stated that Mark had a sister called Rhoda (see Lipsiu^, 
Apokr. Ap.-Gesch., Ergiinzungsheft, 22). 

RHODES (poAoc). a large and important island, 
lying in the south-eastern ^Egean (the part called the 
Carpathian Sea), about 12 m. distant from the coast of ( 
Asia Minor ; mentioned only incidently in the NT (Acts 
21i). After leaving Cos, the ship in which Paul 
voyaged to Palestine from Macedonia touched at 
Rhodes, which was apparently her last port of call before 
Patara, where Paul transhipped. The same name was | 
applied both to the island and its capital ; but probably 
the latter is meant in this place. It stood at the 
northern extremity of the island, where a long point 
runs out towards Caria. The city possessed two chief j 
harbours, both on the eastern side of the promontory. 
The foundation of the city of Rhodes (408 B.C.) was 
due to the joint action of the ancient Rhodian towns of 
Lindos, lalysos, and Camiros (Diod. Sic. 1875). The 
forces which, outwardly at least, had hitherto been 
divided, were now concentrated, and the good effects of 
this concentration for the island, as well as for Greece 
in general, were soon to appear 1 (Holm, Gk. Hist., ET, 
4 4 S 4 ). 

The great political importance of the new city gradually 
asserted itself during the fourth century, and by Alexander s 
time it had become the first naval power in the Agean, and a 
decisive factor (Diod. Sic. 20 81, TrepijuaxrjTOS rots 6ui>d<TTcus icai. 
/3acriAe{)<7ip >}i>, eKao-rou <77reu6oi TOs eis Trji avrov <HAi ai> 7rpo<rAa/x- 
/SayecrSai). So great was the reputation of the city that 
Alexander chose it as the place of deposit of his will. The 
commercial importance of the place is indicated by the fact of 
the introduction of a new (Rhodian) standard of coinage ; 
Rhodian coins are remarkable for their beauty (see on this 
Holm, op. cit. 849, and Head, Hist. Numin., s.v.). 

The commercial relations of Rhodes were principally 
with Egypt, but in fact the central position of the 
island in the mid-stream of maritime traffic between the 
E. and the W. assured her prosperity, and this, 
combined with good government at home and a wise 
foreign policy, lifted her to a position analogous to that 
of Venice in later times. The Rhodian harbours 
seemed to have been designed by Nature to attract the 
ships of Ionia, Caria, Egypt, Cyprus, and Phoenicia 
(Aristeid. Rhod. 341); and the consistent policy of 
neutrality, broken only by vigorous and decisive action 
when the peace and freedom of the seas were endangered, 
attracted foreign merchants, among whom, we may be 
sure, those of Jewish nationality were conspicuous 
( i Mace. 15 23); young men were regularly sent to Rhodes 
to learn business (Plaut. Merc., prol. n). Rhodes did 
in the E. what Rome did in the W. in keeping the seas 
clear of pirates (Strabo, 652, TO. Xflcmjpto. Ka6ei\e ; cp 
Pol. 419). Her maritime law was largely adopted by 
the Romans (cp Pand. xiv. 2g) ; and the principle of 
general average, for example, is Rhodian in origin, 
with probably much else in modern naval law that 
cannot now be traced. 

Rhodes is connected with two passages in the life of 
Herod the Great. When on his way to Italy he 
contributed liberally towards the restorations rendered 
necessary to repair the ravages of Cassius in 42 B.C. 
(App. fiC 472; Plut. Brut. 30). It was at Rhodes 
also that after the battle of Actium (31 B.C.) he had 
the meeting with Augustus upon which so much 
depended for him (Jos. Ant. xv. 66). It was in Rhodes 

1 Another form of the name in classical literature is Rhodos 
(pdSos, fern.). It was borne by a daughter of Poseidon, and by 
one of the Danaids(see Smith, Diet. Gr. and Rom. Biogr., s.v.). 



that Antiochus VII. Sidetes (king of Syria, 138-128 B.C.), 
son of Demetrius I., heard of the imprisonment of his 
brother (Demetrius II.), and sent letters from the isles 
of the sea unto Simon the priest and governor of the 
Jews, as told in i Mace. 15 if. (cp App. Syr. 68). 

The Rhodians gained a privileged position as allies of Rome 
in the Macedonian and Mithridatic wars, but were deprived of 
their political freedom by Claudius (44 A.D.) for the crucifixion 
of Roman citizens (Dio Cass. Ix. 244). In 56 A.D. this was 
restored to them (Tac. Ann. 1258: reddita Rhodiis libertas, 
adempta saepe aut firmata, prout bellis externis meruerant aut 
domi seditione deliquerant ). The island was finally reduced 
to a province (i.e., made part of the province of Asia) by 
Vespasian (Suet. Vesp. 8). Its great importance in the early 
Empire was gained through its schools of rhetoric, as that of 
Athens through her schools of philosophy. 

Literature. C. Newton, Travels and Discoveries in the 
Levant, vol. i ; C. Torr, Rhodes in Ancient Times (Camb. 
1885); Holm, Gk. Hist., ET, 4483^ (the best short account in 
English) ; Mahaffy, Greek Life and Thought, chap. 15 ; Ross, 
Reisen u. Studien aufden gr. Inseln, Sjof. On Rhodian art, 
see Gardner, Handbook oj Greek Sculpture, Itf&f. Ancient 
authority, Strabo, p. 652./C \V. J. W. 

RHODOCUS (poAOKOC [AV]), a Jew who betrayed 
the plans of Judas the Maccabee to Antiochus Eupator 
(2 Mace. 1821). On the discovery of his treachery he 
was imprisoned. 

RHODUS (i Mace. 15 23), RV RHODES. 

RIBAI ( 3n), the father of ITTAI (,j.v.) (28.2829, 
[B], eplBA [L] om. A; i Ch. H 3 i, peBie [B], 
]- pHB&i [A], piB&T [L]). Comparing 6 L 
in 2 S. we may with Marquart (Fund. 20) restore 
3 Y ; see JERIBAI. 

RIBBAND (S nS), used in Nu. 15s8 AV of the cord 
(so RV) of blue worn upon the FRINGES \q.v.\ 

For other usages of the Heb. pathll see BRACELETS, 2, CORD, 

RIBLAH (1TXTI; oftenest AeBA&0& [BN AFQrL], 
and always Diblath in Pesh. ; on Nu. 34 n see 
below). A city in the territory of Hamath (2 K. 2833, 
a/3Xaa [B], 5e/3Xaa [A]; 1 256 ifpSe^\aOav [B], as 
5e/3Xa0a [AL]; v. 21 />e/3Xa0a [B] ; Jer. 39 5, p. [Theod. ; 
<5 om. ] and v. 6 5. [Theod. ; om. ] ; 5 2.g 5f/3a0a [N*] ; 
52 10 5e/3 . . 6a [F]). It is hardly possible in our brief 
space to give the reader a just idea of the new problems 
connected with the name of Riblah. 

Whether the foreign king who dethroned Jehoahaz was really 
Necho, king of Egypt, has become rather uncertain (see ZEDE- 
KIAH). For D lSD, Mizraim (i.e., Egypt), we should perhaps 
in 2 K. 23 34, as in so many other passages, read C"11B3, Mizrim ; 
cp MIZRAIM, 2 b. It was possibly, or even probably, a N. 
Arabian king called Pir u, not an Egyptian Pharaoh, who 
brought the kingdom of Judah into vassalage. If so Riblah 
may be a popular corruption of Jerahmeel. It is not less 
possible or probable that in the other passages where rjTjTI 
occurs Riblah should be emended into Jerahmeel. The 
accounts of geographical boundaries of Canaan in the OT have 
been, it would seem, systematically corrected, in good faith, 
but in complete misapprehension of the documents. 

If we assume, however, provisionally, the data of the 
traditional text, how shall we explain them ? In this 
case, Riblah will be represented by the poor village 
of Ribleh, on the E. bank of the Nahr el- A si 
(Orontes), 35 m. XE. of Baalbec. It was here that 
Necho put Jehoahaz in chains (2 K. 2833) and NEBU 
CHADREZZAR (q.v.} some twenty years later made his 
headquarters when he came to quell the Palestinian 
revolt. 2 Here Zedekiah saw his sons slain (2 K. 256 = 
Jer. 39s f. =52gf. ), and certain officers and people 
from Jerusalem were put to death (2 K. 25zof. =Jer. 

1 $eft\ada is identified by a scholiast on 2 K. 25 20 in cod. 243 
with Daphne the suburb of Antioch in Syria ; cp Jerome on 

2 An inscription of Nebuchadrezzar found in the Wady Brissa 
(on the E. of Lebanon) refers to the devastation wrought among 
the cedars of Lebanon by a foreign foe, and the flight of the 
inhabitants. Nebuchadrezzar s (second) visit to Riblah in 586, 
if historical, was to repair the damage done and to encourage 
the population of Lebanon which probably resisted the foreign 
foe and suffered accordingly. The foreign foe must have 
been Necho (Wi. AOF 504^). This, however, must be ac 
cepted with some critical reserve. 



52 26 /I). The occurrences of Riblah recognised by 
EV need some revision ; the name should certainly 
be inserted in Ezek. 614, where Riblah (misread in 
MT as UIBLAH : AV Diblath ), as a boundary, 
takes the place of the more usual Hamath, and it 
should as certainly be omitted in Nu. 34 n. Here, as 
most scholars suppose, the ideal eastern frontier of 
Canaan is described. The border, we are told, is to 
go down from Shepham HKBLH on the E. of Ain. If 
we put aside the prejudice produced by the pointing 
(nS^-in), it seems probable that to Harbel (rr^airi) is 
the meaning intended, and not to Riblah. The right 
vocalisation was still known to the (@ translator (dTro 
ffeir^afj. apj3rj\a ; see SHEPHAM), and also to Jerome and 
Eusebius, who speak (OS, 866 214i72 23254) of Arbela 
or a(3r)\a as a point on the eastern confines of Canaan. 
The Speaker s Comm. finds Harbel (more strictly ^>ann) 
in the Har-baal-hermon of Judg. 83, and supposes the 
border to pass by the southern end of Mt. Hermon 
near the two best -known sources of the Jordan. If 
the current theory of the reference may provisionally be 
accepted, let us rather say that Harbel was synonymous 
with Har-baal-gad, since Raal-gad at the foot of Mt. 
Hermon occurs in the parallel passage Josh. 13s instead 
of the Har-baal-hermon of Judg. 83. This view is at 
any rate more plausible than van Kasteren s identifica 
tion of Hariblah with Halibnah, between the Yarmuk 
and the Wddy Samak (Rev. bibl. , 1895, P- 33)- One 
of the spurs of the Jebel esh-Shekh (Mt. Hermon) is in 
fact called Jebel Arbel. 1 But it is much to be feared 
that the identification is illusory. T. K. c. 

RIDDLE occurs nine times in EV (Judg. 14 12- 19, 
TJpoBAHMA ; Ezek. 17 2, AlHr"HV\&) and twice in 
EV m K- (Prov. 16, (MNIfMA,; Hab. 26, npoBAHMA) as 
the rendering of Heb. rTVn, hldah. 

The word nTTI) usually explained as something twisted or 
knotty, but more probably (see Lag. Grieck. Uebersetz. dcr 
Prtni. 73) something shut up (cp Aram. inN, and Bibl.-Aram. 
rrvrtN)) occurs seventeen times in MT and and once in Heb. 
Ecclus. 47 17 ; in i K. 10 i 2 Ch. 9 i it is rendered hard question 
(ai>/tyjua); in Ps. 41 5 [4] 78 3 [2] dark saying (TrpojSArjjixa) ; in 
Prov. 16 dark saying (aii/iy^a) ; in Hab. 26 proverb (n-po- 
(3Arj/j.a) ; in Nu. 12 8 dark speech (ali>iy/j.a) ; in Dan. 8 23 dark 
sentence (aiviy^a, 7rpdA7]|u.a [Th. ]) and in Ecclus. 47 17 
parable (TrapajSoArj) ; ainyju.a also occurs in Wisd. 8 8 ( dark 
saying ), Ecclus. 893 (A V dark parables, RV dark sayings of 
parables ), 47 1 5 ( EV dark parables, R Vmtr- parables of riddles , 
Heb. differs). 

Thanks to its frequent parallelism with the word 
mdsdl (see PROVERB), hidah has acquired a considerable 
range of meaning. Thus it denotes (i) a riddle as we 
understand the word e.g. that propounded by Samson 
to the Philistines, Judg. 14 12^, or those with which 
the Queen of Sheba is said to have proved Solomon, 
i K. 10i 2 Ch. 9 i ; (2) a sententious maxim (Prov. 
30 is/. , etc.) still affecting to preserve the form of a 
riddle but wanting its essentials viz. , the adequate 
characterisation of the object, and the pause before 
reply. Even the riddle form may be dispensed with, 
hidah, as in Prov. 16, denoting simply any sententious 
maxim, or as in Ps. 49s (where, however, there are 
textual difficulties) the statement of a moral problem. 
(3) A parable as in Ezek. ITs-io, though the passage 
is not pure parable, but partakes of the characteristics 
of riddle and allegory as well. On account of the 
allusive and figurative character of many of the satirical 
lays of popular history (e.g. , Nu. 21 27 j/f i S. IS?, cp 
POETICAL LITERATURE, 4 iii. ), the term hldah is 
not inappropriately used to designate them in Hab. 26, 
but its use in Ps. "82 is probably only due to the poet s 
needing a parallel to S^a. (4) Lastly, htddh is used 
quite generally to denote any unusual or difficult and 
perhaps esoteric mode of expression, Nu. 128 Dan. 823. 

Bochart has discoursed learnedly of the use of the 

1 So Furrer in Riehm s HIVB; cp Ritter, Erdkundc, 15 i, 
pp. 159, 183. In ZDPV 5 29 a different, and less plausible, iden 
tification was proposed (with Ariln, 5 kil. NE. of Damascus). 



riddle by the Hebrews at feasts, 1 and we could easily 
believe that if our sources of information were not so 
narrow, we should find that the Israelites had some 
resemblance in this department to the Arabs, with whom 
there was almost a separate branch of enigmatic litera 
ture, with many subdivisions. Still, we have only one 
example of the riddle in the OT the famous one of 
Samson (Judg. 14 14 a very bad riddle, G. F. Moore) ; 
of those referred to in i K. 10 13 the narrator has 
favoured us with no specimen ; nor did Josephus (Ant. 
viii. 63) find in the Phoenician history of Dius any 
details of the riddles said to have been sent by Solomon 
to Hiram of Tyre, and by Hiram to Solomon (Jos. Ant. 
viii. 63 [ 149]). The information in post-biblical 
writings like the Midrash Mishle or the 2nd Targum to 
Esther is certainly more curious than valuable. 

In the NT riddle occurs once, i Cor. 13 12, where, 
to some scholars, the combination of Si eabirrpov and 
ev aiviy/j.a.Ti appears difficult. 

"Ev aiv. (to which Origen, c. Cels. 7 50 and elsewhere, and the 
MSS LP prefix xai [in Orig. KO.L alviy/j.a.To^]) may no doubt be 
illustrated by Nu. 128 (), ev el Sei Kai ou SC aiviyfioiTuiv, which 
may perhaps have been explained in a well-defined form and 
not in indistinct blurred outlines (for this use of alviyiJ.a. see 
Origen on Jn. 1 9). 

We do not want the additional phrase ev ably [tart, 
which appears somewhat to mar the antithesis ; what 
we look for is rather for now we see with the help 
of a mirror, but then face to face. Preuschen would 
therefore omit 4v alviy^ari as due to a later hand 
(ZA TIV, 1900, p. i8o/, cp MIRROR). 

RIE occurs twice in AV (Ex.932 Is. 2825) as the 
rendering of J"IJpE)3, for which RV has rightly spelt. 


for righteousness are se"dek, scddkd/i (p"|.V, HfTiy). con - 

, , nected with which we have the adjec- 

1. Men. terms. [ive ?addi ^ (p--^) righteous, and the 

verb sddak (pl.V) to be in the right in Hiphil and 
Pi el, to declare a person in the right. Probably the 
most original form of the root appears in the noun 
stdek, from which the verb, appearing first in the Hiph. 
form, is a denominative. It is not easy to fix precisely 
the primary meaning of the root. Gesenius takes it to 
be straight ; Ryssel, with less reason, hard. In 
any case the earliest sense which can be traced in actual 
use appears to be conformity to a recognised norm or 

Thus Beidawi on Sur. 2 21 (quoted by Kautzsch) rightly 
explains the corresponding form in Arabic, viz. sadk as mttt&bik 
i.e., congruent, so that things as unlike as a javelin and a 
date may each be described as sadik, if they are as they should 
be. Nothing fresh can be learned from the Syriac usage, which 
simply repeats with less fulness that of the Hebrew and New 
Hebrew. (P has used great freedom in translating scdek 
and its derivatives. Si icaiot, fiixaioo-vi r), Si/caioOi/ are their 
commonest renderings; but we also find, e.g. , srdakah repre 
sented by SiKaiia/j.0., eAer)fio<rv n) (9 times), e Aeos (3 times), and 
even by ev<J>po<rHi>ij(Is. 61 10), saddtk, by aAi)#>js, eu<re/3ijs, TTKTTOS. 
On the other hand Stxaio?, SIKCUOOTHT), Sucaiovv stand in 
for many Hebrew words unconnected etymologically with the 

root pixe.g-., for rex, ion, nine, -isr, N pa, 3 i3, DW, ns, 


It will be well before examining the history of the 
words in the OT, to mention two facts which should 
be borne in mind throughout, in tracing the idea of 
righteousness as the Hebrews understood it. In the 
first place, sMek and its derivatives seldom occur in the 
older documents. They are pretty common in the 
literary prophets ; they are exceedingly frequent in the 
wisdom literature and in the Psalms. Next, the meaning 
of these words becomes gradually wider, and assumes a 
more strictly ethical and religious signification. We 
may compare the use of diKaiocrvvTi which is unknown to 
Homer and Hesiod, and also the expansion of meaning 

1 Hiero?.. 383 /., ed. Rosenmiiller. Cp Wiinsche, Die 
Rathselweisheit bei den Hebraern, JPT, 1883, and cp for 
examples Krafft, Jiidische Sag-en iind Dichtungen. 



in Siicr), SIKCUOS from custom, observant of recognised 
usage, 1 till they stood for absolute justice and the man 
of ideal virtue. Similar analogies obviously appear in 
the Latin Justus, and in our own terms right, 
righteous, etc. 

It is doubtful whether real instances of the primitive 
use viz. , agreement with a physical norm still survive 

_ . .in Hebrew. Lev. 19 36 Ezek. 45io, 

, ": exact balances, exact weights, etc. , 

[ are commonly quoted as cases in point. 
The passages, however, are late, and as the contrasted 
notion of iniquity occurs in the immediate context, it 
is by no means clear that we should not translate 
righteous balances, etc. Similarly paths of st!Jek in 
Ps. 23 3 may mean paths of righteousness, not simply 
straight paths. Still less can Joel 2 23 be alleged as 
an example of stddkdh in its original i.e.. physical 
signification, for the translation given by Kautzsch 
early rain in full measure is more than doubtful. 
We may perhaps acquiesce in the translation early 
rain for your justification i.e., in proof that Yahwe 
has once more graciously accepted his people (so Wellh., 
Nowack, and Smend, AT Rel.-gesch. 419^:). 

Passing from the idea of conformity to a physical 
standard, we have to note the use of the plu. stddkoth 
(nipTj) in the earliest fragment of Hebrew literature 
viz. , the so-called Song of Deborah. There the poet 
describes the valiant deeds of the Hebrews as due to 
the help which Yahwfe gave, and might as the tribal 
God be fairly expected to give, his people. This seems 
to be his conception of sfddkoth. It involves little or 
no ethical element. Yahwe acted in accordance with 
the natural bond between his worshippers and himself, 
and the plural form indicates the various occasions on 
which he did so. 

To the same class we may perhaps refer Dt. 33 21, where God 
is said to have wrought the scdakAh of Yahwe, because he was 
the instrument of the divine purpose hy repelling the foes of 
Israel. In the same poem (the Blessing of Moses, Dt. 8819) 
Zebulun calls the tribes to some sacred mountain that they may 
offer sacrifices of sedck, and this may mean no more than 
sacrifices offered duly i.e., according to the recognised form, 
and as a natural return for benefits conferred. Here, if this 
interpretation lie sound, the ethical element is not wholly 
absent ; but it is still faint and rudimentary. 2 

We have to deal next with the many cases in which 
the legal signification predominates. In the Book 
3 Le?al or f the Covenant (Ex. 23?) we read, 
f/mimifn Thou sllalt not P ut to death him who 
is innocent and saddfk, where clearly 
the legislator is not thinking of virtuous 
character, but of innocence from the charge brought 
before the court. This restricted use always continued 
long after the deeper and more universal meaning had 
become familiar. 

Isaiah, for example (5 23) speaks of p TO ripis i.e., the plea 
of a man who has a good case and in Prov. 18 17 we are told 
that the first comer is right (P^S) i.e. , seems to be right in his 
contention till his opponent appears and puts him to the proof. 
See also Dt. 25 i Prov. 17 15 185 2424. Here it is necessary 
to note the significant fact that no feminine form of pTi is found 
anywhere in the OT : indeed the vise of the verb rrpns in Gen. 
38 26 (the only occurrence of Kal in the Hexateuch) may fairly 
be accepted as proof that the adjective had no feminine form. 
This may be naturally accounted for on the ground that p 1_S 
meant originally right in law, and that a woman was not a 
person with legal rights. 

In early literature the use of the verb is almost wholly 
confined to the Hiphil, and the meaning of the verb 
corresponds to that of the adjective. In other words, 
the Hiphil verb means to decide in favour of a litigant, 
by declaring him to be in the right. So, for example, 

1 It is always assumed that the standard is external and 
recognised as correct. Thus, e.g., Homer speaks of Autolycus 
as good (i<rO\6r, Od. 10394), adding that he excelled all men 
in knavery and the oath. He would not have called him 
SixaLov. So now we might perhaps speak of a good thief, 
but not of a just one. 

- The use of COIKC, eoixun in Homer is similar. 




in Ex. 23 7 (0) after a warning against oppression of 
the poor by corrupt administration of justice, the general 
principle is enunciated, for thou shall not decide in 
favour of a malefactor. A slightly different shade of 
meaning is given to the verb in Absalom s exclamation 
(2 S. 164), O that they would make me a judge in the 
land : then if any man came to me with a plea and a 
case, I would help him to his right (rnp^sni). 1 

Hy an easy transition the idea of legal right is extended to 
that of being in the, right on some particular occasion without 
any implication as to general moral character. No more is 
implied in Judah s admission (Gen. 8626), She (Tamar) is 
more in the right than I ( 3213 npls), or perhaps She has acted 
within her rights and can maintain her case against me. (For 
this use of |D, cp Job 32 2.) Further, sdeiaJjt is used of one who 
is justified in his statement. This meaning is evident in Job 
33 12 where, after quoting Job s words, Klihu says, Lo ! in this 
[statement] thou art not justified : I will answer thee. 1 In the 
same way the adjective is employed, Is. 41 26, Who announced 
this from the beginning that we might know it ... and say 
"Right " i.e., he is right ? not, It is true, for the Hebrew 
adjective is never used of things. Examples of this meaning in 
noun, adjective, and verb are numerous. See for use of the 
noun (sedek) Is. 59 4 Ps. 52 5 [3] Prov. 88 1613, of the verb in 
Hiph. Job 27 3 and in Hithpa. (perhaps), Gen. 44 16. In Arab, 
the use of the root for truth-speaking, sincere, is much more 
advanced and definite. 

We may now turn to the idea of righteousness 

properly so called, of righteousness in its ethical 

4 Ethical s g nmcat on ! and nere tne investigation 

sense in llas its Startm g-Pi nt in tne early literary 


prophets. In the reign of Jeroboam II. a 

capitalist class had arisen : the old tribal 
justice, depending on the bond of clan and still well- 
maintained among the Arabs of the desert, was \vell- 
nigh gone in Israel (see GOVERNMENT, 12 ff. ; LAW AND 
JUSTICE, 2). Hence the passionate cry of Amos for 
national righteousness, for justice in the gates i.e., for 
right institutions rightly administered. He reiterates 
his protest that external ritual is of no avail without 
justice, Take away from me (Yahwe speaks) the 
tumult of thy songs, the music of thy lutes I will not 
hear. But let justice roll in like a river and righteous 
ness like a perennial stream (023). True, Amos also 
uses the adjective saddik in the old legal sense (26 612), 
and he has the administration of justice constantly in 
view. In his view, however, legal justice springs from 
the essential nature of God, who demands righteousness, 
not ritual worship from his people. The demand is 
made to the nation as a whole. Unless it is satisfied, 
Israel must perish utterly and there is no room left for 
difference in the fate of the righteous and the un 
righteous individual. Hosea also insists on national 
righteousness ; but his conception of it is at once wider 
and deeper than that of his predecessor. It is wider, 
for righteousness, as Hosea understood it, is more than 
bare justice. It includes htsed i.e., merciful con 
sideration for others. 2 It is deeper, for Hosea saw that 
outward amendment could not be permanent without a 
radical change of mind. Sow to yourselves in righteous 
ness : reap according to lovingkindness : break up for 
yourselves fallw) ground : for it is time to seek Yahwe, 
that the fruit of righteousness may come to you (10i2, 
cp (5). It is not enough to sow good seed : the ground 
must first be cleared and broken up : in short, the 
Israelites must become new men, and Yahwe s will 
must rule their lives. Yahwe will accept no superficial 
conversion (61-4): the only remedy is a new birth by 
which Israel becomes a new creature (1813). 

Isaiah develops the principles of Amos and Hosea. 

His moral code is much the same. Seek out justice : 

5 Isaiah set r ^ nt tne violent man : do justice to the 

orphan : plead for the widow (1 16/. 07 

102). He, no less than Hosea, makes religion a 

1 So KIKO.IOVV in classical Greek means to give a man his due, 
but always in a bad sense, viz., to condemn. It is only in (8 and 
NT that it means to declare righteous. 

2 Cp TO jriiice s, which corrects the defects of law, and 
is, therefore, Sixaiov icat rifos fte\riov Sixatov, Arist. Etk. 
A icom. 5 8. 



matter of the heart (29 13). Righteousness is the 
inexorable rule by which Yahwe governs the world 
(2S 17), and wickedness by its own nature blasts the 
evildoer (9i7[i8]). Because of Israel s sin the nation as 
a whole is doomed hopelessly (6130:). Still, those who 
believe in Yahwe as the eternal principle of righteous 
ness can stand fast in the crash of ruin all around 
them (7 9). Meanwhile the prophet was educating a 
band of disciples (816) who were to be the germ of a 
1 remnant that was to be converted, and in one of his 
latest prophecies (1 21-26) he passes from an ideal picture 
of Jerusalem in Davidic days (the idealisation of -the 
past separates him in a very marked manner from 
Hosea) and expresses the great hope of better times to 
come. Judgment will have done its cleansing work : 
once more judges will give impartial decisions and 
Jerusalem shall be known as the fortress of righteous 
ness, the faithful city. 

A century later Jeremiah maintained the same con 
ception of righteousness. In 223 ne gives what almost 

. , amounts to a definition of righteousness: 
6. Jeremiah. . , r 

it consists negatively in abstinence from 

murder and oppression of the widows and orphans, 
positively in securing justice for those who were power 
less to help themselves. The same thought appears in 
other passages e.g. , in chap. 7, though the word right 
eousness is not actually used. We must not, however, 
forget that Jeremiah held fast to his belief in righteous 
ness at the cost of a personal struggle more searching 
and severe than that which any of his precursors had to 
face. It was his hard fate to learn that even a law like 
that of Deuteronomy, embodying as it did the best 
results of prophetic teaching, could not of itself change 
the hearts of the very men who in form, and as they 
believed, sincerely, complied with its requirements. 
Moreover, Jeremiah had to contend with the organised 
priesthood of Jerusalem, after the priests of the high 
places had been removed and when those of the central 
shrine claimed, on grounds which Jeremiah could not 
altogether gainsay, a divine sanction for their authority. 
Moreover his sensitive nature was exposed to continual 
suffering from the enmity of his contemporaries and 
from the national ruin which he saw first in spiritual 
vision and then with the bodily eye. Because of all 
this, Jeremiah s faith in the divine righteousness had to 
draw its strength from the very doubt which threatened 
to destroy it. Thou art in the right (saddft) O Yahwe, 
when I contend with thee : yet would I reason the cause 
with thee : why does the way of the wicked prosper ? 
( 12 1 ). He knows well that the best law may be perverted 
by the lying pen of the scribes (88) and that Yahwe 
is a righteous judge (sophet sMek) proving reins and 
heart (11 20). More explicitly than any earlier prophet 
he fuses morality and religion into one by reducing all 
duty to the one supreme duty of knowing Yahwe s will 
as revealed in his government of the world. 

Thus saith Yahwe, Let not a wise man glory in his wisdom, 
neither let a hero glory in his valour, let not a rich man glory in 
his wealth. Hut in this let him that glories glory, that he hns 
understanding and knows me, [knows] that I am Yahwe, who 
do lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness on the earth : 
for in these things do I take pleasure ; it is the oracle of Yahwe 
(9 22_/T[23^C]). Whereas Isaiah had seen that the people s heart 
was not in their worship, Jeremiah recognised the radical evil that 
the heart of man is weak and cannot he trusted (17 9), and he 
saw the hope of spiritual religion, not in amendment on man s 
part, but in the grace of Yahwe who would write his law in 
their hearts (31 33). 

Finally, the expectation of a Messianic king, or line of 
Messianic kings, appears probably for the first time in 
Jeremiah. Yahwe will raise from the family of David 
a righteous branch. He is to execute true justice and 
is to be called Yahwe is our righteousness (23 5/1). 
The context interprets this name of the Messiah. By 
restoring Israel to its own land Yahwe the judge of all 
is to vindicate the just cause of his people against the 
heathen. In his (i.e. , the Messiah s) days Judah will 
be saved (from heathen bondage) and Israel will dwell 



in security. The history of the world is the judgment 
of the world. Here, however, the idea of righteousness 
is modified by fresh associations, and with the consequent 
change in the application of the word we shall have to 
deal presently. 

We have already given from the earlier documents 
of the Hexateuch instances which illustrate the more 

7 Sedek restr ctecl ancl primitive use of the root pis. 

svnonvm ^ e also meet tllere> as m g nt have been 
t ,-, expected, with the prophetic use in which 

of morality. .. 

it is co-extensive with moral excellence. 

Yahwe, e.g. , declares that he has seen how righteous 
Noah is (Gen. 7 1, J) : he knows that Abraham will teach 
his descendants to do judgment and righteousness 
(Gen. 1819, a late stratum of JE). Only one passage 
in the Hexateuch calls for special notice here, both from 
its intrinsic interest and from the famous argument drawn 
from it by Paul. The words in Gen. 156 (J ?) are 
Abraham trusted in Yahwe and he reckoned it to 
him as righteousness. Paul identifies the faith of 
Abraham with justifying faith as he himself under 
stood it. It would be an anachronism to suppose that 
the writer of the words in Genesis had risen to an idea 
of this kind, nor is any such exegesis supported by the 
context. Abraham believed, not in God s pardoning 
grace, but in Yahwe s fidelity to his promise. In fact 
Abraham s faith or trust is precisely what faith as Paul 
conceives it is not, an opus per se dignum. See 
FAITH, i. 

From the ethical we may now pass to the theocratic 
sense of scddkdh and the cognate words. We have 

8 Theocratic alread y had a ? lirn P se of this meaning 
in the Messianic passage quoted from 

Jeremiah. It became prevalent from 

the time of Habakkuk. It must be remembered that 
Habakkuk, like Jeremiah, lived after Josiah s reform, but 
does not, like Jeremiah, attribute the partial failure of 
that reform to the depravity of the Judcean people. On 
the contrary, he believed that the obstacle to strict legal 
observance lay in the oppression of Judah by the 
Babylonians (14); for it was very hard to believe in 
Yahwe or his law while the Babylonian oppressor had 
it all his own way. The people of Judah were at least 
better than their oppressors ; hence to Habakkuk the 
righteous is the constant description of the Judaeans, 
whilst the wicked stands for the heathen conqueror. 
This terminology was adopted by subsequent writers, 
as maybe seen from Is. 26 10 Ps. 96 17 102 ff. In the 
end, as Habakkuk holds, Yahwe will vindicate the cause 
of his people, and the righteous man i.e., the man 
of Judah, is to live by fidelity to his God and confidence 
in the ultimate victory of the good cause. Here we 
have the outline of the picture which the Second Isaiah 
(i.e., Is. 40-55) fills in with completer detail and added 
shades of meaning. 1 Whereas the earlier prophets 
threatened, the unknown prophet of the Exile makes it 
his chief endeavour to comfort Israel. No doubt the 
nation has sinned ; but it has also been punished enough, 
and more than enough, and now the day of its deliver 
ance is at hand. For the sake of his own faithfulness 
(sJdek] Yahwe has been pleased to give great and glori 
ous revelation of his character (42 21 ).- He is a truth- 
speaking GoA(saddik, 45 21). He has stirred up Cyrus 
in righteousness (45 13), i.e. , as Yahwe ought to do, 
and therefore must do ; he has supported him with his 
trusty right hand ( right hand of stdefc, 41 10). P-y a 
glorious restoration Yahwe justifies Israel i.e. , decides 
in its favour (508). Hence in a multitude of cases sidek 
and sfddkdh mean triumph (so the verb 4525 : cp VIKO.V 
in Rom. 12ai) victory (41 2 4612), redress (518), 

1 We may perhaps compare KaAol Kaya&ot, optitnates, fnid- 
bounties, gittc Manner, used of the aristocracy without any 
ethical meaning. Of course the ethical words never lost their 
ethical sense so utterly. 

2 There is, however, some doubt both as to the reference in 
this passage, and as to its authenticity. See Marti, ad oc. 



salvation (4613). It is significant that when sldakdh 
retains its older and ethical force, it is used of a right 
eousness which comes as a divine grace being rained 
down from above (458). In the Second Isaiah, however, 
this purely ethical sense is rare, occurring only two or 
three times out of some twenty-five in which the Hebrew 
root is used. 

The Second Isaiah, as we have seen, assumed that 
the sufferings inflicted by Babylon had sufficed to purify 

v T j- -j i Israel, and hailed with jov the restora- 
9. Individual , . , ,, 


tion of a righteous people. However, 

in the preceding generation Ezekiel had 
i;ivi-n expression to a very different view. In the latter 
period of his work he was a pastor of souls, a preacher 
addressing individuals rather than a prophet with a 
message to the nation. Naturally, then, he insists on 
individual righteousness. Each man is to be tried on 
his own merits ; however righteous he may lie, he can 
secure the due reward for himself and only for himself. 
Nay, even with the individual Yahwe deals according 
to his present actions, admitting no appeal to the 
righteousness of the past, and on the other hand for 
giving iniquity in case of repentance and amendment 
(Ezek. 18i 14i4/. 33i2/). His ideal of righteousness 
in the individual conforms on the whole to the prophetic 
standard of individual righteousness, though it includes 
a larger amount of ritual observance (see esp. 186-8). 
Now, after the restoration, the view of the Second Isaiah 
proved untenable. The restoration itself lacked the 
external glory of which he had fondly dreamt, and the 
exile had failed to produce that righteousness of the 
whole nation which was still the cherished aim of 
religious reformers in the Jewish Church, How was it 
to be accomplished? Finally and completely by the 
judgment of the last days, which is to fall on unfaithful 
Jews as well as the heathen. This is the favourite theme 
of Apocalyptic writers (see esp. Is. 1022 which is a late 
insertion : Mai. 83 Zech. 9 9 126 13g Joel and Daniel 
passim). Meanwhile the wisdom literature taught with 
Ezekiel that God here and now, though not immediately, 
recompenses the righteous and the wicked according to 
their deserts, a dogma constantly reiterated in Proverbs 
and Psalms. Here and there a distinction is made 
between the weightier matters of the law and such as 
are merely ritual, since Yahwe loves righteousness and 
judgment more than sacrifice (Prov. 21 3, cp, e.g. , 
Ps. 50). But more and more the righteous man is 
one who studies and practises the whole law (Ps. Is). 
The righteous are really one with the hasidim : these 
are to be found as a rule among the poor and afflicted 
Israelites (Zech. 9g Ps. 56-59), and possibly the author 
of Ps. 94, when he speaks (-, . 15) of legal administration 
returning to righteousness, may be looking forward to 
the triumph of the Pharisaic over the Sadducean party. 
Naturally those who made so much of the law laid great 
stress on deeds of mercy. But s?ddkah nowhere admits, 
as in Mishnic Hebrew, of the rendering alms, though 
such passages as Ps. 112 9 Dan. 424 [27] are not far re 
moved from this later use. 1 

We have already, in discussing the various senses of 
sfcidkdh, etc., answered by implication the question, 
10 Rifht H w s a man justified or accepted as 
," righteous before God ? Something, how- 

ever has to be added here on the 
justification of sinners, the change from 

divine condemnation to divine favour. As we have seen, 
the ancient Hebrew believed that God s wrath could be 
appeased by sacrifice ( i S. 26 19 3 14), whereas the earliest 
of the literary prophets insisted that national amendment 
was the only way of escape from national chastisement. 
The idea that sin was a debt incurred and that payment 
was still due, however sincere the conversion might 

1 In Mt.Ci, Jicaio<rv nji is certainly the true reading, and 
that of TR eA.r>)|u.o<rvn)t is a gloss. Whether the gloss is correct 
is another question. Weiss, ad loc., answers this question in the 
affirmative; Holtzmann, XTl. Theol. 2135, in the negative. 



of sinners 


be, is altogether strange to Amos and his successors. 
Cease to do evil, learn to do well, is the remedy which 
Isaiah proposes ; nor does he doubt its efficacy : If ye 
be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the 
land (Is. 1 16-19). Ezekiel, in a passage quoted above, 
proposes the same rule to the individual, and combats 
the delusion that the merits of persons exceptionally 
righteous could atone for the sins of their neighbours l 
(see also Jer. 15 1 8129, and for an opposite view Gen. 
18 1?/.). On the whole this principle ruled in later 
Israel. To keep the law is righteousness (Dt. 625), and 
the man or church that does so receives stdakdh i. e. , a 
favourable sentence from the God who comes to his 
help (Ps. 24s). It is true that neither the individual 
Jew nor the Jewish church could always appeal with con 
fidence to that perfect observance of the law which 
justified in the sight of God. On the contrary, the 
Psalms abound in acknowledgments of guilt (e.g. , Pss. 
884-6 40 13 696 [5]), and the chief motive of religion was 
to secure divine pardon : There is forgiveness with thee 
that thou mayest be feared (Ps. 1304). ^ e must not, 
however, identify such misgivings with the reproach of 
conscience, with the sense of sin as Christians under 
stand it. The Jews believed that God was offended 
with them because he withheld the rewards of righteous 
ness and dealt with them as he deals with the wicked, 
they believed restoration to prosperity was the sure sign 
of pardon and of grace, a state of mind which finds its 
classical expression in Ps. 32. But was there no way of 
restoration except perfect righteousness, or, failing that, 
supplication to the divine mercy (as in Dan. 920)? 
On this point the later teaching of the OT is not 

The Priestly Code limits the efficacy of the sin-offering 
which was introduced after the exile to venial or in 
voluntary transgression (Xu. 1027-31), 
and the mention of sacrifice in the 
Book of Proverbs (158 166 21327) is 
at least in harmony with this principle. 
Still, even the Priestly Code had to mitigate the strict 
ness of its theory. On the day of Atonement the high 
priest laid the sins of Israel on the head of the goat 
which was sent into the desert (Lev. 1620-22) ; the 
dshdm atoned for perjury and embezzlement (Lev. 5 21 f. 
[62/i] Nu. os/l ) when preceded by restitution to the 
person wronged, and incense could appease Yahwe when 
provoked by the rebellion of his people (Nu. \lnf. 
[16 46 / ]) At a still later period it was thought that the 
merits of the Patriarchs atoned for the sins of Israel (see 
Weber, Altsyn. Theol. 280 f. ; and the essay on the 
1 Merits of the Fathers in Sanday and Headlam s Com 
mentary on Romans), and we may perhaps find the germ 
of this dogma in the atoning efficacy which the OT 
attributes to the prayers of holy men (Ex. 327 f. 3 1 /- 
Nu. 14n/. 1622 17 10 Jos. 7 6/. Jer. 7i6 11 14 15 1 Job5i 
8823) and of angels (Zech. 1 12 Job5i 8823). Very natur 
ally the doctrine that the merits of the Fathers availed for 
the justification of Israel culminated in the belief that the 
guilt of Israel was purged by the vicarious sufferings of 
righteous men. This no doubt was the teaching of the 
Rabbis. According to them, Isaac made propitiation 
for Israel by the willing oblation of his own life. God 
smote Ezekiel that Israel might go free, and martyrdom 
made propitiation for sin as efficaciously as the day of 
Atonement. 2 The OT, however, lends no real support 
to such a theory of justification by vicarious sacrifice. 
The famous passage (Is. 52i3-53i2) which describes the 
sufferings of Yahwe s servant is treated elsewhere 
(SERVANT OF THE LORD). In spite of the corruption 
of the text, the general sense seems to be clear. 8 

1 Almsdeeds also were regarded as a powerful means of atone 
ment for past sins. 

2 Reff. in Holtzmann, NT!. Theol. 1 f>sf. 

3 Verses lo/T are, as they stand, quite out of place, since the 
context requires a reference to the resurrection, not the death 
of the servant. See Che. Intr. to Is. 305, n. i, and Duhm and 
Marti, ad loc. [also SERVANT OF THE LORD, 4(4) 5(4)]. 


11. Atone 
ment and 


Israel, the servant of Yahwe, does indeed suffer for the 
peace and healing of the nations. This, however, 
takes place because of the effect produced on the minds 
of the heathen, not because of the effect produced on 
the mind of God. At first the heathen regard Israel as 
afflicted by an angry God : they shrink from him as men 
shrink from a leper. But God reverses the tragic doom 
of his people and raises up the nation to new life. 
Then the heathen understand the divine purpose. They 
recall the meekness with which Israel endured its punish 
ment. They acknowledge their own sinfulness and come 
to the knowledge of the true God who has scattered 
Israel abroad for a season that he may make it the light 
of nations and show his irresistible power in its glorious 

The words SJKCUOS, SiKaiocrvv-rj, which scarcely occur 
in the Fourth Gospel, are exceedingly common in Mt. 
T , and Lk. , and serve to express the most 
striking and characteristic features of 
1 " Jesus teaching. Jesus required from 
his disciples a righteousness better than that of the 
Scribes and Pharisees, and told them that otherwise 
they could not enter the Kingdom of Heaven (Mt. 620). 
Generally, it may be said that Jesus restored the pro 
phetic ideal of righteousness, at the same time deepen 
ing and extending it. The popular doctrine understood, 
by righteousness, not so much an honest and upright life 
as scrupulous attention to moral and ceremonial rules, 
conduct legally correct. These rules were contained in 
the written and oral law ; Jesus declared that the 
traditions of the elders nullified the central purpose of 
the law (Mk. 71-13), or at best were matters of indiffer 
ence (ib. ). Moreover, he not only distinguished between 
the more important and less important precepts of the 
Mosaic law (Mt. 2823) ; he also criticised the law itself 
and set its most solemn commands aside. 

No less than this is implied in words such as these Moses 
because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to divorce 
your wives (Mt. 19s=Mk. 10 5); The Sabbath was made for 
man, not man for the Sabbath (Mk. 2 27) ; Nothing that goeth 
into a man from without can defile a man (Mk. 7 15 = Mt. 15 17^ ; 
contrast Lev. 11 Deut. 14). Again, the righteousness which 
Jesus taught far transcended on its positive side that of the 
Mosaic law : among his disciples the lex talionis was to give 
place to a very different rule viz., Do not resist evil (Mt. 5 39) 
and that is followed by a kindred command, Love your 
enemies (Mt. 644). 

More clearly and more consistently than any previous 
teacher, Jesus demanded a righteousness of the heart, 
and forbade malicious and impure thoughts as sternly 
as the deeds of murder and lust to which they naturally 
tend (Mt. 521-28). He went deeper still, and instead of 
reckoning the sum of good deeds, or even good thoughts, 
against the opposing sum of evil deeds and thoughts, 
he insisted upon righteousness of character, a righteous 
ness which is not accidental but essential, a righteousness 
which is one and indivisible, various as its manifesta 
tions may be : A good tree cannot bring forth evil 
fruit, neither can a corrupt bring forth good fruit 
(Mt. 7i8). No sacrifice was to be counted too severe 
when personal righteousness was in peril (Mt.f>29) or 
the cause of righteousness to be advanced (Mt. 19 21 
Mk. 102i Lk. 1822). On the one hand, all was to 
be done with a single eye fixed upon God and his 
approval (Mt. 61 etc.); on the other hand, the service 
of God consisted in the service of man for God s sake. 
It is on duty to man that the Sermon on the Mount 
dwells throughout, that practical love for man of which 
God himself is the supreme example, and hence an 
infinite vista opens up before the disciple, who can never 
feel that he has done enough since he is to be perfect as 
his Father in Heaven is perfect (Mt. 648). So, too, 
the Jewish notion of a contract with God who repays 
service done disappears in that relation of son to 
father which Jesus removed from the circumference and 
set in the centre of religion. True, God rewards those 
who do not reward themselves by ostentation and self- 
complacency. But the quality of reward is the same 



for all faithful service, long or short ; it consists in ad 
mission to the kingdom in which the ideal of righteous 
ness is realised (Mt. 20i-i6). As God bestows the 
powers to be used in his service, and has an absolute 
right to that service, no room is left for merit which 
does but claim its due : When ye shall have done all 
these things which are commanded you, say, We are 
unprofitable servants (Lk. 17 10). 

Jesus opened the Kingdom of Heaven to those who 
hungered and thirsted for righteousness such as this 
(Mt. 56). Whereas, however, prophets and apocalyptic 
writers had looked forward to a final separation of the 
righteous and the wicked, Jesus began his work by 
the great announcement that he came to call not the 
righteous, but sinners, to repentance (Mt. 9i3 = Mk. 217 
= Lk. 532). He declared and pronounced the forgive 
ness of sins ; he spoke of the joy in heaven over one 
sinner who repents ; he taught men to believe in God by 
first teaching them to believe in himself. He invited 
men to believe in the good news (Mk. lis) i.e. , to 
have faith or trust in God as their Father, and to make 
this trust the guiding principle of their lives. 

It would be impossible within the limits of this article 
to discuss the righteousness of faith of which Paul 
TT f s P ea ks or l he connection of Christ s 
g / death with justification. It may be well, 

however, to indicate in conclusion the 
various uses of 5i /ccuos and the cognate words in the NT 
apart from righteousness in the Pauline sense and that 
higher righteousness demanded by Jesus from his dis 
ciples of which we have said something already. The 
adjective dfccuos, righteous, is applied to God especially 
as judge of all (Rev. 16s), or to Christ (2 Tim. 48 Jn. 
1725) ; to men as observant of the Jewish law (Mt. 1 19). 1 
It also is equivalent to virtuous in the widest sense 
(Mt. 645 9i 3 = Mk. 620= Lk. 532, etc.). Once Paul 
distinguishes the righteous man who fulfils all his 
obligations from the dyaOos whose character is more 
genial and attractive (Rom. 5 7). Righteous is also a 
title given to men eminently righteous (Mt. 1817 Mk.2i7), 
and by pre-eminence to Jesus (Acts 3 14 7 52 22 14). It 
is predicated, as the corresponding Hebrew adjective 
never is, of things (Mt. 204 I^k. 12 57 Acts 4 19 Rom. 7 12 
Col. 4 1 Phil. 48 etc.). 

The noun Si/caiocrvn) means fair dealing between man and 
man (passing into the wider sense of virtuous conduct ; Acts 1035 
2425 Rom. (5 13 14 17 iTim.fin 2Tim.222). Lk. uses it once 
only, viz., in 1 75 where it is parallel to holiness, i.e., piety. 
Acceptance of John s baptism is spoken of (Mt. 3 15) as included 
in the fulfilment of all righteousness i.e., as conformable to the 
divine will which the Baptist announced. So, too, the Baptist 
is said to have come in the way of righteousness (Mt. -132), 
because he preached that course of conduct which righteousness 
required. The verb SIKO.IU>, justify, in the NT always means 
to pronounce just, never, either in the NT or in profane writers, 
to make just (the apparent exception, Rev. 22 n, in the received 
text arises from a false reading). It is used of men who seek 
to prove themselves in the right (Lk. 1029), or to win credit 
for righteousness with their fellow-men (Lk. Ifiis). Men are 
justified before God when they obtain his approval (Lk. 1814 
Mt. 12 37 = Lk. 7 35). In this sense Jesus, after his resurrection, 
was justified in the Spirit (i Tim. 3 16) inasmuch as he received 
clear tokens of divine approval. As God justifies men, so men 
may justify God, by confessing his righteousness (Lk.72g Ps. 
5l6U] as quoted in Rom.34 ; cp Mt.llig), an application of 
the verb which is found in the Psalms of Solomon ("2 16 3 5). 

See Diestel,/Z>r5i73/:; Ortloph, Begriff von p-,y, ZLT 
1860, p. 4oi_/! ; Ryssel, Synonyme des 
14. Literature, ll ahrcn . Guten in den sent. Sprachcn 
(1872); Kautzsch, Derivate des Stan/tiles 

and even in so early a passage as Judg. 5 1 1 translates fidkStk, 
victories [of Yah we]. Wildeboer s comparison of the Syr. zckha 
to be pure, to conquer, hdb to be guilty, to be defeated is 
interesting and suggestive. W. E. A. 

RIMMON (pEH ; PCMMAN [BL] -Q [A]). Accord 
ing to the traditional text, the name of a god worshipped 
at Damascus (2 K. 5i8); apparently it enters into the 

1 The passage is difficult ; but it seems to mean that Joseph 
was too strict an observer to marry a woman who had proved 
unfaithful, and too kind to make a public example of her. 



name T.AB-RIMMON [q.v.], though, as we shall see, 
another view of the phrase in i K. 15 18 is at least 
equally possible. 

A more correct pronunciation of the name of this 
god would be Ram man. Both name and cultus of 

1. Rimmon= ! his deit , y , were \ il is g ener , all > r hek }- 
Ass. Ramman. Arrowed from Assyria, and certainly 
Ramman was the most prevalent name 
of the god of thunder and lightning (ideogram I VI) who 
plays such an important part in the Babylonian Deluge- 
story, and is often represented as armed with the 
thunderbolt. The etymological meaning is the roarer 
(ramdmu ~ to roar ) a name well suited to a thunder 
god. The W. Semites appear to have had another 
name for this god, viz., Addu or Daddu, and Oppert 
(Z.I 9310^ [1894]) supposes that Adad was the oldest 
name of the deity. There is thought to be a remi 
niscence of the identity of Addu (or Adad) and Ramman 
in the compound form Hadad-rimmon (MT s reading) 
in Zech. 12 n ; the editor of Zechariah, however, will 
in this case be responsible for the strange form (but see 
Crit. Bib. ). We often find Ramman associated with 
Samas (the sun-god), like whom he is (in an inscription 
of the Kassite period) called lord of justice. The 
Massoretes may have confounded Ramman with rimmon 
(see POMEGRANATE) ; though H. Derenbourg disputes 
the accuracy of this representation, Rimmon, according 
to him, being the divinised pomegranate( Kohut Memorial 
Studies, 120-125 [ I ^97]- 

See especially Jastrow, AY/. of Bal>. and Ass., 156-161 ; and 
Amur. Joitrn. of Son. Languages, 12159-162; also Schrader, 
Ramraan-Rimmon, St. Kr., 1874, PP- 334$- ! Sayce, the 
god Ramman, 1 ZA 2 ^if. [ , Zimmern, A A 7"(3i 442-451]. 

According to Ohnetalsch-Richter {Kypros, Text, 115) the con 
fusion between the Hebrew word for pomegranate (P31, 
rimnwn) and the name of the originally Assyrian god Rammfm 
is older than MT, and goes back possibly to the time of Ezekiel 
(and earlier). In this connection he notes that pomegranates 
were attached to the vestments of the high-priest and to the 
columns of the temple at Jerusalem. On Carthaginian stela;, 
moreover, we find the seated figure of 1 the boy Adonis in the 
very place occupied elsewhere by the column surmounted by a 
pomegranate. Ohnefalsch-Kichter thinks that it was an easy 
step to identify this tree-god Tammuz, to whom the rimmSn 
was sacred, with the storm-god Ramman, and to call him 

According to Jensen, there is a cylinder in the Hermitage 
at St. Petersburg inscribed with two divine names, the one 
Rammanum, the other ASratum. Taking this in connection 
with Assyrian texts which speak of the god Amurru (i.e., the 
god of the land Amurru, the Amorite god) as the consort of 
Asratu, he infers that the Amorite god referred to is Rammanu, 
i.e., the storm-god, also called by the Assyrians the Lord of 
the Mountain, = p} 1 ? Sj. 3> the Baal of Lebanon. The land 
of Amurru was in fact originally the land of the Lebanon or 
Antilibanus (cp \Vi. GI 1 52). 

The present writer, however (see Crit. Bib.}, suspects 
much misunderstanding in the traditional text of the 
narrat ves f tne kings of Aram, which 

I s *P e , c ! al l> visible in names - Ben 
hadad, for instance, seems to be 

equivalent to Bir-dadda, and Hazael to Haza ilu, which 
are attested as N. Arabian royal names in Assyrian in 
scriptions (KA T(-~I, 148) ; Damascus is constantly mis- 
written for Cusham ; and Rimmon, or rather Ramman, 
may be regarded as a popular corruption of that famous 
name Jerahmeel, which was not only an ethnic name, 
but also in all probability the name of a god (see Crit. 
Bib. on 2 K. 17 30 /. ). When, therefore, we read in 2 K. 
5i8 of Naaman s accompanying his royal master to the 
house of Rimmon, this is meant (not of the storm-god, 
but) of the national god of Jerahmeel, who may possibly 
have been called Jarham or Yarham (i.e., rrr. moon, 
with the Arabic mimation ). It was not unnecessary 
to warn the Israelites that Naaman was only by a special 
indulgence allowed to do outward honour to Jarham or 
Jerahmeel, because there are several indications that the 
worship of Jerahmeel had made its way into Judah some 
time before the fall of the state. See, e.g. , Zeph. ls, 
where we should very probably read, (I will cut off) 
those that prostrate themselves before the moon, that 

411 c 

2 Rimmon = 


swear by Jerahmeel. >l It now becomes doubtful whether 
son of Tab-rimmon in I K.. 15 18 is correct. The 
king to whom Asa sent may have been, not Ben-hadad, 
son of Tab-rimmon, son of Hezion, king of Syria, that 
dwelt at Damascus, but Ben-hadad [ = Bir-dadda], 
native of Beth- Jerahmeel 2 (or Rabbath- Jerahmeel?), 
king of Aram ( = Jerahmeel), who dwelt at (or, in) 
Cusham. It should also be noticed here that Klisha, 
who had such close relations with a king of Aram and 
his general, was, the present writer suspects, a prophet 
of the Negeb i.e. , of a region which was originally 
Jerahmeelite. T. K. c. 

RIMMON (pOT i.e. , pomegranate? see NAMES, 
69 ; or from Jerahmeel ? see RIMMON, i. , 2). 

1. Josh. 1032 19 7 [AV REMMON], i Ch. 432 Zech. 
1-1 10. See EN-KIMMON, and cp AIN, i. 

2. The name of a rock where 600 fugitive Benjamites 
found shelter for four months (Judg. 2047, [is-in, 

i [BAL]). There was a village of this name 15 R. m. 

i N. of Jerusalem (OS 146s 28798), identified by Robinson 
(2ns) with the mod. Rammon, rather more than 3 m. 
E. of Bethel, on and around the summit of a conical 
chalky hill and visible in all directions. This would 
be in the wilderness of Beth-aven (Josh. 1812). Birch 

j (PEFQ, 1879, p. 128) objects that there are only a few 
small caves at Rammon, and refers to Consul Finn, who 
heard of a vast cavern in the Wady es-Suweinit capable 
of holding many hundred men. Canon Rawnsley in 

I consequence visited the caverns in this Wady, which he 

I describes in PEFQ, 1879, pp. 118-126. Birch, follow- 

j ing Ges. Thes. 129^, identifies the Rimmon of Judg. 

I 2647 with the Rimmon under which Saul, with his 
600 men, tarried (i S. 14z). The latter Rimmon was 
at the limit of Geba (so read for Gibeah). See 

3. Rimmon (rather Rimmonah, njie")), also 
appears in RV of Josh. 19 13 (E. boundary of Zebulun), 
where AV again [see i] gives Remmon, with the 
addition of -methoar, (RV which stretcheth ) as if a 
compound name. The RV at any rate recognises that 
the name is not compound ; it also does justice to the 
article in iNhsn (pffJ.fJ.uv a afj.adap aofa [B] ;, 
fj,a0api/uL, avvova [A] ; ewi,a(>a.pi vova [L]). We may 
render, with Dillmann and Kau. HS, and (their border) 
extends to Rimmonah (rnisn), and turns round (iNni) to 
Neah (?). No doubt it is the Rimmono (iyis-i, AV 
Rimmon), or rather Rimmonah, of i Ch. 662 [77], 
probably also the DI.MNAH (n:p^) of Josh. 2135, corre 
sponding to the modern Rummdneh on the SE. edge of 
the plain of Battauf, 4 m. N. from Gath-hepher, and 
7^ m. N. from Chisloth-tabor. 

4. Possibly MADMENAH [q.v.] in Is. 1031 should rather be 
Rimmonah. T. K. C. 

RIMMON (|V3~1 ; peMMCON [BAL], pomegranate 
[so NAMES, 69 ; Del. Prol. 205], or the Ass. divine 
name Ramman [Lohr, cp KiSH?], or [Che.] a dis 
tortion of the ethnic Jerahmeel), a Beerothite, the father 
of RECHAB and BAANAH [</.r.~] (2 S. 42 59). Note that 
Rechab maybe also from Jerahmeel, 1 and that, as 
the story of SAUL (q.v. ) shows, there was a strong 
Jerahmeelite element in Benjamin (Che.). 

RIMMONO fmrri; THN pe/v\MO>N [BAL]; i Ch. 
6 62 [77]). Rather Rimmonah. See RIMMON ii. 3. 

RIMMON-PAREZ, RV Rimmon-perez (pS fi1), 
a stage in the wandering in the wilderness, perhaps = 

1 G. A. Smith renders MT, so far as he thinks it possible, 
thus, and those who . . . swear by their Melech, and in a 
note points out the disorder of the text. Wellh. reads, those 
who bow themselves to Yah we and swear by Milcom. But 
C2^C, like -jSci i s very probably one of the current distortions 
of SucnT- See Crit. Bib. 

2 The much-disputed word p<in is probably a corruption of 
pnT. a variant to ;iai, and nearer to the original form ^x~ . 



Zarephath-jerahmeel [Che.]; Nu. 33 ig/. (peMMOON 

[pAMMU)N,orp AM MCOe]4>Apec). See WANDERINGS, 

RING. The signet ring was called in Hebrew 

hothdin (Qmrn from its use ( x / to seal), and tabbd ath, 

(H1J3D) from its form ( ^/ to sink, As. 

1. Signet, ^j . algo in Bjbl Aran , v*V (NpW) Dan. 

6i8[i7], and in Targum for both hotkdtn and tabbdath 
( N /to cut, engrave). 1 See ENGRAVE. The seal was 
worn, as it is still by some Arabians, on a cord, 
(see RIHBANU), round the neck, (Jen. 38 18 ; later, on the 
right hand, Jer. 2-24. In Cant. 86 both customs seem 
i-Diiibined, on thine arm, on thy heart. The oldest 
form of signet worn by all Babylonians (Herod. 1195) 
was the cylinder, a large hole being bored through the 
core to admit a soft woollen cord for suspension 
round wrist or neck. 2 The Egyptian scarabaeus 3 had 
a smaller hole to admit a fine wire. When used, the 
seal was rolled over a piece of pipeclay which was laid 
on an object or attached by a ribbon to a document 
(King, Antique Gems, 140). It was from the Egyptian 
wire that the more convenient finger-ring was evolved. 
Such rings were among the ornaments worn by Hebrew 
women after the exile, Is. 821 (vv. 18-23 being an interpo 
lation). The word gdlfl ring in Cant. 5 14 EV, for 
which RV "- preferably suggests cylinder, seems to be 
used as a simile of the fingers of the hand (BOB, Bu. 
ad loc. ). 

The transference of Judah s signet to Tamar had no 
special significance he simply gave her as a pledge an 
object which could obviously be identified with him. 4 
On the signet was probably a precious stone, mostly 
the Sdham (see ONYX), on which was engraved a figure 
or inscription, Ex. 28 n. Hence in an Oriental court 
the conveyance of the signet attested a royal message 
(i K. 21 8), and in many lands was a mode of investing 
officers with power (Gen. 4142 Esth. 3io i Mace. 615 
|os. Ant. xx. 22). There is no indication that the 
wedding-ring was used in OT times ; but in Egypt 
some such custom anciently prevailed. It should be 
added that a da.KTv\t.ov was placed on the hand of the 
prodigal son on his restoration to his father s house 
[Lk. 15 as). 

Ntisem (en) conveys the meanings of both an ear-ring 

and a nose-ring, though usually the fuller form nifsem 

. hd-dph (r^n nu) is used for the nose-ring. 

*> In )udg. 824, however, where the singular 
nose-rmsr. , 

is used, it is probable that netem alone 

means nose-ring. The whole of this passage is, how 
ever, regarded as a late gloss by Wellhausen, Moore, 
Budde, andothers. Neither nose-rings nor ear-rings were 
worn by males, though Pliny (AT/ 11 37 [50]) says that 
Oriental men wore them, and, if Judg. 824 be genuine 
Midianite soldiers did so. 5 The nose-ring was put 
through the nostril and hung over the mouth. Robertson 
Smith explains that all such ornaments were designed 
as amulets and protectors to the orifices, as well as 
for ornament (cp ./?S( 2 453, and n. 2). The ring put 
through the nose of beasts (hah, hook ) is sometimes 
associated with ndzem (Ex. 35 22, AV bracelets, RV 
brooches ); cp HOOK, 2. 

Several forms of ear-ring are noticed in the OT. 
The Ifhdttm of Is. 820 were perhaps ear-rings (see 

1 IJotlifineth, Gen. 38 2st is fern. coll. = sealing apparatus. 
Ball suggests reading DCnnrt or rCRm ; Holzinger partly 
approves this suggestion. 

- Illustrations in Perrot-Chipiez, Art in Ass. 2, figs. 131^ 

3 The earliest dated Egyptian cylinder is as old as 3800 B.C. 
(Flinders Petrie, Hist, of Egypt, 1 55). 

Wellhausen (Ar. //eir/.W, i&4/.) thinks that the cord from 
which the signet hung was also an amulet. This would account 
for the insistence on the transference of the cord in the narrative 
in Genesis. 

5 On these grounds Moore holds that ear-rings are probably 
meant. For the wearing of nose-rings by Indian boys in order 
to pass as girls and avert the evil-eye, see Frazer, Pansanias, 
2 2 66. 


AMULETS), to which some symbolic figure was attached. 
Other terms for ear-ring were derived from the shape. 
The dgil C? jy) was round (Ezek, 16i2, cp Beitholet on 
Ezek. 17 Nu. 31 50). Another kind, nlllfhoth (riiB BJ). 
lit. drops (RV pendants, AV collar), were probably 
pearls (Abulwalid compares Arab, nafufat, a small, 
clear pearl), or single beads or gems attached to the 
lobe of the ear (r^j, to drop), Judg. 826 (arpayya\is 
[B], 6pfj.i<?Koi etxfruQ [AL]), Is. 819 ( /cdfle/aa?) worn by 
Midianite men and Israelite women. 

The ancient versions gave other explanations ; Tg. K 7 72i 
diadems, chaplets. Some Jewish interpreters connected m tifkotli 
with natafh (Ez. 30 34, see STACTE) and render capsules of sweet- 
smelling gum. See, further, OKNA.MENTS, and the articles 
there referred to. I. A. 

RINGSTRAKED ppl ) Gen. 30 35 ^ ; see COLOURS, 

RINNAH (nn, shouting?? 74 ; AN A [B], PAN- 
NOON [A], peNNA [I-]). son f the Judahite SHIMON 
(</.?. ); i Ch. 420. 

RIPHATH <nBn, Gen.l0 3 [P], picbAG [AEL] ep . 
[>]; Ch. 16, Pan, DIPHATH [AV"*- and RV], epei- 
4>A6 [B], picbAe [A], pid)A6 [L]; i" both places 
RiPHATH [Vg.j, ^ft . * 1 . one of the sons of Gomer, 
Gen. 10s i Ch. I6f. According to the theory which 
finds N. Arabian influence and interests pervading the 
earlier chapters of Genesis (see PARADISE, 6), Gomer 
represents Jerahmeel, Ashkenaz conies from Kenaz 
(or Asshur-Kenaz), Riphath from Zarephath. The 
transformation has been systematic. On the time- 
honoured theory, however, which bases itself on MT, we 
must look far away from N. Arabia. Josephus thought 
of Paphlagonia ; Bochart and Lagarde of the Bithynian 
river prjfias and the distant prifHavria on the Thracian 
Bosporus. But if TOGARMAH [<?.v. ] is really Til- 
garimmu, on the border of Tabal, Riphath may be 
identified with Bit Burutas (or Buritis), a district men 
tioned several times with Tabali (see Schr. KGF 176) 
whose king was an ally of Urartu and Musku. The 
syllable -as or -i may be regarded as a suffix (so first 
Hal. REJ, 17164). The transposition of b (or/) and 
r is no difficulty. The suggestion is plausible, if MT 
may safely be followed. T. K. C. 

RISSAH(nD-); AeccA [B], P . [AF], Ap. [L]). a 
stage in the wandering in the wilderness ; Nu. 33zi/. 

RITHMAH (niprn named from the DJ~n or juniper 
tree, 103 ; if we should not rather read Ramath, 
PANAMA [BAF], PAMA0A [I-]), a stage in the wander 
ing in the wilderness (Nu. 33 18/ ). See WANDERINGS. 


[The facts and theories about Hebrew ritual are dealt 
with in many articles, among the most important of 
which are the following : SACRIFICE, TEMPLE ( 34^^, 
ARK, DISPERSION, SYNAGOGUE. On the ritual of the 
nations contemporary with Israel the reader may consult 

Of those nations, however, so great an influence on 
the civilisation of the whole of hither Asia was exercised 
by one, the Babylonian, that the facts about its ritual 
acquire special importance. On the other hand the 
amount of first-hand information on the subject is 
unique and, besides, not generally accessible. It is pro 
posed, accordingly, to give here some account of the 
nature, and ceremonial institutions, of the Babylonian 
sacrificial ritual. In doing this the points in which it 
resembles, or differs from, the ritual of the OT will be 
indicated, and a brief comparison of the two systems 




Names for sacrifice (8 i). Performance ( 6). 

Objects offered, age, etc. ( 2/.). Idea, purpose ( 7 /.). 
Time and place ( 4). Human sacrifice ( 9). 

Antiquity of sacrifice ( 5). Lustration ( 10). 

Summary (8 1 1). 


A short account of Babylonian sacrifices has been 
already given in the Supplement to Die Cultus-tafel von 
Sippar (Joh. Jeremias, Leipsic, 25-32 [1889]). The 
question of how far this system is original and how far 
it is related to what we find elsewhere has received little 
or no attention. The treatment of such questions in 
the difficult sphere of religious institutions being always 
involved in uncertainty, it appears to be more than ever 
appropriate in regard to sacrifice, as an institution 
common to all peoples, to explain the same or similar 
ideas not as borrowed the one from the other, but as 
both drawn from the same source. In justification of 
the common designation Assyrio-Babylonian it is to be 
noted that, apart from a few modifications in their 
Pantheon, the religion of the Assyrians agrees through 
out with that of the Babylonians. Of this agreement, 
which was maintained in spite of all political strifes, we 
have a historical attestation in the fact that Asur-bani-pal 
had the MSS of the Babylonian priestly schools collected, 
supplied with an Assyrian interlinear translation, and 
preserved in his state archives (see 4 R). 1 

Sacrifices were called kirbannu or kurbannu (more 
rarely kurbdnu, kitrubu ; in ordinary usage, back- 

. sheesh, alms. A much commoner 
l. flame 9 lor wonj is nikj ^ . to be hent| show 

sacnftce. rev erence, offer homage (cp for this 
meaning Del. Assyr. H\VB), used of drink offerings 
(Deluge, 147 ; cp n jSJJp patera] and also of bloody 


The root of niku is naktt to be empty, II. i to pour out. It 
was probably the pouring out of the blood that led to _ the 
transference of nikfi from its original application drink offering 
to the meaning blood offering. A rarer word than nikti is zibA 
(Khars. 172), Heb. rni, zcbah. For drink offering we find also 
the words muhhuru, mahhiiru (in contracts), rainku. To 
mlnlmh (rtnp), food offering, corresponds surkinu (Del. HW B 
surkinu), a word formerly incorrectly rendered altar. The 
regular stated offering (ttlinut, TSFl) was called sattukku (sat- 
takain, constant ) or ginti, properly right. Roth words 
indicate the yearly, monthly, rarely (Nabun. 1443) daily, con 
tribution to the temple for the support of the sacrifice and the 
priests. A synonymous word is gukku or gukkanu. The free 
will offering, Heb. /<?// (~3~I3), is called nindabu (nidbu). 

For to sacrifice the commonest word is nakfi. 
For the sake of comparison the following may be mentioned 
from the many other expressions in use : epi-su, Heb. 7 rtb J? ; 
sab&tu, Heb. Hjp? ; tabiihu, Heb. rDB ; riksa rakasu, to pre 
pare an offering. Of special importance, moreover, are the 
expressions in purification texts: karabu (3 lpn ; often used 
of pouring water, occurring with p [notwithstanding Del. 
HIVB\, in Rassam2i68) and kaparu (K 3245, pass.) to wipe, 
then to clear, purify, a meaning that is important in its bearing 
on Heb. kipper (1S3). Cp // R 13 51 17 33 ; Zimmern, Beitrage 
12226. The offerer of the sacrifice is called k&ribu or bel nike: 
(cp Marseilles Sacrificial Table, pni SjQ)- 

It should be specially noted that everything that the 
land produced was offered to the gods without dis- 

_.. , tinction. Whilst in Israel it was only the 

O DjectiS p roc j uce O f a people devoted to cattle-rearing 
and agriculture that was offered (cp Di. 
Lev. 1 ^, 379) and this was still further narrowed by the 
exclusion of fruit, honey, and all sweet or fermented 
preparations on the one hand, and of beasts of chase 
and fish on the other in the fruitful lands between the 
two rivers every kind of produce was freely offered to the 

1 Abbreviations used in this article. K followed by a number 
= some one of the tablets of the Koyunjik collection m the Brit. 
Mus. ; Neb. Nabun. Cyr. Babylonische Texte, Inschriften 
des Nebukadnezar, Nabuna id, Cyrus, published by T. N. 
Strassmaier (Leipsic, 1887); Menant, PG^Les fierres gravees 
de la Haute Asie (Paris, 1883). 



gods. Of vegetable products we find frequent mention 
of wine (kardnu), must (kiirvnnu), date wine (sikarn, 
prepared from corn and dates or honey and dates, cp 
Neb. 1035, Nabun 612, 871 ; -mn, cp Nu. 28;), honey 
(dOSpu, E>yn). cream (himetu, nxon), a mixture prepared 
from various ingredients and containing oil and fat 
(invariably written GAR Ni-De-A ; probably mirsu is 
to be read ; cp Nab. 912, Cyr. 3276, Arab, marts, 
date-stone ), the choice produce of the meadow (simat 
appari], garlic (fsummu, cy), first-fruits (releti ; n tPNT ; 
Sank. I6i Kuj. Ig). 1 Food specially prepared for the 
gods was called akal taknu (4 R. 61, 620.), with which 
should be compared the analogous expression crh 
rc-iyan. Upon the table of the gods were laid 12, or 

3 x 12, loaves of AS-AN, that is to say wheaten flour, as 
shewbread (cp Zimmern, BeitrdgeS&H 104 138; Il- r R 
5020^56230; Craig, Relig. Texts\(&; King, Magic 
and Sorcery 408) ; also akal mutki, that is to say, un 
leavened bread, is several times mentioned (cp Lev. 
24s). Special abundance and splendour characterised 
the vegetable offerings of the Neo-Babylonian and Neo- 
Assyrian kings (cp Pognon, Inscriptions de Wddi 
Brissa ; Neb. Grot. 1 if>ff. ; Neb. Grot. 2*6 /. ; Neb. 
Grot.%1/.; Schr. KB2 7 %}. They were in the form 
of the daily sattukku, the state sacrifice, a sort of 
representation of the whole agriculture of the land. 
Nebuchadrezzar lays on the table of Marduk and 
Sarpanit the choicest produce of the meadow, fruit, 
herbs, honey, cream, milk, oil, must, date-wine, wine 
from different vineyards. Still more abundant is the 
offering of Sargon (fCBZjZ], a king who offers finally 
not to the gods but to himself. His splendid offering 
is a brilliant display of his royal wealth, at which even 
the gods must be amazed. 

The commonest bloody sacrifice mentioned is that of 
the lamb (written Lu niku or niku}. 

The expression Lu Nita, often occurring in contracts, is to be 
read kalumu or su (nt 1 ) and to be rendered lamb, kid. For 
goat we find the words bnhadu, lapparu (in contracts), urlzu 
az(s) lu an old mature lamb. Of other quadrupeds we hear of 
sacrificial oxen (guwahhu or tilap iitahhu), bullocks (parru, 
~\B), gazelles (sabitu), wild kine (littu, ,1N^). The following 
birds were used for sacrifice ; doves, geese (us-tut), cocks (kurkn, 

4 R 26471?; Talm. N^IIU), peacocks (paspasu), pheasants 
(?.pasnu; Nabun. 672 I ; Talm. P DS). Fish (nun?) are always 
mentioned along with birds of heaven (issiir same). 

For a bird sacrifice see Botta, Nineveh, pi. no ; for 
fish offerings see Menant 2 53. 

No special prescriptions as to age are known. Lu 

niku probably always indicates, like ya\adi]vd (Herod. 

1183), the young sucking lamb. We 

^f o 6 ^ M kow from the contracts that victims a 
other details. year old were preferred| as in P in 

Leviticus (apal or marat satti, like n:c> |3 or a na ; of 
Nabon. 196 1 265 1 2722 699 15 768 1). Mention is also 
made of victims of two, three (Neb. 399 1), and four 
years of age (Cyr. 1174)- 

With regard to the condition of the animals the 
requirements were stricter : faultless growth (tasrihtu), 
large size (rabu}, fatness (dusSu, mart], physical purity 
(ebbu, ellu ; pure, shining ), and spotlessness ("suklulu ; 
Herod. TO, rtXea T&V TrpojiaTwv). Cp Zimmern, 
Beitriige\T2. In divination, however, the use of 
unsound victims was permitted ; in the prayers to the 
sun-god (ed. Knudtzon, 73) we often read : izifr sa 
kalumu ilutika fa ana birl baru matu hat it : Grant 
that the lamb of thy divinity, which is used for 
inspection, may be imperfect and unsound. It 

is well known that in the Israelitish cultus, thank- 
offerings need not be faultless (Lev. 2223). 

The victim was as a rule a male, yet females also 
were used (San A. Bav. 33 Cyr. 1174 Cyr. 247 1). It 

1 The incense (kutru, kutrinnu, rrtap : formerly wrongly 
read tarrinnu, was made from precious herbs (sa iltu r)7nr) and 
odoriferous woods. 



was probably always female victims that were used in 
purification ceremonies : sarat buhatti la pitete, the 
skin of a she-lamb still intact (4 R 25 35^: ; cp 4 R 28 
no. 311 5 R 51 51 ; Nimr. Ep. 44, 60). Compare 
with this the prescription of a she-goat one year old for 
the sin offering of the individual (Nu. 1627). 

The victim was probably seldom placed entire (kdlil, 
^Sa) on the altar. To begin with, the remarkably 
small size of the altars that have been found shows that 
only certain parts of the victims were offered. The 
altar of Sargon s palace is 32 inches high ; that 
from Nimrud, actually only 22 inches. 1 That the 
flesh was boiled, as in Israel in early times, is shown 
by 5 R6i, 15, where the priest receives, along with 
other shares, a large pot of meat-broth (dikdr me seri). 

With regard to the details of sacrificial ritual and 
practice our sources tell us little ; the sculptures represent 
as a rule only the preparatory steps (cp Menant 2 54 ; 
Layard, Monum. of Nineveh 2 24). The usual form of 
offering was burning by fire (ana maklftti aklu). We 
know nothing of special ceremonies performed with the 
blood in the Babylonian ritual, such as were usual in 
Israel and ancient Arabia (Wellh. A r. Heid. 113). In a 
text published by Zimmern (Beitrdge, 126), which 
describes the purification of the king s palace, the lintels 
of the palace are smeared with the blood of a lamb (ina 
ddrni urizi suatum] ; compare for this interesting 
passage Ex. 12 7. It may be remarked in passing that 
we learn from 4 R 32 30 that there were three ways of 
preparing the victim : ser sa penti baslu sa tumri, 
baked, boiled, smoked flesh. The offering consisting 
of vegetable food was probably consumed by the 
sacrificers. A drastic exposure of this pia fraus is 
given us in the apocryphal Bel and the Dragon. 

The following parts are expressly mentioned in 2 R 
44, 14-18^ 1-5 </: head (kakkadu], neck (kisadit), 
3b Parts of ^ an ^ (P<*tu], breast (irtu], rib (silfi], loin 
victim used ( s " nu \< tail (sibbatu), spine (esen seru), 

V1LU1I11 USull. , i / 7 zz \ i_n 11 * \ . 

heart (hoou), belly (karsu), intestines 
(hase), kidney (kalitu), knuckles (kursinnati }. In the 
contracts (cp especially the important texts, Strassm. 
Neb. 247 and 416 ; also Peiser, Babylonische Vertriige, 
107) many parts are mentioned that are still etymo- 
logically obscure (with two of them, ser gabbu and ser 
ganni sili, cp Talm. KZXZ tail ; and anu flank). 
Sacrificial flesh was probably not taboo as amongst the 
Israelites and the Phoenicians (Movers, Phon. 2n8) ; 
according to a late statement of the Epistle of Jeremiah 
(v. 28 [Baruch 628]) the Babylonian priests sold the 
sacrificial flesh, and their wives also cured it. 

No definite prescriptions as to the times of sacrifice 
have reached us. The Zakmuku or New Year s feast, 

4 Time l ^ e -^^" ltu ^ east he d m honour of Marduk 
and place. ^ Neb Bors 48 * were si & nalised bv proces 
sions and sacrifices. Daily sacrifices are 
often mentioned (Nt*. Grot. 1 16 226) ; an animal sacri 
fice, in Tigl.-pil. 7io (cp i S. 206). In the ritual tablet 
for the month Ululu (cp Lotz, Hisloria Sabbati, 1 50^), 
published in 4 R 8233, it is prescribed that the daily 
sacrifice, consisting of n oldfi and a minhiih, should be 
offered once at each rising of the moon and appearance 
of the dawn, fourteen times by night and fourteen times 
by day (cp Ex. 29 38 Nu. 283). A morning offering is 
mentioned in the text published by Zimmern, Beitrdge 
10069. Sacrifice as a free expression of prayer and de 
pendence (thank-offerings, todah, can hardly have been 
known to the Babylonians), as the highest product of 
the religious life, is not severely confined to definite 
times. On the contrary, every important event of 
life is celebrated by a spontaneous offering of sacrifices 
just as in ancient Israel. If the king of the Assyrians 
returns victorious from a military expedition, if in 
repairing a temple he finds an ancient foundation 
stone, if he dedicates his palace, if he consecrates his 

1 Perrot-Chipiez, Art in Chaldcea and Assyria, 1 256 f. 
132 4117 


weapons for the fight (kakke{a nllil], if in hunting 
he secures his prey, if he formally commemorates 
his ancestors in each and all of these cases he offers 
sacrifice to the gods. It is a relief amid the annals of 
cruelty and pride of Assyrian rulers when we read in 
their boastful accounts : ana ildni lu nike akki, I 
presented to the gods an offering. For innumerable 
instances of this kind we may refer generally to KB. 

The ordinary place of sacrifice was the temple. 
Mountain and spring also were, in accordance with the 
universal Semitic ideas (cp Baudissin, Studien, 2143), 
regarded as sacred spots, specially suited for sacrifices. 
After the flood Xisuthros offered his sacrifice on the 
top of the mountain (ina zikkurat sadi] ; and so 
Astir - bani - pal (889) on the mountain Halman, and 
Shalmanassar (Co. 103) at the source of the Euphrates. 

The origin of sacrifice lies, according to Babylonian 
ideas, beyond the limits of human history ; it existed 

5 Antiquity from the time when the world vvas ma de 
of sacrificed ^ ultu f<m s - At mdti }- Gods and S enii 
are often represented as sacrificing (cp 
Menant, /"^ 2 37 51 53). Sin is called the founder of 
free-will offerings (nnikin nindabe ; 4 R 933) ; Adar, 
the god of offerings and drink offerings (ilu mihri it 
ramkuti ; 2 R 7 35 2 R 67 67). As the formation of 
the earth was immediately followed by the institution of 
places of worship, so the newly created man was charged 
with religious duties towards the deity (Del. Das dab. 
Weltschopfungsepos, in). Paldhu damaku ullad niM 
baldtu fitar u taslitu ami . . . the fear of God brings 
grace, sacrifice enlarges life and prayer (frees from) 
sin. After the deluge (147^) Xisuthros sacrifices to 
the gods ; then did I turn to the four winds, poured 
out a drink offering, offered a cereal offering on the top 
of the mountain ; seven incense pans I set forth, and 
spread under them calamus, cedar wood, and rig gir 
(onycha?). In the old Babylonian Nimrod-epos (446o) 
we read in the account of the Amores J eneris : taramima 
amelreasa kanamma ispukakki umisamma utabbahakki 
iiniketi ; thou hast loved the shepherd who continually 
brought drink offerings to thee, daily sacrificed kids to 

The inscriptions of the old Babylonian king Gudea 
already contain notices about sacrifices. On the New 
Year festival (see Schr. KB 82661) he offers to the 
goddess Ba u amongst other things a cow, a sheep, six 
lambs, seven baskets of dates, a pot of cream, palm 
pith (?), fifteen chickens, fishes, cucumbers, as sattttkku 
or regular sacrifice. A rich source of information upon 
the sacrificial arrangements in the later Babylonian 
period is to be found in the thousands of Babylonian 
contracts in which bills and receipts connected with 
temple revenues and dues, as well as lists relating to 
the regular sacrifices, bulk very largely. 1 

Sacrifice was in the hands of the priestly caste, who 
were held in the highest esteem and enjoyed special 

6. Performance. P 1 ^- So great indeed was the 
esteem in which they were held in 
Babylonia in earlier times that even the king needed 
their mediation for sacrifice and prayer (cp Menant, 
PG 1 128 f. ). In Assyria, however, the king reserves 
for himself the supreme priesthood, calling himself the 
exalted high-priest and sacrificing to the god with his own 
hand (Per. -Chip. Assyria, 41 -[Assyrie, 455]; Menant, 
PG 2164). Just as Ezekiel in his ordering of the priest 
hood assigns to the king in the public worship an inde 
pendent and important position, so we repeatedly read in 
the liturgical tablets preserved in 4 R 3233 ; re u nise 
rabdti nindabdsu ukdn ; the shepherd of the great 
peoples shall bring his offering. In the contracts there 
is frequent mention of the king s offering and of that of 
the crown prince (sa apal sarri); Nabon. 2658 332 2 

1 A good index to the relative texts is provided by H. L. 
Tallquist, Die Sprache tier Contracts Nabona ids (Helsingfors, 
1890). _ 

2 Diodorus Siculus (2 29) has given us a vivid and adequate 
account of their functions. 



594ao. As in Israel, the priests had assigned to them 
definite portions of the offerings. According to the ritual 
of the Sun-temple at Sippar the priests received the loins, 
the skin, the ribs, the sinews, the belly, the chitterling, 
the knuckles of all cattle and lambs that were offered, 
as well as a pot of sacrificial broth (5 R 61 col. 5). In 
the contracts minute details are met with as to priestly 
dues (Neb. 247, 416; Peiser, Bab. Vertr. 107). It is 
interesting to observe that in Babylonia as in Israel 
(see Lev. Z\if>/.) rules were laid down respecting the 
freedom from bodily blemish that was required in priests. 
In a priestly catechism of Sippar (K. 2486 + 4364, 
published by Craig, Religious Texts, Leipsic, 1895) 
we read as follows : 

UtntnAnit tnudu ndsir fiiristi iliini rabut? a/>il?u so. irammu 
ina tupfi it kail tuf>f>i ina. nmhar ilu Samas it ilu Raiinnan 
utainiitasHiiia usnhfjasu fnitnin af>il amfl l>a>H; and farther 
on : anill issakku sa zarusu cllu u sit ina. kitti u minutisu 
htkluht ana tnahar ilu Santas u ilu Ramman asar birA fl 
f-iirusf tchi abil amtl barf la zarusu li\ ellu it sti ina kitti ft 
Hiinuti su IA suklttlit zaktu fna Mf>A sinnt ttagpi ubtinu ina 
sefii . . . ntalS issu/ ba hisgallu sttf>AkiIit filpiutHU . . . la 
nasif farsf sa ilu Santas it ilu Ramman. 

A wise man who guards the secrets of the great gods 
shall cause his son whom he loves, with tablet and pen 
to take oath before Samas and Ramman, and the son 
of a magician shall teach him when to do so. A priest 
who is noble in descent, and whose clothing (?) and 
measurement (?) are perfect, shall present himself before 
Samas and Ramman in the place of augury and oracle. 
The son of a priest whose descent is not noble and who 
is not perfect in clothing (?) and in measure, who has 
squint (?) eyes, broken teeth, bruised thumbs, boils or 
swellings on his feet . . . shall not keep the temple of 
Santas and Ramman. 

Sacrifice rests ultimately on the idea that it gives 
pleasure to the deity (cp Di. Lev. 376). For Israel, 
the conception of sacrifice as a meal for 

Yahwe is reflected in such expressions as 
Gen g 2i Dt 33 io ^ ^ In the Raby . 

Ionian records, the gods feast in heaven (4 R 19 59: 
Hani rabiiti issinu kutrinnu akal same ellu kurunnu 
damga Sa Id ilpat kali ikkalu ; the glorious gods smell 
the incense, noble food of heaven ; pure wine, which 
no hand has touched, do they enjoy ); they eat the 
offering (4 R 17 56: aka/ht akul nigasu muhur; eat 
his food, accept his sacrifice ) ; they inhale with physical 
delight the savour of the offering (Deluge, 151 : Hani 
esinu en sa Hani esinu erefa taba kima zumbe eli bel 
nikf iptahrfl ; the gods scent the savour, the gods 
scent the sweet savour ; like flies do they gather them 
selves together about the offerer ; cp the analogous 
expression nrn nn, Gen. 821); the gods love the offering 
that man brings (Asurn. las : nadan zcbilu Hani rabute 
/<z same u irsitim iramu ; the glorious gods of heaven 
and earth love the gift of his sacrifice ). What is active 
in the offering is the voluntary surrender of a private 
possession (Tigl. 7? : ana biblat libbiia akki ; I sacri 
ficed as my heart enjoined ). As a subject into the 
presence of his king, so does man come into the presence 
of his god with gift and tribute. In a text, printed in 
4 R 20, which describes the solemn return of the god 
Marcluk from Elam to Babylon and the sacrificial feast 
then celebrated in his honour, the imperial sacrifice is 
described in the following terms (rev. 22 f.) : Iam/2 
hegalldsunu irsitum hisibsa tdmtitm mihirtasu sadA 
iribsu kitrubassu htt Id mahra mala, sunna lisanu 
kabitti bilatsitnu ndsu ana bilbilum. Azlu tubbuhu 
tins ;!! alap mahhe zibu sarruhu seni kutrinnu armannu 
nstefsi erese tabu ; the heaven pours out its abundance, 
the earth its fulness, the sea its gifts, the mountains 
their produce ; their incomparable offerings, everything 
that can tie named, their heavy tribute do they bring to 
the lord of all ; lambs are slaughtered, great oxen 
sacrificed in herds, the sacrifice is made rich, incense 
is prepared, a sweet smelling savour mounts up, 
delicious odour. Probably the step from the concep- 


* i 
mental idea. 


tion of the offering as a gift and a meal of the deity 
to that of a finer and, so to speak, spiritual, apper 
ception of that which was brought in sacrifice was 
made at a comparatively early period. So much is 
indicated by the fact that even from ancient times prayer 
was associated with sacrifice. In the pictorial repre 
sentations of sacrificial scenes we constantly find him 
who prays in close association with him who offers. 
The gesture of prayer was threefold : nis kdti, lapdtu 
kali, labdnu appi lifting up of the hands, folding of 
the hands, casting down of the countenance. 

The purpose of sacrifice is, invariably, to influence 
the deity in favour of the sacrifices Man brings gifts 
_ to the gods in order that they may be 

moved thereby to reciprocity to showing 
a favourable disposition in return. 1 When the kings 
Esarhaddon and Asur-bani-pal were seriously menaced 
by the inroads of the Giniirri they multiplied their 
offerings and prayer (see Knudtzon, I.e.}. In the 
liturgies of that period a standing expression is as 
follows : ina libbi kalumi anni izzizamma anna kena 
htknamma ; because of this lamb offered in sacrifice 
arise thou and establish faithfulness and mercy. 

So, in like manner, the gods are represented as rejoic 
ing over the sacrificial gifts brought them by their human 
worshippers (K. 1547, rev. n : igdamrd masfakkcia 
azlcia ina tub libbi Hani igdamru ; accomplished are 
my cleansing sacrifices, to the gladdening of the 
hearts of the gods are my sacrifices of lambs accom 
plished ). The feature of joy and gladness which so 
markedly characterised the sacrificial meals of pre-exilic 
Israel ( JBS ncsr, Dt. 12? ; SACRIFICE, 18) is by no 
means absent from the Babylonian functions. Thus in 

3 R 8662 we read (akul akdlu siti kurunnu ningutu 
Jitkun nu id ilfiti] eat food, drink must, make music, 
honour my god . Predominant, however, over this 
joyous note which finds such marked expression among 
the peoples of classical antiquity there is found in the 
Babylonian ritual a feature which is common to all 
Semitic religions the element of propitiation. Here, 
of course, we must divest ourselves of all theological 
preconceptions, and put aside all such notions as that 
of an atoning efficacy attaching to the blood as the seat 
of life, or of a divine wrath that expends itself upon the 
sacrificial animal, or even of a ratio vicaria, when we 
speak of the idea of propitiation as underlying Baby 
lonian sacrifices. The similarity of the words and forms 
does not necessarily involve similarity in the religious 
conception. The Babylonians possessed the same 
words for sin (hittu], grace (annu), propitiation (piJu) 
as the Hebrews had ; but it is certain that they did not 
associate with the words the same thoughts. At the 
same time it is significant and by no means accidental 
it has its roots firmly planted in the very nature of the 
religious ideas involved that every offering offered with 
the object of averting evil of any kind whatsoever was 
associated with the notion of a propitiatory, cleansing, 
purifying efficacy. In a hymn to Samas we read 
(4 R 1746 : amelu apil ilisu enun arnam emid mefri- 
tuSu marsiX ibsd marsil ina mursi ni il ilu Samas ana 
nis katiia kftlamma akalsu akul nigasu muhurma Ham. 
Ilkat ana idisu Sukun ina kibitika enissu lippatir 
aransu linnasih], man, the son of his god sin, 
transgression lies upon him. His physical strength is 
impaired, he languishes in disease. O Samas, behold 
the uplifting of my hands, eat his food, accept his sacri 
fice, O God. Take off his fetters. At thy command 
may his sins be taken away, his transgressions blotted 
out. Other passages subjoined explain themselves. 

4 R 5447 : muhur kadraSu liki pidesu ina kakkar 
hilme mahraka littallak ; accept the gift he brings, 
receive his ransom money (j vis) , let him walk before 

1 Cp King, Babylon. Mafic, 1728(1896): asrukka kutrinnu 
irisu tabu kinis naf>lisannima simi kaba-ai, I present yi>u 
with incense, agreeable vapour ; look at me truly, hear my 



them on the ground of peace. 4 R. 55, obv. 2n ; ntf 
katisu ilisu ana mahari u nindabtfu ana rdmi ildnifu 
zenfit iitiSu ana Sulmi ; whereby his god accepts the 
lifting up of his hands and takes pleasure in his free 
will offerings, whereby the angry gods turn themselves 
propitiously towards him. 4 R. 57 7 (akale ii nap- 
salt um $a ina panika kunnu Hpsiisu limnt ia) : the food 
and the fatness which is spread out before thy face, may 
it take away mine evil. x The following remarkable 
passage, from a hymn to Marcluk, stands unfortunately 
alone (K. 246 ; cp 2 R. 1853 : amclu muttaliku ina 
nik rente sulme kima k& maffi limmassis], May the 
man plagued with fever be purified like shining metal 
through a gracious peace offering. In contracts the 
expression alap faptiri, redemption ox (Neb. 132 12 
2183) often occurs; cp with this Lev. 43 (manS ns). 
The idea of atonement in the OT has found its classical 
expression in \htkappSreth of P (see MERCY-SEAT, 2). 
In this connection it is important to observe that the root 133 
is attested in Babylonia also, kaftiru in the rituals meaning to 
cleanse, to purify." 4 R. 10 40: amllu muttalikn mar ilisu 
kuppirma ; Cleanse (with the water of the oath) the man 

glagued with fever, the son of his god. 4 R. 2754 : akala If i 
i amcirsiiatu kupfirma; cleanse the unclean foods (of the 
same). In K. 3245 the precept frequently recurs sarru tukaf>par 
do thou, O king, purify, as also the phrase takpirtu of the 
ceremony of purification {kima takfiriiti tuktettfi when thou 
hast accomplished the rites of purification ). Whilst the phrase 
already alluded to nik sulmfi (corresponding to the Heb. 
selem, which, as we see from i S. 13 9 28.2425 Ezek. 45 17, 
denotes a purificatory offering : cp SACRIFICE, n) is of only 
occasional occurrence, we frequently in contracts meet with the 
word sal&inu, salamnfu, which in accordance with the primary 
meaning of the root sal&mtt may be rendered turning towards 
(on the part of the deity), and taken in the sense of a propitiatory 
sacrifice. Cp Nabun. 214 9 302 3 641 4 767 2, Cyr. 229 3 with the 
sattukkit named in Nabun. 799 1517. 

A few words must be said on the subjects of human 
sacrifice, offerings to the dead, and sacrifices of chastity. 2 

9 Human * l s a remar ca ^ e circumstance that 
hitherto no authentic evidence for the 
Scicrizice. etc. , c , .,. 1 . 

burning of human sacrifices has been 

met with in any of the cuneiform inscriptions. It 
would be unwise, however, to base much upon the 
argumentum e silentio here, for reticence with reference 
to such a sad and repulsive practice is only what we 
should expect. The passage, so often quoted in 4 R. 
266, where the priest is bidden to offer for the life of the 
sick man a kid (uri ^u] head, neck, breast of the one 
for head, neck, breast of the other does not come into 
account here. The text is a description of a magical 
operation such as may be compared with that given in 

2 K. 434. The Babylonian sculptures, on the other 
hand, supply traces of human sacrifices that are almost 
unmistakable (see Menant, PG\g^f. 97), though it is 
not impossible that the representations in question are 
intended to figure, not human sacrifices, but ceremonies 
connected with circumcision. In the wider sense of the 
term the Babylonian ban (see BAN) has to be regarded 
as of the nature of human sacrifice. That the same 
conception is not altogether absent from the Heb. 
Mrem (against Di. Lev. 377) is proved by Is. 346, 
where the destruction of Israel s enemies at Bozrah is 
treated as a "V rnr. Sennacherib (650) put to death 
the troops of Suzub at the command of Asur his lord. 
Shalmaneser (^^o. Obv. 17) burnt the young men and 
maidens in his band of captives. The ban pronounced 
by Asur-bani-pal (6101) over his enemies extends also 
to the lower animals (cp Judg. 2648). A sacrificial offer 
ing of prisoners (cp i S. 1533) is thus recorded by Asur- 
bani-pal (470): the remainder of the people I put to 
death beside the great steer, where my grandfather 
Sennacherib had been murdered, making lamentation 
for him. In 4 R.6340 Istar figures as the bloodthirsty 
goddess who devours human flesh : istanatti dami 
nisbuti sa ameluti ser sa Id akdli nerpaddu fa Id karasi : 

J Cp King, I.e. 5 yr 76. 

2 On human sacrifice cp Lenormant, Etudes accadiennes, 

3 112 ; Sayce, TSBAl?$ ; Menant, PG\ 150. 



she (the daughter of Anu) has drunk the satisfying 
blood of men, flesh that cannot be eaten, bones that 
cannot be gnawed. The probability is that the Baby 
lonians practised human sacrifice secretly without form 
ally taking it up into the recognised worship. In the 
older period (of which we have a reminiscence in Gen. 
22), as well as in times of religious declension (2 K. 
17 31) t* 16 Israelites doubtless borrowed the practice of 
human sacrifice from the peoples in their immediate 

As for offerings to the dead, which indeed are 
forbidden in the OT as relics of heathenism (Dt. 
2614), but the practice of which was not unknown 
even at a late date (Jer. 16?), evidence of their use 
among the Babylonians and Assyrians is of frequent 
occurrence (see A. Jeremias, Vorstellungen vom Leben 
tiach dem Tode, 53). The Descent of Istar closes with 
the charge of the priest to the necromancer : if she 
vouchsafe not liberation to thee, then turn thy face 
towards her and pour out pure water with precious 
balsam before Tammuz the husband of her youth. 
Asur-bani-pal (Lehmann, Samassumukin, 223) says: 
adi kispi ndk me ana ekimme Sarrani aliktit mahri Sa 
subtulu arkus : for the lament of the pourer out of 
water on behalf of the spirits of my ancestors, the kings, 
I gave orders because it had been abolished. In the 
burying-places of Sirghula and Elhibba were discovered 
traces of offerings to the dead : calcined date stones, bones 
of oxen, sheep, birds. Representations of sacrifices to 
the dead are given in Perrot, I.e. 361, and Menant, PC 
254. The dirge as a Babylonian institution is attested 
also by Ezek. 8 14. The sacrifice of chastity, mentioned 
by Herodotus (ligg), is bluntly described in the Epistle 
of Jeremiah (v. 43 [ = Baruch 643]). Even in theNimrod- 
epos, Istar the goddess of love already appears (49:) 
surrounded by a whole troop of attendants : tiptahhir 
iltu Istar kizireti samhdti ii harimdli: there assembled 
the goddess Istar, the servants, harlots, and concubines. 
In the period of religious decay the worship by such 
hieroduli became naturalised in Jerusalem (2 K. 23?). 

The subject of lustrations stands in close connection 
with that of sacrifice in the Hebrew Torah, and has a 

10. Lustrations. !^ ge f la f ce in , the Bab y loni < rit ^ - 
I he texts relating to it are very 

difficult, especially because they are often written in 
pure ideograms. At the foundation of these purifica 
tions lies the conception that an unclean substance can 
be removed by a clean, and a clean be taken up by an 
unclean. That which is unclean has a contagious 
character, that which is clean has a sympathetic power. 
So 4 R. 162 : me suntiti ana karpati terma ana ribiti 
tubukma marustu /a emAki innastaru ribltu litbal 
nt turn naditum si kima me littabik kispi sa ina ru ti 
naditi bullulu ana arkati litfiru : this water pour 
thou into a pot, then pour out in the street ; let the 
Street carry off the sickness which deprives of strength, 
and let the poison poured into it be washed away like 
the water, let the spell which has united itself with the 
poison poured in be averted." The spell (from which 
the sickness proceeds) is transferred to the poison, the 
poison is absorbed by the water, the water is carried off 
by the street ; thus the sufferer has a threefold guarantee 
that he will be healed of his sickness. 

As ingredients were employed such things as from 
their external appearance or internal qualities were 
fitted to be symbols of purity. Water is mentioned 
with special frequency. In lustrations libations of 
water are offered to Samas. Marcluk and Ea the gcds 
of pure exorcism are honoured with libations and 
sacrifices in the house of sprinkling (Mt rimki ; 5 R. 
50si). In the temple was a laver (agubbu). In an 
oath formula (Alaqlu. 34, 47) occurs this expression : 
ana Hani fa same me anamdin kima anaku ana kdsunu 
ulallukun flsi attitnu iasi ullilainni : I offer water to 
the gods of heaven. As I perform your purification for 
you, so do ye cleanse me. The waters of the Euphrates 




and the Tigris were regarded as having special efficacy 
(Nimr. Ep. 49 19; Zinimern, Surpu, 4466, ib. 77); we 
have this interesting passage : By Marduk s command 
be the bowl with thy guilt, thy ban, taken away like the 
unclean water from thy body and thy hands and 
swallowed up by the earth. 

I Sicilies water, frequent mention is made of honey (disfu), 
wine (karanu), milk (v/W>), cream (hiinetii) , further, bright 
minerals such as salt (ta/ tu), alum (sikkatu), alkali (t vhulu) ; 
and, from the vegetable kingdom, corn (//), the wood of 
various trees, such as cedar (frinu), cypress (bur&su\ palm (gi I- 
simarru), calamus (kttnu t&bu; cp 3^0? njj?), r^-^-/>(onycha?) 
all sorts of incense (kutrinnu, rTOfJ). 

As a clean place afru ellu, exactly corresponding 
to the lino Dipa of Nu. 19g the wilderness is frequently 
named. 1 4 R.843: mamit ana scri atri elli litest, 
let the ban depart to the wilderness, the clean place 
(cp 4 R. 14s), 4 R. 0651 : ana pan namaSsi- fa si ri 
pdniki hikni, to the beasts of the wilderness turn thy 
face. It is on a similar conception of the wilderness as 
the clean place that the Israelite custom of sending the 
goat for Azazel into the wilderness on the day of Atone 
ment appears to rest (but see AZAZEL). Of the other 
goat also which had to be burnt, Josephus remarks 
(Ant. iii. 10.-;) that before the burning it had to be 
brought to a very clean place {eh Ka.da.pura.Tov \uplov). 

Purity physical cleanliness is postulated in every 
sacrificial act, as in every exercise of religion (4 R. 23 16: 
kdtd elleti ikkd mahharka : with pure hands he sacrifices 
before thee. 4 R. 19 no. 2 : katika misi katika -ubbib, 
wash thy hand, purify thy hand. Maqlu 10869 : itturu 
Sent misd katcl si rumma sent misa kdtd, the morning 
dawn is past, I have washed my hands ; the morning 
glow has shone, I have washed my hands ). All who 
were sick or who associated with those who were unclean 
became themselves unclean. (4 R. 6264 : Id ella Id 
ellita ul itamar, the unclean man, the unclean woman, 
shall he not look upon ). 

That contact with the dead defiled may be assumed as matter 
of course; of sexual defilement this is expressly stated by 
Herodotus(l 198); cp4 R. 26 no. 5 : sinnishtsa ki ttasa Iii dctiiika. 
ultamkir an/a/tt sa katAsa. iA itiisa ittaplas: to a woman 
whose hand is not pure, he has joined himself; at a maid-servant 
whose hand is not washed, he has looked. 

Foods also were distinguished as clean and unclean. 
In the prayer addressed to the sun-god we often meet 
with such expressions as these : minima lu it ikulu istu 
ipsitsu ulappitit ukabbisu, if he perchance has eaten, 
drunken, anointed with, touched, or trodden on, aught 
that was unclean." In the calendar given in 5 R. 4849 
occur food prohibitions. For the gth of lyyar fish is 
forbidden, for the 3Oth of Ab swine flesh (ser sahi ), for 
the 27th of Tisri swine flesh, beef (s,"r alpi], for the loth 
of Marhesvan dates, for the 25th of lyyar, 29th of 
Kisleu, and 6th of Tebet contact with women. 

The Babylonian ritual of purification urgently needs 
systematic exhibition, especially on account of its close 
connection with OT views. N owack (HA 275) re 
marks with truth that the biblical ideas of clean and 
unclean had their rise elsewhere than on the soil of 
Vahwism (cp Smend, Rel.-gcsch. 334). In such a law 
of purification as that which we find in Lev. 14 un 
questionably many pre-Israelitic representations are 
present. The cedar- wood mentioned in Lev. 144 is one 
of the cleansing media of the Babylonian ritual also 
(4 R. 1632 5 R. 51 15); the bird which in Lev. 14 7 is 
charged with carrying off the leprosy into space is often 
met with in Babylonian litanies (4 R. 426 4 R. 592, 
rev. 14 : I will rend asunder my wickedness, let the 
bird carry it away up to the sky ). The sevenfold 
sprinkling of the person to be cleansed (Lev. 147) recalls 
such passages as 4 R. 26 32 : adi sibisu suniur ameli 
luatu pususma, seven times anoint the body of that 
man. The besmearing with blood on the tip of the 
right ear, on the right thumb, on the great toe of the 

1 The desert is perhaps regarded as pure because it receives 
unpurified and dead bodies without harm. 


right foot, prescribed in Lev. 14 14 has its analogies 
in many magical texts (cp ASA TSl 52 : abna ella. 
ina kukani /a fnihi ina ubdnisu sihirti ina Sumi lisu 
Sukun, lay the shining stone on the lashes[?] of his 
eyes, on his little finger, on his left side ). An 
interesting parallel to the offering of purification pre 
scribed for the poor, which follows the magical operation 
prescribed in Lev. 14 21, occurs in K. 8380. There the 
person to be purified is bidden take hold of the hands of 
the sacrificer who pours water upon the hand of the 
sufferer, lays incense upon the dish, and solemnly pre 
pares the sacrificial meal. Then, further, we read : 
fumma rubfi M tu kil issfiru ana makliite ikalu lurnma 
muskinu lu libbi lu i ikalu, if he is a rich man he 
shall hand over a dove (?) to be burned, but if he is 
a pauper he shall cause the heart of a sheep to be 

i. Points of resemblance. (a) A large number of 
expressions relating to sacrifice are common to both 
rituals e.g. , kurbannu (;2np), zlbu 
11. Summary. / ^ * i L -\ j, Z / , \ 

tabahu (nan), kapdru (~\Bi). (6) In bloody sacrifices, 
the same species of animals are employed (ox, sheep, 
i goat). Animals of a year old are preferred, sacrifices 
! of a more advanced age are rare. Female animals are in 
the one case used for purifications, in the other (Xu. 1027) 
for sin offerings. The offering of defective animals was 
in the one case allowed for purposes of augury, in the 
other for free-will offerings (Lev. 2223). Generally speak 
ing, both rituals required that the victim should be 
without blemish. As in the Babylonian ritual the 
sattiikku i.e. , the regular and obligatory sacrifices lies 
at the fciindation of the worship, so also in P, and still 
more in Ezekiel, is the tdmid, the regular daily offering, 
made statutory and the centre of the whole divine 
service. (c) As for unbloody sacrifices, among the 
Babylonians systematic use was made of various 
materials of which the employment in Israel was only 
exceptional, such as wine, water, oil. The incense 
offering ( kutrinnu] was unknown to early Israel. All 
the more striking is the frequent and important place it 
takes in the ritual law of P which provides a special 
altar for the kttdreth. Jeremiah (620) has a polemic 
against it as a modern and outlandish innovation. The 
unknown author of Is. 65 3 names Babylon as the land 
in which sacrifices are offered in gardens, and incense 
offered upon bricks (cp Chors. 172 ; Sarg. Ann. 434 ; 
4 R. 4953). The incense offering of post-exilic Israel 
may perhaps have been borrowed from the Babylonian 

ii. Points of difference. (a) In the vegetable offerings 
of the Hebrew Torah only those products figure which 
represent a right of private ownership acquired by 
labour and trouble. Honey, cream, milk, fruit occur 
frequently as Babylonian offerings, but never amongst 
those of the OT. The wine libation is no longer an 
independent offering in P (SACRIFICE, 35), Ezekiel 
prohibited it altogether doubtless, however, only on 
account of abuses connected with it (i S. 114). (i>) As 
regards bloody sacrifices, offerings of fish and game 
were excluded from the Hebrew ritual. Both are 
inherently the property of Yahwe and thus not appro 
priate as sacrificial gifts. The fish offering, on the 
other hand, is frequently mentioned in Assyrian and 
late Babylonian inscriptions, and game offerings were in 
great favour. In Tigl. -pi I. l^ff- we read: herds of 
hinds, stags, chamois (?), wild goats, which I had taken 
in hunting in large numbers, I brought together like 
sheep, and the progeny that was born of them I offered 
as my heart bade me, along with pure sacrificial lambs, 
to the god Asur. 

(c) As for the fundamental idea underlying sacrifice, 
the Hebrew sacrifice in its older form gave a special 
development to the conception of a sacral communion 
between God and the worshipper as represented in the 



act of offering (cp Wellh. Heid. 114); the Babylonian 
cultus, on the other hand, affords no trace of this. All 
the more strongly is the idea of the purificatory and 
propitiatory character of sacrifice which comes into the 
foreground in P and Ezekiel conspicuous in the Baby 
lonian cultus. Singular to say, however, that shows not 
the faintest trace of dfdm (SACRIFICE, 27), hattdtk 
(SACRIFICE, 28) ; we may assume that the sin and the 
trespass offering of the Hebrew Torah, although all 
that we know of their technique is wholly of post-exilic 
date, were entirely of Israelite growth. J. J. 

RIVAL (!"ny), i S. 16 RV, AV ADVERSARY. 

RIVER. For the rivers and streams mentioned in 
the EV, see, generally, GEOGRAPHY, 5 ; PALESTINE, 
9, 13 ; EGYPT, 6 ; ASSYRIA, 4 ; MOAB, 4/5 

The regular word for river is i. niihar (in3, N. Sem., Ar. 
ttahr is probably a loan-word). See GEOGRAPHY, 5, and cp 
AKAM-NAHARAIM. Other words occasionally so rendered are : 

2. yfflr (-|N< , cp CANAL, GEOGRAPHY, 5 [ii.]) used regu 
larly of the NILE [g.v.] or of its arms, once of a mining-shaft 
(Job 28 10), and in Dan. 12 5-7 of the Tigris. The last mentioned 
unrestricted use of the word appears again in later Hebrew. 

3. ndhal (Spu, N. Sem.) corresponds to the Ar. ivady or 
torrent-valley; see GEOGRAPHY, 5[i v -]> aru l C P BROOK. 

Two terms appear to designate primarily canals or conduits: 

4. yftbal (^.V, A/flow, run), Jer. 17st (Ix/xa* [BNAQ]) of 
which ilbal (^[I]N in Dan. 8 2/1 6t (see ULAI) seems to be a 
mere phonetic variation. Cp the form yabal* in plu. Is. 30 25 
(EV streams ), 444 (EV watercourses ). 

5- PfUg (&S), Ps- 46 4 [5] 65 9 [TO]. Cp ficlaggoth. Job 20 17 
EV river, in Judg. 5 is/ ., RV watercourses (so Moore ; cp, 
however, Bu., Now.). 

For the sake of completeness mention may here be made of: 

6. aphik (p>sx), see BROOK. 

7. fsed (-\px), Nu. 21 15, AV stream ; on the meaning see 


8. ncizellvt (nS U! lit- flowing ), Ps. 78 16 Cant. 4 15, streams. 

13. See EGYPT, 






i Ch. 7 39 RV, AV REZIA. 

RIZPAH (nipyi ; 71, pavement 1 ; pecd>\[BAL), 
daughter of AIAH [<M -], Saul s concubine, 2 S. 87 
21 8 /., (pecb(bA,e [A in v. 8]). According to the existing 
tradition Ishbosheth was angry with Abner for taking 
possesssion of his father s concubine, and Abner 
indignantly repelled the accusation (on 2 S. 38 see 
NABAL). Winckler, however, plausibly holds (G72ig6) 
that the original tradition interpreted this fact differently, 
and that in reality Abner had dethroned Ishbosheth, 
and signified his assumption of Saul s crown by taking 
possession of Saul s wife (cp 12n 1622). The pathetic 
story of Rizpah s conduct when her two sons ARMONI 
(see SAUL, 6) and MEPHIBOSHETH [q.v.~\ and the 
five sons of Michal or rather MERAB [q.v.] had been 
put to death, to remove the blood-guiltiness of the land, 
is also, according to Winckler ((7/2241), unhistorical ; 
hesuspects mythological affinities, and compares themyth 
of Niobe (Preller, Griech Myth.Z^fx)}. According to 
2 S. 21nJ, it was on hearing of the act of Rizpah, 
that David sent for the bones of Saul and Jonathan, 
that they might be buried together in the sepulchre of 
Kish at Zela, or rather Laish ( =Shalishah). See 

On the Rizpah-story see further J\SP) 419^, and on the 
mode of execution (J?pi ,t) see HANGING, 2 b ; on the source of 
the narrative, see SAMUEL (BOOKS), i,ff.; We. CH 263 ; Bu. 
Ri. Sa. 257 /; T. K. C. 


ROBE, the rendering suggests an outer garment of 
some richness, more elaborate and elegant than an 
ordinary mantle. 



The word occurs most frequently as the rendering of w/7/(see 
MANTLE, 2 [6]), occasionally, too, of addereth, Jon. 36, and 
(for MT fder) Mi. 1 8 (see it. 5), and of mahalasoth, Is. 3 22 RV 
(see it. 7), <TToA>/, I,k. 1022 2046 Rev. On 7 9 13 f. (see ib. 16), 
and \Ko.)i.\><;, Mt. 27 28 (see ib. 20). It is applied to the more 
general terms beged (i K. 22 10 30 || 2 Ch. 18929; see DRESS, 
g i [i]), and eer0>/s (Lk. 23 n, RV apparel ), and is once used to 
render kuttoneth (Is. 22 21), on which see TUNIC. See DRESS, 


ROCK. i. "1-1 V, sur. See NAMES OF GOD, 15, 

and ZUR. [Under ZUK thirty-five places are cited where sur 
seems to have become altogether a synonym for God. In 
twenty-one of these (from a dread of materialism?) has Seos, 
in four (SotjSos, in four (/>uAaf ; icupios (Is. 17 10), jt icaio? (i S. 2 2), 
KTUTTTJS (2 S. 22 32), di TiA.rjju.TrTiop (Ps. SO 27 [26]) each occur once ; 
and in Dt. 32 37 Hab. 1 12 (S shows a different text.] 

2. jta, sda. See SELA. [In 28.222 Ps. 183 [2], 
31 4 [3] 42 10 [9], sild is a synomyn of stir, and a divine 
title. Konig (Stylistik, 100) finds st ld once used of a 
heathen god, but iy pp (EV his rock") in Is. 31 9, if 
correct, is parallel to vnt? (EV his princes ). See 
Crit. Bib.} 

3- ril D, made (Judg. 626 RV), cp FORTRESS; 4. 
EJ cVn. hallamis (Job289), C P FLINT ; 5. fjs, keph (Ter. 
429 Job 30 6) ; cp CEPHAS, SIMON PETER. 

ROCKBADGER (]D : , Lev. 11 5 RV"^-), EV CONEY. 

ROD. Of the following words, the first three are 
also rendered staff ; see Is. 8(132 (the staff of judg 
ment); Ps. 284 (oar, II n:ye C, see STAFF, i) ; Gen. 32 10 
(Jacob s staff); for a very special sense of nan and 
oae , see SCEPTRE. 

1. HBD, tiiatteh (\XnBJ, to stretch out) : of the staff or wand of 
the traveller (Gen. 38 18 25, etc.), shepherd (Ex. 4 2, etc.), wonder 
worker (Ex. "912, etc.), warrior (18.142743), task-master 
(Is. 9 3 [4], etc.), ruler (Jer. 48 17, etc.) ; an implement of punish 
ment (Is. 3031), used also in beating out black cummin (kcsah, 
Is. 2827). The rods in Nu. 17 17 ff. [17 iff.\ are apparently 
shafts, i.e., arrows or spears. Matt eh is also rendered staft 
(the staff of judgment), Is. 8032. Cp the Ar. naltiit, Doughty, 
Ar. Des. 1 147, 379. 

2. a3!r, scbet, cp Ass., to beat (whence sibtu, staff, 
as something to beat with, but also massacre, Frd. Del.) 
(a) As an implement of punishment (Prov. 10 13 1824); the 
bastinado as authorised by law is referred to in Dt. 25 1-3, and 
(probably) Dt. 22 18. See LAW AND JUSTICE, 12. In the 
verbs are ^acmyovv, TraiSfveu ; pa/36tfeii> is used only of 
threshing in agriculture, (b) As used for beating cummin 
(kammfm, Is. 28 27). (c) Of the shepherd s staff, or club-stick 
(Ar. nabfit), Ps. 23 4 Lev. 27 32 Ezek. 20 37. (if) Of the ruler s 
staff; see SCEPTRE, (f) Of a weapon, in time of stress, 2 S. 
23 21. Both matteh and sebet are used also metaphorically in 
the sense of tribe (see TKIBE). 

3. S?;:, makkfl, literally a shoot or wand (Jer. 1 n Gen. 30 37, 
etc.); of traveller s staff, Gen. 32 n; of the shepherd s, i S. 
1740 43 Zech. 11 7 10 14 ; once perhaps of a crutch, see STAFF, 
3. Used in rhabdomancy, Hos. 4 12 (see DIVINATION, 2 [ij). 

4. n^n, hSter, used only metaphorically (but as representing 
its literal sense of shoot. scion or twig ), Is. 11 i Prov. 143!. 

5. pa/3o9, i Cor. 42i Heb. 9 4 Rev. 227 Hi 125 15, all, 
except i Cor. (I.e.) and Rev. 11 i, influenced by OT. 

The beating with rods (paj35i eii<) in Acts 16 22 2 Cor. 
1125 is the Roman punishment inflicted by the lictors (EV 
Serjeants, pa/36o{/xoc. : Acts 16 35 38). 

RODANIM (D rrn), iCh.l 7 AV ra e-, RV ; AV 


ROE. The rendering of: i. slbi, "2V (Ar. zaby, Aram. 

iatvd [cp TABITHA], Ass. sabt/fi; Sopxds (RNAL1) in EV of 
i Ch. 128, and 2 S. 2 18 ( wild roe, lit. roe that is in the field, 
cp RVnig.), and, with RV" K- gazelle, in EV of Cant. 2 7 ( 
&VvdiUtnv)Q and 17 ( BopKiavi) 3 5 (<P Svvdneo-iv) 8 14 ; AV only 
in Ecclus. 272o(RV gazelle ); also the rendering of the fern, 
form scbiyyah, rV3!, in Cant. 4 5 7 3 [4] RV (RVmg. gazelle, 
not in AV). When mentioned as an article of food sebl is 
rendered Eoebuck (Dt. 121522 14s 1622 i K. 4 23 [63], AV ; 
RV gazelle ). 

2. ya aldh, Fl^iF, Prov. 5 19, RV, DOE ; cp GOAT, 2. 

3. oplter, 1BJ?, Cant. 4 5 7 3 [4], AV young roe, RV fawn, 
see HAKT. 

4. yahmur, HBn (lit. red ), Dt. 14 5 i K. 4 23 [5 3] ; AV 
FALLOW-DEER 03ou /3aAos [AJ, in Dt.]; B in Dt., and BAL in 
Ki. om. ?). 



Like the GAZELLE and HART, the roe is chiefly 
alluded to for its swiftness, and partly on account of 
its grace and beauty is a favourite image of female 
charms. 1 On the species in general see GOAT, 2, and 
note that the name yahmfir (no. 4 above) is still used 
by the Arabs for the true Cervus capreolus (cp Dr. 
Deut., ad loc. and see ANTELOPE). The Capreolus 
capra, with which the yahmfir has also been identified, 
is a small form found distributed over Euroj>e and 
W. Asia, and still occurs in Palestine ; specimens of it 
were seen by Tristram on Lebanon, and by Conder 
(Tent-Work, 91 [1887]) on Mt. Carmel. The fallow- 
deer (cp AV), Cervus damn, is a native of N. Africa 
and of the countries surrounding the Mediterranean, 
whence it has been introduced into many civilised 
countries. It occurs also in N. Palestine, but is said 
to be scarce. A nearly allied species, C. mesopotamicus, 
is found in parts of W. Persia. A. E. s. s. A. c. 

ROGELIM (D^l ; P a>reA[A]eiM [BA], p AK ABeiN 
[L]) ; the home of Barzillai the Gileadite (2 S. 1727 
193i). The existence of such a place is questionable. 
Probably the passages relative to Barzillai are based on 
an earlier passage respecting MKI HIHOSHETH \_q.v. 2] 
which had already become corrupt, and c ^JT (Rogelim) 
is a corruption of a 1 ?} iva Beth-gallim, i.e., Beth-gilgal 
(see GAI.LIM ; SAUL, 4). 

The corruption arose from a scribe s la/>sns ocuti. In 2 S. 
1727_/C the. true text probably ran (see (&HAL and cp YARN) 

aas*? TOTO niL-gy c 3-ipp trVrrrsa "ij ^n ^pin. But 

C 3*lpO was miswritten Q ^pio ; the consequence of which was 
that one scribe (followed by MT and <BHA) wrote C SjISi ant l 
another (followed by L) wrote C SplD, instead of D W"JV3p. 
The f\vfyica.v of HAL represents c ^MlpD ( C P J l dg. 3 17 _/C). 
2 S. 1031 was harmonised, as to the name of Barzillai s home, 
with 2 S. 17 27 in each of the texts. T. K. C. 

ROHGAH (ilinh Kt. ilSrn Kr.), a name in a 
genealogy of ASHER (q.v. 4 ii. ). In i Ch. 7 34 " [Ahi] 
and Rohghah" becomes [&xi]oyiA [B], [AXIJOYP* OfA 
[A], [Heif] KAI pAfOye t L -] ; butrazfa/ Pesh. om. 
passage) ; cp Am, 2. 

ROIMUS (poeiMoy [B]), i Esd. 58 = Ezra2 2 , 
REHUM, i. 

ROLL. i. rt^ja, mfgill^h; xapriov, xaprijs, Ke^aXis), 
Jer. 3i> 2, etc. See WRITING. 

2 - i r !*?> Sillayon , for 7113 j 35 has TO^OV jcatcov /xeyaAou 

[BXQ] rofj.01 vdprou K. ju. [A] ; RV tablet. A tablet of wood or 
stone is probably meant. Is. S if. For the gilyonim of Is. 3 23 
cp MIRROR, end. 

3. 13D, s fhar, Ezra 6 i, RV archive^. See WRITING and 

ROLLER frinri; MA\A r MA [BAQF ; cp Is. 16]), 
Ezek. 302i, one of the few references to surgical practice 
in the EV(see MEDICINE). Hit tit I from ^/entwine (used 
in Kzek. 164 of swaddling, cp derivative in Job 889) is 
properly a bandage (cp Toy s rendering in SDOT) 
rather than a poultice (as <5). 

ROMAMTI-EZER (im fiElpl, 23, according to 
the Chronicler a son of Heman : i Ch. 20431 
yioi toA. pOMGAxei [B, superscr. co6 B a - b ], 
e/v\9i ezep, poo/wee Miezep [A], p&M&Giezep [L], 
romemthiezer [Vg. ]), but see HEMAN. 


History of criticism (p 1-3). Conclusion ( 19). 
What Romans seems to be Author ( 20-22). 

(4)- His date (2-,). 

Contents ( 5) Value of Work ( 24). 

Not a letter ( 6-8). Defenders of authenticity ( 

Structure ( 0-13). 25). 

Late date ( 14-18). Literature ( 26). 

Of Epistles to the Romans Old-Christian Literature 
is acquainted with two that of Paul and that of 

If these animals were sacred to the goddess of love (see 
GAZELLE), another plausible origin of the reference might be 
sought for. 



Ignatius. As regards the latter, the reader is referred 
to what has been said under OLD-CHRISTIAN LITERA 
TURE ( 28 /. ). The Kpistle of Paul to the Romans 
has come down to us from antiquity not as a separate 
work but as one of the most distinguished members of a 
group the epistles of Paul (fwtffTo\al HavXov) in 
which its title in the shortest form, followed by Ti. WH 
among others (after NABC, etc.), is to Romans (irpbs 

From the beginning (first by Marcion, about 140 A. D. ) 
the work, as an integral part of the authoritative 

ApOStle (6 ATTOCTToXoj, TO dTTOffTO- 

. . 

ditionalview %vords as a canomcal writing, was 
r tacitly recognised as the work of the 
apostle Paul. This continued without a break till 1792. 
Justin took no notice of Paul ; Irenaeus and Tertullian 
the latter with a scornful ha;reticorum apostolus 
on his lips laboured to raise the apostle in the 
estimation of the faithful (cp PAUL, 48) ; but no one 
ever thought of doubting the genuineness of the letters 
attributed to the apostle or of defending it. During 
the whole of that period the question did not so much 
as exist. 

There is indeed a very old discussion perhaps it had 
already arisen even in the second century as to the 
existence of the epistle in two forms, a 

2. Theory of 

longer and a shorter, even after omis- 

compositeness. . >, " ir VJt 

sion of the two last chapters (15, 16). 

Origen taxes Marcion with this last omission ; but Origen s 
older contemporary Tertullian says nothing of that, 
though he several times reprimands the heretic for having 
tampered with the text of chaps. 1-14. The probability 
is that Tertullian had no acquaintance with chaps. 15/1 
At any rate, he made no citation from them in his 
polemic against Marcion (adv. Marc. 5 13-14), although 
in its course he leaves none of the previous chapters 
(1-14) unreferred to and speaks of one expression 
tribunal Christi (14io) as written in clausula 
[epistulrt:] ; cp van Manen, Paulus, 2 101-118. 

In recent times the tradition of the text as regards 
chaps. 15-16 has frequently come under discussion. 
The conclusion is not only that the chapters in question 
were unknown to Marcion and probably also to other 
ancient witnesses, including Irenasus and Cyprian, but 
also that there were in circulation at an early date MSS. 
in which the doxology Rom. 1625-27 either occurred 
alone immediately after 1423 or was entirely wanting 
(cp Ti. ; Sanday-Headlam, Comm. (1895), 89/. ; S. 
Davidson, Intr.W, 1894, 1120-123). 

To these facts were added, at a later date, considerations 
based on the contents of chaps. 15-1(5 tending to show that they 
hardly fitted in with chaps. 1-14. Semler (Diss. de duplici 
appendice ef>. Pauli ad Rom. 1767 ; Paraphrases ep. ad 
Romanes, 1769), soon afterwards supported by Eichhorn (/:> /. 
in das NT), held chap. 15 f. to be by Paul but not to have 
originally belonged to the Epistle to the Romans. Baur(7 . 
Ztschr., 1836, Paulus, 1845, cp PaulusW, 1 [1866] 393-409), 
followed, in the main, among others bv Schwegler (Nachap. 
ZtitatU-r),Ze\\er(ACL\S. Davidson (Infract. <3i, 1894, 1 123-131), 
and controverted by Kling (St.Kr., 1837), l^ 6 Wette and others, 
maintained the piece to be spurious. Since Baur, many scholars 
have endeavoured to steer a middle course by seeking in very 
divergent ways, it is true for the close of the letter supposed 
lost, in chaps. 15, 16. So among others, Lucht (Uebcr die 
I cidcn letztcn Kaf>p. dcs Romerhricfs, 1871), Volkmar (Rotiier- 
Mef, 1875), Scholten (Th.T, 1876), Bruckner (Reihenfoln, 
iSgo), Baljon {Gesch. v. d. Boeken dcs Nl s. 1901, p. 95-6). In 
these various attempts an important part was always played by 
the conjecture, first put forth by Schtilz (.9/.AV., 1829), that in 
Rom. 1(3 1-20 what we really have is an epistle of Paul to the 

In this direction that of holding more Pauline 
epistles than one to have been incorporated with each 
other or amalgamated together to form the canonical 
epistle to the Romans the way had already been led 
(leaving 15, 16 out of account) by Heumann in 1765. 

He argued, according to Meyer (AVww.i 3 ) [1859], etc -), f r 
the _ strange hypothesis that a new Epistle to the Romans 
begins at chap. 12, whilst chap. 10 contains two postscripts (ZT-. 
1-24 and 25-27) to the first. Eichhorn (Einl.M, 1827) guessed 
that Paul in reading over the epistle after it had been written 



by an amanuensis made various additions with his own hand. 
C. H. Weisse (P/ulos. Dogm. 1855) held Rom. 9-11 to be a later 
insertion. He found moreover a number of minor insertions in 
the Epistle, and finally concluded that chaps. 9-10 + ltii-i6, 2o/<, 
probably had belonged originally to an Epistle of Paul to the 
Ephesians (cp his Beitr. zur Kritik der paul. Br. 1867, edited 
by Sulze). Laurent (Neutcst. Studien, 1866) supposed Paul 
to have written with his own hand to his Epistle to the 
Romans a number of notes which subsequently by accident 
found their way into the text. Kenan (St. Pant) was of 
opinion that Paul had published his Epistle to the Romans in 
several forms t-.i--., chaps. 1-11 + 15; chaps. 1-14 + 16 (part) ; out 
of these forms the epistle known to us ultimately grew. Straat- 
man (Th.T, 1868, 38-57), controverted by Rovers (ib. 310-325), 
came to the conclusion that chaps. 12-14 do not fit in with what 
precedes ; that these chapters along with chap. 10 belong to an 
Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians; and that the close of the 
Epistle to the Romans, properly so called, is found in chap. 15. 
Spitta (Zur Gesch. v. Litt. des Urchristuntunts, 116-30, 1893) 
contended, and at a later date (81-193, Jy 01 ) reaffirmed, though 
with some modifications of minor importance, that our Epistle 
to the Romans is the result of a fitting-together of two epistles 
written by Paul at separate times, one before and one after his 
visit to Rome, and addressed to the Christians there. The first 
and longer, a well rounded whole, consisted of 1 1-1136, 168-33, 
1621-27 ; the second, partly worked into the first, has not 
reached us in its entirety ; we recognise with certainty only the 
portions : 12i-lO7 and 16 1-20. 

Pierson-Naber (I erisimilia, 1886), controverted by Kuenen 
(Th.T, 1886, cp van Manen, Byhlad van de Hen orming, 1887, 
No. 4, and Bibl. mod. Theol. 1887), point to a number of joinings 
and sutures, traces of manipulation and compilation, in the 
traditional text of the Epistle to the Romans, with a view to 
proving its lact-ra conditio. Michelsen (Th.T, 1886-7) sought 
to distinguish in that text five or six editions o_f Paul s Epistle, 
in the course of which various far-reaching modifications may be 
supposed to have been made. Sulze (Prot. Kirckenztg. 1888, 
no. 42) pressed still further for the recognition of additions and 
insertions. Volter repeated his Votum, etc. (recorded in Th. T, 
1889) in a separate publication (Die Komposition der paulin. 
Hauptbrivfc,\, 1890), and [sought to prove again that our canonical 
Epistle to the Romans is the fruit of repeated redaction and 
expansion of a genuine epistle of the apostle. 

Thus, there has been no lack of effort on the part of 
scholars to satisfy themselves and each other of the 
composite character of the traditional text. Equally 
decided, however, at least with most of them, is the 
opinion that nevertheless the text is, for the most part, 
and in the main, from the hand of Paul. This con 
viction was for a long time tacitly assumed, rather than 
explicitly expressed. So even by Baur, Weisse, and 
Straatman, whilst it was brought to the foreground, with 
friendly yet polemical emphasis, as against the representa 
tives of advanced criticism, by Spitta. As regards 
the others mentioned above, most hesitation was to l>e 
noticed in Pierson-Naber, Michelsen, and Volter ; but 
even these, one and all, continued to speak of an original 
letter, written by Paul to the Romans. 

Not a few writers continued simply to maintain the 
prima facie character of the canonical epistle or, as 
occasion offered, to defend it in their notes and dis 
cussions, commentaries and introductions. 

For details, pro et contra., and some guidance through the 
extensive literature, the student may consult Holtzmann, EinLW, 
1892, 242-6; Sanday-Headlam, Comm. 1895, pp. 85-98; Zahn, 
Einl.C^, 1900, 1 268-299 f r a more complete though not always 
accurate account of the doubts regarding the unity of the work, 
Clemen, Die Einheitiichkeit der paulin. Brief e, 1894, cp Th. T, 
1895, 640^: 

The first to break in all simplicity with the axiom of 
the genuineness of our canonical epistle to the Romans, 
p .. though without saying so in so many 
1 words, was E. Evanson. He appended 

, - 


Dissonance O f tke f our g enera lly 
rgce j ve( f Evangelists, 1792, some con 

siderations against the justice of the received view which 
regarded Paul as author of the epistle considerations 
based upon the contents themselves and a comparison 
between them and Acts (pp. 256-261). Controverted 
by Priestley and others, Evanson s arguments soon fell 
into oblivion. 

Sixty years afterwards Bruno Bauer (Kritik der 
paulin. Briefe, 1852, 847-76) took up the work of 
Evanson, without, so far as appears, being acquainted 
with the writings of that scholar. He was not successful, 
however, in gaining a hearing not at least until after 



he had repeated his doubts in more compendious form 
in his Chris/us u. die Ccrsaren (1877, pp. 371-380). 

Soon afterwards A. D. Loman ( Qurcstiones paulinas* 
in Th. T, 1882) developed the reasons which seemed to 
him to render necessary a revision of the criticism of the 
epistles of Paul which was then current. Without going 
into details as regarded Romans, he declared all the 
epistles to be the productions of a later time. Rud. 
Steck (Der Galaterbrief nach seiner Echtheit untersucht, 
nebst kritischen Be merkungen zu den paulinischen. Haupt- 
briefen, 1888) came to the same conclusion and took 
occasion to point out some peculiarities connected with 
the Epistle to the Romans. The same investigation 
was more fully carried out, and substantially with the 
same result, by W. C. van Manen (Paulus II. De brief 
aan de Konteitien, 1891 ; cp Handleidingvoorde Oudfhr. 
lettcrkunde, 1900, ch. 3, 10-19), ar >d Prof. W. H. 
Smith of Tulane University, Louisiana, has recently 
begun independently to follow the same path. The 
Outlook (New York) of Nov. 1900 contained a pre 
liminary article by him, signed Clericus (a misprint for 
Criticus ), and in the Journal of Biblical Literature, 
1901, a series of articles bearing the author s own name 
was begun the first entitled Address and Destination 
of St. Paul s Epistle to the Romans, and the second 
Unto Romans : 15 and 16. 

The newer criticism has made itself heard and goes 
forward on its path in spite of much opposition and 
strife, applauded by some, rejected by many. For its 
character and aims see PAUL, 34-36, and cp 
37-48. Its desire is to read the Epistle of Paul to 
the Romans as well as the rest of the canonical books 
without any fear of the ban that lies upon aught that 
may perchance prove to be contrary to tradition, whether 
ecclesiastical or scientific ; uninfluenced by any ante 
cedent presumption as to the correctness of the current 
views as to contents, origin, or meaning of the text as it 
has come down to us, however highly esteemed be the 
quarter Tubingen or any other from which they have 
reached us ; free, too, from the dominion of any con 
viction, received by faith merely, and held to be superior 
to any test of examination, as to the epistle being in 
dubitably the work of Paul and of Paul alone. It seeks 
to read the epistle in the pure light of history, exactly 
as it appears after repeated examination has been made 
on every side, as it at last presents itself to the student 
who really wishes to take knowledge of the contents 
with as little prejudice as possible. 

Coming before us, as it does, as a component part of 
the group known as the Epistles of Paul, handed down 

wvi < TJ from anc i ent times, Romans appears 
4. Wnat Kom. indeed to be nc j ther more nor less 
seems to be. than an epistle of the ap0 stle, written 
probably at Corinth and addressed to the Christians at 
Rome, whom he hopes to visit ere long after having made 
a journey to Jerusalem. Both superscription and sub 
scription, as well as tradition, indicate this, even if we 
leave out of account the words in Rome (tv Pti/ufl) and 
to those in Rome (TO<S iv Pti/ufl) which are wanting in 
some MSS in 1? 15. We have only, in connection with 
the superscription and subscription, to look at the manner 
in which the epistle begins and ends (li-is 15i4-lt> 27), 
at the way in which the writer throughout addresses his 
readers as brethren (113 ?M 812 10i 1125 12i 15 M/. 
30 1617), stirs them up, admonishes them and discusses 
with them, as persons with whom he stands on a friendly 
footing, and has opened a correspondence on all sorts 
of subjects. The appearance of Tertius as amanuensis 
(1622) need cause no surprise, it being assumed that 
perhaps Paul himself may not have been very ready with 
the pen. 

If we turn for a little from a consideration of the 

literary form to occupy ourselves more with the con- 

_ . tents, the first thing that strikes us is the 

5. Contents. consp i cuous i v methodical way in which 

the writer has set forth his material. After an address 



and benediction (li-;), an introduction (18-is), and a 
statement of what he regards as the essential matter as 
regards the preaching of the gospel a thing not to be 
ashamed of but to be everywhere preached as a power 
of God for the salvation of every believer whether Jew 
or Greek (li6_/I) come two great doctrinal sections 
followed by an ethical section. The first doctrinal 
section, 1 18-839, s devoted to the elucidation of the truth 
that the gospel is the means for the salvation of Jews 
and Greeks, Ixjcause in it is revealed the righteousness 
of God from faith to faith ; the other, 9-11, to an earnest 
discussion of what seems to be a complete rejection of 
the Jews by God ; the third, the ethical section (12 1- 
1613), to a setting forth of the conduct that befits the 
Christian both towards God and towards man in general, 
and towards the weak and their claims in particular. 

In substance the doctrine is as follows. Sin has 
alienated all men, Jews and Gentiles alike, from God, 
so that neither our natural knowledge of God nor the 
law is able to help us ( 1 18-3 20). A new way of salvation 
is opened up, God s righteousness has been manifested 
(5iKaio<rvi>T) 6fou irf<t>a.vfp<j)Ta<.) for all men without dis 
tinction, by faith in relation to Jesus Christ (821-31). It 
is accordingly of no importance to be descended from 
Abraham according to the flesh ; Abraham in the higher 
sense is the father of those who believe ( 4 1. Justified by 
faith, we have peace with God and the best hopes for 
the future (5). Let no one, however, suppose that the 
doctrine of grace, the persuasion that we are under 
grace, not under the law, will conduce to sin or bring 
the law into contempt. Such conclusions can and 
must be peremptorily set aside (6-7). The emancipated 
life of the Christian, free from the law of sin and death, 
is a glorious one (8). Israel, the ancient people of the 
promises with its great privileges, appears indeed to be 
rejected, yet will finally be gathered in (9-11). The life 
of Christians, in relation to God and man, must in every 
respect give evidence of complete renewal and absolute 
consecration (12i-lfi3). Finally, a closing word as to 
the apostle s vocation which he hopes to fulfil in Rome 
also ; a commendation of Phoebe, greetings, exhorta 
tions, benedictions, and an ascription of praise to God 
(15 14-1627). 

If, at a first inspection, the work presents itself to us 
as an epistle written by Paul to the Christians at Rome, 

/. -n-a: ii- on closer examination it becomes cliffi- 
6. Difficulties : ,. . ,, 

cult to adhere to such a view. Diffi- 
not a letter . . , _ . 

ODeninz and cuities anse on every Slde To begm 
. B with as regards the form that is 

assumed. We are acquainted with no 
letters of antiquity with any such exordium as this : 
Paul, bond-slave of Jesus Christ, called an apostle, 
separated unto the gospel of God ... to all those 
who are in Rome . . . grace to you and peace from 
God our father and the Lord Jesus Christ (IlaCXos 
dovXos Irivov Xpicrrov, K\TJTOS a7r6<TToXos d<f>(i>picr/jL(vos 
fis fvayyf\iov deov . . . irauiv TO?S o^fftv ev Pw/j.ri 

. . . X<*P S VfJUV KO.I eip^" 7 ? ttTTO OeOV TTCLTpOS T/yltWI KO.I 

Kvpiov Irfffov XpicrToD) ; nor with any conclusion so 
high-sounding as the doxology of 1625-27, or the prayer 
for the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ which is heard in 
1620 (or 1624). In every other case the epistles of 
antiquity invariably begin plainly and simply. 

Thus, for example, in the collection of Oxyrhynchus papyri 
(1 181) we have Eiprjvri Taovvuxfrpei. Kai $iAb>i tvtyvvftv . . . and 
at the close ev TrpdrTtre ; or (1 1^3) Xaipe a? Aioi i trioii rioi xvpt on 
d< Ai, >u> \aipfiv and, at the close, (ppuicrlini tre ev\onai. 

Greetings are indeed conveyed both from and to 
various persons ; but never are so many introduced as 
in Rom. 163-16, where in fact at the end all the churches 
salute. A letter-writer may, at the outset, seek to bring 
himself into closer relationship with his reader or to make 
himself known more exactly ; but in the many ex 
amples of real letters that have come down to us from 
ancient times we nowhere find anything even approach 
ing the amplitude of Rom. 1 2-6. Nor yet does any real 
letter, whether intended for few or for many, so far as 



we are in a position to judge, ever give us cause, because 
by its length or its elaborate method it resembles a 
treatise arranged in orderly sections, to regard it as a 
book, as our canonical epistle to the Romans does, with 
its great subdivisions (already taken account of under 5). 
We may, in truth, safely dispense with further com 
parison between our epistle and any real letters from 
_, . . ancient times, so impossible is it to regard 

it as an actual epistle, to whatever date, 
address. , 

locality, or author we may assign it. 

How could any one at the very beginning of a letter, in 
which, too, the first desire he writes to express is that 
of writing solemnly, earnestly, directly, allow himself 
to expatiate, as this writer does, in such a parenthesis ? 
He speaks as a didactic expounder who, for the most 
part, directly and as concisely as possible, deals with a 
numl>er of disputed points, with regard to which the 
reader may be supposed to be in doubt or uncertainty 
because in point of fact they have gained acceptance 
within certain circles. These expositions relate to 
nothing more or less than such points as the relation 
of the Pauline Gospel to the OT (v. 2), the descent of 
the Son of God from the house of David (v. 3), the 
evidence of the Messiahship of Jesus derived from his 
resurrection (z . 4), the origin and the legitimacy of the 
Pauline preaching (v. 5). At the same time the readers 
(who have not yet been named and are first addressed in 
v. 7) are assured that they belong to the Gentiles (Idvrj), 
with reference to whom Paul has received his apostleship, 
although, according to 1 10-13, ne has never as yet met 
them and consequently has not been the means of their 
conversion. All this within a single parenthesis. In 
such wise no letter was ever begun. 

The writer addresses himself to all the members of a 
wide circle let us say in Rome ; even if the words in 
Rome (ev Pupy) and those who are in Rome (TO?? 
^v PuiyUij, 1 7 15), according to some MS authorities, do 
not belong to the original text, their meaning is assured 
by the superscription to Romans (TT/OOS Pw/j.aiovs ; cp 
1622-29) and by the unvarying tradition as to the destina 
tion of the epistle. The Paul whom we meet here 
addresses his discourse to a wide public, and utters in lofty 
tones such words as these : O, man, whoever thou be 
who judgest, etc. (uj &vOpiaire TTO.S 6 Kpivuv K.T.\., 2i), 
O, man, who judgest, etc. (u> HvOpuirt 6 Kpivuiv K.T.\., 
23), If thou bearest the name of a Jew, etc. (ft de av 
lovSaios firovo/jLa^r; K.T.\. , 217), Nay but, O man, 
who art thou that repliest against God? (w dvOpuire, av ris el 6 dvTa.TTOKpii bfj.fvos rip 0ew, 9 20), But 
I speak to you that are Gentiles (V/MI> 5e X^o; TOIS 
ZdvenLV, 11 13), I say ... to every man that is among 
you, etc. 1 (\eyii) . . . iravrl r<p OVTL (v vfuv K.T.\., 
123), Whoart thou that judgest the servant of another?" 
(ffv rt s fl 6 Kpivdiv d\\OTpiov oiKfTTjif, 144), But thou, 
why dost thou judge thy brother? (crb S( T I Kpiveis rbv 
d5e\(p6v crov, 14 10), For if because of meat thy brother 
is grieved, etc." (et yap 5ia /3pui/ua 6 doeX^os aov Xi irttrai 
K.T.\., 14 15), etc. Often the argument proceeds unin 
terruptedly for a long time without any indication of the 
existence of a definite circle of persons to whom it is 
addressed. Yet, on the other hand also, the abstract 
argumentation gives place to direct address, the word 
of admonition or exhortation spoken to the brethren 
(d5e\<f>oi), whether named or unnamed the mention of 
whom, however, when it occurs, is a purely oratorical 
form and no natural expression of the existence of any 
special relation between the writer and his assumed 
readers. Of the passages coming within the scope of 
this remark (some of them, already noticed in 4), none 
presents any peculiarity in this respect. On the con 
trary, every one of them produces uniformly the same 
impression ; in this manner no real letter is ever written. 

The last chapter has nothing of the character of a 
postscript to a letter already completed, although the 
letter appears to end with 1530-33. Strange, in the 
sense of being not natural but artificial, is the appearance 



in 1622 of Tertius ( I, Tertius, who write the epistle : 
6 ypdifsas TT)V tiriaTO\-f)v), the secretary of Paul, who, 
however, seems himself to have had a hand in the 
letter, since we find him saying in 15 15, I wrote to 
you (ZypaiJ/a. vfj.iv). Strange especially is Tertius s 
greeting of the readers in his own name, in the midst 
of the greetings which Paul seems to be transmitting 
through him, vv. 21 23. 

The contents of the epistle, largely consisting of 
argument and discussions on doctrinal theses, differ as 
widely as possible from what one is wont to expect in a 
letter so widely that many have long laboured at the 
task of making a suitable paraphrase of the text-book 
while retaining their belief in its epistolary character. 
(See, for example, the specimen in Holt/.mann, JSiftl.^, 
237; cp S. Davidson, Intr. I 3 , 1 113-116. ) 

In vain do we make the attempt in some degree to 
picture to ourselves what the relation was between the 
supposed author and his readers. Acts 

8. Supposed 

supplies no light. There we read that 

when Paul is approaching Rome the 
brethren go to meet him, not because they had previously 
had a letter from him, but because they have heard 
various things regarding his recent fortunes (28 14 /.). 
As for the Jews of the metropolis, they have heard 
nothing either good or bad concerning him (v. 21). 
Tradition, apart from the NT, has equally little to say 
about the epistle, whether as to its reception or as to 
what impression it may have made. The document 
itself says something, but only what adds to the con 
fusion. The truth of the matter seems unattainable. 
Scholars lose themselves in most contradictory con 
jectures as to the occasion and purpose of the writing. 

See, amongst others, Meyer-Weiss, KOIIIIH.(^\ 1899, pp. 23-33 ; 
Holtzmann, inl.&, 236-241 ; Lipsius, Coii.(~i, 1892, pp. 75- 
76; Sanday-Headlam, Coiitin., 1895, chaps. 38-44; van Manen, 
Pan/us, 2 20-23. 

Who the supposed readers of the epistle were can 
only be gathered from its contents. Rut these are so 
different in many aspects that it is possible to say with 
equal justice that the church in Rome was Jewish- 
Christian, Gentile-Christian, or a mixture of the two. 

Cp the various conclusions in Meyer-Weiss, 19-22 ; Holtz 
mann, 232-236 ; Lipsius, 70-73 ; Steck, Gal. 359-363 ; Vcilter, 
Th. T, 1889, pp. 270-272, and Kontp. ?>f. ; van Manen, Paulus, 

It may be added here that the work is throughout 
addressed to brethren of all kinds, and sometimes it 
seems also to have been intended for Jews and Gentiles 
who stood in no connection whatever with Christianity. 
Did any one ever give to a particular letter an aim so 
general, without realising that his letter had ceased to be 
a letter at all in the natural meaning of the word, 
and had become what we are accustomed to call an 
open letter, an occasional writing, a book? Everything 
leads to the one conclusion ; the epistolary form is not 
real, it is merely assumed ; we have here to do, not 
with an actual letter of Paul to the Romans, but rather 
with a treatise, a book, that with the outward resem 
blance of a letter is nevertheless something quite 

The same conclusion results from a closer examination 

of the whole as it lies before us, whenever we direct our 

. , , attention to the connection of its several 

ma 01 parts The re i at i ve un i tv O f t h e book 

^ there is no reason for doubting. It is not, 
however, unity of the kind we are accustomed to expect 
in a book written after more or less careful preparation, 
in accordance with a more or less carefully considered 
and logically developed plan ; not unity such as is the 
outcome of a free elaboration of the materials after these 
have been more or less diligently collected, and fully 
mastered by the writer. Least of all, a unity such as 
we look for in a letter, whether we think of it as written 
at one sitting or as written bit by bit and at intervals. 
It is rather a unity of such a sort as reminds us of that 



of a synoptical gospel, with regard to which no one 
doubts that it is the result of a characteristic process of 
redaction and remaniement, curtailment, correction, and 
supplementation by the help of older pieces drawn from 
other sources. It is such unity as we find in reading 
Acts, although we do not hesitate for a single moment 
to realise that Lk. has made an often very palpable use 
of written sources. There is unity of language and style, 
of thought, of feeling, of opinion ; but at the same time 
there are, not seldom, great diversities in all these 
respects. The result, obviously, of the unmistakable 
circumstance that the writer of the canonical epistle has 
made continual and manifold use of words, forms of 
expression, arguments, derived from sources known to 
him, whether retained in his memory or lying before 
him in written form. 

Proof of the justice of this view is supplied by the 

various attempts made by earlier and later exegetes to 

p .. expound the epistle as a completely 

. ai u 3 rounc j ed wnc ,le attempts in which it 

to find unitv. . ,. 

J is found necessary at every turn to re 

sort to the assumption of all sorts of conceivable and 
inconceivable figures and forms of speech, and thus 
conceal the existence of joints and sutures, hiatuses, 
and unintelligible transitions. More particularly is this 
seen in the scientific line taken by Heumann, Semler, 
Eichhorn, Weisse, Straatman, Volter, Michelsen, Spitta, 
and so many others (some of these names are enumerated 
in 2), who have argued, and continue to argue, for the 
view that more than one epistle of Paul lies concealed 
in the apparently homogeneous canonical epistle, or for 
the view that there have been interpolations, more or 
less numerous, on an unusually large scale. In the last 
resort, on an (as far as possible) unprejudiced reading 
of the text which has come down to us a reading no 
longer under the dominion of a foregone conclusion, to 
be maintained at all hazards, that here we have to do 
with the original work of the apostle Paul, sent by him 
to the church at Rome we shall find that what lies 
before us is simply a writing from Christian antiquity 
presenting itself as such a work, which we must try to 
interpret as best we can. 

The traces of additions and redactions in the various 
sections and subsections of the epistle are innumerable. 
. - It would be superfluous, even if space 

. Jaigns allowed, to go through all the details on 


examples may suffice _ 

Compared with the first part (1 18-839), ^ le second 
(9-11), although now an integral portion of the work, 
betrays tokens of an originally different source. There 
is no inherent connection between them, although this 
can, if desired, be sought in the desire to set forth a 
wholly new doctrinal subject in a wholly new manner. 
In the second we no longer hear of the doctrine of 
justification by faith ; the treatment of the subject 
enunciated in 176/1 is no longer continued. What 
takes its place is something quite different and wholly 
unconnected with it ; a discussion, namely, of the 
doctrinal question, Why is it that the Gentiles are 
admitted and Israel excluded from salvation? This 
discussion is directed not, like the contents of the first 
part, ostensibly to Christian Jews, but to Gentiles. 
There is nothing in the first part that anywhere suggests 
any such affection for Israel as is everywhere apparent 
throughout the second part, and especially in 9 1-3 10 1 
11 1 25-36 ; nothing that comes into comparison with 
the solemn declaration of 9i in which the writer bears 
witness to his great sorrow and unceasing pain of heart 
concerning Israel. This exordium points to a quite 
different situation, in which Paul requires to be 
cleared of the reproach of not concerning himself about 
God s ancient people. Hence the wish expressed by 
him that he might become anathema from Christ (dirt> 
rov X/HcrToO) for his brethren s sake, his kinsmen accord 
ing to the flesh (ffvyyeveis Kara crdpna, 9 3). Hence his 
zeal here and in Hi to declare himself an Israelite, of 


thj seed of Abraham, the tribe of Benjamin. Hence 
also the summing-up of the ancient privilege of Israel, 
whose is the adoption and the glory and the covenants 
(94/), in comparison with which the simple statement 
that they were entrusted with the oracles of God (3 2) 
sinks into insignificance. In the first part a quite 
different tone is assumed towards the Jew ( loi Saios, 
217), with whom the speaker appears to have nothing 
in common. There we find Jew and Greek placed 
exactly on an equality (Ii6 2g f. 89) ; the idea of the 
Jews that as such they could have any advantage over 
the heathen is in set terms controverted (2 11-821), and 
it is declared that descent from Abraham, according to 
the flesh, is of no value (4). Here, on the other hand 
(9-11), we have earnest discussion of the question how 
it is possible to reconcile the actual position of Israel 
in comparison with the Gentile world with the divine 
purpose and the promise made to the fathers. Here, 
too, a high-pitched acknowledgment of the privileges 
of Israel, the one good olive-tree, the stem upon which 
the wild olive branches the believing Gentiles are 
grafted ; Israel in the end is certain to be wholly saved, 
being, as touching the election, beloved for the fathers 
sake (cara TT\V (K\<y^r\v dycurriToi dia roi s Trar^pas, $$f. 
31 102 lly 17 f. 26 28). In the first part, a sharp repudia 
tion of the law in respect of its powerlessness to work 
anything that is good (820/1 27 4 15 OM 7s/., etc.) ; in 
the second a holding up of the giving of the law (co/no- 
dfffia) as a precious gift (84). In the first part the 
earnest claim to justification by faith (5 1), to being under 
grace (614), to a walk in newness of spirit (76) ; in the 
second the assurance that if thou shall confess with thy 
mouth Jesus as Lord, and shall believe in thy heart 
that God raised him from the dead, thou shall be saved 

Observe, again, the difference in respect of language. 
The words just, justify, be justified (dinaios, 
SIKCUOUV, diKaioOadai), nowhere occur in chaps. 9-11, nor 
yet the expression both Jews and Greeks ( loi S. re Kal 
E\\. ), except in 10 12 where apparently it is not original, 
or at least has no meaning after the words for there is 
no distinction (ov yap ZCFTIV diacrroXr}). The words 
1 Israelite and Israel are not met with in 1-8, whilst 
in 9-11 the first occurs thrice and the second eleven 
times. On the other hand, we have Jew nine times 
in 1-3, but only twice in 9-11, and in both cases its 
occurrence seems probably due to the redactor. The 
adoption (vlo0e<ria.), which, according to 815 (cp Gal. 
4 5 Eph. 1 5) is a privilege of all Christians, whether Jews 
or Greeks, recurs in 94 in connection with a supposed 
predestination of Israel as the son of God ; the word is 
the same but it sounds quite differently. In 1-8 Christ 
is seven times called the son of God, and in 9-11 never. 
On the other hand, he is probably called God in 9s but 
nowhere in 1-8. Whilst in 1-8 we find no other form 
of the verb say (tpelv) than shall we say (epoi>}, 
in 9 197^ II 19 we also have thou \\ilt say (epeis) and 
shall the thing say? (#pe?). If the occurrence of the 
expression what then shall we say (rl ovv epovfj.fv) in 
91430, as well as in 4i 61 7 7 831, points to oneness 
of language, it has nevertheless to be noted that in 1-8 
it never, as in 930, is followed by a question, but always 
by a categorical answer. A speaker who says that Israel 
following after a law of righteousness did not arrive at 
[that] law (SiuKtiiv vf>ij.ov diKa.iocrvi ris fi y VO/JLOV OVK 
<f>da.crtv, 931) understands by law (VJ/JLOS) something 
quite different, and at the same time is following a quite 
different use of language, from one who declares that 
the Jew sins under law (twites or iv i>6uy) ; shall be 
judged by law (5id 5/j.ov, 2 12) ; doeth not the things 
of the law (TO, rou vjfj.o\>, 214), is not justified by works 
of law (* | t-pywv v6fj.ov), comes to knowledge of sin 
through law (Sid. i>6fj.ov, 820) and lives under law 
(virb vbfj.ot>, 614). Only the latter is thinking of the 
Mosaic law, about which the former would not speak 
so depreciatingly. In chaps. 9-11, as Steck (Gal. 362) 



justly remarks, a much more superficial use is made of 
the proof from scripture, and the whole representation 
and language is somewhat less delicate, 

The third part of the epistle (12i-15i3) seems to be 
closely connected with that which precedes. Observe 
12 Third lhe tnen (^* : 12 1), and notice how the 
writer harks back to 9-11 in his declaration 
(158) that Christ has been made a minister 
of the circumcision with reference to the promise of 
God, and to 1 i6/I or 118-839 in the same declaration 
supplemented with the statement (log) that Christ 
appeared also that the Gentiles might glorify God for 
his mercy. But the connection when more closely 
examined will be found to lie only mechanical. There 
is no real inward connection. No one expects a 
hortatory passage such as this after 1133-36. Nor yet, 
where some would fain place it, after ch. 8 or ch. 6. 
The exhortations and instructions given in 12i-15i3, 
however we put the different parts together, stand in no 
relation to the preceding argument ; the same holds 
good of the exordium 12i^ Though usual, it is not 
correct to say that Paul first develops his doctrinal 
system 1 18-1136, and then his ethical in 12i-15i3 ; or 
even to say in the modified form of the statement that 
he follows up the doctrinal with an ethical section. 
Exhortations are not wanting in the first part, nor 
doctrines in the last. The truth is that in 1 18-1136 
the doctrinal element is prominent, just as the horta 
tory is in 12 1-15 13. In other words, the two pieces 
are of different character. They betray difference of 
origin. 12i-15i3 is, originally, not a completion of 
1-11, thought out and committed to writing by the 
same person, but rather at least substantially an 
independent composition, perhaps, it may be, as some 
have conjectured, brought hither from another context. 
It has more points of agreement with certain portions of 
the Epistles to the Corinthians than with Rom. 1-11. 
Compare, in general, the manner of writing and the 
nature of the subjects treated. 

In detail, compare such expressions as beseech . . . by 
(TrapaxaAu) . . . 6ia), 1- i, with I Cor. 1 10 2 Cor. 10 i, whereas 
beseech (irapa<coAeu ), however Pauline, is found neither in 
Rom. 1-11 nor in Gal. : the mercies (oiKTipnoC) of God, 12 i, 
with the mercies (oiKTip;iOi) of the Father in 2 Cor. 1 3, but 
nowhere named in Rom. 1-11 ; this age (o aiiav o5ro?) 122, 
with i Cor. 1 20 268 3 is 2 Cor. 44, but not found in Rom. 1-11 ; 
the representation that the Christian can still be renewed by the 
renewing of the mind (avaxaiixaa-tf rov fpos : 122) with the 
assurance that though the outer man perish, that which is 
within us is renewed day by day (6 eo-o> lijjucui [drflpuirros] ovTa.1 ^/u-epf Kal r)fj.fpq, 2 Cor. 4 16) whereas Rom. 1-11 
knows nothing of this renewal, and could hardly have intro 
duced it alongside of its doctrine that the Christian is dead so 
far as sin is concerned (t> 2) so that he now stands in the service 
of newness of spirit (7 6). Compare, again, the assurance that 
God gives to each a measure of faith (exaa-ni) fj.frpoi TriVrecos : 
123) with only, as the Lord has supplied to each (el /JITJ fxaima 
tos fjit^fpiKef, i Cor. 714), according to the measure of the 
province (RVmg., or limit) which God apportioned to us as a 
measure" (icaTa TO fierpov TOV KO.VQVO<;, ov efifpurfv rjjKCf o flebj 
nerpov . 2 Cor. 10 13), and the declaration that not every one 
receives faith through the spirit (i Cor. 129), as also that there 
is a still more excellent way than that implied in the spiritual 
gifts of which faith is one, namely, love (i Cor. 12 31), whereas 
not only are the words apportion (/otepi feu ) and measure 
(li(Tpoi ) unknown to Rom. 1-11, but so also is love (ayairrj) in 
the sense of love to God and one s neighbour, and (equally so) 
a faith (Trams) which is not regarded as the beginning of a new 
life, in comparison with which love is not required simply 
because that and everything else that is needed is already 
possessed where faith is ; the distinction between various 
spiritual gifts (12 6-8)compared with i Cor. 124-11 and 28-30; the 
whole attitude towards self-exaltation (12 3-8) compared with 
i Cor. 4eyC and 1212-30; the exhortations to the practice of 
love, zeal, and purity (129-21 and 188-14) compared with i Cor. 
13; 141-2039 1^58 5 ii Cig-ii 16-20, where, amongst other 
things, the occurrence of cleave (icoAAacrflai) in Rom. 12 9 and 
i Cor. 6 i6_/T, though nowhere else to be found in the Pauline 
epistles, is to be noticed; the occurrence also of taking 
thought for things honourable in the sight of all men (irpoi-oov- 
juei oi KaAa ti iuiriov TrdfTtav avSpunnov . Rom. 1 J 17) as compared 
with the only parallel expression for we take thought for 
things honourable, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in 
the sight of men (jrporoov/itei vap KaAa ov /uidi or evutirioi Kvpiov 
aAAa KOI ii umiov arOptamar . 2 Cor. 821 ; cp Prov. 04); fxf>ei\eiv 
13s used several times also in i and 2 Cor. but never in Rom. 
1-11 ; the special exhortations to subjection to authority and to 



due discharge of one s various obligations (13 1-7) indicative of a 
peaceful environment and hardly in keeping with the persecu 
tions suggested by the closing verses of chap. 8, but on the 
other hand quite in accord with the special admonitions and 
exhortations of i Cor. 1 loff. i> <> i-n 11 2-15, etc. ; what is said 
in chap. 14 regarding the use of certain meats, the observance of 
sacred days, and the respect for the weak, with regard to which 
no word is found in 1-1), but which reminds us throughout of 
i Cor. 8-10, not only by reason of the similarity of such expres 
sions as eat (futiift-v), food (ftpiafia), cause to stumble" 
(<Ticai 6aA(. eti ), a stumbling-block to the brother (7rpoaxoju.jiia 
Tt3 a6eA<>u>), not to eat flesh (/u.) <f>ayeiv Kpe a), etc., but also 
very specially by reason of the agreement in the central thought 
that to the fully developed Christian all things are allowed, but 
that he must give no offence to the weak brother and therefore 
ought rather to act as if he were still in bondage to ancient 
customs and usages. 

The conclusion of the canonical epistle 15 14-! 6 27 
must be accepted, as such, notwithstanding the objec- 
_, IK/- tins urged by Semler, and those who 
13. Unap. 15/. follow him| in rejecting chaps. 15 1(3 as 
not original constituents of the writing sent by Paul to 
the Romans. It nevertheless shows many evidences of 
compilation by the aid of various pieces at the redactor s 
disposal, a process to which reference has already so 
often been made that it seems superfluous to dwell long 
upon it now. Let the reader but observe the discon 
nected character of the five pieces of which ch. 16 con 
sists, each of which either has no relation to the 
preceding, or is in contradiction with it. The recom 
mendation of Phoebe v. i/i hangs in the air. The 
greetings of w. 3-16 presuppose a previous residence 
of Paul at Rome and a circle of acquaintances formed 
there, notwithstanding the positive statements on the 
subject in 18-13 and 1522/i The warning against false 
teachers in vv. 17-20 finds no point of attachment in 
what precedes. The greetings of others in vv. 21-23 
raise unanswered questions, not the least of these being 
those which arise in view of the existence of the already 
complete list in 3-16, and the mention of all the churches 
at the close. The detached character of the doxology 
in vv. 25-27 is shown by the fact that in many MSS it 
occurs after 1423. 

The examples cited, along with others which might 

be adduced (cp van Manen, Paulus, 234-101), show 

. , conclusively that the epistle has been 

JJV 5y "- compiled with the help of previously 

7 1 *iT 1 " existing documents. There are also 
tional theory. 

J other reasons, however, against ac 
cepting the voice of tradition regarding the origin of the 
work. Xow and then the contents themselves reveal 
quite clearly that they cannot be from Paul (ofr. 64 A. n. ), 
so that we have no need to dwell upon the improb 
ability of supposing that Paul, a tentmaker by calling 
and personally unknown to the Christians at Rome, 
addressed to that place an epistle so broad and so deep, 
written in so exalted and authoritative a tone ; nor 
upon the question as to how it was possible that such 
an epistle should, so far as appears, have failed to make 
the slightest impression, whether good or bad, at the 
time, and was doomed to lie for more than half a century 
buried in the archives of the Christian church at Rome 
in impenetrable obscurity, until suddenly it re-emerged 
to light, honoured and quoted as an authority by the 
gnostics ! Kvanson long ago (1792) pointed to the fact 
that the church addressed in it was apparently of long 
standing, and to the silent assumption in lli2i52i/~. 
that the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.n. was a 
thing of the past. As regards the first of these points, 
he compared what is said in Acts and called attention 
to the fact that nothing is there said of any project of 
Paul s to visit Rome before he had been compelled by 
Festus to make appeal to the emperor (2f> 10-12), nor 
yet anything about an Epistle to the Romans or about 
any Christian community of any kind met there by the 
apostle (2811-31). Yet even if we leave Acts out of 
account as being incomplete and not in all respects 
wholly trustworthy, what the epistle itself says and 
assumes with regard to the Christian church at Rome is 
assuredly a good deal more than, in all probability, 



could have been alleged about it at so early a date as 
59 A. D. , tfie year in which it is usually held to have 
been written by Paul. 

The faith of the Roman Church is supposed to be 

known throughout the whole world ; and Paul is 

15. Reflection filled with ** "_ to make its acquaint- 

of latPr ae-P ance ln Order that so he ma > be re - 
:a&e freshed (18 12). The faith of both rests 
on the same foundation. The Christians of Rome are 
Pauline Christians. 

Like him they are justified by faith (5i);. reconciled with 
God (5 u) ; free from the dominion of sin and now in the unin 
terrupted service of God (8 18-22) ; no longer under the law but 
under grace, so that they now live in newnos of spirit and not 
in oldness of the letter (6157 6). They are well acquainted with 
Paulinism. They know it as a definite form of doctrine and 
have fully and freely given their assent to it Ye were servants 
of sin but ye became obedient from the heart to that form of 
teaching whereunto ye were delivered (ijre SoOAoi rf/s a^apTta?, 
vm]KOv<TaTe 8f ex Kap6i as ets oi TrapeSoSr/Tf TVTTOV SiSa^r;? : tj 17). 
It is possible to speak to them without any fear of misunder 
standing, about faith (TTUTTIS) and grace (^opis), righteous 
ness (6nccuocrui T)) and Move" (ayaTrr)), believing (iricrreveti/) 
and being justified (SucaiovcrSai), being justified by faith 
(&LKatov<r9ai ex Trt oTetos) and by works of law (e epyiar I O^iou), 
sinning without law (i/j.apTavei.v arofxcus) and under law 
(eri O/xujs or (v vofiw), being delivered up (TrapafioSrji ai) and 
dying for men (anoOoLveiv virep ai Opuimav), redemption 
(aTroAvTpiotris)) being baptized into Christ (fia.imadi\va.i. ets 
Xptcrroi ), being crucified with [Christ] ((TV<TTavpova8a.i 
[\pirrTfa]) ; living after the flesh (jJVji* Kara crdpica), after the 
spirit (Kara 7ri eup.a), to God (rta 0t<3), in Christ (ev Xpicrrai) ; 
to use such expressions as : for there is no distinction (oi yap 
(<TTIV 6iaaToArj : 3 22) ; but where there is no law neither is 
there transgression (ou 6e OVK f<mv vo/j.o<; ov&f 7rapd/3o.cris : 
4 15) ; but where sin abounded, grace abounded more exceed 
ingly (oC 6e eTr\(6va.<rev r) a^aprta, VTT(pfnepicr<rfv<r(v i] \pis : 
620); to be under law, under grace (cipai VTTO voftov, iiirb 
\api.v . 614); spirit of adoption, Abba, Father (nvevfj-a. 
viotfecri as, A/3(3a 6 wa-njp : 8 15); to throw out such questions as 
these : Whether or not there be with respect to Jews and Greeks 
respect of persons with God (7rpo<r(o7roArjnxi//ia wapa ea> 2n)? 
Has the Jew as such any advantage over the Greek, when both 
have sinned (3 9-20)? In how far does any importance at all still 
attach to circumcision (1225-29)? \Vhat value has the law 
(2 12-29 319-2227-31 7 1-6)? Does faith ever make it void 
(831)? In what sense may we pride ourselves on having 
Abraham to our father (4)? Must we not think that the doctrine 
of grace leads to continuance in sin (<5 1)? Is not the conviction 
that we are not under the law but under grace, conducive to sin 
(615)? Can the law be held responsible for sin because by 
means of the law we were brought to the knowledge of sin 
(7 7)? 

All this is unthinkable at so early a date as the year 

59 A. D. There is, moreover, the one great simple fact 

A rJ 1 q which overrides these considerations, 

ib. A aeveiopea and thrusts them so to speak into the 

background this, namely, that the 
Paulinism with which we are made acquainted in the 
Pauline Epistles, and particularly in that to the Romans, 
is of more recent date than the historical Paul. Com 
pared with what the first disciples of Jesus believed and 
professed, it is not merely a remarkable divergence ; it 
is in point of fact a new and higher development 
from the first Christianity. It presupposes, to speak 
with Loman, a richly developed stage of theological 
thought. It has learned to break with Judaism and to 
regard the standpoint of the law as once for all past 
and done with, substituting in its place that of grace as 
the alone true and valid one. The new life under 
grace stands in sharp antithesis to the old one under 
the law (614). It knows, and it is, a new divine 
revelation ; it has a theology, a christology, and a 
soteriology, which bear witness to a more advanced 
thinking and to a deeper experience of life than could 
possibly have been looked for within the first few years 
after the crucifixion. It is a remarkable forward step, a 
rich and far-reaching reform of the most ancient type of 
Christianity ; now, a man does not become at one and 
the same moment the adherent of a new religion and 
its great reformer. All attempts to escape the difficulty 
so far as Paul is concerned break down in presence of 
the obvious meaning of Gal. 1 11-23 ; as was shown 
years ago by Blom against Straatman (Th.T, 1875, 
1-44). It is of no avail continually to hark back to the 



possibility which, in fact, no one denies of a develop 
ment in Paul s mind during the years th at elapsed 
between his conversion and the writing of his epistles. 
The Paulinism of the epistles in question is, on their 
own showing, in its main features at least (with which 
we are here concerned) as old as the Christian life of 
Paul ; but such a Paulinism is even for thoughtful 
believers in the supernatural inconceivable as having 
come into existence immediately after Paul had become 
a Christian. Let the student read and ponder the sketch 
of Paulinism given by van Manen in Paulus, 2126-140, 
cp 211-217 ! an d in PAUL, 40. 

The kinship of Paulinism (especially in the form in 

which it occurs in the Epistle to the Romans) with 

_. , . gnosis, which has been recognised and 

/ * remarked both by older and by younger 

Witn gnosis. critics _ amongst others by Basilides, 

Marcion, Valentinus, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Holsten, 
Hilgenfeld, Scholten, Heinrici, Pfleiderer, Weizsacker, 
Harnack (cp van Manen, Paulus, 2154-166) leads also 
to the same conclusion : that Paul cannot have written 
this epistle. As to the precise date at which (Christian) 
gnosis first made its appearance there may be some 
measure of uncertainty : whether in the last years of 
Trajan (ob. 117 A.D. ), as is commonly supposed, or 
perhaps some decades earlier ; in no event can the date 
be carried back very far, and certainly not so far back 
as to within a few years of the death of Jesus. With 
regard to this it is not legitimate to argue, with Baljon 
(Gescft. 77), that in the Pauline gnosis no doctrine of a 
demiurge, no theory of aeons is found. It is years 
since Harnack (/?(/(-) 1196-7) rightly showed that the 
essence of the matter is not to be looked for in such 
details as these. 

In addition to the assumed acquaintance (already re 
marked on) of the readers of the epistle with the Pauline 
_,, . gospel, there are other peculiarities that 
V 1 t 81 ns indicate the church addressed as one of 
01 later age. ]ong stanc ji ng . it is acquainted with 
various types of doctrine (617). It can look back upon 
its conversion as an event that had taken place a con 
siderable time ago (13 n). It has need of being stirred 
up to a renewal of its mind (122) and of many other 
exhortations (12-14). It has in its midst high-minded 
persons whose thoughts exalt themselves above the 
measure of faith given them (12s). It does not seem 
superfluous to remind them that each belongs to the 
other as members of one body endowed with differing 
gifts. There are prophets, ministers, teachers, ex- 
horters, givers, rulers, and those who show mercy, and 
it appears to be necessary that each should be reminded 
of what he ought to do or how he ought to behave. 
The prophet must keep within the limits of the faith 
that has been received, and be careful to speak according 
to the proportion of that faith (/caret TTJV dvaXoyiav rijs 
iriareus, 126) ; the minister, the teacher, and the exhorter 
must each busy himself exclusively with the work 
entrusted to him ; the giver must discharge his task 
with simplicity, the ruler his with diligence ; he that 
shows mercy is to do so with cheerfulness (124-8). The 
mutual relations must be considered anew and carefully 
regulated, both in general (129-21 138-io), and, in 
particular, with respect to the special necessities of 
the saints, the duty of hospitality, the attitude to be 
maintained towards persecutors (12 12 Jf.), the public 
authority, and the fulfilment of the duties of citizenship 
(ISi-y). A vigorous exhortation to vigilance and an 
earnest warning against revellings and drunkenness, 
chambering and wantonness, strife and envy, are not 
superfluous (1811-14). There are weak ones in the 
faith, who avoid the use of wine and flesh (14 if. 21); 
others who hold one day holy above others, and as 
regards their food consider themselves bound by obsolete 
precepts regarding clean and unclean (14s_/I 14 /. 20). 
Others again who regard all these things with lofty 
disdain, making no distinction between clean and 



unclean food, deeming that they are free to eat and 
drink as they choose, and that all days are alike ; but 
these, just because of the freedom they rejoice in, give 
offence to many brethren and are the cause of their 
moral declension (14s/. 131520-23). These divergent 
practices have already continued for so long that the 
writer, so far as the first two (wine and flesh, clean and 
unclean) are concerned, is in perplexity between them 
himself, and has no other plan than to raise himself 
above them all in order to urge a general point of 
view a genuinely catholic one of give and take," 
in which the principle of freedom is recommended and 
its application urged in the fine maxims : let no one give 
offence, let each one be fully persuaded in his own 
mind, all that is not of faith is sin (14s 13 23). 

The church is exposed to persecution ; it suffers with 
Christ. It has need of comfort. What is said in this 
connection cannot be explained from any circumstances 
at Rome known to us before Nero and the time of the 
great fire in 64. It points rather to later days when 
Christians were continually exposed to bloody persecu 
tions. See 5 3-5 817-39 12 12 14. 

One decisive proof that in our epistle we are listening 
to the voice of one who lived after the death of Paul in 
64 A. D. is to be found in the manner in which the question 
of the rejection of Israel is handled in chaps. 9-11. That 
question could not thus occupy the foreground or bulk 
so largely in the minds of Christian writers and readers 
as long as Jerusalem was still standing, and there was 
nothing to support the vague expectation of its 
approaching overthrow which some entertained. The 
allusions to the great events of the year 70, the over 
throw of the Jewish commonwealth, and the expectations 
which connected themselves with this event are mani 
fest. Any one who will read what is said, particularly 
in 11 11-22, about the downfall of the Jews (rb irapd- 
wTwu.a avru>v), about the branches that have been broken 
off (e^K\a.ff6-riffa.v K\dSoi) and the cutting off (diroTOfiia) 
which has come upon those who are fallen (^TTI TOI)S 
TrecnWas), can be under no misapprehension on this 

If we now sum up the points that have been touched 
on in 6-18, we need have no hesitation in deciding 
that the arguments are convincing : 
our canonical Epistle to the Romans is 
not what it seems to be, not a letter written by the 
apostle and sent to a definite church ; it is a tractate, 
a book, designed to be read aloud at Christian meetings, 
a piece to be read in Church (kirchliches Vorlesungs- 
stiick), or homily, as Spitta (Zur Gesch. 3 59) has 
phrased it. It is a book written in the form of a letter, 
not written after the kind of preparation with which we 
write our books, but compiled rather in a very peculiar 
manner by use of existing written materials wherein the 
same subjects were treated in a similar or at least not 
very divergent way. We can best form some conception 
of the method followed here by studying the text of one 
of the synoptical gospels with an eye to the method in 
which it was presumably composed ; or by tracing in 
detail the manner in which such authors as the writer of 
the present epistle make use of the OT. They quote 
from its words alternately verbatim and freely, often, 
too, without any reference to the OT context, so that 
we can trace the question only by comparison of the 
text we possess which has been wholly or partly 
followed (cp van Manen, Paulus, 2217-9). 

The study of the epistle from the point of view of its 
probable composition, enables us to distinguish what 
treatises or portions of treatises were probably made use 
of before the text came into existence in its present form. 
In this way the work as a whole makes us acquainted 
with underlying views then prevalent, and accepted or 
controverted by our author on the universality of sin 
and its fatal consequences (1 18-820); on righteousness 
by faith (821-31); on the connection between this and 
Abraham as father of the faithful (4); the fruits of 


19. Conclusion. 


justification (5) ; three objections against Paulinism (61-14 
6 15-76 77-25); the glories of the new life in Christ (8); 
the rejection of the Jews (9-11); what is the duty of 
Christians towards God and man generally, and towards 
the weak and the principles held by them in particular 
(12 1-15 13). Such views, however greatly they may 
vary in purpose and scope, all belong to one main 
direction, one school of thought, the Pauline. We 
give them this name because we gain our best and 
most comprehensive acquaintance with the school from 
the epistles of Paul, just as we speak of the Johan- 
nine School and the Johannine tendency, although we 
know nothing about the connection between the school 
or tendency on the one side, and the well-known 
apostolic name connected with it on the other. To 
suppose that the school originated from the historical 
Paul, as was formerly maintained by Steck, is possible ; 
but the supposition finds no support in any historical 
facts with which we are acquainted (cp Paulus, 2 222-227). 
What is certain, at any rate, is that the canonical 
epistle is not by Paul. A writing that is so called, but 
_, ,, on closer examination is seen to be no 

20. 1 e aut or. e p istle j., ut rat h er a compilation, in 

which, moreover, are embedded pieces that plainly 
show their origin in a later time, cannot possibly be 
attributed to the ^apostle of the Gentiles. In this 
connection, however, it is inappropriate to speak of 
deception or forgery or pious fraud. There is not the 
slightest reason for supposing that our author had the 
faintest intention of misleading his readers, whether 
contemporaries or belonging to remote posterity. He 
simply did what so many others did in his day ; he 
wrote something in the form (freely chosen) of a tractate, 
a book, or an epistle, under the name of some one 
whom he esteemed or whose name he could most 
conveniently and best associate with his work, without 
any wrong intention or bad faith, because he belonged 
or wished to be thought to belong, to the party or 
school which was wont to rally under his master s 
standard. His own name remained unknown ; but his 
nom de plume was preserved and passed from mouth to 
mouth wherever his work was received and read. 
What reason was there for inquiring and searching 
after his real name if the work itself was read, quoted, 
copied, and circulated with general approval ? The 
work might bear evidence of the artist so far as con 
cerned person, surroundings, sufferings. In this case, 
according to the epistle, he was a Christian, one of the 
Pauline School, a polished and educated man with a 
heart full of zeal for the religious needs of humanity : a 

01 TT- *i. j Paulinist, however, of the right wing. 

21. His method. ,-. , , r , ., _, 

He raises himself above the different 

shades of opinion which he knows so well by letting them 
find alternate expression, by letting the voice now of the 
one and now of the other be heard. He gives utterance 
to words so sharply explicit as these : by the works of 
the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight (820); now 
are we delivered from the law wherein we were held 
(76); but also to other words, so friendly in their tone 
as regards the very same law : not the hearers . . . 
but the doers of the law shall be justified (2 13) ; the 
law is holy, spiritual (71214). He asseverates that 
there is no distinction between Jew and Greek (3 22); 
that there is with God no acceptance of persons (2n); 
and that the privileges of the Jew are many (3i/. ); 
that Israel is in a very special way the people of God 
(^4/. 11 1). He says that to be a son of Abraham after 
the flesh signifies nothing (4 i_/!), and that to be of the 
seed of Abraham is a specially great privilege (Hi). 
He recognises at one time that the wrath of God is now 
manifest upon the sins of men (Ii8), and at another 
that this is yet to come (2 5-8). He speaks of it as a 
matter of experience that the Christian has broken with 
sin for good and has become a wholly new creature 
(5 1-7 6 and 8), and also lays down a quite different 
doctrine to the effect that he is still sold under sin, 



continually doing the thing he would not, and he longs 
for emancipation from the body (7 7-25). He embraces 
the doctrine of a redemption of man from a power 
hostile to God on the ground of the love of the father 
(824 5 1 8332), and with this he associates the thought 
of an atoning sacrifice on behalf of the sinner offered to 
God by Christ in his blood (825). Paul is to him the 
called apostle of the Gentiles (11513^. 15i6i8); but 
also warmly attached to the Jews and ready to do 
everything for them (9 1-3 10 i Hi); in possession of 
the first fruits of the spirit, always working in the 
power of God s spirit, but also in the manner of the 
original apostles in the power of signs and wonders 
(15 19). He recognises Jesus as God s son, who has 
appeared in the likeness of sinful flesh (83 32) ; but he 
also says that he is of Israel according to the flesh (9s), 
and that he was first exalted to the dignity of divine 
sonship by his resurrection (Is/. 1612). He speaks 
with the same facility of Jesus, Jesus Christ, and 
our Lord Jesus Christ as he speaks of Christ and 
Christ Jesus. For him all distinction in the use of 
these various designations has practically disappeared. 
Not seldom do we find him affirming and denying on 
the same page. He knows how to give and take, when 
to evade arguments, and when to meet them. Already 
we perceive in him something of the catholic spirit 
which rises above the strife of parties ; \vhich serves the 
truth and promotes the unity of believers, by siding 
now with the right wing, now with the left, by gliding 
over thorny points, and boldly thrusting difficulties aside. 

As for origin, he was probably a Greek. He thinks 
in Greek, speaks Greek, and seems to have used no 
,, TT- . . other books than those which he could 
rlgm - have consulted in Greek (cp Paulus, 
2186-190). His home we can place equally well in the 
E. or in the W. In the E. , and particularly in 
Antioch or elsewhere in Syria, because Paulinism 
probably had its origin there. The catholic strain, on 
the other hand, within the limits of the Pauline move 
ment, seems rather to have proceeded from Rome. 
The possibility is not excluded that the main portions 
of the letter, or if you will, of a letter, to the Romans, 
were written in the E. , and that the last touches were 
put to it in Rome or elsewhere in the W. ; in other 
words, that it was there that the epistle took the final 
form in which we now know it. There is a consider 
able number of writings which passed over from the 
hands of the Gnostics into those of catholic -minded 
Christians, and in the transition were here and there 
revised and corrected, brought into agreement, some 
what more than appeared in their original form, with 
the prevailing type of what was held to be orthodox 
(cp Lipsius, Apokr. Ap.-gesch. 1883-1887 ; Usener, 
Rel.-gesch. Unters. 1, 1889; van Manen, Paulus, 

The author has not given us the date of his work, 
and we can guess it only approximately. Broadly 

_. , speaking, we may say, not earlier than the 
. iia e. end of {he firs( . nor later than the ^ddie 

of the second century. Not before the end of the 
first century, because after the death of Paul (about 
64 A.D. ) time enough must be allowed to admit of 
epistles being written in his name as that of a highly 
placed and authoritative exponent of Christianity,- the 
representative, not to say the father, of Paulinism, a 
forward-reaching spiritual movement, a deeply penetrat 
ing and largely framed reform of that oldest Christianity 
which embodied the faith and expectations of the first 
disciples of Jesus after the crucifixion. Paulinism in 
this sense certainly did not come into existence until 
after the downfall of the Jewish state in 70 A. D. , and 
if we consider its kinship with gnosticism, and various 
other features which it shows surely not before the end 
of the first, or the beginning of the second, century. 
On the other side, we may venture to say, not later 
than the middle of the second century. Clement of 



Alexandria, Tertullian, Irenreus, use thebook towards the 
end of that century, and we may be sure did not hold 
it for a recent composition. So also Theophilus ad 
Autolvcum, 814, who about 180 A.u. cited Rom. 13?/! 
as divine word (Oetoj \&yos), Basilides (125), and 
Marcion, who made his appearance at Rome in 138, 
knew the epistle as an authoritative work of the apostle. 
Aristides (125-126), James (130), i Peter (130-140) in 
like manner show acquaintance with the epistle. Various 
circumstances combined justify the supposition that it 
was written probably about 120 A. D. , whilst some 
portions of it in their original form may be regarded as 
somewhat earlier (cp Paulas, 2296-303 8312-315). 

If, in conclusion, we are met by the question, What 
is the value of the writing when one can no longer 
_. . regard it as an epistle of Paul to the 
. a ue. Romans -> j t must never be forgotten 
that the incisiveness of its dialectic, the arresting 
character of certain of its passages, the singular power 
especially of some of its briefer utterances and out 
pourings of the heart, the edifying nature of much of 
the contents, remain as they were before. The religious 
and ethical value, greater at all times than the testhetic, 
is not diminished. The historical value, on the other 
hand, is considerably enhanced. True, we no longer 
find in it, what we were formerly supposed to find, 
the interesting (though in large measure not well 
understood) writing of the apostle, written, in the days of 
his activity among the Gentiles, to a church which was 
personally unknown to him. But what have we in its 
place ? A book of great significance for our knowledge 
of the ancient Christianity that almost immediately 
succeeded the apostolic (the Christianity of the disciples 
of Jesus in the years that followed his death). There is 
no work from Christian antiquity that contributes more 
largely to our knowledge of Paulinism (whether in its 
first form a form in which it has not reached us in 
any deliberate writing or in its subsequent develop 
ment) in its strength as an inspiring directory for 
conduct, and in the richness and depth of its religious 
thought and experience. 

N T o serious efforts to defend the genuineness of the 
epistle have as yet ever been attempted. Those offered 
25 Defenders casuallv and in Passing, as it were, 
Of genuineness, ^ly (as for example in Meyer- Weiss, 
Komm.W, 1899, 33-34, and in S. David 
son, Introd.^, 1894, 117-119, 150-2) on the so-called 
external evidence. That is to say, its defenders rely on 
what is excellent proof of the existence of the epistle at 
the time when it was cited, or what clearly presupposes 
an acquaintance with it, but is of no significance what 
ever when the question is whether the work was in 
reality written by the individual who from the first was 
named as its author. This the Tubingen school have 
long perceived ; Baur also did not rely on such argu 
ments. Instead of doing so he thus expressed himself 
(Paulus 1C- 1 , 1866, 276) : 

Against these four epistles (Rom. , i and 2 Cor. , Gal.) not only 
has even the slightest suspicion of spuriousness never been 
raised, but in fact they bear on their face the mark of Pauline 
originality so uncontestably that it is impossible to imagine by 
what right any critical doubt could ever possibly assert itself 
regarding them. 

The utterance, it will be observed, wholly ignores 
Evanson, 1792, and of course also Bruno Bauer, who did 
not publish his criticism till 1851 ; but it also ignores 
the view taken by so many, including F. C. von Baur 
himself, who have vied with one another in the dis 
integration of the epistle, as also the possibility that 
yet others at a later date might perceive what Baur 
himself had not observed ; nor yet does it take account 
of the unsatisfactoriness of any assertion (however 
plausible it may sound) as to the originality of Paul, 
whom after all we know only by means of the picture 
that has been constructed with the aid of those very 
epistles with regard to which we wish to inquire whether 
they really were written by him. Nothing therefore is 



added to the argument when a countless host of others 
since Baur are never weary of repeating that even the 
Tubingen school have raised no doubts as to the 
genuineness. The observation is correct, it is true. 
Only they forget to add : nor yet have they offered 
proofs that it is genuine. 

Meyer- Weiss, S. Davidson, and others remain equally 
sparing of their arguments even after the criticism of a 
later date has made its voice heard. They put it aside 
with a single word. Weiss, with a reference to a 
Parody, by C. Hesedamm, Der Romerbrief beurtheilt 
u. geviertheilt, 1891. Davidson, with the observation 
that the genuineness, apart from the conclusive testi 
mony of witnesses, is fully guaranteed by internal 

The internal character of the epistle and its historical allusions 
coincide with the external evidence in proving it an authentic 
production of the apostle. It bears the marks of his vigorous 
mind ; the language and style being remarkably characteristic. 

He omits, however, to tell us how he knows that 
anything is a production, not to say an authentic 
production of the apostle ; nor yet how he has obtained 
his knowledge of the mind of Paul ; nor yet why it is 
impossible for a pseudonymous author to have any 
characteristic language and style. 

Harnack (ACL ii. 1 [1897] p. vii) considers himself 
absolved from going into the investigation until the 
representatives of the newer criticism shall have rigor 
ously carried out the task incumbent on them of working 
out everything pertaining to the subject afresh. 

Jiilicher (Einl., 1894, p. 17, igoi* 2 ), p. 19) once and 
again resorted to a severe attack on hypercriticism and 
pseudocriticism, and subsequently proceeded, in deal 
ing with the Epistle to the Romans, as if nobody had 
ever at any time argued against its genuineness. 

Sanday and Headlam (Comm. , 1895, pp. 85-98) 
discuss exhaustively the integrity of the epistle, especi 
ally as regards chaps. 15-16, but say little about the 
history of the question of genuineness. They cursorily 
dismiss some of the objections without showing that 
they have really grasped their proper significance. 
Counter-arguments are practically not heard. So also 
in other commentaries whose authors had heard any 
thing about the newer criticism referred to. Holsten 
( Krit. Briefe lib. die neueste paulin. Hypothese in 
Prot. Kirchenztg., 1889), Pfleiderer (PaulinismusM, 
1890), Holtzmann (Einl.W, 1892), Lipsius (//C< 2) , 1892, 
pp. 83/1 ), and others, made some general observations in 
favour of the genuineness that had been called in question. 
But these discussions were little more than insignificant 
affairs of outposts ; no real battle was delivered nor 
even any serious attack prepared. 

Then came Zahn (Einl.C^, 1900, Is) with his censure 
on his comrades in arms against the Tubingen school for 
their error in having defended indeed the genuineness of 
the epistles rejected by Baur, but not that of the 
principal epistles, although Baur and his disciples 
had never so much as even attempted any proof for the 
positive part of their results. Forthwith he addressed 
himself to the long postponed task. He gave some half- 
dozen general observations (pp. 112-116) not differing in 
substance from those which had already been made ; re 
ferred to the various particular investigations to be made 
in a later part of the work, including the detailed treat 
ment of the Epistle to the Romans (pp. 251-310) where 
31 full pages are devoted to the subject of the integrity 
and not a single word to the question of genuineness. 

Baljon ( Gesch. , 1901) perceived that something more 
than this was necessary to put the newer criticism to 
silence, if it was wrong. But what he wrote with this 
end in view was neither (as might have been expected) 
a confutation of the objections urged, nor yet an argu 
ment for the genuineness at least as solid and good as 
(in intention at all events) that made on behalf of Philip- 
pians, but simply a couple of pages (pp. 97-100) 
devoted to the history of the newer criticism and a few 
observations upon the objections urged by van Manen. 


So far as appears, no one has as yet addressed him 
self to the task of an orderly scientific discussion of the 
arguments on the other side, or to an effective setting 
forth of the arguments on behalf of the genuineness. 

Good commentaries though all, it may be remarked, written 
from the point of view of an undisputed and therefore 

indisputable genuineness are those of B. 
26. Literature. Weiss (6) (= Meyer- WeusW), 1899, R. A. 

Lipsius (//CC- I, 1892), W. Sanday and A. C. 
Headlam (Int. Crit. Comm. 1895). They all take account 
of their important predecessors (see Weiss 39-43, Lipsius 
vii-viii, Sanday xcviii-cix), amongst whom are Origen (at. 254), 
Chrysostom (eb. 407), Melanchthon (1560), Calvin (1564), Grotius 
(1645), Tholuck(i877), Riickert (1839)12), j. G. Reiche (1833-34), 
C. F. A. Fritzsche (1836-43), van Hengel (1854-59), de Wette 
(i847)c tl ; as also of the works of H. Alford (ob. 1871), B. Jowett 
(1855, 1859)121, C. A. Vaughan (i8 74 )r>, W. Kelly (1873), F. 
Godet (1879, ET 1881), G. Volkmar (1875). Cp H. J. Holtzmann, 

P. mi die Romer (1901) ; A. D. Loman, Quaest. Paulinje, Th. T 
(1882) ; R. Steck, Gal. (1888), 154-161, 359-363, 374-382, W. C. 
van Manen, I aulus II. : De brief aan de Rom. (1891). 

W. C. v. M. 


Not founded by Peter and Paul Age ( 10-12). 

(i/). Character ; ( 13-16). 

Not by Peter alone ( 3). Constitution and government 
Not by Paul ( 4-7). ( I 7 /.). 

Origin among Jews in Rome Influence and importance 

( %/) (8 I9.A 

Bibliography ( 21). 

The earliest period of the Christian community in 

Rome is wrapped in impenetrable obscurity. Tradition 

p + Pi attributes its founding to the joint 

* i C f labours of the apostles Peter and Paul, 

tradition, r^, , 

This tradition, however, is unworthy 

of our confidence. It is comparatively recent. The 
oldest traces of its existence do not go back farther 
than to the close of the second century. 

According to a notice in Eusebius (HE ii. 25 8), Dionysius 
of Corinth, about the year 170 A.D. , or somewhat later (see 
OLD CHRISTIAN LITERATURE, 31), wrote to the Romans as 
follows : So also by this so weighty admonition [of yours] the 
allusion is to the epistle of the Romans to the Corinthians 
(=iClem.) ye have brought together [anew] that planting 
[aforetime] made by Peter and Paul, of the [churches of the] 
Romans and of the Corinthians. For, indeed, these two both 
planted us in our Corinth and likewise taught us ; in like 
manner also after having taught together in Italy they suffered 
martyrdom about the same time [not necessarily, of course, at 
the same hour, or on the same day, the same month, or even the 
same year] (TO.VTO. (tal tr^teis Sta. TTJS TOCTOVTTJS i-ouflecri as TTJV airb 
TTeTpou xai llauAou (fivreiav ytvrjSeicrai Vw^aiiav re /cal Koptf- 
Oiuiv trvi SKepdcraTf. (tal yap aju.<?><" (tal el? rr)t rfftfT^O-v Kopn dov 

$UTfUCntl TeS Tfiia? 6/UOt bJ? eOLOOL^O.1 . OjUOUOS 6e (fal 61? T~I]V I raAiai 

6/iotre 6i<5aai Tes e^iapTVprj<rai> Kara rov avrov (taipoi-). Here the 
planting or founding of the churches, alike of Rome and of 
Corinth, is clearly recognised to have been the work of the 
apostles Peter and Paul. It is of no avail to say with Sanday 
and Headlam (Comm. p. xxrx) that the planting referred to 
(4>vTfvav ; cp i Cor. 3 bffi 9 7) is not to be taken in the sense of 
first foundation. We are not responsible for what Dionysius 
says ; but we are under obligation to understand it in the sense 
in which he meant it. 

The same remark holds good with reference to Irenseus when 
he speaks of the church at Rome as having been founded and 
constituted by the two very glorious apostles Peter and Paul" 
( a gloriosissimis duobus apostolis Petro et Paulo Romae 
fundata et constituta, iii. 3 i). These two, subsequently spoken 
of as the blessed apostles, 1 the same authority (about 180 A.D.) 
goes on to state, after having founded and built up the church, 
handed over the government to Linus (0ejueAiw<rai/Te? our (cat 
otKoSofXTJcrarTes ot /uiaKaptoi aTrooToAot Tt]V fKK\Y)o~ia.v AtVa> Tf]V 
Trjs f-n-KTKOTrfj ; \fiTovpyiaiV ei exei picrai , iii. 82 ; Eus. HEv. 6 i). 
In Eus. HEv. 82 he tells us that Matthew wrote a gospel for 
the Hebrews in their own tongue whilst Peter and Paul were 
preaching the Gospel at Rome and founding the church (TOU 
TTeVpou (cal TOU ITauAou eu Pii/ar) evayyeAicJbiu.eVtoi (tat Oefie- 

These clear testimonies, however, to the founding of 

the church of Rome by Peter and Paul however un- 

_ ., , hesitatingly they may have been accepted 

trustworthy. an ^ bl ? t u P on in later . tim f ~*\ e ne 
J and all quite unworthy of credence. 

Xot only are they relatively recent and obviously framed 
in accordance with a settled policy of glorifying the 



unity of the church as having been manifest even in its 
oldest communities ; what is more to the point, they 
are at variance with older representations, whether we 
receive these with absolute confidence or not, of the 
course of events connected with the founding of a 
Christian community in Rome. 

Ignatius," in his epistle to the Romans (4 3), written about the 
middle of the second century (see OLD-CHRISTIAN LITERATURE, 
2&y.), indeed mentions Peter and Paul as known and 
influential teachers of the church he is addressing, but says 
nothing as to their having founded it. The church of Rome 
itself speaks by the mouth of Clement in the First Epistle to 
the Corinthians, dating from about the year 140 A.D. (see OLD- 
CHRISTIAN LITERATURE, 23-26), of Peter and Paul as known 
witnesses to the truth (i Clem. 63-7), but not as founders of the 
church. Acts is not aware of any labours of Peter and Paul 
carried out in common at Rome. From 2817-28 it might seem 
to be a possible inference that Paul was the first to speak about 
Christianity to the leading Jews there ; but of Peter there is no 
word in this connection. Just as little is Peter mentioned in 
the canonical epistle to the Romans, even in conjunction with 
Paul when this apostle is speaking of his desire to become 
acquainted with the Christians of the metropolis, whose faith is 
everywhere spoken of, and whom he hopes ere long to be able 
to meet (13-15 1622-2428^/7 10 19). Indeed, the arrangements 
between Paul on the one hand, and James, Cephas, and John 
on the other, according to Gal. 2 9, we to the Gentiles and they 
to the circumcision (^/ueis eis ra eOn;, avrol e eis Tt\v 
wepirn/jirjf), do not lead us to expect to find in epistles of Paul 
any word of co-operation between Peter and Paul in the found 
ing of individual churches. What is related as to this at a 
later date with regard to Rome cannot hold good in presence of 
the assurance given us by the Epistle to the Romans, whether 
by Paul himself or by an anonymous author using his name, 
that at Rome there was a considerable Christian community 
before Paul could possibly have been able to speak a single 
word there. 

Matters do not stand much better with the belief 
held absolutely for many centuries, called in question 
_ . , at the Reformation, and again at 

tradition. I later perio ? maintain f d b y n > r 
Protestants also according to which 

the church of Rome was founded by Peter alone. This 
tradition also deserves no credence, whether in the 
form which represents Peter as having been bishop of 
Rome for twenty-five years after the founding of the 
church, or in the simpler form which merely conjectures 
that the apostle may have contributed something to the 
formation and extension of the church, or at least in 
later years may have visited it for a shorter or longer 
period. The founding of the church by Peter is ex 
cluded by the silence of Ignatius and Clement on the 
subject, and still more by the evidence of Acts, Gala- 
tians, and Romans. Not only do they say nothing 
positive to this effect ; they make it perfectly clear that 
from the point of view of their respective authors such 
a thing is not to be thought of. Acts closes its account 
of Peter in 12 17 with the words, and he departed, and 
went to another place (/ecu O-eXQ&v eTropevOi) els irepov 
rliwov], and in the rest of the book Peter s name is 
only once again mentioned, and in a different con 
nection (15 6-20), where he is represented as again in 
Jerusalem. In view of this passage 12 17 cannot be 
understood as referring to a journey to Rome for any 
lengthened period, not to speak of a period of five and 
twenty years. Neither, however, can we understand a 
visit to Rome of shorter duration, such as Harnack (A CL 
2 1 [1897], 240-244, 704-710) still, with many, regards 
as probable, not even with the aid of the assumption 
that the contents of Acts 15 were taken from another 
source than that from which Luke derived his other 
Statements regarding Peter in Acts 1-12. The words 
quoted do not of course say that we are to think of a 
mere visit whether to Rome or to any other place. 
They are quite clearly intended merely to indicate that 
the author does not propose to follow the fortunes of 
Peter further : and going his way, he journeyed to 
another place. To understand Rome as intended 
here becomes possible only after one has learned other 
where, rightly or wrongly, to speak of a sojourn of the 
apostle in the metropolis. Acts says nothing of this, 
and plainly presupposes rather the exact opposite, since 



chap. 15 alluded to Peter as again in Jerusalem, and 
28 17-28, speaking of Paul s meeting with Jews at Rome, 
leaves no room for the supposition that Peter had 
preceded him there as a preacher of Christianity. 
Galatians knows no residence of Peter other than 
Antioch ( 2 11-21) apart from Jerusalem where, accord 
ing to 1 18 2 i-io, he seems to have his home, an agree 
ment that he is to address himself to the circumcision 
being expressly mentioned. Romans knows of Chris 
tians in Rome; refers to their conversion from Judaism 
and heathendom, their fidelity to the Pauline type of 
doctrine once received (Oiy), and the spiritual bond 
subsisting between them, or many of them, and Paul; 
but has not a word to say about any connection, whether 
of long or short duration, between them and the apostle 
Peter, and does not even so much as mention his name. 
The writer, whoever he may have been, it has been 
rightly remarked, has no acquaintance with any tradition 
which represented Peter as having been the founder of 
the Roman Church. His declaration made in 15 iof. 
that he, Paul, would not build upon another man s 
foundation, however inconsistent with the desire ex 
pressed in 18-15 and 1022-2429, wholly excludes it. 
Especially so as soon as by the word another we under 
stand, as is usually the case, an apostle in this instance 

It is, in fact, improbable that Peter ever set foot in 
Rome. The later traditions regarding this, including 
those handed down by Eusebius, have no claim to our 
acceptance, as has often been convincingly shown by 
many scholars (and recently by C. Clemen, Preuss. 
Jahrb., 1901, pp. 404-417, and C. Erbes, /.tschr. f. A ir- 
chengesch., 1901, pp. 1-47, 161-231). They possess no 
higher value than those relating to Thomas s preaching 
to the Parthians, Andrew s to the Scythians, John s in 
Asia Minor. When Eusebius, immediately afterwards 
(iii. 3 2, cp ii. 25s), gives expression to the conjecture 
that Peter preached to the Jews of the dispersion in 
Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Asia, before 
his crucifixion (head downwards) at Rome, he attributes 
to him, obviously with his eye on i Pet. 1 1, a career 
which he himself could not possibly reconcile with the 
details that he gives elsewhere. According to iii. 862, 
Peter was for some time bishop of Antioch before Igna 
tius; according to ii. 2."> 8 he was, along with Paul, 
founder of the churches of Corinth and Rome ; accord 
ing to ii. 146, the powerful opponent of Simon Magus 
at Rome in the reign of Claudius (41-54 A.n.) ; accord 
ing to vi. 25 8, the rock upon which the church of Christ 
is built, and the author of two epistles. 

A reference to i Pet. 1 i, though often made in con 
junction with 5 13, is of no avail to support the view that 
Peter at some time or other had indeed made a stay, 
longer or shorter, in Rome. There need, indeed, be no 
hesitation, not even in presence of the objections of 
Erbes, 1 to see in she that is in Babylon, elect together 
with [you] (TI Iv BafivXuvi <rvvK\eKr^, i Pet. 5 13) an allu 
sion to the church in Rome. In i Pet., however, it is 
not Peter himself who is speaking, but an unknown 
author writing in the first half of the second century, 


is the exponent of a tradition, not met with elsewhere, 
regarding Peter as apostle in a portion of the countries 
of Asia Minor where Paul also had laboured, and at the 
same time of the other widely spread tradition that Peter 
had his home in Rome. Acts, Galatians, and Romans, 
so far as we can see, are not yet acquainted with this 
latest tradition. Even i Clem., written professedly by 
the church of Rome, and probably, in point of fact, 
originating there, says nothing of a sojourn of Peter in 
Rome. The writer assuredly would not have passed it 
over in silence when speaking of Peter s glorious past in 

1 Op cit., below, 16-20. Erbes once more seeks to plead for a 
sojourn of Peter among the Jews in Babylon, unless perhaps 
we are to understand Jerusalem. 



chap. 5, or treating of the life-work of the apostles in 
chaps. 42 and 44, if he had known anything of it. 
Hermas and Justin, both of them witnesses belonging to 
the Roman circle, are similarly silent as to aught that 
Peter may be supposed to have done, said, or endured 

There are, then, as regards Peter s going to Rome, 
and as regards his journeyings as a whole, traditions 
which, in part, are mutually exclusive and in no case 
admit of being combined together into one consistent 
whole. The older ones do not imply the supposed fact 
of the church of Rome having been founded by Peter; 
they have no knowledge of it, or even bear witness 
against it by making statements which cannot be har 
monised with it. Acts, Galatians, Romans, i Clem., 
undoubtedly come chiefly into consideration here. On 
the same side there fall to be grouped other NT testi 
monies to the martyrdom of Peter, and, more precisely, 
his crucifixion, drawn from very old, if not the oldest, 
traditions relating to the careers of the apostles, though 
without mention of the place where this violent death 
occurred. See Jn. 21 18-22 (cp 1836) Mt. 10 5 / 16-18 
22-33 283439 24 9 14 Mk. 189-13 Lk. 24 47 Acts 18. 
Within the circle of these ancient witnesses we can safely 
say apart, if you will, from i Pet. 1 1 513 of all those 
in the NT, to which also may be added that of the apos 
tolic fathers, that not a single word or even the remotest 
hint is found in them as to a sojourn, whether of long or 
of short duration, of Peter in Rome, whilst, in fact, more 
than one of them, by implicit or explicit declaration, are 
irreconcilably at variance with any such supposition. 
Rather does everything plead for the view that Peter 
never visited Rome, but worked continuously in Pales 
tine occasionally, perhaps, outside its limits, but never 
very far off and that there, it may well have been in 
Jerusalem, somewhere about 64 A.D. under Sabinus, 1 
or, at all events, some years before the destruction of the 
temple and city in 70 A.D., he died a martyr s death. 
[See, further, SIMON PETER.] 

What remains of the late tradition as to the founding 

of the church of Rome by Peter and Paul conjointly 

does not need any careful scrutiny after 

*. . a . the name of Peter has been eliminated. 

At n: a We are not in that event> shut up to 
the alternative : if not by Peter and 

Paul together, then probably by Paul alone. This is 
nowhere said in any tradition so far as known to us. 
Tradition seems rather to have followed this course : 
since it is impossible that Paul can have founded the 
church along with Peter, his name must not be thought 
of in connection with the founding at all. Acts and 
Pauline Epistles, writings frequently read in a large cir 
cle, indicated this. 

Acts knows of no Christian church at Rome at a date 
prior to a possible foundation by Paul after he had 
proclaimed the glad tidings to the Jews assembled at 
his lodging (28 17-31). In 28 15, indeed, we read of 
the brethren who came from Rome to Appii Forum 
and the Three Taverns to meet Paul, and it is no 
doubt usual to regard these as having been Chris 
tians, but on no adequate grounds. They are, to judfe 
from w. 17-28, Jews, just as Roman Jews (v. 21) call 
their kinsmen in Judaea the brethren. They are 
amazed at Paul s plans, and declare as distinctly as 
possible in v. 22 that up to that hour they had heard 
nothing of this sect i.e., of the Christians beyond 
the mere name. All this is in perfect agreement with 
the current representation in Acts, according to which 
Paul in his journeyings invariably first addressed 
himself to the Jews and thereafter to the Gentiles 
with a view to proceeding to the setting up of a 
Christian community, whether composed entirely of 
converted Gentiles, or partly also of former Jews (cp 
13 46 and 13-28 passim). The view that by the 
brethren* of Rome, alluded to in 28 15, as also by 

1 So Erbes, 212, conjectures, relying upon Jos. Ant. xx. 9 3. 


those of Puteoli in r. 14, we are to understand Chris 
tians, rests solely upon the representation in Romans, 
according to which Christians are found in Rome long 
before Paul has ever visited that city. 

At the same time it must be remembered that the 
opposite representation in Acts has no historical authori- 
tativeness, being inextricably bound up with the tendency 
of that book which has been already referred to. 
Moreover, in Acts 28 30 f. the founding of a Christian 
church at Rome by Paul is rather tacitly assumed than 
asserted in so many words. It is possible that in the 
Acts of Paul (which were worked over by the writer 
of our canonical Acts, and also made use of in the 
composition of the Pauline Epistles, and which them 
selves in turn had their origin in a redaction and 
expansion of the recognised We-source) the original 
journey record (PAUL, 37 ; OLD-CHRISTIAN LITERA 
TURE, 9) may have given a somewhat different 
account of the conditions which Paul found at Rome 
and elsewhere in Italy. It may be that, according to 
that representation, there were already in more than 
one place at Rome Christians, brethren in another 
and higher sense than that of mere kinship, and that 
their figurative designation is adopted by Acts so that 
the brethren in Puteoli and Rome, according to Acts 
28i4/i to be understood as Jews who were friendly 
disposed towards Paul, were at the same time the 
original Christians of these places. 

However that may be, Acts nowhere contains any 
express statement as to the founding of a Christian 
church at Rome by Paul ; and as little 
does the epistle to the Romans. What 
Romans implies is, clearly, rather this that the church 
had already been long in existence when Paul was 
cherishing the hope that he might have an opportunity 
of personally visiting it. This view is wont to be 
accepted on all hands as just : by the majority, because 
they hold it to come from the apostle Paul ; by others, 
the friends of advanced criticism, because, however 
fully convinced of the pseudepigraphical character of 
the epistle (see ROMANS), they have no reason for 
doubting it. These have this advantage over the others 
that they are not, like them, sorely per- 

5. In Romans. 

6. Romans 

plexed by Acts which betrays no acquaint- 
ciDuo ance w ith the epistle held to have been 

addressed to the church of Rome by Paul 
at least two years before he himself undertook the journey 
thither only to become aware on his arrival in the 
metropolis that noone therehad ever heard anythingabout 
him or even about Christianity at all otherwise than by 
report merely. They set down the divergent representa 
tions in Luke and Paul simply to the account of the 
separate writers, and as regards a supposed founding of 
the church at Rome, can only say that according to 
1 Luke it was perhaps the work of Paul, but according to 
Paul, certainly not. According to Luke, perhaps 
it was, since we must interpret in accordance with the 
general tendency of his historical work ; according to 
Paul, because everyone thought so in those days 
nor yet had any one any knowledge of a founding 
of the church in Rome by Peter and Paul, or by 
_ _,. Peter alone. In other Pauline epistles also 
. ,. there is no trace of acquaintance with 
" any tradition which sought to represent 

that founding as having been brought about by Paul. 
In Romans there is no hint, of the kind we meet with in 
i Cor. 4 14 2 Cor. 613 12 14 Gal. 4 19, that Paul can 
regard those whom he addresses as his children. There 
is no suggestion of such a relation of Paul to Rome even 
in Philippians, Philemon, or i Clem. 65-7, where there 
was such ample opportun ty to call to mind the founding 
of the Roman Church by Paul had the writer been 
minded to refer to it. The Pauline literature says 
nothing at all about it, nor yet do the kindred writings, 
I Peter, i Clement, Hermas, Ignatius. Rather must 
we say that in all of them the undisputed and indisput- 



able presupposition is that Rome was won for the gospel 
without the intervention of Paul, either by his epistles 
or by his later personal intercourse. 

Whom then are we to name as founder of the Roman 
church? Not any of the apostles, as long ago 
8 Founders Ambros aster m tne so-called commentary 
, of Ambrosius in the fourth century rightly 

.. answers (cp Sanday and Headlam, pp. 

xxv, ci). We could almost venture to 
guess : one or more of those who probably at a quite 
early date, spread the glad tidings of salvation from 
Jerusalem westward. There was abundant oppor 
tunity in the constant intercourse between Rome and 
the east, even before the middle of the first century, for 
travellers from Palestine to return, or come for the first 
time, to the banks of the Tiber and there to discourse, 
as they had done in the various other ports and cities 
they touched on their route, of the things concerning 
Jesus (TO. irepl TOV l-rjcrov ; Acts 1 8*5 282331), the king 
dom of God (17 /3a<nAeia TOV Otov ; Acts 1422 198 2025 
282331), the preaching of the gospel (rb ei try- 
yf\i^ff&ai ; Acts 1832 14? 1521 15ss 16 10). It is not 
necessary to have recourse to the hardly historical 
account of the first appearance of the apostles at 
Jerusalem in Acts 2, where, as we read in vv. iof., 
Romans, Jews as well as proselytes, were sojourning 

(ot ^TTLSrl/ULOVVTfS Pdl/iCUOl, loi ^CUCH T KO.I TTpOCTr)\VTOl). 

Such Jews living in Rome, as well as Gentiles who had 

attached themselves to them and professed their 

religion, may well have visited Jerusalem on other 

occasions and become messengers, possibly very 

capable ones, of what they had seen and heard there 

_ . , to their brethren in the metropolis. We 

i,. , shall best picture to ourselves the subse- 

, _ quent course of events if we suppose that 

at Rome. 

the preaching of the gospel and the 

establishment of the new religion made its way amongst 
Jews and proselytes in Rome. Whoever wishes to 
picture to himself the nature of the field in which, now 
here, now there, the good seed was scattered by un-* 
known sowers, must try to form some conception of the 
Jewish settlements in Rome as they then were. Very 
many they were, ordinarily confined within certain 
precisely defined limits, but within these moving with 
social freedom bound only in so far as they themselves 
chose to be so by the customs and practices received 
from their fathers, the law and what it was held to 
enjoin on the faithful children of Abraham by descent, 
or on the proselytes who had joined them. Alternately 
receiving the favours of the great and bowed down 
under the heavy burden laid upon them by authorities 
of a less friendly disposition ; constantly exposed to 
risks of persecution, scorn, and derision, and seldom 
allowed to pass altogether without notice ; engaged in 
the pursuit of trade and dependent on this for their daily 
bread, now envied for their wealth and now plunged 
into the depths of poverty or reduced to the ranks of 
professional beggars. Such, just before and during the 
opening decades of the first century, was the manner of 
life of the Jews in Rome : a great brotherhood, we may 
call it, broken up into a number of smaller communities ; 
a band of aliens who know how to maintain their old 
manners and customs, their nationality, and their religion, 
in spite of many divergencies and divisions among them 
selves, in the midst of the surrounding Gentiles amongst 
whom their progenitors had settled. At first they had 
come to pay a visit there because commerce and political 
reasons had brought them to the world-city ; so it had 
been already in the days of the Maccabees. Others again 
had been brought to Rome from their native country as 
slaves, but on closer acquaintance were hardly found 
suitable and often received their freedom or even were 
invested with the privileges of Roman citizens. So, in 
particular, shortly after the capture of Jerusalem by 
Pompey in 63 B.C. By Cassar and others they were 
shown great favour. Under Tiberius they were ex- 



pelled from Rome in the year 19 A.D. and partly 
employed in the war against the pirates of Sardinia. 
Under Claudius about 49 A.D. they were again 
banished. Under Nero it would seem they enjoyed no 
small power and influence. (For details see Schtirer, 
G/I W, 1898, 828-36 and specially the literature referred 
to there on p. 28, n. 70 ; cp EB^, 20727-730 [1886]). 

On this Jewish soil the earliest Roman Christianity, 
we may safely affirm, had already come into being 
before the middle of the first century. The 

10. Age. 

oldest distinct trace of its beginnings is 

found in Suetonius (Claud. 25), where he says of the 
emperor Claudius that he expelled the Jews from Rome 
on account of their persistent turbulence under the 
instigation of Chrestus ( Judreos impulsore Chresto 
assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit ; cp CHRISTIAN, 
6 iii. ). The banishment of the Jews (Acts 182 and 
Dio Cassius 60 6), although probably in the event not 
judged expedient or perhaps even possible, and in any 
case not carried out on any large scale, had its occasion 
in troubles and disturbances which had arisen among 
the Jews impulsore Chresto i.e., at the instance or 
with the help of Chrestus. This Chrestus was, to judge 
by the manner of speech of those days, no other than 
(Jesus) Christ ; his person and work, the views and 
expectations connected with him, and his cause were 
what led Claudius to seek to remove the Jews who had 
thus become troublesome. Now, though the exact 
year in which this resolution was come to by the 
emperor is uncertain, if we remember that at the 
beginning of his reign (41-54 A.D.) he was, according 
to Josephus (Ant. xix. 62-3), favourably inclined to the 
Jews, we are led to think of a somewhat later date let us 
say with Schiirer (32/1) and others, the year 49 A.D. 
In that case the movement we are supposing, and its 
procuring cause, the first systematic preaching of 
Christianity in Rome, can have begun some months 
or years previously. We must leave open the question 
as to whether at a still earlier date some converts, 
in the course of pilgrimages to Jerusalem or through 
the agency of third parties in their adopted country, 
may not have been won for the new confession and 
the expectations connected with it. Rome had already 
for a long time been a favourite and much frequented 
harbour for new ideas in the sphere of religion. 

With the date thus arrived at for the founding of the 
Christian church in Rome it agrees tolerably well that a 
11 Theorv of wr ter man y years later, in Acts 28 17-28, 
At d R could still speak as if the new sect 
were known only by name in the world 
capital when Paul first proclaimed the tidings of 
salvation to the Jews there, and that another writer - 
the author of Romans did not hesitate to assume 
throughout his work that at that very time there had 
already been for a long time in Rome believers belong 
ing to various schools of Christian thought and practice. 
When these books were written the days of the first 
founding of a church in Rome were already so far 
removed that in different circles divergent representa 
tions were given regarding it, though there was some 
danger of misrepresentation. Luke is wrong 
because he does not take account of the existence of 
any Christian church at Rome before the apostle Paul 
had made his voice heard there. The Pauline writer, 
on the other hand, represents the apostle of the 
Gentiles as knowing that before his arrival among 
them the faith of the Roman Christians was already 
proclaimed throughout the whole world (Rom. 
18), and in 617 it is the Pauline form of doctrine 
whereunto they have been delivered. Both the one 
view and the other may well be questioned as strict 
history. Both writers make it manifest that they no 
longer know the true position of matters so far as 
details are concerned. At the same time they confirm, 
each in his own way, the correctness of the date we have 
arrived at ; at the beginning of the second century, the 


founding of the church at Rome belonged to a con 
siderably remote past and at that distance of time could, 
speaking broadly, be connected with a delineation of the 
period when Paul was setting out for, or had arrived at, 
the metropolis of the empire. 

The nearer determination of the date is to be sought 
in such data as (i) the tradition regarding Paul s plans 
12 Further W th reference to a j ur ney to Spain, by 
data wa y ^ ^ ome wnere a Christian church 
no longer needed to be founded (Rom. 
1528 / cp i Clem. 05-7); (2) the tradition of Paul s 
death at Rome, whether, as the ordinary reckoning 
has it, in 64, as Erbes thinks, on 23rd Feb. 63, or 
as yet others judge, at some date that cannot be 
more exactly determined, shortly before or in con 
nection with the persecution of the Christians in the 
summer of 64 ; (3) all that relates to the fact of the 
persecution of the Christians at Rome by Nero ; (4) 
the appearance of the Church of Rome as the writer 
of Clement s first epistle to the Corinthians ; (5) the 
activity of Marcion and Valentinus among the Christians 
at Rome ; (6) all that tradition tells us of the establish 
ment of a bishop s see at Rome by the apostles 
Peter and Paul ; a very large series of testimonies 
continuously assuring us, each in its own way, that the 
founding of a Christian church at Rome goes back to 
the middle of the first century of our era. 

The character of this church was, to begin with, no 
other than was to be expected from its origin within the 

13. Character ? h f e of Jews and , P rose ]y tes> ( 4)- 
, , Ambrosiaster in speaking of Jews alone 

as fathers of the Christian community 
at Rome has here again truly said that those who 
believed confessed Christ and held fast by the law ( ex 
quibus [Judaeis] hi qui crecliderant, tradiderunt Romanis 
ut Christum profitentes legem servarent ). In this 
there is no exaggeration as Sanday and Headlam 
(p. 25, n. 3) have thought. They indeed could hardly 
have thought otherwise as long as they were dominated 
by belief in the genuineness of the Epistle to the Romans. 
Whoever deems himself bound to maintain that belief 
must inevitably assume that already, before Romans 
was written by Paul on the ordinary reckoning, that is 
to say, before 59 A.D. there were to be met with in 
Rome two divergent types of Christian faith and profes 
sion, the Jewish-Christian and the Pauline. Such an 
one cannot avoid facing the question : What was the 
church of Rome at that time? Jewish -Christian? 
Pauline? Mixed? Yet all the while he is well aware 
or the discovery is ever anew forced upon him that no 
satisfactory answer to the question can be given. Some 
texts speak very clearly for the view that the church in 
question consisted of former gentiles, whilst others say 
the exact opposite that it was composed of former 
Jews (see ROMANS, 8 ; van Manen, Paulits, 2 23-25 
166-7). Yet Nve cannot hold with Sanday -Headlam 
(p. xxvi) and others the theory that it was a mixed 
church. To such a theory can be applied to the 
full what these scholars remark in another connec 
tion : there is no hint of such a state of things, which 
moreover would compel us, contrary to the manifest 
intention of the writer, to think of two distinct churches 
in Rome, one Jewish-Christian, the other Gentile- 
Christian, and that St. Paul wrote only to the latter. 

Any one who, on the other hand, has been able to free 
himself from the axiom of the genuineness and has 
satisfied himself of the pseudepigraphical character of 
this writing of a later time (see ROMANS) no longer feels 
his hands tied by the various impossible attempts that 
have been made to answer the questions proposed. He 
is no longer perplexed by that other troublesome 
question : How are we to explain the fact that nowhere 
in history has there remained any trace of the existence 
of an important Pauline community in Rome, after the 
apostle s epistle had been sent thither ? He takes no 
notice of all ideas of this sort, the pictures suggested 



in the epistle of the outward appearance and inward 
semblance of the Christian church in Rome in the days 
before Paul could possibly have preached there as 
being not renderings of historical actuality but pictures 
of a past that never had been real, attempts to repre 
sent the old-Christian period after many decades had 
passed. Such a student holds fast by the seemingly 
insignificant phrase, which yet tells us so much, of the 
instigating Chrestus by whom the Jews in Rome, 
according to Suetonius, in the days of Claudius (06. 
49 A. D. ) were troubled ; and holds by the pretty generally 
accepted conception as to a Christian Church at Rome 
which had arisen out of the faith and life, the active 
exertions, of Jews and proselytes who had been con 
verted to Christ ; by what Ambrosiaster has said, with 
equal sobriety and justice that Jews living in Rome in 
the days of the apostles had taught their brethren to 
confess Christ and to hold fast by the law. 

In other words, the church in Rome was originally 
Jewish -Christian, and probably long remained so. 
14 T h Gradually more liberal ideas crept in, 
~, , - thanks perhaps to the influence of more 

advanced preachers from abroad who had 
wholly or partially outgrown their Judaism, but thanks 
still more to the ease with which in every sphere of 
thought new ideas made way in Rome. Whether Paul 
may have had any active share in this work we are not 
now in a position to say. Acts leaves us in doubt. 
Romans testifies to good intentions but not to any work 
actually clone. The epistle, in spiteof theseemingabund- 
ance of the light it sheds on the events of the years im 
mediately preceding 59 A.n. in Rome, really draws over 
them all an almost impenetrable veil. It gives surpris 
ing glimpses into the history of the development of the 
church in the direction of greater freedom, the emanci 
pation of Christianity from the dominion of the law, but 
all from a remote distance in space, probably from the 
East Antioch or somewhere else in Syria, it may be, or 
perchance Asia Minor at all events, a long way off 
and in a distinctly later time. In reality, in the 
15 St 1 more trustworthy tradition there is no 

,. _ .. . trace of all this, but on the contrary, 
* unmistakable proof that Paulinism at 
Rome though (i. ) it struggled for a time for the victory 
in the days of Marcion (ob. 140 A. D. ). (ii. ) never really 
took permanent root there, and never was other than an 

i. That Paulinism flourished in some degree at Rome 
is very certain, as we may safely infer : (a) from the 
way in which it is throughout presupposed in Romans 
(written probably about 120 A. D. ; see ROMANS, 23) 
that, before his first visit to the capital, Paul already had 
there a large circle of friends and followers, of whom a 
whole series is mentioned by name in 163-15, and 
who already for a long time had been instructed 
in his distinctive type of doctrine (617); (t] from 
the support as well as the opposition, which Marcion 
met with in Rome, in various capacities, and not least 
of all as advocate of his Apostle, the Paul of the 
epistles ; (c) from the friendly relation between Peter 
and Paul presupposed in i Peter, probably written at 
Rome, in evidence of which relation we point not only 
to the Pauline form of the writing and to the mention, 
at the end, of Silvanus and of Mark(cp 2 Peter 3 is/. ), but 
also and chiefly to the strongly Pauline character of the 
contents ; (d) from the liberal spirit of the gospel 
according to Mark, probably also written at Rome, 
along with which perhaps that according to Luke may 
also be named ; (e) from the honour with which 
Clement as spokesman of the church at Rome writes 
to the Corinthians concerning Paul (i Clem. 65-7 47 i), 
and more than once declares that he is influenced by 
the reading of his epistles ; (/) from the mention of 
Paul along with Peter as a teacher of authority by 
1 Ignatius in his epistle to the Romans ( I do not com 
mand you as Peter and Paul did, 43) ; (g) from the 



wide currency of the later tradition of the founding of 
the Christian church at Rome by Peter and Paul. 

ii. Paulinism was, however, only partially successful, as 
is no less clearly evident : (a) from the way in which 
in Romans Paul now admonishes the Jews (chaps. 1-8, 
passim, and especially 217-29) and now shows them 
the greatest deference (chaps. 9-11 passim, especially 
3 if. 9 1-5 10 1) ; (l>) from the opposition met with by 
Marcion in Rome which ended in his expulsion from 
the new religious community ; (c) from the position 
of the name of Paul in the younger tradition already 
in Clement and Ignatius after that of Peter; 

(</) from the spirit of works brought out at Rome 
and extensively read there, the most outstanding of 
which is the so-called first Epistle of Clement to 
the Corinthians. The spirit there breathed, notwith 
standing the reverence expressed for Paul and 
the deference occasionally paid to the principles 
inaugurated by him, is much more of a Jewish-Christian 
character than one that testifies to warm sympathy with 
the gospel of freedom ; rather one that is slowly gravi 
tating toward the left than one that is averse to the right 
in principle ; a conciliatory and advancing spirit, if you 
will, yet rather in many respects showing lingering attach 
ment to the old than still standing with both feet upon 
the basis of the law, firmly rooted in Judaism, filled 
with the rich contents of the Old Testament ; in a word, 
a spirit that in its inmost nature is becoming Catholic. 

The Christian Church of Rome, in its beginnings a 
shoot from the Jewish stock, in the course of years took 

IBP d i U P an< ^ assimilated elements that were 
, brought to it from other quarters : from 

the East, and particularly from Syria and 
Asia Minor. Its power of adaptation was of great use 
to it in regard to those elements in the new faith which 
were originally strange in it and were at home rather in 
the more developed circles of Paulinism, but in adapting 
itself the original power of the Pauline spiritual move 
ment was in many respects taken away. In the course 
of years let us say, in round numbers, between 50 and 
150 A.D. the character of the church at Rome, from 
being Jewish-Christian with occasional deviations towards 
the right and towards the left, had become, we shall not 
say Pauline or Gentile-Christian, but Catholic. At the 
later date i.e. , about the middle of the second century 
it had recently been the scene of the labours of 
Marcion, who was excommunicated afterwards, Marcion 
the eager and serious advocate of Paul who had already 
probably some years before become known to it by means 
of the epistles. It had at the same time come into 
touch with, among others, that highly gifted teacher, well 
nigh lost in broad and deep speculations, alternately 
held in reverence and covered with scorn, the gnostic 
Valentinus. It had learned to listen to preachers of 
repentance like Hermas who, eminently practical, 
sought to win it before all things else to the urgent 
duty of conversion. But, however divergent may have 
been the paths by which it was so dissimilarly led by 
these and other leaders to clearer insight on many sides, 
and deeper experience of the fruits of faith as that 
translated itself into a genuine Christian life, the 
structure as carried out appeared always, in spite of 
the multifarious and manifold additions, to rest upon 
the old foundation destined, as it would seem, never 
to become obsolete that of the law and of Judaism, to 
which, as a new and indispensable element, confession 
of Jesus as the Christ, had been added. 

How this Christian community at Rome was originally 

governed and organised can probably be best conjectured, 

p t -j. m the absence of all positive informa- 

, . n T S 1 . U " tion, by calling to mind once more 
ouewisn what ^ e know of {he spjrit of {hat 

community. religious f e ii owsh i p O f the Jews out of 
which it arose. Like this last it had no political aims, 
and consequently as yet knew nothing of those who at 
a later time were to be called rulers and leaders, charged 



with the care of the outward life of Christians as subjects 
of the state. The Jewish Church, although it can be 
so called in respect of the religious confession of its 
adherents, formed no unity placed under the leadership 
and government of a single council or of one head. It 
was made up rather of a great number of separate and 
independent congregations (yvvayuyal), each having 
its own synagogue, its own council (ytpovffLa), its own 
rulers ({LpxovTes), who also sometimes at least, were 
partly called elders (ir/OT/Stfrepot), and, whether for 
life (5ii fiiov) or for a limited period, were chosen at 
the beginning of the Jewish civil year (in September). 
They were charged with the general leadership of the 
community, sometimes also with the task associated 
with the special office of chief of the synagogue 
(dpx 1 1 < *"y ct 7 os )- The language employed was Greek, 
as indeed the whole constitution with rulers (apxovrfs) 
and councils (yepovffl<u), so far as form was con 
cerned, seems to have been borrowed from the civil 
organisation usual in Greek cities (see Schiirer, Die 
Gemeindeverfassungderjuden in Rom, 1879, and GJW\ 
3- PP- 44-51 [1898]). 

The Christian Church also, we may safely take for 

granted, very soon after its members had been excom- 

_ - municated, or had voluntarily withdrawn 

_, . . from the Jewish synagogues in Rome, 

_, , had their own centres, with a government 

proper to themselves (modelled mainly, 

so far as form was concerned, on that which they had 
left at the call of religious principle and duty), their 
own places of meeting (ywayuyai), their own rulers 
(&pXOVTe<>), who are often called elders (irpecrfivTfpoi.). 
This was what happened elsewhere throughout the cities 
of the Dispersion. Why not also in Rome ? Acts calls 
the rulers elders (wpecrfivrepoi) in llso 14z3 20ij , 
whenever Jerusalem is spoken of, where the apostles 
are regarded as having lived and laboured, we read 
of apostles and elders (1024623 164), just as the 
same writer elsewhere when referring to the rulers 
(dpxovres) of the Jews speaks of their elders (2 17 
45823 612 2814 24i 25 15). For the rest, in Acts we 
find no allusion to any government of Christian com 
munities, just as, in fact, of the community that arose 
after the arrival of Paul in Rome nothing more is said 
than that they met in Paul s own house (2830 /.). In 
Romans there is no evidence as to the terms employed 
in this connection by the Christians at Rome, except 
in a single passage where allusion is made to him that 
ruleth (6 Trpoio-rd/xecos : 128). 

i Clem. , the epistle of the church of God at 
Rome to that of Corinth, has more to say. The church 
(r) fKK\rjffia) comes before us as a unity embracing all 
believers within the boundaries of a definite locality ; 
so in the opening words and also in 44s 476 (cp 2 Clem. 
2 1 14 1 2 41). We are not precluded from thinking that, 
as in the case of the Jews, this unity was made up of 
various circles or congregations within the larger whole 
which comprehended the whole body of the faithful. 
The supposition finds support when we consider the 
manner in which the occurrence of divergent ideas and 
practices with regard to the choice of officials is spoken 
of. Some consider themselves free in their choice ; but 
others, including the writer, hold themselves bound to 
tradition and obliged to adhere to the ancient holders 
of spiritual offices as long as they have not disqualified 
themselves by misconduct (cp 13 83 216 42 44 592). 
True, this applies, so far as form is concerned, in the 
first instance and especially, only to the Corinthians 
who are being addressed, but yet also to the Romans 
who are speaking of themselves in the plural number 
(cp 7 1 ; see OLD-CHRISTIAN LITERATURE, 24). 
The most obvious explanation is to be found in the 
supposition that the divergent views and practices 
referred to were found in the different circles or congre 
gations (4KK\r)fflai) within the bounds of the one church 
77 tKK\r)<rla whether that of Rome or that of Corinth. 


However that may be, the church had its rulers or 
leaders ( rjyoi>fj.evoi ; 1 3) just as had the Jews (322), the 
Egyptians (51s), and others (37s 55i 60i). They are 
usually called elders (irpffffitirepoi. ; 1383 216 44s 
476 54a 57 i, cp 2 Clem. 17s5), but in one instance, 
though in no different sense, overseers (eiriffKotroi) 
and deacons (diaKOvoi, 424/. , cp 44 1 50s), charged 
with the sacred service (XeiToi />7ia, 41 1 44 2/. 6). They 
were ministering (XeiTovpyovvres ; 463) just as in 
their manner were the Jews (32-2 40), Enoch (92), 
Aaron (434), the angels of God (34s/. ). In this service 
or ministry were included, or at least came under their 
superintendence, ( i ) the reading of scripture (17 ypafiri 
or ai if pal ypa<pai) the OT as we now know it and 
whatever other writings were at that time reckoned as 
belonging to it ; also Christian writings such as Paul s 
Epistle to the Corinthians and other treatises, including 

1 and 2 Clem, (cp 2 Clem. 19i 15i 17s i Clem. 47 1 
682 7 1, OLD-CHRISTIAN LITERATURE, 2-4; Herm. 
Vis. ii. Is 4 1 Eus. HE\\. 258 iii. 885) (2) exhortation 
(cp i Clem, passim) and (3) prayer (i Clem. 593-61 

2 Clem. 22). All of these, as with the Jews, at least 
down to near the end of the second century, were 
performed in Greek. 

Of a monarchical government of the Church there is 
as yet no trace in i and 2 Clem. Neither is there any 
in the Shepherd of Hernias which, like the Epistles of 
Clement, knows only of elders ( Vis. ii. 4z 3 iii. 18) and 
overseers, along with teachers and deacons (I is. 
iii. 5 1 Sim. ix. 272). The oldest traces of monarchical 
church government in Rome are met with in the seven 
epistles of Ignatius which were probably written there 
about the middle of the second century, and in the 
earliest lists of Roman bishops- little trustworthy 
though these are in their substance, and put together in 
the interests of the recognition of the episcopate, which 
was then coming into being, or had recently come to be 
important. They do not go farther back than to 
Anicetus, and were probably drawn up under his 
successor Soter, about 170 A.D. (see Harnack, ACL 
ii. 1 1897, pp. 70-231, esp. pp. 144-202. See, further, 

If the question be asked, finally, as to the influence 
and importance of the Christian church at Rome, it was 
T small and certainly for the first few 

f R nCe decades not to be compared with that 
of the church at Jerusalem nor y<H with 
that of other churches of Palestine, Syria, and Asia Minor. 
It was only gradually in the course of the second 
century that a change in this respect came about, under 
the influence of great historical events such as the fall 
of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. , the rebuilding of that city as 
/Elia Capitolina under Hadrian (see JERUSALEM, 
33/-)> and tne continual process by which the West 
manifested its preponderance over the East. In all this 
there made itself felt the favourable situation of the 
Christian Church at Rome in the centre of Grasco- 
Roman civilisation ; the inborn inclination, and the 
corresponding aptitude, of what had been the Gentile 
element in the new church, to lead and soon to dominate 
believers who had their homes elsewhere, as well as 
unbelievers ; and last, certainly not least, whatever that 
church was able to contribute from its own resources 
towards its internal growth and its external prestige. 
In this connection we may particularly specify : the 
accession not merely of slaves and people of the lower 
orders but also of rich and often influential persons, 
sometimes even from the immediate entourage of the 
emperor ; the courage shown by martyrs there as else 
where ; the zeal of outstanding personalities such as 
Valentinus and Marcion ; the activity of efficient nu-n 
such as Clement and Ignatius in labouring for the 
establishment of the Catholic Church ; the labour 
expended on various sides to advance far and near the 
cause of knowledge, of Christian practice, of edification, 
of consolation. 



Marcion laid the foundations of a recognition of a 

written norm of truth, of belief (KCLVUV TT)S d\r)0fias, 

9rt Phristian T ^ reus), one gospel and ten 

Hterature Pauline Epistles ^ EteryAtov K al 

11 UGl tl u UI U. . * r i A -v "1 ; 1 1 

o ATTOOTOAOS [TO ATrooToAi/coi J), which 
the church as it grew Catholic soon spread far and 
wide and accepted along with the older tradition 
as the touchstone of truth. Into this (ecclesiastical) 
canon Rome, according to the list discovered and 
published in modern times by Muratori, introduced a 
larger collection of Old-Christian writings differing but 
slightly in extent from the NT as that was finally fixed 
by well-nigh the whole of Christendom. Marcion also 
wrote an orthodoxly conceived Epistle and Antitheses 
or Separation of Law and Gospel (Antitheses or 
Scparatio legis et evangelii) ; Valentinus was the author 
of Epistles, Homilies, and Psalms. Some un 
known writer prepared the Gospel according to Mark ; 
Clement, two epistles to the Corinthians, of which 
the first is a Treatise concerning Peace and Harmony 
((vrevi-ts TTfpl eiprivTjs Kal 6/uocoias), conceived, according 
to its own description of itself (682), in the interests of 
peace in the churches, and especially in the matter of 
the election of elders, and the second is an Exhortation 
concerning continence (2v/u/3oi>X/a irepl ^yKparfias, 
15 1). Hernias wrote his Shepherd to stir up all to 
repentance; Ignatius composed his Epistles upon 
love for the promotion of martyrdom and on behalf of 
right views in doctrine and in life. He and others 
contributed largely to the upbuilding of their own as 
well as other churches, where their epistles were diligently 
read. Thus the Roman leaders exercised influence in 
ever-widening circles, and opened up the way, often 
quite unconsciously, for the spiritual predominance of 
their fellow-believers abroad. From the middle of the 
second century another element that had no small 
influence also was the effort after a one-man government 
of the church, first on the part of Rome alone, but 
afterwards also on that of others who afterwards 
associated themselves with it in this. Polycarp of 
Smyrna, seeking for comfort at the hands of Anicetus 
of Rome in the matter of orthodox observance of Easter, 
still knows how to maintain his freedom of thought and 
action in another direction than that prescribed to him. 
But one of his successors in the Asia Minor controversy 
of the Quartodecimans, Polycrates of Ephesus, was 
excommunicated by Victor of Rome and cut off from 
the fellowship of the faithful (see Baur, Das Christenthutn 
u. d. Christl. Kirche der drei Ersten Jahrh. 1853, 
pp. 141-157). In this manner the preponderance and 
authoritativeness, and ultimately the supremacy, of the 
church of Rome had already come to be recognised in 
the East before the end of the second century. 

For the extensive literature dealing with our subject reference 

may be made, amongst others, to such studies on the supposed 

. sojourn of Peter and Paul in Rome as those of 

21. BlbllO- A." Harnack, ACL ii. 1 1897, pp. 240-244, 703- 
graphy. 710 ; C. Clemen, 1st Petrus in Rom gewesen? 
in Preuss. Jahrb. 1901, pp. 404-417; C. Erbes, 
Petrus nicht in Rom sondern in Jerusalem gestorben in 
Brieger s Ztschr.f. Kirchen-gesch. IQOI, pp. 1-47 161-231 ; on 
the Jews in Rome in Sanday and Headlam, The Ep. to the 
Romans, 1895, xviii-xxv ; Berliner, Gesch. der Juden in Rom, 
1893 ; E. Schiirer, Die Genieincteverfassung der Jtiden in Rom, 
1879 andGy/ ( 3 ), iii. 1898, pp. 28-36 44-56. Also to the comment 
aries on Romans such as those of Sanday -Headlam, 1895, 
xviii-xliv ; R. A. Lipsius in HC(~\, 1892, pp. 70-78; Meyer- 
WeissW, 1890, pp. 16-22: to theNTintroductionssuchasthoseof 
S. Davidson! 3 ), 1804, 1105-113; H. J. Holtzmannl 3 ), 1892, pp. 
232-236; Th. Zahnf 2 !, 1900, pp. 299-308 ; J. M. S. Baljon, 1901, 
pp. 88-92. See also Romans (Epistle to the) in Ency. Brit.P), 
26727-730 [1886], and OLD-CHRISTIAN LITERATURE, PAUL, 
ROMANS, SIMON PETER, in the present work. w. C. v. M. 

ROME (EMPIRE). The Roman Empire has been 
supposed to be alluded to in Dan. 2 and 7, but the interpretation 
is one which the progress of history has shewn to be untenable 
(Driver, Daniel, 98 ; see the whole discussion, 94-102). Rome 
is referred to by name in biblical writings for the first time in 
connection with Antiochus Epiphanes ; this sinful root," we 
are told, had been a hostage at Rome (i Mace. 1 10, os rjc 6/mjpa 
tv Tifi PwniT)). 



The topography and history of Rome and of the Roman 
Empire is so vast a subject and is so fully dealt with by various 
writers and in easily accessible works of reference, that it has been 
deemed sufficient, in the space at our disposal, simply to touch 
upon the problem of the relation of Rome to Judaism and to 
early Christianity. 

Destined to play such an important part in the 
political and religious history of the Jews, the Empire 

1. Rome and the came into close touch with them for 

Hasmoneans. the first tmie in the eari > d *? s of the 
revolt against the power of Syria. 

About the year 161 B.C. Judas the Maccabee having 
heard of the great fame of the Romans, sent an embassy 
to make a league of amity and confederacy with them, 
and that they should take the yoke from them ; for they 
saw that the kingdom of the Greeks did keep Israel in 
bondage (i Mace. 8ijf. ; cp 2 Mace. 1134, Jos. Ant. 
xii. 106 Justin 36 3). The mission was successful ; but 
before the news arrived Judas was slain (i Mace. 9i-i8 ; 
Jos. Ant. xii. Hi). In 143 B.C. the alliance was 
renewed by the statesmanlike Jonathan (i Mace. 
12i-4 16 ; Jos. Ant. xiii. 58). On the death of Jonathan, 
Simon, his brother and successor, like his predecessors, 
also sent to Rome to seek a renewal of friendship. 
The ambassador, this time Numenius, was again 
successful, and the Romans issued a decree to all the 
peoples of the East, announcing that they had entered 
into a league of friendship with the Jews (W. D. 
Morrison, The Jews under Roman Rule, 13). Hyrcanus, 
again, Simon s son and successor, after the death of 
Antiochus (129 B.C.), to escape paying any more the 
tribute which the Syrian had exacted, sent yet another 
embassy to Rome, and again in accordance with the 
settled principle of Roman policy in the East, the Jewish 
mission was received in a friendly manner, their 
grievances were attentively heard, and a decree was 
issued, ordering the Syrians to relinquish their claims 
to tribute, and declaring void whatever Antiochus had 
done in Judaea in opposition to previous declarations 
of the senate [Jos. Ant. xiii. 92/i] (Morrison, op. cit. 
16 f.]. After this several causes combined to weaken 
the power of the Syrians, so that the Jews no longer 
had any cause to fear them. 

Such were the first relations of the Jews with the Roman 
Empire, if we are to trust tradition ; but as Morrison again 
observes (19), some of these supposed alliances rest upon very 
slender historical foundations." For further details we must 
refer the reader to the article MACCABEES (cp ISKAEL). 

While the Roman Empire was becoming more and 
more imperialistic, within the Jewish nation was arising, 
_ . . through the play of new ideas, that spirit 
L, ... of faction which was to rend it asunder 
" > " even in the face of a common foe (see 
See again on the history of the period MACCABEES, 
and JANN^KUS. The disputes between Pharisees and 
Sadducees did not end with words ; in the contest 
between the soldiers of Alexander and the Pharisees 
much blood was spilt. The struggle went on through 
out the reign of Alexander, though towards the end 
he was able to subdue the Pharisees and their allies 
the Syrians ; it continued during the reign of Salome 
Alexandra (78-69 B.C.), in which John Hyrcanus, one 
of Alexander s sons was content to act as high priest ; 
and into the reign of Aristobulus (69-63 B.C.), 
Alexander s other son. It sapped the strength of the 
nation so that it was ready to fall an easy prey to a 
power that aimed at expansion. When the Romans, 
who for a time had been otherwise occupied, again 
turned their attention to the East, having been roused to 
action by the revolt of Mithridates, king of Pontus, in 
88 B.C., and when success had attended their arms in 
the very neighbourhood of this people that had wantonly 
reduced itself to a. state of miserable weakness, it was 
natural and inevitable that the Roman Empire should 
be further extended. Another civil war in Palestine 
(66 B.C.) gave Pompey his opportunity. Hyrcanus, 
influenced by the schemer Antipater, had plotted to 



overthrow Aristobulus. When, however, the Pharisees, 
assisted by the Nabateans, were besieging Aristobulus 
in the temple, Marcus Scaurus, one of Pompey s 
lieutenants, appeared on the scene, put an end to the 
fight, and set Aristobulus on the throne for a time at 
least. The struggle between the two brothers soon 
broke out again. This time Aristobulus, having 
offended the Romans, was besieged by them in Jeru 
salem. With the help of the Sadducees, and in spite 
of the Pharisees, he was able to hold out against the 
besiegers ; but in the end Pompey, attacking him on a 
Sabbath (63 B.C.), broke through and inflicted severe 
punishment on the Jews. 

Judnea was then regarded as a conquered province. 
We may venture to say with Morrison that the new 
arrangements that resulted were on the 

3. Closer 

whole a blessing to the peoples of the 

fu 1 ^ East who were rescued from chaos and in 

Wltn Rome. stability> and enabled, after years of 

anarchy, to enjoy the fruits of peace (41). Graetz 
(Hist. 267) points out that the Jud;tan prisoners that 
had been dragged to Rome, were to become the nucleus 
of a community destined to carry on a new kind of 
warfare against long -established Roman institutions, 
ultimately to modify or partly to destroy them. 
Certainly the war between the new and old ideas was 
to go on uninterruptedly until some adjustment could 
be effected. Under the Herods, when the Jews were 
again in large measure allowed to govern themselves, 
the adoption of Hellenic culture was encouraged by the 
rulers to such an extent that the people revolted against 
it. The Jews determined to rid themselves of their 
half-Jewish rulers. At the request of the people them 
selves they were at length put under the direct govern 
ment of Rome. With the return of Judaea to a Roman 
administration begins the prelude of the destruction of 
Jerusalem and the Jewish people perhaps the most 
shocking tragedy known to the history of the world 
(Cornill, Hist, of the People of Israel, 259). The 
tragedy was due to the refusal of a large section 
amongst the people, such as the Pharisees, the Zealots, 
and the Sicarii, to accept the inevitable Roman rule 
and the spread of Graeco- Roman ideas. 

After Pompey s conquest Jewish and Roman history are 
closely bound up together, and the details have been sufficiently 
dealt with in ISKAEL, 85-115, HEKOD, PILATE, GOVERNMENT, 
JERUSALEM, SELEUCID/E, TRADE, and other special articles. 

One of the problems of history is to discover the 
precise attitude adopted by the Romans towards 

-. , Judaism, on the one hand, and towards 

4 Kome ana Christianity on the other We know 

the Gospel. 

r that important concessions were made to 

the Jews and that on the whole they enjoyed a large 
measure of religious liberty. Unfortunately, however, 
we are unable to treat the history of Josephus or the 
narratives of the XT as in all respects historically 
accurate. As to Josephus, his persistent endeavour 
to make it apparent that his people were actually friends 
of the Romans, and in reality took up arms against 
them unwillingly, is a notable example of hii colouring 
of the situation, and compels the acceptance of his 
assertions with some caution ( Riggs, Hist, of Jewish 
People, 145 ; cp De Quincey, Works, 7 131^). As to 
the Gospels, it is admitted that their present form is 
due to editorial redaction. Christianity was no sudden 
growth. It arose gradually, and only made its way by 
slow degrees. It represents the result of that inter 
play of Eastern and Western ideas which began under 
the DISPERSION (q. v. ). Judaism, under the influence 
of Greek thought, had undergone during the disper 
sion a striking change. Later, the transition from 
Grasco- Judaism to Christian Judaism, and from the 
ideas of Philo to those accredited to Jesus, was easy 
and natural. Even the stricter Judaism, itself, in the 
person of Hillel, helped to promote the new develop 
ment. The process was accelerated by contact with 



Rome. But the new movement at first met with no very 
great success. Christian Judaism appealed neither to 
the Jew nor to the Gentile. The Jew refused to give 
up his characteristic rites ; the Gentile would not 
submit to purely oriental institutions. Christian 
Judaism was obliged to throw off more of its oriental 
trappings. Hence arose the purely Christian movement. 
This form of Christianity was probably represented by 
the primitive gospel. But the evolutionary process was 
still at work. The struggle of ideas was now going on 
with renewed vigour. The Roman empire had become 
a world-empire ; everything was tending towards a 
world -religion. Christianity had long been in the 
air, or in other words, the fulness of time had come. 

This is admitted on all hands. If the Empire was the 
greatest of hindrances to the gospel, it was also the greatest of 
helps. . . The single fact that the Empire was universal went 
far to complete the fulness of time for Christ s coming. Rome 
put a stop to the wars of nations and the great sales of slaves 
resulting from them, to the civil strife of cities and their 
murderous revolutions. Henceforth they were glad to live 
quietly beneath the shelter of the Roman peace. Intercourse 
and trade (witness the migratory Jews) were easier and freer 
than ever since in Europe till quite recently. . . This was 
her [Rome s] work in history to be the link between the 
ancient and the modern between the heathen city states of 
the ancient world and the Christian nations of the modern (H. 
M. Gwatkin, Roman Empire in Hastings BU). Cp Ramsay, 
Church in the Roman Ktnpire, chap. t>, 6 ; also Seeley, 
F.cce Homo, i ; T. H. Muirhead in The Hibb. Journ. \ 153 
[Oct. 1902], a criticism of Kidd s Principles of W. Civilisation; 
J. M. Robertson, A Short Hist, of Christianity (1902). 

W riting of the state of the world towards the end of 
the first century, Renan shows (see the references in his 
notes) that expanded ideas of universal brotherhood 
and a sympathy with humanity at large, derived for the 
most part from the Stoic philosophy, were the result of 
the broader system of authority and the less confined 
education which had now assumed control. Men 
dreamed of a new era and of new worlds. . . Maxims 
of common humanity became current, and the Stoics 
earnestly taught the abstract notions of equality and 
the rights of men. . . Love for the poor, sympathy 
for all, and charity, became virtues. But at the same 
time, as often happens during a period of transition, 
on the whole, the middle of the first century is one of 
the worst epochs of ancient history. Philosophers, 
however, were doing much to bring about a. reforma 
tion, and there was as much grandeur in the struggle 
of philosophy in the first century as in that of 
Christianity (The Apostles, ch. 17). But it was not 
merely a struggle of two independent forces against a 
common foe. A struggle of ideas was going on within 
and between the two reforming agencies, and between 
both and the popular Roman religion. The conflict 
resulted in the victory of neither one nor the other, but 
in a compromise, in the evolution of a religion adapted 
and adaptable to its surroundings in other words in a 
paganised Christianity. 

The primitive gospels seem to have been edited and 
amplified in view of this development. We have in 
.p . our present gospels, apart from the 

5. Komans in fact that there are doubtless . g ospe is 
ie Uospels. ( GnostiC) Ebion i t i c> an d even Essenic) 
within the gospels, on the whole not a picture of what 
really took place at the rise of the Christian movement, 
but a representation coloured and suggested by the 
ideas of a later age. Although therefore they may 
contain much correct information as to Roman ad 
ministration in Palestine, we can hardly trust them 
as to the general conduct of the Romans. To take 
an instance, the Gospels suggest that the Romans 
were interested in the new movement from the start, 
but that the ruling Jews were almost persistently hostile 
to it (espec. Lk. [cp also Acts]; cp Ramsay, U ns 
Christ born at Bethl.f f>j /.}. But the movement was 
not such as to appeal to the Roman mind in the first 
instance, and the name of its founder appears only in 
profane authors of a hundred years later, and then in 



an indirect manner ..." (Renan, Life of Jesus, ch. 28). 
Writings, such as the Gospels and the Acts, written in 
the interest, or to explain the rise, of a religious move 
ment, are especially liable to be influenced by bias or 
tendency, so that there is every reason to treat them 
with caution and critically to examine their statements 
before regarding them as strictly historical. In par 
ticular, the accounts of the betrayal, trial, and execution 
of the hero, whether we consider the part played by 
the Jews or by the Romans, are very difficult to under 
stand. We might naturally suppose that Jesus would 
have been treated by the Romans as a political offender. 
Deliverers kept coming forward, we may be sure, in 
answer to the Jewish expectations. The Romans would 
hardly have been likely to discriminate between the new 
Messiah and other agitators. Each and all would be 
regarded equally as politically dangerous ; the career 
of each and all would be abruptly terminated as soon 
as the outskirts of the cities were abandoned and an 
attempt was made to openly preach a new kingdom 
in the market-place. We have examples later of the 
treatment which these prophets received. 

For instance, to quote Cornill s graphic description (Hist. 260), 
*a certain Theudas . . . had summoned the people to the 
Jordan where at his command the miracle of Joshua was to be 
repeated. Fadus sent thither a company of cavalry, who 
simply cut the people down and brought the head of Theudas 
to Jerusalem. See THEUUAS. 

It is difficult to believe that the Romans behaved as 
they are reported to have done at an earlier date, even 
when it is admitted that the circumstances at the time 
were rather different. It has been handed down again 
that the Jews themselves, or a section of them, actually 
anticipated Roman action, that they betrayed the 
author of the new movement to the Romans and were 
themselves allowed to play a chief part in carrying out 
his death-sentence. But this representation of the 
Jewish attitude, as well as that of the Roman pro 
cedure, looks very much like a late attempt to take the 
blame as far as possible off the shoulders of the 
Romans and lay it on the Jews. The pagan-Christian 
movement, and the widening gap between Jews and 
Christians, would give rise to a tendency to say as little 
as possible in disparagement of the Romans, and as 
much as possible to bring odium on the Jews ; to 
adapt the teaching more and more to the mind of the 
Roman, to make it diverge more and more from the 
doctrines and practices of the Jews. 

Cp GOSPELS. On the representation of Roman administration 
given in Acts, see ACTS. For other details see the special 
articles on the Roman places, governors, etc., mentioned in 

ROPE. For htbel, abofh, and nikpah, see CORD, 
and for agmon, Job 41 2 [4026] RV, AV hook, see 
RUSH, 2, and cp FISH, 5, n. i, col. 1529. 

ROSE. i. (rnri; AN eoc, Cant.2i; KRINON, 
Is. 35 if) is now usually taken, as in RV "-, to be the 
autumn crocus, Colchicum autumnale, L. , or some 
kindred species. The Heb. word, habasst<leth, is closely 
akin to Syr. ham.mlldythd, the meaning of which is well 
assured (Low, 174). 

The rendering rose, found in Kimhi and other Jewish writers, 
seems to rest on mere conjecture ; lily stands in 05, Vg., Tg. 
(but only once in each), whilst narcissus is in Tg. on Cant., 
and is upheld by Celsius (1 489 ff.~) and others. Delitzsch (Prol. 
82 Jf-} compares Ass. habasillatu, reed, and argues for the 
word being a general name (cp and Vg. of Cant. 2 i) for a 
flower-stalk or a flowering plant. As Noldeke (ZDMG 40 730) 
and Halevy (/ijT/14 149) urge, however, the name must be 
specific (at all events in Cant. 2 1): and the Aramaic word 
provides a satisfactory parallel, though, of course, this argument 
is not decisive against an Assyrian connection. 1 Various species 

1 [The Ass. comparison is accepted by Che. (Profih. fs.(3\ O n 
Is. I.e.) after discussion ; it is pointed out that the same plant- 
name ofter^has a different reference in different countries. See 
also Ges.( 13 ) s.v. , who recognises the connection.] 



of colchicum found in Palestine are enumerated by Tristram 
(FFP 425). 

2. The podov is referred to in Wisd. 28 (oTei/^etfa 
pbSwv KaXv^iv), Ecclus. 24i 4 [i8] 3913(17), and 508 (p 3 
SJV2 ; see Schechter and Taylor). What is commonly 
called the Rose of Jericho, the Anastatica hieruntica, 
is certainly not meant by Ben Sira, when he speaks of 
the rose-plants in Jericho. In all these passages he 
apparently means the rhododendron (Tristram, NHB 
477; cp Schick, PEFQ, 1900, pp. 63-65). In 3 Mace. 
7 17. PTOLEMAIS [q.v.] is called podofiopov [V], or poSo- 
<pbvov [A]. The roses of Egypt are celebrated by the 
Roman poet Martial. 

Gratz even finds the Hebrew, or more strictly, New Hebrew 
word for roses in a passage of Canticles (4 13, o Tll for DTlj). 
This may be right (see col. 693) ; but cp Budde, ad Ice. On 
Til, rose, in Mishna, and its Syr. and Ar. cognates, see Low, 
Aram. Pjiansennamen, 1317^ N, M 

ROSH (B>an ; ptoc [BAQ]), according to most, is 
the name of a people in Asia Minor, which, like Meshech 
and Tubal (confidently identified with the Moschi and 
the Tibareni), belonged to the empire of GOG [q.v. ] 
(Ezek. 38 2/. 39 1). It is very strange, however, that 
all the names of peoples in Ezek. 38i-6, except Rosh 
and Paras (v. 5), should occur in the Table of Nations 
in Gen. 10, and, from the conjunction of Tiras with 
Meshech and Tubal in Gen. 102, von Hammer long ago 
plausibly conjectured the identity of Tiras and Rosh. 
It is noteworthy that in Judith 223 the sons of RASSES 
(q.v., and cp TIRAS) are mentioned directly after Put 
and Lud, and it is natural to identify, first, Rasses with 
Rosh, and then, on the ground of the phenomena of the 
Lat. MSS. , x Rasses with Tiras. This would produce 
the reading prince of Tiras. 2 

This is decidedly better than explaining c ; Nn j, chief 
prince (of Meshech, etc.), as RV tf- and Smend (after 
Tg. , Aq. , Jer. ). But the whole of the prophecy of 
Gog appears to need reconsideration (see PROPHET, 
27). If it is true that the prophet foretells a great N. 
Arabian invasion, we must suppose that ran, like CTD and 
s5"EHn, is a corruption of Assur (-IIB N), the name of one 
of the peoples in N. Arabia bordering on the old Judahite 
territory. Cp TARSHISH, TIRAS. 

Winckler would omit x b J as a gloss on p NI ( chief ); but 
this is too superficial a correction. K ij j is specially one of 
Ezek. s words (cp PRINCE, 2). T. K. C. 

ROSH (t^XI ; pooc [ADL]), a Benjamite family name 
(Gen. 4621). In the corresponding list in Nu. 26iSf. 
for Ehi Rosh Muppim we find Ahiram Shephupham, 
and the three names probably grew out of the two either 
by a simple transposition of the letters M and Sh (cp 
C. J. Ball, SHOT), or in some such way as that explained 
by Gray (tf/W 35). 

The MT in Gen., indeed, requires Rosh to make up its ten 
sons of Benjamin (i.e., fourteen sons of Rachel ; v. 22) ; but 
AL , although naming ten, preserves the original summation 
nine (i.e., eighteen sons of Rachel). <B B is lacking at this 
point ; but <P sees the discrepancy and, since it retains Rosh, 
changes the eighteen to nineteen. 

ROSIN, i. nX, sari, Ezek. 27 17 AV m - See BALM, 


2. vd<j>0a; Song of Three Children, 23 (Dan. (5 846) AV, 

RUBY. In EV rubies represent pSnimm, D^JE, 
1. Biblical f times (Job 28x8 Lam. 4 7 Proves 

references 5 I0 m Lamentatlons RV " 8 

has corals ; in Job it has red coral 
and pearls. 

1 Vet. Lat. reads Thiras ft Rasis, with which Pesh. must 
originally have agreed : Thiras and Rasis represent different 
readings of the same word. 

2 DVn N bJ, instead of t^NT j ; n, as Herz has remarked, 
might easily fall out after N t?- Toy (Ezek. SJSOT) has also 
combined the names Rosh and Tiras. The above was written, 
however, before the appearance of his work. 


2. Identibca- 


The renderings of vary and (sometimes at least) manifestly 
represent another text (in Job, icai t^Kvoov <ro<fiiau> itncp TO. 
eVioTara [BNC, e<ru>Ta, A]; Lam., iintp \iOovs ; Prov. 815 811 
31 10, \iOtov TToAvreAiij ; Prov. JO 15, wanting?); V g. has a 
different rendering in each case (Job, irahitur autem tapitntia 
fie occultis ; Lam., ebore antique; Prov. 815, cunctis opifrus ; 
8 ii, cunctisfretiositsimit; 20 15, multitude gemtnarumi 31 10, 
de ultimisjinil us). 

2. In Is. 54 12 (irpiWaXXoj), Ezek. 27 16 (x<VXP [ R Q]> 
(copxopi J 1AJ) KV has rubies, but AV agate and 
AV"- [Ezek.] chrysoprase, for 13-13, kadAod. See 

3. In Ex. 28i; Ezek. 2813 RV "K- has ruby for 
nix, <></?/. 

The question whether rubies are referred to in the 
OT may at first sight appear rather complicated. It is 
not so, however, in reality. The claims 
Qf , rubies as a rendering of ptninim 
have long since passed into abeyance ; 
the revisers of AV, it is clear, only acquiesce in certain 
cases in AV s rendering rubies from a feeling of un 
certainty as to the absolute correctness of the marginal 
renderings which they propose. On the correctness of 
their renderings we may refer to CORAL, PEARL, and 
with regard to Lam. 4; (where the strange statement, 
they were more ruddy in body than rubies, is ventured 
If the precious stone called 6dem is really from 
V CIN. to be red, and not rather from the name of 
Edom, 1 it is most plausible to identify it with the 
carnelian (see SARDU .s). We have, therefore, only 
the passages Is. 54 12 Ezek. 27 16 to deal with. Here 
the greatest weight is due to Prof. Kidgeway s remark 
(CARHUNCLK, col. 702), that there is no proof that the 
ruby, which is found only in Ceylon and in Burmah, J 
was known to the Hebrews any more than it was to the 
Greeks till after the time of Theophrastus. If the nophek 
is the mafkat-slone of the Egyptians (see CARBUNCLE, 
end), the kadktd might conceivably be the garnet ; on 
the possible root-meaning (to emit fire, as a fire-stick), 
see Ges.-Bu. and BUB. We must not, however, ignore 
the possibility (see CHALCEDONY, i, end) that the true 
reading of the word is, not 1312, but 1312 (r for d). 
Both for the stone called ddem and for that called (as 
we now assume) 1313, the name of a country may be 
surmised as the origin viz., in the case of odem, 
Edom, and in that of 1313, jerahmeel (such corruptions 
of this name turn out to be common); 3 the stones 
so designated may in fact have reached the Hebrews 
from N. Arabia, and so have been called respectively 
the Edomite and the Jerahmeelite stone. Cp SARDIUS, 

The true or Oriental ruby is a red variety of corundum or 
native alumina of great rarity and value, and to be distinguished 
from the spinel (an aluminate of magnesium), which is of much 
less estimation as a gem stone. The phraseology of ancient 
writers was even more confused than that now current, for they 
appear to have classed together under a common name, such as 
the carbunculus of Pliny or the arflpaf of Greek writers, not 
only (perhaps) our two kinds of ruby, but also garnets and 
other inferior stones of a fiery colour. See further STONES 


RUDIMENTS (cTOixei&). Col. 2 8 20 EV, RV">e- 
ELEMENTS (f - .). 

RUE (rTHfANON [Ti. WH]) is once mentioned (Lk. 
Il42t) as a small garden herb ; in the parallel passage 
Mt. 2823 anise and cummin are mentioned instead. 

According to Tristram (AV//> 478) Rnta graveolens is at this 
day cultivated in Palestine, whilst Ruta. bracteosa is a common 
wild plant. Cp Low, no. 317. 

RUFUS ( poy<J>oc [Ti. WH]) occurs several times in 
Old-Christian literature. 

i. Mk. 15 2 i, as the son of SIMON OF CYRENE and 
the brother of ALEXANDER (qq.-v. ). In the Apocryphal 


2 Cp The Ruby Mines in Upper Burmah, CornhiU Maga 
zine, Dec. 1001. 

3 Cp, for instance, Calcol, i K. 431 [5n]. 



Acts of Peter and Andrew, and of others, Alexander 
and Rufus are mentioned as disciples of Andrew, who 
were his companions in the country of the barbarians ; 
cp R. A. Lipsius, Apokr. Ap.-gesch. Is33/- 617 621 ; 877 
79 83, E. 94 96. 

2. Rom. 1613, as a Roman Christian, well known to 
Paul and to the Christians in Rome as being the elect 
(or the chosen) in the Lord. We do not know the 
force of this expression. Weizsacker thinks that it 
hints at some special circumstances connected with his 
conversion. B. Weiss, Sanday-Headlam interpret: 
eminent as a Christian. In any case it will be an 
epithcton omans to celebrate the friend of Paul, the 
supposed author, who goes on to salute his mother 
and mine, as if the Roman wife had once kindly treated 
him, who had not yet been in Rome. The list of greet 
ings in Rom. 16 is not historical ; the names and the 
additions are fanciful ; cp ROMANS (EPISTLE). Accord 
ing to Epiphanius this Rufus was reckoned among the 
seventy others (apostles), Lk. 10 1. A Spanish local 
tradition makes him the first bishop of Tortosa, conse 
crated by Paul. Another tells us that he was conse 
crated bishop of the Egyptian Thebes by Peter. His 
birthday is said to have been the 8th or the igth April ; 
cp Lipsius, 2222 227, E 242. 

3. Polycarp, Phil. 9 1; cp Eus. HE\\\. 8613, as a 
companion of the martyrs Ignatius and Zosimus, com 
memorated every year on i8th Dec. at Philippi, accord 
ing to Martyrol. Rom. 

It is difficult to say whether these three, or any two 
of them, originally indicate the same person. 

w. c. v. M. 


b ), Judg. 4i8 RVf ; see col. 509, n. 4. 


RULE (1[5), Is. 44 13 AV, RV LINE (q.v. 2). Cp 

RULER. On the wide use of general terms of this 
nature, cp what has been said under the headings 

The different Hebrew and Greek terms thus rendered 
are as follows : 

1. sagtin, see DEPUTY, i. 

2. sar, see PRINCE, 3, and cp ARMY, 4, GOVERNMENT, 21, 

3. ndgid, see PRINCE, i. 

4. magcn, Hos. 4 18, lit. SHIELD [y.v.] the text is not certain. 
j. mcscl (a ruler in the general sense, Gen. 45 8 Prov. 6 7 

Mi. 62 [i]), see GOVERNOR, n. 

6. sallit, see GOVERNOR, 9. 

7. ap\(.<ruva.y(ayo<;, Mk. 5 22, see SYNAGOGUE, 9. 

8. apx iT P *^" s> Jn.2s.yC, see MEAL, n. 

9. TroAirapxis, Acts 17 6 8 (ruler of the city), see THES- 


10. 7rapxos, 2 Mace. 427 AV (RV governor ), see Sos- 
TRATUS, and 

1 1 . dpx" , the most widely-used of all terms both in LXX and 
NT, applied, e.g., to rulers of nations (Mt. -025), magistrates 
and judges (Lk. 1^58 Rom. 183), officers and members of the 
Sanhedrin (Mt. 9 18 23 Lk. 8 41 23 13 35 Jn. 3 i) ; to Jesus the 
ruler of the kings of the earth (Rev. 1 5), and to Satan the 
prince (so EV) of devils (Mt. 9 34). 

RUMAH (np-Vl), the birthplace of Zebidah or 
Zebudah, Jehoiakim s mother (2 K. 2836 [GK] KpoyMA 

[B]. [6K] "p- [A], [eK]AOBeNNA [L] | Jos. Ant. X.02, 

65 ABOYMA.C i-e., APOYM&C), has been thought (see 
HWB^) to be the poyMA of Eusebius (OS< 2 288io, 
poyMA H K&l APIA, 1 in his time called peM<{)ic). 
with which he identifies Arimathaea, unless || 2 Ch. 865 
(@ BA not MT) be correct in giving Raman for Rumah 
(so Pesh. in 2 K.). It is the modern Rantieh in the 
plain N. of Diospolis (Lydda). There were, however, 
several places called Rumah. Another is referred to 
in the Talmud as Ruma and once as Aruma (Xeub. 
Gtog. du Talm. 203); this seems to be the Galilean 

1 See above, col. 297, n. 2. 


Ruma of Josephus (BJ iii. 72i), which may be the 
mod. Rumeh, on the S. edge of the plain of Battauf, 
about 6 m. N. of Nazareth. 

AKUMAH [g.v.} in Judg. 041 is at first sight excluded by its 
n. u them situation. Probably, however, the original story spoke 
of Abimelech as king of Cusham in the Negeb (see SHECHEM). 
If so, it is plausible to identify Arumah with the Rumah of 
2 K., because of the matrimonial connections between the kings 
of Judah and the Negeb. Like Ramah (which, indeed, Pesh. 
reads in 2 K. and *BBA \ n the supplement to 2 Ch. 36 5), Rumah 
and Arumah probably come from Jerahmeel ; the place so 
designated was of Jerahmeelite origin. T. K. C. 

4 (col. 314). 

RUSH, RUSHES, i. K>i gome (Ex. 2 3 [Syro- 
hex., Aid., 15 TTiVTTYPOC ; so Aq. 1 Sym., @ om.], Job 
8n [rTATTYpoc]. Is. 182[erriCTO\AC ByBAiNAc], So? 2 
[eAoc]t) is almost certainly the papyrus (cp (5 Ex. 
[?], fob), the Hebrew name being derived from 
Coptic kam. This plant (Cyperus Papyrus, L. ), which 
was a characteristic growth along the Nile banks in 
ancient Egypt, 3 and still occurs in several localities in 
Palestine, rises to a height of about six feet, with a 
triangular tapering stem ; see PAPYRI, i. Its stem 
supplied material for the making of boats, sails, mats, 
cloth, cords, and, above all, writing material. In 
particular, its use for the construction of light Nile 
boats is mentioned by Theophrastus, Pliny, and other 
ancient writers (cp EGYPT, 8, end), and explains the 
references in Ex.23 Is. 182, and probably also Job 926 
(see RV n e-, but cp REEDS, OSPRAY). 

2. JiS3N, agmon (Is. 9i4 [13] 19is 4 58s (K/H/COS), Job 
41 2 [4026, Kp.~\ 4l2o 5 [i2]t) is a word for marsh reed, 
derived from again, C3N, a marsh or pool (Earth, 
XB 341), and very probably to be identified with Arundo 
Donax, ~L. (cp Tristram, XHB 436/1). In Is. 9 14 [13] 
19 15 the agmon or reed is contrasted with the kappa ft 
(nss) or palm-branch, the latter indicating those in 
high position and the former the humbler classes in the 
State so (below, n. 4). In Is. 685 among the 
spurious tokens of pretended piety is mentioned that 
of bowing the head as the head of the reed is bent by 
the flow of the stream in which it grows ; cp i K. 14 15 
Mt.ll 7 . 

In Job 41 2 [4026] the name is transferred to the rope or cord 
(see RV) of reed used to noose the crocodile; and in Job 41 20 
[12] the hot vaporous breath of this animal is compared to the 
steam of a seething pot and (see RV) the smoke of (burning) 
rushes. [In both passages the text is doubtful. On Job 41 2 
see FISH, 5, and n. i, where DU, ring is proposed as an 
emendation, and on Job 41 20 see Budde, who (with Bi., Du., 
Beer) reads DJNl, and boiling. ] N. M. W. T. T.-D. 

RUST. i. n!pri, JieVah; ioc, in Ezek. 246n/. 
of the bloody_ city, that caldron full of rust [AV scum ] where- 
from the rust is not yet gone. 

2. jSpoxris, in Mt. 6 19 f. of moth and rust (CTTJ? KCU jSpdxris) 
which consume treasure. 

3. ids, in Jas. 63, spoken of rusting gold and silver. 

RUTH (JVTl, poy0. *.ax). a Moabitish woman, 
the heroine of the Book of Ruth. Through her marriage 
with Mahlon, and subsequent marriage -at -law with 
Boaz (in the name of Mahlon), she became an ancestor 
of David, who, according to our present text, was a 
native of Bethlehem in Judah. Ruth s noble unselfish 
ness was thus rewarded (cp Ruth 2 12). Her sister, 

1 Aq. gives Tram/pewy for rpo, Ex. 2 5 ; Vg. papyrion. 

2 AV has bulrushes in Ex. 2 3 (RVnig. papyrus ), Is. 18 2 
(RV papyrus ), rush in JobSn (RVmg. papyrus ), and 
rushes m Is. Z5j. 

s It is said to be now extinct in Egypt thus Boissier (/ /. Or. 
5 375) olim in Egypto, ubi destructus mine esse videtur. 
Tristram : no longer found in Africa, excepting in marshes of 
the White Nile in Nubia, 7 N. latitude (NHB 433). 

* In both cases paraphrases, fieyav Kal /jaxpov and apxyv 



whose impulse to follow Naomi to her home in Judah 
was less effectual than Ruth s, was named Orpah, a 
name which suggests the meaning obstinacy. Hence, 
following Pesh., it is usual (cp Geiger, Urschr. 50) to 
explain Ruth as a contraction of RC uth, i.e. , the 
companion, one who lovingly attaches herself. See, 
however, for other explanations, RUTH [BOOK], 5. 
The account of her levirate- marriage with Boaz is 
given with archaeological fulness as an obsolete custom. 
Cp SHOES (e). 

[By old Hebrew law, as by the old law of Arabia, a wife who 
had been brought into her husband s house by contract and pay 
ment of a price to her father was not set free by the death of her 
husband to marry again at will. The right to her hand lay with 
the nearest heir of the dead. Originally we must suppose, 
among the Hebrews as among the Arabs, this law was all to the 
disadvantage of the widow, whose hand was simply part of the 
dead man s estate ; but, while this remained so in Arabia to the 
time of Mohammed, among the Hebrews the law early took 
quite an opposite turn ; the widow of a man who died childless 
was held to have a right to have a son begotten on her by the 
next kinsman, and this son was regarded as the son of the dead 
and succeeded to his inheritance so that his name might not be 
cut off from Israel. The duty of raising up a son to the dead 
lay upon his brother, and in Dt. 25 5 is restricted to the case 
when brothers live together. In old times, as appears from 
Gen. 38, this was not so, and the law as put in the book of Ruth 
appears to be that the nearest kinsman of the dead in general 
had a right to redeem for himself the dead man s estate, but 
at the same time was bound to marry the widow. The son of 
this marriage was reckoned as the dead man s son and succeeded 
to his property, so that the redeemer had only a temporary 
usufruct in it. Naomi was too old to be married in this w-ay, 
but she had certain rights over her husband s estate which the 
next kinsman had to buy up before he could enter on the 
property. And this he was willing to do, but he was not willing 
also to marry Ruth, and beget on her a son who would take the 
name and estate of the dead and leave him out of pocket. He 
therefore withdraws and Boaz comes in his place. That this is 
the sense of the transaction is clear ; there is, however, a little 
obscurity in 45, where (see Vg., Pesh.) one letter has fallen out 
and we must (with Cappellus, Geiger, Bertheau, etc.) read 
niTPN CJ1> an d translate What day thou buyest the field from 
Naomi thou must also buy Ruth, etc. Cp w. qf. w. K. s.] 

The notice in Ruth 4 7 has caused some difficulty. 
Kalisch (Bible Studies, 1 [1877] 61) actually suggests 
that c JB 1 ? ( EV in former time ) may perhaps mean 
from olden times. Driver (Intr. (6 455), who ap 
parently finds 4? and 4 18-22 the only passages which 
may indicate a late date, thinks that, while 418-22 
forms no integral part of the book, 4? has every 
appearance of being an explanatory gloss, and com 
pares the admitted gloss in i S. 9g, which begins with 
Ssotya D^E 1 ?- This is a perfectly legitimate view, 
though it entails an alteration of the text in v. 8. But 
we may ask this question : Supposing that the custom 
referred to in 4 7 had become antiquated, was not such 
an explanatory notice called for ? T. K. c. 

RUTH, BOOK OF. The story of RUTH (q.v. ) forms 

one of the OT Hagiographa, usually reckoned as the 

-. . . . second of the five Megilloth or Festal 

. 1 ? ina Rolls. This position corresponds to the 

P . ] evv j sa practice of reading the book at 
the Feast of Pentecost ; Spanish MSS, however, place 
Ruth at the head of the Megilloth (see CANTICLES) ; 
and the Talmud, in a well-known passage of Baba. 
Bathra (14^), gives it the first place among all the 
Hagiographa. On the other hand, <5 and the Vul 
gate make Ruth follow Judges. It has sometimes been 
held (e.g. , by Ewald, Hist. 1 156 ; Bertheau, Kichtcr u. 
Ruth,^ 292) that this was its original place in the 
Hebrew Bible also, or rather that Ruth was originally 
reckoned as an appendix to Judges, since it is only by 
doing this, and also by reckoning Lamentations to 
Jeremiah, that all the books of the Hebrew canon can 
be reduced to twenty-two, the number assigned by 
Josephus and other ancient authorities. It has been 
shown elsewhere (CANON, 11-14), however, that the 
argument for the superior antiquity of this way of 
reckoning breaks down on closer examination, and, 
whilst it was very natural that a later rearrangement 
should transfer Ruth from the Hagiographa to the 


2. Date. 


historical books, and place it between Judges and 
Samuel, no motive can be suggested for the opposite 
change. That the book of Ruth did not originally 
form part of the series of Former Prophets (Judges- 
Kings) is further probable from the fact that it is quite 
untouched by the process of prophetic or Deuterono- 
mistic editing, which gave that series its present shape 
at a time soon after the fall of the kingdom of Judah ; 
the narrative has no affinity with the point of view which 
looks on the whole history of Israel as a series of ex 
amples of divine justice and mercy in the successive 
rebellions and repentances of the people of God. But 
if the book had been known at the time when the 
history from Judges to Kings was edited, it could 
hardly have been excluded from the collection ; the 
ancestry of David was of greater interest than that of 
Saul, which is given in i S. 9i, whereas the old history 
names no ancestor of David beyond his father 

As to the date. A very early period is clearly impos 
sible. The book does not offer itself as a document 
written soon after the period to which it 
refers ; it presents itself as dealing with ! 
times far back, and takes obvious delight in depicting 
details of antique life and obsolete usages (on Ruth j 
4 1-12, see RUTH); it views the rude and stormy j 
period before the institution of the kingship through 
the softening atmosphere, of time, which imparts to 
the scene a gentle sweetness very different from the 
harsher colours of the old narratives of the book of 
Judges. [We cannot therefore very well say with Dr. 
C. H. H. Wright (lutrod. 126) that the book must 
have been written after the time of David, and long 
prior to the Exile. ] Indeed, the interest taken in 
the pedigree of David points to a time when David 
had become a symbol for the long-past ideal age. In 
the language, too, as we shall see presently (see 3), 
there is a good deal that makes for and nothing that 
makes against a date subsequent to the captivity, and 
the very designation of a period of Hebrew history 
as the days when the judges judged (Ruthli) is 
based on the Deuteronomistic additions to the book of 
Judges (2i6/), and does not occur till the period of 
the Exile. 

An inferior limit for the date of the book cannot 
be assigned with precision. Kuenen formerly argued 
(Ond.(^\ [1861] 212214) that, as the author seems 
to take no offence at the marriage of Israelites with 
Moabite women, he must have lived before the time 
of Ezra and Xehemiah (Ezra 9 Xeh. 13); but the 
same argument would prove that the Book of Esther 
was written before Ezra, and indeed, as Wellhausen 
(Bleek s /;Y>//.( 4 , 205) points out, the singular Talmudic 
statements respecting the descent of eminent Jewish 
teachers from supposed heathen proselytes of antiquity 
(Sisera, Sennacherib, Nebuchadrezzar, Haman see 
RAHAB) appear to imply a theory very similar to 
that of the Book of Ruth, which nevertheless had 
no polemical bearing on the practical exclusiveness of 
the prevalent custom. We cannot therefore assert 
that the Book of Ruth was not written later than 
about 444 H. C. 

At the same time it must be admitted that the story 
of Ruth was written before the living impulses of Jewish 
literature had been choked by the growing influence of 
legalism. As Ewald remarks, we have here a narrator 
of a perfectly individual character, who, without 
anxiously concealing by his language all traces of the 
later age in which he wrote, had obviously read himself 
into the spirit of the ancient works both of history and 
of poetry, and thus produces a very striking imitation 
of the older work on the kings (Hist.\i^f.). The 
manner, however, in which he tells the story is equally 
remote from the legal pragmatism of Chronicles and 
from the prophetic pragmatism of the editor of the older 
histories. His work has therefore some advantage over 



the histories just mentioned, an advantage, it is true, 
of which the Targum (see Is/ ) endeavours to deprive 
it. By the tone of simple piety and graciousness which 
pervades it, and by its freedom from the pedantry of 
legal orthodoxy, the book reminds us of the prologue to 
the colloquies of Job and the older poetical wisdom. 
Legalism, then, was still far from having triumphed in 
the field of literature when the story of Ruth was written ; 
even a superficial student cannot close his eyes to this 
important fact. 

The necessity of a somewhat late date will appear also 
from the following stylistic and linguistic considerations. 

_ . ... That the style of the narrative lacks the 
A t "" freshness and popularity which distinguish 
the best sections of the Books of Sannn-1 
must be apparent, and upon examining closely the 
linguistic details, we shall probably become convinced 
that a pre-exilic origin is impossible. The learned 
Benedictine Calmet (Dictionnaire historique et critique, 
1722, art. Ruth ), indeed, following Babd bathrd, 
14^, ascribes the composition to the author of the 
Books of Samuel, a. view which he supports by re 
ferring to the phrases, Yahwe do so to me and more 
also, Ruth 1 17 (cp i S. 817, and ten other passages in 
Sam. and Kings), to uncover the ear, Ruth 4 4 (cp i S. 
9 15, and six other passages in Sam. ). Eor other points 
of contact between Ruth and Sam. and Kings, see 4 15 
and iS.18 (joaie) ; 1 19 and i S. 4s i K. 145 (cnni) ; 4i 
and i S. 21 3 2 K. 68 (-^K :Se) ; 2 3 and i S. 69 20 26 
(mpD, accident ), and the second fern. sing, impcrf. 
in j", 28 21 8418 i S. 1 14 (also Is. 45 10 Jer. 31 22). These 
coincidences, however, are outweighed, not only by the 
difference of style (in the more general sense) between 
Ruth and Sam. , but also by certain forms and expressions 
found in Ruth but not found in Sam. , some of which at 
least point distinctly to a post-exilic age. 

The following forms and idioms (to which add the second fern, 
sing, imperf. in p- ; see above) are post-classical and mostly post- 
exilic or exilic in use the second fern. sing. perf. in -jr, 3 -$f. 
(also in Jer. [often], Ezek. 16 Mic. 4 13 [hardly Micah s]); 

Nno for rnc, Mara, 1 20 (cp parallels in Ezek. 27 31 36 5 etc.) ; 

J3J. , to shut up, 1 13 (Mishnic, Jewish Aram., Syriac, but cp 
Dri Jer) ; 

trip, to confirm, 4 7 (also Ezek. 136 Esth. 821 27 2931^ Ps. 
119 28 106, and in [Aram.] Dan. Os) ; 

Tab , to hope, 1 13 (Esth. 9 i Ps. 119 166) ; 

HkVX NSM, to take a wife, 14 (Ezra 9 2 12 Neh. 1825 I Ch. 
23 22 etc., but not Judg. 21 23 [Budde]) ; 

[n s , therefore, 1 13 (as in Aram. Dan. 26 etc.) ; cp Driver. 

It is also well worth noticing that the divine name or 
title ns 1 (exilic and post-exilic in use) occurs in Ruth 
1 20/ 1 (without "?.x), as often in Job Ewald rightly com 
pares Job 27 2, and (against the view that Ruth is written 
in a pre-exilic N. Israelitish dialect) that the relative is 
always -IC ; N, never w (cp Konig, F.inl. 286). 

According to Konig (Einl. 287), the book in its 
present form belongs, on linguistic grounds, to the 
period of Jer., Ezek., and the Second Isaiah, whilst 
marks of the later Hebrew are wanting. Whatever 
may seem to point to an earlier period (e.g. , the use of 
the older form oJN seven times, and of ; only twice) 
this eminent linguistic critic regards as conscious archaiz 
ing. It should be remarked, however, that portions of 
Jeremiah can be shown to be of very late date, and 
that the unity of the date of authorship for Is. 40 
doubted by an increasing number of scholars. KSnig s 
dating, then, is necessarily subject to revision, and so, 
still more, is that of Driver (Introd.W 455), who em 
barrasses himself with the theory that Canticles and 
Ruth (although included in the Hagiographa) may have 
been written in the N. kingdom, and preserve words 
current there dialectically. The book, in its present 

1 The passage, as Ewald (Hist. 1 154) points out, is highly 



form, must surely on linguistic grounds be regarded as 
a post-exilic work, and \ve shall see later that, even if 
it is to some extent based on an earlier folk-story, the 
skill of the artist has enabled him so to expand, to 
enrich, and to fuse his material that it is virtually all 
his own work, and that a later editor has only touched 
the proper names and appended the genealogy. 

Wellhausen is of opinion that the most important sign 
of date is the genealogy of David (Ruth 4 iS-22, cp i Ch. 
_ . 210-17). The names of the ancestors 

nea gy. of David were known as far as Boaz. 
Then memory failed, and a leap was made in i Ch. 2n 
Ruth 421 to Salma (in Ruth, Salmon), who, in i Ch. 
2si, is called the father of Bethlehem. But Salma 
belongs to the same group as Caleb, Abi, and Hur, 
and, if anything is certain, it is this that in the olden 
times the Calibbites dwelt in the S. and not in the N. 
of Judah, and that David in particular by his birth 
belonged, not to them, but to the older part of Israel, 
which gravitated in the opposite direction to Israel 
proper, and stood in the closest connection with Ben 
jamin. \Vellhausen adds that of the other members 
of the genealogy Nahshon and Amminadab are princes 
of Judah in P, whilst Rain is the firstborn of Hezron 
(i Ch. 225), and by the meaning of his name ( the high 
one ) is, like Abram, qualified to be the starting-point 
of the princely line. On the other hand, Sam. only 
knows of David s father Jesse. l 

[The argument that Salma is a tribe foreign to old Judah, 
which was not father of Bethlehem till after the Exile, has 
been very generally admitted, and seemed to Robertson Smith 
in 1886 to decide the post-exilic origin of the genealogy. The 
present writer, however, cannot see his way to follow his prede 
cessor in this particular ; the genealogy is no doubt post-exilic, 
but is not proved to be so by Wellhausen s criticism of the proper 
names, all of which appear really to refer to Jerahmeelite i.e., 
N. Arabian clans and localities.- Hut he heartily agrees with 
W. R. Smith that the genealogy in i Ch. 2 10 ff. is quite in the 
manner of other genealogies in the same book. ] 

That the genealogy was borrowed from Chronicles and 
added to Ruth by a later hand seems certain, for the 
author of Ruth clearly recognises that Obed was legally 
the son of Mahlon, not of Boaz (4s 10). [Driver, too, 
remarks (Introd.^ 455) that the genealogy may well 
have been added long after the book itself was written, 
and, like Konig (287), leaves out of the linguistic data 
for the solution of the problem of age, tolfdoth and 
holid, which are characteristic of P in the Pentateuch 
(cp GENEALOGIES i., i). Bertheau, Kuenen, and 
Budde adhere to the view that the closing section is an 
integral portion of the book. But surely], if the author 
had given a genealogy, he would have traced it through 
Mahlon. The existence, however, ol the genealogy 
suggests the possibility that two views of the descent of 
David were current, one of which traced him to Perez 
by Mahlon, and the other to the same Perez by Boaz. 

[We have arrived at this point without having been 
obliged to interfere with the traditional text. It is, how- 

5. Proper 

ever, necessary to take that step if we would 
obtain a more complete comprehension of 
the narrative and of its historical origin. 
That Ruth, as it now stands, is a post-exilic work is 
certain ; we must therefore examine the text in connec 
tion with that of other not less certainly post -exilic 
works, in the study of which we have already reached 
results which, though in points of detail subject to 
revision, yet on the whole seem to throw considerable 
light on ancient editorial processes. We shall thus 
find reason to suspect that the personal and geo 
graphical names in the Book of Ruth (1 1-417) were 
not altogether originally as they now stand. 

Bethlehem-judah, as in the strange stories appended to Judges, 
is a corruption or distortion of Beth-jerahmeel, the name of some 
place in the region called Ephrath in the south, possibly, but 
by no means probably, the same as the place known as Carmel. 

1 Bleek s F.inl.W 204 ./, Prol.W 227 [ET 217 /]; cp De 
Gent. i6f. The passage in Einl.() is mostly reprinted in CH 

357-359, < 3 > 233-235. 
2 We reckon the N 

egeb as the N. Arabian borderland. 


1 Ephrath itself (like the Perath of Jer. 14 4-7) is possibly a 
mutilated form of ZAKEPHATH [q.v.], and Moab may be 
a substitute for Missur (cp MOAB, 14), a region to the 
S. of the country called Sarephathite or Ephrathite. Elimelech, 
Mahlon, and Chilion the two latter of which have been so 
fatally misunderstood, as if they were symbolical names are 
no doubt clan-names (or different forms of the same clan- 
name) derived from the great ethnic name, Jerahmeel. 
Orpah has probably arisen by metathesis from Ophrah 
i.e., Ephrath. Ruth (Re uth, cp Pesh.) is probably the 
fern, of Re u (Gen. 11 i8J^), which is surely equivalent to 
Re uel ; now Re uel appears in Gen. 3(5 4 as a son of Esau, and 
his name is most probably a distortion of Jerahmeel, a name 
which in its various broken forms attached itself to different N. 
Arabian clans. Naomi (No omi) is doubtless connected with the 
clan-names Na ami, Na amani. 1 Boaz (ij, 3) s ess transparent ; 
hence Stucken and Winckler do not hesitate to identify the 
original Boaz with a mythological figure. But the place of the 
bearer of this name in the genealogy, as well as in the story of 
Ruth, shows that he too must have a clan-name, - 2 and remember 
ing the Ezbi ( 3ix) of i Ch. 11 37, which corresponds to 31N 
(MT) or rather ;HN (cp <S BA ) in 2 S. 23 35 i.e., to S^DHT, 
Jerahme eli, we may restore as the original name y^y, Arab. 
"OJ7, Obed, too, is probably by metathesis from 3^1?, Arabia. 3 

The statement of the narrator then, if the present 
writer s conjectures are sound, amounts to this that a 
member of a Jerahmeelite clan who belonged to Beth- 
jerahmeel (in the Negeb) removed with his family, 
under the pressure of famine, into the land of Missur, 
and sojourned there for about ten years. This agrees 
with the original form of the story in Gen. 12io^i, 
according to which Abram ( = father of Jerahmeel ) 
removed from the same cause from the Jerahmeelite 
country to Missur or Misrim (see MiZKAlM, zb}. 

Another parallel story is that of the Shunammite woman who 
was warned by Elisha of the approach of a famine and went to 
the land of the Philistines (2 K. 8 1-3) ; the original story, the 
present writer thinks (cp SHUNEM), represented her as a dweller 
in the Jerahmeelite Negeb (still in Israelitish occupation), and 
as going farther S. to the land of Sarephath (in a wide sense 
of the phrase). 

Nor was it only famine that drove dwellers in the 
Xegeb to the neighbouring land of Missur. The original 
text of i S. 223/. seems to have represented David as 
placing his father and mother under the protection of 
the king of Missur at Sarephath (see MIZPKH, 3), while 
he was himself a wanderer in the land of Jerahmeel, 
and there is, in the present writer s opinion, hardly 
room for doubt that David lived in, or close to, the 
Jerahmeelite Negeb (see NEGEB, 3, and note 3), and 
had strong Jerahmeelite (and Misrite) affinities. The 
latter passage is specially important, because the osten 
sible object of the writer of Ruth is to prove the descent 
of David from a noble-minded Misrite woman. 4 It 
was natural to represent that David s ancestor had al 
ready set the example of taking refuge in Missur. 

We are not expressly told that Sarephath i.e. , that 
portion of Missur which lay nearest to and included the 
city of Sarephath was the locality to which Elimelech 
and his family repaired. But the connection of Sare 
phath with Moses, with the Levites, and apparently with 
the prophets, conjectured by the present writer (see 
MOSES, 4 ; PROPHECY, 6), makes it seem to him 
not improbable that the narrator had this place or 
district in his mind, and in 4 12 the kindly wish is ex 
pressed that the house of Boaz might be like the house 
of Peres (from Sarephath ?) whom Tamar ( = Jerah- 
meelith?) bore to Judah. 

1 Many Benjamite clan-names appear to the present writer 
to be demonstrably of N. Arabian origin. 

" Stucken s connection of the name with astral mythology 
(Astralntythen, 205, note) will hardly stand examination. 

3 yi (Jesse), too, very possibly comes ultimately from SNJ, CC ! 
(Ishmaefite), a term which did not originally belong exclusively 
to nomads. The names of the ancestors of David in the gene- 
"alogyare, as suggested above ( 4), exclusively N. Arabian clan- 

Budde (ZATU 12 [1892] 44) thinks that the notice in i S. 
22 3 does not imply a race-connection between David and the 
Moabite (i.e., Misrite) king or chieftain. David, he thinks, had 
to negotiate with the king, whereas if his grandmother had been 
a Moabite, this would have been unnecessary. But this is to 
press the words too strongly ; and indeed (assuming the tradi 
tion to be historical) tact may have required that David should 
represent the desired protection as a favour. 




The view here taken renders it probable that the story 
of Ruth as it now stands is not of very early post-exilic 
origin. For the feeling of bitterness towards 
^ e Misrites and their neighbours, on account 
of their long-continued oppression of Israel, apparently 
persisted till close on the Greek period. The date of 
the traditional elements, out of which, with imaginative 
freedom, the present story of Ruth may have been 
partly composed, is quite another point. As in the 
case of Job (see JOB [BOOK], 4) and Jonah (see JONAH 
[BOOK], 4 f. ) some of these elements may have been 
derived from mythology or folk-lore (cp Wi. AOF 
366 /). As Stucken points out, 1 Ruth corresponds 
exactly to Tamar ; she obtains Boaz by taking him 
unawares (Ruth 3), as Tamar obtains Judah (Gen. 38). 
A dim consciousness of this connection shows itself in 
the fact that the pedigree of Boaz is traced to Perez. 
The original story of Ruth probably gave her two sons 
(corresponding to the two sons of Tamar), only one 
of whom is recorded (simply out of interest in David) 
by the narrator. 

The altogether peculiar character of Ruth among 
the historical and quasi-historical narratives has been 
pointed out by Ewald, who is led to conclude that this 
story is only one taken from a larger series of similar 
pieces by the same author, and that through mere 
chance this is the only one preserved (f/isf. 1 155}. 
More definitely, Budde suggests (ZA T IV12 43^ [1892]) 
that the story of Ruth may originally have formed part 
of the Midrash of the Book of the Kings referred to 
in 2 Ch. 2427. In so far as this theory is based on the 
language of the genealogy in 4 18-22 (in connection with 
Wellhausen s view that i Ch. 2 10-17 is a later insertion), 
we must agree with Konig (Einl. 289, note) that it is 
unproven. At the same time, Ewald s impression that 
the narrative of Ruth did not always stand alone seems 

That one of the objects of Ruth was to explain the 

traditional descent of David from a Misrite woman, has 

_. . , been mentioned already. It was true, said 

J e S the writer, that his grandmother was a 
Misrite ; but what a noble woman she was ! 
how obedient to those fundamental laws of morality 
which the true God values more than sacrifice ! And 
so a second object naturally unveils itself viz. , to 
prepare the readers of the book to arrive at a more 
favourable opinion of the moral capacity of the Misrites 
than, owing to the cruel oppression of Israel by the 
Misrites, previous generations had been able to form. 

Many critics (e.g. , besides Winckler and most com 
mentators, Umbreit, St. Kr., 1834, pp. 308^ ; Geiger, 
Urschr. 49 ff. ; and especially Kue. Kel. of Isr. 2242/1, 
and 0<f.( 2 1523 527) hold that the narrator was one of 
those who protested against the rigour of Ezra in the 
matter of mixed marriages. It is not clear, however, 
that any such protest would have been detected by a 
Jewish reader of the book. The great point with the 
narrator is not the marriage of Mahlon but the next-of- 
kin marriage of Boaz. It cannot be shown that, when 
married to Mahlon, Ruth became in the full sense a 
worshipper of Yahwe. It is much more probable that 
the statement of Mahlon s marriage to a Misrite woman 
is simply a proof that the writer was a good historical 
scene painter. Like the Chronicler, he knows that in 
early times there was a great mixture of clans, and that 

1 Astralntytken, no, note. We may add that we take 
Tamar and Ruth to be ultimately corruptions of Jerah- 
me elith (cp JUDAH, 2). Neither Stucken nor Winckler 
criticises the Hebrew names. 


Israelites often intermarried with Jerahmeelites and 
Misrites. Besides, in order to produce an impression 
on the Jews it would be necessary for the dwelling of 
Boaz to have been in Judah, not in a district which 
in post-exilic times was not in Jewish occupation. The 
latest editor did no doubt arrange the geographical 
statements accordingly ; but the author himself, as we 
have seen, placed Boaz in the Jerahmeelite Negeb. 

Surely no one who thoroughly appreciates the charm 
of this book will be satisfied with the prevalent theory 
of its object. There is no tendency about the book ; 
it represents in no degree any party programme. And 
even if the writer started with the object of illustrating 
the life of David, he forgot this when he began to 
write, and only thought of it again as he was about to 
lay down the pen. Justly does Robertson Smith re 
mark, the marriage acquires an additional interest 
when we know that Ruth was David s great-grand 
mother, but the main interest is independent of that, 
and lies in the happy issue of Ruth and Xaomi from 
their troubles through the loyal performance of the 
kinsman s part by Boaz. Doubtless the writer meant 
his story to be an example to his own age, as well as 
an interesting sketch of the past ; but this is effected 
simply by describing the exemplary conduct of Naomi, 
Ruth, Boaz, and even Boaz s harvesters. All these act 
as simple, kindly, God-fearing people ought to act in 
Israel. [At the same time, the writer must have shared 
the religious aspirations of his time, which, as we have 
seen, was probably the post-exilic age i.e., perhaps 
that quieter period which followed after the first century 
of the Greek rule. Now, there is good evidence for the 
view that one of these aspirations was for a cessation of 
the bitter feeling between Israel and Jerahmeel. As 
yet the sad exclusion of Jerahmeelites and Misrites 
from the religious assembly had not been enacted, 1 or, 
if enacted, it was ignored by the noblest Jews, who held 
that the N. Arabian peoples were not incapable of 
repentance, and that it was no disgrace to David that 
his pedigree contained the name of a Misrite woman. 
A thorough study of certain psalms and prophecies 
will, it is believed, strongly confirm this view, and show 
that the best of the Jews looked forward to a true 
conversion of the Misrites to the religion of the God of 
Israel the Lord of the whole earth. Jerusalem 
would yet be thronged by the children of Israel s bitter 
foes, seeking first for instruction and then for admission 
into the religious community, and it is possible to see a 
glance at this hope in the touching words of Boaz, and 
how thou hast left thy father and thy mother, and the 
land of thy nativity, and art come unto a people which 
thou knewest not heretofore (Ruth2n). And so, 
ultimately, the book becomes (like Jonah) a noble 
record of the catholic tendency of the early Judaism.] 

Among other commentaries reference may be made to J. B. 
Carpzov, Collegium rabbinico-biblicum in libelluin Ruth, 

Leipsic, 1703. [Among recent commentators, 
Literature, the works of Bertheau (ed. 2, 1833), Bertholet 

(1898), Nowack (1901) may be specially men 
tioned. See also Wi. A OF 3 65-78, and references in the course 
of this article.] 

( i, 2, partly 4 and 7) \v. K. S. 
( 3. 5. 6, mostly 4 and 7) T. K. c. 

1 In Dt. 23 3-6 [4-7] altogether a later insertion the ethnics 

very incomplete. The passage must be later than the fall of 






SABANNUS (CAB&NNOY) [BA]), iEsd.86 3 RV 
= Ezra 833 BINNUI, 2. 

SABAOTH, LORD OF (n lN3X mrp). See NAMES, 

SABAT. i. RV SAPHAT, a group of children of 
Solomon s servants (see NETHINIM) in the great post- 
exilic list (see EZRA ii. , 9, 8c), one of eight inserted 

in i Esd. 634 (c&ct>&r t B ] C&4>AT [ A ]> om - L ) after 
Pochereth-hazzebaim of j| Ezra 2 57 = Neh. 7 59- 

It apparently represents the form SHAPHAT = Shephatiah 
(in Ezra2 5 7 = Neh. 7s9=iEsd. 633 L, AV SAPHETH, RV 

2. RV SEBAT (era/Sax [AV] <ra^ar [N]), the month of that 
name, i Mace. 1C 14. See MONTH, 5. 

SABATEAS (c&BB<vr<M&c [A]) lEsd. 9 4 8 AV, 
RV Sabateus = Xeh. 87, SHABBETHAI, i. 

SABATHUS (cABAOoc [BA]) i Esd. 9 28 RV, AV 
Ezral027, ZABAD, 4. 

SABBAN (c&B&NNOY L BA ]) i Esd. 8 62 = Ezra 8 33. 

SABBATEUS (cABB<vr<MOC [BA]) iEsd.9i 4 RV 
= EzralOis, SHABBETHAI, i. 

SABBATH (D3C , c&BB&TOisi), the day of sacred 
rest which among the Hebrews followed six days of 
labour and closed the week ; see WEEK. 

The grammatical inflexions of the word Sabbath 
show that it is a feminine form, properly sabbat-t for 

_, . sabbat-t, from nat? (Pi el conjug. ). 

i. btymoiogy. Thg root has nothing to do with rest . 

ing in the sense of enjoying repose ; in transitive forms 
and applications it means to sever, to put an end to, 
and intransitively it means to desist, to come to an 
end. The grammatical form of sabbath suggests 
a transitive sense, the divider, and apparently indicates 
the Sabbath as dividing the month. It may mean the 
day which puts a stop to the week s work ; but that is 
less likely. It certainly cannot be translated the day 
of rest. (Cp Lag. Uebers. 113 ; K6. Lehrg. ii. 1 280 /". ; 
Hoffm. Z.4TlV3i2i; Wellh. Prol. [1883] 117, n. i; 
Jastrow s article cited in 8.) 

[According to Jensen, ZKF, 1887, p. 278, the As 
syrian sa(p)bat(td)-tum= penitential prayer, and hence 
day of penitence and prayer. Hirschfeld (see 8), 
however, derives nat? from nyyg. Cp Benz. HA 202, 
perhaps in its oldest form it was connected with 
gut? (week). For Jastrow s view, see 8.] 

By way of preface to the present historical inquiry, 
and to clear away, if possible, any remnants of theo- 
2 Jesus and lo ca ^ P re J u dice against criticism, let 
,." ,, ,, us consider the attitude of Jesus towards 
baDDatn. Sabbath obser vance. It is not too 
bold to say that in his opposition to the current Rab 
binical views he is in harmony with the main result of 
modern historical criticism. This thesis will be justified 
at a subsequent point. The well-known and probably 
(see col. 1888, near foot) authentic saying, Think not 
that I am come to destroy the law (Mt. 617), expresses 
one side of that teaching. Jesus revered the Sabbath 
as he revered the other religious traditions of his 
people ; but he had also a freedom of inspiration which 
put a new life into his interpretation of the Sabbath 
law. That he was in the habit of attending the syna 
gogue on the Sabbath, we know from Lk. 4i6 (cp v. 31). 
But he would not adhere to the letter of the law 
where works of necessity or of mercy claimed to be 
performed : the Sabbath is made for man, and not 
man for the Sabbath ; wherefore the Son of Man is 
Lord also of the Sabbath (Mk. 2z7/). There is a 

4 T 73 

traditional saying of Jesus which may express his Janus- 
like habit of mind as regards the Sabbath. It ceased, 
indeed, to be understood when the Christian Sunday 
had become an institution, and so was thrust out of 
the canonical Church tradition ; but it certainly gives 
us the impression of being an ancient and a genuine 
tradition. 1 It is the well-known addition of D (Codex 
Bezce, ed. Scrivener, 173) after Lk. 64: On the 
same day when he saw one working on the Sabbath he 
said to him : Man, if thou knowest what thou art doing 
thou art blessed ; but if thou knowest not, thou art 
cursed and a transgressor of the law (rrj avTy rip.fpq. 6s Tiva, fpyafo/Jifvov rcjS ffafi/Sdrtp elirev O.VT& 
tivdpuTTf, ei /a.ev oldas TL woifis, /ua/cdptos er el Se /ur; 
oldas, 67r i Kara par os Kal irapaf3dTT)s el TOV vbp.oi>). The 
sense is clear it is what we find in Rom. 144 M 2 3- 2 
4 If thou knowest what thou art doing, in other 
words, if thou art doing this work on the Sabbath 
day with the consciousness that it is a work of necessity 
if thy conscience justifies thee in it then blessed 
art thou. But if thou knowest not in other words, 
if thou art acting against thy conscience, with a lurking 
fear that thou art doing aught amiss then art thou 
accursed, and a transgressor of the law. The saying 
in the Oxyrhynchus papyrus - fragment discovered in 
1 897," if you do not keep the Sabbath you will not 
see the Father (edv /J.TJ <ra/3/3cm <r?7Te rb ffdj3j3a.Tov OVK 
6\j/ea0f TOV irarepa.}, may also very well have been 
actually spoken by Jesus in its literal sense, as the ex 
pression of the same conservative temper as we find in 
Mt. 517-19, and against noisy fanatics who thought to do 
honour to their master by showing contempt for the 
day. It is more probable,, however, in view of the 
parallel clause, If you do not fast [to] the world you 
have not found the kingdom of God (eav p/rj vrjcrrevar/Te 
TOV Kbap.ov ov JJ.TI evprfre rj]v fiao iXeiav TOV deov), that 
the saying is not intended to be understood literally. 

[This is not the place to discuss the relation of the 

Pauline teaching to that of Jesus. Without entering 

_ . into the question as to the historical origin 

(_.,. of each of the Pauline epistles referred to, 
Christian ,. , T ^ , 

, , we may recall that, according to the Pauline 
attitudes. , . , 

teaching, Jesus was sent in human flesh to 

liberate men from servitude to the law as a whole and 
in every particular. The conservative side of the teach 
ing of Jesus regarding the Sabbath could not, there 
fore, be reproduced in the corresponding teaching of 
Paul.] It is clear from Rom. 14 $ff. that Paul regarded 
the observance of the Sabbath as essentially an d5td<popov 
for Christians ; it is possible to serve the Lord by 
observance of a fixed day, and equally possible to 
serve him without such observance ; the important 
thing is to have a clean conscience (cp also w. 14 
and 23). The Pauline attitude towards the Christians 
of Colossas is not inconsistent with the magnanimous 
tolerance here expressed. The sharpness of Col. 2 16/. 
(cp Gal. 4g_/". ) is due to the situation : Paul perceived 
that the Judaising false teachers had raised the dSid- 
<t>opov into an dvajKcuov, and that an energetic protest 
against the imposition of any such yoke was urgently 
required. [There is no definite conflict between the 
attitude of Paul and that of Jesus. The position taken 
up by Jesus was perfectly natural to him, as a son 
of a pious Jewish family, and a preacher to the chosen 

1 Ropes, Die Spriiche Jesu, in Texte . Untersuchungen, 
xiv. 2 126 (1896) also regards this as possible. 

2 It is more probable that the ideas in these passages rest 
upon an utterance of Jesus known to the apostle than that the 
saying attributed to Jesus in D should be an invention resting 
on the utterance of Paul. 

3 Aoyia bjo-ou (ed. Grenfell and Hunt, 1897), lof. 



people of God. It would not have been natural to 
Paul, a preacher to the Gentiles and not of purely 
Jewish culture, who seems to have felt as free towards 
the earthly life of Jesus as Jesus himself did towards 
the letter of the Mosaic Law. There were other 
Christians, however, who felt and acted differently from 

That the earliest Christians in Palestine observed the 
Sabbath is nowhere indeed expressly said, 1 but is 
certainly to be assumed. The silence of Acts is not 
to be taken as a proof of the non-observance, but con 
trariwise as a proof that it was observed as matter of 

[Eusebius (ffE32 7 ) remarks that the Ebionites 
observed both the Sabbath and the Lord s Day ; and 
this practice obtained to some extent in much wider 
circles, for the Apostolical Constitutions recommend that 
the Sabbath shall be kept as a memorial feast of the 
creation, and the Lord s Day as a memorial of the 
resurrection. w. R. s. ] 

Was the Sabbath observed in the Christian mission-churches 
of the Dispersion? This is not an inquiry that affects our 
main subject, and only a glance at it can be given. We may be 
certain indeed that where a mission-church consisted essentially 
of those who had formerly been Jews or <re/3<viecoi (see PROSE 
LYTE) the observance of the day did not forthwith cease. It is 
instructive, however, to note that in the decree of Jerusalem (Acts 
1623^) Sabbath observance is as little imposed as binding on 
Gentile Christians as is that of any other holy day. 2 In estimat 
ing the historical bearing of this testitnoniuin e stlentio it matters 
little whether we take the decree as actually pronounced by a 
council of apostles at Jerusalem a or regard it as a later finding of 
the church of that city (cp COUNCIL UK JERUSALEM). 

We now return to the thesis with which this article 

opened, viz., that the attitude of Jesus towards the Rab- 

. . , binical Sabbath (see Mt. 12 1-14 Mk. 

r"B 2 27) is in harmony with the main result 

Of Jesus, of motlem cr iticism. In his trenchant 

resumed. cr it j c j sm O f the scribes the general position 
which Jesus takes up is that the Sabbath is made for 
man, and not man for the Sabbath, which is only a 
special application of the wider principle that the law is 
not an end in itself but a help towards the realisation in 
life of the great ideal of love to God and man, which is 
the sum of all true religion. On the other hand, the 
rules of the scribes enumerated thirty-nine main kinds 
of work forbidden on the Sabbath, and each of these 
prohibitions gave rise to new subtilties. Jesus disciples, 
for example, who plucked ears of corn "in passing through 
a field on the holy day, had, according to Rabbinical 
casuistry, violated the third of the thirty-nine rules, 
which forbade harvesting ; and in healing the sick, 
Jesus himself broke the rule that a sick man should not 
receive medical aid on the Sabbath unless his life was 
in danger. 4 . In fact, as Jesus put it, the Rabbinical 
theory seemed to be that the Sabbath was not made for 
man but man for the Sabbath, the observance of which 
was so much an end in itself that the rules prescribed 
for it did not require to be justified by appeal to any 
larger principle of religion or humanity. The precepts 
of the law were valuable in the eyes of the scribes 
because they were the seal of Jewish particularism, the 
barrier erected between the world at large and the ex 
clusive community of the grace of Yah we. For this 
purpose the most arbitrary precepts were the most effec 
tive, and none were more so than the complicated rules 

1 Zahn, Gesch. des Sonntags, etc., 168, 353. 
* Id., ut supr. 173. 

3 So \Veizs;icker, Apostolic Age, 1 199 f. 

4 [In like manner the length of journey that could be under 
taken witho-it breach of the Sabbath came to be also strictly 
defined (cp Mt. 24 20). For by the thirty-ninth rule it was for 
bidden to carry anything from one place to another a 
prohibition plainly based on Ex. 1629, let no man go out of his 
place on the Sabbath day in other words, let every one stay 
at home. A definition of place in this connection was found 
in the measurement of the suburbs of a Levitical city as laid 
down in Nu. 35i-8 2000 cubits square. This gave the 
1 Sabbath limit (n2u"n Cinn), and thus the Sabbath day s 
journey (Acts 1 12 ; cra/3/3aTOi> 6Ws) was fixed at 2000 cubits or 
about 1000 yards.] 



of Sabbath observance. The ideal of the Sabbath which 
all these rules aimed at realising was absolute rest from 
everything that could be called work ; and even the 
exercise of those ofiices of humanity which the strictest 
Sabbatarians regard as a service to God, and therefore 
as specially appropriate to his day, was looked on as 
work. To save life was allowed, but only because 
danger to life superseded the Sabbath. In like 
manner the special ritual at the temple prescribed for 
the Sabbath by the Pentateuchal law was not regarded 
as any part of the hallowing of the sacred day ; on the 
contrary, the rule was that, in this regard, Sabbath 
was not kept in the sanctuary." Strictly speaking, 
therefore, the Sabbath was neither a clay of relief to 
toiling humanity nor a day appointed for public wor 
ship ; the positive duties of its observance were to wear 
one s best clothes, eat, drink, and be glad (justified from 

Is. 58 13). 

A more directly religious element, it is true, was introduced 
by the practice of attending the synagogue service ; but it is to 
be remembered that this service was primarily regarded not as 
an act of worship, but as a meeting for instruction in the law. 
So far, therefore, as the Sabbath existed for any end outside 
it.self, it was an institution to help every Jew to learn the law, 
and from this point of view it is regarded by Philo and Josephus, 
who are accustomed to seek a philosophical justification for the 
peculiar institutions of their religion. But this certainly was 
not the leading point of view with the mass of the Rabbins.l 

Such was the position of the scribes ; the Sabbath was 
an end in itself a mere barrier between God s people 
and the world at large. Jesus maintains, as we have 
seen, the opposite doctrine. He declares too that his 
view of the law as a whole, and the interpretation of the 
Sabbath law which it involves, can lie historically justi 
fied from the Old Testament. And in this connection 
he introduces two of the main methods to which histori 
cal criticism of the Old Testament has recurred in 
modern times : he appeals to the oldest history rather 
than to the Pentateuchal code as proving that the later 
conception of the law was unknown in ancient times 
(Mt. 12s 4), and to the exceptions to the Sabbath law 
which the scribes themselves allowed in the interests of 
worship (v. 5) or humanity (v. n), as showing that 
the Sabbath must originally have been devoted to 
purposes of worship and humanity, and was not always 
the purposeless arbitrary thing which the schoolmen 
made it to be. Modern criticism of the history of 
Sabbath observance among the Hebrews has done 
nothing more than follow out these arguments in detail, 
and show that the result is in agreement with what is 
known as to the dates of the several component parts of 
the Pentateuch. 

The historical results of criticism may be thus sum 
marised. Of the legal passages that speak of the 
Sabbath all those which show affinity 
the doctrine of the scribes re- 
garding the Sabbath ^ an arb itrary 
sjgn hetween Yahwe and Israel, enter 
ing into details as to particular acts that are forbidden, 
and enforcing the observance by several penalties, so 
that it no longer has any religious value, but appears as 
a mere legal constraint are post-exilic (Ex. 1623-30 
31 12-17 35 1-3; Nu. 1032-36); the older laws only 
demand such cessation from daily toil, and especially 
from agricultural labour, as among all ancient peoples 
naturally accompanied a day set apart as a religious 
festival, and in particular lay weight on the fact that 
the Sabbath is a humane institution, a holiday for the 
labouring classes (Ex. 23 12 Dt. 5 12-15). As it stands 
in these ancient laws, the Sabbath is not at all the 
unique thing which it was made to be by the scribes. 
The Greeks and the barbarians," says Strabo (x. 89), 
have this in common, that they accompany their 
sacred rites by a festal remission of labour. So it 
was in old Israel : the Sabbath [which the Israelites 

1 See the Mishnah, tract Shabbath, and Jubilees, chap. 1 ; nnd 
compare Schiirer, (7/n :!l , 2428451 470-478, where the rabbinical 
Sabbath is well explained and illustrated in detail. 


_ ... 
5. Pre-exilic 



may have taken from the Canaanites an agricultural 
people (see WEEK)] was one of the stated religious 
leasts, like the new moon and the three great agri 
cultural sacrificial celebrations (Hos. 2n); the new 
moons and the Sabbaths alike called men to the 
sanctuary to do sacrifice (Is. 1 13) ; the remission of 
ordinary business belonged to both alike (Am. 85), 
and for precisely the same reason. 1 Hosea even takes 
it for granted that in captivity the Sabbath will be 
suspended, like all the other feasts, because in his day 
a feast implied a sanctuary. 

This conception of the Sabbath, however, necessarily 
underwent an important modification in the seventh 
century B.C., when the local sanctuaries were abolished, 
and those sacrificial rites and feasts which in Hosea s 
time formed the essence of every act of religion were 
limited to the central altar, which most men could visit 
only at rare intervals. From that time forward the new 
moons, which till then had been at least as important 
as the Sabbath, and were celebrated by sacrificial feasts 
as occasions of religious gladness, fell into insignifi 
cance, except in the conservative temple ritual. The 
Sabbath did not share the same fate ; but with the aboli 
tion of local sacrifices it became for most Israelites an 
institution of humanity divorced from ritual. So it 
appears in the deuteronomic decalogue, and presumably 
also in Jer. 17 19-27. In this form the institution was 
able to survive the fall of the state and the temple, and 
the seventh day s rest was clung to in exile as one of the 
few outward ordinances by which the Israelite could 
still show his fidelity to Yahwe and mark his separation 
from the heathen. Hence we understand the impor 
tance attached to it from the period of the exile onward 
(Ezek. 20,2 228 23 3 8 Jer. 17 19-27 Is. 5(5 1- 7 58i 3 ), and 
the character of a sign between Yahwe and Israel 
ascribed to it in the post-exilic law. This attachment 
to the Sabbath, beautiful and touching so long as it 
was a spontaneous expression of continual devotion to 
Yahwe, acquired a less pleasing character when, after 
the exile, it came to be enforced by the civil arm 
(Neh. 13; cp Xeh. 10 3 i), and when the later law even 
declared Sabbath-breaking a capital offence. It is just, 
however, to remember that without the stern discipline 
of the law the community of the second temple could 
hardly have escaped dissolution, and that Judaism alone 
preserved for Christianity the hard-won achievements 
of the prophets. 

As the Sabbath was originally a religious feast, the 
question of the origin of the Sabbath resolves itself into 

6 Origin of an inc i uir > whv and in vvhat circle a 

thp Sahhath festal c y de of seven davs was first 
Sabbath. eslab]ished In Gen 2 x _ 3 and jn Ex< 

20 ii the Sabbath is declared to be a memorial of the 
completion of the work of creation in six days. It 
appears certain, however, that the decalogue as it lay 
before the deuteronomist did not contain any allusion to 
the creation (see DECALOGUE) , and it is generally believed 
that this reference was added by the same post-exilic 
hand that wrote Gen. 1 1-2 4 a. The older account of 
the creation in Gen. 2 4^-25 does not recognise the 
he.\a_ meron, and it is even doubtful whether the original 
sketch of Gen. 1 distributed creation over six days. The 
connection, therefore, between the seven-days week and 
the work of creation is now generally recognised as 
secondary. The week and the Sabbath were already 
known to the writer of Gen. 1, and he used them to give 
the framework for his picture of the creation, which in 
the nature of things could not be literal and required 
some framework. At the same time, there was a 
peculiar appropriateness in associating the Sabbath with 
the doctrine that Yahwe is the Creator of all things; 

travelling O n Sabbaths and feast-days (cp Mt. L -l 20 and Jos. 
Ant. xiii. s 4 : OVK ecmv &k rifj.iv oure ev TOI? vdpfiaaiv oure ii> 
T 60 PT>? odeveii/). K.M.] 



for we see from Is. 40-55 that this doctrine was a main 
stay of Jewish faith in those very days of exile which 
gave the Sabbath a new importance for the faithful. 

But, if the week as a religious cycle is older than the 
idea of the week of creation, we cannot hope to find 
more than probable evidence of the origin of the 
Sabbath. At the time of the exile the Sabbath was 
already an institution peculiarly Jewish, otherwise it 
could not have served as a mark of distinction from 
heathenism. This, however, does not necessarily imply 
that in its origin it was specifically Hebrew, but only 
that it had acquired distinguishing features of a marked 
kind. What is certain is that the origin of the Sabbath 
must be sought within a circle that used the week as 
a division of time. Here again we must distinguish 
between the week as such and the astrological week, 
?.., the week in which the seven days are named each 
after the planet which is held to preside over its first 

If the day is divided into twenty-four hours and the planets 
preside in turn over each hour of the week in the order of their 
periodic times (Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Sun, Venus, Mercury, 
Moon), we get the order of days of the week with which we are 
familiar. For, if the Sun presides over the first hour of Sunday, 
and therefore also over the eighth, the fifteenth, and the twenty- 
second, Venus will have the twenty-third hour, Mercury the 
twenty-fourth, and the Moon, as the third in order from the 
Sun, will preside over the first hour of Monday. Mars, again, 
as third from the Moon, will preside over Tuesday (Dies Martis , 
Mardi), and so forth. 

This astrological week became widely current in the 
Roman empire, but was still a novelty in the time of 
Dio Cassius (37 18). That writer believed that it came 
from Egypt ; but the old Egyptians had a week of ten 
(not seven) days, and the original home of astrology 
and of the division of the day into twenty-four hours 
is Chaldoea. It is plain, however, that there is a long 
step between the astrological assignation of each hour of 
the week to a planet and the recognition of the week as 
an ordinary division of time by people at large. Astro 
logy is in its nature an occult science, and there is not 
the slightest trace of a day of twenty-four hours among 
the ancient Hebrews, who had the week and the 
Sabbath long before they had any acquaintance with 
the planetary science of the Babylonian priests. More 
over, it is quite clear from extant remains of Assyrian 
calendars that our astrological week did not prevail in 
civil life even among the Babylonians and Assyrians : 
they did not dedicate each day in turn to its astrological 
planet. These facts make it safe to reject one often- 
repeated explanation of the Sabbath, viz., that it was in 
its origin what it is in the astrological week, the day 
sacred to Saturn, and that its observance is to be 
derived from an ancient Hebrew worship of that planet. 
In truth, there is no evidence of the worship of Saturn 
among the oldest Hebrews (see CHIUN AND SICCUTH). 

The week, however, is found in various parts of the 
world in a form that has nothing to do with astrology 
or the seven planets, and with such a distribution as to 
make it pretty certain that it had no artificial origin, but 
suggested itself independently, and for natural reasons, 
to different races. In fact, the four quarters of the moon 
supply an obvious division of the month ; and, wherever 
new moon and full moon are religious occasions, we get 
in the most natural way a sacred cycle of fourteen or 
fifteen days, of which the week of seven or eight days 
(determined by half-moon) is the half. Thus the old 
Hindus chose the new and the full moon as days of 
sacrifice ; the eve of the sacrifice was called upavasatha, 
and in Buddhism the same word (uposathd) has come 
to denote a Sabbath observed on the full moon, on the 
day when there is no moon, and on the two days which 
are eighth from the full and the new moon respectively, 
with fasting and other religious exercises. 1 

From this point of view it is most significant that in 
the older parts of the Hebrew scriptures the new moon 

1 Childers, Pali Diet. 555; Kern, Budtihismiis (Germ, 
Transl.) 8; MahAvagga, ii. i i ( ET 1 2 3 g, 291). 


8 Recent 


and the Sabbath are almost invariably mentioned 
together. The month is beyond question an old sacred 
division of time common to all the Semites ; even the 
Arabs, who received the week at quite a late period j 
from the Syrians (Biruni, Chronology, ET 58), greeted 
the new moon with religious acclamations. And this 
must have been an old Semitic usage, for the word 
which properly means to greet the new moon (ahalla) j 
is, as Lagarde (Orientalia, 219) has shown, etymologi- i 
cally connected with the Hebrew words used of any i 
festal joy. Among the Hebrews, or rather perhaps 
among the Canaanites, whose speech they borrowed, 
the joy at the new moon became the type of religious 
festivity in general. Nor are other traces wanting of 
the connection of sacrificial occasions i.e., religious 
feasts with the phases of the moon among the Semites. 
The Harranians had four sacrificial days in every month, 
and, of these, two at least were determined by the con 
junction and opposition of the moon. 1 

That full moon as well as new moon had a religious signi 
ficance among the ancient Hebrews seems to follow from the 
fact that, when the great agricultural feasts were fixed to set 
days, the full moon was chosen. In older times these feast-days 
appear to have been Sabbaths (Lev. 23 n ; cp PASSOVER, NEW 

A week determined by the phases of the moon has an average 
length of 291-7-4 = 71! days i.e., three weeks out of eight would 
have eight days, Hut there seems to be in i Sam. 20 27, com 
pared with -T. 1824, an indication that in old times the feast of 
the new moon lasted two days a very natural institution, since 
it appears that the feast was fixed in advance, whilst the Hebrews 
of Saul s time cannot have been good enough astronomers to 
know beforehand on which of two successive days the new moon 
would actually be observed. 2 In that case a week of seven 
working days would occur only once in two months. We cannot 
tell when the Sabbath became dissociated from the month ; but 
the change seems to have been made before the Book of the 
Covenant, which already regards the Sabbath simply as an 
institution of humanity and ignores the new moon. In both 
points it is followed by Deuteronomy. 

The word Sabbath (labattuv), with the explanation 

1 day of rest of the heart, is claimed as Assyrian on the 

_ ,, basis of a textual emendation made by 

Babylonian Fried. Delitzsch in 2 Rawl 32 x6. The 
, / . value of this isolated and uncertain 
Sabbath testimony cannot be placed very high, 
and it seems to prove too much, for it 
is practically certain that the Babylonians at the time of 
the Hebrew exile cannot have had a Sabbath exactly 
corresponding in conception to what the Hebrew Sab 
bath had become under very special historical circum 
stances. What we do know from a calendar of the 
intercalary month Elul II. is that in that month the yth, 
I4th, igth, 2ist, and 28th days had a peculiar char 
acter, and that on them certain acts were forbidden to 
the king and others. There is the greatest uncertainty 
as to the details (cp the very divergent renderings in 
RP, 7 i6o/. ; Schrader, KA T& 19 ; Lotz, Qu. dehistoria 
Sabbati, 39 /. ); but these days, which are taken to be 
Assyrian Sabbaths, are certainly not days of rest of 
the heart, and to all appearance are unlucky days, and 
expressly designated as such. 3 If, therefore, they are 
Assyrian Sabbaths at all, they are exactly opposite 
in character to the Hebrew Sabbath, which was described 
by Hosea as a day of gladness, and never ceased to be 
a day of feasting and good cheer. [Cp Jastrow, in 
the article mentioned below. ] 

Besides the works already mentioned, reference should 
be made to W. Lotz, Qu&stionum de historia Sabbati 
Mri duo (1883), which takes account of 

the Assvriological evidence. Hirschfeld s 
. , T1 ,. ., 

Remarks on the etymology of Sabbath 

(JRAS. April 1896, pp. 353-359), according to Jastrow, 
misunderstands and misquotes the Babylonian material. 

1 The others according to the Fihrist, 319 14 are the zyth 
and the 28th. 

2 It appears from Judith 86 that even in later times there were 
two days at the new moon on which it was improper to fast. 

3 Lotz says they are_lucky days ; but the expression which he 
renders, diesfaustus, is applied to every day in the calendar. 
The rest of his book does not rise above this example of acumen. 



Nowack (Hebr. Arch. ["1894] 2 140^) gives a lucid sketch 
of current theories and their grounds. See also Jensen, 
Sunday School Times (Philadelphia), Jan. 16, 1892, and 
Jastrow, Amer. J. of Theol. 1898, pp. 315-352. 
Jensen is cautious and reserved on the question of a 
Babylonian origin of the Sabbath, which, however, 
Gunkel (Schopf. 14) and Jastrow (op. cit.) expressly 
affirm. The bridge which Gunkel fails to construct 
between the Babylonian atonement -Sabbath and the 
Hebrew rest-Sabbath, Jastrow endeavours to point out. 
He remarks that the Heb. Sabbdthon does in fact, like 
the Bab. sabattum, convey the idea of propitiation or 
appeasement of the divine anger, and he is of opinion 
that the Hebrew Sabbath was originally a Sabbathon 
i.e. , a day of propitiation and appeasement, marked by 
atoning rites. At this stage of development it was 
celebrated at intervals of seven days, corresponding 
with changes in the moon s phases, and was identical 
in character with the four days in each month (yth, i.4th, 
2ist, and 28th) that the Babylonians regarded as days 
which had to be converted into days of propitiation. 
There were also, however, other sabbathon days, such 
as the New Year s Day, the Day of Atonement, the 
first and eighth days of the annual pilgrimage to the 
chief sanctuary. 

The introduction, in consequence of profound changes 
in religious conceptions among the Hebrews, of the 
custom of celebrating the Sabbath every seventh day, 
irrespective of the relationship of the day to the moon s 
phases, led to a complete separation from the ancient 
view of the Sabbath, whilst the introduction, at a still 
later period, of the doctrine that the divine work of 
creation was completed in six days removed the Hebrew 
Sabbath still further from the point at which the develop 
ment of the corresponding Babylonian institution ceased. 
Hence the position of the Sabbath in the Priestly Code. 
The field, however, is still open for further investigation. 

Cp also Toy, The earliest form of the Sabbath, 
JBLlSigojf. (1899); and C. H. W. Johns, Assyrian 
Deeds and Documents (who finds that the I9th day of 
the month was observed by abstinence from secular 
business ; but the deeds do not indicate that the 7th, 
I4th, 2ist, and 28th days were Sabbaths). 

W. R. S. K. M. T. K. C. 



SABBATHEUS (c*BB<\TMOC [BA]). iEsd.9i 4 = 
Ezra 10 15, SHABBETHAI, i. 

SABBATICAL YEAR. The Jews under the second 
temple observed every seventh year as a Sabbath accord 
ing to the (post-exilic) law of Lev. 25 1-7. It was a 
year in which all agriculture was remitted, in which the 
fields lay unsown, the vines grew unpruned, and even 
the natural produce was not gathered in. That this 
law was not observed before the captivity we learn from 
Lev. 2634^ ; indeed, so long as the Hebrews were an 
agricultural people with little trade, in 9 land often 
ravaged by severe famines, such a law could not have 
been observed. Even in later times it was occasionally 
productive of great distress (i Mace. 64953 ; Jos. Ant. 
xiv. 16z). In the older legislation, however, we already 
meet with a seven years period in more than one con 
nection. The release of a Hebrew servant after six 
years labour (Ex. 21 iff. Dt. 15 12^:) has only a 
remote analogy to the Sabbatical year. But in F.x. 
23 10 ff. it is prescribed that the crop of every seventh 
year (apparently the self-sown crop) shall be left for the 
poor, and after them for the beasts. The difference 
between this and the later law is that the seventh year 
is not called a Sabbath, and that there is no indication 
that all land was to lie fallow on the same year. In 
this form a law prescribing one year s fallow in seven 
may have been anciently observed. It is extended in 
v. ii to the vinevard and the olive-vard ; but here the 


culture necessary to keep the vines and olive-trees in 
order is not forbidden ; the precept is only that the 
produce is to be left to the poor. In Deuteronomy 
this law is not repeated ; but a fixed seven years period 
is ordained for the benefit of poor debtors, apparently 
in the sense that in the seventh year no interest is to be 
exacted by the creditor from a Hebrew, or that no pro 
ceedings are to be taken against the debtor in that year 
(Deut. 15 i /.}. W. R. s. 

SABBEUS (CABBAIAC [BA]) i Esd. 9 3 2 = Ezral0 3 i, 

SilKMAIAII, 19. 

SABEANS occurs four times in AV, representing 
three distinct Hebrew words in MT ; (i) in Job 1 15 
(Nrii?, RV" - SHEBA) and Joel 38 (D\S1^, RV MEN 
OF SHEBA); (2) in Is. 45 14 (D X3D), see SEBA ; and 
(3) in Ezek. 2842 (AV m - and RV drunkards ), where, 
however, it is no part of the original text. The Kt. 
c xniD i-f-, D KaiDi he reading for which the Kre sub 
stitutes Q toD with the same meaning (drunkards), is 
an obvious interpolation due simply to dittography of 
the preceding Q X31D- On the further textual corruption 
of the verse see Cornill, ad loc. , and Toy (SBOT}. Of 
course none of these words has anything to do with any 
of the religious sects that have at one time or another 
been called Sabians i.e., Baptists (see art. SABIANS 
in Kncv. Brit. 21 128) a name which is etymologically 
quite distinct. 

SABI. i. (c&Bei [A]), i Esd. 628 RV=Ezra2 4 2, 
2. ((7-a/3[e]oj [HA]) i Esd. 5 34 AV, RV Sable = Ezra 2 57; see 


SABIAS (c^BiAC [BA]) zEsd. 1 9 RV= 2 Ch.35 9 , 

SABTA (KPOD, CABATA [B], CABA6A [A], ce. [L], 
iCh. 1 9 ), or Sabtab. (fifOD, CAB&9A [ADEL], Gen. 
lO?), one of the sons of Cush. See GUSH. If Cush 
here means the N. Arabian region of that name, we are 
entitled and indeed compelled to suppose that Sabtah 
and Raamah have arisen by corruption and editorial 
manipulation from the names of places near the S. 
border of Canaan. ND3D will probably come from royo 
Maacath (the southern Maacah), which is also the 
original of SUCCOTH in the earliest story of Jacob and 
in Ps. 608, and of SOCOH in i S. 17 1. Cp SHABBETHAI. 
From the ordinary point of view Dillmann finds some 
plausibility in Tuch s suggestion that Sabta = 2a/3/3a#a 
(Peripl. 27 ; also Ptolemy, Strabo), the Sabota of Pliny 
(632 1232). This was the capital of the ChatramotiUe 
(see HAZARMAVETH), and was famous as the centre of 
the trade in incense. The name is the Sab. nut?- 
According to Glaser, Sabta is the2a<0a of Ptol. vi. 730, 
and is to be placed at Sudeir or in the NE of Yemamah ; 
Sabta, Raamah, and Sabteca representing the districts 
on the coast of the Persian Gulf (Skizze, 2252 /.). 

T. K. c. 

in Gen. ; ceBeKA0A[BL], -6AXA [A] in Ch. ; there 
fore indicates rather SBKTHA), one of the sons of Cush 
(Gen. 10 7 iCh. I 9 f). AV has Sabtechah in Gen. 
and Sabtecha in Ch. Glaser. following Bochart, con 
nects this with the name Samydake in Carmania, on 
the E. side of the Persian Gulf (Skizze, 2252) ; but 
Dillmann calls attention to the phonetic difference. 
It is perhaps really a dittographed SABTA, the 3 being 
a record of a reading Nroo (cp <S in Gen. ). T. K. c. 

SACAR ("OB*). Probably an ethnic of the same 
group as ISSACHAR, ZICHRI. The name has, of course, 
no connection with that of the little known Egyptian 
god Sakar (cp ISSACHAR, col. 2292, n. 5). i. On 
the name in i Ch. llss, see SHARAR and ISSACHAR, 
6 (end). 

2. A son of OBED-EDOM (q.v.), i Ch. 264 
[B], CAXAP [L]. C&X"Ap[A]). 
134 4181 


SACK. The wide diffusion of this word throughout 
the European languages is probably due in the first 
instance to Phoenician trade and commerce. 1 The 
word, it is true, does not happen to be found in either 
Phoenician or Punic; but it is vouched for in Hebrew, 
Syriac, Ethiopic, and possibly Assyrian. See SACK 

1. sak, psy (<roKKo? [hut judp(n7r;ro?, Gen. 44i_/C], saccus), 
Gen. 42 25 35 (E); inv.sja it is due to R (Holz.); Lev. 1132 
Josh. 94. See SACKCLOTH. 

2. kali, 73, Gen. 42 250. (ayyelov), RV vessel ; cp BAG. 

3. amtdhath, nnnDK (v/spread out, cp Is. 4022), only in 
Gen. 41-42 J (422527/35 43 12 etc.). On E s term see (i) 
above. (5 in 42 2- t if. 43 12 /xapo-iTrn-os. 

4. sikkalon, ji^jWi 2 K. 4 42 f RV(AV, RVmf. husk, AVmg. 
scrip, garment ), cp FOOD, col. 15315 " 2 - AV ntJ- gives a 
superficially plausible sense (cp SCRIP) derived from an anony 
mous Greek translator s Kojpvxof (Field s Hex.) , but v^ps is 

[It has been conjectured elsewhere (see PROPHET, 7) that 
Elisha, like P^Iijah, was specially a prophet of the Negeb, and 
that *7Dn3 is a popular corruption of S^cnT- If s o, u rpsa 
probably comes from D 73"JV2, Beth-gallim, where D ^J is 

another corruption of ^XDiTT- Elisha was at a place called 
Keth-gallim, or (see v. 38) Beth-gilgal, or (since Gallim and 
Gilgal = Jerahmeel) Beth-jerahmeel, in the Negeb formerly be 
longing to the Jerahmeelites. But Lagarde s reading nj?Sp. 
wallet (?), suggested by the /3aiceAAe0 of A and Theod. (see 
BDB), is ingenious. T. K. c.] 

SACKBUT (N3|b>), Dan. 3 5 7 10 isf. See Music, 

SACKCLOTH (pb ; c&KKOC ; saccus, cilidum -). It 
is probable that the Heb. sak was originally a coarse 
_ T textile fabric made from the hair of the camel or 
the goat (cp the meanings of crd/CKos, a borrowed 
word). Like the simlah it could be used also as a wrap 
or bag (cp MANTLE, 2 [i]) ; see SACK. Referring 
the reader, generally, to the articles DRESS and MOURN 
ING CUSTOMS, we propose here to indicate the nature 
of the garment expressed by the word sak, and to 
endeavour to ascertain the origin of the custom of 
wearing it. 

The usage of the word suggests that the sak was 
nothing more than a loin-cloth, similar, no doubt, to 
the ihrdm 3 of Moslem pilgrims at Mecca. It was worn 
as a token of grief after a death (Gen. 3734 2 S. 831 
Joel 1 8), more commonly, however, in times of trial, to 
remove a calamity, or as a means of propitiation. 

Thus, the sak is worn after hearing bad news (2 K. 6 30 19 i Est. 
4 1-4, etc.), to avert a pestilence (i Ch. 21 IG), when one s neigh 
bour lies in sickness (Ps. 35 13), or as a sign of general undefined 
grief (Ps. 30 ii [12] 6i n [12] Is. 22 12). It is often preceded by 
the rending of the clothes (Gen. 37 34 i K. 21 27 the rending 
alone in Job 1 20), or by the covering of one s head with ashes 
or (Neh. 9 i 2 Mace. 10 25) earth. 4 Like the ihrdm, the sak is 
also worn by women (JoellS, cp Judith 8 5 163 2 Mace. 3 10). 
In Jon. 3 8 it is ordered to be worn by both man and beast 

The passages in which the sak is mentioned as worn 
next the skin are probably not exceptional (i K.212? 
2K. 630 Is. 32n); Doughty has re 
marked the half-naked appearance of the 
wearers of the ihrdm like bathing- 

2. A sacred 

1 Some (e.g., Whitney, in the Cent. Diet) have supposed 
this diffusion to be due to the incident in the story of Joseph, 
where the cup was hidden in the sack. This does not explain 
the various meanings of <7<iKKO?, saccus, and, as a matter of 
fact, the Heb. sak appears only thrice in the story, whilst the 
synonym amtdhath occurs no fewer than fourteen times 
(see SACK, 3). 

a Saccus and cilicium are about evenly distributed. For 
cilidum (a goat s-hair cloth used for tents), see CILICIA, 3 
end, and cp TENT, 3. 

3 Sak is frequently used with hagar, gird on, the reverse 
process being described by pittah, loosen (Ps. 30 n [12] 
Is. 20 2 ). The ihrdm (on which cp Wellh. Heid.(\\ ii6f- 
|2| 123) is a loin-cloth covering the knee, one lap of which may 
be cast over the shoulder (Doughty, Ar. Des. 1 479 481). In 
Eg. sa-g, with the determinative hair, is a woollen Palestinian 
garment of the poor (W MM OLZ, i 9 oi, col. i 9 i). 

4 Jastrow JAOSt&iy) suggests that in Judith9i (a-iroSov), 
the translator mistook apher (see TURBAN, 2) for epher, like 
his predecessor in 2 S. 13 19. 



men (Ar. Des.Zw/. 537), and the dress doubtless 
resembled the prophet s girdle which, in Job 12 18, is 
worn as a mark of humiliation by a king. See GIRDLE. 

The sackcloth of the OT, therefore, must not be 
regarded as in any way akin to a sack or sackcloth in 
the modern sense of the word, and, in endeavouring to 
ascertain the origin of the custom of wearing such a 
garb, we must not be led away by the early Christian or 
the later ideas with which it is associated. * 

That conservatism prevails longest in matters of cult is a 
familiar experience, and Schwally, Nowack, and Kittel (//A on 
i K.. 21 27) favour the view that the sak is the clothing of an 
earlier half-forgotten time, which, though it may long have coa- 
tinued to be worn e.g. , by slaves and the poorer people was 
nevertheless adopted exceptionally by the ruling classes on 
specific occasions (cp DRESS, 2, col. 1136, n. 4). Another 
view is possible. 

It is to be observed (a) that the corresponding 
ihram is essentially a dress for a sacred occasion ; (b] 
that the prophets wore a garment similar to the sak \ 
and (c] that the sacred ephod itself was probably once a 
mere loin-cloth (see EPHOD, i, and cp T. C. Foote, 
JBL 21 41-44 [1902]). On these grounds, therefore, it 
seems extremely probable that the sak was pre-eminently 
a sacred garment, and it agrees with this interpretation 
that we find it worn by people of all classes on any 
especially solemn occasion ( i Ch. 21 16 Joel 1 13 Dan. 93 
i Mace. 847 2 Mace. 10 25 etc. ). 

In view of what has been said elsewhere on the bear 
ing of ideas of holiness upon such a matter as dress, 2 a 

TTTV- plausible explanation of the custom 

o vvliv \^om 

J may be attempted. Garments that 

have come in contact with holy things are unfit for 
common use, and in early Arabia certain rites were per 
formed either in a naked state or in clothes reserved for 


the purpose. There are some indications that this held 
good among the ancient Hebrews ; and if we bear in 
mind that the sak is worn at times of great trouble, 
when Yahwe s help or forgiveness is besought, we may 
perhaps surmise that such occasions were formerly 
accompanied by a sacrificial rite when a special garb (if 
we may judge from the Arabian evidence) would not be 
unnatural. It would be just at such a time as this that 
the individual would feel himself brought into closest 
contact with his deity. At all events, ideas connected 
with worship of the dead do not cover the whole 

The king of Nineveh removes his royal mantle before donning 
the sak (jon.36), 1 the holy occasion requires holy clothes, 
and the primary object of the rending of the garments is prob 
ably to put oneself m a state of nakedness as quickly as possible 
(Schwally, Frey). 

That the use of this special garment should have been 
retained long after the (ex hyp. ) ritual died out is not 
without analogy. The gradual decay is further illus 
trated by the fact that sometimes even it was the custom 
not to wear the iak but to lie upon it (2 S. 21 10 Is. 085), 
and that in later Jewish times the rending of the gar 
ments was confined to a small slit (Nowack, HA 1193). 

See the literature at the end of MOURNING CUSTOMS ; also 
Schwally, Das Leben nach d. Tode (1892), n ff., Frey, Tod, 
Seelenglaube, etc. (1898), 34 # 

On sackcloth and nakedness, cp Jastrow, 2, AT *IVTI 117 ff. 
(1902), which appeared since the above article was written. 

S. A. C. 

SACRAMENT (sacramentum, the Vg. rendering of 
fMcrr-fjpLov in Eph. 1 9 83 632 Col. 1 27 i Tim. 3i6 Rev. 

1 20 17 7). See MYSTERY, 5. 

SACRED depoc) i Cor. 9 13 2 Tim. 3 15 RV. See 

Introductory ( i). 
Sacrifices of nomads ( 2). 
Firstlings ( 3). 
Spring sacrifices ( ^/.). 
Peculiar rite ( 6). 
Protection by blood ( 7). 




Wild animals and spoils of war ( 8). 
Israel in Canaan : sources ( 9). 
Agricultural civilisation ( 10). 
Zcbah and olah ( nf.). 
Victims and oblations ( 13^). 
Seasons and occasions of sacrifice ( 15). 

Worship (S i(sff.\ 

Founding of kingdom : effect ( 19). 

Foreign influence ( 20). 

Seventh century laws ; Ezek. ( 21). 

Destruction of temple ( 22). 


Thank offering ( 29^). 
Oblations and libations ( 3031*1). 
Frankincense ; salt ( 31 b\ 
ii. Publica : 

Daily holocausts and oblations ( 32). 
Sabbaths and festivals ( 33). 
Shewbread ( 34 a). 
Peculiar oblations 

Introductory ( 23). 
Offering in general : species ( 24). 
Sacra publica et privata ( 25). 
1. Prh ata : 

Burnt and trespass offering ( 26^) 
Sin offering ( 28^). 
Peculiar piacula ( 28^). 
Peace offerings ( 29 a). 

As a gift to God ( 41). 
Sacrificial feasts ( 42). 
Blood of victim ( 43). 
Propitiation and expiation ( 44). 

Jewish sacrifices : the Gospels ( 54) 
Paul ( 55). 
Hebrews ( 56). 


The term sacrifice may with etymological propriety 

be employed of all offerings to God ; in common use 

1. Introductory. Denotes specifically that class of 

offerings in which a victim is slain, 

corresponding to the Heb. zdbah (lit. slaughter ). 3 In 


Effect of sacrifice ( 45). 

Theory of blood atonement ( 46). 

Efficacy of sacrifice : popular belief (47). 

The prophets ( 48). 

Persian and Greek periods ( 49). 

Libations ( 35). 

Incense ; salt ( 36). 

Public piacula ( 37). 

Scapegoat; red heifer 

Installation of priests ( 39 a). 

Consecration of altar ( 39^). 

Peace offerings in sacra publica ( 40). 

Sirach ; Philo ( 50). 
Schoolsoflaw: e fficacy of sacrifice (51). 
Moral and religious conditions of atone 
ment ( 52). 
How does sacrifice expiate? ( 53). 

Johannine writings ( 60). 
Genesis of idea ( 61). 

1 Cp Schwally, Leben nach d. Tode, 11 f. For the early 
Christian usages see Smith, Diet. Christ. Ant., s.v. 

2 See Rcl. Sem.W 451^, DRESS, 8, and cp generally CLEAN 

3 See WRS (), 21 132, Rel. Sem.^t, *i 3 /. 



Death of Christ : Pauline Epistles ( 57). 
In Hebrews ( 58). 
In i Pet. ( 59). 

Bibliography ( 62). 

the present article the word will be used in this more 
restricted sense, whilst offerings of grain, meal, bread, 
oil, and the like (Heb. minhah] are called oblations. 
The term offering* will be employed as the equivalent 
of the comprehensive korbdn, as well as in such phrases 
as burnt offering (oldh, holocaust), peace offering 
(stlem}, sin offering (hattdth}, trespass offering (dsdm). 
For convenience, certain species of offering are made 

1 Cp Wi. AOFZzq, where the Assyrian king tears off his 
royal garments, and clothes his body in the baHAmn, the dress 
of the penitent. Wi. (op cit. 44) points out that basiimu is 
elsewhere glossed by sakku ( = p y). 



the subject of special articles : see FIRSTBORN, INCENSE, 
COST, TABERNACLES ; and, for Babylonian parallels, 
RITUAL. The present article deals in its first part ( 
1-22) with the history of sacrifice in the OT ; in its 
second ( 23-40) with the developed Jewish system ; 
the third part ( 41-53) discusses beliefs and ideas 
connected with sacrifice, its intent, significance, efficacy, 
and operation; the fourth part ( 54-61) treats of 
sacrifice in the NT. 

Before the invasion of Palestine the Israelite tribes 
were nomads ; their living and their wealth were in their 

2. Sacrifices flocks f sma11 cattle 1 These also 

of nomads. 

furnished the material of their sacri 

fices. Offerings were doubtless made 
also of the spoils of war, and perhaps of animals taken 
in the chase (see below, 8). Our knowledge of the 
character of these sacrifices is derived not so much 
from the stories of the patriarchs in JE as from sur 
vivals in later custom and law. The nature of these 
survivals, together with the permanent conditions of 
nomadic life in the deserts of Syria and Arabia, justify 
us in supplementing or interpreting our scanty material 
by what is known of Arab sacrifice in pre-Islamic times 
and among the modern Bedouins. 

The occasions of sacrifice are many and various. 
Among the modern Arabs sacrifices are offered on the 
birth of a son, a circumcision, marriage, the coming of 
a guest ; for the recovery of the sick or for the health 
of flocks and herds ; on the inception of an enterprise, 
such as setting out for a foray, breaking ground for 
tillage, opening or enlarging a well, laying the founda 
tion of a building ; on the conclusion of a compact or 
covenant ; the return from a successful expedition ; on 
the anniversary of a kinsman s death, and the like. 

The rites of sacrifice are of primitive simplicity. The 
owner ordinarily slaughters his own victim. The blood 
is poured upon the ground, smeared upon the sacred 
stone, upon the tent ropes, the door-posts of houses, or 
upon persons or animals. The flesh makes a feast for 
the owner, his family, tribesmen, and guests. 

A species of sacrifice which in all probability goes 
back to the nomadic stage is the offering of firstlings 

3. Firstlings 3 ( blkdrdth < S S- msr ] of animals, that is, 
the first offspring of the dam, which 
opens the womb (ptter rthem, Ex. 34 19 13 2 12 15 Nu. 
1815; cp piter st ger bthemdk, Ex. 1812). The shepherd 
Abel makes his offering of the firstlings of his flock 
and of their fat portions (Gen. 44 J); the laws in 
sistently claim all firstlings as God s right (Ex. 182 12-15 
222 9 /. [ 2 8/] 34 19 / Lev. 222 7 2?26 Nu. 1815-17 Dt. 
126i7 Idas 1019-23, cp Neh. 1036). The animal was 
primitively sacrificed shortly after its birth ; the oldest 
rule is : Seven days it shall be with its dam ; on the 
eighth day thou shall give it to me (Ex. 22so [29]). 4 
A similar custom existed among the heathen Arabs ; 
the first birth ( called fard] of a she-camel, goat, or ewe 
was sacrificed, frequently while still so young that its 
flesh was gelatinous and stuck to the skin. This offer 
ing of firstlings was permitted in the earliest years of 
Islam, Mohammed advising, however, that the sacrifice 
should be deferred till the victim was a year or two old ; 
later he prohibited the fara as well as the sacrifices in 
Rajab (atlrah, see below, 4). 5 

1 See CATTLE, GOAT, SHEEP. The nomadic Semites have no 
neat cattle, and the ancestors of the Israelites do not appear to 
have been among the tribes that possessed camels (see CAMEL). 

2 See Wellh. Reste altarab. Heidentuines ; Snouck-Hur- 
gronje, Het mekkaansche Feest ; WRS Rel. Sem. ; for modern 
Arab customs, Burckhardt, Travels in Arabia, 1829, Bedouins 
and Wakdbys, 1830; Burton, Pilgrimage to el-Medinah and 
Mecca/i, 1855; Palmer, Desert of the Exodus; Doughty, 
Arabia Deserta; Curtiss, Primitive Semitic Religion, etc. 


4 On the later modification of this rule see below, 20. 

5 See the two traditions in Lisan 10 119 f. ; WRS Rel. Setn.P), 


The sacrifice of firstlings, like the offering of first-fruits, with 
which it is sometimes associated (Neh. 1035^, cp Ex. 22 29/7 
[28^]; note also the connection with tithes, etc., Dt. 12617 
1423), was regarded in later times as a tribute to God (Nu. 
18 i^ff. Neh. 10 35./T), and as such it has been surmised that the 
custom of devoting firstlings to God arose after the settlement 
in Canaan by a secondary extension of the practice of offering 
the fruits of the field. (So Benzinger, PASSOVER, 8 end.) 
The existence of firstling sacrifices among the Arabs shows that 
this inference is unwarranted. The sacrifice of firstlings, as the 

of thtse offerings before the invasion of Canaan is not a suffi 
cient reason for doubting their antiquity. 

In the history of the exodus Moses asks the Egyptian 
king to let the Israelites go into the desert to sacrifice 

4 Surinc 1 t0 l ^ e r ^ 0( * ^ahwe, ^ est he fall upon us 
i with pestilence or with the sword (Ex. 
5 3 J, cp3i8 58 17; 5i E); the presence 
of all the people, young and old, is requisite ; and 
they must take with them their flocks and herds to 
furnish the victims (10925). From 63 it might seem 
that the sacrifice in the wilderness was something 
unusual, demanded on this occasion by an oracle ; 
5 1 (E) and lOg (J), however, represent it as an estab 
lished institution, the Jmg of Yahwe. 2 The season 
was the spring of the year, in the month called by the 
Canaanites Abib (Ex. 184), corresponding to the Syrian- 
Babylonian Nlsan. 

It is natural to connect this hag festival with the 
spring festivals of other Semitic peoples. The first eight 
days of the month Rajab, which in the old calendar fell 
in the spring (see Wellh. Prol.M, viii. ; Heid.^, 94_/.), 
was a great sacrificial season among the heathen Arabs. 
The poets compare the carnage of battle to the multi 
tudes of victims lying around the sacred stones. s The 
victim, commonly a sheep, was called atirah (pi. 
a(a ir) ; its blood was poured on the head of the sacred 
stone (Nuwairi, quoted in Ramussen, Addit. 79), the 
flesh consumed in a feast. Such sacrifices might be 
offered at home ; but it was probably more common to 
take them to some more famous holy place (see Wellh. 
Hcid. 74, 94). The sacrifice, like Arab sacrifices in 
general, was often made in fulfilment of a vow. The 
Rajab sacrifices were at first kept up by the Moslems ; 
a tradition reports Mohammed to have said : Every 
Moslem is bound to offer each year an adhdh (the 
sacrifice of the tenth of the month Dhu-1-Hijjah) and an 
atirah (in Rajab \Lisdn vi. 211 \\f. ]) ; subsequently, 
however, he prohibited the atirah as well as the fara 
(see above, 3). In the time of Mohammed the month 
Dhu-1-Hijjah, in which was held the great festival in 
the vicinity of Mecca, fell at the beginning of spring 
(Wellh. Prol.^i, 105), and a comparison with the 
Passover naturally suggested itself ; 4 but further studies 
in the old Arab calendar have shown that this coin 
cidence in date is accidental. 

Among the Syrians, the chief feast of the year at 
Hierapolis was in the spring (Lucian, Dea Svria, 49) ; 
at Harran the first half of Nisan was a season of 
special sacrifices (Fihrist, 322 ; Chwolsohn, Ssabier 
225); evidence of the sacredness of Nisan appears in 
the Nabatsean inscriptions at Madain Salih; 5 and at 
Palmyra ; 6 the great festival of the modern Yezidls falls 
at the same season. 7 

A closer connection between the Hebrew spring 


2 Hag- is a religious gathering (No. Z/WC41 719). The 
word is used not only of the Canaanite-Israelite agricultural 
festivals, but also of Arab (and Saba;an) festivals, which brought 
multitudes together. There is thus no ground for the assump 
tion that the use of the term here is due merely to the later 
association of the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread 
(liag ha-massotli). 

3 Cp modern descriptions of the sacrifices at the Meccan 

4 See Snouck-Hurgronje, Het mekkaansche Feest, 6$f. 

5 Berger, Comptes Rendus de I Acad. des Inscr., 1884, 377^ 

6 WRS EBW, 18 199, n. 2. 

7 Badger, Nestorians, 1 119 jf. Vernal festivals are, of 
course, not peculiarly Semitic. 




festival ( Passover ) and the Arab Rajab sacrifices has 
_. ... been thought to be established by 

. ,, evidence that both were primitively 
3m- offerings of firstlings. 1 In the Penta 
teuch, laws prescribing the dedication of firstlings 
stand in juxtaposition to ordinances for the Feast of 
Unleavened Bread or the Passover (see Ex. 34 18 f. 
Dt. 1019-23 16i/. Ex. 1243-50 1813-10 11-13 14-16); the 
slaying of the firstborn of the Egyptians has been 
interpreted as a reprisal upon them for withholding 
from Yahwe, by their refusal to let Israel go, the first 
lings that were his due (see Ex. 3i8 8120 \v\ff.; 
Wellh. 86). It has been shown, however, under 
PASSOVER ( 8), that the passages cited, though com 
patible with such a theory of the original character of 
the Passover, by no means require it ; and opposing 
considerations of much weight are to be drawn from the 
peculiar ritual of the Passover (see below, 6), in 
which to name but a single point one victim is re 
quired for each household, rich or poor, whereas the 
number of firstlings must have varied with the owner s 

Nor is it satisfactorily established that the Arab Rajab 
sacrifices were firstlings. It is true that the term 
\itirah, by which these victims are usually designated, 
is by some lexicographers made equivalent to fard, 
firstling. 2 This is, however, nothing more than the 
confusion which frequently occurs in their accounts of 
the religious customs of the times of ignorance, and 
over against it must be put the fact that not only the 
traditionists 3 but also the lexicons generally distinguish 
the two clearly enough. 

The Passover differed conspicuously from all other 
Israelite sacrifices, and preserved to the last, essentially 
_ .. unaltered, its primitive peculiarities. In 
.CUliar the earliest times, the carcass of the 
victim was probably roasted whole, either 
over an open fire or in a pit in the earth (as by the 
modern Samaritans), and the flesh sometimes eaten half 
raw or merely softened by fire. Dt. 16? prescribes that 
it shall be boiled, like other sacrifices. This, however, 
did not prevail ; P preserves the primitive custom while 
guarding against abuse : the Passover is neither to be 
eaten raw nor boiled in water, but roasted in the fire 
(Ex. 129), with head, legs, and inwards. The sacrificial 
feast was held by night at full moon ; the participants 
were in their everyday garb, not in ceremonial apparel ; 
everything was done with haste ; the whole victim was 
devoured including, doubtless, in ancient times the 
e.vta which in later sacrificial ritual were offered to God 
by fire, and therefore strictly forbidden as food ; only 
the bones must not be broken ; 4 the flesh must all be 
consumed before daybreak ; if aught remained it was 
to be burnt up at once ; with the flesh was eaten not 
originally unleavened cakes, but a salad of bitter herbs 
(Ex. 12 9 /., cp Nu. 9 n/, also Dt. 16 4 ). 5 

With this singular ritual has been compared the 
description given by Nilus of the customs of the Arabs in 
the desert S. of Palestine and in the Sinaitic peninsula 
in his own time the end of the fourth century A. ix 
They sacrificed a white camel to Venus, the morning 
star ; after the chief or priest who presided at the 
sacrifice had slain the animal, all rushed upon the 
carcass with knives, hewed it to pieces, and devoured 
it in wild haste, hide, inwards, bones, and all, that not 
a scrap of it might be left for the rising sun to look 
upon. 6 

1 \VRS Rel. Sem.Vl, 227 ./. n. 464 /; Wellh. Prol.W, 86; 
Now. HA -2 147; Benz. HA *&>/. 

- Lisa/I, 6210. Note also the identical custom described in 
the Ltsiln under fara , in the Taj (3 308) under atirah. 

See Bokhari, ed. Krehl,3 5 i 4 y: 

4 Contrast the Arab sacrifice of Nilus, below. See WRS 
Rel. Set.W, 345. 

8 See the description of the Passover of the modern Samari 
tans, Petermann, Reistn, 1 2^5^ 

Migne, Pair. C,r. 796n,"cp 612 ; WRS Rel. Son.ftt, 281 f. ; 
Wellh. Heiii.^ iiQjf. 


In Ex. 1221-27 (ultimately from J) the elders are 

bidden to take sheep or goats, one for each clan (mis- 

7 Protection P A ^ &h ^ slaughter them, and, dipping 

h hi d a bunch f herbs C h y sso P ) into ll >e 
Dy D. oa. i J ] ooc i i to strike it upon the lintel and 

door-posts ; Yahwe will not suffer the destroyer to 
enter a house on which he sees these blood-marks. 
This, an editor adds, is the historical origin and ex 
planation of a custom in use in later times ; with it he 
connects etymologically the name Passover (j>fsah}, 
because Yahwe passed over (pdsah) the marked 
houses of the Israelites (Ex. 1224-27). The object of 
the rite is to protect the inmates of the house from the 
destroyer"; that is, in primitive conception, from the 
demons of disease and death. Similar customs with 
the same motive are found among many peoples. 1 

Whether this rite was originally connected with the 
Hebrew spring feast is not clear. J, who prescribes 
the marking of the houses, says nothing about a feast, 
and, indeed, repeatedly insists that the festival of 
Yahwe cannot be celebrated in Egypt (Ex.53 825-27); 
P orders that the blood of the lamb slain for the feast 
be applied to the door of every house in which it is 
eaten (Ex. 12?, cp 13), a direction which Jewish tradition 
and practice regarded as applying only to the Egyptian 
Passover ; 2 Dt. makes no mention of this use of the 
blood at the PASSOVER (q.v. , i3). 3 It is not unlikely 
that a rite originally occasional, as in the outbreak of 
an epidemic, came to be practised annually for the 
protection of the household during the coming year, 
and in connection with the old spring feast. 4 The 
name phah probably belonged, notwithstanding J s 
etymology, to the feast rather than to the blood 

Some Semitic peoples, both nomadic and settled, 
offered in sacrifice animals taken in the chase. Gazelles 
W1H were offered by the Babylonians 
animas- O astrow < Rel - Bab. -Ass. 66 1) and 
., , probablv by the Phoenicians (Sacrificial 
spoils of war. tariffs / 675 165 59 167 5 ; cp ISAAC, 
4, n. 2). Among the heathen Arabs, also, gazelles 
were sacrificed, but were regarded as an inferior offer 
ing ; men who had vowed sheep or goats from their 
flocks sometimes substituted gazelles. 5 The nomadic 
forefathers of the Israelites may have made similar 
offerings ; but there is no reminiscence of this in the 
OT. The requirement that the blood of animals taken 
in the chase be poured out and covered with earth ( Lev. 
17 13. cp Dt. 121624) is not necessarily an attenuated 
survival of a sacrificial rite ; the belief that the soul is 
in the blood (Lev. 17 14, on which see below, 46) is . 
reason enough. 6 

Sacrifice was doubtless offered also of the spoil of 
war, as in later times (i S. 15 15 21 cp 14s4 ; see also 
Gen. 14 20). Similarly the Arabs on their return from 
a foray sacrificed one beast of those they had taken and 
feasted on it before dividing the booty. 7 The Arabs of 
whom Nilus wrote took by preference a human victim. 
a fair youth, from among their captives ; in default of 
such, they offered a white camel. 8 The Carthaginians, 
after a victory, sacrificed the fairest of their captives 
by night as burnt offerings (Diodorus Siculus, 206s) ; 

1 See, e.f., Zimmern, f>eitr. 2r\o. 26, col. 3, /. vof. ; Palmer, 
Des. Kxod. 90 118, etc. ; Doughty, Ar. Des. 1499432 2 100 etc. ; 
Kingsley, Travels in W est Africa. 444 451. A large collection 
of material is found in Curtiss, Primitive Semitic Religion 
To-day, chap. \ff. 

- So also the modern Samaritans : Petermann, Rcisen, 1 237. 
3 See below, 20. 

* A very similar ceremony at a great annual festival in Peru 
is described by Garcilasso de la Vega, Comin. Rcalfs. ~ 6. 

5 Harith, Mu allakah, 69, with the scholia; al-Laith in 
Lisan vi. 2119. 

* Cp the burying of blood drawn in blood-letting, or from a 
nose-bleed, e.g., Doughty, Ar. Des. 1492; Kingsley, Travels 
in II t st Africa, 447. 

7 WRS, Rel. Sem.Pl, 491, and the Arab authors there cited. 

8 Migne, Pair. C,r. 796i2/ 641 681 ; see WRS Rel. Se>: 


9. In Canaan : 

10. Agricultural 


similar instances have been adduced from the records 
of Assyrian kings (Shalmaneser, Monolith, obv. 17). 
The slaying of Agag, whom Samuel hewed in pieces 
before Yahwe in Gilgal (i S. loss), has sometimes been 
regarded as a sacrifice of this kind ; * but it is doubtful 
whether this interpretation is correct (see below, 13 

The many accounts of sacrifices in the books of 
Samuel and Kings are in large part taken from old 
and good sources, and give us com 
paratively full and trustworthy informa 
tion for the period which they cover. 
By their side we may place the similar descriptions in 
Judges, and in the patriarchal story as narrated by J 
and E (e.g. , Gen. 15? ff.\ The laws in the same 
sources (especially in Ex. 34 and 21-23) dealing with 
feasts and offerings, with the other not inconsider 
able -remains of early collections of law preserved 
in Dt. and H, represent the usage of Israelite and 
Judasan sanctuaries in the time of the kings ; the con 
demnation of many customs in the reform legislation 
of the seventh century bears witness to the prevalence 
of the practices so zealously prohibited. The prophets, 
finally, paint vivid pictures of the religion of their con 
temporaries, with all its abuses. 

The regions E. of the Jordan first occupied by 
Israelite tribes are capable of supporting enormous 
flocks upon their rich and extensive 
pastures. 2 Much of the land is very 
fertile and abundantly rewards culti 
vation ; but the conditions do not constrain nomadic 
tribes taking possession of the country to become 
tillers of the soil. The case was different in Western 
Palestine. In the S. indeed, in the Negeb and the 
Wilderness of Judah, the new comers continued to be 
chiefly shepherds even after they adopted fixed habita 
tions ; but in the central highlands (Mt. Ephraim) and 
in the N. they were soon compelled to get most of their 
living from the soil. They learned from the older 
population of the country to raise crops of grain and 
pulse and to cultivate the fig, the olive, and the vine. 
With the arts of agriculture they learned also the 
religion of agriculture. To the sacrifices and festivals 
of their nomadic forefathers were now added the proper 
offerings for the bounty of the land and the season 
feasts of the husbandman s year (see FEASTS, 4/.). 
Animal sacrifice is still the most important part of 
worship, as we see clearly from the historical books ; 
neat cattle, kept as plough -beasts, are added to the 
victims from the flock. 3 First-fruits or tithes of grain 
and wine and oil must be consecrated in their season 
according to an established ritual. The worship was 
offered at the high places, that is, in general, the old 
Canaanite holy places (see HIGH PLACE, 2-4). 

The most general term for offering, whether of 
animals or of other things, is minhdh, nmp, gift 

, n (<5 Supov, more frequent! v Ovcrla}, a word 

L. Suedes , A -, ,- 

f fjfl . not confined to religious uses. 4 In dis- 

/, , tinction from other offerings specifically 
named such as oldh, zibah minhdh 
sometimes refers particularly to oblations of bread, 
meal, oil, and the like (see 14). 5 Animal sacrifices 
fall into two main classes : oldh, EV burnt offering, 
in which the victim was all consumed by fire ; and 
zffiah, EV ordinarily sacrifice, in which, after the 
exta had been burnt upon the altar, the flesh was eaten. 
These species are often enumerated together, as in Jer. 
1726: they shall come . . . bringing burnt offerings 

1 WRS, Rel. Sem.V), 363. Nowack (HA 2205) includes in 
the same class the killing of Zebah and Zalmunna, Judg. 8 21. 

2 GASm. Hist. Geog. 5237: ; cp Nu. 32 i 4 2 K. 3 4, etc. See 
also CATTLE, 3. 

" On changes in the rites of sacrifice see below, n. 

4 In the technical language of the later ritual the compre 
hensive term is korban , see below, 24. 

_ 5 On the more restricted technical use of the word in the later 
ritual see below, 24. 



and sacrifices and oblations and frankincense . . . unto 
the house of Yahwe. 

The Heb. zet>ak, 1137, is ordinarily rendered in (P by Svaia, the 
corresponding verb by Ovui, less frequently flutria^w. The verb 
means properly slaughter, and may be used of the killing of 
domestic animals for food without religious rites (e.g., Dt. 
12 15 21) ; but since in earlier times animals were seldom if ever 
killed thus, it ordinarily imports sacrificial slaying. The place 
to which animals are brought to be killed is the inizteoh, literally 
slaughter place ; in Canaan this was generally the stone or 
pile of stones on which the fat was burned, whence wizbfh 
comes to be equivalent to altar (see ALTAR, MASSEBAH, 8 5). 

The occasions of sacrifice were of different kinds (see 
above, 2, and below, 15), and distinctive names 
for some of them were probably early in use ; peculiari 
ties of ritual, too, no doubt belonged to certain varieties 
of sacrifice, as to the Passover or the covenant sacrifice 
(cp Gen. log ff. Jer. 34i8 f.}, but, however ancient 
the custom itself may be, our knowledge of the details 
of the sacrificial ritual comes chiefly through later 
sources. For this reason, as well as to avoid repetition, 
the species of sacrifice and their characteristic rites will 
be considered below in their place in the completed 
system ( 23^). 

One term is, however, so certainly old and so frequent that it 
cannot be passed over here ; viz. seletn, D7? (Am. 5 22), gener 
ally pi. sclatnim (EV peace offerings ). In many passages 
sflannm are coupled with oloth (burnt offerings) in descrip 
tions of greater sacrificial occasions, precisely as oloth and 
zebahiw elsewhere ; see, e.g., Ex. 2024 326 2 S. 6 ijf. 24 25 i K. 
815925 Ezek. 45 15 4827 46212 etc. In other instances we 
have the phrases C 0?w 1137, D oSc* n37, sacrifices of peace 
offerings e.g. , i S. 108 Jos. 22 23 Prov. 7 14. The sclainim 
appear to have been by far the most common kind of sacrifices, 
so that when the word zebalntn was used without qualification it 
would be understood to refer to selanrim ; on the other hand, 
the name seldtinm is probably shortened from zibhe selannin. 

The original significance of the word is not certain. <B trans 
lates, trwnjpia, (Bveriai) TOV cra>r)p<. ov, so also Philo, DC victimis, 
4, 2245 Mangey ; in Samuel and Kings (Ova-Cai) elpriviKai or 
riav eipjji iKwj , so Aq. Symm. Theodot. ; Vg. victima facifica, 
pacificuin (sc. sacrificiuiii) ; hence EV, peace offerings. 
These interpreters connect the Heb. word with the simple stem 
of the verb c 1 ?!! 1 , be whole, sound, safe, or the noun salom, 
Dl/ty, peace. 1 Josephus, who renders 8v<rio.i xaptuTxjpioi 
(Ant. iii. 9 2), apparently associates it with the meaning of the 
intensive stem, siliam, requite, repay, pay ; so that these 
sacrifices would be a return to God for benefits received from 
him, or the payment of an obligation to him ; cp Prov. 7 14 : I 
had &/;> sacrifices to make ; to-day I have paid (si!taiti) 
my vows. The word occurs also, as the name of a species of 
sacrifice (^3 c s t ), on an inscription from a Phoenician temple 
at Marseilles (CIS 1663^). It is perhaps a Canaanite term 
adopted by the Israelites. [On Ass. sulmu see RITUAL, n, \a.] 
The blood of the victims was poured or smeared upon 
the sacrificial stone as had been done by their nomadic 
forefathers. Besides this, portions of the animal, 
especially of the internal fat (i S. 2 is/. ), - were now 
burned upon a raised altar monolith or heap of stones 
or earth as upon a hearth ; and this part of the per 
formance was so essential that the verb burn, with or 
without an object ( the fat ), becomes equivalent to 
offer sacrifice. 

In older times the intensive stem hitter, IE;?, make smoke, 
burn" rarely with the object (3/pfl, i S. 2is_/) is used; so 
frequently in the prophets, of the heathenish sacrifices of their 
contemporaries. In later texts the causative hiktzr, TBfjJl, 
prevails. See We. Prol.W, di,f., n. i. The burning of the 
offering is probably to be regarded as a means of conveying it 
to God ; the fragrant smoke was, at least in later times, thought 
of as containing the ethereal substance of the sacrifice. (WRS, 
Rel. Sem.l?), 236 ; see also below, 41.) 

The flesh of the victim was boiled (2 S. 2 is/, i K. 
19 21), and furnished a feast for the offerer with his 
family, friends, and guests (i S. 1 4 ff. 9 12 22^, etc.). 
In Canaan, bread, wine, and oil, the products of agri 
culture, took their place in the feast beside the flesh of 
animals from the flock or herd (see e.g., 18.124); 
these again were in part obligatory offerings first-fruits, 

1 See also the etymological explanations in Siphra on Lev. 3 i 
(fol. 13 a, ed. Weiss). 

- From Judg. $\gff. it has sometimes been inferred that in 
early times boiled flesh was offered (cp also Nu. 6 19) ; but the 
evidence is insufficient to sustain the conclusion. 



tithes, etc. in part occasional and voluntary. Of 
them also a part was given to (jod, probably upon the 
altar by fire (see Am. 4s). The bread offered was that 
which the participants in the feast themselves ate ; that 
is, in ordinary cases leavened bread ; 1 unleavened cakes 
when, for religious reasons (as in the massotk feast) or at 
a meal hastily prepared for an unexpected guest, they 
ate their own bread unleavened. The bread offered 
was probably moistened with oil or dipped in it, as was 
the bread eaten by the worshippers (cp the later rituals, 
30). Of the wine a libation was made to God (Hos. 
94). See below, 14, 31 a. 

The peculiarity of the dldh (rt^ y) is that no part of 
the victim was used for food ; the flesh as well as the 

12. Burnt 

sacrificial portions of the inwards and 
fat was 

. fat was 

ring, Oian. The tefm ig derived f rom t h e C0 mmon 
verb dldh (nW), go up, ascend, and signifies, ac 
cording to the prevailing interpretation, the sacrifice 
which (all) comes up 1 upon the altar (Knob., Wellh. , 
Nowack, etc. ), or that which goes up in smoke to the 
sky (B;ihr, Del., Dillmann, etc.). In <5 generally 
6\OKavTit)/j,a, 6\o/cairrw<ns, Vg. holocaustum. 

Another term for the sacrifice given as a whole 
offering to God is kali I ^3 ( Dt. 33 10 i S. 7 9 Ps. 
5l2i; cp Dt. 13 17 Judg. 2040), which appears as a 
technical term in Phoenician also ; see the sacrificial 
tariffs of Marseilles and Carthage, C/Si. 16035, etc., 


The whole burnt offering was naturally much less 
frequent than the sacrifices which furnished a feast for 
the worshippers ; it is seldom mentioned alone, and 
then in peculiar circumstances. 2 Ordinarily the burnt 
offering occurs in conjunction with other sacrifices 
(ztbiihim or sflanum}; e.g., 2 S. 6i7/i 24 25 i K.flas 
2 K. 1024, etc. It was probably originally an extra 
ordinary offering made by great persons or on great 
occasions (We. Prol.^, 70). The daily burnt offering 
in the temple at Jerusalem (2 K. Ids) and doubtless 
at other royal sanctuaries was the king s daily sacrifice, 
and was followed by many ztbahim for the court and 
by private persons. 

The ritual of the burnt offering is not described in 
any ancient account ; it may be assumed that the blood 
was treated in the same way as that of the other 
sacrifices ; it is supposed by both the narratives in JE 
and by the laws that the flesh and fat of the holocaust 
were consumed upon the altar. 3 The hide, according 
to Lev. 78, fell to the priest, and this is not improbably 
an ancient rule ; it was, in fact, the only toll he could 
take for his services. 4 

It is possible that at an earlier time the burnt offering 
was burned on the ground or in a pit, rather than in a 
raised altar ; this is said to have been done for a special 
reason at the dedication of Solomon s temple (i K. 
864). 8 The analogy of the human sacrifices at the 
Tophet (see Moi.ECH, TOPHET ; cp, however, Gen. 
2 29), and the burning of the carcass of certain sin 
offerings without the sanctuary, may also be noted. It 
is probable, however, that the burning of the holocaust 
upon the altar was the Canaanite custom, adopted by 
the Israelites." 

Whether the burnt offering was accompanied by an 
oblation of bread or by a libation is uncertain. 7 When 

1 i S. 103 Am. 4s ; leavened bread in certain sfldmim even 
in Lev. 7 13, cp 23 17. 

2 Gen. 820 22 13 Nu. 23 \ ff. Judg. 626 (181623) i 8.614 
i K. :J 4 18 3 8. 

3 The carcass was previously cut up ; i K. 18 23 33. 

4 So in the sacrificial tariff of Carthage (CIS 1 167) ; in that 
of Marseilles the priest has a fee in money, and a part of the 
flesh, whilst the hide belongs to the offerer. 

* So also at Hierapolis ; Lucian, Dta Syria; WRS, Rcl. 
Sem.W, 378. 

6 An argument may perhaps be drawn from the size of the 
Canaanite rock-altars that have been discovered. 

? In i K. 864 the words and the minhah are a gloss. 



it was part of a great sacrificial occasion these probably 
went with the other sacrifices (zfbdhim}. The regular 
daily burnt offering in the temple may have had such 
an accompaniment ; but the earlier custom seems to 
have been to offer the minhah daily as an evening 
oblation corresponding to the morning dldh (see below, 
19, 32). In the passages which speak of the burnt 
offering alone (cited above, col. 4191, n. 2), there is no 
mention of a minhah. Judg. 620^ 13 19 ff. cannot be 
alleged ; in these places a meal prepared for a guest is 
miraculously consumed by fire ; this may be called an 
oldh, but obviously no inference can be drawn as to the 
ordinary ritual of burnt offerings. 

The animals sacrificed were neat cattle, sheep, and 
goats ; also, at least in certain rites, turtle doves and 
_. .. pigeons, clean birds easily procured by 
Vic m . dwellers j n towns and cities. The choice 
of victims for particular sacrifices or occasions was 
doubtless to some extent regulated by custom ; in 
ordinary cases it was left to the worshipper to determine 
what his offering should be, in accordance with his 
means, his disposition, and his motive, or his previous 
intention or vow. It is very likely an ancient rule that 
the burnt offering should be a male ; though i S. 614 
shows that it was not always so. Sometimes very 
young animals were offered even as a burnt offering 
(i S. 7g, sucking lamb) ; but ordinarily, no doubt, a 
mature animal was chosen for this sacrifice. 1 

That the offering of a human victim as a holocaust 
was not unknown in old Israel we learn from the story 
of Jephthah, Judg. llso/. 34-40. The narrator repre 
sents this sacrifice as extraordinary, but does not con 
demn it as abhorrent to the religion of Yah we. 2 The 
statement in i K. 1634 to the effect that Hiel, who in 
the days of Ahab rebuilt Jericho, laid its foundations 
with Abirarn his firstborn, and set up its gates with 
Segub his youngest son, hardly admits any other inter 
pretation than that he offered them as foundation 
sacrifices, in accordance with a widespread and persistent 
custom. 3 

It does not appear, however, that human sacrifices were 
frequent in the early centuries of the Israelite occupation of 
Canaan. The offering by parents of their own sons and 
daughters, especially the firstborn, about which there is so 
much in the prophets and laws of the seventh century, 4 was not 
the recrudescence of ancient custom, but a new and foreign cult 
(see MOI.ECH, 4 ff^)- The lesson of Gen. 22 is that though 
Yahwe might claim even an only son, he does not require such 
sacrifice but accepts instead a victim from the flock ; cp Mi. 67. 
The expiation of Saul s massacre of the Gibeonites by the 
execution of seven of his sons and grandsons before Yahwe at 
the famous sanctuary of Gibeon (2 S. 21 9), important as the 
story is for the idea of expiation and thus for sacrificial concep 
tions, is not itself to be considered as a sacrifice. Nor is the 
devotion of the inhabitants of a conquered city or an Israelite 
city that has fallen into the worship of other go,ds (Dt. 13 i^ff.) 
to the deity by slaughter and burning (herein, see BAN) 
properly regarded as a form of human sacrifice. 

The offerings of bread, oil, and wine which formed 
part of the sacrificial feast have been spoken of above 
l ^ at connect on ( JI )- There were 
Q i nde p enden t offerings of the pro 
ducts of agriculture. The deity which gave the increase 
to man s labour received from him portions of all ; only 
when these had been duly rendered could the rest be 
used by the owner (see Frazer, Golden Bough*, Zii&jf. 


These offerings, which fall under the general head of 
first-fruits, were called by various names : first-fruits 
(bikkurim, Ex.3426 23 19), tithes (mdasfroth], prime 
portions (rfSfth], portions set apart (tfrumdh), and 
others. The original distinctions are not always clear ; 

1 Mi. 66 speaks of burnt offerings of yearling calves; the 
daily burnt offering in P is a yearling lamb. 

2 JEPHTHAH, 6. Compare Mesha s sacrifice of his son, 
2 K. 3 27. 

3 See HIHI.. On these sacrifices cp Tylor, Prim. Cutt.P], 
1 lo+jF. ; Liebrecht, Zurl olkskumie, 284^ ; especially Sartori, 
Das Bauopfer, Zeitschr.f. Ethnal. 30 iff. (1898). 

4 See Jer. 7 31 Ezek. 20 26 23 36^: Lev. 18 21 20 iff. Dt. 18 10 


-.,. t 
. UDia . 


the definitions of P and the Mishna may sometimes be 
suspected of making systematic discrimination between 
terms once loosely equivalent. The tendency of the 
ritual development was to reduce to rule and measure 
what was once more free, and to convert into a tax, for 
the support of the clergy, what formerly, as a gift to 
the deity, had actually fallen in whole or in part to his 
ministers. Aparchre were offered not only of things 
that were eaten, but also of flax and wool ( Hos. 259 Dt. 
184). Inasmuch as these offerings have a history of 
their own it has seemed best to treat them separately ; 
see TAXATION, TITHES. Religious dedications of a 
different character are the orlah of fruit-trees in the 
first three years of bearing, followed in the fourth by 
the consecration of the crop as hillulfm (Lev. 1923-25), 
which corresponds to the sacrifice of the firstlings of 
animals ; the peak, or unreaped corner of the grain- 
field ; the gleanings of the harvest-field, orchard, and 
vineyard (Lev. 19g/); and the spontaneous crops of 
the fallow year (Ex. 23 io/ ). (See NATURE WORSHIP, 


The form of presentation of first-fruits is described 
only in part. In Lev. 23io/! 14 (old laws in H) the 
first sheaf of barley (originally from each field, or from 
each village) is brought and waved (henfph, rpri, a 
gesture of throwing) before Yahwe at the local sanctuary ; 
until this is done the new crop must not be used in any 
form (v. 14) ; unleavened cakes (massoth) of the new 
barley meal are eaten for seven days (see FEASTS, 
PASSOVER). At the end of wheat harvest a correspond 
ing ceremony is the presentation in a similar way of two 
loaves of leavened bread (originally from each house 
hold, Lev. 2315-17200). Cp Frazer, Golden Bough*, 
2319. Dt. Ibiff. prescribes that specimens of the 
choicest of the fruits of the land shall be brought by 
each landowner in a basket and set down before the 
altar with a solemn liturgy of thanksgiving ; the pre 
sentation is followed by a feast (see below, 22). 

Another kind of oblation, which, though of much less 
primitive character than the kinds just mentioned, can 
be traced back to an early period in the history of Israel 
in Canaan, is the setting before the deity of a table 
spread with food and drink (sec, further, below, 34 a). 
Such was the custom at Nob ( i S. 21 4-6 [5-7]) as well as 
at Jerusalem (iK. 748), and probably wherever God 
had a house or temple. On this table stood bread, 
which at certain intervals was exchanged for fresh loaves 
hot from the oven ; the loaves that were removed were 
eaten as holy bread by the priests, and under ex 
ceptional circumstances by laymen who had hallowed 
themselves (i S. 214-6). It is natural to suppose that, 
as among other peoples, wine too, in cups or chalices, 
was placed upon the table ; but there is no mention of it 
in the OT. (On P see below, 34 a.) In the lecfi- 
sternia of other religions flesh also was thus set before 
the deity ; it is not probable, however, that such was 
ever Israelite custom. Like the flesh or fat of animal 
sacrifices and the oblation of bread, wine, and oil with 
them, the loaves of shew bread were the food of 
God (DrrSn DrrV). 

Offerings of wine in the form of libations were made 
at the sacrificial feasts (above, n) ; a libation of 
Kkar, properly any fermented drink other than wine, is 
spoken of in a late law (Nu. 28?; see below, 35), 
but in no ancient source - there seems to be no reason 
why such libations should not have been made. Honey 
was excluded from the preparation of sacrificial cakes 
(Lev. 2n), in which it was much used in other cults ; 1 
it was brought with the other choicest products of the 
land in the ceremony described in Dt. 26 1^, but did 
not come upon the altar. Milk, often offered by other 
peoples in libations, 2 was not so used by the Hebrews. 

1 Libations of honey in antiquity, Theophrastus in Porphyry, 
De abst. 2 20 / ; reasons for the prohibition in Jewish law, 
fnilo, De sacrificantibns, 6,2 255, Mangey. 

2 In Arabia, We. Heid.Pl, iiif. Milk in Abel s offering 
(Jos. Ant. i. 2 i) is a mistranslation of the ambiguous c 



That independent libations of oil were made is intrinsic 
ally not improbable, though not conclusively established 
by reference to Gen. 28 18 Judg. 9g Mic. 67. (See Now. 
HA 2208 ; cp below, 31 a. ) 

Sacrifices were generally offered at home ; every 
village had its altar (inizbe a h, slaughter place), where 

15 Seasons the victims vvere slain and feasts he] d ; 
and occasions thither the firstlin g s and other obli 
gatory offerings were brought (see 
HIGH PLACE, 4). There were more famous holy 
places to which men resorted in numbers, especially 
at the autumn festival (see FEASTS, 4). The 
times of sacrifice were in part fixed by custom, in 
part dependent on the occasion or on the will of the 
worshipper. To the former class belong the Passover 
at the vernal full moon (see above, $ff.}, and the 
agricultural season feasts at the beginning and end of 
the grain harvest, and at the close of the vintage (see 
FEASTS). 1 At the last three custom required every man 
to see the face of Yahwe, with an offering (Ex. 
2817). The new moon was a favourite time for feasts : 
Saul expects all his court to be present on such an 
occasion (iS. 204 /. , cp 1824^); the annual sacri 
fice of David s clan at Bethlehem is held on a new moon 
(i S. 20s/. 29). See NEW MOON. The Sabbath, appar 
ently in a lesser degree, enjoyed the same preference. 
When a regular cultus became established at the greater 
sanctuaries, more numerous victims were offered on 
these days (see below, 33). The specific occasions 
of sacrifice were manifold the circumcision or wean 
ing of a son, marriage, the coming of a traveller, the 
making of a compact, consultation of an oracle, the 
mustering of a clan for war or the return from a 
campaign, the accession of a king, the dedication of 
a temple, the staying of a plague. Many sacrifices 
were offered in fulfilment of vows for the obtaining 
of the most varied objects of human desire. Men 
sacrificed alike when they rejoiced in the evidence of 
Yahwe s favour, when they besought his bounty or 
his help, and when they had need to propitiate the 
offended God. Man} kinds of uncleanness required 
purification by sacrifice. 

The companies of worshippers for whom and by 
whom sacrifices were brought originally corresponded 

16. Worshippers. t0 l ! ne natural groupings of the 
people, the family or clan for itself 
(e.g. , i S. 206), the village community at its own high 
place {e.g. , i S. 9 12). Even at the greater holy places, 
which were frequented at the festival seasons by 
multitudes from different tribes, these groups preserved 
their identity. Deuteronomy assumes that this will be 
the case at Jerusalem when all bring their sacrifices 
thither; and in the Passover the household, even 
when casually constituted, continued to the last, and, 
indeed, still continues, to be a distinct sacral group ; 
the great mass of worshippers did not become one wor 
shipping community, but remained many companies. 
The only body of worshippers in ancient times in which 
the natural groups are sunk is the army in time of war. 
How far the persistence of the family as a society of 
worship in the national religion is to be attributed to 
the survival of proper family cults, the worship of 
ancestors, it does not fall within the province of this 
article to discuss. 2 

The worshippers prepared themselves for participa 
tion in the sacrifice as holy by hallowing themselves 
(hithkaddeX, i S. 16s Nu. Ili8, cp Ex. 19ioi 4 ). An 
obligatory part of this hallowing on solemn occasions 
was abstinence for a time previous to the appearance 
at the sacred place from sexual intercourse (cp i S. 
21s/. Ex. 19 is); 3 other preparatory ceremonies were 
purifications, ablutions, the washing of garments. Men 
put on festal attire, garments and ornaments not of 

1 Sheep-shearing was also a time for feasting, i S. 25 7. 

2 See FAMILY, 2; Sta. <7r/l 3 oo/?: 

3 See WRS Kel. Sem.P), 454^ 



everyday wear (Ex.322 11 2/. 1235/. Hos. 2 13 [15] 
Ezek. 16 12/. J. 1 

For the ordinary sacrifice (stbah) the assistance of a 
priest was unnecessary ; the rites were simple and known 
p 2 to a "- The older historical books 
17. rnests. a b ounc j m instances of sacrifices by 
laymen of all ranks ; the father offered sacrifice for his 
household, the elders for the clan or the village com 
munity, the commander for the army, the king for the 
people. The offerer slew and flayed his own victim 
as, indeed, continued to be the rule to the latest period ; 
doubtless he also in early times poured the blood upon 
the sacred stone or altar, afterwards a specifically 
priestly act. At the holy places which had a resident 
priesthood -often proprietary the priests burnt the fat 
upon the altar ; for this service they took toll ( i S. 
2i3^). The customary right of the priests may have 
differed at different places, as it certainly changed in 
course of time (cp i S. 213^! Dt. 183 Lev. 734>. 3 The 
priests participated also by guest-right in the sacrificial 
feasts. The most important functions of the priesthood 
were not, however, direction or assistance at sacrifices, 
but the custody of the sanctuary, the consultation of the 
oracle, and instruction concerning purifications, piacular 
rites, and the like. 

The sacrificial worship of ancient Israel had a pre 
vailingly joyous character ; to eat and drink and rejoice 

_, before Yah we (Dt. ) is a description of 

is. onaracter k whkh hol(Js good to the end of the 

)1 worship. kingflom The stated feasts in harvest- 
time and vintage, the new moon and sabbath, were 
all seasons of rejoicing ; and the occasions of public 
and private sacrifice at other times (see above, 15) 
were, in general, of a joyful nature. The banquet 
was accompanied by music and song (Am. 623, cp 65), 
not always of what we should call a religious kind ; 
dances, also, were customary (Ex. 32 19 i S. 186 Ex. 
1520 Judg. 1134 21 igjf.}. The excesses to which such 
festivities are exposed did not fail to occur (iS. Ii3^ 
222 Is. 28 7 /. Am. 2 7 / Hos. 4i 4 ). 

But while joyfulness was thus the predominant note 
of worship, it must not be imagined that ancient religion 
had no other note. In times of private distress or 
public calamity men set themselves to expiate the 
offence, known or unknown, that had provoked God s 
anger, to propitiate him by gifts and recover his favour 
(see 28. 21 if. 24i8/i Dt. 21i/! etc.). Such scenes 
as are described in i K. 1826^: (the priests of Baal on 
Carmel) were probably not without parallel among the 
Israelites on like occasions. Fasting before Yahwe, 
wearing the garb of mourning, was an ancient and 
common means of appealing to his mercy (see FASTING). 
In ordinary cases propitiatory sacrifices differed from 
common sacrifices, not in rite, but in the spirit and 
mood of the worshippers. When God was manifestly 
perilously incensed men would hardly venture to 
approach him with sacrifice till they had reason to hope 
that his wrath was somewhat appeased (see, e.g. , 
28. 24). 

Like other ancient monarchs, the kings of Judah and 
Israel built temples at old holy places, such as Bethel, 

in Ta i. e ar >d in their capitals, as at Jerusalem 

19. Effect of , ,- . d i.- 

monarchy Samaria, Worship at these royal 

y sanctuaries was under the direction of 
the sovereign ; on great occasions the king in person 
offered sacrifice in them ( i K. 8 5 64 ; especially 9 25 2 K. 
16 12 jf.); the priests were appointed by him. It was 
probably in these temples that the custom of offering a 
daily holocaust grew up. This sacrifice was made early 
in the morning ; in the late afternoon the oblation of 

1 We. /W.c>, 71. See DRESS, 8. 

2 See PRIEST, % 4 / 

3 To prevent controversy or extortion, tablets on which the 
legal tariff for various species of sacrifice was inscribed were 
sometimes set up before ancient temples (see C/Sl 165 167 ; C/L 


4 See FEASTS, $/. 



bread or dough, oil, wine (the minhah] was presented 
(see i K. 1829 36, cp Dan. 9 21 Ezra 94/. ).* The animals 
required for food by the king s great household were, no 
doubt, slaughtered at the temples with a sacrificial dedi 
cation ; the name tabbdhim, lit. butchers, applied to the 
palace guard, has been thought to bear witness to this 
custom (WRS Kel. Sem.M, 396). At the festivals and 
on special occasions greater numljers of sacrifices were 
offered by the king and his court, as well as by the 
people who came together to celebrate the feast. 
Foreign luxuries, such as incense, came into use at 
these sanctuaries. The support of the regular cultus 
came from the king s treasury, either from imposts 
levied in natura (2 K. 16is Ezek. 45g^), or by the 
assignment to the temple of the revenues of a district. 

A considerable number of priests must have been 
attached to the greater temples, and the necessity of 
order and authority was doubtless early felt. In 
Jerusalem we read of a chief priest and a second priest. 
The better organisation probably in part recognised, in 
part created, a differentiation of functions. The same 
conditions were favourable to the growth of the ritual 
in elaborateness and splendour, and to a concomitant 
estimate of its importance. In a word, the ritualistic 
and sacerdotal tendencies in the religion of Israel had 
their seats at the royal temples, especially at Jerusalem. 
By degrees the worship at Jerusalem came to be a very 
different thing from that at the country high places, 
and thus things were preparing both for the deutero- 
nomic reforms and for the ritual law. 

The greatest change, however, which followed the 
establishment of the kingdom was the institution of a 
regular public cultus maintained by the king for himself 
and his people. Thus a national religion was created. 

When Israel took its place among the nations, 
political and commercial intercourse opened the way for 

20 Foreign rel K ous influence. Solomon s new 
. fl temple was built by a Phoenician archi 
tect after Phoenician models; Ahaz 
exchanged the altar for a copy of one he had seen in 
Damascus. The more complete apparatus of worship 
the bronze reservoir and portable lavers, the many 
utensils provided for the service of the altar, for example 
suppose corresponding elaboration in the ritual. The 
vestments and ceremonial ornaments of the priests also 
were probably patterned after those in use in Phoenician 
temples. The influence of foreign religions was much 
deeper in the seventh century, during the long reign of 
Manasseh. Not only were many new cults, especially of 
Assyrian origin, introduced (see QUEEN OF HEAVEN, 
NATURE WORSHIP, s/.), but the worship of Yahwe 
was enriched by new rites and offerings ; the burning of 
costly gums and spices, for example, is first heard of in 
this period. 2 The sacrifice of children as burnt offer 
ings, with peculiar rites, to Yahwe under the title 
king (liam-mtlek), which also became prevalent in this 
age, is probably a foreign Phoenician or Syrian cult 
adopted by worshippers of Yahwe (see MOLECH). 

The reforms of Josiah not only suppressed for a time 

these foreign rites, but also made a radical change in 

_ , the whole sacrificial system by destroy- 

a. e orm ^ {he ^.^ pj aceS| carr y m g awa y 

ana reac ion. the j r p r j est h ods, and forbidding the 

offering of sacrifice at any place in the kingdom except 

the temple in Jerusalem. 3 A necessary corollary of 

this restriction of sacrifice to one altar was the slaughter 

of animals for food at home without sacrificial rites 

(Dt. 12 15 f. 20-25), contrary to the ancient rule (see 

Lev. 17 3 /). 4 

A large part of the occasional private and family 

1 On the later custom, see below, g 32. 

2 See INCENSE, 3. It is worthy of note that Ezekiel 4,-ives 
it no place in his reformed cultus.